Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Downtown Rail

The Nightly Build...

Does Richardson Need Mass Transit?

Unfair Park's Jim Schutze is at it again, railing against rail congestion in downtown Dallas. He wants a reliever route built to take the load off the Pacific Avenue line before new lines to Mesquite and Irving start spilling more traffic into downtown Dallas. So far, so good. I'm with him. Then this:

"According to a contract signed with the city 18 years ago, DART should have begun building a second reliever route five years ago, preferably in a subway, for trains going through downtown. But because the city got slicked by the suburbs, the way it does in all so-called regional governance, DART spent its money instead building trains out to the boondocks, where nobody needs mass transit anyway."
Boondocks?! Where nobody needs mass transit?! Besides being factually incorrect, Schutze's flippant dismissal of suburban voters is counterproductive to Schutze's mission to get support for a subway in downtown Dallas. Turn it into a fight between downtown and the suburbs (or escalate the fight if you think that's what it already is), and downtown will lose. After all, suburban rail passengers don't much care if downtown traffic is congested. Most get off downtown anyway. And they ride the rail to avoid traffic in the first place.

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Dallas Blog

The Nightly Build...

Fact, Fiction or a Sloppy Mess?

In today's heavy dose of irony, Dallas Blog publishes an article by Jim Terry that begins:

"Many people today believe the news industry is loaded with political agendas, run by people with axes to grind, and an industry which has fallen into mediocrity."
OK, maybe Dallas Blog only pretends to be part of "the news industry", but it is undeniably "loaded with political agendas" and "run by people with axes to grind." Maybe it's unfair to say it's "fallen into mediocrity" as that assumes it ever attained mediocrity in the first place.

Jim Terry's own axe to grind has something to do with newspapers not getting apostrophes right. LOL. He must be driven crazy by Dallas Blog.

Monday, April 28, 2008

Immigration; Wright

The Nightly Build...

Prohibition, Jim Crow and Immigration

Rod Dreher, in a column for The Dallas Morning News Viewpoints section, presents a logic puzzle for readers. See if you can tell where he's headed.

He starts by pointing out how Prohibition was a colossal failure because drinking was too widespread and socially acceptable to be legislated out of existence.

He goes on to tell the old story (new to Dreher, apparently) of the college groundskeepers' who gave up trying to keep the students from wearing a footpath through the grass by sensibly laying a sidewalk where the students needed to walk.

He adds the example of civil disobedience used to challenge the Jim Crow segregation laws when injustice led many to disobey laws and eventually bring about change.

Have you figured out where Dreher is going yet with regard to our immigration laws? Have you guessed he's going to point out the folly of our current laws? After all, the laws make outlaws of those seeking otherwise socially acceptable ends -- a job, a better life, a chance at the American dream. The laws are flouted by millions of immigrants seeking work. The laws are flouted by thousands of employers seeking willing and able workers. The laws are a colossal failure, openly challenged by millions who think seeking a job should be as free and sensible as walking across the grass to get where you want to go.

If you thought Dreher would learn the lessons of his own examples, you'd be wrong. Instead, Dreher illogically concludes that our failed immigration laws are different. That limiting the number of immigrants below what is sufficient to meet the demand in industry, agriculture, and construction, is rooted in morally sound principles. That there is a "transcendent order" in creating and maintaining a perpetual underclass living in the shadows of American society. That we ought not strive for comprehensive immigration reform but instead more aggressively enforce existing laws that no longer serve the purpose of the American economy. That we the people are here to serve the purpose of the sidewalk and not the other way around.

There you have it. I said Dreher presented readers with a logic puzzle. I didn't say it had a logical solution.


Wright: Sabotaging Obama?

Jeffrey Weiss does a service for all America by posting links to the transcripts and videos of recent speeches by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Too much commentary is based on sound bites taken out of context, resulting in a slanted view of Wright's positions. I'll offer several of my own observations, some positive, some negative, after having reviewed the full speeches.

Wright relates how, for decades, white missionaries to black communities made blacks ashamed of their African-American roots. Even today, Christianity is seen by some blacks as the white man's religion. It puts meaning into Trinity United Church of Christ's slogan, "Unashamedly Black, Unapologetically Christian." The first part is directed at whites; the second at blacks.

Wright argues that there's a difference between government and God. God is unchanging and good. Governments are flawed and capable of sin. Wright urges America to strive for redemption. Some view this as anti-American. It isn't.

Wright's God is a judgmental and activist God, inflicting 9/11 on America in retaliation for America's own sins. This is the same as Falwell and Hagee blaming 9/11 and Katrina on abortion and homosexuality. God doesn't work that way.

Wright's suspicion knows no bounds. He blames AIDS on a deliberate government intent to harm the African-American community. His paranoia may be grounded in history like the Tuskegee syphilis experiments, but it's paranoia nonetheless. Not every bad thing happens intentionally. Incompetence is sometimes a better explanation than malevolence.

Wright's defense of Louis Farrakhan's anti-Semitism seems to reflect racial solidarity. It reflects a deep-seated bitterness towards the white community. Given that, I see no hope of reconciliation, not with this man.

All of this sharply outlines the challenge Barack Obama faces as he tries to be the candidate of change, the candidate who hopes to unify black and white, liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican. We knew all along that Obama would have a hard time convincing the right of his good intentions. With Wright's recent speeches, it now appears possible that Barack Obama may face just as big a challenge with the far left. There is hurt and anger lurking in the African-American community. If Wright is typical, they may turn on Obama the more he appears to be an honest broker and not partisan fighter. Wright admits as much. "I said to Barack Obama last year, 'If you get elected, November the 5th I’m coming after you, because you’ll be representing a government whose policies grind under people.'"

If Wright wanted to sabotage Obama's campaign, these are the kinds of speeches he would give. But, why would he want to sabotage Obama's campaign? Does he himself secretly believe that Obama does not, in fact, agree with his own extremist religious and political views? Does he view Obama as disloyal to the African-American cause, a sell-out to white America? Barack Obama's challenge to unify America grows just as America's need for a Barack Obama does, too.

P.S. Don't take my word for it. Follow the links. Read Wright in his own words. It's a rich vein that can be mined by Wright supporters and detractors both.

Saturday, April 26, 2008

Wright and Moyers

The Nightly Build...

Rev. Wright and the Right Wing Spin Machine

Now that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright has talked in public for the first time since the furor caused by airing sound bites from his sermons, the right wing spin machine is in overdrive again, reading between the lines to tell us what Wright really meant in his interview with Bill Moyers. Mike Hashimoto, in The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, asks, "was that entire 'race in America' speech delivered 'as a politician'? And is the implication that we should have fallen for it only as far as that goes?" A reader replies "Obama just got thrown under the bus by his pastor!"

All that just from Wright calling Obama a politician. Let's look at the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's quote in context, to see if Wright considers politics the dirty word that Obama's detractors want to make it.

"He's a politician, I'm a pastor. We speak to two different audiences. And he says what he has to say as a politician. I say what I have to say as a pastor. Those are two different worlds. I do what I do. He does what politicians do. So that what happened in Philadelphia where he had to respond to the sound bites, he responded as a politician. But he did not disown me because I'm a pastor. ... I don't talk to him about politics. And so here at a political event, he goes out as a politician and says what he has to say as a politician. I continue to be a pastor who speaks to the people of god about the things of God."
If one believes that politician is synonymous with liar, and pastor is synonymous with truth-teller, then what Wright said is unflattering to Obama. But Wright didn't say that. Wright, in fact, praised what Obama said "as a politician." Wright went on:
"In Philadelphia Senator Obama made a very powerful speech in terms of our need as a nation to address the whole issue of race. That's something good that's already starting."
For Obama's detractors to now say that Wright was criticizing politics or Obama as a politician requires reading a whole lot into Wright's words that simply isn't there. Wright simply explained separation of church and state, which was good for America in Thomas Jefferson's day and is still good for American today. But it's not good for the right wing spin machine's interpretation of reality.

Friday, April 25, 2008

Dallas Blog

The Nightly Build...

Dallas Blog. Still There?

A few days ago a reader asked when Dallas Blog went out of business. Well, Dallas Blog is still in business (term used loosely), but it's seen better days (term used loosely). Scott Bennett was described as a "former" co-owner on a Frontburner blog posting. Tom Pauken is feeding at the public trough again, having taken a patronage job in Austin from his friend Rick Perry. Trey Garrison and Sam Merten (the only two reporters who ever seemed to do any original reporting at Dallas Blog) have long since moved on to other jobs. And Rufus Shaw is dead. And so it goes.

I just checked the Dallas Blog front page. Ten stories, six by Tom McGregor, three by Will Lutz. One story about a German artist seeking attention by asking for a dying person to volunteer to die in public. (Artists yanking the chains of uptight Americans like Tom McGregor and Dallas Blog owner Tom Pauken are a staple of Dallas Blog.) One story about Jerry Springer! One story about surging suicides in Japan. One story about an imminent American military attack on Iran (another staple). And a story about the "comfy" life of prisoners in Britain. (Dallas Blog can't stand criminals not suffering enough. Maybe they should be made to read Dallas Blog.) What kind of reader response does this diet of tawdry stories draw? Two reader comments to front-page stories. Two. Does anyone still read Dallas Blog? Why does Tom Pauken still bother?

Thursday, April 24, 2008

The Candidates and Taxes

The Nightly Build...

More on the Tax Cutting Religion

The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog's topic of the day was the Presidential candidates' tax policy.

Michael Landauer says, "I wish I understood when being conservative came to mean that you were opposed to all taxes." Frontburner's Wick Allison referred to that as the tax cutting religion. Search this blog for previous commentary on that article of faith.

Mike Hashimoto rose to the defense of conservatives. "Advocating lower tax rates across the board isn't the same as 'opposing all taxes,' as some would argue."

Hashimoto is confused. Conservatives are not even-handed in their concern for taxpayers at all.

Sure, conservatives want to cut income taxes across the board. But because the wealthy pay the biggest percentage, they get the biggest percentage benefit.

Conservatives want to eliminate the estate tax altogether, and George Bush succeeded, at least temporarily. But only a tiny percent of the wealthiest estates owe tax, so this benefit goes exclusively to the wealthy.

The payroll tax is the last tax on the conservatives' list to complain about. This is the tax that the minimum wage burger flippers pay on their first dollar of income, but the wealthy pay no payroll tax at all on most of their millions in earned income. The payroll tax is 15%, the same as the capital gains tax. Income tax is on top of that. So, secretaries end up paying a higher tax rate than the CEOs pulling in millions in capital gains.

Even that 15% is too much tax for conservatives. They want to shift more, or even all, of the tax burden to consumption taxes. Sales taxes keep rising as other taxes get cut. The poor and working class spend a much higher percentage of their income on spending that would get hit by sales tax.

The bottom line is that there is no bottom line for an acceptable tax rate for conservatives.

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Yearning for Zion

The Nightly Build...

Yearning for Zion; Yearning for Truth

Other than one post wondering why the Midland Sheriff's Department has an armored personnel carrier, I've shied away from the story of the child custody battle playing out in Eldorado, Texas. The state of Texas Child Protective Services (CPS) raided the Yearning for Zion Ranch (YFZ) and took custody of 416 children after receiving a telephoned complaint that children were being sexually abused.

I've shied away from the story in part because the public had more assumptions than facts. Let's let the facts come out before forming conclusions. But a bigger reason was that I saw no ending to this story that didn't harm one or another of my most firmly held values.

Scott Henson, in a The Dallas Morning News viewpoints column presents the civil libertarians' argument well. Reportedly, the raid was prompted by an anonymous phone call, alleging sexual abuse at the YFZ Ranch, home of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS). Allegations of polygamy and rape of thirteen-year-old girls by older men at the ranch led to 416 children being removed from their homes and families being broken up.

Henson asks reasonably, "Where's the evidence of abuse?" The phone call turned out to be phony. No pregnant thirteen-year-old girls have been found. There's been no testimony of forcible sex or rape. Henson concludes, "From the evidence presented publicly, I do not believe that the children have been sexually abused or physically harmed."

The still-developing story looks, at present, like a case of over-reaction by CPS against a religious sect with views unpopular with the rest of the community. My support for America's Constitutional liberties leads me to agree with Scott Henson and side with the FLDS and against CPS.

So, why have I shied away from saying so? Because I also value protecting children from forced marriage and statutory rape. Even without corroborating testimony by anyone from the YFZ Ranch, I fear that there's a good possibility that underage girls are, in fact, being coercively married off to older men in polygamous arrangements at the ranch. If true, it would be a case where my upholding of our Constitutional liberties has the effect of protecting the criminal instead of the victim.

I hate it when that happens. Hate it.

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Pennsylvania Primary Results

The Nightly Build...

Closing the Deal

Sharon Grigsby asks on The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, "Obama, will you ever close the deal?"

Yes. It's not a matter of if. It's a matter of when. Obama is running out the clock. He's ahead on points and can afford to lose some of these later rounds and still win the match. If Obama goes for the knockout, he risks opening himself to a knockout punch by Clinton or alienating her supporters so much that he risks losing his next match against McCain. So, he's playing defense. It's just a matter of time.

Bill McKenzie says, "I think they both have strong arguments to make to super delegates."

Sure, Hillary has strong arguments to make to super-delegates. But Obama's argument is stronger. He has more pledged delegates, more total delegates, more popular vote, more states, and at least as strong poll numbers when matched up to McCain. It's only a matter of time before Obama runs out the clock and accumulates enough delegates to clinch the nomination. That Clinton can force him to go through all 50 states is a strong testament to her strength. But Obama is stronger and has a stranglehold on the nomination. It's his to lose, not hers to win.

Monday, April 21, 2008

Satire; Property taxes

The Nightly Build...

ABC and Comedy Central: Is There a Difference?

The Dallas Morning News published an editorial praising Jon Stewart as a satirist.

"Satire done well uses the comic's tools to drive a larger point, usually about how absurd the bill of goods someone, including Washington someones, is selling us. Satire gone overboard leaves you feeling as if everyone's selling you a bill of goods - so what's the point of voting, campaigning and contributing? After years of honing his style, Mr. Stewart does the best job of finding the satirists' sweet spot."
A serious editorial on the oh-so-serious pages of a major metropolitan daily newspaper about ... a comedy show on Comedy Central cable television. Satire has arrived. Political campaigns today are so ripe for satire that the candidates seek to participate in the lampooning. Stephen Colbert managed to book John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on his television show the same night, his last night covering the Pennsylvania primary on location in Philadelphia.

It's not just the candidates themselves who provide the fodder for satire. The supposedly serious news media's coverage of the campaign is sometimes hard to distinguish from the comedians' coverage. Jon Stewart provides the best take on the descent of network news, with his summary of ABC's debate between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, hosted by Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulis:

"The first hour of last night's debate was a sixty minute master class in questions that elevate out-of-context remarks and trivial, insipid, miscues into subjects of national discourse, WHICH IS MY JOB. STOP DOING MY JOB. That's what I'm here for. I'm the silly man."

Someone Is Getting a Property Tax Break, Just Not You

On The Dallas Morning News Metro blog, Steve Blow posts an addendum to his column Sunday on commercial property appraisals in Dallas. He adds the city is in process of buying downtown property for the proposed convention center hotel for $41 million, more than five times its officially appraised value. Some commercial real estate owner has been getting a sweet deal on his property tax bills.

Two years ago, Gov. Rick Perry appointed a task force to study appraisal reform. Lack of disclosure of real estate sales price information, especially commercial, leads to many properties being grossly undervalued like the example above. Average homeowners, for whom it's harder to hide the true value of their own houses, end up having to bear a higher tax rate to compensate. You'd think the governor's task would have highlighted this problem. You'd think the task force's first priority would have been to get accuracy in appraisals. You'd have guessed wrong. The task force buried it under other careabouts, such as capping appraisal increases and putting appraisal boards under partisan political control. The result would have been more room to manipulate the process, more opportunities for setting appraised values far short of market values for favored special interests.

The governor's task force was led by Tom "Let's cap taxes and call it appraisal reform" Pauken, who is owner of Dallas Blog, which this weekend published an article by Will Lutz that begins, "Texans are hopping mad about high property taxes." Lutz uses that premise to renew Pauken's push for partisan political control of appraisal boards. Not a word from Lutz about mandatory sales price disclosure. There's a grossly under-appraised $41 million piece of real estate in downtown Dallas that suggests just how big the prize is in this political battle. Rick Perry, Tom Pauken, and Will Lutz intend to win it.

Friday, April 18, 2008

More Obama/Clinton

The Nightly Build...

Uncle Barky Does Debates... Badly

I respect Ed Bark greatly. He was the television critic of The Dallas Morning News and now is an independent blogger covering the same subject. But he ought to stay well away from politics, including reviewing televised political debates. His analysis of this week's debate between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton reads like it was written by someone more used to watching fake 'reality' shows than following politics. Oh wait, it was.

ABC and its moderators Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulis have been roundly criticized for spending the first half of the debate on "gotcha" questions about Wrightgate, bitter-gate, sniper-gate, Ayersgate, even flagpin-gate. Bark defends ABC.

"Did ABC's critics really expect Gibson and Stephanopoulos to throw out nothing but another round of generic questions about the candidates' only slightly differing positions on the war in Iraq, health care, taxes and so on? Both Clinton and Obama are fully capable, as they again demonstrated Wednesday night, of responding to any question with an automatic pilot restating of their rehearsed-to-death talking points."
Are you kidding? Does Bark believe that it's only possible to ask "sharp, provocative questions" about tabloid issues? That substantive policy issues require the moderators to lay back and "let the candidates pontificate," as he put it? Is that really the only choice the moderators had? Of course not.

Bark even implies that these attack questions aimed at Obama worked to his advantage because they give him more time to answer. That's certainly a novel viewpoint.

"Obama got the lion's share of time in the opening hour, with Gibson twice noting that things were 'getting out of balance.' 'I've noticed,' Clinton said with a game smile before acquiescing to a commercial break."
Poor, patient Hillary. The moderators spent so much time attacking Obama, she didn't get enough time to pile on herself.

Bark defended his own defense of ABC:

"Maybe you should go back to watching all the debates in which Obama got a virtual free pass. And as noted in the article, two of the supposedly tabloid questions came from voters, not the moderators."
ABC didn't tell us that they were going to make up for anti-Clinton bias in previous debates by showing anti-Obama bias this time. The only excuse for piling on Obama is that he's the frontrunner, which isn't necessarily a bad excuse, but let's at least quit pretending the debate was fair.

What difference does it make that ABC found a voter to ask the flag pin question? ABC could find someone to ask any question they wanted. I would have volunteered to ask: What will you do, as President, to prevent future Presidents from abusing the Constitution through signing statements, domestic spying or running torture programs out of the White House? Democrats don't want to talk about that. Neither do Republicans, which makes it all the more important for someone to force an airing of this Constitutional abuse. After a person is elected President, it's too late to pin them down on limiting Presidential powers. A few probing questions by a debate moderator might force them to say something now about a Constitutional issue more important than, say, who loves America more, Obama or his pastor.

Thursday, April 17, 2008

FLDS raid; Democratic debate

The Nightly Build...

The Midland Front on the War on Terror

Betsy Simnacher posts a photo of an armored personnel carrier on The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog. The vehicle was used in the assault on the ranch of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in Midland, Texas.

I wonder who paid for that armored personnel carrier? Did the Midland city council fund it out of local property taxes? Or did it come out of the pork barrel grabfest of funding for homeland security after 9/11 that is supposed to keep us safe from radical Islamo-fascism? If so, it's working. There's been no sign of Osama bin Laden in Midland since.

Could this be an example of how good intentions go wrong? We seek to protect ourselves from one threat only to see our defenses turned on a different target altogether. The armored personnel carrier justified as part of our war on terror gets used against Mormon girls in gingham dresses in west Texas. It's ironic that Texans, the firmest defenders of the second amendment right to bear arms as a free citizenry's last defense against government despotism, have willingly armed the local government with an armored personnel carrier. Try defending your liberties against that.


The Democratic Debate (aka, ABC's Ambush of Obama)

The Dallas Morning News' Sharon Grigsby says she caught only the second half of last night's Presidential debate between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, but asks, "Where was Barack?" Grigsby's co-worker, Michael Landauer, answers:

"I only saw the last third or so of the debate, but I thought Obama looked terrible. And here's the thing, let's say the moderators were horrible and that he was beaten down by the line of questioning. Don't we know there will be days like that, situations like that, for anyone who becomes president?"
I, too, think Clinton did better in the last third of the debate. I, too, think the moderators were "horrible". I, too, think there will be days like that. So be it.

Where I differ from Landauer is that I think Obama held up fairly well despite the five-on-one attacks during the first half of the debate (two moderators, Clinton, Hannity, even a video-tape from John McCain). No, he didn't shine. But he didn't succumb to the attacks, either. Clinton won the debate, but the terms were so in her favor that Obama won't suffer from "losing" this particular exchange.

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Before the Big Bang

The Nightly Build...

Just ask the Fish

Jeffrey Weiss, blogmeister of The Dallas Morning News Religion blog, links to a Time magazine review of Ben Stein's new anti-evolution movie "Expelled." An excerpt:

"More dishonestly, Stein employs the common dodge of enumerating all the admittedly unanswered questions in evolutionary theory and using this to refute the whole idea. But all scientific knowledge is built this way. A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish.
That led to a long exchange between the blogmeister and me about the Big Bang. Yeah, I know evolution is a different scientific problem than the origin of life, which itself is a completely different problem than the origin of the universe, but all of these scientific problems tend to get wrapped up in each other any time laymen start discussing any one of them. Anyway, I reproduce here part of that long exchange, triggered by a comment by another reader:

JohnFranc: "What makes me a theist and not an atheist is the question of 'where did it all begin?' Science can reconstruct Creation back to a fraction of a second after the big bang, but not before. That's all it takes to convince me that God is real."

Ed Cognoski: "JohnFranc, science doesn't reconstruct Creation back to 'before' the Big Bang because the word 'before' has no meaning in that situation. An analogy is in order. Explorers can create maps all the way to the North Pole but no farther north. Asking what's north of the North Pole is as nonsensical as asking what happened before the Big Bang. Literally, nonsensical."

Blogmeister Jeffrey: "Ed, my understanding of the Big Bang is that it purports to describe a physical event that happened 'within' time. That is, time itself did not begin with the bang. For various reasons, it may be impossible to ever answer the question of 'what happened before.' But that doesn't make the question itself nonsensical."

Ed Cognoski: "Time came into existence with the Big Bang, a singularity at which the distortion of space-time was infinite. There was no pre-existing infinite, eternal void into which all matter of the universe instantly exploded. Not just matter, but space-time itself was created with the Big Bang. The weirdness isn't confined to the Big Bang. Even today, the universe is not infinite. It's finite, although unbounded. Time is not absolute. Experiments with atomic clocks flown in jets have experimentally demonstrated that time moves at different rates depending on motion. Time and space are both warped by the presence of gravitational fields. Black holes are real and time and space does very strange things in their presence. Quantum physics describes events for which cause-and-effect do not have our everyday meaning. The notions of 'before' and 'after' are meaningless in some situations today in the quantum realm, not just in relation to the Big Bang."

Blogmeister Jeffrey: "Not so fast, friend. Google for 'before the big bang' to get a sense for just how NOT settled that question is. And I'm not talking about the busted crockery sites. Lots of .edu and .org level conversation on the topic..."

Ed Cognoski: "Blogmeister, I didn't mean to leave the impression that the physics of the Big Bang is settled. It's far from it. I'm aware of models that include multiple parallel "universes" (an infinite number?) or multiple cyclical universes (an infinite number?). None of these is going to restore our traditional Newtonian concepts of an infinite Euclidean space or an absolute time. They might give us the ability to talk about what happened 'before' the Big Bang, but only using weird notions of what might be called meta-time, defining 'before' in a way that is even weirder than our already weird concept of time in Einstein's general relativity or quantum mechanics. To return to my analogy, such theories are trying to provide an answer to the question, what's north of the North Pole. If they answer that, it'll be with a concept of 'north' that is beyond any everyday notion of north that ever guided mapmaker or sailor."

Blogmeister Jeffrey: "Well, at least some of the theories seem to include something like what we understand as time: A parallel universe has a wormhole pinch itself off and then form our universe (for a somewhat made-up example). That's a narrative with time's arrow in its familiar place. First this happened and then that happened and then KABLOOIE!!! Even a recurring cycle has a 'this happened then that happened' form. Maybe the comparison is more like Earth north with Galactic North. Not quite the same but using a lot of the same references. Or maybe not?"

Ed Cognoski: "OK. I can live with that. And if you want any more insight into this infinitely perplexing question, I fall back on the original article's suggestion, 'Just ask the fish.'"

Blogmeister Jeffrey: "BLOGMEISTER JEFFREY HAS THE ANSWER: '42.'"

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Bitter/Guns/Religion

The Nightly Build...

Listen to What He Said

I'm impressed with the mindreading abilities of so many people who can tell us what Barack Obama meant (or "really" meant) by his extemporaneous answers to questions from a fundraising crowd in California a week ago. Mike Hashimoto, in the The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, interprets the comments as strike three against Obama:

"Obama just handed McCain the third leg of a three-legged stool: questionable past associations (Wright, Rezko, Weather Underground guy); 'most liberal' member of the Senate; and now dismissive of white, working-class voters in states he needs to win."
Notice that Hashimoto doesn't quote Obama. He just presents as fact that Obama was dismissive of white, working-class voters and then discusses the impact of this supposed fact on the general election.

A reader named "BJ" tells us how a small-town voter thinks, according to BJ's understanding of what Obama really meant:

"Since my job got sent overseas, I joined the FLDS, bought some guns, signed up for the KKK, enlisted in the Minuteman Border Watch patrol, and voted to keep marriage between males and females."
Notice that "BJ" doesn't quote Obama, either. The detractors rarely quote Obama, except in a word or phrase or sentence taken out of context. Instead, they spin Obama's words into wholly new notions and tell us that this or that is what Obama really meant. Mindreading.

Voters would be better served listening to the man himself and judging him by his own words, not by words his detractors try to paint him as saying. And when I listen to Obama, I think, that sounds about right.

"I said something that everybody knows is true, which is that there are a whole bunch of folks in small towns in Pennsylvania, in towns right here in Indiana, in my hometown in Illinois, who are bitter. So I said well you know when you're bitter you turn to what you can count on. So people they vote about guns, or they take comfort from their faith and their family and their community. Now, I didn't say it as well as I should have."
-- Barack Obama
It sounds like Obama understands small town America. And big city America. Americans sure can't count on the economy or what Washington has done for them the last seven years.

Monday, April 14, 2008

Public school boosterism

The Nightly Build...

'Choose Woodrow' Campaign Triggers Backlash

Woodrow Wilson High School in east Dallas has a student population that is two-thirds Hispanic, 12 percent black and less than a quarter white. This is despite the fact that 64 percent of the people who live in the school's attendance zone are white. Along with the racial disparity, class disparity is equally stark. A greater percentage of those leaving public school are from middle- and upper-middle-income families, leaving mostly poor students behind.

Parents have launched a "Choose Woodrow" campaign to persuade other parents who send their children to private schools to consider public schooling instead. Boosterism campaigns, as the name implies, focus on the positive. Woodrow Wilson High has something positive to highlight. Newsweek named it one of the nation's best high schools. As we all know, there are many problems in the Dallas Independent School District. The high achievements of some at Woodrow Wilson are not shared equally by all. Test scores for poor students, for blacks and Hispanics, lag.

Now Woodrow Wilson boosterism has triggered a backlash. Rod Dreher, in a Viewpoints article in The Dallas Morning News, blasts Woodrow Wilson for trying to attract more white and upper-middle-class families. He says, "Bringing more neighborhood whites into Woodrow would lift the school's overall scores, but where is the evidence that the rising tide lifts minority boats?" It's as if he's arguing that not only should public schools improve education for Hispanics and blacks, but public schools should ignore neighborhood whites unless it can be shown that somehow their presence is good for the Hispanics and blacks. Why can't Woodrow Wilson try to meet the needs of all of its community? Dreher doesn't say.

Dreher's criticism was quick to draw support from Wick Allison in a Frontburner blog post titled "Talking Truth to Boosterism." He says, "Bravo to Rod Dreher for laying out the uncomfortable facts about Woodrow Wilson High School and our dismal failure to educate minority students." That minority test results are unacceptable is not disputed. The "Choose Woodrow" campaign is not an attempt to cover up this failure. It's an attempt to attract those families who currently choose not to send their children to public school.

The Dallas Morning News editorial writer Michael Landauer dares to contradict his coworker in his own blog post titled "Rod's Big Mistake." He says, "The campaign is about getting families involved in the school who have taken an active interest in their children's education." You'd think every supporter of public schools would want more active parents.

Maybe the source of the backlash is in the false assumption that we are all supporters of public schools. Rod Dreher's last paragraph reveals what his real interest is in this fight. He says, "Let's not kid ourselves with diversity cant and moralistic truisms about how the school and the community gets stronger if everybody sends their kids to public schools -- and with the concomitant demonization of parochial and private education." There you have it. Rod Dreher sees Woodrow Wilson boosterism as equivalent to "demonization" of religious schools.

I used to think we all had our public schools' best interests at heart. We may disagree over educational philosophy and methods, but we all share the same goal of providing a good education for all of our children. Now, I've changed my mind. Some see this goal as "cant". Some see education as a zero sum game, where attempts to improve Woodrow Wilson High School are perceived as threats to religious schools. It's hard enough for public schools to improve when the community is on their side. It's impossible when some in the community see public schooling as a threat to their own vested interests.

Wednesday, April 09, 2008

Income gap

The Nightly Build...

Trey Garrison Defends The Gilded Age

Frontburner's Trey Garrison dismisses recent studies that indicate that Texas has one of the largest income gaps in the US and it's getting larger.

Garrison cites a New York Times article to support his "What, me worry?" position. That article doesn't deny the growing income gap, only explain it away. The article cites demographic trends to explain some of the rising gap, but only some. It still lays some of the problem at the feet of "unfairness and bad public policy." Stuff Trey Garrison would rather pretend doesn't exist.

Garrison also cites a Cato Institute study that concludes, "Aside from stock option windfalls during the late-1990s stock-market boom, there is little evidence of a significant or sustained increase in inequality..." Sure, aside from those piddly little stock options.

Garrison then tries to slip some faulty logic past the reader dressed up as math. He says, "Gaps grow even if everyone's income increases by the exact same percentage." The flaw is in the implication in his premise. Everyone's income is NOT increasing by the exact same percentage. The rich are getting richer by an ever increasing percentage. The gap is growing, not just in absolute terms, but in percentage terms as well.

Finally, Garrison contends that a growing income gap is harmless as long as everybody's income is rising in absolute terms. First, the assumption that everyone's income is rising in absolute terms is debatable. Studies indicate that working class income has been stagnant for a decade or two. Second, there are negative consequences to a growing income gap even if we pretend that everyone's absolute income is rising. The attraction of enormous (and growing) financial returns for commercial enterprise deters people from entering professions that provide more social returns, like teaching and health care and government service. Also, the influence of money on politics is real and growing. A growing income gap leads to ever more influence by the wealthy. The long term stability of our democracy is put at risk.

Tuesday, April 08, 2008

Taxes; Texas House District 112

The Nightly Build...

Tax Cuts: The New Religion

Wick Allison dismisses Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison's defense of the Bush tax cuts as the "same tired - and easily discredited - mumbo-jumbo that comes directly from the Republican Nat’l Committee, circa 1985." He describes Republicans as being "locked in an ideological mind-set whose chief attribute is recklessness." In other words, as having a religion-like attachment to tax cutting even in the face of burgeoning debt for uncontrolled spending on war and social programs.

Trey Garrison proves Allison's point in his own blog followup, in which he defends tax cuts as a goal in themselves. In his religion, "the problem is the spending." "And that means everything from health care and welfare (individual and corporate) largess to maintaining military forces around the globe." In the gospel according to Garrison, spending itself is bad. Period.

Garrison even quotes the sainted Milton Friedman as saying, "The free man will ask neither what his country can do for him nor what he can do for his country." In this view, civilization is antithetical to freedom. Only hermits are free.

Garrison's is a decidedly minority viewpoint. Only an ascetic condemns spending as an evil in itself. More people judge government spending practically, using the same criteria as personal spending. Does society get value for money? Can cooperative relationships (families, neighborhoods, corporations, cities, nation-states) provide for defense, education, health care, retirement, etc., more efficiently than individuals? If yes, then the spending is good. If not, then it isn't. There's no fixed level of taxing or spending that's either good or bad. Except if you worship at the altar of the new religion.


None Of The Above

There's good news and bad news in the Republican primary runoff between Angie Chen Button and Randall Dunning to represent District 112 in the Texas House. The good news is that one of these two candidates has to lose. The bad news is that one of them is going to win.

Chen Button is the DART board member who managed to overlook a billion dollar budget shortfall on her watch. She prefers to talk about the evil illegal immigrants. She's buying a seat in Austin with a huge advantage in campaign contributions, including $160,000 from herself that she loaned to her campaign. Dunning is the former Garland city councilman who doesn't believe in evolution, thinks government should get completely out of education, and was once fired after carrying a gun in his car at work in violation of company policy.

Angie Chen Button prevails, 53% to 47%. Either money talks or Randy Dunning is proof that there is such a thing as a candidate who is too conservative for even this north Dallas district. Maybe both. Angie Chen Button will now face the Democrat, Sandra Vule, in November.

Monday, April 07, 2008

Obama and sex education

The Nightly Build...

Every Baby a Wanted Baby

Rodger Jones, on the The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, says he is "chilled to the bone" by Barack Obama's "pro-abortion message that says convenience trumps the sanctity of life."

What did Obama say that so offends Jones? Speaking in favor of comprehensive sex education, Obama said he wants to teach his own daughters values and morals, but if they make a mistake, he doesn't want them punished with a baby or a sexually-transmitted disease at the age of sixteen.

This offends Jones. Is Jones against comprehensive sex education? Is Jones in favor of more unwanted babies or STDs? Does Jones mistakenly think that all babies are wanted babies, that babies are never neglected, mistreated, or abandoned because their mothers are not able or willing to care for them?

Jones, in a later comment, says, "The inconvenient baby born to your neighbor has every right to live." Nothing Barack Obama said contradicts that sentiment. Jones is blatantly misrepresenting Obama's position. Whether it's through ignorance or maliciousness, I can't tell.

This nation should be doing more to make every baby a wanted baby. It should be offering comprehensive sex education to teenagers. It should be making contraceptives available to sexually active youth. It should be providing alternative education, job training and child care to teenage parents. It should be doing everything possible to make sure every child born is a wanted child, that every child born gets proper care and love, and that sexually transmitted disease is prevented if possible and treated if necessary.

Barack Obama has it right. His advocacy for comprehensive sex education is America's best strategy for reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and the abortions that sometimes follow. I'm saddened and revolted that Rodger Jones or anyone on The Dallas Morning News editorial board is "saddened and revolted" by this position.

Friday, April 04, 2008

Flying Spaghetti Monster

The Nightly Build...

Supreme Being or Lawn Ornament?

Jeffrey Weiss, on the The Dallas Morning News Religion blog, tells readers about the newest sculpture to grace the lawn of the Cumberland County (Tennessee) Courthouse, an artist's rendition of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. This is a conversation piece on so many levels...

First, the story made the national news on April 1.

Second, technically, the sculpture isn't of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but a closely related cousin. If you enlarge the photo, you'll see the pasta is hollow. Clearly it's not made of spaghetti.

Third, I never would have picked Cumberland County, Tennessee as the place where county commissioners would open up the courthouse lawn in such a non-discriminatory fashion. The lawn is the home of an Iraq and Afghanistan Soldier's Memorial, the Statue of Liberty, chainsaw-carved monkeys and bears, Jesus carrying a cross, and now the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Is Tennessee trying to make up for the Scope's Monkey Trial, maybe?

Finally, Jeffrey Weiss' spoils the fun by injecting a very serious point. He says that "*any* being who has the power to have created and designed the unverse is, by defintion, supernatural and therefore a matter for religion rather than a science." Well, yes and no. Defining God as a being outside of space and time certainly sits well with scientists because then they don't have to explain Him. They can leave him for religion to talk about. But it doesn't sit well with Creationists because they insist that their God intersects space and time, most importantly in the act of Creation. That forces scientists to deal with God. Just how did being touched by a noodly appendage cause that lump of clay we know as Adam come to life? That's a question worthy of conversation over dinner. Spaghetti, anyone?

By the way, the Flying Spaghetti Monster artist, Ariel Safdie, says, "The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a pile of noodles and meatballs, but it is meant to open up discussion and provoke thought." That it did. Thanks.

Thursday, April 03, 2008

Big Oil and Congress

The Nightly Build...

Business 101

Trey Garrison defends Big Oil and ridicules Congress in a condescending blog item titled, "Exxon Mobil Tries Again to Explain Business 101 to House Members." In fact, Congress understands business better than Garrison himself does.

Garrison has a childhood lemonade stand understanding of economics. Little Trey sits on the sidewalk, selling summer refreshment and pocketing the revenue, pleased with his entrepreneurship. Meanwhile, Mom buys the table and chair, the pitcher, the lemonade mix, the water and refrigerator to make the ice cubes, the cardboard and markers for signs, keeps the neighborhood bully away and cleans up the mess afterwards.

In the case of Big Oil, Mom is the American taxpayer who has spent a trillion dollars protecting Big Oil's economic investment in the Middle East. The American taxpayer has a huge stake in that business, whether or not Exxon Mobil admits it and whether or not shills like Trey Garrison understand it.

Garrison approvingly quotes Jeroen van der Veer, CEO of Royal Dutch Shell, as saying "There is no point to spend billions of dollars on [alternative] technology that is too expensive for consumers." No, not if we can persuade the America taxpayer to keep spending a trillion dollars (and thousands of lives) providing military protection for Big Oil's business interests in the Persian Gulf.

And not if a few million in marketing and public relations can win press coverage attacking anyone who questions Big Oil. If Congress holds hearings on how to bring the skyrocketing cost of gasoline down, we can count on Trey Garrison to mock Congress. Maybe mock science, too, with a slap at "the chimera of anthropogenic global warming." It's all part of how business works. Just don't expect to read about it in Trey Garrison's Business 101 textbook based on that childhood lemonade stand.

Wednesday, April 02, 2008

Wingnuts for Hillary

The Nightly Build...

Mark Davis Relishes Democratic Turmoil

Mark Davis, in his regular column in The Dallas Morning News, tries to make the case that the endless Democratic nomination fight is actually good for Democrats and the country. Davis would have us believe that the campaigns tossing "personal and political barbs" at each other is actually more valuable than if the campaigns spent a month on "dry policy issues."

The Presidential campaign as circus. With Republicans munching popcorn and watching gleefully from the grandstands. Cheering on Hillary Clinton! And not having to defend their own disastrous foreign policy and economic policy fiascos. Mark Davis says this is good for the country. Mark Davis lies even more easily than Republicans claim the Clintons habitually do.

By the way, was anyone else struck by how easily Mark Davis writes, "As a Republican, I..."? Why is the News an official outlet for Republican Party talking points? Does the News give any Democrat their own regular column?

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

Hamas's evil

The Nightly Build...

Demonizing "Them"

The Dallas Morning News' Rod Dreher discovered another thing that's evil about the Hamas party in Palestine. This time it's their children's television programming, which demonizes George W Bush. Dreher asks, "How is Israel supposed to make peace with people like that?"

The simple answer is, you don't. You make common cause with peaceful Palestinians and marginalize Hamas. Hamas demonizes its enemies because it doesn't want peace. Us demonizing Palestinians in return just tends to increase Hamas' influence and power. Trying to kill all Hamas is even more futile. Dreher means well, but by fixating on the evil, he will never identify and cultivate what good might be trying to germinate in that God-forsaken land.