Is N.C. Poised For Prominence, Again?

by Curly Morris - July 28th, 2006 - Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald

Nearly 70 percent of North Carolina farms are less than 100 acres, but the state average is 168 acres.

The most glaring statistic of all is that over 90 percent of farms in our state are owned by families or sole proprietorships.

Agriculture has always been the staple industry of this state.

The tobacco market in particular, has traditionally made North Carolina a national power in international trade, as the state has ranked first nationally in the production of flue-cured tobacco and sweet potatoes.

I found this an interesting article, not so much for its headline not being clearly related to a rational argument in the article, as for its sprinkling of tangential facts that are curiously included. For a start the article seems to assume that we are not prominent because we are no longer big in tobacco. Interesting hypothesis, but I am not sure it is a fact.

Next there is the quote, "When I attended the opening of the new farmer's market in Murfreesboro on Wednesday, I was taken aback at first at the number of high-ranking community leaders who attended the event." Okay. Why were you surprised? What does this prove Curly? How exactly does either their attandance or your surprise relate to the article's premise?

Next Curly juxtaposes his apparent opposition to improving our Windsor roads with the Governor signing legislation to raise the minimum wage. Again okay Curly. Do you think this proves that progress is going in the wrong direction? Or does it just prove you oppose progress?

Next Curly veers into comments about lawsuits against tobacco concluding with "but lawsuits do not threaten N.C. agriculture as much as the concept that Americans have of progress." This allows for an almost bizarre comparison of gowth of the technology center in Triangle Research Center with the suppression of tobacco farming. Are these really related in any meaningful way to the hypothesis of the article, or any hypothesis of significance?

Facts about trade include the premise "The bottom line is that we do not export very much at all, we are still a nation of consumers first." This is supposedly a true fact about the world's largest exporter? Touting anecdotal facts about one country, China, might lead you to that opinion but that does not make it so.

After a gratuitous comment about our sale of munitions, we get " How important is the development of alternative fuels? Well, for all of you racing fans out there, in 2007 the Indy Car circuit will exclusively use 100% ethanol." As an anecdotal comment I think it might be usefull to add that Indy races have used ethanol for over 60 years or more. I am not sure exactly when they started using ethanol but it predates World War II. What does that matter when it is still cheaper to use gasoline unless tax breaks are provided to use ethanol. Ethanol is more powerful than gasoline and has been more powerful for 100 years which is why they use it for pure racing cars. For street vehicles it is far more relevant how much it costs. Would the fact that Grand Prix cars used ethanol in the 30s but abandoned it for gasoline be of relevance to this argument?

This "fact" that Indy is using ethanol appears to be in support of the premise that our state needs to provide tax breaks and take other actions to produce more ethanol like other states. And despite the fact that there are huge amounts of land available Curly argues that we should tear down malls to grow ethanol as his concluding premise. Malls? Why malls? Because building a road in Windsor is bad growth? By what logic did you get to this conclusion that tearing down malls has any value?

Curly, is this really how you think we can return to "Prominence"? Tear down malls and grow ethanol? Might I suggest this article supports a hypothesis I have promoted. The problems of education in our schools have left many without the ability to form a rational argument. For that reason this is an interesting article.