Monthly Archives: January 2008

Sacrifice and religion: More Sorensen video

Following up today on stuff I didn’t have time to deal with adequately before Christmas, what with Mike being off and me doing the pages in his absence…

One ball I dropped was to follow through on my promise to deliver more video from my interview with Ted Sorensen on Dec. 20. Here’s a link to the much-better-than-mine video that Andrew Haworth of thestate.com posted that very night, covering the first part of the interview.

And here, from my dinky, low-res camera, are a couple of quick clips on other parts of the interview I found highly interesting. They are…

First, a clip covering the subject of my recent column challenging candidates today to challenge us the way JFK did. Since that was triggered by a JFK speech I had recently heard again, I thought it particularly apropos to talk with his speechwriter about the subject (The setup — my question — takes a while, but Mr. Sorensen’s reply is worth waiting through that to hear):

Second, we have Mr. Sorensen on the subject of another pair of speeches, both on religion and politics — Kennedy’s to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on Sept. 12, 1960, and Mitt Romney’s to a sympathetic crowd at the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library on Dec. 6, 2007:

Viewing that second clip myself today as I edited it, I realize that much of what was said was said by me (pretty much what I had said already on the blog). But Mr. Sorensen adds some nuggets of perspective that no one else could contribute, so I thought it worth putting this up anyway. Normally when I edit video, I cut myself out as much as possible — why bore my readers/viewers? This time, I didn’t see a good way to do that and keep the context. So, sorry about that.

What Kucinich saw on that fateful night

Got another nice message today from a nice person who is glad I’ve been advocating for single-payer, but disappointed in me for dismissing the viability of Dennis Kucinich’s candidacy:

I want to thank you for making the case for single payer healthcare and pointing out that none of the candidates except for Dennis Kucinich is advocating any real reform of our broken system.  I take exception, however, to your suggestion that Kucinich is not a "viable" candidate.  Polls consistently show that Kucinich’s views on the issues are most in line with what Americans want:  out of Iraq, single-payer healthcare, helping American workers and industry instead of China, immigration reform, support for small family farms and the middle class, etc.  And the UFO stuff is really getting old.  Why doesn’t anyone in the media mention that Ronald Reagan, beloved by many, also reported seeing an unidentified flying object?   Neither he nor Kucinich claimed to have an "alien encounter."  Yet you and the rest of the mainstream media insist on trying to marginalize Dennis Kucinich.  Why?  He’s a man of courage and integrity with bold ideas, and he’s only "nonviable" as long as you and other members of the media keep SAYING he is.  It’s time that people started taking Kucinich seriously.  He’s our best and only hope for this country, and he has my unwavering support and my vote.  – Anne O’Berry

Two quick points:

  1. I have larger objections to the Kucinich candidacy than the UFO story, as I’ve explained. In fact, I have defended him on the UFO thing. But when I was writing the original column, and had just written the part about how hyper-libertarians act like they "believe that ‘government’ is some scary thing that intrudes on their lives from out there somewhere, like a spaceship full of aliens with ray guns that will turn us all into toads or something," the UFO thing just made for a nice segue.
  2. Although I sympathize, today was not the best day to complain about the UFO thing, since it is actually back in the news. The WSJ dug into the story beyond the cursory quote we’d heard from Shirley MacLaine. Here’s a link, if you can get to it.

And if you can’t, here’s an excerpt:

    As they sat down to a dinner, Mr. Kucinich spotted a light in the distance, to the left of Mount Rainier. Mr. Costanzo thought it was a helicopter.
    But Mr. Kucinich walked outside to the deck to look through the telescope that he had bought Ms. MacLaine as a house gift. After a few minutes, Mr. Kucinich summoned the other two: "Guys, come on out here and look at this."…
    After a few minutes, the lights moved closer and it became apparent that they were actually three charcoal-gray, triangular craft, flying in a tight wedge. The girlfriend remembers each triangle having red and green lights running down the edges, with a laser-like red light at the tail. Mr. Costanzo recalls white lights, but no tail….
    The craft held steady in midair, for perhaps a minute, then sped away, Mr. Costanzo says. "Nothing had landed," he says. "No strange beings had disembarked. No obvious messages were beamed down. When they were completely out of sight, we all looked at each other disbelieving what we had seen."
    At Mr. Kucinich’s suggestion, they jotted down their impressions and drew pictures to memorialize the event. Mr. Kucinich kept the notes, according to Ms. MacLaine, who said he promised her recently that he would try to find them….

More on McClatchy

Since there was so much interest in this previous post about the WSJ piece on McClatchy, I pass on this link to a previous piece in Forbes. If you already read the WSJ piece, this one will hold no surprises. But here’s an excerpt:

    Holy smokes–what happened to McClatchy?
    Just a few years ago, industry observers hailed the newspaper company and its boyishly charismatic chairman and chief executive, Gary Pruitt, for growing earnings and producing solid journalism at a time when some of its rivals couldn’t accomplish either.
    The peak: March 22, 2005, when the company’s shares hit an all-time, split-adjusted high of $76.05.
    Then the industry turned and so did McClatchy’s fortunes…

Or did y’all just talk so much about the McClatchy piece because I wasn’t providing other fodder last week? Either way, enjoy.

A crankier Army

You may have seen this e-mail make the rounds already; I’m pretty sure I have. Samuel passed it to me (and many others, I’m sure) this morning:

DRAFTING GUYS OVER 60
New Direction for the war on terrorists. Send Prior Service Vets over 60!

I am over 60 and the Armed Forces thinks I’m too old to track down Terrorists. (You can’t be older than 42 to join the military.)

They’ve got the whole thing backwards. Instead of sending 18-year-olds off to fight, they ought to take us old guys. You shouldn’t be able to join a military unit until you’re at least 35.
For starters:

  • Researchers say 18-year-olds think about sex every 10 seconds. Old guys only think about sex a couple of times a day, leaving us more than 28,000 additional seconds per day to concentrate on the enemy.
  • Young guys haven’t lived long enough to be cranky, and a cranky soldier is a dangerous soldier. "My back hurts! I can’t sleep, I’m tired and hungry!" We are impatient and maybe letting us kill some asshole that desperately deserves it will make us feel better and shut us up for a while.
  • An 18-year-old doesn’t even like to get up before 10 a.m. Old guys always get up early to pee so what the hell. Besides, like I said, "I’m tired and can’t sleep and since I’m already up, I may as well be up killing some fanatical son-of-a-bitch.
  • If captured we couldn’t spill the beans because we’d forget where we put them. In fact, name, rank, and serial number would be a real brainteaser.
  • Boot camp would be easier for old guys. We’re used to getting screamed and yelled at and we like soft food. We’ve also developed an appreciation for guns. We’ve been using them for years as an excuse to get out of the house, away from the screaming and yelling.
  • They could lighten up on the obstacle course, however. I’ve been in combat and didn’t see a single 20-foot wall with rope hanging over the side, nor did I ever do any pushups after completing basic training. I can hear the Drill Sgt. now, "Get down and give me … er .. one."
  • Actually, the running part is kind of a waste of energy. I’ve never seen anyone outrun a bullet.
  • An 18-year-old has the whole world ahead of him. He’s still learning to shave, to start up a conversation with a pretty girl. He still hasn’t figured out that a baseball cap has a brim to shade his eyes, not the back of his head.
  • These are all great reasons to keep our kids at home to learn a little more about life before sending them off into harm’s way.
  • Let us old guys track down those dirty rotten cowards who attacked us on September 11. The last thing an enemy would want to see right now is a couple of million pissed off old farts with attitudes and automatic weapons who know that their best years are already behind them.

If nothing else, put us on the border and we will have it secured the first night.

Share this with your senior friends.
It’s purposely in big type so you can read it.

All Samuel had to say about it was "I am ready!" Me too, as I’ve said before.

Aesop updated: The Fable of Mitt and the ‘Sour Grapes’

Romney_2008_wart

An interested party with a certain other campaign pointed out to me the irony in Mitt Romney having duly sought the endorsement of a certain newspaper — the Concord Monitor — only to scorn that endorsement as something he wouldn’t have wanted, after he didn’t get it. Here’s what Mr. Romney’s campaign had to say about the Monitor‘s endorsement of John McCain (who so far has received about every endorsement a candidate would want):

GOV. MITT ROMNEY: THE CHOICE OF CONSERVATIVES IN NEW HAMPSHIRE
Liberal Press Disagrees With Real Conservatives’ Choice For President…

And so forth, yadda-yadda, with various quotations in the same vein. In an odd wording, the release claims that the Monitor‘s "Editorial Board Personally Attacked Gov. Romney." Golly, I hope he’s gonna be OK, don’t you? Anyway, you can see the entire release here.

It’s really sort of disturbing that a supposedly serious candidate for POTUS would engage in such mindless, vapid name-calling — saying "liberal" over and over, as thought that constituted an argument. It’s the sort of thing I usually see in the less-worthy candidates for the state Legislature — the sorts of candidates who are not plugged into their communities and their real concerns, the sort who are recruited and backed by out-of-state money that knows nothing and cares nothing about our state’s concerns. It’s just plain cheesy.

But there’s nothing remarkable about Mr. Romney acting as though he didn’t want the endorsement, after he sincerely went after it. We see this sort of Aesop’s Fable phenomenon quite frequently. We have several candidates who do that right here in S.C. in every election cycle. Right up until the day the endorsement editorial runs, they are as cloyingly ingratiating as an insurance salesman, and then (after they don’t get the endorsement they had wanted so badly), they act as though they wouldn’t have accepted the newspaper’s support at gunpoint. All of a sudden, it was the last thing they ever would have wanted. That’s another sort of cheesy behavior.

But campaigns do a lot of cheesy things. Here’s hoping that Mr. Romney rises above that level as he comes to South Carolina. I look forward to interviewing him for our endorsement. Like Messrs. Giuliani, Obama, Edwards and Mrs. Clinton, he has yet to set an appointment for that. And we need to get them set soon. We’ll only have about two good days to devote to the Republicans between the time they’re done in New Hampshire and the time we have to get the endorsement written and ready for publication.

We’re aiming for Sunday the 13th on that, by the way.

Caucus_countdown_wart2

That’s not OUR Kathleen

Trying to make my way through the bewildering number of e-mails that have stacked up while I was out, and I run across this one, which says it’s from Kathleen Parker, and has me totally befuddled at first — why would Kathleen Parker (the only I’m accustomed to hearing from occasionally, and whose messages I read with great interest) be telling me about such things as this?

We have an update on this situation.

The problems with the Bowl Pick’em were due to an oversight in the application that was not obvious when used by only a few sites, or just one site as  the code was originally designed for. The duplicate entries were actually created when a reader entered the contest on multiple sites. For now, we have deactivated the duplicate entries and the results should be available to be displayed now. The longer term solution of how to associate the multiple entries with each of the sites that the reader submitted them on is still under investigation.

But then I get to the virtual signature:

Kathleen Parker
McClatchy Interactive Customer Support

I keep getting messages from these folks at McClatchy Interactive because I have access to the guts of thestate.com. I have yet to receive a single one that told me anything I needed to know, yet my half-hearted efforts to get off this mailing list have been unsuccessful.

Do you suppose it would be advisable for me to suggest that this Kathleen Parker change her name, to keep me from wasting time reading these messages? I suspect she might take it amiss. So I’m trapped.

Oh, well. Another one to delete, just not as quickly as I’d like.

I just posted this to give y’all an idea of how I really, truly spend a good part of my day — not writing about the issues of importance to the world, but filtering through stuff that doesn’t concern me, but for one reason or another is difficult to ignore entirely. Sigh.