Gulf Coast insurance

The Nightly Build

---

Who Insures Galveston?

Jim Mitchell, in The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, poses a tough question: "Are the economic benefits to the entire state of tourism and other businesses along the coast enough to justify subsidizing the insurance costs in a Hurricane Alley?"

The question arises because of a bill being debated in the Texas legislature (H.B. 911 -- isn't that a grand title, Mitchell asks). The state's insurance fund of last resort is broke and H.B. 911 would limit the insurance coverage of primary residences, second homes, rent houses, condos, apartments, and commercial buildings, making much of the development on the Gulf Coast uninsurable.

On the one hand, it makes no sense for homeowners throughout the state to subsidize insurance for those who choose to live in the path of hurricanes, where it's not as much a matter of if (as in tornado alley) but when a disaster will strike.

On the other hand, there is no doubt that tourism and other businesses on the coast generate millions of dollars of revenue for the state. I haven't seen the analysis, but I'd be surprised if someone can demonstrate that those millions greatly exceed the losses due to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and Ike. So, the subsidies are indeed subsidies and not investments that pay themselves back in tourism dollars.

In the end, the question is not so tough. I hate to lose my own fun in the sun, but I can't justify subsidizing construction on barrier islands. The risks have grown so great that private insurers won't cover the construction at any price. Now H.B. 911 is a sign that the taxpayer is balking, too. Everyone, it seems, except the Gulf Coast homeowner, is coming around to recognize that the costs outweigh the benefits.

City budgets; PegasusNews survey

The Nightly Build

---

Local City Budgets Hurt By Recession

Theodore Kim, in The Dallas Morning News, reports on how the recession is impacting north Texas cities. Dallas is facing a budget shortfall of $100 million. Fort Worth's projected shortfall is $400 million over five years. Grand Prairie's city manager is looking at "catastrophic losses." Frisco's city manager says, "We're all in the same boat." The biggest impact on services is yet to be determined, as cities craft new budgets for the next fiscal year beginning October 1.

Richardson is not immune. The Richardson Coalition PAC says city sales tax revenues is down:

"The year-to-date sales tax revenue is down 2.4% ($240,000) below budget estimates, so the financial situation of the city is quite manageable at this time. The City is watching local financial indicators closely and is prepared to address budget challenges as we progress through the fiscal year."

Worse, appraisers are telling communities to expect residential property assessments to fall by 10 percent or more in southern Dallas County and by 3 percent in areas of Collin County. Cities benefited from increased property tax revenues during the real estate boom. Now they are suffering the flip side, all without having changed property tax rates a penny.

Richardson has a city council election in May. The topic of how the city can weather the recession should be the main issue in the campaign. A quick look at the candidates' Web sites reveals more campaigning as usual. They are all similar to Steve Mitchell's, which emphasizes preserving neighborhoods, redeveloping multifamily properties and retail centers and attracting new retail and businesses to reduce our dependence on property tax.

All good goals, but drawing up a budget for next year is likely to be the first contentious issue for the next city council. Discussing their ideas on how to do that, without undercutting long-term goals, should be topic number one in the election campaign.

---

A Survey with a Hidden Agenda

PegasusNews.com invited me to participate in a survey, ostensibly for the purpose of improving the site for me.

"We need just a minute of your time to help us improve PegasusNews.com. We'd really appreciate it if you'd click on this link and take a VERY short survey [...] Your responses will help us improve the site for you. We really appreciate the help!"

Out of a dozen or so questions, only one had anything to do with site improvements, an open question about what I like best about the site. After that, I was barraged with questions about age, marital status, income, etc.. Most likely, the purpose of the survey was to gather demographic information on readers to provide to potential advertisers to help set advertising rates. If any site improvements come about because of the survey, it'll be a side effect. I don't have a problem with PegasusNews.com doing such a survey, but I wish they'd level with readers about why they are doing the survey. Credibility should be a news site's most valuable asset. PegasusNews.com is squandering theirs on something trivial and unnecessary.

The Richardson Echo; Sexually oriented business

The Nightly Build

---

Interview with Andrew Laska

Pegasus News published an interview with Andew Laska, the man behind Pegasus News content partner The Richardson Echo. Laska explains why he started his independent local news Web site.

"There is no real source of news in Richardson. Richardson's daily newspaper went through the usual cycle of local newspapers. They were bought up by a larger company which then paid less interest and now we are lucky if we get a targeted article or two a week."

Too true. Kudos to the people behind The Richardson Echo and Pegasus News for trying to change that fact.

Although Laska says he is more interested in news than mere opinion, I find his own opinion on the upcoming Richardson Council elections worth repeating:

"Particular races are interesting but the atmosphere of the races is more interesting. I have to say it's not a positive atmosphere despite many people's good intentions. There are various factions, formal or otherwise, that are creating a kind of political backbiting and focus away from issues. It is not so much the candidates as it is arrays of supporters and detractors on different sides. It's an issue of the whole and there isn't a one group or persons to blame."

I'm finding it hard to identify any candidates who are focused solely on the issues facing Richardson instead of distractions and wedge issues designed to gain electoral advantage. I feel such candidates must exist and I'll be looking for them to straightforwardly dissociate themselves from the factions that are fomenting division instead of unified approaches to the challenges facing Richardson, such as neighborhood integrity and revitalization, attracting businesses, regional transportation, and the current economic recession.

---

Sexually Oriented Businesses in Richardson

Why am I dredging up this old topic? Didn't the Richardson City Council deal with this issue in 2007? Didn't the council adopt an ordinance that restricted such businesses as far as legally possible? It did, but as we enter another election campaign, the Richardson Coalition PAC has decided to criticize some members of the city council for not doing more.

The Richardson Echo published an editorial response by William 'Bill' McCalpin that explains well the background of the issue and argues that spending hundreds of thousands of additional dollars in legal fees fighting new cases that the city is likely to lose is not a wise use of taxpayer money.

"I believe that the Richardson Coalition should be thanking the Richardson City Council for the activities that it has done in the past to restrict such obnoxious uses as much as is legally possible in this current legislative and judicial climate, and should further be thanking the Richardson City Council for husbanding in a wise and prudent manner the scarce financial resources of the City on behalf of the taxpayers in these trying economic times.

So, why is the Richardson Coalition stirring up this issue again in this year's council race? That hasn't been adequately explained. How does the Richardson Coalition operate? Who writes and approves its editorials? Does the PAC really speak for all of the members that its Web site lists as supporters? A little independent background reporting into this PAC could serve the citizens of Richardson well.

College admission

The Nightly Build...

---

Top 10 Percent Rule Threatened

William McKenzie, in The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, reports that the Texas Senate passed Plano Republican Florence Shapiro's change to the rule granting automatic admission to a Texas university of their choice to high school students who graduate in the top 10 percent of their class.

The need for the change is driven by the gradually increasing percentage of incoming freshman classes made up of automatic admissions. It's 80 percent this year and, by some estimates, the entire freshman class could be automatic admissions as early as this fall.

My main concern is that the growth of automatic admissions not be used as an excuse to avoid achieving what the 10 percent rule was designed to achieve in the first place. The goal was to eliminate racial discrimination in admissions policy. Because there's a correlation between race and socio-economic background, the effect is also to eliminate discrimination based socio-economic background. Shapiro's bill appears to pass that test. It stipulates that "the institution must offer admission to all applicants with the same percentile rank."

Besides Shapiro's bill, there is another way to address the inability of universities to accomodate all the 10 percenters who apply. That is by increasing the capacity of Texas universities to accept more students of all ranks. For those who see college education as becoming more necessary for competitive advantage in today's economy, this solution is preferred. But, given the current economic constraints, some combination of tightening the 10 percent rule and expanding university enrollments seems like the fairest compromise.

McKenzie's own take on this matter is odd. He characterizes the position of those legislators who argue for keeping the current 10 percent rule as being equivalent to arguing that the University of Texas, for example, "should become a school that only serves elite students." McKenzie apparently measures "elite" by grade point average, instead of the more common socio-economic status. The 10 percent rule gives poor students (who more likely are also African-American or Hispanic) an equal opportunity for admission as students from affluent school districts. In other words, weakening the 10 percent rule would risk allowing admissions policy to be used to make UT an "elite" school, just the opposite of McKenzie's argument. Reader "Joe" explains it well:

"What the 10 percent rule does is make it more difficult for students graduating in the top 10-30% of their class from the 'elite' high schools to get in because those slots go to students in the 10% of less elite high schools. So, by way of example, a kid in the top 10% of his class at South Oak Cliff High gets a spot that otherwise would go to some kid in the top 20% of his class at Plano."

Trinity toll road; Richardson council

The Nightly Build...

---

Mayor Leppert Didn't Level With Voters

The Dallas Morning News editorializes today against Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert's reassurances during 2007's referendum on the Trinity toll road. Leppert reassured voters that the plan to build a toll road inside the levees was safe and environmentally sensitive. Now, we learn that the Army Corps of Engineers was privately telling the city that the plan was risky.

It's not surprising that messing with levees is risky. It's not surprising that the Army Corps knew that in 2007. It's not surprising that the Corps told the city. It's not even surprising that Leppert withheld this information during the referendum debate. What is surprising is that The Dallas Morning News is publicly breaking with Leppert now, after having been his partner in snookering the public for so long. The News has been a big supporter of the Trinity River project and has been just as willing as Leppert to turn a blind eye to the obvious risks. What's even more surprising is that the News remains "a strong proponent of the entire Trinity River project," even as it criticizes Leppert for not being straight with voters. There's a willful ignorance at work here. The failing here is not just with Mayor Leppert. It's with the Trinity River project itself.

The News refuses to draw that conclusion. It keeps its gaze squarely on the politicians and not the project. It even attempts further distraction by takings a wholly irrelevant cheap shot at Dallas Council member Angela Hunt. Nothing Hunt might have said during the referendum debate excuses Leppert's behavior. Discrediting Hunt will not mitigate the serious risks inherent in the Trinity River project. Hunt and Leppert will be gone soon enough. Those levees have to be there forever.

---

Late Hat In the Ring

After the deadline for candidates to file for May's City Council election in Richardson, a procrastinator decided he really did want to run for council after all. Bill Denton submitted his name as a write-in candidate for Place 1, running against incumbent Bob Townsend. Denton is too late to be listed on the ballot, but his name will be on the list posted at polling places.

Denton is president of the Duck Creek Homeowners' Association. He challenged Townsend in 2007, losing in a fairly close election. He identified neighborhood revitalization as the top challenge facing the city at that time. It'll be interesting to see how he campaigns in 2009. Not being on the ballot means he has no reasonable chance of election unless he makes Townsend himself the issue with some serious mudslinging. That is not expected. So, what is behind this late decision by Bill Denton to enter a race it looks like he's sure to lose?

Guns, Pakistan, TAKS, Global cooling, Presidential respect

The Nightly Build...

---

DMN Opinion Roundup

Mike Hashimoto pokes fun at Dallas City Council candidate Charles "Chazz" Redd, who posed for a photo while shirtless, smiling, and holding two pistols. Maybe Dallas politics does resemble a freak show at times, and sensation sells, but it would be refreshing for Dallas' only daily to cover the suburbs once in a while and do it in a serious fashion.

Rod Dreher serves up another Chicken Little story. This time, Dreher sees Pakistan on the edge of apocalypse. He's going to be right one of these times. And Pakistan is truly a scary place. Unfortunately, Dreher himself has lost the ability to scare readers.

William McKenzie asks a question that he admits to being stumped by: Should Texas legislators exempt students who are not proficient in English from the TAKS test? The question is genius, combining two hot-button issues: student testing with immigration. My answer is simple. Test all students, but track results separately when it makes sense to do so and combine results when it makes sense to do that.

Colleen McCain Nelson keeps a straight face when reporting that the new Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele reassures us that the earth isn't warming, it's actually cooling. Michael Steele is becoming an embarrassment as he panders to the shrinking base of the Republican Party. The party is narrowing itself into irrelevance. It's down to about the five or six conservative wingnuts who, in the comments section, defend Steele and take McCain Nelson to task for her blog post.

Tod Robberson is bothered that President Obama lowered himself to appear on a late-night talk show. Joanna England is bothered that he revealed his common touch by filling out bracket picks for the NCAA basketball tournament. Hey, Presidents aren't kings. It's hard to make the "elite" label stick to this President. He'll take his suit jacket off in the Oval Office once in a while. And sit and talk about basketball and his bowling game, too. It's OK. The Presidency will survive and thrive under Barack Obama. It's about time for an end to form over substance.

Spring break

Ed Cognoski is on hiatus.

Voter ID; Mileage tax; Richardson SOBs

The Nightly Build...

---

Making It Harder to Vote in Texas

The Dallas Morning News came down in opposition to the voter ID bill making its way through the Texas legislature. No argument from me on that subject or on the News' reasoning. Currently, a voter need only present his voter registration card at the polls. If the bill passes (and it will), a voter will need to present his voter registration card *and* a photo ID, such as driver's license.

A driver's license is the most common form of photo ID. Many poor and elderly persons don't have a driver's license because they don't own cars and don't drive. Inevitably, some of them will be turned away from the polls for lacking what most of us take for granted. Who do the poor and elderly tend to vote for? Democrats. Now you see why this is a big deal for Republicans. It's a way to help win elections. Not a big way, by any means, but every vote counts (or in this case, every vote that isn't counted for your opponent).

Perhaps as important as the effect at the ballot box is the effect on energizing the base. Republicans are using this voter ID issue in their latest fundraising appeals, documented in an email reproduced by Paul Burka.

So, why is getting a photo ID such a burden, really? It isn't, really. And how big a problem is voter fraud, really? It isn't, really. Republicans have never been able to demonstrate that voter fraud is a problem. It's not for lack of trying. The legislative battle isn't really about voter fraud or even voting rights. It's about winning elections. Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst says the bill moves Texas "one step closer to a more secure voting system that will help us prevent voter fraud and instill greater confidence among all Texans." The irony is that it's Republicans like Dewhurst who are responsible for undermining confidence in the first place, claiming voter fraud that simply doesn't exist. Confidence was never the goal. Stirring up the base was. And winning elections.

---

Paying For Our Roads

More and more, we are hearing about serious proposals to replace the current gasoline tax with a mileage tax. On its surface, it sounds dumb. The gas tax *is* a mileage tax. The more you drive, the more gas you burn, the more tax you pay. The gas tax also encourages consumers to buy cars with better gas mileage. They still pay per gallon (which translates into per mile), but less than their neighbor who buys a gas guzzler. And the gas tax is easy to administer. You pay at the pump. There's no getting around it. A mileage tax would require the introduction of expensive new equipment to track mileage. All that makes the question of a gas tax vs a mileage tax a no-brainer, right?

That's the kind of iron-clad logic that leads people like the editorial board at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram to scratch their heads and say, "We'll freely admit it -- we don't get it."

Well, there's one big reason to consider a mileage tax. Electric vehicles use no gasoline. As the industry moves to electric cars, an alternative to the gas tax to fund roads must be identified. This is not a question of if, only a question of when. A complete transition will take decades, but well before that, the number of electric vehicles on the road, completely free of the gas tax, will become significant. We don't need to replace the gas tax with a mileage tax today, but we do need to be discussing it and planning for it. And not dismissing it as a hare-brained idea like the Fort Worth Star-Telegram does.

---

Dirty Politics by Richardson Coalition

Two years ago, the city council managed to change zoning laws in Richardson to effectively shut out the possibility of sexually-oriented businesses (SOBs) in Richardson. It was very challenging legally to do this, as Supreme Court rulings prohibit cities from banning such businesses altogether. Disgraceful reporting by local news media (WFAA, I'm looking at you) attempted to cast the story as the city council inviting sexually-oriented businesses to set up shop in Richardson, when the opposite was the case. Despite the black eye, Richardson did end up with zoning very unfavorable to such businesses.

What's changed now? Nothing. The zoning is still in place. The SOBs are still squeezed out. So what is the Richardson Coalition PAC complaining about in a new editorial about SOBs in Richardson? The editorial excoriates Mayor Steve Mitchell and the "new members of the Council" for treating this issue with a "head in the sand attitude." Huh?!? What did the council do to deserve this? On January 7, 2008 (over a year ago!), the council's list of initiatives for its term didn't include further evaluation of restrictions on SOBs. Never mind that the Richardson Coalition's editorial itself says the council had already taken care of the problem in 2007: "In fact the 2006-2007 City Council enacted ordinances to effectively control zoning to the fullest extent possible in light of recent U. S. Supreme Court decisions." You'd think the Richardson Coalition would be praising the mayor and the new members of the council for their actions. To cast this achievement as a failure of the council to lead, and to do it now, more than a year after the success was achieved, is puzzling, to say the least. At least until you look at the calendar and see that the campaign for the May 9 city council elections has just begun. The Richardson Coalition is slinging mud. It's using smut to wage dirty politics.

More on Richardson council election

The Nightly Build...

---

Fault Lines in Richardson

Yesterday, I published my first look at Richardson's City Council elections. Richardson City News, a blog by Nathan Morgan, also published its own look, offering some unconventional insights into politics in Richardson. Morgan is a fringe figure in Richardson politics, a kind of tinfoil hat-wearing, conspiracy-minded gadfly who is convinced the city council is full of Nazis. His writing is as dense as Theodore Kaczynski's and almost as verbose. But, this time he controls himself (mostly) and is worth a read.

The Empire Strikes Back: One of the areas to watch this election is whether the Richardson Coalition PAC can regain a majority on the council. If so, expect Gary Slagel to be re-elected mayor, a post he was removed from in 2007. The PAC's faction on the council consists of Slagel, John Murphy and Bob Townsend. This year, the PAC managed to recruit long-time PAC supporter Bob Macy to run against incumbent Pris Hayes, an outsider who won her seat in 2007 after Jim Shepherd stepped down. In Place 2, Mark Solomon is running to replace Rhea Allison, who is stepping down. If elected, Solomon also could provide the fourth vote to restore Slagel to mayor.

A wild card in the race could be illegal immigration and other right-wing conservative causes. The Richardson Coalition PAC recently published an editorial calling for an English language ordinance and for police to investigate immigration status and report illegal immigrants to federal authorities. Let's hope this potentially community-splitting issue is not exploited in this election.

If the Richardson Coalition PAC doesn't introduce wedge issues, some of the new candidates might. Republican Precinct Chair Chris Davis is running for the open Place 3 seat. Davis is involved in conservative politics, and by conservative, I mean even for Texas. She endorsed Cynthia Dunbar, member of the Texas State Board of Education. Dunbar is best known for promoting creationism in our schools and for her rant that the election of Barack Obama would mean the "end of America as we know her." Davis also endorsed Randall Dunning in the 2008 GOP primary for Texas House. Dunning, a former Garland City Council member, is known for wearing a bullet-proof vest to Garland council meetings and having an underground bunker shelter at his house. Dunning also supports the abolition of public schools and teaching creationism instead of evolution. Incumbent Dennis Stewart also endorsed Dunning. And it's possible that newcomer Thomas Bache-Wiig might, too. These candidates bear watching ... closely.

Perennial fringe candidate Cheryl Miller is running again and should spice up the candidate forums even if her chances of election are slim. She's running in Place 3 against John Murphy, who can't be looking forward to defending himself against Miller's unpredictable line of attack.

Finally, I look forward to learning more about Jennifer Justice, Jimmy Schnurr, Thomas Volmer, Diane Wardrup and Amir Omar, some of whom are blank slates (to me) and some just new to Richardson politics. What little I know about Wardrup and Omar tells me they could be factors in this election.

Richardson council election

The Nightly Build...

---

Who's Running for City Council?

Monday was the deadline for candidates to file paperwork for Richardson city council election. All seats are on the ballot. Only one sitting council member, Rhea Allison, is not seeking re-election. Here's an early look at the races. (Preliminary recommendations are denoted with an asterisk.)

• Place 1
  • Bob Townsend*: incumbent Mayor Pro Tem; priorities have been neighborhood revitalization and economic development.
• Place 2 (open)
  • Jennifer Justice: conference director, native of Richardson; priorities are public safety, quality of life and the environment.
  • Jimmy Schnurr: attorney; background and campaign platform are unknown.
  • Thomas Volmer: information technology administrator; background and campaign platform are unknown.
  • Mark Solomon*: insurance sales; member of Parks and Recreation Commission, board member of Yale Park Homeowners Assoc., past Kiwanis Club president, past Berkner PTA and Berkner Booster Club president; good background, no obvious agenda.
• Place 3
  • Sheryl Miller: retired; five time candidate; Crime Watch, Chamber of Commerce, League of Women Voters; priority in 2007 race was fighting against adult-oriented businesses.
  • John Murphy*: incumbent; print shop owner; priorities have been redevelopment, traffic, aging infrastructure, building code enforcement, business redevelopment.
  • Chris Davis: executive assistant; Republican Precinct 1709 Chair; endorsed Randall Dunning in the 2008 GOP primary for Texas House District 112 (Dunning advocates eliminating public schools, not teaching evolution, and eliminating the Constitutional separation of church and state); campaign platform is unknown.
• Place 4
  • Thomas Bache-Wiig: advertising; background and campaign platform are unknown.
  • Gary Slagel*: incumbent; software company president; long-time council member, former mayor, promoter of high tech development and mixed-use development along DART rail lines.
  • Dianne Wardrup: executive search company president; past president of Richardson Regional Medical Center Foundation, board member of RISD Excellence in Education Foundation, president of Neighborhood Youth and Family Counseling Service of Richardson, past president of Rotary Club, board member of Chamber of Commerce; promotes business development, neighborhood revitalization and attracting retail.
• Place 5
  • Bob Macy: retired; member of Zoning Board, board member of Richardson Regional Medical Centers Foundation, supporter of the Richard Coalition PAC; campaign platform is unknown.
  • Pris Hayes*: incumbent; consultant; completing her first term, priorities have been parks, environmentalism, the arts, and attracting new people into civic service.
• Place 6
  • Steve Mitchell*: incumbent; tax software development; completing his first term as mayor; priorities are neighborhood revitalization, including aging apartments and retail.
• Place 7
  • Amir Omar: communications accounts manager; Chamber of Commerce, Rotary Club, FBI Citizens Academy, board member of Richardson Regional Medical Center Foundation, former GOP candidate for Congress; promotes a property tax freeze for seniors, a spending freeze, and tax incentives for home improvements.
  • Dennis Stewart: incumbent; regional training coordinator; completing his first term, former police officer; priorities have been term limits, attracting new businesses, and a property tax cap for senior citizens.

  * Preliminary recommendations (subject to change as more information about the candidates becomes available)

Blow vs Schutze; Embryonic stem cells

The Nightly Build...

---

Round Umpteen

Unless you happen to live on another planet (such as north Dallas), you are already aware of the political brawl happening over plans for an inland port in south Dallas. Predictions are that such a project could attract billions of dollars in rail, truck and air freight to a region sorely in need of an economic engine.

The Dallas Observer's Jim Schutze has been digging into County Commissioner John Wiley Price's role in getting a share of those development spoils distributed to the African-American community.

A journalist knows he's on to something when his reporting itself becomes part of the story. Price has gone to court to extract information out of U.S. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson and County Judge Jim Foster about what they told Jim Schutze.

What's all this got to do with Steve Blow of The Dallas Morning News? Not so much, as it turns out. Don't turn to Blow's column on Sunday looking for details about the inland port, the politics, or the merits of any position. Blow, you see, doesn't care much for either Price or Schutze and uses his utterly inconsequential column to, as he himself puts it, watch two guys fight:

"And, yeah, I'll confess to some guilty pleasure in watching this unfold -- like the guy who stands on the sideline and says, 'Let's you and him fight.'"

Naturally, you'd expect Schutze to respond. But how, given the lack of substance in Blow's column? Schutze latches on to the one good line in Blow's column, where he calls Schutze the "brooding Eeyore of Dallas journalism". Schutze returns the favor, calling Blow "the Goofy of Dallas journalism." That's it.

It's what Schutze does *not* say that so effectively eviscerates Steve Blow. Schutze doesn't even mention the inland port project in his putdown of Blow. The pointless banality of the response is a perfect counterpoint to Blow's banality in his opening essay in this exchange.

Ironically, Steve Blow's column was headlined: "You, residents of Dallas, could be the loser in this brawl." As if Steve Blow trash-talking from the sidelines is going to do anything good for the residents of Dallas.

---

Dreher Links Obama to Nazis

President Obama, in today's remarks as he signed executive orders overturning the Bush administration ban on federal funding of new lines of embryonic stem cells:

"Promoting science isn't just about providing resources, it is also about protecting free and open inquiry. It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient, especially when it's inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology."

Rod Dreher, in his response on The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog:

"Those who believe that politics, morality and religion should never interfere with what scientists want to do had better be prepared to pay their respects to Dr. Mengele."

It's unusual when Godwin's Law is demonstrated right in the original poster's own blog and not deep into a resulting comment flame war, but if any The Dallas Morning News writer can do it, it's Rod Dreher. Dreher claims he's simply making the point that there's no morally neutral position on science, but he didn't have to tar Obama with the Nazi brush to make that point. Dreher is too skilled a writer not to know that. Too bad Dreher didn't think of Joseph Goebbels before deciding to engage in rhetorical overkill.

Rod Dreher conveniently overlooks comments by President Obama that indicates that he, too, understands that there is no morally neutral position on science. President Obama said:

"Many thoughtful and decent people are conflicted about, or strongly oppose, this research. We will never undertake this research lightly. We will support it only when it is both scientifically worthy and responsibly conducted."

But that doesn't serve Dreher's purpose of drawing a moral equivalence between President Obama's position and the Nazi position. So Dreher conveniently omits it. Just like Goebbels might have.

Depression

The Nightly Build...

---

Where's Your Doomsday Sanctuary?

I don't want to get all Chicken Little here, but Rod Dreher does. Dreher is worried about peak oil and climate change and the D word - Depression. In The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, he asks, "At what point do we decide to leave north Texas -- and where do we go?"

The Great Depression (the first one) led to a vast migration from the Great Plains to California and from the South to the North. Our current recession doesn't look like it will lead to similar shifts in population because the employment outlook looks similarly bleak everywhere. If that changes, if some region of the country emerges from the recession while others linger, maybe we'll see migration pick up. But it's too soon to tell.

As for the longer-term issues, making a move today out of fear of global warming is needlessly apocalyptic. Granted, Hurricane Ike may teach us not to build a house on the beach in Galveston, but escaping global warming entirely is easier said than done. Where do you run to? It's impossible to say for sure how climate change is going to affect different regions of the country or the world. Yes, Texas is likely to see longer droughts and higher average temperatures. But Texas has always suffered from drought and heat. If you wanted a nice climate, you never would have settled in Texas in the first place. In 1866, General Philip Sheridan said, "If I owned Texas and Hell, I would rent Texas and live in Hell."

An amusing part of Dreher's idle speculation is his own survival plan.

"If the situation were that bad, we'd most likely go live with my parents down in south Louisiana. They live out in the country. The land is rich. You can grow things there, and fish and hunt on it. It's a small, close-knit community, and everybody is armed."

That doesn't sound like Rod Dreher's Mad Max survival plan. It sounds like his dream life. This could be the most valuable thing I've read all week. My new plan, if worse comes to worst? Move in with Rod Dreher's parents in south Louisiana. Thanks for the warning that they'll be armed.

Renewable energy; Star-Telegram layoffs

The Nightly Build...

---

"Let's Get Real"

Mike Hashimoto, in The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, favorably cites a Wall Street Journal op-ed essay by Robert Bryce, the managing editor of something called Energy Tribune, which, when it isn't undermining renewable energy, is denying climate change science. Bryce's latest book is "Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of 'Energy Independence'". Only Mike Hashimoto doesn't tell us all that. Hashimoto tells us only that Bryce lives in Austin and has solar panels on his roof, as if that makes Bryce some kind of liberal environmentalist.

What's the gist of Bryce's essay? That renewable energy supplies only a tiny fraction of our energy needs today and will not make up an appreciable fraction even if we double output and double it again. D'oh. Bryce says "It would be refreshing if the president or perhaps a few of the Democrats on Capitol Hill would admit that fact." Hello? Democrats and environmentalists have been sounding the alarm for decades about how dependent our society is on oil and how hard it is to break our addiction. Bryce presents it as some kind of new insight of his and something Democrats want to hide in a closet.

Only buried deep in the eighth paragraph does Bryce admit,

"Of course, you might respond that renewables need to start somewhere. True enough -- and to be clear, I'm not opposed to renewables. I have solar panels on the roof of my house."

That's the most support for renewable energy Bryce can summon. In another time and place, I can imagine him saying, "I'm not anti-semitic. Some of my best friends are Jews." The tone of the rest of the essay reeks of disdain for renewables. The problem of scale. Wind is intermittent. So is sunshine. What does Bryce have to say about oil's problems? Bryce dismisses the environmental problem caused by carbon emissions as merely a problem of "political pressure" to cut carbon-dioxide emissions. Bryce's essay might not rise to the level of a "gusher of lies" but it sure isn't "the most clear-eyed view of our near-term energy future" that Mike Hashimoto bills it as, either.

---

Another Spin of the Death Spiral

Another round of layoffs was announced by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. To its credit, the newspaper's Web site has the story. If a newspaper can't cover what's happening in its own newsroom (I'm looking at you Dallas Morning News), why should it think it can cover what's going on outside?

Even though Fort Worth Star-Telegram has the story, it's Frontburner and Tim Rogers who have the full text of publisher Gary Wortel's memo to employees. In it, he lists six steps the paper is taking to cut costs: layoffs, pay cuts, elimination of bonuses, a one-week furlough, a freeze of pension plans.

Observant readers will have noticed that was only five steps, not six. That's because step #3 in Wortel's memo was left blank. Frontburner's Rogers explains, "I don't know what No. 3 was or is. It appears to have been a typo." Hmmm ... a typo in a memo by a newspaper publisher (how ironic). Or a typo in the announcement about a newspaper's troubles (how explanatory). Or a deliberate warning that other steps are still to come (how ominous). In any case, my sympathies to the employees of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

P.S. In the comments to the Frontburner story about Fort Worth Star-Telegram, there are these two intriguing comments:

Biff Ryan: "I've heard major cuts at D as well."

Tim Rogers: "Please stay tuned. I'll give you the D update when I can."

Can't any news media be first with the best, most comprehensive information about themselves?

P.P.S. Other Frontburner readers spread a rumor that Adam McGill was let go. If true, there's irony at work at Frontburner, too. History will show Adam McGill's second to last blog entry, a link to a Gawker story forwarded to McGill by a reader, is titled, "SMU Provides Backdrop For Sad State Of J-School Graduates." Adding insult to injury is a comment by reader "Carlo":

"Taking a litty bit of this media pie and mixing it into a litty bit of this other media pie, making a daisy chain of linky-poos from here to there to thence and back again isn't jouralism, it's patty-cake."

DC voting rights

The Nightly Build...

---

Taxation Without Representation, 21st Century Style

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram, in an editorial, objects to the proposed law that would grant the District of Columbia a voting seat in Congress. Why? Not because DC residents don't deserve it ("it's only fair," the Fort Worth Star-Telegram says). No, it's because the editorial board thinks the law is unconstitutional. And perhaps it is.

The Supreme Court has plenty to choose from in the Constitution regarding this special district. Article One, Section Two specifies that Congress is made up of representatives of the "states" and the District of Columbia is not a state. But Article One, Section Eight gives Congress the power "to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District." As the editorial board acknowledges, the district is treated as a state in any number of matters (taxation being a crucial one, both for real and symbolic reasons). It doesn't stretch the Constitution to conclude that Congress is empowered to treat the district as a state regarding congressional representation as well.

I infer that most opposition to DC voting rights arises not out of concern for the Constitution, but for venal political reasons. DC residents are likely to vote for a Democrat to represent them. Opposition to the bill is likely to come from red states, support from blue states. Fort Worth Star-Telegram's stance is consistent with that observation. Regardless, I wholeheartedly agree with the editorial board that "The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of all things constitutional. The justices need to be brushing up on Article 1, Sections 2 and 8." I predict the justices will be just as split as the country at large.

Belo suspends dividend

The Nightly Build...

---

Who's Got the Story? Not TDMN

The headline in Dallas Business Journal reads, "Belo suspends dividend, stock hits low." No story about this on The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, its editorials, Jacquielynn Floyd's column (she's still talking about pit bulls), or any of its countless blogs, including its business or TV blogs (the TV blog has wall-to-wall coverge of American Idol, however.) I didn't see mention on other Dallas area blogs, either. Not even Uncle Barky saw fit to cover Belo Corp.'s financial tailspin, which might tell us just how over Belo he is.

I know Belo Corp. (the television properties) is not the same company (anymore) as A.H. Belo Corporation (the newspaper properties), but today's news is just one more sign of trouble in the local media business. The lack of coverage in the newspaper is symptomatic of why The Dallas Morning News is doomed. Its best hope of survival is to become the best d*mn local newspaper Dallas can offer. For that, it ought to be all over local news like the Belo Corp. difficulties and what those might portend for the future of media in Dallas.

Limbaugh vs Steele

The Nightly Build...

---

Who's In Charge?

Sharon Grigsby, in The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, asks the question, but doesn't answer it. Who's in charge of the GOP? Rush Limbaugh or Michael Steele. In fact, neither is in charge. The GOP is leaderless. Several people are jockeying for position.

Limbaugh is the most visible pretender to the throne, stirring up the base and condemning anyone who even thinks of compromise. Sarah Palin probably wants to ride his coattails the 2012 GOP nomination. Michael Steele is trying to rein in Limbaugh to keep him from running away from the field and dominating party politics all by himself for four years. (Meanwhile, the Democrats are encouraging the GOP to allow exactly that to happen.) Bobby Jindal is being thrust out front perhaps to save the party from Palin. Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee are hanging around, hoping to score on the rebound. New Gingrich doesn't seem to have given up his dreams. I don't see a moderate in the bunch, which makes it hard for them to draw distinctions between themselves. It also means that they are all going for the same 15-20% of the electorate that constitutes the Republican base, dragging the party ever rightward in the process. It's still early, but the signs are not good for 2012. I'd have to say the chances are growing that a Barry Goldwater will emerge. The true believers will cheer. The party as a whole will crash and burn. From the ashes who knows what will arise.