Hillary Suggests $5,000 Baby Bonds

Dallasblog.com | Sam Merten:

“During a forum hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus Friday, Hillary Clinton suggested every child born in the U.S. should get a $5,000 "baby bond" from the government. ... Clinton offered no suggestion as to how she would pay for the program.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Mr Merten does put his finger on the problem with this proposal. Ironically, this is one big government handout that actually comes close to "paying for itself", which is how conservatives defended tax cut after tax cut during the historic Bush reversal of balanced budgets into the biggest deficits in our country's history. The theory was that tax cuts stimulated the economy, generating more business activity. Overall tax revenues would then rise even when rates are cuts. It didn't work out that way, but it was a great theory for winning votes.

Senator Clinton's proposal, if targeted solely at paying for higher education, could, in fact, pay for itself in higher lifetime earnings, and taxes, for those who otherwise would not be able to afford higher education. In an increasingly competitive world economy, increasing the skills of the workforce is the only way the United States can maintain its advantages. Senator Clinton's proposal deserves serious consideration.

Catholic or not, Americans like Benedict

DallasNews Religion | Bruce Tomaso:

“Roughly three-quarters of us (73 percent) have a favorable opinion of Pope Benedict XVI, according to a new survey from the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

I can't believe 10% of Americans can even name who the Pope is. If anything, they might vaguely recall a stylish clotheshorse in red Prada loafers. On further thought, never mind. I think I understand the favorable ratings now.

P.S. Mr Tomaso responds, reasonably, "I can't believe that 10 percent would know what a Prada loafer is."

So, if Americans can't identify the pope and don't remember his red Prada loafers, then to what do we credit such high approval ratings for this pope?

Digging into the poll results themselves, I see that an important qualifier was left out of the story, which says that "based on those able to rate each pope", 73% have a favorable opinion. I suspect if Pew limited responses further, to those who could even name the Pope, the sample size would have been too small to publish.

Over The Hill Legacy

Dallasblog.com | Peggy Venable:

“[Fred] Hill had been controversial in recent years for his opposition to taxpayer protections and widely criticized in Republican circles for advocating for government officials over taxpayers. He opposed lowering appraisal caps and opposed taxpayers having opportunity to vote when government revenues increase.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Fred Hill, retiring from the Texas legislature, represents what the Republican Party used to stand for. Peggy Venable distorts his positions. He supports local taxpayers and their local government. She supports imposing still more regulations from Austin on cities and school boards. He represents local solutions for local problems. She represents solutions imposed by Austin. Sadly, the Republican Party she represents has lost its way.

Symptomatically, she quotes Rep. Hill to illustrate public policy that he stood for and that the state Republican Party now opposes:

"Local governments get no support from Austin but have to shoulder the burden of mandates passed by the Legislature. The best government is local government, not central government. Local elected officials know what's best for their communities."

Can you believe it's a Republican, Peggy Venable, who criticizes this viewpoint? It's Alice-in-Wonderland time in the Republican Party. The inmates have taken over the asylum.

Gov Perry's and Tom Pauken's so-called appraisal reform task force tried to foist state government "solution" on local government. Gov Perry and Tom Pauken and Peggy Venable do not know what's best for Richardson or Dallas or Del Rio or Lufkin. They should quit trying to tell local city councils and school boards how to deal with local problems. Local taxpayers elect friends and neighbors to best represent them in local matters. Let them do their jobs. Republicans used to know this. Fred Hill is one of the few who still does. He will be missed.

P.S. Tom Pauken continues to block me from posting comments on Dallas Blog. Censorship of opposing political viewpoints is another policy that Republicans have lost their way on.

Harassing School Children

FrontBurner | Trey Garrison:

“Aaaand with that I shed the last vestiges of sympathy for the anti-illegal immigrant crowd. It's funny. It wasn't the arguments put forward by the pro-illegal immigrant side that changed my mind. It was, to a significant degree, the actions of the anti-illegal alien crowd that turned me off.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Mr Garrison is referring to a Dallas Morning News report that Farmer's Branch City Council has asked the school district for names and addresses of all schoolchildren, failing to explain why it wants this information, which some speculate is related to the city council's opposition to illegal immigration.

Mr Garrison is slow, but he's finally waking up. Others never had sympathy for the "anti-illegal immigrant crowd" who were always more about harassment than law enforcement. At least Mr Garrison is bright enough to figure it out for himself, even if he was too closed-minded to understand this when others pointed it out.

Maybe that's related to the way Mr Garrison characterizes those in opposition to Tim O'Hare and the Farmers Branch City Council. He calls them the "pro-illegal immigrant side." I don't know of anyone who is "pro-illegal" anything. Everyone recognizes that illegal immigration is a problem. The disagreement is over how to deal with the problem. Mr Garrison now finds himself in opposition to Farmers Branch actions. Does that make him "pro-illegal immigrant?" Hardly. And he shouldn't continue to characterize others that way, either.

Does Race Matter in Teaching?

Dallasblog.com | Caroline Walker:

“Multiculturalism may deepen ethnic attachments, but it thrives on reinforcing differences, adjusting standards, limiting identity to a narrow concept of racial affiliation. Multiculturalism says that only black teachers can reach black kids. It says that for literature to have value, it need only reflect our own experiences. It says we can’t learn.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

I don't know where Ms Walker got her definition of multiculturalism, but it's about 180 degrees from the truth. She supplies several anecdotes of incidents where the Dallas Independent School District lacks diversity and somehow pins the blame on ... multiculturalism? She's dead wrong about multiculturalism.

In fact, multiculturalism doesn't "deepen ethnic attachments" as much as it breaks down ethnic attachments by sharing and celebrating the wide diversity that exists in American society. Just like, on St Patrick's Day, everyone is Irish, on Cinco de Mayo, everyone is Mexican. From holidays to cuisine to history and literature, the more all of us learn about the wonderful diversity that is America, the more we come to adopt common standards, shared affiliations, forge unity.

If Ms Walker is dissatisfied with the lack of diversity among DISD teachers and administrators, she would be better off promoting diversity and multiculturalism, not denigrating it.

P.S. Dallas Blog continues to block me from commenting directly on that site. Perhaps, they aren't interested in diversity of opinion.

Is a Hillary Clinton/Wesley Clark Ticket in the Works?

Dallasblog.com | Tom Pauken:

“The announcement that retired General Wesley Clark has endorsed Hillary Clinton’s campaign for President fuels speculation that Mrs. Clinton may turn to the West Point grad and former White House Fellow to be her Vice Presidential running mate in 2008.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Tom Pauken plays it pretty straight in his selection of stories about the 2008 Presidential race on Dallas Blog. He has published critical articles about most of the Republican candidates, perhaps a sign of his forlorn hope that a "true" conservative, an heir of Saint Ronald, might yet emerge (can you say Newt?). And he has published critical articles of the Democratic candidates, natch.

This story, predicting a Clinton/Clark ticket, is both neutral in tone and ahead of the pack in predicting what does sound like a logical match-up. Up to now, I've been assuming a Clinton/Obama ticket is the natural pairing. The two leaders in the polls, one featuring experience, one featuring change, one a woman, one an African-American, what could be a better pairing?

Well, the 2008 campaign is going to be decided on the War in Iraq and the War on Terror. Republicans don't draw a distinction between these. Democrats do. It's a given that the left is going to vote for the Democratic candidate, no matter if it's a Senator Clinton who won't disavow her vote authorizing President Bush to go to war in Iraq. What Senator Clinton is going to have to do to win the general election is to convince the independents and the moderate Republicans that she isn't going to be soft on the War on Terror.

The best way she can do this is, not by picking an anti-war candidate like Senator Obama to share the ticket, but by picking a military leader to be her Vice Presidential candidate. Not a veteran like John Kerry, whose only military service decades ago was negated by his efforts to end the Vietnam War. No, Wesley Clark is a general, a West Point grad and NATO commander, someone who can point to Bosnia as an example of how to effectively project American military power. The Republicans will try to Swift Boat his reputation (see the Dallas Blog comments to this story), but it'll be harder to accomplish than with John Kerry. Mr Pauken may be on to something here. His prediction of a Clinton/Clark ticket may turn out to be just the ticket the Democrats need to win a campaign fought over who is best suited to carry on the War on Terror.

P.S. Tom Pauken's censorship continues to prevent me from posting these comments on Dallas Blog itself.

Red Flag for Red Light Cameras

FrontBurner | Trey Garrison:

“Are we under any illusion that red light cameras are about anything other than revenue generation?”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Red light cameras are about safety, first and foremost. According to a recent story in The Dallas Morning News:

"Of the more than 200 municipalities in 23 states and the District of Columbia that have installed some form of the technology, most have charted significant drops in violations and serious accidents, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and interviews with other traffic experts."

As for conventional wisdom that red light cameras are about revenue generation, a simple look at the books dispels that mistaken notion. Garland, the first city in the area to install red light cameras, is at the break-even point of revenues and costs. University Park, which installed cameras only this February, is running a $39,000 deficit.

"Costs are an issue in Garland. ... Officials say the initiative there is a victim of its own success: As violations have fallen because of the cameras, so, too, have the revenues used to sustain the cameras. ... Garland plans to decommission five of its 12 cameras ... to keep the expensive program afloat."

Mr Garrison's inherent distrust of government is the only illusion at work here. Government officials who think red light cameras are a gold mine for public coffers are sadly mistaken. Citizens who resist cameras because of distrust of government picked the wrong government program to fear. The fact is that red light cameras reduce violations, reduce accidents and save lives.

Are Europeans Committing Demographic Suicide?

Dallasblog.com | Tom Pauken:

“In his recent trip to Austria, Pope Benedict XVI warned his audiences that Europe might 'extinguish' itself if it continued to embrace abortion and reject Christianity.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

There Tom Pauken goes again, warning the world of the dangers of those invading Muslim hordes. Not Islamofascist terrorists. Not suicide bombers. No. Mothers and babies.

Europe didn't extinguish itself when its Greek and Roman and Teutonic and Viking religions had to make room for Christianity. Tom Pauken undoubtedly thinks the addition was good. Europe won't extinguish itself if Islam grows in importance, either. On the other hand, it just might extinguish itself if a xenophobic anti-Muslim hysteria breaks out. At least, the great civil liberties of Western civilization are at risk by the current xenophobia. Instead, what Mr Pauken could do to best preserve the Christian culture he is so fond of is to ... well, act a little more Christian.

P.S. Tom Pauken continues to block me from posting comments to his articles on Dallas Blog itself. I wonder if that's part of the great Western tradition that Mr Pauken wants to preserve?

Obsessive about the possessive

Dallas Morning News | Tod Robberson:

“The [Washington] Post and The New York Times follow a rule that adds an apostrophe-S to the possessive forms of nonplural, proper nouns ending in S. The Bible of grammatical style and usage, Strunk and White's, follows the same rule. But the horribly misinformed Associated Press Stylebook adheres to a rule, apparently crafted around the time of the Salem witch trials, that requires the use of only an apostrophe, omitting the final S. ”

Ed Cognoski responds:

So, there's a difference of opinion how to spell possessive forms of nonplural, proper nouns ending in S, words like Texas'. Or is it Texas's?

Perhaps language is undergoing change, where the spelling Texas's used to dominate but gradually Texas' is supplanting it. For the time being, we see both. There are many examples. Quick, what's the past tense of "dive?" For centuries, the standard past tense was "dived". For much of the last century, "dove" competed with it in general use. Today, "dove" has all but driven "dived" out of common usage. Which is correct? At different times in history, you'd get different answers, with pedantic souls like Tod Robberson being enormously frustrated during the rise of the novel form, before usage became so common the authorities had to accept it.

Or perhaps the spelling of the possessive for words ending in S has never been completely standardized. It wasn't until people like Samuel Johnson and Noah Webster began compiling dictionaries that authoritative sources on spelling even existed. Even great writers like Chaucer and Shakespeare were known to occasionally spell the same word different ways at different times. Johnson and Webster would choose one spelling and give dependent types like Tod Robberson a reason to believe everyone should follow their lead. Perhaps the spelling of the possessive is one of few untamed language issues, not yet herded and corralled into the dictionary. If so, we ought to celebrate its wildness.

CJR: Damage Report

Columbia Journalism Review| Craig Flournoy & Tracy Everbach:

“Management at The Dallas Morning News used a combination of layoffs in 2004 and buyouts in 2006, plus attrition, to slash some two hundred journalists—30 percent of the staff—from the newsroom. ... Those who remain, meanwhile, say the mood is uncertain at best. Circulation is in freefall. Readers increasingly are dissatisfied. Turnover disrupts stability. Many older staff members were pushed out in the layoffs; now some of the younger ones are leaving on their own.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

This CJR report shines a light on a major business story that happened right here in Dallas but received little coverage in Dallas' only newspaper, The Dallas Morning News. The event was the decimation of the DMN's own newsroom and the resulting downward spiral of quality in our one and only local newspaper. The CJR story focuses on interviews with many of the 200 or so newsroom employees who left or were let go in the last few years. In doing so, it inevitably reveals the experience that left with them and the holes that left in the paper.

The most apt quote comes not from a former employee, but from Esther Thorson, an associate dean at the University of Missouri's School of Journalism. The CJR report says "those who try to cut the newsroom to maintain profitability are doomed to failure. 'That’s not a business model,' [Thorson] says. 'That’s a death model.'"

R.I.P. The Dallas Morning News.

Christian car loans

DallasNews Religion: Dave Tarrant:

“I just got an advertisement emailed to me promoting the Web site: www.christiancarloans.com. The ad stated that the business was based on Christian lending principals.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Evangelical preachers and used car salesmen. I bet more than one huckster has moved from one career into the other over the years. It's sheer genius to combine the two in a new business called christiancarloans.com.

On a related note, I question people who go out of their way to patronize businesses that advertise themselves as being "Christian." The same people would probably strongly resist suggestions that they boycott other businesses because the owner happens to be Jewish or Muslim, yet what they do amounts to the same thing. Or doesn't it?

Carter Albrecht, R.I.P.

FrontBurner | Trey Garrison:

“Of all the chatter out there the worst is hearing the spin that somehow this was justified. By the homeowner's own statements, he was grossly — and likely criminally — irresponsible. You do not shoot at something you cannot see. Ever. You don't shoot through doors. Ever. You do not fire warning shots. Ever. Someone outside your door is not a threat to your life.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

First, let me say that I don't think this killing was justified, either. But I think Texas law might have a different opinion.

As I understand Texas law, a person is justified in using force when the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself. The belief is reasonable if the homeowner did not provoke the intruder and the intruder is attempting to enter one's house with force. The homeowner is not required to wait until the intruder has him by the throat. The homeowner is not required to attempt to retreat. That's what the law says, not just my opinion of what's justified.

The circumstances of this case as reported in the press -- a man yelling and kicking at your door at 4:00 AM, you yelling at him to leave, him continuing to attempt to gain entrance to your house -- certainly sound like the homeowner was reasonable in feeling that force was immediately necessary to protect himself and his wife. Later we learn that the intruder had been drinking and had recently suffered hallucinations and had just beaten his wife who had locked him out of his own home. Even though the homeowner couldn't have known all that at the time, those facts are consistent with the theory that the homeowner was reasonable in fearing this intruder.

I expected Trey Garrison to side with the homeowner. If the intruder turned out to be some unknown drunken madman, instead of a drunken madman minor celebrity, I wonder if Mr Garrison would be so critical of the homeowner's deadly judgment in the middle of the night.

Texas GOP straw poll

Trail Blazers | Ryan J. Rusak:

“Does this mean a boost for Duncan Hunter similar to Mike Huckabee's momentum out of Iowa? Will it help Fred Thompson counter some recent bad news as he finally launches his campaign? How bad is it for Ron Paul, having put all this effort into it?”

Ed Cognoski responds:

We'll see how Fred Thompson does nationally. Except for that possibility, I'd say the Texas straw poll results mainly show just how out of touch the Texas GOP is from the national GOP, which itself is out of touch with the electorate as a whole. Not a good sign for Texas.

More to Life Than Politics

Dallasblog.com | William Murchison:

“One thing I'm thinking about is the eclipse in our time of the commanding figures who used to line up for the privilege of running America -- the Goldwaters, the Tafts, the Ikes, the Roosevelts, the Johnsons, the Nixons. Where did they all go? ... What an odd epoch it is in which we find Democrats disputing among themselves over the tendered services of a trial lawyer, a senator barely dry behind the ears; and the wife and partner of a president more famous for his scrapes than his achievements.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Political attacks by the likes of conservative jackals like William Murchison go a long way in explaining why the best and the brightest no longer go into public service. President Clinton has significant accomplishments to be proud of -- welfare reform, family and medical leave, record job growth, deficit reduction and budget surpluses, etc. Did conservatives like William Murchison work with Clinton for the public good? No, they dug through his entire life's history looking for dirt, appointed a special prosecutor, forced the President of the United States to testify under oath about his private sex life, then impeached him when he wasn't entirely truthful about embarrassing sexual matters between consenting adults.

FDR wouldn't have survived a right wing attack from the press, Congress, and a special prosecutor, all digging into his relationship with Lucy Mercer. Ike's affair with Kay Summersby would have kept him out of politics. JFK and LBJ would never have appeared on the national stage. Mr Murchison, you wonder where the commanding figures went? They got out of public service to escape the likes of you.

Candidates react to Iowa gay marriage ruling

DallasNews Religion | Bruce Tomaso:

“Almost anything of note that happens in Iowa between now and 2008 is going to have political implications. A judge's ruling in support of gay marriage is no exception.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

The controversy over gay marriage is an example of what happens when the state gets mixed up in religion. Our Founding Fathers wisely erected a wall of separation to keep the state out of church matters and we'd be well advised to follow their lead. Limited government. Differentiate between marriage and civil unions. The former is a religious bond. The latter a legal contract. The state shouldn't be setting the rules for religion and the church shouldn't be enforcing legal contracts. Quit mixing the two up. Of course, calling for limited government hasn't won any votes among the Republican base for at least a generation.

I've never seen this suggestion discussed. Everyone debates whether the legislatures and courts should extend marriage to gay couples. Why not end the debate by going the other way and getting the legislatures and courts to focus only on the legal contract end of civil unions, no matter what the sex of the couple, and let the churches decide what they want to call a "marriage" or not?

I don't know who among the red staters and blue staters will be for and who will be against my suggestion. Red staters will probably be against it because they don't want tolerance for gays by anyone, anyhow. And blue staters will probably be against it because they want nothing less than state recognition for marriage for gay couples. Opposition from all sides is a pretty good sign that my suggestion is neither left nor right. ;-)