PLAN COMMISSION – RESIDENCY PRECLUDES MY PARTICIPATION

I recently submitted my application to Human Resources for two different positions: the City Plan Commission and the County Plan Commission. I first started thinking about participating on the county plan commission during the Cedar Creek debacle.

I called today to check on whether my application had been received and was transferred to the Mayor’s Office. I had to leave a message and figured I would have to call again to get an answer. I was pleasantly surprised when, later in the afternoon, I received a call from an employee in the Mayor’s office. I was not at my desk, so the individual left a message.

I am qualified to sit on the city plan commission but not the county plan commission. The reason? In order to be a member of the Allen County Plan Commission, I must live in an unincorporated part of the county. That leaves out anyone who lives within the Fort Wayne City limits.

I researched the nine members to see if all lived in an unincorporated part of the county. Most fell within the criteria, but one did not. Gonzalee Martin appears to live within the city; however, a loophole allows members who do not live in an unincorporated area. That loophole is that membership is based on certain positions within the country rather than residency. So, a city resident can be a member of the Plan Commission if that person holds an office that automatically puts him or her on the commission.

Five of the nine members are appointed by the Allen County Board of Commissioners. Three additional members sit based on their positions within county government – the loophole positions. Those are the county surveyor, the county extension educator, and a township trustee. The final member is from the Board of Commissioners.

The following are the Plan Commission’s responsibilities:

• The commission is responsible for the Allen County Comprehensive Plan and its implementation through the Allen County Zoning Ordinance, the Subdivision Control Ordinance, and various policies and practices.
• The Plan Commission controls the type, location, and timing of development in unincorporated Allen County and works with the City of Woodburn, and the Towns of Grabill, Huntertown, and Monroeville.
  

The nine current members are as follows:

• Charles J. Bodenhafer, President (also on Board of Zoning Appeals)
• Allan D. Frisinger, County Surveyor, Vice President
• Susan L. Hoot
• Paul Moss, County Council
• Bill Brown, County Commissioner
• Harold Kleine, Township Trustee
• Gonzalee Martin, County Extension Office
• Ken Neumeister (also on Board of Zoning Appeals)
• Robert W. Young
  

Susan Hoot has withdrawn due to her run for county council, and that is the spot that I sought to obtain. The commission has to have even distribution of political party representatives. I am disappointed that I do not qualify – even for consideration.

Allen County Sprawl

__________________________________________________________________________________

Part of the Plan Commission’s role involves zoning through the Allen County Zoning ordinance. Interestingly enough, the Zoning Appeals Board includes two members – Ken Neumeister and Charles Bodenhafer – who also sit on the Plan Commission. The five members of the Zoning Board are:

• Ken Neumeister, Chairman (also on Plan Commission)
• Ronald L. Swart, Vice Chairman
• Thomas C. Black, Jr.
• Charles J. Bodenhafer (also on Plan Commission)
• Jacob Delagrange

I find it quite disturbing that members of the Plan Commission charged with implementation of the Allen County Zoning Ordinance also sit on the Board of Zoning Appeals which does the following in relationship to the zoning ordinance:

• provides flexibility to the Allen County Zoning Ordinance by allowing exceptions to the Zoning Ordinance under certain circumstances.
• may allow land uses not otherwise permitted if Zoning Ordinance standards create a hardship for a property owner that relates to the property.
• serves as the forum to appeal certain planning and zoning decisions.

Allen County currently has about 350,000 population with a little over 250,000 located within the Fort Wayne city limits. The county population – minus Fort Wayne – is a little over 98,000. Thus, the criteria for sitting on the commission precludes 71% of the county’s population from participating in decisions that impact not only the county but also the city.

The criteria imposed work in contradiction to the goals of reinvesting in downtown and revitalizing the urban portions of Fort Wayne. The plan commission is currently top-heavy with business interests that rely on new construction and an expanding subdivision plan. Since commission members come from the county’s population, their view is to county issues with little concern to city goals. Add to that the preponderance of those with construction interests and little incentive to control sprawl exists.

The idea that individuals can sit on two bodies that overlap in duties calls to mind the old issue of the fox guarding the chicken coop. So far the fox has pretty much had its way, but it is about time that someone with environmental interests at heart takes a seat on the Plan Commission. Since I am precluded, I hope someone out there will step up and throw his or her hat in the ring.

We need a feisty chicken on the Commission.

RICHARD WOOD ADDRESSES THIRD DISTRICT DEMOCRATS

Dr. Richard Wood, the Democrat Party’s candidate for Superintendent of Public Instruction, spoke to Third District Democrats on July 26, 2008. Dr. Wood served as Superintendent of the Tippecanoe School Corporation for 19 years.

Dr. Wood assisted in the launching of an Ivy Tech Early College program, as well as the Purdue University Early College program. His tenure was also marked by the creation of numerous alternative school options, a freshman success program, and Centers for Advanced Studies.

Richard Wood received his BA, JD, and EdD from Indiana University . He currently lives in Lafayette with his wife Carol, and has two grown children. Prior to serving in Lafayette, he was the Assistant Superintendent for the Warren Township School System.

Dr. Wood answered questions intermittently as he spoke about the educational issues facing our state. He acknowledged that Indiana has a high rate of students who do not graduate – an astounding 25%. He also reiterated his position that local control is paramount in resolving the issues our school systems are facing.

Roger Hirt, Wayne Township Trustee Rick Stevenson, Dr. Richard Wood, Mark GiaQuinta

ORCHID OBITUARY – INDY COMPANY SUCCUMBS TO BIG-BOX COMPETITION

Hoosier Orchid Company, located on the far-northwest-side of Indianapolis is going out of business at the end of August. William Rhodehamel started Hoosier Orchid in 1989 after a gift of three of the flowers from a friend sparked an ongoing fascination. He eventually cultivated orchids never before grown from seed, as well as some varieties that have never received scientific names. The company grew to become one of the nation’s most specialized orchid growers.

Photo Credit: Hoosier Orchid Company

__________________________________________________________________________________

Rhodehamel said the ornamental flowers have become a commodity now stocked even at stores like Costco. Business also withered because fewer people are showing interest in the myriad specialty versions that Rhodehamel raised. Membership in the American Orchid Society, a group of hobbyists and enthusiasts, has fallen substantially in recent years.

Almost all the plants in the 5,000-square-foot greenhouse at 82nd Street and Lafayette Road will be offered to the public through Hoosier Orchid’s Web site and sales on site. Operations with mail-order and walk-in customers will continue as usual until August 30th, when shelves will be cleared.

Orchids have now gone the way of so many other items that used to dwell only in small stores or specialty shops. They are now available in big-box stores such as Meijer and Wal-Mart. Once the big-boxes get hold of the product, their ability to command large quantities at low prices sets the stage for competition that smaller stores just can’t beat.

So, another one bites the dust – the dust of the corporate big-box stores. When a specialty product such as orchids goes big-box, I can’t imagine anything that is safe.

DANIELS’ HYPOCRISY – OUT-OF-STATE CONTRIBUTIONS ROLL IN

After disclosure of campaign funds in the quarterly report, the Daniels’ camp began screeching about Jill Long Thompson’s contributions from out of state. JLT received substantial contributions from out-of-state donors, and the Daniels’ people would have you believe that Daniels’ is the darling of every day, average Hoosiers who are ponying up small contributions to his campaign.

On July 22, 2008, however, the Republican Governor’s Association located in Washington, D.C. contributed a whopping $725,000 – just shy of three quarters of a million dollars – to the Daniels’ campaign. Their contribution belies Daniels’ arguments that he is supported by your “average Hoosiers.”

As state Democratic Chair Dan Parker observed, “Obviously the Mitch Daniels campaign lives in a glass house and shouldn’t be throwing stones.”

Looks like Daniels and his minions are worried about this re-election prospects. After spending $7,000,000 on TV commercials and advertising, Daniels cannot quite convince Hoosiers that he is “the one.”

THE FOUR APOPLECTIC HORSEMEN – SOUDER, BUYER, PENCE, & BURTON

Standing shoulder to shoulder – almost (Souder was absent but I am sure he was there in spirit), the Four Apopletic Republican Horsemen from Indiana demanded that a vote on opening up more land and coastal areas to drilling be taken before Congress’s August recess. Of course, those familiar with the situation have said that it will be a good ten years before the drilling produces any results.

But the four have never let reality get in the way of politicking, so no one expects them to start now. After all, it is an election year. Their posturing sounds great to the American people who have been coping with high gas prices, high food prices, and an economic downturn. However, the four deftly avoid any discussion about the far-off, in-the-future production.

Their hypocrisy is evident in their actions. While they were demanding that additional drilling be undertaken, they opposed H.R. 6251: Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act, a bill that would have prohibited the Secretary of the Interior from issuing new Federal oil and gas leases to holders of existing leases who do not diligently develop the lands subject to such existing leases or relinquish such leases. The goal of the bill was to encourage oil companies to utilize already existing lands and make better efforts to manage and produce from those lands.

What a novel idea – have the oil companies better manage their existing leased lands rather than go after prohibited lands.

Their actions are just one more example of the real prize at the end – opening up coastal waters and ANWR to drilling. The four horsemen aren’t interested in measures that would encourage the oil companies to more responsibly manage the lands they already lease. They – as well as the other big business Republican supporters want one thing and one thing only – drilling in the coastal waters and, especially, drilling in ANWR.

WORLD WAR II, VICTORY GARDENS, AND THE MAN ON THE MOON

I believe we can do anything we set out minds to do. We have shown and we have proven over and over in our history that we are capable of and can accomplish great things. Our fore fathers and fore mothers freed themselves from the tyrannical grip of King George III and established the best of all worlds – our country.

We have risen to the challenge in so many countless situations, it isn’t possible to list them all. But two challenges come to mind. The first is World War II. We retooled our entire system to provide munitions and labor to ensure that we fought the war to the best of our abilities. As men moved into the military and were sent to war, women moved from the homes into the factories to pick up the baton of production.

World War II was won in large part because of superior allied armaments production. The United States greatly outproduced its allies and its enemies and, at its output peak in late 1943 and early 1944, was manufacturing munitions almost equal to the combined total of both its friends mid adversaries. Keep in mind that we entered the war on December 8, 1941. Thus, we accomplished a monumental feat in the span of just a couple of years.

Photo credit: Wikipedia

________________________________________________________________________________

We also sacrificed by decreasing the use of certain “luxury” items that we now consider staples – sugar being one of them. The United States used to be heavily dependent on foreign sugar supplies, and this dependence led to widespread sugar shortages during the Second World War. Cargo ships that once carried sugar imports were needed for military purposes, and the ships that were willing to make the trip overseas for food faced the risk of dangerous bombings from battle ships.

We had no choice but to ration sugar. In May 1942, sugar became the first food rationed during the war, and foreign supplies remained so unreliable that sugar was the last food removed from the rationing list in 1947—two years after the war’s end. Government posters everywhere urged Americans to change their eating habits and conserve sugar.

Arising out of World War II also were our Victory Gardens. Amid regular rationing of canned food in Britain, a poster campaign (“Plant more in ‘44!”) encouraged the planting of Victory Gardens by nearly 20 million Americans. Gardens were planted in any available location – in backyards, on rooftops, on vacant community lots. These gardens produced up to 40 percent of all the vegetable produce consumed nationally. That is a phenomenal figure – 40%.

When the war ended, the gardens disappeared. But during that period in our history, we sacrificed; we decided that the end was worth the sacrifice.

Photo credit: Wikipedia

________________________________________________________________________________

Today is the 39th anniversary of the second challenge – putting a man on the moon.

The mission fulfilled President John F. Kennedy’s goal of reaching the moon by the end of the 1960s, which he expressed during a 1961 speech:

“I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth.”

And, indeed, we did accomplish that goal on July 20, 1969 – a little over eight years after President Kennedy issued his challenge. I was 21 years old and expecting our second child in September. I was riveted to the TV set every day watching news alerts and coverage. I remember the telecast when Neil Armstrong made his famous statement – “That’s one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind.”

Photo credit: Houston Chronicle

______________________________________________________________________

Our dreams were realized. As a nation we watched and held our breath as both Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin move awkwardly on the surface of the moon. We marveled at the astounding and amazing pictures not only of the moon itself but also of our gorgeous blue planet as seen from a far-off, dusty, gray orb.

These two challenges come to mind because today we face a challenge that will also require us to “retool” and “sacrifice.” Our dependence on foreign oil and our own oil is, without a doubt, one of the most critical issues that we face in today’s world. Other sources of energy that we rely upon – such as electricity – for our daily needs do not rise to near the level of our dependence on oil – whether from foreign sources or from our own sources.

In 1984, Tom Brokaw visited northwest France in preparation for a documentary on the 40th anniversary of D-Day. That experience left him a changed reporter, and he began his collection of anecdotes about men and women who were citizen heroes and heroines. In 1998, Brokaw published “The Greatest Generation” – the culmination of his research and his interviews. The greatest generation sacrificed and they learned to adapt to the challenge of readying for war – a war that changed the course of history.

We no longer see sacrifice as a noble and courageous way to rise to a challenge. Instead, we see sacrifice as infringing on all the modern conveniences and extravagant items we possess and use. We want our low-mileage vehicles, we don’t want to ride on buses that may inconvenience us with their routes, we don’t want to have to think about restructuring our lives – even a little bit – to accommodate our growing energy crisis.

With transportation accounting for 70% of our oil consumption, we must do more to avail ourselves of alternative energy sources which can be used in other areas where energy is needed. Solar energy, wind energy, geothermal energy – all are sources which can help provide energy in the field of electricity and heating. And, we must do more to restructure our transportation habits to become more efficient and effective.

We are facing a monumental task in changing our paradigm of energy usage, but instead of asking why do we have to change, why not emulate the “Greatest Generation” by asking how we can change. We should view our energy crisis right alongside World War II, victory gardens, and the man on the Moon.

Let us return to a time when we asked “what can we do for our country” and not “what can our country do for us.” We can and must rise to the challenges that we have so often faced as a Nation, and we must succeed – our very future rests on our success in not asking why but in asking how.

THE LANGUAGE OF WAR

As I was cleaning out computer files, I found a paper from several years ago that I wrote for a “Sociology of Language” class I was taking. I still find the topic fascinating, so I thought I would post my paper here. It is rather lengthy, but I hope those who take the time to wade through it, enjoy it.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

THE LANGUAGE OF WAR:

Weapon of Mass Perception

Edwin Starr, in 1970, sang the following words, “War! huh! yeah! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing-Uh huh.”[1] Replace the word “War” with “Conflict” in Starr’s heavy-handed soul song, and it no longer has its original, hard driving, and simple meaning. By this simple substitution of words, the sentence is transformed from a forceful, emphatic statement to one that loses its force, bluntness, and impact.

Nowhere has this ploy of “doublespeak” been more successful than in the arena of international conflict by grasping, forging, and twisting language in such a way that words diminish and detract from the true nature of war. Politicians have employed this tactic for decades to create political rhetoric that influences, controls, and leads Americans into battle, whether it be labeled war or conflict.

Language shapes reality. To call something a “war” mobilizes national sentiment behind a common objective, justifies the use of military power as the means to achieve this objective, amplifies whatever existing resentment, prejudice, or hatred may exist toward the people or peoples one is waging war against, and through its call to patriotism, moves people to make personal sacrifice for the greater good.[2]

As long as wars have existed, language has tried—mostly in vain—to encapsulate an experience that is far beyond words.[3] War, broadly construed, as a cultural event that extends beyond the battle theater, is decidedly full with rich and complex language, with indoctrination, elaboration, justification, and propaganda.[4] However, by a definitional event, war is a state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.[5]

Conflict, on the other hand, is a state of open, often prolonged fighting, which may involve a state of disharmony between incompatible or antithetical persons, ideas, or interests.[6] It is less encompassing than war and may not involve nations or states.

Since a central goal of any political rhetoric is to develop support and consent from the people, the use of vague terms such as freedom, justice, terrorism, and evil are examples of how language can be utilized to produce such support and consent.[7] Political rhetoric is designed to be deployed in the service of public policy.[8] We all want freedom and justice and we all oppose evil and terrorism. Thus, a politician employing this type of language can justify a variety of different actions with impunity.[9]

More broadly than human consent, language, as something particularly human, shapes how we see the world in general.[10] The link between language and violence works in at least two ways that combine to create an endless cycle of justification.[11] First, language helps to create a climate in which the need for military action appears to be self-evident. After 9/11, journalists echoed politicians by agreeing that the United States had no choice but to respond. Thus, subsequent war was given an aura of inevitability.[12]

While consent is critical to entry into the state of war, a second use of language is to shape how we view the world once engaged in war. Military language is used to soften the visceral impact of the violence of ordinary citizens.[13] To speak of “collateral damage” is a far cry from acknowledging the blown-off limbs, the mutilated torsos, the shrapnel wounds, and the psychological horror that are caused by heavy bombardment.[14]

To help overcome citizen resistance to a “proposed” war, “code names” have been used to designate wars and have become part of the process through which war is made to seem noble. [15] In the second World War, operation names were supposed to be neutral and non-descript: ‘avalanche’ and ‘overload’ and ‘winter garden’. This use of neutral terminology held for 30 years until the 1970s, when politicians and military planners decided the language of war should be required to do double-duty.[16]

Not only have code names become a euphemism for brutal conflict but also the use of alternate phrases for the actual mission itself. The foremost word for incursions into other lands has been the use of the word “operation.” Rather than referring to the invasion of Panama as simply a war or invasion, it became Operation Just Cause. The mission into Afghanistan was originally named Operation Infinite Justice, a phrase that offended Muslims, who pointed out that only God can dispense infinite justice. The military planners backed down and later changed the offensive to Operation Enduring Freedom instead. The Iraqi invasion was labeled with the moniker of “Operation Iraqi Freedom.” [17] The word operation has now become substitute terminology for war and has now become part of the language of war.

George Orwell wrote in 1946:

In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible.” “Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemisms, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness.”[18] Orwell was a shrewd observer of the politics of and language. He did not actually invent the term “doublespeak,” but he popularized the concept, which is a combination of two terms that he coined in his book “1984”.[19]

Orwell used the term “doublethink” to describe a contradictory way of thinking that lets people say things that mean the opposite of what they actually think. He used the term “newspeak” to describe words deliberately constructed for political purposes: words which not only had in every case a political implication, but also were intended to impose a desirable mental attitude upon the person using them.[20] This “art of ambiguity”, has accompanied the military in its waging of war for thousands of years.

Sometimes doublespeak completely reverses the meaning of words. In normal times, diplomacy refers to the process by which nations seek to resolve their differences peacefully, through negotiations and compromise. During the buildup to war, however, diplomacy became the process through which the United States attempted to pressure other nations into supporting the war.

When they refused, this became the “failure of diplomacy.”[21] The idea of a “war on terrorism” itself is a form of doublespeak. It reflects a now pervasive habit of using war as a metaphor for all sorts of things that are not really wars at all: the war on drugs, the war on illiteracy, etc.[22]

The military is acutely aware that the reason for its existence is to wage war, and war means killing people and the death of American soldiers as well. Because the reality of war and its consequences are so harsh, the military almost instinctively turns to doublespeak when discussing war.[23] Doublespeak often suggests a noble cause to justify death and destruction. Practically speaking, a democratic country cannot wage war without the popular support of its citizens. [24]

Yet, definitions aside, one of the most enduring, and difficult, philosophical questions with regard to war focuses on the ethics of getting involved with it in the first place.[25] Again, language becomes a factor in analyzing whether or not war has been declared. Under Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, Congress has sole power “to declare war [and] grant letters of marque and reprisal”, yet the United States has not once formally declared war since World War II.

Even though the Framers intended for Congress alone to declare war, presidents don’t always check with Congress before acting.[26] Although Congress is the body of elected representatives that the Founding Fathers felt most qualified to declare war through an established constitutional process, for the better part of fifty years-since the Korean War-these constitutional procedures have been bypassed.[27] American soldiers have been sent into armed conflict many times in the past decades—Panama, Haiti, Iraq, Kuwait, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and now Iraq again—and never once has Congress declared war.[28] The legal nicety of declaring war pursuant to constitutional directives has all but disappeared.

However, the constitutional problem with Congressional authorization is not lack of clarity; it’s that Congress passed the buck.[29] On August 7, 1964, the United States Congress passed a joint resolution, H.J. Res 1145, better known as the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which authorized the president “to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression.”[30] This Resolution has been the foundation for invasions and incursions since the Vietnam War.

The United States has been involved in several distinct military forays since Harry Truman entered the Korean War and disregarded Congress’s constitutional role in declaring war. Again, although Congress had officially proclaimed no “war”, American troops were sent into battle. In addition to the Korean War or Conflict, the United States spent over 14 years in Vietnam, all without an official declaration of war by Congress. The confusion arising from the interchanging of the words war and conflict is apparent when citizens speak about the various military excursions. Some refer to Korea and Vietnam as conflicts; others refer to them using the word war.

The Vietnam War led to a Congressional attempt to curb the president’s war powers that had been so readily enhanced and expanded by the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Act, the goal of which was to reestablish and reaffirm the purpose of the framers of the Constitution by ensuring that the Congress would be consulted in the event the United States Armed Forces were introduced into hostilities.[31]

However, even in this attempt to curb presidential war powers, Congress used language that provided an avenue in emergency situations for the introduction of troops without the full blessing of Congress. Since the passage of the War Powers Resolution, the United States military has engaged in three major conflicts: the Gulf War of 1991, the War against Afghanistan, and the current Iraqi War. Other less well-known military incursions also were undertaken.

Ultimately, substitution of words with less impact and the creation of words that dilute the meaning of more descriptive words are tactics used by those who exploit the “language of war” to lessen and to downgrade the usual meanings associated with wartime activities and atrocities.

---

[1] Edwin Starr, War, Motown, 1970.

[2] <http://www.omegastar.org/worldwatch/America/Language_of_War.html>

[3] KRON. What is the Impact of Language on War? <http://www.kron4.com/global/story.asp?s=1234815&ClientType=Printable>

[4] James Dawes, The Language of War (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002), 210

[5] The American Heritage Dictionary of the Englilsh Language. 4^th edition. Houghton Mifflin, 2000.

[6] The American Heritage Dictionary of the Englilsh Language. 4^th edition. Houghton Mifflin, 2000.

[7] John Collins and Ross Glover, Collateral Language (New York: New York University Press, 2002), 3

[8] Sandra Silberstein, War of Words (New York: Routledge, 2002), xii

[9] Id

[10] Id at 4

[11] Id at 7

[12] Id at 8

[13] Id

[14] Id

[15] Id at 119

[16] KRON. What is the Impact of Language on War?

[17] Id

[18] John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton, The Fog of War Talk, <http://www.alternet.org/print.html?StoryID=16497

[19] John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton, The Fog of War Talk, <http://www.alternet.org/print.html?StoryID=16497

[20] John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton, The Fog of War Talk, <http://www.alternet.org/print.html?StoryID=16497

[21] Id

[22] Id

[23] John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton, Weapons of Mass Deception (Penguin Group: New York, 2003), 118

[24] Id

[25] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[26] Lithwick, Dahlia. What War Powers Does the President Have?, 13 Sept. 2001. <http://slate.msn.com/toolbaar.aspx?action=print&id=1008290>

[27] Michael Ignatieff, Virtual War: Kosovo and Beyond (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2000), 177

[28] Id

[29] Michael C. Dorf, “Is the War on Iraq Lawful?” <http://www.writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20030319.html>

[30] Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon, “30-Year Anniversary: Tonkin Gulf Lie Launched Vietnam War”. <http://www.fair.org/media-beat/940727.html>

[31] H.R.J. Res. 542, 93^rd Con. (1973)

FANCY BUCKETS FOR FANCY BEHINDS

Fancy pants deserve fancy seats, or so it seems according to the Air Force. Production of luxury capsule-like seats – comfort capsules – to accommodate top military brass has begun. The funds are alleged to be taken from counter terrorism funds and, according to those with a vested interest, will enable the top brass to talk, work, and rest comfortably in the air.

Air Force documents spell out how each of the capsules is to be “aesthetically pleasing and furnished to reflect the rank of the senior leaders using the capsule,” with beds, a couch, a table, a 37-inch flat-screen monitor with stereo speakers, and a full-length mirror. The cost for all this luxury – $16.2 million.

Air Force officials say the program dates from a 2006 decision by Air Force Gen. Duncan J. McNabb that existing seats on transport planes, including some that match those on commercial airliners, may be fine for airmen and troops but inadequate for the top brass. I guess the top brass will be risking their lives discussing strategies and plans. You’ve got to be kidding!

Yeh, I guess that is pretty close to the risk our soldiers who are fighting and dying in Afghanistan and Iraq are taking.

Photo credit: MSNBC

IGA FOLDS – WHERE HAVE ALL THE GROCERY STORES GONE?

The worst of the capitalistic system coupled with an unbridled planning commission that approves every box store and expansion will be on display Sunday evening as the IGA grocery store on Lima Road – a business open for 64 years – will close its doors. The IGA is one of the last small grocery stores to inhabit our City, but just like so many other small grocery stores, it will now disappear.

Capitalism allows no room for smallness in many areas of the business world. Yes, we will have our niche markets such as Fresh Market and Trader Joe’s, but those are not the same as the grocery stores of old. There will be those who shrug their shoulders and say “tough luck, that’s the way it is” in a competitive capitalistic system, and there will be others who cringe at the thought of losing yet another piece of our history – the old-fashioned grocery store. I am in the latter group as those of you who know me would expect.

I have an attachment to the grocery store world. I grew up in South Whitley, and our family owned a small grocery store. It was only 10,000 square feet – a mere midget by today’s standards. But it was our life, our livelihood, and our pride and joy. For 30 years – until 1978 – we served the people of South Whitley. We weren’t open every day of the week because back then businesses still respected the notion that employees should enjoy some time off and a business should close its doors to allow for some leisure time.

I was literally born into the grocery business. My Dad, Gene Weybright, bought the store with Gene Glassley, a distant cousin, in January 1948. The store was named the G & G Market – representing the initials of their first names. One month later, in February 1948, I was born.

Back in those days, the legal age to obtain a social security card and work for pay was 14. That didn’t stop my parents from putting me and my brother to work doing small tasks years before I reached the magic age. From about the age of 9 or 10, I worked at the store. I handed boxes to my Grandma Weybright – whom everyone called Rosie even though her name was Louetta. I helped stock shelves with Grandma and my Dad.

Early on I learned to count back change. Grandma Weybright patiently stood by my side as I struggled to hand back the correct amount – $1.23 + 2 pennies makes $1.25 + a quarter makes $1.50 + a .50 cent piece makes $2.00. Whew! Thank you and have a good day! But I learned to count back change – something that most kids don’t even understand in today’s world of computerized cash registers that impersonally tell you what to return.

Once I got my social security card at the age of 14, then I could work for real. My brother – who is a year and a half younger – and I were expected to work every afternoon after we got home from school. I was allowed to go to the drugstore with my friends for a cherry coke or an ice cream soda, but once I was done, I was expected to get to work.

My junior high, high school, and young adulthood years were spent in our world of the grocery store we owned. As I got older, I took on more responsibility – ordering stock, learning to cut meat for the meat case, wrapping produce, doing payroll, and delivering groceries to our older citizens. We knew everyone by name who entered our double front doors. Our motto – drummed into our heads from an early age – was the customer is always right. Sometimes we had to bite our tongues when we knew we were right and they weren’t, but God forbid if we challenged a customer on an issue.

The store exuded such wonderful smells. We closed in the evening at 6:00, so the store would be locked up for about 12 or 13 hours. Dad usually got around and went down at about 6:00 or 7:00 in the morning. After I got older, I would sometimes take Dad’s place, and open the store for business. I would unlock the back door, turn on the back room lights, and head up front through the rickety swinging doors that separated our back stock room from the actual store.

A smell of bananas, strawberries, and produce would greet me as I walked through the swinging doors. The produce was left out as it is today. But in today’s huge buildings, the vegetables and fruits have no identity – they are only a small part of a gigantic building that contains thousands of other items. In our store, the smallness of the building provided the perfect opportunity for the smells to congregate in the air.

We delivered groceries six days a week for free. It didn’t matter whether the order was two items or twenty items. It didn’t matter that we had a blizzard that left us without electricity. It didn’t matter that it was 5 degrees below zero. It didn’t matter that we struggled through two feet of snow or 90 degree heat. We still delivered. Sometimes it was the only contact our older customers had for the week.

When we delivered, we spent time talking to our customers and sharing their past and present. Many a time we would walk in and would be greeted with enthusiasm and the joy of telling us what a grandchild had accomplished or showing us a newly framed picture that had arrived and assumed its honored place on top of an old piano.

We ran charge accounts – something that today is unheard of.  Many of our customers struggled to make ends meet, and they needed help.  We would run a charge account for a week or two until they received their paycheck.  The books we used were the old-fashioned receipt books with the carbon paper in between the sheets.  Almost everyone honored their promise to us to pay for their groceries, and we lost very little in the way of unpaid accounts.

People mattered to us. We mattered to them. Today, when I do my grocery shopping – usually at Meijer – I know they could care less about my thoughts or concerns. Sometimes at the check out, the cashier spends time talking to a bagger and literally ignores me. And why not, the scanner rings up the groceries using the bar code, the card machine takes my payment, the swirling rack with the plastic sacks rolls around for me to unload into my cart, and then I am done. The receipt is hurriedly shoved into my hand with a quick “thank you – have a nice day”, and I am on my way.

The pieces of our history are slowly disappearing. How many today still remember the old grocery stores with the wood floors, the barrels containing crackers, brown sugar, and pickles? How many remember when the customer mattered and had a face and a name? What happens to us when we no longer have those memories and we no longer have that connection to our past?

I regret that I do not have any pictures of our old store. The pictures that I have are my memories, and when I am gone, those pictures will be gone. What happens when the generations who remember these parts of our history are gone? How do we keep our history alive, and most of all, how do we make sure that our history relates to our present?

The small, old-fashioned grocery store is but one fatality of our modern system of capitalism and Wal-Martism. The small stores can’t compete, and so they disappear, relegated to memories that someday, also, will be gone.

MONACO COACH TO CLOSE THREE PLANTS SENDING 1400 WORKERS TO THE UNEMPLOYMENT LINES

Monaco Coach, the country’s leading producer of diesel motor homes, has announced it will close plants in Elkhart, Nappanee, and Wakarusa. The closures will displace 1400 workers – about one-third of the company’s work force. Monaco Coach will re-locate some operations to its headquarters located in Coburg, Oregon.

The company release indicates that market conditions have deteriorated and no end appears to be in sight. The coaches are powered by gas and diesel with average gas mileage anywhere from five to ten miles per gallon for gasoline coaches and nine to fourteen miles per gallon for diesel coaches.

Starting at a mere $113,000 – Photo credit: Monaco Coach

This one starts at $586,000 – Photo credit: Monaco Coach

The low gas mileage just cannot be justified with energy at an all-time high. Driving around in vehicles that suck down gas and, in return, only transport the owner a few miles are not acceptable in a world that is becoming more and more conscious of the effects of our transportation choices.

The sad side of the decline in the RV industry is, of course, the employees who will now be standing in the unemployment lines.