Perhaps we conservatives should launch a campaign to solve the worldwide food crisis the same way y'all want to solve the worldwide energy crisis: Let's not produce more food. Let's just ask people to eat LESS food and to replace traditional foodstocks with creative alternatives - like, maybe, SOYLENT GREEN.
We cannot simply CONSERVE our way out of the energy crisis, and as long as we are ignoring petroleum reserves we have in the United States, we remain, politically, at the mercy of a lot of countries that simply don't like us. AND, if we aren't willing to increase our domestic production, what right do we have to get upset when Saudi Arabia and other OPEC countries refuse to increase theirs?
I understand and appreciate environmentalism, Petunia. I am also a huge prooponent of recycling (I had a role in the creation and growth of Pickens County's recycling program back in the 1990s, you know.)
Unfortunately, many of those who are the strongest proponents of greassroots recycling efforts are also the same ones who cannot recognize that the oil company's job is to find oil, extract that oil, and market that oil. That their profits are currently at record HIGHS masks the fact that it is a very risk business. In fact, George W. Bush himself almost went bankrupt in Texas in the 1970s in the oil business in Texas.
The anti-capitalism/anti-industry mindset that seems to have overtaken American thinking in recent decades is a very disturbing trend in itself. We hear about how we can't open up more areas for drilling because it will benefit those "big evil oil companies" (who, yes, would benefit from that because THEY'RE THE ONES WHO DRILL FOR THE OIL.) We hear how those "big evil pharmaceutical companies" benefited from the addition of a prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients (who, yes, do benefit from that because THEY'RE THE ONES WHO MAKE AND MARKET THOSE PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.)
Why is it we never hear about those "big evil medical care providers" who hand you an over-the-counter Tylenol you can by off the shelf for a dime, then charge you $12 for it on your hospital bill and have the audacity to say drug prices and medical supply companies are driving up the cost of health care? Why is that every time the government tries to rein in their billing fraud and control prices, the government is criticized as cryel and uncaring? Why is it always those "big evil insurance companies" taking the rap for the fact that many people cannot afford insurance to pay for those unaffordable healthcare costs?
We need some consistency across the board, Petunia. If you're going to constantly criticize BIG OIL for the cost of gasolina that is making it rough on us, you need to jump on AnMed equally hard If you're going to jump on BIG OIL for wanting to find new sources of revenue by expanding their territory, you need to jump on the healthcare industrty for constantly striving to find new and creative tests to bill for and new and creative ways to bell for existing services.
And now, back to Governor Sanford. Sanford isn't unpopular with the S.C General Assembly because of any political ideology. Sanford is unpopular because he believes, like I do, that the Governor of South Carolina should be more than a figurehead. It doesn't matter if the Governor is a Democrat or a Republican (Diamond Jim Hodges was about as popular as ants at a picnic with lawmakers, too, you know.)
Let me give you a bit of South Carolina history, Petunia, that may put it into perspective for you. Some of this, you may know. Some of it, probably not. BUT IN THE CONTEXT I'M GIVING YOU, it may make more sense.
When South Carolina set out to draft a new State Constitution after the end of Reconstruction in 1877, there was much gnashing of teeth and furrowing of brows over the prospect because of the presences of hundreds of thousands of newly freed slaves who happened to have voting rights (forget, for a moment, the tactics that were used for the next 90 years or so to diminish those rights.
The most prominent politician of that era was a gentleman (I use the term loosely) by the name of Ben Tillman (nickname - "Pitchfork" Ben Tillman because he once went after a colleague with whom he disagreed with a pitchfork.) Tillman served in the S.C. Legislature, as governor, and in the U.S. House and Senate over his long and illustrious career. Tillman Hall at Clemson is named for him, which is far better than being given a watch and a pat on the back upon retirement, I guess.
Anyway, ol' Pitchfork Ben, an unreconstructed segregationist, and others of the time were afraid those newly enfranchised former slaves were in a position to put their voting force behind a political candidate, and they feared most the election of a black Governor or South Carolina. And THAT would have been a catastrophe for the white power base that thought they actually governed AND owned South Carolina.
With the Feds still watching like hawks despite the end of Reconstruction in 1877, they knew there was little they could do in a new S.C. Constitution (at least, little that would withstand Federal scrutiny) to disenfranchise those voters. But they were a clever lot.
When they drafted the S.C. Constitution of 1895, they made the S.C. Legislature supreme, reducing the role of the Governor to little more than a ceremonial office. Their reasoning was simple: Those blacks were concentrated specific areas of the state, mostly in the Lowcountry, and while they could EN MASSE possibly elect a governor in a statewide race, they could, at best, use their voting power to control perhaps 20 percent of the State House and State Senate.
That, Petunia, is why the Governor of South Carolina is one of the weakest Governors in the United States. It has nothing to do with his party. It has nothing to do with who he is. It has to do with Pitchfork Ben Tillman and his cohorts back in the late 1800s doing what they could to thwart a newly minted MAJORITY of South Carolinians who happened to have been the former PROPERTY of some of those same politicians.
People talk about how the Confederate Battle Flag that flies on that monument on the State House grounds is the most powerful remaining symbol of the racist South, where blacks had no power and no hope for power. They are wrong. The strong legislature/weak governor form of government we have in this state is the most poweful, most lasting, remnant of that Old South - which is why it constantly amuses me that liberals in this state PRAISE the system and conservatives like Kevin Bryant who want to change it are vilified.
Nowadays, while the racial dilution formula still works, the modern-day Senators and Representatives in the South Carolina legislature still use that very same process to dilute the will of the people. Its would not matter, really, got together and elected a Governor by a 4-1 margin. He would have little power to change the mindset in Columbia.
You see, we can change Governor's every four years if we want to. We can change representatives every two yeasrs, senators every four years. BUT IT TAKES DECADES TO CHANGE A MINDSET. The S.C. Legislature knows that.
And that is why the Governor of South Carolina NEVER get any significant respect from the General Assembly. Most of our Senators and Representatives are perfectly happy with that status quo, which is why so many who claim to be fiscal conservatives consistently vote to override the Governor's vetoes of spending bills.
A few, including Bryant and a few of the others who have been mentioned here today, are actually more sensitive to the wants of the people who elected them. And the irony of it is that some of those Senators and Representatives are sometimes likened to the very man - "Pitchfork" Ben Tillman - whose lingering legacy they are trying to erase.
Tillman wanted a weak Governor to avoid the possibility of a black man winning that office, so he directed that most power be vested with the General Assembly. Sanford critics are afraid that he may actually make some progress toward reining in state spending, so they cheer when the General Assembly thwarts him, then have the audacity to call him "ineffective."
South Carolina's government at the leve of Governor is ineffective BY DESIGN, Petunia. And those senators and representatives you cheer for overriding the vetoes of Sanford time after time are really not the heroes you make them out to be. In actuality, THEY'RE THWARTING THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA VOTERS WHO ELECTED THE GOVERNOR.
Have a nice day. As SSHM says, get back to me when you have some facts on your side. 
