Column for June 19, 2008

Troy's critique of the Selma Strategic Plan

I waited a couple of weeks to allow the Selma Strategic Plan to be disseminated before I made my commentary thereon public. I figured I would allow people the chance to read it in a previous edition of this very newspaper and download copies from the internet. Also, the town council has formally accepted the plan, so now would be an appropriate time to "add my two cents worth". I downloaded my copy as soon as it was available, printed it out, and got out my red pen to start scribbling notes in the margins.

I am not seeking to criticize any one or even the concept of having the Strategic Plan, though I am proffering my critique. I do seek to add some insights and suggestions for carrying out such a plan for Selma. I found a few things I would like to see added and taken into consideration.

The name of the project is perhaps misleading. The document is not actually a plan so much as it is a list of suggestions for the town for inclusion in a future plan. The 38 page document I have in front of me contains mostly suggestions for improvement after listing some strengths and weaknesses in the town. There is nothing wrong with that per se, and I am glad to see some honesty on the part of the plan makers.

To be quite honest, and I have written about this previously on the internet, I am glad to see that council member Cheryl Oliver has been doing a lot of work on this plan. When she ran for council last year, and I am being blunt about this, I truly felt that though likeable and intelligent, she was lacking on knowledge of the issues facing Selma. This is no slight to her, since she had not been long returned to Selma to reside here.

The only way anyone becomes informed on the issues is with time and with active participation. That is the only way I got to know anything about Selma, by the choice to get actively involved, read, listen, and find out for myself. That made me a better citizen. By her participation in a project like this, I am sure that Ms. Oliver has become a more informed citizen, and just as importantly, a more informed elected representative. That is good for the constituents of Selma as a whole.

I see that Pat Weaver also had a lot to do with the document. I have seen Pat and her husband, Ken get involved with our town. I have had a few conversations with Pat in the past. Perhaps some of our citizens have seen Ken speak at citizen's forums at council meetings. I also serve on the Planning Board with Ken. It is good to see Pat and Ken both becoming involved more in Selma. I do wish that more people would do as they have done and get more involved.

So begins my critique. Chapter One states the mission of the planning committee and the report. It has the obligatory information about who, why, etc. Not much to comment upon except that I did not find the "plan" to contain much in the way of laying out an actual plan, as stated earlier. Still, the document has value.

Chapter Two probably could have been eliminated altogether. The stating of the town's history is not planning or a necessity to a plan, in my opinion, but it was nice to get a refresher and the information out there. I will comment on the town's history and its benefit later.

As to the section "Location", I am perplexed about one sentence. "This makes Selma quite appealing to residents, businesses, and tourists." I have never considered Selma a tourist destination. Sure, we have The Rudy Theater with the fine performances put on there, but other than shopping for antiques, that is about it. I do not consider antique shopping or catching a show to be tourism. That is mission oriented, short-term visitation.

Unfortunately, the one thing that makes Selma an ideal location for travelers on I-95 to stop for a break, being midway between New York and Florida, is the same thing that brings us problems. There is a significant drug trade along I-95 between Miami and the Northeast Corridor. Selma, Kenly, and other towns along our stretch of the interstate are unfortunately both the benefactors and victims of that desirous geography at the same time. We get both the visitors desired and undesired at the same time. I guess we have to take the good with the bad.

I have to chuckle a bit at the idea of a Vick's Museum. Smithfield's great claim to fame is being the birthplace and residence of Ava Gardner. Quite honestly, with Ava having been of a generation earlier than my own, I was not familiar with her so much until I started working and then living in Johnston County. I have one or two of her movies on the shelf, but that is about it. I can see some dedicated fans or movie lovers stopping and seeing the shrine to her in downtown Smithfield, but it is hard to imagine people stopping to see a shrine to VapoRub.

I personally had no idea that the salve my mom used to smear all over my chest and under my nose was invented in the town where I reside until just a couple of years ago. I worked in this town for several years and later lived here a while before I finally found and took the time to read a history of the town. I had no idea that I could look from the end of my drive way and see the building where that smelly stuff was invented. Now that was cool, I thought.

I don't think that we have the original apothecary of Lunsford Richardson laying around anywhere for us to set up. I would personally be amazed if Procter and Gamble would be interested in setting up a museum to their product, but you never know. Perhaps a few well placed VapoRub vending machines in Uptown would be fun and useful. The Vick Building is perhaps the only truly historic building in town, in my opinion, but I will write more on this concept later, as I am out of space for this week.

Column for June 12, 2008

I read with disgust a recent commentary by T.D. Jakes, senior pastor of The Potter's House of Dallas, Texas. You may have seen him on television. His commentary was about the pending nomination of Barack Hussein Obama for Democrat candidate for President. Jakes says that it is an "historic accomplishment". No doubt. Never before has a Black made it so far in a Presidential campaign. Let me say this straight up. I could not care less about the color of a man's skin if he is running for President of the United States of America. I care about his beliefs. I would probably vote for Condi Rice if she was running. I would vote for Allan Keyes over most other candidates in a minute. What I care about are a man's principles and leadership.

It is with amazement that I see a "Bishop" (I hate titles in the Church. Bishop is the latest fad. Before that it was Apostle. Before that, Prophet) giving such accolades to a man simply because he is of the same race. Two things, Mr. Jakes. First, Obama is half Black, since you are paying attention to race. He is not fully Negro. Does that matter, or are you just happy to claim someone as one of your own if he has any Negroid blood in his veins? If we all go back to Adam and Eve, and again down through the lines of Noah, as his "faith" teaches, then we ALL sprang from a common ancestry, just different genetic combinations. It is with great wonder that I look to see how simple yet so complicated it is for genetics to propagate under God's plan and create all varieties of people.

Here is an absolute apostacy of a quote from Jakes. "However, what I really hope people take away from that night is that this is not just a victory for African Americans, it is a victory for democracy that proves that our country provides possibilities for all people. It is also a sign that a metamorphosis is in progress. Today we saw that Americans respect experience, but are interested in change. I hope that we can somehow merge the best ideas of our differences and emerge with a president who epitomizes our highest and best ideals."

Here are some problems with that quote. First, it is not yet a total victory for anyone. It is potentially a nomination and it is not yet secure, but most likely will be. Second, it is not a victory for "African Americans". Personally, I despise that term since it is a misnomer. Not all Blacks in America came from Africa or from ancestors that came from Africa. Furthermore, there are millions of Whites in Africa, as well. I do not consider myself an "Anglo American" or a "Franco American". I am an American. Period. Should White men and women who immigrated from South Africa or other nation on that continent also be referred to as "African Americans?" If my French ancestors were native to French colonies in Africa, then later immigrated to North America, should I start referring to myself as "African American"? Why so many terms by which Black wish to be referenced? There was Black, Colored, Negro, now "African American". Choose one and stick with it. Thus, I refuse to use the term in every day vernacular, just as I refuse to use the term "gay" to refer to homosexuals. Both are hijacked, inaccurate terms arbitrarily and autocratically derived.

Third, we do not live in a "democracy". We live in a representative republic. There is a huge difference. Mr. Jakes should know that, but he instead perpetuates the lie of us being a democracy.

Fourth, Americans DO respect experience. Barack Hussein Obama just has very little of it to be taken seriously as a candidate by everyone who will not vote for him. That has been a major topic of discussion since he announced his candidacy. Mr. Jakes, to WHAT experience do you refer?

Fifth, we can not "emerge with a president who epitomizes our highest and best ideals" in this election cycle. None of the three candidates (stooges) reflect that statement. If Obama epitomizes our highest and best ideals, then the United States must be a Socialist nation and no longer exists in its original form as bound by its Constitution or foundation. Wherein does Barack Hussein Obama reflect the highest ideals of America? He wants to socialize medicine, he refuses to meet with our military leaders in Iraq, he wants to raise taxes, and turn a Republic run on capitalism into a Socialist Utopia.

Another quote by Jakes is "I congratulate not just Sen. Obama on his victory, but the country on this landmark event that has shattered a past all too often filled with reasons to separate us as opposed to a voice of reason to unite us."

Mr. Jakes, it is not the color of Obama's skin that divides him from those of a different skin tone. It is his politics, his beliefs, his lack of experience, and just plain being an inappropriate candidate for President. The only people who are united are those who put their skin color ahead of their principles, or are liberals and therefore have no sound principles.

As a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, T.D. Jakes of all people should be absolutely disgusted with the racist, hateful, and theologically errant pastor, Jeremiah Wright's teachings. As the leader of his home, Barack Hussein Obama chose Rev. Wright to be his spritual mentor, perform his marriage ceremony, baptize him and his children, provide spiritual nourishment for his family, and to sow into that infertile ground with his money and time. Nobody can convince me that you can go to a church for two decades and not understand the sort of philosophies perpetuated by the leader of said church. To deny that is a blatant lie and is of the Father of All lies. For T.D. Jakes to endorse this behavior, indirectly endorse these values, and to approve of a man who has been thusly indoctrinated is just plain wrong and antithetical to the Gospel he claims to represent.

I have no problem congratulating Barack Hussein Obama on his accomplishment. It is indeed an historic event and great accomplishment. However, when men of principle fail to exhibit the very substance for which they purport to stand, it disgusts me. I am a man of faith in Christ before I am a White man or an American. My faith determines my principles and my identity, not my skin color. I have had problems with the theology of T.D. Jakes as it is. This obviously shows more problems with Jakes' theology. Disgusting.

Column for June 5, 2008

Holy cow! I actually agree with Obama on something...sort of.

I will admit that I would rather be stabbed to death with a plastic fork than vote for Barack Hussein Obama. The same for Hillary Clinton, for that matter. I am almost that way about John McCain, as well, though my feelings about his candidacy are not quite as visceral. I find him repugnant to my sense of decent government nonetheless.

Imagine my surprise when I found something about which I agree with Obama…well, almost. I believe in equal opportunity critique, and find just as many problems with so called conservatives as I do with liberals. One recent issue that came up was whether or not our President should be willing to sit down and have discussions with representatives of other nations deemed to be our country's enemies.

A couple of weeks ago, Barack Hussein Obama was quoted as saying "I want everybody to be absolutely clear about this because George Bush and McCain have suggested that me being willing to sit down with our adversaries is a sign of weakness and sign of appeasement." He believes that a President should be willing to sit down and have diplomatic discussions with adversarial regimes. Personally, I believe that he is 100% correct.

Thomas Jefferson had the same viewpoint as Obama, just with a slightly different end goal, I suspect. The United States negotiated The Treaty of Tripoli with several nations in 1797 in an attempt to end the Barbary Pirate conflict. Prior to finally voting for Lee's Resolution for independence on July 2, 1776 and the initial signing of the Declaration of Independence two days later, the Second Continental Congress drafted and sent The Olive Branch Petition to King George III of England in 1775. I have taught extensively on and love that portion of US history.

Obama said that sitting down and talking was the method of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, and he is correct. The 1986 Reykjavík, Iceland summit between Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev in comes to mind. There were Strategic Arms Limitations Treaty talks (SALT) in 1969 in Helsinki, Finland. There was SALT II in 1979. We also had START I and START II (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) in 1991 and 1993, all with the Soviets and later with what became Russia.

The United States has a long history of having talks with our adversaries. I find it amusing that as much as the Republican presidential candidates kept referencing Ronald Reagan during the debates, they refuse to follow his lead in dealing with nations such as Cuba, Iran, and North Korea. I only wish that Reagan took that lead with other nations, as well.

Having dialogue with your adversaries does not show weakness nor legitimize their positions. It shows your willingness to be reasonable while being strong enough to stand for your convictions. That is, provided that you do not acquiesce.

For over 50 years, the US has had a failed policy of cutting off Cuba with a futile embargo. We have nixed all travel by US citizens to the island nation, as well as all trade. While we maintain the position that trade with China will bring about reform and a penchant for our way of life and freedom, we still snub Cuba. Personally, I believe that if we showed them freedom, American goods and ingenuity, and exported our values, then there would come reform from the bottom up. Instead, we have helped that nation remain in the 1950's. I heard one reporter describe his recent visits to Cuba as being "a scene right out of The Godfather, Part 2". I am very familiar with that movie, considering that The Godfather is my all time favorite movie, and I have seen the trilogy many times.

Here is where I differ from Barack Hussein Obama on his position of dialogue with our adversaries. I do not believe for one minute that Obama has the best interest of the US in the forefront of his mind. I believe that he is an appeaser with a soft spot for Islamic terrorists. From my readings and hearing, Obama believes that our own nation is inherently the source of evil in this world while he is soft on Islamic nations who perpetrate violence on the rest of the world. He has already had meetings with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran. I doubt that his meetings had the same tone they would have if I was the one meeting with him.

The difference between Obama's example of Ronald Reagan and myself is that Reagan "carried a big stick" into his meetings and spoke from a position of power and confidence. I personally have no problem with letting someone like Ahmadinejad know that if he messes with us or our troops in Iraq, that I would not hesitate to turn the sands if Iran into a sea of glass and bomb all of Persia back into the Stone Age. Sure, a good portion of that backwards, Third World nation is there already, but I would oblige further should he attack or meddle with the United States.

Though I agree with Obama that we should always be willing to talk with our adversaries, I do agree more with the Teddy Roosevelt philosophy when he quoted loosely from an old African proverb. In 1901, Roosevelt said we should, "Speak softly and carry a big stick." I do not necessarily agree with his foreign policy of "Big Stick Diplomacy" as it was used (I will not get into a long winded discussion of The Monroe Doctrine or Roosevelt's Corollary), but I do believe that we should always negotiate from a position of authority, power, confidence, and with a perspective that will always put our own nation's interests first. I doubt Barack Hussein Obama has that capability.

Fan mail and hate mail about my last column

I apparently hit a nerve with my May 29th column. Just a few hours apart, I got some fan mail and some hate mail. Here are both. The fan mail is shorter, so I lead with it.

---------

Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 15:49:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Janie"
To: troy@troylaplante.com
Subject: tired of paying-----
Glad someone is speaking up about these kinds of things. The gov. certainly is not listening tho. I wish they could get hold of some of this wrong doing. I had a hard time getting to whePre I am but I worked hard and did it. So can others. Thanks for speaking out. Janie Corbett Wilsons Mills

---------
And now the hate mail, to which I wrote a LONG response and offered to print her letter as a rebuttal column one week.
---------

Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 19:58:53 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
From: "jennifer"
To: troy@troylaplante.com
Subject: tired of paying for others


Mr. Laplante, I would like to start off by saying that I too love in Public Housing so may not reach the criteria necessary for you to even read this e-mail. I will however write and send it to you for my own benefit. I moved into housing as a single mother of three children recently divorced with only a high school education. During my stay in public housing I have obtained an associate degree and a bachelor degree with the help of Financial Aid, Loans, Scolarships and work study programs. I have not once been without a job since I was fifteen and worked throughout my college career. That having been said I graduated with a Bachelor of Social Work this past May and have gained employment in a field relative to my degree but due to the lack of experience on my part still strive for better paying employment. I cannot afford to move out of public housing even on my income which is higher than most of my fellow project buddies. I personally know the family whose home was broken into. The family has a set of twins both suffering from cerebral palsy. Can you imagine? My sister lives next door in the same set of projects as me and she also has a daughter with cerebral palsy. I personally have no children who suffer from any disease, but I can tell you that my sister pays the full amount of rent which runs about the rate of a house in our neighborhood. The only benfit is the utilitiy costs are substantially lower. Both my sister and I strive to move out of public housing where our homes are entered weekly, our children are not allowed any outside toys, no pools, no tramploines, no sport equipment, we cannot put up border, plant flowers, get satellite without permission, and have any personal privacy. I have no central air, no dryer hook up, and my clothes line is under some trees in a neighbor's yard where birds do there buisness on my clothes daily. My son has been stung by a bee that hid
in his underwear of the line. He has also been biten by a spider that caused him to have his leg sliced open to drain the poison. None of this compares to living in fear that someone that is in our same project will break into our home while we are gone to steal the few possessions we do have not to mention the fear of a home invasion from these same thieves risking the lives of our childre or ourselves. I have so much anger and rage toward your comments about us having to shop in thrift sotres because we cannot afford to have nicer things. Who would choose poverty of prosperity. So many of these families have obstacles you cannot even imagine. Regardless of your claims of poverty, I cannot believe you have endured the lengths of which so many of us in these neighborhoods have. I feel that you have been spoiled by life and are in a position to judge freely because you pay taxes. Had you lived in the years of the depression and seen the government create these programs that helped so many American's to survive. To benefit from these programs should not mean that the person should live the most impoverished life available. You should be ashamed of yourself and your printing of such comments in my opinnion. Who am I though, just an educated poor person striving to gain the luxury you have. I still have so much I would love to say, but I truly believe my experience and beliefs will be waisted upon your ears and eyes. I am just greatful that there are people out there that are not so spoiled by there lives to see that everyone deserves to have a little luxury in there lives that last so short and that there children should not have to be clothed by the local thrift store just because they recieve a little help in this harsh world where they were blessed with two severly sick children who will not recover and will continue to be sick. Diapers for life, specializes equipment, nurses, docters visits, drool that dosen't stop, the lack of speech, feeding tubes, a trach in the throat, and so much more than you can imagine and your worrid about tax money. Money can't buy you or those three babies health or happiness. You disgust me with your thinking. Write a letter to George W. Bush and complain to him about feeding and fighting for the Iraqi people and the war. There are levelsor castes in every society. The rich, the middle class and the poor.It has to be that way according to some philosphers. You should be glad you don't have to work the fields for the fruits and vegetables you eat or for the cotten that your clothes are made of. Be happy you don't have to flip the burger that your family eats on a trip out. Be happy you don't have to wash the nice vehicles of those who come to the car wash. Be happy you have what you have and leave those of us just struggling to have a little of what life has to offer alone. I hope that you are not angered by my opinnions and I hope I sounded a little knowledgable on the subject. I hope these things for myself though not for you. You already have to much luxury in life.

Jennifer Williams

Column for May 29, 2008

I am tired of paying for others to have a place to live

Recently, there was a news story about a robbery in Selma. On May 4th, I saw that an arrest was made in a break-in case at a Selma Housing Authority apartment. The break-in was committed by another resident of the apartment complex, just a few doors down. This is not the thing that amazes me. What does amaze me, however, is that the thief stole over $4800 in jewelry, electronics, and clothes. I got to thinking about just how much stuff that is. Nearly five grand can buy a heap big amount of bling, Circuit City merchandise, and a few trips to The Gap.

My question is first and foremost, what is someone who can afford stuff worth stealing and worth almost five thousand dollars doing in government subsidized housing? Why are we as tax payers shelling out money to pay for cheap housing for someone who can afford to buy lifestyle items? Sure, everyone needs clothes. But if I am having to live at taxpayer expense, I had better be buying my clothes at Cheap Thrills thrift store in uptown Selma rather than at any new store. I had better not have several televisions, a stereo, video game system, cell phone, VCR, DVD player, all the latest movies, and spend money on such if I am willing to suckle off the government in order to have a place to live.

There should be constant means testing for any government assistance. Someone being handicapped and unable to work is one thing. If someone is able to work and does not, that is something else. If this crime victim is working and underemployed, then that is hardly the fault of the taxpayers of this town, county, state, or nation. Therefore, if he or she can afford to spend money on such items while living in housing that we are subsidizing or owned such items before getting into such housing, then there is something wrong with the system.

I was standing in line at a grocery store not long ago. Ahead of me was a woman checking out, paying with WIC (the Women, Infant, and Children government program) vouchers. She was dressed in a business suit. She had a cell phone with Bluetooth wireless headset. She also had just purchased one of the best toasters and cookware sets in the Wal-Mart store. They were already in her basket, paid for. Then she bought the most expensive juices in the store and baby formula with WIC vouchers. I get real tired of paying for others to eat. Sure, I can afford all that I have, and have money to spare. I was buying some stuff I wanted rather than needed, in addition to some stuff I had need of, and I can afford to do so. That is my prerogative. What irritates me is that someone who had on nice clothes, nice jewelry, bought better kitchen appliances than I own, and can afford a cell phone plan with wireless headset is suckling off the government at the expense of the taxpayers. Multiply this by millions of sucklers and we as a nation are being milked for money to pay for the lifestyle choices of others.

Recently in this very column, I dealt with the voting record of Congressman Bob Etheridge. I just read that he has voted in support of "The American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevent Act of 2008". This bill is designed to help prop up home values and keep foreclosures from happening. Basically, those who bought more house than they could afford or were stupid enough to get and keep an adjustable rate mortgage are in danger of losing their homes. Of course some well meaning, pandering liberals want the government to illegally step in and take up the slack at the expense of the general population. People are indeed losing their homes because of economic conditions and their own bad choices in life. However, it is hardly the responsibility of the populace to bail someone out of their problems.

Why should those who can not afford to pay a regular, private mortgage company be given the opportunity to refinance with a government backed loan, instead? Why should a governmental bureaucracy be allowed to bail out those who can not afford to pay a loan with yet another loan at tax payer risk and expense? If people can not afford their homes, then they need to find other homes that they can afford, even if that means renting an apartment or other meager accommodations. I have been there and lived that myself. When I could not afford to either purchase a house or continue paying the high Raleigh rent rates, I rented a broken down, old trailer in the country here in Johnston County for over five years until I could afford to buy.

I have worked hard to afford the things I have now and I am sure that most of you readers have, as well. I have been dirt poor, earning below the poverty level for years. I have had economic hardships in my lifetime, but refused to look to the government for help. Rather, I worked harder to get out of poverty and live comfortably. I wish that more people in this nation had the same resolve and that law makers would require it of those who are allegedly in need before they gladly fork over our tax dollars under the guise of compassion when they are actually enabling the behavior at our expense.

Column for May 22, 2008

It is not just people in the proposed ETJ that oppose its expansion

Some nights I would rather just stay at home. That is how I felt when debating whether I wanted to attend the last several Selma Town Council meetings. I knew that this last one, which would have the public hearing on the proposed expansion to two miles of the Extra Territorial Jurisdiction for planning and zoning, would be a long meeting. From what I read in the paper, it was. Since I am not sitting on the Council, though I once felt an obligation to attend meetings regularly as a citizen, I am less inclined to do so, especially with all the activities going on in my own busy life the past six months.

Since I am on the Planning Board, I got a chance to see the proposed ETJ expansion map. From what was explained by Stan Farmer on his next to last day on the job, as well as the consultant hired to work on the plan, the town's planning lines up pretty will with what Johnston County has zoned for the ETJ. On that aspect, my recommendation as a member of the Planning Board was that if the town was to go ahead with the ETJ expansion, that we simply take the territory as it is and zone it according to the closest comparable zoning that is in our town code. That was a "no brainer" to me. When asked to put that into a motion, I declined. The reason that I declined was that I was not at all in support of the concept of an ETJ expansion, much less the existence of an ETJ to begin with. Since I am morally opposed to an ETJ on several grounds, I verbalized that I would not make any formal motion that would support the adoption of said jurisdiction. When the motion was made by someone else and the votes cast, I was the only negative vote.

I was reading the comments by some of the citizens of the proposed ETJ and I am inclined to agree with some of what was said. I am only commenting upon what I have read in this very publication. First and foremost, in my estimation, the sole reason for an ETJ is so that the town can control the area just outside of its borders so that it can be consistent with the region inside its borders. The reason for this is for the purpose of expanding the town limits via annexation.

Annexation has been a hotbed of conversation and action in Selma. The folks who expressed a concern about future annexation as a result of this action have a good case for their suspicions. I had expressed this very concern at the Planning Board meeting last month. The reason of "every other town in the county is doing it" is not sufficient reason for Selma or any other town to do so.

I still do not have any earthly idea why Johnston County even has the authority to allow a two mile ETJ. TWO miles, folks. The entire town of Selma is only 3.5 square miles in area. Why should a town that small control such a huge outlaying parcel of land for its own planning purposes? The City of Raleigh had to meet certain population requirements in order to have that much of a planning jurisdiction. It is just plain morally wrong for the towns in a county whose entire population is roughly one third of a city like Raleigh to be entitled to the same size ETJ.

The criticism of the new interim town manager, "when one speaker wanted to know how someone from Louisburg could possibly know anything about what was going on in Selma" is a bit unfounded. First, this entire project was started under someone else's tenure. Secondly, Mr. Gobble has just recently started this job, so I do not expect him to know everything about Selma. For that matter, Stan Farmer, for all the praise he received, never lived in Selma. At least the town manager that the Town Council fired a couple of years ago, Jeff White, had a house right in town, was a Selma citizen, and a voter during his tenure. That is not to slam Stan Farmer's work. Actually, he and I got along well. It is simply to make a point.

The bottom line is that the entire existence of an ETJ is solely for the purposes of lining up and controlling growth outside of a town to prepare that territory to eventually be annexed into the town. Meanwhile, as was noted by one speaker at the public hearing, the residents of the ETJ have zero ability to elect representation within the town who have a measure of control on those without. That is just plain unethical in a representative republic. The only say that anyone from the ETJ has is that residents of the ETJ do have seats on the Planning Board, which are appointed by the Town Council. However, those seats are not directly chosen by the residents themselves, nor are the Planning Board members vested with any binding authority, thus making such representation of no consequence.

The 150 or so people who attended the public hearing and were cynical had every right to be and had experiential evidence to back up their concerns. I, as someone who resides within the town limits, serves on a town board, and cared enough about Selma to run for elected office twice so that I could stand against things like ETJ expansion and annexation, am rather dubious and have said so repeatedly.

Column for May 15, 2008

The new state budget sounds good...or does it?

I was reading with great interest about the proposed budget for the State of North Carolina. Governor Easley recently announced the new state budget. Truthfully, if the figures that I have read are accurate, there are some things I like to see in the budget...at least on the surface. Dig a little deeper and you will see the fallacy of the claims being made.

The first thing is that we as a state are looking at proposed surplus a $152 million. Based upon past performance, I wonder how long it will be before our state legislators spend that surplus, just as they have every other one. Instead of applying that surplus towards public debt or other proposed public funding projects, several huge surpluses, some over one billion dollars, have been spent on pork barrel projects or other frivolous spending sprees.

Governor Easley is playing with figures to claim to be providing a pay increase for teachers in North Carolina. Each year we hear about raising the pay of NC teachers to the national average. Here in NC, the average teacher pay is about 6.9% behind the national average. It is an annual mantra we hear in NC, that we must raise the pay of our teachers to match the national average.

Sorry, but by the very definition of an average, there are some higher, some are lower. NC happens to be on the lower side. So what? Teachers, though they often have a difficult and valuable job, only work some nine months out of the year. I don't get three months off every year, nor do the majority of Americans.

Next, the North Carolina average salary takes into account counties such as Martin, Bertie, and other small, poor, rural areas. Obviously, pay in these areas will be lower than say in Charlotte or Raleigh. That just makes sense. To use rural areas with comparatively few students to argue that all teachers should get an increase based upon an average is no different than comparing states like Arkansas against New York for standards of living and pay to form the national average.

The 4% average pay increase proposed for state employees is really a misnomer. It is a numbers ploy. Basically, the 4% is really only a 1.5% increase plus a $1000 bonus. The numbers game is that this should average out to almost 4% for many employees. Again, it is a numbers game and is being falsely represented. Many employees will earn higher, many lower. Ergo, the claim is specious at best.

There are a couple of tax increases set in this budget. What is really onerous about these tax increases is that the proposed budget takes into account the idea that the proposed tax increases will be passed. If the legislature deems it inappropriate to increase taxes, then the proposed budget surplus is moot.

I am absolutely no fan of tobacco use. I know that this region is "tobacco country". I just find there are few things in life more disgusting than cigarette smoking. As much as I find smoking offensive and stupid, I find the concept of freedom something to be protected. Ergo, I am not one to eliminate any and all smoking, much less heavily tax tobacco products. Yet higher taxes on tobacco is exactly what is proposed by the Governor.

The State of North Carolina is often hypocritical in its stances. First, it promotes agriculture here in the state. Farming tobacco is a part of said agriculture. While supporting farmers, the state is at the same time discouraging the use of the very product raised in North Carolina. Further taxation is effectively a further deterrent of consumption. Each pack of cigarettes sold in North Carolina currently nets the state 35 cents in taxes. The proposal is to take that total to 55 cents per pack. The increased taxes on tobacco products will allegedly fund pay increases for school teachers and administrators. When you tax something, you discourage its consumption or often change behavior. Thus, I am dubious as to the validity of this proposal.

On the surface the claim of a $396 million cut in the general fund is a great thing. However, the overall budget is going up by 870 billion dollars. If spending truly is to be cut, then the budget would not increase, especially in an alleged economic slow down. The government is increasing its staffing and budget, yet the economy is supposedly slowing down. Why would the Governor grow the size of bureaucracy when he should be shrinking it?

Another thing that bothers me is that the state is increasing the budget to the UNC college system by $34.6 million. Yet it is Governor Easley himself that is causing the increase in costs to the state collegiate system. It is Governor Easley who is supporting the idea of allowing illegal aliens to attend our college system. This costs the taxpayers money, just as aliens do in our primary education system. We, the people are subsidizing their education, and these costs will only go up. Instead of looking to educate those who do not even belong in this country to begin with, we could be trimming our budget and/or opening such educational slots to legal citizens.

It would seem to me that if we will in deed have a budget surplus, just as I do when I have one, that some bills would be paid off and my cash flow output would be lessened to a degree. Then again, if I spent my money the way the State of North Carolina does, I would spend that surplus on things I do not need and go further into debt for things I should not buy. I would end up bankrupt whereas the state will tax and borrow more money to meet its shortfalls and create false surpluses.

Don't buy the budget claims on the surface level. Read a little bit and do not be fooled by the rhetoric.

Column for May 8, 2008

I am so glad now that the primary election is finally over

The primary election has finally come and gone here in North Carolina and I, for one, am glad it is over. I do believe that this has been one of the most vacuous elections, totally devoid of any substance, that I can remember. The first election that I can remember as a youngster was Gerald Ford versus Jimmy Carter in 1976. I was all of eight years old and it was the first time I started to pay attention to any election. At that time, I remember simply thinking that Carter should be elected because Ford already had a turn at the helm. Though that is not the case in this election, since George W. Bush will be leaving office because of a term limitation, it might as well be the same mindset that elects the next President.

All week long, my telephone has been ringing with recorded messages for and by political figures. I got a call from North Carolina Governor, Michael Easley on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign. When getting a call on behalf of Hillary Clinton, I figured that the caller ID would show a number of (666)666-6666. I was surprised to find that the caller ID actually showed a South Carolina phone number. I also got calls from Leo Daughtry, from political pollsters, and some for the campaigns of candidates running for state senate, the Barack Hussein Obama campaign, and who knows who else. My answering machine has a cute female default voice with a generic message, so I hope that their machines had fun talking to my machine.

Since I work for a large media company, I have been able to hear some of our sales scuttlebutt. Normally, we do very little primary election advertising revenue. This year, we have a ton of such ad revenue. I have seen more newspaper, heard more radio, and seen more television ads for Governor, President, State Senator, Lt. Governor, and County Commissioner than I have ever heard, read, or seen in a while.

The crux of most ads have little to do with actual issues. The issues that are stated usually have zero Constitutional relevance or practicality. The promise of suspending the federal gas tax and funding this proposed tax cut by absconding profits from oil companies is one issue that I have heard on some ads. Wow. Does the promise to steal money to cut taxes really appeal to people? Keep in mind that if it is fine for government to steal from a company, it is also fine for them to steal from ordinary citizens, since a corporation is an artificial entity.

I have heard more negative ads this campaign season than I have heard in a long time. There were plenty of accusations about support of amnesty for illegal immigrants by one candidate and a direct response by the other. Many of the non "mud slinging" ads I have heard were rather generic, were pandering to particular classes of people, and totally vacuous.

What has been rather frustrating for me is that I wanted more information on some of the judicial, state, and county office candidates. I looked to some of the usual media outlets for candidate information. I was familiar with these outlets, having participated in and cooperated with them in the past myself. I found very little in the way of candidate information, especially about the issues. I do believe that I have been more frustrated in this election cycle than in any other in terms of searching for candidate information. I even went to the few web sites I could find for some of the candidates. Even those web sites published by the candidates themselves were lacking in content as to what the candidates stood for and why I should vote for them.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I am an issues oriented guy. I do not rely on what party someone belongs to for a measuring stick, though it does tell me to which ideology someone subscribes. I could not care less what the color is of someone's skin or whether the person was born with XX or XY chromosomes. I do care about the character of the individual, the world view of the person, and the stances on the issues. It does not matter to me that Barack Hussein Obama is Black or that Hillary Clinton is a woman. It is their views on the issues that I find repugnant. It is his perspectives on the issues that repel me from voting for John McCain. It is his views on the issues that will cause me to vote against Bob Etheridge. Unfortunately, I could not find the views of some of our candidates and what they believe are the issues at hand.

For these reasons, I do believe that I have been the most unenthusiastic, the most resigned to mediocrity, and the most exasperated that I have been for any major election for which I have had the capacity for remembrance.

One thing I believe for a certainty is that the American public deserves a break when it comes to the exercise of a presidential primary election. We ought not stretch this process out any longer than we already do. This is the first time a North Carolina vote has had any real bearing on a Presidential election in a very long time. However, I would have much rather seen our election happen back on "Super Tuesday", along with the rest of the nation's states, all on the same day. If we can all manage to vote on one day in November, why can we not all manage to vote on one day in this primary process? It would spare us all the seemingly incessant, vacuous pablum with which we have been bombarded.

Column for April 24, 2008

Please, Mr. Etheridge, read the US Constitution!

Politicians often make claims and push agendas that will get them either elected or re-elected. Our local Congressman, Bob Etheridge is no exception. I have watched his career for years, starting when he was State Superintendent of Public Instruction. When he ran for Congress the first time, I interviewed him on several occasions for a broadcast outlet where I was employed at the time.

One thing that should be a pre-requisite for running for federal office is to pass a history and civics exam. Each Congressional, Senatorial, and Presidential candidate should have a basic, nay, advanced knowledge of United States history and government. I do not know if that knowledge exists a forehand and it is conveniently forgotten upon entering the Beltway around Washington, D.C., or if there is just plain ignorance on the part of those running for elected office.

Don't get me wrong. Pandering has been going on for centuries, and on many different levels. I have seen candidates here in Selma whose messages were simply, "I am going to lower taxes and utility bills" or a promise of health care for our elderly citizens. Regardless of the level of office, it happens.

One thing about Bob Etheridge is that he is known for bringing back federal dollars for North Carolinians, especially for the special interests of agriculture and civil service. For the past several years, old Bob has been active on farm bills at the federal level. He was responsible for helping with the tobacco buyout a few years back. He has recently been appointed to work on the final draft of a farm bill that will set agricultural policy in the United States for the next five years. Congressman Etheridge was quoted as saying, "I am pleased that I have been appointed to have a seat at the table to fight on behalf of North Carolina’s farm families and consumers."

My major question is simply why the federal government is even involved in setting agricultural policy and will interfere with the free market economy? For years, I have decried the concept of quote programs, farm subsidies, and the like. To pay people to not grow crops is a bit insane to me. To tell people how to, how much to, and how to sell a crop is just antithetical to the concept of a free society.

I know that Bob is revered amongst the farming community. He even claims to be a farmer himself. However, owning farmland does not make one a farmer, any more than owning an automobile makes me a mechanic.

Another issue that Congressman Etheridge has been involved with recently is his support for a bill that will guarantee student loans for college students. In his support, Mr. Etheridge said, "With growing uncertainty about the economy, it is appropriate for Congress to take steps to ensure that students and their families continue to be able to access college loans."

Again, I have the same question about the free market economy and government intervention. Since when is it the job of the federal government to ensure that people have full economic access to a higher education? Sure we as a society may all benefit from someone becoming educated. However, education is not a right, much less the access to borrowing money for such. The guarantee of rights is a function of government. The securing of personal choices that not all can afford or require, however, is not a function of government.

Life itself is not fair. It is not an appropriate function of government to ensure that all have an equal opportunity to attend a higher educational facility. It is their function to guarantee equal access, but not the opportunity to avail one's self of the privilege.

Speaking of schools, Bob Etheridge is also a proponent of spending federal money in the form of grants to fire departments, police departments, and school systems in the name of "homeland security". Perhaps that money would best be left in our own pockets or maybe even at the local governmental level to begin with so that it does not need to be sucked out of our pockets, filtered through Washington, DC, then returned to the region in a diminished capacity.

Why we applaud when money is laundered under the guise of taxation, a hefty cut taken out of it for administration, and then sent back to our region in far smaller quantities than what was sent is beyond my comprehension. Most of the programs upon which we spend such dollars are extra-constitutional. If Congress spent money only on those things specifically enumerated by The Constitution, I believe that your tax burden would be cut to a fraction of its current level.

The only thing that I will grant to Mr. Etheridge in his desire to return tax dollars for schools under the guise of "homeland security" is that the preamble to the Constitution does indeed say, "insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence". It is a stretch to spend tax money on improving security at individual primary education facilities at the local level, however.

Another part of the preamble to the U.S. Constitution declares the purpose of the document is to "promote the general Welfare". Note that it is the general welfare of the nation and not that of the individual, farmer, student, or teacher.

When voting for a candidate for elected office, look to see if he or she follows the simple guidelines set forth for their office and exhibits the principles embodied in their official capacity. I do believe that you are going to have an extremely hard time finding men or women who do that this coming election in November, or even this primary election next month. I have not seen a keen Constitutional mindset exhibited by any candidate at the national level this time around. Then again, that is nothing new. It just seems that this year is worse than any time in recent history, Mr. Etheridge especially included.

Column for April 17, 2008

Can we PLEASE take up the Friskies bowl?

I used to set out dry cat food under my carport to feed an outdoor cat that I adopted. Since she was a neighborhood stray that wandered over to my house from time to time, I had no idea to whom she used to belong. She came over from a house that had been foreclosed upon, so my thought was that she may have been abandoned when the former property owners left. Since I had no idea of knowing her name or whether she even truly had a home, I figured I would come up with a generic name by which to call her. Considering my sense of ironic humor, I chose "Fluffy" to name this short haired, mixed breed cat.

Fluffy was a great cat, as it turned out. She was cute, affectionate, and loyal. She was also still somewhat feral, however, so she stayed outside for the most part. Occasionally, Fluffy would come inside and snuggle, even eat with my other cats. She got pregnant one time and even gave birth to a kitten in my closet. The kitten only lived about 48 hours, though. After the kitten died, I took Fluffy to get spayed. I kept up with her shots and health care. The one thing that I could not keep her healthy from was the constant traffic in my neighborhood. Fluffy was pretty good about crossing the busy road on which I live. One day, however, Fluffy's luck came to an end and I had to bury a flat cat.

While Fluffy was still alive, there were a couple of other cats that came around my house to enjoy the cat food I put out for Fluffy. Both the Fluff monster and I were agreeable to feeding other neighborhood strays, even if they were not as friendly. As a matter of fact, they never even allowed me to touch them, much less get anywhere near them. They did, however, recognize that this was my place, who I was, and the fact that I was their benefactor. Even after Fluffy died, I kept putting out the cat food and water for the other cats. Since there were two gray tabby cats that came around, I called them both "Tabby".

Hey, I know that the originality is just overwhelming, but all I wanted was some way to which to refer to these cats. I also have three parakeets, one of which was named already by someone else. The other two I call "Birds". As far as I am concerned, that is their collective name. It may not be original, but it works. I also have a dog I named Slime Dog, since when I rescued him, he was tethered outside in the freezing rain on a fifteen foot chain with no shelter. His paws were slimy from the mud, his soaking wet coat, and the piles of dog excrement through which he waded inside that little radius of his existence. He got his paws all over my clothes, and I told him how slimy he was; that he was a "slime dog". He responded to that term, and a name was born. OK, back to the main point now.

Besides the two tabbies, I also had other, uninvited creatures that would visit for the free food. A flock of blackbirds camped out under my carport. They often flew in to raid the cat food bowl. They built nests under the carport. They used the bird bath I have in front of my house. All of that did not bother me so much. I thought the sight of birds eating cat food was rather humorous. The unfortunate part was that the birds had absolutely no respect for the free lunch nor the provider and his property. They left a lot of droppings all over my concrete driveway and carport area. My brick steps and hand rails were constantly covered in bird droppings. All they cared about was the hand out. The longer the free food was available, the more birds showed up. The message spread. More and more birds came and visited my free Meow Mix buffet. Soon there was less and less cat food available for the tabbies, for whom the food was originally intended, since the birds kept eating it faster and faster, along with leaving droppings faster and faster. Since I could not be constantly monitoring the food supply each and every moment of every day, I could no longer keep up with the birds' consumption of food never intended for them to eat.

Eventually, I got disgusted with the mess left by the birds and the bill for the constant food replenishment. I power washed the bird droppings, took up the food dish, and never put out any more cat food. Rapidly, the cat food eating blackbirds all left my carport and have not returned since. My bird bath no longer is over run by a "town council", as I called them, of birds meeting at my bird bath. Now cardinals and robins freely enjoy the bath that was once monopolized by the freeloaders. Once the hand outs were removed, the freeloaders left.

This is a real life parable from which we as Americans can learn. The tabbies still come around from time to time, though seldom, and I always say hello to them. Occasionally, I even try to tempt them with some cat morsels. I feel sorry for them, since the good thing I tried to do for them was ruined by those who took advantage of the system.

This is no different than our welfare system, our food stamp program, and (especially) our policies on illegal immigrants. If we remove the freebies, we as Americans and the source of the buffet, will stop getting covered with droppings by those who seek to do nothing but take advantage of a system never intended for them and have nothing but disrespect for those footing the bill for their freeloading. Those for whom the system was truly intended will continue to get a raw deal, since the supply will be eaten up by freeloaders. Until we as Americans decide to take up the Friskies bowl, we will continue to have freeloaders drain our economy and poop all over our homeland.

Column for April 10, 2008

Martin Luther King and Moses

This past weekend was bittersweet for many Americans. Saturday and Sunday marked the anniversary of the loss of one leader and the recent loss of another. Though very different in many respects, they had the same end desire, freedom and equality. Even so, their respective views of equality may have been different.

April 4th marked the anniversary of the death of Martin Luther King, Jr. King is revered by millions, vilified by others, and is held with indifference of estimation by still others. King's life was indeed ended prematurely and tragically, which unfortunately, made him a martyr in the minds of many. He has been deified by many, which I have seen with my own eyes and heard with my own ears. For some reason, he has become an object of worship among some of his race. Personally, I believe that King would have found this abhorrent. Unlike many White folks, I have actually read behind King. The internet is full of documentation and audio of his speeches. I personally spent three days with one of King's disciples at a conference discussing racism.

King said in his famous "I Have A Dream" speech, "Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred." It is unfortunate that so many of those who claim to follow King's vision do just that. All one has to do is listen to one of his disciples, Jesse Jackson. Even worse has been the rhetoric of Barack Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright, which has been full of pure venom. Oddly enough, many of these people carry the title of "reverend", and yet I never hear them preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Rather, I hear a social gospel, which tickles the ears of those who feel wronged by their status and position in life and blame society as a result.

One thing of which I am sure is that racism is not exclusive to Caucasians. It is certainly more prevalent, yet less overtly so, in the minds and actions of so called liberals. Liberals tend to tell people of color, whether of African or Hispanic heritage, that they can not advance in society without the assistance of the government. Over forty years ago, the great hope was for equal treatment under the law. Today, it seems that it is a hope that the government will supply their needs rather than having the opportunity for pursuing the dreams that equality can offer.

King said in the same aforementioned speech, "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'" These words are the foundation of this nation, and many were excluded by law from this creed. Today, the work of those like King resonates with the result. There is indeed equality under the law for all, regardless of skin color. The rest is up to the individual to rise above circumstances and thrive rather than flounder in pity and doubt.

One of my favorite lines from King's speech is "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." A big amen to that line. If it would be so, however, then we would no longer have the enslaving paradigm that so called affirmative action brings. We would no longer allow welfare, regardless of skin color, to be propagated generation after generation.

One man who actually marched with King and the civil rights movement, was Charlton Heston. Heston was a staunch conservative and later, president of the National Rifle Association. He was very politically incorrect in a very politically correct society such as Hollywood. Yet, Heston knew that the opportunity for equality was an essential tenant of what I refer to as "classic liberalism". Classic liberalism bears no resemblance to modern day liberalism as we know it. Actually, classic liberalism is what is true conservatism today. Few actually practice it, however. Liberalism refers to the practice and promotion of liberty with accompanying exercise of responsibility.

Heston knew that gun rights were essential to the exercise of freedom. That is just one aspect of individual liberty, as he obviously understood, hence, his participation in the civil rights movement of the 1960's. His dream, however, was a bit different than those liberals of today. He believed in the principle of being free to succeed, yet free to fail; of being free to participate in the American dream and take advantage of the freedoms available, yet taking responsibility for one's own actions and success or lack thereof.

Heston, who portrayed Ben Hur, Moses, El Cid, and John the Baptist, died this past weekend. I was saddened to see this, though it was not unexpected. Charlton Heston was 84 years of age and suffered from Alzheimer's Syndrome.

I am amazed at the difference between civil rights activists like some of Martin Luther King's disciples, who have perverted the message of King to be a self serving and ironically enslaving paradigm and someone like Charlton Heston, who preached freedom and equality for all until the day he died. Heston's message actually embodied the concept of "…a nation where [people] will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character". I wish that there were more that preached that message in this nation.

Selma, Alabama may have been where MLK and his disciples chose to bring the message of freedom, but I have chosen Selma, North Carolina to do the very same thing, regardless of skin color. The civil rights movement was a necessary thing, and has made great changes in our nation. What we need today is a civil responsibility movement to follow up and free minds now that the bodies have been freed.

Column for April 3, 2008

What in the world are people thinking?

I just fail to comprehend the mindset that some people employ when it comes to the state of affairs in America. Maybe it is because I read notes from the Constitutional Convention of 1787, read biographies of people like John Adams, and watch historical documentaries for leisure. Then again, I read "The Godfather" and watch the movie from time to time, as well.

Just this evening (I am writing this on Monday) I was asked opinion on the upcoming Presidential Election with the choice basically of Obama, Clinton, or McCain. My whole answer was that it looks like people may have to vote for the lesser of three evils. In this case, this expression could not be more appropriate. It is, however, merely indicative of the national, apostate paradigm.

I was reading a news article just today on the latest new powers proposed for the Federal Reserve. I guess the facts that "The Fed" is not exactly Constitutional, nor that the Federal Reserve Board are not really accountable to anybody is important to most in government. The proposal would cover everything from regulation of mortgage lending to insurance agencies, to investment brokerages.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was quoted as saying, "We must take steps now to provide help to families who are hurting." I am sorry, but it is not the government's job to help every family who is having issues. I have been literally bankrupt in my life (though I never filed as such) but worked hard to overcome my situation. If I borrowed more to buy a house than I could afford, it would seem that it is my own fault for obligating myself to such a commitment and not the lender's fault. That is why we have record defaults and foreclosures. More regulation will not solve problems like that. I took advantage of the great lending market five years ago, as did millions of other people. I have just paid my mortgage every month and I did not buy more house than I could afford.

We already have The Securities and Exchange Commission, which regulates the financial markets. The Federal Reserve, an almost autonomous body would have broader powers to look after financial markets and risks. The very idea of risk is the definition of what makes a free market economy. Some take risks and win, others take risks and lose. I take risks three times a month as I put money into my ongoing investments; others do the same to whatever extent suits them. That risk sometimes pays off for me, other times not so much. Nonetheless, it is my risk to take…or not.

Barack Obama is on record as wanting to raise the capital gains tax and provide universal health care. Hillary Clinton is determined to get us some sort of health care system that will take over one seventh of the economy. John McCain wants to legitimize twelve million lawbreakers and provide amnesty to illegal aliens in this country. McCain is famous for McCain-Feingold, a law that limits free speech during campaign season under the guise of campaign finance reform.

Now, our so called champion of "compassionate conservatism" President and left wing Congress want to illegally place more regulatory power into the hands of an un-elected body of bureaucrats and tinker with an already reportedly precarious economy.

Closer to home, I have been reading about revamping the Triangle Transportation Authority and giving it another name and maybe a new focus. I still hear about toll roads in North Carolina. I hear about school systems asking for 12% increases in budgets. Some counties in the state are still talking about a land transfer or sales tax increase.

Why do we allow such things to happen? Why do we just "take it in the teeth" as citizens? Just today (Monday) I watched a reenactment of a tax collector getting tarred and feathered in the 1700's because of excessive and unfair taxes and trade practices. Yet I look on the horizon and see that we are about to elect either one of two Socialists or a pseudo conservative to the highest office in America. What are people thinking? In which parallel universe or Twilight Zone episode am I living? Still, I thank God that this is not my home, because people are sure trying to ruin this one.

Column for March 27, 2008

Santa, and Bunnies, and Fairies! Oh My!

One of the great joys of my life lately has been that I have become the "big brother/adult male role model" type for a five year old. I have been blessed to have been doing this since just before Christmas. So far, I have experienced Christmas, Valentine's Day, and Easter with this tot's family. His grandmother and mother have been very happy to have a man in this little guy's life. His own father abandoned him and his mother a couple of years ago. This family has worked hard to instill values into this little guy. He has been getting a lot of reinforcement from me for over three months, and I hope I have the opportunity to continue in this role for some time to come. He and I have been spending a lot of time playing, teaching, and traveling together.

One thing I am not willing to do is to cross the boundary of teaching something different from what his family teaches him. There will come a day when some things will need to be explained to him with which I may perhaps be able to help. Like I said, I have spent Christmas and Easter already with this tyke. Therefore, I have seen the whole Santa Claus and Easter Bunny thing just recently. Since I have not had children myself as yet, I have not had the ability to exercise the decision to teach about these characters or not in my own family. Since the family to which I refer believes in allowing a child to have these fantasies, I am not about to contradict this practice, since it is not my place, but I do have my personal beliefs about these things.

My parents perpetuated the myths of the Tooth Fairy (with a five year old, we have not yet had to contend with that one), Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny. I believe that I shall not perpetuate it to the next generation of LaPlantes, should there ever be direct descendants from my branch of the family tree. Personally, I do not want to tell a child about omniscient, omnipresent, mythical beings which I later have to explain do not exist. I have a hard time with the idea that I will have to instill my values into a child, and tell him or her about an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, supreme being and creator who actually does exist after ascribing some of those attributes to a myth. That is my personal conviction, however, and I put it out there for others to consider, without condemnation whatever your choice or belief shall be.

Some day in the distant future, someone will have to explain to this tyke that he will have to pay income taxes to a corrupt governmental system that is far from its original intent and according to laws that do not require him to do so. Someone will have to explain that Social Security will most likely not be available to him when he wants to retire. Someone will have to explain to him that a national debt (now over ten trillion dollars) will be upon his back and the backs of others his age. Someone will have to explain why the best candidates for office do not always get elected. Someone will have to explain to him that there are those who do not have the same values as he has been taught.

His mother and grandmother have worked hard to instill into him the idea of work and reward, even at this young age. There are those who do not believe in that principle. He is going to be angered as I was just last week when I was in the check out line at Wal-Mart. Ahead of me was a woman checking out, paying with WIC (Women, Infants, and Children government hand out) vouchers. Here she was dressed in a work suit. She had a cell phone with a wireless headset, and had just purchased one of the best toasters and best quality cookware in the store. They were already in her basket, paid for. Then she bought the most expensive juices and baby formula in the store with WIC vouchers. This little guy will eventually see that there are those purposely milking this country dry at his expense. Personally, I would like to take an inventory of luxury items such as televisions, cell phones, video game systems, and high end automobiles owned by those who receive government assistance.

I hope to be able to explain these and many other things about growing up to be a man to this tot. Certainly, a five year old can not be taught about economics, welfare, or the unfairness and complexities of life. As much joy as I get from having befriended this tot and his family, I am almost depressed about what his generation faces. There are some hard truths ahead which are perhaps harder to swallow than the fallacy of the Tooth Fairy.

Column for March 20, 2008

If done right, and responsibly, the streetscape plan would be nice

I watched with interest the short presentation on the proposed streetscape plan for Selma at the last Town Council meeting. This is not a new plan. Basically a three year old plan has been recycled for consideration. For those familiar with the project, Smithfield just underwent a similar streetscape project. To their credit, Smithfield's downtown district does look a lot better than it used to.

Personally, I like planned neighborhoods with business districts nearby that have nicely planned streets. I also like things places such as South Pointe Mall in Durham and the new North Hills in Raleigh. They are very attractive. Those looks, of course, come with a price. For Selma, the proposed plan would be about $1.5 million. Personally, I do like the idea as well as the price tag and believe it to be worth the price. I find it to be a good investment in the town on several levels. I have sat down and pondered the pros and cons of having such a project in Selma. I have contacted people involved in the Smithfield project so that I can have more input for my thought process. Here are my concerns, including both pros and cons.

For the pro side, there would be an obvious benefit as to the aesthetics of "uptown" (just because you call something "uptown" as opposed to "downtown" does not change its character. A rose by any other name...yadda, yadda). The sidewalks would look better, the streets and crosswalks would look better, and the traffic lights hanging on a wire would be replaced by a better system. There would be more town pride, and we may realize more visitors to downtown in the long term. I spoke with one of the coordinators for the Smithfield project, and he said that as yet, there are not quantifiable increases in the business volume in their downtown as a direct result of the project. Is it still a worthy idea? I believe so, provided that we do it properly.

The last major streetscape project in Selma, as I understand it, was 50 or so years ago. Sidewalks were laid and oak trees planted along the streets. Since I live on the west side of Selma, I can mainly speak for what I see on my side of town, since that is where I walk, drive, and spend time the most. The sidewalks are torn up, uneven, and trees diseased and unkempt. Roots have grown up, trees grown into the path of travel both on the roadways and sidewalks, and even block the views of traffic getting onto the main roads from driveways and side streets. Basically, the nice idea was executed but left to languish in the mire of malaise and neglect.

The current project will have beautiful sidewalks. I live just two blocks from edge of the proposed work. I can not walk my dog around the block without tripping over uneven and broken sidewalks. Some areas of town have no sidewalks at all. In that regard, the town should be more concerned about liability of sidewalk surfaces than it was over the liability of an old water tower a year and a half ago. I would hate to see the trees and sidewalks of the new project fall into the same state of neglect and disrepair as the last major overhaul. If we as a town are going to commit to such a project, we need to obligate ourselves to long term maintenance and planning.

Another thing that bothers me about the project is the proposed method of funding. I have written previously about my disdain for using federal government loans, especially the USDA program, for financing. Sure, the loans are low interest and available. The same USDA project has also helped fund almost putting Howell Theater out of business by funding the construction for the Dickinson Theater near Factory Stores. Yup, your tax money helped about kill a local business. Never mind the fact that nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to lend money to towns. What do a movie theater and town sidewalks have to do with agriculture or the USDA, anyway? We as tax payers pay for the original funding to the end up in Washington, DC. Then, we as taxpayers fork out to pay the loan back at the local level. Every time you buy a movie ticket at the 10 screen theater, you are helping pay yourselves back as taxpayers.

I am not keen on obligating the town and our future generations for the next 40 years to pay for something that only costs $1.5 million. If we plan things correctly, we should be able to fund a lot of that ourselves. I don't care if we have to be creative and offer the opportunity for people to donate money to supply the bricks for the sidewalks or buy the trees. I will gladly pay for some bricks my own self. This is, after all, my town. I am sure that people can, for the right price, purchase vanity bricks with the names of donors in them for all to see and walk upon. People could purchase memorial stones (such as the stars on the sidewalks of Hollywood) of prominent Selma citizens past and present. For that matter, I don't care if the new traffic light poles look like giant Coca Cola bottles or Butterfinger candy bars, as long as they are not purchased with taxpayer money. OK, I exaggerate, but you get the idea.

It was suggested that a special local tax be levied to fund the project, but I am certainly not fond of increased taxation, and I am not sure that such a tax would help in Selma, considering the difference between our town's business district and that of Smithfield, where the tax did help fund their project. If I had to choose the lesser of two evils, I would perhaps choose the USDA funding that I so abhor.

Either way, if we are to have a streetscape project, we truly need to get creative with financing, we need to have long term commitment to maintenance of the project once complete, and perhaps we need to look at taking care of the last major project and fixing its issues for the sake of aesthetics and liability before tackling a new one. To me, the last part makes sense and I feel it would perhaps be a wiser use of tax money. It would also contribute to making Selma "A Charming Place to Be". Sure, a new streetscape project would certainly do that, and I support the idea of a new project. However, I also hate to do so at the expense of previously abrogated responsibilities.

Column for March 13, 2008

Why not just call it what it is?

Just the night before writing this column, I had an excellent dream. I dreamt that the head of a governmental agency at a local county decided to charge a fee for a service on top of its customary, nominal charge. That move caused a lot of anger and protests amongst the public, since people understood that the additional fee for service was just another way of passing a tax increase without having a formal increase voted on and passed by the elected officials for that county. Now that was actually a pleasant dream to me. The idea of recognizing that the fees associated with government services for which we already pay with our tax dollars are just another form of taxation was an epiphany to many people in my dream. The idea of so many people having such a revelation, however, would be just a dream, I fear.

Calling something by another name does not negate the impact or reality of the thing. For instance, I looked at my fuel bill recently. There was a fuel surcharge for delivering propane. It does not take over $3 worth of diesel fuel to deliver a few gallons of propane along a route. However, bury that charge as a line item surcharge rather than jacking up the rate per gallon, and the cost may be hidden in the lines on the bill that show taxes charged. Just call it what it is, a rate hike.

I remember getting into a rather tense discussion with a pastor and his staff at a Triangle area church which I used to attend many years ago. As a matter of fact, I used to be on part time staff there. I was paid a paltry $300 per month for my work there. I do not say paltry in that I was disappointed in the rate of pay. Rather I say that I had asked to work free, as my labor of love to serve my God. The pastor insisted on paying for my labors, and I acquiesced. During this time of employment, I got to see the monthly budget for the church. Both the pastor and his wife were employed at this fairly large congregation which taught along the lines of many televangelists you may have seen over the years. There were numerous checks written to the two of them each month.

Whether the check was for a housing allowance, a car allowance, an insurance allowance, salary, etc., the bottom line is that all checks were to them and went into their checking account. To me, that is income, regardless of how the IRS categorizes it. If it is money coming in, it is income. On my job, I get one check and out of it I have to pay my housing, my insurance, my transportation expenses, etc. Ergo, each check to them, in my humble yet most accurate opinion, is in fact income. Call it what it is. It is money coming in, therefore, income. That pastor and his wife were taking home (not before taxes, mind you) in excess of $100,000 per year. I do not begrudge anyone earning that amount at all. I do, however, have a problem with not admitting that it is what it is, income.

During that same time frame, the church congregation gave thousands of dollars in cash to the pastor and his wife as love gifts for pastoral appreciation celebrations. The congregation gave money for birthday, anniversary, and Christmas gifts each and every year. Some gifts were very expensive. Here I was in one of the lowest income years of my life after a lay-off and the church elders were pushing for more and more monetary gifts to send the pastor and his wife on an all expense paid vacation. Three times, the church leaders twisted the arms of the parishioners for more money to send the couple on a vacation, while they were already earning plenty of money with which to pay for their own trip. Many congregation members were shamed into giving when they could not afford to pay their utility bills or feed their own families. By contrast, I said that I was in a money crunch and I called it like I saw it. The couple was making six figures a year and they can afford their own doggone vacation, thank you. This of course, went over like the proverbial turd in a punch bowl, and my employment was short lived from that point forward.

I learned a lot from that incident. People who wish to squeeze money out of you are willing to change the name of what it is that they are doing and resent someone calling it what it really is. Whether it is a charlatan trying to pry money from your wallet, a utility company wanting to find a way to get more cash each billing cycle, or a power and money hungry bureaucracy, people will lie, obfuscate, and play semantics to get what they want. They resist heavily those who wish to speak the truth.

My encouragement is that all would be blunt and bold enough to call it like it is. Call a tax a tax. Call a lie a lie. When facing the upcoming elections, see past the rhetoric of "change". Call taxation, socialism, and amnesty plans exactly what they are. When dealing with businesses, governmental agencies, and organizations, call their actions as they truly are and do not allow semantics to dissuade you from the truth.

Column for March 6, 2008

So, the free market system actually works? Ya' think??

Just as expected, the free market system is thriving and beating out old, ineffective governmental regulation and subsidy. I read with interest the article in last week's paper about the increase in tobacco business for local farmers because the quota system has been abolished. Tobacco acreage in the county has increased 46%, according to the article. The headline said, "Quota gone means local farmers grow more tobacco". Upon reading that obvious line, I said, "Nooooo...ya' think???" It is not the writer I was questioning, but the obviousness of the outcome so stated.

There are a few things for which government regulation is appropriate and necessary. Primarily, these areas deal with business ethics. Make no mistake, the mantra "You can't legislate morality" is totally false. The same people who use this phrase or battle cry the most are the very ones who wish the government to regulate morality most. Quite often it is to protect their own aberrations, but the same government that protects the individual freedom is sometimes the one that protects from incursion. A great example are the Enron and WorldCom scandals. About the only protection that citizens have is government regulation in such cases.

The absence of regulation, however, has great effect when it comes to innovation. A great example is that the local cable company offers an alternative to the monopoly telephone company for home phone service. The service via cable is reliable, good quality, competitively priced, and a great value, considering the calling features and unlimited long distance plan that comes with the service. Had this been an even more heavily regulated concept, there may not be an alternative to the technology of the turn of the 20th Century.

The same free enterprise spirit allowed by governmental regulation is conversely hurting that same industry. All television signals must convert to a digital format rather than broadcast analog by the end of February 2009. That is less than a year away. A lot of telecom, cable, and broadcast companies will end up charging more money to accommodate the government regulations being imposed for a change to newer technology. The industry had thus far been driven by consumer demand and cost effectiveness. Now, millions of television viewers will be left without broadcast television because of a government regulation that in effect has made the televisions in millions of homes obsolete. Sure, television is a luxury, not a necessity. However, government power has been exercised to the chagrin and cost of many.

Had tobacco growers been allowed to simply grow all the tobacco they wanted and sell to whomever they wanted in years past, there would have been no reason for a quota system, much less a quota buy out. We as tax payers forked out millions of dollars to buy out the quota system only to see the tobacco business grow after the government control was scrapped, thus benefiting the farmers twice. The same should be done for all other crops in this nation. The free market system must be allowed to determine how much corn, soy, turnips, whatever, are grown, not government regulation and interference. We should never pay farmers to not grow crops or incentivize the growing of other produce.

It is precisely government regulation that has gotten us the boondoggle of ethanol use and implementation in this country and thus the created market and demand. Few people would voluntarily use ethanol as a fuel, considering the cost, the miles per gallon, and the scarcity of the product. A few pinheads thought that benefits would fit some Utopian plan and therefore we should all pay the price for the vision of a few charlatans. This is not to mention the idea that corn producers would benefit greatly and lobbied for the governmental interference. Without such interference, corn farmers would be forced to compete on the world market for their produce and/or change their crops. However, forcing the sword of government regulation is easier than actually competing and working harder at the expense of all others.

If people can not compete in a given field of endeavor, then they need to either change professions or learn to compete rather than get the government involved. Those who can compete should be unshackled in order to be able to partake of the free market system. That is, after all, what made us the most powerful nation on the face of the planet, most likely in all of history. We are actually committing national suicide slowly but surely in many ways.