Elling ends effort to quash Indian mascots
The time has come to admit defeat in my attempts to change the “Indian mascots” of the Indian River School District. Racism wins. The Declaration of Independence words, “merciless Indian savages” by Thomas Jefferson are embraced within the IRSD. The IRSD core words of Respect, Honor, Pride and Character will continue to be defined by “white privilege.”
The October 2013 formal document of the National Congress of the American Indian calling for an end to harmful sport mascots within our educational and professional sport teams was shredded.
Not a single local Christian, Jewish or Islamic organization voiced opposition to the IRSD Indian mascots. Not one IRSD Board member, administrator, educator, support staff, student or alumnus voiced opposition to Indians as sport mascots. Are the “good old white boys” still making the decisions within the IRSD?
It mattered not that the national bodies of the Presbyterian Church USA, United Church of Christ and the United Methodist Church and hundreds of other organizations supported the National Congress of the American Indian’s demand. All the “local churches” linked to the use of an Indian mascot within the Indian River School District openly or in their silence. Go Indians! Go screaming Indians! Go merciless Indian savages!
The IRHS Alumni Association will pay more students to draw cartoon Indians and build their electronic IRHS sign to digitally promote their “screaming white-skinned Indian.” U.S. history will be “whitewashed” into more of our children’s minds.
Christopher Columbus has a national holiday, and he threw Indian babies to feed his dogs and upon the rocks below. Our collective American history of genocide and slavery is painful. Did God place minorities in the world in servile positions and within the IRSD as sport mascots?
Lloyd E. Elling
Resident upset with state agencies
A public meeting was held by DNREC on March 27, 2014, in Millsboro as result of local resident’s requests opposing the renewal of a transport permit that allows Dogfish Head Brewery to continue to dump their brewery waste into the abandoned Pinnacle/Vlasic pickle plant’s wastewater treatment plant, which in turn discharges its waste output directly into the Indian River.
It was clearly concluded at the meeting there was absolutely no benefit to the Indian River if this permit was renewed and, in fact, it was clearly understood that any additional waste from Dogfish or anyone else that was discharged from the abandoned pickle plant further polluted the already impaired Indian River.
DNREC attempted to justify the renewal of this transport permit by stating that Pinnacle still had an open discharge permit that allowed them to continue to dump waste into the Indian River even though they (Pinnacle) abandoned the plant two years ago.
DNREC was then informed at the public meeting that a formal complaint had been filed by a local resident with the head of the EPA in Washington in February 2014, stating that the Pinnacle discharge permit that DNREC was using to justify the Dogfish permit never met its discharge, TMDL and nutrient offset requirements over the last 14 years.
The March 2014 EPA response to the formal complaint neither refuted the allegations made in the complaint nor did they defend DNREC’s mishandling of the Pinnacle permit since 1998.
In addition, another issue that was not brought up at the meeting was that the transport of waste from the Dogfish Brewery (a non-point source) to be dumped at the Pinnacle site (a point source directly on the Indian River) is exactly contrary to DNREC’s own Pollution Control Strategy (PCS).
DNREC’s PCS calls for systematically eliminating all point source discharge directly into the Inland Bays or discharging and/or offsetting the discharge at a non-point source site, not transporting waste/pollution from some inland site and dumping it into the Indian River through some wastewater treatment plant.
In summary, it was determined by the residents at the meeting that Dogfish Brewery was further polluting the Indian River by dumping their waste into the Pinnacle wastewater treatment plant. This action was being approved by DNREC based on the fact that Pinnacle left behind an expired discharge permit that had never truly met its nitrogen and phosphorus discharge/offset requirements since 1998.
Most residents attending the public meeting felt that DNREC failed miserably in its attempt to justify the Dogfish transport permit being renewed, the additional pollutants being discharged into the Indian River and DNREC’s questionable and continued loyalty to Pinnacle, a large food conglomerate that abandoned the plant years ago, taking their 400 jobs with them, as well as leaving the site contaminated for others to clean up.
As of April 21, 2014, a decision on the Dogfish renewal application has not yet been rendered by DNREC.
The handling of the Pinnacle discharge permit and the Dogfish brewery transport permit are more examples of DNREC hurting the environment and violating their own rules and regulations. I have said this before, and I will say it again. It is disturbing when the enemies of the environment turn out to be the agencies that were created to protect it.
Reader throws support behind sheriff
Efforts to discredit our Constitution and preach the need for change have reached new heights. People are willing to disregard the very liberties that have kept this nation free in exchange for false promises of security. “You can keep your freedom if you like your freedom.”
The sheriffs of the nation are the first line of defense when it comes to defending the constitutional rights of the people. Eliminate the county sheriff, and all could be lost. It is imperative we educate all who would listen on the need to support the county sheriffs and ensure we are electing men who know their constitutional responsibilities.
Clearly, by the words and actions of the Sussex County sheriff, he knows these responsibilities well, which is probably why he is treated in the manner he is by county council. He is viewed as a threat to those with little regard for the national and state constitutions. Turn your back on this issue at your own peril.
Resident has issues with AT&T tower
On Jan. 27, the Sussex County Board of Adjustment once again denied AT&T the special-use exception to build a 100-foot cell tower near the corner of Route 1 and Jefferson Bridge Road, behind Arby’s and the BP gas station.
As of April 24, the temporary illegal tower still stands. It was erected illegally in 2009 (the special-use exception had not been approved when this shorter temporary tower was erected). Twice the Sussex County Board of Adjustment ruled against AT&T and the Superior Court also ruled against AT&T’s request for the special-use exception to build the tower on property not zoned for the tower.
Why hasn’t AT&T removed the tower as required by law? Is this large corporation above the law? Does Sussex County or the State of Delaware have no power to enforce its laws?
Since AT&T hasn’t removed the tower, why can’t either Sussex County or the State of Delaware remove the tower and charge the expenses of removal to AT&T?
In addition, we citizens of Sussex County can let AT&T know that breaking the law, be it county, state or federal, is not acceptable. Anyone who is using AT&T should consider dropping AT&T and going to another cell phone supplier.
What can be done to stop this breaking the law by AT&T, to remove this illegal tower?