South Dakota Politics

Who Ya Gonna Call?

I agree with my esteemed SDP colleague Jason that Hillary's telephone ad was very good.  And I agree with the sly Professor Schaff as to why the ad does more good for McCain than for Clinton.  Walter Mondale ran a similar ad against Gary Hart in 1984, and it was very effective.  But Mondale had been Vice President.  Ms. Clinton's resume is a much more mixed bag, and there aren't very many impressive items in it.  Still, the ad may help Clinton in Tuesday's critical contests.

The recent exchange between McCain and Obama on Iraq is very telling.  Obama said he would send troops "back to Iraq" if Al Qaeda is "forming a base there."  McCain jumped on that one. 

"The fact is, al Qaeda is in Iraq," McCain said. "Al Qaeda is in Iraq today. If we left Iraq there's no doubt that al Qaeda would then gain control in Iraq and pose a threat to the United States of America. Ask anyone who knows about the situation on the ground in Iraq. I look forward to continuing this debate."

Obama responded:

I have some news for John McCain, and that is that there was no such thing as al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq.

I give the win to Obama, on immediate political impact.  It is clear that public doubts about the Iraq war have greatly weakened Republicans in general, and Obama's reply is part of a pretty good argument that Iraq created a lot more problems than it has yet solved. 

On the other hand, Obama's reply contains an obvious weakness: it works only if the election continues to be about the past.  Anyone whose major passion is to punish Republicans for the war will surely vote Democrat no matter who the nominee is.  But we are electing the next President, not grading the last one.  The only real choices are to stay in until it is safe to leave, or leave and let come what may.  To leave and then have to come back would surely be the worst possible policy, the most expensive in lives and treasure.  That Obama has boxed himself into advocating that is a sure sign that he is not thinking about policy at all, but only about how to win an election.

Just right now, Obama is resting his case against Senator Clinton and McCain squarely on the fact that he was "opposed to the war from the beginning."  It may be that all his talk of change and hope is really about the past as well: it's just another way of saying, over and over, that he is anti-Bush.  That may work, as it worked for Bill Clinton in 1992.  But if McCain, or events, persuade us to think seriously about the future, the advantage will be with McCain. 

Re: Devastating Ad

I agree with all of Prof. Schaff's comments below.  If McCain simply edits out the last five seconds or so, he'd have a great campaign spot for the general election.

HEH:  Erick Erickson provides the editing for the ad.

Devastating Ad

I must say, I agree with Jason.  What a devastating ad he presents.  Hillary Clinton has it right.  Whom do we need in place when the White House phone rings late at night?  Someone who knows the world's leaders.  Someone who knows the military.  Someone already tested.  I can't think of any better reasons to vote McCain in 2008. 

Obama the Race-Baiter?

That's what historian Sean Wilentz claims in his latest New Republic piece entitled "Race Man: How Barack Obama played the race card and blamed Hillary Clinton."  Wilentz, a Clinton supporter, claims that Hillary's campaign troubles are not a result of her flaws as a candidate but because of Obama's "cutthroat, fradulent politics," which, according to Wilentz, are "the most outrageous deployment of racial politics since the Willie Horton ad campaign in 1988 and the most insidious since Ronald Reagan kicked off his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, praising states’ rights.”  Kevin Murphy picks apart Wilentz's article and says "Wilentz jumps the shark."  Indeed.  I'm afraid the Princeton historian's attempt to portray Obama as a race-baiter will be no more successful than the attacks we've seen emerge from the Clinton camp over the last week.

Maybe Dana Milbank was on to something Tuesday when he wrote the Clintonites seem eager to present "a fascinating tour of an alternate universe."

HT to Cliopatria.

UPDATE:  More criticism of Wilentz's article over at Too Sense.

A Brief History of Telephone Campaign Ads

Here's the new ad the Clinton camp has released in Texas that's getting lots of buzz in the blogosphere:

Some are comparing this to the Lyndon Johnson "Daisy" ad that the campaign ran against Barry Goldwater in the 1964, but I don't think it goes quite that far.  However, this certainly has the flavor of Walter Mondale's "Red Phone" ad he ran against Gary Hart.  Indeed, Roy Spence, the Texas-based advertising guru who has been advising the Clinton campaign, was the media adviser for Mondale in 1984:

Before Spence's commercial, however, LBJ also ran a telephone ad entitled "Hotline."  Compare this to Mondale's ad and note the messages are alike (along with the phones almost being identical):

Mrs. Clinton isn't the first to do a telephone-themed ad, nor will she probably be the last.

Dems Targeting Kirby

UPDATE:  Argus Leader:  Johnson campaign attacks Steve Kirby

The Argus Leader reports this morning that the South Dakota Democrats have launched a new website taking shots at Sioux Falls businessman Steve Kirby, who has considered running against Tim Johnson:

Democrats on Thursday launched a pre-emptive strike against Sioux Falls businessman Steve Kirby, who is considering a run against Sen. Tim Johnson.

Kirby, a former lieutenant governor, will make a decision in the next few days. Demo-crats aren't waiting to see if the Kirby-for-Senate balloon takes flight before opening fire. On Thursday, national Democrats launched a Web site depicting Kirby as a would-be, third-rate candidate for a desperate Republican Party.

"Steve Kirby: Somewhere between #9 and the bottom of the barrel," reads the Web site, www.10thchoice.com.

"There was some argument about whether that ought to be 11th or 12th, depending on who was counting," said Matthew Miller, spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which paid for the site.

Miller said Kirby "flamed out" as a candidate in the 2002 GOP primary for governor, coming in third out of three candidates.

"He is not exactly an all-star candidate," he added.

The site refers to Kirby as a "wealthy businessman" and criticizes his history in politics and business.

The Johnson camp apparently endorses the attack and calls the Republican response "comical."  We'll see if things remain "comical" when ads start showing up going after Johnson.  Given the flack Johnson has received before by attacking opponents (recall the "Taliban wing of the Republican Party"), I'm surprised to see them not walking away from this.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee sent out a news release yesterday announcing it plans to send $125,000 to the South Dakota Democratic Party.  Remember that Kirby hasn't even announced himself a candidate yet, so the amount of cash coming in and the attack on Kirby indicates how seriously the Democrats are taking this Senate seat.

UPDATE:  Dave Kranz has a column this morning claiming Republicans are running low on time to stage a run for Congress.

Unintended Compliment

Howard Dean says the Republican presidential field “looks like the 1950s and talks like the 1850s.”  I guess that means they are very clean and stand firmly for the natural rights of all, just as Republican Abraham Lincoln did in the 1850s.  Thank you for the compliment, sir.  Although, with all due respect sir, it is your party that is now for tariffs, not the Republicans. 

All We Need Is A Flux Capacitor And 1.21 Gigawatts!

Barack Obama has the solution to the Iraq problem: we should have never gone there (parody alert):

Senator John McCain questions whether I have experience enough to deal with Iraq, but the  fact is that he's old. No one faints at his rallies... unless they forgot their heart medication because they're as old as he is. And I do have experience: Experience at not going to war. That's why not having gone to Iraq is the perfect solution for me. It's one I'm uniquely able to espouse and have been consistent on. Years ago I said we shouldn't invade Iraq, and that is still my solution.

A few have said that not going to Iraq isn't a solution anymore since we already have gone there. I hear your concern and I have three words  for you: Hope. Change. The future.

That's right: The future. And not just any future; a future where we look forward and say, "We shouldn't have gone to Iraq."

Next up for Sen. Obama: Saving Lois Lane by spinning the Earth backwards.    

Natural Born Thriller

I read through Matt Franck's piece at National Review, as suggested by Professor Schaff.  I don't think the question is "foolishness," as Franck says.  It would be a good sign that the New York Times was, for the first time in decades, taking an interest in what the Constitution really says; except that, of course, it is only doing so because it might lead some people (the voters) to suspect that John McCain might not be a real and legal American (though that, of course, is not what the Times is saying). 

The questions is whether John McCain is a "natural born citizen," and thus eligible for the Presidency, even though he was born in the Panama Canal Zone.  From the Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

The question is reasonable, because a reasonable person might take the phrase to mean someone born in the United States.  The Times points out that, in fact, every person ever elected President was born in one of the fifty states. 

I regard the following as dispositive:

First, the phrases "natural born citizen" and "naturalized citizen" are exhaustive categories: a person can only become a citizen of the United States in one of these two ways. Since to be "naturalized" is to become a citizen by  a specified legal procedure, "natural born citizen" means nothing more nor less than a person who is a citizen from, and by virtues of the circumstances of, birth.   

Second, it is clear that, under long standing legal practice and tradition, a person born abroad to American citizens is a citizen from birth.

Therefore, a person (John McCain) born abroad (as in the Canal Zone) to parents who are American citizens (Mr. and Ms. McCain, Sr.) is a natural born citizen and thus eligible under Article II, Section I, Clause 5, to be President. 

This is so regardless of what the Times might think someone might think about what the Times appears to be but is not really saying. 

Down With Laptops!

Finally, education reform I can get behind.  The legislature has cut $3 million requested by the governor to fund laptop initiatives for K-12 education.  Cory has more.  Now if only we could achieve this kind of success with all "mobile computing" initiatives! 

Panama John: The Last Word

Matt Franck gives the whole "is McCain a natural born citizen" question a pretty thorough going over.  Answer: yep! 

Natural Born McCain

Professor Schaff reviews the question of McCain's eligibility for the Presidency, in light of his birth outside the Untied States.  I am in agreement.  Since no court record or congressional proceedings seem to exist to clarify the phrase "natural born citizen", we have to ask how such cases have been treated in the past apart from the question of presidential elections.  My guess is that persons born outside the U.S., but to parents who were citizens of the United States, are regularly treated as "natural born citizens."  They enjoy the status of U.S. citizens without any naturalization process required.  Moreover, a U.S. military base, like a U.S. embassy or a territory, is under U.S. jurisdiction and may well qualify as U.S. soil for this purpose.  I believe there are cases where birth inside a U.S. embassy was sufficient to prove citizenship.

I note that the New York Times article on this topic is full of mealymouthed phrases: "The question has nagged", certain facts "are reviving a musty debate,"  and "given mounting interest."  Questions nag, facts revive, mounting interest on the part of unnamed parties has a given effect.  No actual persons seem to be doing anything here. 

Is John McCain Eligible For President

This piece asks a question: does John McCain's birth in the Panama Canal Zone make him ineligible for president?  In listing the eligibility requirements for the presidency, the Constitution says:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;

What does this mean?  On their face these words from Article II plainly mean that one must be born a United States citizen, not made one.  If one favors an original intent interpretive scheme, clearly what the founders were trying to prevent was a foreigner becoming president.  John McCain was not born in the United States, but he was born a U.S. citizen, i.e., not a foreign alien. 

This interpretation is bolstered by how the Constitution deals with this question elsewhere.  Article I, Sec 8 speaks to immigration.  It gives Congress power "to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization."  Naturalization is the process of becoming a citizen.  There appear to be two ways of becoming a United States citizen.  You are born one or you become one.  Becoming a U.S. citizen is a process of "naturalization."  You are not "naturally" a citizen, so you must be made "naturalized," i.e., go through a process.  John McCain was not required to go through any such process. As he is a "natural born Citizen," he did not need to go through a process of "naturalization."   He meets the Constitutional standard. 

Federal Reserve Keeps Digging

The first rule of being in a hole, it is said, is stop digging.  Yet this lesson is lost on the Federal Reserve Board.  Despite new information that inflation last year was the highest in a quarter century, the Board is preparing for yet another interest rate cut.  It cannot be exaggerated how bad this policy is.  The Board must encourage savings and tighten the reigns on the money supply or we will get both inflation and a recession.  It is my opinion a recession is almost inevitable at this point.  The question is whether it will be coupled with back braking inflation.  The Fed continues to pursue a loose monetary policy that will not stave off that recession but will make it more painful by encouraging wrecking an already weak dollar.  It is time for responsible leaders to tell the Fed to stop it.  Where is the oversight from Congress? Thank goodness they are all over the Roger Clemens issue.  Congress really is really focusing on the important matters.   

Bookshelf Etiquette

Some thoughts on bookshelf etiquette. 

William F. Buckley, Jr.

I am suffering the slings and arrow of an outrageous sinus infection, and so will not comment on the passing of WFB at any length, now.  Let me say that I met him once, briefly.  He appeared at a celebration in honor of my teacher, Harry V. Jaffa.  Buckley was as gracious and delightful to talk to as any man I ever met.  I also heard him talk at Cal Poly in Pomona.  He was one of America's intellectual treasures for a good half a century. 

WFB, RIP

William F. Buckley, dead at 82.  More to say, but too little time now.  I encourage readers take in one of Buckley's most recent books, Miles Gone By.  A great read with insights into the man. 

Bill Buckley, Godspeed

The New York Times reports that William Buckley, a giant among conservatives, has passed away at the age of 82, at his desk probably working on his next column:

William F. Buckley Jr., who marshaled polysyllabic exuberance, famously arched eyebrows and a refined, perspicacious mind to elevate conservatism to the center of American political discourse, died Wednesday at his home in Stamford, Conn.

Mr Buckley, 82, suffered from diabetes and emphysema, his son Christopher said, although the exact cause of death was not immediately known. He was found at his desk in the study of his home, his son said. “He might have been working on a column,” Mr. Buckley said.

Mr. Buckley’s winningly capricious personality, replete with ten-dollar words and a darting tongue writers loved to compare with an anteater’s, hosted one of television’s longest-running programs, “Firing Line,” and founded and shepherded the influential conservative magazine, National Review.

He also found time to write more than 45 books, ranging from sailing odysseys to spy novels to celebrations of his own dashing daily life, and edit five more.

The more than 4.5 million words of his 5,600 biweekly newspaper columns, “On the Right,” would fill 45 more medium-sized books.

Mr. Buckley’s greatest achievement was making conservatism — not just electoral Republicanism, but conservatism as a system of ideas — respectable in liberal post-World War II America. He mobilized the young enthusiasts who helped nominate Barry Goldwater in 1964, and saw his dreams fulfilled when Reagan and the Bushes captured the Oval Office.

We owe Buckley an incredible debt for bringing conservatives together under a single political banner and for his great legacy, National Review, which stands at the center of the movement.  It's sad to see him go but we should be grateful of his remarkable life and legacy.  God bless, sir, and thank you for all you've done.

Lots more over at The Corner.  You can send your tributes, condolences, and memories to [email protected].

UPDATE:  Buckley vs. Vidal

Democracy

This blog, generally, is concerned with the sum and substance about the practice of democracy.  We examine the mechanics of democratic politics and often take note of others in the world who launch their own bold attempts to bring democracy to undemocratic regions.  That's why it's depressing to read stories like this in the Seattle Times entitled "Putin's iron grip on Russia":

Over the past eight years, in the name of reviving Russia after the tumult of the 1990s, Putin has waged an unforgiving campaign to clamp down on democracy and extend control over the government and much of the economy. He has suppressed the independent news media, nationalized important industries, smothered the political opposition and deployed the security services to carry out the Kremlin's wishes.

While these tactics have been widely recognized, they have been especially heavy-handed at the local level, in far-flung places like Nizhny Novgorod, 250 miles east of Moscow. On the eve of the March 2 presidential election that was all but fixed in December, when Putin selected his close aide, Dmitri Medvedev, as his successor, Nizhny Novgorod stands as a stark example of how Putin and his followers have established what is essentially a one-party state.

McCain Repudiates Radio Talk Show Host

During the introduction for John McCain at a rally in Cincinnati today, talk-radio host Bill Cunningham found it important to emphasized Barack Obama's middle name.  McCain was quick to apologize for his emcee's disrespectful tone:

In a possible foreshadowing of a potentially bruising general election campaign, a speaker who introduced presidential candidate John McCain at a rally here today accused Barack Obama of sympathizing with “world leaders who want to kill us” and invoked Obama’s middle name — three times calling him “Barack Hussein Obama.”

Local conservative radio talk show host Bill Cunningham described Obama as “a hack Chicago Daley-style politician who is picturing himself as change. When he gets done with you — all you’re going to have in your pocket is change,” he said.

McCain quickly distanced himself from the remarks, which he did not hear, saying that using Obama’s middle name in repetition like that was inappropriate. “I absolutely repudiate such comments and again, I will take responsibility,” he said, calling the use of Obama’s middle name inappropriate. “It will never happen again. It will never happen again.”

What's the point of suggesting the middle name?  Are there so many Barack Obama's in the national media that commentators must use his middle name to differentiate them?  It's clear that Cunningham wants to pander to fear and emotion by sustaining the myth of Obama's supposed Muslim identity (just as Team Clinton did).  And he gave his full name three times during the introduction.  I disagree with Obama on many of his policies and question some of his past, but sandbagging like this has no place in politics.  McCain did the right thing by disassociating himself from Cunningham's remarks.

More at The Swamp.

UPDATE:  Brendan Loy:  "John McCain already seems intent on running a more honorable campaign against Barack Obama than Hillary Clinton has."

Religion In America

Joe Knippenberg also directs our attention to a major study (pdf alert) on religion in America by the Pew Foundation (they don't stink!). Joe has a series of links commenting on the story, so feel free to follow the link to NLT for lots of fun with religion. 

There are two phenomena indicated in the report toward which I'll direct my comments, with the caveat that I have only read the summary and looked at the charts.  The first is the rise in the religiously "unaffiliated."  Joe is probably right that this is largely a function of a nation that marries later.  The "unaffiliated" seem to be two groups.  There are atheists and agnostics who appear to be older, wealthier, and educated.  Then there are the seculars who are younger, poorer, and less educated.  Of course being young tends to go with being poor and less educated.  These "nothing in particular" folks, who make up the lion's share of the "unaffiliated," may become affiliated with a particular church as they grow older, get married and have children.  But since Americans more and more delay marriage and children, there is a large group of relatively young people (mostly men, I suspect) going through life as social solitaries.

Another finding of the study is the decline of Catholicism.  It is only Hispanic immigration that keeps Catholicism from being in statistical decline.  Why the decrease in membership?  Various thoughts come to mind.  One certainly must start with lack of faith, although that is an answer likely to be unsatisfying to social scientists.  So what else?  The priest scandals certainly do not help.  I suggest a main factor is profoundly bad religious education (or as we fish eaters like to call it, catechesis).  Catholic religious education is extremely good at teaching the what but very bad at teaching the why.  Catholic education tends to focus on learning how to do this or that (do a sign of the cross here, kneel at this point in mass, don't eat meat on Friday during Lent), but avoids teaching doctrine, its connection to scripture, or how it all connects to Christ.  So young people looking to find meaning in their lives are all too likely to find empty ritual, thereby conforming to one of the Protestant stereotypes of Catholicism.  I wish to point out that Catholic doctrine and ritual is full of meaning and can provide profound comfort, but this is all too infrequently imparted during religious formation.   

More Evidence Of Educational Failure

A report by this group shows, once again, that our education system fails our students.  In a study of 17 year olds:

Among 1,200 students surveyed:

•43% knew the Civil War was fought between 1850 and 1900.

•52% could identify the theme of 1984.

•51% knew that the controversy surrounding Sen. Joseph McCarthy focused on communism.

In all, students earned a C in history and an F in literature, though the survey suggests students do well on topics schools cover. For instance, 88% knew the bombing of Pearl Harbor led the USA into World War II, and 97% could identify Martin Luther King Jr. as author of the "I Have a Dream" speech.

Fewer (77%) knew Uncle Tom's Cabin helped end slavery a century earlier.

"School has emphasized Martin Luther King, and everybody teaches it, and people are learning it," says Chester Finn of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, an education think tank. "What a better thing it would be if people also had the Civil War part and the civil rights part, and the Harriet Tubman part and the Uncle Tom's Cabin part."

Interesting that "students do well on topics schools cover."  The fact, then, that students cannot place the Civil War in the correct half century tells you that the schools cover the wrong material.  Other nuggets you can find if you choose to read further about the study are that "nearly a quarter" of students could not identify Adolf Hitler and 10% think he was a munitions manufacturer (I suspect confusing Hitler with Oscar Schindler).  Forty-five percent cannot identify Oedipus while 44% think The Scarlett Letter is about a witch trial or a piece of correspondence. 

Yes, like a broken record I will say it again: by all means let's spend more money on education, but as long as we spend more money teaching the same things in the same way we will raise yet another generation of culturally illiterate citizens.

HT to Joe K., one stop shopping for all news on education. 

Michael Kinsley Explaining What He Is Not Accusing the NYT's Of

This is utterly devastating.  From Slate:

I have come under some criticism for my criticism of the New York Times for its criticism of Sen. John McCain. Many readers of last week's New York Times article about McCain, including me, read that article as suggesting that McCain may have had an affair with a lobbyist eight years ago. The Times, however, has made clear that its story was not about an affair with a lobbyist. Its story was about the possibility that eight years ago, aides to McCain had held meetings with McCain to warn him about the appearance that he might be having an affair with the lobbyist. This is obviously a much more important question.

To be absolutely clear: The Times itself was not suggesting that there had been an affair or even that there had been the appearance of an affair. The Times was reporting that there was a time eight years ago when some people felt there might be the appearance of an affair, although others, apparently including McCain himself, apparently felt that there was no such appearance.

Similarly, I am not accusing the New York Times of screwing up again by publishing an insufficiently sourced article, then defending itself with a preposterous assertion that it wasn't trying to imply what it obviously was trying to imply. I am merely reporting that some people worry that other people might be concerned that the New York Times has created the appearance of screwing up once again.

The American Left and Cuba's Independent Librarians

Much of the American left continues to admire and support Castro's regime. 

Consider the case of the American Library Association and the Independent Library Project in Cuba. If you are one of those Cubans who doesn't have the "convertible pesos," and you want to get books that the Castro regime doesn't approve of, you have to find an independent book lender. And you would have to convince the book lender that you are not a government agent, because the government's response to this movement is to arrest and imprison the independent librarians. 

Now you might think that the American Library Association, which categorically "deplores any restrictions ... that inhibit the free flow of information among librarians", to side with the Independent Library Project in Cuba. You would be wrong. 

The ALA Latin American and Caribbean Subcommittee (of the International Relations Committee), refused to recommend that the ALA condemn the Cuban government's treatment of independent librarians.  After hearing both sides, those who favor the Cuban government and those who are being thrown in the slammer, the LAC Subcommittee issued a report.  Here is a juicy passage:

Data presented on both sides of the issue are inconclusive, with each side questioning both the accuracy and the intention of the other. While the civil oppression of individuals associated with these collections appears to be documented by Amnesty International and other observers, it is not conclusive whether these conditions result from the denial of intellectual freedom or from anti-government activities by the persons involved. The "independent" nature of the various collections of books and other documents, as well as the political agenda of those individuals responsible for them, are questionable, but seem to represent the political orientation of special interests positioned in opposition to the Cuban government.

Let me unpack that for you.  The Cuban government regards independent librarians as agents of outside powers, hostile to Cuban socialism.  That, of course, is how tyrannies view any attempt at freedom of thought: it is treason against the state.  The ALA subcommittee endorses this view.  Because the independent librarians get help (see: books) from folks outside Cuba who are not fond of the Cuban regime (where else would they get them?  Not, I think, from the ALA), they are therefore not really "independent." 

Of course that doesn't mean that the ALA doesn't take sides.  It is firmly on the side of the regime. 

During the discussion, Ms. Neugebauer affirmed her belief that any condemnation by ALA at this point, based on information that may be inaccurate and politically loaded, could be offensive to library colleagues in Cuba and might harm the peer relationships American librarians are trying to develop with Cuban librarians.

Of course the "library colleagues in Cuba" aren't "independent" either.  They are creatures of the regime.  The ALA has made it clear whose side it is on.

The Paradise that is Cuba

Like the Energizer Bunny, Castro's Cuba just keeps going, though finally without Castro.  Much of the American Left still admires Castro, and they talk endlessly about how good the free medical care is.  So consider the report of one unreconstructed British socialist after his trip to the Caribbean paradise.  Neil Clark tells the story in the British Spectator:

My wife and I, as unreconstructed paleo-lefties who support Clause Four, free school meals and NHS dental provision, had long wanted to visit Castro’s Cuba. All the people whose views we respect had said that the Caribbean island was a progressive model whose policies on education and healthcare ought to be copied throughout the world. We went there last April desperately wanting to like the place — after all, if George W. Bush and other right-wing nasties hated Cuba so much, then the country must be on the right tracks. 

But we returned home terribly disillusioned. Neither of us had been to a country which was so utterly decrepit.  ...Dilapidated buildings with wires hanging out, streets that haven’t been resurfaced for more than 50 years, balconies that look like they’re going to fall down at any minute. In my travels in the Middle East and Asia, I’ve certainly witnessed squalor, but nothing prepared me for the back streets of Havana.

But decrepitude is merely physical, however nasty its psychological impact.  Poverty is a moral fact. 

The average wage in Cuba is a pitiful $17 a month. The monthly ration which includes 283g of fish, 226g of chicken, ten eggs and 1.8kg of potatoes is barely enough for a fortnight, meaning most Cubans need to work the black market to stay alive. Things that we in Britain take totally for granted — such as toilet paper, toothpaste and pens — are luxury goods in Cuba. I’ll never forget the look of joy from an old lady when I handed her a couple of old marker pens and a coloured pencil.

A worker's paradise that feeds the workers fourteen days out of each month.  But what really got Clark's biscuit wet was the "currency apartheid" in Cuba. 

The heartbreaking consequences of Cuba’s currency apartheid were bought home to my wife and I on a Saturday afternoon visit to Havana’s Coppelia ‘Ice Cream’ park. To the right of the park gates was a long queue of Cubans who had only Cuban pesos. They have to wait on average two hours every weekend to get their weekly scoop of ice cream. On the left, there was walk-in access to tourists and the lucky locals who had convertible pesos. Fifty years on, the Cuban revolution has turned full circle in a truly Orwellian fashion. Once again the locals find themselves excluded from the best beaches in their country, as they were under Batista. And prostitution, so rife in pre-revolutionary days, is back — the jineteras being the only group of Cubans allowed to enter the new purpose-built resorts.

In fact, Cuba has preserved in fine fashion the brutal two class system that characterized so many Latin dictatorships. This is the system that so many British and American Leftist hold up as an ideal.

Noted Headlines

If I can take a page out of Prof. Blanchard's book:

• Suicidal pets get anti-depressants

But...

• Study casts doubt on anti-depressants

Now there's a dilemma. 

Global Warming And Drought

The American News reports on a talk on climate and drought given by Iowa State climatologist Elwynn Taylor.  There is much of interest in the story, mostly about how long term climate patterns seem to indicate a major drought is predicted in the coming years.  But there is the looming specter of global warming.  Dr. Taylor seems to buy into human caused global warming, but at the same time illustrates that there are periods of global warming and cooling.  We happen to be on the tail end of a natural global warming period. 

The cycle, called the Gleissberg Cycle, is solar-controlled, he said, and seems to be responsible for the variations in global temperature over, in general, a 30-year period: the global warming that was experienced from 1800 to 1850; global cooling from 1850 to 1880; warming from 1880 to 1940; cooling from 1940 to 1972; and warming since 1972.

But is nature in still in control?

That's if nature is still in control.

But, Taylor said, “if people have taken over the situation, then it would just keep getting warmer.”

It is known that people are contributing, he said.

“It's not yet clear the magnitude of our contribution versus nature's contribution,” he said.

This is of some note.  Dr. Taylor argues that there are clearly defined cycles of global warming and cooling and that it is uncertain how much human activity contributes to global warming.  Perhaps nature is more the cause of global warming than some care to admit. 

The Obama Smear

Drudge has been carrying a photo of Barack Obama all day that appears to have originated with the Clinton campaign.  If true, Team Clinton is getting desperate and trying anything they can to derail Obama's rise to the front.  Plus, this is downright nasty politics since the subtext suggests "Obama is a Muslim that that should worry you."  This will probably hurt Clinton much more than it helps.  I've already seen a few Democratic blogs (see Josh Marshall) denouncing Clinton for doing this, and I imagine the Democratic establishment isn't far behind from doing the same.  Tomorrow night's Democratic debate might be rather chilly.

I didn't post on this earlier today because it was unverifiable if the Clinton campaign actually circulated the photo.  Drudge should never be taken at face value because doing so would be just as bad as the New York Times McCain smear.  But, as the day has gone on, the Clinton camp's non-denial denial from Maggie Williams makes it look like it originated with them.  Democratic voters -- indeed, all voters -- ought to be outraged.

UPDATE:  Some photo evidence from Captain Ed who shows that Barack isn't alone.  Plus, is George W. Bush secretly Vietnamese?

This Is News?

Is it really news that Ralph Nader is running for president?  At this point, isn't that a little like announcing Lindsey Lohan is drunk? 

Darth Nader

Mr. Heppler notes the entry of Ralph Nader into the presidential race.  Politico thinks that this is a huge boon to Republicans.  John Hinderaker at Powerline thinks Nader won't matter, and I am pretty sure he is right.  I think it very unlikely that George W. Bush would have won the presidency in 2000 without Nader in the race.  Consider ground zero, Florida, in the US Election Atlas. 

                                         

Presidential Candidate	Vice Presidential Candidate	Political Party	Popular Vote		Electoral Vote
	George W. Bush	Richard Cheney	Republican	2,912,790	48.85%	25
	Albert Gore Jr.	Joseph Lieberman	Democratic	2,912,253	48.84%	0
	Ralph Nader	Winona LaDuke	Green	97,488	1.63%	0

Bush officially wins Florida by 537 votes out of nearly six million cast statewide.  Now for a number of reasons, you can't just add Nader's vote to Gore's to see what the latter gets without the former in the race (Nader made Gore look more moderate by comparison, a lot of the Nader voters would have stayed home rather than vote for Gore, etc.); but it's hard to argue that Gore wouldn't have gotten a net gain from those 97,488 Nader voters that would have dwarfed Bush's narrow margin.  Likewise with New Hampshire. 

                                         

Presidential Candidate	Vice Presidential Candidate	Political Party	Popular Vote		Electoral Vote
	George W. Bush	Richard Cheney	Republican	273,559	48.07%	4
	Albert Gore Jr.	Joseph Lieberman	Democratic	266,348	46.80%	0
	Ralph Nader	Winona LaDuke	Green	22,198	3.90%	0

A net gain of half the Nader voters would have given Gore that state.  Since Bush won 271 electoral votes, he couldn't afford to lose anything. 

But all that was in a year when Nader did relatively well nation wide.

                                                                       

	George W. Bush	Richard Cheney	Republican	50,460,110	47.87%	271	50.4%
	Albert Gore Jr.	Joseph Lieberman	Democratic	51,003,926	48.38%	266	49.4%
	Ralph Nader	Winona LaDuke	Green	2,883,105	2.73%	0	0.0%

Nearly three million votes out of a hundred million cast was good for a third party candidate (though not nearly so good as Ross Perot in 1992).  Four years later it was a much different story.  Instead of 3% nationwide, Nader could less than one half of one percent.  He did not come close to making a difference in Florida, and I don't think he was even on the ballot in Ohio. 

Presidential elections can't get much closer than the last two. Nader is unlikely to draw near enough votes to give McCain the election. 

More Veep Speculation

At National Review, Byron York interviewed two of the men mentioned most often as potential running mates for John McCain, governors Tim Pawlenty and Mark Sanford.  Both men have been mentioned in early VP predictions.  They both recently were re-elected as governors, both have governed from the center-right, and both are relatively young and potentially good candidates for a later GOP presidential run:

On Sunday, I spoke with two leading contenders for the McCain ticket, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty and South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, both in Washington for the annual meeting of the National Governors’ Association. While each expressed strong support for McCain, neither would deny differences with the candidate on two of the issues that have caused McCain the greatest trouble with the conservative base: immigration and campaign-finance reform. ....

Both men praised McCain’s desire to fix the system — “I don’t begrudge him for trying to do something on that,” Sanford told me — but it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that both think McCain’s reform crusade was profoundly misguided.

Yet both enthusiastically support McCain, and both stressed to me that, in light of their agreement with him on big issues like Iraq, the war on terror, and federal spending, their differences on a few other issues did not diminish their zeal to help him win election in November. “John McCain is a conservative,” Pawlenty told me. “Now, there are some particular issues that have disappointed conservatives. He acknowledges that, and he has got some work to do to convince and reassure people that he is in fact a conservative…. But if you look at the totality of his record over the total time he’s been in Congress, it would seem to be unfair and incomplete to label him as something other than a conservative. And if the definition of conservative is going to be so narrowly construed as to only be those things to the right of John McCain, we’re going to have a fairly narrow market share.”

In the interview, both men offer some criticism to McCain's position on McCain-Feingold and his stance on immigration.  But they're enthusiastic about McCain's run and can lay out an intelligent case to support him and their own future aspirations for higher office.  Pawlenty and Sanford would both be a fine choice for VP.  If McCain chooses a running mate that is willing to dissent with him on issues, that could send a signal to skeptical conservatives that McCain is open to other options. (HT to Captain Ed)

Rosebud Project

Argus Leader excerpt:

It is a painful truth of the Rosebud Reservation that some of its children born into the grinding poverty and hopelessness decide that death is a better path than life.

For this is their reality: Young Rosebud Sioux males between 10 and 24 years old kill themselves at a rate of 200 per 100,000 population - a number that some on the reservation privately speculate is the highest in the world.

But now a group led by two South Dakota State University professors thinks it knows a way to change that. They think a child who climbs out of bed each day with a baseball game to play, or a pond in which to float a bobber, or a golf club to swing, is going to choose life.

In fact, they're so convinced of it, they've asked tribal officials and corporate America to join them in late May in Mission to discuss creating a field of dreams - a sports emporium they intend to call the Code Talkers Veterans Memorial Park Complex.

Check out the whole story.

A SD Income Tax?

SDWC:  "Whether by accident or design, the door to an income tax in South Dakota has been cracked open. And those of us who live here will now have to watch as the sucking rift of a new tax grows over the coming years."  Read the whole thing.

Might SD Play a Part in Deciding the Dem Nominee?

See this Associated Press story entitled "States With Later Primaries May Count."  Excerpts:

Democrats in states that refused to join the stampede to the front of the presidential nominating calendar might end up with the final say by voting last.

Instead of being an afterthought in a contest that had already been decided, states with springtime primaries and caucuses may yet play a role in the hard-fought and unusually long-lived race between Democratic hopefuls Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

In Indiana, for example, which hasn't been in a position to help decide the Democratic nominee in 40 years, excitement is building among political supporters like Gelone Broadnax of Indianapolis, who began attracting attention when she donned an Obama campaign button recently.

...

Twenty-two states held Democratic nomination contests on Feb. 5, creating a virtual national primary. But instead of deciding the nominee as once expected, Super Tuesday turned out to be a split decision. Obama has since gained the upper hand, but neither candidate is close to the 2,025 delegates needed to secure the nomination.

The candidates now are focused on contests in four states on March 4, including the big prizes of Texas, with 193 delegates, and Ohio, with 141. However, even a clean sweep by Obama wouldn't be enough to put him over the top, and polls in Texas and Ohio indicate a close race.

Two other states hold Democratic contests next month: Wyoming, March 8, and Mississippi, March 11.

After that, more than 500 delegates wait to be awarded in the latest-voting states. Besides Indiana and Oregon, those include Pennsylvania on April 22, North Carolina on May 6, West Virginia on May 13, Kentucky on May 20, and Montana and South Dakota on June 3.

Rounds Elected Leader of MGA

New York Times:

Members of the Midwestern Governors Association have elected South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds and Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm as their new leaders.

Rounds replaces Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle as chairman, while Granholm will become vice chairwoman. The move makes Granholm the organization's presumptive chairwoman in 2009.

The governors were in Washington, D.C., over the weekend attending the National Governors Association meeting.

Granholm said the dozen Midwestern governors already are working on Rounds' and the association's main focus for the coming year: transportation and infrastructure, which she said tie into climate change and renewable energy.

The region's governors last November signed an agreement to work together to reduce energy consumption, focus more on renewable energy and limit greenhouse gas emissions.

Nader Enters the Race

Ralph Nader has announced he will run for President in 2008:

Ralph Nader announced on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he'll run as a third-party, anti-corporate candidate for president this fall, which would be likely to drain votes from the Democratic nominee and provide a huge boon to Republicans.

Democrats say they will work behind the scenes — and use court challenges, if necessary — to try to thwart his access to ballots.

The longtime consumer activist said on "Meet the Press" that Washington has become "corporate occupied territory" and that none of the current presidential candidates are sufficiently addressing corporate crime, labor rights or Pentagon waste.

"In that context, I have decided to run for president," he told host Tim Russert.

Nader’s comments mirror those made in an interview with Politico last month, when he said he was considering a candidacy around "the overriding issue of corporate control, of our political economy and anything else the dogma of commercialism wants to latch on to."

Democrats and bloggers are already reacting with fury, fearing a rerun of 2000, when Nader drained crucial votes from Al Gore.

Districts 2 and 3 Legislative Races

This American News article about yesterday's cracker barrel states that all District 2 and 3 legislators are running for re-election except Burt Elliott who is term limited.  The story is partially wrong.  Rep. Al Novstrup is not running for re-election.  He is circulating a petition to run for Senate against District 3 Senate incumbent Democrat Al Hoerth.  That leaves an opening for the House in District 3.  Isaac Latterell, who narrowly lost to Hoerth in the Senate race in 2006, is circulating petitions to be a Republican candidate for the House slot left open by Al Novstrup's race for the Senate.  And this story reports that Burt Elliott's wife, Elaine Elliott, will run for the House in District 2, essentially running to fill the spot left open by her husband.    Burt Elliot, by the way, is running for Brown County Commission. 

Odds Against Hillary 2

What is the difference between an Obama rally and a church service?  Answer: in the latter, Jesus doesn't actually deliver the sermon.  That joke, which I stole from Peter Sagal on NPR's Wait, Wait ... Don't Tell Me, identifies both the strength and the one great weakness of the Obama Campaign.  There is something Messianic about it.  Obama may yet walk across the water all the way to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but like a cartoon character who has just walked off a precipice, all that has to happen for him to fall is for someone to notice that he isn't standing on anything. 

That said, Obama isn't likely to lose his buoyancy any time soon.  Professor Schaff directs our attention to John J. DiIulio Jr.'s argument that Senator Clinton can yet win the nomination.  I saw nothing there that should encourage the Clinton organization.  It may be that Obama's case is shot full of logical and empirical holes, but Hillary has been poking at those for months without effect.  Her real problem remains herself.  She is deeply unpopular with half the nation, and hasn't done much better with half her own party.  Her only real asset: that she is a Clinton, has become a burden.  All her chips are on Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, and her cards are looking week on two of the three.  I haven't checked Pennsylvania lately. 

Senator Clinton's supporters have been resting a lot of hope on the super delegates, among whom she once had a commanding lead.  But they seem to be abandoning her as well.  From the AP:

The Democratic superdelegates are starting to follow the voters — straight to Barack Obama.

In just the past two weeks, more than two dozen of them have climbed aboard his presidential campaign, according to a survey by The Associated Press. At the same time, Hillary Rodham Clinton's are beginning to jump ship, abandoning her for Obama or deciding they now are undecided.

The result: He's narrowing her once-commanding lead among these "superdelegates," the Democratic office holders and party officials who automatically attend the national convention and can vote for whomever they choose.

As Obama has reeled off 11 straight primary victories, some of the superdelegates are having second — or third — thoughts about their public commitments.

I just don't see what Senator Clinton can pull out of her hat at this stage.  Maybe she does win Texas and Ohio.  But that just means that the war goes on, not that she wins.  John McCain must be hoping that Ms. Clinton survives as long as possible, and tears as big as hole as possible in the Democratic ass.   

More From Cracker Barrel

Just a couple more items from the cracker barrel today:

Term limits: Rep. Burt Elliott, who is term limited, said he didn't have a problem with term limits, but a legislator's time on both chambers should count against him.  In his typically colorful way he described the current system as "poopy."  Perhaps we should make time in both chambers count toward a longer limit.

Sen. Jim Hundstad said that term limits make the legislature weaker versus other branches of government, an opinion seconded by Rep. David Novstrup.

TransCanada: A man asked why we are giving excise tax breaks to TransCanada.  Rep. Paul Dennert argued that "sometimes you gotta give a something to get a something."  You give a tax break now because you think you'll eventually get more revenue in the future.

Aberdeen Cracker Barrel: Education Talk Heats Up

Today may have been the feistiest cracker barrel in my six years attending these session in Aberdeen.  I will deal with some other issues from the event in a separate post in order to concentrate on education here. 

The education lobby came loaded for bear.  One person asked why teachers should have to work more to get a raise. Doesn't that just show that the work they do now isn't valued?  No one who spoke disagreed, with Sen. Hundstad (I believe, I didn't write it down) arguing that "education is the cornerstone of our democracy."  Another questioner asked whether people in Pierre just don't value education.  Again, those who spoke did not argue with the premise of the question with Rep. Burt Elliott most vociferously agreeing.  Elliott said that there are some in Pierre who think that education should be done at home.  While parents are the best educators, Elliott continued, the public school system is necessary to educate children.  Elliot said that education was like basketball coaching: everyone thinks he's a professional.  A third questioner asked directly Rep. Al Novstrup whether he thought teachers were professionals.  He answered in the affirmative.  The questioner then asked why teachers aren't paid at the level of other professionals.  He declined to answer what was clearly a hostile question. 

The show really heated up when Aberdeen Superintendent Gary Harms spoke.  His main question was what the percentage increase in spending this year would be.  He praised the role of education in our society and thanked those who fight to defend it.  He mentioned by name Reps. Elliot and Dennert and Sens. Hoerth and Hundstad.  Conspicuous by their absence where Reps. David and Al Novstrup.  This did not go unobserved.  David Novstrup got up immediately and said that he is for education, but that education spending must be balanced with other priorities.  He said he would vote for as much spending as he could but would not vote to spend money the state doesn't have.  He mentioned that he had emailed Dr. Harms but hadn't heard back from him.  Dr. Harms announced to the crowd that he had never received an email from David Novstrup.  Rep. Novstrup said he had emails on his computer right there if Dr. Harms would like to look.  Dr. Harms never took Rep. Novstrup up on the offer. 

Then Rep. Al Novstrup spoke.  He mentioned that last year the Aberdeen school district received an increase of about 12% from the state, but he noticed that in the media Dr. Harms said they only received 2%.  When Rep. Novstrup asked Dr. Harms about this, Dr. Harms said that the school district doesn't count all of that money.  Well, said Rep. Novstrup, "if you don't count it, don't cash the check."  He also made the point that education must be balanced against other priorities.  For example, the state pays for 10,000 senior citizens (I am quoting from memory, so I may have this number wrong) to be in nursing homes.  People who work in those facilities make $8.00 and hour.  As he put it, why are we paying $8.00 for people to deal with death on a daily basis.  The point, I take it, is that this is also a priority that legislators have to balance. 

For I believe the first time I was motivated to ask a question at a cracker barrel.  I asked if there is anything besides increasing funding that we can do to improve education.  I prefaced my remarks by citing the statistics I put here about this history of per pupil spending in our country (in short, after controlling for inflation we spend almost three times as much per pupil as in 1965).  It spoke volumes that essentially no one answered my question other than Al Novstrup.  Jim Hundstad gave a speech in praise of education.  America is where it is today, he argued, because of its commitment to education.  Other nations learned this lesson and Hundstad seemed to intimate that they had learned the lesson better than the United States, suggesting that we don't fund education as much as we should and therefore aren't as committed to education as other nations (Sen. Hundstad seems unaware that outside of Norway and Sweden, no industrialized nation spends as much per pupil as the United States, at least on secondary education, a fact supported by the graph on the right that I found here).   Al Novstrup actually tried to answer my question, citing the Teach for America program and merit pay for teachers as two policies that could help education.  Paul Dennert spoke simply to say that the state per pupil expenditure is more than the formula (which is around $4,800).  With all outside money included, South Dakota spends about $8,000 per student, which I think makes my point even stronger that if we have a problem in education money has little to do with it.  Jim Hundstad then spoke again, basically saying we've got top notch kids and we are doing a great job.  That doesn't quite fly with his earlier suggestion that we are dangerously underfunding education.  If we are already doing a great job educating our kids in South Dakota, why is the need for money so desperate?  I point out once again that I am for increased funding for education and higher teachers pay; I simply do not live under the illusion that this will serve as some kind of panacea for education.

From what I have heard from various legislators, the South Dakota Education Association is near the bottom in its quality of lobbying.  If today is any indication, it is not hard to see why.  It's a pretty bad idea in South Dakota to spend all your time and money attacking Republicans and expect to get a favorable hearing for your agenda.  It also becomes clearer with each passing day that the only reform of education that the education establishment favors is spending more money.  But as I have demonstrated recently and again in this post, the United States spends more than almost any industrialized nation on education and we spend far more per pupil than in decades past.  So what happened?  I realize there are social factors that may explain why you need to spend more per student than in years past (and remember, I am already taking inflation into account), but three times as much?  And yet we still hear cries of "crisis!"? 

Let's take an example of how education can get worse while spending more money.  I was discussing this with a friend tonight who is a university colleague and who used to be a junior high teacher.  This friend really enjoys math and knows quite a bit about math education while not being a mathematician.  He argued that our system treats very good math students poorly by not advancing them fast enough, giving students bad text books, and educating our best in brightest at big research universities that teach math in classrooms of 250 students with a graduate assistant doing the teaching.  He further stated that math is one area where a national curriculum might be in order.  Because math is a subject where you must build on previous knowledge, in our highly transient population students who switch schools might miss whole chunks of math because each school system seems to have a different sequence in math.  One school might teach percentages in the third grade and another in fifth.  If a kid leaves the first school after third grade and then goes to fifth grade in the second school, he learns percentages twice but is likely missing a whole year of something else (say, long division or fractions).  All in all, these are  problems that not one dime of government money is going to cure.  I suggest most every subject has similar problems.  I have stated before that most history in junior high and high schools is taught by people who neither majored nor minored in history.  Is it a mystery, then, why every National Assessment of Educational Progress shows that our high school juniors do not know the very basics of American history? We now have at least two generations of Americans almost wholly ignorant of their own history.  And now the first ignorant generation is teaching the second and even a third.

Might I also suggest that part of the problem is the attitude bred sometimes by schools of education and on display a bit today.  As I noted above, Rep. Elliott, a former teacher, said that education is an area where everyone thinks he's an expert. He seems to be insinuating that "everyone" is not an expert and we should just leave education up to the experts, i.e., the professional educators.  This is an attitude that education is a kind of alchemy and only those who have attended Hogwarts School of Education and Sorcery know the special secrets.  There is an arrogance, to say nothing of a touch of gnosticism, in saying that only special people with special training have valid opinions on education and everyone else should just shut up and listen to them.  As a professional educator who has never taken an education class, every day I see great teachers who have also never taken an education class who do amazing things with their students.  They don't have a piece of paper that says they are a "highly qualified teacher," but they have something many do not have: a thorough knowledge of their field combined with native common sense and a passion for what they do.  None of those things can be learned through what passes for teacher education at our colleges and universities, and yet I submit that each of these is more central to quality teaching than knowing how to make a lesson plan or taking a class in developmental psychology (although these latter two qualities are helpful). 

By all means, legislators, increase spending on education.  But do not insinuate, as Sen. Hundstad did today, that our commitment to education is measured by how much we are willing to spend.  Compared to the industrialized world America spends plenty.  There are plenty of reforms in education that have nothing to do with money, but if the response, or lack thereof, I got to my question today is any indication, our legislators are almost wholly ignorant of those reforms.

SDP Jazz Note: the Box Set Problematic

If you are a jazz collector, you are confronted with a problematic over box sets.  Last summer I purchased John Coltrane: Fearless Leader, a collection of all the sets Trane recorded as leader in 1957-58.  This kind of collection looks irresistible to a jazz fan, at least until he or she buys it.  In the first place, you get a lot of music for your dollar. Fearless Leader included about a dozen Coltrane albums that I don't have to look for anymore and only one that I already had.  Second, a box set typically includes a lot of previously unreleased material: alternate takes, etc.  Third, it documents a period of time in a distinguished career and fourth,and most important of all, the material in jazz box sets is usually arranged by recording session.  A single recording session is a lot like a single malt scotch: it is not necessarily better, but it does have its own unique character and allows the connoisseur to taste that.   

On the other hand, box sets tend to gather dust on the shelf and remain unplayed on the iPod.  Because the box is such a big lump of material, it's hard to remember what you listened to last.  I solved the problem with Fearless Leader by replacing the disc 1, disc 2 album identification with recording session info., and tagging each song with the album title it was released on. That has made it easier to slowly listen my way through the material.  But that was a lot of work, and the work is maintained only on my home desk top and my iPod.   

I was recently tempted by two more box sets.  One of them was Coltrane's European Tours.    This represents the classic quartet: McCoy Tyner on piano, Jimmy Garrison on bass, Elvin Jones on drums.  But I had to ask myself: do I really need four versions of Naima? It is a great composition, one of the best standards in jazz.  But how many live versions is enough?  I passed, and picked out three of the individual albums on EMusic: Bye, Bye, Blackbird and The Paris Concert (62), and Afro Blue Impressions (63).  All three are excellent examples of the quartet in this period, but the last is superb and ranks with almost anything Trane put out.  Naima is there, along with My Favorite Things.  The polish of each performance and the interplay between the four makes it look like they wanted this to be their legacy. 

But I did acquire Herbie Hancock's Complete Blue Note Sixties Sessions.   This is a priceless collection, including seven complete albums.  Two of them, Maiden Voyage and Empyrean Isles, I already had, but most of the rest of the material was to die for. Taken as a whole, it documents a jazz master and brilliant composer coming into his own. The above mentioned albums are essential items in any core jazz collection.  Each composition has the colors of the sea-voyage theme woven into its fabric, and one can almost smell the salt air. 

The collection is also interesting for including Inventions and Dimensions, a very experimental work that, well, doesn't quite work out.  Hancock gave his side men nothing more than time signatures and some general indications to go on.  That's cutting edge!  As Mark Twain said of Wagner's music, "it's not as bad as it sounds."  The sixties would be the decade when a lot of jazz giants succumbed to the general disintegration of the culture. This material is worth listening to at least once.  Everything else on the Blue Note box is worth listening to over and over.  Hancock's work for Blue Note in the early sixties is one more reason any American has to be proud of her country. 

 

Gray Lady Down

This priceless cartoon from Ramirez.  Hat Tip to Powerline.

The Downside Of Government Health Insurance

Via First Things.  In the UK's National Health Service, apparently they won't pay for your breast cancer drug, and if you want to pay for it yourself they threaten to take away all your benefits.  How audacious!

One such case was Debbie Hirst’s. Her breast cancer had metastasized, and the health service would not provide her with Avastin, a drug that is widely used in the United States and Europe to keep such cancers at bay. So, with her oncologist’s support, she decided last year to try to pay the $120,000 cost herself, while continuing with the rest of her publicly financed treatment.

By December, she had raised $20,000 and was preparing to sell her house to raise more. But then the government, which had tacitly allowed such arrangements before, put its foot down. Mrs. Hirst heard the news from her doctor.

“He looked at me and said: ‘I’m so sorry, Debbie. I’ve had my wrists slapped from the people upstairs, and I can no longer offer you that service,’ ” Mrs. Hirst said in an interview.

“I said, ‘Where does that leave me?’ He said, ‘If you pay for Avastin, you’ll have to pay for everything’ ” — in other words, for all her cancer treatment, far more than she could afford.

Officials said that allowing Mrs. Hirst and others like her to pay for extra drugs to supplement government care would violate the philosophy of the health service by giving richer patients an unfair advantage over poorer ones.

We will have equality, even if it kills us. 

 

Hillary Sunk?

John Dilulio gives a dissenting view, arguing Sen. Clinton can still win it. 

Kosovo & The Two Georges

When discussing the Presidency with American Government classes, I draw their attention to the weighty meaning of certain apparently innocent phrases in the Constitution.  Consider Article II, Section 2, Clause 2:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Now focus on the words "shall appoint Ambassadors".  Seems pretty unexciting, doesn't it?  It measn you can reward a loyal and generous supporter with a lush post in some attractive place.  But it also gives the President the power to recognize a foreign government, and that turns out to be a really big deal.

When George Bush 41 recognized Croatia, he triggered the beginning of the Balkan wars.  I thought that this recognition was premature, and I still do.  I was thus inclined to be skeptical of the decision by George Bush 43 to recognize the independence of Kosovo from Serbia.  The recent riot in Belgrade did much to confirm my skepticism.  From the Boston Globe:

A rampaging crowd of several hundred Serb demonstrators, incensed by the US recognition of Kosovo's independence, overran and burned part of the American Embassy in the Serbian capital of Belgrade yesterday.

The attack occurred as the Belgrade government staged a rally over Kosovo independence that drew 200,000 people, and illustrated the rage in Serbia over the loss of its historic province.

Did we really need to invite more trouble, and give the Russians more excuse to be, well, Russian?  But Christopher Hitchens, writing in Slate, has convinced me that Bush's decision was the right one. 

Forget all the nonsense that you may have heard about Kosovo being "the Jerusalem" of Serbia. It may contain some beautiful and ancient Serbian and Serbian Orthodox cultural sites, but it is much more like Serbia's West Bank or Gaza, with a sweltering, penned-up, subject population who were for generations treated as if they were human refuse in the land of their own birth. Nobody who has spent any time in the territory, as I did during and after the eviction of the Serb militias, can believe for a single second that any Kosovar would ever again submit to rule from Belgrade. It's over.

Like it or not, the U.S. got deeply involved in the disintegration of Yugoslavia when Clinton was president, and we aren't getting out of it soon.  And like George Dubya or not, he occasionally displays the virtue of calling things like they is.  Kosovo just ain't going to be part of Serbia no more.  Deal with it.  Hitchens makes a strong case that the Serb claims on Kosovo are without foundation in international law or recent precedent.  The place is 90% Albanian, and the Albanians aren't about to make happy with a Serb government that wants to flush them out of their homes.  Bush decided we might as well call this one, and I suppose he was right. 

Lowering The Hunting Age

Last year I opposed lowering the hunting age to ten.  The legislature rejected attempts to lower the age last year and so it has come back again.  I think I am changing my mind on this one.  There is no doubt, as I said last year, that there really isn't a groundswell to lower the hunting age.  But as I ponder the issue anew, I take this as a way to get kids to grow up and take responsibilities.  I certainly hope parents take care to only let their kids hunt if the kids are ready, but therein lies an incentive to get your kids ready.  If they want to hunt, they must show they are capable of handling the responsibility (and a gun).  Certainly in days of yore kids as young as ten faced responsibilities far more grave than hunting with dad.  Here is one way to get kids to learn what it means to be an adult. 

Trying Too Hard

A lesson from the New York Times John McCain fiasco is that news outlets, in their attempt to fill the news cycle and remain relevant, can sometimes strain the limits of what counts as news.  Here's another example, albeit not on the same level as the Times story. 

Apparently Barack Obama has met William Ayres and Bernadine Dohrn.  Yes, that's about it.  For those who need reminding, Ayers and Dohrn, who are married, were part of the Weatherman movement of the 1960s and 1970s and were responsible for various terrorist acts committed in the name of "the revolution."  To this day they are unrepentant. 

Ayres and Dohrn also happen to live on Chicago's South Side, where Barack Obama lived and represented in the Illinois legislature.  They are celebrities in the leftist circles of Chicago.  Whatever one makes of the left's refusal to condemn Ayres and Dohrn for what they are, criminals, it is not surprising that an up and coming Democratic politician from the South Side crossed paths with these folks on various occasions. 

I have a confession.  I once met William Ayers, too.  In fact, I, ummm, visited the men's room with him.  I was adjuncting at Concordia-River Forest outside of Chicago as I wrapped up grad school.  A bunch of political science students there invited Ayers to speak on education policy (he was teaching in the ed school at the University of Illinois-Chicago).  I attended the event.  We chatted.  He seemed like a nice guy, although he did mention how his wife was once on the run from the law. It was then that I thought, "Hey, this guys name rings a bell."  I went home and looked him up in Peter Collier and David Horowitz's Destructive Generation.  Sure enough, it was that William (Bill) Ayers.  I once peed next to William Ayers.  I guess that makes me a radical, too. 

Odds Mounting Against Hillary

From the Washington Post:

Obama has a lead of 150 elected or "pledged" delegates, according to NBC's calculation (The Washington Post uses a different formula to count). Clinton needs to win 58 percent of all remaining pledged delegates simply to get her lead back, NBC political director Chuck Todd notes. But that's hypothetical. The reality is worse.

If Obama wins the remaining states he's favored in, such as Vermont, Mississippi, North Carolina and Oregon, then Clinton will need to win 65 percent of the vote in places such as Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania, Todd said.

In other words, Clinton would have to magically reverse the trend, and win the big three by 2 to 1, as Obama has been doing to her everywhere else.  That would be surprising.

It is also worth mentioning that Ms. Clinton has been losing the popular vote by large margins.  If you exclude Florida and Michigan, where only Clinton was on the ballot, it looks like this:

State	Date	% Vote In		Obama	Clinton
Popular Vote Total	-	-		10,300,410	9,375,213

 

RealClearPolitics

That means that Obama has won almost a million more votes than Clinton. Now I don't think the popular vote has any particular moral or legal force here, but it would take a special sort of courage for the super delegates to ignore that big a gap in order to anoint Ms. Clinton.  And why would they do such a thing?  Few have any great faith any more in Ms. Clinton's political judgment, and as for electability, how is she going to win in November when she can't get a majority of Democrats to vote for her?

New York Times Exposes Itself 2

The AP helps make the case; from the Star Tribune:

The New York Times had strongly suggested there was an inappropriate relationship between her husband, John McCain, and a female lobbyist, including favors for her clients.

Of course they did.  The only way to defend the Times would be make the implausible case that they weren't suggesting any such thing, but were only talking about the internal politics of the 2000 McCain campaign, or about other scandals.  A "strong suggestion" about an inappropriate relationship, absent a clear allegation and any evidence at all, is textbook innuendo.  You attack someone's character with a point and a od and a wink, but don't commit yourself to any claim which is logically true or false.    That is journalistic malpractice. 

Unless the Times can come up with some substance to back up its McCain scandal story, the Gray Lady is deep in the brown stuff.  Michael Gerson at the Washington Post has this:

Without the sexual angle of the story, questionable letters from the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee to regulators would not rate the front page of The New York Times. But the sexual angle is unsubstantiated -- no incriminating poems, no torrid diary entries, no spurned and talkative lover. Raising the prominence of a news story with sexual innuendos is irresponsible -- unless there is more proof to come.  ...at this point, it is the Times and not the candidate that should be mortified. If this is all the Times has -- sexual innuendo and anonymous sources -- it really is a scandal.

That kind of criticism, which is almost universal among comments by the press, is bad enough.  The following defense of the Times, by Jack Safer in Slate, is damning:

So far, I've yet to encounter a single critique that faults the article for its portrayal of McCain's eccentric and self-serving ideas about political ethics.

What this means, if you buy it, is that there is a strong case to be made for McCain's hypocrisy and self-serving rhetoric and that this case is contained in the Times article.  If so, then the Times destroyed that case by attaching it to an unsubstantiated allegation that McCain can easily take apart.  That's not just corrupt, it's corrupt and stupid. 

The Arizona Republic calls the situation a stalemate, which might be the dumbest thing said about it yet.  This is, so far, a big win for McCain.  Being attacked by the New York Times is coin of the realm among conservatives.  Being attacked in such a ham-handed fashion is pure gold.  It will help unite conservatives behind him, and may well create sympathy among the larger public.  The fact that ABC is straining hard to suggest that this story will "tarnish McCain's reputation" won't hurt McCain among conservatives either.  If I were a conspiracy minded kind of fellow, I would suspect that those two "former McCain associates" upon whom the Times' story rests are still working for McCain. 

Shaking Hands With Terrorists

Ed Morrissey:  "The Left has a big blind spot when it comes to the history of violence among its radicals in the 1960s. Rather than seeing it for what it was -- political terrorism -- and rejecting it completely, they continue to romanticize its use and rationalize its effects.  Most of the bomb-throwers repented of their actions, but not all -- and two that remain proud of their terrorism may impact the presidential election."  Check out the whole thing.