Why does everyone care about St. Nick? His return only marks the coinciding return of Krampus!
That was not the answer I gave. Try again, or be ignored.
So the answer is "because you're wrong and I'm right"...well, that certainly clears things up?
Obviously, you recognize you don't have a logically defensible position here.
Arguing over fictitious characters is crazy, but it shows how pervasive racism is. When the movie, The Hunger Games, opened last year, some white people were upset that Rue and Cinna were black, despite the fact that the author clearly stated so. Now, everyone (black and white) is getting all riled up over Santa's race. Can we just stop the madness? My kids don't care what color Santa Claus is... they're more concerned about being good so they can get everything on on their lists.
My nephew came across this story while researching the death penalty. I hope this case gets reopened. KL
"So, why is one 'class' of victim more special than another? I've never heard a good answer for that."
And you never will hear an answer that satisfies you because you are far too entrenched in your outdated conservatism to understand why certain classes of people need protections beyond that already in the law.
On the other hand, perhaps if you think about why you feel that straight, white, Christian males need special protection from the encroaching hordes of non-straight, non-white, non-Christian, non-male marauders at your door you might begin to understand what's going on there.
What's really retarded is reading something that you say causes you to be retarded, and then commenting on it.
"Bright" he is not.
This paper/author suck.
I feel a little more mentally retarted every time I read this bullshit
As you were mental midgets...
Amen Mr. Jah! And they still suck!
Typical libturds, histrionics, cries of racism, bullying, and zero tolerance for ANY ideas other than theirs. Facts and common sense vs. feelings, emotions, delusions, phoney science funded by big government.
"So, be careful. Cruise lines will pack up and abandon a port completely if that town makes it hard for them to be there."
By hard, meaning we make Carnival's brand of discount cattle drive tourism worth our city's while. Carnival needs Charleston more than we need them, and there is no compelling data demonstrating that the nuisance they represent outweighs the modest benefits.
Carnival would be wise to remember that this city is not a soft economy pushover, despite the fawning sycophants they deal with down at City Hall.
Jesus recruited fishermen to abandon the commercial fisherman's life and wander the countryside with him in a fairly mendicant life style. These fisher folk worked hard and, as is still often the case even today, had little material gain. Though he is never reported scripturally to have done any fishing of his own or taught anyone to fish he was able to multiply the volume of fish and loaves to feed multitudes, who, for their part are not said to have done anything to "earn" their share. If existing legends contain even a splinter of truth,
he consistently urged people to reject excessive acquisition of material wealth and phony display. Possibly, the new pope has rediscovered that thread in his teaching and will continue to proclaim it. Let's hope so.
It's actually no big mystery about why this California boy would chime in on a Charleston issue. I'm a cruise ship enthusiast... having taken 20 cruises, mostly on Carnival. One of my Facebook friends posted a link to this article, and that's how I happened to notice it. My photo reflects my interest in Carnival cruises.
I am, in fact, currently staying in New Orleans for a few days prior to getting onboard a Carnival ship for another cruise. By the time I board the cruise ship, I will have spent approximately $800 in New Orleans between the hotel, restaurants, bars, taxis, etc. Obviously, not all 3000 passengers will spend that much locally before their cruise. Some will spend more, some far less. But between all 3000 passengers, there will be a significant amount spent. And this happens before each and every cruise all year long. So, that's a significant financial impact. Don't fool yourself in to thinking that because Carnival doesn't directly pay taxes to Charleston, that Carnival cruises don't bring tax dollars to Charleston.
My point about Galveston and Houston was that Carnival has LOTS of other options if they start feeling like Charleston is against them. So, be careful. Cruise lines will pack up and abandon a port completely if that town makes it hard for them to be there. Anyone who pays much attention to Carnival knows that they are continually re-evaluating where to put their ships. A few years ago, Carnival was big on Europe... and offered lots of sailings there. Now, zero. These days they are hot on Australia... after having success with positioning one ship there and now they are going to move another there. Five years ago, they were big on the Pacific Coast of Mexico... now, not so much. They'll move their ships somewhere else if you give them enough reason to. So, be careful about enacting severe regulations. Moderation is the key.
While Mr Zimmerlin (commenter above not to be confused with Zimmerman author of the guest opinion piece) above raises some valid issues and good points, I was intrigued to see a picture of him with what appears to be a mega cruise ship in the background. It appears Mr Zimmerlin per his own website lives in Grover Beach California and has made a name for himself taking photos and video of Carnival Cruise ships. Does not appear to be a part of the Charleston community as may be reflected in suggestion that cruise ships might seeking to replace Charleston with Houston or Galveston not exactly comparable replacements. From what I can see it is very odd that he is following something in the Charleston City Paper and posting. While he is right that cruise ships provide non-direct tax economic benefits too little regulation and protection of the beauty and history of Charleston will similarly doom Charleston in loss of other tourism and in the extreme loss of appeal to cruise ships as well. Development is a balancing act and I think piece nicely raises that extreme unconditional acceptance or rejection of cruise ships is unproductive and that perhaps the best approach is to focus of sustainable development that respects the competing needs of a historic city with large dependence on tourism and retirement attracted to the beauty of the city.
It's simply false to portray Carnival as un-regulated when it comes to environmental issues. They must follow a long host of US government regulations on this. You seem to suggest that Carnival is allowed to make toxic releases in to Charleston's waters... when in fact, not only are they prohibited from toxic releases, they are prohibited from dumping ANYTHING in to the water within your local waters. The ship has to be far out to sea before even the most innocuous release of fully treated water is allowed under federal law. Your local sewage treatment plants foul your local waters far more than a cruise ship ever will.
I totally agree that all cruise ships should plug in to shore power rather than burning diesel fuel in port to provide electricity for the ship's hotel services in port... and I hope I live to see the day when this is the standard method of operation for all ships. However, you have to understand that this requires expensive modifications both on the ship and also on shore. The cruise lines aren't just going to do that on their own... you're going to have to enact local or state regulations to force this, as has been done in California. You also have to realize that there is a risk, if you do enact legislation mandating this, that the cruise lines (all of them, not just Carnival) may decide that it makes more financial sense for them to cruise from other homeports where they are not bound by those regulations. For example, a state like Texas which is generally against most environmental regulations, won't require things like that... and so the cruise lines may just decide to forego Charleston in lieu of Galveston or Houston. That is the risk you take when you force the cruise lines in to expensive regulatory compliance.
You mention that Carnival doesn't pay any taxes to Charleston. What you are overlooking is the tremendous economic benefits that Carnival brings. 3000 passengers per ship per cruise spend an awful lot of money before and after a cruise in your area. The restaurants, hotels, taxis, gas stations etc. that benefit from those cruise passengers all pay local taxes. If you lean on Carnival too heavily and they decide to abandon your city altogether, you lose all that revenue that they help generate for you.
Ned has always been a parody.
Before DHEC talks about pulling licenses they need to have clarification. How do they expect to make a ruling when they themselves don't know what they want?
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2013,
Charleston City Paper