What Does Your Name Really Say About You?

There’s a reason that certain names sound pretentious, while other names sound dim-witted. There’s also a reason that the most the iconic mother figure in western civilization is named Mary and that one of the most famous snobby seductresses in pop culture is named Veronica. It’s all in the name, or to be more precise, it’s in the letters that compose the name.

Every letter of the alphabet has an implied meaning to the subconscious mind. Think about the feelings and thoughts that are evoked just by sounding out a particular letter. The strongest example of this may be the letter “M.” This letter brings about feelings of warmth and happiness. It is most strongly associated with motherhood. In fact, a great many languages name the mothers of their cultures with a word that starts with “M.” Try writing down all the proper names you can think of that start with “M,” and most of them will be names for girls. Of course, not all words that start with “M” are maternal by nature. Words like “maniacal” and “malevolent” are made even more menacing by juxtaposing the implied sentiments of the letter “M” with the dictionary definition of the word itself, creating an unease in the mind of the reader.

In contrast to the soothing sound of “M,” the letter “B” is big and booming. It can create thoughts of aggression and strength and something larger than life. It can make dangerous words, like “bomb” and “brawn.” It calls attention to itself, and proper names that start with “B” also tend to be somewhat commanding. Think about a certain caped crusader who’s real name happens to be Bruce or a certain vampire-slaying girl whose name starts with a “B.”

The letter “R” is mostly associated with ideas of romance. It has a lot in common with “S,” which is strongly connected to sex and sensuality, of course. People whose names start with “R” tend to be passionate and spirited and, of course, romantic. People whose names start with “S” tend to be somewhat unpredictable yet very attractive. Another attractive letter is “V,” which brings us back to the lovely Veronica. The letter “V” is strongly related to female sexuality, but it is also tied to viciousness and villainy, which is why Veronica is not always to be trusted.

It’s obvious that the letter “A” comes first. Likewise, people with “A” names tend to regard themselves, or be regarded by others, as superior in some way. Think of all the famous people in history whose names began with “A.” This letter has authority and sometimes arrogance. So does that mean that “Z” names are small and humble? Not necessarily. Names that start with “Z” are zany and upbeat. As the sibling on the lowest rung of the alphabetical ladder, “Z” has the freedom from responsibility to be as crazy as it wants to be, and people with “Z” names tend to follow suit.

Of course, it’s important to keep in mind that the first letter of a name is not the only letter to have an influence on people’s perceptions of themselves and others. Letter combinations can say a lot about an individual, and putting letters like “M” and “Z” together in the same name can create some interesting effects. Do you know any zany mothers? The letter “F” is flighty and friendly, and we already know about the letter “B.” So what do we get from a name like “Phoebe?” Someone who is rather silly and not afraid to show it, for example.

What about letter combinations that create new sounds, like “Sh?” When the “S” is softened by the naturally humble “H,” it creates a more reassuring, calming sound. People with names like “Shawn” and “Shirley” seem a lot less intimidating than “Stella” or “Sid.”

The implied meaning of each individual letter or sound can be easily discovered by thinking about the most common words associated with it. Or the most common names. There will be slight variations in different cultures, and nicknames can have a huge impact on an individual’s personality. For instance, Bob is obviously a serious and dependable person, while Bobby is more fun-loving and less aggressive.

It is often said that people grow into their names, and there’s a reason for that. The connotations that come with the sounds in our names remind us of who we are expected to be and how society most likely sees us. Whether those sounds are light, such as “laughter,” or dark, such as “death,” they will influence us throughout our lives. So think carefully before naming your child or choosing a nickname for your best friend.

Shades of Gray: The World Is Not Black and White

Some people live in a black and white world. I can see why they would want to. It’s so simple and easy. This is bad, that is good. This is wrong, that is right. Everyone should do this, no one should do that. But the real world isn’t black and white; it’s an infinite number of shades of gray.

It’s easy to take a piece of advice or an old expression and make it an absolute by which to live your life. But one extreme is usually no better than the other, and the world as a whole already knows this. Money is not bad, even if there’s lots of it. A million dollars, sitting by itself, could never hurt anyone. Many people mistake the original saying to be “Money is the root of all evil.” But what it really said was “The love of money is the root of all evil.” It’s people’s reactions to money that make it difficult to deal with. It’s a gray area. Money can help a poor family pull themselves out of debt. It can also make people do crazy, mean, even evil things to get it and keep it. By itself, money is worthless. When you factor in people, it becomes more dangerous. How much depends on the individual person. Shades of gray.

Guns are obviously more dangerous than money. But, once again, it depends on the person holding it. If left to sit on a table, a gun could never hurt anyone. When picked up by a person with no intent to pull the trigger, a gun is unlikely to hurt anyone, especially if left unloaded. When picked up by a person with a willingness, if not an intent, to hurt someone, a gun becomes dangerous. When picked up by a person with a clear intent to hurt someone, a gun becomes frighteningly dangerous. If left to their own devices, without access to guns, people with an obvious intent to harm others would find another way, so the adage “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people” would seem to be true. However, without guns, those people who have only a willingness to use them and those people who do not intend to use them would be unlikely to find another way to hurt anyone. There would be no accidental shootings. Shades of gray.

Alcohol is viewed by some people to be as bad as guns. Indeed, it has had a hand in many deaths. But to say that it is solely responsible for those deaths is to ignore the other factors. By itself, it could harm no one. Only when people choose to drink it, or rather too much of it, does it become a problem. Some people can handle liquor better than others can. For some, one beer is like a glass of water. For others, it’s a ticket to decreased inhibitions and fuzzy thoughts. For those who can handle it, one drink is no more dangerous than that glass of water. It’s the drink after that that causes the vision to blur, the car to swerve, the judgement to fuzz. Does that make the second drink more dangerous or more evil than the first? Does it make the second drink just as dangerous or evil as the first drink taken by a person who can’t handle their liquor? Both people chose to drink what they couldn’t handle. Even if they didn’t know where their threshold was, they knew the dangers and the risks. A glass of wine to commemorate a wedding is considered polite, even honorable. A glass of wine in a lonely apartment with no one to share it with is considered shaky judgement. Shades of gray.

When viewed from the varied perspectives of the entire world, anything can be seen to have both white and black in its moral spectrum. Everything has shades of gray in it. To live in a world of only black and white can lead to misunderstandings, even danger under the right circumstances. To see the world in all its grayness is difficult and frustrating and often confusing. Choices are easier to make when you think there is only a choice between black and white. But overlooking the gray options that are available to you takes something away from the potential of your life and yourself. And it keeps you from fully understanding the world you live in.

Why Your Mail Might Be Slow: A Look at the Work of a Remote Encoding Center

If you mail two envelopes to the same place at the same time, there’s still a chance that one of them may arrive sooner than the other. Why? To put it simply, you can thank computer technology for creating the difference in delivery dates in the first place. And you can thank the postal service employees who work in a special facility called a Remote Encoding Center for making sure your slower packages arrive at their destinations at all.

In the modern world, computers do everything that human beings used to do. That includes sending your mail off to its designated destination. A special machine scans thousands of envelopes an hour and tattoos them with barcodes that tell the sorting machines where the items are headed. But what happens when the computer can’t read an envelope that it has scanned? Well, a computer can’t make an educated guess. So it has to send the problem to a human.

Any number of things can prevent the machines from deciphering an address. Bad handwriting is at the top of the list. There’s also colored envelopes, envelopes that get stuck together, incorrect addresses, addresses that are written bigger than the scanned area of the envelope, and contents that slip around inside their envelope so that the address window no longer shows the address. The list goes on, but you get the idea. Millions of pieces of mail get delivered in a timely fashion every day, but there are all kinds of problems that can delay them.

When the computer can’t figure out what a particular piece of mail says, it sends the image scan of the envelope or package to a Remote Encoding Center (REC). There are currently less than ten of these facilities in the entire country, handling the unreadable mail from cities around them. As technology improves, more of these RECs are closed, but as long as computers can’t read every single piece of mail that comes their way, there will have to be a human somewhere to decipher the messy handwriting.

RECs employ hundreds of keyers who sit at any number of different terminals to view mailpieces and tell the computers what these images actually say. Of course, even humans aren’t perfect when it comes to reading bad handwriting or bad images. If the address is too messed up for even a person to read, if the image is too dark or too blurry, or if the magazine’s front page is bent and covering up the address, the Data Conversion Operator (DCO), as they’re called, must send the mailpiece on to another human, whose job it is to look at the mail in person and try to figure out where it’s supposed to go.

Some of the RECs’ own rules can slow an envelope down even more. If an image appears to be upside down, that particular envelope must be sent through the scanner again after being turned around. The supervisors don’t expect employees to read upside down.

Also, misspelled names, such as “Mynneapolis” or “Wishita,” must be keyed exactly as they appear, even if the operator knows the correct spelling. This is to prevent mistakes caused by operators who turn out to be bad spellers. But it also means that it’s more difficult for the computer to tell where those mailpieces need to go, and they may end up being rejected and sent on to that final human who looks at them in person.

Sometimes, there’s nothing that can be done to make sure an envelope gets delivered on time. But there are a few precautions the senders can take to make sure any delays aren’t their fault.

1. Print addresses with a printer or typewriter so that your chicken-scratches don’t confuse the computers.
2. If you must fill out your envelopes by hand, do it extremely neatly.

Write large enough for the words to be easily legible but not so large that the address covers the entire envelope.
3. Don’t use colored envelopes.
4. Make sure everything is spelled correctly and you have the correct address and zip code.
5. Using the +4 digits at the end of the zip code, like 55555-1111, will help your mail go even faster since those last four digits relate to the specific address.
6. If you’re using a windowed envelope, make sure the contents don’t slide around, obscuring the address.
7. Don’t cover the address with clear tape.

Or anything else.
8. Make sure you have the correct directional on the street address (like West Main, instead of North Main). Operators are not allowed to choose between directional options and must reject any address that has a house number and street directional that don’t match, delaying the envelope further.
9. Similarly, make sure that the address you’re using has a directional at all. If, according to the Post Office, it does, then you need to use it, too. Even if you’ve never seen it written that way before.

These precautions will help ensure that your mail gets to its destination on time. Of course, you can’t prevent it from getting bent up or stuck to another piece of mail by the scanning and sorting machines. Technology isn’t perfect.

On the other hand, if you want to prevent the closing of more RECs and the loss of more postal employee jobs, you should do all the wrong things: write messily, use colored envelopes, misspell addresses, use the wrong zip code or no zip code at all. My fellow employees at the Wichita REC would thank you for our continued employment and for preventing our replacement by mindless machines.

I’d Rather Face a Grue: Real World Problems vs. Fantasy Problems

I recently invented a new catchphrase for myself. I’m rather pleased with it, and it seems to fit my current state of mind well. It also started a chain of thought about the sorts of things that people would really rather face up to if it meant avoiding a real-world problem or concern that they’re having.

“I’d rather face a grue.” When I said that, I was met with a confused look and a question mark. First, I had to explain what a grue was. (For those of you unfamiliar with old gaming terminology, a grue is a creature that lurks in darkness, waiting to devour hapless adventurers who don’t know any better than to blunder about a dark cave without a light. The use of the grue was first seen in Zork, one of the first interactive computer games, in the late 1970s.) Secondly, I had to explain the sentiment that I was trying to convey by invoking the name of the almighty grue. Oddly, the latter attempt was more difficult than the first.

If grues were real, they wouldn’t be the type of creature that you would willingly face if given a choice. In fact, I’m fairly certain that the late Steve Irwin wouldn’t even have dared enter a known grue haunt without a light source, the only way to repel a grue. So, my intent with regards to my newly invented expression was to describe how much I really didn’t want to deal with the things I had to deal with at the moment.

I don’t believe this is a phrase that should be used lightly or frequently, and if you do feel the need to use it frequently and you really mean it, you should seek professional help. Just because grues don’t really exist doesn’t mean that the meaning behind the expression shouldn’t be taken seriously. The idea of overusing the phrase makes me think of Godwin’s Law, which basically states that if an expression or argument is used too much, it loses its power and meaning. (It refers specifically to making a comparison between your opponent in an argument and the Nazis, but that’s an entirely different story.)

Basically, the grue, in this instance, represents anything terrifying, monstrous, repulsive, and bloodthirsty that you might want to avoid in favor of living. Suffice to say that I don’t think my new catchphrase should be uttered unless you really and truly mean it and understand the gravity of it. There are few things in the real world that should make you want to face a grue. If you find yourself running into a great many things that fall into this category for you, like I said, you might want to seek professional help, whether it’s because you’ve seen too many tragedies in your life or because you take things too seriously.

I guess in that respect, I’m more normal than I used to think; there aren’t many things in my life that would make me prefer an encounter with a grue, anymore. At the particular moment that I came up with this witty expression of mine, I was thinking about the possible decline in health and subsequent death of my 15-year-old cat, who has been my best friend since I was 10. If it meant an instant healing for him or simply an avoidance of the inevitable, I would gladly face a grue.

There are other things that I would face a grue in order to fix or avoid. The loss of my own vision comes to mind, the irony of which is not lost on me since one must face a grue in pitch blackness. The death or debilitation of a close family member is another. At this time of year, it might be tempting to add dealing with the frustrations of taxation to the list, but I think I’ll actually stick it out with the IRS. They can bite and leave you feeling as if you’re groping about in darkness, but they can’t rip you to shreds and swallow the pieces – then they wouldn’t get paid. Besides, numbers and rules may give me a headache, but they don’t literally make me wish I were never born; very few things have that sort of serious effect on me these days.

So what would make you prefer to face a grue? The death of a loved one? The loss of a limb? A general sense of helplessness? Okay, those last two might be a bit pointless to even consider, as facing a grue would leave one feeling quite helpless and would likely result in the loss of a limb, if not more than that. It’s an interesting question, nonetheless. People often think to themselves that they would rather be someplace else. They daydream about movies and books, thinking about how much easier their lives would be if they lived in a world without pain or emotion or taxes.

They think things like “I would rather fight a fire-breathing dragon right now than be here in this office meeting.” They may even think that they really mean it. But if they were actually in that fantastic situation, they would likely be wishing that they were in some safe, cozy office meeting, or at least someplace more boring that didn’t have fire-breathing dragons. But most people don’t think about what it would really be like to be in that situation since they know that it couldn’t possibly happen.

It might help to visualize the situation somewhat differently by putting it into terms that everyone is familiar with. Considering the statistics on car accidents, it’s safe to assume that most of you have been in at least one minor fender-bender. Think about driving down a road, knowing for certain that you were going to be involved in a major wreck with maybe a slim chance of surviving, if any chance at all. And your seatbelt and airbag are both busted. Now imagine that you also know with absolute certainty that if you proceed to that accident and allow it to happen, something particular in your life is going to be repaired or avoided, through fate, destiny, or divine intervention. Your wife is going to pull through that surgery she’s having today or maybe not have to have the surgery at all, or the world’s nations will come together in peace and harmony – whatever it is that you want most to happen. Would you face the grue, or car accident (or hungry lion or bungee jump with a broken cord, as two more examples), in order to make it happen?

I’ve started using this question as a measure of the importance of a situation or dilemma. If I say to myself “yes, I would rather face a grue,” then I know that the thing that concerns me at that moment is of life-or-death importance to me. If I think “yes, but only if I know that I’m going to survive the encounter, with or without all of my limbs,” then I know that the situation is desperate but not to the point of madness. And if I say, “no, I would not face a grue in this situation,” then this particular problem is one that I would be better off putting my brain to work on a solution for than wasting my energy on wishing that I were somewhere else. It may sound silly, but gauging the importance and/or desperation of a problem in such a methodical way can lead to calmer and more logical thoughts and, perhaps, a quicker solution. It certainly helps to realize what you would, and would not, face a grue in order to avoid. What would be your grue? And what would make you so desperate that you would be willing to face it?

Why I’m a Vegetarian: The Battle Within and Without

“I don’t eat anything that has a face.” That’s a commonly heard refrain when vegetarians are offered a dish that contains meat. I’ve only said it once myself, and it was more as a joke than anything. I am a vegetarian, but when I’m asked why, I try to think of something to say that will touch or influence my audience in some way, or at least help them understand. The above quote is more often seen as either a joke or plain silliness these days. It’s hard enough to get the carnivores to take you seriously, especially when you live in the Midwest, like I do.

Some people don’t eat meat because they were raised by vegetarian parents. I grew up in a “meat and potatoes” household. I ate steak and roast and hamburgers and fish. (Yes, fish is a meat.) I’m not sure I can pinpoint an exact moment when I changed my mind about it all. I do know that having eaten meat previously in my life seems to have made it even more difficult for the meat-eaters to take me seriously, if that’s even possible.

They act like it’s a phase that I’m going through, like I’ll come to my senses eventually. By the time I prove them wrong, we’ll all be so old, they won’t care anymore, and they probably won’t be able to eat meat anymore either. They take it more seriously if I tell them it’s a diet I’m on or I’m doing it for health reasons. Valid excuses but not really the whole reason, for me.

I admit, there are days when it feels like too much of a struggle to continue. “You only make taco salad with hamburger in it? Fine, I’ll eat it that way.” “Mom’s making dinner for everyone, and she’s using real gravy? Well, I don’t want to be a bother; I’ll just eat what’s there.” When I’m feeling really low and thinking about how no one around me understands my point of view on the subject and most of them are actively trying to change my mind, it almost seems pointless to keep up the good fight. In fact, I’ve slipped off the wagon once or twice over the years. Sometimes, I forget to check the ingredients on the box before chowing down. I blame my teetering mental state, stress, and the overwhelming nature of peer pressure.

But there are certain things that can throw me right back up on the wagon faster than Superman, things that keep me from giving up entirely, things that, ironically, keep me from screaming at people when they offer me some pepperoni pizza. I’m talking about the pictures of dogs and cats shoved into tiny cages in a third world market to be sold and cooked for dinner, the horror stories about calves ripped away from their mothers and starved to death before they’ve ever had their first meal, the thought of hens whose legs couldn’t support them if they tried to stand because they’ve never been allowed to walk on them.

I’ve heard about dogs being slowly beaten to death because “it makes the meat taste better.” I’ve seen pictures of animals with test tubes and wires sticking out of their skulls so that scientists could watch what happens once the brain damage sets in. I’ve read the statistics on how many young animals are skinned, sometimes alive, each year to make fur items; trust me, that’s a lot of blood on those fur coats.

One additional thought to take into account is the fact that animal flesh is made up of the same materials as human flesh. Were you to prepare and cook human flesh in the same manner as that of a cow, for instance, you’d never know that the steak you were eating wasn’t real steak. Cut open a man or a pig, and you’ll find the same things: blood, muscle, stomach, and so forth.

Muscle tissue, which makes up the meat that you eat, is muscle tissue, no matter what animal it comes from. This similarity alone is enough to make me begin to gag most of the time.These things and more like them remind me why I became a vegetarian in the first place. In a way, I’m appalled that the people I’ve told about these things haven’t sworn off meat already.

But I also understand that society has taught them that animals are lesser creatures, that they are only there for our use, that their suffering is unimportant, even nonexistent. But anyone with a beloved animal friend will tell you that their suffering is very real and that they are sympathetic creatures with feelings of their own. These same people will then eat their hamburger without a thought to the cow that it came from, assuming on some deep level that there is a difference between a cow and a dog. That question of the differences between species is one of the things that nagged at me in the back of my mind for years and helped me come to the conclusion that all animals deserve to live.

In a way, my father, the epitome of carnivorous humans, had a hand in this transformation of mine. Being the consummate hunter that he was, he would often tease my anti-violence, anti-gun mother about the deer (Bambi, she called them) and rabbits that he would plan on shooting. Once or twice, I heard him say, “What’s the difference between eating deer meat and eating cow meat?” Makes sense when you actually think about it.

And I did. And I realized that the same disgust I felt at the thought of eating Bambi or Thumper ought to be applied to the thought of eating Bessy or Charlotte, as well. As far as the differences between species go, humans have as much in common genetically with pigs as they do with chimpanzees. (I’d like to point out that certain African tribes eat chimps, too.) And cows are just as intelligent as dogs; they could fetch your paper for you, just more slowly.

So why should I care about the suffering of any animals at all? Because I have a cat at home who has a personality as varied as that of my human brother, who is my best friend and my biggest comfort in this world, who drives me crazy and keeps me sane. Because I would never de-claw him, let alone eat him. I would never let anyone skin him to make a fur collar or sew his eyes shut to test how his brain reacts or throw him alive into a pot of boiling water. And because of all that, I would never like to see any of the same things done to other animals, who, but for the uncertainties of this world, could have been my best friend, instead.

It’s hard, maybe impossible, to make anyone else understand these things. But they’re important to me, so I don’t give up. I calmly explain that I won’t be eating turkey on Thanksgiving because I don’t eat meat. I don’t scream because I know that would only push people away and make it harder to make them understand. I drink soymilk for both the cow’s sake and mine (all those chemicals they pump into the cows have to go somewhere). I tell someone for the hundredth time that fish is meat and watch them raise one eyebrow and shake their head.

I see people shake their heads a lot. Sometimes, I shrug it off. Sometimes, it’s almost painful, knowing that they don’t know and don’t care. When something is important to me, I want people around me to understand, maybe even lend a hand. But becoming vegetarian in this world, especially in the Midwest, is an uphill journey that must often be taken alone. But anything worth doing is often hard to do. I can’t save the world or change it, just my own little corner. It took me a while to realize and accept that. You have to pick your battles. Some battles are internal, and some are external, and some are both. If you don’t choose the ones that are most important to you, you’ll be overwhelmed by them all, or you’ll never care about anything. This is my battle, and I’m going to win it for my little corner of the world, and if anyone joins me along the way, that’s just a bonus. That’s why I’m a vegetarian.

Can Today’s News Be Objective?

With accusations of bias flying from both sides of any conflict, the question of whether or not today’s news programs are, or indeed can be, truly objective seems almost moot. Perhaps, there’s a question that might put the entire situation in a different light, namely this: Has any news report, ever, been objective? Or how about, should news be objective?

It is automatically assumed by most people that reported news is “just the facts.” Local evening news programs tell us about next week’s weather, a child who has been kidnapped, or yesterday’s parade. There isn’t much room for bias in such stories. But the bigger the issue, the more subjective the news reports are likely to be. Many people seem to be not only contented with this but also positively jubilant about it. Why else would ultra-conservative or ultra-liberal radio talk shows and television “news programs” be so popular? (Yes, I admit, I’m thinking about Fox News right now.) Is it just that humans in general like to be told what to think? Perhaps, but is there also something else at play?

I worked at a small-town newspaper for eight years, and I’ve had my share of struggles with both co-workers and readers about what constitutes a fair, objective report of a news item. I went into the field of journalism with what I thought was a pretty good idea of what people want from their news sources. I always thought objectivity in the reporting of the straight facts was the most important thing a journalist could strive for. But I soon discovered that one what one person thought of as “objective” was not necessarily the same for everyone else.

How could this be? How could objectivity be subjective like that? The answer is easy: Pure objectivity would be as simple as it sounds in a world of people with objective views, but no one in this world can have a completely objective viewpoint on anything. We bring our own bias to anything we discuss, argue over, or just think about. We can’t help it; we’re only human. Therefore, even a straight report of “just the facts” can actually be much more subjective than you might think. It’s all about the psychology of words and attitudes. Add to that the fact that there are so many things we take for granted, and it becomes nearly impossible to decipher what’s really “hard news” and what’s not.

Imagine you’re listening to your favorite news program, and you hear the following from the reporter: “President Bush visited the troops today to bring cheer to our men and women in uniform.” Sounds innocuous enough, right? But think about how that reporter knew why President Bush was visiting the troops. He was told so, either by someone from the White House or by a press release that came from the White House.

Reporters are not omniscient; they have to take a certain amount of information on faith, as well. For all they know, the President might have been conducting a secret meeting under the guise of a visit to the troops. If so, nobody lied about it; they just left out that particular detail in the report. It may be important for the President to conduct meetings in secret sometimes, but the point is clear: Things may not be as simple as they seem.

Try this one: A newspaper prints a story about the kidnapping of a local child that says, “Police are searching the area thoroughly for any clues.” Sounds promising. But once again, we’re making an assumption. We’re trusting law enforcement to be thorough. The sentence could have read, “Police are searching the area for any clues.” It would have been just as accurate and wouldn’t have made any assumptions about the skill or determination of the individual police officers involved in the search. We want to be optimistic, of course. But optimism can color objectivity as easily as pessimism.

One more: “The township clerk, responsible for the township’s money and equipment, kept the heavy equipment on his own farm. When several neighbors attempted to view the equipment, as the law says they can, they were told by the clerk that they were trespassing and had to leave immediately.” This story paints the township clerk in a rather bad light. Let’s see how it would sound if it were written somewhat differently: “Several neighbors entered the township clerk’s property, and when he observed them, he informed them that they were trespassing and asked them to leave.”

Neither version tells whether the township clerk knew of the residents’ harmless intentions or not, but the second version definitely sounds more like he was simply trying to keep trespassers off of his property. We don’t know whether he would have welcomed them had they explained themselves, and we don’t know whether they bothered trying. But one story seems to accuse the clerk of unfairness, and the other sounds more objective. Even the more objective version could be misunderstood, of course; for instance, someone sympathetic to the clerk might read it and complain to the newspaper, saying that they were trying to implicate him in some sort of cover-up. And that is where the reader’s bias comes into play.

It’s bad enough that the reporter can write something with an unintentional bias to it. Even if they have carefully crafted their words to weed out any potential personal opinions, a reader or viewer may still make assumptions of their own, or they may feel so strongly about a particular issue that they hear bias where there is none. Human beings are virtually incapable of writing, reading, or hearing anything without putting a personal spin on it.

So what’s the point of trying? Should we give up and let personal opinions become the new “news?” One of my former co-workers expressed a view very much like that once. She felt that individual newspapers should have their own viewpoint, as directed by the editor or influenced by the individual writers, and that pure objectivity was a goal so unattainable as to be undesirable. This opinion of hers might have had something to do with the fact that she was editor at the time, but I still wonder how many newspeople out there feel the same way. And I still disagree.

I maintain that just because something is difficult, or even nearly impossible, doesn’t mean that it should be abandoned altogether. I don’t consider the extremist talk shows or opinionated television news programs to be real news. Certainly, you can glean some facts from them, but in some cases, doing this can be harder than getting the facts from a comedy news program like that one with comedian Jon Stewart. And a lot of major news sources today are hardly much better. I doubt that objective news reporting has ever been easy; I’m sure there were people arguing about objectivity when they were signing the Declaration of Independence. As long as people have had opinions and differing viewpoints, they have looked for ways to express them. Remember, reporters are human, too.

A reporter’s job is to inform people. With any luck, and a little hard work, we should be able to inform people of just the facts. It may be the hardest part of the whole job, just to write or speak these facts without bias creeping into the words. Anything worth doing is generally hard to do. But anything worth doing is worth doing well. We may be hard pressed to find a fairly objective report of the news to inform us about the state of our world, but we should still keep trying to find it, or to create it. Even if we only come close, it means we nearly made it, and we may do better tomorrow.

How to Shop for the Person Who Has Everything

He has every bit of sports memorabilia from his favorite team that can be found in the mortal world. She has every DVD and CD that she has ever wanted. If you have a loved one who is like this, I sympathize. I may also have a few helpful tips for you that might make holidays, birthdays, and anniversaries so much easier to deal with.

Tip #1: Never, ever leave the shopping until the last minute. In fact, I would recommend getting started at least a month in advance. Personally, I shop year-round. You don’t have to frantically search for that special item every time you make a trip to the store; just keep one eye out for anything that someone you know might like. If you decide not to pick it up right then, at least you’ll have it in mind next time you’re wondering what to get that person for their birthday next week.

Tip #2: Keep a few extra things around that have gift potential. You never know when something is going to come up. If a relative that you weren’t expecting to see for the holidays shows up on Christmas, having a CD of Christmas songs or a holiday tin that you can fill with homemade cookies on hand can be a lifesaver.

Tip #3: In some cases, sticking to a theme can work to your advantage. Even if it seems like he has every piece of Dallas Cowboys merchandise known to man, he may not mind getting a few extras. In fact, he may be more appreciative of the same baseball cap two years in a row than he would have been if you had given him a mug full of candy canes. Thank about whether having more than one of the same thing might be useful, especially if it’s a collector’s item.

Tip #4: If the birthday girl or boy really does have everything she or he wants, it’s time to think outside of the box. Just because they haven’t thought of it doesn’t mean they won’t like it. Pick out a movie that they haven’t seen but that you know they’ll like. Look for unique collectibles or knick-knacks. Think about a problem that they have and come up with a unique way of solving it with a special gift. Find a way to help them with a hobby; for instance, if their hobby is photography, photo boxes or albums are always helpful.

Tip #5: It may seem impersonal, but don’t count out the gift card option. Cash also works great. Both are gifts that will never be returned, and they give the receiver the ability to pick something that he really wants. If you’re concerned that it doesn’t show enough thought, choose a place where the gift card recipient often shops, or a place where he doesn’t get to shop very often because of the prices. Either way, you’ll know that it won’t go to waste. Flowers and gift baskets work the same way; few people would object to setting out some nice-looking flowers, and fewer still would have a problem with free food.

Tip #6: Homemade gifts are still appreciated in this modern age. If you’re a cash-strapped college student or otherwise on a limited income, you might not be able to afford more than a greeting card. But you can still give gifts that are special by making them with your own two hands. Yes, it’s corny and trite, but it really does work. It probably works best if you’re a good cook or have some other handy skill. You can bake something, from dinner to dessert, or make something, from a birdhouse to a letter holder. Then, you can at least put those gift-making skills they taught you in the third grade to use. You can also do something like cleaning out the garage; as mundane as that sounds, it may be considered the best gift ever in some cases.

Tip #7: Sometimes, just spending time with someone is enough of a gift. It sounds even cornier than the homemade gift idea, but a day of relaxing and having fun with a loved one is often more memorable than a gift wrapped in shiny paper. Think about it: Do you remember what you got on your seventh birthday from Aunt Trudy? Or do you remember where your party was held and who came to it? Instead of wracking your brain over something to buy, think of something fun that you can do together. It will reduce stress for both of you, and it will be remembered much more fondly in the years to come.

Why I Still Read Youth Books at 25

I was 25 five years ago.

I was reading Shakespeare at the age of 12, so when people notice me, at my current age of 25, reading something like A Series of Unfortunate Events, they wonder why. The simple answer is that it entertains me, but some of you might want a few more details in that explanation. So, here goes.

A good way to answer this question is by looking at some of my favorite youth and young adult books. A Series of Unfortunate Events, by Lemony Snicket, is written with words that a child as young as 3 can understand. In other words, it’s no Shakespeare. Or is it? This book series is very cleverly written, using simple statements and turns of phrase to elicit laughs from the reader. The story is complex and tortuous, forcing the reader to think and re-think everything that has been learned from previous adventures.

There is also the occasional obtuse reference to something in the real world, a reference that is unlikely to be noticed by anyone under the age of 12. And the main characters portray very realistically what it is like to suddenly grow up and begin realizing that no one is there to take care of you. So, let’s recap: clever writing, complex storytelling, real-world references, and emotionally driven characters. Sounds like Shakespeare to me.

One of my favorite young adult book series was written by K.A. Applegate, author of the famous Animorphs series. I like her far-too-short EverWorld much better. Applegate had a way of writing that never left a teenaged audience feeling as though she were talking down to them, patronizing them, or oversimplifying their problems. The main characters in EverWorld were portrayed in a realistic, straightforward manner.

Their issues were neither exaggerated nor brushed aside, despite the fact that they were wandering through an otherworldly alternate dimension full of mythological creatures and nightmarish monstrosities. Applegate did her homework for this one, using accurate details about ancient myths to round out this world of gods and monsters. The protagonists are so well-drawn that by the time the story ends (too quickly and yet somehow at just the right spot), I would challenge anyone not to feel a great loss at not being able to travel with them any longer.

I also read books like Harry Potter and Artemis Fowl, both of them grand fantasy adventures. There are plenty of young adult books that are worth the read just because they can sweep you away from reality as well as any adult fiction book. The lesser-known Pendragon series, by D.J. MacHale, is like that. This story of a young man caught up in an adventure that takes him to other worlds in an effort to save the universe should be ranked alongside the great science fiction books of the 20th century, in my opinion.

A story doesn’t have to be written from the perspective of an adult to be a good read. Some so-called adult fiction books are so poorly written and constructed in such a flimsy manner that they should be categorized under a lower reading level. All that would have to be changed for this to happen would be the elimination of all the four-letter words, which some writers seem to think will automatically qualify their work for “adult” status.

Sometimes, I actually prefer reading something that can be used to teach a child how to read. I love anything by Shel Silverstein, for instance; his poems can be appreciated by young and old alike, and yet they use the simplest language and the sweetest imagery. In many ways, they remind me of the Peanuts comic strip, which no one can deny adoring. Oftentimes, we adults need a little dose of our childhoods to keep us sane, to give us a chuckle, or to remind us that we’re still human. How else could the success of a series like Piers Anthony’s Xanth be explained?

These books are filled to the brim with the worst (and best) puns imaginable, and grown men and women keep on sending more of them to Anthony. The thinly veiled jokes about sex and the childish behaviors of even the oldest of Xanth’s characters make this series too juvenile for most literary people. I must admit that there are times when even I’m not in the mood for this particular land of magic, but when I need a low-brow escape from reality, it’s at the top of my list.

Some books don’t hold up well when you’ve become too well-read to appreciate their original charm. I grew up on Nancy Drew, but now that I’m older and have read more sophisticated mysteries, I realize that her adventures were far-fetched, the writing was overly simplistic, and the plots were thinner than water. Rather than revisiting those stories, I prefer to keep them preserved in my mind as they were: exciting, mind-boggling, and inspiring. There may come a day when I view some of the things that I’m reading now with the same critical eye, when I ask myself, “How could I have possibly have enjoyed that so much?” It’s not really about how much you’ve grown up; it’s about how much you’ve changed. Some books are better suited to the older kid in all of us, and some of us just need to let the little kid inside have some fun every now and then.

How to Work (or Not) at a Small-Town Newspaper

Another thing I wrote a long time ago:

Working at a small-town newspaper does have certain similarities to working anywhere else, but the differences are enough to make your feelings towards your job hit the extreme end of the emotional spectrum. Whether that end is the fuzzy love end or the seeing-red hate end depends on your patience, tolerance, and speed in life.

To start off with, there’s usually an interview or job application of some sort, just like with any other job. Or not, depending on how small the newspaper really is and what they usually print. If they stick to stories about grandmother’s cookies and where Mr. Johnson went on vacation, you’ll probably be given an assignment right after you’ve introduced yourself. Of course, that means the likelihood of getting paid is rather slim.

If the company is slightly bigger than that, your chances of getting paid for something you write are better. Just don’t expect to get rich. Ever. And keep your eye out for anything that might make your job any more unstable than it is already. When belts are being tightened at a small newspaper, writers are among the first to go.

If your plan is to work your way up the ladder of journalism, and if you already have or are right now taking some college courses, working at a small newspaper is a great way to get started. You can cut your teeth on a few “puff pieces” and then move on to covering local meetings and events. If writing is what you want to do with your career, you’ll have to work long and hard at it to get anywhere, so you may as well get started. If you’re more interested in the business aspect of newspapers, it’s still a good idea to start at the bottom and learn how things are done. If you’re going to be working at a small newspaper, that’s what you’re going to be doing anyway.

Much like in any other type of small business, everyone at a small newspaper does a little bit of everything. Even the owner is usually right there in the trenches, answering phones and running errands. A big staff is not in the budget, and this can be both good and bad. If you’re patient and tolerant and willing to learn how to do several different jobs at the same time, you’ll fit right in. If you prefer a work environment where your job requirements are specifically laid out in your contract, you’d better start shopping your resume around elsewhere.

You might start out as a lowly reporter and work your way up to office grunt. If you’re a hard worker, you’ll find yourself saddled with more and more responsibilities as time goes by. Knowing how to do some editing and proofreading is good for any reporter, but you may also find yourself learning the ins and outs of layout. They don’t use typesetters anymore, but it’s still a time-consuming job. Since it’s all done on computers now, not being technology-savvy can be a journalistic career-killer, whether you’re just writing or hoping to learn the design end of the business.

Knowing how to deal with people and with their complaints is a must. Customer service is everyone’s job at a small newspaper. Since everyone does everything, whoever is closest to the front door when someone walks in is usually responsible for taking care of him or her. Sometimes, this means apologizing for mistakes that have nothing to do with your area of expertise. In many cases, this will also give you a chance to learn about the sales side of the industry. Some people will walk in or call with their request to put in a classified or display ad. In fact, sometimes, if it’s a slow day (and a slow financial cycle), you may find yourself on assignment to make cold calls until you get a sale.

In the low-profit business of putting out a small-town newspaper, you quickly learn the importance of advertising. Money from sales is what allows you to get a paycheck, assuming you’re writing or doing something that is considered worth paying for. Subscriptions do not pay the bills at a small paper; there simply aren’t enough of them. Because of this, readers are often considered less important to cater to than advertisers. If it bothers you when this affects journalistic objectivity, you’re in the wrong line of work.

No job at a small newspaper is higher or lower in status than any other. The biggest difference is in the job of editor. In theory, an editor is supposed to be the boss, making decisions about deadlines and headlines and barking orders at the reporters and the people in layout. In practice, the editor often has the least amount of control and the most responsibility. Whatever goes wrong, it’s the editor’s fault. This high-stress position is not for the faint of heart, especially if it is different from the position of owner. Most owners of small newspapers double as the editor. This is a good thing in one important way: It prevents conflicts between the two of them. If you’re a small-picture kind of person and don’t do well in conflicts, editing is not a job you want.

If you enjoy meeting deadlines and multitasking, the small newspaper business may be just right for you. In this world of ever-increasing specialization, this industry is one of the last bastions of the practice of teaching employees a business from the ground up. If you love writing about small-town people and don’t mind living from paycheck to paycheck, you’ll do well as a small-town reporter.

But if you prefer things to be more well-organized and want a guarantee that what you’re doing will still be considered important next year, you’re better off working somewhere else. You’ll likely hate the fast-paced environment of the small newspaper, especially since a quick loss in advertising for the company can mean a quick loss in hours or even employment for you. Such work is definitely not for everyone.

Do Movies Have Hidden Agendas?

Something I wrote a long time ago for another site:

When the movie “Happy Feet” was just starting to build up some hype, I overheard a news report criticizing it as an attempt to push a political agenda regarding the dangers of global warming. Putting aside my personal feelings on the subject, I found the suggestion laughable. Of course, I haven’t seen the movie, and it’s agenda may be more evident than the trailers suggest, but to set one movie aside as more worthy of scrutiny than any other is careless at best, manipulative at worst.

Nearly every movie ever made has had an agenda of some sort, whether political, psychological, or economic. In fact, it may be that every movie ever made has had an agenda, but there are probably many films, if not nearly all of them, in which the agenda was completely unintentional and, for that reason, may well be excused from any accusations of wrong-doing, in my opinion.

An excellent example of political propaganda on the silver screen would be the collection of Sherlock Holmes movies that were made during World War II starring Basil Rathbone. While completely ignoring the state of world affairs at the time would have been considered blasphemy by many (especially since Holmes was brought into the modern era for the series) the films went so far as to involve the famous detective directly in cases of war-time espionage and battles with the evil Axis powers. Suddenly, Holmes was a weapon used by the government, rather than a champion for justice. Certainly, fighting off the forces of Nazi Germany can be considered justice, but there is no denying that these films were designed to encourage patriotism and make a statement. This is an extreme example, of course.

In some cases, particularly in the case of psychological agendas, the statement is not so readily apparent to those who are not looking for it. To most people, fairy tales and the movies based on them are just good bedtime stories for their little ones, wholesome family entertainment. However, any student of psychology will tell you that fairy tales, even those as enchanting as Snow White and Sleeping Beauty, serve to teach little girls that they can improve their lot in life only by marrying well and letting their princes sweep them off of their feet.

This is somewhat of an over-generalization. There are fairy tale films with more merit than that; “The Little Mermaid” and “Ella Enchanted” spring to mind, even if the latter isn’t based on an original fairy tale. Did the authors of the original tales intend to make such a statement to the little girls of the world? We will probably never know. But it doesn’t mean that such films should be banned from the family DVD player, just taken in moderation and with a grain of salt.

If you’re looking for examples in film of women being portrayed as weak or otherwise helpless to save themselves or their world, or just examples of men being portrayed as better than women, you don’t have to look far. But if you’re not paying attention or you believe that sometimes a movie is just a movie, you’ll probably miss most of the signs. The same can be said of any other type of psychological agenda. It has been suggested that an unspoken lesson being taught by “Star Trek” and its many incarnations is that the furtherance of technology is good. However, “Jurassic Park” very clearly states that taking technology too far is very, very bad.

If “The Lord of the Rings” is indeed a representation of author Tolkien’s experiences in war, then the stories of Middle-earth are definitely saying that “war is hell,” to borrow a phrase from Sherman. And there is no end to the movies that describe nature in its wild, uncivilized state as undesirable and contemptible, from “Paul Bunyan” to the aforementioned “Jurassic Park.”

Another example of manipulation in the movies is more well-known to fans of the big screen: economic agendas. Any movie studio or producer knows that the best way to make money off of the populace is to release films that promote the most popular opinion of the day, or conversely, the least popular and, therefore, most inflammatory opinion of the day. Economic agendas influence and even direct political and psychological agendas. During war-time, it makes sense to release films that promote patriotism and praise for government and country. In some cases, it may also be advisable to produce a movie or two railing against the current war; people who share the same opinion on the subject will flock to it.

The majority of the typical movie audience may be outraged, but they’ll have to see the film before they will know what to be outraged over. When global warming is a hot-button issue and a topic on everyone’s mind, a lot of money can be made by producing movies that address it and other environmental issues. “Happy Feet” may be an obvious attempt at convincing an audience that global warming is a real threat, but it is certainly not the first movie to capitalize on current events, nor will it be the last.

If the real fear about hidden agendas in movies is that it will control what the audience is thinking, we must not have much faith in our own cognitive abilities. And if the fear is only for our children, perhaps fairy tales should be banned from the family television and each movie screened and judged carefully and individually by a panel of experts hired to tell us what to watch. Otherwise, maybe we should remember that sometimes a movie is just a movie.