South Dakota Politics

Another Pro-Surge Convert

Michael Goldfarb:  "There are two stories here: 1) A formerly anti-war general flips on supporting the war, and now believes Petraeus has the right strategy; and 2) Batiste has left VoteVets.org, and the antiwar movement, and joined up with the pro-troop, pro-surge, pro-victory Vets for Freedom."

Quick Hits

See this news story about the one year anniversary of Sen. Johnson's brain hemorrhage. 

And here is a funny/sad story of some very bad accounting in Carver County Minnesota.  HT Jim Lileks.

What's Killing Small Business?

Reason Magazine: "Local officials who simultaneously decry big box stores and national chains while doling out burdensome regulatory structures and complicated permit processes should understand that regulatory burdens hit the smaller, independent places hardest."

Judicial Review and the War Against Terrorism

Jan Crawford Greenburg has an excellent commentary on the recent arguments before the Supreme Court concerning the rights of the Guantanamo detainees.  She argues that the Court will split along the usual lines, with Stevens, Souter, Bryer, and Ginsburg going for the detainees, and Scalia (the Italian Stallion), Thomas, Roberts, and Alito going for Bush and the U.S.  The wild card is Anthony Kennedy.  Greenburg thinks he is likely to listen to his conservative inner self.  I am inclined to agree, but this is a little like guessing the outcome of the next world series. 

I am genuinely conflicted on this one.  On the one hand, I have considerable sympathy for the position of Rivkin and Casey, writing in the Wall Street Journal. 

The Supreme Court heard a spirited argument yesterday on whether foreign enemies, captured and held overseas, are entitled to the protections of the United States Constitution. Since the founding of our republic, the answer to that question has always been an unequivocal "No."

When the U.S. military is considering the occupation of an enemy fortress, they probably ought not to have to get a search warrant.  On the other hand, there is this by Dahlia Lithwick in Slate:

If the rule of law were a religion, habeas corpus would be the first commandment.

The right to have the state justify anyone's incarceration is so fundamental—dating back centuries to the Magna Carta—that in this country it's protected by statute, by the Constitution, and at common law. Today's oral argument in Boumediene v. Bush and Al Odah v. United States is about nothing less than whether the Bush administration's war on terror—endless in its geographic reach and indefinite across time—will become the instrument of the great writ's demise.

Okay, that's a little off the deep end.  The whole point of keeping the detainees at Guantanamo is to keep them out of the domestic realm where habeas corpus clearly does apply.  But there does seem to be something wrong with keeping these guys indefinitely without charging them with anything.  What if one of them is just an innocent caught in the wrong place at the wrong time? 

Probably the detainees deserve some greater access to ordinary judicial oversight.  But the friends of habeas corpus do their cause no favors by focusing exclusively on the hallowed principles of the rule of law.  What happens if the Courts force the release of someone who them goes on to set loose a dirty bomb, or chemical weapon, or a sack of weapons-grade anthrax on some American city?  At that point, I submit, the vast majority of folks won't give a rat's ass any more about habeas corpus.  They will agree to any measures likely to provide security.  If you want to preserve our civil liberties intact, you must make sure that bomb never goes off.  Ms.Lithwick and her allies should give some thought to that.  They aren't. 

Of straw men, plain logic, faux fascism, and contempt.

My Keloland colleague, Dr. Newquist, swats the ball back into my side of the court.  I accused him of misusing the term "straw man," which indicates an informal logical fallacy.  He replies as follows:

In addition to his addiction to the ad hominem argument, Ken Blanchard loves to indulge in the rhetorical fallacies of bifurcation and equivocation. He gives a very narrow definition of the straw man fallacy and then asserts I was wrong in a definition I gave. Insisting that only his definition is correct, he says mine was wrong. That is called the fallacy of bifurcation.

I defy my colleague to show a single example of an ad hominem in my writing.  Before he goes looking, I should caution him: I mean by ad hominem the actual fallacy and not the common misuse of the word to indicate any personal criticism.  The fallacy (a precisely defined logical term) means refuting an argument by pointing out that someone unpleasant held that view. 

Professor Newquist likes to accuse me and others of logical fallacies but, oddly for a former English professor, he doesn't seem to know what any of these fallacies are. Bifurcation  means pretending that there are only two possible positions when there are many.  Example: "If you don't vote for Obama, you are voting for racism."  It doesn't mean insisting on a narrow definition when a broader one is legitimate.  Equivocation means surreptitiously shifting from one meaning of a term to another within an argument.  Example: "If you aren't in Detroit, you must be somewhere else; and if you are somewhere else, you can't be here."  Hat tip to the Three Stooges.  It can hardly be the case that I am insisting on a single, overly narrow definition and committing equivocation at the same time! 

Professor Newquist defined the "straw man fallacy" in his original post in this way:

It is when one person makes up a bunch of stuff about someone and then attacks that someone for possessing all the fabricated things attributed to him or her.

In my post of Wednesday, I pointed out that he was quite wrong, and provided this definition from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

You commit the straw man fallacy whenever you attribute an easily refuted position to your opponent, one that the opponent wouldn't endorse, and then proceed to attack the easily refuted position believing you have undermined the opponent's actual position.

In his reply to me he offers another definition from this source:

Description: It is a fallacy to misrepresent someone else's position for the purposes of more easily attacking it, then to knock down that misrepresented position, and then to conclude that the original position has been demolished. It is a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that one has made.

But that perfectly confirms my "narrow" definition, and gives no support at all to his broader one! I am astonished that he does not see this.   It is true, of course, that many important terms have both a narrow and a broad meaning.  But sometimes the broader meaning emerges from misuse of an originally well-defined term.  The expansion of the meaning of ad hominem from a specific logical fallacy to indicate any personal criticism is an example.  One would have expected an English Professor to be opposed to that sort of thing.  Professor Newquist seems determined to promote it. 

Likewise, in contrast to Professor Newquist and, perhaps, Umberto Eco, I think fascism means fascism.  Eco's essay on Ur-Fascism (I am grateful to David for bringing it to my attention) contains a very convincing description of the culture of fascism, and warns us that it may creep up on us. His purpose is not to condemn contemporary civilization (or any administration) but to alert his readers.  Professor Newquist says this:

Fascism is undergoing a renaissance in the 21^st century.  It has pervaded American politics. Our current regime is fascist in many aspects. It espouses a belligerent nationalism. It is militaristic. It is moving toward totalitarianism with its warrantless wiretaps, its advocacy of torture, its systematic defamations of its opponents and its repressive policies and actions, its control by a corporate hierarchy that is allowed to set policy and rig the economy to only its advantage, It fits the descriptive taxonomy that defines fascism.

I pointed out that this is nonsense.  In all the aspects of policy that Newquist mentions, we were much more inclined to his "fascism" in previous decades than we are today.  In earlier wars much more brutal interrogation techniques were used than any that are suspected today. And in the past, the treatment of prisoners of war was rarely subject to any judicial review.  That is why the current case before the high court, Al Odah v. U.S., has very little case law to fall back on.  American society is much more culturally diverse than it was before.  No one who dislikes President Bush or his policies is afraid to say so.  And now the Supreme Court is, for the second time and quite properly I think, about to review
the rights of detainees in this new kind of war.  We are moving away from what Newquist calls fascism at a steady pace. 

As for "contempt for the people of South Dakota,"  my colleague denies it.  But he said this:

When college freshmen from small communities in South Dakota return home for vacations, they find that their former classmates and friends, except for those who also went off to college, regard them with suspicion and resentment, as leaving the community for college is a snobbish affront. If they succeed and make their way in the outside world, it is regarded as an unforgivable sin. When a political leader goes to Washington, his/her constituents begin to suspect that they are being betrayed. If that leader gains success and recognition, the folks back in the province get resentful and feel neglected and betrayed that anyone would dare fix on horizons beyond their parochial vision. This, among other appeals to petty jealousy and resentment, was used effectively against Tom Daschle, as it was George McGovern before him and crops up against Stephanie Herseth Sandlin.

Well, maybe I have a more broad conception of contempt that David has.  But this looks like contempt to me. 

 

Cory, Catholics, Compasses

Cory weighs in on the Golden Compass, doing some good old fashioned laughing at them narrow minded ignorant Catholics. 

If you were a powerful, influential religious organization and could marshal your human and financial resources to do some good at Christmastime, what would you do? What societal ill might you choose to combat? How would you spread some Christian (or Buddhist, or Muslim, or Jewish) love? Feeding the hungry? Healing and comforting the sick? Consoling the grief-stricken? Sheltering the poor? Fighting the corporate killers of Christmas? Oh, so much to do, so many people in need, so much love we can give.... 

--The Sioux Falls Catholic Diocese and Sioux Falls Christian Schools are on a great crusade... against a movie.  

Read the whole thing.   See here for my comments on the controversy.  Cory bases his argument on one article in the Argus and this post by Pat Powers.

Let's take this in order.  It doesn't make the papers much, but the Sioux Fall Diocese and other Catholic organizations spend enormous amounts of time and money feeding the hungry, healing and comforting the sick, and sheltering the poor.  Just think how much good the Avera hospitals do, just as one example.  I don't know of any institutional fight against the "corporate killers of Christmas," but nary a Yuletide season goes by without a homily against a materialist interpretation of Christmas. News outlets don't tend to cover those kinds of stories so Cory hasn't been able to read those articles.  It isn't news because the charitable works of the Church occur every day in uncountable ways. Needless to say commenting on movies is not exactly at the center of what the Church does, but it is something that tends to make the news. 

On to the other matters.  First, Pat Powers is a great guy, but he doesn't speak for the Church.  And what about the actual Church.  If you read the Argus article, here's what it says:

The Catholic Diocese of Sioux Falls disagrees. In several publications, including a letter recently sent home with students in the Catholic school system, the diocese cautioned parents and parishioners against the movie and books. (snip)

"In short, when it comes to kids, especially - even adults - I am trying to encourage people to look at these kinds of media critically and with great discernment," said (director diocesan religious education Chris) Burgwald, who read all three books. "I say that because over the course of the trilogy, Pullman makes it very clear he's writing a narrative opposed to the Christian understanding of who God is."

The Church is urging caution.  Not a ban or a boycott (as the Catholic League has).  Just caution.  Makes sense when you are a church and there is a movie out based on a book written to attack your church.  You want to inform and caution.  That strikes me not as ridiculous, but as responsible leadership of a church.  A like minded attitude is coming out of the Archdiocese of Minneapolis-St Paul. 

The Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis is not calling for a boycott but is telling parents, teachers and pastors to "exercise caution," according to spokesman Dennis McGrath. The archdiocese is concerned parents will unwittingly buy the books for their children, thereby giving Pullman a "chance to reach these young minds with his anti-Christ propaganda," McGrath said.

Again, entirely reasonable.  A movie is coming out that attacks the church.  Given the genre of storytelling and the advertising campaign, many parishioners may not be aware of the anti-Catholic/anti-theist nature of the work.  So the Church gives information and urges caution.   And perhaps Cory is not aware that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has actually given a "thumbs up" to the movie.

It just so happens that I was talking to a local priest about this movie last night.  I have not read the books.  He's read all three.  He also told me that one of his fellow priests is reading the trilogy now.  He checked the books out of the Roncalli school library.  That's the Catholic school here in Aberdeen.  This priest said his parish, in this weekend's bulletin, will avail itself parents to ask if they have any questions about the film or books.  They are not taking any position on the film or books, just saying "This movie has sparked controversy.  If you have any questions, feel free to ask."  Quite reasonable.   

The characterization of the Church as ignorant and out of touch on this matter doesn't seem to hold up under scrutiny.

Update: Cory responds.  See his post as I have a mild disagreement with him.  And yes, you may call me Cattle King.

Daily Dose Of French Canadian Folk Music

Someone played me the song below yesterday. It is by the Quebec band Mes Aieux, which is roughly "My Ancestors" (yes, I had to look it up). 

Apparently the band is quite in favor of abortion rights despite the negative depiction of abortion in the song.  Still, an interesting dissenting view on modern life. 

The Economist: Give McCain Another Look

The Economist thinks the unsettled nature of the Republican presidential nomination contest should give Republican's reason to give a second look at John McCain.

Mr McCain is such a familiar figure that it is easy to forget how remarkable he is. He fought heroically in Vietnam, spending more than five years as a prisoner-of-war, when many other politicians of his generation discovered, like Dick Cheney, that they had “other priorities”. He has repeatedly risked his political career by backing unpopular causes.

Mr McCain's qualifications extend beyond character. Take experience. His range of interests as a senator has been remarkable, extending from immigration to business regulation. He knows as much about foreign affairs and military issues as anybody in public life. Or take judgment. True, he has a reputation as a hothead. But he's a hothead who cools down. He does not nurse grudges or agonise about vast conspiracies like some of his colleagues in the Senate. He has also been right about some big issues. He was the first senior Republican to criticise George Bush for invading Iraq with too few troops, and the first to call for Donald Rumsfeld's sacking. He is one of the few Republicans to propose sensible policies on immigration and global warming.

The article goes on to compare McCain to other Republican rivals, specifically Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and Mike Huckabee.  Read the whole thing. 

NPR On Laptop Schools

Yesterday I came across this NPR program from May about "one laptop per child" programs in education.  My position is well documented, but listen to some experts.  There are three guests on the program with the second and third, both professors of education, being of most interest. 

The second guest, Larry Cuban, states that technology enhancement rarely leads to improvement in student performance and "one to one" laptop schools are no exception.  He poses a stark question: given that laptop schools provide little to no educational benefit, school districts should be asking before they proceed with a laptop program, "Do we have a better use for this money?" 

The third guest, Nicholas Negroponte, does not dispute Cuban's assertion that laptops do not, yet, show any measurable increase in educational success.  But, he says, laptops create excitement in the classroom and cut down on truancy.  Also he plays down the importance of testing, saying that testing merely "has a place" in education, suggesting that he thinks measurable outcomes aren't that important.  Negroponte is far more interested in students being "creative" rather than students learning content. 

Give the program a listen and draw your own conclusions. 

Florida and Michigan Lose National Convention Delegates

Professor Schaff and I have frequently argued against front-loading, the practice of states moving their primaries and caucus to earlier in the election year.  The Democratic Party is actually doing something about it, to their credit.  They are trying to enforce rules that two important states have apparently violated.  From USAToday:

A federal judge refused Wednesday to make the Democratic National Committee seat Florida's 210-member delegation to next summer's nominating convention...  [Judge] Hinkle ruled that the national party has a First Amendment "associational right" to set a primary schedule and enforce its rules. He noted that the national party let Iowa and New Hampshire go first and second, by tradition, and took 11 applications for the two other January slots. Florida didn't apply to do so.

The DNC has also imposed what amounts to a ban on Presidential candidates campaigning in Florida, which the candidates are apparently honoring.  The same story is playing out in Michigan.  This means that two of the most important states in the electoral college will have no role in choosing the Democratic nominee for President.  Wow! 

I would like to tell you that Republicans are showing similar gumption, but I can't. 

The Republican National Committee also punished Florida for jumping the Feb. 5 date. But the GOP has taken away only half the state's delegation — 57 votes — and has not banned candidate campaigning in the state.

In this case the Republicans should be ashamed of themselves.  What is at stake here is not only the nomination process, but the integrity of national parties.  Of course the Republicans may benefit from their cowardice.  Florida effectively decided the 2000 election, as Ohio did the 2004 election.  How it will affect Florida's voters if the candidates do not appear in their state until after the convention is anyone's guess. 

 

More Presidential Politics

Here's an argument that Mike Huckabee is the Democrats' worst nightmare.  And here's one that Mike Huckabee is the Republicans' worst nightmare.  We report, you decide. 

Here's a funny headline: Bill Clinton: I'd Sit in on Hillary's Cabinet Meetings 'Only If Asked'
How big of him.  I mean, many of us would barge into Cabinet meetings without being asked.  But not Bill.  He has to be asked first.  I suspect Hillary would get to, "Bill, would you like to..." and Bill would be halfway to the Cabinet meeting running at breakneck speed.  What he really means to say is, "I'll give my opinion at the drop of a hat."  He's all modesty that one. 

And here is a touching story about my man McCain. McCain was approached today by a veteran seriously disabled in a motorcycle crash.  The man, Greg, essentially asked McCain whether his life is still worth living.  Here's the writer's take:

I can't imagine a more awkward situation for McCain--having to counsel a complete stranger who, as one other journalist here put it, had essentially just read him a suicide note, and having to do so in front of about 200 people. And McCain's initial attempt was actually a bit awkward, as he mentioned that we are "a Judeo-Christian principled nation" that "believe[s] every life is precious." But McCain soon found his footing, and as he continued to counsel Greg, I noticed that a couple of men in the audience were crying. "All I can tell you," McCain went on, "is that [you have] loving family members, loving neighbors and friends who want to do everything we can to help you live as long and as beautiful a life as possible. And we pray for you. And we cherish you. God bless you." McCain then turned back to the topic at hand--the environment--and took a few more questions, but as the event was ending, he did one final pivot. "Greg," McCain said, "we want you and we love you and we need you and you will be our inspiration with your courage."

I don't know if McCain won any votes today with his performance in Portsmouth--my guess is that he did--but I'd imagine he provided a much-needed glimmer of hope in one man's life. And I can't think of any other presidential candidate who could have done that under the circumstances.

I suspect there are some candidates who could have handled the situation well.  But none could have done any better. 

 

Romney, Religion, And American Politics

Mitt Romney presented a speech on his faith, faith in general, and the role of religion in American politics. You can read the text and see the video at Powerline.  There is commentary galore online, so let me just direct you to Joe K. and Julie Ponzi at NLT and you can go from there. 

I am less enthused than most commentators, but more enthused than some.  Romney gave a fairly sound but not very novel discourse on religion and politics and delivered it in a respectable (if a bit rehearsed) manner.  Just a few comments.

The beginning of the speech is a little too much Mitt.  Was it really necessary to take a trip on Mitt's Magical Faith Journey?  I don't know if people really do ask him all the time about Jesus Christ, but to discuss the nature of Jesus Christ contradicts Romney's argument that it is morality not theology that is politically important.  I understand why he brings it up.  He wants Evangelicals to know that Mitt digs Jesus, a bone of contention between Evangelicals and Mormons.  Still, to be consistent he should have kept his theological opinions to himself.

Later in the speech Romney hits a solid note when he says it is morality based on faith that holds Americans together, not specific doctrine.  This is straight from Tocqueville, who argues:

     The sects that exist in the United States are innumerable. They all differ in respect to the worship which is due to the Creator; but they all agree in respect to the duties which are due from man to man. Each sect adores the Deity in its own peculiar manner, but all sects preach the same moral law in the name of God. 

Romney develops an idea throughout the speech. Democratic government relies on a moral people able to restrain their passions.  Religion is indispensable support for morality and restraint of passions. Ergo, democratic government needs vibrant religion.

Romney could have taken another lesson from Tocqueville.  Romney says that freedom is good for faith and faith is good for freedom, but he doesn't pursue the implications of that idea.  Tocqueville suggests (I summarize) that freedom is good for faith as faith must stand alone on its own merits.  It cannot be lazy, such as in nations with established churches (as in Europe, as Romney notes, where the embers of faith burn low).  Faith is good for democracy because, as noted above, faith restrains the appetites of the people that may lead them to injustice.  These arguments are implicit not explicit in Romney's presentation. 

Overall, Romney gave a serviceable defense of religion's just place in the public square.  I don't know whether this speech helps him or hurts him politically.  I suspect at this point any attention that is not about what a creep you are is good attention for the candidates.    

Jacks vs. Huskers

Here's some very cool news in the world of South Dakota college football:

A football game three years in the future already has some Mitchell-area fans rearranging their schedules to be in front of a television or at the stadium.

South Dakota State University announced Wednesday that its football team will play Sept. 25, 2010, at the University of Nebraska. The game signals a major step-up in competition for SDSU and has the school’s alumni and fans excited.

South Dakota State last played the Huskers back in 1963 and lost 53-7.  The only problem is who do I cheer for, my alma mater or the school I'm currently attending?

South Dakota's Legal Legacy Of Bigotry

George Will's column today tells the story of how New York State's Blaine Amendment is limiting the activities of a man, Rev. Michael Faulkner, who wants to open a religiously based school in Harlem.  What is the Blaine Amendment? 

Republican James G. Blaine came within 1,047 votes of becoming president. He lost New York, and hence the White House, by that margin to Grover Cleveland in 1884. New York's large Catholic population loathed Republicans after a Presbyterian clergyman, speaking in Blaine's presence, said the Democratic Party's antecedents were ''rum, Romanism and rebellion.''

Protestants resented the impertinence of Catholic immigrants who founded schools that taught Catholicism as forthrightly as public schools then taught Protestantism. Protestants thought a public school should be, in Horace Mann's words, a ''nursery of piety'' - of Protestant piety - dispensing ''judicious religious instruction,'' judiciousness understood as Protestantism.

In 1875, Blaine, hoping anti-Catholicism would propel him to the presidency, unsuccessfully tried to amend the U.S. Constitution to stipulate that no public money shall go to schools ''under the control of any religious sect.'' The pervasive Protestantism was not considered sectarian. Eventually 37 states passed similar amendments to their constitutions. Congress required Blaine provisions in the constitutions of new states entering the union.

South Dakota is one of those states that was required to have a "Blaine Amendment" in its constitution.  It is still there.  The "Blaine" aspects to Article VI, Section 3 are those denying any public funds for religious institutions.  Is it not time to repeal this relic of the bigotries of a bygone era? 

BTW, Will points out that Rev. Faulkner is attempting to have the New York Amendment  thrown out by the courts as a violation of the First Amendment.  There might be a "free exercise" argument here, but it is a weak one.  The proper move, in New York and here, is to remove this ancient bigotry through the democratic process. 

Foreign Policy News

A couple foreign policy articles.  John Bolton gives a devastating critique of the recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iran.  Here is just one criticism:

Fifth, many involved in drafting and approving the NIE were not intelligence professionals but refugees from the State Department, brought into the new central bureaucracy of the director of national intelligence. These officials had relatively benign views of Iran's nuclear intentions five and six years ago; now they are writing those views as if they were received wisdom from on high. In fact, these are precisely the policy biases they had before, recycled as "intelligence judgments."

I'll say again that intelligence is useful for tactical moves, but to base one's grand strategy on the murky world of intelligence is asking for trouble.  Read Bolton. 

Our congressman to the north, Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota, has just returned from Iraq. 

Rep. Earl Pomeroy says he saw significant security improvements in Iraq during his fifth trip to the country, but said much more is needed.

"I've never felt more hopeful about the success of the effort than coming back from this trip," Pomeroy, D-N.D., told reporters on Wednesday. "At the same time, we need to transition this now, so the United States no longer carries the principal combat and security functions."

One must ask whether a "transition...now" endangers that success Pomeroy witnessed.  Makes me glad I am not president.  And I think you are all with me on that. 

   

A Reply to My Pals Anna, David, et. al.

Anna gently chides me in her recent post, but she does so with such respect that I can't really find much to disagree with.  I appreciate Anna's comment that I am a genuinely nice person.  I like to think so, and I think the same about her.  As regards my use of the word "cripple" in a phone interview with Dave Kranz, I got a kind letter from Darrin H. backing me up. 

Ken, I enjoy your website.  You do a very good job of explaining South Dakota politics.  I think your recent remarks of Tim Johnson were not out of line.  Maybe you could have used a better word than cripple but I think that word somewhat describes Tim Johnson’s health at this time.

Thanks, Darrin.  Darrin went on to give an intelligent and convincing analysis of the upcoming Senate race.  But I think that Anna was right on this point:

The problem with using outdated and slightly insulting words like cripple, as Ken discovered, is that they make you seem like a jerk, even if maybe you're not.

I note that I got a very cordial second note from the person who originally e-mailed me with a criticism of that word. 

On an entirely different topic, I note my esteemed colleague emeritus and Keloland colleague Dr. Newquist's recent post.  I begin with a formal point.  Professor Newquist says this:

Sometimes we refer to a certain stupid verbal phenomenon as the straw man fallacy. It is when one person makes up a bunch of stuff about someone and then attacks that someone for possessing all the fabricated things attributed to him or her.

David is wrong about the "straw man Fallacy."  Here is how the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes that informal fallacy:

You commit the straw man fallacy whenever you attribute an easily refuted position to your opponent, one that the opponent wouldn't endorse, and then proceed to attack the easily refuted position believing you have undermined the opponent's actual position.

Fallacies, formal and informal, are directed against arguments, not against people.  If Professor Newquist wishes to use logically defined terms in his polemic, he should get them right.

I skip ahead to a characteristic Newquistian excess. 

Fascism is undergoing a renaissance in the 21^st century.  It has pervaded American politics. Our current regime is fascist in many aspects. It espouses a belligerent nationalism. It is militaristic. It is moving toward totalitarianism with its warrantless wiretaps, its advocacy of torture, its systematic defamations of its opponents and its repressive policies and actions, its control by a corporate hierarchy that is allowed to set policy and rig the economy to only its advantage, It fits the descriptive taxonomy that defines fascism.

This, if I am allowed to quote Marx, is nonsense on stilts.  Fascism, if it means anything, means an ideology that elevates the nation over the individual, and identifies loyalty to the nation with loyalty to a single, charismatic leader.  Where are the brown shirts marching in lock step?  If we are moving toward totalitarianism, how is it that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have escaped arrest?  How is it that the New York Times has not yet been silenced, not to mention MoveOn.org?  And how is it that one party controls the White House, and the other Congress? 

In fact, Professor Newquist refutes himself. Fascism is by definition a unitary national system.  America remains a Federal Republic.  Newquist acknowledges this in expressing his dislike of his fellow South Dakotans. 

When college freshmen from small communities in South Dakota return home for vacations, they find that their former classmates and friends, except for those who also went off to college, regard them with suspicion and resentment, as leaving the community for college is a snobbish affront... When a political leader goes to

Washington

, his/her constituents begin to suspect that they are being betrayed. If that leader gains success and recognition, the folks back in the province get resentful and feel neglected and betrayed that anyone would dare fix on horizons beyond their parochial vision. This, among other appeals to petty jealousy and resentment, was used effectively against Tom Daschle...

Us folks back in the provinces may be as resentful as Newquist says.  I have written that it was Daschle's big house in Virginia that was his Achilles heal, and I have noted that many South Dakotan politicians get beat because their constituents think their representatives got too big for their britches.  I have also written that this was not a fair criticism of Daschle.   

But to recognize this is to acknowledge that we the people of South Dakota think we own our representatives and not the other way around.  We can get rid of them for no other reason than that they displease us.  The majority of voters in South Dakota didn't give a rat's ass what the rest of the country thought of Daschle, and we won't care what they think of Thune if we decide he has outstayed his welcome.   Perhaps the average Jack and Jill out in the "provinces" deserves the contempt that Newquist has for them.  But if he or she thinks that a political leader is out of line, out they go.  That is about as far from fascism as it is possible to get. 

People who create straw man arguments do so because their opponents arguments are difficult to engaged honestly.  In the case of Professor Newquist, this is hardly necessary.

From The Email Bag

Yesterday I wrote about controversy in Slate magazine over intelligence studies.  Well, here's more fuel for the fire.  This author thinks the attacks on Will Saletan's original article, which argued for a strong genetic connection to intelligence, are ill founded.  Perhaps Saletan's sources are not as suspect as I thought.  Read the articles and decide for yourself.

On another matter, a reader emails this story about a physicist at Iowa State who may have been denied tenure due to his support for Intelligent Design theory.  This story provides much more context.  I do not know enough about this case to have an opinion.  If he was denied tenure simply over his belief in Intelligent Design, that is probably illegitimate.  But there may have been other reasons for denying him tenure, such as his inability to raise research funds, as the article suggests. 

Governor's Budget Message

Gov. Rounds delivered his budget message yesterday.  There were few surprises.  He argued that economic slowdown necessitates some belt tightening by the state.

While revenue from general state taxes is expected to increase 6.4 percent this year, partly because of the effects of the voter-passed increase in the cigarette tax, revenue growth for the next budget year is projected at only 3.8 percent, Rounds said.

Higher fuel prices, rising interest rates on adjustable-rate mortgages and other factors mean South Dakotans have less money to spend on things that are subject to the sales tax, the state's main revenue source, the governor said.

''We're very concerned about what sales tax revenue will do now and in the future,'' he said in his budget speech.

The governor's proposed budget calls for spending a total of $3.55 billion in the next budget year, an increase of $159.2 million from this year.

The governor suggests making up for the revenue shortfall by reducing the increase in school spending and state employee salaries from 3% to 2.5%.

Here's the rundown on education funding.  The governor continues to throw his support behind higher education.

Education dollars: Of the proposed $62.7 million in increased spending of state general tax funds, $35.9 million would be for education from pre-kindergarten through the university level.

For higher education, Rounds supports the Board of Regents' plan to issue up to $65 million in bonds to upgrade science and lab facilities at the six state universities. The state would provide $2.3 million a year, to be matched with money from the campuses, to pay off the bonds. Universities would get additional money for salary increases and a program that improves wireless Internet access for laptops on campuses.

Not surprisingly, some legislators were disappointed with the education budget numbers:

House Democratic leader Dale Hargens of Miller said he would push for a 3 percent increase for those areas Rounds targeted with 2.5 percent.

"The 2.5 isn't going to go over well," he said. "We can find the money."

Rep. Tim Rave, R-Baltic said, "It wouldn't surprise me if the Legislature added some to education."

Be prepared for some last minute dealing at the end of February. 

 

Presidential Follies

As Hillary Clinton attacks Barack Obama's kindergarten record, the GOP race gets messier as Mike Huckabee continues to surge (but not in New Hampshire).  Powerline comments on Huckabee's explanation of his foreign policy experience (or lack thereof) on the new Imus show.  Here's the transcript:

Imus: Part of the strengths of Senator John McCain, who we talked to yesterday, was his perceived, and perhaps real foreign policy experiences and so on, and you have had little or none, or perhaps you have. Is that a concern?

Huckabee: First of all let me say Senator McCain is an honorable and good man and I enjoy getting to be on the trail with him. And I know we are supposed to be sort of hostile toward one another; I don’t think it has to be like that, and I have long respected him. People will say that people will say, “well, you are a governor, you don’t have much foreign policy experience.” Neither did Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan came as a governor, he had been an actor. But ten years after he was sworn into office, there wasn’t a cold war, the Berlin wall was down, and there wasn’t a Soviet Union. People considered that one of the most important times in American history in terms of our relationship with the world. Certainly governors have more experience than people realize because we do trade missions and we are involved in cultural exchanges, we deal with multinational corporations in bringing jobs, travel extensively. But more importantly, the role of foreign policy is one of character and understanding what your principles are and then surrounding yourself with good advice. And the ultimate thing is, I may not be the expert that some people are on foreign policy, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

The Holiday Inn line is funny.  But at some point Huckabee has to stop being simply pleasant and funny and actually act presidential.  Perhaps it is just me, but the subject of foreign policy is an important one and not a moment for a one-liner. 

Peter Lawler thinks John McCain has taken too hard a stand on Iraq.  But at the same time he praises McCain for his authenticity.  This, I would argue, is the heart of McCain's appeal.  He says what he believes, damn the dictates of today's opinion polls.  Opinion changes, and a statesman can help change that opinion. 

John Podhoretz argues it is still the Romney-Giuliani show.  He is certainly right that Huckabee is playing the role that should have been played by Fred Thompson.  But, Podhoretz argues, Huckabee's record will not withstand the limelight that comes with his rise in the polls.  Podhoretz concludes with this possible scenario:

I can, however, see one other scenario. Say Giuliani melts down this month, owing to more revelations about the intersection of his private life and his public duties. Or Romney melts down, in part because Huckabee’s rise means he will lose Iowa and therefore make it impossible for him to win every early state and thereby “slingshot” his way into the nomination. Huckabee won’t be there to pick up the pieces, because he speaks to a different electorate.

But John McCain will….

Earmarks

Yesterday 62 Democrats joined House Republicans to send the Intelligence Authorization Act back to committee to remove all earmarks.  Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin was not one of those Democrats.  She chose to vote with her party leadership.  HT David Freddosso.

Romney Speech

Joe K. to Mitt Romney: Don't pull a JFK.

Intelligence Update

A couple weeks ago I posted on a Will Saletan piece in Slate about genetics and intelligence.  There is now a rebuttal to Saletan that is quite damning.  To say the least, Saletan's sources are suspect.  I have updated the original post to include a link to the rebuttal. 

Speaking of intelligence, Max Boot comments on the latest intelligence report regarding the Iranian nuclear program.  Boot suggests taking with a grain of salt the report's conclusion that Iran has discontinued its nuclear program. As he notes, this refers to government programs.  There are still private groups seeking to create a nuclear weapon.  The world of intelligence in inherently murky.  It is best to use intelligence as one piece of information in making policy, but not to base one's policy on intelligence.  See John Keegan's Intelligence In War for a thoughtful history of that subject. 

Leaden, Not Golden, Compass

Mr. Powers jumps all over The Golden Compass, the new children's film.  I had previously heard that Phillip Pullman, author of the book on which the film is based, was motivated to write by a contempt for Christianity and a hatred of C.S. Lewis's overtly Christian Narnia series. This is confirmed in this scathing attack on the film and Pullman.  See also this news story.  Finally, see this work by Raymond Ibrahim about other anti-Christian trends in Hollywood.

It is possible that The Golden Compass is entertaining.  It is also possible that the film is edifying in spite of itself.  One should be wary of avoiding books or films simply because they offend our sensibilities, as they may have artistic merit nonetheless.  But viewers, especially parents, certainly should know when an author has a particular agenda and interpret the work in that light. 

Finally, Someone Willing To Tell The Truth

Clip of the day:

A Taste For Defeat 3: A Democrat Admits the Obvious

I have been pointing out the rather obvious fact that many Democrats have acquired a taste for news of defeat in Iraq.  This is not, of course, because they have any sympathy for the insurgents, or because of any antipathy toward America or its armed forces.  It is, rather, that they are willing to pay any price and bear any burden to see George W. humiliated.  The same goes for making sure that a Republican does not succeed him next year.

It is rather a shock to discover Kurt Anderson making the same points in New York magazine.

For these next eleven months, in other words, I will become crypto-quasi-Jewish—that is, involuntarily asking as I scan each day’s headlines not Is it good for the Jews? but rather Is it bad for the Republicans?

And he gives us lots of good examples.  When even the New York Times had to acknowledge that violence was declining dramatically in Iraq in the wake of Bush's surge policy, and that U.S. troops were already being pulled out, Anderson has mixed feelings.

All excellent news! And also worrisome news for those of us who don’t want another Republican elected president in 2008. The sudden pacification of Iraq is an October Surprise a year early.

But the longing for dismay is not limited to Iraq.

There was the other big piece of profoundly good news on the Times’ front page: “Scientists Bypass Need for Embryo to Get Stem Cells...  If the technique proves safe and reliable, the Christian right’s opposition to embryonic-stem-cell research will be moot.  Awesome.  Except, of course, it will also eliminate one powerful reason for independents and progressive Republicans to vote Democratic.

Whereas Conservatives have been skeptical that signs of progress at the Annapolis peace talks are genuine, Anderson admits that Democrats are afraid they may be genuine. 

In the unlikely event that the jump-started peace process actually does produce a treaty a year from now, with credit going to this administration for making it happen, won’t we and even the Kos mob welcome it as a miraculous world-historical achievement? It’s arguable that such an outcome, if it were to affect the 2008 election, would help Democrats—by reducing the general geopolitical fear factor and reminding Americans that diplomacy can actually work. But even then … some celebrations of the news would be grudging. There are still those on the left, after all, whose pleasure over the end of the Cold War is tainted by the fact that Ronald Reagan helped make it happen.

So what is left for the left to hope for?  A recession. 

Last week, former Treasury secretary Larry Summers rocked his world with a Financial Times piece in which he wrote that “the odds now favor a U.S. recession,” and the New York Times’ front-page lead on Thursday warned of “intensifying worries that the economy may be headed for recession.” Total bummer, right? Yes … um … unless you’d prefer that a Democrat be elected president next year.                                

In itself this does not constitute an argument against voting Democrat.  A reasonable person votes based on what he or she expects a candidate to do, not on what the candidate hopes for.  But it is rather irresponsible of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to deny that the surge is working. If violence is coming down and troops are slowly being withdrawn, it pulls the rug clean out from under the Democratic policy preference. 

South Dakota Budget

Two news stories today cover Gov. Rounds' budget message scheduled for tomorrow.  This story discusses the vagaries of revenue and how it might effect the up coming legislative session. 

Demands on the treasury will be huge, and a recent report shows revenue somewhat above last year but well below what lawmakers projected when they finalized the current budget last March."It's all about money, where it comes from and where it's needed most," said Rep. Jim Putnam, R-Armour, a long-term member of the Joint Appropriations Committee. "We never have enough for everything."

The report goes on to say that many revenue streams are up from last year, but not as much as anticipated last year by the legislature. 

Meanwhile, Democrats in the state are unsurprisingly asking for a major increase in education funding. 

Senate Democratic Leader Scott Heidepriem of Sioux Falls says he hopes Republican Gov. Mike Rounds' budget proposal will boost state financial aid to school districts and limit spending increases in the rest of state government.

In recent years, increases in overall state spending have exceeded the growth in state spending on education, Heidepriem said. He said he hopes Rounds reverses that when he presents his budget proposal to the Legislature on Tuesday.

"I'm hoping we'll have a budget that returns to common sense," Heidepriem said.

However, House Republican Leader Larry Rhoden of Union Center said the governor and GOP majorities in the House and Senate have been prudent in writing state budgets. Overall state spending has increased in recent years partly because the federal government has made the state pay a larger share of Medicaid, the state-federal program that pays the medical expenses of low-income people, he said.

Leader Rhoden concludes:

But Rhoden called the Democratic plan irresponsible. If more earnings are spent each year, the funds will not keep pace with inflation, he said.

If too much is spent from the trust funds each year, the funds eventually will be gone, the Republican House leader said. That would mean the only way to fund ongoing spending would be to raise taxes, he said.

Rep. Rhoden perhaps should be reminded that South Dakota has the lowest tax burden in the nation.

Being Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney will apparently give a major speech tomorrow about the role of faith in American politics.  This is widely seen as Romney's attempt to deal with the "Mormon issue."  Joe Knippenberg has some comments and links to the relevant news articles.  I am not a Romney supporter for reasons other than his faith.  But one can say this: if the nation can survive the heterodox Abraham Lincoln, it can certainly survive Mitt Romney. 

That Lauck Review

As Jason notes, the Brent Lerseth review is finally in at the Argus of Jon Lauck's Daschle v. Thune.  The review is largely positive.  If one were to review the review, one might criticize it for dwelling too much on the context of Lauck's book (Lauck's campaign blogging, his critiques of the Argus, his current job as a Thune staffer) rather than analyzing the actual content of the book.   

Prof. Newquist is not as pleased with the review.  Of course, it is unlikely that Newquist would approve of any review that didn't trash the book and discuss the degradation to American civilization caused the the scurrilousness of Lauck's Orwellian fascism.  Lauck's book has two major themes.  One, why did Tom Daschle lose his re-election race?  To that end the book dwells more on Daschle's missteps than on anything Thune did.  Newquist will never except acccept this analysis as reasonable as he is convinced that Thune won only because of lies and deception.  The book also is concerned about the compromised coverage Argus Leader.  Lerseth is correct that Lauck could have spent more time discussing other media outlets in South Dakota, particularly the television coverage coming out of Sioux Falls. But one cannot deny the power of the Argus to drive news stories for the entire state.  Thus Lauck's focus on the Argus is reasonable.  Given Lauck's status as a former blogger, it is not surprising that he uses the conflict between "new media" and "old media" as part of his story line. 

One can argue that Lauck's own biases effected these editorial decisions to focus on Daschle's mistakes and the conflict over the Argus.   But within that context Lauck's book is a reasonable analysis of the Daschle v. Thune race.  Read Lauck's book.

Argus Leader Finally Reviews Daschle V. Thune

The Argus Leader has finally printed their review of Jon Lauck's Daschle V. Thune.  The review is quite good, and goes in to depth on Lauck's thesis that the Argus gave the Daschle campaign an easy time and the bloggers contributed to his defeat by offering other points of view.  The author concludes:

Overall, Lauck’s book provides a worthwhile discussion of the 2004 race, the role of local media and the importance of alternative media sources. While his partisanship has to be considered as part of any evaluation of his depiction of events, he does raise valid concerns about the need to critically evaluate traditional media on similar grounds.

Be sure to give it a read.

More News from Iraq

Every time I see a report on the recent progress in Iraq, I am tempted to hold my breath.  There have been lots of disappointments in this war, and we may be only setting ourselves up for more.  On the other hand, it is a kind of psychological dysfunction to ignore good news because the future is still uncertain.

The news from Iraq is in fact extraordinarily good.  Here is Michael Totten from the New York Daily News: 

In the spring of 2007, Ramadi was the most violent place in Iraq. But the insurgency there has been finished. The Taji area north of Baghdad, which was a catastrophe when I paid a visit in July, is now going the way of Ramadi.

I am writing these words from Fallujah, site of the most horrific battle of the entire war in November 2004, and the city thought to be the meanest in Iraq since at least the time of the British in Mesopotamia.

Almost everyone I know back home was sure I'd be shot at every day, that it's still a war zone out here. Based on the news reports - even the new, optimistic ones, could you blame them for thinking that?

But attacks against coalition forces in Fallujah are down by more than 90% since March of this year. Almost all attacks these days are single, ineffective pot shots rather than the lethal IEDs of last year.

There hasn't been a single firefight in this city for months. The Marines at Camp Fallujah haven't been shot at with a rocket or mortar since April. Not one Marine from the 3rd Battalion, 5th Regiment has even been wounded since they rotated into the city two months ago. The only shots the Marines have fired have been practice rounds on the range.

None of this means that the war was the right decision in the first place, nor does it tell you what we should do next.  But it would be stupid to try to answer the second question without recognizing how things are going now.  That is especially true if you are interested in bringing American troops home as soon as possible, as Democrats claim they want to do.

There are only 250 Marines in Fallujah, a city of about 350,000, right now. Last year, there were 3,000 Marines. Because the city is pacified, troops that were here can join the additional surge forces that are clearing and holding more volatile areas.

Surely the quickest as most sensible way to withdraw American troops is to do as they are no longer necessary to keep the peace.  And if that is in fact happening right now, wouldn't you want to celebrate it?   

Let Xerox Help You Thank a Soldier

Take the time to visit this website that, with the help of Xerox, is sending cards to our soldiers in Iraq.  After doing some quick googling, it appears to be legit.  I've sent my own card already, and everything seemed to work fine.  Regardless of your views on the conflict, do this for our soldiers.  There's no cost to you, and it's a service they'll no doubt appreciate.