Or at least, from SOME of what I’ve been doing…
I feel like I’ve really been dropping the ball on the blog the last couple of weeks. I’ve been giving you quick and easy posts based on stuff that necessarily passes quickly through my hands during the day — an e-mail here, something from a proof there, maybe a quick take on a headline — and encouraged y’all to talk amongst yourselves while I chug along in meetings with candidates and others, one after another.
The thing is, if I were doing what I started this blog to do — giving you extra, in-depth, raw material that is over and above what I’m able to give you on the printed page (and South Carolina stuff at that, based on access I have to newsmakers by virtue of the job, stuff you can’t possibly get elsewhere) — I’d be writing about the meetings.
The trouble is, I’ve had no time to think about the meetings, or review notes to pull out highlights, or edit video from them, or anything. I’ve just chugged along, out of one meeting and into another. Again we see demonstrated the principle that you can either blog, or you can have experiences worth blogging about; you can’t have both. It’s frustrating.
So accept this quick-and-dirty photo essay, just to give you a taste of what’s been going on here in the editorial offices since Monday the 12th. Here you see at least one photo from each meeting I’ve had these two weeks with a guest or guest from outside the building (staff meetings are not documented), with the briefest possible summary. (I’ve got to get this done and move on to reading proofs for Friday’s paper.)
(In all this time, I’ve had one meeting outside the building. Tuesday afternoon I visited Providence Hospital to get an update on what’s happening there. I had a camera in my pocket, but it all went so fast I never had it out — more of a rush job, unfortunately, than a similar visit to Lexington Medical several months back, when we weren’t as rushed or as shorthanded.)
Here we go…
Monday, May 12, 11 a.m. — John Scott, Senate Dist. 19, Democrat:
Tuesday, May 13, 9:30 a.m. — Kit Spires, House Dist. 96, Republican:
1 p.m. — Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott, Democrat:
2 p.m. — Katrina Shealy, Senate Dist. 23, Republican:
Wednesday, May 14, 10 a.m. — Tony Lamm, House Dist. 79, Republican:
11:30 a.m. — Don Purcell, Richland County Council Dist. 9, Republican:
1 p.m. — Barbara Scott, Richland County Clerk of Court, Democrat:
Thursday, May 15, 9:30 a.m. — Jimmy Brazelle, Lexington County Sheriff, Republican:
11 a.m. — Kendall Corley, Richland County Clerk of Court, Democrat:
noon — Sheri Few, House Dist. 79, Republican:
1 p.m. — Damon Jeter, Richland County Council Dist. 3, Democrat:
Monday, May 19, 11 a.m. — Johnny Bland, Richland County Council Dist. 7, Democrat:
4:30 — Our own James D. McCallister, as part of a delegation advocating the 5 Points parking garage/multi-use development:
4:30 — Columbia City Councilwoman Anne Sinclair, in the same meeting as James:
Tuesday, May 20, 9:30 a.m. — Jake Knotts, Senate Dist. 23, Republican:
Wednesday, May 21, 11 a.m. — Tom Comerford, Lexington County Clerk of Court, Republican:
4 p.m. — Gloria Montgomery, Richland County Clerk of Court, Democrat:
Thursday, May 22, 9:30 a.m. — Val Hutchinson, Richland County Council Dist. 9, Republican:
11 a.m. — Kerry Johnson, Lexington County Sheriff, Republican:
1 p.m. — Napoleon Tolbert, Richland County Council Dist. 7, Democrat:
Related Posts
Brad, when you get a gig like Russert had on March 23 with Erin Burnett and Maria Bartiromo then I want photos of what you’ve been doing!
Looking at that lineup, Mr. Warthen, for the first time in my life, I felt sorry for you.
But then it occurred to me that you chose your path, and I consider you a socialist elitist of the feathered variety, so the feeling passed quickly.
Ooh, I look so taciturn and serious in that photo. I love it!
Anyone want to start a pool on the number of incumbent candidates who will be endorsed by The State (or when there isn’t an incumbent, some other long time politician who is just shifting to a new job)?
I’ll believe The State is serious out reforming government when they start endorsing non-incumbents.
And, really, does every endorsement have to have some reference to vouchers? We get it — you don’t like vouchers… you are perfectly happy with another generation of poor kids having the same opportunities for education that they’ve always had… we know you don’t want to even try anything that might be slightly different for those kids… we know you’re afraid it might work on a small scale so you can’t risk that even having a possibility of happening… WE GET IT!
Doug, you know my views on education. You know about the reforms I advocate, from district consolidation to merit pay to empowering principals. And you know how furious it makes me that we never even get to discussing those things in the State House, because we’re constantly having to fight with people who don’t believe in the concept of public schools at all, and want to undermine and abandon them.
So don’t lie about what I want for our schoolchildren. I don’t misrepresent you, so don’t set me up as your straw man, because the role doesn’t fit me. Thanks.
Regarding incumbents: Doug, you ought to come sit in on some of these meetings and see the actual choices before us. The choice is seldom between some wicked, corrupt incumbent and some brilliant, squeaky-clean reformer.
If you want an idea of the kind of choices we have far more often, look at the Senate District 19 race. The choice was between John Scott, longtime House member who is somewhat challenged in the area of people skills, and Vince Ford, who has been a top Richland One school board member for just as long. In your simplistic view of what’s before us, which is the obvious "right" choice?
You’ll see our answer in today’s paper. We went with Scott, and made our reason for doing that quite plain: We were holding Vince Ford accountable for the failures of Richland One.
But you won’t remember that, will you? If you ever come back to the subject of this contest, you’ll gripe about our having endorsed that "incumbent hack" Scott, conveniently forgetting the choice we had. And Doug, the choice must be made, because ONE OF THEM is going to be the senator.
Or take this Senate Dist. 23 contest. Would you go with Jake Knotts, who is, after all, Jake Knotts (and the incumbent)? Or would you go with the woman who is steeped in Lexington County party politics, who is the picked candidate of business interests and the governor to take out Jake? Not a very appealing choice. And yes, there’s a third option, Mr. Sturkie, who doesn’t have much chance of winning, and was less impressive when we met him than either Mr. Knotts or Ms. Shealy…
These are the choices you get, Doug. I know you like to ignore that, but these are the choices.
There is also the choice that every voter has: “None of the above”. Maybe The State would be doing the public more service by making no choice and explaining why rather than choosing the lesser of two evils.
Imagine the power of an endorsement that read: “We have examined all the candidates and have determined that none of them are suited to hold public office.”
And the whole voucher issue is a red herring and a convenient excuse for those who don’t really want to see anything happen in the school systems. The voucher topic has only been a recent phenomenom and has nothing to do with the way schools were, the way schools are, and the way schools will be.
The fact that you are totally opposed to doing anything in regards to vouchers even if there are income limits and even if they were attempted on a pilot basis in one failing district is telling. Your other issues related to district consolidation, empowering principals, and merit pay will not happen as long as the public school administrations feel no need to compete for tax dollars. When the monopoly is broken, changes will occur. The first step in breaking the monopoly is taking away the cash that goes with each student.
Doug, “none of the above” is not an option. One of them will be elected, no matter what we say.
We have, on rare occasion, done “none of the above” editorials. But each time we have done so, I have regarded it as a copout on our part. It’s cheap, and easy, and does no service to the readers whatsoever. One of these people WILL be the senator. The honest things to do is exactly what we did: Explain the problems with both of them, but PICK ONE.
And Doug, let me ask you something. If you think fighting vouchers is a way for US to avoid reform (when in truth, it’s a dodge for people like Mark Sanford, who SAY they favor the reforms we favor but never do anything about it), drop the damned vouchers. Say “You don’t have this as an excuse anymore; let’s see some reforms.”
But as long as you keep pushing something that is ALL ABOUT denying the value of public education, and about denying the obvious fact that the ONLY schools we can hold accountable for the job they do are public ones, we’re going to fight it.
Everyone has some idea how to educate our children but nobody wants to look at the cold hard facts. The facts being that there are special children that come into the school system without the ability to get a high school education for many reasons. I will not go into all the reasons because we are all aware of these issues.
There is no way that the present school system is set up to see that “no child is left behind”. To re-arrange classrooms to move the slow along in groups and let the gifted child sit in special classes has and is being tried with limited results.
I venture to say that there are people earning a degree in education that do not have the knowledge or capability to turn our children into college material.
I do not for a minute say that I have the answer to our problem of educating the present generation to take over our country and run it so that we will not sink into the cesspool of a third world country.
More and more the educated choose not to run for public office. I am not saying that we have uneducated public officials. I am only saying that we do not have the educated ones that want to see our country survive without turning it into a liberal/socialist society. The ship of state sometimes seems to be sinking from greed alone.
We need to stop teaching our children that the country owes them a living. Take that crutch away that allows our children to think that way because the crutch is taught in our schools more than it is taught in our homes.
The generation of young people today has been given too much without having to earn any rewards for the gifts. They do not cut grass, take out trash etc because the parents want them to socialize with their piers while driving their new cars in high school and “see me” attitude. That may sound a little harsh but I am a parent and grandparent and I know from which I speak.
I will get off the soapbox and hope that some of you have read what I have had to say. OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM NEEDS A MAJOR OVERHALL. Then maybe we can put forth candidates that will say our country comes first no matter what.
Everyone has some idea how to educate our children but nobody wants to look at the cold hard facts. The facts being that there are special children that come into the school system without the ability to get a high school education for many reasons. I will not go into all the reasons because we are all aware of these issues.
There is no way that the present school system is set up to see that “no child is left behind”. To re-arrange classrooms to move the slow along in groups and let the gifted child sit in special classes has and is being tried with limited results.
I venture to say that there are people earning a degree in education that do not have the knowledge or capability to turn our children into college material.
I do not for a minute say that I have the answer to our problem of educating the present generation to take over our country and run it so that we will not sink into the cesspool of a third world country.
More and more the educated choose not to run for public office. I am not saying that we have uneducated public officials. I am only saying that we do not have the educated ones that want to see our country survive without turning it into a liberal/socialist society. The ship of state sometimes seems to be sinking from greed alone.
We need to stop teaching our children that the country owes them a living. Take that crutch away that allows our children to think that way because the crutch is taught in our schools more than it is taught in our homes.
The generation of young people today has been given too much without having to earn any rewards for the gifts. They do not cut grass, take out trash etc because the parents want them to socialize with their piers while driving their new cars in high school and “see me” attitude. That may sound a little harsh but I am a parent and grandparent and I know from which I speak.
I will get off the soapbox and hope that some of you have read what I have had to say. OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM NEEDS A MAJOR OVERHALL. Then maybe we can put forth candidates that will say our country comes first no matter what.
I will agree with points everyone has made.
Brad is right about vouchers not providing real reform. Until advocates explain the nuts and bolts of implementing this in the Corridor of Shame, this serves as little more than demagoguery. Private high schools not supported by a Catholic dioceses cost $12k. Simply allowing the residents of Allendale to channel their funds towards tuition won’t support private schools.
Doug is right that we need much greater accountability. His rage against the educational machine is often astute but overlooked. Vouchers are a free market mechanism to provide accountability so he’s on the right track.
slugger, I think you nailed it. Our kids have a sense of entitlement. Brad’s idol, Thomas Friedman, speaks of the drive and hunger of foreigners to excel. I had in a college prep algebra class a Chinese student whose total English vocabulary consisted of “Hi Mr. E”. She made an A in the course because she did everything I asked. What makes this more impressive is the fact that I make extensive use of real life word problems. In the same class, American students often did not do their homework, did not use their notes to complete their work, and complained that they didn’t understand so they often gave up.
Vouchers do not hold kids accountable. Ultimately, they are the ones responsible for their education. Reform should begin with them.
“Little more than demagoguery?” Randy, it doesn’t rise to the level of demagoguery.
We’re being asked to accept a “market reform” that defies everything we know about markets and how they work. As you say, it is economically impossible for vouchers or tax credits to achieve ANYTHING in the areas where we experience our greatest educational challenge. Those districts simply lack the population density to encourage the creation of good private schools; it makes no sense as a business model.
But the main reason I say it’s not demagoguery is that it doesn’t appeal to the masses. This is something pushed by Club for Growth political dilettantes for one reason: Schools spend most of the tax money on the state level, and members of these groups don’t like paying taxes. Break up the social contract that supports public schools and bingo — you’re on your way to drowning government in a bathtub.
Brad, it doesn’t have to pertain to a majority. Demagoguery is more about a superficial emotional arousal rather than a principled stand. Most of the arguments made on this blog from proponents could offer little in terms of details beyond Smith’s invisible hand. I believe someone like Doug has a principled view, but others simply jump on the bandwagon.