Category Archives: Marketplace of ideas

Plucking at ‘conservative’ heartstrings

12 Replies

Lindsey Graham, trying very hard to sell the immigration deal to fellow Republicans, put out this release yesterday afternoon.

If he had wanted to put it more succinctly, he could have said, "Bill O’Reilly says it should pass, and The New York Times says it shouldn’t. What more do you people want?"

What is being said about
the Immigration Reform Bill
May 21, 2007

· Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard
     “In 2006, with Republicans in control of the Senate, an immigration bill that was anathema to most Republicans passed the Senate by a filibuster-proof margin. Now, oddly enough, with Democrats in charge, the Senate is likely to approve an immigration bill — call it Kyl-Kennedy — that from a Republican perspective represents a major improvement over the earlier bill in almost every conceivable way.”

· Fox News Channel Bill O’Reilly on the Compromise Legislation
    “The bottom line here is that if the bill doesn’t pass, another ten million illegal aliens are going to come here in the next five years anyway. So the chaos we have now will double.  The new immigration bill is unfair to those who’ve obeyed the rules. It is dangerous if not tightly controlled. And it is definitely amnesty. But if the bill does not pass, things will get even worse in America.”

· New York Times Opposes the Immigration Compromise
     “It is the nation’s duty to welcome immigrants, to treat them decently and give them the opportunity to assimilate. But if it does so according to the outlines of the deal being debated this week, the change will come at too high a price: The radical repudiation of generations of immigration policy, the weakening of families and the creation of a system of modern peonage within our borders.”

· Michael Barone in National Review
    “In his negotiations with Kennedy, Kyl has secured many provisions that make this bill more stringent than the one that passed the Senate last May by a vote of 62 to 36. That’s a significant accomplishment.  Changing U.S. public policy is like steering a giant ship — it’s impossible to sharply reverse course, but you can change the direction in a way that will make a significant difference over time.”

· Conservative Talk Radio Show Host Michael Medved
     “Do we want to encourage illegals to try to rectify their status – to come out of the shadows, play by the rules, pay all taxes due, learn English, and assimilate into our society? Or do we only want them to disappear – nursing the delusional fantasy that some 12 million human beings will somehow uproot themselves (in many cases after years of US residency) and return to their impoverished homelands simply because we want them to do so?  And speaking of rewarding good behavior, and punishing the bad: those courageous conservatives (Senators Kyl, Graham, Isakson and, yes, McCain) who have worked constructively and seriously on immigration reform deserve our support, not our rage, while those politicians and media figures who have demagogued this issue in a way that only makes it worse, in no way merit our encouragement.”
______________________________
Kevin D. Bishop
Communications Director

And then there’s Fred Thompson

44 Replies

With all the talk we’ve had in the last few days of the Republicans who were at the presidential debate in Columbia, it’s interesting to pause and read Peggy Noonan’s column from Saturday, "The Man Who Wasn’t There." Here’s an excerpt:

He is running a great campaign. It’s just not a declared campaign. It’s a guerrilla campaign whose informality is meant to obscure hisThompson intent. It has been going on for months and is aimed at the major pleasure zones of the Republican brain. In a series of pointed columns, commentaries and podcasts, Mr. Thompson has been talking about things conservatives actually talk about. Shouldn’t homeowners have the right to own a gun? Isn’t it bad that colleges don’t teach military history? How about that Sarkozy — good news, isn’t it? Did you see Tenet on Russert? His book sounds shallow, tell-all-y.

These comments and opinions are being read and forwarded in Internet Nation. They are revealing and interesting, but they’re not heavy, not homework. They have an air of "This is the sound of a candidate thinking." That’s an unusual sound.

Regarding the Thompson video she talks about, here’s that link again.

She’s being a little naive on that one. His dig at Michael Moore wasn’t "almost . . . deliberately unclear." It was quite deliberately clear.

John McCain is wrong about ONE thing…

13 Replies

John McCain is wrong about one issue that is of any personal importance to me: the Confederate flag. And of course the moderator in last night’s debate asked him, and only him, about it. That’s fitting, since a moderator should probe a candidate’s weak points in trying to get at the truth.

Fortunately for McCain — in terms of my vote, anyway — I don’t consider anyone’s position on that issue to be a qualification for the job of president of the United States. In fact, I’d prefer that presidential candidates stay out of the debate altogether.

Among the Republican candidates, Rudy Giuliani has the right answer — to the extent that any non-South Carolinian could have the "right" answer. He says it’s a matter for South Carolinians to decide.

Indeed it is that and only that. That’s why I disagree so strongly with the NAACP’s approach — trying (without appreciable success, I might add) to get the rest of the world to FORCE the flag down by hurting South Carolina economically. Even if such a strategy worked — which it can’t, believe me — nothing would be accomplished. You’d still be left with a state perceived — and perceiving itself, sullenly, resentfully — as a place that WANTS to fly the flag, but has been forced not to.

I don’t care what happens to a piece of cloth. I live in a state that has profound political barriers to getting its act together and catching up to the rest of the country in terms of health, wealth, educational attainment, public safety, what have you. The attitudes that keep us from working together to address those issues meaningfully are closely related to the attitudes that keep that flag flying.

Only if we come together and say, "That’s not who we are anymore; we’re better than that," will we ever move forward as a people.

Sure, it would make me feel all warm and fuzzy to hear everybody — particularly people I like, such as John McCain — echoing my own personal attitudes on this and every other important issue. But it wouldn’t accomplish anything. In fact, on this issue outside voices can probably only make things worse, not better. That’s because of the xenophobia that is a corollary of the mentality that keeps the flag flying. You’ve seen the bumper stickers: "We don’t CARE how you did it up North."

John McCain’s problem is that he actually wrestled with the issue, and wrestled too hard, ending up here, there, and all over the mat on the issue. It
was an issue he did not and probably never will understand. He
shouldn’t have wrestled with it. It’s none of his business.

I don’t mean that in a "go away and shut up, John" sense. But it has nothing to do with being president of the United States. Whatever opinion
he might have on that South Carolina matter should have no impact either on what we do about the flag, or on
whether he should be nominated and elected to the White House.

On issues that do have a bearing as to whether he should be
president, I find him to be far and away the best — among either
party’s candidates. For now.

I wrote the above thoughts, in somewhat sketchier form, in response to a comment on a previous post. Here’s how one of my more thoughtful correspondents replied:

Brad,

I’m struck by your post above re: McCain and the flag

“McCain’s problem is that he actually wrestled with the issue, and
it was an issue he did not and probably never will understand. He
shouldn’t have wrestled with it. It’s none of his business.”

I find it puzzling that you would use Steve Spurrier’s uninvited
opinion on the flag as the impetus for a barrage of editorials but then
give the presidential candidates a pass on the issue.

Part of the point of primary politics is for voters to obtain a
close look at the candidates and have them take positions on local
issues. It is a very useful way to measure them, regardless of whether
the issue will ever come to them for a decision. Some of the national
issues will likely never come to them for a decision either-for
example, if the next president doesn’t appoint a Supreme Court justice,
it’s unlikely his or her opinion on abortion will have any impact.

You expect a president to have the wherewithal and decisiveness to
respond to another 9/11 attack but don’t feel they can be bothered to
be decisive about one of the most controversial issues in SC. Every
candidate should have a specific opinion (not just “it’s a state
matter”). McCain’s courage faltered in 2000 on this issue.
Unfortunately, it appears to be failing him again; I doubt he
personally believes that the flag should be anywhere on the State House
grounds given how much this issue pricked his conscience 8 years ago.
But he’s playing it safe in 2008, one of the reasons he’s a less
attractive candidate this time around.

Your willingness to accept McCain’s timidity about the flag makes me question your ability to view him objectively.

Posted by: Paul DeMarco | May 16, 2007 1:52:53 PM

As I said, Paul, Sen. McCain is clearly wrong on the issue.

As I also said, I don’t ask any candidate for president for his or her opinion about the flag. It’s irrelevant.

There are things he’s wrong about that ARE relevant — such as his willingness to keep the Bush tax cuts in place. That I have a problem with, as a voter considering who should be the next president. But I have greater problems on such relevant issues with every other candidate.

Spurrier lives in South Carolina, and is someone who — unfortunately, given that I think football is one of the least important things in the world — a lot of people in South Carolina listen to. He, like the 4 million other people in this state, has a right and an obligation to speak out as to what he wants our elected representatives to put on our State House lawn.

His comments were the first from a high-profile South Carolinian on the issue since everybody stopped talking about it in 2000. I mean, other than South Carolinians who are leaders in a NATIONAL organization — an organization which, because it was trying to use the outside world to coerce South Carolina into doing something, is the main obstacle to South Carolinians growing up on their own and putting this issue behind them.

Spurrier provided an opportunity to discuss this in another context. It was, and remains, my great hope that in the coming months, other prominent South Carolinians who are NOT trying to use a national boycott to force something that needs to happen voluntarily. If it doesn’t happen voluntarily, if South Carolina does not evolve to the point that collectively, we WANT to do this voluntarily, then absolutely nothing of value will be achieved.

Comments from Hillary Clinton or Chris Dodd or John McCain are simply not a part of that discussion, but instead a distraction. The only reason they are asked about such things is because journalists on deadline are not a terribly reflective lot. They think, "They’re in South Carolina, and this is a controversial issue in South Carolina." It never occurs to them that it’s not an issue that has anything to do with the presidency. (This is an issue I’ve written about in other contexts — it’s now become a standard mindless ritual in the media to ask the president to comment on everything, from his underwear to the Columbine shootings, when such things have nothing at all to do with the president’s duties or responsibilities.)

As for abortion — well that IS a more relevant presidential issue than the flag, but only because the flag isn’t a presidential issue at all. As you say, Paul, the president’s only involvement with abortion is nominating Supreme Court justices, because of Roe. (If NOT for Roe, it would be a more legitimate political issue, and that is what it should be. The Court should never have removed it from the political branches.)

That said, I will not cast my own vote exclusively according to a candidate’s position on abortion. It will be one of many things I consider in making my decision about a candidate, but the candidate I choose could end up being someone who disagrees with me on that one issue.

I hope at this point to vote for McCain, with whom I happen to agree on the abortion issue, among many other issues.

But among the Republicans, my distant second choice would be Giuliani. Suppose McCain is no longer in the race when the primaries roll around. I could see looking to Giuliani instead. His stance on abortion would not prevent that.

Since THAT, which is more relevant to the job, would not deter me, why would the Confederate flag issue? As I say, I’m more likely to be bothered by the tax cut stance. I don’t feel passionately about taxes the way I do about the flag, but it IS actually relevant.

I would assert that this is the objective way to look at things — reasoning them out, as opposed to going on the basis of mere passion. I could certainly be wrong about that, of course, since an individual is probably the least disinterested judge on the matter of whether he is disinterested.

Would I like it more if McCain were "right" about the flag (and "right" is saying what Giuliani says, which is that it’s a South Carolina matter)? Absolutely. Immensely. But once more, that’s more about how it would FEEL, rather than about the conclusions I reach when I THINK about candidates and try to choose between them.

I didn’t call Joe Darby names

13 Replies

Just FYI, I never called the Rev. Joe Darby an extremist, or anything else unpleasant. I like Joe Darby. Nevertheless, he felt obliged to stick up for himself on our op-ed page today, to wit:


The State’s editorial pages have been filled in recent weeks with
reactions to coach Steve Spurrier’s welcome comments on the Confederate
flag. They included columns by Brad Warthen, who supported the flag’s
removal but labeled the NAACP’s approach on the flag extreme, and Sen.
Glenn McConnell, who made the case for standing by the present flag
location and moving on.

Both
gentlemen merit a response, and I offer it as a former first vice
president of the South Carolina NAACP and one of those who drafted the
resolution for the NAACP’s interstate tourism sanctions.

It’s
your turn first, Brad — hope you don’t mind an extremist using your
first name. I’d remind you that school desegregation, voting rights and
civil rights laws didn’t just spring into being because America’s
powers that be suddenly said, “Hey, I see something unjust, let’s fix
it!” We acted as a nation in the 1960s only when organizations like the
NAACP took aggressive action, ranging from lawsuits to civil
disobedience, to demand equity. They weren’t called “extremists” back
then, but “outside agitators.” History shows that we only change and do
the right thing when we’re compelled to act and have no choice, and
that’s true in the case of the Confederate flag.

Well, I haven’t used the word "extremist" lately in this context, but I think this is what he was referring to:

… But up to now, we might as well have been shouting at a stone wall.
The NAACP and its opponents were the only ones out there making any
news on the subject, largely because news coverage is attracted,
unfortunately, to conflict.

The extremes did such a great job of
hijacking this issue, it’s like they got together and worked it out
ahead of time between them. The rest of us are trapped in this comedy
of the absurd, with the entire country laughing at us. (Have you ever
heard of anything more pathetic than the city of Columbia spending
$15,000 in a ridiculously doomed effort to get people covering the
presidential primaries here to ignore the flag? We make ourselves into
a freak show, and we think they’re going to ignore it? Come on!)

By the way, this is our editorial position on the NAACP’s stance, in case you missed it.

There’s nothing extreme about the NAACP’s position on the flag. But its approach to doing something about it polarizes the issue in a way that makes any kind of positive action extremely unlikely.

Anyway, I would never want to see the flag come down because our state felt FORCED to do it, even if that were possible. If we don’t grow to the point that we are unified in WANTING to take it down, then nothing is really accomplished.

People keep saying that there are many more important issues to be writing about — education, economic development, etc. To which I can only say, Duh. Why do you think we write about those things, day in and day out?

But the flag is worth writing about, too, because the very attitudes and detachment from reality that keep it up there also keep us from dealing meaningfully with the challenges that keep us last where we should be first. But we have to make the decision to move beyond that self-destructive mindset ourselves. Nobody can make us do it; that’s a logical contradiction.

Rev. Darby compares the NAACP’s coercive posture on the flag (or rather, attempted coercive posture, since the boycott is a bust) to marches and boycotts back in the civil rights era, when it was necessary to make courageous stands against laws that denied black people the right to vote, the right to a good job, a right to be treated equally.

But there’s a big difference. When you have a concrete obstacle such as a law that says if your skin is this color, you can’t cross this line, then whatever means you use to remove that law, you’ve had a positive effect. A barrier removed is a barrier removed, however you get there.

But the flag itself, as a concrete object, doesn’t matter. It is, as some who want to dismiss the issue, just a piece of cloth. This is about the attitude that keeps the flag flying. We have to change that. If you get rid of the flag and the attitude is unchanged, all you’ve done is hide the attitude, which will continue to poison and confound all our best efforts to achieve consensus on addressing education, economic development, public health, etc.

Personally, I believe most of us have indeed grown beyond that attitude. But our Legislature won’t recognize that. Hence my speaking up on the flag, and encouraging others to do the same — somebody besides the obsessed types who always speak up. You know, the extremists.

I hate it when this happens

28 Replies

Generally speaking, I don’t agree with libertarians. But occasionally, I see things that way in spite of myself.

An example is “hate crimes.” It’s just unAmerican — downright Orwellian, in fact — to punish a person for his opinions rather than for what he did.

The majority in the Congress disagrees, as we saw today.

This puts me in another awkward position — agreeing with a partisan position. I haven’t seen a breakdown of the vote yet, but so far it seems to be Republicans who are putting out releases that denounce the outcome.

As much as I detest the rhetorical excesses to which parties resort to make their points, on this one I think the dissenters had a point. A release from Rep. Joe Wilson echoed the party line when it was headlined, “Wilson Opposes Thought Crimes Legislation.”

Like I said, Orwellian.

But this is a really funky issue. Here I am agreeing for once with the libertarian, don’t-tell-me-how-to-think position, but some avowed libertarians are taking the opposite tack:

Washington, DC — The American Civil Liberties Union today cheered the House of Representatives for passing H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, with strong bipartisan support. This legislation would allow federal law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute hate crimes offenses in cases where local law enforcement lacks the resources, or in some cases the willingness to do so.

That makes me feel a little better.

Now, let me see if I can help you feel better, in case you’re one of the many very nice people who think “Hate Crime” legislation is a good idea, and that I must be a really mean person to disagree…

If a person commits a murder, it should not matter — in a society guided by the rule of law — whether that person holds opinions that we regard as utterly abhorrent. The criminal justice system should be blind to such things, concentrating on actions rather than attitudes.

If people hold offensive opinions, let’s try to change their hearts and minds. But let’s save the punitive power of the criminal justice system for when they DO something bad, rather than THINK something bad.

And yes, the legislation goes out of its way to reaffirm our rights to free speech. But why do they need reaffirming, unless the overall bill implies otherwise? Which it does.

And the fact is, something like this does have a chilling effect on speech. I hesitated to write this because it can be so easily misunderstood. (You’re sticking up for those people? Well, no I’m not; I’m sticking up for impartial law.) And in the end, what the hell? If we have yet another reason to throw the book at a murderous monster, it’s not a thing to lose sleep over, right? Except that that’s not how our system of justice is supposed to work, or so I grok.

That’s what I think, anyway. But I could easily be wrong, since I am taking the libertarian position here…

Democratic Debate Column

52 Replies

Debate

Orangeburg debate just
a start, but a good one

By Brad Warthen
Editorial Page Editor
AS BOB COBLE walked out of a breakfast meeting Friday, the bearlike New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson placed him in a loose, amiable headlock and asked what he would have to do to get him to support his bid for the presidency.
    “You’ll have to squeeze harder than that,” I thought. As the governor knew, the Columbia mayor is a John Edwards man.
    But for those who had not made up their minds, the “debate” in Orangeburg Thursday night was a better-than-expected opportunity to begin the winnowing process.
    Eight candidates in 90 minutes is patently ridiculous. But those who planned and executed it, from South Carolina State University to MSNBC, can take pride in making the most of the situation.
National media, as expected, focus on which of the “two candidates,” Hillary or Obama (like Madonna, they no longer need titles or full names), came out on top. Some stretch themselves and mention ex-Sen. Edwards.
    OK, let’s dispense with that: Sen. Clinton presented no surprises, rock star Obama came across as pretty stiff playing in this orchestra — nothing of his usual, charismatic rolling thunder. Ex-Sen. Edwards did his usual shtick.
    But some of us tuned in to learn something new. I did. And I didn’t care which of the overexposed, anointed titans of fund-raising would be a more ideologically pure party standard-bearer. Those of us who spurn both parties — in other words, those of us who actually decide national elections — were looking for someone we might vote for (if such a person survives the partisan gantlet far enough to give us the chance). We’ll be looking for the same when the Republicans meet at the Koger Center May 15.
    I don’t think any of us got any conclusive answers. But the questions posed were good enough to provide some impressions, however scattered, that at least made the event worth the time invested:

Best new impression: I had heard good things about Gov. Richardson, but not met him before. The debate, plus his call-in to a radio show I was on Friday morning, made me want to find out more. I liked the fact that he was real, honest and unscripted, perhaps the result of being a governor and actually dealing with real problems instead of living in Washington’s 24-hour partisan echo chamber.

Best old impression: Could Sen. Joe Biden contain his gift of gab well enough to play well with others on such a crowded stage without his head exploding? “Yes.” Since I’ve heard him speak in our own board room for two hours almost without pause, this was a pleasant surprise. I’ve always liked the guy, but this is one Irishman who didn’t just kiss the Blarney Stone; he took it home with him.

Commander in chief? I expected the candidates to compete to see who was most against our involvement in Iraq and for the longest time. But if it’s fairly judged, Dennis Kucinich wins that pointless contest hands-down. It’s also a barrier to me, since I consider giving up in Iraq to be anathema. So I looked to see who was leaving themselves any room to present a more credible position in the general election, when it’s no longer necessary to court moveon.org. The winners of that contest: Sen. Biden, followed by Sen. Obama.

Second funniest moment: The look in John Edwards’ eyes when he acknowledged being filthy rich, just before going into his nostalgic boilerplate about having been poor once upon a time. This is a much-rehearsed look for him, intended to look like wide-eyed candor. But it struck me like, You bet I’m rich, and lovin’ it, too. Probably an anomaly in the camera angle.

Making Kucinich sound reasonable: A writer on Slate.com summed it up better than I can, as follows: “When the candidates were asked who owned a gun, (Ex-Sen. Mike) Gravel was one of those who raised his hand. ‘I was worried that he meant he had one with him at the moment,’ said a senior adviser to a top candidate.” I hadn’t gotten around to including a link to this particular candidate on my blog. After Thursday night, I don’t think I’ll bother.

Common sense: You could tell who really wanted to be president. They raised their hands to say they believed there’s such a thing as a global War on Terror, and didn’t raise their hands to support Dennis the Menace’s move to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney. Outside of partisan blogs there’s something we call the real world; everyone except Rep. Kucinich showed that they live in it at least part-time.

The most enduring litmus test: Even after all the times I’ve seen and heard this, the grip of the abortion lobby on the Democratic Party still strikes me as astounding. Is there any greater demonstration of the power of party uber alles than hearing a Roman Catholic such as Sen. Biden emphatically saying, “I strongly support Roe v. Wade,” and asserting complete faith in the existence of a right to privacy in the Constitution?

South Carolina’s shame: Only one thing was mentioned all night that let you know this took place in South Carolina — the Confederate flag at our State House. So much for our wish to build a new image based on hydrogen research and the like.

    The event helped me begin to focus on this process, which has been easy to ignore with everything going on in South Carolina. There will be many debates, interviews and other opportunities before the winnowing is done. Whether this newspaper will support, or whether I personally will vote for, any of these candidates is a question that it is far too soon to answer.
    But this was a start.

Weird, but good, flag news

17 Replies

You can generally count, in my trade, on hearing more from people who are mad at you than from those who agree. People who are ticked off pick up the phone or send a e-mail; those who agree just tell you if they happen to run into you personally.

Things are running the other way on the confederate flag issue.

I came back from being out of the office late this afternoon, and my voicemail was full. There were only six message, and only the last three were about the flag. But here’s what’s weird about that: All three were from people who agree that we should remove the flag (although one prefers Mayor Riley’s approach). They were all nice, which is just plain odd on this issue.

But catching up on e-mail, I got a greater shock: Of those on this subject, 30 people want to take the flag down, and only nine disagree — including this one. And that’s giving the pro-flag position the benefit of the doubt — three of the nine didn’t actually say keep it up, but you could catch their drift. An example:

The flag should have never been removed from its place atop of the capital to start with.I believe if these people that dont want it on the grounds would pack there bags and leave the state we would be better off, its all hertiage and not hate or a race issue and as long as we bow down to these people our state will suffer, so if you dont like it here theres two options go back to your yankee state or too the bannana boat you came over here on.

By contrast, the 30 were clear and emphatic. An example:

    I cannot begin to tell you how much I appreciate you for trying to help with this.  I love this state so much but am so embarrassed about the flag being where it is.  It is so hurtful to so many.
    I have just retired from 30 plus years in Human Resources so let me know what I can do to be helpful with this cause.
    My grandmother was a member of the Daughters of the Confederacy but she would be so sad to see that we are causing hurt to others. Let’s get it down!

It will probably swing back the other way. Usually, when we write about the flag, we start getting angry mail from the neo-Confederates several days after the piece appears. Apparently, few of them read newspapers, and I’m guessing they communicate with each other via couriers on horseback. At least, that’s how long it tends to take.

But for now, I’m encouraged by the trend.

From Mayor Bob on the Flag

27 Replies

Mayor Bob Coble paused en route to Deutschland to post these thoughts on my recent post on the flag issue:

Brad, I am on a plane from Atlanta to Frankfurt for an economic
development mission with S.C. Commerce. (This email address will reach
me on my blackberry until Thursday). One focus of the trip is fuel
cells. Neil McLean of Engenuity is also on the trip. I quickly read
your blog about the flag, and responded, before we left Atlanta.

It seems that a number of factors have converged that warrant another
concerted effort to move the flag to an appropriate location.

  1. South Carolina and Columbia really are entering the knowledge
    economy. The State’s hydrogen series two weeks ago,  the Horizon and
    Discovery Buildings actually comingBob_coble_2
    out of the ground, the hiring of
    John Parks as the Innovista’s executive director, and the announcement
    of Innovista’s first tenant, Duck Creek, all confirm that the
    potential for success is real. The Confederate flag represents the
    antithesis of these efforts, and is always the first or second question
    about what kind of place South Carolina really is.
  2. The Presidential Primaries are enormous opportunities to
    re-introduce South Carolina and Columbia to the nation. Columbia is
    doing a Presidential Primary Committee to present our positive message
    to the national media. (I will be personally standing at our kiosk at
    the airport). In reality the purpose of this effort is to present an
    alternate view to the confederate flag. What a perfect time to try to
    just move the flag. The eyes of the nation, for good or bad, would be
    on us as we try.
  3. The Don Imus matter is causing the nation to review the issues of
    race, sexism etc.  Why shouldn’t the appropriateness of the flag on the
    Statehouse grounds be reviewed as well.
  4. The statement of Coach Spurrier adds a new perspective to the
    debate. The story by Joe Persons online said that Spurrier was not
    trying to be a politician and that the flag was not impacting
    recruiting. He just wanted South Carolina to do better and be more
    progressive. That is powerful.


I agree with you. We should form an organization and move forward now. Maybe just call a meeting and see who shows up.

I think we should do just that. I’m going to try to get started on that Monday.

Here’s a memorial worth the effort

10 Replies

All the energy spent raising that flag every day at the State House would be better spent on this kind of war memorial, one that would have meaning for all of us:

Brad,
  I firmly support your move to get the flag off the state house grounds. Its value, however meaningful, pales in comparison to the negative emotions it creates.
  I hate to bring up another topic in the midst of this movement, but I wanted to talk to you about how we plan to honor the Marines and soldiers from South Carolina who have died in Iraq. I am a former Marine officer and every day I wake up I thank God that I am fortunate enough to be in my own house and only concerned about unimportant things like work and domestic responsibilities. Whereas, those in Iraq are patrolling every day in hostile terrain and hoping they get to see their families back home again. I think we have a responsibility to honor those who have died to the best of our ability.
  I am also the reforestation technician for the city of Columbia, which means I am in charge of all the trees that get planted in the right of way. I know a good bit about trees, so I propose we plant a tree on state grounds in memory of each serviceman or woman who has died in Iraq or Afghanistan. I can provide trees myself, or find them elsewhere. But I am willing to organize this entire effort. Since I see this as something I can do, that’s my idea, but if someone has something better, I will support that as well. We just need to do something. I have emailed the governor’s office a couple of weeks ago, but failed to get a response. What are your thoughts on this idea?  I know you are probably overwhelmed with flag emails this week, but mull it over and let me know what you think. I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Carroll Williamson

Sounds like a promising idea to me. I told Carroll I’d put it up on the blog to see what folks think of it. So here it is.

Civility 2007

17 Replies

Imus3

A society relearning how to behave

    Free speech is enhanced by civility.
                — Tim O’Reilly,
                who recently proposed a
                “Bloggers Code of Conduct”

Here’s what David Brooks of The New York Times, a writer I usually respect highly, had to say in defense of the fact that he, and others I admire, had been an enabler of trash over the years:

    “You know, most of us who are pundits are dweebs at some level. And he was the cool bad boy in the back of the room. And so, if you’re mostly doing serious punditry, you’d like to think you can horse around with a guy like Imus.”

    ImusPerhaps, having been the sort who sat in the back of the class and created distractions while the dweebs were grinding away trying to get into Harvard, I don’t have that deep-seated need. I got it out of
my system. Some of it, anyway. Enough that I don’t need to match “wits” with anyone who makes a living off suckers who tune in to see how creatively he can trash other people.
    But the weakness of Mr. Brooks and others caused media critic Philip Nobile, who once authored something called “Imus Watch” on TomPaine.com, to observe that “Imus had made cowards and hypocrites of some of the best minds in America. I hope they do penance….”
    I’m not proposing to add to the already-considerable body of commentary on the downfall of an infamous loudmouth. I’d rather reflect today on a culture that would make such a pathological creature marketable.
    I mean a culture that holds its breath to find out which “man” among multiple possibilities fathered the child of a dead former stripper — not whispering about it among the guys at the bar, but treating itImus5
as mainstream, matter-of-fact fodder for polite conversation in front of the kids.
    I’m talking about “reality” shows peopled by sad morons whose every utterance contains something that, even today, gets bleeped — not because the producers are sensitive or think that you are, but because the jarring “bleeps” themselves, audible from any room in the house, make content that would bore a brain-damaged goldfish seem titillating. Ooh, that must have been a good one, we’re supposed to burble.
    I’m referring here to a political marketplace in which most participants long ago ceased to listen in order to reach practical consensus with those who disagree, preferring to gather into ideological tribes that huddle in the darkness, patting each other on the back for the rocks they heave at that other tribe, the “enemy” who will always lack legitimacy.
    In other words, this is a happy upbeat, “good news” sort of column. I thought you could use that to cheer you up on this fine April morning (disregarding the thunderstorms forecast as I write this.)
    Really. There is good news out there. In fact, we may even be seeing a trend. I once worked with a labor-averse assistant metro editor who loved to see news repeat itself to the point that he could say: “That’s twice that’s happened. One more time, and we can call it a trend and send it to ‘Lifestyles’.”
Jerry, this one’s almost ready to go to the Features Department.
    A few months back, I boldly asserted in this space that “Standards are making a comeback. We may be able to get a civilization going here after all.” As evidence, I cited the facts that Rupert Murdoch himself had just canceled plans to publish a book by O.J. Simpson giving the details of how he “didn’t” kill his wife; the Michael “Kramer” Richards apology; and a column in The New York Times by a doctor bemoaning the low-cut tops and miniskirts worn by some of her younger colleagues. (Yes, that last one was weak, but I enjoyed the pictures. And it was a legitimate trend, because it was in a feature section.)
    Well, the trend continues. The Imus dismissal, although it came decades too late, was yet another positive sign. This jaded society of ours got up on its hind legs once again and said “enough.”
    The best, the very choicest thing I saw last week containing the word “Imus” was a column in Thursday’s Wall Street Journal, which began, “And so it came to pass in the year 2007 that a little platoon came forth to say unto the world: Enough is enough.” There I read once again about a new phenomenon, known as the “Blogger’s Code of Conduct,” that in draft form begins:   

We celebrate the blogosphere because it embraces frank and open conversation. But frankness does not have to mean lack of civility.

    Those who read all my hand-wringing last year about the nasty trolls on my blog will know why such a statement, and such a code, would appeal to me. I’m farther along in my quest for civility now. I don’t wring my poor, dry digits so much any more; I just take action. I banned another of my more unruly correspondents on Friday.
    You polite souls who stay out of that forum (you who tell me, “I read it, but I don’t leave comments”) for fear of being abused, fear not. I don’t think the bad boys are the least bit cool, and I won’t let them pick on you.
    This is all good news — a good trend. Come to thestate.com/168/ and read all about it, before it gets shoved to Lifestyles.

Imus2

McConnell on why NOT to reform

16 Replies

Just wanted to make sure that you read Glenn McConnell’s otherwordly explanation as to why real reform of DOT is anathema to him, and therefore to his instrument, the S.C. Senate.

Then read the column by Cindi Scoppe that eerily foreshadowed this argument from Sen. McConnell. She says it ironically and critically; the senator from Charleston says it with utter sincerity and deadly certainty.

Fortunately for him (but not for the rest of us), the S.C. Senate is immune to lampooning.

Remember, children, here in the Palmetto Dystopia:

  • War is Peace
  • Freedom is Slavery
  • Ignorance is Strength
  • Glenn McConnell is a Champion of Restructuring

Don’t believe that last one, UnParty members? He just said he was. Can’t you read?

Anti-choicers, unite!

112 Replies

Skimming through recent comments, I ran into one from LexWolf (it’s the 147th on that post, so you’ll have to scroll down a bit) that began this way:

Confounding the anti-choicers’ constant bleating…

… and of course you can guess what I thought it was about. And my mind was just starting to figure out why LexWolf would be using such a term, thinking Well, he’s really libertarian, and abortion advocates are really libertarian… when I got to the next phrase:

… about who would build those private schools…

OK, so it was a different expression of libertarianism, one more characteristic of the "right" than the "left" and therefore more consistent with what we usually hear from that particular gentleman.

This got me to wondering, though: How many readers out there are, like me, consistently "anti-choice," to use the loaded language of our detractors? (If I can find enough of us, we might actually get that UnParty thing going.) For that matter, how many are consistently "pro-choice," on both abortion and education?

While the two issues are wildly different, and people can be for one and against the other for an almost unlimited number of reasons, they do have that one element in common: In both cases, advocates use the dodge of "choice," which to American ears sounds so nice and friendly, to avoid describing what they actually favor.

Why? Because "abortion" and "tax subsidies for private schools" both sound pretty awful to a neutral observers ear.

Thoughts?

Classy disagreement

19 Replies

After all my efforts to foster constructive dialogue that can promote understanding on issues here on my blog, some of the most thoughtful people still respond via e-mail. Here’s an example of someone I’ve corresponded with since Sunday on my abortion column.

If that subject can’t generate incivility, what can? So it is that I deeply appreciate someone who can disagree with someone so completely, and yet so reasonably:

From: Kathryn Braun Fenner
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 5:07 PM
Dear Mr. Warthen:
    I have yet again been touched by the thoughtfulness of your writing about the proposed ultrasound viewing requirements for those seeking abortions. I would like to suggest you consider two additional concerns you did not acknowledge: one, everyone does not believe life in the sense of a human being, rather than a clump of living cells with the potential to be a whole human being when and if born, begins at conception. I believe that fetal cells are living only insofar as cancer cells are or the healthy tissue excised along with the cancer cells. None of these cells can live independent of the host body. I truly respect your views, though, especially as they are consistent — if a fetus is a life, no rape and incest exceptions–even if a family member of someone powerful is involved. Many of our legislators and anti-abortionists waffle on this point, implying that they do not truly equate the fetal cells with a fully born human, such as their wife or daughter. Kudos to you also for pointing out the lack of legislative concern for the afterborn lives!
    Two, I do not know that an ultrasound is medically necessary or advisable, especially in the first trimester. If it is, giving the patient the option to view it is fine, but requiring it — I was not required to view the results of my prehysterectomy ultrasound, nor did I desire to do so….If it is not medically advisable, we should not require anyone to pay for it — there is enough life being wasted because of inadequate medical funding, don’t you think?

Kathryn Braun Fenner
Columbia, SC

From: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 2:27 PM
    Well, as I said, I don’t feel strongly about it one way or the other.
    As for the medical advisability — I just had sinus surgery last month, which only involved going about two inches up my nose, and didn’t even involve cutting anything, just widening the passage with a balloon. Yet I had to have multiple CT scans, and I made sure to see them, to help me decide whether I thought the procedure is worth doing.
    And I deeply appreciate the kindness of your note, especially since we obviously view this very differently. You don’t see the fetus and a person, and I can’t imagine how anyone could see anything else. I certainly can’t see a logical analogy to cancer cells. Cancer is a serious dysfunction in which cells grow wildly in a manner that will kill the individual if not stopped. Pregnancy, from the very beginning, is not only a healthy, normal process, but one that is essential to life’s very existence.
    I was present each time my wife gave birth to our five children. Six years ago, she developed breast cancer that spread to her liver before being discovered. Only the most aggressive attacks on the tumors that were trying to kill her have kept her alive.
    What I’m saying is that I can tell you without any doubt that there is an enormous, night-and-day difference between a baby and a tumor. Our children, when they were growing inside her for nine months, were not the moral equivalent of tumors.
    One other point, take that term, "baby." Under our current system, we give one person — the mother — absolute godlike power to determine whether what is inside her is a "baby." If she wants it, it’s a baby. She and her family will speak constantly of "the baby" — when the baby will come, how the baby’s room is coming along, the baby shower, baby names, etc.
    If she doesn’t want it, it’s "just a fetus," and can indeed be treated legally as a tumor.
    That makes no sense in the world. It’s either a baby or it isn’t. Its existence does NOT depend upon the attitude of anybody toward it. It is or it isn’t. That’s the nature of reality.
    Well, you got me started. What I mean to say is, thank you for your kind note, and for the opportunity for dialogue.

— Brad Warthen

From: Kathryn Braun Fenner
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 2:50 PM

Brad-
    I am so sorry about your wife’s illness. My thoughts and prayers are with her and your family. Please forgive my apparent trivializing of the pain of cancer by comparing a tumor to a fetus–although as you acknowledged in your piece, to some, a fetus may be a death threat.
    I am glad you have five welcome children. People like you and your wife should have enormous love-filled families. I have done a lot of work with juvenile offenders and with DSS "clients." I do believe abstinence is the best option for those who are not going to have loved, two-parent children. The Supreme Court notwithstanding, everyone does not have a fundamental right to sex, or to have children; it is a privilege at least as worthy of respect and control as driving! I bemoan our sexualized society. However, it is what it is, though courageous journalists like you are certainly speaking up to try to change this. Given our culture, and the many generations of "lost children" from DSS-land, can we at least agree that maybe teaching and making available alternatives to abortion that are more likely to avoid pregnancy than abstinence is advisable, the Pope notwithstanding.
    BTW, pregnancy is not always a healthy normal process. Ectopic pregnancy is one obvious example. Is that a baby, absolutely not a baby or something in between?
— Kathryn Fenner

From: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 5:06 PM
    Well, you exceeded my vocabulary on that one. I had to look it up to learn that "ectopic" referred to what I think of as "tubal."
    Indeed, given the complexity of life, particularly in the higher animals, many things can go wrong with otherwise healthy processes. For instance, it’s a good thing to have a strong immune system. But if it becomes TOO reactive, you end up like me, spending thousands a year treating allergies.
    I see the Church’s teaching on artificial birth control as something to be embraced by the faithful, NOT to be imposed on a pluralistic society. I would not, for instance, seek to have civil law ban the eating of meat on Fridays in Lent.
    But life or death, once the process of life has begun — that’s a different matter. The state has a legitimate interest there; it just depends upon how we decide to define that role. Unfortunately, Roe forbids us even to discuss it, placing the issue of life and death absolutely in the hands of the most interested, least impartial party. That’s not a standard we would apply in any other area of the law where the stakes are so great.
    Thank you again for the kind exchange. Do you mind if I post it on my blog?
— Brad Warthen

From: Kathryn Braun Fenner
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 5:59 PM
    I exceeded your vocabulary? Wow!
    Process of life….What about fertilized in vitro eggs? When is something "living" –in the independent "life" sense (rather than the "my fingertip is living but my fingernail tips are dead" sense) as opposed to merely potentially able to live on its own?
    Roe does not forbid US or anyone else from discussing abortion (God bless America–freedom of speech is what makes this country great) I’m not planning on being arrested for this e-mail exchange, are you? We can even publish it (post it on your blog, if you must–I’m not keen on being identified to the nut-jobs like Fetus Man–does he really think he will change anyone’s mind with baby dolls pinned to his jacket?–, but I will stand behind what I say–though my brother, the copy editor, would surely fix up the language!).
    Roe says, basically "Congress shall make no law" impeding on an adult woman’s right (with her doctor), during the first trimester, and possibly the second, to decide when the cells in her are a fetus and when they are a baby. (BTW–why do we have a good old word "fetus" but no "old" word for "post-birth baby" as opposed to just "baby." Historically, I believe we have been ambivalent at best about when an independent life begins.)
    Absolutely I agree that IF abortion is murder, if a fetus is a baby is a fully protectable legal person–indeed far more so than a corporation, say– then the State has an interest, indeed an imperative, in outlawing abortion. I do not believe that a fetus is the same as baby. You do, and as I said, I applaud the strength with which you stand for that. I truly respect that. I believe that, God forbid, if one of your loved ones were raped, you would protect that fetus with the same fervor as the child of a lawful marriage.  Many "pro-life" advocates would not, which makes me think they are a lot about punishment and enforcing morality on a wayward woman, rather than protecting a potential life…and as you say, they pro-life movement is not overly concerned about the welfare of the "afterborn"….
    Oh and the Legislature, backed by at least one court, won’t let us outlaw cigarette smoking in the workplace, —which is proven to kill lives-in-being–and as you have written, prevent the allergic/asthmatic among us from fully participating in public life. There are 
other "no go " zones besides abortion….but that is a discussion for another day.

Peace–
Kathryn

Peace, indeed. I think I’ll leave it there with her having the last word. No, I’ll let Stephen Wright have the last word. I love this postscript Kathryn tagged onto her last message:

If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the precipitate.

— Steven Wright

 

Response to Rushmore

3 Replies

I very much appreciate the insights provided by new correspondent Rushmore, who, based on intimate knowledge with the subject, begs to differ with some of my observations.

I have a few things to say in response to his/her last remarks on this post, and they’re sufficiently involved that I decided to make it a separate post, to raise the profile of this debate at a critical moment (DOT reform comes back up in the Senate Tuesday).

First, I want to say to Rushmore that I’m sorry if I seemed dismissive. I’m just extremely impatient because after all these years, we have a good chance to change, fundamentally, the relationship between this agency and the people of South Carolina for the better.

To toss aside that chance for the sake of promises that whoever runs it, it will make better decisions in a particular operational area is to miss the opportunity, and they don’t come around that often.

One can push new criteria for setting road priorities ANY time. It’s a highly worthwhile procedural reform, but it doesn’t have nearly the potential for sweeping, positive change that fundamental restructuring has.

The problem may lie in our metaphors. I’ve only met Elizabeth Hagood once, and was quite favorably impressed. Very smart lady. But she and I have gone back and forth on the suitability of her "fix the car" metaphor. As she put it in the video I posted:

If you’ve got a car that’s not working, and you change drivers, you’ve still got a car that’s not working.

She considers restructuring to be the equivalent of changing the driver. I don’t. I say that restructuring is a fundamental change in the kind of vehicle you have — as basic as shift from the internal combustion engine to electric (just to plug another of my videos).

By contrast, implementing new priority-setting protocols is more like deciding what sort of map you’re going to use in determining where the car is going to go. That’s very important, no doubt — no point in having a car if it doesn’t take you where you want to go.

But if I’ve got a chance to get a new car, a better car, that will better suit what a car should be — say, if I could trade in my ’97 Buick for a new Toyota Hybrid Camry (slobber) … well, I’m going to grab that chance, and talk about what sort of map to use and where I want to go after I leave the showroom.

The League and its allies determined early that they would, in Rushmore‘s terms…

… stay out of the debate over DOT’s
management restructuring because addressing this issue would place
conservation groups right in the middle of the eternal and ridiculous
turf war between the Senate and the Governor

That misses the point. The choice in restructuring isn’t between the Legislature and the governor and what they want. It’s between good government and bad, between an agency that is accountable to the people of South Carolina and one that isn’t. The idea that getting the structure of government right is "ridiculous" would be a terrible shock to James Madison.

Anyway, my great hope is that the folks in that coalition, and other reformers such as Vincent Sheheen, will give John Courson’s proposal — which now includes all the things the coalition has worked hard for — a serious look when he presents it again tomorrow.

Let’s not look a gift car in the mouth. Or grill. Or whatever.

DOT reform column

17 Replies

Would-be DOT reformers
need to start pulling together

By Brad Warthen
Editorial Page Editor
THE GOOD GUYS really need to pull in the same direction if we’re to get anything that even the most easy-going person in the world would call “reform” at the S.C. Department of Transportation.
    That hasn’t been happening:
    Last week, Sen. John Courson proposed an amendment that would simply have done the right thing:Courson
Put this executive agency in the governor’s Cabinet, making it directly accountable, without any frustrating filters or buffers of any kind, to the chief executive elected by the people of our state.
    He proposed “a clean, a very clear, a very simple bill.” It would have fixed the thing that is wrong with DOT — its commission — by doing away with it.
    If you try to run an agency through a group, a committee, a commission, you will once again get what we have: an entity with multiple entry and exit points for decision-making, so that you can’t track how something happened or didn’t happen and do something about it. Lawmakers who want this agency to continue to be their personal candy store are dead set on keeping this structure, preferably appointed by them. They might let the governor appoint the commissioners, as long as he can’t remove them.
    A commission can’t turn efficiently when it’s on a bad course. The inertial center of the General Assembly dreads changing direction more than anything.
    The House, and Senate committees, have tinkered and argued over the best way to continue to keep a commission and make it look like reform.
    Sen. Courson said to forget all that and make the agency accountable. Setzler_2
Twelve senators voted with him: Kevin Bryant, Chip Campsen, Ronnie Cromer, Mike Fair, Larry Grooms, Wes Hayes, Larry Martin, Harvey Peeler, Jim Ritchie, Greg Ryberg, Nikki Setzler and Lewis Vaughn — all Republicans except Sen. Setzler.
    That means the proposal was defeated, 26-13.Hayes

    Sen. Courson says he’ll try again Tuesday. Unless more reform-minded people work with him, the status quo will win.
    Sen. Vincent Sheheen wants reform. He is a sincere advocate of good government who comes from a line of good-government advocates. But he voted against the Courson proposal.
    “I try to approach government in a very pragmatic fashion,” he said. “Not in terms of what would be ideal.” He’s had the chance to observe South Carolina government his whole life, and he knows what an alien concept “ideal” can be to our state’s decision-makers.
    Besides, he’s not convinced that a Cabinet is “ideal.” If you make it too easy to change the agency, he believes it will lose “stability” and professionalism. He envisions a parade of political appointees passing through the director’s job.
    He would keep the commission for continuity’s sake, but let the governor both appoint commissioners and fire them at will.
    I tried to get him to convince me that you can’t have a parade of hacks with a commission, with the added problem of not knowing whose hacks they were, and I’m afraid he didn’t succeed.
    We agreed on one thing, though: “There are a lot of people who’d like to see nothing happen.” There are more of them than there are people like him. In fact, more people voted for the Courson plan than there are people like Vincent Sheheen.
    Patty Pierce lobbies for the Coastal Conservation League, which has taken a lead role in a broad coalition of groups “calling for real reform, including: making the agency accountable to the public, requiring that road projects meet a real public need and making sure that the most important projects are funded first.”
    That’s a lot to try to get at once, so the league and its allies have concentrated more on the public-need-and-priority stuff than on pushing an accountable structure.
    They would keep a commission, but insist on rational procedures for setting road priorities.
These good people have worked hard at this — through the House and Senate committees and now out onto the floor — and they were much taken aback by Sen. Courson.
    “His amendment completely struck the bill that we had been working on for four months,” said Ms. Pierce.
    As one who’s pushed the Cabinet approach for 16 years, I started asking why she thought any priority-setting criteria that they were promised would ever last past next legislative session, and various other cynical questions, so she referred me to Elizabeth Hagood, the league’s director of conservation programs.
Hagood_005
    She said it’s less a matter of the four months of work, and more a matter of the coalition having decided early to stay out of the politically divisive issue of who runs the agency, and concentrate instead on how it’s run.
    That seemed a shaky approach to me. If you have the wrong who, you’re much less likely to get the how that you are seeking. Wouldn’t a Cabinet appointee be far more likely actually to implement and stick to a rational set of priority-setting procedures? Isn’t it much easier for good-government types to nag, argue and embarrass a governor into doing the right thing? You can’t embarrass a commission.
    “I understand what you’re saying,” said Ms. Hagood. “Personally, I agree with what you’re saying.”
    Unfortunately, the league’s coalition consists of too many diverse partners who have agreed upon the course they are on: “We’re not set up to change direction in the 11th hour.”
    In other words… dramatic pause here… the league can’t change its direction and support the right plan because it’s run by a commission.
    I rest my case.

Want to talk about the war in Iraq?

125 Replies

Kneel

Here’s a place to do so…

A couple of readers brought it to my attention yesterday that the war began its Iraq phase four years ago today. They want to have a discussion about that. OK, even though personally I am increasing taking to heart messages such as the one from our own sometime contributor Reed Swearingen, who wrote yesterday to tell my colleague Cindi Scoppe:

Good Morning Cindi,
    Have you an interest in running a blog?  If so, I wish to encourage you
to do so.
    I enjoy reading and occasionally commenting on Brad’s blog, but would
love to participate in a blog that focuses on public policy at the state
level, which appears to be your domain.

Sincerely,

Reed Swearingen

Columbia, SC

Well that’s sort of what I started MY blog for. Consequently, I’ve recently resolved, in my own oblique way, to concentrate more on Energy (as a critical part of the War on Terror) or on primarily South Carolina issues.

I’m edging in that direction. Now I have to edge back a bit.

But just a bit. Here are my thoughts on the Iraq War four years after the invasion:

By and large, needing only a few updates here and there, it’s the same as what I had to say on the third anniversary of that campaign, upon which I elaborated a few days later.

My thoughts on the current situation — the surge and such — have conveniently also been provided on this blog.

As the surge is just now being implemented, so it is certainly far too early to assess whether it will be successful. The only decisions that really need to be made now are on the tactical, political (Iraqi politics, not American) and diplomatic fronts. A great deal of improvement is needed on all three.

Anything you or I might have to say should have little influence on the situation, as the people on the ground who know what they’re facing need to and can call shots at this level.

So for me, the whole matter of war in iraq is a fascinating one to talk about later, when there’s something new to discuss. But if you have something new to say at this point — if you find this date on the calendar sufficiently meaningful to inspire you — go for it.

Peace

Tax cuts for the right sort of people

21 Replies

You might have assumed, after reading fellow blogger Joshua Gross’ op-ed in Tuesday’s paper, that the Ways and Means budget he praised as one that "actually resembles a responsible document" (that’s high praise, coming from him) devoted a lot more money to tax cuts than the current year’s budget.

An excerpt:

When the budget was debated last year the appropriators, flush withGrossjoshua $1.1 billion in new
revenues, decided to spend the vast bulk of the money, much of it on pet projects, while reserving a small fraction of the new funds for a property tax reduction that had a negligible impact on job creation in our state. The final budget was a monstrosity so bad the governor chose to veto it in its entirety, knowing full well that the Legislature would still override his veto and spend the money.

Those nasty, monstrous Republican legislative leaders! What were they thinking? But wait! The facts get in the way of Joshua’s interpretation.

  • This year’s Ways and Means proposal, which the House is debating this week, devotes $81 million to an income tax cut.
  • Last year’s budget, so horrible, so monstrous that the governor had to veto it, devoted $92 million to a sales tax cut on groceries and a second sales tax holiday.

That’s right, the bordering-on-responsible budget devotes $11 million less in new revenue to tax cuts than the toss-it-in-the-rubbish, big-government’s-gonna-eat-your-children current budget.

Granted, $14 million of last year’s tax-cut money was a one-time tax reduction, for the silly after-Thanksgiving sales tax holiday that we will not have again this year. But even if you discount that, last year’s budget still included a permanent tax cut of $77 million.

Now I understand that supply-siders don’t like to cut the taxes that ordinary people pay. But let’s at least give a nod to reality here.

The budget they’re debating over there this week is $600 million bigger than the one we’re operating under now (or maybe $1 billion more if you use Sanford math). This money thing is not my forte, but that seems to suggest that even if you ignore the $14 million sales tax holiday, the wild-and-crazy budget from last year actually devoted a nearly identical portion (not to mention amount) of money to new tax cuts as the almost-responsible one on the table right now.

But give my buddy Joshua a break; his piece is accurate in one respect: It’s an accurate representation of the Club for Growth world view.

The virtues of Virtual Schools

46 Replies

South Carolina now has it’s very own version of the stem-cell debate — unfortunately.

The stem-cell fight, as we all know, isn’t about stem cells; it’s about abortion. Similarly, the virtual school fight has morphed into a surrogate for the "school choice" debate.

Consequently, the virtues, or lack thereof, of virtual pedagogy have been pushed to the back burner. But that’s what I’d like to talk about.

I have my suspicions about the efficacy of the whole idea. I think offering long-distance classes to kids who might not otherwise have access to such pedagogy sounds very good — after all, the greatest challenge in public education in this state is what to do about the kids who live in poor, rural, thinly populated districts that have trouble offering the quality found in the affluent suburbs.

At the same time, after about 25 years of witnessing the limits of electronic communication, I have my doubts. That’s about how long I’ve been dealing with e-mail in one way or another. I’ve also had some experience with teleconferencing, which is a tool of dubious value.

Yet I’m torn about it.

I know virtual schooling can’t be as good as being face-to-face with a teacher. At the same time, it sounds better than no access at all, which is the option many kids are stuck with. Question is, should finite resources be devoted to this approach, or would they be better spent on other priorities? I’m not sure.

We had a long discussion about it in yesterday’s editorial board meeting, and it was inconclusive. We’ll have to return to it to decide what to say. Of course, we discussed other aspects as well. We’re all over the place on the culture-war aspect (to what extent kids not in the public system should have access), but I’d like to address here the underlying question of whether this is a good approach to begin with.

We’ve all experienced the misunderstandings that can occur in what was once called Cyberspace; this blog serves often as a monument to that effect. Of course, some of the misunderstanding is willfully obtuse, but plenty of it is honest miscommunication between people who would be much more likely to have a meeting of the minds if they actually met.

You sit two people who’ve been speaking at cross-purposes down together — as when Randy Page and I had lunch recently — and you’re somewhat more likely to communicate effectively. Similarly, if the problem is that a given subject, or a given child, is hard to teach, do you do any good giving him or her a "virtual" teacher?

Of course, if you want to address the choice aspect, go ahead — but know that I’m not staking out a position on that myself, not yet. If you can get private school and home-school kids in without pushing some public school kids out, I’m for it. It depends on how limited the device is in terms of accessibility. I need to know more about the program, and one of my colleagues is looking into that.

I’m hopeful that we can have a debate here that we can all learn from each other. On this recent post, Randy and LexWolf gave indications of a willingness to carry on real dialogue about this and possibly other education issues. That sounds great to me. Let’s see how we do.

Blackhawk Author Down

87 Replies

Our anti-war friends are always wanting folks who advocated the Iraq invasion to say they’re sorry. Well, leave poor Hillary alone. Mark Bowden will say it for you.

Here’s a link to a piece in The Philadelphia Inquirer by the former staff writer who wrote Blackhawk Down. An excerpt:

   Plenty of people got it right. Give George Herbert Walker Bush credit for having the good sense not to topple Saddam in 1991, foreseeing the unmanageable chaos that would follow. My Philadelphia Inquirer colleague Trudy Rubin saw it, as did my Atlantic colleague James Fallows. Another notable example was Scott Ritter, the former Marine and U.N. weapons inspector who campaigned vigorously with the news that Saddam did not have such weapons. He spent months being kicked around on television talk shows, weathering a mounting tide of scorn, trying to halt the war machine.
   I remember being on one of those shows with him. I wondered why, in the face of so much supposedly informed contradiction, he persisted.
   Scott, I see it now.

The difference between his position and mine?

My reason for supporting the invasion was that I believed the Iraqi tyrant had weapons of mass destruction, and that he would, without hesitating, pass such weapons along to Islamist terrorists who would use them…. It turns out Saddam was bluffing.

I believed we should invade whether the WMD were there or not. I thought they were there, of course, but that was not the determining factor for me.

Energy Video III: Bill Barnet

24 Replies


Bill Barnet is the former business leader who helped start the education accountability movement before he ran a write-in campaign at the very last minute for mayor of Spartanburg … and won.

He’s one of those guys who doesn’t need his job, and in fact doesn’t need politics at all. He does it to try to make the world a better place. That’s why he came to see us with Joe Riley to talk about global warming.