What We Missed in Mark Sanford’s Divorce Papers

Mark Sanford

Since several court documents related to Mark and Jenny Sanford’s divorce were leaked to the Associated Press earlier this month, reports have focused almost entirely on the complaint filed by Jenny Sanford alleging that her ex-husband had trespassed on her property.

Mark Sanford acknowledged that the now-infamous Super Bowl incident did occur and has explained the circumstances surrounding the situation in exhaustive detail, standing by his decision to violate the terms of the court order barring him from entering his ex-wife’s property.

The other court documents leaked to the press, however, have largely been ignored.

These papers outline two other instances in which Mark Sanford allegedly failed to comply with the terms of the Sanfords’ divorce agreement:

  • One occasion of violating the child support agreement by failing to pay $5,000 of a son’s college tuition
  • An ill-defined incident involving the Sanford children and airplanes

Although Jenny Sanford confirmed that the child support issue was subsequently resolved, the airplane incident has never been explained publicly. Context and details were omitted from the leaked affidavit.

The divorce settlement agreement — which was not included in the documents leaked — appears to contain a section specific to the Sanford family’s Coosaw Plantation, a sprawling property in Beaufort County purchased by Mark Sanford’s late father in 1965. One of the leaked affidavits references Paragraph II. B. of the divorce agreement, which provides that “at any time the children are at Coosaw, the parties agree that (1) no airplanes will be flown at children, and (2) the property will be insured at a reasonable level to satisfy liability claims.”

In that same affidavit, Jenny Sanford claims that Provision 1 (the airplane provision) was violated “on or about January 15, 2011,” and that the violation of Provision 2 (the liability insurance provision) “is ongoing.”

Provision 2 seems fairly straightforward.  Jenny Sanford and her children have an interest in Mark Sanford’s staying solvent, so she wants to make certain that Coosaw Plantation is adequately insured and her ex-husband’s assets are protected. He is still required to pay child support and may be required to pay alimony.  It’s also possible that Jenny Sanford has a financial interest herself in the companies that own Coosaw Plantation — The Sanford Land Co. and the Sanford Family Partnership, made up of members of Sanford’s family.

Side Note: Jenny Sanford has plenty of justification for being concerned about liability and Coosaw. Two children have drowned there in tragic accidents over the past eleven years:

  • In 2002 an eight year-old girl wandered onto the property at Coosaw Plantation and drowned in what the Sanfords described as a “retaining pond.” The backstory in South Carolina political circles is that Mark Sanford enjoys digging holes on the property with his hydraulic excavator to “unwind.” The child fell into one of these holes — which had filled with water — and drowned. The Sanfords are said to have reached a settlement with the child’s family, and the details were never made public, but the sum that the Sanfords paid is said to have been “around $300,000.”
  • Nine years later a six year-old boy attending a birthday party at the invitation of Sanford’s brother John and his wife Julia was found at the bottom of the plantation’s swimming pool. The boy was taken to the Medical University of South Carolina, where he died two days later. The death was ruled an accident, but the boy’s parents filed a wrongful death action against The Sanford Land Co. and the Sanford Family Partners.


But back to the mysterious airplane provision.

What does “at any time the children are at Coosaw, the parties agree that … no airplanes will be flown at children” mean?

Are these real airplanes or toy airplanes? It’s possible that this provision included a typo and, perhaps, was intended to read, “…(N)o airplanes will be flown [by] children at Coosaw…” or “(N)o airplanes will be flown [with] children at Coosaw…” instead.

(Mark Sanford has shown some serious lapses in judgment in recent years, but it seems unlikely that he would do something as reckless as flying airplanes — real or toy — at his children.)

There is also a grass strip near Coosaw Plantation that is used for small aircraft takeoffs, which may be related to the airplane provision.

Whatever the case may be, Jenny Sanford felt strongly enough to include a specific provision pertaining to airplanes and children at Coosaw in their divorce agreement.

Another potentially noteworthy detail relating to the airplane provision is the timeline of the affidavit in which it is cited.  Jenny Sanford’s affidavit claims that the airplane provision was violated “at or around January 15, 2011,” several days after Sanford completed his second term as governor. However, according to the date on the affidavit, Jenny Sanford didn’t give her sworn testimony about this incident until March 2, 2012 — over a year after the airplane incident occurred — and then didn’t file the affidavit until August 7, 2012.

Why the considerable delays?

And what happened at Coosaw Plantation on January 15, 2011?

The leaked divorce documents appear to have been aimed at publicly damaging Mark Sanford’s Congressional bid, and they also appear to have been carefully selected. After the blow-up of the trespassing incident in the press, the next big story may be discovering what happened that day at Coosaw Plantation.

Larry Flynt Endorses Mark Sanford?

A friend sent me this print-ready newspaper advertisement/endorsement of Mark Sanford by the infamous pornography publisher Larry Flynt. The endorsement is said to be running in Charleston’s Post and Courier this weekend. I can’t confirm its veracity, but I can assure you that I didn’t Photoshop it. And it certainly looks real. This race gets even weirder…

Larry Flynt Endorses Mark Sanford by laurin_manning

Mark Sanford Spends 1,265 Words Telling Us Why He’s the Victim Here, Y’all

Mark Sanford Crying

On Sunday, just days after the horrific Boston Marathon bombings and subsequent events that left three people dead, hundreds wounded, and a nation in shock — and just days after the explosion of a Texas fertilizer plant that killed thirteen people and injured hundreds more — Mark Sanford bought a full-page newspaper ad in the print version of Charleston’s Post & Courier to tell us just what a bad week *he* had.

In his 1,265-word, quintessentially Sanfordian screed, the former governor and Republican nominee for South Carolina’s First Congressional District begins, “It’s been a rough week….”

He then spends ten paragraphs (reprinted below) explaining why he was trespassing on his ex-wife’s property in violation of their divorce agreement after she’d asked him not to several times already; complaining that media outlets found his law-breaking to be newsworthy; whining that national party committee groups — like the one of which he used to serve as chairman — have been running negative ads against him, while his own campaign is running similarly negative ads against his opponent; offering excuses as to why he had to pay the largest ethics fine in South Carolina history; and, finally, concluding with a bizarre anecdote about the battle at the Alamo (which he incorrectly said occurred in 1863) because he seems to think it somehow applies to the situation he’s created for himself.

Not one word about what the rest of us would consider to be the main reasons last week was, in fact, a “rough week.”

See for yourself. Mark Sanford’s 1,265 word letter as posted in a full-page ad in the Sunday, April 21st edition of the Charleston Post & Courier is copied below. To view an image of the ad, click here.

A Personal Message from Mark Sanford

It’s been a rough week, and so I wanted to write to address both Wednesday’s news and the new incoming attacks by Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Accordingly, I’d really appreciate you reading this.

This week’s news caught everyone by surprise as the mechanics of my and Jenny’s divorce had been sealed to avoid the boys having to deal with any of this. Leaving aside the unusual timing of supposedly sealed documents coming to light two weeks before an election – Jenny and I have both agreed that our efforts at raising our four boys are best considered and weighed privately, rather than over the airwaves. Though we may be public figures, we are still human figures who struggle just as so many other families and divorced couples do in getting childrearing right as best you can. It’s hard enough on its own and it’s nearly impossible when the media is sensationalizing things. I would also respectfully submit that they do a real disservice to the truth when they are grabbing for headlines.

By original accounts you would have thought I was randomly sneaking around the house at Sullivans, when, in fact, I was returning a son from a neighborhood Super Bowl party. I did, indeed, watch the second half of the Super Bowl at the beach house with our 14-year-old son because, as a father, I didn’t think he should sit alone and watch it. Given Jenny was out of town, I tried to reach her beforehand to tell her of the situation that had arisen, and met her at the back steps and told her what had happened under the light of my cell phone when she returned. There are always two sides to every story, and time will tell as to whether I made the right call in that instance as a father. What I know in the meantime is that the media does all of us a disservice in throwing these things to the front page as this paper did, before all the facts are known. I would just ask that you be a little bit more deliberative in making your judgments.

The second issue is even more problematic if you care about limiting government’s interference in your life, in how we get Washington spending under control and how we grow jobs in the Lowcountry. I say this because it seems like Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee have decided to try and buy this race. This week Pelosi’s committee, whose aim is to take back the U.S. House of Representatives put up $370,000, while the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee committed to spending another $200,000 – bringing their total “investment” in this race to almost $1 million. The question for taxpayers here is what would these Democrats “buy” with this million? Most folks I talk to say it wouldn’t be an independent voice, but rather a consistent voice for the Democratic agenda. Mrs. Colbert Busch has, in fact, rooted for the Democrats to take over the House of Representatives in 2014 and hopes to be a part of it – and among her most significant procedural votes would be her vote for Pelosi as Speaker of the House.

In the Democratic ads, they hit hard. Their ads are untrue. And it’s wrong to take a piece of something, leave out the rest and arrange it to tell something that is intended to deceive people. I have faults and they are well chronicled, but wasting taxpayer money or using it to my own purposes has never been one of them. Frustration with the way government spent money was what got me into politics, and trying to do something about it has been what’s kept me in it. As in every other area involving taxpayers’ money, I have worked hard to save it. We had the lowest travel expenses of any governor in the last thirty years and spent half of what preceding governors spent on travel. Yet, we brought in more investment to our state than during any other eight-year period in South Carolina history — $24 billion. WE also sold the jet and saved over $1 million. I was the only governor to use the single-engine Cessna to get around the state, and, in the process, saved taxpayers $60,000. We did things like discontinuing the relocation of the state plane and saved $70,000. The list goes on as we did many, many other things to save taxpayers’ money in travel and elsewhere, some numbering in the millions – others in the tens of thousands…but they were all about having government spend less.

And when the House of Representatives in Columbia (hardly a fan club) looked at all of the ethics charges, they cleared me of every single one dealing with business class tickets, every financial question and narrowed their questions to our judgment on five flights in South Carolina in the state plane over almost seven years. I think we get them right, but even if I was wrong on every one, context matters. They questioned 2 percent of the 350 flights taken and found no issue with the other 98%. I stand by our decisions that they questions, such as flying from Columbia to Myrtle Beach for the opening of the largest single tourism investment in our state. But rather than spending the last year-and-a-half of my time in office litigating these things, I just paid the ethics fine so I could focus on making the most of the time remaining. Refocusing paid dividends for the people of this state, whether with Boeing’s arrival or in $260 million in vetoes sustained in my last year in office.

The Democrats’ ads will tell you none of this, so if you have further questions, go to www.marksanford.com, call me at the campaign office at 843-764-9188, or even on my cell at 843-367-1010.

Our Republic is in real trouble, and unless we make serious changes in Washington, I believe there will be real consequences for our country and each one of us. I’d like to take all I have learned and apply it to fixing things, but I’m outgunned, outmanned, and outspend by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Nancy Pelosi’s PAC. I don’t think it’s right for these huge liberal spending interests to come in and try to decide the election for us, but the only way I can win this is for you to run your own campaign against them. I’d ask that you copy this letter and send it to ten friends or call ten friends every time you see one of their ads.

I can’t win without efforts like this. I need your help, and I need it now. The election is in two weeks on May 7th, so there is little time.

I will leave you with one last thought. In March of 1863, there was similarly little time. A South Carolinian by the name of William Travis drew a line in the sand with his sword and simply asked those who would stay and fight, to cross it. His efforts, and that of those who died with him there at the Alamo, ultimately inspired Texans to come to the aid of their brethren and defeat Santa Anna’s army though they were outnumbered at the onset by six to one. I’m outnumbered right now, but will fight to the end toward freedom and financial sanity in Washington to sustaining it. I’d ask you to cross the line and fight with me.


Mark Sanford (signature)


Paid for by Sanford for Congress

Has Mark Sanford Learned His Lesson?

Mark Sanford

Mark Sanford is poised to pull off one of the most impressive comebacks in modern political history.

On Tuesday he garnered 37% of the vote in a 16-person Republican primary, outpacing the second highest vote-getter by a whopping 24 points. He appears likely to clinch the party’s nomination for the special election to fill the recently vacated seat in South Carolina’s conservative First Congressional District.

In a twist that could only happen in the alternate universe of South Carolina politics, the 2009 scandal that ended Sanford’s marriage and torpedoed his 2012 presidential aspirations has served as a key prong of his comeback strategy.

He’s playing to the electorate’s Christian sensibilities with themes of grace, empathy, and forgiveness.

In his first campaign television ad released this cycle, a soft-spoken Sanford speaks plaintively of “a God of second chances.”

Before audiences he offers apologies and explanations perhaps best described as “verging on psychobabble” with lines like, “Our brokenness is indeed our connection.”

Prominent Republicans have argued that Sanford aims to convince the electorate that voting for him is tantamount to forgiving him.

“If Mark Sanford succeeds in making this election a referendum on the forgiveness of personal peccadillos, he could win,” said Walter Whetsell (an adviser to former state senator John Kuhn, one of Sanford’s now-vanquished primary opponents). “And that’s precisely his strategy since he does not want voters to focus on his other, more substantive misdeeds in office, like his broken term limits pledge, his being AWOL from duty and his record-setting ethics fines.”

A savvy politician parlays a dalliance and dereliction of duty once thought to be career-ending into a reason to vote him back into office. Mind-bending strategy — and it appears to be working.

But what do we really know about Mark Sanford’s journey in the months and years since his fall from grace?

Is he a changed man?

Can South Carolina trust Mark Sanford again?

Did he learn his lesson?

Consider what Sanford faced for deserting his post as chief executive of the state of South Carolina for a week and failing to communicate with his staff, his family, or his constituents in order to be with his mistress in Argentina:

So he suffered some consequences. But when most of us make grave personal mistakes and also break the law, we spend time in jail. We lose a job. We get voted out of office.

Perhaps it’s possible that Sanford has learned his lesson without more stringent consequences imposed upon him. Perhaps he was able to internalize his wrongdoings and “repay” the public for his breach of trust in his own way under the direction of his newfound moral compass.

How Sanford has spent his free time since he left office offers some measure of his priorities and whether he has learned his lesson:

Sanford retreated to Coosaw. “You’re wounded and you step away from life and you want that time alone. It becomes a very spiritual time, a very quiet time. A lot of introspection,” he says. “It’s not very productive in terms of the outer journey but incredibly productive on the inner journey.” Most mornings, he’d wake before sunrise and, at first light, swim in the river that runs beside the plantation. To fill his days, he undertook a host of construction projects on the property, including a bridge and a barn… he built a pine cottage to house twenty years’ worth of accumulated political mementos and memorabilia—a mausoleum for his political career.

But, Sanford says, “life starts coming back at you.” After a year and a half, he left Coosaw and moved to an apartment in Charleston. He did some commercial-real-estate deals and joined a couple of corporate boards. He popped up on Fox News to offer some political analysis. …

To recap: After leaving the governor’s office, Sanford retreated to his family plantation where he swam, had an 18-month “inner journey,” literally built a shrine to his own political career, joined some corporate boards, dabbled in real estate, and got a paying gig offering political commentary on Fox News.

You’d think that a guy who was so anxious to run for the next available public office and wasn’t facing the pressures of having to get a “real job” would have bothered to do something charitable over the past two years – even if only for the sake of repairing his public image. Given his apparent building skills, say, a Habitat for Humanity project?

In addition to Sanford’s deeds, we can learn from his own words.

One of the most impressive displays of Sanford’s arrogance in the fallout from his extramarital affair and tryst in Argentina was how — on numerous occasions — Sanford compared himself to King David. Here’s a clip of late-night comedian Jon Stewart skewering Sanford for claiming the mantle of the Old Testament leader and ancestor of Jesus Christ:


Nothing says “humble thyself in the sight of the Lord” quite like comparing oneself to God’s favorite anointed king!

In case you need a refresher on the Old Testament story:

King David, who was married to multiple wives and had several concubines, saw a married woman named Bathsheba bathing on the roof one day and lusted after her so mightily that he summoned her to his palace, slept with her, impregnated her, and then had her husband Uriah – one of King David’s loyal soldiers – murdered on the battlefield.

As a result of David’s bad behavior, God was angry with him. David repented, and God forgave him, but David’s actions did not go unpunished.

God sent the prophet Nathan to relay to David that the following consequences were forthcoming:

  • David’s child with Bathsheba would die.
  • Someone close to David (it ended up being his own son) would have sex with his wives publicly.
  • David would face continued turmoil within his own house.

All of those things happened, including the rape and murder of more of David’s children and extended family.

Mark Sanford seems to have forgotten the dire consequences part of King David’s story.

What else has Sanford said and done that might give us insight as to where his heart and mind are these days and how he may have changed?

Earlier this year he made a request of his ex-wife Jenny that doesn’t exactly suggest remorse or empathy, his favorite virtue du jour.

When the First Congressional seat became open earlier this year, there was speculation that Sanford’s ex-wife Jenny, who has a reputation as a shrewd political operative, would run for Congress herself. Once Sanford learned that Jenny was not planning to run, he went to visit her and proposed an idea:

“Since you’re not running, I want to know if you’ll run my campaign,” he said. “We could put the team back together.”

According to sources, Jenny Sanford was floored by the request. She’d just asked Sanford not to run himself because of the toll it would take on the family.

When she indicated that she wasn’t interested, he upped the ante:

“I could pay you this time,” Sanford said.

*  *  *

One of Mark Sanford’s greatest campaign assets is how telegenic he is. He comes across as modest and down-home on television, which is the only form of contact most people ever have with him. He’s taking his message of grace, empathy, and forgiveness straight to an electorate with a large percentage of conservative Christian voters, and that message is resonating.

But the grace that Sanford talks about sounds a lot like what German Theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer dubbed “cheap grace” in his book The Cost of Discipleship:

Cheap grace is the grace we bestow on ourselves. Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession…. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.

We can’t know what’s in Mark Sanford’s heart. Maybe he is a changed man. But what he’s said and done since his fall from grace — especially in his time out of the public eye — should give voters pause.

As former United States Senator Ernest “Fritz” Hollings has always said, “There’s no education in the second kick of a mule.”

Mark Sanford has already kicked South Carolina once.

One Big ‘Duh’: Haley’s plan to crowdsource public health policy

Last week Governor Nikki Haley announced that South Carolina plans to seek a waiver from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) for the purpose of limiting what can be purchased using federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits — known more commonly as “food stamps” — to a list of healthy items.

Hey, re-election season is in the air, and nothing fires up the Tea Party faithful quite like picking a fight with the Obama Administration. And a fight with the Obama Administration over food stamps? The campaign television ads practically write themselves!

Haley hasn’t actually proposed a serious plan yet to submit to the USDA for consideration. She knows she doesn’t need to submit a serious plan. She’s fully aware that any such plan to limit SNAP purchases will be rejected.

At least eleven other states have sought waivers from the USDA to limit purchases with SNAP to “healthy” foods in recent years – under both the Bush Administration as well as the Obama Administration – and none of these waivers has ever been granted.

In 2004 Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty sought to bar SNAP recipients from using benefits to purchase candy and soda in his state. The waiver was denied by the USDA for numerous reasons, including the fact that Minnesota’s proposed policy would change the definition of “food” as it’s written in the federal Food Stamp Act. It would’ve created administrative difficulties and uncertainty about regulation and enforcement too. (Interestingly, the Bush Administration’s USDA also warned of the risk of “the reintroduction of a stigma to participants and [perpetuation of] the myth that participants do not make wise purchasing decisions.”)

More recently, in 2011 Mayor Michael Bloomberg sought to prohibit the purchase of sodas and other sugary beverages with SNAP benefits in New York City. The USDA rejected the waiver on pretty much the same grounds — determining which beverages may or may not be purchased with SNAP benefits would be too hard to implement and enforce, and there was no way of knowing if a ban on purchasing sugary drinks would work anyway.

Difficulties in administering and enforcing potentially 50 different state SNAP schemes is a valid excuse for not granting these waivers, but there are other realities at play too.

Food manufacturers, retailers, and even big banks — which contract with states to process EBT transactions — are huge beneficiaries of SNAP, making millions of dollars each year through the system as it exists now. They exert tremendous influence through campaign contributions and lobbying to fight health-related reforms on the state and national levels. In fact, Nikki Haley has received close to $90,000 in campaign contributions from the food and beverage industry in the past decade – most of it since she began running for governor. Since the 2010 gubernatorial election, the American Beverage Association, the South Carolina Soft Drink Association, and Coca Cola have all been regular contributors to Haley’s re-election campaign-in-waiting — usually in >$1000 donations. (Contributions for statewide races are capped at $3500 per cycle.)

These folks are going to fight hard against any efforts to curb the millions of dollars in government subsidies that line their pockets via SNAP’s current scheme. Will Haley really push for reforms so damaging to her high dollar contributors? Maybe, but color me still unconvinced. Hand that feeds you, biting, etc.

What would Haley’s plan to reform SNAP look like?

Even if Haley knows — and we know — that a proposal to limit items for purchase with SNAP benefits will be rejected, let’s pretend for a moment that that’s not the case and that Nikki Haley also intends to submit a tenable proposal to the USDA for consideration.

A few questions concerning the Haley Administration’s plan to crowdsource state public health policy:

  • How would such a master list of foods and beverages be compiled?
  • Who would decide what’s on the list?
  • Would these people have expertise in nutrition?
  • How would the criteria for qualifying foods and beverages be determined?

When Minnesota attempted to disqualify “soda” and “candy” for purchase with SNAP benefits in 2004, the USDA noted that under Minnesota’s proposed criteria, a Kit Kat bar would not qualify as “candy,” but a Hershey bar would qualify as “candy” – because a Kit Kat bar contains flour.

  • How would recipients and retailers know what could and couldn’t be purchased with SNAP benefits?
  • Would there be a program to educate them? How much would it cost?
  • Who would be responsible for enforcing such a proposed policy? The USDA? SCDSS? The local grocery store cashier?
  • If the responsibility for enforcement were to fall on retailers, how much of a check-out delay would this cause?
  • Does the Haley Administration have the legal authority to seek to enact such changes without passing a state law?

According to this article in The State, Lillian Koller, Haley’s head of the Department of Social Services, envisions the process going something like this:

… Rather than a top-down request put together by government bureaucrats, (Koller) wants to hear from all sides of the issue in a series of public meetings. The waiver request will grow out of what state leaders hear in those meetings.

“I don’t think it’s been framed that way before. The power is in all these people,” Koller said in motioning to the variety of health advocates who had gathered at a statewide obesity task force meeting.

Their ideas will be gathered, along with those of food stamp users, food manufacturers and retailers. To Koller, the goal is simple and makes so much sense “it’s like one big ‘Duh!’” …

The meeting will help determine what purchases should and shouldn’t be allowed. Haley thinks it shouldn’t be difficult.

It’s like “one big ‘duh,’” y’all!

We’re only talking about $1.4 billion of SNAP benefits spent in the state annually and 45,000 items in the average grocery store! Surely we can knock out this itemized list at a few public roundtable meetings and expect the food and beverage industry lobby to roll over and play dead!

Side note: I attempted to research what I can only assume is Ms. Koller’s extensive work experience and expertise in the field of nutrition. Her biographical page on DSS’s website is completely blank, so it wasn’t much help, but I did find several articles detailing how she was sued in a federal class action suit at her previous post at Hawaii’s Department of Human Services — over her department’s failure to process and distribute SNAP benefits in the timetable dictated by federal regulations.

What should Haley do instead?

Haley is on to something: South Carolina does have a major obesity problem. A third of our population is obese, and the number of obese South Carolinians has tripled in the past two decades. It’s literally killing us.

As First Lady Michelle Obama highlighted earlier this week, the state of Mississippi launched an initiative several years ago to take on their state’s childhood obesity epidemic. They enacted a series of major reforms in public schools, including making school lunches healthier and increasing exercise programs. The state has seen a 13.3% decline in obesity among elementary school students since 2006.

I mean… if Mississippi can figure this stuff out, y’all? (And their Republican governor led the charge on this.)

Instead of wasting time grandstanding and focusing on unachievable red-tape Washington solutions at these roundtable meetings Haley has planned, why not use that time to bring community members together to solicit new ideas for addressing obesity in South Carolina — reforms we could enact right now that would produce measurable, achievable results?

What are your ideas?

Related Reading: Food Stamps: Follow The Money (PDF)

So, we’re back…

It’s been a while, y’all. Almost two years! I stopped writing when I moved to Washington, DC to work at a software company called Salsa Labs and then at a Democratic organization called American Bridge through the 2012 election. Back in South Carolina figuring out what’s next — hopefully something around these parts. Don’t know how much writing I’ll have time to do on here, so I’m not making any promises, but we’ll see. Hoping Mark will come back and write some more too.

Always good to come back home to God’s Country, and it sure seems like there’s still plenty of craziness to write about in the Palmetto State. Thank goodness!

PS – Looks like some of the social media widgets and whatnot aren’t working correctly and need to be updated. Let me know if you notice any functionalities that are buggy, and I’ll get busy fixing them.