Letters to the Editor

1/23 Letters: Earmarked $830,000 a ‘good old boy giveaway’

Regarding “Upscale golf community to benefit from earmark funds” (Jan. 21): This appears to be one of the most blatant “good old boy” giveaways we have had in a while. Jimmy Dixon said if he didn’t spend the money, someone else would. More like if he didn’t give $830,000 to his friend, someone else would have given it to theirs.

How’s that for justification? Most individuals who want to expand their businesses would take a loan. If you know Jimmy, you can just take the cash.

Just think how much this would have helped the people who live with the stench and filth of hog farming, or chickens for that matter, every day. I also disagree with Rep. Dixon’s characterization that “it will be an economic boost to the area.” The only boost will be the number of dollars in the Murphy cash register. Please get this guy outta here in the next election.

Charles Schroeder


ACP ‘risky business’

After reading “Proposed pipeline points the wrong way on energy” (Jan. 21), I can’t help but feel frustrated and betrayed by Duke Energy. The company argues that the ACP will keep energy prices low, but North Carolina residents should beware.

Recently, Duke Energy has proven that when the true price of its coal operations came to light, the company was eager to pass all of the costs of coal ash cleanup on to its customers.

Everyone needs to consider that when the ACP inevitably leaks, Duke will deny responsibility, deny that there is any adverse impact, and likely fight a legal battle to force the state to clean up the mess. Duke’s business model relies on gleaning all of the short-term profits of dirty energy and shirking any long-term costs. Can we as residents and customers afford to subsidize Duke’s risky business?

Nicole Dunn


Life goes on

Regarding “ ‘We are with you,’ Trump tells abortion opponents at march” (Jan. 20): On Friday, Donald Trump offered support to the anti-abortion activists who were holding their annual “March for Life,” a movement he said was “born out of love.” He assured them that he was committed to building “a society where life is celebrated, protected and cherished.”

I was gratified to hear of his change of heart. I imagine it means he will also be committed to cherishing and protecting the Dreamers, immigrants and refugees. I imagine he will want to find a way to protect those who do not have access to affordable health care, including the children on CHIP. I imagine that his commitment to celebrating all life will result in his joining those who kneel in protest of a society in which life is not always protected and cherished and where justice is not always served with equality.

A movement truly born out of love cannot forget that the life it fights to save does not end at birth. Unfortunately, the only life he seems interested in celebrating is his own.

Beth Wethington