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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, that's a start.

So, it appears that Harvard sophomore Kaavya Viswanathan plagiarized large portions of her book How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life from a multitude of other books written in the same generic genre, teen-fiction. Passages with the similarities have been published in a multitude of outlets, and the case seems to be pretty concrete that she did not do this by accident, as she claimed by saying it was a totally "unconscious" effort on her part. To me, this seems to be suggesting that she reproduced these passages simply due to her ability to retain the bland, pedestrian text that fills nearly every novel. That's striking to me because what one generally remembers about a text is those passages that are truly memorable and stand alone not those that serve as traditional transition devices or engines that move the plot forward.

For the most part, she's been tried and convicted by the media, but Malcolm Gladwell wrote an interesting defense on his blog which he later revised to some extent. Basically, he wrote that teen-fiction is a genre that, like any other genre, adheres to basic conventions and that it was almost impossible to imagine a book in this genre without these passages. His point is illustrated in this passage:

When Doris Kearns Goodwin borrowed, without attribution, from a history of the Kennedys for her history of the Kennedys, that's serious. She's a scholar. And we have an expectation of scholarship that it is supposed to reflect original thought. We have no such expectation for genre novels, Harlequin romances, slasher films, pornos, or, say, the diaries of teenagers.

He also states, "Let's just say this isn't the first twenty lines of Paradise Lost." And, like I said, the examples chronicled are pretty generic in nature. There are definite similarities, and it does look really bad for her as an author to simply reword the writing of others to fill out her work, but they are simple passages, not entire plot devices or the entire narrative, other than the fact that it's about a young girl coming of age, which in and of itself is such a generic plot that it's hard to imagine anyone who is able to distinguish between any of these numerous works. They're all the same to some extent.

So, it's here where I admit that I don't care for teen-fiction. Why would I? I'm not a teacher, and they provide no nostalgia for me as a reader looking to revisit my past. But that's beside the point. What I actually find interesting about this controversy is that what Gladwell is addressing in his entry is that there are genre conventions that are so stereotypical and that appear in nearly every example of that genre and people do not bat an eye. Gladwell errs by confining his critique to this aspect alone and not addressing the idea that the passages are simply reworded from other texts. Sure, most of these books will contain base descriptions of events and they are so common that it would be absurd to cry plagiarism each and every time this occurs. His point isn't lost, though, and it makes for interesting food for thought when you consider the idea of how plagiarism actually works.

Just like James Frey, Viswanathan has had her publishing deals voided but unlike him her work was pulled from the shelves, which makes you wonder why one deserved a note inserted in the front detailing that much of it might not be true and the other pulled completely off the shelf. There's probably no controversy there, but someone might make something of it. Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that the books isn't an original work, which is what people are expecting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Runner's Tale
For as much as I run, it's to be expected that I would have seen my fair share of other runners partaking in the same activity. Included in these observations are numerous incidents of seeing fellow runners clad in, what I would consider, inappropriate attire. I've seen wide arrays of ill-clad folk running in all kinds of weather, but this morning had to take the cake.

As per usual, I scanned the three local channels to find out what the temperature was outside. I found that it ranged from 17 to 24 degrees. (Interesting aside here, the variation in temperatures isn't a seasonal thing. It occurs all year round. Now, the difference between 17 and 24 is negligible (Yeah, it's cold!), but there are times during the year when the difference is large enough to make one debate whether or not to wear a sweatshirt or jacket. Is it warm or not? Who knows.)

Having established that it was bitterly cold, I went about the task of putting on a long-sleeve running shirt, a sweatshirt, and a larger hooded sweatshirt over that. Three shirts, sweatpants, gloves, and a winter hat. Sometimes even three layers isn't enough to keep out the bitter wind.

Imagine my surprise, then, when, as I was running down Carson to encounter another runner (in and of itself not remarkable, as I said) clad in shorts and a t-shirt. That's it. No hat, gloves or anything else. Shorts and a t-shirt!!!

I have nothing else to say.

Unrestrained
To echo the sentiments of Benedict in his latest entry about a coworker erupting on him, I have to confess to being guilty of doing the erupting myself on a coworker. Shocking, I admit, but Kingmob's fuse is short when it comes to the matter of working hours and the fair application of trades and deals regarding those hours.

The story is as follows. As we are all well aware, the Pittsburgh Steelers went to the Super Bowl this year. Now, seeing that there were minor riots in both Oakland and the South Side after their victory over the Denver Broncos and the mere fact that it is the Pittsburgh Steelers, logic would seem to dictate that it might be wise to close prior to the Super Bowl because (1)everyone wants to watch it (2) the chances of further rioting, win or lose, increased substantially for the Big Game. Well, logic is a funny thing, and it appears that it's used on a random basis in some instances. Case in point, the longer than necessary debate as to whether or not to close the library early. Granted, some people don't care about football, and if the teams involved were any but the local one, it would be unfair to close entirely, early, or at all. However, the evidence seems to dictate that the demand for the library's services will fall to an astonishingly low number if the facility were open. Four people utilized the library during the previous game. Four! Also, seeing that every business on Forbes was closing early, other than the bars, it would seem fitting to close the library as well. Well, after some back and forth, finally the campus police suggested that it would be wise for us to close, and the hours were trimmed to a reasonable ten to six.

All of that background sets up this tale. My coworker, who is experiencing some personal problems, appealed to my sympathetic nature and asked me to work for him. Now, I told him previously that if it meant that much to him I would do so. However, as my disbelief at the unreasonableness of the superiors not to close library reached its peak, I hastily agreed to work for him. After simmering down, I thought about the fact that I didn't want to be here any more than anyone else, and I'd made that clear to numerous people. I issued a request for further compensation to my coworker in the form of an email. When I came in the next day, that's when the trouble started.

I approached him in a non-confrontational manner and inquired if he'd received my offer. He acknowledged that he had, and that the terms of my request were absurd. His points were thus:

I had made an agreement and you can't renege on that.

You can't just change a deal.

Sometimes you don't get what you want.

I countered with:

I'm getting nothing out of this, and I demand compensation for my sacrifice.

I didn't back out of the deal. I just reconsidered it after I calmed down.

Originally, you didn't want me to be bitter about the request. Now I am.

In other words, I stormed out in a fury. All of it became moot when the next day the decision came down to close early. However, I still had had an argument in public with a coworker. That could have been handled more professionally. Amazingly, I found agreement on the terms of my request with my other co-worker. It was just the execution of it that could have been handled better.

The lesson in all of this: never agree to anything out of haste if there is even the slightest chance of reconsideration on your part. It makes life easier.

Finally, the truth has emerged: Frey Admits Lying; Oprah Apologizes to Viewers. Frey has apparently taken lessons at avoiding the question from some in our current administration. His stammering and stuttering defense of his fabricated tales of addiction and recovery are about as convincing as the tall tales of the sea.

What I find incredible about the entire article is this quote from Frey's publisher:
"“But this question of fact checking is a complicated one. At The New Yorker and Time and Newsweek, you have experienced people who know where to go and what's right and what'’s wrong. We don'’t. There'’s been a traditional dependency on the author."
Is this possible? Why can't a huge publisher afford to fact-check the works they're foisting upon us?

As further evidence of the widening gulf between those professors who have a grasp of the proper usage of English grammar and devices and those who think they do in some misguided way, I had a T.A. suggest to our class that when writing a paper it was encouraged to use footnotes. Just for the hell of it?

I've never had to grade papers for a class of undergraduates at a large university, but, from the impression I get from my instructor this semester, it's easier than ever to plagiarize a written assignment. For this reason, I was required to submit my first paper of the semester to a web-based organism called Turnitin.com, which is supposed to check your documents to make sure they aren't plagiarized in parts or as a whole. How it works is beyond my comprehension of the internet, but, from what I can gather, it searches the web for instances of phrases and similar writing that the writer may have used without giving proper credit. Oddly enough, one of the FAQs on the board has a question related to using one's own previous writing, and, it states that if you don't credit yourself, you're are, in fact, plagiarizing. Plagiarizing one's self? I don't know how you'd do it, but I'd love to see someone sue themselves for plagiarism.

Tainted Memories
I count myself as one who was not surprised to hear that the author of the memoir A Million Little Pieces, James Frey, fabricated or embellished large portions of the text. As a New York Times piece proclaimed, the incident is nothing more than a continuation of the blurring of the line between reality and fiction. Oprah Winfrey, who chose the book for her book club, has even chimed in to state that the message is what is important regardless of how it's ultimately delivered, or something along those lines.

The ramifications of this are obvious to anyone who has a vested interest in keeping the separation of fact and fiction plain for everyone to see. In a previous post, I wrote about the possibility that our news is creating reality as well as vice versa. In the post I discussed the New York Times' seemingly obvious attempts to create a mood in the White House. Are they really nervous, on edge, etc. about any number of things, or is that how the Times wants to perceive it as being? I don't know, but if true it seems to speak to a sense of hypocrisy on their part to blast Frey for his embellishments.

I don't know how much he manufactured. Really, I don't care all that much because these types of books do not interest me in the least, but the industry for them is increasing substantially. I find it hard to believe that any of them are spot-on in their accuracy. It just seems like the premises for a lot of these books are works of fiction spun around a few facts interspersed throughout. As I said about dream recollections that seem flawless in narrative, I just think that writers know that a fractured narrative isn't likely to sell very well, so they fill in the gaps with all sorts of fluff that acts as an epoxy to hold the whole thing together.

The impression I get is that Frey essentially lied about large portions of his life in order to write this book. That, I think, is wrong, and it's equally wrong to label the book as a memoir when it should be labeled, if not just plain fiction, then at least a memoir with embellishments.

Dreamreader
Do your dreams really mean anything? It is one of those eternal questions that will probably be asked forever with no definitive answer. Personally, I do not subscribe to the notion that dreams are anything more than the random thoughts and images that can, and often are, induced by many different means, be it coffee, food, or alcohol. I am not saying that dreams cannot be a part of everyone's normal sleep cycle, but I have a hard time swallowing the hyper-narrative details that some people claim to recall from their dreams. It's not that I think they are lying, but, as with any good narrative, dreams can benefit from a good editor who fills in the logical gaps with any number of devices in order to comprise a whole.

What I will admit is the distinct idea that dreams can be terrifying beyond belief. Some of the common occurrences in my dreams that bother me more than anything else are those in which I cannot speak or my voice will not project properly even though I know what I want to say. For example, I have had my New York Times stolen on several occasions. So, what happens? I have a dream where I'm looking out of my window down upon someone in the midst of taking my paper. I am yelling at this person, but they do not hear me because my voice is not projecting properly. This happens a lot. The other example of really troubling dreams I have are those in which someone, usually a stranger or an intruder, remains in the dark. Another example, my roommate and I are pushing someone out of our apartment, but they remain in the dark because the hall light will not come on. Of course, I am yelling at the person, "Who are you," and they do not respond.

I do not claim to know what any of this means. To me, it is probably just two examples of things that are troubling to think about and that most people fear, being without a voice in moments of trouble and an intruder who you cannot see or will not tell you what they want. Other than that, I think dreams are not windows into the soul or deep interpretations of some Freudian psychology. They just occur.

Here's a New Year's resolution: post more frequently.

Dilemma Exchange
I'm sure a lot of people who work in an office setting run into the same dilemma each and every December, whether or not to participate in the annual Christmas party/gift exchange/karaoke sing along. It's always hard to assess the risk associated with boycotting the aspects of the entire affair that seem to be either wasteful or unappealing. How will one be perceived if one does one, the other, or both? In all likelihood, it doesn't matter one iota whether or not you choose to participate in these events, and that goes double for people who are lower in the hierarchy of the dreaded pay scale. But the issue really isn't whether or not one can afford to participate, and I'll admit freely that the money is not the issue. Well, it is, but not in the sense that I can't afford to part with it. The issue is, at least what I perceive to be, the notion that it's a waste of money and not in fact a real gift.

If you think about it, when one is approached with the offer to participate in these types of events, it is done is such a generic manner that it's almost impossible to assume the guise of someone who is really gung-ho about the prospect of buying an unspecified gift for a particular amount for an anonymous person. Isn't it hard enough to buy presents for people you do know, like your family? How can you purchase anything that will make you feel as if it's a really good gift if it's just something chosen because it fits into the price parameters? It's not as if you're buying something that you think the recipient will enjoy because you know their tastes, likes and dislikes. That's at least somewhat intriguing, but the random, anonymous gift is more of a headache than anything else. This is what I think of when overactive spending during the holidays is mentioned.

What compounds the absurdity even further is if the institution in which you work has several separate parties with the same format. If one were so inclined, you could attend more than one of these events and relive the awkward experience over again. How fun does that sound?

It's not as if this is even earthshatteringly important, but it's something that I see as putting somewhat of a damper on the holidays even though it's supposed to be part of them.

What's Really Going On?
At the risk of sounding as if I've betrayed the very nature of the political word embedded in the address to this site, I've become more and more fascinated about the very possibility that our sources of news, namely newspapers and cable news networks, create the reality in which they are reporting on. In other words, how much of what we consume is actually true to fact and not as perceived by those reporters who are employed by a politically influenced conglomerate? Who is just towing the party line and who is reporting the facts on the straight and narrow? It's hard to say, and I think the notion that "unless you've been there" takes on new significance in our world that is proliferated by sources of information that can be finely attuned to the very ideology of the reader him or herself. If one were so inclined, they could find just about any reportage on any topic as seen through the lens of one's choice, be it liberal, moderate, or conservative in nature. In fact, that may be the very problem with the advent of the numerous venues in which it's now possible to foist one's opinions on the world. One would assume that it's possible to locate a reasonably balanced opinion and reportage in at least one venue, but I'm not so sure.

Nearly every day the New York Times publishes an article about the inner workings of the Bush administration, and, obviously, they print more when there is a particular event that dominates the headlines, and they seem to publish even more when there is an event that can be described as being bad for the administration, which, at this point, you can take your pick of many. What worries me is that on these occasions, it's easy to find articles and editorials that report on the mental state of the those who make up the inner circle. For whatever reason, they almost always seem to reveal that the administration is concerned, worried, or in a frantic state over some event or another. I'm not suggesting that they shouldn't be in any of these conditions; in fact, they probably should be if they're affected by anything at all. However, what concerns me is that I wonder on occasion how much of this is real. Are they really in such a state of panic, or is that the way the reporters want to perceive the situation, and, further, are they writing as such because they know that their editors and, ultimately, the publisher wants to portray things as such?

The issue grows even more troublesome after days pass in which one encounters the same descriptions. The story, as they say, "grows legs" and it assumes a life of its own and, more importantly, a reality all its own. I read these passages on, what seems like, a daily basis, and I wonder, "Is this really how it is?" For an administration that's supposedly in such a state of panic, they sure act as if they're in control. They never seem to betray the fact that they are in the midst of a crisis. Of course, this particular group never seems to act as if anything is going wrong, so it's hard to judge what exactly is going on with them, and I put nothing past them in their efforts to appear in control. I just find it beyond comprehension that this reporting is in fact reporting the real situation. Nothing seems to change because of it, and one would think that a group afflicted by so many crisis would eventually reach a breaking point. Of course, they don't and things return to the status quo, whatever that may be.

My point is that I'm finding it harder to separate the buckwheat from the shaft, so to speak, and it's growing more and more apparent to me that there has to be, to sum extent, a bias to news reporting. It can't be both ways, gloomy assessments on one hand and sunny on the other. Where's the middle ground and the actual perception of what's going on?

Year's Best???
This being the end of the year, we are inevitably greeted with the yearly deluge of "year's best" lists that chronicle everything one can possibly imagine being ranked that came out in the previous year. Not one to miss out on the action, Pittsburgh's own City Paper posted its annual rankings from their annual survey of the city's best stuff.

Now, I'm not against this type of thing per say, but I have one qualm about what seems to be an exercise in redundancy. While granting that there are rankings in each respective category for "new" establishments, the majority of the rankings are devoted to heaping praise upon businesses that seem to receive the same honors each and every year. In other words, when you're given only a limited number of choices to pick from year to year, of course the same businesses are going to receive the same votes year in and year out.

To demonstrate, let's take a look at some of the more ludicrous results.

Example 1:
Best place to get bagels
BrueggerÂ’s Bagels
Various locations
2nd Panera Bread
3rd Einstein Brothers Bagels

My two biggest questions are these:
1. Could the choices be any more obvious? (Two of them have "Bagels" in their names)
2. Are there any other places to get bagels other than these establishments, or places that people think of immediately when considering buying a bagel? (Given that two of the business specialize in bagels, wouldn't it be an even bigger surprise if, say, a place really off the wall made the list, like Sushi Two?)

Example 2:
Best mass transit route
54C
2nd The T
3rd 61C

Okay, this one is of obvious concern to me. Keeping in mind this award is simply for the best route and has nothing to do with the service, I still feel a tinge ofapprehensionn awarding the 54C this distinction. Do I really have to spell out why?

Finally, a real favorite of mine.

Example 3:
Best coffeehouse
Beehive
South Side
2nd Kiva Han
3rd The Quiet Storm

Basically, according to this, these are the only three coffeehouses in Pittsburgh, or, in what's an interesting twist of irony, the only three that fit the "coffeehouse" label, because there are many more coffeehouses in Pittsburgh, but they happen to be called either Starbucks, Crazy Mocha, or Caribou Coffee, and I'd wager that these three do much more business than those that are deemed worthy of the "coffeehouse" label.

The rest of the lists are littered with your typical rankings of Indian restaurants, sports bars, and bookstores, all of which you're most likely familiar with, because there just aren't that many choices from year to year to make the rankings anything more than a formality.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and speculate that most big cities have their fair share of, for lack of a better term, off-balance citizens. Regardless of that fact, it's little comfort when you're walking down the street and you see the approach of another in a long line of derelicts who will, inevitably, ask you, in a roundabout way, for money. I've reached such a boiling point in frustration with these encounters that I usually just cut them off before they even start into their schpiel with a, "I don't have anything." That seems to be the best medicine for avoiding a drawn out diatribe that always ends in the same pleading request for a handout. This type of thing irks me in more ways than one.

First off, I'm almost insulted by the fact that these people seem to behave as if they are smarter than the average joe on the street. How else to explain the long stories that are a desperate effort to separate you from your money? I also find it interesting that the stories never vary either. Where's the logic behind encountering the same person in two different locations who just happens to have a car that broke down and is in need of gas? That's a pretty unreliable vehicle, my friend. Then there are the people who need money for bus fare. How is it that you got here in the first place? My favorite might be the ones who ask for an uneven, odd amount of change. "Do you have thirty-nine cents?"

One, I don't believe any part of your story. Two, even if you don't remember me, I do remember you, so I can piece together the illogic of your story. Three, I'm smart enough to realize that you're just asking for an odd amount of money in an effort to receive what you're really asking for, more money.

The other thing that bothers me is that these people are given free reign to perch wherever they want. There is nowhere where they aren't allowed to set up shop. Pittsburgh has passed a new set of ordinances that are supposed to crack down on the panhandling and enforce restrictions as to where and how long one is allowed to go about this business. Whether or not it's enforced is another thing. The City Paper had an article about the effect the ordinances will have on panhandlers, especially those who aren't aware of them. In an effort to portray the real victims of these laws, the article profiled a woman who asks for money because her government subsidy isn't enough for rent and food. Granted, that's a true case of the system not taking care of those who need it most, but I'll freely admit that I'm prejudiced against all panhandlers because I honestly cannot ascertain if any of them are really in need of money for food and essentials. They mention this in the article, but when you encounter enough people who are obviously looking for a handout for illegitimate purposes, it's hard not to view them all with suspicion.

Aside from some really corrosive acid, is there any substance that seems more destructive in its effects than spilled coffee?

No, in fact, coffee is proven to be the most destructive substance on planet Earth when spilled. It assumes the characteristics of some sort of supernatural entity run amuck when unleashed, no matter how much of it actually escapes its container.

Why is it that coffee seems to be attracted to white paper like a magnetic force?

Like a shark attracted to blood, coffee seems to feel the need to be absorbed by paper of all things. Regardless of where you spill it, chances are it will find paper to stain, and it won't be something harmless like an old newspaper. No, it will find a book. It will turn its pages a darker shade of brown and a warped shape that resembles some form of radio wave.

Is there anything I can do to prevent coffee from spilling on my books?

No, there really isn't a defense against coffee spills. In fact, the more you try to prevent coffee from spilling, the greater chance your coffee will adapt to the drastic measures you are adopting. It's an unstoppable force that will never be stopped in our times.