During the early days of the American Revolution, Benjamin Franklin famously told his fellow patriots that "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

He was right, of course. Though the Revolution was chock-full of all sorts of ambitious strivers and other unique characters and individuals, in the long run, it held because people stuck together; they put the common good ahead of their own selfish short-term interests. Prominent, propertied leaders understood that, in the long run, the path to greater freedom and happiness for themselves was paved with guarantees of freedom for their fellow citizens.

This seemingly paradoxical bit of genius has remained at the heart of the American success story ever since. By protecting the First Amendment freedoms (speech, religion, association) of the most unpopular and lowly characters, we help secure and assure them for everyone. If the rights of disturbed lunatics like the Nazis or the Klan can be assured, then average, sane people are that much freer.

Similarly, if the state must abide by the rule of law even in the prosecution and punishment of the worst kinds or offenders, then all of us benefit in the long run from the peace of mind that our own liberty is that much more secure. Better that a couple of guilty people go free, goes the obvious and potent logic, than that the state unjustly imprison an innocent person.

Making up the law as it goes along

Would that the North Carolina Supreme Court had kept Franklin's wisdom and its many practical applications in mind last week. The context was its decision in the cases of the so-called "lifers" who had sought release from prison after having served only parts of their "life" sentences.

As has been noted in this space and many others over the last several months, the matter arose in 2009 as a result of the inconvenient fact that, for a time in the in the 1970's, state law specified that a "life sentence" was not necessarily a life sentence. Rather, for whatever reason (good, bad or indifferent), the law prescribed that a life sentence was really a sentence of 80 years. When combined with the policy of "good time" (i.e. time off for good behavior) and other bonuses that were regularly afforded to prisoners in the old days before so-called "truth in sentencing" laws, several so-called "lifers" were found to be eligible for immediate release. Some individuals were actually long overdue. A series of court proceedings ensued in which the state Court of Appeals and Superior Court ruled in favor of the release of multiple individuals.

Unfortunately, as is so often the case when it comes to controversial criminal justice matters, politics intervened and what seemed to have been an open and shut matter was quickly turned into a complex and convoluted debate by Governor Perdue and her Department of Correction.

Though it was clear beyond a doubt that a) the law had explicitly sentenced the inmates in question to 80 years and, b) the Department had awarded the inmates "good time" and other credits for time served, the Department told the Supreme Court that it hadn't intended that the credits ever actually be applied. According to the Department, it had merely kept records and awarded credits to the prisoners in question in case their sentences were ever commuted by a governor.

As the dissent (it begins on page 24) of Justice Timmons-Goodson (which was joined by Justice Hudson) points out, however, the Department's (DOC) explanation smacks of a retroactive whitewash:

"Specifically, the Court of Appeals observed that the DOC's records for Bowden [the first inmate to seek release under this provision] initially "indicated that all of [his] good conduct time, merit time, and gain time credits had been applied to his sentence." …Curiously, and "for reasons unclear to [the Court of Appeals], the Department of Correction later retroactively changed the status of [Bowden's] sentence reduction credits from ‘applied' to ‘pending.'" …Subsequent statements of policy by the DOC and other executive branch officials also cut against the letter of the DOC's regulations for awarding sentence reduction credits."

In other words Timmons-Goodson is telling us that the Department of Correction (under the leadership of multiple governors) screwed up. Despite the fact that a) previous cases from decades ago had given the Department notice that life sentences from that era were really 80 years and that good time credits could reduce such sentences and b) the Department had clearly awarded such credits, it is now claiming that it is shocked (shocked!!) to learn that anyone might want to interpret and apply the law and the applicable rules as they are written.

Justice Timmons-Goodson continued:

"The DOC essentially argues that because it has fundamentally misapprehended the nature of Jones's sentence for the past thirty years, it should be allowed to perpetuate its mistake and retroactively eliminate the sentence reduction credits awarded to Jones. This argument flies in the face of bedrock principles securing fundamental fairness in the criminal justice system, including due process and the prohibition against ex post facto laws….

…the majority fails to recognize that the DOC's position is not based upon any ‘interpretation' of its regulations. Rather, the DOC's position contravenes the regulations themselves. Nothing in any relevant provision of the North Carolina General Statutes, the North Carolina Administrative Code, the DOC's policies, procedures, or regulations, or North Carolina case law precedent specifically authorizes the Secretary of Correction to apply the good time, gain time, merit time, or any other awarded credits only for certain purposes and not for others. Simply put, the DOC offers no textual support for its position and neither does the majority."

In other words, faced with a politically poisonous result they didn't like, the Department of Correction (i.e. the Perdue administration) and five members of the Supreme Court formulated a Plan B: changing the law by interpreting it out of existence.

A setback for freedom and the common good

While the matter may not yet be over (lawyers for the inmates say they are exploring further appeals to the federal courts - where the judges don't have to worry about re-election), for now the damage to freedom in North Carolina has already been done.

For the foreseeable future, all of us must live with the knowledge that North Carolina's highest arbiter of truth and justice has, in essence, countenanced an after-the-fact rule change - a politically expedient lie that seems better suited to a banana republic or a Kafka novel than 21^st Century America.

The crack in the foundation of freedom and liberty may be a small one - after all, it's hard to imagine a less popular group with a smaller political constituency than a bunch of broken down, old prison inmates - but it's real nonetheless. It will take real work by caring and intelligent people to limit its spread, so let's hope it's forthcoming. It may be a challenge to see one's interests aligned with the most hated people of society, but Ben Franklin and the other founders understood why it was and will always be necessary.

It's beginning to look like there isn't anything that members of the right-wing noise machine won't say - no innuendo they won't happily spread; no former taboo they won't happily breach - in their determined effort to do whatever it takes to derail the Obama Presidency, paralyze the American government and help Republicans to electoral success this fall. In the modern world of 21^st Century political hardball as practiced by the Fox News right, no lie is too big to utter, no tiny shred of an argument too flimsy to feature in a screaming headline.

Time and again, the pattern repeats itself:

1. Over on the extreme fringe, some shadowy scam artist twists the truth to manufacture a fear mongering "story" about some supposed treachery committed by a Democratic politician or, even "better," the President himself.

2. Next, sometimes after several weeks or months of being widely ignored, the "story" will pop up in right-wing talk show world (i.e. Limbaugh, Hannity, Michael Savage, O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, etc…).

3. Conservative activists stage a "grassroots" protest against the supposed treachery.

4. The protest and "public outcry" are reported breathlessly by Fox News or the front page of the Washington Times.

5. Once front-paged by these "news" outlets, it's only a matter of days (or even hours) before conservative politicians seize upon the story and start mouthing prescribed talking points developed by the Karl Roves of the world.

6. Next come the tepid and/or wimpy replies from fearful Democrats who are worried about "alienating independent voters" by standing up against bigotry or for some other principled position.

7. This, of course, proves irresistible to the supposedly responsible mainstream media with its slothful and terminal addiction to he said/she said debates.

8. Last but not least comes the pious pontificating from the right-wing "think tanks" who assure us that "while the story has probably been exaggerated somewhat, it's understandable why activists would be concerned."

The rights gins up a religious war

If this description sounds like a farfetched parody then check out the debate of late surrounding the proposal to build an Islamic cultural center in lower Manhattan and the right's latest efforts to question president Obama's religion. The media back and forth on these matters (they don't even deserve to be called "issues") makes the despicable "swift boating" of John Kerry look like a pillow fight.

Consider some of the following recent developments (courtesy of Justin Elliott and Frank Rich):

• The New York Times reports on the development of the cultural center in a long piece last December. Months pass with scarcely a ripple.

• Months later, the Fox News of newspapers, Rupert Murdoch's incendiary rag, the New York Post, seizes on the ravings of a blogger who once alleged that the president was the "love child" of Malcolm X to gin the matter up into a controversy.

• The cultural center (which was to be located on a former Burlington Coat Factory and a block away from a "gentlemen's club" near where the twin towers fell) is quickly dubbed the "Ground Zero Mosque" and described as being located on "hallowed ground." Its patrons and supporters (some of whom were actually defenders of President Bush and the war in Iraq) are quickly recast as "radical Islamists."

• Soon, the right-wing media empire kicks into gear and conservative politicians start reciting their lines. Dishonest charlatans like Newt Gingrich compare the proposed building to a Nazi memorial in a Jewish community.

• Before long, the story has quickly morphed into a revival of the moronic allegation that the President is actually a Muslim. Soon thereafter, the American people are treated to the offensive spectacle of Senate Republican leader giving a tepid, mumble-mouthed statement that implies as much.

The reaction in North Carolina

Sadly, if you thought this absurd story was purely a national media brouhaha that would bypass North Carolina, you were wrong. This week, in keeping with steps 5 though 8 above, North Carolinians received the embarrassing news that:

1. their utterly ineffective but ever-opportunistic senior senator felt a need to speak out against the "ground zero mosque" (as if anyone in any place of responsibility in New York gave a hoot about what he says),

2. the senator's election challenger felt compelled to tell us, ever so bravely, that she had no position,

3. a veteran political reporter saw fit to bother to "report" on their statements, and

4. a local right-wing propaganda shop did its worst to continue to spread the manure even further by calling attention to the tut-tutting "analysis" of another right-wing "think tank" that - you guessed it - defended those who call the President a closet Muslim. Click here to read a Locke Foundation staffer talk about "the reasons why mainstream media outlets ought to cut some slack to those Americans who believe Obama does practice Islam."

Making lemonade out of lemons

It's hard to imagine anything very good coming out of this cesspool of lies, insinuations and ignorance - at least in the near future. In the longer run, however, there is hope if more and more honest and intelligent people of all political persuasions stand up and reiterate the following facts:

1. No one is proposing to build a "mosque" on the land on which the twin towers stood. A cultural center with a prayer room is not a mosque and a former clothing store near a strip club is not "hallowed ground."

2. If, however, a private party or group did want to build a mosque (or a church or a synagogue or a temple or a shrine) on such land that they owned and it comported with local zoning laws, then they have an absolute constitutional right to do so. Notwithstanding the blathering or nincompoops like Richard Burr, Newt Gingrich and the denizens of the Rupert Murdoch Empire, this is one of the central freedoms for which our country (and its flag and Constitution) stand. It's a freedom for which hundreds of thousands of men and women have given their lives.

3. President Obama is a practicing Christian. He is also probably heck of a lot more devout and faithful than a lot of the dishonest wretches who have attacked him - be in Mitch McConnell, William Kristol or their North Carolina toadies.

4. If, however, the President (or any other American leader) were a Muslim (or a Jew or a Hindu or a Zen Buddhist or an atheist), that would be his or her business - a matter for his or her conscience. As Colin Powell said back 2008:

"Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer is no. That's not America. Is there something wrong with a seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing he or she could be president? Yet I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion that he is a Muslim and might have an association with terrorists. This is not the way we should be doing it in America."

In the days ahead, let's use these latest cynical and despicable acts by the far right as a "teaching moment" - a means of spreading Powell's wisdom and reminding a new generation of Americans about the principle of religious freedom and the dangers posed to our Republic when cynics and know-nothings seek to shamelessly and hypocritically undermine it.

"Throw the bums out!" This is a familiar rallying cry for angry voters when economic times get tough. Some analysts think the election this fall could be such an election: an event in which people vote for (or stay home for) change - any change, however reactionary or incoherent.

Though in some ways an understandable reaction - especially given the flubs of some of the current incumbents in North Carolina - the "change for the sake of change" approach to elections can be extremely shortsighted and counter-productive. Like cutting off one's nose to spite the face, blindly voting for all self-identified "outsiders" can be a recipe for bad policy results (not to mention political gridlock and the elevation of some genuinely scary people to public office).

To see a powerful, present day example, consider the Wake County school board - where the combination of widespread voter apathy and a small group of motivated and disgruntled voters conspired to transform a group of unprepared ideologues overnight into the governing majority of the nation's 15^th largest school system.

The 1994 election

Perhaps a more apt example on the statewide level, however, is the state legislative election of 1994. For those with short memories, 1994 was the year of the so-called "Contract with America" - a year in which conservative majorities seized control of Congress and a number of state legislatures. In North Carolina, the state House of Representatives went Republican for the first time since Reconstruction and the Senate stayed Democratic by only a 26-24 majority.

The election results were especially striking because they were sudden and unexpected - so unexpected that Republicans really didn't have a plan for how they would govern. Once the 1995 session began, the leaders of the new majority in the House of Representatives quickly discovered that they some enormous problems in simply keeping the wheels of government running.

Not only did they have a serious dearth of experienced members capable of running committees and handling complex legislation in a competent fashion, they were also handicapped by the fact that several of their new members were, to put it politely, somewhat unprepared for leadership.

This was due to the fact that several had been elected with zero relevant experience. Essentially, many of these men and women were elected for one reason only: they were not incumbents. Somehow, they had managed to get their names on the ballot and survive or avoid a primary. (This was made easier by the fact that the state still had a number of multi-member districts at the time.) They could have been serial killers for all the voters knew. Now, however, as a result of a "throw the bums out" landslide, they were state lawmakers. In some cases, it was as if people had been plucked randomly off of the street.

The list of incompetents and hopeless ideologues (or both) included such memorable figures as:

Rep. Ken Miller of Alamance County. Miller was a strange right-winger who favored walking the halls of the General Assembly wearing a baseball cap adorned with badges and buttons. He was eventually booted out of the House after being investigated for making sexual overtures toward a teenaged page, a lobbyist and a legislative employee.

Rep. Henry Aldridge of Pitt County. Aldridge was a dentist and anti-choice zealot who lives in infamy for his offensive statements in which he attempted to explain in debate how a victim of rape could not become pregnant because "the juices don't flow."

Rep. Larry Linney of Buncombe County. Linney was a lawyer who was jailed at one point and eventually disbarred after being convicted of embezzling client funds.

Rep. Cary Allred of Alamance County. Actually, the ‘94 landslide facilitated Allred's return to Raleigh after 12 year absence. He managed to stick around as a consistently ineffective member until recently when driving problems and inappropriate behavior forced him out.

Rep. Donald Davis of Harnett County. Davis was conspiracy theorizing ideologue of the kind that so heavily populates the tea party crowd. One of his main objectives during his first year in office was to pass a resolution that purported to repeal a pre-World War II resolution that had called for the establishment of some kind of new League of Nations as a bulwark against world war.

Sen. John Carrington of Wake County. Carrington was a strange and mysterious conservative who ran a business that exported weapons and security equipment. In the Senate he almost never spoke in debate or sponsored much legislation. Later in his tenure, he apparently became a friend to (and even a business partner with) some members of Senate Democratic leadership. He was eventually convicted of a felony for illegal exportation of law enforcement equipment.

Other forgettable ideologues from the '94 election included such ineffective and/or downright wacky characters as former Representatives Russell Capps, Fern Shubert and Dennis Reynolds and former Senators R.L. Clark, Hugh Webster and Virginia Foxx - the same Virginia Foxx who now embarrasses North Carolina on a regular basis in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Repeat in the offing?

Will 2010 amount to a replay of 1994? Will North Carolinians wake up next January to find a cadre of anti-government zealots and nutty conspiracy theorists in positions of legislative power? Right now, it's hard to say.

On the positive side, of course, is the fact that we know somewhat more about the candidates in 2010 than we did in 1994. The internet makes it a bit harder for true extremists to fly "under the radar" and cruise to victory without their actual beliefs coming to light. Combine this with the way in which mainstream voters have generally rejected the absurdities of the tea party crowd and the likelihood of an ultra-right-wing sweep seems fairly remote.

Still, even with the light provided by modern communications, there is no shortage of rather scary characters out there on the ballot. They include:

Glen Bradley of Alamance County, who attends far right public events toting a rifle on his back and wearing army boots and fatigues and who endorses the views of a far right group called the Constitution Party of North Carolina.

Sam Edwards of Haywood County, a self-described "underemployed (but still tax paying) Christian, husband, father, pastor, educator, editor, and writer" who favors even fewer restrictions on guns and the abolition of the income tax and sex education.

Matthew Peeler of Perquimans County, a retired sailor, whose no doubt sincere but strange website features these sentences: "I believe that our Flag represent our Constitution. The Strength of our Nation is found in the fibers of our Flag, and that the Almighty God, the Constitution and the People of this great Nation make up those fibers. We need all three."

Numerous candidates wear their religious beliefs (conservative Christian, of course) on their sleeves and tout abortion and guns as their top issues. There's also a host of conservative candidates who remain so anonymous that web searches fail to produce any information. One Wake County candidate - a woman named Madison Shook - appears to be an undergraduate student at N.C. State.

Going forward

While few expect the far right to seize control of the General Assembly this fall, nothing is impossible. If it does happen, experience indicates that 2011 could be a wild and wacky year in the state Legislative Building.

"Pay me now or pay me later." For decades, a Madison Avenue ad campaign featuring a car mechanic repeating this phrase did a great job of selling automobile oil filters to Americans. In addition to being catchy, the main reason it worked so well was that it spoke to a common sense understanding possessed by most reasonably intelligent people with at least bit of little life experience. Consumers knew intuitively that doing things "on the cheap" was no way to take care of important possessions.

Unfortunately, despite its proven success in the advertising world, the simple truth behind this pearl of wisdom seems to be lost on a whole generation of conservatives when it comes to the most important of possessions - our overall societal well-being. For sad and sometimes mysterious reasons, the idea of intentional, proactive investments in lasting, high-quality public structures and systems is anathema to them. Whether born of simple, shortsighted selfishness or a sincere, but misguided reading of history, the ideological right can't seem to see the forest for the trees; that investing today in robust, high quality public structures will pay all sorts of dividends later on.

The current debate

Here in North Carolina we are witness to this kind of miserliness on a daily basis as right-wing politicians and propagandists work to undermine or rollback virtually every common good public investment that forward thinking government leaders attempt. From the public schools to public transit to public lands, the right tries to block virtually every effort.

When they can't stop new investments, modern conservatives fight to get things done on the cheap. They carp incessantly about the price of every new building or bridge or program and seek to sell off public assets (or at least the "naming rights") to private investors. God forbid that a new public structure might actually be aesthetically pleasing or include displays of art or innovation.

The results of this shortsighted approach to public life are there for all of us to see. Compare the public structures - schools, courthouses, libraries, buildings of various government agencies - of today with those of the early and mid 20^th Century. Talk to the officials who plan new public construction projects today and listen to them explain the corners they are forced to cut.

Some of this shift is a byproduct of our increasingly disposable modern society, but much of it is the work of the pessimists and the naysayers on the ideological right who have frequently hijacked the debate and convinced millions of people that coming together to produce great public structures and systems is "socialistic"; that it involves the "the government taking their money."

Consequences of inaction

Examples of the results of this misguided and destructive ideology abound. Visit just about any modern North Carolina public school and examine the quality of the construction and materials used. Talk to the principals and teachers about their inadequate and shrinking maintenance and custodial budgets.

With a few exceptions, things look and feel, to put it bluntly, cheap and poorly maintained. New buildings are nice enough, but only for a while. Many structures from the 1980's and 90's that ought to still be considered "new" are already desperately in need of overhaul or replacement. In Wake County this summer, some schools may not have enough money to wash and polish their classroom floors because of tight budgets.

Of course, the results of such stinginess go well beyond the structures themselves and carry over to the services rendered therein. If you ask people to teach or deliver mental health services or issue drivers licenses in decrepit, unpleasant facilities, chances are that their performance will often sink to the level of their surroundings. (As an aside, threatening them with random bodily searches in order to keep their inadequate health insurance coverage won't help morale a whole lot either).

This is why so many large, profitable corporations take the opposite approach and invest in top flight facilities. Their owners and CEO's have figured out that it's good for business. Employees look forward to coming to work and take more pride in their performance when they aren't forced to toil in dingy and dilapidated surroundings. High quality public structures offer the added benefit of providing the entire community with a source of pride and, frequently, a multi-purpose gathering place that can bring the community together for lots of different events.

Transportation and urban development

The truth of the "pay me now or pay me later" maxim is also readily evident in the world of transportation and urban development. Communities that invest in preserving and enhancing their urban infrastructure almost never regret it. Unfortunately, ideologues still refuse to see this truth.

Next month in Raleigh, city officials and a number of forward-thinking business groups will officially christen a major facelift that has been provided to the city's Hillsborough Street corridor - in effect, the front porch to North Carolina State University. For many years, the street has been a dangerous eyesore - a seedy and potholed road that was, at once, a gathering place for students and a veritable freeway for commuters. Now, in an example of sound public investment, the street has been dramatically remade to dissuade speeding cars, encourage shopping and private businesses and just generally beautify and humanize the neighborhood.

But, of course, getting the project through wasn't easy. As with so many other successful urban projects, the ideologues on the right fought progress at every turn.

A few years ago, the John Locke Foundation tried to help stall the Hillsborough Street revival by concocting a rather strange report that warned of the supposedly calamitous dangers posed by "traffic calming" (i.e., the city's diabolical and no doubt socialistic plan to add traffic circles and end the practice of commuters racing down the street in an effort to beat every light). The report's main recommendation: more traffic cops.

Years before, of course, it was one of the Locke group's fellow travelers, former Raleigh Mayor and current state Republican Party chair, Tom Fetzer, who led the charge in delaying all efforts to remake downtown Raleigh. The same forces were also behind the ultimately unsuccessful efforts to torpedo Charlotte's visionary light rail system. There are numerous other examples around the state - many of them successful unfortunately - in which conservatives ideologues have worked to block visionary public investments and helped keep communities mired in place.

A presumption for progress

None of this is to say that all big public development schemes are perfect. Wherever there is human enterprise on a large scale there will be mistakes and waste. Society certainly needs watchdogs to help assure that public structures do not become mere monuments to powerful leaders or vehicles for handing out lucrative contracts to well-connected businesses and campaign contributors.

Ultimately, however, there is a big difference between a careful, but forward-looking steward of public resources and a self-defeating, pessimistic tightwad. If there is a presumption that ought to guide state and local leaders when it comes to public investments, it should be that we favor things that are built to last; that its okay to spend generously today for the benefit of everyone (particularly our children) in the future.

In other words, we ought not be afraid to pay now so that we can avoid paying later.

Most Americans get their mental picture of the criminal justice system from their television sets. Bombarded as we are by an endless stream of police shows and courtroom dramas, we can't help but use such images in order to envision what goes on in the real world. Add in a dash of reality TV - usually from a high profile murder case with lots of expensive consultants and trial lawyers - and the package upon which most people base their opinions is pretty much complete.

But, of course, such a picture is tremendously distorted. Especially in states like North Carolina, most serious criminal trials do not take place in big urban courtrooms packed full of brilliant, good looking, Ivy League law school grads, high-priced experts and TV lights. Most such trials take place in run-of-the-mill towns, in modest courtrooms peopled with run-of-the-mill civil servants. Perhaps a young newspaper reporter will join them from time to time. As with so many other functions of modern government, most participants are overworked and doing their best to keep up with busy and stressful jobs. Some are in over their heads or even downright incompetent. A few value victory over justice.

Anyone who doubts this characterization of the real criminal justice system would do well to read some of the facts brought to light this week in the motions filed by five North Carolina death row inmates. These men are seeking to have their death sentences converted to life without the possibility of parole as the result of the ways in which race (their race, their victim's race, the race of the jurors and rejected jurors in their cases) played a huge and discriminatory role in contributing to their death sentences.

Here are some of the salient facts as reported in a press release from the Center for Death Penalty Litigation:

"Kenneth Rouse, Randolph County, 1992: Black defendant, white victim; All-white jury; Prosecution struck 100% of qualified black jurors, 34% of qualified white jurors.

One juror claimed after the trial that "blacks do not care about living as much as whites do." The juror routinely referred to blacks as "n—–s," and stated that "bigotry" was influential in his decision to vote for death. No federal court considered Rouse's claim of race discrimination because his lawyers filed his appeal one day late. Rouse is one of five death row prisoners sentenced to death by an all-white jury in Randolph County. The prosecutor in Rouse's case has a history of striking black potential jurors.  Even the US Supreme Court has taken notice of the problem and sent yet another Randolph County capital case back for an inquiry into whether the prosecutor struck jurors in a racially discriminatory manner. 

Guy LeGrande, Stanly County, 1996, Black defendant, white victim; All-white jury; Prosecution struck 100% of the qualified black jurors, 26% of qualified white jurors

LeGrande's white co-defendant, who was the mastermind of the murder, was allowed to plead to second degree murder. In testimony at his trial, LeGrande was referred to as a "n—– from Wadesboro." LeGrande, who is severely mentally ill, was allowed to represent himself at trial. The district attorney in his case regularly wore a noose lapel pin, a racially charged symbol of lynching, in the courtroom. He gave noose pins to his assistant district attorneys as "morale boosters" when they obtained a death sentence. One of the three recent exonerees, yet another black defendant who was sentenced by an all-white jury, was prosecuted by the same district attorney. His exoneration came after the revelation that the prosecutor hid favorable evidence from the defendant.

Shawn Bonnett, Martin County, 1996, Black defendant, white victim; Two black jurors; Prosecution struck 78% of the qualified black jurors, 6% of qualified white jurors.

Bonnett and three other men were charged with the robbery and murder of a white store owner. It was not contested that Bonnett was not the shooter or the mastermind in the case, and none of his three co-defendants were sentenced to death. The prosecution in Bonnett's trial used their peremptory strikes to exclude 78% of the qualified black potential jurors, while accepting 94% of the white jurors. At the time of the trial, the population of Martin County was 45% black. 

Jeremy Murrell, Forsyth County, 2006, Black defendant, white victim; One black juror; Prosecution struck 80% of the qualified black jurors, 26% of qualified white jurors.

Prosecutors in Murrell's trial used their peremptory strikes to exclude a large proportion of qualified black prospective jurors from jury service. Meanwhile, prosecutors removed very few prospective white jurors from the panel. When asked to explain why they had cut nearly all the blacks from the jury, prosecutors claimed to have done so because those prospective jurors were close in age to the defendant, had failed to reveal their criminal records, or had a family history of mental illness. However, the prosecution gave its approval to white prospective jurors who were the exact same age as the defendant, had failed to reveal the exact same criminal charges as the struck black jurors, and also reported family histories of mental illness. 

Jathiyah Al-Bayyinah, Davie County (Iredell County jury), 1999, again in 2003, (granted a new trial, re-sentenced to death) Black defendant, white victim; Two all-white juries; 1999 case - prosecution struck 100% of the qualified black jurors, 24% of qualified white jurors; 2003 case - prosecution struck 67% of the qualified black jurors, 21% of qualified white jurors

On appeal, Al-Bayyinah, who is Muslim, presented evidence that his trial attorneys were ineffective in failing to present mitigating evidence of racial violence and tension in Statesville at the time he was growing up.  In rejecting his claim, the court specifically cited as reasons why the claim was being denied that he became a Muslim, and the "the peaceful murder victim was an elderly white man." One of the investigating officers in his case manufactured a fraudulent statement incriminating to the defendant and altered computer files to conceal the deception, and another later pled guilty to embezzlement from the sheriff's department. Of the seven defendants currently on death row from that prosecutorial district, four were sentenced by all-white juries." 

In other words, each of these cases shows in the plainest terms why the TV version of criminal justice reality is so frequently inaccurate. These men were not convicted and sentenced to death in big city courthouses under the microscope of intense scrutiny provided by rows of TV cameras and teams of heroic lawyers and experts. Rather, each was sent to death row by a relatively narrow group of all-too-human individuals living in some modest-sized (and, in many ways, racially divided) communities. Each of their cases was and is fraught with huge problems that call into question the ultimate fairness of the judgments rendered.

This is where, thank goodness, the Racial Justice Act now has the chance to come into play. Thanks to the new law passed by state lawmakers last year, each of these men now has a chance to make a case and convince a judge that his sentence was the result of racial bias.

Of course, nothing is certain. Even if he prevails, each man still faces the prospect of life in prison without the possibility of parole. Moreover, once each man has made his case, state prosecutors will have the chance to disprove it.

What the new law does help to make sure, however, is that an extra and vitally important measure of scrutiny will now be brought to some of the most important decisions we make as a society.

After all, one thing that is the same on TV and in the real world criminal justice systems is this: At the end of the day, a group of imperfect humans will attempt to decide what is "just" for a criminal defendant. In some cases they will decide whether he or she will live or die.

Since society cannot turn every such real world trial into an episode of "Law and Order," it seems like the least we can do is to make sure that no one is put to death in all of our names because of his or the victim's race.

It's often said that those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it. A potentially helpful variation of this adage for the present might go something like this: "Those who cannot remember the past (even from just a few years ago) are doomed to be snookered by ideologues selling the snake oil of trickledown economics."

Compare, for instance, the following news story "lead":

"September 27, 2000

WASHINGTON (CNN) — President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion….

In June, the administration predicted the surplus would be $211 billion, and would increase by as much as $1 trillion over the next 10 years.

"The key to fiscal discipline is maintaining these results year after year. We need to put our priorities in order," Clinton said."

with this one…

"July 28, 2008

WASHINGTON (CNN) — President Bush's budget chief blamed the faltering economy and the bipartisan stimulus package for the record $482 billion deficit the White House predicted for the 2009 budget year.

Jim Nussle, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, said the deficit would be about 3.3 percent of the nation's gross domestic product, the measure of the nation's total economy."

Learning from the past

As Americans debate the state of the economy and our mounting national debt, here are some basic facts to remember and consider:

Like President Obama, President Clinton inherited huge budget deficits. By the end of his term, however, he had helped turn them into surpluses and actually begun to pay down the federal debt. He accomplished this through a combination of avoiding expensive overseas wars, keeping a lid other federal spending and, most importantly, achieving a responsible budget-balancing tax package.

Unfortunately, President Bush followed this period of genuine success with a perfect storm of terrible fiscal decisions that included: launching an enormously expensive war of choice in Iraq and, most importantly, slashing federal taxes at almost the worst possible time. Of the exploding deficits that had reemerged by the end of the Bush term, almost half (48%) were attributable to tax cuts and more than a third (37%) were attributable to defense, homeland security and international spending. Despite conservative mythmaking to the contrary, only 17% of the reemerging deficits at the end of the Bush term were attributable to "entitlements" and domestic discretionary spending. Over the next decade, $7 trillion in federal deficits will be directly attributable to the Bush tax cuts and wars.

Since 2009, the Bush policies have really taken their toll. When combined with the huge impact of the housing bubble-led recession, they have caused deficits to soar to record levels. Entering the presidency as he did at a moment of true crisis, President Obama has truly found himself "behind the eight ball." With the economy in freefall, 2009 was no time for a general tax hike to close the deficit. Meanwhile, however, the deficit and federal debt have continued to grow. While not an immediate threat to national economic health or security (the country ran a much higher debt as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product at the close of World War II) it is not a problem that can be deferred indefinitely. According to projections from economists across the spectrum, the federal debt will grow to truly unsustainable levels in the coming decade if action is not taken,

So, what to do?

The solutions available to the President and the Congress are not terribly numerous - especially given the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. This year's passage of health care reform was an important first step toward controlling the growth of domestic spending, but given the magnitude of the challenge and the fragility of the economy, lawmakers must do more without slowing the recovery.

Fortunately for the President and the country, at least one viable and effective option is immediately at-hand. At the end of 2010, the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy (families making over $250,000 per year and singles making over $200,000) are scheduled to expire. If leaders allow this expiration to go ahead as planned, the federal deficit would be immediately slashed by $40 billion in 2011 and as much $826 billion over the coming decade. Not only would this provide an enormous boost to deficit reduction efforts, but it would also free up dollars for more effective economic stimulus programs.

Unfortunately and not surprisingly, conservatives and well-heeled lobbyists who helped foist these ill-conceived cuts on the country in the first place are clamoring to make them permanent (though their fallback position is to extend the cuts "temporarily" until, they hope, a more conservative congress is in place). In keeping with their well-worn playbook, these groups and individuals argue that tax cuts for the rich will eventually "trickledown" through the economy to benefit lower and middle income people and that expiration would hurt "small business" and hinder economic recovery.

In truth, of course, each of these arguments is demonstrably false.

On the "trickledown" theory - If this tired old line of reasoning had any merit, why has the nation seen almost constant growth in income gaps during the last few decades as taxes have fallen on the rich?

On the effect on "small business" - Repeal of the Bush tax cuts on the rich would have no effect on the vast majority of American small businesses since relatively few have take home incomes above the thresholds. Indeed, according to a May report from Citizens for Tax Justice, "Only 3 to 5 percent of small business owners are wealthy enough to lose some of their tax cuts under President Obama's proposal." Moreover, of those that would be impacted, the small bump in taxes would only apply to their take home income (i.e. the money they take in after paying employees, buying new equipment, etc…).

On the impact on the economic recovery - This is perhaps the most ironic of the conservative arguments. Having spearheaded the creation of the current economic and fiscal crises via their mad rush to limit public oversight of corporate behavior and bestow tax breaks to the wealthy, conservatives now have mustered the gall to argue that we dare not change course lest we damage the economy!

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently made clear the fallacy of this argument. As reported by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities just this week:

"CBO examined 11 options to stimulate growth and job creation and found that extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts in general came in last in effectiveness. CBO concluded that a job-creation tax credit, funds to help states balance their budgets with fewer cuts in services and tax increases, and extended unemployment insurance benefits would all generate more jobs and growth on a dollar-for-dollar basis.

Furthermore, CBO indicated that extending the tax cuts for high-income households in particular would rate even lower in effectiveness than extending all of the tax cuts. This is because, as CBO explained, ‘higher-income households … would probably save [rather than spend] a larger fraction of their increase in after-tax income.' An economy in a recession or the early stages of a recovery needs more spending, not more saving."

In other words…

If history and common sense have taught us anything, it's that the last thing Congress, the President or anyone who cares at all about the U.S. economy or the solvency of the government should consider in the coming months is extension of the Bush tax cuts on the rich. Let's hope people are paying attention.

It's hard to say what's more maddening about the narrow Wake County School Board majority - the things that it has actually done or the way it has gone about doing them.

On the first count, of course, the list of objectionable actions is long and growing:

• Moving to eliminate the system's longstanding and widely celebrated socioeconomic integration policy;

• Chasing off a talented and committed Superintendent;

• Hiring the hyper-partisan ideologues at the Pope-Civitas Institute to "train" new members and a Republican Party lawyer to advise them;

• Conducting a survey of school system parents about their satisfaction with their school assignment(s) and then ignoring the overwhelmingly positive results;

• Electing a Board chair who has an enormous conflict of interest;

• Holding closed backroom meetings and engaging in communications beyond the public eye;

• Shutting out public participation and refusing to engage in dialogue with critics; and

• Wasting millions of dollars to relocate a high school site against the advice of experts.

Taken together, this list makes up a truly dreadful "body of work" for the group's first seven months in office. Short of selling the school system off to a for-profit company or instituting some kind of conservative ideology test on all school employees, it's hard to think of many ways in which they could have done a poorer job.

Even so, all of these ideologically-driven and counter-productive actions would be easier to take if the majority would end the con/shell game that it has been using to explain and justify its actions. You know this little exercise: it's the one in which Board members change the story behind their actions on an almost daily basis - depending on the audience.

One day, the majority members are railing against "forced busing" and "social engineering" and touting the decades-old code words "neighborhood schools." These are the days in which Board Chair Ron Margiotta headlines partisan political events and talks about breaking up the unified Wake County school system and in which John Tedesco cavorts at Tea Party rallies.

Then there are the other days - the one in which the majority members claim that their actions are actually motivated by their undying love for poor and minority children. These are the days on which Board members speak with straight faces about their minority friends and trot out newly discovered "experts" to "prove," rather conveniently, that the solution to poor achievement by low income students is for middle class and upper income kids to go to school wherever they want.

The latest story

This week, the majority members' penchant for talking out of both sides of their mouths may well have hit a new level. Confronted with huge and broad-based community protests and even waves of civil disobedience in reaction to their destructive actions, members of the majority unveiled yet another strategy in the their ever-shifting rationalization: denial.

After months of diligent work to undermine the premise behind Wake County's longstanding student assignment policy through direct action and propaganda; after speaking at length on numerous occasions about the supposed folly of "social engineering" and admitting that their new system of "neighborhood schools" would inevitably lead - as it has in Charlotte and numerous other places - to higher concentration of low-income students, majority leaders effected a sudden turnabout.

It was as if the group said: "Did we say our new plan would end socioeconomic integration? Good heavens, what could have given you that idea?"

The apparent about-face began on Tuesday at the Board's latest meeting. Chair Ron Margiotta read a prepared statement in which he pledged that whatever assignment system the majority ultimately comes up with, it will not lead to lead to high concentrations of poor or minority students. The board majority then confirmed that it was beginning to explore a student assignment regimen known as "controlled choice."

As Tommy Goldsmith of Raleigh's News & Observer reported this week:

"A controlled choice model for Wake would create a dozen or more attendance zones, each of which would reflect the makeup of Wake County - no rich zones or poor zones, said Massachusetts education consultant Michael Alves, who's helped design dozens of such systems nationally.

Parents would be able to choose from a wide range of school offerings in their zone, with a lottery to make another choice when schools are too crowded or apply to a countywide system of magnets….Parents would not be guaranteed of getting their first choice, but in systems that use controlled choice, such as Lee County, Fla., and Cambridge, Mass., a large majority do.

"We've been looking at a number of plans from a number of districts across the country," board chairman Ron Margiotta said Wednesday. "He's very close to what we have in mind, to my understanding."

Got that? After months of ideological rhetoric about its evils, the majority now claims that it is ready to explore a student assignment model that sounds an awful lot like the current system - one that sends most kids to their nearest schools, features magnets and promotes diversity.

Retreat or double talk?

Two possible explanations appear to underlie the majority's latest actions.

The first is that the group has had something akin to a change of heart. After months of brinksmanship and ideological appeals to the far right, people like Margiotta and John Tedesco are backing down. Bowing to public opinion and pressure from pro-integration advocates and community leaders, they are now looking for ways to save face. Their plan: find another student assignment plan that's at least somewhat different than the current system so they can appease their base and camouflage the specific reassignments they've granted to their friends, allies and favored constituents without causing the complete community meltdown that true re-segregation promises.

The second and more sinister possibility is that this latest action is just a ruse. In keeping with the majority's previous flirtation with a Duke Economics professor and his mysterious algorithms, the majority is just killing time and putting up smoke screens before it fully implements re-segregated system for the 2011-12 school year. Indeed, as one education analyst noted, the devil is in the details when it comes to adopting a "controlled choice" system. Such a model provides a continuum of options. It's entirely possible to re-segregate the schools while still claiming you're implementing "controlled choice." Given the majority's close connection to the hardball-playing, anti-public education Pope-Luddy wing of the conservative movement, such a possibility is easy to imagine.

Whichever of the two explanations (or combination thereof) that's really at work in the latest developments, it doesn't paint a very pretty picture. Whether the Board majority is pursuing some kind of manipulative, Machiavellian scheme or simply casting about wildly for an illusory solution that would match its own contradictory propaganda, one thing is clear: Wake County residents don't know the whole story. This is because rather than advancing a thoughtful and open process of genuine research and dialogue around promoting excellent schools and student achievement, the majority has been pursuing an ideological, "shoot first and ask questions later" approach to school governance. As NAACP leader, Rev. William Barber noted insightfully this week, "These five members, they came in with a playbook."

At this point, it appears the best explanation we can hope for is that the Board majority's rapidly shifting story is a product of half-baked incompetence; that having failed to make it work, they're abandoning their playbook. Let's hope we find out soon.

Members of the General Assembly headed home this past Saturday morning. In all likelihood, they will not return to Raleigh, except to attend various meetings and study commissions, until next January.

As is usually the case, the session provided a mixture of encouraging and discouraging developments. For the most part, lawmakers stuck to the cautious, middle-of-the-road approach that House and Senate leaders had forecast they would pursue earlier in the year.

In some ways, of course, this made a lot of sense. This was, after all, a "short session" that was generally supposed to be devoted to "adjusting" the budget rather than to lots of grand new policy initiatives. Add to this the fact that lawmakers had very little money with which to work and the strong desire of Democratic leaders not to do anything too controversial at such a critical political juncture (the party that wins this fall's election will be drawing the new post-Census political map) and it's no wonder that leaders wanted to get into Raleigh, get some stuff done and get the heck out of town.

To the extent legislative leaders were actually able to pull this off and keep state government more or less up and running, they deserve a good deal of credit. In effect, leaders offered North Carolinians a fairly modest set of promises and, in the end, delivered on them.

Still, there's no denying that 2010 now also marks another year in which North Carolina will have once again failed to address several festering and critical policy challenges. From the state's eroded and out-of-date revenue system to its fast re-segregating and under-resourced public schools to its crumbling mental health system, our troubles and challenges continue to mount.

Here are some of the highlights and lowlights of the 2010 session:

The lights are still on - Despite the absurd, conveniently unspecific and cynically political complaints of the far right, legislative leaders patched together an FY 2011 budget that mostly avoids disastrous service cuts. At this point, North Carolina will not be forced shorten the school year or kick children off of the Health Choice program or start to furlough prisoners.

Nonetheless, essential services will be reduced and badly underfunded. To see this reality, one need only visit one of the state's thousands of increasingly overcrowded K-12 classrooms, spend five minutes kicking around one of our absurdly inadequate mental hospitals, examine a rising college tuition bill or speak to a state employee whose real wages have fallen for two years in a row. In general, things are getting tighter and tighter and are stretched past their limits.

Additional confirmation of this hard reality was made available in a new report issued by the N.C. Budget and Tax Center entitled "How Low is too Low?" According to the report, state spending per capita is now at the lowest level since fiscal year 1996-97. Indeed, it has dropped $311 over the past three years, from $2,257 in 2007-08 to $1,946 in the new budget that began July 1.

Moreover, when measured as a percentage of the state's total personal income, the fall in spending is even more striking - from a high of 8.19% in 1998-99 to just 5.8% in the new budget. This is truly a precipitous drop and indicates that the recession is far from the only culprit for the tough fiscal times.

Passage of important consumer protection legislation - In one of the session's true bright spots, lawmakers passed the long-sought Homeowner and Homebuyer Protection Act during the session's waning days. This new law will prohibit mortgage foreclosure rescue scams and other dangerous real estate practices, like abusive "lease option" agreements and "contract for deed" transactions. It will keep a lot of people in their homes while at the same time putting a real dent in a bottom-feeding "industry" that had been capitalizing on the suffering of others. In addition, legislators also gave final approval to a bill that will extend the Commissioner of Banks' successful emergency foreclosure program to all home mortgage foreclosures, rather than just so-called "subprime" mortgages. This bill also establishes funding for housing counseling and foreclosure mitigation efforts. 

Passage of a modest ethics reform - Few issues received more media attention during the session than the debate over ethics in government. Again, to their credit, lawmakers stood "up to the plate" and got something meaningful passed. The new legislation adopted in the waning days of the session will make a host of useful changes - by, among other things, clamping down somewhat on the so-called "revolving door" for those who would leave state employment to become lobbyists, requiring more disclosures of more public servants about their receipt of contributions and gifts, and making more information public.

Unfortunately, reform efforts fell short in at least two important areas that would have been true "difference makers." First and foremost, lawmakers failed to expand the public financing of elections - either for Council of State candidates (current law already provides it for Insurance Commissioner, Auditor and Superintendent of Public Instruction) or local government races. As a result, big interest group campaign contributions will continue to remain the elephant in the room when it comes to ethical temptations. Second and in a related vein, lawmakers failed to enact the kinds of "pay to play" rules that would truly rein in campaign contributions from potential state contractors to those with authority over their contracts.

Other noteworthy items - When it comes to the agenda favored by progressives, there were a handful of other important accomplishments that deserve mention.

Encouraging developments included:

• A new law that allows parents of special needs kids to opt out of corporal punishment for their children in the public schools,

• A new legislative study of public school re-segregation,

• The end of the booster club-driven, in-state tuition break for out-of-state athletes,

• Passage of legislation that bans the latest version of the predatory video poker and "sweepstakes" machines.

• The failure of a variety of anti-immigrant proposals and other extreme far right agenda items.

Negative developments included:

• An array of deep cuts to a number of essential education, environmental, justice and public safety and social safety net programs,

• Passage of yet another round of expensive gifts to large and profitable corporations - including expanded business subsidies and a lessening of environmental standards for certain businesses,

• Passage of a new and troubling law that will permit DNA testing of people arrested for certain crimes and the retention of this private information even when individuals are not charged or are found to be innocent.

Going forward

While pragmatic and realistic progressives can understand the mostly cautious avoidance of boat-rocking that was the hallmark of the 2010 session, their patience is not (and ought not to be) inexhaustible. Given the enormous challenges that confront the state, at some point, progressive leaders who want to do more (and who know in their hearts that North Carolina can and must do more) will have to muster the courage to take on the far right and other backward-looking obstructionists of both parties who stand in the way of progress.

In other words, running in place forever is no long-term policy solution. At some point in the near future, thoughtful and caring leaders will have to put their cards on the table and push aggressively for the kinds of structural, long-term progressive changes that are necessary to move North Carolina forward. Let's hope 2011 is the year.

It never ceases to amaze just how far elected officials will go, often quite sincerely, in providing "incentives" to big, profitable corporations. There's just something so alluring about the prospect of that ribbon-cutting ceremony and the opportunity to at least create the impression that you're doing something about employment and economic development, that it seems there's scarcely any rule or principle that isn't subject to repeal or compromise.

Did we say that all companies receiving a subsidy from the state XYZ Fund had to provide high-paying jobs with health insurance? Silly us, we meant to say that they only need to pay minimum wage and pass out some flyers about where workers can buy health insurance.

Did we say that business subsidies would be limited to down-the-road tax breaks for smaller, innovative companies willing to locate in hard-hit areas? Sorry. We meant to say that we are willing to pay cash up front to giant multi-nationals to locate in healthy counties in which they would have located anyway. Come to think of it, if they're big and powerful enough, we'll even pay companies with existing facilities that simply agree not to cut as many workers as they might have.

Titan Cement

Yesterday, the state Senate added another new and creative example to the seemingly endless list of such soul-selling compromises. This one involves (or, at least is inspired by) the controversial plan of Carolinas Cement Co. (aka "Titan Cement") to develop the fourth largest cement plant in the United States just outside of Wilmington.

That proposal, of course, has generated smokestacks full of controversy for some time now as residents of New Hanover County have fought the plan based on a list of environmental concerns as long as your arm. According to citizen activists at the group StopTitan.org, the new plant would, among many other things:

• Create one of the largest sources of air pollution in the Wilmington area for the next 50 years,

• Be the fifth highest mercury emitting facility in the state and the largest in southeastern NC,

• Be a significant emitter of nitrogen dioxide (contributes to smog and ozone) and sulfur dioxide,

• Emit nearly 700 tons of particulate matter each year,

• Create a 2500 + acre mine, over 70-feet deep that would destroy over 1000 acres of irreplaceable wetlands, wildlife habitat and harm critical surface and ground water within the NE Cape Fear River ecosystem,

• Withdraw millions of gallons of water from the Castle Hayne and Pee Dee aquifers, lowering the water table and risking contamination of a major source of area drinking water.

One of the major checkpoints standing in the way of the development of the Titan plant is a section of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), which requires a comprehensive state review when a project: a) involves the expenditure of state money, b) requires state action, and c) has the potential to significantly affect the environment. Although Titan is a private facility, its proposal clearly meets all three criteria - especially since it has been the beneficiary of direct public "business incentive" subsidies from state and local officials.

According to Titan and the business lobby, however, the expenditure of public incentive funds (in this case, in the form of direct grants from the Department of Commerce and New Hanover County) should not count as the "expenditure of public moneys" because they have not yet been spent - even though all concede that Titan will receive $4.5 million in grants if the plant is built as proposed.

As a Wake County Superior Court judge ruled back in May, the company's hyper-technical interpretation of the law makes no sense. "The Legislature could not have intended for companies to build a project, receive previously committed public grant money and only then conduct the SEPA review of the project's potential environmental impact and proposed alternatives," wrote Judge Donald Stephens.

As Stephens might have added, such an interpretation would make about as much sense as providing business incentives to a large and profitable corporation so that it can relocate a plant into an already thriving county and pay below-average wages!

Oh, wait a minute…

You can see where this is going. Yesterday, in keeping with the practice of multiple governors and General Assemblies when it comes to doing whatever big business demands, the Senate took action to do the precise thing that Judge Stephens rightfully pointed out as being completely illogical. In a waning-days-of-the-session floor amendment to an omnibus incentives bill, Senators amended the SEPA to make clear that incentives of the kind provided to Titan are not to be considered "public moneys" that would trigger application of an environmental review.

In other words, if the amendment sticks (it was adopted 45-3) and the bill becomes law in the last minute crush this week, a key provision of one of the state's most important environmental protection laws will have been significantly weakened.

What the Senate amendment will mean for the Titan case itself is not entirely clear. The language of the amendment says it is retroactively effective to May 1, two days before the Stephens order was officially entered, but one day after he actually signed it. According to some insider reports, an additional Senate amendment will be forthcoming to clarify that the change will not impact Titan case. Let's hope so.

Whatever, however, the impact on Titan, the change is clearly a step backwards when it comes to assuring that future projects posing a threat to the environment receive a comprehensive review. While there are several other specific permits that plants like the Titan development will still have to obtain (for water pollution, air pollution, etc…) the beauty of SEPA is that it requires a much more thorough and comprehensive review As one advocate explained, without SEPA, the review accorded to many future projects will resemble the proverbial blind men describing various parts of an elephant; each of the reviewers will be operating, in effect, wearing blinders.

Going forward

What's next? While it's still unclear what the amendment will mean in the Titan case (the matter is still before the Court of Appeals), it's hard to see how the message sent by lawmakers could be much plainer. Apparently, anything that the state's powerful business lobby wants when it comes to incentives is there for the asking - even it means repealing and/or backtracking on every basic standard of behavior that we would otherwise demand of responsible corporate citizens.

It's enough to make you wonder if lawmakers shouldn't just do away with the charade and simply authorize the Department of Commerce to waive any and all laws, rules and regulations that it or the NC Chamber fancies. At least then we could stop pretending.

Quick take: State lawmakers are scheduled to hold final votes today and tomorrow on this year's budget bill. Though better in many ways than it might have been - especially during the current economic hard times - the budget still imposes a number of painful and regressive cuts on a system of services and structures that was already inadequate. Progressive must do and demand much more if they expect lawmakers to likewise.

North Carolina lawmakers seem certain to pass a budget bill this week. To their credit, legislators will adopt a package that amends and updates the biennial budget passed last year, and get it done prior to the start of the 2011 fiscal year that commences at midnight tomorrow night.

Good for them. Even under the best of circumstances, getting a comprehensive budget put together and passed into law by the end of the fiscal year is a formidable logistical and political challenge. The new budget will keep the ship of state more or less afloat and avoid some of the absolutely worst options that confronted lawmakers. As we've seen in a lot of other states where lawmakers have shortened school years, opened the jails and sold off every public asset they could get their hands on, things could be a heck of a lot worse than they are in North Carolina.

For legislative leaders swimming in a toxic political environment, it's perhaps understandable if they take a few moments to congratulate themselves today and tomorrow. Especially given the unhelpful and often cynical political tactics of conservative critics, Democrats in charge of the House and Senate can perhaps be forgiven if they take a few hours to crow over having developed a budget that keeps the schools and prisons open without any significant tax increases.

The world beyond Jones Street

For progressives outside the narrow little world that is the General Assembly, such moments present a conundrum: On the one hand, thoughtful and caring people share the relief of insiders who rightfully point to just how truly dreadful things could have been. North Carolina is still not South Carolina or Mississippi or Alabama.

On the other hand, when all the congratulatory handshaking and backslapping dies down sometime tomorrow afternoon or evening, North Carolina will still confront a simple and sobering "big picture" reality: The state budget is lousy. It is horrifically and dangerously inadequate. It spends far too little on a vast number of essential public services and structures and too much on several items that do little or nothing to advance the common good. Moreover, it is funded in an increasingly obsolete fashion that all but guarantees a perpetual state of fiscal crisis.

Perhaps the most glaring example is in public education. Just about everyone (with the exception of some delusional ideologues on the extreme right) agrees that public education is the key to North Carolina's future. We desperately need more and better teachers, principals, facilities, text books, computers, school buses, equipment, etc…. Dream as we might of magic solutions that will transform things on the cheap, the hard truth is that the only proven way to improve public education on a macro scale is to provide more children with more attention from more high quality teachers in more bright and healthy schools. This means spending money - a whole lot more than we spend now.

But, of course, this year's K-12 budget doesn't spend more; it spends millions less than lawmakers budgeted just last year. Yes, things may not be as bad as they could be. North Carolina is not the Third World. But by the standards of what a truly progressive, modern and competitive society ought to be striving for in the 21^st Century, the education budget is terrible. It places more and more demands on a thinly stretched corps of professionals while imposing what amounts to a pay cut. This is nothing to be celebrated.

Similarly, while lawmakers deserve some praise for the modest funding bump they provided to Mental Health, Developmental Disabilities and Substance Abuse services, the state's hospitals remain dreadfully inadequate and its half-baked efforts to partially privatize the system a fiasco.

And so it goes throughout the budget. Lawmakers provided enough dollars to cover around 2,000 new kids on the Health Choice children's health insurance program, but that's probably less than six months worth of natural growth under the already inadequate system of outreach we currently employ. Legislators used a variety of imaginative tactics to plug holes and extract savings when it comes to Medicaid spending, but the bottom line is that lots of deserving people will still go un-served.

The state's overcrowded prisons and judicial system will absorb big cuts. Early childhood programs: cut. Crime control and public safety: cut. Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention: cut. Public Health: cut. Vocational rehabilitation: cut. Minority economic development: cut. Highway maintenance: cut. Many, many other solid and important public services and institutions: cut.

Meanwhile, though far fewer in number than those subjected to cuts, lawmakers continue to fund a sizable number of questionable programs and tax breaks - most notably in the areas of corporate giveaways (i.e., "business incentives") and transportation (where infrastructure remains too often divorced from genuine need and environmental sustainability).

What this means for progressives

To those lawmakers and other advocates who would protest such harsh criticism as unrealistic and unfair during an era of profound economic and fiscal crisis, an honest analyst must concede: You have a point. The innumerable shortcomings of the North Carolina budget are nothing new. Most of the funding shortfalls highlighted above could have also been mentioned in years past.

What this year's budget does, in essence, is to strap a little more bailing wire and duct tape onto an old beater of a car that was already on its last legs and facing an uphill trip. Think of an '82 Dodge Caravan with 300,000 miles. What's needed, of course, is a new state budget vehicle - one that that relies upon a modern, adequate and fair tax system to secure the resources necessary to run a large, growing, urban state in the 21^st Century. Think of a sleek, efficient hybrid.

How do we break out of the current trap and get to that point? If this year's budget shows us anything, it's that a mere combination of economic crisis and Democratic leadership is not enough to do the trick. While many good and wise lawmakers - several of them in positions of authority - would like to do much, much more, right now they perceive themselves as having accomplished all that is possible in the current political environment.

If progressive North Carolinians want to alter this political calculus, they will have to start raising a lot more heck than they have thus far.