Category Archives: Marketplace of ideas

Sheriff Lott will NOT be running city police dept.

Jack Kuenzie reports this on Twitter:

Council debates alternatives as proposal for police management contract goes down in flames. http://plixi.com/p/47809808

The “alternative” apparently will be to go ahead and hire a new police chief — in other words, an individual who will have a vest interest in fighting any move to merge with the county force (NOT having a chief is what created the opportunity to do something smart and new) — and then appoint a commission to study the proposal the council just turned down.

I’d call that down in flames, all right — if that’s where they end up.

This is a terribly disappointing failure on the part of the new council — a failure to signal that it is willing to be bold in pursuing workable solutions for the city’s policing problems.

On a better note, the council DID approve the curfew, although the city attorney has concerns — concerns he doesn’t want to share with the public. So whether the curfew is enacted, and enacted effectively, remains to be seen.

And as I said before, the most promising action the council could have taken to show it was serious about solving the youth gang problem would have been to put Leon Lott in charge.

But Daniel Rickenmann, the swing vote, decided against that.

Here are Jack’s Tweets on the subject:

Cola city council splits on WHEN to discuss police mgmt. contract during today’s meeting. Gergel and Plaugh want to start now. Outvoted 5-2.

about 4 hours ago via ÜberTwitter

Passed Kevin Gray on the way to city council meeting. His protest of the police plan appeared to be pretty much a solo performance.

about 3 hours ago via ÜberTwitter

5 minute break before Columbia council begins debate on police management.

about 2 hours ago via ÜberTwitter

Kevin Gray’s protest outside city hall has picked up support. At least a half dozen now objecting to sheriff oversight of CPD.

about 2 hours ago via ÜberTwitter

Council members outlining views on CPD oversight. Mayor: get this off table today.

about 1 hour ago via ÜberTwitter

Tamieka Devine now speaking. She once led effort to blend county and city cops, then switched sides. Now wants to start chief search.

about 1 hour ago via ÜberTwitter

Rickenmann: Concerned about CPD leadership, inefficiency. But wants to hire chief, work on unified service. Could mean contract plan fails.

about 1 hour ago via ÜberTwitter

Rickenmann is swing vote.

about 1 hour ago via ÜberTwitter

Gergel motion for contract.

about 1 hour ago via ÜberTwitter

Sam Davis says CPD officers “humiliated”—by contract proposal.

41 minutes ago via ÜberTwitter

Gergel’s motion provides contract for sheriff up to end of his term at $8K a year.

35 minutes ago via ÜberTwitter

This contract plan appears likely to fail, 4-3.

32 minutes ago via ÜberTwitter

Rickenmann wants to start chief search, study unified service.

30 minutes ago via ÜberTwitter

Plaugh proposes hiring “outside interim chief.”

26 minutes ago via ÜberTwitter

Council debates alternatives as proposal for police management contract goes down in flames. http://plixi.com/p/47809808

18 minutes ago via ÜberTwitter

Motion now being formed to direct city manager to begin chief search, assemble commission to study unified service.

14 minutes ago via ÜberTwitter

Pretty good chance Columbia won’t have permanent police chief until next spring or later.

1 minute ago via ÜberTwitter

The State’s Adam Beam reports that the last proposal DID pass. Here are his Tweets:

Big vote today at City Hall on the sheriff contract. One person showed up for the protest rally.

about 4 hours ago via Twitter for iPhone

At last check, council had a 4-3 majority to hire the sheriff.

about 4 hours ago via Twitter for iPhone

But Mayor Benjamin’s compromise proposal (http://j.mp/a3MrEp) has thrown a wrench in things

about 4 hours ago via Twitter for iPhone

Two of the four, Daniel Rickenmann and Leona Plaugh, said this morning they have concerns about the mayor’s proposal

about 4 hours ago via Twitter for iPhone

Benjamin said before the meeting that a consensus was forming around parts of his plan. Declined to say what parts.

about 4 hours ago via Twitter for iPhone

Not a big crowd on hand today. Most folks I’ve talked to said they believe council has already made up their mind, so why bother

about 4 hours ago via Twitter for iPhone

But council did hold six public hearings on the issue, so you can’t say council didn’t listen

about 4 hours ago via Twitter for iPhone

Now council is arguing about the order of the agenda items

about 4 hours ago via Twitter for iPhone

Belinda Gergel just tried to move the law enforcement vote from No. 13 to No. 3

about 4 hours ago via Twitter for iPhone

Mayor Benjamin made her submit it as a motion to be voted on. Failed 5-2. It’s getting tense already.

about 4 hours ago via Twitter for iPhone

Open container violations in Columbia now come with $500 fine or 30 days in jail http://j.mp/bNOyQ0

about 3 hours ago via Twitter for iPhone

Council discussing curfew ordinance, but wants to talk about it in a closed meeting

about 3 hours ago via Twitter for iPhone

City approves curfew, but questions remain http://j.mp/bbZMtW

about 3 hours ago via Twitter for iPhone

Showtime

about 2 hours ago via Twitter for iPhone

Mayor Benjamin giving opening remarks

about 2 hours ago via Twitter for iPhone

Reply Retweet

Benjamin: “I don’t believe there is a racial division.”

about 2 hours ago via Twitter for iPhone

Benjamin: “This is the kind of issue that makes no one popular.”

about 2 hours ago via Twitter for iPhone

Daniel Rickenmann says be wants to “hire somebody.” That means votes are not there for a contract with the sheriff.

about 1 hour ago via Twitter for iPhone

Someone just yelled out “Thank you Jesus” after Councilman Davis spoke against the sheriff contract

about 1 hour ago via Twitter for iPhone

Right now vote is 4-3 against the contract. No vote yet.

about 1 hour ago via Twitter for iPhone

Mayor Benjamin and Councilwoman Leona Plaugh having a sidebar. Lots of these are happening. http://twitpic.com/2t3xap

about 1 hour ago via Twitter for iPhone

Gergel wants sheriff now. Benjamin wants the sheriff now, chief in a year. Rickenmann wants a chief now but w/ a study of unified service

35 minutes ago via Twitter for iPhone

Plaugh is offering “a substitute motion to the substitute motion.”

34 minutes ago via Twitter for iPhone

This is starting to look like Inception.

33 minutes ago via Twitter for iPhone

Sheriff contract is dead, largely because of Daniel Rickenmann.

22 minutes ago via Twitter for iPhone

New motion: Hire a chief, and appoint a commission to study possibility of a unified force.

21 minutes ago via Twitter for iPhone

It appears that motion will pass.

21 minutes ago via Twitter for iPhone

Whew

21 minutes ago via Twitter for iPhone

Gergel will vote against the motion. Said commission would take responsibility away from council.

17 minutes ago via Twitter for iPhone

Motion passes 6-1. Gergel voted no.

3 minutes ago via Twitter for iPhone

And now the mass exodus from City Hall. Council still meeting though.

3 minutes ago via Twitter for iPhone

Mayor says city should have police chief by end of the year, but noted it is the city manager’s decision.

6 minutes ago via Twitter for iPhone

So who will be accountable for effectively enforcing this new curfew? I can’t tell, but it looks like no one to me.

Please give the curfew a try, Columbia council

12 Replies

My youngest daughter, the dancer, was between contracts with ballet companies and spent much of the summer in New York — staying with a friend in Brooklyn, but spending most of her time in Manhattan — working at a restaurant at night, taking ballet classes and working out at a gym in the daytime.

The place she was staying was at the border of Brooklyn and Queens, and disturbingly close to Bedford-Stuyvesant on the map. She was at a disadvantage in her neighborhood not speaking Spanish (I coached her with a few phrases, but there’s only so much you can teach in brief phone conversations). She rode the subway at all hours, often alone, because of her schedule.

Of course we worried. She’s 21, and therefore technically an adult. But not to me.

This past weekend was her first full weekend back in town. She went to a party for a friend in Olympia Saturday night. After that, she went to meet one of her best friends, who works late in Five Points.

It was the first time in the last few months she felt unsafe. The young kids milling about in Five Points, some apparently in gang colors, caused her to feel something she hadn’t felt in New York — or in Charlotte living there all last year.

I had heard from Five Points business people about the growing problem of teenagers who are too young to get into the bars loitering in the streets in large numbers. I had heard, recently, that THAT was the context of the shootings that have happened in the vicinity in recent months.

This made me start to think that — while I still think closing bars at 2 a.m. is a good idea — that wasn’t the solution to the violence. A curfew for kids under 18 sounds like a better solution.

This will probably set off some of my libertarian friends here on the blog, but I don’t care. This makes sense. And kids have no business on the street late at night.

To quote from the story in The State today:

Most anyone younger than 18 would be under an 11 p.m. curfew in the city of Columbia, and adults strolling a sidewalk with an open can of beer could land in jail for a month if two proposals before City Council on Wednesday become law.

Both changes in city ordinances are being driven by a summer of youth violence in Five Points, in which two men were shot in three incidents. The violence, reportedly springing from youth gang turf wars, has cut deeply into the revenue of merchants in the busy business district, which is popular with USC students, said Scott Linaberry, president of the Five Points Association.

I urge Columbia City Council to pass this curfew tomorrow.

I also urge them to keep moving toward merging city police and Sheriff Leon Lott’s department as soon as possible. Leon was working to address the gang problem long before any other local cops would even acknowledge there was a problem.

Well, there IS a problem. And it’s gotten pretty bad. And a curfew is one common-sense tool to use in addressing some of the problems that gangs bring.

As for the open-container proposal — I don’t know what I think about that yet. I’m not as clear on exactly how that plays into the problem that we’re trying to address here. Perhaps some of you are more familiar with that than I. But the curfew seems an obvious, reasonable step to take.

Kennedy-Ayers affair holds lesson for Tea Party

11 Replies

I really hope that Nikki Haley, Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint, Joe Wilson and every adherent of the Tea Party reads that last post I shared with you. It contains an important lesson.

These people are fond of equating liberalism with dangerous radicalism. And they’ve pulled previously sensible Republicans along with them into this nasty habit of thought (if you can call it thought).

But the tale of how Bill Ayers honored Sirhan Sirhan for killing liberal icon Robert F. Kennedy, and how Bobby’s son, now a pillar in his community, led a board (likely chock full of liberals, although I don’t know that) to deny an honor to unrepentant terrorist Ayers because of what he did, is instructive.

It shows liberals as mainstream people who uphold fundamental standards of decency in their communities, just as real conservatives — in the traditional sense of the word; not the way Sarah Palin and her ilk use it — would do.

Dangerous radicals are beyond the pale. Sensible liberals, and conservatives, are the people who point out that fact.

Therein lies the difference. So knock it off with the demonization of people who are NOT beyond the pale.

Graham becomes incoherent when he tries too hard to sound like DeMint

23 Replies

Just got this release from Lindsey Graham:

Graham Continues Push for Repeal and Replace of Obamacare

WASHINGTON – Continuing his commitment to the repeal and replace of Obamacare, United States Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) has introduced legislation to repeal another major provision of the recently-passed health care law – the Community Living Assistance Services and Support (CLASS) Act.

“The CLASS Act is a Ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff blush,” said Graham. “It’s billed as an insurance program for long-term care, but really it’s just a huge and very costly government accounting trick.”…

“To help build momentum for repeal and replace of Obamacare, we should continue holding up all the individual pieces of this monstrosity – like the CLASS Act – to the light of day,” said Graham. “The more Americans learn about the details of this health care bill, and provisions like the CLASS Act, the less they like it. The sooner we can repeal and replace Obamacare, the better off our nation will be.”

And so on and so forth. The rest is the usual nonsense.

Why “nonsense?” Because it is patently, objectively ridiculous to be talking about repealing an incremental, half-baked mishmash reform that hasn’t had ANY appreciable effect yet (have YOU felt or seen any effects? I certainly haven’t). I think that as health-care reform this was pretty lame (can you tell?), but for the sake of all that’s logical, give it a chance to see if it does anything. Unless you’re prepared to pass REAL reform (which would be awesome, and worth upsetting a few apple carts), hush up and observe for the next few years, THEN weigh in — when you know something.

Personally, I don’t know whether the CLASS Act in particular is well-designed or not. But that’s of secondary consideration in light of the senator’s assertion that he’s only talking about it in order to accomplish the goal of “repeal and replace of Obamacare.”

Did anybody proof this release before it went out? Did anyone say that line out loud before putting it in the lede and hed (and yes, “lede” and “hed” are spelled correctly in this context, you ignorant pedantic lubbers), and then saying it a third time later in the release? Is he really pushing for “repeal (a noun, within the context of following “for”) and replace (which cannot, in this or any other context, be anything but a verb)” of Obamacare?

Is this some crazy new mangled-English construct currently in vogue with a certain kind of Republican (the kind who says abominable things such as “Democrat Party”)? Because I’m telling ya, it makes zero sense to the rest of us. Did you mean to say you are pushing TO repeal (this time a verb) and replace (still a verb) it? If so, why not say so?

Lindsey Graham was a fairly eloquent opponent of what is termed “Obamacare” before it passed. He made his case, and explained his reasons in a respectable manner. But he lost the argument. But when he tries to fulminate about that as though he were a Tea Party ranter, all his coherence is left behind. Which is a shame.

I eagerly await the return of the real Lindsey Graham, because he’s a guy I greatly admire. Let DeMint be DeMint. One of those is too many. Don’t try to be what you’re not, senator.

About God, sex, women, Darwin, fundamental rights and other really deep stuff I just don’t understand

12 Replies

Sometimes I spend enough time typing a comment that if feels like it should be a separate post. So it is with my reply to Bud, on the whole “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” controversy. I had hesitated to put the subject on my Virtual Front yesterday (and sorry there’s not one today; I’ve just gotten tied up late in the day) because I just don’t like these interminable Kulturkampf issues, mainly because few of the pat answers that other people find satisfactory work for me. But it was the biggest story of the day, and that’s that.

So we went around and around on the subject, and finally Bud did something that people occasionally get fed up with me and do — asked me to explain whether I was serious or just being argumentative:

Brad, do you want to retain DADT or are you just being a bit contrarian? There are really 3 issues here:

1. Readiness. The evidence from militaires around the world suggest readiness is unaffected by allowing openly gay men and women into the military. Plus, we are losing highly qualified individuals on account of the current policy. Seems like the readiness issue favors repeal. The old soldiers who resist do so because of tradition. Sometimes traditions need changing.

2. Rights as a citizen. Even though Brad won’t acknowledge this I find it critically important that we allow all citizens to participate in the defense of our country. It’s appalling to me that this aspect can be so cavalierly dismissed.

3. Politics. This concerns Obama. Politically I believe he would enhance his standing with the American people by getting rid of the policy via Executive order. Sure it would be best to do so with the consent of congress but given that a majority in congress just voted for repeal I don’t see how it would be bad politically to support majority rule.

So I answered him as follows…

Bud, I’m inclined to keep DADT, but it’s not a hugely important thing to me. And yeah, I’m being contrarian, because the way we speak about a lot of issues, in flat ways that lead to the polarization of our politics, bugs me.

I push back against libertarians who see a new “right” everywhere they turn because I think it’s an excessive, extreme way of framing an argument. In this country, once you say something is a “right,” you are trying to shut down discussion of other considerations. And the other considerations should be discussed.

For instance, y’all know that I’m for single-payer. But not because I consider health care to be a “right.” I think it’s a rational way to order society. I think it would eliminate a problem — a lot of problems, actually — and that it is a positive good to see that people get good health care if you can figure out how to provide it. I also think it would liberate our economy if people could work at their passions instead of clinging to bad-fit jobs (or merely safe, comfortable jobs) for the benefits.

It simply makes sense to eliminate all the for-profit intermediaries that stand between us and our doctors. It’s not about “rights;” it’s about what makes sense if we want our country to be a good place to live.

Ditto with DADT. If, as Kathryn says, “the brass wants to get rid of DADT,” cool. If they really want to, and it’s not just what one or two generals say when when they’re testifying before Congress with the Secretary of Defense sitting next to them — a situation in which, to use a Tom Wolfe phrase from The Right Stuff, a wise career officer keeps a salute stapled to his forehead.

I don’t know. But it’s not a simple, slam-dunk issue. Nothing about sexuality and how society deals with it is.

For instance, some of my friends here like to believe that embracing the latest right invented by an interest group is a sign of unalloyed progress, a reflection of inevitable movement in a single direction by a species that is consistently evolving toward being better and better all the time.

Uh-uh. It’s not that simple.

Frankly after 56 years of being straight (like a Woody Allen character once confided, I don’t think I HAD a latency period), heterosexuality is still a big mystery to me. I’m astounded by the mechanisms that cause us to have such urges.

Back when I was a kid, quite frankly, I didn’t really believe homosexuality existed. It just seemed so unlikely, so unimaginable. Some guys wanna do WHAT? No way. I thought it was a made-up thing that existed only as an insult for young people already confused and insecure about sexuality to fling at each other. Like “your mother wears Army boots” — you’re not literally making an observation about the other person’s mother’s footwear. Or “Go f___ yourself” — you don’t expect it to actually happen.

But as I grew older and had gay friends, and they communicated in various ways that THEY weren’t kidding; this was for real, I thought about it and realized that HETEROsexuality, as a fundamental force in our characters, seems equally unlikely. I mean, why would I be so attracted to women and their bodies even when I was too young to know anything about what that was all about? How could I want to do something I had never heard of, or thought of?

Actually, I know the answer to WHY — it’s essential to reproduction, whether you think in terms of God’s commandment to go forth and multiply or an evolutionary imperative or both. Organisms with this urge had offspring; those without it did not.

What mystifies me is HOW that works, and all the complexities involved.

Show me a naked woman, and you boggle my mind (and not just for physiological reasons). I behold eternity, and the immediacy of the moment, promised pleasures, guilt, excitement, freedom, responsibility, the irresistible continuum of Life, God and man and Satan and Darwin, Eve, Wisdom and ultimate foolishness, something that is very adult and yet all about little babies. And on and on. It is the very ESSENCE of complexity, and simplicity at the same time.

That is more than enough to puzzle me for the rest of my life; I’m certainly not going to presume to tell you what homosexuality is, because I don’t get that at ALL.

And don’t tell me that society’s ways of dealing with sexuality are simple, that they’re all this way or all that way.

I know better.

Negative Nancy? She’s negative? SHE’S negative?

20 Replies

Wow. Wow. Wow.

Just got yet another release (it’s a daily ritual) from Joe Wilson that is all about Nancy Pelosi rather than the 2nd Congressional District race.

And this one calls her “Negative Nancy” in the head:

Help Send “Negative Nancy” A Message

What would you do if the policies you cherish and forced on the country caused mass unemployment and economic despair?Chances are, you would admit defeat, apologize profusely to the public, and then proceed to jump in a hole so deep that you would land in China (where your liberal agenda may actually be popular, so everybody wins).

However, Nancy Pelosi and her liberal friends lack the humility to retreat quietly into the night. Instead, “Negative Nancy” constantly barrages voters with tired rhetoric and liberal talking points. She would rather attack conservatives who voice your opinion than admit defeat.

Since we know that this is the way liberals operate, it should come as no surprise that Nancy Pelosi is coming to Charleston this weekend to make a speech. She is absolutely committed to punishing true conservatives like Congressman Joe Wilson, who have the integrity to stand up to her job killing liberal agenda.

“Negative Nancy” is planning on coming to our state from her lofty perch to energize her liberal allies. She thinks that with enough money and tired rhetoric she can defeat conservative ideals.

Help Joe Wilson stop the barrage of negativity coming from Pelosi and her liberal friends. Please click here now to support Joe and help him reach his goal of $25,000 this week!

Sincerely,

Dustin Olson

Campaign Manager

Joe Wilson for Congress

Wow, again. Release after release calling her every bad name you can think of, and you call HER “negative.” Wowee.

I think you might want to go back to calling her “liberal” over and over and over and over and over. At least that’s true, for whatever relevance it has.

GOP (and Dems, don’t forget) hurtling toward madness

10 Replies

Back on a previous post, Bud writes:

… (S)omehow Brad manages time and time again to confuse the idiot GOP with political parties in general. It really is pretty disgusting to have the Dems, who are at least attempting to address the nation’s problems in a meaninful way, with the imbecils who continue to distort, lie and weasel their way to power.

And what do they use this power for? For the good of the American people? Hell no. The bastards are merely trying to rule in order to feather their own nests. The GOP is about wealth creation for the super rich. And it’s worked. The poor and middle class have gotten nowhere for 30 years while the elitists in the GOP fool and fear their way into making the gullible believe there is a boogeyman behind every rock. And, inexplicably, they fool some poor school bus driver into thinking it’s in his best interests to give a billionare’s son his parent’s fortune TAX FREE! Unbeleivable.

But until the press gets it and starts calling the GOP out for the liars and scoundrels that they are we will continue to read about GOP idiocy in the name of political party partisanship. It’s NOT political party partisanship, it’s GOP fear mongering.

Bud, um… I’m pretty sure, without actually setting out the mathematical proof, that the set “political parties in general” DOES include the Republican Party. I’m not confused on this point. In fact, pretty much anyone who compiled a credible list of “Political Parties in the U.S.” would almost certainly list the GOP among the first two. I’m very confident in this assessment.

That’s why it’s such a problem that the GOP seems to have lost its frickin’ mind since Nov. 2008. Sensible Republicans are sort of walking around in shock as the screaming meemies take over.

Any other election, and Sarah Palin would have been relegated to the ranks of “unpersons” on the day after the last election, her name never, ever to been mentioned by any Republican who ever wanted another Republican to speak to him again. Instead, she is THE most mentioned Republican nationally, and it is widely accepted — among Republicans, and others — that her endorsement can make or break candidates running in races that have nothing to do with her. Yes, I’m speaking of the woman who as governor of Alaska repeatedly embarrassed the GOP ticket by how little she had learned from the experiences in her life about world affairs, and who since then has only added to her resume by… well, resigning as governor of Alaska. This is now the party’s queenmaker.

Any other election, and every Republican who ran against Nikki Haley for governor would have meekly lined up behind her on the day after the primary in a show of solidarity, all acting as though she was the one they really wanted to unite behind in the fall all along. This election, the GOP gubernatorial field is nowhere to be seen, with the exception of Henry “Good Soldier” McMaster, who’s doing his best to back her in spite of the vacant, confused look on his face. (He just doesn’t know what hit him, and is sufficiently dazed that he thinks this election is like other elections, and is acting accordingly.)

You may notice that the two examples I just cited describe OPPOSITE phenomena: One describes how the GOP is gravitating TOWARD its loonier, least credible fringes, while the other indicates how they’re moving AWAY from candidates they don’t trust, candidates who are trying to ride the Tea Party’s unfocused resentments right past the GOP into office.

Well, that’s just how crazy things are in the GOP these days. They’re about to win big nationally in November, and yet they don’t know whether they’re coming or going. That is to say, the sensible Republicans, the traditional core of the party, doesn’t know what’s happening. The Jim DeMints of the party know exactly where they’re trying to take the nation, and they keep confidently explaining it to us, but unfortunately what they say makes little sense.

Now you, Bud, may take solace in thinking that there’s a place for sensible people to run to amid the madness — the Democratic Party. I know no such solace, because I know better.

As Bart pointed out this week:

POINT: According to a recent Newsweek poll, “Some people have alleged that Barack Obama sympathizes with the goals of Islamic fundamentalists who want to impose Islamic law around the world. From what you know about Obama, what is your opinion of these allegations?”……52% of Republicans polled think that statement is either “certainly true” or “probably true.”

COUNTERPOINT: According to a Rasmussen poll taken in May 2007, …”Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure.”

In other words, BOTH parties are rapidly rushing toward their crazier extremes. People who identify themselves as “Democrats” or “Republicans” have surrendered their abilities to think to their respective sides to such an extent that they no longer stop to ask, “Does this make sense?” If someone who identifies himself as one of THEIRS says it, there must be something to it. And if someone on the other side denies it, well then it MUST be true.

And the members of BOTH factions are being pulled, with increasing acceleration, toward those loony poles as though they were in the grips of the gravitational fields of black holes at opposite ends of the universe. (Yes, I know the universe doesn’t have “ends,” but THEY obviously think it does. Besides, it’s a metaphor. Sheesh.)

The only hope for the country lies, of course, with the UnParty. But we already knew that, didn’t we?

Fair or unfair? You be the judge

1 Reply

Y’all know I’m not overly enamored of TV “news” to begin with, so when a friend brought this to my attention, saying “Wow, very biased article…,” I sort of had a ho-hum response.

Is it simplistic? Yes. Superficial? Certainly. Irritating? Absolutely.

But biased? Well, obviously my friend was saying it was biased against John Spratt, so I get it to that extent. But almost anything that is simplistic and superficial is less likely to favor a thoughtful guy like Spratt. He’s not a bumper-sticker kind of guy. Throw in that infinitely irritating populist tinge (letting man-on-the-street interviews set the direction and tone of reporting, for instance) that is typical of TV “news,” and you have something far more likely to favor a TEA Party-style candidate than a Spratt.

So biased? Yeah, I guess. But the bias is sort of built-in, not intentional…

See what y’all think.

By the way, here’s the written report to which that kid refers on-air. An excerpt:

LAKE WYLIE, SC (WBTV) – Democratic incumbent John Spratt banned any video recording of the debate Tuesday night, but changed his mind when no media attended. However a member of a conservative group snuck a video camera into the room.

[Watch the videos on the right side of this screen]

It was the first debate for the two candidates in South Carolina’s 5th Congressional District.

Spratt and Republican Mick Mulvaney debated at the country club in Lake Wylie’s River Hills neighborhood. The debate was sponsored by the River Hills Lions Club.

Spratt has represented the 5th District since 1982, but finds himself in the fight of his life against Mulvaney.

During the debate Mulvaney criticized Spratt, saying he’s not voting the way his district wants him to.

Mulvaney pointed out Spratt’s votes for President Obama’s health care bill and his stimulus plan. Mulvaney says Spratt used to be more moderate but now is going along with whatever the national Democratic party wants.

“There was a time he would have stood up and said no to what’s happening in Washington,” Mulvaney said. “Those times have changed and that’s why I think it’s time for a new congressman in Washington.”

Spratt said he always votes the way he thinks is best for the district…

Editorial in The State explains Wilson ethics case well

8 Replies

I’m going to shock my ex-colleagues at The State by saying “nice job” on today’s lede editorial, “Joe Wilson’s goblets.”

This would be a shock because, as former military writer Dave Moniz (who now works at the Pentagon) once observed when I was his editor in the early 90s, praise from me doesn’t go higher than “pretty good.” (Dave’s on my mind because, not knowing my current situation, he passed on a tip about a Defense-related job this week, a gesture which I appreciate.)

But this was better than that. The piece accomplished several things:

Gave a clear sense of what little is known about the investigation, which was handy to have. I feel I have a slightly better grasp of what we’re talking about now.
Called Wilson to task, in no uncertain terms (essentially saying him, “You lie!” but without the shouting), for his bogus response and misrepresentation.
Called Rob Miller to task for his equally bogus and untrue assertions in trying to capitalize on the case.
Explained clearly just what is wrong with Joe Wilson in general, not just in this case: He sees EVERYTHING in the universe as a partisan struggle against “liberals.” Nancy Pelosi is his Great White Whale. And I’m sorry, Ahab, but that Unified Field Theory simply does not always apply.
Showed just how irrelevant such a worldview is to this situation, since the ethics panel investigating him is “composed entirely of people outside the Congress, four Republicans and four Democrats,” in in this particular case is investigating two Republicans (Joe being one) and three Democrats. Of course, we knew that latter part, but I had not yet seen a clear explanation of the Office of Congressional Ethics. After reading this, one can only be outraged by Wilson’s attempt to play on voters’ ignorance by claiming this is a a partisan, personal attack on him for being a self-styled hero of the angry right.

And while it was sort of an afterthought, I particularly appreciated this summary of just how totally screwed we, the voters, are in this situation:

Unfortunately, these two are the choices voters in the 2nd Congressional District have in November. Oh how we wish that were a lie.

Oh, wouldn’t it be lovely if we could?

Differences between Haley, Sheheen on education spending

It’s not Clapton, but Sheheen’s “Crossroads” is a good start on the fall campaign

10 Replies

Above is the TV ad just released by the Sheheen campaign, entitled “Crossroads.”

I like it. It hits the right notes for going after the people who decide elections — us independents, and the Republicans who are smart enough not to want another four years of Sanford. And there are a lot of such Republicans, no matter what some Democrats might think. It’s good to see that Vincent is starting out trying (honestly and candidly, without a single note of artifice) to appeal to them, as well as to the sensible folk in the middle.

This is a good start on the fall campaign. But we need to see a lot more good stuff if he’s to avoid another defeat for South Carolina.

Oh, and just for fun, here’s the Cream electrified version of the Robert Johnson classic below:

Haley wants to drop one thing Sanford did right

5 Replies

I’m with Mark Sanford on this one:

Last week, Republican gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley said she would do away with detailed executive budgets, which were typically ignored due to the acrimony between Sanford and lawmakers. Instead, Haley said, she would set a small list of priorities and work with lawmakers during the process.

In a message sent to Sanford’s campaign e-mail list, the outgoing governor argued his successor should also draft a detailed budget.

“These Executive Budgets have been vital in creating a budget blue print that showed how we could fund core services of government without raising taxes,” Sanford wrote, encouraging recipients to read a Post and Courier editorial on the subject. “They were important in showing the savings that might come from restructuring and consolidating government.”

Sanford does not mention Haley, a political ally who shares many of Sanford’s positions, by name in the e-mail.

Even with our weak-governor system, the governor is the one elected official with the closest thing to a governmentwide perspective — and has the broadest responsibility to voters. He (or she) should at the very least propose a budget setting priorities for spending, which lawmakers are then free to ignore the way they have since Carroll Campbell started the practice a couple of decades back. Campbell was right to go ahead and ACT like a governor, at least in advocacy terms, by submitting a budget, rather than waiting around to actually be put in charge of the executive branch.

Nikki Haley is on the right track looking for ways to antagonize lawmakers less. (Although it’s a bit late for that. Unlike Sanford, who started with a honeymoon, she’s already alienated legislative leaders to such an extent that if elected she would start out in a hole with them, and she knows it, and knows we know it, which is why she’s talking about this.) But this is the wrong item to start with. An executive budget, theoretical as it is, is a useful tool.

And while Mark Sanford went out of his way to alienate lawmakers so that they would ignore his budget proposals, along with the rest of his agenda, he put a lot of work into his budgets. And while they had their flaws, they were worth considering.

So would be Nikki Haley’s, were she elected. And so would Vincent Sheheen’s, which is why I hope he would continue to submit them. We need governors to actually take an interest in governing.

It’s great that Nikki wants to signal that she’d be different from Sanford. But this is the wrong way to start.

A candidate for the UnParty? I’m not sure

1 Reply

Still catching up with e-mail from the long weekend. Don’t know much about this write-in Senate campaign, but it sounds intriguing:

GREG SNOAD ANNOUNCES WRITE-IN CAMPAIGN FOR U.S. SENATE

GRAY COURT, SC, September 7, 2009 – Greg Snoad, a Mauldin High School social studies teacher long-active in politics, has formally announced his intention to launch a write-in campaign for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Jim DeMint.

Snoad likened his bid for office to an opportunity to take a stand for civilized political discussion, and noted that in writing his name on the ballot, voters have a chance to symbolically express their discontent over the current polarized state of politics.

“My firm belief is that instead of trying to develop different sides and waste so much time arguing with one another, we need to concentrate on a comprehensive approach; figure out what we are able to agree on and work from there,” said Snoad.  “A write-in vote for Greg Snoad says that you agree to find common ground and build consensus.”

The Snoad campaign will focus on being a purely symbolic campaign conducted primarily through social media websites including Facebook and Twitter.  Snoad views social media as a framework to help foster bipartisanship and bring voters together over issues.

“By writing in my name, voters will be declaring that they support a process, not a candidate,” said Snoad.   “Likewise, one does not always have to adhere to the end result of the process to still support the idea, as long as they feel that the civil discussion about politics was worthwhile.”

Greg Snoad has taught social studies at Mauldin High School for 25 years. He teaches government, economics, European History, and Global Studies. He has served on the Gray Court Town Council, and currently serves on the Gray Court Planning Commission, and the Board of Directors of the Pleasant View Community Center. He has been active in political campaigns for many years, and has always tried to bring real-life issues to his classroom teaching. He is a graduate of the University of Western Illinois, with a BA and MA in Political Science. He is a Nationally Board Certified Teacher, and was named South Carolina Social Studies Teacher of the Year in 2001.

###

So does he mean he want’s the UnParty endorsement? If so, he hasn’t contacted party HQ yet.

I like the “find common ground and build consensus” part, but I’m not sure what he means by “purely symbolic campaign conducted primarily through social media websites including Facebook and Twitter.” So does that mean he wants us to write in his actual name on actual ballots, or not?

I’ll ask him that if and when I talk with him. (In fact, the answers may be on his Facebook page, but I don’t have time to look right this minute.) Someone offered a couple of days back to put me in touch with him, but I haven’t had time to follow up on that yet. In the meantime, I just thought I’d share the release with you…

Is this the best Stephen Hawking can do?

11 Replies

It was with some trepidation that I started reading the piece in the WSJ over the weekend headlined “Why God Did Not Create the Universe,” and with the byline of Stephen Hawking and some other guy.

I mean, he’s a smart guy. He knows lots of stuff. Maybe he’ll make a good argument that I don’t want to hear. Right?

But I read it anyway.

And the whole time, I figured he was lulling me, leading me down a logical primrose path, so that when he finally hit me with the reason WHY God didn’t create the universe, I wouldn’t see it coming. I was all ready to be indignant over such a cheap trick.

That’s because most of the piece, to me, beautifully expresses the reasons why one would naturally believe in a Creator God.

I knew that he knew this, and he acknowledged it by saying “Many people would like us to use these coincidences as evidence of the work of God.” And when he did say that, I thought, here it comes. Here’s the Whammer coming up to the plate. He’s going to knock God’s pitch right out of the park.

But he didn’t. At best, he took a walk.

Near as I can tell, what he had to say was that, ummm, it doesn’t have to be God. Even though, you know, this is kinda the way it would look if God DID create it. But he didn’t have to. At least, I don’t think so…

It was weak. When I was finished, I understood why the WSJ had buried it on an inside page in a back section. If he’d made a better argument, it would have been real news. Far better to play Tony Blair’s essay on the front of that section. He made more sense. He always does. (You know, he converted to Catholicism. Just like me.)

Sure, Newton’s thinking was kind of fallacious, if Hawking is accurate in the way he describes that luminary’s attempt to stick up for God by saying our habitable solar system did not “arise out of chaos by the mere laws of nature.” The problem was with the “mere” part. As though said laws would be anybody’s but God’s. I mean, duh. Whether you’re a deist or a Prebyterian, the original Designer fits perfectly with observable facts.

But I always come away from these things thinking that. When I look at life evolving over billions of years, I think to myself, Yep, that’s exactly the majestic way He would do it. As Tom Sawyer would say, I wouldn’t give shucks for any other way. Or for a God who wanted to do it any other way.

But that’s just me, I guess.

Are kids really herded and contained to this extent?

29 Replies

First, help me out, y’all: Remind me why the name “Lenore Skenazy” rings such bells in my head. Yes, I Googled her, and learned her work history (she was canned by The NY Daily News after 18 years — whoop-tee-doo, I was at The State for 22), to some extent her personal life, and the ideas, or idea, for which she is best known.

But none of that explains it. I’m pretty sure I had some kind of interaction with someone of that name at some point. Did she interview me, or did I interview her? Wait — did she used to run in The State? If so, I might have paid for her columns, even though she wouldn’t have run in editorial. There were some weird deals whereby I paid for newsroom features, and the newsroom paid for some of ours. Maybe that’s it.

Anyway, in the course of pushing her one big idea — set kids free (an idea with which I agree, by the way; their lives are indeed too regimented) — she wrote a piece that ran in The Wall Street Journal today.

It was an intriguing piece. It went beyond the usual kids-don’t-walk-to-school-enough theme, to this extent:

Take the bus. Sure, about 40% of kids still ride the cheery yellow chugger, but in many towns it doesn’t stop only at the bus stops anymore. It stops at each child’s house.

Often, the kids aren’t waiting outside to get on. They are waiting in their parents’ cars—cars the parents drove from the garage to the sidewalk so their children would be climate-controlled and safe from the predators so prevalent on suburban driveways.

Sounds pretty horrific. But is it true? I doubt that it’s true here in SC, where we seem to have trouble keeping the buses running at all. Or is it? Your anecdotes would be appreciated.

Most kids, though — including those who live three blocks from school — are driven there and back, to the point that:

…the language itself has changed. “Arrival” and “dismissal” have become “drop-off” and “pick-up” because an adult is almost always involved—even when it doesn’t make sense.

And then there’s the picture of the schools’ containment of the masses waiting for Mom and Dad:

… afternoon pick-up has become the evacuation of Saigon. At schools around the country, here’s how it works:

First, the “car kids” are herded into the gym. “The guards make sure all children sit still and do not move or speak during the process,” reports a dad in Tennessee. Outside, “People get there 45 minutes early to get a spot. And the scary thing is, most of the kids live within biking distance,” says Kim Meyer, a mom in Greensboro, N.C.

When the bell finally rings, the first car races into the pick-up spot, whereupon the car-line monitor barks into a walkie-talkie: “Devin’s mom is here!”

Devin is grabbed from the gym, escorted to the sidewalk and hustled into the car as if under enemy fire. His mom peels out and the next car pulls up. “Sydney’s mom is here!”

She also tells of a school removing its bike racks to discourage kids from pedaling themselves to class.

So is it really this bad out there? I’m curious.

Joe just can’t (“liberal!”) help himself (“liberal, liberal! Pelosi, liberal!”). It’s like Tourette’s…

21 Replies

When I saw that Joe Wilson had put out a press release talking about incentives to create jobs, I thought Great! Some substance! A release in which I won’t have to read any fulmination about “liberals” and how they’re the root of all evil! After all, a jobs plan has to be pragmatic thing, meant to address the broad complex of practical, real-world problems leading to our current economic malaise.

Silly me:

Wilson Urges Job Creation Incentives as Unemployment Rises

(Washington, DC) – Congressman Joe Wilson (SC-02) today released the following statement after the Department of Labor announced the unemployment rate rose to 9.6 percent and the U.S. economy lost jobs for the third straight month:

“I’m not sure where Administration officials are spending their summer, but here in South Carolina, this is certainly not the ‘Recovery Summer’ we were promised.

“For 16 straight months, unemployment has been above nine percent. Why the Administration and liberal leadership in Congress isn’t talking about job creation plans each and every day is beyond belief. People are hurting and the time to act is now, not later or in another 16 months,” said Congressman Joe Wilson.

Congressman Joe Wilson has outlined a job creation plan that offers incentives to small business owners to hire more employees and gives American families more money to invest. See his plan here and pass it along to Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

###

The boldfacing is Joe’s, not mine.

He just can’t help himself. It’s like Tourette’s or something. He’s incapable of completing a thought without reference to “liberals” or “Pelosi.” Just watch, and see if I’m not right.

The South won’t rise again, but it will keep on making head fakes in that direction

17 Replies

Imagine the irony! I was listening, via Pandora, to an excellent live version of Levon Helm singing his masterpiece, “The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down.” It opened with a little horn riff on “Dixie” itself. The song is simply magnificent, capturing everything that was noble and tragic and horrible and epic and personal in our ancestors’ fall into defeat.

So imagine how it was ruined for me by, even as I was listening to it and appreciating it, reading this low farce from Karen Floyd:

Dear Subscriber

An unprecedented event recently occurred, where the president of the United States issued a report to the U.N. Human Rights Council that bashed a state law. In a desperate attempt to gain the awe and admiration of global elitists, President Obama sounded off about the many “sins” in America’s history, including Arizona’s new illegal immigration bill.Obama writes, “A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined.” He also went on about how he is seeking to offer free health care to illegal immigrants.

The context of this U.N. forum is to discuss human rights in the United States. Apparently, Obama thinks that Arizona’s law is in violation of human rights, which is why he is not only suing the state, but also reporting it to the U.N. council.

Lesson learned everyone: a liberal will always seek the praise and respect of foreign powers over the rights of the American people or the Constitution.

As a direct result of Obama’s ridiculous report to the U.N., the Arizona law will come under formal review on November 5 by the three member countries of the UN Human Rights Commission: France, Japan, and Cameroon. The U.N. Commission will then issue directives on what they recommend the United States do in response to the Arizona law.

This is simply outrageous! How can an American president sell out his own countrymen to a foreign entity over a state law that simply enforces existing federal laws? Our president should be bowing to the people’s demands, and NOT the whims of an international organization.

Folks, it is time to fight back. We desperately need trusted conservatives like Mike Mulvaney, Nikki Haley and Jim DeMint to fight for our liberties and state sovereignty. The elitists in Washington are trying to allow a foreign power to dictate your life and safety. Will you allow this to happen?

Click here to help fund conservative change and individual rights! Let’s help elect individuals who will enforce the Constitution and stand up for our rights and sovereignty.

Sincerely,

Karen Floyd

SCGOP Chairman

P.S. Let’s take the battle to them and send Obama a message! Please click here to donate now.

Just as elites conned the poor white population into being their cannon fodder in a lost and bankrupt cause in 1860, this new strain of Radical Republicanism keeps playing on the same resentments and sensitivities and inferiority complexes to manipulate the great mass of white voters in the South today.

They just keep on driving Dixie down.

But who gets to be Lincoln?

29 Replies

This came in today from the Sheheen campaign:

SHEHEEN CHALLENGES HALEY TO LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATES

“ …issue oriented debate like Lincoln Douglas would explain the differences.”

CAMDEN, SC—Today, Vincent Sheheen challenged Representative Nikki Haley to five Lincoln Douglas debates on five different topics in five different regions of South Carolina.

In a letter mailed to Representative Haley last week, Vincent Sheheen wrote, “I challenge you to debates on jobs and the economy in Greenville, education in Columbia, governmental reform and transparency in Charleston, comprehensive tax reform in Rock Hill and infrastructure and tourism in Myrtle Beach. I propose the debates follow the Lincoln Douglas format as prescribed by the National Forensic League, the oldest and largest interscholastic forensic organization in the United States.”

The guidelines for Lincoln Douglas Debate are:

(Speaker A) Constructive 6 Minutes

(Speaker B) Cross Examination 3 Minutes

(Speaker B) Constructive 7 Minutes

(Speaker A) Cross Examination 3 Minutes

(Speaker A) Rebuttal 4 Minutes

(Speaker B) Rebuttal 6 Minutes

(Speaker A) Rebuttal 3 Minutes

Prep Time 4 Minutes per debater

“These debates will provide South Carolinians with a comprehensive and thorough evaluation of both of us so that they won’t have to make such an important decision based on a thirty-second sound bite. I believe voters need a series of robust examinations of our positions to not only understand our governing philosophies but also begin to rebuild the trust that elected officials will act in ways consistent with their stated beliefs,” Sheheen concluded.

“ Voters, with such an important choice at such a crucial time, want the chance to fully know the candidates for governor. They deserve to know who will chart a new course for this state starkly different from the last eight years and who will attempt to carry on the failed legacy of Mark Sanford.”

###

The question is, who gets to be Lincoln? Nikki, who in spite of her contempt for many of her fellow Republicans managed to capture the nomination of what was once the Party of Lincoln, or Vincent, who if nothing else is taller?

Then again, you might not want to be Lincoln — who actually lost that election, if I recall.

Mistaking feeling for thinking in American politics

20 Replies

I enjoyed reading an op-ed piece in the WSJ this morning headlined “A Muslim Reformer on the Mosque,” with the subhed, “The warriors for tolerance and the antimosque crusaders are both wrong.”

Some bits I particularly liked… this:

Election-year politics, ratings-hungry media and deep personal fear foment raw emotion. In such an environment, “I’m offended” takes on the stature of a substantive argument. Too many Americans are mistaking feeling for thinking.

And this:

As a proud New Yorker as well as a reformist Muslim, I think, and not just feel, that this would be a fitting salute to the victims of 9/11. It would turn the tables on the freedom-hating culture of al Qaeda. And it would subvert the liberty-lashing culture of offense.

Perhaps you’re noting there’s a certain theme in what I like. Of course, I kind of helped you out by boldfacing the important points.

That first one should be made into a bumper sticker:

Too many Americans are mistaking feeling for thinking.

Maybe we should streamline it:

Don’t just feel. THINK.

It can be truly said of so very many things. Sure, I can speak from the gut when I don’t really know what I’m talking about. I did it back here. But I was aware that I was doing it. I told you I was doing it. Am I always that self-aware and candid about it? No. We are infallible. I mean, fallible.

But I try to lobby for thinking whenever it occurs to me to do so. That’s what I was doing back here. A few threads back, I was accused by Kathryn of making like a Vulcan. To which I could only respond, “Captain, Kathryn is being illogical.”

Yeah, we need some passion in public life. But we could use a LOT more Spock.

We got a fever in American politics, and the only prescription is more Spock.

THAT’s what she means by transparency (or is it?)

13 Replies

On a day when the state’s largest newspaper leads with a second-day story about Vincent Sheheen answering questions that he shouldn’t be asked, about GOP inside-the-Beltway shouting points (the headline, “Sheheen takes on the issues,” was baldly out of sync with the story, since those are NOT “the issues”), it was shockingly refreshing to see another medium report on the gubernatorial candidates talking about an ACTUAL gubernatorial issue — South Carolina’s economy.

Here’s an excerpt from the end of the Columbia Regional Business Report story:

[Nikki Haley] said South Carolina could build upon being a right-to-work state by being a “no corporate income tax” state.

[Vincent] Sheheen said South Carolina has one of the lowest corporate income tax rates in the nation.

“That proposal specifically will help very few businesses in South Carolina because the vast majority of businesses in South Carolina pay no corporate income tax,” he said. “If we are going to keep doing the same things we’ve been doing over the past eight years, we all as citizens of South Carolina better get used to very high unemployment rates.”

Sheheen spoke of a government that doesn’t divide, but unites. South Carolina needs to increase funding to its higher education system, invest in alternative energy initiatives and expand the port system, he said.

“If we are going to brag about our port, we have to be committed to improving our port,” Sheheen said. He supports a designated earmark in the federal budget for dredging at the ports. “That’s how we dredge ports in this country. I’m willing to go to bat for this state to get our port expanded.”

Haley spoke of reforming the property tax system, supporting school choice and enacting term limits for legislators. She also vowed to make government more transparent.

“You’ve got attorneys that turn around and serve on these committees that affect workers’ comp, work the system all the way, but when they get to the floor, they recuse themselves,” Haley said. “It’s not that they recuse themselves on the floor; they shouldn’t be able to serve on those committees. That’s a direct conflict of interest.”

Reading that, the scales fell from my eyes. I now understand — I think. I had been confused that Ms. Transparency was so reluctant to BE transparent when given the chance. But she never meant her. When she says, “Transparency,” she means, “Legislators who are lawyers should be transparent. In fact, they should shut up and not participate, because being a lawyer is a conflict, in ways that being paid $40,000 for nothing but one’s influence is not.”

At least, that’s what I gather from that passage. In Nikki’s defense, it’s highly likely that if I heard that quote in context I’d get a different impression. I’m sure Nikki has a more nuanced explanation of exactly what she means when she touts transparency. And I remain eager to hear it. Perhaps I will, and perhaps I’ll learn more about the candidates’ stances on economic development and education and the state budget and law and order and environmental protection and other relevant issues — if we can stop talking about abortion and immigration and … what was the other one? Oh, yeah , the federal health care bill that was a big national issue last year. (All of which is a long way of saying, “Talking about our feelings about Obama.”)

Maybe.

bradwarthen.com

All The News That Gives You Fits