OPINION

This is my long-delayed, but not at all emotional, response to being without power for a couple of days back during the Great Blizzard of 2010. I have a couple of thoughts on things that could be done a little better:

One of the things I truly enjoy about my job is getting to know the judicial candidates. In the primaries, it's especially fun because you get a sense you can really help make a difference when you research these folks and make recommendations. I'm glad to say that in early voting, nine of the 10 judicial candidates we recommended are leading.

Update 8:36 p.m.: This remains true. The only race where our recommended candidate is not winning is in the race that features Dale Tillery, a former State House member with a knack for politics, versus a very capable judge swept out in the Blue Wave of 2006. We recommended that judge, David Kelton.

Kent Brockman of The Simpsons once said: "I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy simply doesn't work." Proof that he may have been right? Justice of the Peace Thomas G. Jones and Dallas County Constables Derick Evans and Jaime Cortes are all leading comfortably.

Too harsh? As our editorial pointed out:

Evans and Cortes face criminal and civil probes into questionable vehicle towing and employment practices, including numerous allegations that current or former deputies encountered threats or retaliation for not writing enough tickets, towing enough cars or campaigning to re-elect their bosses. And despite 18 years in office, Jones continues to draw state sanctions and public complaints for a sloppily run court.

Residents in these southern Dallas precincts deserve better - public servants who will inspire greater confidence. For those reasons, we suggest that voters carefully consider these Democratic primary challengers. (None of these races have Republicans on the ballot.)

From earlier, when I asked for predictions of tomorrow's top headline, I got a lot of Medina boosterism in the comments. But really, seriously, all boosterism aside, I'm curious. What percentage of the vote do you expect Medina to get? I expect 18 percent. I think she'll fall just short of the 20 percent that she hit in some polls.

I'm just curious, Medina supporters, at what percentage will you declare her candidacy a success? Below what benchmark would you consider it a failure?

The Dallas Morning News Editorial Board will be blogging live tonight as results come in. As we put together tomorrow's editorials, we'll also be sharing our analysis in blog posts -- and we'll be reading your comments.

Join us.

And tell us now: What do you predict will be the big headline tomorrow?

Jim Bunning's jobs bill stunt has split the GOP, with moderates blasting his move and siding with the hundreds of thousands of Americans whose benefits will be delayed by this political gesture. What's interesting is that very few examples highlight the split in the GOP. Is it a moderate versus conservative split? Or is it prinsipled versus practical? Or, to turn back te clock, is it conservative versus compassionate conservative?

This libertarian streak running through the party, this notion that we should deny federal funds to make a point, it's the very same thing at play in Texas. Rick Perry is very much on the side of principled leadership. That sounds nice, but principles at the expense of solutions is not good leadership.

Locally, look at the Collin County judge race. You have a cheif executive of the county fighting bond elections for roads, on principle.

Principles are easy. The hard work comes when our shared principles come into conflict with one another. That's where leadership happens. Merely sticking to bromides is not leadership. It's ... Bunningism.

Texas A&M-Commerce head football coach Guy Morris apparently told some of his players to steal copies of the campus newspaper because it contained a story about a football player being caught in a drug bust.

His only defense is that he doesn't really consider it stealing if it's a free newspaper. (It's free for one copy, 25 cents for every copy after that).

Morriss, a former Baylor coach, doesn't seem to realize the terrible lesson this teaches his players. Instead, he told police it was a great team-building exercise.

Such poor judgment should be rewarded with a lengthy job search.

Just got this from a frustrated voter:

For the first time in 47 years I will not be voting. In Texas there no longer seems to be a two party system, especially not in Collin County. There does seem to be two parts of the Republican party, but neither express my views in any way , shape or form. I am in a sense along with many others, being disenfranchised as a voter. I know I could write in people, but that will not accomplish what is needed.

So for another 4 years I will probably be stuck with the same governor, congressman and others that I have voted against before. Yes, I could vote on the republican ticket, but they do not offer the alternative I crave. Plus, I do not want to be solicited by tons of republican advertisements and contribution requests when I do not support their agenda....so I don't want my voter card stamped that way.

Where is the middle of the road party?? Where are the conservative Democrats?? Where are some republicans willing to work for the good of the country instead of their own agenda?? Not on this ballot for sure.

Annabelle Brown, McKinney

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.

Embattled Collin County Judge Keith Self issued an e-mail to supporters in response to allegations from the John Muns campaign. Here's what he said:

"Are these gutter attacks the "Collin County values" that my opponent says that he will bring to the county? No thank you. These are the same attacks that the same consulting firm made against Commissioner Joe Jaynes two years ago. I want to hear from John Muns - are you hidng behind an out-of-control consulting company or are these gutter attacks your values? I want to know."

We talked to Mr. Self on a regular basis during the 2008 campaign, and of all Corbett's supporters and advisors, his strategic direction was by far the most aggressive.

It's not what first-term Self is for that causes concern about his time in office. Rather, it's what he's been against and how he pursues his agenda. Self doesn't shy away from butting heads with people he disagrees with and, at times, seems to go out of his way for a collision. ... With GOP voters choosing between two fiscally conservative Republicans, they should go with Muns, a leader with experience building coalitions.

Which of the following revenue sources has grown the most since Rick Perry became governor?

A. Sales tax, driven by a strong economy.
B. Natural gas production tax revenue, driven by a strong economy and the Barnett Shale discovery.
C. Federal income.

The answer is C, though you'd never know it from listening to the rhetoric from the governor. Rick Perry is trying hard to capture the anti-Washington mood of voters, and he likes to argue that he is turning away federal dollars because, by golly, we Texans are independent and can solve our own problems. Problem is, the numbers just don't support that assertion.

Compare the 2009 revenue for the state of Texas with the 2000 revenue, and you'll see something you might not expect from a state that is led by someone who is sypathetic to secessionists. Federal income has grown 108.53 percent since 2000, more than double the revenue growth of taxes (50 percent). That means the Texas miracle is producing half as much revenue growth as reliance on federal dollars. As a portion of the state's total revenue, taxes actually decreased by 6 percentage points while federal dollars increased by 7 percentage points.

That means Texas relies more on federal dollars and less on its own taxes than it did when Perry took office. Put another way: Texas is less independent than it was when the governor took office, not more.

To be fair, this isn't all his doing. A lot of it is surely due to rising entitlement program costs, esepcially in health care. He cannot control a lot of what comes to the state through federal income, but he sure likes to create the impression that he can -- and that he has. He ignores the federal dollars he has accepted, and he seems proud of denying dollars for Texas teachers and classrooms based on some sort of principle that Washington is bad.

Take a look at the numbers yourself (source: the link above, the Window on State Govenment Web site produced by the state comptroller). You'll see that what Rick Perry says just doesn't add up. ...

For years, I have followed efforts to build a shared arts hall in Collin County. I was disappointed when the McKinney bond election years ago failed at the polls. That left only three cities to participate. Really, the effort never seemed to get on track, though not anyone's fault. It just always seemed that the cities needed a fourth major partner.

Well, they got one last week. The Recession officially became the fourth "owner" of this arts hall, at least Phase 1. It seems that the $19 million, McKinney-shaped hole in the budget has been filled by lower estimates courtesy of a terrible economic downturn. Who'd a thunk it?

That leaves the Arts of Collin County just a few million dollars short of its target to begin building. Arts hall in the midst of a terrible economy, you say? Doesn't that seem wasteful?

No! A thousand times, no. More kids participate in fine arts programs than athletics in Collin County, and building now -- or soon -- will create a legacy that will last through dozens of economic downturns in the future.

Read the whole press release below:

I love that the Golf Writers Association of America is boycotting the Tiger Woods show that is coming up in just a few minutes. I am willing to root for Tiger again. So that's not my issue. But I like that this group is sending him a message that he doesn't get to dictate how his return to the spotlight will go.

The basid issue here is hubris. Tiger thought he could do anything he wanted, and judging from the way this press conference is being handled, that major character trait of his seems completely unchanged. Do I expect him to always be cocky and arrogant, aloof and robotic? Sure. But he can't expect his fans and the press to simply play by his rules anymore. His actions ended the portion of his life where he was given a free pass. The loss of his marriage and a strained relationship with his children for life is his biggest punishment, but this is part of the package, too.

(Thanks for sharing this toon, Steve Hill. Folks, check out his blog.)

In yesterday's meeting, Mike and Colleen made the point that we should not confuse air pollution with Greenhouse gases. Mostly, the regulation of such gases is a climate change thing. I get that. One University of Michigan site describes it this way:

Debra Medina's idea of replacing local property taxes with a higher statewide sales tax is intriguing, and it got me to thinking: What's my favorite tax?

We have favorite colors, favorite movies, favorite bands. But does anyone have a favorite tax? Or do we just hate all taxes? Maybe we just have a least-hated tax. Well, whatever you call it, mine is the motor fuels tax in Texas. Here's why:

Somehow, Debra Medina, the toxic GOP candidate for governor, used her empathy for 9/11 truthers to explain why she thinks there should be a moratorium on executions in Texas.

The twisted logic here is hard to follow, but when you realize what she is saying, it's far more damaging to the cause of a moratorium than it is helpful.

Essentially, she is saying that she believes there are some credible doubts at the government's ability to tell the truth . You know, sometimes government prosecutors get it wrong on issues of justice, hence the need for a moratorium on executions. And sometimes, White House officials who are cozy with Israel and energy companies conspire to blow up the World Trade Center. Um, no ...

Not the same thing.

Not even close.

Read more and comment.

When I first realized that the Democratic debate was addressing death penalty issues, I got excited. Perhaps this is the place where an honest debate and discussion about flaws in the system will finally take place at the governor-level.

Nope. Farouk Shami of Houston blew that prospect out of the water with the bizarre allegation that "lots" of innocent people have been put to death in Texas in the past few years.

Read more and comment.

I admit, when I heard what the Baptists from Idaho did, I thought about nominating them for a Miss, one of our brief editorials on Saturday. They were clearly too hasty and sloppy in their desire to help kids orphaned by Haiti. I don't think they gave enough serious thought to the problem that nation has had with child trafficking.

That said, it's fairly clear that their intentions were good. They should not be made an example because, frankly, no one who traffics in children will be deterred if they are charged. But charges have been brought.

This nation does not have the luxury of being able to make an example of careless do-gooders. It has far greater battles to fight. I know, because like so many other Americans, I was moved to support them in fighting those battles. The $100 million they have gotten from the U.S. government and the more than $60 million raised by one night of celebrity phone work should not enable this country to foolishly shift its attention away from the urgent work that needs to be done to rebuild Haiti.

Were the Idaho Baptists careless? Were they wrong? Yes. But don't compound the problems in Haiti by wasting time pursuing a case against them. Send them home. The lesson has been learned; the message has been delivered and received. Now get back to work digging out of the rubble and making sure that these children won't be vulnerable in their own country.

Interesting question posed by Pam James, a Dallas-based freelance writer, blogger and educator. Her main point:

If Michael Jackson had survived his propofol overdose, would anyone - outside of his children and closest friends - have cared?

I venture to guess a resounding NO. In fact, I suspect the second the media converged upon his rented mansion for the scoop on final details; the world would have likely torn what was left of his darkened reputation asunder - once more. Alas, it took his passing to raise him to a kingly throne again. If he'd survived, this iconic diety-like figure of music magic would have made headlines again, but they'd have read much like former ones post courtroom theatrics. "Michael Jackson Overdoses on Propofol in His Rented Mansion!" "Michael Jackson's Children Witnessed Their Father Near Death from Overdose in his home!" "Can Michael Jackson Care for His Children?" Then there's the upcoming 'comeback' tour. AEG and his money people would have been hard-pressed to finish plans for his tour - at least in time to garnish the financial payola they longed for. Thus later headlines might have read something like this: "Michael Jackson's O2 Comeback Axed - AEG sues to Recover Costs."

OK, so I am skeptical of what an iPad might be able to do that I can't do on my phone and all that, but I have to admit, the iPhone changed phones. It changed them for people like me who didn't even buy an iPhone, people who still live in a Windows world. But this seems likely to force change from all players in the mobile technology world. Not sure I'll buy an iPad, but I am excited about the new wave of innovation and competition this will bring. I can't wait ...

All I can say to this blogger is amen. I agree that victims of crimes should not be tormented by anonymous commenters.

It's one thing when commenters attack me personally because they don't like my opinions. I get that. People like to think of the most horrible thing they can say in a debate to someone, and then they say it. (Check out our troll who occassionally posts my home address and accuses me of being in a conspiracy to cover up rape). Restraint, dignity and human empathy mean nothing to some people, and I realize that. That's why when a commenter from this blog last month wrote to me and told me that he hoped my "fat ass" would be dead soon like my recently deceased father, I took it with a grain of salt and contacted the man and demanded (and eventually got) an apology.

But to attack someone who did not seek the spotlight, who is only in the news because she is a victim of crime. Sometimes I wonder ...

OK, here we go ... bring it on. Tell me how you hope I lose my job because you disagree with me or that you hope I die or whatever ... Don't people realize that comments on blogs, even when anonymous, say so much more about the commenter than the target? I suppose they do. That's why so many hide their identity. ...

I find is amusing (in a sad sort of way) that the general consensus seems to be that Obama has somehow failed to get his message out on economic policy.

Turn back the clock and remember what we knew about him as a candidate. I, for one, liked that he was inspirational and articulate. That he seemed to have a knack for building a grassroots netowkr around a central goal. I worried, though, that he was too liberal on economic policy, especially taxes relating to businesses and spending.

And here we are. Unemployment shows no signs of improving, and spending is astronomical. And the problem is ... the message? Really?

If that's true, then the thing Obama was best at is suddenly something he's bad at? And in the meantime, he does not show any signs of growth in his abilities on any other front. I think the left ought to be very careful in putting this out as their defense of the administration. If the problem is message, and this president is already perceived by so many as long on message short on substance, the they are admitting there's no way out.

Because say what you will about Obama -- well, within reason and without using the words "birth certificate" or "socialism", I mean, we are trying to stay on this side of the rainbow -- he is a great speaker, a great messenger.

Look back in the archives of this blog and you'll hear me saying the same thing about Bush in Iraq. There was a time when the Bush administration argued that the only real problem there was that the media was not focusing on the good news in Iraq. Truth was, though, that a major shift in policy was needed. It was not that the message was not getting out. Not for Bush then. Not for Obama now.

Something the Obama administration is doing is not working. And it has nothing to do with getting its message out.

This message just went out to Organizing for America supporters from David Plouffe:

We've hit some serious bumps in the road recently in our march toward change. We always knew it would be difficult, but this past week has definitely been a hard one, for all of us.

But this movement didn't come so far without making it through some challenging times. It's at moments like these when we need you most. People are hurting. Our country is at a crossroads, and in communities like yours all across America we must all fight for the progress our families and businesses need to thrive.

The President's resolve has never been stronger to keep fighting for health insurance reform, for lasting job creation, and to rein in the big banks and fight the undue influence of lobbyists. Wednesday's speech will be a pivotal moment for us all to get on the same page and continue the fight together.

Jon Stewart attacked Keith Olbermann's attack of me for attacking his attack on Scott Brown.

I think Jon Stewart deserves the last word, and apparently, the last word is ... "poopyhead."

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Keith Olbermann attacked me for attacking him for attacking Scott Brown. He says I have infinite space to explain what lie I am referring to. The link I had made it clear. He was lying about Scott Brown reacting to a vulgar comment at one of his rallies. He shared the response of the campaign, but asserted that Brown responded to the comment. There's no evidence to back that up. And now he continues to assert that Scott Brown participates in a vulgar sexual act himself. Olbermann is quite aware of the vulgar definiton of the phrase "tea bagging" and he uses it repeatedly. Saying something you know is untrue (the tea "bag" references) and saying something without any proof is dishonest. Plus, it's just name-calling. Aren't we better than that?

And finally, he characterizes me as a far right-winger. Regular readers of this blog certainly got a chuckle out of that. (I spent part of my day, by the way, defending our recent criticism of Rush!)

So, while I think it's dandy for Keith to go on at some length on Scott Brown on these other issues, and who knows, maybe all of that's true, it seems clear to me that he is not telling the truth about the reaction to the vulgar comment at the rally, and that was my point, that was the link I cited in the post, and that was the lie I identified.

Besides, that point was made in passing. Pundits lie by ommission and assertion every day. The bigger question is why MSNBC let a political pundit anchor a live news event. Olbermann did not address that in tonight's rant.

Word is that Conan O'Brien will be paid something like $30 million to walk away from NBC. That's the price for the second-worst mistake that the company is paying for this month. The biggest mistake, made years ago but payable now, is that the network will lose about $200 million on its Olympics coverage.

With such big dollar figures floating around, one guy is trying to draw attention to the little guy, the 200 or so people who will be out of work after Conan is jettisoned from "The Tonight Show." Yes, champion of the people, Conan. Now, NBC executives have called him names and have said his negotiation stance demanding greater severance deals for his staffers are just a PR ploy. But shouldn't a company built on PR understand the value of such a move?

Conan has inspired the masses. Ever since his first statement last week, his ratings have climbed, people have taken to the streets in support of him, and he's even been funnier. His nightly attacks on NBC are funny and unprecedented. If it weren't such a bad PR move, I think NBC would just cancel the rest of his shows starting tonight.

But, alas, NBC created this monster PR nightmare, and it just has to sit back and take a few more days of it. Now, that's what I call Must-See TV.

A lot of Tea Partiers are claiming victory today in the Scott Brown race. He sorta denied awareness of the group in an interview, although that's not an entirely accurate representation of the facts. I think from the interview in question he was simply denying that the Tea Party movement is "trying to take over the country," as the interviewer suggested.

But no matter, his links to the Tea Party movment don't change the fact that he ran a "big tent campaign" -- his words. That, more than the damage to the Democratic Party, is what Republicans should notice.

"Big tent" centrist leadership is what the GOP needs right now. The immediate effect of his election will be to obstruct the health care bill -- which is, at this point, a good thing -- but the long-term effect, I hope, will be that more people in the middle from both parties will work together to get things done. I would like to see the health care bill stripped of the special favors and backroom deals, for example, and then restructured in a more simple measure that actually cuts costs in a measurable way. I think Brown's election is one step toward making that happen. That's what Scott Brown says he plans to do. If that's what the Tea Party wants, too, then fine, call it a victory.

Of the big three cable news networks, only one really carried Scott Brown's speech live: Fox News Channel. CNN was preoccupied with Anderson Cooper in Haiti. Apparently the 24-hour news cycle just doesn't have enough space for a 10-minute speech by someone who just turned the tide of, not only the U.S. Senate and the health care debate, but possibly of national politics.

Clarification: CNN did show the first seven minutes of the speech. The speech lasted 24 minutes.

Meanwhile, MSNBC did something far worse. It allowed its main extremist pundit, its answer to Glen Beck, to lead its live news coverage. When Scott Brown made a comment in his speech about how the networks may not even be covering him, I switched over to see Keith Olbermann ranting in a split screen, audio on Olbermann, of course. From what I see today on YouTube, he smeared Brown all night, sorta correcting the record in one rant, dismissing the responses to lies he had told earlier and comin gback with more name-calling.

Update: Keith Olbermann has responded by attacking me ...

Say what you will about Fox News, but I don't think they would let Glen Beck anchor a live news event.

Perhaps you saw this comment posted on a few Monday blog posts:

Medina all the way!!! She will speak the truth about 9/11. Namely, that Bush knew and that it was step one to boosting his bank account and his buddies' war machine economy. Neither Perry nor Hutchison will speak this truth. Only Medina. It is also time to legalize marijuana now. Release all the drug possessors from prison. Only Medina is willing to admit this plan is the only way to balance the budget. Shut down our borders. Let nobody in, nobody out. Do NOT let any foreign goods on our soil. Root out the trilateral commission from the highest ranks of government and send them all to prison.

Dec. 19: Perry has done a great job for veterans. Probably the most pro-veteran governor we have had in the modern era. Perry also IS a veteran, having served for more than half a dozen years.
Dec. 4: Rick Perry is awesome. Texas is the best state in America! WOOT!
Nov. 22: KBH is a liberal RINO. Perry needs to point that out early and often.
Nov. 8: Rick Perry is doing a heck of a job standing up to the liberals and keeping Texas the most prosperous state in the nation.

• Publish falsehoods or misrepresentations that could damage us or any third party


• Misrepresent yourself or your affiliation with any person or entity

I think this video is interesting, but even more so, one of the comments on it caught my eye. Someone said they wish they had been born 100 years from now. This video sure makes it seem like we're just moving so darn fast, but I think now's a very good time to be alive. I'm enjoying Outliers right now, the book by Malcolm Gladwell, and so much is written about how success is a trick of good timing. Not entirely, mind you, but it's a major factor. The book makes you think: So what are we seeing in our own time that we can seize upon? Good lord, the posibilities are endless ...

I have always liked Conan O'Brien. I think he's goofy and funny in a way that doesn't appeal to everyone, and I respect the fact that he's never tried to change who he is just to earn wider appeal.

But my respect for him has grown exponentially today. NBC put him and Jay Leno in a pit and told them to fight it out. Neither deserved that. It's a gutless way to make a decision.



But Conan has done the right thing for the right reasons. If you read nothing else today, read his statement, addressed to "People of Earth." It's a lesson in class, dignity and self-respect. Class, because he's putting The Tonight Show above himself and biting the bullet, making the decision NBC isn't classy enough to make. Dignified, because he doesn't take any cheap shots at Leno or NBC, and he makes it clear that his only goal is to do work valued by his company. Plus, he puts all of this in context, recognizing that he has been "absurdly blessed." And, finally, he shows some self-respect by politely but firmly pointing out that, despite his passing on other possible deals in the past, he was never given a chance to succeed.

This is about more than entertainment or NBC's history at dealing with its late-night franchise. This is a lesson in how companies deal with people and how people react in the 21st century. It speaks very poorly of the state of corporate America, but my hope is that Conan speaks for many of us in his handling of his bosses' spineless decision-making.

Hats off to the Texas GOP for its call to action involving Harry Reid's visit to Irving this week. The Texas party, at least, seems to have kept things in perspective, realizing that the health care battle is far more important to people than the year-old insensitive comments Reid uttered about Barack Obama.

I can only hope that our sensible editorial from today played even a small role in their decision of how to deal with Harry Reid's Texas visit.

I applaud Mark McGwire's statement today about his past steroid abuse. I find it one of the saddest chapters in baseball history. I literally cried when McGwire broke that record, and I feel personally cheated. And yet, baseball still doesn't get it. Bud Selig's statement today is an embarrassment. He says, in part:

"The use of steroids and amphetamines amongst today's players has greatly subsided and is virtually non-existent as our testing results have shown. The so-called "steroid era" - a reference that is resented by the many players who played in that era and never touched the substances - is clearly a thing of the past, and Mark's admission today is another step in the right direction."

I admit to focusing more on the practical and obvious news events around me, so it's no wonder I missed this development last year. The American Law Institute essentially backed off suport of the death penalty. It's not opposed, mind you, but it has removed the death penalty from its Model Code.

If you're like me, your first question is, "Huh?" Well, this is a major legal work that forms the intellectual basis for the teaching and understanding of law in the United States. The work to include the death penalty in the Model Code in 1962 served as the underpinnings for the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976. Essentially, the best legal minds in our nation got together and said, this is how the death penalty can be carried out fairly.

Read more and comment.

This guy pulled a stunt to get on TV, lying to authorities. He has admitted as much in court. Now, armed with fresh lies about threats to deport his wife, he gets his big wish to ... get on TV. Shame on CNN and Larry King for allowing this stuntman any time in the spotlight. He's been on NBC, too.

Does anyone really believe that the Larimer County Sheriff threatened to deport this man's wife if he didn't plead guilty? Why are "journalists" at CNN and NBC allowing him to say such things without getting a response from the authorities?

Next ...

Today's news that Rick Perry has a green light to pardon Tim Cole was greeted by the governer with nothing short of eagerness:

Perry said the opinion "finally gives his family the opportunity to officially clear his name.
"I hope the Board of Pardons and Paroles will act swiftly in sending a recommendation to my desk so that justice can finally be served," the governor said.

The good news about historically low murder statistics in Dallas (and all over, really) will prompt some folks to think that means our busy death chamber in Hunstville should get some share of the credit.

Not so, say scientists who study this sort of thing. But before I get into that, just think about what it might mean if the death penalty did deter some murders. In Dallas, that would be especially alarming, given what we know about the death penalty. We know that if your victim is white, you are far more likely to face execution than if your victim is black. (Four times more likely, actually.) But in Dallas, by far, most victims of murder are black (47 percent). So if we actually believe that the death penalty is what is keeping people from killing white people (the victims whose deaths are most commonly avenged by executions) then shame on us. How dare we provide that level of protection only for one race.

Fortunately, there's no science to back up the notion that executions deter any violence among any race.

Read more and comment.

Has anyone checked to see if Pete Sessions has written to Texas Tech coach Mike Leach? You know, just to let him know that Pete believes in him and loves him?

Today would have been my father's 68th birthday, but he died in November. I've been on the receiving end of so many condolences, that I have forgotten to offer my own heartfelt condolences to a certain group of people who muct have been particularly stunned and saddened by his sudden death. So, to Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Merck and Bristol-Myers Squibb -- I am truly sorry for your loss.

For years, I marveled at the number, variety and variation of drugs my dad took. It's amazing, I figured, how far we have come in the treatment of high blood pressure and stuff. Certainly, I told myself, without these drugs, my dad had no chance to outlive his own father.

Well, no such luck. He died of the same thing at the same age as his own dad.

To be sure, there are things my dad could have done to lower his dependence on these drugs. But as I am already finding out in my 30s, doctors make it seem like the sensible thing to do is simply pop another pill. If that pill causes a problem, no worries, there's a pill for that, too.

So as I think about the impact the loss of my dad might have on Big Pharma, I want to do something for those companies to help. I want to wean myself off my own prescriptions so that they don't lose another chunk of business all at once like that again. It's the least I can do.

Instead of focusing on what might stop terrorists from getting on planes, the fish-tailing TSA has announced all sorts of silly rules since the Christmas Day Detroit scare. For the last hour on an international flight, no bathroom breaks, nothing on your lap, and no personal items from your carry-ons.

It seems to me that these rules simply give more passengers more of a chance to respond to something fishy. They do nothing to deter a terrorist. These rules -- and the confusion surrounding them, since the TSA has been slow to confirm them -- bother me more than the original security breach. Why? Because they show that officials have no clue how to respond.

I am fine with increased pat-downs, more screening at the gate, etc. But arbitrary rules for the last hour of a flight? Really? The 9/11 attacks happened in the first hour of those flights. On domestic trips. Why didn't we ban getting up from our seats during the first hour of flights? Oh, I remember, because we already had laws against using box-cutters to take over planes and fly them into buildings, but for some reason terrorists (14 of whom were on no-fly lists) didn't obey those rules, either.

A creative take on the classic, via the Free-Lance Star editorial page (in Virginia). I don't agree with all of the sentiments offered here, but I applaud the originality ... and the concerns about cost and the deficit!

This was the decade when we saw steroids tarnish sports unlike ever before, especially the cycling and baseball worlds. Fortunately, we also saw the rise of the Taylor Hooton Foundation.

Here's part of the end-of-the-year note sent to supporters by Don Hooton:

2009 has been a good year for the foundation. Like all other non-profit organizations, we have had our financial challenges this year. But, we are blessed to enjoy the continued support of Major League Baseball. Without their support, our very existance would not be possible. Commissioner Selig has taken a personal interest in our messaging and continues to recognize the importance of delivering a strong message to the children of this country - that the use of Appearance and Performance Enhancing Drugs is dangerous and not to be tolerated.

We are also proud of our continuing close working relationship with Dick and Matt Butkus and their "I Play Clean" campaign. The entire Team Butkus group has worked tirelessly to speak out on this important subject through all of the various media that Dick is exposed to.

Tired of all the Best of ... lists? I have a couple of worst of's to float out there. I need your help though on movies. What was the worst movie of the year? I didn't hate anything that I saw this year. Ditto on music. I loved the new U2, but I didn't hate anything. Still, I can offer my suggestions for these:

Worst TV show: If we're not going count Glen Beck in this category, I have to go with the Jay Leno Show, not just because it's bland and dopey, but because of what it's doing to NBC. That network only had two of the Top 20 most DVR'd shows of the year. Fox, which also only has two real hours of prime time, had four. That means no buzz. That means no creativity. No culture. And for local Channel 5, no hope of winning a ratings war anytime soon. (OK, so that's a good thing.) This is such a terrible idea I just can't help but think that this time next year we will not see the Jay Leno Show five nights a week.

Worst book: Not even close -- The Lost Symbol. What a stinker. Spoiler alert: I was so angry when I got to the part where the giant national security threat was revealed to be the possibility of a You Tube video showing important men doing silly rituals at Mason get-togethers. Seriously? This is the same writer who tortured and killed cardinals and nuns in his previous books. Ooooh, a video might embarass some people? Even worse was the repetitive mind-numingly dull and predictable navel-gazing tripe Dan Brown tried to pass off as scholarly thought. I haven't been angry at a book in a long time, but this one really irritated me.

A Washington, D.C., off-duty detective came upon a flash mob of people throwing snowballs at each other and at vehicles in a busy intersection. So what does the reasonable detective do? He stops his Hummer in the middle of traffic, gets out and pulls his gun, then starts shoving people and yelling at them.

The big bad snowballs must have frightened the poor helpless little cop in his HUMMER!! You know, throughout time, Hummers have beaten snowballs in every fight they've ever had, even when an armed man was not on the side of the Hummer.

Kudos to the crowd, which chanted: "Don't bring a gun to a snowball fight!" A great example of how a mob can be the voice of reason against authority!

Maybe we need some hot chocolate diplomacy? Nah, in this case, it really is just a cop acting stupidly:

I loved Rod's column on Sunday, and it got me and my wife to talking about Extreme Home Makeover. Rod wrote all about the charm and sensibility of older homes. And my wife and I bought a home in East Dallas about the same time as the Drehers, though our home is only half as old and far less charming.

But my wife and I used to love Extreme Home Makeover. Touching stories. Jaw-dropping transformations of homes. What was not to like?

But we're off that bandwagon. It's so scripted now that it just seems silly. But worse, it seems to treat houses as disposable, and I'm tired of that mind-set. Why bother updating your old house when you can just ditch it -- or rent it out -- and head for the suburbs? Our society values new and spacious over old and charming.

I know, I know. The schools. I realize the schools are a major reason people flock to the suburbs. In fact, there are dozens of other reasons that make the suburbs so appealing. But I do agree with Rod that we should have a greater appreciation for the simpler housing styles of the past.

OK, I hate those random, disjointed blog posts that people put together sometimes. One blog one topic, I say. Well, allow me to break that rule. Here are three things that are making me smile today.

1. The mayors of Frisco and McKinney are "competing" to raise money for the Salvation Army. What's cool, too, is that they are using their respective "social networks" to do it. I remember just a few short years ago marveling that a city council member had an e-mail newsletter in Frisco. We've come a long way, and I think we're all better for it. Especially when they tap into those networks for a good cause.
2. On our new Hot Topics feature on our Web site, for two days now, one of the topics has been "Palin Tomato Ban." I don't even need to read that story. That just sorta says it all.
3. I still say people can keep their $.99 per song iTunes libraries. I'm listening to nonstop Christmas music -- each song hand-picked by me -- on Rhapsody for a small monthly fee without having to buy any new music. That's such a good model. I wonder if newspapers could follow it somehow ...

Colt McCoy made our list of Texan of the Year finalists. In fact, I was one of the people who felt most strongly about putting him on the list. And here's an even bigger confession to my Aggie brethren: I wrote the editorial.

I feel like I should have to push (do 97 push-ups, since 1997 was the year I graduated) or make some other amends to my Aggie Nation.

This is what we, on the edtorial board, call "wearing your board hat." It's not that I don't agree with what I wrote, just that I wrote it in our official board voice.

Still, I have to admit, in doing my research for this, I truly respect McCoy. He's got so many traits that most Aggies admire, including a commitment to community service, a strong faith, a sense of purpose and, of course, incredible talent. I celebrate him as a Texan, even if I rooted against him as a Longhorn.

I find today's news story about crime stats troubling, not just because of the new examples it provides of deviations from FBI crime reporting methods by the DPD, but also because of the police chief's previous explanation on a similar story about burglaries.

Kunkle visited with the editorial board shortly after that last story and had three pretty convincing responses to that story. He said:
1. There was no recent change in reporting burglaries/criminal trespass cases.
2. Other departments did it more or less the same way.
3. The FBI itself allowed for a little wiggle room on these definitions.

But today's story on the assualt/aggravated assault question makes three points:
1. The change can be traced directly to the chief in December 2006.
2. 12 of 14 departments we checked with do NOT do it the way Dallas does it.
3. The FBI itself said Dallas seems to be under-reporting aggravated assaults.

Look, I agree with Chief Kunkle that comparing cities using FBI stats is pretty shaky analysis. I also think it's unquestionably true that Kunkle's leadership and direct actions he has taken have made Dallas a safer place. Even this story, if it points to a widespread problem, suggests that aggravated assaults are down 19 percent instead of 32 percent for 2008.

But I absolutely hate the idea of smoothing over the rough edges of crime reports. I find myself not only unpersuaded by the city hall memo on this issue, I find this kind of double-speak to be harmful to the public trust.

Did the city do this just to make its stats look better? I don't believe so. But this attention to image over substane needs to stop. Now. The mission of a police department is to protect and serve, not to make people feel like they are protected and served.

Folks, please enjoy this follow-up to a letter we ran last week:

I wrote last week about how a Collin County Professor, Mr. Michael Rose, was always smiling, bright and kind. His behavior helped me through my "malignant tumor scare."

This weekend past, I took my young children to Collin Creek Mall to see Santa Claus. Because we have had a rough year and really do not have any money whatsoever; I was content with just having them sit on his lap. However, a nice woman said, "Can I pay for a picture of your children and Santa for you? It would be my pleasure." I was so overcome with gratitude and the spirit of Christmas giving to a stranger, I hugged her and literally could NOT stop crying.

My children and I walked over into the Disney store across the way, me still crying in tears of extreme joy, and another lady gave us $20 and said, "Please, in Jesus' name, buy the children some toys." I could not stop crying. I did not go there for handouts; I went there to share Santa with my kids in hoping it would not be my last with them.

The generosity does not end there.

Another lady, "Judy," took us and bought us sodas and helped calm me down. She was a blessing in herself. I kept holding onto the $20 the other woman gave me, and after we were finished with our drinks, we proceeded into the Disney Store once more.

The manager came by and asked if she could help me. I really do not remember much after that but that she and her staff wanted to gift my children with toys and pajamas of their choice from the store.

We are sooooo overwhelmed with joy and great memories I hope to hold in my heart and my children's heart despite this malignant tumor scare.

THANK YOU Collin County Citizens and Disney Store -- my family is truly, truly grateful!

Catherine Casterline, Anna

The recent news of a lawyer who may have tricked an exonerated man into signing away a good chunk of his compensation is making some people question the motives behind attorneys who work to exonerate people. Please understand, this civil lawyer was not part of the famed Innocence Project or Texas Defender Service, both of which often pursue cases of wrongful conviction in an admirable fashion.

But when the Legislature did the right thing and approved greater compensation for exonerated inmates, it may well have increased or created a profit motive for lawyers. Here's my question: Is that such a bad thing?

Clearly, there should be limits on how much a lawyer can take from an award. They should not be allowed to prey on the desperate. But something else may happen here. Lawyers who see cracks in the system of justice of Texas might be more willing to take on cases of actual innocence. Sure, money may help motivate them, but let's not be naive here. Money motivates lawyers to take good cases all the time. If lawyers can't make money on a case, they often pass. Not always. But often. That's the way the world works.

And besides, even those who pursue these cases for nonprofits are accused of having an anti-death penalty agenda. So you can't win the motive guessing game anyway.

So why does this matter? Because a study recently showed that when a capital punishment defendant hires his own attorney, he is far more likely to avoid death row. Money matters in the courthouse. We simply cannot deny that.

So let's be careful cracking down on lawyers who work with people accused of capital crimes. The profit motive may well play its own role in exonerating the innocent.

I don't know what to think of new videos from the Texas Observer showing Bobby Wayne Woods describe where he lived, books and writing, and jobs he held. He seems to understand that if they can prove he is mentally retarded, the governor might spare his life. He is to be executed tomorrow.



He says he and his cousin took the two children of his ex-girlfriend, and the son accidentally hit a fence post, which made him panic. The boy was left for dead. The girl was raped and murdered. Woods blamed his cousin, who took a coward's way out via suicide days later.

All we have is a very dim-witted Woods to tell the story. Oh, and speaking of dim-witted, his attorney, who visited him once in 10 years, presented canned appeals and never came close to making the case that Woods was retarded. Even though the Court of Criminal Appeals halted Woods' execution last year and gave an attorney/professor from UT another shot, the bar was set much higher since it was a second appeal. It failed, but not for lack of hard work on the part of Maurie Levin and the UT Law students who helped. Read more from Death Penalty News.

IQ tests put his IQ around 70, the line for mental retardation recognized by the courts. Technically, the parole board and Perry don't have to use the same standard, but in such a grey area, and given such poor representation, it seems like the right thing to do in this case to spare this prisoner.

I know the politcal pundits are ready to score tonight's big speech, but I think whatever the president says needs to make sense to the families of those who have died there.

I took that list and made a wordle:



People always do Wordles of Obama's speeches.I'll be curious to compare one to this. How directly will he talk to the people who have the most at stake there?

NFL Commissioner Rodger Goodell announced that teams will be required to work with independent neurologists on concussions. Only when those independent doctors say it's OK will injured players return to practice.

That's a bold move, but some critics are not satisfied yet. The bigger problem here is that we like watching football players land on their heads on Sundays more than it bothers us to see them unable to tie their own shoes later in life.

It truly worries me what lies ahead for someone like Troy Aikman. Truth is, we don't know yet what impact his multiple consussions will have on his long-term health. We hope it won't have any, of course.

But we have to do more than hope. The NFL policy to use outside doctors instead of team staff makes sense, but it has to follow that policy up. First of all, those doctors should be paid directly by the NFL. Second, they should have little or no contact with the team they work with; they should share their opinions only with NFL staff. Finally, though, these doctors should work with the NFL to create uniform policies on how long someone should sit out. Otherwise, teams will start to seek out those doctors who tend to say what they want to hear.

I love football. I love the NFL. But that's why it's vital that the league get this issue under control.

The news that a huge new retail complex is beginning to sprout at Skillman and Northwest Highway really is good news for families that don't want to move to the prairie hinterlands to enjoy suburban bliss.

I count myself in that number. I live not terribly far from the intersection, a neighborhood once on the cutting edge of suburban sprawl -- back in the 1950s. It's an area that has already seen a Kohls and an Applebee's take root. These are the kinds of exciting developments I've seen over the years in far-flung exurbs. Mansfield. Little Elm. Prosper. Murphy. Wylie. Even, not so long ago, Frisco and McKinney. These towns got excited about this very kind of thing. We're talking Walmart, Sam's Club and JCPenney.

But this sort of thing is unusual inside the loop. Or even inside the loop outside the loop. Or even inside the State Highway 121 loop, for that matter. A quick Google map shows you that Walmarts are suburban creatures (see my map above). But our news story notes how this is a unique development in a number of ways (my map below shows the two developments mentioned in the story):

The shopping center will be the largest retail project started in North Texas this year. Most other developments have been put on hold because of economic and credit problems.

But there has been a flurry of recent retail expansions in the area around the new Crow center.

The site is east of the NorthPark Center shopping mall, which was almost doubled in size in 2006. And developers are completing the nearby Park Lane retail and mixed-use complex on North Central Expressway.

This is definitely a change for Walmart. Not just two years ago, I was talking to some Walmart officials in Little Rock at our National Conference of Editorial Writers convention. The guy in charge of store planning was telling me about two-story stores they had built in Europe, where the footprint had to be smaller and the stores a little more pedestrian-friendly within surrounding communities. Just no such demands in the U.S., he told me.

But that's exactly what they plan to build at Skillman and Northwest Highway, it sounds like. Folks from the nearby apartments (of hopefully, the apartments that will replace those apartments) will walk to this retail zone.

Quick -- name a Democrat running for Texas Attorney General. Bet you can't. Which brings me to this ...

The Star-Telegram reported yesterday that Barbara Ann Radnofsky, a candidate for said office, questions whether Texas accidentally banned ALL marriages in 2005 when voters approved a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

Google Barbara Ann Radnofsky and see what happens ... POOF! Just like that, you can now name someone running for Texas Attorney General.

Some very witty folks are having a lot of fun with this question, but here's what it comes down to. She says this phrase means that the state cannot "create or recognize" marriage:

"This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

But this is a very simple logic issue. If something is similar to marriage, is it marriage? No. If something is identical to marriage, is it marriage? No. It is identical to marriage, but it is not marriage itself. Just using the word "identical" implies that it is not actually marriage. That's actually the point of the sentence. For example, civil unions might be identical to marriage in a legal sense, but they are not marriage. This was the specific intention of lawmakers when they inserted this language. It's pretty clear.

Another example: I have a briefcase that has a million dollars inside. You can have that briefcase or an identical briefcase that's empty. Which do you want? The briefcases are identical.

The phrase in question addresses things that are NOT marriage. The phrase that addresses marriage itself says, "marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman." In other words, marriage has value contained within it, but nothing identical to marriage has any value under the law. It's an empty briefcase.

Look, I disagree with this amendment. I think it will be overturned some day by federal courts because I don't think marriage, as defined by a government, can discriminate along gender lines, but this phrase does not say that Texas cannot recognize marriage.

So what have we learned? That a smart, creative, media-savvy lawyer is challenging Greg Abbott for the job of attorney general next year.

There has been a lot of coverage about the Bonfire collapse that happened 10 years ago today. I was very proud to work with some of the students at The Battalion as they worked to tell the story. These are students who were in junior high school when the stack fell, and discovering the story and telling it took its toll on some of them. When I was in College Station a few weeks ago to do one-on-one editing sessions with some of the writers, a copy editor suddenly got up and walked out of the room. She returned, sniffling. "Read another Bonfire story?" someone asked. She nodded, and awkward smiles broke out.

They knew they were doing good work that packed an emotional punch. I may be biased, but I think they did a great job. Two stories are worth your time today. Take a few minutes to see the story told by Aggies about the collapse:

In the most pointless use of new technology in decades, NASA has assembled a team of Twits who will use Twitter to Tweet about the live launch of the Space Shuttle Atlantis today.

Forget for a moment that a space shuttle launch is a mostly visual affair. What value does Twitter bring to this experience? Are we getting a little out of control with the Twitter?

For those wondering what a launch will "look" like on Twitter, here's my best guess:

SapceCdet2039: Good one, RocketMan!
seconds ago from web

RocketMan908623: Smoke monster from Lost, eat your heart out!!!!!
half a minute ago from web

Astro-NOT826756: To sign a petition against unnecessary emissions into our environment click here!
half a minute ago from web

SapceCdet2039: True dat, StarShine!
half a minute ago from web

StarShine8377: "We have liftoff" Duh!!
a minute ago from web

SpaceBoyeee222: Wow! There it goes!!!!
a minute ago from web

SiFiGeek: Man, look at that!!!
a minute ago from web

SpaceCdet2039: Whoa!
two minutes ago from web

A case out of Georgia is making folks wonder if a teacher can or should be fired for inappropriate Facebook photos that could be accessed by students and parents. But the real issue in the case is about whether the woman knew she was only being suspended for 10 days before she resigned. It has less to do with Facebook than with this language arts teacher not getting a clear understanding of the discipline she was facing before storming out of her job. Not a brilliant move.

She was on CNN today saying she "lost her job" for holding alcohol in her hands in pictures. She seems to be enjoying her 15 minutes. And of course, RIck Sanchez didn't ask a single germane question. No mention of the use of profanity on her profile.

Here are the real questions that should be asked:

• Is the Facebook profile public? Can it be accessed by students and parents? If so ... move to the next question.


• Is the material on there inappropriate for the age taught? Would you show the photo in class? If not, it probably shouldn't be on a profile page accessible by parents or students.

From our balcony, we have a great view of the start of the parade. I've come inside to get some work done about halfway through, but my general thoughts:

My favorite band/ROTC/dance team was South Oak Cliff. They had the whole package, and they were disciplined. The dancers were tasteful. The drums were outstanding.

Another favorite: Sunset. They were more spread out, but again, they had it all: Flags, good band, JROTC and spirited cheerleaders.

Huge disappointment: A high school (should I name which one?) practicing in front of our building. The dancers were outrageously inappropriate for the tone of the day. They would make professional pole dancers blush. A constant barrage of pelvic thrusting is not dancing, and it is certainly no way to honor veterans.

A special hats off to Hillcrest for their song choice: The Aggie War Hymn. Whoop!

Not surprisignly, pro-death penalty activist Dudley Sharp has taken aim at our editorial today:

The Dallas Morning News (DMN) writes: " What counts most is the truth, no matter what the ultimate verdict.".

We can all hope.

The DMN, until recently, has been extremely biased in this case. This anti death penalty media bias, by many in the media, has been, overwhelming, throughout the US, over the past two months in the Willingham case, just as it has, over the last two decades, with most death penalty issues.

The truth has suffered, greatly.

Read more, including my response, and comment.

TIme magaizine this morning has it right. Winning the Nobel Peace Prize may hurt Barack Obama.

The Nobel Prize web site is not responding to hits anymore. Has it crashed because so many people are going there in search of the answer to the same, collective, worldwide question: "Huh?"

As Time reports, the answer is that Obama has been awarded for "Effort."

The five-member Nobel Committee in Norway said Obama was awarded the Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples" and highlighted Obama's efforts to strengthen international bodies and promote nuclear disarmament. "Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," the Committee said in announcing the prize. "His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population."

1. It will rally his harshest critics.


2. It highlights how little he has accomplished.

Rick Perry is losing the message battle on the Willingham case. In elections, it's vital that you control the message. Control what people are saying about you. You define the issues.

With that in mind, I might suggest that Rick Perry's move last week to scuttle the search for truth in the Willingham case was more than just a desperate attempt to avoid an awkward conversation. It may have been a rare political blunder on his part.

Let's take a stroll down Rick Perry's press clipping of late:

• He's been accused of breaking federal law by allowing the state to execute an innocent man.


• He's seen his weak excuse dismissed as transparent by the two largest newspapers in the state, us and the Houston Chronicle.


• And don't forget criticism from the San Antonio Express-News (The explanation from the governor's office that the commissioners' terms expired on Sept. 1 doesn't hold water.) and others, detailed nicely by Steve Hall on the StandDown Texas blog.


• And then there are the national media. No one is buying Perry's story, not USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, the Atlantic, the New York Times, the New Yorker, CNN etc ...

• Texas Gov.'s Move Putting Death Penalty Case Back in Spotlight (Wall Street Journal)


• Forensic panel members urged Perry against shakeup (Austin American Statesman)


• Texas execution probe: Perry ignored advice on forensics chair (MiamiHerald.com)


• Smoke screen: Panel's shake-up plays politics with justice (Houston Chronicle)


• Rick Perry Covers His Collusion In Faulty Execution (The Atlantic)


• Rick Perry May have Violated Federal Law in Willingham Execution (Burnt Orange Report)


• The Cowardice of Rick Perry (Atlantic Online)

• Forensics commission urged Perry to keep chairman Houston Chronicle


• Rick Perry acted against the advice of members of a science panel investigating whether Texas executed an innocent man when he decided to replace their ...


• In '07, Perry took 78 days to reappoint forensic panelists Austin American-Statesman


• Texas execution probe: Perry ignored advice on forensics chair MiamiHerald.com


• Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Dallas Cowboys, Texas Forensic Commission Fort Worth Star Telegram

The most perplexing thing about RIck Perry's decision to block the search for the truth in the WIllingham case is that the report is very much public. It's included on this blog and in numerous other places. Indeed, the author of the report, Craig Beyler, says he is confused about why Perry pulled this stunt. After all, he was just going to go and answer questions about his already public report.

But the Corsicana paper is the only place you'll find the city's response to some of the charges in the damning report. The city raises some interesting questions. I'd like to hear the answers to those questions. Instead, what we are getting, is an echo chamber of criticism.

Read more and comment.

Full disclosure: I think the state's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. I think a court with appropriate authority will someday recognize it as such. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution says that two people cannot enter into a legally binding marriage contract because of some perceived moral reason held by the majority of the population.

That said, I cannot fathom how a family court judge in Dallas County has the authority to declare the voter-approved ban unconstitutional.

On Wednesday night, Clarence Thomas spoke at SMU as part of the school's amazing Tate Lecture Series. He talked about his well-known strict constructionist views of the Constitution, but said something that truly fits this situation. He said if he were a state judge or a lower-court judge, he would have followed Plessy v. Ferguson (seprate but equal) because that was the law on the books at the time. Only the highest appeals courts have the responsibility and authority to explore the bigger issues of whether our laws are consistent with the constitution.

Judges make law from the bench all the time. Precedent is a powerful thing. And I'm sure that Callahan, whom this paper recommended in 2006, is a good judge with much more knowledge of what she can and can't do than me. But this ruling seems off-point to me.

Couldn't she simply rule on the divorce of a gay couple without addressing the constitutionality of the state's ban? After all, it's simply dissolving a contract that was created in another state. If business partners wanted to dissolve a contract they signed in another state and divide their shared property, would the lower courts even hesitate?

I welcome more informed comments than mine. If you're curious, below the jump is our editorial in support of her candidacy in 2006. She runs for re-election next year.

I was wondering how Gov. Rick Perry might deal with the uncomfortable truth that would rise from Friday's state commission meeting on the Todd WIllingham case. Now we know. He fired the head of that commission and replaced him with someone else who promptly canceled the hearing.

Nicely, played, governor. Nicely played.

For someone who may be running for re-election (has he announced?), it sure beats the alternative of dealing head on with evidence that you allowed an innocent man to be executed.

But here's the thing. Couldn't the governor have allowed the hearing to go forward and then pressured his appointees to sit on the report until after the election? Why is it so necessary to even block the official presentation of a report our tax dollars paid for?

The only answer I can think of is that the state has no good response to the report.

It's official: The governor of the state of Texas doesn't even want to hear any evidence that the state may have made a mistake in this case. That's cowardly. That's refusing to be held accountable. That's Rick Perry.

UPDATE: Reactions are pouring in ...

A lot of people opposed to the death penalty have stories of conversion, but none could possibly be more powerful than those who have been victimized by the crimes eligible for such a punishment. The family members of murder victims are often assumed to be of one mind on the death penalty. I know of no study that quantifies what percentage may be opposed, and I doubt we could ever really know, but the group Murder Victims' Families for Human Rights has asked some of its members to walk us through their own conversion stories. It's powerful reading. Here's part of one mother's story:

It was expected by everyone that I would want the death penalty. Not
a single person ever sat down and talked with me about other options...

One of our Voices columnists, Nancy Ruder, has a nice guest blog post today on the Education Front about efforts in Plano to reach out to students on their own turf:

Let's think beyond language and race to help school district families. Two education items snagged my attention this week. The first was Matthew Haag's report of Plano's new mobile classroom, a $300,000 Winnebago. The second was Faith Davis Johnson's column about her experience as a "bad student" in a Spanish immersion program. Both items received online comments that can be boiled down to the one "Bukowski" posted on Ms. Johnson's op-ed: "Learn English or go home." I wonder what language "Bukowski's" ancestors spoke when they arrived in the United States. Mine spoke Bohemian and German. Fortunately, the importance of education for their children was impressed upon them, despite their struggles to make a living in a new land. Luckily, they became proficient in English within a few generations.

I have two new questions in the Todd Willingham case.

1. Why is the prosecutor who took Willingham's life smiling?
An interview with John Jackson, the lead prosecutor in the Willingham case, is disturbing. Jackson smirks and smiles as he admits to Nightline that the science used to convict a man and send him to the death chamber was deeply flawed. Is this about being right or is this about getting it right?



Now he says "a man like Todd" deserved to die because, seriously, he was a fan of Iron Maiden and, therefore, a devil worshipper. More proof? The flashover fire left the shape of a pentagram in the floor.

This man sits on the bench now. That worries me. It doesn't worry Rick Perry, though, who told our Todd Gillman that, even if you take out the arson evidence, this bad, bad man was clearly guilty of murder. Which brings me to question No. 2:

2. How does the governor think Willingham killed his kids if not by arson?

I'd like someone from the governor's office to clarify the governor's comments. If there was no arson, how, does the governor propose, that this man killed his three children? Strangulation? Poison? And was the fire just a weird coincidence that covered up the murder? Because the science now shows that the assumptions that led to the arson finding cannot be supported. So how'd he kill his kids?

A lot of people opposed to the death penalty have stories of conversion, but none could possibly be more powerful than those who have been victimized by the crimes eligible for such a punishment. The family members of murder victims are often assumed to be of one mind on the death penalty. I know of no study that quantifies what percentage may be opposed, and I doubt we could ever really know, but the group Murder Victims' Families for Human Rights has asked some of its members to walk us through their own conversion stories. It's powerful reading. Here's part of one mother's story:

It was expected by everyone that I would want the death penalty. Not
a single person ever sat down and talked with me about other options.

Read more and comment.

Rodger and I took a tour of the new (still in progress, actually) Winspear Opera House and Wyly Theater. I wish I had taken my better camera, but my phone did the trick, I suppose, in capturing some of the scenes.

The ruling today in the Hood case out of Collin County is shocking, but not surprising. Not for this court.

Essentially, the court once said that if defense attorneys had proof of an affiar between the judge and the prosecutor in this death penalty trial, they had to prove it to a lower court. OK, they did that, and got a stay of execution (on technical jury issues, but with a lot of attention given to the affair, too).

Now, the defense team is back to pursue the matter with the pro-prosecutor Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, and the court has a new answer: This appeal is not valid because it was not raised initially.

How could it be? The affair was hidden. Those involved lied about it for years. When rebuffed the first time, lawyers went back and cleverly filed a civil suit to get the lovers on the record about the truth, and then took that evidence into the lower court. But because this affair was hidden so well for so long, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals says it's too late.

The message is simple: If you lie about the affair long enough, there is no possible appeal on those grounds.

It should be noted that the entire court does not agree. Justices Cochran, Price and Holcomb git it right:

Here, it is clear that applicant's trial attorneys were aware, before the 1990 trial, of the "common knowledge" rumors and gossip concerning the personal relationship, but it seems equally clear from the habeas record that applicant's attorneys did not know whether those rumors were true, either at the time of the trial or at the time that applicant filed his earlier habeas applications.

I've never been particularly moved by the "cruel and unusual" argument about executions. My opposition is based almost solely on the principle that this is an authority man is not given. But I think we do have a god-given right, and sometimes a responsibility, to be "unusual" in our punishment. I think of the Texas judge who forced a piano teacher convicted of moplesting students to give up his piano. It seemed cruel to him. I couldn't care less.

But this case out of Ohio is troubling. I have no sympathy for the rapist-killer at the center of this controversy, but I also cannot imagine officials trying for two hours to take his life. Imagine the wait for the families involved, too. Talk about cruel.

Ironically, just earlier this year, Ohio changed its procedures to make sure that executed offenders were fully knocked out before the lethal injection took place. Greg Trout, chief legal counsel for the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction said at the time: "We just wanted our process to be as professional, dignified and humane as we can make it."

Sounds like they have more work to do. Legally, this opens the door to a new claim by the defense of cruel and unusual punishment, and I'm not sure they don't have a strong argument.

Comment here.

A lot of friends joked that I had better go into hiding over the weekend after my Bonfire column last week: Bonfire doesn't fit today's A&M. I have to say, very few responses got ugly. Many said they felt Bonfire could be returned to campus under strict new guidelines. That was probably the most common argument. My response to that is that I don't think so. The people most zealous about Bonfire were the ones who made the culture deteriorate so much over the years. They would be the ones to go back to campus and show younger Aggies how it's done. That worries me.

But a few surprises:

• An Aggie who was there in 1967 and helped build the tallest Bonfire, but who say standards lapse over time and now agrees that it cannot be returned.


• An Aggie there now who helps build the new off-campus Bonfire who realizes that bringing it back to campus is a liability nightmare and won't happen. Also, her note promises that Bonfire has evolved as I had hoped it might.


• An Aggie in the Class of 56 who said that Bonfire was always divisive, even back then.


• An Aggie who attened in the 1990s like me who swore that he had polls that showed that 95 percent of Aggies supported Bonfire and that Bonfire had record-high participation.

• An Aggie who was a crew chief and who loved Bonfire but who, now a parent, sees things differently.

The people who say that Tod Willingham was guilty even without the arson evidence are ignoring a basic question: If there is no evidence of arson, then how do they propose that Tod Willingham killed his children? Is their theory that he killed them and then got lucky with an electrical fire that covered his tracks? Because that's the only thing I can come up with that would be consistent with the debunked arson "evidence" and the illogical assertion that a murder still took place.

Meanwhile, this case keeps attracting all kinds of attention, near and far as we get closer to the Oct. 2 hearing in Nort Texas on the state-requested report that attacked the investigation ...

Read more and comment. ...

I've blogged in recent days about the other three new DART stations that open up on Monday:

• The MLK station is great, but the surrounding area is not set up to capitalize on it.


• The Deep Ellum station is oddly located, and it feels disconnected from the historic neighborhood it's named after.


• The Fair Park station is sleek and sure to spark a new life in the surrounding area, which is already built out, just needing new tenants.

Some people think that Rick Perry is calling for Bonfire's return to A&M for political reasons, but I'm not so sure. I think his desire for Bonfire to be rekindled comes from an authentic place. I suppose, to understand why a sitting governor would get involved in this, you have to understand A&M and Bonfire a little better.

When I was a freshment at A&M, Bonfire was the first thing that really pulled you into campus life. My boxes were not even unpacked before a group of upperclassmen were in my room trying to convince me to shave a letter into my head, all in the name of dorm pride, all part of the Bonfire culture of intra-campus rivalries. I resisted, but I did get involved in Bonfire on a limited basis.

I'm increasingly worried that tonight's speech by President Obama will be short on policy and way too long on politics. If it's anything like his weekend speech, it will say nothing to the middle and only rally those already on his side. This morning in my inbox, I saw further reason to worry. I see an email inviting me to a "watch party."

On Wednesday night, at 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, President Obama is delivering a major address on health insurance reform to a special joint session of Congress. It'll be a historic event -- and a turning point in our push for real reform.

So we've organized special watch parties that night for all Organizing for America supporters, their friends, neighbors, and families -- and a local volunteer has decided to host one in your area.

We'll gather together to hear directly from the President. And after the speech, everyone at these parties will be able to take part in an important conference call with former Obama for America campaign manager David Plouffe about the work we'll still need to do to help pass real reform this year.

Last week, we had an opportunity to get a sneak peek at the new DART Green Line stops that run from the Pearl Street Station down to MLK Boulevard. I was very impressed with the stations at MLK and Fair Park, as I blogged last week, but there's still a lot to be done in the surrounding areas to take full advantage of those stations.

But at the Deep Ellum station, I have a major concern about the station itself. The station isn't really tied in to an already very well developed neighborhood, the historic (if struggling) Deep Ellum. I understand the need for it to be a couple blocks north of Deep Ellum. You can't change the line and drag it south. But the way the station is designed is a 180-degree difference from MLK. Whereas that station draws you toward Fair Park and the neighborhood, this station leaves you standing in the middle of a very busy intersection. This is actual video in the middle of the morning, not during rush hour, of where you exit the station on the way toward Deep Ellum:

UPDATE: A Frisco spokesperson responded to my question: "No, we did not ask to review and approve Congressman Johnson's speech. If we had asked, it would have been provided. He has visited the district several times over the years, mostly in high school government classes as he was today. If President Obama wanted to come speak to a high school government class, he would be welcome." I don't think it would have been provided. I've never seen Johnson speak from a prepared text except on the House floor. He's cool like that. And just a reminder: I support this effort by Johnson. I just point out the double standard. No one in Frisco minds a conservative politician speaking to students -- and they shouldn't mind. But ... well, we know the rest ...

As reader Mike points out, Mr. Johnson is appearing at Liberty HS in Frisco today for his speech on the Congressional Youth Advisory Committee?

"Johnson created the CYAC in 2004. The Council's goal is two-fold.
First, the group will provide Johnson with greater student perspective and insight on issues that directly affect them in their every day lives. Second, Council activities will help educate students on government policies relevant to young people. Students will learn about the development of public policy and explore the role of citizens, lawmakers, experts, and institutions and their impact on the world's most successful democracy."

An intrusion into the lives of young people? He is going to teach students about "the development of public policy"??

Actually, and seriously now, this newspaper has praised this effort. It's a great tool for civic engagement among young people. We're consistent.

The gutless Frisco ISD cannot say the same. Here's their stand on the Obama speech:

"As a district we believe that the best approach is to record the message rather than showing it live and then determine how it can best be used."

In short, the recent history of Irving goes like this: Beth Van Duyne beat Herb Gears in a City Council race, unseating an entrenched incumbent who champions the rights of minorities and others. Then he wins the mayor's seat. Meanwhile, Hispanics accuse all of the council of racism and ignoring minorities, and they file a lawsuit. They win! They will get single-member districts. And lo and behold, one of the two people who will not be able to run again in their own spot ... Van Duyne, of course. Gee, nothing fishy there.

Here's Van Duyne's response to all this. She comes across as reasonable and smart. I like Gears. I like Van Duyne, too. Keep an eye on them, not just the activists, if you want to see the real power struggle in Irving ...

A few very reasonable people I know have said that there are valid reasons why people worry about the speech the president is giving to schoolchildren. Here's my best attempt at understanding the three informed lines of reasoning (I just don't have time to deal with the myriad uninformed opinions on this subject):

1. You're libertarian to the Nth degree. If you really think this is too much power for the president, then certainly you also think it's wrong to have the kids say the Pledge of Allegiance every day, too. And you may not even think public education is a great idea. It's not in the Constitution, after all. Fine. I disagree, but I respect that. And it's hard to believe when you're someone who has never done anything but criticize the president. But I'll just have to take your word for it that you have a pure libertarian point of view.

2. The "help the president" misunderstanding. Surely by now, you understand that the line was in direct relation to the speech. The speech will be about the president's goal of having all kids do some post-graduation studies. Hence: How can you help him achieve his goal? Still, it's wrong to make this about the president's goal, and the White House has fixed that, but if that's not good enough for you and you hear Black Helicopters, well, I guess you have no choice. Adjust that tinfoil hat and settle in for a four-day weekend. I have trouble respecting this point of view.

3. You just don't like Obama -- and, as one parent put it, you don't want your kid to hear a single word he says. That's honest, free from some of the delusion of No. 2. You've agreed not to bother claiming you're principled. But that's highly irresponsible, isn't it? I can't respect this line of thought. Parents who fall into this category -- whether they admit it or not -- are the best argument against the move to get parents more involved in our schools. Forget Why Johnny Can't Read. With parents like these calling the shots, Johnny Can't Respect Authority, and Johnny Can't Have an Informed Debate. Oh, and Johnny Can't Lose Elections with Grace and Dignity. One of these days, Johnny will discover that his parents cheated him, and he'll lose some amount of respect for them.

UPDATE: Put Allen in the "gutless" camp with Plano. See the update on their page. Lovejoy's excuse the funniest, though. They say they don't have the bandwidth to show the speech. Don't they have access to C-SPAN? And Lovejoy thinks it's the next Highland Park? Even Lancaster has TV sets ...

Here's a look at some of the most interesting comments on the web about this great controversy: Obama Dares to Speak to schoolchildren about Trying Hard in School 2009

Note the different approaches between Allen ISD and Plano ISD. One is gutless. The other is Allen.

William McKenzie: Why this is a good idea
"He is the president of the United States. I would hope that we as parents would think it's important to teach children to respect our leader, even if we didn't vote for him, which I did not."

Trey Garrison: No Thank You, Dear Leader
"This nationwide address to children without their parent's consent is just too Dear Leader, North Korea-style Orwellian for me."

Plano Independent School District - Plano, Texas
"This event is not a component of the Plano ISD curriculum and is therefore not a mandatory activity."

Allen Independent School District
"The Allen ISD Learner Services Department has reviewed a summary of the address and feels it is appropriate as part of the school district's social studies curriculum."

Parents Oppose Obamacast in North Texas Schools, Prove Responsible Parenting is Overrated
"Jeez. What happened to the good old days when watching a presidential speech made you a nerd not a socialist!"

On one hand, it's clear that some Black Helicopter Republicans are hyperventilating over nothing. Check out Mark Davis from yesterday. Some tidbits:

• "This is a mandatory cram-down....look at the levels of deception, look at the level of gamesmanship, look at the level of trickery."


• "This is creepy."


• "This administration is trying to get kids to love this president so when mom and dad harp about him at the dinner table, the kids can scold him."


• "Schools respond to attendance, attendance means money, and if you make it clear that your child will not step FOOT at school...."


• "I'm maybe suggesting that you turn your kids into absentees. Do your kids need to be at school for this crap?"


• "I don't know if your kids need to be there that day."

But I wonder, too, if we give these people too much credit. Are we on the verge of over-recting to them? Very reasonable people on the right see the lunacy here. Fred Moses, head of the Collin County Republican party, is quoted in today's story, and he is very reasonable: "As long as the president is not talking about his agenda or policies, we all need to encourage our kids to do better." Amen. A wait-and-see attitude makes sense.

Sadly, though, a few districts have already overreacting, Plano (not surprisingly) at the head of the pack. Loud Black Helicopters make Plano ISD officials want to hide under a pile of coats, so they fold without any public debate. That's just in their DNA. But others have time to do the right thing.

Other, calmer school districts should see through the lies being spread about what is in the memos sent out to schools. Taken completely out of context, asking kids to write about how the president inspired them does sound fishy, but understanding that this is meant to directly follow a speech about trying in school, it makes sense. When I have spoken to classes, the teacher often follows up by asking what I inspired kiddos to do differently. Not a big deal. Check it out for yourself, please. I've included the activites here for your reading ...

Check out past polls.
My response ...

I wrote yesterday about the end of the line for the new Green Line, the MLK station. The next stop, as you work your way back toward downtown, is the Fair Park Station. Even though most people will probably use this stop to come and go from the fairgrounds, the MLK station is, ironically, closer to the Cotton Bowl.

Still, this station is steps away from the Women's Museum and the fountains, that corner of the park. The autoshow is also just footsteps away.

Today we had the opportunity to get a sneak peek at the new Green Line, which runs out of downtown, toward Deep Ellum, right by Baylor, to the State Fairgrounds and then down to MLK Boulevard. We started our tour at the MLK station, and I'll blog about that today, with thoughts on other stops in the days to come. Here's video of a trip heading north out of the MLK station, which will be the end of the line (for now).

That's the question being asked by blogger Bill Baumbach after the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals threw out a conviction in the well-known McKinney nanny murder case. A little background:

Ada Cuadros Fernandez arrived in Dallas two years earlier after she obtained a visa in a government lottery in January 2004. Before she started working as a nanny she was a waitress in a local restaurant. She had given notice to the boy's parents that she was planning to return to Peru. She had a one-way airline ticket for Oct. 29, according to the arrest warrant affidavit. She had moved out, but the family asked her to return for two more nights while the couple interviewed candidates for the nanny job, according to the affidavit. The police charged her with murdering the boy by beating his head against a kitchen cabinet door.

Throughout the trial and appeals, Ms. Cuadros-Fernandez has maintained her innocence.

In the appeals court opinion, written by Judge Kerry Fitzgerald, the court found that Judge Sandoval wrongly excluded expert testimony by David Gardner that contradicted the Collin county DA's contention that the young boy's head was slammed into a cabinet door.

• Why is the UK involved in a death case in Texas? Guest blogger Hugh Southey, a British barrister, tells us.
• What does the lead prosecutor in the Willingham case say about charges that Texas may have killed an innocent man? We have that, too, along with my rebuttal of his points.

My neighbors and good friends are having a birthday party for their 1-year-old, and they have graciously identified a charity that they want people to donate to in lieu of gifts. I think this is a great idea because nothing is less fun than watching a 1-year-old drool as his mommy opens presents and daddy videos the whole mess. Besides, whatever jumper/pants/teething toy/stuffed animal or whatever is inside will be totally useless in a month or two, destroyed by said drool or too small for the fast-growing kiddo.

Still, a first birthday party is a meaningful event, and it's cool to go the charity route. Reading a column by one of our local Voices, though, gave me another idea. Art Fleming's column in Saturday is about microloans. He has created a group on Kiva.com for North Texans to sorta track one another's collective loaning power. The idea is that you loan your money to a worthy cause of your choosing, and the person in a developing country pays it back with interest that supports the whole effort.

Wouldn't it be cool, I thought, if you started a tradition with a child and family members that you put money into a loan account in his name, loaning it to basket weavers in Indonesia, seamstresses in Africa, etc.? At least for those first few years, it's a great alternative to gifts that will be forgotten anyway. Then, over the years, that money will make a difference all around the world. Let's say you build up $1,000. When the kid turns 18, you give it to him or her -- with a list of all the things that money helped to accomplish around the globe.

I think that would be a nice lesson in money management for a young adult. My hope is he or she would feel obligated to do something with it up to the high standard that those dollars have set throughout his or her lifetime.

Just an idea ... By the way, here is part of Art's column, which got me thinking in the first place ...

We're getting a lot of hateful letters and comments on the Web site about the late Ted Kennedy, and we're getting a lot of letters complaining about the haters. Why is this happening? ask the liberals, forgetting that similar hate spilled forth before the late Rondal Reagan could be put in his grave. It happens. That's the nature of some people.

But in this case, I do blame Johnny Carson. What? You expected me to say Rush or some other right-wing pundintainer? No, I blame Carson. And here's why.

There is increasing head-scratching going on about why the U.S. is not recovering as quickly as China, Japan, Australia and others. Their stimulus plans seem to be working. Meanwhile, here, we have the biggest bank failure in the state, with Guaranty being taken over by the feds and sold to a foreign bank. That's the first time that has happened.

Cause for panic? Well, no. It's probably a good idea to open bidding to foreign banks and private investors, but it's bad news that it has come to that. The FDIC has $13 billion left to insure banks, a fraction of what it had a year ago, and some say it is not moving nearly fast enough to close banks. Even though it's closing banks every weekend.

And what happens when we have a jobless recovery? When the Band-Aids come off and people start missing housing payments again? And they default some more? Will we have another housing bubble burst?

Some economists think so. After reading the below articles, even if I had a clunker, I don't think I'd go out and take on more debt for myself right now. ...

OK, just a few days into the governor's race, we have a strong contender for silliest campaign issue: The war of words over bill signing ceremonies. They are both wrong, of course. This doesn't bode well for the next six months.

She says: He is spending taxpayer money on trumped up events to help him in the election.

I say: Hey, that's part of the benefit of being the incumbent. The governor has every right to use his office to draw attention to issues he cares about.

Her camp also has said that media should not cover these ceremonies, especially since the bills have already been signed for real and the ceremonies are often just showmanship.

He says: "I would be very careful trying to pressure media outlets into stifling our First Amendment rights. That is a very dangerous track to go down."

I say: Coming from the wing of the party that frequently squeals about staying true to the Constitution, Rick Perry may want to re-read the First Amendment. It does not contain a right to publicity. In fact, the point about media paying attention to these dog-and-pony shows is the only valid point in the whole silly debate.

I remember a family friend telling us that he was watching the movie Pearl Harbor when he realized that Alec Baldwin was in it. Not liking Baldwin's politics, he got up and walked out. Missed a good summer pocorn flick, but no matter. That, to me, seemed about as stupid as Baldwin saying he'd leave the country if Bush was elected.

Boycotts are stupid. Well, except my boycott of baseball. But that's different. It's not a boycott so much as it is that I just don't enjoy the sport as much now that I realize that most of the people involved in it have no integrity on the doping issue. Plus, it's just way too slow. I prefer the fast pace of golf.

But back to boycotts, the Whole Foods boycott really seems odd to me because there is a lot to like about Whole Foods' philosophy. If you want to encourage small brands that use organic farming -- if you want to encourage a different kind of neighborhood store -- if you want to encourage less waste from plastic bags -- if you want to eat good food ... then you shop at Whole Foods. But the CEO has some thoughts on health care that you disagree with, so you throw all that out the window and boycott? That makes no sense to me.

Here's what others are saying ...

Today's news story says that some people are questioning the high school steroid testing program because only 19 kids have been caught using steroids. Another 130 or so have more or less been caught by virtue of skipping the testing and accepting the punishment for a failed test. Is that worth millions of tax dollars?

Well, conservatives looking for budget cuts said no and slashed the budget for testing, but I think the message has been sent and as long as we continue some level of testing, kids will know that they may get caught. Another way to look at this is that far more high school students in Texas have been caught and punished than Major League Baseball stars, and it seems like we get a teary-eyed press conference on that level every few months.

The point is that we cannot just look the other way from cheating. It costs millions of dollars to screen athletes, and the hope is that none will be caught. But one year's statistics aren't the point. It's about sending the message to kids that we're watching, not just to catch them, but to keep them safe.

The story doesn't say, but how many steroid-related cases of depression and suicide were reported this year? Maybe that's unkowable. Maybe the impact overall is unkowable. Keep testing.

Also, read our editorial in support of testing from 2006:

Check out past polls.
My response ...

This morning I was listening to one of the Obama health care champions on CNN take on some of the tougher (and germane) questions about the proposals taking shape, and it dawned on me what my biggest concern is.

He said, at one point, that any public option would NOT put insurers out of business. That's absurd, he said. But then, when asked about the possibility of a co-op or some other private-sector solution, he was adament that a public option was necessary to apply pressure on health insurers to bring down costs.

Wait a minute. Can we really let you have it both ways? How do we know the public plan will offer just enough pressure to drive down costs but not so much pressure that it drives insurers out of business or leads to increased rationing of health care. (Note that I said "increased" -- your health insurer and mine already ration care to some extent.)

Here's a good NPR story on this part of the debate.

I worry that on this issue -- which, in my mind is key -- it won't just come down to trust. We need more assurances that, if the government gets involved, it will guard against potential negative downsides of that involvement. What is just as absurd as the allegations of extreme rationing for older people is to pretend that government involvement will only result in positive changes to the system. The truth is somewhere in the middle, and that's where the debate should be, too.

Check out past polls.
My response ...