Blog @ MoreWhat.com

If you are a conservative it’s one of those good stories you cannot bring yourself to believe if only for the improbable math involved.

The survey, which gauged voter sentiment in 13 of the states with the country’s most competitive Senate races, showed Republican Senate candidates averaging a high single-digit lead over their Democratic opponents, offering the same snapshot of an angry, uneasy electorate shown in poll after poll this year.

At this point there should be no doubt American citizens are angry. The President and Congress have approval ratings so low we may need a new math to keep score. Rather than voters replacing the majority party at the midterms when bad times persist another event may take place.

Some POLS are not facing re-election this midterm. Of those who are the stronger from each party may survive and the weaker links may depart. What if voter anger is so widespread this time around that the two chambers end up nearly and even split in terms of party?

That may introduce a new definition for lame duck Congress. It may last for two years until the next election. The upside might be that no legislation is passed. And by 2012 there would still be time to repeal Obamacare after electing a new president. Meaning the rest of that dismal plan won’t take effect until 2014 or later.

So a long lame duck session from late 2010 forward would allow another election to drain the swamp in addition to the bonus of getting a new president. Most of the damage of the last two years could be resolved.

This fantasy is no less likely than the GOP gaining the majority in the US Senate this November. As for a new president in 2012, the GOP needs a candidate who can win. What are the odds on that happening?

Sorry to wake you up from the dream.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

There are a few posts on this blog discussing Rand Paul. In Mr Paul’s pursuit of a seat in the upper house of the US Congress he has faced some typical challenges. As expressed here earlier he is not shy and has expressed his opinions. It may be refreshing honesty and what politics should embrace but he was, of course, criticized by some for his statements.

With one minor controversy regarding a discussion on civil rights law and perhaps another attempt to create scandal and political fallout Rand Paul marches on. This blogger was concerned about Rand Paul and his father’s libertarian views. He is cast by some as a conservative and has obvious links to the Libertarian party. Whether he is conservative or whether libertarian in today’s politics mirrors libertarian historically certainly raises questions.

The view from this blog finds it surprising that a Rand Paul opinion piece is featured at USA Today if only because the publisher is the Gannett Company. But there it is and here’s an excerpt of Mr Paul stating his case about libertarians and constitutional conservatives. The question that remains for this blogger is still the same. Was he distancing himself from libertarians as a political strategy or has he always been essentially a conservative?

You decide.

Rand Paul, libertarian? Not quite.
By Rand Paul

It’s often repeated in stories about me or my race for U.S. Senate that I am a “libertarian.” In my mind, the word “libertarian” has become an emotionally charged, and often misunderstood, word in our current political climate. But, I would argue very strongly that the vast coalition of Americans — including independents, moderates, Republicans, conservatives and “Tea Party” activists — share many libertarian points of view, as do I.

(Click the excerpt to read the rest.)

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Leave it to the Politico. While appearing to report on reaction to Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling on Prop 8 the Politico apparently could not resist, like Walker, in allowing their personal opinion to be embedded in the article. More about that later but what did House conservatives say about the ruling?

Rep Lamar Smith of Texas said, ‘Legalizing an alternative form of marriage dilutes a long-standing and widely accepted standard of marriage as a union between a man and woman. We should adhere to such standards rather than undertake a massive social experiment with perhaps unknown consequences.’

Rep Michele Bachmann of Minnesota said, ‘This is yet one more example of a judge substituting his moral pronouncement under the guise of constitutional law, and I think that’s what people are upset about.’

Rep Steve King of Iowa was not quoted. Rep John Fleming is from Louisiana.

Fleming said he and his fellow conservatives were expressing their genuine displeasure with the ruling.
“I know that these people on the platform for me, we would be up here today if this were unpopular to have this resolution,” he said.”We’ve run no polls. We’ve not discussed this with our leadership. This has to do with our belief in our commitments and it also has to do with the Constitution of the United States.”

The resolution Fleming mentions is a symbolic gesture opposing Walker’s ruling against Prop 8.

Here’s the Politico getting their jab in.

Walker’s ruling was hailed as a step forward for civil rights, though conservative groups said they looked forward to an appeal.

Once again this issue involves homosexual marriage and there is nothing ‘gay’ about it. In terms of civil rights a fallacy exists also. Homosexual marriage and related issues are simply special interest attempts to get special treatment. As for equal protection if a homosexual wants to get married they need a spouse of the opposite sex just like everyone else.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Decades of mismanagement contributed to the mortgage meltdown in recent years. The information that supports the notion government sponsored home buying is a bad idea keeps piling up. Like the fact that Freddie Mac, one of many GSEs or government-sponsored enterprises, is required to pay the US Treasury a dividend. This quarter Freddie’s ten percent annual dividend payment to the Treasury is $1.3 billion. And Freddie is asking for $1.8 billion in additional aid to cover losses. The taxpayer continues to be scammed.

Current economic conditions and the challenge they pose for the housing market found the leader of Freddie stating the following:

“With that in mind, we continue to focus on the quality of the new business we are adding to our book to be responsible stewards of taxpayer funds.”

Sir, if you were not doing it before how do you expect anyone to believe you now?

On Thursday, Fannie Mae asked for an additional $1.5 billion after posting a $3.13 billion loss, although its losses shrank dramatically in the second quarter, down from $11.5 billion in the first quarter.

And yet those in government are talking ‘overhaul’ rather than abandoning this disaster looking for a place to happen. It would make more sense on many issues that we return to values of years past. As for homebuying a return to successful lending policies of the past may inspire a return to the kind of behavior that rewards hard work and discipline.

You want a house? Come back when you have twenty percent down. Have some skin in the game and commitment to doing the right thing long term. If you cannot afford twenty percent you need to work on that problem. Like raising yourself up and expect it may be the next generation that reaches the goal of home ownership. But you have to start somewhere.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Pardon me if I do not accept the rhetoric of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi or Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) on the matter of a $26 billion spending bill for public sector employees. Pelosi said, ‘This legislation is about creating and saving American jobs, and preventing a double-dip recession.‘ Van Hollen said, ‘It’s not a gamble,” he said, but “it would be gambling our children’s’ education to have them go back to school and find no teacher in the classroom or a larger class size.‘ The gamble part comes from a question posed to the Maryland Democrat about interrupting POLS summer vacation for votes on a spending bill.

Van Hollen had this to say about the opposition. Defining teachers and police officers as special interests while opposing closing a tax loophole for big corporations “defines the difference between our two parties,” retorted Van Hollen.

Well, Mr Van Hollen you might want to consider what the opposition had to say.

Republicans portrayed the special session as the Democrats’ pre-election gift to their labor union allies and objected to provisions to raise taxes on some U.S.-based multinational companies as a way to partially cover the $26 billion cost of the bill.

Democrats love to characterize public sector employees as something we cannot live without. But campaign promises to lure voters and post-election payoffs in the form of spending taxpayer money on those same voters is corrupt. At the very least, this time the GOP is correct. Charging businesses to pay for a liberal voter payoff is a government-sanctioned bribe. The same sort of ethics problem faced by Rangel and Waters.

Here is part of the teacher mindset these Democrats feel compelled to reward.

Despite Budget Cuts, Layoff Fears, Milwaukee Teachers Fight for Taxpayer-Funded Viagra
Published August 06, 2010
Associated Press

With the district in a financial crisis and hundreds of its members facing layoffs, the Milwaukee teachers union is taking a peculiar stand: fighting to get their taxpayer-funded Viagra back.

Does anyone really need an explanation on how pathetic this is?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

It takes some work to push the rhetoric aside to focus on the real information and find leadership. A few recent items in the media demonstrate the point. The first item was rather shocking. Peggy Noonan actually expressing something that makes sense. The sad part is you must read past her continued dismissal of the Tea Party to find it.

‘The problem for the Democrats, however, is not a new Contract With America, or the Tea Party. Their problem is Chris Christie.’

She adds, ‘The public thinks we’re sinking as a nation. They want to know someone has a plan to help. The most promising leader in that respect is Mr. Christie, the New Jersey governor, who just closed an $11 billion budget gap without raising taxes.’

Those excerpts are from a column at the WSJ on July 30, 2010. Forget that Noonan thinks the Tea Party and other conservatives have ideas that are too radical if only because few have had the stones to express them in many years. That is why the following excerpt from a piece by Perry Bacon, Jr. has a title that says it all.

Rep. Ryan pushes budget reform, and his party winces

Viewing him as a rising star in the party, Republicans in Congress often talk up Rep. Paul Ryan as a potential governor, senator or House leader. The lanky, youthful-looking congressman from Wisconsin has begged off, citing his young children and limited desire to spend all his time raising campaign money.

Instead, Ryan is running a campaign of a different sort, one his party has so far refused to adopt: He is determined to persuade colleagues to get serious about eliminating the national debt, even if it means openly broaching overhauls of Medicare and Social Security.

With that in mind understand that establishment POLS like John Boehner have said the GOP will unveil the party agenda after the August recess. The Democrats love calling the GOP the party of ‘no’ simply because they oppose the liberal agenda and use the few tools available to the minority party.

The Tea Party demonstrates voter outrage and a call for the return to common sense governing. Chris Christie and Paul Ryan demonstrate the kind of leadership that is lacking but nonetheless what our country needs. So how surprising is it that liberal icons like Paul Krugman would criticize someone like Paul Ryan and look the fool doing it?

Paul Krugman’s latest New York Times column, in which he calls Rep. Paul Ryan a charlatan and his Roadmap for America plan a fraud, is unusally partisan even by Krugman’s standards.

The reference above is a good example of how silly Krugman looks. But you can simply use your favorite search engine and the terms ‘krugman’ and ‘ryan’ to find more. Ryan’s rebuttal to Krugman is linked with an excerpt below.

Krugman’s detour on ‘Roadmap’ to solvency
By Paul Ryan
Aug. 7, 2010

Despite watching European welfare states collapse under the weight of their own debt, those running Washington are leading us down precisely the same path. With the debt surpassing $13 trillion, we can no longer avoid having a serious discussion about how to address the unsustainable growth of government.

Unfortunately, rather than make meaningful contributions to this conversation and bring solutions to the table, Democrats have attempted to win this debate by default. Relying on demagoguery and distortion, the left would prefer that entitlements - often labeled the “third rail” of American politics - remain untouchable, and the column by Paul Krugman of The New York Times is indicative of the partisan attacks leveled against the plan I’ve offered, a “Roadmap for America’s Future.”

Voters of any political stripe should have the sense to support leaders like Paul Ryan and Chris Christie. We dismiss the value of their leadership at our own peril.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

A review of the roll call vote confirming Elena Kagan as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court is in order. Then the larger problem can be presented.

Not along party lines were the votes of six Senators. Could it be the reason the lone dissent by a Democrat named Ben Nelson demonstrates the political effects of Cornhusker Cash? But since confirmation only required 1/2 to vote in favor the outcome was not in jeopardy. The same question can be asked about the five GOP Senators who voted to confirm Kagan.

Susan Collins, Lindsay Graham and Olympia Snowe were no surprise. They’re RINOs. Lugar presented something of a puzzle but is not a surprise. Gregg isn’t long for the Senate so what risk does he face except the next job interview?

Point is the fall from grace of the GOP before being reduced to the minority in the 2006 midterms HAD and HAS consequences. Whatever gains they thought achievable while in the majority and risks they took proved dramatic in the losses that followed. That includes not having the foresight to understand what costs were involved beyond the immediate.

So the question now is did they know? If they knew they were risking a midterm loss of majority and did not consider implications for life long appointments someone needs a trip to the wood shed. Political failure has long term consequences and not just for the POLS.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

There are those who favor tax cuts and reduced government spending. There are those who favor uncontrolled spending and tax increases. Those on the right promote tax cuts. Those on the left promote tax increases.

Those on the right do not oppose spending for constitutional requirements like national defense. Those on the left enjoy defining what spending for the general welfare includes.

The liberal majority in the US Congress backed by a Democrat in the White House have passed legislation in this session like healthcare for everyone regardless of ability to pay. And there is the recent extension of unemployment benefits that begs the question at what point do the employed stop subsidizing the unemployed. But then really it’s all borrowed money anyhow so we should understand the nation is broke.

But even news reports out today as in many days gone by will not convince the majority of a need to stop spending. Continuing to borrow money for their agenda on the backs of the wealthy now and future generations to come will fail.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a state of emergency over California’s finances last week and ordered three days off without pay per month for tens of thousands of state employees. The state’s government is projected to run out of cash no later than October should its budget stalemate persist as expected.

The poster child state for economic ruin will run out of cash. How’s that for reality? And most of the other states are in serious trouble as well. If any state is surviving right now it is probably only a matter of time before their fate mirrors California.

The 50 states have racked up a record $2.4 trillion in bond debt during the economic downturn – the highest level of state and local indebtedness in history, economic analysts warn. State and local bond debt now consume a whopping 22 percent of the nation’s annual Gross Domestic Product – a bigger slice of the economic pie than ever before, say experts.

Here’s another hint for President Obama that he will ignore:

CBO Warns Obama: Exploding US Debt a Huge Risk

Many have said the current situation is the worst since the Great Depression of the late twenties and most of the thirties. Do we really have to experience a full fledged depression before America’s so-called leaders wake up and smell what they’re selling?

The GOP went a little nuts the last time they had the majority and spent way too much. Then the GOP was invited to become the minority at the ballot box. Now the Democrats are following that game plan and taking it to new levels of the absurd. November 2010 is the next opportunity to throw the bums out.

Voters have to do this every two years from now on until POLS learn. Do the right thing or find another job. Hopefully one not paid for with taxpayer dollars.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Ruth Marcus wrote a piece last week entitled, ‘Why Congress should let the Bush tax cuts expire.’ There is very little right and too much wrong in her column. Who is Ruth Marcus?

Ruth Marcus is an editorial writer for The Post, specializing in American politics, campaign finance, the federal budget and taxes, and other domestic issues. She writes a weekly column that appears on Wednesdays.

The best thing about the column is the use of one of Bush 43’s best quotes.

“The people of America have been overcharged, and, on their behalf, I’m here asking for a refund,” Bush told Congress in February 2001.

Marcus claims ‘the social security surplus was spent.’ If Marcus specializes in the federal budget and taxes you might expect her to know what the CBO knows about social security and other government trust funds. They are ‘accounting mechanisms.’ Meaning there is no little piggy bank where everyone’s SSI benefits are waiting for their retirement.

Marcus uses references from the OECD, the OMB and Alan Greenspan to make her points. A breakdown of who pays taxes in the US may have been a more efficient choice. From the IRS via the National Taxpayers Union one fact is clear.

Those whose incomes are in the top 50% nationwide pay more than 95% of US income tax. Those in the bottom 50% pay less than five percent.

The part where Marcus almost gets it is demonstrated in the excerpt below.

I expressed frustration a few weeks back with the denialism among some liberal Democrats about the need to curb entitlement spending and the conviction that simply socking it to the rich would solve the fiscal problem. But the Republican position seems even more intransigently divorced from reality. Perhaps there is some magical point at which Republicans might accept the reality that the government needs more revenue than it is currently set to take in — but I haven’t heard it yet.

Yes, liberals do not want to reduce or eliminate entitlements.
Yes, liberals want to redistribute wealth.
No, the government DOES NOT need more revenue.

Entitlements account for the majority of the federal budget. Government spending will always exceed the ability to pay for it. That is one reason why goverment must be limited. And it is why the government does not need more revenue. It needs to end the spending spree.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Highlighting some important issues is good even if politicians do it for the wrong reasons. It is up to the public to pressure their reps to do what is right. Some POLS are finally making statements about the need to examine anchor babies and other misuse of US immigration policy.

We need to remember people like Sheriff Joe are the good guys. Arpaio, Brewer and Pearce have started what needs to be done. While Clinton-nominated Judge Bolton slowed the progress of SB 1070 in Arizona there is reason to believe the fight has just begun in earnest and the will of the people will win as shamnesty advocates will be sent home in November 2010.

For instance, a recent report indicates Sharron Angle is once again gaining on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada. Opposition to incumbents across the nation indicates voter anger will clean house this fall.

Some of the stories below demonstrate the continued efforts to restore traditional principles and values to our great nation. Be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

Throw the bums out in November 2010, 2012 and repeat as necessary. Liberals and RINOs must go along with illegals. Do not tax our economy into oblivion. Eliminate debt and deficits by cutting entitlements and other waste. Stengthen national security and border control. Return to the founding principles and the rule of law.

Liberal agenda be damned. Restore America. Do the right thing.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

	Leading Republicans Push 4 Review of Birthright Citizenship
	Justice Gives Az. Sheriff Deadline in Rights Case
	Mo. Voters Reject Key Provision of Health Care Law
	Virginia AG Cuccinelli: Obamacare Ends Federalism
	Wave of Health Reform Provisions Coming Next Month
	Lieberman: ‘Put the Brakes’ Ground on Zero Mosque
	Panel Frees Way for Ground Zero Mosque
	Pelosi strikes confident note on midterms: ‘I’m not nervous
	Kerry would reject a Petraeus request for more time, troops
	Levin: Media too focused on negative….
	Dem leaders, donors to hold Rangel birthday bash…
	Agency Weighs Skirting Congress On Immigration
	Gingrich: Obama Repeating Mistakes From the Great Depression
	CBO Warns Obama: Exploding US Debt a Huge Risk

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Arizona voters, taken after the ruling was issued, finds that 66% still favor the recently passed immigration law. Twenty-seven percent (27%) are opposed. Support for the law is unchanged from when it was first passed in April.

By a 59% to 34% margin, Arizona voters disagree with Judge Susan Bolton’s decision to block implementation of some parts of the law.

Not surprisingly, voters favor Governor Jan Brewer’s decision to appeal the ruling by a 59% to 29% margin. Brewer has risen in popularity since signing the law and is now well ahead in the Arizona governor’s race.

Nationally, 59% of voters support passage of a law like Arizona’s in their own state, and 50% disagree with the judge’s ruling.

It is extremely rare that this blog author watches television. Before last Sunday I can only guess that it has been many months with the exception of the occasional online news video featured on this blog. So what was the attraction to listen to Meet the Press this week?

I couldn’t resist the appeal to confirm my suspicions that listening to Gregory’s guests would be excruciating. It was. Governor Rendell, Mayor Bloomberg and former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan were predictable as well as annoying.

Either during a commercial interruption or after the programmed concluded I took a quick look at what was on the other channels. My location features 11 off-air OMG digital broadcast channels. That’s right. No point in subscribing to cable or satellite if I don’t watch TV more than once every few months for less than an hour.

The local public television station offers three channels. One of them was airing a public affairs program populated only by liberals and perhaps a token conservative. The liberals were whining about Arizona’s state immigration law. Along with that they were whining about all the racism and inequality in America.

The point is this. One of the fine liberals concluded the poll data above or other polling data like it was wrong. He did his level best to convince the viewers he was right and most people opposed the Arizona law.

The problem is he had no data, no evidence or any other information to support his opinion. He simply presented his opinion as fact. This is exactly the reason I do not watch television very often. Given the financial woes of most broadcast and print media it may be the only people watching regularly are liberals.

Where else would anyone agree with their fantasies? And how long will it be until the rest of the liberal media goes the way of Air America? (bankrupt and out of business)

With any luck at all a return to the rule of law will begin after Novmeber 2010. Then the simple method of cutting off taxpayer provided benefits, free education for illegals, anchor babies and chain migration as well as sanctions against employers who hire illegals can begin in earnest.

For a return to national security and border control we can borrow a currently familiar phrase. ‘Yes we can.’ To anyone who claims it is not possible to remove all illegals from the US I say you are a closet shamnesty supporter. The simple method outlined above is more than possible. It is necessary and will work. Those who oppose it support illegal immigration.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Even though White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs expressed what everyone else knows that the Democrats can lose the House and perhaps the Senate this November several stories indicate liberals are in a hole and continue to dig.

Molly Hagerty’s claim against Al Gore will not move forward in criminal or civil court. The liberal mythical god, Al Gore, shares a reputation with another liberal deity known as Slick Willie (aka: former President Bill Clinton) for bizarre sexual exploits. The credibility of the pair may be as suspect as that of two other liberal POLS; 20 term Congressional representative Charlie Rangel and California Rep Maxine Waters. That may be why the White House is hoping First Lady Michelle Obama’s curious popularity will help the liberal cause in the midterms.

Rangel and Waters are facing public ethics trials. One might expect two other high profile libs should also face ethics charges. The pair responsible for Cornhusker Cash and the Louisiana Purchase during the Obamacare vote shopping spree, Senators Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu, illuminate the corruption of Reid and Pelosi. The swamp has never been drained.

For Rangel it seems a settlement agreement failed for his 13 ethics charges. For Waters a single charge over $13 million in TARP funds for a bank with connections to her husband is not mentioned on her website. But her focus on troubles in Haiti is well represented. In addition to her 3 references to Haiti characterizing Gulf residents as victims and Wall Street as villains, pushing public housing, AIDS testing, government flood insurance subsidies and other programs are featured.

It seems those who choose the liberal moniker of Democrat are just as likely to ripoff the taxpayer and the ‘little guy’ they claim to represent while accusing others of doing the same.

President Obama is again blaming the GOP for the failures of Democrats. His latest rant criticizes Republicans for opposing HR 5297 or the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010. Consider it sufficient to say Democrats are willing to exempt paygo requirements for anything they deem an ‘emergency’. Republicans continue to oppose spending given the crushing debt and deficits facing our nation. In other words if you want to spend $20 billion on this legislation you need to cut $20 billion or more elsewhere.

The small business bill is sponsored by Barney Frank and co-sponsored by 20 others including ethically challenged Congress-person Maxine Waters. As if that is not reason enough to oppose the measure.

Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters face public ethics trials in November. Undoubtedly Obama caused the ninth circuit to delay Arizona’s request for expedited appeal on SB 1070 until November also. Should make for an interesting midterm election during the same time since campaigns will obviously increase focus on these items.

So Mr President, keep digging. You and your party are in a hole. Keep digging.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

BTW, the number of laws passed in this session of Congress stands at 210 as of July 27. And without commentary on how unnecessary that is it is safe to say the party of ‘no’ does not say no all the time. The GOP opposition to this small biz legislation as stated has merit. Government needs to reduce spending. Even if the $20 billion of taxpayer money would be spent wisely it requires cutting spending somewhere else. And that is not to suggest this expenditure would be wise.

Sunday seems as good a time as any for another rant about media and the news. Like anyone else who struggles to keep up with what is going on in the world I have my routine. As much as it bothered me Google News was one stop regularly checked for a cross-section of stories from the MSM. Could they leave it alone. Of course not for as useless as it was to begin with they decided to make it worse.

I stopped relying on Google as a search engine with the advent of Ixquick. Seems we should spread the traffic around and while Ixquick is not perfect it is a reasonable alternative and may get better if we use it and submit suggestions for improvements.

This was another day in an effort to alter my news scanning routine. And it was the cause of another lament on the state of media or MSM and content. A roll of the dice so to speak selected USA Today as the first stop. Without a one stop aggregation of news to view from around the planet I was trying a few quick hits for headlines, etc.

Gannett, the owner of USA Today and too many other print sources allows their navigation bar on the main page to highlight part of what is wrong. While the top navbar features general categories of topics like news, travel and money the second navbar suggests what is ‘essential’.

Markets, scores, games, lotteries, video, photos, opinion, blogs, subscribe, classifieds and jobs make the list. After ‘markets’ which seems to indicate business information the rest is not essential nor necessarily worthwhile.

Hey, I have nothing against Chelsea Clinton and I hope she and her husband have a wonderful life. I honestly mean that. But when Chelsea is the obvious big splash on a typical MSM front page and the most popular reads for the USA fishwrap feature three stories about Chelsea and one about the disfunctional Jersey Shore television series something comes to mind. Actually many things come to mind but here’s the second one. (The first was who reads the MSM and why?)

87% Feel Media Covers Celebrities Too Much

Eighty-seven percent (87%) of Americans feel the media pays too much attention to celebrities, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. But 84% of Adults also admit that Americans pay too much attention to celebrity news and not enough attention to news that has real impact on their lives.

Just one percent (1%) do not think media outlets cover celebs enough, while nine percent (9%) say the coverage is about right.

That may explain why traditional media sources are failing. The one and nine percent figures above may reflect the number of people attracted to the trash most media outlets publish or broadcast.

BTW, the rest of USA Today’s front page was populated with other useless or redundant coverage on items that are common knowledge. And of course they offered unwavering support with their coverage of things Obama and liberal.

Fortunately I can get along with the critical content of my routine. The trustworthy sources I use for the bulk of what is important do not fail me. But trying to cover it all and make judgments about decisions to be made is still a challenge and too time consuming.

Too bad so many in the media world refuse to address this simple problem. But then that is not what most of them are about. If their biz model of catering to the lowest common denominator and filling that demand with cheap stories to present is no longer a golden goose you might expect they would change. Or maybe they’re just waiting for their bailout from the Obamanation.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

No shortage of ‘expert’ commentary in this video. When it comes to ‘multi-tasking’ you do not have to be a member of the digital world to understand the problem.

One definition for multi-tasking is: The act of undertaking more than one task at one time.

A better definition might be ‘doing nothing well’. For all the experts in the video the last one may have it right. Take a look.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

a text version of the story is here (click)