News-Record.com

Very nice job by Ed Cone on our Ideas centerpiece today about the Feb. 1, 1960, Woolworth sit-ins. Ed developed the theme of physical and moral courage to give readers a fresh look at a pivotal event in the civil rights movement. He interviewed the three living former A&T students who felt compelled to act against intolerable segregation in public places.

As I read it, and particularly the references to the strong bonds of friendship among the original four, it seemed to me their attitude was much like what I've heard soldiers say about going into combat -- in the interviews accompanying the HBO "Band of Brothers" series, for example. Where does the courage come from to rush into such danger? Soldiers fight for country and for a cause, of course, and sometimes for personal honor, but also very much for each other.

The young men who sat down at the lunch counter were committed expressly to nonviolence, but they clearly faced the threat of physical attack. Yet they persevered because they had to -- for their cause, their country and for each other.

This is a story worth repeating often, and also worth considering from new angles. It forms one of the most important chapters in Greensboro's history, and its lessons are as valuable today as ever. Thanks, Ed.

A less familiar story to Greensboro readers is the account of the High Point sit-in of Feb. 11, 1960. This was perhaps the nation's first lunch-counter sit-in initiated by high school students -- one of whom was Mary Lou Andrews Blakeney, now a High Point city councilwoman who shares her recollections for us today.

One emphasis in her report is the preparation by the teenagers. They were coached by local civil rights leader Rev. B. Elton Cox in the discipline they would need to endure taunts and perhaps harsher abuse once they undertook their action. Again, this is a wonderful story of courage and determination. Thanks to Mary Lou, and to High Point Museum for the use of a photo.

This Feb. 11, High Point will unveil a Feb. 11 Memorial at the rear entrance to the Hotel High Point (formerly Radisson) on Wrenn Street. It has been created by Thomas Jay Warren, the sculptor of the John Coltrane statue, which stands within sight downtown. Coltrane, the most famous High Pointer of all time, left the city for Philadelphia after graduating from high school in 1943 -- which means, of course, he grew up in a totally segregated community and would not have been welcomed at a Woolworth lunch counter.

Finally, I want to thank Glenda Elizabeth Gilmore, who graciously granted permission for us to print an excerpt from her book, "Defying Dixie: The Radical Roots of Civil Rights."

Gilmore, a history professor and acting department head at Yale University, is a native of Greensboro. I chose to print a passage from her book about another Greensboro native, Junius Irving Scales, because I believe his story relates in thematic ways to the Greensboro sit-ins.

Scales was a communist from the 1930s to the 1950s and was caught up in the hysteria of the McCarthy era. Communism still isn't popular in the United States, but many liberals were drawn to it during the Depression because they did not believe the social and economic systems of the time (despite the New Deal) were sufficient to address the dire problems of inequality and deprivation rampant in the country.

Scales was an advocate for civil rights and racial equality, and believed the Communist Party was dedicated to achieving those goals. He was never anti-American, and enlisted in military service shortly after Pearl Harbor. Nor did he espouse violent means of accomplishing social or political change. Nevertheless, he was branded an enemy of his country and was prosecuted for his beliefs. He endured contempt, persecution and prison for his convictions -- another tale of courage.

Kudos also to Margaret Baxter for her art and Dennis Shelton for making it all work on the pages. I hope you enjoy our Ideas package.

Stunning update, Tuesday afternoon: Daschle withdraws!

Tom Daschle apologizes ... fellow Dems forgive his "innocent error" and praise his integrity.

Confirmation assured.

Once a member of the club, always a member of the club.

It's all well and good that Bev Perdue intends to run public education in North Carolina. She's the governor, and responsibility begins and ends in her office.

She's appointed one person, accountable to her, to serve as both chairman of the State Board of Education and CEO of the Department of Public Instruction.

But that leaves unsettled the question of the elected superintendent of public instruction.

June Atkinson holds a constitutional office. The state constitution says: "The Superintendent of Public Instruction shall be the secretary and chief administrative officer of the State Board of Education."

That implies that the job carries important duties when in reality it has become a figurehead position, or as Perdue says, an "ambassador."

It appears the post does not need to exist at all.

Making matters worse, the state's public campaign financing system provided Atkinson $200,000 for her re-election effort last year. Why should taxpayers have to pay that amount of money to elect someone to a job that has been rendered virtually powerless by the governor?

A constitutional change is in order.

An unusual three-way agreement made possible President Obama's selection of New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg as commerce secretary.

The third key figure was N.H. Gov. John Lynch.

Gregg is a Republican. Give credit to Obama for again reaching across party lines to fill out his Cabinet.

But Gregg made clear he wouldn't take the job if it would cost his party a seat in the Senate. Their number could have fallen to 40, assuming Norm Coleman eventually loses the still-unsettled recount in Minnesota. With 60 senators in their caucus, Democrats could break GOP filibusters.

This is where Lynch comes in. As governor, he appoints the person to serve out the rest of Gregg's term. Lynch is a Democrat. In normal circumstances, he'd name someone of his own party.

This time, however, he agreed he'd choose a Republican.

That's a generous concession, but it makes sense for two reasons.

First, New Hampshire voters elected a Republican to that seat, and they ought to have one for the full term.

Second, Obama wants Gregg in his Cabinet, and Lynch should do what he can to make it possible for the president to get him.

Obama and Democratic leaders in the Senate apparently gave their approval to the deal as well.

What about Gregg's position in this matter? Should he have held out for a a partisan political concession before agreeing to join Obama's administration? He's actually the one guy who seems to have put party loyalty first. Shouldn't he have accepted a call to greater service without hesitation?

Probably. But I'll give Gregg the benefit of the doubt and assume he would have accepted Obama's offer anyway. He simply pursued an opportunity to do so without putting his party in a bind.

Frankly, it would have been unfair of Obama to make Gregg choose between service to country and disservice to party. No other senator who resigned to accept an administration appointment was put in that position.

And neither was Gregg. It is indeed encouraging that partisanship was laid aside. If Gregg, in the president's estimation, is the right man for the commerce job, then all involved deserve credit for removing any political obstacles.

Much more of that is needed in Washington.

When a beer company with a fancy name says it's entering the North Carolina market because of our "savvy" beer drinkers, I have to laugh.

Isn't Bud Light still a big seller around here?

We do have some good local brews for the more discriminating consumers.

Speaking of exotic imports, however, Kenny reports spotting Tusker for sale in Charlotte. That's what elephants drink in East Africa. Not so much for savvy beer drinkers.

All this is my lead-in to a question: What's your opinion of beer sales for college basketball games at the Greensboro Coliseum?

I'll be there for the big game Thursday, but I'll probably stick to soft drinks.

I don't have a problem with other fans enjoying a beer or two -- as long as the Davidson rowdies behave themselves.

Nothing like reading judicial opinions for a dose of depravity.

In State v. Yaw Osei Adu, you meet a defendant who variously characterizes humping his minor stepdaughter as "wrestling," "tae kwon do" and "it's OK where I come from."

The judge and jury didn't buy it.

Adu was convicted in Guilford County Superior Court of first-degree statutory rape and indecent liberties with a child and sentenced to more than 20 years in prison by Judge John O. Craig III.

The Court of Appeals, in its ruling issued today, found no prejudicial errors.

The N.C. Court of Appeals upholds a million-dollar wrongful death judgment against Dr. Richard A. Weintraub and the Southeastern Heart and Vascular Center, P.A.

The case involved the 2003 death of Margaret Swink. Defendants contended on appeal that the "trial court erred in admitting opinion testimony from plaintiff's medical experts as to whether defendants exercised reasonable care and diligence and used their best judgment without requiring the experts to testify, as to those opinions, regarding the 'same or similar community' standard of care set out in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-21.12 (2007)."

The appeals court responded that "the Supreme Court has already determined in Wall v. Stout, 310 N.C. 184, 311 S.E.2d 571 (1984), that § 90-21.12 does not apply to the duty of reasonable care and diligence and the duty of best judgment. Only the Supreme Court may revisit Wall. Since we are unpersuaded by defendants' remaining arguments as to the trial, we hold that defendants received a trial free of prejudicial error."

My column today:

It didn’t take long for Kay Hagan to get in a bind.

“Less than a month into my service here in the U.S. Senate,” the Greensboro Democrat said in a floor speech last week, “I’m faced with a situation in which the health of millions of my state’s children are at odds with a key industry in North Carolina.”

How she resolved the dilemma may forecast Hagan’s approach to her difficult job over the next six years. ...

Dome reports on a state legislator's pitch to subject blogs to libel laws.

"I believe these blogs are getting out of control,." state Sen. Steve Goss, D-Watauga, says.

The text of the bill is here.

It appears targeted both at hosts of electronic media and those who post comments. It seems the latter would be difficult to identify in many cases. In fact, the bill says its provisions don't apply to "anonymous communications" -- so please don't put your name on libelous comments.

For that matter, please don't write libelous comments here at all. Under this bill, the host could be found negligent for allowing it.

If prosecutors prove Barry Bonds bulked up on steroids, as long suspected, Major League Baseball must strip his home run records from the books.

Restore the crown to Henry Aaron, a credit to the game.

The protest petition bill filed by Guilford legislators yesterday goes directly to the point.

It simply repeals the exemption created for Greensboro in 1971.

There's no compromise, no attempt to create a different protest petition standard for Greensboro.

That was by design, Sen. Katie Dorsett told me this morning.

"We didn't want to cloud the issue."

She doesn't expect any amendments.

This should be an easy sell to other members of the House and Senate. It gives Greensboro residents the same rights as residents of other cities. There's no reason for anyone to question or oppose such a measure.

"It's the right thing to do," Dorsett said.

Addendum: I just spoke with Rep. Earl Jones, the only Greensboro legislator who did not sign on to the protest petition bill.

In a nutshell, he says the bill is premature. The legislative delegation should "respect the process" and wait to hear a recommendation from the City Council before proceeding.

His own position? He has questions, and isn't ready to say yea or nay.

State Rep. John Blust, R-Guilford, has introduced a slew of interesting bills in the new legislative session so far.

They're the sort that tend to excite the public but frighten the political establishment ... so they're likely to sink into legislative quicksand.

Here's the complete list of bills introduced or co-sponsored by Blust.

The highlights:

* A proposed constitutional amendment allowing the people the right of initiative and referendum.

* A proposed constitutional amendment allowing recall elections.

* A proposed constitutional amendment to require a three-fifths vote in the legislature to raise taxes.

* A requirement that at least 65 percent of all school funding must be used for classroom instruction.

* A bill denying bail for illegal aliens charged with certain offenses.

I'd like to see the legislature give these ideas a full and fair debate.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg underwent surgery today for removal of a small tumor associated with "apparently early stage pancreatic cancer," the U.S. Supreme Court announced. She's 75.

So, here comes the following email to North Carolina media:

"Many of you have now heard that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg has been hospitalized for pancreatic cancer, the fourth deadliest cancer you can get.

"She is our only female justice and, if she were to leave would certainly touch off a major national conversation about President Obama’s first vacancy.

"This note is simply to notify you that NARAL Pro-Choice North Carolina or NARAL Pro-Choice America are available for comment regarding these developments."

Good grief. The woman is still in the recovery room and NARAL is ready to jump into a debate about abortion politics on the Supreme Court.

Justice Ginsburg, I wish you a full and speedy recovery.

The politics can wait for another day.

They didn't win, of course, although they were down only six at one point during the second half.

Led by Stephen Curry's 29 points, Davidson pulled away for an expected 75-54 win.

But the game was a winner for UNCG, anyway, thanks to a big-time college basketball environment in the Greensboro Coliseum ...

... fueled by attendance of more than 11,000.

Most, but not all, of the upper level was curtained off.

Meaning the lower level was packed.

There were plenty of Davidson fans, and other spectators, like myself, without a strong rooting interest but drawn by the chance to see a great player in person. Curry is one of the nation's best. He had an average night by his standards, but it was more than enough to put the Spartans away down the stretch.

Credit for the turnout, though, goes to UNCG, which heavily promoted the game, held rallies beforehand, ran buses from campus, brought in a funny halftime act and really made an event of it.

Chancellor Linda Brady was in the thick of things, hanging out with students behind the Davidson basket early in the game. The pep band was right, the dance team was eye-catching, the cheerleaders were properly peppy.

All in all, the move to the coliseum was a huge success ... tonight.

We'll have to wait 'til next season to see if the Spartans can keep the momentum going. It will be a challenging assignment, to say the least, when the opponent lacks the star power of Davidson. But, then, bring in Carolina or Duke, and the house might be full, up and down.

Now, if the Spartans can just make a game of it from start to finish.

Today's McClatchy story about Ruth Bader Ginsburg reprints a 2007 statement by then-candidate Barack Obama about selecting judges:

"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a teenage mom ... to understand what it's like to be poor or African American or gay or disabled or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

I don't know whether to worry or call BS.

Reading those "criteria" and thinking about the nine justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, I'd have to say the only one who even comes close to Obama's description is Clarence Thomas.

But Obama won't be nominating any judges like the conservative Thomas, who recognizes very well what it's like to be African American and poor but doesn't "empathize" in ways Obama might think he should.

What expectation does Obama create with these criteria, anyway?

I interpret them to mean that he wants to seat judges who will issue rulings more favorable to the kind of people he mentioned -- teen mothers, poor, African Americans, gay, disabled, old ...

Having "emphathy" is a required trait.

Is it?

What about dedication to the principle of equal protection? What about a deep knowledge of the law and a commitment to apply it as it was intended, without prejudice or partiality? What about the obligation to uphold the Constitution of the United States?

One can make a good argument that emphathy is a desirable characteristic for a trial court judge, who sees real people in the courtroom, hears their stories, gains an understanding of the particular circumstances of whatever conflict brought them there.

Judges at the appellate level look almost entirely at issues of law and procedure. They should not be prejudiced by undue consideration of personalities -- and certainly not by the individual characteristics of the parties involved such as race, economic status, gender, age, sexual orientation, what have you. To do so is to risk applying one standard to this person and another standard to someone else. Besides, defendants, victims, plaintiffs, respondents, witnesses don't appear in appellate courtrooms.

Will Obama nominate judges who are highly qualified practitioners -- like current Chief Justice John Roberts, whose confirmation then-Sen. Obama opposed -- or judges who satisfy some emotional criteria?

While I continue to wish Justice Ginsburg a full and speedy recovery, we likely will find out sometime during Obama's presidency.

Frankly, I hope that 2007 quote was just political BS.

Sen. Kay Hagan successfully pushed for an amendment to the stimulus package called The CEO Pay Act.

"Under the amendment, CEOs and other executives at companies receiving assistance through the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) would not be permitted to make more in salary and bonuses than the president of the United States," a Hagan news release said.

She already appears to be an active and effective senator.

This is a very popular move and very well-intended. The idea of fatcats making millions with government bailout money is appalling.

But, I have some questions about specifics.

In determining the president's pay and bonuses, will Congress consider the value of free lodging in the White House? Travel on Air Force One? The lifetime pension, security, staff assistance and office space he earns after just four years on the job? All told, the president's compensation is very generous.

Is it possible this could be counterproductive? What if a rotten bank gets rid of its corrupt executives and wants to bring in a new CEO to right the course, but the best candidates are being paid millions where they are? Why would they agree to a big pay cut that really was intended as retroactive punishment for someone else?

If it's a good idea to limit executive pay for companies that receive taxpayer support, should Congress apply this standard to every business that receives government incentives or has government contracts? Is there some distinction I'm missing?

Would that include universities that have government research contracts and whose students receive government tuition grants? Should big-time college football and basketball coaches be included?

What about a university scientist who makes some fabulous discovery through government-funded research? Normally, he or she would be entitled to at least a portion of any royalties that might accrue from gaining a patent on a valuable invention. Should that be limited as well? What impact would that have on the incentive to excel?

I suppose these are silly questions. The government would never try to exert so much control over the private sector.

"We’re witnessing the biggest shift in political power in America in a generation: from the state capitals to Washington," Gary Pearce writes.

It's all about the money, Pearce explains.

Of course, the federal government's money is borrowed against the future.

State governments have to balance their budgets.

In the long run, they'll be solvent ... and the power will shift back.

A nasty head cold has me in a surly mood today, so I'm not sympathetic to state legislators whining about having to run for office every two years.

Fifty-nine House members have signed on to a measure that would extend legislative terms from two years to four, if voters approved the required constitutional amendment.

Proponents state two complaints: They have to spend the second year of their term running for re-election, and they have to raise more campaign money.

"Less need to raise money, proponents of the measure argue, would mean fewer opportunities to run afoul of legal or ethical rules," Mark reports.

Heaven help us. If they can't follow legal and ethical rules every two years, what makes anyone think they'll do better every four years?

And whom are they kidding with this nonsense about running for re-election half the time?

A quick check of 2008 election results finds that more than half of this bill's sponsors -- 30 out of 59 -- ran unopposed in November. Three others faced only a Libertarian Party opponent. Many others won by lopsided margins.

These are the same legislators who draw their own gerrymandered districts designed to eliminate competition. Most of them are virtually guaranteed victory.

Now this bunch wants not only guaranteed victory, but guaranteed victory every four years instead of two.

I would support four-year terms for legislators on one condition: That they create an independent authority to draw fair legislative districts. Give voters a real choice in legislative elections. Then they'd be worth waiting four years for.

From the Congressional Research Service is a report senators and representatives had when they voted to expand SCHIP entirely with tobacco tax hikes:

They'll raise $7 billion for the chilren's health program ...

at a cost of $1 billion in lost state and local tobacco tax revenues and another half-billion dollars for due states in tobacco settlement funds.

It gets the SCHIP money, which was the goal. But who fills the holes for state and local governments?

Tip to Dome.

US Airway Capt. C.D. "Sully" Sullenberger deserves all the attention and accolades he's gathering for his brilliant landing on the Hudson River last month.

A combination of skill and experience enabled the veteran pilot to pull off the perfect emergency touchdown.

Ironically, not long ago Sullenberger would have been approaching mandatory retirement age.

That was age 60 until an act of Congress, signed into law by President Bush in December 2007, added five more years.

Sullenberger is 58 -- and apparently at the top of his game.

There is a hitch. After he turns 60, he'll have to pass additional medical checks and proficiency exams to keep his seat in the cockpit.

I wonder what kind of test they could devise that would be a greater challenge than the one he already passed with a score of 155-0.

I'll fly with this guy anytime.

Honest, we didn't mean to start rumors when we predicted in our annual "fractured forecasts" column Dec. 28:

"High Point University purchases Oak Hollow Mall and converts it into a basketball arena bigger than the Greensboro Coliseum."

Six weeks later, the rumor is officially denied.

OK, I'd been hearing the scuttlebutt prior to including the item with our other less-than-serious prognostications. The idea of HPU purchasing the mall didn't strike me as logical. Even with the mall struggling, the property carries high value. It wouldn't make financial sense to buy it, only to tear it down and build a new facility that would have less income potential.

The College Village Shopping Center rumors, on the other hand ...

One of the individuals named by police as being involved in yesterday's chase and shoot-out, Christopher O'Neal Patterson, already has a very long DOC record.

He's only 23.

His first offense as an adult, burning an education/school building, occurred way back in October 2001.

His life of crime might have reached the end of the road this time.

The other suspect, Dimarkchrisy Eddie Majors, isn't listed in the DOC offender search.

Addendum: These guys were apprehended thanks to some very courageous work by Greensboro police officers.

I'm still not a big fan of chases because so many things can go wrong. In fact, quite a lot did go wrong yesterday -- an injury to an officer, gunfire on the street during rush hour, a crash -- but on balance, circumstances may have justified this extreme response by police to an armed robbery. Yesterday's actions warrant a careful and objective review to determine what alternative actions might have yielded a better outcome. The bottom line, though, is that the alleged crooks were caught.

Police said evidence might link these suspects to other crimes. Given Patterson's record, that wouldn't be a surprise.

Update: We're reporting that Majors died of his injuries; Patterson remains hospitalized.

Update: John Newsom found Majors' DOC record, which I'd missed.

That's a life of crime, definitely ended.

Update: The injured officer is M.P. O'Hal. Here's a case where the N.C. Court of Appeals upheld good police work by Officer O'Hal.

My column today:

High Point was founded in 1859. The city fathers’ first act was to petition the legislature to split High Point from Guilford County.

“We’re tired of being treated like Greensboro’s red-headed stepchild,” they said.

The legislature ignored them, as it would many times again.

As a long-time resident of Guilford County’s second city, I’d like to salute its 150th anniversary with my own version of unverified High Point history. Please bear with me. ...

"This bill will cost American taxpayers $209,550 for every job the bill’s supporters claim it will create," Sen. Richard Burr said yesterday in explaining his opposition to the economic stimulus plan.

Do the math: $838 billion/4 million jobs = $209,500 on my calculator. Close enough.

Sounds outrageous. And it looks like congressional negotiators will try to pare the final cost to something less than $800 billion.

But here's the question:

Right now, with employment tanking, would it be worth 200G each to create (or save) 4 million jobs?

And the next question:

Will it really work?

Phil Berger's bill giving all law-enforcement officers authority to conduct warrantless searches, at reasonable times, of individuals on probation helps solve what's practically become a crisis in North Carolina.

We know the probation system functions badly. There are too many offenders on probation, too few officers to track them.

Answer: Just put more criminals in prison?

Uh, like, where?

Check out today's N&O story, "Crowded prisons may force lighter sentences."

Check out the numbers posted on the DOC Web site: 39,976 offenders in prison, 113,188 on probation.

Most convicted criminals are put on probation, not sent to prison. That reality will not change.

It means, therefore, that the probation workload is going to keep growing ...

... probably much faster than the number of probation officers, given the budget outlook in Raleigh.

Berger proposes giving probation officers some help.

Police officers, sheriff's deputies and other law-enforcement officers cannot and should not do all the work of probation officers.

But they know who's on probation in the neighborhoods they patrol. No doubt, they have their suspicions about which of them are likely to be in trouble again.

Why not give them a powerful tool -- the ability to stop a known probationer and check to see if he's carrying a gun? It's the same authority a probation officer has, only the probation officer is too busy tracking down a hundred other guys.

Potential for abuse? Maybe. Potential for putting probationers on notice that further criminal behavior is more likely to get them arrested? Worth it.

The big idea here is not to make more arrests. It's to deter criminal behavior. If every cop has the right to search you on the spot, without probable cause, you might think twice before walking around with a gun under your shirt.

A bill supported by Greensboro Reps. Harrison, Adams and Jones would allow cities to join a public-funding pilot program for municipal elections.

Tax dollars for council candidate campaigns? It would level the playing field, but is that what the public really wants?

You'd have to have a hearing first to find out.

As a taxpayer, I'd say no.

Your opinion?

Pricey Harrison again is leading an effort to end a subsidy for UNC-system athletic booster clubs and save taxpayers an estimated $10.5 million a year.

The Greensboro Democrat is one of four primary sponsors of this bill.

Also joining the list of co-sponsors are Guilford legislators Maggie Jeffus and Laura Wiley.

Boosters at Carolina and State won this provision a few years ago. Basically, it lets them pay for scholarships at in-state tuition rates for out-of-state athletes like Tyler Hansbrough and Russell Wilson.

The taxpayers pick up the rest of the cost.

Personally, I don't mind as much for Hansbrough as for Wilson. But both ought to be charged the same tuition as other out-of-state students. If booster clubs are going to pick up the cost, they should pick up the full cost.

It takes courage to challenge this cozy arrangement -- especially because athletic booster organizations, through their political action committees, have showered so much money on the legislature.

A memo from Bob Hall of Democracy North Carolina, a vigilant watchdog group, explains after the jump ...

It's good to see Old Abe getting so much love today.

Lincoln's birthday always was a big deal when I was a kid (yeah, that was up North, in New Jersey). I remember it as a day off from school, and my memory may be correct as today has been an official state holiday in NJ (and a few other states) for many years.

Washington's birthday, Feb. 22, was a federal holiday and another day off from school -- until the government decided to shift holidays to Mondays, and fixed the Washington commemoration to the third Monday in February -- which could never actually fall on Feb. 22.

In popular parlance, the holiday became known as Presidents Day.

The day lost its luster, especially with the advent of Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday as a federal, state and local holiday. Maybe it was a case of holiday fatigue. Here in Guilford County, Presidents Day is just another school day. Nor is it a Greensboro city holiday, or a North Carolina state holiday.

I'm not saying we overlook the importance of Washington and Lincoln, although I suspect we don't properly inform young people about their monumental significance. (Do schoolchildren have to memorize the Gettysburg Address anymore?) And I wonder, if you took a poll of American youngsters today asking who was our greatest president, would as many say Obama as Washington or Lincoln?

Nevertheless, I've been pleased that President Obama himself has taken many opportunities to spotlight Lincoln, and that on the 200th anniversary of his birth in a backwoods Kentucky log cabin, The Great Emancipator's life is being celebrated again.

UNCG makes a strong case for starting a school of pharmacy, its leading consultant told me yesterday.

I had placed a call last week to Dick Gourley, dean of the University of Tennessee's College of Pharmacy, while working on our Sunday editorial. Unfortunately, he'd had a death in his family and wasn't able to return the call until yesterday.

Gourley told me he's impressed by the UNCG proposal, which builds on the school's established academic strengths in nursing and the sciences. It will fit with emerging programs in biomedical chemistry and nanoengineering, he said.

Quality pharaceutical education will be increasingly important for preparing practitioners "to manage drug therapies in collaboration with medical practitioners."

These are areas where you can't afford mistakes, he added.

"The cost of medication errors and therapeutic misadventures -- it's incredible."

Gourley acknowledged the obstacles to UNCG's bid, primarily claims of insufficiency of clinical training sites for additional students, and perhaps diminishing future demand for pharmacists.

"Clinical sites are at a premium," Gourley noted. But UNCG pharmacy faculty would establish their own clinical practices, creating new opportunities. And he added that Moses Cone and Wake Forest Medical Center are supportive of the UNCG proposal. They would provide clinical sites beyond what are currently available for students from other programs -- as in fact Cone's Tim Rice told me last week about his operation.

As for future demand for professionals, Gourley said it's difficult to predict the changing landscape. The current economy, of course, is forcing some contraction. In general, he anticipates lots of long-term growth in some fields, such as medication therapy management.

North Carolina already has three schools of pharmacy, at UNC-CH, Campbell and Wingate.

Tennessee has more.

"We were the only one for 105 years," Gourley said. "Now we have five. Do we need five schools of pharmacy in Tennessee? No."

Does North Carolina need a fourth? Greensboro seems to be making a strong case.

Judd Gregg is a mixed-up Yankee.

He suddenly found out he had conflicts with Obama administration policies and turned down the Commerce nomination he'd previously accepted after considerable political maneuvering.

Did he pay any attention to the Obama presidential campaign last year? It was in the news every day.

What part of the Obama platform did he miss?

My guess is the part he finally decided to resist is the bipartisanship. He was having a really hard time letting go of Republican loyalty.

Fine. Want to be a Republican, be a Republican. It worked for Gregg up to this point in his political career.

Why pretend you're something else?

Boiled down, we've got two major parties because different people just don't see every issue from the same point of view. If you have problems with both parties -- and, be honest, shouldn't we all? -- don't affiliate with either one.

Gregg also says he won't run for re-election next year -- no consolation for the woman who was going to be appointed to complete his term.

Most Americans probably hadn't heard of Judd Gregg before this episode. I guess we won't hear of him again.

From today's Charlotte Observer:

"Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools is now looking at cutting more than 1,200 jobs – 500 more than the superintendent outlined two weeks ago – and some board members say across-the-board pay cuts may be needed as well."

That reflects a local economy in deep trouble, producing not a ripple effect but shock waves.

The 2009 Big Four football schedule is lopsided again, thanks to the overinflated Atlantic Coast Conference.

There will be no Wake Forest-North Carolina game. Wasn't last fall, either.

I suppose the ACC thinks there will be more interest around here in Carolina at Boston College or Wake at Boston College. Sure, why have one or the other drive 60 miles down I-40 when they can all fly to Boston? Makes big sense, especially in this economy.

The Big Four nonconference schedules, meanwhile, are generally unimpressive.

Exceptions:

South Carolina at N.C. State, Sept. 3

Stanford at Wake, Sept. 12

Duke at Kansas, Sept. 19

East Carolina at Carolina, Sept. 19

Pitt at State, Sept. 26

These are the worst home matchups:

The Citadel at Carolina, Sept. 5

Marray State at State, Sept. 12

N.C. Central at Duke, Sept. 26

Georgia Southern at Carolina, Oct. 10

I count up eight home games for State. Have they ever managed that before?

Wake and Carolina each has seven but poor Duke has only six. I wonder how much less money Duke will pull in next season compared to its rivals. I'd bet a ton.

There will be three dates when Big Four fans can see their teams in person without leaving the state:

Oct. 3: Virginia Tech at Duke; Virginia at Carolina; State at Wake.

Nov. 14: Georgia Tech at Duke; Miami at Carolina; Clemson at State; Florida State at Wake.

Nov. 28: Wake at Duke; Carolina at State.

Too bad there wasn't room on the ACC schedule somewhere for Wake vs. Carolina.

A story on our Life front today got Latimer Alexander's juices flowing.

It was about In-N-Out restaurants, a California burger chain.

Alexander, a High Point city councilman, hits In-N-Out hard every time he flies out to the Coast.

First thing he does after picking up his rental car is head for In-N-Out.

Good thing he only travels out there a couple of times a year, because Latimer might just possibly pack on a few too many of those burgers he seems to think put all rivals to shame.

Then again, if you can't get the High Pointer to Hamburger Heaven, can you bring a piece of Hamburger Heaven to High Point?

Believe it or not, Alexander is all fired up on the idea -- thanks to our story today.

He called Loren Hill, High Point's economic development director, to pitch an all-out recruitment campaign for In-N-Out.

He's even got the perfect location in mind -- on N.C. 68, a mile or two on the High Point side of I-40. Get visitors on their way into town from the airport, Alexander figures, and draw customers from half of Greensboro, too.

Alexander says he's got his council buddy Bill Bencini on board for burgers.

I'm not sure this is the usual fare for High Point economic developers. Is the city going to offer incentives for fast food, now?

Besides, what about barbecue?

Alexander deflected my scoffing. I've never eaten an In-N-Out burger and don't know what I'm missing.

What am I missing here? Anyone else want to testify about this taste sensation?

I mean, if Latimer's telling me a Whopper, heck, we've already got more of those than I ever care to eat.

You're sick. I mean, you are really sick.

When it started, it was just a loss of energy. Sluggishness. You were out of sync.

You went to the doctor.

"Relax. Nothing wrong with you. Try to get a little rest. Take a vacation."

You got worse. Dizzy. Nausea. Coughing. Loss of appetite. Confusion. Night sweats. Bleeding

"Let's get some fluids in you," the doc said. "How about some vitamins?"

You could barely get out of bed.

Time to change medical teams.

"You're in serious trouble," the new doc tells you. "Critical. You have a rare and extremely dangerous disorder, a cancer eating away at all your vital functions, like nothing we've ever seen. We have to try a radical procedure."

"What?"

"We're working on it. It will involve putting you on a lot of life-support equipment to pump up and charge up your circulatory, respiratory and nervous systems. And it's going to cost a lot."

"Will it save me?"

"I'm asking you to believe. And there's no choice."

"What are the risks that this will make me worse, doc?"

"Don't be negative. Besides, it's impossible to get any worse. We have to act immediately."

Some of your family tell you not to do it. They're worried that, once you get on artifical life support, you'll never get off. And that your great-great-grandchildren will be paying your medical bills.

But more of your relatives insist you have to say yes or it's your funeral.

You have faith in your doctor and give your consent.

The last thing you remember as you're going under for surgery is his soothing voice:

"Just count backward from 800 billion ..."

With the addition of the sit-in monument on Wrenn Street, it occurs to me you could put together an enjoyable little walking tour of downtown High Point.

Don't laugh. For High Point, this is a novel idea. I hope the Convention & Visitors Bureau might run with it.

High Point has assembled enough attractions that, combined with the architectural appeal of several furniture showroom buildings, it's worth the leisurely hour or so it would take to cover a few blocks, lingering at points of interest.

All the better if some of the showrooms might open their doors at designated times.

Start with the John Coltrane statue near City Hall at S. Hamilton and Commerce.

Stroll past the dazzling Showplace on Commerce between Hamilton and Wrenn.

Then stop and sit at the February 11, 1960 sit-in monument at the back of the Hotel High Point on Wrenn. Go early in the day when the bronze engraving blazes in the morning sun.

Continue north to the end of the block at Broad Street and turn left. You'll see the restored "doughboy" statue commemorating the city's World War I veterans, plus memorials for other veterans erected by the city and the Alexander Martin Chapter of Daughters of the American Revolution. It would be nice to add a statue of High Point native Gen. Maxwell Thurman, who led the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1989.

Just across Main Street is the historic rail depot, beautifully restored. I'd like to see a coffee shop or cafe in there someday. Out front is a historic marker noting this is the spot where the railroad intersected the Plank Road in 1859, giving birth to the city of High Point. This is illustrated in a statue of a Plank Road workman.

The old Center Theater on Main Street, where Elvis once performed, is now a snazzy showroom. You can see more distinctive showroom buildings a block west on Elm: the Natuzzi "ship"; Market Square, a complex built around a refurbished furniture factory; and the Commerce & Design building.

Finally, you can finish the tour with a stop at the Doll & Miniature Museum at Main and West Green.

Look, downtown isn't going to draw big crowds except during furniture market. But if you're attending a program at High Point Theatre, or having dinner at Noble's, or you're just looking for something to do for an hour or so, think about a little sightseeing stroll in downtown High Point.

You'll discover there are a few sights to see.

Addendum: I just found this site with terrific photos of downtown High Point.

As Mark notes in his story today, Kay Hagan built a reputation as "business-friendly" during her 10 years in the state Senate.

Most North Carolina state senators, Democrats as well as Republicans, could wear the same tag.

Meaning they're happy with the state's low rate of unionization.

With her support of the federal Employee Free Choice Act, however, U.S. Sen. Hagan apparently hopes to see increased unionization in North Carolina.

"Sen. Hagan supports EFCA as a way to level the playing field for families," spokesman Dave Hoffman told Mark.

We've had the discussion here before about the effect of EFCA, which will allow union certification through card checks rather than secret-ballot elections, according to the union's preference.

The unions have pushed this hard for years, so obviously they believe they'll win more support if their organizers can ask employees face-to-face to sign union cards rather than letting employees indicate their preference privately.

The importance and sanctity of the secret ballot has been long established in this country, but some think there are valid reasons to dispense with it when it comes to unions.

Anyway, Hagan favors giving this tool to unions as a means of leveling the playing field for families, which tells me she thinks union families are better off than non-union families.

Is that position representative of the general view in North Carolina? The conventional wisdom here has been that the largely union-free work force has been more attractive to companies. Recruiters sell that view to draw companies from heavily unionized states to this part of the country.

Is that correct? Does it give North Carolina an advantage in the economic development game?

I assume that HondaJet, for example, isn't anticipating that its employees are going to form a union. If the future HondaJet work force wants to form a union, though, should it be easier for it to organize? Should elected officials set public policy to help "level the playing field" in the union's favor?

Marks adds, "Also worth noting: Labor unions gave Hagan more than $250,000 in support in her bid to unseat Dole."

That's small change, although I guess a lot more union money helped Hagan through the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's efforts on her behalf. Probably more pertinent is the fact that labor heavily supported Democrats down the line, and it's Democratic Party policy to move the labor agenda.

Fair enough. The only question in regard to Hagan is whether her party's national agenda on union issues is out of line with North Carolina interests.

More directly, would greater unionization of North Carolina's work force be positive or negative?

By the way, we can ask the same questions in regard to Republican Sen. Richard Burr's position, which is the opposite of Hagan's. By opposing this measure, is he helping or hurting North Carolina families and the state's economy.

Your opinion?

Update, Feb. 19: The News & Observer of Raleigh (mildly) opposes the card-check bill in an editorial today.

"If a company's work-force is going to take the major step of unionizing, even in a right-to-work state such as ours, why not do it the same way we vote at the polls?"

That's the question: Why not?

North Carolina's "Doctrine of Necessaries" can be a Doctrine of Debt for a surviving spouse whose husband or wife died leaving medical bills.

The doctrine was cited today by the N.C. Court of Appeals in favor of the Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital Operating Corporation.

If you read the case, you might consider divorce before your spouse undertakes any expensive medical procedures.

Moses Cone sued Audrey Hawley to recover money owed by her late husband, Samuel B. Hawley, who died in June 2007. He had been treated at Cone for chronic lymphocytic leukemia following his diagnosis in September 2004.

Guilford County District Court Judge Tom Jarrell in February 2008 granted Cone's request for summary judgment, relying on the Doctrine of Necessaries.

The Court of Appeals today affirmed Jarrell's judgment, noting that the doctrine is "common law established by the Supreme Court of North Carolina."

Basically, it states that "a wife is liable for the necessary medical expenses provided for her husband."

In fact, because the rule is gender-neutral in its application, it holds the husband to the same liability for his wife.

There are only four simple questions used to make the determination of liability, the court said in its opinion authored by judge Jim Wynn and supported by Chief Judge John Martin and Judge Linda Stephens:

"(1) medical services were provided to the spouse;

"(2) the medical services were necessary for the health and well-being of the receiving spouse;

"(3) the person against whom the action is brought was married to the person to whom the medical services were provided at the time such services were provided; and

"(4) the payment for the necessaries has not been made."

Those conditions were met in this case.

There aren't many details in the opinion. It doesn't say how much money was at stake here. I'd assume it wasn't a little.

It does note that this was the second marriage for both Mr. and Mrs. Hawley. She stated he retained some residual debt and a poor credit rating from his prior marriage while she managed her finances very well. The implication is that they kept separate accounts, probably a good idea.

Evidently, however, that didn't provide Mrs. Hawley with enough financial protection. During their marriage, his medical bills were her medical bills.

Among other contentions, she argued in court that the Doctrine of Necessaries was contrary to the state's public policy favoring marriage.

As a legal claim, that turned out to be ineffective.

To the extent that she would have been spared an expensive liability if she had chosen to move in with Mr. Hawley but not marry him, she had a point.

Guilford County DA Doug Henderson plans to seek the death penalty against Isaam Mattay Chaplin, charged last week in the Dec. 15 murder of Brink's employee Juan Estaban Solado at Friendly Center.

"It is going to be a capital prosecution," Henderson told me today.

The state must give formal notice of its intention at what's known as a Rule 24 hearing.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Attorney's Office is in discussion with Henderson about possible federal prosecution of Christopher O'Neal Patterson, one of the two suspects in last week's armed bank robbery and subsequent chase and shootout with police.

Greensboro Police Officer Matt O'Hal was hit by the suspects' car and shot and wounded.

Patterson was shot and hospitalized, while Demarkchrisy Eddie Majors was shot and later died.

Patterson could face federal prosecution on charges of bank robbery and firearm possession by a convicted felon, Henderson said.

The state then could follow federal action with its own prosecution. Attempted murder of a law-enforcement officer could be one charge, the DA said.

Under the "acting in concert" theory, it would not be necessary to prove that Patterson rather than Majors actually fired the shot that hit O'Hal.

Police said they believe Patterson was driving the getaway car.

But, if he was driving when O'Hal was hit by the car, that fact could support an assault or attempted murder charge.

The prosecution of these cases will be very important.

The N.C. Marathon (in High Point May 2) has landed Joan Benoit Samuelson for pre-race events, Lisa Watts reported on her blog last night.

Samuelson, then Joan Benoit, won the initial women's marathon at the LA Olympics in 1984.

Watts, assistant race director, describes Samuelson as a New Englander who competed for Bowdoin College.

Does anyone else remember that she began her collegiate career at N.C. State?

Anyway, she was a heckuva runner -- and apparently still is in her early 50s. She ought to help make this fundraising event a success.

I'm going to let Sean Adrussier of North Carolina Appellate Blog take the lead on this one:

"Today's prize for the most bizarre case: a statutory rape case where the defendant won a new trial.

"Defendant lived with his wife and their kids, and with his girlfriend and her kids. That's where the trouble began: one of the girlfriend's daughters gave birth at 15, and again at 16, and DNA testing showed that defendant was the father of both.

"His defense: the girl drugged him with a pill that rendered him unconscious, and then she forced him into unconscious relations.

"His key witness: the girl. She told a detective that on two occasions she got pills that could 'lay a person out' and she put them in defendant's drink after he had 'come home tired from drinking and smoking drugs,' with the consequence that 'he couldn't move or anything,' making him 'dead-weight' before she had relations, resulting in the two pregnancies."

OK, I have to add this from the decision written by Judge Linda Stephens about the teenager in question, who's identified as N.B.:

N.B. said that she thought Defendant's son ... could have fathered one of her children and that one of several boys in Ayden might have fathered the other."

The girl's mother "said that N.B. had always been a problem child, had trouble in school, and that she and her friends gave pills to boys and had sex with them."

Did somebody miss the abstinence-only class at school?

Freshman Congressman Larry Kissell, D-N.C., gets credit today for inserting a "buy American" provision into the stimulus bill. It applies to textiles purchased by the Department of Homeland Security and Coast Guard.

That promises a huge benefit for North Carolina manufacturers.

Obviously, this approach could be taken across the board. The federal government is going to massively ramp up its spending, and it could have a huge impact if it required every dollar to stay in the country.

In fact, there are other "buy American" provisions in the stimulus package.

This could be a very popular policy. Protectionism always carries a big emotional appeal.

The question is whether it's ultimately detrimental rather than beneficial to the country and the American people.

Here's a BusinessWeek report.

It notes that some "buy American" requirements have been in place for years. There are limitations, the article states. For example, the rules don't apply "if they'll increase the cost of the overall project by more than 25%."

When you're talking about projects costing hundreds of billions of dollars, potentially overpaying by up to 25 percent adds up to a huge penalty for taxpayers. Not many of us could manage our household budgets that way, no matter how much we might want to limit our personal spending to the immediate neighborhood.

On the other hand, there's a boost for the economy if all the extra money stays in the country.

Maybe it depends on whether you're in line to get some of it, or if you're just one of those stuck with paying.

One interesting side note is that you really can't find even advocates of "buy American" policies who contend it's somehow in our best interest to cut off trade. Is that a disconnect?

Last question: In spending its portion of stimulus money, should North Carolina impose a "buy North Carolinian" rule?

I predicted early on that the U.S. Senate would seat Roland Burris despite the blustery threats of Harry Reid and other phonies that they'd never do it.

My new prediction is they'll never expel him, despite an ethics inquiry into the dealings of the new senator from Illinois.

Burris, appointed by now-ousted Gov. Rod Blagojevitch, swore he had nothing to do with any corrupt bargain.

Now it looks like he was willing to play ball ...

... he just dropped it.

Shows what a forgiving guy Blago was.

Anyway, Senate Dems will live with Burris until his term's up at the end of next year.

He'll vote their way, and it would be too much trouble to get rid of him.

Caveat: The picture changes if Burris is convicted of perjury or any other felony charge.

State Sen. Katie Dorsett is just about the nicest person you could ever meet in politics.

I can't imagine her saying anything hurtful to someone else.

So it's natural that she would introduce a bill that aims to do away with unkind words referring to people with disabilities.

Her measure directs the Legislative Services Office to replace "demeaning" terms with better ones when drafting new laws and amending old ones.

So, instead of "handicapped" use ... "people with disabilities."

Replace "mentally retarded" with ... "intellectual disability."

Scratch "afflicted with" ... and add "someone who has/had."

Drop "crippled" for ... "physical disability."

Erase "mentally disabled" and write in ... "mental illness."

I don't know about the Legislative Services Office, but I'm probably not going to catch on to these changes very readily.

I suppose it's a matter of how you look at words.

I don't see how it's demeaning to note that someone is afflicted with a disease, disorder or debilitating condition. Affliction is a good, descriptive word that carries no judgmental overtones, in my opinion. We're all subject to afflictions of one kind or another, often through no fault of our own. As a writer, I hate to give up any useful word, so I'll probably hang on to this one.

To say of a person who is mentally retarded that he has an intellectual disability is less precise, in my view. When I hear the term "intellectual disability," I'm just not sure what's being described. If that comes to mean in common usage the same as "mentally retarded," I suppose we'll all be speaking the same language again. But at that point, won't it be just as demeaning to say that someone has an intellectual disability? Boiled down, it seems impolite to speak about someone in that way regardless of the exact words one uses.

I understand that "handicapped" has been on the way out for a while now. I don't understand why it's preferable to use "person with disabilities." Someone with a disability, as I translate the word, is unable to do something. A person who is handicapped, on the other hand, may be able but has more difficulty doing it than does someone else. I must be wrong about that.

The legislation also points out that it casts negative overtones to say a person is "confined to a wheelchair or wheelchair bound." It doesn't suggest an acceptable alternative. What would you say? Perhaps, "He uses a wheelchair." OK, but does that mean he uses it sometimes or all the time? You might want to know if he is coming to your home for a visit.

It seems to me the main problem here is avoidance. In the effort to eliminate "negative overtones," we're pretending there's nothing negative about being confined to a wheelchair or having an affliction, or if there is we dare not mention it directly. But that's not the reality of it. There are people who contend with severe mental and physical challenges. Most of them do so with more grace and fortitude than I could muster day after day. They deserve our compassion and our best efforts to ease their path when and where we can. Let's not forget, none of us is assured that tomorrow we won't be beset with similar misfortune.

What I think helps very little is to scrub our language to the point of antiseptic purity in an effort to avoid any connotation that might offend the most sensitive ears. Of course there are words that are ugly and hurtful and must be avoided. But to refer to someone as a quadriplegic is not an act of malice (and what is a suitably inoffensive yet adequately descriptive replacement, anyway)?

Sen. Dorsett has the very best intentions, and it will do no harm if the Legislative Services Office follows the prescriptions of her bill.

I know she's nice enough to forgive me if my language isn't always so polite.

Does your employer provide you with paid sick days?

Can you use them for reasons other than your own illness?

If not, that would change if a very detailed bill filed by state Rep. Alma Adams of Greensboro becomes law.

In fact, even if your company does provide paid sick leave, it may not be as expansive as what Adams' bill would require.

I emphatically agree that paid sick leave is a great idea. For one thing, you don't want to work with people who are spreading germs all around because they can't afford to stay home or take time to visit the doctor.

Don't most employers do so because it's in their best interest? It seems some don't.

While she's at it, Adams could throw in a requirement that employers provide medical insurance, too. That also is in their best interest.

The question is whether the state should mandate paid sick leave and even lay out the details.

Read the bill and let me know what you think.

Oh, yeah. I recognize that lots of people don't stay home when they're sick, even if they would get a paid leave day.

Should the bill be amended to say they have to go home and stay in bed until they're better?

As our story today reports, jostling for federal "stimulus" money is the consuming passion of local governments.

I hope leaders will keep in mind the stimulative purpose here. The priority should be on projects and programs that create or maintain jobs.

"In January, the Greensboro City Council approved a 62-item, $309 million list of projects it would like to see funded," the story notes. "The projects included everything from War Memorial Auditorium renovations to new hybrid buses."

Just looking at those two:

War Memorial Auditorium renovations were priced at $50 million on last year's unsuccessful bond proposal. I'm going to guess it's very doubtful one project would receive that much money from the federal program.

If it did, however, the positives are that the money would support construction jobs right here, and the city would end up with a more valuable property that would attract outstanding entertainment events and draw customers into Greensboro from out of town. So there would be a continuing benefit.

Hybrid buses are also expensive -- up to $650,000, according to some reports I've read. And it's questionable, at best, whether they return sufficient benefits to justify the greater investment.

Here's an interesting report from Oregon.

More to the point, would acquiring hybrid transit buses create even one job in Greensboro? I don't see how, unless these buses require greater maintenance than traditional buses, which might be the case.

Sure, assuming the buses would be manufactured somewhere in the United States, there would be an American benefit.

That's nice. But local stimulus spending should be aimed at producing a local economic stimulus, if possible.

So I'd say purchasing super-expensive buses shouldn't qualify.

At any rate, I hope there will be a great deal of thought about applying stimulus funds, and accountability for the results.

The main number the public should insist on seeing is how many jobs. Isn't that the main idea?

Addendum: "Thousands of N.C. jobs and millions in wages created from the federal economic stimulus package could wind up going to illegal immigrants," the Charlotte Observer reports.

Now, that's the wrong idea.

N.C. Treasurer Janet Cowell today advised legislators they need to pump an additional $359 million into the state employees pension fund to make up for recent losses.

Come on, taxpayers can't afford that. Their own retirement savings accounts have tanked.

I see only one way out. Since the state of North Carolina places so much faith in its lottery ...

... let it buy each state employee one Powerball ticket and put that in their pension accounts.

Why should they be the only ones whose retirement security isn't a matter of chance?

Addendum: The state employees health plan also is in poor financial condition. One fix leaders have tossed out: higher premiums for workers who smoke or are overweight, Dome reports.

This idea of linking Body Mass Index to health insurance coverage for state employees sounds fair ... until you think about it for about a minute.

I get that heavier people incur greater medical risks.

But that's a generalization. There are exceptions. So right away you run into unfair situations: Some healthy big people will have to pay more than some sickly small people.

This proposal also sets an arbitrary standard: A BMI of 40 is bad, below that is good.

(Here's a BMI calculator.)

So, how much healthier is Mr. 39 BMI than Mr. 40 BMI? Probably not much, on average.

Meanwhile, Mr. 40 is lumped into the same category as Mr. 60. Do they pose equivalent health risks? Not likely.

If you really wanted to be fair about it, you'd give each enrollee a thorough health exam, genetic screening and all, and give him or her a rating. Look at blood pressure, family history, heart function, lifestyle factors, the whole works. Predict the likelihood that each person will develop diabetes or some other condition. Then set premiums accordingly.

Women of childbearing years should pay more to cover the costs of possible pregnancy. Older people should pay more because they're more likely to have heart attacks and strokes, or fall and break their leg.

Individuals who appear to be really high risks, well ... you might want to find a way not to continue their coverage at all.

I mean, just to be fair to everyone else.

That's where we're going with this, isn't it?

What has been the point of this week's Scott Sanders trial? That's what the SBI came up with after a year's investigation of GPD?

Update 3:20: Sanders not guilty. The verdict puts an exclamation point on my earlier questions.

President Obama promised Canadian PM Stephen Harper he "won't allow a protectionist creep into U.S. trade policy, AP reported. He already did when he signed the stimulus bill containing "buy American" provisions. Not good to tell a fib in your visit state visit overseas.

California taxpayers take a big hit from the state's budget deal. Here's the impact on a middle-income family, calculated by the Sacramento Bee. Maybe there's never been a better time to move out of what once was the most appealing state in the union.

Speaking of taxes, the new federal transportation secretary is talking about taxing motorists per miles driven instead of for the gasoline they use.

Update: His boss shot him down.

I favor the proposal to cut off per-diem payments for state legislators after they've been in session too long.

I'm reluctant to put forth this opinion because I think highly of Judge Howard Manning, but he just might have gotten it wrong in his video poker ruling yesterday.

In Wake County Superior Court, Manning voided the state law banning video poker. It violates the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, he said.

"IGRA does not permit a state to ban the possession and operation of video gaming machines elsewhere in the state while allowing their possession and operation on tribal lands," he wrote in his order.

Those video gaming machines run day and night in the Harrah's casino in Cherokee.

What IGRA actually says, however, is that "Class III gaming activities shall be lawful on Indian lands only if such activities are ... located in a state that permits such gaming for any purpose by any person, organization, or entity ..."

Meaning, if North Carolina allows video gaming anywhere, it must allow it on Indian land.

But the opposite isn't necessarily true. Just because the state allows video gaming on Indian land, it isn't required to permit it elsewhere.

The state, in more technical language, can grant preferential gaming rights to the Cherokee tribe, and did.

That's what the state argued in defending itself from a lawsuit filed by a video gaming company.

Manning ruled against the state, but stayed his order while the case is appealed.

I hope the higher courts will overrule him. We don't need a return of video poker, banned in 2006 largely because of the corruption associated with it.

I can't predict the appellate courts with a great deal of confidence, but I will venture a guess that the state's video poker ban will survive.

What a contrast.

Superior Court Judge Stuart Albright was thinking of Christopher Collins' victims yesterday when he sentenced him to at least 100 years in prison for leading 10 armed robberies in 2006 and 2007.

Sonja Elmquist captured this powerful quote in her story today:

"Not only, Mr. Collins, did you rob them, you terrorized them; you threatened them; you put guns to their heads," said Albright, a former Guilford County district attorney and now a no-nonsense judge in the mold of his father, Douglas Albright.

Collins offered an apology and worried how his family would get by without him. His 2-year-old daughter was in court.

The child was there during the trial and had an effect on jurors, their forewoman, Lisa Jones, told Sonja Thursday.

"Jones said she felt pulled emotionally between the tearful testimony of frightened bank employees and the sight of Collins' 2-year-old daughter -- whom a guilty verdict would leave fatherless -- in the courtroom," Sonja reported.

"Jones said she cried at home Wednesday night after the day's testimony, upset by what she had heard but not sure she could find Collins guilty."

Outstanding reporting, Sonja.

Thank goodness Jones and her fellow jurors did the right thing in the end. They have a duty to decide guilt or innocence according to the facts of the case, not for concern about what will happen to the family of the accused if he goes to prison.

Sentencing in a noncapital case isn't the jury's responsibility anyway.

Albright on Friday alluded to the irony of Jones' sympathy in scolding Collins: "You included your 2-year-old daughter in at least one felonious conspiracy charge. Shame on you."

I don't know the details behind that statement, but I can guess that Collins had his daughter in the courtroom during his trial for the purpose of playing to jurors' emotions.

Well, it is too bad about the little girl. But robbing banks is no way for a man to provide for his children. He's got to accept the consequences -- which include leaving an innocent child without a father in her daily life.

In deciding Collins' punishment, it was much more important to consider the bank employee who "wakes up at night and can still see the gun pointed at her face."

Albright saved his sympathy for her and all the other victims of this man.

My local bank don't need no bailout money ... and certainly doesn't need to be nationalized.

High Point Bank doesn't make a lot of foolish loans, and yet it traditionally did business on a handshake ... at least back in the days of Fred Alexander and Robert McInnis.

Twenty-five years ago, I was closing on my house but there was a delay in getting the loan through my mortgage company.

I went to see McInnis. Within probably a half hour I had a check for $40,000 -- a 30-day, no-collateral bridge loan to cover me until the mortgage came through.

"I know you'll pay it back," he said.

I can't say whether HPB still operates like that. McInnis, sadly, passed away seven years ago at much too early an age. But when little problems arise, I can call over there and get someone to fix them in minutes.

Sorry for the commercial. The point is there are still friendly banks that give good personal service and keep their finances in sound order.

May they last forever.

Nothing at all against the Natural Science Center, which is a huge asset for Greensboro, but asking voters to approve a $20 million bond is, shall we say, wildly optimistic.

Unless an economic miracle occurs between now and November.

Well, let's all be wild optimists and hope for that.

Bring the economy back stronger than ever, end the war in Iraq, send every kid to college, cure cancer and cut the deficit.

Yeah, I know that's not the half of it.

You can't say President Obama isn't thinking big.

There's something to be said for calling this country to greatness.

If he pulls it off, he's Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Roosevelt and Reagan rolled into one.

So, what's Bobby Jindal going to say to bring Americans down to reality?

Update: Jindal gives the faith in the People vs. faith in Big Government pitch; admits Republicans deserved to lose the trust of Americans and vows to regain it.

Vote now: Barack or Bobby?

This bill giving Washington, D.C., a voting member of the House of Representatives is unconstitutional.

Article I Section 2 says, "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union ..." The District of Columbia could only be apportioned a representative, therefore, if it were a state. But it's not.

Proponents point to Article 1 Section 8, which gives Congress the power "to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District ..." They contend that means Congress can create a voting representative for the District if it wants. Oh, sure. Then why not two? Or 20? Why not give the District a majority of votes in the Electoral College, which would guarantee Democratic victories in presidential elections forever? Because this is an absurd interpretation of that provision.

If Congress passes this bill, it's only going to force a legal challenge and ultimately rejection by the Supreme Court. Congress has more important things to do.

Joe Biden is assigned "to lead a tough, unprecedented oversight effort" on federal stimulus spending: The same Joe Biden who scored ZERO in the latest rating by Citizens Against Government Waste?

The president will hold governors and mayors accountable "for every dollar they spend": meaning Yvonne Johnson should be glad that money for the downtown greenway wasn't included in the first round of funding.

I believe I saw Richard Burr at the speech. Anyone spot Kay Hagan? What color was she wearing?

I thought Nancy Pelosi looked a little guilty when Obama said good intentions too often have turned into wasteful spending in Washington.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg attended so soon after surgery for pancreatic cancer to send a message to the president: "You're not getting to make a Supreme Court appointment just yet, young man!"

"It will be the goal of this administration to ensure that every child has access to a complete and competitive education, from the day they are born to the day they begin a career." Which means what exactly? Government pre-nursery schools?

"And dropping out of high school is no longer an option." Technically, it is -- unless laws are changed to prevent it. Should that be proposed?

"We will expand our commitment to charter schools." Will the N.C. legislature, then, finally lift its cap on charter schools?

Obama almost cut off Pelosi's intro. I expected John Roberts to pop up and shout, "See? It wasn't my fault!"

Roland Burris was there. I don't blame him. When you only get one shot, don't miss it.

I noticed quite a few looks of alarm in the chamber when Obama said, "CEOs won't be able to use taxpayer money to pad their paychecks, or buy fancy drapes, or disappear on a private plane." Some of the older politicians don't hear well and thought he said "Senators."

As an A&T freshman 49 years ago, Franklin McCain had the courage to sit down at a whites-only lunch counter and ask to be served.

Now, as chairman of A&T's Board of Trustees, he dare not speak about Chancellor Stanley Battle's short tenure.

"I wouldn't want to characterize what he did," McCain said, according to our news story today. "If I did that, I'd be lynched."

Hyperbole, of course. But it points to a strong code of silence at A&T.

Not just there, though. In the University of North Carolina system, chancellors appear out of a cloud of official secrecy.

When there's a vacancy, a campus search committee examines applicants, interviews top candidates and picks three to present to its trustees. From there, the three names are forwarded to the system president, currently Erskine Bowles. The three finalists aren't ranked. All are on equal footing.

Who are they? It's a secret.

The president makes the selection and presents that person to the UNC Board of Governors for approval.

Not even the Board of Governors knows who the other two finalists were.

The president might or might not choose the one secretly favored by the search committee and the board of trustees at the campus where the new chancellor will serve.

The larger university community -- faculty, staff, students, parents, alumni -- are left totally in the dark. They have no opportunity to see, hear or learn anything about the top candidates before just one person -- the UNC system president -- makes the final selection.

Same for the greater community, where the chancellor of a state university campus will be an important public figure.

Of course, because of the secrecy, the candidates themselves can't fully familiarize themselves with the university, the community and all the constituencies they wouldl serve and interact with. It's all like a blind date that's supposed to blossom into a long-term relationship.

In Battle's case, however, the relationship apparently fizzled. Why? No official word.

Maybe the reasons are personal, but as Don Patterson and Joe Killian reported, there are rumblings about policy conflicts.

Battle stated from the beginning of his tenure he wanted to strengthen academics, in part by raising admission standards. Apparently, some people disagreed with that approach, insisting A&T should open its doors as wide as possible.

The trouble with that approach: For too many students, easy in means early out. A&T had lousy retention and graduation rates. That limits the benefits of higher education for students, of course, but besides that, the state doesn't get its money's worth if students can't earn a degree.

That issue deserved a public discussion. What was Bowles' position? Did he support Battle? No word.

North Carolina depends heavily on its state university system. Choosing leaders is an important task that matters to the public. What's the point of secrecy, that it makes it easier for candidates to apply?

Other states use an open process. So do other public bodies in North Carolina. I recently spoke with Guilford County Schools Superintendent Mo Green about his experience last year. He was one of two finalists identified by the school board. Both spent a full day in the county, meeting constituent groups and the public. It was, in effect, a public interview.

Green admitted it was a tough day, but he found it beneficial. It helped him and the community get a better feel for each other.

Maybe it helped ensure a better fit.

A&T will start the process over again soon, following UNC procedures. More secrecy, which just encourages more silence. We ought to do better.

The last Democratic president declared "The era of big government is over." Bill Clinton, in partnership with a Republican Congress, went of to achieve a budget surplus.

Now, big government isn't just making a comeback. Washington is going to play a central role in directing the affairs of the country.

Another Democratic politician, Tip O'Neill, famously said "All politics is local."

Now, all politics is federal.

I understand that the desperately ailing economy that President Obama inherits requires a stimulus that only the federal government can provide. But his budget outline expands government's reach far past the time when Obama expects the economy to make a full recovery.

The president promises to limit tax increases to the wealthy -- couples whose incomes exceed $250,000.

But that doesn't take into account initiatives like a proposed carbon tax. I don't understand the details, so correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like ordinary Americans will pay this tax in the form of higher energy costs if they heat their homes with natural gas, if their electricity is generated at a coal-fired power plant, and in many other ways.

We'll all learn much more as we go along, but what we've seen already is in many ways shocking. There's a danger, I think, in using the current economic crisis as justification for radically escalating the power and influence of the federal government.

Bill Clinton was a popular and in many ways successful president.

Was he fundamentally wrong about the need for "big government"?

I'm still confused.

President Obama announced today "how the war in Iraq will end" -- with the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops by Aug. 31, 2010.

Excuse me. How will that action end the war?

I applaud Obama for setting a timetable. It's overdue. But, if "ending the war in Iraq" were as simple as bringing our troops home, I'm sure even George Bush could have thought of that.

In saying he's going to end the war, what Obama must really mean is he's going to get our combat troops out of the war and leave the rest of the fighting to the Iraqi army.

Unless ...

Unless he thinks the presence of U.S. combat troops is causing the continuation of war in Iraq. If he does believe that, however, he should push for a much swifter drawdown.

Or unless the war is already over. Is it? Bush absurdly proclaimed "Mission Accomplished" long before that was a fact and prematurely said "major combat operations" had ceased.

Are major combat operations over now? If so, does that mean there's no "war" anymore? Instead, maybe there's just terrorism, insurgency and miscellaneous murder and mayhem. But not war.

Can you simply define a war out of existence?

It strikes me that's what Obama is trying to do.

Let's just hope the reality on the ground doesn't tell a different story on the day he's set for the end of the war.