An Awkward Attempt at Reining in Palin

 From The Pilot: November 24, 2009

Sarah Palin must have thought she was back on the campaign trail with Sen. John McCain's "handlers" when she reached the Fort Bragg Post Exchange Monday.
News accounts report that the former vice-presidential candidate's "to do" list was shorter than her "do not do" list. She could not make a speech, write personal notes, pose for photographs or sign anything other than autographing her book.
Jeez, I guess that prohibited her from writing a neat little note inside the book with a typical Palinism -- a "you betcha," for instance.
Don't misunderstand. I'm no fan of Sarah Palin, but she certainly was a lively, fresh personality for the Republican convention in 2008. She was given a bum rap by the very campaign pols who ­recruited her as Sen. McCain's running mate.

I disagree with most of her political views, and although I admire people of faith, I don't regard the National Rifle Association as a Protestant denomination. That said, I must come to her defense. For one thing, everybody writes a book these days. If you run for public office and are soundly clobbered, write a book. If your husband has an affair, write a book. If you go to prison, write a book (Bernard Madoff is probably already working on his memoir). Actors, sports figures, bubble-headed celebrities all "write" books. People I've never heard of write memoirs.
The military is not supposed to criticize the president, and it's bad form to appear on a military base and badmouth a sitting ­president. If that's the case, why even let the Post Exchange stock her book, much less allow her to promote her book at Fort Bragg? Isn't there something in the Constitution about free speech?
At first, the Army tried to keep the media from covering her book-signing event at Fort Bragg. The brass backed down after major dailies and other media complained to the Pentagon and threatened to go to court.
In a way, it was funny. Rarely are the media barred from an event to which the public is invited. I've always thought the media were the public. Certainly we are supposed to represent the public interest. Maybe in a perverse way, we deserve the slap, because we do tend to be a little ­arrogant sometimes.
On the other hand, this was downright ridiculous. The only way such restriction makes sense is a threat to national security, in which case obviously she should not have been allowed on base at all. From what I've heard, her book concentrates on the author, not on criticism of the Obama administration.
As it turned out, her appearance was an orderly affair. Everyone was polite and respectful, and the Army didn't hover too obviously during her brief visit. The ­military must have lightened up a bit, because they allowed her to autograph the cast on one admirer's foot. Pictures were taken at the event, but not a series of ­pictures of the author with individual admirers. That prohibition was probably a wise one, because it would have taken ­forever if she had consented to that type of photograph.
Whether you like her or not, Sarah Palin is a public figure who attracts attention with every appearance and every word. GOP ­bigwigs may not like the way she talks or what she says, but they quickly learned that she can't be easily controlled. She's friendly and unpretentious. I may not agree with her views, but I appreciate her informal, folksy language and sassy style.
An American original, the former governor of Alaska won the Miss Congeniality title at the Miss Alaska Pageant in her ­college days. Judging from the excitement surrounding its publication, her book, "Going Rogue: An American Life," already had a following long before it appeared on store shelves.
It was silly to try to rein in this creative personality. But then, a sense of humor has never been a military requirement.
Contact Florence Gilkeson at (910) 947-4962 or by e-mail at florence@thepilot.com.

This Thanksgiving, It's a Double Struggle for the State's Poor

From The Pilot: November 24, 2009

Thanksgiving is upon us, a time when many media outlets tend to focus on the poor who can't afford a feast to celebrate the holiday.
There are more families than ever in that boat, living in poverty or teetering on its edge, just one illness or missed mortgage payment away.
And that's true all year long, not just during the holiday season. The U.S. Department of Agriculture recently released its food insecurity report, which found that almost 50 million people couldn't afford enough to eat at some point during the last year. Almost one in four children went hungry. That's the highest number since the federal government began issuing the report.
Almost 50,000 families in North Carolina went without food, a startling number, though one that is consistent with other indicators of the suffering in the state, as families struggle to access health care and transportation, and find a safe, affordable place to live.

More than 10,000 homes in the state have no heat as winter approaches. Almost 20,000 don't have indoor plumbing. More than 1.5 million people have no health insurance. More than 40,000 children are now languishing on the waiting list for a child care subsidy, making it next to impossible for their mothers to take a low-wage job or go back to school to begin the slow road out of poverty. And if all that is not enough, poor families are still paying more in state and local taxes as a percentage of their incomes than the richest one percent of North Carolinians.
A report released by the Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy finds that the poorest 20 percent of taxpayers, who earn less than $17,000 a year, pay 9.5 percent of their income in state and local taxes.
The wealthiest 1 percent, who earn more than $398,000 a year, pay 8.1 percent of their income in state and local taxes. When you include the offset from the federal deduction of state taxes, the percentage for the wealthiest 1 percent drops to 6.8 percent.
The report analyzes the tax systems in all 50 states and North Carolina's is not among the most regressive, though that is little consolation to poor families here struggling to meet their basic needs while paying more of their income in taxes than their wealthy counterparts.
Just over 500,000 families in North Carolina earn less than $15,000 a year, according to the American Community Surveys of the U.S Census Bureau.
That puts them squarely in the ­poorest fifth of the population that pays far more in taxes than the wealthiest 1 percent. Close to a million households earn less than $25,000.
Every time lawmakers raise the sales tax as they did this summer, they make the system more regressive, especially considering that North Carolina does not tax many services, most of which are used by folks at the upper end of the economic ladder.
That's what makes tax reform so important, though the corporate lobbyists who encourage lawmakers to raise the sales tax are the same special interests fighting efforts to broaden it, not to mention their opposition to closing tax loopholes enjoyed by multistate corporations.
Times are as tough this Thanksgiving as they have been in generation, and it's not just the ­economic slowdown that's to blame. It's the willingness of many state ­leaders to largely ignore the plight of the poor and their unwillingness to change a revenue system that makes an escape from their despair even more difficult.
Chris Fitzsimon is executive director of N.C. Policy Watch. Contact him at chris@ncpolicywatch.com.

Help Us Invest in Our Community

From The Pilot: November 24, 2009

The past two years have been a difficult economic time for all Americans, but even more so for the disadvantaged.
More than 35,000 people in Moore County rely on the support of our United Way. Twenty-two agencies and programs receive funding from our local United Way, and for many of the programs, the United Way is a major source of income.
The United Way of Moore County serves three constituencies: youth, family and medical and emergency assistance.
It supports nine youth programs that concentrate on building better citizens through education, community involvement and leadership preparation. Another keynote is better health by dietary education, athletic participation and early pediatric screening.

There are nine family agencies that vary in scope, from providing meals to the disabled and homebound, to furnishing assistance to victims of physical and emotional abuse. The three medical and emergency assistance agencies provide food, fuel, clothing and medical care to those with emergency needs.
Your support will help us continue making a significant investment in our community as the economic challenges continue. We hope you will join us in motivating others in the community through your commitment of major financial support to United Way.
Visit or call the United Way office to learn more about how we are helping to build a better community for all our citizens.
I am honored to lead this campaign effort for the United Way. Join our family in making the most generous contribution that you can. Thank you for your gift and your support in helping those who cannot always help themselves.
Bill Clement
Campaign Chair, United Way
Southern Pines

Our Opportunity to Set an Example

 From The Pilot: November 24, 2009

I don't get it.
Certain people in America are going to have to realize that espousing hatred and tirades of inane fear will never replace humanity's primal need to question, choose and incorporate that which is different and new.
Many of us are drawn toward the unfamiliar, toward what we're told is taboo, toward the very people, concepts and institutions we're told are dangerous to established ­society.
Why?

What those preaching intolerance don't realize (or maybe they do) is that when the populace musters the courage to consider the unknown, to extend the hand of assistance to those who need it most, they will never again be willingly misled by those clinging to their money, power or influence. We are Americans, not ignorant sheep. The era of "just trust me -- it's gonna be bad" is coming to an end, whether espoused by Fox News, the religious right or Wall Street. We are slowly, yet inevitably, changing as a nation.
Faith, as it applies to simply accepting what you're told to believe, is in its death throes and should be regarded as deliberate opportunism.
Why shouldn't we reform decades of financial, racial and circumstantial injustices for the most vulnerable in our society? And why, may I ask, do those of you consistently and emphatically oppose it do so? This is the United States of America. We can, and should as a nation, set the example for the world to envy. Let us heal the sick, provide protections for the poor and mandate education for our children.
Now isn't the time for panic and hatred; rather, it's a unique opportunity to fulfill the charge God commanded of us.
Timothy B. Smith
Southern Pines

Show Them Our Legal System Works

From The Pilot: November 21,2009

Boy, there sure are a lot of people these days who want to give in to the terrorists.
I remember back in those dark days after 9/11 when people were affirming that America was going to stand tall, that we weren't going to let ourselves be intimidated by maniacs who were trying to kill us.
But lately, it seems like there are a lot of politicians, on both sides of the aisle, who want to let fear of terrorist attack, or even terrorist's words, ­dictate how we run our ­country and how we bring the people responsible for the attacks to account.
Recently, the Obama administration announced that some terror suspects, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged "mastermind" behind the 9/11 attacks, were going to be brought to New York to face trial (and possibly the death penalty) for their crimes. Predictably, the protests against the move took the form of dire and occasionally hysterical warnings about what the terrorists might do.
Even Rudy Giuliani, who distinguished ­himself by his coolness under pressure as mayor of New York in the days after 9/11, proved disappointingly craven. "It gives an unnecessary advantage to the terrorists," he said, " and it poses risks for New York." This is in marked contrast to Rudy's pronouncement in 1994 that the conviction of the people who tried to bring down the Twin Towers the first time "shows you put terrorism on one side, you put our legal system on the other, and our legal system comes out ahead." But hey, he's a former Republican presidential candidate. No one expects consistency from them.
Rudy's hand-wringing was also in marked contrast to the current Republican mayor of New York, who appeared with his police chief to assert that the city of New York wasn't afraid of trying terrorists there. "It is fitting," Bloomberg said, "that 9/11 suspects face justice near the World Trade Center site where so many New Yorkers were murdered."
Perhaps the silliest objection to the trial of the terrorists is that -- horror of horrors -- they might actually say stuff in public. Rep. Peter Hoekstra claimed that a civilian trial will allow the accused terrorists to turn such proceedings into a "circus" and "use them as platforms to promote their ideology."
Yeah, because without a courtroom, they've been as quiet as church mice. And so what if they start babbling jihadist nonsense in court? How do you think that'll play to a jury of New Yorkers sitting in judgment a few blocks from where the Towers fell?
And while we're at it, is anyone other than Sarah Palin delusional enough to think there's even a small chance that these people are going to be acquitted? If you really think there's a possibility that a New York judge or jury is going to let them walk, there's a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.
(Actually, I did have this fantasy of the judge saying: "The Court has decided that the case against the defendants must be thrown out because the evidence is irrevocably tainted. You're free to go. Now let's see you make it to the corner, you [really bad word]." )
Some people, including Democratic Sen. Jim Webb, say the suspects should be tried by military tribunals despite the fact that their acts occurred in the United States, because the 9/11 attacks were an "act of war." An attractive definition, to be sure, and one I myself used back in 2001.
In fact, I hear Khalid Sheikh Mohammed asked to admit guilt in front of a military tribunal and to be executed. (Tell you what, Bubba, we'll meet you halfway on that.)
But as Attorney General Eric Holder pointed out, we don't let them define the rules or pick where they get tried. They don't get to puff themselves up to the status of "warriors." They're mass murderers, and they deserve to be treated like murderers.
No one has yet come up with a universally accepted definition of terrorism. But most definitions of the term have one thing in common: Terrorism is the use of violence or the threat of violence by a small group to intimidate a larger one. And right now it seems that people like Giuliani, Hoekstra and their ilk are pretty intimidated by worries of what KSM and his buddies might do.
Prudence is one thing. But compromising American ideals like the rule of law isn't prudence; it's surrender. It's giving the terrorists exactly what they want. Don't give in.
Dusty Rhoades lives, writes and practices law in Carthage. Contact him at dustyr@nc.rr.com.

One Health Crisis We Must Address

 From The Pilot: November21, 2009

NAMI-MC is grateful to The Pilot for its editorial on Sunday, Nov. 15, addressing the inhumane care being given to those in our state suffering with a brain illness.
Waiting times in emergency rooms have been well-documented, and it is not uncommon to wait for many hours, or even days, to locate the necessary hospital beds for those in crisis and in need of hospitalization.
There is no doubt that this situation would not be tolerated if it was any other serious or life-threatening illness other than mental illness!
Thankfully, The Pilot has acknowledged the lack of care being provided for those with a serious mental illness and is doing its part in educating the general public about this lack of care.
We in Moore County are most fortunate to have FirstHealth's Moore Regional Hospital in our own backyard. The hospital works very closely with Sandhills Center and our community to ensure that hospital beds are available for those in crisis and needing immediate psychiatric treatment. I would like to thank the hospital staff that works so closely with the mental health community in assuring that all is being done to accommodate those seriously ill with a psychiatric hospital bed as quickly as possible -- if only other communities were so fortunate.
NAMI-MC appreciates all that the local community is doing to support its efforts in eliminating the stigma of brain illnesses. We realize that our advocacy work is far from done as we continue our community education programs, support meetings and continual promotion for better services in the area of treatment, housing, psychosocial rehabilitation and research programs.
Marianne Kernan
President, NAMI-MC
Pinehurst

Why Has Compromise Become a Dirty Word?

 From The Pilot: November 18, 2009

Republican gamesmanship is undermining the government's ability to address the people's needs.
Both sides agree that the health-care ­system is in need of repair. Opinion polls ­document continued strong public support for meaningful change in health care, to include more widespread coverage and coverage for pre-existing conditions.
The American political system, by ­conscious design, precludes unrestrained ­lawmaking by the majority party. It instead requires those on both sides of the aisle to work together for the national well-being. Political compromise is an essential corollary to our constitutional principles of checks and balances and separation of powers.
The Founding Fathers led by example. Views on the role of a central government could not have been more divergent nor regional suspicions more salient when the Constitution was drafted.

We have a Constitution because the drafters were willing to make fundamental compromises on a series of issues -- power sharing, interstate commerce and slavery -- and the citizens felt that their representatives, in making these compromises, had their interests at heart. Throughout our history, compromise has allowed for meaningful legislation by ensuring the incorporation of legitimate albeit divergent political views. The subsequent bipartisan "seal of approval" legitimized the legislation in the eyes of the electorate.
Willingness to work across the aisle was a respected political trait. Sen. Everett Dirksen will always be remembered for his work as minority leader with the majority leader Sen. Mike Mansfield to pass meaningful civil rights legislation.
Over the past 15 years, compromise has become a dirty word.
Partisan-inspired gridlock is relatively harmless when things are going well. Bipartisanship becomes critical, however, when the government seeks to address core concerns such as economic well-being, health care and energy.
We currently live in a world of unrequited attempts at compromise. To the consternation of his party's faithful, President Obama pushed for the inclusion of Republican ­agendas -- tax cuts versus government spending -- in the economic stimulus ­package. Nonetheless, the package did not receive a single Republican vote in the House of Representatives.
Republican ideas have been incorporated in current health-care legislation. In his speech on health care to a joint session of Congress, the president offered to incorporate Sen. John McCain's plans for catastrophic coverage and to entertain tort-reform legislation, a key plank of the Republican Party.
The opportunity for conservatives to take a meaningful role in shaping critical legislation could not have been more blatant. Many moderates, me included, would have ­welcomed some of the provisions that have been advanced by Republicans.
The Republican response has been ­disappointing, to say the least. Republicans would rather defeat the Democratic administration than provide -- by working together on a compromise bill -- their stamp of approval to a meaningful overhaul of a health-care system in dire need of repair.
Americans are shortchanged by an approach that confuses the means and ends of governance. The purpose of being elected is to deal with the challenges facing the nation by crafting legislation that reflects the needs and philosophical leanings across the spectrum of American society.
The Republican response to President Obama's overtures has been to stand on the sidelines and carp. This approach exacerbates public confusion and heightens public concern regarding the appropriate government role in a very critical area. It undermines effective governance. If Republican stonewalling leads to success at the polls, their victory will be, at best, Phyrric.
Americans deserve better from their ­elected officials.
Paul Ericson, a teacher at Pinecrest High School, lives in Southern Pines. Contact him at paul.ericson@gmail.com.

Medical Marijuana: Let Doctors Decide

From The Pilot: November 20, 2009

Regarding Florence Gilkeson's thoughtful Nov. 13 column, while there have been studies showing that marijuana can shrink cancerous tumors, medical marijuana is essentially a palliative drug.
If a doctor recommends marijuana to a cancer patient undergoing chemotherapy and it helps him or her feel better, then it's working. In the end, medical marijuana is a quality-of-life issue best left to patients and their doctors. Drug warriors waging war on non-corporate drugs contend that organic marijuana is not an effective health intervention.
Their prescribed intervention for medical marijuana patients is handcuffs, jail cells and criminal records. This heavy-handed approach suggests that drug warriors should not be dictating health care decisions. It's long past time to let doctors decide what is right for patients; sick patients should not be jailed for daring to seek relief from medical marijuana.
Robert Sharpe, MPA
Common Sense for Drug Policy Washington, D.C.

The State Has a Mental Problem

From The Pilot: November 15, 2009

If it is true that the first step in solving a problem is admitting you have one, then maybe things are finally beginning to turn around for the state's troubled mental health system.
Sen. Martin Nesbitt, the chair of the legislative commission that oversees the system, told lawmakers Tuesday morning that the General Assembly made a serious mistake this year by deeply slashing funding for mental health.
Nesbitt pointed specifically to the last minute $40 million cut to Local Management Entities (LMEs), the agencies that manage services for the mentally ill, developmentally disabled and people with addictions.
He said the cuts have forced LMEs "to decide who they won't help."

Lawmakers heard how bad the state is doing from people who should know, top officials with the Department of Health and Human Services. Assistant Secretary Michael Watson, who used to run an LME himself, said that despite a careful planning process to implement the cuts, people across the state are losing important services and many more are being turned away, as most programs are capped because there is no money to pay for new patients.
That is not news to advocates or family members of people with a mental illness or developmental disability. A coalition of groups last month called for lawmakers to return to Raleigh for a special session to address the growing crisis in mental health, as the cuts made this summer are now being felt by families across the state.
Tuesday's meeting comes after yet another News & Observer story about the system's problems, this time a report on patients with a mental illness languishing in emergency rooms, sometimes handcuffed, sedated or even tasered to keep them quiet.
The N&O referred to an internal DHHS report which described the problem that prompted one advocate to say that if similar things were happening to animals, the public would be outraged.
Watson told the oversight committee Tuesday that the budget cuts are being felt in jails, ERs and state mental hospitals, confirming the general outline of the N&O story.
One primary goal of the 2001 mental health reform efforts was to treat more people in their communities and reduce admissions to state hospitals. That has yet to happen.
The new Central Regional Hospital in Butner now has an overflow wing and it is still not enough. It is not hard to figure out why. LME Director Rhett Melton said that the budget cuts to his agency came to 26 percent this year while demand for services has increased beyond projections.
Health and Human Services Secretary Lanier Cansler told the committee that enrollment in Medicaid is 9,000 higher than forecast.
And all this slamming a system that was underfunded and struggling before the economic crisis began.
State officials and many lawmakers have soft-pedaled the extent of the crisis in mental health for years. Former Gov. Mike Easley didn't seem to notice there were any problems until the media uncovered abuse and neglect throughout the system. There have been periodic reports of serious problems amid sputtering progress ever since.
Then the came the worst budget shortfall in the state's history and last minute cuts on top of other deep reductions to mental health and development disability services, a total of $155 million slashed.
Nesbitt called the budget cuts a "bad deed' that lawmakers need to fix. That's some version of good news, that a prominent lawmaker is willing to candidly talk about how wrong the General Assembly was to cut mental health programs so deeply.
Now that everyone finally admits there's a problem, it is time to start solving it. People with a mental illness or a developmental disability have waited and suffered long enough.
Chris Fitzsimon is executive director of N.C. Policy Watch. Contact him at chris@ncpolicywatch.com.

It's Not Government Vs. Private -- Both Have a Role

From The Pilot: November 15, 2009

It is baffling how much vitriol is directed at government. The easiest way to discredit anything is to associate it with the institutions set up by the Founding Fathers and comprised of the people we elect to represent us.
We worry about "nationalized banks" in the financial sector. Never mind the maleficence of the people in those banks that brought our economy to its knees. We worry about "Government Motors." Never mind that the "professionals" in General Motors had fallen hopelessly out of touch with their consumers, threatening a tidal wave that would have turned recession into depression.
When I talked to a staff member of Rep. Howard Coble about a public option for health care, he practically spit out the words "government-run health care." (I didn't have the heart to point out that he was working for a member of the U.S. House of Representatives who had been employed in government in some ­fashion since 1967 -- likely before the young man was born.)
There is little wonder that the Republican Party, champion of big business and small government, would try to couch every issue in terms of socialism versus capitalism. Their ­success depends upon fostering and exploiting that perception.

If you Google the words "capitalism versus socialism," it returns 26.9 ­million hits. For the right, that's 26.9 million calls to arms. For the rest of us, that's 26.9 million instances of a contrived dilemma. Let us concede that government is not, cannot be and should not try to be the answer to all of society's ills. The problem with conservatives' constant assault on government is that private markets aren't any better.
It wasn't our government that came up with the idea of using sub-prime mortgage baked derivatives as ­currency. That came to us courtesy of an overly creative and underregulated financial sector.
Purveyors of the socialist conspiracy theory speak of governments and ­markets as though they are mutually exclusive. While it is true that there is a natural (and healthy) tension between our government and our private sector, it is just as true that for our economy to succeed business and government must be interdependent.
If the private sector is the engine that produces the revenue that drives the economy, then responsible government oversight provides the rails that keep that engine from flying off the tracks.
Rather than engaging in an emotional debate over which sector is more virtuous, we should be dispassionately assessing the purposes to which each is best suited.
Capitalism is the reason I can go to Walmart tomorrow and buy a computer for $400 that's 10 times better than the computer I paid $1,200 for 10 years ago. But it's also the reason that a stent can cost $3,000 and why medical insurance premiums have been increasing four times faster than the rate of inflation.
Government has long played a role in endeavors where the wellbeing of society should reasonably outweigh the profit motive. We trust things like national defense, law enforcement and management of infrastructure to government.
Unless we believe that poverty is a crime that should be punishable by death or that our collective wellbeing is not jeopardized when those who cannot afford (or have been denied) health insurance also cannot afford to be too sick to work, then it makes sense that government should have a role in making health care affordable.
We hear so often that government can't do anything right that it's easy just to accept it as fact -- but it's not. My mom's Social Security check goes into her checking account every month like clockwork. I don't worry when I send a letter.
I know health-care providers who would rather deal with Medicare than private insurers because the rules are clearer and the payments prompt.
At the end of the day, it's not a matter of whether the private sector or ­government sector is more virtuous. It's a matter of which is better suited to a given endeavor. The rest is piffle.
Kevin Smith lives in Aberdeen. Contact him at kevinasmith@gmx.com.

An Open Letter to Miss Carrie Prejean

From The Pilot: November 15, 2009

 Dear Carrie:
It was back in May that I wrote to you, and I still haven't gotten a response, but that's OK. I know you've been real busy with lawsuits and stuff. Which is sort of why I'm writing now.
You may remember that, in that first letter, I took you to task for whining that people who were criticizing you were "undermining your constitutional rights." I still stand by that, because you don't have a constitutional right to have everyone agree with you or even be nice to you over your beliefs. I mean, you should see some of the mail I get.
But despite our differences, please believe I'm not getting any joy out of your recent troubles, which apparently involve some sex tape you made as a teenager that surfaced during your lawsuit against the Miss U.S.A. people.

I sincerely felt bad for you when I read that the tape was first revealed in a settlement conference when the pageant's lawyers played it -- in front of not only your lawyers, but also your mom. That was just low, and mean, and uncalled for. I wanted to kick the pageant's lawyers in the behind when I read about that, because I'm a parent myself. But I need to ask you a question, and this is one that has nothing to do with gay marriage or politics or any of that stuff.
Girl, what in God's name were you thinking?
I'm not just talking about the apparent assumption you had that the tape would never surface. Not that that's not a mind-blowingly ­stupid assumption all by itself. If there's one thing anyone who ­watches TV or reads a newspaper should know, it's that the more famous you get, the more likely it is that a tape like that or racy pictures are going to come out.
Not only to enter the pageant in the first place, but then to sue them over losing your title, knowing that that tape was out there somewhere, is -- well, in May, I was charitable and described you as merely ignorant, but the only word I can think of for what you did is dumb.
But that's not the dumbest thing. The dumbest thing was in making the tape in the first place. Oh, I know that some young people these days consider that sending nude or sexy pictures of themselves to people is no big deal. I've heard about this "sexting" fad, where girls sending naked pics via text or e-mail is ­considered fun and edgy.
But see, those young folks are dumb, too. Because they've basically guaranteed that, whatever success they obtain, those pictures are going to be out there waiting to torpedo it. They'll have to always wonder if some sleazebag is going to ring them up and say, "Guess what I got?"
That's if they're lucky. If they're unlucky, that sleazebag is going to be calling up one of those bottom-feeding Internet sites and tabloids and seeing how much cash they can get for visuals of a famous person flashing their naughty bits.
If they're really unlucky, like you, El Sleazo will be selling it to the other side in any lawsuit they're in, so opposing counsel can play it for their mom. Next thing they know, the fame and fortune they were hoping for turns into a gig co-hosting a fifth-rate reality show with Tonya Harding and that kid from "Diff'rent Strokes" that ended up with the felony convictions.
Carrie, maybe you can use this fiasco to do some good. Maybe you can spread the word to the young girls of America: Sending naked ­pictures or videos of yourself isn't funny or edgy, or sexy. It's not even, as you apparently thought, a ­romantic gesture to a guy you're crazy about. It's just dumb if you want to ever have any kind of success in life that you can hold on to, whether that success is having a home and family, becoming a ­corporate CEO or being Miss U.S.A.
Good luck, and God bless.
Dusty Rhoades lives, writes and practices law in Carthage. Contact him at dustyr@nc.rr.com.

Marijuana Is Treated Unfairly

From The Pilot: November 12, 2009

The Obama administration has announced that federal agencies will no longer ­pursue criminal charges against people who use or supply medical marijuana in states where it is legal.
(Note: North Carolina is not among those 14 states.)
I have long wondered why marijuana cannot be legally used to relieve the pain and discomfort of cancer patients suffering debilitating nausea after chemotherapy. Why should marijuana be ­different from other prescription painkillers, many of which are dangerous and addictive and also subject to abuse?
Medicine has turned me off since childhood, when my mother plied me with foul-tasting potions to relieve the symptoms of head colds, a ­winter-long plague. I often wondered why she didn't catch on that these awful-tasting emulsions were not even alleviating the symptoms.

As I grew older, Mother declared that I was old enough to take medicine without supervision. I promptly poured the ­medicine spoonful by spoonful into the wood box in my bedroom, where it left a smelly residue discovered by a relative foraging for indoor firewood. I once hid the castor oil in a nook in an antique dresser gracing our guest bedroom. I figured no one would find it in such a secret place, but that ploy didn't work either.
In adulthood my response to painkillers is mixed. I turned down a painkiller for a bone fracture in my foot. I figured that I would be just fine once I got home with my neatly Ace-bandaged foot. By midnight, I was climbing the walls with pain. But when I took a painkiller for pneumonia years later, my recovery was delayed several days because of Tylenol 3 side effects.
After a root canal, I was scared witless when the pharmacist asked for personal information required by the federal Drug Enforcement Agency. I took one pill, then decided the pain wasn't bad enough to risk a DEA raid. After a biopsy left my tongue very sore indeed, I declined to fill the prescription for a painkiller. It was more fun to treat that pain with ­milkshakes.
Our perspective on many social ills is often shaped more by popular lore than by facts. Pain is very real and is to be taken seriously. Puffing away at pot hardly seems worth getting the feds' bloomers in a bunch when it might make life a little less miserable for someone really sick.
Marijuana, cocaine and heroin were rarely mentioned in my childhood. Instead, the focus was on illegal manufacture of alcoholic ­beverages. News of the day centered on ­discovery of the latest liquor still and arrest of its operators, many of whom were church-going teetotalers.
It took me years to understand that the reason law-enforcement people were so enthusiastic about nailing illegal liquor manufacturers had almost nothing to do with the health, welfare and moral well-being of the public. It was all about collecting taxes on non-tax-paid beverages.
Sadly for North Carolina farmers, two crops that grow abundantly here are hazardous to your health: tobacco and marijuana. One is already illegal, and the other is rapidly falling from grace.
Even the relatively conservative "Law and Order" TV series has turned a sympathetic eye on medical marijuana use. Lt. Van Buren, my favorite character in the series, recently turned to pot (a gift from her husband) because she was unable to eat as a result of chemotherapy. Naturally she was busted by her supervisor, but instead of decreeing disciplinary action, he shared advice on how to conceal the odor on clothing and body.
If opponents of legalizing medical marijuana are really serious about curbing drug abuse, maybe they should consider banning all ­powerful painkillers now legally prescribed for a multitude of painful ailments. That would level the playing field for everyone in pain.
Critics of the pot remedy argue that other drugs are available to treat post-chemo nausea. True, but they cost more.
Contact Florence Gilkeson at (910) 947-4962 or by e-mail at florence@thepilot.com.

Obama's Politics Putting Us on the Right International Track

From The Pilot: November 11, 2009

President Obama's selection to receive the Nobel Peace Prize generated significant criticism as being undeserving and based too much on hope than accomplishment.
You can count me among those who think his receipt of the prize is premature. But you can also count me among those who believe that the actions he is taking are establishing the groundwork to produce the results that will be very deserving of this recognition.
In my view, Obama has set a very clear international ­mission for his term in office: Create partnerships with other countries to respond to the existing and emerging set of global challenges. These ­challenges include not only terrorism and control of nuclear weapons, but also environmental pollution, public health and balanced economic growth.
This mission reflects a strong ­understanding of the fact situation -- namely, the emergence and development of a diverse set of other ­economic powers in the world (e.g., China, India, the European Union, Brazil, the Middle East oil emirates, the former Soviet republics); and the scope and complexity of challenges that are beyond the resources of any single country to solve.

Each of the significant challenges is borderless and dispersed throughout the global landscape. Like market opportunities in the business world that are beyond the capabilities of any single enterprise, they will require the formation of joint ventures among former competitors who will continue to have disparate as well as common interests. A recent book, "Dreams and Shadows," by Robin Wright, a ­journalist with 30-plus years covering the Middle East, provides useful insights into the opportunities for more collaboration among current adversaries.
Based on personal interviews with emerging political leaders in several Middle East countries, Wright ­identifies more moderate, pragmatic and even democratic attitudes among them than exist in current leaders. But these "new leaders" also have strong feelings about understanding, recognition and respect for their cultures, interests and needs.
Engaging them as partners will require this understanding, recognition and respect. President Obama's outreach efforts are not "kow-towing." They are the important first steps in a strategic process of engagement and partnership building.
The United States will not be able to sustain the role of the dominating force in world affairs, any more than the Roman or British empires could. Nor is it desirable to try to do so. Political analyst Howard Fineman has correctly observed that we cannot act as a gated community, motivated only by our self interests. Our interests, in varying degrees, are too interdependent with those of other countries.
However, not being the dominating force does not preclude the U.S. from being a very powerful force. What is required is the use of less formal methods of exercising power: ­dialogue, negotiation, moral leadership, more "speaking softly but still carrying a big stick."
Finally, partnerships entail a sharing of resources as well as responsibility and authority.
International initiatives divert our resources away from domestic needs, which are significant, and create downstream obligations (e.g., caring for the wounded and the families of those who lose their lives). The more we do things unilaterally, and without consultation and consideration of the interests of both current and potential partners, the larger the diversion of resources away from our domestic needs.
This fundamental fact situation is well understood by President Obama and is guiding his thoughtful approach to international affairs.
Brian Deaton lives in Pinehurst.

Our Kids Need Facts, Not Fairytales

From The Pilot: November 11, 2009

Lacy Pessagno's letter to The Pilot on Nov. 6 tells us that we should look at the Convention on the Rights of the Child through different lenses. Might I suggest hers need cleaning?
To suggest that the 122 countries that have signed on to this treaty (including every UN member except for the United States and Somalia) have forfeited their sovereignty is absurd. And picking on the Dutch is ironic.
The Netherlands has the lowest rate of teen pregnancy in Western Europe. UNICEF rates the country No. 24. Guess who's No. 1 in teen births: the United States, with a rate more than nine times higher than the Dutch. I'm not sure we're in a position to give advice on that subject.
As to alcohol and drugs, Dutch parents are not at all permissive and are as alarmed by teenage drug use as American parents.
This treaty has been around for several years. Have you yet to hear of a case involving the denial of any country's sovereignty? No, and you won't, because that's not what this is about. Ignorance is in no one's interest. Our children need facts to help them develop into functioning, secure adults. Age-appropriate sex education is vital if we are to keep them safe from sexual predators, sexually transmitted diseases and unplanned pregnancies. The abject failure of abstinence education in this country should be a warning about education by fairytale. It's sad that so many Americans are afraid of new ideas. Take the time to learn about this treaty and see if you can find any threat to our country in it. And if you do, maybe you'd like to explain how all the other UN member nations (except Somalia) missed it.
Jim Heim
Vass

Good for Congress, So Why Not for Us?

From The Pilot: November 11, 2009

Members of Congress, to include Rep. Coble, have decried the Affordable Health Care for America Bill as a "government takeover of health care."
But is this objection consistent with what Congress does for its own health care? I would say no, because Congress itself chooses to have government health care. First, free care is available through the Military Health Care system. I know, because as a former Army doctor, I once provided some of this care. Military Health Care is government health care.
Second, and more to the point, Congress is insured under the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) program, touted as having beneficiaries who "enjoy the widest selection of health plans in the country." Indeed, there are seven different plan types (providing a range of low to higher cost options) available through multiple carriers. The FEHB program is government health care because taxpayers fund it.
What's to be made of this contradictory behavior? Congress decrying a "government takeover of health care" but espousing government care for themselves? Perhaps some legislators have, on principle, individually rejected these options, but if so, I haven't heard about it. Nor does Coble, in letters to his constituents, indicate that he has declined government health care for himself. Why should government health care be good for Congress but bad for the nation? Is there a disconnect here? A bit of hypocrisy?
I am reminded of an anecdote, told by the president, from a letter that in essence said, "I am against government-run health care, but don't touch my Medicare!" Here the contradiction is obvious. The contradiction of members of Congress decrying government health care for the nation while benefiting from it themselves, should be made just as obvious!

Edward N. Squire Jr.
Seven Lakes

Media Only Interested in Nutty Drama

From The Pilot: November 6, 2009

A "referendum on Barack Obama." A "bellwether" of how the elections of 2010 and 2012 are going to go. That was the prevailing narrative in the so-called "liberal" media right before this past week's off-year elections. Among those supposedly "bellwether" elections was the special election in New York's 23rd District, which pitted Republican state Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava against Democrat Bill Owens. Scozzafava, however, wasn't nearly ideologically pure enough for the angry, bitter, sky-is-falling wing of the GOP. Michelle Malkin of Fox News repeatedly referred to Scozzafava as a "radical leftist."
Malkin, Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck came out strongly in favor of a third-party candidate, Doug Hoffman, who doesn't even live in the district. When Newt Gingrich tried to reason with the raging right-wingers, Malkin turned on him. "Perhaps it is time to go your own way, with Al Sharpton and Nancy Pelosi," Malkin sneered at Gingrich.
The wingnut attacks got so vicious that Scozzafava eventually dropped out of the race -- and endorsed Owens.

Meanwhile, in New Jersey, the battle for the governorship was waged between a Democrat, incumbent John Corzine, who apparently was about as popular in New Jersey as the swine flu, and whose campaign message seemed to be mostly centered on allegations that his Republican opponent, Chris Christie, is fat. In Virginia, Republican Bob McDonnell vied with Democrat Creigh Deeds, who ran a ham-fisted campaign that made John McCain's desperate floundering look positively Machiavellian in comparison.
By Wednesday morning, the results were in: Republicans won the governorships in New Jersey and Virginia, but Bill Owens was the first Democratic House member from NY-23 since the Civil War.
You'd think that these would be reported as, at best, mixed results. But you'd be wrong. "Republican Wins Deal Blow to Obama," blared the supposedly "liberal" MSNBC.com, claiming that winning two governorships "inflicted a double blow on President Barack Obama's Democratic Party."
They went on to say: "The Republican victories Tuesday in Virginia and New Jersey are a setback for Obama as he struggles to overhaul the U.S. health-care system, win passage of climate change legislation, and build political support for his handling of the war in Afghanistan." Because, after all, the governors of New Jersey and Virginia have so much influence on those issues.
Meanwhile, a Democratic win in a district that hasn't elected a Democrat since the 19th century, one in which stars of the wingnuttosphere threw their weight behind a teabagger third-party candidate and drove the Republican nominee out of the race for being too liberal, one in which Barack Obama gave his endorsement to the Democrat who eventually won -- not such a big deal.
In short, the so-called "liberal" media hyped this as a huge test of the popularity of the Obama administration, then blew off the Democratic win, one that, lest we forget, increased the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives. They chose instead to gush over Republican wins that stand to have little or no effect on President Obama's national agenda.
Yeah, those are some liberal media, you betcha.
Not that I'm saying the media are conservative. No, the problem with 21st century "news" as it's practiced by the so-called "serious" journalists is that it's not about liberalism or conservatism any more. It's about drama.
It was foreordained that the media were going to spin this as a huge challenge to the president, who's been in office for less than a year. Because otherwise, the off-year election would be like most off-year elections: boring. And they hate boring.
That's why the gun-toting tea-party nuts and birthers get so much coverage. They may not make much sense, but look how colorful they are! Look, a Nazi flag! Hey, does that one have a gun? Let's go see what pearls of wisdom he has to offer!
By the same token, "Huge setback for Obama! Can he ever recover? Who will save us now!?" is a much more sexy narrative than "things are really complicated right now." So guess which story gets told?
With its predetermined narratives, nutty characters and obsession with gaudy trash-talking, modern journalism is becoming harder and harder to distinguish from professional wrestling.
God help us all.
Dusty Rhoades lives, writes and practices law in Carthage. Contact him at dustyr@nc.rr.com.

Helping Those in Need

From The Pilot: November 6, 2009

I so disagree when Bill Schwenk says, "Health care is an individual responsibility for those who are capable of taking care of themselves. It is not a right to be paid for by other people who do take their health care responsibility" (Nov. 1).
I might remind you that we are our brother's keeper. How do you explain your attitude to someone who could no longer work due to cancer, lost their insurance, could not pay and would not have been accepted for new insurance? Too bad you're sick. I guess although the medical world could have saved you, your poor planning has put you in a situation where you have no other option than to die.
And what do you say to parents who have depleted their savings: Mom cares for the premature infant and Dad works, but they have exceeded their catastrophic cap? They can have other kids, so why worry about this one?
Is that responsible enough for you? I'm not the least bit happy that I may be taxed to help pay for someone else's health care, but I will be able to put my head on my pillow at night knowing I was able to help someone out of an intolerable situation.
The question should be, how can "we" be so selfish as to wallow in the self-assurance our health-care plan gives us while there are many forced to live every single day, by no fault of their own, not knowing how or if they will be able to see a doctor, much less participate in a life-saving procedure? Sunny Sidley
Vass

Fringe Conspiracy Theorists Getting Scary

From The Pilot: November 4, 2009

I don't know how many people in this country have convinced ­themselves that Obama is some Hitler/Stalin/Imam incarnate whose mission is to overthrow the Constitution and install a fascio/marxist/Islamic theocracy.
But based on the e-mails I receive and on the listener ratings of media alarmists, there seem to be a disturbing number.
The latest to cross my laptop is a "wakeup call "from a ­person identifying himself as Cmdr. Jerry Wilson, a naval ­aviator, that is now a favorite read in the far-right blogosphere.
We are, according to Wilson, "in the middle of a communist revolution" and on the verge of a "takeover of the energy industry" and a gerrymandering of electoral districts to create one-party rule that will "create crisis after crisis" as an excuse to "nationalize the means of production."
Consequently, "out of desperation at the thought of losing America," groups are forming to shut down government's supposedly blatant abuse of the Constitution. "I won't start the fight," Wilson says, "but when it goes down, I will join it."
In a world suffused with uncertainty, how can individuals evince such certitude in their biases? Every aspect of our existence is marked by doubt. There are myriad frames of reference -- nations, languages, religions -- each understandable within their own political, economic and cultural milieu.
On a world scale, it would take unsurpassed hubris to assert that only one's own frame of reference was "right." Of the major religions (2.1 billion Christians, 1.5 billion Islamists, 900 million Hindus, 400 million Chinese traditionalists, 400 million Buddhists and more than 1 billion secularists), only after death can one know which, if any, were "right." Professions of faith can be understood, but not certainty.
Given the uncertainty that permeates other aspects of existence, how can one explain the certainty of the extreme political views being expressed in this country? Every issue confronting us is shrouded by doubt, be it poverty, health, energy, immigration, terrorism, education, the economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, ad infinitum. There are neither obvious nor easy answers to any on the list.
While the contesting and ultimate reconciliation of strongly held views are the essence of the decision process in a democratic society, that process is not enhanced by views overwhelmed by certitude and/or put forward with a vitriol that peaks with threats of force.
It is time to return reason to a place of prominence. The current president was duly elected, meeting all ­constitutional requirements including an oath to support the Constitution. The policies and programs he ­proposed to pursue were clearly ­enunciated prior to his election and implicitly endorsed by a majority of the citizenry.
There are and will continue to be grounds for reasonable people to oppose the manner in which he is executing his duties -- and he is fair game for criticism on all matters of substance.
But it is time to move away from frivolities such as his place of birth or ill-founded claims of unconstitutional appointments of so-called "czars." Of greater concern is the movement from frivolity to irrationality evidenced by the gathering of protesters waving signs inexplicably portraying Obama on the one hand as Hitler, and on the other as a Marxist, accompanied by shouts of, "We want our country back."
The protesters did not lose their country, they lost an election. If their alleged love for the Constitution and fears of a dictatorial coup were not feigned, they would turn their energies from tirades to the development of ideas holding some promise of success in the next election.
The gun-wavers and "militia men" involved, such as Wilson, hint darkly that their love for the Constitution is such that they may not be willing to wait until the next election to revolt and take up their arms -- an act clearly violating the document they supposedly cherish! While the First Amend-ment may protect such speech, it should not be spared severe censure for its impropriety.
It defies understanding how otherwise responsible politicians and publications, presumably concerned with the maintenance of a civil society, can continue to tolerate, and by implication condone, such threats. It is they who should be leading protests.
We live in a world of doubt, and we should each strive to live with that doubt in a responsible manner and be willing to call to account those who do not.
No president is infallible; no solution is perfect; and the political process should not be expected to yield more than what is approximately the "good" -- the best result possible from the compromise of divergent views.
J. Thomas Tidd is a retired attorney living in Pinehurst.

Please Don't Learn the Hard Way About Diabetes

 Form The Pilot: November 1, 2009

Thursdays are hard for me.
Let me explain. Seven years ago, on Thursday, Nov. 7, my 12-year-old son had become so gravely ill that he had to be airlifted to Chapel Hill's UNC Children's Hospital. A week later, on Nov. 14, I was to celebrate my 46th birthday. Another seven days later on Thursday, he died.
The cause of death was septic shock due to the complications of diabetes. The irony of it all was that he died three weeks into the observance of Diabetes Awareness Month.
Now fast-forward to 2008. My wife, Phyllis, and I were introduced to an organization, the Carthage Lions Club. One of their annual fundraising events is a 3K walk called "Strides: Lions Walk for Diabetes Awareness."

We viewed this event as one more way to help get the word out about this killer. We signed up as "Team Wilson," got our pledge sponsors and even went so far as to design T-shirts with the names of all the people in our lives who had been affected by this deadly ailment. Along with my son, we listed me, our daughter, my parents, my ­mother-in-law, and a host of other relatives and friends who either were being treated or have died from the deadly, maiming complications of ­diabetes. According to the American Diabetes Association, often there are no diagnoses because the symptoms are seemingly harmless. The earlier the detection and treatment for diabetes, the less likely that someone might develop complications.
Some of the warning signs of diabetes are frequent urination, excessive thirst, extreme hunger, increased fatigue, irritability, and blurred vision. If you or a loved one has any one or more of these symptoms, see a doctor right away.
For me, it was a matter of dumb luck that I was diagnosed. I had spent the better part of the spring working long and late hours setting up distribution points around this part of the state for a special publication for my employer at the time, The Pilot. Drinking a lot of coffee and missing even more sleep had rendered me irritable as a hornet and so tired that I would have welcomed death for the peaceful rest.
But what finally sent me running to the doctor was an exchange between a coworker and me when I could not find my eyeglasses and she informed me they were on my face. And to that I replied, "Well they're not working!" As it turns out, the glasses worked fine, it was my vision, blurred by high blood sugar, that needed immediate attention.
Again, according to the American Diabetes Association, I am one of nearly 24 million Americans, or roughly 8 percent of the total population, who are diabetic. Because of a strong and effective awareness campaign, there are fewer cases are going undetected. Total diagnosed cases increased 13.5 percent from 2005 to 2007. Currently, close to 24 percent of diabetes is undiagnosed, down from 30 percent that went undetected in 2005.
It is again that time of the year for us to remember our late son and others we have lost along the way. But more important, it is time for us to renew our commitment to public awareness about diabetes.
I failed to mention that later in 2008 we were invited to join the Carthage Lions Club. So this year, Phyllis and I are involved in the planning of the Strides event. Yes, your donations are welcomed, but at the same time during this year's event, we plan to provide information and health screenings.
So come out to get checked and get informed. Besides, the exercise will work wonders on your glucose level.
This year's event will be held Saturday, Nov. 7, at the Nancy Kiser Park next to Carthage Elementary School. Registration for the 3K (approximately 2-mile) walk starts at 9 a.m. The walk is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. Funds raised will support diabetes research and assist local visually impaired.
Form a team (coworkers, friends, fellow diabetics), collect pledges, and come learn more about diabetes. Call (910) 315-1976 or e-mail carthagelions @yahoo.com for more info.
George Wilson is a former employee in The Pilot's circulation department.

Time to Abolish the Death Penalty

From The Pilot: November 1, 2009

The last time the state of North Carolina put someone to death in Central Prison was August of 2006.
The state's capital punishment system has been tangled up in the courts since, in a dispute about the role of doctors at executions and questions about the state's lethal injection procedure.
Regardless of what happens in the courts, those issues won't go away and neither will nagging doubts about the way the death penalty is applied and how much it costs, not to mention the moral questions about a government intentionally taking a human life.
A study just released by the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) finds that states with the death penalty, such as North Carolina, are wasting millions of dollars during the worst economic crisis in a generation and diverting money from anti-violence programs that work.

The study finds that the extra cost of the death penalty is as much as $10 million per state, enough to hire 250 more police officers. A study in North Carolina several years ago showed that it cost $2.16 million more to execute someone than to sentence him or her to life in prison without parole.
DPIC also released a nationwide poll of police chiefs that found they believe the death penalty is the least efficient use of taxpayer money to fight crime, far below hiring more police officers, reducing drug use, and improving crime-fighting technology.
The police chiefs also do not believe that the death penalty deters murder, a view in line with the vast majority of criminologists, despite claims otherwise by death penalty supporters. DPIC points out that the 20 states with the highest murder rates in 2008 all had the death penalty.
No one disputes that mistakes are made in capital cases, sending innocent people to death row in North Carolina and across the nation. Nationally, 138 convicts have been freed from death rows since capital punishment resumed in 1976. There is now growing evidence that Texas executed an innocent man in 2004.
A judge in Ohio stayed a scheduled last week as state officials continue to examine the state's lethal injection procedure.
Efforts to execute an inmate in September were halted when technicians could not find a vein in the man's arm to inject the deadly poison.
Then there is the unequal application of capital punishment, a system still plagued by bias based on race and economic class.
A 2003 study by researchers at UNC-Chapel Hill found the odds of receiving the death penalty in North Carolina increase by 3.4 times if the victim of the crime was white.
North Carolina lawmakers voted this summer to address racial bias by passing the Racial Justice Act, which gives defendants a way to present evidence to a judge that race played a role in their cases.
Public opinion is changing too. Gallup reports that support for the death penalty remains at a 25-year low and that if those being surveyed are given an alternative punishment for first-degree murder like life in prison without parole, support for capital punishment is less than 50 percent.
New Mexico abolished the death penalty in March of this year, the third state in the last two years to end the practice. The tide is clear.
Too many problems, too many questions, too many mistakes and too much money. North Carolina officials ought to understand all that by now, and they should make sure the 2006 execution is the last one the state ever performs.
Chris Fitzsimon is executive director of N.C. Policy Watch. Contact him at chris@ncpolicywatch.com.

Believe in War? Then Prove It

 From The Pilot:  November 1, 2009

An argument is being made that Afghanistan is President Obama's Vietnam. However, there is one huge, glaring difference that no one seems to be talking about: During Vietnam, there was a draft.
Without a draft, we no longer have the endless supply of troops to throw into the meat grinder of a protracted war. There is a bottom to the well.
So, as the pressure increases to send thousands of additional troops to Afghanistan, I will say here and now what no politician or pundit is saying: If you truly believe our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are necessary and just, and you are eligible for military service, you owe it to your fellow countrymen and women who are enduring multiple deployments to join them in the so-called "ideological struggle of the 21st century."
War is not a sports event where one sits on the sidelines and cheers for the home team. If you believe in the cause, then have the guts to fight and possibly die for it. Put your college education or career ambitions on hold, kiss your families goodbye and enlist.
Someday your kids are going to want to know what you did during the war of your generation. I can tell you from experience, you're really, really going to want to be able to look them in the eye and say, "I was there." Kevin Scotti
Pinehurst