Perry blasts legislature

Dallasblog.com | Will Lutz:

“Gov. Rick Perry held a post session media availability today. He blasted the legislature on the issue of budget transparency, and particularly for not doing more to ensure that dedicated fees are either used for its intended purpose or refunded. He also criticized the failure of the legislature to vote on appraisal caps or bills that would make it easier for taxpayers to order elections to roll back local property tax increases.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

The Perry/Pauken so-called appraisal reform was nothing more than an attempt to shift the burden of taxes from the wealthy to the middle class by upping the sales tax. Legislators who resisted this should be complimented. There are ways to address the unfortunate fact that Texas relies too much on property taxes on private homes, but the Perry/Pauken scheme was not it.

Thank god for philanthropic atheists

DallasNews Religion | Bruce Tomaso:

“A wealthy, retired financier is giving $22.5 million to the Catholic Archdiocese of New York to pay for scholarships for needy, inner-city students. It's the largest donation the archdiocese has ever received. What makes the gift extraordinary, howoever, is not just its size, but also that the donor, 80-year-old Robert W. Wilson, is an atheist.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Ironically, religious schools, because they are not run by the state, have a freedom to promote secular humanism that public schools cannot. Religious schools can uphold reason, ethics, justice, and promote behavior that results in good and happy lives. Such schools can offer courses in philosophy and comparative religion without fear of overstepping First Amendment limits on what public schools can teach. Students will be taught the logic and reasoning skills needed to separate all this from the supernatural and spiritual explanations for good and evil. If the schools do this job well, the now bright students will see through the superstitions. In such cases, I see nothing inherently contradictory with an atheist funding tuition for poor children to attend religious schools. It all depends on the religious schools being good schools and many of them are.

The awe of tradition

Dallas Morning News | Rod Dreher:

“Tired of the happy-clappy modernism taking root in churches? You do have a choice. Find a path to truth through the rites of the past, says Rod Dreher.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

"Happy-clappy modernism?" I'll give Rod Dreher the benefit of the doubt and assume his condescending sub-headline was written by an editor trying to be clever. But the rest of the column is no different. It contains enough put-downs of anyone who doesn't share Mr Dreher's desperate need to find a patriarchal society to subserve himself to that the unknown headline writer may deserve more credit than not.

For Mr Dreher, the ability to achieve holiness and understand truth depends on what language you pray in — it's better if you don't speak the language, and a dead language like Latin is best of all. He says "how breathtaking and exalting the Mass can be when said reverently, using the ancient liturgical language of the church." Whether you understand a word of it or not is apparently unimportant. Maybe the Mass is like a symphony, where the words don't matter.

Mr Dreher recommends embracing a more traditional form of Christianity for the "binding" it gives to the generations of Christians who came before. Like a monk in a monastery, Mr Dreher derives great satisfaction in copying and preserving ancient manuscripts, letter by letter, whether he understands the language or not. I'm reminded of a story a Western traveler in the land of Islam tells about a discussion he had with a Muslim about a finer point of Islam. The Muslim said he was an expert in Islam because he had memorized the entire text of the Quran. But he couldn't cite the chapter and verse that would answer the question at hand because he didn't speak Arabic, the language of the Quran.

Also important to Mr Dreher is "the freedom that comes from not having to reinvent the faith every time the cultural Zeitgeist shifts." Yes, it is so much easier to mindlessly adhere to biblical accounts of history and science and morals no matter what discoveries and advances in science and philosophy and archaeology are made in the meantime. Mr Dreher claims that "if it is to have any weight, tradition must be viewed as the most trustworthy conveyor of religious truth." Instead, it's a lazy, defeatist way of dealing with the complexity of life. Mr Dreher quotes (approvingly, it seems) a New Testament professor, who admits the awful truth, that students considering converting to Orthodoxy "want existential relief from having to decide what to believe among these thousands of denominations with their truth claims." In other words, if it's too hard to reason it out, just accept tradition as truth. Whew, that was easy.

Mr Dreher and those like him repeatedly grow dissatisfied with whatever church they find themselves in, endlessly seeking something new. This time, what's old is new. Orthodoxy is the new fashion. For people like Mr Dreher, religion is like a scented candle: The purpose of its light is to provide a comforting psychological ambience. No, wait. That's supposedly the failing of those churches Mr Dreher is dissatisfied with ... today.

The Midland Midget

Dallasblog.com | Scott Bennett:

“Now I am not one given to personal attacks but Speaker of the Texas House Tom Craddick has earned this exception. Craddick is a 19th Century man of narrow mind and limited intellect who personally has disgraced the State of Texas, the Texas House, the Republican Party, Eagle Scouts (of which he is one) and conservatives (of which he is not one).”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Mr Bennett, I was with you until you said, "Craddick has been such a disaster for the Texas GOP one suspects he is a Democratic mole." This is another variant on the tired old theme that conservatism itself never fails; conservatism is failed. Leininger, Perry, Craddick, et al, didn't fail conservatism or the Republican Party. They ARE conservatism.

The Speaker's Race Emerges

Dallasblog.com | Will Lutz:

“Looks like the regular session of the 80th Legislature will end the same way it began – with a Speaker’s race.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

When was this written? It is stamped Sat, May 26, 2007, 12:42 PM, but it reads more like a week ago and with what happened in Austin Friday night, that's like a century ago.

The opposition to Texas House Speaker Tom Craddick tried to make their motion to vacate the chair; the Speaker refused to recognize them; the Speaker's parliamentarian resigned and with his newly appointed parliamentarian speaking in his ear, the Speaker kept parroting the line that the Speaker's refusal to recognize a motion to vacate the chair is not appealable. Will Lutz tells us that "This insurgency may not succeed, but it has crossed the newsworthiness threshold." Indeed.

The place to have been in the D/FW blogosphere last night as all this unfolded was not Dallas Blog, which prides itself on providing the best state and local news, but none other than The Dallas Morning News blog, Capitol Letters. Dead-tree reporters 1, Snarky newcomers 0.

Legislative sausage continues

DallasNews Religion | Jeffrey Weiss:

“Anyway, so what happened to the bill that would have required time for religious speech by students in public schools (and some other things)? It died. I think.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Not so dead after all. The bill was revived Saturday. HB 3678 will require schools to provide limited public forums that do not discriminate against a student's voluntary expression of a religious viewpoint (if any) on otherwise permissible subjects/topics.

Sounds good, right? It protects students' free speech rights to mention Jesus in, say, a valedictorian address. And if you are a real proselytizer, it might even sound great, because now schools would be forced to give you a forum to praise Jesus. Schools couldn't just eliminate student speeches altogether to avoid controversies.

But be careful what you wish for. You might just get it. Other religions will want in on the game, too. Kids have a way of wanting to stand out. Expect demands for Muslim prayers, gay rights debates, Wiccan lessons, appeals to Jedi masters and "The Force" and who knows what else. And by law, schools shall be forced to provide these forums. If this bill passes, morning announcements, pep rallies, graduation ceremonies all stand to get lots more interesting. Lots.

Hensarling's Calling It Amnesty

Dallasblog.com | Caroline Walker:

“In an e-mail distributed to his constituents today, Congressman Jeb Hensarling outlines his opposition to the Immigration Reform legislation under discussion. Highlights: 'This bill contains a provision that would provide over 12 million illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States with amnesty. This is simply unacceptable.' ”

Ed Cognoski responds:

It will be a long time, if ever, for Hensarling to muster a majority of Congress and a President to agree to hunt down, capture, intern and deport 12 million American residents. The options that leaves are compromise or the status quo. I infer from his e-mail that he prefers the status quo. It may just be within his power to maintain it.

Bone to pick with mail carrier

Dallas Morning News | Steve Blow:

“Here's my question: Do dogs recognize postal supervisors? And is there some sort of professional courtesy between them? That's the only logical explanation I can come up with for a crazy situation that has developed on a street in East Dallas.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Almost forever now, the smart asses at other Dallas news outlets like Frontburner and Dallas Blog have skewered Steve Blow for his homespun, folksy manner. Generally, I've defended him, arguing that there is a market for that, even if it's not on their own snarky Web pages.

But I swear, sometimes Steve Blow makes it hard. It's almost as if he's daring critics to take potshots at him. If I wanted to write a parody of a Steve Blow column, I don't think I could do better than his column today about a letter carrier in East Dallas and her run-ins with dogs.

It's a tired truism that in the news business, dog-bites-man is not news, but man-bites-dog is. So, in classic Steve Blow style, he gives us a dog-bites-man story. With an oh-so-cute headline. There's even this masterpiece of investigative journalism:

Out of curiosity, I made a couple of unannounced visits to the street — once in the morning and once in the afternoon. I strolled the block and didn't see or hear a single dog.

Sorry, Steve. You're on your own this time. This newspaper column dropped on front lawns all over Dallas this morning is a clear violation of Dallas' pooper-scooper law. Someone should call 3-1-1.

Legislative inaction on property tax reform

Dallasblog.com | Tom Pauken:

“I am not sure that our elected officials in Austin and Washington are aware of the growing disconnect between the people who pay the taxes and those who run our government. Isn't it time we got back to representing the 'forgotten Americans', the middle class taxpayers and homeowners who don't have lobbyists down in Austin or up in Washington, but just want to be treated fairly and who are tired of being ignored by our elected officials. I think the time has come for a grassroots, property tax revolt here in Texas. Count me in for the battle.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Tom Pauken presents a laundry list of measures that his so-called Task Force on Appraisal Reform recommended to the Texas legislature, recommendations that the legislature has failed to act on. He forgets one of his recommendations, sales price disclosure, because getting accurate appraisals was never the goal, despite the task force name. Cutting taxes was the goal. (Cutting property taxes anyway; he doesn't mind if regressive sales taxes go up.) Handicapping local government was the means to achieve his goal.

Tom Pauken talks of "the growing disconnect between the people who pay the taxes and those who run our government." If this is indeed a problem, there is a simple solution - it's called elections. If Tom Pauken doesn't like the representatives that the voters choose to represent them, let him try to convince voters to elect him instead. Texans don't need unelected task forces run by unelected bureaucrats like Tom Pauken dictating how to run our cities and school boards.

The rule of law

DallasMorningViews | Rod Dreher:

“A federal judge has temporarily suspended the Farmers Branch ordinance. Judge Sam Lindsay ruled that only the federal government has the right to determine who is and who isn't in the United States legally. ... Assuming that the judge's ruling is upheld, what do you predict the political fallout is going to be? I predict that communities like Farmers Branch will realize that they are essentially powerless to stop the invasion. Many longtime residents in those communities will do two things: 1) they will sell out and move, and 2) they will be so angry that the federal judiciary is taking the side of illegal immigrants that a wave of angry, anti-government populism will profoundly change American politics. That, and 3) the American news media will continue to portray these people as simple-minded racists who deserve our scorn.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

1) Farmers Branch (along with many North Texas communities) has been trending Hispanic for decades. Partly that's due to illegal immigration, partly to legal immigration, partly to high birthrates, and partly to white flight. Neither this law nor the striking down of this law will have any noticeable effect on the decades-long trend.

2) Many longtime residents in Farmers Branch are already angry at the federal judiciary. Republicans have benefited from this anger for decades. But there are signs that the conservative movement has crested. I don't see the Farmers Branch decision changing the downward direction of that curve. And if this Democratic Congress and this Republican President pass some form of comprehensive immigration reform package, the issue fades away for another decade or two, just like after another Republican President signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.

3) Not all the anti-immigration fervor in Farmers Branch and not all the white flight from Farmers Branch is motivated by racism. So what? It doesn't change all that is wrong with this ordinance. The ordinance violates federal law (which is the likely determination of the court challenge). It's impractical (landlords have to become immigration officials). It's unfair (immigrants are still welcome to work and eat and spend money in Farmers Branch; they just can't sleep there).

Many in the anti-immigration camp think the solution is as simple as building an impenetrable wall along the border. They don't acknowledge that millions of the illegal immigrants living in America entered the country perfectly legally and overstayed their visas. Millions. Those who think a fence is the answer may not be simple-minded racists. Well, not racists anyway. But they are simply wrong.

There He Goes Again

Dallasblog.com | William Murchison:

“ 'Pot calling the kettle black' is how we might feel tempted to characterize Jimmy Carter's embarrassing assault on George W. Bush and Tony Blair for their part in liberating Iraq: 'overt reversal of America's values,' 'abominable,' 'subservient,' blah, blah, blah.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

It's sad that William Murchison has to resort to attacking Jimmy Carter's reputation in order to keep George W Bush from sinking to the bottom of the barrel. If it's any consolation, James Buchanan has the title of "worst President" pretty much to himself, no matter how much George W Bush has tried to do to deserve it himself.

Marriage Getting More Expensive in Texas

Dallasblog.com | Will Lutz:

“It just got a little bit harder to tie the knot in Texas , or more expensive. HB 2685 by Rep. Warren Chisum (R-Pampa) would require every couple to seek state-sanctioned marriage counseling before obtaining a marriage license.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Because the state's role in a marriage is just to give state sanction to a legal contract, requiring the signers of that contract to know something about the legal obligations they are are committing themselves to might be a wise idea.

Maybe the state should extend this, requiring a little legal education before people sign high-interest rate credit card agreements or home mortgages, or other common pitfalls for the common man.

Papal foot in mouth?

DallasNews Religion | Bruce Tomaso: "

“John L. Allen Jr. of National Catholic Reporter writes that during his Brazil trip, Pope Benedict XVI needlessly angered indigenous groups by saying that the arrival of Christianity did not amount to 'the imposition of a foreign culture' upon the native peoples of the New World. ... Allen cites many examples over the years where the pope's rhetoric could have been more effective had he just chosen a few words more carefully.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

As Allen says, "Benedict is an exceptionally lucid communicator." Why does anyone think that he doesn't mean what he says, whether it's condemning Mohammed for bringing only things that are evil and inhuman into the world, or whether it's dictating to foreign elected officials how they must vote on abortion laws, or whether it's his view that the European conquest of the Americas wasn't a case of imposing a foreign culture? In all these cases, the "clarifications" issued later by the Pope's small army of aides do not contradict what the Pope said. They only fudge the language to make it arguable that the Pope meant something else. It's more likely that this lucid communicator says exactly what he means and means what he says.

Regressive Reform

Texas Observer Blog | Matthew C Wright:

“Now here’s a bill that deserves to slip through the cracks, never to see the governor’s pen, as the session nears the finish line: SB 407, allowing local voters to approve a reduction in property taxes offset by an increase in the sales tax. ... The faith-based group Texas Impact explains: 'SB 407 represents a continuing shift away from taxes based on wealth onto taxes linked to consumption, which inherently puts a greater burden on lower- and middle-income working families.' ”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Mr Wright and Texas Impact have it exactly right. The result of this bill would be a more regressive tax system. The wealthy would benefit the most. The poor and middle-class would end up paying more in taxes. The reason this can be sold to the public at all is because that property tax bill that arrives in your mailbox every year is very visible and very painful. Sales taxes, on the other hand, nickel and dime you to death, rarely big enough to notice or hurt.

Still, I really can't bring myself to fight this proposed bill. It doesn't actually swap property taxes for sales taxes. It only empowers local governments to do that, with approval of local voters. Empowering voters is, in general, a good thing. Yes, those voters can sometimes be persuaded by demagogues to do stupid things. But dictators do stupid things, too. If I have to live with stupid rules (and sometimes, I'm afraid, that's just what we're doomed to do), I'd rather live with the stupid rules imposed by my neighbors and myself than those imposed by Austin or Washington.

So, I won't lobby for this bill, but I won't be too vocal in my opposition, either. I'll save my opposition for those local referenda, if and when they come, that propose to swap the property taxes on the wealthy for those sales taxes on the poor and middle-class.

Dobson gives Giuliani two big thumbs down

DallasNews Religion | Bruce Tomaso:

“James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, says he cannot vote for Republican Rudy Giuliani, who is seeking his party's presidential nomination. Stressing that he was speaking as a private citizen, and not in behalf of Focus on the Family, Dobson called Giuliani an 'unapologetic supporter of abortion on demand.' He criticized Giuliani for favoring same-sex partner benefits.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Republicans are cleaving on the wedge issues they exploited so well to win elections for a generation - abortion, guns, God, gays. Democrats, on the other hand, are seemingly united. But there's a bigger issue that can still split the Democrats, too, and that's Iraq. There are 18 months until the election, a long time for Democrats to get impatient with failed attempts to budge President Bush from his disastrous "stay the course" strategy. When that impatience boils over, it'll be Democrats blaming each other for ineffectiveness. Giuliani's stand on abortion and McCain's stand on gay marriage will be page 2 news.

Gonzales' "ignore everything" strategy is still working

Dallas Morning News | Carl Leubsdorf:

“Outwardly, the attorney general's success in outlasting his critics might indicate that Mr. Bush hasn't lost his clout, despite diminished popularity stemming mainly from the Iraq war. But it may also reflect the fact that the president has little to gain from ousting Mr. Gonzales in terms of bolstering his public standing or clout on Capitol Hill. ”

Ed Cognoski responds:

... or little to gain in terms of defending himself and his administration from the Congressional and legal probes into their many suspect practices over the last six years. And that might be the biggest reason to keep a "loyal Bushie" like Alberto Gonzales around — to stonewall anyone looking into possible illegalities in this White House.

Carl Leubsdorf is right that the President won't get another "loyal Bushie" confirmed if Atty Gen Gonzales goes. The legal probes won't go away, especially if the replacement shows any independence and loyalty to the Constitution. President Bush won't regain clout on Capitol Hill. Lame ducks never do, and lame ducks as wounded as President Bush is certainly won't.

There's only one reason why President Bush might consider jettisoning Alberto Gonzales. And that's to shore up the 2008 election outlook for Republicans whose prospects are looking bleaker all the time. That President Bush is turning his back on his party is the final indictment of his Presidency. Karl Rove ("Bush's brain") was famously described as seeking to build a permanent Republican majority. In his final days, we see that George W Bush didn't share that goal. Surviving another 18 months in office is as far as his vision extends.

Saying "No" to illegal immigration

Dallasblog.com | William Murchison:

“I speak as one less in tune with America’s large let’s-fence-off-the-border constituency than with those who see the need for regular replenishment of a labor force diminished by the effects of, among other things, abortion-on-demand.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Where's the demand coming from for illegal immigration? According to Mr Murchison, it's the need for "regular replenishment of a labor force diminished by the effects of abortion-on-demand." Remember that the next time you can't find someone to clean your bathroom.

"Keep our Lawns Mowed — Stop Abortion Now"

Smile, I'm on red-light camera

FrontBurner | Trey Garrison:

“I guess we all saw this coming. After more than a year of complaining about the red-light camera scam, they finally got me. Dead to rights. But what a scam. I'm to pay $75 to the city of Plano.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

I'd like to think Trey Garrison is speaking with his tongue planted firmly in cheek. He admits to running a red light. He admits to putting other drivers' safety at risk. He admits to getting caught, fairly and squarely. He admits to being given all the information needed to contest the citation. But he still calls it a scam. Why?

Because the fine isn't large enough for him to fight. As if the size of the fine is really what's at stake here. As if opponents of red light camera enforcement would not have considered it a "scam" if the fine had been set at $300 instead of $75. If Mr Garrison has evidence that cities chose the size of the fine to maximize revenue, let him produce it. Otherwise, he ought to quit complaining and pay his deserved penalty. When you're caught with your hand in the cookie jar is a bad time to complain about the unfairness of life. It's a good time to pledge to stop at red lights in future.

There are those who see running red lights as a threat to public safety and those who see it as harmless. There are those who want to enhance law enforcement's ability to catch and punish offenders and those who don't. There are those who get caught and learn their lesson and those who get caught and whine about a "scam" and broadcast a call for lawyers to "throw a wrench into the works." It's people like that who give lawyers a bad name. No tongue in cheek here, either.

Farmers Branch referendum

DallasMorningViews | Rod Dreher:

“On yesterday's local TV news, I saw [Farmers Branch] talking heads who had their heads handed to them by voters saying that they're just going to take this to court now and let the legal system sort it out. They might prevail, but if they do, they will have managed to overturn a popular referendum by getting a judge to govern from the bench. Can you imagine how well that will play with voters? Note that I'm making a political point here: that because the pro-illegal crowd decided to call a public referendum on the question, and lost badly, the only hope they have of pulling out a victory is completely anti-democratic.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

There are a lot of assumptions in this blog item.

Rod Dreher says a lawsuit would be "getting a judge to govern from the bench". Does the US Constitution not apply in Farmers Branch? Or only if the residents agree it does? When laws conflict, isn't it the courts' responsibility to sort out the conflict? If the courts decide the US Constitution trumps a local ordinance in Farmers Branch, Texas, is that governing from the bench? What if the courts decide that local referenda trump the Constitution? Would ignoring Constitutional protections (should they exist) not be "governing from the bench", as well? There's a way to change the Constitution and it's not through local referenda. And it's not "anti-democratic" to say we have courts to sort out just such conflicts about our laws.

Rod Dreher describes those who opposed this referendum as the "pro-illegal crowd." What if it turns out that the courts rule this ordinance unconstitutional, making the ordinance itself illegal? Would that make this a dispute between those who are pro-illegal aliens and those who are pro-illegal ordinances? And what of those who opposed this ordinance on other grounds? Does one have to be "pro-illegal" in order to be against the city of Farmers Branch spending hundreds of thousands of local tax dollars defending itself against a matter that some might feel is a federal matter, and some might feel is a losing cause regardless? Of course not, but Rod Dreher paints all opponents with the same broad "pro-illegal" brush.

Rod Dreher gets one thing right, but he borrowed that from FrontBurner's Trey Garrison. From a purely public relations point of view, the opponents of this referendum weren't thinking far enough ahead when they decided to name their organized effort Let the Voters Decide. Trey Garrison asks:

"Say, if your group's name is Let the Voters Decide should you really plan on lawsuits when the vote doesn't go your way? IJS."

Romney quotes the Bible

DallasNews Religion | Bruce Tomaso:

“Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is citing Scripture to defend his oppositon to gay marriage.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

It'll be interesting to see how long Gov Romney is going to be given a free pass. It's considered politically incorrect to ask a candidate to defend his faith, even if the candidate himself wears his faith on his sleeve and quotes Scripture to defend his positions on civil law. Besides, most Americans don't have a clue what's in the Book of Mormon and that includes reporters who otherwise might ask embarrassing questions of Gov Romney.

"OK, candidates, a show of hands. How many of you believe Jesus traveled to America after his resurrection and preached to some refugees of the Tower of Babel who were then living in Palmyra, New York? ... Anyone? Anyone? Is your hand up, Governor Romney? Good, then. Can you stand over there with the three candidates who don't believe in evolution?"

Let the games begin

FrontBurner | Trey Garrison:

“At this moment, here's the breakdown: Leppert with 28 percent, Oakley with 20.8 percent, and Don Hill with 14.4 percent. If this is the runoff three, then let's hope it's either Leppert or Hill in the end.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Runoff three? Three?!? Hint to Trey Garrison... you won't be needing those Don Hill campaign signs in the runoff election.

P.S. OK, let's cut him some slack. It was late, election night was long, and he corrected his temporary brain freeze.

Mormons: Christians, or not?

Crunchy Con | Rod Dreher:

“Obviously Mormons believe in God, or at least a god. [The Rev Al Sharpton's comment about Gov Mitt Romney] does raise a more interesting question, though, which is what I think Sharpton was getting at: Are Mormons Christian? ”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Why is the question whether Mormons are Christian somehow interesting, whereas the question whether Mormons believe in God absurd? I suspect Rod Dreher calls Al Sharpton a "boob" not because of this question, but because of Mr Dreher's opinion of the Rev Sharpton's past history.

For many Christians, the two questions are one and the same. Christians believe that there is one and only one God. That God is Christ. It's no more absurd to ask whether Mormons believe in God than to ask if they believe in and worship Jesus Christ, who is God. Some Christians deny that Jews believe in God because they reject the divinity of Christ. Some Christians deny that Muslims believe in God because they reject the divinity of Christ. The theology is simple. Arrogant, maybe, as it assumes a monopoly on truth, but, still, simple. If the question whether Mormons are Christian is interesting, so is the question whether Mormons believe in God.

In any case, the debate reminds me of historical debates over who is and isn't African-American. The old "one drop of blood" rule was one outcome of that debate. Modern scientists no longer find "race" to be a meaningful scientific classification. The human genome is too complex, the human population too diverse, for there to be clear dividing lines. Religion may not be quite as muddled, but the same complexity is at work. There are similarities and differences between Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Protestantism, Mormonism, etc. Comparing and contrasting the various traditions is useful. But arbitrarily ruling which traditions are to be granted official status as "Christian" and which are not, is not useful. Like the racial debates of the past, such a question is intended more to divide, discriminate and exclude than it is to achieve anything that Christ himself was interested in.

Democrats starting to set their sights on Cornyn

Dallas Morning News | Carl Leubsdorf:

“For the first time in years, Democrats think they can wage a competitive Senate race in Texas when John Cornyn seeks a second term next year.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

No way will Democrats unseat John Cornyn. Speculation that they can ought not worry Republicans in Texas, but it ought to worry Republicans nationwide big time. For if Democrats are feeling so strong that they even entertain the notion of knocking off a senator in the President's deep red state of Texas, you just know that races throughout the rest of the country are beginning to fall the Democrats' way. But it's a long way to November, 2008. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

Why two standards for good and evil?

MySA.com | Jonathan Gurwitz:

“Invariably in politics, someone comes along to declare that his party has a monopoly on virtue while the opposition has the sin syndicate. And invariably in public discourse today, the presumption is that conservatives are dirty, rotten scoundrels while liberals are pious, incorruptible angels.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Jonathan Gurwitz rehashes every criticism and scandal of the past quarter century. The Democratic "sins" should come as no surprise to anyone who wasn't on the dark side of the moon for that whole time. It's all there, Carter's ties to "money-laundering, terrorist-financing Bank of Credit and Commerce International", Bill Clinton's Monica Lewinsky scandal, John Edwards' $400 haircut, Bill Richardson's exaggerated Major League Baseball resume, and Barack Obama's real estate deals. None of this has exactly been swept under the rug by the media. Yet Jonathan Gurwitz brazenly claims that it's Republicans who are singled out for criticism. He ought to reread his own column for evidence that it just isn't so.

National politics is a blood sport that makes little distinction between political parties. All politicians in the public eye are fair game. Jonathan Gurwitz, playing up Republicans as victims, just took a few potshots at Democrats himself.

Gov. Perry's gun position reminiscent of Archie Bunker

Pegasus News | Larry James:

“Last week, Texas Governor Rick Perry told us that he thinks anyone who is licensed to carry a gun in Texas should be able to carry it anywhere, including to church, in a bar or a courthouse. ... Sort of reminds me of Archie Bunker's strategy to end airline high jacking in the 1970s: 'When passengers board, just pass out the 45s and no one will have a problem.' ”

Ed Cognoski responds:

One problem would be exchanged for another. The number of hijackings might go down. The number of mass murders, like at Virginia Tech, might go down. But the number of heated arguments that end up in murder would probably go up. Whether society would be better off is debatable.

But if we're going to go down this route anyway, we ought to at least consider an approach that I haven't seen discussed anywhere. The Second Amendment states,

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Gun-rights advocates play this as their trump card whenever gun control regulations are proposed. Gun-control advocates usually raise the opening clause about a well regulated militia, but that never is enough to blunt the plain wording at the heart of the amendment.

I propose an approach that plays to both arguments. Because the Constitution clearly says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, we ought to let people keep and bear arms. Period.

At the same time, I propose that we implement that part about a well regulated militia. The states let their militias disband and disappear a century or more ago. Maybe the Constitution doesn't require that our government organize militias, but it certainly warns us that our security is at risk without one. There is certainly no Constitutional barrier to re-establishing militias as an integral part of modern society.

So, how about requiring all US citizens, all of us, join a militia, be given regular firearms skills and safety training, and be assigned regular duty protecting the Republic against all threats, foreign and domestic? Militia duty might include a requirement to periodically bear guns, very visibly, in public places as a deterrent to those who might threaten our security, with a beneficial side effect of augmenting law enforcement as well.

Because many people might be unwilling to perform such duty, we could grant exemptions to any citizen who does not own a gun. After all, there would be little need for gun training if you neither own a gun nor ever intend to bear one.

This proposal addresses all the usual arguments. It doesn't infringe on the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms. It ensures that Americans are well trained in gun use and safety (at least those Americans who care to exercise their right to own guns). And it restores the Militia that our Founders warned us is necessary to the security of a free state. What's not to like?

Marriage - Who Needs It?

Dallasblog.com | Caroline Walker:

“There are two pretty simple things we could tell young women right now that would practically guarantee their upward mobility: 1) Finish school, and 2) delay childbearing until you have a spouse with whom to set up house.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

I don't know what planet the conservative Caroline Walker lives on, but on planet Earth liberals have been advocating that advice for as long as I can remember. Maybe she is upset because liberals also concern themselves with women who are struggling because maybe they didn't finish school or ended up as single mothers, for whatever reason.

Caroline Walker criticizes a forum on "The Feminization of Poverty" because it seriously discussed the increasing rate of poverty experienced by single women. For the likes of Caroline Walker, the solution is simple — find a man to save you. She calls this "strengthening marriage". She has no use for those who concern themselves with women victimized by abusive husbands or women raising a family abandoned by their father. She has no use for those whose focus is on engineering equality for women. She dismisses the goal of a society that grants equality to women as being nothing more than "a plumbers' union comprised equally of men and women." For her, marriage is one-sided in favor of the man. In her world, equality for women is a threat to family. She should not be surprised why this notion never comes up at an event dedicated to the empowerment of women. It's because many people no longer believe that a man is the solution to every problem a woman might have or that marriage has to be an unequal partnership. At least people on this planet no longer believe that.

Baptist Standard follows up on Kimball controversy

DallasNews Religion | Sam Hodges:

“Charles Kimball is the Wake Forest professor and author who spoke at a Texas Baptist conference in February. His comment that Christianity and Islam talk about the same God has gradually become controversial within state Baptist circles.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

In the beginning, Abraham and his family worshipped God, and it was good. After begatting upon begatting, Abraham's descendents moved apart and grew apart in their understanding and memory of God. Eventually, these micro changes reached a point where the descendents of Abraham could no longer have theological intercourse with fertile result. Cumulative micro changes had resulted in divine speciation. Yahweh, Jesus, Allah were the common names given to the new species of supreme beings worshipped by the children of God. God saw this and was not pleased. But scientists nodded their heads knowingly.*

* This lesson of evolution was unwittingly made possible by the Baptist General Convention of Texas.

Unlike the religious, they can't threaten one other with eternal damnation

DallasNews Religion | Bruce Tomaso:

“Christopher Orlet, writing in the opinion pages of The Wall Street Journal, observes that there's now a sectarian split among... atheists. There are 'soft atheists,' he explains, those who want to quietly, inoffensively not believe; and 'fundamentalist atheists,' those who are 'passionately antireligious' and want to let everyone know it.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Atheism will never be organized, let alone unified. Atheism is defined not by what a person believes, but by what he does not believe. It makes no more sense to organize a church of atheism than it would to organize a church of non-believers of unicorns or leprechauns or the tooth fairy or the flying spaghetti monster. There would be an infinite number of such churches for the non-believers to join. Why set up a special one for non-believers in omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent supreme beings who care deeply and personally about my sex life?

Honeymoon over for laptop learning?

Dallasblog.com | Caroline Walker:

“A story by Winnie Hu in Friday’s New York Times should serve as a cautionary tale for true believers in the miracle of high-tech classrooms. The Liverpool Central School District, just outside of Syracuse, New York, is scrapping its cutting-edge laptop program. ... What school districts like Liverpool’s are discovering is that one-to-one laptop learning doesn’t come anywhere near to measuring up to the hype that preceded it.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Those who thought laptops were going to unleash an education miracle were duped. And those who think that you can turn back the clock on high tech in the classrooms are equally wrong. Computers are a tool, just like calculators were a tool, and slide rules before that. Students who are taught how to use tools wisely will surpass those who are kept from learning how to use tools at all. The sooner the so-called experts in the media realize that, the sooner we can put such sophomoric, all-or-nothing debates behind us and children in the classrooms can benefit from the best that high tech can offer.

By the way, if you think you might have missed the Dallas Blog coverage of the related story of the study that shows that abstinence-only sex education also "doesn't come anywhere near to measuring up to the hype that preceded it", you didn't miss anything. Dallas Blog picks and chooses the stories it covers to fit its preconceived notion of what the world should be, not the world as it is.

Senate backs tax swap

Dallas Morning News | Terrence Stutz:

“Texas cities and counties would each be able to increase their sales tax rates one-fourth cent to reduce property taxes under legislation passed by the Senate on Friday – the first bill of the 2007 session that aims to offer relief from soaring property taxes.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Everyone seems happy that property tax relief is in sight. No one seems to be paying enough attention to sales tax burden that is about to hit. This bill doesn't lower overall taxes one bit. It only shifts the tax burden from property taxes to sales taxes. Any such shift has winners and losers. The winners are the property rich. The losers are the property poor. Sales taxes tend to be regressive; the poor are hit harder than the rich. Property taxes tend to be progressive; the rich are hit harder than the poor. Property taxes are very visible. Each year, you receive a (big) tax bill that hurts to pay. Sales taxes nibble away at you, a little at a time, each hit too small to notice, but the cumulative effect can more than offset any property tax relief that the poor and middle-class will receive from a tax shift.

In short, be careful of the tax relief you ask for, you just might get it.

Overnight ratings for the Republicans

The Republican candidates for President "debated" Thursday evening at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California. In fact, it was more like a game show lightning round than a debate. Just about everything about the format was wrong. There were too many contestants (sorry, I just didn't see them as candidates). They were given too little time to answer (30 seconds). The questions were unimaginative and unchallenging. And unfairly distributed (throw softballs to some; keep throwing high and inside to McCain about Iraq). And some were just plain weird (asking the Mormon a question about Catholicism, for example).

Here, for those who missed the debate, is my condensed version. Not much of substance has been left out. Trust me.

• America's Mayor Giuliani, tell us how much you are like Ronald Reagan. ("Lots")
• Senator McCain, the public just hates Iraq. Why do you insist on dragging out the war? ("Grumble, grumble, gates of hell, grumble")
• Governor Romney, would you care to tell us how much you, too, are just like Reagan? ("Lots")
• President Bush, uh, I mean Senator McCain, back to you. How soon will you expand the war to Iran? ("Soon")
• Mayor Giuliani, same question. ("Reagan made the Iranians piss their pants in two seconds. Can I say again how much I'm like Reagan? Lots")
• Governor Romney, what kind of guy is Osama bin Laden. ("Bad")
• Mayor Giuliani, what kind of people are Christian conservatives? ("Good")
• Governor Romney, tell us about America's mountains and streams and how great the American people are. ("Great")
• Congressman Ron Paul, is the IRS bad? ("Yes")
• All of you, what do you think about abortion? ("Bad", "Bad", "Bad", "Bad, but it's a state matter", "Bad")
• Governor Romney, did you flip-flop? ("No, I changed my mind")
• Governor Thompson, Governor Huckabee, Congressman Tancredo, Congressman Hunter, Governor Gilmore, Senator Brownback, and any other potted plants I might have missed, I'm sorry but we don't have time for you. We will be giving you the home edition of MSNBC Presidential Debates for you to take with you tonight. Thanks for playing. We'll be back in a minute to talk to tonight's winner, former Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee.

Listening to God is an American Tradition

Dallas Blog | Jeff Turner:

“Revolutionary War hero Rev. Ethan Allen recorded an instructive incident he had with President [Thomas] Jefferson. The President was walking one Sunday morning carrying a large red prayer book. Rev. Allen greeted him and inquired which way he was walking. The President answered, 'To church, sir.' Rev. Allen was surprised, 'You going to church, Mr. Jefferson. You do not believe a word of it.' The President offered this bit of wisdom: 'Sir, no nation has ever yet existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has ever been given to man and I, as chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example. Good morning, Sir.'”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Instructive incident, indeed. There is much we can learn from this apocryphal story. The story appeared in Historical Sketch of Washington Parish, Washington City, 1794-1857, by Reverend Ethan Allen (1796-1897).

First, is the story true? According to the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, which owns and operates Jefferson's home, Monticello:

"This is a sticky one, since Jefferson was supposedly overheard saying this, rather than having written it. ... Reverend Allen would have been a child at the time this statement was supposedly uttered, and the anecdote actually came to the Reverend through the filter of several other people. We remain skeptical of its authenticity."

Chris Rodda, at Talk to Action, explains further:

"What we have is the account of two men who heard a story about an encounter between Jefferson and a stranger that occurred when they were children, recalling this story over fifty years later - hardly a primary source. Nevertheless, the words allegedly uttered by Jefferson have become a popular Jefferson quote, misrepresented in various ways on religious right websites, in their books, and even in amicus briefs filed in several court cases - most recently the McCreary County, Kentucky ten commandments case, heard by the Supreme Court in 2005, in which the quote was claimed to be found not in Rev. Allen's third-hand account of an unsubstantiated story, but in a letter from Jefferson to Allen."

That last part about misrepresenting where the story comes from is fitting. Because Jeff Turner, in his own Dallas Blog posting, claims the story was told by "Revolutionary War hero Rev. Ethan Allen." The Rev. Ethan Allen who wrote down this third-hand story wasn't even born until more than a decade after the Revolutionary War ended and didn't record the story until more than a half century after that. Obviously, Mr Turner is confusing one Ethan Allen with another. And it wasn't even the latter Ethan Allen who had that "instructive incident" with President Jefferson. It was an unidentified stranger who supposedly recounted it to two boys who, fifty years later, recounted it to the Rev. Allen. This incident is instructive alright. It teaches us how little to trust right wing religious advocates in search of a good quote.

Last, but not least, it takes audacity to choose Thomas Jefferson, spurious quotations or not, in support of the 56th annual national Day of Prayer. It's no coincidence that such an observance wasn't established until over a century after Jefferson himself was no longer alive to comment. Can you imagine a President Jefferson speaking instead of President Bush, perhaps repeating this famous Jefferson opinion about Christianity?

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter."

Banned books

DallasNews Religion | Bruce Tomaso:

“Here's a story by Ron Grossman of the Chicago Tribune, about a Loyola University exhibit of books that were once on the Catholic Church's 'Index Librorum Prohibitorum,' or list of banned works. The list was created in 1557 by Pope Paul IV. 'Virtually all the giants of early modern science wound up on the Index, as is represented in the Loyola exhibit,' Grossman writes. 'The show includes several volumes of the works of Copernicus, the Polish astronomer who held that the Earth revolves around the Sun. The church taught that the reverse was true, a theory seemingly backed by the biblical account.' ”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Last week at a Vatican conference, Cardinal Renato Martino said global warming was natural and good for us. The Index may be gone, but anti-science attitudes still thrive among the ultra-religious. Old habits die hard, I guess.