OPINION

Now that Harris County finally got off the dime, we have a fairly complete early voting picture for the state:

Perry 52.79%, Hutchison 30.48%, Medina 16.72%

Back to predictions from yesterday, I'm not wrong yet. Based on the Colleen theory, though, I will be.

Remember, her forecast had us in a runoff if Perry wasn't in the mid- to high-50s after early voting.

Your view so far?

Update: With about 13 percent counted, Perry has lost about four-tenths of a percentage point, still at 52 and change.

Final update: Whaddya know? Hutchison concedes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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?"

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Quite a flurry of print activity this weekend on our Dallas County constables, boosted by the confluence of the Danny Defenbaugh's report release early in the week and early voting beginning the next day.

Kevin Krause and Ed Timms had the Page One lead Sunday with a look at County Judge Jim Foster's quest to oust Constable Jaime Cortes through a fairly rare civil removal process. The same day, Gromer Jeffers had the Metro cover lead with a look at how the constable saga is affecting two Democratic primaries, county judge (with Foster running for re-election) and county commissioner Precinct 4 (with Elba Garcia, ironically the wife of Cortes' lawyer, the front-runner).

We followed with an editorial in today's paper taking District Attorney Craig Watkins to task for, in effect, dragging his feet on a criminal investigation that forced the Foster-led commissioners' civil investigation, which led to the Defenbaugh report, which can yield no criminal charges before voters determine Cortes' fate in the primary, which is the real election since the Republicans have no candidate.

That's a lot of words to plow through, but taken collectively, they give you a fairly complete picture of the political mess this has become.

I'm sorry I didn't get around to answering our "Editorial Board speaks out" question yesterday. I'm also a little relieved.

What I probably would have said was that I'd been thinking hard about who I'd vote for March 2 and who I'd support when the board decided whom to recommend, if it mattered. And that I'd begun leaning toward Medina, because I agreed with many of her core positions and appreciated her clarity.

That ended today. Sorry, but some things are deal-breakers. Inability to say, with clarity, that she dismissed "9/11 truther" thought and would not surround herself with anyone who thought that way is enough for me to make it a two-person race again.

"I don't have all the evidence there, Glenn," Medina replied. "So I'm not in a place - I have not been out publicly questioning that. I think some very good questions have been raised in that regard. There's some very good arguments and I think the American people have not seen all the evidence there so I've not taken a position there."

It's funny to recall that John Edwards, not the other guy, was once considered the chief potential roadblock on the Democratic side to a Hillary Clinton presidency.

(Well, not that funny, but still.)

Continuing to show his mastery of dragging out unpleasant business for as long as possible, Edwards now -- now -- admits to fathering a child by his mistress, conceived while his wife fought cancer.

As detailed with great relish in Game Change, the insider book on the 2008 campaign, Edwards was no saint, but neither, apparently, was Mrs. Edwards.

But why now? Why admit fathering the child after years of relentless denials? Mediaite takes a swing at it:

One has to assume the deeply disturbing and damaging (as much for Elizabeth Edwards as John) revelations to come out of the book Game Change had something to do with it. Also, likely, some late desire to protect his family from further scrutiny, and one hopes a desire to do what's best for the child who is now two-years-old.

That's the adult explanation. Mine is that Edwards, with typical political savvy, saw how well the whole Mark McGwire thing went.

Interesting that about the same time that a Rasmussen poll gave Debra Medina the boost she needed to join the Jan. 29 Belo debate, another Rasmussen poll gives Democrat Bill White something to think about.

As in, White should be Medina's biggest fan:

-- Perry 50%, White 40%

-- Hutchison 52%, White 37%

-- White 44%, Medina 37%

So which is more unexpected, Medina drawing 12 percent in the GOP primary against the incumbent and a two-plus-term U.S. senator or 37 percent in a hypothetical head-to-head against a well-financed Dem front-runner?

For what, you ask? Didn't anyone expect him to at least win, oh, a playoff game first?

(Upfront apologies to Romo, as this really isn't about him. Sarcasm needs a foil.)

Compare that to the news story of the day (so far): "Barack Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize." Apparently, the bar this year was set at "good intent." Or "goals and aspirations that make our tummies warm." Or "Look, he's not George W. Bush, OK?"

At first you think, "What's wrong with my stupid radio? All static." Then, "What? Way too early for humor. Who messed with my radio?"

Then, "The Onion has a radio station?"

Don Hill isn't the first Dallas City Council member to get his fingers snagged in the till. Logic tells you he won't be the last. As long as such massive amounts of government money roll through the city cash register, temptation will find someone.

Admittedly, that's if you subscribe to the federal jury verdict yesterday that found him guilty on seven counts of bribery, extortion, conspiracy and other unlawful deeds, not to mention his cohorts. Our Jason Trahan and others did fine work describing the action, but it's hard to imagine us kibitzers could claim knowledge or understanding more special than those jurors, who sat through everything.

The impulse is to find and pass along the deeper meaning of such a significant trial on the city's history, City Hall and a city's residents. That's where our editorial today went in well-written, thoughtful form. Other commentators, like Metro's James Ragland, had their takes, too.

A common thread, so far, is the need to reform the way business is done at City Hall. In most cases, that means ordinances or ethics regulations - something, anything, to make sure this kind of thing never happens again.

I hope I'm not the only one who sees how pointless this could become.

In case you missed it, click on the thumbnail below to view the final version of Thursday's Opinion home page:

Today's new page is now available at dallasnews.com/opinion, leading off with: "Clock is ticking for Obama on Afghanistan"

In case you missed it, click on the thumbnail below to view the final version of Tuesday's Opinion home page:

Today's new page is now available at dallasnews.com/opinion, leading off with the musical question: Does the president still have the political capital to make health care reform happen?

In case you missed it, click on the thumbnail below to view the final version of Monday's Opinion home page:

Today's new page is now available at dallasnews.com/opinion, leading off with what should the U.S. role be in Afghanistan.

In case you missed it, click on the thumbnail below to view the final version of the Friday/weekend Opinion home page:

Today's new page is now available at dallasnews.com/opinion, leading off with Dick Cheney, the CIA and interrogations.

It's Friday, so we're producing three days of print commentary today. Some highlights for the weekend, with links to what's already online:

Saturday

Hits and Misses (editorial): If you are a fan of this rapid-fire series of opinions, good news. We offer even more this week.

Susan Dodia: Leaving mental illness untreated is the worst possible option.

Sunday

Dallas budget (editorial): Tax increase? Not this year. The Dallas City Council should save that bitter pill for when they really need it, which could be the next budget cycle.

Michael Paulson: How the boy wizard won over religious critics -- and the deeper meaning theologians now see in his tale.

Rod Dreher: Health care and personal responsibility.

Sustainable food (editorial): The high cost of cheap food and what we can do about it.

Monday

Tom Leppert (editorial): We understand the temptation to seek an open U.S. Senate seat, but we'd rather he finish what he started as Dallas mayor.

Charles Krauthammer and Steve Pearlstein: Competing views of the ongoing health care debate.

In case you missed it, click on the thumbnail below to view the final version of Monday's Opinion home page:

Special bonus: Rod is back at work, and his first page post-fellowship is available at dallasnews.com/opinion.

In case you missed it, click on the thumbnail below to view the final version of the Friday/weekend Opinion home page:

This morning's new page is available at dallasnews.com/opinion.

It's Friday, so we're producing three days of print commentary today. Some highlights for the weekend, with links to what's already online:

Saturday

Arts (editorial): What to do with your kids -- for free? Think Cezanne.

Sunday

Williams (Juan Williams) and Markdavis (Mark Davis): Two perspectives on the apparent death of affirmative action.

Drought (editorial): It's too late to plan for this drought. But the next one?

Hotel (editorial): We aren't architecture critics, but we do have a few thoughts on what the convention center hotel should provide.

Monday

Trolley (editorial): Downtown and Oak Cliff streetcar plans work better together, than apart.

Doerr (John Doerr and Jeff Immelt): To the known crises, add a fourth: competitiveness, especially on the next big boom of green technology.

In case you missed it, click on the thumbnail below to view the final version of Thursday's Opinion home page:

This morning's new page is available at dallasnews.com/opinion.

In case you missed it, click on the thumbnail below to view the final version of Wednesday's Opinion home page:

This morning's new page is available at dallasnews.com/opinion.

In case you missed it, click on the thumbnail below to view the final version of Tuesday's Opinion home page:

This morning's new page is available at dallasnews.com/opinion.

In case you missed it, click on the thumbnail below to view the final version of Monday's Opinion home page:

This morning's new page is available at dallasnews.com/opinion.

Sorry to have been away for a few days, but we had some technical difficulties updating the site. But in case you missed it, click on the thumbnail below to view the final version of the Thursday-through-the-weekend Opinion home page:

This morning's new page is available at dallasnews.com/opinion.

In case you missed it, click on the thumbnail below to view the final version of the Wednesday's Opinion home page:

This morning's new page is available at dallasnews.com/opinion.

In case you missed it, click on the thumbnail below to view the final version of the Tuesday's Opinion home page:

This morning's new page is available at dallasnews.com/opinion.

In case you missed it, click on the thumbnail below to view the final version of the Monday's Opinion home page:

This morning's new page is available at dallasnews.com/opinion.

In case you missed it, click on the thumbnail below to view the final version of the weekend's Opinion home page:

This morning's new page is available at dallasnews.com/opinion.

In case you missed it, click on the thumbnail below to view the final version of Friday's Opinion home page:

This morning's new page is available at dallasnews.com/opinion.

It's Friday, so we're producing three days of print commentary today. Some highlights for the weekend, with links to what's already online:

Saturday

Monkey (editorial): Wake up if you think this is the end of the crime wave.

Young (Jeff Young): The case against new urbanism.

Sunday

Recovery (editorial): It's hard to find too many silver linings in a recession, but one is that it gives a city like Dallas a chance to reshape its future.

Pointperson (Scott McClellan) and Markdavis (Mark Davis): A Q&A with the former Clinton and Bush II official now at Brookings, and Davis' point of view, both on the health care debate.

Monday

Exxon (editorial): Lots of folks are investing big money in alternative fuel sources, like algae. But the world's biggest oil company? It would seem so.

In case you missed it, click on the thumbnail below to view the final version of Thursday's Opinion home page:

This morning's new page is available at dallasnews.com/opinion.

In case you missed it, click on the thumbnail below to view the final version of Wednesday's Opinion home page:

This morning's new page is available at dallasnews.com/opinion.

In case you missed it, click on the thumbnail below to view the final version of Tuesday's Opinion home page:

This morning's new page is available at dallasnews.com/opinion.

In case you missed it, click on the thumbnail below to view the final version of Monday's Opinion home page:

This morning's new page is available at dallasnews.com/opinion.

In case you missed it, click on the thumbnail below to view the final version of the weekend Opinion home page:

This morning's new page is available at dallasnews.com/opinion.

In case you missed it, click on the thumbnail below to view the final version of Friday's Opinion home page:

This morning's new page is available at dallasnews.com/opinion.

It's Friday, so we're producing three days of print commentary today. Some highlights for the weekend, with links to what's already online:

Saturday

Harrop (Froma Harrop): Cities are back, but for how long? Census numbers show that cities are leading the suburbs in population growth, but as the economy recovers and credit eases, will suburban sprawl pick right up where it left off?

Sunday

Sotomayor (editorial): So, after a week of hearings, what did we learn and how should the Senate vote on her nomination to the Supreme Court? Bottom line: She deserves confirmation.

Bennett (Drake Bennett): With back-to-back revelations of marital infidelity by Nevada Sen. John Ensign and South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, two more cultural conservatives, the question again arises: Why is it that people who set themselves up as moral paragons seem to have the hardest time living up to their own standards?

Williams (Shawn Williams) and Garrison (Trey Garrison): Two essays assessing the causes, and possible cures, for the cycle of violence that so often permeates black communities.

Monday

Krauthammer (Charles Krauthammer): On the 40th anniversary of the first moon landing, we say we will return in 2020, but that promise was made by a previous president. And for all of Barack Obama's Kennedyesque qualities, he has expressed none of Kennedy's enthusiasm for human space exploration. Also, our view in an editorial.

In case you missed it, click on the thumbnail below to view the final version of Thursday's Opinion home page:

This morning's new page is available at dallasnews.com/opinion.

In case you missed it, click on the thumbnail below to view the final version of Wednesday's Opinion home page:

This morning's new page is available at dallasnews.com/opinion.

In case you missed it, click on the thumbnail below to view the final version of Tuesday's Opinion home page:

This morning's new page is available at dallasnews.com/opinion.

In case you missed it, click on the thumbnail below to view the final version of Monday's Opinion home page:

This morning's new page is available at dallasnews.com/opinion.

In case you missed it, click on the thumbnail below to view the final version of Sunday's Opinion home page:

This morning's new page is available at dallasnews.com/opinion.

In case you missed it, click on the thumbnail below to view the final version of Saturday's Opinion home page:

This morning's new page (with just a few changes) is available at dallasnews.com/opinion.

In case you missed it, click on the thumbnail below to view the final version of Friday's Opinion home page:

This morning's new page is available at dallasnews.com/opinion.

It's Friday, so we're producing three days of print commentary today. Some highlights for the weekend, with links to what's already online:

Saturday

Hits and Misses (editorial): If you like your commentary in digestible bites, a few extra this week.

Sunday

Hicks (Victoria Loe Hicks): After the loss of a dear friend, the columnist soberly considers love and pain and life and death.

Sotomayor (editorial): Our goal is to help readers feel smarter about this complex issue and better understand the Senate's role on presidential nominees. And we have some questions of our own.

In case you missed it, click on the thumbnail below to view the final version of Thursday's Opinion home page:

This morning's new page is available at dallasnews.com/opinion.

In case you missed it, click on the thumbnail below to view the final version of Wednesday's Opinion home page:

This morning's new page is available at dallasnews.com/opinion.

In case you missed it, click on the thumbnail below to view the final version of Tuesday's Opinion home page:

This morning's new page is available at dallasnews.com/opinion (and if you visit and bookmark it, you won't even need these archive prompts, given its addictive nature and all)

In case you missed it, click on the thumbnail below to view the final version of Monday's Opinion home page:

This morning's new page is available at dallasnews.com/opinion.

You are getting an extra day off for the Fourth, aren't you? For us, it's Friday, so we're producing four days of print commentary today. Some highlights for the weekend, with links to what's already online:

Saturday

Voices: We asked our Voices volunteer columnists to tell us who does the most in their communities with the freedom we enjoy.

Trails (editorial): If you're going to build all these transit stations, at least make them reachable in ways other than by auto.

Sunday

Queenan (Joe Queenan): The "My Bad" syndrome, the act of being gutsy enough to accept responsibility for doing what one has unarguably done, is a cunning though ultimately cowardly way of deflecting attention away from the fact that no one else could possibly be held responsible for the screw-up.

Nehring (Cristina Nehring): Give it a rest. Mark Sanford didn't commit murder here. He's in love. Anarchic, hurtful, but seemingly true love.

Tolls (editorial): We reflect on the NTTA scofflaw policy and seek to offer constructive guidance on policy revisions.

Waxman (editorial): Our view of the climate change bill that cleared the House and is headed to the Senate. In short: The "cap" part of cap-and-trade means fundamental change; the "trade" part is negotiable.

Monday

Adamson (editorial): The physically horrific conditions make clear that a nearly complete re-do of this Oak Cliff high school is essential for student and teacher safety, but saving the historic facade is worthy, too.

I've now read a very solid news story, one before-the-fact op-ed, two after-the-fact opinion columns and one editorial about Paul Quinn College and its lost accreditation. I remain stumped.

Michael Sorrell, president of the tiny southern Dallas private school, wrote more than a week ago that things were on the upswing and he and his team just needed more time.

Once the deed was done, our own James Ragland and Weber Shandwick's Ken Luce -- undoubtedly two good-hearted and well-meaning fellows -- insisted that "the community" bore some obligation to step up and save Paul Quinn. Our editorial today was in about the same place.

My question: Why?

If you're not prepared to hang on every word of testimony in the Don Hill corruption trial underway at Dallas' federal court house, his attorney teased at the defense strategy. Call it the Clay Davis Technique.

"The evidence will show that Hill wasn't motivated by money," said Hill's lawyer, Ray Jackson, during his opening. "Don walked around with holes in his shoes."

Jackson also told jurors that Hill would testify.

Oh, sure, there was a lot more. Hundreds of hours of wiretap evidence, allegations of public money ending up in private hands in nefarious ways, elected and appointed officials on the take ... wait, you weren't among the too few people who watched and memorized The Wire? Just go on siesta until Don Hill takes the stand:

Mark Davis, one of our regular free-lance Viewpoints columnists, offers a bonus Web-exclusive column reflecting on the death of Michael Jackson:

Wouldn't it have been something? Thursday, July 16, would have been his first show at London's O2 Arena, the first of dozens of concerts, spread out one every few days through the end of February, all at the same venue. The roughly 1 million tickets sold out in the blink of an eye.

It would have been the comeback story of all time, although I don't know what I would have thought of that. I would have been awed by the history, and I would have hoped for the shows to be some semblance of the greatness that was once Michael Jackson.

But deep down, I can't help thinking that he probably did some unspeakable things to little boys. It is a belief I can neither confirm nor shake.

And that's why his death is such an occasion of mixed feelings for me and, I presume, for many others. I want to honor the amazing contribution he made to my life through his art, yet I could have nothing but contempt for someone who would do what I suspect he did.

Betty Culbreath, long involved in city and county politics, lit us up pretty good in a recent post on her blog for daring to criticize Dallas City Council member Carolyn Davis.

It's a free country and a big world. Everybody gets to have an opinion. Betty, I believe, would be the first to agree, and she has plenty of them. I even agree with many of them, just not this one. (She also might still be mad that we chose no one over her in her last City Council race and then argued that she and the rest of the Dallas Housing Authority board had to go over the Ann Lott fiasco.)

To be clear, Betty's main complaint is that the Editorial Board slapped Davis around for her lack of leadership on the S.M. Wright Freeway/Dead Man's Curve issue. (Betty didn't mention Belize, so I won't, either.)

What, he used his hand? The audacity.

If you're a regular reader of our Opinion home page, you probably recognized a few weeks ago that we're trying to bring a stronger local/Texas focus to our aggregation of commentary offerings. Our mushrooming number of staff-produced blogs should help in our daily hunt for opinion writing worth your while, but we'll also link you to commentary from other Texas newspapers, blogs or even Trey Garrison.

Today's page is a good example. Three editorial board writers -- Bill McKenzie, Tod Robberson and Rodger Jones -- get good rides on the page. Bill's weekly column hit the sweet spot on our Big Story, which is reaction to Obama's health care reform speech yesterday in Chicago.

Tod and Rodger swirl in their thoughts on a couple of local issues. In Tod's case, it's the Dallas City Council race in District 7, which neatly coincides with his base area in our Bridging the Gap project. Rodger takes on our local congressional delegation and whether members are doing right by their constituents in transportation funding requests.

Tod wrote this post initially for our new Southern Dallas blog; Rodger did his for the Transportation blog.

By all means, feel free to bookmark the Opinion front for more Texas-centric commentary. We get up at 5 a.m. and start searching, so you don't have to. (And if Dreher ever decides to come back to work, he can search, and I'll go back to bed.)

I found Nicole's post yesterday about online comments and Mark Davis' recent column on that subject an interesting read, both for her words and, yes, the comments that followed.

The topic has been on my mind since before D magazine's FrontBurner pulled its comments, at least for the time being, because, as I understand it, the knuckleheads were drowning out the thoughtful commenters. I mostly enjoyed the comments there, although I'll acknowledge that a great majority were a waste of time. Every now and then, I'd learn something from a comment (or just have that happy flash of recognition: "Hey, I know that guy.")

Mostly, if I read into the comments, I flipped through fairly quickly, just to see what this self-selected population had to say. If the blogger's topic didn't interest me, comments good or bad probably wouldn't change that.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is making it pretty tough to document her timeline of events on what she knew and when about interrogation tactics she defines as torture. (Waterboarding, not caterpillars in the cell.) The main problem is that she keeps changing key elements, causing everyone to track back over everything she said before, and they find more contradictions.

Easier to document is that by continuing to spin and "clarify," she has turned a sideshow into serious problem for her side, including her president. Her news conference yesterday, even by her dizzy standards, was a classic. Her circle of defenders is loud but shrinking, and this treatment is not what a Democrat should have to endure.

Rod has a solid selection of commentary at our Opinion home page. At ABC News' The Note, DMN alumnus Rick Klein has a fairly comprehensive collection of links, too.

Your view? Is the speaker doing herself and her party any favors by keeping her role front and center? If not, how would you advise her to handle it?

And is it possible that everyone is lying except her?

Whether bad plan or bad luck, Hillwood hasn't won with its Victory development surrounding the American Airlines Center. Many was the night I gazed out from the arena onto the plaza and wondered why smart guys with such access to capital had failed so miserably on such prime real estate.

After all, the arena has two pro sports teams, concerts and other big events to bring traffic. Wasn't that enough?

Not really. My lovely wife and I chatted up a waiter at a Victory establishment one day on the train to a Stars game. Business was good when there was a game. If not? Deadsville.

My view is that the business plan of high-end retail, high-end residential and high-end hotels was a high-end bust of a idea. Rich people spend money, but they don't necessarily wander their neighborhood to do so. Victory seems to have been designed for regular foot traffic, except the people Victory needed to attract didn't see the point in wasting a perfectly good Lexus.

Yes, that's way oversimplified, but would it have killed Hillwood to mix up the retail and residential to allow someone who didn't want to pay $400,000 for 800 sq. feet a chance to live down there? What are we, midtown Manhattan? San Francisco?

What's your solution to the Victory dilemma?

So I'm reading the Dave Levinthal-Chuck Carlton story about Dallas gearing up to attract the College Football Hall of Fame to a spot downtown next to not-yet-voter-approved convention center hotel, and, you know, fine.

It would be a fine addition to downtown, and if it's all private money, even better. I seriously doubt it attracts much convention business here ("Let's see ... Vegas, Dallas ... Dallas, Vegas ... Vegas, Dallas ... Hey, Dallas has the College Football Hall of Fame, right? Boom."), but most of us are so seldom in South Bend, Ind.

Yes, Arlington might have a stronger case, with a big, new football stadium and a major league baseball stadium and a more central location, but it appears farther behind the planning curve.

Still, as I'm reading, I wonder why no one's thinking of a better location right here in Dallas:
-- College football? Check.
-- Other museums (which a hall of fame is)? Check.
-- Vacant or soon-to-be museum space? Check.
-- Direct DART rail access? Soon-to-be check.
-- City-owned property? Big, pregnant check.

Right here.

After the hundreds of thousands of words expended on the subject of Robert Powell and his knuckleheaded behavior after stopping Ryan Moats, this Mark Davis column in today's paper must have been the last straw:

... actions, not words, dictate reality. A waiting community will not be assured of the chief's sincerity until Powell is no longer on the force.

Cockiness is not grounds for dismissal. Prolonging a traffic stop with a Barney Fife power trip, while maddening, probably isn't either. But displaying both flaws in a situation whose gravity cried out for good judgment reveals something that no screening could have caught: Powell, on that occasion, was a complete idiot, unable to discern how to act when not just his police manual but basic human decency required it.

That's the kinder of the two possibilities; the other involves actual sadistic enjoyment of other people's distress. Take your pick. Either way, we cannot risk a recurrence.

Thus pushed, Powell took the off ramp today, sparing the city the nonsense of a firing, appeals hearing and possible reinstatement.

(Just kidding. Be nice to Mark, who's having quite a day himself.)

Two bills supposedly toughening Texas' stance against drunken driving are headed out of the Senate and to the House. Who could be against making it harder to drink and drive in the state that leads the nation in alcohol-related driving fatalities?

Me, I guess.

Actually, I have no problem with forced blood or breath tests on suspected drunken drivers who have previous DWI convictons. If you (or I) get stopped for weaving, rolling a stop sign, running a red light, speeding, driving really slow in the left lane or sideswiping a parked car or curb -- observable signs of a possibly impaired driver -- you (or I) have kind of asked for it.

And for that reason, I do have a large problem with so-called sobriety checkpoints.

There's no defending Officer Robert Powell or his actions in the now-infamous traffic stop of a family rushing to the hospital to say goodbye to a dying woman.

That said, I'm not ready to jump to the absolute position that this officer should be fired. Normally, that's my inclination. And it's entirely possible that a Dallas Police Department investigation will lead Chief David Kunkle to that conclusion. If and when it does, he will be operating with more information than we have right now.

Note to Belo security: The editorial board will be interviewing Dallas City Council District 7 candidates in early April. Please be on the lookout ...

Hey, just kidding Mr. Redd!

Holy cow, is this guy a piece of work. (As an aside, I'm not sure he does the worthy Second Amendment cause any good here, either.)

If Charles "Chazz" Redd was wearing pants in this photograph, City Hall guy Dave Levinthal basically left him naked the rest of the way with this brief interview:

Earlier Monday, Redd first identified the photograph as being taken while on a trip to Paris, Texas.

"I think I just came in from hunting, and I had blood on my shirt, which is why I didn't have a shirt," he said.

Asked what he was hunting, Redd said quail and deer.

With handguns?

"Yeah. I take the handguns with me. We also had rifles," he said.

Actually, Redd conceded later that the photo was snapped in Dallas, not near a lease. After he taught a gun-safety class. Seriously.

Carolyn Davis and Ron Price, mind your business at the next D7 debate.

Over at D magazine, the always-interesting but not-always-thorough Zac Crain, fired off a cluster bomb of a column for their April issue that basically adds up to this:

The DISD wouldn't have such an image problem if reporters at The Dallas Morning News and Channel 8 wouldn't gum up the system with so many fishing-expedition freedom of information requests that lead to overblown negative stories.

That about cover it?

Zac's column is a derivative of the stock DISD apologist view, which I've heard in various forms from my days at Kimball High School in Oak Cliff through 25 years at this newspaper:

DISD never gets a fair shake. Any bad news ends up on Page One. Any good news is ignored or buried next to the obituary pages where no one sees it.

Well, that didn't take long:

Calling fellow Dallas City Council member Vonciel Jones Hill "arrogant," "disrespectful" and displaying "signs of a dictatorship," Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Dwaine Caraway tells us he'll formally endorse Tiffinni Young in the hotly contested District 5 council race.

"She's arrogant. She refuses to get along. If you refuse to get along, it shows signs of a dictatorship. With her it's, 'my way or no way,'" Caraway said of Hill. "For two years, it's been a total disrespect of me by her. I've tried to be cordial. But sometimes a man gets tired of being slapped."

Caraway, of course, is entitled to his opinion, and he's entitled to broadcast it, even if it's about a district where he doesn't live. I have my own doubts about Hill, and they have nothing to do with arrogance.

But as long as arrogance is the topic ...

The news is February that Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert had put out feelers about the possibility of the city taking over the Dallas school district was, deservedly, a big story. It ran on Page One and spawned no end of follow-ups, blog posts, comments, opinion columns and even an editorial from this very board.

It will be interesting to see if this similar news story generates similar buzz:

In a show of what can only be frustration with Dallas ISD, Democratic state Rep. Yvonne Davis has filed a bill that would break up the district.

[...]

This idea of splitting DISD has been floated before in some circles -- and it's gone nowhere. Even the DISD school board president was dismissive of the bill when I called him for comment today.

"I don't have anything to say about that," Jack Lowe said. "It aint goin' to happen."

True enough, as a colleague pointed out to me yesterday. Still, the Davis proposal is a good bit farther down the sausage chute than Leppert's idea, which was no less implausible.

I'm pretty sure I'm not one of those hyper-reflexive, fully-immersed-in-the-tank, he-can-do-no-wrong Obama defenders. (In fact, I work in close proximity to a few, so I know what they look like.)

That said, I'm not sure I can sign on to this:

President Obama's apparent inability to block executive bonuses at insurance giant AIG has dealt a sharp blow to his young administration and is threatening to derail both public and congressional support for his ambitious political agenda.

Politicians in both parties flocked to express outrage over $165 million in bonuses paid out to executives at the company, demanding answers from the president and swamping yesterday's rollout of his efforts to spark lending to small businesses.

The populist anger at the executives who ran their firms into the ground is increasingly blowing back on Obama, whom aides yesterday described as having little recourse in the face of legal contracts that guaranteed those bonuses.

Not that he and his administration don't deserve some scrutiny for how the financial bailouts have been handled (or mishandled), but unless I'm completely off base, the seeds for this were planted when Obama was still a presidential candidate.

Missed this yesterday (despite an e-mail alert), but Rasmussen had some interesting polling specific to our own state.

-- 47 percent support Perry's opposition to stimulus funds, 40 percent say he should accept the money.

-- 58 percent approve (14 percent strongly) of the job he's doing as governor, 41 percent disapprove (21 percent strongly). Interestingly, he gets 75 percent approval from Republicans.

-- Sadly, only 48 percent favor legalizing casino gambling, compared to 45 percent who oppose. Other polls in past years have shown much stronger bias toward legalizing. (Here's our recent editorial supporting putting the issue before voters.)

Much more in the free part of the questions and results.

Elections, as they say, have consequences. For those who vote and for those who are voted in.

Obama undoubtedly inherited a crumbling economy, so it wouldn't exactly be fair to expect him to have us driving (hybrid) Cadillacs again barely a month since his inauguration. That said, the Dow has fallen 25 to 30 percent since that day of hope (and change) and, by most accounts, even with (or perhaps because of) all the trillions-upon-billions in steps taken, the signs grow bleaker into the mid-terms.

Again, Obama and the Democrats are well within reason to blame the Bush administration for much or all of this, although I still maintain elected feds have a lot less to do with something as complex as a national economy than we might wish.

But assuming that is your belief, at what point does this become the Obama economy and we can begin holding him accountable for improving it or (so far) worsening it?

Here's one view from a newspaper that tends to track business developments:

Listening to Mr. Obama and his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, on the weekend, we couldn't help but wonder if they appreciate any of this. They seem preoccupied with going to the barricades against Republicans who wield little power, or picking a fight with Rush Limbaugh, as if this is the kind of economic leadership Americans want.

Perhaps they're reading the polls and figure they have two or three years before voters stop blaming Republicans and Mr. Bush for the economy. Even if that's right in the long run, in the meantime their assault on business and investors is delaying a recovery and ensuring that the expansion will be weaker than it should be when it finally does arrive.

If you're just waking up to it, this should be among the lead news stories of the day:

IRVING - Wide receiver Terrell Owens, whose future with the Dallas Cowboys has been in question since the off-season began, was cut late Wednesday night, according to a source.

That ton-of-bricks revelation has all kind of short- and long-term implications for the local NFL franchise, its owner, its general manager, its only authorized spokesman and the players and coaches left behind.

So far, here's what Jean-Jacques Taylor thinks. And what Tim Cowlishaw thinks.

Here's a batch of other views from ESPN, which broke the story last night.

And you? Good move, bad more or not something that concerns you?

Those libertarian-leaning gun owners, what will they think of next?

Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Dwaine Caraway's plan is to give $50 Kroger gift certificates to anyone who turns in an unloaded, functioning firearm. The program commences at 9 a.m. on Saturday at Reunion Arena.

My plan is to be there with envelopes containing $65 in cash each, to give to anyone in exchange for really well-maintained, functioning firearms that are on my wish list.

I figure $65>$50, and cash is better than a gift card.

And I will give these poor, unwanted guns a loving home.

So let's do some business.

Trey leaves unstated whether he will require an ID to get the cash, but either way, this has sterling stimulus potential. Well, assuming Trey's pockets are deep enough to afford more than a gun or two.

But it's the thought that counts. And good intentions.

Safe to say that Joel Kotkin, one of America's leading experts on urban development, isn't contributing to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's re-election campaign.

Villaraigosa, Kotkin argues, is presiding over and exacerbating the decline of a once-great U.S. city, "one of the most rapid -- and largely unnecessary -- municipal reversals in fortune in American urban history."

By the end of the 20th century, it stood not only as the epicenter for the world's entertainment industry, but also North America's largest port, garment manufacturer and industrial center. The region also spawned two important presidents--Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan--and nurtured a host of political and social movements spanning the ideological spectrum.

Now L.A. seems to be fading rapidly toward irrelevancy. Its economy has tanked faster than that of the nation, with unemployment now close to 10%. The port appears in decline, the roads in awful shape and the once potent industrial base continues to shrink.

Job growth in the area, notes a forecast by the University of California at Santa Barbara, dropped 0.6% last year and is expected to plunge far more rapidly this year. Roughly one-fifth of the population depends on public assistance or benefits to survive.

Reading Kotkin through Dallas- or North Texas-centric eyes, are we so different here? Yes, it's hard to separate our city or region from worldwide economic problems that endanger every public budget that relies on sales and property taxes (city, county, school district, transit system).

But are the people in charge today making the kinds of decisions that might lead to LA-comes-to-Dallas?

(Upfront apologies to anyone who thinks we put too much sports on the Editorial Page. In my defense, I was moved to offer this latest goofy Jerry Jones story as an idea in our staff meeting today but held back.)

I heard bits and pieces of the Jerry Jones gag-rule story on the radio and kept thinking, "No way. Not a chance."

Way. Chance.

This is so Hugo Chavez of the Cowboys' owner, I don't know where to start.

Reader Mike (no relation) has been bending my e-ear for some time generally about the financial crisis and is especially ramped up now that we've gotten into his area of expertise, real estate.

That's what the foreclosure thing is about, right? Back to reader Mike:

You know how I feel about the foreclosure bailouts in general, so I won't waste more of your time with that. However, when reading today's editorial, I did find the following interesting:

"Even in reasonably strong North Texas, you can find neighborhoods from Lancaster to Plano that resemble ghost towns, with streets littered by rows of 'Foreclosure' signs."

Isn't this, at best, a willful mischaracterization? Or, at worst, a lie or blatant hyperbole?

If it's true, can someone point me to the ghost towns in Plano littered with "rows" of signs? It's possible that a developer or builder got foreclosed on a string of lots or spec houses, which is where the "mischaracterization" possibility comes in. However, being someone who spends a lot of time these days trying to track down exactly that type of asset package at banks, I can tell you that they don't throw up a bunch of signs on that type of thing.

There are all sorts of ideas out there about how to fix the newspaper business. It seems like being honest would be one everyone could agree on.

I wasn't involved in the writing or editing, so I'll defer to those who were. Yes, I had a chance to offer thoughts before the editorial was written, as we all did.

Mine (cribbed liberally from people who know this better than I do) were considered but didn't make it into the final version, as nearly as I can tell, primarily because the majority apparently wanted to support Obama's plan, which I don't. But I include them after the jump anyway, in case anyone wants to change their mind.

Sorry, Tod. I meant to respond to your post yesterday on Irving's City Council system but got bungled up in other things.

In short, Tod believes Irving's disparity between large Hispanic population (40.6 percent) and Hispanic representation in elected city government (0 percent) is evidence of an unfair system that "doesn't work."

Rod dissented, as will I.

Tod makes two flawed assumptions:

1. The absence of Hispanics on the council is clear evidence that white Irving residents have not and will not support Hispanic candidates because they are Hispanic. (It's not clear whether Tod believe the converse also applies.)

2. Therefore, the only route to fairness for Irving's Hispanic residents is to draw a district where they are in a majority sufficiently large to elect one of their own. To do that would mean having a federal judge overturn a city's local control of its election system.

Allow me to retort:

Rasmussen has new polling that shows a plurality of Americans -- 38 percent -- believes the massive stimulus bill, urgently passed last week and about to be signed into law, well, any day now, will help the U.S. economy.

Good news for the Obama side.

Or bad news. Another 29 percent say the plan will hurt the economy, and 24 percent say it will have little effect. One could argue that 53 percent say nearly $800 billion in spending (and a few tax "cuts"), plus several hundred billion in debt service, will not go to good use.

And this:

Thirty-two percent (32%) say they're more likely to vote for someone who supported the bill in Congress while 35% said they're less likely to vote for someone who supported it. Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, one of three Republicans who voted for the stimulus in the Senate, has been hurt politically for his decision.

Sure, it's not our money, and we take no joy in the economic downturn that has complicated Jerry Jones' plan to sell corporate naming rights to his new billion-dollar stadium in Arlington for tens of millions of dollars a year:

When the Dallas Cowboys play their first game here later this year, team owner Jerry Jones might have a temporary name for his stadium and a lot less cash than he expected.

A naming rights deal to add hundreds of millions of dollars to his bottom line hasn't materialized, and sports business professionals said Jones might not find a sponsor this year unless he's willing to offer a deep discount. Even optimistic naming rights consultants are saying that a blockbuster deal is probably off the table in this year of economic turmoil.

The editorial board is on record encouraging Jones to resist the urge to sell the rights to anyone, arguing that some teams are so iconic that they should just leave those dollars alone. (Yes, easy for us to say.)

That said, deals are deals, and dollars are dollars. The board is formulating a revised position that could be available on the Web site by tomorrow afternoon (and Wednesday's print edition).

Maybe we should focus on the word "temporary." And think of that guy from the radio commercial, Bob, and his temporarily delighted boss, Mr. Fernwell.

Oh, sure, we could keep arguing in circles about the stimulus bill. Or, we could resolve to devote the entire weekend to reading it. (Well, I have a hockey game tonight, but right after that.)

Your friends at ProPublica helpfully provide away around the broken links in Washington, where you were supposed to download the bill. (Think of it this way: You would be way ahead of every U.S. senator if you gave it the cover-to-cover.)

Or, Michael Grabell and Christopher Weaver give you another option: Just weed through their comprehensive list of the spending. (Grabell got his start at this very newspaper, if that raises or lowers your trust level. Hint: It should raise it, as he's really good at this job.)

Really, that's enough to put a spring in your step by Monday morning's rush hour.

UPDATE: The ProPublica guys just added their breakdown of the tax "cuts." Trust me that it won't take as long to go through this part.

Little did Sharon know she was so cutting edge.

Her comment the other day to a stimulus question - "I'm completely over the politics of this. Let's pass it and see if it works." - appears to be exactly the way the House Democratic leadership is going.

First, the House and Senate pass can-you-top-this versions of the largest spending bill in American history with no conservative input and little Republican input. Then, they shut Republicans out of the conference process and return to their respective chambers with a slightly smaller bill that has grown to 1,434 pages.

The new message to Republicans?

"You don't need to read the final version. You were against it before and you'll be against it now. Just vote."

Rory Cooper at the Heritage blog describes this as Pelosi's loyalty oath: You may see the bill if you promise to vote with us; if not, too bad.

But surely someone has read this thing. Oh, right. Lobbyists.

If nothing else, I'm getting what I asked for. Democrats are owning their bill.

Completely.

Rodger posed a provocative question yesterday on whether Dallas should take the plunge into municipal management districts, in effect ceding some public control of specific parts of town to private developers.

As it happens, our navel-gazing came too late, as the City Council voted to start the process of creating three such districts, two in southern Dallas (and one pretty far away near North Lake). For a primer on what these districts are and what the city is giving up, read Rudy Bush's advancer.

I'm not 100 percent on this idea, but I think I'm closer than most of my colleagues.

Good on Metro columnist Steve Blow for doing what we should do more often in our business. Once the wave of hysteria has passed on a particular new law, he tracked back empirically to see if the hysterics had a point.

In the case of Dallas' no-insurance towing ordinance, they did not:

And guess what? Despite all the dire predictions to the contrary, the sky hasn't fallen. And a few more drivers may actually have insurance coverage.

Somebody say "amen."

Here's some good news to relish. And it's the rarest kind: A new government policy is working well.

Just to run around this tree one more time, I said in our staff meeting this morning that Obama, in his Monday night news conference, had constructed a false choice over his stimulus bill: If you oppose our bill, you favor doing nothing.

This struck me as unfair and untrue, leaving out the possibility that those opposed might support other methods of stimulus, just not all of his.

One of my colleagues objected, contending Obama had not said it quite so bluntly.

Allow me to retort, again:

FORT MYERS, Fla., Feb. 10 -- President Obama likes to portray the battle over the economic stimulus package that passed the Senate on Tuesday as a stark choice between his approach and that of those who would "do nothing."

"Nothing is not an option. You didn't send me to Washington to do nothing," Obama told a gathering of 1,500 here on Tuesday, bringing the crowd to its feet as he campaigned for passage of the more than $800 billion package.

The president used the same language Monday in his first prime-time news conference, suggesting that lawmakers who opposed his prescription want the government to ignore the deepening economic crisis.

"There seems to be a set of folks who -- I don't doubt their sincerity -- who just believe that we should do nothing," he said.

"Nothing is not an option." "Do nothing." Yes, he may not doubt their sincerity, but he also doesn't leave much room for their arguments. It's his way or "do nothing."

Many of the president's fiercest congressional critics support a stimulus package of similar size but think it should be built around a much higher proportion of tax cuts than new spending. Others have called for a plan that is half the size of the one headed for a House-Senate conference -- still massive by historical standards.

Even those who think that no new government spending is necessary do not advocate a stand-still approach. A newspaper ad by the Cato Institute, signed by 250 economists, argued for removing "impediments to work, saving, investment and production" and said that "lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth."

"I don't know of a single Republican in the House or Senate who thinks Congress should do nothing in the wake of this recession," Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) said Tuesday. "We want to do something that will work."

Rod has his face shoved into a congressional hearing, so let me speak for him:

Tim Geithner's plan to save the banks bombed upon debut, and today's Big Story on our Opinion home page collects all kinds of reaction to the plan.

Later today, when the big bank CEOs testify before Congress - it's expected to be a circus - Rod will change out or adjust the Big Story to focus on that. We'll let you know when that happens.

Check his work at dallasnews.com/opinion.

Please do not become confused today and mix up the massive stimulus bill in the Senate, headed soon to conference committee, with the massive bank bailout you should hear about from Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner.

This is the bailout announcement postponed from yesterday, so the stimulus would have the entire stage:

The gravity of the financial crisis confronting the Obama administration will come into stark focus today when officials unveil a three-pronged rescue program that may commit up to $1.5 trillion in public and private funds, and possibly more, lawmakers and other officials said.

A trillion here, $1.5 trillion there ...

A senior administration official warned last night that the ultimate cost to taxpayers has not been determined.

Hard to imagine, I know.

With all due respect to my good friend Bill, enough with this bipartisanship.

If you take the president at his word, we face "catastrophe" without this massive stimulus bill. If you take the minority Republicans at their word, the catastrophe would be passing this bill and doubling a trillion-dollar deficit with one signature.

The left argues that the stimulus really isn't large enough and wails at each line item whacked out in the name of seeking compromise. The right argues that you couldn't cut enough spending to fix the fundamental problem, which is that government spending does more harm than good, short or long term.

Fine. And fine. Elections have consequences. Democrats have enough votes in both houses and the White House. Pass your bill. Take all the credit -- or the consequences. Same for the GOP: This works, you become the Whig Party; it doesn't, voters will listen next time.

Let the best idea win. If the Dems' ideas are the best, they will own Washington for decades, as grateful voters send them back in increasing majorities election after election. If this bill, more than $1 trillion with debt service, is the right course, take it boldly. Don't let centrists of either party weaken it, in your eyes.

Own your bill.

Your thoughts? After the jump, two similar views from opposite poles.

We lead our online Opinion home page this morning with a package of commentary on the massive stimulus bill and its pending vote in the Senate.

Jason Rosenbaum of Huffington Post, Kimberly A. Strassel of the WSJ and Joel Stein of the LA Times have the play positions for now.

Good stuff. Check it out.

This must be what triangulation looks like in practice. The fight over the Senate version of the stimulus bill -- $900 billion or so -- is sounding less bipartisan or more monopartisan, with some knife twisting.

The general outline taking shape is that Obama is trying to wrestle back control of this -- let's be honest -- way overstuffed, every-appropriation-we-couldn't-get-passed-before bill, with blame cast toward Nancy Pelosi and the House Democratic leadership. That's certainly the Time magazine version of events:

Trey Garrison comes off the top rope with a bionic elbow to some local police departments who only want to be armed as well as central Asian militaries and see the in-the-balance federal "stimulus" bill as the route:

Frisco wants $125,000 for an armored vehicle and $200,000 for a mobile command vehicle. You know, for all that gang tank warfare going on up in Frisco.

North Richland Hills wants $51,000 for volunteer patrol volunteers. Let's throw in $10 for a dictionary so they can look up the word "volunteer."

Oh, sure, Mr. Funny Guy. When the apocalypse strikes, you'd better hope your suburban force inhaled deeply from this trillion, because there may not be another.

If you take Rep. Jim Cooper at his word, things are getting even more passive-aggressive than normal in Washington.

Cooper, an Obama supporter and member of the House's Blue Dog coalition of more fiscally responsible Democrats, said in a radio interview that the new administration didn't imply but straight out encouraged him to defy Speaker Nancy Pelosi and party leadership over the massive stimulus bill. He did, along with 10 other Dems and every Republican, to no avail.

"Well, I probably shouldn't tell you this, but I actually got some quiet encouragement from the Obama folks for what I'm doing," said Cooper, one of about 55 House Democrats to sign a letter criticizing Speaker Nancy Pelosi for suspending normal debate and committee rules on the $819 billion package.

He went on -- and on:

"They know its a messy bill and they wanted a clean bill. Now, I got in terrible trouble with our leadership because they don't care what's in the bill, they just want it pass and they want it to be unanimous. They don't mind the partisan fighting cause that's what they are used to. In fact, they're really good at it. And they're a little bit worried about what a post-partisan future might look like. If members actually had to read the bills and figure out whether they are any good or not. We're just told how to vote. We're treated like mushrooms most of the time."

Trivia question: Assuming Cooper has paid all his taxes, who comes off looking worse here -- the "old bulls" running the counter at Satriale's or the young guy afraid to make them stop?

Today was a good example of how our new Opinion home page can be a force for good in the world. (Or, a good place to waste a few precious moments on your boss' Internet connection.)

Rod started the morning with a package of Tom Daschle pieces, with his nomination in the balance. (I thought the tipping-point piece was the friendly-fire editorial from the NYT calling for him to take a hike.)

When Daschle did heed the calls around lunchtime, Rod revised our offerings with now-he's-gone pieces.

It doesn't always work this smoothly, but today it did. If I were you, I'd bookmark dallasnews.com/opinion and visit repeatedly through the day, just to see if we can do it again.

Well, as a visitor to Mark Davis' Wednesday column on Armstrong's advocacy for a statewide smoking ban:

Much was made of the "celebrity" and "expertise" Lance brings to the issue. Celebrity is irrelevant, of course. If Ted Danson is right or wrong on the environment or Ted Nugent is right or wrong about guns, it is on the merits, not because of their fame.

And as to expertise, Lance is an authority on fighting cancer and particularly entitled to wish everybody would quit smoking. But his valiant life story does not bestow one molecule of added entitlement if he wishes to tell Texas bars and restaurants what their smoking rules should be.

And this:

This is not properly a "health issue," as smoking ban proponents love to say. The health issue is ours to make individually, when we choose which establishments to enter and which to avoid. If it were government's job to compel healthful behavior, we would have diet and exercise police.

The dangers of second-hand smoke, grotesquely exaggerated by those seeking to justify their quest, are also irrelevant. Whatever its perils may be, ambient smoke is instantly avoidable by not going where it exists.

Here's how you know it's going to be a tremendous day:

1. The weather guy actually got it right, placing a 30-mile skating rink between you and a staff meeting.

2. And the business that funds your mortgage has come to this:

As newspapers go digital, their business model erodes. A 2008 research report from Sanford C. Bernstein & Company explained, "The notion that the enormous cost of real news-gathering might be supported by the ad load of display advertising down the side of the page, or by the revenue share from having a Google search box in the corner of the page, or even by a 15-second teaser from Geico prior to a news clip, is idiotic on its face."

By endowing our most valued sources of news we would free them from the strictures of an obsolete business model and offer them a permanent place in society, like that of America's colleges and universities. Endowments would transform newspapers into unshakable fixtures of American life, with greater stability and enhanced independence that would allow them to serve the public good more effectively.

Leaving aside our constant badgering of the state to "adequately fund our hallowed institutions of higher learning," what exactly is the startup cost here?

How large an endowment would a newspaper need? The news-gathering operations at The New York Times cost a little more than $200 million a year. Assuming some additional outlay for overhead, it would require an endowment of approximately $5 billion (assuming a 5 percent annual payout rate). Newspapers with smaller newsrooms would require smaller endowments.

OK, let's guesstimate this newspaper at, oh, $2.5 billion. Line forms under the Rock of Truth sign out front.

If you are a regular reader of our Viewpoints page, our Points section or his own blog, you know there are some strange ideas rolling around in Trey Garrison's head.

Strange doesn't mean wrong, except in those rare cases when he and I disagree.

Happily, his latest real writing-for-pay effort, for D magazine, is not one of those cases. Trey applies his logical thinking skills to the growing number of laws in our city that should fail anyone's logic test.

Trust me, it will warm you like tortilla soup on a cold morning. See what you think.

Rod Dreher, lost in thought, staring at the television, undoubtedly concerned for a stricken U.S. senator:

"You know, Michelle Obama really looks good today ... No, really, that's a great dress ... "

Pause.

"Well, not that I'm any great judge of inaugural dresses."

It's good this blog, and this one, are free. You get what you pay for.

UPDATE: I should have just gone here first. You want high-quality fashion analysis, you gotta know where to look.

Really interesting piece in Newsweek about the lens through which the Obama administration should view "local" problems.

Traditionally, city boundaries mattered the most. Dallas was Dallas. Plano was Plano. North Texas or Dallas-Fort Worth or "the metroplex" were amorphous regional entities that cooperated when convenient but whose parts fought ferociously among themselves for dollars.

Now, Newsweek writes, the big-city-dominated era is over:

Suburbs now provide more jobs than cities. Only about 22 percent of jobs in major metropolitan areas are located within three miles of a traditional downtown; twice as many are more than 10 miles out. Suburbs also host more immigrants: in the largest metropolitan areas, nearly six in 10 foreign-born residents now live in the suburbs. In places like Charlotte, N.C., Minneapolis, Sacramento, Calif., and Washington, the first address of many new Americans is most likely down a suburban lane.

Then there are the downsides. Nationwide, a million more suburbanites are living below the poverty line than city dwellers. Suburban St. Louis County, Mo., has 50 percent more working-poor families than the city of St. Louis itself. The mortgage crisis only adds to the problems. The foreclosure rate in Clayton County, which encompasses many of Atlanta's southern suburbs, is twice as high as that in Atlanta. Homes in neighborhoods close to downtown Chicago, Pittsburgh and Portland, Ore., have held their value, while prices for homes far from those urban cores have plummeted, according to new research by Joe Cortright, an economist at Impresa Consulting.

This struck me as worthwhile reading, especially in light of our southern Dallas project. If solutions are moving toward a suburban focus, how do we shape our argument for a big-city solution, especially when we're targeting, in effect, only half of a big city?