Why the support for cable monopoly?
Iím confused. The local Tea Party and state Sen. Andrew Brock seem totally opposed to having any competition, at least in the telecommunications industry. They continue to support the monopoly of Time-Warner Cable and the cable industry.
Phony claims by the cable industry that they just want ěa level playing fieldî to the contrary, like every other monopoly, they really want an empty playing field where they rule supreme. Thatís understandable; after all, whoever heard of a monopoly that wanted true competition?
Whatís surprising is the willingness of Brock and his Tea Party friends to deny other cities and towns even the opportunity to build a competitive telecommunications system like Fibrant. Shouldnít the cities and towns of North Carolina be able to make their own decisions? Or would that be too democratic?
Brock would tell you he just wants to have these issues put to a referendum, but this is specious. First of all, we elect city councils, county commissions and the state legislature to make these decisions. Thatís what they are paid to do, presumably in the publicís interest, not those of special interests.
Secondly, carrying Brockís argument to its logical conclusion, why do we need a state legislature at all? After all, the Internet would allow us all to vote on any issue. We could discuss issues using the social networks, Facebook, You Tube, etc. Think of the money we could save by getting rid of all those politicians and hangers-on. Somehow I doubt that Brockís interest in referendums will go that far.
I probably shouldnít be so surprised though. Our nationís political history shows that the reactionary elements of the GOP have always supported monopoly and their special interests. The Tea Party is just the most recent identity of this historical reactionary practice.
I can only hope other members of the North Carolina Senate will work and vote for the right of cities and towns to make their own decisions about telecommunications and competition.
ó John P. Burke
Salisbury
Libyan intervention will damage U.S.
The U.S. is already at war in two Muslim countries. The invasion of Libya makes it three.
Make no mistake about it; this was an invasion of Libya. Libya is not a vital interest of the United States, yet we are engaged in war with Libya because the U.N., NATO and the United Arab League deemed it necessary to enforce a ěno fly zoneî for humanitarian reasons, which was just an excuse to invade Libya.
One main push for this invasion was that the United Arab League was pushing this effort. Why didnít we let the Muslim countries in the United Arab League take the lead instead of having another non-Muslim country invade a Muslim country?
Our president decided that we should take the lead in this endeavor and without consulting Congress; we invaded a sovereign country in an attempt to oust Moammar Gadhafi. The Secretary of Defense says the goal of this action is not regime change, yet the president says that Gadhafi must go. The president sets foreign policy.
The actions of this president are reprehensible and I believe unconstitutional. These actions are impeachable. The consequences of taking these actions will be far reaching and will serve to further diminish the credibility of the United States in dealing with foreign issues.
We are now talking about arming the rebels. Many of them are Al Qaeda, our enemy. The old saying ěOur enemiesí enemy is our friendî is absolutely wrong; nothing could be farther from the truth! To paraphrase Shakespeare, ěAn enemy by any other name is still our enemy.î
Itís time to get our forces out of Libya, especially since they never should have been there in the first place.
ó Tim Byrd
Salisbury
Revitalization should use existing housing
How wonderful to have someone like Sam Foust guiding the way for improvements and new ideas for the Community Development Corporation. He has great insight by involving other community groups on his team.
I loved his vision of homes set back from the street with their own driveways. His vision of looking like a neighborhood and not a housing project is great. Maybe he could envision not buying new land for a housing project neighborhood but buying homes in existing neighborhoods. Clients could choose where they would like to live and send their children to school; this might be close to where they work as well. If every unit is repainted and repaired and all appliances removed, cleaned and reinstalled between tenants, what would be the difference?
The millions put into a housing project could be spent for existing housing, and we really could give people who needed it a hand up instead of a hand out. This might help out our local economy by providing jobs for local craftsmen, boosting our tax rate and the many other perks that would go along with providing services for a revitalized neighborhood.
ó Susan Morris
Salisbury