"Deserves got nothing to do with it."
In what amounts to an effort to stonewall and avoid an issue, I have been yet again avoided in the field of combat, verbal combat that is. The subject in discussion happens to be the differences between a "privilege" and a "right" in the minds of two people, myself and the ever optimistic author of Faster Than Light. The recipients of the so-called privileges or the holders of rights are the homeless, disturbed and various other forms of detritus that frequent libraries, both public and private. The point in contention here though stems not from this so called semantic argument, but the fact that there's a cause and effect relationship that results from one principal upheld breeding a response. Before getting into that, though, let's address the issue of a privilege versus a right.

In my world, libraries aren't the "right" of the people; they may be in wording and on some engraved plaques, but they aren't, by any means, a necessity. How else can one explain the decreased funding for libraries in the last few years? Isn't it obvious that libraries aren't a number one priority in any city? If they are, as in Kansas City, they are going to be taken care of in an effort to ensure that they last for years to come and that taxpayer money isn't wasted on a facility that is surrounded by crime and undesirables. The gist of the problem that's perceived by advocates is that by taking care of library administrators will be unjustly targeting the wrong people. Well, guess what? That's too bad. Libraries are not, I repeat not, homeless shelters. They are, though, places where taxpayers, namely families, should be able to bring their children and not be afraid that they're going to have to share their space with an unkempt transient. This just isn't fair. I'm not condoning some world where parents shelter their children from the harsh realities of life, but this is a place, to quote a classmate, serves as "hallowed ground," in many shapes and forms. Because of this, it's necessary to keep the library free of miscreants and create an atmosphere that's welcoming, not filled with the stenches of the unbathed, the incoherent mumblings of the deranged, or the outright lunacy of many homeless people.

Getting back to the issue, then, it is a privilege to enter a library. People should embrace that notion. It's not a right to enter a library simply because it's there. It's not a right to steal materials, deface property, hold on to materials for long periods of time, and any other abuses that routinely plague a library. By taking materials out of a library that are "free" for the taking, you are engaging in a subtle form of contract law. It says the library trusts you to be able to be a responsible person and take "their" stuff out of the library proper. It says you'll be responsible enough to bring it back in the condition within which it was given to you. To be able to take part in this is a privilege, not a right.

Now, back to the point I alluded to above with the cause and effect. Previous posts here referred to an insecure, dolt who fancies himself a vigilante of sorts, a white knight, if you will, of all the damsels in distress under his wing. The reasoning behind my hostility regarding this individual stems from the fact that he views me as a "threat" to his underlings. I don't know why he thinks this, but I'm incensed by the fact that every time I pass this creep in the library, I'm either in store for a sideways glance to my face or a glare, at my back as I pass. Apparently, there's nothing I can do to alleviate this situation. I guess short of confronting him, nothing seems to serve as a means to calm his fears. Regardless, the reason I bring this back up is for two reasons.

One, his behavior has been rationalized, and essentially condoned, by FTL in her responses to my posts and a recent exchange on her site. What's frustrating about this is that there's no give in this back and forth. I'm resolute in my opinion that this is wrong, and FTL, in an effort to avoid conflict, for what else is it, defends this behavior, or if not defends it at least rationalizes it to a point. Essentially, I'm told to deal with it because I'm "intimidating." That could serve as either a compliment or an insult. The point, though, that this is expected behavior and defendable is utterly unfathomable to me. It's defendable on the grounds that it's akin to viewing someone as a vulnerable ditz. There's a huge difference, I think. I'm being categorized, and profiled into a stereotype, and a bad one at that. I'm being seen as a predator, which is a huge difference being viewed as a dopey blonde.

Two, if this place had its own "safe zone," perhaps there wouldn't be a need for this guy to be on his toes all the time another male is in the vicinity. The cause and effect here is that by letting everyone under the sun to walk into a library, you are courting disaster and creating an environment that's not viewed in a pleasant context. Keep the trash out and there's no need to be paranoid about patrons with ulterior motives. Maybe this guy just wants to keep an eye on his harem, and maybe that makes him feel powerful in some sense. The fact remains that there's no reason to do this if there's a set of expectations upon entering. You aren't going to run into people that are dangerous if they are kept out. Perhaps a fascist reaction? Sure, but the library wouldn't suffer and neither would the patrons who deserve to be inside.

In the end, I guess I've rationalized the behavior of my nemesis, but that's fine as long as my point is made and it makes rational sense. I hope this puts an end to this nonsense, but I doubt it will. I can feel his cold, reptilian eyes on me now.

Too Stupid
A fellow temp at my current assignment inspired this post.

"I don't get it."
"What do you mean. All I'm doing is converting the quarter hours to minutes. It's not that hard."

Anyone who is around me for long periods of time knows that I'm not afraid to make judgments on people regarding their intelligence capacity. I realize that these are, for the most part, off-the-cuff remarks that aren't backed up by any real evidence, but I like making them nonetheless. Call it "Lewis Blackitous," if you will. In all my days, though, I've noticed a curious phenomenon that one can encounter in various venues, those people who try, for who knows what reason, to be much more stupid than they necessarily are in reality. Akin to those individuals who feign being tired all the time, these people act dumber than can conceivably be the case. Simple tasks, explanations of simple concepts, as related above, and all manner of simple interactions become harrowing ordeals that baffle the minds of this breed of creature.

The above fragments of conversation came from an episode yesterday in which I was trying to add up my time for the last week for the purpose of submitting my timesheet. This timesheet equates fifteen minute intervals into quarter-hours, so fifteen minutes equals twenty-five, thirty minutes equals fifty, and forty-five minutes equals seventy-five. Not all that complicated, right? I didn't think so, but for the purposes of adding up my minutes, I just converted the quarters back into their minute equivalents, so I made fifty into thirty minutes and seventy-five into forty-five minutes. Still keeping up? So forty-five minutes plus thirty minutes equals an hour and fifteen minutes.

Now, the only reason I asked for help from my co-worker was for her to explain to me where to put some overtime hours. This is where the trouble started. At first, she thought I hadn't reached overtime the previous day, which was wrong. I'd surpassed and exceeded forty hours the previous day. I added them up, and came up with a total. I even used a calculator. She tried the same thing but came up with a different number, and claimed that I was cheating myself of time because I wasn't adding correctly. Trying to explain the conversion drew a serious of blank stares, mumbled utterances, and a sleepy-eyed look of total bafflement. Why was this so hard?

At the risk of sounding like a total elitist, I have to offer that this girl has offered clues that her ability to cognitively function on a plain of reality akin to those of most functioning adults may be lesser than those of an average high-school student. Her intellectual incuriosity is overwhelming. I can converse with her, and a supervisor even commented on the fact that we appeared to know one another since we got along so well, but I can tell there's not much to her than the base in nature. To top it off, and what should be the tell-all sign of problems regarding this, is the fact that she's a journalism major who doesn't like to read. I hear gasps of disbelief. "What?" "Is that possible?" I'm afraid it is, and it's a scary fact of life to comprehend.

These creatures aren't foreign to me, and I'm sure most others who attended college. Even my undergrad classes were populated with people who had no interest in the subjects they were supposed to be majoring in, in this case English and Literature. Why people are drawn to liberal arts degrees yet have no actual interest in the material is best left to another post altogether.

Back to the original query. Why do people seem to act dumber than they are? Is it just an effort to avoid having to think? Or is it boredom? Or perhaps a combination of all the above. I don't know, but it's a perplexing phenomenon that grows more and more intriguing everytime I encounter it. I'm thinking that, in the grand scheme of things, that acting dumb can be an advantage to some, and this just naturally extends to all encounters in their lives. Being dumb grants you immunity from being expected to do too much. If you don't know anything, how can you be responsible for anything as well? Right, you can't. These people, though, are, I think, stranger than those I mentioned above who operate in a zombie-like haze induced by countless nights of little or no sleep. Those people seem to be just trying to avoid conversations with people they don't want to talk to. It's easy to appear distracted and tired. That gets you off the hook for so many things. Acting stupid does as well, but it comes with a worse set of labels. I would rather be thought of as being overworked than stupid, but I took English classes because I like to read, so I'm probably not the best person to consult on the matter.

Turncoat
"Kingmob, the reception area is for clients only."
"Oh, okay."

That's how it started.

After a mindnumbingly long period of separating, compiling, and assembling quarterly reports, I figured I was entitled to a little respite, a brief amount of time to decompress before moving on to the next task in what is becoming a veritable routine of the mundane. It was a little less than a half an hour until the place closes officially, but that's not to say that a good portion of the staff, including those I work for, don't stay later. So, I grabbed my coffee cup and waltzed upstairs where I returned it to the kitchen. After washing the cup, which wasn't required but seemed like the right thing to do since the washing machine was already in the midst of its last cycle, I walked back down the hall and glanced at a copy of the Wall Street Journal, which this business receives multiple copies of daily. Instead of standing at the counter, I decided I could take it to the sofas that are arranged around the room for clients to wait for their appointments with their financial advisors. I sat down, looked at the first page, and was suddenly interrupted by the receptionist.

She knew my name, which was the first surprise. Clients only, eh? I may be exaggerating, but this sounds an awful lot like some form of segregation in effect. I have to admit I was taken aback by this, but I figured, being a lowly temp and all, that it was best just to return the paper and go back downstairs, which I did. I went back to work and thought nothing of it but that it was a tad strange. A few minutes later, I was summoned by one of my superiors.

I have to admit that I was half tempted to tell them about it immediately, but I refrained, not out of fear, but I figured there wasn't any real point. She asked me to take a box of envelopes upstairs that were ready to be mailed out. She then uttered in an obviously sarcastic tone, "No more reading newspapers." I was floored.

"Did she call you?"
"Yes."
"Oh, man, I can't believe that. She's ratting me out for reading a paper."

Needless to say, I was full of rage. I wanted to storm back up there toss the box at her and demand an explanation why she was compelled to call about my transgression almost immediately. Of course, I did neither of these things, but I had to act as if I didn't know she just told on me, and, unknowingly, she had to abide by the fact that she didn't know that I knew.

What kind of person begrudges someone five minutes to leaf through a paper close to the end of the day when, in all likelihood, there was little or no chance of any "clients" coming in? A sick person, that's who. This woman is a little loopy, and I'm not saying that out of pure rage at the fact that she is nothing but a tattletale. I told my coworker, and she wasn't surprised. She told me she wasn't very friendly anyway, so, in other words, don't worry about it. It didn't surprise her in the least.

What irks me beyond the fact that it happened is the reasoning behind the action. What purpose did it serve? I wasn't likely to sprawl out on the couch and take a good leisurely read of the paper. I was simply going to leaf through it. Five minutes, tops. But what bothers me the most is that it ruined my day. No matter how much I thought about ignoring it, I couldn't. No matter how many wisecracks I made about it to my superior, about not taking too long in the bathroom or going up to the sofas, now that everyone is gone, and taking a nap, I couldn't help but feel nauseous. No matter how much it appeared that she didn't care in the least, I was still pissed off about it. I was having a really good day up until then, but that killed it, which is, obviously, my reason for writing about it here. This woman, who probably told on her classmates about their misdeeds the days the regular teacher was out and replaced by a substitute, is a rotten excuse for a human being. She's a wolf in sheep's clothing and a vile disgrace to humanity. The worst of the worst, at least in the office world. Someone who minds everyone else's business except their own.

Of course, I'm filled with all manner of responses I would have liked to have said to her now that I'm removed from the situation. I won't say a word, but I'm through being nice to this woman. I was nice enough to make sure that door to the stairwell didn't slam when I was coming or going. No more. Slam away, baby. I can't believe it happened, but it did, and there's nothing I can do about it but stew. Oh, and let the door slam.

Respite
After yesterday's fiasco regarding my bombardment by the oldies, I was pleasantly rewarded today with an answer of "Yes" to my inquiry about listening to the radio while I worked. Giddy with excitement at placing a buffer between me and the strains of "Nowhere to Run," I quickly jacked into the computer, clicked on the Media Player and set to work finding a station. Lucky for me, the listing on the application provide me with a plethora of stations to choose from. Soon after, I was listening to the BBC news broadcast followed by NPR's "Day to Day, ""Fresh Air," and "All Things Considered." Woo-Hoo!!! I never thought I'd enjoy the mindnumbingly bad interviewing skills of Terry Gross so much.

Blitkrieged by the Oldies
I've always been intrigued by reports in the media of the military using loud music, mostly heavy metal, to try to break the wills of their prey, whether it's prisoners from Iraq or those detained at Camp X-Ray in Cuba. They used it in Panama with Noriega and in Waco with the Davidians, and I'm sure they've done it countless other times as well with varying amounts of success. Well, it came as a surprise today when I was assigned, in my second day of a temporary assignment, to work at a computer, the only available one, next to the head secretary, on the second floor, in a financial consulting firm. Since where we're working is out of the view of the public and no clients are coming and going, there's a somewhat more realized attitude that pervades the second floor. How this secretary exercises her freedom is to have her radio on all day. It just so happens that the radio stays on the same station all day as well, an oldies station.

Now, I'm not an ardent opponent of the oldies, far from it. I like a lot of "classic" tunes, and I heard quite a few of them today as I typed away at my project. However, no one should have to be subjected to this prolonged exposure to a station most likely heard in dentist's or doctor's offices. When you're there, you're only bound to have to stay for a finite period of time, and most people realize that and thus have little or no reaction towards whatever music is playing around them. It's all background noise, and that's better, I guess, than dead silence that's only disrupted by those who are brave enough to deign it acceptable to hold a hushed conversation. In fact, I'm sure that's the only purpose this music serves in this situation as well, background noise, but this just goes on and on for hours, exposure to which, I'm sure, can result in some serious neurological damage as well as sudden homicidal impulses.

I sat there quietly praying that she'd change the channel to anything, preferably NPR, but no such luck. Just about on the verge of tears. I heard her shuffling around and shutting things off, getting ready to leave for the day. "Oh, thank you, Lord," I said to myself. The music was off, and I was done listening to the likes of the Temptations, Martha & The Vendellas, and Bob Seger. I was even scheming, planning a way to turn the dial to something else after she left. It was all for naught, though. As she exited, I looked at the clock. It was 4:57. I was done at 5:00. So much for escaping the likes of the 5th Dimension in favor of "All Things Considered." I was a broken man, and I knew the worst part was that tomorrow it would all start over again. Trapped in the 50s, 60s, and 70s.

With Liberty and Justice for All, except Me
In what has become an increasingly difficult, frustrating search for employment in the library field, which I imagine is akin to looking for the Holy Grail or the Lost Ark, I was greeted with an email that read as follows: (Note: all names have been deleted and changed to protect, namely, me.)

Hello Kingmob.

I have received your application for the law reference librarian position. I
am at a conference in Richmond, so I may not be able to respond too quickly
until next week.

I would like to arrange to talk with you over the telephone next week about
the position. What time would be good for you next week?

I look forward to talking with you.

Mr. X
Information & Technology Librarian
Liberty University School of Law

Sounds promising, right? Well, think again. In what amounted to a misguided attempt at applying for a job that, on the outside, sounds incredibly interesting, challenging, and right up my alley, I took myself out of contention for the position mentioned above for various reasons, which I will document below.

First off, to provide some context, the ad for the position appeared in my inbox courtesy of a list-serv I subscribe to that is devoted to law libraries, both private and academic. The ad, which is rather long, read as follows:

Reference Librarian
Liberty University School of Law Library
Lynchburg, Virginia

The Law Library at Liberty University School of Law is seeking a Reference
Librarian. LU School of Law is a new law school committed to academic and
professional excellence in the context of the Christian intellectual
tradition. The inaugural class will begin orientation on August 19, 2004 and
classes will begin August 25, 2004. The Reference Librarian will join a
growing staff of five, which currently includes three professional
librarians. This position reports to the Director of the Law Library.

Responsibilities: This is a new position in a new law library at a new law
school. The Reference Librarian will have a unique opportunity to establish
and significantly direct all public services offered by the Law Library. The
Reference Librarian will have primary responsibility for provision of
extensive reference and research services in a technologically advanced
environment.

The Reference Librarian will provide legal research instruction in the
Center for Lawyering Skills, and conduct research workshops, advanced
research classes and instruction in other forums. The Reference Librarian
will author research guides and other instructional and promotional
materials in print and electronic formats, participate in collection
development, assist in developing library policies and procedures, and may
participate in developing the Law Library Web presence.

Qualifications and Experience: Candidates must have a mastery of legal
research sources and techniques using both print and electronic materials,
database and Internet searching expertise, and knowledge of current
information delivery methods and publishing formats. The successful
candidate will have excellent oral and written communication skills, a
strong service orientation, a commitment to continuous improvement and
innovation, and the ability to work in a collegial and cooperative
environment. Candidates must be flexible and interested in assisting with a
wide range of duties necessary to open a new law library. Experience in an
academic law library environment is highly desirable. An MLS from an
ALA-accredited institution is required; JD strongly preferred.

Salary and Benefits: Salary will be commensurate with qualifications and
experience. Liberty University offers a competitive benefits package.

Available: August 1, 2004.

To apply: Send a letter expressing your interest in the position along with
a current resume and the names of three references to (Deleted)

Liberty University School of Law, as a new school, is neither fully nor
provisionally approved by the American Bar Association. The Dean is fully
informed as to the Standards and Rules of Procedure for the Approval of Law
Schools by the American Bar Association. The Administration and the Dean are
determined to devote all necessary resources and in other respects to take
all necessary steps to present a program of legal education that will
qualify for approval by the American Bar Association. The law school makes
no representation to any applicant that it will be approved by the American
Bar Association prior to the graduation of any matriculating student. The
State Council of Higher Education for Virginia granted approval to Liberty
University to confer the Juris Doctor degree.

Liberty University School of Law recognizes the image of God inherent in all
people and thus the dignity of all members of the human family. The law
school prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national
origin, sex, age, disability, or status as a veteran. The law school is open
to all persons whose conduct does not undermine its historic Christian
character and who respect and abide by the mission, goals, and policies of
the school of law.

Having read this ad, I was struck, as I'm sure most everyone else was, by the terms "Christian Intellectual Tradition" and the entire last paragraph. Apparently, everyone subscribing to the list-serv was struck by the last paragraph as well, and took it to be an offensive, racially intimidating, and, in some instances, illegal set of requirements that, if read correctly, provided the university the right to refuse applicants for consideration. Some replies stated that they assumed that anyone who may be, for instance, Jewish, homosexual, or any other trait, wouldn't be welcome in applying for the position. This, to me, sounded like a rather off-the-cuff reaction that served as a way to generate controversy and discussion rather than an actual concern for the legality of the way in which the ad was worded and how the position itself would most likely be filled. On a sidenote, this entire episode is an example of how conversations via email or any other discussion forum can spiral out of control. It's a phenomenon that I've witnessed many times before, and I assume this won't be the last time.

As for the former term, "Christian Intellectual Tradition" and its counterpart "Christian Legal Tradition," it seems to assert, from what I could glean from their site, that the courses offered at this university are framed within the context of Christian Doctrine and that the law itself derives not from man himself but originates in God, Who in turn bestows this knowledge upon us. Fine, this is something that I don't necessarily agree with or see as being relevant, but I'm sure some people few deconstruction or any of the literary premises that I subscribe to in much the same way. All in all, this sounds like a curriculum that I could live with being surrounded by; I might not like it or agree with it, but I don't know that it would actually be that uncomfortable for me to have to work in that type of environment.

After the discussion snowballed into its inevitable conclusion, Mr. X posted a reply to the list encouraging those interested in the school to look at their website for the Liberty University School of Law. Also, he pointed out that the ad was placed on this list-serv because it is a public list that encourages job postings. As one would expect, the conversation died quickly after that since their was little or no ammunition left to generate offense and outrage. So, with all this in mind, I figured I would apply just to see what would happen. I sent my materials via email and waited for a response. As posted above, I received one.

Before I sent a reply, I sought the counsel of several of my superiors. I received several differing opinions regarding the school itself, the controversy surrounding the ad, and the true meaning of the ad and the intent of the school. One piece of advice that didn't differ, however, was that I should at least talk to the gentleman to see what I could find out. Well, before I had a chance to send a reply, my phone rang. The proceeding conversation was one of the most disjointed exchanges I've ever had over the phone.

It started off innocently with the question about why I applied and what interested me in the job. As anyone in my position will tell you, their immediate response might be to shoot back, "I just need a job." I didn't do this, but what I did tell the man was that I was intrigued by the possibility of working in a new library supporting a new law school. This was where I erred immediately. This was not the type of answer I was supposed to give regarding the job, and I could tell immediately by the change in tone. What followed was a back and forth exchange that provided me with little or no information that clarified any of my questions regarding the requirements of the position and how "religiously tainted" my advice would have to be to perform my task as a reference librarian. I know the expectations of a reference librarian in an academic law library, but this, I assumed, would be different due to the ever present "Christian Legal Tradition." Mr. X seemed to feel that he was providing me with answers in a roundabout way, but the uncertainty in his voice betrayed his confidence in his answers. Any time someone concludes by saying, "Does that help or make things more confusing?" you know you're not receiving clear-cut information that will educate you. I wouldn't go so far as to label this "doublespeak," but it was much more confusing in nature than one would assume that someone whose main task is to provide concise answers to complex questions could and should provide.

The main sticking point regarding the position's requirements dealt with the issue of professing one's faith and demonstrating one's ability to quote Scripture, neither activity of which I would be able to pull off convincingly had I wanted. In this, I found that best course of action would be to end the conversation right there by making it clear to him that, in no uncertain terms, that I would not be able to provide the "right" answers regarding these and other religiously oriented questioning. Thus, I took myself out of contention and hung up the phone.

What irks me the most about this is that I've had so little success in applying for jobs that when one does reply it has to be connected to an organization that is affiliated with a man who I feel is offensive, intolerant, and downright morally reprehensible, Jerry Falwell. Falwell just happens to be the founder and chancellor of this fine university. Short of being contacted by a group adhering to the basic tenants of fascism or the Nazi party, I couldn't think of a more intolerant individual to work for or be responsible to in any way, shape or form. I can say that I didn't lose anything, money or time, by applying to this position, but I wish that I would appeal to someone other than a fanatically religious university that indoctrinates their students in ways that are beyond my ability to comprehend.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

Pushing the Limits
Well, now here's a dilemma. I decided, in a stroke of absolute genius, to make the address of this site www.liberalagenda.blogspot.com in an effort to allow myself to vent on various political events and the continuing eroding of America under the repressive regime of Bush. However, I haven't lived up to that to any real extent. For the most part, I write about the daily minutiae, which is ironic in due to my adamant dislike of said topics, that affect me and my acquaintances. Sure, I post an occasional brief about politics, none recently and very little in sum total, but most of my writing is rather innocuous in nature. In the last few weeks, though, I've been feeling a tad disgusted by the liberal wing of the press, particularly The New York Times, which, as we all know, is the bastion of liberal thought in America and a terrorist organization on par with the Taliban, at least according to the likes of Ann Coulter. Below, I detailed my suspicion that there's a tendency on the producers of this paper to repeat themselves frequently, in fact they did so again today with an article about Robert Johnson. This time I'm not about to spend time venting on that. No, I have a larger concern, a frightening possibility. Is it possible to be too liberal?

I ask this because I'm getting to the point where I can't digest the contents of the paper without a little disgust at their constant rantings and criticisms. Nothing seems to appease their editors, and the daily flogging the Bush Administration receives on the editorial pages is so relentless that it borders on the sadist in nature. In point of fact, it appears that there's absolutely nothing this man can do that will result in, if not praise, at least an objective appraisal. I've come to the realization that the Times has become exactly what they criticize: a group of writers who are on an extended witch-hunt for dirt on a president, which sounds oddly familiar. Deja vu, anyone? Admittedly, the crimes and misdemeanors of this administration are so beyond shady land deals and sexual escapades and involve human life on a grand scale that there's hardly any room for comparison. So, in most instances, the criticism is warranted, but it never seems to cease. The torrent never ends, and it never stops at just Bush; it extends to his cabinet and seems to belabor the point that there's something amiss about their actions.

The straw, though, that broke the camels back, in my case, was their unrelentless assault on Mel Gibson's film The Passion of the Christ. Article after article in today's paper relentlessly thrashes this film for its portrayal of the final hours of Jesus. I saw the film last night, and although it's brutal beyond belief, there's still the matter of fact that it is a film and can be appraised as such. Having said that, I realize that it's also acceptable for critics to dismiss the film as not being particularly well made if that's their assessment. In what may seem to be me wanting to have my cake and eat it to, I do believe that films of this nature are held to different standards. Religious films, by the very nature of their content, appeal to a different audience altogether, and this should be kept in mind when assessing its merits as both a film and a portrayal of a highly religious event.

In my opinion, it's a well made film that, perhaps in some minds portrays certain groups in a poor light, but it also has an artistic side that can be admired. In their minds, however, this is the equivalent of a two hour snuff film that offers little or no redeeming value to the viewer. During the course of the day, I've read many reviews of the film, and I have to confess my mind is reeling from the information. Having read these reviews, and digested their constant criticism of the film for its portrayal of the Jews, I have to wonder how could Gibson have made the film any differently that would have appeased these critics? In short, my own answer is that regardless of how Gibson made the film, there would have been criticism. Why? Well, for the simple fact that it's a religious film, and this being a liberal newspaper, religion is treated, when not with kidgloves for the purpose of not offending anyone, with disdain and criticism.

What really disgusts me, though, is that, regardless of the content of certain "artistic" films, the Times seems to have no problem endorsing, what they believe, is a well-made film. It's got to the point where this entire artistic snobbery charade is becoming more and more tiresome. I'm sick of the fact that there's this notion that if so and so criticizes, likes, endorses, etc. a certain product, then it must be true because it's from a source that's been deemed to be intellectually superior. I'm talking specifically about both the Times and the "untouchable" NPR. I wrote of my dismay over the cancellation of Howard Stern below, and, as I suspected, there's been nothing in way of protest or disgust over censorship or freedom of speech issues. No one, as far as I can tell, in this town has cried foul over the censoring of the airwaves in an attempt to make the world a more family friendly place with wholesome values. Why is this? Because it's Howard Stern, a disgusting, vile man who makes his money by being offensive in every sense of the word. No one cares if his show is cancelled because it's seen as not offering anything redeeming in value. There's no outcry whatsoever. What would happen, though, if NPR got pulled off the air for offensive broadcasts? There'd be rioting in the streets by the intelligentsia. I've heard about their attempts at satire involving Gibson's film, but I haven't heard them, in which case, I can't make any real judgment on them. However, I feel that this type of double-standard is something that needs to be eliminated from the public discourse regarding these types of programs. This isn't easy, as I've mentioned before, as in the paradigm shift. There needs to be some line we can agree on, but I don't see it happening any time soon, especially in these turbulent weeks.

Sadness
In what could possibly be the worst news I've heard in years, it appears that there will be no Howard Stern for me to listen to tomorrow morning. Couple this along with Dubya's antics yesterday, and it's pretty obvious that the fascist regime is taking over. Please tell me that we can end all this in November.

A Plague
"Hello."
Blank look with no response.
"Jesus Christ!"

I'll give all my readers two guesses as to which of the above described people is yours truly. If you guessed the one who said "Hello" only to be greeted with a blank stare stare and no audible response only to respond to this with a frustrated curse, you'd be correct. I know I wrote about rudeness in this town below, but this happened to me, again, today in the one locale that I've been cursed to run into unresponsive people on a daily basis, the bike trail. This seems like an odd place to run into people who don't seem to want to have any interaction with fellow humans at all, but it seems to be a Mecca for these types. Every day, I'm down there I'm guaranteed an encounter with some goof who seems incapable of speech. Perhaps they're all mutes, I thought at first, but this seemed highly unlikely. I just think people are assholes, as I've mentioned before, but there has to be something else to it.

It's getting to the point where the only guaranteed conversation I can rely on is:
"Do you go to Pitt?"
"Man, I can't talk to you now."
"No need to be rude."
This is from a mentally deranged lunatic.

As I stated below, my confined orb of reality has been rather small in nature, pretty much for the duration of my life. Having only really lived in three different town, including currently Pittsburgh, I haven't had the types of exposure to various cultures and rural variations in personalities that others have been fortunate to have had. I come from a small town where, for the most part and not to sound too hokey, people are friendly, or they're at least friendly enough to respond to a "hello" when you say it to them. It's not exactly a town where 1. rudeness is expected 2. rudeness is even tolerated to some extent. Here, though, is a different story.

I've been toying with an idea that this town, meaning Pittsburgh, is suffering from an identity crisis. I'm not sure how else to describe it. It's a large city with a lot of people, various people of varying nationalities and cultural traits to be more specific. On the outside there appears to be little or no indication that this mix of people is either more or less inclined to be more or less friendly to their fellow citizens. The crisis stems from my idea that this town, for all its charms and culture, is striving very hard, almost painstakingly so, to be like New York City. It's obvious that there's something to this effect occurring at various levels, and it can be seen in the writing that appears in local papers to the types of events, promotions, and various other aspects that occur throughout this town. Where it's most evident, in my mind, is in the way people treat one another in this town. It's almost as if it's a given, and I don't mean to harp on this point, that people are expected to be rude to one another. Why say "Hello" back to someone when you can just walk by without responding? Why not let the pedestrian walk across the street when they clearly have the walk sign instead of trying to make a turn? Why not treat customers or patrons as nicely as possible in an effort to retain their business and patronage instead of acting as if they're infringing upon your time?

As outlandish as it seems, I do believe there's such a thing as a collective consciousness here at work in the world. It's not as noticeable on a grand scale, but it's much more noticeable on a smaller local level. Here I see this operating in the ways in which people treat one another. Collectively, it's a rudeness that proliferates through this town and is excreted upon the masses and, unfortunately, people who are just trying to be nice and courteous and just plain being human. Something here has to change. Obviously, we're talking about a paradigm shift on such a massive scale that's beyond comprehension. However, it's possible that this town can change for the better. I don't know how, and I know it's a lot more complicated than just having some inane community outreach, group hug, come together and sign songs type of event. It's going to take something huge to shift the paradigm, and I think it's obvious what that thing is going to be. Look at New York City and the events there in the last few years to understand my meaning. It's terrible to contemplate, but it's true, and I really believe this, that entire communities, in this day and age, have to suffer through a cataclysmic event to shift the paradigm. If I'm wrong on this point, prove me wrong.

In closing, in an odd experience that only seems odd in retrospect, I remember walking down the street of my hometown, seeing a new neighbor out on his lawn, speaking to him in much the same way, and not getting a response. Relating this to my mother, I remember vividly that her response was that this new neighbor was from Pittsburgh and he's just not friendly to anyone. Is it too much of a stretch to say that I'm on to something here?