OPINION

As far as winter Olympics go, the Vancouver Games were some of the most exciting I've watched since the days of the U.S.-Soviet rivalry. Kudos to Canada for pulling it off under some extraordinarily difficult weather conditions.

Okay, I got my obligatory positive statement out there. Now for the real issue: Was anyone as annoyed as I was about the over-Canadianization of the closing ceremony? At first I thought they were just getting in a few plugs for tourism in Canada. But as the ceremony droned on and on and on, I started to worry about those people. Are they really that insecure that they need to promote themselves so heavily in front of an worldwide audience of millions looking to celebrate athleticism and international cooperation?

This is not bitterness about the USA's loss in hockey. That was a disappointment, but the last thing I expected from the Canadians was to be bashed over the head with everything Canada during the closing ceremony. I thought the routine by Catherine O'Hara was flat, unfunny and a little pathetic. Likewise with William Shatner. Michael J. Fox did much better than I expected, but they all spoke as if they were attending a Canadian AA meeting. "I'm Michael, and I'm a Canadian." I wanted to respond, "Hi Michael."

Look back at the Turin closing ceremonies four years ago, and you'll be hard-pressed to find a single plug for Italy's tourist attractions. Pavarotti didn't come out and say, "Hi, I'm Luciano, and I'm Italian." The entire ceremony stuck with the Olympic tradition of celebrating an international brotherhood. Why Canada felt that it needed to veer so radically from that time-honored tradition, I'll never know. I'm glad they're proud of their country. I'm proud of their country too, but I don't need them to beat me over the head with it.

Yes, according to Westat, a research company that recently evaluated the program for the Homeland Security Department and found that the voluntary system wrongly clears illegal workers about 54 percent of the time.

I ran across this news today, when reviewing editorials from across the state: The El Paso Times writes about it here.

Meanwhile, here's the news story from last week's Washington Post, which notes that when Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano testified last week in budget hearings on Capitol Hill she said she doubts the 54 percent accuracy rate. Wonder what she knows that Westat didn't?

Our editorial board has been hugely supportive of E-Verify in the past. The employer program is so popular that Republican congressmen have been pressing to make it mandatory. Guess there are still some bugs to work out.

First, a disclaimer: I'm truly lousy at predicting elections. I don't try to be bad at it; it just happens. I'm sure it's some subset of the reason I'm not very good at betting on sports: I let what I want to happen affect my judgment on what logically should happen.

So when I tell you that it appears Rick Perry is about to win the Republican gubernatorial primary without a runoff, your best bet is to assume we're in for six more weeks of runoff campaigning.

I can't help it. That's what the trend lines tell me.

We'll summarize on tomorrow's Editorial and Viewpoints pages the 39 candidate recommendations we've made over the last six weeks or so and urge voters who haven't already early-voted to be sure to get out and do so tomorrow.

In summary, we did 36 sit-down interviews with something close to 100 candidates - plus phone interviews with the candidates in another three contests - as part of formulating our recommendations. We also relied heavily on the questionnaires candidates filled out online for us, as well as on our own independent record checking and ancillary interviews.

Here's a link to our candidate recommendations.

And here's a link to the questionnaires, which, by the way, more than 90 percent of the 134 candidates we invited to complete them submitted. You can read about the candidates thoughts and positions on issues in the candidates' own words - unedited and unfiltered - for free!

Last weekend, we had an election blowout, with letters on page 3P of Points about the governor's race and letters on the community pages about local candidates. I'm looking forward to letters about election results, starting Wednesday.

We still got several election letters today, but I'd say many of our letter writers are moving on to other topics. Health care is still hot, and the letters are passionate.

My favorite letters, though, and we don't get enough of them, are people commenting on local issues. Maybe it's because we don't get many of them that I like them so much.

If you were wondering where your local editorial board comes down on high-speed rail in Texas, make no mistake: We love it long time.

We're especially annoyed that Texas leaders -- particularly Gov. Rick Perry -- are such dunderheads that they sat on their hands while the Obama administration was tossing around $8 billion in federal stimulus dollars specifically to boost high-speed rail construction:

Gov. Rick Perry and other top leaders needed to have led a charge in behalf of the state's $1.8 billion request that would have advanced high-speed rail for Texas' largest metro areas. Yet they were all but missing and silent. The state did hire a rail chief last month, but Washington is looking for top state leadership in lockstep.

Look at California, we said. They have it going on.

As a young man, I had a conversation with an older fellow from Fort Worth and remember asking about a specific neighborhood there, "and can you buy beer there?" He looked at me like I'd lost my mind and said, "Son, the only thing dry in Fort Worth is the bottom of your shoe."

Not if it's raining, I thought, but quickly explained that in Dallas, where we were at that moment, some parts of town were "wet," meaning a person could buy a six-pack at the 7-Eleven or even get a drink at a restaurant. Other parts, like Oak Cliff, where I grew up, were "dry," meaning one had to cross the river to buy alcohol. (Where you drank it was another story.)

"Heard about that," the Fort Worth guy said. "That's why I'd never live over here. Wouldn't work here, either."

It's never easy to read the intent of the Department of Veterans Affairs, especially when they're talking about "Gulf War illness."

However, this mention from VA secretary Eric Shinseki caught my eye. He's promising a "fresh. bold look" to help vets who complain of Gulf war illness. This supposedly includes training clinic staffers who work with Gulf War vets to make sure that they simply don't tell vets that their symptoms are imaginary. That happened to Viet Nam vets and to Gulf War vets.

"I'm also asking the question, how do we ensure that 20 years from now, that future secretary isn't answering questions about PTSD or TBI, sort of the signature injuries of this war, in the same way that I'm having to look back and try to address these issues," he said.

How this squares with the VA's decision to cut research ties with the UT Southwestern Medical Center is beyond me. Yes, it's good to remove red tape, but shouldn't we also be interested in what might have happened to these guys on the battlefield, which was a focus of the UTSW study. The VA has suggested that it will pursue answers, just not with UTSW. But in addition to research expertise, UTSW had a measure of independence that gave it credibility.

It seems to me that until the key question is answered, treatment will be mostly hit-and-miss and probably marginally effective at best. I'm not sure that moving along the paperwork -- while better than letting it languish in an administrative pit -- gives vets what they need.

A lot of what Shinseki is saying depends on whether vets trust the VA as their ally and continue to see it as an agency primed to deny expensive disability claims. We'll see.

TRASH -- Once-a-week pickup coming to 75 percent of Dallas on Monday. We write about why it's a good thing. Colleen writing on behalf of the board.

DEATH - We key this off the three Texas death penalty cases before the SCOTUS right now and write it in a way to say: For those of you still skeptical of the need to change Texas death penalty laws, here are three (very different cases) that should give you pause. Rodger writing on behalf of the board.

HEALTH -- We review the bipartisan health summit, concluding that the civil, informative session revealed genuine philosophical differences between the two sides. This wasn't a grudge match about death panels and abortion, thankfully. We then explain how we'd like to see the two sides proceed, reiterating our points from previous editorials as a way to prescribe how we could expand coverage and control costs. If Congress doesn't go down that route, we'd rather see members start anew and focus on those areas where the parties can agree and build upon that. Better that than passing a bill that neither controls costs nor will realistically reduce the deficit. We don't believe any Democrat adequately answered the GOP critique about those two points, and they had numerous chances to do so. Bill writing on behalf of the board.

Jim Schutze, in his writings at the Dallas Observer, has made it abundantly clear that he's no fan of the board's "Bridging the Gap" project intended to raise living standards in southern Dallas. He's certainly entitled to his opinion.

So it was with some special interest that I plowed through his latest for the Observer's print edition, "Oak Cliff Becomes Cool Embracing What Other Parts Of Dallas Have Fought: Builders, Bikes And Immigrants."

Set aside some time this weekend and give it a read. (Actually, set aside a lot of time. At 5,800 words -- jeez, doesn't the Observer have any editors? -- it's a lot to absorb and digest. Then again, written in the unique Schutze style, it's an entertaining and illuminating read.)

Obama wrapped up today's meeting with some ways the two sides can come together, but he also hinted pretty broadly that any final bill will probably end up being a Democratic plan.

On the agreement side, he stressed the two parties could work out some differences on insurance reforms, allowing small businesses to get insurance coverage through joining a larger group, letting consumers purchase coverage across state lines and reforming malpractice laws.

Even there, I think that they have serious differences. For example, they see buying policies across state lines pretty differently.

But I hope they do get together to work out this part of any final bill. It would make it a better product.

That said, it is increasingly likely that Democrats will end up passing a health care bill on their own. One side of me says do that because I am worn out by this debate. Let's talk about something different.

But the prevailing side in me says we should start anew and focus on those areas where the parties can agree and build upon that. Better that than passing a bill that neither controls costs nor will realistically reduce the deficit. I don't think any Democrat today adequately answered the GOP critique about those two points, and they had numerous chances to do so.

All in all, I'm glad the two sides had this meeting. Anyone who gets a chance to watch it will see legislators arguing about serious disagreements in a civil way. This isn't all about power, although that has something to do with it. The difficulty in getting a common health care bill has to do a lot with differences about the way you see the world. We saw that on display today, and that's a healthy thing. At least, we didn't have Republicans crazily ranting about death panels and Democrats whining about Republicans being the party of no.

Early in the week, it was up in the air whether we would write an editorial in advance of the Obama health care summit or wait until we saw what happened and commented on that. My suggestion was that we should advance it with the admittedly cynical view that this was fairly pointless, no matter how much importance we might attach to the broader health care debate.

No shock that this idea was dead on arrival with the devoted Obama supporters on our board. Instead, we decided on this editorial, which more or less evaluated the "Obama plan" he released Monday, three days ahead of his summit.

Democratic Rep. Jim Cooper just spoke at the summit about deficit reduction. In my mind, the moderate Democrat is exactly the kind of legislator that Washington needs. He talks about controlling the deficit while at the same time backing that belief up with tough votes.

Cooper has been around the health care debate since the Clinton attempt in 1994. He knows the ins-and-outs of health policy, including the finances of such care.

So, his voice mattered when he just warned members of both parties that if they are planning to finance the overhaul bills through cutting Medicare they must be willing to back that belief up with tough votes.

He then pointed out how seven senators who once backed the Senate's plan to set up a bipartisan deficit commission took a pass when that idea came up recently. He didn't name them, but, sadly, John McCain was one of them. I hope that stung McCain because he knew full well that the deficit and debt are big problems and that a commission is our best -- and perhaps last -- hope for dealing with them.

Bottom line: If Congress is going to pass a health care bill that is largely paid for through Medicare reductions, I hope legislators pass the Cooper test and make the tough votes when it comes to cutting Medicare.

I am a big fan of civility, and I've really enjoyed watching Republican and Democratic leaders get together today and discuss -- yes, discuss -- the pros and cons of health care reform. I had high hopes for at least a few small steps toward a meeting of the minds between the two sides. But at this point, sadly, I have to share the view of Politico that zero progress has been made on that front.

By the lunch break, it was growing clearer that the pre-summit pessimism on both sides - that there was little to no hope of grand bipartisan compromise - was on target. In fact, both sides spent the bulk of the first three hours of the session trying to score tactical points, rarely veering from their scripts to extend a hand to the other side.

Or, as Tennessee Democratic Rep. Jim Cooper just said, "We're all here. We're all dressed up. We're all on our best behavior." And?

Dang, everyone sure is being polite. But what good is this doing if everyone also remains completely dug in to his or her position? I badly want to see this lead to some real horse-trading and at least a little meeting of the minds. I don't think it's going to happen.

Goodbye compromise. Hello reconciliation.

Republican Rep. Paul Ryan just made a very important point in the part of the discussion dealing with deficit reduction. He pointed out that one reason Democrats are saying their bills will reduce the deficit is because they put in a separate piece of legislation the very costly idea of fixing the formula by which Medicare pays doctors and hospitals. If you add that in, this bill would not even be close to deficit neutral.

That was an important point, if you worry that this bill could end up adding to the deficit. Ryan also brought up the point that Democrats are double-counting money from a new long-term care plan.

Here's one more reason to worry about that possibility: the bill relies on various cuts in Medicare, which indeed are needed. But Congress has shown no stomach when it comes to reforming Medicare. Will they do so now?

Sadly, I don't think so. And that's why there is reason to doubt that this bill will pay for itself. And when you read CBO's analysis, its analysts too raise the issue that Congress has not had a good record in trimming Medicare expenses, which Democrats are relying upon to finance about $500 billion of their plans.

Obama dodged this problem, in my book. When Ryan finished, Obama said something like we disagree about the numbers and then went on to talk about Medicare Advantage.

Disclaimer: Rodger Jones is a great guy. I'm fortunate to office next door to him here in the A.H. Belo Command Operations Center. He knows his sports, has an excellent sense of humor and knows more about roads and trains than almost anyone.

Here's the problem: You can't ask him a simple transporation question without him burying you in charts and graphs and press releases. (Despite being from Cleveland, Rodger would have made a fine engineer. If you know an engineer, you know what I mean. "Where do I plug in the power cord?" yields 10 diagrams and 30 minutes on the history of direct current.)

Today's question: "Rodger, did you see that story on the Metro cover today about how messed up I-35E is? Is that a legit study?"

The health care summit is now about to take a break, so here is a look after the first three hours:

First, opening this meeting to C-Span cameras is great. Really. If you want to know what each party thinks about health care, and about other broad subjects like the role of government, you can get it right here. I know most folks don't have the time to sit around and listen, so maybe look for it tonight once C-Span replays it. I mean it, so you won't fall prey to sound bites from either side. The representatives from each party are having an honest debate about concepts and details.

Second, for the most part, the discussion has been civil and without a ton of simple spin. Harry Reid got testy when responding to Lamar Alexander early in the discussion, which only made me wonder again how Democrats ended up with Reid as their majority leader in the Senate. No articulate, cool Barack Obama is he.

1. OLYMPICS - What an inspirational Olympics this has been, despite the tragedy and weather setbacks. We do our best to catch that Olympic spirit by weaving together the most inspirational stories and their impact on us as viewers from around the world. (One of those stories is of Canadian figure skater Joannie Rochette, pictured here, who performed just days after her mother's unexpected death.) Tod writing on behalf of the board.

2. TOYOTA - My, what a mess this once hallowed auto company has created, and seems bent on compounding. We draw contrast to Tylenol's textbook-perfect case of how to handle a disaster like this. We also draw parallels to what sorts of regulatory-oversight failures led to the financial meltdown for some bigger lessons here. This may be the beginning of the end of Toyota's pristine run as an industry leader. Jim writing on behalf of the board.

Feel free to add your thoughts on these two subjects in the comments area below.

Today, in Geneva, more than 1,700 people from around the world are attending the 4th World Congress Against the Death Penalty. Several members of Murder Victims' Families for Human Rights are speaking. The following are drafts of their testimony, as provided to me by Susannah Sheffer.

Read more and comment.

The following is an exchange I have had with a group called Empower Texans. They claim they have made an error in a mailing, that it's not deliberate. They have attributed assertions in a State House race to the Dallas Morning News Editorial Board, have admitted this is not correct, but so far, have refused to correct this. I think it's fairly obvious why they haven't. The comments make it look like we said some very critical things of the candidate we recommended. Read the exchange here. It starts with my original e-mail to the group:

It has come to our attention that a brochure is circulating, paid for by Empower Texans, that appears to fabricate quotes from The Dallas Morning News Editorial Board. Under the heading "Compare the candidates for state representative" with your group's endorsement of Cindy Burkett, a paragraph includes several statements about Greg Noschese. The source line says "Empower Texans interview and 2010 candidate questionnaire, Dallas Morning News Editorial Board 1/20/10, Noschese Campaign Finance Report 1/15/10" First of all, it is unclear which statements in this paragraph are supposedly from The Dallas Morning News Editorial Board on Jan. 20. The use of the word "our" compounds this confusion. Is that deliberate? But more important, no statement in the paragraph comes close to paraphrasing or referencing anything the board wrote in its recommendation of Greg Noschese. (Also, the date appears to be wrong. The editorial was posted online on Jan. 22 and ran in print on Jan. 25. There is nothing online or in print that ran on Jan. 20.) If the statements were derived from individuals during the interview process, then the Editorial Board should not be cited as the source. The only source material the board produced at all is included below. (Not included in this blog post, but available here.) It is the previously mentioned editorial. I ask that you immediately cease and desist in citing The Dallas Morning News Editorial Board as the source for your material on Greg Noschese. I believe after you review the editorial, you'll agree that an error has been made. Please let me know immediately that you plan to correct this situation. Thank you.

Tell the truth: Were you surprised to learn this week that some Dallas high schools in, shall we say, troubled parts of town resort to chaining their doors shut during the school day to either keep kids in or potential criminals out?

Anyone?

Surprise inspections at 31 Dallas public high schools this week revealed that eight were locking exit doors that serve as escape routes during catastrophes, a serious fire code violation.

Fire officials said Wednesday that they issued citations to A. Maceo Smith, Carter, Kimball, Molina, Pinkston, Roosevelt, South Oak Cliff and Skyline high schools.

The citations follow an incident at Samuell High School last week, when students trying to evacuate during a fire ran to an exit door locked with chains because of security problems at the school.

Do states have a right to secede? It's always seemed obvious to me that the answer is no, but recent politics in Texas have taught me there's still much debate on this topic.

So I'll share with you a blog entry I stumbled upon that shares Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's views on the matter. (It's not every day you get to hear a justice's opinion on secession.)

When asked to weigh in by a screenwriter who was researching the topic, Scalia wrote:

I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, "one Nation, indivisible.") Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit.

I am sure that poetic license can overcome all that -- but you do not need legal advice for that. Good luck with your screenplay.

Every week, we poll the members of the editorial board on a timely and divisive topic. This week, the topic comes from a Washington Post story reporting that Virginia Tech has "joined a growing list of colleges that notify parents every time a student younger than 21 is caught drinking, drunk or in possession of alcohol." And so our question today is:

Should universities notify an underage student's parents every time he's caught drinking?

Here are their responses:

The Rasmussen poll on the Texas gubernatorial primary is out, and the news appears pretty good for Gov. Rick Perry, who has picked up four points to 48 percent since the start of the month (comparing the last two Rasmussen polls).

Kay Bailey Hutchison is down two points, from 29 to 27 percent, but, interestingly, Debra Medina is polling at the same 16 percent as she was before she briefly lost her mind on Glenn Beck's 9/11 truther inquisition.

With early voting underway, Rasmussen asked those who had voted already which way they went. The answer: Perry 49, Hutchison 24, Medina 20.

Perry is very close to avoiding a runoff, which could save his campaign a fair bit of money that it could apply to the general against Bill White. That said, it will be interesting to see if many Democrats take Paul Burka's "suggestion" and cross over to vote for Hutchison (thereby increasing chances of a Perry-weakening runoff).

For Mark Davis' take on the primaries and a couple of out-of-state perspectives, visit our Opinion home page and roll down to the Texas section.

Are you looking to get away from it all? Well, Ultime Réalité has the perfect vacation for you. For just $1,200 the French company will kidnap you during your vacation. They'll also bind and gag you at no extra charge. You can also book a helicopter chase and daring escape package. It's the latest in thrill-seeking tourism.

Reuters reports:

For those searching for the ultimate nightmare, the company is also hoping to branch out beyond kidnappings and is looking into options such as spending a night in a morgue, or attending your own funeral.

The company's founder, Georges Cexus, explains:

Let's say it will really be about bringing to life the client's worst fear, the thing that's lurking in the back of his mind and he's never dared talk about.

Sign me up! Sounds just like what I want from a vacation. Question: does the package include post-abduction therapy?

As crazy as it sounds, Cexus told Reuters customers are lining up. I don't know about you, but I will not be among them. My sense of adventure on vacation ends at deciding which type of drink to order at the beach bar.