Access to Information
Last night, while I was sitting at this very desk in the midst of reading a book about the failings of the press, I was approached by one of our regular indigent patrons with a request pertaining directly to the other regular indigent patron. Seemingly, this request was rather benign in nature, but, in retrospect, seemed to be rather self-serving in nature and without regard to the requester's own similar behavior. Regardless, being the "gatekeeper" of knowledge here at the library requires a certain persona that's open to various forms of communication and, albeit, a certain patience with clipped, partial phrases and interrupted thoughts. So, I listened with the patience of a saint to this vagabond much in the same manner in which I would listen to any other patron with the necessary means to conform one's self to the most agreed upon aspects of civil and educated society. As the conversation progressed, however, I became aware of the fact that it was with this conversation that I was being poked and prodded conversationally in an effort to glean information regarding the daily occurrences of this very building. This, no doubt, was in an effort to procure more useful information pertaining to the shortcomings of this institution that this particular patron feels it necessary to remedy at all costs even if the costs include his ultimate exile from these premises. What I saw was important. What I told him would only add fuel to the fire, so I approached cautiously.
To expound a little about this patron, he's a man who, to all observers is homeless in every sense of the word. His unkempt style, which could be attributed to eccentricity if not for the utter lack of hygienic care and stylistic wherewithal is a dead giveaway to the fact that this man is not in possession of many things valuable, especially a home. Due to his continuous years of frequenting this establishment, he's become somewhat of a fixture here, an unsightly, unkempt fixture but a fixture nonetheless. Day in and day out this man comes here to work diligently on some form of legalesque project. He gathers textbooks around "his" computer, something we'll return to momentarily, and works for hours on end compiling information for some sort of clandestine, heavily shrouded project that reminds one of the secrecy regarding such groups as the Freemasons or the projects at Area 51. In this regard, he is "working" with legal materials and doing legal research, which is a requirement for accessing and using the computers here in this library. However, over the months and, I'm assuming years, this man along with his comrade have been in direct violation of the rules. It should be noted that this other vagrant does nothing regarding legal research. His time is spent, hours upon end, surfing the internet, looking at websites, and sprawling his enormous girth across two workstations. The only reason that this individual comes to this library is due to the fact that no other library on campus allows users to access the internet without a user name and password, which neither of these two individuals possess due to the fact that neither one of them are associated with the university in any sense of the word. Also, over at the Carnegie, they've instituted a time limit on the computers, a good idea to say the least, and this has been deemed as a hellish violation of the rights of individuals by both men. So it goes, day in and day out, these two derelicts engage in a test of wills, it seems, to establish who can stay on the computers the longest. The winner, inevitably, is always the mainstay, who has asserted on numerous occasions that he "contributes" to the library. One can almost hear the pleas of a victimless crime, a hypocritical victim no less, claiming that his rights should be upheld at the expense of the other.
This brings us back to the conversation last night. It started out innocently, one of the many inane requests by this man to intervene in some form or another with regards to minor violations. This spiraled into what one can only construed as an effort to mine information for the purposes of bringing some form of legal action against either this library, the university, or both in an effort to redress some heinous actions that have been witnessed by this patron over the years. The word "evil" was used repeatedly to describe some of the employees across the board. After this revelation, what occurred can only be described as a debate. I was debating a homeless man on the issues regarding access to this library with the direct reference regarding this man and his counterpart, who plugged away oblivious to the world around him. In all this, one point emerged, and that being the effort it would take to educate this other patron in order to convince him to actually utilize the resources available here for legal purposes, which would lead to, in this man's words, "landmark" decisions. This, obviously, is an arguable point. Other points that are raised, though, are the issues of freedom of access to information and the nature of the profession. Is intervention an actual requirement or even a necessity with regards to a specialized library? Access is one issue easily solved. You're either allowed in here, or you aren't. It's as simple as that. Arguably, one can point out this is, by law, a depository that is, again by law, open to the public. What isn't arguable is how one should have to adhere to the rules and regulations once one enters the confines of this establishment.
Addressing the second issue of intervention, I, personally, didn't enter this profession to become a counselor, someone who addresses the problems and issues of patrons who, regardless of background and status, aren't in possession of their faculties. This may sound heartless and coming from someone without compassion, but there's a line that needs to be drawn with regards to the types of activities and services one can expect from institutions. In this case, I don't think there's any argument regarding what's right and what's wrong. However, I do think that issues that are in direct violation of the codes of conduct for this library in particular and the university in general should be addressed, as long as they aren't the conspiratorial nonsense of a derelict. I don't think that this man realizes that bringing any sort of action against this place would, in effect, be biting the hand that feeds him. Also, when one is continuously involved in researching against the grievous offenses perpetrated by the very institution one frequents and that has extended beyond a reasonable amount of courtesy towards, that these types of "landmark" cases being referred to that could be brought about by the other patron would most likely fall under the category of fruitless and wasteful. People have rights, even the homeless to some extent, but this seems like an effort to redress wrongs that only occur within the confines of a delusional mind.
My Own Personal 6 a.m. A vast wasteland where word bombs explode with ferocity and provoke rage, sadness, and glee.
Saturday, March 27, 2004
Thursday, March 25, 2004
Unbearable
Just as an addendum to my previous post, I feel that it's necessary to rail a little more on my current frustrations with writers and their products. Over the weekend I finished a book entitled Goat by Brad Land. The content of the memoir itself was pretty interesting, if not a totally self reassuring assessment of fraternity life and the degrading nature of hazing. However, my problem with the book was the style. The writing itself moved the plot along at a furious clip, but that was probably due to the fact that it consisted of nothing but sentence fragments, partial quotes, no quotation marks, and, what I can only describe as an utter lack of regard for the English language as a whole. In other words, it was a total affirmation to me that there's little or no regard for writing today.
What this type of writing leads me to believe is that it's now acceptable to write in a style befitting a journaled free-write, when it's much more suited for proper writing style. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the idea of journaling to get ideas for projects. In fact, when writing in this manner it's often encouraged to forget the grammar and punctuation and just focus on getting the ideas down on paper. This is all done under the assumption that the work will be all cleaned up when being presented formally. It's only natural to assume that this will be the case, right? What appears to be happening is that publishers aren't forcing their writers to clean up their work. Also, it appears that editors serve little or no purpose with regards to correcting these types of errors and stylistic nonsense. I understand and appreciate the flow of words on a page and how that style can contribute to the overall effect of the writing and content itself, but I fail to see how this writing should be encouraged.
What I find the most troubling is that this type of memoirish writing is similar in nature to the free-verse poetry that has flooded the market and coffeeshops in recent years. I'm reminded of the criticism that without any sort of understanding of the rules and constraints the writer has little or no business pursuing works that are without any sort of structure. In other words, prove that you can write in a style or within the boundaries of convention, and then you can pursue working without a net.
Just as an addendum to my previous post, I feel that it's necessary to rail a little more on my current frustrations with writers and their products. Over the weekend I finished a book entitled Goat by Brad Land. The content of the memoir itself was pretty interesting, if not a totally self reassuring assessment of fraternity life and the degrading nature of hazing. However, my problem with the book was the style. The writing itself moved the plot along at a furious clip, but that was probably due to the fact that it consisted of nothing but sentence fragments, partial quotes, no quotation marks, and, what I can only describe as an utter lack of regard for the English language as a whole. In other words, it was a total affirmation to me that there's little or no regard for writing today.
What this type of writing leads me to believe is that it's now acceptable to write in a style befitting a journaled free-write, when it's much more suited for proper writing style. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the idea of journaling to get ideas for projects. In fact, when writing in this manner it's often encouraged to forget the grammar and punctuation and just focus on getting the ideas down on paper. This is all done under the assumption that the work will be all cleaned up when being presented formally. It's only natural to assume that this will be the case, right? What appears to be happening is that publishers aren't forcing their writers to clean up their work. Also, it appears that editors serve little or no purpose with regards to correcting these types of errors and stylistic nonsense. I understand and appreciate the flow of words on a page and how that style can contribute to the overall effect of the writing and content itself, but I fail to see how this writing should be encouraged.
What I find the most troubling is that this type of memoirish writing is similar in nature to the free-verse poetry that has flooded the market and coffeeshops in recent years. I'm reminded of the criticism that without any sort of understanding of the rules and constraints the writer has little or no business pursuing works that are without any sort of structure. In other words, prove that you can write in a style or within the boundaries of convention, and then you can pursue working without a net.
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
Spelling Test
In what ultimately amounts to a resounding denunciation of any sort of skills that I may have acquired in all my years of schooling, I have to say that my English skills have failed me in a way that I hadn't thought possible. It all occurred during a testing session that was supposed to assess my skills in various areas, including spelling and proofreading, for a temp agency. Sentences would appear with a highlighted word that was either spelled incorrectly or correctly, and your task is to decide which. Hell, they even point the words out to you! That's half the battle right there, right? Wrong. Words I always misspell were kept popping up: guarantee, convenience, and who knows what else. Had I missed only one or two, I would most likely chock that up to nervousness or just utter lack of knowledge on how to spell the damn words. However, I had to have missed more than two, most likely no more than four. Not much you might say, but I'm supposed to have a degree in English.
Obviously, as any reader of this page knows, I've had difficulties with grammar before, as a somewhat helpful reader pointed out to me. I'm troubled by this, though. On top of everything else, it appears that I'll need to brush up on grammar and spelling. Not to fault my teachers in the past, but grammar and English were never my strong suits in school, and I believe they weren't because they were never taught to me. I hardly had any training in grammar that I can remember in all my years at school. I had spelling tests, but I don't remember any grammar being taught. No diagramming sentences. No learning the proper forms of punctuation. No clauses, phrases, conjunctions, etc. None of this, or at least so little that I have no recollection of ever having seen it prior to some of my later college courses. It's now when I look back at this noticeable lack of prior knowledge that I realize that my struggles with Spanish were only compounded by my inability to recognize parts of speech that are common in English.
I think it's because of this that I appreciate well written works moreso than anything else. I'm not using this as a sole justification of my hatred towards poorly written books, blogs, etc., but I can't help but feel that the amateurish nature of this type of writing is just making things worse instead of better when it comes to writing. Things don't have to be densely constructed diatribes, but I'll admit that those are the books I like the most. I do think that if we don't start demanding more of our writers then we're just allowing them to perpetuate this type of juvenile writing that appears in multiple formats and influences far too many people. I admit that it's going to be hard to do because it's become ingrained in our culture that misspellings and bad grammar are okay and acceptable on a daily basis. This is wrong no matter how you look at it. Maybe we should create a "Good Grammar Day" that celebrates the properly constructed sentence. If not, let's not allow writers who feel the need to write poorly get away with it. There's some art in writing in a way the is "beneath" the writer's ability to construct sentences, but I'm growing more and more frustrated with this notion, and I feel that it's something that should change, somehow some way.
In what ultimately amounts to a resounding denunciation of any sort of skills that I may have acquired in all my years of schooling, I have to say that my English skills have failed me in a way that I hadn't thought possible. It all occurred during a testing session that was supposed to assess my skills in various areas, including spelling and proofreading, for a temp agency. Sentences would appear with a highlighted word that was either spelled incorrectly or correctly, and your task is to decide which. Hell, they even point the words out to you! That's half the battle right there, right? Wrong. Words I always misspell were kept popping up: guarantee, convenience, and who knows what else. Had I missed only one or two, I would most likely chock that up to nervousness or just utter lack of knowledge on how to spell the damn words. However, I had to have missed more than two, most likely no more than four. Not much you might say, but I'm supposed to have a degree in English.
Obviously, as any reader of this page knows, I've had difficulties with grammar before, as a somewhat helpful reader pointed out to me. I'm troubled by this, though. On top of everything else, it appears that I'll need to brush up on grammar and spelling. Not to fault my teachers in the past, but grammar and English were never my strong suits in school, and I believe they weren't because they were never taught to me. I hardly had any training in grammar that I can remember in all my years at school. I had spelling tests, but I don't remember any grammar being taught. No diagramming sentences. No learning the proper forms of punctuation. No clauses, phrases, conjunctions, etc. None of this, or at least so little that I have no recollection of ever having seen it prior to some of my later college courses. It's now when I look back at this noticeable lack of prior knowledge that I realize that my struggles with Spanish were only compounded by my inability to recognize parts of speech that are common in English.
I think it's because of this that I appreciate well written works moreso than anything else. I'm not using this as a sole justification of my hatred towards poorly written books, blogs, etc., but I can't help but feel that the amateurish nature of this type of writing is just making things worse instead of better when it comes to writing. Things don't have to be densely constructed diatribes, but I'll admit that those are the books I like the most. I do think that if we don't start demanding more of our writers then we're just allowing them to perpetuate this type of juvenile writing that appears in multiple formats and influences far too many people. I admit that it's going to be hard to do because it's become ingrained in our culture that misspellings and bad grammar are okay and acceptable on a daily basis. This is wrong no matter how you look at it. Maybe we should create a "Good Grammar Day" that celebrates the properly constructed sentence. If not, let's not allow writers who feel the need to write poorly get away with it. There's some art in writing in a way the is "beneath" the writer's ability to construct sentences, but I'm growing more and more frustrated with this notion, and I feel that it's something that should change, somehow some way.
Saturday, March 20, 2004
The Fine Art of Subtlety
It appears as if in every occupation today workers expect to be tipped for their service. One can almost count on seeing a "tip jar" in nearly every establishment that deals with customer service, whether it be restaurants, bars, coffee shops, or what have you. As it stands now, there are fewer places without "tip jars" than there are that have them prominently displayed for your extra change or bills. Which leads me to these questions: Are there too many places that expect tips on a regular basis? What do you do when people make the fact that they think they deserve tips overt and in your face?
I became interested in this topic simply due to the fact that the servers in my favorite coffee shop are stopping just short of demanding a tip with each and every transaction. It's a rather obvious plea for money that extends beyond the decorated "tip jar" which has featured sayings that, in varying degrees, make it known that tips are appreciated and, more overtly, necessary for the survival of the worker, who is paid a miniscule pittance by the overbearing and exploitive owners. To me, it seems like a desperate scam which tries to exploit the feelings of guilt people might have for workers who are slaving away for little pay and no recognizable benefit. But it also easy to see how such feelings grow and are nurtured by constant reinforcement. Just sitting there you can observe, or hear in most cases, the continuous stream of customers throwing their change in the jar, or telling the server to "keep the change" or "that's for you." For the most part, the givers are the numerous "regulars" who frequent this place. These people have an already established relationship with the servers that, in some cases, extends beyond that of the casual acquaintance. This is not an acceptable rationale for this type of behavior, but it's how it breeds.
Regardless, it appears as if the lost art of being subtle and friendly in customer service has been replaced with blatant hostility that tries, mightily, to create an equation that requires good tipping for good service rather than the other way around. Bars seem to be the biggest offenders of this trait. Bartenders are a dime a dozen, and bad ones are much more frequently encountered than competent ones. I take issue with this notion that I, the customer or consumer, am responsible for making you, the bartender or barista, like me, in other words being liberal with the green, in order to receive even the semblance of quality service.
I'm all for tipping when the service is good, competent, or outstanding, but to paraphrase a infamous quote "this automatic tipping is for the birds." I don't get tipped by providing information to patrons, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a "tip jar" on the desk of a librarian at some point in the future.
It appears as if in every occupation today workers expect to be tipped for their service. One can almost count on seeing a "tip jar" in nearly every establishment that deals with customer service, whether it be restaurants, bars, coffee shops, or what have you. As it stands now, there are fewer places without "tip jars" than there are that have them prominently displayed for your extra change or bills. Which leads me to these questions: Are there too many places that expect tips on a regular basis? What do you do when people make the fact that they think they deserve tips overt and in your face?
I became interested in this topic simply due to the fact that the servers in my favorite coffee shop are stopping just short of demanding a tip with each and every transaction. It's a rather obvious plea for money that extends beyond the decorated "tip jar" which has featured sayings that, in varying degrees, make it known that tips are appreciated and, more overtly, necessary for the survival of the worker, who is paid a miniscule pittance by the overbearing and exploitive owners. To me, it seems like a desperate scam which tries to exploit the feelings of guilt people might have for workers who are slaving away for little pay and no recognizable benefit. But it also easy to see how such feelings grow and are nurtured by constant reinforcement. Just sitting there you can observe, or hear in most cases, the continuous stream of customers throwing their change in the jar, or telling the server to "keep the change" or "that's for you." For the most part, the givers are the numerous "regulars" who frequent this place. These people have an already established relationship with the servers that, in some cases, extends beyond that of the casual acquaintance. This is not an acceptable rationale for this type of behavior, but it's how it breeds.
Regardless, it appears as if the lost art of being subtle and friendly in customer service has been replaced with blatant hostility that tries, mightily, to create an equation that requires good tipping for good service rather than the other way around. Bars seem to be the biggest offenders of this trait. Bartenders are a dime a dozen, and bad ones are much more frequently encountered than competent ones. I take issue with this notion that I, the customer or consumer, am responsible for making you, the bartender or barista, like me, in other words being liberal with the green, in order to receive even the semblance of quality service.
I'm all for tipping when the service is good, competent, or outstanding, but to paraphrase a infamous quote "this automatic tipping is for the birds." I don't get tipped by providing information to patrons, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a "tip jar" on the desk of a librarian at some point in the future.
Monday, March 15, 2004
Cleaning Out My Closet
At the risk of pissing everyone off, here's my unfiltered, unedited, except for spelling and grammar, remarks regarding what's been occurring on this site and others over the past few weeks. I want to make my final remarks, get this all off my chest, and see what happens. I suspect nothing, but who knows. I probably shouldn't even post this, but I feel like it's necessary to do so.
Over the past several weeks, it has become apparent to me that communicating one's true tone and meaning through an electronic format can be, and often is, a fruitless exercise. Reactions not only to my posts on this site but on the close web of sites linked below and comments replying to other comments have spiraled out of control, and the tone is decidedly viscous in nature. Mudslinging and argumentative discussions are running rampant on here, and it's apparent that I've hurt one person on here with my own argumentative tone and am apparently engaging in a non-stop battle on another site about the tone of my comments being, in the writer's words, "defeatist" in nature. It's obvious that there's no room for open discourse on here as of late, and this can be attributed to many, many things. I'm forced to wonder, though, why is this occurring all of a sudden?
This is by no means the first time this has occurred to me, and I'm sure countless others can relate incidents that are in the similar vein. Comments are taken out of context in any number of formats, whether it be e-mail, discussion boards, or in chat rooms. Problems arise when it's hard, if not impossible, to determine one's true tone. Something that's said vocally and taken as being in any number of accepted and recognizable tones will be greeted and reacted to within the course of a normal conversation without further comment. The problems with text are many, and it starts with the inability to determine whether what someone is saying is in a tone that's meant to be taken as being either critical, sarcastic, hurtful, descriptive, or any other number of tones. It's impossible to tell. So, what happens is that once something has been taken out of context, it's harder than ever to try to retract, defend, or dismiss the intent behind the words that are now being used against the writer.
Back to the original question about the recent rash of posts that are incredibly hostile in tone on this site and others. I don't know why this occurring all of a sudden, but I do know that it's becoming increasingly obvious that there are certain subjects that can't be discussed in this forum where it the dialog doesn't degenerate and hostile in nature. Religion and politics used to be the only two subjects that were advisable not to be up for discussion on a regular basis unless one expected a confrontation. Both of these are addressed here and elsewhere, and it's apparent that these are not the offending topics. In fact, it's a credit to the readers of this site that they've chosen not to comment on my posts regarding religion as of late because it's obvious that they could easily be commented on in an effort to start a debate, but that hasn't happened, yet. Now, what are the topics that are causing debate? Literature and vendettas.
Anyone who has read the sites in question knows that all of us love literature. So, this, one would assume, could be a topic of conversation that could be easily agreed upon. This isn't the case apparently. At the risk of sounding like a victim, it appears as if it's impossible for anyone to be somewhat critical of literature and not embracing of all forms of publishing without being regarded as being hyper-critical of a subject that appears to be beyond criticism. To go a step further, you can't even think about being critical of writing in general and writing in the format specifically. All you have to do is look back in the archives here and see the posts devoted to the deterioration of writing that this "blog" format has contributed to. I've written about it before, and I'll stick to my guns and say that not everyone should be a writer or have access to publishing. There's a good reason why, and it all stems from the fact that most of it isn't any good or worth reading, and I wholeheartedly include myself in that mix. To me, and to paraphrase a point I made elsewhere, it doesn't do anyone any good to allow everyone access to publishing, whether it be in print or electronic format. I can't help it, and perhaps it betrays the liberal agenda, but the fact is that there's no reason to be embracing of everything and everyone's right to be a part of the literary establishment. It's almost as if no criticism is welcome at all because if you like and support one thing, then you have to like and support it all. I don't know any other way to say it, but I apparently haven't been able to phrase the meanings of my argument to suit anyone. I'm either being (1) argumentative for argument's sake (2) defeatist in nature and presuming that everything has been done before, so why bother. Neither of which is the case. I expect to get the same types of responses to this post as well. But let me say this, if this type of format is for expressing one's opinions, ideas, etc in an unfiltered vacuum, then I'm exercising that right as well. This is how I feel about these topics, but I'm willing to listen to reason. I haven't heard one good reason, though, why everyone, and I mean everyone, should be allowed to write publicly.
The other topic that seems to be off limits is vendettas or complaints about the behavior of others. Apparently, there's no room for criticism here about people even with, what I consider to be, legitimate reasons. There's really nothing more to say about this other than to make a claim that this seems to be very hypocritical in nature to allow one form of aggressive remarks and forbid others from doing so.
Finally, it appears that the best course of action would be to either (1) limit posts on here to subjects that have little or no emotional value (2) just quit posting for quite awhile. I'm leaning towards the latter of the two options, but that's not definite.
At the risk of pissing everyone off, here's my unfiltered, unedited, except for spelling and grammar, remarks regarding what's been occurring on this site and others over the past few weeks. I want to make my final remarks, get this all off my chest, and see what happens. I suspect nothing, but who knows. I probably shouldn't even post this, but I feel like it's necessary to do so.
Over the past several weeks, it has become apparent to me that communicating one's true tone and meaning through an electronic format can be, and often is, a fruitless exercise. Reactions not only to my posts on this site but on the close web of sites linked below and comments replying to other comments have spiraled out of control, and the tone is decidedly viscous in nature. Mudslinging and argumentative discussions are running rampant on here, and it's apparent that I've hurt one person on here with my own argumentative tone and am apparently engaging in a non-stop battle on another site about the tone of my comments being, in the writer's words, "defeatist" in nature. It's obvious that there's no room for open discourse on here as of late, and this can be attributed to many, many things. I'm forced to wonder, though, why is this occurring all of a sudden?
This is by no means the first time this has occurred to me, and I'm sure countless others can relate incidents that are in the similar vein. Comments are taken out of context in any number of formats, whether it be e-mail, discussion boards, or in chat rooms. Problems arise when it's hard, if not impossible, to determine one's true tone. Something that's said vocally and taken as being in any number of accepted and recognizable tones will be greeted and reacted to within the course of a normal conversation without further comment. The problems with text are many, and it starts with the inability to determine whether what someone is saying is in a tone that's meant to be taken as being either critical, sarcastic, hurtful, descriptive, or any other number of tones. It's impossible to tell. So, what happens is that once something has been taken out of context, it's harder than ever to try to retract, defend, or dismiss the intent behind the words that are now being used against the writer.
Back to the original question about the recent rash of posts that are incredibly hostile in tone on this site and others. I don't know why this occurring all of a sudden, but I do know that it's becoming increasingly obvious that there are certain subjects that can't be discussed in this forum where it the dialog doesn't degenerate and hostile in nature. Religion and politics used to be the only two subjects that were advisable not to be up for discussion on a regular basis unless one expected a confrontation. Both of these are addressed here and elsewhere, and it's apparent that these are not the offending topics. In fact, it's a credit to the readers of this site that they've chosen not to comment on my posts regarding religion as of late because it's obvious that they could easily be commented on in an effort to start a debate, but that hasn't happened, yet. Now, what are the topics that are causing debate? Literature and vendettas.
Anyone who has read the sites in question knows that all of us love literature. So, this, one would assume, could be a topic of conversation that could be easily agreed upon. This isn't the case apparently. At the risk of sounding like a victim, it appears as if it's impossible for anyone to be somewhat critical of literature and not embracing of all forms of publishing without being regarded as being hyper-critical of a subject that appears to be beyond criticism. To go a step further, you can't even think about being critical of writing in general and writing in the format specifically. All you have to do is look back in the archives here and see the posts devoted to the deterioration of writing that this "blog" format has contributed to. I've written about it before, and I'll stick to my guns and say that not everyone should be a writer or have access to publishing. There's a good reason why, and it all stems from the fact that most of it isn't any good or worth reading, and I wholeheartedly include myself in that mix. To me, and to paraphrase a point I made elsewhere, it doesn't do anyone any good to allow everyone access to publishing, whether it be in print or electronic format. I can't help it, and perhaps it betrays the liberal agenda, but the fact is that there's no reason to be embracing of everything and everyone's right to be a part of the literary establishment. It's almost as if no criticism is welcome at all because if you like and support one thing, then you have to like and support it all. I don't know any other way to say it, but I apparently haven't been able to phrase the meanings of my argument to suit anyone. I'm either being (1) argumentative for argument's sake (2) defeatist in nature and presuming that everything has been done before, so why bother. Neither of which is the case. I expect to get the same types of responses to this post as well. But let me say this, if this type of format is for expressing one's opinions, ideas, etc in an unfiltered vacuum, then I'm exercising that right as well. This is how I feel about these topics, but I'm willing to listen to reason. I haven't heard one good reason, though, why everyone, and I mean everyone, should be allowed to write publicly.
The other topic that seems to be off limits is vendettas or complaints about the behavior of others. Apparently, there's no room for criticism here about people even with, what I consider to be, legitimate reasons. There's really nothing more to say about this other than to make a claim that this seems to be very hypocritical in nature to allow one form of aggressive remarks and forbid others from doing so.
Finally, it appears that the best course of action would be to either (1) limit posts on here to subjects that have little or no emotional value (2) just quit posting for quite awhile. I'm leaning towards the latter of the two options, but that's not definite.
Friday, March 12, 2004
Making Something Out of Nothing
In a previous post regarding the Mel Gibson film The Passion of the Christ I made a brief mention of a writer named Christopher Hitchens, and made an allusion to the fact that I had issues with him unrelated to his quoted comments regarding the film in question.
Last night, on a show broadcast on MSNBC called Scarborough Country, hosted by Joe Scarborough, Hitchens was one of the guests. In what amounts to a desperate attempt to create controversy and relevance, Hitchens lambasted Gibson and his film for, among other things, promoting Anti-Semitism and, along the same lines as the quote below, making a film that's, in every instance, pornographic in nature and nothing more than an exercise in sado-masochistic gore. The interview, which is truly disgusting, accomplished nothing in my mind other than to cement the legacy of Hitchens as a languishing commentator who, in order to draw attention to himself, feels that it's necessary to criticize books, films, and politics using the harshest language imaginable. Hitchens, who by all means isn't a household name, proves in every appearance that he's utterly without scruples and cannot in any way, shape or form present a coherent argument without resorting to the types of mudslinging and insult hurling that he so decries in the objects of his criticism.
My previous encounters with Hitchens have left me with a raw view of the man, but this one takes the cake. Hitchens is a contributor to several magazines, Vanity Fair and Atlantic Monthly to name just two and an author of many books, including the excellent The Trial of Henry Kissinger. However, it always seems as if Hitchens, no matter how intellectual and book smart he seems, is nothing more than someone with a grudge. For example, in a move that seems almost unprecedented and without any forethought, Atlantic editors deemed it a wise move to print a review of the Sidney Blumenthal book The Clinton Wars by Hitchens. Why is this a bad move on their part? Well, it might have something to do with the fact that Hitchens is discussed extensively in the text as having been first a supporter of President Clinton and second a friend of Blumenthal's. It just so happens that within the course of the eight years Clinton was in office, Hitchens became both a staunch conservative in many regards, thus resigning any support for Clinton, and an awkward social guest and friend who, not to mince words, turned his back on Blumenthal. It's not a flattering picture and is more the description of the decline of a person in turmoil, which is why it's hard to see any reason to assign Hitchens to review such a text. There's been so much outcry over the review of books with regards to relationships between the reviewers and the authors of the books they're supposed to give an objective review of, that it's hard to imagine how editors missed the boat on this one unless they intentionally assigned the book to be reviewed by Hitchens in order to allow him to unleash his usual furious attack. As a result of his conversion, Hitchens has become a staunch supporter of the liberation of Iraq, which he's authored a book about, and seems to thrive on controversy alone as a way to keep him in the spotlight.
Regarding his appearance last night, Hitchens offered the most intriguing response to a question regarding how he felt about the notion that his appearance would most likely generate much comment:
I am atheist. I'm not anti-Catholic. I am not anti-Protestant. I'm not anti-Greek Orthodox or anti-Judaism or anti-Islamic. I just think that all religious belief is sinister and infantile and belongs to the backward childhood of the race and that the great thing about the United States is that it's a secular country with a godless Constitution.
The key phrase here is that he's a self-professed atheist and a harsh critic of religion as a whole. Now, having heard this, I was put in mind of a recent theory of mine. I believe that by proclaiming one is an atheist that one is (1) allowing one's self to feel guiltless about sin (2) allowing one's self, as in the quote above, to make statements that equate religious subscribers to a childish group of mongrels. I find it also curious that Hitchens equates both the enormous success of the film and the fact that no violence to speak of has resulted from its content can be attributed to the fact that we as Americans aren't easily swayed when it comes to propaganda on such a basic, blatant level. Also, we're a secular country that embraces all religions. Okay, that makes sense to some extent, but how does this account for the numbers of people who are flocking to this film in droves who are associated with a church and strident members of the Catholic faith? In other words, Hitchens seems to be equating all viewers of this film as being Godless, nonjudgemental people, or could it be that he's stating that Americans, as a whole, are just too stupid to pick up on the blatant messages of Anti-Semitism and the homoerotic themes embedded deeply within? Or could it be that it's not there to begin with? Perhaps Hitchens, as with most critics of this film, are bringing to the table a set of expectations that just aren't met to any real degree and are grasping at straws in order to portray both Gibson and his film as a potent message of intolerance and hatred? People see what they want to see, and this is no different for critics regardless of their credentials.
I encourage anyone who is interested to read the transcript of the Hitchens segment, which is available on the official MSNBC site. It's a fascinating exchange, and, I believe, a portrait of a man, much like Frank Rich, who is resorting to the very types of tactics that they both accuse Gibson of using, in Rich's case a smear campaign and in Hitchens' case a ranting tirade without any redeeming value or sufficient evidence. Judge for yourself.
In a previous post regarding the Mel Gibson film The Passion of the Christ I made a brief mention of a writer named Christopher Hitchens, and made an allusion to the fact that I had issues with him unrelated to his quoted comments regarding the film in question.
Last night, on a show broadcast on MSNBC called Scarborough Country, hosted by Joe Scarborough, Hitchens was one of the guests. In what amounts to a desperate attempt to create controversy and relevance, Hitchens lambasted Gibson and his film for, among other things, promoting Anti-Semitism and, along the same lines as the quote below, making a film that's, in every instance, pornographic in nature and nothing more than an exercise in sado-masochistic gore. The interview, which is truly disgusting, accomplished nothing in my mind other than to cement the legacy of Hitchens as a languishing commentator who, in order to draw attention to himself, feels that it's necessary to criticize books, films, and politics using the harshest language imaginable. Hitchens, who by all means isn't a household name, proves in every appearance that he's utterly without scruples and cannot in any way, shape or form present a coherent argument without resorting to the types of mudslinging and insult hurling that he so decries in the objects of his criticism.
My previous encounters with Hitchens have left me with a raw view of the man, but this one takes the cake. Hitchens is a contributor to several magazines, Vanity Fair and Atlantic Monthly to name just two and an author of many books, including the excellent The Trial of Henry Kissinger. However, it always seems as if Hitchens, no matter how intellectual and book smart he seems, is nothing more than someone with a grudge. For example, in a move that seems almost unprecedented and without any forethought, Atlantic editors deemed it a wise move to print a review of the Sidney Blumenthal book The Clinton Wars by Hitchens. Why is this a bad move on their part? Well, it might have something to do with the fact that Hitchens is discussed extensively in the text as having been first a supporter of President Clinton and second a friend of Blumenthal's. It just so happens that within the course of the eight years Clinton was in office, Hitchens became both a staunch conservative in many regards, thus resigning any support for Clinton, and an awkward social guest and friend who, not to mince words, turned his back on Blumenthal. It's not a flattering picture and is more the description of the decline of a person in turmoil, which is why it's hard to see any reason to assign Hitchens to review such a text. There's been so much outcry over the review of books with regards to relationships between the reviewers and the authors of the books they're supposed to give an objective review of, that it's hard to imagine how editors missed the boat on this one unless they intentionally assigned the book to be reviewed by Hitchens in order to allow him to unleash his usual furious attack. As a result of his conversion, Hitchens has become a staunch supporter of the liberation of Iraq, which he's authored a book about, and seems to thrive on controversy alone as a way to keep him in the spotlight.
Regarding his appearance last night, Hitchens offered the most intriguing response to a question regarding how he felt about the notion that his appearance would most likely generate much comment:
I am atheist. I'm not anti-Catholic. I am not anti-Protestant. I'm not anti-Greek Orthodox or anti-Judaism or anti-Islamic. I just think that all religious belief is sinister and infantile and belongs to the backward childhood of the race and that the great thing about the United States is that it's a secular country with a godless Constitution.
The key phrase here is that he's a self-professed atheist and a harsh critic of religion as a whole. Now, having heard this, I was put in mind of a recent theory of mine. I believe that by proclaiming one is an atheist that one is (1) allowing one's self to feel guiltless about sin (2) allowing one's self, as in the quote above, to make statements that equate religious subscribers to a childish group of mongrels. I find it also curious that Hitchens equates both the enormous success of the film and the fact that no violence to speak of has resulted from its content can be attributed to the fact that we as Americans aren't easily swayed when it comes to propaganda on such a basic, blatant level. Also, we're a secular country that embraces all religions. Okay, that makes sense to some extent, but how does this account for the numbers of people who are flocking to this film in droves who are associated with a church and strident members of the Catholic faith? In other words, Hitchens seems to be equating all viewers of this film as being Godless, nonjudgemental people, or could it be that he's stating that Americans, as a whole, are just too stupid to pick up on the blatant messages of Anti-Semitism and the homoerotic themes embedded deeply within? Or could it be that it's not there to begin with? Perhaps Hitchens, as with most critics of this film, are bringing to the table a set of expectations that just aren't met to any real degree and are grasping at straws in order to portray both Gibson and his film as a potent message of intolerance and hatred? People see what they want to see, and this is no different for critics regardless of their credentials.
I encourage anyone who is interested to read the transcript of the Hitchens segment, which is available on the official MSNBC site. It's a fascinating exchange, and, I believe, a portrait of a man, much like Frank Rich, who is resorting to the very types of tactics that they both accuse Gibson of using, in Rich's case a smear campaign and in Hitchens' case a ranting tirade without any redeeming value or sufficient evidence. Judge for yourself.
Snobbery, the literary form
Spending this week at home, I've found that the biggest inconvenience is the fact that I can't get my hands on a paper copy of the New York Times, and, thus, must read the online version, which while useful is something I find myself avoiding. The reasons for doing so are plentiful, but the main one being that I find myself ignoring articles that I might otherwise read in the print version due to my lack of patience for online text. Staring at a computer screen wares so thin after a period that I really only skim the headlines on most major sites and avoid reading anything unless it might be something of particular interest. So, it was with great surprise and interest that I found the following article about online book clubs on the Times' site entitled, Online Books Clubs as Lit 101 Fun. As readers are well aware, I've had a beef with the Times for the last few weeks for the relentless attacks on anything that might seem either conservative in tone or the least bit appealing to the mass public at large. Sadly, this article, which I hoped might be a change of pace and avoid criticism on what seems like a totally neutral issue, is yet another in a long line of articles that harshly criticize pop culture icons such as Oprah, Today, and Good Morning America for their roles in the decline in literary culture.
Basically, all the article is trying to report on is the rise of online book clubs that have sprung up in recent years as an accompaniment to the versions of the clubs that air on their broadcast counterparts. Oprah's club is the main subject of the story and the target for the most criticism. Oprah, as we are all aware, has a book club that went on hiatus after a stellar run that was met with tremendous success and some controversy, i.e. The Corrections fiasco. Well, now that she has decided to revive the club the major change has to do with the selection of books themselves. Gone are the contemporary titles in favor of the classics. Steinbeck's East of Eden and Marquez's One Hundred Years of Solitude are two of the most recent selections. As with most things in culture these days, the club has an online equivalent and extension that offers guides to the text and online chats.
Caryn James, the author of the article, does praise the notion that others that have been inspired by the Oprah formula have at least avoided the selection of "'Oprah books,' assumed to be middle-brow domestic novels with mawkish life lessons." The books are, in fact, "literary" in nature. Well, that's a relief! The success of the online accompaniments can be attributed to the fact that they are "enthusiastic" in tone and not "educational," which the author attributes to being a "dreaded" term.
James goes on to describe the book selections made by both Today and Good Morning American with some comment on their features. However, James takes a pot shot at the latter's segment entitled Read This!, which she describes as the "least literary" in approach. The segment is centered around a different book club from around the country. Their book gets chosen and featured in the segment. In this case, a book by Ann Brashare entitled The Second Summer of the Sisterhood, which was chosen, fittingly, by a club of mothers and daughters. James, though, feels the need to point out that when the author was available on line to receive email questions about her book, she was bombarded with the following, ""What do you think of the idea of mother-daughter book clubs as a way to bridge the generation gap?" This type of question is termed as being too "touchy-feely" by James.
I realize this is the clearest example of a pot shot taken by an author who is degrading all that isn't literary. Also, I'm probably the last person in the world who should be criticizing them for being snobbish in terms of literature. Regardless, it's not the words of the article that seem to be insulting so much as the tone. It's this condescending tone that seems to pervade the paper at times, especially with regards to the arts. Reading this article put me in mind of all the people I've met with harsh words for Oprah's club. Some have even gone so far as to wonder if they can still like a book if it was chosen by Oprah. This, to me, is pushing the boundaries of elitism severely. I appreciate the idea of loving something that isn't part of the mainstream, but this notion can, and often is, pushed to extreme limits. In this article, you can almost sense the snobbery involved in lowering one's self to participate in these types of discussions. There's something almost comical in the way in which the author describes the types of aides available to the masses on Oprah's site. It's almost as if she can't help trying to hide her snobbish tone and say, "Look at these rubes trying to read real literature. First, they need guides to keep track of all the characters and summaries of the material read, but let's not forget that this is a book that's, oh my God, nearly 500 pages in length! Do they honestly think they can read this stuff and really appreciate it?" The tone comes to the forefront when she states that the majority of these types of groups always have to "reduce fiction to the question: 'How does this relate to your own life?'" As if this is nothing more than a telltale sign of literature being read by amateurs.
It's an endless cycle, a catch-22, or any other type of conundrum you can think of when it comes to "high brow" literature. People who consume it grow frustrated by the fact that it doesn't sell, which is another way of saying that there's total schlock on the best-seller list. However, when Oprah or others like her try to make an effort to introduce the "classics" to the masses, it's greeted with a roll of the eyes and even outrage. It doesn't seem that there's anyway of pleasing the critics. Oprah could have chosen to stick with the contemporary writers, some of which were less than stellar, obscure, or even unknown, or she could do something that's really interesting, and choose to stick to the "classics," which is a welcome change. Oprah knows that she's powerful enough that every book she chooses becomes an instant best-seller, so why not rejoice the fact that books like East of Eden and One Hundred Years of Solitude are either being purchased or circulated instead of downgrading the effort because it's not "literary" enough and is pandering to an audience that won't appreciate the books for the "right" reasons? Writers at the Times, including the author of this article, should do themselves a favor by adopting the tone James describes Oprah of exuding: "The great secret of her success is that she is able to talk to, and not down to, her audience."
Spending this week at home, I've found that the biggest inconvenience is the fact that I can't get my hands on a paper copy of the New York Times, and, thus, must read the online version, which while useful is something I find myself avoiding. The reasons for doing so are plentiful, but the main one being that I find myself ignoring articles that I might otherwise read in the print version due to my lack of patience for online text. Staring at a computer screen wares so thin after a period that I really only skim the headlines on most major sites and avoid reading anything unless it might be something of particular interest. So, it was with great surprise and interest that I found the following article about online book clubs on the Times' site entitled, Online Books Clubs as Lit 101 Fun. As readers are well aware, I've had a beef with the Times for the last few weeks for the relentless attacks on anything that might seem either conservative in tone or the least bit appealing to the mass public at large. Sadly, this article, which I hoped might be a change of pace and avoid criticism on what seems like a totally neutral issue, is yet another in a long line of articles that harshly criticize pop culture icons such as Oprah, Today, and Good Morning America for their roles in the decline in literary culture.
Basically, all the article is trying to report on is the rise of online book clubs that have sprung up in recent years as an accompaniment to the versions of the clubs that air on their broadcast counterparts. Oprah's club is the main subject of the story and the target for the most criticism. Oprah, as we are all aware, has a book club that went on hiatus after a stellar run that was met with tremendous success and some controversy, i.e. The Corrections fiasco. Well, now that she has decided to revive the club the major change has to do with the selection of books themselves. Gone are the contemporary titles in favor of the classics. Steinbeck's East of Eden and Marquez's One Hundred Years of Solitude are two of the most recent selections. As with most things in culture these days, the club has an online equivalent and extension that offers guides to the text and online chats.
Caryn James, the author of the article, does praise the notion that others that have been inspired by the Oprah formula have at least avoided the selection of "'Oprah books,' assumed to be middle-brow domestic novels with mawkish life lessons." The books are, in fact, "literary" in nature. Well, that's a relief! The success of the online accompaniments can be attributed to the fact that they are "enthusiastic" in tone and not "educational," which the author attributes to being a "dreaded" term.
James goes on to describe the book selections made by both Today and Good Morning American with some comment on their features. However, James takes a pot shot at the latter's segment entitled Read This!, which she describes as the "least literary" in approach. The segment is centered around a different book club from around the country. Their book gets chosen and featured in the segment. In this case, a book by Ann Brashare entitled The Second Summer of the Sisterhood, which was chosen, fittingly, by a club of mothers and daughters. James, though, feels the need to point out that when the author was available on line to receive email questions about her book, she was bombarded with the following, ""What do you think of the idea of mother-daughter book clubs as a way to bridge the generation gap?" This type of question is termed as being too "touchy-feely" by James.
I realize this is the clearest example of a pot shot taken by an author who is degrading all that isn't literary. Also, I'm probably the last person in the world who should be criticizing them for being snobbish in terms of literature. Regardless, it's not the words of the article that seem to be insulting so much as the tone. It's this condescending tone that seems to pervade the paper at times, especially with regards to the arts. Reading this article put me in mind of all the people I've met with harsh words for Oprah's club. Some have even gone so far as to wonder if they can still like a book if it was chosen by Oprah. This, to me, is pushing the boundaries of elitism severely. I appreciate the idea of loving something that isn't part of the mainstream, but this notion can, and often is, pushed to extreme limits. In this article, you can almost sense the snobbery involved in lowering one's self to participate in these types of discussions. There's something almost comical in the way in which the author describes the types of aides available to the masses on Oprah's site. It's almost as if she can't help trying to hide her snobbish tone and say, "Look at these rubes trying to read real literature. First, they need guides to keep track of all the characters and summaries of the material read, but let's not forget that this is a book that's, oh my God, nearly 500 pages in length! Do they honestly think they can read this stuff and really appreciate it?" The tone comes to the forefront when she states that the majority of these types of groups always have to "reduce fiction to the question: 'How does this relate to your own life?'" As if this is nothing more than a telltale sign of literature being read by amateurs.
It's an endless cycle, a catch-22, or any other type of conundrum you can think of when it comes to "high brow" literature. People who consume it grow frustrated by the fact that it doesn't sell, which is another way of saying that there's total schlock on the best-seller list. However, when Oprah or others like her try to make an effort to introduce the "classics" to the masses, it's greeted with a roll of the eyes and even outrage. It doesn't seem that there's anyway of pleasing the critics. Oprah could have chosen to stick with the contemporary writers, some of which were less than stellar, obscure, or even unknown, or she could do something that's really interesting, and choose to stick to the "classics," which is a welcome change. Oprah knows that she's powerful enough that every book she chooses becomes an instant best-seller, so why not rejoice the fact that books like East of Eden and One Hundred Years of Solitude are either being purchased or circulated instead of downgrading the effort because it's not "literary" enough and is pandering to an audience that won't appreciate the books for the "right" reasons? Writers at the Times, including the author of this article, should do themselves a favor by adopting the tone James describes Oprah of exuding: "The great secret of her success is that she is able to talk to, and not down to, her audience."
Tuesday, March 09, 2004
Prince Valiant and the Doctrine of Cowardice
If you follow the comment sections for any of my posts, it's abundantly clear that I've set off on a course of character assassination in my previous post. This Prince Valiant has enraged me more than any other character in this town full of memorable characters. His behavior, while almost territorial in nature, bothers me on another level that I can't explain fully without resorting to a sense of primal rage that borders on the violent in nature. In an effort to continue the dialogue, I post here my comments that I left for FTL in reaction to her second comment. I do so, not because I feel the need to showcase them, but because I feel that I make some valid points, and for the more practical reason that you're limited to comments that are less than 1,000 characters in length unless, of course, you're a paid subscriber. Here are my unfiltered comments, which will be followed by my further thoughts on the matter.
(To make sense of this opening, read FTL's second comment before reading this diatribe.)
No, I would never dream of asking you to do such a thing. I don't care THAT much. It just bothers me because I haven’t done anything around him that requires him to give me sideways glances all the time. Hell, between that and the music librarian who couldn't look me in the eyes and accuse me of stealing some liner notes, I'm almost ready to throw in the towel, have all my materials sent to the South Side branch, and never set foot in the Main Library again.
However, this would be admitting defeat and allowing this worm to win a subconscious victory over me. I can't let that happen. In fact, I'm thinking, upon my return, to frequent the library on a daily basis, make sure he sees me lingering around, and see what happens. Obviously, this guy is a coward who wouldn't confront me about anything, and I'm not about to do anything to risk such a scene. You know, if Benedict can make it a mission to vainly try to pry more than the rote responses from a crazy man, who actually does patronize the Main branch and is bothersome to other patrons and should be considered a real "threat," then I feel it's not too much of a stretch to make this MY cause. I know it's childish, and oh so male, but I can't help myself. This guy is a jerk, and there's no reason for him to look at me as some "stalker," "thief," or "problem patron" in any sense of the word.
Whew! Well, now that that's in the open, let's further address the problems I have with these types of people. First off, as I've stated previously, I'm aware of the various types of people who inhabit this town. In other words, I know there's a lot of creeps out there who exhibit behavior that can be construed as being on the fringe in many senses of the word. There's really no argument there. Also, it's obvious that the library, as in most towns, seems to act as a magnet for these types of degenerates. I've seen a lot of things happen in the library, but it's by no means a continuous flow of disturbances. For the most part, the library functions as it's meant to, and there's not a lot of activity occurring that seems to be out of the ordinary. Having said that, then it appears, though, that the employees of this place, or at least the two described above, greet every interaction as potentially being negative in nature. For example, the incident with the liner notes and this woman's inability to recognize me and the fact that I've checked out well over a hundred discs without prior violation tells me that she immediately assumes the worst about any such dispute. Obviously, in her mind, I stole the liner notes because I had the disc last. There's no possibility that (1) someone else took them (2) they fell out somewhere between where I returned the disc and its eventual reshelving in its proper place most likely due to a cracked case, which it did have. No, I must have them. Her tone when asking, "do you have them" signals to me that she's convicted me already. My gut response would be to say, "Yeah, I have them. I've checked out hundreds of items and returned them without incident, but I stole these particular liner notes. Give me a break."
As I said above, I realize there are innumerable patrons with less than stellar records and records that must look horrendous, but that doesn't mean you should greet each and every patron with the some sort of preconceived notions of guilt. If it were up to her, I would have been fined for the replacement cost of the notes. It's not the accusation that stings as much as the way in which it was done. I don't care if 99 out of every 100 patrons are problematic in some way or another. I believe you give them all the benefit of the doubt. Isn't this what customer service is about? If you think everyone is a criminal, transfer to a prison library where they are all criminals. That way you can give them the avoidance stare on a daily basis with good reason.
Now, back to Prince Valiant, the protector of the flock, or the protector of the womenfolk. Benedict and I have discussed on numerous occasions the hedonistic qualities that seem to pervade our culture. However, we've never discussed the aspects of chivalry, which I thought was dead and buried long ago. Apparently Prince Valiant views all the women who work around, beside, and under him as a flock of quivering waifs in need of a heroic protector. Every male, especially those who aren't dead from the waist down, should be observed with suspicion. It's obvious they're up to no good. This figure of authority feels the need to look with a watchful eye on anyone who actually has the nerve to converse with the women who work there. It appears as if his problem stems from unsaid boundaries that are crossed on a daily basis by other members of the male sex. The proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing.
Again, the same principals apply to this dude that apply to the lady described above. Everyone is greeted, no matter how unfairly, with guilt and suspicion. Obviously, there are creeps who are out there and come to the library for no other reason than for purposes that will, hopefully, lead to a conviction on some grounds in the near future. However, are all males full of less than noble intentions? No, of course not, which is why this guy's insistence at observing me with suspicion bothers me, and his cowardice bothers me even more.
It's apparent that it's easier to subscribe to the doctrine of cowardice than it is to confront problems head on. Hell, I do it myself, but there's no reason for someone to do so that's in a position that is decidedly public in nature. Funny, I don't recall being taught in library school to view all patrons as thieves, stalkers, or worse. Where'd this idea come from? If you say it's just life in the big city, that doesn't cut it. It's along the same lines as the rudeness that pervades this town, but the library is supposed to be a sanctuary from this sort of behavior. Sure, caution is a good thing to exert in a place filled with all types of people, but to constantly glance sideways at other males, which this guy apparently has a habit of doing, and being rude and accusatory to patrons is way out of line. What bothers me the most about this is that these two are probably secure in their positions. I'm sure they're terrific at what they do, but their behavior suggests otherwise. Clear out and let someone else take the reins if you're going to hide behind a veil of cowardice that stives to portray itself as heroism. No matter how right you think you are at behaving this way, it's wrong. It's cowardice pure and simple, and it's behavior like this that makes the public at large give little or no regard to libraries or any other establishment that chooses to employ these types of people.
Good luck getting donors. You can bet I won't be one of them.
If you follow the comment sections for any of my posts, it's abundantly clear that I've set off on a course of character assassination in my previous post. This Prince Valiant has enraged me more than any other character in this town full of memorable characters. His behavior, while almost territorial in nature, bothers me on another level that I can't explain fully without resorting to a sense of primal rage that borders on the violent in nature. In an effort to continue the dialogue, I post here my comments that I left for FTL in reaction to her second comment. I do so, not because I feel the need to showcase them, but because I feel that I make some valid points, and for the more practical reason that you're limited to comments that are less than 1,000 characters in length unless, of course, you're a paid subscriber. Here are my unfiltered comments, which will be followed by my further thoughts on the matter.
(To make sense of this opening, read FTL's second comment before reading this diatribe.)
No, I would never dream of asking you to do such a thing. I don't care THAT much. It just bothers me because I haven’t done anything around him that requires him to give me sideways glances all the time. Hell, between that and the music librarian who couldn't look me in the eyes and accuse me of stealing some liner notes, I'm almost ready to throw in the towel, have all my materials sent to the South Side branch, and never set foot in the Main Library again.
However, this would be admitting defeat and allowing this worm to win a subconscious victory over me. I can't let that happen. In fact, I'm thinking, upon my return, to frequent the library on a daily basis, make sure he sees me lingering around, and see what happens. Obviously, this guy is a coward who wouldn't confront me about anything, and I'm not about to do anything to risk such a scene. You know, if Benedict can make it a mission to vainly try to pry more than the rote responses from a crazy man, who actually does patronize the Main branch and is bothersome to other patrons and should be considered a real "threat," then I feel it's not too much of a stretch to make this MY cause. I know it's childish, and oh so male, but I can't help myself. This guy is a jerk, and there's no reason for him to look at me as some "stalker," "thief," or "problem patron" in any sense of the word.
Whew! Well, now that that's in the open, let's further address the problems I have with these types of people. First off, as I've stated previously, I'm aware of the various types of people who inhabit this town. In other words, I know there's a lot of creeps out there who exhibit behavior that can be construed as being on the fringe in many senses of the word. There's really no argument there. Also, it's obvious that the library, as in most towns, seems to act as a magnet for these types of degenerates. I've seen a lot of things happen in the library, but it's by no means a continuous flow of disturbances. For the most part, the library functions as it's meant to, and there's not a lot of activity occurring that seems to be out of the ordinary. Having said that, then it appears, though, that the employees of this place, or at least the two described above, greet every interaction as potentially being negative in nature. For example, the incident with the liner notes and this woman's inability to recognize me and the fact that I've checked out well over a hundred discs without prior violation tells me that she immediately assumes the worst about any such dispute. Obviously, in her mind, I stole the liner notes because I had the disc last. There's no possibility that (1) someone else took them (2) they fell out somewhere between where I returned the disc and its eventual reshelving in its proper place most likely due to a cracked case, which it did have. No, I must have them. Her tone when asking, "do you have them" signals to me that she's convicted me already. My gut response would be to say, "Yeah, I have them. I've checked out hundreds of items and returned them without incident, but I stole these particular liner notes. Give me a break."
As I said above, I realize there are innumerable patrons with less than stellar records and records that must look horrendous, but that doesn't mean you should greet each and every patron with the some sort of preconceived notions of guilt. If it were up to her, I would have been fined for the replacement cost of the notes. It's not the accusation that stings as much as the way in which it was done. I don't care if 99 out of every 100 patrons are problematic in some way or another. I believe you give them all the benefit of the doubt. Isn't this what customer service is about? If you think everyone is a criminal, transfer to a prison library where they are all criminals. That way you can give them the avoidance stare on a daily basis with good reason.
Now, back to Prince Valiant, the protector of the flock, or the protector of the womenfolk. Benedict and I have discussed on numerous occasions the hedonistic qualities that seem to pervade our culture. However, we've never discussed the aspects of chivalry, which I thought was dead and buried long ago. Apparently Prince Valiant views all the women who work around, beside, and under him as a flock of quivering waifs in need of a heroic protector. Every male, especially those who aren't dead from the waist down, should be observed with suspicion. It's obvious they're up to no good. This figure of authority feels the need to look with a watchful eye on anyone who actually has the nerve to converse with the women who work there. It appears as if his problem stems from unsaid boundaries that are crossed on a daily basis by other members of the male sex. The proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing.
Again, the same principals apply to this dude that apply to the lady described above. Everyone is greeted, no matter how unfairly, with guilt and suspicion. Obviously, there are creeps who are out there and come to the library for no other reason than for purposes that will, hopefully, lead to a conviction on some grounds in the near future. However, are all males full of less than noble intentions? No, of course not, which is why this guy's insistence at observing me with suspicion bothers me, and his cowardice bothers me even more.
It's apparent that it's easier to subscribe to the doctrine of cowardice than it is to confront problems head on. Hell, I do it myself, but there's no reason for someone to do so that's in a position that is decidedly public in nature. Funny, I don't recall being taught in library school to view all patrons as thieves, stalkers, or worse. Where'd this idea come from? If you say it's just life in the big city, that doesn't cut it. It's along the same lines as the rudeness that pervades this town, but the library is supposed to be a sanctuary from this sort of behavior. Sure, caution is a good thing to exert in a place filled with all types of people, but to constantly glance sideways at other males, which this guy apparently has a habit of doing, and being rude and accusatory to patrons is way out of line. What bothers me the most about this is that these two are probably secure in their positions. I'm sure they're terrific at what they do, but their behavior suggests otherwise. Clear out and let someone else take the reins if you're going to hide behind a veil of cowardice that stives to portray itself as heroism. No matter how right you think you are at behaving this way, it's wrong. It's cowardice pure and simple, and it's behavior like this that makes the public at large give little or no regard to libraries or any other establishment that chooses to employ these types of people.
Good luck getting donors. You can bet I won't be one of them.
Sunday, March 07, 2004
Protector of the Flock
I'm being observed, watched, cataloged. There's no way around it, I feel the eyes on me everytime I'm there, there being the The Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh. It seems that another member of the male race has deemed himself fit to assume the role of shepherd to his flock of sheep; his sheep in this case are the plethora of female employees at the library. This lurker, as I like to refer to him as, is always there, and he's always around when I feel like exerting my freedom and actually conversing with these members of the opposite sex. What gives?
Well, first off, let me say that I thought that perhaps I was just being paranoid, and I have to say that no one, even Benedict seemed to think that I was telling the truth. Was this in fact actually happening, or was I just imagining things? I thought it was a real phenomenon, so who could I tell next that would either greet the accusations with at least an open mind if not outright belief? Why not FTL? (In truth, I have to admit I hate using these "web" names on here, but I can't just call people by their first name.) She's familiar with this place and all its workers. What happened, though, when I told her this? I was mocked and called crazy. However, the last laugh would be mine.
Yesterday, as I was leaving this fine establishment, I, of course, encountered this bozo on the stairs; he was ascending, I was descending. As I walked down and encountered FTL again, I immediately went off.
Spinning around and pointing, I said, "That's him right there!"
FTL couldn't help giggling and replied, "I'm giggling for two reasons. One, that was him. Two, he did look back at you then me."
"What this guy's deal?"
What is this guy's deal? I told her as I left that I'd "deal" with him later, but in reality, most likely, nothing will come of it. I won't say anything to him until he says something to me first. If I'm truly bothering him or some of the girls, I'm sure I'll here about it some how some way. This guy, though, seems like he's got a glitch that makes him feel the need to act like an over protective mother goose. I'm at a loss as to how to proceed, but I do know that when I go in there again he'll be there watching my every move.
Oh, and to think that they actually want patrons to pay for a special library card is beyond belief. Between this creepazoid trailing my every move and being accused of theft, of liner notes no less, I'll donate my money elsewhere.
I'm being observed, watched, cataloged. There's no way around it, I feel the eyes on me everytime I'm there, there being the The Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh. It seems that another member of the male race has deemed himself fit to assume the role of shepherd to his flock of sheep; his sheep in this case are the plethora of female employees at the library. This lurker, as I like to refer to him as, is always there, and he's always around when I feel like exerting my freedom and actually conversing with these members of the opposite sex. What gives?
Well, first off, let me say that I thought that perhaps I was just being paranoid, and I have to say that no one, even Benedict seemed to think that I was telling the truth. Was this in fact actually happening, or was I just imagining things? I thought it was a real phenomenon, so who could I tell next that would either greet the accusations with at least an open mind if not outright belief? Why not FTL? (In truth, I have to admit I hate using these "web" names on here, but I can't just call people by their first name.) She's familiar with this place and all its workers. What happened, though, when I told her this? I was mocked and called crazy. However, the last laugh would be mine.
Yesterday, as I was leaving this fine establishment, I, of course, encountered this bozo on the stairs; he was ascending, I was descending. As I walked down and encountered FTL again, I immediately went off.
Spinning around and pointing, I said, "That's him right there!"
FTL couldn't help giggling and replied, "I'm giggling for two reasons. One, that was him. Two, he did look back at you then me."
"What this guy's deal?"
What is this guy's deal? I told her as I left that I'd "deal" with him later, but in reality, most likely, nothing will come of it. I won't say anything to him until he says something to me first. If I'm truly bothering him or some of the girls, I'm sure I'll here about it some how some way. This guy, though, seems like he's got a glitch that makes him feel the need to act like an over protective mother goose. I'm at a loss as to how to proceed, but I do know that when I go in there again he'll be there watching my every move.
Oh, and to think that they actually want patrons to pay for a special library card is beyond belief. Between this creepazoid trailing my every move and being accused of theft, of liner notes no less, I'll donate my money elsewhere.
New York Times Review
Just a few things to mention from today's Sunday Times, most of which are troublesome.
The onslaught continues with regards to The Passion of the Christ. If the term overkill had any meaning to reporters, this story would have died a long time ago. The film would have been released to an initial wave of fuss, made its costs back, and, most likely, would have drifted off into memory, but the writers at the Times just can't seem to let it die. Again, not to belabor the point, but this seems like an instance where it's becoming harder and harder to defend liberalism on the grounds that it's pushing the acceptable limits. The article in question this day is by Frank Rich entitled Mel Gibson Forgives Us for His Sins. In essence, Rich makes the argument tries at the offset to sound as if he's taking the high road and avoiding the attack Gibson levied upon him in September, however, this quickly turns into nothing more than an outright mudslinging retort, the venom of which is much more acidic than Gibson's.
Where to start? How about this gem:
With its laborious build-up to its orgasmic spurtings of blood and other bodily fluids, Mr. Gibson's film is constructed like nothing so much as a porn movie, replete with slo-mo climaxes and pounding music for the money shots. Of all the "Passion" critics, no one has nailed its artistic vision more precisely than Christopher Hitchens, who on "Hardball" called it a homoerotic "exercise in lurid sadomasochism" for those who "like seeing handsome young men stripped and flayed alive over a long period of time."
A classy assessment, right? Surely, this type of criticism isn't something we'd hear from real intellectuals, but apparently it is, and it goes on from there to include a self-styled one in the form of Christopher Hitchens. First off, Hitchens is nothing more than an intellectual windbag, a man who I have issues with pertaining to some of his other work, so let's just push his comments aside and focus on Rich's assessment. Comparing this film to pornography is little more than a shallow attempt to criticize it as being nothing more than a glorified snuff film with little or no redeeming value. Apparently, this is not the case, otherwise how can you explain the numbers of people who have flocked, no pun intended, to see this film? Essentially, you can't. Rich is doing nothing more than slapping a label upon this film in a lame attempt to further sully Gibson's reputation as a bigoted, sadomasochistic lunatic. Rich, on the other hand, is also adhering to what is becoming an apparent trait of this bastion of liberalism, mock and harshly criticize that which you strive so much to be disliked but is in fact popular. "How can people like this film," Rich seems to be asking? The reasons why are apparently too complex for him to comprehend, most likely due to his obsession with lambasting Gibson. Later, though, Rich asserts that, "My quarrel is not with most of the millions of Christian believers who are moved to tears by "The Passion." They bring their own deep feelings to the theater with them, and when Mr. Gibson pushes their buttons, however crudely, they generously do his work for him, supplying from their hearts the authentic spirituality that is missing in his jamboree of bloody beefcake." This is obviously not the case. In fact, Rich seems completely without thought on how to explain the film's popularity and, instead, resorts to a sort of mockery of the masses that can easily be leveled against the public at large. The public likes the film because they're easily manipulated, and, as he states, Gibson knows how to "push their buttons". You know that Rich was dying to compare the masses to the obedient sheep with Gibson serving as their corrupt shepherd, but even he couldn't sink that low, at least not yet.
Now, onto the Jewish question. This article isn't really about the film itself or the public that wants to see it. No, it's about continuing the insinuations and accusations that the film is nothing more than a vehicle for Gibson's anti-Semitic beliefs. Rich asserts that the film is "not necessarily" bad for Jews. Why? Well, in another potshot, he explains that Gibson may not like the Jews, but he's not a filmmaker of propaganda along the lines of Leni Riefenstahl. And in America the reaction has been tepid at best. If that's true, why then does Rich feel the need to state that "the fracas over 'The Passion' has made me feel less secure as a Jew in America than ever before?" How can you say that it's not a threat to the safety of the Jews in America in one sentence only to proclaim that you "feel less secure" later on in the same article? My theory is that Rich wrote this article in a fit of rage. Proclaiming one thing then resorting to the opposite in the span of several paragraphs. It's obvious that this article was meant to be nothing more than a gut reaction to Gibson's earlier statements and subsequent forgiving of Rich's criticism. Perhaps stepping back and reevaluating the article as a whole would have served Rich better than coming off as a rampaging lunatic in his own right.
Rich's main gripe is thus:
What concerns me much more are those with leadership positions in the secular world — including those in the media — who have given Mr. Gibson, "The Passion" and its most incendiary hucksters a free pass for behavior that is unambiguously contrived to vilify Jews.
Oh, please. Rich litters the rest of the article with statements deploring how "the Jewish high priests are also depicted as grim sadists with bad noses and teeth — Shylocks and Fagins from 19th-century stock." I guess if this is how you perceive this group as being depicted, and then that's your perceptions. My beef with this is regardless of how they're portrayed, didn't these priests have an active role to some extent? From all indications, it appears they did, and the fact remains they were Jewish. Would Gibson have been better rewriting the story further to replace the Jews with, perhaps, a group of Hispanics, Russian, or Canadians?
He goes on in the most damning paragraph:
Nor do some of these pundits seem to recognize Holocaust denial when it is staring them in the face. In an interview in the current Reader's Digest, Ms. Noonan asks Mr. Gibson: "The Holocaust happened, right?" After saying that some of his best friends "have numbers on their arms," he responds: "Yes, of course. Atrocities happened. War is horrible. The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps." Yes, mistakes happened, atrocities happened, war happened, some of the victims were Jews. This is the classic language of contemporary Holocaust deniers, from David Irving to Mr. Gibson's own father, Hutton Gibson, a prominent anti-Semitic author and activist. Their rhetorical strategy is to diminish Hitler's extermination of Jews by folding those deaths into the war's overall casualty figures, as if the Holocaust were an idle byproduct of battle instead of a Third Reich master plan for genocide. Rather than challenge Mel Gibson on this, Ms. Noonan merely reinforces his junk history. "So the point is that life is tragic and it is full of fighting and violence, mischief and malice," she replies.
No, that is not the point of the history of the Holocaust.
Sure, there's no argument that Gibson could have phrased his answer better and in much more unambiguous terms, but he didn't. On the other hand, perhaps, just perhaps, this reading of his comments is nothing more than an interpretation of someone who is claiming to admonish Gibson for his conspiratorial accusations and reading more into it than is actually there. Isn't that possible? I think so, but this is apparently sacrilegious to the Times. For a paper that willingly employed a serial-fabricator, maybe they should tell their writers to ease up on the attacks and focus on good writing. Rich comes off in this piece as a rabid attack dog, much like he claims Gibson to be. To me, there's something not quite right about that.
Rich goes on to insinuate that Gibson is a conspiracy theorist that's flown off the deep end again and again, and has been allowed to do so by the likes of Diane Sawyer and Bill O'Reilly. These charges seem a tad hallow.
Rich does accomplishes nothing more in this article than to extend the debate further, and, most likely, vainly attempting to elicit another off-the-cuff response from Gibson that will prove to be fodder for further articles written in the same vain. This is poor journalism to say the least, and it’s articles like this that make me long for the day when the biggest concern at the Times was fact checking a Jayson Blair article.
Just a few things to mention from today's Sunday Times, most of which are troublesome.
The onslaught continues with regards to The Passion of the Christ. If the term overkill had any meaning to reporters, this story would have died a long time ago. The film would have been released to an initial wave of fuss, made its costs back, and, most likely, would have drifted off into memory, but the writers at the Times just can't seem to let it die. Again, not to belabor the point, but this seems like an instance where it's becoming harder and harder to defend liberalism on the grounds that it's pushing the acceptable limits. The article in question this day is by Frank Rich entitled Mel Gibson Forgives Us for His Sins. In essence, Rich makes the argument tries at the offset to sound as if he's taking the high road and avoiding the attack Gibson levied upon him in September, however, this quickly turns into nothing more than an outright mudslinging retort, the venom of which is much more acidic than Gibson's.
Where to start? How about this gem:
With its laborious build-up to its orgasmic spurtings of blood and other bodily fluids, Mr. Gibson's film is constructed like nothing so much as a porn movie, replete with slo-mo climaxes and pounding music for the money shots. Of all the "Passion" critics, no one has nailed its artistic vision more precisely than Christopher Hitchens, who on "Hardball" called it a homoerotic "exercise in lurid sadomasochism" for those who "like seeing handsome young men stripped and flayed alive over a long period of time."
A classy assessment, right? Surely, this type of criticism isn't something we'd hear from real intellectuals, but apparently it is, and it goes on from there to include a self-styled one in the form of Christopher Hitchens. First off, Hitchens is nothing more than an intellectual windbag, a man who I have issues with pertaining to some of his other work, so let's just push his comments aside and focus on Rich's assessment. Comparing this film to pornography is little more than a shallow attempt to criticize it as being nothing more than a glorified snuff film with little or no redeeming value. Apparently, this is not the case, otherwise how can you explain the numbers of people who have flocked, no pun intended, to see this film? Essentially, you can't. Rich is doing nothing more than slapping a label upon this film in a lame attempt to further sully Gibson's reputation as a bigoted, sadomasochistic lunatic. Rich, on the other hand, is also adhering to what is becoming an apparent trait of this bastion of liberalism, mock and harshly criticize that which you strive so much to be disliked but is in fact popular. "How can people like this film," Rich seems to be asking? The reasons why are apparently too complex for him to comprehend, most likely due to his obsession with lambasting Gibson. Later, though, Rich asserts that, "My quarrel is not with most of the millions of Christian believers who are moved to tears by "The Passion." They bring their own deep feelings to the theater with them, and when Mr. Gibson pushes their buttons, however crudely, they generously do his work for him, supplying from their hearts the authentic spirituality that is missing in his jamboree of bloody beefcake." This is obviously not the case. In fact, Rich seems completely without thought on how to explain the film's popularity and, instead, resorts to a sort of mockery of the masses that can easily be leveled against the public at large. The public likes the film because they're easily manipulated, and, as he states, Gibson knows how to "push their buttons". You know that Rich was dying to compare the masses to the obedient sheep with Gibson serving as their corrupt shepherd, but even he couldn't sink that low, at least not yet.
Now, onto the Jewish question. This article isn't really about the film itself or the public that wants to see it. No, it's about continuing the insinuations and accusations that the film is nothing more than a vehicle for Gibson's anti-Semitic beliefs. Rich asserts that the film is "not necessarily" bad for Jews. Why? Well, in another potshot, he explains that Gibson may not like the Jews, but he's not a filmmaker of propaganda along the lines of Leni Riefenstahl. And in America the reaction has been tepid at best. If that's true, why then does Rich feel the need to state that "the fracas over 'The Passion' has made me feel less secure as a Jew in America than ever before?" How can you say that it's not a threat to the safety of the Jews in America in one sentence only to proclaim that you "feel less secure" later on in the same article? My theory is that Rich wrote this article in a fit of rage. Proclaiming one thing then resorting to the opposite in the span of several paragraphs. It's obvious that this article was meant to be nothing more than a gut reaction to Gibson's earlier statements and subsequent forgiving of Rich's criticism. Perhaps stepping back and reevaluating the article as a whole would have served Rich better than coming off as a rampaging lunatic in his own right.
Rich's main gripe is thus:
What concerns me much more are those with leadership positions in the secular world — including those in the media — who have given Mr. Gibson, "The Passion" and its most incendiary hucksters a free pass for behavior that is unambiguously contrived to vilify Jews.
Oh, please. Rich litters the rest of the article with statements deploring how "the Jewish high priests are also depicted as grim sadists with bad noses and teeth — Shylocks and Fagins from 19th-century stock." I guess if this is how you perceive this group as being depicted, and then that's your perceptions. My beef with this is regardless of how they're portrayed, didn't these priests have an active role to some extent? From all indications, it appears they did, and the fact remains they were Jewish. Would Gibson have been better rewriting the story further to replace the Jews with, perhaps, a group of Hispanics, Russian, or Canadians?
He goes on in the most damning paragraph:
Nor do some of these pundits seem to recognize Holocaust denial when it is staring them in the face. In an interview in the current Reader's Digest, Ms. Noonan asks Mr. Gibson: "The Holocaust happened, right?" After saying that some of his best friends "have numbers on their arms," he responds: "Yes, of course. Atrocities happened. War is horrible. The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps." Yes, mistakes happened, atrocities happened, war happened, some of the victims were Jews. This is the classic language of contemporary Holocaust deniers, from David Irving to Mr. Gibson's own father, Hutton Gibson, a prominent anti-Semitic author and activist. Their rhetorical strategy is to diminish Hitler's extermination of Jews by folding those deaths into the war's overall casualty figures, as if the Holocaust were an idle byproduct of battle instead of a Third Reich master plan for genocide. Rather than challenge Mel Gibson on this, Ms. Noonan merely reinforces his junk history. "So the point is that life is tragic and it is full of fighting and violence, mischief and malice," she replies.
No, that is not the point of the history of the Holocaust.
Sure, there's no argument that Gibson could have phrased his answer better and in much more unambiguous terms, but he didn't. On the other hand, perhaps, just perhaps, this reading of his comments is nothing more than an interpretation of someone who is claiming to admonish Gibson for his conspiratorial accusations and reading more into it than is actually there. Isn't that possible? I think so, but this is apparently sacrilegious to the Times. For a paper that willingly employed a serial-fabricator, maybe they should tell their writers to ease up on the attacks and focus on good writing. Rich comes off in this piece as a rabid attack dog, much like he claims Gibson to be. To me, there's something not quite right about that.
Rich goes on to insinuate that Gibson is a conspiracy theorist that's flown off the deep end again and again, and has been allowed to do so by the likes of Diane Sawyer and Bill O'Reilly. These charges seem a tad hallow.
Rich does accomplishes nothing more in this article than to extend the debate further, and, most likely, vainly attempting to elicit another off-the-cuff response from Gibson that will prove to be fodder for further articles written in the same vain. This is poor journalism to say the least, and it’s articles like this that make me long for the day when the biggest concern at the Times was fact checking a Jayson Blair article.
Saturday, March 06, 2004
New York Times Review
In an effort to add some consistency, here's my first installment in a review of the Times for the day in question, which will include a reaction to the articles that I disagree with and the ones that I do agree with.
I never thought in my wildest dreams that I'd side with the Justice Department, but I feel that the unnecessary hysteria has reached a critical mass regarding the Bush administration's most feared specter, John Ashcroft. As has been reported extensively in the last few weeks, the Justice Department is seeking the release of hundreds, perhaps thousands, and most likely only 2,700 medical records for the purposes of supporting a case for the limiting of, what are commonly referred to as, partial birth abortions. Today's Times explains that this dreaded request is just yet another example of Bush reneging on one of his campaign promises that strived to assure much more privacy regarding medical records. However, as it states later in the article, the names are going to be deleted from the records, which, in my mind, assures the privacy of all individuals involved. The fear, though, is that there are certain details that are inherently recognizable that won't be deleted from the records. Recipients of abortions aren't named in the cases, but they also haven't been told that they're records are being requested. If this isn't a case of needless hysteria, I'm not sure what is. Again, I realize the seriousness of having privacy matters compromised, but this seems like an instance of not allowing the government leeway on any issue, due to needless concern.
Adding more ammunition to the Bush re-election campaign, the Times decided to highlight Kerry's constant flip-flopping on the issues. It does contain the following statement regarding the differences between Bush and Kerry that states that "Between the moral clarity, black and white, good and evil of George Bush that distorts and gets reality wrong," he said, "and someone who quotes a French philosopher, André Gide, saying, `Don't try to understand me too much,' I'd let Americans decide which in the end is closer to what they need in a president, in a complex world where if you get it really wrong there are enormous consequences." It's still a dangerous game to play when it comes to defeating the Republicans in the election.
My favorite exchange to Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist in a Q&A:
Dinitia Smith: “It seems that in the 2000 election the court took a markedly more proactive role."
William Rehnquist: “I don't really want to discuss the ins and outs of Bush against Gore."
Oh, and isn't it great that he mentions that he would have liked to have been an architect if he hadn't been a judge? Just like George Costanza (aka Art Vandalay).
Highlights from the editorial page. The following quotes are interesting to say the least.
From Baseball's Shame
"It is obviously too late to restore the credibility of baseball's records, but it is not too late to level the playing field. And it is never too late to begin educating the next generation of players."
Oh, please, let's not throw all the records away just yet. Also, if you're talking about Barry Bonds, just say his name outright and not tiptoe around in some vague mentioning.
From Missing Witnesses
"The Bush administration needs to rethink its reluctance to share evidence and offer witnesses to aid in the prosecution of Sept. 11 suspects. It was understandable that in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the administration was wary of giving too much emphasis to judicial process. But it now stretches credulity to maintain that keeping captives isolated for so long may be necessary to prevent attacks. What it may prevent is credible criminal prosecutions of those implicated in the most heinous crime in American history."
Again, the mind reels at the notion that Bush and his cronies believe they're protecting us by violating the Constitution on a daily basis.
In an effort to add some consistency, here's my first installment in a review of the Times for the day in question, which will include a reaction to the articles that I disagree with and the ones that I do agree with.
I never thought in my wildest dreams that I'd side with the Justice Department, but I feel that the unnecessary hysteria has reached a critical mass regarding the Bush administration's most feared specter, John Ashcroft. As has been reported extensively in the last few weeks, the Justice Department is seeking the release of hundreds, perhaps thousands, and most likely only 2,700 medical records for the purposes of supporting a case for the limiting of, what are commonly referred to as, partial birth abortions. Today's Times explains that this dreaded request is just yet another example of Bush reneging on one of his campaign promises that strived to assure much more privacy regarding medical records. However, as it states later in the article, the names are going to be deleted from the records, which, in my mind, assures the privacy of all individuals involved. The fear, though, is that there are certain details that are inherently recognizable that won't be deleted from the records. Recipients of abortions aren't named in the cases, but they also haven't been told that they're records are being requested. If this isn't a case of needless hysteria, I'm not sure what is. Again, I realize the seriousness of having privacy matters compromised, but this seems like an instance of not allowing the government leeway on any issue, due to needless concern.
Adding more ammunition to the Bush re-election campaign, the Times decided to highlight Kerry's constant flip-flopping on the issues. It does contain the following statement regarding the differences between Bush and Kerry that states that "Between the moral clarity, black and white, good and evil of George Bush that distorts and gets reality wrong," he said, "and someone who quotes a French philosopher, André Gide, saying, `Don't try to understand me too much,' I'd let Americans decide which in the end is closer to what they need in a president, in a complex world where if you get it really wrong there are enormous consequences." It's still a dangerous game to play when it comes to defeating the Republicans in the election.
My favorite exchange to Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist in a Q&A:
Dinitia Smith: “It seems that in the 2000 election the court took a markedly more proactive role."
William Rehnquist: “I don't really want to discuss the ins and outs of Bush against Gore."
Oh, and isn't it great that he mentions that he would have liked to have been an architect if he hadn't been a judge? Just like George Costanza (aka Art Vandalay).
Highlights from the editorial page. The following quotes are interesting to say the least.
From Baseball's Shame
"It is obviously too late to restore the credibility of baseball's records, but it is not too late to level the playing field. And it is never too late to begin educating the next generation of players."
Oh, please, let's not throw all the records away just yet. Also, if you're talking about Barry Bonds, just say his name outright and not tiptoe around in some vague mentioning.
From Missing Witnesses
"The Bush administration needs to rethink its reluctance to share evidence and offer witnesses to aid in the prosecution of Sept. 11 suspects. It was understandable that in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the administration was wary of giving too much emphasis to judicial process. But it now stretches credulity to maintain that keeping captives isolated for so long may be necessary to prevent attacks. What it may prevent is credible criminal prosecutions of those implicated in the most heinous crime in American history."
Again, the mind reels at the notion that Bush and his cronies believe they're protecting us by violating the Constitution on a daily basis.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)