OPINION

Every week, we poll the members of the editorial board on a timely and divisive topic. This week, the question is:

What is it about Rick Perry that, after so many years in office, voters keep handing him victories ?

Here are their responses:

Another state race I'm keeping my eye on is Don McLeroy's State Board of Education seat. (He's the former chair of the board who was removed by the Texas Senate last year over his religious views; he self-identifies as a Christian fundamentalist and believes in a literal reading of Genesis, for example.)

He's being challenged by lobbyist Thomas Ratliff in the GOP primary; there's no Democrat running in the fall.

And the race is close. With 19 percent of precincts reporting, Ratliff is behind by a hair, 49.73 percent to 50.26 percent.

Updated at 10:04: With 62 percent of precincts reporting, Ratliff is ahead by a hair, 50.38 percent to 49.61 percent.

I voted in Democratic Precinct #3340 this morning, and as I pulled in to the parking lot of my polling place, there stood Eric Johnson's wife. She handed out a flier for her husband, and stapled to it was a notice that she was running for precinct chair.

I'd like to think this is part of an effort to show the couple's commitment to building up support from the grassroots. But I wonder if other District 100 voters will see it the same way.

(And a side note: I voted at 11:30 this morning and was voter No. 12. Twelve!)

Update at 7:26 p.m.: Johnson leads in early voting, with 70.25 percent to Hodge's 29.75 percent.

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:

Every week, we poll the members of the editorial board on a timely and divisive topic. This week, the question is:

Did Baylor University make a smart choice in naming former independent prosecutor Ken Starr as its next president?

Here are their responses:

Southwest Airlines has a problem on its hands, after kicking famed director Kevin Smith off a flight for being too fat to properly fit into his seat. Smith tweeted at length about the indignity; controversy ensued.

But I'm having trouble picking sides in this debate.

Exhibit A: Smith originally purchased two seats for his flight, so he must have known his weight could be an issue. However, he was trying to catch an earlier flight on standby; it was this earlier flight he got thrown off of. If Smith originally bought two tickets, why did he then think he could get away with one? Smith seems in the wrong.

Exhibit B: Southwest has fallen all over itself apologizing to Smith, first on Twitter and then in an official apology. And they gave him a $100 voucher for his inconvenience. This is probably good PR, but it's bad for consistency. What happens when a not-so-famous obese man has the same problem later? Would the same rules apply? This puts Southwest in a bad light.

I'll give the edge to Southwest for now. But this isn't the publicity it needs.

Sunday, yet another long-form essay on the Texas State Board of Education will hit the newsstands, this one in The New York Times Magazine.

"How Christian Were the Founders?" discusses the philosophy of "members of what is the most influential state board of education in the country, and one of the most politically conservative," focusing the debate on whether the authors of the Constitution intended the U.S. to be a Christian nation.

The one thing that underlies the entire program of the nation's Christian conservative activists is, naturally, religion. But it isn't merely the case that their Christian orientation shapes their opinions on gay marriage, abortion and government spending. More elementally, they hold that the United States was founded by devout Christians and according to biblical precepts. This belief provides what they consider not only a theological but also, ultimately, a judicial grounding to their positions on social questions. When they proclaim that the United States is a "Christian nation," they are not referring to the percentage of the population that ticks a certain box in a survey or census but to the country's roots and the intent of the founders.

It's an interesting read, and despite all I've read on this topic, there were new details to glean here. So I'd recommend it. But ...

Every week, we poll the members of the editorial board on a timely and divisive topic. This week, the question is:

With a new poll out showing Debra Medina closing in on Kay Baily Hutchison for second place in the GOP governor's race, what do you think is fueling the enthusiasm for a woman once considered a fringe candidate?

Here are their responses:

The Daily Beast has a piece from Mark McKinnon and Myra Adams musing on the possibility that Barack Obama could nominate Hillary Clinton for a Supreme Court seat this year.

It's obvious why Clinton might want the seat; few think her ambitions end with the secretary of state gig, but it would be awhile before she could run for president again. And the authors posture that Obama is concerned enough about his legacy that he wants to wipe away the wounds caused by stepping over her on the campaign trail. Plus, "she's as smart and as qualified as any prospect her party could nominate," they say.

But could she possibly have any shot at confirmation?

There would be fireworks, for sure. Partisan hell would break loose. Imagine Rush, Hannity, Coulter et al. What a field day. But, I'm guessing there would be enough Republicans who would support her because: (a) they actually like and respect her having served with her and seen how hard she works and how smart she is; and (b) they have some ambition to run for president themselves and they'd just as soon see her out of the picture.

Color me skeptical. Then again, I was surprised at how much Clinton became the less-controversial candidate in the Democratic primary, too. So I'll make no predictions.

Every week, we poll the members of the editorial board on a timely and divisive topic. This week, that topic is the latest poll numbers out of the Republican primary for governor, which show Perry (44 percent) and Medina (16 percent) gaining ground, while Hutchison (29 percent) loses some. So our question this week is:

What do you make of the latest poll numbers in the GOP race for governor?

Here are their responses:

The Atlantic's James Fallows has an interesting take on why bipartisanship can't work. He starts with this anecdote:

I got this note from someone with many decades' experience in national politics, about a discussion between two Congressmen over details of the stimulus bill:

"GOP member: 'I'd like this in the bill.'

"Dem member response: 'If we put it in, will you vote for the bill?'

"GOP member: 'You know I can't vote for the bill.'

"Dem member: 'Then why should we put it in the bill?'

Bipartisanship is a grand goal and part of a democratic ideal. But it simply does not work when one party refuses to play along -- in this case, when the party in the minority votes against bills in a monolithic bloc. We can exhort the Democrats all we want to foster cooperation, but after Massachusetts, Republicans smell blood; they'll be even less inclined to engage in any give-and-take when they've been so effective at no-no-no.

As a side note, I loved the point Doris Kearns Goodwin made about filibusters to Jon Stewart last week. (More at the jump.)

Every week, we poll the members of the editorial board on a timely and divisive topic. This week, the question is:

Parkland Memorial Hospital is catching heat for the recent approval of $1.7 million in executive bonuses, including $226,670 for CEO Ron Anderson. Do you think it's wrong to use taxpayers' money for this type of compensation?

Here are their responses:

The Times-Picayune is reporting that the FBI arrested four people in an alleged plot to wiretap Sen. Mary Landrieu's office. Among the four was James O'Keefe, the man behind the pimp-and-prostitute videos that sunk ACORN last year.

Anyone else been following the story of Tessa Savicki in Boston?

To sum up: A woman who relies on public assistance was in the hospital giving birth to her ninth child. She asked that, after delivery, doctors implant an IUD; instead, they tied her tubes. So she's suing.

The facts of the case seem pretty cut and dry. But the backlash from the public has been astonishing. The doctors have been called heroes, and there have been calls for routine sterilization of people on public assistance and a cry to sterilize her whole family.

Seriously? Society is not past the idea of compulsory sterilization?

As difficult as it is for me to swallow instances of public assistance being abused, I'll gladly take that over the state's right to choose who is allowed to reproduce.

Every week, we poll the members of the editorial board on a timely and divisive topic. This week, the question is:

Was the Massachusetts Senate race (in which Scott Brown beat the favored Democrat, Martha Coakley) a referendum on Obama's first year in office? And how do think Brown's win will affect Obama's domestic agenda?

Here are their responses:

After reading the news that Scott Roeder, who has confessed to killing abortion provider George Tiller, may be allowed to present a "voluntary manslaughter" defense, I was left scratching my head. Voluntary manslaughter would mean Roeder could argue that he was justified in killing Tiller because he was protecting the lives of the unborn.

How could Kansas law allow for such a defense?

Slate's Emily Bazelon tackles the topic in her latest "Jurisprudence" column, and her findings are that, well, it doesn't seem to. She says: "This is a truly terrible interpretation of the criminal law that would allow for all kinds of bogus political defenses to murder, handy for pro-life vigilantes as well as any terrorist who believes he is on a holy mission to save lives."

She traces the history and intention of the law in question and comes back confident that an appeals court would set the judge straight, if this comes to pass ...

"But by then, harm will have been done. Scott Roeder will get to put on testimony about why he thought he was justified in killing Tiller. He will have a show trial in which he can present himself as a martyr to the cause of the unborn. Judge Wilbert has repeatedly insisted that he won't let this trial become a trial about abortion. But that's exactly where his ruling is taking us."

Every week, we poll the members of the editorial board on a timely and divisive topic. This week, the question is:

Now that Conan O'Brien appears poised to walk from his NBC contract, how should NBC resolve its Conan-Leno conflict?

Here are their responses:

Well, color me shocked:

Sarah Palin's signed on to be a contributor to the Fox News Channel. (Not that there's anything wrong with that, as Hash would say.) Says a New York Times blog:

The network confirmed that Ms. Palin would appear on the network's programming on a regular basis as part of a multiyear deal. Financial terms were not disclosed.

Ms. Palin will not have her own regular program, one person with knowledge of the deal said, though she will host a series that will run on the network from time to time.

The work week is almost through, and I'm rounding up some of the articles I didn't get a chance to read:

"Revisionaries: How a group of Texas conservatives is rewriting your kids' textbooks," in Washington Monthly

"The Convert: Former Bryan Planned Parenthood director Abby Johnson's abrupt change from pro-choice activist to pro-life spokesperson turned her into a talk show sensation. But is her story true?" in Texas Monthly

"Dave Eggers on his favorite things about newspapers," in the A.V. Club

What's on your weekend reading list?

P.S. Maybe I would have had a chance to finish one of these pieces if I hadn't spend time reading through "The Two Gentlemen of Lebowski," which is the dialogue from "The Big Lebowski" re-imagined as a Shakespearean play. Enjoy.

I'm in my office with a space heater on, dreading any trip outdoors in the bitter cold. But I'm thankful I'm not where I was two weeks ago, on Christmas Eve.

I got caught in the Oklahoma City blizzard on the way to my parent's house in Kansas. What normally takes me 5.5 hours instead took more than 16, including a stretch where the car moved only nine miles in six hours. Scary stuff.

But the experience was unique for me in another way: Having an iPhone in the car meant I could research the weather radar, road closures and latest news (unlike the guy in the photo I took, who was reading the morning while waiting for traffic to move). Por ejemplo:

• The Weather Channel's ap showed me that I was likely to be driving into snow, rather than ice. While this initially buoyed my spirits, I later learned that my optimism was ill-founded.
• I used the Web ap to search for news
• I was in pretty constant contact via text messages with my worried parents, who were also monitoring news sites and OKC traffic cams and then reporting back.
• When stopped in a line of traffic on a snowy highway, I used the Twitterific ap to search all the tweets coming from a 10-mile radius of my location. There was a lot of drivel ("I'm snowed in and soooo bored!"), but there were also reports from a county's emergency management department on road closures and open shelters, plus a few tweeters who were compiling information on the storm.
• One of those tweets pointed me to an invaluable Web site, the Livewire blog of KOCO, an OKC television station. Although there were no staff members updating the blog, the live comments on the weather post were coming in fast and furious. (Looking today, I see 727 pages of comments.) People were asking for information about stranded family members on the highway. I was able to post a comment about being stopped at mile marker 102 -- and then find out from another commenter that his family had reported some movement at mile marker 104, so I should hang in there.

It was interesting for me to note how little I could rely on the traditional media for the news I was looking for; they just weren't able to update fast enough or with specific enough information to be useful to me. But crowdsourced information (Twitter and blog comments) was able to provide the breadth and specificity I was looking for.

Now, all that being said, the outcome of the drive was the same with our without my iPhone. The roads were terrible; it took a long time to drive them. But there was something about knowing what was ahead before I got there that made the drive easier to take.

Every week, we poll the members of the editorial board on a timely and divisive topic. This week, the question is:

Is there any way to defend Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid's decision to close final health care negotiations to airing on C-SPAN, effectively shutting out the public?

Here are their responses:

Every week, we poll the members of the editorial board on a timely and divisive topic. This week, the question is:

Is Congress right to thwart Obama's plan to move Gitmo detainess to Illinios?

Here are their responses:

This blog entry by Paul Kedrosky, "Contrarianism is the New Consensus" struck a nerve with me, considering that the Points section I edit is largely focused on finding pieces that buck conventional wisdom. And he mentions the piece we ran on the Points cover Sunday, "The Encyclopedia of Counterintuitive Thought."

Kedrosky's criticism is pointed:

Why is contrarianism so appealing? It is appealing - and growing immensely in popularity - because it has so much smart-guy frisson. This naive contrarianism lets you pose outside the system, meanwhile keeping good company like Warren Buffett, John Paulson, the Freakonomics fellows, and oodles of self-declared fellow travelers, most of whom almost certainly aren't doing what they say they are.

Contrarianism also appeals to our increasingly cynical nature. It is the superficial idea that most people are wrong about everything, especially if they are in government, on TV, among the putative intelligentsia, etc. They think that? Ha, I'll take the other side, etc.

He's right about naive contrarianism, about the tendency among some to go against the grain just because you can. But he's wrong, I think, to so quickly write off this trend of the 2000s.

I strongly believe there's value in challenging your assumptions, of questioning the status quo. The predictions in such stories don't always turn out to be right, of course, but there's something to be gained in the mere consideration of their ideas.

Because I know I'm not the only word nerd in our midst, I thought I'd share recent pieces by my two favorite lexicographers.

First is the most recent "On Language" column, by Erin McKean. She writes about the trouble with dictionaries. (McKean was once dubbed "America's lexicographical sweetheart," a moniker I adore. She recently founded Wordnik.com, an "living" dictionary online that excels because it doesn't have the space or time limitations of the print product. And she's stylish as all get out.)

Second is the "Buzzwords of 2009" feature in which Grant Barrett, a colleague of McKean's at Wordnick, lists fun catchphrases from the year that was, like "birther," "Dracula sneeze" and "I'mma let you finish." (Barrett is one-half of the radio duo that puts out the language call-in show "A Way With Words," one of my favorite podcasts. It airs on KERA 90.1-FM at 1 p.m. Fridays, or you can listen to it on the Web here. He also runs the Double-Tongued Dictionary, which documents slang and jargon words.)

First, let me just get this out there: I find the idea of secession to be lunacy in this day and age. And Rick Perry's secession-tinged hints early this year were absurd.

Now, that being said, I was fascinated by this feature in The Chronicle of Higher education on Donald W. Livingston, a professor of philosophy at Emory University. He's an expert on secession and founded the Abbeville Institute, which is named for the birthplace of Vice President John Calhoun (a big states-rights and slavery advocate).

The Abbeville Institute has been having furtive conferences every year "to discuss topics about the South that they feel are misrepresented in today's classrooms." Which sounds interesting -- only, the reason the conferences have been kept on the down low is that some groups (namely, the Southern Poverty Law Center) say the group's work borders on white supremacy. The institute counters that this is legitimate scholarship but an area so fraught with political correctness that to counter the status quo gets you labeled a racist.

So why am I interested, considering my (quite rational) stance on secession? Being editor of the Points section has nurtured my penchant for the unconventional, which this certainly is. I have a soft spot for theoretical questions to be discussed in the abstract. And I have noticed the nation's propensity for knee-jerk reactions to even abstract discussions involving the South, the Civil War and race.

I'm sensitive to the fact that this group could yet be pushing racism masquerading as scholarship. But let's hope not. We need more organizations fighting this stereotype, not furthering it.

Every week, we poll the members of the editorial board on a timely and divisive topic. This week, the question is:

Is the Mesquite school district out of line to force a 4-year-old out of class because his hair is too long? Are the rules out of line?

Here are their responses:

Sure, the posts written by me and my colleagues on this blog are great and all -- but it's the commenters who have been giving this blog the complete package this week.

If you're the type to read the main posts and skip the rest, check out the smart back and forth on these two posts:

The debate is over man-made climate change in these comments.

And the immigration debate took off (rather inexplicably) in these comments.

What makes thee discussion interesting to me is that people have, for the most part, avoided getting personal and are limiting their criticism to the ideas expressed. (A reminder: Personal attacks aren't allowed on the blog; that can get your comment removed.)The exchanges are heated -- these are two divisive topics -- but people are really reading the opposing views and responding to the points raised.

Perhaps later today we can tackle abortion, religion and liberal media bias while we're on a roll.

Although I do not count myself among your ranks, that shouldn't stop me from passing along this piece from The Daily Beast: "A Skeptic's Guide to Copenhagen."

It begins ...

A is for anthropogenic: (as in anthropogenic global warming, or "AGW"), a $10 word for "man-made" which global-warmists wield as proof of expertise--no one more so than Al Gore, who, after having invented the Internet, turned his prodigious mind to the conundrum of AGW.

B is for Björn Lomborg, the Danish professor whose book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, should have put Al Gore out of business forever; for the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) that aren't ready to abandon the good, carbon-burning life just yet; and for boondoggle (see "ethanol," infra).

C is for the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, the now-discredited source of much of the data used to fuel climate hysteria. In November, in an episode that was oh-so-predictably dubbed Climategate, a cache of leaked emails showed that researchers systematically hid or manipulated data that was inconsistent with the accepted narrative of man-made climate change. (Read John Tierney's clear-headed critique here.) Don't forget carbon dioxide, a colorless, odorless gas once considered essential to life on earth, not to mention bubbles in Champagne. (Although it's now regarded as a poisonous pollutant, you can, however, trade it.) Think also of consensus--the idea that science is settled by an asserted poll of experts after all objections from dissenting scientists have been suppressed.

Every week, we poll the members of the editorial board on a timely and divisive topic. This week, the question is:

Do you support President Barack Obama's proposal, announced Tuesday, to spend hundreds of billions to accelerate job growth?

Here are their responses:

Reihan Salam has a smart piece at The Daily Beast about the new anti-war right, in light of Rep. Jason Chaffetz, Utah Republican, making the conservative case for withdrawing from Afghanistan.

Chaffetz wrote: "If our mission in Afghanistan is simply to protect the populace and build the nation, then I believe the time has come to bring our troops home."

Salam predicts that by the midterm elections, there will be dozens of other Republicans joining him. Why? Many conservatives have a natural antipathy toward using our military for nation-building. After 9/11, this concern took a back seat, as nation-building in the Middle East appeared to go hand in hand with the kind of democracy-building necessary to reduce the terrorism threat to the U.S.

Says Salam:

But now that Obama, a man most conservatives dislike and distrust, is the steward of that effort, those conservative instincts are making a comeback. Jason Chaffetz represents the beginning of a wave--and it's not obvious that Obama can do anything to stop it.

Some may say the conservative instincts are making a comeback. Others may call it blatant opportunism. Either way, if Salam's predictions come true, it spells trouble for Obama's plans in the region.

I highly recommend Elizabeth Weil's piece in Sunday's New York Times Magazine, "Married (Happily) With Issues" -- a fascinating read, both in a lesson for goals and anti-goals. Weil writes:

I started wondering why I wasn't applying myself to the project of being a spouse. My marriage was good, utterly central to my existence, yet in no other important aspect of my life was I so laissez-faire. Like most of my peers, I applied myself to school, friendship, work, health and, ad nauseam, raising my children. But in this critical area, marriage, we had all turned away. I wanted to understand why. I wanted not to accept this. Dan, too, had worked tirelessly -- some might say obsessively -- at skill acquisition. Over the nine years of our marriage, he taught himself to be a master carpenter and a master chef. He was now reading Soviet-era weight-training manuals in order to transform his 41-year-old body into that of a Marine. Yet he shared the seemingly widespread aversion to the very idea of marriage improvement. Why such passivity? What did we all fear?

I have a soft spot for random self-improvement projects, and I see the point she's making. I'd also agree with the sentiment that all good relationships take work. But by the end of the essay -- after the self-help books, the therapy sessions, the happy couple's first shouts of divorce -- my main takeaway was that if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it. You can kill a happy marriage by incessantly asking whether it's happy enough.

The New York Times Magazine on Sunday will have a long profile on the Texas governor's race, and there's a preview version on the Web already. (It's written by Texan Robert Draper, who wrote "Dead Certain: The Presidency of George W. Bush.)

Toward the top of the piece comes this humdinger from Rick Perry:

Nasty storm winds slapped the plane along its journey south to Laredo. Perry, a former Air Force pilot with the rugged veneer of a "Bonanza" cast member, sat unperturbed with a plastic bag full of popcorn in his lap and rhapsodized further about the revered Republic of Texas's president. "Houston became a Christian late in life because of his wife," he said. "He was running for the presidency in 1860, and she talked him out of it. She thought he would lose his mortal soul if he ran for the presidency. He was highly respected in the North -- an anti-slave Southerner. There are those that think he would've won the presidency of the United States and we probably would not have had a civil war. Interesting."

The governor was grinning broadly. "Then we wouldn't have had Abe Lincoln," I pointed out.

Perry contemplated this for barely a second before replying, "Maybe Sam Houston would've been better."

He sat back and munched on his popcorn, clearly pleased to have said something that might provoke incredulity somewhere.

There's more where that came from, of course. The piece is worth a read.

One editorial board member commented at our Wednesday meeting that Mike Huckabee's chance at the presidency was kaput. And that sentiment's been echoed among the commentariat.

(Haven't been following the story? Here's a quick catch-me-up: While governor of Arkansas nine years ago, Huckabee commuted the 108-year sentence of Maurice Clemmons, who was convicted of various burglary charges as a 16-year-old. Last week, Clemmons killed four police officers in a coffee shop.)

But ... I have to say that Huckabee makes a pretty strong defense in this essay he posted this week.

You'll find an excerpt and more discussion after the jump.

Every week, we poll the members of the editorial board on a timely and divisive topic. This week, the question is:

Do you agree with President Obama's decision to announce a timeline to start withdrawing troops from Afghanistan?

Here are their responses:

At yesterday's staff meeting, we had a strong discussion about what to say regarding Iran's plans to build 10 new nuclear-fuel enrichment plants. Our conversation centered on the fact that, more and more, it looks as if Iran's getting the bomb is inevitable. The real question now is, what are we going to do about it?

So on my reading list for the end of the day is this Council on Foreign Relations report analyzing the likelihood of an Israeli strike on Iran. From the synopsis:

The memo concludes that Israel is not eager to start a war with Iran, or disrupt its relations with the United States, but it will act if it perceives an imminent existential threat in the form of a nuclear Iran. Thus, American arguments for restraint must be backed by concrete measures to contain the perceived threat and affirmations of the special relationship.

I'd also recommend these two recent pieces that ran in Points:

How Iranian nukes would reshape the Middle East, by Lee Smith

The rise of nuclear alarmism, by John Mueller

After reading the brisk back and forth in the comments on one of our letters to the editor this morning, I've been thinking a lot about what criteria we should use to determine whether to call the Forth Hood shooter a terrorist.

And then I thought: Does it matter? If Nidal Malik Hasan is convicted of the crimes he's accused of -- 13 counts of premeditated murder -- does it matter what motivated the attacks?

This sounds a lot like the argument taking place over hate crimes -- only, liberals, in general, seem to be in favor of hate crime legislation but against calling the Fort Hood shooting a terrorist act, with conservatives, in general, taking the opposite tack.

Is it only politics at play here, or am I missing a bigger distinction?

Now that I'm back from vacation and doing my catch-up reading, I just came across this blog post from Rortybomb. The author, Mike Konczal, points out that we just passed a $680 billion defense bill for the year with little national debate but pitchfork-wielders are out in droves over a $90 billion-a-year health care plan.

We need to put the budget priorities in better context, he says. So he maps out what a typical pay check would look like today:

And then he compares it with what that paycheck would look like with defense spending broken out:

What I'm curious about is: Would seeing such a line item on your paycheck make you want to spend more or less on defense spending? What about Social Security and Medicare? Are we getting enough for our money?

Every week, we poll the members of the editorial board on a timely and divisive topic. This week, the question is:

The United States Preventive Services Task Force recently released new guidelines that women without unusual cancer risks should not begin regular screening for breast cancer until age 50. Does this advice send the right message about mammograms?

Here are their responses:

Every week, we poll the members of the editorial board on a timely and divisive topic. This week, the question is:

What are the lessons of yesterday's elections, particularly in regard to the governor's races in New Jersey and Virginia and the 23rd Congressional District race in New York?

Here are their responses:

Every week, we poll the members of the editorial board on a timely and divisive topic. This week, the question is:

Should Kay Bailey Hutchison resign from the Senate?

Here are their responses:

Every week, we poll the members of the editorial board on a timely and divisive topic. This week, the question is:

1. Would you support a medical marijuana law in Texas? 2. Would you support legalizing marijuana nationwide, even for recreational purposes?

Here are their responses:

Every week, we poll the members of the editorial board on a timely and divisive topic. This week, the question is:

If Texas were to secede from the United States, what would the U.S. be losing?

Here are their responses:

Every week, we poll the members of the editorial board on a timely and divisive topic. This week, the question is:

Should the North Texas Tollway Authority revisit its speed limit signage on the Dallas North Tollway?

Here are their responses:

Every week, we poll the members of the editorial board on a timely and divisive topic. This week, the question is:

Mike Leach has banned Texas Tech football players from using Twitter; Mack Brown says he wants his University of Texas players to use common sense. Which approach makes more sense? And should anyone bother using the social networking service?

Here are their responses:

Every week, we poll the members of the editorial board on a timely and divisive topic. This week, the question is:

Obama has said he's not going to decide whether to escalate in Afghanistan until he has "the strategy right." What should that strategy be?

Here are their responses:

Every week, we poll the members of the editorial board on a timely and divisive topic. This week, the question is:

Is the tea party movement good or bad for America?

Here are their responses:

Every week, we poll the members of the editorial board on a timely and divisive topic. This week, the question is:

Give the alarming number of teen pregnancies in Texas, and Texas cities' high rankings for repeat pregnancies among teens, what, if anything, would you recommend the state do to better tackle the problem?

Here are their responses:

Every week, we poll the members of the editorial board on a timely and divisive topic. This week, the question is:

Should Tom Leppert leave his mayor's seat to run for the U.S. Senate? What should be the main factors he considers in making his decision?

Here are their responses:

Every week, we poll the members of the editorial board on a timely and divisive topic. This week, the topic is the gubernatorial race.

Only days after Kay Bailey Hutchison announced her intentions to run for governor, the race for the GOP spot is already heated. Members of the editorial board are taking a deep breath -- whether they are Hutchison or Perry backers (or none of the above) -- to answer this week's question:

What are Hutchison's and Perry's biggest strengths going into the gubernatorial race?

Here are board members' responses:

Every week, we poll the members of the editorial board on a timely and divisive topic. This week, the question is:

What do you see as Woodstock's legacy?

Here are their responses:

School starts back up in DISD on Monday -- and that means Dallas drivers have to start hanging up their hand-held cellphones in school zones.

A reminder of the rules, from The Morning News' story today:

Talking on a handset or texting while driving is prohibited and those who forget will receive a warning the first day of school, DISD Police Chief John Blackburn said.

After that, offenders who violate the cellphone ban can face fines and fees of up to $200. And those fines could increase once a statewide law takes effect Sept. 1, officials said.

Now, I'm about to whine without offering a solution -- as what's been done will not be easily undone, especially when it's the "safety of our children" that's at stake -- but what a ridiculous rule! If you think talking on your cellphone is unsafe in a school zone, imagine how unsafe it is to notice a school zone sign, rush through the end of your phone conversation, slow down so you finish up before you enter the zone and then look at your phone to hang it up.

In addition, recent studies show that hands-free cellphones are just as risky as handhelds; it's the act of talking that's dangerous. So why the distinction?

I recognize that this opinion puts me at odds with this editorial board and in the rare position of agreeing with Mark Davis, but really, this makes no sense.

Every week, we poll the members of the editorial board on a timely and divisive topic. This week, we'll discuss Bill Clinton's successful trip to North Korea to secure the release of Americans Euna Lee and Laura Ling.

The question is:

Was U.S. foreign policy compromised by Bill Clinton's photo op with Kim Jong Il?

Here are editorial board members' responses:

Every week, we poll the members of the editorial board on a timely and divisive topic. This week's topic is Texas Gov. Rick Perry's fundraising-related activities during the legislative session. The question:

Do you think Perry's action violated state ethics laws?

Here are board members' responses:

Every week, we poll the members of the editorial board on a timely and divisive topic. Making waves this week is The New York Times' report that the federal government suppressed information on the dangers of driving while using a cellphone.

This week, the question is:

Do you think it's time to ban cellphone use for drivers?

Here are board members' responses:

At the weekly Republican conference call this morning, a new youth outreach video was released -- "Just Tax." (Apparently, it's a parody of the Lady Gaga song, "Just Dance," which I've never heard. Trying to keep up with the kids these days is exhausting.)

And ... I think this video is terrible. Of course, that's not surprising, as I am not the target audience, being neither particularly young nor Republican.

So I'm wondering: Anyone out there actually moved by this Auto-Tune terror? (I know one thing: Jay-Z will give it a thumbs-down.) The lyrics are catchy enough, I guess.

(And is the Democrat leadership doing anything this embarrassing? Let me know, and I'll post that, too.)

Every week, we poll the members of the editorial board on a timely and divisive topic. This week, we're delving into pop culture, given the oodles of coverage of Michael Jackson's memorial this week. Much of the Internet is abuzz over the tearful goodbye from Jackson's 11-year-old daughter, Paris.

Here's a video if you haven't caught it yet:

The question is:

Do you think adults should have protected Paris Jackson from the glare of the spotlight, or was this an appropriate show of grief from a child who has lost her father?

Here are board members' responses:

Every week, we poll the members of the editorial board on a timely and divisive topic.

This week, the board was abuzz about the Highland Park school district's decision to stop ranking all but the top 10 percent of high school students. Their reasoning? The rank-all-students system puts those with not-quite-as-high grades and test scores at a disadvantage when applying to college because the really-high-achieving students make them look bad.

The question is:

Do you agree with Highland Park's decision to throw out most class rankings?

Here are editorial board members' responses:

Every Wednesday, we'll pick a question and poll all the editorial board members. (This is the second installment; last week's was on Bryan Burrough's "The Big Rich" and our favorite books about Texas.)

Here's this week's question:

What do you think about the idea to rename Young Street for César Chávez?

You'll find our responses at the jump, but also check out Sharon's post yesterday on the topic.

If you could use a good end-of-week head shaking, check out this Time blog post by Karen Tumulty. She quotes G. Gordon Liddy, speaking about Sotomayor:

LIDDY: Let's hope that the key conferences aren't when she's menstruating or something, or just before she's going to menstruate. That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then.

Could that be true? Would anyone -- even Liddy -- actually say that? I sought audio confirmation, and voila:

This comes on the heels of Tommy Tancredo and Newt Gingrich calling Sotomayor a racist. And you can see why people might get the idea that Republicans are going to fight this nomination tooth and nail.

But such assumptions are starting to get under the skin of John Cornyn.

We talked to the Texas senator about the Sotomayor confirmation process this week for a new feature we're starting in Points, called Point Person. (Each week, we'll talk to a provocative newsmaker or insightful expert and publish the best of the answers.)

Asked about former Bush strategist Mark McKinnon's comment that if Republicans make a big deal of opposing her, "we will be hurling ourselves off a cliff," Cornyn seemed peeved:

You know, I get perturbed with people who have already concluded that we will oppose her. I have only seen one Republican who said he would vote against her. It's premature to make those comments. I would point you to how Democrats dealt with Miguel Estrada's nomination to an appellate court. He has a stellar intellect, but he was attacked by Sen. Charles Schumer and others. That led to an undignified process. We will be a considerable improvement.

That remains to be seen. But in the meantime, the talking heads on the right aren't doing the Republican Party any favors.

I keep ping-ponging between the sides in DISD's debate over whether to cut learning center funds. On Viewpoints this morning, we included two op-eds on the topic, one from Gerald Britt, arguing that DISD hasn't pursued waivers to exempt learning centers from the funding comparison, and one from Superintendent Michael Hinojosa, arguing that DISD needs to do what's best for students across the district, not just those in the learning centers.

Now this morning, there's an article by The News' Tawnell Hobbs, explaining that even as trustees are scheduled to consider approving the cuts at a meeting today, a U.S. Department of Education official is saying they may not be wholly necessary. (There's more at our DISD blog.)

I'm sympathetic to the district's plight -- the funding mechanisms here do seem somewhat outdated. But I'm left with the feeling that I'm being bamboozled, that DISD is not being as upfront as it should about its motivation here. If Hinojosa wants a more equitable distribution of funds, he needs to say so and make his case, instead of relying on the these federal funding standards (a foundation that seems to be crumbling underneath this argument).

What say you?

In Mark Davis' monthly column for Points, which appeared Sunday, he soundly thwacked online comments sections:

I love the music of public opinion, but there are limits. Web sites may be interested in what every Joe and Jane thinks about every story, but, as a consumer, I'm not. I have enjoyed the occasional well-crafted submission, but they are usually drowned in a fetid soup of blather equivalent to standing in the middle of a room as a dozen boorish people shout inanities at one another.

So ... how about the online comments on this column? Are they more well-crafted submission or fetid soup of blather?

"Well-crafted submission" pulled out into a strong lead -- until late yesterday, when "fetid soup of blather" made a play for the win. All in all, I gained more than I lost in taking the time to read them. (But I wonder if the results are skewed -- were commenters on especially good or bad behavior considering the column topic?)

Here's a chance to peek behind the curtain: The talking points were from the RNC and the White House have made it into the media's hands, offering a glimpse at how both sides will play the Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor.

Marc Ambinder has the White House talking points at his blog on The Atlantic's Web site. One highlight:

Known as a moderate on the court, Sotomayor often forges consensus and agreeing with her more conservative nominees far more frequently than she disagrees with them. In cases where Sotomayor and at least one judge appointed by a Republican president were on the three-judge panel, Sotomayor and the Republican appointee(s) agreed on the outcome 95% of the time

And over at The Hill's Blog Briefing Room, you can see the RNC talking points. One highlight:

To be clear, Republicans do not view this nomination without concern. Judge Sotomayor has received praise and high ratings from liberal special interest groups. Judge Sotomayor has also said that policy is made on the U.S. Court of Appeals.

A note about that Sotomayor quote that's getting so much play now:

I don't watch many TV shows, but I'm a true-blue "30 Rock" fangirl. Mostly, I love the show for its irreverent humor and Liz Lemon's lovable awkwardness. But I've, naturally, been a fan of the political side-plots, too. (Alec Baldwin's character is a big-money Republican who has dated Condoleezza Rice and worked in George Bush's White House.)

And so I read this Slate piece on "30 Rock's weird conservative streak" with ready-made curiosity. It analyzes why the political references have subsided some this season, why liberal Lemon is always needing to be saved by her conservative boss, and the show's message of "the untenability of the post-racial, post-gender, Obama-era society."

There are times I think pieces on Slate must be written only for me because who else on earth might be interested in this? But if there are others out there, our blog readers are surely among them. Enjoy.

The DISD trustee term extension saga is providing us with one outrageous tidbit after another.

First, school board members tried to circumvent the democratic process by voting to extend their own terms.The attorney general confirmed that the move was a big no-no. So now? The board is left with two options -- hold a special election in November (at an extra cost of $100,000) or, when the three terms expire after Saturday's election, appoint someone to serve until 2010.

The last option, of course, allows for the three trustees to be appointed for a year and get the four-year terms they sought in the first place. When the front door closes, find a back way in.

My thoughts: That appointments are even on the table is absurd. The board needs to do the right thing and hold a November special election.

Your thoughts?

Quoth the always comical Republican from Minnesota to Pajamas Media:

"I find it interesting that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out then under another Democrat president Jimmy Carter. And I'm not blaming this on President Obama, I just think it's an interesting coincidence."

Here's the video:

Of course, the last outbreak was in 1976, when the not-so-much-a-Democrat Gerald Ford was in office. Ahem.

This morning, Viewpoints published a piece by Linda Chavez on the Ricci v. DeStefano case, which was heard by the Supreme Court last week.

(A recap: New Haven firefighter Frank Ricci was hungry for a promotion; 15 spots were available. He quit his second job, spent $1,000 on recommended study materials, and read those books into an audiotape to help him study. [He's dyslexic.] Ricci finished sixth of 77. The highest-finishing black firefighter was16th, not high enough for a promotion. New Haven decided not to promote anyone -- because no blacks qualified. Lawsuits ensued.)

John McWhorter, a black conservative who often has an unconventional take on racial politics, wrote a column in The New Republic that would resonate with a lot of our readers. Click on the jump for an excerpt and further discussion:

I haven't managed to work myself into a panic over the swine flu fears, but I will be following the news closely. (Reading "The Hot Zone" years ago really piqued my interest in infectious diseases and viruses.)

And I noted with interest that, when dropping a friend off at D/FW Airport yesterday afternoon, I saw a teenage boy wearing a surgical mask. There's something about seeing Americans wear surgical masks in public that makes me feel more uneasy rather than less, I thought. And, really, how much can they protect you?

Turns out, the jury is out on that. From a USA Today Q&A on swine flu (emphasis mine):

Q: How can people protect themselves?

A: As always, people should wash their hands frequently, Besser said. In the past, the CDC has said there isn't conclusive evidence to support using face masks. Surgical masks are designed to prevent the wearer from spreading germs, but may also catch large respiratory droplets if someone sneezes nearby. In a 2007 statement, the CDC said these masks could be worn if someone needs to go to a crowded place, such as a grocery store, for a short time. N95 respirator masks filter out 95% of particles to prevent the wearer from breathing them in. These must be fitted properly around the nose to create a seal, so they can make breathing difficult.

And this site says surgical masks can't protect against viruses because viruses are smaller than the weaving of the mask material. (They may, however, help keep infected people from spreading the virus by trapping respiratory droplets.) Much more effective are N95 respirators, which create a seal around the nose and mouth and filter the air.

So, bottom line: I hope I don't start seeing a bunch of surgical-mask-wearers walking around. It's kinda freaky, and it doesn't appear to be effective. (It's likely to induce panic without actually protecting anyone.) If you feel sick, please, just stay home.

UPDATE: OK, just got off the phone with an epidemiologist who, justifiably, was concerned with the message I'm sending in this blog post. He said that while, yes, there's plenty of debate on whether surgical masks are effective for people to wear out in the community, it is critical for health professionals to wear them in the hospital.

Although viruses are microscopic, they are spread by "large-droplet secretions" -- by sneezes or coughs -- usually in a 3-foot radius of the person, and they drop out of the air quickly. It's imperative that hospital workers dealing with influenza patients wear the surgical masks and frequently wash their hands, the epidemiologist said.

I'd never dream of telling hospital workers whether they should or shouldn't wear a mask. But in case any of you health care professionals got the wrong opinion, take it from an epidemiologist: Wear the mask at work!

Presented without comment.

I've been halfway following the Susan Boyle hoopla since last Monday, when Rod told me he'd be writing his weekly Points column on the topic. (Looking up the YouTube video just now so I could link to it, I count roughly 70 million views on the various posts of her performancy. Astounding.)

The next day, Rod asked if I'd seen the video. Wasn't it incredible? Heartwarming? Tear-inducing?

Meh.

Yes, I did find Boyle's performance incredible. And heartwarming. (No crying, though.) She does, indeed, have impressive talent.

But what if she didn't? What if Susan Boyle couldn't sing? (More at the jump.)

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's editorial board is making waves as it reinvents itself -- new editorial page editor, a new editorial board that will count the editor (Julia Wallace) as a member, new goals, etc.

I'm not much interested in the debate over whether the board should be more liberal or conservative. (Let the Atlanta community debate that.) But I am intrigued by one of the new goals they've set. From a New York Times article:

Ms. Wallace said she expected the board to continue in the direction set in the last year or so, publishing fewer editorials, and avoiding hot-button ideological issues.

"We have moved to a different kind of editorial that's much more about community issues and less about, 'let me opine on national issues,' " she said.

This is a conversation we have fairly often on the Dallas Morning News editorial board: Do we have the right mix of national and local topics?

My gut reaction on the AJC's move: I think it's folly for an editorial board to avoid hot-button ideological issues. Readers can agree or disagree -- but editorial boards should tackle the tough topics as readily as the easy ones. And, personally, I prefer an editorial page that takes as strong a stance as possible -- get me fired up for or against an issue. Cover the local issues and the national ones, with a keen focus on how it will affect me in Dallas.

What do you think of our editorial mix? What do you think about Atlanta's move?

Reading today's front-page story on the learning center debate was frustrating.

On one hand, you have the fact that DISD stands to lose $105 million in Title 1 money unless it evens out its per-pupil spending across the district.

On the other, you have the school board's three black trustees digging in their heels. (Said Ron Price: "I'm voting no on any recommendation to tinker with the learning centers. For the learning centers that are not doing well with the additional funds, what do you think is going to happen if you remove the funds?"

Price needs to answer the flip side of that question: For a district that is already having budget problems with Title 1 money, what do you think is going to happen if you remove the funds?

The district has no choice but to even out its spending. It strikes me that the strings attached to this Title 1 money can give political cover for Hinojosa to make a decision he already was moving toward.

What do you think?

Meghan McCain has been making some waves with her columns for The Daily Beast. The most recent you've probably already read about: McCain opined about the Ann Coulters of the Republican Party making it difficult to win over new members. "If figureheads like Ann Coulter are turning me off, then they are definitely turning off other members of my generation as well," she wrote.

Coulter never responded, but conservative radio show host Laura Ingraham did. She mocked McCain on her show, saying in a Valley-girl voice: "OK, I was really hoping that I was going to get that role in "The Real World," but then I realized that, well, they don't like plus-sized models." To which McCain responded on "The View": "Like, kiss my fat ass."

We ran a column from Kathleen Parker last week praising McCain as "one smart cookie" who wasted no time in creating "a brand, presenting herself as a fresh face of her daddy's party and a voice for young conservatives."

All that may be true, but at what cost to women in general? I found a column by Dahlia Lithwick more on point:

You. Have. Got. To. Be. Kidding. This is the female version of the Rush Limbaugh-Michael Steele-David Frum smackdown for the soul of the GOP? ... Ever wonder why some men think women are less than serious political thinkers? It certainly helps explain why so many men continue to believe that when it comes to "political discourse," women are all long, sprawling legs and silky blond hair in a tangle on the dessert cart. It's one thing to air your dirty laundry. But are we really stupid enough to be having a front-page battle over a plus-size thong?

The Obama administration released its plan this morning to buy up toxic assets. The idea is to launch a Public-Private Investment Program to buy, at first, $500 billion worth; some of that money comes from TARP, and a small amount (5 percent) comes from private investors.

Here's an example of how it would work, from The New York Times:

The Treasury Department offered this illustrative example of how the program would work: A pool of bad residential mortgage loans with a face value of, say, $100 is auctioned by the F.D.I.C. Private investors would submit bids. In the example, the top bidder, an investor offering $84, would win and purchase the pool. The F.D.I.C. would guarantee loans for $72 of that purchase price. The Treasury would then invest in half the $12 equity, with funds coming from the $700 billion bailout program; the private investor would contribute the remaining $6.

For a relatively small equity exposure, the private investor thus stands to make a considerable return if prices recover. The government will make a gain as well. In the worst case, the bulk of the risk would fall on the government. The presumption, of course, is that the auction will lead to realistic purchase prices.

However, the consensus was that besides nationalization of the banks or letting them fail, what's left to do? There seem to be few other options.

So the plan gets my support. What say you?

One of my favorite bloggers these days is Joshua Keating at Foreign Policy's Passport blog. He has just the right mix of commentary on hard-hitting foreign news and pop culture tidbits. And he's genuinely funny.

To whit: His last three entries have covered a brouhaha between Putin and Georgian pop group 3G, a fun quote from ousted former Thai premier Thaksin Shinawatra and a Mexican drug lord making Forbes' billionaires list.

To give you a flavor, here's the full comment on Shinawatra:

Not everyone can see the bright side after being ousted in a military coup and having your assets seized. But former Thai premier Thaksin Shinawatra is a glass-half-full kind of guy:

"I do not know whether I should condemn or thank the military junta that has frozen my assets in Thailand, otherwise I probably would have invested a lot in the stock exchange and lost it."

The mark of a good blogger is often serendipity, that he makes you care about stuff you didn't know you were remotely interested in, stuff you didn't even know existed. Keating's great at this. Check him out.

Do you have any under-the-radar bloggers the rest of us should be following?

The newspaper ran an informative overview Saturday of the status of race relations in Paris, Texas -- and the fallout Parisians have to deal with after statewide and national attention wane.

This piece meshed very nicely with a column Shawn Williams wrote for the Points section a couple of weeks ago. He bemoaned some of the attention Paris was receiving -- he said: "Without question, the McClelland murder case is newsworthy and relevant, but at what point does pertinent reporting morph into piling on?" -- and put a spotlight on the reconciliation meetings taking place in town.

Most articles related to Paris miss out on the thing that has intrigued me the most: how everyday people of different attitudes and backgrounds are sitting across the table from one another trying to come to grips with what has taken place. For the last three months, Paris residents have worked with the U.S. Department of Justice's Community Relations Division to see what good may be mined from the stony path placed before them.

I don't think The News' story fell into that trap; it pointed out the good work being done. I hope Shawn would agree.

I thought Barack Obama hit just the right note at his speech to Congress last night -- confident and upbeat, but without glossing over the real troubles we face.

Many have called the South Carolina student's speech the most memorable moment of the night; they're probably right. But I'd also like everyone to remember Obama's line about dropouts: "Dropping out of high school is no longer an option. It's not just quitting on yourself, it's quitting on your country -- and this country needs and values the talents of every American."

This morning, I appreciated John Dickerson's assessment, in which he compared Obama's first speech with Reagan's:

Reagan also faced a brutal economy, but the man known for his supernatural optimism was less sunny than Obama in his first address to Congress. Reagan described a country where, for the unemployed, "despair dominates their lives," and the ship of state was "out of control." He spent the bulk of the speech outlining his policies and very little energy on the innate character of the country. "There has been no breakdown of the human, technological, and natural resources upon which the economy is built," he said.

Obama regularly asserted his belief in America's ability to rally--and he did so by creating inspiration through telling the kinds of stories that worked so well for him during the campaign.

And for the GOP response, well, let's just say that Bobby Jindal's star is shining less brightly today than it was yesterday. At our staff meeting this morning, the consensus was that Republicans need to come up with a better message -- and a better way to get that message across.

What did you think?

A post at Talking Points Memo takes Rick Perry to task for lambasting the stimulus plan only to turn around and take the money.

In December, Perry co-wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, with South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, against state bailouts. They said, "We're asking other governors from both sides of the political aisle to join with us in opposing further federal bailout intervention." They warned of bailouts creating "mountains of debt" said "the bailout mentality threatens Americans' sense of personal responsibility."

(Also, check out this "No Government Bailout" petition being circulated online, paid for by Texans for Rick Perry.) And a Dallas Morning News story pointed out: "Perry has vocally opposed the stimulus package, saying just this week that Texas should 'look a gift horse in the mouth.'"

Now Perry, in his letter to Obama saying he accepts the funds, writes: "As I have said during the debate on H.R. 1, should Congress pass stimulus legislation using Texas tax dollars, I would work to ensure that our citizens receive their fair share."

And Sanford is saying his position "doesn't preclude taking the money."

What gives?

America's favorite statistician, Nate Silver, made a name for himself in the 2008 elections with his must-read blog, FiveThirtyEight.com. Now that the elections are over, he's keeping his name in the news.

His latest effort is handicapping the Oscars.

I can't comment on the quality of his picks yet; I haven't seen a single nominee. But I plan to change that Saturday by going to AMC's Best Picture Showcase, where for $30 you can watch the five nominees, one right after the other. Plus you get all the popcorn you can stand. There are several locations in North Texas.

(And if you're much more interested in Silver's political views than his cinematic ones, check out his site; he's still at it. For example, he's posted 2010 Senate rankings -- how likely the seats are to change parties -- and has Texan Kay Bailey Hutchison's seat at No. 12.)

It's true that Gov. Sarah Palin enjoyed astronomical popularity levels in Alaska before she joined John McCain's ticket last year; at times it topped 80 percent. But it's also true that some of that goodwill was attributed to the fat checks Palin doled out to state residents as a result of windfall profits taxes she imposed on oil companies, at a time when oil prices were skyrocketing. Most residents got a check from the state for $3,269 in 2008.

But now that oil prices are falling, the state's coffers are shrinking, too. Alaska gets as much as 90 percent of its revenue from oil, and it's facing a budget shortfall of up to $1.5 billion this fiscal year.

Alaska's budget reserve has more than $6 billion socked away, so this isn't crisis time yet. But how Palin governs during the lean times should say a lot about her future in national politics.

If you're a DISD student with 10 or more unexcused absences, there's a fair chance you're going to end up in truancy court, today's front-page story made clear.

Good for DISD.

Yes, truancy may be on the rise -- but the number of cases DISD has filed against truants and their parents is on the rise, too. School districts have enough problems on their hands trying to teach the students who do show up; parents need to accept the role they must play in getting students there. This is their responsibility, too.

Of course, that's easy for childless me to say. What say you?

Here's a lighter Topic of the Day for a lighter-feeling Friday. (I'm still having trouble feeling back to normal after all the December hubbub in and out of the office; aren't you?)

A couple of pieces on healthy eating caught my eye recently. The first is this New York Times column by Mark Bittman, encouraging us to bare our pantries of "detritus" -- the prepared foods that clutter our cupboards, whose fresh counterparts are much healthier and tastier. We're talking switching out bread crumbs and making our own. No more canned stock. Can the Pam spray. Don't keep spices longer than a year.

All worthy goals, I think. But let me tell you: It is a daily struggle to make sure I'm cooking three meals a day. I don't think I'm alone when I say that if it comes to making my own chicken stock every time I need a little broth, I'm going to go with a different meal plan.

Which brings me to the second column: "My War Against Food Nazi Moms," by former Project Runway contestant and current mother of six Laura Bennett. She tells the tale of an acquaintance going through an ugly divorce, whose latest grievance is her husband's audacity to pack a non-organic lunch for the kids. She's calling her lawyer (who, I'm sure, is on speed dial).

Where do you fall on this spectrum? Are you tossing out the chicken stock? Requiring organic lunches for the kids? Feasting on frozen pizzas every night?

Where's the right mix of health and convenience?

By definition, there is no exit strategy for a Ponzi scheme; you need a constant supply of new blood to funnel money up to the old blood. So, after the Bernard Madoff news, I've been wondering: What was his exit strategy?

A post on The New York Times' Economix blog attempts to answer this question. Catherine Rampell talked to experts and came up with four general categories:
1. Cut and run
2. Turn the business legit
3. No exit plan
4. Get elected to Parliament

That last one's a doozy (and worth reading the blog post for). But there's no word on which strategy Madoff was going for.

Anne Applebaum penned an interesting column, which is slated for inclusion in Points this Sunday, about the effect all these financial scandals are having on U.S. capitalism. Are we about to make the shift from a "high trust" culture to a "low trust" culture? Are we in for a big change -- for the worse?

Reading the accounts of the collapse of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, it is impossible not to conclude that it will. The scale of this fraud stretches far beyond anything a car dealer or even the purchaser of an apartment might commit, of course. ... In the wake of Madoff's arrest, charities are going to close, and previously rich people will become poor. Worst of all, everyone who invests anywhere will think just that much harder, take that much longer, demand that much more documentation. And they will do so not only because of Madoff, but because of the subprime lenders, Wall Street investment banks, and Enron fraudsters who have worked so hard to erode our faith in the reliability of our system.

Have these scandals changed how you do business or invest? What do you think is in store for U.S. capitalism?

At The Daily Beast, Benjamin Sarlin has a great pop quiz: Who (allegedly) said it -- Rod Blagojevich or Tony Soprano?

Due warning: As you'd expect, the post is rife with profanity.

How is this for crazy -- U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald confirmed today that Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich still has the authority to appoint Barack Obama's successor, despite his federal corruption charges today.

Illinois law states: When a vacancy shall occur in the office of United States Senator from this state, the Governor shall make temporary appointment to fill such vacancy until the next election of representatives in Congress, at which time such vacancy shall be filled by election, and the senator so elected shall take office as soon thereafter as he shall receive his certificate of election.

Sounds like it will take an amendment from the Legislature to change that law -- but Blagojevich would still have 60 days to sign or veto the legislation.

And who wants to be the guy appointed by Blagojevich now?

This is a serious mess.

I'm still getting caught up on all the articles and blog posts I set aside over the last week or two -- and here's one on Sarah Palin and the United States' views on abortion that I find fascinating:

Hendrik Hertzberg, at The New Yorker, blogs this point: National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez recently wrote that one of the reasons the right so loved Sarah Palin was that she chose to have her Down syndrome son -- a choice 90 percent of Americans wouldn't make.

Here is Hertzberg's point:

I detect some assumptions here. (1) Palin's carrying Trig to term was a choice. (2) The choice was hers and her husband's to make, not God's or the government's. (3) She deserves praise for having chosen the choice she chose.

But if Palin (and Lopez) were truly "pro-life"--if they truly believed that abortion, especially elective abortion in the first trimester, is murder or at least unjustifiable homicide--then having Trig was not a choice. It was a simple matter of obedience to God's law, which is infinitely more sacrosanct than man's law. Palin no more deserves praise for it than I deserve praise for not having lately gunned down any friends, colleagues, or strangers.

What this demonstrates is that even in the minds of anti-abortion zealots, abortion is now implicitly viewed in the same light as divorce: an unfortunate choice, a reprehensible choice, a choice that may even contravene the will of God, but still a choice. And, again implicitly, the choice that Sarah Palin had every right to make. In both directions.

This is why, even if Roe v. Wade is eventually overturned, it will always be legal to get an abortion somewhere in the United States of America.

Your thoughts?

This one's for you, Rod: The entire "War Vegetable Gardening and the Home" pamphlet has been digitized by Google and published online.

Published by the National War Garden Commission in 1918, it contains everything you need to know about planting a garden indoors or out and what to do with the excess fruits of your labor.

In Points on Sunday, we had a column in defense of the last-minute pardons -- indeed, presidential pardons in general.

Margaret Colgate Love, a former U.S. pardon attorney, said we should hope President Bush does make a rash of 11th-hour pardons, for the good of the system. The founding fathers were quite deliberate in granting pardon power to the president, considering it an integral part of the checks and balances of government. "The president's intervention in a case through his pardon power benefits an individual but also signals how he wants laws enforced and reassures the public that the legal system is capable of just and moral application," she wrote.

On Monday, the lame-duck pardons began; Bush pardoned 14 people, including three Texans.

Do any of these 14 merit blasts a la the Clinton pardon of Marc Rich? Were there any big omissions from the list (say, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean)? Are pre-emptive pardons (the Justice Department, lobbyists, senators) still to come? Would any of these pardons cross the line for you?

An Obama donor just forwarded an e-mail he just got from the Obama campaign that's incredibly classy and so indicative of the stellar campaign he has run:
I'm about to head to Grant Park to talk to everyone gathered there, but I wanted to write to you first.

We just made history.

And I don't want you to forget how we did it.

You made history every single day during this campaign -- every day you knocked on doors, made a donation, or talked to your family, friends, and neighbors about why you believe it's time for change.

I want to thank all of you who gave your time, talent, and passion to this campaign.

We have a lot of work to do to get our country back on track, and I'll be in touch soon about what comes next.

But I want to be very clear about one thing...

All of this happened because of you.

Thank you,
Barack

Courtesy of Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com, take a look at these early-vote totals in battleground states.

Here are battleground states with early voting, followed by the percentage of the total 2004 vote that represents:

CO: 1,704,280; 79.3% of 2004
NC: 2,623,838; 73.9% of 2004
NM: 192,229; 73.2% of 2004
NV: 561,776; 67.6% of 2004
GA: 2,020,829; 60.9% of 2004
FL: 4,377,774; 57.3% of 2004
MT: 184,632; 40.5% of 2004
IA: 481,179; 31.6% of 2004
IN: 668,868; 26.6% of 2004
OH: 1,456,364; 25.2% of 2004
ND: 76,496; 24.2% of 2004
WV: 166,353; 21.6% of 2004
VA: 465,962; 14.5% of 2004

In Texas (out of the 15 largest counties), 3,556,156 people cast early votes. That's a whopping 51.1 percent of the 2004 total. See more data here.

We've finally made it to the Big Day, so what kind of predictions do you have about tonight's outcome? I'll start us off with my predictions. Look forward to reading others' in the comments.




Electoral vote: Obama 368, McCain 170
Popular vote: Obama 52 percent, McCain 46 percent (the rest for third-party candidates)
Senate: Dems pick up seven seats (AK, CO, NC, NH, NM, OR, VA)
House: Dems pick up 22 seats

Saturday:
Hits and Misses
A collection of quick-hit editorials shooting praise -- or daggers -- to newsmakers around Dallas and the world.

Sunday Points:
Editorial: Smart changes for DISD trustees' ethics policy
The school board took an important step toward restoring trust by approving a new ethics policy that requires strict adherence to conflict-of-interest standards.

Editorial: Troubling signs in Iraq
Because Iraq's government wants to renegotiate the terms of America's presence, U.S. military operations face the prospect of a sudden lockdown when the U.N. troop-deployment mandate expires Dec. 31. U.S. commanders also fear that a new round of potentially fierce ethnic fighting is brewing.

Editorial: DISD gets it wrong with firings, rehirings
Even now in the retelling, the Dallas Independent School District layoffs must feel like a punch to the gut for the students and teachers whose lives were up-ended.

Rod Dreher: Time for a stiff slug of forced austerity?
It wouldn't be such a bad thing to emulate the lessons of the Depression generation and learn to live far more frugally than we do.

Join in the Dallas Festival of Ideas
Next weekend, the Dallas Institute of Humanities and Culture launches its inaugural Festival of Ideas. It aims to bring together some of the nation's brightest thinkers to spend a weekend in conversation with the people of Dallas.

Herman Schwartz: Supreme Court at risk (the liberal view)
A McCain victory would threaten many important Supreme Court rulings we hold dear.

Terry Eastland: Supreme Court at risk (a conservative view)
Barack Obama has proved to be one of his party's most determined opponents of judicially conservative nominees.

Andrew Bacevich: The Age of Triumphalism is over
President Bush's "bring-'em-on" attitude after 9/11 merely reflected ideas and attitudes to which the majority of Americans already subscribed. But today those ideas and attitudes have become the equivalent of an oversize SUV: They no longer sell.

Amy Alexander: Rocking the black vote
Dallas DJ Tom Joyner is encouraging African-American listeners to engage in electoral politics.

Susan Nielsen: Admit it, you might be wrong
Here's a coping technique for the last couple days of the presidential race.

Monday:
Editorial: Don't vote straight-ticket
Voting a straight-party ticket rewards a political party, not a candidate. Rooting for a favorite team works in sports, but that's no way to elect public officials.

Editorial: What election means for Texas
Everyone's eyes are on the presidential race. But this election will also have serious ramifications for the state.

Editorial: Mexico's energy reforms fizzle
When President Felipe Calderón boldly attempted to modernize Mexican energy laws this year, he ran into a buzz saw of protests. Last week, legislators approved a tepid, watered-down reform package that fell far short of what Mr. Calderón sought in order to protect the long-term viability of his country's oil industry. What a shame.

Robbie Raphael: In grim economic times, women suffer the most
The fastest, surest way to help is by supporting a fund that invests in women and girls. In our community, the Dallas Women's Foundation hopes to invest $2 million annually in programs supporting our women.

Shawn Williams: Local black institutions help each other. Will we step up, too?
Why are African-American institutions valued so little and so greatly misunderstood? Why are the very things that helped to build a strong foundation for our generations virtually ignored?

Paul Krugman: Seeking a government fiscal stimulus that works
Sooner or later, consumers were going to have to tighten their belts. But the timing of the new sobriety is deeply unfortunate. What we need now is a policy response.

Victor Davis Hanson: Why we can weather a recession
The United States is still in better shape than other countries because of oil prices, our plans to deal with toxic debt and our growing population.

Headed for tomorrow's print product, now available for your preview:

Harriet Boorhem: Homeless teens deserve our attention
How has Dallas done such a fantastic job of helping the adult homeless population, yet ignored runaway, homeless and abandoned teens?

Kathleen Parker: Laura Bush's little-known bold - and successful - agenda
Women's gains around the world, in places like Kabul and Riyadh, are occurring in no small part because of Laura Bush's quietly feminist maneuvering as wife of the U.S. president.

Nicholas Kristof: What? Me biased?
This 2008 election is a milestone and may put a black man in the White House. That creates an opportunity for an adult conversation about the complexities of race.

Mary Sanchez: Obama campaign 'community organizes' a nation
Come Wednesday, the John McCain campaign may regret all those wisecracks about community organizers. Approaches central to community organizing - building grassroots support, harnessing volunteer labor, directing coalitions toward one goal - are paying off big time for Barack Obama.

Headed for tomorrow's print product, now available for your preview:

Editorial: No sign needed to underscore Foster's failings
While we feel some obligation to put on a stern face and urge Commissioner John Wiley Price to play nice, rather than compare County Judge Jim Foster to Forrest Gump, we also understand his frustration.

Editorial: Quick fixes for 'dead-man's curve'
It's scary enough that TxDOT tolerates the existence of a "dead-man's curve" anywhere in our road system. But failing to adequately warn motorists on U.S. 175 only invites future visits from the grim reaper.

Editorial: Say 'no' to the automakers
General Motors and Chrysler are trying to convince Congress that they are too big to fail. But a bailout would not solve the automakers' problems. A government commitment to prop them up would squander good taxpayer dollars on a bad deal.

Headed for tomorrow's print product, now available for your preview:

Balance of Opinion: Conservative anguish
With mere days to go and their candidate still not gaining any sizable traction in the polls, conservative columnists are reeling between alarm, disbelief and disconsolation.

Alexander Eastman: A doctor's esteem for Parkland grows after his 'outsider's' experience
I know Parkland. Many of us who work there know her as well as we know our own homes. However, despite all the time we spend there, relatively few of us get to experience Parkland from the outsider's perspective. I have, and here is how it happened.

Gail Collins: A campaign quiz to mark the final week
We are so ready to wrap up this presidential race. We need a break, so how about trying your luck with this end-of-the-endless-election quiz.

Headed for tomorrow's print product, now available for your preview:

Editorial: The kindness of a stranger
If it's true that your true character is revealed by how you behave when no one is looking, then Marilyn Mock's is something awesome to behold.

Editorial: Post-war help for families
Psychologically wounded veterans and their loved ones can tap a new resource for help in healing themselves and family relationships: Operation Healthy Reunions

Editorial: Medicaid changes would help families, save money
Texas still has draconian requirements for families trying to enroll their children in Medicaid. It's time to cut some of the red tape.

Carl Leubsdorf: Obama and Democrats turn tables on GOP
This time, it's the Democrats who believe they are headed for what could become their party's biggest victory in more than 40 years and the Republicans who are bracing for a potentially devastating defeat.

Rene Martinez: DISD's bilingual curriculum creates potential economic power
It has been disappointing to see bilingual education become a scapegoat for DISD's financial crisis and teacher layoffs. The Dallas Independent School District's student population is more than 67 percent Latino. We must embrace change and recognize the positive impact these children will have in our society.

American Enterprise Institute: What's really wrong with Obama tax plan
While a few of Mr. Obama's proposals may be sensible, the overall package would be bad for the economy.

Paul Krugman: Obama's virtue of seriousness
As the economic scene has darkened, Americans have rediscovered the virtue of seriousness. And this has worked to Barack Obama's advantage, because his opponent has run a deeply unserious campaign at a time when the prospect of a second Great Depression has concentrated the public's mind

Conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks thinks Sarah Palin is "not even close" to being ready for the vice presidency. And he believes she is a "fatal cancer to the Republican party."

Of course, you wouldn't know that from the columns he's written. After the VP debate, for instance, he wrote, in a glowing paean on Palin's performance: "She established debating parity with Joe Biden. ... By the end of the debate, most Republicans were not crouching behind the couch, but standing on it. The race has not been transformed, but few could have expected as vibrant and tactically clever a performance as the one Sarah Palin turned in Thursday night."

Brooks' quotes that were more critical of Palin came at a Q&A session at a party sponsored by The Atlantic and was reported by The Huffington Post's Rachel Sklar. Here's video proof:

So, why hasn't David Brooks written that he feels Palin is "not even close" to being ready? Do you think he, as a nationally syndicated columnist, owes it to his readers to square these views? Or is it fine to have one set of views for print and another for everywhere else?

We're 30 minutes into tonight's presidential debate. How do you think it's going?

After watching another painful Sarah Palin interview last night, the one where she couldn't name a Supreme Court case, beside Roe v. Wade, that she disagreed with, it was pop quiz time at my house.

Question: Quickly name a Supreme Court case you disagree with, and explain why.

We both were able to do it. (I picked the Lily Ledbetter case.) But I'll tell you this: It was harder than it looks. I can't say that I was very eloquent in my explanation. (Of course, I'm not on John McCain's ticket.)

So what would your quick answer be, and why?

After-the-jump bonus: a transcript of Palin's answer.