Maybe we can have one here?

I've been wondering what would happen if we had a week where we opened up to all comers and allowed people to comment without registering or logging in . . . just to make it easy for them to dip their toes in the water.

I've talked with lots of lurkers who email me all the time. They send stuff asking me to post it and offer lots of comments in general. Sometimes I do what they ask, but usually I'm busy on my own stuff . . . and I just encourage them to sign in and post the entry themselves.

But the truth is, some people seem to be afraid of retribution or of being "found out." Imagine, living in 21st century America . . . and being afraid to say what you think in the political arena. Thank you, George Bush.

In this editorial

The feds have figured out how to deal with huge flocks of birds that would threaten Navy pilots practicing landings in northeastern North Carolina.

Kill them.

This creative idea comes from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is trying to help the Navy explain why it should impose this unwanted landing field on the farmers of Washington and Beaufort counties.

It would be built within five miles of a national wildlife refuge that attracts tens of thousands of migrating waterfowl for about half the year. The birds also like to chow down on nearby fields of winter wheat.

Agriculture officials don't use the word "kill," you understand. They prefer "depredation" for the "offending animals."

True, they'd first try fireworks, chemical repellents and dogs. If that didn't work, they would prescribe poison for the likes of starlings, blackbirds, pigeons and gulls. Tundra swans, snow geese and other avian tourists, after having been invited to the refuge, would be shot.

The Navy's argument for practicing in this location is neither as solid nor as candid as the argument for invading Iraq. Internal documents confirm that the brass decided where it wanted the field - away from Norfolk, which wants the planes, but not their noise - and then pressured underlings to make the case. As one officer explained to another, "Now we have to reverse engineer the whole process to justify the outcome."

The Navy is still trying. In 2005, a spokesman explained that pilots have "a variety of techniques" to avoid streaking into feathered flocks and exploding in balls of fire.

Apparently that assertion is, as a former White House press secretary might have put it, "inoperative."

So if the screaming Super Hornets come, the offending animals will have to go. Rather than pussyfooting around with poison and firearms, the Navy might as well depredate two birds with one stone by having pilots strafe the wildlife refuge and Napalm the wheat fields.

This is what I call a good editorial.