I think you would find substantial support for limits on campaign cash, although perhaps less support if those limits applied only to certain ethnic or religious groups (not sure that last part is included in your suggestion). When you speak about quotas on Jews for certain private sector jobs, who would impose and enforce such quotas? Do you envision some sort of political litmus test that would allow Jews who agree with your views? Would you also want to increase representation in these sectors for others groups currently less visible among them, e.g. blacks or Hispanics?

What can be done about this Jewish problem, Joe? Are there any solutions you recommend?

I think both decisions were correct and that they move the country in a positive direction, but I take no pleasure in your distress and hope that in time the outcomes will prove positive in your eyes, and that meanwhile you will feel safe and secure in your own liberty to believe what you will and live as you wish, just as the rights of others to do the same are recognized.

I hope you'll retain the blog. Social media has advantages for some types of content (and for sharing blog posts) but a blog works best for longer posts, comment threads, and archiving.

Congrats, Joe. Your accomplishment as a blogger goes beyond longevity -- you are a fearless, deft, and entertaining writer.

Just for the record, I was on the health system board for a good long while before retiring my blog. The two phenomena were unrelated. When I did retire from daily commentary, my reasons were much the same as the ones Andrew Sullivan gave this week: I'd done it a really long time and loved it so much that it kept me from doing other things I want to do, including (like Sullivan) long-form writing. I can say honestly and somewhat to my surprise that I miss neither the regular blogging nor my newspaper column. Glad I did them, grateful for what I learned along the way and the good things that came from them, but putting them down was much easier than I expected.

I don't think your characterization of moderate Republicanism as an outside force insinuating its way into a deeply conservative North Carolina captures the actual political history of the state. NC has long been known as a relatively moderate Southern state, and certainly someone with the deep roots of a Bill Osteen can make as good a claim to being a part of our native political culture as anyone. (And as a transplant yourself, I'm not sure why new people and new ideas would be seen by you as necessarily pernicious.) Of course we've always had our share of very conservative people and pols, and none of this alters basic critique of Rockefeller/business/moderate Republicanism as Not Conservative Enough For You, but the landscape you describe seems unfamiliar to me.

I doubt the stuff written in the voice of an imaginary dwarf transvestite Hooter's waitress was taken literally by most readers, and I believe that at least some items cited in that post were told from that fictional pov. The thing about your last line is that legal speech is important to defend, no matter how upsetting it may be (e.g., ACLU defending Nazis in Skokie). If the principle doesn't sway you, the thought of someone in power deciding your own speech is too offensive to be legal might. So, again, legality is the issue here -- but I don't think this will be playing out in court, as a settlement is said to be imminent.

Well, that's one difference. Have an above-average weekend, Joe.

Jeff Martin and his work have been characterized very negatively by commenters of various political viewpoints at my site, some using language you might not allow here. As I said in a FB thread, he's been quite ugly about African-Americans, conservative Christians, Jews, and individuals too numerous to mention (including me). But the prevailing sentiment I've seen is not that he's a peach of fellow but that his right to speak freely is important to defend. Your argument that he crossed the legal line is part of that discussion of rights, which I think most people agree is the important issue.

We'll have to disagree about the news value of a candidate who was linked to a group attracting notice when the group itself makes news. Mark Walker himself certainly seems to have accepted that reality. Chico Sabbah was not a member of Temple Emanuel, for whatever that's worth. Rabbi Guttman is entitled to his opinions, including the positive one he has expressed about Mark Walker. It seems that any guilt by association would fall onto the Hebrew Academy, which Sabbah funded and founded. Certainly the media, from our Forbes article onward, closely linked the man, his business, and the school.

Hi Joe, I can see some real differences between Beth David and Temple Emanuel. To cite a couple: One congregation is part of the conservative Jewish tradition and (to generalize) more inward-looking, the other part of the reform movement and more directly involved in the broader community. With all due modesty, the groundbreaking work on the Fortress Re story was done by my wife and me; Lisa's clear explanation of the reinsurance business is some seriously good business journalism. I hear many good things about Mark Walker, including public praise for his decency from the rabbi of Temple Emanuel. Whether fairly or not, his association with CFGC became problematic for him last week, a fact he seems to have recognized as he backpedaled quickly away from the group. Pointing that out, and wondering if his political opponent will use the opening, seems like a reasonable journalistic subject matter to me.

I think not running an editorial of any sort is an abdication of responsibility. As I said in another post, if you can't agree, run two. This is inside baseball to a lot of folks, but it matters a lot to others, and was consequential enough in the journalism world to attract a leading media pundit's attention when the N&R punted. My strong preference would be for my hometown paper come out in opposition to the amendment, which I think is wrong on civil and human rights grounds, and also a huge overreach with its ban on civil unions. But Addison is not assuming an Olympian perspective on journalism, she's saying that this hurts her personally in more ways than one. She has every right to feel let down that the publisher intervened to scuttle an editorial that would support her and make her feel a part of the paper's culture. This isn't a game, it's real life. Her life. At some point in the not too distant future, as even a primary supporter of the amendment acknowledges, the laws will change and allow fuller rights to homosexuals. At that point, what will each us be able to say about our roles today?

I hope you're right about Sunday, Lex, although if that's the case the N&R will have removed itself from the very important early-voting discussion, and also lagged other major papers from NC to NY on this issue. It will not look good. I have remarked on this several times and not gotten any comment from Doug or Allen, which I fear may be telling.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

It is possible to discuss without insulting people, or at least without only insulting people. You just have to try. I need commenters to try. Thanks.

Also, he can play that guitar just like ringing a bell.

This performance of this song. It's the reason they had the Renaissance.

So, yes, spending choices can be painful either way, which is why some balance is needed. But the point about austerity alone doing enormous damage without yielding the desired results is the one being demonstrated in Europe now.

It seems obvious that fiscal discipline is necessary, and also that slamming the brakes on public spending when private spending was/is depressed would have negative consequences. Those two realities indicate conflicting solutions, so some delicate and dynamic balance should be the goal. The US, however imperfect our approach, managed this better than Europe.

I think the key details are pretty much everything after defining marriage as between a man and a woman -- if the amendment ended there, it would pass by a wide margin. One major detail is the part about civil unions being off the table. Polls have shown consistently that lots of folks are at least open to the possibility of civil unions. After that, you get to the unclear possible outcomes, and just the fact that the possible outcomes are not entirely clear.

Seems that it would be easy enough for the planners to come up with a cost estimate for benches. First though they would have to say OK to benches, so that conversation has to happen before the cost assessment. If we get that far, I bet funding the benches would be pretty easy. But how do we get to that point? What's the forum for assessing and discussing the desirability of benches?

"Then it was taken to a public level -- and no, it's not likely on some website because it's not a bond referendum for a performing arts center." Free websites aka blogs are great ways to open up projects to the public. I hear the kids today are using the Facebook or somesuch, too. It's great that a small group took the initiative to do this -- and I mean that sincerely, thanks for doing this -- but one meeting to show the design is not really a public process. Yet that process is happening now -- first with 99 Blocks, and now here. Let's understand it as such, and be respectful of it and each other. Let's talk about benches, and maybe figure out a way to get them.

Rumor has it that DGI is interested in office space on South Elm St -- way down, near me. That would be great if it happened.