So Cal to Las Vegas in 2 hours!

When looking on the internet for news, I am not one who chooses to read from FoxNews. However, when I was looking on their website, I was inspired to write my blog on an article that struck my interest.

Train from Southern California to Las Vegas

In the above link, it seems that there has been discussion about a "high-speed rail train" that would cross across the desert connecting Las Vegas and Southern California. With research done, showing that people who travel between the two cities, the trip could take five hours or more. There was talk of the "MagLev" which was a train that would travel at a rate of 300 mph from Disneyland to Las Vegas. Instead, also cheaper, there is new talk of the DesertXpress would travel at a rate of 125 mph, and connect Las Vegas to Victorville.

After reading this article, I thought that this is a good idea. Granted it will take a lot of money and time to build, if they decide to, but it is also a good way to make travel time shorter. This is the age of technology and by doing something like this, would prove what people are capable of. Also, it wouldn't be too bad, not to drive!

Britney Spears!

While watching the news, it seems on any network, Britney Spears is on all the time. Whether she is having an emotional breakdown or causing scenes elsewhere, she is on the news. It surprises me that someone like her could be "news" that needs to be broad casted every night.

With plenty of other problems in the world today, I am kind of annoyed by the fact that Britney is the one I am watching when I could be learning about other issues affecting our country.

Even though it seems as though she is the one always on, let's say CNN, the media outlet has broadened its horizons with other stars as well. For example, it surprised me how quickly Heath Ledger's death was put on all the on-going news television stations. Granted it was a loss to Hollywood, but it was on there for several days. I would have expected it to be on a more modern channel, like the E! channel, but not on CNN or Fox News.

I know that stories, like "What will Britney Spears do next?", are what sells, but the media should focus more on what is truly important, not what they think will draw in the younger audiences.

Battle in San Jose

"Litte Saigon"?

Since I am from the Bay Area, San Jose, (as I might have stated before), I try to keep up with their local news even though I am relocated to Monterey at the moment. One news story that has been on-going for quite sometime now is over a developement that is going to be turned into a buisness center.

The reason for the battle is simply because of the name. The developers are trying to name it Little Saigon Buisness Center, while there are many protestors, of Asian descent, that want it to just be called Little Saigon. Today, on the NBC 11 news website, "at least two city council members" are opposing putting the naming of that center on the ballot for the upcoming election. Apparently, it is extremely costly for the "ballot initiative" which would in turn spend money the city does not have, especially during these fiscal times.

In my personal opinion, this whole battle is kind of ridiculous. It is just a name and not everyone is even going to stick to that given name. All in all, people can call it whatever they want, even if it is not the actual title. For example, there are plenty of places that have been renamed over the years and people still call it by either the old names or the new ones, and no one really debates over that. There is the HP Pavilion (in San Jose), which was previously the Compaq Center, and before was known as the Shark Tank (since the San Jose Sharks team plays there). With the changing of the names, I will always refer to it as the Shark Tank and there has been no battle over this, so why start with "Little Saigon"?

Supreme Court taking on Gay Marriage

KTVU News (Bay Area):

Being from San Jose, part of the Bay Area, I am constantly paying attention to the numerous media outlets from that area. Recently, while browsing on one of the websites (KTVU), I came across an article about the Supreme Court and gay marriage.

As a supporter of gay rights/marriage, I decided to read this article. Of course set in the great San Francisco, it is stated that there is a date set in March when arguments over gay marriage will be presented. The Supreme Court will apparently listen to these arguments and then have nintey days to make their decision on the long standing issue. Being opposed by the governer and certain activists, there are "gay marriage opponents" who are looking for signatures in order to qualify to be put on a ballot for upcoming elections that would in turn make gay marriage illegal and even take away the right for same-sex spouses to register as domestic partners.

With just a history, especially in California, gay marriage seems to always be something that ia being debated. In my opinion, I hope that this works out for the better for the same-sex couples. I support them, since I have friends who are gay, and think that everyone should be given this right of marriage, whether one is straight or gay.

Source