Worst case scenarios: Nightmare on Blount Street

Thanks to Citizens United, the sign currently in front of the Governor's Mansion is a For Sale sign. If Pat McCrory were to get his way, however, we'd soon see a more ominous sign out front. Though some carbonistas would love to see that happen, most sane people understand that the interests of Duke Energy and the interests of We the People have almost no commonality.


Putting aside the fact...

that there is no longer any relationship between Pat McCrory and Duke Power, the common interest that the people of NC have with Duke Power is low cost energy. Are you suggesting that only the Republicans are influenced by special interests? The Democrats are equally in that pig slop.

I'm not a Democrat

and I suggested nothing of the sort.

Thinking there's no relationship between Duke Energy and Pat McCrory is like thinking there's no relationship between burning coal and air pollution. In other words, it's denying reality. We might differ as to the consequences of the relationship, but as the existence of the relationship, don't kid yourself.

Of course, I suppose all of his Duke Energy friends from 2008 might have magically disappeared or started giving to Democrats.

Ooops. I was wrong.

In 2008 Pat was employed by Duke Energy.

He no longer is. So your portrayal of him being the Duke Energy candidate is a false assertion. Times change, the head of Duke Energy supported Obama's Cap and Trade plan. Shall we look at how much Duke Energy has contributed to Democrats?

I'm actually looking forward to Pat McCrory becoming Governor, I think he will be great Governor. He was well liked as Mayor of Charlotte. The current Governor is not as well liked in this state.

Pat McCrory

would be a rubber stamp for Duke Energy, just as he has been his whole political career. Employed or not, he IS the candidate of Duke Energy.

(Duke Energy gives less than half to Dems what it gives to Reps. You should learn to follow links.)

McCrory would also be a disaster for women and families. He supports the GOP decimation of public education and further erosion of abortion rights.

He also wants to spend millions on "Voter ID" to stop a problem that doesn't exist. Now that's what I call fiscal responsibility!

You act like Duke Energy is the evil empire.

Where's the beef? They happen to be a good corporate citizen of NC and keep costs low for the consumers.

I don't agree that he is the candidate for Duke Energy considering their current chairman is raising money for the Democratic Convention in Charlotte and is big supporter of Obama (which is probably a losing proposition right now).

How do you reckon McCrory would be a disaster for women and families. Women and families support his election. Getting public educations spending down to reasonable levels is good for the taxpayer (who also happen to be women and families). We can eliminate the Pre K Day Care Program and make a huge dent on our spending. How many assistant principals, counselors and police men are enough in the schools? The spending doesn't get us any good results in improving education. Many women are also advocating restrictions in "abortion rights".

How does requiring someone to show a voter photo ID cost millions? The banks already require us to show an id so there is no additional cost to protecting the rights of voters from fraud.

My answers to James.

I don't support abortions except for rape and when the mother's life is in danger.

No opinion on the rights of homosexuals to marry. Don't they already have something called civil unions? Don't civil unions do the same thing as marriage with regards to insurance etc? I believe marriage is best left to the churches to define. I really don't know much about this item. In general I hold no grudges against homosexuality and prefer not to get involved with their business or preferences.

I don't use Google, do you get income from them or something? Other search engines work just fine.

You make a good point on taxpayer subsidies for energy. Why do we need them at all? I suggest we eliminate them along with subsidies for "green energy". In fact while we're at it, let's eliminate the entire Department of Energy. We need to be working on getting this federal deficit under control, don't you agree?


I am a fan of debt. It is how I financed my three houses and my two businesses.

If you're serious about understanding the issue, I suggest you read Deficit Hysteria. There you'll discover that debt is simply a tool, like any other tool, to be used to achieve certain goals.

For example, debt was used to finance George Bush's idiotic war in Iraq and Afghanistan. (We're still paying for those little adventures, of course.) It was also used to bail out Big Banks and to subsidize Big Corn, Big Oil, Big Bombs, Big Insurance and Big Pharma. I personally would have rather used debt to finance public health here in the U.S.

It's interesting that you say you prefer not to get involved in the lives of homosexuals, even as you claim to support a candidate for governor who would do just that.

For what it's worth, I'm always interested in new voices at BlueNC, and generally go to great lengths to engage in discussions with those who hold different opinions. After a few rounds with you, however, I think I'll move to the sidelines. I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I'm know a brick wall when I see one.

PS Thirty-five percent of all women in America will have an abortion at some point in their lives. Thank god we have men like you to set them straight.

James, maybe you are the brick wall.

What makes you think that I don't understand the issue? I agree we stayed way too long in Iraq, which was costly. We should not have bailed out the banks, and the rest of them either.

We also wasted a great opportunity with the stimulus. Obama chose to send money to the state and local governments to bail them out temporarily. How did he think that was going to stimulate anything?

Tell me James, do you support everything that Perdue has done? We will not agree with our chosen candidate on every issue will we? On balance he will be good for the state.

I'm disappointed in my fellow mankind if what you said is true regarding 35% of women having abortions. Being a citizen and an adult means making responsible decisions.

Stayed too long?

Should have never gone in.

Of course I don't support everything Perdue has done. Frankly, if you'd been reading BlueNC for the past six years, you'd have seen more criticism than praise. And I also think McCrory is not entirely worthless.

But some issues are non-negotiable, and a woman's right to choose to have an abortion is one of them. McCrory has said he is "pro-life." That means he would threaten abortion rights and work to overturn Roe v. Wade. That means rich women would continue to get safe (even illegal) abortions when they want them, while poor women would die in the streets from botched attempts to hold their fragile lives together.

It's not a matter of "if" what I said is true. Some facts are facts, even if they happen to disappoint you. Do your own research. Abortion has been a fact of human existence for thousands of years.

And for the record, it's "womankind" you're disappointed in. No man has ever had an abortion.

This is something where comprimise is necessary.

Sorry, I made an incorrect assumption and stand corrected. I appreciate your balanced critism of Perdue and McCrory.

Just because we have had abortion for several years does not make it right. How are rich women going to get abortions if the process is made illegal? You make a good point about back alley abortions and we need to somehow stop those from happening.

Is there room for comprimise? Can we allow women one mistake abortion but none after that? Abortion is not just a woman's perogative, the father should have a say as well. It takes two to tango.

The compromise has already been made

It's called Roe v. Wade.

The right wing is now trying to chip away at abortion rights in every state of the union.

I'm sorry to disagree strongly with your assertion. Abortion is 100% a woman's choice. The father should have no say unless the woman wants him too. It may take two to tango, but it only takes one to carry a pregnancy to term. The idea that a man could force his wife to keep making babies is unthinkable.

As to your idea of one mistake, I don't buy it. Abortion, with all the restrictions imposed by Roe v. Wade, is a woman's right, pure and simple. Once you start imposing more constraints, you slip into the land of "a fetus is a person," which was on the ballot as a constitutional amendment in Mississippi this year. That's a path that any sane person would steer clear of because it leads inexorably to once conclusion: a woman who has an abortion is a premeditated murderer, and in states with capital punishment, premeditated murder demands the death penalty.

Imagine a world in which 35% of the women in a society could be put to death because they had abortions. Is that a world you want to see?

No indeed.

I have to strongly disagree with you as well. The father is a partner in the process and he has rights as well. They both need to arrive at an agreement.

Since you will not compromise, my position remains unchanged. Is it a women's right to kill her husband? Why is it only her right to abort the child? There are no rights that are held by one sex over the other. We are all supposed to be equal.

Is the father responsible for helping to raise the child when it's born or is that only the women's right? You can't have it both ways.

Debt problem?

When exactly did we start having this "debt problem"? If the "debt problem" is critical now, at what point in our history was debt not critical? Is the "debt problem" defined in terms of overall dollars of debt, debt-to-GDP ratio, or some other metric -- so that one can go to a graph or chart and say "we have a debt problem"?

As for the stimulus, some money did go to state and local governments, to allow them to continue to keep school teachers and police officers employed. The alternative was to put them out of work, collecting unemployment benefits, and losing x number of dollars of demand in the economy. Most economists agree that the "stimulus" probably kept the unemployment rate at about 1.5% below what it would have been without the stimulus.

About $288 billion of the ARRA was in the form of tax cuts. About $155 billion went to healthcare, including about $86 billion to Medicaid. About $100 billion went to education, including about $53 billion to keep teachers employed and provide funds for schools to upgrade facilities (including energy efficiency improvements). About $80 billion went to extend unemployment benefits and other benefits for low income and unemployed Americans (including job training). The infrastructure investment portion was about $105 billion, including investments in transportation, government buildings, housing, etc.

Many economists predicted that the stimulus that emerged from the Congress would do about what it ended up doing -- basically resulting in an economy with stagnant job growth.

Unfortunately, the future promises unemployment at the 8-9% range, unless World War III comes around.


The measure of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. - FDR

The real problem is jobs jobs jobs..not the deficit

Paul Krugman in his blog:

And the question is, how do people who want us to slash the budget deficit now now now think this is going to work? Unless the confidence fairy arrives, causing households and businesses to suddenly ramp up their spending despite high unemployment and weak sales, deficit reduction will only intensify the problem of excessive savings relative to perceived investment opportunities — and make the slump much, much worse.

We don't have a deficit problem. We have a jobs problem, that is the result of a demand problem.

And Krugman writes in another blog entry:

People think of debt’s role in the economy as if it were the same as what debt means for an individual: there’s a lot of money you have to pay to someone else. But that’s all wrong; the debt we create is basically money we owe to ourselves, and the burden it imposes does not involve a real transfer of resources.

That’s not to say that high debt can’t cause problems — it certainly can. But these are problems of distribution and incentives, not the burden of debt as is commonly understood. And as Dean says, talking about leaving a burden to our children is especially nonsensical; what we are leaving behind is promises that some of our children will pay money to other children, which is a very different kettle of fish.


The measure of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. - FDR

Is Paul Krugman an authority?

I don't think so, he is not dealing with the real world, just theory.

No we have a deficit problem and a jobs problem. Does more debt bring jobs? It can if actual real goods or products are produced, but simply sending money to state and local governments to temporarily keep them balanced does not. This is what Obama did and he didn't do us any favors.

Paul Krugman

PhD in economics, professor at Princeton, Nobel laureate in Economics.

We're not going to solve a deficit problem until we attack the jobs problem.

Let's produce real goods and products, like roads, bridges, broadband, smart grid, high speed rail.

40% of the Obama stimulus was tax cuts.


The measure of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. - FDR

Hello Frank

There are many people that tell me they are against abortion, could you tell me why you are against it?

Taking an innocent life.

Isn't everybody against taking a innocent life? Don't you appreciate your parents for not doing that to you?

Glad to hear that

Honestly, I didn't expect that you would be a supporter of the Racial Justice Act and an opponent of the death penalty.

But I do have some confusion about your support for abortion in the case of rape. An innocent life is an innocent life, is it not? Why should that innocent life be snuffed out just because that innocent life was conceived in an act of terror and violence? Human life is sacred, is it not?

Did I say that?

I thought we were discussing abortions. The racial jusctice act is just a pretense for the elimination of the death penalty. The death penalty is used to rid society of violent criminals, that is good for society. It also serves as a deterrent in the back of the miscreant's mind.

The decision regarding the use of abortion for rape victims should not be yours or my decision but the decision the person who was raped. A victim of rape should not be forced to raise a child under those circumstances. A woman who choose abortion instead of using birth control is wrong among civilized people.

You brought up the term "innocent life"

Not me.


More to the point, why is a fetus conceived in rape different from a fetus conceived in love? Why not force the woman to bear the child and put it up for adoption? Don't tell me you're getting "practical" all of a sudden.

And how is an innocent fetus different from an innocent person in jail? Are you willing to execute a few folks whose only crime is the crime of being born black? The number of cases of individuals on death row who have been exonerated should startle any human being who believes in justice. Is it okay with you if an innocent man or woman is put to death by "accident?"

Your talk about civilized people would be funny if it weren't so sad. Do you have any idea how often birth control fails? Do you have any idea how hard the right wing is working to make birth control harder to get?

Read this and then come back and talk to me.

You make a false comparison regarding the use of innocence.

The justice system has an appeal process that goes on and on and I trust it to work. White people are using the racial justice act as well to get out of their execution.

You don't think that OJ Simpson was innocent do you? Now that was a miscarriage of justice.

I don't agree that we should make birth control hard to get. I do know that there are many people who can't get pregnant and want children.

Innocent vs convicted

Just as there are people found "not guilty" who are indeed not innocent, there are people found "guilty" who are indeed innocent. That said, the Racial Justice Act was as much about reining in abuses of prosecutorial discretion as it was about innocence versus guilt.

I don't know whether OJ was innocent. I know that the court found him "not guilty." How on the one hand can you state unwavering faith in the criminal justice system ("I trust it to work") when putting people to death, but in the very next sentence decry the "miscarriage of justice" in the Simpson verdict?

And since "innocents" seems to be an important noun, I'll allow you to rationalize what is euphemistically characterized as "collateral damage" in war.


The measure of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. - FDR

I don't agree....

with you statements regarding what the racial justice act was about. It's as plain as the nose on your face as a slick way to eliminate the death penalty. The public is not fooled by this pretense.

OJ Simpson case is how we bend over backwards to protect the innocents so much that many guilty get away with murder. With the racial jusctice act, now even the most heinous crimes get away with murder.

Steps are taken by the military to limit collateral damage. The enemy takes advantage of the protective measures we take to limit collateral damage too.

So let me understand you correctly

1. You don't believe that prosecutors have the authority to decide who faces the death penalty.

2. You don't believe that the state should meet a substantial burden of guilt.

3. You trust the outcome of the criminal justice process when it agrees with your notions of guilt and innocence.

4. The deaths of some innocents can be justified by the state.

Let me know exactly how I misstated your opinions.


The measure of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. - FDR

You're putting words in my mouth.

And I refuse them.

The racial justice act takes away the prosecutors authority to decide who faces the death penalty.

I do believe the state should meet a substantial burden of guilt. I also believe the state should be able to award the death penalty for heinous crimes.

No I cited OJ Simpson as how our justice system bends over backwards to protect the innocent. You maintain that we have executed innocent people. I say we don't.

The deaths of innocents occurs every day, it's called abortion.

Slick way to eliminate capital punishment

I would be happy to eliminate capital punishment without "slick" legislative maneuvering.


The measure of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. - FDR

Is that your only reason?

Taking an innocent life? What about if it may kill the mother or if it was conceived through rape or through incest? Do you allow for that? What about the decision of the woman carrying the baby? Do you allow for that? Have you ever had a baby?


As a woman, I am always amused to see a man pontificating about what decisions I make about my body. I have carried five pregnancies to term during my fifty year marriage, and I can affirm, despite seeking the advice of my husband and doctor, the decisions are mine. There is no doubt that some women oppose abortion and contraception, but I've also seen pictures of Yemeni women marching for the right to marry as children - some things can't be understood unless you consider cultural norms that are so strong that people will believe in their own destruction.

The idea that rich women won't get abortions at will is ludicrous, whatever the laws. And as for the poor, try living as they do and experience the lack of options. Look up the game, "Spent", and see what decisions you'd make, what choices you'd have in the constant struggle to survive.

Women's health is currently under the worst attack in a hundred years, and the defunding of Planned Parenthood is robbing poor women, in many areas, of their only source of routine exams, cancer exams, pre-natal care, etc. As I heard just tonight on TV, women, if the right wingers have their way, will soon have more rights in the womb than they'll ever have once they've been born.

Good summary Anonymous

(But I wonder why you post as anon.) It is ludicrous for ANY man to think they should decide for the woman. You are so right, the right wing nuts want less government and less regulations for businesses, but when it comes to women, in their opinion, women shouldn't be free to make a decission about their own body. It's almost like Grover Norquist says, Republicans want to shrink government down until it fits in the womb! ( Yeah, yeah, good old Grove said bathtub, but this is what they really want)

(PS - Frank Burns....really? The most hated person on a TV show? Frank Ferret Face Burns?)