Well, to be fair and accurate, sarahmina, Mayor Johnson did start a repaving project right after returning to office. It's not convincing to speak "truth" to power if you're not going to get the facts correct. With due respect.

Knowledge does make a good point (if you ignore the insults). Part of the reason these bond proposals are happening now is because the city's legislative proposals for infrastructure tax money failed. Regardless of what you think of the mayor, arguing that he is just now trying to find money to pave roads and fund infrastructure is just inaccurate. Careful about believing the hype. It doesn't help anything.

OK, Tyler figured out his error. We've replaced the above paragraph (in my last comment) with this one; we apologize for the error:

*The previous proposal the city council voted down would have allowed the city $10 million for street repairs in February. The lack of oversight and a list of streets to see construction were among council concerns. Ward 4 Councilman Frank Bluntson said he was concerned the proposal allowed funds to go beyond streets and sidewalks, and Ward 1 Councilman Quentin Whitwell said the annual millage would have to go toward repaying the bonds for the next 10 years if the proposal passed. That, he said, would take away all of the council's power over street projects.*

Heads up: After this story appeared in the Daily today, it was edited for two reasons: (1) It led with information about a van that was not adequately explained and was supposed to have been cut before publication in the daily and (2) to add more information about the mayor's recent history with street paving that city spokesman Chris Mims emailed after the story appeared. That email stated:

"We have spent $26 million since 2009 to repave 87.3 miles of streets, replace critical bridges, install sidewalks and provide matching dollars on major road construction projects receiving federal funding."

There is one other paragraph that Tyler is working on clarifying now that we will report back on:

*The Department of Public Works has done this repaving and reconstruction despite the Jackson city council voting down a bond issue that would have allowed the city $10 million for street repairs in 2009. The lack of oversight and a list of streets to see construction were among concerns stated by council members.*

We apologize for any confusion.

His son-in-law PJ Lee just posted this on Facebook:

"As we have all seen over the last few days, Hal White has touched and will continue to touch many lives. While your support is so amazing and we need it so don't stop, please don't forget that the rest of his family is downtown running the restaurant and they need the same love and support. As you filter in and out this week, extend them the love. Their friend, "Jackson Daddy," mentor and bud is absent from their lives right now to and they need a good dose of love from y'all as well. Hugs high fives and good games are needed downtown just as much as they are up here. Love y'all and will keep you updated as we get news."

We also encourage you to have the courage of your convictions and use your real name (and picture?) as many of us do. You will be taken much more seriously if so than anyone who posts anonymously or under fake names and may even be motivated to be more respectful in your attempts at dialogue. Have the courage to own your opinions! What are you afraid of?

To others: You are welcome to discuss this issue and agree and disagree. But no posts will be opened that contain troll-like comments, whining about the moderation or ad hominem attacks. So either play by our user agreement and agree/disagree like adults, or move on to a sandbox where they allow such behavior.

I'm not implying anything, no. I posted about the law from a source I thought you'd appreciate.

As for the First/Second Amendment discussion, you're still missing the point. The First Amendment is designed to do several things. One of them is to give the press power to watchdog the government. The problem with concealed weapons permits is that the government is inserting itself into a situation so that it decides who can and cannot carry a concealed weapon. That, in itself, is arguably questionable from a constitutional standpoint (not saying unconstitutional, but it must be watchdogged). The First Amendment isn't about protecting the right to privacy; it is about the government not limiting the expression of individual citizens, as well as granting a strong freedom of the press to keep the government in line. What you and others claim that the government is doing to, supposedly, protect the Second Amendment is precisely the kind of selective action that the media must have First Amendment protection to watchdog (especially since some could argue that concealed permits are special privileges the government is choosing to grant, being that the Second Amendment says nothing about the "right to bear a concealed arm.")

So, to break it down for you, it is entirely possible (and even probable) that something could be deemed legal under the Second (or other) Amendment without limiting the media and citizens' right to know what the government is up to under the First Amendment. I'm a bit surprised to hear that those who fear a government conspiracy (not saying that's you) would even think of allowing the government to conceal who it gives special privileges, too. Careful what you wish for. (Boo!)

The JFP published the above story 10 years ago this week—as the Iraq War started. (We later made it a "classic," and the system changed the date until a year later.) Also, be sure to click above on "previous comments" to read comments that the piece drew then, back when the Iraq War was popular among many.

Please add your own! Also, you can see menus and listings for many local restaurants in the [JFP Restaurant Guide.][1] Eat local, y'all! I mean, why wouldn't you with the above list as a guide?

[1]: http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/restaur…