Letters 12/27/07

Dec. 26, 2007

Sovereign Dud
Winston Churchill, Mahatma Gandhi, and Harry Truman are all reputed to have echoed the message of Matthew, Chapter 25: ‘A society is ultimately judged by how it treats its weakest members.’ Contrasting this humanitarian view is the vision of Sovereign Deed, as stated by its colorful founder Barrett Moore:
“Sovereign deeds are those actions we take that guarantee our...independence...actions that make us less reliant and... empower us to protect... ourselves.”
Thus, in Moore’s cowboy world, if you happen to have fifty thousand dollars to spend, you, the self-reliant individual, might survive the next major disaster. If, however, you are just part of the collective, dependent rabble, you probably won’t survive.
Ironically, the fittingly-trademarked motto of Sovereign Deed was the guiding principle of our government from the New Deal to the dawn of Reaganism. The government existed to attempt to “plan, protect, and provide” welfare for all its citizens. Tragically, however, since Reagan, and the rise of ‘Chicago School’ economic acolytes, the notion of a ‘commonwealth,’ and ‘common good’ has been scrapped for social Darwinist anarchy. In this Blade-Runnerist, laissez-faire nightmare, New Orleans, for example, is literally left to drown.
The social concepts of planning, protecting and providing care have become trademarks for a company like Sovereign Deed. In this world, Paris Hilton’s life is intrinsically more valuable than that of a Pellston firefighter.
Embracing fear and exclusivity is not the answer for ending the economic malaise of Pellston, Michigan, or the United States. The true answer is to embrace hope and inclusion - to imagine a reawakening of the New Frontier dream of John F. Kennedy. The answer is to spend a fraction of what is being wasted in Iraq on developing alternative energy sources and transportation services.
Governor Granholm should be ashamed of herself for accepting the promises of a late-night TV snake-oil salesman.

Matthew Malpass • East Jordan

Only the Wealthy
I just wanted to thank you for publishing the article about Sovereign Deed. I’m sure I’m not the only person, who at first thought this sounded like a wonderful opportunity for a small town. Thank you for revealing the true intentions.
I had no idea it was a service that only the wealthy can afford. No wonder they picked such a small town – the better to protect themselves from an invasion in a time of need.
I hope that Emmet County and the state reconsider giving this company incentives, and look further into the origins of this “company”.

Erin Early • Bellaire

Kings or Jokers?
Thank you for the enlightening article regarding sovereign deed (S.D.). I’m a resident of Petoskey but away from the community for the next six months or so.
I‘ve been following S.D.’s financial backing and also questioning the possible other reason for establishing their company in Pellston... if I could throw out a few names/or sites that were not mentioned, but I wonder how much of a critical playing card they are:
1) Richard Rainwater, Texas millionaire, who is financially backing S.D. has been/or is still in business with:
2) Boone Pickens, another Texas oil millionaire who admits he is searching for water to control, and as the Internet shows in many articles, is starting to buy property because he feels water is the next oil... (current holdings for water in the Texas panhandle, but there had been sites mentioning other states, even Canada).
3) The lease between S.D. and the county, which is found online. I could be wrong, but there seem to be some rather large loopholes in several key issues that have not been mentioned.
4) The bill put forth dealing with IMS (the speedway) and its S.D. connection as far as having the land and tax abatement, etc.; also on the Internet.

Bonnie Elkins • Petoskey

Style and Democracy
I want to thank Andrea Stewart for writing about how she is offended by the “My Style” column. I love to read the Northern Express and agree with Andrea that this column is offensive. I too “couldn’t care less” about what someone else is wearing, let alone how much it cost them. I hope that Northern Express seriously considers replacing this column with something of substance, like Andrea’s suggestion of a write-up on local folks who work or volunteer doing something that helps people in our region rather than a listing of how much money someone spent on their “style” and where it is they spent it.
Also, in regard to Marian Johnson’s “Many Voices”, I would like to gently remind Ms. Johnson that there is a separation of church and state in our country’s democratic government.
A government where the people who hold office and the people who are employed by the government are God-fearing and listening for God’s leading voice occurs in a theocracy, not a democracy.
A democracy is a “government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.“ There is no mention of faith or religious views in the definition of a democracy.
One of the main reasons our founding fathers created a democracy is because they didn’t want to live in a church-run state like England had. Whether or not our founding fathers were “faith-full” people is not relevant to how democracy works.
I am just grateful God “guided” our founding fathers to create a democracy for the “common good” and not a theocracy!

Janette Grice • Lake Ann
Define Electable
Wouldn’t it be nice if both Ron Paul (R) and Dennis Kucinich (D) were deemed “Electable” candidates for President? Of course, they’re not. The mainstream Media says they’re not “Electable,” so apparently it’s a fact. Dark Horse candidates today are put down as they leave the gate.
All the other candidates must have a crimson “E” burned into their foreheads, but the letter sure isn’t visible on TV. If Paul and Kucinich were deemed “Electable” by the Media, a large number of Americans – who want the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan stopped – would be able to vote for candidates who agree with them. Of course, we can’t have that!
The same would hold true for issues like Universal Health Care, Waterboarding, the Patriot Act, Wiretapping, Global Warming – if those two candidates were considered “Electable,” we could all vote for someone who actually advocates our opinions and preferences.
The strange part of this anomaly is that those of us who would like to vote for a compatible candidate who happens to be deemed “Unelectable” by the Media are in the majority in America.
Or does that crimson “E” stand for “Empire,” which is what makes all the other candidates “Electable”?
Weird, isn’t it?

William F. Brabenec - Attica