Monthly Archives: March 2009

Never mind maneuvers…

11 Replies

Just watched the end of a movie in which Lawrence Olivier was strutting about in Napoleonic-era admiral’s uniform with an empty right sleeve, which could only mean he was portraying Lord Nelson. And there was Vivien Leigh talking about Lord Keith and St. Vincent and the rest, so I was hooked to the end of it. Saw a highly melodramatic rendering of Nelson’s death at Trafalgar.

As you know, I’m a huge fan of the Aubrey-Maturin novels, and Lord Nelson was Jack Aubrey’s hero. In the books, Jack is the one to whom Nelson said, “Never mind maneuvers, always go straight at ’em.” In reality, he said that to Lord Cochrane, upon whom Aubrey is largely based.

Here’s the kicker: After the movie, the guy who introduces the features on TCM said the movie was so chock-full of homilies about the importance of standing up to dictators that the director was summoned to Congress — still gripped by isolationism — where our lawmakers were investigating pro-war propaganda by Hollywood. He was scheduled to appear on Dec. 12, 1941, so he lucked out there. By his appearance date, isolationism was no longer quite the thing, you know.

Imagine that — Hollywood being investigated for pro-war propaganda.

I’d better go to bed now.

I infiltrate the unemployment system

25 Replies

How dedicated am I to my craft? This dedicated: with the conflict between the governor and the Employment Security Commission being a burning issue in our state, I went and got myself laid off so I could go undercover and find out how the unemployment system in this state really works. I'm a regular Alec Leamas or something. That's my story anyway.

I learned an awful lot about it today — so much that I'm too tired now to sort through it all; I'd be writing all night. But it will produce a lot of fodder for the blog in the coming days, I expect. For tonight, I'll just pass on this tidbit…

The State invited representatives from various agencies who provide unemployment services — Employment Security, Commerce, and another program that I need to go back and clarify under which umbrella it falls — out to the paper to get the 38 folks laid off started on filing for help in finding a job, retraining, and getting those checks the ESC processes if you don't find a job right away. (And believe me, those checks are so small that you don't want to be unemployed and dependent upon them for five seconds more than absolutely necessary; they're a tremendous motivation to find a job.)

I spent about three hours with these various folks, and took copious notes. And I want to say that they were all very helpful and knowledgeable and professional and encouraging, which really helped me learn a lot for only three hours spent.

But you should get a chuckle out of this part: Someone was explaining to us about WorkKeys. Do you know about those? Basically, you take a battery of aptitude tests, and you get scores on a range of skills, and employers tell the gummint they want X number of workers who have scored at least a 4 in each category, or whatever, and you get matched up.

The gummint administers the test for free, and will even help you get training to get a higher score where you're lacking. You get certified, I think he said, with a rating of Bronze, Silver, Gold or Platinum. (There aren't many platinums, he said.)

But here's the best part. He said, "You also get a certificate, signed by the governor, saying that you are work-ready."

Now see, if I'd known this yesterday when the governor called me, I could have saved myself the time it will take to take those tests. I could have pointed out that if anybody knows what I am capable of, it's the governor. He probably would have whipped me out a certificate of work-readiness on the spot. So I guess I missed my chance.

Have a heart, Mayor Bob

9 Replies

When I get home tonight I'm going to be in trouble with the lady who writes the checks at my house. She was already ticked that I got a parking ticket yesterday. One day I lose my job, the next I bring home a ticket. Her position is that it's not that hard to avoid them. I was determined not to get another.

So on the way into town, I stopped to get a dollar's worth of change at Food Lion. So I was set.

The following things happened:

  • I parked a block and a half from the federal building, but fortunately there was 54 minutes left on the meter, which was great. Despite my misadventures, I got back in time.
  • Then I went to get breakfast, and as I dug in my pocket for the four quarters, and it was empty. Yes, when I got my keys and phones and such out of the little tray after going through the metal detector at the federal building, I had left the quarters. So I ran in and ate and got back to my truck within 15 minutes, and no ticket. Good.
  • I had a lunch appointment with Bob McAlister (who has written a column that is sort of about me, which we will run online tomorrow) at the Summit Club (where he is a member and I am not, so I was his guest). I started to leave the office with plenty of time to get there, but I got slowed down by friends wanting to wish me well on my way out of the building. I finally got to the truck, and realized I had no change. I went back into the building, got two dollars worth, and another friend offered best wishes.
  • I parked in front of Trinity Cathedral. Figuring on an hour, I put in enough for an hour and twenty minutes (that is, a dollar), and ran to meet Bob.
  • One hour and twenty-four minutes later, I got to my truck and had a ticket.

I'm not sure what I'm going to tell Mamanem about this. It's not like I can sneak this by her; she keeps the checkbook.

You know, Mayor Bob (and council), you might lighten up just a LITTLE in this awful economy. I'm trying to keep the meters fed, I really am. But I can only move so fast sometimes, and I can only spend so much of my life thinking about making sure to have change in my pocket. I spent WAY too much time on that today, and still failed to avoid the wrath of Lovely Rita.

Get a Social Security card NOW

16 Replies

I've spent much of today in a series of meetings learning about the various services that the S.C. Employment Security Commission and other state agencies offer to folks in my situation. Yesterday, when I made the appointments, I was told to bring my Social Security card.

Uh… I haven't had a Social Security card for about 35 years, since I was in college. I don't know what happened to it. (At first, I said 25 years, but my wife says I haven't had one as long as she's known me, and we've been married 34 years.)

And in all these years, this is the FIRST time anyone has asked to see it.

Oh, I've meant to get it replaced over the years — at one point years ago, it occupied a "to do" list slot on my old Palm Pilot for more than a year before cleaned the list up and deleted it. I thought it might be important to have one at some time — theoretically — so I should get one someday. But it was very, VERY easy to put off. I downloaded the form once or twice, and even filled it out, but never got it down to the Strom Thurmond Bldg.

A few words about that form, which you can find here:

  • The actual form is one page. But there are four pages of instructions preceding it.
  • You can't fill it out electronically. You have to print it out, and fill it out by hand (with a blue or black pen), which to my mind is just a step or two removed from having to chisel it on a rock.
  • Not all of the answers are immediately obvious — to me, anyway. For instance, they want your full name at the top. Fine. Mine is Donald Bradley Warthen. Then, near the end, it wants you to state your name as it appeared on your old card. Well, I don't have the slightest idea, after all these years, whether that original card said my full name, or "Brad Warthen," or "Bradley Warthen," or "Donald B. Warthen," or "D. Bradley Warthen," or "D.B. Warthen," all of which I have used for various legal purposes in the past.

On that last point — I asked the guy at the window at the Social Security office, and he said it was OK that I didn't fill it out. In any case, he was able to confirm that it was my full name. So I worried over that needlessly. But the thing is, I DO worry about things like that, which is why I really HATE filling out forms, especially if there is no one at hand to ask such questions of. And when there IS someone to ask questions of, I drive them crazy. Because I can always see way too many possible ways to fill out a form. That's how my mind works. When I'm writing a column, I see lots of ways that it could go, lots of possibilities for each word of it — but then I just pick the ones I want. With a form, you have to pick the ones THEY want. What if I screw up? They might do something awful to me — like make me fill out another form.

I did that blasted form three times. Once, I messed up and put my mother's married name instead of her maiden name. Then I filled out another copy, and did it fine, but left it at the office — and I planned to go by the SS office on my way to work this morning. So I printed it out last night at home, and did it again.

Then, I started obsessing about my passport. Near as I could tell from the instructions, I didn't NEED that, since I'd had a card before. I just needed a photo ID. But what if I got an extra officious clerk? Wouldn't it be nice to have backup? I think I was feeling guilty about having let this go for 35 years, and I felt like they would make me pay for my laxness or something.

So I tore up the house last night looking for my passport, finally finding it at the very bottom of a box full of junk I had filled one time when cleaning out my briefcase and clearing my desk. It had a five-pound note in it (in case I ever took it to Britain). I wondered whether leaving the five quid in the passport my grease the skids when I presented it, but decided I'd better not.

When I got to the federal building this morning, my papers clutched in my hand, I emptied my pockets into a little tin plate before going through the metal detector. The guard looked at the itty-bitty Swiss Army knife on my keychain, and said "You can't bring that in here." I asked if I could leave it with him. He said no. I asked what was I supposed to do — I had had to park a block and a half away. He said it didn't matter what I did, as long as I left it OUTSIDE the building. So I went outside, took the knife off, and stashed it under a concrete bench. Then I went back in, and in those few seconds, a line of four or five people had formed at the metal detector.

One of them was a homeless guy (I'm assuming here), who had to take off two layers of coats and other stuff, with a discussion about each layer, and then still set off the machine, and they had to use the wand on him.

So by the time it was my turn, I was ready. I put in my two cell phones, my weaponless keys, my belt I was told to take off, a pen, and four quarters I had for parking meters.

As I was stepping onto the elevator to go to the 11th floor, my Blackberry rang, and it was Nikki Setzler, calling to express his condolences and support. I warned him that he might be cut off in the elevator, just before he was cut off.

Finally, I got upstairs to the SS office on the 11th floor. As you walk in, a security guard tells you to turn off the ringer on your cell phone(s), and if you have to make a call to do it out in the hall, then explains how to take a number. I waited in a short line to get my number, got it, and went to find a seat at the back of the room.

Seeing that there were several customers ahead of me, I did what I ALWAYS do when I have to sit still for a moment. I took out my Blackberry to get some work done — check e-mail, read this or other newspapers online, check my schedule for the day, etc. Trying to decide which was more urgent, it hit me that poor Nikki, my senator, had been cut off. So I called to apologize, and we talked for maybe 30 seconds, when the guard yelled across the room, "Sir! Sir! I told you no calls in here." I told Nikki I'd have to cut him off again, thanked him, hung up, and explained that I had misunderstood; I thought the problem was RINGING… then, as soon as I said that, I remembered the part about having to go into the hall if I needed to make a call.

I saw the sign saying no cell phones, and wondered why. Did it interfere with some delicate equipment, or did it just irritate someone? It's not like this was a restaurant or something (where I agree that phone talking is extremely rude). This was a busy waiting room. But I decided I was in enough trouble; no point asking "why."

So I started to check my e-mail, all the time wondering whether this would get me into trouble, too. And I glanced around my extremely institutional surroundings — saw the homeless guy and the other citizens, looked at the multiple windows and saw the electronic display with our numbers, heard the loudspeaker summoning the next number in harsh tones, and for some reason thought of the film version of 1984, with John Hurt and Richard Burton. I watched a big chunk of it one night recently online at Netflix. And I began to mutter inwardly to myself, "I love Big Brother. I love Big Brother…" Just to get my mind right, you know.

Then my number was called, and a very nice guy was helpful and assured me that I had filled it out fine. It was even OK that I had started to put my mother's maiden name AGAIN and scratched it out and corrected it. We talked a bit about music — he's really into it. And when he found out where I worked, he told me he had been trying to find something in old newspapers about a concert Led Zeppelin did in Tampa back in 1977. I offered to see what I could find for him, although urged him not to be too optimistic, since that was way before newspaper databases went online. He gave me his address. (And no, I wasn't currying favor with Big Brother; I do this kind of thing all the time. Over the weekend, my Dad and I played golf with a guy who flew jets in the Navy over Vietnam, who was asking my Dad if he knew how he could look up information on a guy he flew with who he thinks later went MIA. I interrupted to ask, "What's his name?" He told me, and I found a bunch of stuff about him — a Medal of Honor winner, by the way — on my Blackberry while we waited to tee off. I later e-mailed it all to him. I like doing stuff like that for people, and in this case it was truly an honor.)

Finally, my card was ordered. It'll take two weeks. In the meantime, the nice guy gave me an official document to prove my Social Security legitimacy, which came in handy later in the day.

Yes, there is a point to this story: If you've lost your Social Security card, go ahead and get it replaced. Don't wait until you need it. You don't want all that hassle at that time, no matter how much you love Big Brother.

Good job rejecting the tuition caps

17 Replies

This might sound strange coming from a guy who was already counting pennies (or quarters, anyway — I miscounted how many I had this morning in my truck, and ended up with a parking ticket because I didn't have enough for the meter), with my two youngest daughters still in college. And now I'm about to be unemployed.

But I'm glad the House rejected tuition caps at S.C. colleges and universities. I have an anecdote to share about that.

Remember the recent day when college students wandered the State House lobbying lawmakers on behalf of their institutions. They wanted the state to invest in higher education the way North Carolina and Georgia have. Either that day, or the day after, I had lunch with Clemson President James Barker, and he told me an anecdote he had witnessed: He said the students were pressing a lawmaker NOT to support the tuition caps, because they were worried about their institutions being even more underfunded — they hardly get anything from the state — some are down below 20 percent funding by the state, and the rest has to come from such sources as tuition, federal research grants and private gifts. Eliminate the ability to raise tuition, and the institution's ability to provide an excellent education is significantly curtailed. If we want lower tuitions, the state should go back to funding higher percentages of the schools' budgets, the way our neighboring states with better higher ed systems do.

The lawmaker listened to the kids, and then said with great condescension, maybe you kids don't care if tuition goes up, but I'll bet your parents would like a cap. He thought he had them there, but the kids set him straight: None of their parents were paying the bills. These kids were working their way through schools and paying for it all themselves. And they didn't want to see the quality of what they were working so hard to pay for be degraded by an artificial cap on tuition. The lawmaker had not counted on getting that answer.

I wish I had been there to see it, because I've been in a similar place before. Back in 95 or 96, Speaker Wilkins had brought his committee chairs to see us, and I started challenging the wisdom of their massive rollback of property taxes paid for school.One of them allowed as how he bet I was glad to get that couple of hundred dollars I didn't have to pay. And I answered him that I was ashamed that I was paying so little through my property tax to support schools that I knew needed more resources. He said smugly that he was sure I wouldn't want to give it back. I told him I didn't see as how there was any channel for doing that, but if he could point me to the right person who would take my money and see it gets to the right place, I would pay the difference. He didn't have a good answer for that.

It would be great if our lawmakers would stop assuming that all of us in South Carolina are so greedily shortsighted that we can't see past our personal desire to pay less money, and that we are corruptible by a scheme to starve colleges of reasonable support.

Can you believe this guy? (I mean that in a NICE way)

50 Replies

Sorry not to have posted today. Aside from doing the work I usually do to get the opinion pages out, I'm dealing with a lot of e-mails and phone calls related to my personal and professional news — mostly very kind and thoughtful (although not quite all — hey, you know my public).

When I came in this morning, I was going to write something about our governor's latest, which is pretty wild and crazy and outrageous. I decided the headline was going to be, "Can you believe this guy?" I was going to say, he only wants the stimulus on his terms? Oh, yeah, it's all about him, all right, yadda-yadda…

But before I could write it, I got a call from the governor himself, in which he was very kind and gracious — which actually didn't surprise me a bit. On a personal level, I think he's a fine person, even though I wish he weren't our governor. Can you follow that (because a lot of people have trouble with it)? I said so here on the blog back when we endorsed his opponent in 2006:

If we went on the basis of who we like, I'd probably have gone with
Sanford. I know him, and I personally like him. I really have to force
myself to look at what he's doing (and not doing) as governor and shove
aside the fact that I like the guy.

I mean, I was kidding around a little when I said I was willing to put my life in his hands back here, but I was also being serious. The fact is that on a personal level he is a fine gentleman. Hand in hand with the fact that he places WAY too much faith in the private sector is the fact that in his private LIFE I see him as a good father and husband and so forth.

Anyway, he was very gracious in saying this morning that while we have had our differences, he had a certain respect for me and my colleagues, and he went on to pay us a compliment that you might find curious, but which I appreciated.

He cited the Teddy Roosevelt saying that "The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena." Now, if I stopped there, you would think he actually meant to malign me and aggrandize himself, because here is the context of that portion of the speech TR delivered at the Sorbonne in 1910:

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

As you can see, it would be easy to cast me and those like me as the "critic," and the governor as the man in the arena.

But his purpose in saying that was to say that he sees me — and my colleagues on this editorial board — as also being in the arena, as among those who take risks, who strive valiantly, "who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause." I thought that was very generous of the governor, and perceptive, too — in that it's smart of him to know that I would LIKE to be described that way.

When I was 22 years old and starting out in this business, I wouldn't have wanted a politician to suggest I was in the arena. I was filled with all that J-school stuff about detachment and objectivity, and would rather have been cast as the critic. But along the way, I started to CARE about what happened to my community, my state, my country, the world — which ruined me as the kind of journalist I once aspired to be, but which I truly hope made me more useful to society. I have worked hard with that goal in mind — that of being useful, of trying to make a difference.

And I truly appreciate the governor recognizing that, and taking the time to tell me.

So, can you believe this guy? Only in this case, I mean that in a nice way.

The news about me (among others)

92 Replies

Well, as you can see, I am in the news today. In the morning you'll see a further message about me and about the editorial department from our president and publisher, Henry Haitz (I'll link when it's available). In case you
missed the news, here’s the short version: I’ll be leaving the newspaper after next
week, as my position has been eliminated in this company’s quest for deep
expense cuts.

I’m not sure what else to tell you, or how valuable such
commentary from me would be. As y’all know, I’ve tried to keep y’all in the
loop about the profound changes going on in this business, which have been accelerating
in recent days. I’ve written about everything from the departure of my longtime
friend and colleague Mike Fitts last year, to the really horrific news sweeping
the industry in recent weeks, with some newspapers going under entirely.

This has not a comfortable thing for me to do. For one thing
– I always wonder how much my readers will care. Someone I respected in college
– actually, he taught a course in editorial writing that I took – warned us
that when one talks about one’s own industry, one runs the risk of boring one’s
audience.

For another reason, I recognize my own lack of detachment in
writing about a subject that concerns me so directly. I’ve tried to be
completely candid, but I have to wonder how successful I’ve been. Finally,
there is such a delicate balance to strike between telling all that I know or
imagine I know, which is my instinct as a journalist, and respecting the
confidentiality of things I know only because I’m an officer of this company –
which gives me both an unfair advantage and a responsibility to those I work
with. It can be awkward.

Anyway, in spite of that, I’ve tried to keep y’all
up-to-date. Last week, however, I did NOT share with you the fact that my
colleague Denny Clements, the editorial page editor of the Myrtle Beach Sun
News, was losing his position. I just felt too close to it to address it
properly. I’ve known Denney since I was the news editor of the paper in
Wichita, and he was an editorial writer there. And while he and I have not been
personally close in the intervening years, I wasn’t comfortable getting into
that. Besides, it would have raised the natural question of what the
implications were for this newspaper, and I just didn’t know enough about that
to tell you anything, so I waited until now to mention it. Here’s how Denney
told his readers about it.

Now, as you can see, Denney’s situation was VERY close to my
own. My last day is March 20.

I leave here with a deep love for this newspaper, which I
hope has been evident over the last couple of decades. It seems to have been
evident to Henry, by the kind and gracious things he had to say about my
service in his note on tomorrow’s page. And I appreciate that.

What will I do next? I don’t know. Perhaps I should post my
resume here, and see what happens.

I can tell you this much – I have zero intention of
“relocating.” When I came to the state of my birth in 1987 after years in this
business in Tennessee and Kansas, I did so with the intention of staying for
good. My days as a newspaper vagabond were over. Either things worked out at
The State, or I would find some other line of work. And the thing is, things
worked out very well. The day I was interviewed here (for the job of
governmental affair editor) I told Tom McLean that my ultimate goal was to become
editorial page editor. I believed that position offered the greatest
opportunity to serve my state, which I believed needed its largest newspaper
to have a strong, frank, lively editorial page. I got my chance 10 years later,
and I could not be more proud of the team I have had the privilege of working
with, or the excellent job they have done – and which those who remain will
continue to do, if I know them (and I do).

Obviously, this is a stressful time, but beneath it all is
something that I don’t quite know how to describe, a sort of anticipation
driven by curiosity. I wonder, with great interest, what will happen next.
(That sounds either terribly trite or unintelligible; I can’t tell which, but I
explained it as well as I could.)

Anyway, that’s all I have to say about this today. Maybe
I’ll say more some other day. Oh, and if you wonder about the future of the
blog, or whether it has one – I don’t know. That’s one of a lot of things that
need to be figured out.

Stem cells and the Kulturkampf see-saw

36 Replies

Here's a place for those of you who are so inclined to comment on the Obama administration's new policy on stem cells. That is to say, the latest tilt in the Kulturkampf see-saw. Republicans get in charge, it tilts one way. Democrats get in charge, it tilts the other. And so it continues, even in the "post-partisan" era.

I don't know what to say about it myself because … I don't know; I guess I haven't thought about it enough or something. The partisans seem REALLY sure of their sides, and personally, I don't know how they can be. But maybe it's something missing in me.

I suppose I was relatively comfortable with the Bush position because, near as I could tell, it was a compromise. But then, if I'm reading correctly, the Obama position is ALSO to some extent a compromise, because some restrictions will remain. And yet it is touted as a total reversal, which perhaps it is. I find it confusing.

It's not something we have a position on as an editorial board, because on these culture war things we are often genuinely conflicted. Many editorial boards are quick to sound off on these things because they are more ideologically homogeneous than we are. For us, it's not so simple, and we generally prefer to use up our political capital with each other struggling over the very difficult issues facing South Carolina, which are tough enough.

Anyway, if you read the editorials of most newspapers on the subject, you might think that there is no controversy at all, that the Obama position is of course the right and true one, and you need to be awfully backward to think otherwise — nothing short of a triumph of science over the forces of darkness. Some examples:

  • The New York Times: "We welcome President Obama’s decision to lift the Bush administration’s restrictions on federal financing for embryonic stem cell research. His move ends a long, bleak period in which the moral objections of religious conservatives were allowed to constrain the progress of a medically important science."
  • The Boston Globe: "We applaud President Obama's executive order reversing the ban on
    federal stem-cell research, and the return of science unhobbled by
    political or religious considerations." (Actually, that quote is not from the editorial itself, but from the blurb summarizing it online.)
  • The Philadelphia Inquirer: "Americans are understandably divided over President Obama's decision to lift restrictions on federal funding of human embryonic stem-cell research. But he took the course that promises the greater medical benefit. In reversing a funding ban imposed by President Bush, Obama yesterday also took a welcome step toward restoring the rightful place of scientific research in guiding public policy."
  • St. Louis Post-Dispatch: "Federal funding is no guarantee that embryonic stem cell research will provide hoped-for cures to dreaded diseases like diabetes, let alone guarantee that any cures might come soon. But the executive order that Mr. Obama signed on Monday will clear away bureaucratic and procedural hurdles that have hampered that research. It provides an important new source of funding. Perhaps most important, it signals a new commitment to science ideals, free inquiry and open debate in American public policy."

The relatively "conservative" Chicago Tribune was more muted in its praise and even-handed in its presentation, but nevertheless expressed approval for the Obama move, saying the Bush policy had been too restrictive:

Sensible barriers to federal funding for cloning and the creation of embryos for research purposes remain in place. On Monday, Obama asked lawmakers to provide the support that will put the country at the forefront of vital stem cell research. It's now up to Congress to get behind the scientists. All Obama did was get out of their way.

And The Wall Street Journal? No editorial. But they did run an op-ed piece criticizing the new policy, headlined, "The President Politicizes Stem-Cell Research," with the subhead, "Taxpayers have a right to be left out of it."

That last point is one that one doesn't see emphasized enough, which is that this is not about whether research is allowed, but whether we the taxpayers will pay for it. And that's a legitimate conversation to have.

Another point that I would appreciate being updated on, and that seems to get ignored in the shouting matches, is the idea that the science has made the political argument moot, in terms of moving beyond the need for embryonic cells. That was the point made in this Krauthammer column a while back:

    A decade ago, Thomson was the first to isolate human embryonic stem cells. Last week, he (and Japan's Shinya Yamanaka) announced one of the great scientific breakthroughs since the discovery of DNA: an embryo-free way to produce genetically matched stem cells.
    Even a scientist who cares not a whit about the morality of embryo destruction will adopt this technique because it is so simple and powerful. The embryonic stem cell debate is over.

Was that wishful thinking on Krauthammer's part? Did that turn out to be a dead-end? Maybe some of you who follow the issue more closely than I do can point to something I should read to that effect.

Anyway, I'll be interested to see what Krauthammer says about it, if he addresses it. He has an interesting perspective for someone wearing the "conservative" stamp. First, to my knowledge he's not anti-abortion. Also, he is a physician by training, and he served on the Bush administration's Council on Bioethics, which HE maintains (and I'm sure some of you will disagree, although I just don't know) was…

… one of the most ideologically balanced bioethics commissions in the
history of this country. It consisted of scientists, ethicists,
theologians, philosophers, physicians — and others (James Q. Wilson,
Francis Fukuyama and me among them) of a secular bent not committed to
one school or the other.

Anyway, that ought to be enough fodder to get y'all started, if you want to discuss this.

Accountability, USMC style

5 Replies

Peggy Noonan had an excellent column Saturday that I hope you can read (since I'm a subscriber, it's hard for me to tell whether the links I post to the WSJ are subscriber-only or not).

It's about how the U.S. Marine Corps dealt with its own culpability in a tragic plane crash that killed civilians on the ground back in December.

Ms. Noonan's point was to contrast the way the Corps owned up and held its own folks accountable, contrasted to the finger-pointing and blame-shifting that we are used to seeing inside the Beltway, and in the corporate world.

I read it shortly after finishing my Sunday column, in which I decried the tawdry Beltway obsession with the partisan spin-cycle topic of the day, so the contrast was particularly marked in my mind.

Hope you can read the whole thing. At the very least, though, here's an excerpt:

    This wasn't damage control, it was taking honest responsibility. And as such, in any modern American institution, it was stunning.
    The day after the report I heard from a young Naval aviator in predeployment training north of San Diego. He flies a Super Hornet, sister ship to the plane that went down. He said the Marine investigation "kept me up last night" because of how it contrasted with "the buck-passing we see" in the government and on Wall Street. He and his squadron were in range of San Diego television stations when they carried the report's conclusions live. He'd never seen "our entire wardroom crowded around a television" before. They watched "with bated breath." At the end they were impressed with the public nature of the criticism, and its candor: "There are still elements within the government that take personal responsibility seriously." He found himself wondering if the Marines had been "too hard on themselves." "But they are, after all, Marines."

A secessionist Freudian slip

20 Replies

My favorite part of the concurrent resolution described in my last post is this:

Whereas, the several states of the Untied States of America, through
the Constitution and the amendments thereto, constituted a general
government for special purposes and delegated to that government
certain definite powers, reserving each state to itself, the residuary
right to their own self government. Now, therefore,

Yep, you read that right, and all I did was copy and paste if from the online text of H. 3509. It does indeed say "the Untied States of America."

Hey, if you can't break up the Union one way…

Nullification: Are we going to do it again?

54 Replies

Michael Rodgers over at "Take Down The Flag" is worried that we are, with S.C. House bill 3509, which seeks a concurrent resolution. And you know, you can easily see why he would think that, given such language as this:

Whereas, the South Carolina General Assembly declares that the people
of this State have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves
as a free, sovereign, and independent State, and shall exercise and
enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right pertaining thereto, which is
not expressly delegated by them to the United States of America in the
congress assembled; and
…

I found that "sole and exclusive right" bit interesting, with the way it seemed to brush aside the federalist notion of shared sovereignty. That language seems to go beyond the purpose stated in the summary, which is:

TO AFFIRM THE RIGHTS OF ALL STATES INCLUDING SOUTH CAROLINA BASED ON
THE PROVISIONS OF THE NINTH AND TENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION.

The point being, of course, that since we do HAVE the Ninth and 10th amendments, every word of this resolution is superfluous unless it means to negate federal authority in some way not currently set out in law.

And a certain neo-Confederate sensibility is suggested with the very first example of the sort of action on the part of the federal government that would constitute an abridgement of the Constitution under this resolution:

(1)    establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of
the states comprising the United States of America without the consent
of the legislature of that state;…

As Dave Barry would say, I am not making this up: The bill's sponsors are indeed suggesting that this resolution is needed to declare that we won't let Reconstruction be reinstituted.

Because, you know, that Obama is such a clear and present danger. Or something. I guess.

Of course, not everyone is shocked, appalled or amused at the notion of a new nullification movement. Check out this op-ed piece we recently ran online, about Mark Sanford and nullification.

Brave new world of political discourse

37 Replies

By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
ONCE, NOT so long ago, serious people decried the reduction and trivialization of political ideas to the level of a bumper sticker. Some days, I long for the coherence, the relevance, the completeness of bumper stickers.
    Let’s knit together a few of the unraveled threads that have frayed my mind in the past week, shall we?
    Thread One: A Colorado congressman who takes pride in his technological savvy claimed partial “credit” for the demise of a newspaper, saying, “Who killed the Rocky Mountain News? We’re all part of it, for better or worse, and I argue it’s mostly for the better…. The media is dead and long live the new media.”
    Thread Two: Last week, I started working out again. I can’t read when I’m on the elliptical trainer because I bounce up and down too much, so I turn on the television. This gives me an extended exposure to 24/7 TV “news” and its peculiar obsessions, which I normally avoid like a pox. I hear far more than I want to about Rush Limbaugh, who wants the country’s leadership to fail, just to prove an ideological point. The president’s chief of staff dubs this contemptible entertainer the leader of the president’s opposition. Even more absurdly, the actual chief of the opposition party spends breath denying it — and then apologizes for doing so. See why I avoid this stuff?
    Thread Three: Two of the most partisan Democrats in the S.C. Senate, John Land and Brad Hutto, introduce a mock resolution to apologize to Rush on behalf of South Carolina so that our state doesn’t “miss out on the fad that is sweeping the nation — to openly grovel before the out-spoken radio host.” The Republican majority spends little time dismissing the gag, but any time thus spent by anyone was time not spent figuring out how to keep essential state services going in this fiscal crisis.
    Thread Four: At midday Thursday I post on my blog a few thoughts about the just-announced candidacy of U.S. Rep. Gresham Barrett for governor, and invite readers to share what they think of the Upstate Republican. As of mid-afternoon Friday, there were nine comments on the subject, and three of them were from me. By the same time, there were 66 comments about the Rush Limbaugh flap.
    Thread Five: A colleague brings to my attention a new Web site called SCTweets, where you can read spontaneous “Twitter” messages from such S.C. politicians as Anton Gunn, David Thomas, Bob Inglis, Nathan Ballentine and Thad Viers, with a number of S.C. bloggers thrown in. It’s the brainchild of S.C. Rep. Dan Hamilton and self-described GOP “political operative” Wesley Donehue (which would explain why Rep. Gunn is the only Democrat on the list I just cited). They see it as “a creative way to showcase SC’s tech-savvy elected officials.” It sounds like a neat idea, but when you go there and look at it… well, here’s a sample:

bobinglis Want a window into our campaign themes? Check out my recent letter at http://wurl.ws/9coX Join us if you can!

annephutto had a great lunch

AntonJGunn Having lunch with the Mayor of Elgin.

mattheusmei Prepare to have your mind blownaway http://tinyurl.com/b6w8w9 #sctweets, simply amazing!!!

RobGodfrey Beautiful day in Columbia. #sctweets

thadviers just had lunch with little Joe at Jimmy Johns.

    Perhaps this will be useful to someone, and I applaud Messrs. Hamilton and Donehue for the effort. But so far I haven’t figured out what Twitter adds to modern life that we didn’t already have with e-mail and blogs and text-messaging and, well, the 24/7 TV “news.” Remember how I complained in a recent column about how disorienting and unhelpful I find Facebook to be? Well, this was worse. I felt like I was trying to get nutrition from a bowl of Lucky Charms mixed with Cracker Jack topped with Pop Rocks, stirred with a Slim Jim.
    Thread Six: Being reminded of Facebook, I checked my home page, and found that a friend I worked with a quarter-century ago was exhorting me to:

* Grab the book nearest you. Right now.
* Turn to page 56.
* Find the fifth sentence.
* Post that sentence along with these instructions in a note to your wall.

    I followed his instructions. The book nearest to my laptop was the literally dog-eared (chewed by a dog that died three decades ago) paperback Byline: Ernest Hemingway. Here’s the fifth sentence on page 56:
“He smiled like a school girl, shrugged his shoulders and raised his hands to his face in a mock gesture of shame.”
    Not much without context, but you know what? I got more out of that than I got out of that Twitter page. At least I formed a clear, coherent picture of something.
    I just remembered that I said I would knit these threads together. OK, here goes:
    It occurs to me that Twitter and Facebook are the bright new world that the Colorado congressman who claims credit for killing The Rocky Mountain News extolled. In this world, political discourse consists of partisans prattling about talk show hosts and elected officials casting spontaneous sentence fragments into the dusty, arid public square.
    I was going to write a column for today about Congressman Barrett’s candidacy for governor. As I mentioned a couple of weeks back when I wrote about Sen. Vincent Sheheen entering the race, I’m trying to get an early start on writing as much as possible about that critical decision coming up in 2010, in the hope that if we think about it and talk about it enough, we the people can make a better decision than we have the past few elections.
    But I got distracted.
    I’ll get with Rep. Barrett soon; I promise. And I’ll try to write about it in complete sentences, for those of you who have not yet adjusted.

For links and more, please go to thestate.com/bradsblog/.

Bothering seagulls

8 Replies

My wife and I were walking on the beach this afternoon, and we saw this flock of seagulls — the birds, not the guys with the weird hair — snoozing on the dry sand, up above the tide line. It was cool walking into the wind, warm walking with it.

My wife mentioned that if Morgan were with us, she'd be scattering the gulls. That was one of her favorite activities. You remember Morgan — I wrote about her back here. Best dog ever.

Anyway, the gulls seemed to be in such a torpor there in the sun that I thought they might let me get really close with the camera. Which they did, although their patience had a limit.

No, I didn't hurt them, so get outta my face. I just thought they were beautiful, and wanted to photograph them. Is that so wrong?

By the way — a few feet away from the gulls was this concentrated pile of shells. They could not have collected this way on their own. My wife's theory is that someone, probably a child, had accumulated this collection in a pail, but had brought them back to the beach and deposited them here.

Giving back to the beach — I liked that thought.

I spent everything I had for this hat

8 Replies

Finding myself at the Surfside Pier this afternoon, and having forgotten to bring a hat (having the sun glaring down in the gap over my shades drives me nuts), it occurred to me that I had never, in all these years, bought a hat that said "Surfside Beach."

And "all these years" is a lot of years. My grandfather bought two lots down here in about 1957. He built a little cottage on one of them. In about 1968, he built a house on the other lot, which is on a freshwater lake about two blocks from the ocean. He sold the other one to a friend of the family, and the lady lived there for about the next 30 years. Then it was sold and torn down to make way for TWO houses of the tall, skinny, stilted variety that started cropping up around here about 15 years ago. Here's a coincidence for you — Tim Kelly has stayed in one of those houses, which are right across the street from the "new" house. Very small world.

Anyway, needing a hat, I spotted this beauty. I hope you like it, because it cost $8.99 plus tax (see the price tag still on it, my little tribute to Minnie Pearl), and I only had a sawbuck in my wallet.

In fact, I had to take $2 out of my wife's purse to buy coffee at this coffee shop so I could come post this. I didn't want the coffee, but you have to have cover. Speaking of cover, as I've mentioned before, this coffee shop is actually sort of a front. The real business is a commercial bakery in the back. Zoning rules required that it be a retail business, so they put in the coffee shop as a sort of retail fig leaf. A few minutes ago, the young counterwoman said she was leaving, but I didn't have to leave; I should just let the guy in the back know when I leave. Very casual. I'm glad I'm not keeping her, the way the old man did the waiter in "A Clean, Well-Lighted Place." She had enough on her mind because she was trying to keep tabs on a little boy out in front of the cafe, in the bright sunlight. She had to keep telling him to get out of the street. She had been sitting in the sun in front of the place when I arrived, and it was easier to keep track of the boy that way, so I felt bad that she had to come in on my account. I felt worse that she had to brew decaf for me. She said she didn't mind. But it occurs to me that she would have been perfectly happy if I had just come in to use the internet connection rather than insisting on buying something. Since the main business is in the back and all.

She's getting married soon, so I congratulated her.

By the way, I didn't really come in just to post this. I came in to get my column ready to post tomorrow. What, you think I don't have better things to do?

This is worse than Facebook

17 Replies

You know how I've complained about how I just don't get Facebook — that I find it disorienting, and just generally a lousy way to communicate information?

Well, I've found a worse way — Twitter.

Have you seen this new site that S.C. Rep. Dan Hamilton and self-described GOP "political operative" Wesley Donehue have started, SCTweets? Basically, its point is:

…to find a creative way to showcase SC’s tech-savvy elected officials.
Specifically, we expect the Statehouse crew to be twittering a lot from
the floor and we thought it would be cool to see what they were saying.
That goal somehow expanded and we decided to showcase all South
Carolina politicos with our directory. We then gave them a way to
interact through #sctweets.

Look, I don't mean to criticize Messrs. Hamilton and Donehue at all. I appreciate the effort. Go for it. But when I try to obtain any sort of information of value from a series of incomplete, typo-ridden sentence fragments from a bunch of people ranging from Anton Gunn to David Thomas to Bob Inglis to Nathan Ballentine to Thad Viers, with a lot of Blogosphere usual suspects such as Mattheus Mei thrown in, I feel like I've trying to get nutrition from a bowl of Lucky Charms mixed with Cracker Jack with cotton candy and Pop Rocks on top, stirred with a Slim Jim. Just a jumble of junk.

The "authors" aren't to blame. It's the medium. I'm still waiting to find any value in this Twitter thing. I suspect I'll be waiting a long time.

What do I consider to be GOOD way to communicate information? Well, here's a coincidence: I actually looked at my Facebook page this morning, and as usual got little out of it. But I noticed where a friend I worked with a quarter-century ago posted something that seemed a deliberate illustration of the incoherence of Facebook. He exhorted readers to:

* Grab the book nearest you. Right now.
* Turn to page 56.
* Find the fifth sentence.
* Post that sentence along with these instructions in a note to your wall.

So I followed his instructions (except for the posting part). The book nearest to my laptop was the literally dog-eared (chewed by a dog that died three decades ago) paperback Byline: Ernest Hemingway. Here's the fifth sentence on page 56 (if you count the incomplete, continued sentence at the top of the page as the first):

"He smiled like a school girl, shrugged his shoulders and raised his hands to his face in a mock gesture of shame."

And you know what? I got more out of that than I got out of that Twitter page. At least I formed a clear, coherent picture of something.

It occurs to me that Twitter is the bright new world that that Colorado congressman who claims credit for killing The Rocky Mountain News extols. And then it occurs to me that to the extent he is right, to the extent that this is the future of political communication, we are in a lot of trouble int his country…

$41 million for SC, and everybody’s in on it

15 Replies

You get used to press releases from congressional offices in which Rep. This or Sen. That announces that his district or state is going to get X amount of federal largesse. Even when the member had nothing to do with it, by announcing it, he gets credit. It's routine.

But this one was so big that the president and the veep had to get in on it, which is something new for me:

President Obama, Vice President Biden, U.S. Transportation

Secretary LaHood, Announce Availability of Nearly $41.2 million in Public Transportation Investments for South Carolina

More than $8 Billion Made Available
Across the Country for Mass Transit

President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today announced the availability of $41,154,218 from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) for South Carolina in public transportation funding.  The funding was part of $8.4 billion made available to repair and build America’s public transportation infrastructure.
    “All over the country, resources are being put to work not only creating jobs now – but also investing in the future. A future that strengthens our transit system, makes us more energy efficient and increases safety,” said Vice President Joe Biden.  “With this recovery package, we will be creating jobs, saving jobs, and putting money in people’s pockets. And with these resources, we’ll not only be rebuilding roads and bridges and schools, we’ll be rebuilding America.”
    “Investments in public transportation put people to work, but they also get people to work in a way that moves us towards our long term goals of energy security and a better quality of life,” said Secretary LaHood.  “That is why transit funding was included in the ARRA and why we think it is a key part of America’s transportation future.”
    The U.S. Department of Transportation has already committed $540 million in federally financed loans, about one-third of the total cost, for the intermodal center, which is proceeding on time and on budget.
    The U.S. Department of Transportation will monitor state compliance and track job creation. The projects will be web-posted for the public to see with information on projects accessible at www.recovery.gov.

###

S.C. Dems loving them some Rush

59 Replies

Just in case you doubt what I say about how partisan Democrats' symbiotic, co-dependent relationship with Rush Limbaugh, note this gleeful ode of adoration from from Brad Hutto and John Land, who are probably the most unapologetically partisan Democrats in the S.C. Senate:


South Carolina
Senate Democratic Caucus

For Immediate
Release


March 5,
2009

 

SC Senate
Democratic Leaders Introduce Advance-Apology Resolution for
Limbaugh

Senators
Land and Hutto call for Pre-Emptive Apology before the fad
ends

 Columbia, SC – South Carolina's two
leading Senate Democrats introduced a resolution in the state Senate today
offering advance apologies to conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh.  Senator John C. Land, III (D-Manning) and
Senator Brad Hutto (D-Orangeburg)
said if the Palmetto State does not pass this resolution, politicians who
criticize Limbaugh in the future will miss out on the fad that is sweeping the
nation – to openly grovel before the out-spoken radio host.

     "If we wait much longer, apologizing to Rush Limbaugh will go the
way of rapper Vanilla Ice and
the Chia Pet," said Sen.
Hutto.  "We need to be pro-active on this
Rush-apology fad.  We need to be out in
front on this."

     The resolution follows South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford's
comments last week referring to Rush Limbaugh as an "idiot" for Limbaugh's
declaration hoping President Barack Obama, and his administration,
'fail'.

     "Anybody who wants [Obama] to fail is an
idiot." Sanford said in an interview with Real Clear
Politics on February 25.  Sanford did not apologize for the remark that
was directed at Limbaugh but was rebuked by the radio host.
    Sanford's remark was followed by
newly-elected Republican National Committee Chairman, Michael Steele
calling Limbaugh's talk show "incendiary" and "ugly" last Saturday on
CNN.  Steele did apologize for his
remarks.

     "With all these Republicans groveling before their Party's new
standard-barer, I think everyone needs  to go ahead and get the apologies out of the
way so we can finally have a real dialogue about moving our state and country
forward.  Besides, I may want to quote
lines from Al Franken's book, Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot, and I don't want
to be burdened by the need to say 'I'm sorry'. 
I may even feel the need to quote the title of the book one day," said
Sen. Land. 

     The resolution was pulled following objections by GOP members of
the state Senate.

 

(copy of resolution below)

A
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 

Whereas,
Rush Limbaugh clearly speaks for the common man of America with wisdom that has
developed through the firsthand experience of flying across our fine country and
looking down from his private jet;

 

Whereas,
Rush Limbaugh has employed the principles championed by the Republican Party in
his personal life to pull himself through an addiction to prescription
medication by his own bootstraps; and

 

Whereas,
Rush Limbaugh is the preeminent political talk radio host and de facto leading
voice of the national Republican Party and conservative movement; and

 

Whereas,
Rush Limbaugh, on multiple occasions, has publicly wished failure upon President
Obama and his administration and, in response, was tacitly called an "idiot" by
Governor Mark Sanford and admonished by Michael Steele, the chairman of the
Republican National Committee; and

 

Whereas,
Chairman Steele, who has apologized on multiple occasions, has been
at the forefront of a massive wave of apologies to Rush Limbaugh;
Now, therefore,

 

Be
it resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives
concurring:

 

That
the members of the General Assembly, by this resolution, in recognition
of the statements from Governor Sanford and Chairman Steele and in an attempt to
prevent the State of South Carolina from having to take a position in the rear
of the ever growing line of those wishing to apologize to Rush Limbaugh, hereby
apologize to Rush Limbaugh for all past transgressions which have originated
from any person in, or associated with, the State of South Carolina and
preemptively apologize for any future
transgression.

 

Be
it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to Mr. Rush
Limbaugh.

‑‑‑‑XX‑‑‑‑

Need I say more?

Political parties are just SO unbelievably obnoxious….

What about Gresham Barrett?

9 Replies



Either today or tomorrow I'm going to call and talk to Gresham Barrett about his candidacy for governor, for the purposes of a column — like the one I did on Vincent Sheheen. As I've indicated, I plan to focus on candidates for this job early, and give you, the voter, as much information as I can about each of them, so that you can make a better choice than we, the people, have made in the last few gubernatorial elections.

Assuming, of course, that we're offered a better choice — and frankly, we haven't had a really good one since Joe Riley just barely lost the runoff in the Democratic primary in 1994. And maybe, if I shed enough light on the subject, it will encourage good candidates to run this time. Don't ask me how my shedding light will accomplish that — admittedly, it's a fuzzy concept — but I feel compelled to do all I can to help us get better leadership, and all I really know how to do is shed light. ("It's what I do, darlin'," as Captain Mal said to River Tam, about robbing payrolls.)

In that same vein, I recently posted what I had on dark horse candidate Brent Nelson.

I find myself at a slight disadvantage in the case of Rep. Barrett. I just haven't had very many dealings with him. This morning, off the top of my head, I compiled a list of what little I know about him:

  • Like Bobby Harrell, he was critical of the job that Mark Sanford's Commerce Department had done with regard to developing the state's economy. When he came to see us one day in 2005 (which may be the last time I sat and talked with him, although we've talked by phone more than once since then) that's one of the things we talked about, because there had been a story that morning in The Greenville News (sorry, the link is no longer available) in which he had said "more could be done" by the governor to help the state's economy. He wasn't OVERTLY picking a fight with the governor, but he WAS disagreeing with him about such things as the role of our research universities in boosting the economy.
  • He was an early supporter of Fred Thompson for president.
  • He's an enthusiastic backer of nuclear power, particularly of the idea of generating power from the Savannah River Site. As often as not when I've talked to him, that's what he's wanted to talk about.
  • He voted against the TARP bailout, before he voted for it.
  • He was dubbed one of the 10 "Most Beautiful People on Capitol Hill" by The Hill, which frankly caused me to lose whatever respect I had for that publication. The photo above is the one they offered to support their insupportable case. His staffer Brooke Latham, yeah. Absolutely. In fact, I wondered why she was rated only No. 2 on the list, going by the picture. But Gresham Barrett? Come on. And this is not just glandular bias, although I would argue that if you really listed the 50 most beautiful people on the Hill without any regard to gender, they would all be young women. Why? Because the system tend to attract, and choose for employment, attractive young women. Whereas there is NO mechanism in place to reward and promote physical attractiveness in males, at least not to the same degree. Yeah, there are a few gay members of congress hiring pages I suppose, and politicians as a class sometimes tend to look like TV newscasters, but the phenomenon whereby attractive, nubile women are drawn to halls of power would tend to overwhelm such other factors. Anyway, correct me if I'm wrong, but Mr. Barrett looks about as average as they come. Which is not to cast aspersions.

And that's pretty much it. Other than those things, he has struck me, to the extent that he has struck me at all, as a vanilla Southern Repubican in Congress, neither better nor worse than the average. He has not stood out. Of course, he has seemed somewhat more engaged — watching from afar — in the business of Congress than Mark Sanford was when he was there, but that's not saying much of anything at all.

So I look forward to learning more about him, and sharing that with you.

In the meantime, here's today's news story about his candidacy, here's his still-under-construction Web site, and here's the full text of his first campaign press release:

For Immediate Release
Wednesday, March 4, 2009                                                                                        

GRESHAM BARRETT ANNOUNCES BID FOR GOVERNOR

Third District Congressman Will Seek Republican Nomination

WESTMINSTER, S.C. – In a video posted on his website, www.greshambarrett.com, and in an email to the voters of South Carolina, U.S. Congressman Gresham Barrett announced his candidacy for Governor of the Palmetto State in 2010.
    In the video entitled “Opportunity,” Congressman Barrett said, “I learned my values from my family’s furniture store in Westminster and from the Citadel in Charleston: hard work, community, and commitment to causes greater than self.”
    Congressman Barrett also wrote the voters saying, “I believe South Carolina has tremendous potential, despite our serious challenges. I feel God has blessed me with strong experiences – in running a small business, raising a family, serving in our military, and leading in elected office– that give me a unique conservative perspective on the challenges we face and how to fix them. I believe I have certain strengths in these uncertain times. And I believe we have to hold on to our conservative values, and change the things that hold us back… I am excited about this campaign, and honored to have the opportunity to share my vision for a more prosperous South Carolina with the hard-working people of our great state.”
    Barrett named Travis Butler as his campaign Treasurer of Barrett for Governor.  Mr. Butler is President of Butler Properties and Development. 
    Currently, Gresham Barrett represents the people of South Carolina’s Third District in the United States House of Representatives. Barrett earned his undergraduate degree from The Citadel. He served four years in the United States Army before resigning his commission as a Captain in order to return to his hometown of Westminster, South Carolina where he would later run the family’s furniture store. Prior to his election to the U.S. Congress, Gresham Barrett served three terms in the South Carolina House of Representatives where he fought for numerous pro-family and pro-economic growth initiatives. Gresham and his wife of 24 years, Natalie, have three children Madison, Jeb, and Ross.

Note: To view Congressman Barrett’s announcement video entitled, “Opportunity,” please click here.

            ###

And here's the above-mentioned video:

Gresham Barrett For Governor from Gresham Barrett on Vimeo.

Rush and his friends the Democrats

64 Replies

Just to complete the process of distracting myself with total trivia, I'll mention the spin cycle rubbish of the last couple of days about Rush Limbaugh.

How pathetic can we be in this country, huh? This contemptible creature (why contemptible? because he wants this country to fail to prove an ideological point) actually gets treated as someone who matters. The chief of staff of the President of the United States elevates him, absurdly, to chief of the president's opposition. Even more absurdly, the actual chief of the opposition party spends breath denying it.

Either yesterday or the day before, as I was working out, Wolf Blitzer started to put James Carville, of all appalling people, on the air with some presumably equally appalling person (I'd never heard of the guy — name of Tony Blankley) from the "other side" to talk about it, and I just barely found the remote in time to avoid hearing it.

Moments like this confirm me once again in my firm belief that these people — Limbaugh, Carville and so forth — are all on the SAME side, and that side is opposed to the one I'm on. They reinforce and affirm each other. They live for each other. They define themselves in terms of each other. They depend absolutely on each other to raise the funds that they use to continue their destructive absurdity. They are as symbiotic as symbiosis gets.

And they deserve each other. The problem is, the rest of us don't deserve them. And yet, time and time again, we see actual, real-world issues that affect real people in this country — and the world — defined in terms of choices between these malicious cretins.

We deserve better. We deserve much better.

(What got me to thinking about this, even though it doesn't deserve to be thought about? Well, Kathleen Parker wrote about it in the column I chose for tomorrow's op-ed page.)

Working out is hard to do

7 Replies

Set that headline to the Neil Sedaka tune, which seems appropriate. After trying to get back into working out the last couple of days, I feel about as macho as Neil Sedaka. Not to cast any aspersions, but I haven't exactly been coming on like Ah-nold. I look in the mirror in the locker room, and I see a flabalanche.

How bad is it? It had been so long since I had worked out — maybe once or twice the middle of last year, I guess — that it took me at least 10 minutes to remember my locker combination. That has never happened to me before since I first learned to work a combination lock in the seventh grade. I've had this lock for years, and there I was sweating over the fact that I knew there was a 35 in there somewhere, and I had a general idea (within two or three numbers) of what another number was, but I had no idea in what order. And as it turned out, I was somewhat wrong about the 35, as I learned on about my 30th guess.

Anyway, on Monday I did 25 minutes on the elliptical trainer, and one circuit of light weights, then some stretches to close, and was worn out. Then Tuesday, I did 35 minutes on the elliptical, followed by five or six minutes on the rowing machine. And I experienced new vistas of being out of shape. That first day, the last five minutes on the elliptical — the cool-down, during which I reverse the action just to work different muscles — was ridiculously hard.

The only good news is that when you're 55, if you go by the charts, it's REALLY easy to reach your target heart rate.

Why do I mention this to you? Because I figure if I mention it to somebody, you'll help hold me accountable. I AM going to work out again today. Y'all hold me to it, please. To paraphrase John Winger in "Stripes," if I don't get into shape, I'll be dead before I'm 30. Or however old I am.