When Bush Speaks: Nation will want answers in State of the Union

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

“In tonight's address, Mr. Bush would do well to explain how his administration so misjudged the Palestinian electorate in advance of the vote. ‘I've asked why nobody saw it coming,’ Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said. The American people deserve a government that doesn't see the Mideast through rose-colored glasses.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Secretary Rice's comment is as memorable as President Bush's, after Hurricane Katrina, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." Both are symptomatic of an administration floundering, an administration not only lacking control of events, but clueless even about what's happening until after it happens.

If America bears any responsibility at all for this election outcome, it might be simply a matter of incompetence in the execution of our foreign policy. But that comment about "rose-colored glasses" might hold a more profound explanation.

The goals of the Bush foreign policy have been hard to pin down. Oil interests (Cheney, Halliburton, Saudi Arabia) have seemingly been in control ever since America's attention was diverted from fighting al Qaeda in Afghanistan and redirected to deposing Saddam Hussein in Iraq. WMD was the original pretense for that war. When WMD proved illusory, spreading democracy became the justification for the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq. Many thought it was only that: a convenient pretext.

But perhaps President Bush really is an idealist who believes in the uplifting power of American-style liberal democracy. Perhaps he sees his own Presidency at this time in history as a calling to do great things, to spread democracy around the globe.

If so, President Bush wouldn't be the first President with such idealistic vision. Woodrow Wilson's vision of a League of Nations that would abolish war and institute global democracy ended in utter failure. Not only could he not get his own country to support his vision, the League itself proved to be incapable of stopping Hitler and Stalin, the Holocaust, the Rape of Nanking and World War II. Jimmy Carter is sometimes viewed as the most moral man to hold the office of President. His promotion of human rights around the world, his tireless working for peace in the Middle East, his being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, none of this prevented his term in office from being widely viewed as a failure.

Today, we have another President with lofty visions. In last year's State of the Union address, President Bush said, "We are witnessing landmark events in the history of liberty. And in the coming years, we will add to that story. The beginnings of reform and democracy in the Palestinian territories are now showing the power of freedom to break old patterns of violence and failure."

If, in fact, President Bush actually believes his own rhetoric, we could be looking at the makings of another colossal failure by an American President with too much vision and not enough tough realism. What an irony that would turn out to be.

Wikipedia Entries 'Cleaned' By Political Staffers

Slashdot:

“According to the Lowell Sun, U.S. Rep Marty Meehan's staff has been heavily editing his Wikipedia bio, among other things removing criticisms. In total, more than one thousand Wikipedia edits in various articles have been traced back to congressional staffers at the U.S. House of Representatives in the past six months.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

This Slashdot post prompted a check of the history of the Wikipedia biography for Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX). No evidence of partisan revision going on, but something else in the edit history did catch my eye. Check out the edits made from IP address 24.1.10.xxx (disguised here, but not in Wikipedia's history log). Four articles have been edited from that IP.

• The Sam Johnson biography itself.
• A biography of Robert Edward Johnson, who is Sam Johnson's opponent in the upcoming Republican primary.
• A biography of a Florida Congressman who was opposed by Robert Edward Johnson in a Florida election.
• and ... drum roll ... an article on "Human penis size".

I don't know what computer that IP address is assigned to or even whether all edits were made by the same person. In fact, I have no idea what this all means, but I sure hope it's not a sign of the issues we can expect to be raised in the upcoming primary election campaign. ;-)

Chief's racial remark bares ugly sentiment

Dallas Morning News | Jacquielynn Floyd:

“Farmers Branch has declined to specify the remark the chief made, but KTVT-TV (Channel 11) said a department official who was present reported that Chief Fawcett said this: ‘As long as I'm chief, we won't have any [epithet] working in Farmers Branch.’ Which, if accurate, makes this more than a linguistic slip committed in a private setting by a combat veteran who was accustomed by the times and circumstances to using it many years ago. It suggests that he may have in the past and would in the future illegally deny employment to an entire group of applicants. How many qualified people might thus have been cheated out of a fair shot at a job with the Farmers Branch Police Department?”

Ed Cognoski responds:

There's a bright side to this ugly incident. A couple generations ago, it was common for people in official positions of power (mayors, police chiefs, governors, senators, etc.) not only to hold racist beliefs, but to express those beliefs freely, not only in private, but often in public as well.

Today, many of those power holders still harbor racist beliefs, but society no longer accepts saying so out loud, either in public or in private. Chief Fawcett learned that the hard way.

Give society another couple generations. Those in power in that future Utopia will have been raised in a time when racist sentiments are not even heard out loud. Whereas their grandparents may have been overt racists; their parents may have been closet racists; they themselves will have a chance of reaching adulthood without being infected with that vicious disease. OK, maybe Utopia is the right word for that unlikely outcome. Like the flu virus that continuously mutates, racism is a disease that keeps reappearing each generation in new forms. But from the way the recent breakout of the disease in Farmers Branch was handled, society can take some comfort that we now have to deal only with isolated cases, not epidemics. And that's reason for optimism.

Is terror just an exercise in risk management?

DallasBlog.com | Scott Bennett:

“Have you ever put yourself inside the head of a terrorist? No? Well, most people probably don’t. But I have. Back in the 70’s when the Weathermen, Red Brigades and Baader Meinhof gangs were running lose I often found myself wondering just how safe my world was, and just how its enemies might try to attack. ... When I thought these thoughts 30-years ago I assumed governments were watching. I assumed they thought the same thoughts I was thinking and were taking steps. We know now they weren’t. But since that time we have had Oklahoma City and 9/11. Now we have a Department of Homeland Defense. Surely things are different. Don’t bet on it. Safety comes at a cost you see.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Just last month, the 9/11 Commission gave our government failing grades in preparing our nation for terrorist attack. This is over four years after the 9/11 attack that led to the current war on terror. Airline passenger screening, first responders' communication systems, sharing of intelligence among government agencies, standards for terrorist prisoner detention, and allocating resources based on risk assessment, all were given grades of F by the Commission.

Our President is aggressively fighting the war on terror in Iraq. We are fighting the terrorists over there, so we don't have to fight them here. He refuses to ask Americans to sacrifice. The Iraq war costs are being financed by borrowing. Tax cuts are defended and even expanded. The Department of Homeland Security is viewed by Congress as just another rich source of "pork" to be doled out to home districts. The President's message is this: we're at war, but our consumer lifestyles won't be affected. Civil liberties may be sacrificed, but not our wallets, our iPods, or our vacations to DisneyWorld.

Such a strategy cannot succeed long term. Either the President needs to begin an honest dialog on the true costs of this war on terror, or, in the end, our civil liberties, our economic well being, and our nation's security all will suffer.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact, folks

Star-Telegram | Allan Saxe:

“Long ago, my constitutional law professor at the University of Oklahoma said many times that national security has always overtaken civil liberties concerns. The federal courts have been very reluctant historically to derail national security concerns. Former Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson worried in a 1949 court decision that the Constitution's Bill of Rights could be turned into a suicide pact. Another debate now rages over civil liberties vs. national security. The American Civil Liberties Union and other groups have filed suits over surveillance. But one wonders why the ACLU did not sue over the same kind of surveillance carried on for years under President Clinton!”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Mr Saxe's arguments seem to be:

• Other Presidents have temporarily suspended civil liberties in times of war
• The United States survived past crises and is still a free society
• Terrorists will take advantage if Hollywood stars criticize President Bush
• and, the excuse for all offenses, Clinton did it too!

Mr Saxe is an associate professor of political science at the University of Texas at Arlington. I hope his logic is not indicative of what students at that school are being taught.

First, that other Presidents have done it does not make it right. The Alien and Sedition Acts were bitterly contested at the time, leading to Thomas Jefferson's defeat of John Adams for the Presidency. FDR's internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II was a mistake that the government of the United States itself later formally apologized for.

Mr Saxe offers no guidance for judging which actions are legitimate in the name of national security and which are not. He does not explain why current law, requiring judicial review of domestic wiretaps within 72 hours, is not sufficient to uphold both civil liberties and national security. Giving the President a blank check, just because he declares we are at war, is a poor way to preserve our liberties or our national security. The Constitution carefully defines checks and balances, for war and peace. We ignore them at our peril.

That our country continues to enjoy civil liberties today in spite of these historical examples is a poor reason to grow lackadaisical in our defense of civil liberties today. Rather, our continual enjoyment of civil liberties is more likely due to eternal vigilance. Presidential power should be expanded only as little as necessary and for as short a time as necessary to meet national security demands. President Bush is claiming very broad powers as Commander in Chief, powers over not only the military but civilians and their domestic affairs as well. The war on terror could very well become a semi-permanent state for America, and so could President Bush's war powers.

Mr Saxe cites Hollywood stars' criticism of President Bush as proof that our civil liberties are well preserved. The implication is that President can do what he likes so long as he lets you criticize him for it. The argument is false. And it's not just Hollywood criticizing the President. Mr Saxe attempts to belittle criticism by associating it with a group unpopular to conservatives and, presumably, his Texas audience.

Mr Saxe cites Al Gore's criticism of President Bush as hypocrisy because of supposed violations of civil liberties by the Clinton/Gore administration. Mr Saxe does not state his own opinion of these violations, but I assume he's for them. But he doesn't say so. He seems caught in an awkward situation. Defending President Bush requires favorably citing President Clinton's similar actions, which he can't quite bring himself to do.

Mr Saxe is right that national security has taken precedence over civil liberties in our history. But he fails to note that it was always controversial. Successful Presidents managed to find the right balance to preserve both for our posterity. The Constitution may not be a suicide pact, but neither is it a blank check for the President.

Who lobbies for the not-so-special folks?

Dallas Morning News | Steve Blow:

“There is a perfectly fair and practical way to make sure every driver has liability insurance. ... Liability insurance ought to be sold by the gallon. Put a special fee on top of gasoline prices and everyone would automatically buy insurance every time they bought gas. Just that easy. A dime a gallon would do it. And it's fair. The more you drive, the more risk you create, and the more you pay. But has this great idea ever gone anywhere? Absolutely not.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

This "great idea" hasn't gone anywhere for good reasons. First, miles driven is not a good predictor of insurance claim costs. More important is where you drive. Rural drivers facing long distances on every trip would pay dearly with this system, but the urban drivers making shorter trips on crowded city streets have the most accidents. Good drivers would pay the same for insurance as poor risks. Drivers of large cars (poor gas mileage but good protection in case of accident) would pay more for insurance than drivers of small cars.

The only benefit of a pay-at-the-pump liability insurance scheme is that everyone would pay something. If the current crisis of uninsured motorists persists, that benefit might eventually outweigh the unfairness of the system. But we're not there yet. And that's the reason why this "great idea" hasn't gone anywhere.

The Bush administration's 'king's X'

Star-Telegram | Jim Wright:

“President Bush has been pushing the envelope of presidential power in ways that are increasingly alarming to many political scientists and constitutional scholars. ... Now comes a discovery by news sources that Bush has been routinely (in a very great many observed instances) attempting to nullify, or modify the carrying out of, numerous legal requirements in bills while in the very process of signing them. This has been done by a little-known device called a presidential signing statement. No, this is not the speech or news release that presidents often give at public bill-signing ceremonies. It is, instead, a privately drafted argument or directive that, only in recent years, has been incorporated by government printers as a sort of presidentially written addendum to the actual bill. This process has allowed the president to sign the bill while trying to alter or modify its enforcement or its legal interpretation by the courts, without vetoing and thus giving Congress the constitutional opportunity to override.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

President Bush didn't invent the Presidential signing statement. He has just used it much more frequently than any previous President. In the past, it was used to clarify ambiguous language, giving the President an opportunity to document his own understanding of the law.

On the surface, this is reasonable. In future court cases that turn on the precise wording of legislation, judges will sometimes rely on the debate that preceded the passage of the legislation in an attempt to divine the meaning of the lawmakers. Presidential signing papers can be useful in the same way to future generations of judges. They carry no more, and maybe less, weight than the Congressional Record. How much weight either has is determined by future judges as they apply the law as written. In the end, the Constitution means what the Supreme Court justices say it means, no matter what the President says.

Or at least that's the way we've always been taught. President Bush has taken to use signing statements to issue Constitutional challenges to Congress. Congress passes a law forbidding torture, President Bush signs the bill into law, but issues a signing statement implying that he sees his Presidential powers granted by the Constitution as overriding any restrictions passed by Congress. The President is announcing to the world that he won't be bound by the law. The possibility for Constitutional crisis is real, or at least would be if a Republican Congress didn't so willingly surrender power to a Republican President in time of war.

Time will pass. The players and issues will change. But the precedent established today, the power granted the President in our time, is something that lasts for generations. The power being given our President today threatens the checks and balances that have served our Republic so well for over 200 years. That's reason enough for all, Democrats and Republicans alike, to be alarmed.

Hamas' chance

Star-Telegram | Editorials:

“Hamas' victory in the Palestinian elections surprised and perhaps even dismayed Hamas, according to many observers. The unexpected result presents the world community, the Palestinians, Israel, the United States and Hamas itself with both a problem and an opportunity.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

This editorial captures well the total disarray that United States foreign policy is in. Problem or opportunity? Will electoral victory temper Hamas or embolden them still further? Did Palestinians elect Hamas because they support Hamas' terrorism or Hamas' social services? Should the US cut off negotiations and aid to the Palestinian Authority? There are no clear answers and no discernible strategy coming out of Washington. Only shock and confusion. All that's clear is that the US has lost all influence and the situation is in danger of spinning completely out of control. How in the world did we get to this sorry state?

Five years ago, President Bush came to office just months after President Clinton's Camp David summit with Barak and Arafat came tantalizingly close to a peace agreement but ultimately ended in failure. President Bush understandably blamed Yassir Arafat for intransigence and adopted a policy of benign neglect: “I've made some decisions on Israel. That's unpopular. I wouldn't deal with Arafat because I felt like he had let the former president down, and I don't think he's the kind of person that can lead toward a Palestinian state.”

The timing of 9/11 contributed to this change of focus, as America had to deal first with al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and then chose to deal with Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict took a back seat, in part by design, in part because of a simple lack of bandwidth to do it all. The Bush administration believed that waiting for Yassir Arafat to pass from the scene would improve the outlook for peace. The Bush administration argued that the Iraq war would lead to a spread of democracy across the Middle East and further improve the outlook for peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

Instead, look what this foreign policy has achieved.

• The Taliban toppled, but Afghanistan restored to its historical state, more lawless than not.
• Al Qaeda hiding in the mountains of northwest Pakistan, turning the average Pakistanis against America as we lash out with rocket attacks that kill more civilians than terrorists.
• An emboldened neighbor in Iran led by a madman intent on acquiring nuclear weapons and wiping Israel off the face of the Earth.
• Elections in Iraq that, at best, will lead to an Islamic theocracy; at worst, civil war.
• And now, the first real consequence of democracy in the Arab world in history: the coming to power of Hamas

Every action undertaken by this Administration has worsened the chances of peace in the Middle East. And immediate, knee-jerk reactions to the Hamas victory promise to perpetuate the disastrous decision-making in Washington. President Bush said that Hamas must dissolve its armed wing and renounce threats against Israel. “If they don't, we won't deal with them.” What options does that leave us? War again? Given the overextension of our military in Iraq, this threat is hollow. So, what? The hard truth is that our current foreign policy has failed and left us with no good options.

There's only one sensible course forward. At the risk of provoking a knee-jerk rejection of it because of its source, I offer this advice voiced by President Bill Clinton: “One of the politically correct things in American politics is we just don't talk to some people that we don't like, particularly if they ever killed anybody in a way that we hate. I do think that if you've got enough self-confidence in who you are and what you believe in, you ought not to be scared to talk to anybody. You've got to find a way to at least open doors and I don't see how we can do it without more contact. Hamas might acquire a greater sense of responsibility, and as they do we have to be willing to act on that.” Good advice, that.

An income gap? Really?

DallasBlog.com | Trey Garrison:

“In the end, is income equality something we should be striving for at all? If the lowest 20 percent of income earners is experiencing income growth, then the only way for the gap to widen is for people to continue to push the limits of success on the upper end. That's a bad thing? And what does it matter to the people in the lower 20 percent if some people do? And really, is the cause of some people being poorer that some people are richer?”

Ed Cognoski responds:

No, the cause of some people being poorer is not that some people are richer. The study Mr Garrison reports on doesn't suggest that. Mr Garrison himself reported what the study does suggest are the causes: unemployment, globalization, the loss of manufacturing jobs and the expansion of low-wage service jobs. Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, has his own explanation: a failing education system leaving more and more Americans in low-paying, dead-end jobs. Mr Garrison doesn't examine these hypotheses, instead inventing a ridiculous straw man cause and asking if people really believe it.

The point of the study is not that there is an income gap (as the blog title implies), but that the gap is widening. Not just in absolute terms (like Mr Garrison's example where everyone's income grows an equal 10%), but in percentage terms as well (where, in fact, really, the incomes of the richest grew 59% versus 19% for the poorest). The end result of this is that a greater and greater percentage of the nation's income is going to the wealthiest.

Mr Garrison implies that those who find this to be a concern are advocating income equality. Again, nowhere in the study is this implied. It's another straw man Mr Garrison invents.

In fact, there are practical reasons to find a widening income gap to be a "bad thing." It is an unstable situation. Stable growth patterns are preferred by those with a desire for long-term prosperity of society. Those growth patterns can contain income gaps forever, but widening income gaps only temporarily. Historically, societies with ever-widening income gaps eventually experience corrections that are often accompanied by rivers of blood. Now, that's a "bad thing." Really.

Mind Your Own Googles: Government goes too far with search request

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

“In an effort to save the Child Online Protection Act of 1998, which has been hung up in legal challenges almost since the day it was passed, the government has demanded that major Internet search services turn over their users' search requests. Unlike its competitors, Google is fighting the demand, which it argues is overly broad, unnecessary and compromises privacy.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Whatever happened to Republicans? President Reagan famously declared, "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Now, twenty five years later, President Bush is head of a government that demands private businesses open their databases containing the personal habits of millions of Americans for government fishing expeditions. Head of a branch of government that claims sole authority to decide what is legal and what isn't in the name of national security. A federal government that wants to run our local schools. A government that wants to dictate who we can love ... and marry. A government that wants to borrow and spend our children's heritage for our immediate gratification today.

Whatever happened to Republicans? Were they ever really anti-government or only opposed to a government controlled by the Democratic Party? Now that Republicans control every lever of government, there seems to be no end to their love of government, of power, of using it to force their vision of how things ought to be onto the country as a whole.

Irving's Demolition Tax

DallasBlog.com | Norm Hitzges:

“The City of Irving is proposing a vote to approve a $10 per ticket tax along with a $3 per vehicle tax for fans attending Dallas Cowboys games at Texas Stadium for the team’s final 3 seasons in Irving. ... According to city officials, that money will be dedicated to improving and developing the site of the stadium after the Cowboys leave. ... In the City of Arlington this is a user tax. But, the same exact tax in Irving will be a demolition tax. That’s a huge difference. Here’s an idea for the City of Irving: just tell us the truth. Tell us that it is going to cost a lot of money to redevelop Texas Stadium and you don’t want it to come out of your budget. But please don’t insult our intelligence by comparing the building of one venue to the demolition of another.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

OK. Arlington is charging a use tax to build a new stadium. Irving is charging a use tax to tear down an old one. Different? Not so much. A sports stadium, built in some kind of public/private partnership, imposes many costs on its host city over its lifetime. Construction costs. Maintenance costs. Access costs. And, yes, demolition costs. Charging use fees while the stadium is still operating to cover the expenses of that last part of a stadium's life, after it's abandoned, is forward thinking on the part of the Irving city government.

I wish that more cities had forethought of the burdens that businesses leave behind when they pack up and move to greener pastures. Businesses find it cheaper to move to the exurbs and build their new offices or stores on empty cotton fields than to renovate an old site nearer city center. The cities being abandoned are left with decaying assets and a declining tax base to do anything about it.

The cycle will repeat. The young cities luring the businesses today ought to be watching and learning from Irving's experience. Someone's got to pay for demolition. It's only fair that it be the ones who enjoyed the party and left the mess behind.

Backing Guest Workers: Cornyn could break immigration logjam

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

“What kind of temporary ‘guest worker’ program will Republican [Senator Arlen] Specter include? That's the big question. Almost surely, he will allow foreign workers to apply for a work visa. But will he require illegal immigrants to return home and apply for permits? Conservatives cry that, yes, he should, otherwise illegal immigrants will receive amnesty. Reformers like John McCain say no – otherwise illegal immigrants won't sign up and we'll never solve our illegal immigration problem.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

I fail to understand why a requirement for illegal immigrants to return to Mexico to apply for guest worker status would satisfy anyone.

Are illegal immigrants going to receive preferential consideration for their applications for the guest worker program? If yes, that's amnesty, whether they have to return to Mexico first or not.

If no, why would illegal immigrants risk rejection by applying for the program at all, even if it does not include a requirement to return temporarily to Mexico?

The issue of requiring a temporary return to Mexico during the application process is a red herring. The more important question is how many guest workers is the United States going to accept? If it's significantly more than the eleven million illegal immigrants here now, then immigrants will put up with whatever bureaucratic red tape the government invents. But if the total is limited, don't expect those already here to participate in the program. The risk of rejection will see to that.

Don't let horse-meat industry circumvent Congress

Star-Telegram | Michael Markarian:

“Horses are many things to Americans: They helped us settle this country. They have served us faithfully in battle. They have entertained us in racing and competition. For 400 years, they were a primary means of transport for Americans. And they are beloved companions to millions today. But for Americans, there's one thing horses are not: food.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

That's certainly true, as far as it goes. But it's illogical. Hitching your wagon to an ox won't save the beast from the slaughterhouse. But hitch your wagon to a horse and the horse gets a reprieve. Bull riding in a rodeo doesn't mean squat for the bull, but a bucking bronco is awarded an entertainment exemption from the slaughterhouse. There's no more logic in Mr Markarian's position than when Kevin Blackistone acted all outraged over the matter in The Dallas Morning News in November.

There is no logical reason to distinguish between horses and cows when it comes to diet, only emotional attachment. So, expect the logical argument to head in one of two directions: either horsemeat will come to be seen as just another menu choice, or beef (and pork and mutton, etc.) will come to be seen the same way as horsemeat is today: the end result of egregious and abusive practices in modern-day agribusiness.

Which direction do you suppose Mr Markarian intends to lead Americans? As executive vice president of the Humane Society of the United States, Mr Markarian can be expected to support other initiatives of the Humane Society. The Society's Web home page has a box labeled "Take Action" that highlights two calls for action. The first is to "Tell the USDA to stop bucking Congress over horse slaughter." The second is to "Put a pig on the A list. Host a party for farm animals." As Mr Markarian tries to save horses, he doesn't mention the Humane Society's humanizing of pigs as it attempts to save them, too, from the "egregious and abusive practices in modern-day agribusiness". (You see, my choice of words in the previous paragraph where I laid out the likely direction the logical argument will take was not accidental). Does the Humane Society see a logical difference between horses and pigs? It doesn't appear so. Why doesn't Mr Markarian just say he's out to save all farm animals from the slaughterhouse, not just horses? See how far he'd get in Fort Worth with that agenda.

Logically, I can live with the argument either way, just be consistent about it. If you're going to get all upset over horsemeat, you ought to get all upset over pork and beef as well. The Star-Telegram needs to be careful what they lobby for -- they might get it. Mr Markarian's success in banning horsemeat won't be the end of the matter. People who throw parties for pigs won't rest until agribusiness gets out of the beef and pork business as well.

17th Congressional District: Tucker Anderson deserves GOP nomination

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

“Tucker Anderson's personal knowledge of Congress and deep connections to Central Texas should earn the former congressional staffer the GOP congressional nomination for District 17. The Texas A&M graduate spent the last four years working for GOP Rep. Pete Sessions. The experience showed him how sausage gets made in Washington, which would be valuable should he win this seat in November from veteran Democrat Chet Edwards.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Well, that didn't take long. Just two days ago, the DMN editorial board opined that the culture of corruption in Washington won't end until the "public is sick of the town's cozy game of money and favors [and] sacks the city, whether through voting out lawmakers or drying up dues to our own particular trade groups." I predicted that this resolve would melt away come November when the DMN editorial board has to endorse individual candidates. It turns out it took only two days. Mr Anderson is recommended exactly because of his ties to Washington, his intimate knowledge of "sausage making". Hint to DMN: that metaphor is meant to convey that politics is corrupt, that the horse trading of legislation is disgusting and not suitable fare for upright citizens to watch.

With the extent of the Abramoff scandals only beginning to be exposed, why would the DMN be so quick not only to endorse a Republican insider for the open seat, but cite his ties to the Washington political rackets as a reason for doing so? Why isn't the DMN asking voters to clean house, not only Congressmen but the staffers, too, who are the masters of "sausage making"? It boggles the mind. But I can't say it's really a surprise. You heard it here first.

Capitol Hill's lobbying scandal isn't all bad news

Dallas Morning News | Mark Davis:

“We're a funny country when it comes to outrage. Our decisions about what sets us off are often unpredictable.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

The public reaction may be unpredictable but Mark Davis isn't. Democratic scandals set him off. Republican scandals set him scrambling to find the silver lining, in this case a debate about reform. Otherwise, Mr Davis finds that the public doesn't care. But is that the case, or only Mr Davis' wishful thinking and intended outcome of his own earnest efforts to paint this as a story about "one crooked lobbyist" and not a "culture of corruption"? Mr Davis even describes the reaction of the press to this Republican scandal as "comical." Mr Davis' own columns might be considered comical if they weren't so mind-numbingly predictable.

Clean Air: If report is valid, kilns will have to cut emissions

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

“Local clean-air groups have argued for years that existing technologies could remove most of the smog-forming chemicals from the smoke discharged by Ellis County's 10 cement kilns. A draft report released by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has them saying, ‘We told you so.’ ... The cement makers aren't convinced that the technologies are as feasible as the study concludes. ... But for local officials who are struggling to meet steep federal targets for NOx reductions, the report looks rather like a life preserver would look to a drowning man. ‘We're going to have to do everything we can do,’ said Dallas County Judge Margaret Keliher. Clean air, she emphasizes, is not a Republican issue, a Democratic issue, a liberal issue or a conservative issue. It's a public health issue.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

No, it's a Democratic issue. Business Republicans have consistently resisted clean air mandates, claiming to prefer to let the private sector solve the issue themselves. The result is delay. The cement industry's knee-jerk response to this latest draft report is typical. The cement makers aren't convinced. Not enough evidence. No proof. Again, no action.

There is one way we truly can turn the private sector to work on this problem. We can motivate the market to invent cost effective solutions. How? Impose an emissions tax on the cement makers. They will have an incentive to find a solution, instead of the incentive to delay provided by today's business-friendly approach. Once industry has the incentive, they will find a solution.

Poverty warriors are well compensated

DallasBlog.com | Tom Pauken:

“San Antonio Express-News columnist Roddy Stinson has another revealing column today on leaders of the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF) and their liberal allies who participated in an Austin conference last week on the school finance issue. It turns out that these ‘poverty warriors’ and advocates for big government are very well paid for their efforts. ”

Ed Cognoski responds:

So what? Let's grant Mr Pauken the points he makes in multiple viewpoints postings to Dallas Blog.

• IAF is "leftist." OK. So what? The Republican Party is "rightist." So what?
• IAF is a "radical" force. OK. So what? The right has its own "radical" forces opposing abortion, trial lawyers, illegal immigrants, etc. So what?
• IAF officials draw handsome salaries. OK. So what? Have they represented themselves as unpaid volunteers? Do the leaders of right wing groups work for free? When did the right start criticizing people for being paid (other than minimum wage workers, that is)?

OK, now that we've conceded Mr Pauken's points, let's get on with debating the IAF's position on school finance on its merits. But what's noticeably absent from Mr Pauken's posts on the IAF is the issue itself. What is the IAF's position on school finance? What are the strengths and weaknesses of its argument? Maybe he'll get to that... after he's done smearing its reputation. I've come to expect this in political campaigns run by the likes of Karl Rove. Somehow, I expected better from Mr Pauken.

Where the justices did not go

Star-Telegram | Don Erler:

“Two days ago, America observed the 33rd anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, which created a constitutional right to privacy so unfettered that it permits women, in controlling their own bodies, to take the lives of pre-born human beings. If the Constitution contains such a right, must it not necessarily include the less draconian right of each of us to determine whether to terminate our own lives?”

Ed Cognoski responds:

In a word, no. The implied assumption is that a fetus is a person, with rights equal to all other persons. That's a religious conclusion. It is (currently) not a legal conclusion. Getting the courts to recognize the personhood of fetuses is the Right's big challenge. In the meantime, it's possible to recognize a right to abortion without recognizing a right to suicide.

“After Jan. 22, 1973, Americans had good reason to think that the court might use assertions of privacy rights to invalidate laws against suicide, drug abuse, polygamy, gambling, adult incest, prostitution and perhaps even hazardous working conditions. (It's my own business to assume risk.)”

Getting the courts to continue to recognize a Constitutional right to privacy is the Left's big challenge. If that right is extended to these so-called victimless crimes, the right to privacy would be that much more secure. The only "victim" in these crimes is the person committing the act. If one's political philosophy favors personal freedom and liberty and defense of individual rights against encroachment by the state, then extending the right to privacy to cover these acts as well is the right thing to do. With the hotly disputed assumption that a fetus is not a person, abortion could be lumped with suicide, gambling, etc., as a victimless crime, all protected equally by the Constitution's implied right to privacy.

Two heavyweight legal principles are colliding: the (weakly) recognized Constitutional right to privacy versus the (so far) unrecognized personhood of the fetus. The Supreme Court is divided. So, it sidestepped the issues and decided Gonzales vs. Oregon on narrow grounds. The larger issues stay unresolved until at least the next round.

Introducing DART man and his quest for a sidewalk

Dallas Morning News | Rodger Jones:

“DART man called DART to share his adventures and press the case for pedestrians. He called it nonsense for DART to build pedestrian-hostile rail stops. Why practically demand use of an auto to access mass transit?”

Ed Cognoski responds:

I sympathize with the quest of "DART man". And agree with him that the DART station at the intersection of US 75 and the Bush Tollway is practically unreachable on foot. It is surrounded by still undeveloped land. Give it time. When that land is developed, there will be ways to walk through it without getting your shoes muddy.

But I strongly disagree with him that the Galatyn Park DART station in Richardson is unreachable on foot from Renner Road. In fact, the walk is the most enjoyable and refreshing that this "21st Century man" could ask for. At the corner of US 75 and Renner Road is the start of a nature trail that winds through acres of undeveloped wooded land in the heart of Richardson's Telecom Corridor. That deep cold ravine that thwarted Mr Jones? The trail crosses that by means of a wooden plank pedestrian bridge that offers beautiful views up and down an unspoiled section of Spring Creek. The trail crosses under the DART tracks at one point where the train itself crosses the creek on its own bridge, providing a striking contrast of woods, creek and sleek modern public rail. The trail ends just north of the Galatyn Park train station.

Why does Mr Jones' not even mention the trail's existence, as if it's not even a possibility for consideration? First, a meandering path is too long for him. He wants a straight line walk along the edge of US 75, a umpteen lane freeway with roaring traffic 24x7. But if he's in such a hurry, maybe he ought to drive to the DART station in the first place. His second objection is that the nature trail is not lighted. Mr Jones mentions a mental note to himself to buy a flashlight, so lack of lighting apparently isn't that big a barrier.

Mr Jones does a disservice to DART and the city of Richardson by failing to even mention the great system of trails that is growing in Richardson. He does a disservice to himself by not taking advantage of the trails on his daily walk to and from the DART station. Maybe the relaxing and refreshing effects of a daily nature walk would relieve whatever stress it is that leads him to publish such rants in the first place.

We're All for Reform: But new rules won't change Capitol culture

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

“Folks, let's not delude ourselves. All the cleanup measures House Republicans and Democrats are rushing out in their holier-than-thou reform bills won't solve Washington's problem. What will solve it is legislators – and lobbyists – finally deciding the public is sick of the town's cozy game of money and favors. When they realize the rest of us are about to sack the city, whether through voting out lawmakers or drying up dues to our own particular trade groups, they'll change.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

The DMN editorial board talks the talk, but can they walk the walk? Wait until November and see the slate of candidates they endorse. See how many incumbents are on the list. Worse, see how many incumbents get the endorsement of the DMN in part because of their promise to institute the kinds of reforms that the DMN today is dismissing as mere delusions. Prove me wrong, DMN. Prove me wrong. Please.

Iran's Apocalyptic Vision: A reminder of religion's role in world affairs

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

“Rice University religion scholar David Cook states that understanding Islamic apocalyptic thought is ‘absolutely essential’ to understanding modern Islam, particularly its relations with the West, widely seen as the realm of the ‘Dajjal,’ Islam's version of the Antichrist. In the eyes of Muslims obsessed with end-times theology, geopolitical events take on apocalyptic meaning. A sizable minority of American Christians does this, too, of course – but none commands an army, none seeks the annihilation of nations, and none is trying his or her dead-level best to get a nuclear bomb.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

There are differences between Iran and the United States, but both have their share of influential leaders with strong religious beliefs. One could make a case that the United States is led by a born-again Christian, with apocalyptic beliefs of his own, who commands an army and nuclear weapons, and is bent on regime change in nations around the world that he brands as evil.

To his credit, President Bush has diligently played down the religious overtones of the war on terror, insisting that this is not a war on Islam. But then something always happens that triggers a new wave of stories and editorials that focus on religion. This time, it's Iranian President Ahmadinejad's denials of the Holocaust. But at other times, it's because there are Americans themselves who see the war as part of an epic struggle between Christianity and Islam, with the future of Western civilization hanging in the balance.

The DMN is right in insisting that someone in Washington think about Islamic eschatology. Likewise, Washington should be studying Christian eschatology as well. Rational minds don't want the war on terror to rekindle the religious wars that afflicted Middle East and Western civilization for the better part of a millennium. To succeed, we need to keep the religious passions on both sides in check.

Stick, but No Carrot: U.S. right to press al-Qaeda, reject truce

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

“Experts say it's only coincidental that the new bin Laden tape is just now surfacing. On it, the terror master addresses the American people and offers a ‘long-term truce with fair conditions.’ The offer doesn't merit response beyond this: No thanks, and we hope you're feeling the heat.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

This cocky attitude is rash. This isn't a football game. Al Qaeda is responsible for the deaths of thousands in the 9/11 attacks. They are capable of striking again. Osama bin Laden included a warning in his latest audio tape. Terrorist operatives are planning additional attacks. Inciting them with schoolyard taunts is foolhardy.

President Bush learned this lesson in 2003 when he challenged the Iraqi resistance forces, "Bring them on!" More than 2000 dead Americans later, our country has paid dearly for his recklessness. More recently, with as much secrecy as possible, American officials have informally met face to face with insurgent commanders in an attempt to open a dialog that might lead to a reduction in violence. Such tactics contradict the public face the administration presents, but it's a necessary strategy for eventual success.

So, although we should continue to prosecute the military front in the war on terror to its fullest extent, we should also seek opportunities to open a dialog with members of al Qaeda, too. Even if we can imagine no terms or conditions of acceptable compromise, talk itself can be a weapon that works in favor of our open and democratic society. Schoolyard taunts may make us feel good for a minute, but do not advance our cause. The DMN editorial board should exercise more care.

Sunday is the 33rd anniversary of Roe v Wade

DallasBlog.com | William Murchison:

“Come Sunday, January 22, the most inflammatory decision in judicial history turns 33 years old. ... Here’s this bunch of guys whom no one elected to anything; some parties to a lawsuit have put before them a disputed notion, and magically, under the justices’ hands, that notion -- the right to abortion -- becomes law, governing the way we lesser beings, we non-justices of the Supreme Court, live or perhaps don’t live at all. Oh, we don’t agree with the court, whether fully or in part? WELL, SHUT UP!!! Such is the message supporters of Roe have worked successfully for 33 years to convey.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Disdain and sarcasm instead of logical argument. Inconsistency with professed conservative principles. I guess that's what happens when things don't go your way. You won't hear this observer telling Mr Murchison to shut up. But he should know that it will take more than whining and ranting to convince others to give Mr Murchison's opinion any consideration at all.

Roe v Wade is not the most inflammatory decision in judicial history. That distinction goes, by a long shot, to the Dred Scott decision, which rallied anti-slavery forces and was a contributing factor to the Civil War, the most divisive and damaging war in our nation's history. A woman's right to choose may be unpopular with the religious right, but Mr Murchison is wrong to exaggerate its place in American history.

Does Mr Murchison's sarcastic description of judicial review indicate that he thinks we shouldn't have courts? Or that the courts should consult with him before making decisions? Or query focal groups? Or hold referenda to decide controversial cases? Does he think that the Founding Fathers were wrong in making the justices appointed positions instead of elected? Or that there should be shortcuts to amend the Constitution when you can't get "we the people", in the form of the House and Senate and three quarters of the state legislatures, to agree with you? Exactly what radical change to our form of government is Mr Murchison advocating because things didn't go his way this time?

State restrictions of a woman's right to choose had grown thick and oppressive in the years since the Constitution was adopted. Finally, some anonymous woman (Jane Roe) had had enough. A lawsuit worked its way through our courts and landed on the docket of the Supreme Court. The Court didn't ask for the case. It just did its Constitutional duty to resolve this fundamental dispute that came before it. The Supreme Court chose to uphold the Constitution in the face of this forest of local laws restricting a Constitutional right. But because Mr Murchison is morally outraged with abortion, he is still incensed, 33 years later, that a panel of judges ruled that the federal Constitution recognizes a woman's right to control her own body. And that trumps 50 state laws. He rants and raves about the Court's "Prussian like disdain" for "lesser beings" instead of seeing that's just how our system of government works -- the Supreme Court's decision carries more weight than some blogger's opinion. He longs for the day when a newly packed Court will overturn long settled law (of "nearly gray-bearded longevity"). And he describes such hoped-for activism as "modesty-in-high-places." What a mockery of conservatism. What effrontery.

Jim Webb blasts those involved in the Murtha smear

DallasBlog.com | Tom Pauken:

“Those ad hominem attacks against John Murtha’s military record are not something that should be countenanced or encouraged by officials in the Bush Administration. The demonizing of John Murtha sounds like a page out of Karl Rove’s ‘political playbook’, and it doesn’t serve the President or the Republican Party well to pursue this ‘scorched earth’ policy. If this kind of conduct is continued against legitimate critics of the war like John Murtha, there will be a price to pay for the Republican Party.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Like Tom Pauken, I tip my hat to former Secretary of the Navy James Webb, too. But I have to disagree with Mr Pauken when he says these tactics don't pay. President George H.W. Bush owed his 1988 election to the dirty tricks played by his campaign manager, Lee Atwater. President George W. Bush has his Karl Rove, who smeared the reputations of John McCain, Al Gore, John Kerry, Max Cleland, and others in winning the White House twice. Now, the knives are out for Rep. John Murtha (D-PA).

Will the tactic work again? Maybe not if even conservatives with Republican credentials like James Webb and Tom Pauken are becoming disgusted with that approach to politics. But right now, I wouldn't bet against the Republicans in the 2006 mid-terms. Dirty politics is still the champion until proven otherwise.

What if a tornado hit the Texas Motor Speedway on race day?

DallasBlog.com | Scott Bennett:

“A frightening scenario would be a strike on the Fort Worth's Texas Motor Speedway in middle of its April Samsung/Radio Shack 500 weekend race. ... There would be a quarter million people there, tens of thousands of parked cars all around the track and almost nowhere to hide. ... Maybe Eddie Gossage and the folks at the TMS should be giving the weather some thought.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

What if a tornado hit TMS on race day? How about Texas Stadium or the Ballpark in Arlington? What if an earthquake hits Pasadena during the Rose Bowl? What if a terrorist sets off a dirty bomb at the Super Bowl? What if a hurricane overwhelms the levees in New Orleans?

Good God, folks, these threats aren't new. Are we prepared? Look to New Orleans for your answer. Why aren't we prepared? Because it costs money. We're cutting taxes, remember? The theory goes that individuals know better how to spend their hard-earned money than the government does. And unfunded mandates on private business (e.g., for disaster preparation) would amount to a hidden tax. Well, everybody, go buy your own disaster preparations, then, and quit acting shocked, shocked!, that our nation is unprepared for disaster.

My frustration is showing. New Orleans was a disaster waiting to happen for decades. It was not much of a secret. Yet, when disaster did strike, President Bush said, "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees." Now, people are supposedly just discovering that TMS needs to have disaster preparedness. Hell, yes, TMS needs that. So do all the other venues I listed. So does every city and business and school and home. But it takes collective action. It takes money. And the tide is going the wrong way on that. So, we sit and wait for the next disaster. And when it happens, we will be shocked, shocked!, to discover we weren't prepared again.

Iran's big threat

Dallas Morning News | Mark Davis:

“The taunt still rings in my ears. ‘What about North Korea? If we're going to get so adventurous in Iraq, what about North Korea?’ ... Well, now we've arrived at the brink of a threat more pressing than North Korea, creating a real honesty test for the people who made themselves feel better by offering up a hypothetical threat that they would actually favor responding to.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

North Korea is a hypothetical threat?!? A madman with nukes who threatens to destroy the South in a "sea of flames" is considered a hypothetical threat? To paraphrase Mark Davis himself, What planet is Mark Davis on?

And why is military action the only acceptable response? The United States and the West successfully fought and won the Cold War without going to war with the Soviet Union, a bigger threat than either North Korea or Iran today. A policy of containment, pursued by Democratic and Republican administrations alike, proved both effective and protective of our servicemen and women. The few cases where we did respond with military action (Bay of Pigs, Vietnam) were unmitigated disasters for us.

Containment was working in Iraq, too, as the fruitless search for WMD has proven. The war in Iraq was a war of choice, not necessity. It turned out to be a catastrophic choice. Now, Mark Davis is already beating the drums for war with Iran. And pre-emptively bashing Democrats for their predicted opposition to launching another war in the absence of grave and imminent threat to American national security. Mark Davis' partisanship is already sullying the debate before it begins in earnest.

The people's attorney

Star-Telegram | Editorials:

“[Attorney General Alberto] Gonzales has said that when he testifies before the [Senate Judiciary] committee, he will discuss only the legal justification of the warrantless surveillance and nothing about operational details. If the justification he cites is what we've already heard, it is likely to be considered woefully inadequate.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

The President's approval of the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program was illegal, violating the provisions of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). That act prohibits electronic surveillance of persons in the United States except as authorized by statute.

The President's defense is based on the argument that the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) is the statute that authorized such surveillance. The AUMF states:

The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

The Supreme Court has already ruled, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, that indefinite detention for the purpose of interrogation is not authorized by AUMF, although detention to prevent a combatant from returning to the battlefield is. Although there is room for legal debate, wiretapping is much closer to interrogation than incarceration, so the Hamdi precedent would seem to indicate that AUMF does not provide the President the legal statute needed to violate FISA.

In the end, the President's actions could be driven more by principle or politics than by legal reasoning. The President believes, on principle, that his primary duty is to protect and defend the United States of America. If he must bend or ignore certain laws to do so, he will. And with the Congress firmly in the hands of his own political party, he knows that the only power the Congress has to overrule him, namely impeachment, is simply not an option. No Congress controlled by the President's own political party is going to consider impeachment because the President erred on the side of protecting America against foreign enemies in time of war.

Expect Secretary Gonzales to split hairs and draw fine lines in making the strongest legal case he can. Expect Democrats to decry his explanations as woefully inadequate. Expect Republicans to wring their hands but say draconian action is needed in the name of national security. Expect both sides to be part right. In the end, expect the President to get it his way.

Thomas Daugherty and Brian Hooks...Missed Opportunity

DallasBlog.com | Bill DeOre:

“After watching the video of Thomas Daugherty brutally attacking a helpless sleeping man with a baseball bat, I couldn't help but wonder what would bring any human being to stoop this low.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

We live in a culture of violence. Liberals tolerate the destruction of fetuses in the name of choice. Conservatives tolerate the collateral deaths of thousands of innocent civilians in the name of national defense. As a nation, we officially sanction the executions of those we deem to have committed crimes so heinous their perpetrators are unworthy of life. In some cases, our leaders who hold the power of final appeal even mock those who make their last pleas for life. What all these victims have in common is powerlessness. Even the once powerful criminal is shackled and strapped to a table, made helpless, before death is delivered.

Is it any wonder that some young people mimic this behavior, making their own twisted decisions about what life is worthy of survival and what life deserves death? Is it any wonder that the victims are often the helpless homeless? It isn't to me. I don't expect such aberrant behavior among our young people to disappear as long as the culture of violence holds sway over the rest of our society.

Does a responsible Christian have to support higher taxes for government welfare programs?

DallasBlog.com | Rep. Bill Keffer:

“It is emphatically inappropriate and just plain theologically wrong to invoke the Bible and Christian doctrine to support the imposition and collection of taxes to fund government welfare programs. The Bible never contemplates such a proposition, but rather only calls on the individual to practice true charity. So notwithstanding the righteous reproaches of the well-intentioned, it remains a theological impossibility – and misguided public policy - to be charitable with other people’s money.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

It is a stretch to conclude that Jesus would be opposed to government welfare programs, as Rep. Bill Keffer implies. It's probably less of a stretch to conclude, as others do, that he would support our efforts to relieve poverty, sickness, infirmity. But, in any case, Jesus was not a Republican or a Democrat. Claiming his support for one's own 21st century political philosophy is presumptuous.

It is also unpatriotic and insulting for Rep. Bill Keffer to describe American democracy in terms that make it sound like a dictatorship, forcibly collecting money against the citizens' will. Let's not forget the preamble to our Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

American government is an expression of "we the people", not some authoritarian power dictating what's best for society, and not scripture, either. The government was established by "we the people" to achieve specific ends, one of which is to the promote the general Welfare. In furtherance of that goal, "we the people", through our government, have established various programs designed to help the poor, infirm, and elderly. It's a political decision that "we the people" have made to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. Whether Rep. Bill Keffer finds scriptural support or not is beside the point.

Laura Bush supports Condi Rice for President in 2008

DallasBlog.com | Tom Pauken:

“Most of the neoconservative leadership supports the candidacy of Sen. John McCain who is the current frontrunner for the Republican nomination in 2008. It is difficult to see how [Secretary of State Condoleezza] Rice could emerge as a serious contender in 2008 (Laura Bush's support notwithstanding) unless she wound up replacing Dick Cheney as VP prior to the beginning of that nomination process.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

It's all wild speculation at this point, kind of like chawin' over whether Terrell Owens is coming to the Cowboys. What bears watching are how many trial balloons are floated in the press, like the mostly flattering Telegraph article cited by Mr Pauken. And, just as important, whether the knives start to come out to cut up Condoleezza Rice's reputation, playing up the more critical points added to the story by Mr Pauken in his report in the Dallas Blog. That'll be a sign that a Rice candidacy is being taken seriously. The Harriet Myers nomination demonstrated how efficiently some factions in the Republican Party can play that blood sport. Stay tuned.

What planet are Democrats from?

Dallas Morning News | Mark Davis:

“Robert Byrd can hang with lynch mobs in West Virginia in his past and get a free pass; but Sam Alito doesn't get a break for even the most tangential brush with the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, some of whose members might not have been the most enlightened souls in the Ivy League. I expected this kind of character assassination in the juvenile exercise that these hearings have become.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Once again, Mark Davis invents sins to pin on his political opponents and then commits them himself. This time it's character assassination. It's getting the facts wrong (or lying, as Mr Davis says). It's mischaracterizing the argument of opponents in order to more easily dismiss it.

The character assassination begins with the title of Mr Davis' rant: What planet are Democrats from? It's a sign of a weak argument when you have to poison the well in an effort to discredit your opponents before the debate even begins.

The fact is that Senator Byrd does not get a free pass for his past membership in the Ku Klux Klan. Senator Byrd said of his youthful membership in the KKK, “I displayed very bad judgment, due to immaturity and a lack of seasoned reasoning. [It was] an extraordinarily foolish mistake.” His past is rightly condemned to this day. His repudiation of his past is what allows him to continue to serve in public life today.

Judge Alito's past, on the other hand, hasn't been repudiated, only forgotten. If his involvement in Concerned Alumni of Princeton was tangential, why was it on his resume when applying for a position in the Reagan administration? We either have unjustified padding (Mr Davis might call it lying if a Democrat had done it) on a resume from a professional lawyer in the 1980s or a convenient memory lapse from a Supreme Court nominee today. Either way, it's not the kind of behavior expected of a Supreme Court justice. That's the concern of the Democratic Senators, not whether Judge Alito made a mistake in his youth or not.

Mr Davis asserts that if Roe vs. Wade is overturned, there will be no federal ban on abortion. This is either profound deviousness or ignorance. Overturn Roe vs. Wade and Congress will rush to pass a federal ban on abortion. It will be the first order of business on the first day after the Court decision. Mr Davis knows it. His imagined scene of 50 state legislatures independently making local decisions is an attempt to lull an underinformed America. Intentionally misrepresenting the effects of Roe's reversal is unforgivable.

I've come to expect this kind of bashing of Democrats in the juvenile exercise that Mark Davis' columns have become. It's high time for Mr Davis to engage in reasoned debate himself.

Confirm Alito

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

“After hearing Samuel Alito testify this week, this editorial board's assessment is that the appellate judge has the intellectual breadth and legal depth to sit on the Supreme Court. ... First, his embrace of judicial precedent was persuasive enough to conclude he wouldn't rush to overturn Roe vs. Wade. ... Second, he allayed fears he wholly prefers presidential power. ... Third, his objections to the ‘one man, one vote’ doctrine appeared mostly technical.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Yes, Judge Alito should be confirmed by the Senate. He does have sufficient intellectual breadth and legal depth, as DMN says. President Bush is entitled to nominate candidates who share his conservative viewpoint. All that said, the DMN editorial board is mistaken if they believe any fears were allayed by his testimony.

The danger is not in the Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade. It's in the Supreme Court hollowing out a woman's right to control her own body. The Supreme Court has already agreed that abortion can be regulated, but not banned outright. Judge Alito, and probably a majority of the Court now, has never seen a regulation he didn't like. Parental notification laws, spousal notification laws, so-called informed consent laws, denial of federal funding to institutions who perform abortions, etc., all will soon make abortion as unobtainable as if it were outlawed altogether. Like the Jim Crow laws in the old South that didn't forbid blacks from voting, but made it all but impossible, expect abortion regulations to sprout a forest of modern day equivalents of literacy tests, poll taxes, and other voter registration restrictions. And expect Judge Alito to find that all such restrictions pass Constitutional muster, without ever having to overturn Roe v Wade.

Second, Judge Alito's reassuring words that not even the President is above the law mean nothing if Judge Alito shares President Bush's belief that current law allows the President to ignore Constitutional rights in his pursuit of the war on terror. Like President Nixon before, President Bush and Judge Alito act as if they subscribe to the belief that “when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.” By definition.

Finally, the “one man, one vote” doctrine is an important brick in the wall raised against those same Jim Crow voter discrimination laws that earlier Supreme Courts found no objections to. That Judge Alito is now interested in chipping away at that wall with technical objections bodes ill for this most important of all rights -- the right to vote.

Yes, Judge Alito deserves confirmation because he is the President's nominee and he is qualified, but expect his service on the Supreme Court to be a time when Americans’ civil liberties are eroded. That’s a fear these hearings did nothing to allay.

Back on the Texas Ballot: GOP should get out of the bullying business

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

“The Supreme Court of Texas nailed the state Republican Party on some ballot chicanery yesterday involving a state House district in the Panhandle. Two reasons people as far away as Dallas should care: (1) GOP leaders got caught meddling in a local election, and (2) the court has revived the candidacy of an education-friendly challenger [Amarillo school board member Anette Carlisle], to the status quo. ... Her campaign against Mr. Swinford, one of House Speaker Tom Craddick's lieutenants, was a challenge as well to one of the most powerful Republicans in Texas. Perhaps that was why the state GOP tried to use a bizarre interpretation of the Texas Constitution to jettison Ms. Carlisle. The official rationale was the state's ban on legislative service for those already holding ‘lucrative office.’ Strange, but Ms. Carlisle's service on the school board is not rewarded with pay.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Oh, the irony of the Republican Party claiming with a straight face that serving on a school board amounts to ‘lucrative office’. Given the current Abramoff/Delay scandals swirling around Washington, you'd think Republicans, of all people, would know what lucrative is. If they think school board service is lucrative, no wonder they see no need to put additional, badly needed funding into the public school system of Texas.

This was nothing but a naked power play by the Republican Party of Texas. It was done in the open, with brazen confidence that it would make no difference to the voters of Texas. It was (another) abuse of the courts to win an election. This is a sign of a political party with too much power, too much arrogance, too little regard for basic fair play in a democracy.

The education-friendly slate of challengers should be elected because of their proposals to fix the mess the current power brokers in Austin have made of education in this state. The latest shenanigans by the Republican Party furnish us another reason to turn their leaders out of office.

Abortion becomes a major issue in Democratic gubernatorial race

DallasBlog.com | Tom Pauken:

“The dispute highlights one reason why the Democratic party has become a minority party in America. Being strongly in favor of abortion rights has become a litmus test for any Democrat aspiring to run for President or almost any Democrat who runs for statewide office.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Having a litmus test is not the reason one party is in minority status. Both parties have litmus tests concerning abortion - pro or con. If their stand for a woman's right to choose is the reason Democrats are a minority party, it's because abortion is legal and Democratic voters are complacent. It's the Republicans who are outraged with the status quo and determined to change the laws and get out the vote to do so. But, in reality, there are a whole host of reasons why Democrats are in minority. Abortion plays a part, but only a part.

Bigger Government Leads to Bigger Scandals

DallasBlog.com | Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX):

“The larger the federal government becomes, the more it controls who wins and who loses in our society. The temptation for lobbyists to buy votes – and the temptation for politicians to sell them – is enormous. Indicting one crop of politicians and bringing in another is only a temporary solution. The only effective way to address corruption is to change the system itself, by radically downsizing the power of the federal government in the first place. Take away the politicians' power and you take away the very currency of corruption.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

This solution only shifts the corruption to another venue. Like a balloon, squeezing the size of government in one place causes it to pop up in another. Squeeze the federal government and state governments will balloon instead. Squeeze those, too, and big corporations will take over. America's Gilded Age was a time when government was small, our economy was exploding, and private business controlled American life. Corruption was rampant.

Our institutions are big because the demands of modern society are big. We aren't a hunter/gatherer society anymore, where the need for government, manufacturing, services, commerce was virtually nil. We aren't an agrarian society, where the majority of the population was largely self sufficient on their farms. We are a modern, 21st century economy, the largest and richest the world has ever seen. To run that economy, big institutions are inevitable.

Mr Paul has a philosophical opposition to big government. But shifting the function to big business won't by itself cure our society of corruption. Merely calling for a downsizing of government is like sweeping the mess from one room to another. It's a red herring. Instead, society needs to monitor the ethical behavior of all our institutions and stamp out corruption wherever and whenever it crops up. You can't eliminate it forever. But you can control it.

Florida -- Where Bad is Good

DallasBlog.com | William Murchison:

“Florida’s constitution requires that ‘free public schools’ be, among other things, ‘uniform.’ Which by public consensus many surely are -- uniformly bad. Which is why the state created a voucher program in the first place --- so that victims of such oppressive uniformity could opt either for public schools or private ones, with the state paying the bill. ... Florida’s chief justice, Barbara J. Pariente, objects, in the majority opinion, that private schools aren’t ‘uniform’ with the public schools, partly because, being private, they don’t have to follow state standards.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

In ironic coincidence, Mr Murchison's opinion piece comes during the Judge Samuel Alito confirmation hearings in Washington. Judge Alito is a darling of conservatives because, supposedly, he exercises judicial restraint instead of an activist philosophy. He applies the laws as written and puts the burden to change bad laws on the legislature.

Now, in Florida, we have a Supreme Court doing just that and conservatives like Mr Murchison are outraged. He apparently wants the court to ignore the Florida Constitution's requirement for uniform public schooling because it is leading to bad results. He wants to allow a two tier school system, public and private, both funded by public tax dollars, because that would lead to better education for more students.

Better education is a fine cause. A noble cause. Trouble is, Mr Murchison's solution is against the law. But when it's Mr Murchison's cause, that shouldn't be a barrier. To Mr Murchison, judicial activism is fine and dandy when it's a conservative cause being advanced. Instead, let's make the legislature and citizens of Florida change the Constitution if they don't like the quality of education in Florida that their laws result in. Don't blame the courts for doing their job exactly like conservatives have demanded for decades.

Looking Skyward: Times of drought have inspired rituals

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

“Mother Earth produces little besides misery without Father Rain. As such, the ancients took extraordinary steps to appease the heavens in times of drought. ... Here's how Scottish anthropologist Sir James George Frazer (1854-1941) described one such custom in Russia: ‘To put an end to drought and bring down rain, women and girls of the village of Ploska are wont to go naked by night to the boundaries of the village and there pour water on the ground.’”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Cute. Fun. Informative, but fluffy. Too bad DMN misses an opportunity to explain that there is a practical step that humans can and should take in the face of more frequent and extreme weather patterns: that's to modify our behaviors that contribute to climate change.

Dr. Kevin Trenberth of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) explains: “The heating from increased greenhouse gases enhances the hydrological cycle and increases the risk for stronger, longer-lasting or more intense droughts, and heavier rainfall events and flooding, even if these phenomena occur for natural reasons. Evidence, although circumstantial, is widespread across the United States. Examples include the intense drought in the central southern U.S in 1996, Midwest flooding in spring of 1995 and extensive flooding throughout the Mississippi Basin in 1993 even as drought occurred in the Carolinas, extreme flood events in winters of 1992-93 and 1994-95 in California but droughts in other years (e.g, 1986-87 and 1987-88 winters).” (Ozone Action Roundtable, June 24, 1996)

Getting naked and doing rain dances is silly. Reducing our dependence on fossil fuels is smart.

Confederate flag ban has firm roots

Dallas Morning News | James Ragland:

“About two years ago, a Burleson High School student took a Confederate battle flag ‘and put it in the face’ of a black student from another school, causing a ruckus. ‘It was a stupid act,’ Burleson school spokesman Richard Crummel said Tuesday. It's also one reason the school district no longer allows students to sport the controversial emblem in any fashion. Not even on purses.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

A Confederate flag. A swastika. A hammer and sickle. A cross or a Star of David. Simple symbols that pack a wallop. Can schools ban them? Does freedom of speech protect the display of political symbols on clothing or accessories? The Burleson High case involves two students who display the Confederate flag as a decoration on their purses, of all places. The dollar signs on the money inside the purse probably carry more meaningful symbolism to the girls than the stars and bars on the outside do. Yet, to others, the racist symbolism of that design provokes anger. The controversies that erupt can lead to disruption and even violence. The fact that the Confederate flag or the swastika are not just controversial, but political, makes the case an interesting free speech issue.

Most agree that school dress codes are not only lawful, but the responsible thing to do. In cases where the logic isn't clear resistance is sometimes found. Length of hair or body piercings are examples where students (and their parents) don't understand the motivation of the ban. And often the school administrators themselves can't present a compelling case for the ban. But most parents understand the benefits of banning lewd or suggestive clothing, gang symbols, derogatory slogans, etc. As well as incendiary political symbols like the Confederate flag. The courts have generally agreed that free speech doesn't forbid school dress codes. If provocative symbols are banned as part of that code, not for political reasons, but out of concerns for safety and security of students, I see no Constitutional violation. Let's hope the courts agree.

Mexicans should be outraged with Mexico

DallasBlog.com | Scott Bennett:

“The President of Mexico, Vicente Fox, is ‘outraged.’ So, for that matter, are all Mexican politicians along with most central American politicians and more than a few from Brazil. They are right to be outraged. The fact that millions of their people are risking their lives to flee their Mexican (and other Latin) homeland to seek economic refuge in the United States indicates a failure of the Mexican state so complete that every Mexican should be outraged.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

I don't know how much outrage President Vincente Fox is really feeling. Politicians are given to hyperbole. And I don't know how much outrage Scott Bennett is really feeling, either. There's a lot of posturing going on on both sides of this debate.

Yes, millions of Mexicans are moving to Texas and Arizona and California seeking economic opportunity. So are millions of Americans from Michigan and Ohio and New York moving. The difference is that the native Texans are more outraged with the Mexican immigrants than with the Yankees moving in. (Maybe only a little ;-) Should the Michiganders be outraged at their governor? Well, maybe, but this has been going on forever, since the Tennesseans posted signs saying "Gone to Texas" and Horace Greeley advised "Go west, young man.".

The comparison of a border fence with the Berlin Wall is imperfect. Sure, they are both designed to stop the free flow of people. From the viewpoint of a poor Mexican desperately seeking work, does it really matter whether it is the US or Mexico that builds the fence? The effect is the same on the poor. But everyone understands the difference between a defensive measure (the border fence) and an authoritarian crackdown on one's own citizens (the Berlin Wall). The analogy is just incendiary. Opponents of the fence are best advised to drop it.

And supporters of the fence should quit defending it with the argument that it'll stop drugs and terrorists. Drugs will keep coming across the border in trucks and planes. And terrorists are as likely to cross the Canadian border as the Mexican border, but no one is proposing a fence across our northern border. No, the border fence serves one purpose. That's to keep out poor Mexicans and Hondurans and Nicaraguans.

In the end, no fence is going to relieve the pressure building up by the disparity of wealth on the two sides of the border. Americans would be better off spending our time and effort and resources bringing jobs and prosperity to Mexico. Ultimately, that's the only way America will be able to retain its own prosperity.

No Alito Agenda: Judge stresses principles above politics

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

“If you fear Samuel Alito is more of a revolutionary ideologue than a cautious judge, chances are that you slept pretty well last night. The Supreme Court nominee didn't wow the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday like John Roberts did in his hearings, but the respectful jurist gave no hint he would use the bench to remake America in his image.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

What he said is hardly reason to sleep well.

Judge Alito's testimony about abortion rights is that he has an "open mind." Meaning he doesn't consider it settled law. In a 1985 memo, Mr Alito advocated overturning Roe v Wade. Keeping an open mind means, I guess, that he'll listen to opposing arguments, just in case someone can come up with something to change his mind, something that he hasn't heard in the last twenty years. What chance that, do you think?

No judge is going to say the executive branch has unchecked authority in time of war. Not even President Bush says this, although his actions imply he believes this. In a 1984 Justice Department memo, Mr Alito defended the government's power to conduct wiretaps without warrants. Maybe Judge Alito is keeping an open mind about the Fourth Amendment, too.

And what judge ever says his personal political views influence his judicial decisions? Can Judge Alito point to examples where he ruled in a manner that contradicted any of his deeply held political views?

I find no reason to sleep better after this testimony. Judge Alito needs to stand firmly on the side of Constitutional rights, not just tell us he has an open mind, in order for this citizen to sleep better.

Don't Tax You. Don't Tax Me. Tax that Fellow Behind the Tree.

Dallas Blog | Tom Pauken:

“[The column title] is an apt expression as Gov. Perry’s tax reform commission conducts public hearings all across Texas and hears recommendations on various solutions to the school finance issue which must be resolved by a June 1st deadline set by the Texas Supreme Court. ... The two plans that best meet those goals are David Hartman’s business activities tax and Albert Huddleston’s flat-rate income tax.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

The choices are:

• Continue to tax property
• Tax business activity, as Mr Hartman proposes
• Tax income, as Mr Huddleston proposes
• Tax consumption (sales), as I'm sure someone must be suggesting, but I don't know who.

I haven't seen a good analysis of the pros and cons, in principle and practice, of each source of tax revenue. But I have a good feeling that a reliance on any single source of revenue is going to prove to be unsatisfactory. As John Sharp says, some people "think that the good Lord put ‘em here not to pay taxes." Humans are adaptive. The clever will devise ways to shift wealth from the taxed activity to the untaxed activity.

The best way to assure a truly fair and equitable tax system is to ... Tax you. Tax me. Tax that fellow behind the tree. In fact, tax everything that moves. Don't tax any single source of revenue so much that it artificially favors one kind of economic activity over another. Instead, tax everything only as much as needed so that the cumulative tax burden is enough to finance society's needs, including a quality education system for the children of Texas. When taxpayers complain that they are being nickel and dimed to death, that's when we know the tax burden is spread evenly across all who live, work, and do business in Texas. Ironically, the almost universal unpopularity of such a proposal is what convinces me that it is truly the most fair and equitable. Which is why it doesn't stand a chance. Because taxpayers aren't really interested in fairness and equity. Their real goal is to ... Don't tax you. Don't tax me. Tax that fellow behind the tree.

GOP shouldn't stop with Tom DeLay

Dallas Morning News | Carl P. Leubsdorf:

“Majority Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri, the top candidate to replace Mr. DeLay, was also involved in the K Street Project, as was rival John Boehner of Ohio, though there is no evidence at this point that either did anything illegal. Speaker Dennis Hastert was Mr. DeLay's deputy before the Texas Republican helped install him as speaker in 1998. If Republicans are serious about changing their public image, they'll opt for a clean sweep of their leadership.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Where do you stop? Dig deeper and you'll find lots more dirt. Just a year ago, these same Republicans voted to re-elect Tom Delay (R-TX) as their majority leader. The Republican caucus knew the kind of man they were installing as party leader. Tom Delay didn't change his stripes in the last year. Maybe the whole Republican caucus ought to resign.

No, the goal will be to change their public image without having to make substantive changes to their private behavior. Without having to resign. The higher up they can draw the line, the more secure the lower-ranking members of Congress are in their own seats. Because if they ever really started to clean house, who knows where it would end?

Wherever the logic leads

Star-Telegram | Don Erler:

“I agree that intelligent design should not be taught in biology classes, because the theory is not testable by ordinary scientific methods. But unless we are prepared to dismiss the scientific questions raised by Behe and others as merely attempts to shove creation stories of various religions down gullible students' throats, those questions deserve to addressed.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

First, Texas Governor Rick Perry and others are simply wrong when they assert that intelligent design is a valid scientific theory. It is not testable. It is not predictive. It should not be taught in science classes. Science relies on natural explanations for natural phenomena. Intelligent design relies on divine miracles to explain the origin of life. Supernatural explanations are, by definition, not scientific.

Second, the movement to teach intelligent design in America's classrooms is largely an attempt to teach religious creation stories. The recent case in Dover, Pennsylvania, is a case in point. Some school board members were vocal about their religious motivations and had only a weak grasp of either intelligent design or the theory of natural selection.

Finally, despite the religious motivations of many intelligent design adherents, the scientific questions raised by Dr Michael Behe and others do deserve to be addressed. And they are being addressed -- by scientists themselves. That's what science is all about -- finding natural explanations for natural phenomena. Sometimes, science's best answer for now is "We don't know." Some hypotheses and models pan out. Some don't. Dr Behe does a service in challenging current thinking. Skepticism has always played a role in scientific advancement. Evolution is no exception.

Science never runs out of questions -- physics, geology, astronomy, biology, all have them. How life arose is only one example. Our understanding of the mechanisms of natural selection and evolution is getting deeper all the time. Our scientific knowledge is improving exactly because scientists go "wherever the logic leads." And resist the urge to leap where faith leads.