Category Archives: Mail call

More feedback on McCain endorsement

24 Replies

Just in case you didn’t get enough with the comments on this post or this one or this one or this one, here are a few that I’ve received via e-mail. I didn’t keep the attributions because some of these people probably wouldn’t mind and some would, but I don’t have time now to sort them out:

Hi,

Your recent Sunday column concerning John McCain neglects to mention that John McCain has lied about his military record on several occasions. I was eleven years old and watched the U.S.S. Forrestal as it arrived at Subic Bay in the Philippines — minus John McCain. The writer of this article has performed a valuable public service, while you and the rest of the McCain worshippers continue to go AWOL.

_________________________________________

His pick of Sarah Palin–that kind of blows the doors off the "experience"
argument.

You also failed to mention that he graduated 4th from the bottom of his
class at Annapolis, which makes him dumber than George Bush, who you also
endorsed, twice.

Do you suppose he’s also dumber than Mark Sanford, who you also endorsed?

Why don’t you just say, "At The State, we endorse dumbasses, and McCain’s
pick of Palin as well as his graduating 4th from the bottom of his class at
Annapolis leaves him as the only candidate that we can endorse."

You did good back in the poker machine days, and I still like reading your
stuff some times–some great sentences you can come up with at times–in
fact, i’d even say kind of incredible, and i even quote the stuff from time
to time, giving you the attribution, of course.  The problem is you have
quite a few loose screws that find expression in the endorsement of
candidates who have trashed this state and this country.  yes, you have a
track record.

Fortunately, I’m not going to be able to rub it in your face a few years
from now when you’re writing about what an idiot McCain is, that you
endorsed him (like I have done with Bush and Sanford) because McCain is not
going to win.  Hopefully, you’ll never endorse another winner.  For the good
of this country, let’s hope not.

_________________________________________

Brad

You are a barrel of laughs.  It is truly funny how you are trying to convince yourself and others that you are open minded and not a closed minded, dyed in the wool, Republican.  The Republicans could literally run this country into the ground and you would still endorse a Republican.  (Oh, I guess that has already happened.)

The rationale for your endorsement was pitiful.  It wouldn’t get a B from a friendly 10th grade Social Studies teacher.  I can imagine the red pencil comment "To endorse McCain because he supported the Surge is not a very deep analysis of the Iraq situation."

__________________________________________________

Mr Warthen,
I’m sitting here typing, deleting & retyping all the reasons why I find it incredulous that you’ve endorsed McCain for president.
I finally realized that I need not struggle to put it into words – Warren Bolton has already done that, very succinctly.
I will just say that I am extremely disappointed in your decision.  And the reasons given to support it do not resonate with me. 
Your, in my opinion, fool hearty endorsement is one that will remain in the back of my mind & forever color my perceptions of future positions presented by The State.

__________________________________________

Mr. Warthen,

I am an Obama supporter and I was disappointed that The State endorsed Sen. McCain. We are all entitled to our opinions, however, and I attempt to be open to views that are different from mine.  I must say, though, that your written justification for the endorsement of Sen. McCain in this morning’s edition was as weak as water.
Thank goodness for Mr. Bolton’s very thoughtful editorial this morning, it was proof to me that there continue to be people on your staff that reason and think independently. That piece and my husband’s insistence on reading every comic strip everyday is the only reason that I did not cancel my subscription to your paper on the spot. 

_______________________________________________

After reading your editorial and the editorial page this morning, I called your paper and terminated my subscription, even though I have been a subscriber since I moved to South Carolina in 1977.  Through the years, I have agreed and disagreed with your editorials, but I have never considered the disagreements as serious as I do today.  I cannot disagree more with your conclusion that John McCain is better qualified.  I can’t believe that you truly see John McCain as "exhibiting fierce integrity, principled independence and awe-inspiring courage as he has put his country first." 

I have seen nothing but a self-centered, spoiled man who is very angry and who has over and over put himself first.  For you to say that choosing Palin is not a factor for making a decision astounds me since it is such a clear example of McCain’s lack of judgement. I thank Kathleen Parker for giving me the first reasonable explanation of why McCain made such a choice.

I know that one subscriber will not break your newspaper, I just wish I could get everyone in the state who is supporting Senator Obama to also cancel their subscriptions and then maybe you would wake up!

____________________________________________

To quote John McEnroe “are you serious!!!” I guess I really shouldn’t be that surprised.

Even though, like John McCain’s support of 90% of George Bush’s policies, I generally agree with The State’s editorial positions and the issues so eloquently addressed by Cindi and Warren and Brad (heck I even got the paper’s endorsement when I ran for Columbia City Council in 2000); I must say I was very disappointed at the endorsement of John McCain.

I realize we all see the world and life through our own “lenses,” but, come on, you folks have blindfolds, or at best blinders, on for this one. I do compliment you on putting the best possible spin on your choice by limiting your reasons and the issues discussed. Especially interesting was your total avoidance of other issues like temperament, and judgment in the choice of Sarah Palin. Guess you don’t see any concerns/negatives in a McCain administration. I could go on. You and most informed citizens/voters know the litany on both sides.

I can’t cancel my subscription over something like this. I am grateful to even get The State delivered out at Lake Wateree. I did have to express my disappointment. You coulda/shoulda picked the best candidate, and likely winner, as have over 200 other publications, four times the number who agree with you/The State.

I’ll still respect you after the election.

__________________________________________

To: StateEditor, Columbia
Subject: to Mr. Warthen

Dear Mr. Warthen:

I am disappointed in your endorsement of Sen. McCain. Not surprised, as you observed. Rather, I am dismayed at the rationale you used in choosing an endorsement for our next president. In a state thirsty for demonstrable fruits of education, we need leaders (including newspaper editors) who apply sound reasoning in decisions. Most of your reasons were poorly grounded – most notably, that the economic crisis and vice presidential selections are irrelevant to your endorsement. Many of us could not disagree more.

A sound economy is one essential key to our collective future. Each political party has a long record of economic policy – these candidates represent those parties ( I remind you that Sen. McCain may have resisted some foolish decisions by his party but he is not an Independent), so the positions on the economic condition are not a wash. Can you give us a deeper foundation for this opinion?

And as Gen. Powell recently observed, THE job of the vice president is to stand ready to be president. Our American tradition is to have two candidates running rather than a solo presidential candidate so the people can choose who the v.p. will be. Using your logic, we should just elect a president and let that person choose a successor after the election. Essentially you have endorsed Gov. Palin to be our executive, commander-in-chief, and strategist in leading us out of this economic crisis. You owe us an explanation for why you support putting our future in her hands.

_______________________________________________

To: StateEditor, Columbia
Subject: The State’s Endorsement

I was so disappointed when I read the headline that you are endorsing McCain/Palin in the Presidential race.  I thought after your endorsement published in January of Obama, you were on the right track to unification for the state of South Carolina.  My husband and I have been very involved with this election process and have done much research and study in making our decision for our Presidential Vote.  I would think that with the resources afforded to a large newspaper, you would have come tot the same conclusion that we did.  Obama is our choice, no question.  We have struggled with job loss, student loans for our children in college and our sons service in the military.  McCain will only continue the policies that have made living and working for middle class American families so difficult these past few years.
Your opinion in January about Obama was spot on:

"Sen. Obama’s campaign is an argument for a more unifying style of leadership," the endorsement continued. "In a time of great partisanship, he is careful to talk about winning over independents and even Republicans. He is harsh on the failures of the current administration – and most of that critique well-deserved. But he doesn’t use his considerable rhetorical gifts to demonize Republicans. He’s not neglecting his core values; he defends his progressive vision with vigorous integrity. But for him, American unity – transcending party – is a core value in itself.": The State,  January22, 2008

We are so disappointed in your change of heart, and in our service with home delivery over the past year, that we will be canceling our subscription. 

____________________________________________

To: StateEditor, Columbia
Subject: (no subject)

Good morning to you Mr. Warthen-

Not knowing how to work this "blog" thing, I have to e-mail you my thoughts after reading the McCain endorsement which was no surprise at all.  What else could you people do in a state like
South Carolina?  Your paper, which from what I hear , is losing subscribers due to over-emphasis on sports, particularly football, diminishing Book Review section, less arts, less and less in-depth coverage of national and international news (no wonder people don’t know about the Colombian Free Trade Agreement) loss of the Saturday Editorial Page and having to go to the internet to finish many stories.  Can you imagine the loss of subscribers you would suffer if you endorsed Obama?  Yes, you did once but not for the finish. 

You state in your personal remarks that people know your mind so well.  I disagree.  You always seem to be self-searching, trying to put across that you are neither this or that, so how can anyone know you when you don’t yet seem to know yourself? 

As for knowing McCain, the remarks in the endorsement and yours show that you only know the surface of the man and haven’t really studied him in depth.  His recent acceptance of some of the most vile ads against Obama and his shameless pilfering of Obama’s campaign slogan of Change and many of Obama’s ideas show this as a man who stops at nothing to get what he wants.  During rallies when folks said ugly things about Obama, he made a half-hearted attempt to stop it but later defended his audiences (note that when he tried to stop it, he was booed or given very sparce applause).  He and Palin unleashed some very, very frightening elements during their campaign and this is not the kind of man who should be a leader of all the people.  He has always been a panderer and will always be.  He also has a nasty streak that is also frightening.  Even your favorite columnist, Charles Krathammer, a former psychiatrist or something of the sort, while bashing Obama last week, stated that McCain launched a volcanic missive to Obama when he did not go along with some proposal of McCain’s.  Krathammer should have spent a little more time analyzing McCain.

His military career and his time as a POW was not the glorious, self-giving time that has become an urban legend of sorts.  There are many places one can go to find out who this little man really is – and I just don’t mean little in stature.  He is a bellicose, uneven tempered man with a lot that he is still trying to prove and we are in danger of being his proving grounds.

Further, I would like to see a little more balance on the Editorial Page with your syndicated columnists.  It is discouraging to open the paper and see either Krathammer, Will, Parker.  Once in a while we get Freidman and when it snows in July, Dowd.  Broder is even a change.  Surely there could be a better mix and your letters more balanced. 

__________________________________________________

Morning,
I just called and canceled my annual subscription(paid in advance)  to The State Newspaper after 17 years and 8 months. You ask Why?  Let me start by paraphrasing W.C. Fields When the world ends I want to be in SC. He was asked WHY? Because they are Fifty (50) years behind.
I do  not take issue with The State/Brad’s endorsing Sen John McCain.  This was expected.  What I take issue is with the reasons and lack thereof.
1  "Surge"  The war did not start with a "surge"  The war started before the surge and Sen Barack Obama stated before the war and before the surge started that we SHOULD NOT GO TO WAR.  The "surge works" not in isolation.  We are paying  many $$$$$$$$$, Have you heard about the "Awakening" No one on itself would be success.  Please tell me now who had the better judgment and foresight from the start? Sen McCain or Sen Obama?

2.  You have lost sight of what the rest of America is mainly concerned about THE ECONOMY  THE ECONOMY THE ECONOMY. "Iran to North Korea"? Who cares RIGHT NOW? What most people care about is feeding their families, I guess we do not have to, My household income is over $250,000.00 per year. 

3.  "Columbia Free Trade Agreement"?  Take a poll of your readers and I bet my re-subscription that no more than 10% knows what you are talking about. Is this the new way of not saying "BLACK"? You yourself had to ask your own guestion  "WHY so many words about the CFTA.  Trying to justified putting the square peg in the round hole.

4.  "Judicial appointment"?  If you believe what both men said about litmus test, I have a bridge to nowhere I can sell you for the price of your subscription. 

5 "immigration reform" how many times did he flip flop on this issue.  What about voting against a MLK holiday?  You have the audacity to mentioned Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid BUT totally ignore Sen McCain’s first decision Gov. Sarah Palin Oh so now you are worried about the majority in Congress?  What happen to the last six years? 

6. Is Country first involve KEATING FIVE, wrecking three planes, jumped out of one that was destroyed, shot down at 3,000 feet when he should have been flying at 4,000 – 10,000 feet?

7.  "Why didn’t ( I prefer  "did not")  mention Sarah Palin"?  You are still trying those pegs.  How could you consider  one without the other ?  All thing been equal Sen McCain should die before Sen Obama.  Are you telling me that is the former is elected president and dies 4 months in his term Gov. Palin is suited to run the country and the world for the next 3 years and 8 months?  What are you drinking?  I do not want even a tea spoon of that, and if you are sneaking some in your paper I do not want to touch same again. 

8. "We could go on and on, and we will"  I will not. If I want to read you paper I can go to Refdesk like I do every day. Where I read at least 3-5 national, and 3-5 international newspaper seven day per week.

________________________________________________

To: StateEditor, Columbia
Subject: McCain endorsement

I gave all my information upfront because I mean this when I say the editorial board has two straight-up wimps, Brad Warthen and Cindi Scoppe. How can you not know who to endorse at this point in time? I realize Ms Scoppe has the right to make her decision anytime she feels like but as educated and bright as Ms Scoppe is, it just seems like she’s afraid to endorse Obama in South Carolina and I say the same thing about Warthen. Please, the reason people assumed the editorial board would endorse McCain is because they knew you would come up with some wimpy reason to endorse the republican candidate.  I do believe that the publisher and owner of the state is not a wimp and I feel like Warren Bolton is not a wimp and the reason I feel that way about those two is that they’re consistent, especially Bolton but endorsing John McCain in South Carolina is not progressive and saying you’re not sure as an educated person when the election is less than 10 days away is not courageous and it’s patronizing to your readers because both candidates have had websites up and running with information on their plans. My issue is not that the State endorses a republican candidate but that they put their circulation ahead of any real effort to change the country or be progressive and after reading Warthen’s commentary over the past year I don’t think he’s very progressive when it comes to race at all. You see when it’s time to do something courageous don’t complain all year long then do the opposite or say I don’t know. 

_______________________________________________

I am so very glad that McCain has been endorsed.  I supported him in 2000.  I feel his loyalty and dedication to the welfare of the United States is  far above his opponent.  McCain actually cares about this great country and what he can do to protect it.  Obama is more concerned over his "Kingship" of the country.

He is the most arrogant and elitist person who has ever ran for president.  He refuses to answer the "tough" questions and has ran a most negative and dishonest political race.   He is guilty of what he accuses his opponent of.  I feel so much better knowing that The State Paper and you have endorsed the best candidate we have.  Bless You.

So there you have it.

I haven’t had time to respond to more than one or two of these folks, and need to turn to putting out tomorrow’s page now. But at least I could give their views a wider airing by posting them here.

I marvel at the uncanny insight of our readers

4 Replies

Bailout

… or one of them, anyway. Just now, I was kidding Robert Ariail about this letter in today’s paper:

Ariail’s work deserves a Pulitzer Prize
In case it comes up, I nominate Robert Ariail for a Pulitzer Prize. His pen is multidirectional: It cuts up and down as well as sideways. A case in point is his masterpiece Tuesday regarding the bailout fiasco in Washington.

Brad Warthen also deserves some sort of special credit for whatever role he plays in victim selection.

BOB A. McILWAIN
Columbia

Here’s what’s funny about that if you’re me: Robert’s been having a bad week, by his reckoning. Robert’s problem is that his "bad weeks" are largely in his head. He’s unhappy with his ideas, so he thinks he’s not doing well. Artists. On Monday, it was going so badly that even after our page was long done and in the proofing stage — past mid-afternoon — he hadn’t even started on a cartoon, although he had several sketches he was unhappy with.

He was on the verge of saying he just wouldn’t have a cartoon for the next day (something that almost never happens) when I started in on him, telling him he was dogging it, he could do it, it was all in his head, and a bunch of other halftime exhortations. I told him this particular idea that he had sketched was just what was needed, as it touched on the debate AND the news of Monday. So he finished it.

And this reader not only thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread, but sensed somehow that I had something to do with it. I’m loving it.

Just in case you think all the shouting happens here in the Blogosphere…

14 Replies

My colleague who processes incoming letters regularly forwards copies of those that are specifically responding to a personal column. I’ve been copied several of those today from my Sunday column. Here are my two favorites so far. They illustrate the point that those of us who edit editorial pages had been dealing with the "blogosphere" for years before the word was coined.

By the way, I have no idea whether either of these will be among the few chosen to be published. I’m satisfied to see them (or not) when they show up (or don’t) on the page.

Anyway, first I get BAM from the left:

    In "Worrying  about what happens if Obama loses" (Sunday September 14), if Brad Warthen doesn’t consider Barack Obama to be a black man, then what does he consider him to be?   Nevermind the angst over a polarized country, Mr. Warthen has more important worries such as how he can educate himself on issues of racism.  Surely, anyone who has spent five minutes seriously considering racism on a real level would instantly know that the Rev. Joe Darby is dead on with his assessment of white middle America.  Not so?  Try imagining Sarah Palin’s life superimposed on the Obama family and see if the same sympathy and understanding resonates.
    It would seem that Mr. Warthen doesn’t consider Obama black because he obviously doesn’t see black: par for the course in South Carolina.  And like so many typical South Carolinians, if you don’t see race, then you certainly don’t have to deal with the issue in any meaningful way.

Then I get BAM-BAM from the right:

    Mr. Darby is about as racial as you can get.  I have read his diatribes promoted as Guest Columns.  In many ways he reminds me of Mr. Limbaugh, except at the opposite viewpoint.  Unfortunately to the Liberal Media, such as NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN and "The State", a comment can only be considered racial if the person making it is not of the Black Community. 
    In my letter to the Editor of August 28, 2008, which was censured and intentionally not put into print, I had predicted that the Liberal Media and the Black Community want to get Mr. Obama elected, not because he is qualified but to make history as the first Black to win the Presidency.  I had also forecasted that the race card would be played by them to make people of all other races and creeds guilty if they did not vote him in.  Mr. Darby considers the Presidency for Mr. Obama, as an Entitlement.
    I also find it mind boggling that Mr. Warthen wears blinders when he harps about Ms. Palin’s lack of experience.  While I agree that Ms. Palin does not have enough experience, she at least has 1 1/2 years of it as the Governor of Alaska and she is running for Vice President.  Mr. Obama is running for the Office of the President and he has zilch "NADA" experience of  any kind.
    It has not dawned on Mr. Warthen that a larger majority of the people in this State are either Independent or Conservative in their views and The State’s Editorial Group is out of place.  Maybe this is why The State continues to and will lose readership.  I predict that "The State" will pick Mr. Obama as their choice in November.

I’m always intrigued by the letter writers who see a huge, PERSONAL slight in their letters not being among the ones chosen for the paper, as though we run ALL of them, except the few that we choose not to run, just to be mean. For the record — I just went and asked — we run about half of the letters submitted.

I also enjoyed that one because of the endorsement prediction. So THERE, those of you who accuse us of having decided already for McCain…. Also, when did I "harp on" Sarah Palin’s lack of experience?

The first letter I liked because this reader just can’t wait for that promised column about how I don’t consider Obama to be a black man. Those of you who read the blog of course have read about this upcoming column before, back on this post:

Talk about what the election of Barack Obama as a black man means misses the point, since — as a lot of black folks asserted last year leading up to the primaries — Obama simply is not a "black man" in the sense that the phrase has meaning in American history, sociology and politics. I’ve got a column I’m planning on writing about that, after I read his autobiography on the subject. It will be headlined "Barack Like Me," and it will be rooted in the experiences he and I share spending part of our formative years in Hawaii (where race simply did not mean what it means here) and outside the United States — both in the Third World, in fact. None of these experiences are common to the sort of guy we describe when we say "black American." I hope to write that one before the summer is over.

Obviously, I didn’t get it done before the summer is over. There have been two holdups:

  1. I haven’t had time to read that book yet, and I expect reading it will make the column better.
  2. I have thought about the blasted column so much, and have so many points I want to make in it, that I dread the hard work of having to cram it all into 25 inches. That happens some times with columns that I keep MEANING to write — they get delayed further by my having thought too much about them. (Although the two columns are not at all alike, I had the same problem with the John Edwards column that caused such a stir — I had promised it for months, and just kept putting it off.)

Maybe I should just skip reading the book (which may complicate the writing further) and write it this week or next.

Oh, one other thing about that first letter: Someone else — I think it was in another letter we ran, or maybe somebody else — raised that "imagine if Sarah Palin were black" thing, with the assumption that she’d be perceived differently. (At least, I THINK that’s what was meant by "superimposed on the Obama family;" maybe it meant something else.) I thought the same thing then that I think reading this now: How do you figure?

Loving me some planet

4 Replies

Pooge_002

Ya gotta love this: So I’m going through my snail mail IN tray, something I do every month or so whether I need it or not (please, please don’t send me anything urgent or important via snail mail), and I run across this tabloid-sized publication called Environment & Climate News, and of course my usual move with anything unsolicited that is printed on something like newsprint is to toss it in the newsprint recycling bin.

But I can’t, because IT’S WRAPPED IN PLASTIC.

So who in the world who’s so interested in the environment be so utterly clueless as to send something so grotesquely incongruous to a crack, trained observer such as myself?

Well, once you know the answer you say "of course:" It’s our old friends Joseph L. Bast and his Heartland Institute, which is an organization that, like our governor, would never ever want gummint to do anything about climate change or anything like that.

Oh, and you say the picture above is hard to read on account of the glare? Well, that’s because IT’S WRAPPED IN PLASTIC!

But before you walk away chuckling, I should point out something that probably would never have struck me if not for my habit of saving up the mail to go through all at once: A few minutes before, I had dispensed with (by which I mean I had passed it on to Cindi because I noticed there was an item related to S.C. state policy) a publication called Health Care News, which as it happens is also put out by The Heartland Institute. Three guesses as to what the Institute wants us to do about health care. You got it: Nothing. (Mainly because the concept of "us" is anathema to such groups.)

This organization now has my attention. Ubiquity will do that. This group may be better funded, and operating on more fronts, than its spiritual brother Howard Rich.

Amazing the amount of money people will spend rather than pay taxes, isn’t it?

Pooge

How is coffee affecting me? It’s none of your blasted BUSINESS, that’s how! So BACK OFF, Jack!

1 Reply

Recently, I’ve gotten a number of e-mail releases from a "Dr. Mike Magee," and in the split-second I spend deciding whether to delete an e-mail or save it to look at later, I had saved these, under the vague impression that they were from someone I actually knew, namely the erstwhile USC athletic director.

But noo-o-o-o-o! These messages are from some busybody stranger who’s asking me nosy questions such as:

The Coffee Fix
How is coffee affecting your life?

By Mike Magee, MD
Is coffee part of your daily routine? If it is, you are like millions of Americans, who start their day with a cup – or two or three – of coffee. But even if it’s part of your daily routine, it makes sense to stop and ask a few questions. How much do you know about your morning pick-me-up? Do you ever think about where it comes from or how it’s affecting your body?

First, he hammers on my conscience:

Most small farmers sell their coffee directly to middlemen exporters
who pay them below market price for their harvests and keep a high
percentage for themselves. This forces these farmers into a cycle of
poverty that keeps working conditions poor, wages low, and often
involves child labor. Coffee workers are usually paid the equivalent to
sweatshop wages and they toil under harsh conditions.

With all
of this in mind, we’re left with two major questions about coffee. One,
is it good or bad for your health? And two, what about the health and
well-being of the coffee farmers and workers around the world?

Then, just as I’m turning away, he lures me in with nice thoughts:

On question one, you might be shocked to find out that coffee is full
of antioxidants that dampen inflammation and are believed to be
positive and preventive when it comes to chronic diseases. Studies by
major journals have confirmed that coffee is a major contributor of
antioxidants in the diet of Americans.

But just as I’m thinking this guy might be OK, he hits me with this:

But there’s the caffeine to consider. Once it’s ingested, it’s rapidly
absorbed into the blood stream in 30 to 45 minutes, and takes 4 to 6
hours for most of it to be eliminated. At low to moderate doses it
increases well being, happiness, energy, alertness, and sociability –
but at higher doses it can cause adverse health effects.

Arrrghhh! Who do you think you are, you imperfect stranger? You can’t even spell McGee, and you’re lecturing to me about my coffee?!?!? Back off! Where’s the pot? I need just one fresh cup to calm me down and clarify my mind…

Butch says he and Kevin working pro bono for DMV

1 Reply

Just got this e-mail from Butch Bowers, one of the attorneys who stuck up for the "I Believe" license plate on our Monday op-ed page:

Brad – enjoyed
reading you blog post about our piece and the DMV’s release of yet another
license plate.  In one of the comments to this post, a reader
asks you if Kevin
and I billed DMVBowersb08_4
for writing the piece and if we are getting paid by the state
to defend this suit or if we are working pro bono.  If you are interested in
responding, I thought I would let you know that we are in fact providing pro
bono representation to DMV.  We didn’t bill anybody nor did we otherwise get
paid for writing the op ed piece, and our representation won’t cost the
taxpayers any money at all.
 
Thanks very much,
and I hope you are doing well.  Take care,
 
Butch
OK, Butch, "I believe" you. But if my ol’ friend Kevin hasn’t found a way to bill somebody on this, he must be slipping…

Michael on the Confederate flag

185 Replies

Michael Rodgers, longtime correspondent here and founder of the Take Down The Flag blog, wrote this to me today, and I share it with you:

Dear Brad,
I am writing for two reasons: to point out some common things people often say that are wrong and to describe the stunning lack of leadership from our state government on this issue.

First, the things that are wrong:

1) Our issue in SC is just like the issue in Mississippi or Georgia.  Wrong, because our issue in South Carolina is about the third flag we fly, not about our state flag.
2) The 2/3 vote requirement for this issue is insurmountable.  Wrong for two reasons:

  a. The 2/3 requirement is a legislative hurdle can be taken out of the way with a simple majority (1/2).  Then a simple majority would be able to change rest of the law.
  b. Our state government votes 2/3 all the time when they override Gov. Sanford’s veto, so in fact 2/3 routinely occurs.

3) No one in our state legislature is interested in resolving this issue.  Wrong, because H-3588, a bill to resolve this issue, has seven sponsors. (And as a personal opinion, I think H-3588 completes the compromise).
4) This issue is between flag supporters, who are happy, and flag opponents, who are unhappy.  Wrong for four reasons:

  a. The issue is the FLYING of a third flag from Statehouse grounds, so the camps are flag flying supporters and flag flying opponents.
  b. Flag supporters are unhappy – why else would they get so worked up all the time about this issue?
  c. This issue is between the leaders of our state government, who are happy, and South Carolinians, who are unhappy.
  d. The issue is actually the story (the why!) we tell when we fly or when we don’t fly the flag.  (And as a personal opinion, H-3588 provides a completely consistent clarification of the story of the compromise of 2000).

5) This issue is not worth our time to resolve.  Wrong because this issue is

  a. a defining issue for our state,
  b. tearing our state apart, and
  c. diminishing our state’s stature.

Second, the stunning lack of leadership.

http://www.greenvilleonline.com/

Gov. Mark Sanford said, "Everybody has a different perspective. It is a deeply dividing and complex issue that we’re not going to try and open and re-examine. Somebody is going to have to place a tremendous amount of political capital to pry open a compromise. This administration is not going to be doing that."

Our state government is flying the Confederate flag, and this action causes people to react viscerally.  And when I say people, I am concurring with Gov. Sanford’s grouping:  It’s a deeply dividing issue that affects everybody.

Our state government is flying the Confederate flag, and this action causes people to have enormous confusion as to the reason for this action.  And when I say people, I am concurring with Gov. Sanford’s grouping: Everybody has a different perspective.

Our state government is causing deep division that confuses everybody, and what does Gov. Sanford propose to do about it?  Nothing.

Gov. Sanford says that this simple issue is too complex for him to re-examine.  He says what he always says, which is if we’re going to do anything, we’ve got to throw out everything we’ve been given and start fresh — new constitution, new government structure, new approach to property taxes, new approach to education, etc.  No wonder he doesn’t have the political capital to spare for this issue!

I say that we can solve this issue by respecting the compromise and by clarifying the confusion.  Our state government made a compromise in 2000, where they decided a lot of things under a lot of pressure.  By and large, they did a fantastic job, under the circumstances.

One part of this compromise, the flying of the Confederate flag from Statehouse grounds, is deeply dividing everybody because everybody has a different perspective on this action. We can focus on solving this last remaining issue because the complex parts of this issue have already been solved.

We can solve this last remaining issue, the simple one, with H-3588.  This bill says that confusions about racism and sovereignty can be resolved by flying our state flag in place of the Confederate flag.  This bill says that confusions about respect for heritage can be resolved by commemorating Confederate Memorial Day every year by flying the Confederate flag at the flagpole where it is now.

H-3588 respects the compromise of 2000 by honoring the Confederate Soldier Monument, Confederate Memorial Day, and the Confederate flag.  H-3588 clarifies the message about why our state honors the Confederate flag: because we respect the service and sacrifice of the Confederate soldiers and not for any other reason.

Because H-3588 respects the compromise and clarifies the confusion, H-3588 completes the compromise.  A leader can easily solve this problem.  Who’s going to step up to the plate?  The governor’s mansion awaits.

Regards,
Michael Rodgers
Columbia, SC

The ‘Jewish lobby’

22 Replies

Check this letter on today’s page:

Hollings speaks truth about Middle East
    I agree with former Sen. Ernest Hollings on his answer, as stated in the June 15 State, to James T. Hammond’s question, “How do you think our policy in the Middle East should change?” Sen. Hollings said, “Settle the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and 80 percent of the problems will disappear.”
    In order to solve a problem, all facts must be truthfully presented. As long as it is considered anti-Semitic to state true but politically incorrect facts about Israel, it is impossible to solve the Middle East problems. If we want to solve these problems, get rid of the Jewish lobby (the biggest lobby in Washington), and get the facts on the table.
HARRY L. NORTON SR.
Summerton

I bring it up to suggest that Mr. Norton should check out this piece in Foreign Affairs that I mentioned previously. It makes it pretty clear that U.S. support for Israel — whatever you may think of it — has long been based in widespread support among NON-Jews in this country. Argue that this nation should take a harder line on Israel if you like. But to complain about the "Jewish lobby" is to miss where most of the support of current policy is coming from.

How much do YOU spend on gas?

16 Replies

Back on this post, Susanna K. reminded me of this letter in Monday’s paper:

Gas is still relatively cheap in U.S.
    Wake up, folks. Once again our media friends have created the myth that gas is expensive, fueling an already weakened economy.
    In 1963, I spent 4 percent of my income on gas. For me, personally, gas is very cheap. My wife and I drive two large SUVs, and we spend 1 percent of our income on fuel.
    Stop this ridiculous pump patrol. We are fortunate to have gas at about $4 a gallon. Our retired friends in the Netherlands pay $9.52 a gallon.

R.J. MONROE
West Columbia

Susanna made the point that if Mr. Monroe is really only spending 1 percent of his income on fuel, he’s "definitely in the minority, especially in South Carolina." She also tried to direct us (TypePad messed up the link) to this graphic in the NYT. It shows where in the country gas prices hit the hardest, as a percentage of income. As the caption says, poor, rural areas are hit the hardest. Californians pay more, but they can afford it better.

Anyway, it reminded me that I tried to do the calculation in my head when I was reading that letter on the proof, and I’m pretty sure I spend a lot more than 1 percent (of gross, never mind net), considering gas for my wife’s vehicle and mine as percentage of total income. And I make more money than the average, and don’t drive all that much, beyond going to work and back.

So that made me wonder — are any of y’all as fortunate as Mr. Monroe?

I should say that his point is well taken — we’d be much worse off in many other countries. But if his figures are right, I don’t think he’s very representative.

Classy response to defeat

1 Reply

Candidates who lose elections seldom do this sort of thing, so when they do I am favorably impressed. After a fairly bitter campaign that featured mutual character attacks, it struck me that D.J. Carson was moved to send this out:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MEDIA ADVISORY

June 15, 2008
    D.J. Carson congratulates Joe McEachern and challenges South Carolina to continue to make public education a priority.…
    Richland Co. – I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Joe McEachern and offer my support to him and all Democrats running for office in November. Though the media has reported our differences on the issues the past three months, we now must come together as a party, a community, and continue to find solutions to the many challenges facing District 77 and South Carolina overall.
    When I started this journey nearly three months ago, I did so on the foundation that our public schools are the single most important factor to making South Carolina a more successful and more productive state. I truly believe there is a direct link between public education, low crime, and economic development. I am pleased to see that through this campaign private school vouchers, tuition tax credits, and home-school tax credits and their negative impact on public education came to the forefront.  These types of misguided solutions would take valuable resources away from our public schools and put our children at a disadvantage. I along with all residents in District 77 challenge Mr. McEachern and the South Carolina General Assembly to champion public schools and public education over the next two years.
    Finally, I offer my sincere appreciation to the educators, parents, volunteers, campaign staff, and most importantly the voters who believe in my message and vision. Though we came short in our ultimate goal, we were able to push the message of supporting public education to the center of the debate. Working together we will bring needed change to District 77 and South Carolina as a whole.

Thank you all and God Bless!

D.J. Carson

Yeah, I know — you can call it just crass "party loyalty" or some such (he doesn’t wish any Republicans or independents well, you’ll notice), or a CYA move to keep his political options open in the future, or both. And yeah, it’s kind of preachy for a congratulatory message.

But when a guy does something more generous than I expected, I tend to want to make note of it. If we don’t encourage good sportsmanship, we can expect it to die out completely.

Nowadays, there are so few classy gestures that I care less about why they are extended; I’m just glad to see them.

Can we drive 55? OK, how about 70?

18 Replies

We all know how frustrated Energy partisan Samuel Tenenbaum gets about his perfectly sensible suggestion that we save the country and the planet, and save ourselves some bucks, by driving 55 mph. He keeps hoping his moment will arrive — will we get sensible at $5 a gallon? Or will it be $6?

Anyway, I was reminded of all that by this letter this a.m.:

Keeping to speed limit will save on gas

Apparently the high cost of gasoline is not yet a problem for the people of South Carolina.

Every
driver knows that higher speeds reduce fuel efficiency. Yet traffic on
our interstate highways continues to roll about 10 mph over the speed
limit.

STEPHEN D. KIRKLAND

This raises the question: Do you think we can summon the political will in this state to enforce the speed limits we have now? The reason traffic "continues to roll about 10 mph over the speed
limit" is that we all know that the de facto speed limit is 10 mph over — and maybe more like 15.

Maybe we can start the movement here. How about it? Can some of y’all who get SO worked up about illegal immigration "because they’re breaking the law" get worked up by speeding? After all, this isn’t just about not having the right paperwork; speed kills.

If we can tap into an emotional well like that, we can save lives, save money, flip the bird to Chavez and the House of Saud and save the planet. Sounds like a good deal.

Does the New England Journal of Medicine know about this breakthrough?

27 Replies

All of y’all who get worked up about having Spanish-speakers around will love this letter on today’s page:

    I am sick and tired of the wailing and gnashing of teeth by some business owners and Chambers of Commerce over the new immigration law.
    I don’t normally put much faith in our legislators, but they hit a home run for a change. I only wish the law had been implemented earlier.
    My company hired a Hispanic three years ago who used falsified documents. He worked two weeks, suffered an aneurysm and our Workers’ Compensation Commission, in its infinite wisdom, ruled it was job-related and awarded him $175,000. As a result, my workers’ compensation insurance increased dramatically.
    If this law had been in effect three years ago, it would have saved me a lot of money and much grief. As a result of this incident, we now use the federal electronic database and verify every new hire.
    My advice to all the malcontents: Make sure your employees are in this country legally or hire U.S. citizens.

So it turns out that illegal immigration causes aneurysms! Who knew?

Isn’t that just like those Hispanics? They come up here and take jobs just knowing they’re going to have an aneurysm, no doubt as a result of the very act of wading across the Rio … The nerve of these people.

Remember, hire U.S. citizens (or, if you must, legal aliens), because they don’t have aneurysms.

Through a Marine’s eyes

16 Replies

This was forwarded to me today, and I pass it on as I received it:

I was part of the Dateline NBC special program titled “Coming Home” that aired Sunday, May 25th. It is about the “cost of killing.” I live in South Carolina. My name is Jesse Odom and I am 25 years old. I served in the Marine Corps and fought in Iraq. Here is my story.  Thank you.

    People on both sides of the spectrum, those for the war in Iraq and those against the war in Iraq, for the most part, say that they support the troops.  That support is typically limited to putting yellow ribbons around trees or by placing some type of sticker on their cars, and of course, by verbally saying that they support our troops. People automatically assume that our troops will get the armor they need to protect themselves in combat, they will assume that they have decent living conditions here in the States and in our warzones, they assume that our men and women are getting all of the health benefits they need, they will assume that our men and women who have been in combat will get the proper mental health care they need in order to get back on a stable mental track. The list goes on. I am tired of our naïve approach to supporting our troops and I pledge to change that. 
    On March 20th, 2003, my unit (Alpha Company 1st Bn 5th Marines) was the very first group to cross the Kuwait-Iraq border. Shortly after, we were engaged in combat and I found myself holding a fatally wounded Marine in my arms, my friend and leader, Shane Childers. I watched him die and he spoke his last words to me. He was the very first American killed in the war. We fought our way to Baghdad, accidentally and unfortunately killing the innocent, constantly living in fear, and trying to stay alive. Once we made it to Baghdad we found ourselves in what many have said was the most violent and fierce firefight during Operation Iraqi Freedom. We fought for nine hours. Nearly a hundred men were wounded and I witnessed the death of another Marine that I looked up to. We raided Saddam’s palace and the Abu Hanifah mosque where Saddam had been sighted. We killed many men and captured others. We lived at the palace for a while and then moved back to southern Iraq and eventually back to the United States.
    Shortly after getting back to the United States I finished my enlistment while my friends in my unit went back to Iraq. I started to write a book when I got out of the Marine Corps. I didn’t plan to publish the book but I used it as a coping mechanism. I camped out at my computer night after night, putting my unit’s story into words. Throughout this process, I kept up with some of my other friends that also got out of the military. Many of them struggled, and some still do. My friend, Chip Wicks, could not handle his problems and hung himself in February of 2004. This put me on a path to try to change some things. I started talking to my other friends and many of these men also had, and still have, a difficult time coping with the fact that they had witnessed and did things that many in our country could never imagine. They have a hard time coping because they are good men with Christian beliefs and a moral conscious; even though many do not regret fighting in Iraq. Many of these men will not get help, but even those that do, have to fight tooth and nail to get the help they need.
     Some of our men are being asked to use their own money to get counseling for their PTSD. The list of faults is too long to list in this email.  The faults are not limited to mental health care. However, I have decided to focus my efforts on PTSD and the suicide epidemic among our combat veterans.  People read my manuscript and loved it. I was told I should get it published and eventually I took the steps to do this. In the book, I tell my unit’s unbelievable story. But, the story does not stop on the battlefield. The battlefield has followed us home. Also, I tell of the haunting aftermath of war. I describe some of the issues that our troops and veterans face today.  I use real examples.
    In this book, I follow my unit as we prepared for war, when we went to war, and now home, where we have been put on the back burner. I am devoted to support our troops and I am going to do what I can to make a difference.
    I set up a fund titled the Chip Wicks Fund in honor of my friend that took his own life.  I am donating 10 percent of my royalties from the book sales to this fund, and the publisher has agreed to contribute 10 percent of their net proceeds from this book to the fund.  I am also accepting donations on my website.  The fund will be used to seek out and help those that have problems adjusting back into the civilian world.  Those that have or may have PTSD.  I don’t want any more of my brothers and sisters to die due to depression (suicide) when they can be helped.  I want you to help me support the troops. Not by simply waiving a flag or putting a ribbon around a tree. I want you to put this story on the front page of your paper and help me change some things.  I am trying to get more support from our government, but that will take some public pressure. 
    My book is eye opening.  It is not written by a seasoned author, a ghost writer, a politician or journalist who went on a fact-finding tour in well protected areas in Iraq. This book was written by a Marine infantryman who went and served his country and is now asking our country to truly support our troops and our combat veterans. You can help me and our men and women in uniform (and veterans). I want people to read my book and see what is going on behind the scenes of our media. I want to sell books and raise money for an unresolved problem in our country. I want people to read the book so they can see the world through an enlisted man’s eyes. My efforts are not limited to the book and the fund, I am going to go to our politicians and demand change.
    My book is titled “Through Our Eyes” (Bella Rosa Books, June 2008, ISBN 978-1-933523-14-9).
    You can go to my website and copy anything on it you want to put in your newspaper article (excerpt, pictures, bio, etc). My website is www.iraqthroughoureyes.com — I want to open the public’s eye and this book will help do that.

Please support the troops.
Thank you,
Jesse Odom

Speaking of books. On a blog related to the Dateline NBC segment referenced above, a producer mentions one called "On Killing: The Psychological Cost Of Killing In War And Society" by Lt. Col. David Grossman. I’ve read much of it while drinking coffee on a couple of separate visits to Barnes & Noble. It is truly fascinating, and contains a lot of data I had not encountered before. For instance, I had known that a lot of soldiers never fire their weapons when in contact with the enemy, but an analysis of widely scattered battles through history demonstrated that a startling number of those who DO fire more or less intentionally MISS.

‘Dear SCRG:’ Herndon explains himself on vouchers

26 Replies

Now I have received a copy of a response that David Herndon has sent to SCRG’s response to his complaint. If you had trouble following what I just said, go back and read this, then come back here and read the following:

Dear SCRG:

Thank you for you response. Please mark me as "oppose both" on question six.

We do not remember my campaign putting the "x" where we apparently did, but if we did do so it was a mistake.

Truthfully, a campaign assistant answered your questionnaire… and I do not know if it was our mistake or the awkward wording on your part that led us to "x" the wrong box.

Hopefully, I have been very clear about my support for public education, and my opposition to vouchers, from the very beginning. In fact, my strong support for education and my opposition to vouchers was a centerpiece of my campaign long before you sent your questionnaire. (It is also worth noting that part of the reason I am running is to give voters a pro-education alternative to your voucher candidate.)

David Herndon

Interesting exchange in District 79

8 Replies

Randy Page of SCRG shared with me his response to an e-mail from David Herndon, whom we recently endorsed over Sheri Few for the GOP nomination in House Dist. 79.

First, the letter he says he got from Mr. Herndon:

To: SCRG
From: David Herndon, Republican for House
District 79

Dear sirs,

As you are aware, I am a Republican candidate for the S.C.
House of Representatives. I am writing because I am concerned about your
involvement in not just this race, but many others across the state as
well.

It has been brought to my attention that your
special-interest organization has sent out many mailings in many Legislative
races in South Carolina. Some of these postcards simply promote candidates, but
others are “attack pieces” which aim to discredit Republican office-holders who
support public education.

While state law certainly allows special interest groups to
endorse whomever you wish, these mailings leave many unanswered questions.
First, and most importantly, nowhere in any of these mailings — at least the
ones I am aware of — do you disclose the true motives of your group.

It is my understanding the purpose of your organization is to
advocate private school vouchers. Strangely, neither your advocacy of vouchers
nor your preferred candidates’ support for vouchers is mentioned in any of your
mailings.

As a public school parent, I strongly support public
education, and I believe your private-school voucher scheme would only drain
needed funding away from public school classrooms. However, I view this as an
honest difference of opinion, and I certainly believe it is important for
elected Representatives to find a common ground with those of other viewpoints.
What I do have a problem with is that your organization is not disclosing your
true motives. I feel this amounts to misleading voters.

Last month, I wrote to my opponent, Mrs. Few, to express my
concern about your involvement in this race. My concerns were based on your
previous track record of running negative, deceptive campaigns against
Republican office-holders who support education; your attempts to disguise your
true motives; and published reports that say much, if not a majority, of your
funding comes from out-of-state. (In my opinion, your negative campaign against
Bill Cotty in 2006 was perhaps the most negative our community has ever been
subjected to.)

My letter still has received no response, so I decided to
contact your organization directly.

I am writing you with this public challenge: In the rest of
your mailings this election cycle, please level with the voters about your true
motive — the privatization of education. The voters deserve honesty. And after
all, your group calls itself “South Carolinians for Responsible Government.” I
would think the hallmark of anyone claiming to advocate “responsible government”
would see the value in being as honest and up front as possible with the
voters.

So what do you say, SCRG? Do the voters not deserve to be
told the truth about your group’s purpose as you fill up their mailboxes with
attack pieces, pictures of pigs and postcards about conservative
judges?

I look forward to your response, and I hope you will answer
this challenge. The voters deserve as much.

Thank you,

David Herndon

Then, Randy’s response:

Dear Mr.
Herndon,

Thank you for your
email.  I appreciate you taking the time to contact South Carolinians for
Responsible Government. 

Through mail, radio and
Internet, we have been very clear about our objectives.  In fact, you can read
about it on our website at http://www.scrgov.org/content.asp?name=Site&catID=8110&parentID=8088
     We have long advocated the need for lower taxes, government restructuring,
conservative judges and for tuition tax credits.

In my view, citizens
don’t need to be wary of a conservative organization that advocates for better
schools, lower taxes and streamlining government, but rather someone, like
yourself, who one day professes a particular set of beliefs, but then decides –
perhaps on the advice of a slick political consultant – that he’s changed his
position.  What else could describe your sudden about face on the issue of
school choice? 

In the survey that you
signed and submitted to us on April 18th, you clearly checked that
you supported both a scholarship granting organization and a voucher system. 
I’m sure this will come as a complete surprise to the editors of The State.
If you don’t remember, I’ve included a copy of it for you – as well as the
members of the media that were copied on this message.

Sincerely,

Randy Page,
President

South Carolinians for
Responsible Government

I guess it’s a good thing that, as I said in my Sunday column, it was her position on the cigarette tax that made me decide against endorsing Sheri Few.

Grandmaster Bud of the Irmo High School Chess Club

9 Replies

Bud

As promised back here, bud has provided the above photo of himself from back when he was president of the Irmo High School Chess Club. The commentary that he sent with the photo:

That’s me in 1973.  Bobby Fischer was all the rage back then.  Note the wide-band watch and loong hair.

And just to bring you up-to-date, and help you get to know the long-anonymous bud a little better, below is a photo he sent me last month "of me at my daughter’s wedding:"

Budwedding

Ryberg: PACT is dead

5 Replies

Greg Ryberg wants to claim credit for doing away with the PACT test. Witness this release:

Senator Greg Ryberg today hailed an agreement between himself and senate leaders to eliminate PACT and move forward on a new accountability system for South Carolina. “PACT is dead,” Ryberg said. “The bill we passed today kills it as of July 1, 2008.”
    Ryberg added that, “Other senators, Republicans and Democrats, agreed with me that the creation and administration of our statewide assessment test belongs with the people at the State Department of Education, the State Board of Education and the Education Oversight Committee (EOC) whose sole focus is education and not the General Assembly. I am glad that we have left it in their hands.”
    Ryberg also welcomed the decision to remove mandatory formative assessment testing for six and seven year-olds. He said that, “I opposed the 100% increase in standardized testing for our youngest students, and I thank the senators who worked with me to prevent that extra burden upon them.”
    Ryberg noted that it is now time for the superintendent, the State Board and the EOC to get to work and move us forward. “I encourage the superintendent, the State Board and the EOC to act now that the General Assembly has spoken.”

I’m not at all sure what he means by saying first, it’s dead; then saying this is in the hands of the state DOE. It reads a little like, I’m sick and damned tired of hearing about this thing, so YOU deal with it. But Sen. Ryberg is generally not the shirker sort, so I reject that interpretation and await another.

Perhaps elucidation will be forthcoming.

How I vote is none of New York’s business

1 Reply

Keep meaning to tell you about this bit of propaganda that I enjoyed…

Some anti-union group sent out a release a week or two ago, with the headline "Johnny Sack in the Voting Booth?" and a link to the above video.

My reaction was, what business is it of New York’s how I vote? Maybe when Carmine was around, yeah (not little Carmine, but old Carmine), but not any more. Johnny Sack doesn’t command that kind of respect.

Now if Tony wants to know how I vote, OK, maybe…

And I get this pooge WHY exactly?

2 Replies

Most people get a lot of e-mail that they delete immediately, and I am surely no exception. In fact, I get so much that I have several accounts, as a way of sorting and triaging — a published one for the world (which I get to as soon as I can, and race through as quickly as possible, which involves a LOT of instantaneous deletion), an internal one for gotta-know-this-to-get-the-paper-out-today-type business, a couple of private ones (one of them for e-bills, which I do my best to ignore) and so forth.

But sometimes I pause with my finger over the "delete" key, just long enough to think "Why did I get this?" Some of the messages in this category are cool. For instance, I’ve somehow gotten on a lot of e-mail lists for commercial artists and photographers, which I forward to my daughter who’s majoring in graphic arts. Still don’t know why I get them, though.

Then there’s the stuff that’s kind of work-related, but I still don’t know how I got on the list. For instance, this one today (from a source I get messages from daily):

***MEDIA ADVISORY***
RNC Chairman Mike Duncan to Speak at Fayette County Republican Party Reagan Day Dinner

WASHINGTON – Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Robert M. “Mike” Duncan will deliver the keynote address to the Fayette County Republican Party Reagan Day Dinner.  The dinner will be held on April 26 at 6:00 p.m. in the Griffin Gate Marriott’s Paddock Tent to benefit the Republican Party of Fayette County.  Details are available on the party’s website: www.fayettegop.com.

WHO:                RNC Chairman Mike Duncan
WHAT:              2008 Fayette County Republican Party Reagan Day Dinner
WHEN:              Saturday, April 26, 2008 6:00 p.m. EDT

And all the way down, I’m thinking, Fayette County where? What state is this even in? Only at the very end to I get my answer:

WHERE:            Griffin Gate Marriott
                         Paddock Tent
                         1800 Newtown Pike
                         Lexington, KY 40511

Admittedly this comes from the Republican NATIONAL Committee, so I can see why I’m on their list. But what kind of doofus sends out a release nationally that doesn’t tell editors in the 49 other states that there is no way that they will EVER be interested in this. I mean, you know, I’m assuming that the purpose is that you would want editors to pay SOME attention to your releases at some point in the future, right? If not, why send out the damn’ things?

Yeah, I know, y’all don’t care about this. And even for me, it’s just one of a hundred or so petty irritations that I’ll endure today in my never-ending quest to inform and entertain thousands of Kansans. I mean, South Carolinians.

Canadian snipers in Afghanistan?

17 Replies


Don’t know whether this is legit or not, but it is interesting. A friend sent me (without comment) the above video, along with the forwarded text below:

Before you click on the attachment, scroll down on this series of e-mails to read the narrative about what is going on in he attachment.  It is incredible.                                    

Scroll down and read the narrative before you watch the video…

Canadian Snipers in Afghanistan

This footage is pretty graphic and is the antithesis of the "Global
Hawk"; one on one, enemy in sight, one at a time, etc. I guess the
"technology" is in the weapon and the ammo and the "wonder" is in the
personnel who use it.

They never saw, or heard it coming.

Canadian Sniper wiping out Taliban Snipers. In Afghanistan . These
video shots are not made through the shooter’s telescopic sight… they
are made looking through the spotter’s scope. The spotter lies right
next to the sniper and helps the sniper to find and home in on thetarget.

The sniper is using a 50 caliber rifle. A 50 cal. round is about 7-8
inches long and the casing is about an inch in diameter. The bullet
itself is one-half inch in diameter and roughly one and one-half inches long..

Pay close attention to the beginning of the video. A Taliban is laying
on top of the peak in front of you… when you hear the shot fired….
watch what happens. The sniper is also about a half mile away… or
more. A Canadian sniper in Afghanistan has been confirmed as hitting an
enemy soldier at a range of 2,310 meters, the longest recorded and
confirmed sniper shot in history. The previous record of 2,250 meters
was set by US Marine sniper Carlos Hathcock in Vietnam in 1967. The
Canadian sniper was at an altitude of 8,500 feet and the target, across
a valley, was at 9,000 feet. Canadian sniper units often operated in
support of US infantry units, which were grateful for their help.

The record lasted only one day, until a second Canadian sniper hit an
enemy soldier at 2,400 meters (8000 feet).

The Canadian snipers fire special.50-calibre McMillan tactical rifles,
which are bolt-action weapons with five-round magazines. The Canadian
snipers were the only Canadian troops operating without helmets or flak
jackets as they had too much other equipment to carry. Each three-man
team has one sniper rifle, three standard rifles (Canadian C7s), one of
them with a 203mm grenade launcher.

When you watch what appears to be debris see if it isn’t a body flying after being hit.

There’s no original source cited, so I don’t know that clip’s provenance. Nor do I know whether my friend who sent it thought it was horrible, or cool, or what.

But I did have some questions watching it, such as:

  • I knew that a .50-cal. sniper round packed a lot of energy, but can it really throw a human body that far?
  • If this is really through a spotter’s scope, why are the bodies or debris or whatever being thrown sharply to the left? Wouldn’t the spotter be close to the shooter? The sound of the shot (assuming that’s not dubbed) occurs far before the impact is seen, which suggests the shooter is right next to the camera. The movement of the target after impact makes it look like the shooter is far off to the right, maybe at the third angle of an equilateral triangle, which would mean we’d hear the sound AFTER seeing the impact.

And now you might have a question for ME, which is, if I have so many questions, why pass it on? Why, because it’s interesting, and intriguing. Also, who knows — y’all might have some answers to my questions.

FYI, here’s another clip that purports to be about Canadian snipers: