Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Dixie Chicks drop controversial lead singer in new album

By: CAITLIN R. KING
Associated Press
01/12/10 11:45 AM EST

NASHVILLE, TENN. — Two members of the Dixie Chicks — minus lead singer Natalie Maines — are preparing to release a new album this year.

Was it political controversy that caused the Dixie Chicks to fade in the music business or simply whatever talent they may have already ran its course?

During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the Dixie Chicks performed in concert in London on March 10, 2003, at the Shepherd’s Bush Empire theatre in England. During the introduction to their song “Travelin’ Soldier”, Natalie Maines, a Texas native, said:

‘Just so you know, we’re on the good side with y’all. We do not want this war, this iolence, and we’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas.’

Celebs in the music and film industry especially seem to hold some notion that they have some special calling that requires weighing in on public affairs. Granted, music and film have been used many times to make political statements but perhaps those fortunate enough to make a living in these businesses should remember one fact about their personal views. Not everyone agrees with their opinions. Add to that actions have consequences.

Martie Maguire and Emily Robison will be releasing new music in 2010 without lead vocalist Natalie Maines. Lloyd Maines, Natalie’s father, has stated that the trio are “definitely still an entity”. On January 15, it was announced that duo will be known as Court Yard Hounds and will release an album in May with Robison on lead vocals.

After the commentary in 2003 nothing followed until 2006 and now in 2010 two of the three women are starting again without Natalie Maines. Wonder if there are any regrets?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

related:
Dixie Chicks or Tricks?

Dixie Chicks: A Bit Naive

Turnout could hit as high as 70 percent Tuesday in the high-stakes U.S. Senate battle between Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley and GOP state Sen. Scott Brown, according to some local election officials.

Absentee ballot requests have increased - on par with levels ordinarily seen in a presidential election - some town clerks say. And town and city halls were buzzing last week with people voting and asking questions about registration in advance of the election to fill the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s seat, said Theodora Eaton, president of the state’s city and town clerk’s association.

Under normal circumstances anticipation of high voter turnout for an election, any election, would be a good thing. It may still be a good thing for the special election in Massachusetts. But in light of the crazy spectacle surrounding last year’s senatorial election in Minnesota between incumbent Norm Coleman and challenger Al Franken an uncertain immediate future for the winner of the election to fill Ted Kennedy’s vacant senate seat may arise.

Since a win by Scott Brown would represent the 41st vote against Obamacare there have been rumors that he would not be seated instantly while the Democrats in Washington continue to force their version of healthcare reform on a wary public. That suggestion was met with another related to political suicide for liberals in the 2010 elections. Seems a risky proposition given all the seats that will be contested given retirements and public discontent.

If Coakley wins it seems reasonable that she would swiftly be seated to advance questionable healthcare reform. But then, that is what was expected in the Minnesota fiasco last year. And there’s always the question of vote early and vote often given ACORN, the new black panthers intimidation scandal and SEIU thug tactics at Tea Parties and elsewhere. Fiction, conjecture or actual fact there will be plenty of debate on every aspect of this relatively historic election that may put Camelot to a long overdue rest.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The U.S. Senate election enters its final “do or die” days as President Obama heads to the Hub today to try to save his domestic agenda with a last-ditch pitch for Democrat Martha Coakley, while insurgent Republican Scott Brown criss-crosses the state on a wave of anti-Washington momentum.

“Initially, I thought it was me against the machine, but now it’s us against the machine,” Brown told a cheering crowd at a Plymouth campaign rally yesterday. Brown has vowed to help defeat the president’s flagship health-care legislation.

While some earlier reports indicated the Boston Herald and perhaps other MSM sources were giving balanced coverage to the special election in Taxachusetts the example presented here is not a case in point. It may be that the need to increase readership in the advent of a serious GOP challenge to the long held liberal lion’s seat in the US Senate has been discarded. Scott Brown’s lead in the polls may have caused the MSM to remember which political party butters their bread.

But the excerpt above may be enough coverage for Scott Brown in this otherwise Martha Coakley dominated report from the Herald. Voters are growing increasingly angry about politics as usual that people like President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claimed would end as of the 2008 presidential campaign and the 2006 midterms, respectively.

The far left and perhaps most liberals are angry at President Obama for not ending the mission in Iraq and Afghanistan immediately as well as adopting many of his predecessor’s policies on matters like Gitmo and the Patriot Act. Now, in the face of 2010 elections next November Democrats are all over the map on how to get re-elected as party leaders try to force an unpopular agenda on the nation while ignoring pressing issues like jobs, deficits and astronomical national debt.

Certainly members of the GOP and conservative voters oppose wins by the Democrats. But now independents are heavily favoring Republican candidates after feeling suckered in the last election. And liberals are not exclusively supporting Democratic candidates or incumbents. The fates of Senators Nelson and Landrieu may make that case this fall.

For the President to alter his schedule to accommodate Coakley’s failing campaign with a whistle stop speaks volumes on the trouble her pursuit of Ted Kennedy’s vacant senate seat faces.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

“Anyone who isn’t insured, we bump their pay up. They go through the Connector,” he said, referring to the state agency that connects residents with health plans.Massachusetts is the only state that requires universal health coverage, although there are exceptions. About 97 percent of residents are insured.

Coakley provides coverage for her workers.

Brown said his 12 campaign staffers are independent contractors - which also allows him to avoid payroll taxes - and most were already insured.

At first glance it may have appeared to Martha Coakley that exploiting information about Scott Brown’s campaign staffers was a smart move. If that’s the case she should have taken a second look. While the item above is a brief report from the Boston Herald’s Jessica Fargen more attention is paid to Brown’s staffers than Coakley’s. The focus is on how Brown’s staffers are covered and reference to the infamous MA universal healthcare plan passed by the liberal legislature and signed by then Governor Mitt Romney. All it says about Coakley’s staffers is that Coakley provides coverage. So does Brown.

Is Coakley drawing a comparison between Taxachusetts universal healthcare mandates and those currently on the table in Washington? Even if that was not the intent it is the effect. Everyone under Demcare will be required to have health insurance. And the choices available to employers and employees will be similarly limited. The only thing that won’t be limited is what we have to pay for it.

In the case of Scott Brown’s staffers they chose to work for his campaign. Those who did not have coverage had their pay increased and followed the options under the state’s healthcare mandates. Of course the report does not provide the details on the coverage for Coakley’s staffers for comparison. But you have to ask yourself the question. Given the sad state of affairs with Martha Coakley’s liberal senate campaign why would she choose this pathetic attempt to make healthcare an issue in Massachusetts? With most Democrats uneasy about reform and the vast majority of voters downright angry about it Coakley’s choice here may explain her lagging in the polls.

One last note on the story deserves attention. Brown’s campaign staffers just like Coakley’s did not sign up for a permanent campaign job. Regardless of the outcome on January 19th some will transition to new jobs with the victor while others will move on to something else. It is not likely that health insurance was a high priority in their decision to participate.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Clinton, like many who’ve studied the health-care bills, has problems with them. But to steal an Obama line, don’t let the perfect stand in the way of the good. We can either get a toe in the reform door now and fix things as we go along - like we fixed every piece of major legislation ever passed. Or we can “go back to the drawing board,” as Brown says, which means: Forget about it.

Whether the special election in Taxachusetts for Ted Kennedy’s vacant seat is about broader issues or simply political math for healthcare reform the piece above from the Boston Herald touts the liberal spin and perhaps unknowingly makes an argument against it.

Conceding the ability to produce a ‘perfect’ bill right now but fixing it later is how we get into problems with entitlements. Three quarters of the budget in recent years and probably longer is spending on entitlements. Social security, Medicare and Medicaid are unsustainable. This is what the liberal agenda has given us since FDR.

It’s natural that citizens who did not voluntarily contribute to these programs through payroll deductions expect to receive the benefits after a lifetime of paying for them. There in lies the rub. The liberal agenda is patient. They try to convince the public their agenda is in the public interest. Over time the cost goes up and the benefits go down but the government gets bigger and the political power is secure. Too bad the same cannot be said for your future or that of your children.

‘Like we fixed every major piece of legislation ever passed.’ Does it really seem to you right now that anyone EVER fixed entitlements? Touching the third rail of politics causes political suicide. So all POLS can muster is ignoring the problems all together or continuing to raise taxes and reduce benefits to pay for programs that are simply not feasible.

Martha Coakley would tow the party line abusing majority status to heap more liabilities on American taxpayers in the name of reform. At least Scott Brown offers a chance to correct the problems and pursue reasoned solutions to critical issues. We cannot continue to spend money we don’t have. That is part of what caused the issues we face now…. spending what we don’t have.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The Senate candidates - not content with battling over health care, homeland security and bank taxes - can’t seem to stop bickering over who exactly that desk in Washington belongs to.

“This is not Ted Kennedy’s seat. It’s not the Democrats’ seat. It’s your seat,” declared Republican state Sen. Scott Brown at a rally yesterday in Quincy.

The title of the piece above emphasizes the ‘exciting’ factor of the special election in Taxachusetts to fill the vacancy in the US Senate. Ted Kennedy held the seat for almost half a century. Scott Brown states the seat belongs to the people not the Democrats. Vicki Kennedy, Ted’s widow, voices a similar sentiment. One thing for sure, MA AG Martha Coakley is no Ted Kennedy. But Vicki Kennedy endorses her for the people’s seat.

Vicki Kennedy’s words would seem more sincere had she not endorsed anyone. Just like Caroline Kennedy’s apparent tendency to stay out of the fray in politics would have appeared more genuine had she not endorsed anyone, including Barack Obama, in the 2008 election.

It is reported that Martha Coakley avoids references to Kennedy or Camelot in her campaign. Perhaps the only thing she has done correctly from the beginning. With Scott Brown leading in the polls heading into Tuesday’s duel at the ballot box one thing seems clear. The bloom is off the rose for Camelot and voters of all stripes are angry.

Had the Democratic party not abused their Congressional majority by not only shutting out Republicans from any serious negotiation on legislative matters, etc., but ignoring public dissatisfaction with the state of healthcare reform and the failure to promote job growth this election may have been a slam dunk.

Sure, anything can happen and usually does in politics. And neither party has a monopoly on bad decisions. But right now the Democrats are in the majority and with that distinction comes the blame for poor performance.

A trend by the voting public to place one party in the White House and the other in control of Congress was commonly viewed as ignorant. Maybe that trend is looking smarter to the pundits these days. After all, the complaint was nothing would be accomplished under those circumstances. But given the track record of both parties having them do nothing or being forced to find common ground may be in the best interest of our nation.

Maybe the voting public is smarter than the credit given them by the pundits. The answer may come on January 19th in MA.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

A stunning poll showing state Sen. Scott Brown ahead of Coakley wrecked Obama’s week. After all, Obama’s dream of overhauling the nation’s health-care system could hinge on the Democrats holding 60 seats in the Senate to keep Republicans from filibustering the bill to death. A Brown win would also allow the GOP to bring Obama’s entire agenda to a halt.

Reason enough for conservatives and independents to vote for Scott Brown. Given the reluctance of many Congressional Democrats to vote for Obamacare it is good reason for liberals to vote for Scott Brown too. The pressure placed on Democrats by their party, including Obama, Reid, Pelosi and others, to vote the ‘party line’ is nothing more than extortion in an election year. No different than the bribes offered Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA).

The debate has never been about healthcare reform. Those supporting Obamacare expecting reform will not get it. The singular reason for Dems passing this legislation is to give President Obama a political victory for his agenda to include in the State of the Union address with the hope of saving his first year in office. That’s an expensive campaign item taxpayers will have to fund. With no guarantee of benefits in the future or at least not for the first four years. Conveniently placed well beyond the 2010 and 2012 elections.

Again, reason enough to vote for Scott Brown no matter who you are or what you want. At the very least Brown offers a chance to remove the flaws from healthcare reform legislation and present an honest bill.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

This is required viewing not only for conservatives but liberals as well. Click on the image above for the entire program.

update:

In keeping with this blog’s policy to present must see TV and required reading posts the following important link on required reading is added.

Courting Disaster: One of the most important books of the year

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

What’s the single largest problem with passing healthcare reform in one of its current versions or proposals in Congress? The funding of currently proposed legislation for healthcare reform starts almost immediately if passed. Whether you can keep your current coverage may begin to change in as little as one year. But the reform part, good, bad or ugly does not begin until 2014.

Start paying for reform as soon as any legislation passes but wait for any perceived benefit for four years. The most troubling issue with that condition is Congress can continue to alter the game after initial passage and make ‘reform’ worse than it is right now as the public loses interest over time. If you review most legislation that moves through Congress that is what it does, alters previous legislation.

So your chances for any benefit from what proponents call reform starts with pay for no play and diminishes from there. Opponents of healthcare reform point to higher taxes, higher premiums and less choice on medical care. If they’re right, regardless of your opinion of reform, you stand to lose immediately by paying for what reform covers with no chance to benefit for at least four years. And your chances beyond that period of time are small.

So even if you live in Nebraska or Louisiana where Senators Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA) sold their yes votes on healthcare reform for Medicaid deals for their respective states, you lose. And even residents of those two states stand to lose over time regardless of initial perks for selling their votes. Another member of Congress, Rep Joseph Cao (R-LA) from the 2nd district sold his vote for healthcare on the mere promise from President Obama that he would help him with healthcare issues. Well, that’s the public version of what happened.

For something of a reality check on healthcare reform and its politics here is an excerpt and link to Kimberly A. Strassel’s take on the situation.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The Health Lady Has Yet to Sing

JANUARY 14, 2010, 10:35 P.M. ET
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL

Critics of the legislation shouldn’t get their hopes too high. The Democratic leadership is now clinically obsessed with passage. No first-round yes vote has yet jumped ship, and even if some do, Mrs. Pelosi has options. Prior no votes might be convinced that a more “moderate” Senate bill gives them cover to flip. Three no votes, including Tennessee’s John Tanner, are retiring, and may feel liberated. The White House no doubt has a list of plum jobs it can offer people as consolation prizes for voting yes and losing their seats.

The point is rather that there is now officially enough nervousness that anything can happen. Whatever the Tuesday election outcome, Mr. Brown already claims victory for rattling Democratic minds. And should he win, health care becomes even more toxic. This isn’t over yet.

Urge Democratic Leader to Comply with Open Government Act of 2007
Jan 12 2010

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., and Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., today joined 21 of their Senate Republican colleagues in signing a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., asking him to provide a list of all earmarks and congressional directed spending in the Senate health care bill, as well as in any future version of the health care bill that House and Senate Democrats might push to a vote.

Isakson and Chambliss have repeatedly criticized the lack of transparency throughout the process of drafting the $2.5 trillion health care bill, as well as the backroom deals that Reid made with certain Senate Democrats in order to secure their votes.

The text of the letter is below:

Dear Majority Leader Reid,

We write to express our concern over the inclusion of several provisions in the Manager’s Amendment to The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Since the nearly 400 page amendment was introduced, we discovered over half a dozen provisions that appear to have been included for the primary purpose of benefitting some states in particular. Though your office has referred to these provisions as “a normal part of the legislative process,” we are concerned that the inclusion of these items without appropriate disclosure may violate The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007.

The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-81) changed Senate rules to enhance transparency in the legislative process. The relevant change requires any amendment sponsor to publicly disclose each congressionally directed spending item and limited tax benefit included in that amendment. The design of this provision was to ensure that the American people know which lawmakers advocated for specific carve outs and earmarks.

It is clear that the Manager’s Amendment, in addition to the underlying bill, includes specific provisions which benefit some states and not others. We therefore ask you, as the sponsor of the Manager’s Amendment and underlying bill, to provide a list of all earmarks and congressional directed spending as required by The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. We request this information be shared with our offices and posted on the majority’s website within 24 hours.

Finally, we anticipate that in coming weeks you and Speaker Pelosi will introduce a bill combining the House and Senate health bills. Upon the introduction of that bill we request a similar list of provisions, as required by The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, be shared with our offices and posted on the majority’s website within 24 hours.

The American people deserve a transparent Congressional process. All Americans should know which States and entities will benefit from Congressional negotiations related to the health bills and amendments.

Battle of the network late TV hosts was caused by the network, one network, NBC. And scandal ridden David Letterman is not involved. It seems the whole thing was started by affiliate gripes about NBC’s time slot arrangement as indicated below.

Feeling pressure from affiliates, who have been griping for months about how Leno’s 10 p.m performance is hurting their late news and bottom line, NBC is scrambling to put together a strategy to appease them and keep Leno on the payroll.

Now it seems Conan O’Brien will jump ship over the situation.

“For 60 years, The Tonight Show has aired immediately following the late local news,” O’Brien said. “I sincerely believe that delaying The Tonight Show into the next day to accommodate another comedy program will seriously damage what I consider to be the greatest franchise in the history of broadcasting. The Tonight Show at 12:05 simply isn’t The Tonight Show.”

The part O’Brien omits from the excerpt above and possibly any statement he has made is how the ‘franchise’ was built with the likes of Paar and Carson. That was the Tonight Show. This is not.

The opinion that no one will care about is offered here. In reverse order, O’Brien may be a capable TV host but nothing about his version of the show lives up to the history of it. Jay Leno is also quite capable. And he’s more likeable than O’Brien. While he maintained some aspects of the ‘franchise’ it appeared he had a tendency to inject a bathroom humor style of jokes as his episode progressed.

Steve Allen was first. Carson was King. Allen was impeccable and a ground breaker as were Paar and Carson. The same cannot be said of what followed. Putting Leno and O’Brien back where they were would probably be a good idea but won’t likely happen.

Let it die just like NBC has done with anything they touched over a number of years.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Sue Lowden for US Senate