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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)