Congratulations to Katie Arrington, recently defeated Republican candidate for the South Carolina District 1 race for the U.S. Congress, defeated in favor of Joe Cunningham.
I see where she has adopted the tactics of her apparent hero, Donald Trump – blame everyone for her problems but take credit for anything good.
Go ahead, Katie, blame Mark Sanford for your loss. That’s the Trumpian way. No need to accept responsibility for your own actions or inaction.
Perhaps you can still obtain a government stepping-stone position with Lindsey Graham in some manner. Since the death of John McCain, Graham has been willing to do Trump’s bidding at all costs, so there might be hope for you as well.
SC needs to put our coastal economy first
Recently, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration held a listening session in Charleston on the heels of two major hurricanes, both intensified by warmer than normal ocean water. Instead of discussing how to defend our oceans from serious threats such as climate change, NOAA touted plans to expand offshore oil and gas drilling. Exactly what South Carolinians oppose.
Caring for the Earth means putting the health of our oceans on top of our political agenda. To protect our coastal communities as well as our vulnerable inland communities, we must stop coastal drilling and seismic testing and address climate change.
Many of South Carolina’s elected leaders understand that our state depends on a clean coastal economy. I offer thanks to Gov. Henry McMaster, Sen. Tim Scott, Rep. Mark Sanford, Rep. Tom Rice and Rep. Jim Clyburn for opposing offshore drilling and hope they continue to prioritize our coastal communities.
As a faith leader, it is my duty to call on all of us to prioritize and care for God’s creation. I urge NOAA to listen to our citizens and oppose activities such as offshore oil and gas drilling. Let’s ensure we are protecting God’s Earth and all of God’s people.
Rev. Michael McClain
Reader hopes for day when equality is a practice for all USC bodies
A Nov. 8, 2018, article in The State, “USC Takes First Step in Finding New President,” reports that of the 13 people selected for the Presidential Search Committee, 11are men and two women. That this imbalance is unremarkable is troubling. If the committee constituted 11 women and two men, I doubt it would be considered a legitimate delegation. More than half of USC students are female, taxpayers are female as well as male, USC alums and supporters include more than two females out of 13 people. If the disproportionate representation of men on the committee overlaps with a preference for white people, then the inequalities are exacerbated.
A retort could be that the search committee is a neutral selection of USC trustees. Important to recall, then, is that the misrepresentation in this important committee echoes patterns of male dominance in the Legislature which then selects state college and university trustees. The two-step process of inequality (one: undemocratic Legislature; two: undemocratic trustee boards) is not a neutral progression to step three: an undemocratic search committee. The inequality repeats in each step.
I look forward to a South Carolina when unbalanced public bodies are questioned every step of the way.
The State publishes a cross section of the letters we receive from South Carolinians in order to provide a forum for our community and also to allow our community to get a good look at itself, for good or bad. The letters represent the views of the letter writers, not necessarily of The State.