Highway massacre is largely ignored

Star-Telegram | Peter J. Woolley:

“The non-story of 2006 was also the non-story of 2005. It is a non-story every year going back decades. Yet the number of people who die in car crashes in the United States is staggering, even if it is absent from the agenda of most public officials and largely ignored by the public.
...
Roads need to be made safer, for example, by extending guardrails and medians to every mile of busy highways. Speeding and aggressive driving need to be much more rigorously controlled. Trucks need to be separated from automobiles wherever possible. And cars need to be built slower and stronger.
...
But every solution is readily opposed by someone: manufacturers, industrial unions, truckers, consumers, taxpayers -- though all are potential victims themselves.
...
Only if there is a public outcry will this situation get the attention due it.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Most New Year's resolutions focus on personal shortcomings — losing weight, quitting smoking, etc. This column offers an alternative. Resolve in 2007 to be part of that public outcry, to challenge manufacturers, politicians, neighbors, friends and family to be part of a public movement to increase highway safety in this country. The life you save might be your own.

Happy New Year to all!

Say no to higher payroll taxes

Dallas Blog | Tom Pauken:

“ The Wall St. Journal has an editorial in Wednesday's edition about the Democratic Congressional effort to push for a hike in payroll taxes in order to 'save Social Security'. What is troubling are reports that President Bush may be receptive to that bad idea. ... Liberals in Congress want to raise the cap on the payroll tax which currently is at $94,000. ”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Maybe a revenue-neutral scheme of a flat payroll tax on all incomes should be considered. The payroll tax on incomes less than $94,000 could be cut, benefiting the majority of workers. This wouldn't save Social Security, but it does move us closer to a flat tax, which I hear some say is a good thing. ;-)

The "solution" to saving Social Security is some kind of grand compromise involving reduced benefits, delayed benefits, raised taxes and possibly private accounts or beefed up IRA/Roth/401K/etc accounts. But compromise is impossible when vested interests have a stake in the status quo. Seniors and baby boomers (aka voters) want to keep things as they are until they collect (afterwards be d*mned). Opportunistic Democrats are inclined to support them as it helps them win elections. Ideological Republicans are inclined to support them, too, on the theory that the longer the status quo holds, the more likely Social Security will go bust and they can get rid of the safety net thing altogether. So, status quo wins, for a little longer anyway.

Local officials in Tarrant County want more revenues to spend

Dallas Blog covers a story in a way that has Tom Pauken's fingerprints all over it, although it's unattributed. The headline, repeated above, is a clue. Alternative headline: "LOCAL OFFICIALS IN TARRANT COUNTY SUPPORT RAIL". The story could have explained how rail can help reduce America's dependence on foreign oil controlled by Islamofascists. The story could have explained how the Tarrant County officials' actions could increase the chances of Western civilization surviving. That, too, would suit Mr Pauken's political axe-grinding. But the story focuses on Mr Pauken's tired old anti-government spin, crafted to suit his current crusade for cutting local property taxes by handicapping local government. Spin, either way, but this time Mr Pauken's reflexive dislike of taxes wins out.

As for the taxpayers, they had their say when they elected their representatives. If they don't care for light rail and the energy independence it enables, they can elect different representatives. That the representatives don't toe the line advocated by Dallas Blog is not reason to strip local government of power.

Reagan's foreign policy was not at all like Bush's

Tom Pauken, publisher of Dallas Blog, is at it again, redefining the Bush administration in an attempt to absolve conservatism of any blame for the disastrous foreign policy results of the last six years. In today's blog, Tom Pauken explains how Reagan conservatism was different from Bush 43's brand of conservatism. We now have Goldwater conservatives, Reagan conservatives, neo-conservatives, paleo-conservatives and who knows how many other species in this political managerie. Tom Pauken claims the mantle of Goldwater and Reagan for himself, of course, and, they, being dead, are in no position to object.

Tom Pauken pins all the failures of the last six years on conservatives of other stripes. Well, that's not quite right. He denies them the honor (?) of being called conservative at all. If Tom Pauken had his way, American history would assign the failure of the Bush administration's foreign policy to the Democrats, as Tom Pauken traces the neo-conservative pedigree back to liberal Democrats such as John F. Kennedy. So, there you have it. Kennedy can be blamed not only for Vietnam, but now you can pin the Iraq War disaster on Kennedy liberalism, too. And the conservatives can skate home free.

Rather than these futile attempts to reassign blame, scapegoat others, deny responsibility for themselves, Tom Pauken and conservatives could do the country a belated service by talking about how to move forward and salvage whatever we can from the foreign policy disasters that conservatism has brought down on us in the last six years.

By the way, you can't read criticism like the above on Dallas Blog itself. My responses to Tom Pauken's blog get deleted without notice or explanation. Censorship of opposing political views on Dallas Blog is common despite the occasional token appearance of dissent.

Wildcats dismissed from team after MySpace controversy

Plano Courier | Kevin Hageland:

“ Although MySpace is often used as a means of social networking, the popular website is now at the center of a controversy that has resulted in the dismissal of at least two players from the Plano Senior High School baseball team. ”

Ed Cognoski responds:

The popularity of MySpace, Flickr, YouTube, etc., make it oh so easy for a small joke to grow into a very public humiliation that backfires on the too clever joker. In this case, students allegedly set up a fake MySpace account to poke fun at the high school baseball coach. It's too bad no one taught the students proper online etiquette and the potential consequences of crossing the line. But judging by the reactions to this incident, it sounds like a lot of people may be in need of remedial lessons in basic social skills.

One disciplined student is quoted as saying, "Some of the comments were kind of mean, but we weren't trying to be hurtful, it was just a spoof. The things we were doing were all in fun." In other words, mean = fun to these students. As long as the perpetrators get a laugh out of it, no harm done, right?

So, do the parents step in, tell their children to 'fess up, apologize, take their lumps and move on? Not according to the Courier story. One parent is quoted as saying, "I think [the coach] is manipulative and he is a liar. I am sick of the good ol' boys network running roughshod over all of Plano sports." Any guesses where the students' lack of respect for authority comes from?

What do other students learn from the experience? If the Courier story is any indication, it's that the team's playoff chances are too important to jeopardize. One teammate says the players would vote unanimously to take the expelled players back on the team. Another explains why. "Our coach always talks about making the playoffs, but it is going to be really difficult without those two guys. I don't think he realizes how big of a hit this is going to be."

It's hard to satirize the news, when the news itself reads like satire. Real life Plano is apparently living up to its stereotypes.

George still doesn't get it

Startle Grams | Paul Bourgeois:

President Bush says “we need to expand the military. ... He says we need the troops to meet the challenges of a long-term global struggle against terrorists. Who? Where? Are we learning nothing? Is he thinking we should have more military adventures such as Iraq? Sure, it's been such a good experience, we need the troops to do this again somewhere else.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

President Bush is living up to the old adage that generals prepare to fight the last war, not the next one. When President Bush gets his enlarged army, he'll be ready to invade Iraq, this time with sufficient force to occupy the country. Only it won't be 2003 anymore.

On bridge-building

Dallas Morning Views | Rod Dreher:

“In 2003, after I'd only been in Dallas for a few months, we had a meeting with Dr. Sayyid Syeed, head of the Islamic Society of North America. Dr. Syeed was as pleasant as could be as long as we talked very generally about peace and cooperation. But when I asked him how he squared his professed belief in peace and tolerance with the indisputable fact that members of the ISNA board had been directly linked to extremist organizations and viewpoints, he became furious, shook his fist at me, told me that I would one day 'repent,' and said my questions reminded him of Nazi Germany.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Rod Dreher's account of his interviews with Dallas area Muslim leaders certainly suggests an unwillingness on their part to brook any criticism. But Mr Dreher's criticism contains assumptions that may contribute to the Muslim leaders' belief that there is a bias against Muslims.

Mr Dreher criticizes mosques using Muslim philosopher Sayyid Qutb's thought as part of a quiz competition. He doesn't say how the quiz questions were worded or whether Sayyid Qutb's thought is taught by the mosque in a doctrinaire manner or as part of a survey of Islamic philosophers. Mr Dreher himself presents to his readers a passage from Sayyid Qutb's writings, but presumably he's not promoting Qutb by doing so. We shouldn't just assume mosques are doing so by presenting Qutb's writings to their students.

Even if we grant Mr Dreher's implication that the mosques are promoting Sayyid Qutb, the passage Mr Dreher chooses to quote doesn't strike me as all that different from what a fundamentalist Christian might say. Don't they argue that you can't pick and choose which verses of scripture to believe? Don't they argue that the only way to salvation is through Jesus Christ? Don't they believe it a Christian's duty to spread the good news of Jesus Christ and convert the unbelievers? Just how much dialog can one have with people whose SUVs sport a bumper sticker that proclaims, "God said it. I believe it. That settles it."

None of this should be interpreted as defense of Sayyid Qutb and his intolerant views. Or criticism of Christianity's faith-based certitude about the correctness of its own world view, for that matter. It is meant to suggest that no one should be surprised that Rod Dreher's prosecutorial attitude results in defensive backlash from Muslims rather than the bridge-building dialog Mr Dreher says he wants.

Tax-limit gimmicks

Waco Tribune-Herald | Editorial:

“The Texas Legislature seems ever-intent on shoving unfunded mandates down local governments' throats. At the same time, Gov. Rick Perry seems ever-intent on putting the clamps on the revenue they need to do what the state orders.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

This editorial is too long to quote in its entirety, but there's much in it worthy of repeating.

It gives credit to the so-called Task Force on Appraisal Reform (TFAR) for avoiding the most odious suggestions that have been discussed, such as appraisal caps. And the task force apparently will call on state government to help fund mandates.

It correctly points out that taxpayers already have means to rollback excessive property tax rates, either through rollback petitions or by simply voting big spenders out of office.

It highlights the risk of saddling local governments with unfunded mandates while simultaneously capping revenues. It points to Colorado's troubles with that state's so-called Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) law, which was strangling cities, counties and school districts.

Finally, it puts its finger on what Texas really needs — a means of telling meddlers in Austin to back away and figure out ways to pay for what they demand.

"Unfunded mandates by the state government are driving up the cost of local government," said Rep. Fred Hill, chairman of the Texas House's Local Government Ways and Means Committee, as reported by the Austin American-Statesman. The Texas legislature can better address growth in property tax bills by controlling itself and curtailing unfunded mandates than by lowering the amount by which the taxable value of a home can grow or the amount by which local government tax revenues can grow.

May I have a word? Ching chong

Dallas Morning News | Esther Wu:

“Rosie O'Donnell said she was just making a joke on The View last week. But few Asian-Americans found humor in her words. While talking about the notoriety that actor Danny DeVito created by his recent appearance on the show, Ms. O'Donnell said: "In China it was like, 'Ching chong, ching chong Danny DeVito!'" ... Why is it that Ms. O'Donnell doesn't understand that these words are as repugnant as Mel Gibson's anti-Semitic comments or Michael Richards' racist remarks? It's wrong for someone to use the N-word or do a stand-up comedy routine in black face, so how can it be OK to make fun of the way Chinese people talk?”

Ed Cognoski responds:

It is not OK to make fun of the way Chinese people talk. But that's not what Rosie O'Donnell was doing. She was commenting on how big a phenomenon Danny DeVito's appearance on The View was, with people talking about it around the world. Perhaps she should have used video clips from international news and talk shows to make her point. But she didn't. She imitated the sounds. Not being able to speak the language herself, she used fake Chinese. The subject of her humor was the international fuss over Danny DeVito, not how Chinese speech sounds.

To compare this incident with Mel Gibson's anti-Semitic rant or Michael Richards' racist rant goes way overboard. In those cases, bigotry was the whole point of the rant. That's far from the case here.

Nevertheless, some Chinese people were genuinely offended by the comment. They don't want to have to figure out intent. They don't want others to maybe draw the conclusion that mocking a foreign language is OK. Fair enough. Rosie O'Donnell ought to apologize and resolve to drop the shtick. Chinese people ought to accept the apology and move on.

It's not always easy to know where to draw the line between witty satire and insensitive comedy. Trouble is, the line keeps moving. Charlie Chan, once hilarious, is now embarrassing. Inspector Clouseau? No longer hilarious, maybe, but not yet embarrassing enough to prevent an unfunny Steve Martin remake. And Borat? Apparently witty satire and politically acceptable to laugh at. Or maybe not. Watch who hears you. The consensus can change on a dime.

May I have a word? Zeitgeist

Dallas Morning News | Steve Blow:

“And I stand by my judgment that "zeitgeist" – however you pronounce it – is one of those words used primarily to impress other people. It may be fine for an NPR commentary, but not for the mass audience of a newspaper. (Though I'm certainly not calling you a dumb mass.)”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Sure he is. Steve Blow is putting on his sweet, aw-shucks, good ole boy manner to help the medicine of his grammar lesson go down. Or perhaps it's only to share his pedantic fussiness with like-minded readers without alienating the "dumb masses" who make up the rest of his audience.

His subject, the word zeitgeist, is a foreign word imported into English because English doesn't have a suitable synonym. It's primarily used, not to impress others, but to express an idea for which English has no equivalent word. Whether "Heroes" is, or isn't, a zeitgeist TV series is a matter of debate. But the concept of a zeitgeist TV series, whether it's a Western from the 1950s or a reality show from today, is a rich and meaningful concept, captured in a single word — zeitgeist.

Would Mr Blow prefer to talk about the plot twists of the series or celebrity gossip surrounding its actors and actresses? Perhaps Mr Blow believes that the very act of talking about ideas is done to impress others. Remember the folk wisdom:

"Great people talk about ideas.
Average people talk about things.
Small people talk about other people."
-- Author unknown

Some say the dumbing down of popular culture is part of the zeitgeist of our age. If so, Mr Blow, by implying that zeitgeist is itself too big a word for him to understand, is an example of that zeitgeist himself. Come on, Mr Blow, give your readers more credit than that.

To the President: Lead!

Dallas Blog | William Murchison:

“For us to win [in Iraq], things would have to get uglier, snarlier, more divisive at home. We would have to take McCain's advice on troop strength. We might have to seal, however imperfectly, Iraq's borders with Syria and Iran, over which money and munitions constantly pour, headed for the murderous militias that have brought Iraqi affairs to this unpleasant pass. We would unmistakably have to pound those militias to powder or at least into temporary submission.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

The Iraq Study Group (ISG) addressed William Murchison's preferred alternative course and explained why it would not lead to victory.

"Sustained increases in U.S. troop levels would not solve the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq, which is the absence of national reconciliation. A senior American general told us that adding U.S. troops might temporarily help limit violence in a highly localized area. However, past experience indicates that the violence would simply rekindle as soon as U.S. forces are moved to another area. As another American general told us, if the Iraqi government does not make political progress, 'all the troops in the world will not provide security.' Meanwhile, America's military capacity is stretched thin: we do not have the troops or equipment to make a substantial, sustained increase in our troop presence. Increased deployments to Iraq would also necessarily hamper our ability to provide adequate resources for our efforts in Afghanistan or respond to crises around the world."

Mr Murchison offers no rebuttal to the ISG's arguments, only exhortation, as if saying something vociferously enough adds a logical foundation to an argument utterly lacking same.

Mr Murchison has a right to be frustrated. All Americans are. He cries out for America to lash out, to "pound those militias to powder", even though he himself lets slip the reality that it would only be "temporary submission". To its credit, the ISG doesn't give in to simplistic recommendations that offer only the temporary satisfaction of "pounding" someone. In the end, Mr Murchison's rant is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

The Iraq Study Group is a political creation, as Mr Murchison suggests. Its purpose is to provide political cover for the President to extricate America from this disastrous war. If that's what it takes, so be it. The fact is that Mr Murchison's preferred alternative, military victory, is no longer achievable, if it ever was. The longer it takes for President Bush to recognize that and change course, the higher the death toll, the more lasting the damage to America's strategic position in the Middle East and the world, and the less secure we are at home.

Iraqis and U.S. must give everything to give winning a chance

Dallas Morning News | Mark Davis:

“Remember all of those purple fingers proudly waved on a succession of election days in Iraq? That's a lovely image. Now it is time for those fingers to be wrapped around the trigger of every gun those voters can find, to fight the insurgency in their own neighborhoods. If the all-out effort I describe succeeds, today's bickering and doubts will fade into obscurity. If it fails – if Iraqis choose continued tribal civil strife over peace and stability – only then can we accurately say we tried.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Earth to Mark Davis. The Iraqis have already chosen tribal civil strife over peace and stability. In case you haven't noticed, there's a civil war underway. Passing out guns to every Iraqi who waved a purple finger in the air is not going to bring stability. Those guns won't be used to fight an "insurgency". Iraqis will use them to fight each other. Sunnis fighting Shias. Shias fighting Sunnis. For the average Sunni, trying to stay alive and keep his family alive, al Qaeda is more likely to be viewed as a protector than a threat.

Mr Davis' suggestion for increased force might have worked ... in 2003. Unfortunately, it's 2006. Incompetent prosecution of the war in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 leaves victory no longer achievable, unless one defines victory as the temporary calm that brutal, indiscriminate slaughter could impose only as long as the brutal crackdown lasted. Realistically, escalating the war at this late juncture only makes a bad situation worse.

The Iraq Study Group offers a blueprint, not for victory, but for a withdrawal with whatever shreds are left of our dignity. President Bush would be wise to take it, over Mark Davis' objection. Besides, Mark Davis will need an excuse later to avoid taking responsibility for supporting this disastrous failure of foreign policy.

Texas Municipal League wages aggressive campaign to deny citizens vote

Dallas Blog | Tom Pauken:

“The Texas Municipal League (TML) sent out an email to all of its members across the state last night making it clear that it will vigorously oppose any legislative effort to allow local citizens to have a say on property tax increases resulting from higher appraised values of property and/or higher tax rates.”

Ed Cogoski responds:

How about giving voters a say in the unelected task forces that an unpopular governor appoints? Tom Pauken couldn't get elected to any office, but that doesn't stop him from using his appointed position as chairman of the so-called Task Force on Appraisal Reform to tell local taxpayers that they can't be trusted electing city councils and school boards to represent their interests. If Mr Pauken really wants to help local government, let him get elected to a school board at least once before using the state's power to dictate how local government is best run.

Historians Show Bias Not Objectivity on Bush

Dallas Blog | Bob Reagan:

“The 'Points' section in The Dallas Morning News features four academics expressing their views on how history will view President George W. Bush. ... Well, the jury is still out – or to put it politically incorrectly, the fat lady hasn't sung – on Iraq yet. The results will be inconclusive even as Bush leaves office, and may be for some time afterward.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Historians understand how a president's standing can change over time. All four of the historians' essays made that point. So, cheer up. George W Bush's reputation might still be rehabilitated in the coming decades. Maybe future historians will someday come to value cronyism, corruption, disdain for law, and unnecessary wars launched under false pretenses and prosecuted disastrously.

The Blind Leading the Blind

Dallas Blog | Tara Ross:

“In 2001, the American Council of the Blind filed a lawsuit alleging that U.S. currency discriminates against the blind because a blind person can¿t tell, by touching a paper bill, whether it is a $1, $10, $20, or some other denomination.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

We ought to have done this decades ago, like every other nation on the planet, none of whom found it financially burdensome. If cost is really an issue, consider this. The US continues to print wasteful $1 notes. Put a stop to that and the money we save will pay for retooling costs for modernizing the rest of our currency. A sensible currency design will increase efficiency and decrease errors throughout our economy. Even a blind man can see that.

It's a Value Judgment

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

“While state law requires properties to be appraised at full market value, property owners are not required to disclose the price at which properties – especially commercial ones – are bought and sold. ... The Texas Association of Appraisal Districts says commercial properties therefore are undervalued, costing school districts and other taxing bodies billions of tax dollars each year. Worse, the group says, the tax burden shifts to residential homeowners, especially those whose properties are assessed close to market value.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

If Texas wants to rely on property taxes to fund government, Texas ought to demand the information needed to accurately appraise the value of property. This should be a no-brainer. But be careful. Taxpayers are so suspicious of government that they will see this as a scheme by appraisal districts to jack up appraisals. The Dallas Morning News practically comes right out and says so.

The Dallas Morning News rightly warns taxing authorities not to use mandatory disclosure of sales prices as an excuse to create a revenue windfall. Appraisal districts are doing a lousy job of convincing taxpayers that's not their plan, that residential homeowners are likely to benefit from this change. Maybe that's because there's some basis to the fear. Maybe some taxing authorities are salivating over the prospect of increased revenues. If so, we risk ending up with no sales disclosures and movements to cap local tax revenues or, worse, tax rates. That leads to the worst of both worlds – an unfairly distributed tax burden and underfunded local governments.

Come on, appraisal districts. Give us reason to believe you can be trusted to use this new power frugally.

May I have a word? Divisive

This week, Texas Gov. Rick Perry criticized several immigration proposals, calling ideas such as a border wall "divisive". That drove The Dallas Morning News' Rod Dreher into a mini-rant.

"I despise the word 'divisive' used as a term of opprobrium in political discussion. Anything controversial is divisive. If we don't want divisiveness, let's stop having elections, then. What the governor is doing with this language is smothering the political debate in touchy-feely language, in an attempt to silence his opponents by calling them meanies. It's not for nothing that this kind of talk is almost always used by the left to describe the negative reaction from the right to whatever progressive proposal the left insists upon."

Part of Mr Dreher's irritation appears to be nothing more than pedantic fussiness. The dictionary definition of "divisive" meaning "causing dissension" can, in fact, be applied to any political controversy. So, technically, divisiveness is politics is no vice. It's the nature of the beast.

But Mr Dreher is not usually schoolmarmish when it comes to language. It's his claim that this kind of talk is almost always used by the left that shows what he's really sensitive about. As a conservative, he just doesn't like being called divisive when he is... well, being divisive. So, he argues that both sides are divisive, at least according to the literal definition.

But it's not the literal definition that the left has in mind. The Presidency of George W Bush owes itself to a strategy devised by Karl Rove that depends on divisiveness. Mr Rove believes that the undecided moderate middle is no longer large enough to decide elections. Instead, in his view, victory goes to the side that can rally its base to turn out in larger percentages. Emphasizing wedge issues like guns, God, and gays was what won George W Bush the White House. The Democrats tried to downplay these issues in appealing to moderates and undecideds. Thus, accusations of being divisive were leveled more at Republicans, because, frankly, Republicans were more guilty of using the tactic.

Mr Dreher tries to rehabilitate the word divisive by pointing to the civil rights movement as an example of divisiveness being used for good. "Those who fought segregation in the 1960s were being divisive, and thank God for them." That strikes this ear as being a very odd application of the word divisive. Jim Crow segregation laws were a brutally divisive way of organizing society. Claiming that those who fought to end this divisiveness were, themselves, the ones being divisive is simply Orwellian, no matter the dictionary definition. It reminds me of today's political moves to cut taxes for the rich or to impose English only laws. If someone objects to these measures on fairness grounds, they are the ones accused of class warfare or playing the race card, respectively. Now, one can't even point out when the other side is being divisive without being accused of being divisive oneself. Orwellian, indeed.

Arguments familiar as court weighs school admission

Dallas Morning News | Mark Davis:

“What could be more basic than the precept that kids should attend the schools closest to their homes? America is a tapestry of neighborhoods of varying racial mixes. Because everyone lives where they choose, some schools will feature a prevalent race while others are a mixture of pigments. There is nothing more or less advantageous about any particular mix. This is a freedom argument. People should live where they wish to live, and the kids should all go to the closest school.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

It's not true that everyone lives where they choose. Does Mark Davis truly believe that most people willingly choose to live in crime- and drug-infested neighborhoods in substandard housing with unreliable heating, plumbing, or electricity? Poverty effectively traps people in such housing. And such housing tends to be concentrated as a result of zoning laws.

More basic than sending kids to neighborhood schools is sending kids to good schools. Champions of school choice know that. At least they do when the goal is to siphon off public school money to private, religious schools. School choice can be used for a nobler goal, helping end segregation, which is still a problem today, whether that segregation is the result of Jim Crow laws or more subtle economic factors.

I am no fan of forced busing. Some parents prefer neighborhood schools, even when they are inferior. Instead, we ought to promote a voluntary school choice program. Commit to providing a slot in any public school that a student wants to go to, regardless of distance, regardless of district boundaries. And commit to providing free transportation to that school. If that inner city child wants to ride a school bus two hours each way to that shiny new school in the suburbs, he ought to be given that choice. Phase in the program, so school districts have a chance to adjust to demand. As popular schools get crowded, districts will need to expand them or emulate them in its other schools to balance demand.

Is this an expensive solution? Possibly. But so is forced busing. So is continuation of the status quo, attendance at substandard neighborhood schools, which leads to failed educations and failed lives. Continuation of the status quo could, in fact, be the most expensive option of all.

New paper dismisses human role in global warming

Dallas Blog | Scott Bennett:

“Again, some voices have been raised suggesting that global warming isn't the end of life as we know it that it is cracked up to be.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

The paper by Khilyuk and Chilingar doesn't say global warming is not a serious problem. All it claims is that humans are not the cause of global warming, arguing that the entire energy generated by humans could heat the atmosphere by no more than 0.01°C. And the data presented, while possibly accurate, doesn't even contradict theories of human causation.

Be sure to read the rebuttal, published online by the same journal. The rebuttal by W. Aeschbach-Hertig points out the irrelevance of direct heating, "since no serious scientist ever claimed that global warming is due to direct heating of the atmosphere, but to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect, which the paper does not discuss."

Aeschbach-Hertig concludes:

It is astonishing that the paper of Khilyuk and Chilingar (2006) (as well as Khilyuk and Chilingar 2004, for that matter) could pass the review process of a seemingly serious journal such as Environmental Geology. Such failures of this process, which is supposed to guarantee the quality of published literature, are likely to damage the reputation of this journal.

Tell it on the mountain

Star-Telegram | Kristine Christlieb:

“May we not seek the destruction of our enemies but their heart-felt conversion to Jesus. Let us not occupy Muslim countries but rather their minds and hearts. Let us be resourceful in finding ways to show our love and concern for the people of the Middle East. And finally, may we be courageous and unafraid to speak the truth in love, even if it costs us our lives. ”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Ms Christlieb (sic) correctly identifies the holiness of Jesus as a major reason for the spread of Christianity. Another factor, unmentioned but permeating the column, is proselytizing. Christians make up a pushy, holier-than-thou and you'd-better-know-it religion.

Ms Christlieb praises Jesus for being "sinless" and says Muslims have to defend Muhammed for his supposedly sinful life.

Ms Christlieb calls on her fellow Christians to "occupy" the minds and hearts of Muslims.

Maybe Muslims feel threatened by having their homelands invaded by Christian armies. Maybe Muslims don't like Christians coming into their homes and calling their prophet evil. Maybe Muslims just want Christians to leave them alone.

Of course, Christians have similar feelings. Religions are more alike than they are different. Really. Maybe Ms Christlieb should come down off her high mountain and take a few comparative religion courses herself. She could benefit from learning the good that underlies most religions.

Seven-Day Wonders

Unfair Park | Bible Girl:

“ ‘If it's true that the earth is millions of years of age and that death has always been a part of creation,’ Lindsay says, ‘then death is just a natural cycle. Therefore the Bible is false, because the Bible says that death came as a result of man'’s sin. That caught my attention.’ ”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Lindsay is "Dennis Lindsay, president of 'Christ for the Nations Institute', a mission-oriented Bible school in southern Dallas with a Pentecostal-charismatic flavor."

Rather than draw the logical conclusion that the Bible is, in fact, creation myth, tribal history, nationalist propaganda, poetry, theology, all mixed up, Mr Lindsay decides that the evidence of his eyes and logic of his brain must be wrong and the millennial-old writings of a religious sect in the Middle East must be useful as a modern science textbook, inerrantly true about geology, biology, archaeology and all other scientific questions. Why? Because otherwise... it wouldn't be.

But enough of the idiocy of creationism. Bible Girl tries to present a silly argument for creationism while keeping it at arm's length so that people won't accuse her of being just as looney as Mr Lindsay. She says things like:

I did think it a bit odd -- well, maybe even a tad embarrassing -- to cling so tenaciously to the young-earth view, that our planet is a mere 6,000 years old, based on the genealogies in the Bible.

but then says,

Even so, many of us evangelicals would prefer to politely sidestep the whole creationism thing.

Sorry, Bible Girl, that won't do. Either you believe the nonsense that Mr Lindsay is selling, or you don't. Sidestepping it is an admission that you can't put two and two together yourself. You can't imply that it's a tough call and both sides make some good points. Because you never come right out and say Mr Lindsay is loonier than a Canadian water fowl, you show yourself to be a looney, too, just as much as someone who says they'll "tiptoe around" little green men in flying saucers or leprechauns or whether two plus two equals four or maybe, three, because of something about the Holy Trinity or some other Biblical pretzel twisting logic.

By the way, that moon dust argument for a young earth? Scientists estimate that the moon collects about an inch of space dust per billion years. Or about 4 inches over the lifetime of the moon, pretty much what the Apollo astronauts found. The creationists' claim that a 4 billion year old moon would have a hundred-foot-thick layer of space dust is based on false assumptions. You don't really think NASA would have sent a manned lander to the moon if they thought it would disappear in a hundred-foot-thick layer of space dust, do you?

Bible Girl may not be interested in science, but that doesn't excuse her from using the good sense God gave her. Reject creationism for the nonsense it is.

Bill to deny liability protections to builders hiring illegal aliens

Dallas Blog | Will Lutz:

“Rep. David McQuade Leibowitz (D-San Antonio) has filed a bill that would prevent builders who hire illegal immigrants or use subcontractors who hire illegal immigrants from benefitting from new legislative liability protections.”

The Republican tent is fraying. It's coming apart along the seam of immigration. The business Republicans want a guest worker program. The nationalist Republicans want to crack down on illegal immigrants.

Up to now, both have supported so-called tort reform. With this bill, the nationalist Republicans are restricting who benefits from tort reform. This bill denies one benefit of tort reform, liability protection, to businesses that don't crack down on illegal immigration. Will this divide the business Republicans and nationalist Republicans? It'll be interesting to see whether anti-immigrant fervor will cost Republicans some of their support from business.

Is Farmers Branch Racist?

Dallas Morning News | Mark Davis:

“Riding a wave of voter support, the Farmers Branch council passed a law creating penalties for renting to illegal immigrants. The city also declared English its official language. This had two effects. Among those who are passionate about strong laws and effective borders, Mr. O'Hare became an instant hero. To those opposed, he became a gringo devil, a ripe target for some of the most reckless slander in recent North Texas political history.”

Mark Davis nominates as his Texan of the Year Farmers Branch city council member Tim O'Hare. Dividing neighbor against neighbor, driving a wedge deep into the heart of a community, are achievements that Mr Davis believes are deserving of honor. In Mr Davis' estimation, prejudice is heroic.

Mr Davis defends discrimination against Hispanics by claiming he is only defending the law. Now, English-only is the new law in Farmers Branch. Discrimination is now patriotic, by definition. This is the latest example where the law has been used to support prejudice and discrimination. Mr Davis argues that because the laws don't explicitly specify race, they can't possibly be racist. The history of the civil rights movement offers numerous counter-examples, for example voting laws whose intent was to discriminate against African-Americans, but whose wording never mentioned race. The racists of that day also claimed they were only doing their patriotic duty, defending the law. The laws passed in Farmers Branch do not sink to the depths of the Jim Crow laws, but they are still discriminatory and unjustified.

Two hundred years ago, Samuel Johnson said "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." It was still true a hundred years ago when Jim Crow was the law of the land. And Mr O'Hare and Mr Davis are showing that it's still true today in Farmers Branch, Texas.

Bill to require disclosure of real estate sales prices filed

Dallas Blog | Scott Bennett:

“Rep. Michael Villarreal (D- San Antonio) has introduced HB133 to require full disclosure for any sale of real estate. The idea is that this will create greater transparency in the market and better equip County Appraisal Boards to accurately appraise property values. ”

Hooray. As long as Texas is going to put a large tax burden on real estate, it is imperative that government use accurate property appraisals when calculating tax bills. Recent sales prices of comparable houses is the best aid in doing this. Without that, the whole system is a crapshoot.

Homeowners should have demanded this long ago. This gives homeowners the data they need to challenge inaccurate assessments. Anyone who feels that their last property appraisal was too high, maybe even a deliberate move by government to jack up their property taxes, should welcome this bill.

Officials not required to disclose value of monetary gifts

Star-Telegram | Associated Press:

“State officials don't have to report the value of monetary gifts they receive from political donors, the Texas Ethics Commission ruled Monday. ... The commission voted 5-3 on Monday to approve a staff advisory opinion that said describing such a gift simply as a 'check' is enough. No amount is necessary. ”

Is Texas Ethics an oxymoron?

Is there any state official who is willing to go on record supporting this decision? The Star-Telegram story does identify a few heroes who are openly challenging it:

"State Rep. Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth, sued the ethics commission in April asking that 'meaningful' descriptions of gifts be required. After the ethics commission ruled on Monday, Burnam said he was eager to move forward with the lawsuit. The opinion 'clearly, obviously violates the intent of the law,' he said. 'They deliberately I think misconstrued it and they are showing how utterly spineless and useless they are as an ethics commission.'

Four state representatives have filed bills that would change the law's wording to require officials to disclose the value of a monetary gift."

Hooray for Rep. Burnam and the representatives who have filed bills to force other officials to do the ethical thing. Too bad the so-called Texas Ethics Commission itself can't be counted on for that.

Hurricane season to end with a whimper

Dallas Blog | Scott Bennett:

“Hurricane season will end Thursday with a whimper. After prognostications from NOAA and Al Gore of impending doom the US experienced the most tranquil hurricane season in a decade. The predictors predicted 17 named storms but only 9 appeared and only five of those were full blown hurricanes. Reasons? Dust off the Sahara, a Bermuda High pressure system displaced far to the East, and an unforeseen El Nino. Now if computer models cannot see these big events coming a few months in advance how reliable are they on the topic of climate change where they claim to peer a century into the future?”

Meteorologists can't tell us for sure whether it's going to rain or not just a few days from now, but they are reliable when they tell us that Spring is coming a few months from now.

Long term trends are often easier to predict than near term events. Scientists are the first to tell us that any one hurricane or any one hurricane season does not prove climate change. Hurricane Katrina was not the smoking gun for global warming. It was just one bad hurricane. Neither is this year's mild hurricane season proof that global warming is a crock. It is just one mild year.

Weather is not climate. This concept isn't rocket science. Scott Bennett used to be a respected reporter for The Dallas Morning News. Now he's contributing scientifically-illiterate articles to Dallas Blog. This probably says more about the value of the editor in mainstream media than it says about the education of Scott Bennett, but still.

Science might never advance enough to make individual storms, whether tornadoes or Saharan dust storms or Atlantic hurricanes, predictable. Random seasonal variation might never permit high confidence in forecasts of next summer's crop yields and air conditioning bills. And natural cyclical variation over decades and centuries needs to be factored into climate change studies, just like every single modern data point does, too, including the fact that the 2006 hurricane season was mild.

Taking all that into account, the preponderance of evidence about climate change is clear. Global warming is real and human activity is a significant contributing cause. When we get a mild hurricane season, be thankful. Take advantage of the lull. Begin preventive action to deal with the long-term outlook.

Sex sells

Dallas Blog | Tom Pauken:

“Huntley Paton, the very able publisher of the Dallas Business Journal, has an excellent, lead editorial in this week's Dallas Business Journal on the Dallas Convention and Visitors Bureau's campaign to 'woo the gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgendered' tourist market to Dallas. Entitled 'Selling Sex', Paton points out that the city's tax-funded agency is running a rather questionable ad effort aimed at that market.”

So, sex sells, eh? All those ads on television, in magazines, movies, on the Internet aren't all sexy just by coincidence, then? Who'd have thunk it?

Americans are forever complaining that government is inefficient, unproductive, customer-unfriendly, in short, not like private business. Now, when government finally begins to act like private businesses, some Americans seem to want government to be more like, well, churches.

I'm not in favor of government using sex to sell any more than I'm in favor of auto companies, beer makers and toothpaste manufacturers using sex to sell. But I understand why they do it. And I'm not going to say I'm the expert on how to sell a city or a state to attract the tourist and convention dollar. As long as it's not fraudulent or otherwise illegal for private businesses to do, I'm willing to consider letting government try it.

Nevertheless, I'm willing to cut a deal. Let's tell government not to even think of using this staple of modern marketing to sell the cities, counties and states they govern, and we'll all quit complaining when governments don't operate as effectively as private businesses do. But until then, I say we let the government marketers try to learn and borrow from their counterparts in the private sector.

Signs may point to recession

Dallas Morning News | Scott Burns:

“Economist Lacy Hunt takes a measured view of things. ... 'The yield curve is inverted,' Mr. Hunt said. Noting that short-term rates are higher than the yield on a 10-year Treasury, he points out that recessions nearly always follow. Add the decline in the leading economic indicators index, and that makes it virtually certain we'll have a slowdown next year. Maybe a recession.”

Lots of good stuff in this column.

First is the prediction of a recession. Note the date. November, 2006. Even though Democrats have yet to take official control of Congress, expect Republicans to blame the upcoming recession on the Democratic Congress.

But that's just politics. The second thing to note in this column is Mr Hunt's advice on how the Democratic Congress can influence how deep and how long that recession might last.

"If the new Congress raises the tax rates on investment income, it would put us in a bad position. We can't compete internationally on labor costs. So we've got to have strong capital investment. Raising the taxes on capital would take away our edge."

Finally, Mr Hunt looks at the longer term. The outlook there is brighter.

"Mr. Hunt says we have entered a new period of global markets and productivity. Like the long period from 1871 to 1930 -- with major increases in agricultural, manufacturing and transportation productivity -- we may be in a long period of low to nonexistent inflation."

The Democrats are the most likely party to interfere with global markets in favor of American protectionism, but don't count out the Republicans. President Bush and the free-trade Republicans are not so popular in their own party right now, either. Maybe, together, both parties might turn protectionist and drag down economic growth for America and world.

Is this your idea of reform?

Star-Telegram | Jack Z. Smith :

“I'll have to admit that Texas Gov. Rick Perry's Task Force on Appraisal Reform isn't as bad as I thought it would be. It's worse. The task force, which held its final meeting on Tuesday in Austin, is expected to issue recommendations in a report late this year, panel Chairman Tom Pauken said. Oh, boy -- can't wait.”

Mr Smith does a good job laying out the impact of this so-called reform. It would shift the tax burden from those whose houses are rising rapidly in value to those whose home values are stagnant. Affluent homeowners with expensive homes would benefit most. Low- and moderate-income Texans would benefit least and may, in fact, end up paying even more in taxes if sales taxes replace property taxes.

Mr Smith presents some numbers that indicate even Gov Perry's premise of a problem is suspect.

"Appraisal district figures released in July showed that 58 percent of single-family houses in Tarrant County had no change in value this year. Values decreased for 5.5 percent of homes. Of the 36.5 percent of homes that increased in value, only about one in 25 rose more than 10 percent."

Local government officials are almost uniformly opposed to this interference by state government in local government affairs. When someone from Austin knocks at your door and says he's here to help, watch your wallet. It's being sold as "appraisal reform" and "taxpayer rights". But what Texas will end up buying is a shift of the tax burden to low- and moderate-income Texans.

Student tapes teacher proselytizing in class

Newark Star-Ledger | Ken Thorbourne :

“Junior Matthew LaClair, 16, said history teacher David Paszkiewicz, who is also a Baptist preacher in town, spent the first week of class lecturing students more about heaven and hell than the colonies and the Constitution. LaClair said Paszkiewicz told students that if they didn't accept Jesus, 'you belong in hell.' He also dismissed as unscientific the theories of evolution and the 'Big Bang.'”

OK, this story has nothing to do with Texas, but I had to read it twice to make sure of that. It sounds like something out of Texas, maybe even the kind of teaching the Texas State Board of Education might want to promote. After all, our Governor, Rick Perry, attended a church service the Sunday before the recent election at which the minister damned non-Christians straight to hell. Later, Governor Perry admitted that this is his own belief as well. And the Republican Party platform pledges the party to "to exert its influence to ... dispel the 'myth' of the separation of church and state."

So, I'm not really surprised that such teaching occurs in our public schools, even New Jersey. I'm not even surprised that this Baptist minister/teacher at first denied proselytizing in class. The news here is that the student had the voice recordings to back up the complaint. Until then, this was just another case of the students' word against the teacher's. Without such strong evidence, teachers deserve some benefit of the doubt in most cases like that.

The bad news here is the likelihood that many more such cases are not brought to light. The good news here is that advances in technology (cheap voice recorders, camera phones, etc.) mean that it's becoming harder to suppress wrongdoing. Sadly, one likely outcome of a story like this will be crackdowns on students carrying electronic devices to class. :-(

Proof

There are at least two people using the name "Ed Cognoski" on their replies to Dallas Blog. Yours truly (the original) and a latecomer, who is sowing confusion about my opinions. Because only I can post to this blog, you can be confident that postings here are by the original "Ed Cognoski."

P.S. My own posts to Dallas Blog pointing out the presence of an imposter are now being deleted by the publishers with no notice or explanation. The imposter's posts are being allowed to stay up. So, if you read something by "Ed Cognoski" on Dallas Blog, it ain't me. :-( Please pass the word to prevent further confusion. Thanks in advance.

Buying campaign the latest salvo in Farmers Branch

The Dallas Blog reports that the Azteca Business Development Group is passing out stickers for Farmers Branch businesses to display indicating their opposition to recent anti-immigration measures adopted by that city. The reactions to this news were swift, predictable and unproductive.

Trey Garrison expresses approval of the Azteca tactic because it's a free market approach rather than a legislative or judicial remedy. Apparently, the divisiveness of the original ordinances and divisiveness of the countermeasure don't bother him. In his view, a city divided against itself is okay, as long as the combatants observe free market principles in building those walls and driving those wedges. You can probably guess that Mr Garrison himself doesn't have to live there.

J.T., who also doesn't live there but visits often, launches her own boycott, pledging not to dine ever again in any restaurant that displays the sticker. I imagine Mr Garrison's approval growing larger.

Buck approvingly cites Angel Reyes, who predicts an inevitability to the demographic change being experienced by Farmers Branch and advises residents not to fight it but to embrace it. This presupposes that the change is good or at least neutral. For residents who believe demographic change is evil, Mr Reyes probably does not have much to offer.

Buford is one such poster. He's got one word to say about demographic change: "Lebensraum". An audacious analogy, equating Mexican dishwashers and bean pickers with the German Wehrmacht.

Mr Garrison then accuses Mr Reyes of being racist. In four short comments, the thread has deteriorated into accusations of being Nazis and racists.

Happy Thanksgiving, Farmers Branch. When it comes time to break the wishbone, you'll know what to wish for. Good luck.

No Thanks to Thanksgiving

AlterNet | Robert Jensen:

“Instead, we should atone for the genocide that was incited -- and condoned -- by the very men we idolize as our 'heroic' founding fathers.”

A year ago, Dr Robert Jensen, a professor of journalism at the University of Texas at Austin, proposed replacing Thanksgiving Day with a national Day of Atonement. It evoked such a debate that, as Thanksgiving 2006 approaches, bloggers are recycling it.

American history is long and complex. Genocide is a part of it, as Dr Jensen reminds us. But so is freedom of worship and constitutional government and individual liberty and economic opportunity. American history is a messy mix, but even though America has reasons to atone, America also has reasons to be thankful for its blessings. How about instead of replacing the Thanksgiving holiday with a Day of Atonement, we find room on our calendars (and in our hearts) for both?

Coin of the commanders in chief unveiled

The US Mint unveiled designs today for new dollar coins, featuring a rotation of US Presidents, similar to the popular state quarters that collectors find, well, collectible. Was the reason for the failure of the Susan B Anthony and Sacagawea dollar coins that they weren't collectible enough? The Mint has 200 million Sacagawea dollars in inventory, a 31 year supply at current demand. Maybe the US Mint believes Americans need even more motivation to toss dollar coins in jars and coffee cans in the backs of their closets. Maybe the Mint hopes it can unload some of those Sacagawea dollars on unwitting collectors who are looking for that widely anticipated James Monroe dollar.

But the foolishness of the Mint trying yet again to introduce a new dollar coin without retiring the dollar bill is not the reason for this post. Rather, what prompts this post is the design of the new coin that relegates "In God We Trust" to the edge of the coin. Surely, someone, somewhere, is going to take offense at this unpatriotic change, this liberal plot to take God out of His rightful place front and center in the getting and spending of daily commerce.

Fifty points to the first person who cites an independent report of someone taking umbrage at moving this motto from the face or obverse of the coin to the edge. Bonus points if it's a Texan.

Alcohol tax hike can help face hard issues

Steve Blow, columnist for the The Dallas Morning News, has identified a cause (Dallas' mental health system), is motivated to do something (do-gooderism), and has a way to pay for it (taxes on alcohol sales).

Trey Garrison, wannabe-journalist for Dallas Blog, agrees with the cause (treatment of the mentally ill), but differs on the motivation (he wants to save money on police calls) and the way to pay for it (he says it should be paid for out of general revenues).

If you think Mr Garrison might seize the opportunity provided by Mr Blow to downplay their differences in order to promote a public good that both of them value, you'd be... well, wrong. Read Mr Blow for thoughtful consideration of a public health need. Read Mr Garrison for... well, other things.

War discredited neocons' foreign policy ideas

Dallas Morning News | Rod Dreher :

“The liberal writer Rick Perlstein once identified a bad intellectual habit of conservatives when he said that for us, 'conservatism never fails; it is only failed.' Well, the kind of foreign-policy conservatism championed by the Bush administration and other leaders of the American right failed, and failed with grave and lasting consequences.”

Rick Perlstein had it right. Rod Dreher understands this. But why did it take almost until the last paragraph of his essay for Rod Dreher to write that? Why did he lead his essay with this?

Conservatism didn't lose the election; Republicans did. That's the line many of us conservatives are comforting ourselves with these days. And it's mostly the truth.

It's as if Rod Dreher is debating himself. "Conservatism failed." "No it didn't." "Yes it did." Mr Dreher thrusts and parries from the points of view of neoconservatives, paleoconservatives, traditionalist conservatives. Only the "crunchy cons" are never mentioned, maybe from modesty. In the end, he finally found wisdom in Rick Perlstein -- a liberal, no less.

Meanwhile, Tom Pauken, former head of the Republican Party of Texas, has been trying to convince us that the neoconservatives don't belong in the conservative tent at all. In his Dallas Blog review of Mr Dreher's essay, he says he seconds almost everything said by Mr Dreher except his point that the neoconservatives "make up the dominant strain of American conservative thinking". In Mr Pauken's taxonomy, the neoconservatives are not "true conservatives" at all.

With the Iraq War, with Hurricane Katrina, with earmarks and Abramoff and Cunningham and DeLay and Foley, with all of that, the conservative dominance of American politics has collapsed. The conservative label is splintering into a dozen shards as different factions try to assume leadership of this failed political movement. Are they doomed to failure, too? You'll know for sure that conservatism's day has passed for good when conservative politicians begin to wriggle out of being called conservative by arguing that "labels aren't important." Keep your ears to the ground.

Elna Christopher says she is not "Ed Cognoski"

Tom Pauken, of Dallas Blog, has accused me of being Elna Christopher, spokeswoman for the Texas Association of Counties. The notion is ludicrous.

Of course, I am not Elna Christopher. I told Mr Pauken that before, but he refused to accept it. I'm afraid that closed-minded attitude reflects the commission Gov Perry set up to cut local taxes in the name of appraisal reform. The Fort Worth Star-Telegram accurately described Mr Pauken's road show around Texas as a "public relations campaign" rather than an honest attempt to gather inputs.

Personally, I'm not against addressing issues with property appraisals and taxes and funding local government. I have explained that here and in comments on Dallas Blog. What I am against is Gov Perry's dog and pony show aimed at building support for more tax cuts and shifting the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle and working class and calling it all "appraisal reform".

May I have a word? Citizenship

Dallas Blog reports on HB28, a bill before the Texas Legislature, proposed by East Texan Republican Leo Berman, that would deny state benefits and services to any person born to illegal immigrant parents even though the children are by birth American citizens. Trouble is, most people think the US Constitution is in the way...

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
(14th Amendment, US Constitution)

"... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

It's that clause that the anti-immigration faction is pinning their argument on. They claim that illegal immigrants, being citizens of a foreign country, are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, even when they are in this country.

Ironic isn't it, that in order to deny citizenship to babies born in the United States, the anti-immigrant crowd has to argue that illegal aliens are not subject to our laws. On the one hand, they pass a wave of anti-immigrant laws in places like Farmers Branch. At the same time, they have to argue that illegal immigrants are not subject to US jurisdiction. Pretzel logic, if you ask me. Lawyer talk. ;-)

It's doubly ironic that the argument comes from strict constructionist Republicans who are outraged over activist judges interpreting the Constitution to suit their own notions of the way the world ought to be.

P.S. I guess its triply ironic that the other bill introduced by Leo Berman, HB 29, is a tax on international money orders. Republicans do like new taxes, after all. ;-)

And now from the department of the absurd

Dallas Blog | Trey Garrison:

“Equating a town choosing to enforce existing laws with a cowardly race-based attack by some white trash teenagers? Or worse, suggesting that the one causes the other? Come on. Call me when the shuttle lands.”

Frontburner's Rod Davis didn't equate the two situations nor did he suggest that one causes the other. He did explain why members of a minority ethnic group may be concerned when a government official, a member of the majority ethnic group, chooses to promote policies that have the effect of dividing a community along ethnic lines. Which is exactly what the recent ordinances in Farmers Branch, Texas, do. Whether by intent or coincidence, the effect is the same. Mr Garrison chooses to downplay those concerns. Guess which ethnic group he's a member of.

May I have a word? Euthanasia

Dallas Blog | Tom Pauken:

“A British 'ethics' council is recommending that premature babies 'born after only 22 weeks in the womb or earlier' and those babies born with certain disabilities be allowed to die. According to the Daily Telegraph, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics 'will set out guidelines for doctors and parents' for dealing with premature babies. ... Sounds like a slippery slope to me.”

The headline of this article from the Dallas Blog, "Euthanasia comes to Great Britain", carries with it the implication that Americans should be wary of what those Europeans are up to. In a quick response, Carter Thompson dispelled that notion, citing a Fox News story from March 25, 2005, headlined "Bush Criticized for End-of-Life Laws." Sure enough, President George W Bush, as governor of Texas, signed legislation that allows doctors to cease treatment on terminally ill and suffering infants. Right here in Texas. Approved by that compassionate conservative, George W Bush. No hue and cry raised. No ensuing mass rush to kill babies. No trouble for anyone to maintain footing on this so-called slippery slope.

Then, there's the question of what constitutes euthanasia. I've always understood the word to mean an overt act to end a life. Removing life support is an overt act to cease artificially extending a life, but it is not euthanasia. Mr Pauken's definition may be different. His definition sure makes for a scarier headline.

It also spurs the fanatics to make extreme comparisons and predictions. Jeff Turner talks about Nazis and asks if Carter Thompson (and I) will be applying for the job of taking Muslim, Jewish and Catholic children away from their parents and killing them to get rid of the Church/State problem. Talk about slippery slopes! A quick tumble to the very bottom for Mr Turner.

So, let's back up and examine just what this fuss in Great Britain is all about. It's summarized well in the submission made by the Bishop Butler of Southwark to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics on the treatment of extremely disabled or premature newborns and fetuses.

The bishop said, "The foetus and neonate are unique individuals under God. We cannot therefore accept as a justification for killing them the argument that their lives are not worth living. This is not incompatible with accepting that it may in some circumstances be right to choose to withhold or withdraw treatment, knowing that it will possibly, probably or even certainly result in death."

The Church of England has defended Bishop Butler's submission. So has The Christian Medical Fellowship, saying, "The media hype surrounding the church's stance on this issue simply results from some broad sheet journalists failing to understand the clear distinction between euthanasia, which is the deliberate ending of someone's life, and the withdrawal of ineffective and burdensome treatment from a dying baby."

"Media hype." "Broadsheet journalist." It sounds like they've been reading Dallas Blog and Tom Pauken in Great Britain.

Big sale for Democrats

Star-Telegram | Don Erler:

“Conspiratorial fears proved to be unfounded. One staunchly Republican pundit wittily remarked that for the 'first time in four election cycles, Democrats are not attacking the Diebold Corp. the day after the election, accusing it of rigging the voting machines. I guess Diebold has finally been vindicated.'”

Hardly. Mr Erler's witty friend got it wrong. Democratic complaints against voter suppression were restrained because Democrats won, not because the American electoral system is cured. Electronic voting systems are still too open to hacking. A lack of attacks this time is not proof of protection. Technical glitches, whether intentional or not, were common. In one Congressional district in Florida, there were over 18,000 "undervotes" on the touch-screen voting systems, a much higher percentage than in precincts that used paper ballots. That suspicious result is still being investigated. (Coincidentally, the Republican candidate there eked out a narrow victory in the initial, official count. ;-)

There were reports of old-fashioned voter intimidation in Maryland, where anonymous phone calls were made to African-Americans threatening them with arrest if they were registered to vote in more than one locality. In California, Hispanic voters were threatened with jail or deportation if they voted, ignoring the fact that many are citizens. In Arizona, Hispanic voters reported that men with video cameras were harassing Hispanics going to the polls.

The integrity of our elections should be important to all Americans. Republicans don't make this a priority because the abuses are too often for their partisan advantage. And now, Democratic priorities are elsewhere because they won. Democrats and Republicans both, win or lose, should seek continuous improvement in a system that has a history of abuse and vulnerabilities that still exist.

Farmers Branch

Dallas Morning Views | Rod Dreher:

“About the English-only thing, maybe Farmers Branch doesn't want the US to become Quebec. As diverse as America is, one thing that keeps us united is a common language.”

Quebec is not bilingual because of anything its government did or did not do. And an English-only ordinance is not going to determine whether or not Farmers Branch is bilingual. What it will do is make government less efficient in providing services to it citizens. Why would a city council deliberately seek that end?

Private business understands this. That's why "Se habla espanol" signs are sprouting up in private businesses. If reports are true, Farmers Branch city council member Tim O'Hare's own business once advertised this. How can someone who exhibits smarts in the private sector suddenly get so dumb when elected to public office?

Anti-illegal alien measures on Farmers Branch agenda

An interesting debate occurred on Dallas Blog today, between Trey Garrison and Scott Henson (aka GritsForBreakfast), regarding Monday night's city council meeting in Farmers Branch where Tim O'Hare is expected to push for anti-immigration measures. Mr Garrison's position is:

• Illegal immigration leads to a net negative effect on the economy.
• Illegal immigration leads to unsustainable poverty.
• Granting amnesty only encourages employers to seek out more illegals.
• Heavy fines on employers will motivate illegals to go home.
• With a crackdown, unemployment would drop below 4% and wages for legal residents would rise.
• Wages for fruit pickers could be tripled without adding more than 12% to the retail cost of fruit.
• You can't extrapolate broad economic trends from a short time period.
• Maybe a crackdown will be good. Maybe not. Let's find out.

Mr Henson's position is:

• There is no basis in fact that illegal immigration is a net negative on the economy.
• The vast majority of immigrants come to the US to work.
• More than half of undocumented immigrants entered legally and overstayed their visa, which is a civil, not a criminal violation.
• One in 20 US workers is an illegal immigrant. Deporting them all is impractical.
• Deporting illegal immigrants would cause inflation to soar and the US economy to collapse.
• Restricting immigration results in business being unable to find workers and crops rotting in the fields.
• The Constitution does not empower the federal government to restrict immigration.
• These proposals are racist because there's no articulable public policy reason for them.

Ed Cognoski's take?

Mr Garrison is wrong in believing that cracking down on immigration will have a positive effect on the economy. A government crackdown on immigration is a restraint of free markets. Government interference in free markets doesn't work. Free markets tend to result in positive results. Restraints tend to have the reverse effect, resulting in job losses, not economic growth. Encouraging cities to adopt reckless policies in the name of experimentation is ill-advised. Prudence is a virtue, especially when people's livelihoods are at risk.

Mr Henson is right that deporting 20 million people is a non-starter. Those who insist on that are grandstanding, not seriously attempting to solve the problem. Restricting immigration will lead to negative consequences to the American economy, with more job losses offshore, instead of increased wages in the US. Raising prices by interfering with the labor supply won't promote economic growth. Cut off immigration and America will experience a slow decline relative to the world's growing economies. Mr Henson is probably exaggerating the Constitutional protections illegal aliens enjoy, but he's probably right that federal courts will slap down these ordinances on Constitutional grounds more often than the courts will uphold them.

Complacency

Dallas Blog | Sandy McDonough:

“Complacent Republicans who woke up stunned Wednesday morning shocked by the election results need to look no further than the nearest mirror to find the scapegoat. Had just one or two percent of those who sat this one out gone to the polls then the national and local elections would have been decidedly different.”

If there's one explanation for the thumpin' Republicans took at the polls this fall that's most assuredly wrong, it's Republican complacency. Mr McDonough is a regular reader of Dallas Blog. For weeks, the comments section there has been filled with angry Republican voices. That's anger, not complacency.

Mr McDonough consoles himself with the trite truism that all losers can claim: if only more people who think like I do had voted, we'd have won. Blame the voters, not any deficiencies in the party or its record.

Until Mr McDonough shows even a little understanding of why Republicans stayed home, why independents broke more for Democrats than Republicans this election, why Republicans were more likely to split their ticket this election than last, Mr McDonough and the Republicans are doomed to lose a lot more elections. Iraq played a role. Corruption played a role. Incompetence played a role. Hypocrisy and taking the base for granted played a role. The voters themselves deserve the least of the blame.

An opinion, right out there in front

Star-Telegram | David House:

“For the same reason that farmers don't irrigate crops with raw seawater and Fido isn't allowed to gorge on chocolate, credible newspapers normally don't mix their institutional opinion with news content. That's a toxic mix that would poison credibility. Readers would rightly question whether free and independent efforts were guiding the newsgathering processes or whether that work was so much puppetry at the hands of the board. To guard against that, most daily newspapers are extremely careful about keeping news operations and content separate and apart from editorial page and Op-Ed work.”

One of the things I'm going to miss most as print newspapers fade into oblivion is this principle of separation of news and opinion. It sounds almost quaint already. "Credible newspapers don't mix opinion with news content." In the 21st century, being credible is not a goal. It's not a prerequisite for market success. Sometimes, it seems that just the opposite is the case.

Fox News trumpets being "Fair and Balanced" when they mean no such thing and their viewers know it (and relish it). Bill O'Reilly poses as an objective analyst hosting the so-called "No Spin Zone" when, in fact, his popularity is built on spinning a right-wing angle to every story. Dallas Blog's banner proclaims "News and Viewpoints" even though its reporters act like reporting news straight is a sign of failure. The result is the kind of "toxic mix" Mr House laments.

There are many reasons why I won't mourn the death of print newspapers. But the principle of separation of news and opinion is something newspapers had and the blogosphere doesn't that I will miss.

Punishment

Dallas.org | Allen Gwinn:

“I'm sitting here writing this editorial on a plane headed for Seattle and it got me thinking about things I don't like. It's the little things, really. For instance, I don't like having my 2 ounce bottle of hand sanitizer excluded because someone in TSAHomelandSecurity thinks some terrorist might try to blow up a plane with it. Call me narrow-minded, callous, whatever, but I don't like having to check my suitcase so I can carry my own toothpaste and shampoo.”

Allen Gwinn is irritable really because the Republicans lost the mid-terms. So, maybe I shouldn't psycho-analyze his choice of irritants to complain about. Sometimes a tube of toothpaste is just a tube of toothpaste. But bear with me. I think there's a connection between what he says he's irritated about and the root cause, those same mid-term elections.

It seems to me that one reason why the Iraq War has been such a disaster is because President Bush decided to fight this war on the cheap, on borrowed money, on borrowed sacrifice. Only days after 9/11, President Bush went on national television to tell Americans to keep going to DisneyWorld. That mixed message has been consistent ever since.

President Bush wants Americans to believe we are in a global war for civilization, a thirty years war, a war against Islamo-fascism. But no military draft to fight that war. No taxes to pay for it. No sacrifice at all. In fact, even a little inconvenience like having to check your toothpaste before boarding a plane is cause for complaint.

I have my own theory. You don't win wars without sacrifice. And you don't win elections by trying to win wars without sacrifice. Not forever, anyway. It caught up to the Republicans this time. And irritated Mr Gwinn enough for him to reveal that he is, as he suspects, "narrow-minded, callous, whatever."

GOP will keep House and Senate

The big losers in Tuesday's election were easy to spot. Rick Santorum, Mike DeWine, Lincoln Chafee ... all washed out of the Senate. George Allen ... almost certainly lost his Senate seat in Virginia and any hope of the Republican nomination in 2008. Republican leadership in the House ... devastated. And President Bush ... lame duck President Bush. Mercilessly left in office, like detritus after the storm surge passes by, all those around him swept away.

But it's not just politicians who were big losers. Mark Davis, local talk radio host and regular Dallas Morning News columnist, came away from the elections looking both partisan and dead wrong. He stubbornly stuck to his predictions that Republicans would hold onto both the House and Senate long after everyone else except Karl Rove, George W. Bush, wife Laura and dog Barney were acknowledging that the House was lost and just maybe the Senate, too. It's one thing for a party leader to stare into a camera and, with a straight face, lie about his party's election chances. It's another thing for a professional journalist to do it.

Mark Davis, Republican shill to the end, emceed the President's election-eve rally at Reunion Arena in Dallas. A fitting site perhaps. Now that the Mavericks and Stars have decamped for shiny new American Airlines Center, Reunion sits on the edge of downtown waiting to be torn down. On Monday evening, Republicans sat inside waiting for their own demolition. Sharon Grigsby, a Dallas Morning News editorial board member, described Mr Davis's responsibilities at the gig as "working a crowd up into a kind of frenzy". She called him an "entertainer". This from an editorial board member of a newspaper that gives Mr Davis prime newspaper real estate on the op-ed page. Space that Mr Davis uses to pimp for Republicans rather than enlighten readers on issues of the day. For anyone paying attention this election, Mr Davis discarded whatever shred of credibility he may have still clung to before the votes were counted. It's time The Dallas Morning News made him pay for his column space like any other political ad.

The era of big government Republicanism is over

The knives are already out as the Republicans seek to assign blame following their losses in Tuesday's mid-term elections. Dallas Blog reports that on election night D/FW's own Rep Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) started it off, calling for new Republican leadership in the House even before the final votes are in.

But what caught my eye was this ironic comment posted by "Adam". Said Adam, "I'll give the Dems a chance, but I am not looking forward to Clown Face Pelosi." LOL. The honeymoon that Adam gives the Democrats didn't last even to the end of the sentence. Republicans turning on Democrats is to be expected, but the first round of entertainment is more likely to be watching Republicans thrash out their own nasty divorces inside their own party.

Texas Assoc. of Counties spokesperson attacks Governor Perry's appraisal reform efforts

After Tuesday's elections, it didn't take long for proponents of state interference in local government to misrepresent opponents' views when it comes to the local property tax appraisal system that Texas Governor Rick Perry hopes to rewrite from Austin.

Tom Pauken, chairman of Governor Rick Perry's committee on so-called property appraisal reform, in a Dallas Blog column, casts those with differing views as being against giving local voters a meaningful say in property tax policy. In truth, it's activists like Tom Pauken who are trying to force state government solutions on local government.

Local voters already have all the power they need to elect representatives who will be responsive to voters' wishes. Tuesday's huge reversal in political party control in Dallas County illustrates just how much power voters can wield when they decide they want change. Instead, Mr Pauken tries to impose change on how local communities govern themselves, not by putting changes to local charters before local voters, but through the machinations of an unelected commission appointed by an unpopular Governor whom a large majority of Texans rejected at the ballot box Tuesday.

Incredibly, Mr Pauken ignores the lessons of November 7 and tries to pretend that local voters need Governor Perry and Austin legislators to protect them from their own decisions at the ballot box in electing community leaders, friends and neighbors, to represent their interests on city councils and school boards. The display of local voter power on November 7 demolished Mr Pauken's premise that local citizens need help from outsiders in Austin. Let local issues be decided locally, Mr Pauken. Let Austin get its own house in order before it tries to impose more state solutions for local problems.

The world, the flesh, and the bishop

Dallas Blog | William Murchison:

“Episcopal bishops remain capable of providing food for thought concerning what goes on in modern religion. As did Katharine Jefferts Schori, when the church elevated her last week to the dignity of presiding bishop. ... So she wants to make the world over? Now’s her chance, there being only one problem: the more Christianity resembles the United Nations the less nearly it resembles the spiritual realm it exists to depict and lead us toward.”

The conservatives are coming down hard on Ms Schori for wanting "to make poverty history, to fund AIDS work in Africa, and the distribution of anti-malarial mosquito nets, and primary schools where all children are welcomed." To conservatives, this is not the church's work. To conservatives, the role of the church is to "reproach well-healed sinners". I suppose Ms Schori will be doing some of that, too, but why do conservatives think that obsession with sin has to crowd out a little attention to good works? It could be Reformation thinking at work here, that eternal life depends on faith alone, but the Church lost a great deal when it threw out James' teaching that "Faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." It sounds like Ms Schori gets it. Mr Murchison does not. I think Jesus is in Ms Schori's pew.

Rick Perry and heaven

The Dallas Morning Views | Rod Dreher:

“I don't care what the governor of Texas's opinions are about where some of his constituents will be spending the afterlife, as long as he doesn't do anything to try to hasten their going there. [Governor Rick] Perry's merely voicing the teaching of historical Christianity. Big deal. As long as he's deals fairly with all citizens, regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof, who cares what his personal soteriological opinions are? What really did bother me was the way the Rev. John Hagee turned his church into a nationalistic/Republican cheerleading forum.”

Rod Dreher has laid his finger on why Americans, and Texans in particular, should be concerned with Governor Rick Perry's religious beliefs. The governor believes Texans who don't profess Jesus as Lord and Savior are damned to hell. And he attends a church that confuses Christianity with patriotism.

It's hard not to infer that Governor Perry himself should not be trusted to honor a wall of separation between church and state. The alarm bells should sound even louder when you remember that the official 2006 platform for the Texas Republican Party pledges the party to "to exert its influence to ... dispel the 'myth' of the separation of church and state."

Conservatives dismiss liberals' concerns as scare-mongering. Conservative columnist William Murchison claims conservatives are victims of accusations that they are "seeking darkly to turn culturally diverse America into a Puritan theocracy", when, in his view, all conservatives are doing is exercising their First Amendment rights.

Given the Republican Party platform, Governor Perry's damnation of non-believers, and his blurring the distinction between religion and patriotism, Texans are fairly warned what vision for America these same conservatives have. If polls are an indication of what to expect on November 7, Texan voters, almost all fine and decent citizens, are fine with that. They won't be voting for another candidate, one who warmly wishes everyone, "May the god of your choice bless you." Governor Perry and the religious right might mean well, but, as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Neoconservatives distance themselves from Iraqi policy

Dallas Blog | Tom Pauken:

“The Dallas Morning News has a wire story in Saturday's edition ... about neoconservatives running from the policy they engineered to launch a preemptive war against Iraq. The News mischaracterizes Richard Perle, who chaired President Bush's Defense Policy Committee at the Pentagon, as a "conservative." He is no conservative, but a onetime liberal Democrat turned Republican. Another neoconservative leader, Ken Adelman, [is quoted] as blaming Don Rumsfeld for the failure of the war. ... Again the News mischaracterizes Adelman as a conservative. Like Perle, Ken Adelman also is a former liberal Democrat turned Republican.”

Methinks he doth protest too much. Remember, Ronald Reagan was not a conservative. He, too, was a former liberal Democrat. LOL.

Conservatives are scrambling like mad to distance themselves from each other and their failures. Richard Perle, Ken Adelman, and now Tom Pauken are just giving further illustration to Rick Perlstein's rule, describing the right's mind-set, "Conservatism never fails. It is only failed."

Mission Accomplished: Texas tort reform 'devastates' ambulance chasers

Here is a recent story, in its entirety, by Trey Garrison of Dallas Blog:

This month's American Bar Association Journal has an interesting if somewhat long read on the effect Texas' 2003 tort reform has had on law firms. Written by lawyers, for lawyers, naturally it's ridiculously biased. In fact the only reason I was so compelled while reading it is I have a secret streak of schadenfreude when it comes to personal injury lawyers.

When Ken Molberg, a Dallas lawyer and occasional contributor to Dallas Blog himself, offered an opposing view, Trey Garrison dismissed it as "class envy trial lawyer propaganda". That's the rebuttal. No facts. No logic. Just "class envy trial lawyer propaganda."

When I suggested readers take another look at how so-called tort reform has left Texas a place where there is no recourse for wrongdoing and where the powerful simply get their way, by reading the November, 2005, article in Texas Monthly "Hurt? Injured? Need a Lawyer? Too Bad!", Trey Garrison dismissed me by calling me "Edna" instead of "Ed". That's the rebuttal. "Edna". ;-)

Mr Garrison demonstrates that he has nothing to contribute to the subject. Antipathy towards lawyers and cliched opinion substitute for fact. Childish name-calling is offered as witty rebuttal. When even that fails him, he resorts to the tool of bullies, censorship.

I tried to steer the thread back to the fact that real people, average Texans, are victims of malpractice, negligence and fraud, and are being denied access to the courts because of so-called tort reform. And the fact that the Texas Monthly article documents real examples. My reply simply disappeared from the Web site, without even so much as "Edna, you ignorant slut!"

The Texas Monthly reporter interviews average Texans and documents their plight. Yet all Mr Garrison sees are "scare stories and whines about poor, unprotected hypothetical victims. And more trial lawyer propaganda." Maybe it's all hypothetical to Mr Garrison because he's sitting at a computer wearing blinders instead of going out in the field like a real reporter, interviewing real people.

And make no mistake about the blinders. Mr Garrison admits as much in his reply to Mr Molberg, encouraging Mr Molberg to write his own column. Mr Garrison says the column would be "not one I agree with, mind you." He knows he won't agree even before reading the column, even before the column is even written. It's the hallmark of a closed mind, the type you often encounter in Internet forums. In this case, the closed-mind belongs to the Dallas Blog itself, not readers.

Forget the lawyers. Forget the insurance companies. Forget the man suing McDonald's for finding a rat in his salad. Forget what passes for journalism at Dallas Blog. Consider average Texans. The bottom line? So-called tort reform has been a bad deal for average Texans.

Iraq Is No Joke: Botched response is Kerry's fault, but war isn't

The Dallas Morning News | Editorials :

“Yes, Mr. Kerry botched the joke, and he botched the response, but -- let's be honest -- he didn't botch the war in Iraq. American troops are not stuck in a deteriorating situation there because a Massachusetts senator tripped over his tongue and his ego. The real issue is not what John Kerry says about our soldiers in Iraq; the real issue is rather what all of our elected officials in Washington intend to do about our soldiers in Iraq. That's the key question for voters as they go to the polls.”

The Dallas Morning News has got it exactly right. So, how did a clumsy joke about Iraq by a politician not even running for office this year trump everything else this week?

The story had all the makings for a political perfect storm: Iraq, our troops, a replay of the 2004 Presidential election, personal animosity between two powerful politicians, and enough ambiguity for spin machines to work overtime on both sides.

Republicans picked up on the gaffe, spun it for maximum effect and rapidly escalated it all the way to the President himself. When the President speaks, people listen.

Then, Senator Kerry, misjudging how Americans might interpret his own words, struck back at Republicans instead of apologizing to the troops. He could have used it as an opportunity to draw a distinction between his own real respect for the troops and the President's botched handling of this war and the consequent disastrous effect on our military. What could have been a one news cycle blip became a 72 hour self-sustaining chain reaction.

Score a big win for the Republicans in the final week of the campaign. But, in the end, it will likely have a bigger impact on the television ratings than the election results. After all, Senator John Kerry is so 2004. 2006 is all about President Bush and his lies and his misjudgments and his own exploiting the troops now to score political points. Americans aren't likely to forget that on November 7.

Same-sex what?

The Dallas Blog's William Murchison tries to fire up the religious right again just before an election with scare stories out of New Jersey, where the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples deserve similar legal protections and benefits that society gives to heterosexual couples.

Mr Murchison trots out the old argument that discrimination is just common sense. Let's take his own words and recast them as they might have been said during a different civil rights struggle. See how Mr Murchison's arguments sound in a different setting.

What's good enough for whites is good enough for African-Americans, right? Many things are, yes. Civil rights isn't one of those things, as the great majority of Americans seem to know in their bones: otherwise they wouldn't have kept enacting Jim Crow laws at the polls.

In fact, the segregationists never asked for the fight they commenced a half century ago against attempts by judges to ram down society's open throat the judges' own notions like "all men are created equal." It was the judges who started this brawl.

A century ago, Americans had to struggle for women's right to vote. A half century ago, Americans had to struggle for African-Americans' civil rights. Today, Americans have to struggle against discrimination based on sexual orientation. The victims are different in each case. The enormity of the crime is different in each case. But discrimination, large or small, is wrong in all these cases, whether Mr Murchison knows it in his bones or not.

Mr Murchison asks about the resistance of the Christian right wing, "How come those who merely fight back, exercising their First Amendment rights, get accused of seeking darkly to turn culturally diverse America into a Puritan theocracy?" The answer is simple. It's because some people today are, in fact, trying to turn culturally diverse American into a Puritan theocracy.

Mr Murchison says "The notion of heterosexual marriage as an institution worthy of protection and nurture is not vastly popular on the political left." Nonsense. A century ago, advocating a woman's right to vote in no way diminished the respect given to a man's right to vote. Likewise today, extending basic protections and benefits to same-sex couples in no way diminishes the respect given to the institution of marriage. Mr Murchison, on the contrary, is not "protecting" or "nurturing" marriage at all. He's discriminating against gays and lesbians, pure and simple.

US and Iraqi leader at odds

Dallas Blog | Tom Pauken:

“On 9-12 of this year (one day after Mr. Bush praised him in a speech to mark the anniversary of 9-11), al-Maliki was cordially greeted by Admadinejad in Tehran. The genial host declared that 'Iran and Iraq, as two brotherly neighbors, will stand by each other, and unwanted guests will leave the region,' while al-Maliki stood smiling and nodding approvingly.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Tom Pauken of the Dallas Blog approvingly quotes Srdja Trifkovic of Chronicles magazine in his story about the recent disagreements between the US and Iraqi governments. Mr Trifkovic is a paleoconservative. Take his reporting on Islam with a large grain of salt. Here are two other quotes from Mr Trifkovic:

"Islam is akin to fascism and bolshevism."
"For a Christian the real task is to help our fellow humans who are trapped in Islam and to help them become free."

Mr Pauken is forever concerned about monolithic, global Islam overrunning Christian Europe (and eventually America). From his viewpoint, al-Maliki and Ahmedinejad, both Muslims, are indistinguishable and equally evil.

It's enlightening to compare Mr Pauken's characterization of the meeting between Iraqi and Iranian leaders with the report of the meeting published in Iraq's own press. Here is what Alsumaria Iraqi satellite TV network said transpired:

"Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki conducted his first official visit to Iran since taking office. He delivered a blunt message that Tehran should not interfere in Iraqi affairs."

No indication of smiles, nods or winks. No grand alliance of Iran and Iraq against the US. In fact, anyone who thinks that Iran and Iraq, two countries that recently fought a bitter war against each other, suffering millions of casualties on both sides, might suddenly develop brotherly love, is guilty of simplistic thinking. In fact, the Middle East is a cauldron of conflict... between Sunni and Shiite, between Arab and Persian and Turk, between Bedouin tribespeople and oil sheikhs and slumdwellers and a rising middle class, between autocrats and theocrats (and maybe even a few democrats). Americans, always wanting to divide the world into black and white, good and evil, with us or against us, could benefit from a little study of the region and its internal complexity.