It’s a known fact that as you get older, time moves more rapidly. Ask any one who’s getting older, they’ll tell you.

For example, it’s already almost August. The summer is half over. Really? Doesn’t seem possible. More telling, I have a daughter who will be 40 (don’t tell her I wrote that) in a few days. Really? I’m not even 40, and she is? Not possible.

All that is a function of the clock, I'm sure, moving faster than it used to.

How many times have you heard, or said, “How did THAT happen?” referring to time gone by? How many times have you heard or said, “You’re getting married? Why, I remember when you were learning how to walk?” Or, “you’re going to be a parent?”

Maybe that’s the one I’m a little stuck on these days. Not only is the summer nearly over (notice how it already has moved from, at the beginning of this post, being “half over” and already it is “nearly over?” That’s how fast time is moving, my friends!). Bbut my daughter turning 40 is getting more real by the day. Hey, don’t get me wrong. She is young, vibrant and, if I do say so myself (but others say it too), she is beautiful. But 40?? Not that that is old, mind you. Because, after all, if 40 is old, what the hell am I??

So, the last few minutes moved so quickly that this post is about over. And so is summer.

Ruth Marcus, a Washington Post columnist who I respect greatly, has a column today (http://wapo.st/1rzw79v) on anonymous news sources and a kerfuffle started by the new White House press secretary, Josh Earnest.

Anonymous sourcing for news stories has been a controversial issue in the journalism industry for years, and a contentious subject in any White House which doesn’t like dealing with stories based on anonymous sources because, a, the stories tend to be true and it’s an easy answer (“we don’t comment on anonymous sources”) and, b, every White House does “background” briefing where officials talk but the ground rule is you can’t use their names.

I’ve been on both sides – as a reporter and a spokesman. A good journalist’s goal is to get all information on the record with a named source. It’s more accurate that way. Sometimes though the only way to get information is to get it “on background” so you can use the info, but not name the source. On the other side, White Houses often put administration spokesmen out there “on background” because the official can be more candid but if he/she screws up, there’s no name attached. Sometimes they do it to send up a trial balloon. Or the official is briefing the media on an announcement the President made and don’t want other names in the story. Sometimes it isn’t a sanctioned background briefing but an individual with an ax to grind or who disagrees with a policy or is just trying to curry favor with the media. And there are other reasons.

A few years ago, major newspapers said that they wouldn't just cite an "anonymous source" but identify the person's role as best they can without giving away who it is. This has devolved into attributions such as, "according to a source who didn't want to be named because he didn't want to be seen criticizing" the president, his boss, or whoever.

It is a debate without an answer because, as has become an accepted saying lately, “it is what it is” and it always shall be thus.

So, the reality is, the best way to get information to the public for a reporter is sometimes to use unnamed sources. Period. The best way for a White House to get information out is to put an unnamed official out there. Period.

For Mr. Earnest to hide behind the “I won’t comment on an anonymous sources comments,” at the same time HIS office is sending an email to reporters notifying them of a sanctioned briefing by a source who cannot be named may be the height of hypocrisy and chutzpah. And, as Ruth Marcus points out, the story in question actually had some very credible sources “on the record.”

Mr. Earnest will need to start living up to his name.

The latest craze from the crazies, in and out of Congress (yes, I mean you, Sarah Palin), is to impeach the president. Really? We have strife around the world, immigration issues, an economy limping to recovery , jobs still needed and we’re playing the impeach the president game?  Just before the mid-term elections, of course.

I am not a huge supporter these days of President Obama, but impeachment?? What exactly is he doing to justify that? Taking action into his own hands because he isn’t getting what he wants from the Congress? Is that an impeachable offense? To my non-legal mind, I don’t think so. But I can see the suit that Speaker Boehner is talking about to challenge whether the President has the authority to do what he’s doing, like shooting pool and having a beer in Denver (cheap shot, but it was sarcasm. Personally, I have no problem with a president taking a break).

On the other hand, when Obama says he did not visit the border because he isn’t interested in a photo op, that's a tad disingenuous.  Do I think he needed to visit the border to do his job? No, no more than I thought W needed to land in New Orleans to view the hurricane damage. Such visits can be more disruptive than helpful – for a photo op. And, really, is it a picture that proves a president’s concern or involvement or is it action?

Then again, Mr. President, isn't that what your schedule is about every other day?? Photo ops? Isn't that why you had your picture taken in Denver with the real people in a bar and not the fat cats at a fund-raiser? It made for a nice photo op, didn't it?