Blog @ 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

Reports of the demise of the Republican party have been greatly exaggerated. If that were not true the Democrats would not be making such a big deal about Rush Limbaugh lately. Is fear and self-loathing so prevalent among liberals that once they manage to put someone in the White House and maintain a majority in Congress all that remains is awaiting defeat? A familiar phrase has been used here and certainly elsewhere to describe the liberal tendency of ’snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.’ It does appear they are concerned about many things now that they are in a position to lead but are hearing the rumbles of discontent from the public including their own base.

So what remedy do they select? Continue to bash the opposition party rather than lead. Manufacture a story that Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the GOP and attack him and those in his audience. For those who love to criticize conservatives for not being inclusive and rejecting ‘diversity’ take a look in the mirror. Anyone who disagrees with the Democratic party runs the risk of being a target. In the case of Rush Limbaugh, being a target of the Dems only helps him and distracts from any chance of liberals looking like they’re in command. Still looking to reclaim defeat.

Who are Rush Limbaugh’s listeners?
Christian Science Monitor -
Rush Limbaugh, always a force among conservatives, has been front and center in the mainstream media for the past week. First, Michael Steele, the Republican National Committee chairman, criticized the talk-radio host as an “entertainer” whose approach …

Why would someone ask this? With all the noise about the GOP and Limbaugh these last few weeks it is understandable. One excerpt from the report above echoes data reported in other venues as well.

There is little question the conservative talker is a special force in the American media scene. His radio show, broadcast Monday through Friday on 600 stations, is heard by about 20 million people weekly, he claims. That audience would dwarf most mainstream media: It’s bigger than any newspaper’s circulation by several magnitudes, and the TV networks’ nightly news programs garner only about 23 million viewers total.

There is data that estimates the number of registered Republicans to be about 50 million, Democrats 70 million and independents about 40 million. If Limbaugh has an audience of 20 million or about 13% of the previously mentioned combined groups, why are the liberals so interested? When he started in 1988 Bush 41 was the President. That was followed by two terms of Bill Clinton, two terms of Bush 43 and now Obama. At the end of Obama’s first term it will be an equal number of years in the White House by each party since Rush Limbaugh started in talk radio.

Rush Limbaugh toxic to Republican Party, says Bush speechwriter …
New York Daily News - ?8 hours ago?
By Jane H. Furse His controversial quips come faster than a locomotive and he leaps over spineless Republicans in a single sound bite. He’s Rush Limbaugh - and he’s kryptonite for the GOP, says conservative pundit David Frum. …

By headline alone, this blog author certainly disagrees with that statement. Limbaugh has an advantage politicians do not. Politicians may echo the sentiments of Limbaugh or similar ones of their own. But Rush Limbaugh is not hamstrung by the need for the politically safe strategy or concern over offending voters. He can enable a discussion on issues that might otherwise be lost for fear of voter backlash in the minds of elected officials. In that way alone Mr Limbaugh provides a needed service to the American public. And it does not matter whether you agree or disagree with him. It is having the discussion that is important.

White House Scores On Republican Bickering
CBS News - ?12 hours ago?
(CBS) With the help of the White House and the Republican Party, radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh has grabbed headlines all week, his stinging diatribes sparing no one, Democrat or Republican, reports CBS News correspondent Randall Pinkston. …

Gee, imagine that. Limbaugh spares no one. And yet conservative voices including elected office holders continue to engage talk radio with Limbaugh, Hannity and others. It is not simply about the GOP. It is about conservative principles and protecting our nation. For all the talk from Obama and past politicians that Washington would be ‘cleaned up’ it is still operating as usual countered only by the likes of Limbaugh and talk radio which raise the warnings for all to hear, conservative or liberal.

Republicans appear to have faith in GOP
Times Daily - ?3 hours ago?
By Trevor Stokes Local Republicans appear to support their party’s national leadership, including radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh’s role in the party, even in light of recent squabbles over who is leading the GOP. Controversy arose when Rahm Emanuel …

You do not have to be Republican or in love with the GOP to understand in a two party system your choices are limited. That the public has rarely been able to mount a legitimate attempt at a third party or beyond in all these years if proof enough. The ballot is the only weapon the public avails themselves of with any frequency. Which means your choices are usually between whatever each major party is offering. For some time now the only logical choice has been the GOP. It is the only chance for those favoring conservative principles and philosophy. And it is by no means perfect.

Snowe, Collins: Ado over Limbaugh reflects struggles of party
Kennebec Journal - ?8 hours ago?
BY DIETER BRADBURY 03/09/2009 BY DIETER BRADBURY Conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh is casting a shadow over the Republican Party’s efforts to redefine itself after two losing election cycles. For moderate US Sens. …

If the author of the piece above is trying to argue the GOP should turn RINO like Collins, Snowe and Specter they are merely trying to encourage defection to the liberal agenda. That is something conservatives would find impossible to do. Which is why the three RINOs mentioned are called RINOs. At a time when a minority party needs all its members’ votes those who vote with the majority party are usually anticipating defeat in their next election cycle. Just as it was reported Democrats voting with the GOP against the bailout are at risk in their next bid for re-election.

What may have started this whole Limbaugh war from the left is his comment that he wants Obama to fail. It seems like a simple argument for his point of view. If Obama is pushing policies and an agenda that will lead to failure then wanting his agenda to fail or saying you want him to fail makes perfect sense. If you are a conservative and the most liberal President in many years begins to lead the country toward a shift that smells of socialism, of course you would want that to fail. Who the hell wants socialism? This is still the United States of America. Socialism is not welcome here. The end.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Mr. Limbaugh:

Have you ever stopped to consider that continuing to pursue answers to topics like global warming is more beneficial than continuing to dismiss such topics as false?

You might also consider the risk of dismissing a potential threat completely may leave you with no options if the proof you so strongly demand is presented after it is too late.

Just as it is wrong to draw a conclusion before all the facts are in, it is equally wrong to dismiss a concern without those same facts.

Your radio program is a mixture of fact and opinion. Your arguments are a mixture of fact and opinion. It might be helpful if you used facts to form your opinion rather than using opinion to form your facts. It is dangerous to offer a point of view as fact to the general public. Your statement on what is science serves as an example.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

program aired on  the 19th

Another comment on Rush Limbaugh’s program of November 17, 2006 must include a reference to his speech on the label “moderate” Democrats. Elected freshmen Dems were characterized as moderate Dems and Rush says there are no moderate Dems, they are all liberals.

My guess is Rush would regard this post as being written by a member of the kook fringe or liberal or some pejorative equivalent. But Rush throws labels around daily and yet when someone else does he takes issue with it.

Must be disappointing to observe others engage in Rush speech. However, using labels is a fundamental tool of party politics as well as politics in general. Even though I have not had an opportunity to describe Rush as a great American or talk to him personally and mention it as being a great honor, I will again offer him some advice. Rush, take a pill.

If you would discontinue bashing anyone who disagrees with you, more people might view your opinions as credible and not just party politics. Conservative, Democrat, liberal and Republican are not all there is to governing or discussing public affairs and politics. Again, take a pill.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Rush Limbaugh’s lambasting of the John Edwards/PS3/WalMart story may be a little premature. Some advice for Rush: Take a pill.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Outgoing US Congress must deal with spending bills,
tax relief to …
International Herald Tribune -
AP. WASHINGTON: Before the new Democrat-led Congress
takes over in January, current members of the House and Senate
have to finish up with the year’s legislative business, whether
they won re-election or not.

Much in the blogosphere today rehashing political events of the
past week and before. The best we’ve seen claim Limbaugh and
Hewitt are party faithful and defend the GOP to the death, right
or wrong. Is this a joke? What’s the big revelation about any of
the talking heads having an agenda? On the other side, how about
Al Franken or Air America? An agenda, ya think? The sad part
is no one seems to admit that politicians are party faithful as well.

If you believe that there is no agenda in the photo ops with Pelosi
and Bush, then you were born yesterday or more likely early this
morning. Reid, Durban, Biden, etc., etc., all making nice. Notice
by many Democrats that the public has spoken and Dems intend to
do what the American people want is certainly subject to careful
interpretation. Our interpretation is Dems will seize the next two
years doing what they want in as much as their majority will allow.
The party versus party blame game will continue as well as lobby
dollars and corruption. If you think everything will get better just
because the other major party won political advantage this week,
your birthdate may not even exist yet or the turnip truck you will
fall off of is still on the drawing board.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Bush, Mexico’s Calderon to work on immigration
Reuters -
… W. Bush and Mexican President-elect Felipe Calderon
pledged on Thursday to work together for a comprehensive
solution to curb illegal immigration from Mexico …

If it was not a plot by both Houses of Congress to introduce
HR4437 knowing it would never get through the Senate, then
the fine new Senate of the 110th Congress should be able to
finish strong reform starting in January 2007. Similar to the
fact that Immigration Reform of 1986 was never enforced, in
their grand wisdom, politicians have improved on their deceit
by creating a better strategy. Work together just long enough
to satisfy mutual goals and fool the public in believing you really
give a damn. Like Democrats conceding Presidential 2004
elections by nominating John Kerry when John Edwards wsa a
much more viable candidate. Kerry was a sacrificial lamb and
the only one who did not know it was Kerry. He still doesn’t.

We hope all you smiling Democrats are enjoying your victories.
We hope all you Republicans are understanding your arrogance
that led to this. And we hope you both as well as all of America
is prepared for a continuation of porous borders, unrestricted
immigration and a complete breakdown of national security.

If you haven’t noticed, the resignation of Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld and previously mentioned items absolutely elated the
Muslim world. Al-Jazeera and the rest have been celebrating
since November 7th, 2006. Thank you one and all. NOT!

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Immigration caseload pulls
Kansas judges to N.M.
The Associated Press
Monday, October 2, 2006

Wichita — Federal judges in Wichita have had to help out in New
Mexico, which doesn’t have enough judges to hear all of its illegal
immigrations cases.

Here’s an earlier piece on this located on our main site.
Click Here

Based on the earlier report and this one it would appear that for
those who do not believe illegal immigration is burdensome and
expensive to the citizens of the host country……you are wrong!

Here is an example of Mexico not dealing with the welfare of
their citizens and pushing the problem on a neighboring country.

Mexico to Bush: Veto border fence bill
Monsters and Critics.com, UK - 8 minutes ago
… Mexico (UPI) — Mexico asked US President Bush Monday to veto a bill to
build a 700-mile fence along the border to thwart illegal immigration

The fence idea is not the preferred interim solution largely due to
the expense and relative effectiveness. The militarized complaint
from Mexico is a load of dung. The real reason they don’t want it
is it impedes their ability to transfer Mexico’s national problem to
the United States.

If you ever wanted an example of how Congress deals with problems
that will reflect poorly on their reputations or how they do damage
control, the Representative Mark Foley story is on point. Here is a
story that should not be advanced for political gain. The obvious use
of the story for political gain distracts some attention from the primary
concern of allowing young people to be put at risk. The absolutely
insane part of the story is Mark Foley’s official participation in efforts
related to child protection.

First of all it is reasonable to show an example of Congressional damage
control by way of a google search after word hit the street that Congress
would close down Foley’s official website. Below is the page you get if
you search on Google under images and then click on the image. Rather
than a typical error page you are shown the following.

Office of the Sixteenth Congressional District of Florida
Formerly the Office of Representative Mark Foley

The Washington, D.C. office and the district offices of the Honorable
Mark Foley will continue to serve the people of the Sixteenth
CongressionalDistrict of Florida under the supervision of the Clerk of the
House of Representatives. Representative Foley resigned effective close
of business September 29, 2006.

They did quite well removing most Mark Foley related content/images
but it wasn’t a perfect clean up. Once something is out on the net, it is
unlikely you can make it go away. If you do a search for Mark Foley on
Google images and save complete pages with all associated files of the
result pages (probably 6), you will have some record of links and
connections for those who are currently dancing to distance themselves
from the former Congressman. Just to annoy those involved, there are
some pix provided below.

Some immigration news provided as elections near.

With all the corporate influence through lobbyists, both parties
wanting cheap votes from anyone and anyway, the American
public is probably screwed after the mid terms regardless of the
outcome. The political process in this country is so out of line
that one election won’t change it. But if the voting public would
remove all or most incumbents and do it every election at least
term limits would be working. Then maybe politicians would
start listening to the public and we could slowly change things
for the better. But that may only be a dream. Sad if it is.

Random Thoughts As They Occur:
Also on today’s program Rush Limbaugh addressed the flack from
Bush 41’s administration and Colin Powell’s camp on the war and
related items as people who may be more concerned about their
legacy or an attempt to redirect attention from other topics.

Along with your obvious success on radio, Rush, comes something
of a responsibility to keep your audience informed that this may
be just an opinion, as you offered no supporting evidence. This is
offered as a suggestion since it seems many of your fans, based on
listening to them speak, may take your information as fact without
the evidence we mentioned. Opinions are fine. We have some.
Your listeners having them is fine too. But if they believe what
you say is fact and it is not, that would be a disservice to your loyal
fans.

Random Thoughts As They Occur:

Rush Limbaugh said on his program today that if the Republicans lose the majority in Congress this fall it will be due to Republicans fighting Republicans or not getting anything done on immigration.

On this point, we respectfully agree with Rush Limbaugh. We are sure this is of real importance to him. NOT.

One more comment on the Rush Limbaugh show from today
and then hopefully there will be nothing else on which we feel
compelled to comment.

In his discussion on the “Path to 9/11″ there was mention of
Richard Clarke and Rush extended a compliment to Clarke on
his views of the topic. He also made a point that the portrayal
of Clarke was as if he was the only one concerned about terror
and our vulnerabilities. It was good he mentioned Clarke is a
paid consultant for ABC, the network broadcasting the program.
These and other points we found surprising and welcome as a
balance from Rush.

So why did Rush have to say that Clarke and others are setting it
up so if we’re attacked again on Bush’s watch that they will claim
it’s because Bush failed to follow up on the recommendations of
the 9/11 commission. Rush, you were doing great to possibly
promote a little bipartisan calm from the parties faithful. Why did
you have to go and screw it up by throwing in a party barb at the
end?