Yes, Seth MacFarlane, it's still too soon

Kate Murphy, pastor at Charlotte's The Grove Presbyterian church, watched along with millions of others last night as Academy Awards host Seth MacFarlane said this:

Here's what Murphy thought: 

Like millions of others, I settled in Sunday evening to watch the Oscars. I was looking for glamour, escape and sly self-deprecating humor. What I got was a wake-up call as host Seth MacFarlane congratulated actor Daniel Day-Lewis for his extraordinary title performance in Lincoln, then noted that “the actor who really got inside Lincoln's head was John Wilkes Booth."

There was an audible gasp from the audience, but MacFarlane was ready for it. “What? One hundred and fifty years later and it's still too soon?” he quipped, before warning us we really weren’t going to like his Napolean jokes. The message was clear — Lincoln was assassinated. Get over it. Why should we care about a violent death that occurred over a century ago?

When you hear actors, directors and producers talk about why movies matter—they always cite films like Lincoln—a movie that reveals the humanity of our heroes and forces us to relive the past. When we see how hard Lincoln and others had to fight to end the institution of slavery, we realize how easily a society can adapt to evil and come to see it as not only necessary but righteous. We walk away asking questions about present-day America. Isn’t it likely our society has similar blinders about current cultural institutions? What evils have we grown accustomed to? We see how history hinges on the moral courage of one individual, and we wonder about our own responsibility to challenge evil. We see that Abraham Lincoln isn’t a character in a tall black hat, but an extraordinary ordinary man who changed the course of history. And we grieve the terrible price of his victory. And if two weeks after seeing the movie we can laugh about a bullet entering his head — then God help us.

One hundred and fifty years later, it’s not funny that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Abraham Lincoln. Has America grown so indifferent to violence that we must now convince people that murder is a tragedy? In 150 years, will we be laughing about Newtown?

As a Christian, my life is centered on a cross. A man was brutally murdered upon that cross, and not by God. Jesus was murdered by people. As a pastor, my life’s work consists in telling others why that death still matters two thousand years later. I believe that the grace of God transforms and redeems violence—but it doesn’t make it funny. The murder of Jesus is still a tragedy and Lincoln’s murder is still a tragedy and so are the murders of Ghandi and MLK and JFK and RFK. Their deaths aren’t funny—and not because they were heroes, but because they were humans. I won’t dishonor their lives by mocking their deaths. There are a lot of ridiculous things to laugh about at the Oscars; murder just isn’t one of them.

Should N.C. require cursive in schools?

So I'm a hypocrite about cursive handwriting. In our house, we require our sons - one in elementary school and one in middle school - to practice it weekly on homework assignments. We think it's good to know - that despite the predominance of communication by texts, tweets and emails, there's still a social expectation of script in some places. Potential employers still notice a handwritten thank you. More importantly, so do grandmothers.

Do I use cursive? Well, um, no. My handwriting, like many adults, is a hybrid of sorts - printed letters with the occasional flourish of a cursive loop tossed in. It's nothing close to what Mrs. Mackey taught me in 3rd grade, but it gets the job done, at least for the few notes I still write by hand.

Now, some N.C. lawmakers are trying to make cursive handwriting a required part of the curriculum in state elementary schools. Sponsors of the "Back to Basics" bill say it teaches children discipline, makes them more well-rounded and, according to Rep. Chris Malone of Wake County, "lends to our humanity."

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools spokeswoman Stacy Sneed says the district teaches all students cursive starting in second grade. But in our sons' classrooms, busy with many other subjects, that "teaching" seems to have started and ended then. Each learned to write his name and the letters of the alphabet, but there's been no requirement to use cursive since. If not for their oppressive parents, they would have forgotten the skill by now. 

Is it worth it? Educators say that cursive isn't just about writing, but reading. Children benefit from knowing how to read script in school (think Declaration of Independence) and will benefit later when they have to decipher a doctor's or coworker's note. As for the writing skill, there might be some advantages even beyond the employer-to-be or happy grandma. About 15 percent of the College Board's SAT test takers submit their essay answers in cursive, and those essays also happen to score higher. Is that because those students tend to be from higher-scoring private schools, where cursive is still taught, or is there a judging bias toward nicely handwritten essays? No answers there, but there's no question that, rightly or wrongly, elegant handwriting signals sophistication to people in a position to judge.

The question, for lawmakers and parents, is whether that's enough to require the skill from our elementary students. Given the inescapable march of keyboarded communication, it seems that cursive handwriting has transitioned from critical to complementary. If lawmakers are going to start micromanaging what our students must learn, let's require something really useful like, say, Spanish.

Photo: Teacher Cindy Kusilek works with her third-grade class at Franklin Academy Charter School in Wake Forest. Students there work 20 to 30 minutes a day on cursive handwriting. Photo by Robert Willett, News & Observer.

- Peter St. Onge








  

Our middle-of-the-road senators

The National Journal is out with its annual rankings of members of Congress, and North Carolina's senators stand out for not standing out.

Sen. Kay Hagan, a Democrat, ranked 48th most liberal, which put her right in the middle of the Senate and made her one of the least liberal -- or most conservative -- Senate Democrats in 2012. Forty-seven Democrats scored more liberally than Hagan while only five finished to her right.

Sen. Richard Burr, a Republican, ranked the 23rd most conservative (or 77th most liberal), which put him smack in the middle of the 46 Republicans.

This is a ranking Sen. Hagan is likely to embrace, given that she faces reelection next year in a decidedly purple state. According to National Journal, her record in 2012 was decidedly purple itself.

In the 435-member House, Rep. Sue Myrick of Charlotte ranked 32nd most conservative, Rep. Mel Watt ranked 45th most liberal and Rep. Larry Kissell ranked 177th most liberal; only seven Democrats ranked more conservative than him.  

(In South Carolina, meanwhile, Republican Sen. Jim DeMint, who has since left for the Heritage Foundation, ranked as the Senate's third most conservative member. Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham ranked 33rd most conservative. That might raise concerns about Graham's vulnerability to a challenge from the right during his reelection campaign next year.)

To see the complete rankings, click here.

-- Taylor Batten

The truth on teen sex

From the Chicago Tribune editorial board, good news and good perspective on teen sex:

American teenagers are awash in temptation, particularly the kind that involves pleasures of the flesh. They are exposed to racier images on television than ever before. Popular music celebrates carnal passion with unceasing gusto. And the Internet offers an endless array of graphic sexual fare. From watching “Glee” or “Gossip Girl,” you get the idea that high school is just one hookup after another.

This salacious environment is a lot for impressionable youngsters to deal with, but our kids are dealing with it surprisingly well.

So says the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which reports that when it comes to having babies, adolescents are not only doing better than they used to be, they’re doing better than they’ve ever done since 1946. The birth rate among teenagers fell by 8 percent from 2010 to 2011.

It wasn’t a fluke. The previous year, it fell by 9 percent. These represent just the continuation of a long and very impressive decline over the past two decades. Since 1991, the number of babies born to women ages 15 to 19 has fallen by 49 percent, despite an expanding population of teenagers.

Nor is the phenomenon peculiar to any one group or region. Among non-Hispanic blacks, the rate has plunged by 60 percent since 1991. Among Latinos, it’s 53 percent. Teen births have been falling across the country. If the rate had stayed where it was two decades ago, there would have been 3.6 million more births since then than there actually were.

There are some collateral benefits from the improvement. Premature births have fallen among all women, and so has the number of low-birth weight babies – both of which make for healthier infants.

What accounts for the dramatic progress? A combination of less sex and more contraception has played a big part. Since 1991, the proportion of high school students who have ever had sexual intercourse has declined from 82 percent to 60 percent – a drop of more than a quarter. Adolescents are also less likely to have had several partners.

The ones having sex have gotten more careful about the consequences. Among those who have sex, the use of condoms has risen by one-third. Lately, other types of birth control also appear to have gained in popularity as well. Some 14 percent of sexually experienced teen girls have used emergency (plan B) contraceptives. But abortion has gotten less common.

The picture we get is not the raunchy abandon so often depicted in popular culture. It’s one of growing awareness of the downside of sex, more willingness to postpone it, and taking measures to prevent it from causing pregnancy.

Those steps are what parents, teachers and public health professionals have been urging on adolescents for decades now. Surprise: They’ve been listening.

A GOP attack on straight-ticket voting?

We're a bit torn about a bill filed this month that would eliminate straight-ticket voting in North Carolina.

It comes from the party that has spent the past few years finding new and creative ways to keep its opponents' supporters from voting. In states across the country, Republicans have legislated limits on early voting and passed voter ID laws that attack a voter fraud problem that research shows doesn't exist at polling places.

Let's not forget the Republicans in four battleground states - Virginia, Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania - who recently proposed changing how Electoral College votes are counted in their states. President Obama won each of those four last November; the proposed splitting of electoral votes by congressional district would likely favor future Republican presidential candidates.

So it's not a surprise that N.C. Republicans might turn their attention to straight-ticket voting. In the 2012 general election, about 300,000 more N.C. Democrats than Republicans chose the straight-party option. Remember, in North Carolina, voters who choose the straight ticket option still have to push an extra button to cast a presidential vote, but statewide offices are included in a straight-ticket vote. Some think that Democratic straight-ticket votes in Mecklenburg helped defeat Pat McCrory's bid for governor in 2008.

The short-and-sweet N.C. bill, introduced by Republican Sens. Thom Goolsby and Buck Newton, would eliminate the straight-party option. Voters could still fill their ballots with votes for Democrats, but they couldn't do it with one punch of a button.

And that is, whatever the intention behind it, a good idea.

Straight-ticket voting is a testament to electoral laziness. It was conceived and supported by legislators who think it's in their best interest to ride on the coattails of their party. It gives voters the opportunity to cast ballots without having to burden themselves with thinking about individual candidates and races.

It also results in embarrassments like Alvin Greene. Remember him? He was an unknown Democrat  who became the Democratic Party's nominee in the 2010 U.S. Senate race in South Carolina. It was bad enough that South Carolina Democrats awarded him a primary victory without knowing anything about him, but by the general election, most everyone had learned that Greene was unemployed, had been kicked out of the military, and faced federal obscenity charges. He still managed to receive 365,000 votes in losing to Republican Jim DeMint - but only 37,000 of those voters actually punched the button next to his name. The other 328,000 votes came from voters choosing a Democratic straight-ticket option.

Currently, 15 states offer a straight-party option to voters - down from more than 20 a couple decades ago. Yes, killing the straight ticket might result in longer lines at the polls, but it will at least nudge us closer toward what voting should be - looking at a ballot and deciding which person better represents you.

Peter St. Onge    

Hagan's U.S. Senate race deemed a toss-up

You're still recovering from the 2012 elections, we know. But pundits never tire of crystal-balling political campaigns, and a new forecast pegs North Carolina's U.S. Senate race next year as a toss-up.

Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C., is expected to seek a second term. A number of Republicans are thought to be eyeing her seat, including state Senate leader Phil Berger, House Speaker Thom Tillis and U.S. Rep. Virginia Foxx.

Larry Sabato, an oft-quoted political scientist at the University of Virginia, produces "The Crystal Ball," his take on upcoming races. This week, he issued his prognostications on all 35 Senate races in 2014. Here's how he sees Hagan's reelection battle shaping up:

North Carolina: Sen. Kay Hagan (D) was swept into office with the aid of presidential turnout in 2008. This time around, there's no presidential race above her on the ballot. Granted, she outperformed Obama in 2008, but turnout will certainly be down this time around, and Hagan won't be facing off against a vulnerable incumbent (then-Republican Sen. Elizabeth Dole). For Hagan, much will depend on two factors: First, the state of the nation (Obama's popularity, economic revival) as we get closer to Election Day 2014; and second, the Republican opposing her on the ballot. Hagan has little control over either, though she could borrow from Sen. Claire McCaskill's (D-MO) playbook and attempt to influence the GOP primary result. Among the possible Republican candidates are North Carolina House Speaker Thom Tillis and Reps. Renee Ellmers, Patrick McHenry, Virginia Foxx and George Holding. While recent polling shows Hagan leading these potential opponents, her middling approval rating and the midterm dynamics make this race a TOSS-UP.

To read Sabato's full report, click here.

DMV, McCrory make right move on immigrants

Now here's a news bulletin: Common sense has ruled the day in North Carolina government.

DOT Secretary Tony Tata just announced that North Carolina will grant driver's licenses to young illegal immigrants who have been granted status to stay in the United States.

It's the right move, and Gov. Pat McCrory deserves accolades for backing it.

Under the federal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, immigrants brought to the U.S. as children can work and live here while deportation is postponed for two years.

Yet North Carolina's DMV has been denying them driver's licenses even though the Department of Homeland Security has declared that the individuals are "lawfully present" and allowed to work. How it's consistent to then deny them a driver's license to get to that work is beyond us, as we said in an editorial last month.

N.C. Attorney General Roy Cooper issued an opinion last month saying DMV not only could, but was required to, issue the licenses. Besides being legally required, granting the driver's licenses just makes sense. As the Latin American Coalition's Lacey Williams said, "I don't know who they think will benefit to have this class of people who can now work but cannot drive."

Gov. McCrory was surely getting an earful from political friends with hard-line views on immigration. It gives one hope that McCrory still has some of the centrist leanings he demonstrated in 14 years as Charlotte's mayor.

-- Taylor Batten

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserverstorylink=cpy

Obama speech 'hollow'? - and that's from a liberal

Wednesday morning quarterbacking is all over the place on President Barack Obama's State of the Union speech Tuesday night. Here are a few interesting ones.

We journalists always love fact-checking. Here's an assessment from the Washington Post's Glenn Kessler. A sample?

From Obama: "After years of grueling recession, our businesses have created over 6 million new jobs."
Kessler's assessment: "The president is cherry-picking a number that puts the improvement in the best possible light. The low point in jobs was reached in February 2010, and the there has indeed been a gain of about 6 million jobs since then... But the data also show that since the start of the presidencey, about 1.2 million have been created - and the number of jobs in the economy is about 3.2 million fewer than when the recession began in December 2007."

A quick hit of takeaways from the speech comes from columnist Chris Cillizza: His five? Obama goes big on guns, Obama expresses his vision of government - not bigger government but smarter government, Obama makes a major play for climate change, Obama gives voting rights advocates a victory and Obama talks about the economy, "kind of." What were your takeaways?

The speech got good marks, according to polling, from most viewers. The CNN/ORC poll released after Obama's address on Tuesday found that 53 percent of viewers said they had a "very positive" reaction. The poll also found that 24 percent of viewers said they had a "somewhat positive" response to Obama's speech and 22 percent said they had a negative response to the speech.

But it got whacked by conservative and liberal columnists.

 On the liberal side, Matt Miller called it "Obama's hollow speech."  He said "Obama’s framework was exactly right...  But when you look at the details the White House put out on the president’s proposals, it’s less clear that he’s offering real answers...  Even if Obama’s agenda becomes law, after eight years of the most progressive president in memory, America will still be a country in which work is less well-rewarded, college is far costlier, and poor children’s life chances more limited by accident of birth than in virtually every other wealthy nation. American exceptionalism indeed."

On the conservative side, Jennifer Rubin had this to say:  "If you were expecting a speech with no connection to the real economic problems we face and no concern about our crippling debt, then President Obama’s State of the Union did not disappoint...  Like his inaugural speech, Tuesday’s address has no bearing on the real legislative agenda nor on our economic situation. The debt is crushing the economy, yet the president spends with abandon. Growth remains anemic, yet he raises taxes and labor costs. We are flush with energy, yet he strangles the economy with uber-regulation. And we face a world of threats, yet he hollows out the military. It was a standard issue wish list, with little poetry or uplift, and even less smart policy."

By the way, Obama wasn't the only one with guests at Tuesday's speech. North Carolina's Sen. Kay Hagan said that she "was honored to have Terry Marquez of Aberdeen" as her  guest. "Terry’s presence reminds us that we cannot forget the sacrifices her son, Sgt. Justin Marquez, and so many brave Americans and their families have made protecting our country." 

North Carolina is the first stop for Obama as he tries to sell the initiatives he outlined in the State of the Union speech. He's already in Asheville for a speech.

Panthers agreement far from a done deal

A couple of tidbits from the sitdown Monday with Carolina Panthers' President Danny Morrison and Observer reporters and editors (see the fine reporting on the meeting from April Bethea and Jim Morrill, along with Joe Person's recap of what $250 million will buy the Panthers in stadium improvements):

1) The $143.75 million agreement between the team and city is more tentative than you might think.  Morrison indicated that the state has a lot to say about the deal - not only by approving the 1 percent prepared food and beverage tax that Charlotte officials want, but by contributing $62.5 million toward the stadium renovations. It's likely state lawmakers will give Charlotte the authority to levy at least some of that tax increase, but House Speaker Thom Tillis has been very clear that he doesn't support direct money to the Panthers from the state.

What happens if lawmakers say no to a direct contribution? Morrison demurred when I asked him if the agreement with the city was solid even if the state didn't come through with its millions. The team would reevaluate where it stands, he said, and he was unclear whether the team would even begin stadium improvements before getting its yes or no from the state on the $62.5 million.

Panthers officials, who have met with several leaders in Raleigh, will be heading back to make their case more thoroughly. Morrison hopes to have an answer by the end of the session this spring. If that answer is no? Any hypothetical help from South Carolina would involve the Panthers' preseason training camp in Spartanburg, and the Panthers haven't had any talks with Mecklenburg County commissioners. That leaves the Panthers a couple of choices: give up on getting that last $62.5 million from public dollars, or go back to the one public body that already has said yes. Count on the latter.

2) Morrison said that Jerry Richardson got involved in the negotiations with the city only once. That happened after City Council members urged that the Panthers agree to be tethered to Charlotte for 15 years, not the 10 that city staff and team officials had tentatively agreed to. It was then, Morrison said, that Richardson stepped in and agreed to 15.

From a strict bottom line perspective, that probably wasn't the best choice for the value of his franchise, which is one of very few in the NFL that's not tethered legally to the city it plays in. The negotiating team, said Morrison, "would have advised him differently." But, as Morrison said, it's a reminder that Richardson sees the team as part of his legacy, as he does its relationship with Charlotte.

That doesn't mean that all will be smooth from this point forward (see tidbit No. 1). But for those who think the Panthers and city have a mutually beneficial partnership - and the editorial board counts itself among that group - it's a good foundation to continue building upon.  

Peter St. Onge