The Midlands Aviation Summit today

16 Replies

Went to the Midlands Aviation Summit today at the convention center, which was the community’s chance to hear airport consultant Michael Boyd of Boyd Group International (above) assessing the state of, and future prospects for, Columbia Metropolitan Airport.

As you can see below, there was a pretty decent turnout of concerned folks. They ran the gamut from professional ecodevo types from the Chamber, the Midlands Alliance and Midlands Authority for Conventions, Sports & Tourism to business travelers with a beef about the cost of parking at CAE.

Some main points from what he said:

  • “That scraping sound is not an iceberg.” The fact that Southwest chose Charleston and Greenville and not Columbia is not a huge deal. Southwest is what it is, and he doesn’t see it as the cure for Columbia’s ills. It’s not “the giant sucking sound.”
  • While we might have challenges with fares and losing passengers to Charlotte, for business purposes CAE provides what Columbia needs — connections to where business travelers need to be.
  • Main thing travel into and out of Columbia needs to be is reliable, to not have our flights be among those that get canceled when there’s a rainstorm.
  • Airlines don’t care about our civic enthusiasm. They don’t want to view cute or pleading videos. Don’t send them the mayor. What they care about is whether they’re going to make any money, because nobody’s taking risks these days.
  • No, don’t start your own airline. Air South? “We don’t talk about that in polite society.”
  • What can civic-minded folks who want to see the airport grow as a boost to the local economy DO? Check out the local airport first. Don’t assume it can’t meet your needs. Give it a chance.
  • We just don’t have enough traffic — enough passengers on big enough airplanes — to bring down fares. When someone pointed out that smaller airports such as Florence and Augusta have lower fares, he said he had no idea why. “I used to be in airline pricing, so I have no understanding of it whatsoever.”
  • The cost of parking is not a problem.

On that last one I had to challenge him. When he said “Nobody cares about the cost of parking,” several people around me muttered, “I care.” I told him that, and also told him that I hear all the time from people who have run the numbers, and come out ahead paying for the gas to drive to Charlotte and park there. I added that even if it didn’t make sense, even if it were totally irrational, it would still be a real problem we had to deal with. Airport Executive Director Dan Mann told me afterward that he gets it. Perception is reality.

(It occurs to me that next time local governments want to invest money in boosting air travel, rather than starting an airline, maybe they could help the airport lower those parking costs. I realize it’s based on the need to pay for the capital investment, but maybe there’s some way to restructure the debt. Or something.)

On the lower pricing in Augusta and Florence… I was glad someone brought that up, and somewhat disappointed he couldn’t tell us why that was the case. But it occurs to me that there must be some reason, his joke about the illogical nature of pricing aside. And if we could find out that reason, and apply it here, it would help.

Based on what Mr. Boyd said and a brief conversation with Dan Mann after the presentation, the thinking seems to be that Columbia’s best chance for expansion of air service lies with Delta, not USAirways. So our local economic developers in the air transportation field are likely to be looking more to Atlanta, less to Charlotte.

Cameras in Supreme Court? That worries me

7 Replies

When I was a reporter, I used to wear an old Navy leather flight jacket of my Dad’s that was a little roomy on me (I’m a 40, it’s a 42), which was convenient. It had a map pocket on the inside, where I kept my notebook. And I slung my old Nikkormat SLR on my shoulder under the jacket. I could quickly swing it forward and use it, without removing the jacket.

This arrangement allowed me to hold back from displaying the notebook or the camera until needed.

As a journalist, I’ve always been of the fly-on-the-wall school. I didn’t like to interact with the subject until it was unavoidable. I wanted to see what was really going on first. If I could keep the people in the room from noticing that a reporter was present — or at least from being entirely sure about it — all the better. It minimized the Observer Effect, wherein observer and observed interact through the process of observation.

I wanted them to be honest. I didn’t want them holding back or grandstanding for me.

I didn’t misrepresent myself. At some point, I would need to step forward and ask someone a question, and of course I identified myself. But the longer I could observe the meeting, or event, or whatever, in its unspoiled state, the better. Or so I believed, and still do. So I avoided taking the notebook out until the last possible moment.

Of course, most of the time the main participants — the newsmakers, the people I’d be quoting — knew who I was. But even in a situation in which you know the subject knows who you are and what you’re there for, the moment when you take out the notebook changes everything. Most journalists can tell you of the tension of chatting with a source who’s being very natural and open and giving you stuff that’s truly golden, and you want to pull out the notebook so you can get it down — but you don’t want to break the spell.

And cameras have their own unique effect. Especially TV cameras. A lot of “news” is staged completely for television cameras rather than occurring spontaneously. Wherever there’s a video camera, frankness and candid expression are diminished, and an element of the pervasive falsity that characterizes “reality” TV creeps in.

So the journalist with a camera (or a notebook) is faced with a Catch-22 sort of situation. We want the things we cover to be open and transparent — to be fully available to us so we can inform our readers. And yet by pulling out the notebook or camera, by displaying the implements of coverage so that we can get it down accurately, we alter the thing. And TV adds another dimension. When a TV camera is trained upon a subject, he begins to act, to some degree. (The difference between being on TV and being on radio is very marked, at least for me when I’m the subject. Radio is pure expression. Put me on radio and I can just flow, and am not distracted by looking at the person I’m talking to, or anything else. But on TV you’re conscious of being watched, and everything changes.)

In our desire to break down barriers between the people at their government, we’ve opened most proceedings to the public — which means opening them to us, and our notebooks and cameras, and eventually TV cameras. And mostly, that’s all to the good — although it really creeps me out when I watch a video of a member of Congress delivering an impassioned speech… to an empty chamber. Talk about phony. Of course, in Congress there’s not much honest debate anymore. Just vote counting. The Democrats have this many, and the Republicans have that many? Then the bill will pass. Who needs speeches? Who needs listening to each other? It’s tragic.

But courtrooms… courtrooms are the final frontier, and they should be. When I covered trials back in the day, I knew I couldn’t bring the camera out until I left the courtroom. Once, I thought I had a good deal with the judge, who had told me (when I was covering a particularly sensational murder case) that I could take pictures of the main participants during recesses. But I nearly got thrown into jail for contempt when I whipped out the camera immediately after the guilty verdict to get the reaction of the accused. Hey, the gavel had come down, so we were adjourned, right? Didn’t matter; the judge didn’t approve, and jumped down my throat.

But I respected that. While I was trying to do my job, the judge was doing his, trying to maintain decorum (not to mention a little respect for human dignity, something reporters sometimes forget when they’re in the throes of getting a story). And Lord knows, if we can’t have some of that in our courts of law, then we really have gone to the dogs.

What ill could come from cameras in the courtroom? Look no further than the O.J. Simpson trial, in which everyone from the high-priced defense lawyers to the judge himself were playing to the cameras, and the result was a travesty, a theater of sensationalism rather than a place for rational discernment.

So it is that I read with some reservation that Elena Kagan thinks cameras in our most hallowed court would be “a terrific thing:”

The Elena Kagan confirmation hearings continue today with hard questions from lawmakers, about her decision as dean of Harvard Law School to briefly bar military recruiters from the school’s career services office because of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and about her White House years.

But The Federal Eye’s ears (!!) perked up when Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) asked about allowing television cameras into the high court:

“I recognize that some members of the court have a different view, and certainly when and if I get to the court I will talk with them about that questions, but I have said that I think it would be a terrific thing to have cameras in the courtroom,” Kagan said at C-SPAN cameras rolled (see above). “And the reason I think, is when you see what happens there, it’s an inspiring sight. … I basically attend every Supreme Court argument. … It’s an incredible sight, because all nine justices, they’re so prepared, they’re so smart, they’re so thorough, they’re so engaged, the questioning is rapid fire. You’re really seeing an institution of government at work really in an admirable way.”

“The issues are important ones … I mean, some of them will put you to sleep,” she said later to laughs. “But a lot of them, the American people should be concerned about and interested in.”

If she gets confirmed, Kagan is certainly in the minority on this issue. But still, hear, hear.

Yes, it’s an inspiring sight — if it isn’t changed by the cameras.

I’m a journalist. I’m about openness. I’m about there being no barriers between the people and the functions of their government. But the different branches have different roles, and are accountable to the people in different ways. And when we talk about something that could interfere with the effective functioning by causing Supreme Court justices to act like … well, like members of the political branches … it gives me pause.

Next thing you know, they’ll be rapping their opening statements.

Hey, how about them ‘Cocks?

7 Replies

I don’t often get the chance to say that. At least, if I said it, I normally wouldn’t mean it — in the sense of suggesting some sort of interest on my part.

That’s because one hears it too seldom in connection with baseball.

But now, with the Gamecocks poised on the verge of winning the College World Series — well, that causes me to sit up and pay attention, and care for a change. Why last night, I even got indignant — the way real fans do — when the ESPN announcer said something extremely dismissive about Blake Cooper, to the effect that of course, the pros won’t be interested in him…

The very idea of talking about a kid that way on the biggest night of his life.

Anyway, I’ll be cheering for them tonight. You?

Graham’s opening statement on Kagan

32 Replies

I enjoyed listening to Lindsey Graham’s opening remarks at the Elena Kagan nomination hearings.

Folks, this is how an honest, good-faith member of the opposition — charter member of the Gang of 14 — approaches something of this importance.

And if you don’t feel like watching the video, here’s a transcript:

Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings on Elena Kagan
Opening Statement from U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina)
June 28, 2010
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Congratulations. I think it will be a good couple of days. I hope you somewhat enjoy it, and I think you will.
Like everyone else, I would like to acknowledge the passing of Senator Byrd. He was a worthy ally and a very good opponent when it came to the Senate. My association with Senator Byrd — during the Gang of 14, I learned a lot about the Constitution from him.
And as all of our colleagues remember, just a few years ago, we had a real — real conflict in the Senate about filibustering judicial nominees. And it was Senator Byrd and a few other senators who came up with the “extraordinary circumstances” test that would say that filibusters should only be used in extraordinary circumstances because elections have consequences. And Senator Byrd was one of the chief authors of the language defining what an “extraordinary circumstance” was.
I just want to acknowledge his passing is going to be loss to the Senate. And the thing that we all need to remember about Senator Byrd is that all of us are choosing to judge him by his complete career. And history will judge him by his complete career, not one moment in time, and that’s probably a good example for all of us to follow when it comes to each other and to nominees.
Now, you are the best example I can think of why hearings should be probative and meaningful. You come with no judicial record, but you’re not the first person to come before the committee without having been a judge. But it does, I think, require us and you to provide us a little insight as to what kind of judge you would be. You have very little private practice, one year as solicitor general, and a lot of my colleagues on this side have talked about some of the positions you’ve taken that I think are a bit disturbing.
But I’d like to acknowledge some of the things you have done as Solicitor General that I thought were very good. You opposed applying habeas rights to Bagram detainees. You supported the idea that a terror suspect could be charged with material support of terrorism under the statute and that was consistent with the law of wars history.
So there are things you have done as solicitor general that I think will merit praise and I will certainly, from my point of view, give you a chance to discuss those.
As dean of Harvard Law School, did you two things. You hired some conservatives, which is a good thing, and you opposed military recruitment, which I thought was inappropriate, but we will have a discussion about what all that really does mean. It’s a good example of what you bring to this hearing — a little of this and a little of that.
Now what do we know? We know you are very smart. You have a strong academic background. You got bipartisan support. The letter from Miguel Estrada is a humbling letter and I’m sure it will be mentioned throughout the hearings, but it says a lot about him. It says a lot about you that he would write that letter.
Ken Starr and Ted Olson have suggested to the committee that you are a qualified nominee. There’s no to doubt in my mind that you are a liberal person. That applies to most of the people on the other side, and I respect them and I respect you. I’m a conservative person. And you would expect a conservative president to nominate a conservative person who did not work in the Clinton Administration.
So the fact that you’ve embraced liberal causes and you have grown up in a liberal household is something we need to talk about, but that’s just America. It’s OK to be liberal. It’s OK to be conservative. But when it comes time to be a judge, you’ve got to make sure you understand the limits that that position places on any agenda, liberal or conservative.
Your judicial hero is an interesting guy. You’re going to have a lot of explaining to do to me about why you picked Judge Barak as your hero because when I read his writings, it’s a bit disturbing about his view of what a judge is supposed to do for society as a whole, but I’m sure you’ll have good answers and I look forward to that discussion.
On the war on terror, you could, in my view, if confirmed, provide the court with some real-world experience about what this country’s facing; about how the law needs to be drafted and crafted in such a way as to recognize the difference between fighting crime and fighting war. So you, in my view, have a potential teaching opportunity, even though you have never been a judge, because you have represented this country as Solicitor General at a time of war.
The one thing I can say without (sic) certainty is I don’t expect your nomination to change the balance of power. After this hearing’s over, I hope American — the American people will understand that elections do matter. What did I expect from President Obama? Just about what I’m getting. And there are a lot of people who are surprised. Well, you shouldn’t have been, if you were listening.
So I look forward to trying to better understand how you will be able to take political activism, association with liberal causes, and park it when it becomes time to be a judge. That, to me, is your challenge. I think most people would consider you qualified because you’ve done a lot in your life worthy of praise.
But it will be incumbent upon you to convince me and others, particularly your fellow citizens, that whatever activities you’ve engaged in politically and whatever advice you’ve given to President Clinton or Justice Marshall, that you understand that you will be your own person, that you will be standing in different shoes, where it will be your decision to make, not trying to channel what they thought. And if at the end of the day, you think more like Justice Marshall than Justice Rehnquist, so be it.
The question is: Can you make sure that you’re not channeling your political agenda, your political leanings when it comes time to render decisions?
At the end of the day, I think the qualification test will be met. Whether or not activism can be parked is up to you. And I look at this confirmation process as a way to recognize that elections have consequences and the Senate has an independent obligation on behalf of the people of this country to put you under scrutiny, firm and fair, respectful and sometimes contentious.
Good luck. Be as candid as possible. And it’s OK to disagree with us up here. Thank you.

Toll road operator goes bankrupt

9 Replies

This should give us pause. I’ve often thought we ought to experiment more with toll roads in South Carolina to help us back for our huge backlog of maintenance needs.

Then again, maybe not.

This just in from the Columbia Regional Business Report:

Developer of Upstate toll road files for bankruptcy protection

The nonprofit organization created to develop the Southern Connector toll road in Greenville County has filed for bankruptcy protection, seeking to reorganize some $300 million in debt tied to the road’s development .
Piedmont-based Connector 2000 Association Inc. said in its bankruptcy filing today that it is insolvent and unable to reach a debt restructuring agreement with its creditors. According to bankruptcy records, the association owes $278 million to U.S. Bank National Association and $90.9 million to HSBC Bank USA.
The nonprofit organization was created in 1996 to help the S.C. Department of Transportation finance and construct the Southern Connector in Greenville County. More than $200 million in bonds were sold in 1998 to build the 16-mile toll road, which extends from the intersection of Interstates 185 and 385 to the intersection of US 276 and I-385.
The association said traffic has been significantly lower than original projections and that it has failed to pay some of the interest and principal due on the bonds.
The S.C. Department of Transportation will file a response with the bankruptcy court by the end of the summer and will not comment on the case until that time, said spokesman Pete Poore.

That huge, gigantic, enormous Confederate Flag rally Saturday

20 Replies

Just now I was cleaning up the storage card on my Blackberry (a.k.a., my Double-Naught Spy Camera), and I ran across this shot I took at the intersection of Main and Gervais at 1:17 p.m. Saturday.

This was the huge rally to support the Confederate flag on the North lawn of the State House.

What rally, you ask? Well, it’s right there in front of you. Look about 50 feet past the monument — see that knot of flags back there? All clumped up together? What you can’t see too well in this low-res photo is that they are all massed together in front of a camera, with the State House steps behind them, trying to make it look on camera as though the lawn is just PACKED with Confederate flag supporters. At least, that’s what it looked like was happening from where I was. Maybe there was something else on that tripod, I don’t know.

Best part of this picture? I think, based on his comments here, that that’s our own Michael Rodgers counterdemonstrating in the foreground (in the red shirt), being confronted by what I think is a counter-counter-demonstrator, but I didn’t stick around to find out, because the light turned green.

In my day, I’ve seen some flag rallies. I’ve seen some pretty big pro-flag gatherings, that fairly filled the space before the steps, with re-enactors and all sorts of pomp — groups numbering three or four thousand. And of course, I’ve seen the historic King Day at  the Dome in 2000, when 60,000 gathered to say take it down.

And therefore, I can say without fear of contradiction, this was pathetic.

Wilson, The Onion stand up for 2nd Amendment

3 Replies

I enjoyed this little bit of serendipity today, but then we ex-newspapermen have a twisted sense of humor. We call it a defense mechanism, but calling it that is also a defense mechanism. Anyway, on with the post…

A few minutes ago I got a release from Joe Wilson saying:

Wilson:  No More Inconsistencies with 2nd Amendment Rights

(Washington, DC) –  The Supreme Court rightfully extended the reach of the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms to all 50 states by a vote of 5-4. The case, McDonald v. City of Chicago, is the second ruling on gun rights in three years, and substantially expounds on the 2008 Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller that nullified the handgun ban in our nation’s capital.

Congressman Joe Wilson (SC-02) applauded the decision, saying, “This ruling from the highest court in the land is a momentous change in the fight to restore gun rights in America.  For too long, our Constitutional right to bear arms has been inconsistently applied across the United States, and I am confident this ruling will change that.”

Coincidentally, this ruling comes on the same day as Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearings, raising the profile for debate on the Supreme Court nominee.

###

A little earlier this morning, I had received this headline from The Onion: “8-Year-Old Accidentally Exercises Second Amendment Rights.” After that, you don’t really need (or want) an excerpt elaborating, but here’s one anyway:

NORFOLK, VA—Gun owners nationwide are applauding the patriotic, though accidental, exercise of Second Amendment rights by 8-year-old Timothy Cummings Tuesday.
“Timothy is a symbol of American heroism,” said NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre from Cummings’ bedside at Norfolk General Hospital, where the boy is in serious but stable condition from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. “While praying for his recovery, we should all thank God that his inalienable right to keep and bear arms has not been infringed.”
The incident occurred shortly after Cummings returned from school and found that his parents were absent from the house. Displaying what Second Amendment-rights groups are calling “good old-fashioned American ingenuity,” Cummings placed a pair of phone books on a stool to retrieve his father’s loaded .38-caliber revolver from its hiding place on a closet shelf. After a preliminary backyard investigation of his constitutional rights claimed the life of Pepper, the family’s cocker spaniel, Cummings fell on the weapon, causing it to discharge into his left thigh.
“The framers of the Constitution would be so proud of what my boy did yesterday,” said Cummings’ father Randall, 44, who originally purchased the handgun for home defense. “If 8-year-old boys discharging loaded firearms into their own legs isn’t necessary to the maintenance of a well-regulated militia, I don’t know what is.”…

Yeah, I know. As humor goes, that’s pretty brutal. But so is the reality that it lampoons. Of course, all too often in reality, a human being is killed when kids play with guns. But even The Onion flinched at that.

Anton Gunn on why B&C Board didn’t need the money

21 Replies

What do Doug Ross and Anton Gunn have in common? They were both thrilled to see the headline in The State this morning, “Budget Board finds millions to offset cuts” — Doug because he’d predicted all along the money would materialize, and Anton because he had predicted it in detail.

(And what do Anton, Mark Sanford and I all have in common? None of us believe the Budget and Control Board should exist. More on that later…)

Anton and I met Wednesday morning and he went over the spreadsheet below with me, which seems to show the agency had like $60 million lying around that it could plug the $25 million hole in operating funds vetoed by Gov. Sanford. I’ve been looking ever since for a couple of hours to write what he told me, and to try to confirm that the numbers meant what he thought they meant, but haven’t been able to. Every day has been like today … today, I just got out of the Converge SE conference, where I had been since 9:30 this morning. (The conference, by the way, was awesome.)

And as I was typing that paragraph above, my wife called me (I’m at the ADCO office) to say one of the twins split her lip and had to go to the hospital today, so I’m about to run over there right away. So I can’t go into Anton’s explanation.

But here’s his spreadsheet anyway. Some of it will at least seem self-explanatory. There’s an interesting narrative to go with it (if I were still at The State, it would have been my Sunday column), but it will probably be Monday before I can write that. (It’s all about his frustrations with the Board, combined with his frustrations with ever getting useful information about the budget before having to vote on it). And at least Monday before I can get any kind of response regarding what just happened from the B&C Board. (As well as their version of what these numbers mean.)

But here’s the raw material. I’ll be back to this early in the week. Gotta go check on my babies now…

About all that MBTI stuff…

25 Replies

The last couple of days some of us have been prattling about Myers-Briggs personality types — guessing which kinds the gubernatorial candidates are, talking about the differences amongst ourselves that make it hard for us to agree with each other, and so forth.

Kathryn suggests I post this link explaining the types, so I have. And it’s a good starting point if you find this model for thinking about cognitive differences at all helpful. I don’t know what y’all’s types are, but here’s what it says about my type, Introverted iNtuitive Thinking Perceiver:

INTP
Seek to develop logical explanations for everything that interests them. Theoretical and abstract, interested more in ideas than in social interaction. Quiet, contained, flexible, and adaptable. Have unusual ability to focus in depth to solve problems in their area of interest. Skeptical, sometimes critical, always analytical.

That’s pretty sketchy. You can find much more in-depth analyses of all 16 types elsewhere on the Web, such as on this page about INTPs, which helps to explain why I can be such a pain in the … neck:

INTPs live in the world of theoretical possibilities. They see everything in terms of how it could be improved, or what it could be turned into. They live primarily inside their own minds, having the ability to analyze difficult problems, identify patterns, and come up with logical explanations. They seek clarity in everything, and are therefore driven to build knowledge. They are the “absent-minded professors”, who highly value intelligence and the ability to apply logic to theories to find solutions. They typically are so strongly driven to turn problems into logical explanations, that they live much of their lives within their own heads, and may not place as much importance or value on the external world. Their natural drive to turn theories into concrete understanding may turn into a feeling of personal responsibility to solve theoretical problems, and help society move towards a higher understanding.

INTPs value knowledge above all else. Their minds are constantly working to generate new theories, or to prove or disprove existing theories. They approach problems and theories with enthusiasm and skepticism, ignoring existing rules and opinions and defining their own approach to the resolution. They seek patterns and logical explanations for anything that interests them….

The INTP has no understanding or value for decisions made on the basis of personal subjectivity or feelings. They strive constantly to achieve logical conclusions to problems, and don’t understand the importance or relevance of applying subjective emotional considerations to decisions. For this reason, INTPs are usually not in-tune with how people are feeling, and are not naturally well-equiped to meet the emotional needs of others….

They are likely to express themselves in what they believe to be absolute truths. Sometimes, their well thought-out understanding of an idea is not easily understandable by others, but the INTP is not naturally likely to tailor the truth so as to explain it in an understandable way to others. The INTP may be prone to abandoning a project once they have figured it out, moving on to the next thing….

I’m especially bad about that last thing. If I’ve worked hard to figure something out, once I arrive at a conclusion, I’m ready to announce it and move on. And the more people say, “Hey, wait, I need you to explain this some more; I want more evidence to show me how you arrived at that conclusion,” I get extremely impatient. You may have noticed this happening in some of my exchanges with Doug, because he’s very much about the evidence and the facts and the figures (where I am an N, he is almost certainly an S), while by the time I express an opinion, I am SICK of all that stuff — some of which I may have studied years before.

You’ll note that INTPs also “become very excited over abstractions and theories.” Such as, for instance, Myers-Briggs. I first learned about it in the early 90s when all the editors at The State were tested, and then we shared everyone’s results and discussed them at a retreat. I found it explained a LOT about why I found some of those folks easy to work with, and some not. I was the only INTP supervisor in the newsroom at that time.

For folks of other types, this is probably beyond boring. But at Kathryn’s behest, I share it nonetheless. Hopefully, one of my next few posts will be more to your liking.

‘The new iPhone’s here! The new iPhone’s here!’

4 Replies

In the 20th century, it was Navin Johnson and the new phonebook. (Phonebook! How utterly primitive!)

Today, it’s whatever the latest gadget Steve Jobs happens to be pushing.

If you check out the blog I help ADCO maintain (and yes, there will be more posts once the new Web site is launched), you’ll see a picture of my colleague Lora Prill using her old iPhone to take a picture of her new iPhone. Really. You can’t make this up.

And she is far from alone.

Personally, I think the grapes are sour, because my whole family is on Verizon, so unless I want every personal phone call counting against my minutes or whatever, I’m stuck with my Blackberry.

iPhones are cool, I’ll admit. But get a grip, people…

If I were Muslim, this would make me a militant

17 Replies

Terrorists, would-be terrorists and terrorist sympathizers come up with all sorts of reasons to declare us the Great Satan: U.S. troops being in Muslim countries (the fave of Osama bin Laden and incompetent bomber Faisal Shahzad), support for Israel, the immodesty of our women, rock-‘n’-roll, beer, what have you.

Of them all, the only excuses that strike any sort of resonance in me are the cultural ones. I do sympathize with people of a religion that values sobriety and modesty feeling beleaguered by the global assault of the tackier, baser elements of American popular culture. If you’re trying to keep the young men’s minds on the words of the Prophet, Lady Gaga cannot be seen as helping one bit. It doesn’t justify violence, but it could certainly be maddening.

But now, Western influence has gone too far. Check this out:

KUALA LUMPUR—The U.S. has “American Idol.” Britain has “The X Factor.” Malaysia, one of the world’s more progressive Muslim nations, has something rather different—a televised search for the country’s most eligible young religious leader.
“Young Imam” might look familiar at first glance. Ten good-looking male contestants in sharp-looking suits are assigned to sing and complete a series of complex tasks. At the end of the show, the studio lights dim, the music drops to a whisper, and a clutch of young hopefuls step forward nervously, waiting hand-in-hand to find out who will be sent home that night.
Instead of a record contract or a million-dollar prize, though, the last imam standing wins a scholarship to the al-Madinah University in Saudi Arabia, a job leading prayers at a Kuala Lumpur mosque and an expense-paid trip to Mecca to perform the Haj pilgrimage.
The sole judge who decides who stays and who goes each Friday in prime-time isn’t an aging pop star or talk-show host. He’s the turban-wearing former grand mufti of Malaysia’s national mosque, Hasan Mahmood. Last week Mr. Hasan stifled a sob as he eliminated 25-year-old Sharafuddin Suaut from the show for stumbling over some of the finer points of Islamic theory…
Sorry, folks, but desecrating Islam with the great cultural evil of our time, “reality TV,” is an outrage too far. If I were a conservative Muslim seeing this on the tube, I would have just become radicalized.

Today begins the great Convergence!

7 Replies

Folks getting ready for ConvergeSE at ADCO last night. You'll note that I am, indeed, the only one around here who dresses like a Mad Man./Brad Warthen

No, I am not the Keymaster, and I am not awaiting the Gatekeeper. This convergence is a little less cosmic, but only a little.

I mentioned yesterday that I’m working at ADCO. Well, today things are fairly quiet here because the ADCO Interactive folks are over at ETV hosting a series of extremely advanced workshops in Web development and convergence and other mysterious new media stuff. These confabs are being conducted by some of the leading kahunas on the forefront of new media.

I’d be over there, except Gene Crawford (the jefe of ADCO Interactive) told me it would all be over my head. I am, however, allowed to attend the speeches that will be given tomorrow over at the Swearingen Center. Supposedly, they’ll talk down enough to me for me, a mere blogger, to follow.

If you want to know more about this event, check out the Web site. Or if that’s too inconvenient, here’s an excerpt from the press release:

ConvergeSE 2010 is intended for Web designers and developers, business executives, marketing professionals, content creators and students. Whether you’re a seasoned expert or a newcomer to the Web, you’re sure to discover something that will spark your creativity and get you motivated.

The conference, a southeastwide expansion of last year’s successful ConvergeSC, will feature such speakers as Neil Patel of Crazy Egg and Kissmetrics, Kevin Hale of Wufoo, Robert Tolar Haining of Condé Nast Digital, Aarron Walter of MailChimp and Brandon Eley of brandoneley.com.

The conference “will take you from front-end design to the development technologies used to build websites and web apps, then also help you learn strategies to sell your services or application as well as build community around it,” says organizer Gene Crawford of unmatchedstyle.com and period-three.com. “It’s that well rounded, multi-disciplinary approach to Converge that makes it a little unique I think. We give each speaker 30 minutes to get their point across and then it’s off to another topic, fast and furious.”

Who should attend ConvergeSE 2010? “Anyone who works with the web or on the web,” said Crawford. Which today means pretty much anybody.

When and Where is it?
Friday, June 25, 8 am-5 pm, Workshop Day
ETV
1041 George Rogers Boulevard

Saturday, June 25, 8 am-5pm, Conference Day
University of south Carolina
Amoco Hall
Swearingen Engineering Center
301 Main Street

Virtual Front Page, Thursday, June 24, 2010

15 Replies

A bit late, but here are our top stories:

  1. Obama, Medvedev Say They’ve ‘Reset’ Relations (NPR) — Apparently, going by the picture, they decided this over cheeseburgers.
  2. Jobless Bill Dies Amid Deficit Fears (WSJ) — True, I have a job now, but plenty of people out there still don’t, so this is important. You know something I noticed while I was unemployed? These sorts of developments didn’t get as much coverage as they deserved.
  3. Financial overhaul negotiations focus on bank trading, derivatives (WashPost) — This, too, is important — but less interesting to me, I gotta tell ya.
  4. US can ‘no longer drive global growth’ (BBC) — Geithner delivers some home truths to the Brits. I guess he means somebody besides us needs to start buying some junk.
  5. Will GOP moderates defect to Sheheen? (thestate) — I thought this piece was fairly interesting. It makes perfect sense that business leaders would prefer Sheheen. But will this pattern hold?
  6. Is 3-D TV For Real? (WSJ) — Neither Roger Ebert nor I will run out and buy one, but maybe you will.

How can the “Queen City” be manlier than us?

3 Replies

Yeah, I know that some of you pantywaist grammar-merchants out there will say that should be “manlier than we,” but it just doesn’t sound manly enough that way.

Anyway, you’ve probably heard the shocking news by now:

CHARLOTTE, NC (WIS) – Columbia is one of America’s manliest cities, according to the maker of Combos snacks, but our neighbors to the north are apparently even brawnier — “The Queen City” may be Charlotte’s nickname, but the city now wears a new crown as America’s Manliest City.

Charlotte took the top spot in the 2010 rankings released by Mars, Inc., improving one spot from the 2009 second place finish. Columbia came in at number 13, no change from last year’s rating.

The ranking process uses criteria like the number of home improvement stores, steak houses, pickup trucks and motorcycles per capita. There was also a new category this year which tracked “manly” occupations like firefighters, police officers, construction workers and EMT personnel.

Last year’s rankings were based on criteria such as number of professional sports teams, popularity of power tools, and frequency of monster truck rallies.

There’s just no justice in the world. Just makes you want to punch somebody’s lights out, doesn’t it? And if it doesn’t, well… maybe you’re part of the problem here.

Let’s work on this, people. All together now, “I’m a lumberjack and I’m OK…“

Yes, I DO have a job, thank you very much

10 Replies

Where does Superman go when he’s not saving Lois and Jimmy? Well, sometimes he’s hammering out a story for Perry White in order to uphold his cover. Sure, he can write at super-speed, but not when others in the newsroom are watching. And sometimes they must see him being Clark Kent to believe in that identity.

So it is with me. I can’t blog ALL the time, and sometimes I’m actually working for a living.

“What? You? Work!?!?” you say, your voice rising in pitch on that last word, as did Maynard G. Krebs’.

Yes, indeed, and you shouldn’t be so shocked. I have been known to do work frequently. I even used to do it when I was with the newspaper, even though I was “in the newspaper business, where it is such an important part of the ethics that you should never seem to be working,” as Jake Barnes so rightly noted.

What am I doing now? Well, I’m in the ad game. I’ve joined ADCO, a full-service advertising and marketing firm here in Columbia. I’ve been ADCO’s director of communications/public relations for quite some time now. I joined in mid-February.

So why haven’t I mentioned it before? Well, it’s not like I’ve made a secret of it. I’ve announced it in some public forums, such as when I’m speaking to civic groups (they gave me a big hand at Rotary when I told them, probably because they were thinking, “Never thought he’d get a job.”). But mostly I haven’t done it because ADCO is undergoing a lot of very exciting changes (see how I’m learning the flack lingo?), and I sort of wanted to wait until all the pieces were in place. There are three big things happening with ADCO as I type this:

  1. This year is our 20th anniversary, since Lanier Jones and Brian Murrell started the company in 1990.
  2. Over the last couple of months we’ve been putting together a new (very exciting!) venture with Periodthree, a Web design and development firm. Gene Crawford and his gang have physically moved into the building with us here at 1220 Pickens, and will henceforth be known as ADCO Interactive. This greatly expands what ADCO can do on the Web.
  3. The addition of Yours Truly. This, of course, is a big thrill for everyone, especially the aforementioned Mr. Truly. What will I be doing? Oh, this and that. Business development, for one. Writing stuff (such as some of the copy for the new Web site). Marketing consulting (which is remarkably like what I did at the newspaper — you’d be surprised; it’s all about shaping message). But the very coolest thing, as far as y’all are concerned, is that Lanier and Brian and Lora and the gang very much encourage me to continue doing the blog. Not many jobs I looked at over the past year would have encouraged that. In fact, most potential employers shuddered at the thought, which makes ADCO rather special.

The Period Three — that is to say, ADCO Interactive — team has been working on a new Web site that will incorporate all of these changes. For instance, if you go look at the old site, you won’t find me or any of the new Interactive folks. The new one goes live in a couple of weeks. So I haven’t wanted to refer you to it until all that was ready.

Also, if I told y’all I had a job, I’d have to go rewrite my lede on my “About” page, and I haven’t thought of anything I like as much as “Brad Warthen is an unemployed newspaperman, until he finds something else to be.” It’s way existential. I think it ranks up there with “We were somewhere around Barstow on the edge of the desert when the drugs began to take hold.” Or “It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.” Or “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times…” You get the idea.

Call me Ishmael.

But what the hey; I’ll worry about that later. I thought I’d go ahead and scoop the new ADCO Web site, if only by a bit.

By the way, to address what I’m sure you’re wondering about, this is just like “Mad Men.” Except that as I type this in my office, I’m drinking a Samuel Adams Summer Ale rather than a martini (I am not making this up — Gene and the gang are celebrating the fact that ConvergeSE happens tomorrow, and I “just happened” to step out of my office just as they were opening a few bottles in the corridor). And I’m the only one who dresses like it’s 1962. In fact, one of the Web gurus here for ConvergeSE just said “nice tie” to me in the hall — and it’s really not one of my nicer ties (hey, I know when these hepcats are being ironic; I’m way perceptive). And if you ask one of the young women in the office to fetch coffee, she just doesn’t hop to it the way they do for Don Draper. I figure I’m not saying it with the right tone or something.

But other than all that, it’s just like “Mad Men.” And I’m really getting into it.

The Return of Father Guido Sarducci

Leave a reply
The Colbert Report Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Prophet Glenn Beck – Father Guido Sarducci
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Fox News

Sometimes I say disparaging things about 24/7 cable TV “news.” Perhaps it’s my age. I came up in the time of the giants — Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, Roger Mudd, and the single greatest social commentator ever to appear on the Tube — Father Guido Sarducci, the gossip columnist and rock critic from l’Osservatore Romano.

In a time when social mores seemed to be falling apart, this voice from the Vatican helped the nation and the world hold onto their moral core.

And now, when he’s most needed, he’s back, on “The Colbert Report.” He hasn’t made monsignor yet, but he’s a prince of the church in our hearts. Enjoy.

Virtual Front Page, Wednesday, June 23, 2010

1 Reply

Here’s what we have at the end of this Wednesday:

  1. General Sacked; Petraeus Takes Command (WashPost) — Anyone who’s read Generation Kill — an excellent book, by the way, and a pretty good miniseries — knows that if you’re a military officer and care about your career, you don’t express your standard-issue military man’s contempt for the politicians above you show in front of the Rolling Stone guy. Gen. McChrystal did, and now the Pro from Dover’s going to run the war in Afghanistan — which may be a very good thing for the country in the long run.
  2. Americans Lose Confidence in U.S., Obama (WSJ) — New Wall Street Journal/NBC News shows a toll from the oil spill.
  3. Problem With Cap Causes More Oil to Gush in Gulf (NYT) — Meanwhile, things get worse in the Gulf.
  4. RUNOFF RESULTS — Old news now, and the big stories were no surprises, but since I didn’t have a front page earlier on the subject, I include it here. Haley, Scott, Wilson, Johnson and other stories. The Inglis story, little noticed around here, was huge, as I noted on the radio this afternoon.
  5. Late Goal Advances U.S. At World Cup (NPR) — And they just keep on kickin’.
  6. Sanfords’ kiss draws attention (thestate) — A small thing, you say? Well, it was, but it was another occasion for me to marvel that this man is still our governor. On what should have been Nikki’s night, he interrupts his ex-wife while she is talking to reporters to give her a kiss, I suppose because he just isn’t getting enough attention.

Good news is, Petraeus knows how to do the job

16 Replies

On the one hand, it’s a great shame for someone who by many accounts is a fine officer to lose his job. Insubordination is insubordination, but it’s not a happy day for America when the president has to bust the top guy in a war zone where things haven’t been going well.

On the other hand, at least we know Gen. Petraeus knows how to get the job done if anyone can. He is literally the man who wrote the book on counterinsurgency, and he showed he could put his theories into effective practice by saving the mission in Iraq.

Frankly, I sort of hated to seem him bumped upstairs to MacDill, leaving implementation of his plans to subordinates. As hairy as things are in Afghanistan, it’s good to know it will be run, on the scene, by the guy who knows how to turn things around.

Other thoughts?

Hear me on NPR via the Web if you’d like

21 Replies

In case you missed it, here’s the link to my interview on NPR’s “Talk of the Nation” this afternoon. My part starts 33:45 into it.

I felt like it went well. If y’all disagree, I’m sure you’ll let me know…

The NPR folks said it went well, and want to have me back, which is nice. Finally, I’ve broken my string of getting bumped by bigger news on NPR. Even when Michele Norris came to my office and interviewed me personally (and SAID it went well, although maybe she was just being nice), I got bumped.

So it was good to make in on the air this time, and I look forward to opportunities to do it again. I love doing radio. TV’s fun, too, but you have to keep thinking about sitting up straight and such. With radio, you just shut your eyes, open your mouth and TALK, and keep talking. Which is just brain candy to me.

The HISTORIC part is the national media factor

65 Replies

Just got a call from NPR; they want me on the radio this afternoon at 2:20 to talk SC politics, even though I told them I wasn’t really paying that much attention yesterday to the stuff THEY were watching, but was following runoffs that were actually in doubt.

Which gets me to my point. As I said this morning over breakfast to Rep. Dynamite (a.k.a. Anton Gunn), we are about to see something we have NEVER before seen in South Carolina, and I’m not talking about an Indian woman or a black man having the GOP nomination.

For the first time ever, national media coverage is going to be a significant factor in who becomes governor of South Carolina.

If you’re Vincent Sheheen, this has got to worry you even more than the usually-decisive advantage that Republicans tend to enjoy in statewide elections. That can be overcome, as Jim Hodges demonstrated at the peak of the GOP ascension, before the party started falling apart squabbling.

But the national media factor is likely to be insurmountable.

Nikki Haley does not have to spend one thin dime on TV ads. She really doesn’t. She’s going to be on national TV, on the 24/7 cable channels, day in and day out. That means she will be on every TV in the state, every market, to a saturation point. And the tone will be gushing, breathless, wondering, hagiographic. The tone will be one of delight, and grotesquely simplistic: Look, she’s a woman! Look, she’s ethnic! She’s Sarah Palin! She’s Bobby Jindal.

Never mind that Sarah Palin is as vapid and empty a political celebrity as any to come along in a generation if not longer, the political equivalent of Charro — the celebrity who is famous for being famous. Never mind that when Bobby Jindal finally got up to bat in the bigs after all kinds of buildup about what an exciting new player he was — giving the Republican “response” live — he went down swinging at bad pitches.

One thing about national media is that they are ubiquitous. They saturate our lives. We don’t have to take action to consume them; they consume us. Every citizen in this country who is not directly involved in state or local government knows vastly more about national politics than about local and state — or at least thinks he does. Unfortunately, the coverage is so superficial and thin that the consumer’s level of understanding is unlikely to be impressive. But there’s just so MUCH of it.

And that is made for Nikki. Nikki is a telegenic young woman who SHINES as long as nothing goes deeper than her being a woman, being a minority, being fresh, being engaging, having a great smile. Of course, she says she wants to talk issues, such as her biggie, transparency. And no one wants to break the spell of her being just so darned exciting to ask, “Transparency? OK, how about that $40k you pulled down for having connections? And (whisper this) how about those public-account e-mails you won’t release?” But national media coverage doesn’t dig down even that far, much less far enough to challenge her understanding of, say, education policy. Or economic development. Or anything else that matters in one who would be the governor who replaces the most disengaged, apathetic governor in our history. You know, her political mentor.

And if you’re Vincent Sheheen, what can you do to overcome that wide, thin, wall-to-wall, breathless coverage of your opponent? Frankly, I can’t think of anything he CAN do. But I hope he knows of something.