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.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Friday, April 18, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, March 28, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, March 07, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Column for Feb. 28, 2008
"Ow, my pancreas!" not as funny as it once was
I have enjoyed watching "The Three Stooges" since I was but a wee lad. I remember one line in one episode that comedic genius Larry "Fine" Feinburg said after getting hit in the abdomen. He cried, "Ow, my pancreas!" I thought that was actually a funny line since none of us really knows how a pancreas feels when it hurts. At least I didn't, until last week. A pancreas can actually inflict serious bodily pain.
For those of you wondering why my column was not in last week's paper (and I got several inquiries. Thank you all for that), I simply did not think to bring my laptop to the emergency room at Johnston Memorial Hospital. I probably would not have been able to think clearly, much less type through the Demerol induced mind fog in order to write. I did, however, already have a topic ready and outlined to go. Oh, well. Such is the nature of medical emergencies. My pancreas had its own time frame, so I was not able to write last week.
I did, however, gain a few perspectives and even reinforce a few others with my nearly week long stay in our county hospital. On a local level, it is obvious to me that we have an undersized emergency department as well as facility. I was told that every bed was taken, all rooms were at full occupancy, and that the day I went was the busiest they had in a while. I was amazed that here in little old Johnston County, we had that bad of a hospital overcrowding problem.
One reason for the emergency room overcrowding was the lack of judicious use of the facility by those who should probably have been at a clinic or urgent care center. Since the county hospital must see all who come there for care, the emergency room has become a regular doctor's office of choice for many, it seems, regardless of the patients for whom the visit is truly an emergency. I thought I was having a gall stone attack or the like, was yacking up many different colors of gastric content, was in pain, and about to pass out. I saw a few others who were bleeding and battered, but most were very mobile and probably should not be at a county hospital emergency room. There were a few brought in after an auto wreck. That is what an E.R. is for, not runny nose cases at tax payer expense. It has also become a haven for those who are here illegally to obtain minor medical care, since they will never be held accountable for payment.
I have heard of problems with friends and family having experienced the same and even seen it with my own eyes in times past. I realize that it is not the facility's fault for medical care that moves at the speed of smell as opposed to light. It is the system. It is the degree of socialized medicine we already have here in our nation. I had plenty of hours to reflect upon the horror of how my stay would have been should we be under Hillary Care or other totally socialized medicine program in this nation.
Here is what I did see that amazed me. I met many young nursing professionals, as well as some older ones. I met one lovely, elderly nurse with a grandmotherly look, demeanor, touch, and level of care. I loved her level of dedication and softness. The young professionals, however, amazed me most. There were some young females in our local Johnston Community College nursing program who were learning, and I was glad to be their patient in order for them to learn. Their instructors were meticulous and I was glad to see it. I am almost old enough to be the father of some of these young ladies, and I was encouraged to see the level of dedication and knowledge displayed by the younger generation in the medical field. I was encouraged when I talked to a young man in his mid 20's who shared his journey in getting his RN certification, about his family, and displayed a great degree of knowledge and care.
The young nurses were primarily single, I assume, since some of them work at more than one hospital and even travel a bit. I enjoyed hearing that they are experienced and ambitious. I was disappointed, in general, with the middle aged and older staff. It has nothing to do with the fact that the younger nurses look better, (though I would have preferred the Frederick's of Hollywood nursing uniforms on a few of them instead of the uniforms purchased across the street at the Medical Mall) but it had everything to do with attitude and level of personal care.
Is it that the older staff are worn down with time, cynical, more settled in life? Will the young, dedicated staff become a bit more bitter with age? I truly do not know. I just hope that the crusty folks I encountered will not remain as such nor be a model for the youth. I actually liked what I saw in and was optimistic about the next generation of medical professionals and pray that they will only improve with age.
I have enjoyed watching "The Three Stooges" since I was but a wee lad. I remember one line in one episode that comedic genius Larry "Fine" Feinburg said after getting hit in the abdomen. He cried, "Ow, my pancreas!" I thought that was actually a funny line since none of us really knows how a pancreas feels when it hurts. At least I didn't, until last week. A pancreas can actually inflict serious bodily pain.
For those of you wondering why my column was not in last week's paper (and I got several inquiries. Thank you all for that), I simply did not think to bring my laptop to the emergency room at Johnston Memorial Hospital. I probably would not have been able to think clearly, much less type through the Demerol induced mind fog in order to write. I did, however, already have a topic ready and outlined to go. Oh, well. Such is the nature of medical emergencies. My pancreas had its own time frame, so I was not able to write last week.
I did, however, gain a few perspectives and even reinforce a few others with my nearly week long stay in our county hospital. On a local level, it is obvious to me that we have an undersized emergency department as well as facility. I was told that every bed was taken, all rooms were at full occupancy, and that the day I went was the busiest they had in a while. I was amazed that here in little old Johnston County, we had that bad of a hospital overcrowding problem.
One reason for the emergency room overcrowding was the lack of judicious use of the facility by those who should probably have been at a clinic or urgent care center. Since the county hospital must see all who come there for care, the emergency room has become a regular doctor's office of choice for many, it seems, regardless of the patients for whom the visit is truly an emergency. I thought I was having a gall stone attack or the like, was yacking up many different colors of gastric content, was in pain, and about to pass out. I saw a few others who were bleeding and battered, but most were very mobile and probably should not be at a county hospital emergency room. There were a few brought in after an auto wreck. That is what an E.R. is for, not runny nose cases at tax payer expense. It has also become a haven for those who are here illegally to obtain minor medical care, since they will never be held accountable for payment.
I have heard of problems with friends and family having experienced the same and even seen it with my own eyes in times past. I realize that it is not the facility's fault for medical care that moves at the speed of smell as opposed to light. It is the system. It is the degree of socialized medicine we already have here in our nation. I had plenty of hours to reflect upon the horror of how my stay would have been should we be under Hillary Care or other totally socialized medicine program in this nation.
Here is what I did see that amazed me. I met many young nursing professionals, as well as some older ones. I met one lovely, elderly nurse with a grandmotherly look, demeanor, touch, and level of care. I loved her level of dedication and softness. The young professionals, however, amazed me most. There were some young females in our local Johnston Community College nursing program who were learning, and I was glad to be their patient in order for them to learn. Their instructors were meticulous and I was glad to see it. I am almost old enough to be the father of some of these young ladies, and I was encouraged to see the level of dedication and knowledge displayed by the younger generation in the medical field. I was encouraged when I talked to a young man in his mid 20's who shared his journey in getting his RN certification, about his family, and displayed a great degree of knowledge and care.
The young nurses were primarily single, I assume, since some of them work at more than one hospital and even travel a bit. I enjoyed hearing that they are experienced and ambitious. I was disappointed, in general, with the middle aged and older staff. It has nothing to do with the fact that the younger nurses look better, (though I would have preferred the Frederick's of Hollywood nursing uniforms on a few of them instead of the uniforms purchased across the street at the Medical Mall) but it had everything to do with attitude and level of personal care.
Is it that the older staff are worn down with time, cynical, more settled in life? Will the young, dedicated staff become a bit more bitter with age? I truly do not know. I just hope that the crusty folks I encountered will not remain as such nor be a model for the youth. I actually liked what I saw in and was optimistic about the next generation of medical professionals and pray that they will only improve with age.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Column for Feb. 14, 2008
I had several topics I wanted to cover, but none would take up a full column, so I decided to go with the "LaPlante's Rants" being plural rather than singular concept. So, here it goes.
I just finished filing my annual federal and state tax returns. Even with a good tax software program that I use every year, it was a real challenge this year. I had to deal with capital gains tax, stock options, medical bills, and more receipts than to which I am accustomed. I could have saved a few hours of my own time, corporations save tons of money, and Americans save plenty of time and money by having a simple tax code. I am a huge supporter of the so-called Fair Tax. We could replace our entire income tax and FICA tax system with a single national consumption tax. This would save so much time and money and none of us would have to fight with a tax code thicker than The Bible. It would also tax us according to our spending rather than the enslavement of our labors, all would pay taxes including illegal aliens and criminals, and we would not have an easily manipulated, punitive tax code.
I am very frustrated with the amount of taxes I have paid that will potentially going to people who do not work as I do, much less file tax returns. I personally know people who have what has been aptly termed a learned helplessness. There are people who frustrate me by leeching off the government, friends, and family. Why in the world do people cry total poverty, yet will run out to Wal-Mart to buy the latest DVD releases, get tattoos, buy cartons of tobacco products, pay for high speed internet, and satellite television? It is all a matter of priorities. I realize that there are truly those who are destitute in this world, but I am so tired of people begging to borrow money from me when they could simply do some planning on their own, exercise some self restraint, and do for themselves. In addition, many people could do much better on their own rather than waiting for the rest of us taxpayers to pay for their paltry monthly handout.
I recently had need to send a certified letter across the state. I paid the extra postage for the certified mail service, which also allowed for status tracking on the internet. I am glad that I could get an online status, since the post office is incredibly inefficient at returning mail such as mine that was refused for delivery. The letter took only one day to arrive for delivery, but after the recipient's refusal, I am still waiting for the return of the letter over two weeks later. Nobody at the post office can tell me where the letter is and why it has not yet been returned, even though there is a tracking bar code affixed to it. If UPS, FedEx, and DHL can track a package along every step of the delivery process, why can not the United States Postal Service do the same? Over five years later, my mother is still waiting for a Mothers' Day gift I sent her. When I got a PO Box, mail was taking six days to be forwarded from my home address in Selma to the PO Box. The mail was routed from Selma to Raleigh and then back to Selma to be placed into my box, just thirty feet from where the mail was placed to be routed through Raleigh. I was told that this was to make the mail process more efficient. If this is modern efficiency, I would prefer old fashioned common sense. Nothing will get better or service levels increase, but our postal rates will.
Speaking of the post office, what is it with these lazy people in Selma who are so lazy and inconsiderate that they will literally park the wrong way on the street in a no parking zone? It is literally scary to see someone cutting across traffic, going the wrong way, and then parking illegally. I see this most every day that I am at the post office. Many times I see that the offenders have handicapped parking placards and yet totally ignore the specific parking spot created just for them. Are people that lazy and selfish?
OK, one last one. My company recognizes Presidents' Day next Monday as a company holiday. I have a good friend who has to work that day where she works. That lack of a work holiday was a result of substituting Martin Luther King Day for Presidents' Day as a recognized holiday. It is bad enough that Presidents' Day was created to not recognize both the individual holidays of Abraham Lincoln's and George Washington's birthdays. There is no way I can possibly equate the celebration of Martin Luther King to the celebration of two truly great leaders of American history. This has nothing to do with race, just accomplishment, history, and importance of effect on this nation. Furthermore, I do have a problem with the idea of creating a holiday to appease a numerical minority.
As much as I would like to expound upon that last one, my space for this week's column has been taken up and my multiple rant packed column is now done for this edition.
I just finished filing my annual federal and state tax returns. Even with a good tax software program that I use every year, it was a real challenge this year. I had to deal with capital gains tax, stock options, medical bills, and more receipts than to which I am accustomed. I could have saved a few hours of my own time, corporations save tons of money, and Americans save plenty of time and money by having a simple tax code. I am a huge supporter of the so-called Fair Tax. We could replace our entire income tax and FICA tax system with a single national consumption tax. This would save so much time and money and none of us would have to fight with a tax code thicker than The Bible. It would also tax us according to our spending rather than the enslavement of our labors, all would pay taxes including illegal aliens and criminals, and we would not have an easily manipulated, punitive tax code.
I am very frustrated with the amount of taxes I have paid that will potentially going to people who do not work as I do, much less file tax returns. I personally know people who have what has been aptly termed a learned helplessness. There are people who frustrate me by leeching off the government, friends, and family. Why in the world do people cry total poverty, yet will run out to Wal-Mart to buy the latest DVD releases, get tattoos, buy cartons of tobacco products, pay for high speed internet, and satellite television? It is all a matter of priorities. I realize that there are truly those who are destitute in this world, but I am so tired of people begging to borrow money from me when they could simply do some planning on their own, exercise some self restraint, and do for themselves. In addition, many people could do much better on their own rather than waiting for the rest of us taxpayers to pay for their paltry monthly handout.
I recently had need to send a certified letter across the state. I paid the extra postage for the certified mail service, which also allowed for status tracking on the internet. I am glad that I could get an online status, since the post office is incredibly inefficient at returning mail such as mine that was refused for delivery. The letter took only one day to arrive for delivery, but after the recipient's refusal, I am still waiting for the return of the letter over two weeks later. Nobody at the post office can tell me where the letter is and why it has not yet been returned, even though there is a tracking bar code affixed to it. If UPS, FedEx, and DHL can track a package along every step of the delivery process, why can not the United States Postal Service do the same? Over five years later, my mother is still waiting for a Mothers' Day gift I sent her. When I got a PO Box, mail was taking six days to be forwarded from my home address in Selma to the PO Box. The mail was routed from Selma to Raleigh and then back to Selma to be placed into my box, just thirty feet from where the mail was placed to be routed through Raleigh. I was told that this was to make the mail process more efficient. If this is modern efficiency, I would prefer old fashioned common sense. Nothing will get better or service levels increase, but our postal rates will.
Speaking of the post office, what is it with these lazy people in Selma who are so lazy and inconsiderate that they will literally park the wrong way on the street in a no parking zone? It is literally scary to see someone cutting across traffic, going the wrong way, and then parking illegally. I see this most every day that I am at the post office. Many times I see that the offenders have handicapped parking placards and yet totally ignore the specific parking spot created just for them. Are people that lazy and selfish?
OK, one last one. My company recognizes Presidents' Day next Monday as a company holiday. I have a good friend who has to work that day where she works. That lack of a work holiday was a result of substituting Martin Luther King Day for Presidents' Day as a recognized holiday. It is bad enough that Presidents' Day was created to not recognize both the individual holidays of Abraham Lincoln's and George Washington's birthdays. There is no way I can possibly equate the celebration of Martin Luther King to the celebration of two truly great leaders of American history. This has nothing to do with race, just accomplishment, history, and importance of effect on this nation. Furthermore, I do have a problem with the idea of creating a holiday to appease a numerical minority.
As much as I would like to expound upon that last one, my space for this week's column has been taken up and my multiple rant packed column is now done for this edition.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Column for Feb. 7, 2008
Are there any Patriots left? Not if you are a Giant or love the U.S.
I was doubly dismayed at watching the Super Bowl on Sunday night. Not only did the New England Patriots blow a perfect season, I saw some corollaries that just saddened me. The New York Giants did not win The Super Bowl. The Patriots lost the game. There is a difference. The Patriots did not come in with their "A game". They seemed to be just going through the motions of game play except for a brief period in the fourth quarter. They were a much better team than they exhibited on the field.
I see a close parallel in today's culture. True American patriots are not coming to the game field with their best efforts. True patriots are not making the plays needed to secure victory. The effort just is not there. As a result, their opponents in the political realm are excelling and may very well win. For the record, I do not consider a former Muslim who currently attends a cultic "Christian" congregation and has a middle name of Hussein or the wife of a disgraced former President, both of which are admitted socialists by actions if not by name, to be patriots. I consider them to be the enemy.
I also do not consider liberally minded men who pretend to be conservatives to be patriots, either. When I see men running for the Republican Party's nomination for President who author bills that squash freedom of speech, oppose tax cuts, do not oppose gun bans, support amnesty for illegal aliens, desire to treat our war time enemies better than we treat our own soldiers, support increased spending and large government, and have just recently somewhat come to grips with some core conservative principles, I do not see patriots.
I may be biased, and I admit it wholeheartedly when it comes to this subject. One reason that I do not consider Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Mike Huckabee to be patriots in the truest sense of the word is because I have been studying a lot lately about the American Revolutionary War, the Declaration of Independence, and the U.S. Constitution. As a matter of fact, I have been teaching on the subject on a weekly basis for months. I have done extensive reading behind people like John Adams, John Locke, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Roger Sherman, and a host of others. The courage of men who "mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor" are far from those we have today. Basically, the true patriots of today, if there are any left, have failed to show up on the game field.
I can not, in all good conscience, vote for most of the men who are running for President this year. I would rather be stabbed to death with a plastic fork than vote for either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. If anyone truly believes that they would be good for this nation, then they must not have ever studied economics, the founding documents of this nation, and have no idea why we are a republic, not a democracy, nor a socialist nation. I have a hard time believing that anyone would purposely choose socialism over liberty.
I have an equally hard time voting for John McCain, who is certainly not a conservative. I have seen so many errant decisions on his part that I have a hard time discerning any vestiges of conservatism left in the man. Mitt Romney, though very articulate, is still a relative newcomer to conservatism. Quite honestly, I have misgivings about his loyalties, as well. Though Mike Huckabee is an evangelical Christian and ordained Baptist minister, I still dislike some of his soft stances on a few areas. Though I do not question his loyalty to God, I do question his loyalty to our form of government.
Even my first choice for President, Ron Paul, has some areas with which I strongly disagree. The more I study the U.S. government, our national heritage, and our founding documents, the more I am willing to overlook some areas of disagreement in order to cast a vote for a return to those values. He is certainly the only candidate espousing these same values and standing by them.
Alas, there are not more patriots in this nation that will vote as I will. This year, I refuse to hold my nose and cast yet another vote for the lesser of two evils. Then again, it may be the evil of two lessers. I don't know. What I do know is that just as I saw the New England Patriots blow a perfect football season, fail to show up to play their best, and allowed their opponents to take advantage of their weaknesses, I am seeing the exact same thing in our nation and have for years. Good, strong patriots seem to be in short supply, both in politics and in football.
I was doubly dismayed at watching the Super Bowl on Sunday night. Not only did the New England Patriots blow a perfect season, I saw some corollaries that just saddened me. The New York Giants did not win The Super Bowl. The Patriots lost the game. There is a difference. The Patriots did not come in with their "A game". They seemed to be just going through the motions of game play except for a brief period in the fourth quarter. They were a much better team than they exhibited on the field.
I see a close parallel in today's culture. True American patriots are not coming to the game field with their best efforts. True patriots are not making the plays needed to secure victory. The effort just is not there. As a result, their opponents in the political realm are excelling and may very well win. For the record, I do not consider a former Muslim who currently attends a cultic "Christian" congregation and has a middle name of Hussein or the wife of a disgraced former President, both of which are admitted socialists by actions if not by name, to be patriots. I consider them to be the enemy.
I also do not consider liberally minded men who pretend to be conservatives to be patriots, either. When I see men running for the Republican Party's nomination for President who author bills that squash freedom of speech, oppose tax cuts, do not oppose gun bans, support amnesty for illegal aliens, desire to treat our war time enemies better than we treat our own soldiers, support increased spending and large government, and have just recently somewhat come to grips with some core conservative principles, I do not see patriots.
I may be biased, and I admit it wholeheartedly when it comes to this subject. One reason that I do not consider Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Mike Huckabee to be patriots in the truest sense of the word is because I have been studying a lot lately about the American Revolutionary War, the Declaration of Independence, and the U.S. Constitution. As a matter of fact, I have been teaching on the subject on a weekly basis for months. I have done extensive reading behind people like John Adams, John Locke, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Roger Sherman, and a host of others. The courage of men who "mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor" are far from those we have today. Basically, the true patriots of today, if there are any left, have failed to show up on the game field.
I can not, in all good conscience, vote for most of the men who are running for President this year. I would rather be stabbed to death with a plastic fork than vote for either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. If anyone truly believes that they would be good for this nation, then they must not have ever studied economics, the founding documents of this nation, and have no idea why we are a republic, not a democracy, nor a socialist nation. I have a hard time believing that anyone would purposely choose socialism over liberty.
I have an equally hard time voting for John McCain, who is certainly not a conservative. I have seen so many errant decisions on his part that I have a hard time discerning any vestiges of conservatism left in the man. Mitt Romney, though very articulate, is still a relative newcomer to conservatism. Quite honestly, I have misgivings about his loyalties, as well. Though Mike Huckabee is an evangelical Christian and ordained Baptist minister, I still dislike some of his soft stances on a few areas. Though I do not question his loyalty to God, I do question his loyalty to our form of government.
Even my first choice for President, Ron Paul, has some areas with which I strongly disagree. The more I study the U.S. government, our national heritage, and our founding documents, the more I am willing to overlook some areas of disagreement in order to cast a vote for a return to those values. He is certainly the only candidate espousing these same values and standing by them.
Alas, there are not more patriots in this nation that will vote as I will. This year, I refuse to hold my nose and cast yet another vote for the lesser of two evils. Then again, it may be the evil of two lessers. I don't know. What I do know is that just as I saw the New England Patriots blow a perfect football season, fail to show up to play their best, and allowed their opponents to take advantage of their weaknesses, I am seeing the exact same thing in our nation and have for years. Good, strong patriots seem to be in short supply, both in politics and in football.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Column for Jan. 31, 2008
Remember, grant money is not free. We pay for it either way.
Is grant money from the federal government that is awarded to local towns or states free money? How about grant money that is given to private corporations or citizens? Is there any such thing as free money? Of course not. If it comes from our tax dollars one way or another.
I read with interest the news that the Town of Selma was awarded $850,000 in grant money last week. The money is intended for "community revitalization, infrastructure improvements, and the construction of affordable housing". Selma was one of eighteen municipalities that received grants. The money was supplied through U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and was doled out through the NC government. Also, I read that the towns of Pine Level, Henderson, and Dunn were awarded grant money through the Federal Emergency Management Agency for the purposes of safety, operational expenses, and fire equipment acquisition.
Perhaps we would have more ability to do things locally if the federal and state governments did not siphon off so much money into Washington, DC. Second, even though these are "grants", they are still coming from tax dollars. Furthermore, the purpose of the grants are to be for "rehabilitation of housing" and the construction of "affordable housing". The term affordable is subjective. The idea of my tax dollars being taken from me, a man who works a full time, skilled labor job, on the threat of force if I do not comply voluntarily to dole out my hard earned money, and having those dollars inefficiently laundered through the world's largest bureaucracy only to be filtered down to another bureaucracy, then to another, then to private citizens for them to pay minimal money for housing or to renovate their existing homes is just plain repugnant. It is insulting. It is unfair. It is a disincentive to succeed. It is communistic and evil.
There were 18 towns in NC that got the HUD grants and three FEMA grants in the state. Multiply this times hundreds of towns across the country each year and you can see how our tax dollars are being wasted on programs that are not even supposed to exist. Take this program and multiply it by the countless such programs that some communistic or ignorant fools have pushed through Congress, and some well meaning but selfish President who wants to get re-elected and play politics with our tax money have passed, and the amount of money is mind boggling.
Perhaps the only thing more insidious than the idea of a grant from the federal government to a municipality is the concept of the federal government providing a loan to a local municipality other local government for the purposes of infrastructure development and community revitalization. In such instances, we are taxed at the federal level to provide the loan and then get taxed on the local level to pay the loan back to the federal government.
I had an email discussion with a close friend about an article from 1955 in "Housekeeping Monthly". I have a copy of this article on my personal web site. The article was full of tips for women on how to take care of their husbands, how to run the home, how to relieve personal and family stress, and the like. This conservative lady asserted that the article was from 1955 and this was 2008. Below is my response, which is related to my disdain for such government spending.
"In 1955, most women did stay at home and take care of the kids and do the house work. Unfortunately, our tax burden increased substantially necessitating a dual income family. Also, the women's liberation movement only hurt the family structure. The 1960's forward really hurt with the hedonism, atheistic, and hyper libertine agendas. That led to a decline in the family unit, an emphasis on self reliance instead of family reliance, a rise in births out of wedlock, single parent families, divorce, and the need for women to work outside the home." By family versus self reliance, I was referring to the idea of only thinking of one's own self, not supporting the family unit but instead believing that one can and should only rely on one's own self. For instance, a woman can and should be able to stay at home and raise her children rather than paying some low income earner with a different set of values to raise them for her.
It is bad enough that we have a high percentage of our money taken in the form of taxation of various types and from various levels of government. To have my tax dollars, which could be used to renovate my own home (which I have been trying to work on more and more lately) and have them sucked into a giant bureaucracy and given to someone else to renovate their home is a travesty. It angers me, and it should you, too. I believe that I know how to spend my money better than some bureaucrat does.
Is grant money from the federal government that is awarded to local towns or states free money? How about grant money that is given to private corporations or citizens? Is there any such thing as free money? Of course not. If it comes from our tax dollars one way or another.
I read with interest the news that the Town of Selma was awarded $850,000 in grant money last week. The money is intended for "community revitalization, infrastructure improvements, and the construction of affordable housing". Selma was one of eighteen municipalities that received grants. The money was supplied through U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and was doled out through the NC government. Also, I read that the towns of Pine Level, Henderson, and Dunn were awarded grant money through the Federal Emergency Management Agency for the purposes of safety, operational expenses, and fire equipment acquisition.
Perhaps we would have more ability to do things locally if the federal and state governments did not siphon off so much money into Washington, DC. Second, even though these are "grants", they are still coming from tax dollars. Furthermore, the purpose of the grants are to be for "rehabilitation of housing" and the construction of "affordable housing". The term affordable is subjective. The idea of my tax dollars being taken from me, a man who works a full time, skilled labor job, on the threat of force if I do not comply voluntarily to dole out my hard earned money, and having those dollars inefficiently laundered through the world's largest bureaucracy only to be filtered down to another bureaucracy, then to another, then to private citizens for them to pay minimal money for housing or to renovate their existing homes is just plain repugnant. It is insulting. It is unfair. It is a disincentive to succeed. It is communistic and evil.
There were 18 towns in NC that got the HUD grants and three FEMA grants in the state. Multiply this times hundreds of towns across the country each year and you can see how our tax dollars are being wasted on programs that are not even supposed to exist. Take this program and multiply it by the countless such programs that some communistic or ignorant fools have pushed through Congress, and some well meaning but selfish President who wants to get re-elected and play politics with our tax money have passed, and the amount of money is mind boggling.
Perhaps the only thing more insidious than the idea of a grant from the federal government to a municipality is the concept of the federal government providing a loan to a local municipality other local government for the purposes of infrastructure development and community revitalization. In such instances, we are taxed at the federal level to provide the loan and then get taxed on the local level to pay the loan back to the federal government.
I had an email discussion with a close friend about an article from 1955 in "Housekeeping Monthly". I have a copy of this article on my personal web site. The article was full of tips for women on how to take care of their husbands, how to run the home, how to relieve personal and family stress, and the like. This conservative lady asserted that the article was from 1955 and this was 2008. Below is my response, which is related to my disdain for such government spending.
"In 1955, most women did stay at home and take care of the kids and do the house work. Unfortunately, our tax burden increased substantially necessitating a dual income family. Also, the women's liberation movement only hurt the family structure. The 1960's forward really hurt with the hedonism, atheistic, and hyper libertine agendas. That led to a decline in the family unit, an emphasis on self reliance instead of family reliance, a rise in births out of wedlock, single parent families, divorce, and the need for women to work outside the home." By family versus self reliance, I was referring to the idea of only thinking of one's own self, not supporting the family unit but instead believing that one can and should only rely on one's own self. For instance, a woman can and should be able to stay at home and raise her children rather than paying some low income earner with a different set of values to raise them for her.
It is bad enough that we have a high percentage of our money taken in the form of taxation of various types and from various levels of government. To have my tax dollars, which could be used to renovate my own home (which I have been trying to work on more and more lately) and have them sucked into a giant bureaucracy and given to someone else to renovate their home is a travesty. It angers me, and it should you, too. I believe that I know how to spend my money better than some bureaucrat does.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Column for Jan. 24, 2008
Analysis of rezoning public hearing
On January 8th, as readers of this newspaper know, there was as part of a town council meeting, a public hearing on the rezoning request of a tract of land to change to industrial from agricultural and residential use in Selma's extra-territorial jurisdiction.
During that hearing, there were many impassioned pleas to vote against the rezoning. There were many concerned area residents from Selma and Pine Level, as well as the outlying areas thereof. There were calls for a recall of any town council member who voted for the rezoning request. There were people giving allegedly expert testimony. There were demands for the education level and the identity of the issuing institution of higher learning of said degrees of education. There was a lecture on the four types of loam on the proposed site. There were accusations of "spot zoning" and illegal configurations of zoning in that area.
The problem that I had with most of the well meaning public commentary is that most of it was emotionally based, including the so called expert testimony. I saw little reasoned and informed public commentary. I understand that this is an issue that will bring many passionate views. Industry wants to encroach upon the quiet, countryside way of life. I get it wholeheartedly.
Here are some of the problems with the public hearing, as I saw it, inappropriate opening commentary by the mayor aside. I am just calling it as I see it. Keep in mind, too, that what I am about to write may not necessarily reflect my personal desire in this entire situation. First, there were automatic assumptions of chemical pollution, "light pollution" (not that I believe there is any such thing), noise pollution, and foul odors that would come as a result of the proposed plant. My simple commentary is that only one person in the room aside from the men representing the interests of East Coast Ethanol seems to have been anywhere near an ethanol plant. Certainly, nobody amongst the public has been anywhere near a modern day plant.
Next was the absolute ridicule of the government standards by which the plant would have to abide. There were people claiming that the EPA does not know their business and there was a great degree of distrust in government regulations expressed. At the same time, there was an extolling of the virtues of the USDA and their standards and reports. What in the world is supposed to make anyone think that one bureaucracy is any better than another? They are just two suckers on the same tentacle of government regulation and thievery. That was, in my opinion, a serious double standard and only detracted from the validity of the public commentary.
I was dismayed with the sheer arrogance of claims of lack of "due diligence" upon the part of the plant investors and contracted agency. What people just may not understand is that the project is nowhere near the stage of the investment in soil sampling, scientific investigation, and site planning to the extent expected by some in the crowd. A company is not going to invest literally tens of thousands of dollars into expensive surveys and testing until they are confident that they can advance with the project. The rezoning is an essential first step in the process. This is not the first plant ever built by the contracted company, so they do know what they are doing in site selection and process. In fact, they have built the vast majority of such plants in the country.
I found it ironic and hypocritical of one man to denounce the credentials of the men representing East Coast Ethanol and their contracted agency while he himself did not have the credentials of a soil scientist. Yet, he lectured people on the soil of the proposed site, cited the USDA studies of the area, and at the same time decried and debased other authorities. First of all, since when is a company obligated to fly in every chemical engineer or member of its engineering and scientific crew for a simple rezoning public hearing? Yet they were derided for not having these experts present. Furthermore, I have personally worked on huge construction projects where the soils present became a non-issue. Entire industrial and educational facilities under my jurisdiction have long ago emerged from fallow kudzu fields. Innovation and money is all it takes to mitigate those problems.
The public hearing was for rezoning. It was not a debate over the merits of an ethanol plant. The process of an ethanol plant takes a lot more steps of regulation than simply getting a piece of land rezoned to industrial use. Even if the land was rezoned, this facility would still have to obtain a special use permit from Selma to even think about operating. Furthermore, there are mountains of county, state, and federal regulations with which they would have to comply before even thinking about building. I found the assumption that there is going to be a plant built after this public hearing absurd, emotional, illogical, and borderline stupidity. For this reason, I also found it absurd that anyone would even consider calling for a recall of any town council member for voting for a rezoning of the property in question.
Another concern expressed by one citizen was the safety of the plant. Again, we are dealing with heavy government regulation. It is also just plain good business sense to have fire mitigation planning on site. My background is in this very field, I am the vice chair of the Johnston County Local Emergency Management Planning Committee, and this year will be the chairman of the county committee. The expressed concern of cooperation and training with local fire departments will be a non-issue, I assure you. I will personally be responsible for working closely with county Emergency Management and will be in regular contact with most every fire department leader in the county. With any such facility in the county, I can safely assure that this will be a non-issue.
The claims of emissions from the facility may or may not be a moot point. There have been great advances in pollution control. Just as there are catalytic converters and other emission controls on automobiles, there are going to be some new innovations in industry. I am not defending the industry position, I am just being realistic and honest.
Let us assume for a moment that the zoning of the tract of land in question will stay as it is, i.e., agricultural. Let us also assume that the land will be used as such. A hog, cow, or poultry farm would also have a great degree of emissions. Cow flatulence is never fun. Hog waste can be smelled for miles, as I have found out from my extensive travel throughout North Carolina. Poultry, whether turkey or chicken, can also give a "fowl" odor (I could not resist that pun, sorry). There is always a degree of noise associated with farming. Livestock makes noise 24/7 when there is a concentrated population. That pretty much destroys the noise argument against the ethanol plant.
Irrigation and/or watering of farm animals also takes a certain degree of water to do so, as will an ethanol plant. They may not be equal amounts, but the increased demand is still a certainty.
I say this to show that regardless of the use of the land, even under its existing zoning, there would be issues, complaints, and problems. What I do know is that one way or another, that tract of land and its surrounding area will eventually be developed.
With all this having been said, do I want an ethanol plant on the outskirts of Selma? I personally have relayed my opinion to some of my elected representatives on the town council. That is the best way of getting my desired result. Being emotionally driven, staying uninformed or subjective, and railing against the unknown are not the effective nor desired methods of accomplishing my desired end.
Regardless of my personal opinion, I have had plenty of opportunities to think about this topic and look at things from both sides. I do believe that I have the ability to be objective rather than subjective. For this reason, I have offered to the town leaders to be one of the town citizens to travel to take up East Coast Ethanol's offer to visit an ethanol plant. Unlike the comments from one of the citizens at the meeting, I do not want to visit one of the worst plants in the country in order to explore one. I want to see one exactly like what is proposed for Selma. To see anything else would be illogical. Will the town actually take up East Coast Ethanol on their offer? Will I get the opportunity to go? I have no idea, but I would certainly be fair either way.
That is the whole point of this column today. I want to be fair, not emotional. I am not an ethanol apologist. As a matter of fact, I am not a fan of ethanol as a fuel source, nor of the government boondoggle that has given us ethanol as such. However, I can still be open minded enough to at least be objective. I hope others can be as well.
On January 8th, as readers of this newspaper know, there was as part of a town council meeting, a public hearing on the rezoning request of a tract of land to change to industrial from agricultural and residential use in Selma's extra-territorial jurisdiction.
During that hearing, there were many impassioned pleas to vote against the rezoning. There were many concerned area residents from Selma and Pine Level, as well as the outlying areas thereof. There were calls for a recall of any town council member who voted for the rezoning request. There were people giving allegedly expert testimony. There were demands for the education level and the identity of the issuing institution of higher learning of said degrees of education. There was a lecture on the four types of loam on the proposed site. There were accusations of "spot zoning" and illegal configurations of zoning in that area.
The problem that I had with most of the well meaning public commentary is that most of it was emotionally based, including the so called expert testimony. I saw little reasoned and informed public commentary. I understand that this is an issue that will bring many passionate views. Industry wants to encroach upon the quiet, countryside way of life. I get it wholeheartedly.
Here are some of the problems with the public hearing, as I saw it, inappropriate opening commentary by the mayor aside. I am just calling it as I see it. Keep in mind, too, that what I am about to write may not necessarily reflect my personal desire in this entire situation. First, there were automatic assumptions of chemical pollution, "light pollution" (not that I believe there is any such thing), noise pollution, and foul odors that would come as a result of the proposed plant. My simple commentary is that only one person in the room aside from the men representing the interests of East Coast Ethanol seems to have been anywhere near an ethanol plant. Certainly, nobody amongst the public has been anywhere near a modern day plant.
Next was the absolute ridicule of the government standards by which the plant would have to abide. There were people claiming that the EPA does not know their business and there was a great degree of distrust in government regulations expressed. At the same time, there was an extolling of the virtues of the USDA and their standards and reports. What in the world is supposed to make anyone think that one bureaucracy is any better than another? They are just two suckers on the same tentacle of government regulation and thievery. That was, in my opinion, a serious double standard and only detracted from the validity of the public commentary.
I was dismayed with the sheer arrogance of claims of lack of "due diligence" upon the part of the plant investors and contracted agency. What people just may not understand is that the project is nowhere near the stage of the investment in soil sampling, scientific investigation, and site planning to the extent expected by some in the crowd. A company is not going to invest literally tens of thousands of dollars into expensive surveys and testing until they are confident that they can advance with the project. The rezoning is an essential first step in the process. This is not the first plant ever built by the contracted company, so they do know what they are doing in site selection and process. In fact, they have built the vast majority of such plants in the country.
I found it ironic and hypocritical of one man to denounce the credentials of the men representing East Coast Ethanol and their contracted agency while he himself did not have the credentials of a soil scientist. Yet, he lectured people on the soil of the proposed site, cited the USDA studies of the area, and at the same time decried and debased other authorities. First of all, since when is a company obligated to fly in every chemical engineer or member of its engineering and scientific crew for a simple rezoning public hearing? Yet they were derided for not having these experts present. Furthermore, I have personally worked on huge construction projects where the soils present became a non-issue. Entire industrial and educational facilities under my jurisdiction have long ago emerged from fallow kudzu fields. Innovation and money is all it takes to mitigate those problems.
The public hearing was for rezoning. It was not a debate over the merits of an ethanol plant. The process of an ethanol plant takes a lot more steps of regulation than simply getting a piece of land rezoned to industrial use. Even if the land was rezoned, this facility would still have to obtain a special use permit from Selma to even think about operating. Furthermore, there are mountains of county, state, and federal regulations with which they would have to comply before even thinking about building. I found the assumption that there is going to be a plant built after this public hearing absurd, emotional, illogical, and borderline stupidity. For this reason, I also found it absurd that anyone would even consider calling for a recall of any town council member for voting for a rezoning of the property in question.
Another concern expressed by one citizen was the safety of the plant. Again, we are dealing with heavy government regulation. It is also just plain good business sense to have fire mitigation planning on site. My background is in this very field, I am the vice chair of the Johnston County Local Emergency Management Planning Committee, and this year will be the chairman of the county committee. The expressed concern of cooperation and training with local fire departments will be a non-issue, I assure you. I will personally be responsible for working closely with county Emergency Management and will be in regular contact with most every fire department leader in the county. With any such facility in the county, I can safely assure that this will be a non-issue.
The claims of emissions from the facility may or may not be a moot point. There have been great advances in pollution control. Just as there are catalytic converters and other emission controls on automobiles, there are going to be some new innovations in industry. I am not defending the industry position, I am just being realistic and honest.
Let us assume for a moment that the zoning of the tract of land in question will stay as it is, i.e., agricultural. Let us also assume that the land will be used as such. A hog, cow, or poultry farm would also have a great degree of emissions. Cow flatulence is never fun. Hog waste can be smelled for miles, as I have found out from my extensive travel throughout North Carolina. Poultry, whether turkey or chicken, can also give a "fowl" odor (I could not resist that pun, sorry). There is always a degree of noise associated with farming. Livestock makes noise 24/7 when there is a concentrated population. That pretty much destroys the noise argument against the ethanol plant.
Irrigation and/or watering of farm animals also takes a certain degree of water to do so, as will an ethanol plant. They may not be equal amounts, but the increased demand is still a certainty.
I say this to show that regardless of the use of the land, even under its existing zoning, there would be issues, complaints, and problems. What I do know is that one way or another, that tract of land and its surrounding area will eventually be developed.
With all this having been said, do I want an ethanol plant on the outskirts of Selma? I personally have relayed my opinion to some of my elected representatives on the town council. That is the best way of getting my desired result. Being emotionally driven, staying uninformed or subjective, and railing against the unknown are not the effective nor desired methods of accomplishing my desired end.
Regardless of my personal opinion, I have had plenty of opportunities to think about this topic and look at things from both sides. I do believe that I have the ability to be objective rather than subjective. For this reason, I have offered to the town leaders to be one of the town citizens to travel to take up East Coast Ethanol's offer to visit an ethanol plant. Unlike the comments from one of the citizens at the meeting, I do not want to visit one of the worst plants in the country in order to explore one. I want to see one exactly like what is proposed for Selma. To see anything else would be illogical. Will the town actually take up East Coast Ethanol on their offer? Will I get the opportunity to go? I have no idea, but I would certainly be fair either way.
That is the whole point of this column today. I want to be fair, not emotional. I am not an ethanol apologist. As a matter of fact, I am not a fan of ethanol as a fuel source, nor of the government boondoggle that has given us ethanol as such. However, I can still be open minded enough to at least be objective. I hope others can be as well.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Column for Jan. 17, 2008
My analysis of the mayor's lynching comment
Last week, I attended the Selma Town Council meeting and public hearing along with almost 200 of my closest friends. OK, so they were not my close friends, but it was good to see people who were concerned and wanted to get involved in their community, even if many of them do not live in the Selma town limits or even extra-territorial jurisdiction.
I should probably start with my expert analysis of the latest embarrassment brought to Selma in the form of the opening remarks by Mayor Hester. I was there for those remarks, heard them, found them to be entirely inappropriate, and am quite frankly, tired of this same sort of thing month in and month out. For over two years now, I, along with other citizens, have been witness to some comments, attitudes, and political gamesmanship that I find repugnant. I have personally seen Mayor Hester purposely back his vehicle into another man's (more accurately, political opponent's) automobile, I have heard him say obnoxious comments, and witnesses near tantrums he has thrown. I find the latest comment about having a lynching just one more in a long string of embarrassments for the Town of Selma.
What amazed me is that Mr. Hester attempted to explain away the comment as "Just Hester being Hester". If that is the case, the comments and behavior need to go, and if said behavior defines Hester, then Hester needs to go. I was further amazed that Mr. Hester used the obvious "damage control" scenery of Selma Baptist Church as a back drop to have an interview with WRAL. During the interview it was explained that there are people who do not much care for him in this town, but that is just small town politics. The ironic thing is that Mr. Hester himself practically defines small town politics but decries it in others. I know that other reporters tried to get in touch with Mr. Hester, without success. I personally was contacted by one of them and spent time myself with that same reporter. The comments by the mayor were on the web sites of the three major television stations, various news services, local newspapers, national news aggregator services, and local and national bloggers.
Did Chucky apologize? Sure, I was there and heard it myself. I have blogged the video of the commentary, seen it numerous times on television and online, played the audio of it on a talk show, and read the transcript. Regardless of my opinion of Mr. Hester's sincerity, I do have to take him on face value and accept that he did apologize. As to the denial that the comment was aimed at any one particular individual, I find that an absurd attempt to help excuse the commentary.
As many of you know, I am a regular writer on the internet, a talk show host, and I keep in regular contact with several people in the media. I saw my web site traffic statistics rise this past week. I found many web searches performed for terms such as "Selma mayor lynching comment" and other similar terms. I also found many visits to my web page as a referral from other web sites that have national news and commentary. The comments by Mayor Hester have carried across the nation and are not just a local "black eye" for the town. We now have national implications, commentary, and scrutiny of our little town. The sad part is that none of it is positive.
I have no doubt that the comment about lynching was not meant to be racist in nature as some on the internet and even at the public hearing have alleged. The comment was directed at a Caucasian male by a Caucasian male. By its very nature, the comment is not racist. There are those who automatically assume that just because the word lynching is used that it is to be assumed as racist. That is an extreme and prejudicial view. First, it was a minority of lynchings in this nation that were racially motivated. Most were carried out upon guilty parties for their crimes. I am so tired of the hyper-vigilance against all things even remotely or potentially racist in The United States of the Offended.
I find just as offensive the self flagellation of the usually liberal, overly cautious White race members because of some undeserved guilty conscience towards race relations. That being said, I would almost love for Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton to show up in Selma over the comment by Mayor Hester. This would serve two purposes. First, to demonstrate how absurd the comment was in the first place and hopefully effect some degree of change. Second, to demonstrate how absurd those two individuals and their ilk can be.
Since I am out of room for this week's column, perhaps next week I will write my analysis of the meeting itself, the claims made by both the public and by the men from East Coast Ethanol. For those who missed either the mayor's comments or wish to hear the entire two and a half hour public hearing audio, you may do so at my talk show web site, which can be accessed through troylaplante.com. If you did not make it to the public meeting and want to hear for yourself what the big deal was about the public hearing, you can listen 24/7 via web streaming or simply download the entire show for your listening pleasure.
Last week, I attended the Selma Town Council meeting and public hearing along with almost 200 of my closest friends. OK, so they were not my close friends, but it was good to see people who were concerned and wanted to get involved in their community, even if many of them do not live in the Selma town limits or even extra-territorial jurisdiction.
I should probably start with my expert analysis of the latest embarrassment brought to Selma in the form of the opening remarks by Mayor Hester. I was there for those remarks, heard them, found them to be entirely inappropriate, and am quite frankly, tired of this same sort of thing month in and month out. For over two years now, I, along with other citizens, have been witness to some comments, attitudes, and political gamesmanship that I find repugnant. I have personally seen Mayor Hester purposely back his vehicle into another man's (more accurately, political opponent's) automobile, I have heard him say obnoxious comments, and witnesses near tantrums he has thrown. I find the latest comment about having a lynching just one more in a long string of embarrassments for the Town of Selma.
What amazed me is that Mr. Hester attempted to explain away the comment as "Just Hester being Hester". If that is the case, the comments and behavior need to go, and if said behavior defines Hester, then Hester needs to go. I was further amazed that Mr. Hester used the obvious "damage control" scenery of Selma Baptist Church as a back drop to have an interview with WRAL. During the interview it was explained that there are people who do not much care for him in this town, but that is just small town politics. The ironic thing is that Mr. Hester himself practically defines small town politics but decries it in others. I know that other reporters tried to get in touch with Mr. Hester, without success. I personally was contacted by one of them and spent time myself with that same reporter. The comments by the mayor were on the web sites of the three major television stations, various news services, local newspapers, national news aggregator services, and local and national bloggers.
Did Chucky apologize? Sure, I was there and heard it myself. I have blogged the video of the commentary, seen it numerous times on television and online, played the audio of it on a talk show, and read the transcript. Regardless of my opinion of Mr. Hester's sincerity, I do have to take him on face value and accept that he did apologize. As to the denial that the comment was aimed at any one particular individual, I find that an absurd attempt to help excuse the commentary.
As many of you know, I am a regular writer on the internet, a talk show host, and I keep in regular contact with several people in the media. I saw my web site traffic statistics rise this past week. I found many web searches performed for terms such as "Selma mayor lynching comment" and other similar terms. I also found many visits to my web page as a referral from other web sites that have national news and commentary. The comments by Mayor Hester have carried across the nation and are not just a local "black eye" for the town. We now have national implications, commentary, and scrutiny of our little town. The sad part is that none of it is positive.
I have no doubt that the comment about lynching was not meant to be racist in nature as some on the internet and even at the public hearing have alleged. The comment was directed at a Caucasian male by a Caucasian male. By its very nature, the comment is not racist. There are those who automatically assume that just because the word lynching is used that it is to be assumed as racist. That is an extreme and prejudicial view. First, it was a minority of lynchings in this nation that were racially motivated. Most were carried out upon guilty parties for their crimes. I am so tired of the hyper-vigilance against all things even remotely or potentially racist in The United States of the Offended.
I find just as offensive the self flagellation of the usually liberal, overly cautious White race members because of some undeserved guilty conscience towards race relations. That being said, I would almost love for Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton to show up in Selma over the comment by Mayor Hester. This would serve two purposes. First, to demonstrate how absurd the comment was in the first place and hopefully effect some degree of change. Second, to demonstrate how absurd those two individuals and their ilk can be.
Since I am out of room for this week's column, perhaps next week I will write my analysis of the meeting itself, the claims made by both the public and by the men from East Coast Ethanol. For those who missed either the mayor's comments or wish to hear the entire two and a half hour public hearing audio, you may do so at my talk show web site, which can be accessed through troylaplante.com. If you did not make it to the public meeting and want to hear for yourself what the big deal was about the public hearing, you can listen 24/7 via web streaming or simply download the entire show for your listening pleasure.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Column for Jan. 10, 2008
Does LaPlante favor la plant d'ethanol?
By the time this column is published, the latest Selma Town Council meeting will have taken place and a scheduled public hearing will have been held about the proposed rezoning request in Selma's extra-territorial jurisdiction (ETJ) to accommodate the construction of a proposed ethanol plant. These plans were detailed in last week's edition of "The Selma News" as well as in other local media outlets. The rezoning request has already passed the Planning Board and is now going through the process necessary to become reality. I am predicting that the public hearing will have brought forth some "great moments in sports," so to speak.
There is opposition being generated by Tony Tetterton, who lives nearby in the Selma ETJ, as reported in the paper. I have respect for Tony for several things. First, he is willing to "put his money where his mouth is" for the causes in which he believes. I don't see that too often nowadays. Regardless of anyone's opinions of his positions, you have to respect the willingness to take a stance and get involved. I do not agree with Tony on everything, and he knows this. We have, however, developed a good working relationship because we are willing to listen to one another's opinions and concerns. I have allowed him to share with me at length on various topics. Some I have agreed with him about, some not so much. None the less, I hope that he will get his due consideration, especially since he has spent significant time and effort to become educated about the things in which he believes.
That being said, the entire ethanol plant plan for the Selma area is only in the process of having a parcel of land rezoned. The ethanol company has not even bought the property yet. It would be some time before a plant is actually built, if at all. I personally serve on the Planning Board, as do other fine citizens of the booming metropolis of Selma. This request came before the board, we met with the representatives from East Coast Ethanol, and we looked at the zoning map and requirements. We did remark about the necessary upgrades to the roadways to accommodate the plant, its method of delivery, and other items of interest. However, our duty was not to debate the merits of an ethanol plant. Our duty was to determine whether or not it was appropriate to rezone residential and farm land to an industrial application. To that end, I was amenable.
There are arguments against the ethanol plant, as enumerated in last week's newspaper, so I will not get into them here. I also will not debate the merits of those arguments in great depth here. I will save that for my talk show. I personally am for progress and development when it is appropriate and beneficial. Is this the case with the proposed plant? I personally don't know yet. I do know that there was one quote from Mayor Hester with which I take issue, or at least wonder why this would be a consideration. He said, "If the plant is constructed, it will have a positive impact on Selma. It could add $100 million to our tax base. That's significant for the town." I agree that such an addition would be significant to our tax base. However, the proposed plant would not be within the Selma town limits and therefore is not subject to taxation by the town. As I understand it, Selma would have to annex that property in order to realize any such benefit.
There are also issues about court precedents that require Selma to take the zoning of Pine Level, the nearby ETJ jurisdiction. Do I think that Selma should have to take what another town does into consideration when determining our own town's destiny? Absolutely not. As a matter of fact, I think that Selma should totally ignore what other towns have for requirements of zoning just because we are an autonomous entity and should act as such. I have a hard time with another town determining Selma's jurisdictional authority and influence and vice versa.
I also have the thought that I am not fond of the very concept of an extra-territorial jurisdiction. I have a hard time with allowing a town to regulate people and businesses that are not getting to have a say in the governance as people within the town get to have with their vote. There should be the town limit and that is it...period. Either a property is within our town borders or it is not. Either it is within our jurisdiction and its owner(s) pays taxes and gets the same services and say in governance as others in town or not. There should be no property, person, or business held in limbo. That is just plain unethical. Unfortunately, that is how the State of North Carolina has determined that towns should run their affairs and we have to deal with it.
There is a balance to be struck somewhere, I am sure. The town leaders wish to expand Selma, as do I. There is the ongoing concern between freedom and regulation. There is the feud between development and environmentalism/preservation. What is the right answer for Selma in this case? Again, I am not sure. You will probably read the results of the public hearing in this issue of the paper. Hopefully I was able to be there in person and will be addressing this issue further if it develops.
By the time this column is published, the latest Selma Town Council meeting will have taken place and a scheduled public hearing will have been held about the proposed rezoning request in Selma's extra-territorial jurisdiction (ETJ) to accommodate the construction of a proposed ethanol plant. These plans were detailed in last week's edition of "The Selma News" as well as in other local media outlets. The rezoning request has already passed the Planning Board and is now going through the process necessary to become reality. I am predicting that the public hearing will have brought forth some "great moments in sports," so to speak.
There is opposition being generated by Tony Tetterton, who lives nearby in the Selma ETJ, as reported in the paper. I have respect for Tony for several things. First, he is willing to "put his money where his mouth is" for the causes in which he believes. I don't see that too often nowadays. Regardless of anyone's opinions of his positions, you have to respect the willingness to take a stance and get involved. I do not agree with Tony on everything, and he knows this. We have, however, developed a good working relationship because we are willing to listen to one another's opinions and concerns. I have allowed him to share with me at length on various topics. Some I have agreed with him about, some not so much. None the less, I hope that he will get his due consideration, especially since he has spent significant time and effort to become educated about the things in which he believes.
That being said, the entire ethanol plant plan for the Selma area is only in the process of having a parcel of land rezoned. The ethanol company has not even bought the property yet. It would be some time before a plant is actually built, if at all. I personally serve on the Planning Board, as do other fine citizens of the booming metropolis of Selma. This request came before the board, we met with the representatives from East Coast Ethanol, and we looked at the zoning map and requirements. We did remark about the necessary upgrades to the roadways to accommodate the plant, its method of delivery, and other items of interest. However, our duty was not to debate the merits of an ethanol plant. Our duty was to determine whether or not it was appropriate to rezone residential and farm land to an industrial application. To that end, I was amenable.
There are arguments against the ethanol plant, as enumerated in last week's newspaper, so I will not get into them here. I also will not debate the merits of those arguments in great depth here. I will save that for my talk show. I personally am for progress and development when it is appropriate and beneficial. Is this the case with the proposed plant? I personally don't know yet. I do know that there was one quote from Mayor Hester with which I take issue, or at least wonder why this would be a consideration. He said, "If the plant is constructed, it will have a positive impact on Selma. It could add $100 million to our tax base. That's significant for the town." I agree that such an addition would be significant to our tax base. However, the proposed plant would not be within the Selma town limits and therefore is not subject to taxation by the town. As I understand it, Selma would have to annex that property in order to realize any such benefit.
There are also issues about court precedents that require Selma to take the zoning of Pine Level, the nearby ETJ jurisdiction. Do I think that Selma should have to take what another town does into consideration when determining our own town's destiny? Absolutely not. As a matter of fact, I think that Selma should totally ignore what other towns have for requirements of zoning just because we are an autonomous entity and should act as such. I have a hard time with another town determining Selma's jurisdictional authority and influence and vice versa.
I also have the thought that I am not fond of the very concept of an extra-territorial jurisdiction. I have a hard time with allowing a town to regulate people and businesses that are not getting to have a say in the governance as people within the town get to have with their vote. There should be the town limit and that is it...period. Either a property is within our town borders or it is not. Either it is within our jurisdiction and its owner(s) pays taxes and gets the same services and say in governance as others in town or not. There should be no property, person, or business held in limbo. That is just plain unethical. Unfortunately, that is how the State of North Carolina has determined that towns should run their affairs and we have to deal with it.
There is a balance to be struck somewhere, I am sure. The town leaders wish to expand Selma, as do I. There is the ongoing concern between freedom and regulation. There is the feud between development and environmentalism/preservation. What is the right answer for Selma in this case? Again, I am not sure. You will probably read the results of the public hearing in this issue of the paper. Hopefully I was able to be there in person and will be addressing this issue further if it develops.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Column for Jan 3, 2008
The Sissification of America
If you are like me, you fail to comprehend the use of the term "progressive" as it refers to current ideology. Often times, the term should instead be "regressive". Just in the past month or two, I have been extremely frustrated with some alleged "progressive" thought patterns. I am very thankful for those around me who keep me sane by maintaining old fashioned values that were and have always been progressive.
I have had the great fortune to be able to play "big brother" to a youngster lately. For years, I had pondered volunteering in a Big Brother/Big Sister type program, and now through a mutual connection, I am doing that very thing with a youngster. What I find refreshing is that this little guy is being raised as I believe a boy should be raised, meaning that he is allowed to be a boy. I have been able to wrestle, play with toy guns, will be buying some Super Soakers, and doing all the boy things like playing baseball, basketball, and football with him.
I recall the days of my youth spent running through the woods. A stick was the only toy I needed, since it served as a toy gun. The fellow children in the neighborhood also had the opportunity to play as boys do. We threw lawn darts, had pocket knives as toys and tools, we went into the woods and shot at each other with BB guns, had slingshots, rode in cars without seat belts or air bags, and wore large Buck knives on our hips to school every day just as in the show, "The Dukes of Hazzard". Young boys played with toy trucks, moved dirt with the assistance of Tonka, dug for worms, caught bullfrogs, and caught fish with our own fishing poles. Nowadays, children are told that catching fish is cruel, that every pocket knife is a dangerous weapon rather than a tool, that toy guns lead to violence, and we put children in booster seats with a paranoid guarantee of certain death. Children get suspended from school for drawing pictures of guns, carrying nail clippers, or making a joke about physical violence.
Would we have been able to fight World War II if little boys were never allowed to play with toy guns, wrestle, play physically demanding games and athletics, and only kept them sheltered from any and all harm? I doubt it highly. We would have had such a sniveling bunch of sissies masquerading as men that I doubt we could have ever had the resolve to win a war. It is that same "sissification" of American children today that has undermined the entire war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have heard many comments made by our soldiers that they just want to be able to win. The major proponents of a sissy-boy approach have opposed the sending of more troops into Iraq but later had to admit that the "surge" tactic has worked effectively.
Remember, I was not in favor of the war in Iraq. I did not agree that Iraq was a threat to our national security and wanted a formal declaration of war before any invasion. Sure, I thought that Hussein was an evil dictator that needed to be toppled, that Iraq did and still does have weapons of mass destruction (fighter jets were just found buried under sand dunes this past week), and that there may even have been a connection between Iraq and the events of September 11, 2001. Fortunately, the men and women we sent into harm's way were not sissies and were able to get the job done and continue to do so. However, when I read the repeated rhetoric of opposition to all things Bush, I want to scream. I personally am no fan of George W. Bush and am glad that his eight years is coming to an end. However, I do give credit where credit is due. I would rather have had "W" on duty than Al Gore on September 12th, 2001 and forward.
The Sissification of America, or as I have often called it, The Wussification of America, is something that greatly disturbs me. I have heard it said by one popular Raleigh preacher years ago that "girls are not just long haired boys". The reverse is also true. Boys are not just short haired girls. Men and women are created differently. I know that is news to some, but for the six thousand years of recorded history, we have already known this fact. Let boys become men and girls become women. Boys are male by birth, but become men by choice. Girls are naturally female, but become women by choice, and hopefully, ladies.
If we do not take control of the simple fact that we need men and women, not some unisex sissies in this country, I can see that our nation will falter in our families, our communities, our governments, and eventually, our sovereignty. I don't know about y'all, but I am going to do my part to see that youngsters upon whom I have influence know, appreciate, and practice the difference between men and women and don't become sissies.
If you are like me, you fail to comprehend the use of the term "progressive" as it refers to current ideology. Often times, the term should instead be "regressive". Just in the past month or two, I have been extremely frustrated with some alleged "progressive" thought patterns. I am very thankful for those around me who keep me sane by maintaining old fashioned values that were and have always been progressive.
I have had the great fortune to be able to play "big brother" to a youngster lately. For years, I had pondered volunteering in a Big Brother/Big Sister type program, and now through a mutual connection, I am doing that very thing with a youngster. What I find refreshing is that this little guy is being raised as I believe a boy should be raised, meaning that he is allowed to be a boy. I have been able to wrestle, play with toy guns, will be buying some Super Soakers, and doing all the boy things like playing baseball, basketball, and football with him.
I recall the days of my youth spent running through the woods. A stick was the only toy I needed, since it served as a toy gun. The fellow children in the neighborhood also had the opportunity to play as boys do. We threw lawn darts, had pocket knives as toys and tools, we went into the woods and shot at each other with BB guns, had slingshots, rode in cars without seat belts or air bags, and wore large Buck knives on our hips to school every day just as in the show, "The Dukes of Hazzard". Young boys played with toy trucks, moved dirt with the assistance of Tonka, dug for worms, caught bullfrogs, and caught fish with our own fishing poles. Nowadays, children are told that catching fish is cruel, that every pocket knife is a dangerous weapon rather than a tool, that toy guns lead to violence, and we put children in booster seats with a paranoid guarantee of certain death. Children get suspended from school for drawing pictures of guns, carrying nail clippers, or making a joke about physical violence.
Would we have been able to fight World War II if little boys were never allowed to play with toy guns, wrestle, play physically demanding games and athletics, and only kept them sheltered from any and all harm? I doubt it highly. We would have had such a sniveling bunch of sissies masquerading as men that I doubt we could have ever had the resolve to win a war. It is that same "sissification" of American children today that has undermined the entire war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have heard many comments made by our soldiers that they just want to be able to win. The major proponents of a sissy-boy approach have opposed the sending of more troops into Iraq but later had to admit that the "surge" tactic has worked effectively.
Remember, I was not in favor of the war in Iraq. I did not agree that Iraq was a threat to our national security and wanted a formal declaration of war before any invasion. Sure, I thought that Hussein was an evil dictator that needed to be toppled, that Iraq did and still does have weapons of mass destruction (fighter jets were just found buried under sand dunes this past week), and that there may even have been a connection between Iraq and the events of September 11, 2001. Fortunately, the men and women we sent into harm's way were not sissies and were able to get the job done and continue to do so. However, when I read the repeated rhetoric of opposition to all things Bush, I want to scream. I personally am no fan of George W. Bush and am glad that his eight years is coming to an end. However, I do give credit where credit is due. I would rather have had "W" on duty than Al Gore on September 12th, 2001 and forward.
The Sissification of America, or as I have often called it, The Wussification of America, is something that greatly disturbs me. I have heard it said by one popular Raleigh preacher years ago that "girls are not just long haired boys". The reverse is also true. Boys are not just short haired girls. Men and women are created differently. I know that is news to some, but for the six thousand years of recorded history, we have already known this fact. Let boys become men and girls become women. Boys are male by birth, but become men by choice. Girls are naturally female, but become women by choice, and hopefully, ladies.
If we do not take control of the simple fact that we need men and women, not some unisex sissies in this country, I can see that our nation will falter in our families, our communities, our governments, and eventually, our sovereignty. I don't know about y'all, but I am going to do my part to see that youngsters upon whom I have influence know, appreciate, and practice the difference between men and women and don't become sissies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
