Category Archives: Community

Walk for Life: Don’t leave Doug hanging out there, folks!

I think maybe we should rename the bradwarthen.com Walk for Life team the Doug Ross team, because he has raised/contributed an amount that by itself exceeds the goal I set for the team.

The goal was $1,000. Doug, alone, has chipped in $1,014. Here’s where you can see the contributions to the team.

I hope this doesn’t make everyone else think, “Good. I don’t have to give now.” I hope it makes everyone think, “If we all get together, maybe the rest of us can match Doug, and reach double the goal.”

I hope. I hope. Because I’m going to be embarrassed to see Doug on Walk day (Oct. 5) if no one else has risen to the challenge.

Hey, believe me, I know what it’s like to be strapped for cash. But if you can give, please do. And if you can’t, pester your friends the way I’m doing now. Do it on social media; do it in person. Shake ’em down. Be a pain about it.

Lets be a team. Let’s not leave Doug hanging out there.

We’ve raised more than we did two years ago — almost entirely thanks to Doug. But last time around, we had contributions from Kathryn Fenner, David Knobeloch, Pat Dixon, Nick Nielsen, Buddy Johnson and Mark Stewart. Exceeding the dollar amount is great, but it would be even better if we could widen participation this time.

Come on, jump in. You’ll be glad you did. I will, anyway…

Howard, I don’t think YOU need more time on strong mayor

55 Replies

While I was giving blood yesterday, I saw a TV news report about the strong mayor issue, and there on the tube was Howard Duvall, former head of the state municipal association, standing in front of a group of people who are against the reform.

What struck me as weird was that Howard was asking that the referendum be delayed. For a month. He wanted this delay in part because people weren’t going to have time to study it adequately:

“If the people speak to a change in our form of government, let us do so with full awareness and knowledge,” group spokesman Howard Duvall said on the steps of the Eau Claire print building.

And I thought, Really Howard? People don’t know what they think now? And they’re not going to have enough time to wise up on the issue in the next seven weeks? But another four weeks will make it just right?

It’s just that Howard was not an ideal vessel for that message. I already know what Howard thinks about strong mayor. He’s said he was against it for years. Just as I’ve said I was for it for years. (Which will prompt Kathryn to say nobody cares what I think, since I don’t live in the city — which I’ll be happy to address separately.) Howard is fully informed on the issue, and well-equipped to disseminate his views on the matter. Seems to me that if he hasn’t reached people with his message by Nov. 5, things aren’t going to be that different by Dec. 3.

And yeah, Howard’s a special case, but it’s a bit hard to accept the idea that this has somehow snuck up on informed voters. We hammered it home at The State for years, and the paper most recently actually published a front-page editorial — something that never happened in my day — on the subject. Mayor Benjamin advocated for a referendum when he ran for office in 2010, and so did Moe Baddourah (although he reversed himself as soon as he was elected). The city council has had how many votes on it this year? At least two I can think of off-hand. This has been one of the hottest local issues for months (and years and years, for those paying attention).

So I wasn’t persuaded on that point.

But Howard had another point as well, which was “Let’s make sure that the process of change does not taint the outcome.” Which is a slightly dense statement, but let’s dilute it a bit. As The State paraphrased,

Duvall said the bipartisan group does not want a change in form of government to become a referendum on Mayor Steve Benjamin, who is seeking a second term and is a strong advocate for changing the mayor’s office into the chief executive of the city with the hiring and firing power now vested in a city manager.

Now that’s a different and intriguing point to consider.

I can see how a person might favor Steve Benjamin’s re-election but be opposed to strong mayor, and be worried about other people agreeing with him or her on the referendum, and worried they might also vote against the mayor. Of course, there’s a converse scenario in which Moe Baddourah’s chances are swamped by a big pro-strong mayor vote.

But I think people who are smart enough to find their way to the polls ought to be able to make two decisions instead of one. And… it seems like a sort of bait-and-switch to elect a mayor without knowing what that mayor’s powers will be. In fact, it would be better if the referendum were held before the mayoral vote — like, a couple of years ago, ideally (which should have happened). But it seems that same-day is the best we can do — Columbia voters can choose their mayor, and choose the powers of that office, at the same time.

Also, I appreciate having a mayor who is willing to stake his re-election, to some extent, on his stance on this reform issue. Someone who wants to be elected, or re-elected, to the office should share whatever vision he has for the city’s future. And if strong-mayor is part of that vision, I appreciate his willingness to run on it.

Kevin Fisher, in his column this week, raises another concern — that having the referendum too soon could backfire into a vote against the reform. Which, in fairness, is another way to read Howard Duvall’s concern about the process tainting the outcome. I think there’s something to that concern. This issue has been on the front burner so long that it’s kind of ridiculous that anyone would consider this a rush to judgment, but I have no doubt that some will feel that way. Never underestimate voters’ ability to completely ignore an issue until the last minute.

But in the end, I’m unpersuaded by calls to delay yet again. I agree with Warren Bolton:

Yes, it’s imperative to hold forums and disseminate information to help voters learn about the current council-manager structure as well as mayor-council, or strong mayor. But I can’t imagine that it would be too difficult for voters to comprehend a helpful nuts-and-bolts presentation on council-manager and mayor-council soon enough to vote in November.

Truth is, many voters know more about strong mayor than they do the people running for mayor and City Council. Nobody is asking for more time so voters can be educated about the people who will help run the city the next four years.

With it apparent that petition organizers have collected enough signatures to trigger an election, it only makes sense for the city to go ahead and schedule a vote on Nov. 5, along with other municipal elections. If that doesn’t happen, then the council would have to spend around $150,000 for a special election on the referendum.

And for what? A few more weeks to get information out to voters? Let’s be real. Voters need enough information to help determine which form they prefer. They don’t need a 16-week course that counts toward a college degree.

Oh, and by the way: Speaking of public forums, the Greater Columbia Community Relations Council (of which I am a member) is holding a public informational session on the issue next Wednesday, Sept. 25, at the Eau Claire Print Building, 3902 Ensor Avenue. As with the forum we had last year on the penny sales tax referendum, both sides will be presented as fairly and completely as possible. David Stanton will again moderate.

I’m giving blood today. Anyone want to go with me?

17 Replies

I’m going to look just like this later today. I’m even wearing a yellow shirt…

Yesterday, I got a call from the Red Cross saying the requisite 16 weeks have passed since I last donated double red cells (after giving whole blood, you only have to wait 8 weeks), so it’s time to give again.

As usual, they were eager for my blood. When the lady on the phone suggested Wednesday, and I said neither Wednesday nor Thursday was good, and they didn’t have any slots that fit my schedule on Friday, so how about next week… she jumped in with “How about tomorrow?”

So I’ll be down at the Red Cross HQ on Bull Street at 5:30 today, preparing to donate through the Alyx process.

Before we got off the phone, though, the lady asked if I had any friends or family who could also come along with me and give.

They’ve asked me that before. It’s always sounded sort of odd. It makes recruiting someone to give blood sound as casual as, “Hey, wanna grab a beer after work?”

But it must work sometimes, or else they wouldn’t keep doing it. So I’ll try it.

Anybody want to go down to the Red Cross with me this evening and give blood? My treat…

An appeal from Harvest Hope Food Bank

Some talking points on the library bond vote

20 Replies

I haven’t seen a lot out there about the Richland Library bond vote on the Nov. 5 ballot. So I thought I’d pass on this memo I received from folks who are pushing for a “yes”:

Dear Friends,

Did you know the Richland Library bond referendum will be on the November 5 ballot? Below is some basic information. If you would like more details or how to be involved in Vote For Our Libraries, contact us! betty@voteforourlibraries.com 803-233-2414

Richland Library

Since 2007, the library has had a capital needs plan that calls for renovations and additions to all library facilities based on the changing ways we serve and advance our community.

Key Facts:

Why is the Library Requesting a Bond Referendum?

Voter approved bonds are the only way the library can obtain substantial funds for building and renovations. The goal is to update all library locations by adding and reconfiguring space, technology and resources to better fit the way customers need and use the library today. The capital needs plan was developed in 2007 and is reviewed each year. The only new buildings are Ballentine and Sandhills. Following green building guidelines and sustainable practices will mean substantial energy savings for all locations.

Why now?

It’s been 24 years since the last bond referendum in 1989, and most of our facilities haven’t been significantly improved or updated since then. Interest rates are at an all-time low – it costs half as much today for twice the value added in 1989.

What will it cost the taxpayer?

Estimates indicate the maximum impact on taxpayers to be $12-14/year for a $100,000 home. For as little as one cup of coffee each month, we can ensure access to needed resources and technology, as well as the opportunity to share information and exchange ideas.

Why spend money on libraries when everyone has a smartphone/tablet?

Technology has made libraries more essential to their communities – not obsolete. In fact, many people in Richland County rely on the library for access to technology, computers and the Internet. Even if you may not use the library, your friends, family and neighbors are most likely relying on its services.

Columbia’s homeless issue makes the NYT

2 Replies

Kathryn brought this to our attention on a previous thread, so I thought I’d elevate it to a separate post:

South Carolina City Takes Steps to Evict Homeless From Downtown

COLUMBIA, S.C. — In South Carolina’s capital, officials declare that their tree-lined Main Street, clogged with shops, banks, restaurants and hotels, is evidence that a long-sought economic revival has arrived.

But mere blocks north, a dozen or so of the county’s approximately 1,500 homeless people sit on a short wall near an empty parking lot, waiting for private shelters to open. They sporadically shout curses at passers-by while they smoke cigarettes and endure the summer humidity.

With business owners sounding increasingly worried about the threat they believe the homeless pose to Columbia’s economic surge, the City Council approved a plan this month that will essentially evict them from downtown streets….

Here’s my favorite part:

In Columbia, which has branded itself “the new Southern hot spot,” residents say the city’s time has come….

Go, ADCO! Hey, publicity is publicity.

Join the bradwarthen.com Walk for Life team!

8 Replies

Proud members of the championship 2010 team — Mark Stewart, Kathryn Fenner and Doug Ross.

OK, I’ve finally gotten around to setting up our team for the Walk for Life on Oct. 5, as promised previously.

Here’s how you sign up. Go to this page, click on “register” on the left-hand side, then click “I agree,” and then click on the “Join a team” button. Then click on “Please select a team.” Pretty high up on the pull-down list you will see “bradwarthen.com.” Join that one. (Pretty intuitive, right?)

Then follow the rest of the steps logically. Registration will cost you $25, but you can give more, and I encourage you to do so. After you’ve signed up, go out and get your friends to give even more money. I’ll post more instructions on how to do that later. In the meantime, Doug Ross can probably tell you how to do it, because he did such a great job of fund-raising the last time we had a team, two years ago.

I’ve set a $1,000 goal for the team, but we can exceed that — can’t we?

Click on this link to see how we’re doing toward that goal.

So sign up, be generous (and/or get other people to be generous), and I look forward to seeing y’all on Walk day!

Red Cross: ‘Spread the word. Help avert a shortage.’

Image vs. reality: The utter powerlessness of the mayor of Columbia

25 Replies

I thought this was an interesting contrast.

Columbia Mayor Steve Benjamin’s re-election campaign sent out the above video, showing the mayor standing before a group of cops — the city’s anti-gang unit — and talking tough about how gangs won’t be tolerated (when he’s not talking about reaching out to troubled youth who are all “very talented” and just need a guiding hand, an apparent contradiction that reflects the different constituencies he’s trying to reach).

So there you have an image of a mayor who is in command of the city’s sentinels, pledging to protect us all from crime.

Then, you have what happened in the real world — the reminder last night that the mayor is not in charge of the police department, and has no control over the person who is:

COLUMBIA, SC — Columbia’s mayor and city manager had a public falling out Tuesday, barely seven months into a workplace relationship that critics once decried as too close.

The split occurred over Mayor Steve Benjamin’s proposal to ban city administrators and politicians from active police crime scenes. City manager Teresa Wilson said she took the proposal as a shot aimed to impugn her integrity because of her decision to go to the site of the July 12 arrest of state civil rights leader Lonnie Randolph.

“I don’t care who it is. I’m not going to allow anybody to attack my personal credibility,” Wilson told The State newspaper after Benjamin’s proposal died in a 5-1 vote. The mayor was the only one of the six council members at the meeting to vote in support of his suggestion that would have allowed City Council members to be censured and employees to be disciplined…

Benjamin is fully aware of how powerless he is, the video image from that press conference notwithstanding. In fact, he put out a release about it today:

Serving as your mayor has been the dream of a lifetime and a great personal honor and I have used this office as forcefully as I can to advocate positive improvements in our city.

I’m proud of the progress we are making in building a safer city, creating jobs, improving education and providing a high quality of life for our citizens.

But recent news has helped to demonstrate that the present “weak mayor” system of governance in Columbia is outdated and structurally flawed. Like all Columbians, I’m frustrated by how long it takes to get things done.

Under the current system, I have:

Requested a thorough SLED investigation to ensure public trust in the city’s police department;

Asked City Council to enact policies that remove all hints of politics from law enforcement and…

Called for a crackdown on gang crime.

But ultimately, I am limited to a role of advocacy. The Mayor of Columbia has only one vote on a seven-member council and no administrative authority.

It’s time for a change. It’s time to switch to a “strong mayor” form of government.

Columbia has grown to the point that we need a mayor with modern executive authority. The present system muddies the waters of accountability. The time has come to make me and all future mayors accountable to the voters for the quality and efficiency of city government.

That’s why I’ve asked City Council to meet on August 13 and support a referendum that would let the voters decide whether they want a modern strong mayor form of government or whether they want to continue our present system of city management by committee.

My request of City Council is simple: let the voters decide.

Some will argue that we should keep the present committee system. Some will say they don’t want mayors to have executive powers. That’s okay. Let everyone make their case in a public debate to be decided by the people of Columbia.

Surely no one who believes in the founding principles of America would stand in the way of allowing the public to vote on how they choose to be governed.

I hope my colleagues on City Council will join me in giving voters the chance to make their voices heard. And if Council fails to empower the people, then I will stand strongly behind a petition drive to give voters access to the ballot.

If you agree that it’s time for a change, please consider contacting your City Council members. Let them know you support giving the people of Columbia the opportunity to vote on their form of government.

As always, I thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Steve Benjamin, Mayor
City of Columbia, South Carolina

As you know, I’m completely in agreement with the mayor on this. The executive functions of the city should be in the hands of someone elected by all of the city’s voters. There is simply no accountability under the current system.

But while I’m with him on the main point, I was struck by the irony of his mentioning his desire “to enact policies that remove all hints of politics from law enforcement,” on the same day his campaign is touting video of him posed in front of a row of uniformed cops…

Come on out and help victims of sexual violence

Who’s up for a bradwarthen.com Walk for Life team?

12 Replies

The actual walkers from our 2010 team — Mark, Kathryn and Doug.

Some of y’all will recall that a couple of years back, this blog fielded a team in the Palmetto Health Foundation Walk for Life, and we did rather well.

While only four of us actually walked — Mark Stewart, Kathryn Fenner, Doug Ross and me — we came in 18th in most amount of money raised. That wasn’t a staggering amount, just under $1,000 at last official count (I thought we went over a thousand, but I can’t find record of it now), but it was pretty good considering that we got a late start.

Doug Ross was our playmaker on that one, raising $450 by himself. I hope he’ll be returning for this go-round, and help us set the pace.

The Walk is on Saturday, Oct. 5, this year, so that gives us plenty of time. I have not actually set up the team yet, so hang onto your money until we do. But I have attended a team captain’s meeting the other night, and picked up the paperwork.

I’m posting this to gauge interest out there, but also to create peer pressure on me to follow through. So press away, and don’t let me slack off.

I’m toying with the idea of getting special T-shirts done (of course, everyone who participates will get an official T-shirt from the Foundation, but a lot of teams set themselves apart with special shirts). But then each person would have to pay for them (what, you think this blog is made of money?), and I’d rather see our fund-raising energies go to fighting breast cancer. Anyway, share your thoughts on that.

And stay on me about this.

Click on the image for more info…

ULI Reality Check: Growing by choice, not by chance

8 Replies

Elise Partin, mayor of Cayce.

Today was the kickoff of a program that a bunch of community leaders have been working on under the auspices of the Urban Land Institute.

Here’s the release about the event:

Midlands Reality Check Focuses on Growth and Progress for South Carolina’s Capital Region

Columbia, S.C. – Midlands members of Urban Land Institute South Carolina, together with area stakeholders, government officials and business/industry leaders, today announced the launch of Midlands Reality Check, an unprecedented, collaborative effort aimed at creating a strong, progressive and sustainable urban growth plan for the future of the Midlands.

“Creating a realistic and attainable regional vision for the Midlands is imperative if we want to remain competitive and be viewed as a desirable entrepreneurial hub, that is an ideal place to live, work, visit and play,” said Irene Dumas Tyson, co-chair of Midlands Reality Check and director of planning for The Boudreaux Group.

Demographers estimate the Midlands region will grow by approximately 450,000 individuals in the next 30 years. That is equivalent to putting slightly more than the population of the four-county Asheville, N.C. metropolitan area into the Midlands by 2040.

“The goal of Midlands Reality Check is to bring together a diverse group of Midlands business, government and community leaders to work together and identify how we can grow by choice – not by chance – over the next three decades,” said Herbert Ames, development manager with EDENS and co-chair of Midlands Reality Check with Dumas Tyson.

One unique aspect for Midlands Reality Check will be a participatory “Game Day” event mixing 300 individuals from across the region and engage them in open dialogue on where the highest concentrations of development and infrastructure should be within our community. Taking place Oct. 22 at the Columbia Metropolitan Convention Center, participants will use Lego playing pieces to represent increases in population, jobs and housing; and colored yarn for transportation corridors and to outline potential green spaces.

“It may sound like fun and games, but this innovative approach to urban development looks at a region in a tactful and creative way that will highlight areas across the Midlands that are prime growth opportunities,” said Dumas Tyson.

Funded by private sponsors, foundations, governments and community organizations, Midlands Reality Check will focus on laying the needed groundwork for a more cohesive approach to strategically and thoughtfully uncovering pockets of potential growth and expansion across the Midlands. The event will lay the groundwork for needed regional conversations and future action to accommodate growth in a way that adds value to our communities while simultaneously protecting and improving our quality of life.

The Urban Land Institute has held Reality Check events in some 15 locations around the country, including Greenville, Charleston, Richmond, Charlotte, the Research Triangle and Jacksonville, Fla.

“We are confident this initiative is the catalyst the Midlands needs to put some big things in motion. This process and event will be the blueprint for intentional, collaborative change in the way our region thinks and acts about growth for decades to come,” said Ames.

For more information about the Midlands Reality Check or how to get involved, please visit www.MidlandsRealityCheck.com.

About Midlands Reality Check:
Midlands Reality Check is a South Carolina initiative of The Urban Land Institute created by a regional collaboration of stakeholders and leaders within the business, government, economic development and tourism sectors. Focusing on urban growth and planned land use, Midlands Reality Check will lay the foundation for a unified vision to grow the Midlands. For more information about Midlands Reality Check, please visit www.MidlandsRealityCheck.com.

About the Urban Land Institute:
ULI, the Urban Land Institute, is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit research and education organization supported by its members. Founded in 1936, ULI now has members worldwide, representing the entire spectrum of land use and real estate development disciplines working in private enterprise and public service. A multidisciplinary real estate forum, ULI facilitates an open exchange of ideas, information, and experience among industry leaders and policy makers dedicated to creating better places. ULI South Carolina was the first statewide district council formed and has since become a national model. For more information about ULI South Carolina, please visit southcarolina.uli.org.

###

That pretty much covers it. I’m glad somebody wrote a release, because I was busy Tweeting during the event, and couldn’t take extensive notes. It’s not that I can’t pay attention; I was supposed to be Tweeting. By way of full disclosure, I’m on the committee that is publicizing the program, and I drew social media duty today. Which I like, I’ll admit.

There was an impressive crowd there today. Not huge (it was Famously Hot in the amphitheater along the riverfront in West Columbia), but a good assortment of the kind of people who need to pay attention were there — the mayors of Columbia, Lexington, Cayce and Blythewood, leading members of Richland and Lexington county councils, key business leaders. The folks who need to be paying attention to trends and anticipating them to the extent that it’s possible.

Here’s a link to thestate.com’s story on the event.

Irene Dumas Tyson of The Boudreaux Group, co-chair of the effort.

Thoughts on the Bull Street redevelopment?

45 Replies

I see that Mayor Steve Benjamin is sufficiently proud of the new agreement for redeveloping the storied Bull Street property that he’s posted a video of him talking about it on his re-election campaign site.

Personally, I’ve been too busy the last couple of days to digest it all and decide what I think, beyond the fact that I’m glad there is some movement on the deal, finally.

But it occurs to me… I’ve noticed that some of y’all spend a lot more time thinking about urban development than I do, and no doubt you already have some well-informed opinions.

So, share. What do you think about this? If you come up with something “incredibly insightful,” your opinion could actually have an effect…

I’m told that back in the day, “going to Bull Street” meant the same thing here that “going to Bolivar” used to mean when I worked in West Tennessee (the state mental hospital was in Bolivar, TN). In the foreseeable future, it will mean something else. But what?

David Brooks’ piece on Snowden the best column I’ve seen in years

34 Replies

David Brooks’ Monday column in The New York Times (which The State ran today) is the best column of any kind, by anyone, that I have read in years. (People whose thoughtfulness I respect keep bringing it to my attention, and I say, yes, thanks; I saw it — and intend to say something about it.)

Basically, you need to go read the whole thing. And then read it again. I can’t quote everything in it that is awesome without stomping all over the Fair Use standard, but let me describe briefly what the piece does.

It explains exactly what is wrong with Edward Snowden and what he did. Brooks accomplishes this in spite of the fact that we lack the common vocabulary in this country to express such things in a manner that everyone can understand. People who sort of get that what Snowden did is wrong, and that his actions reflect something fundamentally wrong with Snowden himself, don’t know how to explain that wrongness. So they either clam up, ceding the floor to the more simple-minded cheerleaders for Snowden’s brand of “transparency,” or they use a word that gets them dismissed, as John Boehner did when he resorted to “traitor.”

In explaining what is wrong with Snowden, Brooks explained something fundamentally wrong with our society and our politics today — something that is eating away at our ability to be a society governed by representative democracy, because it’s eating away at basic civil. social assumptions that make it possible for free people to live together.

The piece is headlined “The Solitary Leaker.” An excerpt:

Though thoughtful, morally engaged and deeply committed to his beliefs, he appears to be a product of one of the more unfortunate trends of the age: the atomization of society, the loosening of social bonds, the apparently growing share of young men in their 20s who are living technological existences in the fuzzy land between their childhood institutions and adult family commitments.

If you live a life unshaped by the mediating institutions of civil society, perhaps it makes sense to see the world a certain way: Life is not embedded in a series of gently gradated authoritative structures: family, neighborhood, religious group, state, nation and world. Instead, it’s just the solitary naked individual and the gigantic and menacing state.

This lens makes you more likely to share the distinct strands of libertarianism that are blossoming in this fragmenting age: the deep suspicion of authority, the strong belief that hierarchies and organizations are suspect, the fervent devotion to transparency, the assumption that individual preference should be supreme. You’re more likely to donate to the Ron Paul for president campaign, as Snowden did….

After acknowledging that the procedures Snowden has revealed (or rather, revealed in greater detail than what we knew previously) could be abused at some future time, Brooks continues:

But Big Brother is not the only danger facing the country. Another is the rising tide of distrust, the corrosive spread of cynicism, the fraying of the social fabric and the rise of people who are so individualistic in their outlook that they have no real understanding of how to knit others together and look after the common good.

This is not a danger Snowden is addressing. In fact, he is making everything worse.

For society to function well, there have to be basic levels of trust and cooperation, a respect for institutions and deference to common procedures. By deciding to unilaterally leak secret N.S.A. documents, Snowden has betrayed all of these things…

OK, that’s as much as I dare quote. But Brooks goes on to catalog the various personal, social and institutional betrayals of Edward Snowden, and the ways that such betrayals unravel the social fabric that allows a healthy civilization to exist.

It is a very, very good piece. Please go read the whole thing.

Fund-raiser for Boston bombing victims tonight at Cap City

36 Replies

Just wanted to give y’all a heads-up on this event tonight, brought to my attention by my friend and fellow Capital City Club member Clare Morris:

MEDIA ADVISORY: Boston Marathon Bombing Fundraiser at the Capital City Club Tonight

The public is invited

What: The Capital City Club is sponsoring cocktails and fun for charity, featuring Celebrity Bartender Dr. Frank Clark. Dr. Clark, an avid runner and Columbia resident, finished the Boston Marathon in 2 hours and 57 minutes.

Frank’s special drink for the evening is Sam Adams Boston Lager. All Sam Adams Boston Lagers and Club brand drinks are $4.00. Complimentary hors d’oeuvres will be served.

When: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 5:30 to 7:00 pm

Where: The Capital City Club Lounge, 25^th floor, Capital Center, 1201 Main St., Columbia

For more information: Contact Clare Morris (803.413.6808 or Clare@ClareMorrisAgency.com)

Check-out Frank’s WACH-FOX interview — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-hIbd_kw5Q

I’m going to drop by, and it would be great to see some of y’all there. As Clare said, the public is invited, so you don’t have to be a member. (Of course, if you’d like to become a member, I’ll be more than happy to help you with that.)

I like the way Clare worked Dr. Clark’s finishing time into the release. Aside from the horrific events of that day, I find his athletic achievement impressive.

‘Suspicious packages’ investigated around Columbia

74 Replies

The police blockade of Assembly, at the Hampton Street end.

Right about 1 p.m. today, I was proceeding west on Washington Street downtown, when I was met by a cop on a Segway blocking me from crossing Main. He indicated I could go left or right, but not straight. A block past him, I saw police cars’ blue lights on Assembly.

As I was turning, wondering what in the world this was all about, my phone sounded (it’s been nagging at me a lot today), and WLTX told me:

BREAKING: Two suspicious packages being investigated along Columbia’s Assembly Street.

Which is one of the more timely instances I’ve encountered of the internet answering my question even as I think it.

More than an hour later, I received this:

BREAKING: New Suspicious item investigation at corner of Rosewook & Garners Ferry. Assembly St. item was no threat

Thanks for telling me.

Anyway, the national jitters have come home to Colatown.

I might have an opinion about feeding the homeless, if I could tell what was going on..

24 Replies

Just tried again to read the lengthy story in The State that begins thusly:

The longstanding debate of how to deal with downtown Columbia’s homeless population has flared again, this time triggered by a decision to stop feeding about 150 people evening meals at a downtown church.

Sunday was the last day after three years of being fed free suppers at 5 p.m. daily that homeless people could drop by Ebenezer Lutheran Church at 1301 Richland St. for a nighttime meal.

An agreement between the church and the Salvation Army expired Sunday just as arrangements to move the feeding program to another site fell apart in recent weeks – even after the church offered to extend the program until the end of the year…

… and I’m as confused as ever. In the sense of not being able to tell what’s going on well enough to form an opinion.

The saga of Columbia’s inability to cope with homelessness downtown has just gotten so complicated now that I don’t know whom to blame, whom to root for, or what to recommend we do next.

Anyone out there understand what’s going on better than I do? If so, I’d appreciate hearing from you…

Does anybody out there read ‘terms and conditions,’ ever? If not, it gives me hope…

9 Replies

I almost ignored the essay in the WSJ today about simplicity, because it started out with something about Henry David Thoreau. I’ve never been a fan. I don’t like anything about Walden. Life can indeed be simple if you isolate yourself from society — simple, but not worth living. (I say this as a person who is given to self-absorption, but that’s not a quality I like in myself, which causes me to react viscerally against Thoreau.) Also, it’s hard to avoid snorting in contempt at anyone who thought “modern” life in the first half of the 19th century had too much hustle and bustle in it.

But my interest was engaged a few grafs on, when I got to this bit:

Do you know anyone who stops to read “click-through” agreements on websites in the middle of performing a task? One company, PC Pitstop, deliberately buried a clause in its end-user license agreement in 2004, offering $1,000 to the first person who emailed the company at a certain address. It took five months and 3,000 sales until someone claimed the money. The situation hadn’t improved by 2010 when Gamestation played an April Fools’ Day joke by embedding a clause in their agreement saying that users were selling them their souls…

For a long time, I’ve meant to write a post asking, “Does anybody out there ever read those ‘terms and conditions’ agreements that you have to click ‘Agree’ to in order to proceed?” I tell myself that no one does, but I was a bit leery of posting the question because everyone might respond, “Of course we do,” at which point I would know for sure that what I’ve often suspected in the past was true: I’m on the wrong planet.

If it turned out everyone else was reading them, it was going to make me feel guilty every time I clicked “Agree” without reading all that crapola. It wasn’t going to change my behavior — I’d rather go to Room 101 than read a single one of those monstrosities. But it would make me feel bad. A little.

Those things always come up when I’ve already been substantially inconvenienced, having been forced to go through unanticipated steps in order to get on with whatever I was trying to do when the process started. You know those nightmare traps, in which you’re trying to do A, but realize that you can’t do A until you’ve done B, and then it turns out that B can’t be accomplished without first having completed C, etc. Those 20,000-word masterpieces of unreadability only come up when you’re fuming your way through G or H, and you’ve had it.

Besides, I couldn’t read one if I tried — not if by “reading” it, you mean get anything out of it. The surface of every letter in such documents is polished, then coated with grease, so that my brain can’t grab ‘hold of them. I can only read them on proofreading level. I don’t know if everyone experiences this or only someone who’s spent a lot of years as an editor, but there’s a certain level of reading on which I can catch spelling, punctuation and even grammatical errors, but when I’m finished, I can’t tell you what I just read. That’s as deeply as I can go into those kinds of documents.

The authors of the essay in the WSJ note with justice that much of the unnecessary complexity of life — the sort that’s too much to deal with — is caused by lawyers and technologists. On the one hand, lawyers try to protect their clients by covering every base to an absurd degree. Then there are those people who think everything can be quantified — people like “Clive,” a character created by John le Carre, of whom he wrote, “He believed that facts were the only kind of information and he despised whoever was not ruled by them.”

But you know what? If everyone else — or at least a goodly proportion of the populace — clicks through all those things without reading them, it gives me some hope for the world.

I tend to lump in this sort of complexity with the lack of trust in the world. I wrote a column back in the ’90s that was sort of my Unified Field Theory of public life. I said everything that was wrong with society resulted from the fact that we didn’t trust each other. Overly lawyered, too-complex-to-read contractual agreements are monuments to this problem. As I wrote in 1995, “A lack of basic trust of each other explains why… We have so many laws, and so many lawyers. We trust nothing to common sense…”

One of the great ironies of this is that so many people come to hate government because they get fed up with bureaucracy and overly complex rules. And yet the reason we have all those excessive rules is that someone insisted that we add them because they didn’t trust government just to use good judgment.

But I just realized something about those agreements I click on without reading: They show that I trust the entity that posted the agreement. I know I’m not signing away one of my grandchildren or my house or whatever, because I know that society wouldn’t stand for that. I know that if the agreement for this software that millions of others have downloaded meant that I was selling myself into slavery, I would have heard about it. Society, that thing too many of us distrust, wouldn’t have stood for it. So, even more than the entity that drafted the agreement, I’m trusting society as a whole. I’m trusting the village, or the wisdom of crowds, or whatever you choose to call it.

Which makes me feel better about the world, and about myself. And about everyone else who clicks on “Agree” without reading the agreement, and gets on with life. It makes me feel better about the world I live in.

Ta-Daaa! An Easter message from Harvest Hope

1 Reply

Harvest Hope being such a worthy cause, I thought I’d share this with y’all…

Apparently, we communitarians are disappointed in Obama

1 Reply

I say that because Amitai Etzioni, the acknowledged ultimate communitarian guru, writes the following on the HuffPost:

If you understand where President Obama is headed in his second term, pray send me an email. I like him, wish him Godspeed, and might well support where he is going — if I could just figure out where that is….

During his reelection campaign, the president evoked a vision I found very compelling. I call it thefair society, one in which — as he put it — “everyone gets a fair shot… everyone does their fair share, [and] everyone plays by the same rules.” It was a theme into which one could fold many other specific policies that we must promote, including reducing inequality, ensuring that there are jobs for all, and creating a society that does not discriminate and where special interests at kept at bay. However, the post-election Obama turned very prosaic. I miss the visionary one.

The president is consistently sticking to his theme that the time has come for nation-building at home. I do not recall an inaugural address or a State of the Union in which foreign policy was mentioned as little as this time around. As Slate’s Fred Kaplan put it, Obama, in his State of the Union address, “barely mentioned foreign and defense policy until 54 minutes after he walked into the chamber — and even drew more of a vague sketch than a policy.” I wonder if Syria, Iran, Pakistan, the Taliban in Afghanistan, or the resurgent al Qaeda will play ball. I fear they will force the president’s hand to be more mindful of what is happening out there.

Maybe it is just a post-election slump or a changing of the guard in the White House. Maybe others have divined where Obama is taking us. If you have, do your good deed for the week and let the rest of us know.

Mind you, I just have communitarian tendencies. I’m not doctrinaire anything, and not necessarily guided by what Prof. Etzioni says. Unlike Democrats and Republicans, I don’t let other people do my thinking for me. But he may have a point. I’m not entirely sure where the president is going these days, either.