Wasteful government spending
At the June 28, 2010, regular meeting of the Forsyth County commissioners, our county commissioners adopted a resolution whereby they approved county-funded health benefits for themselves when they retire from the board for the remainder of their lives. County commissioners, who should be looking out for what is best for the citizens of Forsyth County, voted for permanent health care benefits, for their part-time job, to be funded by the tax dollars paid by the citizens of Forsyth County.
Three of these commissioners are running for re-election in the primary on May 8. It is time to replace the incumbent commissioners with true conservatives.
Republican candidates John Bost, Gene Lowder and Bob Prescott have promised to repeal this government handout. Please give these new Republican candidates the opportunity to serve as we move to eliminate wasteful government spending.
JOHN PEDDYCORD
Winston-Salem
The benefits apply to commissioners who retire after serving at least 10 years on the board. — The editor.
Represents all citizens
I heartily endorse Dave Plyler for Forsyth County commissioner. It is a fact that he truly represents all of the citizens of Forsyth County regardless of party affiliation. Let's hope all will vote for the man who overlooks no detail and best of all is responsive to the needs of citizens.
Our community will benefit from the innate leadership of Dave Plyler to once again be a business and progressive chairperson of our Forsyth County commissioners. Most important, he's well informed and up to date on the most-needed human services and other current issues. Monetarily, environmentally and socially, his experiences as a broadcaster put him in touch with the various aspects of local, state and federal government.
MARY ANNECELLI
Winston-Salem
Respectful, honest campaigns
Recently there have been candidates making news, but for the wrong reasons. Both Republicans and Democrats are in the middle of passionate primary races and both parties expect the best from the candidates and their staffs. When a candidate, consultant or a staffer crosses the line, it affects not only the candidate and the campaign, but the party as well.
Every election cycle brings out a variety of candidates. Some may be experienced elected officials or loyal party volunteers — some may be well-intentioned political novices. We try to advise them equally, providing access to resources to support their campaigns, and asking them to conduct themselves in a manner that reflects well on their candidacy and their party.
Recent stories about irregularities involving paid campaign consultant Chris Church, the Forsyth Leadership PAC, and their infamous yellow ballot have called into question the responsibilities of the Democratic Party. While the party has no formal authority in this situation, we have consistently urged everyone to be forthright and get the facts out. We recognize that candidates' top priorities are their individual campaigns, but we emphasize to them the importance of running respectful, honest campaigns and forming alliances that strengthen their candidacies.
It is disappointing when the actions of a few reflect poorly on the party. Local party leaders and volunteers believe in our Democratic values and look forward to exciting, competitive races in November. We disavow the "bad actors" among us who give politics a bad name.
SUSAN CAMPBELL
CHAIR, FORSYTH COUNTY DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Winston-Salem
Considerable damage
Thank you to St. Paul's Episcopal Church and the Wake Forest School of Divinity for its recent Amendment One Forum Panel ("Panel calls marriage ban problematic," April 16). Panelists included Winston-Salem City Council member Dan Besse, Wake Forest University law professor Suzanne Reynolds, family law attorney Elise Whitley, Winston-Salem/Forsyth County school board member Elisabeth Motsinger, social worker Jack Scruggs, Wake Forest School of Divinity theology professor Derek Hicks and three ministers from different Christian denominations. All panelists were opposed to Amendment One.
Amendment One's wording is unlike that in the other 30 amendments that states have passed against same-sex marriage. North Carolina law already defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Amendment One does not change this law, but it does change what counts as a family or domestic relationship. Amendment One threatens the rights of unwed couples, their children, single parents, widows and single women. It could affect insurance, custody, visitation, Social Security benefits and protection from domestic violence. Amendments are written to protect rights, but Amendment One writes discrimination into the N.C. Constitution.
If the intent is to prohibit same-sex marriage, Amendment One is unnecessary, as there is already a law against it. However, it has the potential to do considerable damage to the children of North Carolina. As a retired public-school teacher, I am opposed to Amendment One.
CAROL HOLLEMAN
Kernersville
The best-qualified candidate
I have known Glenn Cobb since he was in elementary school in Charlotte. His father, Larry Cobb, was my seatmate in the 1971 General Assembly and served as Minority Leader during my administration.
Glenn's experiences in politics and business have matured him into a business-oriented fiscal conservative who will be able to work successfully in the state House for the benefit of District 74, Forsyth County and North Carolina. He clearly is the best qualified candidate in the race.
JIM HOLSHOUSER
FORMER GOVERNOR, NORTH CAROLINA
Pinehurst
Traditional families
With their emphasis on "traditional family values," conservatives seem unaware of the fact that traditional families don't work for everybody. We're not made by a cookie-cutter.
Do they really think that anyone who doesn't marry and produce children is rebelling against the will of God? Do they really think that no one else deserves happiness? That's what anyone would think, hearing them talk about the marriage amendment.
North Carolina is a bigger state than that.
KATHERINE B. PATTERSON
Winston-Salem
Peace treaty
Cal Thomas does it again in his April 30 column "The war is over?" He beats the drum for the endless global war on terror, further fueling continued death and destruction abroad, and loss of personal liberties at home.
He missed the peace-treaty signing ceremony, he says. Well I, along with the rest of the planet, missed the U.S. congressional session that officially declared war with the rest of the world.
Thomas even summons George Orwell in the ultimate act of doublespeak. As long as we continue to drone-attack homes and families, as long as we use a scare tactic as our sworn enemy, and as long as the Cal Thomases of the world continue to tow the War Machine's party line, we will never get a peace-treaty signing ceremony.
ANDREW L. BREWER
Winston-Salem
From yesterday:
ReplyDelete"I disagree. If I saw him or anyone else casually sporting a firearm, I would wish to beat a hasty retreat."
Liz Wilson
No need to beat a hasty retreat. You have a right to enjoy the great outdoors without having to worry about getting shot.
If some cowboy wannabe is swaggering around a public campsite with a gun on his hip, call the park rangers and complain. If that doesn't work, call the NC Highway Patrol.
Most sensible people are afraid of any fool packing a gun in public. They can be, and often are, charged with the common law violation of "going armed to the terror of the public", but only if you as a citizen speak up.
I was reading through the replies to that LTE last night on the Journal site and noticed Wes posting that he had been robbed at gun-point twice (didn't say whether he was on his own time or working at a stop-n-rob) and how he wished he had a gun so he could have defended himself. It was late and I wasn't in the mood for replying, but the thought that ran through my mind was what fool is willing to bet his life on being able to pull out a gun, aim it, cock it, then fire before the other person who already has his gun out and pointed at you fires? The other thought I had was what fool thinks possessions(i.e. stuff) is worth losing your life over or killing someone else over in defense? At least policemen are trained on how to de-escalate a situation. The last I want in a crisis situation is some hot-headed John Wayne wannabe pulling out his gun which would definitely escalate the situation to shots being fired.
DeleteI try and avoid places & situations where guns might be pulled on me, but to each his own.
DeleteGood afternoon folks!
ReplyDeleteLTE 1: The CC position is a part time gig, so I don't understand why they should get health care benefits after leaving office even if they did serve over 10 years. Many with full time positions don't receive those benefits.
LTE 2: Endorsement
LTE 3: The anticipated "disavowal" letter from the D's. The vote should be about the issues rather than rogue party officials.
LTE 4: It is very poorly worded which may cause far more damage than the supporters think.
LTE 5: Endorsement
LTE 6: The "traditional family values" where families of young men are bribed with a dowry to marry their daughters shortly after the girls hit puberty so there will be less mouths to feed? The "traditional family values" where the women/girls are kept barefoot and pregnant (and often dead in childbirth) with no say while the men seek their love and companionship amongst prostitutes? Divorce was low back then because marriage was all about producing children, hopefully sons to work the farm and to pass down one's land. There were no expectations for happiness or fulfillment, so there was no reason to think you could find it with anyone else. Today, people marry for love and companionship. When the romantic love fades and couples began to get on each other's nerves, they do see alternatives to their situation which is why ~50% decide to call it quits. With love and companionship having replaced procreation as the reason for marrying, there is no reason to deny marriage to any infertile couple whether due to age, physical abnormalities or same gender.
LTE 7: Fighting a war against a concept is quite different from waging war against a country. There will be no peace treaty signing or any other formal ceasing of hostilities because the enemy is nebulous. There will just be a removal of troops once objectives are met in a particular area.
Reading through the comments on the Journal site about the Winston-Salem commissioners voting to announce their opposition the amendment, I noticed Mr. Wiles who headed some pro-amendment groups posting his support(he couldn't understand how any good Christian could be against its passage) and proclaiming it had nothing at all to do with establishing a theocracy. He justified his amendment support with..wait for it..all theological arguments. I thought it was rather amusing.
ReplyDelete