Letters to the Editor
Pass ethics bill
For legislators to say that the people of South Carolina are not interested in ethics is absolutely ridiculous. All citizens in a democratic country are interested in having ethical leaders.
Pass ethics bill
The S.C. Legislature is all- powerful in this state. It passes laws that govern us down to our ability to raise local taxes for schools, it appoints boards, it controls the budget and it appoints judges.
Most appointees are former legislators so there are no checks and balances and we essentially have one operating branch of government.
Legislators need to hear from the public. Please flood their phones, mailboxes and email accounts asking them to pass the ethics bill.
If we are to have only one branch of government it should at the very least be above reproach.
of University Women
Trail Hollow Drive
The S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control has been a key player in bringing a portable pool and swimming lessons to Edisto and other locations in Charleston County.
From the start, it collaborated with private entities to meet construction and operational requirements.
DHEC staff upheld its responsibilities to safety and public health and contributed their professional skills and encouragement to the project.
Thank you, recreational waters compliance coordinator Jim Ridge, environmental engineer associate Bill Botts, P.E., and environmental health manager Jeff Cook.
I watched the video of the chase that involved deputy Cory Shelton of the Charleston County Sheriff’s Office. Is this really a sheriff’s office or a multimillion-dollar publicly funded gang?
Why is this behavior commonplace with the sheriff’s office? How convenient is it that the camera with the best view of the apprehension was knocked down by spike strips? Question law enforcement, and maybe one day we’ll get truthful answers.
After recent Comcast service disruptions and the attending teeth gnashing, I have a bright spot to offer from personal experience.
Telephone-assisted customer service with some of our communication providers is a nightmare. I’ve been put on hold, shuffled around, disconnected, misdirected and asked to repeat my inquiry to multiple people in different departments ad nauseam.
However, redemption comes when the repair techs finally show up. As if they know repentance must be made for the sins inflicted by their off-site customer service counterparts, these service folks are delightful, engaging and actually effective.
On more than one occasion, and from more than one provider, the efficiency of the technicians is impressive. If only the left hand knew what the right hand was doing.
David N. Fisher
It’s a college
I must take exception to one reference in the June 5 editorial titled “Movie boozers bad role models.”
It’s a college
You refer to researchers at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth University. Please note that the Geisel School of Medicine is part of Dartmouth College, not Dartmouth University. It would not be inaccurate to think of Dartmouth as a university as it comprises a liberal arts college, the Geisel School of Medicine, the Thayer School of Engineering, and the Tuck School of Business, as well as 19 graduate programs in the arts and sciences. But for historic reasons, Dartmouth has been and always will be Dartmouth College.
In 1819, Dartmouth was the subject of a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1816, the State of New Hampshire had attempted to amend Dartmouth’s royal charter — issued by King George III in 1769 — in order to make it a public university. An entity known as Dartmouth University began operating in 1817 in the college’s facilities, although the college continued teaching classes off-site. Daniel Webster, class of 1801, represented the college before the Supreme Court. The conclusion of his peroration is perhaps as well known as the legal decision: “It is, Sir, as I have said, a small college. And yet there are those who love it.”
Emerson L. Horner
Class of 1969
Ayers Plantation Way
The June 5 commentary was an articulate and accurate account of the sequestering of employees at our local SPAWAR Atlantic command.
As a Navy Working Capital Fund (NWCF) organization, SPAWAR Atlantic receives no direct funding from Congress. SPAWAR Atlantic performs work for federal customers in the high tech C4ISR field — Command and Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance. SPAWAR Atlantic’s federal customers send them funding to accomplish emergent tasks in support of the warfighter.
If federal customers (due to congressional funding cuts) were to feel that budgetary needs would prevent their work from being accomplished, they would not provide those funds to SPAWAR Atlantic.
Their customers have placed a high priority on these tasks because they directly impact the warfighter being able to fulfill his mission and to return safely to his family.
Since there is no direct connection between congressional budget cuts and SPAWAR Atlantic tasking, why must SPAWAR Atlantic (like other NWCF organizations) endure this sequestering? Is it politics? Is it just bad Department of Defense policy?
As the column said, SPAWAR Atlantic pays its fixed overhead costs by having employees work direct hours, just like a normal business.
With fewer direct hours, this sequestering at SPAWAR will increase costs and negatively impact all concerned — customers, employees and warfighters. As the former business manager at SPAWAR Atlantic for 18 years, I can assure you that this sequestering policy is ludicrous.
1 would love to see Sen. Tim Scott, Sen. Lindsey Graham and Rep. Mark Sanford become involved in having this sequestering stopped. Someone needs to inject intelligent thought into this process.
Terry L. Watkins
I watched with incredulous outrage as our Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius discounted the possibility that a 10-year-old girl could move to the adult waiting list for a lung transplant. Her reason? “Procedures” mandate that you must be at least 13 years old to be eligible for an adult lung transplant.
So our HHS secretary signs off on the real possibility that this young lady will die because there are extremely limited child lungs available for transplant. There is a great deal of evidence that she could easily accommodate an adult lung transplant.
I cannot but think that if this child happened to have our HHS secretary as her mother, she would not only be on the adult list but would probably have her new lung already.
Thank goodness we have a judge who could see the tragedy and see a way to avoid it instead of pretending it is not a tragedy.
Need a definition for “sickening”? Listen to Ms. Sebelius’ testimony on this issue.
Crux of Crosstown
Was the Crosstown makeover undertaking a beautification project? A drainage improvement?
Crux of Crosstown
Or a beautiful waste of money?