News-Record.com

A while back, I took a look at Wink, Texas, one of the nation's real hot spots.

It's been as hot as Wink in much of the country lately.

But not out in Meacham, Ore., which is often listed in our daily weather report as the coolest place in the Lower 48. The temp dropped to a chilly 30 there yesterday. It's 31 now.

So what about Meacham, and why is it so cool?

Meacham sits in the Blue Mountains of northeastern Oregon. It's named for brothers Harvey and Alfred Meacham, who ran a stage station in the 1860s and '70s. Alfred was killed by a falling tree.

The Web site, http://www.oregonphotos.com/Meacham.html, explains Meacham's weather:

"Why does Meacham (the town proper, not the airport) get so cold? Just like Seneca, the town of Meacham sits at the very lowest end of a cold air sink in a high mountain valley. Above town, a series of draws funnel cold air downward from hills rising to about 600 feet higher than town. Just like what happens in Seneca's valley, the town of Meacham is at the confluence of several creeks -- Two Mile, Beaver, Meacham, and Tod Creek, all of which funnel cold nightime air downward to stagnate. Just beyond the town, the sink ends as the basin abruptly narrows and Meacham Creek exits through a narrow canyon, exactly like the Silvies River does at Seneca. Although Meacham's small mountain valley is 'less' than Seneca's in most respects, it has powerful potential to collect cold air, stagnate it, and magnify coldness night after night until storm front winds can reach deep enough to scour out the cold air. That's how Meacham was able to generate occasional state-record cold that was very close to Seneca's. When the Weather Service moved the official weather station to a free-draining hilltop plateau, one of Frontier Oregon's 'Arctic Kings' bit the dust."

The lowest temperature recorded at Meacham is -52. Maybe you wouldn't want to experience that, but today's expected high of 74 sounds pretty good.

Here's our editorial today expressing approval for changes in the state's drunken-driving laws.

Here's the bill in its entirety.

The first response to the edit I heard today was a recorded message from a man, who didn't identify himself, suggesting a better solution to the drunken-driving problem: Make it illegal to consume alcoholic beverages anywhere except on your own property.

I guess that would help. It would pretty much spoil Thirsty Thursdays at the ballpark, though. And I don't think the real problems are caused by people who have a glass of wine or a beer when they're eating out -- especially if they don't drive afterward.

Short of prohibition, it's a big step forward to make sure that the legal limit of 0.08 will be consistently enforced and to provide strong criminal penalties against drunken-drivers who injure or kill others.

I'm not a lawyer, but I know it takes at least two to form a conspiracy.

So former state Rep. Mike Decker, R-D-R-Forsyth, couldn't have been alone in "conspiring" to extort money and change party affiliations in order to support a certain person for the office of N.C. speaker.

Decker pleaded guilty today in federal court.

No other conspirator was named, but we can guess.

I mean, there's only one speaker. Decker switched from R to D in early 2003 in order to help that person stay in power. Subsequently, Decker became a beneficiary of a certain powerful politician's big-dollar fund-raising machine. Decker's son got a legislative job. And Decker himself went on the state payroll after he was voted out of office in 2004, despite becoming an R again.

I was very pleased to see Attorney General Roy Cooper's response:

"The bribery and fraud alleged in today's guilty plea undercut the foundation of our representative government. We will continue to investigate these and other related matters with the U.S. Attorney and the Wake (County) District Attorney."

Maybe these continuing investigations will lead to a co-conspirator.

There has to be one.

And, because Decker's sentence may depend in part on his cooperation with these continuing investigations, I'd guess he'll be likely to talk.

My column today:

Samuel R. Flippen doesn't deserve much sympathy. Convicted of murdering his 2-year-old stepdaughter, he's next in line outside North Carolina’s death chamber. His scheduled execution date is Aug. 18.

What he does deserve -- what every American, convicted killer or not, deserves -- is equal treatment under the law.

When it comes to capital punishment in this country, even in this state, there's no such thing. ...

Another example of what I'm talking about.

Addendum: And another. This North Carolina woman beat her 2-year-old child to death and was convicted of felony child abuse -- not murder -- and sentenced to up to eight years in prison. She was expected to serve less than four, but now will be released even sooner.

A couple of years in prison vs. the death penalty. Is that justice?

I'm all for organized youth sports, having played, coached and had my kids play.

But "national championship" level competition for 8-year-olds? Three-hour practices? Three months of conditioning before starting a "season" that stretches for months and includes 44 games so far?

I'd have to be convinced that's really good for kids that young.

This sort of puts the Mel Gibson episode in perspective.

The conservative Media Research Center is trumpeting the slide of Air America, the liberal talk radio network.

I've never listened to Air America -- is it broadcast anywhere around here? -- so I don't have an opinion about its quality of lack of quality.

I wonder, though: If liberal talk radio is tanking, could the reason lie in the blogosphere? I mean, isn't that where all the liberals are?

This kind of help probably does more harm than good.

The writer of today's Counterpoint suggests that the mother should have been investigated in the death of her daughter.

Stepfather Samuel Flippen was convicted of beating 2-year-old Britnie Hutton to death and is scheduled to die by lethal injection Aug. 18. He never suggested any involvement by the mother, but claimed that the child fell from her high chair. The mother was at work.

I made the case against capital punishment on the basis of its inconsistent application.

Trying to shift blame from Flippen to the victim's mother is the wrong argument.

The College of William and Mary reports that the NCAA has rejected its appeal of a ruling that use of a logo depicting feathers is offensive. The college will face sanctions if it continues to use the logo.

You can see the logo with those hostile yellow-and-green feathers at the college's athletic Web site.

Earlier, the NCAA had said it's OK for W&M to use the "Tribe" nickname.

College President Gene Nichol's statement in May is apt:

"The NCAA's varied interpretations of mascot policy -- what it allows and what it rejects -- are impossible to comprehend or justify."

Nichol is former dean of the UNC-Chapel Hill School of Law.

I'll agree that some images and nicknames -- "Redskins" comes to mind -- are insensitive and potentially offensive.

But feathers?

I applaud William and Mary for standing up to the NCAA's extreme obsession with political correctness -- the whole state of South Carolina is another target. Too bad the college will have to pay a price for sticking to its principles.

Sometimes I think the Presbyterian Church USA, the denomination to which and belong and which I love, is trying to destroy itself.

It really makes me sad.

The latest example: PCUSA's official publisher, Westminster John Knox Press, has just put out a 9/11 conspiracy book that blames it all on -- who else? -- George W. Bush.

Good grief! The Bush administration engineered the terrorist attacks to create an excuse for going to war in the Middle East.

Please don't suggest I read this book before condemning it. The premise is just so offensive and, well, deranged, that I'm not going to waste my time.

I'm not being partisan, either. I haven't read any books claiming FDR knew about the Pearl Harbor attack but let it happen because he was eager for the U.S. to get into war against Japan and Germany -- at the time the world's two greatest military powers.

That would have been a crime of immense proportions. Of course, perpetrating the 9/11 disaster -- and cover-up -- would exceed even that.

If it made any sense. But it doesn't. Did the White House hire the hijackers? Is Osama bin Laden -- who claims responsibility for 9/11 -- on the administration's payroll? Have all the investigators, including the 9/11 Commission, been paid off and sworn to secrecy?

This book probably will be well received in the Middle East, where the most ardent America haters have always said 9/11 was an inside job, with heavy Jewish involvement.

Sadly, there are America haters here, too. It makes me very uncomfortable when the church to which I belong associates itself with them.

"We have a long tradition of being a publisher of somewhat progressive stances on theological and social issues, so it is not out of character for us to do this," said Jack Keller, vice president of publishing at WJK.

Is this what passes for "somewhat progressive" these days -- publishing a book that accuses the president and his government of a horrendous atrocity against their own country?

Crackpots are going to write books. No one says they can't. And, very often, they can find a publisher. No one says publishers can't print what they want.

But the publishing arm of the Presbyterian Church USA? Sorry, but as a member, that deeply offends me. And it saddens me, because it can only further damage the credibility of a denomination that is already in serious trouble.

Just back from a nice weekend in Ashe County.

Margaret and I stayed at the River House inn a few miles outside Jefferson and did some canoeing on the North Fork of the New River.

It's been a hot, dry summer even in the mountains, and the river is low. Twice during our four-mile paddle this morning, I had to get out and pull us off the bottom into deeper water.

Still, it was a lovely time. Although the river winds past quite a few homes -- as well as stretches that are still undeveloped -- we had the water entirely to ourselves.

Well, not quite true. There were many ducks floating peacefully near the banks and a pair of great blue herons flying just ahead of us, setting down, then taking off again every time we approached.

It was considerably cooler up there, and we enjoyed a refreshing breeze every so often. But some good rains are needed to raise the river level and speed up the current. It was so gentle, we actually had to do a little paddling once in a while to keep moving. That wasn't the idea!

A more serious gripe is about slobs who throw beer cans or other trash into the river. The river edges are clean. I'm guessing they're policed regularly by people who care about preserving the river's beauty. But the river bottom is littered in places by flattened cans. They're not only unsightly but potentially dangerous if you're wading barefoot. What's so darn hard about properly disposing of your empties?

Other highlights of the short weekend getaway:

The town of West Jefferson, where we ate last night. It's very pretty, with several artsy places -- inexplicably closed on Saturday evening, however.

And artist George Kosinksi, who has a studio on the River House grounds. No relation to the High Point wood carver of the same name, this George Kosinski is a Brit who lived in the Middle East many years and has some fantastic desert paintings. We purchased a print of the River House itself seen from across the river -- a perfect memento of a fun weekend.

The Old Testament prescription for justice -- an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot -- sounds barbarous. In reality, it represented a huge advance in enlightenment.

It established the principle of reciprocal justice. Under this law, it was not permissible to wipe out your neighbor's whole family if his son killed your son.

The "eye for an eye" formula wasn't really meant literally. It simply said that a proportional response to wrongdoing was appropriate -- not more.

We've heard a lot about proportionality since an attack into Israel by Lebanon-based Hezbollah prompted Israeli forces to retailiate with massive strikes into Lebanon, with Hezbollah in return firing hundreds of missiles into Israel, and the Israelis hitting back harder, and so on.

The idea of an eye for an eye has been discarded in favor of, "You poked me in the eye, so I'm going to knock your head off."

I do understand that Israel is determined to eliminate the threat posed by Hezbollah. It's not going to wait for Hezbollah to poke another eye, or break a nose, or knock out a few teeth and then seek reciprocal justice -- although, tragically, all that and worse is happening anyway.

It's a shame, and an irony, that it's all come to this. The law laid down by God no longer applies. Perhaps the time of enlightenment has passed.

An eye for an eye? If only it were that simple.

I know it's just a gag, but I'm going to dispute Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert about this anyway:

"Another good thing war is good for: Peace. This year the Peace Corps accepted 7,810 volunteers -- the largest number in 30 years. That's great news. The Peace Corps identifies people who hate America, then ships them overseas. Hard to camp out with Cindy Sheehan when you're digging a well in Burundi."

I hope no one really thinks Peace Corps volunteers hate America.

OK, I only know one PCV well, and I only met a few others during my recent visit to Tanzania, which happens to be near Burundi. But I didn't get the impression that any of them hates America.

Heck, they seem to look forward to coming home when they finish their service. You really learn to appreciate the U.S. when you can't order pizza delivery or pull a cold beer out of the fridge.

More seriously, these young men and women are outstanding representatives of our country. By lending a hand to people in Third World nations, they're winning friends for the United States. I'd say that's a good way for them to show how much they love America.

Not that they necessarily agree with Bush administration policies. My son Andrew doesn't. But he also fends off unfounded anti-American ideas when he encounters them.

I'd bet most PCVs do. They're ambassadors for America. Whether they're digging wells in Burundi or teaching in Tanzania, they're giving up the comforts of home for a couple of years to do good work in the world in the name of the United States. That makes them patriots in my view.

The High Point Enterprise (paid subscription required) reports today:

"T. Wingate Andrews, Central, Dudley, Smith and Southwest high schools will maintain closed campuses for lunch ...

"Students at T. Wingate Andrews, Central, Dudley, Smith and Southwest high schools will have to eat in the school’s cafeteria or bring their own lunch."

Seniors at some other schools, including Grimsley, will be allowed to leave campus for lunch, the report adds.

The decisions are school-based.

If I were a senior at one of the closed-lunch schools, I'd be bummed out. Leaving campus for lunch is supposed to be one of the privileges of rank. Has it been abused?

From a logistical point of view, is there room in the school cafeterias for the seniors? I thought many already were overcrowded.

My column today:

Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong issued the understatement of the year on July 28 when he admitted making mistakes in the Duke lacrosse team rape case. ...

Joe Lieberman, decent and conscientious, is a good senator and the kind of leader who's been good for the Democratic Party in Washington -- like John McCain is good for the Republican Party.

Both take positions based on what they think is right rather than partisan politics.

Leaders like them are becoming more rare.

Connecticut Democrats rejected Lieberman yesterday in favor of one-issue, limousine liberal Ned Lamont, scion of an old-money Connecticut family.

But Lieberman -- once considered a traditional, mainstream Democrat before the party's lurch to the left -- vows to keep running, as an independent. If enough Democrats stick with him, and he wins support from independents and Republicans, maybe he can return to the Senate for a fourth term.

Frankly, I'd like to see a lot of independents in Congress. That would help break the power of the Republicans and Democrats, which would be a good thing.

In a more positive result, Democrats in Georgia's 4th Congressional District overwhelmingly chose Hank Johnson over nutty Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. Maybe this will knock her out of politics for good.

Connecticut's an interesting state.

I don't know much about politics there, but the numbers say voters are very independent-minded.

Check out the registration numbers: More voters are unaffiliated (44 percent) than are Democrats (33 percent).

Granted, those figures -- the latest available on the Connecticult Secretary of State's Web site -- are from October 2005.

I understand a lot of new Democrats registered in order to vote in yesterday's Joe Lieberman vs. Ned Lamont primary.

But probably not enough from the Democratic Party to catch up to the Unaffiliated Party (OK, there's no such thing as an Unaffiliated Party, but you know what I mean).

So, it's no wonder Lieberman is also suddenly independent-minded.

He filed papers today to continue his campaign despite his defeat in the Dem primary, as an unaffiliated candidate.

This makes him a big-time traitor to his party, according to many Dem loyalists.

I think he's right on. I thought so even before I found out how many Connecticut voters declare their independence from any political party. Now I'm more convinced.

The Democratic primary shouldn't decide who's going to represent Connecticut in the U.S. Senate. After all, Democrats only represent one-third of the electorate. Just because Lieberman didn't win a majority of that minority is no reason for him to quit his campaign. It might be that a majority of the overall electorate still wants him to serve as their senator.

There's only one way to find out. Keep running, Joe, and let all the voters have their say in November.

Bloody good work by our British partners in the war against terrorism. They report foiling a huge plot to blow up trans-Atlantic flights.

This tells us two things:

1. We're not safe from 9/11-type attacks.

2. But we're safer than we were then.

I admit No. 2 is my own conjecture. I often hear people complain that no security improvements have been made in the past five years. I don't believe it. I think we would have been hit again by now if we hadn't strengthened our defenses.

On that subject, check out the photos here showing the WTC site after 9/11. (Thanks, mrproduce, for sending me the link.)

Let's not forget the price we paid for carelessness. We can't let our guard down again.

So, cheers for the Brits!

President Bush is criticized for using prejudicial terms when describing terrorists.

"The use of ill-defined hot button terms such as 'Islamic fascists,' 'militant jihadism,' 'Islamic radicalism,' or 'totalitarian Islamic empire,' harms our nation's image and interests worldwide, particularly in the Islamic world. It feeds the perception that the war on terror is actually a war on Islam," the Council on American-Islamic Relations scolded.

Heaven forbid that our trying to defend ourselves against terrorists, and using ugly names for them, might harm our image in the Islmaic world. Unfortunately, CAIR didn't suggest alternative terminology for militant, extremist Islamic terrorists who have declared war against the West.

It's especially disturbing that most, if not all, of the terrorist suspects arrested this week have British citizenship. I don't understand people who immigrate to a free, liberal society like Britain from Pakistan or some other backward, repressive country, then turn so viciously against their new home. Sadly, the answer is that their allegiance to a radical religious-political ideology is much more powerful than their loyalty to their adopted country. How many people like that do we have here in the United States?

Authorities in Pakistan deserve credit for obtaining information that helped the Brits break up the terrorism plot. Two British citizens of Pakistani origin were arrested there a week or so ago and "provided information" about the plans, according to reports.

We can all be happy about that -- just as long as we don't ask questions about how indelicately the Pakistanis might have questioned the detainees. Any rough stuff would be completely unacceptable, even if it might have stopped the destruction of 10 airliners and all aboard.

Interesting, though, that the Brits apparently didn't mind the Pakistanis "interrogating" British citizens. Did they think there was a need to employ methods they're not allowed to use themselves? Well, we just don't want to know.

Seven Guilford County commissioners heard a strong warning today on the subject of economic incentives:

There likely will be consequences if they pull out of the game.

Back in June, commissioners set a 90-day moratorium on economic incentives. They wanted a time-out while they studied their policy, and they appointed a committee chaired by Linda Shaw to take on the task.

The committee met today with local and regional economic develop officials, an assistant secretary of the N.C. Department of Commerce and with Mark Sweeney, who earns his living helping businesses make relocation decisions.

Sweeney told the commissioners that news of their moratorium raced across the country. "It created the beginnings of a little yellow flag about Greensboro," he said.

That yellow flag signals that "maybe this community is not so friendly to business anymore."

OK, OK. We all hate the idea that, in order to "be friendly to business," you have to give them free land or tax breaks or some other sort of "corporate welfare."

But, as Sweeney explained with absolute clarity, that's business these days.

It's not that companies come into town demanding giveaways first thing. The community has to be attractive for all the right reasons: geography, site availability, work force, transportation, taxes and services, education, quality of life and so on.

If you score well on all those things, congratulations, you're still in play.

So are lots of other places.

Now it's time to negotiate.

Sweeney posed a rhetorical question: Does the community that coughs up the most in incentives always win? No. But incentives provide part of the mix that tells the corporate decision-makers where they can get the best deal.

Someone asked Sweeney how many of his clients choose to locate somewhere without incentives.

None.

Several Guilford County commissioners oppose providing incentives, no matter what. A majority of them? Not quite.

This is something they need to think about very carefully.

Sure, Greensboro and High Point are still committed to the incentives game. But that won't help when a company is looking to build outside city limits. And even when a development is considered inside High Point or Greensboro, a little help from the county can make the difference between winning the deal and losing it.

Sure, incentives policies have to be sensible. Even Sweeney said don't offer cash up front. Deals should be performance-based: provide this many jobs, get this much of a tax break. Everyone is supposed to win.

Increasingly, not playing means not winning.

Even a timeout can cause companies to lose interest.

Charles Davenport Jr. presented a strong defense of capital punishment on our Ideas front Sunday (not posted).

He based his argument primarily on public safety, citing cases where someone has killed, served a sentence in prison, then killed again.

He brushed aside objections about inconsistent application of the death penalty: "Rather than declining to execute convicted killers in order to reduce the 'unfairness' or 'arbitrary' nature of the death penalty, why not execute every individual convicted of first-degree murder? That's fair."

Charles expresses a popular sentiment. Certainly, that is an answer to the issue of consistency. In theory, it's very logical.

But, in reality, such a policy would run into major problems.

First, it would require changing state law to mandate an automatic death sentence in all cases of first-degree murder.

That law would remove all discretion from prosecutors and, most importantly, juries.

It seems a bit odd to me to argue that the death penalty serves the public interest but also seek to strip juries -- which represent the public -- from actually making the life-and-death decision in individual cases.

Jury discretion has been important in weighing the nature of particular crimes. In cases that are seen as especially heinous, juries are more apt to recommend the death penalty. Prosecutors, of course, understand that, so they are more likely to seek the death penalty in such cases. In crimes that are considered less heinous, juries usually prefer the lesser penalty of life in prison.

The problem for proponents of capital punishment is that juries increasingly do not recommend the death penalty. When they have the option of recommending a sentence of life in prison without possibility of parole, that's what they usually prefer. North Carolina law provides that option in first-degree murder cases.

What would happen if that option were removed? More killers probably would be sentenced to death. But I contend it's also likely that in many cases where juries did not think the death penalty was appropriate, they would convict on a lesser charge, such as second-degree murder, rather than first-degree murder, in order to avoid applying the death sentence.

I believe many jurors look for reasons NOT to recommend a death sentence. If they can recommend a life sentence, they'll take that option. If not, they might vote to convict on a lesser charge. If they do that, the murderer very likely will someday be released from prison. In some cases, therefore, making the law "tougher" by requiring the death penalty in Murder 1 convictions in actual application could produce softer sentences.

Lack of discretion for prosecutors also would change how they approach cases. For example, they now have a tool they can use to coax a defendant to plead guilty: They can offer a guaranteed life sentence. The defendant can take that and avoid the risk of the death penalty. If the defendant accepts the deal, everyone is spared the time and expense of a trial, appeals and so on. If the death penalty were mandatory, however, the prosecutor would either have to proceed with the trial or offer a sweeter deal: Plead guilty to second-degree murder. With resources stretched thin in many DA's offices, it might be a practical necessity at times to offer a Murder 2 plea.

Well, enough what-ifs. Let's get real. No state in the nation, North Carolina included, is going to step up the death penalty. Doing so would reverse a trend --largely driven by juries -- of forgoing the death penalty in favor of life in prison.

Still, executions continue as states slowly carry out death sentences imposed 10, 15, 20 or more years ago. Some death row inmates have been found to be innocent and released. Some win reprieves for other reasons. Many will be executed for crimes that, if committed today, would result in a life sentence, not death.

Inconsistencies abound. If inconsistent application of our most severe criminal penalty is a problem, it can be addressed in two ways. One, as Charles suggests, is to execute everyone convicted of first-degree murder. But that simply isn't going to happen.

The other is to execute no one. That is the more realistic and practical alternative.

The recent cell-phone arrests raise a couple of very interesting questions as we continue to fumble our way through this era of terrorism alerts.

One is whether, as a suspect's relative told the Detroit Free Press, "They arrested them because they're Muslim and Arab. They were doing nothing wrong."

The other is whether it can be evidence of malicious intent to possess
items, like cell phones, that are not weapons per se but can be used to trigger explosives.

Granted, having a thousand cell phones is odd. The fact that two groups in two different states in the same week were found in possession of lots of cell phones, and all happened to be of Middle Eastern descent, is one heck of an oddity. But it's possible that their intent was, as they say, to resell the devices for profit.

It raises more suspicions that the young men arrested in Michigan had photos of the Mackinac Bridge. Were they part of some plot to blow it up?

I don't know, but investigators would have to come up with a lot more evidence to make a case. It's not illegal to have a car full of phones and pictures of a beautiful bridge. Even if you're of Middle Eastern heritage.

At the same time, an investigation is clearly justified. That would be true no matter what the race or ethnicity of the individuals involved. Is the situation more suspicious because of the Middle East factor? Probably, for obvious reasons.

I can't agree with Imad Hamad, Detroit regional director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, who told the Free Press:

"I'm very concerned these cases are going to start popping up everywhere. You're ruining people's lives simply because of their ethnicity."

Law-enforcement officials didn't set out to ruin anyone's life on account of their ethnicity. They are investigating suspicious behavior. Is Hamad stating categorically that this is NOT a case of potential terrorism?

Nevertheless, it is bothersome that items you'd normally never give much thought to suddenly can be considered terrorist tools. Anyone can be carrying a concealed weapon, and it could be almost anything.

Policing that will raise troublesome issues.

Three days ago, the national Democratic Party accused Republicans of "fear-mongering."

The Dems made some good points. Republicans were trying to spin the foiled terrorism plot in Britain to their political advantage.

So today, on the heels of their "fear-mongering charge, the Democrats accused Republicans of making our country "less safe."

Hypocrisy. It's scary stuff.

You're invited to participate in our virtual editorial board here.

The purpose of today's editorial was basically to provide information and commentary about Powerball economics.

It notes the irony that lottery proponents said North Carolina needed its own games to stop the flow of money going out of state, but that's exactly what's happening with Powerball.

Here are the numbers for North Carolina's first nine weeks of Powerball play:

Money spent in North Carolina for Powerball tickets: $69 million.

Money kept by the North Carolina Education Lottery: $34.5 million.

Powerball prizes won by North Carolina residents: $19 million.

Money kept by the Multi-State Lottery Association for reserves or prizes paid in other states: $15.5 million.

The bottom line for North Carolina players is that, so far, Powerball has been a loser. They've put $69 million in, gotten $19 million out.

The N.C. lottery law says that at least half of revenues must be returned to the public as prize money. It doesn't say that public has to be in North Carolina. Half of Powerball revenue is paid out in prizes: $34.5 million out of $69 million through the first nine weeks. But $15.5 million of that $34.5 million has gone out of state.

Of course, these numbers will turn around dramatically if a North Carolinian hits a Powerball jackpot. Even the relatively paltry $29 million prize at stake in tomorrow night's drawing could put North Carolina on the plus side of the equation.

Out of the $34.5 million retained by the N.C. lottery: 70 percent goes to education; 16 percent to administration, advertising and other expenses; and 14 percent to retailers.

Although I remain a lottery opponent, I'll admit that Powerball has provided a big boost for education.

I'll also admit that many North Carolinians get excited about playing it, especially when the jackpot builds to immense proportions.

But, until North Carolina has a jackpot winner, Powerball is an avenue for North Carolina dollars to flow out of state.

New poll confirms: Most Americans are really, really stupid.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Three quarters of Americans can correctly identify two of Snow White's seven dwarfs while only a quarter can name two Supreme Court Justices, according to a poll on pop culture released on Monday.

According to the poll by Zogby International, commissioned by the makers of a new game show on pop culture called "Gold Rush," 57 percent of Americans could identify J.K. Rowling's fictional boy wizard as Harry Potter, while only 50 percent could name the British prime minister, Tony Blair.

The pollsters spoke to 1,213 people across the United States. The results had a margin of error of 2.9 percentage points.

Just over 60 percent of respondents were able to name Bart as Homer's son on the television show "The Simpsons," while only 20.5 percent were able to name one of the ancient Greek poet Homer's epic poems, "The Iliad" and "The Odyssey."

Asked what planet Superman was from, 60 percent named the fictional planet Krypton, while only 37 percent knew that Mercury is the planet closest to the sun.

Read more, if you can stand it.

Not that I have a vested interest or anything, but maybe if people spent as much time reading newspapers as watching TV ...

My column today:

Jim Black. Jim Black. Jim Black. How North Carolina Republicans will love to say the name during legislative campaigns this fall.

Sometimes they'll couple it with the name of a particular Democrat they can link to the infamous Jim Black.

Jim Black and Pricey Harrison. Jim Black and Earl Jones. Jim Black and Maggie Jeffus.

Pure poetry, to Republican ears. But will it impassion voters and stir them to cast out the corrupt Democrats?

Only if voters believe Republicans will do better. ...

Probably the only place you can be arrested for firing a gun in Washington is in the White House area where the Secret Service keeps a lookout. So that proves Lonny Baxter isn't very smart. I hope, if the charges against Baxter hold up, that the Bobcats are smart enough to cut him loose.

Update: The Charlotte Observer identifies Baxter as a former Bobcats player, reporting that he has recently joined a European team.

Speaking of stupid, let's hear it for Sen. George Allen of Virginia. He used the word "macaca" to refer to a young man of Indian descent employed by Allen's election opponent to videotape Allen's campaign appearances. Exactly what "macaca" means is open to interpretation, but the Allen campaign's explanation that it's a variation of "Mohawk" is implausible. Whatever he meant by the term, Allen was wrong to belittle the fellow. I doubt, however, he intended to cast a racial or ethnic slur. After all, he obviously knew he was being videotaped -- and no one could be stupid enough to hand his opponent that sort of a gaffe.

The United Nations is springing into action in Lebanon. If it hurries, it could have its peacekeeping force fully in place within ... a year.

My dog and I did not attend Bark in the Park last night, but I have seen "Miss Babe Ruth" in action at First Horizon Park and that dog needs its own groundskeeper to clean up after it. I can't imagine the mess that could be created by 150 pooping pooches.

Tell me if your reaction to this story is like mine.

Intellectual response: Of course people can't take the law into their own hands, gunning down criminal suspects in the streets.

Emotional response: Yeah! Way to go, Demario and Howard!

Look, nobody was killed or even badly hurt. A couple of alleged crooks are in custody.

I know the victims-turned-perpetrators had to be charged with something. But assault with a dangerous weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury sounds too harsh. Had can you say shooting someone in the calf is intent to kill?

How about reducing the charge to "assault with a dangerous weapon with intent to teach an alleged lowdown thief a lesson he deserves and get my money back"?

Any response to Kathleen Parker's column today about profiling?

I think she's got a point.

Did anyone in Britain create an uproar during the Irish Republican Army terror campaigns when authorities thought the most likely suspects might be -- you'd never guess -- Irishmen?

If black leaders want to build better race relations in Guilford County, I don't see how this idea can help.

It makes perfect sense to not patronize businesses that discriminate. The famous Montgomery bus boycott is a good example.

But what's the point of punishing businesses that have given no offense whatsoever just because they're owned by whites, Hispanics, Asians or anyone else who isn't black? Isn't that unjustified discrimination? It sure doesn't seem like a way to build goodwill.

Besides that, it ignores the fact that we don't have a white economy and a black economy in this country. We have a single integrated economy. Do these black leaders think black people only work for black-owned businesses? Surely not. So doesn't any action intended to inflict economic harm on white-owned businesses also hurt the black employees of those businesses?

Then there's the chance that white-owned businesses may have suppliers that are black-owned businesses. So punitive action against the white-owned businesses reverberates down the supply chain.

And other issues: Many white-owned businesses contribute to community organizations that benefit people of all races. They pay taxes, benefiting people of all races. The white owners and employees of these businesses may do some of their private purchasing at black-owned businesses.

Of course, people can choose with whom to do business for any reason they like. If black people want to spend money mostly at black-owned businesses, or if Hispanics want to spend money mostly at Hispanic-owned businesses, if white people want to spend money mostly at white-owned businesses, they're all free to do so. It's their money.

But for "leaders" to urge this practice, even for one day, seems to me to be divisive. It also completely ignores the fact that in our fully integrated economy, dollars aren't black or white. They're green.

Addendum, 4:15 Friday: It's worse than I thought.

I attended an outstanding event at the O. Henry Hotel last night, "Election vs. Appointment: Why You Should Care about Judicial Selection."

It was put on by the North Carolina Center for Voter Education and hosted by former N.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Henry Frye. A panel discussion was moderated by Rachel Paine Caufield of the American Judicature Society and Chris Heagarty of the N.C. Center.

The program's title was sort of a plaintive plea. As noted by panelist Bob Orr, a former state Supreme Court justice, this issue really doesn't register with the public. Most North Carolinians seem content with our current system of electing judges and would resist big changes.

As panelist Sanford Steelman, a member of the N.C. Court of Appeals, said, most people will express three sentiments on the subject:

1. We've always elected judges in North Carolina.

2. We'll never give up our right to elect judges.

3. I don't have a clue who the judicial candidates are.

Steelman added that #1 is not true -- judicial elections only began in North Carolina in 1868; #2 remains to be seen; but #3 is undoubtedly true.

Orr and Jim Exum, a former N.C. chief justice and the third panelist, told funny stories about judicial elections.

For Orr, it was having someone mention having voted for him. Orr thanked him, but was taken down a peg when the man went on to explain, "I didn't know who you were but I'm from Massachusetts and my favorite hockey player was Bobby Orr ..."

Exum recounted a 1970s campaign when he was stumping in Eastern North Carolina for a seat on the Supreme Court. He encountered a friend, who assured Exum of his support. Exum asked the man to also vote for chief justice candidate Susie Sharp, whose opponent was a vacuum cleaner salesman. In those days, there was no rule that said a judge had to be a licensed attorney.

"A vacuum cleaner salesman? Then I'm going to vote for him," the man said. "There's too many damn lawyers there now."

Sharp won, but the vacuum cleaner salesman got a quarter-million votes, Exum recalled.

Lawyers or not, good judges are important. By and large, we have good judges at all levels of our court system. But that could change in any given election. In some states, judicial elections have turned into political free-for-alls as candidates slug it out over all kinds of hot-button issues, such as capital punishment, abortion, the Ten Commandments and -- sure to come -- same-sex marriage.

The point is not whether these are valid issues for public debate but whether judicial candidates should stake out their views on matters that might come before them in court and deserve open-minded consideration. If you've already announced your view before hearing the arguments, how are you going to render a fair decision?

Exum dealt with that in his campaigns. He personally opposes the death penalty and was on record to that effect when he served in the legislature. His view on capital punishment became an issue in judicial races. But, he said, as a judge he voted many times to affirm death sentences. Why? Because his job was not to impose his own beliefs but to uphold the law.

We do not need judges who are less conscientious about their responsibility to law than to political expediencies or personal preferences. But we choose judges in a political system that tempts candidates to run on political issues like capital punishment. In fact, when most voters pay very little attention to these races, the way for a candidate to stand out may be to seize on emotional, headline-grabbing issues like that.

Last night's panelists all argued for changes that, more or less, shift responsibility for selecting judges away from the voters.

Horrors? Easy now. Judges in the federal system and in every state were all appointed until the idea of electing them came into vogue during the era of Jacksonian democracy in the 1830s. Maybe the Founding Fathers were wiser than that.

The voters don't have to be excluded from the process. Some states allow merit selection of judges, then retention elections.

One way for that to work is like this: A diverse panel recommends several candidates for a judicial opening, and the governor selects one. The judge serves for a relatively short time of two or four years. Then a retention election is held. The judge is on the ballot, but no opponent. The people can vote to keep the judge or to remove him. If they keep him, he serves a long term and then retires. If the voters remove him, the selection process comes up with a replacement.

There's no perfect system. There's no system that's free of politics. But there are systems that are better than ours. We should find one before "the people" make some serious mistakes.

How bad do things look for Durham DA Mike Nifong? Hear it from Susan Estrich, liberal feminist law professor, writing in a Creators Syndicate column about Nifong's case:

"If (the alleged victim) takes the stand, she'll be slaughtered on cross. If she doesn't, the prosecution doesn't have a chance."

This marks a huge turnaround from what Estrich wrote back in April -- before it became clear how shoddy Nifong's case against the accused Duke lacrosse players is.

As a prominent victims' advocate who was a victim of rape herself, Estrich naturally was sympathetic to the prosecution in this case ... at first.

However, she's also an expert on criminal law. So her stinging criticism of Nifong's actions is devastating.

Liberal Democrats defintely were too quick to celebrate Joe Lieberman's demise. The veteran senator now running as an independent after losing the Democratic primary to Ned Lamont is still favored by Connecticut voters overall, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released yesterday.

"Ned Lamont's Democratic primary win was based on a very small percentage of voters statewide. He must expand beyond this base if he is going to beat Lieberman," Quinnipiac University Poll Director Douglas Schwartz said.

Exactly.

Lieberman's support for the Iraq war hurts him, no question. It made him an untouchable, as far as many Democrats were concerned.

But most Connecticut voters overall may appreciate his long record of service to the state, his character, his moderate views on many issues and his willingness to work across party lines. This could translate to re-election in November.

Certainly, one poll doesn't make an election. Lamont is picking up lots of support from Democrat stars, like John Edwards. And Lieberman is being bashed in the press.

But Joe's not only still on his feet, so far he's outrunning the field.

I've written about Interfaith Hospitality Network before, but with a major countywide initiative under way to reduce homelessness, I think it's worthwhile to mention this small but highly effective program again. Every time I participate as an overnight host, as I did last night, I wake up more impressed with the value of this approach to the problem.

Guilford IHN operates in Greensboro and High Point through a network of churches and synagogues that rotate sheltering and feeding homeless families in their facilities, usually for a week at a time.

I don't know of a better use for a church, usually empty at night, than to provide living space for people who temporarily lack their own home. A second benefit is the opportunity the program provides for church members to participate in a very personal and meaningful ministry.

The people in this program are not the "chronic homeless." They are men and women with children who, through whatever circumstances, lose their home. It could happen to a lot of us. IHN gives them a place to stay while they continue to work and save money in order to return to a home of their own. That can take a few weeks or a few months, but most succeed in reaching their goal.

I enjoy getting to know the parents and children involved. I have a lot of respect for them. Even though they have their shelter and meals provided while they're in the program, this isn't an easy way to live. Each week, they pack up and move to another church. They are housed -- and made to feel welcome -- but never truly at home. Being a guest is never the same as making yourself at home in your own place. And, while each family has its own bedroom, all the families share common space and have to adapt to each other. In my observation, they actually become strongly supportive of each other and maintain very positive attitudes.

This is a small program. We have four families consisting of five adults and six children at my church this week. One of the adults is a woman caring for her two grandchildren -- an extraordinary commitment on her part.

IHN is just one small part of the overall effort to address the problem of homelessness. But it's effective and fulfilling, and I urge anyone concerned about this issue to consider support this outstanding program.

There is much too much of this going on lately.

This.

This.

And this, too.

When you name dangerous occupations, you might not think to include pizza delivery and cab driving. But the people who do those jobs are often targets for criminals.

Should police shadow these guys?

Should they avoid dangerous neighborhoods? (Some might already do that, but a "dangerous neighborhood" is anywhere that a dangerous criminal happens to be.)

Or do pizza deliverymen and cab drivers need someone to ride shotgun with them? And I mean that literally.

Are you kidding me? The Yankees beat the Red Sox 2-1 this afternoon to complete a five-game sweep ... at Fenway Park!

Has that ever happened before? I doubt it.

Too bad it's not September 21. Despite the Yanks' big lead at the moment, I don't believe this race is anywhere near over.

From today's Charlotte Observer (registration required):

"The next legislator from south Mecklenburg will be elected behind closed doors today -- and not at the polls.

"A rare combination of circumstances -- no Democratic opposition, a late withdrawal by an incumbent and a closed political caucus -- means the public won't have a chance to weigh in on who fills a legislative seat.

"Republicans will select candidates today to replace Rep. Doug Vinson and Rep. Ed McMahan. Both have recently withdrawn their re-election bids, citing personal reasons. By law, the local party must select someone to replace them on the ballot.

"Two Republicans want to represent Vinson's district. But since no Democrat filed, the candidate chosen Tuesday will have no opposition in November. A Democrat is running in McMahan's district. ..."

How, in a democracy, can a representative of the people be selected rather than elected?

It happens because legislative leaders of both major parties have carved up this state into districts that are safe for one or the other.

Rep. Vinson's district is such a safe seat for Republicans that it wasn't even contested by the Democrats. They deserve plenty of blame for that.

Two Guilford County Republican legislators, John Blust and Laura Wiley, also are running with opposition from Democrats. So the same thing could happen here if either one decided to withdraw.

The sad fact is that the Democratic and Republican parties, despite their sometimes bitter opposition to each other, try to limit their battles to a few contested districts. That allows them to apply a lot of resources to a handful of races, while essentially holding their fire in many other districts.

They can pull it off because the voters let them. After all, when most people don't bother to vote anyway, and most of those who do simply choose the party they've always supported, the politicians aren't held accountable for rigging the system.

One way to break this stranglehold on democracy is for more independent candidates to run for office. It's difficult for them to get on the ballot, but voters simply deserve more choices and the two major parties ought to have more competition.

My column today:

"Snakes on a Plane." Hah!

Maybe it works as a metaphor for the hassles of air travel these days, but the movie generates more hilarity than horror.

I'll tell you what did scare me when my sons and I visited Serengeti National Park in Tanzania earlier this summer:

Snakes on the plain.

In particular, the black mamba. ...

John Edwards campaigned for Heath Shuler in Hendersonville yesterday, which gave the press an opportunity to highlight some political differences between the two former football players.

Notably, Shuler is "pro-life," as he explains on his campaign Web site.

Shuler's views about faith and family certainly resound in Western North Carolina's 11th Congressional District, where the young Democrat is trying to break Republican Charles Taylor's long tenure. Conservative voters will consider crossing party lines for a candidate who pronounces:

"I have never shied away from openly discussing my faith. Throughout my high school, college, and professional career, I have been an active member of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and a spokesman for Character Counts. I have spoken to thousands of students across the country, sharing my testimony and trying to be a positive role model for them. Nikol and I are now raising our two children in the mountains of North Carolina with the same values that we were raised with."

There's no doubt Shuler is electable. The fact that prominent Democrats like Edwards are supporting him so strongly indicates that the party is willing to overlook its "litmus test" issue -- abortion -- when political expediency demands.

That said, given Shuler's opposition to abortion, I wonder whether Democrats will ever promote him for leadership positions in Congress or for higher office. My guess: Not likely. Democrats are too strongly invested in that issue.

By the way, Shuler's "Issues" page says almost nothing about the war in Iraq.

On the subject of veterans, he says:

"As America welcomes our newest generation of veterans home from Afghanistan and Iraq, Congress must honor them by providing the funds needed to guarantee that these great Americans have timely access to high quality health care and the other benefits that they have earned through their tremendous service and sacrifice.

"At a time of war and a time in which we are asking so much of the men and women serving in our Armed Forces, I believe that it is critical that we honor our military personnel, both while on active duty and as veterans. We owe each of them a tremendous debt of gratitude for their service. These brave men and women have put our safety ahead of their own and our families ahead of theirs."

That doesn't sound anti-war. If he isn't, that's another key difference he has with his party's leaders.

Morgan Josey reports that Lena Murrill, a Hairston Middle School technology teacher, received applause at last night's forum on security issues, for this statement to law-enforcement officers:

"I would rather spend my energy teaching my kids about nonviolence. I do not want to see you in my school with a Taser."

I hope Ms. Murrill does spend some of her energy teaching her kids about nonviolence.

And, I hope there's never a time when she urgently needs a law-enforcement officer to respond to a violent situation.

Sadly, we know acts of violence do occur in schools, even in middle schools.

Sometimes students themselves become violent. Or danger might be presented by adult intruders.

As the husband of a middle-school teacher, I would rather that a trained and well-equipped police officer deal with those situations than my wife try to intervene.

Tasers, or stun guns, are controversial. But so are firearms, pepper spray or batons. I would not want to see any weapon ever used to subdue a child. But if one child is assaulting another child, possibly with a deadly weapon of his own, or if there's an armed intruder on school grounds, I would hope that police -- whether SROs or officers summoned to the scene -- have the proper equipment to do what's necessary to protect potential victims.

Yes, let's teach nonviolence in school. But some kids never learn English, math, science and other subjects. They might pay more attention to their lessons on nonviolence if they know an SRO is around.

Terrorists