I forgot to mention why I liked what Steve Benjamin’s campaign manager said the other night. If you’ll recall, Joey Opperman was talking about how he had been thinking of striking out in search of new and exciting adventures, and Steve said to him:

You need to stay here and help these people that God has put you among.

There’s an excellent theological point there.

Many people, especially young people, are constantly thinking that their real life is somewhere else, and that they are TDY in their present location. That real life will start once they get to where they really should be, which isn’t where they are.

This has all sorts of manifestations, from the silly to the globally significant.

For instance, for many years as an editor I had to fight the desire of some of my brightest and most energetic reporters to go off to New York or Washington, an impulse that I always regarded as rather shallow and silly. And I would work on their consciences (usually with some success, but not always), telling them that yes, they were good at their jobs, and could probably “make it” in those other places. But — and this is a huge “but” — they are not needed in those places. They were needed where they were. Jackson, TN (which one former subordinate and good friend who is now with The New York Times complained about by saying, “It’s not the heat; it’s the stupidity”), or South Carolina had a far, far greater need for the blessings that their talents could bring than those other venues, where they would just be one in a multitude of talented people, patting themselves on the backs in empty congratulation that they were where they were.

And globally — well, the Palestinians would have been a whole lot better off if they had gone ahead and made new lives for themselves in exile (either on the West Bank or elsewhere in their own diaspora) rather than living for three or four generations in refugee camps nursing their resentment over not being where they want to be. I’m sure there are other examples, but that one just leaps to mind.

As for the theological point… remember that great Bible verse that Nathan Ballentine shared with me when I was laid off? I got a lot of comfort from it (and still do). It was Jeremiah 29:11:

For I know well the plans I have in mind for you, says the LORD, plans for your welfare, not for woe! plans to give you a future full of hope.

As wonderful as that message is, I also love the part that went just before it:

Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I exiled from Jerusalem to Babylon:
5
Build houses to dwell in; plant gardens, and eat their fruits.
6
Take wives and beget sons and daughters; find wives for your sons and give your daughters husbands, so that they may bear sons and daughters. There you must increase in number, not decrease.
7
Promote the welfare of the city to which I have exiled you; pray for it to the LORD, for upon its welfare depends your own.
10
Thus says the LORD: Only after seventy years have elapsed for Babylon will I visit you and fulfill for you my promise to bring you back to this place.

Basically, God was telling the Israelites to stop mooning over Jerusalem and engage life fully where they were — not only that, but to be good communitarians and advance the interests of the place where they were, even though it was alien to them.

That, too, had a lot of meaning for me — meaning that I am just beginning to figure out. For nine months now, I’ve sort of been in limbo while I waited to find a job. (And I don’t mean “waited” as in passively. I’ve been actively looking. But you know, you apply, and you interview, and you wait…) My life would resume at that point, I thought. But now that I’m finally getting around to figuring out the world of freelancing and consulting work, I’m actually enjoying it, and seeing new possibilities. And I realize that if I had understood how to get into this from the beginning, and had embraced my jobless state as a new kind of existence that could actually be fun and interesting and challenging, I would have made a lot of money over the last few months, and my severance would have lasted a lot longer. (In fact, if I could figure out the problem of medical coverage — something Congress is essentially refusing to deal with — I could be happy and thrive in this state.)

Stand in the place where you are. It’s a great attitude toward life. It’s best for you, and for those around you. And I actually think it’s God’s will.

Consider that to be my little contribution to your Advent contemplations.

Now, it occurs to me that we could study some of these same phenomena in the light of a related lyric, “It’s the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine…”

I thought I’d share an e-mail exchange I had with Kathryn Fenner regarding her reaction to our speaker at Rotary Monday, S.C. Agriculture Commissioner Hugh Weathers. I like Hugh and think he’s done a reasonably good job as our commissioner, which is why we went ahead and endorsed him over another guy I like a lot, Emile DeFelice. Hugh doesn’t have Emile’s flash, but he projects a certain quiet competence.

Kathryn is less impressed, and particularly didn’t like some of the asides with which Mr. Weathers salted his speech Monday. In particular, she didn’t like a crack he made about folks from elsewhere named “Joe” whose last names ended with an “i.” I remembered the remark (although I still don’t recall the context), but it didn’t bother me. Maybe because I was born here; I don’t know.

Anyway, here’s our exchange. Kathryn’s comments are in blue:

He would have been the most boring speaker if he hadn’t felt the need to pepper his remarks with xenophobic (people from outside the South) and other offensive remarks. People who weren’t born here in SC deserve equal respect from their elected officials, and people whose last names end in “i” are not usually very happy to be linked with the Mafia. Got laughs though!
Made me feel like bolting, except my (Buffalo, NY born and raised) mama  taught me better.
I wish Emil had won. “Agribusiness” may play well with Rotary, but I’d rather put the state on my plate. Maybe I don’t belong in Rotary anymore…..

Of course you belong. Your name doesn’t end in a vowel.
Just kidding. Don’t tell Tony Soprano I said that (don’t know if you ever watched the show, but he was always griping about being mistreated because “my name ends with a vowel”).

My nephew’s mother’s maiden name is Nunziato. Ask anyone who knows him if he’s an asset to our state since moving here from Massachusetts.
Actually either of my nephews, Ben or Dan. Their sister Addie isn’t half bad (immediate past dance teacher at Ashley Hall), and their sister Carolyn is still in college, but shows every sign of following in their footsteps.

DeFelice ends in a vowel, doesn’t it? sigh
What exactly was the point of having Hugh Weathers speak to us?

See now, you’re going to put me on the defensive because we endorsed him…

Yes, you all endorsed a lot of candidates who turned out not to be so hot, some even who many of us thought weren’t so hot to begin with…
Let’s hope you have learned from your time outside the bubble…
So again, what exactly was the reason, do you suppose, Robin felt Hugh Weathers just had to talk to us? I almost bagged it yesterday, except that so often I have been pleasantly surprised by the speakers. This time I was surprised at just how vapid, yet offensive,  someone can be and still get elected to public office.

You’ve led a sheltered life… I’ve talked to a lot of
people who have a lot less going for them than Hugh does.

You say I’ve endorsed a lot of folks who turned out not to be so hot. What
makes you think I thought they were so hot to start with? [I failed to come back to this point. I was going to say something about the fact that LOTS of people we endorsed weren’t so hot, but we endorsed them anyway, because they were at least better than their opponents. But that doesn’t really apply to this case, since I liked both Hugh and Emile. Maybe that’s why I didn’t complete the thought.]

Here’s the thing about Hugh: He was appointed by the governor to replace a
crook we elected. Our position is that the governor should appoint that
position, rather than having it elected. Therefore, until he did something
wrong, Weathers being in that position was a reflection of the way the
world should work.

I really liked Emile. But I knew that Emile appealed to a sort of
back-to-the-Earth, we should all eat whole foods and give up the internal
combustion engine, worldview that had been a part of my makeup since the
70s. In other words, he appealed to me, but would he appeal to the farmers
this office is supposed to deal with? Wouldn’t they be more likely to
trust and cooperate with a mainstream farmer type like Hugh Weathers?

Also, whenever we talked about “Put Your State On Your Plate” — Emile’s
strong suit — with Weathers, he praised it, and talked about his own
efforts to do the same thing, only sans the catchy slogan. And it seemed
to me that while your average SC farmer would sort of see Emile as a
hippy-dippy agricultural dilettante and maybe not work with him on those
grounds, they might want to get on board with Weathers in doing the same
thing. (And I don’t mean to criticize Emile with that characterization;
the thing is that he appeals to the vestigial hippy in me. Emile is a guy
who started “farming” in his backyard in Olympia, à la Oliver Wendell
Douglas on his Park Avenue terrace. And I just really thought SC farmers
would take him about as seriously as the farmers around Hootersville took
Mr. Douglas.)

In other words, Weathers wasn’t nearly as hip or as cool, but I thought he
just might be more effective at getting the same cool things done.

This is an example of the way that we endeavored to temper our gut
reactions with sober reflection, and endorse responsibly. And I think we
succeeded in doing that in this case.

Now that I’ve done all this typing, would you mind if we put this exchange
on the blog? We need to get a good discussion going about something, and
this seems likely — although I would understand if you didn’t want to
share all of this…

I suppose you might as well. I might bookend it with the actual words of Weathers, if you can get them….You’d think he’d realize that people of Italian descent do not appreciate the stereotypical link made between them and the Mafia. People who weren’t born here are still his constituents, even if they live in Beaufort.

As far as his locavore efforts, I wanted to ask him what he’s done to encourage the kind of truck farming that might give us a better chance at eating locally (and I would think those foods might actually put more money in the farmers’ pockets). I mean collards and peaches and boiled peanuts are nice, but it is rather hard to find locally grown produce outside the Rosewood Market, Emile’s All Local Market Saturday mornings and, believe it or not, Walmart….Publix had Georgia-grown broccoli this week. w00t!

Truck farming and “agribusiness” are generally not the same thing.

and I wonder if the farmers might be more inclined to listen to Emile if they realized how much money he nets on his hogs….

K-9

Back on a previous post bud said we should be talking about the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame issue, and I didn’t know what he was talking about, but then I went and found this, and of course was shocked and appalled:

Abba, Genesis, Jimmy Cliff, the Hollies and the Stooges will be inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame next year, the Hall of Fame Foundation has announced. But the biggest news might be who did not make the cut. Kiss, nominated for the first time this year after being snubbed for a decade, was left out of the honors, although if the experience of the Stooges is any guide, there might be better luck next time: the band was nominated and rejected seven times before being accepted. Also being honored this year, as nonperformers, are David Geffen and seven songwriters: Barry Mann and Cynthia Weill, Ellie Greenwich and Jeff Barry, Jesse Stone, Mort Shuman and Otis Blackwell. The 25th annual induction ceremony will be held on March 15 at the Waldorf-Astoria in Manhattan.

ABBA? ABBA? The one good thing I’ll say about them is that they provided a decent soundtrack to that quirky cinema gem, “Muriel’s Wedding.”

But rock and roll? No freaking way. What’s next? John Philip Sousa?

By the way, I didn’t mind that Kiss got passed over. I think Kiss came along at a bad time in my life cycle — between being a kid, and having kids old enough to care — and their appeal always alluded me. (I was getting into Elvis Costello at about that time, I think.) So no loss there — especially since they’ll get in eventually.

But ABBA?

Doug Ross is mystified as to how he got the following message from Steve Morrison (and similar ones from Dwight Drake). As he said, “I don’t post anywhere but your blog. My facebook is under my work email. I donated to the Nikki Haley campaign but I would doubt they share the emails.”

Well, I don’t know. But apparently, Kathryn got it too, and so did I, even though I don’t live in Columbia — but there’s no real mystery in my case.

Anyway, here’s the message, which reminds me that I have to get with Steve and set up another meeting, and make absolutely sure I don’t oversleep this time:

To Fellow Columbians

I am running for Mayor of Columbia in next April’s city election. Because of your interest in city issues, I want you to understand why I have taken this step and to ask for your support.

Columbia has been my home since finishing law school here in 1975. I have spent years of my life contributing to our community, the way many people do who want their neighborhood and city to be a good, safe place to raise a family; enjoy life; and earn a living. Gail, Gregory and I have found a special home with you here in Columbia.

My service as board chairman of the Columbia Urban League, the Columbia Museum of Art, and the United Way Campaign;  the presidency of the Historic Columbia Foundation: as well as board service at Benedict College, Allen University, Edventure, Palmetto Health Foundation and the Central Carolina Community Foundation has enabled me to learn about the needs of citizens in all our neighborhoods. While I have not been involved in traditional politics at the local or state level, I have spent years in public service. I approach the opportunity to serve as Mayor of Columbia from the vantage point of public service over politics as usual.

Through this letter, I want to share more about myself, my love of Columbia, and my reasons for running. Read more about my reasons by clicking on the links below:

• Ready For Change
  
• My Three Priorities
  
• My Life and Values

I am not a “do it my way or else” person nor do I have an appetite for political office for its own sake. The challenge and joy of problem solving gives me energy and meaning. If elected as Mayor of Columbia, I will not use the office as a stepping stone to statewide office. As Mayor of my hometown, I will already have the best job there is.

In that spirit, I ask for your support as Columbia’s next Mayor.

Sincerely,

Steve Morrison

P.S. Please visit my campaign web site to learn more about me, this campaign and to make a contribution. Thank you!

Y para el cruel que me arranca
El corazon con que vivo
Cardo ni ortiga cultivo
Cultivo la rosa blanca

Guantanamera, guajira Guantanamera…

What to do with the Guantanameros? Not the natives, but the foreigners whom we have made into Guantanameros? As the Obama administration runs out of time on it’s self-imposed (and unfortunately arbitrary) deadline for emptying the place, Sen. Lindsey Graham had this to say today:

“The issues involved in closing Guantanamo go way beyond where to put the prisoners.  I have been in discussions for months with the Obama Administration on a national security-centric approach to closing Guantanamo based on the law of war.  Unfortunately, I fear the Obama Administration is choosing to go down a different, and potentially more dangerous, path.

“From the unprecedented decision to try enemy combatants captured on the battlefield in civilian courts to the conflicting testimony of Administration officials on long term detention to the alarming number of detainees who have been determined eligible for release, I fear the Administration has lost its bearings in an effort to close Guantanamo as quickly as possible.  The Administration has sent a confusing message to our troops on the battlefield who no longer know when civilian law enforcement rules or the laws of war might apply.

“I continue to agree with our military leaders that closing Guantanamo is in our own national interests, if done correctly.  However, I increasingly find myself at odds with the Administration’s approach.

“I hope the Administration hits the pause button on closing Guantanamo and works with Congress to develop a comprehensive strategy to keep dangerous terrorists off the battlefield.”

I believe the administration wants to handle this right, but is hobbled by expectations among the base from the election — and by that deadline. Unfortunate. As you know, I was happy with putting them down the road in the Charleston brig, if that was the best place for them. But whether they go there or to Illinois or to the far side of the moon, the subject deserves careful consideration, so that it’s done right.

The thing about this issue is that it didn’t have to come down to a partisan disagreement. Whether Obama or McCain had been elected, we’d be closing Guantánamo (the prison part, that is). That makes this a test for whether Obama can run things along lines that build on our agreements rather than our differences. It’s a test for Graham and McCain as well as for Obama. They should neither be buffaloed into something they don’t feel right about because of their desire to have consensus, nor disagree merely to show they’re being tough-minded. (I think the president’s courageous — in the sense of standing up to the more emotional parts of his base — stand at Oslo, in which he so clearly put being president above being head of his party, calls for some equal statesmanship on the part of his loyal opposition.) Operating in a truly above-partisan manner is way more complicated than the simple-minded business of always agreeing with your “side” and always shouting insults at the other. But it’s an eminently worthwhile effort to make.

As for a translation of the verse above, here you go:

And for the cruel one
who would tear out this heart with which I live
I do not cultivate nettles nor thistles
I cultivate a white rose…

Not that I’m criticizing the Budget and Control Board (even though, as our governor is fond of saying, it’s an entity that shouldn’t exist). It doesn’t have any other option than to cut across-the-board, which of course is the worst way to cut the budget, since it makes no allowance for the fact that some functions are more essential than others, and some have been damaged by previous cuts more than others.

But only the Legislature can make those kinds of decisions — not that ours ever does, to the extent that it should. That’s another thing that the governor is right about — and something Vincent Sheheen would fix if he could: his vision of restructuring includes giving the legislative branch the tools it needs to be up to speed on what’s actually happening in the agencies it funds.

Anyway, Converse Chellis shifted the balance of power today by voting with the governor and Rich Eckstrom to cut the budget by another $238 million. The legislative members had wanted a smaller cut, but the treasurer thought it best to act more boldly now, since he anticipates a further drop in revenues.

I’ll have to ask Converse to elaborate on that next time I run into him at breakfast…

Barack Obama is not the only person I know who is accepting major international awards these days.

My fellow unemployed journalist Robert Ariail just became the first American to win the Ranan Lurie United Nations Political Cartoon Award in the award’s 10-year history. He won out over 1,500 applicants. For that he picks up a check for $10,000 (which is the important part of the news to us unemployed types), and will receive his prize from the U.N. secretary general.

One can find a lot of distinquished company in the unemployment line these days. Anyway, now that we have something to celebrate, I need to get Robert to join me in the Ariail/Warthen memorial booth at Yesterday’s for a beer. We keep meaning to do that, and this is a perfect excuse.

You ask whether I’m proud of Robert? Go read the column I did about him when we left the paper, and then ask that question. I couldn’t be prouder if I were his papa.

Just FYI, some of the other awards that sit in the cardboard box Robert used to keep under his drawing board at the paper (I helped him carry all that stuff out back in March, and I’m guessing it’s in his attic now): the Overseas Press Club of America’s 1997 Thomas Nast Award for cartoons on foreign affairs; the Society of Professional Journalists’ Green Eyeshade Award five times, in 1991, 1997, 2001, 2004 and 2007; the 1992 National Society of Professional Journalists Award and the 1990 National Headliner Award. He was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in 1995 and 2000.

The cartoon above — which I agree is one of his best from his last year at the paper — is the one that won it for him.

Well, I was certainly wrong.

As you’ll recall, I was a bit taken aback when it was announced that President Obama was to receive the Nobel Peace Prize for perceived good intentions.

But after hearing and reading portions of his speech, I am wholeheartedly glad that he got the award. While I thought at first that someone should have to deliver more than speeches to receive the honor, I was reckoning without what a true statesman can do with a speech. He took advantage of the occasion to speak a little truth to the world, whether the world wanted to hear it or not. And that matters.

Rather than showing up and singing Kumbaya with the worldwide George W. Bush Haters Club — and face it, the Nobel committee obviously decided to give him the award for the virtue of Not Being George W. Bush — he said look, folks, sometimes the United States is going to go out and use force, and given our track record, you should be glad. After respectful nods to MLK and Gandhi, he said:

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

I raise this point, I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause. And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower.

But the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions — not just treaties and declarations — that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest — because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

Wow. You know, Obama keeps doing this. Every time you think, OK, I know Obama’s an impressive guy, but I’m used to him, he comes up with another speech that just blows you away. He did that with his speech on race after the Rev. Wright blew up in his face. He did it with his awesome victory speech here in South Carolina.

And now, he’s done it in Oslo. He could easily have phoned it in (the way Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson did) or just shown up and been sheepish and humble, and kept the fireworks to a minimum. But no, he used it as an extraordinary teachable moment.

The world needs to hear the president of the United States say these things, humbly, plainly, but with no punches pulled. He told them the plain facts of what American power means to the world, as its one best guarantor of collective security and best hope for freedom and justice, without apology. Good for him. And because of this speech, it’s clear that not just some guy named Barack Obama received the prize. The POTUS did. And that’s a point in which all Americans can take pride.

This guy’s just amazing.

I meant to say something about this several days ago but I guess I didn’t care enough to do so. Now I see Gail Collins made a similar point, so now that I’m reminded, I’ll say it:

Tiger Woods’ scandal is not news. Not in any legitimate sense, anyway. Frankly, it’s none of your business.

Sure, you’re interested, and lots of people would define news as something that interests them. But I’m picky, and have a rather conservative definition that I tend to live by.

Here’s the thing: You have no reason to be interested in Tiger Woods private life. It affects you in no way whatsoever. You have no stake in it; it does not affect your life. You are in no way responsible for Tiger Woods, and he is in no way responsible to you. Unless you live in his neighborhood, you have no reason even to care about his crazy driving. He’s just not your problem.

Basically, you’re interested because you’re into gossip. That’s what this is: Gossip, not news.

Frankly, I’ve been really put off by how fascinated people — including some people I love and/or respect — are by the Woods revelations. And I wonder at it, in terms of wondering why people take such… delight in this man’s humiliation, and his family’s pain. And “delight” is the word. Delight, accompanied by a suspension of all sense of propriety. There seems to have been a national consensus agreed to whereby the lastest tidbits on Tiger are to be joked about and relished, ad nauseam. A couple of nights ago, I saw a couple of minutes on one of those 24/7 TV “news” channels in which a panel of people who I assume were professional comedians (I didn’t know any of them, but they had that “I’m a famous celebrity” B.S. aura about them) just batting Tiger back and forth, trying to outdo each other in the outrageousness of their sarcasm.  (At one point, a white guy said to a black woman something along the lines of, “All these women are white. Which I guess proves that Tiger actually IS black, after all.” Which caused my jaw to drop. Then the black woman said, “No, he’s not, because a black man knows how to keep his hos in line.” Really. I may not have the quotes exactly right because I wasn’t taking notes, but that’s essentially what they said.)

Let’s contrast this to, say, the Mark Sanford scandal. Up to a limited point (and frankly, I still haven’t decided whether I think my former newspaper’s publishing of the infamous e-mails goes beyond that point or not; it’s right on the cusp), South Carolina voters (and no one in the rest of the country, unless they were foolish enough to think he actually WAS a presidential contender before this) have a legitimate interest in knowing how sleazy the guy they were foolish enough to elect twice is. His notorious press conference should be required viewing for SC voters. The bizarre, cringe-making interviews with the AP in the following week further informed us that this is a man who is dangerously narcissistic and out of touch with basic propriety.

After that, our legitimate interest ends — way before we get to a Barbara Walters interview with Jenny Sanford as one of “The 10 Most Fascinating People of 2009.” By the way, that list of most fascinating people is a dissertation on NON-newsmakers. A person with my old-school definition of news (I always think, “Does this story live up to what the Framers were thinking of when they drafted the First Amendment?”) would not choose this list of people for a top ten of the year. Michael Jackson’s kids? My fascination with them only extends as far as thinking, “HE had KIDS? Oh, the poor things…” The only one who even comes close to being a legitimate subject for such a list is Michele Obama, and that just serves to make me think, “Why on Earth did her husband not make the list?”

That went over the line. And I have to tell you, I applauded Mark Sanford when he was asked whether he would watch his soon-to-be ex-wife on the show, and he said, “You’ll never know.” (Sorry, I can’t find a link to that, but I know I read it somewhere.) I don’t ordinarily agree with libertarians on “privacy” issues, but on that, he was dead right.

All we need to know about Mark Sanford’s infidelities is enough to judge his character and decide whether he should have been trusted with high office (short answer: NO, he should not have been). Beyond that, we don’t have a dog in the fight. And we certainly don’t have one in the Tiger Woods fiasco.

Despite the temptation to be furious that Mark Sanford would presume to butt in and speak out against something as desperately needed as health care reform, I had to smile at the irony of the figure the governor cited in explaining his opposition:

Sanford talked about the need for the state’s congressional delegation to defeat federal health-care reform, saying it would cost the state almost $700 million. He also expressed hope the Obama administration would give the state another waiver on complying with federal rules on driver’s licenses.

But governor, remember? We just got a windfall of $700 million a few months ago. And remember, you said we didn’t need the money, so that means we’ve got $700 million just lying around to no good purpose. So we can easily afford this added expense you allege.

I just know you’ll be relieved to know that…

(And yeah, I know we’re talking different pots of money and so forth. I just thought it deliciously ironic that the governor went from desperately trying to block the federal government from giving us $700 million, to complaining that something the federal government might do in the future will cost us $700 million.)

By the way, I have confidence that the governor will not protest that his position was mischaracterized in that thestate.com story linked above, because the governor brought my attention to it himself, via Twitter.

A weird little footnote about that: I received that notice from the gov tucked in among Tweets from multiple other sources informing me that Jenny Sanford has announced her intention of divorcing Mark. Yes, I know the gov most likely does not personally Twitter, but it was weird, at a moment like that, to get a communication from him telling me that to him, everything is the same. He’s still out there practicing the politics of nihilism, trying to block government from doing anything good for people (lest people come to appreciate government), having learned nothing, having been utterly unchanged, by the last few months…

Earlier today, I was pondering the concept of limits as applied to the newspaper industry. You’ll remember limits from calculus, if you suffered that far in school, as I did. If you didn’t, I’ll try to explain the concept as my Algebra II teacher once did. I don’t know why it occurred to him to try to explain it, since we were a year or two away from that, but here’s how he did it.

He said, think of an equation that gets you closer and closer to something, repeatedly infinitely, without ever getting you there. He stood facing a classroom wall, about four feet away. He said, suppose I infinitely repeat an operation in which I cut the distance between me and the wall in half. He stepped closer to demonstrate halving it to two feet, then again to one, then to six inches, then to three, then to one-and-a-half, and invited us to imagine the rest. Eventually, he’d be so close to the wall that a casual observer might think he was touching it, but he wouldn’t be; he’d be a micrometer away. Then half a micrometer, etc.

Anyway, he explained, that’s limits. A disturbing concept. Oh, and if you’re wondering where you might run into limits, think of the way the two legs of a hyperbola approach the X and Y axes, but never touch them. (I think. I could be remembering it all wrong.)

Back to the newspaper industry. I was contemplating the news that a former fellow State editor shared with me earlier today from Editor and Publisher, the bible of the newspaper industry. Ignore the fact that the item is written by Jennifer Saba, who if I remember correctly once interviewed me at an awesome press party in New York, and pay attention: The item had Gary Pruitt being upbeat about McClatchy’s future, and at the same time projecting further cuts of 20 percent in expenses in the coming year. And I thought, OK, so you’re saying you survive in this scenario, but survive to do what? Will it bear any resemblance whatsoever to the kind of public service that we all signed up to do in the last age, when newspapers actually had fully staffed newsrooms and editorial departments and so forth? I’m not talking here about my old paper or the company that owns it, but the entire industry. How many more years do you cut 20 percent, considering that you’ve already gone past cutting fat, muscle and bone and hacked off entire limbs, which any newspaper reader knows this industry has done? Sure, if you cut at that rate, 10 years from now you’ll still be a micrometer away from the wall, but what kind of room does that leave you in which to operate as a functional news operation?

I don’t know the answer; I’m just posing the question. I wish Mr. Pruitt all the luck in the world, and bright futures to my few friends left in the industry. But speaking of limits, there are also limits to optimism, and personally, I crashed through the wall awhile back. At this point, as the newspaper industry keeps hacking off limbs to survive, I have to wonder, again: Survive to what purpose? In order to accomplish what?

And just in case you think I’ve got a skewed view from my perspective (which of course I do; everyone does, and only fools tell themselves otherwise), I point to the e-mail I got a little later from the same colleague.

Here’s the second item to which he called my attention:

‘Editor & Publisher’ to Cease Publication After 125 Years

By Shawn Moynihan

Published: December 10, 2009 12:13 PM ET
NEW YORK Editor & Publisher, the bible of the newspaper industry and a journalism institution that traces its origins back to 1884, is ceasing publication.

An announcement, made by parent company The Nielsen Co., was made Thursday morning as staffers were informed that E&P, in both print and online, was shutting down….

So let me ask you, as long as I’m being way existential, or Cartesian, or something, today: Is it possible for there to be such a thing as a newspaper industry, if there’s no E&P to chronicle it?

One conclusion to be drawn from my last two posts — the one about censuring Sanford and the one about the S.C. Senate’s slavish devotion to a bankrupt governing philosophy — is that our state is in desperate need of better leadership. Or just leadership, period, for a change.

The importance of this coming gubernatorial election cannot be overestimated. It is so pivotal for our state, such a chance to turn a page and start in a new direction. Of course, I’ve been preaching that for sometime. It’s why I started scrutinizing candidates closely before I left the paper, much earlier in the process than I normally would. It’s why I’m willing to do such things as rank the candidates intellectually — anything to get a smart conversation started.

We need a way of communicating that clearly, of raising awareness so that voters start really paying close attention and make a smart choice this time. As much as I eschew bumper stickers and other forms of oversimplification, I’m now in the hunt for a slogan to express what is needed. Something like:

• Let’s do it right this time.
• Beasley, Hodges, Sanford. That’s enough.
• Time to pick a new direction.
• Fecklessness has gotten us nowhere.
• Leadership is not a four-letter word.
• Vote smart. The alternative has gotten us nowhere.
• Get your act together, South Carolina.

I’m not happy with any of those. Suggestions?

Not sure what to make of this latest initiative by the S.C.  Senate leadership:

S.C. Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell, Finance Chairman Hugh Leatherman, and Majority Leader Harvey Peeler filed a bill today to create the Commission on Streamlining Government and Reduction of Waste that will work to streamline and pare down the size and growth of state government. The need of state government to be downsized has been long overdue. This major restructuring effort would be led by lawmakers and private sector business leaders.

Pondering that, I conclude that least one of the following is true:

• Lawmakers have spent so much time fighting with Mark Sanford that, without noticing it, they have become infected with his peculiar cognitive disorder. Only a person completely blinded by ultra-libertarian ideology could look at South Carolina — with its painfully underfunded basic services (from highway safety to infrastructure to prison security to mental health safety net to rural schools to higher education) — and conclude that what THIS state needs is streamlining, and less gummint. That’s a fine theory, if you live in Massachusetts. But it’s grotesquely inappropriate in a state that has NEVER bitten the bullet and provided the sort of government basics that most other states — you know, the states that are so far ahead of us in income and man-made amenities — take for granted.
• Political rhetoric is so dumbed-down and degraded in South Carolina that experience has taught them that you have to mumble these phrases no matter what you plan to do, to keep the yahoos calm. Maybe the senators actually plan to “streamline” government in rational ways — such as eliminating the long ballot or making executive agencies political accountable, and they’re just using the anti-gummint language to slip it past the forces of inertia. Unfortunately, there’s not a single word in this release to lead us to that conclusion. Also, this release is written by Glenn McConnell, the sworn enemy of restructuring.
• Someone has kidnapped our senators and replaced them with Pod People. This would explain why they have completely forgotten that about all they have been doing the past two years is cutting already underfunded services more and more deeply. Or why they seem to have forgotten their bitter fight with Sanford over the stimulus money that they knew our state desperately needed.
• Sen.  Leatherman et al. encourage Sen. McConnell to go on these dead-end tangents so they don’t have to hear more about the Hunley and his 17 historically accurate Civil War re-enactor costumes.

Whichever explanations are true, I know I’ve had enough of this utter nonsense. Perhaps most offensive (to common sense) of all is this statement from Sen. McConnell:

“Many state agencies were created in a time when our needs as a state were very different,” McConnell said. “We shouldn’t keep spending money on something that has long since outlived its usefulness.”

Which of course causes any rational person to respond, “Such as…” But there’s never a such as. No way are they going to start a backlash by naming any actual government programs as having “long since outlived it’s usefulness.”

Which is beyond bizarre. Think about it, people: How long has Glenn McConnell been in office? Since before Hector was a pup. And yet, in all those years in which downsizing has “been long overdue,” you would think he’d have a long list of governmental functions that are irrelevant and wasteful. But he doesn’t mention a single one.

That’s because, to the extent that these guys have a rational, clear goal, it is this: To lower taxes. That’s it. They don’t want government to be more efficient or relevant; far from it. They just want it to cost less, and less, and less, until you can drown it in a bathtub. Theirs is a nihilistic philosophy of social destruction. This is why they advocate such mindless mechanisms as caps on spending: They can’t come up with things that we can do away with, so they keep up the pressure to keep shrinking the whole pie, starving the essential services along with the superfluous (assuming there are any superfluous programs left, which you would think they could name if there were). This has the benefit — from their point of view — of making all government ineffective, thereby even less popular, so you can cut it even more.

I can always give you examples of things that have been cut too much (as I did above) because they are legion. If these guys are going to continue running our state in keeping with their nihilistic philosophy, then they need to start telling us what it is that needs to be cut. Just for starters. Why have they been allowed to get away with not doing that for so long? Simple. Because we let them.

Unfortunately, “ridicule, dishonor, disgrace and shame” seems a bit long for a band name — sort of like CSN when Neil Young joined — but it’s just right as a summation of what Mark Sanford has brought upon South Carolina.

Jim Harrison’s Judiciary subcommittee got it right. We don’t need to waste the coming legislative session fighting over impeachment. (We still might, of course, but that is much less likely now.) Even though his desertion of his post may be impeachable, its sufficiently petty to be faintly ridiculous. Even before we knew where he was and what he was up to, the whole disappearance was just weird, otherwordly, and very Sanford. Only in South Carolina could a governor disappear for several days, and have it go completely unnoticed until an obsessed political opponent brings it to our attention. The thing is, the governor of South Carolina is a sufficiently irrelevant figure — or can be, if he’s as disengaged and strange as Mark Sanford — that this thing that would be impossible elsewhere is ridiculously possible here.

Governor of South Carolina is such a quirky post that it attracts a quirky guy like Sanford. He is in fact a natural fit. Only in South Carolina could a guy like him last as long as he has.

Anyway, Jim’s panel did a good job. They passed on the Sturm und Drang of impeachment, but did not shrink from describing in clear terms just how this governor has shamed his state.

Postscript: While “ridicule, dishonor, disgrace and shame” is a bit prolix for a band name, I might want to consider going with Rep. Garry Smith’s even more concise description of our gov’s behavior: “Seriously Stupid.”

I know! “ridicule, dishonor, disgrace and shame” could be the title of our first album! And just like that, in lower case, a la e.e. cummings. As S.C. continues on her mad course, neither nation nor asylum,

the little
lame balloonman

whistles       far       and wee…

An earlier post about Mark Sanford evolved (or devolved, if you prefer) into a thread about the Confederate flag, and a couple of points I made back there in response to some of your comments are probably worthy of their own post. So here goes…

First, Doug Ross had said:

… And most South Carolinians (especially those in the legislature) DO care about the Confederate Flag — otherwise it wouldn’t require a compromise to move it from the top of the State House to its current prominent “in-your-face” position.

I’m all for putting the question about the flag on the ballot. Are you?

Then, Kathryn Fenner added:

I think that many issues that have a lot of traction in the legislature don’t have as much among the population at large. Between special interests and the legislators’ personal quirks (Glenn McConnell and the Confederacy), lots of things loom larger at the State House than they might in a referendum….

Finally, David had this to say:

Certainly, Doug, most in the legislature care about the flag. But they’re also a bunch of morons who like wasting our time on issues such as this which advance our state none. Beyond that I cannot say for sure. All I can say is out here amongst the yahoos of Lexington County, most people that I know personally don’t care.

Sure, put it on the ballot; I believe the flag should be removed. But it’s not that big of an issue to me.

My response follows…

A couple of points: First, no, neither this nor any other legislative issue should be settled by referendum. I’m a stickler for republican government; to me government by plebiscite is an abomination. The proper way to decide something like this — something that is not a constitutional issue, but merely statutory — is to do so through our elected representatives.

Second, about those representatives: David and KB and Doug are laboring under a very common misconception — that our lawmakers are fascinated with the Confederate flag. They are not; in fact they are quite the opposite. They don’t want to hear about it or talk about it, and they don’t. They definitely are not “wasting our time on issues such as this;” in fact, they completely refuse to take the issue up. (Mind you, I’m talking the consensus here; certainly you can point to a few with a neo-Confederate obsession, but even those don’t spend legislative time on the subject, insisting that the issue was “settled” by the compromise of 2000.)

No, our problem is that lawmakers will not spend ANY time on the issue. And as long as they don’t, those of us who want the flag gone have no way of exercising our will (remember, lawmakers would have to take up the issue even for the referendum some of y’all call for).

Some of this is due to their fear of a no-win issue. For them, it really doesn’t matter how many people call for removing the flag; they fear the angry minority that will take its revenge upon them. And for a Republican, utterly dependent on white votes, that subset of the white electorate can cause really trouble. Or at least, they think it can, which amounts to the same thing in terms of effect on their behavior in office.

Another factor is the NAACP, which is following a perfect strategy for making sure the flag stays up forever. By capturing all the headlines on the subject, the NAACP has managed to frame the issue as being between South Carolina and an interest group that is set on FORCING South Carolina to do its will, with the threat of economic harm if it doesn’t say “uncle.”

Well, you don’t make white South Carolinians do anything, ever, even if it’s in their interest. (Think, how did the slaveowning minority get all those other poor sap whites to take up arms against the Union in 1860? By persuading them that the gummint was going to try to MAKE them do something, which got their backs up so much they were happy to throw their lives away.) And never mind that the boycott lacks teeth; the problem is that the NAACP means for it to be effective, and white South Carolinian resentment of that intent is so vehement that there is no way lawmakers — even some who may be slightly inclined to do so — will take up the issue, as long as the NAACP succeeds in portraying the issue the way it does.

My periodic campaigns to try to move the flag are timed to moments when I think that maybe we can get a loud enough conversation going to drown out the NAACP (for instance,  when Steve Spurrier offered the gift of a figure able to grab headlines in his own right, and even though I am utterly uninterested in football, I was happy to seize the opportunity for what it was worth, which in the end turned out not to be much), so that MAYBE lawmakers will see their way clear to doing the right thing, forgetting for the moment that the right thing happens to be the thing the NAACP wants to MAKE them do. But most of the time, it’s like butting my head against a wall. The media like conflict, and will conspire with the extremists to portray this as a battle between irreconcilables, which keeps most of us from being able to reach consensus.

No, the problem is getting the Legislature to take up the issue at ALL.

Even in 2000, when you may have had the impression that the Legislature was doing nothing but talking about the flag, the real problem was that it was keeping such debate to a minimum. In fact, the reason we’re stuck with this unacceptable “compromise” is that the House refused to spend more than a day on it. The GOP leadership decided that it would cram through the Senate “compromise” in that one day, and not allow any alternative plans to be seriously considered. A lot of attempts were made, mostly by Democrats, to offer plans that would truly have settled the issue. The very best was a proposal by former House Speaker Bob Sheheen to do away with all actual flags, and replace them with an unobtrusive bronze plaque that explained that the flag once flew here — truly putting the flag in its proper historical context, and eliminating it as a present-day issue. But his successor, Speaker David Wilkins, was determined not to be slowed down by considering anything other than what the Senate had proposed.

That was an extremely frustrating day for me. I wrote several editorials, as the debate ebbed and flowed, to advocate for the better ideas. I kept rewriting late into the night as debate wore on, but in the end didn’t run any of them because late that night the House voted, rendering everything I intended to say moot. In other words, the House leadership rammed it through before there could be any input from the public on the various good ideas that were put forth and tabled that day.

Remember, the Legislature’s sin with regard to the flag was then, and remains now, ignoring it, not spending too much time on it…