Thursday's letters: 'Clean cars'


To the editor: Buried within Katie Breckheimer’s column Monday is the rationale for her and other “clean car” owners to pay their “fair share” of taxes to keep our roads and bridges in good working order.

She notes that federal and state subsidies enabled her to buy her Prius. Perhaps it is time to give the money back.

I know she believes her car is the answer to many problems, but unless it glides above the infrastructure causing no wear and tear, there is no reason for the rest of us to continue to subsidize her indulgence — even just another dollar per year.

Eco-minded people, like the rest of us, often don’t see the wider implications of change. As an example, I give you ethanol from corn. What a nightmare! Food prices going up and more than 25 years of subsidies going to corporate farms and benefiting parasitic companies. Then there is the issue of from where the electrical energy comes. I’m sure more of it is generated from coal than from windmills.

I suggest Ms. Breckheimer back up a step and take a wider view than her own personal pocketbook.

John K. Roth

Mills River

Women's rights

To the editor: What is the difference between the Republicans and the Taliban? Not much.

Women are losing their choice for an abortion. What’s next? Will we lose the right for an education and the right to vote?

The government is trying to make the choice for us (women). If we continue to allow our legislators to vote the way they have been doing, will we lose all of our hard-earned rights? Stand up for yourselves and be counted now, or all those women before us will have acted in vain. They fought so hard so that we could choose, vote and be educated.

This is if the Republicans get their way. Angry? You bet I’m angry with their Stone Age thinking. Or maybe it isn’t thinking at all.

Norma Jean Swygard


Rabid news

To the editor: After reading LeRoy Goldman’s July 14 column about gerrymandering, I anxiously anticipate his verdict on the recent Defense of Marriage Act decision by the Supreme Court.

What a treat it should be!

But in all honesty, allowing Mr. Goldman to lend his extraordinary opinion without a counterbalancing view is indicative of how your newspaper is contributing to the escalation of rabid views.

In all fairness, I hope the editors of this fine newspaper will allow some locals who do not see eye to eye with Mr. Goldman to be invited to share other than what this publication seems to believe is the majority view of county residents.

Progress is inevitable and will prevail despite prejudice. What is a shame is how prejudice continues to prevail despite its ugliness.

Terry Neal



▲ Return to Top