Ghosts of Haditha

Dallas Morning News | Mark Davis:

“It will be awhile before we know whether Marines are guilty in a November slaughter of unarmed Iraqis in the town of Haditha. ... Anyone with a shred of human decency approaches this with the utmost gravity. Those of us who support the troops and the war they are fighting have a special responsibility not to sugarcoat, minimize or marginalize any wrongdoing by those troops.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

So, then, how does Mr Davis respond? By condemning the wrongdoing by American troops? No. By criticizing the flawed war policies that led to the situation? No.

Mr Davis responds by attacking Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) for getting it right. By characterizing his criticism of the Abu Ghraib scandal as an "absurd overreaction". Mr Davis now claims that Rep Murtha takes personal pleasure in this latest disaster, that he "savors every nugget" and "dwells with relish" on the atrocity.

Mr Davis asserts that American setbacks in Iraq are not due to a flawed policy but instead are "inflicted [by Rep Murtha's] derisive tongue." Mr Davis tries to distract attention from the mounting policy failures in Iraq by impugning Rep Murtha's opinion, his motives, his honor. Mr Davis' politics of personal destruction are despicable. Has the man not a shred of human decency himself?

'Idol' surprises

Startle Grams | Paul Bourgeois:

“I also was surprised to learn that more than 63 million votes were cast, and that, as host Ryan Seacrest pointed out, that's ‘more than any president in the history of our country has received.’ Maybe we need a radically different way to elect presidents. Can you just imagine idol judges rating presidential candidates after a debate?”

Ed Cognoski responds:

In 2004, I wondered why no one created a television reality show based on the Presidential primaries. Get 12 contenders, left, right, moderate, fringe, whatever, and have them debate each other, with viewers at home sending one home every week. Do it in time for the ultimate winner to have a chance to get on the real ballot as an independent candidate. Maybe someone will do it in 2008.

Long lines at appraisal district

DallasBlog.com | Tom Pauken:

“Those seeking to challenge the appraised values on their property have only a few days left to do so. ... If today is any indication, a lot of Dallas County property owners were at the Appraisal District office disputing their appraised values for 2006. ”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Instead of the anecdotal evidence offered by Mr Pauken, we need a systematic study. And for that, we need sales price data, which is not public information in the state of Texas. In fact, the information is not available to even government appraisal boards, unless it is voluntarily offered by homeowners. So, instead of whining about "unelected" appraisal boards "jacking-up" appraisals for "no discernable reason", Mr Pauken ought to be lobbying to get the appraisal boards the information they need to set accurate appraisals.

Until then, we're left with anecdotal horror stories. And for every victimized homeowner that Mr Pauken cites, there's another story of a wealthy homeowner or a commercial real estate owner taking advantage of the current system. For example, there's the office tower at 300 W. Sixth St. in Austin, whose owner complained when its appraised value increased 40 percent to $65 million, only to turn around and sell it a short time later for $131 million.

Who's the leader of the club?

Star-Telegram | Alan Saxe:

“Who has been the worst American president? Jimmy Carter, who now tries to resurrect his tarnished legacy by a multitude of good deeds. The problem is that we did not elect him to build houses or monitor elections the world over. We elected him to lead this nation. And his failed leadership at home and abroad must rank him at the bottom.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

First, any serious claim for worst President has to be compared to President James Buchanan, who dithered while the Republic drifted into Civil War. Mr Saxe never mentions him. Don't they teach 19th Century American history in the political science department at the University of Texas at Arlington?

Second, Mr Saxe misrepresents President Carter. His Presidency didn't rest on building houses and monitoring elections. It was as ex-President that Jimmy Carter became famous for these noble pursuits. No matter. Mr Saxe's condemnation of a President for good deeds says more about Mr Saxe's values than President Carter's. Instead, score that a plus for President Carter's legacy.

The same goes for President Carter's humility. Using the nickname "Jimmy", walking to the White House on Inauguration Day, wearing sweaters, being open to the public, all these are big pluses for President Carter. Mr Saxe can have President Nixon's imperial Presidency, with White House guards dressed up in some kind of faux-European dress uniforms. Or President George W Bush's restoration of the imperial Presidency, with his declarations that he'll decide which laws to obey and which to ignore.

The Carter administration was marked by double-digit inflation and interest rates. Score one for Mr Saxe. The Carter Presidency was a failed Presidency because of his inability to solve the stagflation he inherited from the Ford Administration. Yet Mr Saxe never mentions Gerald Ford, either.

Mr Saxe says it is foreign policy where the Carter Presidency's failures are most apparent to this day. Yet Mr Saxe uses odd examples. Remember the era. The Cold War was going strong. The United States had just suffered a stinging defeat in Vietnam. Yet Mr Saxe astonishingly faults President Carter for using Muslim governments and Muslim resistance groups to combat the spread of the Soviet Union in central Asia. Especially astonishing given that Iran never fell to communism and the Afghan resistance ultimately pushed the Soviets out of Afghanistan. For Mr Saxe to blame President Carter for focusing on the communist threat instead of on the potential rise of Islamic fundamentalism is a wholly unfair use of hindsight. Even with that hindsight, most observers today would still rank Soviet communism as the bigger threat in that time.

Finally, Mr Saxe seems put out that President Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, which was awarded for his decades of work for peace, including his historic achievement in brokering peace between Israel and Egypt in the Camp David accords. Any mention of President Carter's significant progress in solving that age old conflict in the Middle East apparently reflects badly on the debacle the current President has made in the region. And for that, Mr Saxe blames, you guessed it, President Carter, not President George W Bush.

Overall, President Carter's administration must still be judged a failure. But hardly the worst in American history. And certainly not for the reasons cited by Mr Saxe.

Conservatives, don't get your hopes up

Dallas Morning News | William McKenzie:

“Conservatives who believe ‘guest worker equals amnesty’ and ‘all we need is a wall from the Pacific to the Gulf and more boots on the ground’ should prepare themselves. They may have to vote against a broad immigration package on their own, without their president's encouragement. He's putting a lot on the line, and I don't think he'll give up easily.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

President Bush has a reputation for stubbornness. He has stuck with his failed policies in Iraq long after most of the rest of the country has deserted him. He has stuck to his belief that tax cuts lead to increased government revenues despite his own budget forecasts showing deficits for as far as the eye can see. He has stuck to his denials of global warming in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence.

So, should President Bush be expected to stick to his ideas about a guest worker program? His base isn't behind him on this one. Polls show stronger support for walls and border guards than for guest workers. On the other hand, George W Bush is not running for re-election in 2008. His support for immigration reform dates back to his days as Texas governor. President Bush sees an epic opportunity to court Hispanic voters to the Republican Party, an opportunity that many in his own party are missing.

In the current fight, if liberals and moderates come to his rescue, President Bush might have the political backing needed to stand his ground. And liberals might do it, not out of love for President Bush, but because they share his interest in serving the growing Hispanic community in the United States. And the alternative is seeing the conservatives pass their own punitive approach to immigration. Walls only hide the problem; they don't solve it. It's been said that politics makes strange bedfellows. The immigration issue is mixing things up.

To veto or not to veto

DallasBlog.com | Tara Ross:

“The President’s broad use of presidential signing statements is problematic [...]. Bush seems to see his signing statements as an alternative to the veto, despite the fact that the Constitution explicitly provides the latter venue as the primary route by which presidents may overrule Congress.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

This is a well-written article explaining the situation and the risks inherent in President Bush's actions. Good writing by Ms Ross.

The balance of powers among the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches is a delicate one. President Bush is shifting that balance, in effect telling Congress he will decide which laws to obey and which laws to ignore. So far, Congress is weakly acquiescing. No cases have yet worked their way through the Courts to find out their opinion on the matter.

If Congress ever stands up for itself, or if the President ever announces that he feels free to disregard judicial opinions, too, the stage will be set for an all-out Constitutional crisis.

Somehow, all this is not what I expected from a conservative President.

Is Al Gore the anti-Hillary candidate for the Democrats in 2008

DallasBlog.com | Tom Pauken:

“Democrats who fear that the nomination of Hillary Clinton in 2008 could allow Republicans to maintain control of the White House are looking for a Democratic candidate who can defeat her in the presidential primary race for the Democratic nomination. There is more and more talk that Al Gore may be the only Democrat who could win a primary race against her. ”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Political egos are huge. Ambition dies hard. An Al Gore run is a long shot, but not out of the question. But the main effect of a Gore/Clinton bruising primary battle would be to damage whoever emerges with the nomination. So, it's just the kind of primary Republicans would like to see. As long as the trial balloons are being floated by Republicans like Mr Pauken, don't pay too much attention.

Cracks in the 'Code'

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

“People have a funny way of taking [The Da Vinci Code] as an alternative history. Priests and pastors have reported parishioners having crises of faith after reading The Da Vinci Code. Others report feeling empowered by a message that is heretical. Leaving aside plain old gullibility, why are so many people so willing to take this pulp novel as something more than entertainment?”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Answer why so many people believe in the literal truth of the Bible and you might find the answer as to why so many people are taking The Da Vinci Code so seriously. The same human thinking process is at work in both instances.

Off the Terror List

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

“It's not easy for some to accept that Libya and Moammar Gadhafi have eased back into the United States' diplomatic good graces. But times change, as do geopolitical objectives. By all accounts, Libya, once the icon of state-sponsored terrorism, is playing by the rules. ... Oil is the other geopolitical reason for the United States' change of heart.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

'nuff said.

“The world will never forget the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing in 1988, nor should it.”

Washington just did.

The Mexican volcano may be about to erupt

DallasBlog.com | Scott Bennett:

“Over the past month I have talked to a [variety of Mexicans]. First, none of them will allow their names to be used because they are afraid of violent reprisals albeit from differing sources. Second, they believe Mexico is on the verge of a social implosion that will greatly complicate US and Mexican relations. Third, not one thinks there is any way out.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Just when Scott Bennett and the Dallas Blog have me thinking that Mexico is about to implode, I pick up BusinessWeek and read this article:

Mexico: Pumping Out Engineers The headlines are about low-wage illegals, but Mexico is swiftly upgrading its workforce

I guess it was the best of times. It was the worst of times.

wall/fence

DallasMorningViews | Rod Dreher:

“I don't think wall/fence opponents are afraid it won't work; I think they're afraid it will.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Close, but not exactly. I think fence opponents want to see immigration reform. They want to see many more immigrants allowed into this country, legally. They want our immigration processes to be more efficient and more effective at attracting the workers, the students, the entrepreneurs that this country needs to remain competitive with the growing economies of Asia and the rest of the world.

Fence opponents fear that the fence builders want none of that. That the fence is just a step on a journey into isolationism. And that way promises only a long, slow decline for the United States. It's a slippery slope argument.

The best way to rebut the argument would be for Congress and the American people to compromise, to support a program that combines border control, increased legal immigration, and a crackdown on both illegal immigrants and the big businesses that benefit from the cheap labor.

But what's the likelihood of a compromise where everyone supports a little of what each other wants? Not very great. Compromise itself has become a dirty word in American politics. So, the pro-immigration faction will remain anti-fence and the isolationist faction will remain opposed to any guest worker program.

Jim, the Mayor Calls It “Lazy” and “Stupid”

Unfair Park | Jim Schutze:

“Frankly, I’m worried about the effect that global warming could have on a city that was already pretty darned hot to begin with. Wish I knew where to read up on it or somebody I could call, so I’d know whether or not to keep worrying.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Jim Schutze's tongue-in-cheek satire of the new Bold Types blog of the Dallas Morning News metro columnists is, first, off the mark. The DMN's Sherry Jacobson simply commented that the ability to speak Spanish would help her as a reporter. She didn't say that she knew no other way to collect news.

But criticizing unfair potshots posted in a blog titled "Unfair Park" is an example of missing the point, isn't it? Mr Schutze's point being, apparently, that he is not a fan of the reporters and columnists at the Dallas Morning News.

The bloggers at Unfair Park are not alone in their disdain for the DMN. The response was much the same at FrontBurner, the blog for D magazine. Over at Dallas Blog, Scott Bennett (ex-DMN) piled on with the criticism. His repackaging of some FrontBurner criticism quickly racked up over 50 reader comments, all along the same line: oh no, how awful, how embarrassing for those DMN columnists.

Reading through all those put-downs, you'd be hard-pressed to find any specific criticism to explain the near universal negative judgment. The bloggers at Dallas Blog, FrontBurner and Unfair Park are all smart people, mostly professional reporters and writers. Still, it all comes across as a case of sour grapes. The Dallas Morning News has the circulation and revenues that the other outlets can only dream of having. The other blogs give the impression of featuring either disgruntled ex-employees of DMN or wannabe reporters for DMN.

Look, I'm no fan of the Dallas Morning News. But I'd like someone in the other camps to do a serious critique of that paper's shortcomings and its new blogs. Instead of just talking about it as if it's self-evident. Someone tell us why, exactly, your blogs are so much better than the DMN's content. Please.

Bush's plan is too soft on illegals

Dallas Morning News | Mark Davis:

“Enact 100 percent deportation of every illegal we find. No more hand-wringing about families. I have the same empathy for those kids that I do for the kids of criminals who must go to jail, leaving children without parents. ... Great leaders know when compromise is appropriate and when it is not. This is not a tax cut debate or even a stem cell debate. It is a battle for what kind of country we are going to have.”

Many Americans don't want the kind of country Mark Davis would give us. Think Elian Gonzalez repeated millions of times. No, thanks, Mr Davis.

“Those of us who voted for [Bush] twice and remain thankful he won do not thrill to the notion of another protracted season of mixed feelings. But there is no other option, as President Bush's Monday night immigration speech sends his supporters to bang their heads on a well-worn brick wall. One of the bruised foreheads is mine.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Now we know the source of Mark Davis' usual muddle-headed thinking.

You may hate Bush, but there's no justification for impeachment

Dallas Morning News | Mark Davis:

“‘High crimes and misdemeanors’ is the standard required for impeachment of a president. The prime logical flaw of those seeking that fate for this president is that the ‘crimes’ they see are either things that are not illegal at all (prewar intelligence flaws, the bad Katrina response, etc.) or matters whose criminality remains in great question (NSA wiretaps, detainee interrogations, etc.).”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Mark Davis spends thirteen paragraphs attempting to discredit the impeachment movement, but only parenthically mentions the Constitutional abuses that prompt the movement. If Mr Davis wants to defend President Bush, he is better advised to explain why wiretapping Americans' phones without a court warrant is not a violation of the Bill of Rights. And how holding prisoners in violation of the Geneva Convention, an international treaty the United States is a signatory to and therefore legally bound to uphold, is not a crime.

Instead, Mr Davis dredges up the right's favorite whipping boy, Bill Clinton. He states as presumed true without need of corroborating argument that the Clinton impeachment was justified. In effect, he doesn't defend Bush, he merely distracts attention by stirring up old passions. Mr Davis may hate Clinton, but Clinton is history. More and more, Bush's Presidency is history, too, especially if apologists like Mr Davis can present no more compelling defense than this.

Falwell invitation to McCain backfires on both men

DallasBlog.com | Tom Pauken:

“On the surface this speech at Liberty University seemed like a splendid way for McCain to gain support from the religious right, an important part of what remains of the Republican coalition. Instead, what this ‘rapprochement’ between Falwell and McCain has done is upset the followers of both men. ”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Maybe. Maybe not.

Senator McCain believes that he can win the general election if only he can win the Republican nomination for President in 2008. And that requires winning the support of religious conservatives. Hence, the making nice with Jerry Falwell.

Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, Senator Clinton believes that she has a good grasp on the Democratic nomination. For her, the bigger challenge will be to win the November general election. For that, she, too, will have to defuse the antagonism conservatives feel towards her. Hence, her making nice with Rupert Murdoch.

Senator McCain and Senator Clinton are both right.

Putin calls for more babies

DallasBlog.com | Tom Pauken:

“Russian President Vladimir Putin unveiled a major policy initiative this week to halt the serious population decline in Russia. With a current population of 143 million people, some demographers predict that the population of Russia could decline to 100 million by 2050 unless drastic action is taken. ... To address his nation's demographic crisis, Putin has proposed doubling child benefits and providing additional economic incentives for women to have more than one child. ”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Just as in the 19th century and the 20th century, America's enlightened attitude towards immigration is proving to be a major blessing in the 21st century. Without immigration, the United States would also face the demographic problems now challenging Russia, Europe, Japan, and the world's most developed countries generally. With immigration, the population of the United States is still growing, still being reinvigorated. Immigrants traditionally are young, work-oriented, ambitious, just the kind of traits a great country most benefits from.

If America keeps its traditional welcoming attitude towards immigrants it will continue to grow and prosper. If America instead turns its back to the world, building walls and creating government incentives for people to have babies instead of to work, America will share Russia's slide from great power status. The choice should be an easy one, but the decision America will ultimately make is far from assured.

More missed opportunities

DallasBlog.com | Tara Ross:

“Republicans are awash in negative poll numbers these days. ... Many Republicans seem confused about how to reverse this negative trend. In an odd twist of logic, many act as if they can solve the problem by failing to tackle issues that are important to the Republican base. ... On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee took up the subject of one of President Bush’s long-delayed judicial nominations, Brett Kavanaugh, who has been nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Republicans were expected to vote Kavanaugh out of committee last week. Instead, Chairman Arlen Specter caved in to Democratic demands, agreeing to delay the vote and hold a second hearing for Kavanaugh ”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Kavanaugh will be confirmed, with some delay but no real fight. Ms Ross' eagerness for a fight shows that she is less interested in governing than in gaining political advantage. It's such thinking that has led to sinking approval ratings for Republicans.

President Bush was elected, in part, because he campaigned as a uniter, not a divider, as someone who brought Democrats and Republicans together in Austin and could do the same in Washington, D.C. Instead, America has been treated to six years of politics-first, national-interest-second, in the style of Ms Ross' poisonous recommendation to Washington's Republican leaders. America is sick and tired of this political manipulation and the poll numbers of the President and Congress show it.

No shortage of snake oil, anyway

DallasBlog.com | Trey Garrison:

“Say, here's an idea. Instead of berating a retiring CEO over money he earned and that his shareholders obviously agree with, pandering proposals to suspend gas taxes, and passing feel-good legislation to stop the ‘price gouging’ boogeyman, why not do something useful? Like opening ANWAR and the coasts to drilling? Easing ridiculous environmental regulations so that it's easier to build more refineries, since we haven't had a new one in 30 years? Or maybe building more nuclear plants so our grids wouldn't be reliant on natural gas? Oh wait - election year. Best to go after the companies whose total profits account for 9 cents of the price of a gallon of gas.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

No, there's no shortage of snake oil, not with Trey Garrison having access to a blog.

First, Mr Garrison asserts with no supporting documentation that shareholders "obviously agree" with ExxonMobil giving former CEO Lee Raymond a $400 million retirement package. Shareholders' rights are so limited that even changing the board of directors is practically impossible. Corporations are not required to solicit shareholders' opinions even on such gross abuses as this case, so there's no way to tell what shareholders really think.

Second, the proposal to suspend gas taxes is pandering, as Mr Garrison charges, but so has been the Republicans' mantra of tax cuts in the face of budget deficits, war costs, hurricane rebuilding, Social Security and Medicare insolvency, etc., etc. Why does this one stick in Mr Garrison's craw? When Congress listens to voters who don't share Mr Garrison's politics, he calls it pandering. When Congress listens to Mr Garrison, I suppose it's called good governance.

Third, Mr Garrison asks why not open up ANWR and the coasts to drilling? Because America can't drill our way out of the fact that oil is a nonrenewable resource, one where worldwide demand continues to grow but worldwide supply has peaked. ANWR doesn't change that equation. Instead, America needs a major effort to develop alternative sources of energy and to more efficiently use what we have. ANWR is a minor distraction compared to what really needs doing.

Fourth, it's not "ridiculous environmental regulations" that explains our shortage of refineries. As internal oil company memos from the 1990s have shown, the oil industry itself identified excess capacity as being the major barrier to increased profits. The oil industry itself had no interest in adding refinery capacity. Now that the surplus is gone and the price of oil is up, expect refinery projects to spring up, whether or not environmental regulations change one iota. Expect nuclear to get a renewed look, too, for the same reason.

The so-called free market conservatives in this country have kept the price of oil at artificially low levels for decades by not requiring the producers and consumers to pay the true costs of using fossil fuels. Because of this unofficial subsidy, other sources of energy couldn't compete. Now that demand is outstripping supply, we're not ready with alternatives. You mess with the free market, sooner or later you suffer the consequences.

Snake oil? No shortage of it in Mr Garrison's blog.

Out of bounds in Irving: Don't make fans pay for ... whatever

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

“The very intent of milking more money from fans before the Cowboys leave Texas Stadium for Arlington in three years smacks of opportunism – especially since the city doesn't have a specific project on the drawing board.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Sure, it's opportunism. The DMN spits the word out like opportunism is something bad. Smart businessmen take advantage of opportunities when they present themselves. Smart city fathers should do the same.

What does the DMN want Irving to do instead? Wait until the Cowboys decamp for Arlington and then try to collect taxes to tear down the aging hulk of a stadium they leave abandoned? Or commit to some redevelopment plan three years in advance, ignoring the fact that the economic climate and the city's needs might change in the meantime? Ridiculous.

No, Irving is doing the responsible thing. Charge the people who enjoy Texas Stadium today the costs of removing it after they leave. It's no different than charging a use fee of any promoter who wants to use a public venue for a commercial event. You don't wait for the promoter and his guests to leave before thinking of asking them to pay something to clean up the mess they leave behind.

Back to basics

DallasBlog.com | Tara Ross:

“The final nail has been hammered into the Texas economy’s new coffin. On Tuesday, Republican leaders finished ramrodding the Sharp tax proposal through the legislature. The Texas Senate approved the plan, and the Governor is expected to sign the bill in relatively short order. Republican leaders will soon hit the campaign trail, claiming victory in the school finance battle. ... Passage of this legislation is anything but a victory. To the contrary, the Texas Republicans who supported this plan have violated the principles of economic conservatism that they claim to hold most dear.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

The arguments of Ms Ross are not compelling. They are a grab bag of inconsistency and illogic.

She argues against using business tax revenues to allow a reduction in property tax rates because property tax rates might go back up in the future. If Ms Ross wants to argue for more stringent caps on raising taxes, that's one thing. But opposing tax cuts now because they just might go up again later is misguided. Sensible people take their victory today and fight to hold it tomorrow.

Ms Ross praises property taxes for being broad-based. Even renters pay them, she assures us, as property owners pass their costs along to the renters. Business taxes are condemned for being narrowly based. This contradicts the usual conservative argument that businesses just pass along taxes to their customers. Ms Ross sees this effect in property taxes, which she favors, but conveniently overlooks it in business taxes, which she opposes. She even argues that small business owners won't benefit from property tax cuts because they rent! So much for property taxes being broad based.

Finally, she argues that business taxes are bad because they are "hidden" taxes. Well, a third of Americans don't live in their own homes. Their property taxes are hidden from them, so property taxes fail this test, too.

For some reason, Ms Ross vehemently opposes the Perry/Sharp plan to use a broad-based business tax to reduce property taxes in Texas. But she can't explain what those reasons are in a logical, consistent way.

Receiving fire at the front line

Dallas Morning News | Scott Burns:

“I wanted to be on the front line of reporting a challenge to commonly accepted financial planning practices. Even more, I wanted to be on the front line of introducing a better idea: consumption smoothing. To do it, I enlisted Boston University economist Larry Kotlikoff, a prime mover in the field, to co-author the columns. I've followed his research for more than a decade, and we wrote a book together, The Coming Generational Storm. He had also created the first software powerful enough to do the required computation. I don't have a financial stake in that software. He does. Sadly, his financial interest caused some readers to see the column series as an ‘infomercial.’ If you are one of those readers, I can assure you that our intention was to advance an idea. It was not to sell software.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Mr Burns is plugging a book. Mr Kotlikoff is plugging a book and software. Mr Burns implies that it's ok to plug a book and software in a series of newspaper columns if you really believe in the product. As if Ronco doesn't think that Vegamatic really is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Look, what Mr Burns plugs is between him, The Dallas Morning News and his syndicator. I just wish he wouldn't pretend he's doing something else. Mr Burns shouldn't be embarrassed. Every media outlet from NBC's The Apprentice to ABC's Extreme Makeover has turned the infomercial into halfway respectable entertainment. By some accounts, product placement is a $4.25 billion business. So, plug away. Especially if you really believe in what you're selling.

On immigration, they've gone too far

DallasBlog.com | William Murchison:

“A discerning Episcopal bishop once prayed, concerning his enemies: ‘Lord, let them go too far.’ You might wonder whether the bluntest, angriest foes of illegal immigration have not been indulging in the same supplication. Certainly a number of those they want to boot back into Mexico are playing into their hands.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Of course, the same is true of the other side. It was the bluntest, angriest foes of illegal immigration who went too far a month ago, introducing a bill into the House of Representatives that would have made it illegal to offer bread and water to an illegal immigrant. It would have made it illegal for a child to translate for his undocumented Spanish-speaking parents. It would have made the Sermon on the Mount an incitement to break the law.

That heartless overreach spurred millions of people -- citizens, legal immigrants and illegal immigrants alike -- to rally in cities all across America for immigration reform. The resulting solidarity and consciousness-raising among the Latino community has unleashed a political force that will influence America for decades to come. And all because the anti-immigration crowd went too far. The Lord works in mysterious ways.