Make the pick
Well, don't you think this selection process charade has gone on long enough? Is there anyone who believes this was actually a search for the best possible president of the college? No, Glen McConnell will be appointed the next president.
Is he the best educated and most articulate? No. Is he a well-respected academic? No. Has he a wealth of experience in college administration and machinations? No. Is he the choice of the College faculty? No.
What he is, is a successful politician who can get just about anything he wants done in the state of South Carolina. And as such, he is probably the best candidate for the job at hand. Let's face it. In today's world, a college president's true worth is in bringing stability and growth to the finances of his institution.
Lt. Gov. McConnell is well equipped to do just that. He is as well-connected to state government as any person can possibly be, and if he can't keep state support, grants and donations coming in, then no one can.
While I have never agreed with his politics and doubt that I ever will, I can't think of any other remaining candidate who can do more for the college than he.
So let's stop this charade and get done what everyone knew was going to happen as soon as his hat was in the ring. Appoint McConnell the new president of the College of Charleston.
Little Oak Island
I'm writing in response to the writer from Dorchester who called the Angel Oak an "overgrown plant" and berated the use of taxpayer dollars to protect it.
Has he ever seen the Angel Oak? Two dimensional pictures of it simply can't convey it's magnificence.
For those of us who grew up on Johns Island, that tree represents a lifetime of memories almost as magnificent as the tree itself.
But, you don't have to be from "the island" to appreciate its beauty and significance.
Club Course Drive
The Post and Courier doesn't like the idea of "we the people" having an inalienable (original Bill of Rights) right to carry arms without "common sense" restrictions that could render the intent of this amendment moot.
Sometimes these so-called "common sense" restrictions are propagated by special interests that would gleefully chip away Second Amendment guarantees bit by bit.
I can't believe The Post and Courier honestly would suggest that "rights granted by the government can be limited by the government when necessary." Really? If that were so, why pretend to have a Bill of Rights? Would The Post and Courier say the same thing about the First Amendment? How about the Fourth or Fifth? Does that little "limited when necessary" caveat cover those amendments also?
If this were so easy, all privately owned guns would have likely been confiscated during the Roosevelt administration. Certainly by the Clinton administration, and positively by the current administration.
Likewise, the First Amendment and freedom of the press guarantees would have been "limited" or withdrawn by the Nixon administration.
Traffic laws and stop sign analogies don't stand up. Let's face it, "we the people" do not have an "inalienable," God-given right to drive. "We the people" do have an ironclad right to keep and bear arms and enjoy freedom of speech and freedom of the press. That is as long as we have a nation of laws, not men, and we don't rationalize absolute rights away with "limited when necessary."
Slow down, Steve
Steve Spurrier has offered a feel-good, politically correct response to the gay issue surrounding former Missouri defensive end, Michael Sam.
His views about us all living in a new world are true. We do indeed live in a new cultural environment. But I must take him to task about his specialty - football.
He says he would welcome a woman who can kick a 55-yard field goal. Here's the problem: Suppose I am the powerful linebacker or defensive end who breaks through the line and gets to her before she gets that kick off. Knowing she is a woman, I cannot hit her with the same bone-crushing hit that I would deliver a guy. This is just how most of us guys are made.
This would give you and your female kicker the advantage, and you, of all people, should know that. Let's leave PC out of football.
Tony B. Ratliff, Sr.
Charleston should use the substantial home-rule authority granted to it in the state constitution to legalize same-sex marriage in the city.
Our wedding industry is robust and growing. The federal courts will eventually invalidate the state's prohibitions against same-sex marriage though it will take a couple of years. Legalize now to start capturing that extra wedding revenue and to establish ourselves as the only open and accepting wedding venue in the Southeast.
The desire lesbian and gay couples have to participate in the institution of marriage is one of the few positive developments in our national culture in recent years.
Mainstream media and politicians have conspired to reduce the stigma around out-of-wedlock births and divorce in such a way as to devalue marriage and to penalize it via the "marriage tax." We can counter this assault with legalization.
Our local culture of hospitality, deference to individual liberty, and hostility to overbearing government should make legalization a given in Charleston. Christopher Gadsden would choose a rainbow field for his flag rather than a yellow one if he were alive today.
By taking this action we repair damage to our culture, grow our economy and strike a blow for liberty.
And it doesn't hurt that it would invoke apoplexy in the Upstate!
I would like to thank the writer of a March 10 letter to the editor regarding erosion on Folly Beach. I applaud the writer's passion and willingness to pursue solutions to Folly Beach's renourishment needs. We face the problem of erosion together, and I hope we can also work toward a solution together.
The bottom line is that there are no rocks or seawalls impeding access to the public beach because those rocks and seawalls are on private property. There is a misconception that areas currently eroded are public beach.
However, in 2013 DHEC's governing board confirmed that the line between public and private property on Folly Beach does not move regardless of erosion. Folly has not allowed any erosion control devices on the seaward side of the baseline.
In the one instance where a private property owner built a seawall on the seaward side of the baseline (in other words, on the public beach), the city administration forced the owners to remove the wall in compliance with the Office of Ocean & Coastal Resource Management and the Army Corps of Engineers.
While the Constitution does not protect a right of common access to the beach, it does protect property owners, even non-resident, private homeowners.
To take these private property rights away from the owners and turn the land into public beach would mean buying this private property from the owners, a task that the city simply cannot afford.
The letter writer acknowledges that the city's renourishment account is empty from paying our portion of the cost of this current renourishment, a price that gives the public a beach to access at all.
Post-renourishment, the beach is wider and more accessible. If people find their access to this beach obstructed by homes and seawalls, it is because they are standing on private property.
Mayor of Folly Beach
Notice about comments: