Highway massacre is largely ignored

Star-Telegram | Peter J. Woolley:

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

Ed Cognoski responds:

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

Happy New Year to all!

Say no to higher payroll taxes

Dallas Blog | Tom Pauken:

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

Ed Cognoski responds:

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

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

Local officials in Tarrant County want more revenues to spend

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wildcats dismissed from team after MySpace controversy

Plano Courier | Kevin Hageland:

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

Ed Cognoski responds:

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

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

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

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

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

George still doesn't get it

Startle Grams | Paul Bourgeois:

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

Ed Cognoski responds:

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

On bridge-building

Dallas Morning Views | Rod Dreher:

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

Ed Cognoski responds:

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

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

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

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

Tax-limit gimmicks

Waco Tribune-Herald | Editorial:

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

Ed Cognoski responds:

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

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

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

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

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

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

May I have a word? Ching chong

Dallas Morning News | Esther Wu:

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

Ed Cognoski responds:

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

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

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

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

May I have a word? Zeitgeist

Dallas Morning News | Steve Blow:

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

Ed Cognoski responds:

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

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

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

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

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

To the President: Lead!

Dallas Blog | William Murchison:

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

Ed Cognoski responds:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dallas Morning News | Mark Davis:

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

Ed Cognoski responds:

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

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

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

Texas Municipal League wages aggressive campaign to deny citizens vote

Dallas Blog | Tom Pauken:

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

Ed Cogoski responds:

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

Historians Show Bias Not Objectivity on Bush

Dallas Blog | Bob Reagan:

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

Ed Cognoski responds:

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

The Blind Leading the Blind

Dallas Blog | Tara Ross:

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

Ed Cognoski responds:

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

It's a Value Judgment

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

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

Ed Cognoski responds:

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

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

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

May I have a word? Divisive

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arguments familiar as court weighs school admission

Dallas Morning News | Mark Davis:

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

Ed Cognoski responds:

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

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

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

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

New paper dismisses human role in global warming

Dallas Blog | Scott Bennett:

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

Ed Cognoski responds:

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

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

Aeschbach-Hertig concludes:

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

Tell it on the mountain

Star-Telegram | Kristine Christlieb:

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

Ed Cognoski responds:

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

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

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

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

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

Seven-Day Wonders

Unfair Park | Bible Girl:

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

Ed Cognoski responds:

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

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

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

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

but then says,

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

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

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

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