OPINION

Re: "Armey calls Obama 'shallow,' 'incompetent' -- In speech at meeting, party icon also says GOP has lost its way," last Friday news story.

I am saddened but not surprised by Dick Armey's scathing critique of President Barack Obama at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference.

Calling Obama "the most incompetent president perhaps in our lifetime" is a stretch. This description is arguably already taken by our most recent president, who is alive and well right here in Dallas.

Armey described Obama as an "arrogant, self-righteous income-redistributor" and an "ideologue." If Armey would like to see someone who is truly a self-righteous ideologue, all he has to do is look into the nearest mirror.

Joe Stack's cowardly and murderous atrocity was not a sign that our tax system is unfair or that our government is broken.

Stack bought into the urban myth nonsense that the income tax is voluntary and/or illegal. The Supreme Court has ruled that both those ideas are egregiously false. The Supreme Court gets to decide these things, not half-educated nutballs on the Internet. People who try to apply that silliness go to prison. Stack was a failure of his own making. Praise for such malignant loons is irresponsible and immoral.

I am a conservative. I believe that my taxes are too high, Congress -- both Republicans and Democrats -- spends way too much and government as a whole is far too intrusive. If that makes me a Tea Party conservative, so be it.

I do not condone the manifesto or actions of Joseph Stack. He was a domestic terrorist. I do not appreciate attempts by the left, including the media, to associate Stack with any conservative movement, particularly the Tea Party movement. It is a shameful, crass way to sully those who disagree with them.

In the wake of pilot Joseph Stack's attack, onlookers expressed relief that it was not an incident of Islamist terrorism.

If Stack's attack fits the four-pronged criteria of terrorism -- a criminal act against a civilian population with intent to cause fear, death, or injury, and as a means to influence government and/or politics -- but is dismissed empathetically as an act by one of our own, does this actually mean "being Muslim" is one of the understood, but unstated, criteria in the definition of terrorism?

Will this characterization induce other Americans with personal grievances to lash out at the federal government? Will it continue to muddy the issue of terrorism as representative of the Islamic faith tradition, which obviously does not corner the market on politically motivated violence?

Stack's attack will now undoubtedly serve as a litmus test for whether American media coverage and government verbiage will represent events through a politically and emotionally charged lens or via a precise and more objective account.

Re: "Should it be called terrorism or criminal act? Authorities, Muslims, others weigh in on one side or the other," Sunday news story.

It is a truly horrific thing when vengeful thinking sheds itself of all inhibitions and becomes vengeful action, taking and/or injuring lives and becoming tragic as in the Austin plane crash incident.

Another tragedy lies in the statement of Nihad Awad, director of the Council on Islamic-American Relations: "The position of many individuals and institutions seems to be that no act of violence can be labeled 'terrorism' unless it is carried out by a Muslim."

Why does Awad's response remind me of a child who comes to school with a fake cast because he saw how much attention his friend received for a legitimate injury? Self-victimization in light of true tragedy is infantile and narcissistic at best.

Re: "Glorifying Insanity -- Austin attack must not be confused with heroism," Saturday Editorials.

Anyone who even slightly considers this terrorist a hero is of the same ilk as those who cheered the 9/11 attack. Terror is terror, whether committed by al-Qaeda members or U.S. citizens, and sadly all it accomplishes is more restrictions to our personal freedom.

Those who use this act for political gain need to be censured before they foster more of these senseless acts.

Re: "Migrants are best of both worlds," by Steve Blow, Sunday Metro column.

Ernesto broke the law when he entered the U.S. illegally. Ernesto breaks the law each day he remains here. Ernesto may be depriving legal residents of an income or livelihood. Ernesto is depriving U.S. citizens of their choice of who may live here.

Ernesto is contributing to dissension among us on how to deal with illegal immigration. Ernesto should go home. Steve Blow should know better.

Re: "The Medina fallacy -- Tea Party logic doesn't add up, says William McKenzie," Tuesday Viewpoints.

I don't know what people mean when they say, "Government is too big," and I suspect that they don't know either. What they are expressing is a sense of frustration with the current state of politics and are lashing out indiscriminately.

It seems to me that what they have in common is a history of inattention to public affairs, not much education and an intense intolerance for everyone who does not agree with them.

Without their influence, we would likely be having an intelligent debate between Perry and Hutchinson. If the attitudes and opinions of the Tea Party group continue to spread, it will damage not just the GOP, but all of American politics and our ability to govern ourselves.

We are more dependent on various levels of government than we have ever been before and for a wide variety of our needs. That is not likely to change. We have, no doubt, some obsolete functions and agencies, but large problems (globalism, defense, health matters, environmental concerns, etc.) will continue to require collective action of the sort that only an effective governing system can address. The know-nothing approach inhibits our ability to produce rational public policy.

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.