Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Posted by Bill Smith at 1:04 PM | 64 comments

Just discovered your blog. You seem to claim for THE STATE that it is the worst newspaper in SC and that the Charleston Post and Courier is better. Better? Maybe you don't read the P&C?? I hate to think what might be worse! I don't read the State, but I do have a blog devoted to pointing out the faults (and they are legion) in the "Newsless Courier." I also write frequently on educational choices. Right on.
 

Where can one read the Newsless Courier?
 

Hi Babbie,

I have to say that I get to see The State up close and personal on a daily basis. I usually check the P&C when I get a link to it. I've definitely seen some stories there that I liked.

The State does a good job trying to have "the feel" of a real newspaper; too often, though, they just make stuff up. And their Op-Ed page is bonkers.

Glad to see you dropped by. Do come again!

--bill
 

Amen Bill! As always, you are dead on target. But you seem surprised that you would have to say, yet again, IT IS NOT PUBLIC MONEY, IT IS PRIVATE MONEY BEING DIRECTED BY PRIVATE CHOICE. Why be surprised? The socialist mind set that dominates the current thinking of the "elites" will never understand this simple fact.
 

I don't think Brad intends to reject the idea that Jesus is Lord. If Jesus is Lord, who "owns the cattle on a thousand hills," the very creator of the world, I doubt that He needed any financial support from anyone. A gold brick to Him is mere pavement in His economy. Bill Gates is an inner-city, illiterate orphan in comparison. He wasn't concerned with tax credits... though he did convict a tax collector such that he gave everything back and then some.

Brad makes a good point that we are to fashion our lives after Jesus. In my understanding of the Scriptures, Jesus is all about us loving our neighbors. While telling us to "render unto to Caesar," He also authored the Golden Rule. Public education makes up over half of Caesar, the government. But the struggling family is my neighbor whom I'm commanded to love as myself. I see no where in the Bible that I'm to love public education as I love myself. Instead, I believe I'm supposed to value my neighbor far more than some state system.

But, what would I know. I'm just a sinner growing in faith.
 

far out....
 

Look here...

if you give the money to the parents and they give it to a church-sponsored school, that is TAX money going to a church sponsored school. You can launder it ten times, but it's still tax money going to support religious indoctrination. period.

I just love it when you Christianists get after everybody else for situational ethics, and then when it suits you,

why...lookie there, you indulge in situational ethics.

a pox on all of you and your little dogs, too. As a childless person, I'm tired of subsidizing your spawn with my tax money. I get nothing out of it except having to read spew from self-indulgent religionists who think the state owes them something for believing in mystical sky daddies. Get real.
 

Seems to me that in your rant about hating to have to support my spawn you've just made an excellent arguement against the waste that IS public education. Is that ironic? I never know whether something is ironic or not.
 

Seems to me that once you've made the correct moral decision and have allowed people to keep more of their hard-earned money rather than confiscating it in taxes, you can't then go back and tell them what they can or cannot spenf their money on. If you forbid them from spending on the school they choose, you really haven't allowed them to keep their money have you?
 

Responding to the dope who wrote:

"Look here...

if you give the money to the parents and they give it to a church-sponsored school, that is TAX money going to a church sponsored school."

Where pray tell does the money that is "given" to "the parents" come from?

How can one have a rational discussion of public education if they do not understand how the government obtains "public" funds?
 

This site is run by paid political hacks. Want their names?
 

Sure. Who are they?
 

They are the usual supects paid with carpetbagger money. They will say anything their SCRG masters pay them to say.
 

So they are scumbags?
 

They are just bought and pid for. You decide what they are.
 

It is stupid to use my hard earned tax money to help people pay for private school.
 

Do not worry. The silly antitax groups have fizzled out from lack of interest. There are only a few paid political hacks still beating that drum. Everyone knows S.C. taxes are among the most reasonable in the U.S.
 

That last comment will really make them scream. It is hard for them to admit that we have to pay for essential services like public education. Private schools would never open up in the hood. Tax vouchers for private school are a sham regardless of what they are called.
 

I don't know 'bout all that y'all. I think I remember that very nearly 50% of the voters in this state voted FOR Karen Floyd last November, and against the status quo. I Believe you have a lot more to worry about than you let on. People in South Carolina seem to me to be pretty well fed up with things as they are, and really seem to want change. I know I do. OhTimothy
 

I love the way this comment poster had a conversation with himself.
 

With paid morons like the host of this site twisting the truth it is hard for anyone to know who to vote for. The fact that K. Floyd was hand picked by the Republican leadership and she still lost to a Democrat just proves that tax vouchers for private schools is dead dead dead. The only reason it is still on life support is the fact that paid political morons keep scamming the public.
 

They just keep changing the name but a pig is still a pig no matter how much perfume you put on it. And perfuming a pig is a key skill of these paid political hacks.
 

Hate The State. Love the Tax Voucher Scam. Hate The State. Love the Tax Voucher Scam. Hate The State. Love the Tax Voucher Scam.

The host de jour cannot make up his gum ball brain. But he does not need to. All he needs to do is exactly what his masters at SCRG tell him to do.
 

http://schotlinepress.wordpress.com/2007/03
/19/266/

You forgot to mention Little Willie confessed to and was convicted of Domestic Violence. A proud moment in SC Hotline History. A convicted felon joins their staff. We guess it is really hard getting a real job when you have a record.

The funniest part is where it says Willie is "one of the Palmetto State’s most influential new media personalities." What a joke.
 

Karen Floyd lost by exactly one one millionth of a percent. If only about six more people had voted for her we wouldn't be having this conversation. Not exactly reason to gloat and get all smug I don't think.
 

Face it. You lost again and you will continue to be unsucessful with your tax voucher scam but you will continue to prositute yourself as long as SCRG carpetbagger money flows to yo pockets and when the money flow stops you will move on to the next issue as a paid hack.
 

Face it. You lost again and you will continue to be unsucessful with your tax voucher scam but you will continue to prositute yourself as long as SCRG carpetbagger money flows to yo pockets and when the money flow stops you will move on to the next issue as a paid hack.
 

How many misspelled invectives and juvenile talking points can you squeeze into one run-on sentence?
 

The State Letters to the Editor
Friday march 23, 2007

Bolton and board write about what matters

In response to some who take Warren Bolton to task for writing about matters of faith, I would just like to point out how fortunate we are in South Carolina to have a newspaper with an editorial board such as The State has.

I do not always agree with Bolton, Brad Warthen, Cindi Ross Scoppe, Mike Fitts or Robert Ariail.

I sometimes do not know enough about the subject at hand to know what they are talking about — which is why I am glad they are doing the research that they do.

But in any case, they should be commended and thanked for their honesty, integrity, hard work and courage in pointing out problems and in helping search for answers.

Though not on the public payroll, they are public servants in the widest sense, and, in my opinion, everybody in this state should read what they write.

I also hope that Bolton continues to write on subjects that matter to all of us, for all of us have faith in Someone or something.

HERB BRASHER

Lexington
 

The tax voucher scam supporters have seen the handwriting on the wall. They do not have support.

That is clear by the fact this time they are not wasting their time trying to get it through on its own merits. They know it has no chance of getting passed on its own merits. None.

Instead this time they are trying a "backdoor" tactic of tacking it onto legitimate bills that actually would help all children.

From The State March 24, 2007

“They’re having problems getting the bills moving,” said Scott Price, general counsel for the S.C. School Boards Association, which opposes vouchers. “If you’ve got an issue that you think is that good, then don’t be afraid to put it through the committee process and get it aired out.”

Give it up SCRG. Your carperbagger money is no good here anymore.
 

A few days ago SC Hotline announced
the infamous little Willie had joined its team and crowed that he is "...one of the Palmetto State’s most influential new media personalities." What a Joke.

http://schotlinepress.wordpress.com/2007/03/19/266

Now it seems Mr. Influential has been fired already. His domestic violence trial lasted longer.

SCHotline severs professional relationship with Will Folks
March 23rd, 2007

Effective immediately SCHotline will discontinue any editorial and or other professional association with Mr. Folks. We deeply regret that we were unable to come to an amicable agreement and wish Mr. Folks the best in his future endeavors.

SCHotline

###
 

Truth from Saturday’s Letters to the Editor

Tax Credits Would Hurt More Than Help

In his recent column, “The responsibility for teaching,” Kevin Hall expressed a desire for justice for South Carolina’s schoolchildren. However, his proposal to provide tax credits to fund children attending private school is likely to move us further from that goal.

Justice requires that South Carolina provide access to a top-quality education for all our children. Some children would be helped by tax credits, but it is probable that many more would be hurt, as the credits weaken community support for public schools.

I grew up in the Pee Dee at the time public schools were being integrated, and I witnessed the founding of numerous private academies. The quality of education at most of the academies was mediocre. More significantly, they contributed to the decline of community support for the public school system.

Without broad support, those public schools had difficulty meeting the challenges of that time. Years later, the consequence of withdrawing support from the public schools is evident in the “Corridor of Shame.”

Let’s not go down that road again. Diverting support from the public schools will make it more difficult for them to function effectively. Instead, we citizens of South Carolina need to do the hard work of improving public schools, especially in impoverished areas. That truly is a matter of justice.

REV. ROBERT CANNON
West Columbia
 

How much did SCRG pay Kevin Hall to write his letter to the editor? It certainly cost them some of their carpetbagger money.
 

From another reliable news source.

www.wistv.com

South Carolina blogger dumped from political Web site for Edwards post

(Columbia-AP) March 27, 2007 - The former spokesman for Governor Mark Sanford has been dropped from a political Web site in South Carolina for his comments about John Edwards' decision to stay in the presidential race.

Will Folks criticized Edwards' decision following the revelation that the former North Carolina senator's wife had a cancer recurrence.

Folks posted the web log last week and soon after was writing that he had been fired from SCHotline.com, which features links to news articles, opinion pieces and press releases.

Folks' post said Edwards was what Folks called "selfishly continuing his quest" for the presidency. The headline called Edwards, a South Carolina native, insensitive.

An official with SCHotline said the post was a reflection on them, since Folks had recently became part-owner.

Posted 1:50pm by Bryce Mursch
 

I saw the post that got him fired. It reminded me of the same kind of slimy oddball foolishness that the host posts here. Perhaps they are related.
 

Vouchers are a scam. This is smart.

Posted on Wed, Mar. 28, 2007
The State

S.C. must raise bar from ‘minimally adequate’ to ‘exemplary’

By JOHN S. RAINEY
Guest columnist

South Carolina’s Constitution defines us as a people, declaring to ourselves and the world who we are and what values we share.

Our constitution says this about public education: “The General Assembly shall provide for the maintenance and support of a system of free public schools open to all children in the State and shall establish, organize and support such other public institutions of learning, as may be desirable.”

Unfortunately, our state Supreme Court has interpreted that provision as requiring that South Carolina only provide its citizens the opportunity for a “minimally adequate” education. Circuit Court Judge Thomas Cooper, in the Abbeville v. State of South Carolina school funding case, later defined “minimally adequate” as “the least possible quantity of a thing that is suitable for the occasion.”

Judge Cooper, therefore, set the bar about as low as possible, telling us that “minimally adequate” is all we deserve. We cannot accept that shameful standard for ourselves or our children. .Indeed, we in South Carolina have lived down to “minimally adequate” for far too long, settling for an education system in which 50 percent of its ninth-graders do not graduate from high school within four years and tolerating a system that not only allows its students to remain last in SAT scores, but actually permits them to emerge, with or without a degree, unprepared for finding a successful place in the 21st century.

We are in this mess not because there are no good teachers and administrators; there are. We are here because the people charged with setting the course for public education have chosen in the past not to lead South Carolina through the hard slog required to get us away from “minimally adequate” and off the bottom.

We are not asking the impossible. The constitutions of Florida and Virginia proudly express their commitment to all their citizens.

Florida’s Constitution states: “Adequate provision shall be made by law for a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system of free public schools that allows students to obtain a high quality education.”

Virginia’s Constitution mandates: “The General Assembly shall provide for a system of free public elementary and secondary schools for all children of school age throughout the Commonwealth, and shall seek to ensure that an educational program of high quality is established and continually maintained.”

Who upon reading these provisions would be willing to go to their children and tell them that they do not deserve a high quality education, that a minimally adequate education is good enough for them?

Fortunately, we now have some members of the General Assembly ready to lead us toward the first step in freeing ourselves and our children from the mind-numbing failures ensured by the words “minimally adequate.”

Sen. Jim Ritchie of Spartanburg has proposed a constitutional amendment mandating that children in South Carolina enjoy the opportunity to receive an “exemplary” education.

The Oxford Dictionary defines “exemplary” to mean “serving as a desirable model; very good.” Sens. Glenn McConnell, Dick Elliott, Larry Martin, Danny Verdin, Mike Fair, John Land, Bill Mescher and Greg Gregory joined him in co-sponsorship.

These senators understand not only that South Carolina must get away from “minimally adequate” but also that it must catch up with the rest of America.

South Carolina must aim for the highest possible standard — that which might be an example to others. I applaud Sen. Ritchie and his co-sponsors for recognizing the deleterious effects of the low expectation of “minimally adequate” and for determining that merely doing better is not doing well enough. They want the best for South Carolina.

These legislators realize that maintaining the cultural and intellectual status quo in South Carolina means the continuation of our status as last where we should be first and first where we should be last. They further realize that they are in a position to do something about it — to lead.

State Superintendent of Education Jim Rex also supports raising this state’s expectations of our education system through a constitutional provision. So it is possible that at long last a consensus for change is forming.

We must encourage our children to develop their own high expectations for learning and achievement. By example, we must inspire them and give them confidence to compete and succeed in a society that is becoming more global every day. We owe it to them and ourselves as South Carolinians to raise the bar from mediocrity to excellence.

Mr. Rainey is chairman of the S.C. Board of Economic Advisors.

© 2007 The State and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.thestate.com
 

I'm no Will Folks fan and I don't know whether he roughed up his wife or not, but I can imagine that the public criticism and ridicule he's gotten since the incident (whatever it was) have been pretty devastating. All that aside however, I don't really see what's wrong with his characterization of John Edwards. It seems pretty clear to me that the way in which Edwards has used his wifes' disease in this episode is pretty typical of the rest of his political career and much of his prvate career as well. Politically he's been pretty mercenary...and seems willing to say anything he thinks will win him a point. For instance he's been tireless in his efforts to present himself as a poor boy from SC whose parents worked in the mill yada yada...some of which may be true, but this persona is the furthest thing there can be from the present truth of his life. He's filthy frickin rich and lives like it. Also, exploitation of the sicknesses of others isn't new for him...he did it with Christopher Reeves too. This is what he does. Using his wife this way simply demonstrates his shamelessness anew.
 

"whatever it was"?? Court records show what that was. He admitted to criminal domestic violence against his girl friend and that included kicking in a door and generally making a fool of himself. His post proves some things never change and some people never learn.

A few days before firing him Mike wrote Will is "...one of the Palmetto State’s most influential new media personalities."

No one was surprised when Rod hired him, but everyone thought Mike was smarter. But that is politics.
 

OK, domestic is a crime and Folks deserved to get spanked for it. That still doesn't make his characterization of Edwards wrong. Edwards is a shameless slimeball who will say ANYTHING he thinks will help him at the moment. And his exploitation of Reeves, his wife and who knows who else proves it.
 

oops...domestic VIOLENCE is a crime
 

In the last post he wrote calling someone a "...shameless slime ball who will say ANYTHING he thinks will help him at the moment."

How ironic. It sounds like little Willie has a little clone thinking with the same gum ball sized brain.

That also sounds like a perfect description of the host of this site.

Did you read The State today?

The voucher scam went down in flames, again. The carpetbagger supporters will try to perfume that pig by saying "support is growing."

This time they knew they were doomed, so they tried to backdoor the voucher scam by tacking it on to legitimate legislation.

The only way they can get more support is political blackmail. They tried that with Billy Cotty. He stuck to his principals and he cleaned their clocks by getting reelected. Of course "principal" is a novel concept to SCRG.
 

Great news for all children in S.C.

The State
Friday, Mar 30, 2007
Posted on Fri, Mar. 30, 2007

House OKs enrollment in any public school
By LISA MICHALS

South Carolina students could apply to attend any public school in the state — regardless of where they live — if a bill passed by the House Thursday becomes law.

But the measure doesn’t include private school vouchers or tax credits as a further option, as some conservative lawmakers had hoped.

“I couldn’t be happier,” said state Superintendent of Education Jim Rex, who backed the legislation and campaigned for options in choosing public schools.

Voucher supporters tried to attach a series of voucher and tax credit amendments to the open enrollment bill, but all failed. It marked the third year that conservatives have tried to pass voucher legislation in the House and failed.

Initially, the margin looked so tight that a Democrat on military leave got a special pass to take a red-eye flight back to Columbia for the vote.

In the end, the closest vote was 62-56 to table an amendment that would have offered a nearly $4,500 private school tuition voucher for poor children who attend schools the state rates “unsatisfactory.”

Voucher supporters hailed the close votes as a sign that support for their cause continues to grow.

However, the numbers don’t necessarily reflect that optimism. The margin of defeat for tuition tax credits in the previous two years was seven votes each time.

State Rep. Tracy Edge, R-Horry, who offered a voucher and tax credit amendment, said the measures failed because of split support among Republicans.

“It’s a conservative Republican issue, and we’ve got too many moderates, particularly in our leadership,” Edge said. “That’s why we failed.”

Education Committee chairman Bob Walker of Spartanburg, Ways and Means chairman Dan Cooper of Anderson and some other key GOP leaders voted against the most sweeping of the voucher proposals, which would have given tax credits to parents of private school and home-schooled students.

Late Wednesday, it looked like the voucher movement might have mustered enough support to pass.

After debate was adjourned Wednesday, state Rep. James Smith, D-Richland, got a call. Smith, a voucher opponent, was at Fort Riley, Kan., training and preparing for deployment later this year to Afghanistan with an S.C. National Guard unit.

State Rep. Doug Jennings, D-Marlboro, called to tell him “we were losing votes,” Smith recalled Thursday. Smith made an appeal to his battalion commander for a pass to leave the base and miss a day of training.

The commander “said something to the effect of, ‘I don’t want to stand in the way of democracy,’” Smith said.

Rep. Ted Vick, D-Chesterfield, helped charter a plane for him, said Smith, who arrived in Columbia about 4:30 a.m. Thursday, to the surprise of his children.

Smith cast his vote against the amendments and for the open enrollment bill — all of which he said were mandates from S.C. voters who elected Rex, a Democrat, over Republican Karen Floyd. Smith caught a plane back to Kansas Thursday afternoon.

Swirling amid the voucher and open enrollment debates were questions about Walker.

He surprised many by introducing an amendment for limited vouchers to his own open enrollment bill. Walker said no one approached him about contesting his chairmanship depending on his voucher vote. But, he said, “There were innuendoes.”

“I made no promises to anybody,” said Walker, who called his amendment — which failed —a sincere attempt at compromise.

He called the votes Thursday “pure politics.”

Edge and House Majority Leader Jim Merrill, R-Berkeley, were leaders in trying to attach voucher amendments to the open enrollment bill. Both ultimately voted against the open enrollment bill after the amendments were defeated.

Edge said the bill wouldn’t make effective change without the additional private options.

A similar open enrollment bill likely will get a hearing next week at a Senate Education Committee meeting. Supporters said they hope to move a voucher bill through the Senate.

Reach Michals at (803) 771-8532 .

OPEN ENROLLMENT

The House passed bill H.3124 Thursday, which would expand public school choice.

2007-08: Gather statewide input on public school choice and help school districts enact voluntary choice programs

2008-09: All school districts must offer at least one school choice for resident students at each of the elementary, middle and high school levels.

2009-10: Statewide open enrollment begins, meaning students can apply to attend any school in the state regardless of where they live. Districts must accept a number of out-of-district students equal to one half of a percentage point of a district’s highest average enrollment during the past 10 years. Every year, the number of students who must be accepted will increase by half a percentage point until reaching 3 percent. Schools only must accept out-of-district students if they have capacity, meaning overcrowded schools would not have to accept transfers.
 

So you're going to vote for Edwards then? Good luck with that. Talk about gumball sized brains. Sheesh.
 

It is none of your business who anyone votes for, unless of course you are a "...shameless slime ball who will say ANYTHING he thinks will help him at the moment." Then your interest in getting someone elected is purely mercenary.

We need to move this back to some serious discussion.

News Flash:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070312/cm_thenation/20070326kenning

Opinion
Bush Approval Rating Drops Below Zero

Eric Kenning Mon Mar 12, 2:47 PM ET

The Nation - President Bush's job approval rating has sunk to just under zero for the first time, according to new polls.

Polling experts say that this is an all-time low, and that only certain toxic molds have come close to those numbers in the past. The unusual rating occurred when the President was given an enthusiastic endorsement by former FEMA director Michael Brown.

Earlier this week, Brown was standing on a corner not far from the White House, begging for spare change, when Bush, out riding his bike for the afternoon, ran into him. After puffing Secret Service agents assigned to follow the President on foot and extricate him from any quagmires he might steer himself into caught up with him and disentangled both men from the twisted bicycle spokes, Bush slipped a $100 bill into Brown's paper cup, which prompted the disgraced ex-crony to say, "Bushie, you're doin' a heckuva job."

A polltaker standing nearby overheard the favorable assessment, and since anything Brown positively asserts counts for double in the negative sense, and all other respondents had expressed their disapproval of the President's job performance, this drove Bush's approval rating just below the critical zero percent mark, which could be a tipping point for his presidency, some analysts believe.

But Bush's numbers recovered somewhat a few hours later when Brown revealed he had changed his mind and now disapproved of the President's performance. After getting home that night, he said, he discovered that the hundred had a portrait of Dick Cheney instead of Ben Franklin on it.

Investigators believe that it was one of the new bills issued by Halliburton, which was recently given a contract by the White House to print its own money.

Brown's sudden reversal lifted the President's poll numbers back up to the more respectable one-tenth of one percent range but did little to stop the erosion of his crucial conservative base. Not only has he lost the support of Cheney, who is said to prefer his new chief of staff, Vlad the Impaler, as an instrument for carrying out his secret agenda, not only has he recently been abandoned by most neoconservatives, neoneanderthals and neobrachiopods, but he has finally lost the last-ditch support of his wife, Laura, his dog, Barney, his twins, Jenna and Barbara, and, according to at least one poll, himself. Called by a pollster at 8:45 PM, just before his bedtime, the President asked sleepily whether Zogby would do anything for attention-deficit disorder and whether it came in capsule or tablet form and then abruptly hung up when the phrase "job performance" came up.

The President's stricken poll numbers led to renewed speculation among economists that it might be time to outsource the job to someplace where it might be performed more competently and for less money. In Poona, India, 22-year-old Bahjaree ("Cindy") Prandra, a customer service representative for an American cellphone company, said that she would be happy to consider the position if it paid more than her current salary of $1.85 an hour, adding that the new requirement that the President be familiar with spoken English would not be a problem. She pointed out that she had studied English grammar for several years in school and, as a further qualification, she is already used to getting angry, demanding phone calls all day and telling people to please calm down, "So," she said, "I'm sure I can handle the neocons."
 

From WIS TV

"...a passionate response from Democrats. Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter (D-Orangeburg) said, "If you think investing state dollars in a private school system is going to be our salvation, I've got another thought for you. Here's that other thought. Mr. Speaker and members of this body we tried a dual system, years ago. It was called segregation. It didn't work then and it's not going to work now."

You tell them Gilda.

R.I.P. Voucher Scam
 

http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=6298618&nav=menu36_9

South Carolina legislator, Guardsman on leave casts key vote

(Columbia) March 29, 2007 - A proposal to help parents pay for private school tuition with public money has been defeated Thursday by the House, the third consecutive year the idea has failed.

Army National Guard Captain James Smith returned from training at Fort Riley, Kansas, to vote against the proposal. "There's really nothing more important than public education and the debate over reform and where we choose to go in the state versus universal enrollment and the governor's voucher plan."

Smith is a Democratic representative in Columbia.

Democrats proposed a bill that would allow parents to move their children from a failing school, to any other public school in the state. Then, some Republicans proposed amendments, that would extend choice, and state dollars, to private schools.

Rep. Jim Merrill (R-Berkeley) spoke during the debate, "It's an earnest attempt to educate children that right now are trapped, my friends. And while we are messing around and going this way and that way and worrying about it we are going to be re-elected we are sentencing thousands of children to staying in decrepit and run down schools."

That brought a passionate response from Democrats. Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter (D-Orangeburg) said, "If you think investing state dollars in a private school system is going to be our salvation, I've got another thought for you. Here's that other thought. Mr. Speak and members of this body we tried a dual system, years ago. It was called segregation. It didn't work then and it's not going to work now."

In the end, it was close, but the amendments were voted down and the choice was limited to public schools. James Smith said that made his trip home worthwhile. "I leave here today being very satisfied in the work."

Smith told his colleagues Thursday voters decided in November they didn't want school vouchers when they elected a Democrat to head the Education Department. Democrat Jim Rex defeated Republican Karen Floyd.

Smith is to deploy to Afghanistan in a couple of months. He says he told his battalion commander it was an important vote and was granted one day's leave.

Now the bill is headed to the Senate where there's expected to be another big argument.

Reported by Trey Paul with AP

Updated 8:09pm by Chantelle Janelle

All content © Copyright 2000 - 2007 WorldNow and WISTV, a Raycom Media Station.
 

Again, good luck with Edwards. Hope he works out for ya. In truth I really do hope that he DOES become the democrat nominee for president...he is a plastic scumbag that I think even a republican opponent might be able to beat, although I'm not a particularly big fan of any of the republican candidates presently making noise either. Just about any of them would be better than any democrat presently making moves however. Back to my earlier point, Edwards is a slimeball that is manifestly unfit to be president. The good people of North Carolina held the same opinion of his fitness to be their senator. I'll go with them.
 

The last post suggests an unhealthy obsession with a no chance candidate that no one in S.C. is taking seriously. Edwards has about as much chance in the primary as Will Folks has of ever being taken seriously again in S.C. That post also suggests a high level of immaturity. That fits with the rest of this blog. Fits. Get it?
 

I'm sure you have an obscure point in there somewhere, but no, I'm rather proud to say I don't get it. Anyway, I wrote the post above yours, and if pointing out in blunt terms the unsuitability of a democrat candidate is immature, then sign me up. I'm not obsessed with Edwards ~ he never had a chance last time and doesn't this time either. But I do enjoy pointing out how transparently hypocritical and ridiculously patronizing these democrat clowns are. Not to mention calculating...Edwards would toss his mother under the bus if he thought it'd give him a bump. Ditto Hillary. I don't think Obama has sunk to this level of coldbloodedness yet, but give him time. He will. He just hasn't been anywhere or done anything yet, so he's a loser too, just not for the same reasons as the other snakes in his party. On the other hand, I don't see anything good on the republican side either at this point. All that said, if my having fun with snake-in-the-grass Edwards is immature, then again...sign me up.
 

What a little temper tantrum.
 

The point is that lower case will got himself fired for "having fun" making crass and childish comments. His behavior reflected poorly on him and on Mike and his business for hiring him. Corrective action was taken. He was fired - again. Then you defended his foolishness and made your own crass and foolish comments. You have every right to make childish and crass comments and every right to look like a fool. Just like lower case will and the host of this site.
 

Talk about crass and unrefined...look at you. You don't have the guts to respond to anything I've said...your big thing is name calling. Seems pretty immature to me. In any case, I most certainly did NOT defend his foolishness. If you'd get over yourself for a moment (not likely, I know) you could see that I said very clearly that Will Folks got what he deserved for domestic violence. I then said simply that this didn't make him wrong about Edwards. I still don't think he's wrong about Edwards. If you have a love-jones going for Edwards good for you, but Edwards is a reptilian, mirror toting poser who isn't fit to be Head Dogcatcher in Charlotte. I must be close to the truth, because an overwhelming majority of people who actually had to live with him as their representative dropped him like a bad habit as soon as they had the opportunity.
 

I also know I must be close to the truth because it brings out the liberal nutjobs and supercilious windbags like you who spring into kneejerk support and defense of any liberal democrat fuzzball, no matter how ridiculous they are.
 

Another silly little temper tantrum. Please do not burst a blood vessel in your little gum ball brain. We need this site to continue for the entertainment value. S.C. can never have too many paid political hacks.

You wrote words like crass and unrefined (take that, you pig), guts, love-jones, reptilian, mirror toting poser, head dogcatcher, liberal nutjobs (so unoriginal), supercilious (so pompous) windbags and liberal democrat fuzzball (again, very unoriginal).

So please tell the world again who is guilty if immature name calling.

And lay off of the little red pills Dude because you are way too far over the edge and way too far down the rabbit hole for your own good. It is starting to have a negative effect on your mental stability. Take the little blue pill and the mean old Edwards monster will go bye bye so you can sleep at night.
 

Everybody knows this site is run by a couple of right wing fanatic nut jobs. They give honest conservatives a bad name.
 

No they are not fanatic nut jobs. They are dangerous pimps.
 

A little out dated since the voucher scam was defeated again for the third time, but it is worth reading because it confirms the sneaky and underhanded tactics the voucher supporters will stoop to.

Those sneaky school-choice proponents

http://news.greenvilleonline.com/blogs/hyde/
March 28, 2007

Those sneaky school-choice proponents are up to their old tricks again.

They’re trying to rush a school-choice plan through the House with very little public debate by attaching the plan to the 4-year-old kindergarten bill or an open enrollment bill.

That means a dramatic new initiative — tax credits for private schools — could be approved without subcommittee hearings, committee votes or adequate public debate.

This is a shameful way to force school choice on a wary South Carolina.

I’ve actually supported limited school choice aimed at helping struggling students escape failing schools.

But the more I see of the tactics of school-choice supporters, the less I want to be involved with such a cynical, political group.

If school-choice supporters really believe what they’re doing is right, why can’t they go about it honestly — through subcommittee hearings and extensive public debate?

I question not only the tactics of school-choice supporters but their motives as well.

School choice should be about helping kids who really need help, not about providing a generous taxpayer subsidy to parents who already have the wherewithal to pay for private school or homeschool their children.

The details of the school-choice plan under consideration are uncertain. That’s because it’s being attached to other legislation rather than openly debated.

But if the legislation is similar to the House’s current school-choice proposal, it’s unacceptable.

That plan would cost millions dollars and benefit the wealthiest South Carolinians who already have the wherewithal to send their children to private school. In addition, it would demand very little financial and academic accountability of private schools.

That plan would provide a $1,000 tax credit per child to all families who pay private school tuition, regardless of family income. With 53,000 private school students in the state, that could drain $53 million from public education — for the benefit of parents who already are able to afford private school tuition.

The House's plan also would provide a $500 tax credit for homeschoolers. With an estimated 12,000 to 15,000 homeschoolers in South Carolina, that brings the price tag to at least $60 million. And that's the first year.

A more defensible portion of the bill would provide $4,500 tuition reimbursement for poor students who leave failing schools — schools with consistently poor test scores.

Another big drawback: The bill requires very little accountability from private schools. But if taxpayer money is being used, private schools must be required to open their books for public scrutiny. Tests similar to those used in public schools also must be mandated to fairly measure student achievement.

Private school-choice could be an important component of efforts to improve education in South Carolina. But a choice plan must focus on students who currently have few options in public schools. It also must come with accountability — and it must be openly debated.

Posted by Paul Hyde at 11:33 AM |
 

This silly site is on life support and nothing can shock it back to life. Crack pot sites like this never last.
 

Thanks Rev. Darby. Well said.

The State
Posted on Wed, Apr. 04, 2007
‘Choice’ has to be informed
By JOSEPH A. DARBY

A new initiative to provide vouchers for private school attendance recently made its way back onto the legislative agenda. Here are a couple of thoughts for our legislators as they chart the course for the educational well-being of all of South Carolina’s children.

I found it ironic that the new voucher initiative came up while a state Department of Education panel is considering the fate of some public schools that have been rated as “unsatisfactory” for so long that they now face the possibility of being taken over by the state. That review is a part of the legally established testing process to hold all public schools “accountable” and to assure that parents know which public schools are “failing” based upon the results of that testing standard. Our state has gone to great lengths to provide a standard of public school accountability.

There is no standard and objective means, however, of evaluating performance, quality or equity in private schools, which are not answerable to the state of South Carolina on how the public money that they would receive through vouchers would be spent.

As a result, parents who fear that their public schools are inadequate and who would choose the option of voucher-supplemented private school education will have no objective way of knowing if the private schools they’re considering will do a better or worse job of educating their children or if their children will receive fair and equitable treatment.

One could rightfully argue that some private schools have excellent track records when it comes to long-term academic and professional achievement, but those track records are usually a matter of either word of mouth or advertising. Word of mouth on private school quality may not reach all segments of our community, and advertising can sometimes be deceptive, making schools that operate on the margins of acceptability appear to be sound. Word of mouth and advertising may be good free market tools for those shopping for cars or cheeseburgers, but they’re bad ways of assuring that our children are well-educated and well-nurtured.

I hope that our legislators keep that in mind, for that’s the flip side of the shrill, well-crafted rhetoric about “failed government schools.” That rhetoric never notes that private is not necessarily better, that there are quality public schools, and that some struggling public schools are the products of our state’s chronic and capricious failure to adequately and equitably fund all schools in our state beyond the dubious and hypocritical standard of a “minimally adequate education.”

Many well-meaning citizens see vouchers for private schools, broad school choice and the establishment of more charter schools (which a friend of mine calls “private-public schools”) as the best options for our children’s educational future. If they honestly hold that belief, then they should demand legislative support of what’s really needed for full, transparent and objective “choice.” Full, transparent and objective “choice” begins with equitable funding of every public school and every school district in our state. When every public school operates on a level playing field in terms of facilities, resources, equipment and faculty, then parents will actually have the “choice” of quality public schools or the private schools that appeal to them as good alternatives. Those who push for vouchers should embrace that idea —unless they fear that equitably funded, quality public schools will be bad for the private school industry.

Those who embrace vouchers and full, transparent and objective “choice” have to include something else: the establishment of an objective means to evaluate and publicize the performance of every private school in our state, as is done for every public school in our state. Without some standard, there can never be full, transparent and objective “choice.”

Some may say that such a standard flies in the face of “free market” principles and competition, but our children are not commodities subject to the vagaries of the free market. The last time our state made people free market commodities, it was called, “slavery,” and it wasn’t a good idea.

The Rev. Darby is the senior pastor at Morris Brown African Methodist Episcopal Church, Charleston.

http://www.thestate.com/140/story/26563.html
 

The truth about the voucher scam is really starting to come out here.
 

http://www.independentmail.com/news/2007/mar/30/legislators-come-down-both-sides-private-school-tu/

Rep. Don Bowen, R-Anderson, is exactly right. The voucher scam does leave a “nasty taste in peoples’ mouths." The voucher scam is "nasty."

The carefully crafted rhetoric supporting the voucher scam is coming from paid political hacks who will support anything for a price. Now that they have been defeated so many times they need to admit their scam is not welcome in SC.

Responsible members of the SC Legislature will continue to kill this voucher scam no matter how much perfume they put on the pig.

Here is the Anderson Independent Mail article:

Legislators come down on both sides of private-school-tuition fence
By Alison Glass
Friday, March 30, 2007

Legislators from Anderson, Oconee and Pickens counties generally voted Thursday against proposals that would help parents pay for private school tuition with public money.

The proposals were defeated Thursday in the South Carolina House of Representatives, the fourth consecutive year the idea has failed.

Rep. Don Bowen, R-Anderson, said it seems that anything that involves the words tax credits or voucher in relation to public education “for some reason or other puts a nasty taste in peoples’ mouths.”

He voted against the proposals Thursday, although he would like to see more education options available for South Carolina families, he said.

“I really want to try to do anything that we can do to improve the overall education in the state of South Carolina,” he said.

Rep. Michael Gambrell, R-Honea Path, said his vote against the proposals was motivated by his desire to support the House Education and Public Works Committee, of which he is a member.

Tuition tax credit proposals on which legislators voted Thursday were among amendments to legislation from the education committee to let parents eventually enroll their children in any South Carolina public school regardless of attendance lines. Rep. Gambrell said he wanted to support the bill as it came out of committee.

“We thought it was a good bill,” he said. “We thought it was a good first step (toward improving education).”

Rep. Michael Thompson, R-Anderson, said many legislators still have questions regarding financing and other aspects of tuition tax credit plans, and he voted Thursday against such proposals.

“A lot of people still are concerned if you go down this road, what kind of benchmarks and standards are these students going to be held to?” Rep. Thompson said.

The open enrollment bill passed a second of three readings in the House Thursday in a format very close to the version that came out of the education committee and a plan proposed by South Carolina Superintendent of Education Jim Rex, several lawmakers said.

The effort to defeat the tuition tax credit plans was helped by a House Democrat who flew home from Army National Guard training to argue against the proposal.

Capt. James Smith, on leave from Fort Riley, Kan., told colleagues that voters decided in November they didn’t want school vouchers when they elected a Democrat to head the Education Department.

Mr. Rex — the only Democrat elected to a statewide office in 2006 — supports giving parents more choice by allowing them to send their student to any public school, a proposal that was approved by legislators Thursday.

Several private school choice ideas were defeated, though, with the closest tally separated by just seven votes. Mr. Rex believed Mr. Smith’s presentation steered a few votes, he said.

House Minority Leader Harry Ott said he called Mr. Smith on Wednesday after Republicans proposed a plan that allowed students to transfer to private schools.

“I said, ‘Get home. We need your vote,’” Mr. Ott, D-St. Matthews, said.

Advocates of private school choice thought they had enough votes Wednesday night, but Mr. Smith’s presence likely gave Democrats a “renewed energy,” said Denver Merrill, spokesman for South Carolinians for Responsible Government.

Gov. Mark Sanford was disappointed the private school choice plan failed.

“We think it was a mistake to go with this watered-down version of school choice,” Gov. Sanford said.

Mr. Rex addressed some concerns raised during debate in the Legislature Thursday regarding open enrollment.

“I understand there are funding questions still to be answered,” he said. “And I certainly understand that for many African-Americans, ‘choice’ is a code word for segregation. But I believe that as we move forward with our phase-in, we will be able to address those legitimate concerns to everyone’s satisfaction.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.
© 2006 The Anderson Independent Mail
 

Beware of the Wolf!!

For the truth: http://www.choosechildrenfirst.com/

Quick Fact: In 2003, researchers from Duke, Stanford, Columbia and Princeton Universities found vouchers fail to have a significant competitive effect o­n public school districts.
 

Yeah, thanks for posting a site that is taking away tax dollars (from poor public schools) in order to lobby legislative initiatives so the precious administrators can keep their six figure salaries. There are just as many researches from top-tier schools showing the exact opposite. The above poster probably works for the Department of Education and is promoting anti-choice propaganda on my dime.
 

When confronted with clear logic and sound facts exposing tax vouchers for the underhanded scam that they really are, the fanatics respond with the same stale old rhetoric and twisted attacks from their masters at SCRG.

They can't stand the truth, because it conflicts with their arguments.

Here's more truth from Greenville. Vouchers "deserved defeat."

http://greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070408/OPINION/704080307/1008

Jim Rex Wins, Vouchers Lose
Plan gives parents more choices among public schools. Private-school component deserved defeat.

Published: Sunday, April 8, 2007 - 2:00 am

Education Superintendent Jim Rex won the House's approval for his plan that would allow parents and students more options among public schools in the state. At the same time, House lawmakers for the third year in a row rejected taxpayer money being directed toward private schools.

Supporters of vouchers or tax credits for private schools deserved the defeat they were handed. They had tried to attach private-school choice amendments to the open enrollment legislation supported by Rex.

That would have meant that a sweeping new initiative -- tax credits for private schools -- could be approved without subcommittee hearings, committee votes or adequate public debate. It was a inappropriate way to force private school choice on a wary South Carolina.

At least one of the amendments might have been worthwhile: It would have offered a nearly $4,500 private school tuition voucher for poor children who attend schools the state rates "unsatisfactory."

But that amendment should have been vetted through the usual committee process, not attached as a amendment to the open enrollment legislation. It's unknown, for instance, how private schools would have been held financially and academically accountable for taxpayer money.

Rex's plan, as he promised in his campaign last year for education superintendent, rules out taxpayer money going to private schools. By the final year of the three-year plan, students would be able to choose what public school they wanted to attend, regardless of whether they live in that school's attendance area or school district.

In the first year of the plan, Rex would restructure the Education Department to create a new Office of Innovation and School Choice, which would first take an inventory of existing choice programs in the state. Rex would lead a series of town meetings across South Carolina to talk about additional program choices that might be made available to parents, including Montessori, single-gender programs and other options.

A pilot project would pair up districts that already offer extensive curriculum and attendance choices with districts that do not. A second pilot would pair up adjacent districts to explore choice options across district lines.

By the second year, every school district in South Carolina would design a public school choice plan that includes options for students at the elementary, middle and high school levels. In the third year, open public school enrollment would be offered statewide. Under Rex's plan, districts or schools could reject students based on space limitations.

One important component of the plan would offer financial help for low-income parents who choose to send children across school or district attendance lines. Rex's open enrollment plan should provide greater education opportunity for young people -- especially those stuck in underperforming schools.