South Dakota Politics

Not So Hot News on Global Warming

The Global Warming movement is very fond of saying that the 1990's were the warmest decade in the last century, or even in the last millennium.  A story circulating in the blogosphere has it that these estimates were heavily biased by a computer error.  From Coyote Blog:

Climate scientist Michael Mann (famous for the hockey stick chart) once made the statement that  the 1990's were the warmest decade in a millennia and that "there is a 95 to 99% certainty that 1998 was the hottest year in the last one thousand years." (By the way, Mann now denies he ever made this claim, though you can watch him say these exact words in the CBC documentary Global Warming:  Doomsday Called Off).

Well, it turns out, according to the NASA GISS database, that 1998 was not even the hottest year of the last century.  This is because many temperatures from recent decades that appeared to show substantial warming have been revised downwards.

If this is true, it doesn't mean that global warming isn't happening, or that human beings have no effect on it.  It would mean that we are not anywhere near having a good view of what is really happening. 

Skulldugery in Boston

I have no idea who this is or if he is a relation.  I am summarily claiming him anyway.  This is from the same graveyard where Sam Adams and Paul Revere are buried. 

Below is one of the three basic models of gravestone design in 17th/18th century America: the winged skull.  These things are all over Boston's historical graveyards. 

Below is a second, more cheery model, the winged cherub. 

False Accusations from Todd Epp

I have only had a little time to notice the recent dust up between my colleague, Dr. Schaff, and my buddy, Todd Epp.  Epp said a lot of very nasty things about someone called the "GOP Wolf Pack."  Jon Schaff challenged him to name names and given links.  It now seems clear that Todd has absolutely no evidence to back up his accusations.  He says this:

Jesus, do I have to do all your work fo you?  Fire up your own damn computer and take a look.  I’m not looking to give these jerks more traffic if I don’t have to.

But Todd doesn't seem to mind quoting and linking when he does has something to quote and link to.  He doesn't mind giving Bob Ellis "more traffic" when he complains about Bob's position on gays in the military. 

I have seen no evidence that anyone in the GOP has been unreasonable or nasty in writing about Senator Johnson. Apparently, neither has Todd.

Boston Blogging: Infelicitous Restaurant Name

Media Bias

See this Associated Press story entitled "US public sees news media as biased, inaccurate, uncaring: poll":

More than half of Americans say US news organizations are politically biased, inaccurate, and don't care about the people they report on, a poll published Thursday showed.

And poll respondents who use the Internet as their main source of news -- roughly one quarter of all Americans -- were even harsher with their criticism, the poll conducted by the Pew Research Center said.

More than two-thirds of the Internet users said they felt that news organizations don't care about the people they report on; 59 percent said their reporting was inaccurate; and 64 percent they were politically biased.

More than half -- 53 percent -- of Internet users also faulted the news organizations for "failing to stand up for America".

Among those who get their news from newspapers and television, criticism of the news organizations was up to 20 percentage points lower than among Internet news audiences, who tend to be younger and better educated than the public as a whole, according to Pew.

The poll indicates an across the board fall in the public's opinion on the news media since 1985, when a similar survey was conducted by Times Mirror, Pew Research said.

"Two decades ago, public attitudes about how news organizations do their job were less negative. Most people believed that news organizations stood up for America... a majority believed that news organizations got the facts straight," Pew said in a report.

The Washington-based Pew Research Center describes itself as a nonpartisan "fact tank" that provides information on the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world.

Blogging From Boston

I leave Jon and Todd alone for two days, and look what happens.  Don't make me come back there!  I'll just have to sort it out when I get back.  Meanwhile, here is the balcony from which the Declaration of Independence was first read to the public.

Daschle Fund Raising Lettter

It turns out that the Tom Daschle language that Todd Epp is repeating comes from a fund raising letter.  Todd must have forgotten to mention that fact. This is from The Hill:

Calling national Republicans “sad” and “desperate,” former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) decried their pledge to begin pursuing an aggressive campaign against his ill former South Dakota Senate colleague, Sen. Tim Johnson (D).

In an e-mail to supporters issued by Johnson’s campaign committee, Daschle criticizes National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) Chairman John Ensign (Nev.) for saying he would push forward with an effort to defeat Johnson in 2008.

Johnson suffered a life-threatening brain hemorrhage in December and has yet to return to the Senate or begin campaigning, but fellow Democratic senators have helped him raise more than $1.2 million this year for his reelection bid.

In his e-mail, Daschle asks supporters to send Ensign e-mails demanding that he “stop the attacks.”

“Tim’s focus should be on his recovery to serve the people of South Dakota, not fending off classless political attacks from national Republicans,” Daschle wrote. “That means we’re not going to sit back and wait for the right-wing slime machine to attack Tim Johnson. We have to fight back.”

The seat is a top Republican target, and the national GOP’s efforts to win it have been hampered by Johnson’s health problems.

Last month, state Rep. Joel Dykstra became the first major Republican candidate to join the race.

In 2004, Daschle lost his reelection bid to Republican John Thune in one of the most heated Senate races in the country.

“It’s acceptable for Democrats to fundraise for Sen. Johnson but it’s over the line for Republicans to say the seat is a focus? Sounds like the very definition of hypocritical to me,” said NRSC spokeswoman Rebecca Fisher.

To a less generous reader of events it might look like Democrats ginned up outrage at non-existent attacks on Tim Johnson in order to stir up phony controversy and then use that controversy to raise money.  But I am a pretty generous reader of events, so I'll chalk it up to coincidence. 

           

Three Strikes

Last post on Epp vs. GOP Wolf Pack, assuming Todd is unable/unwilling to see reason.  Todd makes a kind of fake apology here.  I'll say for a third time, if Todd can point to anyone saying the things he claims Republicans are saying about Tim Johnson pray let him do so.  I posted here a summary of the blog claims about Sen. Johnson and this post yesterday had more. Unlike Todd, I am not trying to be argumentative.  If I have missed something, then inform us all of that.  If Todd interprets what I have written or linked to as "unbridled nastiness" directed towards Sen. Johnson, let him make that argument.  Instead, he as chosen merely to allude in a vague way to attacks on Sen. Johnson, and then, in his recent post, to put "concern" in scare quotes, to imply that the near universally expressed wish by those who are on the other side of the political aisle for a speedy and full recovery by Sen. Johnson is disingenuous.

To add insult to vagueness, Todd brings out the big gun of Tom Daschle.  At this point I think we have entered into the absurd. To argue that people are playing politics with Tim Johnson's health and then trot out Tom Daschle to ask people to write letters of protest to John Ensign is, to say the least, a bit inconsistent.  Sen. Ensign did what he should: he expressed genuine concern for Sen. Johnson's health, and then pointed out the obvious: the GOP thinks the seat currently held by Sen. Johnson is winnable.  To say there is a "right-wing slime machine" attacking Tim Johnson is, frankly, silly in extremis.  In fact, I will go so far to say that this is so obviously a falsehood that the claim itself can be dismissed as mere political maneuvering. 

If I have written something that is too harsh towards Sen. Johnson, I'd like Todd to explain how it is so, and should I buy his argument I will apologize.  I am already sorry if he has perceived my writings as "unbridled nastiness."  Todd and Tom Daschle are under a grave misperception that some kind of political advantage is being sought when that is simply not the case, at least not by this author. 

The Argus and Hildygate

See this letter to the editor in the Argus Leader:

Randell Beck's lengthy explanation (Aug. 5) about how journalistic integrity is behind the lack of reporting in the Argus on the Hildebrand scandal is a bit disingenuous, to say the least. Obviously, the Argus has to find some way to justify its silence on the subject. I frankly find this reasoning suspect in light of other Argus actions.

For example, the Argus desperately sought details about persons arrested for drunk driving even though they hadn't been charged yet. Remember the hubbub about the governor and others standing in the way of the free press on that issue? I do.

What's the difference besides power and money held by the Hildygate folks and the lack of it possessed by most of the drunk driving arrestees?

Why were they not entitled to the full trial by jury that the Argus now states prevents them from exploring Hildygate and naming the employee accused in its pages?

If You're Bored

Here's that Kerry interview I mentioned below.  If found it here.  Note how many times he says "choice" or "choose" and how many times he says "abortion." 

Peter Jennings: "You told an Iowa newspaper recently that life begins at conception. What makes you think that?"

Sen. Kerry: "My personal belief about what happens in the fertilization process is a human being is first formed and created, and that's when life begins. Something begins to happen. There's a transformation. There's an evolution. Within weeks, you look and see the development of it, but that's not a person yet, and it's certainly not what somebody, in my judgment, ought to have the government of the United States intervening in. Roe v. Wade has made it very clear what our standard is with respect to viability, what our standard is with respect to rights. I believe in the right to choose, not the government choosing, but an individual, and I defend that."

Jennings: "Could you explain again to me what do you mean when you say 'life begins at conception'?"

Kerry: "Well, that's what the Supreme Court has established is a test of viability as to whether or not you're permitted to terminate a pregnancy, and I support that. That is my test. And I, you know, you have all kinds of different evolutions of life, as we know, and very different beliefs about birth, the process of the development of a fetus. That's the standard that's been established in Roe v. Wade. And I adhere to that standard."

Jennings: "If you believe that life begins at conception, is even a first-trimester abortion not murder?"

Kerry: "No, because it's not the form of life that takes personhood in the terms that we have judged it to be in the past. It's the beginning of life. Does life begin? Yes, it begins. Is it at the point where I would say that you apply those penalties? The answer is, no, and I believe in choice. I believe in the right to choose, and the government should not involve itself in that choice, beyond where it has in the context of Roe v. Wade."

Dead Horses

Anna responds to my post regarding choice.  Anna points out that she only holds and ideological commitment to choice regarding abortion, not not necessarily regarding anything else.  I'll try to be brief, as this discussion is very close to becoming that tired debate about abortion, and in the interest of avoiding animal cruelty, I don't want to beat that dead horse. 

I don't think my discussion of seat belts and smoking is beside the point.  The point is that society restricts choice when it believes an important societal value is at stake.  We need to judge choices not only on whether they are freely chosen but also on the content of that choice.  Pro-lifers believe that important societal value of protecting human life is at stake in the abortion choice.  The "choice" rhetoric, in my view, is designed precisely to distract us from what is actually going on  in abortion. We are all familiar with the phrasing of "terminating a pregnancy" (indeed, Anna uses it herself in the post in question) as a euphemism for abortion.  Or politicians who state over and over they are for "choice," but will not mention that thing being chosen. 

The fact that abortion rights advocates rhetorically avoid the question of the moral status of the unborn by emphasizing choice is evidence that they know they are on weaker ground if the argument is about humanity and natural rights.  For surely the unborn are alive, even at conception.  If an unborn child is alive, then it can be categorized.  What genus and species is it, if not homo sapien?  Of course you can argue, as John Kerry did in the 2004 election, that humanity isn't the issue, it's personhood.  Kerry, in an interview with the late Peter Jennings, stated that he believes human life begins at conception, but the morally important category is "personhood," which occurs much later.  This made Kerry the first major presidential candidate since John C. Breckenridge to openly campaign on the notion that there are some human beings who don't possess natural rights and therefore can be treated in any way the rest of us chose.  Though, of course, Breckenridge took the more moderate position, only claiming that you can own these non-rights bearing humans, not that you can kill them whenever you so choose.   Breckenridge and his supporters would have called that cruelty to animals, a bad choice. 

Going Slightly Mad

At this point I am seriously wondering if Todd isn't having one over on us.  Is there anyone out there saying Tim Johnson has to come back as healthy or even healthier than before?  I do not get Todd's angst.  Again, perhaps I am missing something, but so far all I see is Todd making wild accusations with no supporting evidence.  I ask Todd to point to specific instances of "unbridled nastiness" or anyone demanding "Tim Johnson not only be well but even better than he ever was following his AVM in December."

I don't know of any GOP Wolf Pack, but here's what the South Dakota GOP has to say:

South Dakota Republican Party Chairman Karl Adam said he does not believe Johnson waited too long to return to South Dakota or appear in public, but he said he believes South Dakotans want to see the senator.

"I would imagine the rank and file South Dakotans, Republicans and Democrats alike, are interested in seeing the development, the progress Senator Johnson has made in his recovery," Adam said. "That's probably a reasonable step in order for him to get back to the United States Senate.

"I think the citizens of South Dakota were all very compassionate and recognized that one of our own was ill."

Wow, what a jerk.

Wanna Add Some Links, Todd?

Todd Epp thinks some "classless Republican 'friends'" have " made it impossible for Sen. Tim Johnson to make a normal recovery from his AVM"  and so Todd says, "Screw you." 

First, are Republicans really making it impossible for Sen. Johnson to make a normal recovery?  I've seen Republicans.  They aren't that talented.  If Republicans are really trying to harm Sen. Johnson's recovery, then I expect to see him in his Senate seat tomorrow. 

Who are those who have engaged in "unbridled nastiness" against the Senator, as Todd claims?  I've  looked at Sibby's blog and Dakota Voice archives back to July 1.  Lots of craziness about Communists taking over America (and Iraq!), but almost no mention of the Senator. 

Gregg Belfrage mentions the Senator a couple times.  The first post mentions a report from Politico on Sen. Johnson's returned.  Mr. Belfrage suggests that we are getting mixed signals from the Johnson camp, but also says, "I am hoping for Senator Johnson's full recovery and look forward to seeing him resume his duties."  If this is nastiness, it is bridled. In the next post, like many in the South Dakota blogosphere Mr. Belfrage picked up on the Stuart Rothenberg story in Roll Call. In this post Mr. Belfrage mentions the Rapid City Journal has asked questions about Sen. Johnson's return, and Belfrage concludes that Sen. Johnson should make his return as soon as possible.  The fact that Sen. Johnson is doing just that suggests Mr. Belfrage was on to something.  Again, if this is unbridled nastiness, give me some of the fluffy kindness! 

Mr. Powers has had several posts on Sen. Johnson, but most of them are largely reporting the news and/or making the same point as Mr. Belfrage.  The most probing post is this one, about Tim Johnson's fund raising. Mr. Powers writes that he is glad to hear Sen. Johnson's health is improving and a return is imminent, but again asks questions about why that date of return keeps changing despite continued reports of good health.  Mr. Powers needs to brush up on his hardball politics, because this is pretty soft.

Of course I just posted below on Sen. Johnson, but the only criticism is of a poorly written lede.  I also noted the Stuart Rothenberg story, but without much comment, and also took Badlands Blue to task for being mealy mouthed about the Senator.  But here my object of attention was Badlands Blue, not Sen. Johnson.  Indeed I said that "we at SDP are happy that he is that strong" in reference to claims about Sen. Johnson's good health. I concluded the post with "This post should not be regarded as a criticism of Sen. Johnson."  My argument was not with Sen. Johnson, it was with Badlands Blue for saying both that Sen. Johnson is strong and healthy and fighting for South Dakota, but at the same time of such tenuous health that any criticism, even the most mild, is "mean."  Perhaps Todd is making the same argument.  If so, it is still a bad argument. If Sen. Johnson's office is going to make press releases about Sen. Johnson's professional actions and if Sen. Johnson's campaign is actively raising money for re-election then he should expect some criticism.  Given his health, perhaps that criticism should be muted for now, and I think it has been.  If Todd thinks differently, let him present the argument with evidence of "unbridled nastiness."  Perhaps Todd has a different interpretation of the above posts, or perhaps he has seen something that I have not. 

The day Sen. Johnson makes his public appearance this blog will report on it gladly (assuming we are not all on vacation).  He have wished and will continue to wish Sen Johnson the speediest of recoveries.   

Update: Mummy, Daddy's gone mad! 

It Don't Matter If You're Black Or White

I find Anna's comments on this post at Dakota Women intriguing.  Here they are:

                    Anna    said...    

  Women having options = good
Women having no options = bad

And then in response to another commenter (I am editing):

Again, what it comes down to for me is - Every option (adoption, keeping the child, and yes - abortion) being safe, accessible, available, and societally acceptable for women: good. Being forced into making decisions you might not want to make, either by law or by social control: harmful.

Is the world really as black and white as "options vs. no options"?  The post in question itself is about adoption.  Every pro-lifer I know is for either a mother keeping her baby or giving it up for adoption.  That's two options, plural.  It's just that Anna thinks those options are incomplete.  Anna herself, I am sure, would rule out some options, such as carrying the baby to term and then drowning it in the bathtub.  So the question is not whether women should have options when they are pregnant.  The questions is which options society and the laws should sanction and which they should discourage. 

The same is true for the next statement.  Anna doesn't really believe categorically that all options should be open and socially acceptable to women any more than she believes categorically "being forced into making decisions you might not want to make" is harmful.  As I stated, Anna does not believe the option of killing your newborn should be open, and unless she is an anarchist she is for forcing people to make all sorts of decisions they don't want to make.  I might not want to wear my seat belt (although I actually do), but the law forces me.   My colleagues who smoke might want to do so in their offices (state property), but the law says they cannot.  If I believed that women are naturally intellectually inferior to men and should not be allowed to vote or hold public office (I should think it obvious I don't really believe this), out of fear I would not state as much on this blog for fear of the opprobrium I'd receive, well justified and probably led by Anna.  Societal pressure works on us all the time, telling us which opinions are acceptable and which are not.  Anna is for societal pressure against sexism, but is opposed to societal pressure against abortion.

All who believe humans are responsible moral agents believe some choices are good and some are bad and that the law should punish some (not all) bad choices. Pro-lifers believe that the unborn are human beings who deserve the protection of the laws, thus they would restrict that choice (anti-choice). But many of the same pro-lifers are for greater economic freedom, so they oppose the government taking their money in the form of taxation and dictating what it is spent on (pro-choice).  Many on the left, perhaps Anna herself, favor women having the legal freedom to obtain an abortion (pro-choice), yet at the same time favor greater central economic planning on the part of the state paid for by higher taxation (anti-choice).  So we are all for some choices, and against others.  So lets start talking about the merits of those choices and what rights and public interests are involved in them rather than turning our arguments into black and white claims of "choice=good" and "no choice=bad." 

Johnson On His Way Home

Tim Johnson will make his first trip back to South Dakota.  His colleagues are pleased:

Johnson’s colleagues in Congress, Republican Sen. John Thune and Democrat Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, were excited to hear about Johnson’s travel plans.

“This is something, obviously, that a lot of South Dakotans have been hoping and praying for for a long time,” Thune said. “There are people all across South Dakota who are going to be excited to be a part of any welcoming-home ceremony.”

Herseth Sandlin said she’s grateful and thrilled.

“This is great news for the Johnson family and for all of South Dakota,” Herseth Sandlin said. “Tim has been working very hard on his recovery and rehabilitation and this is another positive step forward in that process.”

The opening two paragraphs of the story are a bit confusing:

U.S. Sen. Tim Johnson will return to South Dakota later this month and make his first public appearance since suffering a brain hemorrhage Dec. 13, his office confirmed late today.

Staff members said this morning that Johnson would visit the state in late August, but didn't say whether he'd appear in public.

The first sentence says Johnson will "make his first public appearance," but the second says that staffers did not say "whether he'd appear in public."  Which is it? 

Support for Iraq War Growing

USA Today reports on a second national poll that shows support for the war in Iraq increasing.  The shift is subtle, but coupled with a New York Times poll two weeks ago, a trend may be forming:

USA TODAY's Susan Page reports that President Bush is making some headway in arguing that the increase in U.S. troops in Iraq is showing military progress.

In the latest USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, taken Friday through Sunday, the proportion of those who said the additional troops are "making the situation better" rose to 31% from 22% a month ago. Those who said it was "not making much difference" dropped to 41% from 51%.

About the same number said it was making things worse: 24% now, 25% a month ago.

It's not a dramatic shift, but if good news continues to come out of Iraq, the Democrats may fight it difficult to insist on withdrawal from Iraq in September.

Rasmussen

Rasmussen Reports:  "Democratic Presidential Candidates Have No Advantage Over GOP Hopefuls on Iraq, the Economy, or Restoring the Nation’s Optimism"

Risk and Irrationality: Greg Easterbrook on Automobiles

The number of Americans who die each year on the roads dwarfs the number who have died in all terrorist violence and in the wars in Iraq and elsewhere.  But we pay almost no attention to the former. Greg Easterbrook, who is a master at clear thinking, has this in the LATimes:

Suppose 245,000 americans had died in terrorist attacks since Sept. 11, 2001. The United States would be beside itself, utterly gripped by a sense of national emergency. Political leaders would speak of nothing else, the United States military would stand at maximum readiness, and the White House would vow not to rest until the danger to Americans had been utterly eradicated.

Yet 245,000 Americans have died because of one specific threat since 9/11, and no one seems to care. While the tragedy of 3,000 lives lost on 9/11 has justified two wars, in which thousands of U.S. soldiers made the ultimate sacrifice, the tragedy of 245,000 lives lost in traffic accidents on the nation's roads during the same period has justified . . . pretty much no response at all. Terrorism is on the front page day in and day out, but the media rarely even mention road deaths. A few days ago, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced that 42,642 Americans died in traffic in 2006. Did you hear this reported anywhere?

Today's automobiles are far safer than they have ever been before, and the injury rate has been dropping for a while.  But it is not dropping as fast as Easterbrook thinks it should. 

Relative to passenger-miles traveled, traffic fatalities have declined in the United States owing to anti-lock brakes, air bags, impact engineering (a hidden safety feature of most new vehicles) and the big rise in shoulder-harness use (your seat belt is much more important to safety than air bags). Tougher laws and social awareness have reduced drunk driving. Yet fatalities per mile traveled have not fallen as much as might be expected given improved technology and less alcohol-impaired driving. There appear to be two key reasons: cellphones and horsepower.

I am with him on the first.  I remember walking in Chicago and hearing a policeman talking to someone on his radio.  He said: "yeah, a cell phone in a skirt collided with a bread truck.  The bread truck won."  Talking on a cell phone while driving is a bad idea.  Easterbrook has some proposals for legislation. 

On the second I have to be agnostic.  I just bought a Toyota RAV4, and I insisted on getting the Six Cylinder engine.  I like the idea of being able to pass when I want to. But here is the bad news:

Cars with high horsepower and rapid acceleration are easy to lose control of, especially for young drivers. Tap the accelerator in a tight curve for just an instant in that Camry -- to say nothing of socially irresponsible monstrosities such as the 520-horsepower Porsche Cayenne SUV -- and you can lose control. High-horsepower cars enable cutting off and other forms of aggressive driving; cutting off and sudden lane changes are leading causes of highway collisions. A generation ago, a small percentage of American drivers had high-horsepower vehicles. Now the majority do! Is it a coincidence that road rage and high horsepower have occurred simultaneously? High horsepower makes road rage possible, which in turn adds to the death count.

Well, he has left me an out.  Horsepower is dangerous only for "young drivers" and people with bad character.  Yeah, that's the ticket.  I'll just be a better a person. 

Anyway Easterbrook is very good at showing that we are very bad when it comes to recognizing risk. 

Good Times in the Badlands

I spent the weekend at Theodore Roosevelt National Park, North Unit, with a couple of my inestimable colleagues, Ric Dias and Steve Rasmussen.  This might be my favorite place in the region.  It is wild, off the beaten track, and marvelously sculptured.  Every night the coyotes howl in unison, tugging one's soul back to a time before the world became what it is.  Below are the aforementioned persons, bringing all their well-earned qualities to bear on a basket full of beef strips. 

Here is a view of the Little Missouri (or little Misery, as the locals call it), from the lookout post on the north rim of the canyon. 

If you click on the image it will enlarge a bit.  You can see a group of seven or eight buffalo enjoying the soft evening at the edge of the river. 

This trio of adventures has visited many high, alpine regions like the Wind River Range and the Big Horns.  Those places are full of solid bluffs and "everlasting" rock. It is easy to sing "On Christ the Solid Rock I Stand, All Other Ground is Sinking Sand . . ."  when you are looking at the three thousand foot walls around the cirque at Lost Twin Lakes. 

Teddy Roosevelt's North Unit is rather a Buddhist kind of place.  Everything is constantly eroding and changing form.  Impermanence is what the place is trying to tell you.  Here is a good example.

What you are looking at is a caprock.  The rock shields the sandy soil below it from rain and water flow, and as the soil around it erodes, it leaves a tower.  We have seen such towers six or seven feet high.  If you want to know what Buddhists think that existing things (ourselves included) really are, take a good look at that caprock. 

Here is another caprock composition. 

And here is yours truly next to a ranger who gave us a talk about the history of the lookout structure where the above shot of the river was taken.  The three of us had spent the day hiking in the area, and after four or five miles of meandering, we just happened to hit the lookout point when it was time for a short program.  The hat I am wearing is its own sort of caprock.  It shields the short stand of soil below from the rain of sunlight. 

Doin' Right Ain't Got No End

"Doin' right ain't got no end."  So says the wicked Capt. Terrell in one of my favorite films, The Outlaw Josey Wales.  How odd that a man aptly labeled "wicked" could be so concerned with "doin' good."  Or is it?  Perhaps it is the obsessive quest for justice that makes Capt. Terrell so evil.  There really is nothing that Terrell will stop at to bring his vision of justice to reality. 

To that end, please take a look at Harvey Mansfield's piece on the "new atheism."  Read the whole thing, but here is Mansfield's conclusion:

It is not religion that makes men fanatics; it is the power of the human desire for justice, so often partisan and perverted. That fanatical desire can be found in both religion and atheism. In the contest between religion and atheism, the strength of religion is to recognize two apparently contrary forces in the human soul: the power of injustice and the power, nonetheless, of our desire for justice. The stubborn existence of injustice reminds us that man is not God, while the demand for justice reminds us that we wish for the divine. Religion tries to join these two forces together.

The weakness of atheism, however, is to take account of only one of them, the fact of injustice in the case of Epicurean atheism or the desire for justice in our Enlightenment atheism. I conclude that philosophy today--and science too--need not only to tolerate and respect religion, but also to learn from it.

I take Mansfield to be saying that religion gives a vision of justice (God's will or commandments), while at the same time acknowledging human limitations, i.e., sinfulness.  St. Augustine reminds us that there are two cities: the City of Man, which rightfully deals with earthly concerns, and the perfect City of God.  An important point is that the City of God, while having representation here on Earth (in the Church), is not ultimately of this Earth.  History has shown that attempts to bring the perfect city into being, whether of religious or irreligious motive, always results in terror.  Capt. Terrell is correct.  Once one sets out to eradicate injustice, one's work will never be done.  There is no end to the misery brought into this world by the ideological pursuit of justice. 

Here Comes Pride Up The Backstretch, Heartache Movin' To The Inside

The race is on.  A couple days ago I posted on the immunity from criticism those at Badlands Blue believe Tim Johnson should possess, given his health.  It seems veteran Roll Call political analyst Stuart Rothenberg is on my side:

But the recent coverage of National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Ensign’s (Nev.) statement that it’s time for Republicans to go after South Dakota Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson’s seat has caused me to defrost that piece.

Ensign’s comments, and the counterattack from Johnson’s spokeswoman, Julianne Fisher, actually were preceded by an editorial in the Rapid City Journal. The newspaper’s editorial board called for “more transparency” about Johnson’s condition and urged the Senator “to communicate directly with the media and the people of South Dakota.”

Last week, Roll Call reported that Ensign and the GOP were “no longer putting off mounting an aggressive campaign to unseat Sen. Tim Johnson.”

That announcement brought an unnecessary overreaction from Fisher, who called Ensign’s comments “a classless attack by a desperate chairman.”

“We don’t fear John Ensign and the national Republican hit men,” said Fisher, who apparently was taught that there is no need to use a match when a flamethrower is available.

“Classless.” “Desperate.” “Hit men.” My, my. I’m not sure which statement applies best: The lady doth protest too much, methinks, or, people who live in glass houses ... .

Anyway, let’s all take a deep breath and start over.

(snip)

More than anything else, Fisher’s comments changed my mind. She came out of the gate like an attack dog in responding to a comment by Ensign that was both reasonable and probably unwise.

Her response reflected the current campaign mentality of attack, attack, attack. Combine that with the fact that the Johnson campaign has raised more than $1.2 million since his medical emergency, and it is hard not to conclude that the Senator or at least his friends want to be able to do political things while at the same time keeping Republicans from acting the same way.

Johnson ought not get a free pass this election anymore than any other Member of Congress who has had great personal misfortune should. The question now, as it should be next year, is whether Tim Johnson can do the job and whether he is representing his constituents effectively and as they wish.

Johnson can do part of his job from his home in Virginia but not all of it. I’m told he can get around and that his speaking is improving. He needs to return to public life if he is physically able to do so. And if he isn’t, his office needs to explain, and show, why he isn’t.

We all know the Senator has been through a terrible time. I don’t think anyone is expecting to see the same man we saw last year. But if he is raising cash, and if his staff is attacking the NRSC chairman because he said Republicans are going to try to defeat Johnson next year, the game is on.

Dems Moving Left

McClatchy Washington Bureau: 

The Democratic Party is growing more liberal for the first time in a generation. 

It's more antiwar than at any time since 1972. Support is growing for such traditionally liberal values as using the federal government to help the poor. And 40 percent of Democrats now call themselves liberal, the highest in more than three decades and twice the low-water mark recorded as the conservative Reagan revolution swept the country in the early 1980s.

. . .

Today every major Democratic presidential candidate wants to get American troops out of Iraq. They're presenting the most vocal and unified opposition to a war since George McGovern won the party's nomination in 1972. 

While their stand mirrors a solid majority of voters, according to polls, at least some Democrats think there's still political danger in adopting a McGovern-like image.

More Argus Criticism Over Hildygate

The new blog South Dakota Conservative Action Council piles on Argus Leader editor Randall Beck regarding their coverage of Hildygate. 

Soldier Censored at Kos Convention

Pajamas Media:  "Fireworks broke out at a Friday morning session of the second day of the YearlyKos Convention titled "The Military and Progressives: Are They Really That Different?". An as yet unidentified uniformed soldier attempted to address the panel on the subject of the "Surge." He was unceremoniously escorted out by panelist Jon Soltz. The soldier's words were either suppressed or inaudible on the convention's own video. They can be heard on this exclusive PJM Video by Andrew Marcus, who also interviews the soldier and tries to interview Soltz."

Likewise Galavanting

I will be out of town August 8th to the 11th, so expect blogging to be light to nonexistent from me during that time. 

Hildebrand in Chicago at Kos Convention

From Chris Cillizza: 

Obama's HQ

CHICAGO, Ill. -- The Fix is in the Windy City for the YearlyKos conference but couldn't resist the chance to stop by the campaign headquarters of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) to see what all the buzz is about.

In the heart of downtown Chicago, the headquarters take up an entire floor of an otherwise unremarkable office building. Inside the room, however, the feel is anything but corporate.

Staffers, the majority of whom appear to be in their 20s and 30s, favor jeans and Obama paraphernalia as their work uniform; our favorite was a black and white t-shirt with Obama's face on it and "008" written below.

Nice.

The youngish crowd is sprinkled with longtime campaign operatives including Steve Hildebrand, widely regarded as one of the best field operatives in the country. (Hildebrand managed the Senate campaigns of Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) and Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) before joining Obama to focus on early state organization.)

Maps of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina are framed in glass throughout the office -- just in case you were wondering how important those first four voting states are to the campaign. The headquarters -- like almost any campaign The Fix has visited -- have a collegiate feeling with handmade signs hanging everywhere including one labeling the fire extinguisher.

The mood is relaxed -- and confident. Obama operatives insist they are right where they want to be in this race, well organized in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina and with the financial firepower to compete in the big states like California set to vote on February 5.

It's a remarkably large and organized operation considering that it has been built from scratch in less than five months. And, as the Obama folks never fail to remind you, it's based in Chicago, not Washington for a reason.  Change is coming, believe the Obama-ites, whether Washington is ready or not.

More from YearlyKos this afternoon and tomorrow.

Beck Speaks

Argus Leader editor Randell Beck says he is an "elitist" this morning and that the Argus Leader is superior because it didn't cover Hildygate.  Beck thinks the Argus Leader is smarter than the Watertown Public Opinion, Pierre Capitol Journal, the Rapid City Journal, Mitchell Daily Republic, Yankton Press and Dakotan, KELO-Land, Sioux City Journal, Fargo Forum, Roll Call, as well as Minot and Bismarck radio.  Of course, Beck is best known for the great judgment he exercised by comparing bloggers to Hitler.

UPDATE:  See also Sibby's observations, which Todd Epp agrees with.  SDWC also notes that "Even the Dems agree - the Argus has blown their hildygate coverage."

For The Children

Congress is considering re-funding the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIPs). There is a debate as to how much money should go into this program. The program is designed to provide health insurance for the poor and working poor, those up to 200% of the poverty level.  Democrats want to expand the program.  Tim Johnson is taking credit for supporting expanding the coverage of this program well into the middle class.  John Thune is taking heat for opposing this move.  How could one oppose the expansion of this program? After all, it's for the children.  Let's take a look.

Here is Robert Robb (whose parents had a sick sense of humor):

No one opposes reauthorization [of SCHIP] for its intended purpose. The Bush administration has proposed reauthorization for this targeted population with an extra $5 billion in funding over the next five years, over the current base of $25 billion.

The problem is that SCHIP has expanded beyond its original scope, as so often happens with federal programs. In the early years, many states couldn't use all their SCHIP money, so the feds permitted excess funds to be used by other states to extend coverage to children beyond 200 percent of the poverty level and even adults.

In Arizona, the SCHIP plan is called KidsCare. A Government Accountability Office study found, however, that 56 percent of the people enrolled in "KidsCare" were actually adults.

Fifteen states now provide SCHIP coverage for children above 200 percent of the federal poverty level, and 14 states cover adults.

Congressional Democrats propose not only to fund these existing expanded programs but provide enough funding for other states to substantially expand eligibility, as well. In all, Democrats are proposing to more than double SCHIP funding, allowing universal coverage up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level, as Gov. Janet Napolitano has proposed for Arizona.

That would provide coverage up to a family income of about $60,000 a year. Since the median family income in the United States is just over $46,000, this reaches well into the middle class.

So the question here is not whether you the government to help low income kids.  Everyone is for that.  The question is whether you want the government to start subsidizing insurance for families who are very likely able to afford it themselves and whether programs intended for children should have adult beneficiaries. 

The Democrats in the House are apparently even more generous, willing to go up to 400% of poverty level.  Here is Rep. Tom Price (R-GA):

An SCHIP expansion proposal in the House of Representatives would make children from families with an annual income of 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) - approximately $82,000 - eligible for government run health insurance. This means 71percent of all children in America could be placed in government-run, centralized medicine. This is an income level where, currently, 89 percent of children already have private health insurance. So why would anyone want to do this?

The only answer can be a philosophical belief that government makes better decisions than parents and families. This is clearly not true.

There are some who argue Republican greed is responsible for the collapse of the bridge in Minneapolis because the limited government Republicans, in this view, haven't funded infrastructure enough (for examples of this argument see here and here).  Could not this argument be turned on its head?  Isn't it greedy to ask for someone else to pay for something that you can likely afford, especially if it is something as important as children's health?  Aren't we diverting precious government resources to those who don't need it, neglecting other priorities?  Entitlement programs make up well over half of the federal budget.  So it's Democrats and their give away social programs who caused that bridge to collapse in Minnesota. 

Of course this is as ridiculous as  the argument against Republicans.  Federal budgeting is rarely a zero sum game where to give to one you must take away from another.  And our federal government in FY '08 will spend in excess of three trillion dollars, which, if Wikipedia is correct, is more than the annual GDP of every nation in the world except China, Japan and India.  So it is hard to say that our government is starving for money. 

Those Republicans who oppose the expansion of the SCHIP program have a sound argument.  It is unbecoming of a free people to ask others to do for us that which we can do for ourselves.  This report from this past Spring tells us that 52% of Americans receive "significant income" from federal programs (a minor flaw in the story, we are never told what "significant" means).  Perhaps the children in American would be better off if their parents were not taxed to support the $3 trillion federal budget and could thus more easily afford health insurance.  If over half the population is in some significant way on "the dole," can we still call ourselves a free people?  And can't the resistance against the expansion of dependency be classified as "for the children"? 

Fight Al Qaeda Where It Is

And that happens to be Iraq.  Here's Michael Yon:

I've traveled alongside American Army and Marines and British forces, from Basra to Mosul and just about anywhere of note in between.

When it comes to Iraq, being there matters because of the massive disconnect between what most Americans think they know about Iraq, and what is actually going on there.

The current controversy about the extent to which Al Qaeda is a threat to peace in Iraq is a case in point. Questions about which group calling itself an offshoot of Al Qaeda is really an offshoot of Al Qaeda is a distraction masquerading as a debate.

Al Qaeda is in Iraq, intentionally inflaming sectarian hostilities, deliberately pushing for full scale civil war. They do this by launching attacks against Shia, Sunni, Kurds and coalition forces. To ensure the attacks provoke counterattacks, they make them particularly gruesome.