Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Why this story did not get much play is a bit of a mystery. China wants to be king. But so do many countries. Amid criticism over the last few years China has exported tainted goods, conspired with major IT companies to limit their citizens access to the internet, been accused of cyber-espionage and other bad behavior. While Olympic athletes choked on their smog dominated air the US continued to play nice as China joined in the greed that put the world finances in the tank as well as sponsoring out of control US debt. But even then the US was chastising them for manipulating their currency. Gee Timothy, what changed?

According to one website that offers exchange rate data, nothing. Even the US gov’t data on China’s currency valuation does not appear to reflect Geithner’s rosy report of 16% appreciation. Why do you suppose Turbo Tax & cheat wonder boy Geithner gave such a positive spin on China’s currency?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has declined to name China as a currency manipulator - a position that is in contrast to the government’s stance in January.
In the Treasury Department’s semi-annual report on the currency practices of key trade partners, Mr. Geithner says there is no evidence that any major U.S. trading partner had manipulated its exchange rate. The findings are in a report submitted to Congress Wednesday.

During his January confirmation hearing, Mr. Geithner said that President Barack Obama believed China was “manipulating” the value of its currency to gain unfair trade advantages.

However, in the new report, he says China has taken steps to “enhance exchange rate flexibility.” He also says the Chinese currency “appreciated” by more than 16 percent between June 2008 and February 2009.

U.S. politicians, labor leaders and manufacturers have long complained that China intervenes in foreign exchange markets to keep the value of its currency artificially low. The move would give Chinese products a price advantage on world markets.

In the new report, Mr. Geithner also says “virtually every advancing economy and many emerging markets are in recession.”

He also says many currencies depreciated against the dollar in the second half of 2008 and into 2009.

What an absolute joke this is. President Obama is credited by the MSM as stating ‘like families’ the government will have to make ‘hard choices.’ They go on to headline the leader of the free world wants suggestions to cut spending and waste. This from a man who approves of the biggest budget, spending and debt producing agenda since President George Bush which makes Obama’s plans off the charts in our nation’s history.

After producing the largest budget in America’s history at over 3 1/2 TRILLION DOLLARS the current US President wants his cabinet to find a paltry $100 million in spending cuts. That is less than three thousandths of one percent of the $3.5 trillion dollar budget. If you had a $50,000 debt the same effort would reduce it by a buck forty-three ($1.43). Wow, there’s change you can believe in. (NOT)

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Obama Pledges to Cut Dozens of ‘Wasteful’ Programs

By LAURA MECKLER PORT-OF-SPAIN, Trinidad — President Barack Obama promised Saturday to eliminate dozens of government programs that have been shown to be “wasteful or ineffective” and said he will call on his cabinet to hunt their budgets for more.

Obama to gather Cabinet, seeking $100 million in cuts

If you are worried about the government running healthcare and making many of your health related decisions for you as well as putting your health information in a government database for all to hack there may now be more reason to feel that way. Aneesh Chopra is Obama’s pick for something called the Chief Technology Officer and Jeffrey Zients as something called the Chief Performance Officer. That Silicon Valley is applauding the choice should be of concern to the average citizen for they do not have your best interests at heart but ’special’ interest….their’s. Chopra is or was hot on the path of porkulus money to expand broadband access in Virginia. That’s right. Get the taxpayer to pay for private sector infrastructure. No wonder Silicon Valley is applauding.. And the same goes for Jeffrey Zients. Connected to Wall Street and the healthcare industry. Ya, these are the guys you want meddling in technology and healthcare on behalf of the American public.

Chopra made it an official goal to provide every business in the commonwealth with broadband technology. In a rare partnership with telecom companies, the commonwealth has already developed a broadband map detailing its Internet infrastructure—and the gaps where pipes need to be built. To help fulfill Virginia’s broadband goal, Chopra says the commonwealth would be applying for more than $100 million in broadband stimulus funds.

Zients is the founder and managing partner of Portfolio Logic, an investment firm focused primarily on business and health-care service companies.

Here’s another voice of support for Obama’s latest picks that should make you nervous.

Consumer Electronics Association Statement on White House CTO Appointment
ARLINGTON, Va.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–President Barack Obama today announced his intention to nominate Aneesh Chopra as Chief Technology Officer. The following statement can be attributed to Gary Shapiro, President and CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA):
“CEA commends President Obama for the selection of Aneesh Chopra as the nation’s first Chief Technology Officer. Chopra is an excellent selection as he served proficiently in Virginia as Secretary of Technology and also has a strong background in the private sector advising the health care industry on technology management issues. He will bring to the position real world technology and public policy experience.

“The creation of the CTO position – and the excellent appointment of Aneesh Chopra – demonstrate the high priority the Obama administration places on the technology industry. CEA views this position as critical as it allows one individual responsibility across government agencies on key technology issues. It also ensures our industry a strong voice at the Cabinet level as issues of intellectual property, immigration, trade and taxes are discussed.”

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

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

You can view the print version of this story with pix and more here

This has been a feel good story brought to you as a public service by MoreWhat.com

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

It’s not fair but this blog really enjoys stories about MS getting their’s. There are no MS fans here. No one here likes Microsoft. Bill Gates is not a role model here. It is mostly due to the Darth Vader of IT that this sinister joy is embraced. It is like the empire striking back but not really. It’s just plain fun for all the annoyance Mr Gates has caused throughout the years.

DOJ has more than two years to produce a better antacid moment for IT’s Prince of Darkness.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The U.S. Department of Justice announced Thursday that Microsoft has agreed to remain under its watch for up to another 18 months, designed to allow antitrust regulators to continue monitoring the company’s efforts to share interoperability information with its rivals, who develop products that use the software giant’s Windows operating system.

The Justice Department is exercising its right to extend its monitoring ability through May 12, 2011, rather than letting it expire on November 12 of this year.

Welcome to Blog @ MoreWhat.com’s Open Trackback

Secure the Borders Linkfest

This is an open trackback linkfest. For now it opens on Saturday and closes by Monday. The Secure the Borders theme is intended as a reminder to all for obvious reasons. If you have any suggestions, criticisms, questions or just feel the need to communicate, trackback or post it in the comments. If you want to be added to the Blogroll, register and/or inquire to make arrangements. The Honor Roll is reserved for blogs viewed as special by this blog’s owner.

JIHAD stands for Jesus I Have A Deathwish.

This linkfest is dedicated to the guest worker who never left.There are plenty of illegal immigration posts on this blog.

If you’re here legally and behavin’ yo self, welcome aboard.
.
.

We suggest using the Linkfest Haven Deluxe Trackback pinger for ease of use and time savings to catch all the festive linking activities today. Or, if you have done this less than we have, the permalink for this Open Trackback is the title link and the trackback is located near the bottom of the permalink page for this post. Just poke around, you’ll find it.

links in the sidebar

NOTE: It may be worthwhile to comply with the unofficial standard of submitting your blog’s best work for open trackbacks whether here or at multiple sites. The practice may have been inspired by a desire for increased quality versus quantity as well as providing greater impact from the power of the blogosphere.

Where to start? How about, first, did anyone really need a ‘formal’ study to be aware that illegal immigrants are having more children in the US? Second, does it seem odd that a formal study would be credited to ‘a US study’ by the Pew ‘Hispanic’ Center? It seems any time those with an unfavorable view of illegal immigration express their opinion it is immediately met with resentment for citing Mexico or South America or anything referred to as ‘Hispanic.’ Yet it appears that Pew Research has a wing called the Pew Hispanic Center claimed to be non-partisan which apparently has the sole purpose to ‘track’ the Latino population in the US.

So where is the outrage over this? There are a number of stories or reports from various sources listed in news search engines dealing with related items and citing the study but no outright vitriol was observed over the study or the source. Imagine that. Maybe its too early. Besides, those who favor shamnesty and open borders may not want to make waves before the Messiah takes up so-called ‘reforms’ for immigration. The US has never needed legitimate reforms but simply enforcing existing law. Allowing E-verify to expire is a good example of the open borders crowd opposing practical remedies for illegal immigration.

But on to the report below on this study. Look at the percentages Pew estimates and then claim Mexico, South America, Hispanic, Latino, whatever, are not primary contributors to the problem of illegal immigration. And if the number of children born to poverty by this epidemic is even close to accurate it may explain the soaring cost of taxpayer funded social programs to address the situation. Both are features of reasonable complaints against illegal immigration without any mention of the fact that ignoring the rule of law is simply wrong and a dangerous precedent regarding national security and economic turmoil.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

A U.S. study says illegal immigrants are having a growing number of children in the United States and are almost twice as likely as average to raise them in poverty.

The study released Tuesday by the Pew Hispanic Center says there are 11.9 million illegal immigrants living in the United States, about 76 percent of them Hispanic.

The survey found that a growing number of children of unauthorized immigrant parents -73 percent - were born in the United States and are U.S. citizens.

The study found one-third of children born to unauthorized immigrants live in poverty, nearly double the poverty rate for children of U.S.-born parents (18 percent).

The study found that illegal immigrants are now more broadly spread around the country, settling in states where relatively few had lived two decades ago, such as Georgia, North Carolina and other southeastern states.

The survey says that while the number of illegal immigrants surged from 1990 to 2006, it has since stabilized.

The research found that of illegal immigrants living in the United States, 59 percent are from Mexico, 11 percent from Central America, and seven percent from South America. It says 11 percent of undocumented residents are from Asia, four percent from the Caribbean and less than two percent from the Middle East.

The Pew Hispanic Center is a non-partisan research organization that tracks the Latino population in the United States and its impact on the country.

Some information for this report was provided by AP and Reuters.

Is this reporter from CNN the best they can do? Calling the ‘tea party’ rallies anti-government and anti-CNN. Hmmm, media bias? Say it ain’t so.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

First the caveats to this post. In this story title use of the word ‘immigrants’ can be defined as its most traditional use. Someone who comes to a country from another through a legal process. According to the report the immigrants described are ‘required to have at least two years of legal US residency.’ That of course is a good thing provided the determination of legal residency is accurate.

The story may raise memory of terms like ‘outsourcing’ or moving American jobs ‘offshore’ or phrases like ‘jobs Americans won’t do.’ It has been known for some time that not only the military but intelligence agencies and other government entities were limited in their ability to communicate in languages other than English or have people who can operate within foreign cultures like ‘native’ citizens.

And since the date of this report this particular military recruitment program started in February of this year and will end in December with 52 recruits to date the term pilot program appears genuine.

This story can raise all sorts of questions without any of them generating harsh criticism. What does this say about past and present needs of the military in defending the nation and national interests? Is this an exploitation or simple case of filling a need based on another’s need? Does it broadcast limitations or shortcomings in our educational system or culture? The list of questions can go on indefinitely. Including the question of mandatory service and considering larger skill sets from current and future generations of Americans. One final question can ask if this pilot program opens the door to future risk or problems by others’ misuse of what appears an innocent matching of need?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

New Army recruits

The U.S. Army is stepping up efforts to recruit more skilled soldiers by offering immigrants a fast track to U.S. citizenship if they enlist.

The move comes as the Pentagon prepares to send several thousand more troops to Afghanistan and with the war in Iraq in its sixth year.

The U.S. Army chief of staff, himself, swears in this group of recruits at a ceremony in New York. Half of these 32 new Army recruits are immigrants from countries such as Pakistan, India, South Korea and Bangladesh.

General George Casey welcomes the new soldiers, recruited under a new initiative called MAVNI - Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest. It’s a pilot program that promotes enlistment as a short-cut to U.S. citizenship. Recruits are required to have at least two years of legal U.S. residency.

Lieutenant Colonel Margaret Stock says the Army is looking for people with language skills or medical expertise. “We’re also looking for people who have cultural ability. They understand certain cultures that we are dealing with. We found, in our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, that having people who were culturally knowledgeable is critical to success on the battlefield,” Stock said.

So far, the MAVNI program, which began in February, has enlisted 52 new soldiers, 60 percent of whom are college graduates. The Army wants people who speak one of 35 languages it deems “strategic.”

Stephen Chi speaks Cantonese and four other languages. He will be working as a “petroleum supply specialist.” He says he enlisted, not for the U.S. passport, but for the camaraderie. “I grew up in Norway, my parents are Chinese, so joining the Army will give me a chance to really belong to somewhere,” he said.

Twenty-four-year-old Toniya Mishra, who will start as a “water treatment specialist.” She says the Army approached her after finding her resume on the Internet. While her starting salary is less than she hoped to get with a masters’ degree, she says there are other perks. “They provide insurance for your family, and you get to travel a lot in different countries, and it’s better than doing anything else in a market like this today,” she said.

For the recruits, the next stop is basic training, a rigorous nine weeks of physical fitness, discipline and training.

And some then will go to Iraq or Afghanistan, where they could face the dangers of combat.

Melpati Krishna - a medical doctor from India - has some concerns. “My only fear,” Krishna says, “is like, getting through the basic training.”

So far, 380 people have applied. The Army says it will accept up to 1,000 before the program expires in December.

Found this site on a post at Michelle Malkin’s blog.  You gotta love it.  Pix from a Chicago Tea Party pretty much say it all.  Check it out!!

Founding Bloggers (click here) 

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Nothing like a little civil unrest to raise the debate. It seems there may also be a little role reversal occurring in the land of the free and home of the brave. Conspiracy theories abound with the advent of what may be the ‘tea party’ phenomenon.

Some say opposition to more wild government debt, spending, pork, earmarks, taxes and out of control politicians is a recent right wing initiative sponsored by rich Republican supporters. There is no evidence to refute the assumption from many reports that the latest noise from the ‘public’ is non-partisan.

Some suggest conservatives are trying the ‘grassroots’ approach typically used by the left and occasionally referred to as ‘nutroots’ by their opposition. Perhaps left wing sources are voicing opposition to infringement on what they may consider ‘their’ domain. But it is still not clear what the composition or demographics of participants is.

It would be beneficial if the truth about tea party rallies confirmed that no matter what one’s political affiliation, including none, the public at large is more than tired of unresponsive federal, state and local governments ignoring ordinary citizens.

Imagine this. A public outcry that gains enough momentum to force POLS to do the right things. A melting pot of American citizens leading by example to show elected representatives that past and present government action is as dangerous as it is unpopular.

Only those who stand to personally gain from out of control government spending and debt would embrace the bailouts and so-called stimulus tax and spend initiatives that have been supported by both political parties and everyone in Washington DC along with most of their counterparts in state and local government.

The public at large has a share in the blame but if the tea party rallies lead to a needed awakening within our country and a return to sensible action by government and the private sector, including ordinary citizens, this will all be worthwhile and commendable.

So for those seeking to cast blame or discredit this recent public discourse, sit down for a minute, shut up and see how things develop. Better yet, get involved and continue to express to your elected representatives that the current course is unacceptable.

If at all possible, participate in the tea party nearest you, today or any day one is available.

Stanford Matthews
Morewhat.com

Here is a link to Tea Party information

With Congress not in session there has been less reason or urgency to monitor House and Senate websites. A casual pass by several of the usual suspects is responsible for the following small tidbit. Most of the quotes and the post itself are from March of this year. But it is still relevant. Read it with the caveat that members of political parties do not promote bipartisanship from a position of strength. The news media and blogs are filled with stories about the GOP fall from grace in abandoning longstanding conservative principles even if the effort was never unanimous. And to a lesser degree the question is always present on how long it will take the Democratic party majority to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

To repeat , no members of political parties promote bipartisanship from a position of strength. This means the White House and Congress being filled almost exclusively by members of both parties are aware of their own peril. Polls show it. Public outrage shows it. And even some of the politicians themselves show it. That is one reason this post with an item from the Republican Senate leadership website is presented.

Anyone who is concerned about the future of our country has cause to worry.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Budget Chairman And 14 Senate Dems Decry Fast-Tracking Energy Tax, Health Care Reforms But Take No Responsibility For Removing The Option

SEN. KENT CONRAD (D-ND) ON FAST TRACKING SWEEPING REFORMS: “I would just say I am going to argue strenuously against it in conference committee. The Senator asked me what will be the result. I don’t know. Am I going to be able to prevail in the conference committee on this matter? I don’t know.” (Sen. Conrad, Congressional Record, S.3957, 3/30/09)

SEN. KENT CONRAD (D-ND): “I have said publicly and privately what I believe. I don’t believe reconciliation was ever intended for the purpose of writing this kind of substantive reform legislation such as health care reform, such as climate change.” (Sen. Conrad, Congressional Record, S.3957, 3/30/09)

SEN. ROBERT BYRD (D-WV): “I was one of the authors of the legislation that created the budget ‘reconciliation’ process in 1974, and I am certain that putting health-care reform and climate change legislation on a freight train through Congress is an outrage that must be resisted.” (“The End Of Bipartisanship For Obama’s Big Initiatives?” The Washington Post, 3/22/09)

SEN. MAX BAUCUS (D-MT): “‘Reconciliation tends to be partisan,’ Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus said. ‘It’s not a good idea.’” (“Dems Resistant To Using Reconciliation For Climate Bill,” Congress Daily AM, 3/11/09)

SEN. BEN NELSON (D-NE): “That’s a deal-breaker.” (“Obama Budget Set for Debate Next Week in U.S. House and Senate,” Bloomberg, 03/27/09)

SEN. BYRON DORGAN (D-ND): “It unnecessarily short circuits Congress’ ability to more fully debate this complex and multi-faceted public policy issue.” (Letter To Sens. Conrad & Gregg, 3/13/09)

SEN. TOM CARPER (D-DE): “And Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) warned Monday that Democrats could do ‘serious damage to our bipartisan effort’ if they start talking ‘in earnest about putting [health care reform] in reconciliation.’” (“GOP Warns About Budget Hardball,” Politico, 3/24/09)

SEN. RON WYDEN (D-OR): “[W]e want to do it by bringing Democrats and Republicans together and making the issue of reconciliation on the issue of health care reform irrelevant.” (Sen. Wyden, Congressional Record, S.3972, 3/30/09)

SEN. MARK BEGICH (D-AK): Q: “Will you commit to supporting efforts to bring up important legislation under budget reconciliation rules even if other moderate Democrats try to stop that?” SEN. BEGICH:
“I’ll tell you, Rachel, the answer is probably no.” (MSNBC, 3/19/09)

SEN. MARK PRYOR (D-AR): “I really do hope we follow the regular order around here.” (“Democrats Mull End-Run For Obama,” The Washington Times, 3/17/09)

SEN. JAY ROCKEFELLER (D-WV): “If you go for budget reconciliation, you’re basically going for a bill that goes nowhere.” (“Bipartisan Senate Group Makes Health-Care Progress,” TIME, 3/13/09)

RECONCILIATION LETTER SIGNED BY:

SENS. ROBERT BYRD (D-WV), EVAN BAYH (D-IN), ROBERT CASEY (D-PA), MARY LANDRIEU (D-LA), CARL LEVIN (D-MI), BLANCHE LINCOLN (D-AR), BEN NELSON (D-NE), & MARK PRYOR (D-AR)

“Using this procedure would circumvent normal Senate practice and would be inconsistent with the Administration’s stated goals of bipartisanship, cooperation, and openness.”
(Letter To Sens. Conrad & Gregg, 3/12/09)

###
SENATE REPUBLICAN COMMUNICATIONS CENTER

Even after a few days homosexuals may still be offended by a story about Amazon dot com. Depending on who you read or believe the only thing that seems clear is certain books were removed from Amazon’s ranking and/or sales feature and thus more or less fell off the map so to speak. Some (ABC) call the published works ‘gay titles’ and others (CNET) call them ‘adult’ books. And Amazon apologized for what they viewed as their own careless or bungling management of the book listings. Add to that a hacker who is taking credit for the episode.

But if you’re like many people you simply find this to be a humorous account of much ado about nothing. With all the critical issues on the table these days, this story is not one of them but is good for a couple of laughs. That is unless Amazon turns this situation into a policy rather than a glitch. Now that would be an accomplishment.

Ya, go ahead, whine.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Gay Titles Deep-Sixed at Amazon
By RUSSELL GOLDMAN Amazon.com, the world’s largest online retailer, blamed a computer “glitch” for stripping scores of gay-themed books of their sales ranking, preventing them from appearing on the site’s best-seller lists. But a notorious Internet …

Amazon criticized for deranking ‘adult’ books
by Steven Musil Amazon.com recently delisted from its sales ranking system gay and lesbian book titles that it deemed “adult,” raising the ire of some who characterize the move as online censorship. Author Mark R. Probst wrote on his blog Sunday that …

Hacker Claims Credit For Amazon’s Gay-Themed Book ‘Glitch’
A hacker now claims he was behind the Amazon.com “glitch” that caused hundreds of gay- and lesbian-themed books to lose their sales ranks over the weekend. The hacker, who identifies himself only as “Weev,” posted a confession of sorts within a …