Reader letters, Feb. 19

Feb 18, 2014

Thanks for dedication

To the editor:

While most of us got a day or two off last week from the snowfall, we must keep in mind that while many of us enjoyed our brief holiday, numerous individuals worked long past their usual schedules so that we could stay safe before, during and after the snow.

I would just like to say thank you to the dedicated staff in Canton who worked tirelessly to make sure the roads were salted and plowed and that the citizens experienced as minimal as possible the inconveniences of services that we often take for granted.

I heard the plow driving on my street late in the evening and was kept updated on Town services through Canton’s Facebook page.

Interim manager Jason Burrell and the staff in Canton all deserve a hearty thank you from the citizens for doing such as outstanding job during a difficult situation.”

Patrick Willis



Know them by their works

To the editor:

A recent letter writer made simplistic, but inaccurate, generalizations between Republicans and Democrats.  For example, the pro-life vs. pro-choice issue is not party specific.  I know active Democrats who are pro-life and Republicans who are pro-choice. These types of simplistic characterizations are not helpful.

It is more informative to look at what elected officials are doing so that we may know them by their actions not their words.  The letter writer spent a lot of time on the contention that Republicans are concerned about protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

Let’s see what Republicans did when they became the majority in North Carolina.  The first thing we heard from the Assembly was essentially, “We now have the majority and we can do whatever we want.”  They steamrolled through bill after bill to advance their agenda – typically with little, if any, debate or any input from the minority.

As for respecting the Constitution, one of our local Republicans proposed the establishment of a state religion.  This is a clear violation of not only the U.S. Constitution, but also the N.C. Constitution.  They have also launched voter restrictions to make “one person, one vote” a more difficult concept to maintain.

What about the intrusiveness of big government?  One of the first things the Assembly did was to take away Asheville’s water.  Then they took away Charlotte’s airport.  A Republican representative inserted herself in the discussion of the merger between Waynesville and Lake Junaluska, even though neither town was in her district.

There isn’t enough room on the entire editorial page to itemize the difference between what our Republicans say and what they do.

Norman Hoffmann



Appreciated snow-removal efforts

To the editor:

I was panicked when the snow began to fall as my wife and I were out getting groceries.  Surely the roads would soon be treacherous.  We rushed home expecting the power to go out and expecting our son, who works in Maggie Valley, to be stranded overnight.

But thanks to the fine folks who manage our roads, all was well.  I’ve been impressed this winter as I’ve seen the roads become slippery more than a few times, to only moments later be attacked by those hardworking men and women who brave the cold and dangerous conditions to make life safer for all of us.

Color me impressed.  I want to thank you all.  I want to thank the linemen who kept the lines clear and the power on, which in turn kept my feet warm.  Thank you.

Cash Wilson


Comments (2)
Posted by: Scott Lilly | Feb 18, 2014 16:26

Mr. Hoffman, I think you perfectly understood my article.  Republicans and Democrats SHOULD have predictable philosophical distinctions.  I quote myself, "Keep your elected officials honest by measuring them in accordance to what defines a Republican or Democrat." 


"For example, the pro-life vs. pro-choice issue is not party specific." -- Again, you may have missed my point.  I quote, "And if they take a swing at it the answer is something obscure like..."  These answers people may give for WHY they are Republican or Democrat have little meaning to a party affiliation.  I never even made a representation as to what party would claim those "obscure" examples and they certainly ought not to be choosing a party only because of a pro-life position.  Tell me, which party ought to be pro-life in terms of a Republic and Democracy system of government.  (Not to be confused with Republicans and Democrats.)  If you can describe that answer, you are more wise than most.


"These types of simplistic characterizations are not helpful." -- On the contrary.  If the simplest of distinctions between Republicans and Democrats are lost in today's "complicated" world of politics, we ought to get back to basics.


"The letter writer spent a lot of time on the contention that Republicans are concerned about protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority." -- I don't think I used the word "tyranny" -- but yes, that's what OUGHT to define a Republican.  As my last sentence surmised, "Sometimes those elected officials get too involved with politics to remember their founding."


"There isn’t enough room on the entire editorial page to itemize the difference between what our Republicans say and what they do." -- Yes, but it does help to have CONSTRUCTIVE debate on these matters framed in a way that is not so much "us versus them" but as a philosophical and thoughtful dialog.  And for that matter, we could chip in a few differences that Democrats say and do.  Otherwise, I'd say you're just being blindly partisan.  :-)


Want to know WHY I wrote the article?  In hearing someone discuss the TDA tax thing I heard, "we've got to get more folks on our side."  That did not sit well with me as the person I heard speaking likely couldn't describe what defined "our side".  It was a blindly partisan remark: from a Republican.  In the various discussions I've had since with no less than 15 people, one thing was clear: the value of having two parties debate two government philosophies from two perspectives is not possible.  Maybe the TDA tax thing isn't a Republican/Democrat issue and that's why there is no predictable divide along party lines.  But there SHOULD be a predictable difference and I'd like to encourage that at least in our little town.


If you understand a predictable philosophy each party will use, you can negotiate a solution with them.  When each party will not respect their own philosophy in order to sabotage the other, politics will fail and become a low-value "us vs. them" bickering.

Posted by: Charles Zimmerman | Feb 19, 2014 10:38

                    When anyone pledges to abide by OUR secular Godless Constitution, they OWE their alliegience to it. Party should be irrelevant.

                     The various lawsuits against mccrory are indicitive of an administration not obeying their oath. Let alone not supporting the Founding notion of a republic.


If you wish to comment, please login.