Images via Flickr from Colorblind rain, Rob Shenk, and Official U.S. Navy Imagery

Oh, Wyoming. Comical in so many ways. Its squarish little shape, its hilariously small population, its desire to own (or at least maybe use) aircraft carriers… WHAT? That’s right. Wyoming, a landlocked state with no international borders that is 0.07% water by area, wants to have aircraft carriers.

Well, you know, if the government can’t defend Wyoming, then maybe Wyoming should be able to defend itself. Makes sense, I suppose (apart from the fact that Wyoming has a national guard to do exactly that). And that’s why a bill was introduced to the Wyoming state legislature to create a task force designed to figure out what to do with Wyoming should some type of disaster should strike. But why was this amendment (scroll to the very bottom) added? It states: “Conditions under which the state of Wyoming should implement a draft, raise a standing army, marine corps, navy and air force and acquire strike aircraft and an aircraft carrier.” In what conditions would the state of Wyoming possibly need a navy and an aircraft carrier?

To me, this raises the question of whether or not Wyoming should spend public monies on trying to create contingency plans for clearly impossible (or certainly exceedingly rare) events. Could Wyoming be faced with a scenario in the next fifty years where it is suddenly surrounded by water? Yes. Will they? I can say with relative certainty that they will not. But one could say, ‘Perhaps Wyoming needs an aircraft carrier in the Pacific Ocean to defend itself, should the United States completely disband.” Again, this could happen. But contrary to what I have seen in numerous, highly detailed and accurate Hollywood productions, I don’t believe this will happen anytime soon. So why isn’t Wyoming occupying its time focusing on fixing more relevant issues, like the fact that it sits on a giant volcano? As far as I can tell, aircraft carriers don’t work well in lava.

It is ludicrous to consider these ideas, let alone ask to be paid to do so. But the real danger here is that in creating plans to avert rare doomsday events, we have effectively bought into the fear that 9/11, unrest in the Middle East, and terrorist groups (and underwear bombers) attempted to create. The government and the citizens of this country have changed the way we feel and value our own security, enabling the cause of terrorists. They have inspired fear in our minds, provoking us to spend money to defend ourselves from non-existent threats. It’s debatable whether or not the United States is safer than it was 15 years ago, but do we need to have tanks in moderately large metropolitan areas? Probably not.

Governments (and citizens) need to do a better job of finding credible threats and creating non-invasive methods of tackling those threats. And to be honest, we have in some ways started down this path. Take homeland security’s Terror Alert program, which for the better part of the past decade has dutifully informed American travelers in airports that the country was on ‘high alert’. How can a country possibly be on high alert for a solid eight years, and not even shift when actual terrorist events occur?  Thankfully, a new initiative which only places short term alerts when they are credible has been put in place. This is a perfect example of how we can respond more actively and effectively to curb threats without creating apathetic or panicked citizens.

Does it make sense for Wyoming to spend $18,000 on a disaster contingency plan? Absolutely. But it makes no sense for them to even consider aircraft carriers. Get over it Wyoming. It’s not happening.

According to a report compiled by the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, more than three million Americans experience homelessness every year, and this number has increased radically over the past few decades. There aren’t enough accommodations and shelters to house them all, so far too many have no choice but to live on the street. EDAR has developed a combination shopping-cart-and-shelter that protects belongings during the day and serves as a bed at night. EDAR currently has units in Southern California, Phoenix, Denver, and New Jersey.

Everyone Deserves a Roof units (photo credit EDAR website)

To be honest, I was initially turned off by the project for a couple of reasons. I agree with their values – everyone deserves a roof – but even more strongly I believe that everyone deserves a home. EDAR provides a temporary night-time shelter, but it doesn’t offer a real bed, a shower, or security. My guess is that one of the reasons this project works is because it’s cost-effective, but still, shouldn’t philanthropic organizations focus their attention on alleviating homelessness? Or even just improving homeless shelters? I tend to think that there will be people who will look at organizations like EDAR and say something to the effect of, “Well, they have shelter, the problem doesn’t exist anymore.” But maybe I just don’t have enough faith in people.

Rules for a 70-person EDAR Community in NJ (photo credit - EDAR website

However, I looked at the Frequently Asked Questions on the EDAR website, and it seems that the staff has read my mind. One question asks, “Why do homeless individuals use EDAR units? Aren’t shelter beds more comfortable?” The answer readily states that many homeless people don’t feel comfortable at shelters, many shelters are currently at maximum capacity, and an EDAR unit is “not as good as permanent shelter, but it is far much better than a cardboard box under a freeway overpass.” Additionally, another response explained that there are EDAR communities of 10-15 units on land provided by philanthropic partners which, I believe, however Hooverville-esque could provide the sense of security and community I thought was previously lacking.

I stand by my conviction that the larger problem of homelessness is yearning to be solved, and the addition of more and more nonprofits aren’t exactly pushing the process forward. But, I do agree that there is an immediate problem that needs to be solved while someone else works on the grander issue, and EDAR can provide an instantaneous solution.

While our generation can still reclaim some dignity by stowing embarrassing childhood photographs and home videos in cardboard boxes buried deep in the basement, babies today are not afforded this luxury.  According to a February 18^th New York Times article, 92% of children have “online presence” by the time they are two!

With the advent of Facebook, YouTube, Flickr, and ShutterFly, zealous parents and grandparents load anything and everything onto the internet.

Check out some of my personal favorites:

Baby Corey: Dancer Extraordinaire

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikTxfIDYx6Q]

Kittens Girl: Shrieking Storyteller Savant

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtX8nswnUKU]

David: Future Dentist?

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txqiwrbYGrs]

We think that these kids are hysterical, but what will they think of themselves ten years from now?  The problem with posting something on the internet is that it leaves a permanent trace.  Baby Corey may not be so happy to find when he is no longer a baby that his dancing, diapered jig will follow him for the rest of his life.

The broader issue here is not the permanence of these images and videos, but the intentions behind them.  Back in the old-school days of the non-digital camera, my parents took pictures of me to preserve the memories of my childhood.  Back before YouTube, my parents video-taped my first steps, my birthday parties, my every inane move for personal record-keeping.  But now, everything has changed.

We have to ask ourselves, why did these parents make these home videos?  Was it to preserve memories?  What kind of parent brings a camera to the dentist? Was it to entertain others, to seek fame?  Perhaps. (See article on the “Balloon Boy” incident for parental fame-seeking to the extreme).

Technology has permanently altered our use of photographs and videos.  We used to take pictures and videos for ourselves.  They were intimate, they were for us.  Now, we do it for others.  To show how much fun we are having.  To get a laugh.  To go viral on YouTube.

Although not every parent is fame-seeking, the digital age has certainly brought about a conundrum.  Why are we hesitant to show baby pictures to strangers in person but eager to share them with millions of virtual ones online?