Making the world safe for Christianity

DallasBlog.com | Rep. Ron Paul:

“The top neocon of the 20th century was Woodrow Wilson. His supposed idealism, symbolized in the slogan ‘Make the world safe for democracy,’ resulted in untold destruction and death across the world for many decades. His deceit and manipulation of the prewar intelligence from Europe dragged America into an unnecessary conflict that cost the world and us dearly. Without the disastrous Versailles Treaty, World War II could have been averted – and the rise to power of Communists around the world might have been halted.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Whoa! For Rep. Paul to imply that Wilsonian idealism was the cause of World War II is unfair. One could as easily place the blame for the rise of fascism on the isolationists who opposed and defeated Wilsonian idealism at home. But that would be unfair, too. The blame for the rise of fascism and communism needs to be placed squarely at the feet of the fascists and communists themselves: Hitler and Mussolini and Lenin and Stalin. Wilson certainly didn't prevent their rise, but he was not responsible for the war and the collapse of empires that created the conditions for fascism and communism to thrive afterwards.

Rep. Paul rightly recognizes the folly of the United States trying to impose democracy on Iraq in 2006. So how can he imply that somehow the United States in 1917 could have influenced the course of the Russian Revolution and brought about a democratic regime in that much larger country? It's pure fantasy.

There are similarities between Wilsonian foreign policy and the current Bush Doctrine, but there are important differences, too. Both Presidents used American military power in attempts to impose American morality and democracy on others. But whereas President Bush has adopted a policy of unilateralism and pre-emption, President Wilson placed emphasis on collective security and international forums like the League of Nations and international mediation. So, whereas the goals may be the same, the methods are significantly different.

Rep. Paul is right about almost every criticism he makes of America's disastrous intervention in Iraq. In this case, American pre-emptive actions bear some responsibility for the chaos that plagues that sorry land. And he may be right that the failure shares a root cause with Wilson's failures, namely the hubris of thinking that America can impose its own morality and democracy on the world. But to learn from our past mistakes, we first have to have a better understanding of exactly what went wrong so long ago than Rep. Paul gives us in this speech.

Illegal immigration talking points smackdown

DallasBlog.com | Trey Garrison:

“So yesterday at the protest at Dallas City Hall I talked to a lot of people who parrotted the party line on illegal immigration that passes for informed debate these days. You know - ‘illegals do the jobs Americans won't do’ and ‘America needs the labor of illegal immigrants’ and ‘there's no practical way to enforce tougher laws on immigration’ and so on. These are spoken as if they are the trump card. Luckily, my favorite economist (I'm so getting a beating at the gym for typing those words ‘favorite economist’) has not one but two columns that put the talking points to lie. Here's part one and part two.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Thomas Sowell does a pretty good job of parroting the other party line himself, using his own bogus arguments and word games. Go ahead, call illegal immigrants "illegal immigrants". It doesn't change the need for immigration reform. And if immigration reform leads to legalizing more immigrants, then a guest worker program is not a "gate-crasher worker" program, as Mr Sowell would like to spin it. Sure, this may be solving the problem of illegal immigration by legalizing it after the fact. But better late than never.

Illegal immigrants come to America to work. Wanting to work used to be a virtue. In Mr Sowell's world, it's comparable to murder or robbing banks. Is this what Mr Garrison considers to be "informed debate"? It sounds more like the "frivolous rhetoric" and "slippery sophistry" that Mr Sowell decries. When our laws make it impossible for willing employers to hire willing workers, the laws need to be changed. Criminalizing millions of poor people who come to America to work is bad public policy. It's not made better by enforcing it more strictly. If change does away with the illegal status of millions of hard-working residents, so much the better. We ought to be rewarding hard work, not criminalizing it.

Mr Sowell argues that "Americans will not take many jobs at their current pay levels -- and those pay levels will not rise so long as poverty-stricken immigrants are willing to take those jobs." He speaks as if globalization never happened. Those low pay levels aren't going to rise. If the source of cheap labor in America dries up, those jobs are going to dry up, too. Much of our manufacturing base has already moved to China. Services are going to India. What's left? Agriculture? Mr Sowell argues that America grows too much anyway. He is willing to see the entire sugar industry leave the country to do away with the need for immigrant workers to harvest the crop. There are always construction jobs, right? When wage inflation drives up interest rates and bursts the housing bubble, who is going to be buying those new houses? America won't need construction workers, legal or not.

Mr Sowell wants us all to bemoan the "plain and ugly reality: Politicians are afraid of losing the Hispanic vote and businesses want cheap labor." So, now politicians listening to voters is somehow bad? And businessmen wanting to keep their costs low is somehow a new evil? Sorry, but immigration is an issue that Sowell himself seems "unable to discuss rationally." Let's hope the immigration bills before Congress can at least get an honest debate, instead of the word games we hear from economists like Thomas Sowell.

The immigration divide

Dallas Morning News | Mark Davis:

“Before we tackle immigration laws, let's address the young scofflaws who say they were driven by their passions to skip school these last couple of days. Every last one of them should have faced detention or worse. It was truly depressing to see the condoning shrug of schools across North Texas as thousands of kids spat on truancy laws to play protest games.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

It is amusing to see Mr Davis get his dander up over those "young scofflaws" skipping school. He doesn't say, but he is probably in a state of high dudgeon over the fact that the protesters spilled over the sidewalks, jaywalking on Dallas streets. It's a good thing he didn't notice some of their signs were misspelled, or he would be lobbying for extra homework for the little miscreants, too.

Mr Davis and others are fiddling while Rome burns. The hundreds of thousands who marched in Los Angeles last weekend understand. The thousands of Dallas students who protested this week may not have a firm grasp of the issues, but they understand, too. For years, the anti-immigration forces have had free rein in the public square, decrying immigrants, their language and their culture. They no longer have the public square to themselves.

Our immigration laws are a disgrace. They have quit serving America. They fail completely to deal with reality. The problem is not that millions of people are flouting our laws. The problem is our law itself. Tightening up misguided law, building walls and criminalizing poor workers is not going to help. The most effective way to fight illegal immigration is to facilitate legal immigration. When you have millions of willing workers and willing employers, the role of the government should be to facilitate getting them together. When bad laws prevent that, you don't fix things by increasing penalties for breaking those bad laws. Laws are meant to serve the people, not the other way around. Fix the laws to do that and the problem of massive lawbreaking will take care of itself.

Stand Up, Stand Down: Will immigration protests yield desired fruit?

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

“By the hundreds and thousands – and, ultimately, hundreds of thousands – they filled block after block of downtown Los Angeles, sidewalk to sidewalk, in peaceful protest. ... Dallas to Houston to Kansas City, Atlanta, Charlotte, Phoenix, Milwaukee and the stunning visual of a half-million people in Los Angeles marching, chanting and waving their signs. ... Wherever you stand on U.S. immigration policy, it was a historic weekend.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Exciting! Up until now, the millions of immigrants in the USA have been silent. This country exploits immigrant workers to build our houses and harvest our crops, but offers no respect in return. The millions who are Americans by accident of birth feel free to decry the open borders and free labor market that they themselves benefit from. Some seek to criminalize the very presence of the newest Americans.

Time will tell how soon this weekend's public demonstrations will impact public policy. But one thing's for sure. The anti-immigrant forces no longer have the public stage to themselves. The silent minority is speaking up. A turning point has been reached. The historic forces that made America great time and time again are once again unloosed. America always was and always will be a nation of immigrants. America has always been the better for it. This time will be no exception. Exciting!

At the gates of the fortress

Star-Telegram | Don Erler:

“Last week's U.S. Supreme Court decision in Georgia vs. Randolph tells us much about new Chief Justice John Roberts, just as it illuminates parts of the Constitution's right to privacy. The facts are simple. Janet Randolph invited police into her and her estranged husband's home in order to expose his use of illegal drugs. Scott Randolph told police not to enter. Five justices agreed that the evidence obtained by the officers should not have been admitted at trial because their warrantless search was constitutionally invalid.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Two residents stand in the doorway. One says no. One says yes. Who do police have to listen to? The Supreme Court says no means no. Even one no. They sided with the man who said no to the police.

The Supreme Court could have ruled the other way and the Republic wouldn't fall. Still, it's refreshing to see a ruling that reinforces our basic liberties, even a little bit. All too often, rulings chip away at our fundamental rights, either for national security, or for fighting crime, or for protecting the unborn, or for protecting ourselves from ourselves. Before you know it, the Bill of Rights is a convenient fiction, a historical curiosity, a reminder of what rights Americans used to enjoy. But every so often, the Supreme Court slows the erosion of our rights. This was such a case. Celebrate it.

Is media bias fact or fiction?

DallasBlog.com | Scott Bennett:

“Is the media biased? I think so, and I’ll share a personal experience to prove my point.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Mr Bennett covers a lot of ground in his blog, but let's start with his headline question. Yes, the media is biased. Talk radio skews right. Hollywood entertainment skews left. Television news has both kinds of networks. Newspapers, too. There are even some outlets that try to be fair and balanced, presenting both sides of issues, but these tend to be viewed as liberal anyway, as tolerance is itself a liberal trait.

If Mr Bennett insists on claiming that, on the whole, on average, the media is more liberal than conservative, I'll even grant him that, not because I necessarily believe it, but because I don't think there's any way to prove it one way or the other. You won't even get agreement on the definitions of liberal, conservative, and media. So, just grant the assertion and let's move on.

Mr Bennett's own evidence is a single anecdote. It's an interesting story, but hardly proof of anything. He went on one junket to Eastern Europe with a dozen journalists, most of whom, but not all, expressed liberal views in private. The subject was the first Gulf War. The liberals expressed relief that "civilized" George H.W. Bush occupied the White House at that time, not Ronald Reagan, the "gun slinging cowboy." Mr Bennett applauds himself for knowing better than his cohorts on the junket that Bush 41 would go through with his threat of war.

As history unfolded, President Bush 41 limited the war and consciously chose not to invade Iraq. Because of this, his war was a great victory. His son, President Bush 43, who models himself more after the "gun slinging cowboy" than his father, chose otherwise, and his war has led to the disastrous consequences foreseen by those liberals on that junket all those years before.

From this vantage point, it appears there was something to learn from the biases of both sides on that long ago junket. Maybe bias isn't all bad.

"Moderate" Muslim cleric calls for death of Afghan Christian

DallasBlog.com | Tom Pauken:

“What exactly are we fighting for in these countries where being a Christian can put a death warrant on one’s head?”

Ed Cognoski responds:

I assume that's a rhetorical question. But, let's treat the question seriously anyway. President Bush doesn't distinguish between Afghanistan and Iraq, calling the conflict anywhere and everywhere the global war on terror. But President Bush has explicitly addressed our mission in Iraq much more frequently than any other front of the war, so let's focus on that.

Before the Iraq war, the mission was to disarm Iraq. When the war began, the mission was disarmament, regime change, and liberation for Iraqis. Two months after the invasion, President Bush declared major combat operations over and the mission completed. But the troops didn't come home. Instead, the mission expanded into establishing a self-governing, democratic Iraq, capable of defending itself and no longer a threat to its neighbors.

None of this mission creep ever included liberal democracy. Never did the President insist on safeguarding individual liberties, freedom of speech or religion, tolerance of minorities, and the like. Perhaps the President once dreamt of such an outcome, but he never staked the mission on it.

What we're fighting for -- democracy, self-defense, and non-aggression -- are reasonable and more limited goals, but sadly, still unachievable. So, we're stuck putting our armed forces in harm's way indefinitely, without reasonable expectations of success, while those we protect act outrageously. Maybe it's time for the President to redefine the mission ... again.

Do you want our opinions?

Dallas Morning News | Carl Morgan:

“I feel that no one honestly cares what youths think. Politicians, teachers and the like encourage political discourse, yet when we express opinions, the response is condescension and a pat on the head.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

I've got news for Mr Morgan. Lecturing, scolding, condescension, none of that is reserved for youths. Everyone who engages in political discourse is subject to that. Politics is a blood sport.

Former Senator Max Cleland (D-GA) is a disabled US Army veteran of the Vietnam War. He lost both legs and part of one arm when a grenade he was holding exploded. He was awarded the Bronze Star and Silver Star. Yet, during his campaign for re-election to the US Senate, his political opinions were distorted, his patriotism questioned, his war wounds and medals belittled and mocked. All for partisan political gain. If the body politic will do that to a disabled war veteran, youths should expect no applause for voicing their own political opinions.

Welcome to the real world. Congratulations. You're a grownup. Now, quit complaining and go and do better than your elders. Change the nasty tone that permeates all of politics today. The future is in your hands.

No one benefits from censuring Bush

Dallas Morning News | Carl P. Leubsdorf:

“It's a close call whether Sen. Russell Feingold's proposal to censure President Bush has attracted more enthusiasm from the president's liberal Democratic critics or his Republican defenders. But this much is clear: It's a bad idea that can only increase the negative tone of American politics and distract all concerned from the vital international and domestic issues the country faces.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

I beg to differ from the assertion in the headline. If President Bush were to be censured for authorizing domestic surveillance without court approval, the Constitution would benefit, and therefore the American people would benefit.

But the votes aren't there for censure. Proposing censure without any chance of winning censure only diverts attention from the abuse of power itself. Instead, the focus shifts to Senator Feingold's political ambitions, to comparisons with the politically motivated impeachment of President Clinton, and to polarizing debates over Constitutional rights versus national security, generating way more heat than light.

Make no mistake. This President is guilty of abuse of power. His approval of warrantless searches violates the Constitution's Fourth Amendment. Strict constructionists have to be contortionists to avoid that obvious conclusion. But the President is going to get away with it because this Congress places less value on upholding the Constitution than in maintaining party harmony and with it, political power. For Democrats to challenge the President on this issue and fail will only compound the damage to our Constitution. Rather, Democrats should focus on the vital international and domestic issues they can influence, and come back to set the Constitution straight another day.

While bracing for new trials, let's stop the insanity

Dallas Morning News | Mark Davis:

“Dena Schlosser might get another trial. Andrea Yates definitely will, but it's on hold until June. It's time to examine what they both deserve. The insanity of the insanity defense, a cancer that has spread mightily through our court system, has denied justice to countless victims.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Mr Davis says he isn't against the insanity defense in theory. He just wants to set the bar so high it is never granted. He certainly doesn't want it granted by a jury who has listened to hours, days, maybe weeks of expert testimony from prosecution and defense, testimony about the defendant's mental state at the time of the crime. Instead, he wants the insanity defense to be granted only by talk radio personalities who have formed their own opinion about the defendant from ... what? Reading the newspapers and talking to their call-in talk radio audience? Mr Davis argues that there is no "magic power" that allows juries to determine the defendant's mental state at the time of the crime. Yet Mr Davis shows no hesitation himself in judging mental state based on the 911 calls alone in the Schlosser and Yates cases.

Texas already has some of the nation's most restrictive conditions for application of an insanity defense. Texas' prison population is 150,000. There are approximately 68 people in the state mental hospital because they were acquited of crimes by reason of insanity. Some have been hospitalized for decades. Does this sound like a "a cancer that has spread mightily through our court system?" Or does Mr Davis sound like an Internet troll taking an extreme position in an attempt to draw attention and start an argument. Enough said.

The search for the cinematic Jesus

DallasBlog.com | William Murchison:

“Somewhere on my ‘to-do’ list for the year: No. 116, No. 117 -- something like that; right after ‘Rearrange Sock Drawer.’ That's when I pick up Dan Brown's "The DaVinci Code," to ascertain, if possible, why a whacked-out account of Christian origins has earnest people debating the whacked-out implications.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Mr Murchison can't be bothered reading the book, but it doesn't stop him from writing a 683 word review of the book. And conclude it's "whacked-out". Why spend the time and effort bashing something he claims is no more consequential than rearranging his sock drawer? Methinks he doth protest too much. It almost makes me want to buy a copy and read it to find out what has Mr Murchison all "atwitter."

Death and taxes. And marketing. And telemarketing

DallasBlog.com | Trey Garrison:

“And now the IRS is quietly moving to loosen the once-inviolable privacy of federal income-tax returns, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer. The report says that if the IRS succeeds, accountants and other tax-return preparers will be able to sell information from individual returns - or even entire returns - to marketers and data brokers. It's like they're not even bothering to pretend anymore.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

According to the Inquirer story, "The proposed rules would require a tax preparer to obtain written consent before selling tax information." If the taxpayer and H&R Block agree on some business exchange (tax preparation in exchange for money, perhaps with a discount for information sharing), why should the government tell the taxpayer, with force of law, what they can and can't do with their own financial information?

Ginsburg, foreign law, and the Constitution

DallasBlog.com | Tara Ross:

“A reliance on foreign law is still inappropriate. British or German or French laws should not be used to govern Americans. Such a concept is fundamentally incompatible with the concept of self-governance—one of the most basic principles behind the U.S. Constitution. How sad that Justice Ginsburg does not know that.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Ms Ross's report of Justice Ginsburg's speech makes it all but unrecognizable. The actual speech is a balanced and reasonable presentation of the issue, even while advocating one side of the issue. I suggest readers of Dallas Blog read the speech for themselves. Here is one paragraph that summarizes Justice Ginsburg's point nicely:

"Foreign opinions are not authoritative; they set no binding precedent for the U.S. judge. But they can add to the store of knowledge relevant to the solution of trying questions. Yes, we should approach foreign legal materials with sensitivity to our differences, deficiencies, and imperfect understanding, but imperfection, I believe, should not lead us to abandon the effort to learn what we can from the experience and good thinking foreign sources may convey."

Visit Dallas' Kennedy Memorial with an open mind

Dallas Morning News | Wes Wise:

“I have always felt a certain magic walking into the enclosure, the sounds of the city fading into a gentle murmur, the blue Texas sky visible above. I like the clean, simple design. I like the idea of the open tomb. I like the very personal interaction of being inside the cenotaph. I would invite others who have written or voiced criticism to visit the Kennedy Memorial with an open mind and take a moment of silence along with their own faith to the experience.

“After the restoration of the monument in 2000, Sen. Edward Kennedy wrote to the citizens of Dallas County: ‘More than 30 years ago, masterful architect Philip Johnson was chosen to design this Memorial. He has created a place for quiet reflection for all who visit, and an opportunity to pause and remember President Kennedy. ... This structure captures the sense of loss we felt – and still feel.’”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Wes Wise, former mayor of Dallas, and Senator Edward Kennedy, brother of the slain President, express better than I the favorable aspects of the Kennedy memorial in downtown Dallas. In my own review, I praised the design for shutting out the city. For its emptiness. For the same blue Texas sky that Mayor Wise finds worthy of mention.

Senator Kennedy, though, puts his finger on something I missed, something that I think explains why the memorial leaves so many modern visitors bored and unimpressed. Senator Kennedy praises the memorial for being "a place for quiet reflection." Modern man has lost the capacity for quiet reflection. We expect to be constantly entertained and bombarded with sensations. In John Kennedy's day, television offered 60 minute documentaries, interrupted by 60 second commercials. Today, a five minute segment is an eternity. Commercials seem long at 30 seconds. Fast cuts are standard film editing. Channel surfing is a way of life. Visitors today don't know what to make of a memorial that expects them to pause and reflect. Not to be entertained. Not to be educated. Not to be told what to think. Only to pause and reflect. It's sad that too many visitors expect the memorial to be something it isn't, and miss the value of what it is.

Spain's socialist government in action

DallasBlog.com | Tom Pauken:

“Spain's socialist government apparently is determined to carry ‘political correctness’ to the nth degree. An official state bulletin has declared that "the expression 'father' will be replaced with 'Progenitor A' and 'mother' replaced with 'Progenitor B'" in all new birth certificates." The official explanation of the change is that this new edict was issued so that there would be no discrimination against same-sex couples. It appears that the socialist regime in that country is determined to abolish the idea of parenthood in what traditionally has been a religious nation.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Where does Mr Pauken get the idea there is any intent to "abolish parenthood". Or that being homosexual is somehow incompatible with being religious. Criticize the government for allowing same-sex marriage if you really must, but don't criticize the poor bureaucrats who have to design forms to adapt to changing legal realities. If anything, the form designers aren't thinking broadly enough. What should go in the "Father" and "Mother" spaces on a birth certificate when the egg came from one donor, the sperm from another, the uterus a third, and the couple who will raise the baby are of the same sex?

It's just a thought, Mr Pauken, but maybe that high Muslim birthrate you worry about will solve this "political correctness" problem. When Muslims are in charge, they just may outlaw homosexual unions. How about that irony? Muslims save Western civilization. ;-)

Iraqi war has negative impact on life in the USA

DallasBlog.com:

“A new Gallup poll found that 58% of Americans believe that the war in Iraq has had a negative effect on life in the US. That is a reversal from the results immediately after the war began in which 52% of Americans said that the war had a positive effect on life in the United States”

Ed Cognoski responds:

D'oh. We're at war, folks. A global war. A global war on terror. We're in the middle of that war. It hasn't been won. The President has even taken to calling it the "Long War." Since when have nations begun thinking that war improves life? War is sometimes a necessary evil. Wars fought and won, eliminating a foe that attacked our lives and liberties, can lead to safer and more prosperous times later. But before then, while the war is still raging, soldiers still dying, the impact of the war, any war, is negative. Papering over that hard truth is dangerous to the nation's security.

We can speculate how Americans ever got the absurd notion that war had a positive impact. It could be that President Bush never asked Americans to sacrifice for this war. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, President Bush encouraged Americans to visit DisneyWorld. He refused to account for the cost of the war in the federal budget. He urged Congress to pass even more tax cuts and make the ones already passed permanent. He prematurely declared an end to major combat operations. He implied that by waging war in Iraq, America can have peace at home. Americans bought this line of thinking, at least for a while. The polls are now showing that the old adage is still true: you can't fool all the people all the time.

Another link in the chain

DallasBlog.com | Trey Garrison:

“I'm not going to state an editorial position, but I must pose a question: If we all agree that political speech more than any other variety is what the First Amendment is meant to protect, how is it even possible we're at a place where we're squabbling over how speech in this medium should be restricted, but not in that medium, and only if you're spending less than X amount of dollars, and so on? I really just don't get it. Props to Texas Rep. Jeb Hensarling, but how has it come to this?”

Ed Cognoski responds:

It has come to this because some Americans perceived abuses in campaign financing in the past. And some Americans who disagreed are now attempting to chisel away at the reforms put in place to stop the abuses. It's that simple.

The Constitution does protect free speech. So, what regulators are attempting to control is money, not speech. Splitting hairs? Sure. That's what the Constitution and legal matters in general have been about for as long as people have decided to have governments of laws, not of men. If you don't get that, you won't get the Constitution or campaign finance reform.

P.S. Mr Garrison states he isn't taking a position, then gives props to Rep. Hensarling. So much for balanced reporting.

Texas public schools don't need more money to waste

Dallas Morning News | Lynn Woolley:

“If schools really hadn't gotten significant increases and if they didn't waste money like drunken sailors, we taxpayers would obviously want to do our part. But before the soaking begins, would the Legislature please take a look at how our money is being spent?”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Anyone who compares our public school teachers with drunken sailors probably isn't open to reason, but Mr Woolley's extremist views should not go unchallenged. Mr Woolley's prescription for controlling spending on public schools consists of:

• Quit educating large numbers of children in Texas. Even many native Texans, American citizens, would get the heave-ho from our public schools if their parents entered the country illegally. Quit educating children in our state and you can use those tax dollars saved, and much more, on building more and more jails. Texans don't want that.
• Quit providing classrooms with computers, calculators, audio-visual equipment, science labs, maybe even air conditioning; and quit offering band, drama, swimming, and other enrichment programs. Mr Woolley wants to return spending to what it was after World War II, when most public schools could not afford much more than desks, blackboards and books. Texans don't want that.
• Quit paying superintendents. Mr Woolley bemoans the "rock-star contracts loaded with perks that most of us could never imagine." His example? A car allowance for a superintendent. First, most of us can imagine car allowances, Mr Woolley. Enough occupations that involve lots of driving do come with car allowances that imagining them isn't difficult at all. Second, rock stars, even CEOs of comparable businesses in the private sector, typically make much more than the superintendent of a public school system in Texas. Third, that car allowance has since been discontinued. The savings don't make a dent in the problem. Texans do want our school administrators to be thrifty, but Mr Woolley is wrong to imply that cutting car allowances and paid vacations for superintendents is going to solve the school funding crisis.

The bottom line? Polls show a majority of Texans want to see more money for education. That's not a sign of uninformed voters fooled by myths. That's a sign of informed voters finally getting fed up with the poor state of education in Texas.

CHIPs down

Waco Tribune-Herald | Editorial:

“Don't look now, but the state with the lowest percentage of children with health insurance – Texas – right now has lower enrollment levels in the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) than it has had since the program was new in 2001. ... The biggest reason for the drop-off is the decision to make it tougher for families to stay enrolled on CHIP. ... The governor must examine what has caused the decline in CHIP and, if necessary, suspend the changes that have caused Texas' support for healthy children to erode even further.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Good editorial, WacoTrib. Investing in our children is just that, an investment in the future prosperity of our state. The shortsightedness of the Texas Legislature in wanting to short change education and health care for children will do more to turn Texas into a third world country than any perceived invasion of illegal immigrants ever will.

Let Don Knotts - and everyone else - rest in peace

Dallas Morning News | Mark Davis:

“This column has been in my head for years. I tripped over a piece of news the other day that uncorked it, so here goes. I have long held a special contempt for the charlatans who purport to be able to talk to the dead. Many people write off such things as entertainment, in the same category as psychics and tarot-card readers. I don't. ”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Maybe Mr Davis' column is meant as satire. With the same mock serious tone used to decry the sale of terminal operations at US ports to a Dubai company (threatening the Mafia franchise at the Port of New York ;-), Mr Davis lets loose with a double barrelled barrage against this latest threat posed by charlatans who claim to speak with the dead.

Apparently, he isn't upset by unscrupulous people preying on the naive so long as they only claim to be able to read tea leaves or tarot cards. Just don't claim to speak with the dead. Believing in omnipotent supernatural beings is apparently also OK with Mr Davis. Mr Davis himself talks about death being a "line drawn by God". He doesn't tell us his position on talking with God, however. Neither does he tell us his position on writing to Santa Claus.

Oh well, if this grave matter (pun intended ;-) has been weighing on Mr Davis for years, I'm happy for him that he finally found occasion to unburden himself and exorcise that demon once and for all. Don Knotts would be pleased. Maybe.

Romney for President?

DallasBlog.com | Tara Ross:

“Is it ever too early to conduct an informal straw poll of 2008 presidential hopefuls? Probably not, which is why the Southern Republican Leadership Conference did precisely that on Saturday night in Tennessee. Not surprisingly, the hometown favorite, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, took a strong lead over more than a dozen other candidates. He finished with 36.9 percent of the vote. But a hefty 82 percent of these votes came from Frist’s fellow Tennesseans. Frist’s win was predictable and not particularly meaningful. The more surprising outcome is the identity of the second-place candidate. Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney earned 14.4 percent of the votes to land squarely in second place. ”

Ed Cognoski responds:

The Romney boomlet in the Bible Belt is not so surprising when you look behind the scenes. According to an AP report, pro-Romney organizers arranged for hundreds of Romney supporters to be in Memphis, with many getting expenses paid to be there. Organizer Nancy French first denied paying supporters, then admitted it when the supporters themselves said they were paid. Going into the straw poll, Gov Romney had said he was not interested in the straw poll. Uh huh. Afterwards, he probably doesn't mind at all that admirers like Ms Ross are using his "surprising" straw poll finish as a pretext to write a complimentary piece about him and present it as news.

Justice Denied: Milosevic escaped verdict; Saddam must not

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

“In death, Slobodan Milosevic eluded worldly justice. The victims of Europe's worst atrocities since the Holocaust will never have the satisfaction of knowing that the international community got the chance to look the ‘Butcher of the Balkans’ in the eye, condemn his evil deeds and pronounce him guilty. Instead, in a cruel twist of fate, the former strongman continues to have a chokehold on judgment, even in death.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

This attitude strikes me as unhealthy. Slobodan Milosevic was jailed, he was standing trial for war crimes; he died in prison. How exactly did he "elude" justice? How exactly does a dead man maintain a "chokehold" on anything. He didn't and he doesn't.

Justice demanded that Milosevic be held accountable for his crimes. His capture and trial did that. A guilty verdict and sentence of imprisonment would have been the inevitable outcome of that process. Death does not change that. Death does not change the message that the world sent by removing Milosevic from power, hunting him down, and imprisoning him to stand trial. The world condemned his actions. The world proclaimed that such behavior will not be tolerated. That is what matters, not whether our blood lust in watching him suffer is satisfied.

In the end, justice was done. In death, Milosevic finally relinquishes the hold he had on us that led some of us to seek vengeance and call it justice.

What don't we appreciate?

Star-Telegram | Joy Donovan:

“Since I hung up my pompons a few decades ago, cheerleading has changed dramatically. What was once a popularity contest, with the cute, bubbly girls winning spots on the squad, has now evolved into a sport that requires years of outside training in such areas as tumbling and dance. ... Schools that have chosen to divide cheerleading duties into school spirit activities and competition teams are the most progressive. This way, the never-ending duties of school spirit are shared among those whose greatest talent might be enthusiasm, and the truly competitive, highly trained, superbly skilled cheerleaders can vie for the trophies.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

As cheerleading has evolved, emphasizing tumbling and dance over actually leading cheers, something has been lost - namely, school spirit. Today, the athleticism of the girls (and occasional boys) is more on display, but the pep in the stands is lacking. A generation ago, the bleachers would rock to the synchronized yelling and screaming of hundreds of enthusasiastic fans, all under the skilled coordination of a cheerleading squad. Today, when the fans watch the cheerleaders at all, it's as spectators of gymnastic routines, not as active participants in group chants designed to rally your school's players on the field or court.

I suppose it's futile to expect that trend to reverse. Cheerleading, for better or worse, is now to be thought of a sport by itself. Which raises the inevitable question, who leads cheers for the cheerleaders? Maybe that's where Ms Donovan's squad for school spirit activities comes in. Where the girls whose enthusiasm is at least as great as their ability to do cartwheels can be put to good use. Let the gymnasts who want to be called cheerleaders go to their own competitions and be judged on their abilities to do aerobatic stunts and choreographed dance routines. And let the girls who can inspire a crowd to cheer, in turn inspiring the team on the field or court to excel, do their own thing.

How grassroots is beating special interests

DallasBlog.com | Sal Costello:

“In 2004, 93% of the public feedback opposed the Gov. Perry toll plan that would shift most freeways in Austin to tollways. Austin's Mayor Will Wynn, and other local elected representatives ignored the 93% of the public feedback and voted to toll roads already fully funded with gas tax dollars. Since then, I've been leading a big-fit across Texas.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Mr Costello says he is not against traditional toll roads, but then he poses every political race as a race of Toller vs. NonToller. Despite his protestations, it sounds to me like he's really just campaigning against paying for government services.

You can pay gas taxes. Or you can pay tolls. Or you can pay for roads out of general revenues. But you can't build roads without raising money. Texas' roads are overcrowded and falling apart. The anti-tollers are good at generating anger. They aren't so good at getting roads built.

Taking Stock of Security

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

“Congressional Republicans are claiming they have a deal with the White House that resolves their concerns over warrantless surveillance of terror suspects. Federal agents will be allowed to wiretap suspected terrorists without warrants for up to 45 days; Congress will establish a new, seven-member terrorist surveillance subcommittee, with complete access to the program's details. Forty-five days is longer than we would have preferred, but it is acceptable. Most important, Congress beat back the administration's contention that it could skirt congressional or special court oversight.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

What is the DMN editorial board smoking? Congress just surrendered to the White House on domestic spying. The White House broke the FISA law. When their lawbreaking was revealed, the President claimed the right to break the law. Congress huffed and puffed, threatened an investigation, then meekly surrendered by voting, along party lines, to change the law to make what the White House did legal. And the DMN pretends that Congress beat back something. The DMN's spin is absurd.

In future, the White House can spy on who they want for up to 45 days. Then, whether they seek a warrant or not is entirely up to their discretion. The White House is asked only to apply for a warrant "whenever possible". This is a loophole that excuses any and all warrantless wiretapping ever conducted in the future. Even the little oversight remaining is no longer conducted by independent FISA judges, but by Republican Senators. These are some of the same Senators who voted to kill any investigation into the lawbreaking of the existing FISA law by this same White House. It's absurd to believe they understand the situation well enough to write new laws without insisting on being told the extent of the existing lawbreaking.

This is an exercise in burying an abuse of power before the mid-term elections. Our liberties are buried as well. And the DMN editorial board dares suggest this is progress with only a "couple of reservations." The DMN should be screaming from the rooftops that Congress just surrendered our liberties in exchange for a little promised security.

If a dilapidated apartment complex fell in the woods...

DallasBlog.com | Trey Garrison:

“A developer wants to take its own property and do something less blighted with it (and yeah, horrors, make some money, that's what businesses do), and residents of these old run-down apartments are shocked to discover that a 12-month lease isn't a permanent claim. I don't mean to be insensitive, but am I the only who just doesn't give a rip?”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Trammell Crow could be proactive in working with the city and residents, but according to the City Council's lead negotiator, the developer has been "very, very vague" about their plans for the property. Hardly the kind of attitude likely to win support. They've been even less sensitive about the renters' concerns. The developer dismissingly says there is "more than enough affordable housing" in the surrounding area. One renter says "All the other apartments in this price range are in really bad neighborhoods."

Mr Garrison isn't the only one who doesn't "give a rip" about low income persons. About the squeeze put on renters when low income housing is torn down for upscale redevelopment. About what happens to other people in other neighborhoods in general. Insensitivity is a too common trait. But I hope Mr Garrison is prepared when others don't give a rip about the value Mr Garrison puts on property rights and free markets. Not caring is a two-way street.

Military recruiters have upper hand at high schools

Dallas Morning News | Laray Polk:

“The bottom line? While there's a law in place for students and parents who choose to opt-out, it's a cumbersome one and a process that seems to work more in favor of the recruiters than the families opposed to such contact. It will take vigorous effort by individuals to get the needed reform within DISD to make this law work for those seeking privacy from off-campus recruitment.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

The opt-out rules impact much more than just military recruitment. Many parents don't want their children's names given to vendors of fundraising merchandise. Others worry about child molesters reading about their children in newspapers. Still others don't want the military to recruit their children. These parents check the opt-out boxes, then are upset when their children's names don't show up in the school directory or yearbook. Or when a group photo shows up in the DMN Neighbors section but their child's name is left off. Or when they don't get the email from the PTA or booster club, not realizing that these are outside organizations that the school cannot release information to without permission.

Trying to design an opt-out form that explains clearly just what is and isn't being excluded is challenging enough. Feeding the results of that opt-out survey back into all the places in schools that information like this is used and released to outside oranizations is even more of a challenge. Improvements to the system are needed, but let's cut the administrators some slack. Trying to tailor the opt-out system to meet everyone's needs results in a system so complex that it fails to meet the desires of the majority of parents.

Academia vs. America

DallasBlog.com | William Murchison:

“The legal factories demanding the right to protect students from exposure to the idea of a career in military justice thumb their noses at mainstreet America. The Supreme Court had to settle this thing? Why couldn't common sense, tinged with some latent affection for our country, have done the job? Because at too many institutions of the higher wisdom you prospect for weeks without striking a vein of common sense. Leftwing ideology -- plenty of that, nevertheless.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Federal law requires schools to accept military recruiters on campus if the school accepts federal financial assistance. The Supreme Court ruled that this doesn't amount to an abridgement of freedom of speech or association. Fair enough.

The Constitution expressly limits the powers granted to the federal government. But there are no Constitutional prohibitions against the government bribing states and even private parties into voluntarily adopting federal mandates in order to receive federal funding. Congress coerced states into passing speed limit laws, seat belt laws, even metric conversion laws, all by threatening to withhold funding collected in federal gasoline taxes. Standardized school testing is the price states pay to receive federal education funding. Hospitals must restrict abortions to receive taxpayer funding. And, now, law schools must accept military recruiters, even if doing so violates the schools' own anti-discrimination policies.

Grant government an almost unlimited power to tax and spend (with strings), and, for most practical purposes, government's power to impose its will is unchecked. Acquiescing in this government power grab is inconsistent with conservatives' professed belief in limited government, local government, and individual liberties. It's not that conservatives aren't aware of the danger associated with the power of attaching strings to federal funding. They refuse to accept it when it's their behavior that's at risk of being controlled. Conservatives promote school vouchers and faith-based initiatives, but insist that the funding should come with no strings attached -- the religious associations should be allowed to maintain their independence. On the other hand, consistency of principles is all too willingly sacrificed when an opportunity to put academia down presents itself. Apparently, conservatives aren't above using government to enforce politically correct behavior.

If common sense is rare in academia, it's just as rare on the pages of certain Dallas Blog contributors. Rightwing ideology -- plenty of that, nevertheless.

Zoo-hoo

Dallas Observer | Julie Lyons:

“Dick Geiger, for one, is sick of the Dallas Zoo’s reputation as the ugly stepsister to the slick, kid-friendly Fort Worth Zoo. ... Geiger, a Dallas lawyer and board member of the Dallas Zoological Society, visited town hall meetings to drum up support for the zoo in the city’s upcoming bond package. And if he gets his way, the Dallas Zoo will be transformed into a bona fide major attraction in the next five or six years. Yes, we’ve heard this before.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

We sure have. In the early 1990s, the Dallas Zoo was transformed with the opening of the Wilds of Africa, a huge expansion of the zoo with state-of-the-art features. Trouble was, no one gave any thought at all to the kids. It wasn't just that the Wilds of Africa wasn't kid-friendly. It was actually kid-hostile.

Starting from the brand-new entrance plaza, a huge expanse of unshaded concrete. Arrive on a summer's day, with a baby stroller, and you are immediately drawn to the garden walk around the left side of the plaza, in hopes of a little shade and something of interest for the kids to see as you walk. Get to the end of the walk and you are faced with several steps back down to the plaza. Turn around that baby stroller! Backtrack. What were the landscapers thinking?

The kids are eager to see the baboons. They are in an expansive exhibit, but with only a couple of small viewing windows. Both crowded. Your child impatiently waits his turn, only to find when he makes it up to the window that it's too high for him to see through. Parents find it's the first of lots of lifting, not just to see the animals, but even to get a drink of water. Did the architect think that only adults were going to visit the zoo?

You get to the prized gorilla exhibit. You look and look but see no gorillas. You ask. The gorillas are all inside. You ask if there's a way inside for visitors. No. Do any of the closed-circuit televisions show the animals inside? No, the animals need their privacy. What? Animals are aware of hidden cameras now?

So, you take the nature walk. Again and again, the animals are hiding. You can see the okapi if you hold the children up and over far enough to look around that wall. Your arms quickly tire of the routine. Worse, the walk doesn't go through much of the Wilds of Africa at all. You have to ride the monorail. For an extra fee. There's no way to avoid it if you want to see the animals. But even that's a lottery. The animals may not be visible during your monorail circuit. Don't ask to pause for that okapi to step out from behind those trees. The monorail doesn't stop. Buy another ticket and hope for better luck next time.

Your arms are tired. The kids are cranky because they didn't see any animals. So much for the Wilds of Africa. You head over to the old zoo, now called Zoo North. The first site is the flamingo pond. You can't miss it. No screening walls or hedges. It's surrounded by a railing of the most ingenious kid-friendly design. Kids can see without being lifted. Kids can get right to the front without fear of being crushed by the big people behind them. Ingenious, really, a simple architectural style known to 1930s' zoo designers but apparently lost to modern landscapers. And the flamingos themselves don't seem to mind all the visitors. The kids love it. The old zoo just might save the day after all. If only the modern zoo designers don't use that $40 million bond package to screw it up, too.

Turning textbooks into the Good Book

Dallas Morning News | Steve Blow:

“Did you know that liberal elected officials don't understand biblical principles? Or that all liberals worship man rather than God? I didn't. But it must be true. It's being taught in schools. It's kind of funny. A front-page news story the other day said conservatives want more control over textbooks in Texas public schools. Well, it looks like liberals – those godless rascals – better pay attention to what's being taught in some private schools.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Pay attention, yes. Censor, no. Liberals favor a political philosophy of progress and reform, the protection of civil liberties, and tolerance of the ideas and behavior of others. Liberals defend the rights of even Accelerated Christian Education, textbook publisher for private schools and home schools, who publish those glaringly biased -- and wrong -- definitions of liberalism cited by Mr Blow.

But everyone should be informed of what is being taught in these schools. Everyone should know how their tax dollars would be spent if a school voucher system is ever pushed through the Texas legislature. Voucher schools are not accountable to the public, with no public accounting of test scores or academic achievement. Diverting public dollars to private and home schools, with no accountability, will mean public money being used to print things like, "The theory of evolution has no real scientific basis." Like, Jimmy Carter is someone who "claimed to be a Believer." Like, voters for Bill Clinton think "a healthy economy is more important than the moral fiber of their country."

So, let the private schools indoctrinate their children with the political beliefs they want, the anti-science their faith tells them is true, the history as they imagine the way it was. Just don't let them take public dollars to do it.

Carville and Begala are back!

DallasBlog.com | Tom Pauken:

“I got to know Bill Clinton when we were both students at Georgetown University. He always struck me as a likeable scoundrel. He reminds me of the travelling salesman played by George C. Scott in the film The Flim-Flam Man. By contrast, Hillary strikes me as a cold-blooded ideologue who bought into the hard left radicalism of the late ‘60s. She would have fit in well with the late 18th century French Revolutionary crowd, but the idea of her having the enormous powers and responsibility of the Presidency of the United States sure makes me nervous.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

It always used to depress me how American Presidential elections degenerated into reverse popularity contests. After a seemingly endless bombardment of lies, mud-slinging and defamation of character, Americans would traipse to the polls and choose between two irreparably damaged politicians. Victory went to the candidate who did the better job, not of presenting a thoughtful program for dealing with the problems facing America, but of painting his opponent as a buffoon or an opportunist or a scoundrel ... or a "cold-blooded ideologue".

Mr Pauken's post would have been a prime example of the kind of politics that depressed me. No discussion of the issues, the candidates' stands or their political principles. Only an attempt to typecast the candidates in an unflattering role. Even Bill Clinton, the devil incarnate to Republicans for eight years, is now compared favorably to his shrew of a wife. That old scoundrel, Bill, was never as bad as what the country will get if that Robespierre Hillary is elected, right?

All very depressing, no? Lately, I've wavered in that opinion. I knew, or thought I knew, what the country was getting when George W. Bush became President in 2000. Tax cuts, sure, but spending cuts, too. Limited government. Weaning the country from entitlements. No nation-building abroad. Federalism at home. That he was painted as irresponsible as a young adult, inexperienced in government, clueless in foreign affairs, disengaged, maybe even a bit of a dimwit actually, none of that mattered. The charges were mostly just politics, right? It was the platform that mattered. Where would he lead the country?

Now, five years later, I look back and have to wonder what really did matter. Most of the campaign platform from 2000 lies in tatters. Most of the attributed character flaws have proven to be more or less on the mark. Maybe I shouldn't pay so much attention to what a candidate says in his campaign about what he wants to do in office. Circumstances will change anyway. Maybe I should pay more attention to the attacking and parrying concerning the candidates' characters. Maybe I should listen to how the other side pegs the character of their opponent. It may turn out that's exactly what we'll get in office. At least that's how it worked out this time.

It's still too depressing. Please tell me why I'm wrong.

So now critics of the ports deal are the bad guys?

Dallas Morning News | Mark Davis:

“Reporters sought reaction from the coffee shops and street corners of the UAE, and the general sense is that they feel betrayed by American racism and Islamophobia. With friends like that, who needs the French?”

Ed Cognoski responds:

With this report of the reaction in the UAE, Mark Davis confirms my prediction that the hyper-kinetic opposition to this deal would "further antagonize the relationship between America and the Islamic world." That's the reaction to newspaper columns like Mr Davis' own being described. Mr Davis acts like he thinks America can win the war on terror by driving every Muslim in the world into the arms of our enemies. He's wrong.

The original ports deal itself may have been a mistake. But Mr Davis' reaction has only compounded the problem. With adroit handling, this deal could have been an opportunity to improve security in the shipping industry not only at home but around the world. Instead, we have only created more ill will around the world and a need for even more security at home. The critics of the ports deal aren't "bad guys". They just gave the bad guys more propaganda points.

House Lawmakers Request GAO Count Tax Dollars...

U.S. Newswire:

“By the request of Americans for Safe Access (ASA), the nation's largest medical marijuana advocacy organization, Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D- N.Y.) this week led a group of three other House lawmakers in calling for a Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigation of how much money the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) spent each year over the past decade to enforce federal medical marijuana laws. Joining Hinchey in the GAO request are Congressmen Ron Paul (R-TX), Sam Farr (D-Calif.), and Barney Frank (D-Mass.). ‘We want to find out what the Department of Justice spends annually to prosecute medical marijuana patients so we can tell the American people exactly how much of their taxes is being wasted and diverted away from critical law enforcement activities, including homeland security activities,’ Hinchey was quoted saying in a press release from his office.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

With the federal budget deficit projecting a streak of red ink as far into the future as the eye can see, if ever there were a program that could be cut, this is it. Ending the persecution (er... prosecution) of patients seeking pain relief would not only save money, no matter how inconsequential in relation to the size of the debt, it would also be the right thing to do. Win-win. Kudos to Rep. Hinchley, Paul, Farr and Frank.

Wants parents to have choices about education

Dallas Morning News | James Leininger:

“My resolve is firm and my political activities unambiguous: Those who support helping the neediest children escape failing schools will receive my support, and I will vigorously oppose those who force needy children to be trapped in bad and dangerous schools.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

James Leininger's approach is unambiguous. If he can't get the Texas Legislature to go along with his political agenda, he will buy a new Texas Legislature. He is pouring well over a million dollars into just a handful of races across the state in an attempt to defeat candidates who oppose diverting taxpayer dollars to an educational voucher system.

The state is already dangerously underfunding public education. The Supreme Court found that "the public education system has reached the point where continued improvement will not be possible absent significant change, whether that change take the form of increased funding, improved efficiencies, or better methods of education."

Vouchers drain yet more money from public education without increasing efficiencies or improving methods. Taxpayer money would be diverted to private and religious schools that are not accountable for meeting state standards of educational attainment by their students. Taxpayers would be giving money to private schools and giving up public control of how that money is spent. It will be the worst possible outcome. Public schools would have even less adequate funding. Public money would end up in pockets with no accountability as to how it's spent. Mr Leininger's millions would be better spent on education itself.

The Supreme Court should toss out redistricting plan

Dallas Morning News | Steve Bickerstaff:

“The 2003 redistricting was a tragedy. ... The remap was the most egregious example yet of an effort by lawmakers to choose their voters, rather than allowing voters to choose their lawmakers. ... It is difficult to imagine a more divisive, wasteful and corrupting phenomenon than ‘rolling redistricting,’ in which partisan battles dominate public interest on an ongoing basis and election districts are voluntarily redrawn. Such a result is anathema to the constitutional principle of ‘one person, one vote’ and is a threat to representative government. The Supreme Court should overturn the Texas precedent.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

I agree that what happened in Texas was a travesty of democracy. It may be divisive. It may be wasteful. It may be corrupting. But it isn't unconstitutional. If partisan political redistricting is legal when it's done every ten years, it's legal if it happens every two years.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. It may decide the case on grounds of racial discrimination, which is illegal. But it won't decide the case on political grounds. If Americans are sick and tired of gerrymandered election districts, they will have to apply pressure on their state legislature and/or the national Congress. The Supreme Court will wisely decide not to interfere in this, a purely political, matter. It will leave it to the political branch of government, the Congress, to either reform it or continue to exploit it.