You don't have to take it folks. You don't have to stand by and watch bad things done in your communities. I just left a group of people who are a living testament to that fact.
A few of you may recall my previous blog To Live in an Industrial Wasteland which was about, in part, the fact that the company, Republic, that mangaes our (Person Co.'s) landfill wishes to nearly triple the daily tonnage going into said landfill. Over 1400 county residents live within 2 miles of the landfill and their lives are already negatively impacted by the 650 tons that get deposited daily.
We thought the issue had died a timely death a year or two ago when public outcry led by a newly formed grassroots organization appeared to influence the county commissioners enough to get them to vote against the expansion proposal. But one of them changed his mind over the summe of 2007r and so recently our commissioners voted to procede with the process of granting Republic a special use permit that would be their first concrete step in getting all their necessary permits for the planned expansion.
Before the special use permit gets voted on the commissioners have to hold a public hearing. Tonight that grassroots organization invited a lawyer who specializes in this sort of concern to attend a special meeting. At tonight's meeting he was hired to represent the organization and he discussed the legalities and details pertaining the special use permit. As a result, at the public hearing the 17th of this month our county commissioners are going to be in for a surprise for instead of a few locals voicing concerns that they have heard over and over they will encounter 12-15 residents speaking directly to the specific concerns of the relevant ordinances and a lawyer ready to cross examine witnesses testifying for Republic.
I am very proud of to be associated with that group of "little people" who are standing up and taking on the corporate interests and the political sellouts who together ruin lives with their shortsighted greed.
Not on our watch!!!
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Where are they now ... (aka the Peter Principle lives)
"Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job!!" is one of the saddest catch phrases to come out of the Bush administration. You know why. "Brownie" was sacked and dismissed from government work, but his chief of staff, Patrick Rhode had a different fate. Rhode was the guy who, while New Orleans was drowning, emailed his boss, "Brownie", to say that he was having his hair moussed for a tv appearance rather than coordinating relief for the victims of Katrina. Needless to say he was canned along with his boss and dismissed from government work, right, .... right...???
Wrong. In Jan. 2007 he was hired as a senior advisor to the office of the administrator for NASA. His qualifications: he was an event planner for the Bush campaign in 2000 and prior to that he was a tv reporter. Hopefully he just draws his salary and surfs the internet for hair care products, 'cause I'd hate to think that he's getting paid with our tax dollars and screwing up NASA.
But wait, there's more. The name Hans A. von Spakovsky is not easy to say (or type), but he was counsel to the asst. Attorney General for civil rights from 2003-2005. In that job his speciality was suppressing minority voting rights, and he led efforts to purge voter roles of poor and minority voters. It should come as no real surprise then that he worked for the Bush campaign on the Florida recount in 2000. While he wasn't entirely successful in his efforts to purge voters, fifty percent of the career employees in his section quit on his watch. After his rather nefarious stint in the AG's office he was naturally appointed to the Federal Elections Commission. Fair elections? Impartial monitoring of elections? Expanding democracy by involving more voters in the process? HA!!, ... and HA!! again.
The disdain the Bush administration shows for our country's government and the citizens it is supposed to work for is just unspeakably galling.
The above is taken from the current issue of Mother Jones and therein are more examples similar to the two included here. The author of the Mother Jones article is Joshua Kurlantzick.
Thanks for reading.
Mike
Wrong. In Jan. 2007 he was hired as a senior advisor to the office of the administrator for NASA. His qualifications: he was an event planner for the Bush campaign in 2000 and prior to that he was a tv reporter. Hopefully he just draws his salary and surfs the internet for hair care products, 'cause I'd hate to think that he's getting paid with our tax dollars and screwing up NASA.
But wait, there's more. The name Hans A. von Spakovsky is not easy to say (or type), but he was counsel to the asst. Attorney General for civil rights from 2003-2005. In that job his speciality was suppressing minority voting rights, and he led efforts to purge voter roles of poor and minority voters. It should come as no real surprise then that he worked for the Bush campaign on the Florida recount in 2000. While he wasn't entirely successful in his efforts to purge voters, fifty percent of the career employees in his section quit on his watch. After his rather nefarious stint in the AG's office he was naturally appointed to the Federal Elections Commission. Fair elections? Impartial monitoring of elections? Expanding democracy by involving more voters in the process? HA!!, ... and HA!! again.
The disdain the Bush administration shows for our country's government and the citizens it is supposed to work for is just unspeakably galling.
The above is taken from the current issue of Mother Jones and therein are more examples similar to the two included here. The author of the Mother Jones article is Joshua Kurlantzick.
Thanks for reading.
Mike
Monday, August 13, 2007
To live in an industrial wasteland
or not. That is the question facing Person County, my home. We already have two large coal fired power plants in place in the northern part of the county; the Hyco lake plant is one of the most polluting power generating facilities in the country. We have a midsized commercial landfill in the southeast corner of the county that handles our trash and some trash from adjacent counties. We also have a Georgia-Pacific paper operation and a few lesser industries already in place.
But changes are coming and the future doesn't look good. Two new asphalt plants will be setting up shop in the county, possibly a quarry (explosions and big trucks on our roads) and the company that runs the land fill wants to triple the daily tonnage going into the landfill. Trucks already run every couple of minutes into the landfill, carrying the 650 tons that get dumped everyday. Recently our county commissioners voted to procede with the landfill expansion process (it's not a done deal ... yet) in spite of long and loud public opposition. The quality of life for those people living in that corner of the county has already diminished greatly due to odors, trash along the roads, noise from the trucks and worry over contaminated water sources. I cannot imagine what their lives will be like if the expansion becomes a reality.
Person County is on the verge of becoming an industrial wasteland, with polluted air and water poisoning our citizens. Children will be especially susceptible to the toxins these corporate operations will pump into our environment; toxins that will persist for decades. According to the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Person County is already one of the most polluted counties in the nation. We have a higher thasn normal cancer rate. Could the two facts be related? Probably.
What sensible company (i.e. non-polluting) would want to bring their employees and their families to Person County with our stinking air, questionable water quality and the constant cacaphony of explosions and heavy trucks assaulting the ear?
This madness must end if Person County is to have any kind of positive future. We cannot continue down this road any further else the coming generations will flee as fast as they can, for the grass will be greener just about anywhere else.
Thanks for reading.
But changes are coming and the future doesn't look good. Two new asphalt plants will be setting up shop in the county, possibly a quarry (explosions and big trucks on our roads) and the company that runs the land fill wants to triple the daily tonnage going into the landfill. Trucks already run every couple of minutes into the landfill, carrying the 650 tons that get dumped everyday. Recently our county commissioners voted to procede with the landfill expansion process (it's not a done deal ... yet) in spite of long and loud public opposition. The quality of life for those people living in that corner of the county has already diminished greatly due to odors, trash along the roads, noise from the trucks and worry over contaminated water sources. I cannot imagine what their lives will be like if the expansion becomes a reality.
Person County is on the verge of becoming an industrial wasteland, with polluted air and water poisoning our citizens. Children will be especially susceptible to the toxins these corporate operations will pump into our environment; toxins that will persist for decades. According to the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Person County is already one of the most polluted counties in the nation. We have a higher thasn normal cancer rate. Could the two facts be related? Probably.
What sensible company (i.e. non-polluting) would want to bring their employees and their families to Person County with our stinking air, questionable water quality and the constant cacaphony of explosions and heavy trucks assaulting the ear?
This madness must end if Person County is to have any kind of positive future. We cannot continue down this road any further else the coming generations will flee as fast as they can, for the grass will be greener just about anywhere else.
Thanks for reading.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Ethanol doesn't deliver
Presidential candidates from both main parties are singing the praises of ethanol, particularly the E-85 variant. Iowa, home of the first presidential caucus in the country, just happens to be a corn state. Coincidence? Ummm - of course not.
Legislatures are tripping over themselves passing bills making ethanol the next big thing, the answer than can keep the twin boogeymen of foreign oil dependancy and global warming at bay.
But ethanol is really not all that they want it to be. E-85 vehicles get significantly less miles per gallon than gasoline powered vehicles, 20 - 30% less.
Here is a quote from FactCheck.org:
"The latest Clean Cities Alternative Fuels Price Report, which was issued in March and is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy, shows the average retail price per gallon of E85 was approximately 20 cents less than that of gasoline, but ethanol was 66 cents more expensive when measured as a per-gallon gasoline equivalent"
The rest of the factcheck.org analysis can be found here.
Ethanol isn't the answer and looks be another way to continue, and even increase, government subsidies for huge agribusinesses like Archers Daniel Midland. Corporate welfare, such as has been enjoyed by the oil industry for years, is also alive and well in agriculture.
A couple of researchers from Cornell showed that producing a gallon of ethanol took more than a gallon of gasoline. Their findings are considered an exaggeration, but even other researchers who support ethanol say that at best it takes about 3/4 of a gallon of gas to produce one gallon of ethanol. Ethanol which contains 20-30% less energy.
Since it takes at least 3/4 of a gallon of gas to produce a gallon of ethanol it might not ever become cost efficient to use E-85 rather than straight gas or diesel since as the price of gas increases so will the inherent cost of the ethanol. That is an analysis waiting to be done.
An all electric infrastructure for our vehicles is the real answer, probably starting with a plug-in hybrid or the GM Volt within a few years. The problem is that the pesky suns shines near about everywhere and so is available to anyone who might want to get a rack of solar panels and a a storage battery or two with which to power up their car overnight. But then Exxon and/or Archers Daniel Midland would be cut off from their main source of profit (and subsidies) and we can't have that now, can we?
Thanks for reading.
Legislatures are tripping over themselves passing bills making ethanol the next big thing, the answer than can keep the twin boogeymen of foreign oil dependancy and global warming at bay.
But ethanol is really not all that they want it to be. E-85 vehicles get significantly less miles per gallon than gasoline powered vehicles, 20 - 30% less.
Here is a quote from FactCheck.org:
"The latest Clean Cities Alternative Fuels Price Report, which was issued in March and is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy, shows the average retail price per gallon of E85 was approximately 20 cents less than that of gasoline, but ethanol was 66 cents more expensive when measured as a per-gallon gasoline equivalent"
The rest of the factcheck.org analysis can be found here.
Ethanol isn't the answer and looks be another way to continue, and even increase, government subsidies for huge agribusinesses like Archers Daniel Midland. Corporate welfare, such as has been enjoyed by the oil industry for years, is also alive and well in agriculture.
A couple of researchers from Cornell showed that producing a gallon of ethanol took more than a gallon of gasoline. Their findings are considered an exaggeration, but even other researchers who support ethanol say that at best it takes about 3/4 of a gallon of gas to produce one gallon of ethanol. Ethanol which contains 20-30% less energy.
Since it takes at least 3/4 of a gallon of gas to produce a gallon of ethanol it might not ever become cost efficient to use E-85 rather than straight gas or diesel since as the price of gas increases so will the inherent cost of the ethanol. That is an analysis waiting to be done.
An all electric infrastructure for our vehicles is the real answer, probably starting with a plug-in hybrid or the GM Volt within a few years. The problem is that the pesky suns shines near about everywhere and so is available to anyone who might want to get a rack of solar panels and a a storage battery or two with which to power up their car overnight. But then Exxon and/or Archers Daniel Midland would be cut off from their main source of profit (and subsidies) and we can't have that now, can we?
Thanks for reading.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
No taxes = no services
The following should run as an editorial in the Roxboro Courier-Times either June 30 or July 4.
Editor
Roxboro Courier Times
Dear Sir,
I prefer elected officials who are responsible, responsive and far sighted, and, as such, I am glad that our democratic county commissioners voted for the recently passed budget.
In the Courier-Times of 6-27-07 both republican commissioners expressed their approval for the increases in financial support to education and public safety yet both opposed the .05/$100 property tax increase. Both republicans attended several budget working sessions, the budget has been available for a month, yet neither could cite a single specific example of the excessive spending they complained about nor did they offer any well thought out alternatives.
Mr. Puryear suggested that the budget should be left as it was but without the .05 increase, running a deficit for the second year in a row and drawing the fund balance down to 15%, which would be at least 10% below recommended levels. Endangering the financial security of the county and procrastinating in such a way seems both irresponsible and immature.
We now have a budget that improves funding for schools and law enforcement, both important economic draws for getting new industries to come to Person County, and improves the long term financial health of the county by restoring the fund balance to near recommended levels.
The average homeowner’s taxes will go up by about $60 a year, and the property tax rate will put Person even with Granville and still way less than Durham and Orange. Caswell is lower than Person but has 70% of the population and a barely positive growth rate.
The future is not revenue neutral. Gas price increases, fickle weather, population increases and inflation necessitate either revenue growth or a decrease in services. I applaud Mr. Lunsford, Mr. Clayton and Mr. Bowes for supporting a budget that takes care of our needs responsibly while ensuring the long term financial health of Person County.
Thank you.
Thanks for reading.
Mike
Editor
Roxboro Courier Times
Dear Sir,
I prefer elected officials who are responsible, responsive and far sighted, and, as such, I am glad that our democratic county commissioners voted for the recently passed budget.
In the Courier-Times of 6-27-07 both republican commissioners expressed their approval for the increases in financial support to education and public safety yet both opposed the .05/$100 property tax increase. Both republicans attended several budget working sessions, the budget has been available for a month, yet neither could cite a single specific example of the excessive spending they complained about nor did they offer any well thought out alternatives.
Mr. Puryear suggested that the budget should be left as it was but without the .05 increase, running a deficit for the second year in a row and drawing the fund balance down to 15%, which would be at least 10% below recommended levels. Endangering the financial security of the county and procrastinating in such a way seems both irresponsible and immature.
We now have a budget that improves funding for schools and law enforcement, both important economic draws for getting new industries to come to Person County, and improves the long term financial health of the county by restoring the fund balance to near recommended levels.
The average homeowner’s taxes will go up by about $60 a year, and the property tax rate will put Person even with Granville and still way less than Durham and Orange. Caswell is lower than Person but has 70% of the population and a barely positive growth rate.
The future is not revenue neutral. Gas price increases, fickle weather, population increases and inflation necessitate either revenue growth or a decrease in services. I applaud Mr. Lunsford, Mr. Clayton and Mr. Bowes for supporting a budget that takes care of our needs responsibly while ensuring the long term financial health of Person County.
Thank you.
Thanks for reading.
Mike
Friday, June 22, 2007
Dole and Burr buddy up to Big Oil
Yesterday, June 22, our esteemed senators voted against HR 6, the energy bill that was up for a final vote in the Senate, having already been approved by the House. HR 6 does some very nice things that have been needed for a long, long time. It raises the national fuel standards for passenger vehicles 40% and closes the SUV loophole, promotes alternative energy sources, stiffens penalties for price gouging, and promotes ethanol and energy efficient technologies. The CAFE standards (cars's MPG) hadn't been adjusted since 1989, and now even communist China's cars have better overall fuel efficiency than the United States. If American auto makers follow these new standards and don't find a way to weasel out of them as they did in California in the 90's, then by 2020 our cars will be as efficient as China's are now.
Along the way to the final vote, Burr and Dole voted against rasing 29 billion dollars in taxes on the oil industry over 10 years to pay for clean energy promotion. The excuse is that it would hurt the industry and drive up prices at the pump. Of course our dynamic duo must have overlooked the fact that Exxon and friends made 101 billion dollars in profits in 2006.
You may be thinking - "I wonder if Dole and Burr got any donations from Big Oil in their last elections?". Well, yes they did. According to opensecrets.org Dole received over $120,000 in 2002 and Burr got over $220,000 in 2004. They were 11th and 8th respectively on a list of recipients of contributions from the oil industry.
A CBS/New York Times poll taken in April found that 92% of respondents favored higher fuel efficiency standards for cars made in the US (full poll results here ). As their votes reflect a total lack of respect for the views of the people and put the interests of an industry fat with profits ahead of the public interest, Dole and Burr should have some serious political consequences to face come election time. Too bad only Dole will be on the ballot next year.
Thanks for reading.
Mike
Along the way to the final vote, Burr and Dole voted against rasing 29 billion dollars in taxes on the oil industry over 10 years to pay for clean energy promotion. The excuse is that it would hurt the industry and drive up prices at the pump. Of course our dynamic duo must have overlooked the fact that Exxon and friends made 101 billion dollars in profits in 2006.
You may be thinking - "I wonder if Dole and Burr got any donations from Big Oil in their last elections?". Well, yes they did. According to opensecrets.org Dole received over $120,000 in 2002 and Burr got over $220,000 in 2004. They were 11th and 8th respectively on a list of recipients of contributions from the oil industry.
A CBS/New York Times poll taken in April found that 92% of respondents favored higher fuel efficiency standards for cars made in the US (full poll results here ). As their votes reflect a total lack of respect for the views of the people and put the interests of an industry fat with profits ahead of the public interest, Dole and Burr should have some serious political consequences to face come election time. Too bad only Dole will be on the ballot next year.
Thanks for reading.
Mike
Monday, June 18, 2007
Tax cuts = revenue, not necessarily
Oh course this is the golden excuse republicans give for cutting taxes. They throw a bone or two to the middle and lower classes and then they hack at corporate, capital gains, dividend and estate taxes for all they're worth. Recently John McCain tried to perpetuate the myth that by cutting taxes, the government gains revenue because the economy expands and the private sector ends up paying more in taxes as a whole. This is the foundation of Bush's reasoning behind wanting to make his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent.
The truth is, of course, not mentioned by McCain nor by Bush administration officials. Here's a dose of reality courtesy of Factcheck.org:
In fact, the last half-dozen years have shown us that we can't have both lower taxes and fatter government coffers. The Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers and a former Bush administration economist all say that tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been – even if they spur some economic growth. (Robertson, 6-11-2007)
The full story with analysis and sources can be found here: http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html
You would have thought that McCain would have known better, and at one time he did as he voted against the 2003 tax cuts. He has become such a toady for the right wing now that he now feels he must genuflect before the altar of supply side dogma.
Next time you hear that "tax cuts = revenues" nonsense just think about that wonderful supply side catch phrase from the Eighties - "Trickle down eoconomics" and remember just who it was that got trickled on then and who it is that is getting trickled on now.
Thanks for reading.
Mike
The truth is, of course, not mentioned by McCain nor by Bush administration officials. Here's a dose of reality courtesy of Factcheck.org:
In fact, the last half-dozen years have shown us that we can't have both lower taxes and fatter government coffers. The Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers and a former Bush administration economist all say that tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been – even if they spur some economic growth. (Robertson, 6-11-2007)
The full story with analysis and sources can be found here: http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html
You would have thought that McCain would have known better, and at one time he did as he voted against the 2003 tax cuts. He has become such a toady for the right wing now that he now feels he must genuflect before the altar of supply side dogma.
Next time you hear that "tax cuts = revenues" nonsense just think about that wonderful supply side catch phrase from the Eighties - "Trickle down eoconomics" and remember just who it was that got trickled on then and who it is that is getting trickled on now.
Thanks for reading.
Mike
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)