Discussion topic: Radio choices

The radio is something I turn to mostly when I'm at school. At home I have cable for news and Internet mailing lists for finding new music (thus a downfall of living in the Far North where the only genres that are recognized by the majority are Top 40, country music, and Christian rock). In Minneapolis (and in the dorms) I have cable that is difficult to access and keep to myself and radio stations and peers to deliver the news of what tunes I should be listening to.

I've listened to radio news before. I do like Minnesota Public Radio. It makes me feel more connected to the city around me. The more able I am to strike up a conversation about some current event, the more comfortable I feel about my ability to interact on the level of an intelligent citizen. Something about not knowing what's going on around me makes me twitchy – like worrying I will be approached by someone taking a poll for sociology in which the results always are, ''Seventy-five percent of Americans cannot locate their big toe.''

That might actually make my reason for listening to Minnesota Public Radio a fear and necessity rather than a pastime. Either way, radio news offers the advantage of extreme mobility over other mediums. Sure, you can take a newspaper with you to work – but can you read it when you drive or walk? Not so much.

I'm not sure satellite radio is the answer. There are just as many free music services on the Internet – if you're looking for an ad-free program to find new music, it is just a click of the mouse away, so to say. Resorting to paying for a program that would be so easy to get for free seems ridiculous almost – not ''advanced'' or ''in-the-know'' . . . just wasteful. Also, radio services like those offered on the dial all over the Cities seem much more personable. Every once in a while, it feels nice to know that there is someone behind the mic and working the controls.

Outed!

I was in the process of writing a blog entry about Amy's most recent discussion idea post when I got a little sidetracked.

A friend of mine entered my room with an interesting bit of information that might be a relevant topic, seeing as it ties in to media, popular culture and, as far as I can see, censorship. Long story short, J.K. Rowling confirmed to a full house at Carnegie Hall that a beloved character in her Harry Potter series, Dumbledore, is gay.

Seriously.

The hilarity of this is boundless. Yes, I jumped on the bandwagon along with the rest of the world. I've read the books including the most recent and final entry even though my interest had waned.

I had always been fascinated by the repeated attempts to ban Harry Potter books from local and school libraries based on the fact that they promoted witchcraft and stimulated adolescent interest in the occult. I grew up in a small town where being anything but a Conservative Christian was unheard of and frightening. Despite this, I can only think of a few people who made the argument that Harry Potter was bad—one being my grandfather. On the other hand, I can think of many people from my hometown who thought it was equally ridiculous and hilarious—including my pastor.

I was under the impression that the debate reached a side-splitting high point when Fox News questioned J.K. Rowling's influence on children, pointing out a minor ''wardrobe malfunction'' she had on a book tour. This new revelation, however, takes the biscuit.

So now the books really DO actively promote tolerance—not of the occult, but of homosexuality. I don't know about you, but I'm very much looking forward to this news getting out to the individuals, churches, and communities who wanted to see the demise of Harry Potter in the first place. It's a pity that there are no more books coming out (no pun intended), as that would assuredly up the madness of it all.

So what next? Book burnings? Novels coming off the shelves of morally-strict countries faster than you can say ''Ahmadinijad''? Explosions all over the Internet as the Harry Potter fandom opens their Word documents and starts writing fanfiction about Dumbledore and Grindelwald's tragic, canon love?

All of the above, hopefully. It feels nostalgic, almost, to be interested in what's going on in the world of Harry Potter again.

Mean Media

I won't deny that the first thing that drew me to the New York Times' Capitol Feud article was the photograph of the little boy that accompanied it. He looks strikingly like my only sibling—another bespectacled, junior high student with shaggy, blond hair.

Oddly enough, the article content could also be laced with the short biography of my kid brother. Herszenhorn's piece is about 12-year-old Graeme Frost, who (along with a sister) relied on the State Children's Health Insurance Program for treatment of severe brain injuries received in a car crash. My little brother, Matt, lost the vision in his right eye in a hunting accident when he was 10. He still enjoys hunting today, and it is beyond my realm of comprehension why he would ever continue after having BBs lodged into his face. But that is beside the point.

Graeme's case is being noted by the NY Times because he has been ''enlisted'' by Democrats to give the response to President Bush and other Republican officials who think that the program is unnecessary. And like anything partisan cast into the realm of the American media, poor little Graeme (as well as the rest of the Frost family) has been figuratively torn to shreds.

I would be lying if I claimed to be well-informed about the workings of and debate about the S-chip. After watching what little money my family had saved up in the first place get dumped into medical bills (even after insurance settlements with the family of the kid who was messing around with the gun that caused Matt's injuries) however, I can't help but feel that the State Children's Health Insurance Program is a good idea.

It was the ''soft news'' in this article that grabbed my attention in the first place, and it was the ''soft news'' that held it throughout. I don't know if it's the liberal in me or the big sister in me (who gets a little squishy when she sees a photograph of a troubled, chapped-lip preteen) that did it, but I can't help but feel horrible for Graeme and his family. They might have signed up for their position as the poster family for this debate (or not, I don't know), but having their lives picked apart by every lowly blogger who takes time to touch on the news? That seems plain unfair.

The most noteworthy marvel is the ''fact checking'' that went on at every level. For conservative critics, the family is rich, their house is expensive, the father is ''choosing'' not to provide for his children, and Graeme goes to a spendy private school. For the liberal NY Times reporter, the house is of average price (with concrete countertops), the father's business is failing, Graeme is at school on scholarship, and the Frosts are victims to the –nth degree.

Like I said before, I identify with and pity the family—medical bills are hard enough, but being the centerpiece of a partisan debate in Washington has got to take the biscuit. There is no position to be had on the fact-checking however. In all reality, can there be a position there? Who do I believe? I know who I want to believe! Who is more believable (the Times can't be the only source-reliable medium reporting to us, can they?)?

With that, I must say that this entry has no infinite wisdom to share or position to argue for. It is merely meant to function as a note that I'm taking a seat here, with no popcorn, to marvel at the Media Beast and the Wikipedia-esque data it can churn out to make a point. A month-long show later, I have to ask: which sources are we supposed to believe?

Ironically, I think the Blog Beast is at the bottom of the list. Who next?

Moolah Mystery

Although Joe Soucheray and I are far from sharing a page when it comes to political ideology, I can't help but take interest in his most recent columns in the Pioneer Press. They are, after all, laid out in front of me whenever I take a seat at UDS.

As of late, Joe has been discussing the enigma of the 35W bridge rebuilding project and how and why our legislators have decided on accepting a more expensive bid from Flatiron Constructors (out of Colorado) over a less-expensive bid from local builders. He doesn't understand why, and neither do I.

In his September 22 column, he summed it thus: ''I don't get it. The companies that lost out in the bidding don't get it, either. The companies that lost out, McCrossan and Ames-Lunda, filed a protest, like they want to see the instant replay. I don't blame them.

''OK. Flatiron needs 437 days and $234 million. McCrossan, based in Maple Grove, as in Minnesota, bid $177 million and needs 367 days. Ames-Lunda, Ames in Burnsville and Lunda in Black River Falls, Wis., bid $178 million and needs 392 days. I don't know whether Walsh-American, $219 million and 437 days, filed a protest, or might.''

With the help of Jeremy Kalin, a DFL representative out of Chisago County, Soucheray has solved part of the Flatiron riddle. He revealed new facts and figures, all in the tens of millions of dollars, in his column this Tuesday (October 2). Still, there remains a sum neither he nor I can place. It is a mystery $17 million dedicated to ''other state and local government costs''.

What are these costs spoken of? No one knows. Hence, mystery moolah.

Although I think I'm a little more liberal with my tax dollars than Mr. Garage Logic, I can't help but be a bit repulsed by the amount of money—specifically, the amount of mystery money—being tossed to an out-of-state construction company. Perhaps it is my year-old Poor College Student title that causes this repulsion. Perhaps it is my inclination toward, I don't know, having a paycheck for my labor that causes it.

Either way, if no one's going to explain where that $17 million is going (or why it's going to a Colorado company, for that matter), I can't help but agree with Soucheray—we might as well gold-plate the bridge while we're at it. What's a few months late on utility costs, anyway?