News-Record.com

My column today:

The Tar Heels were lighting it up against Gonzaga last Friday night, but our guest was stretched out on the couch asleep before halftime.

That’s a former Peace Corps volunteer for you. They can make themselves at home anywhere, anytime.

The Service Employees International Union is petitioning the Obama administration to fire Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis because, among other reasons, "Bank of America is actively fighting the Employee Free Choice Act."

It will be interesting to see whether the unions have enough pull in the White House to get this done, and whether Democrats will use federal bailouts to exert political leverage over American businesses.

An SEIU news release I received yesterday began:

"On the heels of General Motors Chief Executive Rick Wagoner’s firing Monday for his mismanagement of a company that received billions in taxpayer dollars, SEIU called for Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis to be next.

“ 'It defies logic, common-sense, and responsible governance to punish the auto industry while letting financial institutions off the hook,' said Service Employees International Union President Andy Stern. 'Both Rick Wagoner and Ken Lewis sunk large public companies — putting thousands out of work and toppling the American economy -- while accepting billions in taxpayer bailouts. Yet only Wagoner got a pink slip. It’s time for Treasury Secretary Geithner to replace Ken Lewis as CEO and let real reform take hold at Bank of America.' ”

Here's the online petition.

The news release lists mismanagement and high executive pay and bonuses for pushing Lewis out. Notably, it adds this reason for firing him:

"247,000 forgotten employees. Bank of America is actively fighting the Employee Free Choice Act, which would level the playing with for (sic) its employees. And in some states, Bank of America employees take up large portions of public health care because they don't earn enough money."

Here's a report on that subject at huffingtonpost.com.

I can't say whether Lewis' performance warrants his ouster. Usually, a corporation's board of directors makes that decision. That this is even a public issue shows the position banks and other financial institutions put themselves in when they take government money

More troubling is the possibility that special-interest groups like SEIU would try to take advantage of a company's vulnerability to press for political advantage. I strongly suspect that The Employee Free Choice Act -- more accurately known as the Card Check Bill -- is SEIU's primary concern here. The union undoubtedly would like to see labor-friendly leadership at Bank of America, allowing easier organization of BOA employees. It thinks the Obama administration can make that happen. Democrats are heavily indebted to organized labor for their election successes last year.

Obviously the administration is in a position to call the shots at firms it's invested billions of taxpayer dollars in. I hope it won't do so for the purpose of paying off political favors or punishing recipients for their political views.

The White House should not mix bailout funds with politics or let a union dictate its actions toward Bank of America.

Some comments on our commentators:

Thomas Friedman warned in his lecture at High Point University last month that he's pretty much dedicating his column from now on to alarming the world about climate change and the need to address it through development of smart, clean energy. Today's entry follows that theme.

It comes across as hysterical, unless of course he's right. Are we in fact experiencing a "meltdown" in our climate system like the meltdown in our financial systems, with cataclysmic consequences likely? Most people, it seems to me, are more troubled by the fast-rising unemployment rate than the ever-so-slowly rising global temperature (Friedman pegged it as 1 degree C since 1750 in his HPU lecture).

Then there's the remedy. Responding to the financial crisis, we're throwing mind-boggling amounts of money in all directions without really having a good idea of what will work and what won't. We just know we have to do something. Is it the same strategy for trying to stabilize the climate? Friedman recommends immensely expensive solutions. Do they represent the right steps in that they can actually alter the climate? Can we trust climate scientists more than we can economists? There are many different ideas within the ranks of both.

Friedman makes a compelling case. He outlines new-energy opportunities we should pursue regardless of climate considerations. But paying the price of full implementation could stagger our already shaky economy in the short run. What if the cure kills us before the disease does?

Thomas Sowell, meanwhile, is way off the mark is dismissing Barack Obama based on lack of executive experience in his column today.

"Barack Obama is a rookie in a sense that few other presidents in American history have ever been. It is not just that he has never been president before," Sowell wrote. "He has never had any position of major executive responsibility in any kind of organization.

"Other first-term presidents have been governors, generals, cabinet members or others in positions of personal responsibility. A few have been senators, like Barack Obama, but usually for longer than Obama, and had not spent half their few years in the Senate running for president."

Sowell might have forgotten Abraham Lincoln, who likewise lacked executive experience, and served but a single term in the U.S. House of Representatives plus a few years in the Illinois legislature. His national fame came by way of his unsuccessful campaign for the Senate against Stephen Douglas in 1858.

Lincoln impressed through the power of his ideas and his exceptional ability to communicate those ideas -- in speech and on paper. He had great strength of character, confronted crises with moral character and iron-willed resolve and worked tirelessly at pulling public opinion to his side.

Can Obama make use of those same qualities? Time will tell, but it's foolish to exclude the possibility on the basis of his relative inexperience.

Yesterday, Leonard Pitts stopped about an inch short of endorsing legalization of drugs.

He asked for objections he might not have considered.

Mine is in the form of a question:

Which drugs?

All drugs, including crack cocaine, meth, anything else someone might cook up in a home lab? Because, any drugs NOT legalized would still find an illegal market.

Then there's the issue of regulation. We're moving toward the day when tobacco is going to be taxed and regulated out of the market. What a time to put heroin or cocaine ON the market, legally.

How much should legal marijuana be taxed? Surely at least as much as cigarettes, where the idea is to price them beyond the reach of many Americans. Congress is likely to give the FDA the authority to regulate tobacco products, meaning it can restrict cigarette ingredients considered harmful or dangerous. Certainly it should be given the same power over marijuana or any other legalized drugs.

So, before I agree with someone who says maybe we should legalize drugs, and adds that he can't think of any objections, I'd like some basic questions answered. Starting with, which drugs?

Help me understand this.

Sheriff BJ Barnes outlines a program that lets his office check the legal status of individuals who are arrested for some offense and brought to the jail. Individuals found to be in this country illegally then are turned over to federal authorities for further action.

And people at this forum object because, as I read it, this will worry our immigrant community.

So our goal should be to leave illegal immigrants free to lead a life without worries in the United States. They shouldn't fear they'll ever be deported -- even if they commit crimes.

Local law-enforcement agencies aren't tracking down illegal immigrants. That's the feds' job, whether they actually do it or not.

But when illegal immigrants bring themselves to the attention of local police or sheriff's deputies by committing crimes, they should expect someone to check on their status and act accordingly.

Not checking, when it's easy to check, would be stupid. It would be saying we just don't care if you're here illegally.

We do care, don't we?

Or if we don't, please help me understand why not.

Brand new from Phil Berger, Republican leader in the state Senate:

"Senate Republican Leader Phil Berger (R-Rockingham) today said the tax and spend policies of state and national Democrats are largely responsible for North Carolina’s ballooning unemployment rate and other economic troubles.

"On Wednesday, the North Carolina Employment Security Commission disclosed that the state’s unemployment rate spiked to 11.3 percent in February. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the state now has the fourth highest employment rate in the United States and leads the nation in unemployment growth. When Democrats assumed control of the U.S. Congress in January 2007, North Carolina’s unemployment rate was just 4.5 percent.

"For the past half dozen years, Democrats in control of both houses in the North Carolina General Assembly and the Governor’s mansion have adopted state budgets that raised taxes and increased general fund spending by almost 50 percent. During the same six years, Democrats also approved borrowing that more than doubled the state’s debt.

"This week,WTVD-TV in Durham reported that former Democratic Gov. Mike Easley received the North Carolina Chamber’s Distinguished Public Service award for economic accomplishments. 'The citizens of our state know that North Carolina’s economy is in trouble. Much of that trouble is a direct result of spending decisions and tax increases by our state’s Democratic leaders,' said Berger. '“Democrats loved to claim credit when our state’s economic picture was bright. By the same token, they should be held accountable, rather than applauded, when the economy suffers because of their failed policies.' ”

Reactions? Does Berger have a point? Should North Carolina Democrats be held accountable for the state's soaring unemployment rate?

Democrats surely heaped blame on former President Bush and the Republicans in Congress for the economic troubles that began on their watch and continue to worsen. Voters agreed.

Certainly, North Carolina Democrats can plead the same case. They aren't responsible for the national economy, which naturally has a huge impact on the North Carolina economy.

They're 100 percent right.

But why has the unemployment rate expoded in North Carolina to fourth-highest in the country, behind only Michigan, South Carolina and Oregon? (In case you're keeping partisan score, that's two Blues and one Red.) Have state spend-and-tax policies caused a more severe recession here than almost anywhere else, at least as measured by jobless rate?

Then again, this spike in unemployment is occurring at a time when state government spending is slowing dramatically in response to declining tax revenues. So what's with that? Government, too, is shedding jobs -- although not (yet) at nearly the same rate as the private sector.

I don't blame Berger for trying to gain some ground politically. The party out of power always tries to capitalize on bad news. That's how the Dems displaced the Repubs in Washington.

Whether the blame-casting is strictly accurate is almost beside the point. Sorting out degrees of accountability is very hard and lost on many voters. Just point to who's in charge, and that's who's easiest to blame.

Good idea, Time Warner Cable.

Now, can you charge us only for the TV channels we actually watch?

The N&O of Raleigh and the Charlotte Observer are giving coverage on their Web sites today to a National Enquirer report about former hedge fund millionaire John Edwards:

"The National Enquirer reported on its Web site that a federal grand jury in Raleigh is investigating whether former Sen. John Edwards violated campaign-finance laws in his bid for president in 2008 by making payments to Rielle Hunter, his admitted mistress," the N&O account says.

Here's the Enquirer story.

Could be tabloid trash ... but the Enquirer sure nailed Edwards last year, ending any chance he'd get a big job, or little job, in the Obama administration..

.

Note: This is a corrected version. I left out Patrick McHenry and mistakenly created a Patrick Murphy in my original post.

Five North Carolina congressmen voted FOR the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which passed the U.S. House of Representatives 298-112 yesterday.

This is the bill that subjects tobacco products to regulation by the Food and Drug Administration.

Sens. Kay Hagan and Richard Burr are seeking to head off this regulation with a less onerous proposal of their own.

According to the House roll call, North Carolina representatives voting FOR the bill were:

G.K Butterfield (D), Bob Etheridge (D), Brad Miller (D), David Price (D) and Mel Watt (D).

Voting AGAINST were:

Howard Coble (R), Virginia Foxx (R), Walter Jones (R), Larry Kissell (D), Patrick McHenry (R), Mike McIntyre (D), Sue Myrick (R) and Heath Shuler (D).

Who would have thought, even a few years ago, that as many as five North Carolina congressmen, or any, would back a measure putting so much additional federal authority over the tobacco industry?

State superintendent-in-name-only June Atkinson sues Gov. Bev Perdue, and others, to regain her constitutional authority and quotes some blues-rock philosophy:

"What's the Janis Joplin song? Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

(Reported by the N&O.)

Belt it out, girl. Give us some of this from JJ's "Try (Just A Little Bit Harder)":

Try yeah, try yeah, hey, hey, hey, try yeah,
Oh try whoa! Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa,
Oh anybody, oh anybody, oh anybody,
Try oh yeah (just a little bit harder)
Whoa I gotta try some more,
I said try yeah, aw I said try,
I said try try try try try try,
Oh try oh yeah, try oh yeah!

Yeah. I always did like Janis Joplin.

The massacre in Binghamton, N.Y., today looks like an act of terrorism.

The killer used a gun but had the same effect as a suicide bomber.

Coverage by the Press & Sun-Bulletin.

The attack occurred at the American Civic Association, founded "to provide aid and support to refugees, immigrants and the community as a whole. ACA is a not-for-profit member agency of the Broome and Tioga Counties United Way."

"The shooter has identification saying he was 42-year-old Jiverly Voong."

Much more to learn about this tragedy.

Catching up with the news while putting off yard work:

The Senate's "Moderate Democrats" flunked their first test.

Evan Bayh of Indiana and Ben Nelson of Nebraska were the only Dems who voted against the massively bloated budget late Thursday.

Bayh founded the so-called Moderate Democrats, which focused on "the importance of passing a fiscally responsible spending plan in the Senate." Fifteen other senators, including our Kay Hagan, joined the group, with much fanfare.

On March 25, Hagan and Moderate Democrats expressed concern about CBO budget projections and implications of long-term deficits.

In an editorial March 26, we praised Hagan for her affiliation with the Moderate Democrats.

In a speech at Elon University March 28, Hagan called the projected deficits in the proposed budget "completely unsustainable and unacceptable."

When it came time to vote, however, Hagan and all but two of the Moderate Democrats fell in line with the Other Democrats.

Bayh explained his no vote in a statement on his Web site. Its most pertinent portion is this:

“The spending blueprint voted on by the Senate today represents an improvement from years past because it is more transparent and honest than the budgets to which we’ve grown accustomed. The money we will borrow will fund important priorities like affordable health care, energy independence, job creation, and education improvements, rather than tax cuts for the most affluent.

“However, under this budget, our national debt skyrockets from $11.1 trillion today to an estimated $17 trillion in 2014. As a percentage of our gross domestic product, it reaches a precarious 66.5 percent. The deficit remains larger than our projected economic growth, an unsustainable state of affairs. This budget will increase our borrowing from and dependence upon foreign nations.

“I cannot support such results. We can do better, and for the sake of our nation and our children’s future, we must.”

Ben Nelson also offered a statement about his vote against the budget. It said, in part:

“I am disappointed that this budget was passed without the cuts in spending that I had hoped for.

“When you’ve balanced 8 budgets like I did as Governor, you don’t like to see a budget with a lot of red ink. The Administration inherited a lot of red ink in this budget, along with our ailing economy.

“But this budget still has trillion dollar-plus deficits in the next two years, and adds unsustainably to the debt. These are tough times, and the federal government needs to take a lesson from American families and cut down on the things we can do without.

“Like many of my fellow Nebraskans, I am concerned about the continual increase in deficit spending - we’re not going to borrow our way out of this economic crisis."

In contrast, Sen. Hagan offered no statement on her Web site about her budget vote, only this lone sentence in her "Week in Review":

"The Senate passed the budget just before midnight, with Senator Hagan voting in favor."

Addendum: Sen. Richard Burr joined all other Republicans in voting against the budget, but I can't find any statement about it on his Web site. However, Burr never led anyone to believe he would vote otherwise.

Further thoughts about "the best Final Four," the subject of our second editorial Friday.

That was, of course, the 1974 NCAA men's basketball championship held in Greensboro and won by the David Thompson-Tom Burleson-Monte Towe N.C. State Wolfpack.

A capacity crowd of 15,829 saw State edge seven-time defending champs UCLA in a double-overtime barn-burner in the Saturday semifinals. Slightly fewer showed up for the anticlimactic final Monday night when State easily defeated Marquette for the title.

Of course, as we noted, it snowed five inches in Greensboro that day -- March 25, 1974.

But, to the point, even with expanded seating of 23,500 for basketball, the Greensboro Coliseum isn't in line to host any more men's Final Fours. They're all scheduled for enclosed football stadiums, where tens of thousands of fans can overpay for seats with a distant view of the court.

There's another reason the Greensboro Coliseum would be out of the running, however.

By rule, the Final Four cannot be played on the home court of any school eligible to compete for the championship. Beginning next season, the coliseum will be UNCG's home court. As long as that's the case, the facility is excluded.

True, UNCG is hardly likely to make it to the Final Four anytime soon, but you never know.

(It's a different bunch of Spartans playing in Detroit this weekend.)

If UNCG ever does achieve that level of basketball success, the moment of glory probably will take place in a football stadium and not in the Greensboro Coliseum.

Greensboro's memories of 1974 will just have to last forever.

Bev Perdue calls Jennifer Granholm.

"My Tar Heels are going to whip your Spartans, big time."

"No way. You've got a great basketball team, but you're going up against the whole state of Michigan. We're having tough times up here, and we're looking at a national championship as a huge morale-booster."

"You know what? I'm sick of hearing your Michigan whining about tough times. If you want to go by unemployment rate, we're right behind you in North Carolina and catching up fast. We've got tough times, too, and we're counting on the Heels to pick us up."

"Well, too bad for you you don't have any arena big enough to hold a national championship game. Our home-field advantage is going to make the difference tonight, sister."

"Wanna bet?"

"I suppose that's why you called, isn't it?"

"I take it you accept, then?"

"Accept what? I'm not interested in five pounds of your vinegary barbecue or whatever you normally put up. That stuff isn't worth a box of Mackinac fudge. Let's play for some real stakes."

"All right. You talk about your ailing economy, here's your chance to unload it. Michigan State loses tonight, you send us your auto industry, lock, stock and barrel. We'll take it off your hands for you."

"You want our auto industry?"

"Sure. I think we could make a go of it. Start over. Model it after the foreign-owned companies operating in the South. We've got good workers and no union contracts. The industry is dying a slow, sure death in Michigan."

"And if North Carolina loses?"

"You can have our textile, tobacco and furniture industries."

"Right. And what would we do with them?"

"Not much with textiles, but tobacco's still profitable, for now. You'd also get a furniture market. With your Detroit casinos, you probably could stave off the Las Vegas threat."

"You're on. If we lose this basketball game, we'll have nothing to live for, anyway."

Update: Here's their real bet. Mine's better.

Another update: Kay Hagan vs. Michigan senators. Booty includes barbecue against fudge.

A word of advice to Sen. Hagan: That fudge is rich. Better share with your staff.

Our editorial Sunday about how speeding cases are being handled in Guilford County courts.

Not consistently.

The DA's policy is to plea bargain, even speeds in the 90s, down to 9 mph over the speed limit if the defendant completes a safe-driving course and community service (one hour for every 1 mph over the speed limit) and pays a fine plus court costs. The fine seems to average about $200.

Sometimes the same deal applies to drivers charged with going 100 mph or even a little faster.

Most judges apparently go along with this, but not all.

The DA's philosophy is that this approach produces safer drivers in the long run.

It seems to be a theory at this point, with no data to back it up.

It also skirts the intent of state law, which was tightened up a couple of years ago in an attempt to crack down on extreme speeders getting off easy.

What's your opinion?

Anyone with a recent speeding ticket? What was your experience?

Personally, I'm skeptical. I think driving very fast is a habit that a safe-driving course and some community service may not break. On the other hand, if Guilford County was known for revoking driver's licenses as the law provides, the lead-foots might be more inclined to ease off the accelerator.

Sunbathing on Bird Island?

Wear a swimsuit ... or something.

Congratulations to Roy Williams and his great Tar Heel basketball team. They achieved the most impressive national championship victory in the program's storied history.

It was especially satisfying to see the veteran players accomplish the goal they dedicated themselves to since their defeat by Kansas in last year's semifinals. The top four from that team all could have taken their game to the pro ranks but chose to stay, both for the college experience and to return, successfully, to the Final Four. For them, this was the purpose-driven season, and they deserve all the credit for a job well done. No doubt they were the most talented team in the field, but talent alone doesn't win at this level of competition. It also requires hard, hard work, discipline, desire, attention to detail and unity of spirit. Their run through the tournament was a mission.

This was a special Carolina team, which featured the ACC's all-time leading scorer and 2008 National Player of the Year, Tyler Hansbrough. What's not to like about that kid? (Don't answer that, Duke fans.) I also appreciate about Hansbrough the fact that, during this marvelous stretch run, he gladly turned into more of a role player than a star. He had a big role, sure, but super point guard Ty Lawson made the team go. And sharpshooter Wayne Ellington ended up as the Final Four's Most Outstanding Player.

It was a team of many parts. Senior Danny Green played in more Tar Heel victories over his career than anyone else in school history. Deon Thompson, Bobby Frasor and Ed Davis contributed in important ways.

Now, with title in hand, we can assess this team's place among the Tar Heel best. In my memory, nothing can top the thrill of the 1982 championship, Dean Smith's first after falling just short several times. With James Worthy, Sam Perkins and Michael Jordan, the '82 edition would be hard to beat in terms of star power.

The 1993 title team had terrific depth and balance, and the 2005 squad counted -- correct me if I'm wrong -- six players who have since seen NBA action.

Two of the most talent-laden Tar Heel teams never even reached the Final Four. The early NCAA exits of the 1984 and 1994 teams were hugely disappointing. It goes to show that nothing is guaranteed in a single-elimination tournament.

Older fans might contend that the undefeated 1957 team was Carolina's best ever.

And how about Roy Williams' place among the coaching giants? Guess what: He's already equaled Smith's two championships. Does that put him on a par with Dean, or even ahead? Is it heresy to even ask the question?

One thing for sure. No Tar Heel team ever stormed to a national title as convincingly as this one. I won't say easily, because they worked hard for it. They turned talent and drive into a tremendous finish. Job well done.

One of Greensboro's most vicious recent crimes took place at the McConnell Road Mini Mart on the night of Aug. 31, 2005.

It left 13-year-old Phi Nguyen dead and his father, store owner Tam Nguyen, wounded.

Today, the N.C. Court of Appeals let stand the convictions of co-defendant John Junior Rush II for first-degree murder and first-degree attempted murder.

However, it remanded to the trial court to "arrest judgment" on Rush's conviction of robbery with a dangerous weapon.

The opinion was written by Judge Robert N. Hunter Jr. of Greensboro and joined by Judges Linda McGee and Barbara Jackson.

Rush did not shoot anyone. He did join Akheem Sterling in planning and carrying out the robbery at the McConnell Road Mini Mart.

Sterling went to the back of the store and exchanged gunfire with Tam Nguyen, shooting the store owner at least twice. Sterling was shot once.

Then Sterling returned to the front of the store, where he shot Phi "in the back of his head, in his chest, and in his back." The two escaped with all of $85. They were arrested within days.

Sterling was convicted of first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder and robbery with a dangerous weapon and sentenced to life in prison plus 28 years.

Rush was charged and convicted the same as Sterling because he "acted in concert" during the commission of those crimes and bore equal responsibility. He was convicted of first-degree murder under the felony murder rule with the robbery serving as the underlying charge to sustain the first-degree murder count.

On appeal, Rush claimed the prosecutor made prejudicial remarks and that the trial judge should have granted his motion to dismiss the charge of attempted first-degree murder. The court disagreed, for reasons you can read for yourself.

Rush was successful in arguing the robbery charge should not have been allowed. In using that charge to support the murder charge under the felony murder rule, it is not permissible to sentence defendant separately for the underlying charge.

It's a technicality, and it shouldn't gain Rush even one day of freedom.

He did not shoot Phi Nguyen but he was equally guilty of his murder by participating in this vicious crime. The Court of Appeals affirmed the substantial evidence of his guilt. Justice done.

In another Greensboro case, one of those "drug deals gone bad," the Court of Appeals upholds second-degree murder convictions against Anthony Jacque Johnson.

Johnson was 17 when these crimes occurred. He could be 70 by the time he gets out of prison.

The suspended sentence is one thing.

The idea that this woman can be driving again in a year is frightening.

Maybe she'll choose not to. The weight of her mistake may be like a trailer that's too heavy to pull.

How could she ever again drive past the place where she struck and killed Nick Adkins?

Worth reading again at this moment: Jeri's piece about a young man whose life has been lost.

My column today:

You can call it June Atkinson v. Beverly Perdue, but the lawsuit brought by North Carolina’s superintendent of public instruction against the governor isn’t personal.

It’s not a test of wills. It’s not a power struggle. It’s not a popularity contest. It’s not a grudge match. It’s not political.

If it were, the feisty, take-charge governor might be expected to mop the floor with the mild-mannered educator.

But this is all about the state constitution. And, for that reason, Atkinson must prevail. ...

I don't agree with the result, but at least Vermont has redefined marriage through the most legitimate process -- legislative action.

Same-sex marriage was not imposed by a court based on its notion of "equal rights."

Civil marriage should be what a state says it is according to the will of its people.

The Vermont law is called “An Act to Protect Religious Freedom and Recognize Equality in Civil Marriage.”

The first part of the title refers to portions assuring that religious organizations don't have to participate in or recognize same-sex marriages. The second part is misnamed, in my opinion. "Equality" in civil marriage already existed to the extent that the old law applied equally to everyone.

Rather, marriage has been redefined in a basic and substantive way.

The law, which formerly said, "Marriage is the legally recognized union of one man and one woman," now says: "Marriage is the legally recognized union of two people."

Those who have contended, as Dick Cheney famously said, that "people ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to," still aren't there in Vermont.

The new law still restricts marriage to two persons and prohibits marriage between close relatives: "No person shall marry his or her parent, grandparent, child, grandchild,
sibling, sibling’s child, or parent’s sibling."

Last week in Iowa, the Supreme Court ruled that the state could not deny same-sex marriage because doing so did not further any legitimate government objective. I believe it's the place of the elected legislature or the people to determine what's a legitimate government objective.

Who knows but that the Vermont Supreme Court, if the question arises, might find it serves no legitimate government objective there to deny marriage to close relatives and three or more persons. (What's the point of not letting two sisters marry if two other women can marry?) What an irony if this law intended to provide "equality" in marriage were ruled discriminatory.

But defining civil marriage is a matter better left to legislatures or the people themselves.

The N.C. Senate's proposed budget counts on $580 million in expected new revenue, or tax increases, but doesn't specify what they are, WRAL reports.

Senate leaders say, don't worry, we'll come up with those details later.

Unbelievable.

How can senators be asked to vote on a budget proposal today, which was just released to them Monday night, without knowing where all that new tax money would come from?

It matters.

Gov. Perdue put it all together in her budget plan. She proposed big tax hikes on tobacco and alcohol.

Do Senate leaders back that proposal? So far, they're only saying how they want to spend the money, not where they would raise new revenue.

The finance people are working on it, we're told.

Well, not all taxes are alike. Some may be more feasible than others. If I were a senator, my vote on the budget might change depending on what kind of tax increases were supporting it.

OK, the Senate will vote on the tax plan once it passes the budget framework, appropriations chairman A.B. Swindell says. If senators vote it down, they can go back to square one.

What's the point? Why not put the whole package together in the first place, as the governor did when she presented her plan? Why the rush to pass the budget framework today? Take your time and do it right.

I wonder if letter-writer Elaine Mejia represents an attitude that is on the ascendancy in our country.

Addressing Sen. Kay Hagan's vote against an amendment that would have reduced the estate tax, Mejia wrote:

"We expect our representatives in Washington to use our resources wisely and to establish priorities that most affect the people back home.

"These funds would be better used to reform health care or reduce the deficit."

By "our resources," she apparently means the money taxed from individual's estates. "These funds" can be "better used" for government purposes than by those who would inherit the estates.

Mejia is a project director of the N.C. Budget and Tax Center, an arm of the N.C. Justice Center in Raleigh. She is someone whose job it is to influence public policy and opinion.

I'm not much invested in the estate tax issue, although in principle I'm not warm to the idea of heavily taxing wealth that already was taxed when it was earned. I don't have anything against even the very rich leaving their fortune to whomever they choose.

Obviously, some other people have a much different view.

What jumped out in Mejia's letter was her opinion that someone's private fortune should be considered "our resources" collectively and that it is the right of government to determine their best use.

That idea seems to fit the sudden direction of our country, where the federal government indeed is taking control of a much greater share of the nation's wealth.

Is there a developing consensus that Washington's claim to "our resources" should increase because it will use them more wisely, productively and fairly than those who created those resources?

I suspect there is and will be, until the government inevitably takes too much.

Is this serious?

From the AP article on our front page today::

"Tinkering with Earth's climate to chill runaway global warming — a radical idea once dismissed out of hand — is being discussed by the White House as a potential emergency option, the president's new science adviser said Wednesday."

Here's one idea from John Holdren:

"Shooting sulfur particles (like those produced by power plants and volcanoes, for example) into the upper atmosphere, an idea that gained steam when it was proposed by Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen in 2006. It would be 'basically mimicking the effect of volcanoes in screening out the incoming sunlight,' Holdren said."

Maybe like this?

The super eruption of an Indonesian volcano caused the disastrous "Year Without a Summer" throughout the Northern Hemisphere in 1816.

Killing frosts, crop failures, starvation and epidemic diseases all resulted.

That wasn't mentioned in the AP story. But it did include this little warning:

"Studies suggest that might include eating away a large chunk of the ozone layer above the poles and causing the Mediterranean and the Mideast to be much drier. And those are just the predicted problems. Scientists say they worry about side effects that they don't anticipate."

So the answer to manmade climate change might be more manmade climate change.

Do these guys really, really know what they're doing?

Note: The comment feature on our blogs is temporarily disabled because of technical problems way beyond my control. Sorry.

Just an idea: If you want to comment, send me an email, dgclark@news-record.com, and I'll post it here.

First comment after the jump ...

Back in 2003, I started looking to leave the High Point Enterprise, where I was editorial page editor, and applied for an editorial writing position at the Charlotte Observer.

I didn't get it. Mary Schulken did. She was editorial page editor at the Greenville (N.C.) Daily Reflector.

Just as well. A few months later, in April 2004, Allen Johnson hired me over here. It's been a great gig.

Since then, if I might brag just a bit, I've won two awards for editorial writing in the annual N.C. Press Association contests.

Second place both times.

Both times, the first-place winner was Mary Schulken.

This isn't going where you think.

I've met Mary a number of times, and I like and respect her. She's an outstanding journalist who's earned all the awards and recognition she's gained.

So I was shocked and saddened to find out earlier today that Mary's lost her job with the Charlotte Observer.

More downsizing in an industry going through its toughest times ever.

Maybe we'll stop the slide when the economy rebounds. But it's going to be all the harder after newspapers have lost many of their most talented and dedicated professionals, like Mary Schulken.

If I ever win first place in the editorial writing contest, it sure won't mean as much.

Here's Mary's column today.

Catching up on overseas events ...

President Obama bows to Saudi King Abdullah.

Also kissing up to a foreign dictator, Bobby Rush, visiting Fidel Castro with other congressmen, says "It was almost like listening to an old friend."

I wonder if Rush and friends mentioned the Amnesty International report on Cuba.

Saudi Arabia's human rights record is "dire," according to its AI report. I wonder how American liberals would have reacted if President Bush had bowed to the man in charge.

The White House denies a bow. Right. See for yourself.

I think Skip Alston will end up appointing himself the new Guilford County manager. He's already managing the county and, come on, who else would take the job?

State income-tax refunds are delayed for weeks because of cash-flow problems. At what point is the state considered a deadbeat?

The state Senate's sneaky budget not only raises $500 million in stealth taxes, it transfers authority for UNC-TV to the UNC School of the Arts, the Winston-Salem Journal reports. UNC-TV opposes the move and School of the Arts officials say they didn't even know about it before the budget was unveiled this week. There was no debate on this provision, an inconspicuous item slipped into the budget document by Sen. Linda Garrou of Winston-Salem. What a way to make major policy changes, but that's business as usual for our legislature.

Pay to play: The Senate budget also doubles the tuition surcharge, from 25 percent to 50 percent, for UNC system students who take more than 140 credit hours to earn a bachelor's degree in a four-year course. Only fair. The slow pokes are consuming state resources and ought to pay a penalty.

By a big margin, North Carolinians think it's more important for government to deal with illegal immigration than the environment, Public Policy Polling finds.

"So even though the state went blue in the election last November, North Carolina isn't becoming super-liberal just yet," the left-learning group's Katherine Rumbaugh notes.

I'd say she's right. In this case, though, the results probably don't show lack of concern for the environment so much as the view that illegal immigration is a more pressing problem.

Worth reading: Chris Fitzsimon of the left-leaning NC Policy Watch slams the state Senate's budget-making ...

"The process is not only undemocratic and offensive, it is a symbol of the worst of the legislative culture.

"Yet virtually everyone in the Legislative Building accepts it, not troubled by the concentration of power and the backroom budget writing. Republicans complain some, but not nearly enough. Senate Democrats don't dare say anything."

Read the whole thing. Fitzsimon is a veteran observer of state politics who cares about good government ... unlike some of the people actually running our government.

If complying with NCAA rules requires a university to shut down a student's Facebook site, then the NCAA needs to rewrite some rules.

I don't blame N.C. State for being cautious rather than risk a penalty for improperly recruiting prep basketball whiz John Wall. But, no matter how the NCAA colors it, this is a free-speech issue.

It's also stupid. Is the country's most highly recruited high school athlete (at the moment) really going to be influenced by a student's Facebook plea? Not likely.

By the way, I think he should go to State. He's from Raleigh, so his family and friends could see him play. It's an excellent university, and he could get a first-rate education (if he were interested). And State really needs him. The Wolfpack hasn't kept up with its Big Four neighbors in basketball, and Wall would help, at least until he departed for the NBA after a season or two at most.

So, young Mr. Wall, choose State.

Am I OK in saying that, NCAA? No? Well, who cares?

Bravo for the U.S. Navy and the SEALS sharpshooters who killed three Somali pirates holding American cargo ship captain Richard Phillips yesterday.

Good for President Obama for authorizing military action to end the hostage situation.

I suspect, however, that the real operational orders were not what's been reported -- that the president had given standing orders to take decisive action if Phillips were in imminent danger (CNN).

I hope not, anyway.

The military should not have to wait for a hostage to be in imminent danger to take decisive action. The fact that an American has been kidnapped by pirates and is being held hostage is reason enough in justify the use of deadly force. If Phillips were never in imminent danger, would that mean that no decisive action would ever be taken?

Besides, waiting until a hostage is in imminent danger could mean waiting too long.

The Navy said its snipers fired when a pirate pointed a rifle at Phillips' back. The pirate could have pulled the trigger at the instant he did so, killing Phillips before the snipers could act. It's much too risky to wait until that moment.

I doubt very much the Navy really was working under such an order -- or if it was, on-scene commanders stretched their orders to get the job done.

Was Phillips about to be shot in that lifeboat? While one of the pirates was aboard the Navy ship trying to negotiate an end to the standoff? Would the pirates throw their bargaining chip overboard while sitting under the Navy's guns? They would have been blasted out of the water immediately.

It seems more likely to me the Navy intended to take down the pirates as soon as the snipers had a clear shot. The plan was executed perfectly.

It's the right course of action. Piracy and kidnapping on the high seas should be met with deadly force.

Maybe for purposes of public opinion, it makes sense to say the Navy waited until Phillips was in "imminent danger." But the real operational orders should have been, and probably were, to take decisive action ... period.

That's the only way Somali pirates, no matter what they say, will learn to leave U.S.-flagged ships alone.

French, too.

From a 2008 U.S. State Department report on Cuba:

"Remittances also play a large role in Cuba's economy. Cuba does not publish accurate economic statistics, but academic sources estimate that remittances total from $600 million to $1 billion per year, with most coming from families in the United States. U.S. regulation changes announced in June 2004 allow remittances to be sent only to the remitter's immediate family; they cannot be remitted to certain Cuban Government officials and members of the Cuban Communist Party; and the total amount of family remittances that an authorized traveler may carry to Cuba is now $300, reduced from $3,000. (See also the Commission on Assistance to a Free Cuba report at www.cafc.gov, cited below.) The Cuban Government captures these dollar remittances by allowing Cuban citizens to shop in state-run 'dollar stores,' which sell food, household, and clothing items at a high mark-up averaging over 240% of face value.

"Beginning in November 2004, the government mandated that U.S. dollars be exchanged for 'convertible pesos' -- a local currency that can be used in special shops on the island but has no value internationally -- for a 10% charge. The 10% conversion fee disproportionately affects Cubans who receive remittances from relatives in the U.S."

Unless this changes, an increase in remittances from Cuban-Americans to relatives in Cuba will be very beneficial to the Castro regime.

Public Policy Polling reports today that most N.C. voters support Gov. Bev Perdue's proposed tax increases on alcohol and tobacco ...

... but that the new governor's approval ratings have dropped significantly.

Possible reasons:

People are more sympathetic to State Superintendent June Atkinson in her constitutional tug-of-war with the governor.

Or, people see local school systems, like Guilford's, cutting school funding despite Perdue's promise to provide more money per student.

Or, times are still tough, and everyone in power is going to catch some of the blame, deserved or not.

From The N&O:

"CHAPEL HILL -- UNC-CH police released pepper spray and threatened to use a Taser on student protesters Tuesday evening when a crowd disrupted a speech by former Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo opposing in-state tuition benefits to unauthorized immigrants.

"Hundreds of protesters converged on Bingham Hall, shouting profanities and accusations of racism while Tancredo and the student who introduced him tried to speak. Minutes into the speech, a protester pounded a window of the classroom until the glass shattered, prompting Tancredo to flee and campus police to shut down the event. ..."

I'm embarrassed that such a shameful act of mob intimidation took place at the state's flagship public university, which ought to be a bastion of free speech and tolerance for different ideas.

As a student, I attended a similar event in the mid-70s when student protesters shouted down Klansman David Duke. That, too, was a violation of the free exchange of ideas. At least in that case, you could make a strong argument that Duke never should have been asked to speak in the first place.

Tancredo is no Klansman and his views about illegal immigrants and higher education are certainly not racist or hateful.

I'm sorry police had to use pepper spray on anyone. But I hope Chancellor Holden Thorp will review this disgraceful event and consider strong measures that will educate offenders about decent behavior and the value of free speech.

Addendum: Daily Tar Heel coverage.

YouTube video: The protesters play into a PR victory for opponents of illegal immigration.

Update, 1:13 p.m: Here's Chancellor Holden Thorp's statement. It's dated April 14, but it wasn't posted this morning. I hope he'll say something more forceful when he's had time to investigate the incident.

Big crowd at McDonald Plaza for the Tax Day Tea Party today.

I like a rally where folks come with clever signs. These were my favorites:

Freedom: The only stimulus

You can't spend your way out of debt

Silence is consent

You've spent how much of my money?

Big government: little freedom

Uncle Sam
not
Aunt Nanny

Stop spending my future

The problem with socialism -- you eventually run out of other people's money

Reps and Dems
Stop the Pork

We fret about growing debt

Did they say $10,000,000,000,000?

Read my lips: No more spending

Party like it's 1773

Obama-Pelosi-Reid
Axis of Taxes

If you were there, let me know which ones I missed.

Here's the big question: Will this amount to anything?

An e-mail from Chancellor Holden Thorp to the Carolina community this afternoon:

"I want to express how disappointed I am in what happened last night when former Congressman Tom Tancredo wasn't able to speak when a protest got out of hand, and our Department of Public Safety had to take action.Congressman Tancredo felt threatened and left without making his remarks. Mr. Tancredo was scheduled to speak about immigration. We expect protests about controversial subjects at Carolina. That's part of our culture. But we also pride ourselves on being a place where all points of view can be expressed and heard. There's a way to protest that respects free speech and allows people with opposing views to be heard. Here that's often meant that groups protesting a speaker have displayed signs or banners, silently expressing their opinions while the speaker had his or her say. That didn't happen last night.

"On behalf of our University community, I called Mr. Tancredo today to apologize for how he was treated. In addition, our Department of Public Safety is investigating this incident. They will pursue criminal charges if any are warranted. Our Division of Student Affairs is also investigating student involvement in the protest. If that investigation determines sufficient evidence, participating students could face Honor Court proceedings.

"Carolina's tradition of free speech is a fundamental part of what has made this place special for more than 200 years. Let's recommit ourselves to that ideal.

"Sincerely,

Holden Thorp

"This email is sponsored by: Office of the Chancellor"

Let me add that I commend Thorp for his response.

Dome reports that Tom Tancredo is making hay from his experience at Carolina yesterday.

He's losing my sympathy.

Again, the Carolina demonstrators played right into his hands.

Meanwhile, on the far left ... James at BlueNC applauds the demonstrators and faults the UNC administration and campus police for their response to "too much free speech." Some commenters join in to agree, but others are rightly embarrassed.

It's bad enough for college students to put ideology over the cherished American ideal of free speech. It's worse if adults hold that view. Imagine if such extremists take power in this country: Only views acceptable to those in power would be tolerated.

They're getting ready to Play Ball in the New Yankee Stadium, the house where not even Babe Ruth could afford season tickets.

In fairness, Bleacher Bums can get in for 14 bucks (orange on the seating chart). The Babe probably would be happy there. Prices soar from that point like a Ruthian moonshot.

When my Dad started taking me to games in the Real Yankee Stadium, the House That Ruth Built, back in the mid-'60s, he occasionally would spring for box seats behind first base, his favorite vantage point. I don't remember what he paid then, but I don't think $150 would have been in the ballpark.

And in those days, you didn't have to pay "premium pricing" above and beyond the normal rate when the Red Sox were in town.

The trouble is, this stadium cost $1.5 billion, and the Yankees payroll also is astronomical. Someone has to fork over the money. Sure, TV, radio, merchandising, corporate sponsorships and luxury boxes cover a big portion, but ordinary fans will have to lay out a load to take in a game on a summer evening. Taking the family will be like paying for a vacation. Are all New Yorkers still that wealthy?

I understand the old place was getting shabby, and the new facility is better than first rate. It's Yankee Great -- not just worthy of Babe Ruth, but more than he could imagine. He lived larger than life, for his day, but this is a new day.

Who could have predicted a time when Yankees baseball could become bigger than the Babe?

Brenda Jones Fox strikes me as a fine choice to become Guilford County manager ... again.

As a career employee, she sure knows the landscape. Plus, she's got nothing to lose professionally. Someone else, coming from outside, could find himself or herself unexpectedly swimming in quicksand.

Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if all of the six outside finalists (not identified) would have backed away. Coming to work for this board of commissioners under its current leadership might not be seen as a good career move.

BJF already has made a career here so she's not risking anything.

Hopefully, she's also secure enough to insist on governing properly even when commissioners are pushing in the wrong direction.

Let's agree that the interrogation methods detailed in Bush Justice Department papers released yesterday were improperly harsh (NY Times coverage here).

Let's also agree that the intent was to gather information that could protect the United States against further terrorist attack.

Disclosure reportedly followed weeks of debate within the Obama administration. CIA Director Leon Panetta "had argued that revealing such information set a dangerous precedent for future disclosures of intelligence sources and methods," the Times reported.

Obama decided in favor of transparency.

Is Panetta right?

Obama says these interrogation techniques will no longer be employed.

What interrogation techniques, if any, will be used? Does the new policy of disclosure obligate the Obama administration to state what methods of coercive questioning are allowed?

Surely, U.S. military forces will capture terrorist suspects in the future who will have information about planned attacks and other terrorist operations. They won't willingly share that information. How will we induce them to talk?

The only way to guard against further abuses is to demand transparency now.

Of course, revealing interrogation methods will allow terrorist organizations to train their operatives against them.

The Obama administration must accomplish two objectives at once: meeting its standards of acceptable treatment of detainees, and protecting national security.

It won't get much credit for achieving the first if it fails at the second.

Feds investigating the Mike Easley family's deals for wheels?

The N&O reports.

An email from the normally laid-back Libertarians goes ballistic on President Obama:

"Libertarians are taking President Barack Obama to task for once again intentionally spreading false information about the source of guns used by Mexican drug cartels and blaming the United States for crime in Mexico.

“ 'This war is being waged with guns purchased not here, but in the United States. More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States,' said Obama in a face-to-face meeting Thursday with Mexican President Felipe Calderon in Mexico City.

"That claim, however, is blatantly false. According to information supplied by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) the real number is closer to only 17 percent.

“ 'There is a reason Obama is intentionally spreading false information about American firearm businesses. He opposes the Second Amendment, promised anti-gun groups he would enact gun bans and is hoping to scare people into voting away their own rights,' said Donny Ferguson, Libertarian National Committee Communications Director."

All right, hold your fire. Let's check in with a reliable, impartial truth meter, PolitiFact.com. Please read the whole entry because there are complexities involved. The conclusion, however, is that Obama's statement is half-true. Not good, but a far cry from "blatantly false."

At the same time, the president declines to push for a renewal of the assault rifle ban, preferring enactment of CIFTA, a proposed treaty that ran out of political ammunication more than a decade ago.

Thoughts about that?

Brenda Jones Fox has had an up-and-down career in Guilford County government since she began as an assistant accountant in 1971.

It included filing lawsuits in state and federal court against the county and individual county officials for breach of contract after she was fired as finance director in December 1995.

That was done by a board of commissioners controlled by Democrats. One of her most vocal critics then was Skip Alston, who apparently has turned into a fan now.

The county settled the suits with Jones -- that was before she added Fox to her name -- in January 1997. By then Republicans had taken control of the board. They reinstated Jones to her previous position.

A few years earlier -- in 1991 -- Republicans led by Steve Arnold had promoted Jones to county manager. Two years after that, Democrats were back in charge and demoted her. They hired Hector Rivera as manager. Below the jump, you can read an N&R story by Ben Feller published on Jan. 11, 1997, with all the details. It was a crazy time in GC government.

But so is the present. Brenda Jones Fox is on top again, back for a second time as county manager in a move engineered by Alston and Arnold.

The Environmental Protection Agency, after a "thorough scientific review," comes up with a political statement:

“ 'This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations. Fortunately, it follows President Obama’s call for a low carbon economy and strong leadership in Congress on clean energy and climate legislation,' said Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. 'This pollution problem has a solution – one that will create millions of green jobs and end our country’s dependence on foreign oil.' ”

The statement emphasizes that a deliberative process will begin to collect responses before final findings and proposed regulations are developed, but ...

"Notwithstanding this required regulatory process, both President Obama and Administrator Jackson have repeatedly indicated their preference for comprehensive legislation to address this issue and create the framework for a clean energy economy."

The science, and politics, are settled.

Carolina Chancellor Holden Thorp said some of the student demonstrators who drove Tom Tancredo off campus Tuesday could face Honor Court proceedings.

Here is the university's Instrument of Student Judicial Governance and here are some of the obvious violations:

"Harassment or intimidation that abuses, disparages, or otherwise interferes with another so as to adversely affect their academic pursuits, opportunities for University employment, participation in University-sponsored extracurricular activities, or opportunities to benefit from other aspects of University life."

"Engaging in violent, forceful, threatening, intimidating, or disruptive conduct, or inciting others to engage in such individual or collective conduct, that willfully disrupts any normal operation, function, or activity of the University or any of its organizations, personnel, or guests."

"Engaging in conduct, or inciting others to engage in conduct that improperly restrains freedom of movement, speech, assembly, or access to premises or activities by any individual who is a member of the University community or guest of the University or of any of its organizations in connection with that individual’s performance of legitimate activities or duties within or at the University."

Decent weather for the Boston Marathon today -- cool and cloudy -- but runners could face a tough wind.

The question is whether the winds of fortune will finally favor an American again. The last time a U.S. male crossed the line first was 1983; 1985 for a woman.

Kenyans have dominated the men's race, and most of the top runners in this year's field come from that East African marathon factory.

But American Ryan Hall is expected to give them a race.

Hey, and Boston Billy is back.

OK, don't expect too much from the 61-year-old legend.

Except I'll bet he'll outrun any Kenyans the same age.

My congressman sure seemed to enjoy his recent visit to Cuba and meeting with "outgoing and loquacious" Raul Castro, according to Mark's story today.

The Cuban leader is ready and willing to talk with the Obama administration about anything and everything, Mel Watt testifies.

“They don’t understand what we would be asking for,” Watt said. “But they make clear whatever issues we want to discuss they’re willing to discuss — short of changing their political or economic system.”

Amazing. The Castro regime has been ruling Cuba for 50 years and it still doesn't understand what our problems are? They have no clue we might ask them to consider granting the Cuban people some basic freedoms, such as free speech and the right to choose their leaders in fair elections?

Well, of course, that falls under the category of political system. We can't expect dictators to talk about that.

Good grief. What a useful visit that must have been.

Arizona's been in the dock for years for its failure, according to federal courts, to provide effective Enlgish-language instruction to Spanish-speaking children.

The case will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court today, NPR reports.

What school systems in Arizona (and other states) have to overcome: kids who hear nothing but Spanish the 18 hours a day they're not in school.

It seems that parents have no responsibility for helping their children learn English. You'd think, at the least, they could sit the kids down in front of English-language TV for eight hours a day at home.

Another problem is that this amounts to an unfunded federal mandate. If Washington demands better English instruction, send the money. Why should Arizona carry the weight of this problem, particularly if it stems from poor border enforcement by federal authorities?

Just another example of the cost of unchecked immigration.

Earl Jones shows his libertarian bent again, proposing to legalize video poker.

He makes one good point: "The Greensboro Democrat said it is 'hypocritical' for the state to run a lottery but outlaw another form of gambling that some people enjoy," Mark reports.

It's not only hypocritical, it's monopolistic. The state wants gambling revenue for itself.

But the remedy isn't to expand gambling but to get the state out of the rackets. Government should not be in the gaming trade, profiting from the gullibility of its citizens.

As for legalizing video poker, I'm not libertarian enough to go for that.

Next from Sen. Dianne Feinstein?

Dear Mr. President:

I am writing to respectfully request that comments regarding holding individuals accountable for use of deadly force against Somali pirates be held in reserve until the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is able to complete its review of the conditions and circumstances leading to the recent rescue of an American cargo ship captain.

This study is now underway, and I estimate its completion within the next six to eight months. We believe it is imperative to determine with certainty whether Navy SEALS exceeded the explicit terms of their authority to use deadly force only if the life of the hostage was in "imminent danger." Their action amounted to the summary execution of three suspected pirate/hostage-takers without due process under ambiguous circumstances. As a fourth pirate was at that moment on board a U.S. Navy vessel negotiating for the release of the hostage, it is questionable at best whether the hostage was immediately threatened with death. Furthermore, there was a strong chance that less drastic measures would have resulted in a favorable end to the standoff without loss of life. The possibility therefore exists that U.S. Navy personnel acted in an unlawful manner and should be held accountable.

We recognize that extreme circumstances sometimes require extreme actions; however, our government must abide by high standards at all times in matters of international concern. Excessively violent tactics against suspected enemies can increase their determination and win sympathy for their cause, as well as lead to retaliatory actions against U.S. personnel.

As we proceed with our investigation, we will of course expect to receive copies of all operational orders, intelligence reports and other documents, including the precise definition of "imminent danger" and all circumstances when the administration believes use of deadly force is justified, all of which we believe should be made public anyway.

Sincerely Yours,

Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

As a grandson of the Old Sod, I didn't read Krugman's column today with any pleasure.

I feel for my Irish cousins, whose distress is even greater than ours -- although we may be following the same path, if Krugman's right.

(For a jarring bit of commonality, recall what Dell's done recently to Ireland. At least they gave real numbers.)

Sadly, there's not much I can do to help. But I'm willing to render a drop or two of assistance whenever possible.

Or three or four.

But there is a limit. After all, there's Scotland to think about, too.

My column today:

UNC-Chapel Hill looked like a world turned upside down one night last week.

Angry demonstrators stopped immigration opponent Tom Tancredo’s speech by shouting insults, stretching a banner in front of him and, finally, bashing in a window. And they accused him of being hateful.

It was an ugly, embarrassing spectacle. Chancellor Holden Thorp apologized, reaffirmed Carolina’s commitment to free expression and said offenders will be investigated for possible criminal and honor code violations.

The easy course now is to let disciplinary proceedings run their course and chalk it up to a learning experience. A few students acted irresponsibly and things got out of hand. Everyone understands that Tancredo should have been allowed to have his say and then move on. Hardly anyone would have noticed.

Unfortunately, that’s not all there is to it. The same sort of thing has happened on other campuses, pointing to a larger concern: erosion of respect for freedom of speech.

This was shown in the proliferation of “speech codes” on campuses throughout the 1980s and ’90s, and that spirit of censorship still lives.

“Many speech codes sought to end hate speech, which code proponents said should receive limited or no First Amendment protections,” David L. Hudson Jr., research attorney for the First Amendment Center, writes on that organization’s Web site. “Supporting this view were many academics who subscribed to so-called 'critical race’ theory. Critical-race theorists contend that existing First Amendment jurisprudence must be changed because the marketplace of ideas does not adequately protect minorities. They charge that hate speech subjugates minority voices and prevents them from exercising their own First Amendment rights.”

A perfect expression of that theory is presented in “An Open Letter to Chancellor Holden Thorp” by Billie Murray, who describes herself as a “doctoral candidate and teaching fellow in the Department of Communication Studies specializing in the rhetoric of social protest.” She attended last week’s event, in which some of her students took part. Her letter is posted on the Web site of Students for a Democratic Society at UNC-Chapel Hill.

“While I am of the view that as a democratic society we must be tolerant of dissenting views, in no way does this mean that all speech promotes democratic ends or should be tolerated,” she wrote. “Put simply, some stories are better than others. The litmus test for these 'better stories’ include those that promote tolerance, acceptance, social justice, equality, and yes, free speech. The rhetoric espoused by YWC and Mr. Tancredo does not promote tolerance of difference and silences those who are 'different.’ Why then should we be tolerant of a rhetoric that in no way promotes the goals of a democracy and that creates a culture of fear and hate? Hate speech silences free speech.”

YWC is Youth for Western Civilization, which has a reportedly tiny membership at Carolina and invited Tancredo. The UNC-Chapel Hill Students for a Democratic Society calls YWC a “white supremacist organization.”

While SDS, in its own statement, said it did not mean to stop Tancredo from speaking, its affiliate at UNC-Asheville sent an approving message: “The heroic actions of UNC-Chapel Hill SDS stand as a shining example of the progressive fight against hate and racism that exists here in the United States. We will continue to battle these abhorrent ideas at every turn and salute UNC-Chapel Hill’s great blow against bigotry.”

Despite the noble-sounding ideals, this is totalitarian thinking. Every repressive regime justifies silencing dissent by claiming a higher purpose. Such attitudes suppose a right to set the correct values for all and to decide which speech violates those values. These arbiters of virtue, then, entitle themselves to shout down those who threaten their views. In their upside-down reasoning, they champion a favored group’s “free speech” by silencing others whom they can’t abide.

This time, they decided that opposition to illegal immigration and access to higher education by unauthorized residents is so vile that it can’t be spoken.

What Tancredo might have said, however, is beside the point. Those who disagree should answer him in debate, not deny him the opportunity to speak and others the freedom to listen and decide. Shouting louder than someone might intimidate, but it rarely enlightens.

It’s a shame intelligent people on college campuses believe the First Amendment only protects speech that suits them. They have it upside down. It’s meant to allow even speech they hate.

Thanks for reading. Feel free to give me a call at 373-7039, send me an email at dgclark@news-record.com or post a comment here.

Leonard Pitts writes today about Texas Gov. Rick Perry's dumb talk about secession.

There's actually some sort of organization behind this idea in the Lone Star State, judging from the Texas Secede! Web site.

And Texas isn't the only state where a few people want to wrench themselves away from the U.S.A. Texas Secede! links to the Web site of the Second Vermont Republic, which offers a registry of other North American secessionist organizations.

It includes a listing for Southern Party of North Carolina at this Web site ... which, as you can see, has to do with travel, not secession. So much for the rebel cause here.

Actually, I'm not opposed to Texas secession, which might help alleviate our problem of illegal immigration from Mexico. Border security along the Rio Grande wouldn't be our concern anymore.

Unless we'd have the new problem of stopping Texans from crossing into Oklahoma.

Kristen Dalton of Wilmington won the Miss USA 2009 title in Las Vegas Sunday night.

Way to go, Miss North Carolina.

The lingering story, however, is about the woman who finished second, Carrie Prejean of California, and whether she lost because judge Perez Hilton didn't like her answer to his question about same-sex marriage.

You can see Hilton's video rant on his blog, where he calls Prejean a "dumb bitch" and reveals the answer she should have given to his question: whether she thinks other states should follow Vermont's lead in allowing same-sex marriages. She should have said it's up to each state to decide for itself.

In other words, he says she should have dodged his question, even though he asked for her opinion. Right. But she did give her opinion. It "alienated so many people," Hilton said, and Miss USA should "unite people."

Are people united in favor of same-sex marriage? Of course not. Hilton should have known when he asked the question that either answer, yes or no, would be divisive. On NBC's "Today" show yesterday, he faulted Prejean for injecting her politics and religion into her answer. I don't think she mentioned her religion on stage, but he asked a political question. Naturally, the answer would be seen as political.

Hilton claims that Prejean was not penalized for her view on same-sex marriage, but that's bogus. He asked a question that forced her to state her position on that issue and, because he disagreed with her answer, he concluded she didn't deserve the title of Miss USA.

Miss USA officials now have to decide whether one of the requirements for contestants is that they agree with the politics of pagaent judges. If so, contestants should be told up front what political views they're supposed to hold and which views will disqualify them.

At least it's not just about the swimsuits.

Maybe lessons were learned at Carolina, after all.

Despite some efforts to disrupt his speech, former Congressman Virgil Goode delivered his message in the Student Union last night.

The Daily Tar Heel reports.

Only six demonstrators were removed and charged with disorderly conduct. Police, given "no choice," according to Chancellor Holden Thorp, stepped in quickly to make sure Goode could proceed.

I'll compliment the university's chapter of Students for a Democratic Society, which this time engaged in an appropriate demonstration in the Pit outside the union.

I believe SDS and others are wrong to label opposition to illegal immigration as hateful and racist, but its members are entitled to express whatever views they want -- just so long as they respect others' rights to do the same. It's still uestionable whether they understand that, but at least they acted more maturely last night.

Now, maybe everyone at Carolina can agree to celebrate the approach of summer break and a chance to let all this animosity recede a bit.

And, to reinforce what hopefully has been learned, I hope Chancellor Thorp will add to orientation proceedings for the next freshman class some discussions about the importance of free speech and civil discourse.

Stephen Curry, Davidson's best basketball player since Alan Duncan, announced today he's giving up his senior year of eligibility to enter the NBA draft.

Meanwhile, Carolina juniors Ty Lawson and Wayne Ellington have scheduled a press conference this afternoon to disclose their decisions. Chances of their returning to the Tar Heels after already winning a national championship are considered slim (Ellington) and none (Lawson).

Meanwhile, another UNC underclassman made a similar declaration this morning, although this news was ignored by the media other than this blog.

Hector Lowder, a sophomore member of Students for a Radical Society, said he will leave school to begin his career as a professional demonstrator.

"I want to thank my SRS teammates, my faculty advisers and everyone who's helped turn me from a shy teenager into a rude and radical protester," Lowder said in a statement on the group's Web site. "It was a difficult decision for me to give up my sociology studies, but I feel I'm going out on top after last week's victory over racist hate-monger Tom Tancredo.

"Now it's time for me to step up to greater challenges on the professional protest circuit. The struggle against oppression, racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, capitalism, animal exploitation, religious extremism and environmental degradation requires a total commitment. I feel I'm entering my prime protest years and I'm ready to shout down anyone and everyone who holds views I despise."

Lowder added that his next step is free-agent tryouts for a consortium of national and international protest groups.

When asked to comment, Chancellor Holden Thorp said, "We're really going to miss Ty and Wayne, but I'm confident we'll have another strong basketball team next year."

Gov. Bev Perdue yesterday announced the state will begin an "unprecedented intervention" in Halifax County Schools because of its low student achievement.

I'm impressed by her statement that: "My goal is to improve public schools and student performance. Dr. Harrison, Superintendent Atkinson and I will act aggressively in Halifax County and all of North Carolina to make sure our schools have the support, direction and accountability that give our kids a chance to succeed.”

I understand that this action was prompted by Judge Howard Manning, who was on the verge of ordering a state takeover. I know it shouldn't take a judge's order to get the state to meet its obligations to every child, even in a poor, out-of-the-way corner like Halifax County.

But Perdue, in office less than four months, is stepping up to her responsibilities. She's making herself accountable. If Halifax County schools still fail after this intervention, it means the state fails. The governor fails. No ducking, no excuses.

Some of her predecessors have styled themselves as education governors. Mike Easley even won an award calling him the nation's greatest education governor.

But Judge Manning looked at the record of Halifax County Schools and pronounced it academic genocide.

How can you be an education governor when that's happening anywhere in your state?

I like Perdue's use of the word "aggressive." I was a detractor of hers during last year's campaign, and I still won't agree with her on all the issues. But she has been a hard charger since taking office, letting everyone know who's running things in Raleigh.

She's playing like Ty Lawson, and she hasn't stubbed her toe yet.

Letter writer Jacob Arthur addresses a subject I touched on in a satirical way the other day.

That is, amid all the alarm about harsh interrogation practices during the Bush administration, the Obama administration is taking actions that could be judged in the same light.

Will a future administration subject officials of this administration to possible criminal prosecutions for measures it undertakes in the name of national security? Arthur mentions drone air strikes into Pakistan that could result in the deaths of innocent civilians. Is that a legal action? Is it less extreme than waterboarding a terrorist detainee in an effort to extract vital information? What are the criteria under which one action is justified and the other condemned?

In the clamor to hold Bush officials accountable, these are questions that just aren't being raised by those currently in power in Washington. But they should be.

Others are asking what was gained by these interrogation methods. The critics say nothing of value, that such tactics just never work.

Then the New York Times reported this the other day:

"WASHINGTON – President Obama’s national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.

“ 'High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country,' Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the intelligence director, wrote in a memo to his staff last Thursday."

This assertion was deleted from memos released to the public, clearly showing the Obama administration is trying to manipulate this issue for political reasons.

If Bush administration officials are called to testify before Congress or prosecuted, however, they will have the right to use all the facts in their defense, including instances where interrogators gained information that prevented terrorist attacks.

President Obama dismisses claims that harsh interrogation methods may be necessary at times. The Times story quotes some of his recent remarks to CIA employees:

“ 'I’m sure that sometimes it seems as if that means we’re operating with one hand tied behind our back or that those who would argue for a higher standard are naïve,' he said. 'I understand that. You know, I watch the cable shows once in a while.'

"But he added: 'What makes the United States special, and what makes you special, is precisely the fact that we are willing to uphold our values and our ideals even when it’s hard, not just when it’s easy.' ”

In other words, we should be willing to fight terrorism with one hand tied behind our backs.

Why? To be more fair to our enemies?

That will be a difficult position to defend if we're hit with another 9-11.

I am NOT endorsing use of torture. I am saying this is a much more complex problem than the president indicates in his public statements. Surely he understands that because, as Jacob Arthur wrote in his letter today, Obama is approving deadly actions that may have shaky legal justification in the name of national security.

Where's the call in Congress for high standards when it comes to killing people inside a sovereign country with which we are not at war? (Pakistan officials oppose this escalation in drone attacks, which they say prompt more violence by militants.) Or is it only the previous administration they want to hold to high standards?

And, speaking of standards, what standard of national security should the American people demand?

For starters, how about fighting with both hands?

This is beyond outrageous.

Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson and Fed Chairman Bernanke last December pressured Bank of America to go through with its Merrill Lynch acquisition despite the tremendous financial liability it created for BoA.

We should thank New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo for uncovering and revealing this information.

Here's his report.

In brief, When BoA CEO Ken Lewis discovered Merrill losses were escalating rapidly, he wanted to invoke a clause in the acquisition deal allowing BoA to pull out. He told Paulson, who immediately called him to a meeting in Washington. Bernanke also attended. Together, they leaned on Lewis to complete the deal on the grounds it was necessary to prevent the collapse of Merrill, which could have precipitated a meltdown of the country's entire financial system. If Lewis refused, he and all BoA board members would be replaced.

That's the kind of power the federal government holds over our formerly private financial sector now, thanks to its TARP funding.

Lewis was in a tight corner, and not just because of his own employment status. What if the Merrill failure really would have such disastrous consequences? Shouldn't he try to prevent it?

At the same time, he had an obligation to his stockholders, who lost incredible amounts of wealth when BoA stock crashed after the Merrill acquisition. Consequently, the city of Charlotte and the entire state of North Carolina paid a huge price. Not to mention the BoA employees who lost their jobs -- all sacrified by federal government policy.

Maybe Timothy Lane Meadows fled the scene of the fatal hit-and-run car crash in High Point yesterday because he doesn't want to go back to prison.

If he's convicted of causing this wreck while intoxicated, he ought to be locked up for years.

Felony death by motor vehicle should be added to the charges already filed.

Newt Gingrich tells the House Energy and Commerce Committee the obvious: a carbon cap-and-trade bill will cost average Americans a lot of money in higher energy costs.

And Chairman Henry Waxman accuses him of using "scare tactics."

" 'When American people hear the statements you have made today, they get scared, which I think is exactly what is intended,' a visibly angry Waxman told Gingrich," AP reported.

But Al Gore warns of "the dire and growing threat" of a warmer earth, and he's hailed as a hero.

That's not intended to scare people? Of course it is.

Both men may be exaggerating, or both may be exactly right.

Global warming, if it accelerates, may have severe consequences. But forcing a major shift in energy use also will entail high costs. Why deny it?

I certainly get the impression from the different treatment of Gingrich and Gore that Henry Waxman wasn't interested in a fair hearing or leveling with the American people.

I experienced a moment of guilt driving on Johnson Street driving toward downtown High Point yesterday.

A car cut me off, prompting me to hit the horn in anger.

Then I saw the New York plate.

Darn, a market visitor. We're supposed to be nice to them. That won't make him feel welcome.

But wait a minute. Horn blowing is practically a second language for New York drivers. Honking at this guy would make him feel at home.

Even better, he might have taken it as a compliment. He got the better of me in a duel of drivers, and all I could do was offer a shout of anger. (And in a subcompact import, it's not even an impressive shout.)

I might have meant to give him the motorist's equivalent of " ---- you, you --- -- - -----!"

But he heard "You da man!"

I probably made his day.

Yeah, welcome to High Point.

Mexican swine flu: More fallout from NAFTA?

Update: The president says there's no need to be alarmed ... but we're declaring an EMERGENCY!

Iraq's prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, wants U.S. soldiers turned over to his country's judicial system after two Iraqis, one an unarmed woman, were killed in a raid that didn't seem to go very well. I hope the Obama administration respectfully declines, but this looks like a serious test of its support for the military vs. devotion to legalism.

I visited the N.C. Zoo Saturday, where looking at people is almost as interesting as viewing animals. One conclusion on a warm day when women were exposing plenty of skin: I should invest in a tattoo shop.

You need a license to work as a bouncer? Shoot. There goes my next career.

Good for Carrie Prejean, Miss California, who refuses to apologize for her beliefs about marriage. It's sad, but not surprising, that she's been pressured to back down. Just another example of movements -- very often from the left -- to stamp out certain points of view.

For similar reasons, I disagree with Sen. Richard Burr, who said Monday he'll vote against the confirmation of pro-abortion Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius as secretary of health and human services. Her views on abortion mirror those of President Obama, who earned the right by virtue of his election to appoint Cabinet members who support his positions. Burr should evaluate her fitness based on overall qualifications, not her stance on one issue. Did he really think Obama would name an abortion opponent to run HHS?

Air Force One buzzes Manhattan, terrorizes New Yorkers: "Many mistook Obama's plane for Osama's," The NY Post reports. The Times coverage also conveys the sense of panic among office workers who rushed to evacuate, fearing a replay of 9/11: "We ran like hell." The president was said to be furious when he found out. The White House Military Office approved the stunt, which turned out to be a photo-op. Let's just say not everyone in this administration is a genius.

Men and women are equal.

Men earn more in the workplace.

Therefore, women are discriminated against.

That's so simple, it's taken for granted.

Sen. Kay Hagan employs the logic in her statement on the occasion of "Equal Pay Day."

The solution is federal action to enforce equality.

Let's see where else disparity exists. But in the following measures, the advantage belongs to females:

Girls have better high school graduation rates.

More women than men enroll in college, and the gap is widening.

But more men than women are locked up.

Accepting the premise that males and females are "equal," statistics showing differences in high school graduation rates, college enrollment and imprisonment might be assumed to indicate discrimination.

Are high schools, colleges and our criminal-justice system discriminating against males?

I'd be foolish to suggest such a thing.

Clearly, we're wading into questions that are just a bit more complex than what was stated at the beginning of this post.

Just on the topic of gender equality in school, here's a brief article by the Council for Exceptional Children, "Gender Differences Impact Learning and Post--School Success." Rather than pretending equality, differences are recognized and represented as challenges that must be addressed.

When it comes to pay equity, I wouldn't doubt for a moment that women are the victims of some level of workplace discrimination. But is that all that accounts for this figure of 78 cents on the dollar?

Here's an article from Inside Higher Ed that explores some of the complexities of this subject. It highlights the research of Harvard economist Claudia Goldin, among others. One of her studies looks at Harvard women with advanced degrees and finds that significant numbers leave their profession after having one child and even more leave after their second child.

Women and men definitely are not equal when it comes to the impact of children on career ... and earnings.

If many of the brightest professionals leave a few years into their careers because of family obligations, what impact does that have on comparisons based on those who remain?

To add another wrinkle, women in some professions seem to manage kids and career better than women in other professions, Goldin believes -- an observation that requires more study, unless one wants to take the quick and easy position that there must be more discrimination in some professions than others.

It would be wise for everyone to look into this subject more closely before drawing sweeping conclusions.

In the near future, maybe:

A craving for a burger hit me, so I stopped at a fast-food place.

The menu board gave me a jolt. A quarter-pound cheeseburger, $8.95?

“Is that the right price?”

“Yes, sir,” a teenaged girl behind the counter nodded with a nervous smile.

“It was more like $2.95 the last time I was here. What’s going on?”

“I’ll call the manager.”

A moment later I was looking at a middle-aged man with sad, tired eyes.

“Can I help you?” he asked.

“Yeah. Why have your prices shot up all of a sudden?”

“Not all of our prices,” he asserted defensively.

I looked again at the board. Cheeseburgers, hamburgers, chicken sandwiches, sausage biscuits ... all outrageous.

“Wait a minute,” I said. “Your salads. They’re still priced about the same.”

“Right,” he said proudly.

“And you’re got some new items up here. Carrot sticks, cucumber wedges. Oh, no. Soyburgers?”

“Quarter-pounder, only $2.35,” the manager said, “or $2.50 with a slice of tofu.”

“Do you sell many of those?”

“No,” he admitted, looking a bit downcast.

“I still don’t get what this is all about,” I told him. “Why have some of your prices gone up so much?”

“It’s the meat tax,” he said. “It just went into effect this week.”

“The meat tax? What’s that?”

“You must have heard of it. It’s been in the news.”

“I don’t get much news since the newspapers folded,” I said crossly.

“The government meat tax,” he repeated. “On account of the environmental costs of producing meat. All the feed for the livestock takes up land that could be used more efficiently to grow grains and vegetables for people. And the animals emit tons of carbon dioxide, methane and other waste products. Then they have to be trucked to the slaughterhouse, and processed, packaged and shipped again. It all contributes disproportionately to global warming and overuses valuable resources. Not to mention the animal cruelty.”

“This is incredible,” I said. “A burger joint has a manager from PETA.”

“I’m just doing my job, sir,” he said, a bit offended.

“I thought your job was to sell sizzling, fatty, red-meat, all-American hamburgers at reasonable prices.”

“Times have changed,” he said.

Rolling up my eyes, I noticed the beverage prices.

“Is that six bucks for a regular cup of coffee?”

“Yes, sir,” he grimaced.

“Can you explain that? Are we against slaughtering coffee beans now?”

“No, sir, but we have to import them from South America. That requires a lot of energy, so there’s a high carbon tax that has to be passed on to the consumer.”

“Now I’ve heard everything,” I shouted.

“Please, sir,” the manager pleaded. “You’ll upset our other customers.”

I glanced around.

“There are no other customers.”

He surveyed the empty dining area.

“Oh, you’re right. I guess I’m not used to that yet.”

“You should get used to it,” I said. “Americans aren’t going to put up with this. Sure, a lot of us are cutting down on red meat for health reasons. But that’s our choice. We try to support local food suppliers when we can. But you tell me who’s growing coffee around here, or tea or even orange juice. And don’t tell me you can substitute soybeans for any of them. If the government thinks it’s going to force me to eat what it wants me to eat and drink what it wants me to drink, it’s got another thing coming. I won’t be treated like a back-alley junkie, or worse, a filthy cigarette smoker just for enjoying a patty of charbroiled ground beef once in a while. Those power-hungry do-gooders will have to pry my burger out of my cold, greasy fingers!”

I glared at the cowering young lady behind the cash register.

“Give me the biggest cheeseburger you have,” I ordered, “and I don’t care what it costs.”

She turned red and looked at her manager, as if asking for support. He nodded.

Mustering her courage, she addressed me in a timid voice.

“Yes, sir. But first I have to ask you to step onto that scale.”

She motioned to the floor next to me.

“That scale? Why?”

She swallowed hard before replying:

“If you’re overweight, I’ll have to add the fat tax.”

Thanks for reading. You can call me at 373-7039, send me an email dgclark@news-record.com or post a comment here.

Addendum, May 6: Oh, sure, serve fat, juicy burgers to these guys.

There's huge fanfare over President Barack Obama's 100th day in office.

He's incredibly popular, drawing applause for a flurry of big initiatives.

Not so much for North Carolina Gov. Bev Perdue, whose 100th day in office passed without any celebrations last week.

Perdue's been active and visible, presenting a striking contrast to her reclusive predecessor, Mike Easley. But she's not receiving many cheers for her work, which in some important ways is much tougher than Obama's.

Today's headline offers an example why: "Perdue mandates furlough for state workers."

Our print edition headline was even more sour: "Furloughs leave a bad taste."

But what choice does the governor have? She's required by the state constitution to make sure the budget is balanced. She can't unilaterally raise taxes, but she can -- she must -- cut spending as necessary.

President Obama acts under no such constraints. With the willing support of Congress, he can spend money as if there's no limit to it. Despite the poor economy, high unemployment rate and pay cuts for other Americans lucky enough to have jobs, there's been no talk of laying off, furloughing or cutting the pay of any federal government employees. But there are plenty of proposals for new and more expensive federal programs -- welcome news to many Americans who believe federal spending is going to solve their problems and the country's. We can hope it does, but sooner or later there will be a day of reckoning. It's just not going to be the 100th day for President Obama.

For a governor like Bev Perdue, however, serious budget constraints demand accountability every day.

Arlen Specter's a politician, and his shift from the Republican to Democratic Party yesterday was based on political calculation.

It wasn't higher math, either. Democrats outnumber Republicans by 1.2 million in Pennsylvania. In exchange for his allegiance, Democrats all but guarantee Specter their party's Senate nomination next year and the support of President Barack Obama and Gov. Ed Rendell, plus lots of campaign money.

The question is whether Specter is still a man of principle. He was an independent Republican, who parted with his party when he thought another position was better. Will he be as independent of the Democratic Party, which will count on him to help break GOP filibusters and vote the party line on closely debated issues?

Addressing that question yesterday, Specter promised he will. For example, he said he'll continue to oppose the card-check bill, which is the Democratic Party's biggest payback to the unions for all their election support. On principle, there's no reason for Specter to flip on that issue. It's bad legislation that defies the valued ideal of secret-ballot elections. Besides, as a Republican, he dtidn't owe the unions anything. But much of that campaign money he'll count on as a Democratic candidate next year would be coming from unions. Will it depend on whether he votes for the union agenda? Very likely.

Specter got a hard time from Republicans whenever he deviated from their party line, and he deserved credit for having the courage to withstand it. We'll see how well he does when it comes to bucking the Democrats when his principles don't agree with theirs.

Swine flu is North American Influenza (H1N1) as far as the N.C. Department of Agriculture is concerned.

Our hogs haven't got it, the department says.

The N.C. Pork Council isn't keen on linking this fast-spreading illness to swine either, Dome reports.

"This is not an issue of food safety so we'll keep hammering away with the messages that pork is safe to eat and there is no evidence this influenza subtype is present in pigs," spokeswoman Deborah Johnson told The N&O column.

Right. But, unfortunately, it seems like it's too late already to stop the swine. This pig has left the pen.

Virginia Foxx was foolish to call the Matthew Shepard murder narative a "hoax" yesterday and later admitted to choosing that word poorly.

But the long-accepted account, that Shepard's killing was an anti-gay hate crime, was credibly challenged in this well-reported ABC News story all the way back in 2004.

That report supports Foxx's statement that: “We know that young man was killed in the commitment of a robbery. It wasn’t because he was gay," but not her use of the word "hoax."

Significantly, the two men responsible for Shepard's death were convicted and sentenced to two consecutive life sentences without a federal hate-crime law.

Update: Foxx's office claims she's getting death threats. The irony ...

President Obama's answer to a question last night about closing our border with Mexico didn't make sense to me.

That "would be akin to closing the barn door after the horses are out, because we already have cases here in the United States," he said about the new strain of flu that originated in Mexico.

Sure, some horses are out. But a whole lot more horses are still there. Shouldn't we want to keep them there?

Public health authorities try to isolate infectious diseases. That's why they recommend closing schools where one child has gotten sick. That's why they ask people not to travel if they suspect they're coming down with something. Isolating Mexican cases in Mexico would seem consistent with that approach.

My guess, though, is that Obama doesn't want to take action with regard to Mexico that other countries might take against the United States. Couldn't Canada use the same logic to close its border? Couldn't every other country deny entry to Americans and say, "Look, we're just doing what you've done to Mexico."

From a strictly public health standpoint, Obama's horses-and-barn statement doesn't make sense to me.

From the perspective of commerce and good diplomatic relations, however, I think keeping borders as open as possible is a good practice, and only the most extreme crises should force a change in that policy.

By Keith Forsyth and Luke Snyder:

A craving for a burger hit me, so I pulled my H3 into a fast food place.
The menu board gave me a jolt. A quarter-pound cheeseburger was off the menu??
"I'm sorry, your menu seems to be wrong, I don't see any kind of beef product here"
"No sir, that's exactly right” a teenage girl behind the counter shook her head and said with a tentative smile.
"Wait, I'm sorry I'm a bit confused, that burger is your signature item."
"Oh, well I guess I’ll call the manager"
A few minutes later I was looking at a middle-aged, jaunt jaundiced man.
"Can I help you sir?" he asked sounding incredibly fatigued.
"Yes, yes you can. Why would you ever take your signature burger off the menu, and for that matter where are all your beef products? Tell me, where's the beef"
"Now hold on, there's still meaty-style products there on the big board, just look."
I paused worried I had made a mistake and scoured the board for any sign of cattle, but all that was there was soylent red quarter pounder, soylent yellow nuggets. "Oh I see. Soylent red, soylent yellow, soylent green even."
"Exactly!" He proclaimed, shaking off the fatigue for just moments.
"I'm sorry, but these are all new to me. I don't know that I've ever had soylent products, are they any good?"
"Well... not really, I haven't had anything but french fries in weeks. But they're cheap! Some of it is even made in China."
"You can't possibly sell much of this if you promote it like that"
"I'm usually too tired to make it out of the back."
"Well tell me why the beef is gone already."
"It's the lack of cattle" he said. "They've been dwindling since grazing lands have been disappearing"
"Wooooooah, hold on there. The lack of cattle?"
"Yes, lack of cattle. Ever since we deregulated business and the environment, suitable lands have been dwindling. Then the climate change really took a hit on the global food economy. There hasn't really been much coverage on Fox News, but it is happening"
"NO. WAY."
"Yeah, even Kansas is gone, dried up turned into a dust bowl."
"Now I know you're lying, Kansas can’t possibly be gone."
"That's where I grew up. Anyhow, since no one wanted to pay attention to the real cost of things, and all they cared about was the market value vendors started cutting corners. They started dumping again, stopped paying attention to safety regulations. Costs went down, they were bound to, no more frivolous lawsuits when limbs were lost. No more testing for lead, no more government at all it feels like."
"This is ridiculous; we should do something about it."
"Why? Profits are at an all time high!"
"But I want a burger, a succulent greasy all American burger."
"But you can have soylent for so much cheaper, not that there's any beef around anyway."
"Jeez" I sighed and looked back towards the big board. "Where's the orange juice? What's this? Tang! You can't possibly be substituting Tang for OJ!"
"Ever since Florida’s been turned into that new water park there haven’t been many oranges, but don't worry there's been talk of asking Venezuela to help us with our shortage"."
"Venezuela! VENEZUELA!"
"Please sir you're disturbing the customers"
"That's it I'm going across the street for a real burger."
"Oh. No sir I don't think that's going to work, there was a hostile takeover. That burger joint is ours now."
"Fine, I'll eat here. But not forever, just today, I'm not going to be complacent about this. Give me the biggest possible burger with American cheese, dripping with grease."
The cashier turned and grinned a big teenage smirk and said "Okay, one soylent red with soylent yellow, and victory cheese... To go?"
"You know what, no, I'll eat it here.” She turned red and looked at her manager as if asking for authority. He nodded.
Puffing up her chest, she addressed me in a matter of fact tone.
"Fine sir. But first I have to ask you to sign this contract and take an oath."
"Contract, Oath? Why?"
She scoffed before replying:
"If you would like any more soylent you'll have to prove your loyalty."