Category Archives: Feedback

A constructive suggestion

12 Replies

I got this feedback from Nancy:

Your links need to open in a new window, for the ones going to external sites, I say “grrr” every time I open one and its in the same window. šŸ˜‰

You can tell WordPress to do this in that little window that pops up on the visual tab when you’re editing and inserting a link there, tell it to open in a new window, or on the html tab, insert target=”_blank” in the link code. So, it looks likeĀ 

Only for the links going to a site other than yours. šŸ˜‰

Cheers,

N

OK, so I figured out how to make it open in a new window — although it will require remembering an extra step each time I do a link. Maybe I can figure a way to make it the default, but I don’t see how yet.

Actually, what I would prefer would be for it to open in a new tab, not a new window. A lot of people resent it when a new window suddenly pops into being. I’m one of them.

But so far, I don’t see that as an option.

Before I proceed further, any thoughts from anyone else on this issue?

Don’t look for sanity inside Beltway this year

21 Replies

To elevate a comment exchange to post status, back here Bart said:

The GOP may be a joke but it looks like they will have the last laugh come November when the American voters, who are a lot more intelligent than most give them credit for, sends a message that they donā€™t appreciate being Punkā€™d by a bunch of lying Democrats. Democrats, who by the way, are no picnic at the beach either.

The sword cuts both ways when it comes to deceit, dishonesty, and downright thievery by politicians.

I agree completely with you, Bart, about the Dems being no bargain. But no one should make the mistake of thinking a swing to the Republicans, particularly the Republicans of 2010, is in any way better.

Yes, the GOP will be more successful in November than Democrats, winning control of one or more of the two chambers of Congress.

And next time we have a Republican president, two years after he is elected, the Democrats will be more successful in the mid-term elections than Republicans.

And so on. It means nothing. The sad thing is that Republicans will foolishly believe that they won this year because of something they DID, and will give the credit to their mad rush to the extremes. So weā€™ll get more of that garbage.

Occasionally, something different from that happens. For instance, in 2006 a number of moderate Democrats won office, thanks in part to a campaign run by Rahm Emanuel. It drove the loony left even loonier, they hated it so. But it was better for the country. Unfortunately, those moderates ā€” in both parties ā€” make up such a tiny minority still that they have little impact upon the partisan insanity inside the Beltway.

My point is that these midterm shifts donā€™t have to be swings back and forth to the wacky fringes. They can pull us to the middle, toward sanity. It just doesnā€™t look at all like thatā€™s going to happen this year.

This year — wow. This year, we see Sarah Palin not only NOT swept to history’s dustbin, as would happen in a country in which the voters were as sensible as Bart asserts (after all, she was a HUGE part of why the GOP lost the White House in 2008), but has such a secure brand (we Mad Men use words like “brand” a lot) that she is able to play kingmaker. Or queen maker, as the case may be. Although, reassuringly, it didn’t work out so well in Georgia last week.

If the voters choosing the GOP were so sensible, a sensible guy like Henry McMaster wouldn’t have fallen so easily to the likes of Nikki Haley. Nor would he have resorted to his own desperate attempts to prove that he, too, was suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome.

No, the Republicans winning the House this year will not be a good thing, any more than it was a good thing when Nancy Pelosi became Speaker. Same diff.

Cindi’s column on Lost Trust, 20 years on

24 Replies

I missed Cindi Scoppe’s column over the weekend reminiscing about Lost Trust (which broke 20 years ago Sunday) until a reader mentioned Cindi’s “shout-out” to me:

If anything happened in the next year that wasnā€™t related to the sting, I canā€™t remember it. While I dissected the ethics proposals, my editor Brad Warthen led the newsroom on a yearlong examination of how the Legislative State produced not only corruption but a hapless government that answered to no one ā€” laying the groundwork for one of the primary focuses of our later work on this editorial board.

Pushed along by Lost Trust, Gov. Carroll Campbell and Bradā€™s ā€œPower Failureā€ series, the Legislature voted two years later to hand a third of the government over to the governor. Lawmakers unleashed the powerful State Grand Jury to investigate political corruption cases. They passed a reporter shield law after a judge ordered me and three other reporters held in federal custody for two days for refusing to testify in a corruption trial.

It was interesting to read Cindi’s memory of that from her perspective. I had forgotten a lot of the intrigue that my reporters — particularly Cindi — had to go through to find out what was going on. But then, I was mostly experiencing it second-hand, being the desk man that I was. Cindi and the others would come in with this stuff they had garnered in encounters reminiscent of Bob Woodward’s meetings with Deep Throat in the parking garage, and we’d figure out which outrageous items were worth pursuing to try to confirm immediately and which ones to set aside. And then, how in the world to nail down the relevant ones.

For me, at the epicenter of The State‘s coverage, it was a time for keeping a couple of dozen plates spinning, and was a daily challenge to an editor managing finite resources in the midst of stories that seemed to have an infinite number of branches, each one of which was a hot story in itself.

Mind you, Lost Trust wasn’t the only government scandal breaking that summer. We had the final act of the Jim Holderman collapse, a purchasing scandal involving a major agency (I don’t even remember which one now), the head of the Highway Patrol directly personally interfering with the DUI of the head of the local FBI office, and those are just the things that I remember sitting here. There was more. Fortunately, the governmental affairs staff in those days amounted to something (I may have been slightly down from my 1988 high of 10 reporters, but not by much), but there’s only so much that even that many people can do when so much is popping at the same time — and during the time of year when things are usually quiet.

And Lost Trust itself, alone, without those other scandals, would have totally consumed us days, nights and weekends. A full 10 percent of the Legislature indicted? Heady stuff.

We were well out ahead of the competition most days, and I felt proud of my team — Cindi and the others. Then the executive editor, who was new in the job (Gil Thelen), one busy day stopped by my desk to say it was all very well and good that we were staying ahead of the story and beating everybody on it, but what about the future? What, out of all this mess, might we be able to offer readers to give them the sense that something could be done about the dysfunction of SC government? I probably stared at him like he was a lunatic for wanting me to think about anything ELSE on top of the mad juggling I was doing at the moment, but I did think about it. And the result was the Power Failure series. I spent a year on it, supervising reporters from across the newsroom in producing a 17-installment opus that explained just how SC government was designed to fail.

And as Cindi notes, the themes developed at that time resonated through my work, and hers, for my entire 15 years on the editorial board.

Blog readers and their kids!

11 Replies

Yesterday, as I was on my way in to lunch, someone calls “Mr. Warthen!” — which strikes me as unnecessarily formal under the circumstances, but that’s what he said — and I turn and Phillip Bush, our regular commenter here, was just getting his little boy Spencer out of the car. At least, I learned that was our Phillip when he introduced himself.

As is my custom when I first meet people I had previously known only via the blog, I immediately took their picture with the Blackberry.

As Phillip explained by e-mail when I wrote to him to double-check Spencer’s name:

Spencer and I were just coming back from his third and final day of Sprout Camp at Riverbanks Botanical Garden, where I spent much of my time running around trying to keep him from inadvertently squashing the bugs, worms, etc. we were supposed to be looking at, in his newly-3-year-old enthusiasm. But we had lots of fun.

That encounter reminded me of another recent one that I forgot to share with y’all — I ran into Michael Rodgers of “Take Down the Flag” fame at the Vincent Sheheen primary-night victory party. He had daughter Kate with him.

Now you know what these guys look like, along with Doug and Bud and Laurin and Paul DeMarco (whom we haven’t heard from in awhile) and others.

It was great meeting Michael and Phillip and Kate and Spencer…

About all that MBTI stuff…

25 Replies

The last couple of days some of us have been prattling about Myers-Briggs personality types — guessing which kinds the gubernatorial candidates are, talking about the differences amongst ourselves that make it hard for us to agree with each other, and so forth.

Kathryn suggests I post this link explaining the types, so I have. And it’s a good starting point if you find this model for thinking about cognitive differences at all helpful. I don’t know what y’all’s types are, but here’s what it says about my type, Introverted iNtuitive Thinking Perceiver:

INTP
Seek to develop logical explanations for everything that interests them. Theoretical and abstract, interested more in ideas than in social interaction. Quiet, contained, flexible, and adaptable. Have unusual ability to focus in depth to solve problems in their area of interest. Skeptical, sometimes critical, always analytical.

That’s pretty sketchy. You can find much more in-depth analyses of all 16 types elsewhere on the Web, such as on this page about INTPs, which helps to explain why I can be such a pain in the … neck:

INTPs live in the world of theoretical possibilities. They see everything in terms of how it could be improved, or what it could be turned into. They live primarily inside their own minds, having the ability to analyze difficult problems, identify patterns, and come up with logical explanations. They seek clarity in everything, and are therefore driven to build knowledge. They are the “absent-minded professors”, who highly value intelligence and the ability to apply logic to theories to find solutions. They typically are so strongly driven to turn problems into logical explanations, that they live much of their lives within their own heads, and may not place as much importance or value on the external world. Their natural drive to turn theories into concrete understanding may turn into a feeling of personal responsibility to solve theoretical problems, and help society move towards a higher understanding.

INTPs value knowledge above all else. Their minds are constantly working to generate new theories, or to prove or disprove existing theories. They approach problems and theories with enthusiasm and skepticism, ignoring existing rules and opinions and defining their own approach to the resolution. They seek patterns and logical explanations for anything that interests them….

The INTP has no understanding or value for decisions made on the basis of personal subjectivity or feelings. They strive constantly to achieve logical conclusions to problems, and don’t understand the importance or relevance of applying subjective emotional considerations to decisions. For this reason, INTPs are usually not in-tune with how people are feeling, and are not naturally well-equiped to meet the emotional needs of others….

They are likely to express themselves in what they believe to be absolute truths. Sometimes, their well thought-out understanding of an idea is not easily understandable by others, but the INTP is not naturally likely to tailor the truth so as to explain it in an understandable way to others. The INTP may be prone to abandoning a project once they have figured it out, moving on to the next thing….

I’m especially bad about that last thing. If I’ve worked hard to figure something out, once I arrive at a conclusion, I’m ready to announce it and move on. And the more people say, “Hey, wait, I need you to explain this some more; I want more evidence to show me how you arrived at that conclusion,” I get extremely impatient. You may have noticed this happening in some of my exchanges with Doug, because he’s very much about the evidence and the facts and the figures (where I am an N, he is almost certainly an S), while by the time I express an opinion, I am SICK of all that stuff — some of which I may have studied years before.

You’ll note that INTPs also “become very excited over abstractions and theories.” Such as, for instance, Myers-Briggs. I first learned about it in the early 90s when all the editors at The State were tested, and then we shared everyone’s results and discussed them at a retreat. I found it explained a LOT about why I found some of those folks easy to work with, and some not. I was the only INTP supervisor in the newsroom at that time.

For folks of other types, this is probably beyond boring. But at Kathryn’s behest, I share it nonetheless. Hopefully, one of my next few posts will be more to your liking.

The video ad that Leighton Lord DID approve

3 Replies

Before writing that past post, I wrote to Leighton Lord to ask:

Leighton, does this video have anything to do with your campaign? If not, do you know who’s doing this?

He wrote back:

B, this is our spot, below,Ā don’t who the Truth Squad is.Ā  Not my campaign.

Above (not below) is the ad that he takes responsibility for. As you see, it starts out with a MUCH milder, less wacky Tea Party-ish version of the same sentiment Henry McMaster was going after in “Vultures.” Or perhaps the same IDEA, I should say. Lord is very much about reason, not emotion.

Beyond that, I think he makes his case well that he’s better prepared to be the state’s attorney general than Alan Wilson is. (And you’ll note he makes the same points as the mystery video, except for the “Daddy” part.) That’s not so say anything bad about Alan; I think he’s a good guy. But he doesn’t have Lord’s resume. And that business about Lord not being a prosecutor is a red herring, given the job they’re running for.

The big BP coffee spill

3 Replies

Since a couple of you have brought this video to my attention, and since it is funny, and since a couple of others have pointed out in person to me that I’m really being a grouch today, I thought I’d share it with you in the interests of lightening the mood.

At the very least, it’s more entertaining than the show that Congress put on yesterday with the actual head of BP. Unfortunately, neither this nor that solves our huge problem…

But no, I’m NOT going to be all negative. Let’s enjoy this…

Oh, ‘whine, bitch, moan…’ just write us a letter, why don’tcha…

12 Replies

Hey, since I am no longer with the MSM, I don’t have to listen to your whining, bitching and moaning about us.

So it is that I don’t have to be diplomatic, and can now answer your feeble complaints with the full disdain that characterizes the finest traditions of the MSM.

Such as when our valued friend Kathryn brought our attention (see how easily I slip back into the royal, editorial first-person plural?) Ā to this article, headlined “Journalism monopoly was also a market failure,” and particularly this passage:

“If your neighborhood or community or issue didn’t interest the newspaper, it might as well have been banned from the community agenda. And if you had something to say, and wanted the community to hear or read it, your options were to pray you could get a letter to the editor published, or an even-rarer Op-Ed piece, or put out fliers around town. “

Added Kathryn, who passionately cares about Columbia and is always getting involved up to her elbows in the nitty-gritty of community issues, “I found this to be true, far too often…”

Oh, yeah? Well, now hear this:

I’m sorry, but we in the MSM are too busy to care about your esoteric, narrow personal concern. If you’d like to hire a consultant who can write us a press release about it, sexing it up with great quotes and some cool graphics, and maybe work in Gamecocks football, we may put it in the queue. But keep it simple — left-right, liberal-conservative, whatever. Don’t confuse us with gradations of meaning. Stuff like that makes our heads spin like that girl in “The Exorcist” — yeah, the one who threw up the green pea soup.
Meanwhile, write us a letter. But keep it short. And include your full address and a daytime telephone number, a photocopy of a picture ID, at least, three references, and annotated supporting material to back up your assertions. And pick a number between one and 1,000, and we’ll let you know whether your number wins. If it doesn’t, we will grind your epistle up with the other 999 and turn it into compost, so that it will be useful to us.

Fusco says veto WOULD decimate programs

6 Replies

I was going to write “Fusco Says Sanford Full of It” as my headline, but it probably would have given ol’ Frank a heart attack. But that’s what this amounts to.

Remember how I wrote that, according to Kenny Bingham, the GOP leadership seemed inclined to take the governor’s word for it that his veto of the entire $29.5 million appropriation for the Budget and Control Board would NOT decimate several state programs, because, according to the gov, the board just had all this money lying around? And I asked Kenny what Frank Fusco, the head of the B&C Board, had to say about that, and Kenny told me he hadn’t talked to Frank yet? Remember?

Well, here’s what Frank has to say:

Veto Would Devastate Board, Key Programs

This week Governor Sanford vetoed the Boardā€™s entire $29.5 million General Fund appropriation plus other line items for the S.C. Enterprise Information System.
In his veto message to the General Assembly, the Governor stated that he was taking this action because the ā€œBoard has sufficient carry-forward and other funds to maintain its operations in this fiscal year.ā€
The Board does not have funds to make up for this cut. If sustained, the impact of this veto would be severe and would result in very significant staff reductions in our agency.
Board programs rely on a variety of funding mechanisms. Some areas, like the Employee Insurance Program and the S.C. Retirement Systems, draw money from dedicated accounts outside the General Fund and are not impacted. But many other areas of the Board are entirely or partially dependent upon general funds.
If our General Fund budget is not restored, these areas of the Board would have to virtually cease operation:
ā€¢ The State Budget Office
ā€¢ The SCEIS statewide financial system
ā€¢ The Board of Economic Advisors
ā€¢ The Office of Human Resources
ā€¢ The Confederate Relic Room and Military Museum
In addition, other areas would see very significant staff reductions:
ā€¢ The State Procurement Office would lose 30 percent or more of its staff. The auditing function would be eliminated and the State Engineerā€™s Office will be virtually eliminated.
ā€¢ The Office of Internal Operations would lose about one-third of its staff and would be severely crippled because it has already made so many reductions.
ā€¢ The Office of Research and Statistics would lose funding for mapping, redistricting of Congressional and legislative seats and the Geodetic Survey. It would lose about 30 employees.
ā€¢ The General Services Division would lose all funding for operation of the State House and Capitol Complex. Layoffs would be necessary.
ā€¢ State funding for local water and sewer grants would be eliminated.
We wish it was the case that the Board had ample extra funds that we could simply use to make up for the shortfall. But that is not the case at all.
While some Board programs have funds in trust or other accounts, most of these dollars can be used only for purposes directed by law. For example, funds from the Retirement System could not be moved to General Services. Nor would it be right, for example, to take money we receive to provide Internet service to public schools and libraries and redirect it to a totally unrelated purpose.
And it is exactly because we do not have lots of free cash that we have reduced spending and staffing, including layoffs last year.
The S.C. House of Representatives will take up the vetoes on Tuesday. If two-thirds of the House votes to override the veto, it would then go to the Senate which would also have to override the veto with a two-thirds vote. Please know that I and the Boardā€™s senior leadership team are working diligently to communicate all the facts to the General Assembly as they prepare to consider the vetoes. We will keep you up to date as events warrant.
– Frank Fusco

Thanks to Bob Amundson for bringing that to my attention. There it was, big as life, already up on the Web — although not anyplace I would normally look. Saved me a phone call, which I appreciate…

The blog goes academic

3 Replies

Just got this request this morning:

Dear Mr. Warthen:
I am teaching Political Sociology next term and I’m putting together readings for my course packet. I follow (and enjoy) your blog and and read with interest your post “Where have all the reporters gone. . . duh.” Ā I would like to save it as a .pdf and include it as one of the supplemental readings for the section on media, politics and democracy. Please let me know if this is acceptable.
Best regards,
Tracy
Tracy Burkett, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Sociology
College of Charleston

To which I said sure; go for it. I’d offer to come speak to the class, but I don’t get down to Charleston as much as I’d like. I never pass up a chance to further confuse the leaders of tomorrow, as long as it doesn’t inconvenience me…

OK, let’s beat up on ME: I’m a horrible citizen

32 Replies

People are giving me a hard time for being mean to Andre, as I knew they would. I just got to thinking about how recently lots of folks were worried about him becoming governor (with reason) and thought someone should take note of how fortunate things turned out.

So now I’m going to feel like a louse next time I see Andre. Only I won’t tell him that because I hate backing down, and that’ll make me feel like even more of a louse… It’s tough being a Catholic blogger. All that guilt.

But let me see if I can expiate a little of it with some mortification of me. Don’t feel bad, Andre: I’m a horrible citizen. I’ll bet Andre at least knew who he wanted to vote for for U.S. Senate. But I didn’t, so I left it blank, and look what happened: A guy facing charges for indecency got nominated over the only candidate I’d heard of on the Democratic side — a guy who, as far as I know, was perfectly fine.

How can a guy facing a morals charge, a guy with “no campaign funds, no signs, and no website”Ā even, win the primary over a guy who had at least campaigned a little? Someone suggested it was because his name was on the ballot first. Kind of makes you wonder about this whole Democracy thing, huh?
I mean, come ON, people — I’d never heard of this Greene guy. I didn’t know MUCH about Vic Rawl, beyond the fact that he’s one of my 542 Facebook “friends.” At least he’d taken the trouble to do THAT.
But I can’t castigate anyone but myself. I didn’t vote in that race. And that was supremely irresponsible of me. I should have done the research, in spite of the fact that Jim DeMint seems inevitable. I don’t like having DeMint as my senator, and I should at least do my best to decide whom I want going up against him, however slim that candidate’s chances may be.
But I didn’t. I was so mesmerized by the governor’s race, and a couple of others that happened to catch my eye along the way, that I neglected that one. And of course, I hadn’t even decided to vote in the Democratic primary until the last minute.
My problem is, I’m so accustomed to knowing a lot about these candidates in spite of myself, because they all used to come see me for endorsement interviews. I have to learn to do what everybody else does (at least, they do it if they are good citizens), and do my research as a citizen and be prepared. Next time, I will.
Y’all remind me.

Our Kathryn gets after McMaster

23 Replies

Kathryn called my attention to a piece in The Free Times about our fellow Rotarian Henry McMaster (“Henry McMaster: Slumlord Millionaire?”), and I moaned about how it was way too long to get to… not realizing that she wanted me to read it because she was quoted in it extensively. I’ll quote a portion of it, and you can go to The Free Times for the rest:

The whole spectacle regarding the McMasters and their lawsuit makes University Hill resident Kathryn Fenner bristle. Sheā€™s the vice president of the University Hill Neighborhood Association and serves on the cityā€™s code-enforcement task force, a blue-ribbon committee that was set up to make recommendations on city ordinances.

Fenner has observed Peggy McMaster for years ā€” Peggy sits on the board of the neighborhood association ā€” and Fennerā€™s house is surrounded by five properties the McMasters own.
Sitting in her modern, brightly colored, sun-lit living room with two large dogs playing around her, Fenner launches into an all-out assault on the way Henry and Peggy McMaster have handled their role as local landlords in the neighborhood. To her, their actions have been offensive.
The McMasters, she says, have a donā€™t-ask-donā€™t-tell policy with their tenants regarding the cityā€™s over-occupancy laws. As an attorney, she finds it laughable that Henry is appealing a zoning ordinance because she thinks heā€™s clearly ignoring precedent of the law.
But thatā€™s the thing with the McMasters, Fenner says: They have a sense of entitlement that allows them to act like complete hypocrites, apparently without even realizing theyā€™re doing it.
ā€œI think that if you are supposed to be the chief law enforcement officer in the state, you probably shouldnā€™t be nodding and winking at lawbreaking,ā€ she says.
Sheā€™s speaking specifically about occupancy laws, which several tenants admitted to Free Times they were breaking but said they had a wink-and-nod agreement with their landlords about doing.
Henry has fought hard against the city to keep on doing what heā€™s doing and several tenants are happy their landlords are going to bat for them ā€” with good reason. The McMasters enjoy more rent money coming in and renters end up paying less individually.
But itā€™s the way Henry has been doing it that bothers Fenner so much.
In testimony he gave on his wifeā€™s behalf to the zoning board in 2007, McMaster said, ā€œThe constitution says if youā€™re a single housekeeping unit you may not be the traditional family, but youā€™re a family just the same and youā€™re not hurting anything any more than a traditional family.ā€
That really bothers Fenner, a self-described Democrat, who took umbrage to McMasterā€™s staunch, headline-grabbing opposition to same-sex unions when a constitutional amendment to ban state recognition of them was put on the ballot in 2006.
ā€œWhat offends me chiefly is the hypocrisy,ā€ Fenner says. ā€œThe hypocrisy that weā€™re going to protect non-traditional families when we can make a buck out of it and weā€™re going to pillory non-traditional families when we can make political bucks out of it.ā€

How many Palin/Haley fans WERE there Friday?

16 Replies

Since the event on Friday, a number of people have raised the following question: How many people showed up for the Sarah Palin/Nikki Haley rally?

Well, gee, I don’t know. But I do think the published reports were off.

Here’s an e-mail I received from a reader:

Dear Brad,

It was good to read your post after you attended the Haley/Palin rally.Ā  At a party tonight we were discussing the fact that the majority of us had heard on WIS TV and other TV news programs that 150 people attended the rally – none of us had.Ā  But the State newspaper today said there were over 1,000 people at the rally – now that is a rather large discrepancy in the numbers.Ā  Since you attended I am hoping you can clear up this question – the larger or smaller crowd?Ā  I looked on Youtube but no video from the rally and The State’s video only shows a close up of Palin without a crowd shot.Ā  Thanks forĀ your time reading my e-mail.

Hope you are well.

We miss you at The State – we miss a lot from The State now.Ā  Monday’s paper is laughable.

Here’s how I responded to that:

Thanks for reading. I think it was between those two numbers. I think 1,000 is too high, and I’m pretty sure 150 is too low. But I’ve learned from long experience that crowds are notoriously hard to estimate.

I told my wife last night that it was 300 or 400, but that was just a guess…

And that’s about as much as I know. All I know is that it was a very enthusiastic crowd. And from where I was standing, I couldn’t even see the protesters that featured so prominently in news reports. Others who were there were certainly aware of them, to the extent that Sarah Palin addressed them — but I couldn’t tell whether that was because they were actually so noticeable, or because she thrives on persecution by political opponents; it’s part of her idiom. Perspective — where one stands or sits and what can be seen or heard from there — is everything. I failed to do what I usually do at such events — get up on the steps and look down for an overview — partly because the people I was wedged behind had indicated that they would DEEPLY resent anyone who squeezed in front of them (some folks who had brought lawn chairs and camped out, and had a profound sense of entitlement as a result — they were, as Tea Partiers tend to be, very cranky about it).

Fortunately, Anne McQuary, a former photographer with the state, had done the usual thing, and had gotten a shot of a significant portion of the crowd. You can see it above. I asked Anne whether I could use it here, and she said yes, but only if I posted something else with it, because she regarded the crowd picture as boring. Hence the picture below. But for a better sense of Anne’s talents, check out her blog. I really liked some of the shots she got on the periphery of the crowd (including some of those protesters). Also, there’s her main business website.

By the way, Anne said she and her husband — whom she described as a “huge Palin fan” — estimated the crowd at between 300 and 500. I think they were right.

Thoughtcrime is doubleplusungood

31 Replies

Sorry to get all heavy on y’all on the day before Thanksgiving, but some of you got to talking about “hate crimes” back on this post, and I just can’t let it pass without reciting my usual homily on the subject…

Karen said:

And Kathryn, did you notice that in this country that after race, the highest number of hate crimes concern religion? Why do I not think that Christians are the ones being picked on?

To which Kathryn replied:

I thought sexual orientation was the biggest source of hate crimes (which makes your point, I suspect).

To which I just had to say:

It depends on how you define ā€œhate crimeā€ ā€¦ which is sort of what the whole phenomenon of ā€œhate crimesā€ is about, isnā€™t it?

A ā€œhate crimeā€ is a political act, one to which Orwell assigned the term ā€œthoughtcrime,ā€ a.k.a. “crimethink.” And writing and defining the hate crime law is also a political act.

The very decision to have such a thing as a ā€œhate crimeā€ is a political act as well ā€” or, at least, a political choice.

And itā€™s one to which I object. Such things should not exist in America. Thatā€™s one of the few points on which I agree with libertarians. Punish the act, not the thought or attitude behind it. The idea that an attitude would be deemed a crime in this country is in its way as ugly as the attitudes such crimes seek to punish. It appalls me that the concept of ā€œhate crimeā€ ever developed in this countryā€¦

I mean, I love Big Brother and all, but this is supposed to be a free country, which means people are free to think and feel all sorts of mean, nasty, ugly things. It’s when they do something to other people that we should be concerned, and what we should be concerned about is what they DO.

bud rates everybody, 1 to 10

43 Replies

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

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

I could live with or without funding of abortion. But if we donā€™t fund it then donā€™t fund it for anyone, including those who want an abortion in cases of rape.

As for the insurance industry Iā€™d just as soon let them go under as keep them.

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

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

Nazis 0 (I just couldnā€™t give them a point; I donā€™t care what the rules are)
Al Qaeda 1
Taliban 1
Hezbolah 1
NAMBLA 1
Ku Klux Klan 1
Soviet Communism 2
PLO 2
Birthers 3
Tea Baggers 3
FOX News 3
Conservative Talk Radio 3
Liberal Talk Radio 3
Iran 3
Scientology 3
Libertarian Party 3
NORML 3
Nudists 3
ā€œMainstreamā€ Media 4
Health Insurance Industry 4
Bush (Jr.) Administration 4
Creationist ā€œScienceā€ 4
Republican Party 4
NRA 4
Slavery Reparation Movement 4
National Teachers Association 4
Democratic Party 4
Labor Unions 4
ACORN 4
Unitarian Church 4
PETA 4
Pro-Choicers 4
ACLU 4
Greenpeace 4
Illegal aliens 5
Southern Baptist Church 5
Peak Oil Movement 5
Methodist Church 5
Catholic Church 6
Pro-Lifers with exceptions 6
Pro-Lifers without exceptions 6 (I didnā€™t really understand these categories)
Obama Administration 6
Vegetarians 6
Sierra Club 6
Audubon Society 6
Israel 7
Global Warming Movement 7
SPCA 7
US Military 9

So, do I really think that Iran and nudists are morally equal? Or that the U.S. military is by far the most wonderful thing in the world? No, I wasnā€™t really comparing them, but considering each on its own ā€“ negatives? Positives? Where does that leave me? The post-Vietnam military, which was in pretty bad shape, would have gotten a low score. But the military today as an institution, judged as to how well it does what itā€™s called on to do, is way up there.
Do I think the military is better than the Church? No. But when you say ā€œRoman Catholic Church,ā€ are you talking the Body of Christ, in which case 10-plus, or do you mean the troubled human institution that most of you, my readers, are thinking of? So I average out at 6.
And yes, while I still have a somewhat favorable view of the Obama administration, I do have a better impression of Israel.
Hey, as I said, itā€™s an imperfect system bud came up with, but I found it an interesting exercise.

Awaiting moderation (in more ways than one)

38 Replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

My earlier comment is still awaiting moderation.

Canā€™t handle the truth, Warthen?

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

Yours in civil discourse,

Brad

Hey, where are all my yes-men?

19 Replies

There were those who said that if I went back to moderating comments, you’d only find those who agree with me.

That was, of course, patently ridiculous — nothing in my background would suggest that (I mean, have you EVER read the letters to the editor?) — but people said it as a way of trying to get me to back off. It’s the sort of wild, slashing insult that’s supposed to rock me on my heels and let the bad actors stay.

Not even I had expected the degree to which folks who used to defend me against the screamers now take me to task. Have you noticed it? I mean, I can’t seem to say anything right. Look back through the threads, and see if I’m right.

But the difference is, it’s civil. And that encourages people to step out and disagree, knowing they won’t be subjected to unwarranted hostility, that their disagreement will be respected — even when they disagree with me and are, therefore, wrong. (People even give me the room to kid around, but of course I won’t abuse the opportunity.)

It’s lively, and it’s constructive. In other words, it’s working. Have you noticed?

Is the M4 a lethal weapon (to the user)?

10 Replies

Something Burl wrote in a comment reminded me of this story the other day:

WASHINGTON — In the chaos of an early morning assault on a remote U.S. outpost in eastern Afghanistan, Staff Sgt. Erich Phillips’ M4 carbine quit firing as militant forces surrounded the base. The machine gun he grabbed after tossing the rifle aside didn’t work either.

When the battle in the small village of Wanat ended, nine U.S. soldiers lay dead and 27 more were wounded. A detailed study of the attack by a military historian found that weapons failed repeatedly at a “critical moment” during the firefight on July 13, 2008, putting the outnumbered American troops at risk of being overrun by nearly 200 insurgents.

Which raises the question: Eight years into the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, do U.S. armed forces have the best guns money can buy?…

I’ve sort of wondered for years why this country couldn’t simply produce a weapon as simple, as effective, as cheap, and most of all as RELIABLE as the AK-47.

I read part of the recent book by Larry Kahaner about that remarkable weapon (one of the many books I’ve read “part of” while drinking coffee but not buying anything at Barnes & Noble, my favorite leisuretime activity), and it reads like pretty much an indictment of the free enterprise system. The way it developed was this: A soldier in the Red Army, dissatisfied with what guys like him had to rely on in battle, decided to design a multi-purpose infantry weapon that would get the job done, and always work. So he did, the Soviets mass-produced it, and it became the number-one weapon in the world, the favorite of rebels, terrorists, thugs, and child soldiers everywhere.

It’s cheap; it’s ubiquitous. It puts a LOT of high-impact bullets on a target in a big hurry, so you definitely don’t want to go up against one if you can help it. It’s simple, and easy to maintain. It requires so little skill — and upper-body strength — to operate that it makes a child soldier into a particularly dangerous person.

In other words, it’s pretty horrible. But it’s a way better weapon, in lots of ways, than anything we’ve mass-produced.

We’ve heard about the troubles with the M16 since Vietnam, and the M4 is its descendant. The M16 fires a lower-weight slug at a high velocity, so it rips up whatever it enters — although it doesn’t have much knockdown power. (In Black Hawk Down — the book, not the film — a Delta team member gripes about the M16 because when he shoots somebody who’s shooting at him, he wants to see the guy go down.)

Meanwhile, nothing ever seems to go wrong with Kalashnikovs, no matter what you do to them. The story Burl told matches one I’ve heard before:

A friend (now deceased) who was part of the Army test team for the M-16 told me this anecdote.
He thought the M-16 was delicate and undependable, told the Army so, he was told to shut up and buy stock in Colt.
A few years later, heā€™s in command of a firebase in Vietnam, and theyā€™re clearing a kill zone. The bulldozer uncovers a dead Viet cong who has buried for a year or so, along with his AK-47. Dave jumped down in the hole, said ā€œnow hereā€™s a REAL weapon,ā€ and cocked the muddy, rusty AK, pointed it at the sky and pulled the trigger.
It fired.

So — are our soldiers taking unnecessary risks because of inadequate weapons?Ā  I’d be interested in particular to hear from Capt. James Smith and others who have actually taken the M4 into battle (that’s him below getting his ACOG zeroed in on arriving in Afghanistan — at least, I think that’s an M4).

Smith

Go co-op, or remain a lone gunman?

6 Replies

Back on this post, remy enlarged upon the subject of participation on the blog with this perfectly good suggestion:

Perhaps you should broaden your blog to include entries from others (eg. some of your former colleaguesā€¦those who are employed, but would like having a forum without the hassle of creating their own blog (the blogsphere is already splintered enough) and those who are still looking for gainful employment).
It might expand the dialog, and perhaps bring even more readers (who will comment). More readers may lead to an interest from advertisersā€¦

And then I answered him at such length that I decided to make it a separate post:

Iā€™ve thought about it (having co-authors), but I always run into several objections, aside from my own inertiaā€¦

ā€“ First, my whole orientation toward blogging is toward the personal blog, both as a writer and as a reader. Those co-op blogs out there donā€™t do much for me. I like a consistent voice, a particular person whom I can picture (at least, in an abstract sort of way, not like actually picturing a face or something) when I read their thoughts. Otherwise, I have that sense of dislocation Iā€™ve gotten in reading an op-ed proof when the person doing page design absent-mindedly put the wrong sig on the column, and I read three-fourths of it, the whole time thinking ā€œthis is really a departure for Thomas Friedman,ā€ and sure enough it turns out to be George Will, and finally things fall into place ā€” but I feel almost like I have to read it over again with that in mind.
ā€“ (This is actually a continuation of the first bullet, but I felt it was time for a bullet) Also, when I started the blog, it was sort of an alternative form of expression to the cooperative, consensus-based process of publishing an editorial page. Even in my columns, I was very aware of being the editorial page editor and needing to be somewhat consistent with what we said in editorials (not entirely, but somewhat), and part of blogging was to be liberated from that.
ā€“ It would be a lot of work, it seems like. Coordinating something with other people is always more complex and energy-consuming than just doing something yourself as the mood strikes you. And as it stands, I always feel like I donā€™t devote enough to the blog to make it as good as it should be (what with job-hunting, which really IS kind of like having a job, as the cliche has it, in terms of time and energy; and family obligations and such).
ā€“ Then thereā€™s the problem of what do I do if I really donā€™t like what someone has written, at my request, to contribute. No, itā€™s not as bad as asking someone to write an op-ed and itā€™s substandard when it comes in, because youā€™re not dealing with finite space, but still, things are going to come in that Iā€™d prefer not to have. Say, a conventional take on an issue from either a ā€œliberalā€ or ā€œconservativeā€ viewpoint, when Iā€™d prefer a little outside-the-spectrum detachment, since fostering that is sort of an aim of the blog. Itā€™s not that I have a definite idea of what should go on the blog, but I think Iā€™d react to something from someone else that I DIDNā€™T want on the blog, because it didnā€™t have the right feel, and then what do I do? Hurt the feelings of this person who was trying to help? Or let the blog gradually become something elseā€¦
ā€“ To varying degrees, the other out-of-work journalists who want to publish online are doing so. Robert Ariailā€™s got his site, and so does Jeffrey Day, to name two such friends. If I started trying to line them up to join MY blog (and Iā€™ve thought of it for the very reason you cite, that it would make it a product more attractive to advertising), Iā€™d feel sort of like the Dan Akroyd character in ā€œGrosse Pointe Blankā€ ā€” you know, the hit man who wanted to organize all the other hit men ā€” when Iā€™d rather be the John Cusack character (ā€Loner; lone gunman ā€” get it? Thatā€™s the whole point. I like the lifestyle, the image. Look at the way I dress.ā€).

Now, all of that said, I still might try to do it, but not yet ā€” I hope to have an idea what sort of job Iā€™ll be doing in the future pretty soon, and what Iā€™ll be doing will have an impact on whether I blog at all, or if I do, what sort of blog it is in the future. So why get a lot of people started on something I would just have to drop?

I just listed those bullets to explain why I havenā€™t done it alreadyā€¦

… and still probably won’t. But the thought is worth airing.

I think I just lowered the (technical) bar a bit

3 Replies

Well, with the new blog rules, I’ve had some folks trying to comment for the first time, or the first time in a while, and they’re having trouble either registering, or logging in once they’re registered.

I don’t understand what the problem is, but I’ve raised the question with someone who might be able to help me — just probably not tonight.

So for the moment, I’ve turned off the requirement that “Users must be registered and logged in to comment.” However, I left on “Comment author must fill out name and e-mail.”

This might help temporarily. We’ll see…