Category Archives: South Carolina

SCRG’s arch-nemesis

Have you heard about the group that Bill Cotty is heading up to take on Howard Rich, SCRG et al.? Somehow, I had not focused on it until I saw this piece in the Spartanburg paper.

It’s called "South Carolinians for Truth and Disclosure." The Spartanburg story left off the "disclosure" part, and yet that seems to be the main point of the exercise. Here’s the group’s raison d’être:

South Carolinians for Truth [hey, they left it off, too!] is a grassroots organization whose
purpose is to advocate for the reform of South Carolina’s current
campaign finance laws. We demand new laws requiring issue advocacy
groups that mention an elected official or candidate by name to follow
the same laws of disclosure that candidates and party organizations are
required to follow.

We are a watchdog group working to set the record straight when organizations misrepresent the truth.

What does that mean? Well, what I think it means is that organizations spending money to influence your vote should tell us where their money comes from. What is the organization most associated with not wanting to tell us where their money comes from? SCRG.

SCRG likes to holler that we’re trying to take away its First Amendment rights when we say it should disclose. This, of course, is a load of horse manure. We think SCRG should disclose, and we also agree with SCRG when it says the S.C. School Boards Association should disclose. Goose, meet gander.

S.C. TAD (I see that our friend Tim wrote about them and referred to them merely as "TAD" on second reference) seems like some good folks, with a good purpose. But I’m not endorsing them, on general principles. I have too much of a sense of irony. When I see a clickable tab on the TAD home page that says "The Truth About Third-Party Groups," I can’t help thinking, Aren’t you a third-party group?

But I don’t mean to play moral relativity games here. Is there a difference? Sure. The "third-party groups" being criticized here are financed by sneaky, out-of-state residents of the ideological fringe who are offended by the very idea of public schools. This newer group consists (as near as I can tell) of South Carolinians who want to maintain and improve public schools (that’s certainly what Bill Cotty has always tried to do), and don’t want them done in by misleading campaigns by outsiders.

So there are third-party groups and third-party groups. I just didn’t want you to think I missed the irony.

Oh, and speaking of our blog friends, several are involved with the items I linked to above. You’ll see Earl Capps is working with Mr. Cotty. And in the Spartanburg story, you’ll see a less-than-complimentary reference to our friend Joshua Gross.

And of course, let’s not forget Ross Shealy, author of the recently-revived (just in time for the primaries) "BBQ and Politics." More about that in a separate post, if I can get to it today…

Background on Beatty and his critics

12 Replies

Folks, it occurs to me as I read comments back here that some of you might not fully understand how Judge Beatty has been targeted by these groups he’s talking about. You might want to go back and read some of what I wrote when he was elected to the court. As I said back then, he didn’t seem to me to be the best-qualified at all. But what I objected to was the grotesque campaign conducted against him, using some of the cheesiest, low-down tactics that have sullied our political branches in recent years.

If you will recall, these critics like to call him a "liberal" judge. They don’t provide evidence of this. What they do is show his picture. Get it? He’s black. Black equals liberal. Liberal equals black. He’s black, therefore he’s the kind of judge we don’t like. It’s moronic, and it’s racist.

To give you further perspective, I urge you to peruse this column of Cindi’s from last year. Yeah, you might think the judge’s rhetoric is over the top. But he sure as hell has had to put up with stuff he shouldn’t have been subjected to. Here’s the column:

THE STATE
ANTI-BEATTY CAMPAIGN A DISTURBING TURNING POINT IN JUDICIAL RACES
Published on: 06/06/2007
Section: EDITORIAL
Edition: FINAL
Page: A6
Cindi Ross Scoppe
Associate Editor

THE PHONE message was from a long-time acquaintance who was simply beside himself because I as a woman wasn’t beside myself over the fact that a capable, talented woman wasn’t the odds-on favorite to be elevated to the state Supreme Court.

This wasn’t the only person who mistook my opposition to the below-the-belt attacks on Appeals Court Judge Don Beatty as support for his candidacy. Understandable, I suppose, since I didn’t pick a favorite in the three-way race between what looked to me like three capable judges.

Simply put, I don’t like to offer opinions unless I feel sure I know what I’m talking about, and I didn’t feel like I knew enough about the three would-be justices — only one of whom I had ever said more than "hello" to as far as I can recall — to make an informed choice.

As anyone who watched the circus that surrounded last month’s contest in the Legislature knows by now, others didn’t let their ignorance stand in the way. For the first time in S.C. history, several specialinterest groups not only took a position, and took to the airwaves with it; they demanded that legislators follow their orders — even when the basis for their position was at best flimsy and at worst fabricated.

What’s worse, that spectacle was likely only a taste of what’s to come as South Carolina’s judicial selection process takes on many of the corrupting and degrading influences of public elections.

Let’s get the hot-button stuff out of the way first: I’m not convinced that everybody who opposed the only African-American candidate in the race was doing so for racist reasons; I think much of the opposition to Justice-elect Beatty was a mindless, knee-jerk reaction to the fact that he had been a Democrat when he served in the House in the 1990s.

But the TV attack ad by a fringe group with a demonstrated absence of scruples: That was race-baiting. Not because it showed Mr. Beatty’s face; it would be strange not to show a picture of the person you’re attacking. What made it race-baiting was the way it managed to juxtapose his black face with the image of that extremely white young family just as it called for a judge with "South Carolina values." That, according to

my ad-savvy friends, is classic; anything more blatant would have been a turnoff to all but the most unreconstructed racists.

Distasteful as it was, though, the race-baiting isn’t what makes it important that we examine the ad campaign. There’s nothing new about using race in politics, and besides, we probably won’t see that again in a judicial race, since it’s unlikely that another African- American will be a serious contender for the high court for years to come.

The reason it’s important to examine the ad is that we almost certainly will see further attempts to turn judicial contests into the same kind of "our team vs. your team" contest that has come to define our actual elections. That’s bad enough when serious people are trying to figure out who would make the best governor or who should represent them in the Legislature — positions that are supposed to be filled by politicians. When it comes to judges — who if they have even an ounce of integrity rule based on the law, without conscious regard to their own personal, political preferences — the political language doesn’t even apply.

The ad, a $13,000 effort by Greenville-based "Conservatives in Action" that you can see at http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v= T463tgvvrdg, centers on the same largely irrelevant charges about cherry-picked votes from Rep. Beatty’s legislative career that had been making the e-mail rounds among other interest groups. But it frames them in the context of federal judicial appointments. As the screen fills with a farcical picture of two plump tuxedo-clad men at what apparently is supposed to be their wedding, the announcer intones: "Liberal judges continue to wreak havoc on America, from banning prayer in schools to legalizing gay marriage to restricting property rights. Outof- control judges have hurt our country. So how come some South Carolina Republican legislators are supporting a left-wing politician for our state Supreme Court?"

The announcer is unperturbed by the fact that no one has been able to cite any such liberal lawmaking from the S.C. bench — and particularly not by Mr. Beatty. He informs us that "as a legislator, Beatty opposed a measure to prohibit public funding of abortion; he also voted against gun rights and opposed tax and spending cuts." And finally: "South Carolina doesn’t need an ultra-liberal Democrat partisan on the state Supreme Court. We need somebody who represents South Carolina values."

A spokesman for Conservatives in Action told The Greenville News that the group "very well may" air more TV spots "to educate the public" in future races.

If you’re trying to place that name, think back to those pink pigs that were stuffed into Midlands mailboxes in the days leading up to last year’s Republican primary. This is the secretive group — believed by many to be a front group for the voucher lobbying group SCRG — that failed rather spectacularly in its attempt to unseat Rep. Bill Cotty for the sin of not licking SCRG’s boots.

The Conservatives in Action spokesman said the group would be "watching" the legislators who voted for Judge Beatty. It would make more sense to watch Judge Beatty, to see whether he actually does morph into South Carolina’s first activist justice. But don’t hold your breath: There’s an awfully good chance that would require the group to admit it was wrong about him.

Ms. Scoppe can be reached at cscoppe@thestate.com or at (803) 771-8571.

All content © THE STATE and may not be republished without permission.

All archives are stored on a SAVE™ newspaper library system from NewsBank, inc.

Supreme Court justice calls Sanford groups ‘the new face of the Klan’

9 Replies

First we had the Knotts endorsement — which was about, as much as anything, whether we would stand by while the governor and the outside groups that support him would be able to take out a guy at the top of their hit list.

Then, we had the governor’s response to the endorsement — which, in case you missed it, made our point for us. Here you have the governor of our state stopping everything on the day before the end of the legislative session to write an attack on a single lawmaker. Extraordinary piece, really.

Now, I see that S.C. Supreme Court Justice Don Beatty saying some way harsh things about the groups that are the governor’s main cheering section:

Beatty: Third-party groups are ‘new face of the Klan’
State Supreme Court Justice Don Beatty said Wednesday that third-party groups using him as the "poster boy" to attack candidates across South Carolina are the "new face of the Klan."
Beatty accused organizations such as the S.C. Club for Growth, South Carolinians for Responsible Government and Conservatives in Action of distorting his record as a legislator in the 1990s to scare voters away from candidates they oppose. He said they’ve never cited any of the decisions he’s handed down in more than 12 years on the bench that would support their claims that he’s a liberal judge.
"It makes me wonder what their real reason is for attacking me," Beatty said. "It’s because I’m an easy target, and they can use code words and my black face to appeal to voters that they might be able to enrage against legislators that supported me…These people give conservatives a bad name. I’ve heard them referred to on more than one occasion as the new face of the (Ku Klux) Klan. I’m almost about to believe that."

The piece goes on in that vein. I thought y’all might be interested.

History to be made tonight

39 Replies

Leave it to Samuel T., who gets really pumped about politics (and life in general), to put things in perspective, just when we’re on the brink of getting jaded:

Tonight the western world , the white world is nominating an African-American for President of the United States of America !!!!!!!!!!!. Remember 1964 and how far have we come and how far we have to go ! Look how far Senator Obama had to go to get here from 5 months ago in Iowa. He was behind by 20 plus points ! Senator Obama’s victory tonight is a huge victory for all those who made the ultimate sacrifice for America to get here !
Mazel Tov America! Samuel

That was a broadcast e-mail that Mr. Tenenbaum sent out to his list at 5:13 p.m. Seven minutes later, Luther Battiste III responded thusly:

Well said. Using a NBA analogy, we have qualified for the finals. Now we have to win the ring. Yes, we can. Luther Battiste

More of what I’ve really been doing

3 Replies

Just so you know that I’ve been doing some actual work on these days that I’ve been tossing out pretty lightweight posts in a desperate effort to keep y’all interested, I’ll point first to our endorsements page, and then give you another quick gallery of pictures from the endless interview…

The pictures that follow are, respectively:

Rob Miller, Democrat, candidate for the 2nd Congressional District (Tuesday, May 27, 1 p.m.)
Blaine Lotz, also a Democrat, also a candidate for the 2nd Congressional District (Wednesday, May 28, 11 a.m.)
Jeanette McBride, candidate for Richland County clerk of court (Wednesday, May 28, 1 p.m.)
Lexington County Sheriff James Metts (Friday, May 30, 10:30 a.m.)
Phil Black, Republican candidate for the 2nd Congressional District (Tuesday, June 3, 3:30 p.m.)

And we have a couple or three or four more coming…

Here are the pics…

Millerrob_009

Lotzblaine_019

Mcbridejeannette_027

Mettsjames_029

Blackphil_003

Super Gilda

2 Replies

You probably read in The State today about Gilda Cobb-Hunter being increasingly lonesome as an uncommitted superdelegate, now that Jim Clyburn and others have finally declared for Obama.

Here’s some more about Gilda from The Washington Post. The story elaborates upon the miseries of the situation:

The novelty of famous suitors and media interviews long ago eroded into exhaustion, and now state Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter of South Carolina is just plain sick of all this. An undecided superdelegate to the Democratic National Convention in August, she opens her e-mail inbox each morning and deletes a handful of threatening notes sent by strangers. Campaign followers call her incessantly. She struggles to find time to run her own campaign for reelection…

Gilda could have spared herself a lot of aggravation if she had just declared back in October for the "Democrat" with whom she is pictured above (the one who gets all his South Carolina news from Brad Warthen’s Blog). By the way, I was supposed to send Gilda a copy of the above photo and forgot. Sorry, Gilda — I’ve been busy. Would you still like me to e-mail it?

And oops, here’s another one…

Colbert_105

Now THAT ought to be a short program

6 Replies

Forget Lieberman-Warner. This is my e-mail of the day. I got a release from S.C. ETV saying that on "This Week in the House with Speaker Bobby Harrell,"

… Speaker of the House Bobby Harrell will host Rep. Jim Merrill, House Majority Leader, and Rep. Harry Ott, House Minority Leader, as they discuss this Session’s accomplishments…

I’m sort of guessing they’re going to drag out the introductions, greetings and sign-off, because they certainly won’t have any other content.

Through a Marine’s eyes

16 Replies

This was forwarded to me today, and I pass it on as I received it:

I was part of the Dateline NBC special program titled “Coming Home” that aired Sunday, May 25th. It is about the “cost of killing.” I live in South Carolina. My name is Jesse Odom and I am 25 years old. I served in the Marine Corps and fought in Iraq. Here is my story. Thank you.

People on both sides of the spectrum, those for the war in Iraq and those against the war in Iraq, for the most part, say that they support the troops. That support is typically limited to putting yellow ribbons around trees or by placing some type of sticker on their cars, and of course, by verbally saying that they support our troops. People automatically assume that our troops will get the armor they need to protect themselves in combat, they will assume that they have decent living conditions here in the States and in our warzones, they assume that our men and women are getting all of the health benefits they need, they will assume that our men and women who have been in combat will get the proper mental health care they need in order to get back on a stable mental track. The list goes on. I am tired of our naïve approach to supporting our troops and I pledge to change that.
On March 20th, 2003, my unit (Alpha Company 1st Bn 5th Marines) was the very first group to cross the Kuwait-Iraq border. Shortly after, we were engaged in combat and I found myself holding a fatally wounded Marine in my arms, my friend and leader, Shane Childers. I watched him die and he spoke his last words to me. He was the very first American killed in the war. We fought our way to Baghdad, accidentally and unfortunately killing the innocent, constantly living in fear, and trying to stay alive. Once we made it to Baghdad we found ourselves in what many have said was the most violent and fierce firefight during Operation Iraqi Freedom. We fought for nine hours. Nearly a hundred men were wounded and I witnessed the death of another Marine that I looked up to. We raided Saddam’s palace and the Abu Hanifah mosque where Saddam had been sighted. We killed many men and captured others. We lived at the palace for a while and then moved back to southern Iraq and eventually back to the United States.
Shortly after getting back to the United States I finished my enlistment while my friends in my unit went back to Iraq. I started to write a book when I got out of the Marine Corps. I didn’t plan to publish the book but I used it as a coping mechanism. I camped out at my computer night after night, putting my unit’s story into words. Throughout this process, I kept up with some of my other friends that also got out of the military. Many of them struggled, and some still do. My friend, Chip Wicks, could not handle his problems and hung himself in February of 2004. This put me on a path to try to change some things. I started talking to my other friends and many of these men also had, and still have, a difficult time coping with the fact that they had witnessed and did things that many in our country could never imagine. They have a hard time coping because they are good men with Christian beliefs and a moral conscious; even though many do not regret fighting in Iraq. Many of these men will not get help, but even those that do, have to fight tooth and nail to get the help they need.
Some of our men are being asked to use their own money to get counseling for their PTSD. The list of faults is too long to list in this email. The faults are not limited to mental health care. However, I have decided to focus my efforts on PTSD and the suicide epidemic among our combat veterans. People read my manuscript and loved it. I was told I should get it published and eventually I took the steps to do this. In the book, I tell my unit’s unbelievable story. But, the story does not stop on the battlefield. The battlefield has followed us home. Also, I tell of the haunting aftermath of war. I describe some of the issues that our troops and veterans face today. I use real examples.
In this book, I follow my unit as we prepared for war, when we went to war, and now home, where we have been put on the back burner. I am devoted to support our troops and I am going to do what I can to make a difference.
I set up a fund titled the Chip Wicks Fund in honor of my friend that took his own life. I am donating 10 percent of my royalties from the book sales to this fund, and the publisher has agreed to contribute 10 percent of their net proceeds from this book to the fund. I am also accepting donations on my website. The fund will be used to seek out and help those that have problems adjusting back into the civilian world. Those that have or may have PTSD. I don’t want any more of my brothers and sisters to die due to depression (suicide) when they can be helped. I want you to help me support the troops. Not by simply waiving a flag or putting a ribbon around a tree. I want you to put this story on the front page of your paper and help me change some things. I am trying to get more support from our government, but that will take some public pressure.
My book is eye opening. It is not written by a seasoned author, a ghost writer, a politician or journalist who went on a fact-finding tour in well protected areas in Iraq. This book was written by a Marine infantryman who went and served his country and is now asking our country to truly support our troops and our combat veterans. You can help me and our men and women in uniform (and veterans). I want people to read my book and see what is going on behind the scenes of our media. I want to sell books and raise money for an unresolved problem in our country. I want people to read the book so they can see the world through an enlisted man’s eyes. My efforts are not limited to the book and the fund, I am going to go to our politicians and demand change.
My book is titled “Through Our Eyes” (Bella Rosa Books, June 2008, ISBN 978-1-933523-14-9).
You can go to my website and copy anything on it you want to put in your newspaper article (excerpt, pictures, bio, etc). My website is www.iraqthroughoureyes.com — I want to open the public’s eye and this book will help do that.

Please support the troops.
Thank you,
Jesse Odom

Speaking of books. On a blog related to the Dateline NBC segment referenced above, a producer mentions one called "On Killing: The Psychological Cost Of Killing In War And Society" by Lt. Col. David Grossman. I’ve read much of it while drinking coffee on a couple of separate visits to Barnes & Noble. It is truly fascinating, and contains a lot of data I had not encountered before. For instance, I had known that a lot of soldiers never fire their weapons when in contact with the enemy, but an analysis of widely scattered battles through history demonstrated that a startling number of those who DO fire more or less intentionally MISS.

Proving the innocent innocent, and the guilty guilty

12 Replies

Joe McCulloch called me this morning to give us a heads-up on something. The House agreed on Thursday to recall a bill from committee that would allow people who are convicted of murder, rape and a handful of other violent crimes to have DNA testing done if they can convince a judge it would likely prove them innocent. The bill has passed the Senate, so there’s a chance it could become law this year, if the House approves it this coming week. Here’s the editorial we wrote about it earlier this month:

Post-conviction DNA testing
protects all of us

WHEN THE WRONG person is convicted of a crime, the only clear winner is the actual criminal – although police and prosecutors might appear to be winners, since they were able to score a conviction. The person wrongly convicted certainly doesn’t win, and in fact we do incomprehensibly grave harm to that person. Neither do the rest of us, who are less safe because the real criminal remains free to harm others.
We don’t have reason to believe that a large number of people are wrongly convicted in South Carolina, but we do know that our laws are not adequate to right the wrong when it does occur. A bill passed last month by the Senate (S.429) would correct part of the problem, by adding our state to the 44 others that allow people convicted of murder, rape and a handful of other violent crimes to have DNA testing done if they can convince a judge it would likely prove them innocent.
Under current law, there’s no mechanism for such testing; in most cases, judges can’t order DNA testing – or do anything about it if such testing is somehow done and demonstrates the convict’s innocence – unless the solicitor agrees to the request.
That wouldn’t be a problem in an ideal world, because the job of prosecutors is to do justice, and so they would be just as anxious as anyone to make sure the wrong person isn’t in prison. The reality is different. Prosecutors are human and dislike admitting their mistakes; and besides, they grow cynical from hearing the inevitable claims of innocence from criminals who really aren’t innocent, so with rare exceptions, they fight tooth and nail against those claims.
One of the main criticisms of laws to facilitate claims of innocence is that they would be abused by prisoners who, with all the time in the world on their hands, will pursue any avenue of appeal that’s opened to them. That’s always a risk, but the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Gerald Malloy, projects that no more than five to 10 requests would be made each year. That’s in part because the bill is a double-edged sword for prisoners who really are guilty: If the DNA testing confirms their guilt, they are subject to contempt of court, revocation of good-time credits and denial of parole requests. Perhaps more importantly, it requires that any new DNA samples be run through state and federal databases, to see whether the prisoner can be tied to unsolved crimes.
Senators tried to address concerns about the cost by putting an annual limit of $150,000 on the amount of money the state would spend to provide DNA testing for prisoners who can’t afford it themselves. But that doesn’t address the larger potential cost, in increased demand on our already overburdened and underfunded courts. That cost is not a sufficient reason to reject the legislation – but it is reason to give the courts the resources they need to do their job. Another way to hold down the cost might be to eliminate the appeals procedure, and make the judge’s decision on whether to order testing final.
There is certainly room for debate over precisely how such a program should operate – and we hope that the House will engage that debate before lawmakers adjourn for the year. But we have not heard any convincing arguments why our state should continue to bar the courthouse door to inmates with reasonable claims that a simple test can prove their innocence.

A way to prove the innocent innocent, and the guilty guilty. It’s hard to see why this wouldn’t pass in a heartbeat.

‘Dear SCRG:’ Herndon explains himself on vouchers

26 Replies

Now I have received a copy of a response that David Herndon has sent to SCRG’s response to his complaint. If you had trouble following what I just said, go back and read this, then come back here and read the following:

Dear SCRG:

Thank you for you response. Please mark me as "oppose both" on question six.

We do not remember my campaign putting the "x" where we apparently did, but if we did do so it was a mistake.

Truthfully, a campaign assistant answered your questionnaire… and I do not know if it was our mistake or the awkward wording on your part that led us to "x" the wrong box.

Hopefully, I have been very clear about my support for public education, and my opposition to vouchers, from the very beginning. In fact, my strong support for education and my opposition to vouchers was a centerpiece of my campaign long before you sent your questionnaire. (It is also worth noting that part of the reason I am running is to give voters a pro-education alternative to your voucher candidate.)

David Herndon

Interesting exchange in District 79

8 Replies

Randy Page of SCRG shared with me his response to an e-mail from David Herndon, whom we recently endorsed over Sheri Few for the GOP nomination in House Dist. 79.

First, the letter he says he got from Mr. Herndon:

To: SCRG
From: David Herndon, Republican for House
District 79

Dear sirs,

As you are aware, I am a Republican candidate for the S.C.
House of Representatives. I am writing because I am concerned about your
involvement in not just this race, but many others across the state as
well.

It has been brought to my attention that your
special-interest organization has sent out many mailings in many Legislative
races in South Carolina. Some of these postcards simply promote candidates, but
others are “attack pieces” which aim to discredit Republican office-holders who
support public education.

While state law certainly allows special interest groups to
endorse whomever you wish, these mailings leave many unanswered questions.
First, and most importantly, nowhere in any of these mailings — at least the
ones I am aware of — do you disclose the true motives of your group.

It is my understanding the purpose of your organization is to
advocate private school vouchers. Strangely, neither your advocacy of vouchers
nor your preferred candidates’ support for vouchers is mentioned in any of your
mailings.

As a public school parent, I strongly support public
education, and I believe your private-school voucher scheme would only drain
needed funding away from public school classrooms. However, I view this as an
honest difference of opinion, and I certainly believe it is important for
elected Representatives to find a common ground with those of other viewpoints.
What I do have a problem with is that your organization is not disclosing your
true motives. I feel this amounts to misleading voters.

Last month, I wrote to my opponent, Mrs. Few, to express my
concern about your involvement in this race. My concerns were based on your
previous track record of running negative, deceptive campaigns against
Republican office-holders who support education; your attempts to disguise your
true motives; and published reports that say much, if not a majority, of your
funding comes from out-of-state. (In my opinion, your negative campaign against
Bill Cotty in 2006 was perhaps the most negative our community has ever been
subjected to.)

My letter still has received no response, so I decided to
contact your organization directly.

I am writing you with this public challenge: In the rest of
your mailings this election cycle, please level with the voters about your true
motive — the privatization of education. The voters deserve honesty. And after
all, your group calls itself “South Carolinians for Responsible Government.” I
would think the hallmark of anyone claiming to advocate “responsible government”
would see the value in being as honest and up front as possible with the
voters.

So what do you say, SCRG? Do the voters not deserve to be
told the truth about your group’s purpose as you fill up their mailboxes with
attack pieces, pictures of pigs and postcards about conservative
judges?

I look forward to your response, and I hope you will answer
this challenge. The voters deserve as much.

Thank you,

David Herndon

Then, Randy’s response:

Dear Mr.
Herndon,

Thank you for your
email. I appreciate you taking the time to contact South Carolinians for
Responsible Government.

Through mail, radio and
Internet, we have been very clear about our objectives. In fact, you can read
about it on our website at http://www.scrgov.org/content.asp?name=Site&catID=8110&parentID=8088
We have long advocated the need for lower taxes, government restructuring,
conservative judges and for tuition tax credits.

In my view, citizens
don’t need to be wary of a conservative organization that advocates for better
schools, lower taxes and streamlining government, but rather someone, like
yourself, who one day professes a particular set of beliefs, but then decides –
perhaps on the advice of a slick political consultant – that he’s changed his
position. What else could describe your sudden about face on the issue of
school choice?

In the survey that you
signed and submitted to us on April 18^th, you clearly checked that
you supported both a scholarship granting organization and a voucher system.
I’m sure this will come as a complete surprise to the editors of The State.
If you don’t remember, I’ve included a copy of it for you – as well as the
members of the media that were copied on this message.

Sincerely,

Randy Page,
President

South Carolinians for
Responsible Government

I guess it’s a good thing that, as I said in my Sunday column, it was her position on the cigarette tax that made me decide against endorsing Sheri Few.

How they voted on (sort of) restructuring

21 Replies

As outrageous activity goes, this isn’t nearly as much so as the failure to overrided Sanford’s veto on the cigarette tax. It’s just sort of run-of-the-mill pitiful, what you come to expect from our General Assembly.

This note sent to me by Cindi describes how Senators failed to keep alive the modest Vincent Sheheen proposal to sorta, kinda move in the general direction of rational structural (and functional) reform of state government:

Here’s Tuesday’s Senate vote on a motion to set the legislative restructuring/Department of Administration bill (about which we wrote this morning) for special order. It needed a two-thirds vote but fell short. The bill will not be debated unless it is set for special order.

THE CALL OF THE UNCONTESTED CALENDAR HAVING BEEN COMPLETED, THE SENATE PROCEEDED TO THE MOTION PERIOD.

MOTION FAILS

H. 3590 <http://www.scstatehouse.net/cgi-bin/web_bh10.exe?bill1=3590&session=117> ( Word <http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess117_2007-2008/bills/3590.doc> version) — Reps. G.R. Smith, Bowen, Duncan, Haskins, Littlejohn, Lowe, Bedingfield and Stavrinakis: A BILL TO ENACT THE "SOUTH CAROLINA RESTRUCTURING ACT OF 2007" INCLUDING PROVISIONS TO AMEND SECTION 1-30-10, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE AGENCIES OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF STATE GOVERNMENT BY ADDING THE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION; BY ADDING SECTION 1-30-125 SO AS TO ESTABLISH THE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION AS AN AGENCY OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF STATE GOVERNMENT TO BE HEADED BY A DIRECTOR APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR UPON THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, AND TO TRANSFER TO THIS NEWLY CREATED DEPARTMENT CERTAIN OFFICES AND DIVISIONS OF THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, AND OTHER AGENCIES, AND TO PROVIDE FOR TRANSITIONAL AND OTHER PROVISIONS NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH THE ABOVE; BY ADDING CHAPTER 8 TO TITLE 1 SO AS TO CREATE THE OFFICE OF STATE INSPECTOR GENERAL AS A SEPARATE DIVISION WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, TO PROVIDE THAT THE STATE INSPECTOR GENERAL MUST BE APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR UPON THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, TO PROVIDE FOR THE PURPOSE, DUTIES, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND AUTHORITY OF THE STATE INSPECTOR GENERAL, TO PROVIDE A DEFINITION OF "EXECUTIVE AGENCIES" FOR PURPOSES OF THIS CHAPTER, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE RECEIPT AND INVESTIGATION OF COMPLAINTS RELATING TO IMPROPER OR UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY WITHIN EXECUTIVE AGENCIES OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT; BY ADDING ARTICLE 6 TO CHAPTER 3 OF TITLE 1 SO AS TO ESTABLISH THE DIVISION OF THE STATE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION TO BE HEADED BY THE STATE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER, TO PROVIDE THAT THE STATE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER SHALL BE APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR UPON THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE POWERS, DUTIES, AND FUNCTIONS OF THE DIVISION; TO CREATE A JOINT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY REVIEW COMMITTEE, AN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY BUSINESS CASE REVIEW PANEL, AND AN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ARCHITECTURE OVERSIGHT PANEL AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE FUNCTIONS, POWERS, AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE COMMITTEE AND PANELS; TO AMEND SECTION 11-35-1580, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROCUREMENTS, SO AS TO DELETE CERTAIN RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT OFFICE; TO AMEND SECTIONS 1-10-10, 1-11-20, AS AMENDED, 1-11-22, 1-11-55, 1-11-56, 1-11-58, 1-11-65, 1-11-67, 1-11-70, 1-11-80, 1-11-90, 1-11-100, 1-11-110, 1-11-180, 1-11-220, 1-11-225, 1-11-250, 1-11-260, 1-11-270, 1-11-280, 1-11-290, 1-11-300, 1-11-310, 1-11-315, 1-11-320, 1-11-335, 1-11-340, 1-11-435, 2-13-240, AS AMENDED, CHAPTER 9 OF TITLE 3; 10-1-10, 10-1-30, AS AMENDED, 10-1-40, 10-1-130, 10-1-190, AS AMENDED, CHAPTER 9 OF TITLE 10, 10-11-50, AS AMENDED, 10-11-90, 10-11-110, 10-11-140, 10-11-330; 11-9-610, 11-9-620, 11-9-630, 11-35-3810, 11-35-3820, 11-35-3830, 11-35-3840, 13-7-30, 13-7-830, ALL AS AMENDED, 48-46-30, AS AMENDED, 48-46-40, AS AMENDED, 48-46-50, 48-46-60, 48-46-90, 44-53-530, AS AMENDED, AND 44-96-140; AND TO ADD SECTION 1-11-185 ALL RELATING TO VARIOUS AGENCY OR DEPARTMENT PROVISIONS SO AS TO CONFORM THEM TO THE ABOVE PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO THE NEW DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION OR TO SUPPLEMENT SUCH PROVISIONS.

Senator MARTIN moved to set H. 3590 for Special Order.

Senator MARTIN explained the Bill.

Senator MALLOY spoke on the Bill.

The "ayes" and "nay" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows:

AYES

Alexander                Bryant                   Campbell
Campsen                Ceips                   Cleary
Courson                Cromer                   Fair
Grooms                   Hayes                   Jackson
Lourie                   Martin                   Massey
McConnell                Peeler                   Rankin
Reese*                   Ritchie                Ryberg
Scott                   Setzler                Sheheen
Thomas                   Verdin

Total–27

NAYS

Anderson                Drummond                Ford
Hawkins                Hutto                   Knotts
Land                   Leatherman             Leventis
Malloy                   Matthews                McGill
O’Dell                   Patterson                Pinckney
Short                   Williams

Total–17

*This Senator was not present in the Chamber at the time the vote was taken and the vote was recorded by leave of the Senate, with unanimous consent.

The necessary two-thirds vote having not been received the motion failed.

Guys at the Bada-Bing must LOVE S.C. lawmakers

11 Replies

As part of my never-ending quest to be fair-minded and see the silver lining, I’ve managed to think of one group of citizens who will benefit from, and have reason to appreciate, the otherwise contemptible, ridiculous failure of the S.C. House to override Mark Sanford’s veto of the cigarette tax increase. They’re not citizens of S.C. (and come to think of it, Furio’s not even a citizen of this country), but let’s not get picky.

In case you haven’t done the math on this, the S.C. tax on cigarettes is 7 cents (yes, 7 cents) a pack. In New York City, it’s $4.25 a pack. Imagine the profit on a truckload of cartons, even if you don’t steal the truck. As if I-95 needed MORE traffic…

The Wall Street Journal recently explained the profitability to O.C. of the New York taxes. Of course, being the WSJ — the only publication in the world that actually believes Mark Sanford is a contender for John McCain’s running mate (and even then it’s just the ideologues on the editorial board) — was arguing that the N.Y. tax was a bad thing.

While the problem first surfaced during the Great
Depression, tax hikes in the early 1960s created a major profit
opportunity for smugglers and kicked the epidemic into high gear. By
1967, a quarter of the cigarettes consumed in the Empire State were
bootlegged. New York City’s finance administrator labeled cigarette
smuggling the "principal stoking facility of the engine of organized
crime."

Crime rapidly spread beyond New York’s borders, as
trucks carrying cigarettes across the country were hijacked and
businesses selling them robbed to supply New York’s black market. In
1972, the chairman of a New York commission told Congress that
retailers and other workers were "confronted almost daily with the risk
and dangers of personal violence which are now inherent in their
industry."

But from a South Carolina perspective, what that math says is that we could stop that traffic from coming out of our state — but only if we were willing to raise the tax by several times the lousy 50 cents we were talking about. But being South Carolina, and having our Legislature and our governor, we couldn’t even manage that, which is of course beneath pitiful.

I should add that the WSJ piece also dealt with the connection between cigarette smuggling and terrorism. But thanks to South Carolina, ordinary decent American criminals are in a position to keep competing with the foreign bad guys.

How they voted on cigarette tax

26 Replies

Trying to catch up with messages and such, I have no time to comment right now on the inexcusable, unconscionable, reprehensible vote to uphold Gov. Mark Sanford’s indefensible veto of the cigarette tax (beyond reminding you of what I’ve said over and over — how the money is spent is secondary, far secondary, to cutting teen smoking by raising the price, and there was NO excuse not to do that). But until I DO have time, here’s how those no-account cusses (and the rest of them) voted:

{BC-SC-XGR-Cigarette Tax-Roll Call,0405}
{Cigarette Tax-Roll Call}
{By The Associated Press}=
The 54-57 roll call by which the South Carolina House voted to sustain a veto on a 50 cent-a-pack cigarette tax increase. A two-thirds vote was required to override the veto.
On this vote, a "yes" vote was a vote to override the veto and "no" vote was a vote to sustain the veto.
Voting "yes" were 40 Democrats and 14 Republicans.
Voting "no" were 4 Democrats and 53 Republicans.
Not voting were 7 Democrats and 6 Republicans.

{Democrats Voting Yes}
Alexander, Florence; Allen, Greenville; Anderson, Georgetown; Anthony, Union; Bales, Eastover; Bowers, Brunson; Branham, Lake City; Brantley, Ridgeland; Breeland, Charleston; G. Brown, Bishopville; R. Brown, Hollywood; Clyburn, Aiken; Cobb-Hunter, Orangeburg; Funderburk, Camden; Govan, Orangeburg; Hart, Columbia; Harvin, Summerton; Hodges, Green Pond; Howard, Columbia; Jefferson, Pineville; Jennings, Bennettsville; Kennedy, Greeleyville; Knight, St. George; Mack, North Charleston; McLeod, Little Mountain; Miller, Pawleys Island; Mitchell, Spartanburg; J.H. Neal, Hopkins; J.M. Neal, Kershaw; Ott, St. Matthews; Parks, Greenwood; Rutherford, Columbia; Scott, Columbia; Sellers, Denmark; F.N. Smith, Greenville; J.E. Smith, Columbia; Stavrinakis, Charleston; Vick, Chesterfield; Weeks, Sumter; Williams, Darlington;

{Republicans Voting Yes}
Ballentine, Irmo; Cotty, Columbia; Crawford, Florence; Dantzler, Goose Creek; Gullick, Lake Wylie; Hiott, Pickens; Huggins, Columbia; Mahaffey, Lyman; Owens, Pickens; Pinson, Greenwood; Rice, Easley; Scarborough, Charleston; Skelton, Six Mile; Whitmire, Walhalla;

{Democrats Voting No}
Battle, Nichols; Kirsh, Clover; Moss, Gaffney; Neilson, Darlington;

{Republicans Voting No}
Bannister, Greenville; Barfield, Conway; Bedingfield, Mauldin; Bingham, West Columbia; Bowen, Anderson; Brady, Columbia; Cato, Travelers Rest; Chalk, Hilton Head Island; Clemmons, Myrtle Beach; Cooper, Piedmont; Daning, Goose Creek; Delleney, Chester; Duncan, Clinton; Edge, North Myrtle Beach; Erickson, Beaufort; Frye, Batesburg-Leesville; Gambrell, Honea Path; Hagood, Mt. Pleasant; Haley, Lexington; Hamilton, Taylors; Hardwick, Surfside Beach; Harrell, Charleston; Harrison, Columbia; Haskins, Greenville; Herbkersman, Bluffton; Kelly, Woodruff; Leach, Greer; Littlejohn, Spartanburg; Loftis, Greenville; Lowe, Florence; Lucas, Hartsville; Merrill, Daniel Island; Mulvaney, Indian Land; Perry, Aiken; E.H. Pitts, Lexington; M.A. Pitts, Laurens; Sandifer, Seneca; Shoopman, Greer; Simrill, Rock Hill; D.C. Smith, North Augusta; G.M. Smith, Sumter; G.R. Smith, Simpsonville; J.R. Smith, Langley; Stewart, Aiken; Talley, Spartanburg; Taylor, Laurens; Thompson, Anderson; Toole, West Columbia; Umphlett, Moncks Corner; Walker, Landrum; White, Anderson; Witherspoon, Conway; Young, Summerville;

{Those Not Voting}
Democrats: Agnew, Abbeville; Coleman, Winnsboro; Hayes, Hamer; Hosey, Barnwell; Moody-Lawrence, Rock Hill; Phillips, Gaffney; Whipper, North Charleston;
Republicans: Davenport, Boiling Springs; Hutson, Summerville; Limehouse, Charleston; W.D. Smith, Spartanburg; Spires, Pelion; Viers, Myrtle Beach;

You might think I should praise those who voted to override, but I won’t — anyone, regardless of political philosophy, should do what they did. To vote to sustain the veto was beneath contempt.

The ‘tyranny’ of having to choose

33 Replies

By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
OVER THE last 10 days, we’ve started running our endorsements of candidates for state and local offices in the June 10 primaries.
Our choices are the end result of a process based in years, even decades, of observation of the issues and institutions involved — and in some case, long exposure to the candidates. The most visible and obvious part of the process is the candidate interview (we’ve done 41 so far). But the process doesn’t start, and usually doesn’t end, with that ritual.
Sometimes, our editorial board will produce a ringing, enthusiastic endorsement of one candidate over his or her competition. Examples of that are the ones favoring John McCain and Barack Obama in their respective primaries back in January.
Such clear, unequivocal choices are rare. Far more often, we’ll pick our way through a thicket of pros and cons.
But we always try to choose in the end. That’s because one of these candidates is going to occupy the office, and that matters. It affects your life. It determines the laws you will live under, how those laws are enforced, and the taxes you will pay. On rare occasion in years past we have thrown up our hands and said “We can’t in good conscience endorse either of these candidates.” But that is a cop-out and a disservice to readers, and I regard each time it has happened as a failure.
In fact, I suspect that the most difficult and uncomfortable endorsements are sometimes the most valuable, because you can see us wrestling more strenuously than usual with the very issues you must consider as the voter, whether you agree with where we end up or not.
Consider this excerpt from our endorsement of Rep. John Scott last week for the Senate seat being vacated by Kay Patterson (his opponent is Vince Ford, longtime Richland 1 school board member):

Mr. Scott is the fighter, the man with a chip on his shoulder who, although he understands the big picture, often gravitates to smaller matters. Mr. Ford is the consensus-builder, smooth and polished and focused on the big picture.
Normally, with such similar positions on policy, the better choice for the gentleman’s club that is the state Senate would be the candidate with Mr. Ford’s profile….

But in the end, there is probably no greater unresolved challenge in the Midlands than the failure of our largest school district to overcome its problems. If we endorsed Mr. Ford for higher office, at what point would we hold anyone accountable for the turmoil, confusion and failures of the district?
We wouldn’t have been comfortable either way. But we made a choice, and we stated why; make of it what you will.
To contradict a widely held assumption, endorsements aren’t about whom we like personally. If that were the case, we’d have endorsed Sheri Few for the Republican nomination to replace Rep. Bill Cotty in House District 79. She’s smart, energetic, personable, and understands how the Legislature works.
She came in with a deficit on our scorecard — her vehement advocacy for vouchers and/or tax credits for private school tuition. That made the choice easy two years ago, when she ran against Mr. Cotty — one of the most dedicated and effective supporters of public education in the Republican caucus.
But as important as that issue is, it doesn’t automatically trump everything. And during our interview this time, I found myself mentally building a case for endorsing Ms. Few. But then, she brought up the cigarette tax, in order to make sure we knew she would never increase it, even in order to lower another tax. The good that a higher cigarette tax would do, in terms of fewer teens hooked on tobacco, did not move her. Her dedication to the ideology of never, ever raising a tax under any circumstances reminded me of how shockingly rigid she is. I was reminded of something I had written on my blog after we met her in 2006, that “she clings firmly to ideology, even when it doesn’t seem to fit her own experience….”
She has many traits that would make her an effective lawmaker. But effectiveness in the service of an ideology more extreme than that held by Gov. Mark Sanford would not be a good thing. So we endorsed the less experienced, less savvy David Herndon, who was motivated to run by his wish to stand against some of the worst things Ms. Few stands for.
Other difficult choices lie ahead. We haven’t decided yet what to do in Senate District 23. There, the leading candidates are Jake Knotts, a populist with quite a few, shall we say, rough edges, and the much smoother, more conventional Republican Katrina Shealy, whom powerful interests are backing in an effort to take out Mr. Knotts for the sin of having made an enemy of our governor.
That one won’t be easy. It’s the kind of choice that causes me to have to remind myself that we are blessed to have choices. As tough as some of them are for us — and more to the point, for you as the voter — the “tyranny” of having to choose is far better than the real tyranny of not having a choice.
And please, don’t you cop out. Read our endorsements — and read the rest of the paper, and the mailings you get from the candidates. Go to candidate forums; debate the options with your neighbors. And then, whatever your decision, go out and apply it on June 10. Because in each and every case, one of these folks is going to win that office, and will be calling the shots for all of us until the next election.

Five Points parking project: The position we didn’t take

5 Replies

You may or may not have noticed that we never took an editorial position on the 5 Points South project — the six-story private development that would include two stories of city parking. There were plenty of words on the editorial page on the subject, both pro and con — just not from us. There were letters and op-eds, but no editorial.

This is because we had no consensus on the subject. The problem was me. I didn’t like the project. Why? It just seemed too tall to be right there. It didn’t move me to know that there were other buildings even taller just a block or two away. This would loom right over the heart of Five Points — right over the new fountain forming a gateway at Saluda and Blossom. Besides — and I realize this is purely a personal whim, so I wouldn’t have taken an editorial position on the strength of this; it just didn’t help — I don’t like parking garages. I’ll park half a mile a way and walk rather than get tangled up in a parking garage. Something about the tediousness of getting in and out of them. I like to know I can make a quick getaway, or something. I don’t know what it is.

Other members of the board thought the project was fine, but it wasn’t a burning issue to them. That is to say, they didn’t favor it strongly enough to push me on it. And they had their hands full, as did I. We were in the midst of endorsement season, and unfortunately, state primaries come along concurrently with the last few weeks of the legislative session — a doubly busy time for us. So basically, no one had the time to do the research to overcome my objections. So we neither came out for it or against it.

In the last couple of weeks before the city’s final decision (which came Wednesday — it was approved), advocates for the project asked to come in to talk to us. With the pace of interviews we were dealing with (and remember, with our present staffing levels, we all work a full day getting the pages out without any meetings), we weren’t sure whether it would be time well spent, given how far apart we were on it.

But all of that is hard to explain, so Warren and I agreed to meet with the group on Monday. The delegation included Anne Sinclair from city council, our own James D. McCallister (who I believe is associated with Loose Lucy’s — correct me if I’m wrong, Don), Duncan McRae from Yesterday’s, longtime Five Points leader Jack Van Loan, developer Ron Swinson and city and Five Points Association staff.

I asked them all my questions, and I was satisfied with the answers. The parking is needed, not everyone has my aversion to garages, and the setback should avoid looming over the entrance to Five Points excessively. It means a lot that the businesses most likely to be loomed over want it.

James brought up a good point about "Five Points" as a concept being something that some of us react to emotionally and sentimentally. I acknowledged that to me, that wasn’t even Kenny’s, but the Winn-Dixie. And does it really make sense not to have secure parking for patrons and employees because I don’t want a building taller than the Winn-Dixie?

So that leaves, what? Residential neighbors who don’t like it, right? That’s something that should be respected, but does it outweigh the legitimate reasons set out by the advocates?

With the decision coming up on Wednesday, I huddled with Warren and Cindi to see whether they thought we should take a position before the meeting. At the same time, I made the point that while I had been won over, I didn’t like the fact that there wasn’t time left to spend equal time with opponents. (If I had thought they would be that persuasive, we would have tried earlier to make provision for that.) We decided, in light of what we already had planned to say editorially on Tuesday and Wednesday, not to leap to a conclusion editorially at the last moment. Warren did write a column mentioning the project favorably for Wednesday’s paper, but mentioned MORE prominently the smoking ban, which we were already on record as strongly for.

Why a post on why we didn’t take a position, when we take very clear positions on bigger, more controversial issues than this all the time? Well, I just wanted to post the video of James et al., and this provided the excuse.

That makes three of our regulars who have now been featured in picture (and now video) on the blog — Doug Ross, bud, and James.

On this blog, everybody gets famous eventually. And not just for 15 minutes, either — even though this is the future previously referred to.

Residents also advised to refrain from jumping off cliffs…

8 Replies

Just got this release, and I’ve gotta wonder: Who has to be advised not to do this? Anyway, I pass it on on account of some of y’all really being into animals and all…

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 23, 2008

Residents advised to refrain from adopting wild animals

COLUMBIA – For the second time in a month, citizens are advised to
beware of wild animals of any age and refrain from "adopting" them
because of the risk from rabies, the S.C. Department of Health and
Environmental Control said today.
"A pair of young foxes was found in the woods of North Carolina and
taken to York County where they were cared for by several people," said
Sue Ferguson of DHEC’s Bureau of Environmental Health. "At present, 23
people have been evaluated after they were exposed to rabies by one of
the foxes, which tested positive for the disease at DHEC’s Bureau of
Labs.
"As of Friday morning, several people in North Carolina are being
evaluated, and at least four people in South Carolina are under the care
of a physician and receiving preventive inoculations," Ferguson said.
"Those numbers might change as the investigation continues in order to
determine whether there are others who need to be evaluated for possible
exposure."
It is important to remember that the disease can be transmitted without
a bite.
According to Ferguson, the disease is spread through an infected
animal’s saliva. Many of the exposures occurred when handling and
feeding the fox, as well as letting it lick their faces, as caretakers
came into contact with the fox’s saliva.
"We cannot stress enough the importance of resisting the urge to adopt
wildlife," Ferguson said. "Despite the prevalent folklore, there is no
way to tell from looking at an animal whether or not it has rabies, and
baby animals can carry the disease without showing symptoms as well.
"Therefore, anyone bitten, scratched or otherwise exposed to the saliva
of a rabid animal must undergo immediate measures to stop the virus from
reaching the brain because once the rabies virus reaches the brain the
disease is fatal to humans and animals.
"Hundreds of animals are tested in our state each year and rabies has
been found in all South Carolina counties," Ferguson said. "About 400
South Carolinians must undergo preventive treatment for rabies every
year costing the state thousands of dollars. Most exposures come from
being bitten or scratched by a rabid or suspected rabid animal.
"Wild animals carry the disease most often and can roam many miles
daily, but domestic pets can contract rabies as well, so we remind
residents that the best protection for people and their pets is to make
sure pets are regularly vaccinated against the disease, as is required
under state law," she said. "Make every effort to stay away from wild
animals, but if you think you have been exposed to the rabies virus
through a bite, scratch or the saliva of a possibly infected animal,
immediately wash the affected area with plenty of soap and water, then
be sure to get medical attention and report the incident to DHEC."
This is the second large-scale exposure to rabies in the state this
month resulting from a wild animal adoption. This is the third confirmed
rabid animal in York County in 2008. In 2007, 16 rabid animals were
confirmed in the county and there were 162 confirmed cases of rabies in
animals in South Carolina. So far this year, there have been 50
confirmed cases in animals in the state.
For more information about rabies, see DHEC’s Web page at:
http://www.scdhec.gov/rabies or contact DHEC’s York County
Environmental Health office at (803) 909-7379. The national Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention’s Web page about rabies can be found
at: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/rabies.
-###-

How Jake became Jake: Knotts on growing up poor in Columbia

35 Replies

There have been times in the past that I’ve heard parts of it, but this time, I sat back and listened to Jake Knotts tell his full story of how he grew up in Columbia.

He was offering it as an explanation of his values, a way of telling us why he approaches things the way he does.

Look at it any way you like — as the inspiring story of how a populist rose up from the poorest corners of our capital city, or how hard times made a "rough cop" and bull-headed hard case of a state senator.

Either way, it’s interesting, and worth watching the video. This is from an interview Tuesday morning in our offices. Once Jake had told his story, we of course launched into the usual questions.

Sexy chess

65 Replies

Y‘all know what a waste I consider these completely unnecessary Kulturkampf battles to be; we’ve got about a gazillion more important things to be spending our political energies on. So imagine my dismay, and my lack of interest in getting involved, when the latest craziness struck so close to home.

But there was just one thing in the "Irmo High Gay/Straight club" story that I could not allow to pass without commenting. It was this:

âThis group is forming to provide support for the gay and lesbian students,â said C. Ray Drew, director of the South Carolina Equality Coalition, a gay rights advocacy group. âIt provides a reprieve of the often hostile environment gay students often encounter. This club is no more sexual than the chess club.â

The chess club? Oh, come on… it’s a little more sexual than the chess club, Chess isn’t it? It would have to be,
unless chess has changed a lot since I was in high school.

Maybe there’s something going on between the queen and the knight that I’ve missed. Or between the knight and the knight, given our context here. And don’t even get started on the bishops; Randy and I are Catholics, and we will take offense…

Pictures of what I’ve REALLY been doing

14 Replies

Or at least, from SOME of what I’ve been doing…

I feel like I’ve really been dropping the ball on the blog the last couple of weeks. I’ve been giving you quick and easy posts based on stuff that necessarily passes quickly through my hands during the day — an e-mail here, something from a proof there, maybe a quick take on a headline — and encouraged y’all to talk amongst yourselves while I chug along in meetings with candidates and others, one after another.

The thing is, if I were doing what I started this blog to do — giving you extra, in-depth, raw material that is over and above what I’m able to give you on the printed page (and South Carolina stuff at that, based on access I have to newsmakers by virtue of the job, stuff you can’t possibly get elsewhere) — I’d be writing about the meetings.

The trouble is, I’ve had no time to think about the meetings, or review notes to pull out highlights, or edit video from them, or anything. I’ve just chugged along, out of one meeting and into another. Again we see demonstrated the principle that you can either blog, or you can have experiences worth blogging about; you can’t have both. It’s frustrating.

So accept this quick-and-dirty photo essay, just to give you a taste of what’s been going on here in the editorial offices since Monday the 12th. Here you see at least one photo from each meeting I’ve had these two weeks with a guest or guest from outside the building (staff meetings are not documented), with the briefest possible summary. (I’ve got to get this done and move on to reading proofs for Friday’s paper.)

(In all this time, I’ve had one meeting outside the building. Tuesday afternoon I visited Providence Hospital to get an update on what’s happening there. I had a camera in my pocket, but it all went so fast I never had it out — more of a rush job, unfortunately, than a similar visit to Lexington Medical several months back, when we weren’t as rushed or as shorthanded.)

Here we go…

Monday, May 12, 11 a.m. — John Scott, Senate Dist. 19, Democrat: