Leonardo's Notebook By Mattheus Mei

QOTD: Clerics and Civil Authority

noreply@blogger.com (Mattheus Mei) — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 12:34:00 +0000

Marriage is one of the places in American society where the boundaries between church and state are completely ignored. Clergy are given the power of the state to create legally recognized civil unions.

When the clergy say, "By the authority vested in me by the state of Texas, I proclaim they are now husband and wife," we claim a civil authority that should not be ours to claim. Our authority as ordained clergy comes from God through our governing religious bodies. As a pastor, I don't want any authority granted me by the state of Texas.

In most countries, people who wish to be married go to the courthouse to create their civil union. If they are Christian, they then go to the church to have that union blessed and to affirm their commitment through the language of faith in a Service of Christian Marriage.

This practice points to a proper solution regarding same-sex marriages. All people who want to live in committed relationships should have the right to legally recognized unions, regardless of their sexual orientation. Monogamy is a good thing for society and for those who live within the freedom of covenant relationships. Leave it to religious institutions to determine whether or not they want to bless such unions. But do not give religious institutions the right to determine whether or not the unions can be created.

Some suggests this threatens the sanctity of marriage. I disagree. Adultery, spousal abuse, and breaking trust emotionally or financially are far greater threats to the sanctity of marriage. To scapegoat the homosexual community for the all the problems facing modern marriage is misguided and wrong.

JOE CLIFFORD, Pastor and Head of Staff, First Presbyterian Church of Dallas

Bad Ad Alert

noreply@blogger.com (Mattheus Mei) — Mon, 04 May 2009 02:57:00 +0000

umm.... I don't have to say anything, just watch:

A Hundred Years On and Standing Strong

noreply@blogger.com (Mattheus Mei) — Sat, 02 May 2009 16:06:00 +0000

From America Magazine:

T he clouds roll with thunder, the House of the Lord shall be built throughout the earth, and these frogs sit in their marsh and croak—'We are the only Christians!'" So wrote St. Augustine about the Donatists, a perfectionist North African sect that attempted to keep the church free of contamination by having no truck with Roman officialdom. In the United States today, self-appointed watchdogs of orthodoxy, like Randall Terry and the Cardinal Newman Society, push mightily for a pure church quite unlike the mixed community of saints and sinners—the Catholic Church—that Augustine championed. Like the Circumcellions of old, they thrive on slash-and-burn tactics; and they refuse to allow the church to be contaminated by contact with certain politicians.
For today's sectarians, it is not adherence to the church's doctrine on the evil of abortion that counts for orthodoxy, but adherence to a particular political program and fierce opposition to any proposal short of that program. They scorn Augustine's inclusive, forgiving, big-church Catholics, who will not know which of them belongs to the City of God until God himself separates the tares from the wheat. Their tactics, and their attitudes, threaten the unity of the Catholic Church in the United States, the effectiveness of its mission and the credibility of its pro-life activities.
The sectarians' targets are frequently Catholic universities and Catholic intellectuals who defend the richer, subtly nuanced, broad-tent Catholic tradition. Their most recent target has been the University of Notre Dame and its president, John Jenkins, C.S.C., who has invited President Barack Obama to offer the commencement address and receive an honorary degree at this year's graduation. Pope Benedict XVI has modeled a different attitude toward higher education. In 2008, the pope himself was prevented from speaking at Rome's La Sapienza University by the intense opposition of some doctrinaire scientists. The Vatican later released his speech, in which he argued that "freedom from ecclesiastical and political authorities" is essential to the university's "special role" in society. He asked, "What does the pope have to do or say to a university?" And he answered, "He certainly should not try to impose in an authoritarian manner his faith on others."
The divisive effects of the new American sectarians have not escaped the notice of the Vatican. Their highly partisan political edge has become a matter of concern. That they never demonstrate the same high dudgeon at the compromises, unfulfilled promises and policy disagreements with Republican politicians as with Democratic ones is plain for all to see. It is time to call this one-sided denunciation by its proper name: political partisanship.
Pope Benedict XVI has also modeled a different stance toward independent-minded politicians. He has twice reached out to President Obama and offered to build on the common ground of shared values. Even after the partially bungled visit of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with Pope Benedict, Vatican officials worked quickly to repair communication with her. Furthermore, in participating in the international honors accorded New Mexico's Governor Bill Richardson in Rome last month for outlawing the death penalty (See Signs of the Times, 5/4), Pope Benedict did not flinch at appearing with a politician who does not agree fully with the church's policy positions. When challenged about the governor's imperfect pro-life credentials, Archbishop Michael Sheehan of Santa Fe responded on point, "We were able to help him understand our position on the death penalty.... One thing at a time." Finally, last March the pro-choice French president Nicolas Sarkozy was made an honorary canon of the Basilica of St. John Lateran, the pope's own cathedral.
Four steps are necessary for the U.S. church to escape the strengthening riptide of sectarian conflict and re-establish trust between universities and the hierarchy. First, the bishops' discipline about speakers and awards at Catholic institutions should be narrowed to exclude from platforms and awards only those Catholics who explicitly oppose formal Catholic teaching. Second, in politics we must reaffirm the distinction between the authoritative teaching of moral principles and legitimate prudential differences in applying principles to public life. Third, all sides should return to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council and Pope Paul VI that in politics there are usually several ways to attain the same goals. Finally, church leaders must promote the primacy of charity among Catholics who advocate different political options. For as the council declared, "The bonds which unite the faithful are mightier than anything which divides them" ("Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World," No. 92).

QOTD: Let's March

noreply@blogger.com (Mattheus Mei) — Fri, 01 May 2009 20:27:00 +0000

It was said of Cicero that when people heard him, they turned to one another and said, "Great speech"; but when Demosthenes spoke, people turned to one another and said, "Let's march." All around the world people are marching with Barack Obama.

- Prime Minister Gordon Brown

From the 2009 Time 100.

Sometimes you should stick with your own material

noreply@blogger.com (Mattheus Mei) — Fri, 01 May 2009 00:05:00 +0000

h/t to harkinsa

The Oakridge Boys perform a cover of "Seven Nation Army" by the White Stripes:

Umm... methinks they should stick with Elvira.

It made me chuckle and wince at the same time

noreply@blogger.com (Mattheus Mei) — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 23:33:00 +0000

As I was walking towards work the other morning the Anti-Abortion folks (the ones with the very graphic signs) were out by Gervais Street on the State House Grounds. I approached my usual cross walk and noticed that the grey haired lady was sitting on a stool with her sign (I couldn't see it) resting against her and the light pole. As I went to press the crosswalk button I casually told her Good Morning - as any Southerner is wont to do.

It startled her. She grabbed her glasses which were resting in her lap and eyed me. She responded. Thank you so much, you're the first person ever to say that to me while I've been out here. I was startled and suprised -- really? I said with obvious incredulity. She told me (rather emphatically and in earnest) to have a good day and I wished her one likewise. She smiled and turned back to her vigil of watching cars go by holding the sign.

When I crossed the street and walked down a ways I looked back to see which of the signs she was holding. Her's was the SODOMY IS A SIN! sign. I winced, chuckled and thought to myself, if she only knew that the only person to show her kindness was in fact a 'sodomite' she was there protesting against.

Oh the irony of it all.

The Supreme Court acts by not acting

noreply@blogger.com (Mattheus Mei) — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:43:00 +0000

Twitter has been all a... twitter... since the SC Supreme Court issued it's ruling not to rule on a lawsuit brought by Chapin High Senior Casey Edwards against the State.

And while Sanford supporters are probably elated by this turn of events it's always important to look at the fine print, and in this case the legal context.

From the Ruling:

We find this action is not ripe and appropriate for judicial determination unless or until the General Assembly has taken, as it is authorized to do, measures to appropriate the funds at issue. See State ex rel. Condon v. Hodges, 349 S.C. 232, 562 S.E.2d 623 (2002)(the General Assembly has the duty and authority to appropriate money as necessary for the operation of the agencies of government and has the right to specify the conditions under which the appropriated monies shall be spent); Gilstrap v. South Carolina Budget and Control Bd., 310 S.C. 210, 423 S.E.2d 101 (1992) (the appropriation of public funds is a legislative function); Clarke v. South Carolina Pub. Serv. Auth., 177 S.C. 427, 181 S.E. 481 (1935)(the General Assembly has full authority to make appropriations as it deems wise in absence of any specific constitutional prohibition against the appropriation). Until that time, there is no real and substantial controversy, as opposed to a contingent, hypothetical or abstract dispute, upon which this Court can render a declaratory judgment. Accordingly, the petition for original jurisdiction is denied at this time.

bold italicising is mine.

If my reading is correct then when it comes to taking money - which is what the 'appropriation of public funds' means -- that, according to established case law in South Carolina, is a legislative function. What the Supreme Court is saying is - ambiguity in the statutory language aside (in reference to the Recovery Act) in regards to the actions and powers of the South Carolina Legislature - it is their right and obligation to appropriate funds, such a right has never resided with the executive - his is only to approve and (or if overridden) to enforce such measures.

Maggie Gallagher is all moist over this one...

noreply@blogger.com (Mattheus Mei) — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:48:00 +0000

Miss California is making Maggie Gallagher all moist. Maggie sees in Miss California the new face of the bigot brigade. She posted this little tidbit on NRO this morning:

Perez "You dumb b—tch" Hilton is typical of the new face of the gay-marriage movement in America. (Joining Frank "you are all bigots" Rich among others). And I would like to nominate Miss California as the new face of the marriage movement. Much better than mine! "Truth and love will prevail over lies and hate."

But beauty never hurt.

And while she and her flying monkeys at NOM may beat there chests a little louder because of Perez Hilton, one thing is for sure -- he is NOT the face of the gay marriage movement in America, and no person in their right mind will take her claims that he is seriously. Keep deluding yourself Maggie, and while you're at it ignore all those polls being released in New York about how a majority of folks there now support marriage equality. Truth and love really will prevail over lies and hate!

QOTD: Interracial Marriage

noreply@blogger.com (Mattheus Mei) — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:17:00 +0000

via the daily dish,

"After gay marriage, the most religiously committed Americans will be effectively marginalized as a public force—because they cannot act or support the idea that gay unions are marriages. Such people will, if we lose the marriage debate, be treated the way we treat bigots who oppose interracial marriage. Imagine: All it will take to make, say, a judicial nominee unconfirmable will be to establish that they are indeed Catholic,"

- Maggie Gallagher, NRO.

Funny I remember how most of the arguments against interracial marriage were grounded in religious dogma and psuedo science as well, and opponents said much the same thing. And while, today, we view opponents of such marriages as bigots - we still let them refuse to perform or honour such marital arrangments in their own houses of worship even unto this day.

It's the first Amendment Maggie, get over it.

Steve Schmidt gets it too

noreply@blogger.com (Mattheus Mei) — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 21:50:00 +0000

Yet another younger member of the conservative movement gets it. Marriage equality should be embraced to get back to the real core principals of the conservative movement:

"It cannot be argued that marriage between people of the same sex is un American or threatens the rights of others. On the contrary, it seems to me that denying two consenting adults of the same sex the right to form a lawful union that is protected and respected by the state denies them two of the most basic natural rights affirmed in the preamble of our Declaration of Independence — liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

QOTD: Marching Forward

noreply@blogger.com (Mattheus Mei) — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 21:44:00 +0000

We wish to fulfill the dreams of those Americans, both the living and the dead, who struggled unremittingly and courageously over the past two centuries to expand those freedoms to more Americans. Often we have fallen short, but the marvel and the miracle of America is that we keep marching forward for justice.

- Gov. David Patterson

Draft Gilda 2010

noreply@blogger.com (Mattheus Mei) — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:55:00 +0000

Is South Carolina ready for a black Governor? How about a woman Governor - or better yet a black woman Governor? If you ask the folks at the Progressive Network the answer is yes, which is why they're trying to convince the only Democrat in South Carolina with both huge name recognition and actual political clout (and the ability to potentially draw in some serious coinage) to take up the gauntlet for office in 2010. From SCProNet:

It's been seven long years since a movement to draft Gilda Cobb-Hunter to run for governor ran into ran into a roadblock: the prospective candidate herself. "South Carolina isn't ready for a black woman to be governor," the representative from Orangeburg said. She declined to enter the race against Jim Hodges, and Mark Sanford was elected governor.

The buzz among friends who know her best is that she is open to reconsidering a run for governor or, perhaps, taking on Sen. Jim DeMint for his US Senate seat.

A lot has changed in seven years, not the least of which is that we have a black man in the White House. While white men — from president, to governor to the legislature — have proven their inability to meaningfully address the problems facing our state and nation, it may well be time for Gilda to reconsider her earlier hesitancy.

The Democratic Party is fielding some nice guys to contend for its nomination for governor. Sen. Vince Sheheen of Camden, Rep. Harry Ott of Calhoun County, and Mullins McLeod of Charleston are names being mentioned. But they don't resonate with the demand for substantive change that could inspire new South Carolina voters. We can't expect their candidacies to be far removed from the traditional Democratic strategy of playing to the right of center to pick off a couple of percentage points from the Republican vote. This is the "Republican Lite" strategy that has failed for the past 30 years.

But what if a bold candidate spoke to the 43 percent of South Carolinians who did not vote in the last election?

To put it in perspective, McCain got 1,034,896 votes in South Carolina's last general election; Obama got 862,449. That adds up to 1,897,345 South Carolinians who voted. Sitting it out were 1,472,048 of the voting-age population (24 percent of them registered voters) who didn't vote. That's an untapped market of 43 percent of folks in this state who could vote but chose not to.

We only need to mobilize 12 percent of the people who don't vote to turn the state blue. Of all the Democratic candidates mentioned, Gilda has the magic to make this happen. She is the one person in the legislature that who be counted on to vote in the interest of working people, minorities and the disenfranchised. Her candidacy for governor or US Senate would inject a level of enthusiasm into the race — helping all Democratic candidates — that nobody else could provide.

I think Sic Willie just got a boner because if there's one person he (and most other republicans) loves to hate to love more in South Carolina Politics it's Gilda Cobb-Hunter. That of course is probably the crux of any decision she'll make as whether or not to accept the laurel wreath from the Progressive Network and potentially the Democrats at large. A point of which the ProNet touches on slightly above - unlike previous candidates for this high office from the Democratic Party - Gilda is an actual democrat and not a Republican lite, which is to say not a DINO/RINO to use the political parlance, which would definitely add to any contentiousness that a gubernatorial race in SC has.

What do you think? Should she run or not? e-mail the Network at scprogressivecaucus@earthlink.com and let them know - they'll pass on your words of encouragement or otherwise and maybe you too can help draft Gilda for 2010.

The model of erudition and Statesmanship in South Carolina

noreply@blogger.com (Mattheus Mei) — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 01:29:00 +0000

I'm sure Spartanburg County is soooo proud of Representative Joey Millwood for this one,

and the entire litany of interesting things he's tweeted all day today. I wonder if the Herald-Journal or Greenville News even bothers to care about such indignant rantings - the sad reality is they probably do, and yet hold him to no account congratulations people of Spartanburg.

h/t IJ

The only thing gayer than a Tea Party....

noreply@blogger.com (Mattheus Mei) — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 22:47:00 +0000

Well, perhaps there is something gayer than a tea party and a picnic - weddings.

News today from Washington State where the Seattle PI (online) is reporting that the legislature has approved an expansion of Domestic Partnership Benefits to be equal with marriage in everything but name.

Meanwhile, on the other coast - New Hampshire's Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony on converting their civil unions into civil marriages.

For an interesting read on the Tea Parties though - I'd say check out A.L.

E.D Kain gets it

noreply@blogger.com (Mattheus Mei) — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:37:00 +0000

It's not just Meghan McCain who see's no distinction between being Pro-Life, and Pro-Gay Marriage, E.D. Kain get's it too and see's the necessary future track of the movement within our pluralistic society.

Putting the Gay back into the Tea Parties

noreply@blogger.com (Mattheus Mei) — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 00:01:00 +0000

This will probably dampen the ranting lunacy of those folks who have usurped the libertarian Tea Party movement, the gays are coming to the party as well. And as we all know nothing's gayer than a Tea Party, except maybe a Picnic.

As LGBT Americans, we work hard, take care of our families, and pay our taxes every year. Yet, our families are not included in the very policies we help fund. Our loved ones are treated like legal strangers and denied the economic protections given to our heterosexual counterparts. It is time to take a stand. This April 15th, we will rally at post offices across the nation.

The site has a map showing the location of the planned events thus far. None are in South Carolina, yet, but there are potentially more rallies than the ones usurped above.

QOTD: Un-American

noreply@blogger.com (Mattheus Mei) — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:24:00 +0000

I am a woman who despises labels and boxes and stereotypes. Recently, I seemed to have rocked a few individuals within my party by saying that I am a pro-life, pro-gay-marriage Republican. So if anyone is still confused, let me spell it out for you. I believe life begins at conception and I believe that people who fall in love should have the option to get married. Lest we forget, our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, grants the same rights to everyone in this country—"All men are created equal." If you think certain rights should not apply to certain people, then you are saying those people are not equal. People may always have a difference of opinion on certain lifestyles, but championing a position that wants to treat people unequally isn't just un-Republican. At its fundamental core, it's un-American.

- Meghan McCain, "A Gayer GOP,"

The Daily Beast

QOTD: You're no Republican....

noreply@blogger.com (Mattheus Mei) — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 13:45:00 +0000

You call me a Nazi? You call me somebody who supports torture and you want credibility on this program? You know, you're just plain embarrassing and ludicrous. But it doesn't surprise me that you're the kind of Republican that our last candidate attracted. Because you're no Republican at all based on what the hell you've said here.

- Rush Limbaugh reacting to a Republican Caller

A must read and a must listen exchange, please click the link! A Republican calls in speaking Truth to Power as it were and Der Führer let's go with that last nugget. Congrats Republicans - the only way to be a Republican, because your party's leader just said so, is to support --TORTURE.

When Fishermen Attack

noreply@blogger.com (Mattheus Mei) — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 11:21:00 +0000

Inspired by a story out of Florida, artist Jen Ray sketched a mildly apologetic fisherman.

The (art) bubble has burst

noreply@blogger.com (Mattheus Mei) — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 14:05:00 +0000

The art bubble that we hoped would pop - just did, maybe. According to the Financial Times:

The Mei Moses index, set for release on Tuesday, shows art prices fell 35 per cent in the first quarter, having held up during earlier months of the financial crisis.

Mei Moses is of no relations to Mattheus Mei.

The hardest hit from the bubble? Well the FT says that it is the post war modernists who's values decreased substantially. The old masters, obviously out of fashion and favour these past few decades saw less of a drop in value, though they did loose out.

Unfortunately the Financial Times didn't have an assesment of the PoMo movers and shakers -- perhaps the Jeff Koons' of the world aren't considered artist and therefore their works aren't calculated into the "Mei" index (one can imagine right?)

Because you can't spell Google without 'Gog"

noreply@blogger.com (Mattheus Mei) — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 12:55:00 +0000

I don't really know what to think about this. Part of me is excited but there's the inner luddite which thinks -- wow, another potential afront to traditional socialization?

Introducing.... Google Voice

With all that being said, I've already signed up.

Welcome to Sanfordville

noreply@blogger.com (Mattheus Mei) — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 09:00:00 +0000

A second protest against Mark Sanford and his stimulus hijinks is slated to start today at 10:00am in Finlay Park which sits at the base of Governor's hill. The protest will last all day and folks are enouraged to bring tents to make a tent city the organizers plan to call "Sanfordville." For more information see the organizer's website at Indigo Journal.

WIS also has an interview, and the State Newspaper has an AP wire story on the planned protest.

Letter to the Vermont Legislators

noreply@blogger.com (Mattheus Mei) — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 03:22:00 +0000

The HRC has a web page where, if you're a Vermont resident, you can e-mail the members of the Vermont legislature in support of overturning the impending veto by the Governor of their marriage equality legislation. The letter application has a space for a personal message. Even though I don't live in Vermont this is what I wrote:

On a special note to Rep. Sunny Audette and my fellow Catholic legislators. Rep Audette I understand that you are a devout Roman Catholic who worries about the reaction of such a vote from the Church. I read with sadness that, though you wished you could support the measure and congratulated all those pushing for the legislation and its passage that, because of the church's current stance on Gay marriage you were impeded on voting in favour of the marriage.

I too am a devout Catholic, and on Friday I prayed the Stations of the Cross especially with you in mind. It was while praying the stations that I recalled in my mind something that our Holy Father recently said in a letter to the Bishops, and I rather lengthily quote:

"At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them – in this case the Pope – he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint."

"Dear Brothers, during the days when I first had the idea of writing this letter, by chance, during a visit to the Roman Seminary, I had to interpret and comment on Galatians 5:13-15. I was surprised at the directness with which that passage speaks to us about the present moment: "Do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’. But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." I am always tempted to see these words as another of the rhetorical excesses which we occasionally find in Saint Paul. To some extent that may also be the case. But sad to say, this "biting and devouring" also exists in the Church today, as expression of a poorly understood freedom. Should we be surprised that we too are no better than the Galatians? That at the very least we are threatened by the same temptations? That we must always learn anew the proper use of freedom? And that we must always learn anew the supreme priority, which is love? The day I spoke about this at the Major Seminary, the feast of Our Lady of Trust was being celebrated in Rome. And so it is: Mary teaches us trust. She leads us to her Son, in whom all of us can put our trust. He will be our guide – even in turbulent times."

(http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2009/03/to-bishops-b16s-letter-on-sspx.html)

Even though this letter was in response to the SSPX controversy of earlier this year, how true is it in this situation? It's so easy to read St. Paul, like the Pope says, as rhetorical excess. To overlook or oversimplify what it means to "use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh." As the Pope intimates flesh here and the act of mutual consumption is an occasion of the sin of fear, misunderstanding, self righteousness, exclusion and hatred.

You see these occasions of sin infecting the church - not only in the realm of theological differences, but even down to the issue of our Gay and Lesbian brothers and sisters. How the Church, indeed the world, should single out so small a group of people - should ridicule, exclude and hate... "Should we be surprised that we too are no better than the Galatians?"

Dear sir you have an opportunity, if you believe in your heart what you said, take a bold step and reject the flesh and follow the simple command from the Lips of Christ himself of showing love to your neighbor as you do for yourself.

God bless you in this Holy Week and approaching Easter-tide, may you and your fellow legislators have firm resolution to support love in the face of those who would oppose it in favour of fear and exclusion.

Savonrola is no doubt getting all excited over this one

noreply@blogger.com (Mattheus Mei) — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 19:26:00 +0000

The Sunlit Uplands, whom my esteemed blogging colleague Waldo has so cleverly nick-named Savonrola, will no doubt have his fancy tickled by this:

England's famed Canterbury Cathedral Choir, one of the oldest choruses in the world, will visit the U.S. for the first time in 10 years. Its nine-city tour was organized primarily to raise money for critical and costly restoration work. The cathedral structure has deteriorated dramatically due to years of benign neglect, and it requires repairs to its walls, towers, roof, organ and historic stained-glass windows, say organizers.
The goal is to raise the equivalent of $90 million over 10 years, according to Capers Cross, organist and choirmaster at St. Philip's Episcopal Church. Cross is responsible for securing the choir's visit to Charleston.
"If American churches don't step up to the plate, I don't know where they're going to get the money," he said.
The Canterbury Cathedral Choir is led by David Flood and consists of 12 professional adult male singers and 30 boy choristers ages 8-13 who attend St. Edmund's School in Canterbury. Young choir members receive a scholarship toward their education and boarding at the Choir House on cathedral grounds. The choir sings at services six days a week and at special events, performing music from the 13th century to the present.
Premium seats for the 3 p.m. April 19 concert cost $75, which includes an invitation to a reception following the event. Other tickets are $25 and $10 (restricted view). Tickets can be purchased at www.dioceseofsc.org or at the St. Luke & St. Paul office. Call 722-7345.

The Group will be in town for the Charleston International Choir Festival. What'll really get Savonrola moist is the fact that they'll be performing in a Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina Church - a diocese who's previous and current Bishop have share no love loss for the national Episcopal Church and Conference and who have been making overtures towards the GAFCON and Southern Cone folks.

After row over deaths, Agency reforms itself - but is it enough?

noreply@blogger.com (Mattheus Mei) — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 18:54:00 +0000

Earlier this year we commended fellow blogger extraordinaire Earl Capps for pointing out the hypocrisy of the Sanford Administration over the lack of oversight at the Department of Social Services. It appears that in the wake of such a travesty of mismanagement and, yes, even death the agency has sought to reform itself.

According to the State Newspaper in light of the unfortunate deaths the agency:

• Issued new, streamlined guidelines on dealing with drugs in families. They take effect Monday and will be an interim change while national experts conduct an in-depth evaluation.
• Made mandatory employees’ completion of a four-hour, online training program by May 15. It had been voluntary for all 1,000 child welfare workers.
• Sought help from USC experts in better evaluating risks of abuse or neglect in all families. This month, the experts will focus on drug abuse.
• Scheduled an April 27 meeting in Columbia with experts from the National Center for Substance Abuse and Child Welfare and the Children’s Welfare League of America to begin an in-depth review of procedures dealing with drugs in families.
• Decided to enact by April 30 new procedures for better communication with the Child Fatalities Review Committee and to document DSS responses to the panel’s concerns.
Since September ...
• Trained 84 caseworkers or supervisors in a new, voluntary course on the dynamics of drug treatment and recovery.
• Trained 159 additional caseworkers and supervisors in the effects of specific drugs such as cocaine, methamphetamine, marijuana and prescription medications. (DSS employs 805 child welfare caseworkers and 194 supervisors.)
• Scheduled three additional training sessions for this spring in the state’s three major cities.
• Trained 88 foster care or adoptive parents in prenatal drug exposure.

But despite all the "reforms," these are only preliminary steps needed to overhaul the beleaguered child services agency. The agency, who has over $1 billion dollar budget has suffered cuts and looks to suffer more as the Governor continues his brinkmanship over the stimulus money. Potential foster parents have complained as much as the employees that the system is to jammed bureaucratically and there are not enough social workers to handle the case loads.

Only time and, and the Governor, will tell whether the agency can modernize, stream line and more effectively protect South Carolina's children.