Don’t you just love how words and labels take on a life of their own in the ideological debate that helps shape public policy. The give-and-take of real debate is important — as it helps us find a middle ground upon which to govern — but the word play often gets comical.

My, uhhmm, favorite in this current political climate is the claim that we are becoming a socialist country. The fear is that the trifecta of bank bailouts, red-ink stimulus packages and corporate handouts is sending us down the path of no return, and that soon the government will own even more private corporations. Now, as the politicians try to find a way to provide health care for every citizen, the cry is getting even more common.

As a New York Times writer put it a couple of months ago, “socialism” has replaced “liberal” as the “go-to” slur among conservatives who love to hear themselves talk.

It’s not just at the national scene that this accusation is getting tossed around. At the Tea Parties protesting higher taxes it was claimed that the country is changing, but in the wrong way. As the different groups around North Carolina protested spending at the local level, you could read about accusations that even county governments were becoming socialistic, whatever that means.

“Once the government owns GM,” a man was saying the other day in the locker room at the gym, “there’s no turning back. We’ll have to buy more private companies because no one else is going to want to buy them.”

And that’s really the crux of this new front in the ideological war. In this country, particularly since FDR and the New Deal era, government has taken a strong role in addressing our social problems. Most of these programs were aimed at the poor, the elderly, and the infirm. Those of different political stripes argued over how to administer the programs and how much should be spent, but there was general agreement that the less fortunate deserved government help.

But now it’s not just the needy we are helping. No, this time we step in and help rich bankers and U.S. autoworkers making $60,000 per year, all in the name of saving the economy. Before blasting Obama about all this, let’s remember that it was the previous administration that jumped into the fray by approving the initial bank bailout.

Then along came Obama and the tab to the banks grew, along with the approval to help the auto industry and the larger package of stimulus spending. And now, there’s a chance this government largesse will extend to California and maybe another state or two who are drowning in red ink.

But just what defines socialism, if that is indeed where we are headed? According to Newsweek, European democracies spend on average 47.1 percent of their country’s gross domestic product, while in the U.S. the figure is 39.1 percent. I don’t know what an economist would say, but it seems we still have a ways to go in a strict economic sense before we resemble those governments we love to hate in Europe.

The argument — whether one is conservative or liberal — should not be about labels. Those labels — like “socialism” — make arguing the nuances of important policy more difficult, kind of like demonizing the opponent rather than matching wits against them. What we should be worrying about is just how much government intervention is necessary, and what is the wisest way to spend our depleting federal and state resources.

Way back in March, President Obama had this to say during an interview on this subject: “By the time we got here, there already had been an enormous infusion of taxpayer money into the financial system. The fact that we’ve had to take these extraordinary measures and intervene is not an indication of my ideological preference, but an indication of the degree to which lax regulation and extravagant risk taking has precipitated a crisis.”

Both the private sector and the government failed us in this crisis. Now as a country we have to find some middle ground between the wealth production that comes with a freewheeling private sector and unfettered capitalism, and the proper role for government oversight and stiff bureaucratic regulations.

The government has a role in helping us out of this mess. How large a role is still being debated, but that intervention has nothing to do with socialism.

It won’t be easy, but I don’t think there’s much chance we’ll become a socialist country in the process.

(Scott McLeod can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..)

By John Sanderson • Guest Columnist

It was great to learn recently about the effort the Haywood County Schools Foundation (HCSF) is making to support our school system in these difficult economic times. I applaud HCSF for donating $30,000 to the school system to mitigate somewhat the impact to our local schools of possibly losing 36 teaching positions in the upcoming school year (now forty-six, according to more recent estimates). There is also great merit in initiating a grassroots campaign to continue to generate local dollars and encourage volunteerism to lessen the impact of losing teaching positions. But I find it difficult to feel any real sense of satisfaction or comfort when reading about these admittedly exemplary local efforts, especially after seeing all of the proposed cuts to education in the House version of the state budget.

Thirty thousand dollars is certainly a significant outlay of funds, but this amount will not even pay for a full beginning teacher (actually, about 75 percent of one). For example, if the Foundation is unbelievably successful and raises, say, $120,000, that amount would provide funding for no more than four beginning teacher positions. The total amount of HCSF funding would reduce the number of lost teaching positions from 46 to a mere 42.

In other words, a likely best-case scenario would be for each of Haywood County’s schools to lose at least two teaching positions, and in a number of schools to lose as many as three or four, even after local citizens, businesses, and civic organizations, through the Foundation, have made tremendous efforts and fiscal sacrifices.

Some might suggest that these losses would not be all that harmful to individual schools, losing just a couple of teachers in most cases. But as a former teacher and recently retired school principal, I can assure you that the loss of even a single teacher in a relatively small school is very significant, especially in this period of intense scrutiny and high-stakes accountability. When faced with such reductions in teaching staff, principals are forced to make very difficult choices about resource allocation.

In an elementary school, for example, does the principal keep class sizes smaller in the early grades, when students need lots of individual attention as they develop basic academic and social skills that provide the foundation for future success? Or does she keep the numbers lower in the upper grades where scores on standardized tests determine the school’s status on federal and state accountability measures? Middle and high school principals in similar circumstances often have to consider entirely eliminating some course offerings and/or significantly increasing class sizes. No school system should have every principal in every school faced with such gut-wrenching decisions at the same time.

My greatest concern in the short term, then, is the all-but-certain loss of teachers in every Haywood school this coming year. A further concern, however, is that some communities in our state might be able to offset the impact of their reductions in state funding, thus contributing to an inequitable system of schooling across the state. Wealthier communities may have enough local resources to offset their losses, and that is great for them I suppose. But what about those counties like Haywood? In a state where the Constitution specifically states that “equal [educational] opportunities shall be provided for all students” in a “uniform system of free public schools,” can it ever be acceptable for school systems to have significant differences in the level of funding available to provide educational opportunities for the children in their care?

•••

The N.C. Supreme Court actually provided an answer to that question a few years ago in the Leandro vs State of North Carolina decision. The Supreme Court ruled that the N.C. Constitution guarantees every child “an opportunity to receive a sound basic education in our public schools,” but the Court did not give much guidance as to what exactly constitutes a “sound basic education.” The Court did conclude, however, that the N.C. Constitution “does not require substantially equal funding or educational advantages in all school districts.” In other words, it is currently considered constitutional for kids in different communities across our state to have greater or lesser educational “advantages” on the basis of nothing more than the economic circumstances in those communities. Personally, I find this to be distressing, and I believe a lot of people would share my concern if they were aware of this N.C. Supreme Court decision.

I fear, moreover, that the already existing gap in educational opportunities between the “haves” and the “have-nots” will widen significantly if the currently proposed cuts come about. I believe that children from Murphy to Manteo (and from Hemphill to Hyder Mountain, for that matter) should have essentially the same educational opportunities and “advantages.” The fact that something is “constitutional” in the eyes of a majority of seven State Supreme Court justices does not necessarily make it desirable or even acceptable, and I find the very real possibility that we may soon have a noticeably tiered public educational system to be unacceptable. So, what are caring, concerned parents and citizens to do in the face of these threats to the equitable provision of quality educational opportunities throughout our state?

•••

First of all, I fully support every effort the HCSF is making to lessen the impact of the budget cuts, so I would suggest that all concerned citizens support the HCSF and our schools. But I also think that now is a very appropriate, and even necessary time to remind our legislators that the N.C. State Constitution says that education is, in fact, a “right” of the people, and that the state has a “duty ... to guard and maintain that right.” I believe, furthermore, that concerned citizens need to let our representatives know that if the legislature approves these proposed cuts to educational funding, the state will not be fulfilling one of its key constitutional obligations. Even by applying the very minimal standard established in the Leandro case, is it remotely possible to provide the required “sound basic education” from one year to the next when there are going to be 6,005 fewer teachers to provide it, 4,663 fewer teacher assistants to help, possibly 5 to 10 fewer days to provide it in, no professional development for teachers (for at least two years), and $38 million less for textbooks? I think not.

Following are a few questions and comments I would like for our local legislators to consider. I then want them to return to Raleigh with a renewed commitment to take up leadership roles in fighting the myopic view of education that seems to be dominant at the moment:

• How can the state consider cutting professional and paraprofessional classroom positions so drastically and not consider making equivalent cuts in the increasingly monstrous testing/accountability program that is becoming (and in many ways already is) the “testing tail” that is wagging the “education dog?” Continuing to demand the same (or better) levels of performance on state tests while grossly reducing fundamental resources is nonsensical on the face of it. The testing/school accountability budget needs to be studied in depth to see where logical and significant reductions can be made, thus freeing up funds for hiring teachers and providing more meaningful curriculum support, rather than paying for (1) the mind-numbing marathon tests of endurance that have become a sine qua non in education today, and (2) the bureaucracy that benefits from the current arrangement

• How can our legislature allow a system of public schools to exist in North Carolina that will potentially have tremendous differences in the amount and quality of the educational opportunities they offer their students? We cannot allow the North Carolina public school system to become a “tiered system” with wealthy communities able to offer their children significantly better educational opportunities than is possible in less affluent areas. Students in Haywood, Swain, Jackson, Pender, or Onslow County deserve the same quality education that students in Wake, Guilford, or Mecklenburg County receive, so bright, hard-working students anywhere have a genuinely equal chance of attending one of our state’s universities, and then pursuing their desired career paths.

• If the money generated by “The Education Lottery” is not going to be used specifically and consistently for the purpose of funding a first-rate educational system for all students in our state, how about introducing a bill to rename it something catchy like “The Governor’s Mad Money Lottery?” But no matter what, the state needs to stop engaging in “bait and switch” tactics by calling the lottery an “education lottery” and then using the money for anything but education in hard times.

• Finally, how about the issue that no politician seems to want to deal with: increasing state revenues? Politicians do not even want to use the “T word” because doing so could be political suicide. No one wants higher taxes — and maybe now is not the time to consider increases in certain kinds of taxes — but adding 25 cents to the cost of a beer, for example, will hardly cause beer producers and distributors to become destitute or ruin our state economy. That act alone would generate significant additional tax revenue, and a few more “sin taxes” could offset even more of our budgetary imbalance. At least the most recent House budget proposal does include some tax revenue hikes, though not enough to stem the negative effects of the education cuts.

If our legislators honestly believe that the only way to balance the budget, without raising additional revenue, is to make these onerous cuts that will make ours an inequitable, second-rate state educational system, then it is time for them to stop dodging their responsibility and to do what’s necessary. It’s a cliché to say, “You get what you pay for.” But it’s true. If we, the people of North Carolina, want a first-rate education system for all of our children — one that will attract industry, one that will prepare our children for the challenges ahead, one that will place our students on a relatively level playing field with other students in America and throughout the world — then we will have to pay for it. It’s as simple as that. And cutting the school year by 10 days, eliminating more than 6,000 teaching positions, calling a halt to staff development funding for two years, and trying to excuse such actions as necessary in the short-term interest of balancing a budget is, to use another cliché, “penny-wise and pound-foolish.”

These are very difficult economic times, but times like these do not diminish the importance of education. If anything, the difficult times we face make it more important than ever that our children become even better prepared to deal with the increasing challenges and economic uncertainties they will face as adults. In times like these, in fact, a “sound basic education” becomes much more than a minimal set of 20th century “survival skills,” and our state government has a duty to provide our children — all of our children — with equal educational opportunities, regardless of community size, wealth, or other arbitrary differences.

In my mind, it all comes down to one simple question: “Do we the people of North Carolina value education enough to be willing to do what is necessary to see that all of our children receive the “sound basic education” that our times, and the N.C. Constitution, require?” If we do, then we must communicate our feelings to our elected representatives. Our region is very fortunate to have outstanding representatives working for us in Raleigh, but these folks have to know we have their backs if they are to go up against entrenched and well organized groups that may not share our concerns. On the other hand, if we do not value education and our children’s future enough to find ways to pay for a first-rate system, then we need do nothing, and the system will collapse around us soon enough. I urge you to get active and make a difference.

(John Sanderson is recently retired as an elementary school principal in Haywood County. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..)

When people say that Jim Carrey can’t act and that his movies are terrible, I always point to “The Truman Show,” which is not only a great movie, but has a great theme, a warning of the pernicious influence of reality television. In some ways, the movie was prophetic in anticipating the atrocities to come, the exploitation of human beings in the name of entertainment. But if we could see shows such as “The Bachelor” and “The Apprentice” coming, who would have dared guess that “Jon and Kate Plus Eight” would ever be possible?

In the pursuit of instant fame and easy money, it is hardly surprising that people would subject themselves to various forms of ridicule. After all, in our culture, there is no greater wish that can be granted than to become famous, whatever the reason and by whatever means necessary. If someone is willing to eat a bowl of slugs, drink goat blood, or have their physical imperfections pointed out with a laser pointer by Lorenzo Llamas in front of a hooting audience, these are their own choices. The right to degrade one’s self is one bonus of being an American. You get to choose.

Choosing it for your own kids, well, that’s another matter. That is my objection to “Jon and Kate Plus Eight.” In the interest of full disclosure, I had better add that my wife is a fan of the show. Last year, I began noticing a bunch of episodes piling up on TiVo, and I asked her about it. She gave me her pat response.

“But those kids are so CUTE,” she said, so breathlessly that I feared if I pushed it, we might soon be talking about converting the upstairs bedroom back into a nursery.

“I’ll bet they are!” I said. “Have fun watching them.”

One afternoon, I walked in mid-episode and decided to give it a try. I didn’t want to be accused of passing judgment on something I’ve never seen. Then again, I’ve never eaten a bowl of slugs or drank a pint of goat’s blood. Still, I watched for about 10 minutes or so until I got a good whiff of Kate’s personality, Jon’s maddening passivity, and the show’s only real reality, which is that these children are a bunch of little Truman’s, whose lives are being recorded for the entertainment of others, without their consent.

Please don’t tell me that the children actually LOVE this and that it is good for them. Children would also love ice cream for breakfast, and to attend Chuck E. Cheese rather than school. We don’t let them because — all together now — we are the ADULTS, and as such, we are responsible for deciding what is best for them. It is best for them not to have ice cream for breakfast. It is best for them not to have their lives become a source of entertainment for the voyeuristic masses.

Even if you could make a convincing argument that they are accustomed to the cameras since they have always been there, what happens when the cameras — and the attention that goes with them — are suddenly taken away? Have either Jon or Kate ever done the slightest bit of research on the troubled lives of child stars? Go ahead and Google Danny Bonaduce. I dare you. For every Ron Howard, there are 12 Danny Bonaduce’s. Google the three child starts from “Different Strokes.” It’s not pretty, and these were child actors, not kids whose own lives are the plot and theme of the show.

Given the recent tabloid stories about alleged infidelity on the part of both parents, and the admitted friction between them, surely there is some squeamishness among even the most devoted fans. “Tune in NEXT week when the Gosselin children break down in tears while Daddy packs his clothes!” Riveting television! Maybe they’ll save the divorce proceedings for sweeps week.

I understand that raising eight kids poses a financial burden I can barely imagine, and that the appeal of getting some help — not to mention moving into a million dollar home, among who knows what other perks — must be very great indeed. But what price can be placed on an ordinary, healthy childhood outside the glare of the lights, away from the fawning masses all crowding in to hug children they know from seeing them on television?

I admit that I watched the premier of season two a couple of weeks ago, just out of morbid curiosity. I wanted to see how the producers — not to mention Jon and Kate — would handle the publicity frenzy surrounding their troubled marriage. It was a thoroughly depressing experience, and I immediately felt guilty for whatever part I might have played in keeping the ratings for this show high enough to keep it on the air.

If you really care about these kids, send a donation for their college fund, and then turn the channel. Let’s do the right thing and put this show out of its misery. Free the Gosselin Eight! Kick the reality TV habit, while you still can. Renew your library card. Become part of the solution.

(Chris Cox is a writer and teacher who lives in Waynesville. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..)

By Avram Friedman

Receiving public input is not a discretionary part of the decision-making process for elected public officials in North Carolina. It is mandated by law that local elected officials provide the opportunity for public input before making decisions that potentially have a major impact on the lives of people in an affected community (general statute160A-364, “Procedures for adopting amending, or repealing ordinances”).

There was a collective shrug of the shoulders by Sylva Town Council members at their May 21 meeting when presented with clear documentation exhibiting how there was no meaningful notification for the April 16 public hearing on modifying the zoning ordinance to accommodate the expansion of Jackson Paper. The Town Council voted to amend the ordinance at that same meeting, immediately following the “hearing” at which no one attended or spoke. Although several of the elected officials acknowledged the reality that the circumstances resulted in poor — if any — public notification, they all fell back on the claim that the letter of the law had been met and not one would introduce a motion to re-visit the zoning ordinance modification to include a real opportunity for public input.

As a result, this week the Canary Coalition and four local residents of Sylva are filing an appeal to the Superior Court, requesting the April 16 zoning ordinance modification be repealed pending due process, including a real public hearing with adequately informative and timely public notification. The plaintiffs have retained attorney Mark Melrose of Sylva law firm Melrose, Seago and Lay to file the appeal.

We all want the jobs this proposed expansion of Jackson Paper would bring. Sixty-one more people employed in moderately high-wage jobs will have a significant positive impact on our local economy. Jackson Paper has been a fairly good steward of the environment over the years. I can hear some people asking, “Why would the Canary Coalition interfere with this positive development?”

We don’t necessarily want to interfere with it. We want the chance to learn exactly what is planned and how it’s going to impact public health and the environment. It’s as simple as that. But apparently, many of our local elected officials on both the town and county level don’t know, never asked these questions, and didn’t think it was important for the public to be able to ask or offer insight either, before making crucial decisions to accommodate the expanded industry.

The paper plant expansion was first announced in the Sylva Herald on April 9. By April 16 the Town of Sylva modified its zoning ordinance. By May 22, the County voted to supply $500,000 from its revolving loan fund, at percent interest, to Jackson Paper to help with the expansion. Some of us have noticed how uncharacteristically fast the wheels of government are suddenly turning, unfortunately at the expense of due process.If the spirit of due process had been followed, the Town Council members would have learned from public input, prior to voting their decision, that Jackson Paper’s Air Quality Permit allows the burning of coal and rubber “pellets” (shredded tires) as well as wood chips.

Right now Jackson Paper only burns wood chips, which is a relatively clean combustion process. If all systems are working properly, almost all of the visible smokestack emissions consist of steam.

Coal, however is another story. Wherever coal is burned there are emissions of nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium, barium, dioxins, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride and a long list of other toxic and hazardous air pollutants. Burning coal also results in a toxic ash pile that would, in this case, accumulate adjacent to Scott’s Creek, a major tributary to the Tuckaseegee River.

Nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide — combined emissions from burning coal — are acknowledged by industry, government agencies and the scientific community to account for more than 30,000 deaths annually on a national basis. These emissions are responsible for heightened rates of asthma, emphysema, heart disease, stroke and other pulmonary diseases.

Mercury toxicity from coal-burning emissions results in neurological damage to human beings, especially to fetuses and young children. Autism and learning disabilities have been directly linked by extensive scientific research to high levels of mercury in the blood. The Center For Disease Control warns that one in eight pregnant women in the Southeast have unsafe levels of mercury in their blood.

Burning rubber pellets has its own set of health and environmental impacts. Rubber from tires contains a cocktail of petroleum-based hydrocarbons that are potentially hazardous to human health and the environment if emitted into the air. Jackson Paper burned rubber pellets, along with wood chips, for several years ending in 2003 as part of a statewide program to reduce the accumulation of automobile tires at dump sites where they were becoming a problem for sheer volume. Jackson Paper stopped burning rubber in 2003 because its price rose in response to competing market demand. But, markets shift and if the price goes down again, one of Jackson Paper’s owners assured me they would again consider burning rubber at their Sylva plant.

Although right now Jackson Paper is only burning wood chips as fuel for their operation, the permit leaves open the possibility that some time in the future coal or rubber pellets will be burned should there be a shortage of wood chips. This is a concern since T&S Hardwood is at least temporarily ceasing operations, removing one of the major sources of wood chips available to Jackson Paper. Industries are being stressed everywhere in the current economy, so the reliability of the wood chip stream is uncertain.

Because the spirit of due process was not respected, our local government officials were deprived of all this and probably much more information from the knowledgeable members of our community prior to making the decisions to accommodate the expanding industry with zoning ordinance amendment and access to public money.

Here’s what we hope to accomplish by appealing the Town’s April 16 zoning decision, pending due process. Members of the community will have the opportunity to advise the Town Council to grant the zoning ordinance amendment to accommodate the Jackson Paper expansion with the stipulation that coal and rubber pellets are removed from the list of allowable fuels in their air quality permit. Jackson Paper can continue to burn wood chips while using natural gas as a backup. With this stipulation, we’ll have the 61 jobs AND the reassurance that the health of thousands of residents in the community will not be negatively impacted now or in the near future.

It isn’t a choice between jobs and a clean, healthy environment. It’s practical to have both. We can also have open, responsible government. It’s a shame you have to go to court sometimes to achieve it.

Avram Friedman

Executive Director, Canary Coalition

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

It’s time for Harrah’s Cherokee Casino to offer alcohol to patrons, especially since the Tribe is counting on receipts from the thriving gambling operation to pay for everything from health care to education, and enrolled members can certainly make use of the extra money. If Harrah’s is to remain the Tribe’s cash cow, the smartest route is to maximize profits by passing the measure permitting the casino to serve alcohol.

No one in this country, and particularly no one living near a Native American reservation, can deny the negative effects of alcohol. It’s created more problems for more families than most people can imagine. The damages have been significant among Native American populations.

But some things have changed over time. Cherokee has become a place where education and social programs have vastly improved over the last decade. While we will never erase all of America’s social ills, Cherokee now has more tools in place than ever to help its people deal with whatever addiction problems they might have. Having alcohol within the community at the casino may strike fear into the heart of some, but the truth is that alcohol is now available right over the county lines in Jackson and Swain.

Many of these programs to help the addicted, ironically, are funded by profits from the casino. Tribal leaders get 50 percent of the profits to fund programs, and they have invested that money wisely. Most all agree that having alcohol at the casino could lead to a substantial jump in profits. That means more money to build facilities like schools or public health clinics.

Tribal leaders and Harrah’s managers have decided to position Cherokee and the casino as a destination resort. That means they want Cherokee and Harrah’s to be a place people will come to for several days at a time, and research shows those travelers want the ability to have a beer or a drink should they desire.

Much of the opposition to alcohol at the casino comes from those who are morally opposed to drinking. The only point to make here is that alcohol — like gambling — is a choice, and those who are opposed to it should continue to argue and debate their side of this. Opponents deserve to be heard, and it remains to be seen who will win the day in this historic vote.

In a debate that has strayed into the arena of morality, it seems belittling to bring up the sour economy. But the economic slowdown in Western North Carolina has affected thousands of families, depriving them of work and the money necessary to take care of themselves. Harrah’s has become the region’s — not just Cherokee’s — most important economic engine. If its profits go up, then nearly 2,000 workers and dozens of small companies in and around the region — along with the 14,000 Cherokee who receive per capita checks — will have more money to spend.

The casino has brought a new prosperity to Cherokee and helped the entire region. There are many more positives than negatives in helping that business by allowing it to offer alcohol to its patrons.

By John Beckman • Guest Columnist

The concept of wealth has been sideswiped over the last few decades. It seems that the former notion of amassing assets through hard work and sacrifice, and using them to do philanthropic community good, has given way to a “What’s in it for Me?” assumption. I fear that we are losing the sense of real value in our relationships to society and to each other, mauled by advertising hype and incredibly lousy role models. Stuff has taken over substance, and excessive quantity trounced true quality. It appears that many people confuse wealth with belongings, when genuine belonging can only come from our alliance with and connection to others. Will this recession finally slay the American mega-consumer and the more is better mindset?

I recently had a visit from an old friend, old in several ways and a friend in many. We met when he was 53 and I was a hell-bent 16-year-old. Little did I know at the time how rich and deep his friendship would become. He had just retired from a 33-year career in the Army and was setting out single-handedly to restore a now sad but once grand brick mansion two doors up from my parent’s house. I needed teen money and told him I could for anything for $5 an hour.

We’ve kept in close touch for the past three and one-half decades, so, when he turned 87, I sent him a plane ticket to Asheville to come and see how great life is in Western North Carolina. As experienced local hosts know, there is a lot for visitors to see and do here in a few days to try to capture the diverse flavors the mountains have to offer. Fortunately, with my guest being almost 90, I could eliminate extreme rock-climbing, marathon biking, Class V rapids and thru-hiking the A.T., which was fine by me and my aging knees. There are plenty of less strenuous options in these parts for those wise in years.

My friend is a great one for careful observation and critical analysis of what he sees, examining things in their own context and how they associate with all things around it, rather than from some vacuous arena or prejudice. I haven’t found too many people who can do this, and these are some of the best kinds of friends, as they often challenge their friends to define and distill their positions for deeper understanding and insights.

On a ride down US 441 to visit my former farm, my friend commented on the over-abundance of U-Store-It units littering the sides of the road, which led to a discussion about over-consumption, lost priorities and a drifting mindset in much of America, afloat on an ocean of socially-hyped inadequacy. The general conclusion was that if a person has the means to meet their basic necessities and just a little bit extra, then they are in the eyes of the world, wealthy. Friendships and involvement in one’s community and the accompanying sense of belonging do not require hordes of cash nor huge houses full of stuff. By working cooperatively to improve the surroundings for the greater majority of a society, the individual life is made richer, more meaningful and of greater value to others.

I introduced him to my friends the baker, the brewer, the restaurant owner, my garden helper, my postmaster, innkeeper, landscaper friend, septic installer and any friends we’d see on the street. Each one seemed a treat to share. We took in a HART production, photographed historic sites, dropped in a couple galleries and I noticed again just how great friends make great moments happen. We talked late into the night after my wife had left us to “solve the problems of the world.” Our discourses ran the gamut from politics to power tools, logic verses emotion, and from interpreting the Constitution to photographing clouds. These are rich times, I thought, as I drifted to sleep.

On the last night of his visit we splurged on $3 cigars topped off with shots of very average blended scotch over ice, and a couple hours on the porch overlooking the constantly changing waters of the creek. I felt a sense of richness deeply listening to the creek and the voice of a friend, wanting for nothing more than what I had at the moment. I wouldn’t have traded places with Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, assets be damned.

I met a new friend recently I look forward to sharing time with, and headed to Raleigh recently to lay to rest another I have much enjoyed for the past 25 years. Friendship, as it turns out, is true wealth, gathered over time and best when shared with others, glittering more than all the gold of Midas and the best investment a person can make.

(John Beckman is a farmer, builder and observer living in Cullowhee. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .)

Lately, the days whiz by faster than usual. Now that we have finally decided to put our house up for sale after months of agonizing reflection, we have been trying to squeeze various projects into every available minute of the day in order to get it ready for people to see. We have a guy putting new wood floors down in all four of our bedrooms. We’re putting in a couple of new doors. We’re working on the yard, trying to coax the grass in a couple of places. We’re painting the bathroom, and, much to my wife’s dismay, the kids’ bedroom.

“Now remind me, why do we want to paint the kids’ room?” Tammy says.

I remind her that not everyone may necessarily be as charmed by the room’s pink and blue motif as our daughter has been. Well, then. Down come the decals of Snow White and the Little Mermaid, and up goes the primer. Even the kids get in on the action, and by lunchtime, we’re all speckled and ready for a big lunch. On the way to the Chinese restaurant, I can see my daughter working out a question in her head, her face having assumed the familiar expression that precedes such questions.

“Daddy, do you think anyone will love our house as much as we do?” she asks. “It’s a great house, you know.”

She’s right. It is a great house. We can walk to the library, which we often do. We can walk to Main Street, which is something we do several times a week in the summer, and as often as possible in the fall when the towering trees along Haywood Street bust out their autumn colors. As the weather warms, festivals pop up around us like dandelions. We live in a quaint, quiet neighborhood reminiscent of a Spielberg suburb, with kids riding up and down the street on skateboards or scooters, and dog owners walking their pets in the early morning sun. In our fenced back lot, our beagle, Walter, gives them what for as they approach and then pass by, waving at us on the deck sipping our coffee before work.

“I know it is, sweetie,” I say, searching for the slightest trace of melancholy in her voice. “I hope that whoever buys it will love it as much as we have.”

We hadn’t really planned on selling, or even thought about selling. But early last fall, we were approached by a realtor who had a client she said was interested in our home. Initially, we rejected her approach out of hand, but as we began discussing it and looking to the future, we considered possible advantages in moving, in buying a home together, in possibly moving out a bit to the country. We made an appointment to look at her other houses, and suddenly the idea of selling gained some momentum. We even took the kids along a couple of times, and discovered that they were actually excited about the prospect of an “adventure.”

Just as the idea of selling seemed to be close to a reality, the potential buyer backed out, opting instead to buy a bunch of foreclosed homes in Detroit. Since our home had never actually been “for sale,” the entire enterprise fell like the proverbial house of cards, and Tammy took it for a sign. She had been a little put out that we have, year by year, committed to a variety of home improvements expressly with the idea of staying put, only to turn around and sell the house after all that trouble and expense.

“We have a brand new roof, new plumbing, new windows, new siding, a new deck,” she would say. “Why would we want to sell it after all that? Where are we going to find another house that has what we have, where we can get to the school, church, or the grocery store in less than five minutes? We even have a good view!”

I told her that the work we were doing would either make the home more attractive to a potential buyer, or it would make it a nicer home for us. Our friends in the business tell us that although the market is not so great, homes in this price range are still selling fairly well, and that a four bedroom home in our neighborhood for under $190,000 should attract a lot of attention, especially with the upgrades we’ve done.

I guess we’ll find out soon enough. If you are interested in looking at it, drop us a line. If you come by soon enough, we may hand you a paint brush. You just have to promise to love it as much as we do. My daughter wants it in the contract.

(Chris Cox is a writer and teacher who lives in Waynesville. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.)

There’s talk all over about America’s newfound love affair with frugality. What Time magazine has dubbed the Great Recession is threatening the American consumer culture, pundits and writers say, forcing us to re-think whether we need the biggest plasma screen television or the newest and greatest cell phone.

But it’s not just the gadgets that we’re re-thinking. Read the newspapers and news magazines and they also tell you that we’re eating out less, going less often to the high-end grocery stores, keeping the old car longer and putting off repairs to the house.

This may be new lifestyle for many, but not at my house. My wife has always been the “bring it back down to earth” person in our family. She enjoys nothing better than catching me or one of our children talking about how we “need” to get one of those or we “need ” to do that. “Need?” she’ll ask, eyebrows raised. OK, scratch that.

My wife’s point is this: for too many of us, what we “need” and what we “want” seldom diverge. They are one and the same, and so gadgets and other stuff piles up in closets and under beds as we gobble up everything the retailers throw at us.

Who knows whether this new emphasis on frugality is a fad or a permanent change, but it is interesting to note how lifestyle choices like these ebb and flow with the economic times. I’m old enough to remember the OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) oil embargo of the early 1970s. Price spiked, lines formed, and all of a sudden the country’s consciousness about energy and where it came from were all over the news.

Then came the late 1970s and early 1980s and inflation, job losses and more focus on our energy. Both presidents Nixon and Carter tried to raise our awareness of the country’s need to change its policies, but even during those bad economic times Americans didn’t embrace a radical new lifestyle.

But there was a rising consciousness of what was happening. Those times did signal the start of a concerted, mainstream environmental movement. The idea of using less, recycling and saving energy became commonplace, even though we didn’t all embrace it. The 1960s subculture had fomented into a fringe movement that now had advocates all the way to the White House. I remember some guy in Fayetteville who taught at the college near our house, and we’d see him riding his bike to work even in the winter.

That memory came back to me last week when we wrote a couple of stories about farmers and retailers. One story was about the growing popularity of biking to work again. Companies like Mast General Store even pay their workers to bike, figuring the benefits to the environment and their employees’ health are worth the investment.

The other story we wrote was about Whittier farmer William Shelton who has begun selling his products to individual families in addition to maintaining a wholesale business. Sign up for a share and you’ll get fresh vegetables each week from his farm.

Many growers are doing this, but Shelton is the first we’ve heard about who has been on the farm for several generations and has changed his business model to connect with the growing demand for local food. The markets also influenced his decision. Farmers like Shelton find it hard to compete against huge corporate farms and foreign competition.

And so he and others have decided to sell their food to people like you and me, counting on our desire for fresh and tasty food rather than the bland vegetables available in our grocery stores. These growers are also counting on the fact we, the consumer, will work harder to get our food. The large retailers are awfully convenient, but — just like biking to work — the benefits of eating local food go beyond taste to helping create the kind of community that most of us want to live in.

Last week’s paper brought together several of the issues arising from this new way of thinking that this Great Recession is helping promulgate. The demise of a consumer culture changes the equation of our lives. Cheaper, faster and easier don’t add up to better. The truth is that we’ve always known this, but often it takes eating a little humble pie before we remember what our parents and grandparents tried teaching us a long time ago.

(Scott McLeod can be reached in This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..)

I cannot remember the last time I watched a minute of a beauty pageant. I never had much of an interest in the first place, even when watching them with my family as a kid. The contestants were sparkly and had nice teeth. Some of them could sing, but I didn’t care much for the songs they sang. Mainly, we watched so we could pull for Miss North Carolina, and because in the early 1970s there were only two other channels to choose from, and programming on Saturday nights was pretty sad. It was Miss America, or the Tony Orlando and Dawn Rainbow Hour variety show.

One thing I do not remember is the contestants being asked for their views on hot button political topics of the day. I certainly stand to be corrected by our resident pageant historians, but I simply cannot remember Miss Maine weighing in on Roe versus Wade, or Miss Idaho giving us her views on the SALT Treaty. I do remember that, regardless of the question, the contestants were all in favor of working to make this a better world, and this was the gist of every answer to any question. I guess we should have been heartened to think that 50 pretty young women should be so committed to working for world peace in a turbulent, complicated world.

I never expected to see another pageant, but due to a combination of completely random events, I ended up watching the last segment of the Miss America pageant a couple of weeks ago, partially because we were channel surfing, stumbled upon the pageant, and then realized that Miss North Carolina had made it to the final five. Soon, my wife and I were comparing stories about watching the pageant when we were kids.

We watched them in their sparkly evening gowns, and then came the questions. “This should be interesting,” I said.

Some minor Internet celebrity named Perez Hilton (what, they couldn’t get Rerun from “What’s Happening!!”) asked Miss California for her thoughts on gay marriage. She began to answer as if she were going to delicately sidestep the question and come out in favor of working for the betterment of the world before finally taking a stand that marriage, in her view, was between a man and a woman.

She made it to the final two, before ultimately losing out to Miss North Carolina. The next day she said that she felt her answer cost her the pageant. She appears to feel this way because Hilton is evidently gay and because we live in a time of rampant political correctness, in which the liberal elite media has pushed its agenda so far as to infiltrate the Miss America pageant! What’s next, Keith Olbermann promoting the movie “Milk” on a box of Corn Flakes? Where will it end?

Miss California might be consoled that gay marriage is still illegal in all but three states and is not recognized by the federal government. If it is true that political correctness has put people in the uncomfortable position of disguising their bigotry in the familiar garb of “family values,” it is also true that this same bigotry is very much still in force. In the 2008 election, voters in California, Florida, and Arizona overwhelmingly voted to ban same-sex marriages.

Now, Miss California has gone to Washington, where she will become a spokesperson — or, “spokesman,” since I wouldn’t want to indulge here in unseemly political correctness in identifying her as a person — for a group called the National Organization for Marriage. They are fighting “to protect traditional marriages.”

Well, when it comes to hard hitting journalism, I’m no Perez Hilton, but I do have a question for Miss California and anyone else who sees gay marriage as a threat to traditional marriage: Isn’t divorce a bigger threat?

If the conventional wisdom that half of the marriages in our country will end in divorce is true, isn’t divorce a much bigger threat to traditional marriage than if some same-sex couple down the street gets married? I’m in a traditional marriage, and I do not understand how anyone else’s marriage — gay or straight — is a threat to mine. The main threat to my marriage is forgetting my wife’s anniversary, or making one too many comments on how nice Miss North Carolina looks in her dark blue sequins.

Now, before folks go lunging for their laptops to send me quotes from Leviticus proving that gay marriage should be banned on biblical principles, please remember to show us where Jesus is quoted on the issue of gay marriage, and then explain why divorce is legal, since Jesus actually is quoted more than once on that issue.

Moreover, when can we expect groups to spring up in favor of putting to death all those work on the Sabbath, a sanction that is clearly spelled out in Exodus? If my son is disobedient, should I heed the words of Deuteronomy and have him stoned to death? When will we see groups boycotting Red Lobster because hardened sinners are inside eating shrimp or crab legs with no regard at all for Leviticus, which forbids us to eat shellfish? How can we stand idly by every fall when weekends are so cluttered with people touching the skin of dead pigs? Leviticus calls it an abomination. We call it football.

If we are going to base all our laws on the Old Testament, we had better get after it. When Miss California gets back from Washington, she’s got her work cut out for her.

(Chris Cox is a writer and teacher who lives in Waynesville. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..)

“When I first came into the Smokies the whole region was one of superb primeval forest. My sylvan studio spread over mountain after mountain, seemingly without end, and it was always clean and fragrant, always vital, growing new shapes of beauty from day to day. The vast trees met overhead like cathedral roofs. I am not a very religious man, but often when standing alone before my Maker in this house not made with hands I bowed my head with reverence and thanked God for His gift of the greatest forest to one who loved it. Not long ago, I went to that same place again. It was wrecked, ruined, desecrated, turned into a thousand rubbish heaps, utterly vile and mean.”

— Horace Kephart

As people throughout the mountains and around the country mark the celebration of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park’s 75th anniversary, Horace Kephart’s role in this park’s creation is once again being thrust into the limelight. While his depiction of “southern highlanders” in his famous book may still be open for debate, two things about Kephart are certain: he was, as the passage above shows, a superb writer; two, the Great Smoky Mountains National Park might not exist had it not been for his advocacy.

Kephart was an outlander, a man who came to the Smokies in his middle age and found people and a place that would consume him for the rest of his life. He cherished his time in the Smokies, and his skills as a chronicler of the ways of the rural mountaineer have earned him a lasting place in Appalachian history.

But it was how he used that fame that is most noteworthy. As he witnessed the sudden change wrought by large-scale logging upon mountain communities and mountain landscapes — again, see the passage above — he began to see the necessity of preserving what at one time had seemed an endless forest.

Kephart began writing articles and advocating to whomever would listen about the need to create a national park in the Smokies. The idea riled many of the mountaineers who had become his friend, for many at that time did not see the benefit of locking away land that had for generations been hunted, fished and used for its bounty to house and feed entire communities. There was also the unheard of controversy of creating a park — in essence, taking the land — of hundreds of families whose farms and homes were in the area being considered for the national park.

As we realize now, Kephart and others who fought relentlessly for the Great Smoky Mountains National Park were visionaries. They carved a jewel out of the remaining mountain wilderness, creating what has become one of the most bio-diverse habitats left in North America and the entire planet.

Early park supporters also gave this region another important legacy — an economy based on tourism rather than taking from the land. Although the logging and timber industry are still important and still a vital part of the mountain heritage, the preserved forests and wilderness also have fed generations of mountain families. People come here to connect with the mountains, to get that same feeling Horace Kephart describes in the above passage.

As we mark the creation of this great park, it’s a proper time to pay homage to those like Kephart who made it possible. This would be a vastly different place had they not prevailed.