Wrong for site
I share the same view of Clemson’s proposed architecture center as Evan Thompson, executive director of the Preservation Society of Charleston.
I am a Clemson grad and proudly applaud Clemson’s many accomplishments, but the design of the Spaulding Paolozzi Center does not belong at the corner of Meeting and George streets. Tourists do not come to Charleston’s historic district and spend their money to see modern structures that belong elsewhere.
I wrote Clemson President James Barker a letter encouraging him to look at other sites as I felt that local residents would not want a modern structure in their historic neighborhood.
In his letter to the editor, Thompson suggested the Morrison Drive corridor for this building.
In my letter to President Barker, I suggested across the harbor at Patriots Point. I reasoned that all of Charleston’s assets from this vantage point were visible — shipping, recreation, new development and, of course, the historic district.
This inspirational vista should be a catalyst for innovative design by aspiring architects since it fully encompasses our unique port city. Parking and future expansion are also a plus.
The current design is brilliant, but it does not compliment Meeting and George streets. Move the structure where it belongs.
There are many things that need to be changed in Washington.
Trying to list all of them would be almost impossible. One major change can be done: term limits.
I realize it would be impossible to make term limits retroactive, but to institute them would definitely be a start.
My suggestion is to limit the Senate to six years and the House to four years. Think what a change it would be for the candidates. No longer would they start to raise funds for the next election immediately upon election. The perks that go along with re-election for many years would be eliminated.
The first reaction is that it can’t be done.
How is it then, that one of the most important jobs, that of president, has a limit of eight years?
This was done to avoid the chance of complete control. In spite of this, we have allowed our legislature to set up a dynasty.
I believe our state should have these same regulations.
I’m responding to an Oct. 15 letter titled “Fundamental flaw,” and an Oct. 18 letter titled “Civics 101.” Both authors believe that not funding a passed law circumvents the legislative process. The author of “Civics 101” states he can’t find “hostage taking” in the Constitution.
Both should review the Federalist Papers and the Constitution.
In the separation of powers, the Founders were very deliberate in their design. Only the legislative branch has the power to create law or change existing law, and only the House of Representatives has the power of the purse strings. Madison makes it very clear in Federalist No. 58 that the power of the purse strings was designed “to redress grievances’’ and restrict executive power.
Five times after its passage, Mr. Obama has unilaterally changed the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) by granting waivers to political constituents.
Most brazenly, he has exempted Congress and given employers a year-long suspension. Obama is not king; he doesn’t get to modify the laws he likes or dislikes.
This is a man who taught constitutional law violating the Constitution.
It also violates a basic belief that people should not be given preferential treatment based on their ties to power.
Obamacare was a major overreach of power. Whether Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid or civil rights, never in this nation’s history has major social legislation been enacted on a straight party-line vote.
In every case, there was significant bipartisan agreement that gave the law legitimacy. Obamacare, however, was passed without one single Republican vote. Moreover, it was rammed through using a conjured, if not unethical, parliamentary maneuver —reconciliation. Reconciliation is a legislative procedure of both houses, but used mainly in the Senate. It’s intended for budget bills only, using simple majorities. To avoid a Republican filibuster in the Senate, Democrats made an end run around legislative rules by declaring that the bill was a budget item. This allowed passage of the bill in its final form needing only 51 votes (vs. 60 to stop a filibuster).
The present turmoil is a direct result of the radical Left hell bent on socializing medicine at any cost.
Don’t be fooled. Obamacare is ultimately not about health care; it’s about wealth redistribution, power accumulation and Obama’s promise to “fundamentally transform America.”
In light of the recent accident where a driver hit a cyclist on his way to work, I think it is time to change some “Share the Road” rules for bike riders.
Mount Pleasant, like the rest of Charleston County, is doing its utmost to accommodate relatively few bicycles (compared to automobiles) on our roads.
However, until we can make them safe to share, certain roads should be restricted to motorized vehicles with the capacity to do the speed limit — specifically that stretch of Long Point Road from Needlerush Parkway (entrance to Palmetto County Park) to Highway 17.
Blind curves, access roads to Boone Hall and Snee Farm and certain trees make this road hazardous enough for drivers without bicycles to worry about. There are plenty of alternative bike routes to Highway 17.
Other places where bikes should be prohibited are sections of Rifle Range Road (the road is being widened near Hamlin area, presumably with bike paths added) and Mathis Ferry Road. I’m sure there are others.
Restrictions already exist on various bridges where it is dangerous for bikes. And there are no bikes on freeways.
Roads were designed and intended for use by motorized vehicles. I’m all for sharing the roads, but cyclists have swung the pendulum too far in their own direction.
If a road is not safe for you on your bike, stay on the shoulder or find an alternative route (unless, you can get your bike up to the 35 mile an hour speed limit.)
Cars are bigger and more powerful than bikes and riders.
If a cyclist goes up against a car, the cyclist is going to lose every time. So be safe. If the road hasn’t been built — or rebuilt — to accommodate your bike, stay off of it.
And just so we’re clear, I’m not talking about every little neighborhood street where the traffic is already slowed down by laws and speed bumps. Just heavily traveled “scenic” roads never intended for bikes.
Spring Hill Lane
I was disappointed with Frank Cerabino’s Sunday commentary about youth football. He misses the difference between youth football and college/NFL — in youth football the parents are present and can make the best decisions about their child and a potential concussion.
Supporting the “helicopter parents,” who in general do not want their kids to be hurt, misses the need for our youth, boys in particular, to be physically active and make safe physical contact.
I understand why parents do not aspire for their children to be in contact sports. I steered my three boys toward golf, tennis, orchestra, running, and robotics teams. Over the last few years, my boys chose to play football, rugby, lacrosse, and soccer.
I would rather they engage in activities they like than do nothing at all. As a parent, I help them to be in good physical condition to help prevent injuries. I have spent a lot of time familiarizing myself with the signs/symptoms of concussions.
Football and other contact sports can be good for our youth. I will never forget when my oldest son finished his first contact practice in football pads in eighth grade. He was relaxed and happy, and he told me, “Mom, that was great.” I can see the self-confidence and life lessons my boys have gained from being part of something that is difficult on many different levels.
Some youth leagues are enforcing better rules on concussions. For instance Rugby South Carolina, the youth rugby league in South Carolina, mandates a three-week break after a concussion. I appreciated this rule when my oldest had a potential concussion during a rugby match. I hope other youth leagues for contact sports make similar rules, since the concussion diagnosis can be very confusing.
Like any decision we make for our children, we have to weigh the pros and cons. I do not think bashing youth football is going to help our kids, especially those kids who need to be in contact sports. Encouraging families to stand up for what is best for each unique child and being informed is a much better way.
Magnolia Woods Drive
We wonder why South Carolina is seen as behind the times. First we have state and local politicians championing drilling off the coast for fossil fuels in lieu of taking a leadership role in offshore wind energy. Then we have local industry advocating for natural gas as the Lowcountry’s “sleeping giant.” Followed by the Legislature kowtowing to the carbon-based energy companies to kill solar power.
And finally we have Atty. Gen. Alan Wilson siding with big industry to fight EPA on regulating greenhouse emissions.
The last time I checked, the Lowcountry is called the Lowcountry for a reason, because it is very near current sea level. Our addiction to carbon based energy is causing sea levels to rise at unprecedented rates.
Do we really think that Charleston will continue to be called the best tourist destination in the world if it is under water? Probably not.
Instead of chasing the last drop of fossil fuel down the proverbial drain hole and allowing big industry to continue to rule our natural commons, let’s set a vision for the future that includes renewable energy, clean air, fresh water, productive soils and a thriving economy.
It’s not an either/or; it can be both. South Carolina should jump ahead of the pack and be a real leader.
Here’s a puzzlement. On the one hand, South Carolina’s “education” secretary refused $50 million in federal funds for education, claiming that South Carolina doesn’t want any funds from the feds.
As a result of rejecting the federal education funds the secretary later complained that the state can’t afford to educate our youth and proposed to compound the problem by removing the cap on class sizes.
On the other hand, Gov. Haley has her hand out begging for funds from the feds — for what? To build a slab of concrete (I-73) so our coast can be further desecrated.
Grand, just hypocritically grand.
A. Elliott Barrow Jr.
Barrow Law Firm
Chuck Dawley Boulevard
Notice about comments:
The Post and Courier is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point.