News-Record.com

Our editorial today looks at possible changes in how North Carolina pays for transportation projects.

The most dramatic development is a preliminary agreement to proceed with planning for private construction and operation of the Mid-Currituck Bridge.

Here's a look at it.

At seven miles, this would be the longest bridge in North Carolina. At an estimated $659 million, it would cost more than twice as much as a replacement for the Yadkin River Bridge on I-85, itself a vital artery that the state can't afford to replace at this time (it's going to apply for federal funds). As Transportation Secretary Gene Conti told us this week, the state will NEVER have the money to build the Mid-Currituck Bridge. The only way to get it done is for a private company to undertake the project and recover its costs through tolls -- probably fairly steep tolls.

This is the perfect project for that approach because this bridge doesn't really have to be built. Its main benefit is to save driving time for people heading to the upper Outer Banks, around Corolla, for those willing to pay. Those not willing could still use the Wright Memorial Bridge across the mouth of Currituck Sound on Highway 158. (See map.)

Environmentalists might question why build another bridge at all.

I like bridges. The greatest I've been on is the Mackinac Bridge in Michigan, which spans the straits between lakes Huron and Michigan. It's five miles long and a tourist attraction in its own right. It also carries an interstate highway, I-75 and charges a toll of only $3 per car.

Speaking of tolls roads, they are definitely in our future.

From NewsChannel 36 in Charlotte:

"Some of the same people who sell North Carolina Education Lottery tickets are also winning – and winning big – $100,000 $300,000 and almost $500,000 prizes.

"And some are winning significant jackpots repeatedly – dozens of times a year.

"Is it just dumb luck? Or do these insiders have some kind of inside track? And what is the state doing about it?"

Answer to the last question: nothing.

Read the story.

Update: I talked with lottery director Tom Shaheen a few minutes ago, who says investigators have looked at some of the retailers in question and not found anything improper. Although enforcement is reactive, Shaheen added, "We are putting some investigative processes in place."

"Enhanced" investigative processes, he added.

He can't reveal what they are yet.

Shaheen is a straight-up guy who recognizes how important it is to maintain public confidence in the lottery. He takes seriously any threats to that.

Mark outlines some findings from a state auditor's report on the State Health Plan, which lost $80 million last year.

He reports that the State Employees Association blames legislators for "inadequate oversight."

This has the makings of a big scandal that's costing taxpayers and state employees lots of money.

A local board of education has the authority to assign students to year-round schools without their parents' permission, the N.C. Supreme Court rules today in a 4-3 decision that includes two dissenting opinions and a concurring opinion that advises the losers on remedies they can seek.

More in a minute ...

The case comes from Wake County, which has experienced rapid enrollment growth in its public school system. In addition to building many new schools, the school board also has put multi-track year-round scheduled in place at a number of schools. These schools divided the student body into four groups, only three of which are actually in school at any one time. Through this scheduling, the school can accommodate one-third more children than otherwise. It's a strictly cost-saving measure.

It's also not popular with parents because of the effect on family schedules. Their children don't get a normal summer vacation but can be on break at various other times during the year. They argued the school board did not have the authority to impose this schedule on them.

(At a time when the legislature has imposed a specified summer break on all school systems, the Wake system seems legally untenable, but the legislature made an exception for year-round schools.)

Justice Patricia Timmons-Goodson wrote for the court's majority, which also included Chief Justice Sarah Parker, Justice Robin Hudson and Justice Bob Edmunds.

The majority's conclusion: "e hold that the Board is statutorily authorized to compel attendance at year-round calendar schools. The Board's action in converting traditional calendar schools to year-round calendar schools comports with its statutory duty to provide a school system adequate to the needs of increasing student enrollment while assuring appropriate class sizes in its schools. Moreover, the more efficient use by year-round calendar schools of existing school facilities complies with the public policy of the state to create a public school system 'n the most cost-effective manner'while ensuring a sound basic education for all North Carolina children."

Timmons-Goodson added this note, which reveals the personal feelings of the justices: "e recognize the emotional nature of this case, but we must emphasize that our duty goes no further than to determine the legal authority for implementing mandatory year-round schools, not the wisdom of such a decision. This Court cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the Board."

Edmunds, a Greensboro resident, went another step in his concurring opinion:

"Nevertheless, plaintiffs are not without recourse. The record includes affidavits from individual plaintiffs establishing that mandatory year-round schools will be inordinately disruptive in their family lives. Under section 115C-369, parents or guardians of any student assigned to a year-round school may seek reassignment and apply for a mandatory hearing if the request is denied. At such a hearing, one of the factors that 'hall'be considered is 'he best interest of the child.' I cannot believe that best interest does not include at least some of the factors raised by plaintiffs, such as sibling placement, family schedules, and the like.

"Moreover, plaintiffs have the ultimate remedy of the ballot box. While boards of education must make difficult choices as to how to allocate scarce resources, those boards are responsible to the voters, who have the power both to elect candidates of their choice and to unseat incumbents."

Justice Mark Martin wrote a lengthy dissent, joined by Justices Ed Brady and Paul Newby.

Here's one key conclusion in Martin's dissent:

"The legislature has not authorized any local school board to mandate year-round schooling for public school students. It is unreasonable to suggest that the legislature's 2004 amendment to the school calendar statute, which was enacted to preserve summer vacation, was actually intended to grant local school boards the authority to impose on public school students a schedule that requires them to attend school throughout the summer months. A careful reading of the applicable statutes reveals that they prohibit a local school board from mandating that students attend a year-round calendar."

In answer to the remedy of the ballot box, he notes:

"The vast majority of Wake County students are not affected by the compulsory year-round policy, and the students who are affected all reside in a particular area within the county. Together, these factors mean that year-round students and their families are unlikely to muster the political strength necessary to avoid selective imposition of mandatory year-round schooling."

Brady added a passionate dissent with a different slant:

"The majority opinion evinces a dramatic shift from the traditional maxim that 'mother knows best' to the 'progressive' idea that 'bureaucrat and elected official knows best.' I cannot sit silently and watch as this Court removes the ultimate responsibility of education from the hands of parents to the hands of the education establishment. While I concur fully in Justice Martin's well-reasoned dissenting opinion, I write separately to emphasize both the importance that family plays in the education of our young citizenry and how the majority opinion fails to consider the harmful effect of its decision on the family."

This case does stir the emotions. I'll have more to say about it later.

Guilford County District Court Judge Wendy Enochs gets vindication from the Supreme Court for her handling of this juvenile case.

Huge.

Tom Keller's report gives you the rundown, but you probably had to be in High Point yesterday to appreciate the scope of the N.C. Marathon.

Two thousand runners in three separate races were spread over more than 30 miles of city streets. A marathon and half-marathon started at 7 a.m., and a 5K at 9.

Because all the marathoners and many of the half-marathoners were still on the roads at 9, three races were under way simultaneously for part of the morning.

A world of credit goes to race organizers, an army of volunteers, the High Point Police Department, other city employees and everyone else who made it happen. Congratulations, Foster Friends of North Carolina and sponsors, for a terrific accomplishment.

The police effort was extraordinary, especially coming right after the furniture market when they put in a lot of overtime to ensure public safety with 70,000 visitors in town for that big business event. This time they had to block or detour traffic at scores of intersections for hours to provide access for runners. It was an immense undertaking. Motorists encountered delays and inconvenience, and some might have been hard-pressed to even figure out how to drive across town. I hope there won't be too many complaints to City Hall Monday.

The courses themselves were well laid-out and attractive, covering some of High Point's top attractions from start to finish. The races really provided a nice tour of the city for out-of-towners.

And there were plenty of runners, many more than in the inaugural N.C. Marathon in Greensboro last year. Personally, I've never been in a more crowded field than at yesterday's 7 a.m. combined start for the two longer races. I had no idea that Joan Benoit Samuelson was among us. She went on to win the half-marathon.

My own experience was disappointing. I'd strained a hamstring during a long training run two weeks ago, and it just didn't hold up very long yesterday. Nevertheless, it was fun being part of the excitement. I'll hope for better luck next year when the event returns to High Point.

In fact, I hope it becomes a permanent fixture. High Point can handle huge.

First, Sen. Arlen Specter turned against his party.

Big deal.

Then he turned against his profession.

That is a big deal.

Speaking of a replacement for Supreme Court Justice David Souter, Specter "suggested someone in the mold of a statesman or stateswoman, and said he could imagine a nominee who was not a lawyer, if that person had the right credentials," according to this AP story.

Specter, a lawyer and former Philadelphia district attorney, must be losing his mind. A nonlawyer sitting on the highest court in the land?

Is that even allowed? One has to be a licensed attorney to be a judge in North Carolina state courts, for good reason. The job requires an understanding of and respect for the law.

Now, in Washington, all kinds of other ideas are being thrown around.

President Obama, who will nominate Souter's successor, said he'll be looking for someone who has "empathy" for average people and can identify with their "hopes and struggles."

Sen. Patrick Leahy weighs in with: "I would like to see more people from outside the judicial monastery, somebody who has had some real-life experience, not just as a judge."

And more from Specter: "I would like to see somebody with broader experience. We have a very diverse country. We need more people to express a woman's point of view or a minority point of view, Hispanic or African American ... somebody who's done something more than wear a black robe for most of their lives."

Good grief.

Never mind the fact that there's just one vacancy to fill in the immediate future and it's impossible to find one justice who will represent all these different points of view.

The more serious issue is that the court is not a representative body like a legislature. Justices don't speak on behalf of certain constituencies, fighting for the interests of some Americans as opposed to others.

That's because the law isn't supposed to be written from the perspective of one group or another. On the contrary, it's supposed to apply equally to all.

Of course judges should be equipped with a normal dose of empathy for their fellow man. But they also have to detach themselves from the emotions of a case in order to dispense justice impartially.

To me, the ideal candidate would have some experience on the bench before being placed on the nation's highest court. That would build some understanding of the role of the court and the impartiality required to do the job properly. Someone who's made a career of "empathizing" with this group or that group might just continue that practice on the bench. Empathizing with one group, even if the group is broadly categorized as "average Americans," necessarily means having less empathy for people not so categorized -- and that's not impartiality.

Leahy and Specter also seem to have the odd idea that some judges are born wearing black robes. I don't know how someone could become a judge without gathering plenty of "real world experience." That may include working their way through college and law school, representing clients with all kinds of problems and in all sorts of trouble, and presiding in court over a wide variety of both mundane and complex legal disputes.

It's too much to expect that, in a charged-up political environment, the next nominee won't be chosen for certain ideological characteristics. But let's hope that, no matter what else, the next justice will know and respect the law, bring plenty of appropriate legal and courtroom experience, and have a record of fairness and impartiality, not a history of showing political preference for any particular cause or group.

Linda Brady set out ambitious goals today after her formal installation as chancellor of UNCG.

These ceremonies are always impressive for their pomp and circumstance, the procession of dignitaries in academic robes, and the traditional symbols of institutional pride.

Today's event was dampened a bit, perhaps, by the wet, chilly weather. That might have accounted for several rows of empty seats in Aycock Auditorium.

Nevertheless, Brady laid out an agenda that, if fulfilled, will have a big impact on Greensboro and the university.

Despite the challenges of a weak economy that have forced some cutbacks since Brady took office last August, "This is the time for UNCG to be a leader," she said. "This is the moment. And higher education is the place to be in order to effect change."

Change is a constant, but Brady said the pace of social, political, demographic and economic changes requires UNCG accelerate its own transformation to keep up.

"I believe we must generate a new sense of urgency. We must not only respond to change; we must be agents of change."

It sounds as if she intends to force a quicker pace throughout the university. An example:

"We must provide new accelerated programs that will enable undergraduates to complete their coursework in less than four years; we will do so by building on emerging technology and our experience with distance education."

Less than four years? It makes sense when costs are rising and knowledge multiplies from one year to the next in cutting-edge fields.

Which explains the need to "expand our commitment to graduate education and continual learning ..."

The chancellor listed five strategic areas:

fostering access to education and student success;

fostering health and wellness;

leadership development;

becoming a catalyst for economic transformation, cultural expression and community development;

and, "UNCG will become a global university where sutdents, faculty and the community engage the problems of our times in a global context informed by international and intercultural experiences and perspectives."

The last arera is especially intriguing, although perhaps not surprising given Brady's State Department background in international diplomacy and negotiation. Success in those disciplines requires familiarity with the interests, history, culture and politics of international adversaries and partners.

It's ambitious. I haven't tended to think of UNCG as a national university, let alone a global university. But why not? When training students for success in a globally competitive economy, it's necessary to equip them with global perspectives. In serving as a catalyst for economic transformation in Greensboro, the university should help city leaders understand how the world around us is changing. Success already depends to a large extent on global interaction -- think how important multinational and foreign companies are today to Greensboro's economy -- and that will increase in the future. UNCG should become an institution that can help teach Greensboro and the Triad to understand the business, cultural and spoken languages of the world.

"Our role is, and will be increasingly, much broader and more complex," Brady said. "And we are faced with serious competitors in the United States and around the world. We must move forward faster and with greater agility."

Greensboro should encourage and assist UNCG in achieving these goals -- and get ready to go along for the ride.

Update: UNCG has just posted the text of Brady's remarks.

Another update: Scott Hoffmann's photos.

Darnell Lamar Dawkins was not good at hiding things, or himself.

On the morning of Sept. 19, 2006, Rahsaan Greenridge left his home in Virginia on a business trip -- driving to North Carolina to pick up marijuana, which he planned to sell back in Virginia.

By that afternoon, however, he was lying dead in the middle of McConnell Road in Greensboro, his body "riddled with bullets."

Very early the next morning, Dawkins tried to hide from Greensboro police officers and Guilford County sheriff's deputies by crawling under a deflated children's swimming pool. He'd just wrecked Greenridge's car during a chase and had tried to get away on foot.

When they found Dawkins, officers also discovered a gun, lots of money and some marijuana. Oh, yes, and Greenridge's blood all over everything.

On March 27 of last year, Dawkins was convicted in Guilford County Superior Court of first-dgree murder and other charges. He was sentenced to life in prison without parole by Judge John O. Craig III.

Dawkins appealed, and his case was heard by the N.C. Court of Appeals on March 26.

Apparently, this wasn't a tough case because today, in near-record time, a three-judge panel unanimously affirmed Dawkins' conviction.

Dawkins might have had a better chance to escape justice if he'd found a hiding place for Greenridge's body, not driven around in Greenridge's car, stashed other evidence of his crimes, cleaned up the blood and stayed out of sight himself for a while.

But he didn't.

Thank goodness for criminals who make the work of the police and courts easy.

My column today:

It’s not often that matters of life and death depend on the meaning of an ordinary word. But, as I read it, that was the issue in last week’s capital punishment ruling by a closely divided N.C. Supreme Court.

The question is what the legislature intended by writing into state law the requirement that a physician must be “present” at lethal-injection executions. No specific role is spelled out.

That suited the N.C. Medical Board, which governs professional standards, including ethics. In January 2007, the board adopted a statement asserting that physicians should not play any active role in executions. Participation beyond mere presence could trigger disciplinary action.

Sounds innocent. But from then on, the warden at Central Prison no longer could find a physician willing to join him at executions. Without a physician present, lethal injections could not be administered legally. The long line of men and women waiting their turn stopped moving. Confronted with this intolerable deadlock, the Department of Correction sued the Medical Board for overstepping its legislative authority.

By a 4-3 count, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state. Writing for the majority, Justice Edward Thomas Brady fleshed out the sparse language of the law, filling in the legislative intent:

“To assert that the physician is to merely occupy space in a nonprofessional capacity is simply illogical. ...”

Inferring that “presence” implies participation, Brady deduced that the Medical Board’s threat to discipline physicians who serve a required function at executions defies state law.

Justice Robin Hudson delivered a passionate dissent, claiming that the majority exceeded its own authority by reading what the legislature did not write. “Present” shouldn’t be taken to mean anything more than that.

The court’s split on this case was not surprising in one sense, although the arguments of the two sides were.

Joining Brady were Justices Mark Martin, Bob Edmunds and Paul Newby. They are the court’s four men, and all are registered Republicans and moderate-conservatives. Maybe it was expected they would rule in favor of the state and its desire to get on with executions.

With Hudson were Chief Justice Sarah Parker and Justice Patricia Timmons-Goodson. They are the court’s three women and registered Democrats. But Hudson’s dissent isn’t based on liberal opposition to capital punishment. Instead, it’s an appeal to the conservative value of judicial restraint — upholding the letter of the law in its most basic understanding.

There’s more context here. North Carolina’s Council of State, responding to a federal court order, adopted an execution protocol that’s supposed to protect a condemned inmate from pain and suffering during a lethal-injection execution. It calls for a physician to monitor the condemned for signs of distress. Detecting any, the physician should stop the proceedings until the problem is corrected through some different application of drugs.

That’s a macabre role for a professional healer. Even in the guise of easing pain, this puts the physician in the position of participating in the process of taking life. I don’t blame doctors who refuse to play along.

In her dissent, Hudson raised the possibility that physicians in fact won’t comply despite the defeat handed to the Medical Board:

“Further, it is far from clear how enjoining defendant from disciplining physicians will achieve the result sought by plaintiffs, namely, the resumption of executions. The court order below neither requires that physicians be involved at executions nor that executions proceed.”

She’s right. This ruling blocks the Medical Society’s enforcement of its policy, but neither law, nor protocol, nor court order can compel any individual physician to assist in an execution.

It’s disturbing that anyone would think it should.

Brady wrote, “Exceptional care was taken when drafting the Protocol to ensure that it would not cause a physician to violate the Hippocratic Oath.”

Really? The protocol wasn’t written with the support of the Medical Board, and it contravenes the stance of the American Medical Association. Who should decide what conforms to medical ethics if not those professional organizations? Surely not the courts nor any collection of politicians.

Hudson’s argument is better. The court went too far in speaking for the legislature, which has a voice of its own.

If the legislature wants to resolve this messy dispute for good, it should just say no to the death penalty.

Everyone will get the meaning of that.

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

If there's anything that can add more turmoil to Greensboro city government, I suppose it's having the federal Justice Department mucking around.

I wonder, first, whether the Obama Justice Department intends to "investigate" minority hiring in every city in the country. Is there all of a sudden a nationwide quota system?

In terms of the particular complaints from black officers in the Greensboro Police Department, I don't get the Justice Department's position.

From Amanda's story:

“ 'We will continue our efforts to gather relevant information from other sources, and may be forced to construe the City’s refusal to permit relevant interviews of witnesses as an indication that the information those witnesses would have provided would be favorable to the charging parties (the police officers),' reads a letter from John Gadzichowski and Toni Michelle Jackson of the Justice Department employment litigation section."

I don't know if the position taken by city attorneys is correct or not, but it sounds fishy for the Justice Department officials to threaten to "construe" matters in a certain way based on factors that have nothing to do with the facts of the case. That would entitle them to draw any conclusion they like, even if they lack evidence to support it.

By the way, if they're interviewing RMA investigators, shouldn't they also talk to the State Bureau of Investigation agents who spent nearly a year probing the GPD? Maybe they're not interested, since that investigation apparently came up with very little wrongdoing, or at least nothing that could hold up in court.

Since these discrimination lawsuits filed by black officers would end up in court, if taken to their conclusion, I'd think the Justice Department would wait to see how the facts fall there before meddling.

It's all confusing. Most puzzling of all is why the Justice Department doesn't have more important things to do.

Elizabeth Edwards' interview with Oprah will boost sales of her new book, but that's not a very good reason to lay out details about her relationship with her unfaithful husband on national TV.

I expect it will be painful to watch ... but millions will endure it.

Note: Oprah advances the interview.

Interesting reading: A tough commentary by Lee Stranahan at huffingtonpost.com.

Addendum: Kevin Siers' cartoon.

Check out reason.tv's report: "Barack Obama and the DC school voucher program."

It documents a clear case of putting politics ahead of education for kids.

YouTube version here.

(Tip to ConservativeNC blog.)

Breaking news, 2:40 p.m.: WaPo reports that Obama will give the voucher program a limited reprieve. It won't yank kids out of their current schools, but wouldn't accept new ones.

Arlen Specter is complaining he was double-crossed by the Democrats.

Specter riled Republicans for being overly independent. It seems Democrats think he should walk and talk their party line, or else.

Maybe he needs to start the Specter Party, where he's sure to fit in just fine.

British Home Secretary Jacqi Smith appears to be catching flak in London for including American radio ranter Michael Savage on her banned list, along with violent extremists.

"Another humiliating gaffe for the Home Secretary," the Daily Mail says.

From The Times of London in regard to Savage's threat to sue for defamation:

"A leading media lawyer said today that lawyers would be 'falling over themselves' to offer their services.

"Mark Stephens, of the London law firm Finers Stephens Innocent, said: 'He would seem to have a very good case. The people on the list who have been banned are supposed to be advocating extreme violence and so to put him into that category is clearly defamatory.

" 'His views, such as those on homosexuals, may be offensive but that is another thing entirely. The Home Secretary appears not to have appreciated the difference between tolerance and defamation.'

"Mr Stephens added that he thought that Mr Weiner could hope to obtain about £200,000 in damages, adding that this should be paid by the Home Secretary personally, not by the Government."

Apparently, Smith was already in political trouble.

Savage is frequently offensive and usually rude and obnoxious. I'm not sure, however, what threat he would pose to Great Britain if he were allowed to visit. Many Brits seem to wonder, too.

The government there can choose to keep out whom it wants, but it will only hurt itself if it becomes too exclusive or puts commentary in the same category as violence.

Maine's "act to end discrimination in civil marriage," doesn't live up to its name, the Libertarian Party says.

While the new law, signed by Maine's governor yesterday, ends the prohibition on same-sex marriage and also marriages of first cousins, it leaves other restrictions.

Among them:

"A person may not marry that person's parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, sibling, nephew, niece, aunt, uncle or first cousin."

(First cousins may marry, the law goes on, if they have had genetic counseling.)

Also:

"A marriage contracted while either party has a living wife or husband from whom
the party is not divorced is void."

In a statement yesterday, the Libertarian Party praised Maine's action but urged states "to take the proper approach to marriage equality and repeal government definitions and regulation of marriage entirely."

Donny Ferguson, Libertarian National Committee communications director, explained:

“The Libertarian Party position is simple. The government should not police consensual agreements between adults. Government should recognize the marriage of any consenting parties entering into an agreement, and businesses and individuals should retain the right to choose for themselves who to bestow private benefits to.

"We are the only party that not only supports marriage equality, but would completely do away with government's ability to restrict it."

The same-sex marriage movement has tremendous momentum, but changes to marriage likely won't end even if it reaches its objectives in all 50 states. I believe the Libertarians have correctly identified one possible conclusion -- government recognition of all consensual agreements between or among adults as, effectively, a marriage, without restrictions.

The other possible conclusion is that it recognizes none.

Nothing else is true "equality" as that's being currently defined.

It's official: President Obama is serious about tightening the federal belt.

Well, maybe.

Among $17 billion in spending cuts he proposed today -- trimming next year's projected deficit by 1.2 percent -- is elimating the Department of Education's attache position in Paris, saving $632,000.

The position actually is education liaison to the U.S. mission to UNESCO.

(Laura Bush is still featured on the mission's education page.)

The cost includes $77,000 to rent living space for the attache, swamppolitics.com reports.

More about the $632,000 from unescoeducation blog: "That includes the following: one GS-15 salary, plus benefits; one Paris apartment, plus parking; travel and moving expenses; education costs for children of up to $60,000; and $170,000 for International Cooperative Administrative Support Services, an expenses-sharing mechanism used by agencies for overseas staff."

It sounds extravagant, but let's put it in perspective. The government spent half as much money on one photo-op flight over New York City.

The attache position doesn't mean much one way or the other, I suppose, but maybe eliminating the job has symbolic value. Can't say anymore that the feds aren't making sacrifices or laying people off.

The state Senate's weakened smoking-ban bill, which passed on second reading today, adds one positive provision:

"It is further the intent of the General Assembly to allow local governments to adopt local laws governing smoking within their jurisdictions that are more restrictive than the State law."

Local governments should have been given that authority a long time ago.

Now, this is a long way from being final. The third and last reading of, or vote on, the Senate bill is scheduled for Monday. Then the Senate bill must be reconciled with the House bill, which is substantially different. We'll have to wait for the smoke to clear, so to speak, before this is over.

Then, maybe, city councils and county commissions can take their own shot at it.

"Thousands of U.S. troops are being rushed to Afghanistan without the equipment they will need to fight an emboldened Taliban," AP reports. Sound familiar?

Should "ED" ads be banned before 10 p.m.? A couple of congressmen think so.

Speaking of offensive, respondents to an Advertising Age poll aren't buying Michael Vick as a spokesman against animal cruelty. (It turns out, neither is PETA.)

Uh-oh. Next round, "pathetic" Rielle counters.

The only thing I can say about Manny's troubles is, I wish he were still with the Red Sox. (I'm not happy he's become Joe Torre's problem.)

When Pope Benedict XVI tours the Holy Land, maybe he can find out where all the Christians went.

High Pointer Chris Greene is a good choice to serve on the State Board of Education.

Buzz Aldrin speaks at High Point University's graduation tomorrow. It will be 40 years this July 20 since Aldrin became the second human being to walk on the moon.

Do today's college graduates have any idea of the magnitude of that event?

They weren't even born yet when the last manned moon landing occurred on Dec. 11, 1972.

Here's a summary of the six Apollo landings. It excludes the infamous, heroic Apollo 13.

And, yes, there are people who still say it was all a fake.

I think Buzz Aldrin and his fellow astronauts were the real deal.

We can celebrate our history of space exploration. I still remember the immense excitement generated by the pioneering flights of Alan Shepard, John Glenn and others. They were national heroes.

There have been tragedies, too, which just made us appreciate the courage of these daring men and (later) women all the more.

NASA's work goes on. The shuttle Atlantis is scheduled to take off Monday with seven aboard on a mission to the Hubble Space Telescope.

There are long-term plans for a return to the moon "and possibly to mars and beyond."

More exciting days lie ahead.

Aldrin, now 79, may not live to see them. Some of his contemporaries already have passed away.

Who would have thought 40 years ago that an entire generation of moonwalkers might be gone before anyone else would follow in their footsteps?

Aldrin should inspire the HPU grads to aim for the moon themselves.

This should be interesting.

Public Policy Polling this weekend is "testing newly announced candidate Kenneth Lewis against Richard Burr," Tom Jensen writes on the PPP blog.

You mean Ken Lewis? If he runs for the Senate, I'm the next pope.

Well, no, this Kenneth Lewis. But you could understand if PPP confuses people with this one. The possible-candidate Kenneth Lewis is a total unknown.

Jensen adds the poll also will ask North Carolinians about "another Democrat who I would not vote for if he ran for the Senate, even though he's one of the people in this world I have the greatest amount of admiration for. See if you can figure that one out."

Hmmm.

I'll guess John Edwards.

A lot of Democrats still love him, but even more just wish he'd go away.

They might even rather run Ken Lewis ...

... the one people have heard of.

High Point will host the North Carolina Marathon through 2015, the city and Foster Friends of North Carolina have agreed.

The 2009 event, a week ago, drew about 2,000 runners.

Planning has begun to make improvements for next year, City Manager Strib Boynton told me Friday.

First on the agenda is to bring in vendors to sell food, drinks and other items in the start/finish area downtown. Some friends and family members of runners were frustrated this time at the lack of refreshments and activities available.

Discussions are under way to open the ground floor of Showplace, which would provide a great location for vendors as well as entertainment. Boynton added that he'd like to see some other furniture showrooms open, perhaps offering home-decorating demonstrations by designers.

Large-screen TVs will be set up at various spots downtown to aid spectator viewing. There wasn't enough room for all of them to crowd around the finish line. And to further ease that congestion, there will be separate finish lines for the marathon/half-marathon and 5K races.

Boynton would like to draw "celebrities" to participate in the 5K. He mentioned Mike Barber as one possibility, but then Boynton has a devilish sense of humor.

I'd like to see the Convention and Visitors Bureau organize walking tours of downtown. As I've written before, there are enough highlights to make that activity a well-spent hour or so. It could be a good way for folks to pass time while waiting for the marathoners to come in.

I'd also like to see some buses available to take spectators to various viewing areas along the marathon course. Individuals trying to drive themselves around just add to the traffic problem.

Speaking of traffic, Boynton was pleased with the Police Department's work. Eighty-six officers and reserves were on traffic-control duty. He estimated the city's total cost at $25,000 to $30,000.

Other ideas are in the works. Considering how well High Point did on relatively short notice, the 2010 event ought to be really good.

"We've got 11 months to get it together, not three," Boynton said.

I believe the North Carolina Marathon has just begun a long and successful run in High Point.

Today's news about Mike Easley is very troubling.

Our former governor is out of office but not beyond accountability.

This demands investigation by Attorney General Roy Cooper. His political future should depend on it.

One of the most disturbing aspects of this is how state watchdog agencies could have been blind to the governor's activities. I hope the fact that this is a state under one-party rule doesn't mean no one challenges the actions of a party leader.

Good for Gov. Bev Perdue for ordering release of information. Now, who's going to get to the bottom of this?

Tough times over here? Maybe. But let's put it into perspective.

Here's a recent email from one of Andrew's Peace Corps friends from Tanzania who works now for Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders) in East Africa.

In some parts of the world, times are always tough.

-----------

"Do you have any steel rope? We're gonna need to pull the plane out of the mud."

"The boat is on top of our fence."

"It's only a two meter drop. The fuel drum shouldn't break open."

"That's just the sound of a hut full of ammunition on fire."

"Quick, put down your leatherman and help me do CPR on this baby."

"We found an amputated leg in the waste area. Should we put it in the incinerator?"

"The (insert name of ANYTHING, mostly obscure medical equipment) is broken. Can you come fix it?"

"Uhm, I think that building is about to fall over. Can you take a look at it?"

"Uh I just ran a test, the water from the treatment plant is 1000 times more dirty than it's supposed to be."

Hi all,

Those are all things that have been said to me in the past few months, and each has a story behind it. At times I wish I could write an email every day, as I have that much to tell. I can't say things are crazy, because that carries the implication that things are out of the ordinary. We seem to exist in a permanent state of ridiculousness, where every day I find myself doing things that I never saw coming. Craziness is just a part of life here.

The pictures I've attached provide a few examples, and there are so many other things I've failed to capture or simply forgotten about. And, as I'm working in a hospital, there are plenty of stories that I simply don't want to share and you probably don't want to hear.

The rains started a bit early this year. We saw it coming, but I never would've imagined the force of the wind. The church next door had a brand new roof completely ripped off. Our 15m boat was flipped over and thrown through the fence. Our two small speedboats were flipped and carried a kilometer downstream. Luckily, no big injuries and no heavy damage to anything. In a way it was a good warning, as we've spent quite some time since reinforcing the roofs, overhangs, and boat supports in the compound.

Today's my last day of R&R. I left my site 9 days ago, and just before the plane landed we had about 20 minutes of heavy rain. The plane got stuck in the mud at one end, and we had to use one of our landcruisers to tow it out, and then refuel it. I then boarded it and flew back to Kenya.

Something I've come to appreciate about this job in the last few weeks is just how nuanced and difficult every decision we make is. Yes, we're running a hospital. But how big should the hospital be? At what point do we stop expanding and say that we simply can't treat very difficult, but rare, cases? Do we leave the generator on all night to keep a 6 month old premature baby on oxygen, when it will die anyway within the week? Do we try and push the local ministry of health to accept more cases and take more responsibility, even if it means a decrease in the level of care? Even for myself, I love construction, love repairing stuff, and really love buying new expensive toys. But I always have to be asking whether all of it is quite necessary, and if the money wouldn't be better spent in the Congo, or opening up a new health center somewhere. Efficiency vs. efficacy is a fascinating, and never ending, debate, especially when the tradeoffs are human lives.

-----------

Our tradeoffs rarely are that dramatic.

When you saw my previous headline, did you think I meant this?

Does savvy (former) political operative George Stephanopoulos really buy this story he claims he's heard from several people who worked on John Edwards' last presidential campaign?

They were going to sabotage the candidate if it looked like he might win the Democratic nomination for fear the Rielle Hunter secret would get out and sink Edwards in the general election.

Baloney. That claim sounds as phony as Edwards' denial that he's Rielle's baby daddy.

You'd have to believe they continued to work for a campaign they hoped would lose, even while they were still raising money from gullible supporters and otherwise promoting their charlatan of a candidate. It doesn't make sense. Why wouldn't they quit and go work for a candidate they could trust?

With Elizabeth Edwards' recent media blitz raising questions about her judgment in supporting her husband's campaign despite her (incomplete) knowledge of his affair, there's been renewed interest in old assertions from the Hillary Clinton campaign that she would have captured the nomination if Edwards had not run.

Who knows? That's water under the bridge.

She's got an important post in the Obama administration, and Edwards is political history. To his former adoring fans, the sooner forgotten the better.

Here's the infamous photo of Air Force One over Lady Liberty.

Disappointing. Couldn't they get lower? Well, I guess not.

And what's in the background, Jersey City? When they could have shot toward Manhattan?

What a travesty, from beginning to end.

It's always easy to criticize Skip Alston, but other commissioners are responsible for giving him the power he wields in such an autocratic fashion.

Now there's some turmoil over the elevation of human resources director Sharisse Fuller to the position of assistant county manager, in addition to her former job, with a big pay increase.

Nothing against Fuller, who's a very capable woman, but when Ben Brown was pressured to resign as assistant county manager back in December, after county manager David McNeill was forced out, Alston essentially presented the action as a budget move, saying the acm position was being eliminated.

He claimed he had the support of a majority of commissioners.

That was then. Now there aren't six commissioners who will admit to backing Alston.

He's adamant: "I know what I had. You can second-guess it six months later; I said what I had, and that's what I had."

The fact is, he had nothing ... on record. There were no public discussions, no official votes.

There were Alston and vice chairman Steve Arnold making big leadership changes -- they chased county attorney Sharron Kurtz, too -- supposedly backed by a silent majority.

Some saw a scheme from the beginning (see Allen's post about Alston and Arnold's 10-step plan. As he notes, they've just reached Step 9.)

It looks like Guilford County is under two-man rule, but of course that wouldn't be possible without the aquiescence of at least four other commissioners. If they weren't on board for any of Steps 1-8, why didn't they speak up? Waiting until Step 9 to say, "Wait a minute, I didn't go along with that," is a bit late.

Alston, particularly, has been acting in the name of this silent majority for six months. Did the voters of Guilford County really elect their own commissioners with the intent that Skip Alston would speak for them? How many districts actually would elect Alston, or Arnold for that matter?

Next election, voters would be wise to choose representatives who will speak for themselves.

The Racial Justice Act may come up for a vote today by the N.C. House of Representatives.

It's sponsored by Reps. Larry Womble and Earline Parmon, both from Winston-Salem. Reps. Alma Adams, Maggie Jeffus and Earl Jones of Greensboro are co-sponsors.

The Journal reports the latest today.

The thrust of it is to allow convicted killers sentenced to death to challenge the penalty based on racial bias.

The twist is that this bias doesn't have to have anything to do with their own case. Rather, they can show "statistical evidence" that the death penalty is applied disproportionately to persons of their race.

As the Journal story notes, 53 percent of the inmates on death row are black, while blacks comprise just 22 percent of the overall population. It's a clear case of racial bias, by the statistical evidence theory.

Except, as the story continues, 62 percent of convicted murderers are black. So one could argue, using that measure, blacks are under-represented on death row.

I could see a lot more work for the courts if this bill passes -- especially as it would apply retroactively, meaning new hearings for everyone already on death row.

This law would just add another argument for doing away with the death penalty altogether -- which probably is Womble and Parmon's intent.

This statistical evidence approach has become fairly common. If minorities are under-represented on your police force or fire department, it must be on account of racial bias. If there aren't enough women, it's because of gender bias. The numbers provide all the proof needed.

I think that's faulty reasoning, but there's certainly more of a case to be made when it comes to hiring practices, which always have some element of subjectivity. Bias can't be counted out.

The courts should be different. Not that bias doesn't occur in the criminal-justice system. But lawmakers should not introduce a measure of supposed objectivity that has absolutely nothing to do with the facts of the case at hand.

If a defendent commits a crime that's so heinous, with so many aggravating factors, that a fair-minded jury is convinced the death penalty is appropriate, then why should the jury be overruled by statistics generated by other cases? If the jury would recommend a death sentence whether the defendant were black, white or any other race, why should the defendant end up being spared because he's black if statistics suggest there is a disproportionate number of black defendants already on death row? That's simply not equal justice.

There are plenty of problems with capital punishment, but this is not an appropriate remedy.

An LA Times article gives some insight into how the federal government is operating now:

"Officials in the governor's office say a politically powerful union may have had inappropriate influence over the Obama administration's decision to withhold billions of dollars in federal stimulus money from California if the state does not reverse a scheduled wage cut for the labor group's workers."

California is trying to balance its budget, which requires massive spending cuts.

Apparently the feds are using stimulus money as leverage to stop the state from making cuts that will nick the administration's union supporters.

These are the "strings attached" that some governors cited when expressing reservations about accepting stimulus money in the first place. But turning down billions just isn't a realistic option.

The bottom line is that Washington is assuming the power to dictate policy and budget decisions by the states.

That's worrisome, but it's worse if political influence has something to do with it.

Too bad there isn't some way to switch him with him.

GM's plans to export its made-in-China cars to the U.S. may be based on a good business model; we'll see. But it's a lousy way to save American jobs and repay taxpayers for their investment in the domestic auto industry.

Related: GM's not keen on the long-term impact of government control, today's Detroit Free Press reports. That I can believe.

Former Northern Guilford basketball coach Stan Kowalewski doesn't exit gracefully with remarks quoted by Robert Bell in today's story.

It's more like the sore loser's farewell on the playground: "Let's take our ball and go home."

From our print edition: "Kowalewski said Wednesday night he would not recommend his players ever play basketball within Guilford County as long as (Mo) Green was superintendent ..."

What does that mean, they should "transfer" to wherever he's going to coach next?

Green and attorney Jill Wilson aren't the problems here. They aren't the ones who vacated Northern's state basketball championship. The N.C. High School Athletic Association did, based on information that the team used ineligible players. The rules are meant to put all schools on a level playing field. If Northern gained an unfair advantage by breaking rules, it should forfeit its victories.

It's a bitter lesson, and lots of kids who did nothing wrong are paying a heavy penalty. It will be worse, though, if Northern's returning basketball players take their former coach's advice and quit their athletic careers in Guilford County. They deserve another chance, even if their coach doesn't.

President Obama's first position on releasing more photos of detainee abuse was based on principle.

His second is prompted by practicalities.

Release will unleash new waves of anti-American anger in Iraq and Afghanistan and put U.S. troops in greater danger.

I don't know if the administration will prevail against the ACLU's legal action aimed at gaining release. I don't know if Obama will stick with his latest stand.

I do know that, as commander-in-chief, he should not subject the troops to unnecessary harm.

This is an important step for Obama, who this time has given a higher priority to security concerns than to his oft-stated commitment to openness and what he calls American values.

Is he right? From a legal standpoint, it may be the Supreme Court that decides. If it orders release of the photos, the administration must comply.

From a policy standpoint, I think so. The earlier release of Abu Ghraib photos provoked anti-American violence. A repeat likely will do the same, possibly set back progress toward peace in Iraq, and worsen conditions in Afghanistan.

Adhering to principles has consequences. When the fallout can cost American lives, those consequences may be too great to accept.

Charlotte-Meck schools, trying to save money, are laying off teachers ...

... while bringing in 100 Teach for America cadets, the Observer reports.

Key quote from Superintendent Peter Gorman:

“They would be bumping a teacher who's below standard.”

Update, Friday afternoon, May 15: The FBI is on the case. No need for Cooper to stir himself, after all, especially since he's decided not to run for the U.S. Senate next year.

State Senate Republican leader Phil Berger from Eden (whose district includes much of Guilford County) calls for an independent investigation of Mike Easley's travels and other activities as governor.

He doesn't trust Attorney General Roy Cooper to do it:

“The silence from North Carolina’s chief law enforcement officer, Attorney General Roy Cooper, regarding these serious allegations is deafening. But we should not be surprised since most of those under scrutiny are Democrats and he will not risk offending them while seeking their support for a possible U.S. Senate campaign. For these reasons, we need an independent special prosecutor, free from political pressures, free from conflicts of interest and free to investigate these improprieties and allegations of corruption wherever they might lead.”

Berger is right about Cooper's silence, but I believe the AG should play a role in looking into matters concerning Easley. Isn't that his job? If he doesn't, he'll face a lot of questions the next time he hits the campaign trail for any office.

Update (May 15), after the jump: Cooper ignored a state senator's requests last year on an advisory opinion about the governor's use of state aircraft for personal travel ...

Erskine Bowles gets a different version of the Mary Easley story from McQueen Campbell, asks him to resign as chairman of N.C. State's Board of Trustees and tells the N&O he's "very disappointed with this whole matter."

We should recall that the UNC Board of Governors approved Mrs. Easley's fat raise last year, and Bowles defended it. Of course, her husband isn't governor anymore, and I suppose that makes all the difference.

Earlier this week, N.C. State Provost Larry Nielson announced his resignation. He hired Mrs. Easley for the job created just for her, for which no one else was invited to apply. While her husband was governor, of course.

She still has four years left on her contract, but as fast as the Easleys are falling out of official favor, her status might change sooner than that.

Related: Kevin Siers cartoon on Larry Nielson.

Is Mo Green a stand-up superintendent, or what?

I think he's proving his mettle this week.

Gary Pearce offers ideas at his Talking About Politics blog about why Gov. Bev Perdue's poll numbers are dropping like a rock.

Cutting pay for her key constituencies, teachers and state employees, is a big reason.

But, come on, everyone's income is falling. Most people understand that Perdue has to ax the state's budget.

Pearce adds:

"Perdue seems to have neither personal popularity nor popular policies.

"Again, what Perdue lacks is simple: a powerful positive message. Something the voters believe she stands for no matter what happens, something they see her as fighting for that is good for the state."

My view: Given that Perdue can't plunge the state into massive debt while bailing out industries and buying favor with special-interest groups like the bunch in Washington, she needs another way to win over the public.

I think her predecessor, Mike Easley, has handed her an opportunity.

As it becomes increasingly clear that Easley used his office for personal benefit, Perdue should lead the way in calling for accountability and clean government.

She's already ushered in more openness. She even ordered the release of Easley's travel documents that he'd kept secret. But that's not enough.

She should decry the culture of corruption that has pervaded state government in recent years and led to convictions of Meg Scott Phipps, Jim Black, Michael Decker, Frank Ballance and Kevin Geddings. Now some of Easley's activities are under investigation and there's fallout at N.C. State over the plum job created for Mary Easley.

Perdue should speak out about how disgusted and embarrassed she is by all this and vow to get tough on all the pay-to-play shenanigans and favoritism that have been taken for granted in Raleigh for too long. She should promise to step on the toes of fellow Democrats, admitting the ruling party has not always wielded its political power for the good of the state. She should warn she'll call out every politcian she sees acting in an unethical manner, no matter what the political consequences.

Good government requires clean government. It requires integrity in elected officials.

If Perdue builds her image as a governor who stands for honest government, who fights for it -- and if she gets results -- her poll numbers will improve.

She can't make the economy better, but she can make government better.

North Carolina needs an anti-Easley governor. That's the formula for Bev Perdue.

No question Roy Cooper would have been a strong candidate for Democrats against Republican Sen. Richard Burr next year. He led the statewide ballot last year in winning election to a third term as attorney general.

That's a job he likes, and it may be he's happy to stay there rather than endure what surely would be a hard-fought Senate campaign at the expense of family time and a comfortable life in Raleigh..

Maybe there were other reasons for him to decline. He's still embroiled in an eight-year-old defamation lawsuit. The upcoming investigations of former governor and fellow Democrat Mike Easley might have had some bearing on his decision.

That raises the question of who might be the Dems' Kay Hagan of 2010. Dome offers a long list of possibles. I'd say look for those who don't have anything to lose by running, which leaves out congressmen Brad Miller, Mel Watt and others who'd give up sure seats and seniority in the House of Representatives for maybe a 50-50 shot of beating Burr.

That's what I'm thinking now. Of course, two years ago Hagan hadn't launched her campaign yet. Elizabeth Dole still looked fairly strong, although she had big vulnerabilities just below the overly polished surface.

But 2008 was a big, big year for Democrats. They elected a president and muscled up in the House and Senate.

In 2010, not so much. Democrats don't really need to pick up Burr's seat. Of course they'd like to have it, and they might match the megamillions they spent tearing down Dole when they go after Burr. But in terms of raw emotional intensity, I doubt they'll ramp it up to the same pitch.

Republicans, on the other hand, have their backs to the wall. They'll likely fight desperately, savagely, to hold their seats in the Senate. And by Election Day 2010, they might regain their footing if it appears that this vast expanse of federal power wasn't such a good idea after all.

What am I saying? Trying to see the political landscape more than a year out is a foolish enterprise. Anything could happen -- even Cooper changing his mind about running.

Didn't Kay Hagan do that? And look where she is now.

This Nancy Pelosi flap seems easy enough to figure out.

Just my speculation, of course, but here goes:

Pelosi knew, generally, in 2002 or 2003 that the CIA was roughing up al-Qaida detainees, and she didn't object.

No one did.

That was soon enough after 9/11 that leaders in Washington, of both parties, were still afraid of further terrorist attacks on the United States.

They remembered very well the horror of the strikes on the Twin Towers in New York and the Pentagon in Arlington.

They knew, from information extracted from Abu Zubaydah, ironically, that if it weren't for the martyred heroes of Flight 93, a fourth hijacked jetliner would have crashed into the heart of Washington, likely destroying the White House.

They were still worried al-Qaida would get another chance.

And they were still pissed off.

So they were OK with U.S. intelligence services doing whatever was necessary to prevent it.

And they weren't terribly anxious to be told the details of whatever was necessary.

Which gives Pelosi a scrap of plausibility when she says now she didn't know Zubaydah was being waterboarded, or that the CIA "misled" her about its techniques. She knew, more or less, what was happening but didn't want to be told explicitly. For a politician, it's always better not to know.

Of course, everything is different now. Two things have changed: attitudes and politics.

It's been almost eight years since the 9/11 attacks and people aren't so afraid or angry anymore. Some think we're safe (not caring about what might have contributed to our greater sense of security). They believe we now can afford to be the kinder, gentler nation we were in the years before 9/11 (forgetting that al-Qaida found that America to be a soft, easy target).

And, of course, the political tables turned on the former administration. The Bush-Cheney White House screwed up in 2003 by shifting the focus from 9/11 to Iraq (and ineptly trying to link the two). Just about everything went wrong from that point (except preventing further terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, although more Americans ended up being killed in Iraq). Bush-Cheney and Republicans in general were reviled by Democrats and rejected by voters. It became politically popular to attack them and all their policies, including harsh interrogation techniques.

Pelosi and other Democrats can't admit now that they averted their eyes to those practices when they thought they were necessary for national security. The attitude today is that they never were necessary for national security.

Let's be clear: Pelosi wasn't in charge of anything in 2003. She's not responsible for any actions or policies of the former administration. She could have objected, loudly, to them, but the fact that she didn't only convicts her of hypocrisy, not being an "accomplice to torture," as Karl Rove gleefully wrote in the WSJ.

What's more important, now that Pelosi holds one of the country's most powerful leadership positions, are the policies she enacts and supports today. Will they protect our nation's security, or will they open doors to further attacks? Let's hope there's no need to condemn her for truly grievous failures in the future.

Gallup's finding that more Americans call themselves pro-life than pro-choice should warn the left not to push too far.

Democrats may think their overwhelming election successes in 2006 and 2008 give them license to move their agenda far forward, but in public opinion there's often a pushback.

Republicans encountered it when they adamantly opposed embryonic stem-cell research and made a federal case over Terry Schiavo.

Democrats expect President Obama to use support for abortion as a litmus test for judicial appointments, which is Obama's inclination anyway, but if he takes the Gallup results to heart he'll be cautious about it. He shouldn't let the extreme Planned Parenthood/NARAL ideologies dictate his policies. Very few Americans are in favor of abortion in every circumstance -- late-term, for minors without parental knowledge, etc.

The same will be true for other social issues. Obama doesn't want to do anything slowly, but if he tries to usher in too much change too quickly, he may offend many Americans just as his predecessor did in pushing in the opposite direction.

Our editorial today encourages the Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority to consider opening Randleman Lake for boating and fishing next month, at least north of N.C. 62, instead of waiting until March 2010.

Guilford County plans to open Southwest Park, along the upper portion of the lake, early in June. It provides the only legal boat access to the lake in Guilford County.

Motorized boating will not be allowed north of 62. The park will offer launching facilities for kayaks, canoes and rowboats.

It's all ready to go, county parks planner Roger Bardsley says. The fish are ready, too.

Reasons for delay don't hold water. This is a prime new recreational asset that the public already has waited for too long. Open it up.

Check out Southwest Park on the Web here and here...

a map of Randleman Lake ...

and the water authority's recreation plan.

The U.S. attorney in Raleigh, a Republican Bush appointee, is investigating Democrats John Edwards and Mike Easley.

The question is whether George Holding will be around long enough to finish the job.

Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan is leading efforts to identify someone to recommend to President Obama as Holding's replacement.

The N&O reports on these developments.

Holding has been aggressive in prosecuting political corruption in North Carolina. While it's expected that he'll be asked to resign and be replaced with a Democrat, the risk for Obama (and maybe Hagan) is that the new prosecutor won't be tough on corrupt members of their own party.

Obama wisely is keeping U.S. attorney Patrick Fizgerald in Chicago, where he's going after deposed governor Rod Blagojevich. He'd be smart to stick with Holding, too, at least until the Edwards and Easley cases play out.

The U.S. attorney has been the principal check on corruption by state Democrats in the last few years. Not that a Democratic federal prosecutor couldn't do as well, but politics is politics. Letting Holding stay longer will give assurances that politics will take a back seat to justice.

Addendum, Tuesday: Charlotte Observer calls for keeping Holding: "Replacing Holding now would send the wrong message in a state still grappling with the realization that some of its leaders, including former state senator and former U.S. Rep. Frank Ballance, former N.C. Commissioner of Agriculture Meg Scott Phipps and former N.C. Speaker of the House Jim Black, all Democrats, had broken laws they were sworn to uphold. It might also backfire on Democratic U.S. Sen. Kay Hagan, who has begun a process to review successors."

Just five years ago, a headline in The Pendulum at Elon University stated, "Elon considering Greensboro for law school location."

Now that school's charter class is just days away from graduation.

Its place in Greensboro will be symbolized by its graduation celebration in Center City Park Sunday afternoon.

We'll have more to say about the significance of the law school's development here.

Meanwhile, if you missed it yesterday, please take a look at at our package yesterday:

Articles by Dean George Johnson ...

and student Sean Olson;

my video interview with Johnson;

and, a feature I especially like, video statements by several graduating law students.

Thanks to our videographer Michael McQueen and photographer Scott Hoffman, and Elon law communications director Phil Craft for his help in setting up interviews and photos.

Mary Easley has been asked to resign her job at N.C. State.

Sounds like being fired.

I just don't think she would have been treated this way if her husband were still governor.

Which is exactly the point.

Update, Wednesday: Kevin Siers cartoon on Erskine Bowles' about-face.

Brilliant strategy to prompt a surge in new car sales ...

.... before this kicks in and drives up the cost.

By the way, is anyone asking how the president can impose new mileage standards on his own authority? Didn't that require an act of Congress?

David Reed Wilson bought crack cocaine from Raimond Akira Johnson in High Point on the night of Feb. 24, 2007.

He returned early the next morning with an AR-15 assault rifle and shot Johnson four times at close range.

Arrested almost immediately, Wilson told High Point Police Officer P.J. Perryman "he hated drug dealers and that he was out to rid the world of drug dealers."

Mission not accomplished. It was one and done for Wilson's ambition.

He was convicted of first-degree murder in Guilford County Superior Court in October 2007 and sentenced to life in prison without parole.

Today, the N.C. Court of Appeals upheld his conviction and sentencing, denying the defendant's assertions that Judge Catherine Eagles improperly excluded evidence and made other errors.

At trial, Wilson tried to present a defense that he was threatened by Johnson. This was challenged by prosecution witness Raymond Morgan, who testified that Johnson was unarmed. Morgan was Johnson's crack house "doorman."

Wilson questioned Morgan's truthfulness, citing a recorded statement given to police by Tecolia Daughtridge that Morgan told her Johnson did have a gun, although he never fired it.

Eagles, the trial judge, did not allow the recording of Daughtridge's statement introduced as defense evidence. Why not? Because, in testimony during the trial itself, Daughtridge said she didn't remember making the statement to police. She has epileptic seizures and had been put "in a coma," she said. Also:

"I didn't say I made anything up and you're not going to get me to say I made nothing up. My mental state and my physical health as far as my head, I'm liable to say anything. So, I'm not really ... me sitting up here, anything I say is not going to be credible because really my mental state, I'm liable to say anything ... Truthfully, I'm a patient at Mental Health. I'm liable to say anything."

The same might be said for Wilson, who just wasn't thinking when he told police that "shooting dope dealers" was one of his hobbies.

Now he's got a lifetime to explore new hobbies.

My column today, which expands on a blog entry from last week (you have to do some recycling these days):

Every day brings more bad news for Mike Easley, but it could be worse.

He could still be governor.

His successor, Bev Perdue, is dealing with a deepening budget crisis and plunging popularity.
She should use Easley’s troubles to strengthen her own image by casting herself as the anti-Easley governor. ...

I guess you have to expect this in Greensboro.

Somehow it makes sense to the U.S. Senate to include a provision allowing loaded guns in national parks in a credit-card reform bill.

The House will attempt separation surgery today.

CQ reports.

---

The Senate is much more sensible on the subject of closing the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay as promised by President Obama.

Not without a plan for the disposition of prisoners, senators say.

And, adds Harry Reid in a strong challenge to the White House: "We will never allow terrorists to be released into the United States.”

Seems we're still stuck at the place where the Bush administration bogged down: How DO we handle them?

Mark reports that Sen. Kay Hagan believes George Holding should stay on board to complete the Easley and Edwards investigations.

"It is my feeling that George Holding should stay on until these investigations are over with," Hagan said in a conference call with North Carolina reporters today.

"I don't feel it would be in North Carolina's best interest to replace someone who is investigating these two very high-profile people ... He ought to have the opportunity to complete that investigation."

Good call by the Democratic senator. The White House should respect her judgment.

The rascally Jake Spoon of Larry McMurtry's "Lonesome Dove" offered one of my favorite parting lines after his old Texas Ranger buddies caught him riding with outlaws (paraphrasing):

"Hell, boys, I'd rather be hung by my friends than a bunch of strangers."

Cary Allred might appreciate that.

This report containing the statements of several N.C. House of Representatives colleagues, many of them fellow Republicans, threatens to string him up for very bad behavior.

It was Monday, April 27, when the House was meeting for an evening session.

He admitted to drinking a "chelada" (tomato.juice, clam juice, salt, lime, and beer) before leaving his home in Burlington.

That's disgusting right there.

Then he was pulled for driving 102 mph on I-40 but let go when he showed the trooper his legislative ID.

Finally joining the legislative session, he was quarrelsome with Speaker Joe Hackney but overly affectionate with a 17-year-old page, embracing her in one or more bear hugs variously described as inappropriate, gruesome, prolonged, full body, lingering and never-ending. Then kissing her.

With all these witness accounts, the evidence would be enough to hang Allred as a disgrace to his office.

The trouble is, the page and her parents are family friends of Allred's. He calls his relationship with the girl "grandfatherly." And her family concurs.

So Allred probably slips the noose. But he at least deserves tarring and feathering -- a legislative censure -- for conduct detrimental to the reputation of the House, or something like that.

I'm sure he'd rather be flayed by his friends than a bunch of strangers.

As today's editorial says, Harold Martin is a great choice to be A&T's next chancellor.

Good job by the search committee -- although I imagine its work was not so much searching as persuading Martin to accept the job. As senior vice president for academic affairs for the entire UNC system, you could say he's taking a bit of a step back to the campus level.

The speed here has been astonishing -- not so much the fact that the search committee only began its work two months ago because, as noted, it may have just focused on recruiting Martin -- but for the swift approval process by UNC system President Erskine Bowles and the Board of Governors.

It was only Tuesday that Joe Killian reported the selection of two finalists, whose names were passed to Bowles for his review.

Joe quoted search committee chairman Franklin McCain as saying:

“We’re not sure exactly when the decision will be made. But I think anyone who knows Erskine knows he’s giving this his full attention. He won’t be dragging his feet.”

The fast turnaround might be explained by three factors:

1. Bowles knows Martin very well. They've worked closely together for the past two years in Chapel Hill. And before that, when Martin was chancellor at WSSU, reporting to Bowles. There was no interview process required.

2. This in reality was decided whenever Martin applied for the job, with Bowles' support. There was only a second "finalist" because that is a required formality. And that person will never be publicly identified. For all practical purposes, he or she may as well not exist.

3. Bowles may get sucked more deeply into the Mary Easley affair. Better to get the A&T chancellor selection out of the way first.

Events have overtaken the A&T public information operation, such as it is. "The chancellor search news and information" page still says nothing about the announcement scheduled for tomorrow. We only know anything because of Joe's diligent reporting and the willingness of informed people to speak to him outside channels.

UNC system chancellor searches are usually secretive, which poorly serves the best interests of the public or the university communities. When an unknown is announced, there's no guarantee of a good match.

That won't be a problem this time, however. A&T clearly has a winner in Harold Martin.

Addendum: The chancellor search Web site wasn't terribly useful throughout the process.

For example, you can view minutes from the committee's first meeting on March 13, but not any subsequent meetings, which were scheduled for March 30, April 7, April 27 and May 11.

Probably the only really important meeting was when board members sat down with Martin. Maybe we'll hear more about that tomorrow.

The Observer defends Charlotte-Meck Schools' decision to replace some teachers with Teach for America cadets, citing this 2008 study by the Urban Institute:

"Despite Little Experience, Teach for America Educators Outpace Veterans in Drawing Achievement from Students"

The results were drawn from North Carolina high school data. A key statement from the summary:

"Teach for America recruits and selects high-achieving college graduates, many of whom have no prior experience or coursework in education, and places them in needy schools after short but intensive training. (Researchers) Xu, Hannaway, and Taylor found that TFA corps members serving in North Carolina tended to have graduated from more selective colleges and universities and to have scored higher on the Praxis, a teacher-licensing exam."

TFA has had a strong relationship with CMS, including this $4 million gift to TFA from the Charlotte-based C.D. Spangler Foundation to bring more TFA teachers to the system.

"The new teachers will start next school year and will serve in high-poverty schools in CMS that traditionally have struggled to recruit and retain top teachers," TFA said then. "Teach For America corps members graduate from many of the nation's most prestigious universities with an average GPA of 3.6 (out of 4.0) and an average SAT score of 1321.

"Highly selective, Teach For America also provides rigorous training and ongoing support for corps members, who often serve as leaders within their schools and local communities."

Impressive.

Superintendent Peter Gorman said next year's TFA recruits will replace teachers whose work has been "below standard."

CM Association of Educators President Mary McCray said the move was insulting to teachers.

Here's how you know things are looking bad for Mary Easley.

The N&O reports she smiled at her lawyer's side during his press conference today ...

... but runs this photo.

Smiling or frowning, she let Marvin Schiller do her talking.

He showered her with praises.

Here's the problem:

She is a bright, competent professional.

And she was given a five-year, $850,000 contract that was approved by the UNC Board of Governors.

Was she the beneficiary of favoritism because her husband was governor? Who could doubt it?

Can that be proven? I suppose that question falls under U.S. Attorney George Holding's investigation of all things Easley.

On the one hand, it takes a lot of nerve for Mary Easley to so publicly refuse requests for her resignation from N.C. State Chancellor James Oblinger and UNC President Erskine Bowles.

On the other hand, giving in could be viewed as acknowledging wrongdoing. Clearly, she's not about to do that.

So, what to do? She simply can't stay in defiance of university leaders. State will have to eliminate her position, maybe her entire program, in a "budget move." It may require some settlement of her contract. "Private" funds will be used to spare the taxpayers.

Question: Is there anyone in North Carolina willing to donate money to the Easleys anymore?

Is it possible there are people in leadership positions in North Carolina who might actually go for this?

Unfortunately, yes.

Good for Bob Jordan, a former Democratic lieutenant governor and new chairman of N.C. State's Board of Trustees, for adding his voice to the Mary Easley imbroglio:

"We understand she feels she has performed her job well. But it's gone well beyond that issue. The ongoing distraction has obscured the university's accomplishments and mission and detracted from our day-to-day work. We respectfully ask that she reconsider her decision for the good of the university.'

Perhaps Gov. Perdue could say a helpful word at this point?

There was a bit of unintended humor in UNC President Erskine Bowles' latest statement:

"We are now at a time that is different from when Mary Easley was hired. And I do feel that it would be in the best interest of N.C. State for her to move on."

What's different? Mike Easley was governor when his wife was hired. Now he's not.

Well, that, and the fact that all kinds of Easley skeletons are falling out of the closet.

Jordan's call should be irresistible. It also understates the issue. It's more than an "ongoing distraction" that injures the university's reputation. It's the indisputable fact that a special job was created just for the governor's wife. No one else was given an opportunity to apply for it. To make matters worse, last year she was granted a five-year contract worth $850,000 to carry her well beyond her husband's governorship.

This drew plenty of criticism when it happened, but with Gov. Easley still in office, it was endorsed by the UNC Board of Governors. That's why even her superiors can only "respectfully ask" Mrs. Easley to resign.

They're appealing to her conscience. She'll have to give in eventually, if her program isn't simply defunded first ... but, really, neither Mike nor Mary Easley would have so much trouble now if they'd ever let the pursuit of privilege bother them while they were in power.

Must-see: Kevin Siers' 'toon today.

And Dwane Powell's.

We're talkin' 'bout barbecue, and cnn.com is looking for the best.

What are your favorites in these parts, elsewhere in North Carolina, and out of state?

My favorites are Lexington Barbecue, although I also like The B-B-Q Center in Lexington. But I get most of my barbecue at Carter Brothers in High Point. I need to give a nod to Kepley's in High Point, as well. Of course, Stamey's is legendary in Greensboro, and deservedly so.

I haven't been there in years, but I remember Short Sugar's in Reidsville as outstanding. Any recent reports?

There was a time, when I used to go to the beach more often, when it was worth a detour to stop at King's in Kinston. Anyone been there lately?

Ever wanted to see a procession of lawyers?

No, not a line of ambulance chasers.

The new graduates of Elon Law School will march from their ceremony in the Carolina Theatre to their celebration at Center City Park at about 4 this afternoon.

In their academic regalia, they should be quite a sight.

Enjoy the day, charter class!

Chasing ambulances can wait 'til Tuesday.

Columbus, N.C. -- We've been here since yesterday morning and still haven't seen the mountains that rise less than a mile from the center of this tiny Polk County town. They're socked in by clouds.

Nearby Hendersonville already has recorded seven inches of rain for the month, and it continues to add up. I'll say this: It hasn't been this green in these parts in years. We just need a little sunshine to enjoy it more.

Let's hope it clears in time for the Singing for the Soldiers event at the Columbus Veterans Memorial Park this evening.

Regretfully, we won't be able to stay. Patriotic commemorations are always special in Small Town America places like Columbus.

But, wherever we are, let's all take some time to appreciate the sacrifices and service of the men and women who have fought for our country through the generations.

Extra: The planned House of Flags Museum in Columbus:

http://www.houseofflags.org/building.asp

Gwen Hunnicutt, writing on our Ideas front yesterday, offered arguments against underrepresentation in public institutions.

"Exclusionary practices may still be perpetrated in the present by standards and screenings that may seem fair but may be beset with conscious or unconscious biases," she wrote.

It's impossible to disagree, or with her subsequent statement that, "Equalizing opportunity is fraught with paradoxes and dilemmas, no doubt."

The immediate focus of Hunnicutt's essay, and the earlier column by Charles Davenport Jr., which she answered, is gender representation in the Winston-Salem Police Department.

The fact that far fewer than half of officers there are female indicates possible discrimination to some, apparently including Hunnicutt.

She raises valid questions, such as: "Is it really necessary to bench press your own weight to be a good police officer?"

The clear answer is no. Even if that's required for a young recruit, the standard surely no longer applies to a veteran officer whose contributions to law enforcement are much more cerebral than physical.

Valuable assets for police officers are intelligence, integrity and people skills.

Nevertheless, there are significant physical demands involved in many police jobs, and it would be foolish to brush aside all fitness standards. This is where Hunnicutt's "paradoxes and dilemmas" come in.

You can look at the military to see some examples. Women's roles are expanding rapidly there, to the point were many women are engaged in combat.

On Memorial Day, especially, we must acknowledge that women are placing themselves in harm's way on the battleground, and many have been killed and wounded in the line of duty along with their male comrades-in-arms.

Yet the military still enforces exclusionary policies.

Just a few weeks ago, we had reason to applaud the Navy SEALS, who saved an American merchant ship captain from Somali pirates. SEALS are the best of the best in the U.S. military. Basic training is virtually a survival course, and they steel themselves to undertake assignments in the most dangerous and demanding circumstances. As we saw, they carry out their work with deadly efficiency.

There has never been a woman accepted into the Navy SEALS. Women are specifically prohibited.

(Army Rangers, somewhat less elite, state no gender restriction. However, the physical requirements are so daunting that the net effect may be the same.)

This is clearly discriminatory. Is it also a matter of reasonable, even necessary, discrimination? The military thinks so.

We've come to regard "discrimination" as a negative quality, synonymous with bias, prejudice, unfairness, denial of equal opportunity.

Yet to be discriminating can also mean to apply sound judgment to situations when such discernment is important.

We might wish, for instance, that George W. Bush had been more discriminating at times when choosing which advisers to heed.

I'm not suggesting that the underrepresentation of women on the Winston-Salem police force, or any other, is entirely a product of good judgment. It's doubtful in the extreme that's true. But to assume the reverse, that's the numbers make a case for bias and nothing else would be just as prone to error.

Statistics may be a place to start, but not a place to end. If women are grossly underrepresented, there's reason to examine hiring policies. If the goal is to match the percentage of women on the force with their numbers in the general population, by whatever means it takes, there would be reason to question the possible cost of achieving such a result.

Columnist Paul Krugman, the Nobel prize economist, diagnoses California's problem:

Republicans there have kept taxes too low.

He's afraid the same thing will happen on the federal level.

That's news to me about California. I had no idea that residents were leaving the state to escape low taxes.

I wonder where they're going.

This Tax Foundation chart, using 2006 figures, ranks California fourth in the nation in state and local spending per capita, third per household.

California state and local governments spent more than $30,000 per household that year.

The North Carolina number was less than $19,000. I wonder what Krugman would recommend here.

(The Cal Chamber's business climate report presents a warning of a different sort about what could happen in the federal level if the California model spreads.)

I'm impressed with Sen. Kay Hagan's Memorial Day Weekend visit to Afghanistan.

The Greensboro Democrat is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“It’s one thing to hear about it. It’s another thing to be in a helicopter looking over the terrain,” she told reporters yesterday.

President Obama is sending more troops to fight the Taliban there. Congressional support and oversight must go along with that.

We need to conclude the campaign there successfully, but how to go about it and how to define success can be as difficult in Afghanistan as in Iraq.

“The generals in particular said they needed time,” Hagan said. “Time is what’s needed to grow the Afghan national police and Afghan national army.”

The same was said in Iraq. There, candidate Barack Obama -- and many other Democrats -- favored a set timeline for withdrawal. That's being adjusted to fit actual conditions.

Conditions in Afghanistan seem to be changing. Hagan and other senators couldn't get anything close to a complete picture in only a couple of days, but they surely know much more about the terrain having walked on it. It will help them asker better questions and make more informed decisions.

Their visit was not without considerable personal risk, not to mention inconvenience. I salute Hagan's spunk and dedication for making the long trip. Safe travels home.

Addendum: Kudos also to Republican Sen. Richard Burr for helping lead Memorial Day ceremonies at Normandy American Cemetery. I'm sure it meant a lot to veterans and families of those buried there.

Sorry, I just couldn't let our former first lady slip completely off today's radar screen.

Back on topic: Opinions of Sonia Sotomayor?

She was first placed on the federal bench by the senior President Bush.

And confirmed by a Republican Senate, 67-29, in 1998 for her present seat on the Court of Appeals.

She may be a liberal, but what should one expect from a liberal president? That's his prerogative. She won't change the balance of the court, anyway.

Furthermore, despite her personal story, her background in many respects is in line with the other justices: Ivy League education, federal court experience. Like five others, she's Roman Catholic.

I think it was a good move for President Obama to steer away from a politician. Sotomayor will be confirmed, but not without defending or clarifying her position on some past statements and rulings. There won't be any Republican filibuster. This one's a lock.

Unlike Mary Easley's position.

Whatever you think about Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama could have made a much more problematic choice of Hispanic jurists.

He could have announced the selection of Justice Carlos Moreno of the California Supreme Court ...

... on the same day Moreno was the "one" in the California court's 6-1 ruling upholding Prop 8.

Just last week, the New York Times wrote a glowing profile of Moreno as a "long-shot candidate" to replace David Souter.

The Times even referred to him as a "moderate."

Seriously?

Prop 8, endorsed by California voters last year, amended the state's constitution to define marriage as one man-one woman. It negated the Supreme Court's own 4-3 ruling.

The court was asked to overturn Prop 8.

Instead, the majority said no, a lawfully approved constitutional amendment is not unconstitutional.

Moreno's dissent, on the other hand, denied the obvious. The constitutional amendment approved by the voters was not a constitutional amendment at all, he wrote, but a revision to the constitution. And that can only be enacted by a two-thirds vote of the legislature.

Moreno was so determined to reach a desired result in this case that he contrived an argument from thin air. His nomination by President Obama to the Supreme Court of the United States would have crashed on takeoff.

Sotomayor will have her critics, but she was a much safer choice.

Jack Betts wonders whether allowing governors to serve a second term invites corruption.

It encourages legislative leaders to hang on to their offices longer, too. Look at Jim Black to see how that can work out.

During confirmation proceedings, Republican senators should question Sonia Sotomayor thoroughly about her judicial philosophy, controversial statements and decisions.

They should not oppose her for ideological reasons.

Getting to that point, however, requires them to let go of the urge to act as President Obama did when he was a member of the Senate.

Sen. Obama voted against the confirmation of current Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. He even supported an unsuccessful attempt to filibuster against Alito.

Not because they were lacking in legal qualifications, but for ideological reasons.

They didn't express enough "empathy" for certain categories of Americans, in his view.

Here's a rather severe article by Edward Whelan in The Weekly Standard outlining Obama's opposition to Bush judicial nominees. Whelan obviously comes from an antagonistic point of view, but it probably reflects the thinking of a lot of Republican senators.

Now they're expected to resist the temptation to repay Obama in kind.

The president should try to head this off.

He's a conciliatory man. He should call GOP senators, as many as necessary, and express regret for his opposition to Roberts and Alito. Not apologize, necessarily. Just say he was wrong. He was a young senator with an overly partisan approach. He should ask Republicans to be more fair in their judgment than he was. He should ask them to understand that he must and will nominate liberals for judicial openings, just as Bush nominated conservatives. Accept that, he should ask, and confine your inquiries to issues of competence.

Not all Republican senators would comply with the request, but many likely would back away from partisan attacks. They all should give Obama credit for his candor. Maybe it would signal the start of a new era when confirmation proceedings could focus on qualifications rather than politics.

If Obama expects a smooth confirmation process for Sotomayor, he should mend some fences first.

Let's hope it won't be as quirky as a Kafka story, but this blog will transform itself overnight.

It's being moved to a different publishing system, which will require a different sign-in if you want to post comments -- the same system as used currently to access the comment function on news stories, editorials and other features on our Web site.

You should still find me at the same place, and I sincerely hope the changes will make it all more user-friendly.

Thanks for visiting and, no matter what, please come back.