Results 1-20 of 173

Is there anything more predictable than the contrarian "I do something un-PC & I *like* it" confessional in the left-leaning weekly paper?

Back when I lived out in the woods, I had an electric leaf *vacuum* (a B &D, I think it was) which, in addition to not blowing blue smoke everywhere, had the additional feature of mulching & bagging the leaves rather than just blowing them into the road or the neighbor's yard.

It was still powerful enough to wreak a certain amount of pleasurable havoc on the surroundings, though one probably couldn't have used it to inflate one of those indoor tennis domes, which is what I assume John does with his blower during the off-season.

I figured the author was being cheeky: it fit with the tone of the piece, and he was clearly intelligent enough to know the proper phraseology. It's not the kind of error that would slip by even a half-awake copy editor.

"...unmitigated asshole..." Ross, I'm always impressed by your ability to outdo even yourself.

*Abdominal* Snowman? Seriously? Where is your copyeditor?! That's appalling. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeti

Someone just fired up one of those things (the high-powered push-around kind that Valentine's talking about here) across the street from my apartment, and thus I'd like to amend my earlier comment. You, sir, are an unmitigated asshole to even own one of those, let alone boast about it in print.

Knowing John Valentine, I think the phrase "abdominal snowman" was a joke. If not, we'll run a correction.

I like the way Jeff S., thinks.

Gosh, I should learn to pay attention better. I just reread the article and found the points I was looking for in the "recapture" discussion.

rjgreen -- good questions. I did correspond with a couple of Alcoa's local supporters and looked at what they wrote to FERC; I didn't pursue the Riverkeeper's charges with environmental officials past the fact that they did, indeed, sign off on the 401 permit. I expect to follow this story when it returns to the legislature and when the hearing on the stayed permit is conducted. For this article, I wanted to keep the focus on the main issue, which is -- to me -- whether Alcoa's license constitutes a property right or, having expired, should be recaptured and the profits from it used under local auspices. On the pollution issue, I think Gene Ellis, Alcoa's representative, was correct when he said that whether Alcoa polluted Badin Lake or not (and he says it didn't) is essentially irrelevant to the licensing question, though it's obviously relevant to how people in Stanly County may view the company. I think the Riverkeeper is correct as well when he says that the amount of testing done in the lake so far is insufficient to prove Alcoa's "legacy" one way or the other. On the question of local support, the municipal and High Rock Lake officials who signed on with Alcoa cut good deals for their own communities, presumably, but what's good for a couple of towns in the region does not necessarily equate to the good of the region as a whole. I might have said in the article that the Yadkin Trust, as proposed, would probably give Alcoa's supporters (Badin, Albemarle, High Rock Lake, etc.) everything they negotiated for with Alcoa. On reflection, I think the reason I didn't is that the details of the Trust are still TBD and in play in the legislature.

There is a type of smugness about titular "liberals" that is wearing to say the least. A man who's done little more than teach our young, as honorable as that may be, is hardly qualified to direct public policy involving an entity that has contributed billions of dollars and generations of recreational respite to an area that would have otherwise languished in semi poverty except for it's presence. One should also keep in mind that the dollar figures thrown about when evaluating Alcoa's direct and indirect investments and contributions are intentionally kept in literal numbers instead of the time/inflation adjusted amounts that would now probably be in the "trillions" range. I have no arguments with the professor nor any of his allies in wanting to do what's best for the environment, we all want that, even at the cost of future (and some present) economic benefits. But for the sake of a balanced dialogue other voices must be given the podium in defense of the almost inestimable good Alcoa has meant in real and tangible terms for the area, and not couched in eco/speak or pseudo academic BS by some who's families would not have struggled along as tobacco farmers or woodcutters had it not have been for the company's presence. Alcoa has been one of the foremost companies in the world in it's public policies and business practices and has been inarguably valuable to not only the region but the entire nation in helping us build a national leadership position that until recently was a model for the entire world, not to mention the fact that it was a very large contributor to the efforts of the free world in winning a devastating war. I will support any effort that works to improve or protect the quality of life we and our parents have labored to procure for ourselves, but we must not be so obviously anti business that future investors will pass us by in justified wariness. The adversarial tone of these negotiations smack of the labor skirmishes that have nearly destroyed our auto (and other)industries instead of the mutually respectful dialogue between honorable positions at variance with each other. I hereby go on record as a grateful beneficiary of the company that has done more hands down to develop the area than all the protesters and intellectuals combined by a factor of geometric proportions. By all means let's do what is best for all involved using all the best information presently at our disposal to reach an honorable and just decision, and stop this one sided thinly veiled vilification of big business that has already been one of the largest factors in our relegation of world manufacturing leadership. If this brief discourse appears to make me (and others) "pro business" or for that matter "pro anything" then it's being looked at with the eyes of debate, and I disdain debate as the sophomoric academic tool it is, which looks not for justice, only victory. I am pro North Carolina, my roots are deeply embedded in it's mountains and the blood of my family is mingled forever in it's soils. I only say let's be fair to all involved, not just the narrow interests of the few.

James -- Thanks! The recapture clause is supposed to allow competitors to make their case that they'd do more for the public interest than the licensee (Alcoa) if they were in charge of hydropower generation. The reality, though, is that the licensee has a big advantage in the process. In this case, Alcoa is on the ground, owns land it can give away (as well as its profits, if it wanted to share them), and it started negotiations with local groups about seven years ago. The town of Badin, for example, is an Alcoa supporter. It signed Alcoa's application after the company contributed $250,000 to a downtown development study. Meanwhile, Stanly County stayed in talks with Alcoa for a long time before deciding they weren't getting enough and they went to the State for help.

The process reminds me of a typical rezoning case, where the developer "meets with the neighbors" and listens and talks but never changes his plans -- and maybe the neighbors don't get it that they're being stonewalled until it's too late to organize. Not to say Alcoa's stonewalling, but conceptually a State-run authority should by definition be able to do more for the public interest than a corporation that sends its profits around the world.

Take back the river, give them what they are contractually obligated to dollar-wise, and pay for it by suing them for the pollution they have caused. Take the leftover money from the suit (and there should be PLENTY) and put it in a trust for the inevitable cleanup projects.

Great story, Bob.

Did you come across any discussion about the technical terms of the contract? It seems I read that the contract was explicitly crafted for the option of non-renewability without having to show cause. That is, it was designed to expire without any presumption of being renewed.

Yes Jeff S. is right!! We in this country seem to have forgotten that the purpose of business is to ADD VALUE (to make wealth by producing something whose value exceeds the cost.) This company is not *making* wealth, it is simply *taking* wealth. The value (of the energy) is in the river already -- they are taking it and not paying for it. There also appears to be costs (pollution and clean up of it) from their operations that they have not paid for. This company (and every company) should forced to pay everything it uses and pay every cost that it causes, and to survive if and only if it can add value - ie make a profit. This company isn't doing that - it is engaged in "taking wealth" which is usually termed "theft".

Bob - Curious about whether or not you spoke with any of the folks in the community who support Alcoa and believe it deserves a new license: the Mayor of Albemarle, the Mayor of Badin, the local homeowners groups around the lakes, the environmental interest groups who participated in the relicensing process, or any of the legislators who voted against the takeover legislation that was defeated at the General Assembly.

Also, I would be curious to hear what the state environmental officials would say about the Riverkeeper's claims. The state regulates water quality and things like that, and to the best of my knowledge, Alcoa has fully complied with all state and federal regulations.

I have a next door neighbor with two, tethered, 20 + pound dogs in their backyard; one of which is very aggressive. I am so glad that my neighbor will be required to build an enclosure for the dogs or fence-in the yard. The aggressive dog has gotten loose on at least two occasions, so I know that tethering, for that animal, is ineffective and unreliable; which makes me very uncomfortable on my own property. I don't want my neighbor to pay my medical expenses if I am ever bitten...I don't want to be bitten in the first place!!!!

Read the article,Seems a bit out there but! possible I suppose.Funny thing though since I worked the de-con of the plant and was on the first three man crew to enter the reactor room.That was over 30 years ago and I have not heard of one incidence of cancer in any of my fellow workers .NOT to say there has not been any but a direct result from our many entries? I can tell you I have made more entries than any other worker during that early time period.Been involved in numerous incidents, yet I'm still pretty healthy.We did make one trip to the Hershey Med center for unknown ordors coming thru our particulate mask other than that.It was relatively calm.Most Hp's I knew were always on the outside of such entries..I never made an entry with one beside me. REL.

My friend has a son who has been diagnosed with mental health issues. To date, his doctors have yet to find the right combination of medications to get his illness under control. The Guilford County school system doesn't seem to recognize mental illness as a disability (or even an illness, and some students seem to enjoy "pushing his button" and watching the meltdown that almost always occurs. Will this law protect students like the one I've described?

The schools need to adopt a MENTOR program. The bill is weak on implementation, and with their limited resources, the schools will likely give it more lip service than action.

Studies show that when it comes to these things, students are much more influenced by their peers than adults. My son, a bright kid with a great sense of humor, and Asperger's Syndrome, has been completely isolated - past the point of breakdown. He will suffer consequences for the rest of his life.

Don't worry...after the last 8 years of secret CIA jails and kidnap flights out of Smithfield by aero contractors... They probably already had their own folder on you!