Gadgets Can't Provide Us With Something To Say

Remember the good old days, before cell phones and the internet? Way back then, if you thought of something to tell a friend while you were waiting for the bus, you made a mental note to remember it until you got home and could give them a call. If you needed to look up a bit of information or do research for a term paper or a new purchase, you'd head to the library. Ah, those were the days.

This time of year really points up the number of new information sharing and communication gadgets available. Each store flyer has dozens of laptops, netbooks, cell phones and smart phones on sale just in time for the holidays. Now, no one has to be without the internet or some sort of communication device right at their fingertips. Anyone can send and receive email, surf the web, instant message, text message and just generally communicate his or her little heart out 24 hours a day, no matter where they are. The only thing that these amazing little gadgets don't provide is the most important of all: Something to say.

Of course, people have always used the telephone to chat or even rehash that morning's pre-breakfast argument. Regular communication is the mainstay of interpersonal relationships, and the telephone made it easier to do than did the occasional long letter. However, more communication options don't translate into more information to impart. That is why we are all familiar with the grocery store cell phone call, which usually starts with something like, "I'm at the store looking at the stuffed pimentos." Who needs to know that? By the same token, we are all now privy to the rehashed argument, sometimes with accompanying histrionics. Nobody needs to know about that, either.

The problem is that even though there is more opportunity to communicate now, people really don't have that much more to say. So, in an effort to impress others or use those "free" minutes, people walk and drive around with their cell phones pasted to their ears. What is so important that you need to make a call while you're driving?

I think people have become so accustomed to constant noise and chatter that they are nervous when they are alone with their own thoughts. When cell phones first became popular, but not common, I remember people making a big deal about talking on them. They would exaggerate their movements and speak too loudly, as if to say, "Look how popular I am!" Come to think of it, many still do. But I have a way to get back at them. Whenever someone next to me at the store starts to yell into his or her cell phone, I just start talking or singing, at just the same volume. Ha! Because, you see, despite this communication explosion, I don't own a cell phone because we still don't have service where I live. So, for now, I have to be content with annoying those who do. It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it.

Airline Insecurity

Everyone is abuzz with the news that yet another militant follower of Islam attempted to destroy an airborne airliner. Luckily, tragedy was averted by luck and alert airplane passengers. Not, as one would reasonably expect, by either government or airline security.

How could this happen post 9-11? This, it turns out, is a very good question. Despite increased airport scrutiny of old women and people in wheelchairs, this particular individual slipped right past the bloodhound-like noses of these highly trained security screeners. Not only did this person, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, pay cash for a nearly $3,000 one-way ticket, but he had with him only one small bag for a trip from Amsterdam to Detroit. The two-part explosive he carried onto the plane, despite being tucked into his underwear, should have been easily detected.

Anyone familiar with the 9-11 scenario will find many similarities here. Yet, no red flags were raised. As if those missed clues were not enough, we are also informed by the media that Abdulmutallab's own father had notified both the Nigerian government and the American Embassy in that country of his son's increasingly radical outlook. This occurred only last month. Although Britain put his name on a watch list, apparently the Americans didn't think it necessary.

What happened to all the so-called "increased security" after 9-11? For the most part, it has presented itself as additional inconvenience for airline passengers, nothing more. Air marshals were to be a common presence on planes; that never materialized. Why bother taking actual precautions when all that need be done is harass passengers about their nail clippers and roll-on deodorant?

Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano was quoted as saying that the perpetrator was "stopped before any damage could be done." Well, sure he was, but not by security measures. In another eerie similarity to one of the 9-11 flights, it was passengers and crew that subdued him. But, don't worry! New air travel rules like no in-flight movies or bathroom breaks will surely solve the problem. Once again, corporate and governmental incompetence cause havoc, and now the damage control begins. Guess who, as usual, is going to pay the price? That's right. It's you and me, kid.

American Society Should Butt Out of Marriage

An editorial piece by Jennifer A. Marshall in last week's Gazette commented on a recent publication, The Marriage Index, by David Blankenhorn and Linda Malone-Colon. These authors purport to have their fingers on the pulse of the American Marriage, and they are here to tell us that the venerable institution is not doing well at all. As marriage goes, so goes the nation, they seem to say; if society does not find ways to prop up the institution, dire consequences will result.

Fear not. These brainy researchers have devised a set of indicators to test the health of the American marriage, such as duration of first marriages and birth rates to married persons. Out of a possible 100 points, today's marriages only score 60.3%, according to this model, versus a 1970 score of 76.2 I don't understand how the number of children a marriage produces relates directly to the happiness of that union, but never mind. In case you're wondering if this "research" proposes the support of all marriages, including gay ones, the publisher of this little nugget is the "Institute for American Values". So, probably not.

Marshall opines that when economic indicators take such a nosedive, as they have recently, "employers and policy makers responded accordingly". Well, sure, but their "responses" didn't support those who needed it most. She states that 70% of black children are born to unwed mothers because their fathers refused to get married. She also states that the percentage of all births to single mothers hovers around 40%. "Studies confirm", she says, that children of married parents fare much better in life than children of single parents.

This may be true, since it is easier for two people to raise children in this society than it is for a single person. However, it would be easier still for 3 or 4 people, yet there is a moral and legal ban on multiple marriage partners. Conservatives have always played the "nuclear family" card, offering the family unit up as a cure-all for society's ills. But how will sticking our collective noses into everyone else's marital business make a better society?

The authors offer a few tips. One is to form "local councils or committees that seek to strengthen marriage and family life". Another is to "teach school courses about marriage and love...through literature and art". How about a "new populist movement to empower marriage and families"? What does this gobbledygook mean, anyway? What school is going to teach "marriage" when they can't teach sex education and there's no money for gym and art classes? Will a local committee to check on the status of townspeople's marriages help strengthen society?

Poverty, lack of choices and a lack of education create more unhappy lives and marriages than lack of societal support of the institution itself. Marriages are made up of people, who have a right to work out their problems privately and for their own benefit. If entities like the Institute for American Values and the Heritage Foundation could study ways to support and empower people, I'll bet that the institutions they inhabit would benefit, as well.

Health Care Reform for the Big Interests

Our elected officials in Washington are currently scrambling to pass Obama's health care reform legislation before the Christmas holiday. This should be cause for celebration, and for some, it is--namely, the health care and insurance industries. For people like ourselves, however, it is nothing to cheer about.

Gone from the bill are most of the reforms that would have made this legislation truly historic. In place of these are giveaways to special interest groups like health care companies who, according to the latest issue of Harper's, spent $1.5 million per day lobbying Congress in 2009. The insurance industry, thanks to Sen. Ben Nelson, is another winner, with their exemption from anti-trust laws still intact. Holdouts like Nelson and Joe Leiberman can now be counted on to vote for this law, but at what cost?

Howard Dean, politician and physician, pointed out that the current bill is no friend to American taxpayers. Calling it "an insurance company's dream", he noted that not only will everyone be required to buy health insurance or face fines, but that insurance carriers will retain the right to deny those with pre-existing conditions. The White House, through spokesman Robert Gibbs, denied that insurance companies came out on top, saying that they "spent hundreds of millions...lobbying against this legislation". Just goes to show what that amount of money can buy.

The lack of a public option, combined with a requirement to buy insurance or face penalties, makes this legislation a losing proposition for the American public. We may wind up with a system that is actually worse than what we started out to reform. I don't know about you, but this is not the kind of change I bargained for when I voted for Barak Obama last November.

If Movies Need Rating, Why Don't Video Games?

It's Christmas time again, which means many hefty sales flyers in the local newspapers. Lately, I've been seeing many video games on sale, just in time for the holidays. I've noticed a couple of things about these items: They are not cheap, and they sound violent, even macabre. Not knowing a heck of a lot about these technological miracles, I did a little research to see exactly what these games entail.

With names like "Left 4 Dead 2" and "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare" (shouldn't it be Call to Duty?) I assumed that these entertainment vehicles are not for the faint of heart. Others I saw advertised are called "Borderlands" and "Dragon Age". According to Gamespot, all but Dragon Age are of the genre called "first-person shooter". These products seem to be marketed to kids, and I don't see adults finding much appeal in these games. These games, however, are big, big business. Gamespot reports the Call of Duty franchise made $3 billion as of this year, and a recent AP news article stated that "Modern Warfare 2" made $550 million all by itself, with around 9 million copies sold. That's a lot of children actively shooting at targets that look an awful lot like people.

The rating system for motion pictures has, for many years, purported to help parents decide whether or not a particular film is fit for their children to view. Of course, reading a movie review would give these parents the information they need, but the rating system does serve a purpose. The idea is that children, unlike adults, are not mature enough to separate fact from fiction. Violence, sex and drug use are all taboo subjects for very young viewers. Recently, DVDs even come equipped with warnings regarding "some language" and "smoking". Really, who would want to watch a movie without some language? Seriously, will watching an adult light up a cigarette really traumatize a child? If so, how about shooting at enemies (people) and zombies (former people) with blood, guts and brain matter spewing everywhere? How is this wholesome entertainment?

These games do come with some ratings, and the first-person shooters are generally labeled, "Mature". Since they are directly marketed to children, though, this seems an exercise in futility. At $60 a pop, these games are expensive. Even a sale price of $44 is steep for a kid, heck, it's steep for me. Presumably, parents are buying these for their kids. Surely they know what they are getting, yet there is no outcry. Why do parents think that merely watching people getting shot is worse than having your child actively doing the shooting?

I'm waiting for the holiday action game whereby kids get to shoot at Santa and his reindeer to keep their friends from receiving more Xbox games for Christmas than they themselves have. I wonder how many parents scooping up these little treasures don't allow their kids to play with toy guns?

Politicians Need To Do Their Jobs and Reform Health Care

Once again, our fearless elected leaders in Washington are busy playing politics instead of doing their jobs. To wit: The current debate in the U.S. Senate regarding the reform of our health care system.

As politicians see an opportunity to get their names in the news, they start to create roadblocks to reform and trumpet loudly about how they are the only ones with the interests of the "American People" at heart. One such lawmaker is Joseph Lieberman, I-CT. Apparently still angry with the Democratic party, he has no compunction about using the well-being of the masses to force them to see things his way. Of course, not all politicians are acting out in this manner. Ever the optimist, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., was recently quoted by the Associated Press as saying, "Democrats aren't going to let the American people down". So far, not so good.

The sticking point is, again, the public option part of the reform bill. Without it, real reform seems close to impossible. But, never mind. Instead, some Democrats have suggested expanding Medicare to cover most, if not all Americans. This idea actually makes sense, and many others have also made this very suggestion. Back in September, I read an editorial piece by George McGovern, who strongly urged this very thing. It makes sense: Medicare is already a thriving concern, and, though reform of the system is necessary for its continued survival, it seems to get the job done. Root out the corruption, and it could actually be a model for other countries to emulate.

Currently, 29% of the U.S. population is covered by public insurance through either Medicare, Medicaid or the military, according to an AP article by Hope Yen and Frank Bass. Another 16 or 17% have no insurance at all. Why has it become so problematic to extend benefits to a little over half of all U.S. citizens? The percentage would probably be much less, if the new system were voluntary, since some of those persons have private insurance they are happy with, others are students covered by their college and still others are covered by various state programs. It would make much more sense, however, to have just one public system in which the rules are uniform and the paperwork less odious. Yet, no real headway has occurred in this respect. Why?

Perhaps when our lawmakers take a break from trading team members, we will find out. In the meantime, pressure from each one of us is necessary to insure that health care reform actually delivers the promise of "health care for all".

Big News: Animals Engage in Homosexuality

Our weekend newspaper comes with the usual bundle of advertisements and coupons as well as a "news magazine" called USA Weekend. I consider this a bit of a rag, but I do flip through it because it occasionally contains an interesting tidbit. Last weekend's edition contained one of these, an article titled, "The birds and the bees: Are some gay?" by Karen C. Fox. The article explained that research being done by the University of California at Riverside regarding homosexual behavior in animals shows that not only is it more widespread than the researchers thought, but the behavior appears to fulfill certain utilitarian purposes, as well. Marlene Zuk, presumably the head research biologist on this project, was interviewed and stated that an open mind is necessary in order to learn as much as possible from animal behavior research. The article's author also said that Zuk commented that the "focus" of such research shouldn't be whether the behavior of animals "justifies" that of humans. She also told the interviewer that she next would like to delve into how homosexual behavior impacts the gene pools of wild animals.

Research such this always makes me uneasy. Why is there such a concern about whether or not homosexuality in humans is innate or choice? I have heard of this before, though not recently. It appears that some people give this issue a lot of thought, and the logic goes something like this: If homosexuality is innate, then gays can't help how they are and so should not be "blamed". If it is a lifestyle choice, however, they could ostensibly choose to be heterosexual, but do not, probably just to infuriate those who subscribe to this theory. Therefore, it is all right to blame them. This "blame", it seems, is applied by institutionalizing harassment and discrimination.
Even the above research seems poised toward blame, since the behavior studied could be interpreted either way, depending on the desired outcome. Considering the use of the word "justify" in regards to human behavior, I think it is easy to guess in which direction this study is heading.

Despite the fact that homosexuality has been around for as long as humankind has existed, many cannot accept its existence. For decades it was considered a mental illness, and many a life was ruined by even a whisper of homosexual behavior. Truly, back when such was the norm, who would choose to be gay? At any rate, women and minorities in the United States have also borne the weight of discrimination, and surely no would argue that they could "help" being who they were!

In my opinion, "research" such as this is carried out simply to justify discriminatory behavior. Is there so much research money available that issues like this one merit grants? If so, I think there are more worthy projects out there. A realistic cure for cancer, perhaps?

Tiger Woods and the Burden of Celebrity

Poor Tiger Woods. His early morning one-car mishap, the reporting of which would normally be relegated to the back pages of the sports section, has mushroomed into allegations of marital discord, domestic abuse, addiction to painkillers and, of course, illicit sex. For a guy who flew under the radar for so many years, he is certainly making up for lost time. As the saying goes, still waters run deep.

Within a day of the accident, reports on TV news and in newsprint were rehashing, extrapolating and opining upon every little detail of Woods' life, both public and private. But wait, there's more! This morning, at least four more women have come out of the woodwork to declare themselves former lovers of Tiger Woods. That makes at least six, not counting his wife. Well, this stamina certainly helps explain how Woods got to be such a great athlete!

And great he is. Anyone who shows him or herself to be exemplary in this world also opens up his or her entire life to scrutiny. Herein lies the burden of celebrity. Of course, it also has it upside, such as those multi-million dollar contracts with corporate sponsors. Sports writers have been falling all over themselves postulating about how Woods will now lose those, due mostly to his lusty sexual appetite being made public. But if people are mindless enough to buy a car because Tiger the great golfer says so, why not buy it because Tiger the great lover endorses it?

These type of incidents say more about us as a society than it does about a famous person being exposed as, well, a person. Are we so intellectually and socially bankrupt that we can only live vicariously through famous individuals? What, then, gives us the right to judge them? Some say that sports figures have a special responsibility as "role models" for children and are therefore more vigorously criticized when they stray from the straight and narrow. Sure, sports stars should be expected to be role models for their own children, but no one else's. What kind of parent would abdicate that responsibility to some unknown quantity?

No one is perfect. Certainly we all know this, yet continue to expect of others what we would never demand of ourselves. The media tells us what to think, and we do so. But news media has responsibilities, too, don't they? While they were wasting everyone's time with titillating stories about Woods, what was happening with health care reform, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, regulation of the financial industry and many other pertinent topics? Let Tiger Woods and his wife work out their problems in private, where this sort of thing belongs. And if you're in the market for a new car, do yourself a favor: Turn off the TV and pick up a copy of Consumer Reports instead.

A Missed Opportunity in Afghanistan

In a televised address last night, President Barak Obama outlined his new initiative for the war in Afghanistan: 30,000 more troops will be deployed there in early 2010. He spoke of a "full review" of options before coming to this decision, and stated his belief that our national security depended upon bringing this conflict to a successful end. His plan includes an orderly exit within 18 months, and said that some of our allies have also committed troops to this purpose. The question is, of course, will it work?

If history is any indication, it will not. Obama spoke of other superpowers failing in this regard, yet still reached the decision to send more of our troops into this maelstrom. Last week, administration officials told the McClatchy Newspapers that the strategy included "greater anti-corruption efforts and political reforms" as well as a troop surge in an effort to stabilize the country. An article by Aram Roston in the November 30 issue of The Nation, however, paints a much different picture.

The article describes a complicated web of corruption, bribery and profit-making by a host of participants in the Afghan conflict. U.S. military contractors, using Pentagon dollars, regularly pay private military security firms to protect trucks carrying supplies to U.S. troops. One of the largest of these firms, Watan Risk Management, is run by president Hamid Karzai's cousins, Rashid and Rateb Popol, the latter a former mujahedeen. Another is NCL Holdings, based in Afghanistan but with an office in Washington. This company was awarded a military contract worth hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars. To keep supply trucks safe, insurgents are paid, according to the article, "hundreds of millions of dollars" not to attack them. An American military official told the author that this translates into "a big part" of the Taliban's income. All this is done, of course, with U.S. knowledge and complicity.

Is this what Obama plans to stop? It seems unlikely. Like any people up against it, the Afghans have learned to make a profit from the unending conflict that permeates their country. Escalating the chaos will only increase profits for those already getting rich from this war. People get used to living a certain way, no matter how distasteful it may seem to onlookers, and become loathe to change it. Will 30,000 more troops make them want to end their lucrative situations, and move toward peace? Not at these prices, it won't.