The rise of Web-networking

I have given in to the Web-Devil.

The constant bombardment of Internet information, as well as nonstop persistence of my mother (a Twitterfreak) has sucked me in, and I can't escape. That's right, folks. I have a Twitter, iGoogle, Facebook, Myspace, and Blogspot page.

When someone like media-mogul Rupert Murdoch doesn't want to buy Twitter when it's hot, that should be a sign that this site is a fad, like MySpace, which News Corp did purchase for millions. But, ignoring my sense of disgust (yes, I hated Twitter), I decided to give it a chance. Mostly because I wouldn't hear the end of it from mom.

I never understood the appeal of Twitter. And for a long time (at least six months), I resisted. I was convinced that the site was for people with too much time on their hands, and I had better things to do. Like go to the beach and socialize. And watch mindless reality television. But, I gave in. I joined the Twitter universe, and now I find myself tweeting with the worst, and the best, of them.

I had already been sucked into Facebook when I transferred from my junior college to university. That was inevitable. But at the time, the site was for college students only. Now, everyone is on the site. Including aunts, uncles, cousins, and random people who knew me when I was 5 and just decided to add me as a "friend." I obliged, because I like to see the number on my friend-o-meter go up.

But I'll let you all in on a little secret. I love it all. I love Twitter and it's ridiculous 140-word posts that are supposed to be witty and informative on whatever subject the writer feels like tweeting about. I love iGoogle and it's specially designed page that will distract me for hours from my online job hunt. I love Facebook and its potential snub-worthiness (no one knows when they're deleted from your friends list unless they actually pay attention, which no one really does unless they know you well). I don't really love MySpace anymore, but you get the idea.

Men no longer reap all the benefits

Oh, how the tables have turned. I don't want to brag or anything, but I still have a job. Two, actually. Yes, they're both part-time, and they both pay very little, but my situation is not exactly dire (yet). I can't say the same for many of America's working (or recently laid-off) men. 

Men have taken disproportionate slice of America's job market for quite some time now, while making more money to the dollar than women in nearly every position (women make 80 cents for each dollar a male coworker earns, according to a 2003 report by the U.S. General Accountability Office). That fact has now come to bite men in the butt. 

The San Jose Mercury News recently reported that 80 percent off all pink slips handed out since December 2007 have gone to men, especially those in sinking fields such as construction and manufacturing (San Jose Mercury News). That means that men are having to stay home while women work their butts off. Women, according to the article, generally work for more stable employers such as schools and hospitals. 

Now families that survived on the larger incomes of the male head-of-households are barely making mortgage payments with what the women head-of-households make. 

If only women made the same amount of money as men to start with, then maybe (just maybe) families wouldn't be suffering as they are now. I'm not saying the recession wouldn't be painful; it would be. However, it would hurt us all less if there were more equality in the workplace.

Let's hope that a positive result of this recession is that women will start earning as much as their male counterparts, and will, in turn, be valued more in the workplace.

Reducing overcrowded prisons may cost California

A few things are obvious: The states of the state of California and the union are spiraling, a rather large portion of the population (except, perhaps, the wealthiest Americans) is experiencing job and money loss, millions of Americans are still loosing their homes, prisons are overcrowded, and I could definitely use a raise to pay off my impending student loans (this is a not-so-subtle hint to my employers, in case they read this). 

Yes, folks, these times suck. But which of those five items are most Americans concerned about? If you guessed job and money loss, then you'd probably be right. Inversely, the top concern of federal judges is reducing the number of inmates in California prisons by 40 percent (which means releasing up to 57,000 "low risk" offenders). 

It is unfortunate that prisons are overcrowded. But where will the inmates go if released from prison? If you guessed your own neighborhood, you're probably right. In fact, many of the inmates will go to the county where they last lived, according to www.KSBY.com. We can all see where this is going, right?

Petty thieves, child molesters, drug dealers, and those who are deemed "nonviolent" criminals will be given free reign, and most won't be able to find jobs (just like the majority of law-abiding citizens). 

What happens when you have criminals roaming the streets with nothing to do? If you guessed crime, you should get a large federal bailout bonus like the CEOs on Wall Street and the nation's bankers. Criminals without jobs resort to crime. It's just common sense. Maybe some will look at their newfound freedom as a second chance at living a crime-free life. But if they're sent right back to the place where they committed their initial, incarceration-inducing crimes, who's to say they won't go back to the life they knew best?

But wait! Those who support this federal ruling say the billions of dollars saved from the release of these prisoners can be applied to "crime prevention programs." Maybe I'm just being pessimistic, but I doubt California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the inactive, counterproductive state legislators will use the money for crime prevention. The money will most likely be lost in the ever-increasing state deficit.