Monthly Archives: September 2013

Howard, I don’t think YOU need more time on strong mayor

While I was giving blood yesterday, I saw a TV news report about the strong mayor issue, and there on the tube was Howard Duvall, former head of the state municipal association, standing in front of a group of people who are against the reform.

What struck me as weird was that Howard was asking that the referendum be delayed. For a month. He wanted this delay in part because people weren’t going to have time to study it adequately:

“If the people speak to a change in our form of government, let us do so with full awareness and knowledge,” group spokesman Howard Duvall said on the steps of the Eau Claire print building.

And I thought, Really Howard? People don’t know what they think now? And they’re not going to have enough time to wise up on the issue in the next seven weeks? But another four weeks will make it just right?

It’s just that Howard was not an ideal vessel for that message. I already know what Howard thinks about strong mayor. He’s said he was against it for years. Just as I’ve said I was for it for years. (Which will prompt Kathryn to say nobody cares what I think, since I don’t live in the city — which I’ll be happy to address separately.) Howard is fully informed on the issue, and well-equipped to disseminate his views on the matter. Seems to me that if he hasn’t reached people with his message by Nov. 5, things aren’t going to be that different by Dec. 3.

And yeah, Howard’s a special case, but it’s a bit hard to accept the idea that this has somehow snuck up on informed voters. We hammered it home at The State for years, and the paper most recently actually published a front-page editorial — something that never happened in my day — on the subject. Mayor Benjamin advocated for a referendum when he ran for office in 2010, and so did Moe Baddourah (although he reversed himself as soon as he was elected). The city council has had how many votes on it this year? At least two I can think of off-hand. This has been one of the hottest local issues for months (and years and years, for those paying attention).

So I wasn’t persuaded on that point.

But Howard had another point as well, which was “Let’s make sure that the process of change does not taint the outcome.” Which is a slightly dense statement, but let’s dilute it a bit. As The State paraphrased,

Duvall said the bipartisan group does not want a change in form of government to become a referendum on Mayor Steve Benjamin, who is seeking a second term and is a strong advocate for changing the mayor’s office into the chief executive of the city with the hiring and firing power now vested in a city manager.

Now that’s a different and intriguing point to consider.

I can see how a person might favor Steve Benjamin’s re-election but be opposed to strong mayor, and be worried about other people agreeing with him or her on the referendum, and worried they might also vote against the mayor. Of course, there’s a converse scenario in which Moe Baddourah’s chances are swamped by a big pro-strong mayor vote.

But I think people who are smart enough to find their way to the polls ought to be able to make two decisions instead of one. And… it seems like a sort of bait-and-switch to elect a mayor without knowing what that mayor’s powers will be. In fact, it would be better if the referendum were held before the mayoral vote — like, a couple of years ago, ideally (which should have happened). But it seems that same-day is the best we can do — Columbia voters can choose their mayor, and choose the powers of that office, at the same time.

Also, I appreciate having a mayor who is willing to stake his re-election, to some extent, on his stance on this reform issue. Someone who wants to be elected, or re-elected, to the office should share whatever vision he has for the city’s future. And if strong-mayor is part of that vision, I appreciate his willingness to run on it.

Kevin Fisher, in his column this week, raises another concern — that having the referendum too soon could backfire into a vote against the reform. Which, in fairness, is another way to read Howard Duvall’s concern about the process tainting the outcome. I think there’s something to that concern. This issue has been on the front burner so long that it’s kind of ridiculous that anyone would consider this a rush to judgment, but I have no doubt that some will feel that way. Never underestimate voters’ ability to completely ignore an issue until the last minute.

But in the end, I’m unpersuaded by calls to delay yet again. I agree with Warren Bolton:

Yes, it’s imperative to hold forums and disseminate information to help voters learn about the current council-manager structure as well as mayor-council, or strong mayor. But I can’t imagine that it would be too difficult for voters to comprehend a helpful nuts-and-bolts presentation on council-manager and mayor-council soon enough to vote in November.

Truth is, many voters know more about strong mayor than they do the people running for mayor and City Council. Nobody is asking for more time so voters can be educated about the people who will help run the city the next four years.

With it apparent that petition organizers have collected enough signatures to trigger an election, it only makes sense for the city to go ahead and schedule a vote on Nov. 5, along with other municipal elections. If that doesn’t happen, then the council would have to spend around $150,000 for a special election on the referendum.

And for what? A few more weeks to get information out to voters? Let’s be real. Voters need enough information to help determine which form they prefer. They don’t need a 16-week course that counts toward a college degree.

Oh, and by the way: Speaking of public forums, the Greater Columbia Community Relations Council (of which I am a member) is holding a public informational session on the issue next Wednesday, Sept. 25, at the Eau Claire Print Building, 3902 Ensor Avenue. As with the forum we had last year on the penny sales tax referendum, both sides will be presented as fairly and completely as possible. David Stanton will again moderate.

Kevin Fisher quotes me again, this time about Sheheen

40 Replies

Editor’s note: Kevin Fisher called this morning and mentioned that I had failed to provide a link to his column. Which is embarrassing. Mea maxima culpa. Here’s the link (and now each reference to his column below also features a link. Sorry about that, Kevin.

A week ago today, Kevin Fisher gave me another of those phone calls to let me know he would be referring to me in his column that was coming out in the Free Times the next day.

“Uh-oh,” I said. “Am I in trouble?”

Oh, no, nothing like that. He had just liked something I had said earlier this year, so he quoted the headline from that post, “Sheheen makes entirely unobjectionable speech at Energy Summit.” His point in quoting it was to say that Vincent is playing it too safe in his bid to be governor.

I’m glad Kevin liked what I wrote, and it’s true: Vincent doesn’t set the world on fire as a public speaker. Regrettably, I don’t agree with the ultimate point of Kevin’s column, headlined “Sheheen and Gay Marriage — No Guts, No Glory,” which is that Vincent failed to be a stand-up guy when he didn’t reverse himself and come out in favor of same-sex marriage.

Kevin presents a lot of strong-sounding points on his way to that conclusion — that he knows one of the women who filed the lawsuit, and she’s a fine public servant of whom we should all be proud; that Sheheen is the standard-bearer for a party that now identifies itself nationally as favoring same-sex marriage; that Vincent needs to light a fire under his base somehow, and maybe changing his position on this would do it; that it’s not even that politically risky any more to make such a change.

It’s a better-reasoned column than the one by Chris Haire in City Paper the week before, “S.C. Dem Vincent Sheheen says FU to gay marriage in an effort to woo GOPers.” (Apparently, saying “Furman University” is now a faux pas akin to the gratuitous use of the word “Belgium,” and is so rude that initials must be used.) But then, Chris labels his column as containing “biting commentary and rabid rants.” So, he’s just doing his thing.

As I said, Kevin’s is better reasoned, and doesn’t rely on such terms as “yellowbellied.”

But there’s a central flaw in it. It ignores the highly-likely possibility that Vincent Sheheen actually, honestly does not support same-sex marriage. In that case — and until the candidate says something to the contrary, I believe that IS the case — all of those strong-sounding points Kevin makes are countered. The fact that the Highway Patrolwoman Kevin knows is an admirable person who stands up courageously for what she believes in doesn’t mean Vincent is required to believe the same thing. The fact that national leaders of the Democratic Party now support same-sex marriage doesn’t mean Vincent Sheheen has to. The position he holds is the same one Barack Obama, Joe Biden, et al., held a couple of years back. Remember? They were against it before they were for it. Sheheen’s supposed error here is that he still believes now what he believed then. Or he says he does, and I believe him.

And as for the polls, if every other voter in South Carolina now supported same-sex marriage, but Vincent Sheheen disagreed, how would saying he agreed with them make him a stand-up guy? Seems like it would make him the opposite.

Mind you, I’m pinning a lot on the man actually meaning what he says. But I’ve seen no reason to believe that he does not.

Do I think it was Vincent’s finest moment? Nope. But I also believe there was nothing he could have done to make it come out better. It was a no-win situation. He could change his mind on the issue, and invite the culture warriors of the right to paint him as an automaton who lets the national Democratic Party (which, you may have noticed, is not terribly popular here) do his thinking for him. Or he could stick to his position, and dismay and even hurt a lot of people who otherwise would be enthusiastically supporting him. (And frankly, I think it was his aversion to hurting the feelings of good, sincere people who would take his position personally that made him soften the blow by having his campaign manager address it, rather than saying something himself.)

Either way, it’s a mess. In such a situation, he might as well just be honest. Which I’m assuming is the course he chose…

I’m giving blood today. Anyone want to go with me?

17 Replies

I’m going to look just like this later today. I’m even wearing a yellow shirt…

Yesterday, I got a call from the Red Cross saying the requisite 16 weeks have passed since I last donated double red cells (after giving whole blood, you only have to wait 8 weeks), so it’s time to give again.

As usual, they were eager for my blood. When the lady on the phone suggested Wednesday, and I said neither Wednesday nor Thursday was good, and they didn’t have any slots that fit my schedule on Friday, so how about next week… she jumped in with “How about tomorrow?”

So I’ll be down at the Red Cross HQ on Bull Street at 5:30 today, preparing to donate through the Alyx process.

Before we got off the phone, though, the lady asked if I had any friends or family who could also come along with me and give.

They’ve asked me that before. It’s always sounded sort of odd. It makes recruiting someone to give blood sound as casual as, “Hey, wanna grab a beer after work?”

But it must work sometimes, or else they wouldn’t keep doing it. So I’ll try it.

Anybody want to go down to the Red Cross with me this evening and give blood? My treat…

Your Virtual Front Page, Monday, September 16, 2013

104 Replies

Just a quick look at what’s out there:

Rampage at Navy Yard (WashPost) — Death toll up to 13 in shooting spree, apparently including the shooter.
UN concludes chemical agent sarin gas used in Syria attack (The Guardian) — The UN calls it a war crime, and describes the attack in terms that make it certain that the Assad regime is responsible, but isn’t pointing fingers. Which, many will say, is just like the UN.
Experian doesn’t want to monitor our credit any more (thestate.com) — I suppose the job didn’t turn out to be all that lucrative.
Antibiotic-resistant bacteria poses ‘catastrophic’ threat, CDC report says (WashPost) — Scary-sounding stuff.
Costa Concordia freed from rocks (BBC) — That’s that shipwreck in Italy.
Columbia man shot protecting pit bulls (thestate.com) — I put this on the front because, while it is not literally a “man bites dog” story, it comes close.

How many people in the country do you suppose really, truly know whether Janet Yellen is best qualified?

56 Replies

Certainly not I. But you see, I strongly doubt that most of the people really stirred up about her candidacy for the Fed do, either.

This is stimulated by a couple of things. One of which is the withdrawal of Larry Summers — the candidate the president wanted — from consideration for Ben Bernanke’s job, for “reasons” that seem kinda sketchy.

Then, there was this email this morning:

Hi Brad,

Now that Larry Summers — the President’s Rock of Gibraltar — has withdrawn himself from consideration for the top Fed job, he should — in for a penny, in for a pound — do everything he can to make sure that Janet Yellen gets the job. Summers should privately tell the President that Yellen is the best choice (because she is), he should aggressively lobby Senators from both parties to support Yellen (because they still listen to him, even though they don’t want to), and he should publicly endorse her for the job.

Just think: if the President nominates Janet Yellen to the Fed, Republican Senators will have no choice but to vote to confirm her or to face the wrath of American women at the voting booth. And even the GOP isn’t that stupid. I mean seriously, hell hath no fury like women scorned by a bunch of old white male Republican Senators stopping the confirmation of the first female Fed Chair in American history.

So if Larry comes out and supports the best person for the job…a historic President gets to make a historic appointment…the country gets the most qualified person to run monetary policy…Republicans suffer apoplectic seizures while being forced to do the right thing or cost themselves the women’s vote for the next 20 years…and Larry Summers gets to redeem himself with 51% of the population (even those oh-so-hard-to-please Harvard feminists).

Everybody wins.

Come on Larry, be a real man, support Janet.

-Erica

No, I don’t know who this Erica is when she’s at home, either. Even after finding this page. Near as I can tell, she’s some sort of professional “progressive.”

Nor, as I say, do I know anything about this Janet Yellen, although at a glance her resume seems a good fit. But so did Summers’.

And following the link my new BF Erica sent me, I see that the reasons given for Democrats not liking Summers were pretty weak. I find myself focusing on this:

Some Democrats are not keen on Summers as a candidate for the job, arguing that he was too supportive of deregulation during the Clinton administration. Nineteen Democratic senators – joined by an independent – signed a letter last week urging the president to instead consider Fed Vice Chairman Janet Yellen. Other candidates may in the mix as well.

“He is really a non-starter for us,” one senior Democratic staffer said of Summers.

Really? I have to say that any Democrat who would not want to return to the policies of the Clinton era — a time of balancing budgets, a booming economy and triangulating the Republicans silly — is a few bricks shy of a load. I’ll never quite understand what motivates these Democrats who think the people they manage to get elected aren’t lefty enough. Something they’re all smoking, I suspect.

Of course, we have reason to suspect it’s not really about that. That isn’t the emotional center for these rather gut-led people, is it? Isn’t it about that all that hoo-hah at Harvard? Erica seems to refer to that with her appeal to Larry to “redeem himself with 51% of the population,” which is the kind of hyperbole we have come to expect with people who think Summers said something horrid. Frankly, when I go back and look at what he actually did say, it’s so dense that I find myself wanting someone to interpret it for me from the academese. And I suspect any set of people constituting “51% of the population” would have the same problem. And “interpreters” play a big role in this. Most of the people who are truly indignant toward Summers — which I sincerely doubt is anything close to a majority of the country, or even of women — are mad about what someone said he said, rather than what he said.

In any case, he’s out and some people who look at things in simplistic terms are going “Yay!” and thinking this means Janet Yellen is in, although that’s not necessarily the way the president is going to go.

Far as I know, she’s the best candidate. But I know that I don’t know enough to judge that. (I know that my gut feeling that she’d be good is just a prejudice on my part — I tend, other things being equal, to cheer for in-house candidates, and she already works there.) And I marvel that so many other people seem to think they do…

Oh, yeah… what about Nikki Haley and the Savannah port?

23 Replies

Kristin Sosanie over at the SC Democratic Party brings up something I hadn’t thought about for awhile, but which we’re likely to hear more about as Nikki Haley tries to get re-elected:

Vice President Biden will be in South Carolina’s lowcountry today to talk about the importance of the Port of Charleston for the state and national economy. Governor Nikki Haley will attend, and we can only imagine she’s hoping beyond hope that the people of South Carolina have forgotten how she sold out the Port of Charleston and the South Carolina economy for $15,000 in campaign contributions.

Actions speak louder than words, and no matter what she says today, South Carolinians remember that when it came down to it Nikki Haley chose to give Georgia the competitive edge over South Carolina in order to stuff her campaign coffers. Take a look back at the coverage of Nikki Haley’s infamous “Savannah Sellout”:

Haley Received $15K from a Georgia fundraiser prior to port deal that gave Savannah an edge over Charleston and hurt the state’s economic future. “Gov. Nikki Haley faces increasing questions over her role in a decision that helped Savannah gain a competitive advantage over the Port of Charleston, the state’s main economic engine. New concerns arose over two recent events: Haley’s refusal to attend a Senate hearing next week on the matter, and revelations that she raised $15,000 at a Georgia fundraiser 13 days before the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control approved dredging Savannah’s harbor. That Nov. 10 approval came about six weeks after the agency denied the request over water-quality issues the dredging would cause.” [Post & Courier, 11/24/11]

Haley Sold Charleston Port Down River. “Last week, Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal put out a statement to thank our own Nikki Haley ‘and others’ for helping out with the expansion of the Savannah port. That sure was nice of him. Of course it’s the least he could do, seeing as how our governor and “others” — her hand-picked Department of Health and Environmental Control board cronies — sold out South Carolina and the Charleston port for him. The DHEC board recently approved a controversial permit to dredge the Savannah River, a move that literally will put the river on life support and could cost this state billions.” [Post & Courier, 11/20/11]

Pay to Play Politics at its Worst. “An investigation has uncovered plane rides and large campaign contributions that some say show a cozy relationship between Gov. Haley and the DHEC board….Gov. Haley attended a fundraising event in Georgia just two weeks before DHEC approved the Georgia dredging permit. The event raised money from Georgia businesses to fund Gov. Haley’s 2014 re-election campaign. Before Gov. Haley appointed them to the DHEC board, campaign records show that Kenyon Wells and his family gave the governor $50,000, while DHEC Chair Allen Amsler gave $3,000. A third DHEC board member and Gov. Haley-appointee gave the governor $570 in 2010.” [WIS, 11/30/11]

Opposition from Democrats & Republicans. “Republican and “South Carolina House Republicans and Democrats alike blasted Gov. Nikki Haley on Tuesday for vetoing their resolution expressing displeasure with a state agency’s move to clear the way for the deepening of Georgia’s Port of Savannah. The House overrode Haley’s veto of that resolution by a 111-to-1 vote. ‘This is a political ploy,’ state Rep. Jim Merrill, R-Berkeley, said of Haley’s veto. ‘Once again, (Haley) is working more on behalf of Georgia, when it comes to this permit and this issue, than she is on South Carolina.’” [The State,2/28/12]

Does Assad speak English at home? How is he so fluent?

9 Replies

Yeah, I know he studied ophthalmology in England, and his wife was born and grew up there.

But I was struck by Assad’s fluency in his interview with Charlie Rose. I had called it up expecting it to be conducted through an interpreter. Even if a foreign leader speaks English well, an interpreter offers advantages — first, your own people see you speaking your native tongue; it’s a nationalistic statement. Then, it gives you extra time to think of a good answer.

But Assad didn’t choose that path. In a situation in which his regime and by extension his life are on the line, dealing with a highly respected interviewer asking probing questions, he managed to maneuver his way through the interview without stumbling. He had thoroughly internalized his talking points, his version of the story, and he stuck to it, stayed smooth.

He not only stayed on message, he showed a deft understanding of and ability to manipulate U.S. politics at this critical moment, as The Washington Post observed.

He did all that in a second language.

On one level, this is further testimony to just how ubiquitous our own language has become globally. On the personal, though, I find myself wondering how he keeps up his proficiency to this level. Surely it isn’t spoken much in his daily interaction with his officials and generals as he fights this war.

Do he and his wife speak it daily at home?

I’m intrigued…

Do the Assads routinely speak English at home?

Fielding Mellish was ahead of his time

Before he outmaneuvered Obama, Putin whupped a congressman at arm-wrestling

5 Replies

And it was a Republican congressman, so the Russian leader’s humiliation of U.S. political leaders has been non-partisan, and has covered two of the three co-equal branches of our government.

Maybe he and Justice Scalia should go out on a shirtless hunting trip together, and see who can bag more game. Or something.

Anyway, courtesy of Slate, here’s the story:

During an interview with KPCC that aired yesterday, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican, was asked if he had ever met Vladimir Putin. It’s safe to say his answer was more than a little unexpected.

Turns out, during the early 1990s, Putin, then only a local official, traveled to Washington with a Russian delegation. While there, Putin and two other Russians ended up playing a game of touch football with Rohrabacher and a few of his “right-wing” buddies. Things only got stranger after the game:

“We all ended up going to the Irish Times Pub afterwards, and we were having a little bit too much to drink I guess. But anyway, we started arguing about who won the Cold War, etcetera. And so we decided to settle it like men do when they’ve had too much to drink at the pub. So we got down to these arm-wrestling matches, and I ended up being paired off with Putin. And he’s a little guy, but boy I’ll tell you he put me down in a millisecond. He is tough … his muscles are just unbelievable. And then his bodyguard gets up and this buddy of mine and says ‘oh I’ll take him.’ And my friend put his bodyguard down, so it was good.”

Have a blessed Yom Kippur

7 Replies

Stan Dubinsky shared this today, saying:

For those observing Yom Kippur, may you have an easy fast and a meaningful day of prayer …

… along with links to this Leonard Cohen song.

I knew the song, but did not realize it was, according to Wikipedia, based on the Unetaneh Tokef, an 11th-century liturgical poem recited on… Yom Kippur.”

I thought that was a cool new thing to know, so I pass it on.

One silver lining to the Syria crisis — it utterly shatters the whole left-right dichotomy

1 Reply

A piece in the WSJ this morning stated the obvious — that the congressional battle lines over what to do with regard to Syria completely scramble the usual assumptions about left and right, Democrat and Republican in U.S. politics.

Which, of course, is one good thing about this whole horrible mess. It’s forcing people to actually think about an issue rather than simply go with the party line, and form alliances based upon their own discernment, rather than simply backing the partisan team.

An excerpt:

MoveOn.org, which usually supports the president, is mobilizing members to oppose intervention and running a television ad stating its disagreement with Mr. Obama. Organizing for Action, the group spun off from the president’s own re-election effort to promote his agenda in office, is sitting out the fight.

By contrast, Stephen Hadley, who served as national-security adviser to President George W. Bush, backs military force in Syria. When Mr. Hadley stated his position in an interview with Bloomberg Television, Mr. Obama’s national-security adviser, Susan Rice, highlighted his remarks on Twitter.

The Obama administration also received an offer of help from Sheldon Adelson, the casino mogul who spent about $100 million on Republican campaigns last year. In an interview with National Journal, the influential GOP donor, who is known for promoting policy that supports Israel, said he supports the push for military action and would be willing to help the president build support in Congress.

The surprising lines of demarcation show how the crisis in Syria has scrambled the usual political calculus, dividing both political parties and pitting those who usually play on the same team against each other….

If only this would happen on all issues. If only our politicos would actually wrestle with every issue and make up their minds about it rather than buying a set of prefab values off the shelf. Why, if that happened, Democrats and Republicans might actually start listening to each other, and trying to find solutions rather than win yardage for their respective factions.

And then, the deliberative process might start working the way it should in a republic…

An appeal from Harvest Hope Food Bank

Putin, Obama, and American exceptionalism

47 Replies

There are a number of things worth discussing in Vladimir Putin’s op-ed in The New York Times today. One of my favorites is the part where this ex-KGB man invokes God in lecturing us about our exceptionalism:

And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.

I guess someone at the Kremlin persuaded him that that’s how you speak to those simple, theistic folk in America.

Whatever. In any case, I am not deeply shocked that Putin does not believe in, or at least not approve of, American exceptionalism.

I’ll just say that there’s something deeply ironic about the guy whose tank treads so recently rolled over Georgia to be saying such things as, “It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States.”

And don’t get me started on this absurdity:

No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists…

“Every reason to believe” the rebels launched the chemical attacks? Uh, no, there isn’t. In fact, I don’t know of any reasons to believe it, unless you’re an Assad cheerleader and therefore really want to believe it. Yep, some of those rebels would do it if they could. But I’ve seen no credible arguments that any of them have the capability to do it. It’s not like we helped them. We’re just now finally getting around to supplying some of those small arms we promised months ago.

So “every reason?” No, not even close.

Let’s look at the rest of that statement. Which side has “powerful foreign patrons” who are actually actively engaged in supporting its war aims? The only side that describes is the Assad regime, which has been receiving substantial material support from both Russia and Iran. I’m not aware of the rebels having “powerful foreign patrons.” But if that’s a reference to us, then he tells yet another whopper with that bit about “who would be siding with the fundamentalists.” No, as everyone knows, the main reason we have NOT come down unequivocally on the side of the rebels, the way Putin has for Assad, is that we don’t want to risk siding with said fundamentalists.

Oh, but I said “don’t get me started.” Sorry; I seem to have started myself. I’ll stop now.

I mean, I’ll stop that, and turn to the reference to exceptionalism in the president’s speech the other night.

He really defined it oddly:

America is not the world’s policeman. [Wrong, but I’ve addressed that elsewhere.] Terrible things happen across the globe, and it is beyond our means to right every wrong. [Nor is any policeman able to right every wrong on his beat, making this a deeply flawed analogy, but again, I’ve discussed that elsewhere.] But when, with modest effort and risk, we can stop children from being gassed to death, and thereby make our own children safer over the long run, I believe we should act. That’s what makes America different. That’s what makes us exceptional. With humility, but with resolve, let us never lose sight of that essential truth.

No, Mr. President, our exceptionalism is not a matter of simply making “our own children safer over the long run.” Pretty much all nations will take military action if the lives of their own children are threatened. In that respect, as you once inappropriately said, American exceptionalism is no different from “Greek exceptionalism.” You’re right in that collective security affects us all, and a crime against foreign children is ultimately a crime against our own. But America is exceptional in that it has the power to act against tyranny when it’s harming other people, and when our own interests are not directly or obviously involved.

You would have been right if you’d simply said, “when, with modest effort and risk, we can stop children from being gassed to death… I believe we should act.” That is exceptional. The qualifying phrase about our own children makes us unexceptional. See what I mean?

We are exceptional because, in the ongoing effort to uphold certain basic civilizing principles across the globe, America is what former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright called “the indispensable nation.” We have the power to act for good in ways that other nations cannot, and because we have that power, we have responsibilities that we cannot abdicate. Or, at least, should not abdicate.

It doesn’t have to be rationalized in such terms as, Hey, those could be our kids.

Of course, there are many other ways, Mr. Putin and Mr. Obama, in which this nation is exceptional: This is the country where a foreign leader whose interests are clearly opposed to those of this nation can get an oped published, in the leading national journal, trashing that same nation’s cherished ideas of itself, without any consequences to anyone. It’s always been like that here, and it has set us apart starkly from such nation’s as, just to throw one out, the Soviet Union. It’s also the country that believes the whole world should enjoy such a free flow of ideas, and is wiling — occasionally, at least — to stand up for that. Just FYI…

Never give up on helping Republicans with their English-language skills

16 Replies

Yes, I suffer setback after disappointment, but when I get a release such as this one from SC Rep. Bill Taylor:

Abandon the “Government Plantation”

Meet Louisiana State Sen. Elbert Guillory

Please join me in Columbia this coming Sunday afternoon as we give a SC WELCOME to Louisiana State Sen. Elbert Guillory.

Sen. Guillory has became an Internet sensation after bravely voicing his disapproval of the progressive agenda and Liberal policies. Nearly a million people have viewed his video “Why I Am A Republican” in explaining why he switched from the Democrat Party to the Republican Party…

… I don’t rant, rave, or fulminate, in spite of the great insult to the language I love. I simply reply with a neutral, but firm, correction:

FYI, there’s a typo in there. You wrote “Democrat Party” where you meant “Democratic Party.”

This nonsense has been going on for far too long. I seem to recall George Will taking Bob Dole to task for it quite publicly, back in the ’70s, when Dole was going on about “Democrat Wars,”

One of these days, it’s going to get through. The important thing is, never let it just pass. When you hear it, speak up — as I said, calmly but firmly. Surely they will eventually pick up on it.

There are some Republicans out there who want English to be our official, statutory language. Well, if they want people speaking English, they should model the correct behavior…

The president’s speech was good — but we ARE the world’s policeman

30 Replies

The headline pretty much says it.

I thought the president gave a good, reasoned, tempered, well-balanced speech at a very tricky time. He scheduled this talk tonight to sell us on the idea of taking military action in Syria, and in the last two days we’ve seen developments that may preclude that.

But he handled it well. He made the case for action, should it still prove necessary, but gave diplomacy a chance to work, given the present extraordinary circumstances.

There’s only one false note he sounded — the repeated emphasis on the United States not being the world’s policeman.

Yes, we are. Everything else the president said indicated that he knows that we are.

This is not me saying that the United States should be the world’s policeman, or that’s what I think we should aspire to. That’s what we are. We have power to act effectively, and if we don’t, it’s an abdication of a moral responsibility. As the president said.

It’s silly to say something like that, just to satisfy the factions who hate the reality that that’s what we are.

Note the faulty logic in this passage:

America is not the world’s policeman. Terrible things happen across the globe, and it is beyond our means to right every wrong.

Guess what? A policeman can’t prevent every crime that happens on his beat. He’s not perfect; his power is not absolute. But he does his best.

Other than that, good speech. Just what was needed at this awkward moment.

Your Virtual Front Page, Tuesday, September 10, 2013

11 Replies

Interesting thing about this page — the top three stories are the very different takes on the Syria story, from three major news outlets. Each is the lede story at that paper’s site. You don’t often get such widely varying, blind-men-describing-the-elephant descriptions of a major news story to this extent. But this is a particularly complex story, that’s rapidly developing in many important directions:

U.S. and Allies to Explore U.N. Path to Secure Chemical Arms (NYT) — So, the main thing to know is that we’re working toward consensus.
Syria Admits It Possesses Chemical Weapons (WSJ) — Yeah, that would definitely be the clear lede, if all this other stuff weren’t going on. Meanwhile, you might want to read the sidebar, about how Syria views the latest diplomatic developments as a “victory.”
Russia balks at French plan for U.N. resolution (WashPost) — Wow. A whole other story from the other two. As I said, you don’t often see editors go in this many directions.
Group backing strong-mayor vote says it has the signatures (thestate.com) — I mentioned this earlier.
Four convicted for Delhi gang rape (BBC) — Good. Now let’s see what kind of sentence they get.
Apple Unveils New iPhones — One Innovative, One Cheap (NPR) — I can’t wait to see ’em. No, really — I can’t wait. Gimme. One for each hand. 🙂

NOW strong mayor may be on the Nov. 5 ballot (yeah, I’m confused, too)

37 Replies

This just in, from thestate.com:

COLUMBIA, SC — Backers of a referendum to change Columbia’s form of government on Tuesday afternoon will submit petitions with what they assert are sufficient signatures to force City Council to put a strong-mayor option to voters on Nov. 5.

The petition still must be certified by the Richland County Election Commission and the county elections and voter registration office…

Matthew Richardson, a Columbia attorney hired by a group of citizens and business leaders who organized the drive, said once the county certifies enough names on the petition, an election must be held no sooner than 30 days or longer than 90 days from certification, according to the state petition law.

“Obviously, November 5 is a viable date,” Richardson said…

Yeah, I’m confused, too. Didn’t The State tell us categorically just last week that “A massive drive to collect signatures to force a referendum on a strong-mayor form of government in Columbia won’t get the 11,000-plus signatures needed to put the issue on the Nov. 5 ballot.”

I think I may see the trouble. That earlier report was based, apparently, on this: “Friday at 5 p.m. is the deadline for submitting signatures to put a question on the Nov. 5 ballot, according to Richland County Elections director Howard Jackson.” That is to say, last Friday, Sept. 6.

So either he, or Matthew Richardson, is wrong.

I hope it’s Mr. Jackson who’s wrong, as I’d like to see this on the ballot…

Is ‘Breaking Bad’ the best medical drama ever?

17 Replies

This doctor thinks so, and makes a pretty compelling case. An excerpt:

While most medical shows—much like the health system at large—focus on acute presentations, hospitalizations, and procedures, Breaking Bad follows its patients far beyond the walls of the hospital. When Hank, the DEA agent brother-in-law of the show’s meth-cooking protagonist, Walter White, is shot by the cartel, he is immediately rushed to a hospital where he gets the usual TV doctoring: wailing sirens, complex jargon, rickety stretchers and tense surgeons. But while most shows would either move on to the next thrilling emergency or end with the patient disappearing into the credits, Breaking Bad did neither. After initially being scared witless by the thought of being discharged, Hank spent almost an entire season in bed, obsessing over minerals and pornography. He became depressed, despondent, and angry. He vacillated between motivation and apathy. In short, he didn’t stop being sick as soon as the bullets were pulled out of his chest or when he was discharged from the hospital. If anything, that’s when his journey started. While most shows focus on the heroics of EMTs, surgeons, and doctors, Breaking Bad shows that the heroism of patients and their caregivers goes on long after they have moved on from an acute care facility. And importantly, Hank walks with a limp to this day, dispelling the notion of magical cures.

Another telling scene that somehow escapes the attention of most medical shows is the look on the faces of Skyler and Marie, Walt’s and Hank’s respective wives, when they receive their spouses’ medical bills. Not only do the bills make no sense to them, the doctors appear as bamboozled and helpless as the patients. In fact, a popular Internet memesuggests that Breaking Bad would not have been possible in a system which provides universal free health care, such as Canada’s, because Walt would never have been desperate to collect the money for his treatment. …

Good points, I thought.

If “Breaking Bad” has appeal in Britain, it’s probably for the same reason that westerns were once popular abroad. A depiction of a health care system so wild, primitive and uncivilized, where every man is on his own, is probably particularly fascinating for people who don’t have to fret about such things. It’s even set in the wild West. (Hmmm. According to this, it’s NOT popular over there, so forget my theorizing. I guess it’s just too far-fetched for them.)

But aside from health-care politics, it’s true that “Breaking Bad” is more like real life. There’s no brilliant cure within 43 minutes. Hank still walks with a limp…

Some talking points on the library bond vote

20 Replies

I haven’t seen a lot out there about the Richland Library bond vote on the Nov. 5 ballot. So I thought I’d pass on this memo I received from folks who are pushing for a “yes”:

Dear Friends,

Did you know the Richland Library bond referendum will be on the November 5 ballot? Below is some basic information. If you would like more details or how to be involved in Vote For Our Libraries, contact us! betty@voteforourlibraries.com 803-233-2414

Richland Library

Since 2007, the library has had a capital needs plan that calls for renovations and additions to all library facilities based on the changing ways we serve and advance our community.

Key Facts:

Why is the Library Requesting a Bond Referendum?

Voter approved bonds are the only way the library can obtain substantial funds for building and renovations. The goal is to update all library locations by adding and reconfiguring space, technology and resources to better fit the way customers need and use the library today. The capital needs plan was developed in 2007 and is reviewed each year. The only new buildings are Ballentine and Sandhills. Following green building guidelines and sustainable practices will mean substantial energy savings for all locations.

Why now?

It’s been 24 years since the last bond referendum in 1989, and most of our facilities haven’t been significantly improved or updated since then. Interest rates are at an all-time low – it costs half as much today for twice the value added in 1989.

What will it cost the taxpayer?

Estimates indicate the maximum impact on taxpayers to be $12-14/year for a $100,000 home. For as little as one cup of coffee each month, we can ensure access to needed resources and technology, as well as the opportunity to share information and exchange ideas.

Why spend money on libraries when everyone has a smartphone/tablet?

Technology has made libraries more essential to their communities – not obsolete. In fact, many people in Richland County rely on the library for access to technology, computers and the Internet. Even if you may not use the library, your friends, family and neighbors are most likely relying on its services.

bradwarthen.com

All The News That Gives You Fits

Monthly Archives: September 2013

Howard, I don’t think YOU need more time on strong mayor

Kevin Fisher quotes me again, this time about Sheheen

I’m giving blood today. Anyone want to go with me?

Your Virtual Front Page, Monday, September 16, 2013

How many people in the country do you suppose really, truly know whether Janet Yellen is best qualified?

Oh, yeah… what about Nikki Haley and the Savannah port?

Does Assad speak English at home? How is he so fluent?

Fielding Mellish was ahead of his time

Before he outmaneuvered Obama, Putin whupped a congressman at arm-wrestling

Have a blessed Yom Kippur

One silver lining to the Syria crisis — it utterly shatters the whole left-right dichotomy

An appeal from Harvest Hope Food Bank

Putin, Obama, and American exceptionalism

Never give up on helping Republicans with their English-language skills

The president’s speech was good — but we ARE the world’s policeman

Your Virtual Front Page, Tuesday, September 10, 2013

NOW strong mayor may be on the Nov. 5 ballot (yeah, I’m confused, too)

Is ‘Breaking Bad’ the best medical drama ever?

Some talking points on the library bond vote