Wrong on campaign funding
Chris Fitzsimon once again thinks taxpayers should be forced to fund a plan simply because he and his elitist buddies think it is a good idea (“The forgotten lesson from Jim Black,†August 2). He believes that if only the public campaign finance genie could sprinkle her magic dust upon the election process, all government corruption will be ended.
He goes on to claim that this program eliminates strings attached to money. On this point, he is being naive at best. Try this from an Arizona Republic (Arizona has had public campaign financing since 2000) article from 2003: “It’s no secret that labor unions mined their member list to come up with the 4,000 $5 contributions Janet Napolitano needed to be eligible for clean elections money.â€
Fitzsimon goes on to cite a Civitas Institute poll which found that 84 percent of likely voters oppose the use of their tax dollars subsidizing the campaigns of Council of State candidates. He inexplicably brushes this off, and declares unanimous public support by citing a poll conducted by the NC Center for Voter Education – a major advocate of public campaign financing. Why he ignores the results of the Civitas poll is unexplained. Apparently, opinions are only valid if they agree with him.
What Fitzsimon doesn’t get is the fact that individuals in this country have the inherent right to own their own thoughts. By directing our tax dollars to support ideas we may or may not agree with, instead of allowing us the freedom to support the candidates of our choice, we have perhaps our most precious right taken away from us. According to collectivists such as Fitzsimon, it is okay for the government to own our thoughts.
Brian Balfour
Civitas Institute
Raleigh
Not time to bring up tethering
I was disappointed to find a denouncement of dog tethering tucked away in your editorial on dog fighting last week (“Blood Sport,†August 2). After a description of the prevalence of dog-fighting in Orange County, the fighting is given as “one of the main reasons the county is considering ways to eliminate or reduce tethering of dogs.â€
A year ago, I might have thoughtlessly made the expected connection between dog-fighting and dog-tethering and supported the efforts to ban tethering in Orange County. Several months ago, however, I had the pleasure of living with a large husky dog who spends his days tethered outside. This is done because he digs his way out of every fence he is put inside. Without a tether (also known, less disparagingly, as a leash or rope), he would have to stay inside all day. He has access to water, shade and a covered porch on rainy days. His “tether†is a leash that gives him plenty of legroom.
Neglect and abuse of dogs is a problem I take very seriously. I was a volunteer at the Orange County APS years ago when the kennels were filled with confiscated pit bulls who would be euthanized after they were used as evidence in dog-fighting trials. I remember their missing ears and scarred faces. Banning tethering will not solve the problem of dog-fighting, and it will restrict the rights of citizens who love and care for their dogs, perhaps adversely affecting the lives of dogs. Rather than spending time changing the law, the county would do better to educate people about kindness to animals.
I understand the negative reaction to seeing a tethered dog. I fully support the conditions put on tethering, such as access to shade and water. But not all tethering is bad, and a law banning tethering does not allow for the many times when it is beneficial. It is a “quick fix†that will not actually fix anything, just make the problems less apparent. The issue of tethering should be discussed thoughtfully, not mindlessly linked to other, horrible topics.
Emily Buehler
Hillsborough
“Bodies†in question
While many American communities, including our own, grapple with the vexingly complex issues of poverty and homelessness, corporate America’s greatest trade partner – the People’s Republic of China – has adopted an innovative free-market strategy which has succeeded in getting its poorest and least-lively citizens back to work. Now on display at the Streets at Southpoint mall through early September, “Bodies… The Exhibition†offers the paying public a gander at the dissected, preserved remains of scores of deceased Chinese people whose bodies went unclaimed. The implication here is that these “unclaimed†dissected corpses (many participating in fun sporting activities that highlight their denuded muscles) truly represent China’s destitute class, and are not (as some Chinese human rights groups have warned) grotesque final punishments to some of that government’s political dissidents. It would be a bitter irony indeed if we freedom-spouting Americans were witlessly paying top dollar to view the ravaged corpses of the “disappeared†heroes of Tiananmen Square, for example. Or, for that matter, if the “Bodies†exhibit on fetal development included “specimens†from the thousands of forced abortions performed through that central government’s One-Child-Only program. The “Bodies†promoters insist neither allegation is true. In any case, it seems quite certain that none of the people on display at Southpoint agreed to be stuffed, spliced, mounted and toured throughout the world in this chilling, for-profit sideshow, and that none of the “Bodies†visitors would wish such a fate upon themselves.
Jack Nestor
Carrboro