North Carolinians: if you're in Durham or Charlotte, don't forget to vote tomorrow!

Here's the sample ballot from the Durham County Board of Elections:
http://www.co.durham.nc.us/departments/elec/2009_Election/Ballots/Election/Durham%20%20Sample%20%28WM%29%201.pdf

In Durham's Ward II race, GoLiberty endorses Matt Drew: http://electmattdrew.org/

Here's the link to look up your sample ballot in Charlotte:
http://www.meckboe.org/AddressSearch.aspx

In Charlotte's city council race, GoLiberty endorses Travis Wheat: http://www.electwheat.com/

If you're not sure what ward or precinct you're in, look up your voter registration at the following link, and click the "My Districts" link at the bottom of your search results to see all your municipal information:
http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/VoterLookup.aspx

Need to know where to vote? After you look up your voter registration above, it should tell you where to go vote. If you want to double-check, click the "My Districts" information to get your precinct information, and check one of the following links:
DURHAM: http://www.co.durham.nc.us/departments/elec/Polling_Locations.html
CHARLOTTE: http://www.meckboe.org/PollingLocations.aspx

In an attempt to keep tabs on the latest that our North Carolina governor is doing with our state's money, I subscribe to the email list for the "Office of Governor Bev Perdue." When 20 inmates were up for early release, having served 35 years of a "life" sentence, she released a piece titled "Governor Says Offenders Will Not Be Turned Loose." In the piece, she says:

"When I learned that the Supreme Court had issued a ruling that meant offenders serving life in prison would be released after a mere 35 years, I was appalled. Like most of my fellow North Carolinians, I believe life should mean life, and even if a life sentence is defined as 80 years, getting out after only 35 is simply unacceptable.

"Since that ruling, my staff and I have been doing everything we can to stop the release of these rapists and murderers. These are people who have been denied parole repeatedly, and many who have numerous infractions during their prison stay. I do not believe they are ready for release onto the streets of our communities."

I was offended that she attempted to speak for "most of [her] follow North Carolinians" here. For what it's worth, no one asked me my opinion. How about you? This is a tactic I've heard from a lot of elected Democrats lately, especially Obama and several House and Senate Democrats that have spoken on health care legislation... but I digress...

I'm not frustrated at Perdue putting her foot down that the Dept. of Corrections may have been overstepping their authority. I don't know enough about each case to make a judgment on that. What frustrated me was Perdue coming across like a curmudgeonly old lady waving a stick at naughty boys knocking over the potted plants on her front porch. Maybe I was the only one who thought that, but here are the phrases that stood out to me:

* "... after a mere 35 years..."
So, you're thinking 35 years isn't enough time? What *is* long enough, Bev? Under the kind
of laws we have in NC, can we afford to keep life-sentence convicts in for life? Who might
you be willing to let go to make up for the difference in cost and resources for housing
the life-sentenced?

* "... I was appalled."
Oh, do tell, Bev!

* "Like most of my fellow North Carolinians..."
Are you sure?

* "... I believe life should mean life..."
Except that it doesn't. It never has, really. You just figured this out?

* "... stop the release of these rapists and murderers."
Yeah, let's just not think of them as "convicted" rapists and "convicted" murderers anymore.
Let's just get to the name-calling so everyone will be equally "appalled."

* "... release onto the streets of our communities."
Well, given that they haven't been leading productive lives for the last 35 years,
I suppose "the streets" are about the best we can expect out of some of them.

There's more, but I think this is enough merrymaking for one evening. ;-)

As I wrote in my last post, Matt Drew, a fellow Libertarian, was likely to face a runoff after a tight race for Durham Council, Ward II. It looks like a runoff isn't necessary: Matt received enough votes to officially put him in second place, and he will face incumbent Howard Clement in the final election November 3rd.

Check out this article about the news from the John Locke Foundation.

Though Clement got 60% of the vote Tuesday, voter turn-out on November 3rd could potentially turn the tables. Campaigning is not over; if anything it is now as important as ever.

Durham residents in Ward II, vote for a voice of liberty on November 3rd! Vote for Matt Drew!

From WRAL:
"In Durham, Councilwoman Cora Cole-McFadden will face Donald Hughes in the Ward 1 election. Councilman Howard Clement easily won his Ward 2 primary, but his opponent next month hasn't yet been determined, with Matt Drew, Sylvester Williams and Darius Little all within 100 votes of each other, according to unofficial results." (article link)

I'm excited for Matt, who is a co-member with me on the LPNC Executive Committee. A runoff is likely with voting this close, something that could easily be resolved with instant run-off voting.

Congrats to Larry Hudson in Raleigh who made an impressive showing in the mayoral race. Meeker was held to 62% of the vote. Unlike reports that state Meeker had no trouble getting elected for a fifth term, a few facts should be noted for that race:
* Only about 28,363 votes were cast, far less than 10% of registered voters in Raleigh
* A combined 38% of voters did not want Meeker to continue as mayor
* 115 voters made the effort to write in someone not already on the ballot

A better showing in local elections could be the answer to bringing more Liberty to the table. I think that Matt's upcoming run-off and Meeker's mere 62% in a poor voter turnout are both proof that more voices in local elections can make a difference.

Durham, be sure to get out and vote if there's a runoff in the Ward 2 primary!

First, let me apologize for letting other parts of my life overwhelm me through September so that I didn't profile any of the Raleigh mayoral candidates here as I had hoped I could. Like many of you, it is not always a priority for me to take time out and work in the political arena. However, Liberty is important to me, and local elections such as those going on today are where voices for Liberty can make the biggest impact.

Endorsements? GoLiberty is not going to endorse anyone at this time. Had I been able to ask questions more directly related to Liberty, I think I could have done so with more confidence. Instead, I encourage readers to look at the candidates' websites, think about the issues that are most important for you, and vote for the best person to represent your views. That's what I will be doing.

So... who am I voting for? Well, I have taken some time this morning to read a couple of interviews and websites from candidates on the unofficial election results page that line up with my ballot. I'm in municipal (Raleigh) District C, and I am not in one of the school board districts with candidates running.

My first thought was to vote against anyone endorsed by New Raleigh. Why? Well, they clearly think "we all love" Meeker for his discriminatory actions to concentrate on new development and gentrification at the cost of the majority of citizens who live outside of the designated growth areas. As much as I like some of the articles in New Raleigh, I really cannot trust any endorsements from a group who makes such broad and assuming claims about its readership, or judging that he has "no real opponent" when three men have stepped up and done what they could (or could afford) to make their voices heard.

For Raleigh mayor, I'm voting for Larry Hudson. No, not just because he replied to my early blog post. ;-) He most represents me and my friends here in Raleigh, and he is removed enough from the downtown scene to see the needs of Raleigh at large. Kunz was my close second, and it sounds like he is in close touch with what's going on in Raleigh government; he came in second only because he may be socially out of touch with those of us who live at lower incomes (most of Raleigh, actually). Enloe also has a few good ideas, but I think we need to steer away from the light rail dream.

For District C, my choice is between Charles Reisinger, James West (incumbent), or a write-in candidate.

I read this IndyWeek interview with Reisinger and really liked some of his responses. Certainly anyone who admits he does not want big government is at least on the right track. I also like his desire to make the council stronger and more accessible to Raleigh citizens. Reisinger's one weak point, though, is his responses of "whatever the district wants me to do." While it does sound like he wants to be a true public servant on the council (which I think was his intent), it comes across as a weak and unprepared response. For a stronger campaign, he would have been better to say "my district needs me to..." and fill in the blank with some well-researched response about District C.

have skimmed through this Southeast Raleigh Assembly information, a community organization effort by Dr. West. He definitely conveys awareness of his District, and he wants people in the community to be directly active in improving it. On the surface this sounds like a good thing. However, in my opinion, gathering a group of people who do some stuff and call it a success for the District may be little more than a "feel-good" strategy to win accolades for being the organizer. The true assurance of Liberty is not to organize some group to force change on individuals, but to take actions that might inspire individuals to make changes for themselves. I sincerely hope that's the true goal of this organization, not just to get city money and continue to extend the bureaucracy sprawling forth from the Upchurch building.

For City Council District C, I will be voting for Resigner. It is time for the old bureaucracy to step aside.

The At-Large positions make me cringe for Liberty, but the fresh faces do have some sense of hope for Raleigh. For the sake of getting fresh faces in the fight against Meeker (who is likely to win because his sheeple will come out in flocks to vote for him), I will not be voting for Mary-Ann Baldwin or Russ Stephenson.

Lee Sartain's website really conveys his vision for Raleigh. Though I think some of his ideas are not on par with Liberty and smaller government, he does want strong neighborhoods across the city. Candidates who will not leave behind certain neighborhoods in the overall vision are inclined to win my heart, whether or not they win my vote.

In this IndyWeek interview, Champ Claris conveys fiscal conservatism, which I think is important for Raleigh in our current economic climate. Though he does frighten me a bit with talk about providing incentives for private development, I think his response about ensuring the budget covers services first is an important statement about how he will contribute on the council.

Though on the ballot, candidate Bill Shakespeare did say he was pulling out of the race back in August. Be sure to reserve your two at-large votes for the other candidates.

For City Council At-large, I will be voting for Sartain and Claris.

Now... get out there and vote, people!

This evening, President Obama spoke to a joint session of Congress to address concerns about the health care bills currently making their way through committees. On the positive side, he showed a lot of strength, outright scolding folks for bickering and making false claims. He likewise expressed appreciation for people showing their passion and wanting to make the best decision about health care reform.

As I followed the speech, though, I spotted a few logical inconsistencies. I'm not sure if he has consulted with many economists on his plan, but it seems in direct contradiction to the "encouraging competition" goal that he claims is one of his guiding principles. Here's a breakdown of what I mean:

(1) Obama said that he wants there to be no choice about whether or not an individual actually carries insurance. In short: he wants to see compulsory coverage. His reasoning was that it was the individuals without coverage that are costing everyone else more money.

This means, no matter what your income level or financial situation, you *must* have health insurance coverage. As this is not free, it means you have to shop for what you can afford. Without a public option, the financial outlook for individuals is frightening... with a public option, the economic outlook for healthcare is in danger (see #2 coming up).

Compulsory health insurance is a direct affront on liberty: forcing an individual to purchase something whether they want it or not. As such, anyone who reads my blog will know where I stand on that matter. The real solution to my not having to pay for someone who doesn't have health insurance is not to require me to do so in the first place.

(2) Obama said that he wants a public health insurance option that will be self-sustaining and compete with other health insurance companies. What he isn't telling you is that the federal government would be breaking its own rules: it would be competing across state lines while continuing to restrict private insurance from doing so.

This means, if you are in a state with unreasonably high rates, and the federal government offers something significantly less, they can gain thousands of customers where private companies are unable to come in. How Obama can call this competition is confusing: if the federal government offers a public option in the true spirit of competition, the only right thing to do would be to allow all private insurance companies nation-wide to compete on a level playing field.

(3) Obama said he wants employers to be required to provide health insurance benefits to employees. He did say there would be assistance for small and start-up businesses, but I'm not sure how he's going to fund that without the aforementioned public option. I'd like to see more numbers on this. Again, though, any compulsory requirement like this is an affront to liberty. I don't think there's more I can say to that here... except that I hope this does not create further stagnation in the job market.

These are the three areas that are concerning me the most. Even a multipartisan bill will be a great source of personal frustration for me if it includes any of the items mentioned here.

For me, the true question is simple... and paints me as cold-hearted in some respects:

Is "health care" a right?

or further...

Is "good and affordable health care" a right?

How you answer those questions probably says a lot about where you stand in your own ideas of how healthcare and health insurance can be improved.

My answer? I have a right to pursue any health care as much as I have a right to refuse it... but I have no right to require or expect others to provide it to me.

There are some disturbing claims of libertarianism from the Right. Part of me takes it as a compliment that liberty and libertarian ideas are trendy enough that people want to claim to be in the trend. However, the technical writer in me does not want to see this term redefined as a replacement for conservatism, Republican, or any other group that does not share the majority of libertarian values. Such a redefinition is a threat to true libertarians, whether or not they are part of the Libertarian Party.

Here are three questions you can ask to help determine if the claimant is truly libertarian, or just a someone jumping on the trend:

(1) When is it right for the U.S. to send troops to another country?
If the individual is a pure libertarian, he would say "never." Some libertarians may also extend this to emphasize that the U.S. has no business occupying countries, though may see some well-targeted actions against an immediate threat as a means of self-defense. The assertion that the U.S. has any business forcing its ideas on another country is an empirical claim. Furthermore, it is not the responsibility of the U.S. to be the worldwide hero for human rights. Individuals and private organizations can choose to be part of these efforts, but this is *not* government business.

(2) How should law define marriage?
If the individual is pure libertarian, he would say "there should be NO laws defining marriage, let alone rewarding or punishing an individual based on marital status." Some libertarians may also remind us that current marriage laws were intended to discriminate, and thus the only proper solution is to repeal them, not to supplement them with further discriminatory allowances or restrictions. In essence, the government should not be in the business of defining "marriage," and if two consenting adults want to enter into a legal civil union, there is nothing that should restrict them from being able to do so.

(3) What's the best solution for raising taxes?
If the individual is pure libertarian, he would say "get rid of all government spending that requires taxes for funding." Some libertarians will go further to explain the more we submit our money to the government, the more of our individual power we surrender to a political agenda. As there is no such thing as a "common good" that all individuals will agree on, majority rule is inherently flawed as a means of providing "what's best for everyone." Libertarians believe that "what's best" is to leave an individual to be responsible for himself and his personal possessions, provided he does no harm to anyone else.

BONUS: What is the solution to the drug problem?
If the individual is a pure libertarian, he would say "repeal the laws against illegal drugs." Some libertarians prefer to ease in to this, knowing public opinion needs time to recover from the scare tactics of the anti-drug movements of the last few decades. However, almost all libertarians agree that lives could be spared, and even saved, if some drugs (like marijuana, which has been consistently proven less harmful than alcohol) are made fully legal.

The overarching theme here is "non-aggression." The most basic of libertarian principles, on which platforms are based, is outlined in the following often-used pledge:
"I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I DO NOT BELIEVE IN OR ADVOCATE THE INITIATION OF FORCE AS A MEANS OF ACHIEVING POLITICAL OR SOCIAL GOALS"

If a person is not willing to take such a pledge, I would dare say his libertarian claim is questionable.

New Raleigh just posted this announcement about Politics 101, a series of forums featuring local candidates for Raleigh and Wake County government offices. I heard about it, and if I can fit it into my schedule, I hope to attend a few of these and post GoLiberty reports after each:
http://www.newraleigh.com/articles/archive/city-politicians-stump-at-101-in-september/

Libertarian Chris Augustine just announced that he is running for Wake County Board of Education District #2. This district covers south Wake County from Garner to Holly Springs, and including some of Cary. Check out Chris's website for more about him and his ideas for Wake County Schools:
www.augustine-nc.com

Also announced this week: the Wake County Board of Education Candidates' Forum will be held September 16, 2009, at 7 PM at Holy Trinity Lutheran Church (2723 Clark Avenue, Raleigh, NC). We hope that Chris Augustine will be in attendance, and that we can learn more about other candidates. The forum is sponsored by: The League of Women Voters of Wake County, the Junior League of Raleigh, the YWCA of the Greater Triangle, the Wake County PTA Council, and El Pueblo. If you're a Wake County voter, be sure to put this on your calendar!

Thanks to everyone who replied to my last post as I was taking an initial look at the candidate slate for Raleigh mayor. I look forward to reading the new website links over the next week.

Now, if I wanted to go somewhere within a one-to-two-hour drive, why would I take a Cessna? The last two flights logged from state-owned N122NC were trips I would have taken in a car. (Raleigh to Oxford? In a plane? Really?) Who is doing this? Are they just too lazy to drive and/or ride? I have contemplated a manifest to see who is wasting the state's money taking a plane over taking a car, just to trim off an hour or two:
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N122NC

Raleigh Mayor Charles Meeker has served four consecutive terms, giving almost eight years of service to the city in that role. During that time, downtown Raleigh has seen tremendous gentrification efforts (which the mayor and others call "revitalization" and "economic development"). However, overall city "improvements" do not seem as extensive beyond the Bloodworth to-Boylan corridor, and city officials' efforts to press out low-income residents during his terms have become an increasing point of controversy.

So here's my early take on Meeker and on his three contestants for October:

Charles Meeker, incumbent
324 S. Boylan, Raleigh, NC 27603 - Meeker has been on the deed as owner of the 2,831-sqft single-family home since 1980, with a total current tax assessment value of $536,251, and a 2009 tax bill of $4,886.48.

Meeker currently lives in Boylan Heights, one of Raleigh's oldest neighborhoods just southwest of downtown. Boylan Heights has continued rising in value since Meeker took office, with home renovations, new business like the Boylan Bridge Brewpub, and skyline view enhancements like the new convention center and RBC building. Boylan Heights is also across Western Blvd from Dix Hill, on which Meeker supports plans for Raleigh to purchase the mental-health land grant from the state and develop what he and the Friends of Dorothea Dix Park (FDDP) call a "world-class park."

A look at Meeker's accomplishments and goals for the City of Raleigh screams out one word: gentrification.

For example, if Meeker supports the FDDP plan (Dix 306) outlined in their whitepaper written by developers from Chicago and St. Louis, then Meeker seeks to apply tax-increment financing (TIF) to fund the initial project, which would surely pressure out the low-income residents around Dix Hill. The plan has no mention of ongoing expenses for maintaining a 306-acre park, and no suggestion of how developing a big new park is better than revitalizing the many community parks with walking distance of homes all around Raleigh.

In recent months, Meeker and the council have expressed a desire to redo Moore Square. Another downtown gentrification project? I think so: after all, it is well known that when there aren't major events going on at Moore Square, it is a place where a dozen or so of Raleigh's homeless often find some solace under the shady oaks. There is nothing wrong with Moore Square as it is now without hundreds of thousands spent in renovation... well, unless you are just trying to kick out the homeless.

It appears that the "Meeker Majority" in the City Council may be fast approaching an end. Residents outside of Meeker's narrow vision of what "improvement" means for Raleigh are ready for the mayor and council to recognize and address their needs, too. Though I had hoped a libertarian candidate would step forward boldly to challenge Meeker this year, the fact that the mayoral race is non-partisan should make me feel better about supporting "the right person for the job" if any of Meeker's challengers can present a better plan for Raleigh.

Mark Enloe, challenger
709 Daniels St, Unit C, Raleigh, NC 27605 - Mark Enloe has been on the deed as owner of the 566-sqft condominium since February 2008, with a total current tax assessment value of $100,450, and a 2009 tax bill of $931.58.

If you read through Mark Enloe's site, it appears he has a vision not unlike Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory. Mike Munger, McCrory's Libertarian opponent in the 2008 gubernatorial race, once described McCrory as having an "edifice complex," a pun poking fun at his pride in building things and taking credit (like Charlotte's light rail). I'm not sure Enloe is aiming to be McCrory, but he does reference Charlotte's light rail as a better development option than Meeker's push for the new convention center in Raleigh. Personally, it is debatable on whether either project should have come at a cost to city taxpayers.

Currently living in the community north of Cameron Village, Enloe speaks about tightening spending and balancing the city budget while starting to make headway on our city's debt. This includes eliminating useless high-paying "assistant" positions in the City Manager's office and shifting resources and responsibilities to those who are experts in their field. However, some of Enloe's other suggested changes, such as eliminating the free R-Line bus route, could mislead people to think he's looking to stunt Raleigh's growth.

I think Enloe needs to shape his message to talk about replacement efforts, not just cuts in targeted areas. He needs to present what he would elminate against what he would replace as an alternate way to address the need filled by that eliminated position or service. If the "need" is not actually something the city needs, but is just "nice to have," Enloe should include in his message phrases that acknowledge the "nice to have" role, followed by reframing statements that remove the "need" label from the position or service. For example, instead of saying he wants to get ride of the R-Line, perhaps he should say, "Downtown residents have expressed appreciation for the R-Line, but ridership has been limited, and at a cost of [X] dollars to staff and maintain the route, Raleigh has bigger needs, like [Y], where those dollars could provide a larger benefit."

So, does Enloe have my vote? Well, you know that hints of fiscal responsibility are music to a libertarian ear. Plus, if you follow my blog, you also know I am glad to hear him step forth and suggest that the Dix 306 project may not actually be the best option for Dix Hill, and that we should "hear from the people on what should be done with the Dorothea Dix Hospital property." As for my vote, though? It's still to early to say.

Gregg S. Kunz, challenger
800 Glenwood Ave, Raleigh NC 27605 - Gregg and Tracy Kunz have been on the deed as owner of the 3,378-sqft single-family home since June 2006, with a total current tax assessment value of $739,678, and a 2009 tax bill of $6,732.58.

I could not yet find a campaign Web site for mayoral candidate Gregg Kunz, but I did spot his Plaxo page. Kunz is a business executive who lives in one of the gorgeous houses on that stretch of Glenwood between Five Points and Peace Street. Between Plaxo and Spoke I can tell he's a hockey enthusiast and supporter of getting kids into hockey. As I cannot find any Web sites indicating his political efforts or his plans for Raleigh, I will postpone any opinions about his run for mayor and plan for a future post when more resources are available.

Larry D. Hudson, II, challenger
5537 Roan Mountain Pl, Raleigh, NC 27613 - I could not find Wake County property information for this address, though Google will happily show you where it is on the map. Hudson's voter registration actually indicates another address, so he may have only recently moved to the new address.

Filing on the last day (July 17), Hudson has not yet had any press as a mayoral hopeful. Personally, I am pleased to see a candidate who isn't within the 2-mile radius of the Avery C. Upchurch Building downtown, and who will be familiar with interests of Raleigh's residents outside the Beltline. Unfortunately, as with Kunz, there are no Web sites yet about Hudson's politics or plans for Raleigh. I did find a Larry Hudson from Raleigh on MySpace who is most clearly a Mets fan, but I can't yet confirm if that's the same guy. ;-)

So far, this guy is my front-runner because he's not in the public tax records. :D Okay, just kidding... it's really because he's not in the Beltline cloister and might see the bigger picture for Raleigh. However, as with Kunz and Enloe, I have to reserve my opinions for later posts.

Another good video from Reason.tv.

The word "czar" is derived from the word "ceasar," and it implies empirical power. Is the executive appointment of "czars" an abuse of the power of the president? These people are given a lot of power of oversight, and are held to no accountability. Dan Mitchell has a lot of good points in this interview, including that these people may just be a big and expensive PR stunt by the administration. Whatever they are in terms of action, it disturbs me that current and past presidents use their authority to create these placeholder positions positions in an attempt to bypass the the checks and balances between government branches.

President Obama and his administration like to boast "bipartisan support" for certain things, simply because they had at least one Republican "cross the aisle" to support a piece of legislation sponsored by Democrats.  Obama is certainly not the first to do this; "bipartisan legislation" has been a key political boasting point for every president in the last two decades.  If a bill has "bipartisan" support, the administration proudly proclaims it as a solution that everyone can agree on, as a collectivist ideal.

The damage this is doing to public perception is frightening, but it is still reversible while the First Amendment still stands.  One way we can start a return toward the respect of multiple political views is through our word choices.  We need to be accurate, logical, and truthful rather than assuming, emotional, and conniving.

The use of "bipartisan" systematically perpetuates the assumption that there are, and only will be, exactly two political parties.

If we can change the use of this word alone, I think we can positively affect public opinion.

Of course, Republicans and Democrats are truly "bipartisan" in their efforts to give little or no credence to the mere existence of another party, preying on public apathy that this is the permanent and accepted reality.

The truth is that there are, and have always been, other voices and other views that do not align with the Republican or Democratic parties.  These voices are too often stifled because they are not backed by large marketing engines with limitless financial resources.  However, over the last decade, these voices are getting louder, in part because of the Internet.  Thanks to an increasingly educated and reasoning public, so-called "third-parties" are poised to get their voices heard both during campaigns and in the halls of local and state government.


The two-party assumption is dead.

Will you join with me in using "multipartisan" instead of "bipartisan" in conversations and writings?  How do you feel about a movement to write letters to the President, asking him  to bring "hope" to people with individual voices by replacing the word "bipartisan" in his press conferences and speeches?

Obama claims that he supports any program that is proven to work, "whether it's liberal or conservative" in origin. However, the DC school voucher program is in direct contradiction to that and other claims Obama's administration has made for "change we can believe in."

UPDATE: As it turns out, this was probably a false claim: the teen was charged and held under regular laws, and the media was falsely alerted with regard to the Patriot Act. However, it definitely creates an emotional response.

Before I dived too deep in my investigation into the Friends of Dorothea Dix Park (aka Dix 306) and the so-called "world-class park" plans for Raleigh, I asked myself, "What would Dorothea think of this?"

To help answer this question, I read significant portions of a detailed biography called Voice for the Mad: The Life of Dorothea Dix (The Free Press, 1995). Author David Gollaher is an admitted fan of Dix's nationwide activism in the mid-nineteenth century on behalf of those with a wide range of mental disorders. Gollaher thus details not only the historical details of her mission, but the emotional reflections in writings from her and others who were acquainted with her. It is clear throughout the book that Dix saw a blatant and inexcusable discrepancy between basic human rights and the mistreatment of those in the care of some mental institutions in the country.

The woman...
Dorothea Dix hailed from Massachusetts, was devoted to her Unitarian faith, and was a teacher and author of children's books before an illness struck her in her 30s. During refuge and recovery across the Atlantic in the 1830s, she had her first exposure to new approaches to treating the mentally ill. This included modeling the mental institution after a familiar domestic environment "that would redeem the insane and, in turn, reunite them with the family of humankind." The promise alone of new cures was an inspiration that helped Dix herself find new hope and purpose.  This set her in motion to lead institution reform across the U.S.  Gollaher writes, "She had adopted a new criterion of humanitarianism and in the process discovered unanticipated reasons to be interested in government power."

At the time Dix was visiting facilities and formulating her message, many states and regions had implemented insane asylums to separate the mentally ill from society. In most cases, these asylums were a public safety measure more than treatment effort, and "treatment" too often consisted of torture if not also subhuman living conditions. In North Carolina in particular, Dix observed the harmful affects and inconsistencies in using common jails for those who committed violent crimes as a result of mental illness.

When Dix found her voice in her memorials and her presentations to state legislatures, many states followed her passionate pleas with much-needed action. It was 1848 when Dix toured North Carolina's asylums and wrote her North Carolina Memorial. In it, she states, "I am the Hope of the poor crazed beings who pine in the cells, and stalls, and cages, and waste rooms of your poor-houses... I am the Revelation of hundreds of wailing, suffering creatures."

The NC state legislature...
In 1844, Governor John Motley Morehead had strongly recommended that NC build institutions for the mentally ill, blind, and deaf; but no legislation followed his recommendation. After her pleas to the state four years later, Dix adapted words from the Christian Gospels to admonish the state for not treating its mentally ill as it would want to be treated.

As in other states, Dix encouraged North Carolina to put the financial resources from its people into the treatment of the mentally ill. She suggested it would not be an onerous financial burden to the people of NC, and would cost "a few dollars and dimes, gathered from each citizen," like "a particular rent charge upon the great family of mankind." For libertarians, this suggestion sounds socialist; but consider also that her own words did not indicate explicity that taxes should be levied for such a purpose, though her legislative audience would naturally think in those terms.

Typically, an issue lobbied to members the legislature becomes a political target for one side or the other on the floor.  Such was the case with Dix's pleas for the mentally ill in NC as she was dismissed by the NC Whigs, but found support from John W. Ellis and the Democratic majority in what was then the North Carolina House of Commons. The result was a bill to build and commence operations of an asylum on a site of at least 100 acres, with water and a list of supplies that would fulfill the purpose of the institution as a comparable domestic environment to that of Dix's vision.

Neither Whigs nor Democrats were inclined to raise NC taxes to cover the proposed cost of $100,000 for the asylum. Likewise, they questioned why a woman from Massachusetts was intent on lobbying for a cause in North Carolina. After the bill faced almost certain defeat on the floor, an impassioned speech by James C. Dobbin, who would later serve as speaker of the House of Commons, provided a personal testament that changed its course. Dobbins had just returned from his wife's funeral in Fayetteville, and he recounted Dix's generous company and care to his sick wife while they were both guests at the Mansion House Hotel in Raleigh. He stated that Mrs. Dobbins' dying request was that her husband do whatever he could to pass the bill for Dix's asylum. Dobbins' eleventh hour effort was the emotional movement needed to pass the bill 101 to 10, though not without an additional proposal to reduce a land tax and poll tax that had been the original means to finance the effort.

The NC legislature only approved $7,000 for the next fiscal year to select land and start planning, and they attempted to move forward with a "pay-as-you-go" basis that relied solely on the earmarked revenues for the asylum. Though not the full extent of what she wanted in NC, Dix marked it as a success. It was Governor William A. Graham who convinced the legislature to name the site of the asylum after her, calling it Dix Hill. A century later, it would be renamed to Dorothea Dix Hospital, continuing to honor her advocacy for the mentally ill.  The North Carolina State Medical Society formed in the following year (1849), and the asylum itself was finished and opened in 1856.

The land...
The focus of my "Dix 306" series is on the land that still currently houses the original hospital as the state continues its plans toward closing the facility and selling that land, most likely to an anxiously awaiting City of Raleigh.   As a result, for brevity's sake, I will skip the rich hospital history and simply state the following key aspects of land allocation and use throughout the history of Dix Hill:

* The original land that comprised Dix Hill was 182 acres on two tracts purchased from Maria Hunter Hall and Sylvester Smith for $1,944.63.

* Dix clearly indicated that by using large tracts of land for asylums, patients in recovery could work the land and employ its resources as part of their recovery effort. This was consistent with the research on mental illness and recovery that she learned about in Europe.

* When the state changed some of its laws in 1899, the name of the asylum became The State Hospital in Raleigh, and the first voluntary admissions lead to a call to increase capacity. This resulted in the creation of an adjoining epileptic colony on 1,155 acres of land, bringing the land total to 1337 acres.

* In 1974, after years of changing laws and provisions by the state, and changing its name to Dorothea Dix Hospital, the facility was its largest size to date: 2,354 acres of land, including three lakes and 1,300 acres for the farm. At that time, there were 282 buildings equipped to handle 2,756 patients.

* Over time, the state has sold off or reallocated the acreage for other purposes, such as creating the Farmer's Market and generously expanding North Carolina State University.

* As of today, Dix Hill is 306 acres of state-owned land which is still allocated to the North Carolina Division of Mental Health.

Today, mental health professionals in North Carolina, and advocates for the mentally ill across the state, say that the North Carolina mental healthcare system is in a crisis, and that shrinking the system is not the answer.

So... what would Dorothea do?

I predict she would admonish the state for ignoring the problems in its mental healthcare system, and for not ensuring behavioral treatments were applied such that patients could eventually return to be productive and self-sufficient.  Most of all, I think she would be glad that the hospital she pleaded for 160 years ago was still standing and operating, and she would personally fight in front of the General Assembly to keep it open and in service to the mentally ill of North Carolina.

I also think she would leverage the media to scold the City of Raleigh for its vulture-like hovering, waiting to devour the remains if the state leaves it behind.  For all their assuring words that they intend to give the hospital the time it needs to remove themselves from the land, she would look past the promises and find the allies she needed to fight city development  and keep the hospital open.

Sources:
Voice for the Mad: The Life of Dorothea Dix by David Gollaher, The Free Press, 1995.
"History of Dorothea Dix Hospital," NC MHDDSAS website (link)

We all know that most politicians have plenty of hot air to contribute to "global warming," but it is interesting how on Earth Day the political stunts are seen as some good example to the country for taking care of our environment.

This morning, I asked myself, "What's the environmental impact of politicians on Earth Day?"

Let's see... according to this article, the Obamas and Bidens decided to hold their publicity opportunity at Kenilworth Park and Aquatic Gardens, which is 7.1 miles away from the White House. There is no indication on how the President, Vice President, their families, and their security details all went those 7.1 miles, but I'm inclined to think they didn't use the DC Metro.

Those in attendance were wearing screen-printed T-shirts especially for this year's Earth Day event. I'm not sure if they used green screen printing on unbleached material, but the photo on that web page does show some very bright white T-shirts. I'm inclined to think the Student Conservation Association chose whoever could put together the shirts in the fastest and cheapest way possible, like any good businessperson would do.

The article also does not indicate where the trees came from that were planted. If they did not already exist at that location, then they must have been grown somewhere. Typically, such trees would be grown at a tree farm. I did find several tree farm results in the DC area, mostly local vendors that resell trees, but I'm inclined to think the trees described in the article were trucked in from further into Maryland or Virginia. Either way, they were brought in from somewhere, and most likely by a large carbon-emitting vehicle.

Of course, nationwide, there have been plenty of other politicians and municipal groups putting on their own tree-planting publicity stunts for Earth Day 2009, too, complete with T-shirts and fliers and politicians and trees, all trucked about from place-to-place to smile for the cameras.

Is Earth Day just for the benefit of politicians and tree farmers?
I'm inclined to think... yes.