Fred Hicks wears a Confederate cap.

Jackson County, Alabama is attempting to pass a 'junk law' that would get rid of 'illegal junkyards, abandoned vehicles, uninhabitable mobile homes' and other unsightly items (read article here). One has to wonder why a new law is needed to enforce something that's already illegal...

The Huntsville Times has been covering this issue and David Prather recently wrote for the editorial board that 'some people will view all of this as government intrusion upon a sacred right. It's not.'

I am proud to be one of those 'some people.' I believe that I have a right to what is mine and can do with it as I please as long as it does not violate your rights. Private property IS the most sacred of rights.

Prather continues: 'It's an acknowledgment that we live in a civilized society in which we don't harm the property of others by lowering property values and allowing unsanitary conditions.'

Yes, living next door to a trash heap will probably lower your property values. But that's not property being harmed! No one gets their roof replaced or their walls repainted because their next door neighbor doesn't cut their grass or has a car that doesn't run parked in the front yard.

'Well shoot. Ted's '83 Mustang hasn't been running for three weeks now. And now our roof is leaking. It can't be a coincidence!'

Do we have a right to higher property values? Do we get to decide how our neighbors live, look and maintain what is THEIRS? Of course not! If you can justify a law that allows government to dictate how we maintain our property by using the 'property value' argument, then there is no limit on how many laws government can pass continuing to do so. It's not a slippery slope. It's a free-fall.

The real kicker in all this is the elitist, 'I know what's best,' holier-than-thou attitude. If you aren't FOR a law like this, you must be uncivilized! After all, 'in a civilized society, we don't harm the property of others,' etc. Anyone who thinks otherwise? Not civilized.

It's an editorial. That's Prather's personal opinion. So no harm, no foul... as long as it doesn't seep into their news coverage.

And in my opinion, it does. If you read the previously linked to article, you read about a man opposed to the passing of this proposed junk law. His name is Fred Hicks and he thinks we have enough laws.

But The Times made an effort to really identify Fred Hicks. Although you can't see him in a newspaper article, be rest assured that he's wearing a Confederate cap.

Anyone wearing a Confederate cap in 2007 must be a backwoods hillbilly, believing the South is going to rise again! Oh, they must also be uncivilzed!

I wonder if The Times would have felt compelled to bring up Mr. Hicks' cap had it been a Nike one instead.