Latest reader comments

  • Reply to: Missing vaccinations: The canary in the rural health care coal mine   4 hours 39 min ago

    When my daughter told me I needed to get a TDAP vaccine, I was like, "I got all those shots when I went into the Army!" Apparently they don't last forever...anyway, the reason I used my picture was so I could tell you how much that vaccine cost without health insurance: $68.

    The state/county/school system needs to not only purchase the vaccines for these kids, they need to provide easy access to the immunizations themselves. Even if those kids are on Medicaid (don't assume they are), walking into a drug store and asking for a shot is either going to cost money or dignity for many parents.

  • Reply to: Monday News: Southern discomfort   5 hours 38 min ago

    If I were to poll my Facebook friends right now (not going to do it) about whether or how much they like Trudeau, it would be off the charts. Especially in comparison to Trump, he's been like night and day. But how much do any of us really know? I try to stay up-to-date on environmental stuff, and not just domestic, either. But I did not know about the Tar Sands Pipeline thing.

    I was aware of the blackface, but not that he did it when he was 29 years old. He's only 47, so that happened in like 2001 or so. WTAF...

  • Reply to: Friday News: Obstructionists   22 hours 5 min ago

    I try to follow the local county GOP posts on social media. They hate Tillis. If he were to part ways with Trump, they would hate him more - if that is possible. I am always amazed at how they can endorse in a primary. They don't even try to hide it. Of course, their finance reports have gaping holes too.

  • Reply to: Sunday News: From the Editorial pages   1 day 4 hours ago

    This week's loser is Leah Byers of Civitas, for her partisan-laced and science-deficient attack on environmentalists:

    Environmentalism once again took the center of the national policy stage when self-proclaimed “climate activists” prodded children across the country to skip a day of school to protest climate change. The Sept. 20 event came to be known as the “climate strike,” and it epitomized the sensationalism at the center of the climate movement.

    Once again, they didn't "prod children," the children prodded us. Because they are rightfully concerned about the inaction to combat climate change, and angry enough to do something about it. The author and other right-wing pundits try to cast this as a "fringe movement" of hippie tree-huggers, but the Climate Strike was a global phenomenon involving millions of people. And for those who slop at the fossil fuel trough, that is horrifying.

    This emotion-based activism has, in many cases, led the movement to promote policy conclusions that are misaligned or even antithetical to their stated goals.

    No example better illustrates this point than the opposition of environmental groups to natural gas pipelines. Natural gas has around 55% fewer carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions than burning coal. Yet new natural gas pipeline projects tend to stir radical responses and staunch opposition from environmental activists.

    You will not find the word "Methane" anywhere in this propaganda piece, either because the author isn't aware of that incredibly important factor, or she's intentionally leaving it out. Either way, it makes this sorry attempt at analysis unfit for publication.

    North Carolina currently has one major natural gas pipeline, but there are two more projects planned for the state in the coming years. The Cooper administration approved the Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP) in exchange for a $58 million slush fund (which was rightfully diverted by the General Assembly). Now, the same department that approved the ACP in exchange for ransom has publicly opposed a second project, the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP), saying they “remain unconvinced” that the MVP is necessary. This reversal in position on pipelines from the governor may be a result of pushback from far-left environmentalists on Cooper’s energy policies.

    It was not a "slush" fund, it was a mitigation fund. To ease the environmental and economic impacts of the pipeline on the communities the pipeline forced its way into. And all the Republicans did was reroute that money to the school systems, which they will likely trade off with reduced funding from tax revenues. Spurring another round of tax cuts, most likely.

    I'm sure that will please the author and her faux-Libertarian masters, but it's a net loss for those in the pipeline's path.

    Some activists say that a cleaner energy source is not enough and that the only path forward is through a zero-emissions energy portfolio. The American Action Forum’s conservative estimate of infrastructure cost is $5.7 trillion for a transition in the United States to zero emissions by 2030. That’s a staggering amount considering energy infrastructure is projected to cost only $48 billion during that same time if we continue on the current trajectory.

    Tell you what, when you can tell me where the American Action Forum gets its funding, I might pay attention to their numbers. But right now, that group is not just dark, it's pitch black. And the affiliate org from which it sprang (American Action Network) has spent tens of millions in dark money getting Republicans elected, and it's a good bet they're deeply involved with the companies that want their share of that $48 billion you mentioned.

    We shouldn’t fool ourselves, however, into thinking that opposition to natural gas expansion is a reasonable compromise position. Slowing the growth of natural gas in the U.S. has real consequences for low-income Americans.

    Lol! Right, because you care so much about them. Cut their Food Stamps, cut their Medicaid, cut their unemployment benefits, expose them to housing discrimination again, and the list goes on. And when Climate Change floods them out, or burns them out from drought and wildfires, what then? Where will they go?

    You have no answers for that, because you don't care enough to contemplate it.

  • Reply to: Duke University hosts town hall on funding of Islamophobic networks   1 day 21 hours ago