Some possible topics:
- Cindi’s followup column on the Harrell case: Today, she puts Circuit Judge Casey Manning on the spot, big-time, for even “entertaining the idea of ruling that the attorney general and his State Grand Jury lack jurisdiction to investigate allegations that House Speaker Bobby Harrell has converted campaign funds to personal use.” In its way, it’s as strong a column as the one yesterday, which is really saying something.
- Girl Fight! Nikki Haley goes after her erstwhile friend Katrina Shealy on Facebook, over rumors she claims Sen. Shealy has been spreading about Lillian Koller: “Dir. Koller is not an Atheist. I wish you and Sen. Shealy would quit spreading that lie. She is Jewish and the daughter of Holocaust survivors.” Shealy denies spreading such rumors and says, “Someone owes me an apology!!!”
- Things just keep getting worse in Ukraine. Putin says he won’t rule out sending in troops. I guess he meant to say, “more troops,” to reinforce the Spetsnaz special ops people already there.
Or, as always, pick your own topics…
Related Posts
a word for the governor – oversight committee’s are supposed to ask tough questions and be skeptical. That’s what they are for- and what their job.
So why in the world does an agency director’s choice of religion (or athiesm) matter to the state legislature even one iota? Why would Sen. Shealy even feel compelled to ask anyone what Director Koller’s religion is, rumors or not? How about focusing on her job performance, instead of what she does or doesn’t do on Saturday or Sunday?
Not to play the anti-Semite card here, but a person who cares if the director is an atheist, might maybe, just maybe not be so partial to Jews, either….
Beat me to it. Besides, being the daughter of Jews does not even address her beliefs. One may be ethnically Jewish without being observant.
and Brad, your “girl fight” angle is seriously offensive, to boot….but you knew this.
No, I didn’t. What do you think I meant by it?
I was trying to be lighthearted, making fun of the old playground cry, but to tell the truth, two women going at it kind of scares me. I want to stay way out of it, because I don’t want either one of them mad at ME.
I don’t know what that is, but I’ve always really cherished good, friendly relationships with women, and when a woman gets mad at me it just seems like a disordering of the universe or something.
I want all women to like me. I’m not being facetious; I really do. Maybe I have that in common with Bill Clinton. No, I don’t mean THAT way — I refer to his strong desire to be liked.
That’s one of the things I don’t like about feminism. Since I can’t bring myself to agree with all of it, it creates this huge set of reasons for women to get mad at me, which I hate…
OK, at some point, doctor, you’re supposed to say, “Our time is up; see you next week”…
There ain’t nothing like a dame…
Nothing is wrong with it Brad.
My wife- mother of 3 – said the same thing you did except she said “it sounds like a cat fight”
right, because the mother of three must be the arbiter of all matters feminine, amirite?
It is patronizing and sexist. Two adult politicians, indeed, two public officials are in a tiff over an alleged insult about the lack of the religion of the appointee of one of them. Would you say “boy fight” about two male politicians?
“because the mother of three must be the arbiter of all matters feminine, amirite?”
Not at all- but it shows that just as one woman might find it “sexist” – another one might find it a perfectly appropriate description.
Plus, – she’s my wife- and I think she’s right.
“Would you say “boy fight” about two male politicians?”
Boy fight? not typically
Men are often called “insensitive” or – “two men flexing their machismo” – or sometimes they are just called juveniles.
or the worst- just call them “sexist” or “against women.” That’ll get-em.
No, because “boy fight” isn’t an expression. I don’t think “Girl Fight” is either patronizing or sexist.
But then again, I’m a gun-owning, southern, white male of privilege, so I need to be sent off to the re-education camps to learn what is politically correct and what is not.
I went back today looking for the original story, and one of the things I found on thestate.com was this story from the Anderson paper with the headline, “Gov. Haley spars with woman senator on Facebook.”
“Woman senator.” Wow. There’s a construction I hadn’t seen in awhile.
AWKward…
By the way, The State apparently originally had a different headline on the item, and then changed it. I say that because the URL is “http://www.thestate.com/2014/04/17/3392131/best-friends-not-forever.html?sp=/99/205/&ihp=1”
Do you suppose someone thought the “best friends not forever” play somehow condescending to them as women?
That’s one thing that bugs me about WordPress. It will put the first headline I think of (and save) into the URL, and then when I have second thoughts about that headline and change it — thinking it might be offensive, or realizing that it’s misleading or just out-and-out erroneous, or maybe just happen to think of a way better one — the original one is still in the URL for people to see.
I suppose I can go in and change the URL protocols so that I get random numbers or something instead of an echo of the headline. But then, having that hint of the headline in the URL assures me that I’m actually copying or pasting or linking to the URL I want, and not some other one, which can happen when you have as many tabs and windows going as I tend to do…
The headline writers of The State are not paragons of critical thinking, or even decent headline writing….
some would find anything offensive.
“best friends not forever” – obviously is a play on the “best friends forever” phrase that many young women use these days on social median (men don’t use this phrase)
So I am sure it would be offensive to those inclined to be offended.
It doesn’t matter- however- if someone is an atheist in South Carolina government – folks would talk about it – and I can see Senator Shealy being asked about it by folks – and wondering too – even if only because it’s probably pretty rare.
and no one said she was “focusing” on her religion. etc. – asking or inquiring doesn’t equal focusing.
you mean openly declaring one’s atheism. I suspect there are a lot fewer believers than they would like us to think.
No – I meant they are rare. Only about 6% of the population identifies that way. That would mean having an agency director that is one would be unique in South Carolina.
It wouldn’t be that big an issue- but Senator Shealy’s explanation is entirely reasonable – that a rumor was going around at some point about it (behind the scenes I assume)- and that she asked someone that would know – the Gov- about it in PRIVATE.
I think she’s being a little heavy-handed on Judge Manning. In her piece she says “…Judge Manning has asked both sides to brief the question”.
Ok, so he’s asked for briefs. That’s it.
That’s exactly what a good judge should do when he knows that the issue is important. Asking for briefs requires both sides to make their legal arguments in written form. This allows both sides to have their say, and support their position with relevant law. Briefing the issue also creates a record for a possible appeal.
This isn’t Judge Manning’s first rodeo. He’s a good judge, tries to get things right as best he can, and I think we should all wait for a decision before getting all worked up about the fact that he’s asked lawyers to provide him with written arguments.
One other note: In my opinion, Ms. Scoppe’s guess/speculation (or whatever you call it) that Judge Manning “came up with the idea” about the issue of subject matter jurisdiction is irresponsible and it clouds what is an otherwise unobjectionable piece. Stick to what you know. Don’t start guessing.
I didn’t read that as Cindi saying she thought that was what happened. She was just saying it would be awful if that WERE the way it came up, and she sets out all the reasons why she thinks that.
Telling judges how they should rule on matters of law is not something Cindi goes around doing most of the time. But here’s a situation in which there are so many highly questionable efforts going on, legislatively and in the courts, to protect Harrell from prosecution, that (I’m inferring here) Cindi felt it was important to raise a hue and cry against what would be a truly awful decision if the pro-Harrell position wins.
Sometimes columns and editorials are aimed at the general public; some are aimed at lawmakers or some subset. This column has two levels. On one, it’s a column aimed at one person — trying to build a logical box for the judge that shows but one legitimate way out. Which I’m sure comes across as very high-handed, particularly to an officer of the court. But it also turns public attention toward this decision, making sure that whatever the ruling is, it occurs in the glaring light. That can be offensive, too — it suggests that a judge will rule differently based on public opinion, which of course should never be the case.
But bottom line, if something this important is about to happen in one of our courts, the people, the voters, the readers, deserve to know about it. And it’s a service to the public weal to set out all the issues with the kind of clarity that Cindi displayed in this column.
Her last two columns may have been her best in my opinion. And I am a tough sell… She’s embracing her inner-Will Folks but with reasoned arguments. Go after PEOPLE who are responsible for the mess.
Doug, I just now saw your comment from early this morning about Cindi’s second column. It got held up for moderation, apparently because of the link. I don’t know why that’s started happening lately, comments with links being held up. Seems like they were usually going on through until recently. Sorry about that.
Folks, here’s Doug’s earlier comment.
I hope Cindi doesn’t see the comment about “inner-Will Folks.” She’s not likely to take it well…
Cindi was merely pointing out that there is zero room for interpretation. This is a settled issue and Manning just needs to say so.
Of course. In South Carolina to be labeled an atheist is considered some kind of insult. Nikki gets mad at Koller being called one, Shealy says didn’t use this term, as if it were some inherently terrible thing. Religious freedom indeed. What a mockery of the idea of God’s love, these supposed “believers.” Nikki and Katrina, you can keep your so-called God.
huh? Are you talking about this issue or some other issue?
Senator Shealy said she asked the Governor about it in private- that rumors were going around about it- and she was given an answer. Where did she say she didn’t “use this term?” She admitted to asking the Governor about it. What she said she wasn’t doing was going around calling her one- when she isn’t.
What are you talking about “religious freedom?”
Just take Shealy’s Facebook comment for example: “I care about the children of SC and I don’t give a flying flip what the Director is…well, that is not true, I would worry if she were atheist but I was told she wasn’t…”
Now read the last sentence out loud but this time for the word “atheist” substitute “Jewish.” Or “Christian.” Or “Muslim.” Or “Catholic.” Doesn’t sound very acceptable coming from a public official, does it?
I agree with her.
If Senator Shealy is a Christian – she’s going to be concerned about anyone that doesn’t believe in God- as I would too.
it sounds perfectly acceptable for her as a Christian and a public servant – she can be concerned about anyone for any reason.
I’d be concerned if that causes her to distrust Koller, or not want to support her solely on that fact alone, etc – but there is no evidence of that at all.
If one doesn’t like the term catfight, how about just childish? Two supposedly professional women battling it out on fb. Pitiful, no matter the gender. It does not reflect what should be the dignity of their offices.
And I agree with Philip about the religious angle. Who wants to be affiliated religiously with people who act and talk like that?
Childish is good. Inappropriate is even better
the term girl-fight fit
I don’t mind being affiliated with either of them. They are simply acting like a lot of people do – which is unfortunate but certainly not that big a deal overall.
Plus, Senator Shealy really didn’t do anything wrong as far as I can tell. She responded on facebook- and simply expressed severe disappointment.
Governor Haley, on the other hand, apparently accused Sen Shealy of doing something she didn’t do – and that is low class.
I don’t normally like the term “girl fight” because they are women, not girls. However, Haley’s social skills seem to be stuck at the junior high level, and this situation indeed seemed like a tween girl fight.
First volley fired over the bow was when the question was asked by Shealy about another person’s religion. None of their damn business as long as their religious beliefs do not interfere with the job or position they hold. Next, to have the governor come back at the first person with any response is beneath the dignity of the office. If Haley had a problem with the question, go to Shealy in private and express any concerns she may have and don’t bring it into the public arena.
This is a microcosm of what is going on in politics today, not just in SC either. The consistent fighting whether it is a “girl fight”, “boy fight”, or “girl boy fight” doesn’t matter. The fact that inconsequential fighting over nonsensical issues making the news should be an embarrassment to the citizens of SC and the country. If this is the level of maturity of our elected representatives then we need to make sure they do not reach a higher level of influence. We have enough immature jerks in higher offices as it is.
As for religion, whether one is a Christian or an atheist is of no consequence in government and neither is offering up insults by comments on a blog. “Nikki and Katrina, you can keep your so-called God.” Way to sink to their level Phillip, I expected much better from you.
Everyone- including you- ask questions about other people when they are curious- even if it’s not our “business. ”
For example, if you bought a Corvette it would be none of my business. But If I knew you did, it wouldn’t be hard for me to share the info with someone.
Senator Shealy was being asked about the issue from people that did care – or maybe they didn’t care and just wanted to know (like it or not, it’s quite rare to be an atheist and if someone is- it’s interesting to some people). At some point, she decided to ask a friend in PRIVATE- someone that would know – and that was the Governor.
Shealy didn’t do anything unusual. Everyone does similiar things about various issues- all the time.
Barry, buying a Corvette and you knowing about it and telling someone else is not on the same level as the violation of a confidence between Shealy and Haley at the government level. There is no question about it that if a person in a high office in SC is an atheist it would be of concern to some but in the end, what if Phillip is an atheist, what difference would it make when it comes to his musical talent and success as a concert pianist and teacher?
If I consider it important enough to ask a question out of curiosity that is of the nature of the one Shealy asked, it is always preceded by stating clearly that if the person does not consider the question appropriate or none of my business, they should not answer and tell me so, no hard feelings. This applies to family and friends as well.
I’m sure Brad will appreciate this irony. My youngest daughter just announced she’s getting married to …… an army guy. That makes it 3 for 3 for the Bud kids. My oldest married a navy guy and my son is in the naval reserve. It would be like one of Brad’s kids become a hippie. Wait, isn’t one of Brad’s kids in the Peace Corps? You just never know.