Simon Cowell

For those who watch a little less reality TV than this author, American Idol is a singing competition. Viewers vote on who should win the title "American Idol," but not until the three on-stage judges, Simon Cowell, Paula Abdul, and Randy Jackson have had their say. The fifth season of the show began on the Fox network earlier this month.

Simon offends someone on virtually every episode. He bluntly assesses singers’ performances, and he has no compunction about telling contestants when a performance was "terrible," "just awful," or "hopeless."

In past seasons, some contestants have countered his criticism with such phrases as, "But I’m a good person!" or "Can’t you see that I have a good heart?" Many contestants seem flabbergasted to have their performances criticized so bluntly. Shouldn’t Simon look for a good point in their performance—any good point—to compliment instead? How could he be so "cruel" as to offer a negative assessment? What a dreadful person Simon must be, to be sure!

Such a reaction may be surprising to some of us in older generations, but to much of the younger generation, this logic makes perfect sense. After all, it is a natural outcome of the way in which they have been raised.

We live in a society that, by and large, gives children practically everything they want. Perhaps a parent feels guilty for spending too much time at work. Or maybe a parent didn’t have much when he was growing up, and he wants to give his children all the things he never had. Some parents think that saying "no" to their children will somehow come across as "I don’t love you." Other parents try hard, but are constantly undermined by the too-generous parents of their children’s playmates.

How often have you been in a store and watched some child bully his parent into purchasing a toy? How many children do you know with more electronic gadgets than you would ever have dreamed of owning at their age? Cell phones, iPods, laptops, even brand-new cars . . . the list goes on.

But matters get worse. Not only does our country spoil our children, refusing occasionally to say "no; you don’t need that," but we often refuse to tell children when they succeed or fail. Some educators are strong supporters of "outcome based" education in which simple grades—A, B, C, D, or the dreaded F, in my day—are not always given. Children’s sports games don’t always have "winners" or "losers." Instead, children are supposed to play for the fun of it and parents are supposed to pat their children on the back for their "good effort." Score is not kept.

Indeed, parents, teachers, and society tiptoe around children, sheltering them for so long that the real world must come as a huge, nasty shock.

Naturally, we should praise the good efforts of our children, even when they are on a losing team. They should not have to win games or get straight A’s to earn our love and admiration. But on the flip side, we must also prepare our children to deal with failure and disappointment. How can we prepare them to deal with disappointment if we never let them experience such a sensation in the first place?

Doubtless, experiencing true failure for the first time on national television is no picnic. But the fault is not Simon’s. Simon is simply stating it like it is. When people lack talent, he points it out. If they aren’t trying hard enough, he asks why they are wasting his time. But he is not purely negative, either. When a person turns in an outstanding performance, he is quick to praise. Moreover, it is clear to all that a compliment from Simon is worth a thousand from anyone else—because he only compliments those who deserve it.

American Idol has received much criticism in recent weeks. Critics argue that contestants are humiliated and served up as entertainment for the nation. There is a fair amount of truth in such an observation. On the other hand, perhaps the manner in which this generation of children has been raised accounts for the incredible number of individuals who can’t sing a note, but somehow think that they are the world’s greatest soloist. Or don’t know that it is okay to be the world’s greatest singer.

I can’t sing a single note on-key. But at least I am not afraid to know that about myself. I have my parents to thank for that. Let’s return the favor to the next generation by teaching them how to deal with not only the ups, but also the downs, of life.

Marc RottermanThe Republican Party is at a crossroads.

Republicans in Congress are in the process of deciding who they will support to replace Tom DeLay as the majority leader.

The insiders in D.C. are betting on Missouri Congressman Roy Blunt, who is serving as acting majority leader since DeLay stepped down.

Also interested in the job is Education Committee Chairman John Boehner of Ohio, who guided through "The No Child Left Behind" legislation for the Bush administration. A late entry in the race is Congressman John Shadegg of Arizona, who represents many of the insurgent "Class of '94."

The outcome of this election may be a harbinger of the direction of the Republican Party for years to come. It could show whether Republicans are willing to hold on to power for power's sake at the expense of the principles that brought them to the majority in '94.

Reform is the word of the day in Washington. The question is, "Will Republicans truly embrace a reformer?" Is "big government conservatism" what the party of Reagan wants to stand for?

Since being elected in 2000, President Bush has yet to veto a single spending bill. Either by design or by default, Bush and the Republican Congress are to a degree complicit in the record deficits that now confront our country.

Are Republicans so addicted to power that they will march in lockstep for any program or earmark that is put in front of them? Do we truly believe that education policy can be dictated to the states by an all-knowing "federal nanny"?

Is supporting the Prescription Drug Bill good policy for seniors and good politics for the GOP?

Many conservatives in Congress held their nose and voted for the Prescription Drug Bill and other big-government, pork-laden legislation that was an anathema to their principles of limited government. They did so in part to help Bush win reelection in 2004. That concern no longer exists. Bush is not running again.

Now may be the time for Republicans to look past the Bush presidency and to their own identity and their party's future.

It may be instructive for Republicans to remember that they did not achieve majority status in Congress after four decades of Democratic control by a presidential victory but by articulating a clear vision about what the size, scope and mission of government should be.

In 1994, under the "revolutionary" leadership of Newt Gingrich, Republicans stood for a bold conservative agenda that included smaller federal government, returning power to the states, lower taxes, greater individual freedom and, above all, reform.

For six years after '94, the Republican majority's victories were not followed by a presidential victory.

It is not clear who will succeed DeLay. What is clear is that the 2006 mid-term elections are fast approaching. The direction the new Republican leadership team takes will have a significant impact on the party. The Republican majority is a stake.

It is time for our conservatives leaders to reassert themselves and truly take on the reform mantle that brought them to power. In doing so, they will reinvigorate their base and help define the 2008 presidential race.

Someone is spending a lot of money to attack Republican officials who have received financial support from trial lawyers.

A new organization called Texans for Texas is spending a huge amount of money to attack elected Republican officials and certain conservative leaders who ostensibly have fallen under the sway of Plaintiff trial lawyers.

The slick, 20 page publication called "Shark Watch" has gone to Republican households throughout the state of Texas. Enclosed with the publication is a letter from the executive director of this organization, a woman named Janelle Shepard, in which she claims that plaintiffs attorneys are looking "for ways to conquer the Texas GOP."

One of the main examples cited in the publication is Democrat turned Republican turned Independent Carole Strayhorn. Of course, Carole Strayhorn’s campaign for Governor is being heavily financed by Plaintiff trial lawyers. We have written about that here at DallasBlog (click here to link to my commentary). But Mrs. Strayhorn is running as an Independent, not as a Republican. I happen to believe she was only a Republican of "convenience" anyway as it became beneficial for her politically to move from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party once Texas began to trend Republican. Now that it is more beneficial for Carole Strayhorn to run as an independent and get trial lawyer support she has made the switch to an "independent" just as easily as she did when she left the Democratic Party years ago.

Carole Strayhorn aside, this "Shark Watch" publication attacks a number of legitimate conservatives who supposedly are "tainted" by trial lawyer support. As the Young Conservatives of Texas pointed out recently in a statement posted here at DallasBlog, some of these attacks on conservatives seem very unfair. Click here to read. That is my reaction as well.

This publication is filled with personal attacks against responsible conservatives like Rep. Robert Talton ("Looks like a shark, acts like a shark, must be a shark!); former candidate for Republican State Chairman Gina Parker ("Gina Parker Flip-Flopped Like a Shark out of Water"); Representatives Bryan Hughes and Charlie Howard (portrayed as being under the control of Plaintiff’s trial lawyer Mark Lanier); and conservative activists Terry Lowry and Cathie Adams who made the list for opposing Proposition 12, a constitutional amendment to cap medical malpractice claims.

Clearly, the only issue that matters to those backing this "shark watch" organization is where one stands on "tort reform" legislation. If a Republican is not 100% in opposition to anything the Plaintiffs attorneys favor, then he or she is not a "conservative" according to Janelle Shepard and her financial backers.

I thought that conservatism favored a balanced system that was fair to both sides involved in a legal dispute. Yes, there have been plenty of abuses in our legal system which a small group of Plaintiffs lawyers have taken advantage of in the past. However, the Texas legislature and the Texas Supreme Court have moved to correct most of those abuses in recent years. However, I have seen a number of examples of abuse where legitimate claims were dismissed because of the influence of the defense bar. Isn’t that just as objectionable as abuses on the other side?

Conservatives should strive for a legal system that is as fair and balanced as one can expect in an imperfect world. This business of attacking conservatives and Republicans who don’t toe to the line 100% on the demands of the tort reform lobby is not something that this particular conservative finds representative of our conservative philosophy.

As the mayoral race of 2007, begins to crank up, South of the Trinity voters are paying more attention to the upcoming 2007 city council races. All of the current African-American city council members will be stepping down because of term limits. Since the mayor has only one vote on the council, Mayor Miller now realizes her success at city hall is dependent upon her ability to get eight votes. In the past, the Black council members leaving have led the opposition on the city council to much of Mayor Miller’s agenda making them all heroes South of the Trinity.

Mayor Miller, is without question, the front runner in the 2007 mayoral sweepstakes. No matter that she has polarized voters along racial lines; she still enjoys a great deal of support with white North of the Trinity voters. Mayor Miller also enjoys the largess of the white media. This fact was most apparent when none of the major white media outlets even did a follow-up or printed a letter to the editor on the expose the Dallas Morning News did on the Mayor and her questionable relationships with some key players in the city hall FBI investigation. According to one columnist at the Morning News, the FBI went so far as to tell the Morning News that Mayor Miller was not even a target in the FBI inquiry despite the overwhelming evidence that she was as much involved in the promotion of the disputed housing developments as the Black council members who have been singled out for investigation. As of this writing nobody has been indicted in the FBI inquiry.

Thus far, none of the candidates mentioned for a possible mayoral run seem very threatening to Mayor Miller’s reign. Cotton Bowl advocate and former mayoral candidate, Darrell Jordan, is a possible candidate for mayor. I have advised Jordan on southern sector politics. Jordan probably has the best history with the African-American community. As of now, Jordan’s campaign has not caught fire South of the Trinity. Former City Councilman Max Wells is rumored to be considering the race. Wells has little or no positive history with African-American voters despite his long tenure on the city council. He would have to be re-invented and re-introduced to Black voters as someone who really cares about South of the Trinity issues. None of the current white city council members rumored to be considering the race can get much traction with African-American voters.

Although Mayor Pro Tem Don Hill has not ruled out running for mayor, the FBI investigation of city hall has all but eliminated Hill from serious consideration. Most political insiders South of the Trinity have always felt that Hill represented the most serious challenger to Mayor Miller. It is interesting that Hill’s District 5 council seat will feature the most intriguing city council race. Strong Mayor advocate and Miller supporter, Betty Culbreath, is said to be considering running for Hill’s seat. DART board member and anti-strong mayor advocate Lynn Flint-Shaw, Don Hill’s pick to succeed him, is said to be considering the race. If Culbreath indeed ends up in a race for Hill’s District 5 council seat, it will mark Mayor Miller’s boldest attempt yet to control the Black community at city hall.

What is clear is that nobody will beat Mayor Laura Miller on just an anti-Laura Miller platform. Not enough whites will support that position and not enough African-Americans will be motivated enough to support a white candidate who is only offering Laura Miller as a sacrifice. And that’s how we see it from South of the Trinity.