Brad Warthen's Blog

Video of all the candidates in S.C. Senate Dist. 23

Still trying in vain to catch up on all these candidate interviews. Well, at least I can catch up on one of them -- the race for the GOP nomination in S.C. Senate District 23.

In past weeks, I've posted video clips of both the incumbent, Jake Knotts, and challenger Mike Sturkie. Here's a link to the Knotts video, and here's one to the Sturkie video.

Today, I unveil a clip of Katrina Shealy, who is seen as Sen. Knotts' stronger opposition. Compare and contrast.

Through a Marine's eyes

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

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.

Joel pauses between cocktails to say hey

Last night, while my wife was monopolizing the TV watching "So You Think You Can Dance" (that's OK; I can watch that "Sopranos" DVD tonight), I sent a heads-up to my former pupil who has since gone over to the Dark Side, Joel Wood. Basically, as I told him, I didn't want to be talking about him behind his back:

Hey, Joel, how are you?

I thought I'd better tell you, as an old friend, that I mentioned you on my blog, in the context of sort kinda disagreeing with your perspective on things:
http://blogs.thestate.com/bradwarthensblog/2008/05/hey-wait-a-minu.html

You see, I've become one of those single-payer radicals. It's funny because I'm not radical about anything else. This is the one thing I agree with Dennis Kucinich about; I promise. Here are a couple of columns in which I set out my thoughts on the issue several months ago:
http://blogs.thestate.com/bradwarthensblog/2007/11/health-care-ref.html
http://blogs.thestate.com/bradwarthensblog/2007/12/can-anyone-any.html

Anyway, I thought I should give you the chance to demolish my arguments, which you probably can do, on account of being a professional in this particular policy area and all...

I didn't want to be talking about you and your industry behind your back.

And besides, I wanted an excuse to say "Hey."

So, hey.

-- Brad

About an hour later, Joel wrote back, which was nice, because it was good to hear from him. But that's not the good part; that's not the schlag, the whipped cream atop the dessert -- the lagniappe, if you will (as Johnny Malone used to say -- you remember, Joel). The good part is that this now-senior lobbyist for the insurance industry wrote back, at 10:45 p.m. on a Thursday night, on his Blackberry from a cocktail party. If you put this stuff in a movie, they wouldn't believe it.

Anyway, he promises to send a more substantial rebuttal to my ramblings later. In the meantime, this is all he said:

Total kick, and a delight.

But as I'm still in cocktails at a soiree with my benefits guys at the Homestead (every horrible image you imagine!), I can only glean so much from my peckings on the BlackBerry. First blush is that you have some insightful readers who make my case. But certainly when I get back to town, or to a regular computer screen, I shall respond as a good Republican insurance lobbyist should, probably with some invective about Michael Moore and commie journalists getting their due through diminished circulation. But, in the meantime, I am stupified that this stuff gets read by people I care about, and thoroughly thrilled that you would give it the time of day. And very happy to hear from you .... You would be proud to know my editors and colleagues, to whom I forward this,  are no less redistributionist than you. .... Miss you!

Thanks Brad.
j

Consider that a preview.

Hey, does Juan pick coffee in the woods?

Speaking of the Lieberman-Warner Act -- and if you recall, we were doing that earlier, if only peripherally -- I got a release today from the NRDC supporting said Energy Partyesque legislation. But before I could dig into all the highly persuasive arguments, I got distracted by the NRDC logo. Before I had focused on it properly, my brain went, "Hey, isn't that Juan Valdez?"

But it wasn't. It was just a logo that suggests the "mountain-grown" logo to the extent that it causes the casual observer to do a double-take. And once the observer does look more closely, he sees that instead of Juan Valdez in front of some Colombian mountains, it's actually a bear in front of some trees. Which, just to impose a digression on a digression, would seem to create less-than-savory associations regarding bears and what they do in the woods, but I'm sure the NRDC knows what it's doing.

Meanwhile, I inadvertently discovered that apparently Juan Valdez is no longer associated with a certain big-name American grocery-store coffee brand, but has branched out. So good luck to Juan with his new business, especially as it does not conflict with my own (that's a digression to the third power, for those keeping score).

'Dear SCRG:' Herndon explains himself on vouchers

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

Of COURSE 'Sex and the City' is trashy; isn't that the point?

Just for a moment, I stopped to glance over this piece in the WSJ today, headlined "The 'Sex' Effect: Empowering To Some, Trashy to Others."

I guess you'd have to put me in the "others" category. What I have to wonder about is how any rational adult with the slightest trace of maturity or propriety -- or, to put it another way, anyone who has daughters -- could see that program (now, I'm told, also a major motion picture) as anything but trashy. (Of course, I have trouble following the reasoning behind a lot of elements of feminism, and "Do-Me Feminism" makes the least sense of all.)

It's hardly alone. On the rare occasions that I stumble across prime-time broadcast fare in recent years, I've run across programs -- from "Friends" to the one with the two gay guys and the woman, the name of which escapes me at the moment -- that seem to be largely devoted to sniggering about sex. (I once heard someone assert that Jennifer Aniston's character, supposedly a girl-next-door sort, had 37 sexual partners during the course of the show. I took the speaker's word for it, although perhaps he was wrong.)

But "Sex and the City" put the point right in the title. And nothing I have ever heard about the show has seemed to contradict the impression the title intentionally gives.

Mind you the point of the article that started me on this reflection was fashion, so it quickly lost me. But I got the gist -- it was about whether or not trashy fashion was a good thing.

We live in a trash culture. We have for a long time. We live in a culture that fights against parents every moment in the never-ending battle to try to raise children who respect themselves and others.

That's the way things are, and as near as I can tell, there are no compelling arguments for any alternative way of looking at it.

People don't usually say this, because they're afraid of being labeled prudes. To hell with that. The truth is staring us all in the face.

Interesting exchange in District 79

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.

Equal opportunity advertising

Just a moment ago, I happened to notice an ad at the top of my blog. It may or may not still be there, but I saved the link. It grabbed my attention because it seemed to be attacking the Lieberman Warner Bill. And you know how I like to stick up for Joe. He and I may not agree on everything, but we agree on enough things that when I see somebody attacking him, I tend to go, "Now hold on a minute..."

Add to that the fact that when anybody starts demagoging on energy -- whether they're proposing a gas tax holiday, or tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, or saying Lieberman-Warner "would hurt consumers by driving up energy bills" -- I get suspicious.

Turns out the folks buying space above my blog happen to be "AmericasPower.org," which "is sponsored by the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), which is a partnership of the industries involved in producing electricity from coal."

Not that I automatically disagree with the idea of Clean Coal. We've got to have some way to produce electricity until we get those new nuclear plants built. (For this reason, I still haven't decided what I think about that proposed Pee Dee plant that is causing such controversy.) In fact, I didn't start this post to agree OR disagree with these people. It's too late in the day to sort all that out.

What this post is about is that at the same time THAT ad was appearing ABOVE my blog, there was another one to the RIGHT from an outfit called "Fight Global Warming," which is affiliated with the Environmental Defense Fund.

The ads that appear on this blog have nothing to do with me. I see them when you see them, and I am not consulted about them. I neither agree nor disagree with the messages they push -- that is to say, I'm as likely to disagree with them as agree; they're appearing here are irrelevant to my own positions.

But I thought it was pretty cool that two seemingly disparate groups were contending for your attention around my blog at the same time. It's almost as thought the ad folks are contending for the kind of balance we shoot for in our letters and on the op-ed page. I doubt that's happening -- ad folks are pretty much market-driven; they don't manipulate the world the way we journalists do in our quest to be "fair." But I thought it was kind of cool the way it worked out there for a minute...

Blasts from past come unexpected in this business

Needless to say, I get a lot of unsolicited, pure junk mail in my line of work. Most of it goes into the round file with hardly a glance. But I guess I was moving slow or even more easily distracted than usual today (and folks, if I weren't easily distracted, I wouldn't be doing a blog), but I happened to notice something today that made me say, wait a minute... and actually open one of the pieces of junk.

The junk in question is this slick magazine with a snazzy cover called Edge. or Leader's Edge (look at the cover and tell me which one it is). It's a big one, as you can see compared to The Economist above. To the extent that it has registered on my consciousness at all in the past, I've just thought it was some generic thing aimed at business execs, a category in which I fit only technically (on account of having the title of V.P.). But today, I noticed there was, shall we say, a theme running through the headlines of the articles teased on the cover:

• "Committing Insurance Without a License"
• "Employer plans: best cure for ill health insurance market"
• "Attacking group benefits -- why destroy what works?"

The last one grabbed me, as it seemed to be about health insurance, and seemed to suggest that we currently have a system that works. Those of you who know me know that I strongly disagree.

So I opened the mag, and eventually found the masthead, and sure enough, this is a publication of "The Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers." It's full of institutional advertising from such luminaries as UnitedHealthcare.

But that's not the good part, the part that prompted me to write this. The good part is that in the few seconds I spent flipping through this thing, I ran across the name of an old friend, Joel Wood.

I first met Joel when I was a reporter operating out of a bureau in rural West Tennessee back in the 70s. He was a student who wrote for one of the local weeklies. Later, when I was the news editor of The Jackson Sun, he was one of my best reporters. But after the 1982 election, he left the paper to become press secretary to Don Sundquist, who had been elected to Congress over a candidate whose campaign press secretary was another former writer at the paper (whom I later hired back, as it happened). Sundquist later became governor of Tennessee. But before that happened, Joel became a lobbyist for the insurance industry. In one of those startling coincidences that make Washington seem like such a small town, I ran into him years later when I was showing one of my kids around the Capitol.

Anyway, I last ran into Joel three years ago at a Jackson Sun reunion. True to form, he kept doing deals via cell phone while the reunion was going on, as seen in the picture I shot below.

Now that I've read his mag, and read in his latest column (the one about destroying "what works," which isn't on line yet; here's a previous one) that "I've been blessed with terrific health benefits in my 15 years at the council," which he says is a good thing given his lifestyle, which he says consists of "attending political cocktail parties professionally in the selfless service of our member firms," all I can say is...

Joel, it's not too late. Come home! All is forgiven. And don't bring the phone this time...

How they voted on (sort of) restructuring

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

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

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.

Hillary on Obama, RFK: I'm just sayin'...

I ran into Neal Dolan before Mass on Sunday at St. Peter's, and it occurred to me that I hadn't seen him since Martin Luther King Day. That was the day the Secret Service descended in force upon our building here at The State while Sen. Barack Obama was talking to the editorial board. Neal was the Secret Service agent in charge here in Columbia until his retirement recently. He's now working with SLED.

Obama has had (for good reasons, apparently) the heaviest security detail of any candidate who's ever come to see us. So it seemed a bit of coincidence that I would be reminded of that by running into Neal the very weekend that Hillary Clinton explained why hers is the Campaign That Won't Leave as follows:

"We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California."

So, you know, anything could happen, so why quit now? She later explained that far from being coldbloodedly calculating, she was just in a particularly sensitive frame of mind regarding Kennedys in general, what with the terrible news about Teddy.

And now that we've all exclaimed, "That's awful!" let's think about this a minute. This is the most logical explanation for the Never-Ending Campaign I've heard yet. I'm not saying it's a good explanation, but it has a certain morbid logic.

But it still doesn't strike me as the sort of thing you hear from a presidential candidate. Hollywood would never have a presidential candidate say such a thing, unless the candidate were played by Robert DeNiro:

Not that I got nothin' against this guy, you unnerstand... It's just that somethin' could happen to him -- like he could get whacked or somethin', God forbid (hands form prayer position). Nobody'd want nothin' to happen to him or anyt'ing like that; I'm just sayin'...

Isn't that, after all, what she said? It's not that she'd WANT such a terrible thing to happen; she's just saying.... Until now, who knew that when she spoke of getting that 3 a.m. phone call, she was thinking about before the election?

Top Five Harrison Ford flicks

We had a list in the paper Friday, compiled by someone with Newsday, that purports to be of Harrison Ford's 10 best movies (among which, sadly, I hear his latest would not be a contender). The list had its good points and bad points. Basically, it lacked discipline. With Harrison Ford, you only get serious when you try to come up with a Top Five List. Here's mine, unranked:

1. Blade Runner -- The one de rigueur item on the list, for aesthetic reasons if none other. The film buff's Harrison Ford movie, if not his most popular (and not my favorite).
2. Star Wars -- A.K.A. "Episode IV: A New Hope." Note that I include this rather than The Empire Strikes Back. Sure, the plot of the latter is built more around Han Solo, but he defines the character in the first film. After that, the freshness, and the fun, is gone. Han is at his best before he becomes heroic, when he is the brash rogue who had not yet decided to do the right thing.
3. Air Force One -- My kind of president, with my kind of foreign policy set out in the "Be Afraid" speech: "Never again will I allow our political self-interest to deter us from doing what we know to be morally right. Atrocity and terror are not political weapons. And to those who would use them, your day is over. We will never negotiate. We will no longer tolerate and we will no longer be afraid. It's your turn to be afraid." And don't forget Gary Oldman's villain -- his best line is when he says "smart bomb." Like many action movies, this requires suspension of disbelief, but Wolfgang Petersen makes that easy and pleasurable.
4. Witness -- In this one, Ford represents Modern Man with all his violent foolishness, the "English" among the Amish, and this is what he's good at -- Regular American Guy out of water. Also featuring Danny Glover as a bad guy, which was running against type, but he carries it off.
5. Raiders of the Lost Ark -- The Regular American Guy resplendent, letting it all hang out in a story based in an All-American story-telling form -- the old-style adventure cliff-hanger serial. East meets West in a most stark fashion -- Indy comes up against the masterful scimitar-wielding opponent, gives an "I don't have time for this" shoots and shoots him. He's scared of snakes, and just making it up as he goes along. As regular as a guy gets.

Close contenders for the list: "The Fugitive" and "American Grafitti" But the former is more a showcase for Tommy Lee Jones' talents, and his part in the latter just isn't big enough. I also liked "Regarding Henry."

Herbal domino theory

A couple of weeks back we accompanied my brother and his family to the farmers' market up in Greenville. We were in the market for herbs, particularly cilantro, because of an excellent recipe for three-bean salad my eldest daughter makes. It calls for fresh cilantro, a.k.a. coriander.

But all they had was something very different looking called "Vietnamese cilantro." The vendors said this variety was particularly well suited to our climate. So OK; we bought some, and added it to several other little pots of herbs we had bought in recent days.

Having recently given up on a plant at my office that didn't seem to respond well to watering only when I felt like it, I decided to stick several of these herbs in a pot (with my wife's supervision, because what I don't know about plants would fill a library) and take them to the office.

I've been quite attentive to this little herb garden, watering it constantly (the terra cotta soaks up a lot of it) and rearranging my office in order to keep it in the sun. And what has been the result?

The Vietnamese cilantro has taken over. Relentlessly. The other plants -- Spicy Globe Basil, Greek oregano, and plain old sweet basil -- have seen it coming and just curled up and died in its path, like so many dominoes. Only the tiniest sprigs of the oregano and sweet basil remain, and you can't see them because the Vietnamese herb has grown to three or four times its original size.

I don't know what it is. Maybe all that watering has created a rice-paddy-like environment. Maybe it's my failure to keep significant numbers of ground troops in-country. In any case, I think it's time to send in a tiny helicopter and get the oregano and basil out.

The ‘tyranny’ of having to choose

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

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.

Are Democrats more sexist? Hillary Clinton seems to think so

Normally, I don't think very hard about things that make little sense, such as the claim by Hillary Clinton that her flagging political fortunes result from "misogyny." Since such claims are not logical, I don't bother carrying them to their "logical conclusions."

That's a mistake on my part, because such an exercise can yield interesting results. Check out this very short op-ed piece in the WSJ this morning, headlined, "Nothing but Misogynists."

It starts out by considering some of her statements along the lines of what I quoted earlier in the week:

"I think that both gender and race have been obviously a part of it because of who we are and every poll I've seen show more people would be reluctant to vote for a woman to vote for an African American, which rarely gets reported on either.... But it does seem as though the press at least is not as bothered by the incredible vitriol that has been engendered by comments and reactions of people who are nothing but misogynists."

It then considers that at the same time she's blaming misogyny for her failures in Democratic contests, she asserts -- in practically the same breath -- that she's "the strongest candidate against John McCain."

So the op-ed piece arrives, quite logically, at this conclusion:

    This fact (if it be a fact) reveals a hitherto unknown, ugly truth about the Democratic Party. The alleged bastion of modern liberalism, toleration and diversity is full of (to use Mrs. Clinton's own phrase) "people who are nothing but misogynists." Large numbers of Democratic voters are sexists. Who knew?
    But here's another revelation. If Mrs. Clinton is correct that she is more likely than Barack Obama to defeat John McCain in November, that implies Republicans and independents are less sexist than Democrats.
    It must be so. If American voters of all parties are as sexist as the Democrats, Mr. Obama would have a better chance than Mrs. Clinton of defeating Mr. McCain. The same misogyny that thwarted her in the Democratic primaries would thwart her in the general election. Only if registered Republicans and independents are more open-minded than registered Democrats – only if people who lean GOP or who have no party affiliation are more willing than Democrats to overlook a candidate's sex and vote on the issues – could Mrs. Clinton be a stronger candidate...

Who knew, indeed?

Where to find our endorsements

At the start of this year, when we were about to do our endorsements in the S.C. presidential primaries, I asked the folks downstairs at thestate.com to set us up a page where our current endorsements would reside. As long as we remember to do the right coding on the editorials as we run them, they go to this page, and stay.

It just occurred to me tonight, now that we've run a few endorsements in the June 10 primary, to check to see if it's working. And it is. Here's the link.

That is, it's mostly working. For some reason a couple of months back, the pictures that were set up to run with the McCain and Obama endorsements disappeared from the files. I went in and, using my limited understanding of the inner workings of thestate.com, managed to restore the McCain one, but the Obama picture defied my efforts to remove the recently passed expiration date.

I think I might go in and try again on that...

Residents also advised to refrain from jumping off cliffs...

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

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.

Grandmaster Bud of the Irmo High School Chess Club

As promised back here, bud has provided the above photo of himself from back when he was president of the Irmo High School Chess Club. The commentary that he sent with the photo:

That's me in 1973.  Bobby Fischer was all the rage back then.  Note the wide-band watch and loong hair.

And just to bring you up-to-date, and help you get to know the long-anonymous bud a little better, below is a photo he sent me last month "of me at my daughter's wedding:"

Our Joe cup overfloweth

Y'all saw where I bragged on Joe for his fine piece in the WSJ the other day. Well, today we have a counterpoint from Joe in that same publication, so our cup overfloweth.

OK, for those of you too lazy to follow links, I'm talking Lieberman and Biden, respectively. Both of them are good guys. We endorsed the first Joe in his presidential bid in 2004, and might well have endorsed the other this time around if he hadn't dropped out before the S.C. primary (we went with Obama instead, you'll recall). Both are blessed with essential Joe-ness, as I've explained before.

And although these pieces are set against each other, there is much to love in each of them, infused as they are with Joe-ness. In other words, they are written by rational men who are not entirely enslaved by the idiotic partisan extremes of our times. Joe is much more inclined to support his party's nominee, but that's because he hasn't made the radical break that Joe was forced into. But you still don't find the kind of polarized claptrap that you usually hear from the party faithful on either side.

OK, I'll start using last names, although it sounds unfriendly...

Here's one of the best parts of Mr. Biden's piece. It repeats a point that I've praised him for making in the past, which is that President Bush blew a once-in-a-lifetime chance to lead this nation, and the Western alliance, into a far better place than the sad situation that Joe, I mean Tom, Friedman described the other day. Anyway, here's the Biden excerpt:

    Sen. Lieberman is right: 9/11 was a pivotal moment. History will judge Mr. Bush's reaction less for the mistakes he made than for the opportunities he squandered.
    The president had a historic opportunity to unite Americans and the world in common cause. Instead – by exploiting the politics of fear, instigating an optional war in Iraq before finishing a necessary war in Afghanistan, and instituting policies on torture, detainees and domestic surveillance that fly in the face of our values and interests – Mr. Bush divided Americans from each other and from the world.

As with Lieberman, though, there are weak spots. In particular, there's this contradictory passage:

    Terrorism is a means, not an end, and very different groups and countries are using it toward very different goals. Messrs. Bush and McCain lump together, as a single threat, extremist groups and states more at odds with each other than with us: Sunnis and Shiites, Persians and Arabs, Iraq and Iran, al Qaeda and Shiite militias. If they can't identify the enemy or describe the war we're fighting, it's difficult to see how we will win.
    The results speak for themselves.
    On George Bush's watch, Iran, not freedom, has been on the march: Iran is much closer to the bomb; its influence in Iraq is expanding; its terrorist proxy Hezbollah is ascendant in Lebanon and that country is on the brink of civil war.

The problem is that on the one hand, he feels constrained (since he's still in the party) to state the party line that terrorism is a means, not an end, or even a coherent enemy -- all of which is true, but his litany of all the different contending actors is belied by the truth he later embraces: That through it all, Iran has been on the march, and gaining against us. That would have been an excellent point to make; it's just too bad he weakened it by making the situation seem less coherent than it is two paragraphs before (this incoherence of the enemy is essential to the modern Democratic ideology that Lieberman abhors -- the refusal to clearly see and clearly state the degree to which we face a coherent, albeit complex, enemy).

I refer to another recent Friedman column, which -- thanks to the fact that he isn't carrying anybody's political water -- states how all of these superficially disparate issues are connected, to our nation's great disadvantage (largely due to the Bush failures that Biden refers to):

    The next American president will inherit many foreign policy challenges, but surely one of the biggest will be the cold war. Yes, the next president is going to be a cold-war president — but this cold war is with Iran.
    That is the real umbrella story in the Middle East today — the struggle for influence across the region, with America and its Sunni Arab allies (and Israel) versus Iran, Syria and their non-state allies, Hamas and Hezbollah. As the May 11 editorial in the Iranian daily Kayhan put it, “In the power struggle in the Middle East, there are only two sides: Iran and the U.S.”

Anyway, if the link works for you, I recommend you read this one as well as the last one. Between the two of them, you'll see an intelligent way to debate foreign policy, as opposed to the idiocy of left and right, Democrat and Republican.

Sexy chess

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:

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

The chess club? Oh, come on... it's a little more sexual than the chess club, 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

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:

Tuesday, May 13, 9:30 a.m. -- Kit Spires, House Dist. 96, Republican:

1 p.m. -- Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott, Democrat:

2 p.m. -- Katrina Shealy, Senate Dist. 23, Republican:

Wednesday, May 14, 10 a.m. -- Tony Lamm, House Dist. 79, Republican:

11:30 a.m. -- Don Purcell, Richland County Council Dist. 9, Republican:

1 p.m. -- Barbara Scott, Richland County Clerk of Court, Democrat:

Thursday, May 15, 9:30 a.m. -- Jimmy Brazelle, Lexington County Sheriff, Republican:

11 a.m. -- Kendall Corley, Richland County Clerk of Court, Democrat:

noon -- Sheri Few, House Dist. 79, Republican:

1 p.m. -- Damon Jeter, Richland County Council Dist. 3, Democrat:

Monday, May 19, 11 a.m. -- Johnny Bland, Richland County Council Dist. 7, Democrat:

4:30 -- Our own James D. McCallister, as part of a delegation advocating the 5 Points parking garage/multi-use development:

4:30 -- Columbia City Councilwoman Anne Sinclair, in the same meeting as James:

Tuesday, May 20, 9:30 a.m. -- Jake Knotts, Senate Dist. 23, Republican:

Wednesday, May 21, 11 a.m. -- Tom Comerford, Lexington County Clerk of Court, Republican:

4 p.m. -- Gloria Montgomery, Richland County Clerk of Court, Democrat:

Thursday, May 22, 9:30 a.m. -- Val Hutchinson, Richland County Council Dist. 9, Republican:

11 a.m. -- Kerry Johnson, Lexington County Sheriff, Republican:

1 p.m. -- Napoleon Tolbert, Richland County Council Dist. 7, Democrat:

How they voted on cigarette tax

Cindi sent this to me this morning, and I apologize for just getting to the e-mail and passing it on now -- I've had three candidate interviews today. Anyway, here's what she sent me:

    Since the House adopted an amendment to the Senate cigarette tax bill (a very minor amendment), there was no vote on the bill itself. (As I explained in a recent column, once the House votes to amend the Senate amendment, the bill automatically goes to back to the Senate; so in a sense if you vote for ANY amendment, you are at least voting in support of the bill.) So while it's extremely doubtful that the House will override a veto, we can't know or sure. It could be that some of the representatives who voted for a revenue-neutral bill simply PREFER that, but would still support the Senate version if it's that or nothing.
    The closest I see to an indication of willingness to accept the Senate version (and it is a far-from-perfect indication) is the first vote, on a motion to send the bill to committee, which likely would have killed it. I would read voting against that motion (ie, voting YES on the tabling motion, below) as support for the cigarette tax increase:

H. 3567--SENATE AMENDMENTS AMENDED AND RETURNED TO THE SENATE
    The Senate Amendments to the following Bill were taken up for consideration:

H. 3567 <http://www.scstatehouse.net/cgi-bin/web_bh10.exe?bill1=3567&session=117> ( Word <http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess117_2007-2008/bills/3567.doc> version) -- Reps. Rice, Gullick, Cotty and Agnew: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-21-620, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO TAXATION ON CIGARETTES, SO AS TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF TAX ON EACH CIGARETTE FROM THREE AND ONE-HALF MILLS TO TWO CENTS; TO ADD SECTION 44-6-157 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE REVENUE GENERATED FROM THE TAXATION ON CIGARETTES MUST BE USED TO EXPAND MEDICAID COVERAGE TO CHILDREN EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE AND YOUNGER WHOSE FAMILY INCOME DOES NOT EXCEED TWO HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE FEDERAL POVERTY LEVEL; AND TO CREATE THE HEALTH CARE TRUST FUND TO PROVIDE MEDICAID BENEFITS TO INDIVIDUALS WHOSE FAMILY INCOME DOES NOT EXCEED ONE HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE FEDERAL POVERTY LEVEL AND WHO ARE UNINSURED AND TO PROVIDE THAT REVENUE IN EXCESS OF THE CHILDREN'S MEDICAID COVERAGE FROM THE CIGARETTE TAX MUST BE CREDITED TO THE HEALTH CARE TRUST FUND; AND TO AMEND SECTION 12-36-910, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO SALES TAXES GENERALLY, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT AS OF JULY 1, 2009, THE THREE PERCENT SALES TAX IS ELIMINATED ON UNPREPARED FOOD WHICH LAWFULLY MAY BE PURCHASED WITH UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOOD COUPONS, TO PROVIDE FOR CERTAIN GENERAL FUND TRANSFERS TO THE EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT FUND FOR EACH FISCAL YEAR TO OFFSET EIA REVENUES LOST AS A RESULT OF THE LOSS OF SALES TAX ON THE SALE OF UNPREPARED FOOD, AND TO REDUCE THE SALES TAX ON UNPREPARED FOOD TO TWO PERCENT AS OF JULY 1, 2007, AND ONE PERCENT AS OF JULY 1, 2008.

Rep. SHOOPMAN moved to recommit the Bill to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Rep. OTT moved to table the motion.

Rep. MULVANEY demanded the yeas and nays which were taken, resulting as follows:

Yeas 84; Nays 31

Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander         Allen              Anderson
Anthony           Bales              Ballentine
Bannister         Bingham         Bowen
Brady               Branham        Brantley
Breeland          G. Brown        R. Brown
Clyburn            Cobb-Hunter   Coleman
Cotty               Crawford        Dantzler
Davenport        Delleney         Erickson
Frye                Funderburk     Govan
Gullick             Hagood          Harrison
Hart                Harvin            Haskins
Hayes              Herbkersman   Hiott
Hodges            Hosey              Howard
Huggins           Hutson            Jefferson
Jennings          Kelly                Kennedy
Knight              Limehouse      Lucas
Mack                Mahaffey        McLeod
Miller               Mitchell           Moss
J. H. Neal        J. M. Neal        Neilson
Ott                  Owens             Parks
Phillips             Pinson             E. H. Pitts
Rice                 Rutherford      Scarborough
Scott                Sellers            Simrill
Skelton             F. N. Smith     G. M. Smith
J. E. Smith        J. R. Smith     Spires
Stavrinakis        Stewart          Taylor
Toole                Vick                Weeks
Whitmire           Williams         Young

Total--84

Those who voted in the negative are:
Barfield         Battle         Bedingfield
Cato             Chalk          Clemmons
Cooper         Duncan        Edge
Gambrell      Haley           Hardwick
Harrell         Kirsh            Leach
Littlejohn    Loftis           Lowe
Mulvaney     Perry            M. A. Pitts
Sandifer       Shoopman    D. C. Smith
G. R. Smith  Talley          Thompson
Umphlett       Walker       White
Witherspoon

Total--31
So, the motion to recommit the Bill was tabled.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe this is what many considered the critical amendment -- the one by Harrell and Cooper to use all the proceeds for tax breaks for health insurance. It was defeated 60-58, with a yes vote being to stick with the Senate version (or, one could argue, to hold out for SOME OTHER proposal yet to be voted on at the time).

Reps. HARRELL and COOPER proposed the following Amendment No. 4A (Doc Name COUNCIL\BBM\10648HTC08), which was tabled:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking the remainder of the bill after line 12 beginning on page 2 and inserting:
/ (B)   For all purposes of reporting, payment, collection, and enforcement, the surtax imposed by this section is deemed to be imposed pursuant to Section 12-21-620.

(C)   For purposes of this section and Section 12-21-620(2), 'cigarette' means:

(1)   any roll for smoking containing tobacco wrapped in paper or in any substance other than a tobacco leaf; or

(2)   any roll for smoking containing tobacco, wrapped in any substance, weighing three pounds per thousand or less, however labeled or named, which because of its appearance, size, type of tobacco used in the filler, or its packaging, pricing, marketing, or labeling, is likely to be offered to, or purchased by, consumers as a cigarette described in item (1). However, such a roll is not considered to be a cigarette for purposes of this section and Section 12-21-620(2) if the roll is not treated like a cigarette for federal excise tax purposes under the applicable federal law in effect on July 1, 2008.

(D)   Notwithstanding another provision of law providing for the crediting of the revenues of license or other taxes, the revenue of the surtax imposed pursuant to this section must be credited to the general fund of the State and used to replace income and sales tax revenues not collected in a fiscal year in the following amounts:

(1)   the amount of state sales tax revenue as estimated by the Board of Economic Advisors not collected because of:

(a)   the sales tax exemption allowed pursuant to Section 12-36-2120(76); and

(b)   the exemption allowed pursuant to Section 12-36-2120(74) reduced by the amount of sales tax revenue not collected pursuant to that exemption as it applied in fiscal year 2007-2008.

(2)   five million dollars for the smoking cessation income tax credit pursuant to Section 12-6-3671 with any unused revenue added to the amounts available pursuant to item (4) of this subsection;

(3)   four million dollars for cancer screening with any unused revenue added to the amounts available pursuant to item (4) of this subsection;

(4)   the balance of the revenue, as estimated by the Board of Economic Advisors, for the small business health insurance income tax credit allowed pursuant to Section 12-6-3673.

(E)   Revenue of the tax imposed pursuant to subsection (A) replacing sales tax revenue must be credited as sales tax revenues are credited by law."
SECTION   2.   Section 1 of Act 99 of 2007 is amended by deleting subsections B and C which read:
B.     Notwithstanding the sales and use rates imposed pursuant to Chapter 36, Title 12 of the 1976 Code, the rate of tax imposed pursuant to that chapter on the gross proceeds of sales of items described in subsection A of this section is five and one-half percent for such sales from July 1, 2007.
C.   Beginning with the February 15, 2008, forecast by the Board of Economic Advisors of annual general fund revenue growth for the upcoming fiscal year, and annually thereafter, if the forecast of that growth equals at least five percent of the most recent estimate by the board of general fund revenues for the current fiscal year, then the applicable state sales and use tax rate imposed on items described in subsection A. of this section is reduced, effective the following July first, by one and one-half percent in the first year and by one percent every year thereafter. That reduced rate applies until a subsequent reduction takes effect. If the February fifteenth forecast meets the requirement for a rate reduction, the board promptly shall certify this result in writing to the Department of Revenue. On the July first that the rate attains zero, the provisions of subsections B. and C. of this section no longer apply.
SECTION   3.   Section 12-36-2120 of the 1976 Code, is amended by adding a new item (76) to read:

"(76)   the gross proceeds of the sale of legend or prescription drugs or medicines, legend or prescription biologicals, and legend or prescription bioabsorbable implant devices dispensed or administered to a patient or otherwise used in the treatment of a patient in the office of a medical doctor licensed pursuant to Chapter 47 of Title 40 or of a dentist licensed pursuant to Chapter 15 of Title 40, and not otherwise exempted."
SECTION   4.   Article 25, Chapter 6, Title 12 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section 12-6-3671.   (A)   There is allowed as a refundable credit against the income tax liability of a resident individual the expenses incurred by the taxpayer in a taxable year for participating in a smoking cessation program undertaken by the taxpayer prescribed by and under the supervision of a physician licensed pursuant to Chapter 47 of Title 40, to include physicians fees and costs of FDA approved smoking cessation therapies and other smoking cessation methods approved by the supervising physician. Only a taxpayer who has expenses for a smoking cessation program no portion of which is paid or covered by a third party payer, is eligible for this credit. The Department of Revenue shall prescribe a form on which this credit must be claimed that must be filed with the taxpayer's South Carolina individual income tax return. The form must require that information and documentation determined necessary by the department for the administration of this credit.

(B)   The credit allowed pursuant to this section is not included in the calculation of the taxpayer's income tax liability on the return, but is instead calculated by the Department of Revenue after the close of the filing season and paid to the taxpayer as provided in subsection (C).

(C)   Each eligible taxpayer incurring smoking cessation expenses in any year is entitled to a credit for that year in the amount of three hundred dollars or the amount of his expenses, whichever is less. If the amount available to fund this credit as provided by law in any year is not sufficient to give all eligible taxpayers their full credit, then the Department of Revenue shall proportionately reduce these credits accordingly. If the amount available to fund these credits as provided by law in any year exceeds the total amount of the credits claimed by all taxpayers as provided above, then any taxpayer with expenses over three hundred dollars for that year is entitled to an additional credit as determined by the department equal to his excess expenses stated as a percentage of all excess expenses times the available funds.

Section 12-6-3672.   (A)   There is allowed as a refundable credit against the income tax liability of a resident individual the costs incurred by the taxpayer in a taxable year for cancer screening. Only a taxpayer who has expenses for such a screening no portion of which is paid or covered by a third party payer, is eligible for this credit. The Department of Revenue shall prescribe a form on which this credit must be claimed that must be filed with the taxpayer's South Carolina individual income tax return. The form must require that information and documentation determined necessary by the department for the administration of this credit.

(B)   The credit allowed pursuant to this section is not included in the calculation of the taxpayer's income tax liability on the return, but is instead calculated by the Department of Revenue after the close of the filing season and paid to the taxpayer as provided in subsection (C).

(C)   Each eligible taxpayer incurring cancer screening expenses in any year is entitled to a credit for that year in the amount of three hundred dollars for each screening or the amount of the expenses, whichever is less. If the amount available to fund this credit as provided by law in any year is not sufficient to give all eligible taxpayers their full credit, then the Department of Revenue shall proportionately reduce these credits accordingly. If the amount available to fund these credits as provided by law in any year exceeds the total amount of the credits claimed by all taxpayers as provided above, then any taxpayer with expenses over three hundred dollars for that year is entitled to an additional credit as determined by the department equal to his excess expenses stated as a percentage of all excess expenses times the available funds.

Section 12-6-3673.   (A)   As used in this section, a 'qualifying small business taxpayer' is a taxpayer resident and domiciled in this State with fewer than twenty employees, all of whom are based in this State claiming a federal income deduction for employee health insurance premiums on all employees.

(B)   A qualifying small business taxpayer is allowed a refundable state income tax credit as provided in subsection (C) against the tax imposed pursuant to this chapter for health insurance premiums deducted by the taxpayer on the taxpayer's federal income tax return. The Department of Revenue shall prescribe a form on which this credit must be claimed that must be filed with the taxpayer's South Carolina individual income tax return. The form must require that information and documentation determined necessary by the department for the administration of this credit.

The credit allowed pursuant to this section is not included in the calculation of the taxpayer's income tax liability on the return, but is instead calculated by the Department of Revenue after the close of the filing season and paid to the taxpayer as provided in subsection (C).

(C)   Each eligible taxpayer deducting health insurance premium expenses in any year is entitled to a credit for that year in the amount of three hundred dollars or the amount of the expenses, whichever is less for each employee covered. If the amount available to fund this credit as provided by law in any year is not sufficient to give all eligible taxpayers their full credit, then the Department of Revenue shall proportionately reduce these credits accordingly. If the amount available to fund these credits as provided by law in any year exceeds the total amount of the credits claimed by all taxpayers as provided above, then any taxpayer with expenses over three hundred dollars for that year is entitled to an additional credit as determined by the department equal to his excess expenses stated as a percentage of all excess expenses times the available funds."
SECTION   5.   This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor, and where not otherwise provided, sales tax provisions in this act take effect July 1, 2008, and income tax provisions in this act apply for taxable years beginning after 2007. /
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.

Rep. COOPER explained the amendment.

Rep. SCOTT moved to table the amendment.

Rep. COBB-HUNTER demanded the yeas and nays which were taken, resulting as follows:

Yeas 60; Nays 58

Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander    Allen              Anderson
Anthony       Bales             Battle
Bowen         Bowers           Branham
Brantley       Breeland        G. Brown
R. Brown      Clyburn         Cobb-Hunter
Coleman      Cotty             Dantzler
Davenport    Funderburk    Govan
Gullick          Haley            Hart
Harvin          Hayes           Hodges
Hosey           Howard        Jefferson
Jennings       Kennedy       Knight
Mack            Mahaffey      McLeod
Miller           Mitchell         Moss
J. H. Neal     J. M. Neal     Neilson
Ott               Owens          Parks
Phillips          Pinson         Rice
Rutherford    Sandifer       Scott
Sellers           D. C. Smith  F. N. Smith
J. E. Smith    Stavrinakis   Vick
Walker          Weeks          Williams

Total--60

Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine      Bannister         Barfield
Bedingfield    Bingham          Brady
Cato             Chalk               Clemmons
Cooper         Crawford          Daning
Delleney        Duncan            Edge
Erickson        Frye                Gambrell
Hagood         Hardwick          Harrell
Harrison       Haskins            Herbkersman
Hiott            Huggins            Hutson
Kelly              Kirsh               Leach
Limehouse     Littlejohn        Loftis
Lowe             Lucas              Merrill
Mulvaney       Perry               E. H. Pitts
M. A. Pitts     Scarborough    Shoopman
Simrill           Skelton            G. R. Smith
J. R. Smith    Spires             Stewart
Talley           Taylor              Thompson
Toole           Umphlett          Viers
White          Whitmire          Witherspoon
Young

Total--58

------------------------------------------------------------

Here's the vote on the amendment to use all the proceeds for income tax reduction:

Rep. MERRILL proposed the following Amendment No. 7A (Doc Name COUNCIL\BBM\10655HTC08), which was tabled:
Rep. SCOTT moved to table the amendment.

Rep. COBB-HUNTER demanded the yeas and nays which were taken, resulting as follows:

Yeas 68; Nays 52

Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander      Allen            Anderson
Anthony        Bales            Battle
Bowers         Brady            Branham
Brantley       Breeland        G. Brown
R. Brown      Clyburn         Cobb-Hunter
Coleman      Cotty             Dantzler
Davenport   Funderburk     Govan
Gullick        Haley              Harrison
Hart           Harvin             Hayes
Hiott          Hodges            Hosey
Howard       Jefferson        Jennings
Kennedy      Knight             Limehouse
Littlejohn    Mack               Mahaffey
McLeod       Miller              Mitchell
Moss           J. H. Neal       J. M. Neal
Neilson        Ott                Owens
Parks          Perry               Phillips
Pinson         Rice                Rutherford
Scott            Sellers             Skelton
D. C. Smith    F.N. Smith     J. E. Smith
J. R. Smith    Stavrinakis     Vick
Walker          Weeks            Whipper
Whitmire      Williams

Total--68

Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine        Bannister        Barfield
Bedingfield      Bingham         Bowen
Cato               Chalk              Clemmons
Cooper           Crawford         Daning
Delleney         Duncan            Edge
Erickson         Frye                Gambrell
Hagood          Hardwick         Harrell
Haskins         Herbkersman   Huggins
Hutson          Kelly                Kirsh
Leach            Loftis              Lowe
Lucas            Merrill             Mulvaney
E. H. Pitts     M. A. Pitts      Sandifer
Scarborough   Shoopman      Simrill
G. M. Smith   G. R. Smith    Spires
Stewart          Talley            Taylor
Thompson      Toole             Umphlett
Viers              White            Witherspoon
Young

Total--52

So, the amendment was tabled.

We CAN drive 55

My best-known Energy Party think-tank fellow called yesterday pretty excited that Tom Friedman had mentioned our 55-mph speed limit plank. The column in question appeared on our op-ed page today. Here's the passage in question:

It baffles me that President Bush would rather go to Saudi Arabia twice in four months and beg the Saudi king for an oil price break than ask the American people to drive 55 mph, buy more fuel-efficient cars or accept a carbon tax or gasoline tax that might actually help free us from, what he called, our “addiction to oil.”

That was just a portion of the overall message of the column, which is that our nation's strategic failures -- chief among them the failure to adopt a rational energy policy (or any energy policy, really) after 9/11 -- have left the nation in a multifaceted bind that is going to be phenomenally difficult, if not impossible, to get out of.

“Call it the triple deficit,” said Mr. Rothkopf. “A fiscal deficit that will soon have us choosing between rationed health care, sufficient education, adequate infrastructure and traditional levels of defense spending, a trade deficit that has us borrowing from our rivals to the point of real vulnerability, and a geopolitical deficit that is a legacy of Iraq, which may result in hesitancy to take strong stands where we must.”

The first rule of holes is when you’re in one, stop digging. When you’re in three, bring a lot of shovels.

The metaphor is inadequate, because one, just one, of those shovels would be energy policy, of which 55 mph would be just one essential facet among many. In fact, that one facet could be a bellwether as to whether we have a chance, even a very slim one, to turn things around. To have any hope, we're going to have to achieve a phenomenal bipartisan consensus to do everything envisioned in the Energy Party Manifesto. And let me say it one more time: That's just to have an outside chance.

You don't want to slow down to 55? Guess what, neither do I. But if we're not willing to do that, something that is such a minor sacrifice as that, then forget the rest. Our nation is doomed to accelerate into decline.

To hear the voice of one American who is flat ready to do what it takes, listen to the audio  of Samuel Tenenbaum's phone message.

Now, as Jimmy Malone said to Eliot Ness (in the story, anyway): "What are you prepared to do?" And if your answer is that you are prepared to do that which is convenient, that which pleases you -- ideologically, or economically, or in whatever way -- I ask, "And then what are you prepared to do?"

Join the movement. Join the Energy Party, before it's too late for America.

Joe laments loss of the party of FDR, Truman, JFK

This is why I like Joe Lieberman so much -- he's always writing stuff that sounds like I wrote it myself, always giving me cause to think, Thank God I'm not alone here...

Specifically, he wrote in an op-ed piece in today's WSJ:

How did the Democratic Party get here? How did the party of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy drift so far from the foreign policy and national security principles and policies that were at the core of its identity and its purpose?...

This was the Democratic Party that I grew up in – a party that was unhesitatingly and proudly pro-American, a party that was unafraid to make moral judgments about the world beyond our borders. It was a party that understood that either the American people stood united with free nations and freedom fighters against the forces of totalitarianism, or that we would fall divided.

He goes on to lament how this unraveled over Vietnam. He writes wistfully of efforts by such Democrats as himself (remember the Third Way?) to pull the party back from a condition in which it blamed America for all its international troubles, as the party became "prisoner to a foreign policy philosophy that was, in most respects, the antithesis of what Democrats had stood for under Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy."

There are flaws in the piece, admittedly. He uses the inaccurate common terminology, referring to this trend toward self-loathing isolationism as a move "to the left" -- when I would assert that it is the rejection of the kind of idealistic, internationalist liberalism of FDR, JFK and the rest. Isolationism is, if nothing else, a manifestation of conservatism -- and not the better sort of conservatism, either.

But set that aside. He ends strongly, with a quote from "a great Democratic secretary of state," Dean Acheson (who, perhaps not coincidentally, was from Connecticut):

(N)o people in history have ever survived, who thought they could protect their freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies.

Hurrah for Columbia's (eventual) smoking ban, but delay is inexcusable

Too late! Columbia City Council already approved the delay.

Now, to take a step back -- it's wonderful that the decision has finally been made -- and look, it was by 5-2, not the expected 4-3...

But it's bad that the current unconscionable state of affairs will continue for three more months. There's just no excuse for that.

One of my colleagues disagreed with me on that point this morning, saying that it's reasonable to wait and implement it at the same time as Richland County. But that's ridiculous. One would only do so out of an abstract sense of administrative tidiness. There is no advantage to be gained by waiting for the county that is not outweighed by the wrongness of exposing city workers to carcinogens for three more months, after you've already decided that it's right to protect them.

There is NO safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. And since any exposure greater than zero is unsafe, three months of unnecessary exposure is unconscionable.

For that matter, since Richland is expected to have a final vote on the subject by June 17, why can't that ban go into effect July 1? It took what -- three days after the referendum (a far less tidy and less predictable instrument than a council vote) for stores to start selling beer on Sunday in Columbia. If you know you have the votes, and you're working toward it, how much gearing up is necessary to say smoking is now banned in the county? Why can't it be in effect immediately? I'll be told time is necessary for notification, but you know, you don't have to penalize anyone who wasn't notified yet (like there's any bar or restaurant owner who won't know about it the day of the vote, which seems highly unlikely). Enforcement will never be perfect, any more than enforcement of the law against murder is perfect (I mean direct, overt, immediate and obvious murder, as distinguished from the slow kind of forcing people to breathe smoke day after day). Most of the effectiveness of such an ordinance will result from the voluntary cooperation of law-abiding people. There is no reason not to let that begin immediately.

What next -- postpone again to wait for Lexington County, or for Cayce and West Columbia. The town of Lexington is now thinking about discussing a ban. Must Columbia wait for them, too? It would make just as much sense to wait for them -- especially for Lexington County -- as for Richland. That is, unless you argue that waiting for Richland makes sense because Columbia is located within that county -- but if that's your argument, Columbia's ban is superfluous, unless incorporated areas were to be exempted.

This delay is ridiculous, and it is wrong.

DON'T POSTPONE SMOKING BAN!

Employees of restaurants and bars in Columbia have breathed other people's poisons far too long.

Thanks to the evil and stupidity that dwells in the hearts of too many state lawmakers, restaurant workers have already become two years more likely to die of lung cancer, emphysema or heart disease.

There is NO excuse for exposing them for three more months.

Don't even propose it, Mayor Bob. Don't.

Hillary talks about how beastly media men have been to her

Here's an audio clip of Hillary Clinton talking to a Washington Post reporter about the misogynistic treatment she has supposedly received as a candidate, and how "surprised" she was by it.

Mind you, in Hillary's defense -- if I may be so chivalrous without giving offense -- the reporter is really pressing this line of discussion on her, urging her to talk about this treatment that has "really pissed off a lot of women." So it's not like she brought it up. They refer to a column over the weekend by the Post's Marie Cocco detailing men's sins against Hillary, which I gotta tell you I had to go read, because I was really wondering what these two ladies were going on about... Ms. Cocco wrote that when this is all over, she "won't miss" all this misogyny. After reading the list of sins (ranging from Andrew Sullivan down to some unnamed sleazeballs selling tasteless novelty items), I must confess that I did miss them, mostly (I think I did hear the one about "everyone's first wife," secondhand). But then I wasn't looking for them. And I don't watch TV "news."

But given the opportunity, she complains that sexism has been way more of a problem than racism. That lucky duck Obama, huh? You would apparently have known all about this, but we men in the media have been covering it up.

Anyway, if you don't want to follow the link, here's a transcript:

Q. One of the stories that has been well documented over and over again is basically how you've been treated by the media. Can you talk about that a little bit, because I get the idea that it's really pissed off a lot of women.

 

A. "I think it has. I think it's been deeply offensive to millions of women. ... I believe this campaign has been a ground breaker in lots of ways, but it certainly has been challenging given some of the attitudes that have been forthcoming in the press, and I regret that because I think it's been really not worthy of the seriousness of this campaign and the historical nature of the two candidacies that we have here. But I don't really stop to worry about it because there's nothing I can do about it."

 

Q. Are women going to be upset if you don't get the nomination?

 

A. I have more voters now than my opponent. I have more popular vote, more people voting for me.

 

Q. Counting Michigan and Florida?

 

A. According to ABC, and I think it's a fair way to total it up because my name was on the ballot they voted for me. But in any event, it's one of the closest races we've ever had and I think that a lot of people are deeply invested in their candidates, so there will probably be disappointment no matter which of us gets the nomination. And then it will be up to us to unify the party and make sure we are victorious in November against McCain.

 

Q. What's the scenario by which you could still win the nomination?

 

A. If people start asking themselves who's the strongest candidate against John McCain, because I believe I am.

 

Q. Do you think he can win?

 

A. Sure. I think he can win--I think I will win.

 

Q. But short of a scandal on his part do you see people coming to that conclusion?

 

A. I don't know, that's why we're not going to quit. We're going forward. We're going to give the people in the remaining elections the chance to vote, which I think is absolutely fair. And we're going to resolve Michigan and Florida, which has to be done sooner instead of later. And then we'll see where we stand.

 

Q. Do you think this has been a particularly racist campaign?

 

A. I do not. I think this has been a positive, civil campaign. I think that both gender and race have been obviously a part of it because of who we are and every poll I've seen show more people would be reluctant to vote for a woman to vote for an African American, which rarely gets reported on either. The manifestation of some of the sexism that has gone on in this campaign is somehow more respectable or at least more accepted. And I think there should be equal rejection of the sexism and the racism when and if it ever raises its ugly head. But it does seem as though the press at least is not as bothered by the incredible vitriol that has been engendered by comments and reactions of people who are nothing but misogynists.

 

Q. Isn't that how it's always been though.

 

A. Oppression of women and discrimination against women is universal. You can go to places in the world where there are no racial distinctions except everyone is joined together in their oppression of women. The treatment of women is the single biggest problem we have politically and socially in the world. If you look at the extremism and the fundamentalism, it is all about controlling women, at it's base. The idea that we would have a presidential campaign in which so much of what has occurred that has been very sexist would be just shrugged off I think is a very unfortunate commentary about the lack of seriousness that should be applied to any kind of discrimination or prejudice. I have spent my entire life trying to stand up for civil rights and women's rights and human rights and I abhor wherever it is discrimination is present.

Paying respects to Kennedy

Going through my e-mail, I was struck by the notes of condolence and respect from our two senators after the awful news that Ted Kennedy received today.

What a shame it is that, what with the partisan craziness of recent years, it takes something like this for a man to be spoken of in human terms by Republicans, to the extent that we'd notice. Mind you, perhaps Sens. DeMint and Graham have said similar things in the past and I missed it. After all, Kennedy has the reputation of being highly respected by his colleagues across the board, whatever may be said about him out by partisans out on the hustings. And Sen. Graham, for instance, has had good things to say about working with Hillary Clinton, while leaving no room for anyone to think he approves of her politics overall.

But still, a good word for Ted Kennedy from a Southern Republican is still a thing worth taking note of.

A year or so ago I wrote a column about how, every once in a while, politicians will break down the usual barriers to treat each other as human beings. It's something I try to watch for, because I find it so gratifying. It gives me a little hope for our politics, and for the human race. So while these releases are no big deal, and will be dismissed by cynics as wholly inadequate, I take some little comfort from them.

Anyway, here's the release I got from Jim DeMint:

DeMint Statement on Senator Ted Kennedy
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint made the following statement:
    “Our thoughts and prayers are with Senator Kennedy and his family right now. I have tremendous respect for Senator Kennedy as do all of his colleagues. I wish him a full and speedy recovery.”
             ###

As insubstantial as that message is, it occurs to me that politically, he did not have to do it. Seriously, what would be the political cost to Jim DeMint of saying nothing? Not much, I'd wager. So at some point the decision was made, "Let's say something." Maybe it's not much, but I will grasp at straws looking for UnPartisan hope.

Speaking of cynicism -- I mentioned the DeMint release to a colleague right after it came in, and he said You won't see one from Graham, not in this election year. But at that very moment (12 minutes behind the DeMint one), this was coming in:

Statement by Lindsey Graham on Senator Kennedy
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) made the following statement on the news concerning Senator Ted Kennedy.
    “All of us who serve in the Senate respect Senator Kennedy and were shocked to hear his diagnosis.  We all hope for a speedy recovery.  Senator Kennedy is a tough guy and my money is on Ted when it comes to recovering.  He’s a worthy adversary and at times, someone you can do business with.  He’s a man of his word.  I’m very much hoping for a speedy recovery and praying for him and his family.”
            ####

Sure, he got the "adversary" part in, but it was gracious nonetheless.

These aren't much. They are, in fact, what anyone should do under the circumstances. But I still find these simple, brief expressions of human decency a welcome relief from the usual.

Finally, may God grant peace and hope to Sen. Kennedy and his family. We've been through this in my family, and I know that prayers help -- whatever the creed, whatever the party.

Let It Be

There has long been a significant hole in the catalogue of Beatles films available on video -- "Let It Be."

My son brought to my attention a few days ago the fact that you can watch it -- in its entirety -- at MilkandCookies.com. Here's the link.

Admittedly, it's not the polished work of cinematic art that is, say, "A Hard Day's Night." And it's rather sad, since it's an unvarnished portrait of The Beatles at the moment they were breaking up. Finally, the music is far from finished form (I've got it playing as I type this, and my wife in the other room is providing commentary on its harmonic shortcomings).

But any true Beatles fan should see it at least once...

'Fun Guy' keeps McCain campaign in stitches making fun of how we talk in S.C.

Actually, it's more accurate to say that he keeps the McCain campaign in stitches encouraging contests to see who can sound more like our own Henry McMaster:

    Mr. Duprey, who also describes himself as "chief morale officer," goofs off a lot -- mimicking a flight attendant, for instance, as she demonstrates the safety features of the aircraft. After Sen. McCain won Wisconsin, Mr. Duprey greeted him wearing a giant Cheesehead. One recent day on the McCain plane, Mr. Duprey organized a contest among reporters to see who could best imitate the southern drawl of South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster.
    "He's a fun guy," Sen. McCain said in an interview. "He makes everybody feel good."

The thing is, around here, there's nothing unusual about the way Henry talks. No, I don't talk the way he does, but plenty of folks his age or older who grew up in Columbia do -- smart, well-educated folks, too.

Maybe Henry thinks it's funny, though -- I haven't asked him. I've been in meetings all day, and just remembered this from having read it this morning in the WSJ, and thought I'd share it with you.

Radical Chic, and Mau-Mauing the Superdelegates

Four quick things:

1. First, don't try to figure out the headline on this post. It doesn't exactly make sense; I just liked it.
2. Second, The Washington Post has a piece today suggesting that if Hillary Clinton is going to point to Barack Obama's associations with '60s-era radicals, she'll need to answer for her own experience "in the summer of 1971 when she worked as an intern at a left-wing law firm in Oakland, Calif., that defended communists and Black Panthers."
3. Third, when folks do give Obama a hard time about the Weather Underground, why do they talk about Bill Ayres, when the guy's name rings no bells for me? Why don't they speak instead of Ayres' wife, Bernardine Dohrn, who is way more famous and way, way more memorable? She and Obama worked in the same law firm once, and when an Obama fund-raiser was held at Ayres' home when he was running for state Senate, it was her home, too? This seems to me a slight to female radicals everywhere, and they are not a category of woman one usuals wants to cross...
4. Finally, which do you prefer, Weather Underground, or the much-cooler, Dylan-inspired "Weatherman?" Not that I'm trying to influence your decisions...

A brief political history of the PACT

By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
ONE WHO TRIED to decipher what happened in the S.C. Senate last week with regard to the PACT — that’s “Palmetto Achievement Challenge Test” to the uninitiated — can be forgiven for being confused.
I certainly am.
    Start with a press release from Sen. Greg Ryberg, which said in part, “PACT is dead.... the bill we passed today kills it as of July 1, 2008.” He said “the creation and administration of our statewide assessment test belongs with the people at the State Department of Education, the State Board of Education and the Education Oversight Committee (EOC) whose sole focus is education and not the General Assembly. I am glad that we have left it in their hands.”
    This was confusing to me because I was here when the PACT was created to measure whether schools were successfully meeting educational standards set in the Education Accountability Act, which the Legislature passed at the behest of business leaders who wanted a better-trained work force and conservative Republicans who were determined that if money was going to be spent on public schools, the schools were by golly going to meet objective standards. The EAA created the EOC and charged it with making sure the DOE (had enough initials yet?) did what the Legislature insisted be done.
    So yeah, if the PACT is to be changed, it’s the bureaucrats’ job to do it. But it’s the Legislature’s job to tell them to do it.
    More confusingly, this is exactly what state Superintendent of Education Jim Rex wanted the Legislature to do. “Teachers and parents are clamoring for these changes, our students need them and our state deserves them,” Mr. Rex said in his own release. “It’s really gratifying to see the Senate make such a strong statement with its unanimous vote.”
    In case the elected officials don’t have you confused enough, the chief organization devoted to diverting public education funds to private schools declared Friday that “The PACT is an expensive and outdated test that lacks the child-specific diagnostic data required by teachers. Unlike tests used in other states, PACT is South Carolina specific, and doesn’t provide educators with a comparison of our schools to regional and national test scores.” SCRG went on to charge that “Superintendent Rex was unwilling to replace PACT on his own,” and celebrated the idea that “final passage of this Senate bill will force him into action.”
    Action that he’s been begging for authorization to take.
    It might be instructive at this point to note that the Senate is run by Republicans, as is the House, which earlier passed legislation authorizing a revamp of the PACT, while Mr. Rex is the state’s highest-ranking elected Democrat. These fact are not at all important to me; I see them as an asinine distraction. But to the players, party considerations are of the utmost importance.
    Republicans are terribly worried at the moment that Mr. Rex will challenge their divine right to the governor’s office by seeking that position in 2010. In fact, some see his insistence that a PACT replacement be in use by a year from now, rather than a year later, as a ploy on his part to give a boost to his campaign. In other words, these Republicans suspect him of being too anxious to replace the PACT, other Republicans see him as too reluctant (or say they do), while Mr. Rex sees his level of enthusiasm for replacing the PACT as being, like the Mama Bear’s porridge, just right.
    How did we get here?
    I already mentioned above how the EAA, and its child the PACT, came into being in the late 1990s. Far from being some sort of oversight, the point was to have a South Carolina-specific test, to measure whether the specific standards our state adopted — some of the highest standards in the country, by the way — were being met by the schools. The point was to make sure the schools didn’t let any students fall through the cracks.
    This Republican-driven reform was never welcome among what critics are pleased to call the “education establishment,” or among Democrats, the party most closely identified with said establishment. But Education Superintendent Inez Tenenbaum, elected in 1998, had to accept the whole shebang as a fait accompli.
    Teachers complained about the PACT from the start. One of their main complaints was that the test (actually, a battery of tests, but let’s keep it simple) was not useful to them in helping individual students. Of course, it had never been intended for that purpose, but it was a complaint with great appeal across the political spectrum. Even SCRG, which is certainly no friend of public school teachers, took it up.
    Add to that the fact that schools felt so much pressure over the PACT that they inflicted pressure on the teachers who then transferred the stress to the students, and before you knew it, it appeared that all teaching ceased in the last weeks of each school year while everyone involved participated in a mass panic attack over the test.
    It is a great shame that teachers have been so conscious of this pressure, and a greater one that students have. This was, after all, about helping the students by making sure the schools, as institutions, did not fail them.
    So it’s good that a bipartisan consensus emerged this year to change the PACT into an instrument that would hold schools accountable, while providing in addition an instrument that teachers can use for timely diagnosis and remediation.
    But it’s bad that partisan craziness has made it so hard for voters and taxpayers — the folks to whom the system was to be held accountable — to tell whether that is happening.

SCRG release about PACT

Here's the SCRG release about PACT that will be referred to in my column Sunday (I tried to linking to it on the Web but didn't find it at the SCRG site):

Senators Declare PACT Dead
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Neil Mellen
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Across South Carolina, students began taking the PACT test this week.
The PACT is an expensive and outdated test that lacks the child-specific
diagnostic data required by teachers. Unlike tests used in other states,
PACT is South Carolina specific, and doesn’t provide educators with a
comparison of our schools to regional and national test scores.
Lawmakers and educators have long agreed that PACT ought to be replaced,
but Superintendent Jim Rex (D), who campaigned on a promise to reform
assessment in 2006, has been unwilling to make the change. Instead, Rex
is working with Bob Walker (R) of Spartanburg to push through a
controversial bill, dramatically weakening South Carolina’s precedent
setting accountability laws.
Thankfully, members of the South Carolina Senate have called Rex’s bluff.
Thursday, Senators reached an agreement on an amended version of the
House Bill, which includes specific language eliminating the PACT in
July of 2008.
“Eliminating the PACT this year frees the state to move forward on a new
accountability system,” explained Senator Greg Ryberg, Republican from
Aiken.
Unlike the House version, the Senate is not looking for the Legislature
to micromanage the testing process. Senators made it clear:
responsibility for creation and administration of assessment belongs
with the State Department of Education, the State Board of Education,
and the Education Oversight Committee.
Writing to an open letter to Jim Rex earlier this month, Senator Kevin
Bryant (R) of Anderson expressed frustration about the fact that
Superintendent Rex was unwilling to replace PACT on his own.
“The department you administer holds the responsibility for the PACT
test and might have as early as January 2007, begun the elimination of
the PACT, but instead decided to extend the PACT for another year
(2008). I remain frustrated as to this series of decisions.”
While Rex initially responded to calls from Bryant and others with more
political posturing, final passage of this Senate bill will force him
into action. The Senate bill also prevents an unnecessary expansion of
standardized testing for first and second grade students, children most
experts agree won’t benefit from this type of assessment.
South Carolina’s students deserve an effective test. With a 47 percent
high school graduation rate and 49th placed SAT scores, it is clear that
public schools require an accountability system that helps teachers do
their job. Private schools in South Carolina, and public schools in
other states, have found commercially developed tests such as Stanford
10, Iowa Test of Skills, MAP, and Terra Nova can do just that. Moving to
an existing standardized test would also save millions of dollars in
assessment spending, ensuring more money reaches the classroom for
instruction.
###

Duck! The culture war just started back up

Just as it looks like maybe we can have a relatively high-minded campaign with two presidential nominees who both can appeal to us independents, the Kulturkampf flares back up.

This delighted The Wall Street Journal this morning, which as the official spokespaper of conservatism went out of its way to affirm Democratic fears of the "Republican attack machine" when it gleefully greeted the California Supreme Court decision in favor of same-sex "marriage:"

Gay Marriage Returns
    Just when the news was filling with stories about a Republican Party gasping for air, along comes the California Supreme Court's 4-3 decision yesterday legislating gay marriage. The GOP certainly hasn't done anything to deserve such luck.
    Recall how in November 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Court, also by a 4-3 vote, issued a similar gay marriage pronouncement. It dogged Democrat John Kerry all the way to Election Day. The issue got so hot that the liberal fever swamps came to believe that Karl Rove had invented this greatest of all "wedge" issues.
    Nope. Judges invent wedge issues. Always have. As with California's Supreme Court, many of the berobed judiciary take it as their solemn duty to do the people's thinking for them on the modern world's most difficult and divisive social issues. So it was with Roe v. Wade, when the U.S. Supreme Court declared 50 state legislatures irrelevant. The aftermath has been more than 30 years of the abortion wars....

Oh, and in case you think the WSJ's characterization of the left as wont to impose judicial fiat in spite of what the people of our republic may want is a bit overboard, check out this quote from the mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom (that's him at right):

"As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation. It's inevitable. This door's wide open now. It's going to happen, whether you like it or not."

So there. Pow, zing. I just want to go on record right now as saying that in the culture wars, I'm a conscientious objector. I just don't want to have this fight.

I tell you how this always feels to me -- like the two sides in these culture battles are allied with each other against the rest of us. How else do you explain both sides -- from the voice of the political right to the gay rights folks -- being so happy about this development? When both the Karl Roves and the Gavin Newsoms are thrilled, it's time for the rest of us to duck, because here it all comes again.

Sheri Few touts ability to raise funds as advantage in House 79 primary

Although she was a candidate for the GOP nomination for this seat two years ago, this is the first video I've posted of Ms. Few -- in fact, I don't think I shot pictures of her either, since I didn't post any at the time. She was the second candidate to come in for an interview in 2006, and it apparently had not yet dawned on me to take my camera into those meetings for blog purposes.

This time around, I have an embarrassment of riches -- so many images and clips on candidates that they keep threatening to crash my laptop. And yet, they've been coming in so fast I haven't had time to post many on the blog. But at least I'm doing this one. (Truth be told, if I weren't under the gun to produce a video clip of something for the Saturday Opinion Extra by midnight, I wouldn't be doing this one, either -- it's been a tough week, and hours to go before I sleep.)

In this clip, Ms. Few is talking about her proven ability to raise money, which she suggests (and she's probably right) is considerably greater than that of her two opponents, David Herndon and Tony Lamm.

Up to now, contributions to her campaigns has been a source of controversy, since she attracts a considerable amount from out-of-state sources pushing private school "choice." But she says Republicans should consider that the party is in danger of losing the seat currently held by Bill Cotty, and that the likely Democratic nominee -- Anton Gunn, who played a key role in the Barack Obama campaign in South Carolina -- might be able to raise some out-of-state money of his own.

Here's the clip:

Why do we let THESE people run our country?

How can any Democrat or Republican look in the mirror after the shenanigans in the House Thursday? An excerpt from the WSJ's story today:

WASHINGTON -- The House rejected $163 billion in funding for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- the first time the House has voted against funding for the Iraq war -- as Republicans held back support as a protest against domestic-spending items Democrats added to the legislation.
    Some antiwar Democrats applauded as 132 Republicans voted "present" and the funding failed on a 149-to-141 vote....
    The House passed two other measures during the war debate, one placing restrictions on the Iraq war, including a timeline for troop withdrawal, and another expanding funding for veterans' education benefits by collecting a new surtax from wealthy taxpayers.
    Democratic leaders planned the votes separately to allow their antiwar members to vote against funding operations in Iraq, while still passing a bill. But Republicans didn't vote for the war funding and then accused Democrats of loading up the legislation with spending items "on the backs" of troops....

I propose that when the Grownup Party takes over, we should ride them all out of town on a rail. Or is that a less-than-Grownup, emotional response on my part? Maybe, but somehow making them stand in a corner seems grossly inadequate.

Did Joe Wilson do a brave and smart thing? Critic says he did

A Democrat who wants to oppose U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson in the fall put out this release yesterday:

Beaufort, SC – Today, Democratic Congressional Candidate Rob Miller released the following statement concerning incumbent Joe Wilson's vote yesterday against legislation that could lower gas prices as much as 24 cents a gallon. Wilson was one of only 25 members of Congress to vote against H.R. 6022, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Fill Suspension and Consumer Protection Act. Majorities in both parties voted in favor of this legislation to provide Americans some quick relief from record high gas prices.

     "Joe Wilson owes people back home an explanation on why he sided with big oil and voted against providing families much needed relief at the gas pump. People are struggling simply to pay for the gas that gets them to and from work these days. Joe Wilson seems to be too busy cozying up to oil executives to even notice," Miller said. 
     "This is just another reason I'm running for Congress to bring change to Washington and give the voters of the Second District the representation they deserve."

                ###

I have yet to see a statement from Joe himself on the subject, but Rob Miller is a recent captain in the United States Marine Corps, and they're not trained to lie, so I'm going to take him at his word on this.

Now if Joe were running on the Grownup Party (a.k.a. UnParty, a.k.a. Energy Party) ticket, he'd be bragging about doing this. But since he's a mere Republican, he's not boasting.

But from this account, it sure sounds like he did the right thing.

Maybe not dead so much as completely different

Jim Foster over at the state Department of Education sent out this release, which is a tad more informative than Mr. Ryberg's:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, May 15, 2008

Senate gives key approval to bill that would
replace PACT, reform 1998 accountability law

COLUMBIA – The South Carolina Senate today gave unanimous
second-reading approval to legislation that would replace PACT while
making significant changes to South Carolina’s overall student
assessment and school accountability systems.

“Teachers and parents are clamoring for these changes, our students
need them and our state deserves them,” said State Superintendent of
Education Jim Rex.  “It’s really gratifying to see the Senate make
such a strong statement with its unanimous vote.”

After receiving a routine third reading, the Senate-amended version of
H.4662 will return to the House next week for its consideration.  If the
House declines to accept the changes made by the Senate, the bill would
head to a conference committee.

One key difference, Rex said, is that the Senate bill mandates a
replacement for PACT by spring 2009.  The House bill would replace PACT
in 2010.

“Everyone agrees that we need to replace PACT as quickly as possible
with a system that’s more useful to teachers and informative for
parents,” Rex said.  “I hope the House will see that we don’t need
another year of PACT before we start using something that works
better.”

Both versions of the legislation would make the first significant
changes to South Carolina’s Education Accountability Act since it was
approved by the General Assembly 10 years ago.  That law mandated annual
PACT testing for 380,000 students in grades 3-8 and the publishing of
annual school report cards.

H.4662 is based on recommendations from two statewide task forces
appointed by Rex last summer – one for testing and one for
accountability.  Those groups, which met numerous times over the late
summer and fall, included representatives from local districts and
schools, teacher and school administrator organizations, the South
Carolina School Boards Association, the General Assembly, the Education
Oversight Committee, the State Board of Education, business groups, and
colleges and universities.

The Senate version of the legislation would:
●    Eliminate PACT and replace it in 2009 with new end-of-year
accountability tests that feature “essay” exams in March and more
easily scored multiple-choice exams in May.  Schools would get final
results within a few weeks of the May tests, compared to late July with
PACT.
●    Revise the content of annual school report cards to make it more
understandable and useful for parents, while simultaneously making
certain that any revisions are in full compliance with the federal No
Child Left Behind Act.
●    Support voluntary “formative” assessments in English
language arts, mathematics, science and social studies.  These tests
would provide teachers with immediate feedback on individual students’
strengths and weaknesses and allow them to customize instruction based
on those needs.
●    Eliminate burdensome paperwork requirements for teachers.
●    Bring South Carolina’s student performance targets into
alignment with other states.
●    Review the state’s school accountability system every five
years to be certain that it’s working efficiently and effectively.

Trouble is, and contrary to wildly popular belief, the PACT was never intended to be "useful to teachers and informative for parents." There are other devices for doing those things. The purpose of PACT was to enable policy makers to determine whether schools and districts were succeeding at teaching the standards that were created to make education in South Carolina more useful in the sense of producing an educated populace.

It was the end result of the Accountability Act. The idea was to determine what kids should be learning (the standards, which are some of the highest in the country), and then have a device to let the lawmakers who passed the Accountability Act see whether the schools and districts were getting the job done in the aggregate.

It was the creation of business leaders who said graduates didn't have the skills needed in the workplace, and conservative Republicans whose attitude toward education was that they didn't want to appropriate all that money for it without some objective measurement of whether goals were being met.

Anyway, I thought somebody who actually remembers what this was all about should mention that. So I did.

Don't polar bears eat people?

At the risk of riling up the animal lovers again, I've got to say that I don't get all that warm and fuzzy about protecting polar bears from extinction. At least, not as much as, say, the Bald Eagle. Or the koala, in case anybody asked me to protect them. Or the snail darter.

Oh, it might be necessary for the planet and all. But I don't get emotionally involved. If we gotta protect 'em, let's do it. But I just don't feel about them the way I did back when, say, those cute Coca-Cola commercials came out.

The problem is, a couple of years back I was reading about bears, and the article reviewed the varying degrees to which each variety of bear might be dangerous, under certain circumstance.

But as near as I can recall, as fierce as the grizzly's rep may be, it was nothing compared to the polar bear, which, I was told, hunts humans for food.

Has anyone heard otherwise? Until I get that confirmed, I'm going to prefer to continue protecting the polar bear from a great distance.

Ryberg: PACT is dead

Greg Ryberg wants to claim credit for doing away with the PACT test. Witness this release:

Senator Greg Ryberg today hailed an agreement between himself and senate leaders to eliminate PACT and move forward on a new accountability system for South Carolina. “PACT is dead,” Ryberg said. “The bill we passed today kills it as of July 1, 2008.”
    Ryberg added that, “Other senators, Republicans and Democrats, agreed with me that the creation and administration of our statewide assessment test belongs with the people at the State Department of Education, the State Board of Education and the Education Oversight Committee (EOC) whose sole focus is education and not the General Assembly. I am glad that we have left it in their hands.”
    Ryberg also welcomed the decision to remove mandatory formative assessment testing for six and seven year-olds. He said that, “I opposed the 100% increase in standardized testing for our youngest students, and I thank the senators who worked with me to prevent that extra burden upon them.”
    Ryberg noted that it is now time for the superintendent, the State Board and the EOC to get to work and move us forward. “I encourage the superintendent, the State Board and the EOC to act now that the General Assembly has spoken.”

I'm not at all sure what he means by saying first, it's dead; then saying this is in the hands of the state DOE. It reads a little like, I'm sick and damned tired of hearing about this thing, so YOU deal with it. But Sen. Ryberg is generally not the shirker sort, so I reject that interpretation and await another.

Perhaps elucidation will be forthcoming.

Broder takes buyout from WashPost

We keep getting complaints about the whole no-opinion-pages-in-Saturday's-paper thing, and when anybody complains to me personally, I ask them what they'd do, given the imperative of cutting expenses. Given our staff cuts over the last few years, I was faced with either doing pages of lesser quality seven days a week, or doing fewer pages, maintaining quality, and staying here really late every Friday night putting a bunch of Extra stuff online for you ingrates.

No, really -- I'm humbled by folks missing our pages so much.

But it might be helpful if people had a bit more understanding of the problems newspapers are having lately. I've been saving up stuff for a post, such as:

• Staff buyouts at the Raleigh News and Observer, which is owned by McClatchy, which also owns The State.
• The announcement of buyouts at The Charlotte Observer, another McClatchy paper, as well.
• The fact that the International Newspaper Marketing Association is changing its name to drop the "newspaper" part. I am not making this up, as Dave Barry would say.

Actually, I had meant to gather a bunch more pieces of similar string for you to help you gain a little perspective on all this. But I can't wait for that, on account of the latest.

David Broder, the dean of Washington political columnists, has announced he's taking a buyout from The Washington Post. You'll still see his columns, but he'll be a contract employee. Here's a memo he sent to us today:

{DAVID BRODER COLUMN}<
{(ADVISORY FOR BRODER CLIENTS)}<
{(For Broder clients only)}<
   <
   Dear friends:<
   I want to give you a heads-up that later this week, The Washington Post will be making an announcement that, along with many other longtime employees, I am taking the buyout offer -- and to tell you what it does and does not mean.<
   The column you have been running will not change at all, and you will continue to receive it from The Washington Post Writers Group. I will continue to write from the same office in the Post newsroom and will continue to travel the country to wherever politics is happening. You will find me at the Democratic and Republican conventions this summer and on the campaign trail this fall, just as I have been this winter and spring.<
   As of Jan. 1, I will become a contract employee of The Washington Post Company. For the last two years, the bulk of my reporting has gone into the column, rather than the news pages of the Post. This change will allow me to focus entirely on the column, while freeing up the Post to use its budget for other news-section salaries and expenses. It will not diminish my ability to be out where news is happening.<
   I look forward to being part of your paper for many years to come....<
   Many thanks,<
   David Broder<

Get the picture? The biz is changing. Small wonder that some people come to me as a blogger, without even knowing I have this newspaper gig...

Anyway, I wanted to make sure you knew about the Broder thing as soon as I knew.

Don't worry; it's 10 'til 8

A few minutes ago Mike warned me that there appeared to be a problem with the op-ed page (which is, until we print it out as a negative and a plate is made from it, just a big QuarkXPress file) -- one of the ads hasn't shown up. This could mean I'll have to finish it later in the evening because Mike has to leave soon.

I told him not to worry: It's 10 til 8.

Earlier, as Warren and I were talking about the need to rewrite his column for tomorrow in light of new developments, and he had just told me we were expecting a fourth candidate today on top of the three I had noticed on my calendar, and Cindi started telling me we were facing a "train wreck" on our schedule if we didn't start endorsing some candidates this week, I said don't worry; it's just 10 til 8. Plenty of time.

Some would say the clock in our hallway is broken. Others would say it needs a new battery. I say it's just perfect the way it is. As I go into meetings with my colleagues and candidates, full of worry about how we'll get it all done today, I see that clock, and am deeply reassured: It's just 10 'til 8.

Ten minutes before 8 is just a perfect time of day, no matter whether it means a.m. or p.m. It means that I'm either about to have my first cup of coffee of the day, or pop open a beer. It doesn't get better, or more soothing or relaxing, than that. Oh, look: It's 10 'til 8. Ahhhhhh.

Some would say it's right twice a day, and call themselves optimists. But the way I think about it is much more positive: I choose to believe that it's always right.

I need to go now and see about these pages for tomorrow. But fortunately, I see by the ol' clock on the wall that there's no hurry, no hurry at all...

Go into Burma with guns blazing

Alternative headline for this post, for those of you who thought that one a bit too lurid:

I'm down with R2P

I refer here to the alleged United Nations principle of "responsibility to protect," which Trudy Rubin wrote about in her column on today's op-ed page. I say alleged because it's one of those things the U.N. talks about, but doesn't do. To help you catch up, here's an excerpt from the column:

What do you do when the world is lined up to help more than a million desperate people hit by a cyclone, and Myanmar’s hard-line junta blocks that help?
    That is the unprecedented situation confronting the United Nations, Western aid agencies and humanitarian organizations. No one has ever seen anything like it....
    So should, or can, U.N. member states force the junta to accept the world’s outstretched hand?
    Ironically, U.N. members adopted a concept back in fall 2005 that would seem to answer that question. At the urging of Secretary-General Kofi Annan, the General Assembly endorsed the following principle: The international community has a “responsibility to protect” civilians when their governments can’t or won’t stop genocide or crimes against humanity — even if this means violating a country’s national sovereignty.
    This concept, known variously as “humanitarian intervention” or by the abbreviation “R2P,” has gone nowhere. It has not proved useful in dealing with the quasi-genocide in Darfur. Authoritarian regimes view R2P as a potential cover for Western military efforts at regime change.
But if it ever had any relevance, the concept ought to apply to the horrific situation in Myanmar...

Trudy says that this situation would not involve regime change, but hey -- wouldn't that be a wonderful byproduct?

Unfortunately, instead of using our military proactively to shove thugs and tyrants out of the way so we can help our people, we're still arguing over whether we should have gone into Iraq. In other words, instead of expanding our capacity to project force -- the way China's doing like gangbusters -- we're arguing about whether to make use of the military we have.

Not only can we not get off the DIME as the world's one (for the moment) superpower, we can't even decide to use the "M."

So the dying continues in Darfur. And Myanmar, a.k.a. Burma.

Candidate interviews continue...

Yesterday, it was Rep. Kit Spires, Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott and Senate challenger Katrina Shealy.

Today, it's House candidate Tony Lamm, Richland County Council candidate Don Purcell and Richland County Clerk of Court Barbara Scott.

But before that ....aieeee, Cindi's coming to get me for the first one! Gotta go...

Let's talk military buildup

There are certain things that worry me, and nobody seems to be talking about them. In fact, our public conversations tend to go off in directions entirely opposed to where the discussion should be going. For instance:

• Children's brains are essentially formed, in terms of their ability to learn for the rest of their lives, by age 3. What do we do about that? I don't know, but it's weird that we can't even make up our minds to fund 4K for all the kids who could benefit from it.
• Also on education -- we need to bring about serious reforms in public education, from consolidating districts to merit pay to empowering principals. But thanks to our governor and his ilk, we talk about whether we want to support public schools at all.
• China is growing and modernizing its military at a pace that matches its economic growth. It won't be all that long before it achieves parity with our own. But instead of talking about matching that R&D, we can't make up our minds to commit the resources necessary to fight a low-intensity conflict against relatively weak enemies with low-tech weapons.

Anyway, there was an op-ed piece in the WSJ today about the latter worry:

China has a vast internal market newly unified by modern transport and communications; a rapidly flowering technology; an irritable but highly capable workforce that as long as its standard of living improves is unlikely to push the country into paralyzing unrest; and a wider world, now freely accessible, that will buy anything it can make. China is threatened neither by Japan, Russia, India, nor the Western powers, as it was not that long ago. It has an immense talent for the utilization of capital, and in the free market is as agile as a cat.

Unlike the U.S., which governs itself almost unconsciously, reactively and primarily for the short term, China has plotted a long course, in which with great deliberation it joins economic growth to military power. Thirty years ago, in what may be called the "gift of the Meiji," Deng Xiaoping transformed the Japanese slogan fukoku kyohei (rich country, strong arms) into China's 16-Character Policy: "Combine the military and the civil; combine peace and war; give priority to military products; let the civil support the military."

Anyway, discuss amongst yourselves. And if you can, try to get the people running for president to talk about it. We need them to...