The Odd Withdrawal (Sen. Rabon ducks on Sen. Rouzer)

This is just an odd one. . .

(StarNews) State Sen. Bill Rabon of Southport said Tuesday he is not publicly endorsing fellow Republican and congressional candidate David Rouzer in his hotly contested race against U.S. Rep. Mike McIntyre.

Huh?  But wait, there’s more. . .

“I would think that we should wash both of their mouths out with soap and tell them to start running a fresh, clean campaign – not talking about each other but talking about the issues and their plans,” Rabon said Tuesday.

That’s interesting considering he already endorsed him and this was posted yesterday at the StarNews.

The Rouzer campaign also said Rouzer is endorsed by state senators representing the district, including Sens. Thom Goolsby of New Hanover County; Bill Rabon of Brunswick, . . . 

If this holds up, it was poorly timed and will have a serious detrimental effect on Rouzer.  But Rabon’s withdrawal is even more confusing when you look at a follow up quote.

But Rabon said Tuesday that though he endorsed Rouzer in the GOP primary against Ilario Pantano, he wasn’t endorsing him against the Democrat McIntyre in the General Election.

Huh?  So he endorses Rouzer against another Republican (who won Rabon’s home county in the primary) but won’t endorse the Republican in the general election?????  Very much the head scratcher here.  Who the heck is advising Rabon?

Threats from federal laws

One of the intended consequences of federal environmental and discrimination laws is to allow activists groups and personally aggrieved individuals access to other peoples’ money and no-charge legal service. Worse, federal legal action sometimes threatens the safety and rights of a larger body of citizens to satisfy presumed grievances by a small number of people.

Individuals, small business owners and public institution administrators rarely fight government-promoted lawsuit charges in court because federal agencies have more resources and the arbitrary power to force compliance of their demands. It’s cheaper to agree to settle. The usual feeble response is: “We deny any wrongdoing.” Often it’s true, but the defendants pay for serious charges, not necessarily for having done something wrong.

For example, recently the New Hanover Regional Medical Center settled a U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission disability discrimination charge under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act. Two qualified worker applicants weren’t hired and one employee was put on unpaid leave for a month because of hospital drug policies. According to a Wilmington StarNews report the claimants were taking “legally prescribed narcotic medications.” (link)

Hospital officials insist that their first priority is “patient care and safety.” We assume this concern drives NHRMC policies. Further, it makes sense to me that these local officials— responsible for patient care and safety—would be best qualified to establish these policies than would remote federal agency staff. However, EEOC bureaucrats presume to know better. Federal lawyers apparently believe that employment of people taking narcotic medications has a higher priority than patient safety at the hospital.

I recall that some prescribed and even over-the-counter drugs have warnings that users should not drive or operate equipment. Are we to accept that this precaution should not apply to hospital workers? Yet, the NHRMC must now modify its patient safety policies to accommodate a few medicated applicants and workers because of mandates by federal lawyers.

Thus, regional EEOC operatives fined NHRMC $146,000 for “damages”; required revision of its alcohol and drug abuse policies, and other “medical assessment” and “medical examination” policies. Hospital officials must provide managerial training on the ADA prohibition against disability discrimination; post notices about the lawsuit and employees “rights”; and give the EEOC periodic reports.

In my opinion, this “settlement” is overreaching at best and totalitarian at worst. And it could negatively compromise the primary mission of the NHRMC.

Let ‘er blow (a Sam Stark parody)

Hey, you right-wing deniers of manmade global warming; get over it. The science consensus is in—everybody knows we can cool the earth with alternative energy. The feckless fearless and progressive Obama administration plans to stop the oceans from rising. Wind energy will do the trick here in eastern North Carolina. Fandango Wind Energy wants to build 49 wind turbines on 11,000 acres near Washington, N.C. and our state governor and the Obama administration support it. But opponents want to stop this vital project from going forward. Conservative Neanderthals always oppose progress.

Military people at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base (an arm of the Republican Party) say that 500-ft windmills will interfere with low-flying air crew training missions. They also claim that radar interference may be problem in the F-15E flying area. Come on; the fly-boys can do their Top-Gun stuff out over the ocean—and they can fly above 500 feet. In addition some of the best scientific minds in the N. C. Coastal Federation think that low-flying aircraft noise disturbs sea turtle nesting. What’s more important here?

Some opponents of Obama-energy want us to believe the myth that birds are killed by windmill blades. That’s ridiculous. Renewable energy experts believe that the turbulence lifts them up out of danger. Anyway we have lots of birds; no one will miss a few. Endangered Species regulations should apply only on private land where evil capitalists want to build destructive things. Fortunately, we have environmental organizations and the EPA to stop that.

Then, anti-government groups question giving federal stimulus money and tax credits to wind project developers. These investments are necessary. If Gov. Romney is elected he will gut these tax credits, give breaks to Big Oil and distribute our money to his wealthy friends. He thinks that “free market approaches, not top-down central government policies” are the way to go. (link) What a lot of bunk. Middle Class people understand that federal government planners know what’s best for us.

Opponents of wind energy projects are also against state mandates. Traditional energy utilities must be forced to buy renewable sources. Otherwise they wouldn’t use them because coal, natural gas and nuclear are much cheaper. We all must sacrifice by paying more for our energy needs. So be it—we’re doomed here at the coast when the seas rise.

Fortunately for us, in 2007, the North Carolina General Assembly passed a Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard. Now energy companies must show that 12.5 percent of their energy comes from renewable sources or by mandated efficiency.

Get real people. Renewable energy is here, and we’ll get it—good and plenty.

Political compassion

It has occurred to me that, among other snags in our cultural fabric, “compassion” has hooked American society—defined according to my dictionary: “Deep awareness of the suffering of another coupled with the wish to relieve it.” Now, more than individual human sympathy, it’s become an actively organized and politicized industry, extending to animals (and in some distorted minds, even to plants).

No longer do people “suffer in silence.” They proclaim all their personal afflictions and those of others through the social media—advocates of the distressed loudly and publicly demand concern. Activists tell us to “get involved.” Coalitions and associations of causes organize to “make a difference.” All manner of offended and disadvantaged carry their crosses to the media and courts.

Worse, our legislators entangle us in laws, regulations and rulings that require everyone to bear the burdens expected to relieve a growing parade of sympathies—some clearly ridiculous.

I’m reminded of the unreasonably outrageous extent to which relief of perceived suffering can be taken by a recent news story from Holden Beach. (link) Officials will release feral cats on the island, previously free of these pests. (Chad Adams has commented at this site.)

Normal people understand that the proliferation of untamed cats results in public nuisance: possible spread of rabies, destruction of native wildlife and fights with domestic pets. Allowing savage animals to roam free is irresponsible behavior; but it’s now perversely authorized in the name of “compassion.”

God help us. Elected officials often add to a growing list of insufferable compassions that we must endure.

Downtown Leaders Can’t Handle Parking At A Breakfast?

If you really want to understand how the folks that run downtown Wilmington have NO understanding of how to run even a simple meeting, here’s the proof.  The set-up is this, a power breakfast downtown, they knew they would have lots of folks because the gubernatorial candidates were both going to be there.  So how do they embarrass themselves?  Nobody involved with this endeavor had figured out that getting out of a parking garage would be a nightmare that costs businesses time and money.  It’s happened before, been reported before, but nobody has changed anything!  This is the letter from the Wilmington Business Journal folks about what happened today:

I want to apologize to people who endured a long wait to leave the Convention Center parking garage after today’s Power Breakfast.

The city of Wilmington recently added the ability to take credit card payments in the Convention Center garage. Instead of paying with cash on the way in, attendees now pay with a credit card or cash on the way out. However, with more than 500 people leaving at the same time, this process created a long delay to get out of the garage.

I want to let you know what we’re doing to avoid this happening again:

First, we plan to include the parking charge in the ticket cost for future events. Attendees will have their parking ticket stamped or receive some other form of parking validation so they do not have to pay on the way out. This should relieve congestion leaving the garage.

Second, there will not be a parking charge at Monday’s special “Power Lunch” event with Roy Williams. We asked the city of Wilmington not to charge for parking at this one event as a “make good” for the long wait attendees had today and because we can not retroactively charge people for parking who already purchased tickets. The city has so far declined this request. If the city will not cover this cost, the Business Journal will absorb it to ensure our guests are not inconvenienced again.

Please don’t hesitate to let me know if you have any further questions or concerns.

Sincerely,
Rob Kaiser
Publisher
Greater Wilmington Business Journal

What justifies another police force at CFCC?

Cape Fear Community College officials have started a drum roll for a state operated campus police force. But what justifies this move for presumed greater “security”? It’s not because of increasing criminal activity.

Interim President Frank Sells thinks the current contract with a national security firm is inexplicably “less than adequate,” according to a Wilmington StarNews report. (link) And his assistant director of campus security apparently wants to expand his little empire for “more control.” Pres. Sells also likes the idea because it’s a “trend” at community colleges. Further, he claims that campus growth and the downtown Wilmington location puts the college in “a pretty vulnerable situation.”

True, downtown is the locus of most criminal activity in Wilmington. But, so far, the college hasn’t been a crime target or a hangout for criminals. And trendiness certainly doesn’t justify this added expense and duplication, especially at a public college.

All this talk sounds to me like another government-concocted solution looking for a problem.

CFCC currently has three levels of security readily available with private, city and county police. In addition to several J4S security officers on duty around the clock at both downtown and north campuses, the college has contracts with the Wilmington police department and county sheriffs. However, apparently Pres. Sells doesn’t think these people are qualified or trained to know “how to respond to things,” in his learned words.

Although college officials can’t say what would make up full staffing or how much a college police force would cost, the StarNews reporter writes that they have already increased parking and security fees on students and employees—I’ll bet with more to come should this scheme be carried out. Further, county taxpayers will be paying more. Overlapping services and added administrative staff; and additional who-knows-how-many well-paid officers with health insurance and pension benefits will be piled on the taxpayers—more unfunded liabilities for the future.

College trustees seem to be on-board this new spending train. But, notoriously, they rubber stamp virtually any projects suggested by administrators. State university and college officials have a long history of unaccountability to the people who pay the bills. It’s time our state legislators acted to require justification for their many wants.