Rhenquist Died.

Rhenquist just passed away.

Fox News Account.

This will make the judicial appointment process interesting. Now the war will no doubt begin in the Senate. We might also be saying goodbye to the filibuster.

Time...I wish....and comments to Professor Schaff

Time is an interesting thing...when you need it, you never get it.

First off, let me thank Professor Schaff for his comments, with which I am, almost entirely, in agreement. Lest there be any question, my statements regarding the need for more balance between industry and government employers in the state is not intended as a strike against our state government (which, by the way, is rather efficient...probably by necessity), but a desire to see increased prosperity brought to the state and a desire to not have the mood of my state and its citizens dictated by political spending from Washington.

As we dialogue, at this time, we are a donor state. In other words, we recieve more federal money than we loose in taxes. While I'm not sure that I really want to move to subsidizing everyone else, being a donor state under our current taxing and spending structure is indicative of the fact that our local economy is not the strongest in the nation. I think we should be, and that's the direction I want to move as a state.

That being said, Professor Schaff also called me out (very properly, I might add) to provide more ideas for what we can do to bring industry to the state. Since I have felt free to identify a problem, it is also appropriate that I take the time to offer some possible solutions for the debate, a task which I will have to take under advisement and bring thoughts on the subject back to the discussion table at another time.

Before parting for the evening...or morning, rather...I would like to mention one thing that I believe has been productive for the state, and speculate as to how to increase the benefit. First, since the legislature changed our banking and credit laws within the state, the state has seen an increase in the banking and lending industry, lending to nonresidents and providing jobs to residents. Since the increased lending industry was possible through merely altering state law, I am lead to wonder what else might have a similar effect, and my mind wanders to Deleware, home to many many corporate headquarters. I would propose a study of the Deleware corporate code to determine what aspects of the corporate friendly code draw corporations to that state for their homes. Then, I suggest we sweeten the deal under our own laws.

I'm not against prudent government spending, I would just like to see the day that our collective fortunes as South Dakotans are determined largely as a function of our production and exportation rather than from expendatures by federal government agencies within our state. I don't want to give up Ellsworth, but I don't want it to be our only hope either. Let's diversify our opportunity base.

In addition, I am not the type of person to revel long in victory when further problems need attention. Voting Thune into office was just a step. Saving Ellsworth was just a step. I'm just trying to move onto the next step.

Ellsworth: The REAL problem

Now that we saved Ellsworth for the time being, we should focus on the real problem. The real problem with Ellsworth is summed in this statement:

In a vote of eight to one, the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission decided to not go ahead with the Pentagon's recommendation to move South Dakota's second-largest employer... (foxnews.com)

We have goverment agencies as our largest employers. This is simply a bad situation. At any time, we are subject to the whims of national politicians and external governmental agencies for the livelihood of many of our citizens and even communities.

South Dakota is home to some of the finest and hardest-working people in the country. Property values (aka space to work) in South Dakota are low. We have no power shortage, and we suffer no grey-outs. We have low crime rates. We have low cost of living. We have no state income tax (the world's most regressive tax).

These are all statements describing a land brimming with opportunity. It is time to make members of the private sector replace Ellsworth as the largest employers in the state.

That is the problem remaining to be addressed by our politicians and our business people alike.

Ellsworth Update: SD still home to B-1's

Ellsworth spared.

Read on Fox News HERE.

And now, the lefties can blame Thune for not doing enough(they started several days ago), so as not to loose their "Darned if you do, Darned if you don't" posture with regard to Thune.

It must be tough to be a liberal and be forcibly crabby all the time. Even when a victory comes for the entire state, there is no opportunity to celebrate, as the vitreolic rhetoric can never be allowed to rest.

The Double Standard Litmus Test: Feinstein on Roberts

Feinstein Flip-Flop. No big supprise, but the Democrats are quickly becoming the single-issue party that they blame many Republicans of being.

Feinstein wants to protect Roe v. Wade. Heaven forbid that Roe v. Wade be overturned and the ELECTED STATE LEGISLATORS WHO ARE POLITICALLY ACCOUNTABLE be responsible for the fate of abortion in our country. It would, from Feinstein's point of veiw, be a hideous result if democracy should be allowed to work...of course when the US Senate is passing legislation, Feinstein is all for our Democratic Republic.

Read article HERE.

Specter's letter to Roberts

In light of the facts that: 1. Specter is pro-abortion, and 2. the Roe v. Wade decision is one of the most radical examples of judicial activism available; it is interesting to now see Specter concerned about judicial activism. That aside, his letter is worth a read. Read it from Congressional Quarterly HERE.

Little lesson in Logic: Argument.

Please note a good example of what argument should be.

For an excellent example of an arguement, please see Ken Blanchard's response to me over on South Dakota Politics. While we disagree, and the discussion will no doubt continue as time allows, these are logical arguments.

Arguments should be carefully thought out (as these have been) and ought to retain academic respect (as these have done). The continuing discussions focus on weak points spotted in the other's argument and are directed toward convincing each other and readers of our specific view points, adding new evidence as necessary and available.

This is not merely the "Is Not...Is Too...Is Not...Is Too" type of discussion that can be found on virtually any playground populated with 10 year olds. Further, it is not a discussion populated with logical fallacies such as poisoning the well, appeals to pity or force, prejudicial language, intentionally changing the subject, or one of the other common logical fallacies. (NOTE: please do not confuse the logical fallacy "intentionally changing the subject" with the fact that Mr. Blanchard and I have mutually migrated from the original topic...such was not done to gain an arguing advantage by either party.)

It is just worth noting for the sake of raising the bar for the future.

Ellsworth Update:

This from Fox News:

The Air Force's attempt to close Ellsworth Air Force Base (search) in South Dakota, home to freshman Republican Sen. John Thune (search), has stirred the most political consternation. Thune argued during the 2004 campaign that he — not Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle — would be in a better position to save the facility.
Over the past week, commission members have publicly expressed reservations about closing Ellsworth, as well as two other large bases: Fort Monmouth in New Jersey, which would lose more than 5,000 jobs, and Cannon Air Force (search) Base in Clovis, N.M., where nearly 3,000 jobs are at stake.

Read the article HERE.

Poisoning the well: a brief lesson in logic.

It is time for a little lesson in logic. For a beautiful example of the "Poisoning the Well" fallacy, please see the opposition to my discussion of Intelligent Design posted at Dakota Today. According to Doug, because I am an attorney, I cannot comment on education or science...only contracts. This is asinine for several reasons.

First, Attorneys -by nature- are the ultimate generalists.

Second, a degree or vocation is not the only way to learn, study, and grow...it only shows the "blessing" of someone else with a degree (does anyone know if Gallileo had a degree? How about Socrates, Plato and Aristotle?).

Third, the response tries to discredit me because I am not "known" to be a scientist, though DT has no clue about my past...merely my chosen profession.

A quote and motto that comes to mind is from an old science fiction author:

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - RobertHeinlein,

Thus, though I am not a recognized scientist, and though I have no degree in education (which may be an asset depending on how you look at the world), I will none the less feel free to comment on the application and teaching of science in the classrooms of our great nation.

If you have evidence or argument, please respond. But make it worthwhile.

PS. I still find it entertaining that although my initial post was merely directed at pointing out the world view problem underlying animal rights activists who believe in atheistic evolution, the topic everyone seems to want to talk about is Evolution v. Intelligent design. Happy to accomodate either way...but again, lets talk facts and argument, not fallacies.

Endangered Species

Over on South Dakota Politics, Jason Heppler commented on the new spokeswoman for the SD Democratic Party. If having a donkey as a mascot was not bizarre enough, the Democrats have now hired a vegetarian and animal activist as the spokeswoman for their party.

Jason Heppler noted that having a vegan animial rights activist as a spokeswoman in SD is "about as aberrant as transplanting African animals here."

Jason's mistaken...Its MORE aberrant! At least the wild animals would bring enjoyable new hunting seasons.

Watertown Public Opinion: Critics assail use of 'minority'

The Watertown Public Opinion has an interesting article on the front page dealing with the growth of minorities in various states. 4 states now have non-caucasion majorities.

So, does this change the State's interests in assuring a "critical mass" of various races in college? When is affirmative action supposed to end? Though she won't vote on the issue again, it would be fun to ask Justice O'Connor, as her opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger where she wrote:

We are mindful, however, that "[a] core purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to do away with all governmentally imposed discrimination based on race." Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U. S. 429, 432 (1984). Accordingly, race-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time. This requirement reflects that racial classifications, however compelling their goals, are potentially so dangerous that they may be employed no more broadly than the interest demands. Enshrining a permanent justification for racial preferences would offend this fundamental equal protection principle. We see no reason to exempt race-conscious admissions programs from the requirement that all governmental use of race must have a logical end point. The Law School, too, concedes that all "race-conscious programs must have reasonable durational limits." Brief for Respondents Bollinger et al. 32.

So, does this tell us when the time limits should be? She went on to suggest periodic reviews...when does it end?

This type of garbage is why we need principled judges that simply apply the law. Putting sunset provisions into policies or laws, or even determining whether a remedy for discrimination in a situation is necessary (under the rarely acknowledged section 5 of the 14th Amendment) is the job of Congress...not the Court.

The Left: Globalism forever...unless it helps Bush.

Have you ever noticed that the Left loves to talk about how we are on a shrinking planet, and how globally we should be less like independent nations...that is right up until such a philosophy is espoused by a Republican executive office...then America has no business in anything off our shores.

Of course, today I speak of the war. Even as recently as today Chad Schuldt asks for some sort of a defense of the war and left leaning politicians have been doing so for some time; utterly unconvinced that there is any reason why 2000 American soldiers should have died. He appears to believe that no good has come from the deaths, and that we should not be there.

Ok. Lets forget for a moment that Saddam Husein has long been harboring individuals hostile to the united states. Lets assume he never gave money to interests who would try to undermine the United States. Lets pretend that he went along with the direct orders from the Impotent UN and allowed in the inspectors to the fullest extent and cooperated with the terms of the cease fire agreement from Desert Storm. Lets even pretend that the Senate and House did not approve of the war when we started.

All of that imaginary stuff now in place, Saddam was still brutally killing his own people. He is a rapist and a murderer, and tortured those who had no defense against his ruthless acts. Iraqi people now can see a time when they can go to sleep without fear of such a ruthless despot, and the lives of our soldiers paid the price necessary to allow a tormented people to live in peace.

From a global perspective, bringing such aid to our neighbors is entirely appropriate. However, because it was done by a Conservative Republican President, and Conservative Republicans stand to gain from the war, the left will argue "unjust war" all day long. Sadly, such intellectual dishonesty is rampant among many liberals nation wide (with few exceptions...I have in the past found Alan Colmes to be an intellectually honest liberal...usually wrong but honest).

If globalism is such a good thing, then the war is a good thing simply because oppressed people are now free...unless globalism is not a good thing.

So, to the left, which is it. Do you want to have your cake or eat it? Perhaps crow would be a better dinner choice. Bon Apetite!

Further Discussion of Intelligent Design, thanks to Ken Blanchard

Thank you to Ken Blanchard for the mention over on South Dakota Politics blog. I appreciate and am honored by the mention and by the response. I will, however, disagree with his partial dissent, as I do not believe it is really a dissent from my point. It may, however, be in disagreement with my beliefs, but we can explore that further later .

First of all, a summary. In my original post, I allege that evolutionists do not have a defensible interest in protecting the environment. Ken took the time to point out that some individuals may both believe in the Bible and believe in Darwinian evolution at the same time, and argued that evolution and creation are not opposed systems. However, that does not actually dissent from or undermine my point in any way, as Ken still argues a position of Intelligent Design, stating that people have different opinions as to the means used for creation, while still believing in a designer.

While I do not in the least back down from the position, what I did not clearly state is that my argument is directed at atheistic evolutionists (those who believe there is no God, and that creation is merely the result of a cosmic firecracker – the origin of which is never explained), as opposed to those who believe in intelligent design.

If a person believes that the world is merely the result of chance, and not the result of a directed, intentional act from outside of the creation itself, there is no reason why that person should seek to protect the environment. To do so would seek to cease the progress of evolution, determining that we are in a utopian state at present. Further, protecting the environment from that perspective would assume that the evolution as a result of mankind's effect on the environment could not produce a stronger, more robust species. In fact, if there is no God, and we are all the result of mere chance, there is no reason to aid the sick. The evolved species to come would be better served to simply let the ailing die, and let the strong grow stronger.

However, if a person believes that we are the result of intelligent design (by whatever means), it follows that what we have was an intentional act, and may be something to be protected. Intelligent design leaves humanity with a responsibility not to wantonly waste what has been given to our care. It is the underlying philosophy that demands conservation and protection of the environment. We can argue over means later.

The point of my previous article is not to state that evolution and creation are mutually opposed systems, but to demonstrate: that atheistic evolutionary theory, when carried forward in full, does not support a conservationism; and that intelligent design necessitates conservationism.

Now, I dissent from Darwin.

Of the evolutionary theories, I find pure Darwinian evolution to be the most crass and unlikely. I am defining pure Darwinian evolution as follows:
1.there is no designer;
2.everything is the result of chance;
3.structural changes that last must be improvements;
4.structural changes occur one step at a time;
5.there is a great deal of time between each step in the evolution.

At the macro level, Darwinian evolution appears fairly straight forward. Fish with no eyes, but scars where eyes might be, look a lot like fish with eyes...thus, the changes appear as mere adaptations. Apes have feet and hands and walk upright, thus one day an ape shaved and became a man (I've even seen a few men that look like they are going the other way). However, when one looks below the surface, things are not necessarily as they seem.

At a micro level, Darwinian evolution has some real problems and breaks down. DNA changes between the above described fish are actually enormous, not to mention between apes and humans. The supposed “little” changes and adaptations at the macro level require many major changes in DNA structure. Thus, what looks like only a few small steps at a macro level is actually great cavernous divides at a micro level. Thus Darwinian evolution breaks down (Unless you argue for a miracle, which again, brings us back to Intelligent Design).

A good example of why the changes are not possible at a micro level would be to discuss the evolution of a bicycle into a motorcycle. Though a motorcycle looks very much like a bicycle, with only the addition of a motor and gas tank, for evolution to occur a step at a time would yield ridiculous results.

For example, Archeozoic bicycle has two wheels, pedals, a chain, a frame, and a seat (for which the rider is extremely grateful). However, it does not go fast enough, so by the time Proterozoic bicycle comes around, it evolves a motor. All fine and dandy, except for one thing....the bicycle evolves only one step at a time, and has not yet evolved a gas tank. (Note that this also assumes that the bicycle, with no outside influence, figured out that a motor was a step to greater speed as opposed to evolving a leaf, or a root, or a wing, in addition we start in this example with a functional structure rather than starting with a bike seat alone...which would have no purpose by itself).

So, Proterozoic bicycle now has a motor that is merely dead weight because in the absence of a gas tank, it has no means to run the engine. Extra weight is not an improvement; thus, Darwinian evolution mandates that the dead weight be dropped from the frame. By the Mesozoic bicycle, we should expect a return to the shape of the Archeozoic bicycle, having never evolved into a motorcycle.

In short, taken one step at a time, evolutionary changes are not improvements, and are likely detriments. Improvements in structure (dare I say design) only occur when many changes happen simultaneously (fully functional motor with all the internal parts, plus the drive train, gas tank, and ignition). Incremental changes in design, rather, create aberrations which are not the “fittest” and would not survive.

Only through an orchestrated and simultaneous series of design changes can the improved organism become its superior.

To read more, please see Michael J. Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box.

On Teaching Theories.

Ken Blanchard's article argued for the teaching of Darwinian evolution in school. Great. No big deal to me. But teach Intelligent Design as well. In addition, we can teach any other theory. However, they should be taught as theories only, not as fact, and not to the exclusion of other theories. (and at the grade school and high school levels, we should spend more time on reading, writing, arithmetic, and only the basics of science. Leave the philosophy for when the students have learned to think for themselves...then present the choice between viewpoints).

Not all theories are right. Not all theories are wrong. Some theories are right, and some are wrong. Theories are beliefs that are not proved through the scientific method, and should be left to the students for their own belief or disbelief until proved otherwise. Teaching what theories exist may be within the realm of education...stating which theory to believe, is indoctrination.

At the heart of this discussion.

Though I believe in a Biblical creation, I do not need to drag out a lengthy discourse and argument over whether we are the result of mere chance or Intelligent Design. Atheistic evolution theory breaks down quickly when we simply go back to the beginning. If we started as a big bang...what caused the bang? If molecules bumping into each other, where did they come from? If they were energy, where did the energy come from? Not to mention, why are there immutable rules of science, and why does time exist? Who wrote the rule book?

In order for something to be temporary, something has to be eternal. In order for our world to exist, bound by the rules of science that we know, something must be outside of those rules to have placed them in force.

Both Atheistic evolution and Creation theories take faith to believe. I, frankly, don't have enough faith to believe that cosmic energies (with no origin) bumped into each other and created the perfection and complexity I find in creation without some outside influence responsible for their creation...and for the writing of all the rules of science...including time itself. Something is bigger. Something is outside. I believe it is God, and though I may not yet fully comprehend His nature, I believe He has revealed himself to us through the Bible.

Special Thanks.

Thanks to Ken Blanchard for taking the time to read and respond to my new blog, and for his hearty welcome to the academy. The discourse is wonderful, and I am honored.

Good night all.