At what cost technology replacing personal contact?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The holidays are upon us - traditionally a time spent with our families, friends and loved ones… intimate gatherings in our homes, which give us all a chance to reconnect. And maybe the need for that is greater than it's ever been.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/12/18/art.bberry.gi.jpg caption=""]
Here are a few statistics that might be something for us all to think about:
There are 270 million cell phone subscribers who sent more than 110 billion text messages last December - that was double the number sent a year earlier. The average teenager sends more than 2,000 text messages every month.
At the same time - the average length of a cell phone call declined last year. The problem is, this is all stuff we mostly do alone.
We spend five hours a day watching television… and another two hours on the computer…
Walk down the street in any city in America and notice how many of us never see our surroundings. Our faces are buried in personal communication devices - At the expense of seeing someone smile as they pass you - of noticing someone who might be in need - or of missing something like a changing street light that can actually put you in danger.
It doesn't seem to be a big deal now but my guess is in 20 or 30 years we won't recognize ourselves because of the effect all of this has had.
That we will be different is certain. Whether we'll be better off is very much an open question…
Here’s my question to you: At what cost is technology replacing personal contact?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Federal agencies get 10% budget increase while people on Soc. Security get none
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
It happened quietly at the White House this week - almost like they didn't want us to notice:
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/12/18/art.soc.sec.gi.jpg caption=""]
President Obama signed a $1.1 trillion spending bill which increases budgets in many federal agencies by about 10-percent.
The bill includes almost $450 billion for the operating budgets of different departments. Among those seeing increases: The FBI, the Veterans Health Administration and the National Institutes of Health.
Democrats say this spending is critical in order to help the economy out of the recession. But Republicans are slamming what they call out-of-control spending - and criticizing about $4 billion going to more than 5,000 earmarks requested by individual lawmakers.
Doesn't exactly sound like the change President Obama promised, does it?
One watchdog group says the earmark projects include the construction of a Kentucky Farmer's market, the renovation of a historic theater in New York and the restoration of a Rhode Island mill.
The bill also approves a 2 percent pay increase for federal workers.
Meanwhile the 50 million Americans receiving Social Security won't be getting any increase next year - for the first time in more than 3 decades.
So nothing for the country's seniors... but there's always money for more government.
Here’s my question to you: Do some federal agencies deserve a 10-percent budget increase when people on Social Security get no increase at all?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Would you choose your child's gender?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Choosing your child's gender is becoming more and more mainstream in the United States.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/12/10/art.newborn.gi.jpg caption=""]
It's done by using a technology called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis - which was developed two decades ago to screen embryos for genetic diseases. Parents using in vitro-fertilization have the embryos screened to make sure they're not passing along genetic illnesses.
But the same screening can also be used to select the gender of the embryo that's implanted in the mother's uterus.
In most countries it's illegal, but not here in the land of instant gratification. It costs about $18,000.
Experts say most of the clients come from other countries; but that a lot of the Americans using this technology for gender selection already have a boy and want a girl - or vice versa.
Critics worry about the ethics of it all… is this really stuff we should be playing around with? And they suggest it could lead to a gender imbalance - especially in countries that traditionally prefer boys - places like China or India.
A doctor who pioneered this technique says he worries about using it to screen embryos for non-scientific reasons - asking if it's something doctors should be involved in.
But other fertility doctors see nothing wrong with it and say it's just another example of giving women more reproductive choices.
Here’s my question to you: Would you choose your child’s gender?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Is there such thing as too much information?
(PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Picture enough books to bury the entire United States under a pile seven feet deep. That's how much information we consumed last year.
A new study shows that residents of the U.S. consumed 1.3 trillion hours worth of information last year - that includes everything from computers to TV, radio, cell phones, text messaging, video games, movies, books, newspapers, magazines, you name it.
That averages out to almost 12 hours spent daily by every person - and this doesn't even include the information you soak up at work. It's just mind boggling and represents a 350-percent increase from 30 years ago.
Researchers at the University of California, San Diego found that people get most of their information from television... followed by radio, the internet, video games and reading.
And a lot of these things happen at the same time, you know… multi-tasking, people talking on the phone while e-mailing... or text messaging while watching TV.
It's so bad that people don't even look where they're going anymore. They walk down the street with their noses buried in some hand-held device, oblivious to what's going on around them. Or worse, they do it while they're driving. They also sleep with them by their bedside and use them in the bathroom.
We live in a society where it's nearly impossible to turn the information off - it comes at us wherever we are.
Here’s my question to you: Is there such a thing as too much information?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Are government workers at every level accountable enough?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Here we go again... Five Transportation Security Administration employees are now on "administrative leave" after a sensitive airport security manual was posted on the Internet.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/12/10/art.tsa.gi.jpg caption=""]
Here's some of what was revealed:
- Who is exempt from certain additional screening measures
- Examples of identification documents that screeners accept
- And details of the screening process and the limitations of x-ray machines.
This comes weeks after three Secret Service officers were put on leave while that agency investigates how it allowed those two morons to crash a White House State Dinner.
Government employees who are found compromising national security are placed on "administrative leave." Gee... give me some of that. They sit home and do nothing while they continue to collect their paychecks. That's some "punishment." We have 10-percent unemployment in this country - yet try firing a government employee for anything short of a felony conviction. Can't be done.
They're protected, they know it, and as a result sometimes they just don't try very hard. Look anywhere from your local city hall to Washington, DC: Government is rife with complacency, inefficiency, and in some cases - downright arrogance.
I bet some of the 16-million unemployed would jump at the chance to get one of those jobs and would approach it with a little more enthusiasm and professionalism.
Here’s my question to you: Are government workers at every level accountable enough?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Why do some successful people throw it all away?
(PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
As the Tiger Woods scandal continues to grow like a Chia pet on steroids, here's the latest:
- Reports put the number of alleged mistresses at eleven and counting
- Documents from the night of the crash show investigators suspected that Woods may have been driving under the influence
- According to Nielsen, television ads featuring Woods have disappeared from prime-time broadcast TV and many cable channels
Woods makes $110 million a year from endorsements and tournaments... and in part he was selling an image. But that image has sustained more damage in the last two weeks than his Cadillac Escalade: One index that measures how celebrities influence shoppers shows Woods' ranking dropping from sixth to 24th place.
This makes Tiger Woods the latest in a long line of public figures - almost always men - who work hard to build successful lives and careers only to turn around and throw it all in a garbage can.
The website PoliticsDaily.com has a piece called "The Last Tiger Woods Question" that asks: "Why did he think he wouldn't get caught?" We all know the drill... from Bill Clinton to Eliot Spitzer, Rudy Giuliani, John Edwards and South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford... people who are so controlled and accomplished in other areas of their lives, yet risk it all.
Experts say a lot of times these men simply don't think - that lust makes people irrational. Or, they think they're smarter, or somehow different or the woman in question is special, or they know other men who got away with it and think they can too. Wrong.
Here’s my question to you: Why do some successful people choose to throw it all away?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
What should be done with leftover $200 billion TARP money?
Morgan Stanley is one of ten lenders that won U.S. Treasury approval to pay back $68 billion in funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Despite record deficits, President Obama wants to spend more money to create jobs and try to ease the suffering of consumers and businesses.
The president's plan includes:
- Giving small businesses tax breaks for new hires and equipment purchases
- Expanding spending on infrastructure - building more roads, bridges water projects, etc.
- And giving consumers rebates for modifying their homes to consume less energy.
The president didn't put a price tag on all these projects, but he suggested there's more money for the government to spend - since the TARP bailouts will wind up costing $200 billion less than expected.
Republicans are outraged at the idea of spending any of this TARP money - they say any money made back on the bailout of financial institutions should be used to pay down the skyrocketing national debt.
President Obama insists the U.S. can do both at the same time - pay down the debt and spend more to create jobs and spur economic growth.
Meanwhile there is an ominous warning out today about our ballooning national debt - now at $12 trillion and growing. Moody's credit rating agency says it's "not inconceivable" that the U.S. could lose its triple-A debt rating in 2013.
It could happen if U.S. growth slows, interest rates climb, and the government fails to address the growing national deficits - which the government is currently failing to do.
Here’s my question to you: What should be done with the leftover $200 billion of TARP money?
Tune in to the Situation Room at 5pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.
And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.
Confident there'll be meaningful health care reform before end of year?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Despite all the hoopla over the Senate Finance Committee vote, there is still a very long way to go before health care reform becomes a reality. President Obama applauded Senator Olympia Snowe for becoming the first Republican to break ranks and vote for health care reform - but the truth is Snowe is keeping her options open.
Senate Finance Committee member Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) talks with Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) before announcing her support for key health care reform legislation.
Her support sounded pretty conditional when she said: "My vote today is my vote today. It doesn't forecast what my vote will be tomorrow."
And another centrist in the Senate, Independent Joe Lieberman, said he opposes the bill the way it is now because it would raise insurance prices for most Americans.
Meanwhile a group of almost 30 labor unions is warning that the Senate finance committee bill is deeply flawed. They say they'll oppose it - unless they see come changes. Big labor, a key Democratic constituency, is insisting a public health insurance plan is essential to reform.
And they're not the only ones... as the Senate committee passed its bill without a public option, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stood on the other side of the Capitol still insisting the House would pass a bill with one. Pelosi also says a bill will pass "certainly this year."
Really? There's a lot of people who still aren't on board and a lot of legislative steps to go. At the end of the day - a committee vote does not a health care reform law make.
Here’s my question to you: How confident are you there will be meaningful health care reform before the end of the year?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
How to handle people who drive while doing other things?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Distracted drivers are a deadly threat... and this includes anyone talking on cell phones, texting, eating, putting on make-up, etc. while behind the wheel of a moving vehicle. It's estimated that 6,000 people were killed - and more than half a million injured - in 2008 in crashes involving a distracted or inattentive driver.
One study shows 80 percent of crashes are related to drivers not paying attention... and people using handheld devices are four times as likely to get in crashes that could result in injury.
Safety advocates say they're especially worried about young people... saying that some of the kids learning to drive now text 5,000 times a month. This is scary.
Washington wants people to take this threat more seriously... there's one Senate bill that would reduce federal highway funding for states that don't ban texting while driving.
President Obama signed an executive order that bans federal employees from texting while behind the wheel. The government also plans to ban texting by bus drivers and truckers who cross state lines; and possibly prevent them from using cell phones while driving. Hundreds of companies have already banned employees from using cell phones while driving.
The problem is - there's no enforcement. I see literally dozens of people yakking away on cell phones in cars every day on my ride into work from New Jersey. They change lanes, slam on their brakes, swerve all over the road... all while lost in their own little worlds on their cell phones.
Want to get serious? Yank their drivers' licenses - permanently - if they cause an accident while driving distracted.
Here’s my question to you: What’s the answer to people who insist on driving while doing other things?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Are Obama critics creating a hateful, dangerous environment?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Tom Friedman writes a scary and sobering column in today's New York Times called "Where did 'we' go?" In it - he compares the political climate today in the U.S. to Israel in 1995... right before the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.
Friedman describes the "ugly mood" in Israel at the time... where right-wingers were trying to de-legitimize Rabin. They questioned his authority and shouted death threats at rallies.
Friedman says the parallels to America today turn his stomach:
"I have no problem with any of the substantive criticism of President Obama from the right or left. But something very dangerous is happening."
Criticism from the far right has begun tipping over into de-legitimizing his presidency.
He's right. You don't have to look any further than protesters comparing President Obama to a Nazi or a Facebook poll asking if he should be killed.
Friedman says even if you're not worried about violence against Mr. Obama - you should be worried about what's happening to American politics.
He talks about the "cocktail of political and technological trends" that make it possible for "idiots of all political stripes" to take advantage of the system... things like excess of money in politics, the 24/7 cable news cycle, the blogosphere and a permanent presidential campaign.
Meanwhile - Republicans are pushing back against claims that conservative rhetoric is creating a dangerous environment for the president.
Party Chairman Michael Steele says of people like Friedman, "Where do these nut jobs come from?" Which to me sort of proves Friedman's whole point.
Here’s my question to you: Are critics of Pres. Obama crossing the line in creating a hateful and dangerous environment?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments