Blog @ MoreWhat.com

How often does an item from a PGA Tour website appear in a Google news listing? Who knows and who really cares? Today’s offering reveals more about American culture than most things related to the sport of chasing things around a highly manicured lawn. And, go figure, the topic is Tiger Woods. Who has chased more than his fair share of golf balls on and off the green.

Here’s the question that started the discussion. Which may or may not feature real people and genuine comments or opinions.

Tiger Woods returning to golf at the Masters, April 5-11. This will be most watched golf game this year, if not EVER. Will you be watching?

The answer from this blog….. a resounding ‘no.’ But the majority of responses from the linked ‘discussion’ suggest for most all is forgiven. It is okay to break the rules. It is okay to abandon principles, ignore the guidance of good judgment and face no consequences for bad behavior. And it is okay to use wealth as a marketing tool redefining bad behavior as some sort of bizarre medical condition. Ya, the devil made me do it. Or, I have an addiction. It’s not my fault. I couldn’t help it.

I’m getting help. I’ll be okay. It wasn’t my fault. Please allow me to keep making boat loads of money. Demonstrate by your continued financial support of my lucrative enterprise that the rules don’t matter. I can do anything I want and you will not express disapproval. This is after all how society should work. No rules, no consequences, offer a mea culpa and move on.

This not so tiny microcosm of American life explains where we are. Expanded to current events in matters of government and public policy it explains why there is a culture of corruption and why it has not been reduced or eliminated. It is due to insufficient public outrage about bad behavior.

But perhaps there is evidence of reaching a tipping point and that things may change. We need to return to principles and values that provided the strength and wisdom to form and maintain this republic. Sports, like other cultural characteristics, reflect the underlying value systems held by the public at large. When we observe troubling trends it is our duty to correct it.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

For one who agrees that appearance matters it was necessary to defend a column by George F Will last April indicting the demise of proper attire. Though there may have been those who responded similarly a scan of reactions in the media were dominated by objections to Mr Will’s opinion. Perhaps those offended only noticed the central villain of the piece - denim. The discussion is worth repeating if that was in fact the case. And if others do not understand these points a recent article also supports Mr Will’s assertions as well as the opinion held here.

At almost precisely the same time these companies were declaring their allegiance to chinos and loafers, the dot-com bubble burst—and amidst layoffs, Chapter 11 filings, and tumbling stock prices, the alleged virtues of business casual were called into question. “As America’s economy slows, business casual is proving rather too casual,” the Economist declared. Jackson Lewis, a law firm specializing in employment issues, polled human resource executives and found that substantial numbers of them believed that business casual encouraged absenteeism, tardiness, and flirtatious behavior. If you weren’t dressed like a serious, hard-working professional, the reasoning now went, you wouldn’t act like one.

Granted, the reference above deals with different but related aspects of the importance of one’s appearance but the conclusion drawn is the same. There is nothing wrong with codes including dress codes. They are part and parcel to a worthy mindset that guides our behavior and reinforces what is valued and that we respect those notions.

And this post or repost offers an opportunity to highlight another excerpt from George F Will’s column found to be both humorous and true.

Denim is the clerical vestment for the priesthood of all believers in democracy’s catechism of leveling — thou shalt not dress better than society’s most slovenly. To do so would be to commit the sin of lookism — of believing that appearance matters. That heresy leads to denying the universal appropriateness of everything, and then to the elitist assertion that there is good and bad taste.

Once again, in summary, this topic is not to suggest spending a fortune on clothing to outdress everyone around you. But appearance does matter. We are more productive, successful and are more likely to adhere to those values that advance society to higher levels of competence and sanity when we dress the part. And that depends on what you are doing at the time. In other words, dress for the occasion. Have some rules. Have some respect for yourself and others. Have a code. Have a clue. It matters.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The New Old Way to Tote Your Beer
At Bierkraft in Park Slope, Brooklyn, customers bring their own growlers and fill them with fresh draft beer. They drink it there, or take it out.

By ROBERT SIMONSON
Published: January 26, 2010

BY midafternoon on a recent Saturday, Bierkraft, the beer emporium and grocery on Fifth Avenue in Park Slope, Brooklyn, was half-filled with customers, many of them parents with babies or toddlers in tow. They were browsing the more than 1,000 varieties of bottled beer or surveying the listing of selections available on the 13 taps and 3 cask lines. Some carried a good-sized satchel.

Let’s see. A satchel for carrying a 64 oz glass vessel for beer called a growler. The author of the piece casually inquires if the parents with ‘babies or toddlers in tow’ are carrying this satchel as a diaper bag. Another inquiry came to mind.

Is there something odd or troubling about parents packin’ up the kids and a half-gallon container then heading for the local beer garden? Oh yes, drink it there or take it out. While I have been in places where the take it out part would be a problem, legally, there remains the good judgment part. Why are the kids going with ya to slosh beer? C’mon, a half-gallon container. We’re not talkin’ sippin’ here.

Am I too old-fashioned or is there a problem with this? You might think the half-gallon growler was being shared with others. But when the article reports couples have his and her’s growlers polite distribution seems unlikely.

Okay, in defense of this arrangement to swill it is nothing new. When Sunday was largely a time to first attend church followed by family or community activities on the day of rest similar situations developed like the Saturday story above. Consider the church picnic or local baseball game or family get together where libations were also in attendance.

Maybe it’s nothing. But it just struck me as a bad idea. Not the growler part but the parents, kids AND growler part. You tell me. Is this much ado about nothing?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Although this post does not offer an exhaustive list of funding provided for earthquake relief purposes to Haiti the reports featured raise questions. But that does not address a broader question on why each ‘natural disaster’ or other catastrophic event is treated the way they are. If ET were to visit the planet Earth the impression for the extra=terrestrial might be that this is the first time humans have encountered such an event.

The shock and awe reaction in the main stream media suggests we have never witnessed such an event. The wailing and gnashing of teeth expressed by those affected and interviewed by the same MSM demonstrate a universal theme. There is the expectation that someone else is responsible to return ‘victims’ to their pre-disaster condition.

No, this is not a heartless rant targeting millions affected by the earthquake in Haiti. It is an observation presented during a crisis to offer suggestions for future events. It seems little if anything is done to effectively prepare for such contingencies by those most likely to be affected. Certainly those who are least prepared to face life in general are not in a position to prepare themselves properly for extreme conditions like a quake. But that is the whole point.

Just as issues like education avoid the responsibility of the family component e.g., good parenting, and the so-called global economic crisis sidesteps greed on every level, preparation for natural disasters receives little attention between events or focus on simple preventative measures addressing those most likely to be harmed.

Most ongoing ‘humanitarian’ efforts elicit funds based on emotional appeals for money to address problems after the fact. Outside of legitimate organizations raising funds to accomplish goals like teaching the have=nots to fish in order to feed themselves rather than give them food to solve an immediate need, most ‘humanitarian’ appeals are a scam.

Here are some reports regarding the current difficulties in Haiti that illuminate the world’s curious reponse to such events.

UN Appeals for $550 Million for Haitian Quake Victims

If millions are affected it is not surprising the UN would request $550 million. If there are 3 million ‘victims’ that is less than $200 per person. But while the request receives much attention during the disaster little valid disclosure will follow documenting where the money went.

Obama Pledges Sustained Commitment To Haiti

Okay, so the UN asks for $550 million and the US offers $100 million. That’s nearly 20% of what the UN asked for and a decent percentage for the US to offer. It seems large compared to what reports show for other countries thus far.

China Sends Aid to Quake-Stricken Haiti

Purely based on the report, China claims they will do what’s necessary to help but the only specific monetary amount is $1 million from the Chinese Red Cross.

Sarkozy Calls For International Donors Conference to Help Haiti

Go figure, France calls for a conference to solve the problem.

France Calls for Cancellation of Haiti’s Debt

Okay, correction, France calls for a conference and cancelling Haiti’s debt. So what does that cost France?

Haiti Aid Pouring in Through Text Message Campaign

Some reporting has warned the public about fraudulent websites accepting donations for earthquake ‘victims’ in Haiti. The bottom ilne warns there are genuine relief sites and frauds. Let the donor beware. The point is the public may represent the only honest source of aid for this event. Are the other sources bogus and do they feed on these events to perpetrate fraud?

And of course to repeat the broader point of this post, why does there seem to be no effort to prepare humans on this planet to be prepared to handle disaster in an effective manner?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

One of the political debates in the news concerns President Obama’s nominee for leading the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). The simple pro and con on the issue has conservatives criticizing the Obama Administration for dragging its feet on filling the vacancy and liberals countering with the complaint that Republican Senator Jim DeMint is holding up the confirmation of Erroll Southers, Obama’s current candidate for the job.

Senator DeMint’s January 1, 2009 press release answers critics of his position. It is short, sweet and to the point. Maybe critics of Senator DeMint should consider the fact that holding up the confirmation of a flawed nominee is better than confirming same. Given recent security failures the importance of this nomination is emphasized. Rubber stamping President Obama’s first choice in the name of expediency is irresponsible at best. President Obama can easily replace this nominee with someone worthy of filling the vacancy. Here’s DeMint’s press release.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

DeMint Statement on TSA Nominee

January 1, 2010 - WASHINGTON, D.C - Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) made the following statement about President Obama’s nominee to lead the Transportation Security Administration (TSA):

“Erroll Southers has not been forthcoming about whether he’ll give union bosses control of our airport security, which is one of the most important decisions he’ll make as head of the TSA. Mr. Southers’ unwillingness to form a position on collective bargaining seriously calls into question his judgment, because it weakens security and has already been rejected by the CIA, the FBI, the Secret Service, the Coast Guard, and by every previous TSA administrator.”

“And now we learn that he misled Congress in sworn testimony about accessing confidential records. The TSA is one of the most critical security agencies in the War on Terror, and the Senate must carefully vet this nominee. If Mr. Southers is unwilling to put security ahead of politics and if he can’t tell the truth, then he’s not qualified and should not be confirmed.”

###

Is this going to be one of those stories that turns out to be a mistaken report or another embarrassing and dangerous episode with US national security? The sole excerpt presented here from the AP report linked below is troubling. ‘ No update late Sunday night on the man who walked through the exit.’ Hence the earlier question on whether this is a mistaken report or we all have something more to worry about on aviation security.

Flights Grounded at Newark Airport
Officials: Flights grounded at US airport after man goes through exit door to bypass security
By KIM GAMEL Associated Press Writer
January 4, 2010 (AP)
The Associated Press

A spokesman said the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is assisting with the possible security breach, and Davis had no update late Sunday night on the man who walked through the exit.

TSA Statement on New Security Measures for International Flights to the U.S.
News & Happenings
January 3, 2010

Today, the Transportation Security Administration issued new security directives to all United States and international air carriers with inbound flights to the U.S. effective January 4, 2010.

The new directive includes long-term, sustainable security measures developed in consultation with law enforcement officials and our domestic and international partners.

Because effective aviation security must begin beyond our borders, and as a result of extraordinary cooperation from our global aviation partners, TSA is mandating that every individual flying into the U.S. from anywhere in the world traveling from or through nations that are state sponsors of terrorism or other countries of interest will be required to go through enhanced screening. The directive also increases the use of enhanced screening technologies and mandates threat-based and random screening for passengers on U.S. bound international flights.

The TSA statement above seemed to be the only related information available at the TSA’s website after viewing the initial item from AP via ABC.

Maybe this is good news. If US national security remains a major topic in the media perhaps needed corrections will follow. But few are probably counting on it. As an example of what is meant by that is former security chief Michael Chertoff and former CIA chief Hayden were on Meet the Press Sunday. David Gregory, the host, offered the disclaimer that Chertoff is tied to a company offering screening technology to the federal government. During the program, all three, Obama’s deputy national security adviser John Brennan, Michael Chertoff and Michael Hayden either praised Napolitano in light of security failures or expressed no concern about her handling of such matters.

Gee, could this be another case of revolving doors, business as usual in our nation’s capitol and all players responding based on their personal agendas? Another good reason to read Michelle Malkin’s book, Culture of Corruption. No, this blog nor the author of this post are receiving anything for expressing this sentiment. As a public service from this concerned citizen the link to Malkin’s book is in this blog’s sidebar along with other important titles. If you haven’t already you would do well to read them. Certainly they are not the only books out there but are the ones this blog is currently promoting, again, with no money or other perks involved. Read.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

related:

DHS Plans to Catch Only One in Four Travelers Committing ‘Major’ Criminal Violations While Entering U.S. on International Fights in 2010
Monday, January 04, 2010
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief

(CNSNews.com) - Documents produced by the Department of Homeland Security indicate that in fiscal 2010 the department is planning to catch only 26 percent of travelers committing major criminal violations while seeking to enter the United States through international airports.

click to read the rest….

Another reason for a Blog @ MoreWhat.com rant on telecom was exposed launched during the week. Google may have had an idea but it seems it has been reduced to a candidate for loser Letterman’s stupid human tricks segment. How many stupid humans will get tricked by this scheme? Hey folks, hurry out an buy a $530 cellphone or rope yourself into a T-Mobile version with contract for $180. For $80 per month you get 500 minutes with unlimited texting and web. That’s less than 17 minutes of voice phone time on average per day. And this is the latest offering for a phone?

Google’s Nexus One Pricing Details and Terms of Sale Leaked
Brennon Slattery, PC World

A day after Google confirmed its Android media event next week pricing details and the terms of sale were leaked for its highly anticipated Nexus One smartphone. Gizmodo broke the story with Nexus One site screenshots that show the phone on sale for two prices: a subsidized T-Mobile edition for $180 or an unsubsidized version for $530.

No one should really have to explain what’s wrong with this or the following story.

GSM is the most popular protocol for cellphone telephony on the planet, with billions of users worldwide. But the standard encryption procedure used by most GSM carriers is only 64-bit, and academic researchers had spotted flaws in it starting over a decade ago. Now, in an effort to get carriers to take security seriously, a researcher is publicizing a brute-force attack on the encryption that he expects will be combined with work on the GSM frequency selection algorithm to create a cheap and easy method for eavesdropping on cellular calls. Despite initial progress on the effort, the cellular industry remains unimpressed.

(There were subsequent reports about more flaws being exposed along with how to do it while this post was being prepared to be published.)

GSM, Global System for Mobile communications, is the dominant protocol. Why? Most likely because it suits the purposes of telecom companies and as is the usual case the consuming public rarely if ever applies due diligence to buying decisions. So what you say?

From electronics in general to information technology and gadgetware the consuming public allows themselves to fall victim to the gotta have it mentality. Vendors do a great job of manipulating the release of the latest and greatest. The typical consumer invests in a product or service and at planned intervals the vendors introduce subsequent versions that often diminish the value of the previous offering. Just a redux of the old planned obsolescence and most continue to play along.

The report above is a classic example. Previous posts published on this blog on the topic of telecom and/or IT regularly point this out. Rather than focus on the primary purpose of a product or service and delivering superior performance in that regard, vendors hawk the bells and whistles that distract from failure to provide real value for the consumer’s money.

Gotta love the wireless industry response to the report featured here. Ya, so what? Some have migrated to 128 bit encryption but that is not the point. Although the sophistication required to crack 128 bit surely passes 64 bit by a long shot how long will it be until 128 is cracked? Would proactive measures avoid such vulnerabilities?

This minor rant fits nicely into comparable current events and a broader concern. The latest exposure of US national security vulnerabilities came shortly after a TSA or DHS announcement of how wonderful the system is working. That was followed by DHS princess Napolitano suggesting the system worked in spite of a near tragic terrorist attack. And like the ho=hum response of the telecom industry to cracking encryption Napolitano, et al had an equally ho-hum response on what to do about flawed national security.

In business, government, politics and the public mindset we really need to address critical issues in a responsible manner. There are certainly those acting responsibly on this planet but those who are not are becoming commonplace. Screwing the public to earn a profit is not what free markets are about. Lofty rhetoric concealing public sector misdeeds is not good governance. And unfortunately, public response to such conditions is woefully inadequate. Most often tragedy strikes before the public responds and its effect is short-lived.

As an update to this post just before publishing, a member of the Google organization, Matt Dunne, is running for governor in Vermont. Does anyone else see where this is going?

No shortage of potential New Year’s resolutions in this post. But then like most years the chance for responsible action on critical issues will go the way of most New Year’s resolutions.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The following GOP senators have endorsed Carly Fiorina as a candidate for Senator Barbara Boxer’s seat in the US Senate as reported by CQ.

Those endorsing Fiorina included Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.; Assistant Minority Leader Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.; 2008 presidential nominee John McCain, R-Calif.; Tom Coburn, R-Okla.; Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska; and Maine Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe. All cited her experience as a business leader.

Coverage of this news and related items include obvious political considerations. Is Chuck DeVore being thrown under the bus by the GOP? Will this race be the next NY-23? Is the GOP committing political suicide? And more repeats of past speculation on the future of party politics in the US round out the typical discussions.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) endorsed conservative California State Assemblyman Chuck DeVore (R) Tuesday, once again going against the wishes of his party.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) has made no endorsement in the California Senate race, but party leaders favor former Hewlett-Packard executive Carly Fiorina (R), a wealthy centrist whom many believe could give Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) a strong challenge.

The excerpt above from The Hill points to what this story should be about in terms of both the future of the GOP and conservative principles. Senator Jim DeMint is one of the few members of the GOP demonstrating conservative values on a regular basis. His support of the conservative candidate in this race is a case in point.

The overwhelming opposition during the August recess, Tea Party protests and other events during the past year including gatherings this week in Washington supports the notion the voting public is angry about less than conservative strategies displayed by members of Congress Pundits and talking heads in the media establishment exhibit the same refusal to accept reality as the establishment GOP. Conservative principles driving good governance and a return to basic and traditional American values to restore sanity in the United States is what the majority of citizens are demanding.

While McConnell, Kyl and Coburn are perhaps the more conservative of the eight listed in Fiorina’s corner the rest are like the description of Fiorina. Centrist or moderate or RINO is what the GOP establishment has favored for some time and most of those supporting Fiorina fit that mold. The others seem to be moving in that direction. But not Senator Jim DeMint.

Is it possible Senator Jim DeMint gets it and many others in the GOP ranks do not? Seems a reasonable conclusion to draw. The GOP risks a huge opportunity in 2010 if they continue to ignore the writing on the wall. Some have suggested you win some elections by moving center and others by moving to the right in terms of the GOP. Has it occurred to them there may be a sea change coming in American politics and those rules no longer apply?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Democrats and the death of deliberative democracy (Michelle Malkin) 

Republicans won, fundamentally, because President Obama and the Democratic leadership in Washington have rebranded themselves as the party of economic irresponsibility. That is from Alex Castellanos in an opinion piece at the NYT fish wrap. Liberals should have learned why they won in the last two elections. Or more accurately, why the GOP lost. It was because of a fall from grace from conservative principles. That includes spending like drunken sailors. But asking liberals to restrain spending and limiting government is not an easy proposition. They are, after all, liberals. For the GOP it was an aberration. For the liberals, aka, the Democratic party, it is their modus operandi.

Also from the NYT fish wrap comes a title by Ruy Teixeira of ‘Relax Democrats’. You can guess what the advice is from Teixeira to the Dems. Then there is the more logical analysis from Reuters blogs.

Now the Democratic spin on losing the governorships of Virginia and New Jersey is this: All politics are local. A weak candidate in one state, an unpopular governor in the other. Plus voters are cranky about the economy.

No broader conclusions should be drawn. Now let’s move forward and go pass healthcare, OK, America? James Pethokoukis echoes the sentiments most Americans have and most Democrats refuse to acknowledge. Several times in recent history the GOP has been spanked by voters for ignoring this message. But it seems the Dems are as slow at learning this message as the GOP is about conservative principles.

Clinton, Carville, the nineties and a slogan it’s the economy, stupid seems to have fallen on deaf ears in Washington. No, we don’t want increased national debt. No, we don’t want rising deficits. When will unemployment numbers improve? Who needs to spend trillions on healthcare reform when most feel their coverage is adequate? And to borrow a repetitive phrase from Obama, ‘a host of’ other problems are not being addressed by the current regime. That’s right! Regime! The culture of corruption in Washington more closely resembles the characteristics of a banana republic than the United States government. And voters are expressing their displeasure.

A piece from the Wall Street Journal sums it up quite nicely. What was learned Tuesday is that the American voter is absolutely, totally, unremittingly disgusted with both political parties. Daniel Henninger puts it well but the view here is a disagreement perhaps on semantics. The word ‘desperate’ was used to describe the voters’ need for ‘political leadership’. An alternative description would be American voters strongly support the need for effective governing. And neither party seems willing or equipped to provide it.

From advice to Dems in the MSM to White House spin on this week’s election results a simple conclusion can be drawn. Of course the White House will not admit they’re in trouble publicly. Spin the losses as no big deal. Of course the MSM is reluctant to abandon their idol worship of Obama and tell the truth. Of course the Dems will lose big in 2010 if they don’t heed the warning from voters and it may already be too late. They are the ruling party and the masses are in rage mode. But it may also be a bust for the GOP in 2010 with a party split in win/loss stats. With the NY-23 fiasco Republicans are losing ground on the rebuilding the party strategy…… if they have one.

Polls indicate the country is trending conservative. This does not mean Republican. It means the public is slow to respond. But they are responding now and the message is clear. Do the right thing or look for a new job.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Let’s assume the WaPo/ABC poll referenced below is correct. If that is true most Americans are not thinking this one through. What’s the problem?

New federal rules on compensation at companies that accepted bailout money are likely to get a warm public reception: in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, more than seven in 10 Americans say they support such limits, most of them “strongly” so.

Okay, you agree to participate in a poll and you answer the questions you’re asked. How different would the results have been if the ‘pollsters’ asked the participants if they were in favor of government takeovers, bailouts, increased national debt, economy killing deficits, minimum wage increases and executive compensation limits?

Maybe not all at once but if the items mentioned above were included it may have altered the results. If Americans consider the liberal agenda in terms of wage and compensation controls they may not favor what was asked in the poll featured in this post. Liberals have no problem raising minimum wage, increasing the wages of workers in general and decreasing compensation for those who own or manage companies. Allowing the government to limit executive compensation may be one of those slippery slope issues. Careful what you ask for, you might get it. If POLS are allowed to control executive pay how long will it be until they control your’s? (Not that they don’t already to some degree.)

But the point is the more government controls the more freedom and liberty are threatened.

When the public is exposed to all the available information and given adequate time to digest it poll numbers have a way of changing.

Poll finds nearly 2 in 3 Americans are Manmade Global Warming ‘Deniers’
Marc Sheppard

According to a Pew Research Poll released today, the number of Americans believing there to be “solid evidence that the earth is warming” has dropped 14% since last year. And the biggest drop – 22% — was among those identifying themselves as independents.

And while 57% are still buying into the continuing warming hype, the number attributing the warming to human activity has dropped from 47% to 36%. What’s more, the number seeing global warming as a “very serious” problem is down 9 points to 35%.

Here’s the Pew Research excerpt and link…..

Fewer Americans See Solid Evidence of Global Warming
Modest Support for “Cap and Trade” Policy

October 22, 2009

There has been a sharp decline over the past year in the percentage of Americans who say there is solid evidence that global temperatures are rising. And fewer also see global warming as a very serious problem — 35% say that today, down from 44% in April 2008.

On the issue of healthcare reform….

Six in 10 say Obama’s proposal, if enacted, would not achieve his goals of expanding coverage to nearly all Americans without raising taxes on the middle class or lowering the quality of health care. For the first time, a majority disapprove of the way he’s handling health care policy.

Given sufficient time, there appears to be a better than even chance most Americans will draw the correct conclusion on the issues. Gee, could it be that is why the liberal majority in Washington is so eager to ram their agenda though Congress?

Of course there’s the other side of the liberal agenda. The side where they do little or nothing. Like Iran, North Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan and all the other foreign affairs policy areas that feature their appeasement strategy. VPOTUS Joe Biden was touted in the 2008 campaign as Barack Obama’s answer to those criticizing his lack of foreign policy experience. Since the election the Obama World Apology Tour remains the only noticeable event on the international stage. Biden and Clinton have been MIA as is any meaningful US foreign policy.

Some other polls have suggested Americans are losing interest in US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Perhaps that is because President Obama has failed to provide leadership on these issues and appears to be clueless on the next step or fearful there is no political upside for the community organizer-in-chief. About all that has happened lately is Mr Obama has again assured all that the US will be out of Iraq by next August. One can only suspect terrorists or insurgents are gearing up for the conveniently provided timeline.

Problems, politicians and polls dominating public debate on criticial issues. We may be waiting a long time for real American leadership. Will it begin in 2010 and end in 2012?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The land of fruits and nuts is a well-deserved moniker for the state of Schwarzenegger. Some call it America’s failed state. And now California’s First Lady is taking some heat off her husband by operating while under the influence of a cellphone. Will Arnold terminate her? Is Maria Shrivering? A report suggests this is the third time she has offended.

The only reason for this post is to point out stupid things in politics. Certainly the Shriver story fits. A report about other stupid things related to this story features a list of ‘idiotic laws’ recently signed by the Governator.

Here’s an excerpt……

The non-haha part of the story, aside from how it provides yet another example that nuisance laws are made to be followed primarily by people who look like criminals, is that Schwarzenegger this week, in the midst of his state’s ongoing financial free-fall, signed still another round of largely idiotic laws. A surface-scratching list: [follow the link for the list]

Let’s not forget to add the cellphone laws. Sure, we have to do something. Too many idiots are jeopardizing safety by texting or other use of wireless devices while driving. The problem is you cannot make life idiot-proof by passing laws to control idiots. You only look like an idiot for doing so.

From childbirth, assuming the new human has not been aborted, parents have a set of responsibilities regarding the child. Not the least of which is teaching it how to behave and act in a manner compatible with intelligent living. It is obvious and there are many examples of how this process has been a failure. Based on all the idiot laws on the books it would be reasonable to suggest failures in raising children require we outlaw having sex.

Don’t laugh. It could happen.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Sometimes it is good to delay publishing one’s opinion on a topic even when the facts are right there in front of you and your frustration level could use the release of expressing the obvious about someone who has been entrusted with leading your nation, that you love and is entirely wrong. It is only good when someone with a great deal more credibility does it for you. And that expression includes the credibility of many more who feel the same way. The excerpt below explains it.

The Interrogation Memorandums
By Gary Berntsen
April 22, 2009

President Obama’s release of these memos took place despite substantial protest. The four most recent CIA Directors-John Deutch, George Tenet, Porter Goss and Michael Hayden-all recommended against the release of these memorandums. President Obama’s own newly appointed Director of CIA, Leon Panetta, also recommended against releasing the documents. Yet President Obama, in a seemingly relentless effort to discredit his predecessor, George W. Bush, made the memorandum available to the public anyway.

As with other references presented on this blog it adds to the growing criticism of a new President and dispels much of the inflamed rhetoric employed by the far left strictly for political purposes. While some on the left may express genuine concern and honest, although misinformed, opinions on critical issues or even which issues are critical the dominant theme especially with regard to national security dooms us to repeat history if we follow suggestions to ignore it.

Which brings us back to the beginning. President Obama like many others in the past expressed an interest in being surrounded by smart people who disagree with him to give him advice. Based on his recent choice for CIA chief who advised him not to disclose the memos it is obvious again Mr Obama had no intention of listening to those who present arguments contrary to his own. Just like calling the GOP the party of ‘no’ and doing your best to shut them out since you have a political majority in Congress.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Jeff Jacoby emphatically emphasizes the need to consider context when discussing the uproar caused by President Obama releasing the so-called ‘torture memos.’ Reading the excerpt below out of context is something else that should be emphasized. Don’t do it. Read the entire piece but start with the quote provided as it is central to this point but does not include Jacoby’s entire opinion. This may put things in perspective for you on the topic of ‘enhanced’ or ‘brutal’ interrogation techniques or if you must, ‘torture.’

The opinion on this blog includes what Jeff Jacoby states below. The remainder of his argument and opinion is compelling as well.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

A tortured debate over the ‘torture memos’

Jeff Jacoby (Boston Globe)

What’s missing from all this sanctimony and censure is any acknowledgement of the circumstances under which the CIA interrogations took place, let alone the successes with which they have been credited. That may be a good way to score easy political points. It doesn’t add much to the public discourse.

Context matters. Actions that are indisputably beyond the pale under normal conditions - waterboarding a prisoner, for example - can take on a very different aspect when conditions are abnormal, as they surely were in the terrifying wake of 9/11.

This blog has recently started pointing readers to columns by George F Will. This blog’s author is of the opinion that Mr Will is on point, quite capable and correct to such a degree that all would benefit by paying attention. This is not idol worship or casual linking for some blogging benefit. It would not be expected for all to agree with George Will or anyone else who is widely published in columns or op-ed features. And some responses to one of Mr Will’s recent columns is no exception.

So yes, just below is the link to the referenced item and an excerpt that is this blog’s view of the central point. It is to be expanded upon after the excerpt and some references to commentary that doesn’t get it. As an aside it was no surprise that none other than Rush Limbaugh chose to sidestep the topic by only saying he finds denim or jeans to not be comfortable attire and therefore does not wear it.

Demon Denim

By George F. Will
Thursday, April 16, 2009
(an excerpt)
Denim is the carefully calculated costume of people eager to communicate indifference to appearances. But the appearances that people choose to present in public are cues from which we make inferences about their maturity and respect for those to whom they are presenting themselves.

The statement above is not difficult to understand. But it seems many have difficulty agreeing that it is correct. Maybe they focused on other parts of George Will’s column or simply chose to disagree based on their own preferences regarding the ‘demon fabric’. If you can find disagreement with Will’s position then perhaps the only flaw in the presentation is limiting the discussion to one item…. jeans.

from a post and forum discussion at Free Republic

from an item at the Washington Independent:

For years, I really did enjoy reading Will, whom I, like many on the left, often found to be a smart, reasonable, entertaining, and increasingly rare voice of old-school classical conservatism. I’m not sure what happened to that guy, but maybe it’s about time for Will to start thinking about packing it in. He’s had a good run, and it’s probably better to go out with a shred of dignity than as a has-been laughingstock.

And if I, in the autumn of my career, ever start publishing pointless and nonsensical ravings such as Will’s anti-blue jeans diatribe, I do hope someone will Google this post and send it to me, and I will take that as my signal that it’s about time to hang it up.

Anyone who does not support the notion that appearance matters is living in a dream world. Having an unfavorable opinion on the significance of personal appearance does not form the basis of an argument to the contrary. An expanded discussion on the topic could start with what one wears to a job interview. Even for jobs in the blue collar sector of employment where jeans for example are likely part of the common attire at work few are adorned with it when attending an interview. This may cause those who are old enough to recall a time when formal, semi-formal or casual dress applied routinely. With the advent of casual Fridays a departure from longstanding rules about appearance were distinctively and demonstrably introduced. That was not necessarily a good thing.

Etiquette and rules about personal appearance were not established for their own sake. Like many other cultural norms they represent much more than what may only be an annoyance to some. How we treat each other or how we demonstrate our reverence or respect toward what is appropriate are reflections of who we are. It is not a matter of being politically correct or incorrect. Decorum is a word that comes to mind. How we appear and how we behave says more about who we are, what we value and how we are likely to perform than anything we can express in the spoken word.

A few more examples to complete this post may be helpful. Some of you may recall your youth with memories of ’school clothes’ and ‘after school clothes’. If that has to be explained you did not experience it. But everyone should recall the phrase ‘Sunday go-to-meeting clothes.’ Brides, bridegrooms and wedding parties typically wear formal attire. Others attending such an event, a wedding, generally wear semi-formal dress. The military has an extensive protocol for what is worn for everything they do. In the workplace, gee, from where did the terms ‘white collar’ and ‘blue collar’ come?

One last thought that may also be helpful. Don’t agree or disagree with this particular George F Will column without giving it some serious honest thought. Check your personal bias at the door. Consider the underlying and broader implications of this discussion of jeans. There is much more there than many have recognized. That may be why this blog regularly references columns by George Will. (at least lately)

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Many reports have warned the public about the threat of tiered pricing for internet service. It may be falling on deaf ears except those who were exposed to the idea for real by Time Warner.  If you remember the days when AOL was one of the few ISP’s when all was dialup that did not require long distance charges this should get your attention.

AOL is owned by Time Warner.  Many who remember the less than inspiring service from AOL in the dialup days should not be surprised by their parent corp making this move.

Time Warner Cable says it’s trying to charge a small minority of customers for using a large majority of bandwidth on its network, while critics claim the company is restraining broadband Internet usage and trying to boost profits.

“Cable operators know it’s only a matter of time before broadband access reaches the TV set, and that could be a disaster for the industry under its current pricing model,” said Michael Greeson, president of The Diffusion Group, a market research and consulting firm. “Internet usage is skyrocketing, and consumers have grown accustomed to an all-you-can-eat broadband subscription, so the cable companies are looking for a way to put this genie back in the bottle.”

You can argue all day but the simple fact is telecom services whether voice, data or anything else mysteriously have similar pricing and it is all too much.  The single largest problem causing that is the reluctance of consumers to object to excessive pricing.  In this latest story on the topic the public has not been impressed.  That is largely an exception to typical consumer behavior which acquiesces to vendor pricing.

What adds to this insanity is government spending to increase broadband access to rural and other underserved areas.  To subsidize areas of lower population density and in this case lower broadband profit potential with public funding for private enterprise costs is another boon for special interest….top ISPs and telecom companies.

In the past cable companies were reluctant to serve sparsely populated areas for lack of potential subscribers per mile of cable installed.  Voice telecom is moving away from physical plant being wire and pole bound to wireless and cell towers.  The service has become less satisfactory and more expensive.  The same is on the horizon for other telecom services.

Rather than let the buyer beware or let competition set the price the sheep will be led to slaughter (figuratively speaking) as they have lost their way and no not how to influence the market or specially connected interests who control the outcome.

Time Warner’s claim that a few users consume more than their fair share of bandwidth as the excuse for tiered pricing is lame.  If it were true the excessive price charged to the remainder of subscribers would cover costs associated with the few they describe. And cable operators’ form of internet access is markedly different from non-cable ISPs.  Like other items described in the reference above maybe that is Time Warners real problem.

While conservative principles and a free market philosophy are noble ideas even Sean Hannity said on his radio program this week that not all business operators are honest but most are. No argument here but it does fit well in the ending note of this post.

This is one case where there are bandits in the marketplace. Without adequate public complaints all it takes is one vendor to introduce a bad deal and that becomes the standard almost overnight.  Then the option to take your business elsewhere becomes moot. All the prices are then essentially the same and there is no competition.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

related stories:

They’re gone! After outcry, Time Warner uncaps the tubes

Time Warner Scraps Bandwidth Cap Testing

What Price Bandwidth? Time Warner Cable Should Not Back Off