Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Have we lost our sense of humor? Are actions by some defined as racist while similar actions by others are not? And what does the selective use of the race card tell us about America?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

from VOA News….

Officials in the eastern U.S. state of New Jersey are investigating an incident at a Wal-Mart in which a man used the store’s public-address system to tell African-Americans to leave.

Customers were shocked Sunday when a male voice announced, “Attention Wal-Mart shoppers, all black people must leave the store now.”

Wal-Mart officials say they are reviewing security tapes to determine who made the announcement.

The local prosecutor’s office said it also is investigating.

How often does an item from a PGA Tour website appear in a Google news listing? Who knows and who really cares? Today’s offering reveals more about American culture than most things related to the sport of chasing things around a highly manicured lawn. And, go figure, the topic is Tiger Woods. Who has chased more than his fair share of golf balls on and off the green.

Here’s the question that started the discussion. Which may or may not feature real people and genuine comments or opinions.

Tiger Woods returning to golf at the Masters, April 5-11. This will be most watched golf game this year, if not EVER. Will you be watching?

The answer from this blog….. a resounding ‘no.’ But the majority of responses from the linked ‘discussion’ suggest for most all is forgiven. It is okay to break the rules. It is okay to abandon principles, ignore the guidance of good judgment and face no consequences for bad behavior. And it is okay to use wealth as a marketing tool redefining bad behavior as some sort of bizarre medical condition. Ya, the devil made me do it. Or, I have an addiction. It’s not my fault. I couldn’t help it.

I’m getting help. I’ll be okay. It wasn’t my fault. Please allow me to keep making boat loads of money. Demonstrate by your continued financial support of my lucrative enterprise that the rules don’t matter. I can do anything I want and you will not express disapproval. This is after all how society should work. No rules, no consequences, offer a mea culpa and move on.

This not so tiny microcosm of American life explains where we are. Expanded to current events in matters of government and public policy it explains why there is a culture of corruption and why it has not been reduced or eliminated. It is due to insufficient public outrage about bad behavior.

But perhaps there is evidence of reaching a tipping point and that things may change. We need to return to principles and values that provided the strength and wisdom to form and maintain this republic. Sports, like other cultural characteristics, reflect the underlying value systems held by the public at large. When we observe troubling trends it is our duty to correct it.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

For one who agrees that appearance matters it was necessary to defend a column by George F Will last April indicting the demise of proper attire. Though there may have been those who responded similarly a scan of reactions in the media were dominated by objections to Mr Will’s opinion. Perhaps those offended only noticed the central villain of the piece - denim. The discussion is worth repeating if that was in fact the case. And if others do not understand these points a recent article also supports Mr Will’s assertions as well as the opinion held here.

At almost precisely the same time these companies were declaring their allegiance to chinos and loafers, the dot-com bubble burst—and amidst layoffs, Chapter 11 filings, and tumbling stock prices, the alleged virtues of business casual were called into question. “As America’s economy slows, business casual is proving rather too casual,” the Economist declared. Jackson Lewis, a law firm specializing in employment issues, polled human resource executives and found that substantial numbers of them believed that business casual encouraged absenteeism, tardiness, and flirtatious behavior. If you weren’t dressed like a serious, hard-working professional, the reasoning now went, you wouldn’t act like one.

Granted, the reference above deals with different but related aspects of the importance of one’s appearance but the conclusion drawn is the same. There is nothing wrong with codes including dress codes. They are part and parcel to a worthy mindset that guides our behavior and reinforces what is valued and that we respect those notions.

And this post or repost offers an opportunity to highlight another excerpt from George F Will’s column found to be both humorous and true.

Denim is the clerical vestment for the priesthood of all believers in democracy’s catechism of leveling — thou shalt not dress better than society’s most slovenly. To do so would be to commit the sin of lookism — of believing that appearance matters. That heresy leads to denying the universal appropriateness of everything, and then to the elitist assertion that there is good and bad taste.

Once again, in summary, this topic is not to suggest spending a fortune on clothing to outdress everyone around you. But appearance does matter. We are more productive, successful and are more likely to adhere to those values that advance society to higher levels of competence and sanity when we dress the part. And that depends on what you are doing at the time. In other words, dress for the occasion. Have some rules. Have some respect for yourself and others. Have a code. Have a clue. It matters.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

One has to turn attention to matters other than public affairs, politics or current events these days simply to maintain sanity. Conditions in the economy as well as legislative and policy decisions being considered at all levels of government take a toll on mere mortals. A little diversion from time to time provides some needed respite.

So another story that has been languishing in the bookmark file is released here on its own recognizance. Whether your preferences lean toward history or science or stories of adventure this recent (02/05/2010) report contains a little something for just about anyone.

WELLINGTON, New Zealand (AFP) – Five crates of whisky and brandy belonging to polar explorer Ernest Shackleton have been recovered after being buried for more than 100 years under the Antarctic ice, explorers said Friday.

If you have ever been in a liquor store and observed prices of aged whiskey or other such products as compared to the uncivilized offerings you may have uttered the word ‘ouch.’ And if you indulge in a libation from time to time you may not find the superior product worth the superior price. But it’s hard to argue the more expensive alternative is not impressive.

Rather than the typical 12 or 21 year old examples how about 100 year old whiskey? If nothing else you should be curious about how it would taste after all that time. But then, being buried in polar ice is probably not the best way to store it. As the article states those involved believe they can extract the recipe for these liquors that have since been lost but no date has been set for sampling the find.

Which raises the obvious question as to why Shackletons’ expedition chose to transport five cases of liquor on a voyage that may otherwise be looking for ways to shed weight? C’mon, at one point during the voyage the crew had not stepped foot on solid ground for 497 days. So they shouldn’t tip one now and then? JUst like this post one has to have a diversion from time to time. And of course there’s always the excuse it was for medicinal purposes.

You may want to watch the news for an announcement of a new product based on the previously lost recipe for this historic beverage(s). You know someone must be thinking about it.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The following images are from Congressman Eric Massa’s House website. Can we ‘ask Eric anything?

Yup, another day, another scandal in the nation’s capitol. Some reports suggest the right is downright giddy about this one. And reports from left-leaning sources are quick to suggest the differences between this and other similar scandals. But the most telling is from the the blog at TIME named ’swampland.’

The fifth of five reasons given for why Massa’s potential scandal is different from Mark Foley’s in 2006 is provided here.

Massa’s a Democrat and not held up to the same “family values” standards that Republicans hold themselves up to. Those standards make even the rumors of homosexual affairs deadly (Larry Craig, Mark Foley), whereas Barney Frank survived his scandal.

The question for Eric Massa:

Are the allegations true?

The question for Democrats in general:

Is it true that Democrats do not hold themselves to standards described in the swampland reference provided here?

Even though components of the Democrats’ agenda suggest the answer it would be interesting to hear or read a response from the Dems.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

When the words war and crimes are used together it speaks to an underlying problem. As a species we have failed to render armed conflict obselete. And given that two or more sides of an issue engage in the practice from time to time additional problems arise in the aftermath. Someone always wants to justify war by finding someone to accuse of war crimes. As if having rules for war somehow makes it more palletable or civilized.

It is no surprise that the United Nations is central to this story. Neither is it a surprise that it surrounds the Israeli/Palestinian problem or that others can cloak their real intentions as participants in the international organization. So after more than a year since the conflict in question took place there’s a new wrinkle in the situation.

The U.N. General Assembly has adopted a resolution renewing pressure on the Israelis and Palestinians to conduct independent and credible investigations into crimes committed by both sides during the 22-day Gaza conflict that erupted in December 2008.

The General Assembly voted to give Israel and the Palestinians five more months in which to conduct investigations of alleged war crimes that are “independent, credible and in conformity with international standards.”

The US continues to support Israel and says the Goldstone report is flawed. Other countries line up on familiar sides of the issue as with any other item involving Israel. It’s a logjam that demonstrates absolutely no probability for resolution. Not just about the 22-day conflict in 2008 but everything else involving the Middle East.

There is nothing ‘united’ about these nations. It should be possible for a large group of nations to impose their will on the occasional problem areas from time to time. But not when the large group supports their own interest rather than the world at large and politics trumps all else.

Just another example that the United Nations is one useless organization.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

For more information on the topic click here

Poor Pluto. No, not the Disney character or mythological god but the planet that science demoted from its planet status. Sort of like science being demoted from its former status as something higher than current regard given the AGW scandals. And given this report from earlier in the year it should be no surprise why interest in exploration or organizations like NASA has fallen.

Hubble sees Pluto changing color, ice sheet cover

The report states ‘newly released photos’ but that is only because astronomer Marc Buie waited to announce his ‘findings.’ It is difficult to tell from the AP account if the delay was from fear of being wrong or if it took all that time to perform the analysis. Which raises the natural questions of what do scientists get paid for and how do they perform their tasks relative to the rest of us?

Yes, it’s so unfair. Wondering why photos taken in 2002 took until 2010 to be included in an astronomer’s evaluation of them? But what troubles most people about science is for all the money spent what practical solutions does it serve? Even conceding the point that scientific research is necessary and discoveries or knowledge acquired can take many years to produce, it is just as reasonable to be a little suspicious of how things are done.

For one who has been supportive of science for much of the past as well as a former fan of NASA and other scientific endeavors frequent criticism of the scientific community cannot always be ignored. One simple example should suffice.

Given health issues are dominating the public debate these days one aspect of the topic is rarely discussed. If it is true that American healthcare is the best in the world or second to none why is it that cures for disease are seldom produced yet drugs and procedures to battle human ills litter the landscape?

Although that was largely a rhetorical question here is one answer. If you cure a disease the profit potential diminishes dramatically. It is more profitable to address the symptoms and other temporary conditions than offer a one time cure.

Humans don’t take very good care of themselves and could be to blame for much of their own health problems. The medical industry often expresses prices are great in order to recoup the cost of research. Yet much of that research comes from institutions outside the corporate door. And many other factors influence the state of healthcare.

The final question of this post is for the scientific community. So where are all the cures?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

One of the best reads I absorbed lately. I have read this author before and have yet to be disappointed. The values we hold. Similarities and differences between generations. And what influences our perceptions and how that changes over time. Plus a generous description of the role technology has played shaping the youngest among us.

Opinions of millennials with regard to values and older generations may be the clue that wisdom will prevail and America will endure and become better for the effort. This could be further proof that the founders knew what they were doing. Like most of us didn’t know that already.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Not the One They Were Hoping For
Bliss it wasn’t in that dawn to be alive.
BY Matthew Continetti
March 8, 2010, Vol. 15, No. 24

Millennials are frustrated, too, by the slow pace with which Obama has enacted his agenda. They are an On Demand generation. They are used to getting what they want instantly or close to it, from iTunes and FedEx packages to fast-food meals and Starbucks. They communicate effortlessly through texts, instant messaging, Skype, Twitter, and Facebook. But the government does not work this way. Our system is filled with checks and balances and minority protections to ensure the maximum possible deliberation and compromise—and to frustrate temporary and passionate majorities from enacting massive overhauls with uncertain consequences.

The mainstream media has fallen on hard times. You may recall it being the subject of another list of targets to ‘bailout’ as Washington politicians continue to spend money we don’t have. But it is understandable they would not want the only collective voice supporting their nonsense to disappear. How else would they be able to quote writers as their only argument in favor of that which is largely opposed?

This post is inspired by a random survey of articles in the first week of this year and has been hanging around in a bookmark file for some time. It had come to the decision point of write about it or delete it. And with a post here on the idea of using sources with no names entitled ‘Under Condition of Anonymity’ writing about it seems fitting.

The article from the LAT by James Rainey, ‘Freelance writing’s unfortunate new model’, did its job of drawing a reader’s attention. From that point it is anyone’s guess if that condition remains. His lament that tough times for the mainstream media translate into tough times for writers, freelance or otherwise, seems obvious. Talk about a case for trickle down economics. If the business supporting incomes for individuals encounters some degree of failure how are they to continue as before? If the business loses money so will those depending on it for an income. This ain’t rocket science.

After noting less than impressive opportunities for freelancers Rainey expresses the real reason this article stayed in the bookmark file this long.

What’s sailing away, a decade into the 21st century, is the common conception that writing is a profession — or at least a skilled craft that should come not only with psychic rewards but with something resembling a living wage.

Why? Where is it written that a skill you may have should provide a living wage? It is not necessarily true that if you build it they will come. And it follows that they may not be willing to pay for it. The problem may be the result of the audience or market realizing the product or service is not what it once was and are no longer as interested in paying for the privilege of using it.

Rainey suggests compensation for writing may have hit bottom. And he adds that little attention has been given to it ‘outside the trade.’ Is he aware that there has been a recession as well as troubling times for most economies around the world? His timeframe is a fair match for similar problems faced by just about everyone else. The economy stinks and money’s tight.

The last word for Rainey’s article (from here) suggests he may have it backwards. The quality and quantity of what passes for journalism in the mainstream media and elsewhere may be the real reason for hard times in the writing trade. An inability to deal effectively with a changing market and allowing public criticism of bias to be ignored may be the real cause.

As for what we will be missing if the trend he describes continues Mr Rainey might want to consider that ship has already sailed. Had journalism remained in the media hard times for the industry may have been avoided.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

What a ridiculous arrangement this is. And its widespread use is even more laughable. Those accepting this questionable practice would like you to ignore the obvious drawbacks. Like how useful is information provided by someone without the stones to disclose their identity? Or the ‘journalistic’ sin of avoiding the scrutiny of full disclosure? All this practice does is raise more questions for the skeptical and attempt to place value on gossip. Something all too common in media reports these days.

Media organizations lament the rise of citizen journalism and the fall of their business model. As more and more newspapers and other mainstream media outlets lose advertising dollars to support their enterprise criticism is misplaced. Many blame the internet and free resources rather than to perform an introspective analysis focusing on lack of integrity.

So how common is the practice of using anonymous sources? A Goole search of the phrase ‘condition of anonymity’ delivers a results count of twelve and a half million. In Google news, the phrase ‘they spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to release the information’ returns over five thousand hits.

Never mind the results available in these searches is tiny compared to the stated total (who could review milions of results?). The point is the practice as well as ‘media’ willingness to use it is more telling than any report including it. Citizen journalism may be suspect but that is a given. The role of the ‘fourth estate’ was to provide a source of objective information to the public. The failure to meet that standard is nothing new. There are many accounts demonstrating that fact throughout history.

So what’s the real reason mainstream media is failing? It’s obvious. They are no longer believable. At least citizen journalism, e.g., the blogosphere, provides passionate accounts on virtually any topic to promote discussion and foster further investigation.

Something lost on those allowing the demise of journalism in traditional sources.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Just a brief post on the summit to this point. (1PM EST).

Just when Eric Cantor and others were getting to the meat of the issue President Obama said rather than go on with a ‘back and forth’ others should be allowed to speak.

Interpretation: When about to lose ground on reform the President side-stepped the very debate he said he wanted to have.

The Dems have cited anecdotes for an emotional appeal while members of the GOP have tried to move the discussion to the real debate of why we cannot afford the legislation as it will only make healthcare more expensive through taxes and other excessive regulatory restrictions.

Now they broke for ‘a House vote that has to be taken now’. They knew this summit was on for today. With all the days Congress takes off, why did they have to have a vote now. Sounds like step two in the dodge and weave to regroup as the GOP had the stronger arguments.

And if you listened to Washington Journal this a.m. prior to the summit you could have listened to Congressman Clyburn express the Dems goal is to provide unlimited coverage to Medicare as well as private insurance.

Then how do they expect anyone to believe we can afford healthcare reform? The answer is they don’t. They expect as most believed to takeover healthcare as a major step in bringing European socialism to the United States.

That is not a wild accusation. The evidence for the argument is all around you. All you have to do is open your eyes and observe. It is not that difficult.

Stay tuned to Cspan to ‘observe’ the liberal conspiracy first hand during this so-called healthcare summit. How many more times will Obama side-step the real debate when confronted by the GOP on the flaws of the Democratic majority’s healthcare component of their liberal agenda?

Currently we have witnessed side-step one and two (see above).

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

related:

“A Reading Guide to the Senate Bill’s Backroom Deals” (Michelle Malkin) 

News reports out today regarding the Dems jobs bill and the vote of newly minted Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) raise questions. Brown is being described by some as a sellout. Others suggest he had no choice given circumstances in the state he represents.

You can view the roll call vote by clicking here. The questions about this vote should ask more than why did Senator Scott Brown vote for it. Why did seven other GOP members not vote?

Among those not voting was Senator Jeff Sessions. To this point Senator Sessions has been viewed as a positive force in the US Senate and that will probably continue. But the question remains. Why did he and six others not vote on this bill?

Voinovich and Bond voted ‘yes’ and are retiring. Collins and Snowe voted ‘yes’ and that is no surprise given they are RINOs. That suggests Scott Brown does not plan on being in the Senate long or is a RINO or both. If nothing else the last three statements are humorous. But only because the vote’s outcome is so pathetic.

The previous post on Romney, McCain and Palin is troubling. This post adds to that concern. Again, what the hell are Republicans thinking (or are they)?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

With some troubling news coming out of CPAC 2010 along with similar revelations about various ‘conservative’ philosophies and their proponents more reports suggest 2010 is still wide open.

The recent endorsement of John McCain by former running mate Sarah Palin was analyzed by some as the former Alaska governor being polite. But that argument fails given her unnecessary decision to ’stump’ and raise money for the veteran Senator from Arizona whose conservative values have always been in question. His maverick status being built more by a departure from conservative values than adherence to it.

Now this:

Romney backs McCain in Arizona Senate primary race

It’s like 2008 all over again: Mitt Romney is endorsing John McCain. This time, though, it’s not after a bitter presidential primary between the two GOP rivals.

With too many Republicans appearing more like their liberal counterparts in the Democratic party the wonder is how anyone can suggest a GOP majority after the 2010 elections. This blog features sidebar links for Palin and Romney. And past posts have called for support of both in past elections. For now those links and the supportive posts will remain. But the troubling trends being reported render all that subject to change.

What the hell are these people thinking? Enough noise was made by the public this year that even POLS with hearing impairments should have received the message. A return to basic common sense American values is long overdue and more necessary for survival than previously thought. If those connected to the GOP are as unresponsive as their political opposition from the other major party then one thing remains clear.

They are no better than those they criticize and have apparently improved upon the liberal trend of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Here’s a suggestion for evaluating the soon to be televised (on Cspan) health summit hosted by the White House. You may recall President Barack ‘Mr Transparency during the 2008 campaign’ Obama was complicit in efforts by the Democratic party to exclude the Republican party from the business of crafting so-called healthcare reform legislation. Correction, that is now ‘health insurance reform.’

Just in case you forgot the following excerpt is provided as a reminder that much of the latest push in Congress and the White House for ‘reform’ has been behind opaque rather than transparent doors.

C-SPAN questions follow Obama

President Barack Obama might just wish he had opened even one health care meeting to the C-SPAN cameras.

The issue is starting to follow him around.

Once again Tuesday, he faced a question about it, from a high school student in Nashua, N.H., who asked him to grade the White House’s transparency efforts, given the fact that all the health care discussions have been behind closed doors.

Now that Obama has realized the mistake in hiding negotiations he expresses a ‘warning.’

President Obama warned lawmakers on both sides of the aisle Saturday not to turn the upcoming White House health-care summit into “political theater,” but rather “to seek common ground in an effort to solve a problem that’s been with us for generations.”

The ‘problem’ for the Dems is they have been trying to takeover healthcare for ‘generations.’

The standard rhetoric from the left now that they have initiated damage control for their lack of transparency is that the GOP is the party of ‘no’ and has no plans. The GOP counters with examples of their plans and a website to publish them. The right fears a setup or ambush by the left in this overdue suggestion of transparency. The left has the majority in DC as well as most of the cards yet have been unable to move their liberal agenda forward. It is reasonable to suspect all of this from both sides is politics as usual.

Everyone has an agenda including you and I. An agenda can be a good thing. But finding one in Washington DC that is good is next to impossible. Can politicians escape politics in this upcoming ’summit.’? Not likely.

The public is not happy with the Obama agenda or Congress. It is quite possible the GOP prefers the Dems own this one, meaning Obamacare. If health related legislation is passed in Congress without GOP support and turns out to be the disaster expected they can say we told you so. The Dems want the GOP to have ’skin in the game’ by signing on to this legislation without benefit of participation in its crafting. Obama’s health summit is likely a maneuver with that in mind.

Once again you are on your own to evaluate what is really going on. The upside is November 2010 holds the key. Tell the White House and Congress what you think with your vote.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

related: Reconciliation, the public option, and Demcare revival (Michelle Malkin)

Nothin’ like celebrity damage control to demonstrate what is really important to them. Money, sex and politics may rank as the top subjects leading to a bankrupt moral compass but it seems a bankrupt financial future is more the concern of one celeb.

Money, sex and politics are featured in the trifecta of both John Edwards and Mark Sanford. Tiger Woods does not get honorable mention for excluding politics. The scheduled event described below will likely be seen for what it is. An attempt to woo advertisers who abandoned the Woods’ brand after his multiple falls from grace.

Question for the day: What is the worst thing you ever did?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

and here’s the brief report from VOA from which the post title is taken.

The agent of world number-one Tiger Woods says the American golfer will end nearly three months of silence on Friday, when he speaks publicly for the first time since revelations of his marital infidelity.

Agent Mark Steinberg said Wednesday that Woods will speak to a small group of reporters and friends at 11 a.m. EST, at the clubhouse of the TPC Sawgrass golf course in Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida.

Woods is expected to talk about his past, his future plans and to apologize for his behavior.

The appearance will come in the middle of the first big event of the year, the Accenture Match Play Championship, which got under way Wednesday in Marana, Arizona.

Accenture was the first sponsor to drop Woods when the scandal first broke.