I'm getting most of my news from the Internet these days. Another year of the Journal turned into "I'm not paying for that paper anymore." Again. And this year, I feel much better about it.

It's not that you can get great local news over the Internet (the Journal makes you pay to read most content online...for more than a copy of the paper version), but then again most of the local news is negative. Kinda like the TV news shows. If you watch TV news, in most big cities, you'll see the same thing: we are overridden with drunks driving madly through the streets, criminals holding neighborhoods hostage and police reaching for guns instead of non-lethal techniques. In other words, we see our city painted like it's Detroit in Robocop. And we all know that's not true.

So maybe I'm not missing much. That's what I've kinda decided.

But getting good news and good stories on the web is tough sometimes. At least half the time, you'll click on a headline to find that the story is a two sentence expansion of the headline. In other words, there is no story. Just a headline. And sometimes the story is the exact opposite of what the headline seems to say (I'm not sure why or how this happens, especially with such short stories, but it happens a lot).

So to say that we're somewhat misinformed is probably an understatement.

But you can find good stories and commentaries if you try. And sometimes I have way too much time to do so.

Yesterday, however, I didn't go on the Internet all day. Not till just a few minutes ago, which means over 40 hours without the constantly present Interweb.

So I just found out that Amy Winehouse died at age 27. They aren't quite sure why yet (autopsy tomorrow), but the suspicion is drugs and/or alcohol. I'd go with that theory, too.

I also found out the bombs in Norway have killed at least 93 people...not the two initially reported on Friday.

But the problem with the Internet is also the reason it's (kinda) like a revolution: everyone gets their say.

Read any article, and you'll see at the bottom a comments section.

Something about a movie? The comment most likely in the top three will go something like this: I hate this movie! I can't believe anyone would say anything good about this movie! You all suck! This is why this country is going to hell! And that actress is a hag!

I'm actually censoring with this characterization. And my first thought is always this: why would someone who has no interest in reading about this movie or anyone in it take the time to comment at all?

But that's a stupid question, isn't it?

We all get our say if we want it. And if we feel our greatest contribution to the world is to let everyone know all the things we hate about it, then I guess...I don't know, I really hate that shit.

So this is the new way, right? Any better than the old way? I don't know. We've had fifteen years to try and get this interconnectedness stuff right, and I'm not sure if we're any better off.

Everything digital seems overpriced (Why, for example, do digital versions of books cost the same as paper versions...and you have to buy the reader separately? The paper version comes with its own built in "reader" y'know.) because you can't really touch it, and you could accidentally erase it rather easily. Or your hard drive could fail, making it impossible to access all the content you spent years spilling onto your computer. Or your iPod could be incompatible with your operating system. What happens when we get old, and we aren't compatible with our operating systems?

Do you really want to know what I think about this?

Matt Worley has thought about commenting on occasion, but after reading a comment or two he comes to the conclusion that the people commenting are complete idiots. Or robots.