You’ll have to forgive Katy Stech at the Charleston Post and Courier … those new Boeing Dreamliner airplanes (which have yet to fly, btw) sure do look phallic.

Plus, it’s hard to find anybody, anywhere in South Carolina right now who’s not either fellating or tossing Boeing’s salad with everything they’ve got.

Well … except for the S.C. Policy Council, of course, which has bashed Boeing’s incentive package as a “bailout” and in the process (to borrow a term used by one of our favorite “movement” fiscal conservatives)  “stepped on a big ole’ pile of sh*t and tracked it all over the house.”

In fairness, we’re not exactly donning the knee pads yet either, in large part because we’ve got lots of smaller fish to stand up for – plus we know that the Palmetto State landing one major economic development announcement every decade isn’t exactly a record to be proud of.

Hence today’s announcement that South Carolina’s unemployment rate has topped 12%, again …

Anyway, from Stech’s most recent article, entitled “Boeing: the Future” (be sure to have paper towels available when you’re finished) …

Boeing Co.’s transformational influence on the Lowcountry will start with a mound of dirt today but have an immeasurable impact on generations to come.

The sheer scope of the aviation giant’s future $750 million plant, the largest private investment ever announced in the Charleston area, could change the economic and cultural fabric of the region.

Boeing’s plant will stand as the region’s largest building, a steel-sided fortress on the Charleston airport’s campus. With the footprint of 12 football fields, it could be seen through trees along Interstate 526.

Drivers will be able to peer into the fenced-in facility over neat landscaping and guarded entrances. The entire area around the plant will be redesigned for traffic flow with fresh turn lanes that will guide traffic into a black asphalt sea of parking lots.

Boeing’s influence likely will reach beyond the plant itself. Planes with foreign logos will be lined up on the airport’s tarmac. Students in schools will study the aerospace industry within direct sight of their future profession. Aviation suppliers will hum with orders to support Boeing’s operation. International workers and visitors will bring a cosmopolitan flair and flock to cafes and restaurants that will spring up to serve the plant.

Again, we read this story three of four times and frankly couldn’t find a line in it that the Boeing PR office wouldn’t have rubber-stamped … or written themselves.

Like the reference to how foreign visitors “could make their way down to King Street, filling the air with casual banter in various languages,” or the line towards the end that talks about about how “a company as big as Boeing could make residents who aren’t even directly connected to the facility feel linked into its pulse.”

Seriously, is this the friggin’ company newsletter we’re reading?

Then there was the whole entree into local government spin, in which Stech notes that Boeing “could be the nexus of a movement to revitalize blighted areas and build interconnected neighborhoods in which homes are mixed with shops, and transportation such as light railways.”

(gulp)

Light rail?

Sheesh.

Don’t get us wrong.  Boeing’s decision is indeed “transformative,” and you know we mean that because we absolutely detest using those ridiculous buzzwords.

We also hope it is every bit as successful as it promises to be, because this state desperately needs another success story like BMW.

But that, again, is our point.

Landing one big bear a decade does not a successful economy make … as today’s unemployment rate once again capably demonstrates.

With its public school system in the toilet despite massive funding increases and unfulfilled promises of “accountability,” perhaps South Carolina should consider following the lead of a Goldsboro, N.C. middle school, which was busted last week trying to sell grades.

From the Raleigh News & Observer:

A $20 donation to Rosewood Middle School would have gotten a student 20 test points – 10 extra points on two tests of the student’s choosing. That could raise a B to an A, or a failing grade to a D.

Susie Shepherd, the principal, said a parent advisory council came up with the idea, and she endorsed it. She said the council was looking for a new way to raise money.

“Last year they did chocolates, and it didn’t generate anything,” Shepherd said.

You don’t say …

In other news, is the Catholic church still selling indulgences?

No?

What about divorces?

We nearly sprayed a mouthful of Cheerios all over our computer screens this morning when somebody forwarded us an email alleging that when it comes to American TV networks, FOX News is the “fairest of them all.”

Are you kidding us?

If that’s true, then why has the administration of President Barack Obama been waging an all-out war against FOX?

Anyway, according to a report prepared by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA), it turns out that FOX really is the fairest.

From Forbes:

CMPA analyzed every soundbite by reporters and nonpartisan sources (excluding representative of the political parties) that evaluated the candidates and their policies. On the three broadcast networks combined, evaluations of Obama were 68% positive and 32% negative, compared to the only 36% positive and 64% negative evaluations of his GOP opponent John McCain.

In fact, Obama received the most favorable coverage CMPA has ever recorded for any presidential candidate since we began tracking election news coverage in 1988. The totals were very similar–within a few percentage points–at all three networks. (These figures exclude comments on the candidates’ prospects in the campaign horse race, which obviously favored Obama.)

Meanwhile, Fox’s Special Report was dramatically tougher on Obama, with only 36% favorable vs. 64% unfavorable evaluations during the same time period. But McCain didn’t fare much better, garnering only 40% favorable comments vs. 60% negative ones. So the broadcast networks gave good marks to one candidate and bad marks to another, while Fox was tough on both–and most balanced overall.

First of all, the people at the CMPA clearly have way too much time on their hands … and some serious self-loathing issues they obviously need to work on.  Seriously, people … we can’t think of anything we would rather NOT do than sit around all day and listen to a bunch of political talking heads (unless of course the head that’s talking is Jeri Thompson).

Still, the report goes on to examine the media’s coverage since Obama took office …

From Inauguration Day to Oct. 10, only 27% of Special Report’s comments on the president were favorable. That sounds like proof positive of Fox’s negative intentions. But if Fox hasn’t lost its anti-Obama edge, it has certainly lost its distinctiveness. During the same period only 35% of the evaluations on ABC, CBS, and NBC were positive. So from the administration’s point of view, Fox’s coverage has gone from being the worst of all to merely the worst among equals.

Moreover, distressing as it may seem to a president used to unusually friendly coverage, this negativity is surprisingly normal. CMPA’s earlier studies found that the broadcast networks gave almost identically negative coverage to George W. Bush (37% positive), Bill Clinton (34% positive) and Ronald Reagan (37% positive) during their first seven months in office.

These numbers are too similar for mere coincidence; instead, they represent a historical pattern. Based on the experience of the past three decades, incoming presidents should expect to receive twice as much bad press as good press and plan accordingly. In the modern era of media politics, presidential honeymoons end with the transition to power. Once they try to put their agendas into practice, Republican and Democratic presidents alike are fair game for a media anxious to tell the other side of the story.

We don’t watch network television, nor do we listen to talk radio.

Our limited brains can only handle a certain amount of information, and this week Reggie Wayne and Carrie Prejean are taking up hefty chunks of real estate that we don’t feel the need to otherwise devote to political whining.

Still, the fact that the non-FOX MSM was totally in the tank for Obama during the 2008 election is no secret.

Who cares?

As our founding editor noted in a recent speech, “if someone makes a good point – an argument that convinces you – does it really matter what network logo they have on their microphone?”

Oh, and speaking of stuff we’re saving room for in our imagination, that’s a very nice micro-belt, Ainsley …

Pic: Wide World of Women

The government entity which brands its recommendations as the “gold standard” for clinical prevention has issued some controversial new guidelines for breast health, which is naturally something we focus on closely.

Often a little too closely.

Anyway, what entity are we referring to?

Yeah … it’s called the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force, or USPSTF, and it’s a division of the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), which itself is a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).

Phew … talk about a mouthful.

Speaking of (tee-hee!), let’s get back to the point.

According to these alphabet soup researchers, women over the age of forty should undergo routine mammograms and all women should conduct regular self-exams.

At least that was until yesterday … when all of those recommendations were basically reversed.

Now, women are being instructed to (gasp!) stop all self-exams and to postpone getting routine mammograms until age fifty.

Sheesh.  What’s next?  Are they going to scrap the beloved “buddy system?”

Because that would be too much for us.

The cold, unfeeling (literally) logic behind these recommendations is that too many women are getting “false positives” – which result in costly, unnecessary biopsies.

So much for the whole “early detection saves lives” thing.

Needless to say, it didn’t take long for those who fight cancer for a living to come out swinging against the new guidelines.

“With its new recommendations the (task force) is essentially telling women that mammography at age 40 to 49 saves lives; just not enough of them,” the American Cancer Society said in a statement.

Some have also speculated that those evil insurance companies pushed the USPSTF to publish the guidelines because they’re sick of paying for the exams, essentially making this a form of health care “rationing.”

Others say the USPSTF published the guidelines to make people think the insurance companies are evil.

Either way, we’d like to state for the record our continued opposition to cancer, and our firm support of regular self-exams and the buddy system.  Oh, and of buddies letting us firmly assist them in their examinations.

It’s all about the greater good around here, people …

Rather than bugging you with relentless pop-up surveys and other invasive information gathering devices (you know, like those annoying “enter your email address to continue reading” type things), here at FITS our policy is to deliver the good stuff to your eyeballs as quickly and unobtrusively as possible.

That goes for our Sic Willie-approved original content as well as the daily recap of S.C. political news you get delivered to your inbox when you sign up for our Morning Blast.

Basically, we know that rule number one of the information age is to actually provide you with information – not set up barriers to accessing it.

Still, every once in awhile we like to find out (in a very generic and non-Big Brotherly way) who our readers are.

If you’re a regular FITS reader, we hope you’ll take a moment to help us out by answering our 2009 reader survey.

It’s only five questions long, and should take you less than a minute to complete.

Plus, once you’ve completed the survey and entered your email address, you’ll be registered to win a free $50 gift certificate from Barnes & Noble.

To fill out the FITS News reader survey, click here …

Didn’t know they had a Women’s Rowing team at Clemson University?

Neither did we, but thanks to our buds at Deadspin, the Tiger Crew (isn’t that what they call rowing teams?) has become internationally famous … and for something other than their strong finish at the “Head of the Hooch” last week.

What’s landed these girls in the spotlight? Ummm … yeah.

Sadly, Clemson’s Athletics Department has removed this Camel toe-riffic pic from its official Women’s Rowing website, which is really toe … err, too bad.

Anyway, expect attendance at the Clemson Regatta next March to be through the roof, people.  We know we’ll be there!  Coxswains that we are, and all …

Huh?  What the hell does that word mean?

Well, we asked our intrepid new reporter/ personal assistant/ voice mail diva/ advertising manager Ashley Hester to get on it, since the term apparently has something to do with today’s date – Friday the 13th.

Specifically, we requested 13 of the most readily-available facts about the date Americans

1. The fear of Friday the 13th is called paraskevidekatriaphobia, a word derived from the concatenation of the Greek words Paraskevi (meaning Friday), and dekatris (meaning thirteen), attached to phobía (?????) (meaning fear). The term triskaidekaphobia derives from the Greek words “tris”, meaning ‘three’, “kai”, meaning ‘and’, and “deka”, meaning ‘ten.’ the whole word means three and ten. The word was derived in 1911 and first appeared in a mainstream source in 1953.

2. The next instance of this appears on the calendar for the year 2015

3. In numerology, the number twelve is considered the number of completeness, as reflected in the twelve months of the year, twelve signs of the zodiac, twelve hours of the clock, twelve tribes of Israel, twelve Apostles of Jesus, twelve gods of Olympus, etc., whereas the number thirteen was considered irregular, transgressing this completeness. There is also a superstition, thought by some to derive from the Last Supper or a Norse myth, that having thirteen people seated at a table will result in the death of one of the diners.

4. Friday has been considered an unlucky day at least since the 14th century’s The Canterbury Tales, and many other professions have regarded Friday as an unlucky day to undertake journeys or begin new projects. Black Friday has been associated with stock market crashes and other disasters since the 1800s. It has also been suggested that Friday has been considered an unlucky day because, according to Christian scripture and tradition, Jesus was crucified on a Friday.

5. Black Sabbath’s eponymous debut album was released in the UK on Friday, February 13, 1970.

6. Friday the 13th is the highest grossing horror franchise in the United States, with approximately $614 million.

7. According to Smithsonian Magazine “fear of the #13 costs American a billion dollars per year in absenteeism, train and plane cancellations, and reduced commerce on the 13th of the month.”

8. The US Seal has 13 stars, bars, feathers in the eagle’s tail, 13 bars in one claw, 13 olive branches in the other.

9. The ill-fated Apollo 13 launched at 13:13 CST on Apr. 11, 1970. The sum of the date’s digits (4-11-70) is 13 (as in 4+1+1+7+0 = 13). And the explosion that crippled the spacecraft occurred on April 13 (not a Friday). The crew did make it back to Earth safely, however.

10. Butch Cassidy, notorious American train and bank robber, was born on Friday, April 13, 1866.

11. Fidel Castro was born on Friday, Aug. 13, 1926.

12. President Franklin D. Roosevelt would not travel on the 13th day of any month and would never host 13 guests at a meal. Napoleon and President Herbert Hoover were also triskaidekaphobic, with an abnormal fear of the number 13

13. Famous people with unfortunate links to Friday the 13th include Al Capone who was arrested and sentenced to jail on Friday 13th, Tupac Shakur who was killed in Las Vegas on Friday the 13th, Benny Goodman, the King of Swing, who died on Friday, June 13th, 1986, and the 38th Vice President of the United States, Hubert H. Humphrey who died on January 13, 1978.

2-Pac?  No way!

Somebody grab us a 40 of King Cobra, y’izzall.  Cause we-a gonna pour one out for our homie.  Oh, and Hubert H. Humphrey, too.

Two intense discussions have been percolating in the FITS newsroom over the last week, with the main debate revolving around whether or not it is worse for a participant in a monogamous relationship (editor’s note: balls in a jar) to have a physical or an emotional affair.

And yeah … you should have seen our notoriously infantile founding editor’s face at the mere mention of the term “emotional affair.”

“Is that something gay guys do?” he asked.

Anyway, let’s assume we all know what a physical affair is (to women, it’s just kissing – to guys, it’s penetration) … and let’s assume that the definition of “emotional affair” referenced below is accurate.

From Divorce Support:

An emotional affair is defined as any infidelity that occurs through feeling or thought. With the technological development of cell phones and the internet, the definition of cheating has been expanded to include the traditional definition, plus the feelings and/or thoughts that comprise emotional infidelity. Cheating now includes having intimate correspondence with someone while on a cell phone, meeting someone over the Internet and maintaining a close, personal relationship with someone other than your spouse.

Now … here’s the question … which is worse?

Virtually every woman we’ve spoken with answered immediately and unequivocally that an “emotional affair” was much worse.

“I can forgive him if he just stumbled once physically with another woman,” said one woman we spoke with. “I can’t forgive him thinking he’s found his soul mate.”

Hmmm … obviously S.C. First Lady Jenny Sanford agrees.

“You can only be emotionally attached to one person at a time,” another woman we spoke with said.

As for the guys we talked with, scarcely half of them even understood what an “emotional affair” was.

This discussion actually evolved Monday night as our founding editor and his wife engaged in a heated discussion following an episode of the CBS comedy, the Big Bang Theory.

In the show, a female protagonist invites her guitarist ex-boyfriend (something Sic knows a little bit about) to sleep on her couch – without asking her current boyfriend whether or not it was alright.

Foul! Right?

Wrong … well, for girls at least.

According to the women we spoke with, there’s a double standard here.  It’s okay for girls, not okay for guys.

Their logic?  It would be “harder for men to say no” if a girl staying with a guy decided to come onto him, whereas women have experience saying no to guys every day.

Hmmmm …

The arguments are out there … now it’s time for you to vote.  Also, be sure to leave your thoughts about the “sofa situation” in the comments section below!

In a visit that we’re pretty sure violated University policy regarding sexual predators being on campus, FITS founding editor Sic Willie somehow finagled an invitation to speak to a class of over eighty aspiring communications practitioners at the University of South Carolina’s College of Mass Communications and Information Studies on Wednesday.

Actually, Sic – who wore a nice Ralph Lauren button-up shirt and jacket (not his new University of Amsterdam hoodie) – was the guest of honor at Dr. Jay Bender’s Media Law and Ethics class.  The school even set him up with reserved “rock star’ parking and some nice parting gifts, too.

Anyway, the thrust of Sic’s attention deficit disorder rambling … err, remarks … revolved around the premise that none of the biases we typically associate with the Internet, network news, talk radio, newspapers, etc., really matter anymore.

“Some crusty old Supreme Court justice once wrote that the ultimate power of a thought lay in its ability to gain acceptance in the marketplace of ideas,” he said.  “So, if someone makes a good point – an argument that convinces you – does it really matter what network logo they have on their microphone?”

Sic also shared a few colorful anecdotes from his time in the office of S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford, and discussed his recent run-in with the Capitol Police up in Washington D.C.

There were a dozen or so questions, too, including one about the gubernatorial candidate whose alleged indiscretions lie at the heart of that run-in.

While not a command performance on his part (we blame caffeine), Sic’s after-action review with FITS ad director Ashley Hester quickly broke things down to brass tacks.

“So … which girl did you give too much eye contact to?” Ashley asked.

“That’s easy. Blonde, blue top, white scarf, third row … ten o’clock.”

“So not the girl you complimented on her shiny hair?”

“No … but she was hot, too, wasn’t she?”

Anyway, thanks to Professor Bender and his Law and Ethics class for allowing our favorite lawless, ethically-challenged “blogger” to pay them a visit …

And as for “white scarf girl,” what Mrs. Sic doesn’t know won’t hurt her, don’tcha think?  Seriously, she likes scarves …

EDITOR’S NOTE: Ouch! Honey … Kidding …

By 9:00 a.m. Wednesday morning – after we had received our eleventy kabillionth “Senator So-and-So Issues Statement On Veterans Day” email – our founding editor finally snapped.

“So help me God the next time one of these yellow-bellied, douche bag politicians sends us a friggin’ press release talking about somebody else’s courage and sacrifice, you stick a picture of a horse on my website and wish them all a Happy Veterinarians Day.”

Veterans … veterinarians … get it?

“That’ll show them,” he added.

That’s Sic Willie, ladies and gentlemen.  What a true lover of freedom, right?

Anyway, in addition to all you veterinarians out there who courageously sacrifice for the well-being of our animals – we would like to take this opportunity to thank people like Rep. James Smith (a Democrat who recently spent fifteen months in Afghanistan) and Rep. Ted Pitts (a Republican who is heading to Afghanistan in January).

If either one of those gentlemen would like to send us a press release commemorating Veterans Day, we’d be happy to print it …

The rest of you politicians?

STFU.

Oh, and happy veterinarian’s day …