The Romney Alternative

Only a few more weeks and then we can get back to life without constant debates over who is the superior candidate, who will do 'more' for the American people and who will lead us back to the path to prosperity. No matter who you are choosing to support, you have to admit that the constant mudslinging is finally starting to wear a bit thin. Even if you aren't a supporter of seeing the Obama Administration carry on for another term, you have to admit that there has been little in the way of having hope for things improving if you vote, for 'the other guy'; in this case I'm referring to Mitt Romney. The Republican National Convention (RNC) came to a close this past week and it's "official" (as if it hadn't been until this very week) that Mitt Romney will be the Republican candidate for President.

He's definitely a different candidate than Obama and certainly different from John McCain, but one way in which I don't see any difference between him or any other candidate thus far is that they are so vague in terms of laying out their actual plans for helping our nation get better that I could honestly go up on a pulpit and do the same thing. Perhaps I'm not as photogenic or even as good a public speaker (but let's further be honest and admit that neither is Romney) but I know one thing from 'the real working world' that many candidates don't. Words are great, but facts and figures behind them can certainly make things more palatable. In my office (as I'm sure is the case in most offices around the world), you can draw a conclusion, but if you don't have evidence to back it up, it's a meaningless exercise.

Meaningless exercises are how I view much of the campaigning that has been going on thus far. Mitt Romney appears to be running on the hope that disenchanted Obama supporters (and of course Republicans) will vote for anyone (but hopefully him) as an alternative to having Obama in office for another four years. That's all well and good but having no other alternative isn't really a choice. To listen to plans and schemes being laid out during all the speeches at the RNC it would be apparent to even the most naive of persons that the Republicans have a plan to improve things; what we the people don't have are the details, and I fear that there really aren't any.

I understand that most candidates don't want to lay out their plans on the off chance that they get implemented by their opponent and thus end up helping the opposition win the election but I'm not looking for chapter and verse, I'm looking for supporting evidence. The plan to reduce fuel prices by drilling all over Alaska has been an option for years and while that's certainly going to make a difference, it wouldn't make a difference in the near term whatsoever. Do people, and even more so, the candidates themselves, honestly believe that just by mentioning drilling in Alaska that gas prices are going to come down? And what about the long term? Most candidates these days talk about looking to the future and preparing the world for our children; are they really going to make things better by continuing our reliance on fossil fuels? Do we really want to strip our planet to the bone just so that we don't have to worry about developing new means of generating power?

To me it's almost like the credit crisis. So many of us are in debt simply because we don't have readily available cash so we spend what we can on credit and we keep on doing it until such time as we are in a hole and we can't do anything else but blame the economy rather than ourselves. What about fostering development of these new technologies or capabilities? It's been attempted, but the reaction of most (especially those who have their pockets lined by oil companies here and abroad) is that it's a useless gesture. Drill here and dill now is their common refrain. And what about after it's finished here and abroad? Just wipe our hands clean of the situation?

That appears to be the attitude of a lot of people, especially the rich or those who claim to have a connection to 'the small businessman'. Let me say this; Mitt Romney definitely isn't the same as a small business man. Romney's company, Bain Capital, was not some mom and pop business that was his sole source of bread and butter. To hear Romney tell it during his acceptance speech at the RNC, he seemed to compare the ups and downs of his business to having an 'oopsy'. Never once did he say or even attempt to highlight that if his company had floundered (like so many do) that he would have been hard pressed to care for his family. He didn't say it because it obviously wasn't the case. For many of us who have struggled to keep a business afloat it really is a matter of whether you would be able to put food on the table or not. But Romney didn't put it that way. He made a joke about not wanting to 'go to Hell' if he had lost his church's pension fund. Really? That's your concern?

If you truly believe that your honest actions speak for you and not the reactions of your efforts, then what do you have to worry about? To me it was a selfish remark. Forget about losing other people's money, he seemed to care more about what would have happened to him after the fact. And this is the man people are considering for their President? Romney spoke at length about how his business experience positions him well to take over the leadership of our country and put us back on the path to prosperity. To me I feel he'd treat us just like he did the people who came to Bain Capital looking for help. That is to say, happily if it works out but a cold shoulder if it doesn't. I don't want to bet on the fact that maybe in his vague, ramblings he may actually have a viable plan and hopefully the American voter won't either.

Who's In Control?

My brother and I went to the movie theater on July 19th around 6PM to watch a marathon leading up to the midnight premiere of "The Dark Knight Rises". We hadn't gone for a midnight premiere together in years and we were looking forward to seeing all three films in the trilogy on the big screen. We got home around 3:15 AM and promptly went off to sleep. Our family told us about the tragedy in Aurora, Colorado the next morning when we woke up. I couldn't help but think that it could very well have been any movie theater in which the shooting could have occurred. There could have been any number of the movie-going audience that was with us that could have been feeling 'a bit disturbed' and could have decided to open fire, blow up a bomb, or just randomly start killing the people around him. We were fortunate that everyone we went to see the film with was there for the same purpose, to have a good time and see a great movie.

But in the wake of the shootings in Colorado we again hear the familiar refrains regarding the arguments for gun control and mental illness. Anti-gun control supporters will tell you that had we had less stringent open carry laws, a potential shooter would know that anyone else in the theater could likely be carrying so they would likely choose not to open fire. That's a compelling argument but then I ask these same people what they would do if they suddenly found themselves facing an AR-15 in the middle of a movie theater. For those that don't know, the AR-15 is an assault rifle in civilian form; it's similar to what the Army issues our troops. A handgun, which most normal people purchase and would carry when they want to open carry a gun, would probably pale in comparison to that. So then the argument becomes one of escalation. If people are going to open fire using semi-automatic weapons then we should all be allowed to carry them in self-defense.

That's our right as Americans, the second amendment guarantees that; but then what puzzles me about people who strongly feel that way is why they have such low opinions of countries where that has been the norm for centuries. Many of these same people will talk about the nations of the Middle East where carrying weapons is a sign of respect as if it is a backwards and primitive culture. So what would we become if we were allowed to carry weapons around like we were back in the Wild West? Perhaps they feel that isn't the argument that they are making but one of simple protection. If we didn't have such easy access to weapons (and believe me, it's easier than many people think) then we would have to worry less about such incidents.

I won't be naive and assume that banning guns would mean no more guns would be in unauthorized hands but rather I believe in limiting the types of weapons we have access to. Home protection can likely be done using a handgun or a shotgun. The sound of a shotgun being chambered is likely to scare off anyone who hears it. And last I checked, we don't live in a wild and lawless land. Sure there are problems on the Mexican border in places but rare is the time that we would need an assault rifle pointed towards the border between the states. We aren't living in colonial times where defense against foreign nations was a true and real threat. I have faith in our country to know that in the event of such an unthinkable occurrence, our armed forces would lend a hand and defend our country.

People who advocate the Second Amendment often say that they have the right to collect guns, they have the right to own any type of weapon that they want. I collect comics so suppose I can understand that mindset. I mean I suppose I wouldn't want anyone to tell me I couldn't collect old issues of "Superman" or "Batman". Similarly if a gun-nut wants to own an AK-47 he should definitely have that right then. By the same token then, shouldn't a fan of nuclear fission be allowed to have equal access to nuclear materials in his home (and I don't mean for bomb-making)? When faced with such questions, anti-gun control people rear up and state that that's not the same thing. It isn't? Maybe the nuclear fission fan wants to develop a new source of energy to stop our dependence on foreign oil. But I guess if his name happens to be anything other than Smith or Jones I suppose it would be viewed with much more suspicion, which gun nuts would then say proves the need to have machine guns.

We need to use common sense. We have two hands, at any given time we'd only ever be able to use two guns at once, so why would a single person need an arsenal? We have background checks in place to supposedly help prevent mentally disturbed people get their hands on guns, but if people haven't done anything bad yet (like shoot up a movie theater) then what's to prevent them from getting guns to then do so? Not much as it turns out. If you want to own a gun, by all means buy one and sleep soundly at night, just don't tell me that you need to have an assault rifle to feel that same level of safety; we live in America, not a war torn country.

Protecting the Sanctity of Sesame Street?

So the bloggers of the Internet can sometimes be very quick to judge and in my opinion, very hypocritical. What do I mean? Well you have probably heard by now that 25-year-old singer Katy Perry was set to appear on an upcoming episode of the children's education program "Sesame Street". If you heard that you probably also heard that she wouldn't be making that appearance due to the number of complaints that the show received about early footage of Perry singing her popular song "Hot 'n Cold" alongside perennial "Sesame Street" star Elmo. In the piece, Perry prances and dances alongside the Muppet while seemingly doing nothing more than simply running around cartoon backgrounds. I say 'seemingly' because apparently I'm too stupid to understand the 'offensive' part of her performance.

Look up any article on the situation and you'll undoubtedly find a lot of the popular opinion on the matter being bandied about in the comments section. Now if there's one thing I dislike about the comments section on many internet pages it's that there's seldom any accountability. I could go onto a website and spout rhetoric about why "Star Wars" is and always will be superior to "Star Trek" and I could sign my name William Shatner and no one would know the difference. Of course I'm not William Shatner but such a posting would undoubtedly bring Trekkers out of the internet woodwork to defend their beloved show. So why am I bringing this up? Because apparently the popular opinion against the Katy Perry segment on "Sesame Street" gained a lot of traction when it was first posted on YouTube.

If you read a lot of what people are saying out there I would say that it's quite hypocritical. I say this because we as a society often seem to apply morals to situation that don't even require us to do such a thing. While I would contend that Katy Perry probably isn't the most wholesome or pure person to have ever appeared on television let alone on "Sesame Street" I think her appearance had more to do with the fact that she liked the show as a kid and wanted to make an appearance on it now that she had finally become a star. I don't find anything offensive in her dance with Elmo and I have faith in the powers that be in charge of "Sesame Street" that they'd have enough judgment to know what was acceptable on the show and what wouldn't be.

If we don't believe them to have that much common sense then what else are they 'allowing' our children to see? If everything else the producers and creators of the show is passed through without anyone else in the general public (and internet public) making a comment on it then why is this one particular piece getting so much bad press? Is it because we think Katy Perry isn't a good person or because we like to believe that we are so much more conservative? I call this type of attitude hypocritical because it has often been the more conservative sections of our society who have stepped out to call something offensive and when you dig a little deeper you find that they themselves are guilty of similar actions. So what does that mean? While they find Katy Perry's dance sequence "offensive" I'm sure they have done something similar (if not worse) in their own lives but I guess pointing it out in regards to someone else gives them a feeling of superiority. I find it to be a shame that a show that was a large part of my youth is treated so shoddily these days by conservative members of the public. Kids are innocent in their outlook. They would see the dance for what it is which is a dance; don't try to look beyond that simple fact to find offense.

Even If It's Our Right; Is It Right?

This Saturday marks the ninth anniversary of the terrible events of 9/11. It's hard to believe that it's been nearly a decade since that day given how much has happened since then and how much continues to happen as a result. However, not everyone is using the day to reflect on the tragic events of nine years prior. Well... not in exactly the way one would expect. Apparently the Dove World Outreach Center in Florida is planning on staging a protest of Islam which isn't unusual in and of itself but it's the fact that they are promoting their event as 'National Burn a Koran Day' that is garnering the most attention and not for all the best reasons.

Now before some of you jump up on your soapboxes and start shouting to me the fact that this is a right given to us by the Constitution, I would simply ask you to sit down and shut up. I'm well aware of the fact that this is a right guaranteed to us by the First Amendment. It's that same right that allows me to express my rights in such a free and open manner on the internet for the entire world to see. Therefore, seeing as how I know what that right allows me to do, please allow me to continue what my thoughts on the matter are. While I understand the rationale behind the group wanting to protest Islam and their view of it, doing so by desecrating the writings of another religion isn't the way to go about it.

Sure you can argue that they have no respect for any other religion either. You can argue that it is simply a matter of retaliating for all the mistreatment Muslims have inflicted on the peoples of other religions around the world (but more specifically in the Middle East). You could even call it a culmination of all the frustration and anger that so many are feeling towards the religion behind many of the terrorist organizations in the world. You could say all those things and more, but is it really enough to justify the burning of their holy texts? I'm not a Muslim and I don't have Muslim tendencies or leanings. I'm a patriotic American who loves the country of my birth as much as any other American. However I don't want my country to be associated with the type of religious intolerance that this event seems to convey.

Do groups such as the Dove World Outreach Center really believe that this will have some positive effect on the world but in particular, for Americans? If you read the news you'll find that most terrorist groups out there believe that America's efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq were not motivated by the fact that we were after terrorists but rather after exterminating Islam itself. Our government and our leaders staunchly claim that this is not the case but when a group like the Dove World Outreach Center (which frankly doesn't seem to be doing anything towards living up to their name) decides to declare a 'National Burn a Koran Day'. Seeing as how it is a right protected by the Constitution, I can't say that it shouldn't be done, but what I do feel is that it is only going to serve to inspire other groups to do the same thing, and then the ultimate irony is that we will eventually be doing what the terrorists accuse us of wanting to do in the first place, which is not declare war on terrorists but on Islam itself. Is this what the Dove World Outreach Center parishioners want? Do they really want the terrorists to be right?

The Housing Market in DC

So everyone in the news has been talking about how the latest numbers indicate that new home sales in the country have been on the decline and this is an indicator that the economic recovery of our nation is stalling. I don't know where many of these people come up with their ideas but one thing I can say for certain is that they likely drive around their areas wearing blinders because if they could only open their eyes and see, they'd immediately understand the reason why new home sales are declining and I am pretty certain it's something much simpler than what the media is making it out to be. Drive practically anywhere west on the Dulles Toll Road and you'll end up running into numerous signs that advertise new developments and neighborhoods that have model homes now open. If one ventures into that area they will find endless streets of new homes (townhomes, condos, etc.) vying for space in a fast disappearing landscape.

Why the reason for all the building? Likely because of the false buyers market that was created a few years ago when our government leaders urged everyone to invest in real estate because that was a sure sign of prosperity. Never mind that unlike in years past, homeowners actually had to cough up a lot of money for a downpayment and had to have firmly established credit to get a mortgage to help pay for a home, a few years ago you pretty much needed a face and you could get a mortgage. If you had a job (even if it only paid $10,000 a year) it seemed you could easily get approved to get a loan to buy a home worth millions rather than what you actually could afford. The end result was that people were buying homes left and right and figured that they could make money flipping properties even though they didn't really understand what flipping properties meant.

What this meant to developers and builders was that there was a clear demand for housing so they just went on a building spree and now it's almost as if the market continues to thrive because I've spoken with individuals who work for the counties in Northern Virginia where building was most rampant and they have indicated that building permits are continuously sought because builders still want to build more homes for a market that is saturated to the breaking point. While I understand the desire to continue building is likely helping keep a lot of people employed, don't these people (any of them) realize that they are not helping the market but rather hurting it? If I lived in the Ashburn area and decided to sell my two year old home, I would likely get little to nothing for it (relatively speaking) because there was brand new construction for a comparable price just a few feet away.

People aren't going to buy houses for some time to come and it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that the new homeowner tax credit is no longer in effect. It has to do with the fact that there are too many homes and not enough buyers. And it's likely that this fact will continue until such a point that the counties and developers realize that there isn't much point in continuing to create new housing if no one is going to buy it. I personally don't think the market will improve much until the building stabilizes (and eventually stops) and prices come down to more realistic levels. I mean while houses beyond Ashburn are certainly nice, I don't think I'd like to spend that much and drive fifty miles one way just to get to work. I don't think a lot of other people would either which is why houses out there aren't selling thus leading 'experts' to believe that the economic recovery is beginning to collapse.

To Build or Not to Build

It seems like everybody and their brother is looking to get in on the discussion on the proposed mosque in New York. I'm sure if you're reading this far you are most likely familiar with the issue but in case you're not from the States or not very familiar with what's going on, the gist of it is that there has been major issue with the fact that a mosque has been seeking permission to build a community center approximately two blocks from Ground Zero in New York City. Now while I understand the emotion and the anger that many people feel towards allowing such a structure to be built so close to the site of the deadliest attack on United States soil in the history of the country, I think the debate is being elevated to greater proportions by people who want to do nothing more than fan the flames.

It's hard to watch the news these days and not see some side of the debate being discussed and rather than listening to only the words of those who agree with my viewpoint, I feel it important to also hear (and attempt to understand) the opposing viewpoints on the issue as well. As I mentioned, I understand the anger that many have over the fact that a mosque is being built in such close proximity to Ground Zero but I am at a loss to understand why there is so much ire. I agree that much of it has to do with the fact that the religion of those who perpetrated the attacks is Muslim and that the majority of those we are in conflict with around the world at this time happens to be Muslim but then is it right to punish the majority for the failings of the minority?

And not only that, but to hear many opponents talk, it seems that the mosque/community center that is to be built will be (in the eyes of most opponents) a site from which evil Muslims will plot the next attack on our country. Now I honestly cannot fathom just how rationale minded individuals can possibly believe that. Do people have that little faith in our intelligence and security services to believe that such an attack could again be planned and executed so close to the site of the 9/11 attacks in New York? Do people have so little faith that security services (not to mention the public in general) won't be keeping eyes on that building and would let police know if someone even litters (let alone attempts violence) there? To hear the experts at Fox News speak makes it seem like Bin Laden will have a seat of honor within site of the new World Trade Center plaza. I honestly can't buy that.

But what about those who argue that it just isn't sensitive of Muslims to want to build a mosque so close to where other followers of their religion attacked our country. They say that two blocks is too close. What about the prayer area within the Pentagon where Islamic prayer services are held every day since 2002? It seems that that location is located within a few hundred feet of where the plane slammed into the building. As far as I know there have been no protests which surprises me since I would have thought opponents (who seem to oppose for the sake of opposing at times) would have latched on to the fact that Islam is the religion of those attacking our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan but seeing as how that is not the case, the fact that a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero is insensitive strikes me as smacking of hypocrisy.

If you say that two blocks is too close then how far is far enough? Would it be safe to say that most people who oppose the site on principle would argue that not a single mosque should be built in New York ever again? Perhaps or perhaps not but it wouldn't surprise me if that didn't become the arguement of many. Opponents say that the timing isn't right or that it's too soon. To be perfectly honest, if you haven't been to Ground Zero in recent days I think you'd be hard pressed to term it hallowed if you didn't know any better. What with all the hot dog vendors, the fast food places and other tourist trappings in and around the area. If we truly believe the area to be hallowed ground or an area to be considered sacred, then it should be treated like the majority of Civil War battlefields in our nation, or the site of many historic battles or tragedies around the world. You'd be hard pressed to term it 'touristy'. I personally believe that there is more of a prejudicial reason so many oppose the project and that people just aren't willing to admit it.

I Guess Satire is More Difficult Than Joel Stein Expected

Joel Stein of Time Magazine recently wrote an essay on immigration entitled 'My Own Private India'. In the essay, Stein relates how his hometown of Edison, New Jersey (which for those who don't know is a town in North Jersey that is now synonymous with Indians) has been transformed in recent years, mainly with the influx of Indians who have slowly transformed the area into almost a micro-India. Now that is of course both good and bad. It's good since many Indian immigrants have found a way to have a little piece of home while living in a foreign land. It's bad because sometimes we Indians don't bring the best of our heritage to our newly adopted countries.

I must clarify that I'm born and raised in America. I have lived my life in DC and I have actually been to Edison on numerous occasions so I can relate to some of what Stein references in his essay when he talks about how Edison has transformed into a bustling version of an Indian city in America. What has raised the ire of many readers (myself included) is the fact that Stein apparently attempted to state his observations in a satirical manner and instead, he successfully managed to instead insult the vast majority of Indians who read his article. He subsequently issued an apology and insisted that his article wasn't meant to insult but rather to raise awareness of his readers to the fact that immigration managed to change his hometown. To that I would simply say, "Welcome to America."

America has been and always shall be a nation of immigrants. No people on this continent, save for the native peoples of this land (and by that I mean the varied tribes of Native Americans) no one can ever claim to be a true 'American'. We are all immigrants; whether that be our parents or several generations before even them, everyone living in what we collectively know as America is an immigrant at some point or another in their family's history. That being said, there is no excuse for anyone (including Joel Stein) to view another group of immigrants with the degree of disdain and spite that he showed. As an American of Indian descent, certainly there are times when even I feel that Indian enclaves in our country (like Edison) sometimes don't represent all the best aspects of a particular culture but then again, which enclaves ever do?

I can tell you that almost every single neighborhood in America that has been around for more than a decade undergoes change; it's just the nature of America's continued development. The neighborhood I grew up in certainly has changed from when I lived there but that doesn't mean that I view it like the plague as Stein appears to do with the changes to Edison. If, as Stein seems to imply, after leaving Edison for Manhattan, he returned many years later to find his childhood haunts to have been taken over by Indians then he is as much to blame as any immigrants. If he had that much regard for the area of his youth, he would have continually returned or at least made an effort to remain a part of it rather than returning later and viewing it as a haven for people who aren't just like him.

What is most galling to me in his analysis about Edison is the fact that he seems to ply stereotype upon stereotype and seems to view the fact that Indians have moved into the area as a sign that it is declining or that they are attempting to turn Edison (and eventually all of New Jersey) into India. I suppose by his assumption then that Chinatowns and Little Italy's all over the United States are evidence of those ethnicities taking over as well. Whatever was the point that Stein wanted to make or was attempting to make in a humorous manner ended up stinking of racism and ignorance more than anything. Stein attempted to apologize for his essay but his apology came off even more half-assed than his attempt at humor. It's a shame that a magazine as prestigious as Time would choose to run this essay as a companion piece to editorials on immigration reform.

Too Much Freedom of the Press?

During the whole fracas with General McChrystal a few days ago I couldn't help but wonder why the General felt so comfortable with the press that he felt that he could say whatever he wanted to Rolling Stone and that it wouldn't come out in some way shape or form. Sure you can make the argument that it wasn't the General's fault that comments were reported when he wasn't aware that they would be part of the final news article in the magazine or that he was being quoted on the record rather than off, but still, shouldn't a part of him have been a little cautious, especially in light of the fact that the press is practically everywhere in politics these days?

I mean I remember when the Marines were initially deployed to Somalia back in the early part of Clinton's first term as President, I couldn't help but wonder why the press was being informed of the time and location (the middle of the night to be exact) that the Marines would be arriving; that way the press could cover the arriving troops. Perhaps it was meant to be a morale booster for the troops and the people left back at home who were wondering why the country was deploying soldiers to a nation that didn't have anything that benefited our country. Still, perhaps the rationale was to scare the opposition (since we knew Saddam watched CNN to learn more about our military movements during the first Gulf War) into realizing that our armed forces were ready to take them down.

But doesn't anyone find this a little much these days? I mean I suppose again the rationale behind embedding troops with the forces in Iraq was primarily to garner support since many felt the invasion of Iraq wasn't warranted. I suppose that by having access to our soldiers, the press would be less inclined to talk bad about the war and show it in a more positive light. While I think that was largely the case, I don't think the military (and their leaders more precisely) could be so naive as to think that the press would forever be on their side. After all, support for the war has been on the decline and in Afghanistan it was even more so, so if the press (which is always looking for some angle to sell more newspapers) could find chinks in the armor that the government and military are in lockstep on the strategy for Afghanistan, wouldn't they seek to exploit it?

I guess what I'm feeling is that while I think the press has a Constitutional right to report anything and everything that they can to keep the public informed, sometimes that freedom can backfire and cause more harm than good. I mean there's probably a really good reason why the press would want to report things but still, there's an old saying that "discretion is the better part of valor" and if the press (who sometimes feel that simple embedding is enough to warrant considering themselves 'blooded warriors') then shouldn't they do what they can to ensure that the truth (more than sensationalism) is reported? Break news stories but don't break it with the sole intention of selling more newspapers or magazines.

So Long Sir

So the question of whether or not President Obama would replace General McChrystal as the man in charge of Allied forces in Afghanistan was answered in pretty short order. Soon after their meeting earlier this week, McChrystal stepped down and General Petreaus, the well-known General who led our troops in Iraq and now controls operations for the entire region will be taking his place. A lot of people have been talking about the entire situation; I mean how can you not. For those of us World War II history buffs out there it's probably not much of a surprise as to what happened. After all, this is sort of like what happened to General Patton during the Second World War. In essence anyways, that's how you can help people understand what's happened.

Indeed, a lot of people have wondered whether the fact that McChrystal was removed from his posting whether that means he's been fired. Well yes and no. I'm sure those who have served in the military will be able to explain it a lot better than myself but then again I can at least put it in layman's terms. You can probably compare it to a regular Joe at the office being asked to leave his position. He's not being fired but he's taking a different role in the office. Now while the actions of McChrystal weren't exactly the best when you consider his position in the grand scheme of things, he didn't really do anything that would justify his being 'fired' in the traditional sense of the term. His comments can't be considered bad enough to justify having him undergo a court martial.

But where do you then draw the line? I don't think many of us can admit to agreeing with every single action our bosses take. We always have an opinion and probably like to think that we can do it better. Rare is the time that we actually come out in a public forum and make our dissatisfaction known to one and all. Sure there are some who certainly do do that but they aren't the vast majority of us and the reason is that we know that it's not really 'politically correct'. Certainly you can't expect someone like General McChrystal or now, General Petreaus to simply accept what their civilian bosses say and then go and do it. That's where the difference comes in. These gentlemen have thousands of soldiers working for them (and the country) and their lives are in their hands.

That being the case, it's not right to expect that they should by any means just accept what they are being told. However, given that they are publicly given a great deal of respect, I would think that they could return the same sentiment in kind. Had the President or any of the others mentioned in the General's Rolling Stone article come out and talked a lot of trash about the General then he had every right to say what he said, but since that wasn't the case, he should have kept his thoughts for a more private setting. I can't imagine the pressures he and now General Petreaus must go through leading so many troops into battle. They obviously care for their soldiers, but the same level of respect needs to go to the chain of command as well.

Let's Not be Too Hasty

For anyone who saw President Obama's speech on Tuesday evening, I'm sure the thing that stuck out most prominently for them was his declaration of ensuring that BP (formerly known to the world by their full name British Petroleum) would compensate the victims of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. While I'm no fan of BP, I think the good thing is that at least they are intending to comply with the President's request and announced on Wednesday that they would be establishing a fund (worth around $20 billion) from which they would recompense the victims of the oil spill. This money was not only for the residents located along the Gulf coast (thus most directly affected) but the businesses and homeowners in the area who were subsequently affected. Whether or not anyone actually receives payment remains to be seen but I figure if BP doesn't, they are going to be in much greater trouble than they already are.

But one of the big things that has raise tension both here and in Britain is in the fact that President Obama referred to BP by their full un-abbreviated name during a press conference thus (in the eyes of some) implying that the President (and in turn the entire country) was holding Britain (vice BP) responsible. There have been attempts by both sides to ensure that the assumption doesn't hold true and that good will (or relative good will) that has existed between our two countries doesn't suddenly disappear. But when all is said and done, there are still segments of the populations who suddenly seem to jump at the opportunity to bash the British for their supposed 'failing' and thus these same people want the United Kingdom held responsible for the deadliest environmental disaster in history. But to these folks I'd ask them not to get ahead of themselves and to recall Bhopal.

I'm sure many of you readers are wondering what 'Bhopal' is; well it's actually a place. In India in 1984, the city of Bhopal was home to a chemical plant owned by Union Carbide (which is now owned by Dow Chemicals and is an American company) . On the night of December 2, 1984, 27 tons of poisonous gas leaked from a storage tank and killed nearly 3,000 people. As if this wasn't bad enough, problems continue to plauge the region even after 26 years. Though some people appeared to have been unaffected at the time of the gas leak, subsequent generations were plagued with ailments such as cancer and other deadly birth defects. At the time, leaders in Union Carbide were held accountable but they quickly posted bail and soon after left the country.

Though investigations and litigation was made against Union Carbide, the ultimate end result was that while a promise of compensation to victims (present and future), not everyone has received the payout that they were entitled to. Even the Americans who ran the plant have managed to get out of the country and have been living the good life back here in America. Plus those running the plant (namely Warren Anderson) seemed content to blame the workers at the plant and claiming that "the third world nation (India)" wasn't ready to deal with that type of industry. If they were the case then wouldn't it be Union Carbide's responsibility to ensure that proper safety precautions were taken? And since they weren't isn't it only right that the victims demand justice for those responsible? So then I say that if people here wish to hold Britain responsible for BP's failings, so too can India hold the United States (since Union Carbide is American) for the failings of Union Carbide? Just some food for thought.

Can Hollywood Save the Gulf?

It's been over fifty days since the Gulf-based oil drilling platform, the Deepwater Horizon, exploded and unleashed an oil leak which has been pumping out tens of thousands of gallons of crude oil into the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. British Petroleum (BP), the company who had contracted the platform to drill for oil and is being held accountable for the mishap, has been attempting to stymie the flow of oil for nearly two months with limited success. They tried capping the oil leak, they tried cutting the pipe and so far everything they have tried has failed. Oil slicks, tar balls, and the like have been washing up on shores as far as Florida. And if the gulfstream is any indicator, we could see oil washing up along the east coast in the not too distant future.

So what can be done? BP is trying but obviously they aren't succeeding. The federal and state governments have tried to intercede as well but the obvious problem is that they drank the Kool-Aid and believed the oil companies when they said that they had contingency plans in place in the event of an unexpected oil spill. I think it's safe to say that that was a bit of wishful thinking. The military is stepping in now as well but really, with them being spread so thin across the globe, is it really right (or fair) to expect them to do so much more for our country than they already are? So what are the people living along the Gulf Coast supposed to do? Well apparently turning to Hollywood isn't out of the realm of possibility. In the past few weeks I've heard of at least two Hollywood big shots planning on doing more than just telethons or making large donations to charity (for tax purposes). I suppose having expertise in making the impossible possible in the movies gives rise to the belief that perhaps they can do so in real life as well.

I first heard about Kevin Costner and his brother a few weeks ago. They are due to go before Congress sometime soon. Apparently the two developed a system shortly after the Exxon Valdez spill a few years ago and have been working on it on their own for just such an emergency. Basically it is a large centrifuge which will ingest tainted seawater and then spit out cleaned seawater. Now from what early reports indicate, tests have been successful and the system has worked to a limited degree so perhaps Kevin Costner will be able to take on a new name for himself. Rather than being Dances with Wolves he can be Cleans Up Oil Spills. There are those inevitable cynics and naysayers out there who wonder what an 'actor' like Costner will be able to do but I say unto them, at least he and his brother are trying to do something; at their own expense no less!

Then there's the self-proclaimed 'King of the World'... no not Leonardo DiCaprio but James Cameron. Some say that there could hardly be a worse choice from Hollywood to come in a step up with potential ideas. I mean sure, perhaps he had a mildly anti-military establishment message in "Avatar" but that aside he's actually had quite a deal of experience in dealing with extreme depth underwater situations. Cameron directed "The Abyss" which dealt with underwater oil rigs as one aspect of the complex story. He then directed "Titanic" and with the help of his engineer brother, managed to construct cameras that filmed the actual Titanic wreckage in stunning clarity for the first time in decades. The challenge there was working thousands of feet below the surface where robots and steady hands are a must. Not only that, but Cameron returned to the Titanic numerous times more in an effort to get more footage of the great ship. That being said, perhaps it isn't so far-fetched to believe that he could find a solution for stopping the oil leak in the Gulf.

But to me, I think the real reason there is hope in people like Costner and Cameron (and their brothers) is the fact that perhaps everyone currently involved in the spill clean up has realized that they are lacking the one thing that could help them come up with a solution and that one thing is imagination. Imagination is what helped Costner and Cameron create some unique cinematic worlds replete with conceivable technology and science that made the impossible seem possible. I suppose the assumption isn't a bad one and perhaps it's just the 'shot in the arm' needed to find a solution. One can only hope.

Saving Our Past

One thing that I've often heard be said about the United States is that compared to many other countries in other parts of the world (cough cough.... Europe.... Asia), the history of our country seems quite recent. I mean if you think about it, the history of the United States as a country is not very far-reaching on the grander scale. Yet one thing I will often point out to many who make such comments is that while our history may not go back thousands of years, one thing I am proud of is the fact that our country embraces the history that it does have. Case in point? The fight of many Virginia residents to save a portion of Wilderness Battlefield from being turned into shopping space for retail giant Wal-Mart.

Now please understand, given the current state of our economy I think it's great that there are still opportunities for low-cost alternative stores like Wal-Mart, ready to construct new stores so that consumers like you and me can save a few bucks. However, I don't feel that savings such as these should come at the expense of remembering our past. Now some may think that it's a bit stupid to save what is basically empty and unused parcels of land from development just because some battles were fought on those hallowed grounds a few centuries ago. Well to those critics I would ask how they would feel if Wal-Mart or another retailer decided to put up a store where our soldiers have fought and died in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Perhaps it's not exactly an equitable comparison but it's pretty darn close. I think it's important to preserve these areas because they are places where events in our history managed to shape our country and subsequently, our impact on the world. Now it can be viewed as a good thing or a bad thing depending on your perspective, but I think it's important nonetheless. If we don't wish to preserve these portions of our history, no matter how small or insignificant they may seem, then why bother saving Independence Hall or Plymouth Rock or so many other places in our country. Sure, they aren't as old or as famous perhaps as the Colosseum in Rome but still, they are a part of our history.

If we do our part now then it's likely that generations from now, our descendants will be able to look out and see where the history of our country was made. I sometimes think that maybe I feel this way more so because I'm a student of history, but even those who don't enjoy history all that much, if you sit them down and help them understand why it was so important or so influential, they can understand it as well. Our country will always be one of the younger siblings when it comes to national history but still, that doesn't mean we should lose sight of the history we do have and more importantly, we shouldn't take it for granted. To the owners of Wal-Mart, I would humbly ask that you seek alternative sites and leave our history be.

Who Can You Trust?

Over the past few years I've gotten into the habit of reading various news sources for my daily dose of news. I've found that despite claims to the contrary, almost no one has a truly 'fair and balanced' look at the world and what's happening in it. Perhaps it's very cynical but the more and more I read these days, the more and more I realize that it's probably closer to the truth than most of us realize. I sometimes wonder if it's always been this way or not. When I was younger perhaps the availability of information was somewhat limited. Sure there was television and news was delivered nearly instantly, but still, there was always that slight delay before word traveled around but now it's almost instantaneous. It has its good qualities and it has its bad qualities.

But I digress; I asked the question in my blog title for today of "who can you trust?" When I ask the question I'm talking about many things; but in particular I'm talking about two that have particular impact on all our lives these days, the media and our government. It's odd that these two should be so closely linked but the more I think about it, the more I realize that the news media (elite, mainstream or whatever the Hell you choose to call it) all has their own agenda. Look at the news these days and most ever channel has a slant one way or the other. Fair and balanced? Only if you happen to agree with the slant that they put on the news. If you like Fox News you will always consider it fair and balanced; similarly, if you like CNN you'll always find them to be fair in their commentary.

But then who do you trust? It's hard to say simply because there are so many people out there who are forcing us to believe one thing or another. It's almost as if they don't want us to form our own opinion anymore. Gone are the truly moderate news agencies or government officials. Everyone has taken the stance over the past few decades of drawing a line in the sand and then challenging everyone to be on one side or the other. No middle ground exists anymore. Honestly, I've tried to stop watching the news, in particular political programs, simply because I've grown weary of hearing nothing but talking heads spewing rhetoric about why this politician is a traitor or why that politician can be considered the Second Coming. No one comes out and tells the truth which is that they are doing most everything they do for their own selfish purposes.

So then who do we trust? Trust ourselves. Form your own opinion; if you think you've gotten to the bottom of an issue by reading up on it on your usual websites or news sources then go to another and read another perspective. It's the only way that we can make ourselves fair and balanced. If we take the lazy way out and only rely on one source then we'll never get the truth. We'll only see what we want to see when it comes to the world around us and essentially we won't be any different than children. I think we can all be better than that but only if we try.

Credit Where Credit is Due

I wrote yesterday's blog very early, even before I had a chance to read the news and lo and behold what do I read after posting the blog? That an arrest has been made in the Times Square bombing attempt. From the time the bomb was found to the time the arrest had been made was less than 54 hours. That isn't just amazing, it is astounding. For all the talk that many of our politicians and pundits in Washington have been spewing about how there is a lack of security in this country under the current administration or how we are more vulnerable now than we ever were before I would simply point to this arrest as a sign of the system working when it's given a chance.

Sure there will always be mistakes made. Perhaps if we'd paid more attention then Pearl Harbor or the attacks of 9/11 could have been averted but in this case, the system was given a chance and it worked. I wouldn't call it a perfect system but nor would I simply characterize this as a case of blind stinking luck. I recall the case of Mir Aimal Kasi who killed two CIA employees outside of its Langley Headquarters in 1993. He had plenty of time to escape after those attacks and was living in Pakistan for several years until he was finally arrested and extradited to the United States. In that case it took years to catch the culprit and bring him to justice. Now in this case, the arrested Times Square suspect, Faisal Shahzad, was arrested as he prepared to board a flight bound for Dubai. Had things not gone well, it's possible that Shahzad could have also fled as Kasi did and lived a life away from the US for a number of years.

Now perhaps Shahzad isn't the only culprit and perhaps he isn't completely guilty (though I have already read reports that he's confessed to plotting the attack) but the mere fact that he's been arrested and is in custody speaks well of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Perhaps all the efforts that were taken to streamline the flow of information to all concerned agencies is really happening. Of course that's not good enough for folks in the opposition parties. They seem to think that nothing is good enough. I sometimes think that even if their kids bring home a perfect report card they'd still expect (or perhaps demand) an even higher performance.

Regardless of what the opposition party states (oh Hell... I'll just say Republicans) they have to give credit where credit is due. I'm not saying that they must credit the Obama Administration, but they shouldn't lambast the efforts of our law enforcement groups who supposedly read Shahzad his Miranda Rights while arresting him. Why behave as if now we'll never unravel the mystery behind this case. Can these same politicians really point to cases where suspects have been arrested as enemy combatants or terrorists and it has led to the complete destruction of terrorist cells? I don't know but I haven't heard of a slew of such cases despite the number of people who have been arrested as enemy combatants as opposed to violent criminals. I'm sure more details will be revealed in this vile act and more action will be taken against those who have attempted to attack our nation. I just wish some of these politicians and commentators could spend a little more time looking at the things that went right rather than pointing fingers like they always seem to do.

Dangerous Times in Times Square

This past weekend, a disaster which could have claimed the lives of hundreds of people was narrowly averted. An alert vendor in the busy Times Square area was astute enough to notice a Nissan Pathfinder SUV oddly parked at a spot in the area where it soon began to smoke. The vendor notified a mounted police officer and a short time later, the area was evacuated and the police along with bomb squads were called in to deal with the ticking time bomb. The bomb squad managed to diffuse the bomb well before it went off but it gave many New Yorkers and those of us outside the city also have taken pause and have considered just how close we came to another act of terrorism in New York.

Naturally the first thing people want to do is lay the blame. Who is to blame? Is it the police for allowing a vehicle of this sort into the city? People have already started to wonder why the police didn't stop the vehicle at a checkpoint the way they used to. The truth of the matter is that it comes down to complacency and I wouldn't say that it's the police who are complacent. Going through an airport these days can be a very long and drawn out affair. You're subjected to so much security that it feels almost as if the journey through security is longer than the actual flight you're looking to take. Despite that, security precautions at airports have not really changed since 9/11.

So then why did things change everywhere else? Partially it's because we ordinary people are also very fussy. If we're subjected to random vehicle searches or screenings at airports we get ticked off. It's because most of us feel that we aren't the ones who should be scrutinized. It's the other people who look suspicious that should be undergoing this inconvenience, not us. After hearing such complaints all the time and running on limited budgets (after all, how many police officers can you assign to do nothing but randomly check vehicles day in and day out) it's no wonder that checkpoints that were once located all over New York are now dwindling.

I'm sure some will seek to blame the President in what they perceive to be a lack of focus on fighting terrorism and terrorists. But who was the terrorist in this case? It wasn't who most people assume it to be. If we are to believe grainy video footage captured in the area, the chief suspect at this time is assumed to be white. Perhaps it's a jihadist who is wearing make-up or perhaps it's a normal American who has been brainwashed like Richard Reid the infamous Shoe bomber. Whoever it is, they have merely proven that we can't afford to be complacent as a society. Those seeking to harm our citizens are still out there and we must make sure that similar near-disasters don't happen again. If it means a little bit of an inconvenience due to more security checks then so be it. I'd rather be safe than sorry.

Slow Down but not That Much

I read an article in the news yesterday about the Police in Connecticut pulling over a driver for going too slow. Yes. You read right; for going too slow. So for those of your slower drivers out there who believe that driving below the speed limit in the passing lane is your right as a tax payer, be warned, you may be getting pulled over in the near future too. Now granted not everyone drives as slow as this guy was. He was doing 5 MPH in a 40 zone; add to that the fact that he was high on PCP and was driving without a license so for all intents and purposes, he was in trouble even before he left.

Now what does this have to do with driving speed? Well I think it highlights the fact that contrary to what many people believe, if you do drive slow enough, the police will take notice and will take action as well. I've been driving for over two decades and if there's one thing that I have found to be most dangerous is drivers who insist on driving at or below the speed limit in the passing lane or continue to be impediments to the flow of traffic just because they believe that they have the right to drive at whatever speed they desire. I remember discussions with some of my co-workers who believed that it was 'green' to keep cars going at the speed limit and to slow things down to make it safer and while that is true, people's concepts of what exactly is appropriately slower varies from person to person.

I have been known to drive at the speed limit (I know that may shock some of you) when I'm not in a particular rush but I've found more often than not, even the slowest of traffic on most major roads in the country are moving faster and so as to not stand out, I generally keep pace with the rest of traffic after seeing how the weather conditions are. After all, I have confidence in my driving skills but not to the point where I think I can drive a rear wheel drive sports car on ice without suffering any mishap. So then many people as why is it wrong to drive slow?

I don't think there's anything wrong with it, as long as your desire to slow down isn't endangering other vehicles on the road. When merging into traffic do your best to gauge the speed of the traffic you are joining. Don't automatically assume that the traffic will slow down to accommodate you. Keep pace with traffic or at least try to do so, at least that way you will reduce the chances of being rear-ended by someone going a bit faster and not expecting to find a vehicular island in the road ahead of them. And finally if you think that it will keep the police from hounding you after a night of drinking or drug usage? Think again. There's a driver in Connecticut who thought that and is now thinking up better ideas in prison.

Younger People Less Apt to Drive? I Think Not

I read an interesting article over the weekend that I don't necessarily agree with but it came to some interesting conclusions which obviously had some thought behind them. The article was about a study that had been conducted by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments' Transportation Planning Department. According to the report, there have been increasing signs that drivers 30 years old and younger are driving less these days and they had a couple of reasons why they believed that to be the case. One of the main reasons was listed as the desire to reduce their 'carbon footprint' and become more environmentally friendly. The other big conclusion was that computer-based and virtual social networking has reduced the time that many young people would have ordinarily spent searching out their friends and socializing in person. Now while these are logical conclusions, I don't necessarily agree with them.

Take for example the fact that the report finds that more and more young people are turning to mass transit for their business and social transportation needs. Perhaps a lot of them are being motivated by environmental concerns and wanting to make the world a 'greener' place but I have an alternate theory behind the uptick in public transportation usage. Have the people on the Council actually driven through normal Washington Metro area traffic? Back up on I-66 can begin as early as 5:30 in the morning and doesn't subside until late-morning or early-afternoon. Elsewhere, getting into the city or around the Beltway can be a trial in and of itself. Having been a commuter in the area I can't tell you how often I have cursed the traffic Gods and wished for a better commute to no avail. But still, given the fact that gas prices are going up and getting into the city isn't getting easier then that's wonderful news environmentally speaking but it isn't accurately indicating why public transportation is experiencing increases.

Want to go to a game or meet friends in DC for drinks? Wonderful idea! Want to avoid getting pulled over at a checkpoint for a sobriety test? Then take public transportation. And speaking of going out drinking, yes, social networking has virtualized a lot of the meeting and greeting that apparently led to a lot of people driving to and fro around the area to meet and discuss the next social plan they wanted to carry out. But now that they can carry it out virtually they can simply decide ahead of time and then use public transportation to get to their destination and back home again so that they can get as sloshed as they want without concern about being pulled over or knowing when to say when. Now perhaps that's a more responsible means of having a good time but I guess that wouldn't look like a very good reason why younger drivers are on the decline in a government Council report.

If the Council truly believes that their conclusions as to why fewer people are on the roads are true then that doesn't explain to me why traffic in the area is still so bad (and seems to be getting worse). Depending on where you need to go and at what time of day, the trip can take up to three times longer than it would when traffic is at it's non-peak time. The Council's report even states that at peak driving times (which is a euphemism for 'rush hour') drivers over the age of 65 are less likely to be on the road. So if we have fewer younger driver and fewer older drivers then is all this traffic being caused by a massive population between the age of 30 and 65? That's a pretty sizeable population given how often I sit in traffic these days.

Sharing the Road Goes Both Ways

Before I was old enough to drive I used to go lots of places on my bicycle. It was fun being out there on the road and riding to and from wherever it was that I wanted to go. I used to work a few miles from the house and during the summer I would ride my bike to the office to get some exercise. It sure beat walking. But one thing I always did whenever I rode my bike was to obey the traffic laws and to share the road responsibly with cars. After all, I may have the right of way but just having the right of way wouldn't save me if I were to get struck by a large moving vehicle. Share the road is a phrase that many communities use in an effort to get drivers to be more aware of cyclists and to make an honest effort to keep them safe. Unfortunately, oftentimes the reverse situation isn't always true.

I raise this point because I read in the news today that DC is considering adding bicycle lanes to certain streets within the city in order to make biking traffic a little safer and more regulated. Now while I applaud the city's efforts to make the city a bit 'greener' and bike-friendly, I am a bit dubious as to whether it will really make any difference or not. The reason I say this is because often on the way to work in the spring, summer and fall, I drive along a road that has a bike path clearly marked a few feet from the actual road. Unfortunately, more often than not, those paths are devoid of cyclists who prefer to ride on the streets.

Now this road is particularly winding and has many blind turns where often, even for cars following the speed limit, it was unnerving (not to mention highly dangerous) to drive around a corner and nearly plow into a cyclist who was in the middle of the lane. Not only that, but in what I can only figure to be ire at nearly being hit by cars, many cyclists often weave in and out of stopped traffic just to get ahead of the pack and then again slow traffic down when cars are unable to pass them by. While I agree that there are plenty of drivers out there who don't drive well enough to share the road with cyclists, that isn't reason enough for cyclists to ignore the rules of the road and weave in and out of traffic with impunity.

If you read the reactions of some cyclists on news websites to the news that bike lanes will soon become a reality they speak with such excitement that it makes one hopeful that they will actually stick to the paths and lanes designated for them. Now I know that some would argue that not all bike paths and trails are maintained with the same efficiency as roads but still, a little bit of common sense is also necessary on the part of cyclists. I mean a few weeks ago when the roads were just starting to clear from all the ice and snow we had, there were still areas where lanes were just not available to drive on and in the midst of all this chaos were a handful of cyclists, looking to get to work in the cold while doing their part for mother nature. As I often state, I think their heart is in the right place but their heads need a little bit of adjustment.

On the Job Training

I think it's fantastic when parents want to take their kids to work to teach them about what they do all day. It probably serves better than any other method of getting kids to understand what it means to have a good and interesting career doing something that we like. We already have 'take your daughter to work' day which is meant to inspire young girls to aspire to something more than traditional roles for women but rather to seek fulfillment in the workplace. Similarly, boys have been encouraged to also go visit the workplace of their parents so that they too will get an appreciation for what work actually entails. Of course there are always some parents who don't know where exactly to draw then line and it can have 'interesting' results.

Take for example the recent case of a child who was taken to the control tower at JFK International Airport in New York. The child was not only taken into the control tower but was actually allowed to communicate with several flights. Although an investigation is still underway, what authorities will confirm is that a controller in the tower brought his child to work and then allowed the child to speak to several departing flights, giving them instructions on what to do after take off. If you read the transcripts or hear the transmissions online you probably won't think much of them, but still, I guess it would be a different matter if you were someone actually sitting on those flights. However, once word of this leaked, the FAA immediately stepped in and suspended both the controller and the controller's supervisor for obvious reasons.

Now again, if you listen to those transmission, a naive person would tell you that its no big deal and that the child was being supervised by their parent and was in a room full of other controllers so if something had gone wrong then there would have been plenty of people who would be able to step in and remedy the situation. That's all well and good but doesn't it stand to reason that some would perceive this to be a very dangerous thing to do regardless of how innocent the actual orders seem? I know some parents are of the belief that unless a child actually experiences things for themselves, the concept remains intangible. They fell that unless a child is encouraged and given the opportunity to do something that they have dreamed about and wouldn't normally be able to do then they won't be as inspired. I think that's completely bogus.

But think of it another way; would you let a child drive your car down the highway regardless of whether they can reach the peddles or see over the steering wheel? When put in that context then some people beging to have second thoughts. I'm sure now there will be plenty of reactionary measures taken to ensure that a child can never do this type of activity again regardless of whether a parent authorizes it or not. Don't get me wrong; I think we certainly need to encourage kids but not at the expense and safety of other complete strangers.

Changing the Face of the News

The way most people get there news these days has had a major effect and it will likely have an effect on the way news is delivered to the public for years to come. Recent studies have revealed that an increasing number of people now get their news from the internet as well as from television news outlets than from traditional newspapers. The result has been that circulation is down and print newspapers are on the decline. In just the past year, numerous newspapers have reduced the number of plants they operate and how many printings they make per day. Some newspaper companies have even gone on to close printing plants as they no longer print in such large quantities.

I can understand why. With rising costs for resources and an economy that is not quite what it was a few short years ago, everyone is trying to figure out how to cut costs and save a bit of money. Still, I can't help but feel sad about the fact that a staple from my childhood, the daily paper, will soon be gone. I will admit that when I was younger I had time to read the paper before going to school. At that time, browsing the internet or going online to read the paper at school was not so common. The internet was still coming into its own when I was in high school so using it for research was still quite a new thing. I can remember clipping articles from the paper and attaching it to reports for some of my English and journalism classes in college.

Now it seems that those days are going to be looked upon with increasing nostalgia. Those same studies concluded that web-based media is on the rise and that many people are looking to those sources for the news. It makes sense. These days we have become a society that requires instant gratification about our curiousities. If we suspect something may have happened in the world, we just hop online and in a few short clicks we'll know what's happening and where. Think about it, the internet is often even faster than television in terms of getting the news out there. You can often read more about events on the internet than you will on television. For example, this past weekend, I found out about the earthquake in Chile after seeing the headline on Google's splash page. From there I got access to news agencies and channels from around the world and with having done nothing more than clicking a mouse button I got all the latest information.

It's a powerful thing to have that much knowledge at the click of a mouse or from a few keystrokes. I can't help but feel sorry for the declining number of traditional newspaper sales out there. It will mean that not only will people who work in that industry have an impact on their jobs but also for some of the smaller folks out there who thrive on the newspaper industry. I'm thinking of the young paperboys who view the job as a rite of passage. What if they no longer have to work paper routes, what will they do then? I guess it's a sign of changing times and as with any steps towards progress, there must be change.