Category Archives: Social media

No, really, I think Fox will tire of Sanford

Meg Kinnard Tweeted earlier that Fox News and Mark Sanford have made it official:

Former SC Gov. Mark Sanford hired by Fox News

SC State Wire
Published: TodayCOLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) – Former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford is joining Fox News as a political commentator through the 2012 presidential elections, a Fox Channel spokeswoman confirmed Saturday.

The network spokeswoman told The Associated Press the two-term Republican governor has been hired as a contributor, though she declined to give any details on his pay or when he would start.

Sanford was a rising political star before he vanished from the state for five days in 2009, and reporters were told he was hiking the Appalachian Trail. When he reappeared, the father of four admitted to being in Argentina with a woman he later called his soul mate.

The international affair destroyed his marriage, which ended in divorce, and derailed his once-promising political career, which had included talk of presidential aspirations…The term-limited Sanford has appeared on Fox since leaving office in January. In September, he told the Associated Press his interview with Sean Hannity was his way of slowly getting back to talking about the nation’s troubles.

“I think this represents me sticking my toe back in the water and talking about things I care about,” he said then. “I care passionately about the direction of this country and deficit and debt and all the things that seem to be in vogue right now.”

He reiterated that he had no intentions of getting back into politics, though he noted he’s learned “you never say never in life.”

Sanford did not immediately return phone or e-mail messages Saturday.

Sanford’s new job was first reported by The New York Times.

When I reTweeted the news, I added the comment, “Fox will tire of this sooner than they realize…”

Apparently, my comment was taken in a spirit other than the way I intended it, because former Sanford press secretary Joel Sawyer (recently seen with me on Pub Politics) responded:

But I wasn’t being hateful at all. I was just saying something that I believe to be true. I really do think that, six months or perhaps a year after he starts, they are likely to question the decision.

I think he has plenty of experience that will stand him in good stead at the outset. After all, they did have him on 46 times during those few months when he was fighting to prevent South Carolina from getting all of its stimulus money. Really. Not making it up.

So there had to be something they liked.

But here’s the thing about Mark: After awhile, he naturally kicks back into his normal mode of speaking. And the nation hasn’t heard him in large-enough doses to know what I’m talking about.

Except once.

After his infamous post-Argentina press conference (later on the same day Gina Smith caught him at the Atlanta airport), several national media types remarked to me the weird, aimless way he had wandered about, seemingly endlessly, in making his confession.

I was surprised that they remarked upon it. That’s the way he talks all the time! He backs into topics, and backs out of them. I don’t have much room to talk on this score, I realize — maybe it’s why I liked Sanford so much early on — but that’s the way he speaks. Like neither his nor anyone else’s time is valuable. About as hurried as he is out operating the backhoe out on the “farm.”

There’s good TV and bad TV, and it has nothing to do with what sort of human being you are. The world is loaded with fine people who would not be good on TV.

I could be wrong, but I really think a time is likely to come when someone at Fox cries to the ceiling, “Why did we do this?

We’ll see. Or you’ll see. I don’t get those 24-hour TV “news” channels any more.

‘What do we want?’ ‘WE CAN’T TELL YOU!’

I could have sworn I saw something similar to this on a promo for the Letterman show (“Top Ten Things Overheard at the Occupy Wall Street Demonstrations,” or some such), but couldn’t find it on the Web. In any case, partly inspired by that, but more by what I’ve seen and read in recent days, I Tweeted this this morning

“What do we want? WE DON’T KNOW! When do we want it? DOESN’T MATTER! WE’LL STAY HERE FOREVER!”

And of course, it’s not just me. The NYT had this story on its site this morning:

Protesters Debate What Demands, if Any, to Make

In a quiet corner across the street from Zuccotti Park, a cluster of 25 solemn-faced protesters struggled one night to give Occupy Wall Street what critics have found to be most lacking.

“We absolutely need demands,” said Shawn Redden, 35, an earnest history teacher in the group. “Like Frederick Douglass said, ‘Power concedes nothing without a demand.’ ”

The influence and staying power of Occupy Wall Street are undeniable: similar movements have sprouted around the world, as the original group enters its fifth week in the financial district. Yet a frequent criticism of the protesters has been the absence of specific policy demands…

In other words, they don’t know why they’ve spent the last five weeks of their lives doing this. At least, not in any way that could actually translate into results.

While the demonstrators’ goals are no clearer to me after having read that, my own opposition to the movement itself is a bit sharper.

One thing they seem to believe in, and which I strongly oppose, is direct democracy. One of the things that has prevented them from articulating aims is their insistence on everyone participating meaningfully in the decision.Which is impossible.  (They’ve tried it with Facebook, then decided not everyone is on Facebook, so that lacks legitimacy. Which shows how extreme they are in their democratic impulse.) Beyond the kind of painfully simplistic, bumper-sticker demands you hear in the kinds of chants I mock in my headline and Tweet above, a crowd can’t take a position on anything. And even on that mob level someone, or some few someones, have to come up with the idea to chant to begin with.

Where these folks are on the right track is in their sense that our representative democracy isn’t functioning as it should. But the answer is to fix the republic, not to abandon it for mob rule.

A mob cannot discuss, or refine, or incorporate minority ideas to achieve consensus. A crowd can’t deliberate or discern. Come up with an algorithm to assemble opinions from masses of people and synthesize a position, and you still won’t be arriving at anything like an intelligent decision. (Aside from placing a great deal of undemocratic power into the hands of the writers of the software.)

Good ideas for governing a multitude seldom spring, like Minerva, directly from the brow of an individual. They are even less likely to do so from a crowd. In either case, the idea should be tested, challenged and refined in debate. The problem in our republic today is that we don’t have real debate between people with differing ideas — we have shouting matches between irreconcilable factions who are not listening to each other. And a crowd on the street is just another set of shouters.

The thing is, you NEED a “1 percent” to arrive at properly nuanced decisions for a multitude. In fact, the decision-makers need to be fewer than that for anything larger than a village, or a neighborhood. It’s not possible for the 99 percent to all interact with each other meaningfully in arriving at an intelligent decision on a complex issue.

Speaking of which — something else I Tweeted about this morning: “I saw ‘the 99 percent’ demonstrating at the Statehouse. Apparently, there are fewer people in Columbia than I had thought.”

Actually, what you had there on the State House grounds the last couple of days was about the right number for making effective decisions for the entire state — if they had been selected in a manner infinitely better than self-selection, and also better than the way we’re choosing lawmakers now. Because that’s not working so well, either.

Someone responded to my latter Tweet this morning. It took him two posts to say it all:

I actually sympathize with the movement. They just can’t articulate. But damn, Columbia protesters are cringe-inducing.
to me, there are actually similarities between OWS and Tea Party. They know something’s wrong, but are too dumb to articulate.

Indeed. But it’s not that they’re too “dumb.” They could all be the smartest people in America, and it wouldn’t matter. A crowd can’t articulate anything — or if it can, the thing it articulates going to be too simple. That’s the problem with street protests.

Endorsements that don’t help Huntsman, but should

Last night on Pub Politics, since Joel Sawyer was co-hosting, I brought up this Tweet from the day before in which Nicholas Kristof mentioned Joel’s candidate:

It’s odd to see Republicans struggling to find an electable candidate.They have 1: Jon Huntsman.They just don’t like him.

To me, that’s a fine thought with which I agree completely. I greatly respect Nicholas Kristof. But of course, with the great mass of GOP voters who seem determined in 2012 to run off a cliff together with the most Out There candidate they can find, it’s an invitation to like Huntsman even less. Because Kristof is a liberal. A very thoughtful, iconoclastic liberal (a guy who, for instance, persuaded me to have a big problem with Obama’s lack of support for the Colombian Trade Agreement in 2008) who is in no way like the ranting partisans of the left.

But that doesn’t matter. He’s a liberal, and that’s that. The kinds of Republicans who don’t like Huntsman — and there are a great many of them — are of the sort (and you find far too many such people in both parties) who are convinced that a person who leans the other way would only say good things about a candidate of their party as some sort of dirty trick meant to promote the weakest candidate.

That, of course, is extremely foolish in this context. If Kristof is up to anything underhanded in this instance (which he isn’t), it would be a sort of double-reverse move — I’ll praise the best candidate in their party so they’ll be sure not to like him.

This huge mass of post-2008 Republicans seem bound and determined not to nominate anyone who might win the general election. Which is very odd, given that they seem to dislike Barack Obama so much.

In 2008, a wonderful thing happened: Both parties actually chose the candidate most likely to appeal to the political center. I do not recall any time when that happened before in my adult life (or at least, I don’t remember the last time my own favorite candidates in both parties won their respective nominations).

At the time, of course, there was a faction that utterly rejected this approach, and for the longest time waged an “anybody but McCain” quest. (Ironically, the choice of the Right — such as Jim DeMint — was Mitt Romney, who this year is considered Mr. Moderate. Which shows you what’s happened since 2008.) Just as the more vehement partisans of the left insisted their party had to nominate Hillary Clinton.

Tragically, the conclusion that far too many Republicans have drawn from 2008 is that they were not extreme enough. (They fail to understand that McCain was defeated mainly by two factors: the collapse of the economy in mid-September, and his having chosen Sarah Palin as an attempt to please the very faction that didn’t like him.)

So they flit from Bachmann to Perry to, now, Cain. And in the polls, Romney remains bridesmaid to them all.

And they utterly ignore that there’s another moderate choice, one without Romney’s baggage: Huntsman.

Last night, when I brought of the Kristof Tweet on the show, co-host Phil Bailey (who works for the SC Senate Democrats) weighed in with how much he, too, liked Huntsman.

I don’t think that thrilled Joel, either.

Phil, I believe, really was employing the strategy of saying nice things about a strong candidate on the other side so that the other side wouldn’t like him. But don’t let that blind you to the fact that Huntsman is the candidate most likely to appeal to the center, and even to disaffected Democrats.

Another way Occupy Wall Streeters are like Tea Partiers (this one, anyway)

I follow @riseofthecenter for obvious reasons, and was for a moment excited about this Tweet:

Absurd Statements from 99%ers Show How Out of Touch So Many of Them Are — http://ow.ly/6PJBx — #politics #news #cim #nolabels

… because it seemed that it would provide evidence confirming my prejudice that Occupy Wall Street equals Tea Party equals Something I Will Never Agree With.

You recall the video of outrageous things that people at a recent Tea Party event in Columbia believe, right?

Well, I figured this would be the mirror image.

But when I clicked on it, there was only one example of the absurdity the Tweet mentioned. And as much fun as it is to construct a universe from a single example, I restrained myself. But I did enjoy the one example:

Have you been seeing these pictures of people claiming to be among the 99% of people who aren’t… I’m really not sure, because I’m not any of the evil things they say about “the corporations”, and I’m for damn sure not one of them either.

This one is particularly amusing, in it’s ridiculous sense of entitlement:

Learning is free, if the person imparting the knowledge wants to give it to you for free… and there is a ton of stuff you can teach yourself if you go to the libraries out there (free) or internet (free, once you have access), but those pesky professors want to get paid to teach, those darn janitors want to get paid to clean the building at night, that evil corporation that makes the electricity that powers the lights expects to be paid for that electricity and administrators… those selfish evil people expect to get paid to sit in their cubicles and run the school.

How selfish of those people! This girl wants KNOWLEDGE, and by gawd the universe should conform to her wishes without expecting anything in return!

What a joke.

That’s more like it, Boyd. Good lad!

Last night, Phil Bailey called me with five minutes to go and asked me to be a last-minute replacement for Joel Lourie on Pub Politics, so of course I said yes, and they held the show for a few minutes to give me time to get there.

That’s seven times now, people. No one else comes close. The Five-Timer Club long ago became passé for me. I’m the standard fill-in guest. The one sad thing is that I can never be a stand-in guest co-host, because you have to be a Democrat or Republican. That’s the format. Speaking of which, Wesley Donehue was out of town again (China was mentioned), and Joel Sawyer filled in for him. You know, the former press secretary to Mark Sanford, now state campaign director for Jon Huntsman. He did great.

One of our topics, as it happened, was Kevin Fisher’s column about my post about Boyd Brown’s inappropriate little witticism. (When I entered The Whig, I saw Corey Hutchins seated at a table, went over and stood over him, cocked a fist back and said, “Look out — I’m liable to attack you…”) Our discussion — during which both Phil took the position that Boyd’s comment was great, and Joel held that it was Corey’s journalistic obligation to report it — led me to an ironic observation: While one of them represented the left and the other the right, I was the only real conservative at the table. They would only agree that I was the grouchy old guy upholding outdated notions of civility and propriety. (Which is basically what conservatism is, properly understood.)

We also discussed other, more interesting stuff. I’ll post the show when it’s available.

But that’s not why I come to you today in this post. I wanted to share with you this op-ed from the aforementioned young Mr. Brown, in which he expresses his thoughts regarding the “F” the governor gave him in a far more mature and appropriate manner. An excerpt:

Recently, as you may have heard, Gov. Nikki Haley released her legislative report cards for 2011. I will not venture into the sheer pettiness of this nonsense, although it is just that – petty nonsense. Instead, I’ll explain why I got the grade I received, and why, for the first time in my life, I’ll ignore the “teacher’s” advice on how to improve my grade.

According to her standards, I was given an “F.” Not since my first year of Carolina have I been awarded an “F,” and now that I’m in law school, I hope it’s not a recurring theme. I was ashamed of the “F” I received on my first test in freshman philosophy, but I recovered and did well in the course. I can’t say the same for the “F” I was awarded by Nikki Haley; instead, I am proud of it.

Some would argue that since she is our governor, she knows what the people of South Carolina want. Those who are really drunk on her Kool-Aid would probably argue that point loudly and irrationally. Here is my argument:

The “F” I received stands for Fairfield, for your family. In last year’s election, Senator Vincent Sheheen won our county with overwhelming numbers. Nikki Haley and her platform (or lack thereof) were soundly rejected. She is clearly out of touch and out of step with our community – just look at the election returns.

It is offensive to me for her to think that her agenda for our state trumps the agenda of those who I represent. For her to think otherwise shows her skyrocketing level of arrogance, which only rises higher with every national news show she visits, and every out of state fundraiser she attends….

And so forth.

This is good. This is right. Far better that you express clearly why you are offended by her actions (and you have every reason to be offended by her presumption) that for you to be offensive yourself.

That’s it. That’s my fatherly, or at least avuncular, advice for today.

Hear our own Phillip Bush on the radio today

Just reTweeted this urgent news:

Today on @yourdayradio a nation #divided and Pianist Phillip Bush. Listen on-air or online at noon for these and more. #ETVRadio

Yep, that’s our Phillip Bush, blog regular, whom you’ve seen on video here.

Find the live audio stream here. (I hope it works. I can’t confirm that until it’s live, apparently.)

Laurin and Nancy at the social media symposium

Laurin is presenting, Nancy is going over her notes, and I'm trying to think up some mayhem that will get me sent to the principal's office. Just like school.

Last night, I participated in a symposium on politics and social media at Francis Marion University. Which was great. Trouble is, I was on a panel with Laurin Manning and Nancy Mace. And they were better prepared than I was.

See, I thought it was going to be just a panel discussion, so I had jotted some notes about points I wanted to be sure to hit on, and showed up. Laurin and Nancy had slide shows, and got up and made presentations. So I had to, too. No problem, really, because I can fill any amount of time… I talked about the old blog and why I started it and how it related to my old MSM job, and the new blog and how it’s going, my Twitter feed (dang! I forgot to mention I’m one of the Twitterati!), how I hate Facebook (it’s the AOL of this decade), “Seinfeld,” my Top Five Baseball Movies, and I don’t know what all.

Then at some point, I realized I’d gone on enough, or more than enough, and shut up. Which I think was cool, but it was way less polished than what the other panelists did.

You know how, when you were in school, there were these girls (and sometimes traitor guys) who always showed up with their homework done? And raised their hands and asked for more work, for extra credit? And when the teacher had been out of the room, and came back, they told her what you had been doing while she was gone? It was like that. Laurin and Nancy were good.

But I survived to the actual panel discussion part, and that went well (I think), so all’s well that ends that way. As it happened, I enjoyed it.

I especially enjoyed learning from Laurin and Nancy.

Laurin was sort of a mentor for me when I started blogging in 2005, and she was well established with the legendary Laurinline. She later was part of the unstoppable Obama social media machine of 2008. Recently, she’s blogged at SC Soapbox.

Nancy, the first female to graduate from The Citadel (how’s that for intimidating?), is founder and CEO of The Mace Group, LLC. She’s also partners with Will Folks in FITSNews— she does the technical side, and leaves the content to Will.

I’m not going to share with you all the cool trade secrets they imparted, because knowledge is power, and I want it all to myself. But I will share this anecdote that they told us about:

You know how Will started his blog? By accident. He was actually trying to post a comment on the Laurinline, and got so confused in trying to do so that he inadvertently set up a blog of his own. Really. That’s the way Laurin and Nancy tell it. The site is much more technologically sophisticated now with Nancy involved, and has more than a million page views a month — compared to my measly traffic, which has only broken a quarter of a million a couple of times. (That’s it. That was my display of humility for this month.)

Anyway, that’s why I was in Florence.

Burl’s column about his Dad and the 8th Air Force

Burl Burlingame says on Facebook that he was contacted by “a documentary crew who reminded me of this piece I wrote some years ago. I miss my father.”

Here’s the piece, from June 15, 2003. If the Star Bulletin gets mad at me for repeating it in its entirety, I’ll boil it down to a quote and a link. But here’s the whole thing:

To England and
back with Dad


Dad doesn’t talk much about the war unless he’s had a couple of drinks, and even then you have to keep him from drifting into the realm of airplanes, which is related but has little to do with real life and family history. There is a period of his life — and my mother’s — that seems boundless and malleable, a mysterious dark forest with little light to illuminate the way, the few years between school days in rural Ohio and a rootless existence as the head of a career Air Force family, a wandering life that eventually settled in Hawaii 38 years ago.

The war came along and swept Dad up, rattled the childhood right out of him, stamped and marked the man who raised me. Like most veterans of his age, the war is likely the most vivid period of his life, and one that is quietly put away in a rarely opened compartment.

In college on a swimming scholarship, Dad joined the Army Air Forces and became a fighter pilot. By the time he was 20, he was flying Mustangs for the 8th Air Force, part of the desperate crusade throwing itself against Hitler’s Europe.

Once, as a adolescent, I was watching an aviation show on television and I asked Dad if he remembered what life was like on an English airfield during the war. Sure, he said, watching smoke curl upward from his cigarette. He described seeing a bomber full of teenage Americans smack into the ground and cartwheel, flinging debris and flames across the green grass. He spotted what appeared to be a parachute pack hanging on a wire fence and, trying to be useful, he trotted over to retrieve it — only to discover that it was actually a young man’s torso, tangled in the wires. I think it was the first time he’d seen a dead body.I shut up and he continued to watch cigarette smoke curl away into nothing.

We shared a love of aviation and Dad introduced me to the exacting craft of building model airplanes. The first model I built on my own was a clunky Aurora P-51 Mustang, the same kind of airplane he flew during the war, and I painted it with a can of lime-green zinc chromate he liberated from the base motor pool. It was hideous; I’m still building models of Mustangs, still trying to get it right.

Dad retired from the Air Force after a long career and went back to school. For a while, we were in college at the same time and, since our names are the same, our transcripts would get mixed up. He got better grades than I did. Eventually he earned a doctorate and taught university classes. The Air Force receded into the past and the war acquired a faint burnish, the rough memory worn down to gleaming daydream.

Like others of Dad’s generation — the generation Tom Brokaw is so impressed by — the 1980s and ’90s were a period in which veterans looked back on the war with perspective and an ability to come to terms with it. My father began attending reunions of the 355th Fighter Group, got involved in creating a memorial commemorating the group’s brief, dangerous liaison with the tiny towns of Steeple Morden and Litlington in faraway Cambridgeshire, north of London. Dad spoke of Steeple Morden with a fondness he doesn’t have for his own hometown.
This spring, it looked like the group association would have its last reunion. All of the members are in their 80s. A last hurrah was planned, a farewell tour, a final addition to the Steeple Morden airfield marker, a closing of the door, a turning off of the lights. Although Dad bought tickets, my mother decided she wasn’t up to the trip. Dad has a pacemaker, and a daily cocktail of heart drugs that makes him unsteady at times. Without backup, he wasn’t sure he was up to the grind of traveling. Would I be interested in filling in for Mom?
Absolutely. It’s impossible to do enough for your parents, and besides, I had not been back to Europe in 20 years. This time, however, I’d be experiencing it through my father’s eyes, seeing the places and people that became touchstones in his life and, by extension, my own. A journey into our shared past.
The traveling turned out to be the easy part, even though I haven’t traveled with a parent in more than two decades. Dad and I preferred the same hard mattresses, the same amount of ventilation in the rooms, falling asleep and waking up at about the same time, a glass of beer before dinner and something harder afterwards, an amused wariness of artery-hardening English breakfasts. On the other hand, I still hold out hope that Europeans will discover the magic of ice cubes in drinks; after 60 years, Dad has given up on them.
In the rolling green farmlands of Cambridgeshire, I discovered that the war was neither far away nor a fading memory.
The tour was organized by retired tractor salesman and aviation enthusiast David Crow, an apple-cheeked bundle of energy and the 355th’s English point of contact. During the war, he was one of the scrawny Brit kids hanging around the airfield, asking, “Got any gum, chum?” In school, when asked what he wanted to be when he grew up, Crow wrote, “A Yank!”
Instead of simply being lonely teenagers thrown into the maw of combat — the 8th Air Force had the highest casualty rate of any American military organization during the war — the Americans were heartily appreciated, perhaps more so in retrospect. They had a profound effect on the British simply by their presence. These “fields of Little America” that dotted the English countryside created lasting bonds between America and England, and help explain why the English stick up for us when other countries don’t.
Retired sales manager Albert Moore, whom I met in the spectacular 8th Air Force Memorial Library in Norwich, studies the deeds of the 8th Air Force every weekend while his wife goes shopping. Why? His eyes softened. “All those lovely boys sacrificed,” he said. “Mr. Hitler would have taken us, no error, if it had not been for the Americans. It was the Yanks saved our bacon, even though we had no bacon left.”
Another one of the veteran pilots, Bill “Tiger” Lyons, speaking at the rededication of the 355th Memorial at Steeple Morden, pointed out what a near thing it had been. “Imagine what the world would be like now if the Nazis had won,” he said. “Just imagine. Well, I can’t. It took desperate teamwork from the diverse peoples of the world to stop fascism, the political movement that wanted to destroy diversity. Well, it was diversity that made us strong, holding hands across an ocean.”
It was a mighty near thing, the war. Americans sacrificed lives for it, but we never came close to sacrificing our entire culture and history.
The reunion ceremony caused a bit of a news stir in England, as a panel had been added to the memorial commemorating the Royal Air Force — the first time an American military organization had so honored the British — and also because the Duke of Gloucester had asked to be part of the ceremony, reading a religious passage — the first time a royal had participated directly in such a ceremony. It took place beneath a lowering English sky, in an emerald stand of spring wheat, the long-ago vestiges of the Steeple Morden airfield barely visible in the contours of the land.
At the nearby Steeple Morden schoolhouse, which dates back several centuries, the hallways are illustrated with heroic images of flying Mustangs. The English children greeted the shuffling old American aviators as if they were pop stars. They sang hymns like angels; they performed an American cheerleading routine; a little girl sang “America the Beautiful” solo, in a haunting voice that hung in the air. I saw my Dad and others wipe their eyes.
In nearby Litlington, half the village turned out to feed the Americans in the town center. Relationships were renewed that had begun more than half a century before. The Crown, a Litlington pub that stood during the war, still has 8th Air Force pictures on the walls. Americans lifted pints of dark, bitter beer as they did in the days of 1944, and remarked how it still tasted the same.
Inevitably, a group photo was called for. The American veterans, some with walkers and canes, slowly assembled on Litlington’s small public stage. The English folks took snapshots of their heroes and friends. It was likely the last time they’d visit, at least as a group. Even this will pass.
Suddenly the American pilots began to sing:
Off we go into the wild blue yonder
Climbing high into the sun
Here they come, zooming to meet our thunder
At ’em boys, give ‘er the gun!
Even Dad, who never sings in church, was bellowing along, smiling and content. The citizens of Litlington clapped delightedly.
I began to understand how this relationship with the British has helped clear away the darkness of war. It is a flame that continues to burn; it is the light that preserves the world. I am immensely proud of my father, not just for surviving the horrors of the war with honor, but for coming to terms with it over the years.

Burl Burlingame is a Star-Bulletin writer and editor.

Burl’s an awesome writer. But of course, that’s awesome material.

Defining deviancy down in our discourse

Corey Hutchins started this rolling on Twitter this morning, but what shocked me was that Amanda Alpert Loveday reTweeted it:

Best @nikkihaley quote ever! “She’s been busy F-ing the rest of the state. I’m not surprised that she F-ed me.”@HBoydBrown @CoreyHutchins

My shock arises partly from Amanda being the… well, something over at the SC Democratic Party (apparently they’re too democratic at party HQ for titles, but she recently appeared on Pub Politics as the counterpart of Matt Moore, the GOP executive director). I know that her Twitter feed says “My tweets reflect my personal opinions…..,”  but still…

The second is that, well, Amanda just seems like such a sweet “little girl” (to use our governor’s term) to an alter cocker like me. I mean, look at her; I ask you.

Amanda, Amanda, Amanda…

And Corey, and Boyd — what are you boys doing using language like that around Amanda?

Seriously, folks… This is not only grossly inappropriate language to be used when referring to the governor of our state, it’s not an appropriate topic, even if you used euphemisms.

And why am I writing about it? Well, I wouldn’t have if this had come from one of the usual sources for such. But this was said (apparently on the record) by a state representative, repeated by a representative of the Fourth Estate, and picked up by a party official.

And that’s wrong, on all counts. Daniel Patrick Moynihan had a term for it, or at least one that can be adapted to this purpose: Defining deviancy down.

We don’t need to be on this downward spiral, people.

More common sense from Bob Inglis

My colleague Jay Barry (celebrated drummer for Lunch Money) brings my attention to this item from Andrew Sullivan:

“Several recent studies have found that 95 percent of climate scientists are convinced that the planet is rapidly warming as a result of human activity. But a George Mason University-Yale University poll in May found that only 13 percent of the public realizes that scientists have come to that conclusion. You would expect conservatives to stand with 95 percent of the scientific community and to grow the 13 percent into a working majority. Normally, we deal in facts, we accept science and we counter sentiment,” – Former Congressman (2010 Tea Party casualtyBob Inglis (R-SC).

Jay told me about that in response to my having reTweeted this from Rasmussen:

Just 36% Believe Global Warming Primarily Caused by Human Activity…http://tinyurl.com/RR3332

Today’s floods: Will her car start? I don’t know.

This morning my wife texted the above photo from Shandon, with the simple message, “Think it will start?” She’s referring to her half-submerged Volvo there. I called her right away, and she said it was higher than in the picture, and still seemed to be rising.

I don’t know yet. My advice was to wait until the end of the day (she’s taking care of the Twins), and try then. Give it some chance to dry out.

I like it when she calls me and asks me stuff like I have special knowledge on account of being a guy. It’s like “Car Talk.” I should have asked her to imitate the noise it was making. I imagine it would have sounded like the opening of “Splish-Splash.”

But there was one thing I could do, as one of the Twitterati. I Tweeted her picture, and it got three reTweets, one by WLTX, with the added words, “Crazy flooding!

Speaking of TV stations, WIS has a gallery of crazy flooding pics from this morning.

Ideal local TV interview: “Foom! Foom! Foom!”

Power Lines Fall on Crashed Vehicle, Driver Trapped: MyFoxPHOENIX.com

This morning, Jack Kuenzie of WIS brings my attention to this. This guy is being billed on The Daily What as the “Second Coming of Chris Farley,” and I can see that.

I also see a little of Hurley, the guy from “Lost,” even though this guy isn’t nearly as big as either of them. Know what I mean, dude?

The situation was extremely serious — as KSAZ in Phoenix described, “The driver of an SUV was trapped Thursday afternoon when he lost control of his vehicle and it rolled over and struck a utility pole.” But the entertainment value in this description is undeniable.

Impressions from the Reagan Library debate

I keep going back and forth between live-blogging, and recording my impressions on Twitter, during live TV debates and speeches.

Last night, I went with Twitter. Here are some of the thoughts I had, mixed in with some thoughts from others that were in response to me, or which I reTweeted (the responses are distinguished by the avatars):

Brad Warthen

BradWarthen Brad Warthen: Needless to say, Michele Bachmann isn’t aiming for the Energy Party vote, with all that “cut energy prices” stuff.

BradWarthen Brad Warthen: Why is Paul going after Perry? It’s not like Paul has a chance to win. Why not use opportunity to push his own ideas instead?

BradWarthen Brad Warthen: Romney running hard tonight for the “not crazy” vote.

BradWarthen Brad Warthen: Will they EVER let Huntsman speak?

BradWarthen Brad Warthen: Hey! Huntsman got to say something!

BradWarthen Brad Warthen: Poor Perry — having to get defensive about the sensible things he’s done. This is not where he wants to be. #ReaganDebate

BradWarthen Brad Warthen: If Republicans cared at ALL about beating Obama next year, they’d stage a debate between Romney and Huntsman, and leave out the rest.

Nu Wexler

@wexler Nu Wexler: North Carolina should blame education issues on sharing a border with South Carolina. #reagandebate

BradWarthen Brad Warthen: @wexler I confess I’ve gone up there MANY times — without papers, amigos!

BradWarthen Brad Warthen: Bachmann keeps talking about what “the American people” have confided to her… I haven’t been talking to her. You?

BradWarthen Brad Warthen: Huntsman — on immigration this time — is edging out Romney for the “not crazy” vote (if there’s any justice in this world).

BradWarthen Brad Warthen: Whoa: Ron Paul started trying to out-sane Huntsman on immigration. But then he reverted to form with that “fence to keep us in” stuff.

BradWarthen Brad Warthen: Check it out: Huntsman is the ONLY one with the cojones to say no pledges, no way. My hat off to you, sir.

SCHotline Editor

@SCHotline SCHotline Editor: @BradWarthen yeah your kind of guy, why dont the two of you move to effing China?

BradWarthen Brad Warthen: I agree with Perry on the good things he said about Obama. Something you won’t hear Democrats do…

BradWarthen Brad Warthen: @SCHotline He already did. He went there and served his country.

BradWarthen Brad Warthen: Whoa. Bachmann just dissed our successful involvement in Libya…

BradWarthen Brad Warthen: Santorum just called Reagan the “Wicked Witch of the West!”

BradWarthen Brad Warthen: Which is saying something, given the lowness of the bar… “@adamsbaldwin: Stupidest question EVER!!!”

Mary Pat Baldauf

@mpbaldaufMary Pat Baldauf: @bradwarthen Thank you! Do you like Hunstman? Lee Bandy and I do – saw him at the gym after work, and we talked pre-debate trash.

BradWarthen Brad Warthen: @mpbaldauf You saw Huntsman at the gym?

Adam Baldwin

adamsbaldwin Adam Baldwin: Newt for Sec. of ???

BradWarthen Brad Warthen: @adamsbaldwin Energy, maybe. He might do something bold…

Mary Pat Baldauf

mpbaldauf Mary Pat Baldauf: Applause for Texas holding more executions than any other state? Really? Switching channels on that one.

BradWarthen Brad Warthen: Yeah. Suddenly I felt like I was in the Roman Colosseum. “@pwire: Applause for executions?”

Gary Karr

garykarr Gary Karr: I’ve seen an execution. I don’t think I’d applaud one, even if it was the killer of a loved one. #reagandebate

Ray Tanner at Rotary today

As president-elect of the Columbia Rotary Club, car dealer J.T. Gandolfo is responsible for lining up speakers for the club this year. And he is going all-out to make them the kinds of speakers who get everybody talking. So far we’ve had Nikki Haley, and the guy from FN, and Trey Gowdy. Next week, it’s Lindsey Graham, and the week after will be Jim DeMint.

But the biggest crowd so far was today, for Ray Tanner, coach of the back-to-back National Champion Gamecocks. We had to add tables, which has not happened in awhile. Someone remarked that there seemed to be more guests than members.

It’s interesting to watch how a crowd reacts to a guy who has had remarkable success in the sports arena. First, he got a standing ovation before he opened his mouth. That’s not unique — so did Leon Lott (it even happened to me once, but I had to get fired first) — but it’s rare.

Then, after extremely brief remarks — which were very well received, with enthusiastic laughter at anything that seemed remotely to have ambitions of being a joke (which made me jealous, I confess) — he went to Q&A with 38 minutes left in the hour-long meeting. Since the main speaker is the last thing on the agenda at Rotary, expected to fill out the rest of the time, that would seem a risky move. With another speaker, the questions could peter out. No chance of that here. The crowd would have asked him questions all day if allowed to.

And the questions were not of the sort that politicians get. There was no challenge in them, but rather a laudatory celebration in every word from the floor. It was like he’s an oracle, and everyone wants to be favored with his magic.

To Coach Tanner’s great credit, while I’m sure he gets it a lot, he doesn’t let this stuff go to his head. He gives the fans what they want, sharing anecdotes that feel like the inside dope, complete with self-deprecating remarks that everyone can chuckle at. He stays a regular guy, which is no mean feat considering the way the fans look at him.

The media was much in evidence, and Andy Shain from The State was Tweeting. A sample that illustrates what I said above:

Ray Tanner: C Robert Beary’s backhanded catch was his most memorable play of ’11 CWS. ‘I’d like to tell you that was coaching.’

That was typical of his perfect mix of inside perspective on cherished memories coupled with joshing humility. And it works because it’s genuine.

I doubt the club will be quite as charmed by Sen. Graham, but I’ll let you know how it goes…

A third of the way to my next thousand followers

When I was first getting into Twitter, I got excited about each little milestone in building my followership — such as when I reached 100, and 300. And 500. Then, I was cool until 1,000, when I really got a bit carried away.

Now, I’m cooler — but I do still enjoy seeing them pile up. There’s been a recent acceleration, which I attribute in part to my status as one of the Free Times’ “Twitterati.” I had 1,255 before that.

And today, just over 3 weeks later, I’m at 1,333 — a third of a way to my next thousand (assuming, of course, that there’s someone out there who is one-third ready to start following me). That’s 3.39 new readers a day (it was probably a dozen the first day), which means that, if my number of followers had been growing at the same rate since the day I started Tweeting… I’d have 2,727 followers.

OK, so it maybe it’s not that much of an acceleration. But it helps. Especially the first day or so. Within 24 hours of the “Twitterati” thing appearing, I added 12 new followers. Which is, at it happens, the same number I added the day that “Jayne Cobb” started following me. Which I think should make the Free Times feel good about itself.

Why do I care how many follow me? Well, among other things, it means more blog readers. Since I started using Twitter to promote the blog, my traffic has about quadrupled.

It can also go the other way, you know. Some more of you could follow me there. One of the things you’d discover if you did is that I post there a lot more, and bring up a lot more topics for discussion. It’s fun, and informative. Give it a try.

GOP official likes “when to shoot a cop” link

First, the Facebook page of a Tea Party-related group called “Kershaw County Patriots” posts a link to a blog article headlined, “When Should You Shoot A Cop.” A sample of that content:

Pick any example of abuse of power, whether it is the fascist “war on drugs,” the police thuggery that has become so common, the random stops and searches now routinely carried out in the name of “security” (e.g., at airports, “border checkpoints” that aren’t even at the border, “sobriety checkpoints,” and so on), or anything else. Now ask yourself the uncomfortable question: If it’s wrong for cops to do these things, doesn’t that imply that the people have a right to RESIST such actions? Of course, state mercenaries don’t take kindly to being resisted, even non-violently. If you question their right to detain you, interrogate you, search you, invade your home, and so on, you are very likely to be tasered, physically assaulted, kidnapped, put in a cage, or shot. If a cop decides to treat you like livestock, whether he does it “legally” or not, you will usually have only two options: submit, or kill the cop. You can’t resist a cop ”just a little” and get away with it. He will always call in more of his fellow gang members, until you are subdued or dead.

Basic logic dictates that you either have an obligation to LET “law enforcers” have their way with you, or you have the right to STOP them from doing so, which will almost always require killing them. (Politely asking fascists to not be fascists has a very poor track record.)

The Facebook link, by “Marlene Motley,” includes this commentary:

‎’If politicians think that they have the right to impose any “law” they want, and cops have the attitude that, as long as it’s called “law,” they will enforce it, what is there to prevent complete tyranny? Not the consciences of the “law-makers” or their hired thugs, obviously. And not any election or petition to the politicians. When tyrants define what counts as “law,” then by definition it is up to the “law-breakers” to combat tyranny.’

Then, Jeff Mattox, who has been identified by Politico and the Camden paper as “a co-chair” of the Kershaw County Republican Party, tells the world that he “Likes” the Facebook post.

The Camden Chronicle-Independent quotes Mattox as explaining:

Police sometimes do overstep their bounds… but advocate shooting a cop? No. It’s just kind of a conversation.

The Camden cops are kind of upset, according to the local paper. And they’re not fooling around, according to Politico: “Local police are reportedly wearing body armor in response to the post.”

I haven’t seen anything like this since G. Gordon Liddy recommended dealing with cops with a “head shot.” How about you?

Is that the right term for a planet of small stature?

From NASA site: "A Hubble Space Telescope image of Pluto and its moons. Charon is the largest moon close to Pluto. The other three bright dots are smaller moons discovered in 2005 and 2011." Apparently, we still don't have a close-up.

Well, that was exciting. (Ralph Hightower will like this; he’s into space stuff.) I just got a reply from the Hubble via Twitter.

Having seen this:

Astronomers using @NASA_Hubblediscover another moon orbiting dwarf planet #Plutohttp://t.co/PubN0ov

… I naturally asked, “Does that make it a planet again?” I had read right past the “dwarf planet” reference, because I didn’t know what that was.

@NASA_Hubble wrote back to me, “Not quite,” and urged me to “See Resolutions 5A and 6A.” Which I did. To share:

RESOLUTION 5A
The IAU therefore resolves that planets and other bodies in our Solar System, except
satellites, be defined into three distinct categories in the following way:
(1) A “planet”
1
is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for
its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium
(nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.
(2) A “dwarf planet” is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient
mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic
equilibrium (nearly round) shape
2
, (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and
(d) is not a satellite.
(3) All other objects
3
, except satellites, orbiting the Sun shall be referred to collectively as
“Small Solar-System Bodies”.
IAU Resolution: Pluto
RESOLUTION 6A
The IAU further resolves:
Pluto is a “dwarf planet” by the above definition and is recognized as the prototype of a new
category of trans-Neptunian objects.
1

RESOLUTION 5AThe IAU therefore resolves that planets and other bodies in our Solar System, exceptsatellites, be defined into three distinct categories in the following way:(1) A “planet”1is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass forits self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium(nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.(2) A “dwarf planet” is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficientmass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostaticequilibrium (nearly round) shape2, (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and(d) is not a satellite.(3) All other objects3, except satellites, orbiting the Sun shall be referred to collectively as“Small Solar-System Bodies”.IAU Resolution: PlutoRESOLUTION 6AThe IAU further resolves:Pluto is a “dwarf planet” by the above definition and is recognized as the prototype of a new category of trans-Neptunian objects.1

Well, that’s better than nothing. Not that we’ve always given actual human dwarfs much respect on this planet, but I suppose being some kind of planet is better than nothing. WAY better than being just a “trans-Neptunian object.”

Holding forth about what was, and what will be, in the world of media

Forward Slash Podcast: Warthen Episode from Wesley Donehue on Vimeo.

Forward Slash Podcast: Warthen Episode from Wesley Donehue on Vimeo.

A couple of weeks ago — just before he went on a European vacation — Wesley Donehue asked me to be his first guest on a new web show he was starting. (I had already been on Pub Politics, which he and Phil Bailey host, six times.) The topic, rather than politics, was social media.

So I agreed, as I am always willing to show off my prowess in that area — being one of the Twitterati and all.

Funny thing is, we spent the first half of the show, if not more, talking about OLD media. I sort of reminisced about what it was like in the MSM before Wesley was born, and then brought the tale right up to the moment I got canned by The State, along with an explanation of the forces that led us to that point.

So there wasn’t all that much time left for social media. I get get to plug the blog a little, and talk about how I have close to 200,000 page views each month, etc.

But you know what we didn’t get to? The role that the briefer forms of social media — especially Twitter, to a less extent Facebook — have played in the growth of my blog.

The biggest month I ever had on my old blog, when I was with the newspaper, was something over 80,000 page views. That was January 2008, the month of those two hotly contested presidential primaries in SC, which drew a lot of national and international attention. After that, the average month settled down to something like 45,000.

Then, after I left the paper, Tim Kelly talked me into using Twitter (and Facebook) to promote my blog. My biggest month ever was June 2010, with 254,545 page views — largely a result of the national attention paid to Nikki Haley and Alvin Greene. After that, I settled down to where the last few months have hovered between 180k and 220k.

I attribute a lot of that to social media. Now I just have to figure a way to get Twitter to pay me for going around saying that.

Starbucks? That’s where I need to be…

Mary Pat Baldauf just Tweeted this:

You could literally hang meat in @Starbucks in the Vista! Freezing!

Well, the over-effectiveness of the A/C is neither here nor there, far as I’m concerned. I just want to be at Starbucks! Now!

Rather, I NEED to be at Starbucks.

Just a moment ago, I found something on my desk. An off-white, plastic, roughly cylindrical object, standing on its end, slightly smaller at the top end than the bottom. About the right size to fit easily into the cardboard tube in the middle of a roll of toilet paper.

No idea what it was, or how it got there. Did someone leave this thing here thinking it belonged to me. The color was right for a Mac accessory. They’ve been trying to get me to use the Apple laptop I was issued. Is this something that goes with that?

I was as bewildered as those apes contemplating the Monolith at the start of “2001: A Space Odyssey.”

But instead of heaving a thighbone at it, I reached out, with a certain trepidation, and picked it up to see if there was some sort of label or clue on the bottom…

… and salt poured copiously out of the top of it.

Yes. It was the shaker I had nicked from the ADCO kitchen for the late lunch I ate at my desk Friday.

I really think I am going to make a rare mid-morning visit to Starbucks, and I don’t care how cold it is. Perhaps I can kill something with a thighbone and use it for warmth…