Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Seems like good timing for a basic blog rant. It’s been a tough couple of weeks and I’m cranky. Keeping the discussion on matters of politics a little review of the current situation seems in order.

Obamanation remains fixated on their, ‘let’s take over everything’ agenda. The central flaw in their quest beyond public disapproval and even outrage is similar to that of a typical spendthrift. They believe there is still money in the bank if they still have checks.

It’s amazing really. Politicians in both parties have frequently if not continuously committed the same financial sins for which they accuse others. Yet they have no shame for their own misguided actions or for political rhetoric employed as unemployment engulfs our nation.

By our votes we bestow upon them a public trust complete with perks for royalty yet we shed that anchor over two hundred years ago. And with the possible exception of the founding fathers those in public office have a two century record of malfeasance in office. If they were not directly involved with corrupt government they were willing participants by the fact of their incompetent objection.

As noted here elsewhere, notable Republicans like Palin, Romney and Scott Brown support McCain for re-election. Yet it is clear McCain is not a conservative. Which casts doubt on the credentials of the aforementioned.

Mr. Romney, who was supported on this blog since 2008, provided a less than convincing excuse for his endorsement. If McCain’s years of service and experience qualify him as the best choice for American leadership what does that say about his support of shamnesty during the second Bush 43 term? And then there’s Lindsey Graham with similar problems. The GOP has not turned the page toward conservative principles. How will they do that with barely half a year to go before the 2010 elections?

Yes, they are fiercely opposing the current liberal push for a totally out of touch agenda. But what else are they going to do? They believe this strategy against the Obamanation will translate to victory in November. What’s new about that? Sound like politics as usual just as much as the Dems failure on every level since the 2006 midterms.

The GOP fell from grace and have not returned in any meaningful way. The libs are apparently willing to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Worst of all, they have not drained the swamp. The culture of corruption is alive and well in Washington, DC and around the country in all levels of government.

The voters must drain the swamp in November 2010.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

editor’s note: The quality of this post has suffered as it is Friday and this month’s budget only allows for beer rather than top shelf single malt Scotch. Po’ Stanford. And no images were chosen for this post as none were available at the time of publication to fit the mood.

One report attributed to Reuters at the NYT fish wrap and a similar one at Reuters report the IPCC will be investigated by an independent board of review. Each report is slightly different yet share some text and the titles are not the same. Given the scam proportions of AGW and the IPCC this raises suspicion this blog will deal with right now as no time is available for further investigation. But it can make you wonder. Was the NYT taking a little creative license with the report?

Moving to the real problem, how do you convince the public everything is above board when you make a claim that irregularities related to scientists will be investigated by other scientists? Who cares if you claim they are independent? The ones under investigation were described that way too!

This blogger, for one, would like to report on at least one example where confidence is high that so-called scientific evidence on AGW is correct. As much as this issue smells of scam any skeptic worth their criticism would expect at least one example of scientific truth regarding global warming. Everything being false or fabricated is no more believable than everything being correct.

Okay, let’s go back to the report…..

“It will be [made up of] senior scientific figures. I can’t name who they are right now. It should do a review of the IPCC, produce a report by, say, August and there is a plenary of the IPCC in South Korea in October.

“The report will go there for adoption,” he told reporters on the sidelines of a UNEP conference in Nusa Dua, on the Indonesian island of Bali, where environment ministers have been meeting this week.

It would appear that the powers-that-be within the United Nations are simply seeking vindication by any means in advance of the next scam meeting. It is not difficult to believe those in lesser industrialized nations and the third world view the AGW issue as a great strategy for sabotaging their more successful counterparts. Launch initiatives like those suggested by Al Gore and his crew to destroy the economies of ‘rich’ nations to even the playing field.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Crushing debt and mounting deficits in the face of a fragile recovery, if in fact there is one, adds to concern about the liberal agenda and out of touch POLS in Washington as well as at the state and local level. Tea parties and other outspoken critics have raised the ante for November 2010 midterm elections while being attacked by entrenched power brokers in the culture of corruption.

President Obama’s frequent reminder that we must pass ‘health insurance reform’ and other agenda items of the Democratic party are at odds with the report presented here expressing his belief that ‘deficit spending is unsustainable.’

One consistent feature of The One’s rhetoric blames the whole mess on problems that he ‘inherited.’ It has been stated on this site before that candidate Obama knew exactly what lay before him in his pursuit of the highest office in the land. At some point Mr President you must accept responsibility for the leadership role you now have. Do not pre-empt your agenda’s likely failure by putting the weight on someone else. Your agenda succeeds or fails on its own merits or lack of same.

One can almost hear his 2012 concession speech. I had a dream. To change the foundation of this nation into my own image and likeness but Bush sabotaged my plan.

Some have said authorizing a government ‘commission’ to oversee debt and deficit reduction attempts is simply a way to remove political risk from elected officials and place it on a group of bureaucrats. Whatever the strategy we don’t need another government commission for anything. Simply have the stones to reduce spending, taxes and the growth of government. But then that notion runs counter to any liberal agenda. That supports the opinion on why this commission was born.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Obama Confronts US Debt as More Americans File for Jobess Benefits
18 February 2010
Michael Bowman | Washington

President Barack Obama announced a bipartisan commission on Thursday to tackle mounting U.S. federal budget deficits that economists say imperil the nation’s economic future. The president acted to correct America’s long term fiscal imbalances while short term economic signals point to a bumpy recovery after a deep recession.

President Obama says he inherited massive budget deficits and a staggering national debt when he entered office, and that he has had to incur even more debt to combat a financial crisis and prevent a prolonged economic recession from becoming a depression.

But he is quick to add that deficit spending is unsustainable.

“Without action, the accumulated weight of that structural deficit, of ever increasing debt, will hobble our economy,” Mr. Obama said. “It will cloud our future and it will saddle every child in America with an intolerable burden.”

Mr. Obama spoke at the White House, where he signed an executive order creating a bipartisan commission that will craft solutions to bring federal spending in line with tax receipts.

Standing behind the president were the two men who will lead the panel - Democrat Erskine Bowles, who served as White House chief of staff during the Clinton administration, and former Republican Senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming.

“I am asking them [Erskine and Simpson] to produce clear recommendations on how to cover the costs of all federal programs by 2015 and to meaningfully improve our long term fiscal picture,” Mr. Obama said.

More than half of federal spending goes to so-called entitlement programs such as Social Security for retirees, and medical subsidies for the poor and the elderly. Cutting such programs is politically unpopular.

National defense consumes another large portion of the budget, and is difficult to rein in during a time of war.

President Obama has proposed a freeze on the remainder the federal budget, beginning next year. But a limited freeze along will not eliminate a deficit that exceeded $1 trillion last year and is projected to do so again this year.

Congress rejected creating a budget commission of its own that would have been empowered to draft fiscal solutions and to compel the legislature to consider its recommendations.

Meanwhile, fresh signs of weakness emerged in the U.S. labor market that analysts say point to a slow economic recovery. The number of newly-laid off workers filing for unemployment benefits stood at 473,000 last week - 31,000 more than the previous week.

Global Insight chief economist, Nariman Behravesh:

“After substantial progress in fixing or at least improving the jobs situation, we seem to have backtracked a little bit,” Behravesh said. “This is not so unusual. When you reach a turning point [in the economy after a recession], the progress is not uniform - two steps forward, one step back. And I think that is what we are seeing - the one step back.”

At the same time, a broad measure of future economic vitality, the Conference Board’s Index of Leading Economic Indicators, rose for the 10th consecutive month, but at a slower pace than in previous months. And spiking energy costs caused U.S. wholesale prices to rise 1.4 percent in January - double what many economists had anticipated.

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

This is not political rhetoric or some lobbyist’s scheme to support a strategy not in the public interest. It is what this country has been missing lately. Plain, everyday, good old-fashioned American common sense.

An excerpt from a WaPo report on health reform provides a reasonable introduction to what’s wrong and why a step by step approach to reform the wise choice.

Their efforts suggest a return to the frenzied pace of last year’s health-care debate, which prompted more than $200 million in advocacy ads and broke records for lobbying. Companies and trade groups last year hired more than 4,500 lobbyists to influence health reform — amounting to about eight lobbyists for each member of Congress, according to an analysis released last week by the Center for Public Integrity.

Reacting to President Obama’s recent statements that he will move ahead with legislation, health insurance companies have enlisted hundreds of lobbyists in a full-court press against the proposed overhaul, which would force dramatic cuts and increased regulation on the industry. At the same time, insurers are pushing back against a separate bill approved by the House last week that would remove the industry’s antitrust exemption.

Assuming the article’s facts are straight, ‘eight lobbyists for each member of Congress’ should tell you all you need to know. But add to that all the talk of ‘agendas’ and what some POLS are obviously trying to do and it becomes clear there is little in the way of public interest included in this legislative nightmare.

For instance, by itself in the spirit of ’step by step’ do you suppose anyone would object to a ban on deals between drug manufacturers to keep generics off the market? That’s right. The only ones who would object are the drug manufacturers and their lobbyists.

Would anyone object to allowing insurance companies to compete across statelines? Sure, state and local POLS who claim their legislation protects the public by allowing only approved players to participate. Do you suppose any of the same political shenanigans are involved at the state level?

These are some of the cost-cutting ideas that may come from either side of the aisle and appear to have merit without benefit of reading specific legislative language that may render them less than ideal. But the point is without taking unthinkable risk with national debt and deficits in addition to what already exists, doing things step by step would remove the all or nothing pitfalls from what is otherwise just more politcal theatre.

Our nation needs to address health issues. But the manner in which it is being done currently does not resemble anything close to the word reform. You might want to tell your elected representative we should take a break, eliminate the insanity and take a common sense step by step approach to solving health issues.

Sure, the step by step idea has been a GOP mantra for some time now. So if you are a liberal you naturally oppose it. But this post does not suggest all the GOP talk is correct. But there is no benefit to dismissing all the GOP or the Democrats say just to present an argument. The generic deals ban mentioned above may quite possibly be a Democrat’s idea. It seems reasonable. Step by step was proposed by the GOP. Another reasonable idea.

So let’s scrap these reform bills that are nothing more than political agendas. And do it right one piece at a time.

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.

Nothing like singleness of purpose to inspire others by demonstrating that hard work and determination lay the foundation for success. Who better to display those attributes than the King of Altruism, the man who invented the internet and is deeply devoted currently to saving our planet, Al Gore.

Last weekend with continued support from the NYT fish wrap former US Vice-President Al Gore presented an op-ed once again extolling the virtues of his own personal crusade. To express his concern for those who reject his money making venture this political doormat and newly minted snake oil salesman offered the following sentiment:

I, for one, genuinely wish that the climate crisis were an illusion.

But just as Mr Gore’s incompetence derailed his bid for President of the United States in 2000 it once again exposes his worldwide scam to profit from a crisis of his own making. Not an unusual strategy for a liberal. Attempt to create panic, fool the willing and laugh all the way to the bank in your corporate jet while criticizing others for destroying the planet.

Some more of Mr Gore’s ‘phrases’ will be supplied here demonstrating his folly. Of course libs will object to out of context use but then they are free to follow the link, search for the phrase and read the whole laughable thing for themselves. Why make everyone else suffer through Gore’s feeble pitch for his own wealth building scheme.

From Mr Gore:

-It is true that the climate panel published a flawed overestimate… (read the rest for yourself)

-But the scientific enterprise will never be completely free of mistakes.

-Because these and other effects of global warming are distributed globally, they are difficult to identify and interpret in any particular location.

In each of the examples above Mr Gore admits his case for AGW is flawed. He has drawn an absolute conclusion from vague, ambiguous or simply flawed data. And on that thin or non-existent evidence he expects the world to act on his recommendations. His position for personal gain from investments and partnerships points to the hypocrisy of his quest.

Hey Al, if you want to make a boatload of money on eco=business knock yourself out. But don’t expect the rest of us to buy what you’re selling, literally. The financial turmoil of the last few years and what may last for some time is nothing compared to the economic destruction your holy war would cause if we let it. Your money connection to your environmental crusade betrays your claim of genuine concern. As does your personal choices for producing the carbon mess you describe. You’re simply not believable. Nor are your cronies in the pseudo-science game. They’re in it for the money too.

Are there problems to solve with regard to ecology and the environment? Certainly there are. And good folks have been quietly working on them for a long time without the help from Al Gore’s personal search for the Holy Grail. Gore’s personal agenda will do more to harm those efforts than any other source. When you lose the public trust through selfish motivation support for otherwise noble endeavors declines.

Thanks for nothing, Al Gore.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

BTW, it is interesting that Gore chose the word ‘enterprise’ to describe science.

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

From unrest displayed by various factions in Pakistan to the strange relationship between the US and former top dog Musharraf to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto the some-time ally nation is a wild card in foreign affairs.

The story below is typical of those demonstrating that which may frustrate public officials and the public in countries around the world. However, terrorists who view this latest development as positive may change their minds later. US intelligence operatives may lament this decision publicly but keeping a top Taliban commander in Pakistan’s custody may actually expand options available for acquiring necessary information.

How much money will the US have to provide Pakistan for ‘extracting’ intelligence from this individual without all those messy rules some find comforting? Sure, Pakistan is denying extradition to any other country based on perceived rights of the detained. Not likely.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Pakistani Court Blocks Extradition of Top Afghan Taliban Commander

VOA News

A Pakistani court has blocked the extradition of at least five captured Afghan Taliban leaders, including top Taliban commander Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar.

Judge Khawaja Mohammad Sharif issued the order Friday after Islamist rights activist Khalid Khawaja filed a petition with the high court in Lahore. The judge said the militants should not be handed over to any other country.

One day earlier, the Afghan government said Pakistan had agreed to send Mullah Baradar and other militants to Afghanistan.

The Afghan president’s office said Thursday that Pakistan had agreed to give up the militants in exchange for the return of Pakistani prisoners.

Pakistani security forces captured Mullah Baradar in a joint operation with U.S. agents. Pakistan also detained several other top Taliban members in recent weeks.

The United States has urged Pakistan to crack down on Afghan Taliban militants who use northwestern Pakistan as a base for attacks on U.S.-led forces in neighboring Afghanistan.