Category Archives: In case you wondered

Stuff I learned about long division — today

As I write this, my wife is drilling my granddaughter on division, with flash cards. Being a being a benevolent sort of patriarch, I tried to change the subject by mentioning to my wife two things that I learned today about long division — two things that they didn’t teach us back when I had it in school, in the last century.

First, there’s that symbol itself — you know, the vertical line attached to the longer horizontal line overhead, which together form a sort of capital L that has been rotated 90 degrees clockwise. That is, I always thought it was a vertical line — a plain, straight line. That’s the way my teachers drew it, and that’s the way I always drew it, and they never marked me wrong.

Now, it turns out it’s really a close-parenthesis mark attached to a horizontal line. It’s curved. It’s more like a sideways cursive L than a Roman one. It’s that way on the flash cards, and it was that way on the Web when I looked it up, earlier today. It occurred to me that this was an innovation that adapted something we once did longhand to the keyboard, or something. But my wife says that’s the way they taught it in HER school. I remain doubtful.

But that’s not the main thing I learned today. The main thing I learned is that the thingie I just described has a name. Really. And it’s a really weird, counterintuitive name. It’s called a "tableau." I swear the thing did not have a name when I was in school. They taught us all those other names that I have never had any sort of use for, such as dividend, divisor and quotient. (I’ve always thought of math as something you do, not something you describe; such names still seem to me useless to anyone but a math teacher.)  Anyway, the thingie has a name, and it’s one I would never have guessed in a million years. I couldn’t even remember it from this afternoon, and had to go Google it to tell my wife. To me, a "tableau" is what you call the thing I was a part of when Mrs. Sarah Kinney, the Latin teacher in Bennettsville, made us dress up like the Roman gods and pose together on a stage. I was Mercury. (Back then, it was a "tableau." Young people today would call it "way gay.") We were so good at this that — I am not making this up — we won a prize for it at a state convention in Rock Hill.

My wife asked me how in the world such a thing would come up in the course of a working day. That’s where it got complicated. I explained that it was in a New Yorker article about N.Y Gov. Eliot Spitzer that I read today — someone had sent me an e-mail at work with the link, urging me to read it, and the article endeavored to explain the shape formed on a may by the more populated parts of the state, and said it was like "a mirror image of a long-division tableau." "And you just had to read that," my wife asked. "At work?"

I recognized this right away as a trick question. It was, of course, a sly reference to my attention deficit problems, and my notorious habit of pursuing any distraction that is waved in front of me. "Yes, I did," I said, fighting my corner. "Because… I blog. Because he’s been in the news…" finally, I got my stride, explaining that Spitzer has been very controversial lately because of his effort to give driver’s licenses to illegal aliens, which put him at the center of just about the hottest issue out there, and one which got Hillary Clinton in hot water, and…

Before I got all that out, she allowed as how she had heard something about that, and I quickly left the room before she asked any more questions, and she went back to drilling my poor granddaughter with those flash cards.

But why should I be defensive about this? This is how you learn stuff — by being intellectually curious. How else do you explain that I got a really high score on my math SAT? And I did it without knowing, until today, that that thingie is called a "tableau."

Oh, THAT Michael Berg…

Bergny

W
hen he emerged on this post sticking up for the Palestinians, I kept thinking, I know Michael Berg. Where do I know a Michael Berg from, but I just couldn’t picture him or put him in context.

Then he appeared on our Saturday op-ed page, and I had to slap my forehead. That’s Michael on the left end of the banner, marching against the war in New York City during the Republican National Convention in 2004.

The thing is, I don’t think I’ve seen Michael since that day. He left the country soon after, and I hear he was in Paraguay with the Peace Corps, or something like that. (Jump in and correct me if I’m wrong, Michael.)

Bradny
Anyway, I’m glad when I get things straightened out like that. I’m also glad when I get to use one of the dozens of photos I shot at the convention. That week was when I first decided I had to start a blog. There was so much to see and write about, and show people in pictures (I hadn’t started doing video yet), and my three columns and one "notebook" piece I did for the paper just weren’t enough to cram it all into. I finally started the blog the following spring.

The irony is, I haven’t been to such a perfect blogging opportunity as that since then. Just as well, I guess — everyday life seems to produce far more ideas for posts than I have time to write as it is.

Welcome_to_the_garden

Not quite a scoop — I think

Adam Fogle had sent me a heads-up to this item on his blog, The Palmetto Scoop (My favorite thing about his e-mailed updates is that he calls them "TPS reports."):

Rumors are swirling across the Palmetto State that Gov. Mark Sanford, who has until now remained neutral in the race for the White House, will endorse former Mayor Rudy Giuliani in his bid to become the next president. The Palmetto Scoop has been contacted by numerous sources who are reporting a “feeding frenzy” among national and local reporters to confirm the buzz.

But apparently, the rumor didn’t pan out:

Rumors swirled that Gov. Mark Sanford would be joining the former New
York mayor’s campaign. But Sanford spokesman Joel Sawyer said the
governor would not be making an endorsement this week. Neither would
First Lady Jenny Sanford, Sawyer said.

That means the Giuliani supporter I had queried about the TPS report is probably relieved now. He had responded thusly:

I promise you I know nothing about this.  In fact, I made a rather contemputous remark about Sanford at our campaign meeting yesterday.  Maybe I shuldn’t have.

That’s true. If you can’t say something nice

More on op-ed pages’ ‘slant’

You may recall this post from a while back, from a group calling itself "Media Matters" which set out to prove that set out to prove that newspaper editorial pages favor conservative over "progressive" columnists, and (gasp!) found just that — as do all such groups, whatever they are setting out to prove. (For a group that will always magically find just the opposite of what this group finds, click here.)

Anyway, "Media Matters" has separated its data out state-by-state, and (gasp again!) found the same thing on the state level:

Washington,
D.C.
Media Matters for America today released
South Carolina data for its new report “Black and White and Re(a)d All
Over: The Conservative Advantage in Syndicated Op-Ed Columns,” a
comprehensive and unprecedented analysis of nationally syndicated columnists
from nearly 1,400 newspapers,
or 96 percent of English-language U.S. daily newspapers.

If you care about this at all, you’ll probably care most about the paper-by-paper breakdown, so here is that:

Newspaper                 State Circulation   Conservatives   Progressives
Aiken Standard                       15,856                  100%            0%
Anderson Independent-Mail    36,781                  100%            0%
Beaufort Gazette                    11,994                    25%          25%
Charleston Post and Courier    97,052                    75%          13%
The State                              116,952                    50%          17%
Florence Morning News           33,078                      0%            0%
Greenville News                      88,731                    58%           33%
Greenwood Index-Journal       14,243                    79%           14%
Hilton Head Island Packet       19,514                    60%            20%
Myrtle Beach Sun News           51,303                    60%            20%
Orangeburg Times and Dem.  17,016                  100%              0%
Rock Hill Herald                      31,428                      0%              0%
Seneca Daily Journal/Msgr.      7,661                    50%             50%
Spartanburg Herald-Journal    48,514                      0%               0%
Sumter Item                            20,187                    75%             13%
Union Daily Times                    5,447                    57%             29%

But there will be no surprises in that for you. Since I already analyzed our pages for you using this group’s assumptions (something that I’m guessing they assumed I wouldn’t do), you knew where we’d end up.

So now you have it again. Are you gasping yet?

Adam (‘The Palmetto Scoop’) Fogle’s response

Fogleadam

Just received this response to my inquiries from Adam Fogle at "The Palmetto Scoop (that’s him pictured above with Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue):"

Brad,
    When you emailed me asking me to identify myself, I was  happy to do so… nothing to hide.  As far as disclosures go, you and I are very similar.
    I started my blog on my own —  not on anyone’s payroll.  I do it because I enjoy it and it’s something I got into in Georgia on the website Peach Pundit (www.PeachPundit.com), which is run by RedState’s Erick Erickson. I love to write, I love politics, and I think I’m a pretty good blogger.
    How much do I make from my blog?  Like you: zippo (except a little revenue from ads).
    And like you, I also like John McCain.  No secret there.  I think he’s best prepared to be our commander-in-chief.  Earlier this year, I even volunteered to help out at a few events but never in a paid capacity.
    After I started my blog, I was hired by Rick Quinn as an account representative for Mail Marketing Strategies, a direct mail business in Columbia.
    I have continued my blog on my own.  It is not and has never been a part of my official duties.
    And my blog, unlike some others, has never and will never engage in anonymous character assassination.  Yes, Rick’s dad is a consultant to John McCain.  But no one pays me to blog.
    I will call you in about 30 mins. to follow up.

        – Adam Fogle, The Palmetto Scoop

Take the civics quiz

Doug Ross brings to my attention this rather well-crafted test that measures how well the taker understands the foundations of our society and how it works. He adds his own facetious suggestion in passing it on:

Maybe you could use this civics test (mentioned on NRO online) as a
way to qualify posters to your blog:
http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx

Doug also shared his score with me, but I’ll leave it up to him as to whether he shares it with you. Here’s how I made out:

You answered 56 out of 60 correctly — 93.33 %

Average score for this quiz during September: 74.5%
Average score since September 18, 2007: 74.5%

I was reasonably happy with that, because a number of questions in the last third or so of the test dealt with economics, and I was making some guesses on those, educated and otherwise. This test will lull you. The first 10 or 20 or so are so easy as to make you think you’re going to get a perfect score, but then it gets trickier.

I’m not sure whether the questions are the same for each taker, but on the version I took, I missed questions 19, 27, 43 and 58. All of them were questions I was unsure of, so it’s not like I thought I knew something that wasn’t so.

As for Doug’s suggestion — it’s tempting. Of course, it’s also tempting to require such a test before people are allowed to vote. And as long as we’re fantasizing, I’d want to present it to people just as it was presented to me — as a real test, out of the blue, of what I just plain know after 50-plus years in this country, not something you could cram for.

But we know that such things have been abused. Still, when you reflect how very little all too many people know going into voting booths, it’s discouraging.

I’d be curious to know how y’all do, if you take the time to take the test. And please play fair — give us your first, unrehearsed score — not your "do-over."

District 5: Good schools equal high property value

Sorry, Doug, but I have to dig back into my video to rebut something you said in a comment back here:

It was the school board member/real estate agent in the video who
talked about lake real estate (including his own) appreciating. The
appreciation has nothing to do with the quality of schools… it has to
do with the limited supply of lake property.

There’s no way for you to know this, but in editing my hour or so of video down to less than five minutes to fit it on YouTube, I left out this elaboration by Jerry Fowler:

Clearly, he believes — as do most Realtors, from what I’ve seen — that there is a direct cause-and-effect relationship between good schools and rising property values.

Zeke Stokes on ethics

Yeah, yeah, I know — Zeke’s detractors will say hearing from him on ethics is like me holding forth on football. But I continue to maintain that Zeke’s a good guy. Anyway, when Cindi wrote recently about his famous run-in with our usually permissive ethics enforcers, he wrote this note to her. (I mentioned that if I could find this, I would put it up for your perusal, remember?) Here it is:

Cindy:
    Thanks for your nice piece this morning in the State regarding the Ethics Commission and my recent run-in with this process. Just so you’re clear, I’d like to share with you the sequence of events that led to my seeking and using the addresses of teachers for Jim Rex’s campaign last year. 
    During the Republican primary, I began getting calls from Jim’s teacher supporters saying that they were receiving regular correspondence at their school email addresses from both Bob Staton and Karen Floyd. They were worried, and rightly so, that we were behind the curve and that these other candidates were getting a leg up on us with their correspondence. At that point, I used a standard FOI request through the State Department of Education to receive a list of certified personnel in the State, including email addresses. I sought counsel from a couple of attorneys who are friends of mine, who looked at the law, considered what I was planning to do, and advised me that the law did not specifically address this issue. With others already doing it, plus the advice I received from people I trust, I proceeded as planned. I have maintained copies of these emails sent by other campaigns throughout this process, but I chose not file complaints against other campaigns, as was done to me by Rick Beltram.
    It wasn’t until after the election was over and Beltram’s complaint was filed that I became aware of the advisory opinion of the Ethics Commission. At that point, I met with investigators there and told the truth just as I am telling it to you now. Honestly, I could have fought this and I am told it is likely that I would have won. But I didn’t want to be the test case on this, and I certainly didn’t want to do anything to bring any unnecessary negative attention to Jim Rex, who I respect and admire tremendously. I admitted that I acted without knowledge of this advisory opinion and the Commission chose to interpret that as an admission that I broke the law. In fact, the Ethics Law was written in the early 90s, well before the common use of email.
     At any rate, I appreciate the fair treatment you gave it this morning. I just wanted to give you a little more background in case you write about it additionally or have to answer input from your readers.

Kind regards,

zeke stokes
anderson/stokes, llc
post office box 12656
columbia, sc  29211

… although it seems that those of you inclined to psychoanalyze — and you know who you are — might make something of his ee cummings-style signature. Low self-esteem, possibly arising from feelings of guilt? Eh?

Budget and Control Board lawsuit

Here are the court filings in the lawsuit Cindi Scoppe wrote about today challenging the constitutionality of the Budget and Control Board.

That Cindi is such a grind. Now, back to fun stuff…

The evolving standard: Is this comment worth approving?

Lying fallow among the unapproved comments down in the engine room of the blog is an offering from someone who styles himself (or herself) "bud’s friend."

Come on — I have long been torn about whether to allow anonymous comments in this forum, and up to now have let them in, but subjected them to greater scrutiny than those from folks with the courage and integrity to put their names behind their opinions. But I’m afraid that "bud’s friend" is a bit too much to ask. What sort of credential is that — you don’t know me, but I’m a friend of this other guy you don’t know. That wouldn’t get you in to a speakeasy. It’s not going to get you in here.

Now might be a good time for an update on the evolving standards for comments on this blog. We’ve been through several stages:

  • For the first year or so, I let in anything, and rejected nothing.
  • After it became clear that the nasty atmosphere of ad hominem bullying and partisan name-calling was running off the very kind of thoughtful readership I sought, I set a "double standard:" If you weren’t willing to stand behind a comment with your own, verifiable name, your comments were subject to summary deletion.
  • A few of our anonymous troublemakers made such insistent nuisances of themselves that I banned them from the blog.
  • Some of the exiles began a ridiculous game of repeatedly coming back (with a frequency that was shocking, in terms of the amount of time they were spending on the site) with slightly changed names, to get around the automatic blocking.
  • So after a false start or two ("authentication" was a bust), I drew a new line: For your comment to appear on the blog, I have to approve it. I really, really hated this step — and still do (if only for the extra work) — but what are you going to do in a world filled with the Web equivalent of vandals?

That development has given me a much more intimate acquaintance with individual comments. As long as they appeared without any effort on my part, the standards could remain pretty low. Basically, I don’t have time to spare to do this blog at ALL, much less to chase down every comment that lowers the bar. But when I have to spend time on it anyway — when no comment appears without a positive action on my part — a new question enters my mind: "Why should I approve this?" What does it add? In what way does this comment make the dialogue on this blog better?

Once I start thinking along those lines, pretty much all anonymous comments are endangered — by which I mean they are in danger of sitting right where you left them, because I am not inclined to throw MY back out leaning over to pick them up and publish them.

And while I continue to grant much, much greater latitude to those of you using verifiable real names, you are not completely immune. As I announced just over a year ago, those who stand behind their comments "will be free to post pretty much whatever they want." That "pretty much" means there are standards, even for you.

I say all this because I’ve been getting sidebar complaints from some folks who use bogus handles complaining that they don’t always get approved. And once or twice, I’ve heard from NAMED people who didn’t approved. (Those, at least — on the rare occasions that they occur — will get a reply.)

Everyone should remember: The question is no longer, why would I REJECT this comment? Now, it’s why would I approve it. That really moves the line.

Oh, and not to seem inhospitable or anything, but anyone who doesn’t like these conditions can go start his own blog, and say whatever he likes. There are a number of sites where you can do so for free.

My week in the ‘phony’ Spin Cycle

By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
HAD  YOU asked me on Monday what I would be writing about for Sunday, a second column dealing — even peripherally — with presidential wannabe John Edwards would have been the last thing I would have guessed.
    Yet here I am. What choice do I have? I’ve spent so much time this past week dealing with the reaction from the first one that I haven’t had time to develop anything on another topic.
    It was just a midweek column, not worthy of a Sunday slot, a back-burner thing I had promised to address several months earlier on my blog, after readers challenged me for calling the man a “phony” without explaining the series of experiences that had led to that impression — which is all it was.
    (And in case you didn’t read that column and are wondering what those experiences were, I have neither the space nor inclination to repeat them here. They took up a whole column the first time. You can find it on my blog. The address is below.)
    But without ever intending or wanting to, I got caught up in the Spin Cycle of national politics. My musings had become, for that brief moment, Topic A — or at least B or C or D — and believe me: You don’t even want to be Topic Z in that alphabet.
    Subsequent events didn’t follow each other in any way that made sense, so I’ll just throw them out in no particular order:

  • The Drudge Report picked up my column Tuesday morning, which launched the craziness as much as any one thing.
  • The New York Post called asking to reprint it, which it did the following day under the headline, “POOR LITTLE PHONY: JOHN EDWARDS’ FAKE EMPATHY.”
  • Pmgift
    Dennis Miller of “Saturday Night Live” fame interviewed me on his radio show Thursday.
  • I got mocked by the “Wonkette”: “Brad Warthen of the South Carolina’s The State has a controversial opinion about John Edwards! His controversial opinion, which he, Brad Warthen, thought of himself, and which he is going to share… with you now, is as follows: John Edwards is a phony! A big fat phony!”
  • After two more radio shows called — one from Charlotte (for Thursday), another from Canada (for today), I called Andy Gobeil so that S.C. ETV wouldn’t miss out, and he had me on his show Friday morning.
  • My column was the lead political story on the Fox News network Tuesday night. Or rather, the response the Edwards campaign felt compelled to produce — and I do feel sorry for them for that — was the lead story. The story posted online began: “John Edwards’ campaign scoffed Tuesday at a new effort to depict the Democratic presidential candidate as phony after an influential columnist for a newspaper in Edwards’ birth state wrote that his personal experiences only reinforce his image of Edwards as plastic.”
  • My blog had its third-biggest day ever Tuesday with 5,825 page views, and its fourth-biggest on Wednesday. The biggest ever had been in June, when state Treasurer Thomas Ravenel was indicted. That made sense. This did not.
  • ABC News National Senior Correspondent Jake Tapper wrote on his blog about my “rather nasty op-ed” in these terms: “I personally find the evidence rather thin for such a scathing verbal attack.” Hey, if I had meant to mount a “scathing verbal attack,” I would have come up with some thicker stuff.
  • Someone named Pamela Leavey, writing on “The Democratic Daily,” said I was “Spewing Right-Wing Talking Points About John Edwards,” and thereby providing “a classic example of what’s wrong with our media.”

Obama_detail
    I guess I had been spewing “Left-Wing Talking Points” when I said nice things about Barack Obama the week before. Of course, Ms. Leavey wouldn’t know about that, because she had probably never heard of me before Tuesday. That was true of most of the people commenting.
    And yet, they seemed to think they knew an awful lot about me. Their confidence in passing judgment was far greater than my own. All I had done was describe impressions I had formed from actual experiences in my life. I didn’t consider them any better than anyone else’s experiences. When Zeke Stokes wrote in saying that when he worked on the Edwards campaign earlier this year he had formed a very different impression, I urged readers to take what he said every bit as seriously as what I had said.
    But folks out in the blogosphere or in the 24/7 political spin cycle don’t have time for reflections upon personal experience. They have a convenient short-hand vocabulary for passing judgment instantly upon anything and everything, and all of it is based in childishly simplistic, partisan labels: “He’s one of them! I don’t like them!” or “He’s one of us! Everything he says is true!”
    Among the more than 1,500 unread e-mails awaiting me Tuesday morning were quite a few from across the country praising or damning me for having expressed my opinion. Many were as shallow as Ms. Leavey’s “reflections.”
    But here and there were messages from someone who got the point, which was this: We all form subjective impressions, often unconsciously. In my column I tried to determine exactly when and where I had picked up the bits that formed my overall impression of this one guy among many running for president. I thought that such an airing would be mildly interesting to readers, who often wonder what sorts of gut “biases” inform what we write in the paper, and where they come from.
    A few readers appreciated that, saying that there had been something about Edwards that had nagged at them, and my column had helped them define it: “You hit something in me that I had not been able to figure out,” wrote Glenice Pearson. “Thanks for explaining what was wrong with him,” wrote Nancy Padgett. “I couldn’t figure out why I couldn’t enthuse even though he is a SC boy.”
    In turn, I appreciate those few readers who got it. The rest of it I could have done without.

Why I see John Edwards as a big phony: Director’s Cut

By Brad Warthen
Editorial Page Editor
SEVERAL MONTHS ago, I observed on my blog that I think John
Edwards is a phony — a make-believe Man of The People.
    It’s not so much that he’s lying
when he says he wants to help One America -– the Deserving Poor, whom he wants
to vote for him -– get what it has coming to it from the Other America (that of
the Really Rich, to which he disarmingly admits he belongs).
    He’s a pro at this, and at some point, pros can’t be liars. On
some level, they have to believe in themselves, whether it’s stepping to the
plate to beat the home run record or striding to the podium to drip pure,
sincere concern upon the people. Mr. Edwards has a sufficiently plausible
background story to convince himself that he is, deep-down, that dirt-poor,
mill-town child he invokes in his personal anecdotes. So he is persuaded, even if I am not.
    Why am I not? Well, I
hadn’t ever planned to get into that; I’ve just devoted more attention to other
candidates of both parties. I kept hoping that maybe Mr. Edwards would just
drop out. But he’s still in it, or trying to be. As The State’s Aaron Sheinin wrote in a piece headlined “Edwards
staying positive,” the former senator is “betting he can come from behind again
in 2008, as he did in 2004.”
    Sigh. So I guess I’d
better “put up” and explain why I called him, on Feb. 8 on my blog, “one of the
phoniest faux populists ever to get his name in the papers.” The
impression is mainly the result of three encounters:

Strike One: Sept. 16, 2003.
The candidate was supposed to appear on a makeshift stage on Greene Street in
front of the Russell House. The stage was on the south side, with seating
before it in the street, and bleachers to both left and right. I stood on
higher ground on the north side with, as it would turn out, an unflattering
angle of view.
    He was supposed to arrive at 4 p.m. but it was at least 5 before
he showed; I can no longer cite the exact time. When his appearance was
imminent, his wife appeared on the stage and built expectation in a manner I
found appealing and sincere. As either she or another introducer was speaking,
I saw Mr. Edwards step to an offstage position just behind the bleachers to my
left (toward the east). None of the folks in the “good” seats could see him.
    His face was impassive, slack, bored: Another crowd, another
show. Nothing wrong with that, thought I -– just a professional at work.
    But then, I saw the thing that stuck with me: In the last seconds
as his introduction reached its climax, he straightened, and turned on a
thousand-watt smile as easily and artificially as flipping a switch. He assumed
the look of a man who had just, quite unexpectedly, run into a long-lost best
friend. Then he stepped into view of the crowd at large, and worked his way, Bill Clinton-like, from the back of the
crowd toward the stage -– a man of the
people, coming out from among the
people -– shaking hands with the humble,
grateful enthusiasm of a poor soul who had just won the Irish Sweepstakes.
    It was so well done, but so obviously a thing of art, that I was
taken aback despite three decades of seeing politicians at work, both on-stage
and off. Not enough for you? OK.

Strike Two: Jan. 23, 2004.
Seeking our support in the primary contest he would win 11 days later, he came to an interview with The
State
’s editorial board.
    He was all ersatz-cracker bonhomie, beginning the session by swinging
his salt-encrusted left snowboot onto the polished boardroom table, booming,
“How do y’all like my boots?” He had
not, it seemed, had time to change footwear since leaving New Hampshire.
    The interview proceeded according to script, a lot of
aw-shucking, much smiling, consistent shows of genuine concern, and warm
expressions of determination to close the gap between the Two Americas. Then he
left, and I didn’t think much more about it, until a week later.
    On the 30th, Howard Dean came in to see us for the second time.
Once again, I was struck by how personable he was, so unlike the screamer of
Web fame
. I happened to ride down on the elevator with him afterward, along
with my administrative assistant and another staffer who was a real Dean fan
(but, worse luck for Gov. Dean, not a member of our board). After he took his
leave, I paused to watch him take his time to greet everyone in our foyer -–
treating each person who wanted to shake his hand as every bit as important as
any editorial board member, if not more so. I remarked upon it.
    “Isn’t he a nice man?” said our copy editor (the fan). I agreed.
Then came the revelation: “Unlike John Edwards,” observed the administrative
assistant. What’s that, I asked? It seems that when she alone had met then-Sen.
Edwards at the reception desk, she had been struck by the way he utterly
ignored the folks in our customer service department and others who had hoped
for a handshake or a word from the Great Man. He had saved all his amiability,
all his professionally entertaining energy and talent, for the folks upstairs
who would have a say in the paper’s endorsement. He had no time for anyone
else.
    At that moment, my impression acquired stony bulwarks of Gothic
dimensions.

Strike Three: Sept. 22,
2004
. I decided to drop by a reception held for then-vice-presidential
nominee Edwards at the Capital City Club that afternoon. I had stuffed my press
credentials into my pocket after arrival so as to mix freely with the
high-rollers and hear what they had to say. (They knew who I was, but the
stuffy types who want writers to stand like cattle behind barriers did not.)
Good thing, too, because there was plenty of time to kill, and there’s no more
informative way to kill it than with the sort of folks whom candidates want to
meet at such receptions.
    It was well past the candidate’s alleged time of arrival, but no
one seemed to mind. Then a prominent Democrat who lives in a fashionable
downtown neighborhood confided we’d be waiting even longer. We all knew the
candidate had a more public appearance at Martin Luther King Park before this
one, and no one begrudged him such face time with real voters. But this
particular insider knew something else: He had bided his own time because he
had seen Sen. Edwards go jogging in front of his house, along with his security
detail, after the time that the MLK
event was to have started.
    As reported in The State the next day, “Edwards was running late, and the throng waiting to rally with
him at Martin Luther King Jr. Park took notice. They sat for two hours in the
sweltering heat inside the community center, a block off Five Points.”
    We were cool at the Cap City Club, drinking, schmoozing,
snacking, hardly taking notice. So he’s late? What are these folks going to do –- write checks for the Republicans?
    But my impression had been reinforced with steel girders: John
Edwards, Man of The People, is a phony. And until I see an awful lot of
stunning evidence to the contrary, that impression is not likely to change.

If you’re here because of that box on the op-ed page…

… that promised "other opinions, the chance to register your thoughts, plus video from Tommy Moore’s endorsement interview with The State’s editorial board," then you’re at the right place.

  • First, in case you haven’t read Tommy Moore’s op-ed piece that the box went with, "Why I left the Senate for the payday lending industry," please go do so.
  • Then, check out Warren Bolton’s column on Mr. Moore’s decision, which takes a decidedly different view.
  • Here’s a video clip from our editorial board’s endorsement interview with Mr. Moore, back when he was running for governor last year.
  • Here’s our endorsement of then-Sen. Moore. (Hey, you should have seen the other guy. Some choice.)
  • Here’s a release about, and a link to, an ETV interview with Mr. Moore after his announcement this week.
  • Check out the press release from Mr. Moore’s new employer, CFSA, announcing his new job.
  • Finally, here’s my own initial, rather visceral reaction to that news. Something you might find more interesting is the way some of my readers responded.

If you have thoughts of your own to share, or requests for further information or resources, this is the place.

Original Tommy Moore press release

Here’s the payday lending industry group’s press release about hiring Tommy Moore, both in HTML and in plain text:

NEWS FLASH
FORMER SOUTH CAROLINA STATE SENATOR TOMMY MOORE JOINS NATIONAL PAYDAY LENDING TRADE ASSOCIATION

FORMER SOUTH CAROLINA STATE SENATOR TOMMY MOORE JOINS NATIONAL PAYDAY LENDING TRADE ASSOCIATION
Moore to Serve as CFSA’s Executive Vice President

Alexandria, VA — The Community Financial Services Association of America (CFSA) today announced Tommy Moore as the organization’s new Executive Vice President.  Moore, who resigned his South Carolina State Senate seat on Saturday, was the Democratic Party’s 2006 Nominee for Governor of South Carolina.  Before being elected to the Senate in 1981, Moore served briefly in the South Carolina State House. He is a respected and successful businessman and has a long track record of public service in the Palmetto State.

Moore, a graduate of the University of South Carolina, served on the Executive Committee of the National Conference of State Legislators and the state legislation committee of the Council of State Governments.

“Tommy is a nationally known state legislator who is well respected by his peers on both sides of the aisle,” said Darrin Andersen, CFSA President. “For more than a quarter of a century, Tommy has worked tirelessly on behalf of his constituents and is recognized as a leading advocate for consumer protections,” Andersen added.   

“At this point in my career, I saw an exciting opportunity to take on a new challenge that builds on my long history of supporting and protecting consumers,” said Moore. “CFSA shares those goals and I’ve been impressed with the great strides they have taken to educate consumers about responsible use of the service.”

“Payday advance customers appreciate this service, however, payday lending remains misunderstood by those unfamiliar with its benefits to working families. I look forward to dispelling misperceptions about the service and furthering CFSA’s efforts to promote responsible regulation. Compromise and bipartisanship have been the cornerstones of my career in pubic service and will be instrumental in helping the payday advance industry navigate its legislative challenges,” said Moore. 
Moore and his family currently reside in Aiken County, S.C. and will be relocating to the Washington, D.C. area.
Contact: Steven Schlein or Lyndsey Medsker 202-296-0263

About the Community Financial Services Association of America
The Community Financial Services Association of America (CFSA) is the only national organization dedicated solely to promoting responsible regulation of the payday advance industry and consumer protections through CFSA’s Best Practices. As such, we are committed to working with policymakers, consumer advocates and CFSA member companies to ensure that the payday advance is a safe and viable credit option for consumers. Visit www.cfsa.net for more information.

footer

If you no longer wish to receive e-mail from us, you can unsubscribe here.

Unsubscribe? You kidding? And miss stuff like this?

Nosy questions

Got this e-mail today from a nosy reader:

Please inform readers on the following:
a. How many members of "The State’s" editorial staff have children in elementary and H.S.?  Include in that count the publisher and editor-in-chief.
b. How  many of those children are in private schools?
c. How many of those children are in public schools?
d. How many of the public schools in which the staff’s children are enrolled are graded "unsatisfactory" by PACT or "No Child Left Behind" standards?

Thank you.

John Johnson
Winnsboro

Now why do I get the feeling that this is a challenge of some sort? Anyway, I replied as follows:

    I’m the only editor in editorial with a school-age child, and not for long, as she graduates next week. She will be my fifth child to graduate from public schools. Two of my colleagues have children who haven’t started school yet.
    The publisher has a teenaged stepson. I don’t know where he goes to school.
    We don’t have an editor-in-chief. I’m over editorial; another guy is over the newsroom. Totally separate arrangement.
    As for "D," none. Most of my kids graduated before those grades started, but they all went to Brookland-Cayce. So whatever that’s rated.
    Why do you ask?

What I did not mention, because it seemed irrelevant to what he seemed to be driving at, is that my youngest is graduating from a public high school in another state, which is a long story. It’s actually her third high school; she takes after her Dad in that regard (mine were in South Carolina, Florida and Hawaii). She also attended B-C, and the Governor’s School for the Arts in Greenville. She’s out of state further pursuing the art that took her to Greenville.

My other four went exclusively to Brookland-Cayce, and graduated from there. Go, Bearcats.

How good are the judicial candidates?

Here’s a little supplemental info to go with Cindi’s column today on how the South Carolina Bar rates the candidates seeking to replace E.C. Burnett on the S.C. Supreme Court.

The Bar has been shy about giving an overall score for candidates. So about a decade or so ago, Cindi and former staffer Lisa Green came up with their own way to derive an overall grade from the data the Bar does provide.

The attached spreadsheet contains the raw scores and Cindi’s composite score for each of the three candidates for the S.C. Supreme Court on the S.C. Bar’s Judicial Evaluation Surveys.

The charts show the total number of attorneys who gave each candidate a "4" (excellent), a "3" (good), a "2" (satisfactory) and a "1" (deficient) on each measure (that much the Bar gives us).

Here’s how the Scoppe/Green grade works: The average for each measure is calculated by multiplying the total number of "4s" by 4, the total number of "3s" by 3 and so on, adding the four numbers together and then dividing by 4. The composite score for each candidate is calculated by adding the averages together and dividing by the total number of measures.

NOTE: An individual judge is not evaluated each year, so while Judge Kaye Hearn was evaluated in her current role as chief judge of the S.C. Court of Appeals, Judge Don Beatty was last evaluated when he was still a Circuit Court Judge, and Judge Bruce Williams was last evaluated when he was still a Family Court judge. Although some of the questions are the same for the various courts, some are different.

So see what the Bar’s Judicial Qualification Committee had to say about each of the candidates, go to http://www.scbar.org/public/reports.asp and select the April 2007 report. Below is that committee’s summary for each candidate:

After interviewing a minimum of 30 members of the Bar who have knowledge of the candidate’s integrity, competence and temperament and interviewing the candidate, the Committee reports the following information:
Judge Beatty has extensive experience in civil and criminal matters both on the Circuit and the Appellate Courts. He is described as possessing above average legal knowledge and has a good judicial temperament. Based on the information and interview, the Committee reports that the candidate is qualified to serve as a Supreme Court Justice.
Judge Hearn has led the Court of Appeals as Chief Judge with great skill. She possesses superior legal knowledge and displays an excellent temperament. Her many years as a trial judge and appellate judge provide her with the skills necessary for service on the South Carolina Supreme Court. Based on the information and the interview, the Committee reports that it is the collective opinion that the candidate is qualified to serve as a Supreme Court Justice.
Judge Williams is an eminently experienced jurist, having served on both the Family Court and Court of Appeals. He is described as having above average competence as well as above average judicial temperament. He appears to be a highly committed public servant. Based on the information and the interview, the Committee reports that it is the collective opinion that the candidate is qualified to serve as a Supreme Court Justice.

Pay no attention to that woman…

Pay no attention to that pack of misleading nonsense Cindi Scoppe calls a column in today’s paper. I mean, the one that makes me look like some unethical jerk or something.

Consider that Ms. Scoppe is a journalist, and you know how they love to manufacture controversy where there is none. Or at least, not much.

Seriously, go read her column, and come back here to register your thoughts on whether you think what Justice Toal did was just plain awful, not a big deal, or somewhere in between. Cindi thought, and I agreed, that her column would be a good place to bring up issues that didn’t really fit in yesterday’s editorial.

For those of you who are too lazy to follow the link, essentially the column relates the discussion we had of the incident at our board meeting Monday morning, in which I took the "not a big deal" position. So I don’t look all that good in the column.

By way of extenuating circumstances, let me make the following points:

  • My "not a big deal" position was taken within the context of my thinking that, if not for her previous hit-and-run after drinking (which WAS a big deal), we probably wouldn’t be talking about this.
  • During the discussion, I was not aware that failure to leave a note was actually a violation of the law. I learned that later, but being stubborn, only shifted my position slightly. Once I knew that, I said there oughta be some wiggle room for when rubber bumpers barely touch, and you KNOW there was no damage.
  • Cindi sets out two anecdotes from our discussion: One in which Warren Bolton was a perfect prince, doing the Honest Abe thing, tracking down someone he had bumped into. The other was when I was peripherally involved in an incident, and looked upon the guy whose car was HIT as a big baby who was raising a fuss about nothing. To clarify: Under the circumstances Warren described, I would have done what Warren did. In fact, I have done that. In my story, the other driver WAS a big baby; his vehicle was fine, and he was having an absolute cow about it.

Of course, Warren IS a perfect gentleman all the time. And Mike is all idealistic and principled, and Cindi studied real hard in school, and is way better organized than I. It’s a wonder they let a lax slob like me into the room. Good thing I’m their boss.

The pork list

At Doug Ross’ request, here’s a link to the list (it’s a PDF file) of pork handed out through the Competitive Grants Program.

You can find it at the Budget and Control Board site, so it’s not hidden, but it’s not exactly advertised to the world, either. Trouble is, we sort of had to know it existed to look for it. We sort of had to piece this together from some oblique references made by lawmakers over the last couple of weeks.

And if you’re like this other guy and want to bid for YOUR piece of the pie, here’s the main page. But here’s hoping we can shut this down before you get your money.

Happy reading. Or unhappy reading, as the case may be.

By the way, Doug —  Cindi’s now done two columns on
this grant thing, there’s an editorial written and scheduled to run, and news has
done two articles, including today’s lead front-page story. I don’t know about news, but that’s more work than any of us in editorial ever did on any one outrage of Andre’s.

Anyway, thanks for raising the question about the list.

The Mallory Factor

Who is Mallory Factor, whose guest column appears on the op-ed page today? And no, he’s not aFactormallory character from a Douglas Adams novel, even though the name may remind you of "Ford Prefect." (It did me, anyway.)

He’s a really, really conservative rich guy from New York who recently moved to Charleston. He’s also
increasingly into politics. And, like Howard Rich, he’s increasingly into South Carolina politics.

On a bit of a whim, I asked Thomas Ravenel, another really, really conservative rich guy, if he knew Mallory Factor. I kind of had a hunch they might have managed to get together. And sure enough, they had. Here’s what Mr. Ravenel had to say. (Sorry about the way it cuts off too soon; that’s as much as will fit on a clip with my little camera — I still thought it was interesting. Especially the part about going to a roast for the guy who invented the Laffer Curve. You’ve really got to be a supply-sider to get invited to those kinds of parties.)