100 Years Ago

by Bill Holmes

This year, 2012, marks the 100th anniversary of both my parents birth. Dad lived until 2006 and Mom lived until 2002. Full lives and mostly enjoyable at least until their very last few months. I think of each of them almost every day. Sometimes it's just a fleeting thought or memory. Sometimes it's a dream I remember all or part of when I wake up. Sometimes it's a long memory. Sometimes it's sad and sometimes it's happy. Sometimes I'm angry at them, either for something they did or didn't do while alive or because they died and left me. Sometimes I couldn't believe how stupid, naïve, or old fashion they were. Other times I couldn't believe how smart, insightful and up to date they were.

Often I have no idea how or why many of these memories pop into my mind. Other times I know exactly what triggered the memory. It can be a place, a song, a picture, a TV show, a food, a news story, a smell or any of a thousand other things. Sometime I catch myself using a phrase they used or making a gesture that they did. Like almost every child I would never do or say anything the way my parents did. Now, mostly it doesn't bother me and in fact I smile.

Life was different in 1912. My parents grew up in a world that was far more formal and polite than now but was certainly not politically correct. People got dressed up for social engagements and events. There were rules for courting. Pregnancies were either after marriage, forced a marriage or caused the women to be banished. Despite all those high moral standards, every religious, ethnic and racial group had a “nickname”, most of which are no longer acceptable. Mentally and physically challenged people were ignored, ridiculed or hidden. There were no Gays, just reprehensible sexual deviates. There were no African-Americans or Native Americans or Italian-Americans or Asian-Americans or Hispanics in their day. There were no hyphens in our ethnicity. Men were clearly in charge. Woman's suffrage wasn't the law of the land until 1920. Women's equality wasn't even an issue until the 1960's. My Mom had to quit work when she got married because married women weren't allowed to work at her company.

They also went through two World Wars and the Depression. Those events shaped their lives forever. Those were gut wrenching periods in our history. Over 100,000 thousand US troops died in WWI and over 400,000 died in WWII. More than that were wounded. With a drafted armed forces in a country with a smaller population, almost every family was touched by those wars. The US was not sure of victory in those wars. The Depression saw unemployment rates of 25% and lasted a decade. The poverty of the Depression was replaced by the rationing and sacrifices of WWII. Tough times.

There are many things to admire about the “good old days” but there are also many things we should be glad have changed. I'm not talking about the technology changes. Those are great and make life much easier. When I ride my bike I'm glad the streets are paved and not full of horse shit. Planes are faster than Conestoga wagons, computers are faster than pencil & paper. The changes I'm most thankful for are the social changes.

My parents were born before women were first class citizens or could vote. There were still more horses than cars. Blacks were openly oppressed and not just in the South. Even open-minded Northern women were taught to be afraid of Black men. It's hard to shed those lessons and norms of society.

I'm sure looking back on my life there have been many more technological changes than during my parents life but I don't know if there have been as many lifestyle and societal changes. I think it might be more traumatic to go from horses to cars and planes or pencils to computers or agri/city to suburban than what their children went through. We went from 1957 Chevy's to 2012 Volts, prop planes to jets, room size computers to handheld computers and near suburbs to farther out suburbs.

I've read, studied and thought about history since my youth. What I've most taken away from that is that we must look at the past and those that inhabited it in context. Times, customs, mores, circumstances and many other things were different. If you are fighting everyday just to survive your priorities don't leave much time for anything else. Hopefully we evolve for the better. It is unfair to judge our forefathers and ancestors by todays standards. Our founding fathers said “all men are created equal”. What they meant in context of the times was that all white male landowners were equal to the aristocracy. Slavery and denial of womens equality was acceptable. Pick any point in human history and you can find some behavior that will appall you. Many beliefs of 1750, 1850 or even 1950 now seem either stupid or barbaric. It is unrealistic and self righteous to believe that you would have been part of the 1% that was decades ahead of the norm in moving social change. What I'm sure of is that if you are lucky enough to live another 25 years you will look back at 2012 and wonder how could that have been or what were they, or you, thinking.

I don't know if I'll live 90+ years, nor am I sure I want to. If I do, I hope I adjust as well as my parents. One did better than the other but both did OK. I like change and new stuff, so maybe I have a chance. Life is never easy and getting old is not for sissies. It can be physically, mentally, financially, culturally and emotionally challenging.

One hundred years ago two special people were born. For selfish reasons I'm glad they were. If I'm lucky a couple of people will be glad I stopped by for a visit.

wjh

Curiosity and Mars

by Bill Holmes

I watched the landing of Curiosity on Mars last night.  For geeks, nerds or just the curious it was exciting.  It's another step in our quest to explore the universe.  The months and years ahead will determine how successful the mission is but you have to get to Mars before you can explore it. That was done on 8/6/12.

This is an amazing accomplishment.  NASA was able to land an SUV where they planned to on a planet millions of miles away.  Your mileage may vary from about 55 to 400 million kilometers.  Google maps turn by turn directions to Mars are only in beta so NASA couldn't use them.  They had to use slide rules and AAA maps to figure it out.

This was not exciting TV in the normal sense, it was a control room that looked like the old NASA space missions.  Tiered rows  of people wearing headsets and looking at computer monitors.  Not even any human audio from space saying we've achieved orbit or we've landed or "Houston. we have a problem".  Just telemetry and eventually two B&W pictures.  But you could see the joy of the people in the room as Curiosity went through different milestones.  People responsible for different phases of the mission were able to breath a sigh of relief.  Once she landed the room went wild in celebration.  To make an analogy, this was like the Olympics for the people in that room and they just won a gold medal.  Of course there are differences.  Most of those scientists have worked much longer than our Olympic athletes.  The average age is probably a bit higher too.  You can't become a rocket scientist at 17 years old or with a couple of years of training.  Luckily NASA is better at science than producing must watch TV.  Being a geek and curious (see what I did there), I enjoyed watching history being made.  I also enjoyed most of the news conference after the landing.  I'll get back to the news conference.

The mission control center was a potpourri of our American population.  It was made up of young and old, male and female.  There were Anglos, East Asians, South Asians, Hispanics, immigrants, hippies, Gays and who knows what else.  There were earrings  even in some men and I suspect there was a tattoo or two.  Everybody was wearing blue golf shirts and casual pants or jeans.  This was not your Daddy's mission control from the Mercury launches.  Some of you will remember that everybody back then was white, male, clean cut and wearing a white shirt and tie.  The new mission control looked good to me.

Now, lets talk about the stuff that concerned me and/or made me angry.  Some of this may not be politically correct, but it's my blog and I get to say what I want.

I did not see a single African-American in a blue golf shirt in mission control.  The only black I saw was NASA Administrator Charles Bolden and he was wearing a suit.  Mr. Bolden is an outstanding American and former Marine and Astronaut, but he did not contribute to the science of the mission.  I don't think NASA and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) discriminate against minorities.  Otherwise there would not be a Middle Eastern Lebanese immigrant, Charles Elachi, as Director of JPL.  Nor would there be all the other groups represented.  I think it's a cultural and scholastic discrimination much earlier in the lives of the Blacks.  Just as society and probably educators believe all Asians are good at math and science, they also believe Blacks are not good at those disciplines.  I think these stereotypes make a difference.  Blacks are encouraged to pursue social studies and sports.  Asians are encouraged to pursue math and science.  I guess Anglos are encouraged to pursue law, sales and finance.  Some stray from the expectations but I think those stereotypes have a profound effect on most children.  There is also the family and peer expectations.  Some cultures appreciate and emphasize the hard sciences and others emphasize less intense disciplines or none at all.  It's too bad that any child grows up with that stigma and expectation.  My guess is that there are brilliant African-American rocket scientists in the making.  We just need to encourage and cultivate them when they are young.

After the successful landing of Curiosity, there was a press conference.  Well, who do you think opened that press conference and made the opening remarks?  Was it someone who had worked for years on the Mars mission, even a JPL or department head whose team participated?  No, it was Charles Bolden who opened the press conference.  He read almost the entire opening since he probably didn't know what just happened or who was responsible.  The only time he strayed from his script was when he made a personal comment about his good friend, John Holdren, Obama's chief science guy, being nervous during the landing.  Holdren spoke second, from a script, and made several political BS statements.  Next Chuck took the podium again and excused himself and Johnny from the remaining proceedings.  Seems John had another engagement.  So, what in the government funded scientific world was more important than landing a $2.5 billion SUV on Mars?  Maybe a more public and less nerdy event.  Makes me sick.

Luckily after the politicians left the real guys took the stage.  Amazingly there was very little read.  Charles Elachi did have a few notes but that was all.  The whole mission control team paraded through the press room.  Then the six or seven bosses talked about the mission and answered questions.  They were excited, proud and of course knowledgeable.  

I get so sick of politicians and/or far removed bosses taking the credit and the podium.  I hold little hope that this will ever change but I still get to bitch about it.  I just wish that those that do got the credit, not those that talk.

Congratulations to the Curiosity team for their outstanding accomplishment.  Boo to the politicians that tried to take credit for it.

Comments always welcome.

wjh

You Can't Do That! It's Illegal

By - Bill Holmes

A re-post from the original post on The View Point July 2012 - 

It seems like every time I turn on the news, read the paper (yes, I still read the paper) or check the Internet somebody is telling me what I shouldn't or can't do.  More alarming is that they want to make that activity illegal.  The official mantra 45 years ago was "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!" from Network.  I think we need to revive that movement.

What I'm referring to is the constant barrage of politicians, clergy, experts, advocacy groups and just plain busy bodies who want to impose their beliefs and behavior on my life.  Not by persuasion or example but by law, maybe even a constitutional amendment.

I'm partial to the first amendment - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There are a few other amendments I like too.  In fact all 27 are fine except for the 18th.  Isn't that the one that told us what we can't do as opposed to the others that dealt with government or what we, as citizens, had a right to and could do.   How did that 18th amendment thing work out?

I am neither a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian nor Tea Bagger.  I am also not a Socialist, Communist or Fascist.  At one time or another I did identify with a political party, not always the same one, but no longer.  They once had ideals and ideas how to govern.  If they got 51% of their way it was a win.  Now it's 100% or nothing.  They have all become so entrenched with their  BS “talking point” platforms that I doubt they even listen to what they are saying.

Back to the point of this blog/rant.  We can no longer agree to disagree among ourselves.  We now must impose our views onto the rest of society by whatever means we can.  This is not a Democratic or Republican monopoly.  Both parties are equally guilty, they just have different hot buttons.

In no particular order, a political party or government body has proposed that we outlaw, heavily tax and/or restrict the following:

•  Cigarettes/Smoking
• Birth Control
• Large Soft Drinks
• Evolution
• Pornography
• Happy Meal
• Trans Fats
• Guns
• The Internet
• Sex in parked cars
• Same Sex Marriage
• Religion, but only if it's not ours
• Bicycle lanes

NYC has also allowed (encouraged) cops to frisk anyone they want.  Kinda like the TSA.

The latest war on large soft drinks is absurd.  Sure sugar is a problem in our overweight population but are the no calorie sweeteners any better?  Are they safe?  By the way, under NYC's proposed ban you can buy a very large diet drink to wash down your Twinkie and Hostess Cupcake. 

Be very careful what you, as the majority, wish for and push through the legislature. 

Say you're a Southern Baptist living in a small town that demands all businesses close on the Sabbath (Sunday).  Then your town majority becomes Jewish and now the Sabbath is mostly Saturday.  Then Tuesday's Children or Druids take control.  You get the picture.  So instead of mandating when businesses do business let each open or close when they want. 

If a man and woman want to use birth control it's not the government's concern.  I really don't care if Medicaid or government dictated insurance provides contraceptives although I think it's a good idea. Just say yes or no, but don't make it a moral issue.  Also, don't pay for stiffy pills but deny contraceptives.  Many private insurance programs don't cover eye glasses, dental, birth control, hearing aids or elective procedures.  We don't make political planks out of it.  We either live with it or find an insurance program that covers what we need.  

Neither major party has a monopoly on the repression.  The Democrats want to regulate what we drive, eat, drink or where we smoke.  The Republicans want to prohibit who we eat, what we smoke or who we marry.  The Libertarians and Tea Party have their pet peeves they want to outlaw too.

I'm not advocating eliminating all government regulations.  We need laws to protect citizens from each other and corporations who don't play fair.  Regulations to require Wall Street transparency or cars to get certain MPG are fine.  Just don't dictate that I must use E. F. Hutton or buy a Ford.  We need zoning laws so the nuclear recycling plant doesn't move next door to the elementary school.  Of course there are many other areas government has a place.  

Mostly what we don't need is a government that tries to protect adults from ourselves.  Maybe tax (not excessively) bad behavior or restrict (within reason) where or when it can be done but don't outlaw it.  The operative words are “not excessively” and “within reason”.  Complete elimination, zero tolerance or mandatory are the problem.  You've all heard a story or two about the honor roll, star athlete student who drove his Mom's car to school and there was a cake knife in the trunk, left there after the baby shower Mom attended yesterday.  The student was suspended from school, kicked off the team and lost a scholarship because the school had a zero tolerance policy about knives on campus.  No common sense or judgment involved.   These boneheaded rules and decisions are made by highly paid and highly educated school officials.  High pay and education should mean they can make an intelligent decision based on facts and circumstances. 

Bottom line, many of these bans, restrictions and laws sound good on first blush.  No thinking person will deny that tobacco, sugar, trans fats and bacon flavored sundaes are not particularly healthy.  In excess they kill and incapacitate.  Guns also kill and incapacitate.  Sex in a parked car may not be prudent or very comfortable.  Democratic Nanny Government proponents want to ban most of those. Abortions, contraceptives, same sex marriage, separation of church and state.  Republican Tea Party proponents want to ban those and don't even think about taking my gun. 

I don't want to ban any of them.  I just want a little tolerance and common sense injected into our political discourse.  I want back the days Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill were political opponents but friends.  When 51% meant a win.  When it was possible to have a moderate Republican or conservative Democrat.  If that's not possible, how about just a little civility.

Champion and live by your beliefs, just don't force them on me.

Booze and the Alamo

   

Recently there has been a controversy about the General Land Office (GLO) allowing groups that rent Alamo Hall to serve alcohol. The historic keepers of the Alamo, the Daughters of the Republic of Texas (DRT), are opposed to this. Sour grapes or a true opposition to alcohol?

The state of Texas has owned the Alamo since the 1880's when they bought it from the Catholic Church.  Since 1905 the DRT have been caretaker of the Alamo and even almost bought it in the early 1900's.  That mostly autonomous caretaker role was modified by the 2011 Texas Legislature.  The General Land Office (GLO) is now in charge of Alamo operations.  The DRT still provide volunteers and maintain the DRT Library on the Alamo grounds but they no longer have final say on policy.

Alamo Hall is a former fire station that was built on Alamo grounds in the 1920's.  It is rented out for meetings and receptions.  The rental proceeds go into the fund to maintain and run the Alamo.  The controversy is that the GLO thinks allowing alcohol will increase the market for the space and therefore increase revenue.  The DRT thinks allowing alcohol will defile the hallowed grounds.

OK, let's look at this.  Alamo Hall was built in the 1920's not the 1830's.  It was not part of the hallowed grounds when they became hallowed.  The original mission and later Mexican and Republic of Texas garrison probably had a drop or two of alcohol spilled in it on occasion.  Conjecture is that Bowie, Crockett and most of their followers consumed adult beverages, often more than one.  The original mission had at minimum of wine consumed on its sacred ground.  Do you think those that died or worshiped at the Alamo would object to a group of folks, perhaps veterans, having a beer or two (maybe Shiners or Lone Star) at their gathering.  I don't think so.  If it were up to me I'd allow alcohol anywhere in the complex.

I think this is either the DRT trying to manufacture an issue since they don't have total control or trying to impose their 1905 morals on 2012 society's honoring of 1830 events and history.  This would not be an issue if the Knights of Columbus had become caretakers in 1905.  Of course in 1905 Texas the Catholics were about as accepted as Hispanics, Jews and Blacks.

Remember the Alamo!  But remember it as ordinary men doing extraordinary acts.  Maybe after a swig of some home brew.

wjh    

Olympic Hypocrisy

by Bill Holmes

The latest blast of hypocrisy blowing in from Washington DC concerns the vital issue of where the USA Olympic Team uniforms are manufactured.  Based on the uproar this is much more important than almost any other issue facing congress and our government.  Deficits and unemployment pale in comparison.

There's a reason this is vitally important to our elected representatives.  It is because it will get great attention on all the news programs, newspapers, magazines and every internet outlet.  It's also easy and at least at first blush seems like an obvious “well duh”.  Our elected officials can get on their soap boxes and profess their indignation and patriotism.

Let's delve a little deeper.  First of all, the US Olympic Team is not the US Government Olympic Team.  It is the corporate and public Olympic Team representing the USA.  All funds for the entire Olympic program come from private sources.  That may be a corporate sponsor, sales and licensing of USA Olympic products or individual donations.  The United States government does not contribute any funds to our Olympic program.  Every other team that participates in the Olympics gets government funding.  Truth be told, I have contributed more to our Olympic effort than Congress since I've bought some licensed/logo stuff and also sent them a few extra dollars.  Most of the merchandise the US Olympic Committee (USOC) sells is made outside this country and I'm fine with that.  If they can buy a hat from China or a shirt from Honduras for $5, sell it for $20 and use the $15 profit to send athletes to London that's better than buying the items in the USA for $10 and only having $10 profit.  Now if the Committee can find the merchandise domestically for $5 or even $5.25 they should buy it.  The USOC is not buying the team uniforms from the Ralph Lauren Company, Ralph is an Olympic sponsor and is providing the uniforms as is Nike.  As such, they get to decide where they are made.  Granted it's probably not a great public relations move but it is also not a national crisis.

The sponsors of USOC is a who's who of international companies.  Coke, GE, McDonalds, Nike, P&G, Ralph Lauren... All fine American companies.  Oh wait, Panasonic, Samsung, BMW, Omega... are also sponsors of the USA team. I don't think they're USA corporations.  So, it appears that in our global economy we may have some cross-pollination among countries and corporations.  Wanna make a bet?  I think Nike, a US company, may be providing uniforms for some foreign teams.  I know McDonalds is providing nutritious burgers and fries washed down by a Coke to all the countries in the Olympic Village.

Next, let's look at those making the public statements about this situation.  Harry Reid, John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi have led the pack as they usually do when hypocrisy and indignation are called for.  Those three are the poster children for what is wrong with Congress.  How many of Nancy's designer shoes are made in the USA?  Does Harry have any suits or ties in his closet made in the USA?  Does John only use USA made golf equipment when he plays with Obama and Biden?  It's possible that the botox Nancy likes so much may be manufactured in China.  This is an issue that gets tremendous knee jerk response.  It is the bread and butter fodder for politicians, talk radio, cable news and comedians.  This kind of story makes Rush Limbaugh's job easy.  He can rant for a few days.  Letterman and Leno have a few easy jokes for the monologue.  For the politicians it diverts attention from the terrible job they're doing on the real issues.

Letterman and Leno certainly have the right to make jokes about this.  Rush can rant all he wants.  That's freedom of speech.  The real news outlets (are there any left?) should be delving a little deeper to provide the full story.  Unless and until Congress and the US government provide funding for the USOC they don't get to have a say about the uniforms or anything else.  The Olympics have been used as a pawn for politicians for years.  They stick their noses into USOC business, criticize when they make a mistake yet wave the flags and brag when the US team wins medals.  They use the athletes they don't fund for political purposes.  Remember when Jimmy Carter boycotted the 1980 Olympics in Moscow because of the Russian invasion of --- wait for it --- Afghanistan.  He deprived our athletes the chance to compete, for probably their only time, in the Olympics.  Four or more years of preparation down the drain for the athletes because Russia invaded a country we would invade 20 years later.  I don't know of any of those US athletes who contributed to the Russian invasion.  The US government didn't fund that 1980 team either.

When I started this blog I intended to write about congressional hypocrisy and false indignation in general.  The USOC uniform dustup was only suppose to be one example.  I got a little sidetracked as often happens.  I've been pissed at our government's involvement, but lack of funding, in our Olympic teams for years.  The Olympics should be for the athletes and free of politics.  I know that's idealistic but I will never forgive Jimmy Carter for that 1980 boycott.  Now that we've been in Afghanistan for a decade it only reinforces my feelings even more.

I'll write about the other hypocrisy soon either here or at The Viewpoint.

Comments and discussion always welcomed and encouraged.

wjh

Absolute Power

by Bill Holmes

The tragic circumstances that have occurred over the past year at Penn State point out once again what happens when a government, company, institution or individual becomes too powerful. Things eventually run amok.  

Penn State was by far the most powerful university in Pennsylvania, maybe the northeast.  Penn State football was probably more powerful than the university.  Joe Paterno was absolutely more powerful than Penn State football.  JoePa was an institution.  He had been the head coach of the Nittany Lions for over 45 years and he has the most wins of any Division I football coach.  

Any time Penn State football was on TV, the announcers gushed about how wonderful JoePa was and how he did things the right way and his integrity and his Christian ideals and blah, blah, blah.  Well apparently child molestation by the coaching staff was not something that was against his impeccable morals.  It wasn't just the TV idiots who gushed about JoePa.  Other coaches, sports writers, ex-players and opponents thought he was wonderful.  I wonder how many of those people actually knew him?  After 45 years it became a cliche to praise him for his dedication and accomplishments.  As it turns out his greatest accomplishment was just longevity.

This is not meant as an "I told you so" article.  But...  A few years ago I began thinking that Paterno was staying around past his expiration date.  Bobby Bowden was approaching the same category.  I think both hung on too long.  I don't know if it was to set the win record, ego, hang on to power or just stubbornness.  These once great coaches began to field mediocre teams.  FSU did replace Bowden.  Not gracefully and not without controversy.  Penn State tried too, but JoePa and his legions resisted and won out.  I thought it was arrogant and selfish for Paterno to continue at age 85 despite injuries and sicknesses that prevented him from being a full time head coach.

Paterno was probably already the most powerful man in Pennsylvania before the coup and was definitely top dog afterwards.  Let no university president, board, athletic director or anyone else question anything about the Penn State football program.

According to the Freeh Report, the Jerry Sandusky "problem" was ignored or covered up for 14 years within the university and particularly the football program.  The reason - they feared the bad publicity that might occur if Sandusky's behavior was revealed.  Translate that as fear that they may miss out on a five star football recruit or a huge donation to build another weight room or maybe fund a 15 foot statue of JoePa.  

I can easily overlook a coach's or university's error when it comes to many NCAA violations. Those rules are mostly more evidence of an organization that has too much power and no oversight.  An unsanctioned t-shirt or extra phone call pale in the face of child molestation.

As a society we must protect those who can not protect themselves. That includes the physically and mentally challenged, the poor, the sick and absolutely the children.  

Joe Paterno, the football department, the athletic department and Penn State University failed to protect the children so they could continue to enjoy their all-powerful empire.  Shame on all of them.  I hope we go beyond disgrace and punish those involved (and still alive) with prison and/or fines.  Sue Paterno's estate for most of the millions that he earned as Penn State's head coach.  I would also remove him from any Hall of Fame he's in, any honors he earned and remove any statues on campus.  All Pete Rose did was bet on baseball games and he's not allowed into the Hall of Fame or to participate in MLB activities.  No children were harmed by Pete's bets.  Maybe JoePa was an exemplary coach for 30 years, but he was a cover up coach for 14 years. 

No one will ever coach Division I football for 45 years again.  That doesn't mean the same power trip won't occur.  I suspect that Nick Saban has near absolute power at Alabama and Urban Meyer had that power at Florida and now at Ohio State.  Sure there are contract clauses that punish illegal or immoral activities but the head guy has to really step into the very stinky stuff to get called out.

I love college sports, especially football, but the football coach should not be the highest paid or worse, most powerful guy on campus.  It's BS that  the university presidents will decide on the changes to the BCS &/or playoff.  The coaches, athletic directors and TV networks decided that way before they sent it to the presidents.

So, once again we prove that absolute power corrupts even good people.  Unfortunately we continue to bestow near absolute power on some.  This blog is about an athletic department that went wrong but the same applies to many other areas of our life.  Will we ever learn?  Probably not - success feels good and short or long term memory is not our strong suite.

wjh

Video Only News

by Bill Holmes

Is it just me that is concerned and maybe bothered by this?  More and more news and information stories on the Internet are only in the form of video clips.  Don't get me wrong, video certainly has it's place.  Some stories can only be accurately told via pictures and video.  Those very important cute baby, adorable kitten or jackass clips are a perfect example.  There are also many stories however that can accurately and adequately be told with words and should be.

I grew up as a reader.  I've read since before I went to school, so I'm probably prejudiced.  Mom and Dad both encouraged me and led by example.  We always had the morning and afternoon papers delivered.  Yes folks many towns and all cities had different newspapers published in the morning and afternoon, often more than one of each.  I still read the local paper every day and subscribe to a few magazines.  Being an only child I also read books maybe because there weren't siblings to play with or bother me.  I  lived in a very quiet house growing up.  I have also been a multitasker for most of my life.  Maybe it's just ADD or ADHD.  I've almost always read something while watching TV or listening to music.  I'm sure it slows down the reading a little and I probably miss something here and there on TV.  I've also been know to add another TV, radio or computer into the mix.  On balance I think it's more efficient.  Even if it's not it's what I've always done and I'm too old to change now.  Of course I'm writing this while watching the Tour de France recap on TV.

The reason I'm bothered by video only news and information is that you can usually only do one at a time.  How the hell can I watch something on TV that needs audio (sports often don't) or listen to music and watch a video only news/information clip?  I gotta turn the sound off on something.  In a perfect world I could consume a sporting event (or two) on TV, some music on the radio, internet or MP3 player and read something.

Even more devious are the internet articles that appear to be something that can be read but morph into a video clip.  They have a paragraph or two of introduction with teases and no information but the real meat of the story is in a video.

Here's my plan, put an icon on the article that indicates video/audio, video/audio & text or text only.  Some sites do a fairly good job of this but many do not.  Then I can choose if and when I want to read or watch.  More importantly, if the video is just a talking head reading or reporting the news how about transcribing it so I don't have to watch an often incompetent reporter babble.

Not an earth shattering problem, just a wish for a slight improvement.  I don't hold out any hope that this idea will take hold.  I'm sure that in the next few years very few people will actually be able to read and everything will be communicated by visual/audio means and not by text.

Better be careful, Google Voice and Siri are probably listening.

wjh