Opinion Page
THE BRUNSWICK&BEACON
Jward M. Sweatt and Carolyn H. Sweatt Publishers
Kdvvard M. Sweatt Editor
^f.san Usher News Editor
Doug Rutter. Terry Pope and Dort Gurganus Staff Writers
? 'ohnny Craig Sports Editor
Peggy Earwood OJJlce Manager
Carolyn H. Sweatt -Advertising Director
*1 Itnbcrley Adams. Cecelia Gore and
Bill Nlsbet Jidverttslng Representatives
Dorothy Brennan arid Brenda Clemmons Moore ..Graphic Artists
William Manning Pressman
! onnte Sprinkle Assistant Pressman
i'hoebe Clemmons ami Frances Sweatt Circulation
PAGE 4-A. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1991
Two-Year Terms
Better For Voters
une can make a case tor both sides in the two-year versus
tour-year terms for county commissioners and school board
members.
But what voters need to keep in mind Tuesday when they
ca>: their ballots is that four-year terms are better for politicians
.-.lid two-year terms are better for voters.
A special county-wide referendum Tuesday will decide the
iw.e. which makes this election even more important than usu
al.
Some see the referendum as a Democratic Party plot to
.shorten terms after Republicans were elected to all the seats on
the county board of commissioners and to two seats on the
m::oo1 board.
However, party politics has nothing to do with our favoring
i a o-year terms. Two years is long enough to elect a Democrat or
a Republican to the board of county commissioners or the
?vlool board.
Fleeted officials of both parties will tell you that four years
ate necessary. Many of them contend that it takes the first two
\e.irs to learn the job and the next two to accomplish their objec
tives. If that is the case we need to elect more competent people
to office who can begin to work right away to accomplish their
. iectives so we can evaluate their progress after two years and
re elect them if we agree with what they have done.
Then one hears that four-year terms allow public officials to
make unpopular decisions without fear of being defeated be
cause the public forgets after a few years. If ever there was a
reason to vote for two-year terms, this is the one.
Elected officials have a duty to provide leadership when it is
necessary for the public to take a bitter pill like a tax increase or
other unpopular proposals. If politicians cannot convince the
public to follow, they have to decide whether to change direction
or swim against the tide of public opinion and risk defeat.
No doubt all elected officials would do a better job, regard
less of the length of terms in office, if they thought more about
doing the job right and less about being re-elected.
With two-year terms there is a remote possibility of com
plete turnover at one time on these boards. If the entire board is
doing a poor job, the possibility might not be so remote, but if
that is the case the entire board might need to be voted out. The
county no doubt would survive. It has in the past when this hap
pened.
Naturally, running for office every two years takes money. It
i.ikes no more, however, to run the first time and those who are
elected and do a good job more than likely will need to spend
less and will garner financial support from the public for their
te-election campaign.
Unfortunately, the special referendum ballot does not pro
vide for setting different length of terms for the school board
and county commissioners. Although we favor two-year terms
tor both, it is more important that county commission terms be
shortened again to two years. County commissioners, with the
power to tax, need to be on a short leash and more accountable
more often to voters.
If members of the State House of Representatives and the
United States House of Representatives are elected only to two
war terms, then surely our county can be governed by a board
elected every two years.
Those who do a good job will get to stay longer. Those who
don't, won't. That's the way representative government is sup
posed to work.
LETTER TO THE FDITOR
People Are The Most Important
To the editor:
Recently some people in our county have shown a remarkable inter
est in drug education. After having been involved in drug education and
counseling for over 15 years, 1 would like to share some thoughts and
opinions on drug education.
In the 60s and on into the 70s drug education focused primarily up
on the pharmacology of drugs and showed scare films such as "Reefer
Madness" and "PCP." The philosophy seemed to have been one of "edu
cate and scare." Some expressed concern that we were teaching how to
use drugs and that scare tactics didn't last very long.
From lessons learned, it was then stated that drugs weren't the prob
lem, that drug abuse was symptomatic of underlying problems such as
poor self esteem, inadequate decision and communication skills, lack of
value clarification, poor social skills, irrational belief system, and inade
juacy in dealing with one's feelings.
Major emphasis was placed upon feelings because most drugs are
psychoactive in that they change how a person feels. Since emotional
growth is critical at a young age, drugs have devastating effects upon the
emotions of children. When drugs are used to deal with such feelings as
anger, resentment, boredom, depression, etc., the child never grows up
emotionally.
It is extremely important that parents become actively involved in
the program. In part this is related to the child growing emotionally and
developing life skills. Unless the family is involved in a meaningful way,
the child may start to feel that others don't understand them which may
lead to feeling alienated or viewing other family members as "not being
with it."
It seems that most children from families who have very rigid life
styles respond well in a supportive facilitated environment that encour
ages spontaneity and autonomy.
So, it seems that we talk more about people than drugs in a drug pro
gram, for after all isn't it the people who are most important?
Anthony Clemmons, Shallotte
(Letters Continue On Following Page)
The Road Was Paved With Good Intentions
Several months ago, I told
Brunswick County Planning Direc
tor John Harvey that 1 was tired of
writing about the county's new sub
division ordinance. A final draft was
adopted by county commissioners
last week (somewhere in the neigh
bothiHxI of 30 pages long), and 1 am
still tired of writing about the thing
It had been kicked around by dif
ferent boards of commissioners
since Apr il 1981. A new one was or
dered then, and planning staff went
to work on it. But they were told in
December 1981 to stop.
The present board of commission
ers pulled it from the vault last year
and was determined to pass it. They
ordered the planning board to re
work it, to hold public hearings and
workshops on it until it became
something that people could live
with.
In what I thought was perhaps the
final story on the monster last week
I made a mistake. It's a mistake that
needed correcting. I know 1 must
have confused a lot of people who
were following the fate of the ordi
nance, as I was confused myself.
? ?
? .
Commissioners were probably
left scratching their heads Wednes
day morning as well when the news
paper hit the racks with a headline
that stated, "Paving Requirement
Eliminated In Compromise With
Developers." Inadvertently, that
didn't exactly relay a very clear pic
ture.
Hopefully, the story in this week's
paper will clarify the outcome of the
drama that unfolded last week, when
commissioners approved, 3-2 the or
dinance they feel is needed to moni
tor the growth of this county. I've
done the best that I could in explain
ing the final changes regarding con
troversial street requirements that
were a part of the ordinance ap
Terry
Pope
proved last week.
Commissioners Frankic Rabun
and Gene I'inkerton said ii was not a
document they felt residents and lo
cal developers could live with, so
they voted against it.
Sincc last December, the most de
bated item in the new ordinance
concerns road standards in new sub
divisions. Should local developers
be required to pave streets in new
subdivisions, or is a base of coquina
sufficient?
The standards on roads had been
tossed back and forth like a hot
potato from the planning board to
commissioners and back to the plan
ning board again for months. I'm
afraid last week's story implied that
commissioners had backed down
from paving requirements entirely
when they eliminated N.C.
Department of Transportation stan
dards for private streets.
But the story stopped short of ex
plaining that in place of DOT stan
dards were adopted local standards
for private roads, which require six
inches of coquina and 1 1/2 inches
of asphalt on all private streets with
in new subdivisions. regardless of
how many lots are served.
What should have been inserted
into the story was a simple, hut
missing, paragraph explaining that,
yes, DOT standards were dropped,
hut that paving was still required un
der the local standards inserted.
I'm a person who hates to make a
mistake, but when 1 do I won't go
around looking for excuses. When
you're in the news business, truth is
important. Some information that I
gave last week may have been in er
ror, but it's what I thought were the
facts at the time.
Unfortunately, a missing para
graph can paint the wrong impres
sion and confuse matters tremen
dously. 'lite end result here was that
the wrong message was delivered to
local developers and consumers
alike. Commissioners, who serve as
representatives of both groups, were
placed in an awkward position.
It's not what I intended. Pardon
the pun, but the road was paved with
good intentions.
Villi
GIVE ME ONE 600 DKEASOU
WHY A DEMOCRAT SHOULD
SUPPORT THAT STUFF...
1> JESSE HELMS.
d where Do I Sign ?i ^ /
^ym
7 U>
There's A Better Way Than Spanking At School
li s just a matter of days before it
becomes a matter of policy that local
schools wiil no longer use corporal
punishment as a means of disciplin
ing students.
Under a state law that allows lo
cal school boards the option of al
lowing it or not allowing it, Bruns
wick County Board of Education
members are expected to opt for a
gentler approach, adopting a policy
at their Nov. 4 meeting that bans
bodily punishment. The policy had
first reading earlier this month.
Corporal punishment. That's a big
word for something most of us
know simply as "spanking," as in
putting a paddle to the rear-end of a
child who has misbehaved. A par
ent's prerogative, yes, but for
schools? Not these days.
During my school days ? not all
that long ago ? paddlings were a
matter of course at Shallotte High
School (grades 1-12). It was standard
procedure with some parents that if
you got a paddling at school, another
awaited you at home. For some rea
son, it was mostly boys who got pad
dled, though certainly some of us
girls misbehaved just as badly.
Susan
Usher
I'm not talking about simple raps
with a ruler across the fingers by a
classroom teacher, though I can re
member one particular teacher with
a very long reach who broke a stu
dent bone or two with a yardstick.
He was the talk of the high school.
Sometimes a teacher actually did
his or her own spanking in those
days, right in front of the rest of the
class.
But when we think of paddling
most of us think of the long trip to
the front office. There, bent over a
chair or desk, or simply holding on
to one's ankles, the blows came
from a thick wooden paddle, some
times enhanced with holes said to
make the sting even worse.
I don't know; I never felt the
weight of the principal's paddle,
though I'm sure there were days
when both my teachers and principal
were sorely tempted. My mother
preferred a fine, leaf-tipped switch.
Fear of the paddle is a deterrent to
misbehavior for many students, but
I'm not sure that fear is an emotion
that needs to be associated with at
tending school. It seems counterpro
ductive.
Frankly, I'm glad to see our
state's view toward corporal punish
ment changing. Until the General
Assembly acted earlier this year.
North Carolina had the distinction of
being the only state in the nation
that did not either ban corporal pun
ishment outright or give its local
school systems that option.
In North Carolina an estimated
33,000 children a year typically re
ceived a spanking, paddling or slap
ping at least once during the school
year. That's beginning to change
now, and none too soon.
Think back. Your best teachers
probably didn't need corporal pun
ishment in their bag of tricks. They
had other ways of motivating stu
dents and managing classrooms,
usually tied to changing a kill's atti
tude. The same is true today.
The change in policy doesn't
mean school staff cannot use force
to intervene in student fights or to
protcct themselves, that kind of
thing. It simply means they can't use
bodily punishment to discipline
kids.
But what about the few teachers
who prefer the paddle and have
come to rely on it or threat of it to
maintain order in their classroom?
They're just going to have to
learn from their peers other ways to
manage. If you've been in a class
room lately or have a school-age
child, then you've probably heard
about or seen some of the ideas in
use. A lot of teachers have a reward
system that combines positive rein
forcement ? tokens that can be ex
changed for privileges or prizes,
with peer pressure ? where one stu
dent's behavior and performance af
fects rewards earned by the entire
work group.
Sure, it may be like dangling a
carrot in front of a mule, but that's
the whole idea, isn't it?
Hurrah for a better way!
So What Do You Think
Of The Tomahawk Chop?
What's your opinion of the toma
hawk chop?
What do you think of that crazy
chopping motion developed by
Atlanta Braves fans to root for their
hometown heroes?
Do you agree with American
Indian leaders who see the chop, and
the chant that goes along with it, as
derogatory and something that
makes light of a sacred religious rit
ual?
Personally, I think the chop and
chant are just good, clean fun. The
chop gets the crowd involved in the
game, and it's so much cooler than
the "wave."
The Braves rags-to-riches story
this season had everybody's doing
the chop. Ted Turner and Jane
Fonda were spotted doing the chop
during a playoff game a couple
weeks ago.
I even saw a group of West
Brunswick Trojan fans doing the
Doug
Rutfer
chop at a recent football game. I'm
not sure if they were rooting for the
football team or just listening to the
Braves game on radio.
Anyway, 1 think Native American
leaders blev/ this or? <"it of propor
tion. Do they honestly believe peo
ple are doing the chop and chant to
make fun of the American Indian? 1
don't believe it for a minute.
Native American leaders have al
so taken the opportunity to point out
that they are the only ethnic group
with sports teams named after them.
(I guess the Notre Dame Fighting
Irish don't count.)
But why haven't we heard about
it before now? The Braves were
playing baseball before 1 was born,
and this is the first time I've ever
heard of a complaint from the
American Indians.
And why are they just picking on
the Atlanta Braves? What about the
Cleveland Indians and the Chicago
Blackhawks and the Kansas City
Chiefs and the Washington Red
skins?
At least the name Braves gives
the impression of a strong, noble
group of Native Americans. I would
think Redskins is much more
derogatory.
If we change the name of the
Braves, Indians, Blackhawks, Chiefs
and Redskins, others would have to
be changed as well.
l.et's start with that football team
in New Orleans. 1 seriously doubt
that all of those Saints really fit the
description.
The Giants, from New York and
San Francisco, would have to come
up with something different. They
might offend people who have the
condition known as gigantism.
Kven professional ice hockey
would have to come clean. What
would British royalty think of the
name Los Angeles Kings?
1 think you get my point. And like
1 said before, I think the tomahawk
chop is just good, clean fun. Nothing
more, nothing less.
Besides, Atlanta Braves fans have
been through a quarter-century of
misery. Their players have been
bungling ground balls and striking
out since the days of Lyndon
Johnson.
In their moment of glory, the last
thing those fans should have to wor
ry about is some stupid chopping
motion.