When Chemists Attack

From The State,

The flap over an ad promoting South Carolina as “So Gay” will cost the state tourism dollars, according to an industry expert.

Gay and lesbian travelers will likely be turned off by the political posturing surrounding the ads, which were pulled by the state tourism agency and led one employee to resign

Exactly.  If your goal is to bring tourists into the state where they can spend money, you probably don’t want to make the state look as if it’s full of bigots waiting to tar and feather them.

I find it interesting that the fiercest complaints about promoting gay toursim come from a senator representing Greenville.  It brings back memories of the time I lived in the Upstate.  Anyone remember the 1996 Summer Olympics?

[…] May 1996, when the Greenville County Council adopted a resolution declaring homosexuality incompatible with community standards. The decision, on a vote of 9 to 3, prompted organizers of the run carrying the Olympic torch to Atlanta to shelter the flame in a van as it moved through the county.

I guess the Upstate hasn’t changed much in the last decade.

For more on the “So Gay” controversy, have fun with these links:

• Stupid Is As South Carolina Does: TPS Gets Very Gay
• Adam Fogle’s tourism death star won’t stop until as many people as possible agree not to visit SC
• South Carolina is “So Gay”
• Colbert weighs in

I, of course, almost never get to watch these things live, but Obama’s latest speech is … really good.  The whole thing is worth a read or a listen, but I thought I’d point out a few lines.

But the depth of [the 9/11] tragedy also drew out the decency and determination of our nation. At blood banks and vigils; in schools and in the United States Congress, Americans were united – more united, even, than we were at the dawn of the Cold War. The world, too, was united against the perpetrators of this evil act, as old allies, new friends, and even long-time adversaries stood by our side. It was time – once again – for America’s might and moral suasion to be harnessed; it was time to once again shape a new security strategy for an ever-changing world.

Imagine, for a moment, what we could have done in those days, and months, and years after 9/11.

• We could have deployed the full force of American power to hunt down and destroy Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, the Taliban, and all of the terrorists responsible for 9/11, while supporting real security in Afghanistan.
• We could have secured loose nuclear materials around the world, and updated a 20th century non-proliferation framework to meet the challenges of the 21st.
• We could have invested hundreds of billions of dollars in alternative sources of energy to grow our economy, save our planet, and end the tyranny of oil.
• We could have strengthened old alliances, formed new partnerships, and renewed international institutions to advance peace and prosperity.
• We could have called on a new generation to step into the strong currents of history, and to serve their country as troops and teachers, Peace Corps volunteers and police officers.
• We could have secured our homeland–investing in sophisticated new protection for our ports, our trains and our power plants.
• We could have rebuilt our roads and bridges, laid down new rail and broadband and electricity systems, and made college affordable for every American to strengthen our ability to compete.

We could have done that.

Instead, we have lost thousands of American lives, spent nearly a trillion dollars, alienated allies and neglected emerging threats – all in the cause of fighting a war for well over five years in a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

It’s long … but it summarizes quite well what a lot of us were thinking when the war with Iraq started.

We often hear that businesses prefer the government to step out of the way and let them run things.  Regulations, policy, and so forth merely get in the way of business.  So this quote from Dow Chemical CEO Andrew Liveris is interesting:

“For years, Washington has failed to address the issue of rising energy costs, and as a result, the country now faces a true energy crisis, one that is causing serious harm to America’s manufacturing sector and all consumers of energy”

What makes the CEO of Dow say such a thing?  They’ve had to raise prices across the board because of skyrocketing energy costs.  And that’s bad news for all of us.

Occasionally, the current administration releases some potentially useful information … when forced.

The Bush administration, bowing to a court order, has released a fresh summary of federal and independent research pointing to large, and mainly harmful, impact of human-caused global warming in the United States.

So, why wouldn’t Bush release this report earlier?  I suppose he didn’t like the conclusions.  The summary, which you can grab here, describes what’s likely to be in store for us in the future:  We can expect more heat – more than the global average – with more and longer heat waves and excessively hot days.  We’ll see more intense summer droughts.  We will experience more intense “extreme weather” – hurricanes, tornadoes, and the like.  We can expect more illness and death from heat-loving pathogens, and so on.  It’s not a very pleasant forecast.

I wasn’t terribly enthusiastic about John Kerry’s presidential campaign a few years ago, but he’s exactly right:

“The three-year delay of this report is sadly fitting for an administration that has wasted seven years denying the real threat of global climate change,” Mr. Kerry said in a statement. “In these lost years, we could have slowed global warming and advanced clean energy solutions, but instead America’s climate change strategy has been at best rhetorical, not real.”

This explains a lot about the last few years.  This administration’s response to any crisis has been to simply deny that a crisis exists.  And that’s never a good long-term strategy.

There’s some discussion on the net about whether Barack Obama’s defeat in Kenturcky really means a whole lot.  Clinton supporters, obviously, think it means something.  But Clinton’s Kentucky win was so lopsided because of one issue:  race.

Obama’s problem was with these white voters overall. His greatest losses among whites, by 40 points or more, all have been in Southern states – Arkansas, Kentucky, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee and West Virginia. Reflecting their discomfort with Obama, nearly half of Kentucky Democrats said they would not support him in a November election against John McCain, again similar to the result in West Virginia.

Look at Kentucky.  This is a state whose Democrats won’t back their own party’s candidate because he’s a black man.  So Obama will lose big in Kentucky in a matchup against John McCain.  But Hillary Clinton won’t win there either.  Why not?  Racism and sexism are often traveling companions.

Naked women and the Confederate flag.  Yee haw!  This kind of voter will just as easily turn out against Clinton as against Obama when the opponent is a white guy.