Hiatus

Publication of Ed Cognoski will be on hiatus for two weeks. When we return, coverage will be expanded to include opinions of more North Texas news media. Let us know which online news sites you would like to see us cover. Happy Holidays!

Protest, don't create heroes

Dallas Morning News | Jacquielynn Floyd:

“I have philosophical and practical reservations about capital punishment, chiefly because it is arbitrary and irrevocable. ... On an emotional level, though, I can't imagine feeling sympathy – much less admiration – for people who have committed these crimes. Yet the admiration shines through in a statement by actor Mike Farrell, president of the anti-death penalty group Death Penalty Focus, in which he called Mr. Williams 'a force for good in our society and an example of hope for our misdirected youth.'”

Ms. Floyd's reservations about the death penalty are reasonable. It is arbitrary and irrevocable. The former can be addressed only imperfectly. The latter is impossible to correct. Mistakes are final.

Ms. Floyd's inability to sympathize with criminals sentenced to death is understandable. She has never had a drug problem, never shoplifted or burglarized homes, never robbed anyone or served time in jail. She has never been in need of redemption. So, Stanley Tookie Williams' life holds nothing for her to relate to. But for kids in trouble, Stanley Tookie Williams' life might look very familiar. Their current lives might mirror his own time on the streets and trouble with the law. His redemption holds out promise that they, too, can redeem their lives, hopefully before they end up on death row like Tookie Williams. People are entitled to question whether, in fact, Tookie Williams' redemption was genuine. But people should not question whether, in principle, a sinner's redemption can be a "force for good" and an "example of hope." It can.

The right outcome on torture ban

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

“Thank goodness President Bush reversed course this week and agreed to Sen. John McCain's sensible proposal to ban torture against detainees. The decision came as both houses of Congress remained steadfast in supporting the measure despite the president's threatened veto. The war against terror will not suffer, and America can proudly hold its head high.”

It's not like this news is a surprise. Defending torture is a guaranteed loser. There was no way that America was going to continue to be, in the words of Senator John McCain (R-AZ), "the only country in the world that asserts a legal right to engage in cruel and inhuman treatment." This was a losing proposition, even without someone like Vietnam prisoner of war John McCain arguing to ban torture. Not even President Bush, whose own military service consisted of not showing up for national guard duty in Alabama, could be proud of his position. He found himself politically isolated, facing the cameras alone and telling the world, "America does not torture." It was all reminiscent of President Nixon telling us "I am not a crook" in a way that practically screamed, "Yes, I am."

So, the surprise here is not that the President flip-flopped and caved in to Senator McCain's demand for a ban. The surprise here has to be that he tried to assert a right to torture in the first place. This Administration is usually very attuned to wedge issues and how to exploit them for political advantage. But only the most loyal red-state fanatics will stand behind the President waving a right-to-torture banner. So, why champion torture?

The only plausible explanation is that this President has put one aim above all others: preventing terrorist attacks on the United States. As reported elsewhere in the DMN ("Domestic spying adds to debate over Bush power"), Bradford Berenson, associate counsel to President Bush from 2001 to 2003, says, "After 9-11, the president felt it was incumbent on him to use every ounce of authority available to him to protect the American people". Everything else is subservient to that aim. International norms regarding humane treatment of captured enemy combatants, civil liberties for ourselves at home, all must be sacrificed for security. It's a simplistic notion. It's a notion that plays well with his simplistic-minded base, who ridiculed his 2004 election opponent Senator John Kerry (D-MA) for his nuanced positions on the issues facing America. But it's a notion that threatens to destroy the prize it's trying to preserve. The wisdom of Benjamin Franklin is still as true today as it was over 200 years ago: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Politicians will be back - to get our votes

Dallas Morning News | Macarena Hernandez:

“This week, members of Congress debated whether to include an amendment in the House immigration bill that would deny citizenship to U.S.-born babies of undocumented immigrants, a constitutional right. I don't know which is worse, the hypocrisy or the demonization of an entire group already treated as subhuman, mostly because the U.S. is hooked on cheap labor. But let's blame them, scapegoat them, use them to further fracture a divided nation. Not all Republicans are caving to the extremes; a couple are aggressively pushing guest-worker proposals. But, trust me, the GOP still wants our votes. Next election, they'll pull out their Spanish dictionaries and try to win us back all over again.”

The Republican party has enjoyed electoral success in recent years by emphasizing wedge issues. School prayer, gay marriage, lawsuit abuse, illegal immigration, welfare abuse, and the hottest topic today, the so-called war on Christmas, all are designed to split the electorate. Find something to take offense over. "Solve" it by demonizing or scapegoating some segment of the population. Treat compromising or seeking common ground as weak-kneed liberal ideals. Rally your base to go to the polls in large numbers. Win.

Latinos have no single issue like the civil rights issue that rallied African-American voters a generation ago. Latinos face problems on many fronts -- health care, education, welfare, culture. In many cases, the problems aren't unique to the Latino community. So, wedge issue politics is effective at splitting the Latino community, just like it's effective at splitting white Americans.

Immigration and birthrates are working in Latinos' favor. Latinos are already a political force in California and becoming one in Texas. Governor Bush recognized that and courted the Latino vote in Texas. President Bush strayed from that line to pander to the far right of the national Republican party in winning two national elections. So far, nationally, Republican success has been achieved not by choosing wedge issues that capture a majority of the Latino vote, but wedge issues that draw enough Latino voters to keep a Democrat from being elected.

But President Bush's recent promotion of a guest worker program indicates that he still knows the demographic trends are working against the Republican party interests in the long run unless the party changes. It will be fascinating to watch the choice of wedge issues by the 2008 Republican candidate for President. Will the Latino vote finally emerge as the biggest slice of the wedge?

Primary fix-it kit

Dallas Morning News | Carl P. Leubsdorf:

“Headlines from the latest Democratic Party commission focused on the fact that foes failed to kill the traditional role of the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary in picking presidential nominees. But the real news may have been the launching of what could become a serious bipartisan effort to fix the system's two worst problems: the front-loading that denies most voters a meaningful role and the rush toward holding ever earlier primaries or caucuses.”

This column is closer to a straight news piece than an opinion piece. Mr. Leubsdorf doesn't offer his own opinion of what should be done. For that, the column gets a thumbs-down.

America could solve both so-called problems with the primaries (earlier and earlier primaries and unfair influence by early primaries) by holding a single national primary later in the season. I give this suggestion zero chance of being adopted. I'm not sure even I am in favor of it.

Yet, it is logically inconsistent that America accepts a one-day national election to choose our President but insists on staggering the primaries state by state over several months. If staggered primaries are good for choosing party candidates, shouldn't staggered national elections be good for choosing our President? Conversely, if it's fine to pick a President in a one-day, winner-take-all election, why isn't it also good to pick a party candidate the same way? I am in favor of consistency.

Upfront on Iraq: President's message comes through

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

“In the course of a year, Iraqis have held a constitutional convention, ratified a constitution and are now voting on a permanent parliament. Despite continuing violence, the political landscape in Iraq is far more promising and hopeful today than it was a year ago.”

This DMN editorial is exactly the kind of political cover President Bush needs to declare "mission accomplished" (again!) and begin withdrawal of American troops. Let's see it repeated a hundred times in thousands of newspapers across the country.

This war has been a debacle. It was started under false pretenses. It was executed incompetently. It bankrupted our nation. It distracted us from our war on al Qaeda. Its goal has morphed into impossible dream -- peace and democracy in an area of the world that has been at war for generations. Americans want our troops home.

President Bush defines victory as democracy, internal security, and elimination of the threat to the international community. Nowhere in this formula are civil liberties a necessary part of victory. No freedom of speech or religion. No rights for women or ethnic minorities. Our aims are small compared to the liberties Americans enjoy at home, but even so, still incredibly difficult to achieve in fact, not just in speeches.

The best America can hope for is that eventually a strong Islamic Republic is established, on the order of Iran. Not much liberty there, but it is democratic and it is strong enough to secure the peace. The sooner some kind of power emerges in Iraq that can hold the country together, with at least a charade of democracy, the sooner President Bush can begin the withdrawal of troops. Reason enough to celebrate little victories like today's national elections.

GOP counterattack

Dallas Morning News | Mark Davis:

“The Republican National Committee has launched an ad on its Web site that leaves no doubt where the war debate is headed. It is time to pass judgment on the pronouncements of the harshest war critics.”

The headline leaves no doubt that Mark Davis is not interested in reasoned discussion. He's on the attack. Consensus is not his goal. Victory in Iraq is not today's focus. Defeat of the Democratic Party is. Truth is willingly sacrificed towards that end.

Others have already debunked the GOP ad in embarrassing detail.

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA)'s call for a drawdown of troops after the current election pretty much echoes word for word what Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld himself has said in public. But it sounds so much more defeatist if you wave a white flag in front of the Senator.

Senator Kerry's sound bite was taken out of a context in which he was urging Iraqis to conduct the house-to-house raids that American soldiers are undertaking, and risking their lives over, today. Again, this echoes the Administration's own stated goals, goals they have been unable to achieve because of incompetent prosecution of this war from the beginning. Distract attention by making Democratic calls for doing it right seem slanderous.

The closing scene, where the camera pulls back to reveal a US soldier watching the ad play on a big screen television, has been revealed to be a doctored shot. In truth, the soldier was watching a cartoon, How the Grinch Stole Christmas. Perhaps this whole fraudulent video ad should be titled How the GOP Stole the Truth. With a minor credit to Mark Davis for his supporting role.

Principle and Consistency: Why do Lieberman's views anger Democrats?

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

“Democratic leaders could ask, 'What does Joe Lieberman have to gain by supporting the president now?' The answer is not much. Presidential ambitions died long ago, and he denies rumors that he's angling for an administration job. About all he's done is anger enough of his party to draw threats of a primary challenge in 2006. So that leaves us with principle and consistency. And perhaps that's what so annoys his critics.”

This editorial is wrong in so many ways, it's hard to know where to start.

First, the DMN creates a straw man of a Democratic Party position on the war. It's true the war has divided the party. The lack of a unified party position and party discipline in presenting that position is a valid cause for criticism. But the DMN creates a composite of statements made by various Democrats with differing views on the war and presents that as somehow the Democratic position on the war: jumbled, contradictory, confused. It's simply a false representation. It's dishonest.

Second, Senator Lieberman (D-CT) is irrelevant. The Republicans ridiculed him off the national stage in 2000 (remember Sore-Loserman?). The Democrats ignored him in their 2004 Presidential primaries. The fact that his recent essay supporting the President's war strategy is news at all is an indication of how low the President's approval ratings have sunk, how desperate the President is to find some political cover for the debacle in Iraq. It's not an indication that Sen. Lieberman's opinion carries any real weight in Washington, among either Democrats or Republicans.

So, why are some Democrats irritated by Sen. Lieberman? It's certainly not because of his supposed principle and consistency. In 2003, Sen. Lieberman had these things to say about how President Bush was conducting the war in Iraq:

The President’s conduct of our foreign policy is giving the country too many reasons to question his leadership. It’s not just about 16 words in a speech, it is about distorting intelligence and diminishing credibility.
...
There has been one value repeatedly missing from this Presidency, and that value is integrity. By deception and disarray, this White House has betrayed the just cause of fighting terrorism and tyranny around the world.

Perhaps the recent irritation is rooted in Sen. Lieberman's inconsistency in holding President Bush accountable to the high principles of office that Americans expect and deserve from their President.

It's ironic that Sen. Lieberman is now the darling of Republicans. Perhaps if more of them had voted for him in 2000, the country would not be in the mess it's in now. Perhaps, if they had at least shown respect for him then, they could point proudly to his support now without looking hypocritical and desperate. Perhaps the DMN should send this editorial back to rewrite.

Offended? Use reason this season

Dallas Morning News | Jacquielynn Floyd:

“It's tough to know where to plant your foot in this minefield of seasonal nomenclature: You now risk giving offense with either 'happy holidays' or 'merry Christmas,' which I guess leaves us with the vapid, perfunctory but always safe admonition to 'have a nice day.'”

Jacquielynn Floyd wants to be nonpartisan; she tries hard to be nonpartisan. She even-handedly criticizes both sides of this so-called "war on Christmas" for being quick to take offense. She tries to make up by wishing both sides a "bodacious holiday season, be it religious or secular."

What she doesn't realize is that nonpartisanship is not a shared value in this culture war. Nonpartisanship can be mistaken for tolerance of the opposing views. And tolerance is anathema to fundamentalist Christians. A popular bumper sticker reads, "Truth, not tolerance."

William Murchison, in a post on the Dallas Blog, informs readers of an art contest sponsored by the Plano Independent School District that is meant to foster "harmony, respect, tolerance, acceptance, and understanding among or between different racial, cultural, ethnic, and/or religious groups." Mr. Murchison assures us, in a tone dripping with disdain, "I'm not making this up." He describes the attitude as "pallid stuff" that ought to cause Plano to "keel over collectively from boredom and stupefaction."

Tolerance is not welcome on one side of this culture war. You can't NOT take sides. You're either with us or against us. Ms. Floyd gives away which side she is on in her column's title, which is a call to "use reason this season." She apparently doesn't remember Martin Luther's warning that "reason is the enemy of faith."

Happy Hanakkah, Happy Festivus, Merry Christmas, Happy Boxing Day, Happy Kwanzaa, Happy New Year everyone! Whew, that was a mouthful. How about if I just wish everyone Happy Holidays?

Classrooms in Need: Texas is still short on certified teachers

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

“2005 marks the first year that alternative certification exceeds traditional undergraduate programs in producing newly certified teachers. ... Alternative certification is open to college grads who enter the classroom with provisional training and certification and go on to take prescribed education. ... The sad bottom line for Texas is that neither route has helped the state fill its most critical classroom needs – teachers in math, science, computer science, special ed and bilingual ed. ”

DMN should be commended for highlighting the problem, but faulted for suggesting no remedies.

Alternative certification should be considered only a stopgap measure, at best. Our children deserve to be taught by professionals, not teachers in training. Worse, in many cases this investment in training never pays off. Many new teachers leave the profession within the first few years, so many of these teachers with alternative certification never complete their prescribed education. It's folly to put untrained teachers in front of classrooms, on the one hand, and demand more accountability for results, on the other.

What will it take to attract and retain qualified individuals to the teaching profession? Better pay and rewards, facilities and resources, support and security, opportunities for continued professional development. Continue to insist that education in Texas is adequately funded already, and no system of accountability will attract the talent we want in our classrooms. Create sufficient incentives to attract good teachers in the first place, and accountability will not be a problem.

Setting Their Own Course: More Iraqis are taking part in democracy

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

“President Bush may be a bit premature in calling these elections a turning point for Iraq, as he did in a speech yesterday. Iraq will continue to face major problems in securing the nation, respecting the rule of law and establishing a free society. But Mr. Bush is right that Iraqis are doing what it takes to shape their own future. If not yet a turning point, it's certainly a watershed moment worth celebrating.”

As long as the US military is present in Iraq, the ethnic rivalries will play out in the only venue allowed them: the parliamentary elections. Remove the US military and this sprouting of democracy will wither and die. If the US wants democracy to take root and grow in Iraq, we will have to keep significant numbers of troops there for a generation. But, as long as American troops keep dying, as long as the American presence creates more insurgents than it kills, support at home for a US military presence in Iraq will continue to dwindle.

It's unlikely that these elections are a turning point in Iraq's history, a turn towards liberal, Western democratic government. But perhaps the elections will provide an opening, an opening big enough and lasting long enough, for the President to declare victory and draw down American troops. The elections might provide the fig leaf this President needs to extract the US from the debacle it created. Perhaps not cause for celebration, but at least cause for relief.

If home-schooling counts, make it accountable

Dallas Morning News | Josh Benton:

“Under Texas law, home-schooling is essentially unregulated. Once a parent tells a school district a child will be home-schooled, the district's jurisdiction ends. State regulations say that parents should teach basic literacy, math and citizenship – but that's it. And state officials don't even have the authority to check whether those minimal requirements are being met.”

This is a difficult situation. On the one hand, everyone wants to put a stop to child abuse, whether it's physical beatings or child pornography or failure to provide basics like food, clothing, shelter, or in this case, education.

On the other hand, home-schoolers are unwilling to trust the welfare of their children to state agencies. If they don't trust public schools, they won't warmly receive child welfare agents inspecting and regulating the home school environment and program. Attempts to identify and address cases of abuse will be met with resistance, non-compliance and obstruction, even when no abuse is occurring. No good will come from that for the child whose parents are already providing a good education. Meanwhile, cases like Roger's 13-year-old granddaughter who is following rock bands up and down the West Coast with her mother, probably won't be tracked down and found anyway.

A reasonable compromise would be to handle home schooling abuses like we handle other kinds of child neglect. Parents are not required to report how they care for their children, but if the state receives a report of child neglect, the state has the power to investigate and take action. But, as the Home School Legal Defense Fund appears to resist any regulatory oversight at all because it opens the door to further regulation, even this reasonable compromise probably is unachievable. Home school parents, in their efforts to keep at bay unwanted state involvement in their own child's welfare, end up preventing the state from aiding children who truly are in need of help. How ironic and sad.

Dallas, City of Walkers: With comprehensive plan, it could happen

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

“Changing fundamental concepts about what a city should be isn't easy. Giving up the idea that an instantly available parking space is the highest good a human being can aspire to – even if it gives our city more holes than Swiss cheese – will require real fortitude.”

Urban planning has its trends, not unlike the changing fashions in clothing, music or television series. Except the decisions made by urban planners are with us for decades. Decisions made 50 years ago to cater to Americans' love affair with the automobile have left us with an urban landscape where cars are a necessity, even for the many who may have fallen out of love with the fossil-fuel guzzling, air polluting, road clogging vehicles. The spreading hiking/biking trails in the suburbs and the development of urban centers surrounding DART stations are a couple signs that fashions are changing. The town hall meetings in which Dallas residents are asking for a "denser, greener, more architecturally varied, more walkable Dallas" could be the start of a new trend for downtown Dallas. Good, because the old ways are starting to look pretty unfashionable.

Globalism's role in pricing power

Dallas Morning News | Danielle DiMartino:

“Six of every 10 companies don't see how they'll get their hands on that magic stuff called pricing power in the new year. To add to their troubles, nearly half the respondents see higher inflation barreling down on them.”

Global competition threatens to keep pricing power out of the hands of manufacturers for as far into the future as we can see. China is a world power in manufacturing. India is a power in software and services; manufacturing is next. Countries like Vietnam and Thailand already are taking pricing power away from even China. No country is exempt from the effects of globalization.

Add rising energy prices to global competition and you have a perfect storm that puts tremendous pressure on American jobs. Expect each new labor contract to include givebacks in the form of wage cuts and lower health and retirement benefits. In the past, such concessions came only after long and sometimes violent strikes. Today, striking only hastens the move of jobs offshore. It's a counterproductive tactic.

How does the US remain competitive? The main driver is productivity growth. Businesses are aggressively exploiting the increased efficiencies made possible by technology: computers and the Internet. In the future, it will be nanotechnology and biotechnology that offer the US a competitive edge, provided we step up investment in basic research. But competitive pressures facing businesses are leading them to scale back their own private research labs, not re-invigorate them. And the public sector's involvement in basic research has been cut back by a generation of public policy officials brought up to believe government is the problem, not the solution. Restoring the national means and national will to invest in America's future is the challenge facing the US in the 21st century.

You can't please all of the people all of the time

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

“Scenario: You decide to send Christmas cards to a few dozen friends and co-workers. Looking at options in a store display, you most like the card with a simple, reverent depiction of the Christ child in the manger. Then you think about that Vietnamese man in your department and wonder about his religion. Same goes for the couple from India who lives next door. You are sure that the Christ child is not the best choice for your Jewish friends or the Iranian fellow who coaches your daughter's soccer team. So, like Christians all over America, you buy more than one card to convey your warmest wishes of peace, love and friendship. Later, you end up mailing "season's greetings" cards to some fellow Christians. It doesn't cross your mind that Christian friends would resent an earnest message of good will. ”

Poor President Bush. It's hard being a compassionate conservative. Hard. He really ticked off some Christians by sending greeting cards that expressed "best wishes for a holiday season of hope and happiness." How thoughtless of him. ;-)

To avoid offending Christians, next year he'll have to send Christian greeting cards to everyone. The people of other faiths will probably handle it OK. After all, even the Jews and Muslims are beginning to look more tolerant than some Christians these days.

When it comes to maps, politicians will be politicians

Dallas Morning News | Carl P. Leubsdorf:

"A leaked memo has proved what was widely suspected: Justice Department political appointees overruled career lawyers to approve a Republican congressional redistricting plan for Texas. So a decision with major political ramifications was made by – politicians. Hardly a surprise."

No surprise. A little disappointment maybe, disappointment that the Republicans refuse to acknowledge the decision was political -- as if they might be embarrassed to say so. When the power to draw district boundaries is put in the hands of politicians, where it's used to maximize the representation of the party in power, it's called gerrymandering. And gerrymandering just seems unfair, a priori. Hence, the understandable embarrassment when you're caught red-handed doing it.

Given the same votes, person-by-person, it's possible to end up with quite different proportions of party representation in the legislature, depending on where the district boundaries are drawn. In fact, any system of drawing boundaries will result in complaints that one party or another has been disadvantaged, simply because another drawing of the boundaries will always exist that would have led to quite different results.

Maybe it's not all bad that politics controls the outcome, that the party in power controls redistricting. A system that requires the party out of power to achieve a significant majority to turn the ruling party out of office creates stability. Stability of government is, in general, a Good Thing™. As long as gerrymandering doesn't put up barriers so high that no change in the will of the voters is enough to result in a change of government, I just can't work up too much indignation about gerrymandering. As long as the party in power remains capable of being embarrassed when secrets of their gerrymandering efforts are made public, the system is probably still working. ... Probably.

Our global success depends on language

Dallas Morning News | Macarena Hernandez:

"Last month, a bipartisan federal commission reported language and cultural skill shortages in 70 agencies, from the FBI to the State and Commerce departments -- crucial not only to our country's economic prosperity and international relations, but also to our national security."

It's wise to pause and remember the first rule of holes: when you find yourself in one, quit digging. Before we can begin to promote foreign language skills in America, we first have to stop the ongoing war on foreign languages, aka the 'English Only' movement.

Yes, English was, is, and will be the national language. Yes, the ability to speak English is an essential skill for all citizens and residents of America. But the way to achieve that is to offer and promote English language classes, just as the way to achieve fluency in Spanish, Chinese, Farsi, etc., is to offer and promote classes in those languages. The fact that we already have so many people in America who speak so many of these languages is a national strength that we should draw on, not try to stamp out. More and more, our economic well being, even our national security, depend on it.

Beyond DeLay: New leaders could help GOP - and country

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

"Tom DeLay's legal future and the GOP agenda may look like they are knitted together like bone and muscle. But Republicans will hurt themselves, and the country, if they assume they can't succeed without the indicted representative in their leadership ranks. ... The Grand Old Party deserves a congressional leader with an untarnished record, somebody who commands respect, leads by example and displays the sort of integrity too often found lacking in public life these days."

The GOP has a low bar for ethical behavior for their leaders. Anything short of indictment seems to be a qualification for consideration for the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Karl Rove is under federal investigation for leaking information about a covert CIA officer. He continues to serve the President in the absence of an indictment. A half dozen Congressmen, including Rep. Tom Delay (R-TX), are under investigation as part of the federal investigation into Jack Abramoff's lobbying efforts. Mr. Delay is already under indictment for money laundering in an effort to circumvent Texas state law against corporate contributions to political candidates. Rep. "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA) was embroiled in influence peddling accusations for months before resigning when he was finally indicted. Yet the Ethics Committee of the House of Representatives opened no hearings on these matters, imposed no discipline, shows no concern about these scandals. In fact, the Speaker of the House proposes to delay the House's return to business until after Delay's trial in January, as if an acquittal is all that's necessary to hold a leadership position in the Republican Party in Congress. The country deserves a higher standard.

Hussein's Trial: A fair hearing? You bet. A victim? Hah.

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

"Demonized? Give us a break. Try that line on the families who lost relatives to savage slayings. See what they say about him being a victim. Mr. Clark would do well to stick to his fair-trial theme. His attempt to get us to know the inner Saddam will give civil liberties a bad name."

I wonder what DMN considers is an appropriate defense in a fair trial? Other than just pleading guilty and asking for the death penalty.

Saddam could deny atrocities were committed. But the evidence is overwhelming. Or he can admit atrocities happened but plead exculpatory circumstances. He can plausibly claim that Iraq was fighting a war against Iran, a war against Islamic extremists, a war against rebel Kurds, even a war against America. Extreme measures are sometimes necessary in wars. Civil rights are sometimes restricted, even for one's own citizens. It'll be up to a jury to decide whether Saddams's extreme actions were justified by this line of defense.

DMN might have prejudged the answer. I might have prejudged the answer. The families of Saddam's victims might have prejudged the answer. But if Iraq cannot assemble a jury that has not prejudged the answer, then Saddam cannot get a fair trial.

Even demons deserve a fair trial. Dialogue from Robert Bolt's play A Man for All Seasons applies:

ROPER: So now you'd give the devil the benefit of law?

MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the devil?

ROPER: I'd cut down every tree in England to do that.

MORE: Oh, and when the last law was down and the devil turned on you where would you hide, Roper, all the laws being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, man's laws not God's, and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - do you really think that you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the devil the benefit of the law, for my own safety's sake.

More Stubs, Not Snubs: Limit high school title games to larger stadiums

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

"Leave the coaches in charge of game sites, but restrict their choices to stadiums with at least 20,000 permanent seats. Texas is full of 'em -- pro, college, even a few high school-only facilities."

Ed Cognoski responds:

If DMN wants to change the system, at least propose a solution that would have prevented the problem that is triggering the complaints in the first place. If the DMN's proposal were in place this year, there still wouldn't be enough "stubs". The site for the Highland Park/Marshall game can admit 17,000 fans. Printing 3,000 more tickets still wouldn't meet the demand. Last week's Southlake Carroll/Plano game at Texas Stadium attracted 34,000 fans, and that wasn't even a championship game. Increase the stadium minimum seat count requirement to 50,000 for championship games and set requirements for earlier rounds as well and the proposal may make sense.

By the way, I wish news media would report on the stadium selection process for each game in the playoffs. Fans often are left wondering how a particular site was chosen and which sites were offered and rejected by opposing coaches. Because the coaches obviously believe that such choices can inflence the outcome of the game, fans should be allowed to follow this pre-game action.

Oh, holiday tree?

Dallas Morning News | Mark Davis:

"The proper battle is to make advertisers and schools comfortable with the C-word again. Seeing it in store signs and catalogs and hearing it from the lips of third-graders in a Christmas concert are not the drumbeat of proselytization; it is the acknowledgment of this season's central wish of peace and good will."

It has become politically incorrect to extend someone a friendly greeting of "Happy Holidays." There is an orchestrated campaign by religious conservatives to insist that the standard greeting of this time of year be "Merry Christmas". I'm sure that many good people will oblige in order not to unwittingly offend. Fine. Political correctness does, after all, serve a purpose.

And if the religious conservatives want to pressure retailers into featuring their religious preferences, that's how our free market system works, I guess. I don't like to see religious litmus tests for shopping, recreation, voting, etc., but the laws of the land don't forbid it, currently. I predict that eventually society will see the harm that such sectarian discrimination leads to and passes laws to forbid it. If so, it will be ironic that religious conservatives trigger even more government intrusiveness into the private sector.

Another irony about the current campaign is that a generation ago, some Christians complained about the commercialization of Christmas. They objected to using the occasion of Christ's birth to sell everything from toys to toasters. Decorating stores with Christmas trees and wreathes and garlands and advertisements wishing everyone a "Merry Christmas" was considered disrespectful then. Ironically, today, many Christians are taking offense as stores tone down the religious tie-in of their commercial advertising. Who would have thought that the old slogan "Put Christ back in Christmas" would become a call for merchants to commercialize the heck out of the birth of Jesus again, with churchgoers leading the charge?

We Can Cotton to This: But only if city gets long-term Texas-OU deal

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

"If the universities of Texas and Oklahoma will sign long-term to keep their game at the city-owned Cotton Bowl, the city will sink $50 million into new and improved seating, concession stands and concourses, a fancy new scoreboard and sound system and, yes, new restrooms."

Ed Cognoski responds:

The bad news: this plan is doomed. Texas-OU are not likely to commit to the 12 years Laura Miller hopes for and the DMN demands as a minimum, not in return for a little sprucing up of an obsolete stadium. And the BCS isn't going to commit to play a major bowl game in January in a still-old, uncovered stadium in Dallas. I'm not sure the Big 12 Conference would commit their championship game, either.

The good news: this plan is doomed. Paying $50 million for one big-time football game a year doesn't make economic sense. Instead, this announcement sounds like politicians seeking cover for the inevitable loss of the Texas-OU football game. There's not much likelihood of success, but at least they can argue they tried. And save $50 million in the bargain.

Weak on Security: Washington must do more to protect America

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

"The members of the panel investigating the Sept. 11 attacks issued their final report card yesterday, and everyone in Washington headed for cover. And with good reason. The commission handed out poor security grades on everything from insufficient cargo screening to nukes on the loose."

Despite President Bush's dwindling popularity, the one trait Americans still admire most about him is his steadfastness of purpose. It is ironic, therefore, that his obsession with war against Saddam Hussein distracted him from doing the things necessary to protect our nation's borders and homeland. The war in Iraq has drained our country, militarily, financially, politically. It is hard to imagine how this nation can draw the resources and gather the will needed to turn things around, but we must. Otherwise, those poor security grades will result in national failure.

This Is Too Bad: If we ignore 'evil' Wal-Mart, will it go away?

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

"If you really believe Wal-Mart is bad for America, don't shop there. Leave the rest of America to save a few pennies in peace. And if you cash one of those minuscule Wal-Mart paychecks, quit your job. Paying the bills is no reason to support evil in our midst."

What an illogical, confusing editorial. It could be read as a call to boycott Wal-Mart. Or it could be read as a call for those who do not like Wal-Mart to shut up and quit annoying those who do.

Many already do NOT shop at Wal-Mart on principal. Others do, not by preference, but by lack of choice. Others work there for the same reason. Doing so does not mean they support "evil." Regardless whether one shops there or works there or not, Wal-Mart has a profound impact on our neighborhoods, our shopping choices, our wages and benefits and job opportunities. And that's worth discussing and arguing and lobbying to improve.

Great Tirade Battle is a war of words

Dallas Morning News | Sherry Jacobson:

"This mayor is as tenacious now as she was as a reporter. And she can keep a fight alive for weeks or months, even if it's just a single word that has offended her. I know because the word we're fighting about now is 'tirade.' And we've entered the second month of The Great Tirade Battle."

How to explain this behavior? Mayor Laura Miller must believe that intimidating reporters leads to more favorable press coverage. But sometimes, like in this case, the intimidation backfires. The unfavorable publicity this one story will generate will outweigh any number of favorable pieces Ms. Jacobson might publish in the coming months. Worse, if Ms. Jacobson is influenced at all, it might lead to more critical pieces to avoid any appearance of having been intimidated in the first place.

Ms. Miller is an old pro in journalism. She must know this. So, how should we account for her taking offense at having her tirade be called a tirade? Perhaps her fighting with reporters is not so much calculated intimidation as it is plain old character flaw. Petulance. Now, there's a word to fight over.

Go for Transit Glory: Keep moving toward regional system

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

"Tuesday, elected officials from nine North Texas counties will meet with the state legislators to begin a dialogue that will determine whether this region enhances its future glory by building a seamless regional transit system. Most local leaders recognize the need; more than 300 of them signed on last year to a strategy for addressing it. But the Legislature, faced with retooling school finance, balked at the proposed funding mechanism: a locally approved half-cent sales tax. The question on the table now is: Do these public servants collectively have the foresight, the resourcefulness and the will to make regional rail a reality?"

In a word, no. Our public servants are responsive to the voters' mood. And that is shaped by an obsessive abhorrence to taxes. Until that is broken, expect our schools, our public transport, our environment, our communities to slowly decay and die, presided over by public servants doing just what their constituents demand of them - cut taxes.

'You get what you pay for' is true in the public sector as well as the private sector. So, what will break that anti-tax obsession? Good government. Unfortunately, the headlines from Washington (Delay, Abramoff, "Duke" Cunningham) to Dallas (DISD car allowances, vendors' yachts, etc.) give voters no reason to believe that their tax dollars will be well spent, no matter how worthy a cause regional public transportation might be.

Reshaping Israel: Leaders make welcome move toward center

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

"Mr. Sharon's dynamic, tough-minded pragmatism now defines both the center and leading edge of Israeli politics. This is all to the good -- and fascinating to contemplate from a U.S. perspective, as the American electorate grows disaffected from mainstream parties and a politics stalemated by ideological purists. Anybody know any right-of-center American war heroes respected by many liberals and strong enough to act independently of his party?"

Mr. Sharon has the experience, the credibility and the respect needed to pull off the unilateral plan for peace he is pursuing. I have long advocated an active US involvement in Israeli/Palestinian politics, but not this time. With the incompetence the Bush administration has shown in its handling of Middle East foreign policy, it's just as well that it is bogged down in a war in Iraq. Good luck to Mr. Sharon, Israel, and the Palestinians.

Senator John McCain is no Ariel Sharon. McCain never reached the top. The Republicans rejected him in 2000 and McCain himself turned down Democratic entreaties to switch parties in 2004. Instead, today, McCain is a lonely warrior, advocating causes that alienate as many as they attract. His calls for the US to renounce torture would cost him votes among Republican Bush loyalists. His calls for more US troops in Iraq would cost him votes among Democrats and independents. The US electoral system makes any third party effort virtually impossible to succeed. McCain's current positions make the odds even longer.

Why Guest Workers?: Plan offers real chance for immigration reform

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

"Don't think of a guest-worker program as a way out of legal trouble for illegal immigrants; think of it as a way out of an immigration mess for the United States."

President Bush's support for a guest worker program is welcome. He and the DMN should quit trying to pretend it's something else. It is a way out of legal trouble for illegal immigrants. It is an amnesty program, with terms and conditions. Denying the obvious may be a way to sell the need for immigration reform, but it's not honest. With that in mind, here are some more direct answers to the questions DMN raises.

Isn't a "guest-worker program" just code for "amnesty"? Yes. Like it or not, an amnesty program is necessary.

But those here already wouldn't be punished? No. But there will be conditions on receiving amnesty.

Wouldn't deportation be punishment? Yes, it would be, but deporting 11 million illegal aliens is impractical, disruptive and even dangerous to American citizens.

What message does a guest worker program send to immigrants who have followed our laws? That they will now be treated better themselves, instead of always being automatically assumed to be among the 11 million illegal immigrants.

Why not focus on beefing up the Border Patrol first? That's a good goal, too.

One Error Is One Too Many: Review and fix Texas' death-row system

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

"Texas leaders have long asserted that the state's renowned death chamber has been error-free since reinstatement of capital punishment. Now a lone voice convincingly challenges that claim."

Of all the reasons in favor of the death penalty, claiming the system is error-free is the most outrageously dishonest. Many defendents cannot afford a legal defense. In the case of Ruben Cantu, his appeals attorney said she could not afford to hire an investigator to interview her client's alleged accomplice despite receiving a note from him that the 'case with Ruben is real messed up.' In other cases, the defendent's representation is incompetent. Calvin Burdine's attorney slept during much of his trial. In still other cases, such as that of Ricardo Aldape Guerra, evidence of police or prosecutorial misconduct led to his conviction being overturned on appeal. And in some cases, new scientific techniques, not available during the original trial, lead to reversals years later.

Dozens of people have been released from death row when evidence of their innocence emerged, many times as a result of efforts not available to most death row inmates. How can anyone claim that no other errors have avoided detection? For anyone to claim that the legal system in Texas, or any state, or any legal system devised by human society, has always been error-free, and will always be error-free, is grossly offensive. There are valid arguments that can be made in favor of the death penalty. This isn't one of them.

At Last, a War Strategy

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

"In fact, with congressional elections on the horizon, Mr. Bush could well face a virtual revolt on Capitol Hill unless there are signs that the American people not only accept that he has a strategy but also that it is working to stem the casualties. If the people and Congress decide that the only way to do that is to get out of Iraq, Mr. Bush will be hard-pressed to retain his garments. Because, in our system, where someone other than the guy at the top controls the purse strings, the emperor can suddenly find his closet bare."

The President's position is not so much a war strategy, that is, a plan for how to prosecute the war, as it is an outline of the conditions for leaving the war. Because none of the conditions have defined benchmarks, the President is free at any time to declare victory and begin the long, gradual troop reduction.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is already speculating on troop withdrawals beginning in 2006. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld says that troop levels will be determined by the military commanders, giving him cover from possible charges of retreat. Vice President Cheney began running this game plan last Spring already, when he confidently reported that the insurgency was in its "last throes." He was too early and the insurgents didn't cooperate, but expect him to try this line again in Spring, 2006.

So, there won't be any showdown on Capitol Hill between Congress and the White House. The troops will begin to come home. Remaining troops will move into a support role. The Shiites will be given more latitude to suppress the Sunnis. The Administration will portray this as Iraqis taking the lead in the war on terror, not as a worsening civil war. So long as the White House can announce, every so often, another drawdown of troops, Congress and the American people will be appeased.

In short, the President didn't announce a war strategy so much as a political strategy. Now, if the insurgents just cooperate and provide a decent interval for the Americans to depart, Bush can have his victory and the insurgents can eventually have their country. And everyone else can argue for a generation whether it was worth it.

If it's not settled by '08, the 'Iraq question' could split the Democratic Party

Dallas Morning News | Carl P. Leubsdorf:

"The bottom line is that, unless the United States succeeds in Iraq by 2008, anti-war sentiment could dominate the Democratic primaries and create a split that would damage the party's chances."

Mr. Leubsdorf's analysis of the political calculus is excellent. Support the war in Iraq and run the risk of losing the Democratic primaries. Favor a pullout, giving the appearance of being soft on the war on terror, and risk losing the general election. In either case, appear to be indecisive or waffling and risk losing the respect of Republicans and Democrats alike. As much as Democrats may be relishing the political troubles the war in Iraq is causing President Bush, this war could end up hurting the Democrats even more.