Texas Blue Mailbag, Week of 12/09/2007

This Mailbag deals with figures we've seen often in the news this week, such as Chris Comer, Dana Perino, and Mike Huckabee.

RC says (in response to commentary on TEA and Chris Comer's firing here:

So, if you are not the result of an "intelligent design", take a look in the mirror and ask yourself, "How?" and "Why?" Not that Chris Comer was not entitled to her opinion, or should not have kept her job. The discussion should not be dictating how, or how long, it took for God bring about that what is, in the case of the Christian Right, or trying to convince everyone that God had nothing to do with it, as is the case with the Left, but discovery of the marvel of creation. See Francis Collins' book, The Language of God, which provides an interesting viewpoint of the head of the genome project.

Christian Democrat

Josh replies:

My feeling is not necessarily that a person has to believe that one is more "right" or "correct" than the other. I don't begrudge anyone their beliefs, especially when it comes to religion.

I am of the opinion, though, that hard science should be taught in schools as hard science, to prepare students for rigorous curricula in college and challenges in the workplace. I also think the professors who wrote the letter were right, and that a preference for evolution (or the mere suggestion of such) as the director of science curriculum should not be a termination-worthy trespass — that implies a closed-minded environment that is not conducive to education quality in the least.

I don't invalidate intelligent design as a belief; rather, my main concern is the strength of science curriculum in public schools, and that ideas about science must be freely expressable. That's all.

Alyssa Burgin says:

Not only did Perino not know what the Cuban Missile Crisis was, she also flunked the news quiz, going zero-for-three. Is she another graduate of one of those religious universities that the Bush administration is always favoring? What an idiot this woman is.

Thanks for making this news tidbit accessible to those who don't get the opportunity to hear this fabulous program.

Alyssa Burgin
Media Director, Texans for Peace

George says:

You know, when Jon Stewart most recently had Tony Snow on his show, he made an elucidating observation. He notes that as things for the administration have gone downhill, there has been a visible progression with the, um, let's say photogenic qualities of the press secretary put up to explain them. They started with Ari Fleischer back when things were rosy, but then they started going downhill a little, and McClellan gets put in; then things really start going badly, so they say, "well, let's put Snow in there, that's a pretty handsome guy," and now — to directly quote Stewart, as I wouldn't want to spoil his message or editorialize it by tainting it with my own: "Hello, Mommy!"

His guess is if this one can't bring up ratings, that the next Bush press secretary will be Jeri Ryan (the character Seven of Nine from the show Star Trek: Voyager). Who knew Stewart was a Trekkie? But you have to give it to him: here we were, struggling to figure out exactly what the criteria were to be qualified as Bush's press secretary, and he figures it out and breaks it down for us in a clever 20-second short.

Google helped me find a transcript of that show along with some video over here.

But seriously, it is indeed a bit frightening that the person chosen to explain the rationale behind a militant president apparently looking to upend stability and security in a volatile region has no grasp of context with regards to the careful course that must be charted for successful diplomacy when real threats are on the line.

SW said (in response to commentary about a Supreme Court ruling on sentencing here:

The Supreme Court rulings reinforce the discretionary power of district judges, not the federal judges. It in fact gives the federal judges at appellate levels a slap on the hand. My understanding is district judges still operate at a state level.

http://texaspolitics.laits.utexas.edu/html/just/features/0300_01/courtor...

I can see why you said that though; even the NYT made it confusing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/10/washington/10cnd-scotus.html?em&ex=119...

In the Supreme Court cases, district courts did the sentencing, and federal appellate courts said the ruling was "too light" and tried to impose a harsher sentence. There are "federal districts", but they aren't typically called "district" courts, they're called appellate courts. They are not tryers of fact, but reviewers of the trial's procedures. The reason the majority opposed the decision is that the appellate court had been taking a power it is not allowed to have. I have a somewhat elevated respect for Scalia on this set of cases, and even less for Thomas and Alito, if such a thing is possible.

Josh says:

Totally. I stand well corrected.

PM asks:

Is this illegal?

George answers:

Technically? Well, unless any of them are lying, I don't see any reason why it would be. Negative ads are legal, and I doubt Oprah is being asked to pay her own way to stump for Obama in Iowa — Paul is just merging the two when he asks Arkansas politicians to go around Iowa and talk about Huckabee's record. Heck, maybe we should have done that with George W. back in 1999.

Practically? Well, yes, it's not the friendliest sort of politics. But I'm not exactly going to start crying rivers because Republicans aren't practicing the friendliest sort of politics among themselves, if you know what I mean.