Returning to Suburbia
Suburbia is now in vogue again, at least for many of today's contemporary writers. The tome I'm currently embroiled in happens to be one in a plethora of books that have been released in the last few months that dwell on the lives of the prisoners of suburbia. Tom Perrotta'a novel Little Children concerns the lives of many married couples, their children, and their interactions with one another. The plot isn't something earthshatteringly new, but few plots are nowadays, and the prose flows in a way that's natural and pleasant to read. Perrotta writes from the vantage point of so many classes of characters in such a seamless manner that it's hard to believe that he isn't writing about people that he actually knows, which brings me to the main query in this post.

Suburban novels have been written for decades now from all manner of writers, Updike, Roth, Bellow to name a few, and, for the most part, writers of good caliber who have a keen insight into the inner-workings of families living in America. The genre is time-tested, and not really something that's read for the plot, or, at least, that's not why I read them. I'm more inclined to believe that readers of these types of novels are attracted to the insightful portraits of everyday life in modern America, or, in the case of the older texts, perhaps how life was during the time when their parents were growing up. The plots themselves are merely a guide for following the characters. For suburban novels, the plot can be rather monotonous and, most likely, predictable to anyone who has read a significant amount of this writing.

To get to the point, one of the many plot points that usually occur during the course of these novels, is that somewhere, sometime there's some sort of marital infidelity occurring involving one or more of the main characters. In Little Children, it's no different. Couples that are increasingly frustrated, for whatever reason, are forced, if that's the right word, to commit adultery. My question is simply why this has continued to be the case after all these years? There are obvious time related details that give many of these books a time stamp, so to speak, but this plot point remains the same. Why? Are there really that many marriages that are plagued by the curse of infidelity? I can't say because I'm not married, and I don't know a lot of married couples. The few that I do know are happily married, and this just isn't my surface impression of how they conduct themselves in public. I know these people, and I know there's nothing incredibly heinous going on in their lives.

This leads me to ask if there's still a rampant amount of marital harmony that's threatened by the curse of inadequacy?

Another Comrade in Arms
In these days of political correctness and democracy gone wrong, it's nice to see that there are people out there with a forum for their thoughts that aren't afraid to take a stand against a horrendous outrage, even with the likelihood of offending their audience. Robert L. Jamieson Jr. writes in Library for all--not just the homeless about the new Seattle Central Library that there's apparently more than just the general public anxiously awaiting its opening. Unfortunately, there appears to be a ground swell of excitement within the homeless community due to the fact that they can't wait to befoul this sparkling new gem of a library with their odors, filth, drunkenness, and outright offensiveness. The sinks will be large enough to bathe their feet. A new "living room" full of couches and comfy chairs will provide adequate sleeping quarters for the day. The size of the building will allow all kinds of loathsome actions to occur unseen by those in charge.

There are claims that new measures will be put into affect that will alleviate the problem, but who knows how long that will last. Once the building loses its gleam of newness, who knows how lax the policies will be and how much enforcement will actually occur. This is reminiscent of the problems that occurred on a daily basis in the library where I was working. Policies are put into place and never enforced. This leads to problems. Administrators claim this won't happen in Seattle, but who knows.

Jamieson slips into the time-honored tradition of not pushing the line too far. He claims that there's probably only a handful of bad bums that have given the whole bunch a bad rap. I don't agree with that at all. Again, if you can't appreciate the fact that the library is open and what it provides, you shouldn't be allowed inside. Also, if you don't pay for the building, there's no reason for libraries to go out of their way to allow each and every person inside in an effort to create a utopia for one and all.

My advice is to have the library lined with a phalanx of riot-gear clad police officers. Let's see how many derelicts are willing to approach that intimidating scene.

Hypocrisy
How can someone have the audacity to greet a comment that is equally as challenging and harsh in tone with a kind wink and understanding nod when a similar remark was greeted with a feigned sense of outrage? I always hated it when you argued with friends about something, most likely something trivial, and that person, or even you, would go out of the way to greet any other similar situation with an overblown sense of empathy in an effort to avoid another altercation. I thought I left that kind of thing in high school, but it doesn't appear to be that way.

Comrade in Arms
Finally, someone else is voicing their opinions regarding the growing numbers of homeless, deranged, and downright scary folk who populate this fine city.

Several weeks back The City Paper, the other weekly rag that chronicles the vast number of events that occur weekly in the Burgh, published another in a series devoted to complaints simply entitled Rant. The article, Bus Driver: Don't Pick Up Threatening, Disturbed People by Aloma Arter, echoed many of my earlier sentiments with regard to the uncomfortable situations one has to be subjected to when simply walking down the street, entering public buildings (i.e. the library), or riding on the bus.

Of course the story goes along the lines one might expect: a creep gets on the bus, is goaded on by some smart-ass high-school kids, and flips out. Fellow passengers, rightly so, flip out in turn, and call the police. Arter, incredulous, explains that the police and the bus driver have a ludicrous excuse for not passing this creep: he has a bus pass. Obviously, Arter feels somewhat enraged by this because that's just not a good reason to allow someone who is dangerous aboard a bus of all things. Arter goes on to state that her fury is directed mostly towards the driver and his lack of concern for putting not only himself but all the passengers on the bus at risk by picking up this detritus.

This rant, which while completely spot on in its analysis was rather harsh in tone, and deservedly so, I guess, received a letter of response appearing in this week's issue. The letter entitled Bus Fair by Angela Chuckro makes a sappy, uber-pc argument that because people are using public transportation that they should expect to encounter this type of individual on occasion. Not only are outbursts expected, but busdrivers can  look forward to being punched, maced, spat on, or having weapons pulled on them in an effort to avoid paying the fare. Where and how often this occurs is never mentioned, but I don't recall this being a problem that's prevalent. I'm not saying it doesn't occur, but this reader makes it sound like these buses are in Fallujah and not Pittsburgh. Chuckro's attempt to rationalize the behavior and incur unnecessary sympathy is rather trite and facetious.

What Chuckro seems oblivious to, though, is the fact that the driver knew this individual from previous encounters. He knew he was crazy. He knew he was dangerous. Yet, because he had a bus pass, he had to let him on. Why? Well, he could lose his job. Okay.

Profiling is a practice that I'm, as previous posts concur, not fond of. However, there's a fine line between dealing with dementia in a public place and being stuck on a fast-moving bus filled to capacity with one lone nut worsening the situation. If anyone gets on a bus and starts wigging out, including "normal" people, get them off of the bus. There's a difference between having to placate the mentally ill in non-threatening arenas and allowing them to jeopardize a busload of people. Chuckro better learn that difference because all the pc hand-holding in the world won't do you any good when the bus is going over the cliff.

The NPR Agenda

Of course, we couldn't go too long without another pledge drive interrupting all the programs on WDUQ. Amid the usual pleas for money in any form, (I'm half tempted to send in a sock full of pennies to see if it makes any difference)NPR is starting to pursue a definite agenda. In this case, it serves as the voice for proponents for same-sex marriages.

Before getting too far ahead, let me say that I'm all for the granting of same-sex marriage licenses. Marriage to me a definite symbolic, if not religious ceremony, that officially marks the commiseration of a couple's desire to live together. Whether this couple consists of the same sex or a member from each sex is beyond my concern.

However, NPR feels the need to have, what seems like, daily stories on the subject. Now that Massachusetts is granting same-sex licenses, NPR seems to be at a loss for a reason to air more coverage on the subject. Several weeks ago, the same could be said for their coverage of the Middle East conflict with the always enlightening Terry Gross on Fresh Air devoting several days to hour-long diatribes on the conflict. She even got in on the act with an hour-long interview with an author about a book devoted to examining the institution of marriage.

With all my criticisms of The New York Times, now NPR, it's seeming more and more likely that this page will live up to the paranoid delusions of its address: liberal agenda. I'm convinced that the media is biased, but it's only as biased as the publication seems to be. In other words, there is a liberal bias to the news, but if you look closely you can see a conservative bias there as well. Being in the middle, I think, allows you to see both sides and appreciate or disagree with equally.

Giving up...on books
Laura Miller muses on the idea of throwing in the towel in the The New York Times Sunday Book Review in an essay entitled, Divorce That Book . Discussing this phenomenon with other writers, Miller paints a picture of a society in general and writers in particular that suffer from a sort of "literary attention-deficit disorder." Michael Chabon, one of my favorite writers, in a move that I've found myself in some ways adopting recently, gives books one or two pages before he decides whether or not to proceed. Prior to reading this I would have thought such a blatant dismissal of a text was something that reflected on my own deficiencies. However, finding out that I'm in good company along with prominent writers helps alleviate the sense that I'm an abject failure when it comes to consuming books.

I have to admit that I am not familiar with the works of any of the other writers who are featured in the article, and it does seem to me that David Gates, who dismisses any book other than those he is reviewing and admits to not finishing any book he starts, makes a rather disparaging remark when he states that he hasn't read any "wonderful fiction" in a long time. Harsh words, I know, and likely something I could freely agree with, due to my own dissatisfaction with the state of literature these days, but Gates, whose work I know just by name, seems like an unlikely candidate to dismiss all writing in general and fiction in particular.

Regardless, I'm feeling a little better nowadays, when I leaf through a book in the enormous stack from the library and feel like there's no way I want to even bother reading some of these monstrosities.

Traitor
It's hard enough floating in the jobless limbo that, I used to think, befell all graduate students emerging fresh from college. What makes matters worse, though, is that one-time friends and associates feel the need to "sell-out" in what amounts to little more than abandoning those who have nothing tangible to offer them anymore. In a city teaming with like-minded, similar situated people, this seems like it wouldn't or shouldn't be a problem. It becomes a problem when one's circle is tight, confined and finite. In other words, one of the members of the circle is vacating willingly and for mysterious self-serving reasons.

I could go on, but it would probably cause much more trouble than it's worth, and here I'm speaking from previous experience. Just let it be said, that no matter what happens in the future, I intend to maintain a certain sense of loyalty to my associates, no matter how much success or lack thereof they meet and vice-versa. I would hope they would do the same, but sometimes life doesn't work out that way. Holding a grudge is a terrible, time-consuming waste of time, and this is why I'm venting here in an effort to avoid dwelling on it further.

Let it be said, though, that loyalty, which is a frequently used term can and often does lose relevance over the course of years, is something I hold as a prominent virtue to be upheld. I go on record here saying that I am and will continue to be loyal to my friends. If they choose to drop off at any point for selfish reasons, so be it. Nothing else matters in this time of uncertainty.

Things Fall Apart
Well, now it starts. We have officially entered the period of uncertainty.
To Be Continued...

Freedom of the Press?
The pictures of tortured Iraqi prisoners that emerged last week were nothing more than the latest development in a series of setbacks that seem to be steering the course of events to a terrible end. What I found most repulsive and, at the same time, most fascinating about the pictures was their placement within the long line of events, atrocities in this case, that have been captured on film for the world to digest and grow disgusted at all at once. An article in the Asia Times entitled Who Let the Dogs Out? seeks to make the point that we, meaning society in general and Americans in particular, ignore the fact that these types of incidents are occurring any time there in conflict, but they are left out of the collective memory due to a surprising lack of "physical" evidence, in this case televised pictures of the incidents, or, as the writer refers to it as the "stupid box." This may or may not be the case, but it leads me to ask a question that has been bothering me as of late regarding the outlets for these particularly troubling pictures, videos, and speeches meant to incite violence. How, if possible, can society still retain a free press without providing an enticing platform for groups of individuals who exploit this freedom for means that are less than noble in cause?

I'm contending that the reason why there seems to be a much broader usage of the media by terrorist organizations is because these media outlets provide them the forums they seek. Al Jezeera and other media outlets in the Middle East seem to specialize in providing terrorists a forum for their hatred and violence as much as television stations in California provide live coverage for any idiot who decides to lead the police on a high-speed chase through the streets of L.A. The acts themselves and the forum from which they are broadcast go hand in hand. The cause and effect is clear: If you have something to say or do, we'll air it.

This isn't to say that terrorists, or military personnel, would stop committing atrocities if there suddenly wasn't a place from which to broadcast their deeds. This is also not to say that those acting in Iraq on their own or by the orders of higher-ups meant to have their heinous actions broadcast around the world. It does make one wonder what they hoped to do with these pictures if they did manage to leave Iraq with them. In fact, one can argue things might get worse if there wasn't an arena with which to show executions like Daniel Pearl's or the mutilation of civilian contractors in Falluja. Without a camera there to document the action, the effect these incidents have on the world would certainly be lessened dramatically. However, it stands to reason that if outlets decided to take a much more rigorous stand on the types of broadcasts they will air and from whom, it might have dramatic effect on the world and troubled regions from which they originate, which could be either good or bad.

Ruthless Aggression
It all started last week with a report by Benedict that we have some testosterone fueled meatheads lurking in the law library. After that, it seems the tidal wave of aggression just surged forward from there on. My own encounters this week only served as evidence that there are an inordinate amount of disgruntled, angry, and overly aggressive males out there who are a moment's notice away from erupting into violence. Obviously, this page has seen its own fair share of overt aggression, as evidenced by the previous post and it subsequent deteriorating affect on all participants. So, I have to confess I'm guilty of being aggressive lately as well. This leads me to question why this is happening all of a sudden.

There are probably numerous explanations for this, and there's no point in addressing them here in detail. Most of the problems can be traced back to the usual culprits of joblessness, restlessness, and too much free time. I've written before about the denizens of this town who are constantly visible throughout the day, and I'm convinced that this is, if not the root cause, at least a contributing factor to the growing amount of frustration that's reaching dangerous levels throughout the city. One of the reasons I like winter weather so much is that it keeps most people in-doors, and, while the warm weather is a welcome respite, I'm always somewhat hesitant to greet it with open arms because along with it comes the fact that most of the undesirables will be making a return to open society as well. I don't know how else to describe the arrival of spring, but there's a definite tension out there on the streets, and it's exerting its reach into the workplace as well.

Throughout my recently completed temp assignment, I was able to become emershed in the politics and relationships within the company I was working for. In particular, I was allowed to voice freely my own uncensored remarks regarding one of the full-time employees that works there. I found it particularly odd to be allowed such a forum and asked for my own candid assessment, and I naturally obliged. The person in question is a woman who is apparently rubbing everyone the wrong way, especially her workmate that has the unfortunate position of sharing an open cubicle with this troublesome employee. To sum up the situation, there's a definite communication breakdown between all four members of this operation. Typical advice from human resources advises such measures as open communication and the like, but those are just temporary bandages that don't really address the problems themselves because, as we're all aware, confrontation is the hardest thing in the world to do openly with a co-worker or friend. Just look below for evidence of that. Whisperings of "firings" and the like are the most talked about and likely solutions to the problems. Add to this a "stalker" who calls the "stable" cubicle-mate and you have a situation that's brewing and about to burst.

In addition to the above incidents, there was the confrontation with my neighbor about the volume of music emanating from my apartment, the gang of hoodlums harassing people on the streets of the South Side, and, just today, the frustrating grumbles by law students who were perplexed by how the library could wait to open at ten o'clock. It's all adding up to an ugly situation, and I want nothing to do with it, but I feel like there's no escape from this growing sense of aggression.