Category Archives: The State

Don’t forget — tomorrow’s our anniversary!

Received this e-mail from one of the folks working against the tide to raise the cigarette tax:

Dear Brad,
      This Sunday, July 1 marks the 30th anniversary since South Carolina’s last cigarette tax increase. (July 1, 1977)
      The South Carolina Tobacco Collaborative is very appreciative of the editorial support that The State has lent to this issue for many years, and particularly this year. I know that John O’Connor is already working on a story about the cigarette tax to run this Sunday, and I’d like to ask you to consider writing an editorial to accompany that article and to highlight this unfortunate anniversary. Obviously, we had hoped that we could get this legislation passed before the July 1 date, but we are certainly thankful to be closer to an increase than we have been in 30 years.
      As you know, the SC Tobacco Collaborative and our member organizations (American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, South Carolina Cancer Alliance, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, etc) strongly support an increase that would bring our state’s cigarette tax to the national average. When we started this legislative session, the national average had just reached $1.02. While our legislature was in session, four other states passed cigarette tax increases, meaning that the national average has climbed to $1.06. We’re not just falling further behind each year that we fail to pass this tax — we are literally falling further behind each month that we fail to pass this tax. Most notably, Tennessee passed a 42-cent tax increase, which will bring their cigarette tax to 62 cents per pack, and increase the southeastern average.
      The South Carolina Tobacco Collaborative will continue to build our grassroots support over the next six months. We are greatly optimistic that the Senate will pass this tax very early next session and will do everything we can to keep this issue in front of legislators and the citizens who vote for them.

Don’t hesitate to call if you have any questions!

Thanks,
Kelly

Kelly Davis
Cigarette Tax Campaign Coordinator
SC Tobacco Collaborative

This message was sent on Thursday, but I’m just reading it at a little before 9 p.m. Friday. Sunday’s page is gone, and I can tell you it contains no editorial on this subject (although I do make a passing reference to it in my Sunday column). I haven’t the slightest idea whether the newsroom will have a story on this or not Sunday. One can only guess about such things. In fact, such outside sources are more likely to know what the newsroom’s doing than I am (by design), but they can’t possibly know for sure.

But I do know this — as the memo says, no action can be taken for another six months. Time enough to write about it between now and then.

Serious Cindi on the radio

1 Reply

Cindi "the Usurper" Scoppe is on the radio live with Andy Gobeil as I type, doing MY gig, probably because Scoppe
Andy couldn’t control ME.

Of course, she’s being totally serious and sober about it, giving useful information and other rot. I tried to help with this — I don’t want the show to die or anything — by going into her office (she’s doing it by phone), making faces and blowing a raspberry.

She closed her door.

Sorry, Andy. I tried to save you from yourself. I’ll go back to surfing YouTube now.

My guest appearance on the news blog

The machine broke?

3 Replies

Reading a letter on tomorrow’s page on the subject, I was struck again at how often Andre Bauer does something that would draw all sorts of criticism and/or derision were anyone else to do it, but we generally don’t remark on it around here. There’s too much else out there to write about.

When we DO clear our throats to say something, of course, we are immediately subjected to howls from the Andre lobby about how we’re ALWAYS criticizing him, and why don’t we EVER write about anything else, and other easily controvertible assertions.

This has a chilling effect, so that we tend to give him one or two extra missteps before the next one we comment on? Why do we let that happen? Because Andre is the lieutenant governor, and the lieutenant governor is not a very important figure, so one can give him slack without neglecting one’s duty — at least, when there are plenty of important things to write about. Sure, it’s embarrassing for people to know this is our lieutenant governor (a title that sounds important, anyway), but in the scheme of things…

Since we’re not having elections right now, it’s not all that important to the state of South Carolina whether Andre screwed the pooch as a pilot, or the machine just broke. But this lawsuit is at least worth a raised eyebrow, is it not? I say that on the same day I read about this interesting case, and I am reminded of it.

So, any opinions out there among the brethren on the higher and lower steps of the pyramid? John Glenn? Chuck Yeager? Wrong-Way Corrigan? Anybody?

Paul DeMarco taking the lead again

86 Replies

It’s just not enough for our own Dr. Paul DeMarco to solve our education problems. Now he’s fixing health care. I like what he says, anyway. Who am I to argue? He’s the doctor, after all. In case you don’t know what I’m talking about, check out his op-ed piece that was in the paper today. An excerpt:

It is a complex issue, but it comes down to whom to trust: an industry
that deals with patients at arm’s length and is ruled by the almighty
dollar; or physicians, who deal with you face-to-face, who suffer with
you when you are unable to access essential care and whose oath calls
them to service, not just to higher income.

Unlike some people I could mention, Dr. DeMarco doesn’t just talk; he acts. To wit:

That’s why I am eager to announce the formation of a new group devoted
to creating a single-payer plan for our state and country. The
organizational meeting for a South Carolina chapter of Physicians for a
National Health Program will be held at 2 p.m. Saturday at Thorny’s
Steakhouse, 618 Church St. in Conway. The national group was founded in
1987 and now boasts more than 14,000 members (everyone is welcome; you
need not be a physician to join).

Dr. DeMarco is doing his bit. What are the rest of us going to do?

Nosy questions

16 Replies

Got this e-mail today from a nosy reader:

Please inform readers on the following:
a. How many members of "The State’s" editorial staff have children in elementary and H.S.? Include in that count the publisher and editor-in-chief.
b. How many of those children are in private schools?
c. How many of those children are in public schools?
d. How many of the public schools in which the staff’s children are enrolled are graded "unsatisfactory" by PACT or "No Child Left Behind" standards?

Thank you.

John Johnson
Winnsboro

Now why do I get the feeling that this is a challenge of some sort? Anyway, I replied as follows:

I’m the only editor in editorial with a school-age child, and not for long, as she graduates next week. She will be my fifth child to graduate from public schools. Two of my colleagues have children who haven’t started school yet.
The publisher has a teenaged stepson. I don’t know where he goes to school.
We don’t have an editor-in-chief. I’m over editorial; another guy is over the newsroom. Totally separate arrangement.
As for "D," none. Most of my kids graduated before those grades started, but they all went to Brookland-Cayce. So whatever that’s rated.
Why do you ask?

What I did not mention, because it seemed irrelevant to what he seemed to be driving at, is that my youngest is graduating from a public high school in another state, which is a long story. It’s actually her third high school; she takes after her Dad in that regard (mine were in South Carolina, Florida and Hawaii). She also attended B-C, and the Governor’s School for the Arts in Greenville. She’s out of state further pursuing the art that took her to Greenville.

My other four went exclusively to Brookland-Cayce, and graduated from there. Go, Bearcats.

George Will on “100 million nonwhites”

21 Replies

A day after I read it, I’m still puzzling over the significance of George Will‘s observation that "there are now 100 million nonwhites in America:"

Although the compromise was announced the day the Census Bureau reported that there now are 100 million nonwhites in America, Americans are skeptical about the legislation, but not because they have suddenly succumbed to nativism. Rather, the public has slowly come to the conclusion that the government cannot be trusted to mean what it says about immigration.

I can’t think of any exculpatory reason why he would have considered that a relevant setup to his point that "Americans are skeptical…." Would they be skeptical if there were not 100 million nonwhites? Would their skepticism be assuaged by there being fewer, or more, nonwhites?

A colleague to whom I raised this question speculated that "Americans aren’t just riled up about this b/c they’re against foreigners; or something." To which I could only respond, yeah, he’s saying they don’t like black people, either.

Or something.

I wouldn’t ascribe racist intent to Mr. Will. Nor would I think he would mean that Americans in general … oh, I don’t know what he meant.

My big mistake

7 Replies

Here’s a confessional memo I just sent to my associate editors here at the paper. While I await their responses (which could take a while, since one of them is out of the office), I seek your advice as well:

Folks, I need
your advice as to whether I need to do a correction and, if so, what in the
world it would say. Here’s what John McCain said last week during the debate, in
the context of general remarks on immigration, following an accusation from Tom
Tancredo that he (McCain) had favored "amnesty." (Note that he was not
responding to anyone else having said anything about the Fort Dix plot; he just
brought it up.):

My friend, the people that
came, that almost attacked us at Fort Dix — thank God they did not — these
people didn’t come here across our borders; they came with visas that were
expired. So, we’ve got to enforce our border, that’s our first and foremost
priority, but we also have to have a comprehensive solution and it has to be
bipartisan, and I believe we’re close to reaching that, and that’s what the
American people expect us to do. The status quo is unacceptable.

THIS is what I wrote in
my column Sunday:

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s campaign
put out a statement purporting to address the proposal that was, to say the
least, oblique: “The recent Fort Dix plot is a stark reminder that the threat of
terrorism has made immigration an important matter of national security. We need
to know who is coming in and who is going out of this country if we are going to
deal with those who are here illegally.”

As Sen. McCain had said during the debate, the
Fort Dix plotters didn’t sneak into the country illegally. The issues are
completely unrelated.

Essentially, I was
expressing my objection to Giuliani linking Fort Dix and immigration, and I just
dragged in a paraphrase from McCain in which I had thought that he was agreeing
with me. Of course, I still think what I think regardless of what McCain said.
But I was wrong that none of the plotters had entered illegally, and I later
changed the blog version of the column to say, "the Fort Dix plotters didn’t all sneak into
the country illegally."

That’s one thing that
would warrant a correction, if y’all think it’s worth it this late. But then, at
the start of the interview this morning, McCain said:

First of all and foremost it
is a national security issue. Since 9/11 the issue has gone from one of either
social or economic or humanitarian to one of national security. The six people
that were apprehended that were planning on attacking Fort Dix were in this
country illegally; three of them had crossed our border illegally, and the other
three had overstayed valid visas, which also describes the dimension of the
problem as well. Now we can’t have 12 million people in the United States of
America who we don’t know who they are or where they are and what they’re doing.
So it has become first and foremost a national security issue, ,and of course,
border security and enforcing our border should be and is in this legislation a
first priority.

Thinking uh-oh, I
screwed up, I said this when I had a chance to ask a
question:

I’m
a little embarrassed because I think I misheard you last week in the debate; I
had thought that you were making the point that what happened at Fort Dix was a
separate issue from this particular immigration issue, but what you’re saying is
the opposite, is that you believe that they’re very closely
connected…

And he
responded thusly:

As I mentioned, three of the people who wanted to
attack Fort Dix came across our Southern border. Every nation has the
requirement to secure its borders; if it doesn’t, it’s not carrying out its
obligations to its citizens.

… I don’t know what impression I gave you, but if we
have people who are able to cross our borders and come into our country without
us taking every step to prevent them from doing that and they do it in an
illegal fashion, then we’re not fulfilling our
obligation.

After all
this, I still think it’s a stretch to conclude that the Fort Dix plot teaches us
that the 12 million people in our country illegally, mostly Mexicans, are a
threat. And that’s what I meant. But I think McCain is right when he points out
(as he did a moment later in the interview, but I’ll spare you THAT quote) that
while most of the illegals are no threat, how will we separate out any who ARE a
threat — and it only takes a few — and protect our country from them, if all
these folks are invisible and underground?

So — what do
you think I should do, aside from posting all this on my blog, which I already
plan to do? And if I do a correction, how do I explain what I did wrong in less
than column length?

Folks, I
can’t remember when I’ve screwed one short paragraph in a column this
thoroughly. I’m sorry, and embarrassed.

—
Brad

Brad Warthen
VP/Editorial Page Editor
The State

Actually, I can’t remember when I’ve screwed anything up that thoroughly — particularly, I don’t remember ever having mischaracterized the thrust of what someone was saying to that extent. I’ve always prided myself on my ability to get that right, whatever my flaws. So yeah, ditch that one little paragraph and the column is fine; I stand behind what I said. But that doesn’t make me feel better about it.

On the radio again, Friday morning

VIDEO: Robert Ariail pitches a cartoon

15 Replies

Robert Ariail, the many-time national-award-winning editorial cartoonist for The State, likes to run his cartoon ideas by somebody — usually several times before he’s done. Usually, I’m that somebody, although he’ll go down the hall to Mike Fitts or someone else if I’m on the phone and wave him off or something.

That’s what happened this morning. I was listening to the phone message and waved him away, so he made his pitch to others. This video shows what happened after I yelled at the door, "Robert! Did you want to talk to me?"

I’ve always said that working with Robert was sort of like being part of the comedy-writing team on "The Dick Van Dyke Show." You know, Morey Amsterdam gets up and starts walking through an idea, while saying something like, "OK, so Alan walks into a room…" And Sally and Rob hoot and call out ideas to make it better, or not, and the script evolves.

Well I did NOT capture that flavor on video today. I’m not sure it’s possible, with me holding the camera. First, Robert looked a little like he thought it was a gun or something. Then, I’m concentrating on the camera while trying to be natural, and that causes me not to react spontaneously to what Robert’s saying. He sees my unnaturally subdued reaction, and it puts him off-stride, and he gets awkward.

But at least it’s a toned-down, constrained approximation of the process. So I share it.

Try reading the paper

30 Replies

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.

Discuss: Virginia Tech shootings

55 Replies

Folks, I am tied up in all-day meetings yesterday and today, which is why you haven’t heard from me since Monday.

Until I get back, I thought I’d start a thread on the horrific murders at Virginia Tech. I don’t know what to say about things like this, but maybe you do.

While you’re composing your thoughts, here is our lead editorial today on the subject, some letters, an op-ed piece and some snippets from what others said, from The State today.

I’ll be back to read your comments soon.

So what’s happening next on the flag?

21 Replies

Expect to hear something in the next few days about a public effort to try to get the flag down. It’s either get started in the next few days, or forget about it until next year, with the Legislature set to shut down the first week of June. It might not be until next week, though, since the first elected official to express an interest was Mayor Bob, and he’s out of the country until Friday.

(Watch for lawmakers to say, "Why are you bringing this up at the last minute?" As if it hadn’t been there since 1962, and as if we hadn’t been writing about it over and over since at least 1994 — which is the earliest I can vouch for.)

Tomorrow, we’ll have our first editorial since the Spurrier remarks, and a column by me, on the editorial page. We’ll also have an op-ed piece related to the subject by Charleston Mayor Joe Riley, which I just received a few minutes ago.

Mayor Joe has an idea very similar to the one I posted from city forester Carroll Williamson. Here’s an excerpt:

By my count, if there was a flag representing the government for each war that South Carolinians have fought in, there would be 11 in addition to the Confederate Flag. What a beautiful sight this new monument would be in front of our State Capitol. Even more important, what a wonderful unifying and hallowed place this would become, a place where every South Carolinian who fought and died for our state and our country would be remembered forever. These 12 flags could easily fit inside this grassy rectangle with space on either side of the walkway for future wars. While we hope and pray that these wars will not occur, history tells us that they will.

It’s also similar to an idea John Courson was floating back in 2000, which I referred to in my column on the day the flag came off the dome.

McConnell on why NOT to reform

16 Replies

Just wanted to make sure that you read Glenn McConnell’s otherwordly explanation as to why real reform of DOT is anathema to him, and therefore to his instrument, the S.C. Senate.

Then read the column by Cindi Scoppe that eerily foreshadowed this argument from Sen. McConnell. She says it ironically and critically; the senator from Charleston says it with utter sincerity and deadly certainty.

Fortunately for him (but not for the rest of us), the S.C. Senate is immune to lampooning.

Remember, children, here in the Palmetto Dystopia:

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Glenn McConnell is a Champion of Restructuring

Don’t believe that last one, UnParty members? He just said he was. Can’t you read?

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.

Pay no attention to that woman…

33 Replies

Pay no attention to that pack of misleading nonsense Cindi Scoppe calls a column in today’s paper. I mean, the one that makes me look like some unethical jerk or something.

Consider that Ms. Scoppe is a journalist, and you know how they love to manufacture controversy where there is none. Or at least, not much.

Seriously, go read her column, and come back here to register your thoughts on whether you think what Justice Toal did was just plain awful, not a big deal, or somewhere in between. Cindi thought, and I agreed, that her column would be a good place to bring up issues that didn’t really fit in yesterday’s editorial.

For those of you who are too lazy to follow the link, essentially the column relates the discussion we had of the incident at our board meeting Monday morning, in which I took the "not a big deal" position. So I don’t look all that good in the column.

By way of extenuating circumstances, let me make the following points:

My "not a big deal" position was taken within the context of my thinking that, if not for her previous hit-and-run after drinking (which WAS a big deal), we probably wouldn’t be talking about this.
During the discussion, I was not aware that failure to leave a note was actually a violation of the law. I learned that later, but being stubborn, only shifted my position slightly. Once I knew that, I said there oughta be some wiggle room for when rubber bumpers barely touch, and you KNOW there was no damage.
Cindi sets out two anecdotes from our discussion: One in which Warren Bolton was a perfect prince, doing the Honest Abe thing, tracking down someone he had bumped into. The other was when I was peripherally involved in an incident, and looked upon the guy whose car was HIT as a big baby who was raising a fuss about nothing. To clarify: Under the circumstances Warren described, I would have done what Warren did. In fact, I have done that. In my story, the other driver WAS a big baby; his vehicle was fine, and he was having an absolute cow about it.

Of course, Warren IS a perfect gentleman all the time. And Mike is all idealistic and principled, and Cindi studied real hard in school, and is way better organized than I. It’s a wonder they let a lax slob like me into the room. Good thing I’m their boss.

We get this a LOT

11 Replies

A missive came to us labeled "Letter to the editor," but it also shouted "NOT FOR PUBLICATION." So we’ll compromise. I’ll put it on the blog, but without attribution:

Warren Bolton’s religious opinions ("Why seek ye the living among the dead?") belong in the religion section, not on the editorial page. While I respect his right to practice Christianity, his religious beliefs do not interest me. Frankly, I’m surprised The State feels they belong in the main part of the paper.
However, may he keep beating up on payday lenders. Good job!

My colleague Warren puts folks who despise both religion and predatory lenders in a tough spot; they don’t know whether to spit or cheer.

For my part, I just cheer.

Long before Stephen Carter put out The Culture of Disbelief in 1994, I wondered why we in the press regarded religion as off-limits. Newspapers could deal with people’s views about politics, sports, sex, food, popular culture, health issues, and pretty much anything else, but God needed to be neatly walled off, confined to a page that was the personal domain of a less-than-favored reporter whose job it was to have lunch with preachers to keep them from bothering editors.

It was as though the Fourth Estate had misread the First Amendment, confusing a couple of the clauses:

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press, so long as the press makes no articles respecting religion, or the free exercise thereof …

But don’t just blame the press. A lot of readers seemed to buy into the same premise. Still do.

I had noticed that editorial pages ditched letters that quoted Scripture routinely — sometimes as a matter of rigid policy. I always thought this was utterly ridiculous. Still do. What do you think?

Tax cuts for the right sort of people

21 Replies

You might have assumed, after reading fellow blogger Joshua Gross’ op-ed in Tuesday’s paper, that the Ways and Means budget he praised as one that "actually resembles a responsible document" (that’s high praise, coming from him) devoted a lot more money to tax cuts than the current year’s budget.

An excerpt:

When the budget was debated last year the appropriators, flush with $1.1 billion in new
revenues, decided to spend the vast bulk of the money, much of it on pet projects, while reserving a small fraction of the new funds for a property tax reduction that had a negligible impact on job creation in our state. The final budget was a monstrosity so bad the governor chose to veto it in its entirety, knowing full well that the Legislature would still override his veto and spend the money.

Those nasty, monstrous Republican legislative leaders! What were they thinking? But wait! The facts get in the way of Joshua’s interpretation.

This year’s Ways and Means proposal, which the House is debating this week, devotes $81 million to an income tax cut.
Last year’s budget, so horrible, so monstrous that the governor had to veto it, devoted $92 million to a sales tax cut on groceries and a second sales tax holiday.

That’s right, the bordering-on-responsible budget devotes $11 million less in new revenue to tax cuts than the toss-it-in-the-rubbish, big-government’s-gonna-eat-your-children current budget.

Granted, $14 million of last year’s tax-cut money was a one-time tax reduction, for the silly after-Thanksgiving sales tax holiday that we will not have again this year. But even if you discount that, last year’s budget still included a permanent tax cut of $77 million.

Now I understand that supply-siders don’t like to cut the taxes that ordinary people pay. But let’s at least give a nod to reality here.

The budget they’re debating over there this week is $600 million bigger than the one we’re operating under now (or maybe $1 billion more if you use Sanford math). This money thing is not my forte, but that seems to suggest that even if you ignore the $14 million sales tax holiday, the wild-and-crazy budget from last year actually devoted a nearly identical portion (not to mention amount) of money to new tax cuts as the almost-responsible one on the table right now.

But give my buddy Joshua a break; his piece is accurate in one respect: It’s an accurate representation of the Club for Growth world view.

bradwarthen.com

All The News That Gives You Fits

Category Archives: The State

Don’t forget — tomorrow’s our anniversary!

Serious Cindi on the radio

My guest appearance on the news blog

The machine broke?

Paul DeMarco taking the lead again

Nosy questions

George Will on “100 million nonwhites”

My big mistake

On the radio again, Friday morning

VIDEO: Robert Ariail pitches a cartoon

Try reading the paper

Lawmakers dodge flag issue

Respondent addresses Graham op-ed

Discuss: Virginia Tech shootings

So what’s happening next on the flag?

McConnell on why NOT to reform

Marvin defends his festival

Pay no attention to that woman…

We get this a LOT

Tax cuts for the right sort of people