News-Record.com

Al Sharpton did show up for a rally in Charlotte last night, the Observer reports ...

And, as expected, he's exactly wrong about the situation there.

"This is about due process and about changing the rules after you have laid out the rules," Sharpton said at a rally in support of Nick Mackey. "When you change the rules after the game, that is a civil rights issue."

Sharpton is twisting the facts. The issue is whether the rules were followed.

Mackey was chosen sheriff in December by the Mecklenburg County Democratic Party in a process resembling caucuses.

Immediately, complaints were lodged that party rules were broken. Some people claimed they were signed up by Mackey and his supporters, for precinct organizing purposes, without their knowledge or consent.

The N.C. Democratic Party's Council of Review, headed by Greensboro attorney Jim Slaughter, will hold a hearing on the matter in Charlotte tomorrow.

The stakes are high because Mackey's qualifications for the job of sheriff are highly questionable. He worked for the Charlotte-Meck Police Department but resigned while being investigated for falsifying work hours. He's filed for personal bankruptcy. Now an attorney, he was found in contempt of court this week for failing to show up in court on behalf of a client.

But this is a civil rights issue, according to Sharpton. Yeah, sure.

Remember, before the caucuses and primaries began, when the presidential race was all about raising money?

It's about delegates now, but money still makes headlines.

The big stories are how much Barack Obama is raising and how much of his personal fortune Mitt Romney is pouring into his campaign.

I don't have problems with either approach.

If hundreds of thousands of Americans are energized enough by Obama's candidacy to contribute, fine by me. That's a legitimate means of participating in the democratic process.

As for Romney, well, he was smart enough to make a ton of money. If he wants to plough some of it into his campaign, I'd say that demonstrates his commitment. And he's not beholden to anyone but himself for that money (at least until he tries to reimburse himself later with donated funds).

I actually have begun to believe that this year's front-loaded primary schedule is working pretty well. I had my doubts at first. But it has separated the contenders from the pretenders. For advocates of a national primary, Tuesday will come pretty close.

Let's face it: It costs a lot of money to run a credible almost-national campaign. John Edwards derided Obama and Hillary Clinton as $100 million candidates, but if he could have raised $500 million he would have spent it (probably half in Iowa). They had more supporters, they raised more money, they got more votes. Sounds kind of fair to me.

Now there are four candidates with a realistic chance of becoming our next president: Obama, Clinton, Romney and John McCain.

You know what? I could live with any of them. They're all capable people. I have my preferences, which likely will strengthen as the campaign proceeds, but I'm impressed so far by the job my fellow Americans are doing sorting it all out. A whole bunch of them will weigh in Tuesday. I'm sorry we're not part of the fun here in North Carolina, but I'm willing to trust the judgment of voters in 22 other states and wait for my chance.

Liberal New York Times columnist Paul Krugman endorses John Edwards for president.

Just a little late.

Actually, Krugman claims Edwards led the ideas race if not the delegate contest:

"But Mr. Edwards, far more than is usual in modern politics, ran a campaign based on ideas. And even as his personal quest for the White House faltered, his ideas triumphed: both candidates left standing are, to a large extent, running on the platform Mr. Edwards built."

To buy that theory, you have to believe 1) Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton couldn't think of their own ideas and 2) they ran a whole lot better on Edwards' ideas than Edwards did.

I don't. It seemed to me that Edwards was taking his ideas from Ralph Nader.

Addendum: An N&O analysis by Rob Christensen says Edwards' "angry populism" turned off many voters ...

... and for which Edwards' campaign manager blames ... the voters:

"David Bonior, Edwards' campaign manager, said people confused anger with outrage that Edwards expressed over the nation's continued inequality and poverty.

" 'The problem with the country is it's forgotten that kind of politics, which is fundamental to change things,' Bonior said. 'We are not going to get the change we want unless you stand up and fight for it.' "

Maybe Americans just don't deserve John Edwards.

I'll start with the positive.

I'm pleased that Skip Alston agrees with my suggestion that the civil rights center should carry a February One Place address.

Otherwise, I wasn't impressed with his comments to Greensboro Politics the other day.

Like this statement about critics: "They are misinformed and not involved in the process and are ignorant to the facts of what are taking place with the museum. They are likely reading the News & Record which is full of misinformation and no facts at all who has proven to be an enemy to this project from the very beginning."

Ryan, the correspondent, asks: "Skip the News & Record is a donor correct?"

"Yes," Alston says, "you keep your friends close and your enemies even closer."

JR addresses the last point, explaining that the N&R gave the museum $150,000 in 2002.

The "enemy" reference isn't Alston's first shot at the N&R regarding the civil rights museum. I don't understand it in light of our consistently supportive editorial policy. Today's editorial is the latest of many urging the community to back the project.

Obviously, with $150,000 staked in the project, this isn't just lip service. In my book, that's a lot of money.

The problem for Alston seems to be that the N&R also has reported various setbacks and financial difficulties the museum has had, plus its very slow progress.

It's the newspaper's role to ask questions and report the ups and downs.

Even setting that aside, any business that contributes money to an organization has a right to question how it's being spent.

Frankly, for the person in charge to call such a major donor an "enemy" is just unbelievable. If that's the response donors get, it's no wonder the civil rights center is having such a hard time raising money. It just doesn't strike me as an effective way to encourage giving.

It's not up to me how the N&R allocates its considerable charitable contributions. It is my personal opinion, however, that further donations could support other worthy organizations that would not brand us an "enemy."

I admit that's a petty, spiteful and inappropriate attitude. But I'm definitely not the only one who's guilty of it.

Addendum: Regarding Alston's criticism of the N&R as a source of news about the civil rights center, perhaps he should see about offering his own information about the facts taking place at the museum. There's not much to see on the "events and news" page of the center's Web site.

The N.C. Democratic Party review panel led by Jim Slaughter of Greensboro wins praise for its handling of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg sheriff's dilemma.

After all-day proceedings Saturday, it threw out the selection of Nick Mackey by the Mecklenburg County Democratic Party executive committee. As many people complained, proper procedures were not followed.

Commissioners now are poised to appoint interim sheriff Chipp Bailey, a move the Charlotte Observer endorses.

Mackey wasn't qualified for the job, but because he's black this became a racial issue, even drawing Al Sharpton to rally on his behalf.

(Check out the Observer cartoon about that.)

The racial angle presented a real dilemma for the state Democratic Party, but it very carefully and deliberately enforced its rules. Because the process took more than the 30 days state law allows for the party to choose a new sheriff, however, the Mecklenburg commissioners are going to take matters into their own hands and put an end to this fiasco (although it's possible Mackey could sue).

As we've written, state law should be changed so that political parties aren't empowered to pick sheriffs when vacancies occur. This sort of thing could happen in Guilford County, too. It definitely could happen in Guilford County.

Update, Feb. 5: Mackey's going to court today asking a judge to block commissioners from appointing Bailey, the Observer reports. This story gets better and better.

And there's a new Kevin Siers cartoon.

Update, Tuesday afternoon: Judge rejects Mackey's request to block commissioners.

Update, Tuesday night: Mecklenburg commissioners appoint Chipp Bailey sheriff by in a 7-1 vote. That should put an end to Nick Mackey's attempt to hijack the selection process.

What will Al Sharpton say?

The "no food for you, tubby" bill introduced in the Mississippi legislature by this guy strikes me as a gag.

Although W.T. Mayhall Jr. doesn't look like he has a sense of humor.

He looks more like he could use a good meal.

If I were to take him seriously, I'd ask who the heck he thinks he is saying overweight folks can't be served at certain restaurants. Everyone's got a right to eat.

Just like everyone's got a right to come up with dumb ideas. Some politicians come up with more than their share of dumb ideas, and some people eat more than their share. As long as they pay their bill, I don't see why a restaurant ought to cut them off.

I've got a pretty fair appetite myself, and if I missed a week or two or running I'd probably balloon into the overweight category. At that point, I'll be smart if I don't eat all I can eat at the all-you-can-eat breakfast buffet at Golden Corral. But that should be my choice.

W.T. Mayhill Jr. strikes me as a skinny old meddler ...

... unless I've totally missed his sense of humor.

Good for Nick Kristof. I hope Leonard Pitts reads this.

No question Republicans would rather run against Hillary Clinton than Barack Obama.

So much so that Mitt Romney has already started. He's got a TV ad, which I saw last night, that contrasts his experience running things -- businesses, a state government, the Olympics -- with Clinton's lack of same.

It's very effective. We'll see how much it helps him today.

Of course, it's risky for Republicans to run against Hillary so soon. They could end up helping Obama win the Democratic nomination, which is exactly what they don't want.

Not surprisingly, we're getting some pointed criticism of our Sunday editorial, "Deadly police incident requires close scrutiny."

A very well-written response came in by fax last night. Unfortunately, it was anonymous and therefore not publishable in print. Here are the key portions, however:

"This reader suggests that the editorial writer go back and read the entire SBI warrant, read the rap sheet of this 10 time convicted felon who was making his get-away in a stolen vehicle, and look at the photos on the N&R web site. Many intelligent, rational citizens would conclude the police officer is a hero and not only saved his own life but probably the lives of others.

"Your editorial seems to advocate that you would have police officers not answer a call if, in their own judgment, the alleged crime at hand seems fairly minor or 'foolish' (the word used in the article to describe the actions of the felon)."

As the writer of the editorial, I'm going to push back a little.

First, I'm bothered by the suggestion that Emile Williams' criminal record somehow makes it OK that he ended up dead. Maybe that's not the meaning this writer intended to convey.

Certainly, if Williams' actions made it necessary for Officer William Symmes to use deadly force to stop Williams, that should be the conclusion of the SBI investigation. Until then, I think it's premature to declare that Symmes is a hero who saved his own life and probably the lives of others.

The editorial did not advocate that police officers should not answer calls. Just the opposite. It stated: "Symmes was right to respond. Even off duty, police officers can act with full authority when they're aware of a crime, and they can use official vehicles at their disposal. Officers are potentially on duty all the time."

The question is about the high-speed chase. Greensboro police policies do not condone pursuit of fugitives in all circumstances. They require officers to weigh certain factors against the risk to themselves and the general public.

One factor is "the seriousness of the offense for which the stop was originally being attempted."

In this case, that was stealing two rings from a jewelry store, a property crime.

Another is, "risk of harm from not apprehending the suspect, considering his manner of driving and the degree of risk created by the crime the suspect is believed to have committed."

Let's look at this. There was no risk created by the crime the suspect was believed to have committed. He grabbed two rings and ran.

Yes, he was leading Symmes on a chase down I-40 at speeds up to 100 mph -- creating an extreme risk of harm. That's why the editorial said, "Fault originates with the suspect. Williams started everything with an alleged theft at the mall. He foolishly tried to get away, and he drove recklessly in the attempt. Had he stopped and surrendered, he'd be alive today."

Yet, unlike the writer of this letter, I do not assume that Williams would have been racing down I-40 at 100 mph if he wasn't being pursued by a police officer. Wouldn't that attract more attention to himself? I'd try to blend in with traffic and make a safe getaway.

I don't like crooks to get away with stealing things. But is that always the worst outcome? I don't think it was in this instance. And things could have ended up even worse, if the officer or any bystanders had been killed.

We're saying it's important to evaluate whether a different response might have produced a better outcome. Personally, I applaud the job police officers do every day, but I don't think they never make mistakes. When the consequences literally involve life and death, it's necessary to analyze mistakes and try not to repeat them.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Fred Smith is on his way to serving barbecue in all 100 counties. I attended dinner No. 87 this evening at High Point Central High School.

The food came from Carter Brothers, a very good choice.

The event was well-attended and drew a fair sprinkling of Triad politicians.

It turns out that High Point City Councilman Latimer Alexander is Smith's cousin. Also showing up were Guilford County Commissioner Steve Arnold from High Point and state Reps. Laura Wiley from High Point, Dale Folwell from Winston-Salem and Bryan Holloway from King.

Not there in person was country singer Lee Greenwood. The crowd had to settle for a video performance of Greenwood's song, "Good to Great," written just for Smith's campaign. It's not bad.

Everyone was given plenty of time to eat, and Smith took plenty of time to speak after that. He's not a spellbinder, but he hit on solid conservative themes. While he didn't mention any opponent by name, he made a clear reference to Pat McCrory, saying the Republicans can't win with a candidate who's indistinguishable from the Democrats.

Smith, a state senator, lawyer, businessman and farmer from Clayton, said North Carolina isn't doing well enough in public education. It's wasting transportation dollars. He said people want honest government, not corruption. He wants a Taxpayer Protection Act and constitutional amendments limiting eminent domain and restricting marriage to a man and woman. He sounded some tough views on dealing with illegal immigrants.

Smith has a reputation for hard work, and he promised to give extra effort every day during the campaign and if he's elected governor. He's a solid, serious candidate.

And serving barbecue in 100 counties? Now, that's the way to run a campaign in this state.

Hillary Clinton wins Massachusetts: Wellesley Women trump Kennedy-Kerry.

Mitt Romney wins Utah ... Who says voters will hold his religion against him?

What would Bill Clinton say about Barack Obama's victory today in North Dakota, a state with all of 5,000 black residents? That's 1/14th as many as live in Iowa.

I admit some results are perplexing. Clinton wins Oklahoma, Obama takes Kansas. Can someone tell me what's the difference between those two states? I've been to them both. Someone said one day Kansas blows into Oklahoma, the next day it blows back. Obama wins Georgia and Alabama, Clinton wins Tennessee. If North Carolina had been voting today -- if only -- who would have won the Dem primary?

Mike Huckabee, winner in Arkansas and West Virginia (add Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee) today, tells CNN it's not over until the f ... final votes are tallied. (Super dieter Huckabee refuses to put any fat ladies on the spot).

Overall, John McCain is kicking butt. He's even a strong second in Massachusetts, where Romney was a successful governor. He's racking up huge numbers of delegates and now looks like a sure bet to capture the GOP nomination. Can McCain win North Carolina in November and continue the Republican winning streak in presidential elections here? I say yes if Clinton is the Democratic candidate but a toss-up if it's Obama.

And who is it going to be, Clinton or Obama? Looks like Super Tuesday is not going to sort that out. As I write -- 11:10 p.m. -- I'm hearing California is going to be close. That means they'll more or less split that huge cache of delegates. I don't know if the Dem outcome still will be in doubt by the time North Carolina votes a long three months from now, but it's sure going to continue and maybe increase in intensity after tonight.

My column today:

Put yourself in the place of a principal who gets this from the mother of a troublesome student: "My son doesn't have to do anything he doesn't want to do."

Yes, that happened at a Triad middle school recently.

How would you answer?

Congratulations to the Thomasville Board of Education, which voted unanimously last night to promote Assistant Superintendent Keith Tobin.

Tobin, who will replace retiring Superintendent Dan Cockman July 1, has worked for Thomasville schools since 1984 as a teacher, coach, assistant principal, principal and front-office administrator.

Cockman has been superintendent since 1990.

Notable: Thomasville High School was one of 34 in North Carolina included in U.S. News & World Report's list of "best high schools." None in Guilford County made the cut.

The Thomasville system relies on homegrown leaders who know their schools inside and out. It's a good model.

UNCG researchers find that the "number-one factor that determined how people voted in Guilford County was race," Amanda Lehmert reports.

The pols have known that for a long time. It's why we have the voting districts we do.

More interesting research would be to determine whether the trend is self-perpetuating. If you have districts designed to favor candidates of one race or one party, does that assure that only candidates of that race and party run, thereby limiting voters' choices and predetermining results?

One thing I like about Barack Obama is his ability to break through the racial boundaries -- in some states, anyway. As I noted in a post Tuesday night, his win in the North Dakota caucuses was remarkable on that score. The black population in Iowa is enormous compared to North Dakota's -- all of 5,000, considerably less than 1 percent.of the state's total population.

Here in Greensboro, Mayor Yvonne Johnson is a politician who transcends race to a great extent, although her support from black voters was much greater than from white voters in November. Nevertheless, she's always had the courage to run in at-large, citywide contests. Candidates -- white and black -- who take the safer route of running in districts that amount to safe enclaves will never break down barriers. In those cases, race will remain the strongest predictor of election outcomes.

David Wray was ousted for lying about the black book to City Manager Mitch Johnson.

Now City Council member Mary Rakestraw thinks Johnson should be dismissed for lying about the black book.

Or a memo explaining the black book.

As Margaret reported today:

"Councilwoman Mary Rakestraw was livid Thursday and called for Johnson to be fired. She said she asked Johnson and city attorneys three times in a closed session of the council whether any other information 'went along with the "black book." '

"She said she was told 'Not at this time.'

" 'I feel that I have been lied to,' she said. 'I feel that Mitch needs to be dismissed on this issue. This is outrageous. I cannot tolerate this behavior any longer.' "

Johnson said the city's legal staff made an error in telling the N&R there was no such memo. The lawyers didn't know which memo we requested.

But the black book issue has been so important for so long that the City Council should have been given alll information related to it -- oh, about two years ago. It's kind of important to see a key source document explaining the book's origin and purpose rather than rely on speculation.

There's another issue. From Margaret's story: "Johnson said he can't release the memo to the public without the council's approval, which he will try to get Feb. 19."

I thought the council settled issues like that back in December, as we commented in this editorial.

Key passages:

"Previously, as City Manager Mitchell Johnson implied in an article published on last Saturday's Second Opinion page, the official inclination was to deny disclosure "... if the law does not require release and the release of the information is not, in the opinion of the investigators, beneficial to the investigation ...'

"Now, the council will push for release of information unless the law requires it to be withheld.

" 'This is the way we want things handled,' Mayor Johnson said Friday. 'We've never really said that. And we will be saying that.'

"Once that becomes standard operating procedure at City Hall, it won't be necessary for the council to hold emergency meetings every time a conflict arises about release of information. There won't be conflicts if the governing principle is that the public has the right to know more, not less."

As a footnote, I'm working on an editorial that will praise Johnson, who's made an agreement with his High Point counterpart, Strib Boynton, on a plan that could speed up the delivery of water from the Randleman reservoir by years. The proposal will be made to the regional water authority next week. In many respects, Johnson's doing a very good job as manager.

But he has to recognize how the political environment has changed and respond to it. Citizens, and their elected representatives, want a more open government. City hall must be forthcoming with information about key issues. Telling council members and media that certain important documents don't exist when they do is not the way to build trust.

"Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these 'green' fuels are taken into account, two studies being published Thursday have concluded" -- New York Times.

Well, that's inconvenient. It sort of warns against the notion that we've got to "do something" about global warming even if we can't really demonstrate the benefits of the proposed action.

This is bad timing for gubernatorial candidate Bev Perdue, who today issued her plan for "making North Carolina a green energy leader." "I will be committed to achieving the State Biofuels Strategic Plan goal of having 10% of all liquid fuel sold in North Carolina come from biofuels grown and produced here," she promises.

Not to pick on Perdue. She's just running with the conventional wisdom that biofuels are automatically "green." Their production is undeniably good for our agricultural sector, but overall benefits ought to be weighed against costs.

The Times reports:

"In the wake of the new studies, a group of 10 of the United States' most eminent ecologists and environmental biologists today sent a letter to President Bush and the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, urging a reform of biofuels policies. 'We write to call your attention to recent research indicating that many anticipated biofuels will actually exacerbate global warming,' the letter said."

Will North Carolina revise its policy of encouraging greater production of biofuels?

Wind power is sounding better -- and not the kind produced by politicians.

This is infuriating:

"In an apparent violation of U.S. policy, Peace Corps volunteers and a Fulbright scholar were asked by a U.S. Embassy official in Bolivia 'to basically spy' on Cubans and Venezuelans in the country, according to Peace Corps personnel and the Fulbright scholar involved." ABC News reports.

" 'I was told to provide the names, addresses and activities of any Venezuelan or Cuban doctors or field workers I come across during my time here,' Fulbright scholar John Alexander van Schaick told ABCNews.com in an interview in La Paz.

"Van Schaick's account matches that of Peace Corps members and staff who claim that last July their entire group of new volunteers was instructed by the same U.S. Embassy official in Bolivia to report on Cuban and Venezuelan nationals.

"The State Department says any such request was 'in error' and a violation of long-standing U.S. policy which prohibits the use of Peace Corps personnel or Fulbright scholars for intelligence purposes.

" 'We take this very seriously and want to stress this is not in any way our policy,' a senior State Department official told ABCNews.com.

"The Fulbright scholar van Schaick, a 2006 Rutgers University graduate, says the request came at a mandatory orientation and security briefing meeting with Assistant Regional Security Officer Vincent Cooper at the embassy on the morning of Nov. 5, 2007."

An error? I'll say.

The reasons for this long-standing policy are clear and compelling -- especially regarding Peace Corps volunteers.

First, PCVs are not spies. They undertake different missions on behalf of the U.S. government.

Second, any suspicion that they are spies compromises their real mission and potentially puts them in danger.

PCVs must build trust among the people they live and work with. Their effectiveness depends on it, and their safety might, too. If they're regarded as spies, they could be made targets by enemies of the United States.

In some parts of the world, anyone associated with the U.S. government is viewed with suspicion. Now, thanks to the actions of an idiotic U.S. assistant regional security officer in Bolivia, the grounds for suspicion might have increased.

I hope this is only one idiot acting on his own and that no PCVs anywhere have been recruited for spying operations. More seriously, I hope U.S. spy agencies haven't sent operatives abroad under Peace Corps cover.

This ought to be investigated. Maybe Sen. Christopher Dodd, a former PCV, could look into it. For the sake of all PCVs, and for the credility of the Peace Corps itself, a clear accounting is due.

Someone threw an empty box of Dunkin' Donuts on the street last night. Dang. This used to be a Krispy Kreme town.

Does it seem to anyone else that Greensboro City Council isn't playing touch football anymore? Now it's tackle. County commissioners' rules?

Hollywood writers are about to end their strike. Can't say I've missed them.

Every delegate will count in the battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for the Democratic president nomination.

The N.C. Democratic Party spells out how our state's process works.

In short: The party will select 134 delegates and 19 alternates to the Democratic National Convention.

Of the 134 delegates, 77 are apportioned by congressional district and 26 at-large. These will be allocated proportionately according to the results of the May 6 primary. In addition, 12 pledged delegates will be party leaders and elected officials.

Then there are 19 unpledged, or "super," delegates who are free to support the candidate of their choice. They are:

The governor, seven Democratic members of Congress, nine members of the Democratic National Committee and two who will be selected at the state party convention in June.

WRAL reports some early commitments by those folks.

The North Carolinian who controls the most delegates, of course, is John Edwards. He won 26 in caucuses and primaries before he dropped out of the race, according to CNN's scorecard.

He hasn't released them to either Obama or Clinton, which leads me to think he's negotiating for something. Strictly on principle, he'd endorse Obama as a more likely change agent and the candidate closer to Edwards' left edge of the party. But this is politics, so we'll see what he does. But I'd say he'd have to get a heckuva sweet deal from Clinton to back her.

It would be a shame if, after so many ordinary people voted in primaries and participated in caucuses all over the country, the contest for unpledged delegates came down to personal persuasion by whatever means at the convention itself, but this is such an extraordinary campaign that anything could happen.

Taft's story about the conservation easement in Guilford County raises many questions.

Interesting issues are addressed in "Conservation Easements: Windfall or Straitjacket?" in Real Estate Issues (Fall 2007) by James D. Timmons and Lara Daniel. An excerpt:

"The UCEA (Uniform Conservation Easement Act) provides a meaningful framework for the creation of conservation easements, primarily by removing the common law threats to their perpetual existence. But the omissions from that statute, the state statutes that are based upon it, and the lack of guidance from courts on the meaning of the terms used in conservation easements make it imperative that landowners carefully consider the consequences of their actions. In areas where development seems to be suffocating green pastures and, where the owners of pastures feel their convictions about open space are becoming more and more expensive to maintain, the conservation easement is a tempting solution. It allows the landowner to realize a financial advantage now and ensures that their property will remain the same forever.

"However, conservation easements represent a departure from the traditional approach that attempts to strike a balance between the interests of today's landowners and those that might arise in the future. They seem instead to assume that what is good today will always be so. If the interests of future landowners have not been estimated accurately by those creating conservation easements, the results may create more problems than would otherwise have occurred. The attractiveness of conservation easements is obvious by the explosive growth of land trusts established to accept easements. Land trusts have become big business based on their enormous land holdings, increasing membership and finances. You and I as taxpayers, and therefore government at all levels, should care about how conservation easements are created and managed. Although most easements are donated by private landowners to private land trusts, they almost always result in public subsidies in the form of income tax deductions to the easement donors. Also in many cases, a further subsidy comes in the form of reduced estate and property taxes. Additionally, much of the funding used to purchase conservation easements is increasingly coming from public money."

(Timmons is associate professor of finance with the Department of Economics and Finance at the Jennings A. Jones College of Business, Middle Tennessee State University in Murfreesboro. Daniel is professor of business law with the Department of Accounting and Business Law at Jennings A. Jones College of Business, Middle Tennessee State University.)

My thoughts about this are fairly random.

* The easement places extraordinary power in the hands of the landowner. He can sign away, forever, the right of his heirs or other owners to use this property in any other way but agriculture. His great-great-granddaughter might have no interest in farming; farming might not be economically feasible; and no one else might be willing to purchase the property for farming purposes. The property's value to the owner, therefore, will be greatly diminished. Yet the benefit -- the proceeds from the purchase of the easement -- may be long gone, spent generations earlier. That's one possible family legacy.

* On the other hand, a decision by the current landowner to sell the property for development also denies his descendents or other owners the option of farming the land. It won't be farmland anymore but, most likely, a residential area. And the proceeds of the sale also could be spent in a generation or two.

* The environmental value could be overstated. The idea is to preserve open space and protect it from residential uses. But the population is increasing and people are going to live somewhere. If not there, where? Very likely on some other property currently being used for agriculture purposes -- although maybe farther away from employment centers, which could require more driving to get to work.

* Removing land from the marketplace has an economic impact. It increases demand for the remaining land and consequently increases cost. In turn, this may put more pressure on other farmers to sell their land if developers offer them more money for it.

* It seems ironic that Greensboro has millions in bond money available that's meant to provide or prepare land for economic development while the commissioners have bond money available that's meant to protect land from economic development. The taxpayers are paying both ways.

* It's also ironic that, when Toyota was scouting farmland in Davidson County for a possible manufacturing plant, the owners made clear they had no intention of selling. Does anyone believe that the state, which is backing this conservation easement program, wouldn't have done everything in its power -- which is practically unlimited -- to make sure Toyota got whatever land it wanted?

* Forever is a long, long time. What happens if it seems to future policymakers that land set aside "in perpetuity" really ought to be used for something else?

So, anything much happen 'round here while I was gone?

It snowed? Honestly, I'm not sorry I missed it.

I attended the Duke-Wake Forest game at Joel Coliseum last night. What a great experience. Super home crowd propelled the Deacons to a terrific effort. Early on, fans were getting on the refs for supposedly favoring Duke. By the end of the game, they were joyously waving goodbye to alll five Duke starters, who fouled out one after the other. "Those refs are going to be in trouble," a member of my group commented. What about it? Will the ACC punish officials for calling a tight game against Coach K's crew?

If spaying/neutering a pet is too expensive for the average family, as stated by an activist in our story today, should the average family have a pet? There are lots of other expenses required for properly caring for an animal. My dog costs about as much as my kids did, except it's not going to wreck any cars or go to college.

Reported by a fly on the wall:

"Thanks for inviting me to your home, John. This is quite a palace you have here."

"I earned it, dammit. I've worked hard all my life for only one reason: to help the little people, the oppressed, the hopeless. It's the cause of my life, and how I choose to provide for my family has absolutely nothing to do with that."

"OK, John. Take it easy. I didn't mean anything by it. I was just hoping we could have a friendly discussion about my campaign and, if all goes well, my administration."

"Right, Barack. I apologize. It's just that I really get steamed when I think how my message was twisted by people who tried to make a big deal about my haircuts, or working for a hedge fund, or investing in subprime lenders. It just wasn't fair. Sometimes I think the American people just don't know what's good for them."

"I'm not sure I agree about that, John. It seems to me that voters are very focused on the kind of change they want in Washington. I thought it might be time for you to give your support to the cause."

"Are you asking me for my endorsement?"

"Absolutely. I would welcome you aboard, and I hope I can count on you."

"Well, Barack, you know that my campaign is all about making this country better for ordinary Americans. That's all that matters to me, all I care about. This is for the future of our country. So, if I endorse you, I'd want to be your secretary of state."

"John, you said this wasn't about you."

"It's not. If I can't be president, this time, the next best thing for America is for me to be secretary of state."

"John, I'm afraid that's out of the question. I'll need someone with foreign policy experience in that position."

"Barack, I've traveled overseas lots of times, and I worked for a firm that created offshore tax shelters. But nevermind, being attorney general would be almost as good."

"John, I think someone with, well, broader experience in the legal system might be a better choice."

"Supreme Court?"

"Same problem there, John."

"Well, what are you going to offer me?"

"John, I didn't come here to offer you anything except the chance to join the winning side right now. You know I'm the candidate who more closely represents the views you've expressed so clearly in this campaign ..."

"Because you stole my ideas!"

"John, please. This isn't helpful. We have very similar philosophies. Voters simply responded more positively to my message of hope rather than your more strident, angry approach."

"How are you planning to explain a broken nose to the press, buddy?"

"John, I can see it was a mistake to come here today."

"Darn right. Hillary's already offered to make me the most important man in her administration ... right after Bill."

I don't agree with attorney Anne R. Harris, who contends in today's Counterpoint that the Associated Press article, "Judges: Woman entitled to one new breast implant, but not two," which we printed Feb. 6, was "thoughtless" or unfair to her client.

You can read the full Court of Appeals opinion here. One news story can't report all the details (the opinion ran 16 pages, unusually long for the Court of Appeals), but I believe it presented an accurate summary.

Some of Harris' complaints are unreasonable.

"You printed the full name of the injured party, Penny M. Rumple Richardson, who is my client and a local resident."

Of course we did. Ms. Richardson's name is in the title of the case. The document is a public record.

"Someone released the most recent decision to the Associated Press, which circulated the article worldwide."

"Someone" doesn't have to release the decision. All decisions are posted on the court's Web site. A new round was posted there this morning. I check these postings regularly, as do many media people, looking for something interesting. This one caught my eye when it was posted Feb. 5 because its summary was definitely out of the ordinary: "Workers' Compensation; breast implants; notice to employer; lien on third-party settlement."

Harris is correct that the breast implant issue was singled out for special attention and that her client sustained several other injuries as a result of an auto accident that was not her fault. But the fact is, the court overruled the N.C. Industrial Commission only on one significant point: whether Ms. Richardson was due workers' compensation for the replacement of one or both breasts. The opinion, written by Judge Barbara Jackson, says only one, citing medical testimony that one implant was damaged as a result of the accident but the second was not. Judge James Wynn wrote a dissenting opinion, mentioned in the AP story, in which he said, "Replacement of one implant required replacement of both" because "the replacements would have to be symmetrical and evenly matched."

I'm sorry that Harris says publication of the article caused her client "significant distress" and amounted to an "unwanted invasion of her privacy." I'm puzzled, however, by her reference to a "firestorm of controversy" and a "skewered portrayal of her motives in the media."

It's not an invasion of privacy to write about an appellate court decision; there is no privacy in a such a case. The AP story didn't raise any issue concerning Ms. Richardson's motives. Perhaps other commenters have done that.

The record shows Ms. Richardson sustained serious injuries, and the courts say she's entitled to appropriate compensation. Maybe the focus on her breast implants was embarrassing to her, but the question of one or both became the most legally disputed part of the case. The most recent decision on that point didn't go as she wanted, but she can choose to appeal further, to the N.C. Supreme Court.

That would generate more news coverage, which should be presented in a professional, dignified way. I believe the AP did that in its recent report.

My column today:

Snowy egrets and great blue herons stalk the shallows carpeted by lily pads and orchids.

Ospreys circle overhead while a kingfisher watches from a treetop on shore.

A parrot adds a splash of red to the sea of green branches. A basilisk lizard dashes up a log toward the safety of the bank.

Fishermen in a dugout canoe drift slowly downstream.

A crocodile dips below the surface and silently out of sight.

That's fitting because our destination is Lamanai, an ages-old Mayan city whose name means "submerged crocodile."

We're on the New River in Belize -- two dozen tourists, mostly Americans, from a cruise ship that anchored beyond the coral reefs protecting the sparkling Caribbean coast of Central America's least-populated country.

As many as a million people might have occupied this land at the height of the Mayan civilization a millennium ago. Today Belize counts less than a third as many. The modern residents inherit a rich heritage -- one that pays only through preservation.

Our party reaches the place of submerged crocodiles where the river opens to a mile-wide lagoon. What look like hills on the western bank turn out to be ancient limestone structures covered with vegetation. Only a small portion of the once-great city has been cleared; its rulers these days are aptly named howler monkeys that greet visitors with unnerving, lion-like roars.

People lived, worked and worshipped here for close to 3,000 years. They developed an advanced culture and built imposing pyramids, which have endured the centuries despite European conquest and nature's reclamation.

Climbing the tallest temple -- not an exercise for the unfit or acrophobic -- affords a majestic view of seemingly endless tropical forest.

The same day, thousands more cruise ship passengers were ashore in Belize taking in its wonders. My sister and her husband and kids were zip lining through the forest canopy. Other visitors could go tubing on a river flowing through a system of caves, look for jaguars or ocelots on a wildlife tour, horseback along forest trails, snorkel or dive on the reefs, fish, swim or choose among a variety of other excursions. Belize makes all this very easy, requiring no passports, visas or holdups for cruise ship passengers.

Certainly, taking a cruise is a voyage of luxury and self-indulgence. I plead guilty. But the cruise lines also create welcome opportunities for people in poor and once-overlooked places like Belize -- if their governments don't spoil it all. Turning Belize City into a glitzy casino town or allowing environmental degradation would dampen the allure.

So far, so good. We traveled 50 miles by bus on a well-maintained, two-lane paved road from Belize City to the New River. The winding 25-mile river safari took us past nothing but mangroves and dense forest except for a small Mennonite community. If our open boat's twin 200-hp Yamaha motors disturbed the tranquility at times, at least we provided income for the Belizeans who transported and guided us, served us a meal of chicken, rice and hot-hot-hot sauce and sold us locally made souvenirs. The people we encountered are proud of their country. They're entitled to use its treasures to make a decent living, especially if that also pays for saving them.

The Miami Herald reported last week that the Royal Caribbean cruise line just signed a deal with the government of Haiti to increase its presence beyond the beach it currently leases. The contract will pay Haiti a $10 tax for every passenger who lands and boost the local service economy. It will do better if it encourages Haiti to protect natural and historic assets that might draw visitors for day trips. Those attractions are fast disappearing, and only the promise of financial benefits can slow the destruction.

It might be too late for Haiti, the Western Hemisphere's poorest and most dysfunctional country. But Belize, with careful cultivation, may have a future worthy of its natural and cultural riches.

Contact Doug Clark at dgclark@news-record.com or 373-7039.

One story I missed last week was John McCain's effort to prod Barack Obama toward the public campaign funding route for the general election.

Obama's political fortunes have improved tremendously since he pledged in February 2007 to accept public financing, with the accompanying spending limits, if he were to win the Democratic nomination.

A year ago, he was a long shot. Now he's leading.

And he's raising tons of money.

So, it's easy to see where McCain is coming from. He's going to be outspent by a wide margin unless Obama agrees to compete on a level playing field.

I say he won't do it; nor should he.

If Americans want to participate in his campaign by contributing a few dollars, or a few thousand, why stop them? As FEC reports show, he's raised a significant amount of money in relatively small contributions. If Obama can attract that kind of support, more power to him.

Frankly, I think public financing has become a crutch used by candidates who can't raise the money they think they need to compete, yet they'll claim high-minded motives. I agree that in some cases campaign donations are used as a form of bribery -- witness North Carolina legislative politics -- but the cure for that is transparency, not tapping the treasury to bankroll high-flying presidential campaigns.

As a taxpayer, I don't want to help finance candidates I don't like. People who want to give money to the candidate of their choice should be allowed to do so. It's fine with me if Obama decides to run his campaign with money donated freely.

The reaction of a state legislator who got tagged by the critical audit this week was pretty predictable:

She is the victim of "a prolonged political witch hunt," Rep. Mary McAllister, D-Cumberland, said, according to the Fayetteville Observer.

Advice for Ms. McAllister: If you don't want to be hunted as a witch, don't act like a witch.

The Office of State Auditor caught her red-handed. Computer files at the Operation Sickle Cell agency she runs in Fayetteville contained political material. Worse, the auditors had to get a court order to gain access to the files. Operation Sickle Cell is a publicly funded agency, which means it shouldn't be used for politics, and its directors should be open about the agency's activities.

The auditor hasn't been the only hunter. McAllister was fined more than $16,000 by the State Board of Elections last year for improprieties. In 2005, she introduced a bill to provide $500,000 in state funding for her own agency, which pays her $100,000+ salary. That was too brazen for even the state legislature to swallow, so the bill tanked.

The Fayetteville Observer has reported other lapses in judgment.

McAllister might claim she's a victim, but it can't be that hard to follow the rules. Public service isn't supposed to be self-service. People who don't get that ought to be witch-hunted.

Pat McCrory pledges to play nice during the Republican gubernatorial campaign and asks his rivals to do the same.

Forget it. This is politics. You've got to mix it up, and may the toughest survive.

"We're not running against each other. We're running against the culture of the state capital," the Charlotte mayor said when he officially filed to run yesterday.

I think McCrory's going to be a good candidate, but he's wrong. He and Fred Smith, Bob Orr and Bill Graham are running against each other for the Republican nomination. They're going to ding each other. As the apparent frontrunner, McCrory might take more hits than the others. What's wrong with giving it back now and then?

If McCrory captures the GOP nomination, he won't beat Democrats Beverly Perdue or Richard Moore with a nice-guy approach. They both have long records in Raleigh, and he'll have to go after them at their weak points. I doubt the Dems will go easy on him.

The culture of the state capital in Raleigh that McCrory speaks of will make it very hard for a Republican governor. Deeply entrenched Democratic legislative leaders have immense power. The next governor, whoever it is, needs to demonstrate now that he or she is ready to play rough-and-tumble.

The Democratic Party's "progressive activists" rallying behind Jim Neal rather than Kay Hagan in their U.S. Senate primary race are taking a chance.

And not just because he's gay.

Neal's homosexuality seems to have made him a cause celebre among some, but it may be a turnoff for other voters if he wins the nomination and faces Republican Sen. Elizabeth Dole in the general election.

The real risk, though, is that Neal is untested in public office.

Hagan, the veteran state senator from Greensboro, takes flak from some in the left flank of her party. From Mark's story today:

"James Protzman , who writes under the name Anglico and is one of the founders of the BlueNC social networking site, says he likes Neal's credentials and has reservations about Hagan's record.

"He points to a legislative battle during the 2007 General Assembly, when lawmakers had a choice between cutting upper-end income taxes or the sales tax, which disproportionately affects lower income workers. Largely at the insistence of the Senate, for which Hagan is a key budget writer, the legislature cut the income tax.

"Protzman calls that a case of the government favoring the wealthy over 'regular' people.

"Hagan says that the issue is more complicated than just a vote for or against the tax options. The same legislation, she said, expanded the earned income tax credit in the state and bolstered education funding.

"She added that North Carolina's higher upper-end income tax rate was driving people out of state, meaning North Carolina would lose out entirely on those taxes."

The fact that Hagan has compiled a long legislative record means there are opportunities for critics to pick apart this vote or that decision. But effective legislating means working in a deliberative body with people who hold different perspectives and forging the best policies you can get -- which may not always be perfect.

What I want to know about someone running for a high office like U.S. senator is how well has she done in lesser offices. Has she worked hard, gotten things done, earned the respect of her colleagues, been responsive to the people who elected her, shown a consistently strong interest in the welfare of her community?

Frankly, it's not hard to answer those questions about Hagan. She may not be well known across North Carolina, but among Democrats in Greensboro I doubt there's a more highly regarded elected official unless you want to make a case for Mayor Yvonne Johnson. But I think you'd argue that one to a stalemate at best.

Neal, on the other hand, has never held public office. Although a native of Greensboro, he didn't even live in North Carolina for something like 30 years until returning to Chapel Hill a couple of years ago. He may be a very smart guy with brilliant ideas, but no one can say how he'd perform in a legislative environment where you have to build alliances and make compromises to achieve results.

North Carolina has elected other senators who lacked previous experience in public office -- John East and John Edwards come to mind -- and the history should tell us how risky that is. In my view, Neal is at a big disadvantage versus Hagan.

Omid Safi writes on our Second Opinion page today that "the overwhelming support of the Muslim community now has shifted to the Democratic side and specifically to Sen. Barack Obama."

Safi is a professor of Islamic Studies at UNC-Chapel Hill, so I'll have to accept his assessment of the overwhelming sentiments of the Muslim community. But I find his reasoning unpersuasive.

He says Obama's "cosmopolitanism -- raised in Hawaii and Indonesia, son of a white Midwestern mother and a Kenyan father -- also resonates with many Muslims who want their president to be a global citizen for a change."

What? The president is constitutionally required to be a natural-born U.S. citizen. It's questionable whether Obama's childhood residence in Indonesia or African paternity gives him a foreign policy advantage over Hillary Clinton or John McCain.

But it's Safi's attacks on Clinton that are more disturbing.

"Sen. HIllary Clinton generates little interest among Muslim Americans," he writes. "She favors an 'undivided,' (i.e., all Jewish) Jerusalem, which would signal even further suffering and catastrophe -- even ethnic-cleansing -- for Palestinians who for more than a thousand years have called Jerusalem home."

Where the heck does that come from? If Clinton favors Israeli control over Jerusalem -- an entirely reasonably position, in my view -- that hardly means she supports the expulsion of Palestinians (or all non-Jews) from the city, let alone "ethnic cleansing." It's an outright slander to associate her views with that repulsive term.

Then he adds this: "Clinton has signed on to a bill that makes war with Iran more likely, as it specifies that Iran is waging a 'proxy war' against the United States in Iraq."

Nonsense. We're not going to launch a war against Iran, and Clinton hasn't shown support in any way for such a venture. However, I believe she recognizes the potential danger Iran poses with its irresponsible leaders and interest in nuclear technology. I hope the next president will take a very realistic attitude toward Iran.

Safi notes that Muslim American support for George W. Bush has evaporated because of U.S. wars in "Muslim countries (Iraq and Afghanistan)."

That may be, although I can't imagine anyone saying in 1945 that Lutheran Americans are fed up with President Roosevelt's war against a Lutheran country (Germany). We're not fighting religious wars.

Of course the Iraq war is unpopular among most Americans, but our military action in Afghanistan was directly provoked by 9/11.

If Professor Safi is suggesting that Muslim Americans overwhelmingly support Barack Obama because he'd be less likely to defend American interests against Muslim countries when clearly justified, he's not helping Obama's cause.

I'd add that, if American Muslims are "showing maturity," as Safi says, then they'll make individual choices for a wide variety of reasons in this presidential election rather than cast a monolithic vote. Otherwise, it will appear that the interests of Muslim Americans are entirely distinct from those of their fellow citizens, which would not be a healthy state of affairs for them or the rest of us.

N.C. State, losing badly to Virginia, seems to be a basketball team lacking heart.

Wake Forest doesn't have that problem. I expect the Deacons to give Carolina a spirited contest this evening. The Tar Heels need a good effort to win, especially if Ty Lawson isn't on the floor.

Of course, if Tyler Hansbrough is on the court, a good effort is practically guaranteed.

Talk about heart.

Like many High Pointers, I've known Dot Kearns for a very long time as a lady with a tender heart and tough hide. Except for a couple of years, she's held public office since 1972 -- on the High Point Board of Education, Guilford County Board of Commissioners and consolidated Guilford County Board of Education.

Kearns is announcing today she won't run for another term this year. At 76, she's ready to slow down and devote more time to visiting her out-of-state grandchildren.

This news will prompt celebrations among her critics, but not me. Although I've disagreed with her about a number of issues, I've always admired her honesty, her courage and her devotion to the causes she values. After all these years, it's time for someone else to take her place on the school board, but I'll rank her as one of the most dedicated elected officials I've ever encountered.

More later ...

Stealing a line from our editorial for tomorrow:

Maybe it was just the welcome rain outside, but it felt like a tap was turning Tuesday morning.

With representatives from High Point, Jamestown and the Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority in the audience, the Greensboro City Council today unanimously approved a resolution making these points:

* The City wishes to receive its full allocation of water from the initial 12.0 MGD phase of the Randleman water project.

* The City does not intend to purchase High Point's 2.28 MGD allocation of Randleman water at this time. However, and importantly, the City of Greensboro -- like every other member of the Authority -- retains and reserves the right to see or purchase additional water to or from others in the future as guaranteed by the 1987, 2000 and 2007 Joint Governmental Agreements among members' communities.

* The City intends to finance its proportional share of the initial 12.0 MGD phase of the Randleman water treatment plant and related improvements from the City's own funding sources and capacities.

* The City Managers of both Greensboro and High Point offered on February 5, 2008 to assist the Authority by providing the capabilities of our respective proven staff members and experienced consultants to design, finance, construct and operate the HWY 62/Coltrane Mill pump station and related improvements. While this offer was declined, the City of Greensboro and the City of High Point would like for the Authority to reconsider this option due to the direct interface required by each utility with the pump systems.

The fourth point has been contentious lately. It signals that Greensboro and High Point are willing to do everything they can to keep the Randleman water project moving. The Authority should welcome the help.

More in print tomorrow.

J.C. Watts is a friendly, engaging guy.

I taped a Newsmaker video interview this afternoon with the former Oklahoma congressman, in town to deliver the Bryan Series lecture tonight for Guilford College. It's at 7:30 at War Memorial Auditorium.

Update: Here's the link to the video: http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=multimedia&pluid=2445

Watts left Congress in 2002 after four terms, having risen quickly to the No. 4 leadership position among Republicans in the House of Representatives. These days he runs J.C. Watts Companies and makes a few speaking engagements.

My interview, which should be up on the site within a few days, focused on political questions. Here's a recent column he wrote sizing up the likely presidential race between Barack Obama and John McCain. Watts calls it inspiration vs. conviction.

Last fall, Watts wrote a critical piece about the Republican presidential candidates' lack of attention to black voters.

There are murmurings on the Web about Watts as a potential McCain running mate. He respects McCain and, although he stopped short of explicitly endorsing the Arizona senator, I got the sense Watts is sticking with his party in this election.

But he all but flatly denied any interest in being a vice presidential candidate.

I don't blame him. Before our interview, Watts said -- very sincerely -- that he hasn't missed politics at all since leaving Congress. My assessment is that, even if he wanted to get back in the game, it might not be the smartest play for him to join the team that looks like it could get rolled over by the campaign of America's first black president.

Watts is only 50, so he certainly has time to run for public office again. The former Sooners quarterback is still fit looking and says he works out regularly. With five kids, two still at home, and five grandchildren, he's a devoted family man.

He ought to deliver a good speech tonight. If you miss it, look for our Newsmaker interview.

Cornel West turned a catchy phrase in a talk at A&T Sunday, as reported by J. Brian Ewing, asserting the country has been in a "political ice age" since the Reagan presidency.

That caught my attention since I hadn't really noticed the chill. What had the Gipper done to send America into a deep freeze? There was no explanation in the story.

Nor in this article in the Chicago Defender earlier this year.

"We have been living for 40 years in a political, moral and spiritual ice age," West told the congregation at a Chicago church, the Defender reports.

Forty years? That goes back long before Reagan's presidency, which began 27 years ago. Maybe it was Nixon's election in 1968 that sent the nation's temperature into a dosedive.

No, wait, it's a 30-year freeze, West said at Central Washington University last week. But Reagan is at fault:

"The last 30 years we have been living in a political ice age," West said. "It started with Ronald Reagan, who kicked off his 1980 presidential race in Philadelphia, Miss., where three civil rights workers had been murdered in 1964."

But wait. In remarks last year to the 2007 Left Forum, West tracked the ice age back 35 years:

"What is going on? Is the Ice Age beginning to melt? Is it the case that the thirty-five years that Brother Stanley talked about, the Ice Age, the historical period where it's fashionable to be indifferent to other people's suffering -- indifference is the very trait that makes the very angels weep, to be callus toward catastrophe. And it's true, New Orleans was catastrophic before Katrina hit. Flint, New Orleans without Katrina."

Let's see, 35 years back from 2007 was 1972 -- Nixon's re-election?

I'll grant it's hard to tell when ice ages set in. It's not like one day it's a little cool and the next you're frozen solid. These things happen gradually.

It's his definition that's important -- the onset of a time in our history when it's fashionable to be indifferent to other people's suffering. Prime example: Hurricane Katrina.

Which strikes me as pretty odd because I thought Americans opened their wallets with unprecedented generosity, giving to the American Red Cross, Salvation Army, Katrina Relief Fund and many other efforts, that communities across the country opened their doors to evacuees, that mission teams from everywhere still volunteer for weeks at a time to work on behalf of hurricane victims.

Overall, charitable giving in the U.S. just keeps increasing year after year.

I imagine West, as a self-proclaimed liberal, actually counts only what the government does. Individual generosity doesn't figure into whether Americans actually care about other people's sufferings. Only his view of Nixon, Reagan or Bush matters.

That being the case, the only way to emerge from this ice age is to elect a liberal president.

I only wonder who he thinks would be generous enough with taxpayers' dollars to thaw us all out.

Put me in front of four pretty Irish girls singing sweet songs with angelic voices, and I'm happy. But Celtic Woman, which played at the Coliseum tonight, delivers a lot more than that.

To give you an idea, the ensemble closed the show's first half with the stirring Mo Ghile Mear -- recorded on "The Long Black Veil" by The Chieftains with Sting providing vocals -- and Celtic Woman blows Paddy Maloney and his lads away.

Besides the four front ladies, who sing so sweetly their version of "Scarborough Fair" could make Art Garfunkel cry, Celtic Woman comes at you with eight backup singers and strong musicianship from two percussionists, a versatile keyboardist/pianist, a guitar player, bassist and a guy who plays the Irish pipes, Irish whistle and whatever else is needed.

Then there's Mairead Nesbitt, a swirling sprite of musical energy. I couldn't decide whether she's a dancing fiddler or a fiddling dancer. Either way, she's a scene-stealer whenever she's on stage.

The well-choreographed, varied program is joyful and captivating ... absolutely excellent. From Irish traditionals like Siuil A Run, sung by my favorite, Orla Fallon, to newer offerings like "You Raise Me Up," each song is nicely arranged and just flawlessly performed.

One complaint: floor seating at the Coliseum stinks. Mostly I could see the fat head of the guy directly in front of me -- exactly the same view suffered by the guy directly behind me. We moved to higher seating on the side after intermission, as did quite a few other folks.

I didn't want to miss a moment.

My column today:

The next school built in old High Point ought to be named for Dot Kearns.

Not in north High Point, where Kearns was hanged in effigy a few years ago. That's