Category Archives: Feedback

Mike Cakora on Civility

Try reading the paper

I just wrote a response to a comment that makes a point that I want to make sure is communicated to as many readers of this blog as possible. In a nutshell, the message is this: This blog is extra. It’s Todayspage
dessert, whipped cream, lagniappe, a little something more for people who don’t get enough from reading the editorial page. It’s side thoughts, elaboration, stuff I didn’t have room for in a column… plus stuff that I would never bother people with in the newspaper, but that, since it interests me, I think might interest somebody else (sometimes I’m right about that, sometimes I’m completely wrong, so it’s a good thing I didn’t waste space in the paper on it, huh?).

There’s a certain assumption underlying this blog, in other words — that you already know what we say from day to day in the paper. Folks who don’t have trouble engaging this blog in a way that is rewarding for them and the rest of us here in this little corner of the blogosphere.

The dead-tree editorial page is the meat and vegetables your mama told you to eat before the dessert. You should listen to your mama.

Anyway, I was responding to this, from the ever-anonymous "LexWolf:"

I rarely see eye-to-eye with Bud but 8 posts or so each about the flag and the Nazis clearly is excessive…

Why don’t we see 8 posts about the apparent intent of our legislative piggies to spend virtually all of the $1.3 Billion
surplus instead of returning it to the taxpayers? That’s close to $300
for every man, woman and child in this state. And it’s all money for
things they didn’t think were important enough to include in the
current budget. A total windfall in other words. Now there would be a
subject with real meaning to South Carolinians!!

Get on the stick, Brad!

Here is my weary response:

That stuff is in the paper, Lex. That’s what I do most of the 24 hours of the day, by the way — edit and publish a newspaper. Anything on this blog is just a little extra that I do here and there when I find a moment.

Is this not clear to anyone?

Anyway, you and I live in different universes. You think that if a dollar comes into the state treasury, it should go to you. I think it should go to one of the many neglected areas in our state that most other states seem to find the will and means to address — public safety, our corrections system, education in rural areas, mental health, take your pick.

Our legislators disagree with both of us. They want the money to go to their absurd pet projects, their pork, their whatever you want to call it. Anybody who reads our paper knows this.

It would be nifty if we had a governor who would point out this gross misapplication of urgently needed resources. He’s about the only elected official in a position to do so. But our governor thinks like Lex. He thinks the money should go to tax cuts — and specifically, to income tax cuts (which, absurdly, is the only tax he seems to care about one way or the other) — rather than to the neglected obligations of the state.

Hey, where did I get all those links about state taxes and spending? They were all on the editorial page of The State — you know, the page you ought to be reading before you come to this blog for a little extra — within the past week.

And in case you’re confused, that newspaper is published in the actual, real world, instead of the alternative universes inhabited by LexWolf, and Michael Gass, and that Wallace/ChrisW/Chris White/Wally guy.

Folks, if you don’t read the paper, you’re wasting your and our time by coming here.

Lawmakers dodge flag issue

27 Replies

Everybody thinks the flag’s an issue
except those who can act on it

By Brad Warthen
Editorial Page Editor
‘I JUST WANTED to touch base with you and let you know I enjoyed your editorials this morning,” said the phone message. “You don’t have to call me back, but read ’em and thought you did a great job. Thanks.”
Pretty routine, except that it was from a Republican S.C. House member, Ted Pitts — my own representative, as it happens — and the column and editorial were asserting the need to remove the Confederate flag from the State House grounds.
Assuming this wasn’t just constituent service, I called to ask why he liked them. He was a little vague, saying “it’s a very interesting issue” with “an interesting dynamic,” but not taking a position.
I think he was feeling a little odd because after he had called me, he had found that he was about the only person in the State House who wanted to talk about the subject at all.
“I just walked around and said, ‘Are we gonna talk about this?’ and to a man, there was just no interest,” he said. “There just seemed to be no appetite around here, from African-American members” or anyone else.
“They don’t think it’s an issue right now.”
But apathy has always been the Legislature’s way on the flag issue. Contrary to popular impression, it did not spend the 1990s (before Mr. Pitts was elected) discussing the issue — everyone else did. The apathy was even apparent during the all-too-brief debate in 2000 that left the flag in our faces, although it was removed from its position of false sovereignty.
If the House hadn’t been in such an all-fired hurry, lawmakers could have dealt with the issue once and for all. A lot of people from all over the political spectrum were pushing them to get something done, and some of the main advocates — such as the S.C. Chamber of Commerce — believed that the put-it-behind-the-monument approach qualified as “something.”
So they did that, quickly. If the House had discussed the issue more than one day, a proposal to strike the flag for good might have had a chance, but the leadership wasn’t willing.
If you ask lawmakers about the flag, they’re aghast: Why ask them, of all people? Yet thanks to a law passed by the Legislature in 1995 (in response to an abortive attempt by then-Gov. David Beasley to exercise some leadership), only the Legislature can do anything with the flag. But they don’t even think it’s an issue.
USC football coach Steve Spurrier thinks it’s an issue, but what does he know? All he knows is that the flag should not be there, and that it projects an absurdly and unnecessarily negative image of our state to the entire world.
I heard from other people who don’t know any more than the old ball coach.
One said,

“I am one million percent behind you on the flag issue…. We should not be putting down anybody, just like your column says, we should just be doing it because it’s the right thing to do. I’m born, bred South Carolina, go back generations … but I could care less. I do miss ‘Dixie,’ now, it did make my skin crawl, but the flag doesn’t mean a damn’ thing… I think you’ll be surprised at the momentum can get going now. Good job.”

As for e-mails, there was a problem: The special lowertheflag@thestate.com address I had set up malfunctioned for the first two days. But during that time, 39 people were determined enough to look up my personal address. Thirty were for taking the flag down; only nine seemed opposed to our message in any way — and a couple of those were fairly indirect in saying so. Not all, of course, were so shy:

“You know as well as I that this is not about the Confederate flag, it is about blacks — period! If removing that flag from the Statehouse grounds would cure the 70+% illegitimacy rate, children having children, the over 50% dropout rate and the substantial crime and incarceration rate within the black community, I would say remove it now but it will not and you and Spurrier know it!… You are simply using the flag issue as a diversion from the real issues I mentioned above.”

More typical is this one:

“I grew up in this state and I am proud to be from here, but I am embarrassed by that flag and the people who support it. I travel all over the country for my work and every time someone asks me where I am from and I say SC, they bring up the flag. I have to defend myself and my state by saying not all of us are backwards and ignorant…. It is an insult to the troops fighting for our freedom today…. I will say it as plainly as I can: It is un-American to support the flag and what it stands for.”

As of midday Friday, my blog had received 253 comments on the subject since Mr. Spurrier’s remarks. Few were vague.
Rep. Pitts remains sort of, kind of uncommitted. “I feel kind of like an outsider looking in on this,” he said — which sounded odd for one of the 170 insiders who have the power to act on the issue. He explained: “It’s an issue that means very little to me — and, I think, to my generation.” Mr. Pitts is 35.
“Our state shouldn’t promote anything that offends a large block of its people,” Mr. Pitts said, in his strongest statement one way or the other. “In 2007, we’ve got a lot of other issues to talk about, but why can’t we talk about this?”
“It’s almost like we’re hiding from the issue.” I would have added that it’s exactly like it, but he was on a roll. “Let’s defend why it’s still flying there” if lawmakers believe it’s justified.
“But let’s not just not talk about it.”
If you’d like to let Mr. Pitts know that it’s an issue to you, let him know. Or better, let your own representatives know.

Find out how to reach your representatives here and your senators here. If you don’t know who represents you, check here.

Respondent addresses Graham op-ed

58 Replies

A new "regular" on the blog, Michael Gass, sent me an "open letter" he wrote to Lindsey Graham in response to his op-ed today. As I explained in reply, we don’t run open letters to third parties in the paper. In weeding the vast number of letters down to a publishable number, that’s one of the first things we ditch, along with "original poetry."

But there’s no such rule (or guideline, really) on the blog. I would have just urged him to post it as a comment, but there was no post on the subject yet. So here ya go, Michael:

Dear Senator,

On April 19, 2007, your letter, `Progress and losses in Iraq,’ has reinforced what many of us already knew; that Iraq is a failure.
You stated that "For the first time, our delegation drove from the airport to the Green Zone." Senator Graham it has been 4 years; there are over 150,000 of our troops in Iraq; we have spent over $400 billion dollars; we have surged more troops specifically into Baghdad; and you are telling us that our "progress" is that we were able to secure 6 miles of road for the first time?
You acknowledge that for the past 3 years, violence in Iraq was "out-of-control", yet, President Bush, who you wrote to me in a letter describing as an "honorable man", has repeatedly claimed that America was making progress in Iraq. Vice President Cheney claimed, not once, but on two separate occassions (in 2005 and again in 2006) that the insurgency was in its "last throes". You are now telling us, Senator, that in fact, there was no progress in Iraq for 3 years; that in fact, the insurgency was growing. So, you are telling us, Senator, that the President of the United States and the Vice President of the United States has been lying to us for 3 years.

Senator Graham, I’ve been to Iraq. I returned in November, 2006, and unlike you, I didn’t have 100 soldiers and helicopter gunships. I traveled from Al-Faw to Tikrit. I talked to local Iraqi’s who weren’t screened for their views prior to talking to me. I can tell you that many had high hopes after Saddam Hussein was ousted from power. I can tell you that many now view our occupation, our destruction of their country, our imprisoning of the "irreconcilables" as you call them, as an autrocity on the magnitude of Saddam Hussein. I can tell you, Senator, that Iraqi’s are starving and they are taking any job they can get to feed their families – even joining the police force.

   You are right about one thing – the majority of Iraqi’s do want to live in peace. But, you portray it as if they will only have peace if we stay and kill, or imprison, more Iraqi’s. That isn’t true and you know it. In 1979, Senator, muslim men flocked to Afghanistan to fight the Russians. We called them "freedom fighters" and al-qaeda was born out of that fight. In 2003, Senator, muslim men flocked to Iraq to fight Americans. We called these fighters terrorists. Today, Senator, the vast majority of the insurgency is comprised of Iraqi citizens, not foreign fighters, who simply want to live their lives in peace without American occupation of their country; without their fathers and sons being imprisoned in places like Abu Ghraib by American forces.

   You again make the bold claim, just as every other Republican who has nothing left to argue, no other talking point to push, that if we leave Iraq the Islamic extremist’s will destroy our way of life. Fear, Senator, is the only tool you have left. It is not the Islamic extremist’s who wrote the Military Commission’s Act, denying anyone deemed an unlawful enemy combatant, which includes American citizens, the right to habeas corpus. It is not the Islamic extremist’s who wrote the Patriot Act that the FBI has been abusing to spy on little old Quaker ladies who oppose the war in Iraq. It is not the Islamic extremist’s who has worked to undermine the liberties we used to have in America – it is our own politicians, Senator; politicians like yourself who spout the "rule of law" as you legislate away our freedoms.

You say that we cannot let the Iraqi’s dictate our foreign policy – because that is who the "terrorists" and "suicide bombers" are, Senator; Iraqi’s. They are a people who had their country invaded, destroyed, and their loved ones killed or imprisoned by our troops. They are a people who live without power and scrape for food, yet see their only natural resource, oil, being legislated away by a government we helped into power. That is the "benchmark" that means the most to President Bush; the Iraqi Hydrocarbon Law. But why don’t you tell Americans what it truly is; a giveaway of Iraqi oil to companies like Exxon-Mobile and British Petroleum. And here you are, telling the Iraqi’s that they have no right to "dictate" to us what we do to them. They have every right, Senator, just as Americans have the right to determine the fate of our country, of our resources.

   Our military is broken, Senator. Gen. McCaffrey has told us that it is broken. He, and others, have warned us that continuing down this road you and other Republicans have set is, and has been, a disaster. You tout progress in Iraq, Senator Graham, and, by your own statements, I give you 6 miles of road, $400 billion dollars, countless Iraqi’s dead, secure compounds that American soldiers cannot leave without dying, and the blood of near 3,300 of our own soldiers to show for it – all after 4 years.

Sincerely,

Michael Gass

Oh, and as I said to Michael earlier when he asserted that the military was "broken:" Yeah, that’s why we need a draft.

As to Sen. Graham’s piece in the paper, which I just got to read this morning after being out of the office the last couple of days — it made complete sense to me. It did not, to say the least, "reinforce" the idea that "Iraq is a failure." People who have long opposed the war — and particularly those for whom this is caught up in their own partisan tendencies — find reinforcement for their idea that all effort is useless in anything and everything. It is their constant filter for filtering information bearing on Iraq.

It will be interesting to see whether, in the comments this engenders, anyone says anything that is different from what they’ve always said, whatever their original position. If so, those will be the comments I read with interest.

Spurrier vs. the Nazis?

5 Replies

Just in case you didn’t suspect that this post and this one might be connected, I received an e-mail from a friendly correspondent saying the following:

I am planning on coming up to watch the silliness of the NAZI’s on Saturday. I am waiting on a call from a close friend of mind (with) C-Span. They are thinking seriously about covering it in light of all that has happened with Spurrier.

I don’t know whether that’s true, but whether C-SPAN is interested or not, it might be interesting to see what kinds of flags appear at the rally Saturday. I mean, aside from the usual swastika sort.

Weird, but good, flag news

17 Replies

You can generally count, in my trade, on hearing more from people who are mad at you than from those who agree. People who are ticked off pick up the phone or send a e-mail; those who agree just tell you if they happen to run into you personally.

Things are running the other way on the confederate flag issue.

I came back from being out of the office late this afternoon, and my voicemail was full. There were only six message, and only the last three were about the flag. But here’s what’s weird about that: All three were from people who agree that we should remove the flag (although one prefers Mayor Riley’s approach). They were all nice, which is just plain odd on this issue.

But catching up on e-mail, I got a greater shock: Of those on this subject, 30 people want to take the flag down, and only nine disagree — including this one. And that’s giving the pro-flag position the benefit of the doubt — three of the nine didn’t actually say keep it up, but you could catch their drift. An example:

The flag should have never been removed from its place atop of the capital to start with.I believe if these people that dont want it on the grounds would pack there bags and leave the state we would be better off, its all hertiage and not hate or a race issue and as long as we bow down to these people our state will suffer, so if you dont like it here theres two options go back to your yankee state or too the bannana boat you came over here on.

By contrast, the 30 were clear and emphatic. An example:

I cannot begin to tell you how much I appreciate you for trying to help with this. I love this state so much but am so embarrassed about the flag being where it is. It is so hurtful to so many.
I have just retired from 30 plus years in Human Resources so let me know what I can do to be helpful with this cause.
My grandmother was a member of the Daughters of the Confederacy but she would be so sad to see that we are causing hurt to others. Let’s get it down!

It will probably swing back the other way. Usually, when we write about the flag, we start getting angry mail from the neo-Confederates several days after the piece appears. Apparently, few of them read newspapers, and I’m guessing they communicate with each other via couriers on horseback. At least, that’s how long it tends to take.

But for now, I’m encouraged by the trend.

Herb, stay. Lee, go.

40 Replies

First, read the following exchange from a recent comment thread:

Brad, if you are still reading this, I’m assuming you notice that we have the equivalent of a troll gang here. Lexwolf and Lee are happy to chase off anybody they can, and gloat over it, as if they had actually won an argument. For the life of me, I cannot understand why Mary Rosh has to go, and Lee and Lex stay. It’s the same anonymous put down and snobbery–a bit more subtle, perhaps, but nonetheless condescending ridicule of all those they disagree with. Sometimes they have a point, but often their contributions are simply toxic.
It would be pointless to read this blog, I think, were it not for the thoughtful contributions of Paul, Claudia, Phillip, Randy, Bill, and a few others, especially the occasional new contributor, like Annee. Even the extremist Dave can laugh at himself and admit a mistake. But I think I am out of here. I’m sure Lee will be glad.
Posted by: Herb Brasher | Apr 7, 2007 7:37:40 PM

Herb, if you don’t bring any facts to the discussion, only liberal propaganda, myth, and personal invective, you can expect me to hammer you with facts, and my opinion based on those facts.
If you find the truth toxic, you need a system overhaul.
Begin by stopping with the whining and insults , and take on piece of information which upsets you. Don’t blame us for shocking you with the truth. Blame the propagandists in public schools and the socialist media for filling your head with years of disinformation.
Posted by: Lee | Apr 8, 2007 4:10:44 PM

Herb, you just provided substantiation for a (favorable) comment I made about you on another thread.
Posted by: Steve Gordy | Apr 8, 2007 4:19:34 PM

I answered your praise for Herb’s bashing, too, with another challenge for you folks to get on topic and post facts. Stop hijacking the threads with personal attacks.
Posted by: Lee | Apr 8, 2007 6:06:36 PM

Back in your cave, troll. Lee doesn’t recognize a fact unless it’s vetted by Rush or Sean or Ann.
Posted by: Steve Gordy | Apr 8, 2007 7:01:37 PM

Try me. Post a fact, or one of your factoids.
Posted by: Lee | Apr 8, 2007 9:13:53 PM

Thanks, Steve, I found it.
Posted by: Herb Brasher | Apr 9, 2007 10:00:22 PM

Found what, a koom-ba-ya site where liberals chant their slogans and recite their myths?
Posted by: Lee | Apr 12, 2007 10:02:06 AM

That’s it. I want Herb, who gets what the blog is about and is willing to put his name behind what he says, to stick around.

Lee, for abusing one of our most thoughtful and civil correspondents, is hereby banished. He can apply to me, via e-mail, if he would like to be reinstated. He will have to persuade me that he is seriously repentant, and one of the best ways he could do that would be to write me using his real, full name, and use it thenceforth on this blog.

But I doubt that he will. Lee has persuaded me that either doesn’t know what civility is, or like the one previous exile, aggressively scorns it. It’s up to him to persuade me otherwise — or for some of you upstanding citizens who regularly respect others to do so; I’ll consider that as well.

Oh, and Herb, with regard to that other exile — he/she went first because he/she wasn’t local, and had no interest whatsoever in our home state beyond lame attempts to deride it. I’ve bent over backwards for Lee — and LexWolf, and RTH for that matter — because they seemed to care just that tiny bit more about issues of particular interest to The State’s readership. (Some may forget, but in an alternate life, I’m that newspaper’s editorial page editor.)

I’ll be interested to see how all of you — particularly LexWolf and RTH — react to this. I’m sure I’ll soon find out. In the meantime, expect to hear more from me on this subject in the next couple of days.

Anti-choicers, unite!

112 Replies

Skimming through recent comments, I ran into one from LexWolf (it’s the 147th on that post, so you’ll have to scroll down a bit) that began this way:

Confounding the anti-choicers’ constant bleating…

… and of course you can guess what I thought it was about. And my mind was just starting to figure out why LexWolf would be using such a term, thinking Well, he’s really libertarian, and abortion advocates are really libertarian… when I got to the next phrase:

… about who would build those private schools…

OK, so it was a different expression of libertarianism, one more characteristic of the "right" than the "left" and therefore more consistent with what we usually hear from that particular gentleman.

This got me to wondering, though: How many readers out there are, like me, consistently "anti-choice," to use the loaded language of our detractors? (If I can find enough of us, we might actually get that UnParty thing going.) For that matter, how many are consistently "pro-choice," on both abortion and education?

While the two issues are wildly different, and people can be for one and against the other for an almost unlimited number of reasons, they do have that one element in common: In both cases, advocates use the dodge of "choice," which to American ears sounds so nice and friendly, to avoid describing what they actually favor.

Why? Because "abortion" and "tax subsidies for private schools" both sound pretty awful to a neutral observers ear.

Thoughts?

Marvin defends his festival

19 Replies

Here’s what Marvin Chernoff, father of the Columbia Festival of the Arts, had to say in a memo to the festival’s "advisory committee" in response to our editorial this morning:

Three things.
1. If you saw this morning’s State newspaper editorial it would be pretty obvious that they feel strongly that festivals like ours should be paid for by "private donations not public money".
Well guess what? I agree. And, unless I’m missing something, that’s exactly what we did. You see, aside from the sponsor money, the in kind contributions from media, the contributions to Friends of the Festival and sales of gala tickets, the money we got from the city and the county was from hospitality and accommodations taxes.
Those are "private donations" made by people like you and me whenever we eat some prepared food or stay in a hotel. It just goes to the city for them to hold and then turn around to pay for things like festivals that bring people to those restaurants and hotels.
What would the State editorial board have the city do with that money, pave roads? I think that might make the restaurateurs and hoteliers who collect it upset. And the people who pay it too.
2. Joint ticketing is now available on our web site. It’s really neat. You can go to www.columbiafestivalofthearts.com click on the ticketing icon and pick out your tickets for up to 17 different events. And miracle of miracles your etickets are printed out on your printer.
3. Tickets to the Gala are going fact. If you are going to the gala, I would buy my ticket now. There will be nothing any one can do for you after they are all gone.

Less than three weeks.

To see what the editorial board would "have the city do with that money," read the editorial. As we said, this is money that could be going straight to arts groups, and could also come out of direct funding they might want in the near future.

Classy disagreement

19 Replies

After all my efforts to foster constructive dialogue that can promote understanding on issues here on my blog, some of the most thoughtful people still respond via e-mail. Here’s an example of someone I’ve corresponded with since Sunday on my abortion column.

If that subject can’t generate incivility, what can? So it is that I deeply appreciate someone who can disagree with someone so completely, and yet so reasonably:

From: Kathryn Braun Fenner
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 5:07 PM
Dear Mr. Warthen:
I have yet again been touched by the thoughtfulness of your writing about the proposed ultrasound viewing requirements for those seeking abortions. I would like to suggest you consider two additional concerns you did not acknowledge: one, everyone does not believe life in the sense of a human being, rather than a clump of living cells with the potential to be a whole human being when and if born, begins at conception. I believe that fetal cells are living only insofar as cancer cells are or the healthy tissue excised along with the cancer cells. None of these cells can live independent of the host body. I truly respect your views, though, especially as they are consistent — if a fetus is a life, no rape and incest exceptions–even if a family member of someone powerful is involved. Many of our legislators and anti-abortionists waffle on this point, implying that they do not truly equate the fetal cells with a fully born human, such as their wife or daughter. Kudos to you also for pointing out the lack of legislative concern for the afterborn lives!
Two, I do not know that an ultrasound is medically necessary or advisable, especially in the first trimester. If it is, giving the patient the option to view it is fine, but requiring it — I was not required to view the results of my prehysterectomy ultrasound, nor did I desire to do so….If it is not medically advisable, we should not require anyone to pay for it — there is enough life being wasted because of inadequate medical funding, don’t you think?

Kathryn Braun Fenner
Columbia, SC

From: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 2:27 PM
Well, as I said, I don’t feel strongly about it one way or the other.
As for the medical advisability — I just had sinus surgery last month, which only involved going about two inches up my nose, and didn’t even involve cutting anything, just widening the passage with a balloon. Yet I had to have multiple CT scans, and I made sure to see them, to help me decide whether I thought the procedure is worth doing.
And I deeply appreciate the kindness of your note, especially since we obviously view this very differently. You don’t see the fetus and a person, and I can’t imagine how anyone could see anything else. I certainly can’t see a logical analogy to cancer cells. Cancer is a serious dysfunction in which cells grow wildly in a manner that will kill the individual if not stopped. Pregnancy, from the very beginning, is not only a healthy, normal process, but one that is essential to life’s very existence.
I was present each time my wife gave birth to our five children. Six years ago, she developed breast cancer that spread to her liver before being discovered. Only the most aggressive attacks on the tumors that were trying to kill her have kept her alive.
What I’m saying is that I can tell you without any doubt that there is an enormous, night-and-day difference between a baby and a tumor. Our children, when they were growing inside her for nine months, were not the moral equivalent of tumors.
One other point, take that term, "baby." Under our current system, we give one person — the mother — absolute godlike power to determine whether what is inside her is a "baby." If she wants it, it’s a baby. She and her family will speak constantly of "the baby" — when the baby will come, how the baby’s room is coming along, the baby shower, baby names, etc.
If she doesn’t want it, it’s "just a fetus," and can indeed be treated legally as a tumor.
That makes no sense in the world. It’s either a baby or it isn’t. Its existence does NOT depend upon the attitude of anybody toward it. It is or it isn’t. That’s the nature of reality.
Well, you got me started. What I mean to say is, thank you for your kind note, and for the opportunity for dialogue.

— Brad Warthen

From: Kathryn Braun Fenner
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 2:50 PM

Brad-
I am so sorry about your wife’s illness. My thoughts and prayers are with her and your family. Please forgive my apparent trivializing of the pain of cancer by comparing a tumor to a fetus–although as you acknowledged in your piece, to some, a fetus may be a death threat.
I am glad you have five welcome children. People like you and your wife should have enormous love-filled families. I have done a lot of work with juvenile offenders and with DSS "clients." I do believe abstinence is the best option for those who are not going to have loved, two-parent children. The Supreme Court notwithstanding, everyone does not have a fundamental right to sex, or to have children; it is a privilege at least as worthy of respect and control as driving! I bemoan our sexualized society. However, it is what it is, though courageous journalists like you are certainly speaking up to try to change this. Given our culture, and the many generations of "lost children" from DSS-land, can we at least agree that maybe teaching and making available alternatives to abortion that are more likely to avoid pregnancy than abstinence is advisable, the Pope notwithstanding.
BTW, pregnancy is not always a healthy normal process. Ectopic pregnancy is one obvious example. Is that a baby, absolutely not a baby or something in between?
— Kathryn Fenner

From: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 5:06 PM
Well, you exceeded my vocabulary on that one. I had to look it up to learn that "ectopic" referred to what I think of as "tubal."
Indeed, given the complexity of life, particularly in the higher animals, many things can go wrong with otherwise healthy processes. For instance, it’s a good thing to have a strong immune system. But if it becomes TOO reactive, you end up like me, spending thousands a year treating allergies.
I see the Church’s teaching on artificial birth control as something to be embraced by the faithful, NOT to be imposed on a pluralistic society. I would not, for instance, seek to have civil law ban the eating of meat on Fridays in Lent.
But life or death, once the process of life has begun — that’s a different matter. The state has a legitimate interest there; it just depends upon how we decide to define that role. Unfortunately, Roe forbids us even to discuss it, placing the issue of life and death absolutely in the hands of the most interested, least impartial party. That’s not a standard we would apply in any other area of the law where the stakes are so great.
Thank you again for the kind exchange. Do you mind if I post it on my blog?
— Brad Warthen

From: Kathryn Braun Fenner
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 5:59 PM
I exceeded your vocabulary? Wow!
Process of life….What about fertilized in vitro eggs? When is something "living" –in the independent "life" sense (rather than the "my fingertip is living but my fingernail tips are dead" sense) as opposed to merely potentially able to live on its own?
Roe does not forbid US or anyone else from discussing abortion (God bless America–freedom of speech is what makes this country great) I’m not planning on being arrested for this e-mail exchange, are you? We can even publish it (post it on your blog, if you must–I’m not keen on being identified to the nut-jobs like Fetus Man–does he really think he will change anyone’s mind with baby dolls pinned to his jacket?–, but I will stand behind what I say–though my brother, the copy editor, would surely fix up the language!).
Roe says, basically "Congress shall make no law" impeding on an adult woman’s right (with her doctor), during the first trimester, and possibly the second, to decide when the cells in her are a fetus and when they are a baby. (BTW–why do we have a good old word "fetus" but no "old" word for "post-birth baby" as opposed to just "baby." Historically, I believe we have been ambivalent at best about when an independent life begins.)
Absolutely I agree that IF abortion is murder, if a fetus is a baby is a fully protectable legal person–indeed far more so than a corporation, say– then the State has an interest, indeed an imperative, in outlawing abortion. I do not believe that a fetus is the same as baby. You do, and as I said, I applaud the strength with which you stand for that. I truly respect that. I believe that, God forbid, if one of your loved ones were raped, you would protect that fetus with the same fervor as the child of a lawful marriage. Many "pro-life" advocates would not, which makes me think they are a lot about punishment and enforcing morality on a wayward woman, rather than protecting a potential life…and as you say, they pro-life movement is not overly concerned about the welfare of the "afterborn"….
Oh and the Legislature, backed by at least one court, won’t let us outlaw cigarette smoking in the workplace, —which is proven to kill lives-in-being–and as you have written, prevent the allergic/asthmatic among us from fully participating in public life. There are
other "no go " zones besides abortion….but that is a discussion for another day.

Peace–
Kathryn

Peace, indeed. I think I’ll leave it there with her having the last word. No, I’ll let Stephen Wright have the last word. I love this postscript Kathryn tagged onto her last message:

If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the precipitate.

— Steven Wright

‘Reform’ still an elusive term

1 Reply

The Coastal Conservation League’s Patty Pierce answered my message from yesterday thusly:

Brad,
Brian White tried to do the same amendment that you are referring to at the Committee level because the staff drafted the bill incorrectly according to him. Representative Lucas liked it this way, so he may have been the last legislator to speak to the staff when this section was drafted. Nevertheless, Rep. White tried to get this corrected at the Committee level, but the Committee was tired and didn’t feel like talking about it that late night when they were trying to wrap things up on this bill, so he said he’d just do the amendment during the floor debate. Everyone knew it was coming, and there was agreement on it.
Personally, I think once the priorities are adopted that they should not be changed at all until the next time the priorities are supposed to be adopted by the Commission again. Also, setting the priorities should also be the Commission’s job completely and not the Secretary of Transportation’s in the House bill, so I thought this was a good amendment. It kept the duties separated. It didn’t make sense for the Secretary of Transportation to be able to reach across to the Commission and ask that the priorities be changed. The Secretary is supposed to run the day to day operations of the DOT in the House bill. The Commission should set the transportation priorities. I don’t like the 2/3rds vote to be able to change the transportation priorities, but I can sometimes see when I cannot be effective in changing the minds of some legislators, so I stayed out of this fight.
I’m copying Elizabeth on this note to keep her in the loop.
Send any other questions that you may have my way. I’ll be glad to give you background material if it helps.

patty

We may be miscommunicating here. I realize about what happened in committee. What I don’t understand is why, after working so hard to get sound priority-setting criteria in place, the League would go along with letting the commission — a commission, of all things, the very root of the current problem — toss the priorities any time 2/3 of them wanted to. At the very least, you would want them to have to wait until some other party — in this case, the secretary, who would supervise the people who actually have the wherewithal to set priorities on the basis of objective criteria rather than mere political whim — suggests the changes.

By eliminating that check, you place the commission just as much in the driver’s seat as it is now, setting all your vaunted reform at naught. And for this the league cast aside any thought of actual structural, fundamental reform?

Eliminating the commission — in any way, shape or form — is essential to accountability at this most unaccountable of agencies. Keep the commission, and you can kiss any other reforms you’ve worked for goodbye, because they won’t be around very long — especially if you agree to make it autonomous from the beginning.

Reform in dazzled eyes of beholder

11 Replies

Last night, the lobbyist for the Coastal Conservation League and its allies sent out this note to supporters about the House passage of the DOT plan that coalition had been pushing:

After
four hours of debate and consideration of 39 amendments, finally, the House
overwhelmingly approved the great DOT Reform bill,
H.3575, crafted by Representative Young and her AdHoc Transportation Committee by a vote of 104-3.

H.3575
has ALL 5 of our
DOT Coalition’s DOT Reform Priorities thanks to Representative
John Scott (D-Richland) Annette Young (R-Dorchester) and Christopher Hart
(D-Richland) who sponsored one final amendment this evening to require the DOT
to consider “reasonable transportation alternatives” prior to initiating new
construction of road and bridge projects. H.3575 also requires transportation projects to be justified and
prioritized according to engineering criteria, economic benefits, and
environmental impacts. Maintenance
funding is provided annually to address our $3 billion maintenance needs across
the state, and public hearings are required on large transportation
projects. WOW!

I’ll
set up a thank you note from our capwiz site, so we
can be sure to let House members know how much we appreciate their making reform
of the DOT a top priority this year. Please also help me thank Representative Young in particular for her
terrific leadership on this most important issue. I am certain that we would never have achieved
the goals we set for DOT Reform without her constant efforts to push DOT Reform
forward every step of the way.

Thank
you Coalition members for all of your hard work on this issue and your support
through this rigorous process. Our
Coalition could not have come this far without you!

Tomorrow
afternoon the Senate will continue debate on S.355, its
DOT Reform Bill. I am feeling very
hopeful about the Senate debate. I understand that amendments will be offered to
strengthen our Coalition’s priorities in S.355, and it seems Senators are
pulling together. I’ll write again by
the end of the week with an update on the Senate’s progress.

Great
Job Everyone!

Patty
Pierce
League
Lobbyist
pattyp@scccl.org

Here’s my concern about that (aside from the fact that the coalition’s idea of great reform falls short of mine):

But Patty,
didn’t they do a last-minute amendment that stripped out something that was
important to you? My understanding is that the amendment fixed it so that the
commission could change the priority list WITHOUT the recommendation of the
secretary. (This is something that apparently escaped notice in newspaper
reports.)

It seems that
would pretty much undo the reforms y’all are seeking — not to mention not even
attempting to do what I see as essential. Even though it would take a 2/3 vote,
the commission would still be in the driver’s seat as to whether to continue
applying the reform y’all have worked so hard for.
That’s the
trouble with these overly elaborate, fragmented governing structures — the
slightest change undoes all your efforts to change the way the agency does
business. That stuff is harder to hide with a Cabinet. That’s why structural
reform is, and has always been, the FIRST step — so you can enact deeper
changes with some hope that they will stick.

I wrote a note to Patty along those lines, copying it to Elizabeth Hagood. I haven’t heard back from them yet. For their sake, I’m hoping I heard wrong, or that they have a good reason to think it’s OK anyway (and aren’t just whistling in the dark).

I think what the House came up with was bad enough without the coalition’s agenda getting shafted, too. But that would be par for the course for the Legislative State.

Response to Rushmore

3 Replies

I very much appreciate the insights provided by new correspondent Rushmore, who, based on intimate knowledge with the subject, begs to differ with some of my observations.

I have a few things to say in response to his/her last remarks on this post, and they’re sufficiently involved that I decided to make it a separate post, to raise the profile of this debate at a critical moment (DOT reform comes back up in the Senate Tuesday).

First, I want to say to Rushmore that I’m sorry if I seemed dismissive. I’m just extremely impatient because after all these years, we have a good chance to change, fundamentally, the relationship between this agency and the people of South Carolina for the better.

To toss aside that chance for the sake of promises that whoever runs it, it will make better decisions in a particular operational area is to miss the opportunity, and they don’t come around that often.

One can push new criteria for setting road priorities ANY time. It’s a highly worthwhile procedural reform, but it doesn’t have nearly the potential for sweeping, positive change that fundamental restructuring has.

The problem may lie in our metaphors. I’ve only met Elizabeth Hagood once, and was quite favorably impressed. Very smart lady. But she and I have gone back and forth on the suitability of her "fix the car" metaphor. As she put it in the video I posted:

If you’ve got a car that’s not working, and you change drivers, you’ve still got a car that’s not working.

She considers restructuring to be the equivalent of changing the driver. I don’t. I say that restructuring is a fundamental change in the kind of vehicle you have — as basic as shift from the internal combustion engine to electric (just to plug another of my videos).

By contrast, implementing new priority-setting protocols is more like deciding what sort of map you’re going to use in determining where the car is going to go. That’s very important, no doubt — no point in having a car if it doesn’t take you where you want to go.

But if I’ve got a chance to get a new car, a better car, that will better suit what a car should be — say, if I could trade in my ’97 Buick for a new Toyota Hybrid Camry (slobber) … well, I’m going to grab that chance, and talk about what sort of map to use and where I want to go after I leave the showroom.

The League and its allies determined early that they would, in Rushmore‘s terms…

… stay out of the debate over DOT’s
management restructuring because addressing this issue would place
conservation groups right in the middle of the eternal and ridiculous
turf war between the Senate and the Governor

That misses the point. The choice in restructuring isn’t between the Legislature and the governor and what they want. It’s between good government and bad, between an agency that is accountable to the people of South Carolina and one that isn’t. The idea that getting the structure of government right is "ridiculous" would be a terrible shock to James Madison.

Anyway, my great hope is that the folks in that coalition, and other reformers such as Vincent Sheheen, will give John Courson’s proposal — which now includes all the things the coalition has worked hard for — a serious look when he presents it again tomorrow.

Let’s not look a gift car in the mouth. Or grill. Or whatever.

Randy runs the stats for us

13 Replies

Our own Randy Ewart took a spreadsheet that I made available to y’all earlier and crunched the numbers for us a couple of different ways, helping us dig a little more deeply into the "Competitive Grants Program."

His first spreadsheet sorts the grants by awarded amounts over 100k, then by awarded amounts 100k or less. As Randy says, "This makes it easier to see all the awarded amounts."
He then sorts them by individual lawmaker, so you can more easily see who got what.

Thanks, Randy! We appreciate your time, and your expertise.

The pork list

18 Replies

At Doug Ross’ request, here’s a link to the list (it’s a PDF file) of pork handed out through the Competitive Grants Program.

You can find it at the Budget and Control Board site, so it’s not hidden, but it’s not exactly advertised to the world, either. Trouble is, we sort of had to know it existed to look for it. We sort of had to piece this together from some oblique references made by lawmakers over the last couple of weeks.

And if you’re like this other guy and want to bid for YOUR piece of the pie, here’s the main page. But here’s hoping we can shut this down before you get your money.

Happy reading. Or unhappy reading, as the case may be.

By the way, Doug — Cindi’s now done two columns on
this grant thing, there’s an editorial written and scheduled to run, and news has
done two articles, including today’s lead front-page story. I don’t know about news, but that’s more work than any of us in editorial ever did on any one outrage of Andre’s.

Anyway, thanks for raising the question about the list.

What’s really important

8 Replies

You want me to tell you what’s really important? Do you? Are you sure?

The other day, I posted a quick ditty about the NCAA basketball tournament. It was as much to enhance my own enjoyment as anything else — a form of sports Viagra, if you will. In the past, I’ve really enjoyed the tourney IF I had a bet in a pool. Because I had staked something, even a dollar, on the outcome, I cared, and got involved with the excitement as a spectator. It was fun. It almost made me feel like a normal person — taking interest for a change in both sports and television, at the same time.

But I had missed the deadline for any pools, so I filled out my bracket anyway and posted it, thinking that would be a good hook for me. It didn’t really work, possibly because my son got married over the weekend, so I was even busier than usual — a LOT busier. (And it was a blessed time with family and friends, one of the best I can remember. Much better than basketball.)

Anyway, on a whim, I did a video of my bracket and posted it on YouTube, meaning to link to it from the blog post. But I thought that just too stupid and obsessive for words, so I just went with the still photo.

It’s hard to find a dumber or more boring video than my out-of-focus panning over my poorly-considered picks for the NCAA. And yet, even though I didn’t promote it in any way, 58 people have called it up to watch it.

Sure, that’s not many by YouTube standards, but compare it to 59 views of my video of Lindsey Graham talking about the importance of energy independence — which, in my book, is greater than the importance of what an editorial page editor thinks about who will make it to the Final Four.

And it’s not just that people ignore the videos I push. They just watch what interests them. My first video on Grady Patterson, which I also promoted, has been watched 826 times.

Anyway, now that I know what is important to the viewing public, here is some truly riveting cinema on my basketball picks:

Send a soldier home

8 Replies

We’ve got soldiers training in Mississippi who are going on leave before heading to Afghanistan, and The State has reported that some of them can’t afford to get home to South Carolina.

Some suggest that the military should pay their way. I don’t see how (although, as I said before, if that’s more normal than it sounds, I’d like to know about it).

bud says we should help them out. I agree. I’ll kick in if anybody else will. I mean, I’ll kick in anyway, but I think we need a mechanism: I certainly don’t know where to send the money.

So write in with your pledges, and I’ll contact the Guard, and see if they’ll supply us with a conduit. Don’t send money to me; my wife doesn’t even trust me with the family checkbook. We’ll give it to somebody responsible.

But first, I need to be able to say to the officer in charge: "We want to give X amount," so that it will be worth their while to bother with us.

Or maybe there’s a better way to do this. Suggestions? Pledges? Let’s get on the ball with this.

Another county heard from

4 Replies

Just to show I’m a fair-minded guy, here’s a different point of view on this post from another one of those privacy nutballs out there:

What’s the problem? In concept, nothing. In practice, let me begin the count:
According to the head of the DMV in South Carolina, unless the already-passed federal law is changed, every one of us who has had a driver’s license for, oh, 20, 30, 60 years is going to have to march down to the DMV with a copy of our birth certificates and get a new license. And if you have a different name than the one on your birth certificate (say, if you’re a woman who has married and taken her husband’s name), then you have to also provide proof of THAT change. Original documents, please; no copies allowed.
DMV and DHEC are working on a program to provide some computer verifications for people whose vital records are in South Carolina, but it’s going to take at least three years to get that up and running (the new system has to be in place in a year), and that does no good for the many South Carolinians who weren’t born here.
There will be no more internet driver’s license renewals (OK, so that’s not necessarily a bad thing.)
There will be no more over the counter issuances (in other words, you go to the DMV one day to get a new or renewed license; you don’t get the license that day; either you have to go back a second day or else it’s mailed to you.)
The state will have to buy new equipment & printers for the new licenses, because the ones we have don’t produce a license that will meet the federal requirements. That’s just ONE of the costs: As much as I dislike internet driver’s license renewals, they do cut down on the cost of running the DMV.

So maybe there are a few details to work out. But if the concept is good…

Emile on board with the Energy Party!

109 Replies

At my request, our own Emile DeFelice considered the new Energy Party, and provided us an update on his doings. I just got it, and it’s going straight to you:

Thanks Brad for inviting me to come back to the blog and weigh in on the Energy Party.
The world can no longer support Economy v. Environment. There must be economic rewards for that which improves the air, water, plants, animals, and soil, and penalties for their degradation. My energy policy prioritizes

1) Conservation,
2) Captured Waste,
3) Local Resources,
4) Non-Local Resources.

Personal responsibility in the form of conservation is our most valuable asset.
Dr. John Mark Dean’s op-ed plea for lower speed limits inspired me to take the challenge in my truck. Three good things from two weeks at 60 — 20% gas savings, less stress, and equally quick trips. Jockeying and tailgating didn’t get me anywhere faster.
Cheap food and cheap oil are intertwined, but most people are unaware. This is why corn-based ethanol proponents have been able to coast unobstructed to questionable ends. Nearly every item in a grocery store has corn in its production pipeline — we consume more corn than the Indians ever did.
Corn-ethanol endangers us by pitting food against fuel. The misguided application of ethanol extends to the car that GM supplies our Agriculture Commissioner. That vehicle—a Chevrolet Avalanche with a corn cob paint job and a 12.5 average mpg–misses the point entirely.
Ethanol-guzzling SUV’s don’t solve the problem of too much fuel consumption. And (see no. 4 above) as a net corn importer already, South Carolina is no Idaho.
Of course, food is The Original Human Energy Issue. I wish someone else here had brought up the energy implications of our food system, and the potential we have to eat our way to a better world. Right now, we have a global industrial monolith that threatens to be our only food system. I’m not advocating that we throw it out. But why must it be our only choice?
Supporting a local food option offers so many opportunities. The beauty is that every person can make choices that improve our personal and collective well being.
Bottom line: Energy Party, count me in.

Brad also asked me to give you guys a quick update on what I’ve been doing since the election. It would have been surprising had I won the race, so no shock or bitterness, just thankfulness for those who helped me and the gratification of seeing so many people get into the message and the potential for agriculture in this state. What a great experience.
My campaign was less about getting a job than getting a job done. Besides getting my farm back in order, I’ve started several projects to improve our local food system–chairing a task force on putting local food in our schools, creating a business incubator for food entrepreneurs, and improving the All-Local Market, now 15 months old — a year round, rain or shine, producer-only market where you can purchase meats, vegetables, dairy and eggs, flowers, breads, soaps and sauces from South Carolina producers. If you haven’t yet, come out sometime and see how a local farmers’ market can work for everybody in our community.
I love my job as a farmer, but my passion for these issues always has and will extend far beyond my farm driveway.

Put Your State On Your Plate!

Emile DeFelice

Tell it, Paul

53 Replies

Demarco_1 For the sake of those of you who have not yet gotten to your op-ed page today, this is a heads-up to make sure you don’t miss the excellent piece from our own Paul DeMarco, M.D.

As usual, Dr. DeMarco sets out the issues fairly, intelligently and with impeccable intellectual honesty. Some who don’t know him would be surprised that he seems to find some fault within his own worthy profession. Not I, and not anyone who knows him.

Paul DeMarco will always tell it straight.

bradwarthen.com

All The News That Gives You Fits