Gore criticized for overusing electricity

Dallas Blog | Carolyn Barta:

“A day after former Vice President Al Gore won an Academy Award for his documentary on global warming, he was criticized by a conservative group that claims his Nashville mansion uses too much electricity.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Dallas Blog censors readers' comments. Tom Pauken sometimes explains that comments are censored when they contain ad hominem attacks. Yet, here is an article published by Dallas Blog itself that amounts to nothing more than an ad hominem attack on Al Gore. Rather than refute Al Gore's thesis that global warming is real, that humans are a significant cause, and that the problem is serious, some "conservative group" (so described by Dallas Blog) decided to attack Al Gore himself. And Dallas Blog runs the story without a hint of irony.

James Cameron has no business messing with faith

Dallas Morning News | Mark Davis:

“Mr. Cameron's Lost Tomb is an [empty] exercise. His assertion is that skeletal remains found in a Jerusalem suburb in 1980 simply must be the remains of Jesus' nuclear family: wife Mary Magdalene, son Judah — hey, the Virgin Mary herself might have been the contents of one of the chests unveiled with a flourish at a news conference to hawk the documentary. ... To question and speculate about the underpinnings of faith is a fair intellectual exercise. But to make wild and hurtful assertions from such a paper-thin platform reveals audacity that is hard to forgive.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Mr Cameron's assertion is most likely wishful thinking. Besides the names, there's nothing to tie these ossuary remains to the Jesus of the Bible. Reportedly, ancient tombs labeled 'Jesus' have been found 71 times over the years. Jesus was a very common name. So, we are wise to be skeptical of Mr Cameron's claims that he has found the remains of THE Jesus.

On the other hand, as unlikely as his claim is, it's still more likely to be true than the argument that you can't possibly find Jesus' remains because he rose from the dead and ascended bodily into heaven. Anyone who suggests that with a straight face should be very careful about accusing others of being the "junk pushers."

Those given to "bug-eyed devotion", whether to ancient religious myths or to modern television mockumentaries, are more alike than different. For the rest of us, their squabbling makes for rollickin' good entertainment. Maybe they ought to make a movie out of it.

Oscars

Crunchy Con | Rod Dreher:

“I wish I could think of a single interesting thing to say about the Oscars. ... I kept wondering, 'Was it always this boring?' I'm generally environmentalist in my outlook but all the sanctimony surrounding Al Gore and the global warming issue was hard to take. The highlight (lowlight?) had to have been Leonardo di Caprio earnestly advising viewers to visit the Oscar.com website for hints on how they could help save the planet. It's not the cause that puts me off -- in fact, the advice given on the Oscar site is reasonable -- but rather Hollywood itself. What a wonderful world it would be if they would just shut up and entertain.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

First, on the charge of the telecast being boring, I have just one word to say: TiVo. With TiVo, the production was tight, fast-paced and flew by. First time in years I saw every award, every song and dance and comedy bit, all in well less than four hours.

Second, on the charge of sanctimony, guilty as charged, I guess, but so what? If Hollywood ignored social causes, it would be guilty of getting rich off the public and returning nothing. There are people who want businesses to focus only on providing a good product at a good price. Maybe Mr Dreher would be fine with that, but others want businesses to be good corporate citizens as well. For Hollywood, using their awards ceremony to promote environmentalism is one way they choose to do this. If they can make it entertaining as well, so much the better, and the bit with Al Gore's announcement about running for President being drowned out by a rising orchestral fanfare was funny.

This year's Oscar ceremony will be remembered for having a former Vice President in the audience, Al Gore having been nominated for a documentary movie on global warming. There's not a producer on Earth that would pass up an opportunity to showcase that. Rod Dreher claims it made him nauseous, but he's talking about it. The theater audience reacted, not with nausea, but with enthusiasm. The home audience probably reacted with the same mixture of strong red and blue emotions. Out of such controversy comes entertainment, which ironically is just what Mr Dreher said he wished for. Score one for the Oscars.

'Political Correctness' wins out at the University of Illinois

Dallas Blog | Tom Pauken:

“For 81 years, the nickname for the University of Illinois has been the Fighting Illini whose symbol has been 'Chief Illiniwek.' But, having an Indian nickname for a sports team has been deemed 'politically incorrect' these days. ... The NCAA now has decided that Indian nicknames in college sports have to go.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Brands and trademarks are always evolving in order to appeal to the trends and tastes of the time. Aunt Jemima gets slimmed down and loses her kerchief. The "fried" in Kentucky Fried Chicken disappears altogether as the company rebrands its restaurants KFC. Native American mascots like baseball's Chief Noc-A-Homa have been gradually retired for years. The University of Illinois tried to stave off the inevitable by treating its mascot, 'Chief Illiniwek' with more dignity in recent years. But, as has been pointed out elsewhere, "When you've got hot dog vendors selling snacks called 'chief dogs,' it kind of undermines the idea that the Chief is an 'honored symbol.'"

Pancake syrup symbols and sports team mascots are trivial matters. What's important here is that Tom Pauken comes down against political correctness when it affects something as silly as a basketball team mascot. So, you'd think he would condemn political correctness when it affects real political speech. You'd be wrong.

Elsewhere on Dallas Blog, another contributor praised the 1950s as "the last normal decade", calling on Americans to return to the "old ways of living". When a reader pointed out that the "old ways of living" included "segregation and the Red Scare", Tom Pauken could have condemned the political witch hunts of the McCarthy era. He could have condemned persecution of people for political association. He could have condemned blacklisting of actors, writers, directors whose personal backgrounds included past membership in a political party later deemed unpatriotic. Tom Pauken had a chance to condemn some of the worst excesses of "political correctness" in our nation's history, in a case when it was focused directly on politics itself. Mr Pauken had his opportunity and missed it. Instead, he excused McCarthyism by arguing that Communists were a problem. Instead of condemning McCarthyism, he excused it!

I'd have more sympathy for Tom Pauken's lament of the fate of the fictitious Chief Illiniwek if Tom Pauken wouldn't side with the "politically correct" persecutors when real people's lives were on the line in the 1950s.

P.S. My own contribution to that thread on Dallas Blog came to an abrupt halt when I condemned McCarthyism and Tom Pauken's defense of it. My post was censored by Dallas Blog, as usual with no announcement or explanation. Ironic, don't you think, in a discussion of Tom Pauken's defense of McCarthyism?

Our Humpty Dumpty political class

Dallas Blog | William Murchison:

“You don't 'solve' a war problem by voting primly to disapprove of the commander-in-chief's latest strategy for ending said war. All that the Democrats aimed at was making their designated arch-foe, George W. Bush, look as incompetent as possible. ... Our exalted representatives get more joy, it seems, from punching the president in the eye than they would from working out with him, patiently, patriotically, some approach to ending the war that honors American and Iraqi sacrifices alike, and that sooths in some measure the nation's frazzled nerves.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Don't blame Congress for the President's failing. That Congress felt the need to pass a resolution expressing disapproval of President Bush's 'surge' is proof that the President himself failed to work out with Congress, "patiently, patriotically, some approach to ending the war that honors American and Iraqi sacrifices alike, and that sooths in some measure the nation's frazzled nerves."

This President used the Republican Congress as a rubber stamp for four years to prosecute his failed war policy. Even when Congress meekly questioned some of the President's more egregious violations of Constitutional safeguards, the President issued signing statements saying he was exempt from Congressional oversight of or meddling with Executive Branch decisions in areas like habeus corpus, domestic spying, torture, etc.

The voters sent a wake-up call in 2006 by electing Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate. A bipartisan Iraq Study Group issued recommendations calling for a phased withdrawal from Iraq and opening of negotiations with Iran and Syria. The President ignored the voters, ignored the Iraq Study Group, and ignored the new Democratic Congress in his failed "stay the course" strategy, now augmented by a "surge" in troops.

Yet die-hard conservatives like William Murchison would have you believe that it is Congress who deserves the blame for not "patiently, patriotically" working out some bipartisan approach with the President. Not since George Orwell's 1984 have we heard such obfuscation of the truth.

Muslims radicalized by War on Terror

Dallas Blog | Tom Pauken:

“The London Times reports today that the 'War on Terror has radicalized Muslims around the world to unprecedented levels of anti-American feeling, according to the largest survey of Muslims ever to be conducted'. ... Perhaps, now is a good time to re-think our overall strategy in the West of how to effectively address this global challenge of a resurgent Islamic radicalism.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

What will victory in the War on Terror look like?

In President Bush's most idealistic dreams, it is Western, liberal democracy spread wide across the world, with stable governments securing their own territory, respecting fundamental human liberties, answering to their people, and allied with America in the defeat of forces opposed to freedom and liberty.

In President Bush's minimalist definition, it is perpetual offensive war, "fighting the terrorists overseas so we do not have to face them here at home." In other words, every day that goes by without another 9/11 attack on American soil, that's victory.

This survey is not good news for either definition of victory. The anti-American attitudes of large majorities of Muslims gives little hope that liberal democracy will take root in the Middle East, nor that the supply of potential terrorists there is drying up. It is indeed time to rethink our strategy for victory. Perhaps we ought to start by rethinking just what it is we mean by victory.

Rod and Hash on global warming

DallasMorningViews | Mike Hashimoto:

“Rod [Dreher]: As for Antarctica, I'm not sure why the failure of a particular region of the world to fit the climate model projections disproves global warming.

[Mike Hashimoto]: It doesn't. But by that logic, does the "success" of another part of the world meeting climate model projections prove global warming? My point is that an average global temperature is measurable. We can agree that, on average, the entire world is a degree or so warmer than it was at name-your-point-in-the-past. So if that equates to 'global warming,' you win.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Then, Rod wins. Maybe now Mike and other global warming skeptics will quit presenting every day of colder or wetter or milder weather as disproof of global warming.

The fact is weather is variable. Individual hurricanes, individual heat waves, individual droughts or blizzards or drenching rains don't prove a thing. But, study the aggregate data and the trend is convincing. In aggregate, the trends point to global warming.

Climate varies, too, over long time scales. The northern hemisphere has been in the grip of Ice Ages every 20,000 or so years. Scientists debate whether we are still coming out of the last Ice Age or perhaps primed to enter a new one (barring human-induced climate change).

When global warming has happened in the past, the impact on the environment and species living at the time was severe. Current data suggests that global warming this time is happening faster than in natural cycles in the past and is human-induced. Why would modern humans want to bring that on deliberately? Personally, I'd prefer that humans 1000 years from now, 20,000 years from now, or 1 million years from now figure out how to deal with natural, cyclical climate change. I don't want it all to happen in the next few decades, thank you.

Mike Hashimoto asks important questions about the relative concentrations of various greenhouse gasses, the relationship between CO2 and global warming, the leverage that various actions would have, like increasing CAFE standards, etc., etc. Scientists don't consider these settled issues. Scientists are busy trying to learn more about global warming so that society can make informed decisions about how to proceed. Mike Hashimoto ought to quit denying global warming, quit denying humans' role in it, and start exploring the pros and cons of various measures designed to deal with the fact of human-induced global warming. Maybe then he just might win his next debate with Rod.

May I have a word? Pragmatic

Star-Telegram | Don Erler:

“'Pragmatic: practical as opposed to idealistic.'
-- Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary

A Washington Post news story that ran in Thursday's Star-Telegram reported the negative reaction of some conservatives to the announced 'breakthrough' with North Korea on nuclear disarmament. The report was preceded by an inappropriate and misleading summary: 'The uproar among conservatives ... reflects their deep concern that the agreement marks a turn toward a more pragmatic U.S. foreign policy.' Such a statement is one that readers might expect to encounter on one of the opinion pages. Think about it: This preface seems to suggest that these conservatives do not want President Bush to become practical in dealing with Pyongyang, preferring that he remain mired in their counterproductive ideology.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

I assumed conservatives prefer that President Bush maintain his conservative principles of not negotiating with terrorists, not compromising with rogue states, not rewarding madmen like Kim Jong-Il. I assumed conservatives preferred such idealism over a pragmatic foreign policy that seeks to use diplomacy and negotiation to defuse crises in a way that keeps disagreements from spilling over into war, no matter how much we might dislike the people sitting across the table from us.

Yet in Don Erler's opinion piece, idealism becomes "ideology", something that's "counterproductive", something to get "mired in". What conservative would want that?

And "pragmatism" is now a means to achieve a principled goal. President Bush's agreement with North Korea gives Kim Jong-Il security assurances, promises massive energy aid and takes steps towards normalization of relations, all this in exchange for North Korea promising to shut down its nuclear program. Apparently, insisting on regime change in terrorist states and refusing to reward terrorist states are now considered bad means to good ends, not goals in themselves. In Don Erler's view of other similar situations with less successful outcomes (e.g., Iraq), "bad means defeated good ends. Better means might have been successful."

So, is Mr Erler arguing that pragmatism is now a favored means of achieving idealistic ends? That giving Kim Jong-Il recognition, fuel, trade, security is worth it if we get a little relief from the growing threat of nuclear terror? Somehow, I don't think conservatives are on board with this reformulation. Mr Erler's own heart doesn't seem to be in it.

Mr Erler shows much more enthusiasm as he races off in a non sequitur about John Edwards and his house and whether he is being idealistic with that "questionable" campaign theme about "Two Americas" or being pragmatic about letting those two controversial bloggers go. Mr Erler is upset that liberals aren't in an uproar over this last bit of news, an implicit act of pragmatism by the Edwards' campaign. So, conservatives like Mr Erler still consider pragmatism to be a dirty word. Except when President Bush uses it to get a deal with North Korea. Then it's a means to a good end. It's an uncomfortable position to argue. But when that's the situation President Bush puts you in, you'd better be pragmatic about making the best of it.

Shouldn't we call it George Washington's Birthday again?

Dallas Blog | Tom Pauken:

“In the 'politically correct' world of modern America, we no longer celebrate the birthday of the Father of our country, George Washington, on February 22nd each year. Instead we celebrate some amorphous holiday known as 'President's Day.' ”

Ed Cognoski responds:

The federal holiday observed on the third Monday in February is officially known as "Washington's Birthday". The date was set in 1968, well before the establishment in 1983 of a national holiday honoring Martin Luther King, which some people who see liberal conspiracies everywhere believe was behind the supposed name change.

There was never a federal holiday observing Lincoln's birthday. Individual states vary in their observances. Texas observes "Presidents' Day" the same day as the federal observance of "Washington's Birthday". Private citizens and businesses may, of course, call a holiday anything they want. I doubt "political correctness" has anything to do with some people calling a holiday that falls in between Lincoln's and Washington's birthday "Presidents' Day". Maybe respect for two great men has more to do with it.

If you want to tilt at windmills, how about taking on the decision by the state of Texas to combine two state holidays honoring Jefferson Davis' birthday and Robert E Lee's birthday into a single holiday called "Confederate Heroes Day"? Now that's wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to start. ;-)

The corner of politics and faith

Fort Worth Star-Telegram | Alan Cochrum:

“For the past 45 years or so, everybody has known that a political candidate's religion is irrelevant, and that people who think otherwise are philistines. So -- courtesy of Mitt Romney and his interest in the White House -- what will we know tomorrow? When John F. Kennedy was running for president in 1960, ... he confronted the issue in a speech to a Houston ministerial association. 'I do not speak for my church on public matters; and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as president, if I should be elected -- on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject -- I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictates.' ”

Ed Cognoski responds:

What we learned 45 years ago was that a Catholic could make decisions based on the national interest, without regard to outside religious pressure. This is not the same thing as saying that a candidate's religion is irrelevant.

Any candidate for public office who cannot say what John Kennedy told the Houston ministers should be examined very carefully, whether that candidate is Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Mormon, or atheist, for that matter.

Perhaps we learned the wrong lesson from Kennedy's election and subsequent administration. Instead of religion becoming a non-issue, our country might be better served if every candidate is challenged to repeat John Kennedy's assurance that he places the national interest above any religious pressure or dictates. Candidates should be asked to provide examples where they think the national interest differs from their own personal religious beliefs. John Kennedy did. Why wasn't George W Bush asked to? Why shouldn't Mitt Romney?

Rod Paige touts vouchers in Austin

Dallas Blog | Caroline Walker:

“Former U.S. Education Secy Rod Paige was in Austin yesterday touting school vouchers as a way to address the state's high dropout rate.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

I like the suggestion I heard recently of a way around the Constitutional barriers to school vouchers. How about giving poor families housing vouchers that would allow families to move from inner city neighborhoods to the Park Cities or Plano or Frisco or any other place that offers a better way of life? That way, their children would not only escape underperforming schools, they would escape underperforming neighborhoods as well.

If advocates of school vouchers really have the children's interest at heart, they should jump at the opportunity to provide poor children with the advantages of living in middle class or wealthy neighborhoods: not only good schools, but safe streets as well. Of course, if all they are really interested in is weakening public schools or draining off public school funds to subsidize their own tuition payments to private academies, then this suggestion is not likely to appeal to them.

Utah gunman was Muslim from Bosnia

Dallas Blog | Tom Pauken:

“World Net Daily is reporting that the young gunman who 'killed five people in a crowded Utah shopping mall was a Bosnian Muslim refugee who was prepared to kill many more, say investigators.' ”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Multiple murder. "Gunman was Muslim". Ergo, jihad, Islamic terrorism.

Tom Pauken doesn't have to connect the dots. He knows his readers will do it for him. Byron George sarcastically tells Mr Pauken not to "rile the Muslim extremist community." Trixie suspects a conspiracy to suppress news of a Muslim terrorism connection. Right Wing Republican Volunteer fears that "political correctness may end up being the death of us. Literally." Bildo asks Muslims, "How about stopping the politically-correct b.s., and admitting that Islam has a violence problem?"

Tom Pauken stirs up this predictable prejudice and wrath. He has turned Dallas Blog into a distributor of right wing propaganda from outlets like World Net Daily. A look at its front page today shows these other stories.

• "Another attack by Muslim, another 'non-terrorist' event"
• "Terrorism not ruled out in Salt Lake case"
• "Christians' duty to be armed -- Special Offer: $4.95 today only!"
• "WND Poll: What do you think motivated the Utah-mall shooter?"

The right wing is frustrated that the FBI and local law enforcement won't jump to conclusions. Evidence, schmevidence. The right wing doesn't need evidence. The fact that the killer is a Muslim is all they need to know that, of course, Islamic terrorism is at work here.

Most news stories quoted FBI and law enforcement officials as saying that they had found no evidence to suggest a motive for the killings. World Net Daily, wanting to believe Islamic terrorism was behind the killings, tells readers instead that terrorism hasn't been ruled out yet. Readers interpret that as proof of guilt.

And if the killer is a Muslim, then he wasn't just randomly killing people, he was killing Christians. It's Christians' duty to shoot back at Muslims.

The poll offers readers various motivations for the killings: personal demons, violent video games, post-traumatic stress from his childhood in Bosnia, Islamic jihad, etc. World Net Daily readers, by an 89% majority, have already concluded that the motivation was Islamic jihad.

This is the kind of information that shapes Tom Pauken's knowledge of the world. This is what Mr Pauken, former chairman of the Republican Party of Texas and now publisher of Dallas Blog, considers to be a worthwhile news source.

Perhaps the ongoing investigation by the FBI and local law enforcement will turn up an Islamic terrorism connection in this story. Or perhaps it won't. Until then, news sites like Dallas Blog should not be leading readers to jump to conclusions. Reading from a particular holy book does not make one a murderer. Remember, holy books don't kill people. People kill people.

Innocence Project to review Dallas County convictions

Dallas Morning News | Steve McGonigle:

“The extraordinary number of DNA-based exonerations in Dallas County has led to a unique partnership between prosecutors and advocates for those who may be wrongly convicted. District Attorney Craig Watkins has agreed to allow the Innocence Project of Texas to review whether DNA tests should be done in any of the cases of 354 people convicted of rapes, murders and other felonies as far back as 1970. Most of those requests already have been denied by trial court judges on the recommendation of former District Attorney Bill Hill. Mr. Watkins, who succeeded Mr. Hill on Jan. 1, wants to ensure that those decisions were correct, his first assistant said. 'It's just simply the right thing to do,' Terri Moore said this week.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

District Attorney Watkins has received much criticism since being elected in 2006 in the Democratic sweep of Dallas County elective offices. This announcement should earn Mr Watkins an equal amount of praise.

The District Attorney's office should be as concerned with ensuring justice as it is with protecting its conviction rate. If DNA evidence reveals some of those convictions were wrongly achieved, so be it. Mr Watkins' change of policy for the District Attorney's office benefits not only the wrongly convicted. By exonerating the innocent, law enforcement can resume investigation of cases where the guilty have never been brought to justice, thus benefiting all of us.

DNA testing is a powerful tool for prosecutors as well as defendants. The District Attorney's office should have insisted on its use in old cases from the beginning, not resisted it. It's just simply the right thing to do.

Censorship at Dallas Blog - yet again

In 2006, Tom Pauken of Dallas Blog was named chairman of something called the Task Force on Appraisal Reform. On January 23, 2007, the task force submitted its recommendations to Governor Rick Perry.

I posted my own analysis of those recommendations on my own blog here. I concluded that Gov. Perry and Tom Pauken used so-called appraisal reform as a cover to target their real aim: capping the growth of local government spending. Nevertheless, there were one or two recommendations that I found I could support.

Mr Pauken's recommendations have now disappeared into the maw of legislative sausage-making. When and how they will reappear is unknown. Today, Mr Pauken, trying to spur some action, posted a blog entry on his Dallas Blog calling on readers to let their legislator know that "appraisal reform" (sic) should be the top priority of the 80^th session of the Texas legislature. Nothing has changed on this issue since the task force issued its report. Mr Pauken's posting today offers nothing new, except to bemoan the fact that other issues are getting more press than his pet issue: new coal plants by TXU, mandatory HPV vaccinations, and sale of the state lottery.

Mr Pauken wants to control the debate on this issue. Moderation is turned on for any comments in response to his lobbying for reader action, meaning editor approval is necessary before any comments are posted. I submitted a link to my earlier analysis. That link was not approved by Mr Pauken. No explanation as to why. Just ... nothing. I leave it to readers to determine what Dallas Blog blogging policy I violated. The heavy hand of censorship at Dallas Blog is still suppressing open dialog.

First cousins: communism, socialism, and liberalism

Dallas Blog | James Reza:

“Monday morning soon arrived and we were all anxious to hear Sister Lawrencia explain the difference between Capitalism and Communism. First, she asked us if we had made some money and how we earned it. Almost all of the students replied that they did and how they earned it. However, some kids didn't bring any money at all. The total amount she collected from the working students was a little over $5. She then made me go to Lampton's Grocery Store and exchange the money into pennies. When I returned with 500 pennies, Sister Lawrencia then asked one of the students to divide the 500 pennies by the amount of students, which totaled 25. The divided figure totaled 20. Sister then gave all the students, even those who didn't work, 20 cents and told them to keep the evenly distributed money. Needless to say, those of us who worked for our money were very angry, but we dared not contradict Sister Lawrencia. Anybody out there has a better way of explaining: communism, socialism, and liberalism?”

Ed Cognoski responds:

James Reza recalls this story from his days at San Jose Catholic School in north Fort Worth. He also recalls the Hispanic students there winning Spelling Bees, Geography Contests, and the All-City Parochial Baseball League Trophy. It's an inspirational story.

Mr Reza asks if anyone has a better way of explaining communism, socialism, and liberalism. Sister Lawrencia's example is fine, but it tells only part of the story. She could have used that baseball trophy as a further example of socialism. Everyone on the team gives according to his ability: a home run, a sacrifice bunt, a good glove or just chatter in the field. Yet everyone from the cleanup hitter to the bench warmer gets to collectively raise that trophy in the air when the game is won.

Of course, the Sunday collection plate or church missions or any of a hundred bible passages could be used as teaching examples of socialism as well. Then there's Sister Lawrencia's Order of Sisters of St. Mary of Numur. I assume Sister Lawrencia accepted her calling as a nun voluntarily and found great value in her decision to live in a socialist community. She could have just told her students to look at the lives of the nuns.

Mr Reza didn't ask for examples of teaching capitalism, but how about this? Sister Lawrencia could have collected all the earnings of the students at their odd jobs over the weekend, and given the lump sum to the class student with the richest parents. Sister Lawrencia could have explained how capitalism sometimes doesn't result in the most deserving receiving the rewards any more than socialism does. Sometimes what matters most is who your parents are.

Sister Lawrencia could have taught how simplistic examples don't always tell the full story. She could have warned students not to let her simplistic explanations, which are suitable for grade school students, still be the extent of their understanding of these complex subjects after reaching adulthood. But that probably wouldn't have made as good a story today.

Lonely in the middle

Dallas Morning News | William McKenzie:

“So what's it going to be? A year of Democrats bad-mouthing Republican leaders who move to the center? Or a year in which they engage the Republicans' ideas, support them where they can and adjust them where they can't? ... President Bush's budget answers Democratic Rep. John Murtha's charge that the military has too few soldiers and not enough armaments. It nods toward Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy with more money for the No Child Left Behind Act and huge college aid hikes. It responds to environmentalists like Al Gore with money for national parks and alternative energies. And it hears Hillary Rodham Clinton and others who want more Americans insured.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

For the first time in six years, there is reason to hope that Washington might move to the center. Bush and Cheney and the Republican Congress have governed from the extreme right for six years because there was no one to stop them. Now there is. If they want to get anything done, they have to compromise with the Democrats. And Republicans better want to get something done or 2008 will be even worse for the party than 2006 was. So, there is reason to hope that Bush will look to find common ground with the Democrats on issues like immigration, education, energy, etc.

The question is whether the Democratic Congress will compromise with Bush. They could reach too far, triggering filibusters and vetoes, then count on voters to blame Republicans for obstructionism, resulting in bigger majorities in Congress in 2008 and recapturing the White House. But voters are fickle. President Clinton managed to win the showdown with the Republican Congress over government funding. If Democrats in Congress overplay their hand now, President Bush might win a showdown this time around.

There's one hopeful sign that Democrats have no intention of overplaying their hand. There is no talk by Democrats of impeachment. Not even the revelations of the Scooter Libby trial are causing Democrats to rethink their decision on that. That's a sign that the Democrats are less interested in exacting revenge than in passing legislation to deal with the problems facing America. Meeting President Bush in the middle is exactly what they'll need to accomplish that.

On the other hand, the War in Iraq threatens to derail everything else in Washington for the next two years. President Bush shows no inclination to compromise on the war. His escalation or surge is emboldening Democrats to challenge the Commander in Chief in the prosecution of this war. Congress and the White House are unlikely to be able to work together on domestic issues while playing Constitutional brinkmanship on Iraq. If the President plans to move to the middle domestically, he will have to first move to the middle in his war policy.

I'm just not buying what Perry's selling

Dallas Morning News | Steve Blow :

“Heaven help me, Gov. Rick Perry is giving me big-time cootie vibes these days. Or maybe I should use another highly technical term from the complex world of interpersonal relationships — 'heebie-jeebies.' I'm sorry, but the man just gives me the heebie-jeebies, and never more so than in the last week or two. ”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Richard Nixon gave people the heebie-jeebies. Bill Clinton gives people the heebie-jeebies. George W Bush gives people the heebie-jeebies. And Rick Perry gives people the heebie-jeebies. Still, all were elected and re-elected. Americans apparently can put up with the heebie-jeebies. Rick Perry is just the latest incarnation of the breed.

Unless Steve Blow can give his readers a more substantial objection to Rick Perry, his policies, and his proposals to the state legislature, Mr Blow is wasting the space granted him by the Dallas Morning News. Tell us why Texans made a mistake re-electing this man. Tell us why he gives you the heebie-jeebies. It's not that hard, Mr Blow. Your privileged position with Dallas' only daily newspaper burdens you with greater responsibility than just to complain about Rick Perry's hair.

Pecking at school voucher Chicken Littles

Dallas Blog | Caroline Walker:

“Nothing sends Dallasblog visitors into SCREAMING, ALL-CAPS 'Post-A-Comment' mode quicker than the words 'school voucher.' The very thought throws otherwise reasonable folk into red-faced, ear-steaming paroxysms of 100% certitude that vouchers will spell the End of Civilization As We Know It.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Two days have passed since Caroline Walker's above attempt to sell school vouchers as the Salvation of Civilization As We Know It. Her blog post has attracted not a single comment by Dallas Blog visitors. Yawn.

Doesn't Ms Walker know that the battle to drain public school dollars to pay tuition bills at private academies is over? Today's hot button is vaccinations. Nothing sends Dallas Blog visitors today into SCREAMING, ALL-CAPS 'Post-A-Comment' mode quicker than the words 'HPV vaccine.' The very thought of protecting girls against cervical cancer throws otherwise reasonable folk into red-faced, ear-steaming paroxysms of ... well, you know the rest.

What we knew already

Star-Telegram | Don Erler:

“Science gives, and depending on our political perspectives, it also takes away. As we've learned in recent days, the "world's leading climate scientists, in their most powerful language ever used on the issue, said global warming is 'very likely' caused by humans." ... This is a revelation? Aren't you glad that hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments have solved a non-mystery?”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Mr Erler uses a neat rhetorical trick in response to this alarming report by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He pretends it doesn't matter. He neatly turns from denial to d'oh, asking sarcastically why human involvement in climate change comes as a revelation to anyone. After years of denial, Mr Erler now says, of course, we knew that all the time. Non-mystery. Self-evident. No big deal. Doesn't change a thing.

The global warming deniers have used three lines of defense in their battle against environmental science. First, that global warming is a myth. Second, that it's not caused by humans. Third, that it's no big deal, maybe not even bad for humans, and certainly not worth combatting.

Gradually, but inevitably, those lines of defense have crumbled, one by one. Hardly anyone denies anymore that the globe is warming. With this latest update by the IPCC, it looks like human causation is now impossible to deny any longer, too. But don't count out Mr Erler.

• "Thirty years ago, many climate scientists predicted that human activity would soon create a new ice age."

  No, some scientists predicted that the Earth may be entering another cyclical, natural ice age. That may still be true. We'll know in a few thousand years whether they are right. In the meantime, human-induced global warming is likely to exact huge dislocations on humans in a matter of decades. We'll know in the lifetimes of many people alive today.

• "On the IPCC's own showing, there is no 'scientific consensus' on anything except the nearly self-evident proposition that human activity affects climate."

  Science can't predict exactly how much the sea level will rise. But it doesn't need to know whether it's going to be exactly 7 inches or 23 inches for fair-minded observers to accept that there is a scientific consensus that global warming is leading to a disastrous rise in sea levels. 1250 authors and 2500 expert scientific reviewers contributed to the report. That's scientific consensus.

• "Huge variations in temperature and sea levels have occurred and continue to happen without human intervention."

  Yes, they have, and the environmental disruptions were enormous. The current climate changes threaten to be worse than these natural cycles. Whereas ice ages come and go in periods of 10,000 to 20,000 years (with major ice ages every 100,000 years or so), what we're looking at now is temperature change as great or greater in a period of only decades or centuries. Why would we want to cause such disasters through deliberate human behavior?

Mr Erler concedes that the Earth is warming, and he's willing to admit that humans play a role, even pretending that we knew that all along, but he's still stuck on the belief that what we're witnessing is mostly natural, just another in a long cycle of climate change. The IPCC report makes that line of defense untenable any longer. The debate now leaves the likes of Mr Erler behind and turns to what to do about global warming and its human causes.

What is bilingual education doing in Texas?

Pegasus News | Blair Lovern:

“Headline in the S-T Monday: 'Public opinion doesn't follow the numbers' - followed by a story that makes Farmers Branch City Council member Tim O'Hare look silly. Apparently O'Hare cannot counter what the S-T illuminates has been happening in Farmers Branch the past decade: crime down, SAT scores up, state accountability rating for the local ISD up. There is no hell in a hand basket scenario going on in Farmers Branch, according to the paper. ”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Mr Lovern starts off by summarizing the Fort Worth Star-Telegram story reasonably well. Despite all those bad immigrants, Farmer's Branch remains a good place to live. Mr O'Hare himself lives there, after all.

But then Mr Lovern begins to swerve. He points out that although property values in Farmer's Branch are not declining as the anti-immigrant movement would lead you to believe, the gains do slightly lag Dallas County as a whole. Fair enough, I suppose. Call that one a draw, maybe.

Mr Lovern then turns his attention to bilingual education. The Star-Telegram story reports that the program cost is not exorbitant nor is the program preventing the district from achieving "recognized" status in every school. This causes Mr Lovern to drive into the ditch and get stuck there, spinning his wheels to no effect. Mr Lovern quotes studies and experts who challenge the effectiveness of bilingual education. In the end, nothing he says counters the simple statement of fact reported by the Star-Telegram: despite the presence of illegal immigrants, Farmer's Branch schools are all recognized. Whether bilingual education is the most effective way to teach children with English as a second language is a worthy question. But it's Mr Lovern's question. It's not what Mr O'Hare's campaign is based on.

The citizens of Farmer's Branch would do well to count their blessings. Driving wedges down the middle of their fair city is not the way to protect the good thing they have going.

Texas Deputy to pay price for defending self

Dallas Blog | Tom Pauken:

“U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, who received a lot of criticism from a number of Republican Congressmen for prosecuting two U.S. border agents who shot at an illegal drug smuggler fleeing apprehension, is back in the news again for prosecuting a Texas deputy sheriff who fired shots at a car bringing illegal immigrants into the country.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Once again, Dallas Blog relies on a single source for details on a story that fits its political bias, this time the right-wing Moonie newspaper Washington Times. It took only a little Googling to turn up a more fair and balanced account (no, not from Fox News, d'oh) that includes even a single quote by the prosecutor of the case. This is from MySA.com:

"The law says you cannot use deadly force to stop a car unless it poses an imminent threat to the officer or another person. If the car is going away from you, it's not even a close call," said Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Baumann, who prosecuted the case. ... "When you do wrong as a policeman, we think we need to tell you it's wrong, so other policemen will not shoot into cars. It's not an OK way to stop them," Bauman said.

According to testimony at trial, the deputy was standing by the driver's door. The deputy fired into the left rear tire, then the right rear tire, as the driver drove away. The deputy claimed that this constituted self defense. The deputy's claim is unquestioned by the Washington Times and is reported as fact in the Dallas Blog headline. A jury that heard all the evidence thought otherwise. It decided the deputy's claim wasn't supported by the facts and that the deputy's action was unlawful.

This is a case where the right wing doesn't like a particular law and wants sheriffs, prosecutors, judges and juries to ignore the law. The irony is that their campaign to enforce laws against illegal immigration would be less hypocritical if they would start respecting the law themselves.

'Heil, Hugo'

Dallas Blog | Tom Pauken:

“Hugo Chavez, the leftist President of Venezuela, took some additional steps yesterday to consolidate all political power in his hands as Venezuela's congress passed legislation giving President Chavez the right to 'rule by decree'. ”

Getting congress to pass legislation giving the executive power is so twentieth century. Doesn't Hugo Chavez know that the modern way to do it is to just unilaterally issue a signing statement claiming the desired powers?