A couple of recent letters to the editor are stretching logic and hyperbole in order to make their points. I think they end up having the opposite effect. In today's Daily Tar Heel for example, senior Chris Garrison complains that "if Benito Mussolini can get public transportation to run on schedule" why can't Chapel Hill? Do we really have to answer that, Chris?
In last week's Independent Weekly, Sharon Cook wrote a letter taking issue with that paper's October 2007 characterization of her as a newcomer to the issue of justice for the African-American neighbors of the landfill. She accused the Indy of shoddy reporting, and explained her history of supporting her Rogers Road neighbors.
For example, I advocated for uniting both sides of Rogers Road into one community during Carrboro's annexation public hearing in November 2004 and in local media guest columns. In October 2006, Ms. Ryan and I petitioned the BOA to add the neighborhood to the town's sidewalk construction plans. And in January 2007, immediately after the community was informed about plans to build a new waste facility, we began working with our neighbors to reverse the decision to site a waste transfer station along Eubanks Road.
- Independent Weekly: Letters to the Editor: Higher hopes for election coverage, 1/9/08
But Sharon has lived around the corner from Rogers Road for at least 10 years. This community's struggle for environmental justice has also been public and vocal in Chapel Hill for over 10 years (in my memory), and has in fact been going on for decades. It seems like the 2004 debate over annexation of her own neighborhood is what piqued Sharon's interest in nearby injustices. The history Sharon cites only reinforces the appearance of annexees utilizing Rogers Road for their own political purposes (whether that's the case or not).
So while Sharon may be right that she and Katrina Ryan were "committed to the Rogers Road-Eubanks community long before election season," that doesn't really negate the Indy's point that "the neighborhood and the landfill have co-existed for many years and Cook and Ryan have only recently complained." Having been on the receiving end of an egregious Indy hatchet job myself, I can identify with Sharon's complaints - we all know they make mistakes sometimes - but when I read her letter I just couldn't understand how she supported her claim that the Independent was wrong on this point.
More Information:
Issues:
Comments
Let's Give Him an Answer...
Hi Ruby,
While I can understand your frustration with Chris Garrison's question, after a bit of reflection I thought that maybe someone SHOULD take a crack at answering it. It is, after all, a pretty good setup. So without further ado, Chris,
if Benito Mussolini can get public transportation to run on schedule, why can't Chapel Hill?
Possible answers:
In one sentance
I'll take the bait too. Putting Mussolini and Chapel Hill in the same sentence is obscene. It smacks of tabloid journalism and a right wing attempt to turn the tables. Notice how some local and national politicos accuse liberals of being Nazis? Same distortion. Desperate attempts at framing an issue. "i.e. Liberals are the real fascists!"
Mr. Garrison is a HISTORY major! But his distance from the pain of a real fascist makes it easy to toss around statements like "perhaps it's time I invest in a black shirt."
Good job Daily Tar Heel. You got some controversy. Hope you can turn that into readers and $. Feh!
Tired
So tired of the trains-on-time stuff (not buses, dude). We've got a perfectly good research university. Can't someone there come up with new analogies for students to bungle? Benito made it illegal to report they weren't running on time — or somethig like that. Can we move on now?
The mathmatics of waiting for the bus
The magazine New Scientist has a piece out called Lazy option is best when waiting for the bus. Here is a bit: That link in the quoted part is the mathmatics paper. For all you skeptical scientists. :)
Like many things in life having patience can be the answer. What I find interesting is when someone writes an article in frustration (lack of patience) and uses racist analogies to express themselves. To me the choice of hateful words is very telling. (I found this on boinboing)
The Indy puts a 300-word
The Indy puts a 300-word limit on letters to the editors. Sharon asked for an exemption, or a guest column, so that she could go into more detail. They refused.
Ruby--if I want to use my full name instead of just my first name, do I need to re-register?
Complete response
I didn't know that, Terri. Is there any place we can read her full response? Does it reference activity before 2004?
You can change your username to anything you like by editing your profile at http://orangepolitics.org/user.
Well at least people here
Well at least people here know who Mussolini is, unlike a former relative of mine (not related by blood, thank god) who made the statement "Mussolini was a pretty good guy, wasn't he?" some years back. After we all picked our jaws up off the floor, we proceeded to give him the Reader's Digest version of 20th century European History that he obviously missed the first time around.
He did not attend North Carolina schools either, I might add.
I frankly cannot understand the Sharon Cook "character attacks."
Sharon has a long history of community and school involvement, in particular with African-Americans. Her history is certainly much longer than my own: I--who wouldn't have the courage to seek a political office, regardless of what may or may not "move me" at the particular time--willingly chose not to become involved in solid waste issues occurring right behind my back door, willingly chose not to become involved in issues that were destroying my community, which I personally consider quite shameful and absolutely inexplicable.
It was largely after reading about other citizens like Sharon, Rev. C, and many others who spoke against these issues at various local government meetings and at some point my long-overdue decision to join a "task force" that finally propelled me into the Roger-Eubanks fight.
So I cannot share sentiments that Sharon's efforts or character lack integrity. I personally believe these accusation are SO FAR FROM the TRUTH (excuse my French)--they stink. Moreover, who among us in truth can claim not to have at some point in their lives been especially motivated by an issue they felt strongly about or to be motivated by an issue that affected them directly? Carrboro's annexation of Sharon's neighborhood may indeed have angered her--I really don't know. Can anyone honestly say that they, too, wouldn't have been angered?
But that issue is beside the point and certainly does not detract from the FACT that Sharon demonstrated her integrity LONG BEFORE the annexation took place. She continues EVERYDAY to demonstrate her integrity, and these COMMUNITIES (Rogers-Eubanks) ARE ABSOLUTELY FORTUNATE to have and QUITE GRATEFUL for her support. I PRAY she never stops.
I much prefer a candidate willing to speak out against an injustice and willing to make that injustice a part of his or her platform. Would I have preferred a candidate who kept silent? I think not. Of course, that's what these commuunities got--a bunch of incumbents, none of whom (that I know of), made these decades-long injustices here in the Rogers-Eubanks communities a part of their platforms. Oh, yes, some of them prepared handouts for NAACP-sponsored forums; some of them went on record saying they supported the community (when ASKED), but not ONE OF THEM (that I know of) made these communities a viable part of their platforms. I WONDER WHY.
nbj
Was the Indy wrong?
Hey Neloa, I don't know Sharon personally, so I would never claim to make a statement about her character. Since I do know you I am very interested to hear your opinions, which I have come to trust in the past 2 years we've been on the Rogers Road Small Area Plan Task Force. I think you're right that anyone who takes the time to speak out about social justice or to run for office ought to be commended. They are both generally thankless tasks, and are essential to making our community better.
I don't recall Sharon at any meetings discussing the concerns of Rogers Road before 2004, but to be fair I don't remember seeing you at any of them either - and plus I hardly get to every single meeting, so that doesn't really mean anything. As you point out, we all have different demands on our time and attention, and no-one else can tell you what your priorities should be at any given moment, especially when we have families and homes to take care of.
To be clear: I don't think it's fair to judge people based on their attendance (or lack thereof) at any particular meetings (as Bishop Hatley did when he admonished absent elected officials on MLK Day at First Baptist). And I would be quite happy to stand corrected if someone wants to share information about Sharon (or Katrina, for that matter) getting involved with their Rogers Road neighbors before 2004. Otherwise, I think the Indepndent's description was accurate.
Finally, I don't agree with your characterization of the incumbents. Most of them have been very concerned about your neighborhood for many years, and have used what authority they have to speak out and proposed more equitable policies when they could. Sometimes this isn't evident to those of us who aren't at all these boring meetings, but that's sometimes where change takes place.
Hey, Ruby!
Thanks for the response. (By the way, you are much too kind to me, but I appreciate it.)
About Sharon: what I am trying to say is that sometimes what initially may or may not propel people into action is less important than the action they eventually take, not just at a specific point in time, but over a period of time.
If Sharon has spoken out for these landfill communities as far back as 2004, I can only commend her. Sharon herself and her family are much less impacted by solid waste issues than others of us here.
Nor is it her fault that her community was annexed by Carrboro. Does this fact mean that her integrity and sincerity must be and will always be questioned?--due to an event over which she had absolutely no control? I have tried and tried, but simply cannot understand the equity of this or reasons for it. Why must Sharon Cook explain what she was doing the first six years that she lived off Rogers Road in order for her actions the last four years to be considered sincere? I truly just don't get it. As you have already rightly acknowledged, these were her decisions to make for whatever reasons.
I don't need Sharon to explain why; I need only to continue seeing what she does; and her actions have spoken louder than words. I will say this: Sharon has a very long resume of community, church, and school involvement. But, no, I have not memorized her resume and do not choose to.
The elections are over; Sharon, however, remains a crucial force in helping this community, and she is not the only "new" Carrboro citizen to do so.
As for political candidates in general, we can rarely do more than speculate upon their motives for anything.
And, yes, it is true, that a few of the incumbents have in the past worked toward trying to help these landfill communities: documentation says as much. However, I've also read enough to know they could have done more. My largest criticism of the incumbents this past year is that none made the waste issue important during their campaigns. Some of them talked about the environment, some seemed more concerned about saving trees than improving people's quality of life over here. This is just my sentiment. Even this, however, does not make me constantly question their integrity the way too many have done the Carrboro candidates.
It's disappointing, and this is just how I feel.
By the way, I actually lived in this community 5 years before joining its fight, and unlike Sharon, my family and I are directly impacted by solid waste. I don't know what that says about me, but I have to remind myself of this fact anytime I start questioning others' motives.
nbj