Blog @ MoreWhat.com

On the topic of what has been referred to as climategate, a word. Scandal is a word. But more words than that are presented by the following source which sums up the situation rather well. Don’t be fooled by the excerpt presented here. The account is balanced and may be completely on point.

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet

And another group of words from WSJ demonstrate the single item that many seem to ignore.

The documents, hacked from the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University in the U.K., show that some climate researchers declined to share their data with fellow scientists, and sought to keep researchers with dissenting views from publishing in leading scientific journals.

If ’spin’ can be defined as emphasizing your argument and diminishing that of your opposition rather than simply lying about a situation for damage control then the following from the MSM demonstrates the strategy.

Skeptics have also pounced on an e-mail from Jones to colleagues that reads: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

It’s not so much that AGW ’skeptics’ have ‘pounced’ on anything but anticipate those embarrassed by climategate will do their best to dismiss this event just as they do to others who do not agree with their arguments about something they named AGW.

Providing these hacked docs are genuine, which seems to be the case and is mentioned in the link for the first excerpt above, less than honorable actions were taken by AGW scientists that may include fudging the numbers and sabotaging opposing conclusions from fellow scientists. What that demonstrates is a breech of trust without which science is not science. How do you expect people to accept your findings if you engaged in dishonest tactics to support an agenda that has nothing to do with science?

That’s the word, science. If it is not honest, it is not science.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The hacked emails and other docs that were published on the internet from a ‘leading’ global warming proponent source has raised some discussion. There is the expected shock and dismay that anyone would do such a thing. And there is some commentary on the real point of all this. As an interesting side note, of the 100 entries on the first page of a Google search, about five mainstream news sources cover the story. The NYT, WaPo, LAT, AP and the WSJ are there. But the vast majority of hits comes from lesser known sources. But then who cares what the MSM has to say about it?

The source of the hacked docs had this to say. “The selective publication of some stolen emails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way,” the university said. A completely laughable response from a source who has engaged in dissemination of fake science and other unscrupulous tactics to promote an agenda that to date was suspected but largely hidden. BTW, these were ‘good’ hackers regardless of their intentions as they have exposed a sinister plot.

So what kind of material is in the hacked docs. The emails include discussions of apparent efforts to make sure that reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations group that monitors climate science, include their own views and exclude others. In addition, emails show that climate scientists declined to make their data available to scientists whose views they disagreed with. Imagine that, the United Nations is involved. There efforts and those of others involved in this sham have conspired to present only what supports their agenda. So who will now step forward to attempt a whitewash of this latest revelation in fake science?

It will come from people like this. …the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University that skeptics’ research was unwelcome: We “will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” Neither man could be reached for comment Sunday. Opposing viewpoints in a discussion of science will be kept out somehow. That’s reassuring. So much for the validity of any information from the AGW crowd.

The people that will speak out for truth in science are more closely exemplified by this example. “This is horrible,” said Pat Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute in Washington who is mentioned negatively in the emails. “This is what everyone feared. Over the years, it has become increasingly difficult for anyone who does not view global warming as an end-of-the-world issue to publish papers. This isn’t questionable practice, this is unethical.”

That would be putting it mildly. If there was any question about the honesty of those supporting AGW on this blog before it is certainly gone now. AGW has been exposed for what it is…. fake science.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

As a post-script, the MSM was mentioned as well as a comment of who cares. Of the five listed specifically, this blog views the WSJ as credible and at one time held that view of WaPo. The others listed rarely get it right.

ClimateGate: Both sides of the pond demand probes into data manipulation scandal 

What is commonly referred to as information technology is a topic worthy of much discussion. There is no shortage of resources dedicated to this very theme. And there is no shortage of content lauding the benefit of all things techie including the bells and whistles offered by most vendors. But what is the state of IT in all its manifestations most notably the products and services offered?

The most frequent target of this blog when criticizing popular technology has been Microsoft. There are few who would defend the Darth Vader of information technology but the software giant is not alone with its failures. Just one passing shot on MS seems timely here. Even if Windows 7 becomes known as a reasonable operating system (no believers here) it does not reconcile the many years of marketing ripoffs that the vast majority of the consuming public willingly accepted. The view here is that even if Windows 7 is viewed favorably and for valid reasons it is a typical product life cycle strategy from Microsoft. Rip them off as long as you can and when that doesn’t work anymore give them something less annoying that may actually work.

The wireless industry is ripe for criticism but that will have to wait for a subsequent post. An accidental find in the news provides the perfect introduction to slam the so-called ’social networking’ phenomenon. The author of this post does not myspace, facebook or twitter or anything else social networking. Because social networking is not social networking. And who better to make the case in point than a co-founder of Twitter?

Twitter co-founder Stone, meanwhile, was called upon to defend his company against the charge that tweets are pointless musing while social networking sites are making people more isolated as they turn to their computer screens rather than meeting people in real life.

“I may send out a tweet that is seemingly of little value to most people like, ‘I am enjoying a beer at Logan International Airport in Boston’ and someone may say, ‘who cares?’,” Stone said. “But someone else who is walking through the airport and receives that tweet on their mobile in real time could join me for a beer, and we could come up with an idea for a company that is wildly successful and we will have turned that lead into gold.

“That is happening a million times a second because people are communicating publicly. It is untrue that we are becoming more isolated because of these tools, I think we are connecting more and we are finding new ways to do good.

What do you expect? When confronted with such a question a person in Stone’s position should be prepared to give an answer to support the marketing hype. So let’s analyze that statement from a practical point of view. How many ideas for ‘a company that is wildly successful’ occur every day? Given a ‘twit’ frequency of one million times a second you have a better chance of hitting the lottery than spawning ‘a wildly successful company’ by Stones own words. And the lottery is a losing proposition based on typical chances of winning.

Stone continues….

“A friend of mine asked me, ‘what do you hope people will say about Twitter in five or 10 years?’ and my answer to him, which I was surprised to hear myself say, was that I hope people will not consider Twitter a triumph of technology, instead that they will consider it a triumph of humanity.”

Does this marketing hogwash really require a response? Okay, here’s one.

Hey Stone, you and some others came up with yet one more way to attract enough traffic to a website for it to be successful. That’s it, nothing more. There is no redeeming quality to characterize this effort as anything else. In defense of this conclusion consider MySpace. Who did this enterprise benefit more, the general public or pedophiles? Yes, that appraisal may be extreme but the same can be said of Facebook or Twitter. They claim to be one thing and end up largely serving the benefit of those with less than altruistic intentions.

Most things IT simply carry an old philosophy in business. If they will buy it and you can sell it, go nuts. It has little to do with improving life through technology.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The climate change and global warming debate may be continuing in the real world but those employed by your tax dollars have jumped ahead to spending more of your money courtesy of Steven Chu.

Nothing like a good stimulus program to find more ways to spend tax dollars. God knows paying down the national debt or reducing trillion dollar plus deficits is a waste of money, right?

Here’s what one of Steven Chu’s bright ideas has paid for with your money.

New program will certify professionals in carbon capture and storage

RICHLAND, Wash. – Scientists and engineers will soon be able to receive advanced training and certification in burying and permanently storing underground the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide as part of a recent stimulus award from the Department of Energy. The DOE awarded nearly $1 million to the Seattle-based Environmental Outreach and Stewardship Alliance (EOS) to develop a carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) curriculum that will be used to build a skilled workforce through regional training.

Imagine that! $1 million to develop climate change curriculum. And there’s at least $7 million more of your money to spend after that. That’ll recover America and create more jobs, right?

Funding for the EOS training project is part of more than $8.4 million recently awarded by DOE Secretary Steven Chu for regional sequestration technology training programs.

And we wouldn’t want to unnecessarily increase our carbon footprint with this project, right?

The project organizers also plan to make lectures and other relevant course material available on the Web for students who cannot attend in person, which will reduce the program’s overall carbon footprint.

Gee, do you suppose this planet-saving method is a proven winner? You know, is it a good idea and will it be effective, reasonable, beneficial and not break the bank?

PNNL is conducting laboratory and field research in the Pacific Northwest to assess the feasibility of permanently storing carbon dioxide in basalt, a type of igneous rock common in eastern Washington, Oregon and parts of Idaho.

Hmmm, seems as though someone is putting the horse before the cart…… again. There’s a pejorative remark about educators that states those who can, do, and those who can’t, teach. Have you ever wondered about public sector science? It may have been considered a noble endeavor for the public to fund scientific research. But these days one has to wonder if geeks and techies who work for the government were unable to get a job in the real world. Add to that the notion they may spend much of their time seeking funding to provide themselves with an income. Not much incentive to be good at science.

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

NOAA: Summer Temperature Below Average for U.S.

September 10, 2009

The average June-August 2009 summer temperature for the contiguous United States was below average – the 34th coolest on record, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. August was also below the long-term average. The analysis is based on records dating back to 1895.

U.S. Temperature Highlights – Summer

* For the 2009 summer, the average temperature of 71.7 degrees F was 0.4 degree F below the 20th Century average. The 2008 average summer temperature was 72.7 degrees F.

* A recurring upper level trough held the June-August temperatures down in the central states, where Michigan experienced its fifth, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and South Dakota their seventh, Nebraska its eighth, and Iowa its ninth coolest summer. By contrast, Florida had its fourth warmest summer, while Washington and Texas experienced their eighth and ninth warmest, respectively.

* The Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota region experienced its sixth coolest summer on record. Only the Northwest averaged above normal temperatures.

Sometimes it’s hard to know who you can trust. It would be foolish to proclaim that businesses never mistreat their customers. And no one is likely to express complete confidence in government as a champion of consumers. So the old term ‘caveat emptor’ is still relevant these days. The burden of buyer beware is well placed. We all need to take responsibility for the choices we make. But when the options are severely limited rendering one’s choices to the ‘only game in town’ the choice is not really a choice at all. You either accept what is available or decline to participate.

Here’s the rare personal example for illustration. This blogger has not subscribed to cable, satellite or pay-tv for almost a decade. The short version of why goes like this. I used cable tv for years. The price continued to rise. The content quality continued to decline. The couch potatoes helped support the trend by paying anything to watch nothing all the time. You know, 57 channels and nothing on. And this blogger realized watching less tv was probably a good idea on its own merits.

Cable tv companies were essentially petitioned to offer channel by channel pay schemes which never materialized. Programming became redundant as one successful channel after another spawned new channels based solely on previously successful formats. The programming schedules became several hours in length followed by repeats of the same programs for the remainder of the day. It was no better than broadcast networks and getting worse. The plethora of channels offered increased by leaps and bounds while one was hard pressed to find a few that were useful in some way.

Wireless human to human voice communication followed a similar price/quality conundrum for the thinking consumer. Actually talking to another person on a wireless telephone was lost in the promotion of other meaningless or non-essential services or bells and whistles. As if telecom was focusing on an old description of top salespeople they were trying to sell the sizzle not the steak. Prices have increased dramatically with wireless communications and savvy entrepreneurs have exploited the ‘gotta have it’ mentality with picture phones, net access with wireless phones and even convinced some consumers that texting was practical.

This blogger’s response to the ‘telephone’ situation is also about a decade old. Perhaps before it was fashionable the land line was abandoned in favor of a cell phone. As the costs continued to rise and service continued to decline this blogger opted for a pre-paid disposable phone where one buys airtime with cards or online. So as with cable tv, this blogger while not eliminating the use of a phone has greatly minimized the use of it. And as for internet access I have opted for broadband at the lowest price/speed available for my needs.

So what is the point in all this babble? Up to this point this blogger was in favor of the idea of net neutrality as he understood it. It appeared to me the argument against it by telecom companies was feeble. It appeared as the anecdotes above this was one more consumer ripoff waiting to happen where quality takes a nose dive and prices inflate dramatically. It also seems that ISPs could tackle the problem of users who take more than their fair share of bandwidth through other means.

But all that or other views on the issue may be moot. Not until Barack Obama’s FCC guy publicly expressed net neutrality a good thing did I question my position. You may think that unfair but given the performance of the Obama Administration, his liberal legions and controlled Congress to date a red flag has been raised. So some new research and study will be required for a follow up post on the topic. Until then you can read the excerpt below and follow the link for the rest of the story. And feel free to submit comments to enlighten or inform this blog(ger) on net neutrality’s status and true intent.

Genachowski, a Harvard Law School classmate of President Barack Obama’s and a fundraiser for his 2008 campaign, has been a big supporter of net neutrality. An Internet venture capitalist, he helped write the campaign’s tech policy as an adviser, which included solid support of such principles.

Telecom corporations have often chafed at net neutrality. They have lobbied against similar limits placed in the stimulus package, saying they represented unnecessary regulation that could impede private innovation.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

An earlier post on this blog, ‘IAEA Paper Tiger vs Iranian Nukes‘, expresses a viewpoint on the do-nothings regarding Iran’s nuclear threat. Oh how surprising that today a report referenced below confirms suspicions that the IAEA is one of those do-nothings.

VIENNA — The global threat posed by Iran’s suspect nuclear program is “hyped” because there’s no hard proof that Tehran has an ongoing effort to build an atomic weapon, the head of the U.N. nuclear agency asserts in a magazine interview.

And there is no ‘hard proof’ why? Because the do-nothings have failed to compel Iran to come clean. So what does Elbaradei say?

ELBARADEI: We have not seen concrete evidence that Tehran has an ongoing nuclear weapons program. But somehow, many people are talking about how Iran’s nuclear program is the greatest threat to the world. In many ways, I think the threat has been hyped. Yes, there’s concern about Iran’s future intentions and Iran needs to be more transparent with the IAEA and international community. We still have outstanding questions that are relevant to the nature of Tehran’s program, and we still need to verify that there aren’t undeclared activities taking place inside of the country. But the idea that we’ll wake up tomorrow and Iran will have a nuclear weapon is an idea that isn’t supported by the facts as we have seen them so far. It’s urgent, however, to initiate a dialogue between Washington and Tehran to build trust, normalize relations, and allay concerns as proposed by President Obama. To me, that’s the only way forward.

Not ‘we haven’t seen concrete evidence’ because you have not done your job to discover the evidence. Of course you have ‘outstanding’ questions. All the questions are outstanding. Here’s an outstanding question for you. How do you draw conclusions without the evidence you are supposed to collect. What facts have you seen so far? It is hard to see facts when you do not look. No one suggests your tomorrow scenario. Continuous foot dragging will allow Iran to develop and deploy and/or use nuclear weapons. Of course, hard to imagine the UN would defer action to the US. Now they expect an equal do-nothing to uncover evidence of Iran’s nuclear weapons program through appeasement.

Why don’t we send Bill Clinton to Iran as happened with North Korea. There still must be Americans being held there. Go save someone Bill and broker another back room deal with terrorists. Your administration was good at doing that. Oh, could that be what ushered in 9/11. Gives the impression Americans are slow learners.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

(note: the ‘puff piece’ interview of Elbaradei at the link for the pdf file in the excerpt above is pathetic.  The kind of special interest appraisal that generates do-nothings like the UN and the IAEA.)

It is not uncommon these days to hear people quip it is time for a revolution. This frequent reaction during casual conversations about the state of the nation is presented with overtones of humor as most would agree that thoughts of revolution do not conjure images of reasonable solutions. While participants in such social intercourse may strain from the the effects of the current plague of political and economic dysfunction their desire is more a longing for a renaissance than a revolution.

OMG, another ‘French’ word enters. The Renaissance (French for “rebirth”; Italian: Rinascimento, from re- “again” and nascere “be born”)[1] was a cultural movement that spanned roughly the 14th to the 17th century, beginning in Florence in the Late Middle Ages and later spreading to the rest of Europe. Well that settles it. Rinascimento is more appealing. Besides, when you think of the French and ideas like revolution eating cake and off with their heads comes to mind. And there’s way too much of that going on these days. So, Rinascimento it is.

Hope and change was the sole product and latest offering from campaigns feeding on the stagnant realm of politics in America. The only result thus far that can be stated with any certainty is hope is disappearing and the only change has been the majority and minority status of the two dominant political parties in Washington DC. And the fourth estate, aka the mainstream media or MSM, unintentionally bears this out with the recurring theme of POLS ‘defending’ their respective positions on issues and lackluster actions to solve them. Even the MSM’s unqualified support of the liberal agenda has waned since the 2008 Presidential campaign that featured a continuous stream of fawning and adulation over then candidate Barack Obama. It appears even the media has limitations on how silly they are willing to look in the face of mounting evidence they have been duped.

We probably do not need a Rinascimento identical to that of centuries ago. And we certainly do not need a revolution that bears any resemblance to those documented historically as major events in world history. Whether a Rinascimento, a rebirth or a new beginning we may simply need enough people to share in an epiphany of sorts to get the ball rolling. Not to borrow the term ‘epiphany’ in its religious connotation rather ‘the sudden realization or comprehension of the (larger) essence or meaning of something.’

What are some of the concepts dealing with discussions of the Rinascimento relevant to our current needs? As a cultural movement, it encompassed a resurgence of learning based on classical sources, the development of linear perspective in painting, and gradual but widespread educational reform. Traditionally, this intellectual transformation has resulted in the Renaissance being viewed as a bridge between the Middle Ages and the Modern era. Although the Renaissance saw revolutions in many intellectual pursuits, as well as social and political upheaval, it is perhaps best known for its artistic developments and the contributions of such polymaths as Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo, who inspired the term “Renaissance man”.

We have the ’social and political upheaval’. Some may even suggest we the gradual if not widespread educational reform. But the only evidence of ‘a resurgence of learning based on classical sources’ comes from the conservatives among us. If it is true that the Rinascimento was a bridge between the Dark Ages and the so-called Modern era it could be that conservatives are the Renaissance Man of the next rebirth to a new age of prosperity and enlightenment. Not to exaggerate the significance of conservative thought in America with a comparison to Renaissance Man but it appears the best hope for our nation given the current situation and other historic periods in history where extreme shifts allowed tyrants and their allies to prevail.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Reviewing a recording in a collection of videos assembled over many years is partly what inspired this post. That and the belief that we need to examine the human condition periodically even with all the attention to current events, politics and public affairs. The attraction of ‘culture’ as an addenda to content of many internet sites featuring news and/or analysis largely focus on celebrity, pop culture, gossip, fads and dysfunction. It seems more meaningful to explore people, places and things from the past which may provide a positive guide for the future.

The initial inspiration above relates to a video produced near the century mark of the notable accomplishments of two men from Ohio in the bicycle business which made Kitty Hawk a famous location in the world of aviation. One could say they launched the world of aviation. Although the topic is not without debate.

The story mixes nicely with a recent news story on the failure of the remarkable aircraft known as the Raptor. The F-22 has fallen on hard times and may have blemished the equally remarkable legacy and former home of Clarence ‘Kelly’ Johnson and the Skunkworks of Lockheed, now and for some time, Lockheed Martin. Johnson and the Skunkworks were responsible for such masterpieces as the U2 spyplane and this blog’s favorite, the SR=71 Blackbird.

Much about the history of aviation are the truly amazing developments that occurred over the last century. And the pursuit of such things is virtually littered with accounts of those who tried but failed to achieve what others have since or records of latent genius and intuitive journeys which never advanced from that point.

One such intuitive journey is demonstrated in the visual works of Leonardo Da Vinci. The obvious study and attention to detail in evidence in a drawing assists in documenting the time that can pass from concept to creation.

Perhaps Da Vinci is an example of a fertile mind and ample talent overloaded by the sheer quantity of interests occupying his time. You could use this item to counter the kids next time they say they’re bored and there’s nothing to do. (Just had to say that.)

His notes and drawings display an enormous range of interests and preoccupations, some as mundane as lists of groceries and people who owed him money and some as intriguing as designs for wings and shoes for walking on water. There are compositions for paintings, studies of details and drapery, studies of faces and emotions, of animals, babies, dissections, plant studies, rock formations, whirl pools, war machines, helicopters and architecture

Who are the Da Vinci’s of today and what are they achieving? They certainly cannot be found in healthcare reform or other legislative agendas.

Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci (it-Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci.ogg pronunciation (help·info), April 15, 1452 – May 2, 1519) was an Italian polymath, scientist, mathematician, engineer, inventor, anatomist, painter, sculptor, architect, botanist, musician and writer.

Now there’s a resume’.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

We, meaning all of us, do not spend enough time on the topic of security for information technology. Nor do we spend enough time, effort or money producing an effective, continuously advancing set of tools to combat malicious hackers and other cyber criminals.

So what should we do about it?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

An attack on hundreds of web sites in South Korea earlier this week continues to clog websites in the United States.

Officials say cyber attacks have affected U.S. government Web sites including those of the White House, departments of Homeland Security, Defense and Treasury and the Voice of America.
The attackers do not appear to be interested in breaking into computers to steal information but to give the impression that something is wrong with the entire system.

“These attacks are causing targeted websites to slow to a crawl or even stop working altogether,” says Jayson Street, an informational warfare specialist for the website Netragard.com in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

South Korean officials suspect the attacks originated in North Korea but they have been unable to confirm their suspicions. Finding out who is behind these attacks may be impossible.

The masterminds of these attacks spread a virus from one personal computer to another which directs data traffic to the targeted Web sites.

“When 30,000 or 40,000 computers ask for the same information at the same time, this becomes a real mess,” says Street. Even if an investigation finds the owners of some of those personal computers it could takes years to find the computer that originated the cyber mischief.

Pelosi Statement on June Job Numbers
07/02/2009

Washington, D.C. — Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement on unemployment numbers for June issued today by the Department of Labor.

“Today’s unemployment numbers are another reminder of the years of failure to invest in making Americans the most highly educated and innovative workforce in the world—and years of delay on affordable health care and the clean energy jobs and industries that will sustain our economy for years to come. In full partnership with President Obama, Congress must continue to strengthen and transform America’s economic foundation and improve our competitiveness, and we must do so in a fiscally responsible way.

“We took the first critical step by passing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act earlier this year. Economists tell us unemployment numbers would be worse without the Recovery Act, but that is no consolation for the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs. Last week, the House passed a comprehensive energy solution that will create millions of clean energy jobs, and we will reform our health care system to lower costs for America’s families and businesses.

“This is a time for bold, bipartisan action because Americans who are losing their jobs, homes and health care cannot afford to wait.”

Once again Speaker Pelosi you are wrong. Unemployment numbers are not a reminder of anything about the quality of the American workforce. There has been no failure to invest in education. The cost of education continues to rise and this nation spends more and more each year for less and less in terms of results. American students compared to their global counterparts continue to flat line or decline while the cost per student continues to rise and be financed by the American taxpayer.

Years of delay on affordable healthcare has nothing to do with unemployment either. But it does have something to do with politics and interfering with free market solutions that would make the industry competitive. Medicare, Medicaid and the countless additions beyond the initial intentions for coverage including illegal immigrants and any other mandated requirements have led to out of control spending by government on healthcare. You drive up costs by requiring insurance companies to include your mandates. The only jobs you create are cottage industries that only serve to increase adminstrative costs which account for a third of what we spend on health. And you have enough Obama audacity to demand we reform the healthcare you are desperately trying to destroy.

Clean energy jobs and industries are just a few examples of this decade’s popular political terms designed to provide an excuse for more government interference in the private sector. Industries do not become viable or remain viable by government mandate. You cannot will something to happen by government decree and expect it to be successful. If a product or service is brought to market and has a worthwhile benefit consumers will pay for it. It will succeed or fail on its own merits not because you decide it is something we should do.

Out of control spending was started during the last Bush administration and Obama is quite satisfied to continue with it. There is a rumor that the White House wants to initiate a second stimulus. The first one is not working and you want to start another. Please explain how that is intelligent?

You and President Obama continue to make statements about transparency and accountability. An example of how little there is can be found in your own press release presented here. You make claims but offer no evidence. Just like Obama keeps spawning new websites which claim to offer transparency and accountability yet no details are offered in evidence. Little charts and tables with categories and associated dollar amounts are useless. What you need to show is how much money was given to whom and what were the results specifically. In other words, show me the checks, who signed them, what they paid for and, for instance, how many jobs were created. But just telling us how many jobs were created does nothing. We need proof. Good luck with that.

As a parting note, the claim at the end of your press release that we cannot wait is political-speak for do it now, don’t think about it. Only fools accept those terms. And the evidence related to the claims made by this post’s author will be offered when Speaker Pelosi presents her evidence. Fair is fair.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The current President of the United States has expressed shall we say, disappointment, that the GOP is the party of ‘no’ and resists everything and that news sources like Fox rarely have anything positive to say about him.  It is not uncommon for liberals who call in to conservative talk radio to admonish the host for not giving Barack Obama a chance.  The following news report excerpt is representative of the kind of stories about Mr Obama’s agenda which understandably generate negative comments.  How can anyone promote such agenda items which demonstrate appalling stupidity?

Obama Announces New Energy Conservation Steps

“I know light bulbs may not seem sexy,” Mr. Obama said. “But this simple action holds enormous promise because seven percent of all the energy consumed in America is used to light our homes and our businesses.”

The president says the savings will be striking.

“Between 2012 and 2042, these new standards will save consumers up to $4 billion a year,” he said.

In his own words, seven percent of our expenditures for electricity are attributed to lighting.  Therefore the most we could save, assuming we abandoned lighting all together, which we  would not, is seven percent of what we spend.  Not sexy Mr President?  It is not even remotely sexy nor practical.  And if you divide the President’s estimate on savings to consumers for the compact ripoff by the number of households in the US it means less than 10 cents per day per household.  The additional cost of the ‘new’ lamps and questionable life expectancy could easily turn that minuscule saving into a net loss.  If you consider his words on savings and that his usage estimate includes businesses as well as residential use the savings are invisible.

additional data source: US QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau

This sort of government action is absolutely brain dead.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Critics say it’s unnecessary and costly. Perfect. Some worry about nukes. Perfect. It could lead to solving the world’s energy problems. Perfect. The Sun is an example of fusion. The Sun is a star. There are lots of stars. They operate for a long time with no utility bill or stoppin’ at the pump. Nature. Perfect. How humans operate within it….. not so perfect.

Maybe those who oppose such things could withhold their criticism long enough to allow the seeds of innovation to grow. So many seem to want things to be perfect but are reluctant to let perfect happen. Perfect.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The world’s strongest laser - powerful enough to create conditions as hot as inside the Sun - was unveiled Friday in the western U.S. state of California for an audience of politicians and scientists.

The stadium-sized National Ignition Facility actually houses 192 lasers that all point towards a tiny blob of hydrogen.

When the lasers shoot, scientists expect the hydrogen will fuse into helium, a chemical reaction like what makes stars burn and nuclear bombs explode.

The project began in 1997 and cost the federal government an estimated $3.5 billion. The government says it will allow scientists to study in a lab what happens in a nuclear explosion. They say it will help scientists assess the safety of the aging U.S. nuclear arsenal.

But critics say the laser is unnecessary and costly. Some also worry it could help develop new nuclear weapons.

Proponents of the giant laser say there is another possible benefit. They say they hope to create a fusion reaction called “fusion ignition.” This reaction could create huge amounts of electricity.

Scientists suggest such reactions could lead to a new green energy source, and eliminate the current dependence on fossil fuels.

California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger hailed the laser as a breakthrough for his state. The unveiling was attended by around 3,500 people.

Scientists say they plan to begin experimenting with fusion ignition by next year.
Some information for this report was provided by AFP and AP.

A couple of years ago it seemed the controversy over embryonic stem cell research had been solved. Obviously with the advent of the Obama Administration releasing restrictions to public funding of such research last imposed by the Bush Administration the debate has not been concluded.

A quick review of some material on the subject answers some questions but raises others. The excerpt from one report below suggests iPS cells (not embryonic) in some ways hold more promise than embryonic stem cells.

Like embryonic stem cells, the new cells—known as induced pluripotent cells—are capable of developing into most types of cells in the body. But the new lines can be created without the use of an embryo.

Such cells could conceivably also be custom-made for any adult, sidestepping issues of cell rejection.

“The advantage of using [such] reprogrammed skin cells is that any cells developed for therapeutic purposes can be customized to the patient,” James Thompson, who led one of the studies, said in a prepared statement.

“They are probably more clinically relevant than embryonic stem cells,” added Thompson, a biologist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Another report had one notable scientist involved in the research stating the need to continue research on embryonic stem cells to answer all the questions related to this field of inquiry. That somehow seems reasonable. But it does not answer the question of why so many are so concerned about the public funding or access to embryonic stem cells in light of the advances with iPS cells. Like when do you plan on discontinuing embryonic stem cell research or is this all something of a ruse?

Here are some resources to help you decide for yourself.

Human Skin Cells Given Stem Cell Properties

Stem Cell Breakthrough Is Like ‘Turning Lead Into Gold’

Virus-free Embryonic-like Stem Cells Made From Skin Of Parkinson’s Disease Patients

Bypassing Stem Cells: Adult Skin Cells Turned Into Muscle Cells And Vice Versa

Scientists Shed Light On Inner Workings Of Human Embryonic Stem Cells

Professor comments on Obama’s stem cell executive action

Wisconsin, Morgridge scientists excise vector, exotic genes from induced stem cells

Are you convinced that iPS cells cannot achieve the same result as embryonic stem cells? Is the issue now whether or not embryonic stem cells are necessary to achieve the stated medical solutions? Are we being fooled about the need for embryonic stem cell research?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com