Yearly Archives: 2009

About why we invaded Iraq (here we go again, y’all…)

39 Replies

OK, I’ll bite on bud’s parenthetical back on this thread:

(As a side note, its, funny how the folks who wanted that war in the first place pretend it acutally started with the “surge”, forgetting the fabricated justifications that led to the initial invation.)

While I know I won’t get anywhere with bud (he and I have had this conversation too many times for me to entertain false hopes), I believe that every once in a while — say once a year at least — I should rise up and contest the conventional “wisdom” that we went into Iraq based on a pack of lies.

Nothing that causes me to conclude that we should go into Iraq later proved to be false. I say this with all due respect to people who didn’t think we should have gone in to start with. A legitimate case could have been made at the time that invasion at that time was not the best way to achieve our goals. But saying, after the fact, that all the reasons to go in were lies is itself a lie. I know, because I know why I believed we needed to take that action.

I also know that nothing I have ever written or thought has ever pretended that the war started with the surge. On the contrary, what you will find is that the surge was the moment when we finally started prosecuting the effort the right way, instead of the Rumsfeld way. (I know that some folks’ minds are boggled by the concept that whether we should have been in Iraq and whether we were going about it the right way are two separate questions, but I ask them to bear with me on that point.)

As for the “fabricated justifications”… first, I’ll refer you to a post on my blog from last year, headlined “Why we went to war in Iraq.” It was inspired by an opinion piece I had read in the WSJ by Doug Feith. bud’s reaction at the time was “Doug Feith is full of s***.” Perhaps you will agree, but I urge you to go back and read it.

Then, going back further, to before the invasion itself, I refer you to my column of Feb. 2, 2003. You won’t find a lot of talk about WMDs and other such distractions. You will find a lot of stuff about “draining swamps.” The need to do that, after 9/11 showed that our old strategy of maintaining the status quo in the region was extraordinarily dangerous to this county, combined with the fact that Saddam had been violating for a decade the terms of the 1991 cease-fire, constituted the argument for me.

Anyway, here’s that column in its entirety:

THE UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTH ABOUT WHY WE MAY HAVE TO INVADE IRAQ
Published on: 02/02/2003
Section: EDITORIAL
Edition: FINAL
Page: D2
By BRAD WARTHEN
Editorial Page Editor
AMERICA SEES ITSELF, quite admirably, as a nation that doesn’t go around starting fights, but is perfectly willing and able to end them once they start.
Because of that, President Bush has a tall hill to climb when it comes to persuading the American people that, after 10 years of keeping Saddam Hussein in his box, we should now go in after him, guns blazing.
In his State of the Union address, the president gave some pretty good reasons why we need to act in Iraq, but were they good enough? I don’t know. Probably not. It’s likely that no one outside of the choir loft was converted by his preaching on the subject. And that’s a problem. Overall, while there have been moments over the last 16 months when he has set out the situation with remarkable clarity, those times have been too few and far between.
He has my sympathy on this count, though: His efforts have been hampered by the fact that the main reason we may need to invade Iraq is one that the president can’t state too clearly without creating more problems internationally than it would solve. At the same time, it’s a reason that seems so obvious that he shouldn’t have to state it. We should all be able to figure it out.
And yet, it seems, we don’t.
I hear people asking why, after all this time, we want to go after Saddam now. He was always a tyrant, so what’s changed? North Korea is probably closer to a nuclear bomb than he is, they say, so why not go after Kim Jong Il first?
We left him in power a decade ago, they ask, so why the change?
The answer to all of the above is: Sept. 11.
Before that, U.S. policy-makers didn’t want to destabilize the status quo in the Mideast. What we learned on Sept. 11 is that the status quo in the region is unacceptable. It must change.
Change has to start somewhere, and Iraq is the best place to insert the lever, for several reasons — geography, culture, demographics, but most of all because Saddam Hussein has given us all the justification we need to go in and take him out: We stopped shooting in 1991 because he agreed to certain terms, and he has repeatedly thumbed his nose at those agreements.
Iraq may not be the best place in the world to try to nurture a liberal democracy, but it’s the best shot we have in the Mideast.
I’m far from the only one saying this. The New York Times’ Tom Friedman, who has more knowledge of the region in his mustache than I’ll ever have, has said it a number of times, most recently just last week:

“What threatens Western societies today are not the deterrables, like Saddam, but the undeterrables — the boys who did 9/11, who hate us more than they love life. It’s these human missiles of mass destruction that could really destroy our open society. . . . If we don’t help transform these Arab states — which are also experiencing population explosions — to create better governance, to build more open and productive economies, to empower their women and to develop responsible news media that won’t blame all their ills on others, we will never begin to see the political, educational and religious reformations they need to shrink their output of undeterrables.”

Journalists can say these things, and some do. But if the president does, the Saudis, the Egyptians, the Syrians and just about everybody else in the region will go nuts. In European capitals, and even in certain circles here at home, he will be denounced as the worst sort of imperialist. Osama bin Laden’s followers will seize upon such words as proof that the West has embarked upon another Crusade — not for Christ this time, but for secular Western culture.
None of which changes the fact that the current state of affairs in Arab countries and Iran is a deadly threat to the United States. So we have to do something about it. We’ve seen what doing nothing gets us — Sept. 11. Action is very risky. But we’ve reached the point at which inaction is at least as dangerous.
Should we go in as conquerors, lord it over the people of Iraq and force them to be like us? Absolutely not. It wouldn’t work, anyway. We have to create conditions under which Iraqis — all Iraqis, including women — can choose their own course. We did that in Germany and Japan, and it worked wonderfully (not that Iraq is Germany or Japan, but those are the examples at hand). And no one can say the Germans are under the American thumb.
But that brings us to a problem. The recalcitrance of the Germans, the French and others undermines the international coalition that would be necessary to nation-building in Iraq. It causes another problem as well:
Maybe we could accomplish our goal without invading Iraq — which of course would be preferable. By merely threatening to do so, we could embolden elements within the country to overthrow him, which might provide us with certain opportunities.
But the irony is that people aren’t going to rise up against Saddam as long as Europeans and so many people in this country fail to support the president’s goal of going after him. As long as they see all this dissension, they’ll likely believe (rightly) that Saddam might just hang on yet again.
If the United Nations, or at least the West, presented a united front, the possibility of Saddam collapsing without our firing a shot would be much greater. But for some reason, too many folks in Europe and in this country don’t see that. Or just don’t want to.
Maybe somebody should point it out to them.

Argue that we could have pursued other courses to achieve our legitimate goals. Fine. But don’t tell me the reasons I was persuaded we should invade were lies. I know better.

What’s at stake in tomorrow’s elections? Nothing, unless you live there

16 Replies

Boy, am I tired of hearing references to the Tuesday elections in Virginia and New Jersey by the national media as something with national import, the most common intellectually lazy assertion being that they are somehow A Referendum On Barack Obama.

How absurd. When people go to the polls in Virginia to elect a governor, or whatever else they’re voting for there (I don’t know because I haven’t paid attention, because I don’t frickin’ live in Virginia, so it is none of my business), they will make their decision based on guess what: Which guy they want to be their governor. Or whatever.

But the Washington-based media, having to wait a whole other year until any of the politicians in Washington face the voters again, and not knowing any other way to write about politics except in the simplistic, one-side-vs.-the-other, partisan, sports-oriented, winner-vs.-loser terms of elections, decide to regard these completely unelected contests as being between surrogates, rather than between real people running for real offices with real issues that actually don’t translate past state lines.

As Ron Elving blogged over at NPR:

The people in Virginia or New Jersey may know the names of their candidates for governor; the rest of the country does not. Everyone, however, will recognize the name Obama, and that is where the conversation will turn.

Exactly. Except you don’t blame it on “the rest of the country.” It’s the national media who don’t know anything about the candidates for governor or the issues, so they will pretend it’s really about Obama, because they know who he is. Or think they do. Or believe they can fool enough viewers and readers that they do. And Mr. Elving makes another good point:

And however small the president’s role has actually been this fall, the focus on him is fair in one sense. The results of these elections will affect him. They will make his struggles in Washington a tad easier, or more difficult, depending on how they change the political conversation.

In other words, because the national media will act as though these are referenda on the president (or to a lesser extent the Democrats in Congress), and everybody in Washington will follow their coverage and believe that they are indeed referenda on the president, and will then act according to how said referenda went, it will affect real life in Washington. To the extent that real life can be said to exist there.

This stuff is so wrong, and it really makes me tired.

Splitting the crucial “Steve” vote

5 Replies

For years, I’ve been telling Steve Morrison that he should run for office. Every time I hear him speak to a community group, I am struck by his quiet conviction, by the fact that he deeply cares about people, particularly the dispossessed (such as the kids in poor, rural school districts, on whose behalf he has led a long, long pro bono quest through the state’s courts).

But he always sloughed it off, modestly, thereby completing the picture of the quintessential Guy Who Ought to Run for Office But Never Does.

And now he’s thinking about running for office, and I’m not sure what to think. Says Steve:

“If I run, I will be running … to stand for visionary leadership over divisiveness, big-picture interests over pedestrian politics, solid management over risky alternatives and unity over racial discord.”

However, the interesting thing about this situation is that if he does run, he will bring not unity but a sword — one that will messily slice apart the set of people likely to vote for long-declared candidate Steve Benjamin.

You see what would happen, don’t you? If he runs, he and Mr. Benjamin will split the all-important People Who Will Vote for a Guy Named Steve vote. (OK, no more bogus Long-Winded Terms in Capital Letters — at least until the next post.)

Seriously, though, Morrison would likely draw from the same sources — heavily black precincts and Shandon — that Benjamin has been almost surely been counting on ever since Bob Coble dropped out. In other words, for those of you who prefer partisan terms (even in a race that should be blessedly free of such), the Democrats.

This means a likely win for Kirkman Finlay III. Which you might think is a good thing, but if you don’t, then you’ve got to look on a development that splits the Steve vote with some concern. You might say to them, “Hey, the essence of democracy is a wide-open selection, and anyone willing to run should be encouraged to do so, especially when it’s a good guy like Steve Morrison.” Which would be the Civics 101 thing to say. But there is a truth universally acknowledge in politics, that a single man in possession of a good fortune… no wait… wrong cliche. What I meant was, there is a truth universally acknowledged in politics, which is that once a guy with whom you might be expected to agree on a lot of things puts in a lot of time and money on the campaign trail, if you announce against him, it’s personal — as in, you’ve got a beef with the guy. Or you’re carrying water for the other guy. Or something.

When I talk to Steve (Morrison), I’m going to ask him about these things, and whether they matter, or should matter. I wasn’t going to post until I HAD talked to Steve, but I needed to go ahead and post something, it having been two days since I read the news.

Thoughts?

Aaaahhh! They’re out of pumpkins already!

3 Replies

I don’t often get the urge to consume sweets. I drink my coffee black, and of course I’m allergic to most of the things that drive most sweet teeth (tooths?) — cake, cookies, ice cream and such.

But sometimes it hits me, and it happened today after Rotary. So I got this great idea — Halloween is over; why not bop into Food Mellowcreme_pumpkin2Lion and pick up some pumpkins at half price? And no, I’m not talking about the things you make jack-o’-lanterns from. I mean those wonderful little candy things, about 3/4 inch in diameter, into which sugar is packed with a density approaching that of a black hole. Specifically, Brach’s Mellowcreme Pumpkins.

I go all year without these — sort of like the way I don’t let myself have cotton candy except at the State Fair; it’s a personal rule that’s easy to follow because it would be extra work to break it — but during the season, I’ll eat them by the handful. Which kind of grosses out my wife, a big fan of chocolate (which I am not) and other sweets who nevertheless finds more than one pumpkin just a bit too intense.

I’m even kind of a pumpkin connoisseur. You may think they’re all alike, but they’re not. I don’t know if they’re made at different factories or what, but there’s a wide variation in quality from bag to bag. If the orange color is just a little too dark, move on — they’re not going to taste right. And then there’s consistency. The ones that are sort of crumbly and drier are far better than the chewy, moist ones that you sometimes get. The first almost melt in your mouth, the others go down hard and tend to lead to indigestion if you eat far too many of them (and if you’re not going to do that, what’s the point?).

The one in the illustration at right, by the way, is a good one. I can tell from the photograph. Nice shape (often the shorter, flatter ones you see aren’t nearly as good), not too dark, and without that oily-moist sheen that warns of a taffy-like consistency. There’s a little gloss to the finish, but not too much, which is important (using the term “important” loosely, of course).

I’m on my second bag of them this season, but the bag was at home, and I really wanted some pumpkins now.

So I went to Food Lion, as I said. And they were out. Oh, they had loads of Candy Corn left, and you may say it’s the same thing, but it isn’t. Pumpkins are round, and orange, and I like to bite off the little green stems before attacking the main body. It’s entirely different. As for those pumpkin-shaped Peeps — I am a man of principle, and one only eats Peeps at Easter. (And they should be yellow, and shaped like chicks, as if you didn’t know.) No wonder they had plenty of those left.

So maybe I waited a little too long. Maybe the last of them sold out Sunday, or even sooner. But I’d appreciate knowing if anybody has seen any today, because half that bag at home is gone, and it’s a long time before the Halloween displays go up again…

Yep, the plaid shirt guy

17 Replies

Alexander78

Back on this post, I made a gratuitous name-dropping reference to covering Lamar Alexander back during his gubernatorial campaign in 1978, and Kathryn replied with a suitably unimpressed, “Plaid shirt guy. Swell.”

Indeed, as name-dropping goes, “Lamar” isn’t the same as “Elvis.” So it was a forgettable reference.

I only return to it because, coincidentally, I was going through even MORE files from my newspaper career just hours later, and ran across these two shots from that week I followed Alexander in 1978. I practically lived with the guy that whole time. I flew on his campaign plane with him (with my paper paying a pro rata share of the cost), went where he went, ate where he ate… I’d get about five or six hours away from him at night, and spent a couple of hours of that in my hotel room writing. We used to do stuff like that in those days — actually cover political campaigns.

This was a pretty exciting experience for me, my first exposure to statewide politics as a reporter. The following week, I was following his opponent, Jake Butcher, just as closely. We sort of tag-teamed the candidates in the last weeks of the election.

Anyway, the photo above, with Lamar’s tasteful plaid shirt clashing with a really ugly plaid sofa (be grateful it’s not in color) in the back room of a political headquarters in Nashville, captures a tense moment for the candidate. He had just been interrupted during this Nashville leg of his celebrated walk across the state by a reporter from the Tennessean with legal papers in hand. The legal papers — affidavits, I believe — had something to do with a business deal Alexander had been involved in. I want to say it had to do with ownership of some Ruby Tuesday restaurant franchises.

Anyway, somebody was alleging there was something irregular about it, and the candidate was being confronted with it. Big drama. This was his first look at the document, and there he sits with a suitably furrowed brow while we stare at him and wait for a reaction. One of us (guess who) is actually taking pictures of this potentially bad moment for Lamar Alexander. We were all about the next political scandal in those days, and Lamar had served in the Nixon White House, so he knew to take such things seriously, and soberly, and not complain about the pesky press.

But I will confess now to a bit of feeling bad for the guy at that moment. We weren’t supposed to feel that way, but I did. Even as I was dutifully taking the picture (if this is the end of his candidacy, I captured the moment!), I was sort of thinking it would be kind of nice if the guy had a moment to read this in privacy and compose his thoughts — if only so we could get actual facts from him instead of a gut reaction. But we didn’t allow him that.

Anyway, to balance that, here’s a happier moment below. It was taken on his campaign plane, as it was preparing for takeoff, early on the morning of Oct. 18, 1978 (going by the newspaper). The Yanks, as you see, had just won the World Series again. Check out Jimmy Carter and Moshe Dayan. The day was going well so far — no scandals yet — and was filled with possibilities.

I like the way the light works in the picture. I was a pretty fair photographer, for a reporter.

Sorry if I’m boring y’all. Don’t know why I’m taking y’all down memory lane. Oh yes, I do: This is my way of getting y’all to think, Ol’ Brad has been covering this politics stuff up close and personal for a long, LONG time, so maybe sometimes his reflections are based in experience and not just gut reactions.

Is it working?

Anyway, it’s certainly been a long time. Burl and I graduated from Radford High just seven years before this…

lamar78

The Stuff I Kept

1 Reply

Overboard

As I mentioned earlier, I’ve been rooting through the vast piles of stuff I brought home when I left The State, stuff I just didn’t have time to go through in those last couple of weeks, but just jammed into boxes and hauled down to the truck, night after night, right up until that last night when Robert and I went off for beers in 5 Points.

And I keep running across fun little things that I want to share, enough of them that I’ve decided to start a new feature on the blog: The Stuff I Kept.

Here’s a favorite comic strip I kept taped to the wall over my credenza.

This one doesn’t take much explanation. As one accustomed to being in a leadership position (I had been supervising other journalists since 1980), I just enjoyed this send-up of the leadership imperative of always appearing to know what to do. Not that I could get away with this dodge with the members of the editorial board; they were a good bit smarter than the pirates in Overboard. But there were times when I did say “All right, then, here’s what we’ll do…” just to make a decision and move things along. Someone had to. And it was good if the someone who had to didn’t take himself too seriously.

Or at least, it was important that he give the impression to his subordinates that he didn’t take himself too seriously, say, by putting little self-deprecating cartoons up on his wall. Oh, leadership is complex, and deep. Deep enough to need hip boots.

Chamber chief has really crossed the line now

10 Replies

The WSJ had an interesting piece about how Thomas Donohue, the president and chief executive of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, has been trying to climb to the top of the Obama “enemies list” (move over, FoxNews) lately with his adamant opposition to the administration’s positions on global warming, health care and bank oversight.

Some of his comments have been immoderate enough to alienate some prominent Chamber members, such as Apple, Nike and Duke Energy. And when you’re not progressive enough on climate change for Duke (Donohue’s Chamber has said of global warming that warmer temperatures could help by reducing deaths related to cold weather), you may have a problem.

But what really struck me was this:

Through a spokesman, Mr. Donohue declined to be interviewed for this article.

Whoa. I can see the POTUS wanting to cold-shoulder Fox, but the head of the Chamber of Commerce not wanting to talk to The Wall Street Journal? It may be time for the Chamber board to consider whether this is the right guy to be heading up their effort. When a business leader won’t talk to the Journal, something is amiss.

Oh, and about the “enemies list” thing — I was just using that as a way of bringing up my old friend Lamar Alexander, whom I covered in the 70s when he was a pup. I broke bread with him numerous times while traveling with his gubernatorial campaign. I even went out with him and some campaign staffers to a disco in a black neighborhood in Nashville, and witnessed the improbable spectacle of this Pat Boone near-clone taking the dance floor, which is one of the odder things I’ve seen in my career of covering politics. (Back in those days, we COVERED campaigns.)

Where did that come from? Oh… Kathryn gave me a hard time for name-dropping back on this thread, and I didn’t want to disappoint her.

40 years later, look how far we’ve co… DOH!

2 Replies

Stan Dubinsky shared this item about the first message to travel over the ARPANET, which would become the Internet — 40 years ago yesterday.

It was two letters: “lo.” It was supposed to “login,” but the system crashed after two letters. Oh, what a familiar feeling.

Do y’all realize that two weeks after this massive foul-up with Outlook, I still can’t send e-mail through that application? In fact, I can’t even call up my calendar or contacts on my laptop without being driven nuts by a dialogue box that pops up every few seconds asking me to log in to the server again.

This is very bad, because I depend on Outlook — particularly the interactivity between the e-mail and my contacts — to help me keep in contact with prospective employers and other nice people. I can send via Webmail, but by comparison that’s like trying to type from across the room with a 10-foot pole.

My usual technical adviser tried to help me but finally threw up his hands. I’ve tried uninstalling and reinstalling Outlook several times. No dice; the bug is still there. And has been, ever since that ill-fated mass mailing I attempted.

So while we’ve come a long way in 40 years (and thank you, Al Gore, for inventing it), in some ways it feels like we’re right back where we sta….

Getting it wrong, and right, in ‘State of Play’

6 Replies


Back on this post, we had a sidebar about the film “State of Play” — Kathryn mentioning that I really should see the original British series, and I will certainly put it in my Netflix queue. As it happens, though, I saw the American film over the weekend, and it was, mediocre.

I’m reminded of it again today because I went by to visit folks at The State, and ran into Sammy Fretwell, and told him I had thought  about him over the weekend. That’s because the one detail the filmmakers got right in Russell Crowe’s depiction of a reporter, aside from the fact that he worked on a ridiculously old PC, was his workspace. I would say “desk,” but this was the sort of workspace that has worked itself up into a fortress, with piles of papers, magazines, newspapers, files, publicity packets, all sorts of stuff in unsteady towers of material dating back 10 years and more, stacked on desk, credenza, nearby filing cabinets, and other items of furniture that can no longer be identified.

I saw that and thought, “Sammy!” (And I say this with all respect; Sammy’s a great newspaperman. He’s awesome. This just happens to be a common characteristic of great newspapermen.)

Beyond that, the screenplay was evidently NOT written by anyone who had ever worked at a newspaper. The characters just weren’t right. And they said ridiculous things that only non-journalists would ever say, such as “sell newspapers.” You know how people who want to criticize a paper for a story say the editors just ran it to “sell newspapers?” That’s always a dead giveaway of a clueless layman. I’ve never met a journalist who spoke or thought in terms of “selling newspapers.” Most journalists didn’t care if you stole it, as long as you read it. Selling was the concern of the business side folks (and a poor job they’ve done of it in recent years, huh?). Another real prize bit of dialogue, which you can hear on the above trailer: “The newspapers can slant this any which way they want to…” Who wrote this stuff?

The one really true bit was during the credits, when they show the Big Story that the movie was about going through the production process and onto the presses. They got that just right. I’m guessing that’s not a tribute to the knowledge of the writers. The producers probably just asked a newspaper to produce a page with this story on it, put it on the presses and run the presses. And THIS part got me. I haven’t really felt nostalgic about the lingering death of my industry, but this simple device of putting the camera on the actual physical processes sort of gave me a lump in the throat — the film coming out of the imagesetter, the plate being made, the plate being fitted onto the press… THAT was real.

But nothing else was. Not even the messy desk, as it turns out. When I mentioned it to Sammy, he said I was behind the times. He took me over to his little fortress in the corner, and it was NEAT. He had gotten permission to take three days off from covering the news and spent the time imposing order. It was freaky.

Sort of made me want to go back and make sure the imagesetters, platemakers and presses were still there…

bud rates everybody, 1 to 10

43 Replies

I was intrigued by this list that bud shared back on this post — so much so that I thought I’d promote it to its own post, as a conversation-starter:

I ranked a collection of organzitions from the ones I least respect (1) to the ones I most respect (10). Here’s the entire list. As it relates to this I am completely indifferent to the various illegal aliens issues. If we fund health care for illegals, ok by me. They’re humans with health needs too. And they probably contribute more to the well-being of society than most people.

I could live with or without funding of abortion. But if we don’t fund it then don’t fund it for anyone, including those who want an abortion in cases of rape.

As for the insurance industry I’d just as soon let them go under as keep them.

Nazis 1
Al Qaeda 1
Taliban 1
NAMBLA 1
Ku Klux Klan 1
Health Insurance Industry 2
Bush (Jr.) Administration 2
Soviet Communism 2
Hezbolah 2
Catholic Church 2
Conservative Talk Radio 2
Birthers 2
Pro-Lifers with exceptions 2
Creationist “Science” 2
Tea Baggers 3
FOX News 3
PLO 3
Southern Baptist Church 3
Republican Party 3
NRA 3
Slavery Reparation Movement 3
Isreal 4
Iran 4
“Mainstream” Media 4
Illegal aliens 5
US Military 5
Methodist Church 5
Global Warming Movement 5
Scientology 5
Libertarian Party 5
National Teachers Association 5
Pro-Lifers without exceptions 6
Obama Administration 6
Democratic Party 6
Liberal Talk Radio 6
Labor Unions 6
ACORN 7
Unitarian Church 7
Nudists 7
PETA 8
Peak Oil Movement 8
Vegetarians 8
Pro-Choicers 8
ACLU 8
Green Peace 9
Sierra Club 10
Audibon Society 10
SPCA 10
NORML 10

It’s an imperfect scale (should Nazis get a point at all? shouldn’t they be in the negatives?), but it’s an interesting exercise. It makes you think. (For instance, you might think at the end there, what’s bud been smoking?). So using the same list — no additions or subtractions — and the same rules, here’s my shot at it:

Nazis 0 (I just couldn’t give them a point; I don’t care what the rules are)
Al Qaeda 1
Taliban 1
Hezbolah 1
NAMBLA 1
Ku Klux Klan 1
Soviet Communism 2
PLO 2
Birthers 3
Tea Baggers 3
FOX News 3
Conservative Talk Radio 3
Liberal Talk Radio 3
Iran 3
Scientology 3
Libertarian Party 3
NORML 3
Nudists 3
“Mainstream” Media 4
Health Insurance Industry 4
Bush (Jr.) Administration 4
Creationist “Science” 4
Republican Party 4
NRA 4
Slavery Reparation Movement 4
National Teachers Association 4
Democratic Party 4
Labor Unions 4
ACORN 4
Unitarian Church 4
PETA 4
Pro-Choicers 4
ACLU 4
Greenpeace 4
Illegal aliens 5
Southern Baptist Church 5
Peak Oil Movement 5
Methodist Church 5
Catholic Church 6
Pro-Lifers with exceptions 6
Pro-Lifers without exceptions 6 (I didn’t really understand these categories)
Obama Administration 6
Vegetarians 6
Sierra Club 6
Audubon Society 6
Israel 7
Global Warming Movement 7
SPCA 7
US Military 9

So, do I really think that Iran and nudists are morally equal? Or that the U.S. military is by far the most wonderful thing in the world? No, I wasn’t really comparing them, but considering each on its own – negatives? Positives? Where does that leave me? The post-Vietnam military, which was in pretty bad shape, would have gotten a low score. But the military today as an institution, judged as to how well it does what it’s called on to do, is way up there.
Do I think the military is better than the Church? No. But when you say “Roman Catholic Church,” are you talking the Body of Christ, in which case 10-plus, or do you mean the troubled human institution that most of you, my readers, are thinking of? So I average out at 6.
And yes, while I still have a somewhat favorable view of the Obama administration, I do have a better impression of Israel.
Hey, as I said, it’s an imperfect system bud came up with, but I found it an interesting exercise.

Nice sunRISE today, too

5 Replies

sunrise

I was sort of proud of my sunset pictures from the last night of the fair, what with the fact that I didn’t even have a real camera with me. This morning, I was almost as impressed by the sunrise that I saw coming in towards town on Sunset Blvd. in West Columbia.

Not quite as colorful as the fair pics, and I was a little disappointed that the Blackberry didn’t quite capture the light exactly as I was seeing it, but I thought I’d share it anyway.

Good news for a change: Boeing picks SC

15 Replies

It’s been a long day and I’ve got to go get me some dinner (at 9:21 p.m.), but before I do I thought I’d give y’all a place to celebrate some good news, it’s been so long since we’ve had any here in SC:

Boeing Co. said Wednesday it will open a second assembly line for its long-delayed 787 jetliner in South Carolina, expanding beyond its longtime manufacturing base in Washington state.

The Chicago-based airplane maker said it chose North Charleston over Everett, Wash., because the location worked best as the company boosts production of the mid-size jet, designed to carry up to 250 passengers.

Boeing already operates a factory in North Charleston that makes 787 parts and owns a 50-percent stake in another plant there that also makes sections of the plane…

So, yea us!

And don’t you DARE let SC opt out of health care reform

42 Replies

Here’s the thing that really frosts me about this health care debate: One of the little bargaining chips offered by those milquetoast “liberals” who don’t have the guts to stand up for the public option (and seriously, a “liberal Democrat” who won’t stand up for single-payer or something equally sweeping is a waste of skin) is the idea of letting states “opt out.” For instance, from the WSJ story I mentioned earlier:

Mr. Reid announced his support Monday for a government-run health plan — the so-called public option — while adding an escape clause for states that don’t want to participate.

OK, so you’re going to subject me to all this hullabaloo — the townhall meetings, the “You lie!” nonsense, all of this — and in the end, even if you get the guts to institute the public option, you’re going to deny it to me and mine?

Think about it, folks: If only one state in the union opted out, which state do you think it would be? Hmmm, let’s see … could it be the one that fired on Fort Sumter? Could it be the one where the governor wanted to lie down in front of the truck delivering the stimulus? Could it be the home of Joe “You Lie” Wilson and the “We Don’t Care How You Did It Up North” bumper stickers? Could it be the state with the highest number of elected radical libertarians (on the Eastern Seaboard, anyway)?

As the former governor of the state that would probably be the second one to opt out used to say, “You betcha!”

And folks, that would just be too bitter a pill to swallow.

Without the ‘public option,’ forget it (and of COURSE we should pay for it)

10 Replies

This story in the WSJ today about health care reform causes me to make the following observations:

  • I’m glad Sen. Reid is talking about including a “public option,” because without that, you’re not accomplishing anything.
  • I’m really disappointed in my man Joe Lieberman, coming out against the public option.
  • Is everybody in Washington nuts? Joe opposes it because he says we shouldn’t have it without asking Americans to pay for it. Well, duh! Of course we have to pay for it! What lunatic would want a program we didn’t pay for?

That last one will tell you that I obviously haven’t been paying much attention to the “debate” in Washington lately. But at least now I can see why a reasonable person might oppose reform, if there are actually people proposing a public option without asking participants to pay for it.

Folks, I want to go on record, here and now, as being more than willing to pay for federal government health care. I am willing to pay up to the almost $600 a month I am personally currently paying for my COBRA. I’m thinking that if you require every household to pay that much (or even $500), you could have a real Cadillac system that would be FAR more efficient than what I’ve got now. And most importantly to me and I would think to most people, I couldn’t lose it. And I could take any job for which I’m qualified and which pays enough to pay mortgage, buy groceries and pay the light bill and such, rather than having to limit my options to something with a great health plan.

Lemme ‘splain to you the problem with the current situation, folks. It’s not the one out of seven who don’t have coverage; it’s the far greater number who currently have coverage through their employer, but live in constant threat of losing it, and who don’t DARE stimulate the economy by going out and starting a business or something because they can’t give up their coverage.  That’s the really big problem, far bigger than the problem of the uninsured.

If that’s what they’ve been talking about — a choice between a public plan that we don’t pay for, or no public plan — then I might have to join Doug Ross’ movement to just get rid of all the incumbents.

Doesn’t anybody up there have any sense?

Delleney’s approach on impeachment was most promising one

5 Replies

I remain unconvinced that impeachment proceedings against Mark Sanford would be worthwhile. As you know, I believe he should have resigned by now (if nothing else, thereby sparing us from Andre Bauer’s candidacy), but I hate to see the State House stroke the gov’s narcissism with another session all about him.

And I certainly thought it appropriate that lawmakers not try to wrestle the subject to the ground in a two-day special session.

All of that said, I was encouraged that Greg Delleney at least took the most promising approach in his impeachment resolution. He didn’t mess around with all of that dull stuff about airplane rides and such, but concentrated on the one most glaring instance of dereliction of duty — the week that the governor ran off to Argentina, the trip that started this whole mess rolling:

Whereas, Governor Mark Sanford was absent from the State of South Carolina and from the United States from Thursday, June 18, 2009, until Wednesday, June 24, 2009, while in or in route to and from Argentina for reasons unrelated to his gubernatorial responsibilities; and

Whereas, from Thursday, June 18, 2009, until at least on or about Monday, June 22, 2009, Governor Sanford was not in official communication with any person in the chain of command within the Office of Governor of the State of South Carolina; and

Whereas, the Lieutenant Governor was not aware of the Governor’s absence from the State and there was no established chain of command or protocol for the exercise of the executive authority of the State; and

Whereas, the Governor intentionally and clandestinely evaded South Carolina Law Enforcement Division agents assigned to secure his safety in order to effect his absence from the State; and

Whereas, the Governor directed members of his staff in a manner that caused them to deceive and mislead the public officials of the State of South Carolina as well as the public of the State of South Carolina as to the Governor’s whereabouts; and

Whereas, the purpose of the Governor’s absence from the State of South Carolina served no furtherance of his duties as Governor; and

Whereas, the Governor’s conduct in being absent brought extreme dishonor and shame to the Office of Governor of South Carolina and to the reputation of the State of South Carolina, and furthermore, has caused the Office of the Governor of South Carolina and the State of South Carolina to suffer ridicule resulting in extreme shame and disgrace; and

Whereas, the Governor’s conduct and actions under these circumstances constitute serious misconduct in office pursuant to and for the purposes of Article XV, Section 1, of the Constitution of this State. Now, therefore,

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives:

That pursuant to Article XV, Section 1, of the Constitution of South Carolina, 1895, the Governor of South Carolina, the Honorable Marshall C. Sanford, Jr., is impeached for serious misconduct in office.

Is that enough to warrant impeachment? Maybe not. But it certainly makes the case that this guy shouldn’t be governor, which is not quite the same thing, is it?

Delleney sounds (almost) like my kind of conservative

1 Reply

Not really knowing Greg Delleney, I took some interest in this mini-profile John O’Connor included in his story today:

Often quiet and funny, Delleney is a member of a loose-knit – and often low-brow – lawmaker lunch group, the House Bi-Partisan Eatin’ Caucus.

Prior to this year, Delleney was not among Sanford’s chief critics. “I agreed with him more than I disagreed with him.”

Chester County GOP chairwoman Sandra Stroman said she has known Delleney, who served in the Navy for three years, for 15 years.

“He’s generally a very quiet person,” she said. “He listens a lot.”

Though many South Carolinians are tired of hearing about Sanford, Stroman thinks Chester Republicans support Delleney.

“I don’t think it’s personal,” Stroman said. “Greg Delleney is a man who believes in right and wrong, and I think he comes down on the side of right every time.”

Delleney is among the strongest right-to-life supporters in the Legislature, typically introducing a new bill each year to limit access to abortions.

This year, Delleney successfully shepherded through the House a bill that requires a 24-hour wait before a woman can receive an abortion. He also scuttled a bill that would have provided dating violence counseling for teens by adding an amendment restricting the counseling to heterosexual couples.

Delleney has critics.

“I like Greg. He is very passionate about what he believes,” said state Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter, D-Orangeburg. “My problem is he is foisting his moral beliefs on public policy. I’m not surprised he’s pushing this, particularly when sex is involved.”

That makes him sound, in general terms, like the kind of conservative I like — as opposed to the Sanford hyperlibertarian type, or the type that gets extremely worked up over illegal immigration. I much prefer the Brownbacks and the Huckabees to the Sanfords and the DeMints.

Not that I would do everything he does. I don’t think I would have adding the hetero clause to the violence counseling thing. That’s the kind of making-an-issue-of-something-that-isn’t-an-issue stuff where social conservatives lose me (at least, that’s the impression I remember having at the time).

So he’s not exactly the kind of conservative I’d be were I to consent to being called a conservative (or a liberal, or any of those oversimplifications). I’m still more the John McCain type.

Actually, Rex faces TWO serious contenders

1 Reply

As I read this this morning:

Rex, the state superintendent of education, is known by more of those surveyed than the other Democrats running for governor. More than 60 percent recognized his name. Forty-one percent had a favorable impression of Rex. In contrast, a majority of those surveyed did not know the four other Democratic contenders — Columbia attorney Dwight Drake, state Sen. Robert Ford of Charleston, Charleston attorney Mullins McLeod and state Sen. Vincent Sheheen of Camden.

… I thought, No, there are not four other contenders. Really, there are two — Sheheen and Drake.

News stories can’t say that, because the reporters aren’t allowed to say that Robert Ford would never be a serious factor (and if you think otherwise, you apparently haven’t followed his career or listened to him), and Mullins McLeod, in spite of having an AWESOME South Carolina name and being the nephew of Walt McLeod (one of the coolest people in the Legislature), hasn’t caught on and seems increasingly unlikely to do so.

I could prove to be wrong about this, of course. McLeod could suddenly kick into gear, or Ford could start acting very unFordlike.  But if that happens, I’ll say the position has changed and include them. Right now, I wouldn’t be too concerned about them if I were one of the other three.

What IS that thing Boeing wants to build?

2 Replies

Stargate

Whoa. I had thought the plant we were trying to bring to South Carolina (a prospect which is looking better, given Boeing’s union troubles elsewhere) was for building airplanes.

But you know what this photo looks like to me? Yep, the Stargate, from the movie of that name starring Kurt Russell.

Now, that would certainly give South Carolina a leg up into high-tech manufacturing…

And yes, I realize it’s a cross-section of the fuselage of the 787. I’m just talking about what it looks like…

Sg1stargatefront

Any thoughts about the Legislature’s return?

12 Replies

It occurred to me that some of y’all might want a chance to comment on some actual news, instead of TV shows from the 70s or comic strips that never were.

Well, OK, but it’s pretty boring out there today.

The Legislature did come back today, and they’re going to make up for a stupid omission (and thanks for catching that, Mr. Spratt), and maybe talk about impeaching the governor (which I’m already tired of hearing about; I just want this guy gone, without another word said), and do some stuff for an ecodevo prospect that might be Boeing.

But I don’t have anything to say about those things yet. Do y’all?

Awaiting moderation (in more ways than one)

38 Replies

Just FYI, to give you a glimpse behind the scenes…

I agree with y’all that the blog has become a more lively and enjoyable forum since I started banning bad actors — or rather, since I started requiring that comments display a constructive engagement before I let them be published.

Since some of y’all are of a political persuasion that makes you want to know what’s done on your behalf — by the CIA, by Blackwater, or by me — I thought I’d give you an update on what you are NOT seeing on the blog.

Basically, I’ve banned Lee Muller, and “Mike Toreno” and “BillC.” But you probably knew that. Something you may not know is that all three have tried commenting under different names — Lee under his old pseudonym “SCNative,” “Mike” as “CarlsBoss,” and BillC as just “Bill.” I’ve shared with you some of the things Lee had to say as “SCNative,” back on this post.

Two other individuals have failed to make the cut: Someone called “enemy within” (who may actually be a spam program; I’m not sure), and just today, our old friend “Workin’ Tommy C.”

“Workin’ Tommy” tried to comment on this post, basically as an advocate for Angry White Maledom (excerpt: “Angry white men created the government as defined in the U.S. Constitution. Outraged men of principle MADE this country…”). And as a representative of that point of view, I almost approved him … but, remembering some of his behavior back on the old blog, decided to think about it. Then “Tommy” confirmed me in my caution by posting this follow-up:

My earlier comment is still awaiting moderation.

Can’t handle the truth, Warthen?

Anyway, that’s what’s happening beneath the surface.

Yours in civil discourse,

Brad