Obama as Paris Hilton; The surge

The Nightly Build...

---

How Low Can McCain Go?

John McCain is out with a new attack ad, this one mocking the huge, enthusiastic crowd Barack Obama drew in Berlin. McCain compares Obama with Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. WTF?

Since when is an American politician being greeted warmly abroad a bad thing? I appreciated Jon Stewart's take on this. He showed video of the crowd in Berlin, with many people waving American flags, and stopped short and asked something like, "What's wrong with this picture? None of the American flags are on fire." I used to think Bush and McCain adopted a unilateralist American foreign policy because none of our allies would join us in fighting al Qaeda. Now, I'm beginning to believe that Bush and McCain don't want foreign support and maybe even consider the whole rest of the world the enemy.

Anyway, in The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, James Mitchell had a different take on McCain's ad that hadn't occurred to me at all:

"The comparisons to a couple of airheads whose celebrity status is due only to this nation's fascination with all things Hollywood is a deplorable, deceptive putdown of Obama's accomplishments and indirectly the achievements of millions of African-Americans who have worked hard, really hard, and often against long odds for impressive gains."

Commenters found other racial overtones in the Obama/Britney/Paris juxtaposition. When another reader defended McCain and claimed being an African-American had nothing to do with the ad, reader "Davebo" summarized the argument as "Why are you all complaining? This ad doesn't tell you to hide your white women!"

I can understand these viewpoints, but personally, the racial overtones did not occur to me. I found the Obama as Paris Hilton analogy just plain silly, too silly to be offensive. I'm still steaming over McCain's lies that Obama hates the military and wants to lose a war to win the Presidency. Now that's offensive. To each his own, I guess.

P.S. In this fast moving campaign, McCain is now accusing Obama of "playing the race card" when Obama said "What [Republicans] are going to try to do is make you scared of me. You know, he's not patriotic enough, he's got a funny name, you know, he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills." Obama's campaign says Obama was not referring to race at all. Just like McCain's campaign claimed that the Obama/Britney/Paris ad didn't have racial connotations, either. If we're going to condemn the two campaigns for "playing the race card," let the record show that McCain's ad aired before Obama made his comments. ;-)

---

Assessing the "Surge"

The Dallas Morning News published an editorial admitting they were wrong for opposing the surge in troops in Iraq. Editorial board member Tod Robberson, in The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, says no one needs to offer apologies for opposing the surge. He claims opposition to the war also played a part in reducing violence in Iraq. Maybe yes, maybe no, but there are other factors of greater significance.

No one should deny that the surge played a big part in reducing the violence in Iraq. Obama certainly doesn't. But it would be wrong to ignore other factors. Tod Robberson mentions the anti-war movement in the US as one. That prodded Iraq to do something before the US pulled out, whereas Bush's "stay the course" strategy did not. Also critical was the Sunni tribal leaders flipping their support to the US and away from al Qaeda. Also critical was the Shiite militias calling a cease-fire. Finally, you have to recognize the impact of ethnic cleansing. When Sunnis and Shiite neighborhoods were purged of the other, the amount of violence dropped. There were fewer targets. The decrease in violence tracked the increase in refugees, which is now in the millions.

If Iraq were all there is and victory at all costs was justified, then the "surge" would have been a logical tactic. But we're in a global war on terror and Iraq was and is a sideshow, a distraction from our bigger national security interests. So, no matter how successful the surge was in reducing violence (bringing political reconciliation is a whole 'nother matter), it risks turning out to be a Pyrrhic victory. Obama has always taken a more global, strategic view of things. In that view, the surge prevented us from focusing more attention on Afghanistan and Pakistan, which Obama rightly views as the central front in the bigger war. The final grade on the surge has yet to be awarded.

Candidates admitting error; Rove talking points

The Nightly Build...

---

Should a Candidate Admit Error?

Mark Davis, in an op/ed column in The Dallas Morning News, asks the question, "Should a candidate admit error?"

The answer, of course, is, only if he's made an error. John McCain, for example, voted to give George Bush authorization to launch the disastrous war in Iraq. More recently, he has confused Sunni and Shia. He mixed up the timeline between the the Sunni Awakening in Iraq's Anbar province and the beginning of the so-called "surge." He referred to a non-existent Iraq/Pakistan border. He repeatedly referred to Czechoslovakia, a country that hasn't existed in over a decade. He first said he wouldn't raise taxes; then he said nothing would be off the table; now he's back to saying again he won't raise taxes. The list of errors seems to grow longer with each campaign speech or interview McCain gives.

Should John McCain admit error? Most definitely. But don't count on it.

Ok, in the interest of full disclosure, I admit that I haven't read Mark Davis' column. I only saw the headline. Yet I knew pretty much what it would say. And it wouldn't be about John McCain's numerous errors, right? I wager that's one prediction I won't need to admit error on.

---

No, Obama's Ego Is Not Out Of Control

Yesterday it was Michael Landauer, on The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, who headlined a Karl Rove talking point with his blog post titled, "Does Obama hate the military?"

Today, Sharon Grigsby takes up another Rove talking point with her own blog post titled, "Is Obama's ego out of control?" In each case, they add a question mark at the end to indicate, I guess, that maybe it's true, maybe it isn't. Then both go on to talk about it as if it is. As Michael Landauer says,

"I'm gonna ignore this tired old shoot-the-messenger garbage and address the issue, if that's acceptable to Obama disciples. See, I think it's OK to question these things. I don't want a president who can't be questioned, even if that is what the evil Karl Rove wants!"

Grigsby's other coworkers at the News also come to her defense, pointing out that Grigsby is an Obama supporter. Like that's at all relevant. Lazy writing is lazy writing, no matter who does it.

The point is not politics of the author of the blog item. The point is not that the blog item is critical of Obama. The point is that the subject is right out of the talking points that Rove and the McCain campaign have been feeding the press for the last couple days. More important, the point is that neither Landauer nor Grigsby applied any kind of critical analysis to the talking points. Both pretty much accepted the talking points as true. That's lazy.

Landauer didn't analyze whether or not Obama does or does not hate the military. He just began making suggestions for how Obama can change his image, as if it's an image problem he's dealing with and not a lie.

Grigsby didn't analyze whether a quote snippet she referenced, taken out of context, even supported the Rove contention that Obama is arrogant. (The full quote presents just the opposite impression.) She just asked when does Obama's presumed behavior become "pompous and pretentious?"

The Dallas Morning News Trailblazers blog also covered this latter story, in a blog item by Wayne Slater. Reader "Linda" had the best explanation for what Slater did right, in contrast to Grigsby. She says,

"Wayne Slater's blog is the kind of thing I look for in an editorial commenting on election stories of this nature. He identifies the story-behind-the-story, and in the title of his post he puts the talking point in the proper context. In the body of the article, he chastises the MSM for picking up Rove's talking points and supports his point with a summary of quotes from national papers. Kudos to Wayne Slater for getting it right."

My takeaway from the discussion generated by these two blog items is this rule of thumb for commenting on The Dallas Morning News blogs. You can criticize what Barack Obama says. You can criticize what John McCain says. But you can't criticize what the bloggers say. What passes for journalism on The Dallas Morning News blogs is off limits.

McCain's lies

The Nightly Build...

---

McCain Takes the Low Road

John McCain has taken to telling lies about Barack Obama's character -- that Obama wants America to lose a war to help his election chances and that Obama hates the military. These are the most despicable campaign tactics since Republicans smeared John Kerry with being unpatriotic and smeared Georgia Senator and triple amputee Max Cleland with lying about his war wounds and since George Bush smeared John McCain with racist rumors about his family during the 2000 Republican primaries. In some ways, McCain's lies and smears today are worse because in those prior examples, George Bush used surrogates to spread the smears. Today, John McCain himself lies openly and brazenly.

So, how does the press cover this? Michael Landauer, in The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, posts an item asking, "Does Obama hate the military?" and suggests Obama should, in response, name Texas Congressman Chet Edwards as his choice for vice president.

Huh? First, let's deal with Landauer's question so we can get it behind us. No, Obama does not hate the military. Look at his votes on military matters, compare to McCain, and any fair-minded observer would conclude that Obama supports our troops as much or even more than McCain does.

Now, let's look at what's left unstated in Landauer's blog item. McCain's ad is a bald-faced lie. I don't, for a minute, believe that Landauer himself thinks Obama hates the military. Landauer does call McCain's ad a smear, but he doesn't say much to set the record straight. Instead of making McCain and his dishonorable smear the issue, Landauer repeats the smear, putting a question mark after it like it's a reasonable question. It isn't. Landauer reinforces the lie by suggesting that Obama better pick for his veep candidate someone who doesn't hate the troops, leaving the impression Obama himself does.

In a comment, Landauer suggests that people taking offense at all this might be enough to convince Landauer to switch his own support from the victim of the lies to the liar himself. Unbelievable!

Landauer defends himself in several more comments. He says the McCain ad is "a twisted version of the truth, but there's a grain ..." No, it's not any version of the truth. It's a lie. There's not a grain of truth to the charge that Obama hates the military. It's a lie.

Landauer says, "most people will not hear the details as we're discussing them here. They will only hear the slanted overview." That's true. And Landauer's own headline provides that slanted overview for the casual reader who doesn't get much past the headline anyway. Landauer says his point is suggesting how Obama should respond. Obama should respond by asking the press to report the facts. Obama supports the military as much or more than John McCain. McCain's campaign has descended into a sick, sleazy smear campaign. And the press is giving him a pass on it.

Michael Landauer dismisses the criticism by saying it's an OPINION blog and that "It's my job to write persuasively. ... Clearly, I don't think Obama hates the military."

My criticism is not aimed at Michael Landauer personally, who I don't think agrees with John McCain's lies. My critique is targeted at his writing, in which failed miserably at writing clearly. His headline leaves the implication that Obama hates the military, or at least that there's a grain of truth that he does. His suggestion that Obama respond by naming someone who doesn't hate the military, in effect concedes the point that Obama needs such balance. His hint that he is more likely to support McCain because people are offended by this suggests he isn't offended by McCain's lies. All of these points sound like McCain campaign talking points. The fact that the comments indicate that no McCain supporter has taken offense at Landauer's blog item tells me that they thought he was clear... clear with the charge that Obama hates the military. I believe Landauer when he says he actually meant no such thing, but clearly he failed to write clearly.

Richardson ISD; Diversity in Plano; Gore's 10 year challenge

The Nightly Build...

---

Richardson Schools: Recognized for Success

An editorial in The Dallas Morning News points out what residents of Richardson have known for a long time -- it has schools worth bragging about.

"The Richardson school district's enrollment is about 34 percent white, 31 percent Hispanic, 26 percent black and 8 percent Asian-American. The Texas Education Agency also reports that nearly half of Richardson's students qualify as economically disadvantaged. ... The state has awarded Richardson its second highest-ranking the last two years. That's a feat for a diverse district and requires large numbers of students progressing in math, science, reading, language and social studies."

Congratulations, teachers, administrators, parents and students of the Richardson Independent School District. Great job.

---

Plano and Diversity: Not So Contradictory

Trey Garrison recently moved to Plano and is awfully defensive about it in a Viewpoints column in The Dallas Morning News. He simultaneously protests that Plano is a lot more diverse than people think and that he doesn't really want diversity in his neighborhood anyway. He's fine with diversity in the workplace and nightclubs, so long as it isn't class diversity. You're welcome in his neighborhood if you can afford weekly trips to Home Depot to keep up appearances. Keep poor people away from him, I guess.

Well, to each his own. I'm perfectly content in Richardson, where, as the story above points out, the schools' student body is truly diverse in ethnic background as well as socio-economic status. The school district's state rating demonstrates that kids can get a good education there, book learning in the classrooms, while simultaneously learning something about the rest of the world in the hallways and lunch room. I imagine that Plano is trending that way, too, to the benefit of everyone with schoolchildren living there, even Trey Garrison's family.

---

Mark Davis: What Me Worry?

Mark Davis isn't a climatologist, but he plays one in the newspapers. Al Gore issued a challenge to America to convert our electricity production away from use of fossil fuels within 10 years. This is a massive undertaking, almost impossible to imagine achieving, not least because of active opposition of the climate change deniers like Mark Davis. His latest attempt to talk Americans out of doing anything to stop climate change appears in a weekend op/ed column in The Dallas Morning News.

In truth, even Mark Davis is showing progress. Climate deniers originally denied that the climate was, in fact, changing. There are very few naysayers like that left. Even Mark Davis appears to have abandoned that argument.

The opposition has shifted to denying human involvement in climate change. Mark Davis says, "The logical flaw in assuming human blame is as simple as the understanding that one event may follow another without necessary causation. Global temperatures rose before man walked the Earth." Mark Davis' own logical flaw is thinking that because global temperatures have always fluctuated, then it follows that all fluctuations are therefore natural. There is a sound, factual, chain of causation between human burning of fossil fuel and global warming.

Davis isn't quite there yet, but many climate change deniers eventually retreat to a third argument -- maybe climate change is real, maybe humans are involved, but who's to say climate change is bad? Mark Davis himself is starting to use this argument. He says, "Who are we to assert that we know the planet's ideal temperature?"

This is a straw man argument. Scientists aren't claiming that there is an "ideal" temperature for earth. They do try to understand the effects of global warming on our existing environment. They certainly understand that some changes may benefit civilization, some harm civilization. Maybe a slightly warmer earth would reduce the cost of heating homes in currently frigid climates. Maybe global warming would open the arctic to agriculture and oil exploration. But Davis ignores the likelihood that some changes would be devastating. Flooding coastlines that are currently home to a billion people would be a disaster. Turning currently arable land into deserts, when a billion people still live by subsistence farming, would be a disaster. Davis says adapt. Six billion people trying to adapt to drastic climate change within a few decades or a century is certain to lead to unimaginable human suffering. But Mark Davis himself will probably survive quite comfortably, so why worry.

Chet Edwards; Obama the Messiah; Humanae Vitae

The Nightly Build...

---

Chet Who?

Michael Landauer, in The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, is pitching Texas Democratic Congressman Chet Edwards for vice president. He says he's a moderate, he's for health care reform, he's the right age, he's dependable and he's no elitist.

Sure, put an unknown on the ticket. Then, when you're going around the country introducing Barack Obama to the voters, you can introduce Chet Edwards, too. Sell him as a compassionate conservative Texan... Democrat. That'll make all the difference when you are promising change.

---

Obama the Messiah

Rod Dreher, in The Dallas Morning News, says, "I will not vote for Obama simply because I don't agree with his political stances." How does he title the blog entry in which he declares this? "Obama Christ, Superstar."

Instead of dissecting Obama's stances, Dreher repeatedly returns to the theme of Obama as messiah. Ad hominem attacks are the Republicans' last remaining weapon this election, it would seem.

---

40th Anniversary of Humanae Vitae

In a blog entry titled, "After 40 years, birth control decree still divides American Catholics", Bruce Tomaso in The Dallas Morning News Religion blog notes the 40th anniversary of Pope Paul VI's "Humanae Vitae," his encyclical declaring that most forms of birth control were a violation of Church law.

Oh, I don't know. The birth control decree might divide American Catholics, but not as much as birth control itself brings them together...literally.

Hey, it's Friday!

McCain and oil rigs; Obama's substance; Blow and Schutze

The Nightly Build...

---

When It Rains, It Pours

John McCain's campaign calendar for today showed a trip to an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico to trumpet McCain's plan for more offshore drilling. Coincidentally, Hurricane Dolly was roaring ashore in Texas. Hurricanes have been known to damage oil rigs. Not a good companion story when you're promoting offshore drilling. Also in the news, an oil tanker in Louisiana collided with a fuel barge, spilling oil into the Mississippi River and shutting down the waterway near New Orleans. The McCain campaign cancelled the photo op. Good call.

---

Obama: Style and Substance

William McKenzie, in The Dallas Morning News, perpetuates a canard when he asks, "Barack can give a good speech, but what about his policies?"

In fact, it's Obama's policies, not his speeches, that are his strongest asset. Recently, we've seen President Bush and Senator John McCain both move towards positions that Barack Obama has been advocating for months or years.

On Iraq, Obama has pushed for a timeline for withdrawal of US forces. Last week, President Bush agreed with Iraqi President al-Maliki on a "time horizon." On Afghanistan, Obama has pushed for more attention from the US on this central front on the war on terror. Obama said he'd send two more brigades. McCain countered by saying he'd send three. On Iran, Obama has pushed for tough diplomacy, whereas President Bush said you don't negotiate with terrorists. This week, President Bush dispatched the State Department's No. 3 diplomat to a negotiating session between Europe and Iran.

Those in the Republican-leaning press like William McKenzie continue to pretend that Obama is a smooth talker with no substance. Either McKenzie is deliberately lying or he hasn't been listening to the words in those good speeches Obama delivers. Take your pick.

---

When Mud Is Flung, Everybody Ends Up Dirty

Steve Blow, in The Dallas Morning News Metro blog, and Jim Schutze, in Unfair Park, are going at each other over a column Blow wrote about Dallas City Council member Angela Hunt's field trips to Mexico and Tennessee to investigate plans by the Dallas Zoo to send Jenny the elephant to a new home.

Angela Hunt complained that Steve Blow did not bother to contact her for comment before filing his column. In it, he accused Hunt of "meddling" in Zoo affairs and "falling under the sway" of PETA. The first charge is odd, given that the zoo is owned by the city. The latter charge is journalistic malpractive, given that Blow presented no evidence of any association between PETA and Hunt. Overall, not a good showing by Blow.

Jim Schutze accused Blow of shoddy journalism by not contacting Hunt and including Hunt's position in his column. But Blow deftly deflected that charge by pointing out that Schutze himself failed to contact Blow before blasting him in Unfair Park. Touche. Worse, Schutze accused Blow of following the dictates of The Dallas Morning News management in writing a critical column about Angela Hunt because "the News hates Hunt because she opposed them on Trinity River project." It's safe to surmise that the News and Hunt are not allies, but Schutze shouldn't assume that every critical story out of The Dallas Morning News is coordinated for evil purpose. Overall, not a good showing by Schutze.

Call this exchange, not a draw, but a loss by all sides. Blow, Schutze, and the reader.

The Surge

The Nightly Build...

---

Successful War? Hardly

Mark Davis is frothing at the mouth in an op/ed column in The Dallas Morning News. Barack Obama's hugely successful trip to Afghanistan and Iraq has Davis seeing red. He's livid that Barack Obama doesn't see "the surge" as an end in itself, that decreasing violence without political reconciliation is not success, that continued distraction from the central front on the war in terror in Afghanistan and Pakistan is not an altogether good thing. "The surge" has been more successful as a political tool for McCain than it's been helpful to America in the real war on terror.

Mark Davis doesn't mention other events that have led to a reduction in violence in Iraq. He doesn't mention the goals of the surge, which was the political reconciliation that hasn't happened. He doesn't mention the deterioration of conditions in Afghanistan, which is where the real front in the war on terror is. Iraq has always been a sideshow. He doesn't mention McCain's support from the beginning in getting America bogged down in that sideshow.

The ethnic cleansing of Sunni and Shiite neighborhoods had run its course in 2007. Millions of Iraqis, the targets of the ethnic violence, have become refugees in Syria or Jordan. Today, Baghdad is no longer an integrated city, but is a collection of walled compounds, some Sunni, some Shiite. In 2006, the United States began to buy off the Sunni tribal leaders, paying them to turn their guns against al Qaeda instead of US forces. The major Shiite militias declared a ceasefire at about the same time. All these factors played a part to reduce the violence. Certainly, the surge helped. That's good. But political reconciliation is still a mirage. Iraq is still an unstable country where violence is still an everyday fear. US troop levels are no lower than they were before the surge. And al Qaeda is growing stronger, not weaker, in Afghanistan and Pakistan, just as in 2001 when al Qaeda was plotting its attacks on America.

Against that dismal backdrop, Barack Obama goes to the region and reiterates his intention to end the American involvement in the war in Iraq and refocus America on the war on terror in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In a huge success, Obama draws backing for his strategy from none other than the democratically-elected Iraqi government America nourished and pins its hopes on. This drives Mark Davis rabid. He describes Obama's trip as shameful and galling and insulting. He even denies the reality of the words of support from Iraqi's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Mark Davis is "blind by choice." Barack Obama sees clearly. It's Mark Davis who has lost sight of the goal of the war on terror, of America's strategic interest, and who has become emotionally invested in a religious civil war in Iraq and in the politicians responsible for the debacle. To quote Davis, "I could gag."

Victory in Iraq

The Nightly Build...

---

Victory in Iraq? Or Catch 22?

Michael Landauer, in The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, finds fault with John McCain's opposition to withdrawal of troops from Iraq. McCain said, "When you win wars, troops come home." Landauer says this statement "almost makes it sound like it's the troops' fault. If they'd just win this thing, they could come home."

McCain hasn't defined what "victory" is, but he's suggested it means conditions on the ground that allow us to remain in Iraq indefinitely (for 100 years, as he put it once). And if conditions on the ground don't permit that, we have to stay until they do. Face it. The troops aren't coming home under a President McCain. Catch 22 is alive and well.

After meeting with Gen. David Petraeus in Iraq, Barack Obama acknowledged that the U.S. commander does not want a timetable for withdrawal of troops. Landauers admits to never being comfortable with the notion of commanders on the ground telling the President what to do.

Don't forget that President Bush kept firing generals until he got commanders on the ground that would tell him what he wanted to hear. Now, he says he listens to the commanders on the ground.

Election polls; Bias in the Star-Telegram

The Nightly Build...

---

What to Make of the Polls?

Keven Ann Willey, in The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, notes that all the buzz everywhere is about Barack Obama, but the Presidential preference polls show the race to be essentially tied, within the margin of the error of the polls. Willey subscribes to the theory that "polls this far out are absolutely worthless." She prefers to look at the current Presidential party's time in office, the current President's approval rating, the economic growth rate, etc., to better forecast the election outcome. And, by those measures, the buzz surrounding Obama is justified.

Willey is right that polls in July are not good predictors of elections in November, but they don't claim to be. The electorate is fickle. All the polls claim to be is a snapshot in time of the electorate's preference today. The polls may be perfectly accurate in calculating the mood of the electorate today, but to predict what the electorate's mood will be in November, you have to look at more than just today's polls.

The betting sites, like InTrade, give Obama a 65% chance of winning. The bettors are looking at more than just the current national presidential preference polls. Nationally, Obama and McCain may be within the margin of error, but state by state is a different story. Real Clear Politics projects Obama with 255 electoral votes safe or leaning to him, McCain with 163, and 120 electoral votes judged to be a toss-up. Obama needs only 15 more electoral votes to reach the 270 needed for election. McCain has to practically run the table on all those toss-up states for his own victory. Given that grim math, the tightness of the national polls is actually in Obama's favor, not McCain's.

Regardless of whether the race is close or not, expect the press to report it as if it's close. In part this is to sell newspapers. In part this is to avoid looking like idiots if the favorite doesn't win. Just look at how the Democratic primaries were covered. Obama's victory was a foregone conclusion after February, yet the press covered the story as if it were still a horse race right up until Clinton's withdrawal in early June.

The bottom line? The November election is Obama's to lose, no matter what the national polls say today.

---

All the News that Fit to Line the Bird Cage

James Reza complains about the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, claiming it's only good for the obituaries, the grocery coupons, and lining the canary cage. Other than that, it's full of "leftist garbage and ... socialist and left leaning daily diatribes." Where does Reza choose to publish his rant? In Dallas Blog, itself full of rightist garbage and conservative and right leaning daily diatribes (to paraphrase Reza). Can you say unintended irony?

Network of Community Ministries; PUMA PAC

The Nightly Build...

---

Richardson Charity Ungrateful?

Blake Spencer, co-pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Richardson, stirred up a hornet's nest recently by going public with complaints that the City of Richardson is not supporting the Network of Community Ministries. In letters to the press, Spencer accused the city not only of non-support, but of not even responding to his letters, except for city councilman and former mayor Gary Slagel. Mayor Steve Mitchell has since told Spencer that he didn't receive his letters. It seems that where a phone call to or a visit to City Hall might have cleared up the miscommunication, Spencer chose to raise a stink in public.

As it turns out, the City of Richardson directly supports Network's fundraising efforts in various ways and indirectly supports Network's charitable work through through coordinated city programs like National Night Out and the Senior Center. Spencer calls such help "minimal at best." The Network's Web site says the organization "accepts no government funds," so it's not clear exactly what other support Blake Spencer is asking for. He speaks vaguely of appointing a task force.

Now that Spencer has stirred the hornet's nest, he is belatedly concerned about the hornets. In his latest letter to the press, he says:

"It has come to my attention that my letters to the city council of Richardson and articles concerning the Network and the support the City of Richardson offers are being used as a pawn in a political tug of war between local political advocacy groups. I want to make absoulutely clear that I am independent! I do not belong to any local political advocacy group!"

Spencer does not name the players in this tug of war. Perhaps related to this, Nathan Morgan, a persistent Richardson gadfly, published his own letter in support of Spencer. In it, he suggests that unnamed new Network administration officials no longer allow volunteers to engage in activities outside its charitable purpose, so unnamed former volunteers are trying to cause the demise of Network. Morgan himself gives no names, dates, or events to support his conspiracy theories. Morgan's writing is often so convoluted that it's difficult even to understand his English, to say nothing of trying to understand what's written between the lines.

Charitably, I conclude that Blake Spencer is in over his head. He goes public without the facts. He inserts himself into city politics he doesn't understand and can't control. He winds up with allies who can only harm his goal of increasing support for Network's charitable work. One can only hope that Spencer (and Morgan) exit the public stage quietly and go back to helping the poor. Spencer says, "It has never been my intent to 'embarrass' the city of Richardson." Too late for that, I'm afraid.

---

Party Unity My Ass

Wayne Slater, in The Dallas Morning News Trailblazers blog, reports on Howard Dean's bus trip to register Democratic voters, beginning in President Bush's hometown, Crawford, Texas. Slater notes that the Dean was greeted by an angry Hillary Clinton supporter who is a member of a pro-Clinton group called PUMA - Party Unity My Ass. The protester demanded that Clinton be nominated at the Denver convention. "We want a nominee who's elected, not selected," she said.

Comments to Slater's blog item supporting PUMA quickly collected. "You go, girl!!" "Wow, that girl (re: elected not selected) is right the f on." "Wonderful! Go PUMA!" And this:

"Howard Dean needs to get back on his bus and go back to DC. He's will be facing alot of Pumas on this trip. We don't want him in Georgia, and Florida. We have already registered our folks and they won't be voting for Obama."

So, who or what is PUMA PAC? It turns out to be a political action committee founded by Darragh Murphy. She claims to be a lifelong Democrat, but, as reported by Tommy Christopher on AOL's The Political Machine, Murphy voted in the 2000 Republican primary and donated money to John McCain. She claims to oppose John McCain's positions in this year's election, but admits to not being bothered by the possibility that her opposition to Barack Obama might lead to John McCain's election.

It's enough to make me wonder. Are Republicans the organizing force behind these unreconstructed Democrats? Are there any Republicans out there actively organizing opposition to John McCain? Or do the Democrats have a monopoly on stupidity?

Bilingual education; Obama press coverage

The Nightly Build...

---

May I have a Word? Need

In a recent speech, Barack Obama advocated Americans learning foreign languages. He said:

"Now, I agree that immigrants should learn English. I agree with that. But understand this. Instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English -- they'll learn English -- you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish. You should be thinking about, how can your child become bilingual? We should have every child speaking more than one language. ... We should understand that our young people, if you have a foreign language, that is a powerful tool to get a job. You are so much more employable. You can be part of international business. So we should be emphasizing foreign languages in our schools from an early age, because children will actually learn a foreign language easier when they're 5, or 6, or 7 than when they're 46, like me."

I didn't give this comment a second thought. Never would I have thought that this notion would be controversial. But I didn't count on the depth of the the anti-immigrant feelings in this country.

Rod Dreher, in The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, presented the opposition argument most rationally, saying "if you want to learn Spanish, or any other language, that's great -- but for reasons of political, cultural and social cohesion, we don't want to create a society in which learning a second language is a necessity."

So, where's the controversy? Apparently, Dreher and readers like "Peterk" are hung up on the word "need", as in "you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish." Some are twisting that into an implication that Obama will send language police into our schools and homes to force our children to speak Spanish. Absurd.

Peterk demonstrates some misconceptions about language. He objects to another reader saying Spanish is the third most popular language in the world. Peterk says that "popular" is a subjective determination. Note to Peterk: popular means prevailing among the people generally. Ironic, don't you think, that the defender of English has to be told a meaning of a common word?

He claims that "English has thrived over the centuries because it has been able to assimilate foreign words into its vocabulary. Other languages have to create words English just adopts them." Note to Peterk: All languages are able to assimilate foreign words. Peterk later admits as much by asserting that "German, French, Spanish and many other languages are struggling to survive as English words infiltrate." Note to Peterk: German, French, and especially Spanish are in no danger of dying out, whether they have a native word for, say, Internet, or not.

He claims that English the language of commerce. He got that one right, but for the wrong reason. He claims "In many international contracts the controlling language is English due to its accuracy and general acceptance." English is the common language because of the worldwide military, economic and cultural dominance of England and America for the last 300 years. The notion that English is somehow more "accurate" than other languages is silly and is belied by the eternal debates on blogs about the meaning of some comment or other. Obama's comment that Americans "need" to learn foreign languages is a case in point.

---

All Aboard the Obama Press Bus

William McKenzie notes the lavish coverage the media has planned for Barack Obama's upcoming trip to Iraq. He compares this with the lesser coverage John McCain received on his foreign trips this year. McKenzie asks, "Shouldn't the two be treated equally?"

McCain himself has built up the newsworthiness of Obama's trip by hammering on the point for weeks. McCain hs no one to blame but himself this time.

Reader "Peterk" suggests that the increased press coverage Obama's trip to Iraq is getting is part of a pattern. He points to a Fox News statistic -- Obama has received 114 minutes of network coverage June to present while McCain has received only 48. This is an age-old debate, whether the press ought to give equal time to all candidates or focus on candidates with a greater chance of winning. Intrade odds currently give Obama about a two-thirds chance of winning. McCain, one-third. I find it possibly significant that the network coverage statistics Peterk provided are consistent with Intrade's assessment of the election at this point. Peterk doesn't say how many minutes the networks have devoted to covering other candidates Bob Barr or Ralph Nader, but I'd wager that those numbers are in line with Intrade's odds, too.

Smears and Satire; Renaming Ross Avenue; Veepstakes

The Nightly Build...

---

What's the Difference Between a Smear and Satire?

The controversy over the New Yorker cover cartoon, showing Barack and Michelle Obama as terrorists who admire Osama bin Laden and hate America, continues to rage in the blogs. Jeffrey Weiss, in the The Dallas Morning News Religion blog, defends the New Yorker. He says he laughed, he squirmed, he didn't believe the magazine thinks Obama is a terrorist. Therefore, the satire worked for him.

Good for him. From the many, many comments on blogs discussing this, my impression is that Weiss is in the minority. Most readers failed to understand that the clueless people who believe absurd smears were the target of the satire. Most readers thought, and continue to think to this day, that the Obamas themselves were the target. Satire it may be, but not effective satire if the intended target is oblivious to the attack.

So, in summary, this is my understanding of how satire works in modern America:
Wingnuts have habitually slandered the Obamas.
The New Yorker simply repeats the slanders and calls it satire.
Liberals, Democrats, Muslims, blacks, women are offended.
Wingnuts grin.
The New Yorker basks in the commotion it caused.

It's not that appreciation of satire has diminished.
Satire itself has.
RIP, Jonathan Swift.

Now, just to show I'm not entirely humor-impaired, I repeat an Obama joke that I find to be funny.
Q. Why did Obama cross the road?
A. That's racist.

---

A Mess By Any Name

A month or so ago, the Dallas City Council wanted to distract the voters, so they held a popularity contest for naming the highway that they plan to pave over the Trinity River with. Instead of the institutionally preferred choices like Trinity Parkway or Riverfront Blvd., the voters got way too into it and chose Cesar Chavez Blvd. OMG! No way was the Dallas establishment going to allow their prized new highway to be named after an Hispanic labor leader from California.

Always thinking, the Council decides to compound their blunder by finding another street they can name after Cesar Chavez. Ross Avenue, anyone? Instead of solving one problem, they've created another. Now they have both the Hispanic community and East Dallas riled up.

Doesn't anyone on the Dallas City Council know that the first rule of holes is, if you find yourself in one, quit digging?

---

Mark Davis' Choices for Obama's Veep

Mark Davis, in a column in The Dallas Morning News, makes his recommendations for Barack Obama's vice presidential pick. Ordinarily, you'd have to think that a Mark Davis recommendation automatically invalidates any chance a Democrat might have of being a good pick for Obama. But let's play along.

Davis' picks overlap my own. He includes Evan Bayh, Ed Rendell, Joe Biden and Bill Richardson on his short list. I've already ruled out Richardson (boring loser) and Biden (verbose loser). But both have something very important going for them, and that's the vetting that comes with running for President. More and more, it looks like this election is Obama's to lose. The last thing he'll want to happen is lose the election because he picks an untested candidate for vice president who turns out to be a serious liability. Richardson and Biden may not add much to the ticket, but they are unlikely to detract anything, either.

That leaves Bayh and Rendell on both Mark Davis' and my short lists. Rendell is losing ground in my rankings because it looks like Obama won't need Rendell's help to carry Pennsylvania. And Bayh's stock is rising because Obama could very well use Bayh's help in carrying Indiana. A Bayh pick means Obama is playing offense. A Rendell pick means he's playing defense. And, right now, in mid-July, Obama is definitely on the offense.

Humor and Politics; In Bruges

The Nightly Build...

---

What's Funny About Obama?

Rodger Jones, in The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, raises the topic of humor in the Presidential campaign. He asks if there's "enough good material out there poking fun at" Barack Obama, "chipping away at his Barack-can-do-anything mystique." He considers this to be "legitimate, good humor stuff," in contrast to jokes about George W Bush, which he considers to be "humiliating stuff."

You can sometimes predict the outcome of presidential campaigns by the themes the comedians latch onto for the stuff of jokes. In 1996, Clinton was portrayed as the randy, fun-loving politician. Bob Dole as the crotchety old man. Guess who won. In 2000, George W Bush was portrayed as the drinking, partying, frat boy. Al Gore was portrayed as a smarty-pants and serial exaggerator. Guess who won. In 2004, George W Bush was portrayed as the bumbler who couldn't speak English. John Kerry was portrayed as an elitist and a flip-flopper. There should have been two losers in that election, but I guess someone has to win.

That brings us to 2008. Already, the theme of the jokes about John McCain is clear. He's old. He doesn't know how to use a computer. And Barack Obama? There was a spate of jokes about the press giving Obama an easy time. There was a spate of jokes about Obama being the messiah. There was a spate of jokes about Obama being elitist. But a consistent them has yet to emerge. And a lot of jokes use Barack Obama only as a setup for a punch line against another -- Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton or Jesse Jackson or John McCain. Unless the comedians zero in on a weakness in Barack Obama soon, John McCain is history. Hmm... John McCain and history. I wonder what the late night comedians could do with that.

OK, seriously, there are Barack Obama jokes. There are Obama jokes about race. They can be funny. Laugh along with me...

"There’s been this question about whether Obama’s black enough. He bowled a 37 -- to me, that’s black enough."
-- Bill Maher

Why did Obama cross the road?
That's racist.

---

10wol review: In Bruges

Steve Blow's 10-words-or-less review didn't do this movie justice. But he didn't allow publication of my own review:

F***ing good movie. F***ing good city...for a sh*th*le.

Viagra and the Pill; New Yorker cover

The Nightly Build...

---

Viagra and the Pill

Michael Landauer, in The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, says CNN is "awkwardly trying to embarrass" John McCain. How so? By showing him laughing nervously, squirming, and ducking when asked if it is unfair that some insurance companies offer coverage for Viagra for men but not contraceptives for women. Landauer's analysis?

"What's this all about? Nothing. Seriously, nothing. ... McCain gave a very good response to arandom question. His instinct was to avoid offering an opinion on something that is clearly a delicate situation."

Is Landauer kidding? McCain swung and missed at a fat pitch. A proper answer would have been, "Yes, it's unfair and I intend to introduce legislation to correct the injustice." Unless, of course, McCain doesn't think it's unfair. Then, he could have said, "No, I think it's fine that women can't get contraceptives under their insurance plan while me can get Viagra." Instead, the double-talk express dodged any answer at all.

---

The Obamas as Terrorists

The New Yorker cover shows Barack and Michelle Obama in the Oval Office. An American flag burns in the fire place under a picture of Osama bin Laden. Barack Obama is dressed in Middle Eastern garb. Michelle Obama is dressed in fatigues with a rifle slung over his shoulder. The two are giving each other what Fox News calls "a terrorist fist jab."

In The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, Sharon Grigsby says, "I kinda enjoy the provocation -- an in-your-face to the people who really believe that's who the Obamas are."

The cover supposedly parodies the caricature of the Obamas believed by many conservatives. Is it effective satire? No. If it were, the left, recognizing that conservatives are the butt of the joke, would appreciate the cartoon. And the right, the object of the joke, would be offended at the exaggeration of their beliefs. Yet, the reverse is the case. The artist failed to realize that it's impossible to exaggerate the right's beliefs about Obama. Those beliefs are even more extremist than any cartoon can show.

Texas Rangers; Religious education in Britain

The Nightly Build...

---

Before the Rangers' Summer Fade

Frontburner's Zac Crain uses an area secret, the Texas Rangers, to knock The Dallas Morning News Web site. Crain refers to a ninth-inning walk off home run for the Texas Rangers (you know, that sports team that's not the Cowboys, Mavericks or Stars). Crain noticed that it wasn't the top story on the News' Web site. It was not even in the top ten. He concludes that the Web site is terrible.

I, on the other hand, have to put this in the plus column for the News. A baseball story belongs in the sports pages. Always, in the sports pages, not the front page (or home page). It should always take at least two clicks to get from the paper's home page to a story about a kid's game, even it's played by adults. The two-click rule applies to games, to restaurants, to fashion, and to Angelina's twin babies. So, if the Rangers weren't the top story, maybe, just maybe, there's hope that The Dallas Morning News Web site has its priorities better ordered than the the print edition does.

But danger lurks. Mike Hashimoto, on the News editorial board, uses the Opinion blog to tell us that the Rangers "are close to becoming more than a sports story." He should lose his license to practice journalism for so easily losing his objectivity. Small loss, since as far as I can tell from his scant contributions to the Opinion blog, he must be moonlighting at something else anyway.

Oh yeah, the Web site is still terrible, just not for the reason Zac Crain mentions.

---

Teaching British Children About Islam

Dallas Blog continues to scour the foreign tabloids for things to be outraged over. Today, Tom McGregor turns up an incident in England at a school that teaches children about other religions. The parents of two schoolboys were outraged that their sons' teacher taught the boys how Muslims pray. Tom McGregor doesn't say why he finds this story newsworthy in Dallas, Texas.

Could it be that Tom Pauken's Dallas Blog is suddenly outraged over the thought of prayer in public school? That they are suddenly champions of secular education? That they see the light that government-led religious prayer is not such a good idea in a pluralistic society?

Don't count on it. If this were a case of parents objecting to the teacher leading Christian prayers, Dallas Blog probably wouldn't cover it at all, and if it did, Dallas Blog would be defending the school and would be outraged over the parents' demand to remove God from our public schools.

P.S. To those who argue that conservatives are only asking for *voluntary* prayer in American public schools, know that voluntary prayer has never been outlawed. Schoolchildren have always been free to pray in American schools. It's the teachers and administrators who have been told not to lead the prayers.

Vice President choices

The Nightly Build...

---

Romney, Huckabee and Edwards (Chet, not John)

Earlier this week, Mark Davis picked his choice for John McCain's VP, Ohio's Rob Portman. Carl Leubsdorf, in The Dallas Morning News Viewpoints section, weighs in today with his pick, and it's not Portman, who he views as too closely tied to George W Bush to be helpful to McCain in the 2008 election.

Leubsdorf says picking an inexperienced politician or a wild card for VP is too risky, ruling out Bobby Jindal, Tim Pawlenty, Carly Fiorina, Sarah Palin, and everybody else who didn't go through the heat of the primary campaigns. That leaves Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney as Leubsdorf's recommendations. Tested. Safe. Low risk. But Leubsdorf saves for his last sentence the most important factor that should be guiding John McCain: "Still, Mr. McCain may feel his underdog status requires a gamble, not a safer choice like Mr. Romney or Mr. Huckabee." If McCain can't turn the polls around before the convention, expect him to take a chance on his VP pick. McCain's a gambler. Expect him to act like one.

The Dallas Morning News editoral board weighs in today on the Democratic side, recommending Texas Congressman Chet Edwards to Barack Obama. Sure, like that's going to happen. Edwards is from Texas. He's unknown outside his district. He's untested in national politics. Carl Leubsdorf's analysis applies better to Obama than McCain. This election is Obama's to lose. Expect Obama to make the safe, low risk choice for his VP. And that isn't an unknown conservative Democrat from Texas.

Naval prayer; Rob Portman; Olympics

The Nightly Build...

---

Saying Grace at the Naval Academy

Bruce Tomaso, in The Dallas Morning News Religion blog, reports on a complaint by nine Naval midshipmen at Annapolis who object to noon prayers at meals. Tomaso quotes from a column by Phyllis Zagano in Religion News Service:

"The American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland is in an uproar because midshipmen are praying before lunch at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis. Heaven forbid!"

It's not the ACLU that's in an uproar. In fact, I'm not sure anyone is in an uproar, other than Phyllis Zagano. She shouldn't attack the ACLU. They are only representing the Naval midshipmen. If she wants to defend compulsory prayer in the military, she has to attack those men in uniform who object, not the lawyers they hire to represent them.

The Declaration of Independence and the Pledge of Allegiance are not prayers. What's said at meals in the Naval Academy is a prayer. Big difference.

Whether any of this rises to the level of Constitutional violation is debatable. But that's up to the courts to decide. It's not for the rest of us to tell those men in uniform that freedom of religion (which includes freedom from religion) doesn't apply to them.

---

Mark Davis' Veep Pick

Mark Davis, in The Dallas Morning News, picks his choice for John McCain's vice president. It's Ohio's Rob Portman, former Congressman and director of the Office of the Budget. McCain needs Ohio and McCain himself has a "lack of economic street cred." For once, I find myself in agreement with Mark Davis. See my own analysis of vice presidential possibilities. I haven't yet singled out Rob Portman as the choice, but he's one of the few who haven't been ruled out yet, either.

---

Beijing Olympics: Bush vs Obama

James Mitchell, in The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, finds an inconsistency between Barack Obama's statement that if he were President, he wouldn't attend the Olympic opening ceremonies, and his statement that he is open to face-to-face negotiations with our adversaries with no preconditions. Mitchell also asks, if Obama is intent on making a statement, why not call for a full Olympic boycott.

There's no inconsistency. Bush attending the Beijing Olympics is giving a Presidential endorsement to a huge Chinese commercial endeavor, the kind of thing you do *after* a successful negotiation, maybe. And a full Olympic boycott is the kind of action you might take *after* a failed negotiation. Obama talking with a foreign leader is a part of the negotiations that you do first. Obama has things in the right order.

No Smoking; Obama at Invesco Field; Niggardly

The Nightly Build...

---

Dallas' Anti-Smoking Ordinance

Dallas has been considering a strict anti-smoking ordinance. That led Tod Robberson, in The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, to write of an incident where his asthmatic grandmother was severely impacted by the secondhand smoke in a Dallas restaurant and bar. He compares the move to ban smoking to other laws that make accomodations for the handicapped.

"Don't all businesses have to be wheelchair-accessible specifically because you're not allowed to discriminate on the basis of physical disability?"

There are two problems with Robberson's argument. First, wheelchair ramps help handicapped people without inconveniencing other patrons. Smoking bans help handicapped people by inconveniencing smokers. Second, some of the people who are against a smoking ban are also against laws requiring accomodations for the handicapped. Robberson's argument falls on deaf ears.

But I think most of the debate misses the point. The right of the public to smoke versus the right of the public to enjoy smoke-free public venues is only part of the debate.

It is my understanding the original argument for banning smoking in restaurants is for workplace safety. Exposing restaurant staff to secondhand smoke is an easily correctable safety issue -- ban smoking. I suppose one could argue that the employees can always quit and find a job elsewhere. I believe that was the argument in the days of the muckraker Upton Sinclair who documented the dreadful conditions in meatpacking plants (staffed largely by immigrants, by the way, but let's not add that to the argument here). Society decided to restrict the rights of business owners in order to extend the right to a safe workplace to workers. Exactly where to draw the line between rights is a question that is not settled to this day.

Personally, I say ban smoking. On the other hand, leaving the choice up to restaurant owners wouldn't rise to the level of a human rights violation in my mind, either.

---

Obama at Invesco Field

Joel Thornton, in The Dallas Morning News Trailblazers blog, reports that Barack Obama will accept the Democratic nomination for President at Denver's 76,000-seat Invesco Field. Thornton says, "It will open up the event to the public and add a lot of buzz to what's become a stale rite of the political conventions."

Thornton calls a candidate's acceptance speech "a stale rite of the political conventions." On the contrary, the candidate's acceptance speech is about the only thing left about conventions that isn't stale.

On a related note, I have noticed that since the primaries concluded, we don't get to hear any candidate speeches in prime time on television anymore. One of the great things about the primaries is that each week, all the candidates gave, in prime time, a victory speech or a concession speech that the cable news networks covered, mostly in their entirety. The voters got to hear directly from the candidates, without it being filtered by the talking heads. The next chance for that is the candidates' acceptance speeches at their conventions. Stale? I don't think so.

---

May I Have a Word? Niggardly

Rod Dreher, in The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog dredges up the old news of people in the public eye starting a firestorm by innocently using the word niggardly, meaning miserly, and having some listeners hearing a racial slur. Dreher asks, "Why should intelligent people who know how to use the English language censor themselves because of the limitations of the ignorant?"

I suppose the simple answer is because intelligent people want to be understood. If there are some in their audience who are likely to misunderstood a word in such a way to create a firestorm, then effective speakers will choose another word. But this wouldn't be the first time Dreher would choose to do something that is not so intelligent "on principle" (read "out of obstinacy").

Most commenters to Dreher's blog post agreed with Dreher. When Eric Chandler suggested that some people deliberately use words like niggardly to cause a stir, Dreher flatly denied anyone does such a thing and "PeterK" mocked even the suggestion. "Frank" blamed the listeners, saying that people choose what offends them. "I.B. Judge" wonders which is the proper word used to describe people who take offense: "retarded", "idiotic", "moronic", or "ignorant"?

"laray polk" offers a thoughtful suggestion for how to deal with such incidents:

"Instead of seeing such incidents as a rupture in which the educated elite get yet another opportunity to tell others how they are misguided, why not open it up? Here, I'll go first: 'I hurt your feelings?' 'Okay, are you comfortable explaining it to me so that I don't hurt your feelings again in the same way?'"

But don't expect the commenters in this thread to react that way. It is my perception that they, if not actually relishing the offense the word "niggardly" causes, then at least not caring. But that's just my perception. I could be miscontruing their real meaning. But by now, I don't care myself.

"Grand New Party"

The Nightly Build...

---

More Condescension from Rod Dreher

Rod Dreher, in a viewpoints article in The Dallas Morning News, psychoanalyzes people not like him -- in this case, "the poor and working class." He's got them all figured out. He says they

"tend to prefer non-squishy religion prescribing a stark moral code."

Dreher has "the elites" figured out, too. He says they

"look at working-class anxiety over illegal immigration and see only nativism. What elites don't, or won't, see is that the working classes are pressed harder by the presence of illegal immigrants, in ways that typically don't affect academics, media types or affluent suburbanites."

In an article dripping of condescension, Dreher accuses elites of ... condescension. In fact, liberals fully understand that the poor and working class are pressed hard. Some liberals are, in fact, poor. Liberal social policies - Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, food stamps, minimum wage, etc. - all help to provide a safety net for those living on the economic margins. Liberals understand that nativism is a symptom of the difficulties faced by the poor and working class, not a solution. Dividing native Americans from immigrants, whites from blacks, young from old, using wedge issues to divide Americans may win elections for Republicans, but won't hold families together.

Dreher gets around to reviewing the book, "Grand New Party" by Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam. They "suggest an emerging centrist constituency that's culturally conservative but economically liberal." Douthat and Salam may be on to something, but readers will have to get it from reading the book, not from Rod Dreher's crunchy conservative pyschobabble about what motivates the poor, the working classes, and the elites.

Fourth of July

Happy Fourth of July! Ed Cognoski is taking the day off to celebrate American Independence Day. Richardson, Texas, puts on a great festival and fireworks show at Breckinridge Park.

North Korea; TDMN search

The Nightly Build...

---

Talking to North Korea

Tod Robberson of The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, remarks on North Korea's remarkable transformation from international outlaw to welcome member of the fraternity of nations. President Bush removed North Korea from the list of countries supporting international terrorism. Meanwhile, Iran continues to be shunned. Robberson asks readers to explain the inconsistency behind Bush's actions.

A reader named "Frank" suggests that Bush never took a one-size-fits-all approach to terrorist states: "Not sure how one defends treating all situations across the globe in the same manner. The players and dynamics in each situation are different."

Nice trick, flipping Bush's position 180 degrees and declaring it a strength of his and a weakness of Obama's. Bush lumped North Korea, Iran and Iraq into the same Axis of Evil. Bush didn't OK negotiations in some instances but not others when he said, "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along." Suddenly, a month after Bush accuses Obama of appeasement for suggesting we talk with Iran, Bush announces a deal with North Korea and the Bush apologists try to paint Obama as the naive politician who can't understand Bush's rational approach of negotiations instead of preemptive war. Where have I read all this before?

"Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct; nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record. All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary." -- George Orwell, 1984

---

Searching The Dallas Morning News

Mike Hashimoto, of The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, passes on the advice of an editor who says that if you're having trouble using the search function on the newspaper's Web site, a workaround is to go to Google and use its worldwide search with the additional term "site:dallasnews.com". Hashimoto rightly asks "what it says about a business headed away from print and toward the Web that we have to provide workarounds for customers who just want to find something we're offering?" Rod Dreher chimes in with his own tale of woe -- the Web site no longer recognizes him as a registered user.

TDMN doesn't have the technology to compete. And it's moving too slowly to ever catch up. The problem is common to print media in general. Maybe it's true that it's impossible to teach old dogs new tricks.

Rod Dreher's problem is illustrative. He says the Web site no longer recognizes him as a registered user from his work computer. Forgotten user ids, passwords, deleted cookies, all could be responsible and all have one thing in common: the problem is on the user end. But Rod refuses to re-register on principle. He just doesn't use his own company's Web.

There you have it. TDMN's Web site sucks. And its own employees are abandoning the Web site rather than working with it to get it fixed, even though their jobs depend on getting the Web site right.

Bush and world opinion; Obama's July 4th; Charles Eisemann

The Nightly Build...

---

Taking Pride in the World's Scorn

Mark Davis, in a The Dallas Morning News op/ed piece, attempts to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Davis admits that large parts of the world will breathe a sigh of relief when George W. Bush leaves office. Davis says that Bush and the United States

"are despised from the cafés of Paris to the sidewalks of Berlin, from the coffee shops of Cairo to the market squares of Caracas, all because we have spent the years since 9/11 trying to reform the part of the world that wishes we were all dead."

Rather than admit failure, Davis says Bush should take pride in this scorn. He hopes that a McCain presidency will lead to more hate heaped on us from around the world.

Mark Davis has it exactly backwards. The world does not wish Americans were all dead. Certainly, it did not immediately before and after 9/11. The United States received enormous sympathy from around the world after 9/11. But America's unilateral, cowboy foreign policy emphasizing pre-emptive war squandered that sympathy and drove the rest of the world away from us and towards the kind of attitude Davis imagines.

But there is one person who isn't happy to see Bush leave office. That's Osama bin Laden. Osama designed the 9/11 attack to lure America into a war in Afghanistan, that graveyard for imperial overreach from the British Empire to the Soviet Union. When Bush invaded Iraq as well, Osama's wildest dreams came true. Osama got Bush to do his bidding, toppling Osama's enemy Saddam Hussein. Bush's wars have been al Qaeda's greatest recruiting tool. Incidents of terror have risen throughout the world since Bush's invasion of Iraq.

Evidence of Osama's desire to see Bush remain in office came shortly before the 2004 election, when he released a videotape critical of Bush. Osama knows that the American electorate would predictably close ranks behind Bush and they did, electing him to a second term. Don't be surprised if Osama attempts to tilt the 2008 election towards John McCain by releasing another anti-Bush, anti-McCain videotape.

Mark Davis is a fool to think that America benefits by alienating the coffee shops and market squares of the world. That's Osama bin Laden strategic aim and Bush himself is handing Osama a victory. In the caves along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, the sound of cheering greets each Bush and McCain electoral victory. And, just maybe, a small smile of satisfaction greeted Mark Davis' latest foolishness.

---

Where in the World is Barack Obama?

Todd Gillman, on The Dallas Morning News Trail Blazers blog, has been looking at Barack Obama's upcoming calendar and makes this astute speculation...

"Visiting the troops plays well with many voters. Makes you wonder where Barack Obama will spend his July 4 weekend. No public events announced yet, and it's a perfect time to check off part of that to-do list, and sneak off to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Nice call, Todd. If that's what happens...

---

Political Hit Piece in Richardson

Nathan Morgan uses innuendo and insinuation in a Pegasus News article about Richardson's Charles Eisemann, namesake for Richardson's performing arts center.

Morgan sprinkles his writing with "Rumors", "Inquiring people want to know," and "Hmmm" as if suggestions of wrongdoing are an adequate substitute for evidence. Morgan's logic is absurd, in one case charging Eisemann with reneging on a pledge of funding for the arts center, then saying "there is no evidence to the contrary" as if the burden of proof is on the Eisemann. Sorry, Morgan, it's your responsibility to present evidence of wrongdoing and you offer squat. Morgan claims that "members of the community" are outraged about this or are questioning that or are saying "we should chuck 'Eisemann' from the facade of the building." Morgan fails to name a single such member of the community. One gets the impression that Morgan is reporting what he sees when he looks in the mirror.

Evolution

The Nightly Build...

---

What Do UT Southwestern Scientists Think?

Recently, Steve Blow of The Dallas Morning News wrote a column on the results of an informal survey he gave to the sixteen faculty members at the UT Southwestern Medical School who have been elected to the National Academy of Sciences. Steve Blow said he was looking for a "Mr. Wizard" to help sort out controversies over subjects like evolution, global warming, and human stem cell research.

It turns out that all of the scientists believe in evolution and all but one believe in human evolution. 43% of the general public do not. There were similar discrepancies in attitudes towards global warming and stem cell research.

Steve Blow concludes by saying, "I don't imagine this is going to end any debates. But it's nice to know what our best science minds are thinking."

Brian Thomas, "Science Writer" for the Dallas-based Institute for Creation Research, takes Steve Blow to task in an essay published on the Creationists' Web site.

Thomas dismisses the sixteen top biomedical researchers for not being qualified, as if these members of the National Academy of Sciences know little more about the subject than the average car mechanic. Or real estate agent. Thomas says asking biomedical researchers' opinions on evolution is the same as asking sixteen real estate executives to guess Thomas' personal bank account balance. Thomas points out logical fallacies in Steve Blow's essay. Maybe Thomas can reread his own words and recognize an apples-to-oranges comparison.

Thomas argues that truth is not determined by majority vote. Thank God. Public opinion is far from knowledgeable about scientific matters. Ironically, Thomas then argues that more Americans believe in Creationism than Steve Blow reported, as if it matters whether it's Blow's report of 43% or Thomas' claim of 66%. Both numbers are embarrassingly large. Truth isn't determined by majority vote, remember? Steve Blow goes to the experts.

Thomas accuses Steve Blow of the logical fallacy of appealing to authority. D'oh. Steve Blow admitted that's just what he was doing. He was looking for Mr. Wizard's opinion. Although authority doesn't prove truth or falsehood, it's generally a good working hypothesis until you have the time and inclination to personally repeat the research that led the experts to their conclusion. Thomas himself is guilty of a logical fallacy by implying that because an assertion originated from an expert, that that is a reason to disregard it. It isn't.

Thomas argues that just because scientists overwhelmingly accept evolution as a sound scientific theory, that doesn't mean it should be taught in science classes. Thomas doesn't say what we should teach instead. If not science, what?

Thomas tries to paint evolution as religion, not science. He claims evolution answers the "big questions of origin, purpose, and destiny." In fact, it does no such thing. Evolution has nothing to say about any of these questions. That's what religion is all about. And it's what Brian Thomas is interested in. He concludes by saying,

"We propose that there is overwhelming historical evidence that empirical scientists have been trained to reject -- the recorded eyewitness testimony to the original events of creation, the Flood, and the dispersion found in Genesis."

That's right. Thomas' source is the Bible. This is Thomas' own appeal to authority. Thomas should know that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Science relies on the formulation and testing of hypotheses through repeatable experimentation, not on revealed truth about conversations in the Garden of Eden. And you don't need sixteen eminent members of the National Academy of Sciences to tell you that.