I’m preparing to embark on a hell of a journey. For reasons I’ll keep to myself, I and my dearest friends are driving from one side of the United States to the other. We’re starting in Boston because it’s convenient. We’ll wind up in California, because it’s a nice place to wind up.

On the way, I’ll be sharing with you my experiences on one of Bloggy Network’s other blogs- Travelogger.net. So please do join me there!

Have you been to New York, Washington, Atlanta, Houston, Las Vegas, Los Angeles? Or Tijuana?

If you’ll let me know what you want to know, I’ll do my best to help you out.

A journey like this is more than a tour through different parts of a country/continent. It’s a journey through many very different cultures. The atmosphere in south Texas is different from that in east Texas – let alone Boston! The Gullahs of South Carolina and the Cajuns of Louisiana speak a virtual different language, a creole developed back when my historical heroes still roamed their regions.

And I’ll be able to see that mighty city, New Orleans, for myself. The holes in New York City – and the collective hearts of America and much of the world – for myself. The majestic vistas of the American West. Two oceans and a gulf. A hundred different types of sand.

I’ll also get an honest idea of what the United States is like in places I’ve never visited, or at least as much of an idea as you can reasonably get in a day or two. Travel, they say, broadens the mind. I hope to wind up with at least a superhighway.

Arrr, a pirate loves travel. I’m excited about this voyage. I’ll try to resist pillaging along the way, sore though I may be tempted. Well, maybe a little. . .

Quick– in a half hour, with commercial breaks, produce a daily show that pulls together information from all corners of the globe to tell everyone watching what’s really going on.

Can you do this? No, probably not. Can I? Heck, no. But we assume a news agency, with a producer, team of fact checkers, and reporters can be counted upon to do this very complex job.

Can I say, you’re nuts? Network news is run by human beings. People who bleed blood (I should know! Arrrr. . . ) and eat and eliminate exactly the same way you do. They may be a team, but the amount of work involved to produce a truly good show is immense.

With a large enough team, they could do it. But today, we live in a world of news corporations, bottom lines, and satisfying the shareholders. This means two things for the news: first, you must minimize costs. The most effective way to minimize costs is to eliminate personnel. Second, you must sell advertising – your bread and butter – at the highest possible price. This means you need a high viewership.

So here’s what the structure of a network news team looks like.

• News anchors whose best skills are primping and reading a teleprompter in an authoritative voice.
  


• Reporters who rise in the ranks according to the juicy stories they bring in. This means no unsexy stuff like junk bond exposes (at least not until the crap hits the fan and the feds are called) and more sexy stuff like Tom Cruise’s baby.
  


• Producers who fill out scant news with canned stories – films done in a newsy style – sent in by advertisers, pharmaceutical companies, and others with veiled interests – you’ll see at least one of these every night. Can you spot it? Bet not. They are disguised as news.
  


• Fact checkers who – oh, wait, most of them are gone. At best, your news show will share a fact checker with another show or three, or your producer will check a few facts. Mostly, reporters do this themselves today.
  

Do you get the idea? All the things we think the news should be doing – do not get done. And things we think they should not do are done routinely.


Watch CNN, Headline News, Fox, C-Span, BBC – anyone besides the regular networks. You’ll be better informed for it.

I swore I would not get political. I think I may have to get a little political, just this once. I hate terrorism and think that we should fight it anywhere, any way, any how.

There. That’s my political statement.

But when I first said this, torture hadn’t even crossed my mind. Is it okay to waterboard someone to find out where they put the bomb in Times Square? Is it acceptable to use electric shock to get a proven terrorist to give up his companions, who may be planning attacks right at that moment?

My gut said no. Pirate or not, I can’t stomach torture. It’s wrong in a way I can’t define. People who torture lose something of their humanity. Data produced is questionable at best. And, well, it’s just wrong to profit on a person’s misery like that.

I even tried to imagine: were I in a position where those I love were going to be killed if the torture didn’t happen, would I sanction it?

I had to admit to myself that I still could not.

But that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t happen.

It’s a decision I could never make. But the men and women in our collective governments who are in charge of keeping us all safe may one day be in a position to make that decision. I could not forgive them, either, if they did not do everything possible to keep their employers – the public – safe. Including torture.

This puts them in a terrible position. My solution: hire men and women who have the guts to take personal responsibility – and credit – for the good and evil they do. Instead of making torture legal – and therefore an easy choice – make it illegal. Those who choose to torture, despite the consequences to them, are making the choice to suffer themselves as well.

It sucks. It really does. It’s also a lot to ask of these people. But we ask our soldiers on the front lines to lay down their lives – and we ask the same of Coast Guard, police, firefighters, and all the other men and women who keep us safe and secure. Asking those who are in the business of extracting information from very bad people to be willing to risk prison for what they believe is right – that is asking no more courage and integrity from them than we ask from our other protectors.

And in the decision to torture or not, I think we need courage and integrity more than in any other fight in this war on terror.

I told you I’d keep up with this one, and I have. Interesting to see what’s happened.

The New Orleans Truth website is authored today primarily by Easton Ellsworth, the editor of Know More Media, the company that’s sponsoring the website. He has been wise enough to not only write some very good blogs about what people in New Orleans have written or have told him personally, but also to cross-link with lots of the NOLA bloggers as well, giving them the press that I was griping about their needing. There is no sight of Chartreuse, Loren Feldman, or Team New Orleans here on the site. Also no explanation of this, though I think I can guess.

Chartreuse, 1938 Media, et al finally, a month or so after they had planned, made it down to New Orleans – I think. Anyway, Chartreuse is posting New Orleans entries on his own blog. Moreover, he’s been wise enough to invite several NOLA folks into his private space. Kudos for that. This is the way it should have been done to begin with.

The NOLA bloggers aren’t getting much more attention than they were at first, as far as I can tell. And Team New Orleans seems to be just Chartreuse and 1938, which is what I thought would happen.

So did my point get across? I think it did. At least the New Orleans folks are being treated as people, not as victims who don’t have a voice. I wish the blogosphere would pay more attention to the NOLA bloggers down there; they’re great, talented people. And it’s certain the media, with its Certain Attitude about bloggers, will not.

I guess the best thing we can do is not forget. I’m going to do the little bit I can, by writing about it and donating and raising awareness in my area and by volunteering for a day when I travel down there (all I can spare, alas). I’m not going to forget that bloggers live by different rules from the media, either. While the ideal for reporting is to remain objective and separate from the news, a blogger often IS the news. Bloggers are allowed to get passionate, lose objectivity, and even pitch in when things need to be done.

All in all, I like blogging better than I like reporting.

I’ve got to stop watching the news. It’s terrible. Another bunch of U.S., British, Italian troops killed. Another bunch of Iraqis, Lebanese, Israelis, fill-in-the-blank murdered by suicide bombers. People ticked at the Pope because he exercises freedom of speech. People exercising freedom of speech to protest others’ freedom of speech (and doesn’t that make sense?)

It’s gotten to where I can’t quit looking at it. I can’t tell what’s true and what’s not. I find it all depressing. And then, there’s the stuff that just isn’t true at all – some of which I know from my own bloody sources and resources.

How can we have a free society when the news is so dependent upon the capitalistic system that they have to sell to the least common denominator to satisfy their shareholders? Or when the news is beholden to government officials? Or when the news is a tool of the government? In these situations, no wonder the news agencies protest like murder when they’re accused of inaccuracies, spins, or flat-out lies.

So I make this pledge: to cut down on the news I get directly from the local papers, or Reuters, or the New York Times. Instead, I will read a lot of blogs. These guys bring a sanity to an otherwise nuts media world. They – we – are getting a bad rap from the mainstream media. But then, we are direct competitors to their bottom lines. Bloggers can make decent money doing what they do if they’re good and subscribe to a network. And because today they are attacking the single most important asset of a news agency – their perceived integrity – the news agencies are not terribly happy with them.

I say nuts. I don’t much care about their opinions. I do care about the news stories I dig up myself. Or read about from dedicated bloggers who still understand what investigative journalism is. To be honest, I think bloggers may just save the world.

But then, I may be a trifle biased.

The king of personal success, the guru of getting rich, Tony Robbins, would love to sell you seminar tickets, books, and self-help tapes so you can Fix Your Life.

You don’t need it. You only need a few things.

1. Develop a personal code of honor. Even pirates have a code. Regardless of your spiritual beliefs or lack of them, a code of honor will give you a higher purpose to live up to. Having a genuine sense of purpose will get you up in the morning.
   


2. Don’t ever be afraid of faking it. Most people don’t have what it takes at first; even if they do have what it takes, they think they don’t. Now, I once taught some classes (er, community service, of course – pirates never do good deeds) in which I taught my students, a somewhat disadvantaged bunch, to Fake It Til You Make It. Then I made them tell me what they did, every class session, until I knew they had gotten it. You can do the same. Do you want to be a writer, an artist, a chef, a business genius? Dress and act the part. Learn everything you can. Hang around with successful people. You’ll get the feel, and you’ll start believing in yourself.
   


3. Your personal attitude is what will determine your success. If you don’t think you can make it, you won’t. When is the last time you heard a celebrity, millionaire, or other successful person say they didn’t think they’d make it? Never, is my guess. That’s why they made it.
   


4. Story – a captain was once piloting a ship, and trying to avoid a sandbar up the coast. He knew where it was, knew there was plenty of room, but didn’t think he could make it around. In the end, he sailed right into it. The lesson: look through the things that are obstacles in your path. You’ll be surprised at how easily you circumvent them.
   


5. Love other people. (Of course, you should love their treasure more, but that’s beside the point.) If you bear a genuine love for your fellow man, they’ll pick up on it. That will make you friends who will help you along your road to success.
   


6. Learn to recognize opportunities. Opportunities knock all the time. They probably dent your door. But most people don’t hear them. Start looking at every drawback as a potential opportunity. You’ll quickly start finding out how many of them really are.
   

There’s this neat psychological study I just love that demonstrated an effect named after the two psychologists performing it at Cornell in 1999. These gents, Justin Kruger and David Dunning, were trying to figure out whether the perceived phenomenon of Dumb People Thinking They’re Smart was real or just something that we notice and exaggerate.

Their conclusion: it’s real, and it’s annoying. They tested people on several items, then asked how they thought they did. People who were really good – said so, though they tended to underestimate their competency. People who were so-so – said so. People who needed some work – said so.

It was the people at the bottom, the abysmally bad, who thought that they were brilliant. They were in the bottom ten percent – and thought they were in the top ten percent.

Now you know! That ignoramus who thinks he knows everything – is just a normal, ordinary ignoramus.

Think of the fun you can have with this new knowledge. The next time someone says something dumb, toss this one in their faces. Or when that annoying guy starts giving you advice on women that you know to be, um, inadequate, just smile and remember that you’re not down there on his level.

Or are you? You see, if you’re incompetent, you think you’re competent. If you’re competent, you may think you’re competent as well.

Basically, if you think you’re competent, you may be that ignoramus.

I might be that ignoramus.

But I’m not. I promise. Really. I’m totally competent. Just don’t make me sing.

Remember William Hung? He was the contestant on American Idol in the second or third year who was so bad he became famous for it. His incredibly atrocious karaoke was juggled into an album – that subsequently sold more CDs than almost any Idol contestant outside of the top two finalists – 195,000 copies. He’s made a movie, done talk shows, and become a real celebrity. For singing badly.

This, folks, is like lightning. It hits once in about a hundred years. For most people, celebrity is something they’re born into, have enough talent and work ethic to gain, or work their butts off to get.

There’s a surprisingly large contingent, however, who think that their paths to celebrity should be along the lines of William Hung. No offense to Mr. Hung, who seems like a nice guy, but it seems that they are so self-centered as to believe everyone is fascinated by their latest navel-gazing, whether it’s on world events or how to succeed they wish to opine upon.

A recent example that has ticked me off: the NewOrleansTruth debacle. Associated Press’s desperate attempts to convince the world that their photos are complete and unbiased truth (I Photoshop, too, and recognize fakery pretty quickly).

I think what’s going on is people are somehow getting the idea that the written word is gold – that their optimization talents or the love that their friends and mothers have for their writing is going to catapult them into Pulitzerdom – that somehow, they too can be Truman Capote and hang out with rich celebrity women.

It’s nonsense. Except for truly anomalous cases like William Hung, celebrity does not happen – it is earned. Your hard work and genuine talent will gain your fame, not your untried insights into how to make a fortune. Don’t invest in fools gold – instead, work hard and learn everything you can about everything you can. And learn how to market online. That’s going to be your key to success.

Sheriff’s post yesterday about the dot-com bubble started me thinking on other schemes that broke the investing bank. The oldest one I could remember was the Dutch tulip craze, when Dutch collectors were paying the equivalent of a half-million dollars for a single rare bulb – this in the early 1600s. The craze reached its peak in 1636, when flower prices crashed and speculators panicked, selling at a loss or reneging on contracts.

It’s possible that the tulip craze was not as far-reaching or catastrophic as later historians made it out to be. (Also, I never heard of a pirate raiding a ship for a bunch of flowers – not very piratey. Or smart. Gold keeps better, and wisely invested money grows pretty well.) But the Dutch also invented the stock market as it exists today; while the French traded government bonds, the Dutch started openly selling stocks and company shares in the Dutch East India Company right around the year 1600.

So not long after the first speculations from the first real bourgeois-heavy culture, you see the first stock market crash. Interesting.

And look throughout history – people overreach, get greedy, get too speculative, and boom! The market crashes. Today it may be the housing market, starting in the U.S. and spreading throughout the world. Yesterday it was the dot-com. Before that, oil. Before that, the worldwide crash of the 1920s followed by a worldwide depression.

Need I continue? I can, if you wish. Stock market crashes are as old as stock markets. People should realize that speculating on the stock market is gambling. It is dangerous. And you can lose your shirt.

Now what’s going on today is speculation on the very dubious value of domain names. A few people made a killing selling great web names they were smart enough to seize early. There’s been a terrible battle over the ownership of Sex.com. And a lot of Johnny-come-latelies think they might be able to duplicate the success through other slick Internet schemes.

Guess what? Won’t work. The first pirate to get to the galleon, gets the gold. The next ones usually get caught by the British navy – a fate not to be wished on a barnacle, mate.

Be smart. Work hard. Don’t buy into the get-rich-quick garbage, and don’t ever think you’re smarter than the next guy. You’re not. Neither am I.

What’s your privacy worth to you?

Let’s start further back: does your personal information have a value? Sure it does, or you wouldn’t protect it. You wouldn’t want another unauthorized person to have copies of your social security number, your drivers license, your home address.

How about your sex life?

How do you feel about people knowing everything about it? Some people, like me, really don’t care. But others are a trifle uncomfortable with it.

Here’s the thing: while everyone seems to get upset about the government keeping tabs on us in any way (which I don’t get too upset about – nothing to hide really), we don’t seem to be paying much attention to how fellow net-users might be able to abuse our privacy.

Last week, an unpleasant little fellow named Jason Fortuny decided that he’d have a little fun on Craig’s List by posing as a woman seeking sex from men. I won’t go more into detail because it gets pretty explicit.

After getting close to two hundred replies within 24 hours, he posted each and every one, with all personal details including addresses and phone numbers and email addresses, and with the explicit pictures some men sent, on another site and advertised his remarkable feat.

Now, I really don’t care what these men wanted or thought they’d get out of their shallow relationships. I also don’t want to know who they were, what they did, or what their anatomy looked like. I worry about the fact that a lot of people loved getting this information.

I also worry that there doesn’t seem to be a law against this, certainly not a clear one.

Which brings me to a topic I’ve obsessed about for the last ten years: who owns your information?

Credit card companies can easily pass your information to Equifax and other companies that subsequently sell your information to companies interested in your credit rating.

Criss-cross directories and the Yellow Pages, hundreds of information-providing companies, your own bank and grocery store, may be in the business of selling your information to others.

In some cases, outright criminals do whatever they can to get your information.

Is it right that your personal data should be bringing others money and/or amusement?

Who really owns your data? And should you know whenever anyone receives it, and for what purpose it’s being used? Is it an invasion of your privacy if someone sells pictures of you on the beach, or your old drivers license picture? We’re clear on public record data being accessible to all, but what about data you give with a reasonable expectation of exclusivity? Who owns that data?

I think we own our own information. And I also think anyone using it, selling it, or giving it away should be required by law to at least notify us.

This, much more than the government’s dabbling with Big Brotherism, worries me. I don’t trust the government totally. I trust corporations a whole lot less. And I really don’t trust malicious liars.

For now, our best bet: hold our personal information close. Once it’s out there, you can’t reel it back in.