The Self-Absorbed Saga of Shea Allen

---

---

I think the thing that really bothers me about Shea Allen is her attitude.

That is a tough thing for me to say because journalism is my love. Well, I guess my love is really writing, but it led me into journalism as my college major and most of my professional activity.

And, believe me, I have known some reporters — some were colleagues, some were competitors — who had really atrocious attitudes.

But I would hire any one of them over Shea Allen, the former reporter for WAAY–TV in Huntsville, Ala.

Allen is an admittedly cute young thing, and, apparently, she had a pretty good following in the Huntsville viewing area, too, but she became an ex–reporter after her "tell–all" blog was — shall we say? — exposed.

Aww, that's way too easy.

It's dishonest, too, because Allen teased her readers with a confession about going bra–less during a broadcast, but the only thing she exposed was a misunderstanding of the First Amendment. When I was in college, my journalism professors always reminded me that there were limits to free speech. It is important to act responsibly. "You can't stand up in a crowded theater and yell, 'Fire!' " they would say.

And, in a figurative sort of way, that's what Allen has been doing.

And I think she is guilty of bad judgment — spectacularly bad judgment. As a journalist, I'm willing to accept a certain amount of bad judgment as being inevitable. But this goes beyond inevitability.

(Her undergarment revelation reminded me of an on–campus incident when I was teaching journalism at the University of Oklahoma. The student newspaper staff, for whom I served as the unofficial adviser, was notified that an unidentified coed had been seen sitting on the steps of a building. She had been wearing a short dress and, apparently, nothing underneath.

(The newspaper, which published daily, ran a story about it, and the next day, traffic was nonstop for hours around the building, which normally sat on one of the quieter streets in town. I never heard if that coed returned to that building, but, apparently, quite a few of the young men on campus not only hoped she would but also hoped they would catch a glimpse of her — in the flesh, you might say.)

"I've vowed to always fight for the right of free expression," Allen wrote. "It's allowed, no matter what the profession."

Yes, Americans are entitled to freedom of speech, and I encourage that. There are many things that I want to write about, and I like the flexibility that the digital world gives me. I write more than one blog because there are so many things of interest to me, but Allen's blogging isn't a commentary on the important issues of the day or an homage to something she enjoys or someone she admires. It is high–tech exhibitionism.

And, while her brand of exhibitionism isn't against the law, it generally isn't acceptable behavior, either, especially when one shares one's heretofore secret tricks of the trade.

Actually, it isn't even exhibitionism. It's more like digital teasing. Using a blog to appeal to people's baser instincts rather than educate or enlighten strikes me as being no more of a contribution to the greater good than the text messages Anthony Weiner keeps sending.

And I find that especially egregious when the blogger is in the public eye — such as someone who is on the news every night.

After reading Allen's post, one realizes that, deep down, she's shallow. I mean, come on, this is a fight for "the right of free expression?"

She revealed, for example, that she is best at her job when she has no script to read "and no idea what I'm talking about."

I don't know. Maybe she was trying to be funny. Or maybe she likes that crawling–along–the–edge–of–a–knife feeling she gets from winging it and thinks she excels under those conditions. Personally, I preferred being better prepared when I went out on an assignment as a reporter.

It probably wasn't a reassuring feeling for her employers when they read that, though — nor, I'm sure, was it reassuring for them to read that Allen's best story ideas came from people "who secretly have a crush on me." (Can you say "stalker?")

Or that she "hate[s] the right side of my face." OK, most of the people I have known have had some kind of self–image issues, but few have felt the need to announce them to the world. Unless they wanted to encourage a cameraman to shoot their good side.

(Speaking of which, she also wrote that she had "mastered the ability to contort my body into a position that makes me appear much skinner (sic) in front of the camera than I actually am." I can't say that her weight appears to be a problem — but if you're a self–absorbed narcissist, I suppose it could be.)

---

---

If I had been in the position to decide whether she would remain at WAAY, I guess I could live with most of the things she wrote in her blog, even the confessions about doing a broadcast without a bra (borderline sleazy but mostly harmless) or winging it in some of her reports. I could probably even live with the knowledge that she has "taken naps in the news car."

Or that "[h]appy, fluffy, rainbow stories about good things make me depressed." I've never worked in broadcasting, but I assume the general rule there is about the same as it always was in newspaper newsrooms. Reporters write about what they're told to write about, and the boss doesn't particularly give a damn whether they like their assignments or not.

But there are a couple of items on her list that I just can't get around.

Professionally, it bothers me when she writes, "If you ramble and I deem you unnecessary for my story, I'll stop recording but let you think otherwise."

I believe that a reporter is entitled to have his/her own opinion, but most judgments are better left to the reader/viewer to make. A reporter should be neutral, a fly on the wall. I can understand if Allen has felt, on occasion, as if a source was wasting her time, but arbitrarily cutting off the recording is too judgmental for my taste — even if the source is unaware. A reporter is the eyes and ears of the community. That community is not served when the reporter chooses to be deaf and blind.

I understand about reaching conclusions on a source before the interview is done, but even if the source is rambling, he/she might still say something that is worthy of inclusion. (Perhaps that should be "especially if the source is rambling ...")

But the revelation about Allen that I find most troubling is this: "I'm frightened of old people and I refuse to do stories involving them or the places they reside."

OK, I get that our culture is obsessed with young people, and older people are looked upon as disposable. You can see it everywhere you look, and it's been that way as long as I can remember — the young are the face of everything.

But when I was growing up, there was still a healthy respect for older people, their lifetimes of experience, their accumulated wisdom. That seems to have disappeared at some point; now, older Americans are largely regarded as a nuisance. Why? I don't know, but I see it as a waste of a valuable resource.

Our politically correct (not to mention charged) culture is quick to pass judgment on racial comments that were made decades ago without bothering to find out the context in which they were made, but little is said about discrimination against older Americans, whether it is in the workplace or anywhere else.

I would consider it refreshing if Allen lost her job not because her breasts were roaming freely inside her blouse one day but because she so blithely dismissed one of the largest and most dependable segments of her station's audience.

Other than the increasing likelihood of dying soon, older people are reliable in just about every good way imaginable — including loyalty to local news shows. They vote, and they buy things.

Young people are more fickle, and that is definitely an age–related trait. Shea Allen and the rest of her generation don't realize it yet, but one day (much sooner, in fact, than they suspect) they will be part of that older dmographic, and they will want to be appreciated for what they have learned in their lives.

Right now, I'm inclined to think Shea Allen hasn't learned a lot.

I've heard some people spinning stories that Allen was fired because she is a woman. I'm not saying there wasn't an element of that involved. Perhaps there was. I have no knowledge either way.

But I do know she was a popular on–air personality, and broadcasters simply don't terminate popular on–air personalities without legitimate cause. I have to wonder if WAAY was concerned about losing older viewers. Maybe there were complaints. More than one–third of Huntsville's population is 45 or older (nearly 30% are between 25 and 44), and TV reporters — being as visible as they are — are representatives of their employers.

If Allen doesn't appreciate her older viewers, she can't be an effective representative. Hopefully, WAAY will replace her with someone who can appreciate older viewers — and won't be afraid of them.

And if Allen does get another broadcasting job, I hope she will enter it having learned something from this experience.

While social media is a great tool for writers, you really need to be careful about posting too much personal information — or too many incendiary opinions.

That's an important lesson for anyone who dabbles in the digital world to learn — but it is particularly important for young writers whose antennae aren't quite as sharp as older folks whose professional lives predate the dawn of the internet.

Maybe THAT Is Where It Began

I guess it has been obvious in the things I have written this year that I get frustrated with Democrats who point the finger at George W. Bush when I ask them what is being done about job creation.

Now, I know only too well that some people exist in a world — nay, a universe — all their own, and they might not have realized that America and the world endured a horrifying economic collapse in the fall of 2008.

But, in my experience, most voters are more engaged than that so I have believed that, acting as individuals, the voters made a group decision to give Democrats both the White House and greater advantages in both houses of Congress. They were saying that the majority trusted the Democrats more than the Republicans to repair the economy.

Consequently, I have been frustrated when Democrats have seemed to feel compelled to remind us of one of the primary reasons many of them now hold the offices they sought last year.

But now I have to wonder: Is it possible that it isn't their fault that their initial response always seems to be about who is to blame for the economic meltdown?

I'm not indulging in denial here. And I'm not letting the Democrats off the hook, either. I do not believe the Democrats have done nearly enough to encourage job creation.

And a big part of the reason for that is, as I say, every time I have asked what is being done about job creation, I get the same response — about how the bad economy is Bush's fault.

I have tended to brush that off as not answering the question. I guess I still do.

But today I saw an interesting item in the Los Angeles Times' "Top of the Ticket" blog. The Times' bloggers, Andrew Malcolm and Johanna Neuman, inform readers that they are re–publishing their favorite and/or most popular items from 2009 as they wind down the year. And today's item, apparently from mid–March, is about former Vice President Dick Cheney's insistence that Bush was not to blame, that it was "a global financial problem."

Now, perhaps I wasn't paying attention as closely as I should have, but, when Cheney made those remarks (more than a month after the passage of the stimulus package, by the way — which was touted by Democrats as being not the pork–laden package it is but a panacea for joblessness), was that the first time a Republican felt obliged to protest that Bush was blameless?

If it was, that seems to render the Democrats' constant assertion little more than self–serving grumbling — a smokescreen intended to divert attention from their failure to adequately address the most critical issue on their agenda.

But if it wasn't the first time — if the Republicans have been muttering that the economy wasn't Bush's fault ever since John McCain's concession speech — then perhaps the Democrats have been justified in reminding us why they are where they are.

But only as a prelude to answering the real question — and, in case they need to be reminded, that question is "What is being done to encourage job creation?"

Perhaps the subject of responsibility is one of those what–came–first–the–chicken–or–the–egg kind of questions.

Yes, the Republicans controlled Congress from 1995-2007, but even their greatest majorities paled in comparison to the ones the Democrats have enjoyed in both the House and Senate this year.

And that 60–seat filibuster–proof majority the Democrats coveted last year — and finally pieced together — is something Republicans never came close to achieving. You have to go back a century, to the days of Teddy Roosevelt, to find the last time the GOP held that many Senate seats.

So, if we're going to talk about blame, it seems to me the Democrats should be required to answer why they abdicated their responsibility when they were in the minority. Why did they permit costly measures to be voted on instead of filibustering them? Why did they allow an ill–conceived war plan to get the green light instead of filibustering it? They could have slammed the door on legislative debate on anything whenever they wanted. Why didn't they?

At the height of the Republicans' power right after Bush was re–elected, the GOP held only 55 seats in the Senate. Most of the time during the Bush years, the GOP held about half of the Senate seats. What prevented the Democrats from blocking anything that worried them when it reached the Senate floor?

It's too easy, too convenient to blame someone else for your own shortcomings.

And, as much as I loathe Cheney, I have to give him credit for hitting the nail on the head with an answer he gave CNN in the interview that was cited by the Times blog last March:

"So I think the notion that you can just sort of throw it off on the prior administration, that's interesting rhetoric but I don't think anybody really cares a lot about that. What they care about is what is going to work and how we are going to get out of these difficulties."

Boycott

I had hoped that it wouldn't come to this, but it has.

Regular readers of my blog may recall that about five weeks ago, I reported that I had been blocked from a blog. I inquired about the reason for this and was never given an answer, but the author of the blog relented a few hours later and informed me that the block had been lifted. I could only assume that I was the victim of mistaken identity. I figured it was the kind of thing that could happen to anyone and I gave it no more thought.

Until Friday.

On Friday, I left a comment on one of the items on the blog. I came back to the blog about an hour later and attempted to leave another comment, but a message popped up informing me that I was blocked.

Once again, I have no idea why I am being blocked. I sent an e–mail to the author asking for clarification, but I received no reply. That is twice now that I have been blocked from commenting and have not been granted the courtesy of an explanation either time.

Did I say something offensive? I didn't think so. If I did, I would like to be able to apologize for it and, perhaps, explain things better than I may have originally. I know that, when I was young, I had a tendency to shoot from the hip, as many people do. I like to think I have matured some since those days, but if I lapsed in my comments on that blog, I'd like to think it could be one of those "teachable moments" of which the president speaks. Guess not.

The topic of the blog item was a murder–suicide. I won't go into detail about what was written in the original blog post, but I commented that it was premature to speculate about an investigation that is still ongoing.

I also made a comment about something the blog author said in a reply to a reader's comment — there had already been about four dozen comments made on that article, many of which challenged what the author had written. The author basically said that freedom of speech gave her the right to say anything she wants.

I observed that freedom of speech does have limits.

And I think it is worthwhile to remind my readers of those limits. We do enjoy considerable freedom of speech in this country, but it is not absolute. It is usually the context that decides whether it should be restricted.

For example, restricting freedom of speech is not a good thing if one is being censored.

But it is a good thing if it prevents someone from standing up in a crowded theater and yelling "Fire!" just to see all the chaos and commotion that ensues.

And it's a good thing if it prevents people from making unsubstantiated accusations. I know there are people who don't like what they read in my blog, and they are entitled to that. And they are entitled to express their disagreement. But they are not entitled to call me a murderer or a thief or a child molester unless they have evidence supporting those charges.

When I received no reply to Friday's inquiry about the reason why I was being blocked, I sent a second e–mail to the author of the blog advising her that she has lost a reader. Even if she e–mails me at some time in the future telling me that the block has been lifted, I have no intention of reading anything on her blog again. I will forgive, as I was taught to do when I was growing up, but I will not forget.

Yesterday, I was reminded of my earlier experience and the fact that I wrote that I would encourage my readers to boycott the blog if it physically blocked me from looking at its content. Well, as far as I know, it has not done that, but I feel I have been insulted. In the past, I have seen others who made comments that, rightly or wrongly, were regarded as objectionable. They were given warnings. I have not been granted that courtesy.

So I am going to ask my readers to boycott the blog. If you prefer to send an e–mail, here is the link: E–mail.

Here is the link to the site.

If you wish to do neither, that's OK. It helps a little just to let off some steam.

(By the way, if you decide to send an e–mail, you might mention to the author that she is still one of the followers of my blog. Since she is blocking me from commenting on her blog, she might want to remove herself as a follower of mine.)

Thanks for your support.

Freedom of Speech

I believe in freedom of speech, the free exchange of ideas, the right to question what someone else has said or written. I do not block anyone from my blog. If someone wants to make a comment on anything I have written, that is fine.

I do not believe in freedom of abusive speech, of hateful speech, of speech that is intended to encourage violence.

When I say I believe in freedom of speech, that does not include the person or persons who recently set up a poll on Facebook asking whether the president should be killed. My guess is that he, she or they can expect a visit from the Secret Service at any time. Deservedly so.

And I agree with what Thomas Friedman writes in the New York Times. Yes, politics is a "tough business," as Friedman writes. It always has been. But, what Friedman calls a "cocktail of political and technological trends" has created a witches' brew that has spawned "a different kind of American political scene."

I have been thinking about freedom of speech today because I have been blocked from a website merely for asking a question.

In the interest of full disclosure, I will identify the site here. It is The Hinterland Gazette, formerly known as Black Political Thought. I referred to it on this blog yesterday. The item I questioned is referred to in my post.

I have been visiting the site off and on for quite awhile now — long enough to have an idea of how things are done there. And the treatment I have been given smacks of a double standard.

In the past, I have seen some really outrageous comments posted there by visitors. And I have seen the primary author of the site respond with a warning that the visitor(s) would be blocked in the future if similar comments were posted.

I have left comments on the site in the past. The author never took exception to any comments I left before.

Was yesterday's comment outrageous? I didn't think so. The post on the site suggested that the daughters of the Spanish prime minister were "secret Goths" because of the clothes they were wearing in a photograph of them with their parents and the Obamas. I left a comment and checked back later to see if there was any response. There wasn't one before I went to bed last night.

When I checked this morning, my comment had been deleted so I cannot quote it for you verbatim. But it was something like this: "Is this a fashion critique site? If it is not, why is this story important?"

I was never told that this was considered objectionable by the author or anyone affiliated with the site. I was never warned that I might be blocked from the site in the future. It was done arbitrarily. And now, whenever I try to write a comment, I get a message saying I am blocked from making comments.

Oddly enough, as of this morning, the site still includes my Freedom Writing blog on its favorite blogs list. I don't recall when this blog was added to that list, but it seems to me it has been on that list for close to a year.

So, apparently, the site encourages its readers to visit my blog. But it doesn't want me to comment on its posts.

Well, until such time as the site actually makes it impossible for me to look at its content, I will continue to do so. If I see something to which I take exception, I will say so here.

If those who run the site decide to physically block me from looking at its content, I will encourage my readers to boycott the site.

I'm being up front about my intentions here. No surprises. That is a courtesy that was never extended to me.

And I believe courtesy should go hand in hand with freedom of speech.

Wanted: Some Constructive Advice

Normally, I like to use this blog to write about current events or anniversaries of historic events.

I love history. I've loved history since I was a child. Maybe that's because history is really a bunch of stories about people and places. I guess that, more than anything, is why I studied journalism in college and pursued it as a career through most of my adult life. I like to tell stories.

And I like words better than numbers. I never was very good at math. If you looked at my checkbook, you could probably pick up on that right away.

It reminds me of something that one of my journalism teachers said in class once. She said that, if people who can't read are illiterate, then people who have trouble with numbers should be called "innumerate." I can't argue with her logic.

History isn't always clear when it's happening. Journalists are witnesses to history, but they seldom have the luxury of having all the facts. The other day, I wrote about the impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon, and I remember how uncertain things seemed at the time. Woodward and Bernstein broke the story for the Washington Post, but everyone had to go through a drawn out — and often painful — process before it reached its resolution. No one really knew how it would play out.

In hindsight, it may seem that resignation was inevitable, but there were genuine concerns about other options right up until word leaked out, in August 1974, that Nixon had decided to resign. The general public was under the impression that Nixon was going to dig in his heels and fight the charges in a Senate trial, hamstringing the Congress for months. And, in the years that have passed, I have learned that there were those in the administration who were afraid that Nixon might do himself harm.

In the end, though, Nixon peacefully gave up the presidency and returned to California, expecting to have to defend himself in court. But that wasn't how it played out. His successor, Gerald Ford, pardoned him a month later — and probably doomed his own election prospects for 1976 in the process.

Today, I find myself facing a situation that millions of others are facing — and my guess is that few of us know how it will play out. I certainly don't. I'm talking about the unemployment situation. I've been out of work for more than 11 months now. My unemployment benefits have been extended a couple of times and now they will run out soon. I am frustrated. My self–esteem has never been lower. And I need some advice that will improve my odds of simply getting an interview.

But I have learned, in nearly two years of blog writing, that my colleagues in the blogging community often have some constructive suggestions to offer, whatever the situation. So I am appealing to you for your help, your insights, your advice.

I don't have any figures to back this up, but my guess is that most of today's job seekers are like me. They read articles about job seeking, trying to find tips that will help them write a more effective cover letter or a more effective résumé. But the more of these articles that I read, the more confused I become. I'll read an article in which the author suggests that a job seeker do something and it sounds logical to me. But then, in practically the next article I read, the author recommends doing something that is entirely opposite of what the first author suggested.

There's a lot of conflicting advice out there.

• Cover letters: I know cover letters are important. What I don't know is how long they should be. What is your opinion?
  
  I've read some articles in which the authors say to keep them short, maybe a few paragraphs that speak about your accomplishments or the responsibilities you have had on the job, then provide a lot of information in the résumé. Other authors have said that job seekers should really make their case in the cover letter, go into detail and let a short résumé fill in the details.


• Résumés: For that matter, how long should the résumé be? And how should it be structured? I've read some articles that say you should put your skills at the top of the résumé. Others suggest putting them at the bottom. How much of your work history should you include? How should you account for gaps in your work history?
  
  Also, for the benefit of older workers, should you include the date(s) that you graduated from college and graduate school? Are you"dating" yourself when you do that? In other words, does that invite age discrimination?


• References: How many references are best? Should you include references that are primarily personal, not professional? How about teachers you have had? I have one person on my references who was my favorite professor in college. He taught reporting and he gave me an A. I was quite proud of it — still am, for that matter, because this professor only gave you an A if you earned it. He is retired now, but he is still pretty well respected. I'm glad to have him as one of my references. But I'm not sure what an employer's reaction is to former teachers on a reference list.

So, does anyone have any constructive advice for me?

May I Suggest ... ?

I've been writing all my life.

When I say that, I'm not joking. I started learning the written alphabet and writing, under my mother's supervision, before I entered kindergarten. No one appreciates a well–turned phrase more than I do, and it's always pleasing when it appears in something I have written.

In fact, there are many satisfying aspects about writing. But there's one really big drawback. For me, anyway.

And that is when I see something that someone else has written and I find myself thinking — if not actually saying — "I wish I had written that!"

I had such a moment this evening.

Readers of this blog should be familiar with the name of John McIntyre. He is a former editor for the Baltimore Sun, and he writes a wonderful blog about language called "You Don't Say."

I thoroughly enjoyed reading his latest post, "How could this have happened?" and I commend it to you, hoping you will read it.

Gotta say I agree with him on just about every point, especially his observation that "Mistakes were made."

Damn! Wish I had written that!

Comic Relief

I don't know who came up with this. I just happened to stumble onto it tonight.

But someone has started a blog called Barack Obama's Teleprompter's Blog, and it is being presented as if the teleprompter were writing it. It's being billed as "Reflections From the Hard Drive of the Machine that Enables the Voice of the Leader of the Free World."

It appears to have been started yesterday, and it seems rather clever. Read it for yourself and see what you think.

I'll put a link to it on the right-hand section of my blog. That will make it easier for you to access it.

Speaking of humor, CNN's Anderson Cooper makes an interesting observation in his blog in reference to Obama's scheduled appearance on the Tonight Show tonight.

Cooper asked if the president will be funny. A White House official's reply was, "As funny as the times allow."

Cooper wondered how funny the times allow, then observed, "You can't get funnier, given the times, than New York Congressman Gary Ackerman. Read what he said yesterday at the congressional hearings on the insurance giant AIG."

Cooper then provided Ackerman's comments. I'll let them speak for themselves:

Congressman Ackerman:

"There's a great company called I Can't Believe It's Not Butter. At least they have the decency to tell you it's not butter."

Ackerman continues: "I mean, this is insurance without being insurance, because if they called it insurance, they'd have to have money to pay you off. But they don't have the money to pay you off. And they're calling it credit default swaps, because if they called it I Can't Believe It's Not Insurance … maybe nobody would buy it."

I have to admit, I look forward to the day when the times will allow all of us to laugh again.

How long will that be?

The Toll of Joblessness

The latest unemployment news was released today. As usual, the news wasn't good. The economy lost more than half a million jobs last month, bringing the total for the year to 2.6 million (most of which disappeared in the last four months) and raising the unemployment rate to 7.2%.

"More than 11 million Americans are now unemployed," reports Louis Uchitelle of the New York Times.

Barack Obama, in discussing the situation today, observed that there are "real lives, real suffering, real fears" behind the report.

This unrelenting bad news takes its toll on people. It robs them of their dignity, their self-sufficiency and their self-worth. Even those who have been educated, who earned college degrees and who had every reason to expect that their lives would be better than their parents', find themselves without jobs, without incomes, without lives.

Without hope.

Admittedly, some people lose their jobs because of something they did wrong. Maybe they were using the company's computer to visit adult-oriented websites or maybe they missed work too much.

But most of the people who have lost their jobs in the current recession are hard-working people who tried every day to do the jobs that were expected of them, yet, through no fault of their own, lost their jobs. And, in an attempt to understand what has happened, many of those people are blaming the Bush administration and the Republicans who controlled Congress through the last half of the 1990s and the first half of this decade for, in their eyes, creating a situation that leaves ordinary people feeling powerless.

Anxiety isn't confined to those who are unemployed. At a new blog at the New York Times, "Room for Debate," the editors (who encourage readers to contribute) observe, "Many more millions of Americans worry about their own job security. These anxieties are transforming the workplace. Employees may be working harder, experts say, but they may also be less productive."

One bitter reader had this to say: "This is a Capitalist society and here is the only rule. You work your butt off for whatever the company feels like giving you, you don't ask questions, and the big boss makes the real money."

Another reader wrote, "Work is a euphemism for modern day wage slavery. You are forced to give up big chunks of your life and happiness to make a fragile living. The result is universal misery for those who value human values and progressiveness."

When I was growing up, my parents impressed on me the importance of treating people fairly. Is it fair to blame Bush and his fellow Republicans? Well, I would say the answer to that is both "yes" and "no."

I took economics in college. And, while I'll readily admit that I'm no expert on economics, I know enough to know that it is a complicated matter, too complex to blame any one person or any one policy — or even the leaders of any particular political party.

A president can only make general recommendations. The Congress can pass laws and allocate funds for various industries, even give instructions on how such funds are to be used.

But without regulation, industries are not compelled to act responsibly. Irresponsible decisions have led to this catastrophe, whether they were made at the corporate or government level. Believe me, there is plenty of blame to go around.

Recovery efforts are good, but intentions alone won't be enough. The efforts to reverse this cruel recession must be accompanied by regulations that are not intended to restrict the spirit of entrepreneurial independence but to protect the most vulnerable members of the workforce.

Make no mistake about it. Everyone has a stake in this, even those who are still employed and feel (somewhat) insulated from the recession. Consumers drive this economy, and, until the millions who are unemployed get regular incomes again, retailers will continue to struggle and the stock market will continue to plunge.

We're all in this together.