News-Record.com

I'm practically tripping over George Ragsdale yard signs on my morning runs through High Point's affluent Emerywood neighborhood.

(I don't live in Emerywood but within easy running distance.)

Many Emerywood residents have sponsored fundraising events for Ragsdale.

This has been surprising to me because Ragsdale, a Republican, is running against N.C. House District 61 Republican incumbent Laura Wiley.

Don't get me wrong. Ragsdale, 31, is a bright guy with political talent. And he comes from the family that pretty much built Jamestown.

But Wiley, a former High Point city councilwoman who bumped Steve Wood from this House seat four years ago, has done a very good job. Our editorial endorsement of her today was an easy call. There's no reason to replace her, and certainly not with someone who's running for office for the first time.

Ragsdale has tried to make an issue of furniture market support. Again that's odd, because Wiley (with Sen. Katie Dorsett) secured the initial substantial state funding for the market and worked very hard to make fellow lawmakers aware of how important the billion-dollar business event is to the entire state.

In our interview last week, Ragsdale said sure, but Wiley voted against the budget that contained the market funding. That led to an interesting discussion. (Mark ran down the details and included an audio tape here.)

The philosophical question raised is whether a legislator who favors any spending item in a $20 billion budget is bound to vote for the entire package. I'd say no. Yes, you want to support certain initiatives but that doesn't mean you should accept a lot of wasteful spending as well.

The sidebar to the story was former Speaker Jim Black's "leadership" style. By threatening on one occasion to remove furniture market funding, he forced Wiley to vote for the overall budget. He didn't necessarily need her vote to pass the budget, but he was still willing to sacrifice the furniture market -- a hugely important event for the entire state -- just to punish one legislator who wouldn't give in to his authority. Of course, he could do the same thing to many other legislators -- which helps explain how he stayed in power and loaded budgets with benefits for his friends and supporters. Fortunately, his practices caught up with him and he now resides in a federal prison. And Wiley says current Speaker Joe Hackney doesn't use those tactics.

Wiley, by the way, seems to be highly regarded by leaders of both parties in the House. She was appointed to a seat on the six-member ethics panel that examined the misbehavior of former Rep. Thomas Wright and unanimously recommended his expulsion. Doing so was an important step for the House in the post-Black era of ethics reform.

The N&O identifies Holden Thorp as a finalist for UNC-CH chancellor.

Thorp, a chemistry professor and dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Carolina, confirms he's a candidate.

The story also refers to the blog University Lotto, which says other finalists are Michael Smith, vice chancellor for public service and engagement and dean of the School of Government at Carolina; and Phillip L. Clay, chancellor at MIT and a member of the Board of Trustees at Carolina.

All look like outstanding candidates. Their Carolina connections are a big plus.

Officially, the search process is hush-hush. The public isn't supposed to know who the finalists are.

So news leaks out unofficially.

What does the secrecy accomplish? It would be better to conduct an open search from the start.

Janet Pueschel is the mystery candidate for a seat on the N.C. Court of Appeals.

She's not campaigning.

She doesn't respond to surveys.

She didn't offer a personal statement on the N.C. Voters Guide.

She doesn't speak with the media -- some of the media, anyway.

And her motives have been questioned.

Yet she's an experienced Raleigh lawyer and former Wake County clerk of court -- certainly adequate credentials for a judicial race.

What I'd heard about Pueschel was that she entered the contest on the last day of the filing period, Feb. 29, not with the intent of winning the election but to help the incumbent, John M. Tyson.

This is a nonpartisan race, but partisanship usually isn't far below the surface in judicial contests. So, for the record: Tyson and Pueschel are Republicans.

Also entering the race were two Democrats: State Utilities Commissioner Sam J. Ervin IV (grandson of the famous Senator Sam), and 10-year Wake County District Court Judge Kristen Ruth.

Rumor had it that Pueschel jumped into the field to dilute the vote that might go to Ruth and improve the chances that Tyson would get through Tuesday's primary. The top two will advance to the general election.

Women voters who don't know much about judicial candidates tend to favor women. Just by being a Janet on the ballot, Pueschel could grab a share of those votes that otherwise might go to a Kristen.

That idea was reinforced when I read a comment posted by Jeffrey Sykes on Guarino's blog. Jeff attended the 13th Congressional District Republican Convention last weekend and heard Pueschel speak. His account:

"She said she put herself on the ballot because stats show that people who do not know about the candidates will statistically vote for the female name over the male name. She said she hopes to draw enough votes away from the other female candidate to give Tyson a fighting chance. She opened and closed her speech by saying 'I do not want your vote. I want you to vote for Judge Tyson.' "

I was amazed. If that's true, it's very unethical in my opinion. Someone running for public office, especially a judicial office, shouldn't do so in hopes of fooling voters or helping another candidate. So, this afternoon, I called Pueschel at her Raleigh law office to ask if that's what she's doing.

I found she does speak to the media. Maybe not always, but she seemed happy enough to explain her position.

She disputed Jeff's interpretation of her remarks. She didn't say she didn't want people to vote for her, she told me, she said she doesn't want people to vote for Kristen Ruth. She's familiar with Ruth's work as a judge, and she doesn't believe Ruth ought to be on the appeals court bench. She doesn't know enough about Ervin to have an opinion, she said. She does believe Tyson is a good judge.

Pueschel insisted that she's not running to lose in next week's primary.

"I hope I will be on the ballot in November," she said. "I think I would be a good judge."

She's not campaigning, however, because she doesn't believe judges should run political campaigns. They shouldn't make political statements. She said she's appalled when judicial candidates are questioned about their opinion on Roe v. Wade and other hot-button cases. That's inappropriate, she said. Voters should decide about candidates on the basis of their legal education and experience, she said.

Voters who want to know more can reach her by phone, email or mail, she said. "I'm not hiding from anybody."

She'd rather not have judges chosen by election at all, she said, but appointment should include some objective system of vetting to make sure judges are really qualified. And she doubts appointments would be made without partisanship.

So, we have the system we have. While I understand more about Pueschel now, she probably won't make much of an impact in the primary. Even in judicial races, it's hard to win if you don't run.

Left out of today's editorial about the McCain-Clinton gas tax ploy was a statement about Barack Obama's pandering.

While he's presenting himself as taking a principled stand against a feel-good but essentially useless summer tax break, he's playing to emotions by saying in a new TV ad that he'll attack high gas prices by going after "price-gouging" by oil companies.

So, what's price-gouging?

We all know oil companies are making huge profits. They have huge gross sales, obviously moreso when prices rise.

But note these statements from a CNNMoney.com report yesterday:

"Gasoline, with a nationwide average of $3.62 a gallon, costs about 20% more than it did a year ago, according to the motorist organization AAA.

"But oil, at $113 a barrel Thursday, costs over 75% more than it did a year ago."

I guess any politician can rail against any business that charges more for its products than he thinks it should. He can promise to "go after" them. But he ought to speak honestly about what he's proposing. Is it price controls? Is it prosecution for racketeering or price-fixing? Is he accusing oil companies of criminal conspiracies or merely greed? And if he's taking an aggressive approach against high prices in one segment of the economy, will he apply the same strategy across the board? Should government override the market and set prices for all goods and services and determine how much profit private companies should be allowed to make?

I don't think we're getting straight talk from any of the candidates about gas prices.

Just in time to help voters before Tuesday's primary ...

Judge Robby Hassell joins the short list of Guilford County District Court candidates with campaign Web sites.

Others are:

Angela Foster,

Betty Brown,

and, although she's not in a primary, Tabatha Holliday.

That leaves 17 others who don't have campaign Web sites. Granted, several are running unopposed. But putting up a Web site is such an easy, inexpensive way to tell the public who you are and what you stand for that I don't know why anyone who is or wants to be a judge wouldn't do it.

Come on, your honors. You're missing out, and so are the voters.

BlueNC blogger Betsy Muse is repelled from Jim Neal's Senate campaign toward support for Kay Hagan.

The notion that Hillary Clinton should have dropped out of the race weeks ago seems absurd now. She has an even chance or better to win in Indiana Tuesday and she's closed a lot of ground in North Carolina, latest polls say. No matter what happens, though, voters on the Democratic side here are casting meaningful ballots in the presidential nominating process. Can we all agree that's a good thing? Clinton's made it happen by refusing to give in, and working her butt off (Bill, too).

I'm still not settled in my own voting. Lieutenant governor is one contest where I'm far from decided. Maybe I'll take a pass on that one on the grounds that we don't need a lieutenant governor anyway. Let's rewrite the constitution to eliminate the position and say the Secretary of State becomes governor if a vacancy occurs.

John McCain turns 72 in August, and his age bothers some people. Voters can decide whether that's a consideration.

Voters don't have that option in North Carolina judicial races. This state imposes a mandatory retirement age of 72 for judges at every level. Even in the middle of an elected term, a judge must step down upon reaching his or her 72nd birthday.

What a crock. If you can serve as president of the United States at 72, you ought to be able to serve on the N.C. Supreme Court (which isn't overly stressful, from what I'm told). So, let's eliminate age discrimination from the judiciary.

I wish Kay Hagan would quit mocking Elizabeth Dole with this ruby slippers shtick. She used it again at last night's Big Dem Dinner in Raleigh, Mark reported:

"I want to give Miss Liddy Dole a pair of ruby-red slippers, and let her click her heels three times, and go home to Kansas with Bob," Hagan told the audience.

Maybe the partisan crowd enjoyed the gag, but I think it can backfire on Hagan.

First, Dole's "home" isn't Kansas. She married a Kansan, but they've lived in Washington throughout their 33-year marriage.

More critically, it's a terrible mistake to portray Dole as sweet, kind Dorothy.

You know who was always going after Dorothy and her ruby slippers ...

Hagan better be careful she doesn't cast herself as the Wicked Witch candidate.

She'll find her chances of victory melting, melting ...

Kentucky Derby entrant Cowboy Cal is running today in memory of John Long, son of Greensboro residents David and Mellie Long.

The Houston Chronicle reports.

The story goes back more than 30 years, when the Longs' 3-year-old son was diagnosed with liver cancer. Their friends, Bob and Janice McNair, recommended treatment at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, where the McNairs lived. Young John succumbed to his disease but not before giving the McNairs' 13-year-old son the nickname Cowboy Cal.

The name stuck around and now belongs to the McNairs' Derby hopeful. Whatever winnings the horse brings home will be donated to M.D. Anderson in John Long's memory.

David Long was a Presbyterian minister who answered calls in many locations during his career. Now he and Mellie are retired and living in Greensboro.

His sister is former state legislator Mary Long Jarrell of High Point. His nephew is Guilford County District Court Judge Tom Jarrell.

The Longs are in Louisville for the race. Until I heard this story, I didn't have a rooting interest. Now I do. Cowboy Cal carries a special name and the memory of a child whose short life hasn't been forgotten.

Hillary Clinton's gaining ground in North Carolina polls, but I wonder if that's misleading. So many people have voted early that a late surge can be too late. She might win most of the ballots cast tomorrow but still lose the primary.

I didn't vote early because I wanted to give the candidates every opportunity to influence my decisions.

I heard some discussion about how "undemocratic" it would be if one presidential candidate won the "popular vote" across the country but ended up losing the nomination. Bogus complaint. There is no national popular vote in the primary process. Some states don't even have primary elections at all but caucuses, which are more like horse-trading than voting. The system is what it is, and the name of the game is collecting a majority of delegates at the convention by whatever means you can.

Our governor tried, not very successfully, to push Hillary Clinton's tax holiday on the CNN program minutes ago. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a Barack Obama supporter, panned the pandering proposal.

Interviewer Larry King only gave them a few moments and didn't ask Easley why, if dropping the 18 cents per gallon federal gas tax would help North Carolina motorists, he opposes suspending the 30-cent state gas tax. Wouldn't that help even more?

Easley recited the extremely lame line that a "windfall profits tax" will pay for the holiday. Let's get the oil companies to pay it instead of the people, Easley said.

Give us a break, governor. There is no windfall profits tax, and there isn't going to be one. Certainly not this summer, and probably not ever because it doesn't make sense.

"Opposing school bonds has been a civil rights strategy for a long time, and we're employing it today," says Guilford County School Board member Deena Hayes.

I'm not sure I understand whose civil rights are advanced by crummy school facilities, but if this thinking makes sense to Hayes and her colleagues, I'd suggest they extend their strategy to similar applications.

I think they'd do more good by calling on people in the black community to oppose the lottery. Many probably waste more money playing the so-called "Education Lottery" than they would pay in taxes for school bonds. And how much educational progress are they getting for it?

Opposing a lottery that suckers poor people would be a more plausible civil rights strategy than voting against school bonds.

The day's news properly belongs to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, but John McCain's remarks at Wake Forest University today deserve attention.

He spoke about the proper role of the courts and the philosophy of judicial restraint, which to him means deciding cases within the framework of law.

McCain decried the Senate's blockage of judicial nominees, which he said has created a crisis in the courts. He noted his role as one of the "Gang of 14" -- seven Republicans and seven Democrats -- who forged an agreement to stop the filibuster strategy. Their effort was unfortunately temporary, but it did account for some progress while it lasted.

He took an effective jab at Obama, noting the Illinois senator was one of only 22 Democrats to vote against the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts:

"And just where did John Roberts fall short, by the Senator's measure? Well, a justice of the court, as Senator Obama explained it -- and I quote -- should share 'one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy.

"These vague words attempt to justify judicial activism -- come to think of it, they sound like an activist judge wrote them. And whatever they mean exactly, somehow Senator Obama's standards proved too lofty a standard for a nominee who was brilliant, fair-minded, and learned in the law, a nominee of clear rectitude who had proved more than the equal of any lawyer on the Judiciary Committee, and who today is respected by all as the Chief Justice of the United States. Somehow, by Senator Obama's standard, even Judge Roberts didn't measure up."

McCain noted that he, along with most Republican senators, voted to confirm President Clinton's Supreme Court nominees, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

McCain's record indicates he's taken a fairer and less partisan approach to the Senate's advice and consent role than have many other senators. That's a strong indication that he could be trusted to make good judicial selections if he were president.

It's 7:35, no votes are counted, and CNN already projects Obama as the winner in North Carolina.

Overwhelming exit poll numbers?

Update, 7:51: Actual votes coming in at State Board of Elections site.

Incumbent judges don't lose often in primaries, but when it happens you usually can find an easy explanation.

In Guilford County, District Court Judge Linda Falls finished last behind Robert Enochs and Angela Falls, who will go head-to-head in the general election. The word I've heard from the courthouse is that Falls, a rookie judge, has had troubles adjusting to the job. I guess word got out to voters, too, and Falls will have to give up that job at the end of the year.

Statewide, Court of Appeals Judge John Tyson is out after finishing third behind Sam Ervin IV and Kristin Ruth, who likewise will square off again in the fall. Tyson can blame the Obama-Clinton presidential primary, which produced a huge turnout of Democrats. Judicial races are nonpartisan, but Tyson is a Republican. Ervin and Ruth are Democrats. The N.C. Democratic Party did a good job of alerting its voters to those facts, producing the outcome we had. So many more Democrats than Republicans voted today that both Ervin and Ruth could outpoll Tyson.

Meanwhile, Greensboro attorney Jewel Ann Farlow finished second behind Court of Appeals Judge Jim Wynn in a three-candidate race, ensuring that both she and he will advance to the November ballot. This was a lot closer than I expected, but there could have been gender voting at work.

My column today:

End Of The Road, N.C. — “Mind if I join you?” I say to the old timer perched on a bench at the edge of the tiny town square.

He’s dressed in overalls and wearing a broad-brimmed straw hat to fend off the sun. His rough hands look like they might have guided a plow in days gone by. He’s working a mouthful of tobacco with dark gums and a few brown teeth, occasionally spitting juice into a Styrofoam cup that may or may not also contain coffee.

“Be my guest. No better place to enjoy all the excitement.”

I sit and survey the scene from his point of view. A truck sputters down Main Street. A barber in front of his shop chats with a lady mail carrier. A couple of storefronts stand forlorn and empty.

The last time anything exciting happened here, I think, was maybe the end of World War II.

“What do you mean? What’s happening?”

“Bill Clinton’s coming.”

“Bill Clinton? Are you sure?”

“Yep. He’s campaigning for his wife, Hillary.”

“But the primary was yesterday.”

“Well, I hear he runs a little late. But I don’t mind waiting. I’ve never seen a president before, and I always liked ol’ Bill, even if he got hisself in trouble now and then. I wouldn’t mind some of that kind of trouble myself.”

My companion shakes his head and chuckles wickedly, causing tobacco juice to spill over his lower lip. It’s time to draw the conversation back on track.

“I don’t want to disappoint you, but ol’ Bill’s not late. He’s gone. They’re all gone.”

The old idea that black candidates can't win countywide office in Guilford was shoved further into history yesterday in the at-large school board race.

Sandra Alexander and Michael McKinney led the field of five candidates with a combined 65 percent of the vote. Add E.C. Huey's 8 percent, and you have nearly three-fourths of the countywide vote going to African Americans.

Alexander and McKinney will run head-to-head in November, assuring the election of a black school board member at-large. The race is nonpartisan.

This follows last year's election of Yvonne Johnson as Greensboro's first black mayor.

It adds up to progress beyond the thinking that the "voting rights" of African Americans demand special districts in which they make up the majority. That was true, but it isn't now.

Which Republican received the most votes in yesterday's North Carolina primaries?

It wasn't Pat McCrory (233,877) ...

John McCain (383,401) ...

or Elizabeth Dole (461,085).

How about Greensboro lawyer Jewel Ann Farlow, running for N.C. Court of Appeals?

That's a nonpartisan race, but Farlow is a registered Republican who was endorsed by the state GOP.

She polled 600,787 votes ... good for second place behind Judge Jim Wynn. They'll meet again in the general election.

Farlow, little known statewide or even in Guilford County, has never been a judge or held any elective office, and barely campaigned. Yet she trailed veteran jurist Wynn, a Democrat, by only 180,000 votes and trounced the third candidate, Dean Poirier.

My opinion: Farlow's strong showing was a fluke. But it made her the answer to a trivia question that would stump a lot of political experts.

Will John McCain carry North Carolina in November, as Republican presidential candidates have done since Ronald Reagan's election in 1980?

Let's do the numbers.

If yesterday's turnout was an indication, McCain starts in a hole against Barack Obama.

McCain received 383,401 votes in the GOP primary. Barack Obama drew 897,017 votes on the Democrat side.

Granted, the Republican primary wasn't competitive and didn't pull in as many voters. But the Democratic primary was intensely competitive, so Obama lost a lot of votes to Hillary Clinton.

Let's project. Say McCain retains the support of everyone who voted for him yesterday, picks up the votes of everyone who supported other Republican candidates AND steals half of Clinton's votes.

That's very generous, and it would add up to only about 850,000 votes.

On Obama's side, he keeps the voters he had yesterday and picks up only half of Clinton's. That still pushes him up to about 1.25 million.

OK, only about 2.1 million people voted in the primaries. More will turn out in November. In 2004, 3.5 million presidential votes were cast. Let's say the number will be 4 million this time.

That will be an increase of 1.9 million over the number of voters in the primaries.

McCain will need to win 1,150,000, or 60 percent, of those additional voters to break even with Obama.

Maybe he can do it. Maybe this analysis is off the mark.

But let me say today, six months out, that North Carolina is in play in this year's presidential race.

Addendum: The math would be similar in the Perdue-McCrory and Dole-Hagan races.

Good news for Pat McCrory: Gov. Mike Easley endorses Bev Perdue.

If Easley's support helps Perdue as much as it did Hillary Clinton, McCrory will win going away.

Deena Hayes said Monday: "Opposing school bonds has been a civil rights strategy for a long time, and we're employing it today."

Most of her constituents did not employ that strategy yesterday.

The $412 million school bond package was supported by 57.9 percent* of voters in Hayes' School Board District 8 -- a stronger endorsement than countywide.

* That's my unofficial calculation. You can find the precinct-by-precinct returns at the county elections board site here.

A Court of Appeals ruling issued Tuesday points to good work by Greensboro police in properly carrying out a strip search that turned up cocaine in a woman's underwear.

Crystal Elaine Neal contended that evidence in the drug case should have been excluded because she didn't give permission for Officer Jennifer Mauney to conduct such a revealing search. Trial court Judge Catherine Eagles denied the motion, and the COA, in a unanimous decision written by Jim Wynn and joined by Wanda Bryant and Barbara Jackson, affirmed.

The action took place April 25, 2006, as "Officer Roman Watkins was conducting surveillance of a gas station located in a well-known drug area on East Market Street in Greensboro," Wynn wrote.

You can read all about it at the link above. Cutting to the key part: Officers' observations and the attitude of a drug dog created suspicion that Neal was hiding something. A female officer, Mauney, was summoned. Neal was asked whether she would consent to a thorough search. She said yes and was taken into a bathroom at a nearby business.

"Officer Mauney then had Defendant turn sideways, according to police procedure, and asked her to lift her shirt, then unzip her pants and lower them. She then asked Defendant to lower her underwear, at which point a package of what was later determined to be cocaine fell out."

Uh-oh. Neal ended up pleading guilty to possession with intent to sell and deliver cocaine, trafficking in cocaine by possession and trafficking in cocaine by transportation. She was given a sentence of 35 to 42 months but appealed the conviction on the grounds that the search should have been disallowed.

The court firmly disagreed. Wynn noted legal precedents that require a balancing of personal rights against the need for a particular search but cited a U.S. Supreme Court standard of "objective reasonableness": "What would the typical reasonable person have understood by the exchange between the officer and the suspect?"

In this case, Neal should have known what was coming when she was asked to consent to a thorough search and when she was taken to a private location by a female officer.

Wynn concluded by making a point of mentioning the officer's conduct:

"Officer Mauney did not touch Defendant directly but rather only observed as she removed her own clothing for a short period of time. Accordingly, we find that Defendant knowingly and voluntarily consented to the search conducted by Officer Mauney."

This is a clearly written, common-sense opinion in which the courts fully support excellent police work for the benefit of the community.

A year ago, Superior Court Judge Howard Manning slapped down the Wake County Board of Education's plan to assign thousands of students to year-round schools.

The board did not have the statutory authority to make such assignments, Manning ruled, without the "informed consent" of parents.

This week, it was Manning who was overruled in a unanimous decision from the N.C. Court of Appeals.

In considerable detail, the opinion written by Judge Martha Geer and joined by Judges Douglas McCullough and Sanford Steelman, traces the constitutional and statutory authority granted to boards of education in setting policies, including the assignment of students to public schools. The court rejected the contention that children have the right to attend schools on a traditional calendar or that it denies equal protection to place some children in year-round schools and others in nine-month schools.

Because the three-judge panel was unanimous, there's no automatic right of appeal to the N.C. Supreme Court. Because the opinion, in my reading, is so clear and convincing, I doubt the Supreme Court would hear it on discretionary review.

That likely leaves it as a definitive authorization for school boards to proceed with an important strategy for maximizing available classroom space -- and potentially saving significant amounts of money in construction costs.

Wake County developed a plan for multi-track year-round schools, which divide students into four tracks, each with its own schedule. At any given time, three tracks are in school and one is on break. I see it as something like this:

Groups A, B, C and D attend Public School 1 on this schedule:

Winter: ABC
Spring: ABD
Summer: ACD
Fall: BCD

Suppose each group has 250 students. That would add up to 1,000 students attending PS1, but the school would need seats for only 750 at a time. There's a lot of cost difference in building a school for 750 instead of 1,000.

This has to be an option for every school system, including Guilford County, where the $457 million in school bonds we just approved won't address all our needs for classroom space.

Would a plan like this be popular with everyone? Absolutely not. That's why parents sued the Wake County school board. People like their kids to be out of school in the summer. I did.

But what we like and what we can afford aren't always the same.

The question of authority has just been settled. School boards are free to consider this option.

Addendum: In Wake County, each group in a multi-track system actually attends nine weeks, followed by three weeks off, on a staggered schedule year-round. With parent's consent, currently.

http://www.wcpss.net/Calendars/2007-08/07-08-year-round.pdf

Update, 5:08 p.m. Friday: The feds totally contradict the N.C. AG's Office, The N&O of Raleigh reports.

Very weird.

My apologies to Gov. Easley and his staff.

end of update

Gov. Mike Easley is reckless and irresponsible to defy advice from the N.C. Attorney General's Office that state community colleges should not admit illegal aliens as students.

The State Board of Community Colleges last year issued a guidance memoradum instructing local community colleges to "immediately begin admitting undocumented individuals" consistent with its policy that, "Each college shall maintain an open door admission to all applicants who are high school graduates or who are at least 18 years of age." State law gives the State Board of Community Colleges the authority to establish admission criteria.

But that's not the end of the story. In an advisory letter dated May 6 to Shante Martin, general counsel for the N.C. Community College System, N.C. Department of Justice General Counsel JB Kelly writes:

"The admission criteria and its application should be interpreted in a manner consistent with other applicable state and federal laws on college admissions."

To wit:

"Federal law makes certain non-citizens inelgible for State and local public benefits. State and local public benefits are defined under federal law for purposes of this prohibition. That definition includes 'postsecondary education.' ...

"Prohibited State and local public benefits can be provided 'only through the enactment of a State law ... which affirmatively provides for such eligibility.' ... State law may provide eligibility for postsecondary education benefits to an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States only to the extent any citizen or national of the United States receives the same eligibility regardless of State residence. North Carolina has not enacted such laws."

This affirms a complaint often voiced: Why should an illegal alien receive benefits, such as admission or taxpayer-subsidized tuition, at a North Carolina public community college (or university, for that matter) while a U.S. citizen who happens to live in, say, Virginia is denied the same benefit? Well, according to General Counsel Kelly, he can't unless state law specifically creates that benefit.

Kelly notes some "unsettled" aspects of the "scope and applicability of the Federal prohibition" and volunteers to seek clarification from Washington. Before such clarification is provided, and until some state law is enacted, Kelly adds, prudence calls for a halt to the admission of undocumented aliens. That careful course "would more likely withstand judicial scrutiny."

That makes perfect sense, except apparently to Easley. Don't pay any attention to those legalities, he says, urging community colleges to offer admission with no questions asked.

At this point, let me say there's a rational case to be made that illegal immigrants who earn North Carolina high school diplomas and qualify for higher education should be allowed to enroll in community colleges. If they're going to live in North Carolina anyway, why not help them build better lives for themselves and their families?

But what seems like a good idea is far different from what the law says is allowed. We can't simply decide to ignore the law just because we don't like it or think it's unfair.

The governor, who takes an oath to uphold the law, should be the last one to say it ought to be ignored.

Easley might think he understands the law better than does the Attorney General's Office. After all, he's a former attorney general himself. But the responsible thing to do in such a case is to wait until a definitive judgment is made.

Kelly all but says the state is inviting a lawsuit challenging its policy of admitting illegal aliens and that it's likely to lose. Easley should not put the state in a precarious legal position by ignoring the good advice of the office charged with keeping the state on the right side of the law. That's simply reckless.

Addendum: Gubernatorial candidate Bev Perdue disagrees with Easley. Pat McCrory opposes in-state tuition for illegal immigrants.

I met Holden Thorp just over a year ago at a Phillips Ambassadors program on the Carolina campus. We chatted for about five minutes, barely enough time for me to figure out that he was someone very important.

The rather obvious clue was when he told me he was getting ready to become the dean of the College of Arts and Sciences.

It might be remarkable that Thorp hasn't been a chancellor or college president before winning the big job at Carolina. But he's run the College of Arts and Sciences, and that by itself is bigger than most universities.

Thorp struck me as friendly and down to earth, maybe a bit reserved. He doesn't seem like the charismatic politician type some colleges and universities choose because, well, the position can demand political skills.

Reading his list of accomplishments, though, I get the idea there's not much this guy can't do. Scholar, distinguished professor, researcher, innovator, entrepreneur, administrator. He's excelled at eveything. Maybe he can try his hand at coaching the football team.

And he's only 43. He may bring to the chancellor's office what Dean Smith established for the basketball program: consistent, long-term excellence.

Maybe the best part: Thorp is a Tar Heel head to toe. He's come up through the ranks. It's about time local talent was recognized.

At the same time, his appointment doesn't look like homeboy favoritism. Any university would love to have a star like Thorp on its campus. Carolina made sure no one else will get him.

Sure, one leader doesn't make or break a university. But a great university deserves outstanding leadership. Thorp has to prove himself, but the fact that he's proven himself extraordinarily well at every step of his career so far is most encouraging.

I'll never be a real conservative.

Real conservatives always refer to public schools as "government schools."

And that's not a compliment.

If it's a "government school," it just doesn't work right because, you know, the government can't do anything right. So let's just shut down those government schools!

But, oddly enough, I never hear references to the "government fire department," "government streets," "government parks," "government garbage collection," "government water and sewer" or even "government police."

Sure, conservatives complain about government services delivered inefficiently. So do liberals (although their solution usually amounts to spending more money).

But there's never the same derogatory tone that's reserved for "government schools."

Is "government" really that much worse at providing public education than anyone else?

If not government, who should run public schools?

(I'm out of town and dodging this debate.)

With crime in Charlotte increasing, city officials are stepping up -- and not just in the area of policing.

A memo from City Manager Curt Walton to the mayor and City Council proposes steps beyond the city's normal law-enforcement function.

"The primary challenge, however, is how to expand the capacity of the criminal justice system to deal with criminals once they are beyond the control of the CMPD (Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department)," Walton wrote. "Re-arresting repeat offenders for the same crimes is as frustrating for the CMPD as it is for our citizens."

Walton's recommendations, which the council will consider tonight, include:

* expanding the number of electronic monitoring devices for repeat offenders;

* funding technology improvements in the offices of the district attorney and trial court administrator;

* funding additional staffing in the DA's office;

* developing a property crimes court and taking other steps to expedite the prosecution of property crimes.

These are expensive proposals in an area where the state, not local governments, has total funding responsibility. But if the state isn't addressing problems adequately, locals have to step up.

That's the feeling right now in Charlotte, anyway. I don't know about Greensboro or High Point.

Frankly, the days of "it's not my job" in terms of government responsibilities should be numbered. Public safely is government's job at every level. It just doesn't make sense that local law-enforcement agencies can keep arresting criminals, only to see state government agencies (the courts, prison system, probation-parole) either let them off or lose track of them.

Walton outlined the desired effect of providing more resources for the DA's office:

"This would result in defendants being placed under supervision or in prison sooner and also accomplish the following:

* No plea bargains for habitual felons;

* All residential breaking and entering cases will continue to be prosecuted as felonies and the state will request active time in every case;

* All auto larcency, possession of stolen vehicle, and breaking and entering of motor vehicle cases acceptable for prosecution will be prosecuted as felonies and not as misdemeanors;

* All felony plea offers will increase in severity."

These are tough, blunt proposals. Walton also makes clear he's not excusing the police of responsibility:

"The recommendations in this memo are made to complement, not replace, enforcement of the law. In fact, it amplifies enforcement efforts by making consequences tougher; however, much of the crime in our city is committed by repeat offenders. Until there are increased options for prosecuting, incarcerating or at least monitoring the behavior of this targeted group of offenders, CMPD's efforts will be minimized."

Are circumstances much different in Greensboro and High Point? I don't think so. How do we want to respond?

If you read our print edition (of course you do), you know that on our Tuesday Second Opinion page we run a feature called Laugh Lines. It takes the best of the political jokes from the late-night TV funnymen.

Who says they're the best jokes? Dennis Shelton, our Editorial Department page designer, that's who.

I'm a big fan of this feature. I don't stay up late enough to watch the late shows, so this is my source for late-night political humor.

When my son, Andrew, was living in Tanzania for two years, I clipped the Laugh Lines column every week and stuffed it in with whatever else I was mailed him. I was trying to keep him in touch with the mood back home, although maybe the effort wasn't successful since it would take anywhere from three weeks to six months for him to receive mail, if it did at all. Jokes about the Indiana primary might not be all that funny six months from now.

Anyway, Leno rules the Laugh Lines column. He dominates, no contest, week after week.

But not this week. This week, Letterman gains the upper hand. Hey, if he can pull one out, is Hillary really done?

Here's this week's Laugh Lines column:

“Hillary Clinton barely won my home state of Indiana. And she lost in the state of North Carolina. But here is the good news. She has a substantial lead in the state of denial.”
David Letterman

“It occurred to me that Hillary Clinton has one thing in common with President Bush. Neither of them has an exit strategy.”
David Letterman

“The experts say, if you do the math, there’s no way Hillary Clinton can win the nomination. And today, Hillary responded by saying, 'People who do math are elitist.’ ”
Jay Leno

“The groom ... asked President Bush for his daughter’s hand in marriage. And President Bush said, 'Well, it’s OK with me, but you gotta run it by Cheney.’ ”
David Letterman

“President Bush has offered to help Myanmar. ... That’s where they had that terrible cyclone, where thousands of people were killed. ... In fact, Bush offered to help the country under one condition, 'Don’t tell New Orleans.’ ”
Jay Leno

You heard it here first. I wrote back in February that the allegation that Greensboro police discarded secret Klan-Nazi-CWP shootout files was likely phony.

Yesterday, Chief Tim Bellamy confirmed it.

The "files," Bellamy said, contained newspaper clippings.

Just more turmoil in Greensboro over nothing.

Case closed? Not so fast. This all came about because ministers Cardes Brown, Gregory Headen and Nelson Johnson were willing to make public allegations based on the word of a police officer -- later identified as Julius Fulmore -- who, it now appears, made an unwarranted accusation against fellow officer Craig McMinn, no doubt causing McMinn considerable distress, and also putting the department to a lot of trouble.

If I were the chief, I'd want to find out what was behind that accusation and determine whether disciplinary action is appropriate.

When I saw the headline, "Bush visit to Furman faces opposition," I thought that can't refer to quiet little Furman University just outside Greenville, S.C.

That's where my wife graduated a few years back, and we've visited the lovely campus several times since then.

George W. Bush accepted an invitation to give the commencement address on May 31.

Not surprising considering the president's record-low approval ratings, some people in the Furman community weren't terribly happy.

But I was having a hard time picturing protests, disruptions or efforts to shout down the speaker. If that happened in the polite atmosphere at Furman, well, respect for free speech and good manners are all shot to hell in this country.

Fortunately, it doesn't look like that's going to happen.

Some 200+ students and faculty members simply have signed a statement listing their objections to Bush administration policies. It doesn't threaten anything or demand that Bush be barred from speaking. It doesn't criticize anyone for inviting him.

"Because we love this country and the ideals it stands for, we accept our civic responsibility to speak out against these actions that violate American values," it says.

Which is fine, just as long as everyone doesn't try to speak at once.

A respectful protest is in order.

My column today ...

Should Barack Obama give up his presidential campaign after his crushing defeat in yesterday's West Virginia primary?

A Democrat can't win in November without West Virginia, and only Hillary Clinton commands the loyalty of those poor, uneducated, working-class white voters.

So she says.

Is Obama thinking of the good of the party as he clings to his lead in delegates, superdelegates and popular votes yet ignores the only people who really count: Clinton supporters?

If he can't win West Virginia, what business does he have running for president?

Kudos to the city of Winston-Salem for naming four finalists for the police chief position today.

The city Web site provides background info about each candidate and includes an online feedback form. Even better:

"The public is invited to attend a public forum to meet and address the candidates on Thursday, May 22, at 7:30 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chamber. The forum will be televised live on WSTV 13, the government channel on TimeWarner Cable."

Last week, Charlotte-Mecklenburg announced its three finalists for police chief. The three spoke at a public forum attended by about 200 people last night. (Observer's coverage here.)

The three candidates are the current chief from Richmond, an assistant chief from Atlanta and Charlotte-Meck's deputy chief. So much for the often-heard dodge that you won't attract top applicants if you're going to name the finalists.

The public really cares about crime and public safety, and citizens deserve the opportunity to hear what a potential police chief has to say before he or she is hired. Yes, the city manager makes the final decision, but that selection should be informed at least partially by public opinion.

Leaders in Charlotte and Winston-Salem should be commended for taking that route. Every city should do the same.

Addendum: You may notice that Alan Dreher from Atlanta is a finalist for both jobs.

Our ambitious former senator has been retired from running for president for three months or so -- his longest break in years -- but he returns today to endorse ...

... this is suspenseful ...

Barack Obama!

Wow! Is it too late to bet on Big Brown in the Kentucky Derby?

Rather than step in before his home state primary last week, Edwards chose to wait and name his choice in Grand Rapids, Mich., this evening.

This is portrayed as Obama's answer to Hillary Clinton's victory in West Virginia yesterday.

She won big with white, working class voters ...

He gets the endorsement of one white, multimillionaire trial lawyer.

I thought all along Edwards would back Obama. Edwards is much more closely aligned in his views with the very liberal Obama than with the moderate-liberal Clinton. When he delayed, I figured he was bargaining for the best deal -- attorney general? secretary of poverty? vice president? Time will tell what Obama offered.

Edwards' support likely will help Obama a little, but it hardly matters at this point. The nomination is all but decided.

If Obama wins in November, this endorsement will help Edwards more ... and I expect he's counting on that. He's not done running for president.

Barack Obama's apology to Detroit TV reporter Peggy Agar for calling her "sweetie" has me worried.

"That's a bad habit of mine," he said in a message he left on her voice mail yesterday. "I do it sometimes with all kinds of people."

All kinds of people? If he's calling men "sweetie," he does have a problem.

But I doubt he does. I'd bet he reserves the term for women. Maybe that's not a wise thing to do, particular if he's elected president and meeting with, oh, say, Angela Merkel. Or, worse, the wife of some Middle East poohbah.

Still, I think terms of endearment have their place. I'll throw out an occasional "sweetie" to girls under 10, but definitely not to women in a professional setting. A caller to the Brad & Britt show this morning said he called a woman at work "dear heart" and was written up for sexual harassment. It's become that kind of world.

The waitress where my friend and I eat breakfast on Saturdays calls us "sweeties," which I certainly don't mind.

At another favorite eatery recently, however, I was taken aback when the waitress, who looks like she's 16, called me "darling." My wife was sitting next to me. She didn't remark about it, so I guess there was no problem. It just seemed odd coming from a child when I'm more than old enough to be her father.

Obama probably would have been fine with it. He could have given her a "sweetie" right back.

The community should follow closely the prosecution of Michael Vernard Thompson, who has been indicted for last year's murder of Betty Sibert Thomas at her Greensboro store, Angie's Hats.

This was a vile crime, and the courts need to make sure the criminal element in this city gets the message that it won't be tolerated.

Yesterday's announcement of a big aviation project going to the N.C. Global TransPark is good news for North Carolina.

Governor's news release ...

News release from Wichita-based Spirit AeroSystems ...

Kinston Free Press report.

I wondered whether the GTP had beaten out PTIA for this mega-project.

Apparently not. Spirit spokeswoman Debbie Gann tells me no other North Carolina locations were considered for this design-and-production facility. It will manufacture the center fuselage frame section for the Airbus A350 XWB.

One key factor is proximity to the state ports at Morehead City and Wilmington. This fuselage frame is a big honker: 65 feet long, 20 feet wide and 9,000 pounds. It will be shipped across the ocean to France, where Airbus is based. That means it's got to be hauled to the coast. That's a lot closer from Kinston than Greensboro.

By truck or rail? Gann said that's yet to be determined.

Another plus: proximity to military bases and potential access to the "retiring military labor force," Gann said. Yeah, somebody who's worked on aircraft at Seymour Johnson AFB might be a good fit.

For the TransPark, landing this kind of project has been a long time coming. Created 17 years ago, it's attracted few tenants, required tens of millions of tax dollars to stay open and come nowhere near its purpose of becoming a thriving hub of aviation, logistics and trade.

FedEx considered the TransPark for its East Coast hub a decade ago before choosing PTI.

Now I wonder whether the Lenoir County facility, backed by big dollars from the state, suddenly presents competition to the Triad, which also is developing an aviation/logistics industry cluster.

I'm working up an edit on this, tentatively scheduled for publication Saturday.

Addendum: The news about Airbus isn't all that encouraging.

The California Supreme Court's ruling today legalizing same-sex marriage will reverberate across the country.

Notably, the decision came by a 4-3 margin -- the same split as in Massachusetts several years ago. This overturned a 2006 Appeals Court ruling, so obviously there's considerable disagreement on the courts even in a liberal state.

I haven't read the opinion yet, but the news account linked above indicates the majority viewed this as a matter of marriage equality, while the minority said the court was overstepping its bounds. Defining marriage is a responsibility properly left to the legislative branch of government. I specifically remember that the Appeals Court two years ago rejected the equality argument, stating that all unrelated men and women already have an equal right to marriage. What was being sought was something completely different. And that something completely different must be established by law, not by judicial fiat. I agree with that view.

How will this resound from west to east? Certainly the presidential candidates will be asked to weigh in. Do they support same-sex marriage? They can dodge by saying this is a California issue, but then the question is whether they think California same-sex marriages should be recognized across the country. In effect, would they support repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, which says states may refuse to recognize such marriages performed in other states.

Then there's the impact on judicial elections, such as those coming up in North Carolina. Candidates for state appellate judgeships should not say how they would rule in particular cases, but voters will want to know and they'll listen for hints. Candidates who avow their support for "traditional values" will be sending a big hint.

Then there's activity on the state legislative level. In most states, voters have been allowed to approve state constitutional amendments limiting marriage to one man and one woman. Efforts to get such a proposal on the North Carolina ballot have been blocked by Democratic leaders on the basis that state law already sets that definition. But today's action in California shows that courts can overturn the law. It's more fuel for opponents of same-sex marriage, and it can burn very bright and hot.

I don't think our higher courts, especially our Supreme Court, would issue a ruling like that in California today. Our courts do respect the rule of law and the prerogatives of the legislative branch. Our courts are more conservative. But at some point, the push for a constitutional amendment will yield to a vote of the people. The California Supreme Court has made that much more likely.

Update, May 16: Some details about the decision follow below:

If President Bush used his speech to the Israeli Knesset today to slam Barack Obama as an appeaser of terrorists, he was way out of line.

It's terribly inappropriate to haul domestic partisan politics into an overseas address.

But it's not clear that's what he was doing. Bush didn't name Obama, who seems to have inserted himself into Bush's reference to leaders who would try to reason with Iran and Syria.

What do you think? Are Democrats overreacting? Is the president guilty as charged? Was Bush being wickedly clever?

Oh, heck. Surely we can eliminate the third possibility.

Davidson County commissioners have approved a $2 million cash incentives offer for SunEdison of Beltsville, Md., to construct a solar power plant worth an investment of $173,000 and providing three full-time jobs, the High Point Enterprise reports today.

UPDATE: The Winston-Salem Journal reports the SunEdison investment would be $173 million, not $173,000. That makes a difference.

End update

Two million tax dollars for a private investment of $173,000 (correction: $173 million) and the creation of THREE jobs?

The Enterprise quotes Steve Googe, Davidson's top economic development official: "I think this type of technology attracts other businesses and keeps our county on the cutting edge."

"Green" technology is the cutting-edge rage these days, no doubt, but local governments can't drive themselves into bankruptcy pursuing it.

Davidson County should give the $2 million to its school systems. Education is the best investment for a sustainable future.

I disagree with my friend Rosemary Roberts, who wants North Carolina to move its 2012 state, local and presidential primaries from early May to early February.

Rosemary argues the shift will assure that North Carolina will be a player in the presidential nominating process then (this year was a lucky fluke, she says). And to avoid the expense of holding two primaries, the state and local contests should move up, too.

The second part of her proposal is a no-go.

Our filing period for state and local offices opened on Feb. 1 this year. That's the official launch date of primary campaigns.

Guess what happens if we move up the schedule by three months? Filing for those offices shifts to Nov. 1, 2011, for elections that won't be held for more than a year, in November 2012. I'm talking about school board, county commissioners, state legislators, judges, plus the big state and federal races like governor and Congress.

Imagine these campaigns starting before Thanksgiving so we can hold a primary on the first Tuesday in February. And then have a gap of nine months before the general election.

No, thanks.

At the presidential level, I wouldn't be keen on North Carolina being part of a 20- or 30-state Super Tuesday primary. How much attention from the candidates would one state out of 20 or 30 get? Not much.

This year was a fluke, but it gave us almost daily visits by the presidential candidates or family members for a couple of weeks.

In 2012, somebody will be running for re-election, so his party won't have contested primaries anyway. It won't be worth moving up our primaries.

The folks commenting on the Debatables blog about next month's statewide Democratic Party runoff primary for labor commissioner recognize a real problem but none mentioned where the best solution lies:

Eliminate elections for offices that should be part of the governor's cabinet.

The results of the first primary in this race found four candidates receiving from 23.92 percent of the vote to 27.54 percent. That's a random separation of votes. The laws of probability would give you that kind of outcome if the candidates rolled dice, or drew cards or competed in some other exercise in pure chance. The voters were guessing.

Mary Donnan was the leader, and John Brooks qualified for the runoff by receiving 2,000 more votes than Ty Richardson out of 1.2 million cast. Luck of the draw.

The runoff might produce a more deliberate outcome because turnout likely will be limited for the most part to voters who have an interest in the race and therefore some knowledge. But that will be a very small number.

This should be avoided by allowing the governor to appoint the labor commissioner and certain other Council of State officers who currently are elected.

Look, we don't elect the federal labor commissioner and agriculture secretary or attorney general. Labor, agriculture, justice and other concerns fall under the responsibility of the president's administration, and the same should apply on the state level.

The governor certainly would make partisan