Dunning vs Chen Button

The Nightly Build...

---

When None-of-the-Above is Really Needed

The Dallas Morning News made an endorsement in the nasty Republican primary runoff for the Texas House District 112 seat. The News endorsed Jim Shepherd in the primary, but now holds its nose and recommends Angie Chen Button in the April 8 runoff. Chen Button is picked over Randall Dunning because of her "involvement in North Texas civic organizations" like DART, and because of her support for funding of UT-Dallas and the Dallas Community College District. The News fails to mention that the DART board was recently embarrassed by a billion dollar budget shortfall. Chen Button is a CPA and a member of the DART board's audit committee.

The News does say that Chen Button "needs to articulate her views better." That's an understatement. A Web site that strongly favors her opponent neatly satirizes a typical Angie Chen Button response to a direct question about the DART budget scandal:

"This a very important question. Very important and I am so glad you ask this question. First of all the bridges you cross before you come to them are often over rivers that aren't there. Don't forget that. Now, the transit agency made a mistake and a mistake is simply another way of doing business. I can tell you from first hand experience that to err is human, but to blame someone is politics. And remember this: it's not the bullet that kill you, it's the hole. And so it is in the accounting business. Lots of holes but the important thing is not to believe everything you think. Am I making myself clear?

So, why did the News endorse Chen Button over Randall Dunning? In short, because Dunning is a conservative wingnut. The News uses as example the fact that Dunning signed a petition advocating ending government involvement in education. That means federal, state and local. That means no oversight, regulation, teacher certification, achievement testing, etc. That means shutting down or selling all public schools. That means no vouchers for private schools. That means no tax subsidy of any kind. The organizers of the petition helpfully suggest that friends and relatives of your children could be urged to give money instead of toys for birthdays and holidays to make up for the lost government funding. And neighbors without children could be encouraged to voluntarily donate money to their neighbors with children to fund home schooling or private schools. Really.

Dunning's wingnut ideas don't stop with government involvement in education. They extend to the subjects Dunning believes children should be taught. That doesn't include evolution. In an Amazon.com video review of Icons Of Evolution, Dunning says:

"This is a fine video that explores icons of the cult of Darwin and the fanatical attempts of the neo-Darwinians to suppress all challenges to their quaint little belief. I deduct one star because it is too short. There are so many other important frauds and deceptions in need of being addressed that permeate this amazing movement that seeks to convince rational people, through a series of 'just so stories', that they somehow descended from rocks."

It's not just education that drives Dunning over the edge. The First Amendment freedom of religion is seen as anti-Christian bigotry. In another book review, he vows:

"Many who have been abused and hectored by anti-Christian bigots are now activists who are being elected to public office. (Fear this, Liberals!) The day will come when the so-called 'separation of church and state' will be relegated to the dust bin of history."

Dunning praises an Ann Coulter book for "exposing the enemies of America for what they are: Traitors, liars, perverts, tyrants, despots, etc." He dismisses anyone who dares offer contrary opinions as liberals "venting their spleens of the yellow bile of abusive, tiresome, tormented, liberal rage and angst." And he ought to know. The Dallas Morning News says "it's hard to anticipate [Dunning] breaking with his ideology for his constituents'needs." No kidding. Masterful understatement, that.

Voters in House District 112 ought to reject both of these candidates. That means the staunchly Republican district ought to at least give the Democrat on the November ballot, Sandra Vule, a fair hearing. Can she possibly be worse than Dunning or Chen Button?

Wright and "middleclassness"

The Nightly Build...

---

Rev. Jeremiah Wright: Movin' on Up

Rod Dreher, in The Dallas Morning News' Opinion blog, tells us about the $1.6M house in a gated community that the Rev Jeremiah Wright is moving into in his retirement from Trinity Church, after preaching to his parishioners not to move out from the city to the suburbs, abandoning their urban community. Dreher exclaims, "Come on!"

Wow! Rod Dreher has uncovered another example of a religious leader acting hypocritically. That's kind of like shooting fish in a barrel, isn't it? Left unsaid is the implication that if Wright is a hypocrite, then Obama must be, too, by association, not by anything learned here about Obama's own words or deeds. Can we get back to talking about the issues, please. Or at least the candidates?

Dunning vs Chen Button

The Nightly Build...

---

Failed Record, Strange Behavior

The runoff in the Republican primary for Texas House District 112 to succeed retiring Fred Hill is turning nasty. Paul Burka gives a good summary of the candidates and the party split that they represent.

Randy Dunning is supported by the far right. He highlights cutting taxes as his reason for running. He also is anti-immigrant, anti-abortion, and anti-gay. What's he for? Guns. So much so that he got fired from his job after carrying a handgun on company property. He explains that this happened during the "reign" of Bill Clinton, so I guess he felt justified. WTF?

Angie Chen Button is supported by the business conservatives. Her biggest contributors are Tom Engibous, former chairman of Texas Instruments and Keh Shew Lu, former senior VP of TI. She's raised $114,000 so far and has loaned herself another $160,000. She is on the DART board, which recently was embarrassed by failing to catch a billion dollar budget shortfall. She's running on an anti-immigrant, anti-abortion, anti-gay platform. Oh... and smearing Randy Dunning. In cable television attack ads and in an email, she attempts to bury him, in Dunning's words, under "an avalanche of fabrications, distortions, and hearsay." Burka has the text.

Dunning's response is also worth a read. Dunning dismisses some of the smears as being sourced from the Dallas Observer, "an ultra-liberal 'alternative' newspaper." Uh oh... he had better hope those guys at Unfair Park don't take offense.

Too bad there's not a way both of these candidates can lose. I guess someone has to emerge from the runoff with the Republican nomination, but if ever there's an election where Republicans ought to at least give a look to the Democrat (Sandra Vule), this November will be it. Strange behavior indeed, on the part of both Republicans.

Clinton and The Fellowship

The Nightly Build...

---

Triangulating Faith

For fifteen years, Hillary Clinton has been part of a Capitol Hill prayer group called The Fellowship. Apparently, members tend to practice rightwing politics. Now, because of Clinton's criticism of Barack Obama's decision to remain a member of his church, once led by the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Clinton's own membership in a controversial religious group is getting some press. Not much, but maybe enough to cause Clinton to back off her own criticism of Obama.

The story has appeared in The Atlantic as long ago as 2006 and in Mother Jones and Harpers since then. Now, Jeffrey Weiss brings the story to The Dallas Morning News Religion blog.

Hillary Clinton's long term involvement in this right-wing fundamentalist religious group is a private matter. I'm more interested in Iraq, terrorism, the economy, health care, education, the national debt, our Constitutional liberties, etc., than I am in her religious practices... as long as she upholds the Constitutional separation of church and state, that is.

Conversation on race; Rooting for death?

The Nightly Build...

---

Can't Make Murchison Talk? What's That He's Doing?

Barack Obama called for a national dialog on race. William Murchison of the Dallas Blog is stubbornly having none of it. He demostrates this by... writing a column about a dialog on race. There's a delicious irony in William Murchison publicly doing exactly what he insists no one can make him do.

Murchison faults "liberals" for not wanting real dialog, only "a microphone and an audience." Murchison makes this criticism in a column on Dallas Blog, where he himself conveniently doesn't have to see or hear any differing viewpoints. More irony.

William Murchison, other opinion writers, and their readers are all, in fact, having that dialog, whether or not William Murchison wants to admit it or not. Thank you, Barack Obama ... and even William Murchison, too. It's a conversation long overdue.

---

Mark Davis Thinks Reporters Want Soldiers to Die

Mark Davis accuses reporters of wanting American soldiers to die in Iraq in his column in The Dallas Morning News. His evidence? ABC's decision to run a list of names of the dead during its nightly newscast. This is reported by Michael Landauer on the News' Opinion blog. My questions: Why does the Dallas Morning News give Mark Davis a column? Are there editors who aren't sickened by his offensive statements? Or are there editors who think offensive, sickening opinions deserve equal time on the pages of the News? If so, who is the left-wing demagogue that Mark Davis supposedly balances?

American notions of sin

The Nightly Build...

---

Sin is in the Eye of the Beholder

Bruce Tomaso reports on the puzzling results of a survey on Americans' notion of sin. For example, 63% think it's a sin to not speak up if a cashier gives you too much change, but only 52% think it's a sin to underreport income on your tax return.

Humans tend to conform to conventional morality, by and large, even if they can't explain it. It's possible that it was the evolution of morality that enabled homo sapiens to exponentially expand its population and range and dominate the planet. That morality is still more instinct than reason explains why survey responses can be as illogical as appears here.

Grammar Myths

The Nightly Build...

---

The Teacher Ain't Always Right

Donna Garner, a long time English teacher in Texas public schools, ruins a reasonable appeal for better English language instruction in schools with a misguided understanding of how the English language is used. In a Dallas Blog column, she laments:

"Similar to what many of you probably do, I find myself frequently yelling at the TV set! I am so tired of hearing incorrect grammar used by TV commentators, Teachers of the Year, firemen, city council members, college professors, political figures, Congressional staffers, recent college graduates, and people-on-the-street. [...] 'He sung loud and clear...The interview was between him and I...She laid down for her nap just before the house became engulfed in flames...Sally snuck out to the playground...Jim dove into the swimming pool.' "

Some of these usages have a long and honorable history. You can find them in the writings of the greatest writers of the English language, Shakespeare, Milton, Dryden, Wordsworth, Coleridge and others. Who is Donna Garner to say that these writers were wrong?

Much of this misguided effort stems from an attempt to shoehorn the English language into the grammar rules of Latin or to define rules to make English more logical. It's not that modern English has been corrupted from some earlier, more perfect age. In many cases, English speakers never followed the rules laid down by wishful pedants. Language is not mathematics. Language is the people's tool and it follows popular usage.

For example, "dove" has been gradually replacing "dived" for a hundred years. Sometimes English evolves by standardizing around, for example, "-ed" endings for past tense. But sometimes, the old Anglo-Saxon endings ("drove", "dove") hang in there or even stage a comeback.

Students need to learn that language is a living, evolving cultural organism as much as they need to learn the strict rules of today's New York Times Manual of Style and Usage. As Donna Garner's own ears tell her, plenty of people say "dove," not "dived." As Donna Garner admits, many of those same people have jobs as television commentators, Teachers of the Year, college professors, city council members, Congressional staffers, etc. These are the people who set the standards for language use. The style guide will eventually catch up to what these people say, no matter what long-time English teachers in public schools may have learned when they were in school. Donna Garner should quit yelling at the TV set and start appreciating how language is actually used. It doesn't always follow logical rules, but that doesn't make it any less "correct."

Huckabee on Wright

The Nightly Build...

---

Cut Him Some Slack

The Dallas Morning News' Opinion blog's James Mitchell links to a Huffington post story with a video of Mike Huckabee, former Republican candidate for President and former Baptist preacher from Arkansas, who says:

"As easy as it is for those of us who are white to look back and say 'That's a terrible statement!' ... I grew up in a very segregated South. And I think that you have to cut some slack -- and I'm gonna be probably the only conservative in America who's gonna say something like this, but I'm just tellin' you -- we've gotta cut some slack to people who grew up being called names..."

Mitchell suggests that Huckabee "gets it" and asks, "When can we expect these comments in continual video loop?" The answer is not anytime soon.

Reader Ed Friedman asks, "Why is it so difficult to understand that Wright was venting anger, an anger that's so understandable?" The answer is that many of the whites who refuse to cut Wright any slack are also just venting anger, an anger that's also understandable. Re-read Obama's speech. He gets it, too.

Hmmm... Obama/Huckabee '08?

Mark Davis on Obama

The Nightly Build...

---

Obama As Seen From Another Planet

Mark Davis listened to another speech than I did yesterday. His characterization of Barack Obama's speech on race relations bears no resemblance to the reality I saw and heard.

Mark Davis heard "a flimsy attempt to excuse" the Rev. Wright's legacy of venom. I heard Obama condemn Wright's remarks.

Mark Davis heard Obama urge America "not to reject [black] anger without understanding its roots." I heard Obama urge America to BOTH reject AND understand, as a necessary means to overcome.

Mark Davis says "hate is not to be endlessly analyzed." I heard Obama say that if we simply condemn each other and retreat to our respective corners, then the conflict will indeed be endless.

Mark Davis says that Obama should have said that the members of his church are not "well served by the spreading of racial hatred." I heard Obama say exactly that.

Mark Davis says hate is to be rejected without reservation, but then hypocritically drops a suggestion that Trent Lott was "undeserving" of criticism for his nostalgic memory of segregation, that Don Imus was "undeserving" of criticism for calling African-American female college athletes "nappy headed hos."

Maybe Mark Davis ought to return from whatever planet he listened to yesterday's speech from. His reception wasn't good. He ends by condescendingly saying he wishes "to give Mr. Obama credit and benefit of the doubt as the first black presidential candidate striving to move beyond the 1960s." Mark Davis wants to marginalize Obama as nothing more than an ethnic candidate. But Obama isn't running to be president of black America or white America. He's running to be President of the United States of America. And his speech was a powerful call to action towards that goal. Too bad Mark Davis didn't hear it.

Obama and Race

The Nightly Build...

---

Kumbaya or Fire and Brimstone

How fast things change. Just a few weeks ago, Hillary Clinton was making political capital by mocking Barack Obama for being a starry-eyed dreamer:

"Let’s just get everybody together. Let’s get unified. The sky will open. The lights will come down. Celestial choirs will be singing and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect."

Today, Barack Obama is being painted by others as some kind of racist black man who calls on God to rain down fire and brimstone on white America for sinning. He's being condemned for association with a firebrand preacher who has issued such calls from the pulpit of Obama's own church.

Obama is no more a racist than he is a starry-eyed dreamer. Both caricatures are attempts by his political opponents to undermine him and his call for a end to the politics of personal destruction that has corroded public discourse in this country, a call to turn the page, a call to change.

Make no mistake. Obama's association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright is a problem that can do serious harm to Obama's campaign, even if guilt by association is unjustified. Many voters will hear only the sound bites, decide that Wright preaches racism and nothing else, and that Obama buys into everything Wright says, no matter that they cannot point to anything Obama himself has ever said or done that is racist. Just the fact that Obama didn't leave the church years ago is enough to condemn him in many people's minds.

Instead, Obama denounces the expressions of anger and division by the Rev. Wright, without disowning the man who brought him to Jesus, the man who also preaches a message of hope and renewal for his black community. Obama filters the good from the bad to craft his own positive, uplifting message of change. A unifier can emerge from a church that sometimes harbors anger and frustration. This should not be surprising. One who has personally experienced the polarizing effects of race in America from both sides understands the kind of change America needs. Obama's own background (white, black, Hawaii, Kenya, Kansas, Indonesia, Harvard, south Chicago, Washington DC) positions him to rise above the crippling effects of racial divisions in America. If America turns its back on Obama for things his pastor said, the racial divide will only deepen. America would be the loser, not Obama.