Category Archives: South Carolina

Methodist ministers

30 Replies

We were way busy last week and I failed to comment on this, but it’s never too late on a 45-year issue.

I was pleased to hear from Methodist preacher friend that he and some fellow clergy were going to pray at the Confederate flagpole, with the object of their prayers being much the same as mine:

By RODDIE A. BURRIS
rburris@thestate.com
    A group of 30 to 40 people prayed
and held Communion Tuesday on the State House
grounds in protest of the
Confederate flag flying there.
    The group, led by ministers from area United Methodist churches, had Communion at the State House’s African-American monument.Methodist_preachers
    Afterward,
they turned and marched 150 yards to the Confederate Soldier’s
Monument. There, the group prayed, asking that the flag be removed from
State House grounds…
    “We hope that now people will start
bringing their churches down here and having service,” said the Rev.
John Wesley Culp, pastor of Virginia Wingard Memorial United Methodist
Church, on Broad River Road.

Randy and I need to bring this idea up to our pastor. Whaddaya think, Randy? With a Legislature like ours ("The protest drew little attention inside the State House as legislators
began their six-week countdown to the end of the 2007 session"), I think it would be wise for people of good will to appeal to the Higher Power.

In any case, this development was encouraging, because it was the first step beyond Coach Spurrier’s comments, in terms of assembling a coalition of mainstream forces to press our lawmakers to do the right thing — however reluctant they are even to speak of it.

Lawmakers stub out smoke-free workplace movement

18 Replies

As communities across South Carolina have rushed to protect workers and patrons in restaurants and bars — in response to public demand, and a recent Surgeon General’s report — they have faced one major barrier: The Legislature doesn’t want them to do it, and passed a law several years back forbidding them to do so.

If the General Assembly as a body were not actively hostile to public health, all it would have to do to foster a new dawn is get out of the way — repeal its pre-emption of local governments.

Instead, in actions that might baffle Machiavelli, it has taken idealistic legislation that would place a statewide ban on smoking in such public accommodations, watered it down to meaninglessness, and included even more emphatic language making sure that local governments can’t go beyond the meager changes in this bill.

In the attached video, you can hear some women who have been working hard to get this far on a workplace smoking ban, only to find it blow up in their faces — in multiple ways.

For instance, the legislation now:

  • Bans smoking in restaurants, but not bars.
  • Allows bars to pretty much define themselves AS bars, rather than setting rations of food-to-alcohol or some such.
  • Allows such establishments to buy their way out of the ban with a one-time fee. All they have to do is call themselves a bar, and ban kids for part of the day — letting the kids breathe the poisons from the upholstery during the hours that the joint goes BACK to being a "restaurant."
  • Put enforcement of the provisions, such as they are, under the Department of Revenue — there is, after all, that fee to collect — rather than the Department of Health and Environmental Control.
  • Leaves those workers at places that decide to call themselves "bars" completely unprotected from this workplace hazard.
  • Most of all, makes sure local standards can’t be any better than the state’s.

That last part is what has public health advocates ready to kill the bill altogether — which has some of our relatively-benign-but-less-thoughtful lawmakers (and that’s a large subset of the General Assembly) — dismissing them as soreheads not willing to take "half a loaf." But it isn’t half a loaf; it’s a serious setback.

The whole country is fed up with being forced to breathe the toxins put out by an obnoxious minority in public places, and finally laws across the nation are starting to reflect that. The movement has been strong in South Carolina as well, with 11 bills moving through the Legislature that among other things raise the cigarette tax (a lamentably pitiful amount), and ban smoking on school property, in cars that have kids as passengers, and in the aforementioned public accommodations.

There were originally something like 19 bills, which testifies to the fact that this was a movement welling up from the people of South Carolina through their representatives, not a focused campaign by any interest group. "It’s not health Nazis dictating policy," said Lisa Turner of the American Heart Association.

That actually presents a tactical liability to those working in our behalf and against the skillful, deep-pockets, recently-reinforced tobacco lobby. They know that if they kill the bar-restaurant bill, the bad stuff will just be tacked onto one of the other bills they are counting on passing.

All the momentum out here in the real world is on the side of those of us who want to breathe clean air. But the local lobbyists for tobacco companies, who tend to be some of Columbia’s best — from Dwight Drake to Tony Denny — have been making highly effective use of their close relationships with key decision-makers in the State House.

They are like highly skillful generals on the losing side of a conventional war — giving ground in ways that make their opponents pay the maximum for every inch, while all the time looking for the main chance that will suddenly tip the balance back in their favor, despite all the odds.

To see how this works in microcosm, check the video, in which a lobbyist for the American Lung Association describes her shock at first, seeing House Judiciary Chairman Jim Harrison attend a subcommittee meeting on the restaurant bill, then seeing the members chat back-and-forth with the tobacco lobbyists across the room whenever they had a question, ignoring the experts from the state health department that were sitting there.

The women in the video went on and on about how their phones have been lighting up with folks from their national organizations wanting to know, what in the world is happening there? Georgia, after all, not only bans smoking in any place that EVER serves kids — which pretty much covers all restaurants — and has 27 local ordinances that go farther than that. All of this, remember, is in response to the public demand — to which local governments tend to be more sensitive than state lawmakers.

Since these health advocate met with the editorial board, North Carolina has voted NOT to ban smoking. So at least South Carolina isn’t totally alone in its backwardness.

Minimizing the impact

20 Replies

Judging by the lack of comments, I’m guessing not many of you read this item. I urge you to do so now.

And then, read this:

Bloggers kicked out of a blogging event.  Ironic…don’t you think?



Published  May 3rd, 2007 in Uncategorized.

Yesterday we received a copy of a press release inviting the press to attend ETV’s weekly show with Senator Glenn McConnell.

The press release stated:

This week’s SCETV Senate teleconference hosted by
President Pro Tem McConnell on Thursday, May 3rd, at 9:30 a.m., will
host Senator Jake Knotts, R – Lexington and Senator Kevin Bryant,
R-Anderson as they discuss how blogs impact the legislative process.

We encourage you to personally attend this live program in the
President Pro Tem’s Office on the 2nd Floor of the State House off the
main lobby near the front door.

We go to a lot of press conferences and other press events and we
are usually treated very well by those holding the event and members of
the press. But today was different.

We decided to attend this event because it was about the impact of
blogs on the legislative process and well…we are a blog.  Even more
important, we are a blog that covers politics and we very frequently
discuss the impact of new media on politics.  If anyone should be at
this event IT’S US.

But when we got there, we were kicked out because we are not
“credentialed press.”  That’s right.  They kicked the bloggers out of
an event about bloggers.  Ironic? Stupid?  We think so.  To say we are
insulted would be a HUGE understatement.

Pretty wild, huh? There’s more, though.

Seeming to corroborate Sen. McConnell’s version of events is this e-mail I received today from Bill Rogers, head of the press association, before I saw the item on The Shot:

Brad:

FYI, Glenn McConnell’s This Week in
the Senate press conference is for accredited media only.  The room is very
small and there is no room for the general public.  I noticed your blog posting
seemed to invite the public to attend.  Only one person showed up, and he was
able to watch from the lobby.

 It was an interesting half
hour.

 Bill

My response to Bill was apologetic, not knowing the circumstances. And indeed, I generally do leave out phone numbers and such on press releases, to keep hundreds of calls from tying up the lines and preventing anybody from communicating effectively.

Now that I do know the circumstances, I’m not sure what to think. Yeah, if the room was small, you can’t accommodate a crowd. But one guy? I don’t know. Once again, what do y’all think?

I didn’t call Joe Darby names

13 Replies

Just FYI, I never called the Rev. Joe Darby an extremist, or anything else unpleasant. I like Joe Darby. Nevertheless, he felt obliged to stick up for himself on our op-ed page today, to wit:


The State’s editorial pages have been filled in recent weeks with
reactions to coach Steve Spurrier’s welcome comments on the Confederate
flag. They included columns by Brad Warthen, who supported the flag’s
removal but labeled the NAACP’s approach on the flag extreme, and Sen.
Glenn McConnell, who made the case for standing by the present flag
location and moving on.

Both
gentlemen merit a response, and I offer it as a former first vice
president of the South Carolina NAACP and one of those who drafted the
resolution for the NAACP’s interstate tourism sanctions.

It’s
your turn first, Brad — hope you don’t mind an extremist using your
first name. I’d remind you that school desegregation, voting rights and
civil rights laws didn’t just spring into being because America’s
powers that be suddenly said, “Hey, I see something unjust, let’s fix
it!” We acted as a nation in the 1960s only when organizations like the
NAACP took aggressive action, ranging from lawsuits to civil
disobedience, to demand equity. They weren’t called “extremists” back
then, but “outside agitators.” History shows that we only change and do
the right thing when we’re compelled to act and have no choice, and
that’s true in the case of the Confederate flag.

Well, I haven’t used the word "extremist" lately in this context, but I think this is what he was referring to:

… But up to now, we might as well have been shouting at a stone wall.
The NAACP and its opponents were the only ones out there making any
news on the subject, largely because news coverage is attracted,
unfortunately, to conflict.

The extremes did such a great job of
hijacking this issue, it’s like they got together and worked it out
ahead of time between them. The rest of us are trapped in this comedy
of the absurd, with the entire country laughing at us. (Have you ever
heard of anything more pathetic than the city of Columbia spending
$15,000 in a ridiculously doomed effort to get people covering the
presidential primaries here to ignore the flag? We make ourselves into
a freak show, and we think they’re going to ignore it? Come on!)

By the way, this is our editorial position on the NAACP’s stance, in case you missed it.

There’s nothing extreme about the NAACP’s position on the flag. But its approach to doing something about it polarizes the issue in a way that makes any kind of positive action extremely unlikely.

Anyway, I would never want to see the flag come down because our state felt FORCED to do it, even if that were possible. If we don’t grow to the point that we are unified in WANTING to take it down, then nothing is really accomplished.

People keep saying that there are many more important issues to be writing about — education, economic development, etc. To which I can only say, Duh. Why do you think we write about those things, day in and day out?

But the flag is worth writing about, too, because the very attitudes and detachment from reality that keep it up there also keep us from dealing meaningfully with the challenges that keep us last where we should be first. But we have to make the decision to move beyond that self-destructive mindset ourselves. Nobody can make us do it; that’s a logical contradiction.

Rev. Darby compares the NAACP’s coercive posture on the flag (or rather, attempted coercive posture, since the boycott is a bust) to marches and boycotts back in the civil rights era, when it was necessary to make courageous stands against laws that denied black people the right to vote, the right to a good job, a right to be treated equally.

But there’s a big difference. When you have a concrete obstacle such as a law that says if your skin is this color, you can’t cross this line, then whatever means you use to remove that law, you’ve had a positive effect. A barrier removed is a barrier removed, however you get there.

But the flag itself, as a concrete object, doesn’t matter. It is, as some who want to dismiss the issue, just a piece of cloth. This is about the attitude that keeps the flag flying. We have to change that. If you get rid of the flag and the attitude is unchanged, all you’ve done is hide the attitude, which will continue to poison and confound all our best efforts to achieve consensus on addressing education, economic development, public health, etc.

Personally, I believe most of us have indeed grown beyond that attitude. But our Legislature won’t recognize that. Hence my speaking up on the flag, and encouraging others to do the same — somebody besides the obsessed types who always speak up. You know, the extremists.

Whatever you do, don’t dial this number!

8 Replies

I‘m going to have to be extra careful not to accidentally call the governor from my contacts list. The consequences to the nation of his hearing his phone ring could be dire.

I just got this release:

For Immediate Release

May 3, 2007

Gov. Sanford Says He Would Answer the
Call to Run for Veep Should His Phone Ring

Says Of Those Who Claim Otherwise, “I
don’t think they’re being honest ”

Columbia SC…In a taped
interview that aired on ETV’s The Big
Picture program Thursday night at 7:30
p.m., Gov. Mark Sanford told managing editor and host Andrew
Gobeil that if he were contacted by the 2008
Republican Presidential candidate, offering him the position of vice president
on the ticket, he would take that call.

“If somebody called, it’s about like a bolt of lightning
coming in your direction. Of course you’d take the call. And people who say…I
wouldn’t even take the call, I don’t think they’re being honest.”

Sanford acknowledged that his name is being floated as a
potential vice-presidential candidate-by friend and foe alike. “It’s been
bandied about by both friends and supporters,” he said. “Some who love you keep
throwing your name out there. And others who really don’t like you throw it out
there," the governor laughed.  "So, it depends on the perspective."

Still, Sanford doesn’t appear to be hovering by the
phone, awaiting the nod. “I don’t believe there’s a chance in the world that it
will happen,” he told Gobeil. “So, we’re living our lives accordingly, quite
busy with four boys at the house and the budget cycle that we are in the middle
of.”

###

Of course, the consequences to SC would be worse. You know who is next in line to be governor, don’t you?

Ted Pitts gets “flagged”

24 Replies

Poor Ted Pitts. My House representative wasn’t in the Legislature when this issue was raging before. So he made the mistake of speaking candidly with me about the Confederate flag, and I wrote about it, and he found out how much sound and fury it can generate. I just got this letter from him:

Dear Editor,

Recently an editorial [my column of April 22] was published by Brad Warthen that
included remarks from a phone conversation he and I had regarding the
Confederate Flag.  I agreed with the point he made in a column that
outsiders can not move or remove the flag and the issue will be decided by South
Carolinians.  There was an impression given to some that I was leading a charge
to take down the Flag from behind the Confederate monument which is not the
case.

I am elected to discuss, develop opinions and try
to improve things in our State.  This includes education, healthcare, economic
development and anything the people of South Carolina want their elected
representatives to deal with.  This list currently includes the Confederate flag
that flies in front of the Statehouse.  Some say I should avoid the topic all
together but that is not what I feel I was elected to do. I have always found
the dynamics of the flag topic to be very interesting and never really felt like
I had a dog in that fight.

Since Mr. Warthen’s editorial I have gotten a crash
course on the Flag, the Confederate Monument and the tremendous efforts that
were undertaken to arrive at a compromise.  I have spoken to constituents,
legislators past and present, people of all races, business interests, long-time
South Carolinians and new residents of our state about the Flag and will
continue to do so. 

The Confederate Monument is one of many on the
statehouse grounds including an African-American monument that was built as a
result of the compromise.  I was not a member of the General Assembly when the
flag came off the dome and out of the Senate and House Chambers; but as a South
Carolinian I supported moving the Flag and now as a member of the SC House I
support honoring the compromise.

 

Sincerely,

Ted Pitts 

Opening shots of Campaign 2010

6 Replies

Last week, House Speaker Bobby Harrell spoke to the Greenville Urban League and sounded once again his theme that under Gov. Mark Sanford, South Carolina’s economy is a mess:

    State Speaker of the House Bobby Harrell said Thursday night that when the Urban League of the Upstate focuses on "empowering communities and changing" lives, it is doing what every South Carolinian should do for "the third-worse economy in the country."
    …Harrell said education is critical, but it is "a subset of the economy." He stressed the importance of improving education, especially test scores, statewide.
    He said President Clinton had it right when he ran with the theme: "It’s the economy, stupid."
    "I may be a Republican and he a Democrat, but he got that right," Harrell said.
    "Our duty is to raise the standard of living for the people who are living here."

Back before the 2006 gubernatorial election, the speaker was going around the state saying that Mr. Sanford’s Commerce Department was falling down on the job. He stressed that he wasn’t seeking the governor’s job, and he wasn’t — then. But in 2010, there will be no Republican incumbent.

Cigarette tax: Whoop-te-doo

29 Replies

So the House decided to increase the cigarette tax to about a third of the national average? Well, whoop-te-doo.

Of course, at least it’s something. And if you’re going to cut a tax with the money, the grocery tax is a far better choice than the income tax, because the former is actually comparatively high, while the latter is not. It also funds a youth smoking cessation program, so on the  whole it’s pretty decent legislation, certainly better than doing nothing.

There was a lot of fuss made about lawmakers not using all the money for Medicaid or some such. This did not bother me. As I’ve said before, I don’t really care what happens with that money, you could burn it and still accomplish the most significant goal that has motivated me to want to raise it all these years: Study after study has shown that if you raise the price per pack, fewer kids become nicotine addicts.

Anyway, Medicaid costs — just like the costs of those of us who are in private health insurance plans — are climbing so fast that even if you had devoted all the money to that, it would only cover one year’s increase in the expense. Then what do you do? The answer to rising Medicaid costs is the same as the rising private health care costs: We need to overhaul the entire system, and that is one of those few things that might have to be done on the federal, not the state, level.

For details on exactly what happened on this vote, I share with you this memo that my colleague Cindi Scoppe prepared for me. Enjoy:

On Wednesday, the House voted 78-37 to increase the cigarette tax by 30 cents and reduce the sales tax on groceries by 1.6 cents. (H 3567) The tax increase is projected to bring in about the same amount of money as the tax decrease, around $100 million.

There were actually two major questions concerning the cigarette tax: whether to increase it and, if it was to be increased, what ELSE to put in the bill.

The Ways and Means Committee bill increased the cigarette tax by 30 cents, reduced the sales tax on groceries by 1.5 cents, expanded Medicaid coverage, funded a youth smoking prevention program and paid for a couple of other programs. It was designed this way in order to satisfy two separate constituencies in the House: those who would only vote for a tax increase if it was offset by an equal or larger tax decrease, and those who wanted money from a cigarette tax increase to go to Medicaid and other health initiatives. The problem was that this meant the bill would have actually cost the state about $100 million.  To see the details of that package, go to the April 20 version of the bill and scroll down until you see the Fiscal Impact statement.

After initially sticking by this plan, the House eventually changed course and voted 64-52 to strip out nearly all of the spending and make the bill a straight swap: a higher cigarette tax for a lower sales tax on groceries. Here’s that vote, followed by the vote to pass the bill:

Voting to strip out the Medicaid spending:
Ballentine             Bannister              Barfield
Bedingfield            Bingham                Bowen
Brady                  Cato                   Chellis
Clemmons               Cooper                 Crawford
Delleney               Duncan                 Edge
Frye                   Gambrell               Gullick
Hagood                 Haley                  Hamilton
Hardwick               Harrell                Harrison
Herbkersman            Hinson                 Huggins
Kelly                  Kennedy                Kirsh
Leach                  Littlejohn             Loftis
Lowe                   Lucas                  Mahaffey
Merrill                Mulvaney               Perry
Pinson                 E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts
Sandifer               Scarborough            Shoopman
Simrill                Skelton                D. C. Smith
G. R. Smith            J. R. Smith            W. D. Smith
Spires                 Stewart                Talley
Taylor                 Thompson               Toole
Umphlett               Viers                  Walker
White                  Whitmire               Witherspoon
Young

Voting to keep the Medicaid spending in the bill:
Agnew                  Alexander              Allen
Anderson               Anthony                Bales
Battle                 Bowers                 Branham
Brantley               Breeland               G. Brown
R. Brown               Ceips                  Clyburn
Cobb-Hunter            Coleman                Cotty
Dantzler               Davenport              Funderburk
Hart                   Harvin                 Hayes
Hiott                  Hodges                 Hosey
Howard                 Jefferson              Jennings
Knight                 Limehouse              Mack
McLeod                 Miller                 Mitchell
Moss                   J. H. Neal             J. M. Neal
Neilson                Ott                    Owens
Parks                  Rice                   Rutherford
Scott                  Sellers                G. M. Smith
Stavrinakis            Vick                   Weeks
Whipper

—————————————-
The House passed the bill by a vote of 78-37:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Agnew                  Allen                  Anderson
Anthony                Bales                  Ballentine
Bannister              Bingham                Bowen
Bowers                 Brady                  Branham
Brantley               Breeland               Ceips
Chellis                Clemmons               Clyburn
Cobb-Hunter            Coleman                Cotty
Crawford               Dantzler               Delleney
Funderburk             Gambrell               Gullick
Hagood                 Hamilton               Hardwick
Harrell                Harrison               Harvin
Herbkersman            Hiott                  Hosey
Howard                 Huggins                Jefferson
Jennings               Kelly                  Knight
Limehouse              Littlejohn             Lucas
Mack                   Mahaffey               McLeod
Merrill                Miller                 Mitchell
Moss                   J. H. Neal             J. M. Neal
Ott                    Owens                  Parks
Perry                  Pinson                 E. H. Pitts
M. A. Pitts            Rice                   Rutherford
Sandifer               Scarborough            Simrill
Skelton                D. C. Smith            G. R. Smith
J. R. Smith            Stavrinakis            Stewart
Taylor                 Toole                  Vick
Walker                 Whipper                Whitmire

Total–78

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander              Barfield               Battle
Bedingfield            G. Brown               R. Brown
Cato                   Cooper                 Davenport
Duncan                 Edge                   Frye
Haley                  Hart                   Hayes
Hinson                 Hodges                 Kennedy
Kirsh                  Leach                  Lowe
Mulvaney               Neilson                Scott
Sellers                Shoopman               G. M. Smith
W. D. Smith            Spires                 Talley
Thompson               Umphlett               Viers
Weeks                  White                  Witherspoon
Young

Total–37

Goin’ to the candidates’ debate

1 Reply

Did any of y’all catch us on the radio this morning? What did you think?

I thought Mike did great — far more knowledgeable and focused than I was. And Andy did a good job of lining up phone-in guests — Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich, Joe Scarborough, Jeff Greenfield.

If you missed it, and still want to listen, here it is.

Beyond that, if you haven’t shared your thoughts on the debate itself, here’s another opportunity to do so.

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’sTodayspage
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.

Big Tobacco strikes back!

3 Replies

An e-mail urges everyone to speak up for our right to decide, on the local level, whether we want smoke-free workplaces — and restaurants, for that matter:

Get on the phone, write a letter or get the email addresses at the link enclosed, or let me know & I will get them to you. Please forward this on to whomever you know who wants clean air & a safe workplace  for ALL South Carolinians. It is speak now or forever choke, stink & endure the cyanide, ammonia & other deadly chemicals that second-hand smoke carries with it.

Here’s the enclosed release that was mentioned. And here’s the State House link that the release mentions. And if you don’t know who your legislators are, click here.

OK, so maybe the message was a little over-the-top, but that doesn’t mean I don’t agree with the sentiment.

Weird, but good, flag news

17 Replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Mayor Bob on the Flag

27 Replies

Mayor Bob Coble paused en route to Deutschland to post these thoughts on my recent post on the flag issue:

Brad, I am on a plane from Atlanta to Frankfurt for an economic
development mission with S.C. Commerce. (This email address will reach
me on my blackberry until Thursday). One focus of the trip is fuel
cells. Neil McLean of Engenuity is also on the trip. I quickly read
your blog about the flag, and responded, before we left Atlanta.

It seems that a number of factors have converged that warrant another
concerted effort to move the flag to an appropriate location.

  1. South Carolina and Columbia really are entering the knowledge
    economy. The State’s hydrogen series two weeks ago,  the Horizon and
    Discovery Buildings actually comingBob_coble_2
    out of the ground, the hiring of
    John Parks as the Innovista’s executive director, and the announcement
    of Innovista’s first tenant, Duck Creek, all confirm that the
    potential for success is real. The Confederate flag represents the
    antithesis of these efforts, and is always the first or second question
    about what kind of place South Carolina really is.
  2. The Presidential Primaries are enormous opportunities to
    re-introduce South Carolina and Columbia to the nation. Columbia is
    doing a Presidential Primary Committee to present our positive message
    to the national media. (I will be personally standing at our kiosk at
    the airport). In reality the purpose of this effort is to present an
    alternate view to the confederate flag. What a perfect time to try to
    just move the flag. The eyes of the nation, for good or bad, would be
    on us as we try.
  3. The Don Imus matter is causing the nation to review the issues of
    race, sexism etc.  Why shouldn’t the appropriateness of the flag on the
    Statehouse grounds be reviewed as well.
  4. The statement of Coach Spurrier adds a new perspective to the
    debate. The story by Joe Persons online said that Spurrier was not
    trying to be a politician and that the flag was not impacting
    recruiting. He just wanted South Carolina to do better and be more
    progressive. That is powerful.


I agree with you. We should form an organization and move forward now. Maybe just call a meeting and see who shows up.

I think we should do just that. I’m going to try to get started on that Monday.

Here’s a memorial worth the effort

10 Replies

All the energy spent raising that flag every day at the State House would be better spent on this kind of war memorial, one that would have meaning for all of us:

Brad,
  I firmly support your move to get the flag off the state house grounds. Its value, however meaningful, pales in comparison to the negative emotions it creates.
  I hate to bring up another topic in the midst of this movement, but I wanted to talk to you about how we plan to honor the Marines and soldiers from South Carolina who have died in Iraq. I am a former Marine officer and every day I wake up I thank God that I am fortunate enough to be in my own house and only concerned about unimportant things like work and domestic responsibilities. Whereas, those in Iraq are patrolling every day in hostile terrain and hoping they get to see their families back home again. I think we have a responsibility to honor those who have died to the best of our ability.
  I am also the reforestation technician for the city of Columbia, which means I am in charge of all the trees that get planted in the right of way. I know a good bit about trees, so I propose we plant a tree on state grounds in memory of each serviceman or woman who has died in Iraq or Afghanistan. I can provide trees myself, or find them elsewhere. But I am willing to organize this entire effort. Since I see this as something I can do, that’s my idea, but if someone has something better, I will support that as well. We just need to do something. I have emailed the governor’s office a couple of weeks ago, but failed to get a response. What are your thoughts on this idea?  I know you are probably overwhelmed with flag emails this week, but mull it over and let me know what you think. I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Carroll Williamson

Sounds like a promising idea to me. I told Carroll I’d put it up on the blog to see what folks think of it. So here it is.

Confederate Flag: The Ugly Underbelly

76 Replies

OK, so you’ve read, along with lots of encouraging remarks, some of those ridiculous rationalizations that some otherwise decent folk use to justify continuing to fly a Confederate flag on the State House grounds. You know, Heritage not Hate, etc.

I feel obligated to inform those of you who have led sheltered lives as to one of the main reasons why the flag remains. It’s because lawmakers who would otherwise remove it fear getting messages such as the one I am about to share with you.

First I must warn you. This is something that I would never, ever put in the newspaper. We have standards in the newspaper. Nor would I mail anything like this to you. I am sharing this only so that you no longer entertain innocent thoughts about the flag or the purity of all its defenders. You may be really fond of your heritage and all that — the same heritage that I share, mind you, having had five great-great-grandfathers representing South Carolina in the War — but you must not blind yourself to the kind of evil with which you ally yourself when you insist on flying that flag.

I get anonymous messages like this frequently when we bring up the subject of the flag. Out of common decency and the love of, my yearning for, the kind of civility I keep writing about, I never share them. Perhaps that’s part of the problem. My delicacy on this point allows some of you to preserve precious illusions. But we don’t have time for such illusions any more.

This message is not only hateful, it is extremely obscene. But I’m not going to clean it up. I’m just warning you NOT to read it.

Only read it if you doubt me that ugly, hateful racial attitudes play a part in this debate. If you do doubt that, you should read on.

Again, this is highly offensive material! Do not read on if obscene words and sentiments will disturb you!

Its sad that bigots
such as yourself and the majority of your peers write for a publication known as
the state.  The views expressed in your pathetic publication certainly do
not represent the views of the majority of the voters in this state, and I plan
to wage war against the purchase of your product! Perhaps when your liberal
publication  is no longer in demand you can stand in the unemployment
line with the "fine" minorities you sarcasticly pretend to embrace! Hopefully
you will become impoverished to the point that you will be forced to commit
crime, therefore, being locked away in the jails and prisons with these animals
who represent the minority of the population but the majority of the criminals.
Then when they slap you around, take youe food, force you to do their
chores,like the little bitch you are mabe then you will be enlightened to your
ignorance in showing passion and empathy to the "poor" ol’ blacks, half breeds,
or what have you! You ,and those who share your views are a fucking disgrace and
should be forced to live with these sub-humans for the rest of your sickening
lives and at the end (which won’t be that long, for you will probally kill
yourselves) be ALLOWED to tell how wrong you were and apoligize to
your kids and others for forever fucking up the country and making the pure race
non-existant! Thanks asshole! Hopefully the spot in HELL you are sent to will be
full of these disease ridden criminal-minded animals who are the majority, and
then let us all know how fair you were treated !!!

It’s not signed, but the e-mail address is Cdavidcatoe@aol.com.

Welcome to my world. I’m sorry — sorry enough that I may think better of this before the day is out and take it down. For now, I’m just telling you that this is the sort of stuff I get, via e-mail, snail mail and phone message in connection with this subject. With me, it’s an occasional thing. With my colleague Warren Bolton, it’s much, much more frequent. Why? Well, Look at Warren. You figure it out.

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?

Spears, McCain not always pals

22 Replies

Erstwhile challenger Glenn Lindman raises and interesting point regarding S.C. Adjutant General Stan Spears’ endorsement of John McCain for president in ’08.

Ex.-1st. Sgt. Lindman notes that in 2000, our military commander was against McCain, backing W.

For me, this raises two rather obvious points:

  1. It’s insane for South Carolina to have a military leader so wrapped up in politics — a trait that makes us much more like a banana republic than any of the 49 other states.
  2. The GOP establishment really is in the McCain camp this time. But we knew that. Still, I like him anyway. McCain, that is.

DOT reform prospects dismal

6 Replies

Tom Davis put it well on the phone this morning when I asked how his world was going in general. The
governor’s chief of staff said some things were going well, but:

"DOT was a disappointment, obviously."

Tom_davisNo kidding. Tom said maybe it would be possible to get something halfway decent out of conference committee, but he shouldn’t hold his breath. With the Senate bill being less than useless and the House bill being, as he put it, "not as much as we would want, and not as much as y’all would want," we’re pretty close to being able to chalk up the DOT issue as a huge missed opportunity to improve the quality and accountability of government in South Carolina. My words, not Tom’s. He’s slightly kinder to the House plan than I am. For me, if you’ve still got a commission, you don’t have reform.

For a view that is a lot kinder to the House than either mine or Tom’s here’s the latest memo from Patty Pierce, who has been lobbying on behalf of the Coastal Conservation League‘s transportation reform coalition. The House approach is more or less just what the coalition wanted, which is one reason we don’t have reform. Both the private group wanting reform and the governor went to the table unwilling to fight for a straight Cabinet arrangement.

Anyway, that’s water under the crumbling, neglected bridge. Here’s what Patty had to say to supporters:

DOT
Reform Team,
In the
Senate: The Senate completed its work on S.355, the
Senate version of DOT reform, after four weeks of debate, and the bill has been
forwarded to the House for its consideration.  S.355 includes four of our DOT Reform
Coalition’s priorities, but overall this bill is NOT as strong the House DOT
Reform bill, H.3575, by Representative Annette Young (R-Dorchester).

In
terms of justifying and
prioritizing transportation projects, S.355 requires the DOT to craft
a “methodology for determining how to design the Statewide Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP) that includes the schedule of priorities for all
major construction and funds allocated to complete those projects”. In crafting the methodology the following
criteria—which our Coalition supports—must be
considered:

a)
Financial viability, including the life cycle analysis of estimated

Maintenance and repair costs over
the expected life of the project;

b)
Public safety;

c)
Potential for economic development;

d)
Traffic volume;

e)
Truck traffic;

f)
The pavement quality index;

g)
Alternative transportation solutions;

h)
Consistency with local land use plans;

i)
Environmental impact; and

j)
Federal requirements for designing and setting priorities for the
STIP.

We are thankful that S.355 includes the above criteria, but the
bill does not clearly state that all projects will be justified and prioritized
according to the criteria as our Coalition has advocated. Also, the methodology will be a DOT internal
policy document as opposed to a regulation as required in H.3575, the good House
bill.  H.3575, requires the DOT to
“establish a priority list within the STIP…when compiling this list of projects
or changing this list, the department shall use” the criteria that
our Coalition has advocated.

Public
hearings
are required in S.355 prior to adopting the “prioritization” methodology, prior
to adopting the STIP, and prior to moving forward with large road and bridge
projects; this last item was not included as a separate item in the bill as was
suggested to staff, so this section needs to be further improved. The additional public hearings required in
S.355 are great opportunities for the public at-large and individual communities
affected by major transportation projects to voice concerns/praise about the
proposed methodology, the STIP, and individual projects. Having real public
hearings where the public can address a panel and/or hearing officer regarding
projects is a great improvement over current DOT practices.

The
most troublesome aspect of S.355 is the creation of a new legislative review
process through the establishment of a Joint Transportation
Review Committee (JTRC)—a 10 member committee composed of 6
legislators and 4 public members. The
JTRC will review and comment on the “prioritization” methodology and the
STIP. After review of the STIP, the DOT
is then required to promulgate the STIP as a regulation which requires approval
by the General Assembly.  Establishing road and bridge project
priorities has always been the responsibility of the SC DOT.  This new review by the JTRC and mandated
approval of the STIP by the General Assembly could undermine the DOT’s objective
analysis of transportation projects guided by the criteria included in the bill
that should be used to justify and prioritize all STIP projects.

One
final concern is a provision that states “any project placed in the STIP at the
request of a metropolitan planning organization or council of government must
not be removed.” That means a community
that has proposed a project, may not later ask that such project be removed from
the STIP if the MPO or COG determines the project is no longer wanted or
necessary.  To remove a project from the
STIP, the General Assembly must adopt a new regulation, which could easily take
more than a year if this provision were approved in a final DOT Reform
bill.

In
terms of governance, S.355 allows the
current
DOT
Commission to remain in place until a
new 7 member Board is
established. All seven members would be
appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate.  Six members would
represent congressional districts, and one member would be appointed at-large
to serve as
the Board
Chairman.  The
Board would hire an at-will Executive Director to run the daily operations of
the DOT.

Also
in the Senate, Senator Ritchie (R-Spartanburg) recalled H.3575, the strong House
DOT Reform bill, from the Senate Transportation Committee and placed the bill on
the Senate’s contested calendar.  This
action by Senator Ritchie is very helpful. H.3575 may be a vehicle to move a DOT Reform bill forward this
legislative session in the event a conference committee (3 House members and 3
Senate members) gets bogged down in its negotiations. 

In
the House: One
minor glitch occurred last week just before H.3575 was adopted and approved by
the House. No need to worry. This will just give me one more thing to work
on next week. When the final amendment
was adopted during the House debate on H.3575, the amendment was not adopted as
a “perfecting” amendment, so two previous amendments hat had been approved by
the House were inadvertently deleted. First, the House approved adding Representative Loftis’ amendment that
required consideration of “congestion” to the list of criteria used to justify
and prioritize projects, which we support. Second, the House also approved our Coalition’s priority, “consideration
of alternative transportation solutions”. Unfortunately, I discovered this week that both of these amendments were
“accidentally” deleted in the final version of the bill, so I will work with the
House staff and Representatives to see if we can get these two amendments added
back into a House approved DOT Reform bill.

If
you have any questions about DOT Reform, or the two bills that have been
approved by the House and Senate, please do not hesitate to contact me. I’d be glad to help you.

I’ll
send out an update next week on the progress the House makes in regard to DOT
Reform. Until then, I’ll keep working to
encourage the House and Senate to include the strongest provisions of both DOT
Reform bills in the final compromise legislation.

Patty
Pierce
League
Lobbyist
pattyp@scccl.org

Classy disagreement

19 Replies

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

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

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

Kathryn Braun Fenner
Columbia, SC

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

— Brad Warthen

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

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

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

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

Peace–
Kathryn

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

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

— Steven Wright