mike_in_nc 
Member since Dec 2, 2006


Stats

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “McCrory's sham unemployment claims

".. thanks to Obama ...". Thanks. I needed a good belly laugh this morning.

"$9.5 billion in federal aid ... at no cost to state taxpayers". That's right: because federal aid money grows on trees.

The NC General Assembly can continue to blame the Democrats as long as Obama keeps blaming Bush. I expect neither to stop soon.

6 likes, 19 dislikes
Posted by mike_in_nc on 07/16/2014 at 9:05 AM

Re: “Re: Moral March; Liberty Warehouse

I hope Al McSurely is a better lawyer than he is a historian. His statement that abolitionists "were motivated by their sense of morality" is patently incorrect, and it completely undermines the point of his letter.

The antebellum abolition movement had almost nothing to do with "morality," in the sense of achieving justice for Blacks. Yes, there were a few isolated pockets of people who had the moral interests of African Americans at heart, but these were the rare exceptions to the rule. The schism over slavery between the North and the South (and internally between most of the Southern states) had to do with the imbalance of *white* political power that the institution of slavery represented—through, for instance, the 3/5ths clause. To be clear: the North could be as virulently anti-black as the South, and groups like the American Colonization Society (based in New Jersey) had every interest in seeing Blacks removed from America. Dystopian as it may seem to us now, the dream of a lily-white America was very much a national sentiment at the time, and the differences stemmed largely from disagreements about how to achieve that goal.

The present-day NAACP may want to think twice about hitching itself to the abolitionists of the antebellum and Civil War era. Presenting the struggle for abolitionism as a purely moralistic crusade is the worst sort of historical revisionism.

Posted by mike_in_nc on 02/27/2014 at 11:09 AM

Re: “Chapel Hill leaders question gun law; proponents threaten to sue

I can see why Jackie Holcombe is unemployed if this is her definition of "well representing their constituents". The mayor of Chapel Hill—a so-called attorney—doesn't even seem to understand the basics of the laws he claims to represent. (insert obligatory jokes about a UNC-CH degree here)

The really funny thing is that these same arm-flappers that don't want us "meddlesome" people in their city business will be the first ones getting arrested at the State Legislature building for attempting to force their brand of politics down our collective throats. Of course, they're welcome to keep coming to Raleigh ... and we'll keep coming to Chapel Hill to shovel it back onto them. The difference, of course, is that we won't get arrested in the process.

Oh, and we'll keep winning.

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by mike_in_nc on 01/30/2014 at 2:30 PM

Re: “One mother's attempt to stop gun violence

Limiting the rights of citizens to make them "safer" is an insidious and disingenuous as her willingness to flaunt her UNC PHD (it's almost too easy to make jokes about this) as some sort of qualification to talk about gun violence.

It's interesting to me that she lives in a city so ridden with gangs and interracial violence ... yet she's going to tow the same drag line that the rest do about how we need to ban "assault" weapons, how we need limits on magazines, etc. I mean, if you can't fix the root of the problem, go after the fringes, right? Make life miserable for the rest of us so she can feel like she "did something". For the kids.

It'll be amusing to see what Kaaren and her 10 full-time staff members manage to not accomplish in North Carolina—a state steeped in traditions of gun ownership. I suspect this group will wither like its predecessor (NCGV) did, when they realize that Durham and Chapel Hill do not speak for the other 98 counties.

28 likes, 6 dislikes
Posted by mike_in_nc on 01/30/2014 at 8:19 AM

Re: “Historic Liberty Warehouse to be demolished; condos and stores to replace it

DL Lykins: I wouldn't think of going to downtown Durham without my lawfully concealed firearm. The hipster veneer doesn't hide the fact that there's still massive social and racial disparity in the city, and that represents a threat to anyone's safety. Go a quarter of a mile in any direction (other than west, straight onto Duke's campus) from downtown Durham if you don't believe me.

In retrospect, Durham went by the wayside years ago. The council meetings I've attended are clubbish rubbish. The influx of hipsters are as ill-equipped to "fix" social and racial disparity as they are at doing pretty much anything else productive. Yes, the town will boom because of its proximity to RTP and RDU ... but that boom will fade quickly when Durham becomes another paved-over suburb, and the quaint historic architecture becomes a collection of photos in coffee table books.

Durham wants real change? Start with the neighborhoods in East Durham—places where Durham's sordid mayor and his dragline of inept city counsellors are scarcely seen.

1 like, 19 dislikes
Posted by mike_in_nc on 01/30/2014 at 8:09 AM

Re: “Historic Liberty Warehouse to be demolished; condos and stores to replace it

Another historic Durham landmark goes by the bulldozer to make way for more of this "mixed use" crap.

When I moved to the Triangle almost 15 years ago I had no idea that it was destined to become another cookie-cutter city (cities). But given the proclivity that local builders have for the bulldozer, I suspect I'll be leaving in a few years. I do hope the city councils understand that they're destroying the very architecture that has made this area appealing to so many.

12 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by mike_in_nc on 01/29/2014 at 9:34 AM

Re: “Re: Guns in bars and restaurants; Realtors in Durham politics; women priests

Walt, that's true in theory. I mean, we could all be breaking the law in the privacy of our home and nobody would know it. But it's a fallacy to say that it's not wrong just because we don't get caught.

I can't speak for everyone else, but I entirely support the right of private property owners to control who (and what) comes through their door. I may disagree with their choices (and in the free market, I'm free to take my commerce elsewhere), but that's part-and-parcel with property rights.

I don't conceal carry in a place that forbids it. Breaking the law is not something I'm comfortable with, even if I think it's a stupid and unjust law.

From a practicality standpoint: I'd rather not have to defend myself in a place that forbids me from carrying the tools with which I'd defend myself. If I draw my weapon in self-defense, in a restaurant that forbids the carrying of weapons, then I've already given the DA ammo against me. Any claim that I make about legitimate self-defense is going to be tainted by the fact that I was breaking the law.

Being a responsible gun owner means thinking these sorts of things through. I have, and my choice is simple: I will not patronize establishments that forbid me from lawfully carrying my concealed handgun.

3 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by mike_in_nc on 10/30/2013 at 3:57 PM

All Comments »

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.
 

© 2014 Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation