Search Results

“We’re here today to talk about Move to Amend, the push to … (Stunned silence as an animated dollar bill walks into the room, waving his gloved cartoon hands in the air to gain attention. He clears his throat.) “Hi there!! I’m money! I can talk!’’ The dollar strikes an endearing pose and bats his eyes. “I don’t just talk! The Supreme Court says I’m speeeeeech.’’ “That’s ridiculous. You’re an inanimate object.’’ “Whatever. You can call me Bill. The name works for me and all my friends, the $50, the $10. Doesn’t matter! Even a Bill-y-un! We’re all Bills! He-men Bills! No chicks on any of our faces!’’ “But you’re not a person!’’ (Rumbling sound. Plaster begins to fall from the ceiling. Through a gaping hole in the room steps a 40-story building. In a booming voice…). “HI THERE!” “Good Lord! You can speak too?” “OF COURSE. I’M A CORPORATION!” “Yeah, I can see it says that on your façade – hey, I think that falling plaster broke my leg!” “HA HA! CAN’T MAKE AN OMELET WITHOUT BREAKING A FEW LEGS!” “That’s eggs – wait, why would a building want an omelet?” “THE SUPREME COURT SAYS I’M A PERSON! PEOPLE LIKE OMELETS. HI BILL!” “Hi! Can we talk? I’m everywhere! Talking! I never get tired! Of talking!’’ “HA HA, TALK AWAY, BILL! NEED ANY IDEAS ON WHAT TO SAY? I HAVE LOTS OF IDEAS!” *** The preceding was a fantasy. Except it’s a reality. One created by Citizens United, the 2010 Supreme Court ruling that said corporations can contribute to PACs under the First Amendment’s right to free speech. The 5-4 vote overturned a century of campaign law restricting campaign spending by unions and corporations and helped codify the theory that corporations are people. A lot of people predicted Citizens United would lead to an explosion in campaign spending. They were right. In 2016, candidates running for federal office spend $6.4 billion campaigning. Meanwhile, lobbyists spent $3.15 billion trying to shape federal legislation. In each instance, those totals doubled the amount spent in 2000. Citizens United didn’t lead to straight-up bribery. Offering a congressman money in return for a favor is still illegal. Instead, Citizens United led to the rise of super PACs, which can’t directly coordinate with a candidate, but can collect unlimited amounts of money from the wealthy to campaign for or against candidates, ballot initiatives, or legislation. The non-profit, non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics reports that spending by overall outside groups – not just super PACs but by dark money groups and other organizations – topped $1.5 billion in 2016, up 43 percent from the previous presidential race. Spending by outside groups in North Carolina’s U.S. Senate contest topped $77 million alone. In 2016, 135 wealthy donors each gave more than $1 million to outside groups. Consider the income disparity this country currently experiences. David Koch and his brother, as of Feb. 28 of this year, were each worth $47 billion. Forty-seven billion is 831,412 times the annual median U.S. household income. The Kochs throw around a lot of money for candidates and political causes. Back in June at a Koch-sponsored gathering one donor said his “Dallas piggy bank” was closed until Congress would “Get Obamacare repealed and replaced, get tax reform passed. Get it done and we’ll open it back up.” if you’re a congressperson on the phone five hours a day trying to raise campaign money from that group of people, odds are good you’re going to pick up some of their views. You might even wind up trying over and over to pass a health care “reform’’ bill that polls slightly below a bucket of warm spit. Here’s a remedy to this problem: “We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling and other related cases, and move to amend our Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.’’ That’s the language in the Move to Amend push for a constitutional amendment to redress the situation we’re in. Hundreds of communities across the country and state, from Raleigh to Sylva, have called for the amendment. To learn more go to https://movetoamend.org/ In objecting to Citizens United, Justice John Paul Stevens said, “In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it.’’ Stevens was just stating the obvious. Sometimes the obvious hasn’t been stated enough. So we’ll throw one more out there: Money talks. But it isn’t speech.

Congress has been roundly criticized for its lack of ability to pass legislation. Yet it now has a golden opportunity to pass a commonsense bipartisan bill to help address the challenges family caregivers face. Last week the U.S. Senate unanimously passed the Recognize, Assist, Include, Support and Engage, (RAISE) Family Caregivers Act (S. 1028). The thrust of the measure is to develop a coordinated strategy to support family caregivers that would engage the private and public sectors. The Senate version of the RAISE Family Caregivers Act was sponsored by Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine and Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis. and Reps. Gregg Harper, R-Miss. and Kathy Castor, D-Fla. sponsored the bill (H.R. 3759) in the House. The importance of the 40 million Americans who help care for loved ones – and the moral and fiscal importance of supporting them – cannot be underestimated. Nor can the importance of enacting the RAISE Family Caregivers Act. Aging in place at home is a far less expensive alternative than a nursing home. In many cases that’s only made possible by family caregiver help with bathing, dressing, transportation, meals, and more, along with vital medical tasks from managing medications to giving injections and providing wound care. The moral imperative of caring for a loved one is obvious. The hard dollar value of such care often isn’t. It’s estimated that the value of unpaid care provided by this silent army of family caregivers is $470 billion a year. By way of comparison, that roughly equals the annual sales of IBM, Hewlett Packard, Apple and Microsoft in 2013-2014. Combined. The equation here is simple: If that $470 billion in care didn’t exist, either the care wouldn’t exist or the taxpayers could be picking up the tab to provide it. A look at America’s demographics show a level of urgency on this issue that might escape most Americans. On one hand we’re aging as a nation, with 10,000 baby boomers turning 65 every day (with up to 90 percent of that cohort dealing with one or more chronic health conditions). The fastest growing segment of the population is Americans 85 and older; that’s the segment most at risk for multiple and interacting health problems requiring higher levels of care. On the flip side, we’re running low on family caregivers. In 2010 there were 7.2 potential family caregivers for every American 80 and older. That’s expected to drop to 4 to 1 in by 2030 and 3 to 1 by 2050. Caregivers are going to need more help. They already need more help. Caring for a loved one is the right thing to do, and it’s rewarding, but it often comes at a cost to the caregiver including through elevated levels of stress and health problems of their own, particularly a greater incidence of chronic conditions like depression, cancer and heart disease. Here’s how the RAISE Family Caregivers Act will help: It calls for bringing together private and public sector voices to recommend action steps via an advisory council formed under the bill. The council would include veterans, family caregivers, social service and health providers and employers, among others. It would help identify actions already being taken or that ought to be taken to recognize and support family caregivers, related to: • Promoting greater adoption of person-and family-centered care in all health and other settings, with the person and the family caregiver (as appropriate) at the center of care teams; • Assessment and service planning (including care transitions and coordination) involving care recipients and family caregivers; • Information, education, training supports, referral, and care coordination; • Respite options; • Financial security and workplace issues. The unanimous, bipartisan support in the Senate sends a strong message to the House, where the legislation is pending in the House Education and the Workforce Committee, chaired by Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C. Another North Carolinian, former Sen. Elizabeth Dole, said “The unanimous Senate vote sends a clear and strong signal that supporting caregivers is an urgent national priority, especially as we experience the effects of an aging population, better understand the unique needs of our wounded warriors, and recognize the drastic personal, financial, and health challenges of caregiving. (The Senate) vote signals that help is on the way, and that the work caregivers do day in and day out for their loved ones is critically important. “Now it’s time for the House of Representatives to act, and I call on them to pass this legislation before the end of the year. “The Elizabeth Dole Foundation is proud to have joined with more than 60 national organizations in supporting this important legislation.” This is a nonpartisan issue that affects families across the country. And it’s a legislative accomplishment waiting to happen. The sooner, the better.

Supposedly late one night in Tennessee in the 1960’s after the last bottle of bourbon was finished, President Lyndon Baines Johnson said, “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.” The quote has been verified however; whether he said it after the last bottle of bourbon was finished is up for debate. President Johnson was from Texas, he grew up in the South and understood the politics of racism from the inside, and he saw it as a ploy to divide and conquer. I have wondered for years how people could be convinced to vote against their own self-interest, and here was President Johnson, putting it out there on how to control some poor, uneducated and uninformed white folks. But those were simpler times, and the people he was referring to could find jobs, manufacturing was strong, imports were not as prevalent, you didn’t need to tell people to “Buy American.” When they bought, they bought American. Equal rights laws were just coming into existence so while it was tough for many whites they were still doing better than most of the best colored men, and people like LBJ knew just how to use that to their advantage. It is apparent that many of our modern day politicians have taken a page or two from President Johnson’s playbook and they have added a few of their own that revolve around several ideological beliefs. Belief number one is that “they” are coming for your guns but we are here to protect that right, the second is that “they” believe in killing babies but we are here to protect babies, then there is the one that “they” are trying to take GOD out of our lives but we are here to protect your religious rights and finally “they” believe that it is okay for same sex marriage and partner rights and we are here to protect the natural order that we believe that GOD has deemed. Now add those strategies to the reality that it is tougher today for the people he was referencing to distinguish themselves as better than the best colored man (black man), brown man or yellow man and that is a problem. Consider President Barack Obama, no matter how hard you try, it is hard to convince yourself that you are better than this colored man that is the Ivy League educated President of the United States. So many are left with questioning his legitimacy as a way to validate their value and they become hell bent on discarding anything that has his fingerprints on it even if it is against their own self-interest. There is no doubt that racism was at the heart of it. However; I would argue that President Johnson’s revelation was more about “classism”, and a way for those with money (the upper class) to control the lower working class without the actual system of aristocracy that existed in Great Britain. The colored man was a convenient pawn. And the upper class has continued to manipulate the lower working class by simply refining their strategies to divide and conquer. In the early 1980’s President Ronald Reagan introduced the concept of “trickle-down economics” convincing many lower working class people that they need to allow companies and the well off to do better. Because when they do better it trickles down to them, and unfortunately some poor, uneducated, uninformed working class people have been waiting since the 1980’s for the economics to trickle-down to them. And that is one of the problems that we now face, because we have not seen trickle-down economics and it has to be somebody’s fault and this is where the ruling class has gotten really good, they have now convinced some poor, working class folks that all of their problems are the result of “them” black, brown and yellow people, you can toss in big government just to add a little spice. They and government are the ones taking your jobs, we did not outsource them; “they” are the ones looking for handouts, while the real numbers show that the largest percentage of entitlements do not go to minorities. And here we are at healthcare repeal and replace, every analysis you find suggests that the proposed changes will affect the poor uneducated folks backing Trump and the Republican Party disproportionately, but we march on because “Obamacare” isn’t good, it can’t be. Remember it came from the illegitimate president, so while it will hurt us to repeal it, it has to go. We have to hope that people in this country wake up before it is too late, not just with healthcare but with many complex issues that we face, that they go back and read the words of President Johnson and remember that there are people out there who believe what he believed: “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.” People, we have to stop emptying our pockets. Samuel P. Martin, is the Publisher of The Birmingham Times, (Alabama) T

Public education continues to be challenged by charter schools, budgetary constraints, salary and retention of teachers, resegregation of public schools, changing demographics of schools, public funding, poverty of students and public will for education. Many people in this country would agree that educating children is one of the most important functions of an effective government. In America, primary and secondary schools are mandated to provide a public education to all children without charge and paid for in part by taxpayers. A common belief among supporters of education is that education is important to the growth and development of citizens, and is the core principle in support of our republic and democracy. The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools purport that “all children should have the opportunity to achieve at a high level, and charter schools are meeting that need: charter schools are closing the achievement gap. They are raising the bar of what’s possible- and what should be expected – in public education; and a higher percentage of charter students are accepted into a college or university.” If this is true, we should dismantle every public school and send all students to charter schools. Unfortunately, this is not the case, as many charter schools are not meeting this lofty projection and additionally are not available for many students, as charter schools tend to be very selective. Moreover, charter schools don’t have the same oversight as public schools. School boards, administrators and teachers are charged with the responsibility for ensuring every child has access to a high-quality education. Parents expect accountability from educational oversight professionals to evaluate the success of public schools. There are successful charter schools, but there are many that are not successful and are not held to the same standards of public schools. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos supports school choice and believes this is a much better alternative for public schools, an alternative that allows parents to decide where their children will go to school, utilizing public funding. Secretary DeVos said, “We all live with the fact that the current structure of education is outdated and ultimately is not geared toward what is right and best for students. I suggest we focus less on what word comes before ‘school’—whether it be traditional, charter, virtual, magnet, home, parochial, private or any approach yet to be developed – and focus instead on the individuals they are intended to serve. The problem is not how much we’re spending; the problem is the results we’re getting. Charters alone are not sufficient. Private schools alone are not sufficient. Neither are traditional schools.” Secretary DeVos’s argument sounds reasonable. However, a deeper analysis should be undertaken to assess what is not working in underperforming public schools and fix it, rather than taking public dollars and allocating them to an ill-advised voucher system. We agree with Secretary DeVos that what is important is focusing on individual student performance to achieve the results needed for America to compete in a global economy driven by science, reading and math. The concept advocated by DeVos is based on educational choices. Unfortunately, choice alone is pointless when quality is absent from those choices. A key question to ask is: Will the proposed “voucher system” have sufficient dollars for to pay for school choice and be equal to or greater than a taxpayer funded public education? There is no easy answer to public education. Charter schools are not the answer. The secondary question: How effective are charter schools? The Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University Institute linked overall improvement of the charter school sector to charter school closures, suggesting that while charter schools as a whole are not getting better, the closure of bad schools is improving the public system as a whole. This fragmented system of education is not what is needed to improve student performance. With a greater focus on improving our communities, we also improve education. In other words, public schools are a reflection of the communities they serve and deserve full public funding, not school vouchers that have not proven to be a reliable equalizer for an equitable public education.

President Trump has made the decision to reverse the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA program), putting more than three-quarters of a million young people at risk for deportation. So how did we get to this point? In 2001 Congress introduced the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, known widely as the DREAM Act, to assist individuals who met specific requirements and gave them the opportunity to enlist in the military or go to college to have a path to citizenship. This Act has failed to pass Congress after many attempts. Former President Obama announced on June 15, 2012, that his administration would no longer deport illegal immigrants who matched certain criteria outlined in the proposed DREAM Act. From 2012 to 2017, about 800,000 people have registered through DACA, giving them a reprieve from deportation. To deport these people who have lived as Americans is wrong and places yet another racist stain on America. Have we not learned from slavery, from the internment of Japanese citizens during World War II, and from the Trail of Tears when we forced the removal of Native Americans from their ancestral homelands? This is not the America we believe in. Americans don’t punish children for an act over which they had no control. The DREAMERS were raised in America, and many have completed their education, they serve in our armed forces and they contribute to the mosaic that is America. U.S Sen. James Lankford, a Republican from Oklahoma, said it best: “We as Americans do not hold children legally accountable for the actions of their parents.” He went on to say, “We must confront the nation’s out-of-date immigration policy.” We agree. Our elected leaders have to enact laws that are humane and respectful of children whose parents brought them to the United States. “President Trump’s decision to end DACA should break the hearts and offend the morals of all who believe in justice and human dignity,” said U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, of California. “This cruel act of political cowardice deals a stunning blow to the bright young Dreamer’s and to everyone who cherishes the American Dream.” Let’s be clear. The president is catering to his base with the ending of DACA and the six-month delay; yet he is right to challenge Congress to take on this tough legislation and do the right thing. A critical question is:” What happens at the end of the six-month period if Congress fails to pass legislation on this important issue?” The stakes are high and this Congress has yet to pass any significant legislation since Trump’s inauguration. The president has said he “loves the dreamers” and yet has made this decision to end DACA and create great anxiety for people who deserve a definitive decision on their future. We don’t argue that there is accountability on both sides. But we strongly believe that the president and Congress need to show leadership and not play political football with the lives of people who have and, if given the opportunity, will continue to contribute to the greatness of America.

My thoughts and feeling about the recent demonstration and violence in Charlottesville and the events that followed are like the rivulets in a delta, crisscrossing in a haphazard way, but in the end, all headed to the same place. That place is that white supremacy, anti-Semitism, xenophobia and violence against people, to terrorize them or because of their beliefs, are all antithetical to democratic values and to human decency. There can be no innocent or good participation in them. The series of events of the week left me swirling. They included: The Charlottesville white supremacist protest and the counter-protests; The increasingly common, protester caused, death by automobile of a young woman; Overt anti-Semitism by the marchers, and a report of the fear and courage of one Charlottesville Jewish synagogue; The emotional, thoughtful and intense reaction of my own Beth El congregation; My reflections on the relative privilege and security of American Jews; The moral ambiguity of response of President Trump—and his dog whistle, or overt, condoning of white nationalism; The toppling of a confederate statue in Durham, and the false rumors of a KKK march; My late-to-the-game understanding of the history of the erection of these Civil War monuments, and their intended statement of white supremacy; and My own, coincidental, trip to the Crockett—Miller Slave Quarters outside New Bern. Monuments: I am convinced that the Civil War monuments were primarily erected as a statement of white supremacy, intended to remind the black residents of the American South of white control and to intimidate them. The Durham monument was erected at the County Courthouse in 1924, in the Jim Crow era of NC. To say monuments should be preserved as a lesson in Civil War history is like saying we should have monuments honoring Hitler to remind us of the horror of the Shoah. Free Speech: Though I vehemently disagree with the tenets of this alt-right movement, I defend their right to have those beliefs, to speak and to march. But they do not have a right to incite, encourage or engage in violence. Honestly, I also have a problem with their right to publicly spew or teach hate, which should be clearly condemned by leaders of all stripes. But if speech doesn’t incite violence, I don’t think it should be officially punished. It’s a harder question for me how private people should respond. For example, is it okay for private employers to fire employees who spew hate on their off time, but don’t bring their hate or violence into the workplace? Jews: We are on the inside and on the outside in America now. We are, relatively speaking, well educated, well-resourced and positioned well to have our voices heard. So, it’s hard to imagine that in this part of the 21st century, Jews will be the target of de jure or widespread oppression. But isn’t this what the Jews in Germany thought in the early 1930’s? Jews rightfully feel anguish at the rise in overt anti-Semitism in America today. So how can we appropriately be self-protective, without putting our angst at the center? We need to respond both self-protectively as Jews and courageously as Americans who have a duty toward people of color, immigrants and Muslims who are more vulnerable and less secure than we are. Perhaps this is an opportunity for an authentic alliance between Jewish communities and other groups that are targets of white supremacist hate. The President: What seems important about his moral ambivalence and his condoning or support of white supremacy, is that we prevent his messages from normalizing these ideas and activities and that we prevent white nationalism from becoming a legitimate movement. Rumors: It seems likely people connected with the people that toppled the Confederate statue in Durham started the false rumors of a KKK march in Durham on Friday. I am not sure what information backed up their tweets, but being part of a just cause doesn’t make it acceptable to be irresponsible. These rumors bred significant anxiety and disruption in Durham. They have a “cry wolf” effect. Next time, we will all take them less seriously, even if next time we need to be taking precautions. Neither side should use social media to spread unsubstantiated rumors. More on Monuments: By coincidence, a week after the march in Charlottesville I spent a morning in New Bern at the Crockett Miller Slave Quarters and the adjacent cemetery, which houses the remains of 522 former slaves and freed men in unmarked graves. Ben Watford has spent his retirement preserving this history. He was informative, and his sincerity was deeply moving. He told us about the realities of slave life; how Union General Burnside took in the thousands of runaway slaves who sought protection during the Civil War; life in the Jim Crow South; his own life growing up poor and black in Hertford County in the 1930’s and 40’s; and how the US Marines carelessly “lost” the grave markers for 521 of the black people buried in the cemetery when they were building Cherry Point in 1941. He told us all of this without bitterness, but with commitment to the need to understand the truth of these times and the human causes and impacts of these events. These physical remains are the monuments that need to be preserved, and we and our children need to reckon with that history. Leslie Winner, former Executive Director of the Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation and former N.C. Senator TWEE

The violent events that transpired in Charlottesville were very disturbing and a terrible sign for our country and the nation. Three people lost their lives. Heather Heyer and Virginia State Troopers H. Jay Cullen and Berke Bates were killed during the hate-filled rally. We like to think that the great majority of Americans don’t exhibit the kind of hate we saw on full display in Charlottesville. We know there is racism and bigotry in our country. We witnessed the vile names former president Barack Obama was called, along with the bigotry towards his wife and children. We witnessed the shootings at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in downtown Charleston, South Carolina, on the evening of June 17, 2015. During a prayer service, nine people (including the senior pastor, state Sen. Clementa C. Pinckney) were killed by gunman Dylann Roof, a 21-year-old white supremacist. Roof confessed to the shootings in hopes of starting a race war. And now Charlottesville. Three vivid examples of racial hate in our nation. Some have argued there are a small number of people who harbor these types of hate. Some argue that the election of America’s first black president was the tipping point for some who are concerned with losing the country. When we hear people say, “Take our country back,” the question is, take it back from whom? Other Americans? This is a dog-whistle for some that America should continue to be a white-ethnocentric nation. The truth is, the diversity in our nation makes us the most unique nation in the world and has led to America being the greatest nation the world has ever seen. The nation will continue to grow and become even more diverse. All we need do is look at the children being born in this nation. The Public School Review reports: “It has been an ongoing trend for nearly two decades—while the total number of students in American public schools has risen, the percentage of those students who are white has steadily fallen.” According to the Pew Research Center, in 1997, over 63 percent of the 46.1 million U.S. public school students were white. Today, white students comprise just 49.7 percent of the 50 million students enrolled.” This fact may contribute to the hysteria and hate of the alt-right, Nazi, white supremacist and KKK marchers as they shouted, “Jews will not replace us. Blacks will not replace us.” These comments from the marchers indicate an underlying fear that they are losing their position as the majority group in the United States and thus are espousing hate against Jews and blacks. When you evaluate hate groups in the United States, you may be surprised to know they reside in every state in the Union. Led by California’s 79 hate groups, the Southern Poverty Law Center reports there are 917 hate groups in the United States. Surprisingly South Carolina has a low number of 12 and Florida has 63. The growth of hate groups peaked in 2011 at 1,018 and declined by 25% or 234 in 2014; and grew by 133 groups or 17% in 2016. Mind you, these groups represent anti-Muslim, KKK, anti-government and black separatist groups. Hate is hate, regardless of who promotes it. The question is, what can be done about this, given the lack of moral leadership from our elected president and Congress? The answer is, we the people have to step up and hold our lawmakers accountable and replace them if they lack the moral courage to do what is right. We the people have to set the example of loving thy neighbor for our children, for young people and each other to build bridges of respect, while rejecting hate. We must join together with our work colleagues, our churches, our institutions of higher learning, our schools and our neighbors, and fellow countryman. We cannot afford to allow fringe groups to hijack our nation with hate. We have to show each other and the world that we are a nation of immigrants and we continue to be exceptional by resolving our differences in a respectful and collaborative way. We are an exceptional nation, and it is up to us to maintain our exceptionalism.

Health insurance companies provide Republicans and Democrats in Congress with inordinately large campaign contributions. The health insurance lobbyists spend lavishly on our US Representatives and Senators. Improved Medicare for All would put health insurance companies out of business and would end the money on which our representatives depend. Thirty-seven countries spend less on health care and have better outcomes than we do in the US. For the most part, those countries have modeled their health care systems on the US Medicare model. Moving all citizens to Improved Medicare for All would be a no brainer. The system is already in place. Here’s what Improved Medicare for All would look like. All citizens would be issued Medicare cards at birth. In addition to covering traditional health care and preventive services, eye care, dental and hearing would be covered. Emergency, hospital and doctor’s office services would be covered. There would be no premium to pay, no co-pays and no deductible. Did you read that last sentence? There would be no premium to pay, no co-pays and no deductible. To get health care services, you would simply present your Medicare card. This is how it would be paid for. Currently, the insurance companies pay about 80 cents of every dollar they take in for health care. Of that 80 cents, 30 cents is spent by the doctor’s office (or hospital, etc.) to seek approval for services or file claims (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK53942/). That leaves 50 cents to spend on actual health services. With Improved Medicare for All, approximately 2 cents would be spent by the doctor’s office to file a claim for payment. That leaves 98 cents to spend on actual health care. As outlined in House Bill H.R.676, Improved Medicare for All would be paid for with a progressive tax. The top 60% of wage earners would pay 6%. The remaining 40% (earning about $53,000/year or less) would pay a 3% payroll tax. Employers would also contribute. (http://healthoverprofit.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Financing-National-Improved-Medicare-for-All-in-the-United-States.pdf) H.R.676 is the Improved Medicare for All bill that has been introduced in the House. More than 100 of our representatives are co-sponsors of the bill. Unfortunately, very few of them are likely to vote for it. In 2012, the health care industry provided our representatives with nearly $59 million in campaign contributions (https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=F09). Our lawmakers are not going to give up that money easily. Our only solution might be to remove all incumbents from office in 2018 and replace them with people who will commit to voting for H.R.676. Remember, they were elected to work for us, not for the health care industry. The time and energy Congress has spent to desperately help health insurance companies with “repeal and replace” is tragic. Improved Medicare for All is the easiest and most logical fix. It just makes sense. Improved Medicare for All is a no brainer. Please read more about it at http://www.pnhp.org/hr676. Beth Jezek Beth Jezek is retired and lives in Asheville

“The Mooch showed up a week ago,” a foul-mouthed Anthony Scaramucci told a New Yorker writer last week. It was perhaps the only sentence he spoke not bristling with more profanities than there are fruit in a fruitcake. I was shocked, and I’m no sweet innocent lass with a pure tongue. In truth, my language is sometimes overly salty for good company. But The Mooch surpasses anything I’ve ever heard when it comes to sheer crudeness and mind-boggling nastiness. Somebody needs to stick a bar of soap in that guy’s mouth. Then, this same somebody should inform The Mooch, that swaggering sack of self-adulation, he might at least feign humility by speaking in first, not third, person when referring to himself. Who does he think he is, the president of the United States? You might remember The Donald, during his campaign, talked about women’s private parts in the most vulgar of ways. The Mooch’s comments to the New Yorker, however, The Donald ever-so-piously deemed “inappropriate.” Here is the key takeaway, boys and girls: Men’s dingalongs are unmentionables. Women’s privates, however? Fair game. The Donald selected The Mooch despite The Mooch’s coming across like a bad caricature of “The Fonz,” he of Henry Winkler sitcom-television fame. The Mooch even sort of looks like The Fonz. There’s the coiffed hair, that slick, slimy look, an overlay of untempered, heedless bravado. Now, of course, The Donald has sacked The Mooch, a mere 10 days after appointing him White House communications director. Scaramucci, I barely had time to learn how to spell your name, and poof, you are gone. When these two men were conversing, surely The Mooch, to have won The Donald’s appointment to such an illustrious, important post – spokesman for the most powerful person in the world, at least before we lost the world’s respect – must have spoken sans language that included [delete], [delete] and [delete], or [delete], [delete] and [delete]. And The Mooch, while in The Donald’s presence, must have never threatened people as he publicly threatened other White House staff members. “The Mooch showed up a week ago,” a foul-mouthed Anthony Scaramucci told a New Yorker writer last week. It was perhaps the only sentence he spoke not bristling with more profanities than there are fruit in a fruitcake. I was shocked, and I’m no sweet innocent lass with a pure tongue. In truth, my language is sometimes overly salty for good company. But The Mooch surpasses anything I’ve ever heard when it comes to sheer crudeness and mind-boggling nastiness. Somebody needs to stick a bar of soap in that guy’s mouth. Then, this same somebody should inform The Mooch, that swaggering sack of self-adulation, he might at least feign humility by speaking in first, not third, person when referring to himself. Who does he think he is, the president of the United States? You might remember The Donald, during his campaign, talked about women’s private parts in the most vulgar of ways. The Mooch’s comments to the New Yorker, however, The Donald ever-so-piously deemed “inappropriate.” Here is the key takeaway, boys and girls: Men’s dingalongs are unmentionables. Women’s privates, however? Fair game. The Donald selected The Mooch despite The Mooch’s coming across like a bad caricature of “The Fonz,” he of Henry Winkler sitcom-television fame. The Mooch even sort of looks like The Fonz. There’s the coiffed hair, that slick, slimy look, an overlay of untempered, heedless bravado. Now, of course, The Donald has sacked The Mooch, a mere 10 days after appointing him White House communications director. Scaramucci, I barely had time to learn how to spell your name, and poof, you are gone. When these two men were conversing, surely The Mooch, to have won The Donald’s appointment to such an illustrious, important post – spokesman for the most powerful person in the world, at least before we lost the world’s respect – must have spoken sans language that included [delete], [delete] and [delete], or [delete], [delete] and [delete]. And The Mooch, while in The Donald’s presence, must have never threatened people as he publicly threatened other White House staff members. Here is the second takeaway, boys and girls: There is no sin in acting and thinking like a lout; in fact, you can aspire to hold one of the most public positions imaginable. Just make sure you tone it down, won’t you, when talking to reporters who, while taking a breather from making up fake news, might just record and publish your remarks. I’m relieved The Good General, new White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, apparently forced The Donald to exfoliate The Mooch, perhaps as a condition of employment … “It’s The Mooch or me, boss. You gotta choose.” But, I’m doubtful Our Last Hope can curb The Donald’s excesses for long, or successfully quash The Donald’s compulsion to tweet whatever floats through his head. We can pray, however, The Good General can successfully turn The Donald’s attention away from The Manly Man in Russia and toward North Korea, where The Great Leader, Kim Jong Un, seems to have developed an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching, The Madman says, “the whole U.S. mainland.” This raises the unpalatable possibility we, The American People, could wake up one fine morning only to find ourselves Blown to Bits. Quintin Ellison is editor of The Sylva Herald. Published with permission from The Sylva Herald.

In February, The Sylva Herald featured Phyllis Fox on the front page; it was to join with town of Sylva officials in honoring the pioneering, female small-business owner for receiving the annual Volunteer Service Citizen of the Year award. Everyone, including Phyllis, knew because of cancer, her time could be limited. Indeed, this fine person left the good earth on July 19 at age 75. The ceremony I attended that night at Town Hall was joyful, however, not sad. The gathering served as an opportunity to highlight Phyllis’ devotion to the town, honor her work with young people and celebrate her efforts on behalf of numerous groups and programs. She was co-owner of Sylva Insurance Agency for more than 50 years; served on the local hospital board; spearheaded downtown revitalization efforts; helped found the Jackson County Athletic Hall of Fame; and much, much more than I could possibly list here. She had tears in her eyes. I didn’t know Phyllis particularly well, but her tearing up made me tear up, too. She was so clearly and openly touched by the outpouring of respect and love. What struck me, too, was the complete absence of, the total irrelevance toward, the absolute who-gives-a-darn about partisan politics. No one gave it a thought. It simply did not matter. Phyllis was a diehard Republican. She served for years as local party chair. Most of those who were so proudly touting her accomplishments? They are equally devoted Democrats. Phyllis was a delightful person, said Frank Burrell, a former Jackson County school superintendent and Sylva-Webster High School principal. He serves as chairman of the Jackson County Democratic Party. “She was special. I can’t say enough about her,” he said. I called him to check the accuracy of my line of thought: This political polarization we are experiencing isn’t necessary. People can respect and enjoy those of different persuasions, while holding firm to and fighting for one’s beliefs … as Phyllis Fox helped demonstrate. Frank agreed, saying he thought I was onto something worth pursuing. So I’m trying, though I admit it’s difficult to fully articulate what I’ve been pondering on since she died. No, since before she died. I’m weary of watching Americans being so blasted hateful toward one another, because one is a Democrat, another is a Republican. And within those two broad categories, liberals fighting with moderates; moderate conservatives fighting with hardline conservatives. Frank and Phyllis had fundamental disagreements, politically speaking. But, they didn’t throw their individual, so-called “values” in each other’s faces in vain attempts to gain some nonexistent moral high ground. Because, actually, these two shared basic values. A belief in selfless community service; respect for every individual; giving children opportunities they wouldn’t otherwise have. If it was about helping kids, Phyllis was a veritable ball of energy, according to Frank, who likewise devoted his professional career to the same pursuit. “When I was at the high school, when we started a boosters’ club, she worked tirelessly to see it through. Any project, she was always willing to help. She just thought about the kids, that came first for her,” he said. Burrell hesitated, then said he figures Phyllis probably worked as hard to advance Republican ideals. He said, “whatever she focused on, she went full bore.” “Phyllis was a strong Republican. But, I never saw that side,” he said. “She could rise above. We never had a problem.” Quintin Ellison is editor of The Sylva Herald. Published with permission from The Sylva Herald.

Not very long ago in a county not very far away, I stopped at one of those strip malls, the kind lined with ugly, squat storefronts that were punched out in assembly-line quantities during the late 70s and early 80s. The kind of strip mall where one month said storefront might be a restaurant, the next month a chain video store, the next a tattoo parlor and, finally, just the next in a line of boarded-up windows. This particular strip at this particular time was enjoying a bout of prosperity and featured a pretty good pizza place and a decent Chinese restaurant, separated by, if I remember correctly, an accounting firm. The wife had requested I pick up some something on the way home, so I’d phoned into the Chinese place. I’d parked and was walking toward it when I saw a gentleman lurking around the front of the place, cupping his hands and trying to peer inside. (For whatever reason, a lot of restaurants seem to have a limited budget for lighting. That, combined with the aged, thick plate glass, made it almost impossible to discern what was on the other side of the glass at this particular establishment). Back to the story: This guy was acting hinky as all get-out, furtively trying to peek in, shuffling around, trying again. After years spent working in downtown Asheville, I’d developed a pretty good eye for panhandlers and folks with, shall we say, behavioral disorders. This was different. The man was about my age, was wearing clean if a bit-dated clothes. And something was clearly making him jumpy. I was reaching for the door when he turned to me. Bracing for a tale about his car being broken down and needing money for a bus ticket, this instead is what I got: “Is this the pizza place?’’ A pause as he lowered his head a bit before looking up again. “I can’t read.’’ If you ever start feeling sorry for yourself, remember that story. I sure do. I don’t know how this particular gentleman fell through the cracks, how he came to find himself in the most prosperous nation in the history of the planet without a survival skill most of us take for granted. I didn’t ask. I steered him to the pizza place, got the eggrolls and went home. I did feel like I’d been gut-punched. Do every time I think of it. I guess, in a way, that tale is a bit reassuring. There was a time in this state when education was slipshod. In the earlier part of the 1800s, North Carolina, where huge swaths of the populace couldn’t read, was considered the most poorly educated state in the South. Forward-looking leaders recognized this, took steps to boost public education, and by the outbreak of the Civil War the Tar Heel state was considered one of the best-educated. Education efforts ran in fits and starts after the war and during reconstruction, but boomed at the turn of the century, when the state embarked on a massive school-construction program that churned out the average of about one new school house a day between 1900 and 1910. Longer school years, free textbooks, school lunches and the like were bricks added to the education foundation as time went along. So now we take it for granted. But with a new school year set to begin, we shouldn’t. We should realize it took a lot of effort, foresight and political courage to get to where we are today, enjoying an enviable public education system. And it’s dangerous to assume it will always be there. It took work to build. In a very real sense, much of that work is under assault. All it takes is neglect – ho-humming when funding gets cut or shifted, when civics or art gets dropped to save a dime, for example – to let that work be chipped away. That chipping away has begun. Some of it, seeking alternatives to public schools that are truly broken, is acceptable. Some of it, the folks wanting to switch the pot of public money that represents about two-thirds of the state budget into unaccountable private hands, is largely not. There’s a cottage industry out there that spends its days vilifying teachers and administrators, tarring honorable people, for little reason but a desire to get their mitts on that pot of gold. As school starts back, keep that in mind. We’re fortunate in Western North Carolina to have communities that wholeheartedly back their public schools. Remember to say so to a teacher. Public education is something we can’t afford to lose. The results would be bad. The outcome, at least as I experienced that day not so long ago, looks pretty damned uncomfortable. Jim Buchanan is projects editor for The Sylva Herald. Published with permission from The Sylva Herald.

Governor Roy Cooper has asked the General Assembly during its Aug. 3 special session to approve about $3 million in emergency funding to pay for investigation and regulation of threats to the state’s drinking water. Good for him. The Wilmington StarNews reported in June that the Chemours plant in Fayetteville was discharging the unregulated contaminant GenX into the Cape Fear River, a water source for New Hanover, Pender, and Brunswick counties. Cooper directed the state Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the state Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to investigate. After their intervention, Chemours voluntarily stopped releasing GenX. GenX is in the same fluorochemical family of man-made compounds as C8, which has been linked to cancer. Researchers found in 1999-2000 that 99.7 percent of Americans already had C8 in their blood, exposed through a variety of sources, including Teflon, Scotchgard, and firefighting foam. GenX replaced C8 in 2009 after lawsuits contended that drinking water contaminated with C8 caused cancer. DuPont and its spinoff company Chemours was ordered to pay a $670.7 million settlement for releasing C8 into the air and Ohio River since the 1950s. The federal Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of pollutants into waterways. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to write the regulations to implement the Act and sets clean water standards. The EPA delegates regulation of the Act to the state. In recent years, North Carolina’s legislature has diminished this regulatory power by systematically defunding and dismantling the DEQ. There are simply fewer regulators, according to a 2015 EPA audit of how DEQ implements the permitting process that allows Chemours to discharge into the river. The backlog of permits continued and Chemours’ permit expired in October 2016. Chemours is now capturing and shipping GenX to Arkansas for incineration. Cooper has said the state would issue a new permit, but would not allow the company to release GenX. Chemours discharged the compound under a loophole written into a 2009 EPA consent order. The document stated that GenX was so toxic that it could not be discharged under one manufacturing process, but could be released in undetermined amounts under another as a byproduct. For people exposed to the chemical since 1980, when the plant first starting releasing GenX, long-term exposure remains a concern. Dr. Detlef Knappe, one of the authors of the published research that led to the initial StarNews story, told attendees at a June 29 public forum in Wilmington that even at very low levels, GenX and similar compounds could remain in the body and accumulate for a long time especially if people continue to ingest them. GenX also isn’t the only unregulated contaminant found in the state’s drinking water sources. New Hanover’s Sweeney plant effectively treats most of the 1.4- dioxyene in the Cape Fear, Dr. Knappe said, but it is a concern for communities upstream on the Haw River. Chromium 6 has been found in private drinking water wells near coal ash plants. Dr. Knappe’s group also found six other compounds related to GenX in the Cape Fear. Chemicals are entering the environment continually, Dr. Knappe said, and it’s difficult for researchers to identify them since information about their structures is confidential business information. Dr. Knappe’s study was based on samples taken beginning in 2012. What levels of GenX were in the water before then? There is no available public data. Cooper has asked the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to undertake a public health assessment of any potential long-term health effects of GenX. This also is a positive step. Before the General Assembly approves Cooper’s request, legislators who in June delivered about $1.8 million in budget cuts for 2018-2019 to DEQ will have to perform the political equivalent of turning around an oil tanker in the Cape Fear. But it can be done. After StarNews reporter Vaughn Hagerty’s first story on GenX in the Cape Fear appeared June 7, a lightning-swift grassroots reaction spread throughout the community. Wilmington Democratic Mayor Bill Saffo and Woody White, Republican chairman of the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners, presented a united front against Chemours. Following Chemours’ disclosure that they were intentionally releasing GenX, White and Saffo emerged from the meeting with a palpable, shared outrage. They jointly advocated for answers and called for Chemours to stop all discharge. This has occurred and levels of the chemical have dropped below the goal established by NC DHHS. Legislators have loosened controls on businesses in recent years, in an attempt to stimulate economic growth. But at what cost? Legislators should swiftly approve Cooper’s request.