Moore Progressive

Arms race

2010-08-18T07:16:00.000-04:00

From Raleigh News & Observer

That's not thunder you hear in the race for the United States Senate between incumbent Republican Richard Burr and Democratic nominee Elaine Marshall. It's more of a loud rustle, as the candidates shake the money trees that might yield the millions of dollars it takes to win an election these days, particularly a statewide one.
So far, Burr's fruit has fallen in more abundance. Thanks to his incumbency, and to his favored-nation status with special interests connected to the drug and insurance industries, the senator recently had about $6 million in his campaign coffers (it probably has increased by now). Marshall's a relative pauper, with her treasure chest at a fraction of that. She has, of course, been helped by independent groups who have spent handsomely attacking Burr, including one television commercial featuring a make-believe Burr being dragged from an oil-soaked body of water (illustrating what are alleged to be his ties to big oil).
The truth is, this should be a pretty interesting race. Both candidates have held statewide office for some time. And there could not be a race with a more clear philosophical divide, Burr's free-market GOP philosophy versus Marshall's more traditional Democratic views.
Unfortunately, the differential in money may wind up being a deciding factor in the race, and is that something that's really good for the people of North Carolina? Should we really want a campaign wherein cash carries the day?
In the coming weeks, we are going to see a bombardment of advertising, and many fundraising events that will be well-attended by special interest groups. This will happen with both candidates, who'll be dialing for dollars until the last days.
And yet, Congress continues to shy away from real campaign finance reform (and the Supreme Court upended reform that did try to limit corporate cash and union contributions) or to champion public financing, everywhere. In meantime, special interests come through loud and clear to candidates eager for their money. The public's interests seem to be muffled by all that rustling.

Understanding Steve Slater's Airline Rage

2010-08-16T17:25:00.000-04:00

From The Pilot

By Dusty Rhoades - Sunday, August 15, 2010

A recent headline on the ABC News website asked the question: "Steve Slater: Criminal or Folk Hero?" One wonders if ABC is perhaps outsourcing its headline writing to India, because anyone who knows anything about America knows that, in this country, you can be both.
In case you're not familiar, Steven Slater is (or was) a flight attendant for the airline JetBlue who became a media -sensation after an encounter with an unruly passenger.
According to published reports, the passenger, who before takeoff had been involved in a near fistfight with another traveler over space in the overhead bins, continued to behave badly when the plane landed in New York. She was up before the plane came to a stop, yanking her suitcase out of the bin. When Slater tried to stop her, she cursed him and struck him on the head with the -luggage (whether deliberately or inadvertently is not clear).
At this point, Slater had had enough. He got on the plane's intercom and delivered the following soliloquy: "To the (bad word) who called me a (bad word) and told me to (bad word) off: (bad word) you! I've been in the business 28 (bad word) years. That's it. I'm done."
Then Slater popped the emergency slide, grabbed a couple of beers from the airplane fridge, slid out of the plane, walked to his car, drove home - and immediately passed into legend.
You might expect that the consensus would be that this was another example of arrogant and rude flight attendants throwing their weight around. But for some reason (perhaps the flamboyance of his exit), Slater became a symbol for all of the people who've had to deal with a rude and unreasonable public.
Bloggers and commenters hailed him as a hero. Folk singer Jonathan Mann even released a YouTube video called the "Ballad of Steven Slater." "Every day in a million ways," one of the verses goes, "he was subjected to the worst kind of impotent rage, like a bubble about to burst." (The chorus incorporates Steven's uncensored rant in its entirety, so you may not want to watch it at work.)
Many who commented told their own tales of having to deal with cranky, unreasonable and downright insane -customers. Having worked in a variety of public-contact jobs, I can certainly say I have some sympathy for them, for Steve Slater, and for anyone who's wanted to say, in the words of the old Johnny Paycheck chart-topper, "Take This Job and Shove It."
It should be noted, however, that we really don't know much about the passenger's story. Don't get me wrong, she behaved abominably, and nothing justifies hitting someone on the head with a loaded bag, but it's possible she was under some stress, too.
Has anyone considered that perhaps she was trying very hard to make a connection that the airline had put in -jeopardy because the freaking plane sat on the tarmac for an hour and a freaking half before takeoff and her -connecting flight left in 10 minutes and the stupid airline put that flight at a gate that was a 15-minute walk and a freaking train ride away?
(Why, yes, I have flown through Atlanta recently, why do you ask?)
Again, nothing justifies the passenger's behavior. We should all try to remember that whatever stress the airline is putting everyone through, it's (usually) not the flight attendant's fault. But anyone who's flown the unfriendly skies in the past few years understands a little about -"impotent rage" from the passenger's perspective too.
The thing about outlaws, though, is that, well, they did break the law. Slater was arrested at home (by a SWAT team, no less), and charged with criminal mischief, -reckless endangerment and trespassing. (I guess the last charge is because you're not allowed on the slide absent an emergency.)
The passenger who struck him was apparently not charged. But the people who shrink the seats more and more so as to cram passengers in like cattle, the people who are charging an outrageous fee to check luggage which they then lose, the people who make sure that -wherever you go, you first have to go 400 miles in the -opposite direction and have to stress over connecting with the flight that actually goes to your destination (see above) - no one's even talking about putting them on trial.
Maybe if we did, there'd be a little less "air rage" from both sides.
Dusty Rhoades lives, writes and practices law in Carthage. Contact him at dustyr@nc.rr.com.

Water: More Than a Gesture Needed From County

2010-08-16T17:23:00.000-04:00

From The Pilot

By Carl Ramey - Sunday, August 15, 2010

Previously on this page, I reviewed Moore County's recent performance in dealing with other local governments on regional water issues.
As bad as that short-term performance has been, even worse has been the county's long-term stewardship of the water systems serving Pine-hurst and Seven Lakes. And the Board of Com-missioners' recent promise to return to the Summit's Water Task Force meetings, while helpful, doesn't erase that record.
Moore County got into the water business by buying the Seven Lakes system in 1990 and the Pinehurst system two years later. Ever since, citizens of Pinehurst and Seven Lakes have been totally dependent upon a county board (where they are either unrepresented or just "underrepresented") and a Public Utilities Department (MCPU) which is exempt from regulation by the N.C. Utilities Commission.
Although county officials like to pretend that they operate a countywide, regional water system, the reality is something different. Indeed, after two decades in the business, Moore County's water world still revolves around highly centralized operations in Pinehurst and Seven Lakes - where 95 percent of its customers reside and almost all of their rate-payer revenues are derived.
Being a good steward goes beyond supplying running water. It requires a comprehensive plan that both maintains the present and anticipates the future.
Stripped to essentials, the county's current water "plan" looks something like this: Do repairs and upgrades only as needed, reject or sidestep any effort to acquire surface water, resist joining with others to form any kind of regional entity to address pending and future needs, and, finally, continue to buy water from others (increasingly, those outside Moore County). This is not a plan, merely an exercise in short-term expediency.
To their credit, county officials did sit down with village officials on July 8 in a joint discussion of pending projects -- a productive counterpoint to a yearlong series of dust-ups and lingering misunderstandings.
However, other than improved atmospherics, the only real substance coming out of this session was that, after years of delay, (1) construction of desperately needed replacement lift stations at Lake Pinehurst is well under way; (2) construction of a badly needed elevated tank to replace two antiquated ones is near completion; and (3) one new ground well will come on line, and another out-of-service well will be restored to service, late this year, followed by an additional well sometime in 2012.
As to long-discussed, badly needed water and sewer repairs in Old Town, these appear, at best, stuck in the "modeling" or "design" stage.
While a good steward would never have allowed such vital assets in its core operating area to deteriorate to such an extent, other examples abound:
- The county long resisted or downplayed suggestions to test the fire flow pressure of hydrants and key distribution lines in Pinehurst - vital to saving lives and property. Only recently has it partially relented, by beginning a limited testing regimen.
- Instead of working with the village to achieve compliance with building codes for above-ground construction projects, the county, at least initially, challenged the village's jurisdiction.
- Instead of investigating and acting upon recommendations in the McGill Study concerning surface water at Wagram and Robbins, the county downplayed the former and kissed off the latter.
- Instead of pursuing surface water supplies, the county relentlessly relies on a declining number of ground wells in and around Pinehurst - even as the population in Pinehurst and surrounding areas continues to grow, and the pumping of those wells sometimes exceeds the recommended daily average.
Despite this checkered history, the county's only long-term goal is to continue stockpiling water purchase contracts. For the moment, buying water from others is cheaper than investing in new sources that the county might own. But this "cheaper is better" strategy is both risky and short-sighted.
It's risky because such purchases can quickly go bad when outside sources experience severe drought, a dramatic change in their own needs, or a change in politics. It's short-sighted because it pushes hard decisions down the road to others, and to a time in the future when acquiring such assets will likely be far more complicated and costly (if they are even available).
Finally, the county's go-it-alone, short-term strategy flies in the face of evolving regulatory and environmental trends. Its rejection of a regional approach is a bad deal, not only for Pinehurst and Seven Lakes, but for all communities of Moore County.
Carl R. Ramey, a former Washington communications attorney, lives in Pinehurst.

About that Islamic Center Proposed for Ground Zero

2010-08-16T17:20:00.000-04:00

From The Pilot

By Paul Dunn - Sunday, August 15, 2010

In 1997, years before the Sept. 11, 2001, al-Qaida attacks on New York's World Trade Center, members of Manhattan's Muslim community had officially begun steps to construct Cordoba House.
This was to be a large 13-story Islamic cultural and prayer -center two blocks north of what would ultimately and tragically become Ground Zero - site of the terrorists' air attacks and resultant deaths of about 2,750 victims, including, paradoxically, many Muslims.
Without the 9/11 attacks, the center would have been built years ago and now be well attended by devout Muslims and visitors, just as traditional mosques and cultural centers are in the other boroughs of New York City.
To many in the so-called "Bible Belt," the idea of an Islamic cultural center and prayer site is an alien concept. That's because most of the more than 1,200 mosques in the United States are found in California, New York and Michigan, where Iranians, Pakistanis, Indians, Turks and Arabs from every Islamic nation live in peace, many for generations.
Historically, however, North Carolina is the exception. Our state has been particularly welcoming to Muslims. There are five mosques in Charlotte, four in Raleigh, three in Winston-Salem and Fayetteville, two in Asheville, Durham, Matthews, Wilmington and one each in Clemmons, Conover, Dudley, Gastonia, Morganton, New Bern and Rocky Mount.
The controversial Cordoba project will add about $100 million to Manhattan's already weak economy, including new employment, land and construction costs. Had 9/11 not occurred, few would have opposed such a holy shrine.
But now Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Fox News' talking heads and scores of demagogic politicians loudly oppose the center's construction in lower Manhattan. They and some 9/11 survivor families argue that it will be viewed as "the triumph of Islam over the United States."
Other 9/11 families have told New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg that they favor the project as a healing presence in the once united city. Many others support the center as long as it is built far away from the attack site.
Three-term Mayor Bloomberg favors the Islamic center. He's been supported in his stand by the city's Landmarks Preservation Commission, which just voted 9-0 to deny granting landmark protection to aged buildings in the area of lower Manhattan where the Islamic center will be built. The site is presently occupied by a badly damaged, 152-year-old eyesore, an abandoned clothing warehouse with the Monopoly-board address of Park Place and Broadway.
A liberal Republican of Reform Judaism belief, Mayor Bloomberg has taken a strong stand that is belatedly supported by the Anti-Defamation League, which originally opposed the Cordoba project, preferring it be located elsewhere in the city.
The ADL now agrees that "to fight it is counterproductive to the healing process." The mayor told New Yorkers that "to cave in to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists - and we should not stand for that. There is no neighborhood in this city that is off limits to God's love and mercy."
Although I haven't heard the argument made that the Cordoba center can be viewed as a fitting memorial to innocent Muslims killed on 9/11, a good case can be made that it will.
Here's The New York Times' list of Muslims murdered on 9/11:
Samad Afridi, Ashraf Ahmad, Shabbir Ahmad, Umar Ahmad, Azam Ahsan, Ahmed Ali, Tariq Amandullah, Touri Bolourchi, Salauddin Chaudhury, Abdul Chowdhury, Mohammad Chowdhury, Jamal Desantis, Ramzi Douani.
Saleem Farooqi, Syed Fatha, Osman Gani, Mohammad Hamdani, Salman Hamdani, (a 23-year old NYPD cadet, part-time ambulance driver, incoming medical student and devout Muslim), Aisha Harris, Shakila Hoque, Nabid hossain, Shahzad Hussein, Talat Hussein, Mohammed Jawarta, Arsian Khakwani, Asim Khan, Ataullah Khan, Ayub Khan, Qasim Khan, Sarah Khan, Taimour Khan, Yasmeen Khan, Zahida Khan, Badruddin Lakhani, Omar Malick, Nurul Miah, Mubarak Mohammad, Boyie Mohammed, Raza Mujtaba.
Omar Namoos, Mujeb Qazi, Tarranum Rahim, Ehesham Raja, Ameenia Rasool, Naveed Rehman, Yusuf Saad, Rahma Salie and unborn child, Shoman Samad, Asad Samir, Khalid Shabid, Mohammed Shajahan, Naseema Simjee, Jamil Swaati, Sanober Syed, Robert Talhami, Michaqel Theodoridis and W. Wahid.
Muslims killed that day who were American citizens loved their country not a whit less than any other victim of al-Qaida's wrath.
Paul R. Dunn, who spent most of his business career in Manhattan, lives in Pinehurst. Contact him at paulandbj@nc.rr.com.

Used plastic + hemp = lumber

2010-08-16T17:15:00.000-04:00

From Charlotte Observer

UNCC researchers create a formula for recycling old bottles into new building materials

A UNC Charlotte researcher with a passion for sustainability is creating a new building material out of recycled plastic bottles and an ancient grass.
Dr. Na Lu, an assistant professor at UNCC's Department of Engineering Technology, has created a material she believes may outperform composite lumber and wood lumber in many uses, and which has potential to be used in the residential and light commercial building industry.
In her lab at UNCC, Luna, as she prefers to be called, holds a dog bone-shaped sample of her creation: a beige plastic woven with threads of what looks like horsehair. "Hemp," Luna says, and points to a fluffy pile of the fibers on the table.
Unlike much present-day composite lumber, Luna's product substitutes hemp fibers for more typical chipped wood often mixed with virgin plastic. And unlike pressure-treated wood, the hemp material contains no toxic heavy metals.
Wood fiber is structured like a bundle of straws, she said, but hemp's crystalline structure gives it greater mechanical strength. She demonstrates by holding out a handful of hemp fibers to pull.
"This (hemp composite) material performs up to 4,000 to 6,000 psi (pounds per square inch)," Luna said. "That's as strong as medium-strength concrete."
At the same time, the hemp-recycled plastic material is lighter than regular composite lumber, she said.
Hemp may be a promising building material, but the stuff Luna uses isn't going to get anyone arrested. It's industrial hemp, with an extremely low content of THC, the psychoactive substance for which marijuana is known.
Hemp is just one key to the new material; the other is recycled plastic bottles. In the United States, about 20 billion plastic bottles are used annually, and just 18 percent of those get recycled, Luna said. "The niche of what we do here is ... we used HDPE recycled plastic, as opposed to resin epoxy," she said.
Where things get wet
Unlike regular lumber, the experimental material is moisture- and insect-resistant, and hemp grows a lot faster than wood. Hemp fiber polymers are being used in the automotive industry in Europe for car interiors, Luna said, but she sees a future for the material in buildings, particularly in places where wood rot is a problem.
"The first application I really would like to see is any point where there is water contact in a civil application - a retaining wall, decking, bridges," she said.
While it would cost more to produce the material today than it does to produce wood lumber, the life cycle cost would be cheaper and, over time, with a greater scale of production, she believes the cost to the consumer would fall.
For Luna, an interest in accomplishing conventional goals through unconventional means came early. Born in China, she said she saw firsthand the difficulty of a heavily populated nation struggling with high energy costs. After moving to the States, Luna earned her doctorate from Clemson University. In the process, she worked with a professor in Arizona in constructing a school from straw bales coated with cement.
Testing, testing
To prepare hemp composite samples for testing, Luna and her student assistant, John Larson, first extrude pellets of recycled plastic. Larson, a rising sophomore from Stanley majoring in construction management, treats the hemp fiber to remove its oil and odor. He points out a tensile testing machine used to pull the fibers and take pictures with a high-speed camera of how the material reacts and deforms in each moment.
Larson and Luna sandwich the strands between layers of plastic, and test the finished sample under a static load and a dynamic load (a moving load, such as that produced by wind or water) for changes in strength at various temperatures and humidity levels.
"We tried chopping them up," Larson said of one of many experiments with the fibers. That didn't prove strong enough, so now they're turning out samples with longer hemp strands.
"It's tedious," Luna said of the yearlong process of trial and error. "But once you see the material improve ... you love it."
Listening to Mother Nature
In designing materials for building, it makes sense to take cues from nature, Luna said. "Mother Nature is much smarter than us," she said. "I really respect nature and how things are designed."
In the lab, Luna and Larson demonstrate the testing of a sample of the hemp composite. The "dog bone" slides into a vise-like apparatus on a strength-testing machine and, as Luna watches a glowing computer screen, the machine pulls the sample until at last it snaps, at 5,692 psi.
"Wow!" Luna says, surprised. Larson peers at the computer with her and they marvel at the test results, which were achieved at 70 degrees Fahrenheit and 35 percent humidity - variables, Luna says, which are important because a material's performance changes with moisture and heat.
The next challenge will be making the material more fireproof. But already a lumber company and an architectural firm have expressed interest in it, Luna said.
In addition to exploring hemp and recycled plastic as a lumber substitute, Luna is looking at combining recycled plastic with bamboo fibers. She's also working on a new class of thermoelectric materials to harvest waste heat energy and convert it into electrical energy without moving parts.

Amber Veverka: amberveverka@carolina.rr.com

Polarizing Again Over the 'M' Word

2010-08-12T17:38:00.000-04:00

From The Pilot:

By Steve Bouser - Wednesday, August 11, 2010

What's in a word? Plenty. In America, we're getting ready to tear ourselves apart over a single one of them: "marriage."
It's a crying shame - all the more so because there is, or was, an easy way around this seeming impasse. All it would take is just a little more give-and-take and less stridency on both sides. (Why does everything these days have to come down to "sides"?)
All this is going to sound a bit familiar to those who may remember that I wrote about this back in 2005 and touched on aspects of it again early last year - both times when the gay marriage issue had previously reared its head. But the question has roared forth with such force and potential divisiveness that I can't resist having another (no doubt futile) go at it.
The matter has taken on its current urgency, of course, because of events unfolding in California. First the state legislature legalized gay marriage. Then the people voted to outlaw it again. Now a federal judge has overturned the results of that referendum. And soon the whole polarizing, seesawing mess will land in the lap of the U.S. Supreme Court, and that's all we'll be hearing yelled about for months on Fox News and MSNBC.
It never had to come to this. And it wouldn't have if legislatures and courts everywhere had listened to a bit of advice the first time it was offered. Simply put, it goes like this: Government at all levels should get out of the marriage business altogether.
I know. It sounds crazy. But hold on a minute.
When Americans are asked by pollsters what they think of "gay marriage," most have problems with it. Marriage, they feel, is supposed to be between a man and a woman. That's not just what the Bible says. It's also what the dictionary says.
But in many surveys, if you ask those same Americans whether same-sex couples should have the same rights as heterosexual ones when it comes to things like insurance and joint tax returns and hospital visitation rights and inheritance laws, most answer yes. Though the concept of equal rights passes muster, the sticking point is often that pesky "m" word. Folks just can't get around it. I'm not sure I blame them.
I first got off on this subject five years ago, when Paul Loscocco, an unknown state legislator in Massachusetts, achieved his 15 minutes of fame after offering an idea that I thought was brilliant in its simplicity.
"I am proposing," he said, "that everybody - gay or straight - gets the same civil union, recognized by the commonwealth with the same package of rights and benefits."
If a couple then wanted to get "married," they would have to go see their preacher, priest, rabbi, imam - whatever, as long as they could find one willing to bless the union and perform the ceremony. The state would have no more official interest in that, Loscocco said, than it now does in whether you've been baptized confirmed or bar-mitzvahed
Asked what the legislature would then call the relationship formerly known as marriage, he famously replied, "I don't care. We could call it liverwurst."
All it would take, it seems to me, would be for gay and lesbian couples to take one small step back from the brink, resolve to take less of an in-your-face approach, and embrace Loscocco's fundamental compromise. It would still allow them to join in an officially recognized union, called liverwurst or whatever, according them the same rights as everybody else. They could then drive over to their church, get "married," and refer to themselves as that for the rest of their lives, and nobody in the government would take official notice or care.
In reality, I'm sure it's too late for any of that at this point. That train has left the station. Massachusetts ignored Loscocco and became the first state in the union to legalize gay marriage, and several other states have since joined it. I imagine they all will get caught up in the looming Supreme Court brouhaha, and our already dangerously fragmenting society will split along yet another fault line.
Too bad. But it didn't need to happen.
Steve Bouser is editor of The Pilot. Contact him at (910) 693-2470 or by e-mail at sbouser@thepilot.com.

Can N.C. up the ante on renewable energy?

2010-08-12T17:36:00.000-04:00

From Indyweek.com

by Bob Geary

When the General Assembly enacted Senate Bill 3 in 2007, it was an important step toward using more renewable energy sources for electricity in North Carolina—and a step away from coal, and perhaps from nuclear power as well.
Since then, however, renewable-energy technologies have blossomed to the point that the modest goals established by SB 3 are already outdated. A spate of reputable studies indicate that North Carolina should set its sights far higher. They show that renewable sources—including solar cells, offshore wind turbines, biofuels and hydropower—combined with strong energy efficiency programs, could account for at least 40 percent of the state's electricity needs within 15 years.
North Carolina was the 29th state, but the first in the Southeast, to adopt a minimum requirement for the use of renewable power sources by the electric utilities. But North Carolina's REPS—short for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard—requires just 12.5 percent of electricity that is sold to come from renewable sources, and energy efficiency by 2020. Other states have more aggressive benchmarks: New York calls for 29 percent by 2015, and California, 33 percent by 2020.
"There is no question that North Carolina can do much more than 12.5 percent with energy efficiency and renewables," says Elizabeth Ouzts, state director of Environment North Carolina, a nonprofit research and advocacy group. "SB 3 was a great first step, but there's so much more we can do, and we need to put the policies in place that can help make it happen."
Exactly what those policies should be, however, is a much-debated subject in progressive circles leading up to the 2011 legislative term.
In a recent report, Environment N.C. found that solar power could provide 2 percent of the state's electricity by 2020 and 14 percent by 2030. To reach those goals, North Carolina would need to grow solar-cell installations by 54 percent annually—what California has done in the last decade.
After that, from 2020 to 2030, a growth rate of 20 percent per year would be sufficient.
Those might seem like daunting targets, but according to Environment N.C., they're not. In 2008, North Carolina increased solar-power capacity by 600 percent with the opening of several solar "farms" like the one at SAS in Cary.
Installing solar panels on 100,000 rooftops over the next 10 years, and on 700,000 rooftops by 2030, would take North Carolina halfway to its goals, the report found, with SAS-scale installations accounting for the rest.
As for wind, a 2009 study done for the General Assembly by University of North Carolina researchers indicated that there's enough offshore wind power within 50 miles of the state's coastline to meet all of the state's current electricity needs.
The federal government has divided the coastline into 311 tracts, each measuring nine square miles. If 45 of them were developed as offshore wind farms, they could supply 20 percent of the state's electricity.
UNC and Duke Energy have since announced a demonstration project in the Pamlico Sound, testing up to three wind turbines for cost, effect on migratory birds and other environmental and socioeconomic impacts.
The North Carolina studies comport with an analysis by the World Resources Institute of "clean power opportunities" in the southeastern United States. In North Carolina, the institute study found, renewables could supply 40 percent of the state's electricity by 2025. Costs would be comparable to those of conventional power sources—coal, nuclear, natural gas—but with major advantages in air quality, reduced water consumption and zero "climate impacts," it said.
The institute analysis didn't include energy-efficiency programs. But a 2009 scorecard from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy did. It rated North Carolina 26th of the 50 states for efficiency, including state building codes and utility-sponsored incentive programs. With more aggressive policies, the council study found, North Carolina could reduce electricity usage by almost one-fourth by 2025. In the next 20 years, renewables (40 percent) combined with energy-efficiency (24 percent) could account for nearly two-thirds of the state's electric-power needs.
Today, renewables account for just 3 percent of the state's electricity, with nearly all coming from biofuels and hydropower. Coal accounts for nearly two-thirds, nuclear for 31 percent.
To reach these goals, however, advocates of renewable power will again need to grapple with nuclear power. When SB 3 was enacted, the state's investor-owned utilities—Duke Energy and Progress Energy—insisted that the Legislature include a provision guaranteeing that any money the companies spend on nuclear plants, no matter how much, must be compensated with higher rates.
The CWIP provision (for construction work in progress) assured that the utilities would recover nuclear plant costs in any rate case. But now, Duke Energy is lobbying for SB 3 to be changed so that utilities are compensated for CWIP costs as they're incurred, without an overall rate review.
For utility customers, rate increases related to nuclear plant construction costs would come sooner; any savings resulting from the actual production of nuclear power would come later.
Duke Energy officials (but not Progress Energy) pitched the CWIP change in a recent meeting with legislative leaders and a few "legislative skeptics," says state Rep. Pricey Harrison, D-Guilford, a self-described "skeptic."
"When they were arguing for SB 3," Harrison said, "the utility lobbyists would say the CWIP provision they were after was better [for ratepayers] than the ones in Florida, Georgia and South Carolina. Now they're back asking for what they have in the other states."
Harrison worries that if the Legislature reopens SB 3, including the 12.5 percent target, it will have to consider the CWIP rule, too. "It's very frustrating," she adds, "because, as a veteran of these utility debates, I can tell you the utilities always win."
The alternative, she suggests, is to leave the REPS target alone while enacting policies to push the state past it anyway.
Such policies could include long-term "feed-in" rates for solar- and wind-farm developers who sell power to the utilities, which would help them raise capital, Ouzts says.
At the N.C. Sustainable Energy Association, whose members include companies selling solar, wind and energy-efficiency products, Deputy Director Paul Quinlan says the options are under debate by groups working with the Energy Policy Council, which is closely affiliated with Gov. Bev Perdue.
Four council groups, working on renewables, efficiency, carbon emissions and transportation, have a mid-September deadline for reporting, prior to the next scheduled EPC meeting Sept. 24.
State Sen. Josh Stein, D-Wake, who also attended the session with Duke Energy, said he understands Harrison's hesitance about reopening SB 3. "Whenever you have complicated and delicately negotiated legislation," Stein says, "different groups will be nervous about revisiting it."
But Stein thinks the untapped potential for renewable power and energy efficiency in North Carolina is too great not to take a fresh look. "I think positioning North Carolina for a clean-energy future is what we need to do."

Guess Who Wants Big Government

2010-08-12T17:22:00.000-04:00

From The Pilot

By Andrew Soboeiro - Wednesday, August 11, 2010

"Read my lips: No new taxes!" the first George Bush proclaimed to an ecstatic Republican National Convention.
Conservative Republicans, galvanized by their candidate's commitment to small government, voted their candidate into the White House, where he proceeded to sign one of the largest tax hikes in history. Bush is now remembered as a hypocrite, a failure and a traitor to the conservative movement.
Yet Bush's hypocrisy was by no means anomalous. Bush followed in the footsteps of Ronald Reagan, a man who lauded the virtues of a free market that he wouldn't allow to exist. Reagan massively increased military spending while failing to cut social spending, creating a massive deficit, the beginning of our modern debt crisis.
Intent on protecting American industry from foreign competition, Reagan raised tariff rates and set import quotas. Free-market economist Sheldon Richman called him "the most protectionist president since Herbert Hoover." And, contrary to legend, Reagan did not cut taxes; he shifted them, lowering one tax as he raised another, so that tax revenues as a percentage of national income remained largely unchanged from 1980 to 1989.
So why do capitalists remember Reagan so fondly and Bush so terribly, if both presidents hypocritically expanded government? Because the economy performed well under Reagan and poorly under Bush. After sustaining a severe recession from 1981-1982, the American economy recovered dramatically, and the '80s became a period of prosperity.
Shortly after Bush entered office, however, financial chaos connected to the savings-and-loan crisis contributed to a global economic slowdown. Reagan did not cause the prosperity of the '80s (most of the credit goes to the Federal Reserve under Paul Volcker, a Democrat), and Bush cannot be blamed for the contractions of a global economy. But Reagan is still associated with prosperity, and Bush with poverty.
By emphasizing Reagan's free-market rhetoric and downplaying his big-government policy, capitalists can associate laissez-faire with prosperity in the public mind. By emphasizing Bush's policies and downplaying his rhetoric, capitalists can associate big government with destitution.
Capitalists, incidentally, have no objections to big government. Government has been an active player in the growth of corporations since the industrial revolution, and our economy is built on government subsidy and regulation.
So if government is so essential to our economy, why all the laissez-faire rhetoric? Corporations can use free-market rhetoric as a weapon against social spending. Government intervention is fine when it means corporate subsidies and protections. But if the government wants to give welfare to the poor, pass environmental laws, or provide universal health care, it has stepped out of line.
Afraid of competing with a public option, the executives of Blue Cross and Blue Shield preach that "the government that governs best governs least." But when the executives want to send their kids to public schools, drive on public roads, retire and collect Social Security, they somehow manage to forget the virtues of limited government.
Capitalists have used this double standard to shape the modern conservative movement. The tea party movement is an excellent example of capitalist philosophy in action.
Tea partiers have impugned President Obama as a "Nazi-communist" because of his health care reform, stimulus package and bailouts. Yet polls show that tea partiers hold a favorable view of George W. Bush, who expanded government more than any of his predecessors, and of Sarah Palin, who would like to massively expand the military-industrial complex through war with Iran.
Tea partiers' views on specific issues are even more telling: They vehemently oppose big government, except when that big government is necessary to invade Iran, occupy Iraq and Afghanistan, pay for Medicare and Social Security, provide public education, build and maintain public roads, actively deport illegal immigrants and execute criminals.
There is a viable alternative to big government: anarchism. Anarchists call for the abolition of the state, envisioning a society run by direct democracy and cooperative economics.
Anarchist theories are actually quite viable; cooperatives have been very successful within our society, and could very well function on a large scale. But anarchism also requires abolishing capitalism, corporations and private property. Conservatives, enamored with their ideals of entrepreneurship and the profit motive, are loathe to consider such a society.
But unless conservatives can embrace the principles of common ownership and cooperation, the conservative movement will remain as it is: committed always to big government for the rich and apathy for the poor.
Andrew Soboeiro is a rising senior at Pinecrest High School.

Chicken Little and the Socialists

2010-08-12T17:19:00.000-04:00

From The Pilot

By Dusty Rhoades - Sunday, August 8, 2010

An old fable, updated: One day, Chicken Little was out for his walk when an acorn fell from a tree and hit him on the head. Chicken Little was a very silly chicken, so he immediately thought the worst.
"The sky is falling!" he screamed. "I have to go tell someone!"
So Chicken Little ran and ran until he came upon Foxy Loxy.
"Where are you going so fast, Chicken Little?" said Foxy Loxy.
"The sky is falling!" Chicken Little said. "I have to go tell someone!"
"Why don't you go on my television network?" said Foxy Loxy. "You can tell everyone that the sky is falling. And get your friend Henny Penny to go on the radio, and your friend Goosey Lucy to start a blog. Tell the people that the sky is falling, and that it's all the president's fault. He and all his socialist buddies."
"What's a socialist?" Chicken Little asked.
"Who cares?" Foxy Loxy said. "It sounds bad, and people are afraid of it."
"Well..."
"How about if I pay you a lot of money?" Foxy Loxy said.
"Why didn't you say so before?" said Chicken Little.
So Chicken Little called Henny Penny and Goosey Lucy, and they all started going around on TV and radio and the Internet, insisting that, not only was the sky falling, but that it was all the fault of the President and the socialists.
Chicken Little often broke down in tears on camera because, he said, he was so afraid for the country. People were badly frightened, but they kept tuning in. They often sent the things they heard to everyone they knew via e-mail, so the fear continued to spread.
One day, Chicken Little went to visit Foxy Loxy.
"Some people are beginning to say that the sky isn't falling after all," he complained.
"Looks like someone's drunk the Kool-Aid." Foxy Loxy laughed.
"What?" Chicken Little said.
"It's just a meaningless expression," Foxy Loxy explained. "You say it when anyone says the sky's not really falling."
"Some people are saying I was just hit on the head by an acorn."
"That's part of the liberal media conspiracy," Foxy Loxy said. "You can't believe anything they say."
"But if the sky is falling," Chicken Little asked. "Why aren't we all dead?"
"Chicken Little," Foxy Loxy said, "Do you like getting your paycheck?"
"Sure," Chicken Little answered.
"Do you really think there's any money in telling people the sky is NOT falling?"
"I guess you're right," Chicken Little said. "But aren't there other things we can scare people with?"
Foxy Loxy looked suspicious. "Like what?"
"Like I heard that there are people who are making big messes and poisoning the water and the air. And some other big companies are cheating people of their money."
"Chicken Little," Foxy Loxy said patiently, "Those people are big advertisers on my TV network. If you make people afraid of them, they might demand that the government do something about it. If the government does that, they'll make less money. If they make less money...."
"We'll make less money?" Chicken Little said.
"Exactly. And only a socialist would want something like that to happen. You're not a socialist, are you?"
"Heck, no!" Chicken Little said. "I don't even know what that is!"
"Very good," Foxy Loxy said. "So what do we tell the people?"
"The sky is falling. And it's the president's fault. Him and the socialists."
"That's my boy," said Foxy Loxy. "Now get out there and spread that fear."
So they all got back to work telling everyone that the socialists and the president were all part of a big conspiracy that was making the sky fall. Anyone who tried to say different was told they were Kool-Aid drinking socialists. And they all got rich and lived happily ever after.
Well, Chicken Little and his friends did, at least. Everyone who listened to them spent all their time being scared and angry and mistrustful, afraid that the sky was falling.
But, of course, it never did.
Dusty Rhoades lives, writes and practices law in Carthage. Contact him at dustyr@nc.rr.com.

Lots of Misinformation on the Stimulus

2010-08-12T17:17:00.000-04:00

From The Pilot

By Kevin Smith - Sunday, August 8, 2010

Tuesday, Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma held a press conference to introduce their list of the 100 biggest boondoggles of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).
The report, titled "Summertime Blues," is intended to expose the federal stimulus as just another example of irresponsible government spending. Republi-cans refer to the ARRA as "the $800 billion stimulus that didn't stimulate anything." The word "bailout" spits out like an obscenity from people who regard any interaction between government and business as unsavory.
We are so conditioned to be wary of the perils of anti-recessionary government spending that it's easy to miss the benefits that are all around us - a local auto dealership that can stay open and keep its brand, a teacher who was laid off and then rehired before missing a day of school or a homeowner who is able to avoid foreclosure.
The fact is that the Recovery Act has had a significant effect on jobs in North Carolina. According to Edwin McLenaghan, a policy analyst at the N.C. Budget and Tax Center, 90,000 jobs were saved or created in North Carolina because of the ARRA.
"The more than $2 billion in aid from the federal government was critical for keeping our teachers, police officers, firefighters and health-care workers on the job in our communities," McLenaghan said. "It has also kept the state from cutting millions of dollars in contracts with hard-hit private companies that may otherwise have laid off thousands of additional workers."
Richard Burr denounced the stimulus on Fox News, declaring, "This isn't a stimulus package, it's a spending package." More recently, however, our senior senator was able to overcome his disdain for the spending package long enough to deliver $2,008,515 of ARRA funds to the fire department in Bethlehem, N.C., for a new fire station.
Coburn was more gracious in allowing, "There is no question that this stimulus bill has had a positive effect on the economy to a certain degree."
In fact, a study published by former McCain economic adviser Mark Zandi and former Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Alan Blinder estimates that "there would be about 8.5 million fewer jobs, on top of the more than 8 million already lost; and the economy would be experiencing deflation, instead of low inflation."
That's a considerable "degree."
Coburn continued, "What our criticism is, it could have had far greater effect." Coburn claims that his study exposes some 300 programs amounting to about $15 billion of wasteful spending money. If all their claims were valid, it would amount to slightly less than two tenths of a percent of the stimulus.
All their claims are not valid.
Already No. 2 on their list, a UNC Charlotte project to develop a choreography software program had to be removed when CNN discovered the report had its facts wrong. Similarly a Wake Forest University "study of cocaine-addicted monkeys" sounds outlandish - way more so than studying how cocaine and alcohol affect a key transmitter in the brain, called glutamate, in order to determine how those substances change a brain.
Studying the effect of yoga on menopausal women seems frivolous - unless you consider that for millions of women, including three million breast cancer survivors, traditional hormone therapy is not an option for treating hot flashes. The boondoggles attributed to our state dissappear in the light of day.
It is a useful thing to expose and eliminate waste, but there's less to the Summertime Blues report than meets the eye. Much of the report will be discredited, but the report has already achieved the headlines it intended.
If McCain and Coburn supported the ARRA, they'd be crowing about the incredible efficiency of a federal program with less than .2 percent waste. Instead, their report fosters the impression that the stimulus glass is three quarters empty - even when it's 99.8 percent full.
Kevin Smith lives in Aberdeen. Contact him at kevinasmith@gmx.com.

Conservatives Unveil a New Secret Weapon

2010-08-01T12:17:00.000-04:00

From The Pilot

By Dusty Rhoades - Sunday, August 1, 2010

HOST: Good evening, and welcome to “Amazing Inventions.” I’m your host, Lana Lagniappe. Our guest tonight is is Dr. Dietrich Telefunken, and he’ll be explaining his latest creation.
TELEFUNKEN: Thank you, Lana. As you may know, the media is overrun with liberal terrorist-loving scum who hate America.
HOST: I’m not sure I know anything of the kind...
TELEFUNKEN: Since true conservative patriots are always outnumbered by the evil liberals trying to silence them, I have developed something to offset the numerical imbalance. I present to you, the Wingbot 5000.
HOST: It looks like some sort of robot.
WINGBOT 5000: I am not a robot. Liberals are the real robots.
HOST: It talks!
TELEFUNKEN: It does more than talk! Thanks to its advanced conservative programming, it is a match for any liberal in any debate.
HOST: How does it work?
TELEFUNKEN: It responds to certain keywords with arguments from the best conservative thinkers. Try it. Give it an issue.
HOST: OK. How about taxes?
WINGBOT 5000: Americans are being taxed into the poorhouse.
HOST: But isn’t it true that the majority of Americans have gotten a tax cut in the last couple of years?
WINGBOT 5000: I refudiate that.
HOST: Did you say “refudiate”?
WINGBOT 5000: Yes.
HOST: I don’t think that’s a word. It’s not in the dictionary.
WINGBOT 5000: The dictionary has a liberal bias. Sarah Palin used the word, and that’s good enough for real non-elite Americans.
HOST: Heh. It sounds like she’s channeling George Bush.
WINGBOT 5000: When is Barack Obama going to stop blaming the previous administration and take the blame for anything?
TELEFUNKEN: That’s fine, Wingbot. Try another issue, Ms. Lagniappe.
HOST: OK. How about racism?
WINGBOT 5000: I’m not racist. It’s you liberal elites who are racist. Why don’t you talk about how racist the NAACP is? The Sherrod case proves it.
HOST: How? They were so sensitive to charges of racism that they denounced Sherrod immediately. They were wrong about her, and they had to apologize, but how does that make them racist?
WINGBOT 5000: Bzzzz.... Blurp....
HOST: It never answers my questions!
TELEFUNKEN: Try another issue.
HOST: Well ... OK. How about global climate change?
WINGBOT 5000: Al Gore said he invented the Internet. Ha. Ha. Ha.
HOST: That story’s not even true.
WINGBOT 5000: How dare you say I’m lying. You’re trying to repress my First Amendment rights. This is another example of why you liberals are the real fascists.
HOST: This is getting ridiculous.
WINGBOT 5000: It’s liberals like you who are ridiculous. Why can you not make a point without name-calling?
HOST: Are you kidding? You’ve done nothing but call people names!
TELEFUNKEN: So?
HOST: So you said it could argue! It doesn’t put forth any arguments! All it does is throw out random insults.
WINGBOT 5000: It’s liberals who are really the ones who throw out random insults.
HOST: It’s doing it again! Turn it off.
WINGBOT 5000: Repression! Fascism! Second Amendment remedies! Jeremiah Wright! Where’s the birth certificate? Tony Rezko! Muslim! Muslim! Media elite! Refudiate! Refudiate!
HOST: Make it stop! It’s gone crazy!
TELEFUNKEN: You can’t stop it. In fact, we’re thinking of running it for Congress. We’ve even done some polling.
HOST: Don’t tell me.
TELEFUNKEN: It was the clear front-runner.
HOST: Sigh. Of course. For “Amazing Inventions,” I’m Lana Lagniappe. Good night, and God help us all.
Dusty Rhoades lives, writes and practices law in Carthage. Contact him at dustyr@nc.rr.com.

Images from The North Carolina Democratic Party Convention

2010-08-01T12:12:00.000-04:00

(Soon to be) Senator Elaine Marshall

Our Friend Cal Cunningham

Charlotte Mayor Anthony Foxx

Congressman Bob Etheridge

Moore County Delegation

Intolerance Threatens to Tear American Society Apart

2010-08-01T11:58:00.000-04:00

From The Pilot

By J. Thomas Tidd - Sunday, August 1, 2010

At its conclusion, this commentary is about tolerance. The paragraphs between here and there are intended to provide a perspective on the human condition that will, hopefully, be found to be relevant.
Carl Sagan was the first, to my knowledge, to reduce cosmic events to an earth year in order to dramatize how minuscule has been the piece of cosmic time shared by humanity. Using his earth-year scale, the “Big Bang” from which the universe is believed to have arisen occurred at midnight on Jan. 1.
Not until the end of his cosmic year, 10:30 p.m. on Dec. 31, did the first humans appear; not until 17 seconds before midnight did humans learn to use stone tools; and in only the last 10 seconds was the first alphabet invented. Jesus was born just four seconds ago, and it was only one second ago that Columbus set sail for America. On the cosmic time scale, we have yet to turn the first page of the book of recorded history.
Time can be defined in one way as the measurement of change. As the earth rotates around its own axis and around the sun, we measure days and years; and, in the cycle by which all plants and animals are born and die, we measure life. These are objective or impersonal measures of time.
For us humans, time also has a subjective dimension. Virtually every item in our storehouse of memories has a temporal connection. Our childhood years seem endless; our declining years pass all too quickly. World War II is ancient history to the child but only yesterday to its veterans.
Time is also inextricably linked to what we call perspective — assigning relative importance to the issue or event being considered and assessing it in a temporal context. There is a tension between the ease of judgments based on the emotions of the moment and the difficulty of those that take account of the broad flow of human history.
More often than not, mankind opts for the former. Matters of current self-interest are equated with enduring righteousness; we make absolutes out of what eventually prove to be transitory political, economic, social or religious mores. That predilection is the root cause of most of the intolerance which, to date, has characterized human existence.
On the other hand, a civilized society cannot ignore the evils of the day on the ground that, in the long run, they will fade in significance. Some balance must be struck between viewing current events either in the passions of the moment or the calm of history.
Perhaps it comes to no more than this — we live in the present and have to make decisions based on present circumstances; but, recognizing that need, we should also recognize the need to be cautious of actions based on dogmatic assertions as to what constitute eternal virtues. If history can teach us anything, it is that more human misery has sprung from the possessors of rigid ideologies than from any other source.
This brings us around to the subject: intolerance.
It is a subject brought to mind by a recent essay by Errol Morris in The New York Times entitled, “The Anosognosic’s Dilemma: Some-thing’s Wrong But You Will Never Know What It Is.” The author defines the tongue-twisting “anosognosic” as one who suffers from a disability but is unaware of or denies the existence of that disability.
He states that, in the context of decision-making, it means one’s incompetence masks the ability to recognize that incompetence; or one’s stupidity protects one from an awareness of that stupidity.
While Morris cites a variety of psychological tests supporting the concept, its validity for the subject at hand is suggested by the increasingly hyper partisanship gripping this country — a partisanship that grows in direct proportion to the number and complexity of issues confronting us.
Whether from the right, left or center, the trend is to assert certainty where the matter at issue is inherently uncertain. Certainty springs from bias and, while none of us can escape that most universal of human traits, we are capable of confronting it — and to confront is to admit the possibility of error. Where intolerance exists, only from that admission can tolerance arise.
If we were to try very hard, perhaps we could bring ourselves to grant as much tolerance as we seek — and temper our own dogmatism to the degree we deplore that of others. Perhaps then, despite Morris’ theory, living with anosognosia need not be our fate —and, better still, we would then never need learn how to pronounce it!
J. Thomas Tidd is a retired attorney living in Pinehurst.

A Little Celebrating on the Auto Front

2010-08-01T11:52:00.000-04:00

From The Pilot

Sunday, August 1, 2010

On Friday in Detroit, much hoopla surrounded President Obama’s visit to GM and Chrysler plants celebrating the fact that they’re still alive and kicking.
Earlier in Southern Pines, the mood was a bit more restrained, but equally positive.
“When we got word, there were a few high-fives and some pats on the back,” said John Beaver, general manager of the local Chevrolet-Buick-GMC dealership. “And then everybody went back to work.”
The reason for the subdued handshakes: The local agency, which earlier had been placed on the list to vanish into thin air, had just learned that it had just been handed a whole new six-year lease on life. And 35 employees are no longer looking at unemployment.
Despite the contrast and the geographic distance between them, the two scenes had much in common and sprang from the same cause: last year’s auto bailout legislation — which, though far from universally popular, undeniably accomplished much of what it was designed to do.
En route to his second stop of the day, at GM’s Hamtramck Assembly Plant, Obama had to pass a depressing sight: row after row of shuttered warehouses and mothballed plants characterizing Rust Belt Michigan. But at least there’s still a GM, and there’s still a Chrysler Corp. And both, stripped down — and, in the case of Chrysler, coerced into a marriage with Italy’s Fiat — are doing better than anyone had a right to expect a couple of years ago.
That all has to be considered good news, even if the final verdict on the success of the bailout is still out, and even if we all hope never again to have to see our government take such an unprecedentedly radical plunge into the workings of the free market.
The new, leaner and meaner GM appears to be doing more than hanging on. It is selling cars, getting good consumer reviews on many of them, reporting profits and venturing into unexplored technological ground. Not only is the local dealership staying open, but one of these days it will no doubt be displaying, right here in River City, an early model of the Chevrolet Volt, first in a cutting-edge new line of plug-in electric hybrids.
By then, the agency may be in the process of moving away from its present location on U.S. 1 and into a spanking-new home on busy U.S. 15-501. This planned relocation and expansion will provide visible evidence of a newfound viability — something in which all Moore Countians, regardless of what brand of wheels they prefer, can only rejoice.

State's Well-Connected Demagogues Display No Shame

2010-07-28T17:15:00.000-04:00

From The Pilot

By Chris Fitzsimon - Wednesday, July 28, 2010

“We have terrorists running America. … If we allow it, these same folks will inflict more damage on our nation than any suicide bomber could ever hope for.”
Those paranoid delusions are not the work of an anonymous commenter on an obscure right-wing website whose owners are difficult to discover. They are from an article a couple of weeks ago on wakeupamerica.com, a website run by two Republican members of the General Assembly, Sen. Andrew Brock and Rep. Bryan Holloway.
Suggesting that the president is a terrorist more dangerous than a suicide bomber is normally the kind of statement that would prompt calls for apologies or result in other elected officials distancing themselves from the statements and the people who made them.
Not in this case. Wakeupamerica.com has been spewing this kind of venom since Brock and his pals created it.
Past articles have talked about “the movement to take back our country from the radical socialist agenda that Obama and his cronies are subversively implementing,” and they have warned that “the left’s policies, especially those policies aggressively set forward by the Obama administration, target the family and Christian churches for destruction.”
Not only have there been no repercussions for Brock or Holloway, the media have barely reported on their offensive antics.
Another well-known North Carolinian is also playing a prominent role in the far right’s national attack machine: Fred Eshelman, the CEO of Pharmaceutical Product Development Inc. in Wilmington.
The School of Pharmacy at UNC-Chapel Hill was renamed for Eshelman two years ago after he gave more than $30 million to the university. Eshelman was in the news recently for a large gift he made to UNC Wilmington and for ringing the NASDAQ bell on the 25th anniversary of his company.
But Eshelman is more than a prominent businessman and university benefactor. He is the principal funder of a group called RightChange.com that ran ads against Obama in the 2008 election that were so extreme that even a respected conservative group called them “ridiculous” and an “outright, nonsensical lie.”
RightChange ran ads in a congressional race earlier this year that featured an attack of the “50-foot Pelosi” and is now attacking Florida Gov. and Senate candidate Charlie Crist.
Documents filed with the IRS show that RightChange spent just under $300,000 in the second quarter of this year, most of it on consultants. One of them is Tim Pittman, an official in administration of Republican Gov. Jim Martin in the 1980s.
The other board members of RightChange are Republican legislators, Sen. Fletcher Hartsell and Rep. Jeff Barnhart. They have never explained their involvement with the group or how they feel about the offensive ads it runs.
Earlier this year, Eshelman was also one of the founders of yet another right-wing group, Real Jobs NC, whose first website featured more distortions about North Carolina’s taxes. The website was taken down, but you can bet it will be back and it’s likely that ridiculous attack ads will come with it.
Maybe outrageous statements calling the president a terrorist or running blatantly false ads isn’t really news anymore in the current political climate.
But surely the fact that four state legislators and one of the state’s most prominent business leaders are playing increasingly prominent roles in the far right’s national propaganda machine that produces the scurrilous attacks is newsworthy.
Why isn’t anybody asking more questions?
Chris Fitzsimon is executive director of N.C. Policy Watch. Contact him at chris@ncpolicywatch.com.

Better Be Preparing for the Budget Storm

2010-07-27T20:17:00.000-04:00

From The Pilot

The one thing everyone agreed on during this year's budget debate is that North Carolina's financial problems will be a lot worse the next time lawmakers put a budget together.
The $1.3 billion temporary tax increase passed in 2009 will expire next June. The $1.4 billion in federal money used to balance this year's budget will be gone, or at best dramatically reduced.
More students will be showing up at universities and community colleges. Medicaid enrollment is almost certain to increase, and the cost of health care continues to rise. Add it all up, and it is a shortfall that the N.C. Budget and Tax Center says could come close to $4 billion.
Filling that hole would be an almost impossible challenge in a normal year, but addressing it after cutting $3 billion in General Fund spending in the last biennium boggles the mind.
More devastating cuts and less new revenue are on the way, no matter how much lawmakers talk about cutting waste and inefficiency in government. The hole is simply too massive.
The easy cuts have been made, and so have many that were not easy and in a lot of cases were inadvisable because of the damage they have inflicted on the fundamental institutions of the state, from the safety net to education at every level.
Most of the talk to date about the $4 billion problem on the not too distant horizon has been cast in political terms, used as a talking point by Republicans to portray Democrats as fiscally irresponsible, though Republicans didn't rush forward with any brilliant ideas about where to find a billion dollars or two to set aside without laying off thousands of teachers or closing hospitals.
That's the way politics works, and this is an especially charged political year. But we need more than soundbites to get ready for what's shaping up as the worst state budget crisis in 75 years. We need political leaders in both parties to start working on solutions now, not two months before the next fiscal year begins.
The most obvious place to start would be an overhaul of the state's antiquated tax system, an effort that has stalled time and time again in the face of heated opposition from well-heeled special interests and demagoguery from groups ready to twist any mention of taxes into crass government-bashing to serve their ideological agenda.
And tax reform is not the only place we need in-depth discussions now to get ready for next year. The state's criminal justice system continues to lock up nonviolent offenders that could be better served for less money in alternative settings, yet alternative programs suffered their own rounds of budget cuts in the last two years.
There's plenty more that lawmakers should consider to get ready for next year's crisis, from an honest look at business incentives to the program that provides tuition grants for North Carolina students at private colleges regardless of the student's family income level.
But they need to get started soon, not wait until the middle of next year's session.
Chris Fitzsimon is executive director of N.C. Policy Watch. Contact him at chris@ncpolicywatch.com.

Nope, Just Kidding: A New Day of Racial Harmony

2010-07-27T20:10:00.000-04:00

From The Pilot

By Dusty Rhoades - Sunday, July 25, 2010

It's been, to say the least, an interesting couple of weeks in American race relations.
Things kicked off when the NAACP voted, at its annual convention, on a resolution that "condemns the bigoted -elements within the tea party and asks for them to be repudiated." Note that the statement doesn't call all TPers racist. And as we know, it's not unusual in American politics for one group to ask another to "repudiate" its more fringe elements - so long as those fringe elements are on the so-called "left."
On one occasion, for instance, the late Tim Russert called on Barack Obama to repudiate, of all people, Harry Belafonte, for referring to President George W. Bush as a "terrorist," as if the rantings of an aging calypso star were somehow the responsibility of every black politician.
But, boy howdy, ask the TPers to distance themselves from the people at their rallies who carry signs showing the president as a witch doctor, complete with bone in nose, and just watch their old gray heads explode.
The immediate reaction was to go into their standard attack mode - as always, a variation on the old schoolyard riposte, "I know you are, but what am I?" It was the NAACP, the tea partiers asserted, who were the real racists.
Then the leader of a group called the Tea Party Express, a guy named Mark Williams, published a mock letter from the NAACP to Abraham Lincoln. "We Colored People have taken a vote and decided that we don't cotton to that whole emancipation thing," Williams wrote. "Mr. Lincoln, you were the greatest racist ever. We had a great gig. Three squares, room and board, all our decisions made by the massa in the house."
Nope, no racism there. Within a few days, Williams was, as requested, repudiated. He and the Tea Party Express were tossed out of the the Tea Party Federation. The NAACP issued a press release commending the federation.
A new day of tolerance and understanding dawned in America. Ha ha! Just kidding.
Enter Andrew Breitbart, the man who gave the world the infamous ACORN "pimp" tapes, in which members of the community organizing group were supposedly caught on tape advising a fake pimp and his prostitute how to set up in business and avoid taxes. The tapes were later discovered by the California attorney general's office to have been "heavily edited." They cut out the fact that, among other things, one ACORN worker had called the cops and that the supposed "pimp" (shown in the intro in full Superfly regalia) had actually been dressed in a suit and tie and claimed he was a law student.
After that, Breitbart was discredited and never again believed or taken seriously by anyone of any significance. Hee hee! Got you again!
Breitbart claimed to have found a tape of a U.S. Department of Agriculture functionary named Shirley Sherrod telling an NAACP group that, in a former job, she hadn't given a white farmer who came to her for help "the full force of what she could do." She'd taken him to a white lawyer ("one of his own kind") and, as the clip ends, left him there.
The NAACP, apparently unaware of what a dishonest propagandist Breitbart is, condemned Sherrod. She lost her job with the USDA. Then the rest of the tape came out. Once again, things were not as Breitbart had presented them. Imagine that.
Sherrod found out that the lawyer she'd referred the farmer to hadn't done much. In fact, the poor guy was about to be foreclosed on. At that time, she went on to say, she realized that "it's really about those who have versus those who don't ... and they could be black; they could be white; they could be Hispanic."
She got to work, she helped save the man's farm, and she and his family remain friends to this day. He and his wife even went on CNN to try to clear Sherrod's name. Instead of a story of racism, it was a story of overcoming it. The NAACP and the White House apologized and USDA head Tom Vilsack offered Sherrod her job back. She's not sure she wants it, and who can blame her?
In the end, everyone learned a valuable lesson. From then on, everyone listened to what other people were actually saying, instead of filtering it through their own prejudices and trying to pick out little out-of-context nuggets to pelt their perceived enemies with.
Ho ho! That's a real knee-slapper, that one is.
Dusty Rhoades lives, writes and practices law in Carthage. Contact him at dustyr@nc.rr.com.

Look Where Burr's Sympathies Lie

2010-07-27T19:59:00.000-04:00

From The Pilot

By Kevin Smith - Sunday, July 25, 2010

Richard Burr has collected 6.3 million reasons to like his chances for re-election this November. Elaine Marshall has - well, Richard Burr. It's left to North Carolinians to decide whether $6.3 million is enough to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
Project Vote Smart has a page where you can plug in a senator's name and see how he or she is rated by various interest groups. It's a good way to see where a senator's loyalties lie and whether his or her values reflect your values.
For instance, for the years from 2005 to April 2010, Burr received three A's and two B's from the gun owners of America. Compare that with his scores from the National Education Association, which are straight F's. Go down the list of education-related interests and his scores are, with one exception from one group in one year, either F's on a grade scale or below 31 on a percentage basis.
We may reasonably debate what, if any, restrictions are appropriate to Second Amendment rights, but giving Americans the tools to restore and sustain our economic viability should be sacrosanct. In Richard Burr's world, Little Johnny may or may not be able to read, but he can shoot. What does that mean for his prospects?
If our children want to compete for the best jobs, they're likely to have to do so in a globalized economy. It will be the caliber of their minds that matters. In the battles that will most directly determine the quality of their lives and the lives of their progeny, Richard Burr leaves our children out unarmed.
Burr's campaign ran an ad during the primary in which several supporters affirmed that Burr is the right choice for veterans. Here again, ratings from veterans groups over his time as a senator tell a different story. Burr ranks constantly low - all the more so when you consider the number of military bases and retired military in North Carolina. His highest rating from the major veterans groups during his time in the Senate is a C.
Burr is the ranking member of the Veteran's Affairs Committee, but he's no friend to veterans.
Here's another interesting paradox: Burr has an 85 percent rating from the National Right to Life Committee and an 88 percent rating from the Family Research Council, but only a 42 percent rating from the Children's Defense Fund, 0 percent from the American Public Health Association and 25 percent from the American Hospital Association.
What those numbers suggest is a man who is committed to the sanctity of life before birth but who has a vexing disregard for the sanctity life outside of the womb. Who does Burr represent? Does he represent the interests of upper-class, middle-class, working-class and impoverished North Carolinians equally? The numbers give us a clear understanding.
We know he supports business - Business-Industry PAC, 100 percent, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, 100 percent, all as you would expect. We know he's no friend to organized labor - AFL-CIO, 6 percent, American Federation of Government Employees, 8 percent, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, 0 percent, also to be expected.
But what about regular, not necessarily union, middle- and working-class North Carolinians? It turns out that there's an organization called themiddleclass.org. How does it rate our senior senator? For the years 2005-2009, he got straight F's, a 36 percent rating for 2009. He's just as weak on poverty issues as he is on middle-class issues. Burr's interests reflect the interests of those best able to pay for his support.
Richard Burr will use all of the considerable resources at his command to try to persuade a majority of North Carolinians that he's looking out for them. But in the words of Bill Parcells, "You are what your record says you are." Richard Burr's record says he's six years late for his regular tee time. North Carolinians deserve better.
Kevin Smith lives in Aberdeen. Contact him at kevinasmith@gmx.com.

A letter to losers (of jobs)

2010-07-24T08:05:00.000-04:00

From The Raleigh News and Observer

BY RICK HOROWITZ

"The president knows that Republicans support extending unemployment insurance..."
House Republican Leader
John Boehner

Dear Unemployed Person
or Persons:

These are tough times for Americans. They're especially tough times for people like you who have lost your jobs and who still can't find new ones, because of the Obama Recession, which started at approximately 12 noon on Jan. 20, 2009, after eight years of nonstop growth and prosperity under President George W. Bush.
We sympathize with your situation, and we know how hard it must be to be without a job as the bills pile up. (Technically, we don't really know how hard it must be, because we all have jobs - with lots of great benefits, too - but we can certainly imagine how hard it must be. We'd hate to be in your shoes right now.)
Anyway, we sympathize with what you and your loved ones must be going through - although why unemployed people still deserve to have loved ones when they're not doing a single thing to help them is a total mystery to us.
We're writing to set the record straight after weeks of misinformation put out by the Obama administration and their friends in the liberal media. You may have heard that Republicans have been opposed to extending unemployment benefits for the millions of Americans whose benefits have already run out.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
The truth is: Republicans haven't been opposed to extending unemployment benefits. We've been opposed to letting the Senate vote on extending unemployment benefits - that's a totally different thing.
You may also have heard that some of us have had some unflattering things to say about unemployment benefits in general, and about how receiving unemployment benefits is a whole lot easier than looking for work and only encourages people to stay unemployed.
We weren't talking about you. You're almost certainly not the kind of person who'd sit on his duff week after week and take advantage of the generosity of hardworking, taxpaying, real Americans.
You know the kind of person we mean.
The other thing you might have heard about us is that we're "hypocrites," because now we oppose extending unemployment benefits, when we used to be in favor of them when George Bush was president.
Or maybe you've heard us called even bigger "hypocrites" because we insisted that any extended unemployment benefits be paid for, rather than adding to the deficit - even though we aren't insisting that extended tax cuts for wealthy Americans be paid for, and even though those particular tax cuts add much more to the deficit than unemployment benefits would.
We have a very simple answer to these charges: Where's Obama's birth certificate?
Besides, those are just numbers - we have the facts on our side. And the No. 1 fact is this: Everyone knows that Republicans stand for fiscal discipline and responsible budgeting. In fact, whenever fiscal discipline has broken down and the budget has gotten out of control, Republicans are the first ones to say who's responsible. (Hint: Not us.)
Mitch McConnell, our Republican Senate leader, put it exactly right the other day when he talked about the dangers of excessive government spending to help people who can't even hold a job. "At what point," he asked, "do we pivot and start being concerned about our children and our grandchildren?"
To Republicans, the answer is perfectly clear: We pivot when there's a Democrat in the White House.

Rick Horowitz is a syndicated columnist. You can write to him at rickhoro@execpc.com.

Fishermen rebuild oyster reefs with stimulus money

2010-07-22T15:09:00.000-04:00

From Raleigh News and Observer

he Associated Press

WILMINGTON -- Federal stimulus funds have been doled out far and wide. And deep. Like the bottom of a North Carolina sound.
About 70 fishermen are being paid to scatter oyster shells in shallow waters along the state's coast, said Ted Wilgis, education coordinator for the North Carolina Coastal Federation.
That includes a 1-acre area in the Middle Sound off Wrightsville Beach that fishermen James and Steven Galloway hope will keep their family business going for years to come.

The site will be closed for four years to allow the oysters to grow before they are harvested.
James Galloway, 56, told The Star-News of Wilmington about 75 percent of his income comes from collecting and selling oysters.
"It helps us in more ways than one," said Steven Galloway, 21. "It's work for now. It's good money. Then in a few years, we'll have more oysters. It's sort of win-win all the way around."
Besides the fishermen, about 65 other jobs for barge operators, lab technicians and tugboat captains are collecting paychecks from the coastal federation's $5 million grant under the stimulus package, Wilgis said.
The project has also paid earlier this summer to create two large oyster reefs covering 48 acres in Pamlico Sound that will not be reopened to fishing.
The work comes as oysters need to find a hard surface to grow on after drifting in ocean currents for the first several weeks of their lives. The stacks of old oyster shells provide the habitat they need.
Oysters also play an important ecological role, said Troy Alphin, a researcher at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington's Center for Marine Science.
Oyster reefs shelter fish, crabs and other small marine creatures, which provide food for larger fish. Oysters also filter and improve the coastal waters.

Marshall, Burr volley over jobless benefits

2010-07-21T07:15:00.000-04:00

From Raleigh News and Observer

BY N.C. POLITICS & GOVERNMENT

Tags: news | politics | state

Democratic Senate candidate Elaine Marshall on Tuesday accused Republican Sen. Richard Burr of helping block the extension of unemployment benefits for millions of North Carolinians.
Marshall, the secretary of state, held a news conference outside Burr's Winston-Salem office, where she delivered a petition of 15,000 signatures urging Burr to end his opposition.
"For months my opponent has been working against our working families - blocking the extension of unemployment benefits," Marshall said in prepared remarks. "Because of this partisan obstruction, more than 2.5 million Americans have been cut off (from) unemployment benefits they desperately need to survive."

She was accompanied by several unemployed North Carolinians.
Burr's office released a statement saying that he agrees with President Barack Obama's statement last November that benefits must be extended in "a financially responsible way" that does not add to the national debt.
Burr said Republican proposals to pay for extended benefits by making cuts elsewhere in government had been blocked by Democrats four times.
"I think everyone agrees that we should extend unemployment benefits, but one party is using this as a political tool while the other party wants to extend the benefits and pay for them," Burr said.
Meanwhile, the state Democratic Party released a Web video of Burr giving a C-SPAN interview in March in which he said automatically extending unemployment benefits for 12 months would be a "discouragement to individuals out there to actually go out and go through the interview process."

A very interesting link

2010-07-20T18:32:00.000-04:00

The Middle Class.org

Marching toward Arizona

2010-07-20T17:34:00.000-04:00

From NC Policy Watch

Tuesday, July 20th, 2010

By Chris Fitzsimon
If you want to know what might be in North Carolina's future, take a look at Arizona and not just its much-publicized, offensive and likely unconstitutional immigration law. Look at the rest of that state's government too if you want a preview of what the angry Right and the think tanks that support them could do here if they take over state government in the fall.
Ken Silverstein has a preview in the July issue of Harper's Magazine and it's a sobering read. The hard, angry right runs the Arizona legislature and has for years. That's why the state literally sold its Capitol to raise money and leases it back.
Other state buildings have been sold too, day-long kindergarten for poor children has been abolished, and thousands of people have been slashed from the Medicaid rolls. The state has securitized the lottery, which basically means it's also been sold, and raided a special fund set aside for education.
The state has done all that and still faces a massive budget crisis next year. You can only imagine what that will prompt lawmakers to do. They have cut taxes 15 of the last 17 years despite their budget woes.
And it's not just fiscal policy. Legislators in Arizona have passed legislation demanding to see President Obama's birth certificate if he runs for reelection and they have declared that Arizonans have a constitutional right to hunt.
They have allowed guns to be taken into many previously gun free zones like bars and university campuses supposedly to protect the state from terrorism. The Harper's story quotes one member of the Arizona General Assembly saying that trees were stealing the state's water supply.
There's more in what Silverstein calls a "Grover Norquist lab experiment run amok," but that's not entirely accurate. It's turned out just like Norquist had hoped. He's the anti-government crusader who famously said he wanted to shrink government enough "were we can drown it in a bathtub."
It's also what could happen in North Carolina if you listen to the rhetoric from the tea parties and the politicians who pander to them.
Republican Party Chair Tom Fetzer organized an effort to defeat extremist Congressional candidate and Christ's War blogger Tim D'Annunzio in a primary runoff, but Fetzer based his criticism on D'Annunzio's criminal record. He never denounced D'Annunzio's positions or rhetoric that included a call to dismantle most of the federal government.
Republican candidates routinely appear at rallies alongside people who portray Obama as Hitler and claim he favors genocide.
The think tankers on the Right are there too and it's their philosophical extremism that morphs into policy positions for the candidates they support. It's not hard to imagine a tea party dominated General Assembly abolishing Smart Start and doubling or tripling tuition at UNC.
Raleigh's leading think tank on the Right has long advocated both. They also want to sell state buildings and privatize museums and parks or at least charge admission fees only the wealthy could afford.
Say goodbye to affordable housing programs and health-insurance for kids in working poor families. Public education would almost certainly be dismantled and privatized too, with vouchers and tax credits that also benefit the rich.
Taxes, especially on the wealthy and corporations would be slashed and slashed again, no matter what university had to be closed or what vital human service had be to be abolished. Raising revenue is never an option. That's why they insist on pledges and oaths from candidates never to raise taxes.
It might seem impossible that could happen in North Carolina, a moderate and occasionally progressive state. But if listening to the hard right rhetoric at the tea parties and political rallies doesn't convince you, take a long look at what has happened in Arizona.
And remember that plenty of people there thought it could never happen either.

Senator Hagan steps up on veterans' mental health

2010-07-20T17:30:00.000-04:00

From Blue NC

Submitted by scharrison on Tue, 07/20/2010 - 2:38pm

I received this earlier today via e-mail from a Governor's Focus member:

U.S. Senator Kay R. Hagan (D-NC) yesterday cosponsored a bipartisan bill to help service members access mental health care services...
“Our service men and women put their lives on the line for our country, and they now face an unnecessary, administrative hurdle to accessing mental health care,” Hagan said. “As a U.S. Senator from North Carolina and member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I am focused on ensuring our veterans, active duty military and their families can access the services they need. Mental health care for our returning troops is so critical, and I will work with my colleagues to ensure this important bill is signed into law.”

Here's the core of the problem Kay is trying to fix:

Currently, TRICARE, the health care system for service members, requires them to obtain a physician referral in order to see a licensed mental health counselor. However, this same obstacle is not applied to licensed social workers or certified marriage and family therapists.

I'm going to attempt to give you some background on this issue, but if any MH professionals notice any fallacies or points that need clarification, please let us know. Getting it right is critical.
TRICARE is not a facility or a group of practicing clinicians, it's a funding vehicle. And for those who have left active duty service, it soon becomes a health care insurance plan that requires a monthly premium payment, if they want to remain enrolled. It doesn't provide care, it pays for care, and the dollars are appropriated for and administered by the Department of Defense. And it's not some sort of entitlement program dreamed up by soft-hearted politicians, it's an integral part of our nation's defense framework.
I wanted to make that clear upfront, because the bill in question, if passed, will facilitate the needed treatment of thousands of current and former service members. And that's going to cost money. A lot of money. As such, there will be opposition to this increase in spending, both from Congress and the DoD itself. Opposition which should (and probably will) be ashamed to show its face in public.
Now to the "why" this is needed. Within the mental health field in general, and the substance abuse field in particular, the vast majority of counselors and clinicians are not (medical) doctors. This is not to disparage the value of doctors in the system, but to provide demographics. The number of MD's is so limited, the few in the system are often responsible for serving several clinics, making an appearance at each maybe once a week. Meaning, if an individual must see a physician before he/she can even begin the evaluation/treatment process, that appointment could be weeks in coming. And for some, those few weeks could be a lifetime.
Speaking of, now is as good a time as any to talk about suicide rates in the ranks:

June was not only the worst month ever for American combat deaths in Afghanistan. It was the worst month ever for suicides in the Army, CBS National Security Correspondent David Martin reports.
A total of 32 soldiers, both active duty and reserve, took their own lives in those 30 days. So far this year, 145 soldiers have committed suicide compared with 130 during the first six months of last year, which at the time was the worst on record.

We've lost more troops to suicide in the last nine years than have died in combat in Afghanistan. To say we have a mental health crisis is such an understatement that I can find no analogy with which to make a suitable comparison. And the scary part is, even if we withdrew all forces from the theater today, the legacy of that mental health damage will continue to take lives for years.
Back to the people who can ease that suffering and save those precious lives and families. Those non-MD's; the PA's, nurses, psychologists, licensed counselors, etc., are the eyes, ears, mouths (and yes) hearts of our mental health system. They have the brains and ability to both assess problems and open doors where solutions can be found. Whether it's in- or out-patient treatment relying on government, private, or faith-based resources, these folks are armed with answers. Our troops are in desperate need of those answers, and the extra funding that would require.

Protesters disrupt school board meeting

2010-07-20T17:23:00.000-04:00

From Raleigh News And Observer

By Thomas Goldsmith - STAFF WRITER

A mid-meeting disruption that verged on a riot has erupted at tonight's Wake County school board meeting with a group of chanting protesters refusing to relinquish the microphone. A string of arrests by armed police has followed.
During what had been a relatively quiet meeting, speaker Carolyn Coleman began a loud complaint to the board about its policies on diversity, then brought more than two dozen protesters forward to join her in chants of "forward ever! backwards never!"
Young protesters David Eisenstandt, a familiar figure among the youth protesters, was one of the first arrested, as police took at least half a dozen into custody.

Board members have retreated into a private meeting after protesters ignored Chairman Ron Margiotta's threats of arrest.
Now remaining protesters are singing the civil rights anthem "We Shall Overcome."
Board member Keith Sutton at one point was in the midst of the fray, apparently trying to prevent excessive or rough handling of demonstrators. Sutton was briefly halted by police, but let go, observers said.
Earlier, Rev. William Barber, head of the state NAACP, and Rev. Nancy Petty, senior pastor at Pullen Memorial Baptist Church, were arrested by Raleigh police as they stepped onto the property of the Wake school board administration building, defying a school district letter barring them from the grounds.
Shortly after leading a downtown march and rally protesting the Wake school board majority's decision to ditch the district's long-standing diversity policy, Barber arrived at school administration headquarters on Wake Forest Road in Raleigh. Stepping out of an SUV around 2:45 p.m., Barber was met at the building entrance by Harold Lassiter, head of security for the school district, and several Raleigh police officers. With Petty by his side, Barber read aloud an open letter to school board chairman Ron Margiotta.
Lassiter asked whether Barber, who along with Petty, Duke University professor Tim Tyson and activist Mary D. Williams were arrested for disrupting a June 15 school board meeting, had prepared written assurances he wouldn't disrupt the afternoon school board meeting taking place inside the building as required by a school board letter banning the four from the property.
"No," Barber said. Officers then arrested Barber and Petty and led them away in plastic wrist restraints and transported to the Wake County jail.
Barber and Petty were charged with second-degree trespassing, said Jim Sughrue, Raleigh police spokesman. A protester was also arrested. Gregory Moss was charged with resisting, delaying or obstructing a law enforcement officer and was also transported to the Wake County jail.
Their arrest triggered shouting and chants from the more than 100 protesters gathered outside the building, many of them carrying signs equating the board majority's diversity decision with de facto resegregation of Wake schools and neighborhoods. More than 20 Raleigh police officers, some on horseback, were stationed around the crowd, backed up by a mobile command center. Paramedics pedaled on bicycles, on the lookout for protesters overcome by the high heat.
Inside the building, the school board started its monthly meeting with Margiotta's pledge not to create schools full of poor or minority children. They faced a packed house of both supporters and opponents.
Chairman Ron Margiotta just gave an opening statement maintaining that that the board would not be distracted by its detractors, presumably including this morning's downtown protesters and the pastors and others arrested minutes ago when trying to attend the meeting, from which they had been barred.
Margiotta heads a coalition determined to end the Wake schools' longstanding emphasis on maintaining balanced schools based on students economic background.
"This board does not intend to create high-poverty or low-performing schools in the new zone assignments.
The board has a full agenda of items, including addressing projected elementary school overcrowding and preparing a job description for a new superintendent.
Earlier today, Wake County school board chair Ron Margiotta proposed generally limiting school board meetings to one per month, instead of the customary two, with one or two work sessions each month.
In addition, Margiotta suggested the elimination of the board's standing committees, saying that having items discussed in committees, at work sessions and at public meetings led to repetition. Some members said the approach would not allow time for adequate consideration of items before they had to be voted on.
"Let's try it and see how it works," Margiotta said, suggesting that the proposal could be tried for three or four months as a test.
Later he added, "The intention was to try to streamline our process."
A resolution calling for the change on a trial basis will be heard at the meeting today.
Items could be introduced through members designated as liaisons in particular areas, or directly to the chair, he said.
Training sessions could be incorporated into some work sessions. State law calls for school boards to meet on the first Tuesday of each month.
Margiotta, who introduced the proposal at a committee of the whole meeting that is in progress, had suggested last month that he would have substantive changes to suggest in the board's meeting structure.
"I don't see how board members could be up to speed on all the items we work on," member Kevin Hill said. "I am beginning to get frustrated with making decisions with 12 minutes to think about it."
Ad hoc committees, like the one formed to search for a new superintendent, would continue to operate, Margiotta said.

thomas.goldsmith@newsobserver.com or 919-829-8929

The World In Which We All Grew Up

2010-07-18T10:35:00.000-04:00

From The Pilot

By Dusty Rhoades - Sunday, July 18, 2010
Recently, House Minority Leader John Boehner gave an interview to The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review in which he - surprise! - criticized Congressional Democrats and Congress.
It was a wide-ranging interview covering subjects like the financial reform bill, which Boehner compared to "killing an ant with a nuclear weapon." (I'm sure people adversely affected by the financial meltdown will be glad to know that the crisis was only an "ant" as far as the Republican leadership is concerned.)
As usual, Boehner trotted out one of the catchphrases of the American right: a professed yearning for, as he put it, "the America he grew up in," which he claims is being "snuffed out" by those awful Democrats.
Well, according to Brother John's Wikipedia page, he was born in 1949. So the "America he grew up in" saw the Red Scares, the polio epidemics, the Korean War, McCarthyism, the Berlin Wall and the hydrogen bomb. It also was the era in which the Vietnam War began, although no one really paid much attention at the time. Oh, and let's not forget the overarching and ever-present dread of a nuclear war that would wipe out civilization (fallout shelters, anyone?)
It should also be noted that America wasn't exactly congenial if you were black, brown, gay or disabled, and was pretty doggone restrictive if you were female. If you were an abused child, your plight was more likely than not to be ignored or hushed up.
I joined up with America in 1962. The America I grew up in saw the aforementioned Vietnam War in full bloody flower, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the assassinations of Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy and Malcolm X, race riots, anti-war riots, the 1968 Chicago "police riot," hippies, Yippies, an exploding drug culture, Nixon, Watergate, Charles Manson, an OPEC embargo which led to a gas crisis, an economic crisis, a hostage crisis, "malaise," a major city going broke, Chrysler going broke (and having to be bailed out), polyester leisure suits, disco, and a limited selection of weak, lousy beer that we only drank because we didn't know that there was anything better.
Oh, and there was still that fear that we were going to start swapping nukes with the Russians and wipe out all life on the planet. Consider this, though: The America Brother John and I grew up in also gave us the vaccine that eradicated polio, the GI Bill, the Marshall Plan, the Interstate highway system, Elvis, Chuck Berry, the Civil Rights Act, the Clean Air Act, the Ford Mustang, moon landings, communications satellites, weather satellites, the transistor, the microchip, the MRI ... the list of advancements, societal and scientific, goes on and on.
And now? There are still environmental dangers like the Gulf oil spill, but on average, the country's air and water are measurably cleaner than they used to be. We are able, if we have the will, to give everyone in the country instant access to more information than our ancestors ever dreamed of.
We still have our differences with the Russians, but we don't live in fear that we're going to blow each other off the face of the Earth. We still fear attack, but it's not a world-ending one. Things are not perfect, but they're certainly better, for children, women, minorities, gays and the disabled. And the beer selection is excellent.
The America I grew up in is like the one John Boehner grew up in, the one my children grew up in, and the one that every American child born while you read this column is going to grow up in. It's a place of fear, violence, chaos and injustice. It's a place of hope, kindness, creativity and progress. It's always, as Dickens put it, the best of times and the worst of times.
What America is always doing, though, is moving forward. That progress may be slow, or it moves in fits and starts. That can be frustrating. But there's no going back, Mr. Boehner. The America we grew up in is gone, and it's not coming back. A new one is being made every day on its foundations, just like every day since the country was founded. You can slow that down, but you can't stop it.
Dusty Rhoades lives, writes and practices law in Carthage. Contact him at dustyr@nc.rr.com.

NAACP July 20th March 4 our Children and against resegregation

2010-07-17T17:26:00.000-04:00

Submitted by Tara on Mon, 07/12/2010 - 10:28.

FOR OUR CHILDREN:
We Say NO to resegregation!
We Say YES to socio-economic diversity and school excellence!
· Stop segregation and promote diversity
· Secure equity in funding
· Hire and retain high quality teachers
· Have smaller class sizes
· Focus on math, science, history and reading
· Promote parent and community involvement
· Eliminate inequities in suspensions, graduation rates, performance and other factors
Fighting for our children,
not just ourselves
Our community is at stake.
It’s time to make a statement – join us for a mass mobilization against the student reassignment plan of the anti-diversity caucus of the Wake County Board of Education that will eliminate our nationally recognized socio-economic diversity policy and take us backwards.
March FOR Our Children and AGAINST Resegregation
Tuesday, July 20 at 10 a.m.
Meet at the Convention Center to march to the Capitol. Rain or shine.

The Follies

2010-07-17T17:23:00.000-04:00

From NC Policy Watch

By Chris Fitzsimon
Debunking the high-tax rhetoric one more time
It's always interesting to note when a national study or report names North Carolina one of the best places in the country to do business.
The Governor's office sends out a press release, a few media outlets mention it briefly and the next day the anti-government crowd resumes making their ridiculous claims that state tax and regulatory policies make it virtually impossible for companies to operate here.
They almost always include the talking point that North Carolina taxes are the highest in the Southeast (they're not by the way) and that the state is losing jobs to its neighbors because it's so hostile to business and free enterprise.
That was the script again this week as CNBC released its annual ranking of the top states in the country for business. North Carolina was 4th, and made the biggest jump in the rankings from the previous year. The results are worth looking at in a little more detail.
One of the criteria was the cost of doing business, which included taxes, utility costs, workers; compensation insurance, etc. North Carolina ranked 15th in that category, but ahead of southern states like Georgia, Louisiana, Virginia, even Texas, the top-ranked state overall.
The cost of doing business in North Carolina is lower than it is in Texas. That's not something we hear very often during the debate in the General Assembly about taxes or regulation. Or on the campaign trail.
Empty your wallet scratch-off game
The North Carolina Exploitation Lottery unveiled three new games this week, always a reason to celebrate. One of them is an instant scratch-off game appropriately named "Break the Bank."
It does bring to mind a lot of other ideas for instant scratch-off games, "empty your wallet," "waste your savings," "throwaway your kids college education," or "take a chance with grocery money."
The possibilities are endless once you decide to fund education by convincing people to buy lottery tickets.
The UNC PAC is reloading
Here's another interesting note from the campaign finance reports that were filed this week by candidates for state office and political action committees. Citizens for Higher Education, the PAC funded by wealthy supporters of UNC-Chapel Hill has just under $180,000 in the bank and that's after already contributing $58,000 to legislators campaigns this election cycle.
The PAC handed out $479,000 to legislators' campaigns in the 2008 elections, so plenty more cash is likely on the way to campaign coffers from the well-heeled UNCers.
This legislative session, lawmakers finally repealed the provision that let out-of-state athletes pay in-state tuition, which has been a $10 million windfall for the athletic booster clubs that pay for athletic scholarships.
The PAC continues to employ two lobbyists to patrol the legislative halls on its behalf, even though UNC-Chapel Hill has its own lobbyist and the university's interests are also represented by the folks from the university system who work with legislators on a daily basis.
The booster club subsidy is gone for now thank goodness, but it's hard to rest when the fatcats who support it are still throwing their money around.
From the Fringe
There's plenty to choose from for this week's From the Fringe. Angry Locker Jon Ham is still seeing a liberal media conspiracy behind every tree.
Ham was upset that a national story carried in the News & Observer about the NAACP's resolution about the tea party movement incorrectly capitalized the word democratic in a quote by a tea party official.
The N&O reported the statement this way. "There's no room for that kind of vitriolic language in a civilized Democratic society," Shelton said.
Democratic little d is the correct usage.
Sloppy copy editing you might think? Ham is sure there's much more to it, either the reporter intentionally used the capital D, or more likely used it by accident which Ham thinks would be far worse, because it reveals a "deep and unconscious bias."
Maybe he could help crack the code behind the common misuse of the word Capitol, which only refers to a building, not a city.
It all seems to add up to a covert plot to overthrow the government through carefully and diabolically placed grammatical errors. Be on the lookout. You have been warned.
Ham's not the only one on the Right breathlessly hyperbolic this week. The Locker's Asheville ranter uses this headline to criticize a story in the Hendersonville paper about Congressman Health Shuler's position on legislation allowing public employees to collectively bargain.
"Mollycoddled Weasel Words to Bring Down a Nation." Letting firefighters collectively bargain would destroy America? Who knew?
The fear-mongering even finds its way into the Lockers event announcements. One for something called a citizen's constitutional workshop proclaims that "the past 100 years of Progressive Ideology have almost destroyed the US Constitution."
We are hanging by a thread ladies and gentleman. Our nation is at risk. Make sure all your subjects and verbs agree and please, please, don't make any mistakes in Capitalization capitalization.

Senator Hagan solidly behind caps on emissions

2010-07-17T17:16:00.000-04:00

From Blue NC

Submitted by scharrison on Sat, 07/17/2010 - 10:54am

Adding her signature to a letter sent to the leader of the Senate:

“We believe the scale of this challenge dictates the need for a comprehensive solution that includes making polluters pay through a price on greenhouse gas emissions,” wrote Sens. Mark Begich of Alaska, Michael Bennet of Colorado, Roland Burris of Illinois, Al Franken of Minnesota, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Ted Kaufmann of Delaware, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Mark Udall of Colorado, Tom Udall of New Mexico and Mark Warner of Virginia.

And I believe you're right.

Report: School Districts’ Perspectives on the Economic Stimulus Package

2010-07-16T21:34:00.000-04:00

From NC Policy Watch

Friday, July 16th, 2010

By Staff
Teaching Jobs Saved in 2009-10 But Teacher Layoffs Loom for Next School Year

While nearly two-thirds of all school districts have used the federal stimulus money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) to save or create teaching jobs in the 2009-10 school year, as many as three-quarters of the nation's school districts expect to cut teaching jobs in 2010-11 due to budget decreases, according to a new survey of districts released this week by the Center on Education Policy (CEP).

The report, based on a nationally representative sample of district-level administrators surveyed in the spring of 2010, finds that nearly 95 percent of the nation's school districts have received or been promised funding from the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) authorized by ARRA. However, districts with funding declines are likely to face serious problems in the coming school year because much of the federal stabilization funding they have received has already been spent. An estimated 68 percent of school districts expect their total budgets, excluding ARRA funds, to decrease for school year 2010-11. As a result, 75 percent of districts that received SFSF funds expect to lay off teachers in 2010-11 to address their persistent budget shortfall.

SFSF funds helped to stabilize local budgets in 2009-10, though they were often insufficient to compensate for budget decreases not covered by the federal stimulus money. The report also finds that even with the ARRA funds, about 45 percent of districts with SFSF grants had to cut teaching staff in the 2009-10 school year.

"Unless additional recovery money is provided, the education jobs crisis that had been averted to some extent this year may emerge in full force in the coming school year, creating unprecedented shortages of classroom teachers that could undermine progress in school reform," said Jack Jennings, CEP's president and CEO.

CEP asked districts about actions they were undertaking to implement ARRA's four reform areas. CEP found that districts focused more aggressively on reform goals relating to improving teacher quality, bolstering standards and improving assessments, and participating in state longitudinal data systems than on improving low-performing schools. CEP suggests that this may be because districts have focused heavily on aligning their education reforms with state priorities and because not all districts have low-performing schools.

The majority of school districts have received or have been promised supplemental funding through ARRA for Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). More than half of districts receiving this funding are using the money to save or create jobs, as well as to purchase materials, technology, and equipment.

You can access the full report, at CEP's web site.

Based in Washington, D.C., the Center on Education Policy is a national, independent advocate for public education and for more effective public schools. The Center works to help Americans better understand the role of public education in a democracy and the need to improve the academic quality of public schools.

White House: Stimulus created nearly 1 million jobs in South

2010-07-16T21:29:00.002-04:00

This week, President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers released [pdf] their latest quarterly report about jobs flowing from the spring 2009 stimulus bill.

According to the White House figures, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has saved or created just over 3 million jobs -- including nearly 1 million in 13 Southern states.

The estimates -- especially for the number of jobs potentially "saved" thanks to the stimulus bill's impact on the overall economy -- involve modeling that is far from an exact science, although the report does take pains to cite a variety of government and independent sources to confirm its conclusions.

Based on their data, here's a chart with the state-by-state numbers:

The Southern numbers are especially notable given the political battles over the stimulus last year. The government's data show that some of the biggest job gains came in states led by governors who vocally opposed the stimulus bill:

* In Texas, Gov. Rick Perry (R) initially rejected $555 million in stimulus money for unemployment benefits (although later changed his mind) and even suggested Texas might have to secede from the United States. The White House estimated 225,000 jobs were created or saved in Texas, second only to California.

* South Carolina's embattled Gov. Mark Sanford (R) vocally opposed the ARRA and likened accepting stimulus money to "fiscal child abuse." The Obama team says it can take credit for 41,000 jobs in that state.

* In Louisiana, Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) savaged a "stimulus bill that has not stimulated" (although, less than a day after that, he did a photo op celebrating a stimulus-funded project). The government credits the stimulus bill with creating 39,000 jobs in Louisiana.

* Mississippi's Gov. Haley Barbour (R) was a staunch opponent of the stimulus, and suggested on Fox News this year that it's only created government jobs. The Mississippi stimulus impact: 26,000 jobs.

* This week, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) said it's "hard to say" how much impact the stimulus has had in his state, allowing it may be responsible for up to 14,000 of the 72,000 jobs created on his watch this year. The White House estimates 73,000 jobs from the stimulus overall.

Of course, these numbers don't even count a big source of Southern job stimulus this summer: the 2010 Census, which just last month was employing over 100,000 people in 11 Southern states.

Who says the South doesn't need government jobs programs?

By Chris Kromm on July 16, 2010 11:22 AM

N.C. unemployment falls for fourth consecutive month

2010-07-16T21:26:00.000-04:00

07/16/2010 11:31 AM

By: News 14 Carolina Web Staff

RALEIGH -- North Carolina unemployment numbers are down for a fourth straight month. The jobless rate fell to 10 percent in June from 10.4 percent in May.
Since February, the state has added more than 45,000 jobs.
In June, the number of unemployed workers in the state decreased by more than 20,000 to more than 454,000. Since this time a year ago, that number has decreased by close to 44,000.
County-by-county unemployment rates for June will be released next Friday.

Push builds for Democratic convention in Charlotte

2010-07-16T12:49:00.000-04:00

City leaders hire consultants to help Charlotte prepare for visit from party's site selection team.

By Jim Morrill
jmorrill@charlotteobserver.com

Posted: Friday, Jul. 16, 2010

Charlotte leaders ramped up their push for the 2012 Democratic National Convention on Thursday, bringing on two consultants, launching a website and laying out a vision of "an Olympic village" for up to 35,000 delegates.
"It's a tremendous honor for our community to be among the four cities selected for this process," Mayor Anthony Foxx told reporters. "It would be an even greater honor to win."
Last month, the Democratic National Committee named Charlotte a finalist for the convention along with Cleveland, Minneapolis and St. Louis.
A site selection committee is expected to visit the city later this month. A decision could come by the end of the year.
Foxx said the convention would put Charlotte on an international stage and mean an economic impact of up to $200 million.
Foxx and Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers, who co-chairs the effort, spoke to reporters at the Charlotte Chamber. They stood before a backdrop adorned with a logo for "Charlotte in 2012" and the slogan "Reaching for Tomorrow."
The organizing group has hired Tom McMahon, a former executive director of the DNC, and Karen Finney, a former spokeswoman for the DNC. McMahon led the effort that chose Denver, Colo., to host the 2008 convention.
The Charlotte group has also hired the marketing firm Luquire George Andrews.
Foxx said no public money is going to the organizing effort.
Rogers said his job "is about the money." He offered no details of how much has been raised or spent so far. If Charlotte wins the convention, it would be expected to raise at least $40 million.
Rogers touted the relatively compact center city, where hotels and venues such as Time Warner Cable Arena and the convention center are within walking distance.
"We can make Charlotte an Olympic village for a political convention," he said.

Legislative Session Proved A Busy One

2010-07-16T08:35:00.000-04:00

By Scott Mooneyham - Friday, July 16, 2010
Raleigh

Not so long ago, state legislators had years in which they met for eight months while accomplishing very little other than making sure that the state budget was balanced for another year.
This latest even-year short session of the North Carolina General Assembly, in which they met three months, won't be remembered that way.
Legislators bit off big chunks of substantial policy change in 2010. Some weren't completed until the wee hours Saturday morning, as the General Assembly adjourned for the year after a grueling final day in which lawmakers met for more than 20 hours.
The Democrats who control the legislature were motivated by an uncertain political landscape that threatens their majorities in the House and Senate. Sometimes that kind of threat can be a recipe for a do-nothing legislative session.
It had a different effect this year.
Legislators hit the ground running in their budget deliberations. They ultimately approved a $19 billion state spending plan, the total rising to $20.6 billion when accounting for federal stimulus money. The bill's passage marked the first time since 2003 that legislators had a budget in place by the July 1 start of the new fiscal year.
In a second straight year of depressed tax collections, the budget provided no salary increases for state employees. Those workers, though, seemed happy to avoid the furloughs and layoffs seen in other states.
The biggest critics of the spending plan were home health businesses. They were chagrined with a decision to significantly scale back a Medicaid program for in-home care services for the poor.
Legislative Republicans predicted doom because the plan made few provisions for next year, when most or all that extra federal help to the states will be gone.
Besides the budget, state lawmakers passed another round of government ethics reform, made another attempt at banning video poker, approved a batch of tax breaks and incentive measures designed to lure new industry to the state, and decided to require DNA samples of those arrested for some crimes.
They also passed legislation that puts tougher rules on local alcohol boards, broadens how money collected from a service fee on telephone bills can be spent, and subjects those who violate domestic violence orders to tougher criminal penalties.
As always, some major legislation died on the vine. Among the victims: a proposed overhaul of how negligence lawsuits are decided, a $450 million borrowing plan with projects that included new engineering facilities at N.C. State University, a proposal to soften the state's ban on hardened structures along beaches, and a measure to discourage the operation of abusive puppy mills.
For three months, legislators were as busy as the beavers they decided shouldn't be moved from Greensboro (yet another last-day piece of legislation considered).
Now they'll get busy with the business of trying to keep or win power. How the decisions they made over the last three months play into that business is anyone's guess.
Scott Mooneyham writes for Capitol Press Association in Raleigh. Contact him at smooneyh@ncinsider.com.

Legislating Under the Influence

2010-07-15T20:37:00.000-04:00

Executive Summary

Long before BP’s Deepwater Horizon well began belching oil into the Gulf of Mexico, BP and the rest of the energy industry had turned loose a gusher of cash in Washington, saturating Congress and the federal government’s regulatory apparatus.

In the last decade alone, big energy has pumped more than $2.9 billion into electing and lobbying federal officials and candidates, according to campaign finance and lobbying disclosure reports.

That’s about $5.5 million for each of the 535 seats in the House and Senate.

As energy dollars flow freely in Washington, the development of alternative energy sources proceeds slowly, at best, and the nation’s reliance on energy produced overseas grows deeper. Meanwhile, at the industry’s urging, a 27-year moratorium on oil and gas drilling off the east coast has been allowed to expire and legislation to cap carbon emissions, pushing oil-gulping industries to find new energy sources and use petroleum more efficiently, has stalled in Congress.

And in the Gulf, what President Obama has called “a scandalously close relationship” between oil companies and the agency that regulates them, looms as a likely contributor to an environmental disaster that is poisoning an entire ecosystem and threatening the nation’s seafood and tourist industries.

Data compiled by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics reveal that:

Energy interests, including oil and gas companies, electric utilities, mining companies and waste management firms, have contributed more than $337 million to federal candidates and party organizations since 2000. Only the financial sector – banks, insurance companies and other financial firms, has given more.

Oil and gas companies are the energy industry’s most aggressive donors. They’ve contributed more than $154 million to federal candidates since 2000, about 46 percent of big energy’s total donations. Electric utilities have donated more than $104 million and mining interests just over $30 million.

The energy industry focuses its investments in Congress on lawmakers who can most help the industry’s bottom line. Since 2000, big energy has given nearly $110 million to the campaigns of members of four Congressional panels assigned to oversee it. Industry donations to committee members increased nearly 80 percent between 2000 and 2008, amid growing public support for legislation to put new limits on carbon emissions. Big energy also looks out for Congressional leaders; though it’s still early in the current election cycle, the industry has given nearly $3.1 million to campaign committees and political action committees controlled by House and Senate Democratic and Republican leaders.

The energy industry generally prefers Republicans, but money follows power. In some elections during the past decade its spending on GOP candidates has been three times that on Democrats. Big energy’s support for Republicans soared during the Bush administration, as Vice President Dick Cheney led an energy task force that actively sought industry input. But after Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, their share of the industry’s donations increased dramatically, and so far in 2010 the GOP is doing only slightly better than the Democrats in attracting industry donations.

During the first quarter of 2010, the energy industry spent more than $3.2 million on lobbying for each day that Congress was in session. That's more than $244,000 per member through the quarter. Among major industries, only health care interests have spent more. For every $1 spent on political campaigns, the energy industry spends more than $7 on lobbying. Since 2000, energy companies have invested nearly $2.6 billion to lobby Congress and the executive branch. The industry’s annual tab for lobbying increased by 159 percent during the decade, as it won passage during 2005 of an energy bill giving $14.5 billion in tax breaks to energy companies, and during 2008 persuaded Congress and then-President George W. Bush to lift a 27-year embargo on offshore oil and gas exploration in the Atlantic.

Employees of and groups tied to BP, the company at the center of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, have donated more than $3 million to congressional election campaigns since 2000. BP also invests heavily in lobbying; the company spent nearly $16 million in 2009 and more than $3.5 million on lobbying during the first quarter of this year.

The Minerals Management Service, the federal government’s supposed watchdog on the industry, has been a longstanding target of energy lobbyists – with devastating results. Since 2006, the number of companies and industry advocacy groups lobbying the agency has more than doubled, according to an analysis by Congressional Quarterly.(1) Industry lobbyists have paid for gifts, ski trips and golf outings for MMS employees, and a 2008 investigation by the Interior Department’s inspector general found that employees at an MMS royalty collection office in Denver engaged in sex and used drugs with energy company representatives.(2)

The energy industry has made a point of adding former MMS executives, along with former Congressional staff members, to its lobbying staffs. While President Obama has ordered federal agencies not to hire anyone involved in lobbying agency officials during the past two years, the “revolving door” from the federal government to the lobbying corps remains open. More than 300 lobbyists now working for oil and gas interests have past connections to federal agencies or Congress. (3)

No sensible person would invest the kind of money the energy industry invests in our government and politics without expecting something in return. And big energy’s investments have helped it secure lax Congressional and regulatory oversight and a host of federal policies that benefit its bottom line.

But as millions of gallons of oil spill into the Gulf of Mexico every day, it’s increasingly clear that the industry’s profits are coming at the nation’s expense. Political leaders who are serious about helping America achieve energy independence need to declare their own political independence, scrapping a system that relies on special interest money to finance their campaigns and replacing it with small donations from working Americans through the Fair Elections Now Act.

Falling behind, quietly

2010-07-15T08:14:00.000-04:00

BY GENE NICHOL

Tags: news | opinion - editorial | point of view

CHAPEL HILL -- I've been a football player who majored in philosophy, a Texan who believes in civil rights, a leftist intellectual obsessed with Hank Williams and a Tar Heel who prefers beef brisket to pork barbecue. I'm at ease with incongruity.
Still, in recent months, I've observed curiously distinct universes.
First, I'm a student of politics. And there is little doubt that the greatest energy and most potent fervor in our civic lives now comes from an erupted volcano on the right.

Nationally, tea parties express a visceral and unyielding disdain for government, especially the federal variety. Much of the rhetoric is overtly racist, much is comically ahistorical and for supposed "constitutionalists," much is flatly anti-textual. But drained of its extremes, and of its hates, the tea party movement is a thunderous claim by an assertedly aggrieved, almost exclusively white membership that too much of its money is being taken by the government. Armed or otherwise, they're primed to fight.
Locally, the Wake County school board has launched an analogous war. With the diversity policy interred, economically disadvantaged, mostly black, kids will be more effectively corralled. Suburban schools can be left to their more congenial circumstance. Sure, evidence suggests that the concentration of at-risk kids threatens to compound poverty with diminished opportunity, but we've had enough "social engineering." Our schools are not, apparently, wrought with public mission or obligation. We seek private enclaves. Each to his own. And his own kind.
Both here and across the country, it is a season of reckoning - a backlash of white discontent.
But I also study poverty. And that means one pays attention to race as well. Latinos (23.2 percent) and African- Americans (24.6 percent) are about three times as likely as whites (8.6 percent) to live in poverty. These federal figures are tied to traditional measures of impoverishment - that is, they are based on income - the dollars families bring home each month to secure the essentials of life.
In recent weeks, though, we've seen an array of studies based not on income, but wealth - the resources that households manage to accumulate. Wealth, of course, not only replicates itself, generating additional income. As important, it provides essential buttress against the misfortunes of economic dislocation and duress. It thus offers a necessary and illuminating measure of both opportunity and challenge. Our racial wealth disparities are horrifying.
The Insight Center's 2010 report found that, nationally, black households, on average, generate about 62 cents for each dollar of income secured by white households. But for "every dollar of wealth owned by the typical white family, the typical family of color owns only about 16 cents." The N.C. Assets Alliance, in its newly released "Prosperity Grid," found that our "households of color" own just 14 cents for every dollar owned by whites.
Concurrent with these efforts, Brandeis University concluded a sophisticated study of wealth accumulation by 2,000 black and white families from 1983-2007. Thomas Shapiro, the report's author, concluded that for these households, "the racial wealth gap has more than quadrupled over the course of the past generation." While average white family resources rose from $22,000 to $100,000, black family wealth, beginning much lower, scarcely moved.
The causes of such daunting racial wealth inequity are disputed and complex. Historical patterns of discrimination, debilitation, and ownership-preclusion, extended by inheritance, play huge roles. Real estate red-lining and housing segregation cast long shadows. And sadly, subprime mortgages, predatory loan and payday lending schemes have been directed toward communities of color.
But less obvious turns contribute as well. Our largest housing program, by a ton, is the mortgage deduction. It flows, dominantly and perversely, to those with bigger houses and more money. We subsidize pensions and health care policies that are more generous to those with higher incomes. In recent decades, we dramatically reduced estate and capital gains taxes, changes heavily targeted to the richest among us. We tax, astonishingly, much capital-based income at lower rates than ordinary salary.
It's no mystery there's anger afoot in the land. The surprise is the tea partyers aren't black.

Gene Nichol, a professor of law at the UNC School of Law, is director of UNC-Chapel Hill's Center on Poverty, Work & Opportunity.

Two good posts from Democracy NC

2010-07-14T18:28:00.000-04:00

Wednesday, July 14, 2010:

Unfortunately, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled yesterday that the rescue fund provision in Connecticut’s public financing program is unconstitutional, because it chills the “free speech” (read: high-priced speech) of privately financed candidates whose excess spending triggers the release of extra funds to candidates in the public program. The Ninth Circuit took the opposition position in the McComish v. Bennett case in Arizona, ruling that rescue funds enhance speech and don’t stop the privately financed candidate from continuing to raise and spend money. The US Supreme Court put a stay on the provision in Arizona while it considers whether or not to review the McComish decision. The new decision in the Connecticut case makes it even more likely that the Supremes will examine the trigger provision, and most observers expect the court’s anti-voter, pro-corporate majority to strike down the provision. North Carolina’s three programs for some judicial, executive branch and local elections all have trigger provisions and will likely need revision next year when the court makes its decision. Meanwhile, the programs can proceed, despite rants from the rightwing, and the underlying framework of voluntary public financing incentives is not in jeopardy. In a separate opinion, the Second Circuit also upheld Connecticut’s ban on contractors and prospective contractors from contributing to state officials, but the decision is closely linked to a corruption scandal that sent the state’s governor to prison; bans on lobbyists making contributions and contractors raising funds for candidates were struck down as too broad.

Tuesday, July 13, 2010:

A California news story highlights how wealthy interest groups are willing to invest millions in local elections, often hiding behind pretty names and saturating a small legislative district with attack ads. We’ve seen it with “Farmers for Fairness” in North Carolina, a front group for a handful of multi-millionaire hog producers. The battle between insurance companies and trial attorneys that is played out in virtually every state legislature continues during the campaign season as each side sponsors electioneering activities, allegedly independent of their favored candidate and therefore less regulated. The Supreme Court's Citizens United decision promised to increase such activity by gutting prohibitions against direct corporate spending close to Election Day. Legislation adopted last week by the NC General Assembly (H-748) conforms state law to that court decision, but also expands the disclosure requirements on independent advocacy and electioneering efforts. It began in much weaker form in an effort to win support from anti-regulation conservatives, but fortunately got stronger in many respects under pressure from Democracy North Carolina and others. Given the contentious election ahead, we’ll likely see how well implementation of the new legislation informs the public about which group is investing how much of whose money in what race.

How Confession Is Part of Compassion

2010-07-14T18:23:00.000-04:00

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

While I appreciated Angus McLeod’s review of American war casualties in his letter to The Pilot (June 18), I fail to understand how war deaths in the defense of freedom excuse us from facing our mistakes.
Isn’t President Obama’s honesty about our errors in judgment an important part of U.S. diplomacy with other nations? Is it not arrogant to ignore such behavior and expect the world to adjust?
Without honest confession, we are perceived as a powerful bully in spite of the good we have done around the world. Confession is not a sign of weakness; nor does it make us vulnerable and weak.
It communicates a strength that says, “We know we’re compassionate and responsive to the pain of the world, but we also know that we’ve made mistakes and we want to acknowledge them so we don’t repeat the same action.”
I paraphrase what I think McLeod is saying: “Look at what we have done around the world; because we are magnanimous, we don’t have to look at our dark side and confess that we make mistakes.” It’s a little like an abusive husband who says to his wife, “Look at all I do for you; how can you complain when I get a little physical once in a while?” When push comes to shove, domestic violence is not any different than international violence.
Because I believe we are all unique expressions of creative oneness, compassion and confession become ways to care for ourselves as well as others.

Chas Griffin
Seven Lakes

‘Puppy Mill Bill’ Got Ganged Up On

2010-07-14T18:19:00.000-04:00

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

It was like an unholy alliance indeed that managed to head off the so-called Puppy Mill Bill in Raleigh.
We join letter writer Sharon Shaw (The Pilot, July 10) in wondering what the pork industry and the National Rifle Association have to do with puppies. We, too, deplore the success that lobbyists for those two powerful entities had in preventing a legislative committee from even having an opportunity to consider a very reasonable bill that would have outlawed some of the more horrendous and inhumane things said to go on at some of the state’s puppy factories.
According to a lobbyist for the N.C. Pork Council, who spoke rather too candidly to a reporter from The News & Observer of Raleigh, the pig industry opposed the Puppy Mill Bill for one reason and one reason only: because the legislation had the support of the Humane Society of the United States. In other words, to paraphrase an old Arabic saying, “The friend of my enemy is my enemy.”
After all, you can’t go around allowing a do-gooder organization to succeed today in its attempt to do something to relieve the suffering of cooped-up mama dogs and their babies. Who knows? — that same group may turn around tomorrow and try to get the state to take a closer look at the conditions that sows and their piglets are subjected to on their miserable journey from birth to the meat counter at your local supermarket.
But why in the world did the National Rifle Association ever come to have (you should pardon the expression) a dog in that fight? That’s not altogether clear, just as it never is where the NRA is concerned. Again, there must have been concern about the possibility of an undesirable precedent being set. Start outlawing the mistreatment of pups today and pigs tomorrow, and next thing you know, questions may start to be raised about the shooting of rabbits, squirrels and deer.
That’s unlikely, given America’s proud hunting tradition, but you can’t be too careful — or too paranoid — about such things. The NRA stepped in even though the framers of the legislation made a point of excluding hunting dogs from its purview.
Meanwhile, the operators of puppy mills are free for now to go on producing their “product” under conditions that are sometimes so inhumane as to make pet lovers weep in anguish. Here’s hoping the pork and firearms lobbies are proud of themselves for deep-sixing the attempt to do a little something about it.

NC county officials back Arizona immigration law

2010-07-14T06:55:00.000-04:00

The Associated Press

WILMINGTON, N.C. -- A Republican-controlled county commission in North Carolina is endorsing Arizona's new immigration law.
The Star-News of Wilmington reported Tuesday the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners passed a resolution supporting the law. A resolution is simply the board's opinion and carries no legal authority.
The Arizona law would require state and local police to question and possibly arrest illegal immigrants during the enforcement of other laws such as traffic stops.

New Hanover may be the first North Carolina county to adopt such a measure. A spokeswoman for the National Association of Counties only said one Missouri county passed a similar resolution and Prince William County, Va., officials passed a local law similar to Arizona's law.

Information from: The StarNews, http://starnewsonline.com

NCNAACP JULY 2O MOBILIZATION PROMO

2010-07-13T19:08:00.000-04:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dI-0l2Qz0lA

NC state spending at lowest level in 14 years

2010-07-13T19:05:00.000-04:00

RALEIGH (July 9, 2010) -- State spending has fallen to its lowest level in 14 years, a new report from the NC Justice Center's Budget & Tax Center finds.

The report, by BTC director Elaine Mejia, says that passage of the new budget reflects the gradual erosion of the state's tax base and a deep, prolonged recession.

"The notion that state spending is out of control is a myth," Mejia said. "In fact, North Carolina has significantly cut state spending per person on vital human and economic needs."

Measured as a share of the state's Total Personal Income, state spending has dropped considerably, from a high of 8.16% in FY 1998-99 to 5.8% in FY 2010-11. State spending per capita is now at the lowest level since FY 1996-97, dropping $311 over the past three years.

Public funding for important investments, Mejia cautions, must be preserved in order to stabilize and grow the state's economy.

"In the past two years, lawmakers have enacted deep and damaging cuts to the public systems that undergird the state's economy by training the workforce of tomorrow and keeping the state's population safe and healthy," Mejia writes in the report. "As the economy continues its slow recovery, public funding for these important investments must be maintained, and even increased, in order to push North Carolina forward."

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT: Elaine Mejia, 919.856.2176, Elaine@ncjustice.org.

Shorten The Time Between Elections and Runoffs

2010-07-11T12:49:00.000-04:00

By Jim Heim Sunday, July 11, 2010

After every election, it seems, we decry the low voter turnout and then move on to other topics. But having just experienced a set of runoff elections with a voter participation under 5 percent, maybe we should spend some time considering ways to make the system work better.
First, let’s shorten the time between elections and runoffs. The six-week period prescribed by North Carolina law delays the candidate selection process and dampens voter enthusiasm needlessly. Arkansas recently decided its senatorial nomination in three weeks, a more reasonable span. Surely we can do as well.
To take this one step further, we might introduce instant runoff voting (IRV). Invented in the United States and used by several countries as well as many U.S. cities (including nearby Cary), IRV allows a voter to select candidates for a given position in order of preference.
If no one gets the required majority, the ballots for the bottom candidate are checked to see the next preference, and those votes are added. The process is repeated until a winner is declared. In this way the “runoff” is part of the original process and a second trip to the polls is avoided.
A truly innovative approach enacted by voters in Oregon in 2000 replaced polling booths with a vote-by-mail system. As implemented, a ballot is mailed to every registered voter a few weeks before Election Day. This allows the voter to carefully consider each choice, with time to study candidate positions in detail. Then the ballot is mailed or dropped off at selected sites.
On arrival, the outer envelope is scanned by computer and the voter’s signature is compared with the one on file for authenticity, after which the ballot is removed and stored until being counted on Election Day.
In the years since the adoption of vote-by-mail, Oregon has enjoyed much higher voter turnout, significantly lower election costs and no election-related controversies.
During the most recent primary election season, Oregon enjoyed a voter participation of 41.6 percent, compared with 14.4 percent here. And there is automatically a paper trail to allow corrections should a dispute arise. Despite warnings from skeptics, there has been no evidence of voter coercion or tampering.
Many states have eased the requirements for absentee balloting during the past few years, a kind of “back-door” mail-in voting system. Sadly, North Carolina has not. A voter must still request the ballot with a handwritten note, and the voting process must be witnessed by two adults willing to sign the ballot return envelope.
Such an arcane requirement seems a vestige of a time when voting was being discouraged. It does little to enhance ballot security and should be scrapped.
The savings that vote-by-mail systems deliver are considerable. Each election cycle finds our local boards of election struggling to find and train enough polling place judges and assistants to operate the polling booths.
The costs for training and the pay for personnel add up and are largely eliminated when ballots are delivered by mail. Moreover, the voting machines have become more expensive to acquire and maintain as the complexities of the systems increase. Having a central counting facility would save scarce tax dollars.
Having discussed these issues with my Republican friends, I am struck by our differences. No matter what aspect of the balloting is being considered, their first response is that we need photo identification for each voter at the polling place.
What’s missing is any evidence of even small-scale voter fraud. Accusations of fraud are rare and prosecutions are rarer yet. There is simply no case for such an expensive and intrusive requirement. But it remains the most important issue for conservatives.
I spend most of my Election Day outside my polling place to provide information to voters who request it. I also observe the process.
There are the elderly who may not know about the drive-up space reserved for them who make their painful way into the building to exercise their right. There is the young mother with an infant and a toddler or two wrestling the carriers and strollers. And there are those who don’t come in, perhaps because they work and can’t get away to cast a ballot.
America has long been the country of progress and innovation. We have a history of looking at how things work and making them better. There is no good reason why we can’t do the same for elections. There are new ideas and technologies to make voting easier and more secure.
In time, we will most certainly be able to vote over the Internet, knowing that sufficient safeguards will ensure that our vote will be accurately counted. Until then there is room for much improvement, and we should explore better ways of making our voices heard.

It's Not Whether to Address the National Debt, but How

2010-07-11T12:46:00.000-04:00

By Kevin Smith - Sunday, July 11, 2010
On the Thursday before last, I watched the Senate vote on an extension of unemployment benefits for people who are struggling to find jobs in the great recession.
I watched because I have a rooting interest in this issue, because I think that extending the benefits is the right thing to do, and because I’m close to people who are much more invested in the outcome. The measure failed, as it had several times before. This time it missed by just two votes, 58-38.
What that means is that 200,000 Americans a week will be losing their benefits. Two hundred thousand sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers like me — hard-working people who lost their livelihoods in the wake of a financial crisis that was not of their making — will soon be running out of the resources to take care of their families.
Minutes after the votes were counted, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell blamed Democrats for its failure, saying that his party wants to extend the benefits but is unwilling to spend the $39 billion that it would take to extend them until November. Instead, Republicans proposed to extend unemployment benefits for another month using stimulus money — money for saving and creating jobs.
McConnell, who was more like a butterfly while the previous president doubled the national debt, has morphed into a deficit hawk, as have all his Republican colleagues in Congress.
That’s not a bad thing. We should be concerned with our spiraling debt. We stand to be the first generation of Americans to leave our children and grandchildren a country in worse shape than the one we inherited. It would be irresponsible not to consider the deficit with every measure that comes before Congress. The question is not whether to address the deficit but how to address it.
Republicans are servicing our debt on the backs of people most at risk, working-class families and people out of work. They’ve used the deficit as cover to block unemployment benefits, a jobs bill and a second stimulus.
That’s especially troubling because we need jobs, and a lot of that stimulus money has gone to states to prevent layoffs. In the absence of a second stimulus, cash-strapped states are cutting funds for education. In the reality of a global economy, Republicans are trying to balance our budgets by making our children and our workers less competitive.
Their solution, their one trick, is to cut taxes. By their reckoning, you can never raise taxes because raising taxes kills jobs and the only way to create jobs is to cut taxes. My Republican friends are confusing cheap with patriotic. The fact is that our federal income tax rates right now are pretty low.
Through most of the 1990s, when we saw unprecedented economic expansion, the top marginal income tax rates were about four points higher than they are now. From 1947 to 1973, the top marginal tax rate ranged from 70 percent to 91 percent. Over those 25 years, the income of middle-class Americans nearly doubled while the incomes of upper-class Americans rose by 85 percent.
If cutting taxes is all there is to creating jobs and wealth, then at today’s 35 percent we shouldn’t be able to print money fast enough.
Instead, we’re mired in a recession. Recent estimates have real unemployment, those seeking jobs and those who have given up, at somewhere between 16.5 percent and 21.5 percent. As invested as the GOP is in making you believe otherwise, we can’t cut our way out of our problems. We have to grow. We have to invest in jobs, in education and continuing education that will keep us competitive in an evolving economy.
We must be ever vigilant on costs and waste, but we must be fair and forthright. We cannot spare our successors the rotten fruit of our excesses by writing off the poor and the unemployed.

It's OK Now to Call the President Hitler

2010-07-11T12:42:00.000-04:00

By Dusty Rhoades - Sunday, July 11, 2010
I’m old enough to remember a time long, long ago when it was absolutely the worst thing you could do to compare the president of the United States to Adolf Hitler. And by “long, long ago,” I mean 2004.
That’s the year that the liberal website Moveon.org sponsored a contest for homemade political campaign ads. One of the contest entries featured quotes from George Dubbya Bush to the effect that God had told him to strike the country’s enemies and that he was “taking steps to protect the homeland.”
These were superimposed over stock footage of Hitler speaking to cheering, swastika-waving crowds. It was crude, it was heavy-handed, it was over the top and unfair. It also was taken down off the website, and it didn’t make the cut for the first round of the competition.

Another ad said, “What were war crimes in 1945 is foreign policy in 2003.” The final two frames of that proposed ad included Hitler with his hand raised and then a shot of Bush with his hand up taking the oath of office. That one got pulled, too.
But that didn’t stop Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie from calling the ads “the worst and most vile form of political hate speech” and demanding that the Democratic candidates, none of whom had anything to do with the ads, “repudiate this pollution of our political process” by denouncing them.
It looks like the Republicans are still ultra-super-sensitive, in a “Princess and the Pea” kinda way, about being in any way even vaguely associated with Hitler or the Nazis.
When Vice President Joe Biden recently sent out a fundraising message saying there was going to be a “GOP blitzkrieg” of dirty campaign tactics, Republican lawmakers went verruckt (crazy). Despite the fact that “blitzkrieg” and its shortened form “blitz” have long since passed into common usage as an expression for any fast, overwhelming attack, the GOP claimed they were being compared to the invaders of Poland.
“Invoking the Nazis’ crimes against humanity in a political debate is simply inappropriate,” a spokesman for Minority Leader John Boehner said. But apparently it’s only “inappropriate” or “vile” if you’re a Democrat. As you know, the only principle the GOP has left is IOKIYAR (It’s OK If You’re a Republican), and comparing their political rivals to Nazis is, it seems, A-OK with them:
— Posters and placards of President Obama dressed as Hitler abound at tea party rallies.
— National Review Editor Jonah Goldberg wrote a notorious book entitled “Liberal Fascism.”
— Conservative columnist Thomas Sowell, writing about the $20 billion dollar relief fund paid by BP for the Gulf oil spill, directly compared the fund to laws passed by Germany’s Reichstag that gave Hitler “dictatorial powers.”
— On May 16 of this year, Republican elder statesman Newt Gingrich went on Fox News and asserted that “the secular socialist machine” (his buzzword for the currently elected government) “represents as great a threat to America as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union ever did.”
Backed into a corner by host Chris Wallace, Gingrich said that he wasn’t really calling the administration Nazis, he was just saying they were as big a threat as the Nazis. You know, sort of like saying, “I’m not saying your sister’s a prostitute, I’m just saying she sleeps with a lot of guys for money.”
The biggest proponent of associating President Obama and ill-defined “liberals” as Nazis, however, is Glenn Beck. Pretty much any spokesman for the administration or its policies can expect at some point to be compared by Beck to Nazi propagandist Josef Goebbels.
He’s responded to critics of Fox News by invoking a famous poem about the Holocaust and directly comparing Fox to the Jews. (“When they’re done with Fox, and you decide to speak out on something. The old, ‘first they came for the Jews, and I wasn’t Jewish.”)
And the list goes on, with not a peep from the Republican leadership.
In the responses to this column, both in e-mail and in the online comments section, I tend to get some negative feedback for using terms like “wingnut.” Maybe I should become a Republican again. Then I can call people anything, up to and including Nazis, and no one will say a mumblin’ word.

Thoughts on All That ‘Christian Nation’ Talk

2010-07-11T12:37:00.000-04:00

I would not classify Steve Bouser as a progressive. I would not classify Steve Bouser at all, which is what makes him a good editor. But as a progressive and as a person of faith, I do appreciate the sentiments expressed in this editorial. - Kevin Smith

By Steve Bouser - Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Are we a Christian nation?
I hate it whenever this question rears its head, as it increasingly has been doing lately amid the comments on thepilot.com and in other forums, because I know things are always going to get ugly and polarized and unreasonable. I hope you read the thoughtful June 27 essay on a related topic by my erudite minister friend Bill Smith.
Our republic, as far as I know, has managed to sail along pretty well for two centuries and more with a secular government that still puts “In God We Trust” on its coins and has chaplains in its Army and usually looks the other way in toleration when somebody says a prayer at a public meeting or puts up a Christmas tree on a courthouse square.
That’s the way it should be. An attitude of civil coexistence, with inconsistency and perhaps even a small measure of hypocrisy around the edges, is much to be preferred to a pitched battle that must have a winner and a loser, with no subtle grays in between all those blacks and whites.
So are we a Christian nation? Hard to say. Obviously there are more of us who sprang from some kind of traditional Christian background than anything else, unless you count nonbelievers. But as one of our Web commentators so succinctly pointed out a while back, “Even if we are a Christian nation, that doesn’t mean we have a Christian government.”
To which I can only say — you should pardon the expression — thank God.
I’m writing here as one who has gone to church all of his adult life, sings bass in an Episcopal choir, loves the Bible and once read the whole thing in a year. But I grow alarmed when I see the dangerous and mine-filled road down which some believers would lead my beloved country.
You can drag out or distort all the quotes about God from the Founding Fathers that you want to, but there are more compelling ones on the other side of the argument. The inescapable truth is that our Declaration of Independence and Constitution were written by 18th century men whose attitudes sprang from the Age of Reason and who felt contempt toward all forms of superstition and myth — and especially toward the kind of established state church that they or their fathers had fled from in Europe.
They rightly envisioned a republic whose government would be neutral on matters of religion, serving a country that welcomed believers in other creeds — and nonbelievers as well.
I find it ironic in the extreme that this outcry that we are supposed to turn ourselves into a Christian nation with a Christian government has intensified when it has — in many cases as a reaction against 9/11 and all things Islamic. Having witnessed the evil that can result from things like the Taliban’s imposition of religious government on Afghanistan, how can we then react by deciding that the proper response would be to impose a religious government on America?
But Christianity is different, we may say. It’s more benign and peaceful and respectful of individual rights. I would like to think so. But tell that to those who had their tongues ripped out and otherwise suffered and died in the torture dungeons of the Inquisition or were roasted at the stake for believing, contrary to the Bible story, that the Earth revolved around the sun. Good movements have a way of going bad when they find themselves in power.
Our recent military ventures into Iraq and Afghanistan have been primarily reactive or defensive in nature. But I cringe when I imagine how even thoughtful Muslims abroad (never mind the fanatical fringe) must react when they see Americans invading Islamic lands on the one hand while portraying themselves as a Christian nation on the other. To people raised from childhood on fears of another Crusade from the West, that must bear a frosty sound.
Again, the Web commenter was right. We may be a Christian-majority nation, but we don’t have — nor should we want — a Christian government. Or a Muslim one or a Jewish one or even a nonbelieving one.
At the same time, that shouldn’t keep us all from hoping (dare I say praying?) that the attitudes and actions of the secular leaders we choose reflect courage, charity, tolerance, compassion — and all the other attributes we have come to think of as Christian virtues.

Must see TV

2010-07-10T19:14:00.000-04:00

Must see TV

Been a while

2010-07-10T18:43:00.000-04:00

I started this blog a while back in the hope that it might serve as an oasis of liberalism in the desert of conservatism that is Moore County, North Carolina. Unfortunately as I took on a number responsibilities, I let myself loose track of it. As we get nearer to the midterm elections in November, it is more important than ever to shine a light on the price we are continuing to pay for the failure of the right. There's a better way. Progressives have to lead.

Yes we can,

Kevin

'When in the Course of Human Events'

2010-07-10T17:41:00.000-04:00

We hold these truths to be self-evident...

An Awkward Attempt at Reining in Palin

2009-11-26T17:44:00.000-05:00

From The Pilot: November 24, 2009

Sarah Palin must have thought she was back on the campaign trail with Sen. John McCain's "handlers" when she reached the Fort Bragg Post Exchange Monday.
News accounts report that the former vice-presidential candidate's "to do" list was shorter than her "do not do" list. She could not make a speech, write personal notes, pose for photographs or sign anything other than autographing her book.
Jeez, I guess that prohibited her from writing a neat little note inside the book with a typical Palinism -- a "you betcha," for instance.
Don't misunderstand. I'm no fan of Sarah Palin, but she certainly was a lively, fresh personality for the Republican convention in 2008. She was given a bum rap by the very campaign pols who recruited her as Sen. McCain's running mate.

I disagree with most of her political views, and although I admire people of faith, I don't regard the National Rifle Association as a Protestant denomination. That said, I must come to her defense. For one thing, everybody writes a book these days. If you run for public office and are soundly clobbered, write a book. If your husband has an affair, write a book. If you go to prison, write a book (Bernard Madoff is probably already working on his memoir). Actors, sports figures, bubble-headed celebrities all "write" books. People I've never heard of write memoirs.
The military is not supposed to criticize the president, and it's bad form to appear on a military base and badmouth a sitting president. If that's the case, why even let the Post Exchange stock her book, much less allow her to promote her book at Fort Bragg? Isn't there something in the Constitution about free speech?
At first, the Army tried to keep the media from covering her book-signing event at Fort Bragg. The brass backed down after major dailies and other media complained to the Pentagon and threatened to go to court.
In a way, it was funny. Rarely are the media barred from an event to which the public is invited. I've always thought the media were the public. Certainly we are supposed to represent the public interest. Maybe in a perverse way, we deserve the slap, because we do tend to be a little arrogant sometimes.
On the other hand, this was downright ridiculous. The only way such restriction makes sense is a threat to national security, in which case obviously she should not have been allowed on base at all. From what I've heard, her book concentrates on the author, not on criticism of the Obama administration.
As it turned out, her appearance was an orderly affair. Everyone was polite and respectful, and the Army didn't hover too obviously during her brief visit. The military must have lightened up a bit, because they allowed her to autograph the cast on one admirer's foot. Pictures were taken at the event, but not a series of pictures of the author with individual admirers. That prohibition was probably a wise one, because it would have taken forever if she had consented to that type of photograph.
Whether you like her or not, Sarah Palin is a public figure who attracts attention with every appearance and every word. GOP bigwigs may not like the way she talks or what she says, but they quickly learned that she can't be easily controlled. She's friendly and unpretentious. I may not agree with her views, but I appreciate her informal, folksy language and sassy style.
An American original, the former governor of Alaska won the Miss Congeniality title at the Miss Alaska Pageant in her college days. Judging from the excitement surrounding its publication, her book, "Going Rogue: An American Life," already had a following long before it appeared on store shelves.
It was silly to try to rein in this creative personality. But then, a sense of humor has never been a military requirement.
Contact Florence Gilkeson at (910) 947-4962 or by e-mail at florence@thepilot.com.

This Thanksgiving, It's a Double Struggle for the State's Poor

2009-11-26T17:28:00.001-05:00

From The Pilot: November 24, 2009

Thanksgiving is upon us, a time when many media outlets tend to focus on the poor who can't afford a feast to celebrate the holiday.
There are more families than ever in that boat, living in poverty or teetering on its edge, just one illness or missed mortgage payment away.
And that's true all year long, not just during the holiday season. The U.S. Department of Agriculture recently released its food insecurity report, which found that almost 50 million people couldn't afford enough to eat at some point during the last year. Almost one in four children went hungry. That's the highest number since the federal government began issuing the report.
Almost 50,000 families in North Carolina went without food, a startling number, though one that is consistent with other indicators of the suffering in the state, as families struggle to access health care and transportation, and find a safe, affordable place to live.

More than 10,000 homes in the state have no heat as winter approaches. Almost 20,000 don't have indoor plumbing. More than 1.5 million people have no health insurance. More than 40,000 children are now languishing on the waiting list for a child care subsidy, making it next to impossible for their mothers to take a low-wage job or go back to school to begin the slow road out of poverty. And if all that is not enough, poor families are still paying more in state and local taxes as a percentage of their incomes than the richest one percent of North Carolinians.
A report released by the Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy finds that the poorest 20 percent of taxpayers, who earn less than $17,000 a year, pay 9.5 percent of their income in state and local taxes.
The wealthiest 1 percent, who earn more than $398,000 a year, pay 8.1 percent of their income in state and local taxes. When you include the offset from the federal deduction of state taxes, the percentage for the wealthiest 1 percent drops to 6.8 percent.
The report analyzes the tax systems in all 50 states and North Carolina's is not among the most regressive, though that is little consolation to poor families here struggling to meet their basic needs while paying more of their income in taxes than their wealthy counterparts.
Just over 500,000 families in North Carolina earn less than $15,000 a year, according to the American Community Surveys of the U.S Census Bureau.
That puts them squarely in the poorest fifth of the population that pays far more in taxes than the wealthiest 1 percent. Close to a million households earn less than $25,000.
Every time lawmakers raise the sales tax as they did this summer, they make the system more regressive, especially considering that North Carolina does not tax many services, most of which are used by folks at the upper end of the economic ladder.
That's what makes tax reform so important, though the corporate lobbyists who encourage lawmakers to raise the sales tax are the same special interests fighting efforts to broaden it, not to mention their opposition to closing tax loopholes enjoyed by multistate corporations.
Times are as tough this Thanksgiving as they have been in generation, and it's not just the economic slowdown that's to blame. It's the willingness of many state leaders to largely ignore the plight of the poor and their unwillingness to change a revenue system that makes an escape from their despair even more difficult.
Chris Fitzsimon is executive director of N.C. Policy Watch. Contact him at chris@ncpolicywatch.com.

Help Us Invest in Our Community

2009-11-26T17:24:00.000-05:00

From The Pilot: November 24, 2009

The past two years have been a difficult economic time for all Americans, but even more so for the disadvantaged.
More than 35,000 people in Moore County rely on the support of our United Way. Twenty-two agencies and programs receive funding from our local United Way, and for many of the programs, the United Way is a major source of income.
The United Way of Moore County serves three constituencies: youth, family and medical and emergency assistance.
It supports nine youth programs that concentrate on building better citizens through education, community involvement and leadership preparation. Another keynote is better health by dietary education, athletic participation and early pediatric screening.

There are nine family agencies that vary in scope, from providing meals to the disabled and homebound, to furnishing assistance to victims of physical and emotional abuse. The three medical and emergency assistance agencies provide food, fuel, clothing and medical care to those with emergency needs.
Your support will help us continue making a significant investment in our community as the economic challenges continue. We hope you will join us in motivating others in the community through your commitment of major financial support to United Way.
Visit or call the United Way office to learn more about how we are helping to build a better community for all our citizens.
I am honored to lead this campaign effort for the United Way. Join our family in making the most generous contribution that you can. Thank you for your gift and your support in helping those who cannot always help themselves.
Bill Clement
Campaign Chair, United Way
Southern Pines

Our Opportunity to Set an Example

2009-11-26T17:15:00.000-05:00

From The Pilot: November 24, 2009

I don't get it.
Certain people in America are going to have to realize that espousing hatred and tirades of inane fear will never replace humanity's primal need to question, choose and incorporate that which is different and new.
Many of us are drawn toward the unfamiliar, toward what we're told is taboo, toward the very people, concepts and institutions we're told are dangerous to established society.
Why?

What those preaching intolerance don't realize (or maybe they do) is that when the populace musters the courage to consider the unknown, to extend the hand of assistance to those who need it most, they will never again be willingly misled by those clinging to their money, power or influence. We are Americans, not ignorant sheep. The era of "just trust me -- it's gonna be bad" is coming to an end, whether espoused by Fox News, the religious right or Wall Street. We are slowly, yet inevitably, changing as a nation.
Faith, as it applies to simply accepting what you're told to believe, is in its death throes and should be regarded as deliberate opportunism.
Why shouldn't we reform decades of financial, racial and circumstantial injustices for the most vulnerable in our society? And why, may I ask, do those of you consistently and emphatically oppose it do so? This is the United States of America. We can, and should as a nation, set the example for the world to envy. Let us heal the sick, provide protections for the poor and mandate education for our children.
Now isn't the time for panic and hatred; rather, it's a unique opportunity to fulfill the charge God commanded of us.
Timothy B. Smith
Southern Pines

Show Them Our Legal System Works

2009-11-26T17:07:00.000-05:00

From The Pilot: November 21,2009

Boy, there sure are a lot of people these days who want to give in to the terrorists.
I remember back in those dark days after 9/11 when people were affirming that America was going to stand tall, that we weren't going to let ourselves be intimidated by maniacs who were trying to kill us.
But lately, it seems like there are a lot of politicians, on both sides of the aisle, who want to let fear of terrorist attack, or even terrorist's words, dictate how we run our country and how we bring the people responsible for the attacks to account.
Recently, the Obama administration announced that some terror suspects, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged "mastermind" behind the 9/11 attacks, were going to be brought to New York to face trial (and possibly the death penalty) for their crimes. Predictably, the protests against the move took the form of dire and occasionally hysterical warnings about what the terrorists might do.
Even Rudy Giuliani, who distinguished himself by his coolness under pressure as mayor of New York in the days after 9/11, proved disappointingly craven. "It gives an unnecessary advantage to the terrorists," he said, " and it poses risks for New York." This is in marked contrast to Rudy's pronouncement in 1994 that the conviction of the people who tried to bring down the Twin Towers the first time "shows you put terrorism on one side, you put our legal system on the other, and our legal system comes out ahead." But hey, he's a former Republican presidential candidate. No one expects consistency from them.
Rudy's hand-wringing was also in marked contrast to the current Republican mayor of New York, who appeared with his police chief to assert that the city of New York wasn't afraid of trying terrorists there. "It is fitting," Bloomberg said, "that 9/11 suspects face justice near the World Trade Center site where so many New Yorkers were murdered."
Perhaps the silliest objection to the trial of the terrorists is that -- horror of horrors -- they might actually say stuff in public. Rep. Peter Hoekstra claimed that a civilian trial will allow the accused terrorists to turn such proceedings into a "circus" and "use them as platforms to promote their ideology."
Yeah, because without a courtroom, they've been as quiet as church mice. And so what if they start babbling jihadist nonsense in court? How do you think that'll play to a jury of New Yorkers sitting in judgment a few blocks from where the Towers fell?
And while we're at it, is anyone other than Sarah Palin delusional enough to think there's even a small chance that these people are going to be acquitted? If you really think there's a possibility that a New York judge or jury is going to let them walk, there's a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.
(Actually, I did have this fantasy of the judge saying: "The Court has decided that the case against the defendants must be thrown out because the evidence is irrevocably tainted. You're free to go. Now let's see you make it to the corner, you [really bad word]." )
Some people, including Democratic Sen. Jim Webb, say the suspects should be tried by military tribunals despite the fact that their acts occurred in the United States, because the 9/11 attacks were an "act of war." An attractive definition, to be sure, and one I myself used back in 2001.
In fact, I hear Khalid Sheikh Mohammed asked to admit guilt in front of a military tribunal and to be executed. (Tell you what, Bubba, we'll meet you halfway on that.)
But as Attorney General Eric Holder pointed out, we don't let them define the rules or pick where they get tried. They don't get to puff themselves up to the status of "warriors." They're mass murderers, and they deserve to be treated like murderers.
No one has yet come up with a universally accepted definition of terrorism. But most definitions of the term have one thing in common: Terrorism is the use of violence or the threat of violence by a small group to intimidate a larger one. And right now it seems that people like Giuliani, Hoekstra and their ilk are pretty intimidated by worries of what KSM and his buddies might do.
Prudence is one thing. But compromising American ideals like the rule of law isn't prudence; it's surrender. It's giving the terrorists exactly what they want. Don't give in.
Dusty Rhoades lives, writes and practices law in Carthage. Contact him at dustyr@nc.rr.com.

One Health Crisis We Must Address

2009-11-26T09:43:00.000-05:00

From The Pilot: November21, 2009

NAMI-MC is grateful to The Pilot for its editorial on Sunday, Nov. 15, addressing the inhumane care being given to those in our state suffering with a brain illness.
Waiting times in emergency rooms have been well-documented, and it is not uncommon to wait for many hours, or even days, to locate the necessary hospital beds for those in crisis and in need of hospitalization.
There is no doubt that this situation would not be tolerated if it was any other serious or life-threatening illness other than mental illness!
Thankfully, The Pilot has acknowledged the lack of care being provided for those with a serious mental illness and is doing its part in educating the general public about this lack of care.
We in Moore County are most fortunate to have FirstHealth's Moore Regional Hospital in our own backyard. The hospital works very closely with Sandhills Center and our community to ensure that hospital beds are available for those in crisis and needing immediate psychiatric treatment. I would like to thank the hospital staff that works so closely with the mental health community in assuring that all is being done to accommodate those seriously ill with a psychiatric hospital bed as quickly as possible -- if only other communities were so fortunate.
NAMI-MC appreciates all that the local community is doing to support its efforts in eliminating the stigma of brain illnesses. We realize that our advocacy work is far from done as we continue our community education programs, support meetings and continual promotion for better services in the area of treatment, housing, psychosocial rehabilitation and research programs.
Marianne Kernan
President, NAMI-MC
Pinehurst

Why Has Compromise Become a Dirty Word?

2009-11-20T18:00:00.000-05:00

From The Pilot: November 18, 2009

Republican gamesmanship is undermining the government's ability to address the people's needs.
Both sides agree that the health-care system is in need of repair. Opinion polls document continued strong public support for meaningful change in health care, to include more widespread coverage and coverage for pre-existing conditions.
The American political system, by conscious design, precludes unrestrained lawmaking by the majority party. It instead requires those on both sides of the aisle to work together for the national well-being. Political compromise is an essential corollary to our constitutional principles of checks and balances and separation of powers.
The Founding Fathers led by example. Views on the role of a central government could not have been more divergent nor regional suspicions more salient when the Constitution was drafted.

We have a Constitution because the drafters were willing to make fundamental compromises on a series of issues -- power sharing, interstate commerce and slavery -- and the citizens felt that their representatives, in making these compromises, had their interests at heart. Throughout our history, compromise has allowed for meaningful legislation by ensuring the incorporation of legitimate albeit divergent political views. The subsequent bipartisan "seal of approval" legitimized the legislation in the eyes of the electorate.
Willingness to work across the aisle was a respected political trait. Sen. Everett Dirksen will always be remembered for his work as minority leader with the majority leader Sen. Mike Mansfield to pass meaningful civil rights legislation.
Over the past 15 years, compromise has become a dirty word.
Partisan-inspired gridlock is relatively harmless when things are going well. Bipartisanship becomes critical, however, when the government seeks to address core concerns such as economic well-being, health care and energy.
We currently live in a world of unrequited attempts at compromise. To the consternation of his party's faithful, President Obama pushed for the inclusion of Republican agendas -- tax cuts versus government spending -- in the economic stimulus package. Nonetheless, the package did not receive a single Republican vote in the House of Representatives.
Republican ideas have been incorporated in current health-care legislation. In his speech on health care to a joint session of Congress, the president offered to incorporate Sen. John McCain's plans for catastrophic coverage and to entertain tort-reform legislation, a key plank of the Republican Party.
The opportunity for conservatives to take a meaningful role in shaping critical legislation could not have been more blatant. Many moderates, me included, would have welcomed some of the provisions that have been advanced by Republicans.
The Republican response has been disappointing, to say the least. Republicans would rather defeat the Democratic administration than provide -- by working together on a compromise bill -- their stamp of approval to a meaningful overhaul of a health-care system in dire need of repair.
Americans are shortchanged by an approach that confuses the means and ends of governance. The purpose of being elected is to deal with the challenges facing the nation by crafting legislation that reflects the needs and philosophical leanings across the spectrum of American society.
The Republican response to President Obama's overtures has been to stand on the sidelines and carp. This approach exacerbates public confusion and heightens public concern regarding the appropriate government role in a very critical area. It undermines effective governance. If Republican stonewalling leads to success at the polls, their victory will be, at best, Phyrric.
Americans deserve better from their elected officials.
Paul Ericson, a teacher at Pinecrest High School, lives in Southern Pines. Contact him at paul.ericson@gmail.com.

Medical Marijuana: Let Doctors Decide

2009-11-20T17:57:00.000-05:00

From The Pilot: November 20, 2009

Regarding Florence Gilkeson's thoughtful Nov. 13 column, while there have been studies showing that marijuana can shrink cancerous tumors, medical marijuana is essentially a palliative drug.
If a doctor recommends marijuana to a cancer patient undergoing chemotherapy and it helps him or her feel better, then it's working. In the end, medical marijuana is a quality-of-life issue best left to patients and their doctors. Drug warriors waging war on non-corporate drugs contend that organic marijuana is not an effective health intervention.
Their prescribed intervention for medical marijuana patients is handcuffs, jail cells and criminal records. This heavy-handed approach suggests that drug warriors should not be dictating health care decisions. It's long past time to let doctors decide what is right for patients; sick patients should not be jailed for daring to seek relief from medical marijuana.
Robert Sharpe, MPA
Common Sense for Drug Policy Washington, D.C.

The State Has a Mental Problem

2009-11-20T17:53:00.000-05:00

From The Pilot: November 15, 2009

If it is true that the first step in solving a problem is admitting you have one, then maybe things are finally beginning to turn around for the state's troubled mental health system.
Sen. Martin Nesbitt, the chair of the legislative commission that oversees the system, told lawmakers Tuesday morning that the General Assembly made a serious mistake this year by deeply slashing funding for mental health.
Nesbitt pointed specifically to the last minute $40 million cut to Local Management Entities (LMEs), the agencies that manage services for the mentally ill, developmentally disabled and people with addictions.
He said the cuts have forced LMEs "to decide who they won't help."

Lawmakers heard how bad the state is doing from people who should know, top officials with the Department of Health and Human Services. Assistant Secretary Michael Watson, who used to run an LME himself, said that despite a careful planning process to implement the cuts, people across the state are losing important services and many more are being turned away, as most programs are capped because there is no money to pay for new patients.
That is not news to advocates or family members of people with a mental illness or developmental disability. A coalition of groups last month called for lawmakers to return to Raleigh for a special session to address the growing crisis in mental health, as the cuts made this summer are now being felt by families across the state.
Tuesday's meeting comes after yet another News & Observer story about the system's problems, this time a report on patients with a mental illness languishing in emergency rooms, sometimes handcuffed, sedated or even tasered to keep them quiet.
The N&O referred to an internal DHHS report which described the problem that prompted one advocate to say that if similar things were happening to animals, the public would be outraged.
Watson told the oversight committee Tuesday that the budget cuts are being felt in jails, ERs and state mental hospitals, confirming the general outline of the N&O story.
One primary goal of the 2001 mental health reform efforts was to treat more people in their communities and reduce admissions to state hospitals. That has yet to happen.
The new Central Regional Hospital in Butner now has an overflow wing and it is still not enough. It is not hard to figure out why. LME Director Rhett Melton said that the budget cuts to his agency came to 26 percent this year while demand for services has increased beyond projections.
Health and Human Services Secretary Lanier Cansler told the committee that enrollment in Medicaid is 9,000 higher than forecast.
And all this slamming a system that was underfunded and struggling before the economic crisis began.
State officials and many lawmakers have soft-pedaled the extent of the crisis in mental health for years. Former Gov. Mike Easley didn't seem to notice there were any problems until the media uncovered abuse and neglect throughout the system. There have been periodic reports of serious problems amid sputtering progress ever since.
Then the came the worst budget shortfall in the state's history and last minute cuts on top of other deep reductions to mental health and development disability services, a total of $155 million slashed.
Nesbitt called the budget cuts a "bad deed' that lawmakers need to fix. That's some version of good news, that a prominent lawmaker is willing to candidly talk about how wrong the General Assembly was to cut mental health programs so deeply.
Now that everyone finally admits there's a problem, it is time to start solving it. People with a mental illness or a developmental disability have waited and suffered long enough.
Chris Fitzsimon is executive director of N.C. Policy Watch. Contact him at chris@ncpolicywatch.com.

It's Not Government Vs. Private -- Both Have a Role

2009-11-20T17:50:00.000-05:00

From The Pilot: November 15, 2009

It is baffling how much vitriol is directed at government. The easiest way to discredit anything is to associate it with the institutions set up by the Founding Fathers and comprised of the people we elect to represent us.
We worry about "nationalized banks" in the financial sector. Never mind the maleficence of the people in those banks that brought our economy to its knees. We worry about "Government Motors." Never mind that the "professionals" in General Motors had fallen hopelessly out of touch with their consumers, threatening a tidal wave that would have turned recession into depression.
When I talked to a staff member of Rep. Howard Coble about a public option for health care, he practically spit out the words "government-run health care." (I didn't have the heart to point out that he was working for a member of the U.S. House of Representatives who had been employed in government in some fashion since 1967 -- likely before the young man was born.)
There is little wonder that the Republican Party, champion of big business and small government, would try to couch every issue in terms of socialism versus capitalism. Their success depends upon fostering and exploiting that perception.

If you Google the words "capitalism versus socialism," it returns 26.9 million hits. For the right, that's 26.9 million calls to arms. For the rest of us, that's 26.9 million instances of a contrived dilemma. Let us concede that government is not, cannot be and should not try to be the answer to all of society's ills. The problem with conservatives' constant assault on government is that private markets aren't any better.
It wasn't our government that came up with the idea of using sub-prime mortgage baked derivatives as currency. That came to us courtesy of an overly creative and underregulated financial sector.
Purveyors of the socialist conspiracy theory speak of governments and markets as though they are mutually exclusive. While it is true that there is a natural (and healthy) tension between our government and our private sector, it is just as true that for our economy to succeed business and government must be interdependent.
If the private sector is the engine that produces the revenue that drives the economy, then responsible government oversight provides the rails that keep that engine from flying off the tracks.
Rather than engaging in an emotional debate over which sector is more virtuous, we should be dispassionately assessing the purposes to which each is best suited.
Capitalism is the reason I can go to Walmart tomorrow and buy a computer for $400 that's 10 times better than the computer I paid $1,200 for 10 years ago. But it's also the reason that a stent can cost $3,000 and why medical insurance premiums have been increasing four times faster than the rate of inflation.
Government has long played a role in endeavors where the wellbeing of society should reasonably outweigh the profit motive. We trust things like national defense, law enforcement and management of infrastructure to government.
Unless we believe that poverty is a crime that should be punishable by death or that our collective wellbeing is not jeopardized when those who cannot afford (or have been denied) health insurance also cannot afford to be too sick to work, then it makes sense that government should have a role in making health care affordable.
We hear so often that government can't do anything right that it's easy just to accept it as fact -- but it's not. My mom's Social Security check goes into her checking account every month like clockwork. I don't worry when I send a letter.
I know health-care providers who would rather deal with Medicare than private insurers because the rules are clearer and the payments prompt.
At the end of the day, it's not a matter of whether the private sector or government sector is more virtuous. It's a matter of which is better suited to a given endeavor. The rest is piffle.
Kevin Smith lives in Aberdeen. Contact him at kevinasmith@gmx.com.

An Open Letter to Miss Carrie Prejean

2009-11-20T17:47:00.000-05:00

From The Pilot: November 15, 2009

Dear Carrie:
It was back in May that I wrote to you, and I still haven't gotten a response, but that's OK. I know you've been real busy with lawsuits and stuff. Which is sort of why I'm writing now.
You may remember that, in that first letter, I took you to task for whining that people who were criticizing you were "undermining your constitutional rights." I still stand by that, because you don't have a constitutional right to have everyone agree with you or even be nice to you over your beliefs. I mean, you should see some of the mail I get.
But despite our differences, please believe I'm not getting any joy out of your recent troubles, which apparently involve some sex tape you made as a teenager that surfaced during your lawsuit against the Miss U.S.A. people.

I sincerely felt bad for you when I read that the tape was first revealed in a settlement conference when the pageant's lawyers played it -- in front of not only your lawyers, but also your mom. That was just low, and mean, and uncalled for. I wanted to kick the pageant's lawyers in the behind when I read about that, because I'm a parent myself. But I need to ask you a question, and this is one that has nothing to do with gay marriage or politics or any of that stuff.
Girl, what in God's name were you thinking?
I'm not just talking about the apparent assumption you had that the tape would never surface. Not that that's not a mind-blowingly stupid assumption all by itself. If there's one thing anyone who watches TV or reads a newspaper should know, it's that the more famous you get, the more likely it is that a tape like that or racy pictures are going to come out.
Not only to enter the pageant in the first place, but then to sue them over losing your title, knowing that that tape was out there somewhere, is -- well, in May, I was charitable and described you as merely ignorant, but the only word I can think of for what you did is dumb.
But that's not the dumbest thing. The dumbest thing was in making the tape in the first place. Oh, I know that some young people these days consider that sending nude or sexy pictures of themselves to people is no big deal. I've heard about this "sexting" fad, where girls sending naked pics via text or e-mail is considered fun and edgy.
But see, those young folks are dumb, too. Because they've basically guaranteed that, whatever success they obtain, those pictures are going to be out there waiting to torpedo it. They'll have to always wonder if some sleazebag is going to ring them up and say, "Guess what I got?"
That's if they're lucky. If they're unlucky, that sleazebag is going to be calling up one of those bottom-feeding Internet sites and tabloids and seeing how much cash they can get for visuals of a famous person flashing their naughty bits.
If they're really unlucky, like you, El Sleazo will be selling it to the other side in any lawsuit they're in, so opposing counsel can play it for their mom. Next thing they know, the fame and fortune they were hoping for turns into a gig co-hosting a fifth-rate reality show with Tonya Harding and that kid from "Diff'rent Strokes" that ended up with the felony convictions.
Carrie, maybe you can use this fiasco to do some good. Maybe you can spread the word to the young girls of America: Sending naked pictures or videos of yourself isn't funny or edgy, or sexy. It's not even, as you apparently thought, a romantic gesture to a guy you're crazy about. It's just dumb if you want to ever have any kind of success in life that you can hold on to, whether that success is having a home and family, becoming a corporate CEO or being Miss U.S.A.
Good luck, and God bless.
Dusty Rhoades lives, writes and practices law in Carthage. Contact him at dustyr@nc.rr.com.

Marijuana Is Treated Unfairly

2009-11-20T17:40:00.000-05:00

From The Pilot: November 12, 2009

The Obama administration has announced that federal agencies will no longer pursue criminal charges against people who use or supply medical marijuana in states where it is legal.
(Note: North Carolina is not among those 14 states.)
I have long wondered why marijuana cannot be legally used to relieve the pain and discomfort of cancer patients suffering debilitating nausea after chemotherapy. Why should marijuana be different from other prescription painkillers, many of which are dangerous and addictive and also subject to abuse?
Medicine has turned me off since childhood, when my mother plied me with foul-tasting potions to relieve the symptoms of head colds, a winter-long plague. I often wondered why she didn't catch on that these awful-tasting emulsions were not even alleviating the symptoms.

As I grew older, Mother declared that I was old enough to take medicine without supervision. I promptly poured the medicine spoonful by spoonful into the wood box in my bedroom, where it left a smelly residue discovered by a relative foraging for indoor firewood. I once hid the castor oil in a nook in an antique dresser gracing our guest bedroom. I figured no one would find it in such a secret place, but that ploy didn't work either.
In adulthood my response to painkillers is mixed. I turned down a painkiller for a bone fracture in my foot. I figured that I would be just fine once I got home with my neatly Ace-bandaged foot. By midnight, I was climbing the walls with pain. But when I took a painkiller for pneumonia years later, my recovery was delayed several days because of Tylenol 3 side effects.
After a root canal, I was scared witless when the pharmacist asked for personal information required by the federal Drug Enforcement Agency. I took one pill, then decided the pain wasn't bad enough to risk a DEA raid. After a biopsy left my tongue very sore indeed, I declined to fill the prescription for a painkiller. It was more fun to treat that pain with milkshakes.
Our perspective on many social ills is often shaped more by popular lore than by facts. Pain is very real and is to be taken seriously. Puffing away at pot hardly seems worth getting the feds' bloomers in a bunch when it might make life a little less miserable for someone really sick.
Marijuana, cocaine and heroin were rarely mentioned in my childhood. Instead, the focus was on illegal manufacture of alcoholic beverages. News of the day centered on discovery of the latest liquor still and arrest of its operators, many of whom were church-going teetotalers.
It took me years to understand that the reason law-enforcement people were so enthusiastic about nailing illegal liquor manufacturers had almost nothing to do with the health, welfare and moral well-being of the public. It was all about collecting taxes on non-tax-paid beverages.
Sadly for North Carolina farmers, two crops that grow abundantly here are hazardous to your health: tobacco and marijuana. One is already illegal, and the other is rapidly falling from grace.
Even the relatively conservative "Law and Order" TV series has turned a sympathetic eye on medical marijuana use. Lt. Van Buren, my favorite character in the series, recently turned to pot (a gift from her husband) because she was unable to eat as a result of chemotherapy. Naturally she was busted by her supervisor, but instead of decreeing disciplinary action, he shared advice on how to conceal the odor on clothing and body.
If opponents of legalizing medical marijuana are really serious about curbing drug abuse, maybe they should consider banning all powerful painkillers now legally prescribed for a multitude of painful ailments. That would level the playing field for everyone in pain.
Critics of the pot remedy argue that other drugs are available to treat post-chemo nausea. True, but they cost more.
Contact Florence Gilkeson at (910) 947-4962 or by e-mail at florence@thepilot.com.

Obama's Politics Putting Us on the Right International Track

2009-11-12T08:26:00.000-05:00

From The Pilot: November 11, 2009

President Obama's selection to receive the Nobel Peace Prize generated significant criticism as being undeserving and based too much on hope than accomplishment.
You can count me among those who think his receipt of the prize is premature. But you can also count me among those who believe that the actions he is taking are establishing the groundwork to produce the results that will be very deserving of this recognition.
In my view, Obama has set a very clear international mission for his term in office: Create partnerships with other countries to respond to the existing and emerging set of global challenges. These challenges include not only terrorism and control of nuclear weapons, but also environmental pollution, public health and balanced economic growth.
This mission reflects a strong understanding of the fact situation -- namely, the emergence and development of a diverse set of other economic powers in the world (e.g., China, India, the European Union, Brazil, the Middle East oil emirates, the former Soviet republics); and the scope and complexity of challenges that are beyond the resources of any single country to solve.

Each of the significant challenges is borderless and dispersed throughout the global landscape. Like market opportunities in the business world that are beyond the capabilities of any single enterprise, they will require the formation of joint ventures among former competitors who will continue to have disparate as well as common interests. A recent book, "Dreams and Shadows," by Robin Wright, a journalist with 30-plus years covering the Middle East, provides useful insights into the opportunities for more collaboration among current adversaries.
Based on personal interviews with emerging political leaders in several Middle East countries, Wright identifies more moderate, pragmatic and even democratic attitudes among them than exist in current leaders. But these "new leaders" also have strong feelings about understanding, recognition and respect for their cultures, interests and needs.
Engaging them as partners will require this understanding, recognition and respect. President Obama's outreach efforts are not "kow-towing." They are the important first steps in a strategic process of engagement and partnership building.
The United States will not be able to sustain the role of the dominating force in world affairs, any more than the Roman or British empires could. Nor is it desirable to try to do so. Political analyst Howard Fineman has correctly observed that we cannot act as a gated community, motivated only by our self interests. Our interests, in varying degrees, are too interdependent with those of other countries.
However, not being the dominating force does not preclude the U.S. from being a very powerful force. What is required is the use of less formal methods of exercising power: dialogue, negotiation, moral leadership, more "speaking softly but still carrying a big stick."
Finally, partnerships entail a sharing of resources as well as responsibility and authority.
International initiatives divert our resources away from domestic needs, which are significant, and create downstream obligations (e.g., caring for the wounded and the families of those who lose their lives). The more we do things unilaterally, and without consultation and consideration of the interests of both current and potential partners, the larger the diversion of resources away from our domestic needs.
This fundamental fact situation is well understood by President Obama and is guiding his thoughtful approach to international affairs.
Brian Deaton lives in Pinehurst.

Our Kids Need Facts, Not Fairytales

2009-11-12T08:19:00.000-05:00

From The Pilot: November 11, 2009

Lacy Pessagno's letter to The Pilot on Nov. 6 tells us that we should look at the Convention on the Rights of the Child through different lenses. Might I suggest hers need cleaning?
To suggest that the 122 countries that have signed on to this treaty (including every UN member except for the United States and Somalia) have forfeited their sovereignty is absurd. And picking on the Dutch is ironic.
The Netherlands has the lowest rate of teen pregnancy in Western Europe. UNICEF rates the country No. 24. Guess who's No. 1 in teen births: the United States, with a rate more than nine times higher than the Dutch. I'm not sure we're in a position to give advice on that subject.
As to alcohol and drugs, Dutch parents are not at all permissive and are as alarmed by teenage drug use as American parents.
This treaty has been around for several years. Have you yet to hear of a case involving the denial of any country's sovereignty? No, and you won't, because that's not what this is about. Ignorance is in no one's interest. Our children need facts to help them develop into functioning, secure adults. Age-appropriate sex education is vital if we are to keep them safe from sexual predators, sexually transmitted diseases and unplanned pregnancies. The abject failure of abstinence education in this country should be a warning about education by fairytale. It's sad that so many Americans are afraid of new ideas. Take the time to learn about this treaty and see if you can find any threat to our country in it. And if you do, maybe you'd like to explain how all the other UN member nations (except Somalia) missed it.
Jim Heim
Vass

Good for Congress, So Why Not for Us?

2009-11-12T08:12:00.000-05:00

From The Pilot: November 11, 2009

Members of Congress, to include Rep. Coble, have decried the Affordable Health Care for America Bill as a "government takeover of health care."
But is this objection consistent with what Congress does for its own health care? I would say no, because Congress itself chooses to have government health care. First, free care is available through the Military Health Care system. I know, because as a former Army doctor, I once provided some of this care. Military Health Care is government health care.
Second, and more to the point, Congress is insured under the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) program, touted as having beneficiaries who "enjoy the widest selection of health plans in the country." Indeed, there are seven different plan types (providing a range of low to higher cost options) available through multiple carriers. The FEHB program is government health care because taxpayers fund it.
What's to be made of this contradictory behavior? Congress decrying a "government takeover of health care" but espousing government care for themselves? Perhaps some legislators have, on principle, individually rejected these options, but if so, I haven't heard about it. Nor does Coble, in letters to his constituents, indicate that he has declined government health care for himself. Why should government health care be good for Congress but bad for the nation? Is there a disconnect here? A bit of hypocrisy?
I am reminded of an anecdote, told by the president, from a letter that in essence said, "I am against government-run health care, but don't touch my Medicare!" Here the contradiction is obvious. The contradiction of members of Congress decrying government health care for the nation while benefiting from it themselves, should be made just as obvious!

Edward N. Squire Jr.
Seven Lakes

Media Only Interested in Nutty Drama

2009-11-12T07:58:00.001-05:00

From The Pilot: November 6, 2009

A "referendum on Barack Obama." A "bellwether" of how the elections of 2010 and 2012 are going to go. That was the prevailing narrative in the so-called "liberal" media right before this past week's off-year elections. Among those supposedly "bellwether" elections was the special election in New York's 23rd District, which pitted Republican state Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava against Democrat Bill Owens. Scozzafava, however, wasn't nearly ideologically pure enough for the angry, bitter, sky-is-falling wing of the GOP. Michelle Malkin of Fox News repeatedly referred to Scozzafava as a "radical leftist."
Malkin, Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck came out strongly in favor of a third-party candidate, Doug Hoffman, who doesn't even live in the district. When Newt Gingrich tried to reason with the raging right-wingers, Malkin turned on him. "Perhaps it is time to go your own way, with Al Sharpton and Nancy Pelosi," Malkin sneered at Gingrich.
The wingnut attacks got so vicious that Scozzafava eventually dropped out of the race -- and endorsed Owens.

Meanwhile, in New Jersey, the battle for the governorship was waged between a Democrat, incumbent John Corzine, who apparently was about as popular in New Jersey as the swine flu, and whose campaign message seemed to be mostly centered on allegations that his Republican opponent, Chris Christie, is fat. In Virginia, Republican Bob McDonnell vied with Democrat Creigh Deeds, who ran a ham-fisted campaign that made John McCain's desperate floundering look positively Machiavellian in comparison.
By Wednesday morning, the results were in: Republicans won the governorships in New Jersey and Virginia, but Bill Owens was the first Democratic House member from NY-23 since the Civil War.
You'd think that these would be reported as, at best, mixed results. But you'd be wrong. "Republican Wins Deal Blow to Obama," blared the supposedly "liberal" MSNBC.com, claiming that winning two governorships "inflicted a double blow on President Barack Obama's Democratic Party."
They went on to say: "The Republican victories Tuesday in Virginia and New Jersey are a setback for Obama as he struggles to overhaul the U.S. health-care system, win passage of climate change legislation, and build political support for his handling of the war in Afghanistan." Because, after all, the governors of New Jersey and Virginia have so much influence on those issues.
Meanwhile, a Democratic win in a district that hasn't elected a Democrat since the 19th century, one in which stars of the wingnuttosphere threw their weight behind a teabagger third-party candidate and drove the Republican nominee out of the race for being too liberal, one in which Barack Obama gave his endorsement to the Democrat who eventually won -- not such a big deal.
In short, the so-called "liberal" media hyped this as a huge test of the popularity of the Obama administration, then blew off the Democratic win, one that, lest we forget, increased the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives. They chose instead to gush over Republican wins that stand to have little or no effect on President Obama's national agenda.
Yeah, those are some liberal media, you betcha.
Not that I'm saying the media are conservative. No, the problem with 21st century "news" as it's practiced by the so-called "serious" journalists is that it's not about liberalism or conservatism any more. It's about drama.
It was foreordained that the media were going to spin this as a huge challenge to the president, who's been in office for less than a year. Because otherwise, the off-year election would be like most off-year elections: boring. And they hate boring.
That's why the gun-toting tea-party nuts and birthers get so much coverage. They may not make much sense, but look how colorful they are! Look, a Nazi flag! Hey, does that one have a gun? Let's go see what pearls of wisdom he has to offer!
By the same token, "Huge setback for Obama! Can he ever recover? Who will save us now!?" is a much more sexy narrative than "things are really complicated right now." So guess which story gets told?
With its predetermined narratives, nutty characters and obsession with gaudy trash-talking, modern journalism is becoming harder and harder to distinguish from professional wrestling.
God help us all.
Dusty Rhoades lives, writes and practices law in Carthage. Contact him at dustyr@nc.rr.com.

Helping Those in Need

2009-11-12T07:53:00.000-05:00

From The Pilot: November 6, 2009

I so disagree when Bill Schwenk says, "Health care is an individual responsibility for those who are capable of taking care of themselves. It is not a right to be paid for by other people who do take their health care responsibility" (Nov. 1).
I might remind you that we are our brother's keeper. How do you explain your attitude to someone who could no longer work due to cancer, lost their insurance, could not pay and would not have been accepted for new insurance? Too bad you're sick. I guess although the medical world could have saved you, your poor planning has put you in a situation where you have no other option than to die.
And what do you say to parents who have depleted their savings: Mom cares for the premature infant and Dad works, but they have exceeded their catastrophic cap? They can have other kids, so why worry about this one?
Is that responsible enough for you? I'm not the least bit happy that I may be taxed to help pay for someone else's health care, but I will be able to put my head on my pillow at night knowing I was able to help someone out of an intolerable situation.
The question should be, how can "we" be so selfish as to wallow in the self-assurance our health-care plan gives us while there are many forced to live every single day, by no fault of their own, not knowing how or if they will be able to see a doctor, much less participate in a life-saving procedure? Sunny Sidley
Vass

Fringe Conspiracy Theorists Getting Scary

2009-11-04T19:40:00.000-05:00

From The Pilot: November 4, 2009

I don't know how many people in this country have convinced themselves that Obama is some Hitler/Stalin/Imam incarnate whose mission is to overthrow the Constitution and install a fascio/marxist/Islamic theocracy.
But based on the e-mails I receive and on the listener ratings of media alarmists, there seem to be a disturbing number.
The latest to cross my laptop is a "wakeup call "from a person identifying himself as Cmdr. Jerry Wilson, a naval aviator, that is now a favorite read in the far-right blogosphere.
We are, according to Wilson, "in the middle of a communist revolution" and on the verge of a "takeover of the energy industry" and a gerrymandering of electoral districts to create one-party rule that will "create crisis after crisis" as an excuse to "nationalize the means of production."
Consequently, "out of desperation at the thought of losing America," groups are forming to shut down government's supposedly blatant abuse of the Constitution. "I won't start the fight," Wilson says, "but when it goes down, I will join it."
In a world suffused with uncertainty, how can individuals evince such certitude in their biases? Every aspect of our existence is marked by doubt. There are myriad frames of reference -- nations, languages, religions -- each understandable within their own political, economic and cultural milieu.
On a world scale, it would take unsurpassed hubris to assert that only one's own frame of reference was "right." Of the major religions (2.1 billion Christians, 1.5 billion Islamists, 900 million Hindus, 400 million Chinese traditionalists, 400 million Buddhists and more than 1 billion secularists), only after death can one know which, if any, were "right." Professions of faith can be understood, but not certainty.
Given the uncertainty that permeates other aspects of existence, how can one explain the certainty of the extreme political views being expressed in this country? Every issue confronting us is shrouded by doubt, be it poverty, health, energy, immigration, terrorism, education, the economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, ad infinitum. There are neither obvious nor easy answers to any on the list.
While the contesting and ultimate reconciliation of strongly held views are the essence of the decision process in a democratic society, that process is not enhanced by views overwhelmed by certitude and/or put forward with a vitriol that peaks with threats of force.
It is time to return reason to a place of prominence. The current president was duly elected, meeting all constitutional requirements including an oath to support the Constitution. The policies and programs he proposed to pursue were clearly enunciated prior to his election and implicitly endorsed by a majority of the citizenry.
There are and will continue to be grounds for reasonable people to oppose the manner in which he is executing his duties -- and he is fair game for criticism on all matters of substance.
But it is time to move away from frivolities such as his place of birth or ill-founded claims of unconstitutional appointments of so-called "czars." Of greater concern is the movement from frivolity to irrationality evidenced by the gathering of protesters waving signs inexplicably portraying Obama on the one hand as Hitler, and on the other as a Marxist, accompanied by shouts of, "We want our country back."
The protesters did not lose their country, they lost an election. If their alleged love for the Constitution and fears of a dictatorial coup were not feigned, they would turn their energies from tirades to the development of ideas holding some promise of success in the next election.
The gun-wavers and "militia men" involved, such as Wilson, hint darkly that their love for the Constitution is such that they may not be willing to wait until the next election to revolt and take up their arms -- an act clearly violating the document they supposedly cherish! While the First Amend-ment may protect such speech, it should not be spared severe censure for its impropriety.
It defies understanding how otherwise responsible politicians and publications, presumably concerned with the maintenance of a civil society, can continue to tolerate, and by implication condone, such threats. It is they who should be leading protests.
We live in a world of doubt, and we should each strive to live with that doubt in a responsible manner and be willing to call to account those who do not.
No president is infallible; no solution is perfect; and the political process should not be expected to yield more than what is approximately the "good" -- the best result possible from the compromise of divergent views.
J. Thomas Tidd is a retired attorney living in Pinehurst.

Please Don't Learn the Hard Way About Diabetes

2009-11-01T11:33:00.000-05:00

Form The Pilot: November 1, 2009

Thursdays are hard for me.
Let me explain. Seven years ago, on Thursday, Nov. 7, my 12-year-old son had become so gravely ill that he had to be airlifted to Chapel Hill's UNC Children's Hospital. A week later, on Nov. 14, I was to celebrate my 46th birthday. Another seven days later on Thursday, he died.
The cause of death was septic shock due to the complications of diabetes. The irony of it all was that he died three weeks into the observance of Diabetes Awareness Month.
Now fast-forward to 2008. My wife, Phyllis, and I were introduced to an organization, the Carthage Lions Club. One of their annual fundraising events is a 3K walk called "Strides: Lions Walk for Diabetes Awareness."

We viewed this event as one more way to help get the word out about this killer. We signed up as "Team Wilson," got our pledge sponsors and even went so far as to design T-shirts with the names of all the people in our lives who had been affected by this deadly ailment. Along with my son, we listed me, our daughter, my parents, my mother-in-law, and a host of other relatives and friends who either were being treated or have died from the deadly, maiming complications of diabetes. According to the American Diabetes Association, often there are no diagnoses because the symptoms are seemingly harmless. The earlier the detection and treatment for diabetes, the less likely that someone might develop complications.
Some of the warning signs of diabetes are frequent urination, excessive thirst, extreme hunger, increased fatigue, irritability, and blurred vision. If you or a loved one has any one or more of these symptoms, see a doctor right away.
For me, it was a matter of dumb luck that I was diagnosed. I had spent the better part of the spring working long and late hours setting up distribution points around this part of the state for a special publication for my employer at the time, The Pilot. Drinking a lot of coffee and missing even more sleep had rendered me irritable as a hornet and so tired that I would have welcomed death for the peaceful rest.
But what finally sent me running to the doctor was an exchange between a coworker and me when I could not find my eyeglasses and she informed me they were on my face. And to that I replied, "Well they're not working!" As it turns out, the glasses worked fine, it was my vision, blurred by high blood sugar, that needed immediate attention.
Again, according to the American Diabetes Association, I am one of nearly 24 million Americans, or roughly 8 percent of the total population, who are diabetic. Because of a strong and effective awareness campaign, there are fewer cases are going undetected. Total diagnosed cases increased 13.5 percent from 2005 to 2007. Currently, close to 24 percent of diabetes is undiagnosed, down from 30 percent that went undetected in 2005.
It is again that time of the year for us to remember our late son and others we have lost along the way. But more important, it is time for us to renew our commitment to public awareness about diabetes.
I failed to mention that later in 2008 we were invited to join the Carthage Lions Club. So this year, Phyllis and I are involved in the planning of the Strides event. Yes, your donations are welcomed, but at the same time during this year's event, we plan to provide information and health screenings.
So come out to get checked and get informed. Besides, the exercise will work wonders on your glucose level.
This year's event will be held Saturday, Nov. 7, at the Nancy Kiser Park next to Carthage Elementary School. Registration for the 3K (approximately 2-mile) walk starts at 9 a.m. The walk is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. Funds raised will support diabetes research and assist local visually impaired.
Form a team (coworkers, friends, fellow diabetics), collect pledges, and come learn more about diabetes. Call (910) 315-1976 or e-mail carthagelions @yahoo.com for more info.
George Wilson is a former employee in The Pilot's circulation department.

Time to Abolish the Death Penalty

2009-11-01T09:15:00.000-05:00

From The Pilot: November 1, 2009

The last time the state of North Carolina put someone to death in Central Prison was August of 2006.
The state's capital punishment system has been tangled up in the courts since, in a dispute about the role of doctors at executions and questions about the state's lethal injection procedure.
Regardless of what happens in the courts, those issues won't go away and neither will nagging doubts about the way the death penalty is applied and how much it costs, not to mention the moral questions about a government intentionally taking a human life.
A study just released by the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) finds that states with the death penalty, such as North Carolina, are wasting millions of dollars during the worst economic crisis in a generation and diverting money from anti-violence programs that work.

The study finds that the extra cost of the death penalty is as much as $10 million per state, enough to hire 250 more police officers. A study in North Carolina several years ago showed that it cost $2.16 million more to execute someone than to sentence him or her to life in prison without parole.
DPIC also released a nationwide poll of police chiefs that found they believe the death penalty is the least efficient use of taxpayer money to fight crime, far below hiring more police officers, reducing drug use, and improving crime-fighting technology.
The police chiefs also do not believe that the death penalty deters murder, a view in line with the vast majority of criminologists, despite claims otherwise by death penalty supporters. DPIC points out that the 20 states with the highest murder rates in 2008 all had the death penalty.
No one disputes that mistakes are made in capital cases, sending innocent people to death row in North Carolina and across the nation. Nationally, 138 convicts have been freed from death rows since capital punishment resumed in 1976. There is now growing evidence that Texas executed an innocent man in 2004.
A judge in Ohio stayed a scheduled last week as state officials continue to examine the state's lethal injection procedure.
Efforts to execute an inmate in September were halted when technicians could not find a vein in the man's arm to inject the deadly poison.
Then there is the unequal application of capital punishment, a system still plagued by bias based on race and economic class.
A 2003 study by researchers at UNC-Chapel Hill found the odds of receiving the death penalty in North Carolina increase by 3.4 times if the victim of the crime was white.
North Carolina lawmakers voted this summer to address racial bias by passing the Racial Justice Act, which gives defendants a way to present evidence to a judge that race played a role in their cases.
Public opinion is changing too. Gallup reports that support for the death penalty remains at a 25-year low and that if those being surveyed are given an alternative punishment for first-degree murder like life in prison without parole, support for capital punishment is less than 50 percent.
New Mexico abolished the death penalty in March of this year, the third state in the last two years to end the practice. The tide is clear.
Too many problems, too many questions, too many mistakes and too much money. North Carolina officials ought to understand all that by now, and they should make sure the 2006 execution is the last one the state ever performs.
Chris Fitzsimon is executive director of N.C. Policy Watch. Contact him at chris@ncpolicywatch.com.

Believe in War? Then Prove It

2009-11-01T09:10:00.000-05:00

From The Pilot: November 1, 2009

An argument is being made that Afghanistan is President Obama's Vietnam. However, there is one huge, glaring difference that no one seems to be talking about: During Vietnam, there was a draft.
Without a draft, we no longer have the endless supply of troops to throw into the meat grinder of a protracted war. There is a bottom to the well.
So, as the pressure increases to send thousands of additional troops to Afghanistan, I will say here and now what no politician or pundit is saying: If you truly believe our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are necessary and just, and you are eligible for military service, you owe it to your fellow countrymen and women who are enduring multiple deployments to join them in the so-called "ideological struggle of the 21st century."
War is not a sports event where one sits on the sidelines and cheers for the home team. If you believe in the cause, then have the guts to fight and possibly die for it. Put your college education or career ambitions on hold, kiss your families goodbye and enlist.
Someday your kids are going to want to know what you did during the war of your generation. I can tell you from experience, you're really, really going to want to be able to look them in the eye and say, "I was there." Kevin Scotti
Pinehurst

Health-Care Backfire

2009-10-29T19:28:00.000-04:00

From The Pilot: October 28, 2009

A reader came by the other day to vent about two mailings he had recently received from Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina.
The first one informed him that his health insurance rates would be going up by more than 10 percent next year. Just as he was getting over that, another flier arrived from Blue Cross, this one urging him to send an attached post card to U.S. Sen. Kay Hagan, demanding that she vote against any health-care reform bill that includes a "public option."
"The whole idea behind a public option is that the competition might help keep insurance rates under control," sputtered our visitor, who preferred anonymity. "Yet here you have an insurance company raising my rates with one hand, while with the other trying to get me to badger Kay Hagan to vote against something that might help keep costs down. And how much of that rate hike is due to these kinds of lobbying expenses?"
Turns out our caller wasn't the only one turned off by this one-two punch, which was a little like the proverbial youth murdering his parents and then begging for leniency on the grounds that he was an orphan. Cries of outrage have gone up all over the state from policy holders complaining that their premium dollars were funding a self-serving corporate campaign.
The thing has even backfired. Some policy holders have phoned Hagan's office to voice support for the public option. Others have altered the post card and sent it along with the opposite of the intended message. Blue Cross acknowledged that the timing of the two back-to-back mailings may have been "unfortunate."
Ya think?

Smith for Council

2009-10-29T19:23:00.000-04:00

From The Pilot: October 28, 2009

Last November, when the huge election had folks lined up for quite a bit, I was standing in line to vote and a gentleman walked by and asked for votes.
I asked if he was endorsed by The Pilot, and he said that his opponent was. I assured him that I would vote for him since I was voting against The Pilot's endorsed candidates.
People around us applauded and several thought that was an excellent idea.
I urge folks who like Southern Pines as it is and has been to vote for Marsh Smith and David Woodruff, as they are for a clean and uncluttered town. I have known Marsh Smith for 30 years and admire his principles and his stance against the good old boys who would mess up our gracious and spacious town and county.
George McManus
Southern Pines

A Vote for Smith

2009-10-29T19:17:00.000-04:00

From The Pilot: October 28, 2009

Over the past two weeks I have heard from many voters in Southern Pines asking my thoughts about the upcoming election and candidates running for my unexpired term.
I would like most to be there myself, working with the citizens, mayor and council members, as I deeply care about the issues that continue to face our town.
We have made giant leaps from the business-as-usual attitude that I found when I became involved in town government.
The outcome of this election will determine whether or not our movement forward to enhance the quality of life for all citizens was a brief blip in our town's history, or if we have established a true beginning of creating a sustainable economy that benefits all.
While both candidates are highly qualified, it is important to consider where each will fall when a decision must be made. I believe that Marsh Smith is the only candidate who will put the spirit of Southern Pines first and act to protect the qualities of life that define our town. As both a citizen and council member, I observed Marsh's enthusiasm at town meetings, even when few other citizens were there to witness his concern for Southern Pines on a wide range of issues and his commitment to finding solutions beneficial to all sides. I seldom recall seeing Mike Fields at a meeting, except in support of the PUD and to encourage the sitting council to vote on Pine Needles Village prior to swearing me in.
I know that on council Smith will work hard for Southern Pines to protect and preserve both the natural beauty of the area and the special character of our town.
Please vote for Marsh Smith on Tuesday.
Abigail Dowd
Portland, Maine

Local Democrats Honor Capel, Gilmore at Event

2009-10-29T19:07:00.002-04:00

From The Pilot: October 28, 2009

Secretary of State Elaine Marshall turned to that notable philosopher Kermit the Frog of Sesame Street to encourage Moore County Democrats Saturday.
"It's not easy being green," she quoted Kermit as saying, adding her own observation that "It's not easy being a Democrat in Moore County."
Marshall, an announced candidate for the U.S. Senate seat now held by Republican Richard Burr, was keynote speaker Saturday for a Moore County Democratic Party fundraiser luncheon at Little River Resort and Golf Club.
She was referring to the Republican majority in the county's voter registration, a factor that means the GOP controls county government and most legislative seats.

"Your hard work is very valuable," she said. "In the face of adversity, don't give up. This is not a county that gives up." Marshall, the first woman elected to statewide executive office in North Carolina, reminded her audience of Democrats that their votes added thousands to her grand total in the last general election.
The event, with a theme "Celebrating Community Leader-ship," honored Felton Capel, a Southern Pines businessman and community leader, and the late Voit Gilmore, a philanthropist, scholar and civic leader. The two men are recognized for their successful and peaceful efforts to end racial segregation in Moore County in the 1960s.
At the end of the program, the party presented a $1,000 check to the Coalition for Human Care. Algene Johnson made the presentation on behalf of Moore County Democrats in honor of Gilmore and Capel.
In accepting the gift, Caroline Eddy, Coalition executive director, said the money would be used to buy food, prevent utilities from being cut off, pay rent for people facing eviction and meet medical needs of needy families throughout the county.
'Can't Stand by and Watch'
In what was clearly a campaign address, Marshall focused on the health-care reform issue now commanding the attention of both congressional chambers.
"We can't stand by and watch as health-care costs keep going up," she said. "We can't stand by and watch. We have to have a public option of some sort."
She urged Democrats to call their congressional delegation despite the differences in their political affiliation and let them know they want health care reform with a public option.
"It won't make a bit of difference to Howard Coble, but call him anyway," she said. "It won't make any difference to Richard Burr, but call him anyway."
Coble, who represents Moore County in the U.S. House, is a Republican.
Gilmore's Legacy Continues
Eddy made the presentation on behalf of Voit Gilmore, who died in 2005 at the age of 87.
"Voit Gilmore was friend, father, husband, and philanthropist," she said, explaining that these characteristics are in addition to his service as a human rights leader and a travel expert.
Eddy went down a lengthy list of contributions Gilmore made to the overall community, including a gift of land to Pinecrest High School, a gift of 10 acres to the town of Southern Pines for the Head Start program, and more land to house the Coalition for Human Care, the latter large enough to accommodate a community garden, where families can grow their own vegetables.
Elsewhere, Gilmore donated land to the park system, now accommodating the Appalachian Highland Learning Center. His estate has also established the Voit Gilmore Distinguished Geography Professorship at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he earned a doctorate in geography in his later years.
"Voit was changing the world when he was alive, but his legacy continues to change the world," Eddy said. "He was not afraid to take a stand."
Gilmore, who was white, and Capel, who is black, joined forces to carry out a joint integration of a movie theater in Southern Pines, a bowling alley, a golf course and other cultural and recreation sites in the county during the 1960s, when desegregation was an emotional and sometimes violent political issue across the country. In Moore County it was accomplished without violence.
"He was a visionary, a world traveler, a Tar Heel forever, a philanthropist and a Democrat forever," Eddy said.
Wilma Laney read a response on behalf of the Gilmore family, none of whom was able to attend the luncheon. His children are scattered across the United States and as far away as Ecuador.
'Be a Lifter, Not Leaner'
Jeff Capel II and Ken Capel deferred their comments on behalf of their father to their brother, Mitch Capel, a well-known entertainer and educator. Mitch Capel is best known by his storytelling persona, Gran'Daddy Junebug.
"I'm here to talk about my father, who taught me how to talk," Mitch Capel said. "We grew up Democrats in our household."
He recalled a childhood when on Election Days he wore a pin that said, "I'm too young to vote. What's your excuse?"
"My father was a great athlete, a great baseball player," he said. "He also taught us to be generous and how to do the right thing. He taught me to be a lifter, not a leaner."
Capel called Gilmore and his father "two of the strongest lifters I ever knew." He told of watching them as they integrated the Sunrise Theater, the bowling alley, the golf course and any number of other public places in the community.
He also paid tribute to his mother, Jean Capel, whom he called "a great woman."
Through the years, the elder Capel has received so many honors, awards and recognitions that his son said they really need to build another house to have enough wall space to display all these honors.
John "Bingo" Barringer followed the three sons but did not hesitate to list all the honors bestowed through the years but added that his long-time friend was the first black to serve on the Southern Pines Town Council and the first black Rotarian in Moore County.
"Fayetteville State University thinks so highly of him that they named the arena for him," he said. "So, he gets a good seat at all their games."
Mostly Barringer regaled the gathering with humorous anecdotes about Capel and his family.
In responding, Felton Capel said he could spend a lifetime telling all the things that Voit Gilmore did. He shared the fact that his affiliation with the Democratic Party dated to age three or four.
Finally, Ken and Jeff were persuaded to speak, although briefly, on behalf of their father.
"Voit Gilmore was a common name around the house when I was growing up," said Ken Capel, who recalled that Gilmore and his father accomplished racial integration peacefully.
Contact Florence Gilkeson at (910) 693-2479 or by e-mail at florence@thepilot.com.

2009-10-26T18:49:00.000-04:00

By Bruce Henderson
bhenderson@charlotteobserver.com

Posted: Monday, Oct. 26, 2009

Tim Will's $100,000 idea: Nurture new small farms, then link them with Charlotte chefs.

RUTHERFORDTON Charged with growing entrepreneurs in rural Rutherford County, Tim Will surveyed foothills numbed by 14 percent unemployment and illiteracy and limited by few high-speed links to the global marketplace.
But one other statistic caught the newcomer's eye: the county's 6,000 small plots of land, much of it overgrown former farmland.
What if played-out cotton fields, Will wondered, grew fruits and vegetables again? And what if the produce was marketed online to Charlotte restaurants hungry for locally raised foods?
The result is Farmers Fresh Market, now ending its third year. Charlotte chefs log on to its Web site, clicking on the purple potatoes or haricot verts that please them. The produce is delivered to their kitchens within 24 hours of harvest.
This year, 87 Rutherford growers marketed their produce that way.
A San Francisco think tank, Civic Ventures, got wind of the market, which is believed to be the only one of its kind in North Carolina. Each year Civic Ventures awards "Purpose Prize" to social innovators over 60 who do good things in their "encore" careers.
That's why, today, Tim Will is $100,000 richer.
As you might expect from a former Peace Corps volunteer, affordable-housing advocate and inner-city teacher, Will shrugs off his role, crediting the community's effort.
"What's happened to them, they didn't cause this," he said of the boom and bust of the county's textile and furniture industries. "Over four decades, these people forgot how to grow stuff."
Purpose Prize director Alexandra Kent said Will, 61, was chosen as "an inspiring role model" from among 1,200 nominations.
Will won, she said, "for his innovative approach to solving important and timely issues: job creation, ecological sustainability and the preservation of family farms."
Rutherford County lost 7,000 to 8,000 jobs in the past decade, says local newspaper publisher Jim Brown, chairman of Foothills Connect, the nonprofit business and technology agency Will heads.
"Putting people back to work is as important as the product they sell," Brown said. "And the straw that stirs the drink here is Tim Will."
The pairing happened by luck. A few years ago, Will watched "The Last of the Mohicans," filmed partly in Rutherford County, and decided the scenic hills were so beautiful he would die in them.
He and his wife Eleanor pulled up stakes in 2006, leaving his teaching job at a Miami high school. He was stunned to learn that Rutherford County schools lacked broadband Internet access.
Will fell into a job at Foothills Connect, where previous experience as a system integrator - analyzing what industrial processes can be automated - paid off.
The technology for Farmers Fresh Market fell into place. A $1.4 million grant from the N.C. Golden Leaf Foundation paid for 100 miles of fiber-optic cable that spread broadband service across the county, including all schools, police and fire departments.
It took time to convince Rutherford growers that their small bits of land could profit in a market 74 miles away in Charlotte. Chefs, they found, were willing to pay more for rare varieties.
Steadily, borlotti beans, Bull's Blood beets and Lacinato kale sprouted in the red clay. Garden-variety tomatoes were replaced by heirloom varieties so flavorful, market manager Kirk Wilson said, that 20 minutes after eating one "you can still taste it in your mouth."
Jean-Pierre Marechal, executive chef at the Charlotte Marriott City Center, was the first to feature Rutherford County produce at the hotel's Savannah Red restaurant. The market now also sells to groups of Charlotte residents.
"The possibility to have vegetables picked in the morning and have it in your kitchen that afternoon, it's a new world," he said.
Foothills hopes to show the county's young people, many of whom leave for jobs elsewhere, that they might again make a living from farming.
The agency began a small-farm sustainable agriculture course, emphasizing business aspects, that has graduated 120 students. R-S Central High School's 3-year-old sustainable-ag curriculum has tripled to more than 200 students.
"We're not just losing our farms and our families, we're losing our heritage," said Jill Maner, one of the farm-school graduates. "We have to show that they don't need 160 acres of land and a $140,000 tractor."
Tim Will says Rutherford County is only the beginning. He vows to spread its business model across the state, through the state's six other business-technology centers, connecting growers with their land and consumers with their food.
"Getting change, getting things done, that's what's important to me and my wife," he said. "It's not my money. The community has earned it."
So he will give his $100,000 prize to the farm program.

Four-state alliance looks like sound investment

2009-10-26T17:43:00.000-04:00

From an editorial published in the Hickory Daily Record on Oct. 21:

The South Atlantic Alliance formed by North Carolina, Georgia, South Carolina and Florida is a good idea and reminiscent of regional pacts that were created in the past.
This alliance is aimed primarily at preserving and expanding coastal resources, resources the four states depend on for business and tourism.
The deal was signed by Govs. Bev Perdue, Mark Sanford of South Carolina, Charlie Crist of Florida and Sonny Perdue of Georgia.
"All four governors realize that we are facing considerable challenges to sustain our coastal resources for future generations," Bev Perdue said. "This alliance will enable us to work together to protect our ocean environment and the health and economic well-being of the people dependent on those resources."
Coastal erosion and the damage left by hurricanes are pressing issues. There are wildlife areas to protect, tourism dollars to consider and a burgeoning industry that runs from port traffic to individual fishermen. Cutting through the abundance of words, the main points of the pact are:
Healthy ecosystems
Working waterfronts
Clean coastal and ocean waters
Disaster-resilient communities
The four cornerstones of the alliance address quality of life and the necessity of thriving coastal areas in each state's economic health.
We are pleased to see business being given a priority. Each state has demonstrated that business and environmentalism can be maintained together.
The Atlantic and Gulf coasts are still attractive to investment, and there is money to be earned while keeping a high degree of protection for fragile wetlands.
This kind of regional commitment and cooperation could be a boon for all concerned. Just as cities and counties are finding cooperative ventures necessary for economic stability, so should states look for ways to pool resources for the common good.
This attitude would have been helpful when North Carolina gave the go-ahead to moving water from the Catawba River Basin. But interstate ramifications were not figured into the equation, and North Carolina and South Carolina are embroiled in litigation.
The alliance could be profitable for the four states. But equanimity must rule. If one state perceives it is the poor relation in the pact, the agreement could become a wedge instead of a unifier.

Playing Both Ends Against the Middle

2009-10-25T08:35:00.001-04:00

From The Pilot: October 25, 2009

Last week, U.S. Sen. Richard Burr took part in an Alexander County ceremony celebrating a $2 million federal grant for a new fire station.
"This is a great thing for this county," Republican Burr said as he posed for pictures. "We're not accustomed to federal dollars in that magnitude finding their way to North Carolina."
Yes, well. Fact is, that $2 million would never have found its way to North Carolina at all if it weren't for last February's $787 billion economic stimulus bill, pushed forward by the Obama administration -- and voted against by Sen. Burr!
"In typical Washington fashion," Burr publicly and vociferously complained at the time, "we have thrown together a hastily written bill with little public input, little debate and very little thought about the long-term consequence of what we are passing. By spending nearly a trillion dollars on projects that expand the government but provide little to no stimulus, we are ensuring a massive debt for our grandchildren."

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee lost no time in jumping on the recent contradiction, declaring that Burr wins "the gold medal in hypocrisy for trying to have it both ways," and it is hard to dispute that. After all, as committee spokesman Eric Schultz said, "This is somebody who, every chance he got, opposed the very funding that he went and had the photo-op about." Burr is up for re-election next year. His office tried to brush the matter aside, replying: "Sen. Burr was invited to the grant presentation by the Alexander County Commissioners and was happy to be there to recognize the community and the fire department for their work in securing this highly competitive grant."
That, of course, purposely misses the point.
It is one thing to come out in bitter opposition to a federal spending bill designed to kick-start the U.S. economy in hopes of helping blunt the effects of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Many members of the Senate and House, most of them Republicans, did just that.
But then to turn around a few months later and seek to gain a political bounce from the trickling-down to the local level of some of that federal money you tried to prevent from flowing in the first place?
Yep, "hypocrisy" is the word.

Heim Now Heads Physicians' Group

2009-10-23T21:45:00.001-04:00

From The Pilot: October 23, 2009

Dr. Lori J. Heim of Vass has assumed the role of president of the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP).
Previously, she served three years as a director on the AAFP Board of Directors and one year as president-elect. Heim was elected president-elect in September 2008 by the Congress of Delegates, the AAFP's governing body.
The AAFP represents more than 94,600 physicians and medical students nationwide
A practicing family physician for 20 years, Heim currently serves as a hospitalist at Scotland Memorial Hospital in Laurinburg, where she manages the inpatient care of adult patients referred by primary care physicians in the community. Hospitalists bridge the gap between hospitalized patients and their primary care doctors to ensure continuity of care.

Heim is the first family physician to serve as a hospitalist at Scotland Memorial Hospital. She is joined in the hospitalist program by four internal medicine physicians and two family nurse practitioners. Previously, she was in private practice in Pinehurst. As president of the AAFP, Heim advocates on behalf of family physicians and patients nationwide to inspire positive change in the U.S. health-care system, a news release said.
A member of the AAFP since 1985, Heim served as a delegate to the AAFP Congress of Delegates from 2000 to 2004. She served on the Commission on Health Care Services and on the Task Force of Linkages to Practice Improvement. In addition, she held the offices of president, vice president and member of the Board of Directors of the Uniformed Services Academy of Family Physicians.
Heim earned her bachelor's degree with honors from Portland State University in Oregon and was then commissioned in the U.S. Air Force and earned her medical degree at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Md. She completed her residency at the Family Medicine Residency, Andrews Air Force Base, Md. She then completed a fellowship in faculty development and research from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
She is board certified by the American Board of Family Medicine and has the AAFP Degree of Fellow, an earned degree awarded to family physicians for distinguished service and continuing medical education.
Heim's appointments with the Air Force included staff physician, clinic chief, residency director, assistant professor, university health center director, chief of the medical staff and commander. She was stationed internationally in Turkey and domestically in Washington, D.C., Florida, North Carolina and Washington state. She retired as a colonel from the Air Force in 2007 after 25 years of service and relocated to North Carolina.
She has lectured worldwide, and her work has been published in peer-reviewed journals. She has participated in humanitarian missions and volunteered in medical clinics in underserved communities.
Heim has received numerous decorations including the Air Force Meritorious Medal, Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Air Force Commendation Medal and the Air Force Achievement Medal. Her awards include the Joint Meritorious Unit Award, Air Force Outstanding Unit Award, Humanitarian Service Award and the National Defense Service Award.

The Real Liars

2009-10-23T21:42:00.000-04:00

From The Pilot: October 23, 2009

In his Oct. 7 letter, Jack Olsen laments what our society has become because Americans "tolerate and applaud" and "raise up" liars.
He says that supporters of liars exhibit "shoddiness in [a] philosophy," which "doesn't hold water." Finally, he postulates that those who "scorn the truth tellers" have "neither the respect nor the trust of others" and will be "unable to govern." In short, people who ignore facts and raise up liars while spreading their lies, then condemn the truthful, cannot be respected.
What prompted Olsen's ire was President Obama's remark that the health-care reform bill would not cover illegal aliens. Olsen supported Rep. Wilson (R-S.C.), who called our president a liar. If Olsen wants to condemn such people, he had better check his facts.
The truth is, the health-care reform bill does not include coverage for illegals. In fact, it forbids payments to cover their medical bills. Go to factcheck.org, a nonpartisan group, part of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. (The Annenbergs are not millionaire liberals like George Soros. Indeed, they were close personal friends of President and Nancy Reagan.)

Conversely, Olsen "raises up" Wilson (the true liar in this story) and promotes and repeats his lies. Therefore, Olsen and his Republican heroes are the ones to be scorned and mistrusted. If Olsen's premise is accurate, the Republican "philosophy" "won't hold water," and the GOP will be "unable to govern." Look at eight years under the Bush administration. I rest my case. My thanks to Olsen for making the Democratic case for good governance and health-care reform and against Republicans.
Rick Gagliardo
Pinehurst

Smith for Council

2009-10-23T21:39:00.000-04:00

From The Pilot: October 23, 2009

Marsh Smith and I have been good friends for more than 10 years. I know Marsh very well, and that is why I am voting for him.
Southern Pines is his hometown, and Marsh deeply cares about what is best for all of us, not just the few. His vision is of a sustainable community in which we will all be happy to live and flourish, not just now but in the future.
Marsh is a man of great vision, and he walks his talk. He is actively involved in so many areas of Southern Pines as a community advocate and volunteer and has already brought many positive changes to our lives.
Marsh cares about all of us. Imagine what he can do for us when he is on the Town Council. He is our advocate. I am going to get up early on Nov. 3 and vote for Marsh. I hope you do, too. You'll be glad you did.
Tom Thompson
Southern Pines

Health Reform: It's the Right Thing to Do

2009-10-23T21:36:00.000-04:00

From The Pilot: October 23, 2009

Much has been said and written since Joe Wilson's outburst in which he shouted "You lie!" after President Obama said that health-care reform would not extend coverage to illegal aliens.
Democrats point out that the president didn't lie because section 246 of H.R 3200 states, "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States." Republicans counter that without status verification (like a national ID card) the provision will be difficult if not impossible to enforce.
What seems to be at issue here is relative levels of commitment to excluding illegal immigrants from health care. Nobody's arguing for including them. Why is that? How is it that this country, once the world's foremost champion of human rights, is last among developed nations to accept health care as a basic human right?
Rep. Wilson is a supporter of teacher-led school prayer in our public schools. Christianity is central to the "traditional values" that inform his stand on issues -- Christianity, the religion whose namesake proclaimed, "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."

How is it, then, that in the classroom, Christianity is the applicable traditional value, yet, when it comes to caring for the poor and sick, Mr. Wilson turns away from the teacher who chastised the money changers for turning the temple into "a den of thieves"? Profit is the traditional value Mr. Wilson applies to caring for "the least of these." It might be interesting and informative to see how many senators and representatives who support school prayer also oppose a public option for health care.
This is not to suggest that we should ignore legitimate security, legal and economic concerns, throw open the borders and extend full rights of citizenship to everybody who makes it into our country. We have an obligation to look out for our national interests. We are right to try to control immigration and to deport those who violate our sovereignty. But how is it good health policy to deny care to sick people regardless of their legal status?
I worked with a gentleman for several years who didn't have health insurance. One Friday morning he asked me to take him home shortly after we got started. I didn't think that much of it. People get sick. Still, it was out of character for him to miss work, and I should have suspected that something was really wrong.
In fact, he was admitted to the hospital later that day as his condition continued to deteriorate. Over the next couple of weeks, he got so bad that a priest administered last rites. At one point he actually flat-lined. He wound up spending months between Moore Regional Hospital and the hospital at Chapel Hill and several more weeks in physical therapy in Pittsboro.
In all, hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent, and a good man (a son and a father) was nearly lost to a condition that could have been diagnosed and treatment begun in the course of a $100 physical.
That's the price we pay when people lack access to health care. In my friend's case, it was diabetes. But for another uninsured person -- whether it is because of poverty, the loss of a job or because of one's legal status -- it might be hepatitis or swine flu.
In cases of infectious diseases, all people who leave conditions untreated for longer than they would if they had access to affordable care raise the level of risk for an entire community. You don't have to know them, you just have to use the shopping cart after them in a grocery store or pick up a box in an aisle where they coughed at the pharmacy.
Health care should be regarded as a right, and that right should exclude no one -- not the poor, not the unemployed and not even those who lack legal residency. We should do this because we are morally compelled to and because it is in our own best interest. It is the right thing to do.
Kevin Smith lives in Aberdeen. Contact him at kevinasmith@gmx.com.

Ill-Founded Claims Concerning Obama

2009-10-23T21:33:00.000-04:00

From The Pilot: October 21, 2009

There were much easier ways for Allan Jefferys to critique Obama's performance to date than the ill-founded constitutional claims raised in his Sunday, Oct. 11 column.
The one easy way he did choose -- Obama's "wasting millions of dollars" flying to Copenhagen -- leads one to wonder why, in the past, he withheld comment on President Bush's 77 trips to Crawford, Texas, on Air Force One (a consequence of which was, per US News, his absence from Washington for 490 days).
More seriously, Jefferys accuses Obama, directly or inferentially, of violating his oath of office by appointing "czars" without the advice and consent of the Senate. While citing the clause in the Constitution requiring consent to presidential appointments, Jefferys omits mention of the qualification in the same clause permitting appointments without Senate consent, i.e., "the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone."
Without this power, government would be paralyzed. It would be analogous to requiring the CEO of General Electric to consult his board for the appointment of each staff member.
Accounts vary, but according to a compilation in Wikipedia, Obama has created 32 so-called czar positions. Bush created 31 during his tenure. A president is confronted with a huge, multifunctional organization and sorely needs advice as to functions that often cross organizational lines. How he chooses to get that advice is quintessentially a management decision. The presidents have usually used the term "czar" as a convenient description of scope. Obama's more extreme critics have managed to conjoin it with their equally absurd charge of Obama's fascist, socialist (or preferably Marxist) march toward the establishment in the United States of a Muslim totalitarian theocracy.
J. Thomas Tidd
Pinehurst

An American Crisis

2009-10-23T21:30:00.000-04:00

From The Pilot: October 21, 2009

I am one of millions of Americans who depend heavily on health insurance, but our monthly premiums are ridiculously high!
Do I want to pay more taxes? Of course not, but I will if it means each American receives the same opportunities I have. This is America -- not some poverty-stricken country!
I am encouraged to fight this cause with Obama because of Sarah, a special person I mentored. I met Sarah in her early teens and was so impressed with her maturity and intelligence. She became like family.
Sarah was raised in a trailer park with deaf parents, and her mother was diagnosed with schizophrenia in Sarah's infancy. Sarah earned a scholarship to the University of Michigan.
Unfortunately, as with many other victims that experience the cruelty of mental illness, the onset of the illness developedsoon after Sarah graduated. Her first hospitalization was followed by others. She now lives as a single mother. As many others in this country, she has become unemployed despite her qualifications. But she has stabilized her bipolar diagnosis with the help of the right medication to control her illness.
Her treatment is due for review as a result of cutbacks with mental health facilities and funds such as Medicaid. If she is left without medication, she will have further episodes without intervention. She could become vulnerable to fall in with others who fight mental illness, which can lead to homelessness, crime and suicide.
What will happen to her innocent child? What will happen to Sarah? Is this fair to any individual? Is this a country we can be proud of?
I urge each one of you to consider supporting Obama in his fight to reform health care. With your trust, he will be able to help all Americans with equal, balanced rights.
Cindy Continenza
Southern Pines

America's Problems Aren't Simple, and Neither Are Solutions

2009-10-23T21:26:00.000-04:00

From The Pilot: October 21, 2009

"What is Barack Obama trying to accomplish as president?" several pundits have recently asked. "Why isn't more being done to lower the unemployment rate? Why is he hesitating to follow the recommendation of Gen. McChrystal and send more troops into Afghanistan?"
These questions reflect the typical impatience of our populace and media, and a superficial understanding of the fact situation that confronts the U.S. This situation is defined by structural causes, developed over a long period of time, that do not lend themselves to short-term solutions.
I believe that President Obama understands these causes and has two overriding missions -- one domestic and one international -- to respond to this situation. Today, I want to address the domestic mission.
The domestic mission is to restore the middle class and the advancement opportunities that have historically been provided by a strong middle class and middle-income jobs. For the past 25 years, an ever-increasing percentage of the U.S .wealth and income has accrued to a very small segment of the population.
Between 1979 and 2005, the average after-tax income for the top 1 percent of earners increased by 176 percent, for the top 20 percent of earners by 69 percent, and for the middle 20 percent of earners by 21 percent. This trend -- which represents the greatest increase in income inequality among the developed, rich nations -- has given the U.S. the highest income inequality among those nations, and the highest in this country since the pre-Depression year of 1928. This result cannot be adequately explained by education, skill and productivity differentials.
It can be explained by tax and deregulation policies that allowed a limited number of individuals to accumulate massive wealth, not by growing companies and creating quality job opportunities for workers, but rather by financial manipulations, including mergers and acquisitions, that result in companies "too big to fail" and generally produce workforce reductions.
We are experiencing a national economic version of "Barbarians at the Gate," the story of how leveraged buy-out artists acquired profitable but undervalued companies and then systematically withdrew funds through cost reductions and the sale of assets.
In many cases, these actions diminished the capacity of the business to survive, much less continue to grow. Of course, the funds were used to make big payouts to stockholders. The other results? Laid-off workers, bankrupt pension plans which became the responsibility of the federal government, and a loss of production capacity in the economy.
What do we see in the U.S. economy?
-- A steady shift away from goods production, which tends to increase wealth in the economy, to services and entertainment, which simply consume existing wealth.
-- Investing in construction of retail shopping malls, office buildings and sports arenas rather than modernizing plants, equipment, transportation and education systems, and utility grids.
--Deferring the downstream costs of environmental pollution and inadequate health care to future generations.
--Making major payouts to high-income earners through lower tax rates.
We have allowed our capacity to produce goods that will generate future income for the U.S. economy to diminish while providing significant short-term income gains to a limited number of Americans. Our economy has been supported, until recently, by the borrowing power of the country and individual consumers, but we have reached the limit of that power.
Until we can redirect this trend, establish a stronger focus on goods production as a significant component of the economy, and strengthen the earnings of the large number of workers (and, thus, their buying power), we will not be able to experience a significant drop in unemployment.
President Obama understands that this redirection will not be achieved by short-term quick fixes, but will require significant new investments in the infrastructure needed to support business growth, particularly for small and medium-size businesses.
This explains his policy focus on using stimulus funds to improve transportation and education, modernize utility systems, develop environmental technologies, and reduce one of the most significant costs to businesses, workers and the US government -- health care.
Yes, these investments are expensive, and they should not be simply passed on to future generations. Those who have disproportionately benefited from the current situation should be expected to disproportionately pay the costs of getting us out of it.
Brian Deaton, who lives in Pinehurst, is a former chairman of the Moore County Democratic Party.

Are Flu Shots Now a Conspiracy, Too?

2009-10-23T21:22:00.000-04:00

From The Pilot: October 18, 2009

I tell you, folks, it's plumb discouraging.
I've said on several occasions that the problem with doing satire these days is staying ahead of reality. I make up something that's so absurd that I assume people will realize it's a joke, and then suddenly something comes along that makes that absurdity look positively normal in comparison.
Until recently, though, I thought I was doing a decent job of staying ahead.
Not any more.
You may recall that last week, I talked about the rejoicing on the Right over the fact that America wasn't getting the Olympics in 2016. Folks like Glenn Beck, Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh were dancing a spiteful jig because President Obama had lobbied to bring the Olympics to Chicago (which, despite what the wingnuts may tell you, really is part of America. Just like Hawaii). If Obama wanted it, their "reasoning" went, then it must be a good thing that it didn't happen. I went on to suggest that, since Mr. Obama had recently signed an order forbidding federal employees from texting while driving, then obviously the thing for any good tea-party patriot to do was go out there and text away behind the wheel. The absurdity there was that anyone would actually think that it was a patriotic idea to do a dangerous thing because Obama said not to. It was a joke, I swear it.
Little did I know that they really have gone that crazy. As Exhibit One, I give you the de facto leader of the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh.
Mr. Limbaugh recently pitched an epic hissy fit on his nationally syndicated radio show over, of all things, flu vaccine. Seems that El Rushbo got his rage on because Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius had done the unthinkable: She'd gone on TV and said that it would be a good idea if people got vaccinated against the flu.
Now, to any reasonable person, this would make sense. After all, the new strain of H1N1 flu is a nasty critter. The family and I had a mild brush with it ourselves, and I can certainly tell you we wish the vaccine had been widely available a couple of weeks ago.
Not Rush, though. He blew a gasket at the very idea. "Screw you, Miss Sebelius!" he shouted on the air. "I'm not going to take it precisely because you're now telling me I must!"
It should be noted that nowhere in any of Miss Sebelius' statements recommending the vaccine did she use the word "must," nor is there any suggestion in any public pronouncement that vaccination should be mandatory. The actual Sebelius quote is: "We strongly urge parents to take precautionary steps. Flu kills every year, and we've got a great vaccine to deal with it."
But apparently, even the suggestion that a swine flu shot would be beneficial to children, coming from an Obama appointee, is tyranny on the same level as the massacre at Tiananmen Square.
"It's not your role, it's not your responsibility, and you do not have that power!" Rush sputtered to a version of Secretary Sebelius that appears to exist only in his head. "How are they gonna make me take it if I refuse to take it? Who the hell do these people think they are?"
Umm ... actually, Rush, public health is actually part of Ms. Sebelius' role and her responsibility. It's the "Health" part of "Health and Human Services." But again, no one is "making" anyone do anything. You want to risk getting the swine flu, have at it, and I wish you joy.
But you folks can see my problem. You have a major leader of American conservatives going on national radio to holler at the top of his lungs that he's not going to do something that no one is trying to make him do.
You have a prominent Republican leader going completely ballistic because a member of the Obama administration "strongly urged" parents (a group to which he does not even belong) to get flu shots for their kids.
How do you even begin to parody these people?
Dusty Rhoades lives, writes and practices law in Carthage. Contact him at dustyr@nc.rr.com.

Prize Recognized Obama's Strengths

2009-10-23T21:15:00.001-04:00

From The Pilot: October 16, 2009

The conversation about President Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize has omitted an important consideration -- presence. Much of what I read is that he hasn't done anything to merit such recognition. I disagree.
Obama has opened the door to worldwide dialogue. Conscious presence includes listening, respecting, clarifying, understanding, experiencing the others' path without relinquishing our own position -- opening our hand to those willing to unclench their fist.
Conscious presence seeks common ground rather than stubbornly defending our own position. It's not an accommodation or a giving up of our self, thoughts or beliefs.

What we think and believe, if it includes respect for the other side, grants us the capacity to hear, be present, understand and respond without compromising our own position. Out of mutual respect comes a direction -- not so much a compromise but a way to work together -- a new place that leads us beyond bias, a place where disagreements are held in creative tension with agreements.
We stop demanding, defending and do more listening and clarifying. This respectful process moves adversaries from restrictive defensiveness to constructive openness. It's a scary proposition because it feels like we're compromising and losing control.
Yes, anger, frustration and exasperation may be part of the process, but in the end, presence helps us achieve balance and respect.
In my opinion it takes incredible strength to enter into dialogue with those who see reality differently than we do. Of course, there are those who laugh at this position and see it as naive.
Extremists would see it as an opportunity for conquest. We don't fight or argue with them. We seek common ground with those who want respect and peace.
The Nobel Committee recognized Obama for bringing this presence to world dialogue.
Charles Griffin
Seven Lakes

Insurance Firms are Buying Votes

2009-10-23T21:13:00.000-04:00

From The Pilot: October 16, 2009

What a money trail -- The New York Times reports that the health insurance industry is spending $1.4 million per day to defeat health care reform.
So it now seems clear who's bank rolling some of these negative ads. CNN reports a mathematical relationship between how much industry money a legislator has accepted and that legislator's position on health care reform. The more money accepted, the more likely he or she is to oppose reform. These latter figures, speaking as they do to a powerful, corrupting influence, should be publicized more widely.
For myself, I have been listening to Wendell Potter. For close to 20 years, Potter, as a Cigna Communications executive, saw the contradiction between what was real and what he told the public. Mindful of his hypocrisy, and disgusted with the business, he left Cigna. As a result, he easily sees through what's going on right now.
His accounts remind me of what insiders in another industry had to say about their former employers. That industry? Big tobacco. Big tobacco knew the truth for years but told the public the opposite. That fight for honesty has been going on for four decades. Indeed it's still not over.

Potter's analysis only helps confirm what the money trail above already says. Health insurers are using health care premiums to finance the defeat of health care reform. Surely, we can deal more effectively with the health insurance industry than we have been doing with the tobacco industry. Surely we are not going to be fooled by the same sort of double talk -- a campaign Potter has called "disingenuous" and "duplicitous" from the beginning. Why succumb to these distortions? We don't have to give in. I have written to our North Carolina Senators and Congressman. I urge you to do the same!
Edward N. Squire Jr.
Seven Lakes

Freedom of Choice

2009-10-23T18:56:00.000-04:00

From The Pilot: October 11, 2009

Allan Jefferys worries over the loss of our freedom of choice in his Sept. 9 column in The Pilot. In typical far-right language, he preys on the fears of that portion of the populace who rely on others to do their thinking for them.
I found it amusing that he manages to contradict himself in every other paragraph. He rants on about keeping our freedom of choice, then goes on to tell us that your freedom of choice must be limited to only certain things.
No way we can choose to pursue any "radical ideas." Just come up with an idea and the right will tell you if it's radical or not. All those not agreeing with their views are "ignoring the Constitution" and trampling on the Bill of Rights. On this point, I'll have to say that the Republican Party has some experience, given the last eight years of its administration.
One of the most laughable comments was about marriage, where Jefferys stated that you don't want to lose your choice to "marry above your station or below it or even choose your own gender." Gee, I guess I forgot the folks on the right were in favor of gay marriage and were doing everything in their power to see that you have that choice.

Even the Dusty Rhoades column that appeared on the same page offered irony on the subject. Rhoades discussed how the U.S. Congress phone service was attempting to allow each member of Congress to choose their own music selections while callers were on hold. The right-wingers exploded in outrage and accused Nancy Pelosi of hating patriotic music, which is what is now played as on-hold music. So much for having that choice, which Jefferys felt so strongly about.
Jim Russell
Vass

Have We Fulfilled Jefferson's Vision?

2009-10-23T18:47:00.000-04:00

From The Pilot: October 9, 2009

"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government." -- Thomas Jefferson
Ah, Thomas, howd'ya like us now, eh? Have we fulfilled the vision? Have we exceeded your expectations? You put the word "life" in front of liberty and happiness. Was this a result of phonetic cadence, or did you itemize those three words in order of importance?
Glenn, Rush and Bill tell us not to dwell too long on such niceties, and yet, I cannot help but wonder why they're so adamant we pay no attention whatsoever to your words in lieu of their Coors Light, OxyContin and "falafel" sponge-induced talking points?
Are your words worthy of deeper investigation, Thomas? Could it be you surmised the social consideration of the care and quality of human life in our fledgling nation to be paramount above all else? Would this not make you, according to the Three Stooges mentioned above, a communist Nazi who wanted to kill my grandmother via death panel committee?
Thomas, I have objectively studied history. I am able to contextualize what you wrote so many years ago against my contemporary self-interests. Despite traditional Christian values that state I should sacrifice all I am, and all that I have, for the common good of those around me, I cannot be sure (according to Glenn, Rush and Bill) that I am right. Should I abdicate common sense for common suspicion, Thomas? Is forsaking fact and demonstrable consideration for an intense, irrational and insatiable hatred of anyone who opposes pedantry a viable course of action? Do we still need the compassion and selflessness of our Creator when we can take shelter in the bourgeois social protectionism of Fox News?
Tell me, Mr. Jefferson -- I need to know.
Timothy B. Smith
Southern Pines

What Ever Happened to 'Country First'?

2009-10-23T18:38:00.000-04:00

From The Pilot: October 9, 2009

After the International Olympic Committee announced that Rio de Janeiro and not Chicago would be getting the 2016 Olympics, many Americans were disappointed that the event wouldn't be held on our soil. Certainly President Barack Obama was, since he had flown to Copenhagen to lobby personally for his adopted hometown.

Not those good Americans at the conservative magazine The Weekly Standard, though. "Cheers erupt at Weekly Standard world headquarters," wrote Editor John McCormack in an online post titled "Chicago Loses! Chicago Loses!"

Glenn Beck was also beside himself with glee. "Please, please let me break this news to you. It's so sweet," he chortled on his radio show before reporting that a foreign city would be getting the Olympics rather than an American one.

Rush Limbaugh was unapologetic in his joy over America's loss: "I don't deny it. I'm happy," he said.

The right-wing Web site NewsMax, which last week ran an article fantasizing about a military coup against the government, showed us that they were down with that crazy Internet-speak all the kids are using these days. "Chicago PWNED!" they Twittered.

(In case you're not familiar, PWNED is one of those online misspellings that's become so common it's used as a substitute for the actual word. So, PWNED equals OWNED, which equals "decisively defeated.")

Why were they so pleased? Wouldn't hosting the Olympics be a good thing, not just for Chicago, but for the U.S.A.?

Actually, whether the Olympics are that big a boon depends on who you ask. Some cities, such as Barcelona, got a boost in prestige and tourism from the Olympics. Some, like Montreal, reported losing money on the deal, at least in the short run.

But the folks celebrating the loss never reached that argument. To the leaders of the modern conservative movement, whether or not something is good for the country is irrelevant if they think it gives President Obama a black eye.

Rush Limbaugh said it explicitly. "Anything that gets in the way of Barack Obama accomplishing his domestic agenda is fine with me," he said.

"No Obamalympics," Michelle Malkin agreed.

Remember how right-wingers used to be so outraged about "liberals" being happy when America loses (while never being able to actually point to any real people who ever expressed any such joy)? Just look at them now. So much for "country first."

But what's next? After the rich, warm glow of spiteful satisfaction from this loss wears off, where can the concerned wingnut go to show President Obama he won't knuckle under to his Muslimcommiefascist agenda?

I have just the thing for you. Last Wednesday, President Obama signed an executive order forbidding federal employees to text while driving. The order, according to The Washington Post, "covers federal employees when they are using government-provided cars or cell phones and when they are using their own phones and cars to conduct government business."

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood claimed that the ban "sends a very clear signal to the American public that distracted driving is dangerous and unacceptable."

On the surface, this may seem like a sensible precaution. But remember, anything President Obama supports, whether it be working hard and staying in school, bringing the Olympics to America, or paying attention to where the heck you're going when you drive, is something that you, as a good conservative, must oppose to your last breath.

So make sure your cell phone is equipped to send texts (or, as we'll be calling them from now on, "Freedom Messages"). Then gas up the SUV, get out there on the road, and start tap-tapping away. Spread the word far and wide that you won't be cowed by the foreign-born Islaminazi Marxist and his evil agenda of safety.

And why restrict yourself just to text messages? Twitter. E-mail. Check out the latest funny cat pictures on-line. Show everyone that there are still some proud, freedom-loving patriots out there willing to take a stand and push back against anything that President Obama's for.

Wear your dents and accident-related injuries with pride. And if, God forbid, the worst should happen, be sure to leave instructions that your tombstone should read, "I Really Showed YOU, Barack Hussein Obama!"

C'mon. Do it for Liberty.

Dusty Rhoades lives, writes and practices law in Carthage. Contact him at dustyr@nc.rr.com.