Ghosts of Haditha

Dallas Morning News | Mark Davis:

“It will be awhile before we know whether Marines are guilty in a November slaughter of unarmed Iraqis in the town of Haditha. ... Anyone with a shred of human decency approaches this with the utmost gravity. Those of us who support the troops and the war they are fighting have a special responsibility not to sugarcoat, minimize or marginalize any wrongdoing by those troops.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

So, then, how does Mr Davis respond? By condemning the wrongdoing by American troops? No. By criticizing the flawed war policies that led to the situation? No.

Mr Davis responds by attacking Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) for getting it right. By characterizing his criticism of the Abu Ghraib scandal as an "absurd overreaction". Mr Davis now claims that Rep Murtha takes personal pleasure in this latest disaster, that he "savors every nugget" and "dwells with relish" on the atrocity.

Mr Davis asserts that American setbacks in Iraq are not due to a flawed policy but instead are "inflicted [by Rep Murtha's] derisive tongue." Mr Davis tries to distract attention from the mounting policy failures in Iraq by impugning Rep Murtha's opinion, his motives, his honor. Mr Davis' politics of personal destruction are despicable. Has the man not a shred of human decency himself?

'Idol' surprises

Startle Grams | Paul Bourgeois:

“I also was surprised to learn that more than 63 million votes were cast, and that, as host Ryan Seacrest pointed out, that's ‘more than any president in the history of our country has received.’ Maybe we need a radically different way to elect presidents. Can you just imagine idol judges rating presidential candidates after a debate?”

Ed Cognoski responds:

In 2004, I wondered why no one created a television reality show based on the Presidential primaries. Get 12 contenders, left, right, moderate, fringe, whatever, and have them debate each other, with viewers at home sending one home every week. Do it in time for the ultimate winner to have a chance to get on the real ballot as an independent candidate. Maybe someone will do it in 2008.

Long lines at appraisal district

DallasBlog.com | Tom Pauken:

“Those seeking to challenge the appraised values on their property have only a few days left to do so. ... If today is any indication, a lot of Dallas County property owners were at the Appraisal District office disputing their appraised values for 2006. ”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Instead of the anecdotal evidence offered by Mr Pauken, we need a systematic study. And for that, we need sales price data, which is not public information in the state of Texas. In fact, the information is not available to even government appraisal boards, unless it is voluntarily offered by homeowners. So, instead of whining about "unelected" appraisal boards "jacking-up" appraisals for "no discernable reason", Mr Pauken ought to be lobbying to get the appraisal boards the information they need to set accurate appraisals.

Until then, we're left with anecdotal horror stories. And for every victimized homeowner that Mr Pauken cites, there's another story of a wealthy homeowner or a commercial real estate owner taking advantage of the current system. For example, there's the office tower at 300 W. Sixth St. in Austin, whose owner complained when its appraised value increased 40 percent to $65 million, only to turn around and sell it a short time later for $131 million.

Who's the leader of the club?

Star-Telegram | Alan Saxe:

“Who has been the worst American president? Jimmy Carter, who now tries to resurrect his tarnished legacy by a multitude of good deeds. The problem is that we did not elect him to build houses or monitor elections the world over. We elected him to lead this nation. And his failed leadership at home and abroad must rank him at the bottom.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

First, any serious claim for worst President has to be compared to President James Buchanan, who dithered while the Republic drifted into Civil War. Mr Saxe never mentions him. Don't they teach 19th Century American history in the political science department at the University of Texas at Arlington?

Second, Mr Saxe misrepresents President Carter. His Presidency didn't rest on building houses and monitoring elections. It was as ex-President that Jimmy Carter became famous for these noble pursuits. No matter. Mr Saxe's condemnation of a President for good deeds says more about Mr Saxe's values than President Carter's. Instead, score that a plus for President Carter's legacy.

The same goes for President Carter's humility. Using the nickname "Jimmy", walking to the White House on Inauguration Day, wearing sweaters, being open to the public, all these are big pluses for President Carter. Mr Saxe can have President Nixon's imperial Presidency, with White House guards dressed up in some kind of faux-European dress uniforms. Or President George W Bush's restoration of the imperial Presidency, with his declarations that he'll decide which laws to obey and which to ignore.

The Carter administration was marked by double-digit inflation and interest rates. Score one for Mr Saxe. The Carter Presidency was a failed Presidency because of his inability to solve the stagflation he inherited from the Ford Administration. Yet Mr Saxe never mentions Gerald Ford, either.

Mr Saxe says it is foreign policy where the Carter Presidency's failures are most apparent to this day. Yet Mr Saxe uses odd examples. Remember the era. The Cold War was going strong. The United States had just suffered a stinging defeat in Vietnam. Yet Mr Saxe astonishingly faults President Carter for using Muslim governments and Muslim resistance groups to combat the spread of the Soviet Union in central Asia. Especially astonishing given that Iran never fell to communism and the Afghan resistance ultimately pushed the Soviets out of Afghanistan. For Mr Saxe to blame President Carter for focusing on the communist threat instead of on the potential rise of Islamic fundamentalism is a wholly unfair use of hindsight. Even with that hindsight, most observers today would still rank Soviet communism as the bigger threat in that time.

Finally, Mr Saxe seems put out that President Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, which was awarded for his decades of work for peace, including his historic achievement in brokering peace between Israel and Egypt in the Camp David accords. Any mention of President Carter's significant progress in solving that age old conflict in the Middle East apparently reflects badly on the debacle the current President has made in the region. And for that, Mr Saxe blames, you guessed it, President Carter, not President George W Bush.

Overall, President Carter's administration must still be judged a failure. But hardly the worst in American history. And certainly not for the reasons cited by Mr Saxe.

Conservatives, don't get your hopes up

Dallas Morning News | William McKenzie:

“Conservatives who believe ‘guest worker equals amnesty’ and ‘all we need is a wall from the Pacific to the Gulf and more boots on the ground’ should prepare themselves. They may have to vote against a broad immigration package on their own, without their president's encouragement. He's putting a lot on the line, and I don't think he'll give up easily.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

President Bush has a reputation for stubbornness. He has stuck with his failed policies in Iraq long after most of the rest of the country has deserted him. He has stuck to his belief that tax cuts lead to increased government revenues despite his own budget forecasts showing deficits for as far as the eye can see. He has stuck to his denials of global warming in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence.

So, should President Bush be expected to stick to his ideas about a guest worker program? His base isn't behind him on this one. Polls show stronger support for walls and border guards than for guest workers. On the other hand, George W Bush is not running for re-election in 2008. His support for immigration reform dates back to his days as Texas governor. President Bush sees an epic opportunity to court Hispanic voters to the Republican Party, an opportunity that many in his own party are missing.

In the current fight, if liberals and moderates come to his rescue, President Bush might have the political backing needed to stand his ground. And liberals might do it, not out of love for President Bush, but because they share his interest in serving the growing Hispanic community in the United States. And the alternative is seeing the conservatives pass their own punitive approach to immigration. Walls only hide the problem; they don't solve it. It's been said that politics makes strange bedfellows. The immigration issue is mixing things up.

To veto or not to veto

DallasBlog.com | Tara Ross:

“The President’s broad use of presidential signing statements is problematic [...]. Bush seems to see his signing statements as an alternative to the veto, despite the fact that the Constitution explicitly provides the latter venue as the primary route by which presidents may overrule Congress.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

This is a well-written article explaining the situation and the risks inherent in President Bush's actions. Good writing by Ms Ross.

The balance of powers among the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches is a delicate one. President Bush is shifting that balance, in effect telling Congress he will decide which laws to obey and which laws to ignore. So far, Congress is weakly acquiescing. No cases have yet worked their way through the Courts to find out their opinion on the matter.

If Congress ever stands up for itself, or if the President ever announces that he feels free to disregard judicial opinions, too, the stage will be set for an all-out Constitutional crisis.

Somehow, all this is not what I expected from a conservative President.

Is Al Gore the anti-Hillary candidate for the Democrats in 2008

DallasBlog.com | Tom Pauken:

“Democrats who fear that the nomination of Hillary Clinton in 2008 could allow Republicans to maintain control of the White House are looking for a Democratic candidate who can defeat her in the presidential primary race for the Democratic nomination. There is more and more talk that Al Gore may be the only Democrat who could win a primary race against her. ”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Political egos are huge. Ambition dies hard. An Al Gore run is a long shot, but not out of the question. But the main effect of a Gore/Clinton bruising primary battle would be to damage whoever emerges with the nomination. So, it's just the kind of primary Republicans would like to see. As long as the trial balloons are being floated by Republicans like Mr Pauken, don't pay too much attention.

Cracks in the 'Code'

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

“People have a funny way of taking [The Da Vinci Code] as an alternative history. Priests and pastors have reported parishioners having crises of faith after reading The Da Vinci Code. Others report feeling empowered by a message that is heretical. Leaving aside plain old gullibility, why are so many people so willing to take this pulp novel as something more than entertainment?”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Answer why so many people believe in the literal truth of the Bible and you might find the answer as to why so many people are taking The Da Vinci Code so seriously. The same human thinking process is at work in both instances.

Off the Terror List

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

“It's not easy for some to accept that Libya and Moammar Gadhafi have eased back into the United States' diplomatic good graces. But times change, as do geopolitical objectives. By all accounts, Libya, once the icon of state-sponsored terrorism, is playing by the rules. ... Oil is the other geopolitical reason for the United States' change of heart.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

'nuff said.

“The world will never forget the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing in 1988, nor should it.”

Washington just did.

The Mexican volcano may be about to erupt

DallasBlog.com | Scott Bennett:

“Over the past month I have talked to a [variety of Mexicans]. First, none of them will allow their names to be used because they are afraid of violent reprisals albeit from differing sources. Second, they believe Mexico is on the verge of a social implosion that will greatly complicate US and Mexican relations. Third, not one thinks there is any way out.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Just when Scott Bennett and the Dallas Blog have me thinking that Mexico is about to implode, I pick up BusinessWeek and read this article:

Mexico: Pumping Out Engineers The headlines are about low-wage illegals, but Mexico is swiftly upgrading its workforce

I guess it was the best of times. It was the worst of times.