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.
Moore Progressive
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Monday, August 16, 2010
Understanding Steve Slater's Airline Rage
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
From Charlotte Observer
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.
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
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Polarizing Again Over the 'M' Word
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.
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?
From Indyweek.com
by Bob Geary
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."
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Conservatives Unveil a New Secret Weapon
From The Pilot
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.
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
 |
| (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
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.
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
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.
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.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
State's Well-Connected Demagogues Display No Shame
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Better Be Preparing for the Budget Storm
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
A letter to losers (of jobs)
From The Raleigh News and Observer
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.
"The president knows that Republicans support extending unemployment insurance..."
House Republican Leader
John Boehner
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.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Fishermen rebuild oyster reefs with stimulus money
From Raleigh News and Observer
he Associated Press
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Marshall, Burr volley over jobless benefits
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.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."
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."
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Marching toward Arizona
From NC Policy Watch
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.
Tuesday, July 20th, 2010
By Chris FitzsimonIf 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
From Blue NC
Submitted by scharrison on Tue, 07/20/2010 - 2:38pm
Submitted by scharrison on Tue, 07/20/2010 - 2:38pm
I received this earlier today via e-mail from a Governor's Focus member:
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:
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.
U.S. Senator Kay R. Hagan (D-NC) yesterday cosponsored a bipartisan bill to help service members access mental health care services...Here's the core of the problem Kay is trying to fix:
“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.”
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.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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)