bud suggests several responses when he says this on an earlier post:

I just looked up the phrase “Tilting at Windmills”. I never really understood what that meant. It’s from Don Quixote. Don was fighting a windmill that he perceived to be a giant monster. Seems like Brad does a lot of ’tilting at windmills’ when it comes to Mark Sanford. It’s time to give it up Brad. Sanford has long ago become nothing but a lame duck has-been. To continue piling on only makes me have sympathy for the guy. I’m far more concerned with really dangerous monsters like Lindsey Graham and Sarah Palin. They’re the folks who get people killed, not Mark Sanford.

My responses:

• The phrase, “tilting at windmills” actually has two separate meanings in popular usage. One is to fight imaginary foes. The other is to fight impossible battles, to champion lost causes. “To Dream the Impossible Dream,” to borrow from the Broadway version of Cervantes’ story. And I accept service on that latter sense. There is no way to be the editor I was at The State — one determined to make a difference, to help move my state forward in spite of the immovable, massive cultural and structural barriers to change we have in South Carolina — without having an almost perverse willingness to fight against impossible odds. The things I was tilting at were real; it’s just that the likelihood of overcoming them was often low. I continue to be this way. I don’t understand the concept of surrender. In this, I am a true white South Carolinian. While I abhor their cause, I do have one thing in common with the nutballs who led this state to go to war with the United States of America — a disregard for the odds, and a stubbornness about fighting on way past the point at which most people would quit. Think of Paul Newman being pummeled by George Kennedy in “Cool Hand Luke,” and stupidly, insanely refusing to stay down. (I actually have a case where I literally did that. When I was 47 years old, I got into the kickboxing ring with a 27-year-old construction worker who was 40 pounds heavier than I was — all muscle. He broke four of my ribs in the first round, but I continued even though the pain was terrific. In the third round he hit me again, hard, in the same spot, and I dropped against my will to one knee while I fought to get some breath — but I got up and continued the fight to the end. I even got a few shots of my own in. Perversely, I’m proud of that. My wife considers it disgusting proof that I am an idiot.)
• I consider my main mission as a journalist to be shedding light on critical, pivotal issues that can lead to a better South Carolina. The governor of the state, weak as the office is, is the one person in the best position to make a difference. He’s the only person with a bully-enough pulpit to potentially counterbalance the awful power of the Legislature to resist change, if he focuses and uses the power properly — the way Dick Riley did in passing the EIA, and Carroll Campbell did with that partial and inadequate restructuring of state government. So ever since I started writing opinion in the early 90s, I have kept a pretty bright spotlight on the governor — whether he was Campbell or Beasley or Hodges or Sanford. And with Sanford, I feel if anything a greater responsibility to explain what’s wrong with him because I helped him get elected the first time, and it took me an embarrassingly long time (given that I am, whatever my other flaws, usually the first person in the room to size someone up accurately) to figure out what a disaster he was, and to be able to explain it. From now until the time we have a new governor, it remains critically important not to let voters forget for a moment that this was a mistake that must not be repeated. Keeping the flaws in the current governor front of mind is one of a number of factors that can help us make a smarter decision this time.
• You mention Sarah Palin. Let me tell you something about Sarah Palin. When she was named as John McCain’s running mate, the very first thing I did in trying to figure out this blank slate was go to see what the editorial pages of Alaska were saying about her. And you know what I found? Zip. Just bland, vanilla commentary that told me nothing of substance about her, and certainly nothing negative. They were utterly unhelpful. That’s because most editorial pages in this country don’t have the guts, or the intelligence, to recognize a spade as a spade and to call it that. Most editorial pages are worth very little. This is why Jim Hodges had such a problem with me when he was in office. He thought I personally hated him because I was so critical of his performance. He thought it was extraordinary, and if you looked at the vanilla commentary of other editorial pages in the state, or most editorial pages across the country, he had a point. But it wasn’t about him. That was just my way as someone who cares deeply about South Carolina and is committed to holding the top elected official accountable for what he does and doesn’t do (even though, given our absurd, fragmented executive branch structure, it’s hard to hold him accountable for a lot of things that governors are accountable for in other states). I hit hard when these guys deserve to be hit.
• Now try to imagine what would have happened if — despite all my warnings — McCain had picked Sanford as his running mate. Someone who did a search of the opinion pages of The State would have immediately learned all the reasons why it was an extraordinarily bad idea. And in fact, I like to think John McCain knew better in advance to some degree as a result of our work. But the Fourth Estate in Alaska had not done its job, and it took awhile to figure out what a terrible call it was to have chosen Sarah Palin. If editorial page editors in Alaska had been doing what you excoriate ME for doing here in SC, we wouldn’t be talking about Sarah Palin today, because she would not have been promoted to national prominence.

That’s OK, you don’t have to thank me. I’d do it whether you were grateful or not.

Back when I first started blogging in 2005, way before “social media” took hold, I was really pumped about all the possibilities that blogging posed for connecting with unlikely people, such as … Jerry Brown! My very favorite flaky politician! A guy I actually voted for in a presidential primary once, if only to reinforce my own cred as an eccentric! The guy from whom I learned the term “buzzword”… and so forth.

But then he let me down. You can still go see Jerry’s blog, but you’ll note that he hasn’t posted since Oct. 8, 2005, which is of course pathetic. I had expected better from him. I felt like if anybody would grasp the potential of the blogosphere and make it wail, it would be Jerry Brown, whom I had always seen as a visionary on the level of … I don’t know… Stewart Brand, or Ken Kesey, or something. I mean, this guy dated Linda Ronstadt back when she was really hot, and he was governor. This guy had it going on.

So it is that I am pleased to see that now that he’s running for governor again, Jerry is on Twitter, and Tweeting regularly. Of course, it’s probably some pimply-faced kid on his staff doing it, but at least it’s in his name, which makes me feel like Governor Moonbeam is back on his horse again, and that just makes the world seem more like a place with wild and wonderful possibilities, as it was when I was young…

On the day after Mark Sanford promised us he wouldn’t apologize to us any more — a promise to which I intend to hold him if I can (fat chance, huh?) — you would expect that he’d be busting his hump trying to pass that modest agenda he proposed for his last year in office, right?

You poor sap. You do not know Mark Sanford. No, on the first day after his State of the State that he could have been repairing his relationships with lawmakers and trying to get things done for a change, he was spotted in Washington hanging out, and apparently hoping to get photographed shaking Scott Brown’s hand:

Washington (CNN) – On the morning after delivering his final “State of the State” address in Columbia, South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford strolled through the Capitol rotunda Thursday afternoon along with South Carolina Rep. Bob Inglis.

Asked why he was in Washington, Sanford, a former House Member, walked toward the House floor as the chamber was about to vote and told CNN: “I was going to catch up with some friends on the House floor.”

Sanford said he has not yet met Massachusetts Sen-elect Scott Brown.

Another Republican governor, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, was also visiting House lawmakers today. He is slated to meet with Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the entire House delegation from his state.

What else did you expect from the guy who appeared on Fox News 46 times during the time that he was trying to make sure that we didn’t get our share of the stimulus money that was going to be spent anyway?

You know, the one good thing about these last few awful months with this guy was that we were all certain that his outrageous national ambitions were a thing of the past. And now this. Man oh man oh man…

This morning I got this little bit of fan e-mail:

http://blogs.thestate.com/bradwarthensblog/2007/08/why-i-see-john-.html
I always think of this article when I see him on tv

Yes, that is indeed a link to the infamous “Why I see John Edwards as a Big Phony” column. I still have people bringing that up to me. Lots of people. Even people who know nothing about me, or The State newspaper for that matter. That’s because that column, which I didn’t think was anything remarkable when I wrote it, caused 190,000 extra people to come to thestate.com that day (not to mention being picked up by Drudge and The New York Post and other outlets I don’t recall at the moment — Dennis Miller loved it), thus distorting the Web sites figures so that a year later, the Web folks would have to explain at senior staff, “Our numbers are good now; they just don’t look good because we’re comparing to that column of Brad’s…”

It’s weird to think that more people will remember that one thing than any of the stuff I wrote about issues I cared a thousand times more about. That’s an almost statistical certainty, given that more people probably read that than anything else I ever wrote. Which really was not my intention. Sigh.

Anyway, I assume the reason that came up was because of this development:

RALEIGH, N.C. — Former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards finally admitted Thursday he fathered a child during an affair before his second White House bid, dropping long-standing denials just ahead of a book by a former campaign aide who initially took the fall.

Edwards released a statement admitting paternity of the girl, Frances Quinn Hunter, who was born in 2008 to videographer Rielle Hunter as the result of an affair Edwards has already confessed to.

“It was wrong for me to ever deny she was my daughter,” he said, adding he was providing financial support for the child and mother. “I am Quinn’s father.”…

In other words, when he came clean and confessed all before, he was actually not coming clean and confessing all. Big freaking surprise.

Note that he uses the phrase, “It was wrong…” Does he mean that? Does he really know it?

Boy, I really picked the wrong job to get canned from. Check out Conan O’Brien’s deal:

After days of tense negotiations, “The Tonight Show” host Conan O’Brien signed an agreement early Thursday to part ways with NBC.

The deal clears the way for rival Jay Leno to reclaim his old show at 11:35 p.m. beginning March 1, according to a person familiar with the matter. Mr. O’Brien signed the agreement around 1 a.m. Pacific time, people familiar with the matter said.

The final deal includes a payout of approximately $32.5 million for Mr. O’Brien and roughly $12 million for his staff, according a person familiar with the matter. The agreement will allow Mr. O’Brien to appear on another network beginning Sept. 1, the person said…

You can bet that if I walked away with that kind of cash, I wouldn’t be interested in doing another silly talk show on another network. I’d be set, and I’d find something worthwhile to do with my time.

Actually, that brings to mind the question from “Office Space:” You ask yourself what you would do if you had a million dollars, and that’s what you should do for a living. Which gets me to thinking…

Despite my doubts about his suitability for high office, Andre Bauer and I have always gotten along cordially. We appeared together on an Arabic-language TV broadcast a couple of years back (picture that — Andre and me in Arabic), and we always exchange pleasantries when we meet.

But now we are officially friends, and Andre is thrilled, according to this message I received:

Andre R. says, “Brad,
First, thank you for your friend request! When I joined Facebook, I never would have imagined that I would have such an outpouring of support. I reached a 5000 friend maximum on my original personal Facebook page, so I have created this one to connect with more folks like you. I hope you will accept my request so we can network and share thoughts on any matter of interest to you.
Second, I would be very appreciative if you would recommend me to your all your friends on Facebook. I enjoy working with others and making new connections, for this reason I have set a goal to become friends with 2000 Facebook users by the end of January. Will you help me reach my goal?
Also, if I can ever help you with ANYTHING, please drop me a line. I look forward to networking with you and I hope you have a great day.
-Andre.”.

You may say that was a form letter written by a staffer, but you don’t know Andre like I do. We’re buds.

I’m not sure how this happened. I may have made a request to him awhile back — I tend to do that with anybody I know on Facebook — but the message I got was unclear. It seemed he was accepting ME as a friend, but then I had to confirm HIM, suggesting it was the other way around. Facebook is sometimes vague that way; have you noticed?

And now, for the silliest idea I’ve heard of since Memphis built the Pyramid, we have this:

Husband for Lady Liberty proposed

Group says huge statue a perfect fit for Patriots Point

By John McDermott
The Post and Courier
Wednesday, January 20, 2010

An Atlanta group floated a jaw-dropping idea for Patriots Point on Tuesday, proposing that a male counterpart of the Statue of Liberty be built on or near the state-owned visitor attraction.

Details were scant, but the head of the Georgia-based National Monument Foundation said the Charleston area, with its rich, long history, is the most appropriate place on the East Coast for Lady Liberty in New York Harbor to be “wedded” with a complementary statue….

A computer rendering showed a gold-tinted statue of Liberty-like proportions, complete with a sunburst crown and flowing gown standing atop a large pedestal. It would face the mouth of Charleston Harbor and Fort Sumter.

A copy of the image was unavailable for publication Tuesday….

Oh, that’s OK — I went ahead and presented an artist’s conception of my own. I mean, you really need a handsome, uber-masculine figure, preferably with a giddy, goofy grin to properly reflect the seriousness of this proposal.

You haven’t seen the best part. Here’s the best part:

“Wow,” said board member Harry Gregorie, who then posed the most obvious question: How much would a statue of this magnitude cost?

Cook said he did not have a firm figure, but estimated the project would run anywhere from $100 million to $150 million, depending on the height of the monument. The bulk of the money likely would have to be raised from private sources.

“The state does not have $100 million,” Hagerty said….

Well, at least they realize that…

If you’re on Facebook, you might want to “friend” Doug Nye, the former (and, I believe, last) TV critic at The State, if only to get his daily “Western of the Day” update. Here’s today’s:

“My Darling Clementine” (1946) Director John Ford’s version of the gunfight at the OK Corral demonstrates just how stunning a black-and-white film can be. With Ford at the helm, it becomes pure visual poetry from a lonely nighttime prairie to an outdoor dance at an unfinished church.
Henry Fonda makes for a terrifically laconic Wyatt Earp and Walter Brennan is perfect as the surly Old Man Clanton. Of all the actors who have played a Clanton, Brennan’s performance leaves the most lasting impression. Victor Mature enjoys one of his best screen roles playing Earp’s pal, the sickly Doc Holliday.
Among the others in the cast are Linda Darnell as Holiday’s girl, Cathy Downs as Clementine, Ward Bond as Morgan Earp, Tim Holt as Virgil Earp and John Ireland as Billy Clanton.
In this version of the story, Wyatt and his brothers are driving a herd of cattle east to Kansas. One evening, they stop outside of Tombstone. Brother James is left to watch the herd while the others go into town. When they return, James is found dead and the cattle are gone. The suspicion is that the Clantons are responsible.
Wyatt takes the marshal’s job in Tombstone mainly because he wants to get his revenge on the Clantons. We all know that it will eventually lead to the famous shootout at the OK Corral. Much of the film is leisurely paced, allowing the viewer time to savor the images of the West that seem to be lifted straight out a series of old tintypes. Even the showdown is played out almost like a dream sequence. Ford’s poetic hand again in what remains on of his finest westerns.
According to many sources Ford actually knew Wyatt Earp, who died in 1929. One suspects part of the film was based on what Earp had told Ford about the event in Tombstone. That is certainly possible because Earp was well known in the Hollywood community. Among the pall bearers at his funeral were cowboy movie legends Tom Mix and William S. Hart.

Doug knows his stuff, particularly when it comes to Westerns. He is to Westerns what “Shooter” (the Dennis Hopper character) was to basketball in “Hoosiers,” if you’ll forgive me for dragging in another genre.

I’m not nearly the Western fan Doug is — although I do have one (“High Noon”) on my all-time, desert-island Top Five Movies list — but I appreciate the guidance of a true connoisseur in helping me know which ones are worth my time.

And for his part, Doug’s into more than just Westerns. For instance, he’s one of the few people I know who also cherishes the memory of watching “Spaceship C-8” on WBTW out of Florence, starring the late great “Captain Ashby” Ward…

Last year was, as we all know, probably the worst year for South Carolina’s image nationally since the heyday of Donna Rice and Jim Bakker. Come to think of it, we looked rather better back then — I don’t think those scandals reflected upon US as a people quite as devastatingly as the Sanford and Wilson and “keep your gummint hands off my Medicare” debacles.

Well, the embarrassment continues. The New Republic helps kick off 2010 by scutinizing our own Jim “Waterloo” DeMint, to wit:

For all of Washington’s political polarization, the U.S. Senate remains a clubby place. Sure, lawmakers talk smack about the unparalleled malevolence of the opposition, but there is, in general, a high degree of respect for the institution, its members, and its time-honored Way of Doing Things. While the House is known for its ideological cowboys, demagogues, and revolutionaries, the Senate is where bright lines and rough edges tend to get smoothed out in the name of statesmanship and legislative compromise.

Clearly, no one told this to Jim DeMint. During his first term, South Carolina’s junior senator has made quite the name for himself. Armed with a courtly demeanor, a blandly pleasant visage, and a butter-melting drawl, he has set about flaying Democrats with a fervor that causes even some of his Republican colleagues to cringe. (His July call for the GOP to make health care Obama’s “Waterloo” prompted multiple Republican lawmakers to distance themselves or flatly criticize him.) But more notable than DeMint’s savaging of the opposition has been his savaging of his own people. Perched on the far-right edge of his conference–he was the only senator to speak at the September 12 tea party on Capitol Hill–DeMint has spent recent years conducting something of a party purity crusade. He has repeatedly delayed or derailed legislation supported by the bulk of his conference. He has sought new rules on how leadership and committee seats are doled out. And he has joined forces with from-the-fringe activists to turn his leadership PAC, the Senate Conservatives Fund (SCF), into a renegade funding operation that often works at cross-purposes with the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC). Among the “rock-solid conservatives” SCF is championing this cycle are Marco Rubio in Florida (over the NRSC-backed Charlie Crist), Michael Williams in Texas (over presumed party favorite David Dewhurst), and Chuck DeVore in California (over establishment pick Carly Fiorina). His PAC, DeMint explains in an “About Us” video on its website, is for everyone “tired of Republicans acting like Democrats.”…

DeMint has indeed, since joining the Senate, increasingly defined himself not as a Republican, but as a particular sort of Republican, the kind who takes partisanship to more extreme levels than usual.

And increasingly, I find myself making up my mind what I think about other SC Republicans by whether they identify with Sen. DeMint, or with sensible Republicans. It seems more and more to me that there are sensible Republicans, and there are the, ahem, DeMinted ones…

For instance, I’ve been disturbed to note DeMint tendencies on the part of two guys about whom I had heard good things:

• Bill Connor is Capt. Smith‘s former commanding officer, and a pal of Prince Harry (and we Anglophiles say “huzzah” or “hear, hear” to that sort of thing). But I had to cringe when I saw this Tweet from him: “In Aiken tonight for Senator @JimDeMint‘s event at the Magnolia Room. Proud of Senator DeMint’s strong stands for taxpayers.” Ack!
• Our own KBFenner has said nice things about Leighton Lord, who’s running for attorney general. But then he Tweeted this: “Packed house in Rock Hill for @JimDeMint event. So much energy in the room, lets build on it for tomorrow in MA & November 2010!” Which of course is bad on two levels — the DeMint level, and the interfering-in-other-states’-politics thing.
  

Had to smile at this quote about Gresham Barrett in an AP story about his efforts to become better known to voters along the coast:

Barrett needs to introduce himself to coastal voters but “the good news is he’s a blank slate so he can paint what he wants on it,” said University of South Carolina political scientist Mark Tompkins.

As I’ve noted before, the problem with Gresham Barrett is that, for a leading candidate (“leading” at least in fund-raising), he remains disturbingly ill-defined for those of us in the rest of the state as well. While he’s defining himself for the coast-dwellers, I hope he’ll let the rest of us know more about what he wants to accomplish as governor…

It’s not unprecedented for me to feel a little embarrassed for my beloved native state when the Legislature comes back to town each year, but, not wanting to sound like my friend Doug Ross (to whom politicians are a lower order), I try to greet the dawn of each session with optimism.

It was hard enough to do so when I was paid to do it — when, as captain of HMS Editorial Board, I had to strike the proper undaunted expression as I paced the quarterdeck — and now, it’s even tougher. (Towards the end, I started fraying around the edges a bit and showing my impatience.) After the humiliations we suffered in the eyes of the world in 2009 — our stimulus-denying, soulmate-loving gov; Joe (the Volcano) Wilson; the joker who demanded that government keep its dirty hands off his Medicare and so forth — the one good thing about it all is that it kept the world from noticing that a significant numbers of lawmakers, apparently nostalgic for the 1860s, were trying to resurrect nullification.

And indeed, they didn’t get all that much attention. So of course, they’re starting this session by renewing their mad effort.

There doesn’t seem to be any rational justification for this movement. It seems rooted in a deep, primal desire to scream “No!” at the world — especially the rest of the United States of America. Not at anything in particular, just at the rest of the world for, I don’t know, being the rest of the world. Related to the mentality behind the “We don’t CARE how you did it up North,” which at least had some wit going for it, this humor-free initiative seeks to shout, “We don’t want to have anything to do with anything Y’ALL want to do — especially not if it involves gummint, and might do some good. Because the LAST thing we want is for gummint to do any good and give any of our folks the suspicion that maybe, just maybe, it isn’t the root of all evil.” (And most of all, don’t you DARE try to do anything about fixing our single greatest domestic problem, this health care mess. We ain’t havin’ nuthin’ to do with THAT.)

Some would say that there’s something in the water, but I think it’s genetic. There’s something perverse in the DNA of white South Carolinians. I see it in myself from time to time, but I suppose some of it leached out of me during the years I spent elsewhere, because I’m able to override my more antisocial, self-destructive impulses. Most of the time.

But some of our white folks are determined not to learn a thing from the way their last attempt to cut themselves off from the rest of the country ended (badly, for those who started it — just in case you weren’t paying attention, either). They want to reassert their negation, and do it loudly.

Some of you Democrats will notice that these recent embarrassments I cite are all the works of Republicans, and seek to make some partisan point that gives you a moral advantage of some kind. But don’t. These things are being done by Republicans just because all the white folks who run this state are Republicans these days. Their daddies were Democrats, and they engaged in much the same foolishness. This is genetic, not party-based.

To those pushing this madness, I say this: If you’re bored, and just busting with energy to do something, why don’t you spend some time actually addressing some of the real-life problems that face this state? Here’s a TO-DO list I drafted for you last year as I was leaving the paper. And don’t worry, nobody’s gotten in there ahead of you and grabbed the good stuff. It’s all sitting there, unaddressed.

Here’s a sort of random clip from the very end of my interview today with Mike Coleman from WACH-FOX 57 today about the layoffs at The State.  Some rather more relevant parts should air on their news broadcast tonight.

Mostly I talked about the industry in general. I’m not really in a position to talk about what’s going on at The State now, and in any case I’d hate for anything I say to make things tough for those still there.

In fact, in this bit at the very end, I’m pointing out to Mike how all media are stretched thin, including his own. This new thing of having one-man “crews” cover the news reminds me of that spoof they did on Saturday Night Live in the early 90s, when they had Al Franken (you know, the U.S. senator, if you can get your mind around that) travelling around the globe speaking into a camera that was attached by a boom to a helmet he wore, causing him no end of neck pain.

Funny then. Not so funny now that simple, lightweight cameras and other innovations make it possible.

In my waning years at the paper, I sort of enjoyed the control that such innovations as pagination and blogging afforded me to completely control my output, personally. But the more you’re fiddling with getting a photo just right or reworking a page, the less time you spend making sure you know what you’re writing about and writing it as well as you can (not to mention editing video, which takes a ridiculous amount of time). Which is not good.

By the way, I shot this with my new camera I got for Christmas, which has awesome resolution compared to my old one that died. But you’ll note that it’s a little hard to aim from the hip or from a tabletop because it doesn’t have the tilting monitor window (which you can see me using to good effect with Obama on that header photo I use). The bits where I turned it on myself were even worse — right up the nose. They don’t make them like my old camera anymore. Sigh. I’ll adjust.

As y’all probably know, Joe Riley is quite possibly the one S.C. politician I respect and admire most. Or at the very least, he’s in the Top Five for sure.

So I congratulate Vincent Sheheen on getting a key nod, as my old friend Dave Moniz would say:

CHARLESTON MAYOR ENDORSES VINCENT SHEHEEN FOR GOVERNOR

Citing Sheheen’s ability to “move our state forward and create good jobs,” Mayor Joe Riley endorses Sheheen in Democratic primary

Charleston, SC – On Wednesday, January 13, at the William Aiken House in downtown Charleston, Mayor Joseph P. Riley will endorsed state Senator Vincent Sheheen in the Democratic primary race for governor. Mayor Riley’s endorsement is particularly significant as Charleston is the second largest city in South Carolina and a major source of votes in the highly contested Democratic primary.

“From creating good jobs, improving our public schools, protecting our natural environment, and reforming our tax code, Vincent Sheheen is the leader South Carolina needs now,” said Mayor Riley.

“In his nine terms as mayor, Joe Riley has achieved great things for his city,” said Sheheen. “I am honored to have his endorsement, and I look forward to working with Mayor Riley throughout this campaign and as governor. Mayor Riley recognizes the critical role that the Port of Charleston and the tourism industry play in the life of every South Carolinian. We share a deep concern for economic development, and when I am governor, we will work together to revitalize the economy and bring good jobs to Charleston and the entire state of South Carolina.”

Mayor Riley continued, “Vincent Sheheen is the kind of dynamic leader we need to get our state back on the right track. He understands the issues that matter in Charleston and all across South Carolina and knows how to bring people together, regardless of political party, to solve problems and move our state forward.”

“As governor, my top priorities will be to grow our state’s stagnant economy and ensure that South Carolina students have the quality public schools schools they deserve,” said Sheheen. “Working with leaders like Joe Riley, I am committed to getting this great state back on track for every citizen.”

Before his election to the state Senate in 2004, Vincent Sheheen served as a city prosecutor and a state Representative. He is now serving his second full term, representing Chesterfield, Kershaw and Lancaster counties. Sheheen has previously announced endorsements from House Minority Leader Harry Ott, education leaders across South Carolina, and elected officials and community activists throughout Richland County.

Well, thanks for taking my advice, folks. The House voted overwhelmingly to censure Sanford, which is appropriate. Pay attention, Sen. McConnell — it only took 20 minutes, according to Gina Smith, who is among the few who still have a job at The State. So there’s no excuse for the Senate not to do likewise, and right away.

Here are Gina’s Tweets from the scene:

• House votes 102 to 11 to censure Gov. Mark Sanford. Whole thing took 20 minutes. about 1 hour ago from Twitterrific
• 11 who voted against censure say gov should have been impeached. “(Censure) is a total waste of time,” said Rep. Todd Rutherford after vote. 35 minutes ago from Twitterrific
• 11 are Rutherford, Guillard, Erickson, K Kennedy, Knight, M Smith, Umphlett, Herbkershman, G Brown, Brantley, Merrill. 16 minutes ago from Twitterrific
• Not all 11 wanted impeachment. Herbkershman says he’s talked to gov man to man n doesn’t want to publicly humiliate the gov further.    14 minutes ago   from Twitterrific

Good job, House. Now move on to more relevant and important matters…

Well, The State is laying off 12 more journalists. I have three names that I’ve heard from several sources (and which you can find on blogs with lower verification standards), but the only one I can confirm yet is my friend Megan Sexton, who has announced it on her Facebook page.

I learned about it from the local FoxNews channel, because they wanted to interview me about it.

I’ve been asked what the future of newspapers might be many times in the past year, and each time, I’ve told the asker that they hadn’t touched bottom yet, so expect more of the same. And here you have it. I’d certainly rather have been wrong.

This is happening in spite of the much touted financial “recovery” of the industry, with a sharp recent increase in the stock price. You may find this to be a contradiction, and I could go on and on about how that doesn’t affect the budget targets that each newspaper must still hit, yadda-yadda, but it’s not that complicated. As newspapers jettison more and more of what once gave them value, Wall Street likes them more. Go figure.

My apparent cousin Ben Worthen had an interesting piece in the WSJ this morning about how stepped-up security measures at airports are making it harder for chefs to smuggle foreign meat products in their pants.

Really.

This inspires several comments:

• First, some of you foodies have really lost control. You are bereft of any sense of proportion or priorities. This is decadent in the extreme. It’s perverse. Get over it. Stop being such slaves to your stomachs. Smuggling goose liver? Come on, people. See if you can understand what I’m about to say: We have all the food we need right here in this country. If no one in America ever gets to eat these esoteric morsels, we’ll be just fine. Now step away from the foie gras terrine…
• Second, we should examine our meat importation regulations to see if they’re reasonable. On the surface, it seems perfectly reasonable, as a public safety measure, to require that any imported meat be processed at a U.S.-approved facility. The “unintended consequence” of preventing the importation of obscure items from little villages seems completely acceptable to me. Once again, nobody, but nobody, needs this stuff. It’s just a way for people with too much money to throw it away…
• Third, you should go have a long talk with Emile DeFelice. Put your state on your plate. Go read Animal, Vegetable, Miracle by Barbara Kingsolver et al. And let those little villages in Europe have their special little gastronomic delights (if that, indeed, is what they are). The reason these chefs are smuggling this stuff is so they can reverse-engineer these foods and produce it themselves and make a lot of money from it. They are stealing what makes those little villages special. How is that a good thing?

Much more could be said, but I’ll stop there for now…

OK, folks, now that you’re in session, go ahead and pass the Sanford censure resolution and move on to more important matters. Do NOT waste another session on this guy.

For years, everyone who knows the score has been talking about how irrelevant this guy is, and yet we keep wasting time on him — which of course means he gets his way. It both strokes his narcissism and accomplishes his goal of making sure government accomplishes nothing, which in term feeds dissatisfaction with government, which in turn helps those who embrace his nihilistic, antisocial approach to government (the “let’s just not do anything” crowd) win more elections.

Ride roughshod over any objections — from Jake Knotts, from Democrats, from Glenn McConnell (and what was that foolishness about when he said the Senate may not get to it; could it be just the usual Senate childishness about ideas that originate in the House?) from his dwindling scattering of supporters — and get this thing done. Then do the one thing that Mark Sanford least wants: Ignore him entirely, until he is replaced. We have too much that needs doing in this state to waste time following any other course. And we’ve definitely wasted far, far too much on this guy.

My former colleagues may have been wrong when they refused to call on the governor to resign (and they were), but they’re right about this.

As you know, I’ve long been a fan of the full-page obits in The Economist — one per issue — because they were beautifully written, they almost always told me interesting things I didn’t know about my world, and they inspired in me a certain wistfulness for not having known about these people, or known more about them, when they were living.

Sometimes I run across such obits in other publications as well. Today, I learned of the sudden death of Mighty Joe Rollino, struck down in his prime at 104. Yep, that’s right:

People called him the Great Joe Rollino, the Mighty Joe Rollino and even the World’s Strongest Man, and what did it matter if at least one of those people was Mr. Rollino himself.

On Monday morning, Mr. Rollino went for a walk in his Brooklyn neighborhood, a daily routine. It was part of the Great Joe Rollino’s greatest feat, a display of physical dexterity and stamina so subtle that it revealed itself only if you happened to ask him his date of birth: March 19, 1905. He was 104 years old and counting.

A few minutes before 7 a.m., as Mr. Rollino was crossing Bay Ridge Parkway at 13th Avenue, a 1999 Ford Windstar minivan struck him. The police said he suffered fractures to his pelvis, chest, ribs and face, as well as head trauma. Unconscious, he was taken to Lutheran Medical Center, where he later died…

Wow. The rest of the piece is worth reading as well — for what you learn about Mighty Joe’s life, that is, not his death. Not quite as elegantly written as those in The Economist, perhaps, but fascinating nonetheless.

Noting the reports that Gresham Barrett has outstripped the others running for governor (more than $2 million and counting), I found myself wondering, what are those donors hoping to achieve with their gifts?

I mean that in the purest sense: Obviously, these folks want to see Rep. Barrett elected, and I’m wondering why? And I ask that because I have yet to understand his reasons for running. In the one interview I’ve had with him on the subject, back during my last week at the newspaper, I was struck by the degree to which he had little to say beyond, essentially, I’m a conservative Republican, so elect me. Nothing in particular about anything he’s like to achieve if he wins the post. And I haven’t seen anything more substantial than that from him since, but I’ve been distracted, so maybe I missed something.

Now I realize that in certain circles “I’m a conservative Republican” is just chock full o’ meaning, a heckuva compelling argument, but it doesn’t mean enough to me to motivate me to vote for or against a candidate. I want something more precise to hang my hat on. And while I can almost understand people voting for a guy based on nothing more than that airy impression, it baffles me that anyone would actually lay down hard cash in support of anything so vague.

This makes me think these donors know something that I don’t. So I’m wondering what that is. If you gave money to Gresham Barrett’s campaign, please help me understand, so I can decide whether I think you made a good investment or not.

Apparently, it’s been out for a good while — dating to 2008, I believe — but I only recently noticed the charming little bit of anti-smoking propaganda at the start of some DVDs I’ve watched. (I’m not sure whom to credit, but this group seems to have had something to do with it. Looking up the “California Department of Health Services, seen on the screen above, got me nowhere.)

What a pleasant, gentle, but devastatingly effective, way to get across a message. The bit at the end with the child reaching for the bubbles is particularly powerful, because of the way it indirectly invokes the fact that so very many children are trapped with noxious fumes — which is truly unforgivable, but this gets the point across without rancor.

Which is remarkable for such a simple idea. But sometimes those are the best.