Brad Warthen's Blog

Did Obama get the job done in denouncing Wright?

There was no question, as this day dawned, that Barack Obama was going to have to denounce his ex-pastor in unequivocal terms -- no more of that, Well, you just have to understand about the black church stuff.

Right now, I'm trying to decide rather urgently -- did he go far enough in what he said today? I don't mean "far enough" to satisfy me, or even you, necessarily. I just mean, did he do what he had to to save his candidacy? Because there's no question in my mind that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's statements of the last two days put the Obama campaign below water.

After failing with white middle-class voters in Pennsylvania -- and not least of all because of what we'd already heard from the Wright pulpit -- this latest stuff could not be allowed to stand.

Normally, I'd allow myself a little time to decide whether what Sen. Obama said today was enough. But at the moment, I've trying to decide whether it makes the Bob Herbert column I just put on tomorrow's op-ed page too outdated.

We have this problem with The New York Times. While The Washington Post, for instance, gives us its opinion columnists in plenty of time for us to run them the same day that the Post does, The Times takes a far more self-centered approach, not moving its copy until it's damned well good and ready -- which is generally hours after our next day's pages are done. Consequently, when we run columns by Herbert, Dowd, Brooks, et al., it's generally a day later. Which is not usually a problem. A good opinion is a good opinion a day later.

Anyway, Bob Herbert had a strong column on the Wright situation this morning, and I picked it for tomorrow over -- well, over a lot of things, but in the end, it was down to that or a Samuelson piece that's embargoed until Wednesday. I chose the Herbert. But his column says, in part:

    For Senator Obama, the re-emergence of Rev. Wright has been devastating. The senator has been trying desperately to bolster his standing with skeptical and even hostile white working-class voters. When the story line of the campaign shifts almost entirely to the race-in-your-face antics of someone like Mr. Wright, Mr. Obama’s chances can only suffer.
    Beyond that, the apparent helplessness of the Obama campaign in the face of the Wright onslaught contributes to the growing perception of the candidate as weak, as someone who is unwilling or unable to fight aggressively on his own behalf.
    Hillary Clinton is taunting Mr. Obama about his unwillingness to participate in another debate. Rev. Wright is roaming the country with the press corps in tow, happily promoting the one issue Mr. Obama had tried to avoid: race.
    Mr. Obama seems more and more like someone buffeted by events, rather than in charge of them. Very little has changed in the superdelegate count, but a number of those delegates have expressed concern in private over Mr. Obama’s inability to do better among white working-class voters and Catholics.

Then today, Obama comes out swinging on the issue...

So right this moment, I'm trying to decide whether to run Herbert because he still makes good points, or ditch him because Obama has at least tried to do something Herbert says he needed to do.

Right now, I'm at the coin-toss stage...

Canadian snipers in Afghanistan?

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

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

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

Canadian Snipers in Afghanistan

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

They never saw, or heard it coming.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why can't we ride trains?

My question about the movie theme music was answered promptly, for which I am grateful. Now, let me ask another question that maybe some of y'all can answer: Why don't we get the option of train travel in this country?

Yeah, I know there's Amtrak (which I wrote about not long ago), and if I don't mind going to the station in the wee hours of the morning, I will have the privilege of going one of a number of places along a corridor that runs along the Eastern seaboard. But I'd better want to go one of the few places the train goes, because outside of a few urban areas far to the north of us, there are no connecting locals to take us anywhere else.

In Europe, train travel is fast replacing airlines as the way to go. They even have supersleek, luxury bullet trains that go 200 miles per hour. Companies that provide service (remember when you got service from airlines) find they can make a competitive go of this, according to the piece in today's Wall Street Journal headlined "Touring Europe at 200 Miles an Hour":

    High-speed rail operators in Europe are ambitiously adding routes and cutting travel times, looking to snatch customers from the short-haul airline market. They are also adding perks, such as DVD and movie rentals and free newspapers. Plush high-speed trains are luring customers weary of the bare-bones service offered on the many discount airlines that have proliferated throughout Europe: Eurostar Group Ltd. trains (which run in the United Kingdom, France and Belgium) have 33 inches of leg room in coach, for example. Discount airline Ryanair has 30 inches of leg room -- and the seats don't recline.
    Spain, which is at the forefront of the rail boom, got high-speed service connecting Madrid and Barcelona last month. The journey was slashed by two hours: Now it takes just two hours, 35 minutes. Switzerland in January saw the opening of a $3.5 billion, 22-mile tunnel that passes through the Alps, cutting travel time by 45 to 75 minutes within the country and between Switzerland and Italy.

I'm still wiped out from the trip I took over the weekend -- driving all day Friday to central Pennsylvania in the rain, driving to northern New Jersey Saturday, driving back to central PA Sunday, driving back to Columbia on Monday. On Sunday, I did get to ride trains -- from Isalen, NJ, on New Jersey Transit, then zipping around Manhattan on the subway. I dig that so much -- just go down some steps, step on a train and find yourself in another world in minutes -- that I go places I don't have to go, just to ride the subway: We've got an hour! Let's zip down to Little Italy and back! I'll get you a cannoli!

Of course, the NJT and the subway are both ancient -- I found myself at one point under New York looking at a off-painted girder and wondering just how long it had been holding up the skyscrapers above -- and the scenery through the Newark area is even more grittily decayed looking in real life than it is in the opening credits of The Sopranos. But at least I get where I'm going without having to drive.

Several years ago, I would have flown this trip -- the part to PA, at least. Nowadays, air travel can take more time, and more hassle, than driving. Literally.

If luxury train travel can be economically competitive over there, why not over here? Is it the regulatory environment, or what?

Name that tune -- please!

Someone sent me a copy of that video about how fast the world is changing, and about how China has more economic growth in its little fingernail than we're likely to have in a billion years and stuff. I'm not sure whether this was an update of the video or what (I know there are several versions of it floating out there); there was no accompanying information.

Anyway, while it was very interesting once again, it left me with a maddening question: What is that background music?

It's from a movie, a movie I've seen. I'm even willing to go so far as to say I might have liked the movie. But I can't place it.

For some reason, the music suggests something about the Scottish highlands. I picture characters running about on the heath in kilts -- maybe something out of a remake of "Kidnapped" -- with a wide, moving shot taken from a low-flying helicopter.

But I'm almost sure that image has nothing to do with this music. Maybe I'm thinking of a similar shot of the wilds of New Zealand from the "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy. But I don't think that's it, either.

Normally, I can place things like this immediately, which is what is so crazy-making about this instance.

Where is it from?

How should homeless grants be spent?

Routinely, I get releases like this one from members of Congress, particularly our senators:

Graham Announces $3 Million to Assist Homeless and Disadvantaged in South Carolina
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today announced South Carolina will receive more than $3 million to assist homeless and disadvantaged persons throughout the state.  The Emergency Food and Shelter program funds may be used to supplement and expand ongoing efforts to provide shelter, food and supportive services for the state’s hungry, homeless, and people in economic crisis....

In the list that followed, Lexington County got $137,496, and $236,484 will be going to Richland.

This got me to thinking: How will this money actually get spent? Will it go to more feckless, indecisive muddling on the part of our local elected governments? Will it go to an effort that is trying to help the homeless in a comprehensive way in spite of the failure of local governments, such as that led by Amos Disasa of Eastminster Presbyterian?

Maybe it's dedicated to a specific program that asked for it; the release doesn't say. But I was wondering what ideas you, the readers -- specifically Doug Ross, who has a good deal of personal experience helping the homeless -- as to how the money should be used.

Dialogue about the 'Wireless Cloud'

This morning, noting this post and the comments on it, Cindi sent a note to Gordon and Mike, whom she knows from past lives (Gordon was my boss when I was Cindi's boss when she was a reporter 20 years ago; Mike Cakora was one of our "community columnists" when we had that program on the op-ed page several years back):

Good morning Gordon and Mike

    I hope you're both doing well.
    I've just been reading over your comments on Brad's blog, and it occurred to me that if y'all read the legislative study committee report that is the backdrop for the news release he posted, 1) you might find it interesting and 2) you might be able to help me think through this -- either via e-mail or through a continued discussion on Brad's blog, whichever you prefer.
    I think the report should shed additional light on precisely what is being considered. In short, the majority report recommends hiring a consultant to further think through what to do with the ETV licenses; the minority report says this is plan is a recipe for losing a valuable state resource, which will revert to the feds if we don't have a plan in place in less than a year.
    My initial, uninformed take is to agree with the minority report, written by Rep. Dwight Loftis. By way of background, Sen. Jim Ritchie -- who along with Loftis first got this conversation going in the State House a year ago -- had been spinning me in advance on the importance of the state taking action. He's a proponent of a laptop for every student, by the way, a plan I am not sold on....
    I feel like this is something our editorial board needs to weigh in on at some point....
    Also, since Rep. Loftis has added me to his broadband e-mail list, I have received a handful of articles on the topic that I would be happy to share with either or both of you if you'd like.

Cindi

Gordon urged me to post the report Cindi referred to on the blog so we could have a discussion here. Here's the report.

Mike also answered as follows:

To the extent that I can contribute, I will.  After my first scan of the report, I want to look at the FCC deadlines that the minority report is concerned about.  I need to get clear on FCC terminology too. 

Environmentally speaking, Clearwire looks to be involved with Sprint and Intel in trying to rescue WiMax according to breaking news. 
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/02/sprint_clearwir_1.html

Thus Clearwire’s role as a proponent in some of the BTAs in this state is interesting.  I pulled the latest lobbyist report and found that while all the usual players -- Sprint Nextel, Intel, Time Warner, etc. -- have lobbyists, Clearwire does not. 

Mike Cakora

So if you're hip to the highly technical issues involved, here's your chance to jump in. Personally, I'm depending on Cindi to figure it out and help me make up my mind. This is your chance to help Cindi -- and Mike and Gordon as well.

Back before I started this blog, people like Dan Gillmor told me that the Blogosphere was chock-full of people who knew more about various issues (especially technical ones) than I or any other journalist did. While that is occasionally the case, it hasn't been as often as I'd like. This seems like a good opportunity to realize the true potential of blogging.

 

Are you having trouble loading my blog?

The last few days, my browser has been freezing up whenever I go to my main page -- which, unfortunately, I have to do a lot.

When it happens, at long last I get a dialog box that says:

    A script on this page may be busy, or it may have stopped responding. You can stop the script now, or you can continue to see if the script will complete.

I always click "stop script," and go on with my business. I don't even know what it means.

I had sort of thought it was a problem with my laptop, but then the desktop started doing the same thing.

All I can guess is that there's just too much stuff on that main page. Maybe I need to reduce the number of posts that appear there. (I think it's set to show a month's worth, but that's way over 100 posts now, and maybe that's just too much.)

Before I take the time to tinker around with guesses, though, I'm curious: Are y'all having the same trouble? That would increase the urgency to try to do something.

Anybody getting nasty calls about Hillary?

We were all on alert last week for nasty stuff in the GOP primary, on account of the history of what happened to John McCain in 2000.

Now, I'm getting whiffs of something on the Democratic side, as we shoot through the home stretch to Saturday. Three people -- one at work, one a caller to the office, the other a relative -- have told me of getting recordings that just unloaded a garbage truck full of stuff on Hillary Clinton. Tales of screaming fits in the White House, a bunch of junk everybody's heard before about Vince Foster, and on and on. Highly offensive.

Thing about it is, at least one of the people who reported this voted in the Republican primary, so it's a little strange that they would get these calls this week. If they've already voted, what's the point? If it's pitched toward the general election, why not wait a while, and see if she's the nominee?

Or better yet, why not just not stoop to stuff like this at all?

What did Hillary say that was so wrong?

So Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have put their spat over race behind them. That's good, but it still leaves me with a question that I guess only a Clueless White Guy could ask: What was that all about?

Maybe it's that when it was all brewing I was too busy with the GOP primary to take notice. It seemed to happen late last week, when I was trying to get our endorsement of John McCain decided, written, elaborated upon, discussed in multimedia, and put on the Sunday page.

That's got to be it. There's got to be something I just missed entirely. That's why I find myself still asking, What did Hillary Clinton say that was so wrong? (And note that I'm not even getting into Bill Clinton saying Sen. Obama was peddling "fairy tales." Supposedly, that was taken by some as racially insensitive also. But Mr. Clinton say anything about anybody's race? He did say "fairy," but it seems that would offend a whole other demographic group, and then only if it was really, really willing to stretch to be offended.)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did this controversy not erupt when the senator from New York said:

    "Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It took a president to get it done."

And did it not only deepen when she said:

    “Sen. Obama used President John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to criticize me. Basically compared himself to two of our greatest heroes. He basically said that President Kennedy and Dr. King had made great speeches and that speeches were important. Well, no one denies that. But if all there is (is) a speech, then it doesn’t change anything.”

This was deemed offensive by some, and the nature of the offense was racial, apparently because Dr. Martin Luther King was mentioned. Or maybe because Sen. Obama is black, or not, depending on who's keeping score.

Where did the offense lie? Haven't all great, inspirational leaders been followed by more prosaic types who did much to make the dream a reality? Did Moses not have his Joshua? Did Jesus -- whose sudden execution essentially left his movement, at first, in shambles -- not have his St. Paul? And do any of us think that, because he essentially invented the idea of a "church" as something Gentiles could join, that St. Paul was greater than Jesus? I would hope not.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't MLK, in the most famous passage of one of his most inspirational speeches, compare himself to Moses? And was that comparison not specifically with regard to the fact that, while he had led the movement right up to the border, someone else might have to lead it into the Promised Land? ("I may not get there with you.")

Or did I miss something? It's highly possible that I did, which is why I'm asking. I've looked at several stories on this subject, but it's certain that I haven't read them all.

But if I didn't miss something, then I think Sen. Clinton caught a lot of grief she didn't deserve. She might be called all sorts of things, by those who are inclined to criticize her -- overbearing, perhaps. Condescending, maybe. But racist? I don't think so.

By the way, that was what I didn't like about the Ariail cartoon that I showed you in sketch form yesterday: I thought it was way unfair to Mrs. Clinton. Of course, it is in the essential nature of caricature to exaggerate, and even to offend. But I thought the Ariail cartoon we actually used made the same point (with which I disagree, but what Robert wants to say is Robert's business), and since it left out the emotional hand grenade of the lawn jockey, it did so in a way more likely to be clearly understood. But it's hard to be sure about such things, which is why I asked y'all about it.

Would you run this cartoon?

Here's one of the many cartoon ideas Robert Ariail had today, in sketch form. We went for something else in the actual paper for tomorrow, but this was one of the sketches Robert gave thestate.com for use in this package.

I made sure senior editors down in the newsroom were aware of the cartoon (thestate.com is part of the newsroom, and therefore separate from my department), so they could make a conscious decision about it before it appeared.

The question I had raised about the cartoon earlier with Robert was ... well, never mind the concern I raised. I'd rather not prejudice your response. After y'all have a chance to say what you think, I'll tell you what I think. (I'll only tell you that if you're one of those simple souls who don't know me at all and think all newspaper editors are about political correctness, you'll probably guess wrong as to what my concern was.)

So ... whaddya think?