In a conversation I had with Rep. Susan Fisher at a Blue Ridge Pride event, she agreed that the contraception funding buck can only stop at [the] city hall [level] because it cannot stop in Raleigh or Washington, D.C. The reason for that is because Fisher, Nesbitt and Gantt are answerable to culturally conservative ex-urban voters here in Leicester, as is the Soil and Water Conservation District, where Rep. Heath Shuler is answerable to rural conservative voters outside Murphy. ...
City Council is not answerable to any rural voters at all, and that is the key reason why only City Council is in a position to significantly (over 3 percent of the budget) fund contraception for the environment, the economy, women's health, school taxes, juvenile crime, traffic jams, quality of life, parks or anything else.
So that only leaves City Council as the last hope for planet Earth. However, the Big Sort will make it easier for city hall over time(see www.thebigsort.com/maps.php).
— Alan Ditmore
Leicester
Subscribe to XpressMail. Free Sneak Peek. Every Week.
Want to know what's coming out in Xpress this week before the paper even hits the stands?
We've got your free sneak peek, along with deals available in XpressMail, our weekly email newsletter. (It's the best we can do without time travel.)
-
Comments
-
Related Articles
-
Comments
Make a comment
Perhaps this letter was meant for the Disclaimer and there was some sort of editorial mix-up? Or is there no coherency standard for letters to the editor?
By shadmarsh
02/16/2011
Alan’s basically a good man, but I was reading this and kept stumbling over the word “contraceptionâ€. At first I thought it was some other term.
City Council is in emergency mode. I can’t imagine Bellamy adding funding for a city subsidized contraception program to the council agenda... in the near future at least.
By Grant Millin
02/16/2011
That's probably because what he is really advocating is eugenics, not contraception.
By shadmarsh
02/16/2011
…Yep. Except for the part about advocating eugenics…
Good tip, Frostillicus.
By Grant Millin
02/16/2011
Ok then Sherlock, what term were you confusing contraception for then?
By shadmarsh
02/18/2011
Anonymous 'Frostillicus' Person, no need for childish name-calling… unless you want to start a real argument with me.
I understand contraception and eugenics may be the same thing for certain paleoconservatives. When I said “Good tipâ€, I literally meant ‘good point’. Did you just have a need to respond viciously in spite of my affirmation, Frostillicus.
Suffice it to say that I did not go to the website Ditmore suggests. I would say his focus on this subject is somewhat intense as well.
By Grant Millin
02/18/2011
Alan,
You are right on. Its about time someone wrote a letter regarding the eminence of the use of contraceptives in the inner working of this government. With Fisher, Nesbit and even Gantt(not withstanding good faith estimates of tenure), on the brinks of non commital jargon in all respects, you cant expect any sort of nonclomeration of partisonship regaring the capping of funding of the interim policies regarding proration of wasteful spending. I mean, who in their right mind would ever expect the national level of government (even at 3% of budget, much less over 11 percent) to even consider making a mockery of the latest congessional "kegger".
This session (or generation, if you may)of senatorial and house reps seem to be froliking in an about face of the times to come. Im about sick and tired of the great american aspiration of integral contraceptive that will never happen before the local assemblies pipe up to speak their minds. This is the dawning of a new melinnium regaring the budgetary condom use in the spending spree that is snowballing into a colossal, never ending repeat, of previous years (including president Garfields famous oversights). I say we try to faction all the local resources to get with the program and save the earth. Noone else will represent, evidently, and i hope that the national level will follow suit if the local level intervenes with the proper protocol. Thanks again alan for putting this into perspective.
By invisiblefriend
02/18/2011
I remain unmoved by your backpedaling, and still curious as to what term you were confusing contraception for tho.
By shadmarsh
02/19/2011
"Viciously', Grant? Isn't that a bit of a stretch?
By bill smith
02/19/2011
"The last hope for planet earth"? Wow, talk about hyperbole. So if we don't have taxpayer funded access to contraceptives, the earth as we know it will end? Actually, contraceptives, and the after-the-fact contraceptive of "abortion", do more to harm the earth by stopping the birth of babies to take our place. I suggest we who are out of alignment with Christian traditions, get back in line. If you want to have sex, get married. Raise a family with lots of love given the children. Then they will carry on and make the earth a much better place through love of neighbor. City Counsels and "progressive" politics will do nothing to "save the planet".
By Bill Fallstaff
02/20/2011
"Actually, contraceptives, and the after-the-fact contraceptive of “abortionâ€, do more to harm the earth by stopping the birth of babies to take our place."
With all due respect, that is utter nonsense. The single biggest problem this planet faces continues to be overpopulation. Take a few minutes and read this (as well as the many other studies on this issue):
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/21/researchers-earth-will-be-unrecognizable-by-2050/#
Some salient points from this article are in the piece about Heath Schuler's attack on Planned Parenthood.
"Good stewardship" of the planet is going to take a lot more than some desire to have someone "take out place."
By Dionysis
02/21/2011
Sorry, I mean to quote "take OUR place."
By Dionysis
02/21/2011
@Bill Falstaff----"I suggest we who are out of alignment with Christian traditions, get back in line."
Say what?
I'm fine with you worshiping whatever creation myth you want to, but the holier-than-thou attitude about Christianity that comes out of your keyboard in post after post is tiresome at best.
I'd put forward, actually, that Christianity has been a net negative for the planet. Other religions qualify as net negatives, too, but I'm talking Christianity here and find the sum of good vs. "not good" that has been done in its name to be decidedly balanced heavily to the not good side. Sorry.
By Johnny
02/22/2011