Dilemma Exchange
I'm sure a lot of people who work in an office setting run into the same dilemma each and every December, whether or not to participate in the annual Christmas party/gift exchange/karaoke sing along. It's always hard to assess the risk associated with boycotting the aspects of the entire affair that seem to be either wasteful or unappealing. How will one be perceived if one does one, the other, or both? In all likelihood, it doesn't matter one iota whether or not you choose to participate in these events, and that goes double for people who are lower in the hierarchy of the dreaded pay scale. But the issue really isn't whether or not one can afford to participate, and I'll admit freely that the money is not the issue. Well, it is, but not in the sense that I can't afford to part with it. The issue is, at least what I perceive to be, the notion that it's a waste of money and not in fact a real gift.
If you think about it, when one is approached with the offer to participate in these types of events, it is done is such a generic manner that it's almost impossible to assume the guise of someone who is really gung-ho about the prospect of buying an unspecified gift for a particular amount for an anonymous person. Isn't it hard enough to buy presents for people you do know, like your family? How can you purchase anything that will make you feel as if it's a really good gift if it's just something chosen because it fits into the price parameters? It's not as if you're buying something that you think the recipient will enjoy because you know their tastes, likes and dislikes. That's at least somewhat intriguing, but the random, anonymous gift is more of a headache than anything else. This is what I think of when overactive spending during the holidays is mentioned.
What compounds the absurdity even further is if the institution in which you work has several separate parties with the same format. If one were so inclined, you could attend more than one of these events and relive the awkward experience over again. How fun does that sound?
It's not as if this is even earthshatteringly important, but it's something that I see as putting somewhat of a damper on the holidays even though it's supposed to be part of them.
My Own Personal 6 a.m. A vast wasteland where word bombs explode with ferocity and provoke rage, sadness, and glee.
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Monday, December 12, 2005
What's Really Going On?
At the risk of sounding as if I've betrayed the very nature of the political word embedded in the address to this site, I've become more and more fascinated about the very possibility that our sources of news, namely newspapers and cable news networks, create the reality in which they are reporting on. In other words, how much of what we consume is actually true to fact and not as perceived by those reporters who are employed by a politically influenced conglomerate? Who is just towing the party line and who is reporting the facts on the straight and narrow? It's hard to say, and I think the notion that "unless you've been there" takes on new significance in our world that is proliferated by sources of information that can be finely attuned to the very ideology of the reader him or herself. If one were so inclined, they could find just about any reportage on any topic as seen through the lens of one's choice, be it liberal, moderate, or conservative in nature. In fact, that may be the very problem with the advent of the numerous venues in which it's now possible to foist one's opinions on the world. One would assume that it's possible to locate a reasonably balanced opinion and reportage in at least one venue, but I'm not so sure.
Nearly every day the New York Times publishes an article about the inner workings of the Bush administration, and, obviously, they print more when there is a particular event that dominates the headlines, and they seem to publish even more when there is an event that can be described as being bad for the administration, which, at this point, you can take your pick of many. What worries me is that on these occasions, it's easy to find articles and editorials that report on the mental state of the those who make up the inner circle. For whatever reason, they almost always seem to reveal that the administration is concerned, worried, or in a frantic state over some event or another. I'm not suggesting that they shouldn't be in any of these conditions; in fact, they probably should be if they're affected by anything at all. However, what concerns me is that I wonder on occasion how much of this is real. Are they really in such a state of panic, or is that the way the reporters want to perceive the situation, and, further, are they writing as such because they know that their editors and, ultimately, the publisher wants to portray things as such?
The issue grows even more troublesome after days pass in which one encounters the same descriptions. The story, as they say, "grows legs" and it assumes a life of its own and, more importantly, a reality all its own. I read these passages on, what seems like, a daily basis, and I wonder, "Is this really how it is?" For an administration that's supposedly in such a state of panic, they sure act as if they're in control. They never seem to betray the fact that they are in the midst of a crisis. Of course, this particular group never seems to act as if anything is going wrong, so it's hard to judge what exactly is going on with them, and I put nothing past them in their efforts to appear in control. I just find it beyond comprehension that this reporting is in fact reporting the real situation. Nothing seems to change because of it, and one would think that a group afflicted by so many crisis would eventually reach a breaking point. Of course, they don't and things return to the status quo, whatever that may be.
My point is that I'm finding it harder to separate the buckwheat from the shaft, so to speak, and it's growing more and more apparent to me that there has to be, to sum extent, a bias to news reporting. It can't be both ways, gloomy assessments on one hand and sunny on the other. Where's the middle ground and the actual perception of what's going on?
At the risk of sounding as if I've betrayed the very nature of the political word embedded in the address to this site, I've become more and more fascinated about the very possibility that our sources of news, namely newspapers and cable news networks, create the reality in which they are reporting on. In other words, how much of what we consume is actually true to fact and not as perceived by those reporters who are employed by a politically influenced conglomerate? Who is just towing the party line and who is reporting the facts on the straight and narrow? It's hard to say, and I think the notion that "unless you've been there" takes on new significance in our world that is proliferated by sources of information that can be finely attuned to the very ideology of the reader him or herself. If one were so inclined, they could find just about any reportage on any topic as seen through the lens of one's choice, be it liberal, moderate, or conservative in nature. In fact, that may be the very problem with the advent of the numerous venues in which it's now possible to foist one's opinions on the world. One would assume that it's possible to locate a reasonably balanced opinion and reportage in at least one venue, but I'm not so sure.
Nearly every day the New York Times publishes an article about the inner workings of the Bush administration, and, obviously, they print more when there is a particular event that dominates the headlines, and they seem to publish even more when there is an event that can be described as being bad for the administration, which, at this point, you can take your pick of many. What worries me is that on these occasions, it's easy to find articles and editorials that report on the mental state of the those who make up the inner circle. For whatever reason, they almost always seem to reveal that the administration is concerned, worried, or in a frantic state over some event or another. I'm not suggesting that they shouldn't be in any of these conditions; in fact, they probably should be if they're affected by anything at all. However, what concerns me is that I wonder on occasion how much of this is real. Are they really in such a state of panic, or is that the way the reporters want to perceive the situation, and, further, are they writing as such because they know that their editors and, ultimately, the publisher wants to portray things as such?
The issue grows even more troublesome after days pass in which one encounters the same descriptions. The story, as they say, "grows legs" and it assumes a life of its own and, more importantly, a reality all its own. I read these passages on, what seems like, a daily basis, and I wonder, "Is this really how it is?" For an administration that's supposedly in such a state of panic, they sure act as if they're in control. They never seem to betray the fact that they are in the midst of a crisis. Of course, this particular group never seems to act as if anything is going wrong, so it's hard to judge what exactly is going on with them, and I put nothing past them in their efforts to appear in control. I just find it beyond comprehension that this reporting is in fact reporting the real situation. Nothing seems to change because of it, and one would think that a group afflicted by so many crisis would eventually reach a breaking point. Of course, they don't and things return to the status quo, whatever that may be.
My point is that I'm finding it harder to separate the buckwheat from the shaft, so to speak, and it's growing more and more apparent to me that there has to be, to sum extent, a bias to news reporting. It can't be both ways, gloomy assessments on one hand and sunny on the other. Where's the middle ground and the actual perception of what's going on?
Friday, December 09, 2005
Year's Best???
This being the end of the year, we are inevitably greeted with the yearly deluge of "year's best" lists that chronicle everything one can possibly imagine being ranked that came out in the previous year. Not one to miss out on the action, Pittsburgh's own City Paper posted its annual rankings from their annual survey of the city's best stuff.
Now, I'm not against this type of thing per say, but I have one qualm about what seems to be an exercise in redundancy. While granting that there are rankings in each respective category for "new" establishments, the majority of the rankings are devoted to heaping praise upon businesses that seem to receive the same honors each and every year. In other words, when you're given only a limited number of choices to pick from year to year, of course the same businesses are going to receive the same votes year in and year out.
To demonstrate, let's take a look at some of the more ludicrous results.
Example 1:
Best place to get bagels
BrueggerĂ‚’s Bagels
Various locations
2nd Panera Bread
3rd Einstein Brothers Bagels
My two biggest questions are these:
1. Could the choices be any more obvious? (Two of them have "Bagels" in their names)
2. Are there any other places to get bagels other than these establishments, or places that people think of immediately when considering buying a bagel? (Given that two of the business specialize in bagels, wouldn't it be an even bigger surprise if, say, a place really off the wall made the list, like Sushi Two?)
Example 2:
Best mass transit route
54C
2nd The T
3rd 61C
Okay, this one is of obvious concern to me. Keeping in mind this award is simply for the best route and has nothing to do with the service, I still feel a tinge ofapprehensionn awarding the 54C this distinction. Do I really have to spell out why?
Finally, a real favorite of mine.
Example 3:
Best coffeehouse
Beehive
South Side
2nd Kiva Han
3rd The Quiet Storm
Basically, according to this, these are the only three coffeehouses in Pittsburgh, or, in what's an interesting twist of irony, the only three that fit the "coffeehouse" label, because there are many more coffeehouses in Pittsburgh, but they happen to be called either Starbucks, Crazy Mocha, or Caribou Coffee, and I'd wager that these three do much more business than those that are deemed worthy of the "coffeehouse" label.
The rest of the lists are littered with your typical rankings of Indian restaurants, sports bars, and bookstores, all of which you're most likely familiar with, because there just aren't that many choices from year to year to make the rankings anything more than a formality.
This being the end of the year, we are inevitably greeted with the yearly deluge of "year's best" lists that chronicle everything one can possibly imagine being ranked that came out in the previous year. Not one to miss out on the action, Pittsburgh's own City Paper posted its annual rankings from their annual survey of the city's best stuff.
Now, I'm not against this type of thing per say, but I have one qualm about what seems to be an exercise in redundancy. While granting that there are rankings in each respective category for "new" establishments, the majority of the rankings are devoted to heaping praise upon businesses that seem to receive the same honors each and every year. In other words, when you're given only a limited number of choices to pick from year to year, of course the same businesses are going to receive the same votes year in and year out.
To demonstrate, let's take a look at some of the more ludicrous results.
Example 1:
Best place to get bagels
BrueggerĂ‚’s Bagels
Various locations
2nd Panera Bread
3rd Einstein Brothers Bagels
My two biggest questions are these:
1. Could the choices be any more obvious? (Two of them have "Bagels" in their names)
2. Are there any other places to get bagels other than these establishments, or places that people think of immediately when considering buying a bagel? (Given that two of the business specialize in bagels, wouldn't it be an even bigger surprise if, say, a place really off the wall made the list, like Sushi Two?)
Example 2:
Best mass transit route
54C
2nd The T
3rd 61C
Okay, this one is of obvious concern to me. Keeping in mind this award is simply for the best route and has nothing to do with the service, I still feel a tinge ofapprehensionn awarding the 54C this distinction. Do I really have to spell out why?
Finally, a real favorite of mine.
Example 3:
Best coffeehouse
Beehive
South Side
2nd Kiva Han
3rd The Quiet Storm
Basically, according to this, these are the only three coffeehouses in Pittsburgh, or, in what's an interesting twist of irony, the only three that fit the "coffeehouse" label, because there are many more coffeehouses in Pittsburgh, but they happen to be called either Starbucks, Crazy Mocha, or Caribou Coffee, and I'd wager that these three do much more business than those that are deemed worthy of the "coffeehouse" label.
The rest of the lists are littered with your typical rankings of Indian restaurants, sports bars, and bookstores, all of which you're most likely familiar with, because there just aren't that many choices from year to year to make the rankings anything more than a formality.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)