Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Downtown Rail

The Nightly Build...

Does Richardson Need Mass Transit?

Unfair Park's Jim Schutze is at it again, railing against rail congestion in downtown Dallas. He wants a reliever route built to take the load off the Pacific Avenue line before new lines to Mesquite and Irving start spilling more traffic into downtown Dallas. So far, so good. I'm with him. Then this:

"According to a contract signed with the city 18 years ago, DART should have begun building a second reliever route five years ago, preferably in a subway, for trains going through downtown. But because the city got slicked by the suburbs, the way it does in all so-called regional governance, DART spent its money instead building trains out to the boondocks, where nobody needs mass transit anyway."
Boondocks?! Where nobody needs mass transit?! Besides being factually incorrect, Schutze's flippant dismissal of suburban voters is counterproductive to Schutze's mission to get support for a subway in downtown Dallas. Turn it into a fight between downtown and the suburbs (or escalate the fight if you think that's what it already is), and downtown will lose. After all, suburban rail passengers don't much care if downtown traffic is congested. Most get off downtown anyway. And they ride the rail to avoid traffic in the first place.

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Dallas Blog

The Nightly Build...

Fact, Fiction or a Sloppy Mess?

In today's heavy dose of irony, Dallas Blog publishes an article by Jim Terry that begins:

"Many people today believe the news industry is loaded with political agendas, run by people with axes to grind, and an industry which has fallen into mediocrity."
OK, maybe Dallas Blog only pretends to be part of "the news industry", but it is undeniably "loaded with political agendas" and "run by people with axes to grind." Maybe it's unfair to say it's "fallen into mediocrity" as that assumes it ever attained mediocrity in the first place.

Jim Terry's own axe to grind has something to do with newspapers not getting apostrophes right. LOL. He must be driven crazy by Dallas Blog.

Monday, April 28, 2008

Immigration; Wright

The Nightly Build...

Prohibition, Jim Crow and Immigration

Rod Dreher, in a column for The Dallas Morning News Viewpoints section, presents a logic puzzle for readers. See if you can tell where he's headed.

He starts by pointing out how Prohibition was a colossal failure because drinking was too widespread and socially acceptable to be legislated out of existence.

He goes on to tell the old story (new to Dreher, apparently) of the college groundskeepers' who gave up trying to keep the students from wearing a footpath through the grass by sensibly laying a sidewalk where the students needed to walk.

He adds the example of civil disobedience used to challenge the Jim Crow segregation laws when injustice led many to disobey laws and eventually bring about change.

Have you figured out where Dreher is going yet with regard to our immigration laws? Have you guessed he's going to point out the folly of our current laws? After all, the laws make outlaws of those seeking otherwise socially acceptable ends -- a job, a better life, a chance at the American dream. The laws are flouted by millions of immigrants seeking work. The laws are flouted by thousands of employers seeking willing and able workers. The laws are a colossal failure, openly challenged by millions who think seeking a job should be as free and sensible as walking across the grass to get where you want to go.

If you thought Dreher would learn the lessons of his own examples, you'd be wrong. Instead, Dreher illogically concludes that our failed immigration laws are different. That limiting the number of immigrants below what is sufficient to meet the demand in industry, agriculture, and construction, is rooted in morally sound principles. That there is a "transcendent order" in creating and maintaining a perpetual underclass living in the shadows of American society. That we ought not strive for comprehensive immigration reform but instead more aggressively enforce existing laws that no longer serve the purpose of the American economy. That we the people are here to serve the purpose of the sidewalk and not the other way around.

There you have it. I said Dreher presented readers with a logic puzzle. I didn't say it had a logical solution.


Wright: Sabotaging Obama?

Jeffrey Weiss does a service for all America by posting links to the transcripts and videos of recent speeches by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Too much commentary is based on sound bites taken out of context, resulting in a slanted view of Wright's positions. I'll offer several of my own observations, some positive, some negative, after having reviewed the full speeches.

Wright relates how, for decades, white missionaries to black communities made blacks ashamed of their African-American roots. Even today, Christianity is seen by some blacks as the white man's religion. It puts meaning into Trinity United Church of Christ's slogan, "Unashamedly Black, Unapologetically Christian." The first part is directed at whites; the second at blacks.

Wright argues that there's a difference between government and God. God is unchanging and good. Governments are flawed and capable of sin. Wright urges America to strive for redemption. Some view this as anti-American. It isn't.

Wright's God is a judgmental and activist God, inflicting 9/11 on America in retaliation for America's own sins. This is the same as Falwell and Hagee blaming 9/11 and Katrina on abortion and homosexuality. God doesn't work that way.

Wright's suspicion knows no bounds. He blames AIDS on a deliberate government intent to harm the African-American community. His paranoia may be grounded in history like the Tuskegee syphilis experiments, but it's paranoia nonetheless. Not every bad thing happens intentionally. Incompetence is sometimes a better explanation than malevolence.

Wright's defense of Louis Farrakhan's anti-Semitism seems to reflect racial solidarity. It reflects a deep-seated bitterness towards the white community. Given that, I see no hope of reconciliation, not with this man.

All of this sharply outlines the challenge Barack Obama faces as he tries to be the candidate of change, the candidate who hopes to unify black and white, liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican. We knew all along that Obama would have a hard time convincing the right of his good intentions. With Wright's recent speeches, it now appears possible that Barack Obama may face just as big a challenge with the far left. There is hurt and anger lurking in the African-American community. If Wright is typical, they may turn on Obama the more he appears to be an honest broker and not partisan fighter. Wright admits as much. "I said to Barack Obama last year, 'If you get elected, November the 5th I’m coming after you, because you’ll be representing a government whose policies grind under people.'"

If Wright wanted to sabotage Obama's campaign, these are the kinds of speeches he would give. But, why would he want to sabotage Obama's campaign? Does he himself secretly believe that Obama does not, in fact, agree with his own extremist religious and political views? Does he view Obama as disloyal to the African-American cause, a sell-out to white America? Barack Obama's challenge to unify America grows just as America's need for a Barack Obama does, too.

P.S. Don't take my word for it. Follow the links. Read Wright in his own words. It's a rich vein that can be mined by Wright supporters and detractors both.

Saturday, April 26, 2008

Wright and Moyers

The Nightly Build...

Rev. Wright and the Right Wing Spin Machine

Now that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright has talked in public for the first time since the furor caused by airing sound bites from his sermons, the right wing spin machine is in overdrive again, reading between the lines to tell us what Wright really meant in his interview with Bill Moyers. Mike Hashimoto, in The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, asks, "was that entire 'race in America' speech delivered 'as a politician'? And is the implication that we should have fallen for it only as far as that goes?" A reader replies "Obama just got thrown under the bus by his pastor!"

All that just from Wright calling Obama a politician. Let's look at the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's quote in context, to see if Wright considers politics the dirty word that Obama's detractors want to make it.

"He's a politician, I'm a pastor. We speak to two different audiences. And he says what he has to say as a politician. I say what I have to say as a pastor. Those are two different worlds. I do what I do. He does what politicians do. So that what happened in Philadelphia where he had to respond to the sound bites, he responded as a politician. But he did not disown me because I'm a pastor. ... I don't talk to him about politics. And so here at a political event, he goes out as a politician and says what he has to say as a politician. I continue to be a pastor who speaks to the people of god about the things of God."
If one believes that politician is synonymous with liar, and pastor is synonymous with truth-teller, then what Wright said is unflattering to Obama. But Wright didn't say that. Wright, in fact, praised what Obama said "as a politician." Wright went on:
"In Philadelphia Senator Obama made a very powerful speech in terms of our need as a nation to address the whole issue of race. That's something good that's already starting."
For Obama's detractors to now say that Wright was criticizing politics or Obama as a politician requires reading a whole lot into Wright's words that simply isn't there. Wright simply explained separation of church and state, which was good for America in Thomas Jefferson's day and is still good for American today. But it's not good for the right wing spin machine's interpretation of reality.

Friday, April 25, 2008

Dallas Blog

The Nightly Build...

Dallas Blog. Still There?

A few days ago a reader asked when Dallas Blog went out of business. Well, Dallas Blog is still in business (term used loosely), but it's seen better days (term used loosely). Scott Bennett was described as a "former" co-owner on a Frontburner blog posting. Tom Pauken is feeding at the public trough again, having taken a patronage job in Austin from his friend Rick Perry. Trey Garrison and Sam Merten (the only two reporters who ever seemed to do any original reporting at Dallas Blog) have long since moved on to other jobs. And Rufus Shaw is dead. And so it goes.

I just checked the Dallas Blog front page. Ten stories, six by Tom McGregor, three by Will Lutz. One story about a German artist seeking attention by asking for a dying person to volunteer to die in public. (Artists yanking the chains of uptight Americans like Tom McGregor and Dallas Blog owner Tom Pauken are a staple of Dallas Blog.) One story about Jerry Springer! One story about surging suicides in Japan. One story about an imminent American military attack on Iran (another staple). And a story about the "comfy" life of prisoners in Britain. (Dallas Blog can't stand criminals not suffering enough. Maybe they should be made to read Dallas Blog.) What kind of reader response does this diet of tawdry stories draw? Two reader comments to front-page stories. Two. Does anyone still read Dallas Blog? Why does Tom Pauken still bother?

Thursday, April 24, 2008

The Candidates and Taxes

The Nightly Build...

More on the Tax Cutting Religion

The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog's topic of the day was the Presidential candidates' tax policy.

Michael Landauer says, "I wish I understood when being conservative came to mean that you were opposed to all taxes." Frontburner's Wick Allison referred to that as the tax cutting religion. Search this blog for previous commentary on that article of faith.

Mike Hashimoto rose to the defense of conservatives. "Advocating lower tax rates across the board isn't the same as 'opposing all taxes,' as some would argue."

Hashimoto is confused. Conservatives are not even-handed in their concern for taxpayers at all.

Sure, conservatives want to cut income taxes across the board. But because the wealthy pay the biggest percentage, they get the biggest percentage benefit.

Conservatives want to eliminate the estate tax altogether, and George Bush succeeded, at least temporarily. But only a tiny percent of the wealthiest estates owe tax, so this benefit goes exclusively to the wealthy.

The payroll tax is the last tax on the conservatives' list to complain about. This is the tax that the minimum wage burger flippers pay on their first dollar of income, but the wealthy pay no payroll tax at all on most of their millions in earned income. The payroll tax is 15%, the same as the capital gains tax. Income tax is on top of that. So, secretaries end up paying a higher tax rate than the CEOs pulling in millions in capital gains.

Even that 15% is too much tax for conservatives. They want to shift more, or even all, of the tax burden to consumption taxes. Sales taxes keep rising as other taxes get cut. The poor and working class spend a much higher percentage of their income on spending that would get hit by sales tax.

The bottom line is that there is no bottom line for an acceptable tax rate for conservatives.

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Yearning for Zion

The Nightly Build...

Yearning for Zion; Yearning for Truth

Other than one post wondering why the Midland Sheriff's Department has an armored personnel carrier, I've shied away from the story of the child custody battle playing out in Eldorado, Texas. The state of Texas Child Protective Services (CPS) raided the Yearning for Zion Ranch (YFZ) and took custody of 416 children after receiving a telephoned complaint that children were being sexually abused.

I've shied away from the story in part because the public had more assumptions than facts. Let's let the facts come out before forming conclusions. But a bigger reason was that I saw no ending to this story that didn't harm one or another of my most firmly held values.

Scott Henson, in a The Dallas Morning News viewpoints column presents the civil libertarians' argument well. Reportedly, the raid was prompted by an anonymous phone call, alleging sexual abuse at the YFZ Ranch, home of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS). Allegations of polygamy and rape of thirteen-year-old girls by older men at the ranch led to 416 children being removed from their homes and families being broken up.

Henson asks reasonably, "Where's the evidence of abuse?" The phone call turned out to be phony. No pregnant thirteen-year-old girls have been found. There's been no testimony of forcible sex or rape. Henson concludes, "From the evidence presented publicly, I do not believe that the children have been sexually abused or physically harmed."

The still-developing story looks, at present, like a case of over-reaction by CPS against a religious sect with views unpopular with the rest of the community. My support for America's Constitutional liberties leads me to agree with Scott Henson and side with the FLDS and against CPS.

So, why have I shied away from saying so? Because I also value protecting children from forced marriage and statutory rape. Even without corroborating testimony by anyone from the YFZ Ranch, I fear that there's a good possibility that underage girls are, in fact, being coercively married off to older men in polygamous arrangements at the ranch. If true, it would be a case where my upholding of our Constitutional liberties has the effect of protecting the criminal instead of the victim.

I hate it when that happens. Hate it.

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Pennsylvania Primary Results

The Nightly Build...

Closing the Deal

Sharon Grigsby asks on The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, "Obama, will you ever close the deal?"

Yes. It's not a matter of if. It's a matter of when. Obama is running out the clock. He's ahead on points and can afford to lose some of these later rounds and still win the match. If Obama goes for the knockout, he risks opening himself to a knockout punch by Clinton or alienating her supporters so much that he risks losing his next match against McCain. So, he's playing defense. It's just a matter of time.

Bill McKenzie says, "I think they both have strong arguments to make to super delegates."

Sure, Hillary has strong arguments to make to super-delegates. But Obama's argument is stronger. He has more pledged delegates, more total delegates, more popular vote, more states, and at least as strong poll numbers when matched up to McCain. It's only a matter of time before Obama runs out the clock and accumulates enough delegates to clinch the nomination. That Clinton can force him to go through all 50 states is a strong testament to her strength. But Obama is stronger and has a stranglehold on the nomination. It's his to lose, not hers to win.

Monday, April 21, 2008

Satire; Property taxes

The Nightly Build...

ABC and Comedy Central: Is There a Difference?

The Dallas Morning News published an editorial praising Jon Stewart as a satirist.

"Satire done well uses the comic's tools to drive a larger point, usually about how absurd the bill of goods someone, including Washington someones, is selling us. Satire gone overboard leaves you feeling as if everyone's selling you a bill of goods - so what's the point of voting, campaigning and contributing? After years of honing his style, Mr. Stewart does the best job of finding the satirists' sweet spot."
A serious editorial on the oh-so-serious pages of a major metropolitan daily newspaper about ... a comedy show on Comedy Central cable television. Satire has arrived. Political campaigns today are so ripe for satire that the candidates seek to participate in the lampooning. Stephen Colbert managed to book John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on his television show the same night, his last night covering the Pennsylvania primary on location in Philadelphia.

It's not just the candidates themselves who provide the fodder for satire. The supposedly serious news media's coverage of the campaign is sometimes hard to distinguish from the comedians' coverage. Jon Stewart provides the best take on the descent of network news, with his summary of ABC's debate between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, hosted by Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulis:

"The first hour of last night's debate was a sixty minute master class in questions that elevate out-of-context remarks and trivial, insipid, miscues into subjects of national discourse, WHICH IS MY JOB. STOP DOING MY JOB. That's what I'm here for. I'm the silly man."

Someone Is Getting a Property Tax Break, Just Not You

On The Dallas Morning News Metro blog, Steve Blow posts an addendum to his column Sunday on commercial property appraisals in Dallas. He adds the city is in process of buying downtown property for the proposed convention center hotel for $41 million, more than five times its officially appraised value. Some commercial real estate owner has been getting a sweet deal on his property tax bills.

Two years ago, Gov. Rick Perry appointed a task force to study appraisal reform. Lack of disclosure of real estate sales price information, especially commercial, leads to many properties being grossly undervalued like the example above. Average homeowners, for whom it's harder to hide the true value of their own houses, end up having to bear a higher tax rate to compensate. You'd think the governor's task would have highlighted this problem. You'd think the task force's first priority would have been to get accuracy in appraisals. You'd have guessed wrong. The task force buried it under other careabouts, such as capping appraisal increases and putting appraisal boards under partisan political control. The result would have been more room to manipulate the process, more opportunities for setting appraised values far short of market values for favored special interests.

The governor's task force was led by Tom "Let's cap taxes and call it appraisal reform" Pauken, who is owner of Dallas Blog, which this weekend published an article by Will Lutz that begins, "Texans are hopping mad about high property taxes." Lutz uses that premise to renew Pauken's push for partisan political control of appraisal boards. Not a word from Lutz about mandatory sales price disclosure. There's a grossly under-appraised $41 million piece of real estate in downtown Dallas that suggests just how big the prize is in this political battle. Rick Perry, Tom Pauken, and Will Lutz intend to win it.

Friday, April 18, 2008

More Obama/Clinton

The Nightly Build...

Uncle Barky Does Debates... Badly

I respect Ed Bark greatly. He was the television critic of The Dallas Morning News and now is an independent blogger covering the same subject. But he ought to stay well away from politics, including reviewing televised political debates. His analysis of this week's debate between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton reads like it was written by someone more used to watching fake 'reality' shows than following politics. Oh wait, it was.

ABC and its moderators Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulis have been roundly criticized for spending the first half of the debate on "gotcha" questions about Wrightgate, bitter-gate, sniper-gate, Ayersgate, even flagpin-gate. Bark defends ABC.

"Did ABC's critics really expect Gibson and Stephanopoulos to throw out nothing but another round of generic questions about the candidates' only slightly differing positions on the war in Iraq, health care, taxes and so on? Both Clinton and Obama are fully capable, as they again demonstrated Wednesday night, of responding to any question with an automatic pilot restating of their rehearsed-to-death talking points."
Are you kidding? Does Bark believe that it's only possible to ask "sharp, provocative questions" about tabloid issues? That substantive policy issues require the moderators to lay back and "let the candidates pontificate," as he put it? Is that really the only choice the moderators had? Of course not.

Bark even implies that these attack questions aimed at Obama worked to his advantage because they give him more time to answer. That's certainly a novel viewpoint.

"Obama got the lion's share of time in the opening hour, with Gibson twice noting that things were 'getting out of balance.' 'I've noticed,' Clinton said with a game smile before acquiescing to a commercial break."
Poor, patient Hillary. The moderators spent so much time attacking Obama, she didn't get enough time to pile on herself.

Bark defended his own defense of ABC:

"Maybe you should go back to watching all the debates in which Obama got a virtual free pass. And as noted in the article, two of the supposedly tabloid questions came from voters, not the moderators."
ABC didn't tell us that they were going to make up for anti-Clinton bias in previous debates by showing anti-Obama bias this time. The only excuse for piling on Obama is that he's the frontrunner, which isn't necessarily a bad excuse, but let's at least quit pretending the debate was fair.

What difference does it make that ABC found a voter to ask the flag pin question? ABC could find someone to ask any question they wanted. I would have volunteered to ask: What will you do, as President, to prevent future Presidents from abusing the Constitution through signing statements, domestic spying or running torture programs out of the White House? Democrats don't want to talk about that. Neither do Republicans, which makes it all the more important for someone to force an airing of this Constitutional abuse. After a person is elected President, it's too late to pin them down on limiting Presidential powers. A few probing questions by a debate moderator might force them to say something now about a Constitutional issue more important than, say, who loves America more, Obama or his pastor.