House adopts school prayer bill

Dallas Morning News | Karen Brooks:

“Students would be able to meet in prayer groups during school hours and otherwise express their religious beliefs in school, as long as they don't discriminate against the religious beliefs or sexual orientation of other students, under legislation overwhelmingly endorsed Monday by the House.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

This bill is all smoke and no fire. It just says schools have to protect First Amendment rights. D'oh. Schools already are obliged to do this. Students can pray in schools. They can have prayer meetings. This law adds nothing that the First Amendment doesn't already guarantee.

If anything, the anti-discrimination clause of this law would restrict students' rights. Currently, religions are all about discrimination. Religions discriminate against each another. Religions discriminate against gays. With this law, prayer groups for such religions might be forbidden from expressing their discriminatory beliefs. Ironic, isn't it? The biggest threat to this new law, if passed, might come from an ACLU lawsuit on behalf of some fundamentalist group who claims its Constitutional right to condemn homosexuality is being denied.

They protected me; who protects them?

Dallas Morning News | Tod Robberson:

“A Kurd, a Sunni, two Shiites and a Christian. As a reporter, I couldn't have asked for a more representative cross section of Iraqi society. They worked with me as translators covering the war from 2003 to 2006. Each put himself at considerable personal risk to help me do my job. Now, each is afraid for his life for having collaborated with Americans.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

This behind-the-scenes story of war reporting from Iraq reads like a Hollywood screenplay. Threats, kidnappings, killings. Simple everyday behavior is invested with life-and-death consequences. All from just doing your job telling Americans what's going on in Iraq. So much for the theory that life in Iraq is not as bad as reporters would have us believe.

Mr Robberson would like to see asylum offered to Iraqis who helped reporters keep Americans informed about the war. This touches on an aspect of this war that has received little media attention — yet. Mr Robberson says "the U.S. government will grant permanent residency to around 7,000 Iraqi refugees later this year." Surely, this is only the start of the refugee migration. The US will be the ultimate destination for thousands more Iraqis who once collaborated with Americans and now can live no longer in their homeland.

This is right and just. It is now inevitable. It is also ironic. George Bush may himself end up being the agent who fulfills his oft-repeated warning: "If we withdraw before the job is done, the enemy will follow us here."

A Man For All Seasons

DallasNews Religion | Dave Tarrant:

“I was reading the obituary of Jack Valenti, who worked for LBJ in the White House before becoming a Hollywood lobbyist and who helped create the current movie ratings system. Turns out his favorite movie was the 1966 film, A Man For All Seasons. ... The movie came out in the midst of an increasingly unpopular war, where the government was accused of duping the public about what was really happening in Vietnam. Does that sound a little familiar?”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Sound familiar? Sure does. Those medieval Englishmen could have been talking about wiretaps, Gitmo, torture and the Patriot Act, all intended to make us safe from evil:

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

Overnight ratings for the Democrats

The Democratic candidates for President debated in South Carolina Thursday evening. That's right, in April. 2007. Really. First impressions:

The nomination is Clinton's to lose. She didn't do anything to lose it Thursday evening, so she has to be seen as the big winner. She was prepared. She was firm. She smiled. She cried. She was complimented as well as criticized by her opponents. She was respected.

Barack Obama is still relatively unknown by the electorate. They know his name. They know his smile. Now they know just a little more. He acted a little nervous, but mostly held his own against Clinton, so that can only help him.

John Edwards did nothing to draw the limelight away from Clinton and Obama. He did nothing wrong, but he did nothing to help his campaign, either, and for him, that's not good.

Joe Biden got off the best answer of the night ("Yes."), but mostly, he was his verbose self. No gaffes last night, but nothing to raise him to the top tier of candidates, either.

Dennis Kucinich tried to solidify his position as the anti-war, impeach-Cheney candidate. But he may have found a rival in former Senator Mike Gravel, who played the bluff, no-nonsense, mad-as-hell anti-war candidate to maximum effect. The far left Democrats may find him more exciting than Kucinich.

Bill Richardson was the big disappointment. He came across as confused and puzzled, maybe hard-of-hearing. He had trouble finishing his answers on time. He admitted to once supporting Alberto Gonzales (not even Republican candidates will do that) because of his ethnicity (you're not supposed to admit that) until he changed his mind after Gonzales' testimony to Congress last week (toss in a flip-flop, too).

Oh, I almost forgot Senator Chris Dodd. Hmm... no almost about it.

All in all, if not a love fest, certainly no mud wrestling, either. Even Senator Gravel's pointed criticisms of the rest of the field elicited more smiles than frowns from his fellow candidates. Joe Biden even raised his hand, volunteering to get included in the "top tier" of candidates who "frightened" Senator Gravel.

The 90 minute debate might best be summarized by this exchange, towards the end of the night:

BRIAN WILLIAMS: Putting yourself aside, perhaps, is there a winner on this stage tonight, and does your party have what it takes to reverse this trend and win the White House?

SEN. BIDEN: Absolutely yes, there's a winner. Taking myself out, I'm looking at a bunch of winners right here, a number. And whoever wishes for Hillary is making a big mistake on the Republican side.

Dallas News Daily Circulation Dropped 5%

Dallas Blog | Scott Bennett:

“You know, 5% here and 5% there and pretty soon there is no one left. But surely the News recent editorial calling for an end to the death penalty will boost circulation on Death Row.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Did Scott Bennett really just say that? Link the circulation rate of The Dallas Morning News to their editorial position on the death penalty? Imply that the circulation department dictates editorial policy at The Dallas Morning News? Or maybe that it should? Maybe it was just a tasteless, off-topic, unfunny joke about killing people.

Is that how Mr Bennett runs Dallas Blog? Apparently so, as this very story is evidence that Mr Bennett thinks about issues of life and death in terms of their impact on circulation rates. Be proud of your traffic statistics, Mr Bennett. Maybe stories like this will help bring a Katie award to your trophy case next year.

Knee-jerk cartooning

Crunchy Con | Rod Dreher:

“The most obnoxious thing about this Tony Auth cartoon depicting the Supreme Court justices who ruled in the majority on the partial-birth decision as Christian bishops is its facile assumption that the only reason anybody could oppose partial-birth abortion is religious. The second-most obnoxious thing is its facile assumption that religion should have no bearing on discussions of public morality.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Huh? Rod Dreher makes a lot of assumptions.

The cartoon implies that religious objection to abortion may have been a reason behind the Supreme Court's recent decision. Was it merely coincidence that the five members of the Court who are Catholic voted in a 5-4 majority to support this anti-abortion law, and the four non-Catholics voted against? Perhaps Mr Dreher can lay out non-religious objections to abortion. Maybe he can even find something in common why these five justices and no others ruled together in the majority in handing down this anti-abortion ruling. Mr Auth's thought-provoking cartoon forces the reader to at least consider the possibility that religion did play an important part, if not the only part, in this decision.

And from where does Mr Dreher draw his assumption that the cartoon implies that religion should have no bearing on discussions of public morality? It was a judicial decision, a legal opinion on whether a particular law is Constitutional or not. Why should one's religion have a bearing that? Like everyone else, the justices are more than welcome to let their religion influence their discussions of public morality, but when it comes time to hand down a legal opinion they ought to let the US Constitution determine their decisions, not church teaching on morals.

The universe has a designer, speakers say

Baptist Press | Gregory Tomlin:

“Science, when done right, points powerfully to a designer whose characteristics 'just happen to match the descriptions of the God of the Bible,' author and Christian apologist Lee Strobel said during a conference on the theory of Intelligent Design at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.
...
'I was told that we were supposed to follow the evidence wherever it leads,' said [Michael] Behe, a professor of biological sciences at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. 'Intelligent Design seems to point strongly beyond nature and seems to have philosophical, maybe even theological implications. That makes a lot of people nervous, and they think that science should avoid any theory that seems to have such strong extra-scientific implications.' ”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Nervous? Not at all. Dr Behe simply confirms what scientists have known all along — Intelligent Design (ID) is not science. It is religion. Scientists, in their search for explanations for natural events, limit themselves to natural causes. So far, natural causes have proven remarkably adept at providing explanations for the observed evidence. Dr Behe himself isn't convinced of current scientific theory to explain some events. Challenging current scientific thinking is necessary and good. It's when he resorts to "extra-scientific" explanations that he stops doing science and starts doing religion. There's nothing wrong with that. It's just that it's no longer science. It's religion.

ID proponents shouldn't be nervous about discussing the theological implications of their theory. There is nothing embarrassing about religion. There is nothing wrong with holding religion conferences, certainly not at a university with Methodist in its name. Just don't expect scientists to participate and mislead the audience into thinking it's science being debated on stage. Scientists don't resort to "extra-scientific" explanations. That's just the way it is.

New name, similar face

The Daily Campus | Opinion:

“The 'scientific' arguments set forth by supporters of Intelligent Design are laughable.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

The editorial in the SMU newspaper was largely right in its dismissal of the "so-called debate" held last weekend at SMU, sponsored by The Discovery Institute, promoters of Intelligent Design (ID). The only sentence from the editorial I quibble with is the one above. I agree some ID arguments are laughable, but some of the challenges must be taken seriously and answered by science.

For example, is the rate of mutation and natural selection fast enough to account for the diversity in living things we observe today? Or, is there an evolutionary sequence that could conceivably account for the emergence of various so-called irreducibly complex structures we observe today? I'm confident the answer to the questions posed by ID theorists is yes, but science still has to do the hard work of proposing and testing hypotheses that justify that answer.

May I have a word? Liberal

Dallasblog.com | Scott Bennett:

“Last week the liberal Texas Observer provided a great piece of investigative journalism when it reported the state was creating a massive database within the governor’s Office of Homeland Security in apparent violation of federal law.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

What does the word "liberal" add to the lead to this Dallas Blog story? Not much. It probably says more about Scott Bennett than the issue at hand. Possibly, Mr Bennett is subconsciously admitting that he's not in the habit of saying a good word about liberals.

Or maybe it's just part of a new policy at Dallas Blog to identify the partisan leanings of the media from which Dallas Blog draws its stories. If so, in future stories, we can expect to read about the conservative Washington Times, the conservative Wall Street Journal, the conservative Fox News, the conservative Sunday Telegraph, the conservative Catholic World News, the conservative World Net Daily, to name just a few of Dallas Blog's usual sources. Dallas Blog editors better dust off the old thesaurus because with a truth-in-journalism policy, that adjective conservative is going to get a lot of use. It may say "news and viewpoints" on the masthead, but what "news" there is is freely slanted by viewpoints.

P.S. I, too, thought that the Texas Observer's work was outstanding! And the conservative Dallas Blog was right to point it out. ;-)

Obligatory Virginia Tech post

DallasMorningViews | Rod Dreher:

“I have seen nothing so far in this that can be explained or ennobled by anything anybody has to say, aside from prayers for the living and the dead, and words of comfort for everyone involved. ... Kathy Shaidle, as usual, gets it right:

Please don't indulge in godless modern paganism and set up homely, self-indulgent makeshift memorials with cheap flowers and teddy bears. Don't hold hands and sing bad pop songs. Go to church. That's what it's for. For centuries, people smarter than you and with more finely honed aesthetics worked on rituals that actually do what they're supposed to do. ”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Huh? I feel like I've been whiplashed. Rod Dreher starts out offering the sensible analysis that words of comfort are the only sensible response to this tragedy. Then, he suddenly jerks 180 degrees and quotes Kathy Shaidle criticizing the mourners for how they choose to mourn. Do it the right way. Do it her way. Conform to her choice of setting, of music, of ritual. Otherwise, you're just not very smart, you're stupid, you're shallow, you're lazy. Do it her way or it won't work. You won't feel any better.

Rod Dreher gently puts his arm around your shoulder to comfort you, then just as he wins your confidence, he gives you the hard sell for his brand of religious snake oil. And it's a hard sell. I would understand if someone with family or friends impacted by this tragedy might feel like Rod Dreher just punched him in the stomach. Rod Dreher himself should go to church and say his prayers and not try to tell mourners how to grieve.

Thinking About Education

Dallas Morning News | Scott Parks

“Can you imagine a high school without cheerleaders? I can. Cheerleading seems to produce a social toxin that poisons the brain of anyone it touches — the girls, their parents, teachers, administrators and the public.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Cheerleading a poisonous toxin? That's a bit over the top, don't you think? A few cheerleading controversies have been in the local news lately. But in hundreds of high schools across Texas, cheerleading is just one of many extracurricular activities, no better or worse than others. Cheerleading encourages physical activity, teamwork and school spirit. The occasional scandal doesn't negate the good it promotes.

If Mr Parks wants to encourage reform, he ought to focus on underage drinking in general. Cheerleading is not the root issue here. The root issue, underage drinking, gets lost in the sensationalist coverage of the media whenever cheerleaders are involved.

Mr Parks' suggested reforms are equally off the mark. Getting rid of the cheerleader booster club risks leaving these students under less adult supervision than ever. If booster clubs are part of the problem, reform them, don't get rid of them.

And was Mr Parks himself drinking when he came up with the idea to eliminate cheerleaders from the sidelines at football games? Instead of pretending cheerleading is a separate sport, we ought to be restoring cheerleading to its origins — leading cheers. As it is, cheerleaders on the sidelines at football games too often look like they are practicing for some upcoming competition of their own instead of getting fans involved in the game in front of them.

We ought to be nurturing students to develop school spirit and a sense of community and a shared effort towards a common goal. School sporting events can provide the setting. Cheerleaders can lead the way. But only if they are coached to realize that crowd enthusiasm is the real measure of success, not gymnastic skills.

Is it real or is it Romney?

Star-Telegram.com | J.R. Labbe:

“Deciding whom to support for the nation's highest elected office should include consideration of other issues [than gun rights]. But it does say something about the sorry state of Republican candidates when Mitt Romney can claim conservative credentials with a straight face.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

It's ironic that Mitt Romney, trying to curry favor with conservatives, managed to offend almost everyone. Conservatives, because he exaggerated his hunting experience, his gun ownership, his NRA membership. And liberals, because he disowns his own past support for gun control laws. Gov Romney's fibbing cost him liberal support without earning him any credit from the conservatives.

Death no more: It's time to end capital punishment

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

“There are signs [an executed man] was innocent. We don't know for sure, but we do know that if the state made a mistake, nothing can rectify it. And that uncomfortable truth has led this editorial board to re-examine its century-old stance on the death penalty. This board has lost confidence that the state of Texas can guarantee that every inmate it executes is truly guilty of murder. We do not believe that any legal system devised by inherently flawed human beings can determine with moral certainty the guilt of every defendant convicted of murder. That is why we believe the state of Texas should abandon the death penalty – because we cannot reconcile the fact that it is both imperfect and irreversible.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Air tight logic. How many more years must go by, how many more irreversible mistakes must be risked, before the voters and legislators of Texas reason it out for themselves?

Some argue that there are crimes that demand finality. True enough, except the death penalty spells finality to a person, not to a crime. Sometimes, the death penalty leaves an aching doubt that prevents society from every achieving finality to a crime.

Some argue that the death penalty sends a powerful message. That it does. It's a message that the state is all powerful, not that the state is right or just.

Some argue that the death penalty is applied fairly, accurately and sparingly. Each of those characterizations is open to debate. Because society will never be of one mind, and society's prevailing opinion will evolve over time, sometimes in favor of the death penalty and sometimes against, application of the death penalty is necessarily arbitrary. Arbitrary yet final. Society should find that to be unacceptable.

Where's The Tax Relief

TylerPaper.com | Roy Maynard:

“The architect of property appraisal reform says he's disappointed a powerful committee chairman is blocking all but a few cosmetic changes to the system. ... 'I don't think appraisal reform is dead yet, but I'm very, very concerned,' Pauken says. 'Rep. Fred Hill has made it very difficult to get anything done. You can't talk to him. He's very hard-headed on this issue. For all practical purposes, he's become the spokesman of the Texas Municipal League and the Texas Association of Counties.' ... For his part, Hill tells the Tyler paper he's not completely opposed to tweaking the system. 'But I am against revenue caps, which restrict the abilities of cities and counties to do their jobs,' Hill says. 'And I'm against appraisal caps, which don't do anything except distort the market.'”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Hooray for Rep. Fred Hill (R-Richardson) for standing up to Tom Pauken's mischaracterization of the issue and TylerPaper.com's obliging story.

The headline asks "Where's the tax relief?" but Tom Pauken's task force was not called the Task Force on Tax Relief or the Task Force on Capping Local Government. It was called the Task Force on Appraisal Reform. Yet, getting fair and accurate property appraisals has taken a back seat to handicapping local government. Mr Pauken only used rising property values as an opening to achieve his real aim, capping local government revenues and expenditures.

Roy Maynard sets the stage by introducing Mr Pauken as the "architect of property appraisal reform" (read white hat) and Rep Hill as "a powerful committee chairman" (read black hat). He allows Mr Pauken to throw ad hominem attacks at Rep Hill, calling him hard-headed and hard to talk to, without asking for evidence that Mr Pauken has ever listened to anyone himself. His task force's road show around the state in 2006, supposedly seeking citizen input, ignored inputs from cities and counties. His goal of putting arbitrary caps on local government - revenues, expenditures, appraisals - was predetermined and comes through loud and clear in the task force recommendations.

Rep. Fred Hill of Richardson is now standing up for local government, for city councils and school boards and the voters who elect them, all those who weren't listened to by Mr Pauken in 2006. Mr Pauken paints Rep Hill's responsiveness to his constituents as a bad thing. All Texans are first residents of their towns, cities and counties. It's about time they had representatives in Austin who stand up for them. For Tom Pauken to paint Rep Hill as a mere "spokesman" for the cities and counties we all live in shows how little regard Mr Pauken has for local government. Mr Pauken himself appears to be nothing more than a spokesman for Governor Perry, for Austin, for state control of local government. An unelected spokesman at that. Hooray for elected representatives like Fred Hill.

Sen. Patrick Proposes $3 Billion in Spending Cuts, Angry Words Fly

Dallas Blog | William Lutz:

“Sen. Dan Patrick (R-Houston) and his list of $3 billion in state budget cuts were the topic of heated debate on the Senate floor. ... Sen John Whitmire (D-Houston) called on Patrick to explain his list of $3 billion in budget cuts to the Senate. Whitmire asked Patrick why he didn't bring his list of cuts to the Senate Finance Committee or why he didn't share it with his Senate colleagues before it was debated. After that, a rather tense exchange occurred between Whitmire and Patrick.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Methinks Sen. Dan Patrick is trying to get elected governor, not trying to pass legislation.

Education software: No bang for the buck, study says

Dallas Blog | Caroline Walker:

“The largest study to date of educational technology's impact on student performance finds it's negligible -- the impact, that is.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

This week-old story from Dallas Blog came and went without much attention. The story raised a lot of questions in my mind, but it didn't offer many answers. I'm not ready to accept the implication yet, but it's huge: if computers and education software are not raising test results, then let's quit spending money on them and focus on more traditional teaching methods instead. Caroline Walker didn't come out and say that, but I suspect sympathy with that conclusion is the reason why she posted the story in the first place.

Yesterday, the Associated Press reported on another classroom experiment without results, headlined "Study: Abstinence classes don't stop sex". Here, I'm not surprised by the finding. It doesn't raise any questions in my mind. This is one outcome that was all too predictable. This time, I'm ready to jump to the conclusion that we shouldn't be spending money on ineffective classes.

Somehow, I doubt Caroline Walker will see it that way. Somehow, I doubt she or Dallas Blog will even cover this story. Too bad. Dallas Blog could have reused their headline with only a minor change: Abstinence Classes: More bang for the buck, study finds.

Red-light fines to go to police, firefighters

Dallas Morning News | Tanya Eiserer:

“Dallas police and firefighters will soon have to pay up if they run afoul of the city's red-light cameras. Many police officers are angry about the proposed policy. The prevailing belief among officers has been that they can run red lights as they see fit. 'I know that a lot of the officers are not real happy about it,' said Senior Cpl. James Bristo, second vice president of the Dallas Fraternal Order of Police. 'Nobody out here is just running red lights left and right.' He said many police officers view the new policy as yet another thing they have to worry about.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

I thought police already had to "worry about" things like running red lights. The dangers of doing so have to be outweighed by the need to respond quickly to an emergency. State law spells out the circumstances when officers are given the latitude to run red lights, but it doesn't give them blanket permission to run red lights "as they see fit".

This new policy doesn't change state law. All it does is impose a financial consequence to the officer's wallet if and when he violates those standards. Perhaps some disciplinary action other than a fine would make more sense, but as long as the conditions under which officers can and cannot run red lights are spelled out, there ought to be consequences for violating that policy.

Just as for civilians, there ought to be an appeals process for police officers who are caught by automated cameras running red lights. If they are justified in doing so, the citation can be voided. If they are not justified, they ought to accept the consequences. Civilians are expected to "worry about" obeying the law. So should police officers.

Pelosi's Power Grab

Dallas Blog | Tara Ross:

“Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi created quite a stir this week when she defied the White House and embarked on a self-instigated diplomatic mission to Syria. Her trip was quite eventful. In two short days, the Speaker not only managed to undermine White House efforts to isolate a country that is known to be a state sponsor of terrorism, but she also managed to make unauthorized promises on behalf of Israel. How ironic that her defiant assertion of independence resulted in a symbolic act of submission on Syrian soil: She donned a headscarf during part of her visit in the Muslim-dominated country.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Power grab? Give me a break. Congressmen have been going on overseas fact-finding trips for as long as the Republic has existed. It wasn't a "diplomatic mission". She doesn't need the President's permission. The President doesn't need any help undermining his foreign policy in the region. He's doing bad enough all by himself. Speaker Pelosi made no promises on behalf of Israel. She accurately presented their position, which they confirmed, adding only that their position hasn't changed.

Ms Ross' criticism of the trip might sound a little less contrived and partisan if she made even passing mention of the fact that Republican Congressmen also visited Syria this week, both before and after Speaker Pelosi's trip. If anyone is making a political issue of Speaker Pelosi's trip, it's the Republicans themselves. If anyone is undermining American foreign policy, it's critics like Tara Ross who seek to score domestic political points on foreign policy matters.

Perhaps what galls Ms Ross the most, Speaker Pelosi showed respect to her hosts by wearing a headscarf! Read other posts by the right wing chorus on Dallas Blog and you might have predicted that they would praise someone for paying respect to traditions that used to hold sway even in America a generation or two ago, when women routinely wore hats and always covered their heads in church. The Bible teaches: "Every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head." You might have predicted that but you would be wrong. Apparently, tradition is not praiseworthy when it's a Democratic woman who exhibits common courtesy. Inconsistency, even perhaps rank hypocrisy, on the part of the right wing... again.

Global Warming

Dallas Blog | Paul D. Perry:

“A frosty north wind and a little snow — just the thing to get me in the mood for the holiday season. Didn't Bing Crosby sing 'I'm Dreaming of a White ... uh ... Easter?' No, that wasn't it, of course. The variability of Texas weather is legendary. ... The hubbub now seems to be about 'global warming.' At least that is how the current concern is referred to during a bout of high temperatures or drought. I have noticed media language changes when temperatures are colder or wetter than normal. Then the current concern is referred to as 'climate change.' ”

Ed Cognoski responds:

"Global warming" is real. The alternate term "climate change" was actually popularized by the global warming skeptics. Because climate is always changing, they believe the term "climate change" is less threatening than the term "global warming." Paul D. Perry uses the existence of both terms as evidence for inconsistency on the part of scientists, when in fact it is the global warming skeptics who are guilty of sowing seeds of confusion.

Mr Perry himself is either devious or ignorant. His article is so full of twisted truths, outright falsehoods, faulty logic and non sequiters that a full rebuttal would take pages. He offers nothing new. Not surprisingly, then, explanations for his supposed evidence against global warming have appeared elsewhere, over and over again, ad nauseum. They aren't hard to find. For your convenience, here is just one Web site that explains all the objections global warming skeptics trot out again and again in an attempt to confuse the public. It's Gristmill, a site of environmental news and commentary. The page of links is titled "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic". I don't expect Mr Perry himself to read it, but anyone interested in the facts would find browsing the site well worth the time.

P.S. Dallas Blog is three days into a site redesign that removed the ability of readers to comment on articles. Perhaps its publishers decided they were tired of having their right wing "news" and opinions refuted so quickly in comments on its own pages by alert readers. Or perhaps not. Dallas Blog won't talk openly about its censorship practices, so we'll probably never know the truth. :-(

Are the Darwinists afraid to debate us?

Dallas Morning News | Bruce Chapman and John West:

“Defenders of Darwinian theory publicly disparage intelligent design (often showing through their comments that they know very little about what it actually proposes), but they refuse to engage in genuine dialogue. What a different approach from that modeled by Darwin himself, who humbly and patiently responded to objections to his theory and who frankly acknowledged that 'a fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.' What are today's Darwinists so afraid of?”

Ed Cognoski responds:

The so-called "Darwinists" are not afraid of debate. They've been debating creationists since the time when the creationists had the full power of church and state on their side. That took real courage.

Like Darwin himself, today's scientists understand the need to examine the facts and arguments on both sides of each question. Unlike Darwin, today's scientists have the benefit of 150 years of history of doing just that regarding Darwin's theory of natural selection. Pardon them if they occasionally tire of rehashing the same old creationist objections dressed up in new clothes again and again. Scientists will still debate the creationists now and then, and they are always open to the possibility that the creationists might do some science themselves and put forth something new. But that they don't jump to debate the creationists every time they show up on stage is not a sign scientists are afraid of debate. Sometimes they prefer to let their work in the laboratory do their debating for them. Creationists ought to do more of that themselves instead of baiting scientists to debate them (again).

No warm welcome for adult businesses

Dallas Morning News | Wendy Hundley:

“After weeks of public debate, the Richardson City Council is set to enact strict new regulations for sexually oriented businesses. ... The distance requirements would leave only seven locations ... where strip clubs, adult stores and similar businesses would be allowed. However, there's a catch. The proposed rules allow these businesses only in commercially zoned districts. But none of the seven locations are zoned commercial. ... Richardson resident Randy Smith commends the council for drafting tough regulations for adult businesses. 'They've done a marvelous job of balancing First Amendment rights and limiting them to very narrow areas where they don't infringe upon churches and neighborhoods,' he said. Because courts have ruled that cities must provide some place for these businesses to operate, Richardson homeowner Bernie Mayoff questions whether the proposals would pass judicial muster.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Two months ago, the city council caved to the courts when the council reluctantly proposed zoning changes that would have opened an area of the city to sexually-oriented businesses. They didn't want to do it, but it was necessary to comply with state law. Local media spun the story to look like the city council was inviting sexually-oriented businesses to set up shop in Richardson, and predictably, citizens revolted.

Tonight, the city council is about to cave to the citizens. The proposed new regulations leave no place for sexually-oriented businesses to operate. That Richardson resident Randy Smith can claim this somehow "balances First Amendment rights" is astounding. The truth is that the regulations do on the sly what they don't do in the open — shut sexually-oriented businesses completely out of Richardson in violation of state law. Only if the city actually grants requests for zoning changes might courts accept that the city is complying with the law. And there's no chance homeowners will allow the council to do that.

Bernie Mayoff may not be happy to say it, but he speaks the truth to the citizens of Richardson, even though his message is unpopular. (Maybe that willingness to tell voters the plain facts is why Mr Mayoff wasn't elected when he ran for city council.)

Chalk up only a temporary reprieve for the council members. These regulations have no chance of passing judicial muster. To claim otherwise, the City Council is fooling the homeowners. And that's a shame.

Sen. Shapiro catches flack over 'imam's prayer'

Dallas Blog | Tom Pauken:

“State Senator Florence Shapiro is receiving a lot of criticism from her constituents for 'arranging to have a controversial Muslim imam deliver a prayer to open the state Senate that excluded both Christians and Jews,' reports WorldNetDaily.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

If Christians want to open the government to Christian prayers, they'll just have to accept a few other religions in the door, too. It's a legislative chamber, not a church.

The timing of this story nicely follows recent controversies on Dallas Blog concerning the First Amendment, which some Christian fundamentalists insist on claiming does not "build a wall of separation between church and state", as Thomas Jefferson put it. Well, if there's no wall there at all, then those Christians are going to have a devil of a time keeping those imams out of the hallowed halls of government. Maybe the Christians see the First Amendment as a gate instead of a wall, a gate they can slam shut after they themselves get in. Thomas Jefferson, I suspect, would have no problem with an imam or a priest or a rabbi occasionally opening the legislature with a prayer, as long as the government itself stayed neutral in the debate over who God favors. His "wall" is mainly designed to keep the government from playing favorites, not to keep either Christians or Muslims (or Jews or atheists, for that matter) out of government.

As for the imam's prayer that non-Muslims are excluded from God's favor, I find the sentiment as deplorable as that of Christian preachers who preach that heaven is reserved for those who confess Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. But if you're going to allow one senator to invite a Christian minister to lead prayers in the legislative chambers, you just have to let another senator invite an imam, too. That's the American way.

P.S. World Net Daily is hardly an objective or reliable news source, but it is one of Tom Pauken's favorite sources of "news" for Dallas Blog stories. Thanks to "Elsbeth" for pointing out that it doesn't appear to be so much Sen. Shapiro's constituents who are trying to make an issue here, but a Houston talk radio host and some of his listeners.

Not everyone is longing to be an American

Dallas Morning News | Rod Dreher:

“Rod Dreher rediscovers the lessons of Samuel Huntington's 'The Clash of Civilizations'.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Rod Dreher is 80% there. The trouble with most philosophical journeys is that the last 20% of the journey is the hardest.

Mr. Huntington identifies nine distinct world civilizations and explains why conflict is inevitable given the incompatibility of their core values.

Mr Dreher starts with baby steps, making a point that almost everyone would agree with, Muslim, Christian, fundamentalist or liberal.

... The idea of universal values is 'a distinctive product of Western civilization' and not shared by other civilizations.

Mr Dreher is still on track here, although some of his fundamentalist Christian travel mates might be dropping off along about here. Surely they believe that their values, including the very notion that there are such things as universal values, are not a product of their civilization at all, but God-given values true in all places and for all time.

... Preventing catastrophic war, in Mr. Huntington's view, depends on Westerners accepting that theirs is but one civilization among many and devoting their energies to forging cultural cohesion and renewing a confident commitment to our own traditions within the West.

The ultimate barrier that will keep Mr Dreher from completing his journey comes into sight. Fundamentalist Christians will never accept that theirs is but one civilization among many. It is their calling to spread the Good News, to bring all the world to Christ. So, although they are not inclined to accept Mr Dreher's seeming call for tolerance of diversity in the world, they do welcome his call to forge cultural cohesion in the West. They understand "us" and "them". Mr Dreher is laying out a tactical plan: to battle diversity in the world, you must first eliminate it at home.

... All Mr. Huntington asks us Americans to do is to recognize that our values might be universally true, but they aren't universally shared. There will always be conflict between civilizations, given mutually exclusive values and interests, but conflicts can be managed through diplomacy, imagination and, yes, humility.

Mr Dreher is firmly up against the roadblock. Yes, fundamental Christians know that their own cultural traditions are right and everyone else's are wrong. But because we don't have enough military might to impose our world view and it takes time to persuade everyone of the rightness of our worldview, it's best to smile and say, "nice dog" as we look for a bigger stick, a tactical fallback until we can either tame the beast or beat it into submission.

And that's the end of Mr Dreher's journey, 20% short of his destination. Up front, he gives a nod to the idea of universal values being 'a distinctive product of Western civilization' but he just can't bring himself to accept it. He still believes that his American values are "universally true", just not "universally shared." In other words, although he denies it, he still has that "deeply held belief that inside every human being is an American, waiting to come out." Mr Dreher should be complimented for making it as far as he did. Few Americans undertake the journey at all.

Methodist church turned into mosque in Britain

Dallas Blog | Tom Pauken:

“In the countryside town of Clitheroe, England, a former Methodist church is being turned into a mosque. ... The new mosque in Clitherore, England is expected to remain the same on the outside except for one change: 'the cross at the top will come down'. ”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Meanwhile, in other news, a Burger King in Richardson, Texas, has been turned into a PotBelly Sandwich Works restaurant. What began in 1977 as a small antique store in far-away Chicago has become a fast-growing national restaurant chain with long lines of loyal patrons stopping by to enjoy special sandwiches and homemade desserts. While attendance at the remaining Burger Kings continues to decline and the average age of patrons rises, Potbelly restaurants are well-attended by youthful enthusiasts. Potbelly influence is growing. Richardson may continue to regard itself as a burger community, but Potbelly patrons are likely to outnumber burger eaters in several decades, according to a recent survey by the Beef Council. The new Potbelly Sandwich Works is expected to remain the same on the outside except for one change: "that cartoonish robed king mascot will come down."

P.S. A link to this article was added as a reference to Tom Pauken's story on Dallas Blog. The link was deleted in minutes. Apparently, burger eaters don't have a sense of humor. ;-)

Full Disclosure

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

“Properties are supposed to be appraised at full market value. State law says so. Yet property owners are not required to disclose the price they paid. But wait a minute, you say. Isn't purchase price a pretty significant measure of market value? Yes, it is, and that is why HB 3820 needs to become law. The bill would require commercial and residential property owners to disclose purchase prices for appraisers to use, along with other information, to more accurately value property. ”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Last year, Gov Rick Perry (R-TX) created the so-called Task Force on Appraisal Reform, headed by Tom Pauken. You'd think that full disclosure would be that body's number one reform recommendation, if it truly was focused on appraisal reform. After all, full disclosure is the single best tool appraisers can have to ensure tax equity. Full disclosure eliminates much of the guesswork in the appraisal process that now tends to undervalue rich estates and business property. If those properties are undervalued, the tax burden on middle-class homeowners must go higher to pick up the slack.

There's something that looks something like full disclosure in the task force's recommendations. But it turns out that this recommendation technically doesn't require disclosure of the sales price at all, only the buyer's estimated value, with supporting documentation. A "liar's affidavit" in other words.

How did this happen? Instead of actually trying to improve the appraisal process, the task force instead was used as a cover to target Mr Pauken's and Gov Perry's real aim: capping the growth of local government spending. Maybe that's a good goal. Maybe it isn't. But it isn't appraisal reform.

More and more Texans are realizing that local government is being asked to do more and more with less and less resources. The mood for more tax cutting is less and less favorable. So, the Governor decided that tax cutting now needs to be disguised as appraisal reform in order to get voter support. After all, nobody likes paying higher property taxes, even if it's because of appreciating property values.

Mr Pauken and Gov Perry have shown they understand how politics work. Unfortunately, it's not through full disclosure of their real aims. Otherwise full disclosure of real estate selling prices would be easily passed by the Texas legislature.

For past articles on this subject, see here.