Year: 2006

I got a chuckle out of this story from the New York Times. As email has made professors more approachable, many academic elitists are complaining that electronic communication has made them too accessible. They fear the breakdown of ‘traditional’ boundaries which keep students at a healthy distance.

I’m guessing the same expressions of fear took place during the advent of the telephone.

While I don’t begrudge any professor who dislikes receiving too many email messages of light weight value, I do think a struggle exists within the world of academia as it collides with technology. In today’s virtual world, it is becoming harder and harder for universities to separate the teacher from the student. It’s a delicate balancing act. Visit nearly any university website and you’ll find most are designed to provide a wealth of information for the prospective student as well as those who are already enrolled. If they are competing for student dollars, and most viable schools are, they must accommodate a vast array of technology needs. That means students who own notebook computers must be able to connect to the university network, and thus, the Internet, from multiple points on and off campus. This connectedness implies a certain amount of accessibility to university resources, and professors fall into that category.

Regardless of academia’s varying ability to accept and conform to a world of electronic communication, the real issue is a lack of respect for the permanence of bits and bytes. Email sent from the account of an enrolled student belongs to the institution. It isn’t a private means of communication and messages can easily be forwarded to unlimited recipients. Moreover, email can be archived and used, perhaps in negative ways, against students as they pursue career opportunities. I would argue that most in this 18 to 23-year-old demographic remain ignorant of these facts, and they become more vulnerable with each .edu email they send.

And that timebomb ticks on.

MORE: Regarding infamous emails, some say there’s nothing to worry about.

The controversy over the US contracting management control of six American Ports to an Arab company continues as members of Congress join the right side of the blogosphere in opposition to the agreement which was initially given the green light by the Bush administration. If you’re wondering why this deal was even considered, you’re not alone.

Here’s one thing I’m confident about – when Jimmy Carter agrees with the Bush administration, something is wrong.

Joe Gandelman provides the news roundup duties on this one.

UPDATE: Bush throws gas on the fire by issuing a veto threat.

And another one bites the dust.

RadioShack Corp.’s embattled president and CEO, David Edmondson, resigned Monday following questions about his resume’s accuracy.

Leonard Roberts, RadioShack’s chairman and Edmondson’s predecessor as CEO, said the move was necessary to restore the company’s credibility.

“One of the most important things we have as a corporation is integrity and trust and we know we have to restore that back to the public,” he said.

Edmondson had claimed that he received degrees in theology and psychology from Pacific Coast Baptist College in California, which moved in 1998 to Oklahoma and renamed itself Heartland Baptist Bible College.

The school’s registrar told the Star-Telegram that records showed Edmondson completed only two semesters and that the school never offered degrees in psychology. The school official declined to comment to The Associated Press.

Edmondson said last Wednesday he believes that he received a theology diploma called a ThG, but not the four-year bachelor of science degree listed on his resume. He could not document the ThG diploma.

Roberts said company background checks did not include academic verification in 1994 as it does today.

If you’re one that thinks the diploma is just a piece of paper, think again.

Late last year when former FEMA Director Mike Brown had resume problems of his own, I looked into this widespread problem. It seems that a lot of people are ‘resume challenged’.

Via the WaPo, former US President Jimmy Carter urges the US and Israel not to punish the Palestinians.

There he goes again…

The role of the prime minister was greatly strengthened while Abbas and Ahmed Qureia served in that position under Yasser Arafat, and Abbas has announced that he will not choose a prime minister who does not recognize Israel or adhere to the basic principles of the “road map.” This could result in a stalemated process, but my conversations with representatives of both sides indicate that they wish to avoid such an imbroglio. The spokesman for Hamas claimed, “We want a peaceful unity government.” If this is a truthful statement, it needs to be given a chance.

And therein lies the problem, Mr. Carter. On what basis are we to believe that Hamas would be the least bit truthful when it comes to Israel? The only truth I’ve heard from its members is the truth of their hate for Israel.

The real problem is, Jimmy Carter doesn’t believe that Hamas and Terrorism are one and the same. Two peas in a pod. Birds of a feather. Mr. Jimmy believes that there are responsible members of Hamas who, if given the chance, would step up and become savvy, formidable politicians who could take a little power away from Israel and ‘even things out’.

Jimmy Carter is wrong. Again. As wrong as he was when he was president. But I guess that’s what happens when you get kicked out of office by an electorate who was more than happy to extricate Carter from the White House grounds. Deep down, Carter is pissed off about that, and ever since, he’s been a lackey for the Left and a thorn amongst Republican roses. That’s why he unilaterally jumps at the chance to travel around the world and butt in on its affairs. His 82-year-old mind says he’s not done ruling yet.

Pride’s a funny thing. It can also be dangerous. Carter won’t listen to Republicans, or anyone in the Bush administration. There isn’t anyone in the Democratic party who has the guts to tell Carter to stay in Atlanta. What we have then is a defiant senior citizen who just happened to be president once and believes he didn’t get a real chance to be a great president so come hell or high water, he’s gonna be a great ex-president, no matter what anyone thinks.

You wanna know something really frightening? There’s another ‘Carter’ out there, and his name is Bill Clinton. He’s only 60 years old. He could do damage for another 25, maybe even 30 years!

And that’s something to be scared about.

When I was growing up, there were a few sports ‘voices’ that I remember, not by name of course, but simply by the voice. I’d think, “oh, yeah, it’s that guy calling the game.”

Well, one of those ‘guys’ is gone.

He was the smooth voice of sports history, a welcome companion who brought listeners Ted Williams’ last home run, the first Super Bowl and dozens of other dramatic moments.

Curt Gowdy, who died Monday, told generations of Americans about the games they loved from the broadcast booths at 13 World Series, 16 All-Star baseball games, numerous Rose Bowls and the 1976 Montreal Olympics.

“He was the first superstar of sports television because he did all of the big events,” veteran NBC broadcaster Dick Enberg said. “He’s the last of the dinosaurs. No one will ever be the voice of so many major events at the same time ever again.”

Gowdy died of leukemia at his winter home in Palm Beach. He was 86.

I like Bill Safire, mostly, but this cutesy article on blog jargon reads a little like an old man talking to his friends at the barbershop about those wacky kids and their newfangled time machine gadget thingys.

While I’m sure this is all tongue-in-cheek, Bill is getting up there in age, so it’s rather believable that he’d consider the blog phenomenon to be more like Alice in Wonderland’s Tea Party than the beginnings of a new instamedia. He doesn’t come right out and say he lacks an understanding of our blogosphere, but he really doesn’t need to. It’s simply ‘Blargon’ to Bill.

When will they learn?

MAIN PRESS PLANS ANOTHER WEEK OF CHENEY SHOOTING COVERAGE

If the nation’s top magazines have the pulse of the country — get ready for another exhaustive week of exhaustive Cheney shooting coverage!

This just in… Both TIME and NEWSWEEK are planning high impact covers of Cheney for newsstands starting tomorrow, with each magazine rolling out top staff bylines and thousands of words on the hunting incident: TIME: With deep reporting by John Cloud, Mike Allen and Matthew Cooper/ Washington, Cathy Booth Thomas and Patricia Kilday Hart/ Austin, and Hilary Hylton. NEWSWEEK urgently brings in its big investigative guns: Evan Thomas, Michael Isikoff, Daniel Klaidman, Richard Wolffe, Holly Bailey, Mark Hosenball and Eleanor Clift in Washington and Carol Rust in Texas.

NEWSWEEK’s Jonathan Alter essays that media budget cuts and shifting news priorities have contributed to the public being in the dark about Cheney’s ways and means.

TIME headlines a poll: DICK CHENEY APPROVAL RATING 29%

NEWSWEEK editor Mark Whitaker defends his decision to push for another week of Cheney-Shooting coverage: “The reason we ultimately decided to stick with a cover is not because of the hunting incident itself-although we did turn up some new details that you might not have read elsewhere-but because of what it says about the mysterious world of the most powerful vice president of recent times.”

…Or what it says about the timing and state of print publications in the Click Age of news cycles.

Alter’s comment is telling of just how out of touch the elite media has become.

Of course, keeping the story alive just means that bloggers will have another productive week with lots of opportunities to ridicule and denigrate the MSM. Bring it on.

Over the next few days you’re likely to come across a video of an alleged ballistics analysis and test shootings which suggest that Vice President Dick Cheney was actually closer to Harry Whittington when accidently fired his gun. Taylor Marsh and her flock of moonbats are hyping this as the smoking gun (pardon the pun) that proves there is a massive coverup underway.

I have serious doubts about this, and so do quite a few other people.

And then I came across this comment over at Boing Boing:

This video is the from the source that had the report claiming “RFID Tags in New US Notes Explode When You Try to Microwave Them.” That makes the ballistics report less credible, in my opinion.

In other words, YMMV (Your Mileage May Vary)

Dan Riehl has more.

Can someone tell me which planet Alec Baldwin is from?

The New York Times doesn’t like Wal-Mart, and over the years, the Old Gray Lady has taken shots at America’s Store in hopes of crippling its leadership and slowing its success. Goaded by the labor unions, the NYT goes to great lengths to splatter mud on Wal-Mart’s corporate practices. They demonize Wal-Mart and characterize its management as dictators controlling an evil empire from the bridge of the death star in Bentonville, Arkansas. Why? It’s simple really. The New York Times is run by liberals living in a bubble who oppose good old fashioned capitalism. They don’t believe in an American Dream that enables a family owned business to build itself up to become the worlds largest retailer, employing 1.6 MILLION people in 3,800 stores in the US alone. The liberals at the NYT and their ACLU brethren truly believe that Wal-Mart’s goal is to victimize and enslave their workforce. In a nutshell, they believe a Wal-Mart store is no different than a sweatshop in a third world country, and they must be stopped.

So it is that we have this today, the next salvo in the NYT war against Wal-Mart.

On Private Web Site, Wal-Mart Chief Talks Tough

In a confidential, internal Web site for Wal-Mart’s managers, the company’s chief executive, H. Lee Scott Jr., seemed to have a rare, unscripted moment when one manager asked him why “the largest company on the planet cannot offer some type of medical retirement benefits?”

Mr. Scott first argues that the cost of such benefits would leave Wal-Mart at a competitive disadvantage but then, clearly annoyed, he suggests that the store manager is disloyal and should consider quitting.

The Web site, which Mr. Scott uses to communicate his tough standards to thousands of far-flung managers, gives a rare glimpse into the concerns that are roiling Wal-Mart’s retailing empire, from the company’s sagging stock price to how it treats its workers. Judging by the managers’ questions, Mr. Scott has an internal public relations challenge that in some ways mirrors the challenge he faces from outside critics.

And while Mr. Scott’s postings are usually written in a careful, even guarded manner, they can often be revealing — for example, showing a defensiveness and testiness with critics — that Mr. Scott normally keeps under wraps.

So, there’s your premise. Due to the fact that Wal-Mart has been forced to fight two battles, an external one in the press, and an internal one amongst it’s workforce, its leader, Lee Scott Jr., is a stressed out CEO who is one step away from entering a private padded room wearing a self-made straight jacket. At least, that’s the way the New York Times sees it.

But once again, the liberal socialists at the New York Times have it wrong. While they attempt to characterize the internal conversations between Mr. Scott and Wal-Mart employees as equal to a one sided dialog between a slave and his owner, they have failed to see the business logic which provides the foundation for Scott’s answers to a few ignorant questions posed by some Wal-Mart employees.

In his response to the store manager who asked about retiree health benefits, Mr. Scott wrote: “Quite honestly, this environment isn’t for everyone. There are people who would say, ‘I’m sorry, but you should take the risk and take billions of dollars out of earnings and put this in retiree health benefits and let’s see what happens to the company.’ If you feel that way, then you as a manager should look for a company where you can do those kinds of things.”

Mona Williams, a Wal-Mart spokeswoman, said Mr. Scott responded so sharply because of the manager’s sarcastic tone. The question, she said, indicated the manager failed to understand how competitive retailing is and would not be able to convey that to his subordinates.

“At Wal-Mart, we communicate very candidly with one another,” she said. She added that Mr. Scott’s tone did not deter employees from asking questions, noting that 2,147 questions have been asked since last April.

Oh, but that kind of open communication can’t possibly be healthy, that is, if you’re the type to believe the leadership at the Times.

Here are some of the other ‘unpardonable sins’ committed by CEO Scott, according to the NYT:

• He denounces managers who complain about the company or their subordinates.
• He frets about the success of his competitors.
• He exhorts employees to act with integrity.
• He mocks other large corporations for problems caused by its generous benefits.
• He rejects the suggestion that Wal-Mart has created “a culture of fear”.
• He hails Wal-Mart’s performance in responding to Hurricane Katrina.

Sounds like a great manager to me.

The NYT then throws in this attempt to discredit Scott.

Mr. Scott, 56, joined Wal-Mart in 1979 as its assistant trucking manager. Helped by his affable manner and his command of the company’s vast distribution system, he was named chief executive in 2000.

This is nothing more than a shameful slight of hand attempt to beat Scott with the old silver spoon, claiming his rise to power within Wal-Mart was accomplished through the hard work of others, and not his own efforts.

Throughout the dozens of postings, Mr. Scott shows deep concern about the many attacks and allegations that Wal-Mart skirts environmental and labor laws. He acknowledges that Wal-Mart used to have a greater tolerance for managers who cut corners, but his postings insist that Wal-Mart’s new focus is on total compliance with the law. In a posting last June, he quoted the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., saying, “The time is always right to do what is right.”

Responding to a manager’s question about attacks on Wal-Mart’s image, Mr. Scott wrote in an April 2004 posting: “Your value to Wal-Mart is outweighed by the damage you could do to our company when you do the wrong thing.”

“If you choose to do the wrong thing: if you choose to dispose of oil the wrong way, if you choose to take a shortcut on payroll, if you choose to take a shortcut on a raise for someone — you hurt this company,” he added. “And it’s not unlikely in today’s environment that your shortcut is going to end up on the front page of the newspaper. It’s not fair to the rest of us when you do that.”

This guy is a company man with a business sense that doesn’t crumble when employees misunderstand the corporate goal. And hey, when you’ve got 1.6 million people working for you, it’s naive to think everyone is going to ‘get it’. At the same time, Scott’s responses clearly show an attempt to help the Wal-Mart workforce understand the rationale behind the decisions made from corporate headquarters. These sound business decisions have made Wal-Mart what it is today, a retail success three times larger than its closest competitor.

But, success always comes at a price, and Scott understands this. Following the release of the NYT piece today, he sent an internal memo to Wal-Mart associates.

“Well, we had been looking for ways to promote Lee’s Garage, and it looks like the New York Times has done that for us. The reporters take issue with my tone in some cases, but as you all know, with me, what you see is what you get. I will respectfully tell it like it is. I think the story ends on an important point, quoting my advice to an up-and-coming leader: “The first thing you can do is make sure you treat your people well, and understand that your associates are what will make you a success.” I truly believe that and think you can’t go wrong in this business if you live by that.”

The New York Times effort to describe Lee Scott as a disconnected, elitist, Attila the Hun, mercenary CEO who’s out for himself fails at every turn. And so it goes. The Old Gray Lady tries and tries again to beat the prize fighter, but once more the decision goes to her opponent, and she ends up face down on the mat.  

Nice try.

UPDATE: Bloggers scoop NYT.