The following excerpt from an article appearing in the Washington Post today is well worth the time. Charlie is a former Democrat from Texas who did some great things during his years spent in the Congress and he is giving us good advice now.
By Charles Wilson
Published in the Washington Post
Thursday, August 28, 2008; Page A19
Russia's invasion of Georgia has led to a more serious foreign policy discussion in the presidential campaign. As tensions rise in the Caucasus and violence once again erupts in Afghanistan, we should recall the lessons we learned from our response to earlier Russian adventurism. We must recognize now, as we learned years ago, that a strong military alone is not enough to ensure our long-term national security.
In a scene near the end of the movie "Charlie Wilson's War," after the mujaheddin victory over the invading Soviet military, congressional appropriators turn down my request for funds to rebuild Afghanistan's schools, roads and economy. If we had done the right thing in Afghanistan then -- following up our military support with the necessary investments in diplomacy and development assistance -- we would have better secured our own country's future, as well as peace and stability in the region.
In reality, this decision played out over several years and involved many people, but the scene makes clear what a mistake we made. Sure, the problems facing Afghanistan and the region were tough -- feuding warlords, the opium crop and the shift in our attention to the Persian Gulf War. But the Afghans, with our weapons, had done nothing less than help precipitate the collapse of the Soviet Union. And instead of intensifying our diplomatic and humanitarian efforts to help the Afghans meet their postwar challenges, we simply walked away -- leaving a destroyed country that lacked roads, schools, and any plan or hope for rebuilding. For the rest of the story go to Charlie Wilson's Peace
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
GVW Election Results
These are the results of the GVW election by precinct. Only the question of incorporation is reported. In favor of means a yes vote for incorporation.
Precinct - 1 Gloverville 15
REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL . . . . . . 125
BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL. . . . . . . . 72
VOTER TURNOUT - TOTAL . . . . . . . 57.60%
In Favor of the Question . . . . . . 5 6.94%
Opposed to the Question. . . . . . . 67 93.06%
**************************************************************
Precinct 2 Graniteville 16
REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL . . . . . . 1025
BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL. . . . . . . . 436
VOTER TURNOUT - TOTAL . . . . . . . 42.54%
In Favor of the Question . . . . . . 230 53.86%
Opposed to the Question. . . . . . . 197 46.14%
**************************************************************
Precinct 3 Vaucluse 38
REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL . . . . . . 121
BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL. . . . . . . . 62
VOTER TURNOUT - TOTAL . . . . . . . 51.24%
In Favor of the Question . . . . . . 11 18.33%
Opposed to the Question. . . . . . . 49 81.67%
**************************************************************
Precinct 4 Warrenville 41
REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL . . . . . . 1154
BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL. . . . . . . . 538
VOTER TURNOUT - TOTAL . . . . . . . 46.62%
In Favor of the Question . . . . . . 101 19.24%
Opposed to the Question. . . . . . . 424 80.76%
***************************************************************
Precinct 5 Breezy Hill 50
REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL . . . . . . 754
BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL. . . . . . . . 545
VOTER TURNOUT - TOTAL . . . . . . . 72.28%
In Favor of the Question . . . . . . 239 44.51%
Opposed to the Question. . . . . . . 298 55.49%
***************************************************************
Precinct 6 Midland Valley 51
REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL . . . . . . 533
BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL. . . . . . . . 359
VOTER TURNOUT - TOTAL . . . . . . . 67.35%
In Favor of the Question . . . . . . 130 36.52%
Opposed to the Question. . . . . . . 226 63.48%
***************************************************************
0750 Absentee Votes
BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL. . . . . . . . 114
In Favor of the Question . . . . . . 46 40.35%
Opposed to the Question. . . . . . . 68 59.65%
***************************************************************
PRECINCT REPORT AIKEN COUNTY
0800 Failsafe - (Not really sure what this category means)
REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL . . . . . . 0
BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL. . . . . . . . 3
In Favor of the Question . . . . . . 1 33.33%
Opposed to the Question. . . . . . . 2 66.67%
Throughtout this campaign, the financial backers chose to remain silent, but promised to reveal their names after the election. Hopefully, they will fulfill that promise.
Precinct - 1 Gloverville 15
REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL . . . . . . 125
BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL. . . . . . . . 72
VOTER TURNOUT - TOTAL . . . . . . . 57.60%
In Favor of the Question . . . . . . 5 6.94%
Opposed to the Question. . . . . . . 67 93.06%
**************************************************************
Precinct 2 Graniteville 16
REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL . . . . . . 1025
BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL. . . . . . . . 436
VOTER TURNOUT - TOTAL . . . . . . . 42.54%
In Favor of the Question . . . . . . 230 53.86%
Opposed to the Question. . . . . . . 197 46.14%
**************************************************************
Precinct 3 Vaucluse 38
REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL . . . . . . 121
BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL. . . . . . . . 62
VOTER TURNOUT - TOTAL . . . . . . . 51.24%
In Favor of the Question . . . . . . 11 18.33%
Opposed to the Question. . . . . . . 49 81.67%
**************************************************************
Precinct 4 Warrenville 41
REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL . . . . . . 1154
BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL. . . . . . . . 538
VOTER TURNOUT - TOTAL . . . . . . . 46.62%
In Favor of the Question . . . . . . 101 19.24%
Opposed to the Question. . . . . . . 424 80.76%
***************************************************************
Precinct 5 Breezy Hill 50
REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL . . . . . . 754
BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL. . . . . . . . 545
VOTER TURNOUT - TOTAL . . . . . . . 72.28%
In Favor of the Question . . . . . . 239 44.51%
Opposed to the Question. . . . . . . 298 55.49%
***************************************************************
Precinct 6 Midland Valley 51
REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL . . . . . . 533
BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL. . . . . . . . 359
VOTER TURNOUT - TOTAL . . . . . . . 67.35%
In Favor of the Question . . . . . . 130 36.52%
Opposed to the Question. . . . . . . 226 63.48%
***************************************************************
0750 Absentee Votes
BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL. . . . . . . . 114
In Favor of the Question . . . . . . 46 40.35%
Opposed to the Question. . . . . . . 68 59.65%
***************************************************************
PRECINCT REPORT AIKEN COUNTY
0800 Failsafe - (Not really sure what this category means)
REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL . . . . . . 0
BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL. . . . . . . . 3
In Favor of the Question . . . . . . 1 33.33%
Opposed to the Question. . . . . . . 2 66.67%
Throughtout this campaign, the financial backers chose to remain silent, but promised to reveal their names after the election. Hopefully, they will fulfill that promise.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Americans Give More Than Others
It was a little galling to hear the Democrat's presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama, tell Rick Warren that "America's greatest moral failure in my lifetime has been that we don't abide by that basic precept in Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me."No other country in the world gives as much as Americans give. On a per capita basis, Americans give 3.5 times as much to causes and charities as the French, seven times as much as the Germans, and 14 times as much as the Italians. Americans are 15 percent more likely to volunteer their time than the Dutch, 21 percent more likely than the Swiss and 32 percent more likely than the Germans.Not content to merely insult us periodically, the senator has sponsored legislation called the Global Poverty Act which would result in the imposition of a tax on Americans in order to reduce poverty in other countries by 50 percent by the year 2013. The bill ties levels of our foreign aid spending to the priorities of the United Nations. Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the U.N.'s Millennium Project, confirms this legislation is tied to a U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay an additional $65 billion per year to what our taxes already send overseas. Does the senator really fail to understand that the funds for these programs all too frequently wind up in the hands of dictators and in the U.N. coffers? Maybe it is because of this kind of legislation that the Democrat-controlled Congress has historically low single-digit approval ratings. Before the senator presumes to lecture us, he should practice what he preaches. The Chicago Tribune reported that in 2002, the Obamas had an income of $259,394 which ranked them in the top 2 percent of U.S. households. That year the Obamas only donated $1,050 to charity, or 0.4 percent of their income. The average U.S. household in that year gave $1,872 in gifts to charity, according to the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University. The national average for charitable giving is 2.2 percent of household income. Obama's tax returns from 1997 until he arrived in Washington in 2005 fell well below that benchmark.It is not surprising that the senator reverts so easily to condemning Americans because he was surely influenced after spending nearly his entire adult life listening to the anti-American and racist rantings of his pastor, Rev. Wright. But for someone who is asking for our vote, it is unforgivable that he sneers at us while conveniently forgetting that Americans are the most charitably generous people in the world. Apparently the senator's theme: "Change we can believe in" is really "Believing we should give more change."Before the senator continues to further push his class warfare themes, he should remember the words of America's favorite president, Abraham Lincoln, who said this about class warfare: "You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.
Mary Beth Seaha
Mary Beth Seaha
Monday, August 18, 2008
The Future of Nato
The following article was published yesterday in the Times of London and sent to me by email. The U.S. and Great Britain are standing firm but despite the optimistic thrust of this article the French and the Germans are already waffling and I think it is unlikely that NATO will act forcefully. I sincerely hope I am wrong!
The Future of Nato
The crisis in the Caucasus shows that the North Atlantic alliance needs to evolve faster to protect its members, but is as relevant as ever.
Russia's Ambassador to Nato, Dmitry Rogozin, wrote last month that “with the demise of communism, reasons for the West and Russia to be in confrontation vanished”. He would be hard put to stand by his remark when Nato meets tomorrow for an emergency summit forced on its members by Russia's invasion of Georgia, especially given its troops' continued presence there despite two ceasefire deals, its extraordinary threat to Poland last Friday, and reports that it is considering arming its Baltic fleet with nuclear warheads for the first time since the Cold War.
As it happens, Mr Rogozin was wrong. There have been myriad reasons for confrontation between the West and Russia since 1991. The implosion of a hollow ideology gave way to a series of more practical grounds for dispute, from Washington's passion for missile defence to Moscow's foot-dragging over Iranian uranium enrichment. But there has been no provocation quite so blatant as the flooding of South Ossetia and parts of Georgia with Russian tanks. Nato has so far floundered in response, but this does not make it irrelevant. The opposite is true.
Nato will be 60 next year - past retirement age for most personnel under its command. Until the Georgian war, retirement, to many, seemed an option for Nato itself. It had triumphed in the Cold War against the Warsaw Pact with scarcely a shot fired in anger. It had rained high explosive on Kosovo, ending Serbian ethnic cleansing of Muslims there. But in Afghanistan, too complex command structures and absurd restrictions on some of its members' deployments too often have made its operations ineffectual. In Europe, polls taken before the August 8 invasion of Georgia found that decreasing numbers of taxpayers thought Nato vital for security. In Brussels, Nato officials are as undecided as their EU counterparts on whether to help work towards an enhanced EU defence capability, and if so how.
August 8 provided a moment of clarity. The impunity with which Moscow ordered heavy armour into Georgia showed that the principle of collective security on which Nato is based remains the only serious guarantee of its members' borders. It showed that Russia seeks nothing less than a veto on further Nato expansion. And it showed that the price of denying Russia that veto could be high: absent the threat of mutually assured destruction, the notion that an attack on one Nato member state is an attack on all, to be resisted by all, now seems more likely to lead to conflict than at any time in the Cold War.
So anyone who thought Germany might cite recent events as vindication of its opposition to further Nato expansion at the organisation's last summit in Bucharest may have been surprised to hear Chancellor Angela Merkel yesterday assuring Georgia that it would become a member of Nato if it wished to. They need not have been.
Deferring Nato membership for Georgia and Ukraine was right, not because of Russian threats but because neither country has earned it yet. Both need to consolidate their democratic reforms. In the meantime, Nato needs to fix what is going wrong in operational terms in Afghanistan. Winning hearts and minds while fighting a fanatical counter-insurgency is tough at the best of times and hugely ambitious with a multi-lingual force drawn from 40 countries.
In Brussels tomorrow Nato must address not just the immediate crisis in the Caucasus but the need to streamline its command and control systems in conflict zones. Only then will guarantees of territorial integrity for new members serve their ultimate purpose of deterring aggression.
Mr Rogozin has called Russia's relations with Nato the basis of global security. On this he is right. But those relations will founder until Russia understands that Nato means business.
The Future of Nato
The crisis in the Caucasus shows that the North Atlantic alliance needs to evolve faster to protect its members, but is as relevant as ever.
Russia's Ambassador to Nato, Dmitry Rogozin, wrote last month that “with the demise of communism, reasons for the West and Russia to be in confrontation vanished”. He would be hard put to stand by his remark when Nato meets tomorrow for an emergency summit forced on its members by Russia's invasion of Georgia, especially given its troops' continued presence there despite two ceasefire deals, its extraordinary threat to Poland last Friday, and reports that it is considering arming its Baltic fleet with nuclear warheads for the first time since the Cold War.
As it happens, Mr Rogozin was wrong. There have been myriad reasons for confrontation between the West and Russia since 1991. The implosion of a hollow ideology gave way to a series of more practical grounds for dispute, from Washington's passion for missile defence to Moscow's foot-dragging over Iranian uranium enrichment. But there has been no provocation quite so blatant as the flooding of South Ossetia and parts of Georgia with Russian tanks. Nato has so far floundered in response, but this does not make it irrelevant. The opposite is true.
Nato will be 60 next year - past retirement age for most personnel under its command. Until the Georgian war, retirement, to many, seemed an option for Nato itself. It had triumphed in the Cold War against the Warsaw Pact with scarcely a shot fired in anger. It had rained high explosive on Kosovo, ending Serbian ethnic cleansing of Muslims there. But in Afghanistan, too complex command structures and absurd restrictions on some of its members' deployments too often have made its operations ineffectual. In Europe, polls taken before the August 8 invasion of Georgia found that decreasing numbers of taxpayers thought Nato vital for security. In Brussels, Nato officials are as undecided as their EU counterparts on whether to help work towards an enhanced EU defence capability, and if so how.
August 8 provided a moment of clarity. The impunity with which Moscow ordered heavy armour into Georgia showed that the principle of collective security on which Nato is based remains the only serious guarantee of its members' borders. It showed that Russia seeks nothing less than a veto on further Nato expansion. And it showed that the price of denying Russia that veto could be high: absent the threat of mutually assured destruction, the notion that an attack on one Nato member state is an attack on all, to be resisted by all, now seems more likely to lead to conflict than at any time in the Cold War.
So anyone who thought Germany might cite recent events as vindication of its opposition to further Nato expansion at the organisation's last summit in Bucharest may have been surprised to hear Chancellor Angela Merkel yesterday assuring Georgia that it would become a member of Nato if it wished to. They need not have been.
Deferring Nato membership for Georgia and Ukraine was right, not because of Russian threats but because neither country has earned it yet. Both need to consolidate their democratic reforms. In the meantime, Nato needs to fix what is going wrong in operational terms in Afghanistan. Winning hearts and minds while fighting a fanatical counter-insurgency is tough at the best of times and hugely ambitious with a multi-lingual force drawn from 40 countries.
In Brussels tomorrow Nato must address not just the immediate crisis in the Caucasus but the need to streamline its command and control systems in conflict zones. Only then will guarantees of territorial integrity for new members serve their ultimate purpose of deterring aggression.
Mr Rogozin has called Russia's relations with Nato the basis of global security. On this he is right. But those relations will founder until Russia understands that Nato means business.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Aiken County Republican Party Meeting
The Aiken County Republican Party will hold its
monthly meeting on Thursday, August 14, 2008 at
7:00 p.m. at its new meeting location:
Aiken County Historical Museum
433 Newberry Street SW, Aiken, SC 29801.
Hope to see you there!
monthly meeting on Thursday, August 14, 2008 at
7:00 p.m. at its new meeting location:
Aiken County Historical Museum
433 Newberry Street SW, Aiken, SC 29801.
Hope to see you there!
Energy Freedom Day
Will you join Senator Jim DeMint and Representative Jeb Hensarling and commit to protecting October 1, 2008 as American Energy Freedom Day?
On October 1, America will celebrate Energy Freedom Day when the bans on offshore drilling and oil shale recovery will end. Right off our shores there are reserves estimated to hold over 18 billion barrels of oil and 55 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. And in America’s West, oil shale is estimated to between 800 billion and 2 trillion barrels of oil — more than three times the proven oil reserves in Saudi Arabia.
Tapping these sources of American energy are desperately needed to lower gas prices AND reduce our dependence on foreign oil. But for over 20 years, Democrats have blocked access to this American energy.
And even now, at the height of an energy crisis that have sent gas prices sky-high, Democrats in Congress plan to extend the ban on American energy production.
Democrats will try to sneak a new extension of the ban into a must-pass government spending bill before the end of September. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are so beholden to extreme environmentalists that they would rather force a government shutdown than help lower the cost of gas and home energy for struggling American families.
Senator DeMint and Representative Hensarling are committed to protecting American Energy Freedom Day. They have launched a new website at www.energyfreedomday.com to spread the word, but they need your help in these four important tasks:
1. Sign the Energy Freedom Day petition to Congress by clicking here.
2. Get 5 friends, family members, or coworkers to sign the Energy Freedom Day petition.
3. Send this email to 5 friends around the country so they can contact their Senators and Representatives and urge them to support American Energy Freedom Day.
4. Share www.energyfreedomday.com by embedding the countdown widget on your blog.
You might be feeling a little relief at the pump this week, but you know it’s only temporary. America needs permanent solutions and it starts by protecting American Energy Freedom Day.
Please visit www.energyfreedomday.com today.To go there click on the title of this article.
On October 1, America will celebrate Energy Freedom Day when the bans on offshore drilling and oil shale recovery will end. Right off our shores there are reserves estimated to hold over 18 billion barrels of oil and 55 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. And in America’s West, oil shale is estimated to between 800 billion and 2 trillion barrels of oil — more than three times the proven oil reserves in Saudi Arabia.
Tapping these sources of American energy are desperately needed to lower gas prices AND reduce our dependence on foreign oil. But for over 20 years, Democrats have blocked access to this American energy.
And even now, at the height of an energy crisis that have sent gas prices sky-high, Democrats in Congress plan to extend the ban on American energy production.
Democrats will try to sneak a new extension of the ban into a must-pass government spending bill before the end of September. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are so beholden to extreme environmentalists that they would rather force a government shutdown than help lower the cost of gas and home energy for struggling American families.
Senator DeMint and Representative Hensarling are committed to protecting American Energy Freedom Day. They have launched a new website at www.energyfreedomday.com to spread the word, but they need your help in these four important tasks:
1. Sign the Energy Freedom Day petition to Congress by clicking here.
2. Get 5 friends, family members, or coworkers to sign the Energy Freedom Day petition.
3. Send this email to 5 friends around the country so they can contact their Senators and Representatives and urge them to support American Energy Freedom Day.
4. Share www.energyfreedomday.com by embedding the countdown widget on your blog.
You might be feeling a little relief at the pump this week, but you know it’s only temporary. America needs permanent solutions and it starts by protecting American Energy Freedom Day.
Please visit www.energyfreedomday.com today.To go there click on the title of this article.
Monday, August 11, 2008
August 11th City Council Meeting
AIKEN’S 175TH ANNIVERSARY - One of this year’s City Council’s goals is to start the planning for the city’s 175th anniversary which is in December, 2010. The celebration would start in the beginning of 2010 and during the first quarter we would concentrate on our history, horses, health, and high society. In the spring, our concentration would shift to the arts, education, and entertainment. During the summer our business technology and innovation would be highlighted and in the fall we would look at the city’s future as we move towards our 200th anniversary. Our grand finale would conclude on December 19, 2010, the 175th anniversary of Aiken.
RAISED MEDIAN AT WALGREENS – One of the primary reasons, I voted against the new Walgreens on Richland Avenue (which was approved by the Council) is my concern about traffic. At the time of the vote, Council was told that South Carolina Department of Transportation would not approve a raised median which meant that vehicles traveling east on Richland might try to turn left into Walgreens or might try to turn left onto Richland after leaving Walgreens. These kinds of turns would occur too close to the intersection of Richland Avenue and University Parkway. We are now told that SCDOT will permit a raised median which means that there will be a right-in, right-out entry and exit.
STATUS OF DOG PARK – Per the recommendation of City Council, Parks, Recreation, and Tourism staff has met several times with the SPCA President, Barbara Nelson, Recreation Committee Chairman Susan Haslup, and veterinarian Dr. Tray Wofford to discuss the future dog park. The SPCA has recently purchased ten acres of land which adjoins Willow Run Business Park and will build their new facility off of Willow Run Road. They intend to break ground in mid 2009 and have designed a dog park for this location. Based on the fact that the dog park can be started this fall, the committee feels this is the best location. The dog park is over two acres in size and divided for small and large dogs. The city will utilize the budgeted $32,000 for the construction of the dog park. The group has also reviewed rules and regulations from other cities and has determined what the policies will be. These will be posted on signs as you enter.
NON-PARTISAN ELECTIONS – Many of you may be aware that the City has received a letter from the United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division stating that we can conduct our election on September 9, 2008. This special referendum will be to determine whether the City of Aiken’s future elections will continue as partisan or become non-partisan.
AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS – The City of Aiken recently received a $178,053 grant from South Carolina Division of Aeronautics. This along with the $931,000 already received from the federal government will leave local funding at $178,053 to complete work on the Instrument Landing System (ILS). This is the last major improvement and follows past funding for the new terminal, runway expansion and overlay, new fencing, lighting, and drainage. Aiken Airport should help attract the kinds of businesses which will create jobs and further the development of the North side area of the City.
MUNICIPAL CUP PRESENTATION – At the Municipal Association of South Carolina Annual Conference held a few weeks ago in Charleston, the City of Aiken received the Municipal Cup Award for innovation in training our Public Safety Officers as First Responders allowing them to administer life saving care. At Monday’s Council Meeting, Mayor Fred Cavanaugh, who recently completed a year as the President of the Municipal Association, will present the Municipal Cup to our Director of Public Safety, Pete Frommer.
YOUTH CHAMPIONSHIP – Also at Monday’s meeting, we will recognize the City of Aiken’s 12 & Under All-Star team which recently won the South Carolina State Championship. They now advance to the Cal Ripken Regional Championship in Mathews, NC.
DOWNTOWN PARKING REVISIONS – The Parking Committee is recommending two changes to the Downtown Parking rules. The first is to allow all-day parking in the median on Richland Avenue, between Laurens and Newberry. This should remove some of the parked cars from Newberry Street and open up additional spaces. The second suggestion is to consider requesting the highway department to allow angle parking in the eastbound direction of Park Avenue from Laurens to Chesterfield. This would require changing the road from two lanes to one lane with the angle parking being on the median side only. This would create approximately 20 additional spaces and allow city employees and others to use this area. If you have issues with the downtown parking rules, now is the time to let the Council know your views.
REPLACEMENT OF FOUNTAIN ON NEWBERRY STREET – We will also discuss replacement of the fountain on Newberry Street. Staff will present several options for consideration. If you have ideas, please let me know.
Posted by Dick Dewar
RAISED MEDIAN AT WALGREENS – One of the primary reasons, I voted against the new Walgreens on Richland Avenue (which was approved by the Council) is my concern about traffic. At the time of the vote, Council was told that South Carolina Department of Transportation would not approve a raised median which meant that vehicles traveling east on Richland might try to turn left into Walgreens or might try to turn left onto Richland after leaving Walgreens. These kinds of turns would occur too close to the intersection of Richland Avenue and University Parkway. We are now told that SCDOT will permit a raised median which means that there will be a right-in, right-out entry and exit.
STATUS OF DOG PARK – Per the recommendation of City Council, Parks, Recreation, and Tourism staff has met several times with the SPCA President, Barbara Nelson, Recreation Committee Chairman Susan Haslup, and veterinarian Dr. Tray Wofford to discuss the future dog park. The SPCA has recently purchased ten acres of land which adjoins Willow Run Business Park and will build their new facility off of Willow Run Road. They intend to break ground in mid 2009 and have designed a dog park for this location. Based on the fact that the dog park can be started this fall, the committee feels this is the best location. The dog park is over two acres in size and divided for small and large dogs. The city will utilize the budgeted $32,000 for the construction of the dog park. The group has also reviewed rules and regulations from other cities and has determined what the policies will be. These will be posted on signs as you enter.
NON-PARTISAN ELECTIONS – Many of you may be aware that the City has received a letter from the United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division stating that we can conduct our election on September 9, 2008. This special referendum will be to determine whether the City of Aiken’s future elections will continue as partisan or become non-partisan.
AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS – The City of Aiken recently received a $178,053 grant from South Carolina Division of Aeronautics. This along with the $931,000 already received from the federal government will leave local funding at $178,053 to complete work on the Instrument Landing System (ILS). This is the last major improvement and follows past funding for the new terminal, runway expansion and overlay, new fencing, lighting, and drainage. Aiken Airport should help attract the kinds of businesses which will create jobs and further the development of the North side area of the City.
MUNICIPAL CUP PRESENTATION – At the Municipal Association of South Carolina Annual Conference held a few weeks ago in Charleston, the City of Aiken received the Municipal Cup Award for innovation in training our Public Safety Officers as First Responders allowing them to administer life saving care. At Monday’s Council Meeting, Mayor Fred Cavanaugh, who recently completed a year as the President of the Municipal Association, will present the Municipal Cup to our Director of Public Safety, Pete Frommer.
YOUTH CHAMPIONSHIP – Also at Monday’s meeting, we will recognize the City of Aiken’s 12 & Under All-Star team which recently won the South Carolina State Championship. They now advance to the Cal Ripken Regional Championship in Mathews, NC.
DOWNTOWN PARKING REVISIONS – The Parking Committee is recommending two changes to the Downtown Parking rules. The first is to allow all-day parking in the median on Richland Avenue, between Laurens and Newberry. This should remove some of the parked cars from Newberry Street and open up additional spaces. The second suggestion is to consider requesting the highway department to allow angle parking in the eastbound direction of Park Avenue from Laurens to Chesterfield. This would require changing the road from two lanes to one lane with the angle parking being on the median side only. This would create approximately 20 additional spaces and allow city employees and others to use this area. If you have issues with the downtown parking rules, now is the time to let the Council know your views.
REPLACEMENT OF FOUNTAIN ON NEWBERRY STREET – We will also discuss replacement of the fountain on Newberry Street. Staff will present several options for consideration. If you have ideas, please let me know.
Posted by Dick Dewar
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Thomas Sowell on Obama and McCain
This has been around for a while but came as an email today and is still worthwhile.I do not agree with Dr. Sowell's assessment of John McCain but I certainly agree with his bottom line.We must elect John McCain.
June 05, 2008
Obama and McCain and Iran
By Thomas Sowell
Now that the two parties have finally selected their presidential candidates, it is time for a sober-- if not grim-- assessment of where we are.
Not since 1972 have we been presented with two such painfully inadequate candidates. When election day came that year, I could not bring myself to vote for either George McGovern or Richard Nixon. I stayed home.
This year, none of us has that luxury. While all sorts of gushing is going on in the media, and posturing is going on in politics, the biggest national sponsor of terrorism in the world-- Iran-- is moving step by step toward building a nuclear bomb.
The point when they get that bomb will be the point of no return. Iran's nuclear bomb will be the terrorists' nuclear bomb-- and they can make 9/11 look like child's play.
All the options that are on the table right now will be swept off the table forever. Our choices will be to give in to whatever the terrorists demand-- however outrageous those demands might be-- or to risk seeing American cities start disappearing in radioactive mushroom clouds.
All the things we are preoccupied with today, from the price of gasoline to health care to global warming, will suddenly no longer matter.
Just as the Nazis did not find it enough to simply kill people in their concentration camps, but had to humiliate and dehumanize them first, so we can expect terrorists with nuclear weapons to both humiliate us and force us to humiliate ourselves, before they finally start killing us.
They have already telegraphed their punches with their sadistic beheadings of innocent civilians, and with the popularity of videotapes of those beheadings in the Middle East.
They have already telegraphed their intention to dictate to us with such things as Osama bin Laden's threats to target those places in America that did not vote the way he prescribed in the 2004 elections. He could not back up those threats then but he may be able to in a very few years.
The terrorists have given us as clear a picture of what they are all about as Adolf Hitler and the Nazis did during the 1930s-- and our "leaders" and intelligentsia have ignored the warning signs as resolutely as the "leaders" and intelligentsia of the 1930s downplayed the dangers of Hitler.
We are much like people drifting down the Niagara River, oblivious to the waterfalls up ahead. Once we go over those falls, we cannot come back up again.
What does this have to do with today's presidential candidates? It has everything to do with them.
One of these candidates will determine what we are going to do to stop Iran from going nuclear-- or whether we are going to do anything other than talk, as Western leaders talked in the 1930s.
There is one big difference between now and the 1930s. Although the West's lack of military preparedness and its political irresolution led to three solid years of devastating losses to Nazi Germany and imperial Japan, nevertheless when all the West's industrial and military forces were finally mobilized, the democracies were able to turn the tide and win decisively.
But you cannot lose a nuclear war for three years and then come back. You cannot even sustain the will to resist for three years when you are first broken down morally by threats and then devastated by nuclear bombs.
Our one window of opportunity to prevent this will occur within the term of whoever becomes President of the United States next January.
At a time like this, we do not have the luxury of waiting for our ideal candidate or of indulging our emotions by voting for some third party candidate to show our displeasure-- at the cost of putting someone in the White House who is not up to the job.
Senator John McCain has been criticized in this column many times. But, when all is said and done, Senator McCain has not spent decades aiding and abetting people who hate America.
On the contrary, he has paid a huge price for resisting our enemies, even when they held him prisoner and tortured him. The choice between him and Barack Obama should be a no-brainer.
Copyright 2008, Creators Syndicate Inc.
June 05, 2008
Obama and McCain and Iran
By Thomas Sowell
Now that the two parties have finally selected their presidential candidates, it is time for a sober-- if not grim-- assessment of where we are.
Not since 1972 have we been presented with two such painfully inadequate candidates. When election day came that year, I could not bring myself to vote for either George McGovern or Richard Nixon. I stayed home.
This year, none of us has that luxury. While all sorts of gushing is going on in the media, and posturing is going on in politics, the biggest national sponsor of terrorism in the world-- Iran-- is moving step by step toward building a nuclear bomb.
The point when they get that bomb will be the point of no return. Iran's nuclear bomb will be the terrorists' nuclear bomb-- and they can make 9/11 look like child's play.
All the options that are on the table right now will be swept off the table forever. Our choices will be to give in to whatever the terrorists demand-- however outrageous those demands might be-- or to risk seeing American cities start disappearing in radioactive mushroom clouds.
All the things we are preoccupied with today, from the price of gasoline to health care to global warming, will suddenly no longer matter.
Just as the Nazis did not find it enough to simply kill people in their concentration camps, but had to humiliate and dehumanize them first, so we can expect terrorists with nuclear weapons to both humiliate us and force us to humiliate ourselves, before they finally start killing us.
They have already telegraphed their punches with their sadistic beheadings of innocent civilians, and with the popularity of videotapes of those beheadings in the Middle East.
They have already telegraphed their intention to dictate to us with such things as Osama bin Laden's threats to target those places in America that did not vote the way he prescribed in the 2004 elections. He could not back up those threats then but he may be able to in a very few years.
The terrorists have given us as clear a picture of what they are all about as Adolf Hitler and the Nazis did during the 1930s-- and our "leaders" and intelligentsia have ignored the warning signs as resolutely as the "leaders" and intelligentsia of the 1930s downplayed the dangers of Hitler.
We are much like people drifting down the Niagara River, oblivious to the waterfalls up ahead. Once we go over those falls, we cannot come back up again.
What does this have to do with today's presidential candidates? It has everything to do with them.
One of these candidates will determine what we are going to do to stop Iran from going nuclear-- or whether we are going to do anything other than talk, as Western leaders talked in the 1930s.
There is one big difference between now and the 1930s. Although the West's lack of military preparedness and its political irresolution led to three solid years of devastating losses to Nazi Germany and imperial Japan, nevertheless when all the West's industrial and military forces were finally mobilized, the democracies were able to turn the tide and win decisively.
But you cannot lose a nuclear war for three years and then come back. You cannot even sustain the will to resist for three years when you are first broken down morally by threats and then devastated by nuclear bombs.
Our one window of opportunity to prevent this will occur within the term of whoever becomes President of the United States next January.
At a time like this, we do not have the luxury of waiting for our ideal candidate or of indulging our emotions by voting for some third party candidate to show our displeasure-- at the cost of putting someone in the White House who is not up to the job.
Senator John McCain has been criticized in this column many times. But, when all is said and done, Senator McCain has not spent decades aiding and abetting people who hate America.
On the contrary, he has paid a huge price for resisting our enemies, even when they held him prisoner and tortured him. The choice between him and Barack Obama should be a no-brainer.
Copyright 2008, Creators Syndicate Inc.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Drill by Larry Kudlow
Larry Kudlow
Drill, Drill, Drill Is Working
Thursday, August 7, 2008 5:45 PM
By: Larry Kudlow
As Sen. John McCain and the GOP leadership nationalize the drill, drill, drill message, the Republican Party might conceivably be riding a summer political rally. The question of offshore drilling, along with expanded domestic energy production, has suddenly become the biggest political and economic wedge issue of this election. Is there a Republican tsunami in the making?
According to the major polls, McCain has overcome a big deficit to pull even with Barack Obama. Meanwhile, according to a Rasmussen survey, Democratic Party identification has slumped.
While Republicans on the House floor shouted "vote, vote, vote" and "lower gas prices," the Democratic majority turned off the lights, cameras and microphones. Determined Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell offered unanimous-consent requests to vote on lifting the ban on deep-water exploration, and the Democrats objected. When McConnell asked Democrats if they'd overturn the ban at $4.50 a gallon, they replied, "No." When he raised the price to $5, $7 and $10, they cried, "No," "no" and "no."
Copy and paste the following link to MoneyNews.com for the rest of this excellent article by Larry Kudlow:
http://moneynews.newsmax.com/larry_kudlow/kudlow_drill_is_working/2008/08/07/120057.html?s=al&promo_code=6788-1
Drill, Drill, Drill Is Working
Thursday, August 7, 2008 5:45 PM
By: Larry Kudlow
As Sen. John McCain and the GOP leadership nationalize the drill, drill, drill message, the Republican Party might conceivably be riding a summer political rally. The question of offshore drilling, along with expanded domestic energy production, has suddenly become the biggest political and economic wedge issue of this election. Is there a Republican tsunami in the making?
According to the major polls, McCain has overcome a big deficit to pull even with Barack Obama. Meanwhile, according to a Rasmussen survey, Democratic Party identification has slumped.
While Republicans on the House floor shouted "vote, vote, vote" and "lower gas prices," the Democratic majority turned off the lights, cameras and microphones. Determined Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell offered unanimous-consent requests to vote on lifting the ban on deep-water exploration, and the Democrats objected. When McConnell asked Democrats if they'd overturn the ban at $4.50 a gallon, they replied, "No." When he raised the price to $5, $7 and $10, they cried, "No," "no" and "no."
Copy and paste the following link to MoneyNews.com for the rest of this excellent article by Larry Kudlow:
http://moneynews.newsmax.com/larry_kudlow/kudlow_drill_is_working/2008/08/07/120057.html?s=al&promo_code=6788-1
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Senator George David Aiken
I am not from Vermont but I have long admired George David Aiken.The observation he made that appears on the right side of this page has stayed with me for many years.The following comes from a Vermont website.
"When George Aiken died in 1984, he was remembered as a man of integrity and simplicity whose voice of common sense was heard throughout the world. In the U.S. Senate, where he served for 34 years, he fought countless battles for rural America. He was the prime architect of the food stamp program; he was responsible for U.S. participation in the creation of the St. Lawrence Seaway and he could take credit for much of the farm legislation on the books today, covering such areas as rural electrification, flood control and crop insurance.
By the time Aiken retired from the Senate in 1975 he had acquired the status of a Vermont institution. In his last re-election bid, in 1968, the Republican reported spending $17.09, mostly for postage to thank people for circulating his nominating petitions, "which I didn't ask them to do," he said.
He had come a long way in nearly half a century of public service. In the 1930s he was the radical outsider whom the chairman of the state Republican Party criticized as "that Communist." Countless battles pitted Aiken against the Republican establishment. Every step of the way, people recognized the battles for what they were: struggles for Vermont. Aiken was the champion of the common man. The old guard knew it and feared him; Vermonters knew it and loved him.
By fighting that fight and winning Aiken did more to shape Vermont in the 20th century than any other single person. Today's Vermont stands as a legacy to Aiken and the fights he fought.
The banks, the railroads, the marble companies and the granite companies lost their monopoly on Vermont government when Aiken became governor. The forgotten farmer, Vermont's silent and suffering majority, was dealt a new hand as Aiken gave rural residents the will and the way to survive. Farmers banded together to market their goods, and formed electric and insurance cooperatives, all of which gave them new clout and new hope. "On farm after farm, whether the owner had been ready to give up, he received renewed hope, faith and income, after he obtained electricity," Aiken recalled decades after the cooperatives he helped create brought power to the rural reaches of the state.
Aiken was so unassuming and so easy-going that it hard to imagine he accomplished all he did. His success stemmed in part from timing: Vermont's farmers were ready to rebel. However, the key to victory was Aiken: his style, his integrity, his cunning and his unwavering belief in the principle of fairness."
"When George Aiken died in 1984, he was remembered as a man of integrity and simplicity whose voice of common sense was heard throughout the world. In the U.S. Senate, where he served for 34 years, he fought countless battles for rural America. He was the prime architect of the food stamp program; he was responsible for U.S. participation in the creation of the St. Lawrence Seaway and he could take credit for much of the farm legislation on the books today, covering such areas as rural electrification, flood control and crop insurance.
By the time Aiken retired from the Senate in 1975 he had acquired the status of a Vermont institution. In his last re-election bid, in 1968, the Republican reported spending $17.09, mostly for postage to thank people for circulating his nominating petitions, "which I didn't ask them to do," he said.
He had come a long way in nearly half a century of public service. In the 1930s he was the radical outsider whom the chairman of the state Republican Party criticized as "that Communist." Countless battles pitted Aiken against the Republican establishment. Every step of the way, people recognized the battles for what they were: struggles for Vermont. Aiken was the champion of the common man. The old guard knew it and feared him; Vermonters knew it and loved him.
By fighting that fight and winning Aiken did more to shape Vermont in the 20th century than any other single person. Today's Vermont stands as a legacy to Aiken and the fights he fought.
The banks, the railroads, the marble companies and the granite companies lost their monopoly on Vermont government when Aiken became governor. The forgotten farmer, Vermont's silent and suffering majority, was dealt a new hand as Aiken gave rural residents the will and the way to survive. Farmers banded together to market their goods, and formed electric and insurance cooperatives, all of which gave them new clout and new hope. "On farm after farm, whether the owner had been ready to give up, he received renewed hope, faith and income, after he obtained electricity," Aiken recalled decades after the cooperatives he helped create brought power to the rural reaches of the state.
Aiken was so unassuming and so easy-going that it hard to imagine he accomplished all he did. His success stemmed in part from timing: Vermont's farmers were ready to rebel. However, the key to victory was Aiken: his style, his integrity, his cunning and his unwavering belief in the principle of fairness."
GVW Financial Supporters Remain Secret
As reported in the Aiken Standard today the Lower Savannah Council of Governments has refused to honor Senator Ryberg's freedom of information request for the names of the individuals who contributed to the GVW Incorporation campaign. This is unfortunate. When citizens are asked to vote on such an important issue they should have access to all the facts before they make a decision. Charles Hilton who is Chairman of the GVW incorporation committee expressed his frustration that Senator Ryberg who is "from another area" is criticizing people for having a choice. It should be noted that Mr. Hilton actually lives in another area that will not be incorporated as do three other members of the six person committee. There are many rumors going around concerning the Incorporation issue and a little bit of sunshine would certainly help.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Monday, August 4, 2008
Non-Partisan Elections for Aiken
CITY OF AIKEN REFERENDUM-The City of Aiken referendum to determine whether Aiken’s citizens want to switch to non-partisan elections for City Council members will be held on September 9, 2008. All regular polling places will be open from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm. I am opposed to the change but voted for the referendum in order to give citizens the option. Please go to the polls and make your wishes known.
The proponent’s arguments for change are:
1. Aiken is one of the few municipalities in South Carolina that still holds partisan elections for city elections.
2. More qualified candidates will run if they do not have to affiliate with a political primary.
3. Party primary filing fees are too high.
4. City business is by its very nature non-partisan.
The opponents’ arguments against change are:
1. The current system works well especially in recent years when more candidates are entering the primaries.
2. Registered citizens of either party can and do vote in primaries.
3. If candidates have not declared their affiliation voters will not know their leanings on important issues affecting all governmental bodies.
The proponent’s arguments for change are:
1. Aiken is one of the few municipalities in South Carolina that still holds partisan elections for city elections.
2. More qualified candidates will run if they do not have to affiliate with a political primary.
3. Party primary filing fees are too high.
4. City business is by its very nature non-partisan.
The opponents’ arguments against change are:
1. The current system works well especially in recent years when more candidates are entering the primaries.
2. Registered citizens of either party can and do vote in primaries.
3. If candidates have not declared their affiliation voters will not know their leanings on important issues affecting all governmental bodies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)