Dribble drabble redux

Submitted without need for further comment... two posts this morning by Tim Rogers on FrontBurner:

9:25 AM:
"DALLAS COUNTY SYPHILIS CASES ON THE RISE
Says so here. Paul, you might want to get that itch checked out."

11:18 AM:
"GORDON KEITH DRIBBLE DRABBLE
I don't know why Belo lets this hack continue to write his column every week. Worse than Steve Blow. Never funny."

Like father, like son?

George H.W. Bush made two big political mistakes, one domestically, one in foreign policy, that arguably cost him re-election in 1992. One was his compromise with Democrats on a tax package designed to deal with the growing federal debt. The other was his decision not to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein after pushing the Iraqis out of Kuwait. When he left office, the early judgment of history was that his was a mediocre or failed Presidency.

His son, George W. Bush, took office in 2001 determined not to repeat those mistakes. And he hasn't. He has made even bigger mistakes of his own. W's insistence on passing big tax cuts has turned looming budget surpluses into deficits as far as can be seen. W's invasion of Iraq has led to thousands of dead American soldiers, tens of thousands of dead Iraqis, and an ever-worsening civil war in Iraq, Hamas in power in the West Bank, Hezbollah emboldened in Lebanon, and an Iran insistent on developing nuclear weapons.

Carl Leubsdorf, Washington Bureau chief of the Dallas Morning News, points out the major irony in this case. By determining not to repeat his father's failures, the son has "created so many problems that he will end up making his father's presidency look that much better."

With hindsight, Americans are beginning to appreciate the benefits of the father's prudent foreign policy compared to the son's adventurist foreign policy. The father never looked more worthy of a place on Mount Rushmore than he does after six years of his son's Presidency.

P.S. Mr Leubsdorf's job title, bureau chief, must paint him with a red bulls-eye in the current downsizing move underway at the DMN, with the stated intention of focusing on local content.

Democracy nonsense

Rod Dreher, in The DallasMorningViews blog, says he doesn't believe Islam is "reconcilable with liberal democracy (by which I mean not only free and fair elections, but religious freedom, equality before the law, a free press, and separation of church and state)." To believe this, he must be turning a blind eye to the millions of Muslims who live in the United States, freely practicing their religion and simultaneously believing in liberal democracy, without contradiction.

Mr Dreher asks someone to show him a form of Islam that makes sharia optional? Again, how about the Islam practiced by millions of Americans, which makes no attempt at all to force sharia on non-believers? The same holds true in Australia, where recently Peter Costello, the second highest-ranking government official, invited Australian Muslims to leave the country, saying "If you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you." A Muslim reference group, appointed by the Prime Minister himself because of their leadership in the Australian Muslim community, prepared a response saying, "Nobody has suggested that we implement Sharia law."

Not only is Islam reconcilable with liberal democracy, so is Christianity, despite centuries of history that might imply otherwise. The Spanish conquest of America, the enslavement of Africans in North America for two centuries, and the Holocaust in Europe, all were committed by supposedly Christian powers, often using Christianity as pretext. Islamic history has its stains as well, including events happening today. But there's no reason to believe that a century hence, two centuries hence, the situation could change, much as it did for most of Christianity, at least most of the time.

The future shape of The Dallas Morning News

Carolyn Barta of Dallas Blog reports that the DMN plans to "keep metro, business and sports at present strength but reduce lifestyles, arts and entertainment, some tabloids (excepting Taste and House & Garden) and bureaus." She asks, "Are they trying to cure the ills of declining circulation and ad revenues by offering....less?"

I suspect they are not trying to cure the patient as much as they are trying to delay an inevitable death. Or at least an inevitable mutation into something much less grand than what we think of when we think of the traditional major metropolitan daily newspaper.

There's a retailing concept called the long tail, popularized by Chris Anderson. He explains the concept in a nuthshell:

The theory of the Long Tail is that our culture and economy is increasingly shifting away from a focus on a relatively small number of "hits" (mainstream products and markets) at the head of the demand curve and toward a huge number of niches in the tail. As the costs of production and distribution fall, especially online, there is now less need to lump products and consumers into one-size-fits-all containers. In an era without the constraints of physical shelf space and other bottlenecks of distribution, narrowly-target goods and services can be as economically attractive as mainstream fare.

The DMN is a victim of the long tail. The cost of newsprint prohibits them from publishing stories or whole sections that don't appeal to a broad base of subscribers. Online ventures like Dallas Blog, on the other hand, don't operate under the same constraints. Because disk space and bandwidth are essentially free, online publishers can fill their Web site with an infinite number of stories that appeal to only a few readers each, growing their readership one small niche at a time.

Of course, the DMN can do the same. Their strategy seems to be to conserve cash to survive long enough to build readership of their growing online presence. The proliferation of DMN blogs is evidence of this strategy. But it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks. Whether the DMN pulls off this reinvention of itself is far from a sure thing. In its favor is the fact that many of the writers for the upstart Web-based competition like Dallas Blog are "old dogs" from the DMN itself. So, maybe the DMN's chances are not such a long shot after all.

Mel isn't the only sinner

Dallas Morning News | Rod Dreher:

“Yes, Mel [Gibson] was wrong, said my friend [J.], but consider that he was raised by a Holocaust-denying kook of a father. Could either of us, J. went on, say with complete certainty that the racism we grew up around had been entirely eradicated from our souls? We think we've put that all behind us, said J., but is it not possible that under the right conditions, either of us right-thinking Southern white boys could shock ourselves by what came out of our mouths – and our hearts?”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Mr Dreher calls Mel Gibson a "fellow Christian" and admits loving and defending The Passion of the Christ against charges of anti-Semitism. Now that Mr Gibson's anti-Semitism is on display for all to see, Mr Dreher is suffering a severe case of buyer's remorse. He struggles to come up with explanations for Mr Gibson's anti-Semitism, reasons that will defend Mr Gibson's Passion itself from the stain of anti-Semitism.

So, according to Mr Dreher, we're all racist at heart. We're all capable of uttering equally ugly things. Mr Dreher pairs Mr Gibson and his drunken rant against Jews with a Louisiana woman who, from a sense of white Southern paternalism, helps rescue a local African-American church from possible bankruptcy. What the heck?

Mr Dreher says the woman should be forgiven because she isn't aware that her paternalism is a form of racism. And then he somehow jumps to the conclusion that just maybe Mel Gibson isn't aware that it might be racist to say "F#@*ing Jews...The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world." That's one enormous benefit of the doubt. Even if Mr Gibson were somehow completely clueless about what racism is, how can Mr Dreher even suggest some kind of rough equivalence between well-intentioned paternalism and virulent hatred?

We all may have faults, but I deny that we all share Mel Gibson's level of bigotry. And if I ever say anything that reveals the faults that my lie deep inside me, I hope Mr Dreher and others will speak up and call me on it. And not find excuses for unacceptable behavior just because the speaker directed a movie that I am now forced to see through new eyes... and maybe not like what I see quite as much as I did before.

Loss for Centrists

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

“It's still a shame to see a statesman like Mr. Lieberman brought low like this. The most admirable thing about the man is his willingness to buck his party to stand up for what he believes is right.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Spoken like a Republican. Of course Senator Lieberman was brought low. He "bucked" his party. That the DMN editorial board expects Democratic voters to back a candidate that "bucks" their political wishes is wishful thinking... by Republicans.

The DMN is right that one can't assume what happened at the polls in Connecticut will play out exactly the same way nationwide in November. But the DMN is flat out wrong to ignore the significance of Connecticut. You can bet politicians of both parties all across the country are plotting much more careful positions on the Iraq War because of the lessons of Connecticut. The DMN alternative, whistling past the graveyard, is not good political strategy this election.

The DMN is also wrong to say that if Senator Lieberman wins election as an independent, the Democrats lose a vote in the Senate. The DMN has already praised Senator Lieberman for voting his conscience, not his party. So, the Democrats have no vote to lose there, especially on issues like the Iraq War, where Senator Lieberman already showed himself to be a reliable Republican vote. Senator Lieberman has made it clear he'll side with the Democrats for control of the Senate, so there'll be no advantage GOP if Senator Lieberman keeps his seat, even as an independent.

In the end, the DMN's praise of Senator Lieberman for "his ability to think for himself" really boils down to his taking positions that agree with the editorial board's own politics (including one particular editorial board member's own scorn for Hollywood).

On throwing the bums out

DallasBlog.com | William Murchison:

“It would have been hard to get rid of Castro and to clean up after him. Yet is it really doubtful, all these years later, what a gain to peace and freedom his political demise would have been. There would have been no missile showdown with the Soviet Union; no Kennedy assassination; no Cuban-inspired attempt to communize Chile; no bloody guerrilla wars in Nicaragua and El Salvador; no political prisons for freedom-minded Cubans; no flight of Cubans to the United States; no Mariel refugee crisis; no overturned boats and drowned refugees between Cuba and Florida; no Elian Gonzalez mess; no...
"Action has its undoubted costs and dangers; just like non-action, when you get right down to it.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Fidel Castro may have been involved in many of the bad things that happened in Latin America over the last 40 years, but he was hardly solely responsible. It is naive to assume that if he had been neatly taken out in 1959 then Latin America would have seen no other dictatorships, coups or guerrilla movements.

It's also naive to believe that an invasion of Cuba was a straightforward task for the US military or that the assassination of Castro would have ended the Cuban revolution or that ... what, Cubans would have lived happily ever after under a Batista restoration?

The history of that era has a not-so-shining example of how difficult it is for the US military to impose American style democracy on an indigenous revolution -- the Vietnam War. And, now, in the 2000s, we have another not-so-shining example -- the Iraq War -- which teaches us that deposing a dictator, rather than resulting in a flowering of democracy, sometimes results in sectarian violence or civil war, regional instability, and increased anti-American sentiment around the world. Only through a willful ignorance of history can one wistfully regret that President Kennedy didn't go to war against Cuba in 1961.

Mark Your Calendars, Kids: Next year, school won't interrupt summer

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

“Next year's Aug. 27 start date will be a welcome change. Students won't lose out on any instruction days, but summer vacation actually will extend through the summer.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

As if those August vacation days won't come at the expense of June vacation days. This isn't rocket science, people. If you keep the same number of instruction days, in-service days, holidays, etc., then summer vacation can be only so long. Extend it later in August and that necessarily delays the start of summer vacation the next year. Under either the old calendar or the new, there will still be a lot of hot summer days that students will have to spend in an air-conditioned classroom learning. There are worse things.

In another editorial this same day, The Dallas Morning News throws its support behind better math education. Perhaps we can start by having students count how many June vacation days the state legislature is taking away from them in order to award them with all those extra August vacation days. Perhaps the DMN editorial board can go back to school for that lesson, too. TANSTAAFL.

Governors object to "federalizing" National Guard

DallasBlog.com | Tom Pauken:

“Meeting in Charleston, South Carolina, the nation's governors voiced their opposition to the Bush Administration's proposal to take over control of state National Guard troops in the case of a natural disaster or terrorist threats. ... Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas "told reporters that the move to shift control of the Guard to the president during national emergencies 'violates 200 years of American history' and is symptomatic of a larger federal effort to make states no more than 'satellites of the national government'", according to the Washington Post.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

After a decade of Republican government, the cries from Republicans against the "increasing centralization of power in the federal government" continue. How long can Republicans continue to run as outsiders, as challengers of the status quo in Washington? It looks like Governor Huckabee (R-AR), for one, is trying to make it at least one more election cycle.

To his credit, Governor Huckabee did respond to Project VoteSmart's 2002 Arkansas Gubernatorial National Political Awareness Test when he last ran for governor. Voters should demand that all candidates fill out this issues survey.

Separating Art from Artist: Gibson's 'Passion' still speaks for itself

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

“The personal life and beliefs of an artist help explain a work of art, but they don't define it. The Passion of the Christ is the same film today – no more and no less anti-Semitic – as it was before Mr. Gibson's grievous lapse last week. ”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Yes, the film is the same film as before. And now that its producer/director has publicly revealed his anti-Semitism, those who saw anti-Semitism in the film before this incident now have another reason to believe that they were not imagining things then. And those that failed to see anti-Semitism before now have to at least question whether they perhaps failed to see something that was in the film all along.

It's like young students in 2006 reading Arthur Miller's The Crucible and seeing only a straightforward play about Salem witch trials. Then, teach them about McCarthyism in the US in the 1950s and watch them see the play in an entirely new light. Same play, but totally different appreciation about what it's all about. Fans of Gibson's 'Passion' who fail to see that film in a new light after its director's anti-Semitic outburst are simply blind.

Postscript: Rod Dreher, who wrote the editorial on behalf of The Dallas Morning News, defended himself on the paper's blog against a reader who accused Gibson of being no different from Hitler. Mr Dreher called this the reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy. Well... no. That fallacy is equating something with Hitler because of a shared trait unrelated to the evil that was Hitler. (You drive a Volkswagen Beetle. That was Hitler's car. Therefore, you are evil.) In the case at hand -- anti-Semitic remarks -- I'd say Gibson's rant was pretty much something Hitler might say. The comparison is apt. That doesn't make Gibson another Hitler, but they do share at least one evil in common.