News-Record.com

Listening to a few minutes of the Brad and Britt radio show on my drive to work this morning was a frustrating experience.

The hosts seemed flabbergasted, too.

They were taking calls (still) on the Duke lacrosse rape case, several from people clinging to the idea that the three former defendants are guilty.

Guilty of something, anyway.

Attorney General Roy Cooper let them off because he has an "agenda," one said.

If the accused weren't guilty, they wouldn't have gotten "lawyered up," another asserted.

Duke students are all "elitists," said another, adding that he always had some kind of confrontation whenever he visited the campus.

"Something happened" to the accuser, another insisted.

Brad Krantz and Britt Whitmire did their best to answer this nonsense with facts and reason but to no avail. Maybe Leonard Pitts was right after all that "emotional truth" takes over in some cases -- especially those with a racial component. Although I think the term "emotional deception" is more appropriate.

Something happened? OK, tell us what. Provide some evidence. Or shut up.

The attorney general's office examined this case in detail. Read the report. It found no credible evidence that any crime occurred. Since when should defendants be convicted of crimes and sent to prison when no evidence says they're guilty? When, in fact, there's no evidence there was a crime?

Do these people honestly believe that an accusation constitutes proof of guilt? Even when the details of the accusation change every time they are absolutely refuted by evidence to the contrary?

We've had some letters taking the same position as these callers. The incoming prresident of Bennett College, Julianne Malveaux, has expressed the same view.

It's mind-boggling. We know innocent people are convicted of crimes in our imperfect court system. Darryl Hunt and Alan Gell most prominently in North Carolina. And yet some people still clamor for convictions when there's no evidence against the defendants. Heaven help us.

The N.C. Court of Appeals places its bet on an important legal question:

Is poker a game of skill or chance?

The answer determines whether the Joker Club of Durham can let its patrons play.

In a unanimous ruling issued today, the three-judge (all female) panel sides with Lady Luck.

"Poker, however, presents players with different hands, making the players unequal in the same game and subject to defeat at the turn of a card," Judge Ann Marie Calabria writes for the court. "Although skills such as knowledge of human psychology, bluffing, and the ability to calculate and analyze odds make it more likely for skilled players to defeat novices, novices may yet prevail with a simple run of luck. No amount of skill can change a deuce into an ace. Thus, the instrumentality for victory is not entirely in the player's hand."

Under North Carolina law, it's illegal to bet on a game of chance (an exception for the state lottery was added in 2005). If poker were deemed a game of skill, presumably, the Joker Club and a lot of other card shops would be in business.

One thing I don't get: Is betting on basketball allowed in North Carolina? Or is that a game decided by lucky bounces?

In case you missed it, here's a link to our editorial Sunday advancing One Guilford: A Leadership Symposium.

Sponsored by the News & Record, it will be hosted by High Point University, Wednesday morning May 16.

It's an invitation event, but we're offering sign-up opportunities here.

Keynote speaker is Howard Putnam, former CEO of Southwest and Braniff Airlines.

Panelists are: Becky Smothers, mayor of High Point; Don Cameron, president of GTCC; Mona Edwards, chief of staff for the Center for Creative Leadership; Jeff Miller, CEO of High Point Regional Health System; David Noer, Holt professor of Leadership and Business Administration at Elon University; and Al Barnett, Jr., financial adviser for Scott & Stringfellow, Inc. Closing remarks by John Alexander, president, Center for Creative Leadership.

We expect One Guilford to be an exciting event that advances the discussion about our future together.

Sam Ervin did it. Bob Orr is trying. But it was easier for Ervin.

Older North Carolinians remember Ervin as the wise, folksy chairman of the Senate committee investigating the Watergate scandal in 1973 and 1974. Some may not know he was an associate justice of the N.C. Supreme Court immediately before entering the Senate in June 1954.

Since then, no other member of the state's highest court has gone on to hold a top political office. That makes Orr's run for governor unusual, but also intriguing. Maybe North Carolina needs a leader whose professional life has been devoted to upholding the law. ...

"North Carolina's John Edwards says he's the only Democratic presidential candidate with any chance of winning the coveted South," the Associated Press reported yesterday.

The story gives no direct quote from Edwards, so I don't know the context in which the claim supposedly was made.

If Edwards did say that, it's extraordinarily defeatist. Would he really want to go on record saying that, if Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama wins the nomination, she or he can't win in the South?

Do others think that's true?

I guess Edwards' assertion that he could do what other Dems couldn't is based on the fact that he's a Southerner. Certainly there's historical evidence to suggest that a Southern Democrat will fare better in the South, but I have no idea whether that would hold in 2008 if Edwards were the nominee. He's one of the most liberal candidates in the Democratic field, and that could negate whatever home turf advantage he claims.

The AP reports that Edwards has raised more money in the South than have his Democratic rivals. That's cited as evidence of his stronger appeal in this part of the country. What's interesting, though, is that all are getting relatively little money from the region. Well, neither are the Republican presidential contenders. Southerners may just be a lot smarter about parting with their hard-earned money.

But if the amount of money raised translates so directly to political success, Edwards won't get a chance to carry his party's banner in the 2008 campaign anyway. He's more than $10 million behind Clinton and Obama at last count. So the question for Democrats should be which one of the two frontrunners stands a better chance of proving Edwards wrong.

Richmonders are not lining up to see Queen Elizabeth this morning, the Times-Dispatch reports.

I'm with them. Can't think of a less interesting person. Can you?

As Mark reported in today's N&R (last night on his blog), the N.C. House of Representatives shot down a bill that would have banned smoking in restaurants and bars across the state.

Don't light the victory cigar yet, smokers. The issue hasn't been snuffed out.

Bills filed by Rep. Martha Alexander in the House and Sen. Tony Rand in the Senate would allow local governments to "adopt an ordinance, law, or rule regulating smoking in public places."

Heretofore, state law has limited the authority of local governments to control smoking.

If the Alexander-Rand effort fails, Greensboro Rep. Pricey Harrison has introduced a backup measure that would increase regulatory authority for "cities with a population in excess of 235,000 ..." That means Greensboro, Raleigh and Charlotte.

Representatives who voted against the statewide ban should mount less opposition to the local control approach. Duly elected local governing boards should make the decision about smoking in public places within their jurisdiction. The General Assembly should grant them that power.

Florida moving its presidential primaries to Jan. 29 won't do any good if they can't get their ballots counted until March.

So, the winner of last night's GOP debate was Ronald Reagan?

Gee, I wonder why Jim Black really wants Judge James Dever off his case?

The toughest ticket in the Triad this weekend is the High Point University graduation, where Bill Cosby is speaking -- and I've got one (will report tomorrow).

That study of supposed racial bias by NBA referees shows that some people in the world of academia need more real work to do.

Warning: This entry is R-rated.

But maybe you should point it out to your teenage kids, anyway.

An Alamance County boy was adjudicated as "delinquent" for engaging in a "crime against nature" with his girlfriend. He was 14 at the time; she was 12. But, ultimately, it wasn't their ages that put him in legal trouble but the act itself.

Today, in a 5-2 ruling, the N.C. Supreme Court upheld the original finding of delinquency.

Bill Cosby's address to High Point University graduates this morning sometimes sounded more like a scolding from a grumpy parent.

A very funny grumpy parent.

"I want you to know the truth," he told the approximately 700 diploma winners looking up at him from the Roberts Hall lawn. "These old people surrounding you are tired of you. You've been whining, begging and using them. Some of them ... have no idea what your degree is in. ...

"This school is very expensive," he said, drawing a chorus of groans.

"You don't know and you don't care," he answered. "If you did care, you would have gone to community college."

He knew just what they'd been up to for four years.

"We have pictures of you ... in the dorm, talking to the commode.

"We have pictures of you in the bushes, upside down, passed out."

It's time for that to change: "I don't care what your major is -- get a job!"

Cosby cited HPU President Nido Qubein as an example ... but not without poking fun.

"We all know Dr. Qubein came here with $50 from Lebanon or somewhere. How do we know this? He stops every student ... and asks for $50. We're tired of this story."

Cosby turned serious, sort of.

"Dr. Qubein came here with $50. Let's examine it. He didn't come here with a promise of a twice-a-month check. He wasn't entitled, young people, to anything except to go find work, which is very American and very biblical, with a ye ... Go ye ... Seek ye ... Ye can do it.

"You can lead Dr. Qubein's life story, especially the part that has work in it, and you too can have your own university. Then you won't have to work, you'll have to beg. He goes to rich people and says, 'Give me money.'

"You can do it. How? I have no idea. I'm an old person and I say old person things like, 'Work hard.' "

Cosby urged the graduates to get up at 6 o'clock Monday morning, get themselves ready and just leave. Find a job.

"The person who is flipping burgers at McDonald's is flipping to become the manager. The manager is working to become the regional manager. The regional manager is working to become an owner. The owner is working to own more. ... Greed. Be greedy."

His serious message, he said, was about responsibility.

"You're not going to make it smoking dope. You're not going to make it drinking and throwing up in the bushes."

Then he was done. He'd processed in with Qubein and other academic dignitaries behind a band of bagpipers and said he wanted to close "before the Scottish people come back."

Unorthodox? Sure. This was a guy who was wearing an HPU sweatsuit under his academic robes and a ballcap with tassel. He holds master's and doctorate degrees in education from the University of Massachusetts, but he's first and last a comedian.

Yet there was a message within his humor: work hard, act responsibly. Nothing wrong with that. The best graduation speakers stick to one or two main points.

I noticed, though, that Cosby gave the graduates more than that -- a personal gift.

The grumpy parent routine was just an act. Cosby showed real affection for these graduates, even though he didn't know them.

He stood and greeted each one who walked across the platform when the time came for his or her name to be called. Each one received a handshake, hug or kiss and had a photo taken. More remarkably, Cosby said something to every one beyond just the pro forma congratulations -- and every one reacted with a smile or a laugh or an expression of sheer delight.

I don't think those students will ever forget who their graduation speaker was, or think of him as grumpy.

Some of our letter writers are promoting the I word.

I don't know where the idea came from that impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney has any chance of happening. It doesn't. Republicans, of course, would resist such a move in Congress. And reasonable Democrats wouldn't want to get bogged down in that kind of bitter distraction. There aren't enough Dennis Kuciniches on Capitol Hill to go anywhere with such an initiative.

But what if it were possible? What if Democrats could pull it off? You might have the makings of a David Balducci political thriller, but in real life.

Of course the Democrats have to start with Cheney. If they got rid of Bush first, Cheney would become president -- the last thing Dems want.

But a vacancy in the vice presidency just allows the president to nominate a replacement. What would be gained? Ah, but the nominated vice presidenet could not take office until confirmation by a majority vote in both the House and Senate -- and no one nominated by Bush would get that vote. Dems could move on to their real target: the president.

Suppose they succeeded, and Bush was impeached by the House, convicted by the Senate and removed from office. Who becomes president? The speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.

That's assuming all this could be accomplished before Jan. 20, 2009, when the next president takes the oath of office. Everything would have to move very fast.

Let's say it happens and Pelosi becomes president on July 4, 2008. She will just be a caretaker president because, meanwhile, both parties have been holding their presidential primaries. By next July 4, the delegates have all been apportioned and the winner determined -- although not officially nominated.

At this point, something odd begins to happen within the Democratic party. The liberal wing, not entirely happy that, say, Hillary Clinton has amassed the greatest share of delegates awarded during the primary process, begins to clamor for Pelosi. Until the Democratic National Convention officially crowns its nominee, the outcome is not truly set in stone. If Pelosi's name is placed into nomination, and, say, Barack Obama and John Edwards throw their delegates to her, and a few of Clinton's defect, the convention could swing to Pelosi -- who is, after all, the sitting president eligible to run for two full terms.

Imagine the behind-the-scenes maneuvering required to pull that off. If it works, Obama is promised he'll be secretary of state in a Pelosi administration. Edwards will be attorney general.

OK, that's crazy. But even if that doesn't occur, Pelosi's political life is complicated. She had to resign her seat in Congress when she assumed the presidency but she remains a candidate for election in her San Francisco district. Granted, it's odd for the president of the United States to run for Congress at the same time, but Pelosi has to keep her options open.

The trouble is, if she is elected to her former House seat, she would be required to take office in early January. But, her caretaker role as president doesn't end until Jan. 20. She cannot hold both offices at once, which means she would have to resign from one or the other. Which would it be?

Of course, it would make much more sense to resign the presidency, which she would hold only for two more weeks anyway. The question is, who's her vice president? If she'd never gotten around to filling that office, or if Republicans had blocked her choice out of spite (a filibuster in the Senate?), the next in line would be the Senate's president pro tem -- 90-year-old Robert Byrd.

Wow. That is some crazy idea.

I don't know why in the world a state legislator should run a nonprofit organization that's funded by state government. It's a blatant conflict of interest.

This Fayetteville Observer story about state Rep. Mary McAllister, D-Cumberland, is eye-opening.

Roughly one out of every five dollars spent by Operation Sickle Cell, a Fayetteville-based nonprofit support group, goes to the pockets of its executive director, state Rep. Mary McAllister.

Her $115,000 annual salary in 2005-06 equaled 22 percent of the money spent by the tax-exempt organization, which benefits low-income minority residents. It was the highest salary paid by any of the four nonprofit sickle cell support groups in the state.

In a recent interview with The Fayetteville Observer, McAllister said most of her salary came from private sources, and that Operation Sickle Cell receives only one contract from the state Department of Health and Human Services.

But public records tell a different story about the nine-term Fayetteville Democrat, who has a history of incomplete or questionable financial disclosures.

McAllister's organization receives most of its funding from the state, the F.O. reports. Compared to similar agencies, its director is paid a very high proportion of operating expenses.

But, given that McAllister is a veteran legislator with several key committee assignments, is anyone is Raleigh going to question the state appropriations that support her organization and pay a large part of her salary?

The arrangement isn't illegal, but why should it be allowed? If you want to be a legislator, don't take money from the state except your legislative salary and expenses.

That should be Ethics 101, but our legislators are very slow to learn.

Is this a misprint? A Rasmussen Reports survey says 35 percent of Democrats believe President Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks before they occurred.

Twenty-six percent aren't sure. Which leaves only 39 percent who agree that Bush was just as shocked as the rest of us.

He certainly looked dumbfounded when he was told the news.

Republicans reject the "Bush knew" theory by a 7-1 margin -- which means some of them are idiots, too.

I'd guess that for a long time after 9/11, no poll would have found so many Americans entertaining the "Bush knew" idea. Obviously, opinions of the president have plunged over the years.

I don't question his job approval ratings. But it's not rational to project his performance now to such a noxious view about 9/11.

Maybe that's human nature. Maybe, if the United States had lost World War II, more Americans would have said that "Roosevelt knew" ahead of time about Pearl Harbor.

That wouldn't have justified believing something so absurd.

Do 35 percent of Democrats really hate Bush so much that they're willing to believe he knew 9/11 was coming?

Or do some of them mean he should have known? At least that would make more sense. In fact, we all could say he should have known that, and a lot more stuff besides.

Editorial writers like to throw out ideas and let other people run with them.

If you give Nido Qubein an idea, you'd better lace up your running shoes. You're going along with him. And fast.

That's how the News & Record came to be the sponsor of One Guilford: A Leadership Symposium, which will be hosted by High Point University next Wednesday. ...

Only about two dozen people turned out for the county commissioners' community forum in District 2 at Southwest Guilford High School yesterday evening. But they generated a lot of ideas.

This was one of eight public meetings aimed to gather citizen input related to The Stragetic (make that Strategic) Alliance: Building Tomorrow Today project launched last month. Basically, it's long-range planning -- definitely a positive initiative for commissioners.

(Here's an overview. Here's a survey you can take.)

Four commissioners attended the session at Southwest: Chairman Paul Gibson, John Parks, Kay Cashion and Steve Arnold, who represents District 2.

After a welcome by Gibson, the meeting was turned over to professional facilitators from an organization called The HR Group.

The facilitators asked for comments in four categories, so the best way for me to report the flavor of the conversation is to follow that outline. Here goes.

What are Guilford County's strengths?

Natural resources.

Lovely rural and agricultural areas.

The Natural Science Center.

Agricultural soil good for raising tobacco, soybeans, corn, whatever.

Great potential to do better.

Outstanding opportunities for postsecondary education -- community college, colleges and universities.

Low crime rate, a feeling of security.

Equine activities.

Support for the arts.

What can we do differently or better?

Fully fund the budget for schools; our school system should rival Chapel Hill's; willing to pay higher taxes if necessary.

Continue forums like this; give citizens a voice in decision-making.

More emphasis on environmental protection.

Lack of leadership is a weakness; too much bickering, grandstanding; not enough planning for the future; leaders should represent the interests of the people and be more responsive.

Schools are overcrowded, teachers are overworked, asked to do too much with inadequate resources; kids are falling through the cracks, especially those with special needs; people think the school board doesn't spend money wisely; there are too many layers of authority but a lack of accountability.

Maintain the streets we have before building new ones.

Get rid of gangs, drugs and discipline problems in schools; kids who can't behave should be put in separate facilities; keep SROs.

Every neighborhood should have sidewalks; developers also should have to contribute money to schools.

All the different local governments in Guilford County need to work together better. High Point approves new residential developments and it takes years to add the classroom space needed to accommodate the new students. Southwest High School has just opened a new wing and it still has 29 trailers.

The courts are overcrowded with too omany repeat offenders; judges should sentence offenders to hard labor.

The Heart of the Triad planning isn't giving residents a say.

Governments should redevelop existing urban areas before building from scratch on farmland.

Put more of an emphasis on preservation and conservation; save wetlands.

What are Guilford County's opportunities?

Expand library services countywide.

Include public libraries in schools.

Get college graduates to stay here.

Revitalize abandoned manufacturing facilities and re-use land.

Commit to having every child read by second grade; we need every adult reading with a child.

Focus on volunteer services.

What are some things that are holding us back?

The school system.

Putting in major developments before fixing the streets.

Air and water pollution.

We're very clannish; we need greater cooperation, to think collectively, strengthen cultural resources, find new and fairer ways to raise taxes.

We don't stick with plans; any time a developer proposes a project that doesn't conform to existing plans, the answer is yes, go ahead.

Our racial and ethnic divisions: we must come together, welcome people who speak different languages and need help.

We have to deal with pockets of poverty in the inner cities.

We need to do more to promote U.S. citizenship.

Improve public transportations and get lower air fares from our airport.

Improve our political environment, work together better.

*****

The responses didn't closely follow the prompts in all instances, but the point was for elected officials to hear what's on people's minds.

Although this is a county government project, the issues people raise cut across all lines of government. As Gibson commented to me after the meeting, people don't care which government is responsible for providing which services. They expect government to get jobs done efficiently and effectively.

This planning process will work best when, as many people said, our various governments work together.

Charlotte-Meck Superintendent Peter Gorman says he'll transfer teachers to poor-performing schools if necessary to fill vacancies, the Observer reports.

Gorman is serious about improving academic achievement at those schools, particularly Garinger, Waddell, West Charlotte and West Meck high schools where a total of 21 teachers were rated as substandard and told not to return next year. Quite a few others also decided to leave.

Replacing them is tough despite promises of a 15 percent pay hike and signing bonuses of $10,000 to $15,000, depending on subject.

That shows how unattractive some teaching assignments are. Teachers are supposed to suddenly make a difference for kids who likely never have succeeded in school and, in many cases, probably don't care.

Can you force a teacher to take on that task? I don't think it's a good policy to try. But motivating teachers by money alone isn't likely to work, either -- unless it's a lot more money than any school system can afford.

So, what does work? What kind of desire, dedication and commitment is needed to pull talented teachers into the most challenging classroom settings?

Just because Al Sharpton was right about Don Imus doesn't mean he's not still an idiot and a hypocrite.

Unlike Imus, he won't even take responsibility for his stupid remark about Mitt Romney.

UNC system officials might set stricter admission standards, The News & Observer reports today.

The goal is to improve graduation rates, which are not very good in general (35 percent in four years, 59 percent in six years) and dismal on some campuses (15 percent in four years, 38 percent in six years at A&T, for example).

The best predictor of college success is high school GPA, officials say. So some suggest requiring a minimum high school GPA for admission to any UNC campus.

No problem at the most selective institutions, like UNC-Chapel Hill and N.C. State. But others have more open enrollment policies. For example, A&T granted admission to 82 percent of all applicants in 2005, compared to a systemwide rate of 67 percent. The idea is that greater selectivity up front would produce better graduation rates at the back end.

That stands to reason, but it also raises some questions:

Don't we want to increase higher education opportunities for our young people?

Would this have a drastic and negative effect on college enrollment, at least on some campuses?

Would the system have to lift its cap on out-of-state students to make up the difference?

What about students who don't do well in high school but still have the potential to blossom later?

Would setting a minimum high school GPA requirement increase pressure to inflate high school grades?

Despite the potential difficulties, it is vitally important to improve UNC graduation rates without relaxing academic standards at the college level. It's expensive to educate students in our university system, and we can't afford to waste space on those who aren't qualified to perform at the college level.

At the same time, more of our young people, not fewer, need higher education. The thing is, they first need a high school education that truly prepares them to succeed at the next level. We have a lot of shoring up to do there. But maybe setting tougher UNC admission standards would motivate students to work harder in high school. If they know it's easy to get into a UNC school, they might be tempted to coast through high school, not realizing how tough it's going to be once they get to college.

What needs to be done besides strengthening our high schools? That's the biggest part of the answer, but beyond that, more students should be directed to community colleges where they can transition more easily to the next level. Others should be granted provisional admission to UNC schools, meaning they would have to pass preliminary courses administered during the summer after their high school graduation. Erskine Bowles has referred to this approach as an academic boot camp.

For too long, we've allowed a disconnect between our high schools and our university system. We have excellent state universities but our high schools send them too many students who lack the skills to make it there. We've got to close that gap, but never by lowering standards at our universities.

This bill in the N.C. Senate pushes for the election of the U.S. president by popular vote but does not seek to do away with the Electoral College.

How's that? It would commit North Carolina to joining the National Popular Vote movement. When states holding at least 270 electoral votes -- an electoral majority -- joined, the agreement would go into effect.

Then, after each presidential election, all those states would give their electoral votes to the candidate who won the popular vote nationally -- no matter how the voters of each individual state actually cast their ballots.

So, suppose for example that John Edwards carries North Carolina on Election Day 2008 but Rudy Giuliani wins the popular vote across the country. Under the agreement, North Carolina would pledge its 15 electoral votes to Giuliani. So would all the other states holding 270-plus electoral votes, ensuring Giuliani's election.

This would rule out a repeat of 2000, when Al Gore won the popular vote but George Bush captured an electoral victory. A similar occurrance nearly took place in 2004. With only 120,000 more votes in Ohio, John Kerry would have surpassed 270 electoral votes even while losing the nationwide popular vote to Bush.

For that reason, the Electoral College system is increasingly unpopular. Of course it could be eliminated by constitutional amendment but that would require ratification by three-fourths of the states. This approach could be accomplished with participation of less than half the states, as long as they accounted for most of the electoral votes. States are already authorized to apportion their electoral votes however they choose. All but two give all theirs to the candidate who wins the popular vote in the state. Maine and Nebraska award them by congressional districts.

I don't like this plan. I would not want to see North Carolina give its electoral votes to a candidate who didn't win the state. If we wanted to adopt the Maine-Nebraska system, I could live with that. But I'm also OK with the Electoral College. It's historically very rare when the result differs from the popular vote, and I like the fact that the EC boosts the importance of smaller states just a little.

This bill has passed a Senate committee, but I hope it will be defeated on the floor.

From Kay Hagan's legislative e-letter today:

"I am sure you have read that the House passed its version of the budget after midnight Thursday evening. The House left in place two taxes that are supposed to sunset this year: ¼% on our income taxes and an extra ¼% on the sales tax. These two taxes represent $300 million. The General Assembly committed to you that these taxes should sunset and that is what the Senate plans to do. So our budget will have a starting point $300 million less than the House budget."

Mark quotes the Greensboro senator as making the same promise in his story today about the House budget.

In the same story, John Blust offers a reminder that these tax hikes originally were meant to expire in 2003. It's past time for the sun to go down on them, so good for Hagan and other senators if they finally let that happen (defying the House and Gov. Easley while they're at it). Politically, they probably could get away with extending them, but it's important to keep faith with the taxpayers.

Now you just have to worry about how the Senate will decide to make up the $300 million.

Leonard Pitts is right in his column today.

Paris Hilton did get a pass from the media for remarks she made earlier this year.

"Don Imus got fired for less," Pitts writes.

Here's my defense: I didn't know anything about what Hilton said until I read Pitts' column.

I make it a personal policy to ignore Paris Hilton.

Like almost every other commentator in the country, I jumped all over Imus for his insulting comments about the Rutgers women because Imus is actually important.

He wasn't a ratings leader, but his programs were influential and he featured a lot of accomplished guests. I suppose listening to Imus' rants was the price the audience paid to hear more legitimate views. Or maybe people enjoyed Imus' rants. I don't know.

What I do know is that nothing Paris HIlton says or does counts for much of anything -- except when she drives drunk or breaks other laws. Then she ought to be dealt with like anyone else who does the same.

I'm disturbed that Pitts says Hilton is a role model for girls. If that's true, it's appalling. Parents should strongly encourage their children to choose more worthy adults to admire.

I appreciate Pitts pointing out Paris Hilton's repulsiveness, but that just reinforces my determination to ignore her.

Britain's likely next prime minister, Gordon Brown, is often described as a dour (pronounced DOO-ur) Scot, and sometimes as a grumpy Presbyterian.

As a Presbyterian whose paternal grandparents came from Scotland, I'm amused by the stereotyping. The image might have originated with the father of Scottish Presbyterianism, John Knox, who could be downright cranky. He's buried under a parking space at St. Giles Cathedral, where he used to preach.

Brown's father was a minister, but he's been carrying on that other great Scottish occupation: money counter. He's chancellor of the Exchequer, but his policies have put him into conflict with many of his countrymen who believe he's tried to extract too much revenue from scotch whisky and North Sea oil.

Now Brown faces an uncomfortable political development on the eve of his own rise to power: The Scottish National Party recently outpolled Labor in Scottish local elections, giving steam to its unlikely independence movement. Nothing like heading a government that a large share of your fellow Scots want to bid farewell.

So, dour or no, the question about Brown may be how much of a Scot can he be residing at 10 Downing Street in London? A gumpy one, maybe.

A lot of people loved Jerry Falwell and I suppose a lot of people hated him.

He could put an angry face on Christianity, to say the least. He was a man of faith and, at times, fury.

But, on the day of his death, he should be recognized for the large impact he had on American society.

He did galvanize conservative Christian voters who helped put Ronald Reagan and later George W. Bush in the White House.

He pushed back against a tide of social change that he and many others saw as a threat to traditional values.

He founded a small Bible college and grew it into an influential university.

A lot will be said about Falwell in the days to come. I imagine the only words he hoped to hear this day would be, "Well done, good and faithful servant."

What am I missing in this story about Clemson athletics?

It doesn't seem to me that the women's track coach was forcing her pregnant athletes to have abortions. That was their decision.

If anything's unfair here, it's the idea that a university has to maintain grants to athletes who are unable to compete for a reason of their own choosing.

No matter. Clemson has revised its policy. Athletes are apparently welcome to have as many babies as they want with no risk to their scholarships. But would it be OK to provide some counseling about birth control?

Don't worry about high gasoline prices. Help is on the way.

We have congressional hearings.

And more hearings.

And more hearings.

And, you guessed it, more hearings.

My column today:

Mecklenburg County District Court Judge Nancy Norelli was too soft on defendants.
Who said so? Police officers.

So Fritz Mercer, the chief judge, reassigned her from criminal court to family court.

Until the story made the paper. A few days after The Charlotte Observer reported May 4 that Mercer acknowledged taking police complaints into consideration when he transferred Norelli, he backed down, apologized and offered to resign.

Why the turnaround? Because, critics said, Mercer compromised the independence of the judiciary. The courts can't let police officers dictate how they decide cases or who sits as a judge.

Lost in the hullabaloo was the question of whether Norelli was, in fact, a soft touch. ...

Kathleen Parker's column today illustrates a conversation on one of my earlier posts. In it, I asserted that there's only one acceptable "culture" in public schools. That's a culture of respect.

Respect for teachers.

Respect for peers.

Respect for learning.

Teachers have a right to work in an environment that promotes a culture of respect. If it isn't provided, they should pursue every available remedy -- including legal avenues, if necessary -- to protect their rights.

Look, this isn't about race. In today's public schools, kids represent every race and nationality. There may be some behavior differences in their homes. But when they all come together at school, there's only room for one kind of behavior. It must be behavior that allows teachers to teach and children to learn.

The wonderful woman with whom I share a matrimonial relationship thinks Roy Williams is paid too much.

This sparked a rare disagreement:

I never thought I'd hear you say a teacher can be overpaid.

He's not a teacher, he's a coach.

Aren't the coaches at your school teachers?

They teach classes. Tell me what class Roy Williams teaches.

He teaches basketball.

Those boys know how to play basketball.

Er ...

OK, friends and fellow Tar Heel fans. I need some help here. Tell this middle school teacher why my favorite coach is worth millions.

Last week, John Edwards told The Association Press that he took a part-time job with hedge fund Fortress Investment Group "primarily to learn" about financial markets.

This week he disclosed he was paid $479,000 in a year's time for the part-time job.

Wow. How much would somebody who already knows the business be worth?

The Washington Post made some interesting observations about Edwards' employment choice.

Is it OK to bully anyone in school? Of course not. So debating what specific kinds of children should be protected from bullying doesn't make sense.

Not surprisingly, the debate in a state House committee yesterday veered off in the wrong direction.

"It's apparent to me that the folks that are really pushing this portion of the bill is the homosexual community, and the reason for that is to bring acceptance and legitimacy to a lifestyle that most people think is immoral," Rep. Mark Hilton, a Catawba County Republican, said, according to the N&O.

Not helpful, Mark. The morality or immorality of anyone's lifestyle is a judgment that has no relevance to this issue. Someone might think it's immoral for women to appear in public without their heads covered, but that's not justification for harassment. Not in this country, anyway. Not yet.

That said, there's no need for the law to name particular conditions deserving of protection from bullying. Doing so conveys the idea that those left out are less protected.

Bullies choose their targets for all kinds of reasons. When I was in school, bullies chose targets of opportunity: they picked on the kids who were easiest to pick on -- small, weak, unpopular, alone. How do you characterize those victims?

Schools shouldn't tolerate bullying of anyone for any reason. Period. What more needs to be said?

The High Point Enterprise yesterday questioned the legality of a closed meeting held Wednesday by the High Point Market Authority Board of Directors.

It looks like a very valid question to me.

The board met in private to discuss the results of market research, which led it to switch market dates back to the traditional April and October times starting next year.

The authority released some information supporting the decision, but details were protected from the public as trade secrets, Market Authority President Brian Casey told the Enterprise. "We are trying to protect our strategic business interests," he told reporter Paul B. Johnson.

N.C. Press Association attorney Mike Tadych didn't buy it. The authority board is a public body, and case law establishes that public bodies can't have trade secrets, he told the Enterprise.

The market authority is an odd creature. It's in charge of running the furniture market, which is a private business event. But it is funded by tax money.

I personally find it embarrassing that the authority board held this closed meeting on the very day that we published an editorial, which I wrote, endorsing more state funding for the furniture market.

Along with this money, which is deserved, must come accountability. If the public is invested in the market, it has a right to know its "strategic business interests." That's the whole point of public funding: the market's interests are the public's interests.

More basically, you don't keep "trade secrets" from the people who are paying your bills.

We support the new immigration reform initiative. Your view?

Andrew enjoys a Tanzanian snack food -- fried, salted grasshoppers.

They're big and plentiful at this time of the year, near the end of the long rainy season.

The notion of eating grasshoppers might not appeal to everyone, but come to think of it, is it any odder than eating a crayfish?

Anyway, this prompts an idea. Why don't the Greensboro Grasshoppers serve fried, salted grasshoppers at First Horizon Park?

That might be worth some national attention. Think of the marketing possibilities.

Grasshoppers could become a fan favorite, even a measure of team loyalty.

And, because you'd surely need something strong to wash them down with, beer sales would go up.

Today's letter by Charles Hawes offers odd criticism of Charles Davenport's recent column opposing the proposal to set a $9.36 minimum wage in Greensboro.

"A hoot ... sneering and cliche-ridden," Hawes says.

But the "cliches" were assertions shared by most economists that raising wages without increasing productivity tends to cost jobs.

Instead of answering that, Hawes simply refers to Keith Debbage's report citing lagging income levels in Greensboro and indicates that Davenport should take some lesson from this.

After all, Debbage is "no socialist."

Well, right. Debbage is no socialist.

Maybe that's why Debbage makes no endorsement of the higher minimum wage proposal.

He does say Greensboro's work force needs better education and job skills.

If only you could improve your economy simply by making businesses pay their employees more, no matter what the actual value of their work. We could all be wealthy. But, either no one has ever thought of that idea, or it just doesn't work.

Davenport presented a thoughtful column and deserved a more thoughtful and valid response.

I was disappointed to read today's story about Guilford County District Court Judge Pete Hunter.

Hunter, from High Point, is a nice guy. But maybe that's not always the best thing for a judge to be if it means he's frequently letting dangerous drivers off easy.

Investigations by The News & Observer of Raleigh found many judges in that category, although none so lenient as Hunter.

This echoes the reports by The Charlotte Observer a couple of years ago about judges declining to convict motorists on drunken driving charges despite blood-alcohol readings exceeding the legal limit. In some cases, the lawyers representing those defendants were big political supporters of the judges.

The legislature responded with tougher laws. Now it's a legal certainty that .08 or higher absolutely, positively requires conviction of DWI.

Critics of the law -- mostly defense attorneys -- complained that it leaves judges without any discretion to consider circumstances.

That was the point. Some judges were abusing their discretion.

At the same time, judges are supposed to use judgment, which implies that they should weigh various factors when making a decision. While drunken driving is drunken driving, in speeding cases, 80/55 on one highway at a certain time of day in certain traffic conditions isn't necessarily the same as 80/55 somewhere else. Judges should have more leeway when dealing with these cases.

How much is proper is hard to say, but what this story makes clear is that the public doesn't know nearly enough about how judges do their jobs. These judges are elected, their actions are public records, and they should be acountable. But if voters have no idea if a judge is consistently too easy or too tough, they can't render their own good judgments at the polls. The media bear a great deal of responsibility for that.

The public can't always rely on lawyers for much help, either. Defense attorneys who do a lot of traffic work, after all, would love a judge like Hunter. For that matter, so would the people who come before him charged with speeding. They'd tell all their friends that Hunter's a terrific judge.

Hunter was elected without opposition in 2004. If the local Bar was dissatisfied with him, they might have recruited a candidate. But if Hunter runs for another term next year, the public will be armed with more information -- at least about speeding cases.

Of course, those only make up a small portion of the District Court workload. Judges deal with everything from criminal matters to juvenile issues to divorce to civil complaints. One judge might handle tens of thousands of cases in a year's time. It's almost impossible for anyone to get a complete picture of his or her effectiveness, but a glimpse here or there can be helpful.

This particular look at one part of Hunter's record doesn't inspire confidence.

Addendum: I missed John Robinson's post on this. In the comments, Wendell Sawyer offers an explanation. He seems to be arguing that this is the way speeding cases are handled in Guilford County, and that defendants don't get off scot-free because they take safe driving classes and do community service.

Maybe it needs more investigation. In some of the cases described in the news story, it looks like the defendants needed to lose their driving privileges.

There's a little debate about whether Charles Davenport Jr.'s column of May 13 was "sneering and cliche-ridden." Some say so; I say no. But to make up your own minds, you need to see it. Here goes ...

So, does the Duke cheating scandal boil down to cultural misunderstandings?

That's what a lawyer for 16 Asian students tells The News & Observer of Raleigh.

OK, the appeals process needs to play out. The penalties in this case are harsh, and no one should be treated unfairly.

But making allowances for "cultural differences" shouldn't be part of the equation. It's every student's obligation to conform to the prevailing culture ... or else go home.

High Point Regional Health System CEO Jeff Miller at the One Guilford symposium last week:

"I think it's been a stimulus to say, Wait a minute, now we teed this up we see how these feelings are here we can either just start fighting or we can back off and say how can we take this in a positive way, a constructive way, and we're going to do that."

He was referring to High Point Regional's dispute with Moses Cone over service in north High Point.

So, here's today's joint news release from Moses Cone and High Point Regional:

"High Point Regional Health System has dropped its opposition to the state's approval of a Certificate of Need for Moses Cone Health System to build an emergency department and offer other medical services in western Guilford County.

"'Time has allowed a number of serious discussions with Moses Cone Health System about its intentions,' says Jeff Miller, President of High Point Regional Health System. 'Both parties agree additional services are needed. We are hopeful that our two organizations can cooperate on how best to meet these growing healthcare needs.'

"Moses Cone Health System has state approval to build a $20 million emergency department and ambulatory care center near the intersection of Willard Dairy Road and NC 68 in north High Point. High Point Regional Health System had appealed that decision.

"The nearly 50,000-square-foot structure is centered between acute care hospitals in High Point and Greensboro. While an agreement has not been reached, talks continue on operating the planned ambulatory care facility jointly.

"'The continued growth of the Western Guilford area suggests opportunities for Moses Cone Health System and High Point Regional Health System to expand their mutual commitment to serve this community,' says Tim Rice, President and CEO, Moses Cone Health System. 'Our institutions have a long history of working together to improve healthcare in Guilford County.'

"Construction on the facility should begin in the fall with an opening in late 2008."

Outstanding. This is a model for cooperation. I feel we're closer to becoming One Guilford today.

Seventy employees of Charlotte-Meck Schools are paid more than $100,000 a year -- and most of them are principals. Here's the list, printed by The Charlotte Observer. At least not all the big money's going to central administration.

John Edwards is getting heat for calling for Iraq war protests on Memorial Day, the Observer reports. I agree with the critics. We all know Edwards is against the war, but he shouldn't use Memorial Day to draw attention to his campaign. Can't politics be left out of that observance?

The state's political big guns, Gov. Mike Easley and Lt.Gov. Bev Perdue, have followed Speaker Joe Hackney in jumping on Rep. Thomas Wright. Meanwhile, the Legislative Black Caucus calls for due process. That's for criminal cases, which Wright will be contending with soon enough. Politically, he's toast. And it's good that the state's top two elected officials are finally speaking out on ethical issues. For years, neither one has had much to say about North Carolina's shameless succession of political scandals. They can't hide their heads in the sand anymore, even if most of the offenders are members of their own party.

What the Quran in the courtroom decision really says:

Faith is still recognized as a meaningful force in how Americans conduct themselves, even in public capacities.

And, in a pluralistic society, that means all faiths.

There's no reason for the state attorney general's office to appeal this ruling.

Now this is breaking and entering.

This reminds me of when somebody tried to steal one of the worst cars I ever owned, a Chrysler K Car. I really hated that car and would have been happy for someone to steal it. But the would-be thief was so inept that he couldn't get it started and ended up just breaking the ignition switch.

I couldn't figure out why anyone would even want to take it until I heard about thieves stealing cars to use as battering rams, running them through storefronts. I don't know if that was the plan for my car but it seemed like a plausible explanation.

This bungler later was caught and confessed to dozens of crimes, including the attempted theft of my vehicle. I went to court for my measure of justice -- the defendant was ordered to reimburse me for the damage to the car.

That was several years ago and I haven't seen a dime.

My only consolation is that my car, which I eventually gave away, was never an accessory to a crime.

Are they going to have a truth and reconciliation process in Durham in the aftermath of the Duke lacrosse case? Good grief!

What's the point of an outside investigation of the Durham Police Department? It's pretty clear what went wrong. The police chief, Steve Chalmers, rolled over and let a politically motivated prosecutor direct his department's investigation and even dictate a rigged photo lineup to help the supposed victim identify her alleged assailants.

Police should have stood up to DA Mike Nifong and told him they intended to follow correct investigative procedures, interviewing all parties involved, gathering all available evidence and letting the facts lead where they may. We all know the result of the department's failure to do those things. For a model of how to do it the right way, they can look at the fair and thorough investigation conducted by the state Attorney General's Office

Lesson learned. No need to waste more resources on this matter. Unless Durham leaders want to fire Chalmers, which may be warranted under the circumstances, it's time to move on.

Update: Chalmers is retiring soon anyway.

A bill that would give state employees collective bargaining rights remains bottled up in a House committee and not likely to move this year, The News & Observer reports.

Good.

I'd hate to see state officials, representing the taxpayers, negotiating pay and benefit deals with various groups of state employees.

Not only would that likely drive up the cost of government, it could also increase the importance of political power and money.

As the N&O story notes, state employee unions have been pushing for collective bargaining rights -- and backing up their position with big money. Last year, the Service Employees International Union gave $427,500 to the N.C. Democratic Party, no doubt with the hope that the Democrats who control state government would support the union on issues like this.

Now suppose the unions win their collective bargaining rights. How much money would they be willing to pump into a political party to influence contract negotiations? Would it pay to invest $1 million, $2 million or more to get even more back in the form of salary increases for union members?

The politicians benefit, the union members benefit ... the taxpayers lose.

State employees, including teacher