How Deep Is McCrory's Ass in the Criminal Investigation of the Duke Energy Toxic Spill?

The question of the day!

Evidence is very clear that North Carolina's Department of Environment and Natural Resources has been dragging its feet and shielding Duke Energy from full accountability in the poisoning of the Dan River. McCrory's role in that as a 28-year employee of Duke Energy becomes a hot issue. McCrory has received a total of some $1 million -- $1 million! -- in campaign contributions from Duke Energy that would seem to have provided ample quid pro quo during the last two weeks for the coddling of the giant corporation by the state's regulators.

No one that we've seen has a more comprehensive accounting of what's gone down and the timeline for building a criminal case against the McCrory administration than Rachel Maddow.

Criminal case.

Virginia's Anti-Gay Marriage Law Struck Down. Is NC Next?

Last night Federal Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen of United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia struck down Virginia's constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and immediately stayed her own decision pending an appeal to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Virginia adopted its discriminatory constitutional amendment via referendum in 2006. In addition to overturning that law, Judge Allen also ruled that Virginia must recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

The challenge to Virginia’s ban was argued by the same bipartisan team of legal stars, Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, that successfully contested California’s ban in 2010. The new attorney general of Virginia, Mark R. Herring, announced that his office considered the marriage ban unconstitutional and assisted with the legal challenge, reversing the official position of the last Virginia Attorney General, a conservative Republican who was defeated in November.

Legal scholars are already lauding Allen's decision for its sweeping scope and lofty language. In summing up the decision, she wrote, “We have arrived upon another moment in history when We the People becomes more inclusive, and our freedom more perfect.”

What's Pending in North Carolina

North Carolina passed its Amendment One banning same-sex marriage in May 2012. In June of that year, Fisher-Borne v. Smith was filed in Greensboro in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina challenging the state’s ban on second parent adoption, a process by which one partner in an unmarried gay or straight couple adopts the other partner’s biological or adoptive child. Fisher-Borne v. Smith was subsequently amended in 2013 to allow a claim against the constitutionality of NC's same-sex marriage ban. Attorney General Roy Cooper could have objected to the amendment of the original suit, but he did not.

A.G. Cooper has said publicly that he thinks NC's Amendment One was a bad idea, but he's also said that he would vigorously defend NC's legal position in Fisher-Borne v. Smith. Cooper's public stand in favor of "marriage equality" led President Pro Tempore of the N.C. Senate Phil Berger (R-Rockingham) and Speaker of the N.C. House Thom Tillis (R-Mecklenburg) to hire outside legal counsel to advise them on how the state is handling its defense in Fisher-Borne v. Smith. Legislation passed by the General Assembly last year gives these legislative leaders standing to jointly intervene in legal actions to defend state statutes and constitutional provisions that are being challenged in court. In December, Senator Berger and Speaker Tillis stated, “While the General Assembly is not formally intervening in the lawsuit at this time, the outside counsel will provide backup review of the attorney general’s work to ensure he is fulfilling his duty to vigorously defend the law.”

Surely by now panic has set in among the Berger/Tillis crowd as they watch their radical conservative agenda for North Carolina dismantled in more than one judicial venue. Judge Allen's decision in the Virginia case ought to sufficiently chill their spines.

No word on when the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina in Greensboro may hear arguments in Fisher-Borne v. Smith, but we certainly hope to see the tag-team of Olson-Boies touching down at Piedmont-Triad International Airport in the near future.

The Monochrome World of Fox News

Franklin Graham: "Ludicrous" and "Un-American"

Scott Sexton, the bare-knuckled Winston-Salem Journal columnist, bares his knuckles at Franklin Graham and the other Watauga County book-banners this morning. Good reading, clear thinking.

Virginia Foxx Has a Primary Challenger

In the 5th Congressional District of NC, Philip Doyle, who is a real estate agent living in Clemmons, Forsyth County, has filed to run against Virginia Foxx in the Republican primary in May.

Doyle's Facebook page lists his "likes" as Michelle Malkin, Michele Bachman, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and the Tea Party Patriots.

So ... he's running to the right of Virginia Foxx? Which means that he's left any known map of terra firma.

But we certainly wish Mr. Doyle the best of luck. And God speed, adieu, bon voyage, and what the hell are you thinking!

Dan Soucek: He Gone Iron It Out!

Republicans think they have the "fix" for calming down the state's teachers and winning their votes this November: Stage a big, splashy roll-out of a program to "increase teacher pay" and hope that nobody notices the small print and the continuing wholesale disrespect that veteran teachers must suffer at the hands of this governor and this conservative Republican regime in the General Assembly.

And then Senator Dan Soucek opens his mouth.

"There are a lot of other ideas out there we're still trying to iron out," Senator Soucek told Anna Oakes of the Watauga Democrat. "We'll come out with more information as we know more of what we can do. We don't know what the impact Medicaid and Medicare are going to have. That's a wild card that affects everything."

Ironing out those wild cards! That's what Senator Soucek is so goldarned good at! And nice going, Senator Soucek, stepping "off message" like that and hauling in Medicaid as a potential excuse for not treating our teachers with respect, so that you can eventually blame everything on Obama, right?

Senator Soucek, it was your side that rejected the federal dollars for Medicaid expansion. It's your side that created the last two state budgets that squeezed the living crap out of our dedicated veteran teachers. Why, it's almost like you ironed them flat! And now you're trying to reinflate their sense of well-being with some phony, empty rhetoric.

About this purported "teacher pay raise," Gary Pearce posted this morning, "What kind of company would give a raise to its newest, rawest employees, but stiff its most experienced, capable people?" Why, indeed! Does Mr. Soucek think the teachers in his district are as dumb as he continually proves himself to be?

A Pugilistic Analysis of Last Night's Public Hearing

By Atticus Finch Jr., Guest Blogger:

Jesse Wood’s unbiased coverage in High Country Press of the Watauga Board of Education's public comment period over banning Isabel Allende's The House of the Spirits is excellent. However, I must disagree that the audience's seating locations neatly reflected their positions on the book (right side vs. left). There were many book supporters among the against-the-book side. Altogether, I estimate about 350 people in the auditorium.

BOE chair Dr. Lee Warren explained that he was amending the usual rules for public comment to allow 10 speakers for each side of the debate. One additional speaker was allowed because she identified herself as neutral. The commentary was arranged so that the point of view alternated, beginning with “against” followed by “for,” and so on.

This format easily allowed for comparison between each pair of opposing speakers. Hence, I’m scoring this as a 10-round match using the “10-point must system” familiar to pugilistic fans and so named because a judge "must" award ten points to at least one fighter each round. I’m basing speaker performance on effectiveness, using Aristotle’s three modes of persuasion: ethos, pathos, and logos. (Ironically, it was in high school English classes that we learned about these styles of persuasion.) As a quick refresher, ethos refers to the authority of the speaker on the subject; pathos refers to an appeal to emotions; and logos refers to logic.

Round 1 began with the husband of the woman who initiated the challenge. Clearly, some ethos points here. His expression that this affair “has become something it was not intended to be” also scored pathos points. He tried to score a triple crown with logos when saying it was not about censorship. He and his wife just want the book removed as required reading or to have an acceptable alternative. Oops. Does a slip count as a knockdown? Because there IS an alternative. Mr. Craig Fischer responded with a quadruple logos sequence with a knockdown, noting that the NC Department of Instruction has found the book to be appropriate for high school sophomore instruction. Score: 10-8 for the book.

Round 2 began with a woman that claimed she read the book (ethos points) and did find some worthy themes of forgiveness and triumph but that overall the book deeply depressed her (pathos, on target). A vague reference to some Centers for Disease Control statement about U.S. teens having more suicidal tendencies more now than ever missed wildly for logos points. Her conclusion, remembering the depression caused by the book coupled with her research on suicide, left me hoping she gets professional help soon. A Mr. Kelly (a philosophy teacher – ethos points) and his wife delivered a solid round in support of the book expressing “every confidence” in the teacher. They were distraught that their child was deprived last semester of the good experience of reading the book (pathos points). Score: 10-9 for the book.

Round 3 had some real fireworks. Mr. Todd Chasteen opened with a logos- and pathos-packed flurry: “59 sexually explicit descriptions,” “deviancy,” “genitalia,” “one such reference every 7.3 pages,” a definition of child pornography, and a vague reference to some U.S. Supreme Court case that gives the BOE broad discretion. Mr. Woody McKay met this flurry with his own logos/pathos explanation of how passages taken out of context can be perceived as bad but taken in context can be good. His basis for this line of argument were the stories found in Judges 19, Genesis 34, Psalms 137, Ezekiel 23, Song of Solomon 2, and the crucifixion of Jesus. McKay was masterful in how he used these stories to support his point yet kept the Bible on sacred text ground. Score 10-9 for the book.

Round 4 pitted two female WHS students against each other. Both had strong ethos and pathos arguments. The earlier speaker (against the book) explained how she felt ostracized for choosing the alternative text. The latter speaker explained that there are students at WHS that personally experience some of the terrible actions (e.g., rape) that are covered in the book. She wondered why if they are old enough for it to happen to them, are they not old enough to be able to read and talk about it? Score: 10-9 for the book.

Round 5 was an evenly matched round that began with a well-dressed woman who said she had read the book and found it indecent. The issue for her was one of defining standards of decency perhaps via a rating system. She reminded her audience that the book may be allowed by the state but is not required by the state and that many successful graduates of WHS have taken the class without reading the book. Mr. Kauner Michael, a WHS junior, spoke passionately on the positive effect he experienced from covering the book last year in the class. He also delivered a student petition of 375 signatures supporting the book. Tough call, this round. But these two factors make the difference: (1) we can’t even decide on one book, so how likely is it that this community can agree on a rating system? and (2) Mr. Michael asked BOE chairman Warren “for permission to approach to deliver the petition signatures.” Wow! That was classy. Score: 10-9 for the book.

Round 6 also pitted a parent against the book versus a student for the book. Mr. Cliff Baldwin claimed that reading the book he found the issue one of "appropriate" vs. "necessary." This promising start was quickly submarined by a lame attempt at explaining the science of the adolescent brain (apparently based on a recent National Public Radio segment) and an even lamer attempt at connecting higher auto insurance rates charged to teenagers due to brain development. (FYI: auto insurance companies don’t know or care diddly about brain development. They only know about numbers like accident frequencies, and they only care about dollars.)  Mr. Patrick Williamson calmly reported, as the student body president (ethos points), that there was widespread support for the book among the student body and that the English department and the teacher were considered trustworthy and capable. Score 10-9 for the book.

Round 7 was contested by two WHS students. The first explained that she, in consultation with her parents, opted not to read the book and chose the alternate. She described being sent into the hallway, feeling ostracized and punished, and not being given an equal educational opportunity. Powerful pathos points scored. The student supporting the book called it her favorite book because of how it helps students become global citizens. Score: 10-9 against the book.

Round 8 began with the assertion to the BOE that their decision was actually quite simple because (1) they took an oath to uphold the laws of the U.S. and N.C. constitutions, (2) current WCS policy prohibits “possession of literature which significantly disrupted the education process or is obscene,” and (3) state statute gives BOE general control. Uh, I’d say that the book itself hasn’t disrupted anything, but the people trying to remove it from the curriculum have. The constitution bit was a red herring to trick me into being impressed. The BOE has general control to decide for either side, which is why it isn’t simple. Attempt at logos points fell flat. Meanwhile, Greg McClure said that reading this book as a high schooler himself led him to become a human rights worker in Latin America. High pathos scored. Furthermore, he claimed that while nearly everyone praises the teacher and says it isn’t about the teacher, it is in fact about the teacher. Questioning curricular decisions makes it about the teacher, and teachers need support. High logos scored. Score: 10-8 for the book.

Round 9 began with a parent claiming he respects the teacher for her ability but has lost trust in her for her accountability. Huh? Her department, colleagues, even the NC Department of Public Instruction have attested to the appropriateness of her choice. Then he slid into bizarre territory, talking about the purity of his daughter and how that was his responsibility until she was 18. Oh, and his son too! (Weird is not a persuasive mode for Aristotle.) Ms. Emily Haas, a 2012 alumna of WHS, spoke passionately in favor of the book and the teacher. She said her sophomore honors English class read Native Son that contained similar themes, but it helped her to grow. It changed her view of life and learning. High pathos. Score: 10-8 for the book.

Round 10 brought back the idea of ratings. Would this book be R-rated if you applied the movie industry rating system?  X-rated perhaps? More vacuous claims of research evidence, this time of the effects of exposing 18- to 21-year-olds to sexually explicit materials. Failed attempt at logos points. Mrs. Trudy Moss concluded the round with an interesting exploration of the stellar reputation WCS has earned over the years and how some of that reputation is due to the presence of Appalachian State University in the community and the elevation of the intellectual discourse. She warned of harming the educational health of our entire county and slipping into mediocrity. High pathos and logos scored. Score: 10-8 for the book.

It was an entertaining evening and an illuminating evening. Those present were clearly divided in their opinions, but everyone remained respectful. This judge’s final tally was that those arguing for keeping the book in the curriculum won the debate 9 rounds to 1, with a cumulative score of 99-78 in favor of the book.

4th Circuit Court of Appeals: "Not So Fast There, North Carolina"

The otherwise very conservative 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond has ruled that the Republican majority in the North Carolina General Assembly cannot legislate anti-abortion license plates without also offering pro-choice license plates. The 4th Circuit panel ruled unanimously.

A lower U.S. district court had already ruled that the "Choose Life" license plates were an unconstitutional governmental promotion of a religious point of view.

Said the ACLU lawyer who argued the case, "As the court reiterated today, the government cannot create an avenue of expression for one side of a contentious political issue while denying an equal opportunity to citizens with the opposite view. North Carolina’s one-sided license plate scheme constituted blatant viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment."

Who's keeping the box score of how much crap passed by the NCGA has already been overturned by the courts?

Franklin Graham, King of the Pharisees

This news has leaked on Facebook:

Franklin Graham announced to his employees this morning he is shutting Samaritan's Purse down at 2pm and instructed employees (one of the largest employers in our area) to "bring a snack" and go to the School Board Meeting room and fill up all the seats. So much for respecting the democratic process!

The Watauga School Board meeting this evening at 7 p.m., which Franklin Graham wants to steamroll, will be making a final decision on whether to ban Isabel Allende's "House of the Spirits" from Watauga High senior English classes.

Guess which side Franklin Graham's on.

What does this political activity do to Mr. Graham's tax exemption? Anything?