I was delighted to read in Hal Crowther's recent article regarding the tea party ("Tears of rage," Sept. 15) that he considers himself a Left Libertarian. That is, until I read a bit further and it became clear he doesn't really understand what that term means.
"Left Libertarian" was coined by a Frenchman by the name of Joseph Déjacque who used this label to be synonymous with Anarchism; that is to say, Anti-Statist Communism. Search "Libertarian Socialism" on Wikipedia and you will see what I mean. I'm betting Mr. Crowther is not a Left Libertarian, but in fact is nothing more than a liberal; in the world-historical context, this is nothing more than a moderate conservative.
Furthermore, in the article he says human nature is completely evil. Assuming it is, then pray tell, who has the virtue and wisdom to govern us poor creatures? If human nature is totally corrupt, then no one is qualified to rule. The truth of the matter is that human nature is a mixed bag, but if society could be reorganized on an economically and politically democratic basis, the world would be a much better place to live in.
Finally, all the instances of evil Mr. Crowther cites are that of the bourgeois/ capitalist class; yes, I agree that they are evil. He should know, I imagine he hails from that same class. However, the bulk of the population—the proletariat—is largely good at heart or at least predisposed to be so. They are more in touch with their humanity, whereas the bourgeoisie sold their souls a long time ago.
I can understand and justify a bad review if an artist came to town and put on an uninspired performance, but what's with all the snarky concert previews of older rock acts?
In the past month your writers have mocked Asia, Kiss, REO Speedwagon and Pat Benatar (among others) and, by association, their fans. Sorry if these artists are not young and hip enough for you, but they've paid their dues and perform music that is still enjoyed by old and young alike (my daughter sings along to their songs on the radio).
Rather than previewing their shows through research of recent tour performances, you seem content to cast disdain upon these performers from your elitist, cooler-than-thou perch.
Give me a break.
Your Sept. 15 elections article ("Wake County commissioners race: a referendum on the GOP school board") characterized the Wake commissioners' July 6 vote on the land purchase for a high school in northern Wake County as a showdown vote over whether to support the Republican school board. It stated that the vote was on whether to support the school board's decision to buy a parcel in Rolesville rather than build on a previously acquired site. Commissioner Lindy Brown was criticized for voting with the three Republican commissioners to approve the purchase.
In fact, the vote was not to choose between the two sites; it was to approve or reject the Rolesville site, which had been approved by the school board with only one dissenting vote. Work on the original site had been stopped due to accelerating costs and serious traffic concerns. The chairman of the school board stated that the original site would not be reconsidered. At the July 6 meeting, the Rolesville site was presented by the county professional staff as clearly the best choice of a number of sites considered, and, significantly, the only one that could have a school built by the fall of 2013. In reviewing the video of the meeting, one might perceive that the vote was a choice between the two sites, as most speakers referred to comparisons of the two sites. Nevertheless, a vote against the new site would not have resurrected the original site.
Some have charged that politics drove the vote. If Commissioner Brown had wanted to cast a "political" vote, she would have voted with the three other Democrats to reject the purchase and defy the school board. This would have left the county with no site, at least another year of delay, hundreds of students unnecessarily remaining in mobile classrooms and possibly a missed opportunity to make the purchase at this price.