Only those fortunate enough to live in a medialess vacuum would be lucky enough to have avoided the cries of scandal over the release of the movie United 93. I've tried to read several reviews and I cannot make it through to the end without shaking my head in disgust at how the media is playing its role, part and parcel, of the morally outraged advocate for those exploited by the corporate money machines in Hollywood.

I guess what I'm driving at is that when you read these reviews that claim either that the film is an exercise in unexploitive restraint or a tediously unemotional film that leaves one on the verge of boredom, you can see that the strings of manipulation are being pulled by those who are going to profit from all the fuss, the very people that made the film that the reviewers have so many questions for. To me, this is nothing more than the continuation of the blurring of the line between news and entertainment. Most media is an exercise in promotion as it is, especially in the realm of magazines, but shouldn't the news be a tad above that type of behavior? I realize that when artists put out a new product it will be covered, reviewed, and critiqued from all angles, including the major news media. What would the arts section be comprised of if it wasn't? What I don't understand is that these writers, many of them good at their profession, don't seem to realize that by taking some sort of stance that either raises questions as to the intent of the artist in a negative way or by overly praising the artist in such a gushing manner that they are simply doing part of the marketing campaign for the distributors themselves. Maybe it all goes hand in hand and one scratches the back of the other and vice versa, but there seems to be something askew about the process that riles me more and more.

One other aspect of the writing that bothers me to a tremendous extent is the way in which writers decree with some manner of satisfaction that their criticisms, while seeming harsh, aren't really meant to be taken that way and then deflect that attention by tossing out an equally inflammatory criticism. Here's an example:

To question this is not meant to take anything away from the heroism of the passengers on Flight 93. (Although to imply that they were the only ones who displayed courage in the face of the events of that day is to slight the cops and firefighters who rushed into the Twin Towers, many of whom never returned alive.)

I assume the reaction is supposed to be, "Oh, of course, no one would accuse you have saying anything remotely negative against the innocent victims of this tragedy. In fact, you reinforce your position by mentioning the fact that there were other victims as well, ones not portrayed in the film, who you happen to have been the ONE person to recall. Good job."

These types of disclaimers are often pointless nonsense that serves little purpose other than to present the writer as an overly passionate observer and empathetic towards the victims, but the fact remains that they are still reviewing a film, so they need to make some sort of comment, which may be harsh in tone but respectful in intent. Does that make sense?

I think everyone can get my drift. This type of writing is so transparent that it's practically vaporous in nature.

The older I get the more I realize that it's the little things people do that are the most annoying. Sure, on occasion, you run into someone who has a monstrous personality flaw that grates on your nerves like no tomorrow. My theory, though, is that most people do very minor things that irritate you to the point where they seem huge but in reality really are not. I could give a few instances, but that's not the point. What I'm writing about today is the little thing here at the office that has taken on a life of its own as a minor, but what may be major, irritant.

The office kitchen sink has experienced more than its fair share of clogs over the last year or so. Every time it happens, though, nobody bothers to go to the drugstore and procure some drain cleaning solution. No, what inevitably happens is that the clog progressively gets worse and worse with little or no drainage until it finally clogs completely and no water escapes regardless of how long you wait, and the only recourse is to call a plumber. Being somewhat familiar with the inconvenience of a clogged drain (the bathroom sink in my current residence clogs on occasion), I feel that this is an easy problem to remedy. However, as I said, no one apparently thinks that some Draino might do the trick. On the face of it, this is annoying in and of itself, but now it's time to chronicle the really annoying part of this.

Every time this happens, and it happens frequently enough, certain members of the staff suddenly graduate to being private eyes. Through their deductive skills they arrive at the only conclusion possible as to why this keeps happening: oatmeal! Yes, it's because of leftover oatmeal on the sides of the bowl that somehow works its way down the drain to create some sort of super oat adhesive, a form of oat cholesterol blocking the veins of our pipes. That must be the reason that this continues to happen. It has to be oatmeal. Oatmeal absorbs water and expands. What other explanation could there be? The solution then is to demand that those who eat oatmeal must wipe their bowls before placing them in the sink. That will do the trick.

Now, I must mention that I am one of the "offenders." One of those oatmeal eaters who, when I don't have time to wash my bowl out immediately, leaves it in the sink for later. I do wash it. It's not as if I leave it there for days. The thing is that I scrape the bowl out pretty thoroughly. I don't leave many traces of oatmeal in the bowl that will carry itself down the drain and add to the blockage. So, I'm clearly off the hook, but not really. The only other offender is one of the librarians who eats oatmeal more than I do. I don't know what her bowl looks like when she's finished, but I'm pretty sure that it's not encrusted with massive amounts of oatmeal, but surely she must be the culprit. The absurdity of the theory goes so far as to suggest that because this person routinely does not wear her glasses then she must not be able to see the large quantities of oatmeal that she's washing down the drain. Right.

So it goes. The drain clogs and emails get sent or signs posted that tell you, especially you oatmeal eaters, to wipe off your dishes before putting them in the sink. The neverending cycle.

But the ultimate solution is at hand, a new sink. Yes, a new sink with a garbage disposal. That will do the trick. It's been months since it's been ordered and no one knows when it's going to be delivered let alone installed and usable.

Well, that day finally came on Thursday. There's a new sink installed in place of the old, unreliable one. One problem: it isn't working yet. There's a big sign reading "Temporarily Out of Service." (Which reminds me of the "Out of Order" sign placed on one of the doors that was broken. How is it out of order? It's broken. It's not functioning in some minor way. It's broken completely.) So the dishes are stacking up, and if you want to wash anything, you have to take it to the bathroom, which is not exactly an enticing option considering the amount of traffic we receive in the form of homeless people who frequent the bathroom, one in particular spends most of his time there.

The moral of the story is that it's a minor problem that seems much more major than it really is. But, gosh, it'd be nice to be able to wash my dishes without having to use handsoap and paper towels to do it.

Simply put, the 54C is the bane of my existence.