President should name Powell his Middle East envoy

DallasBlog.com | Tom Pauken:

“Events are spinning out of control in the Middle East with the possibility of a wider war looming and the potential for major regime change in the Arab world which would further radicalize the Middle East. The time has come for President Bush to take bold and decisive action to bring hostilities to a halt in that region while sending a signal that the United States is willing to be an honest broker once again in the quest to secure a permanent peace in the Middle East.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

President Bush is not interested in negotiating peace in the Middle East. President Bush is interested in total victory in the war on terror. No cease fire. No negotiated peace. Only victory. In his view (as expressed by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice) the current fighting is not so much a bad thing as the necessary "birth pangs of a new Middle East."

For President Bush to adopt Mr Pauken's recommendations would be an admission of failure, an admission that victory in the war on terror is not achievable through military means. He's not one to admit failure, in general, and certainly not in this instance.

But Mr Pauken is right about one thing. Expecting the President to listen to Mr Pauken's proposal is a "pipe dream."

Israel must prevail against radicals

Dallas Morning News | Rod Dreher:

“If the Israelis lose this war against Hezbollah – and anything short of Hezbollah's virtual annihilation will be taken as a loss by the Arab world – the existence of the Jewish state will be in question.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Mr Dreher uses a thousand year book of Psalms dug up from an Irish bog to illustrate how old the Arab/Israeli struggle is. But he misses the significance of that fact. Today, a thousand years later, Israel exists. And so do its Arab enemies. For Israel, there is no such thing as victory. Or rather, for Israel, survival is victory.

Israel must think in terms of survival, not annihilation of its enemies, even Hezbollah. Israel isn't going to annihilate its enemies by its current invasion of Lebanon. Any more than it annihilated its enemies in its previous wars and occupation of Lebanon. Any more than the US annihilated terrorism in its invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Other opinions appearing on the DMN's editorial and op/ed pages the same day Mr Dreher's viewpoint was published understand the situation better. His own editorial board explains, "Israel's original goal was to cripple Hezbollah, an outcome that some factions within the country now suggest is not possible militarily. The reality is that a search for Hezbollah can't be waged effectively or indefinitely from the air without massive civilian casualties. And the prospect of Israeli ground forces going door-to-door to root out Hezbollah is a prescription for radicalizing Lebanon's government and widening the conflict to Syria and Iran."

It's not in Israel's interest to widen the war. If anything is a threat to annihilate Israel, it would be a nuclear attack launched by a madman in Iran. Like the US before it in Iraq, Israel is learning that it cannot win a war on terror militarily. Military force can play a role, but what comes after must also be planned and executed well. Without an exit strategy in Iraq, the US finds its strategic position in the world worsening due to its reliance on its military. Now, Israel finds itself facing the same threat, unless it can find its own exit strategy from Lebanon.

Rami G. Khouri, in another viewpoints piece in the DMN, explains what that exit strategy will look like. "The elements of a diplomatic solution are obvious to all parties: a cease-fire, an exchange of prisoners and an international force to separate the parties and cement the cease-fire."

Sometimes, a ceasefire, even if not victory, is the best you can hope for. It means survival. Stubbornly fighting on for victory only increases the likelihood of total defeat.

Texas has one of the lowest primary turnouts in U.S.

DallasBlog.com | Tom Pauken:

“This decline in primary voter turnout is an issue worth watching as a signal that American politics may be in for some major changes in the not too distant future.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Perhaps Americans in general and Texans in particular increasingly believe that their votes don't matter. It isn't hard to come up with numerous recent events supporting that belief.

That is not a signal that American politics may be in for some major changes. Just the opposite, perhaps. Declining voter turnout gives the professional politicians an even greater lock on the process, making real reform and change less likely, not more so.

Slippery slopes

DallasBlog.com | Tara Ross:

“The President is one of the few federal officials who has not been taken in by the gross exaggerations of the pro-embryonic stem cell research lobby. Most congressmen have fallen, hook, line and sinker, for an emotionally appealing, if flawed, line of argument.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Ms Ross herself grossly exaggerates the arguments in favor of embryonic stem-cell research in order to dismiss them. The argument in favor of this research does not rest on a guarantee that this, or any line of research, is a golden road to a cure for all sorts of disease. It doesn't depend on the claim that only embryonic stem-cells are useful research subjects. It doesn't depend on the claim that nothing can happen without federal funding.

But Ms Ross's exaggerations are all just padding for her real, non-negotiable argument. And that's that leftover embryos from fertilization treatments are morally equivalent to you and me and deserving of all the same legal protections we enjoy. She contends that federal funding should be denied even if the research is guaranteed to bring about cures to horrific diseases. That's not a scientific position. That's not a logical argument. It's an emotional argument that depends on the religious belief that a few cells in a petri dish are just like you and me, only littler. Peel away all of Ms Ross's side arguments about probabilities of success, cost-benefit analysis, slippery slopes, and you are left with a moving appeal to human emotion in an attempt to build a lobby for civil rights for cytoblasts.

Embryonic stem-cell research does not guarantee medical breakthroughs, but it is promising. To slam the door shut on promising research in order to accomodate one faction's religious taboos would be an injustice to society as a whole.

Illiberal democracy

DallasBlog.com | Wes Riddle:

“Often I’ve heard the president say that ‘Democracies are peaceful countries,’ and I’m left to wonder what bozo taught him that. Even if the rationale were halfway correct, we don’t possess unlimited resources or power to transform the world at will. To abandon balance of power, deterrence and punitive action in favor of a scheme to recast political cultures of broad regions around the world is foolhardy.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

President Bush has admirable instincts in wanting to see democracy flower in the Middle East in hopes that liberty will follow. Unfortunately, he's learning the painful lesson that, whereas democracy may be essential for liberty, democracy itself does not always result in liberty. Worse, he's learning that you can't spread democracy by the barrel of a gun. So, although he might have wanted both democracy and liberty to sweep the Middle East, he is likely to end up with neither.

Why your property taxes are so high

DallasBlog.com | Tom Pauken:

“Patrick Smith has written the most extensive analysis I have seen of how the Comptroller’s office under Carole Strayhorn has been pressuring local appraisal districts to raise property valuations all across the state, resulting in what Smith calls ‘excessive property valuations’.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

The Dallas Central Appraisal District says appraisals increased 6%, on average, in Dallas County this year. Compare that with what's happening to sales prices. Appraisals are going up because property values are going up. There's a real estate bubble in this country. Texas is not entirely exempt.

Yes, the appraisal system is broken, but that's mostly because Texans worked themselves into a corner with a property tax, while at the same time insisting that sales data is private and not available to help accurately appraise property values. The system should be fixed, but don't expect appraisals to drop much, on average, if at all, as long as the real estate bubble persists.

Texans end up with a property tax because they don't want an income tax. Then they criticize their property tax because it's a tax on wealth, not income. So, they cut their property tax and replace it with a business tax based on revenue, not income because, again, Texans don't want an income tax. Then, they are outraged that businesses that don't have net income might be taxed anyway based solely on revenue. It's insane alright. It's insane to demand a crazy system and then complain when you end up with a crazy system.

Abramoff scandal tars Reed and Norquist

DallasBlog.com | Tom Pauken:

“Hasn't the time come for grassroots conservatives to begin cleaning out the stables and no longer follow the lead of some of these self-proclaimed conservative leaders who have used conservatives to advance their own personal agendas?”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Undoubtedly. Yet, implied in this question is the assumption that conservatism itself is not in question, only the actions of some in the name of conservatism. Jonathan Chait published an essay in The New Republic, republished in The Dallas Morning News, that analyzes this curious attitude. It concludes by quoting Rick Perlstein, who said of the right's mind-set, "Conservatism never fails. It is only failed." Mr Chait was referring to the right's recent conclusion that George W. Bush has betrayed conservative principles. He provides evidence that the critics supported President Bush's policies when he first pushed them through a compliant Congress. Only now that the failures are mounting are the critics deciding that the policies were not conservative after all.

This curious attitude could apply equally well to Mr Pauken's attempt to distance true conservatism from Ralph Reed and Grover Norquist. Mr Chait makes a convincing case that what the right wing actually resents is not ideological impurity, but political failure. With Abramoff off to prison, it's now time to distance conservatism from everything related to Abramoff, including Reed and Norquist. As always, conservatism didn't fail. Conservatism was failed.

Reinventing schools

DallasBlog.com | Caroline Walker:

“If preparing more kids for college than ever before is what has to happen to maintain our economic edge into the 21st century, then our approach to education will need ‘not just reform, not just rethinking, but reinvention,’ says Dr. Michael Copeland, asst. professor of education at TAMU-Commerce and co-president of the Reinventing Schools Coalition.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

If the Quality Schools model is succeeding, it's probably because of the investment of time, effort, and money. Individual learning plans are labor intensive. Soliciting input from and involving parents and employers are expensive, extending school expenses into the community as a whole. It's not all that surprising that intensive investments sometimes pay dividends. It's not guaranteed, of course, but not surprising when it happens.

It's interesting that the Reinventing Schools Coalition has received funding from the Bill and Melissa Gates Foundation. Gates is using his fortune to fund experiments in education. Here is what Businessweek recently had to say about Bill Gates getting schooled himself: "Visits to 22 Gates-funded schools around the country show that while the Microsoft couple indisputably merit praise for calling national attention to the dropout crisis and funding the creation of some promising schools, they deserve no better than a C when it comes to improving academic performance."

But Gates has always been a quick study. With his fortune, he can afford many failures. Maybe by the time he releases Gates Public School 3.0, he'll have something the rest of America will want to buy. Let's hope so. Don't look to Austin for help, where the Texas Legislature sees no need to increase funding for Texas schools and the State Board of Education is more interested in suppressing sex education and introducing school prayer than in improving education.

Why "Net Neutrality" is a defining issue of our time...

DallasBlog.com | Doug Bedell:

“While various permutations of ‘Network Neutrality legislation’ continue to bubble through our largely know-nothing, out-of-touch Congresspeople, consumers should view this entire political pageant remembering one thing:
1) Phone and cable companies are going to screw you.
2) The only question is how and when.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Our Congresspeople are not know-nothing or out-of-touch. They just happen to be tuned into the needs of the telecommunications companies instead of consumers. And they are amplifying the phone and cable companies' message with high fidelity. They may be craven, but they are not ignorant.

I think the odds favor Doug Bedell's prediction of a consumer screwing, but it's not a certainty. Last week, a Senate committee rejected a Democratic amendment to communications legislation that would have ensured that all Internet traffic be treated equally. The amendment failed in a 11-11 party line vote. Given that the Democrats have a fighting chance to regain control of the House in the November elections, there is still a slim chance that the big telecommunications companies won't get everything their way... provided consumers bother to inform themselves of the issues. I didn't say it was a good chance. :-(

Changes brewing for school standards at State Board of Education meeting

DallasBlog.com - Trey Garrison:

“The 15-member State Board of Education on Thursday will likely scrap a curriculum revision process dominated by teachers and the Texas Education Agency and discuss a new timetable for revising the English reading and writing standards.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

According to the Houston Chronicle article, SBOE member Don McLeroy, a Bryan Republican who is pushing the effort to change the reading and writing standards, calls the current curriculum "fuzzy English" because it expects students to "describe mental images that text descriptions evoke" and "compare text events with his or her own or other readers' experiences." He wants to expunge these standards from the state's curriculum because they can't be measured on state tests.

So, there you have it. If it doesn't fit a multiple choice Scantron test methodology, it ought not be in our classrooms. Fill the lesson books with spelling and grammar. If we have to expose students to ideas, make sure they are from dead white European males. Board member Terri Leo (R-Spring) wants to replace current reading lists with classic literature.

The SBOE continues to be more interested in promoting a narrow cultural agenda than in educating our children. Rote memorization and regurgitating the SBOE members' own doctrines are more important than teaching our children to think. The United States is falling behind in education and it's in part due to state boards of education like Texas'. Whether it's evolution, sex education, or now, creative writing and critical thinking, the SBOE is an impediment to educational excellence. It's time to vote these ideologues out of office.