Thursday, August 22, 2013
That was a great letter from Mount Pleasant Town Councilman Chris Nickels in last week’s Moultrie News.
He is asking the right questions that Mount Pleasant residents should be asking. Where is the rationale for building a 74,000 square foot ,$27,000,000 and rising school for fewer than 100 Sullivan’s Island Children in a V-Zone on a barrier island when the real need for additional schools is in the north end of Mount Pleasant where the growth is? Why does the Charleston County School District insist upon busing children away from their neighborhoods to distant locations?
Thank you Councilman Nickels.
Former mayor of
New drug in town
There is a new drug on the streets, and several local politicians refuse to make its use illegal while driving. It is taken by ear and thumb. It is the cell phone mania that has taken the Lowcountry and the nation by storm in the last few years.
First it was just the use of the phone while driving. Something that the average human being simply can’t do very well. Oh, they claim they can but most of them can’t boil water and talk on the phone at the same time, much less drive a car.
The phone companies became “enablers” coming up with the ear bud, Bluetooth, etc. A good friend of my wife’s claims she is just as good a driver as someone who is not on the phone because she has both hands on the wheel. The problem is, her brain doesn’t have both of its sides working on the wheel.
It is just a fact that 99.8 percent of the folks addicted to CPU (Cell Phone Use) can’t drive a block without it and can’t drive worth a hoot while using it.
And now, like cocaine and crack cocaine, it is available in at least two forms. The newest of which is texting. That is even worse than the normal cell phone usage. Now these idiots drive and don’t even look where they are going, sit at stop lights when the light is green with horns hooking at them to get moving. Their response is to “flip off” the offending horn-blowers and do wheelies to catch up with the flow of traffic.
Those nuts want to move through an intersection just because the light is green? What’s wrong with us? I have watched these addicts looking down as they tic-tic-tic away with their thumbs, sending an important message to another addict friend about their new hair color or how much beer they had at the party last night. You know, something that just can’t wait until they are home or in the office.
It is not just the young folks who are playing Russian Roulette with their lives and ours. The older generation is just as guilty. They all have the same screwed up idea that “it won’t happen to me ‘cause I’m a great driver.” I see it every day, young and old alike, weaving down the road, drifting from lane to lane or just sitting in traffic clicking away.
You can’t walk through a Wal-Mart, Lowe’s or any place of business without seeing an employee walking down an aisle, phone in hand, texting, looking at a picture a friend just sent of a wart on their big toe, or whatever else these so called smart phones can do. Watching movies is next I hear.
Then we have a bright light in Mount Pleasant in the form of a law making it illegal to drive and text at the same time. Seems that all on town council but three voted for the ban.
Chris Nickles, Ken Glasson and Linda Page bailed out with an excuse like, “it’s not enforceable, blah, blah, blah” or “it is up to the parents to teach them it is not a safe thing to do,” and a dozen more excuses why they won’t move to ban the texting. A typical politician’s cop out. Just making sure they get the youth and adult text users vote next time around. Or maybe it is that and the fact that these three no voters are also text while driving users.
Either way none of the three will get my vote when/if any of them run for Mount Pleasant mayor if this is a hint of things to come from them. All the police have to do is look around them at stop lights. Shucks, I see dozens of tickets to write every day I am on the road. The police can’t see this? Come on girls and boys, get real.
Yes, it would be good if the state government would pass a state wide ban on texting, but we get the same reasons for not doing anything on the problem from those politicians too.
Like the trees lining the “Corridor of Death” on I-26 until one of them or their friends or loved ones are killed by one of the beloved trees or while texting or killed by someone else texting, nothing will be done by our leaders in the state or local government.
We don’t count. Unfortunately, like illegal drugs, cell phones have become just as addictive and just as dangerous. The real addicts can’t drive, walk or ride bikes without talking to a friend on the cell phone. It is truly a sickness.
Carl E. Meynardie Jr.
Look at statistics
This letter is in response to the current controversy about the safety of abortion, as currently and widely, practiced in the U.S. As an operating room nurse, I have investigated the safety of abortion, and found that there is a lot of misunderstanding on the part of the public, as well as on the part of medical professionals, which gives a false sense of safety for the surgical procedure most often performed on women.
Most people do not know that there simply is no data from abortion practice in the U.S. to prove whether abortion is safe or not. The CDC fails to produce an accurate picture of abortion safety because there is no uniform data reporting system for the country or for most states. Does not exist. So abortion can neither be proven safe, nor unsafe by statistics.
Hospital emergency room medical staff can report seeing women with abortion complications. Some may not wish to because of the politically charged nature of the issue and patient privacy issues, but nonetheless, injuries are regularly seen in hospital emergency rooms, all over the U.S. Abortion clinics are neither equipped nor prepared to deal with the kind of injuries that they inflict: punctured uterus and undiagnosed ectopic pregnancy to mention two. Abortion clinics routinely refer women to local emergency rooms for any complications that they may have after they leave the clinic, which is when most complications are detected.
Unlike someone who may have received substandard medical care for any other medical condition, women who have had abortions do not want to ever see the abortionist again, much less sue him, and stand up in court before the whole world to admit that she has had an abortion. If more women would testify of this degrading exploitation, that alone would put an end to abortion. No. She is content to keep quiet and let her friends and family think that she is only having “female trouble.” Women do not pursue being made whole from abortion malpractice.
This injustice is a national disgrace. So, what we now have is an umbrella of protection from malpractice litigation for the very “back alley” abortionists that were supposed to be eliminated by the Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
Lastly, abortion practitioners lobbied for and passed the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, gaining special protection under the law.
How can they expect special privileges under the law one minute and then complain about being held to a level of accountability the next?
Most people do not know that most of the 50 states have more regulations for competence, sanitation and safety for barber shops and beauty parlors, than they have for first trimester abortion clinics. That information is available online and can easily be verified. Vulnerable women in crisis pregnancies deserve the protection of the law.
Regulations for competence, sanitation and safety are a reasonable standard of care for clinics that wish to provide services for women seeking abortions.
Lynn Smith, R.N.
The Berkeley Independent is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. We do not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not The Berkeley Independent.