Editorial summary: South Carolina | South Carolina News
Post and courier (Charleston). December 7, 2021.
Editorial: Sullivan’s should follow new tips to save his forest from drastic pruning
For those concerned about protecting Sullivan’s Island’s unique maritime forest, the good news is that this year’s municipal elections sent a clear message against the hastily reached mediation deal. last year allowing more tree felling than ever. The elections have consequences, and the most immediate has been that no further cuts have taken place so far as a result of this controversial settlement.
But the long-term fate of the forest remains far from certain, and that’s why we continue to urge Sullivan’s Island City Council to find out more about what it could and couldn’t do. legally to dissolve this mediation agreement.
We opposed the October 2020 push to settle a lawsuit that had led to years of legal wrangling between the city and some homeowners whose ocean views are blocked by the forest. We were alarmed that the regulations allowed for more cuts than ever contemplated and, to make matters worse, the public was unlikely to speak up in the midst of the pandemic. Resolving the legal dispute would save everyone time and legal costs, but any settlement involving such a valuable public resource must be based on transparency and an inclusive public process.
Last year, the city council failed to lay such a foundation, so we are not surprised to learn that the mediation deal it reached could ultimately fall apart. In November, retired U.S. 4th Court of Appeals Chief Justice Billy Wilkins, a private attorney hired by the city to review the deal, argued that the settlement agreement is “unenforceable. in law or in contract â, in large part because a municipal council cannot restrict the action of future town halls too much. For example, the agreement has language that requires the logging of forests in perpetuity, a plan that appears to conflict with the city’s 2005 ordinance limiting logging. It also forces the city to pay part of the cut. Both essentially tie future city councils to a decision made by council last year.
However respected Mr. Wilkins is, his letter does not guarantee that the city will ultimately succeed if it tries to have the settlement agreement rejected. But it adds fuel and good faith to such an effort, and we urge the city to move in that direction. We are encouraged that Mayor Pat O’Neil, an opponent of the settlement, told Post and Courier reporter Chloe Johnson that he expects council members to consider the matter soon, calling it Mr. Wilkins’ conclusion of “very unequivocal, very simple and very clear”. “
The city council has three main options: ask the court to review the enforceability of the settlement, ask the court to overturn it entirely, or wait for the plaintiffs to force the city to follow it, and then fight. We have no idea of ââthe best choice. City lawyers may prefer to share their strategic advice privately, but we urge council members to hold their discussions on this matter in public, given the broad public interest. After all, this issue dominated the city’s last election.
It’s nice to think about the possibility of beachfront homeowners and the current city council coming together on a revised compromise plan for the forest, but that’s probably just wishful thinking. This contentious issue has the qualities of a debate in downtown Charleston on a horse-drawn carriage or cruise ship, a debate that seems to drag on endlessly with staunch advocates on both sides never getting all they could. want. Sometimes, however, such a difficult and protracted outcome reflects the kind of compromise of a local government that works the best it can. Whatever path is chosen, the city’s ultimate goal must remain the same: to protect the maritime forest.
The (Orangeburg) Times and Democrat. December 7, 2021.
Editorial: December 7, 1941: So much lost, so much gained
Today, December 7, 80 years ago, America was attacked at Pearl Harbor. It’s a date to remember.
At the National WWII Museum in New Orleans, a new exhibit focuses on the memory of the Japanese attack.
The exhibit is part of the museum’s commemoration of the 80th anniversary of the 1941 attack. Japanese planes destroyed or damaged 19 US warships and 300 aircraft in less than 90 minutes, killing more than 2,400 people.
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt described it the next day as “a day that will live in infamy.” The exhibition is called “Infamy: Pearl Harbor Remembered”.
“This exhibit provides a compelling overview of the political climate leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor, then focuses on how it is remembered, rather than focusing on the detailed events of the attack already highlighted. in our permanent exhibitions, “senior curator Tom Czekanski mentioned.
After the attacks, the United States declared war on Japan, entering World War II, which took until 1945 to result in an Allied victory. Over 100,000 Americans have died in the Pacific.
It is important to note that the United States did not treat Japan as a defeated enemy at the end of the war.
We helped rebuild the country, which today is one of our most powerful allies. The war and its consequences are a testament to the greatness of our country.
As we remember today the attack which, prior to September 11, 2001, was the worst in our country’s history, it is important to reflect on what post-war American actions meant for the United States. world.
At no time has the American-Japanese reconciliation been more illustrated than at a meeting in Pearl Harbor in 2001.
The Japanese attackers and the American survivors met, this time as friends without bitterness.
The assessment of a Japanese WWII pilot sent a message to the world.
Kunio Iwashita told The Associated Press that it was not until the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, that he realized how Americans felt at the time.
âI was very impressed with all the flags on the buildings and cars, with the patriotism that Americans showed after 9/11,â said Iwashita, who was visiting relatives in Boston that day. âI realized how big and strong America is. I had no idea âin 1941.
Make no mistake, December 7, 1941, is a date that will forever be remembered in American memories. And the lessons of that painful day must not be forgotten, on this day 80 years later and every year in the future. Americans must understand the sacrifices made by so many to make our country the bastion of freedom that it is – and must remain so.
The (Greenwood) Index-Journal. December 4, 2021.
Editorial: Civility Through the Window
Time and time again we use this space to remind readers once again that among the diverse and diverse opinions that grace this page, we welcome – dare we say covet – their letters and guest columns.
And we generally share a few rules of the road, such as the maximum word count allowed for letters and guest columns. We also implore writers to be courteous when writing. There is no need to shout – those who receive emails or letters written in all caps know what we mean – and there is certainly no need to stoop to using vulgar language.
Vulgar language will result in an immediate refusal to post, in most cases, or at least result in serious wording. Unsigned letters? Nope. Sorry. We don’t publish them either.
Honestly, we would expect some readers to dispute our editorials or columns written by guest and union columnists. We know that some will also challenge the editorial cartoons that we publish. We try to provide a balance of designs and columns throughout the week on this page and we have no illusions that every reader will be happy with every word or design that adorns this page every day. But that’s why it’s a Viewpoints page. Look at this? There is an “s” at the end, indicating a variety of views and not a host of material that has a choir singing all on the same page. You can get this from trade publications and cable and satellite networks.
Most, fortunately, play by the rules. They understand that civil speech is much more effective than shouting insults.
And on occasion, there are those who not only cannot be civilians or avoid foul language, but also lack the courage to put their names on what they send. Perhaps typing a few sentences in all caps and letting them drop the night drop relieves their pressure valve, but they would be more effective if they took the time to write thoughtful letters describing what they are not familiar with. ‘okay and why. And include their name, mailing address, and daytime phone number.
A reader recently took issue with two secondary editorial cartoons that we published. One made a comparison between the Kyle Rittenhouse and Ahmaud Arbery cases.
The reader took the time to scan the cartoon onto a piece of paper and include two sentences in all caps, which we share here with heavy editing: âTwo different situations, you make liberal (expletive) holes on the right. I hope your paper will flow and you will. For the accent, nine exclamation marks have been nailed at the end.
We’re still trying to figure out how we can be both right-wing and liberal at the same time, but maybe it was just a typo.
He – and based on the language, we’re 99% sure the writer is male – attached a second note. This included a scanned copy of a judge holding the rope of a short guillotine. In front of the guillotine is a representation of a man from Texas, obviously condemned to have a particular part of his anatomy cut. It contains the words “If the Republicans in Texas really wanted to stop unwanted pregnancies.”
Now, we grant you, that was a rough, powerful cartoon. But that’s what designers do. They convey a message, an opinion, through an image and not 700-word essays.
The reader wrote, in part: âThe photo should show a woman with her (slang word for female genitalia) sewn together or her ankles cuffed. If a (slang word for male genitalia) has nowhere to go, then an abortion will not be necessary.
For good measure he then added, “Most of you at the Index Journal or (I think he meant are) probably transgender, gay, prostitute, drug addict like your Obama leaders, Clinton, Biden, etc. Go home and sexually abuse your children.
I wonder what is wrong with our country?
A lack of civility and the inability of some people to engage in meaningful speech while still disagreeing and yet somehow maintaining mutual respect and treating each other with decency.
Copyright 2021 Associated press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.