Currently
Recent Comments
Re: “Public Schools First NC is sounding the alarm”
As budget analysts dig deeper into the Senate GOP's budget, they discover that the proposed cuts to pre-K funding are worse than what the budget summaries indicated. The current level of 29,600 children funded by the state would drop by 7,500 in the coming fiscal year and another 2,500 -- for a total cut of 10,000 -- in 2014-15, according to the N.C. Justice Center's Matt Ellinwood.
He explains it here: http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2013/05/22/…
Re: “The ripple effect: NAACP's Barber and civil disobedience in Raleigh”
Bait? Really, Proudly? You must mean that beating upside the head that the Republicans have administered to our state. Now it's true, some people -- including, yes, some black people -- aren't taking their lumps lying down, and some are even resorting to nonviolent civil disobedience. This strikes me as preferable to the alternatives of giving in or (literally) fighting back.
But protest is just one tact of several that must be used to, as you say, get us out of this one. I have some others in mind and will be writing about them over the next couple of weeks. Stay tuned.
Re: “The ripple effect: NAACP's Barber and civil disobedience in Raleigh”
FYI, the Associated Press interviewed the Rev. Barber today. He confirmed that the "Moral Monday" protests will continue, with the next one coming in four days, May 13: http://www.wral.com/nc-naacp-says-monday-d…
Re: “[Updated] Losing Jamie Hahn: Raleigh and the power of passionate people”
Thanks for the nice comments. The third person in the photo is David Blair. Glad to see he put the photo on his Facebook page.
Re: “Neu Romance ends its 10-year run in Raleigh this weekend”
Still wearing my Neu Romance t-shirt, Chico. See you around.
Re: “How 2013 became 1984: A one-act play in which NC GOP lawmakers write bills using Newspeak”
And then there's the "Healthy Marriage Act," per a note to me from NARAL Pro-Choice NC. It's Senate Bill 516, which would require that unhappy couples tough it out for two years before they'd be eligible for an "absolute divorce." Thus, the title is the opposite of what the bill really is -- an "Unhealthy Marriage Act."
George Orwell would definitely recognize this language -- from the bill -- as Big Brother watching your relationship, ready to step in and punish the unfortunate woman (or man) who chose an abusive spouse:
AN ACT AMENDING THE LAWS PERTAINING TO DIVORCE TO ESTABLISH A TWO-YEAR WAITING PERIOD TO FILE FOR AN ABSOLUTE DIVORCE; TO ALLOW A COUPLE TO LIVE TOGETHER DURING THE TWO-YEAR WAITING PERIOD; AND TO REQUIRE UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES THAT PRIOR TO FILING FOR AN ABSOLUTE DIVORCE A COUPLE COMPLETE COURSES ON COMMUNICATION AND THE IMPACT OF DIVORCE ON CHILDREN.
Re: “The common good is in the way of Republican goals”
Proudly: Good question. I'll give you a one-word answer: Easley.
That said, I supported a nonpartisan reapportionment process (an independent commission) when the Democrats were in and the Republicans were pitching it. I still support it.
As to faux outrage, though, I think there's a big difference between making it easier to vote and making it more difficult. Yes, Democrats did the former, out of self-interest no doubt. Now the Republicans are in the process of doing the latter, also for self-advantage. But how are they equivalent. One strengthens the democratic (small-) process, the other weakens it.
I think you may also be talking about gerrymandering.
Again, though both parties have gerrymandered, there's an important difference in how they've gone about it. Democrats created districts in which African-American voters were in the majority or near-majority even though it was detrimental to the party as a whole to do so. These districts "wasted" Democratic votes (to the point that Republicans rarely ran in them), but they enabled black constituents to elect like representatives. Republicans, when they got the chance, created districts with even greater African-American super-majorities for the purpose of wasting even more Democratic votes and wasting African-American votes as well. By doing so, they could make the surround districts whiter and, of course, Republican.
In other words, the Democrats' gerrymandering was out of a self-interest that was balanced against a competing interest which came at a cost to the party. The Republicans' gerrymandering was totally out of self-interest and maximized the party's advantage while also disempowering African-American voters -- which IMO is a violating of the federal Voting Rights Act.
This picture of grim resolution is in prep for upcoming 10K.