Archive for March 12, 2008


This is one of the best video I have seen, It is brilliant.

About the video: 

“Following in the footsteps of the early propaganda cartoons of Disney, Fleischer, and Chuck Jones, this original, fully-animated look at the underbelly of Bush’s economy juxtaposes a depression-era style with modern-day political rhetoric”.

Advertisements

“Granville County’s economic development director will bid farewell this summer”.  It’s party time folks. This is the best news Granville County has gotten in months if not years and not one day to soon. To celebrate let’s stroll down memory lane for a moment, shall we?  One of the Granville County Economic Development Commission accomplishments was the Incorporation of Butner which was filed on March 22,07.  During the same time-frame (March 07),  Mr. Turner and the GCEDC  was supporting the NCC-NBAF Consortium’s bid  for the NBAF. (An aside note GCEDC has a representative specifically  for the town of Butner) The proposed lab’s placement was never mentioned to the citizens of Butner during incorporation process, not once.  Mr. Turner’s letter of support  for the NBAF and the intial filing of the articles of Incorporation  were a mere 24 hours a part. Coincidence? I think not.

Who’s economic development is Mr. Turner concerned with? Certainly not the residents on fixed incomes who will be paying for the infrastructure improvements and maintenance to support the NBAF.  Oh and for all of you folks that keep on stroking GCEDC’s  ego. Visit the NC Dept. Of  Commerce website and run Granville County’s numbers since 2006, Lost 376 Jobs, Gained 90. Wow, now that’s economic development at it’s finest. John Pike has it right!

We need economic development yes, but not at the citizens expense and the expense of our environment, natural resources and quality of life for a lab that stakeholders in other counties  could just as easily site in their own counties.  Doesn’t NC State ,UNC or Duke  have a few hundred acres available? Clearly the stakeholders do not respect the governing bodies in Granville County who have voted to not support their behemoth. When it comes to the NBAF  the GCEDC  has got it wrong and is a complete waste of taxpayers money.

Retiring economic director lauds industrial diversity

Herald Sun 

OXFORD — Granville County’s economic development director will bid farewell this summer.Leon Turner plans to spend his retirement with his wife and be minutes away from a pair of grandchildren in the western part of the state. “I mean, you need somebody younger and more energetic, like I was 10 or 11 years ago,” Turner, 68, said late last week of the need to replace him.Turner announced on Jan. 17 that he was stepping aside, effective June 30, to ensure a smooth transition for his successor. He will join his wife, June, at their relocated residence at Arden, near Asheville.
Turner was hired as Granville County’s industrial recruiter in November 1997. He will be leaving behind a county that, while famous for being a top-quality tobacco producer, is home of the world’s largest cosmetics plant, Revlon, and of the world’s largest roofing materials plant, CertainTeed.
Both facilities are just outside Oxford.“We have such a wide diversity,” Turner said of the plants in Granville County.There have been some downsides.In January 1999, Burlington Industries announced intentions to shut down its textile plant near Oxford’s central business district and send some 450 jobs to Mexico.In March 2007, SanduskyAthol International, an automotive vinyl products firm that still had facilities at Butner, started sending employees and temporary workers home after losing a major customer.Local employment officials said more than 350 people were displaced as a result.

Turner attributed the two closures to a changing economy and SanduskyAthol’s in particular to an inability to compete.

More recently, Turner has come under some intense public criticism for his unwavering support for having the proposed National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility located at Butner.

Last month, John Pike, an Oxford attorney and vocal opponent of the project, called for the Granville County Commission to fire Turner, even though the commissioners have no such authority.

Turner late last week declined to respond to Pike, except to say he and Granville County’s Economic Development Commission board continue to back having the $450 million germ-fighting lab at Butner to protect the nation’s food supply.

“I think it would be a fantastic thing for Granville County and the entire region, all the counties around us and the entire state,” Turner said, because “it would put us on the cutting edge of research.”

Critics and protesters have cited numerous environmental and health concerns, and the County Commission in January reversed its position and withdrew support for having the facility at Butner.

Creedmoor’s and Stem’s municipal boards, each in 4-1 votes in December, declined to give their endorsement, and the Raleigh City Council last month unanimously went on record in opposition.

Butner is one of six possible sites for the lab. The federal government is anticipated to announce a final decision by October, with construction expected to take up to 2013 to complete.

There have been some upsides in Turner’s final months on the job, such as the future Granville Business Park, which will take shape along a stretch of land just off U.S. 158 and along the northern side of Interstate 85 as the freeway bends toward Henderson.

Without naming it, Turner said his office has a strong prospective client for the site, created as one of a set of Kerr-Tar regional mini-hubs that have since been collectively renamed “Triangle North.”

Currently, Turner lives in a local motel room on weekdays and spends weekends with his wife in Arden. As for being so far away from her on weekdays, he takes such an arrangement in stride, saying, “You get used to it, that’s all.”

Read full article here requires registration.

Factings; 

In our opinions, we examined how agencies were implementing certain provisions to which the President objected in the signing statements. In developing our first opinion, we examined all the signing statements accompanying the fiscal year 2006 appropriations acts, identified 160 specific provisions of law to which the President objected, and categorized each provision according to the nature of the President’s stated concern. The President’s objections to a majority of provisions fell under broad categories, four of which we summarize in the testimony: President’s theory of the unitary executive, President’s constitutional role, INS v. Chadha, and Fifth Amendment.

We then chose 19 provisions to learn whether the agencies were executing the provisions as written. In considering which provisions would be appropriate for further inquiry, we excluded provisions for which it would be difficult to determine whether the President was executing the provision, either because of the breadth of the executive action covered or because the information would not be readily available due to national security or foreign relations concerns. GAO also looked at 10 other provisions from various laws identified by congressional requestors to which the President objected in order to ascertain how agencies were executing the provisions.

In total, GAO examined how 21 agencies executed 29 different provisions of law. GAO determined that in all but 9 cases the agencies had either taken actions to execute the provisions as written, or conditions requiring agency action had not occurred. In the remaining 9 cases, GAO found that the agencies had not executed the provisions as written. We did not assess the merits of the President’s objections or examine the constitutionality of the provisions to which the President objected. Although we found that agencies did not execute 9 provisions as written, we could not conclude that agency noncompliance was the result of the President’s signing statements. We also examined the extent to which federal courts have relied on signing statements in their interpretation of federal statutes. GAO found that only in rare instances have courts treated presidential signing statements as authoritative sources of statutory interpretation.

While GAO’s prior work did not involve any provisions in the recently enacted National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2008, three provisions in the NDAA to which the President objected are similar to provisions we examined in our earlier opinions. We found that agencies had not executed two of these earlier provisions as written.

To reduce any effect signing statements may have on agency execution of statutes, Congress may wish to focus its oversight work to include those provisions to which the President objects to ensure that the laws are carried out.

Read full report here.

If you have been following this story the editorial below, describes what Toni Locy is being subjected to perfectly.

Wretched judiciary

The First Amendment guarantee that government cannot abridge “freedom of speech or of the press” is one of America’s most sacred protections. Yet it means nothing if journalists are afraid to do their job because federal judges like Reggie B. Walton of Washington, D.C., insist on forcing reporters to name their confidential sources.

Toni Locy, 48, is a Washington County native and West Virginia University journalism professor. As a USA Today reporter in May of 2003, she relied on unnamed sources to report that the FBI considered former Army bio-weapons expert Steven Hatfill a “person of interest” in the mailing of anthrax spores that killed five people.

Mr. Hatfill, though still under investigation, never has been charged. Now he’s suing just about everyone in the Justice Department, charging his rights were violated when government officials disclosed his personal information.

Hatfill’s lawyers want Locy to name her sources. Judge Walton concurs and has found Ms. Locy in contempt of court and is threatening her with draconian daily fines — to be paid personally and not by USA Today — until she names names.

So, not only does Judge Walton have no respect for the First Amendment, he also believes it is leverageable by decreeing whence journalists can derive money to defend a right. It is judicial wretchedness incarnate.

%d bloggers like this: