Recent editorials from South Carolina newspapers:
___
May 19
The Post and Courier of Charleston on the school shooting in Santa Fe, Texas on May 18:
It happened again. It was inevitable. Another tragedy. At least 10 people were killed and several more wounded Friday at Santa Fe High School in a small town outside of Houston.
Early reports describe scenes of almost unthinkable horror. Gunshots and multiple students dead, others running for their lives, police officers trying to make sense of the chaos. Too many thousands of students in the United States have experienced similar situations firsthand.
The Santa Fe, Texas, school shooting is hardly the first since a gunman in Parkland, Florida, killed 17 students and faculty at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in February. There have been more than a dozen school shootings since then.
But this is the deadliest.
And it should once again leave Americans disgusted by the utter inaction of lawmakers and public officials at all levels of government, too many of whom refuse to take meaningful action to protect young people from gun violence.
The clock is already ticking on the next tragedy. We cannot afford to waste more time on circular debates, name-calling and petty politics. We cannot echo that all too familiar refrain of “thoughts and prayers” and retreat to business as usual.
We must act.
There have been glimmers of hope. Recently passed federal measures loosen restrictions on funding for gun violence research and create incentives for better record keeping on background-check databases. Florida and a handful of other states passed bills that would make it more difficult for dangerous people to get access to the deadliest weapons.
A protest against gun violence in Washington, D.C., in March was one of the largest such gatherings in the nation’s history. Voices for reform are louder than ever.
“My administration is determined to do everything in our power to protect our students, secure our schools and do everything we can to keep weapons out of the hands of those who pose a threat to themselves and to others,” President Donald Trump said Friday. “Everyone must work together at every level of government to keep our children safe.”
He’s right.
Here in South Carolina, numerous worthwhile gun and school safety efforts, including bills that would have strengthened background checks, failed during this legislative session. Lawmakers likely won’t have an opportunity to start again on the issue until January.
Of course, even the most obvious measure - extending the maximum waiting period on a gun purchase background check - would be largely meaningless given the gaping loopholes that allow guns to be sold without checks online and at gun shows.
An overwhelming majority of Americans, including gun owners, supports universal background checks. They’re needed. Otherwise, violent criminals and mentally ill people have effectively unfettered access to deadly weapons - so long as they purchase them outside of licensed dealers.
It’s too soon to know what specific measures could have stopped Friday’s school shooting. It’s unclear what motivated the shooter. Initial reports said he used his father’s guns.
But there are measures we know would make all of us safer, by helping keep deadly weapons out of the hands of dangerous people. Start with universal background checks, for example.
School shootings are not the price we pay for freedom. They are the price we pay for inaction and political cowardice.
Online: https://www.postandcourier.com/
___
May 17
The Herald says a tariff on newsprint imported from Canada could hurt access to community publications:
Until recently, most people probably didn’t have tariffs on their minds. It was widely reported the Trump administration planned to place tariffs on steel imports and other materials. Then came talk of possible trade wars and the effects those can have on the economy. However, a lesser-known tariff has been enacted that also could impact Americans’ lives.
And not in a good way.
When the new year began, the cost of importing Canadian newsprint - the type of paper most used for printing newspapers - rose by about 6.5 percent. That cut into the budgets of newspaper publishers across the U.S. However, the expense didn’t stop there.
Costs have increased steadily into the double digits and could reach as high 30 percent. That extra expense could force newspapers to cut staff, limiting their ability to cover local news.
For some small and mid-sized papers serving rural areas, it could be an existential crisis and, if those papers close, residents would have no source for local news. There are plenty of sources and platform options for state, national and international news. However, if you’re looking for local, as in on-your-street, in-your-neighborhood news, you’ll only find that in your hometown newspaper.
Why did this tariff suddenly emerge? West Coast newsprint manufacturer, North Pacific Paper Co., petitioned the U.S. Department of Commerce for it, saying the Canadian producers had an unfair advantage.
There’s a major flaw in that argument: It’s simply not true.
North Pacific is one of the relatively few companies that produce uncoated groundwood paper, the grade typically used to print newspapers. Because no new investment has been made to create new plants in the U.S., newspapers rely on Canadian companies to fill the void.
There also is a local company that produces the uncoated groundwood paper, Resolute Forest Products in Catawba. The York County company is the largest North American producer with nearly 500 employees in mills across the U.S. and Canada. Resolute supplies over a dozen newspapers in South Carolina.
Resolute also opposes the tariff.
A spokeswoman from Resolute said the company recognizes the tariff is harmful to the newspaper industry and could shrink the market for newsprint, benefiting North Pacific at the expense of newspaper companies and readers across the U.S.
There’s another reason this tariff is bad. From an environmental standpoint, we should all favor importing Canadian paper products. It protects our trees. In the U.S., and particularly in our area, hyper development has made clear cutting all too common. In no time at all, acres of woods disappear. Canada, with its vast forests and sustainable practices, has an endless supply of trees.
The South Carolina Press Association and the National Newspaper Association are emphatically opposed to the tariff and lobbying for a reversal. They have powerful allies in South Carolina’s Congressional delegation and we’re glad to see those elected officials are taking up the cause.
Rep. Ralph Norman, (R-Rock Hill), sponsored a letter to the U.S. Department of Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer urging them to “consider the negative impact that any trade remedy would have on the U.S. newspaper and commercial printing industries, as well as the overall U.S. paper manufacturing industry.”
Thirty-four House members endorsed the letter. Also, Michele Exner, spokeswoman for U.S. Senator Tim Scott (R-Charleston), said, “Senator Scott is encouraging the Commerce Department to look very closely at the negative effects this tariff could have on local economies and newspapers across the country.”
We applaud both Norman and Scott for seeing through the flimsy protectionist alarm sounded by North Pacific Paper Co. and using their influence to help right a wrong. If they are successful, their constituents should be proud.
Online: http://www.heraldonline.com
___
May 22
Index-Journal says the right decision was reached on Greenwood’s war memorial:
It seems only fitting that Judge Frank Addy’s ruling that will allow plaques on Greenwood’s war memorial to be replaced came down just days before Memorial Day.
The city’s fallen soldiers who fought in the two world wars have their names affixed to bronze plaques that separate them as “colored” and “white” while the names of fallen soldiers who fought and died in Korea and Vietnam are simply listed in alphabetical order.
Mayor Welborn Adams in 2014 launched a campaign to replace the segregated plaques with new ones that also list the names alphabetically. He was right in thinking his campaign was an honorable one, one that would or should be welcomed. But he was surprised not only by those who were supportive of retaining the old plaques, but also by the impediment the state’s Heritage Act put before his efforts.
Strict historians argued that the plaques were a true representation of the military during the world wars and should remain untouched. It’s true that the military was segregated prior to World War I and remained so until President Harry Truman desegregated it in 1948. In that sense, the plaques certainly are historically accurate. But that does not change the fact that they carry racial undertones.
Perhaps most Greenwood residents pass by the memorial on the sidewalk just outside Howard’s on Main and take no particular notice of the plaques (shame on them, since it is their history), but visitors to the city might do a double take and wonder why such designations would be allowed. They might even wonder if we still have “colored” and “white” bathrooms and water fountains. There exists no signage that explains to a passerby.
And so Adams’ solution was a direct and simple fix. Raise some money, re-create the plaques sans the segregation language and all will be fine. But the state’s Heritage Act dictated otherwise, at least initially. That act, designed primarily to protect Confederate memorials on public property as the Confederate flag was to be removed from atop the Statehouse dome, stood in the way of not only Adams, but also the American Legion Post 20. Post 20 not only paid for the monument’s creation some 70 years ago and gave it to the city, which placed it in its current location, but also supported the changing of the plaques. Logically, the memorial belongs to Post 20, so Post 20 ought to be able to change it.
Only a two-thirds majority vote in the state legislature could have overturned the Heritage Act, which specifically disallows changing or altering war memorials that are on public property. Well, that wasn’t about to happen, which meant a lawsuit was the only option if the plaques stood a chance of being changed.
So, in 2015, five plaintiffs did just that. Dale Kittles, Larry Jackson, Claude Maus, Terry Weeks and Thomas Waller sued the state to seek an injunction to the Heritage Act.
On May 18, Circuit Court Judge Frank Addy issued a ruling, one that we hope and trust will not be appealed and will stand. Addy, himself Greenwood born and raised, thoughtfully and methodically approached the matter in ruling in favor of the plaintiffs.
Moreover, he wrote in rather clear language his reasons the Heritage Act should not apply to Greenwood’s war memorial:
“The Court is unfamiliar with any principle of law which allows the government to forever enshrine the private speech of a private individual . Put more succinctly, the government has no business directing what kind of bumper sticker must be placed on a privately owned car, or preventing someone from removing a bumper sticker from their car, just because that car happens to be parked on a public roadway.”
Finally, a logical and rational answer, a point made by a judge that many of us already thought made sense in this case.
We look forward to the day the old plaques are ceremoniously removed and the new ones affixed to the war memorial. We hope the Veterans Museum will accept the old plaques and put them on display - this time, with another plaque that carries the appropriate wording to give the segregated plaques historic context for museum visitors.
What matters more than the color of the fallen soldiers’ skin is that they all bled red and gave their lives for their country. And that should have been as clear to anyone as - well, as black and white.
Online: http://www.indexjournal.com
Please read our comment policy before commenting.