News Story
Flipping through the channels last night, I found myself wading through the all-news networks which devote all of their nighttime programming to talk shows or, in most cases, shouting matches. The topic on all three networks (CNN, MSNBC, and FOX) was Ann Coulter's latest book in which she makes some pretty disparaging remarks about several widows of 9/11 victims. It's typical Coulter nonsense that's simply meant to provoke the very reaction that it receives, sheer outrage. The thing to expect from every one of these types of provocateurs is that they'll pop up every once in awhile to make some sort of statement that generates controversy, which means we can probably expect something from Michael Savage pretty soon as well; it's usually accompanied by the release of a new book or some other type of promotional necessity. What usually happens is that people get upset, the controversy rages for awhile, and the it fades as quickly as the book sales that land the remainders in the discount bin. The question remains, though, is she right to criticize these women, clearly victims of a tragedy, and if not, how can we assume when it is okay to criticize and who is out of bounds?

Personally, I think her comments are par for the course with her type of reactionary conservativism. She's a walking contradiction that profits off of rage and pandering to a base that is amused by her rhetoric. Blatant racism, sexism, and any other -ism you can think of in the negative sense are usually what you'll find within the pages of her books or the words that she spews on the television. The networks know what they're in for when they book her as a guest, and it's always a guaranteed verbal sparing match that will engulf the majority of the broadcast. They know it, and they book her anyway.

What I find mystifying about her is that she spouts forth the ideals of the uber-conservative, but actively portrays herself as anything but with regards to her style. Have you seen how short her skirts are? This isn't done by accident. She's a pretty calculating woman, and she exudes just enough raw sexuality that it appeals to the males in the audience, myself included, who find themselves mesmerized by her appearance all the while forgetting just how offensive her comments really are to a huge portion of the public.

As for whether it's right or wrong to criticize the victims of tragedies that decide to speak out on the issues concerned, I'm of the opinion that once you cross the line and enter the public debate, then you're fair game for criticism. Should it be in the form of the near slander the Coulter uses? No, I think you can say that you feel that these people are simply using their status as victims to project on to the public sphere their feelings and opinions and that you don't agree with that. Personally, I feel the same about Cindy Sheehan. I can't listen to her speak, and I turn the channel when I see her on the news. I think that her policies, while noble in regards to her demanding answers for her son's death, have reached a point where her influence seems detrimental to the cause she's trying to promote. Now, she's campaigning not only against Republicans but also Democrats that voted in favor of the war in Iraq. That's her position to take, but I think it's wrong in the long run. The point of the coming election, to me, is to wrest control of either or both houses of Congress from Republican control. Anything that seeks to undermine that cause in favor of ideological nitpicking seems to defeat the purpose. But I would never say that she's some "harpie" that may have been planning on abandoning her son, ala Coulter's remarks about the 9/11 widows.

All of that to say that it's a fine line to criticize a victim.

News Story
So, today, Ben Roethlisberger, the quarterback of the Pittsburgh Steelers and the greatest thing to happen to this town since sliced bread, wrecked his motorcycle and was injured pretty substantially, if reports are to be believed, which, from the similarly inconsistent reports surrounding the details of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's death, can be unreliable at best. Surprisingly enough, Roethlisberger was not wearing a helmet while riding his bike. It's apparently something that he feels is not necessary and, I would wager, not "cool".

I find it almost unfathomable that someone, anyone, would want to ride a motorcycle without a helmet. How this is explained, I guess, is that it's now up to the individual to decide whether they want to ride with or without a helmet. Fine, I can accept that notion, but doesn't it work both ways? My theory is that a person is probably more likely to suffer some sort of gruesome injury if they do not have a helmet on when they're in an accident with someone else, who in all likelihood will be in a car or truck. So, why not spare that person, regardless of whether or not they are at fault, the trauma of witnessing this spectacle just because the other person didn't want to wear a helmet? I realize that these accidents can be traumatic even if the rider does have a helmet, but from the descriptions of Roethlisberger's accident, which was serious but not fatal, it's apparent that a lot of blood and other injuries can occur.

As for this incident, it didn't take long for Pittsburgh to show its true colors. A maintenance man in the building asked a co-worker of mine why she wasn't glued to the television because of this tragedy. He appeared on the verge of tears. Meanwhile in Iraq, people are being incinerated by roadside bombs, and nobody gives it a second thought. Ben Roethlisberger has an accident, from which he'll live, and it's as if the world has fallen apart. Please.

A New Start
It's well past time to do a proper entry on this site. The reason for the long break has nothing to do with the usual fact that I have nothing to write about. No, in fact, I have much to address. I moved from one side of Pittsburgh to the other. The New York Times named Beloved the best work of fiction from the past twenty-five years. My reactions to Philip Roth's new novel Everyman. I have all kinds of stuff to write about. Now, I just need to get it down on the page. So, in the interest of time, I'll devote this post to a shotgun like summary of the topics above.

First, the move. I moved during the middle of May from the rowdy South Side to the much quieter confines of Friendship. The difference is striking in many regards. First, I have a yard surrounding my building for the first time in three years. And this yard is composed of grass, unlike my other place which consisted of concrete. I never thought I'd be so enamored by trees and grass, but when you don't have them on your property for such an extended period, the change is dramatic beyond belief. Also, I have a porch! Yes, a real porch that I may sit on during the summer months ahead. Take that South Side and your measly stoops. All this to say that I really like where I am now. There are aspects of the South Side that I miss, but I think there are an equal amount of negatives that I don't give a damn about not experiencing on a daily basis that more than outweigh the positives.

So Beloved is the best work of fiction from the past twenty-five years. I can't argue since I haven't read the book yet. Oh, it's sitting on my book shelf at home along with the numerous other books that I haven't tackled yet. I'll read it someday, I hope. The list itself is pretty standard considering what's out there. There's a lot of Roth, some DeLillo, Updike, McCarthy, and a slathering of other writers. All in all it's a pretty solid list. The biggest omission, though, seems to be the lack of contemporary writers from the last twenty-five years. No David Foster Wallace. No Rick Moody. No Michael Chabon. It's amazing that these three alone, who have produced some pretty impressive efforts, were totally absent from the list. Maybe twenty-five years from now they'll make the list.

As for Roth, who is my favorite writer along with Thomas Pynchon, his latest novella, Everyman is pretty slim in size but pretty powerful in content. For the most part, I find that his fiction is nearly flawless, but I feel that sometimes he sacrifices the sustained flow of a narrative for the sake of a few crass sex scenes between an older man and a much younger woman. Anyone who is familiar with Roth's work knows that this is nothing new. It's his obsession, to say the least, that the power of male sexual prowess is somehow entwined with the desire to live. The decline of this ability is almost inevitably preceded by the death of the subject. I guess my world experience is much more limited than some others, but I've always found it almost unbelievable that there are these numerous older men who posses this omnipotent sway over younger women. It's just a plot device that I find stale in his work, and it, to me, detracts from the larger narrative that is portraying a decline in both the narrator's body and his familial relations.

Well, that's a start.