Let's just resort back to trading arrowheads.

If you buy something at the Bookstore, you have four ways of paying: cash, credit card, debt card or Bookstore charge account. Simple enough, right? Apparently not.

Gaffe #1: To charge or not to charge.

ATM cards are a modern convenience that has spared many trees from being made into paper checks and made it much easier to spend lots of money without really feeling the burn (until you later log on to your bank's online personal banking site). The cards can be used in ATM machines to draw money from your checking or savings accounts, but they also can be used right at the checkout register. Users have the option of using the ATM card as a credit or debit card. This is where things get, apparently, confusing.

My mom once told me that that when you choose to charge purchases, you are indeed withdrawing funds from your checking account but the withdraw is delayed, usually for about three days. This would come in handy if you wanted to buy something the day before you were getting paid and didn’t have all the money at that very moment, but would given a day or two. (photo credit)

Choosing debit would pull right out of your checking account, but it costs the account holder a fee with each transaction, somewhere in the ballpark of $1 to $2. So sure, you might know exactly how much is in your bank account at that very moment, but is it really worth a few bucks? Those dollars add up fast, and most online banking shows your credit charges in the account summary even though they haven’t been processed, so you still have any idea of how much dough you’re rolling in.

So kids, when you tell me you “don’t care whether it’s credit or debit,” I almost feel obligated to debit you.

Gaffe #2: Can I use my card? You tell me, Einstein.

Syracuse University allows parents to set up credit cards on their kids’ I.D. cards. It's a pretty good way to make sure your kids are spending your money on overpriced school supplies and junk food, which I guess is a step up just giving them cash that would most likely go towards stocking their dorm room’s secret liquor closet.

Biggest flaw? Those freshmen with SU charge accounts don't know what the hell it is or where they can use it (a: only in the bookstore, hence it's name, Bookstore charge account). (photo credit)

It acts like a credit card. Have you heard of those before? You buy something and then receive a bill later. So many kids ask how much money is left on their card. It’s not a gift certificate or allowance. You charge as much as you want, and suffer the wrath of angry parents later.

Gaffe #3: May I see you card?

I came into work this past Sunday and my manager told me that they’ve started to crack down on card use and the main branch is requiring all Bookstore cashiers to look at cards, check the name and look at their signatures.

In the six hours I have worked since they have instated the new policy I have never experienced more blank stares, bad attitudes and rolled eyes.

"Is everything okay?"

Yes, everything is fine. Nothing is wrong with your card. I promise you'll be able to make it through the 5 seconds it will take for me to look at your picture and confirm you are the cardholder. Read the piece of paper taped to the signature deck: “Please hand your student charge card or credit card to the cashier; if you are paying a credit card and it is not signed or unreadable you will have to provide the cashier with a photo id.” (photo credit)
The thing people don’t understand is that this procedure is in their best interest. I’m making sure that you are using your account, not some random person or thief. I fail to see any inconvenience about handing your card over for one second.

I’m really not in the mood to deal with people tonight. Is it that obvious?

Update: Two minutes after I finished this blog, a girl came in and said "Can I buy something with this card?" as she held up her i.d. card. I explained that she could if her parents had set up a charge account. She just looked at me. She wandered about for a minute or two. She came back to me. "So is there ANY way I can buy something with this card?" Am I speaking English? Is this a bad joke? Sadly, she was serious and I proceeded to once again explain what is a Bookstore charge. I really hope she's just visiting a friend and wasn't actually admitted/enrolled at SU.

Men aren't pigs, but they might be a weird breed of werewolf

My girlfriends and I are convinced that men have undergone a change this fall. If it was February, we might reason that love is in the air. Since it's Halloween, I'm going for a more sinister rationale.

Everyone is familiar with the legend of werewolves, whether it be from a scary story shared fireside or a viewing of the 1985 Michael J. Fox classic Teen Wolf. Man turns into beast: nails become claws, teeth become fangs, body becomes covered in a ridiculous amount of hair. (sidenote: there's apparently a Teen Wolf drinking game. If you haven't seen it, I suggest you rent it, gather friends and enjoy the beauty that is Fox with some cheap wine.) (photo compliments of impawards.com)

After some research there appears to be a real condition where people truly believe they are werewolves called Lyncathropic Disorder. I've learned a bit about it from a Nancy Drew computer game, but nothing too in depth. I found a website that outlines the elements associated with the disorder and I'll attempt to prove the boys on Syracuse University's campus have turned into a special breed of werewolf: the woman-hungry.

Man to Beast
I haven't run into any guys with fangs. Some guys are hairy, but nothing too disturbing. Paul did maul my neck a few weeks back that might be comprible to an animal bite, it healed and I don't feel posessed in any way, so I think I'm in the clear.

Werewolves can initate transformation, but they can always be affected by moon phases, like the infamous full moon. Sounds like howling can also conjurge up a man's inner beast.

The woman-hungry male most recently identifies with involuntary werewolve transformation. Who conciously wants to become needy? Like werewolves, It is mostly with nightfall (and drinking) that the guys transform, becoming overwhelmed with the desire to meet up with prospective mates, or texting multiple messages despite receiving no response or sign of interest after any of them.

Mind of a Werewolf
Werewolves do not lose all sanity as beast. They still the ability to recognize people and avoid traps, but they have a tendancy to act instinctually like a real wolf.

The woman-hungry tap into their natural physical urges too, but almost too much. Granted, the average boy typically can be (and often is) an aggressive speciman, the woman-hungry has an odd presence of companionship to their otherwise normal sexual advances. The use of pet names is increased, attention given almost to a suffocating degree and cheesiest in all senses of the word embraced.

Don't get me wrong. I like attention, I want signs that you dig me and want to hang out. But too much too soon is a turn off. And if you don't get a response after your third attempt, it doesn't look like a future together is in the cards. And if there was, it's gone now.

Symptoms of Werewolfry
My girls and I have concluded, from experiences with many subjects, that guys have undergone a personality change unlike anything we've witnessed before. Awkward and mixed signals, we don't even know what to make of your advances and we doubt you know either. You're woman-hungry. You've lost most rationale. You're making impulsive decisions, which you later regret and attempt to remedy but just add to the vicious cycle of mixed signals. You text and act really interested at one moment, and then don't seem interested, and then 15 minutes really interested again.

Werewolves symptoms pretty much fall under the umbrella-term of bizarre behavior. I can't think of a better adjective to describe a guy's unwarranted assumption that you're now dating, even though you've only hung out once.

I mean there are some good things about guys this fall. It seems like they've become more aggressive, more willing to lay the cards on the table and see how things play out. It's honestly just a game of balance: how to show interest in a girl, but not go overboard and turn woman-hungry. It's the mixed signals that are the downer. But hey, if he looks like Michael J. Fox, I might be more willing to deal with it.

of me and men

I've never been your typical girl.

Label me as a tomboy, maybe, but I don't think it's quite that clear cut. I don't think I could throw punches (or take them) and I'm not fond of bugs. I sometimes have a tendency to gravitate towards men though.

It's gotten me in trouble in the past (and present). Boyfriends get jealous. Girls get pissed. My friend Sam tried to explain that if I come across a girl that dislikes me, for what seems like no reason, it's most likely because I'm a "big flirt."

Flirt? I've been around legitimate flirts, and I'd rather not be grouped with them. If anything I'm the antithesis of a flirt; I'd like to think I embrace the knowledge that I have rather than bury it under a "dumb-helpless-girl" act.

For whatever reason, I'm not really intimidated by guys. Sure, I have my moments, but for the most part, I feel like my interests span a broad enough spectrum that I can interact well with any one-- male or female. And I like the fact I'm comfortable with the opposite sex, but it makes things that much more complicated.

Guys are easily led on to think I like them when I'm really just interacting with them as I would with any person. I do call all my friends endearing terms: boo, booface, sweetheart, lovebug, love, etc. I think more girls are less open and outgoing with the opposite sex, so I think the normal guy might interpret my signals as if he was talking a a typical girl.

But it's not just tricky for guys, it's hard for me too. If I'm into a guy, I don't know really how to show him. I'll most-likely treat him like other guys, but attempt to convey a little more interest. But guys can't read minds and I can't be more outgoing.

So the debacle persists; but I'm not really worried about it. It's a two-way street. If a guy is interested in me, he'll make moves too. And then I'll know I can more boldly show interest, with a lesser chance of rejection. But let's be real, senior year is for fun and friends.

Lawrinson Bookstore:

7:25 p.m.: I picked up this shift to earn some more money, so now I’m sitting bored in a comfortable office chair, ringing up the occasional underclassman that wanders in to get his or her Pepperoni Bagel Bites or energy drink. No shopping sprees of $40+ yet tonight (there’s always some student who’s quick to buy a ridiculous amount of sodium-saturated junk food and overpriced SU merchandise) but one girl is toting around a shopping basket so there’s potential.

7:30 p.m.: No dice. She just got what could be a pseudo-healthy dinner for two: Two Lean Cuisines, two pints of rainbow Sherbet, two Starbucks fraps and a pack of gum. I wonder if people know that I’m recording what they’re buying, and leaving you to make judgments of their person and/or character via those selections.

Things on my mind at the moment: the economy & congress’ bailout plan, new always sunny at josh’s with a bottle of bully hill wine, Chuck’s after, Urban Outfitters, Luna bars

Out of my Outbox

Boost: Vacations are a great way to get away from work and stress.
Downgrade: Away from internet and American (or any English-speaking) press, you lose complete grasp of what is going in the world.

Ash brought to my attention the exchange between AP's Ron Fouriner and Karl Rove, Bush's chief advisor, and wanted to know my take on the situation.

Here's the e-mail I sent her:

It's hard, being human and all, to completely de-attach from natural conversational inclinations as a journalist. I feel like the best interviewers are those who are able to conduct an interview in such a way that the interviewee feels as though they are talking to one of their closest friends. After all, any interview is basically just a conversation.

So, it's hard. You want to have some give-and-take. No one likes a conversation that's completely one-sided. Sure, people love to hear themselves talk but I personally like some feedback; it kind of affirm the person is listening to what I'm saying and that they understand.

In this situation, I feel like the journalist wasn't wrong in answering Rove's question, but he was wrong in how much he admitted. I think there's a range of what's appropriate and not, as there is with anything. There are somethings that are just TMI, and I think the journalist entered this realm.

Thoughts?

Good things come in three, Tough decisions come in two

Sometimes one idea is duplicated, and the result is so much like the former that is hard to determine which one is better. Here are some things that conveniently emerged at the same time and that I have taken the liberty to crown the better part of the pair.

Boyband Hearthrobs Who Didn't Age Well but Attempted a Comeback a Decade Later Anyways: New Kids on The Block vs Menudo

Why?: that is the question I need to ask twice (naturally). 1. Why in god's name would grown men think it's okay to sing "I was like, "hey, girl, can I get your number"/I remember what you told me too, /"Don't call after ten"/But you know that I did, /'Cause I couldn't stop thinkin' 'bout you."? The slang and content in it's entirety is beyond inappropriate. 2. Why did the music industry really think pop-listeners wanted more boy bands? That's so 20th century; I want catchy pop-emo ("Shake It" by Metro Station is such a good guilty pleasure) and badly-lyricized R&B (Have you heard the new LL Cool J? See me in the club.)
The NKOTB site says, "New Kids On The Block — five now fully-grown men who forever defined what the modern boy band would look and sound like — are back together for the very first time in nearly a decade and a half, and currently hard at work on their first new album since 1994." That may be the most embarrassing introduction I have ever read in my life. "Five fully-grown men who forever defined what the modern boy band would like and sound like"… sounds more like five fully-grown mean who can't escape their boy band mold and figured "don't fight it, embrace it." I'd probably do the same thing if I was in their shoes.

There's no real competition here. Menudo wins by a landslide. I still do not know why these boys' manager wanted to market the group as Menudo when they could have very well given them a fresh, new name. Any chance to cultivate Menudo fans of the 1980s into listeners of the new crew was lost when those same girls ditched their TeenBeats and neon scrunchies for real jobs to support their children and husband.

Winner: Menudo

Who's Got the Magic Stick: The Illusionist vs The Prestige

I love magic and anything set pre-1950, so when I heard about the release of The Illusionist and The Prestige in 2006, I thought I had just hit the jackpot.

Both casts were pretty spectacular. The Illusionist had Ed Norton and Jessica Beal and The Prestige snagged Christian Bale and Scarlett Johansson. I'd have to say that the Prestige's cast just seems to be a downgraded version to the Illusionist's. That's not just my immense love for Norton talking, but I do have to admit I lost some respect for Johansson once she released her own album.

I don't completely remember either of the films, and some parts from both run together (can you blame me?), but I'm pretty positive that I was extremely disappointed with The Illusionist. The Prestige had more of an interesting story, which was about two rivals that competed to be the best magician on the market at that time. The Illusionist was more of a love story, a weak one with some kind of unbelievable twist.

Winner: The Prestige (Don't take it personal, Ed. I still love you.)

Young, Smooth and Oh-so Fine: Chris Brown vs Ne-Yo

I grapple with this battle on a constant basis, so much so that I hate to really even sit down and make myself pick between these boys. Barely legal and angel voices.. does there really have to be a winner? Can't I just have both?When I used to have a cellphone with the capacity to visit GetItNow and download actual ringtones, "My Sounds" folder was pretty much split evenly with Chris Brown and NeYo realtones. The two heartthrobs came onto the music scene at relatively the same time, but they often released singles at different times. I had the luxury of switching between their songs as they were released instead of having to choose which song was better.

So let's break down the eye-candy into three categories: cuteness, songs and dance.First up, Chris Brown. He's a dime; I'm going for 10 out of 10 on cuteness. Not only does he have a perfect complexion and great smile but he was dancing in an oversized shirt modeled after the first C. Brown, Charlie Brown, in his video "Yo." Charm and wit earns you a perfect score; take note boys. As for NeYo, he's pretty good looking, but he only scales an 8 on my meter. On to songs, Chris Brown has good a good selection. I'm loving his use of electronics in his latest single "Forever," and I loved "Kiss Kiss." But if I never hear "Run It" again, I'll die happy. Ne-Yo is some stiff competition for Mr. Brown. "Sexy Love" might have stayed as my ringtone so long that I'm convinced my friends now associate that song with me from hearing it so often. I still love "Because of You" even though I'm pretty sure it has been on the radio for probably a year now; I don't think I'll ever get sick of it. Ne-Yo wins the song portion. Last but not least, dance. I love to dance so my man is going to have to either have sick moves, or at least a decent two-step. Chris Brown is fantastic, just watch any of his videos. Ne-Yo dances but I don't think his stage presence can compare.

Winner: Chris Brown

Disagree? Can you think of other competing pairs? Who wins out? Leave a comment!

"You've got to be bloggin me!"

In Web Writing class, we've been discussing blogs endlessly. Hours have been spent outlining the basics of blogging: how does blogging differ from traditional newspaper writing style (is there that much of a difference?), is the future of journalism in blogs (really?), what separates personal online diaries (my professor likes to call them "sex diaries") from quality journalism when both media are considered blogs?

I understand the fascination the media industry has with these online forums. Blogs truly do allow anyone with an internet connection to assume the role as a story-teller and share their experiences with the world. But is that really a dangerous thing?

Sure, people claim that blogs are not as creditable as, and are certainly more opinionated than, any news you would find in a print newspaper, but I do not think that ruins the fate of journalism. People are able to recognize if a blog is a legitimate source of information or not. If anything, blogs are assumed to be opinionated and simply aggregates of news drawn from other creditable sources. I almost have to be proven wrong or shown a legitimate affiliation with a creditable media outlet before I absorb any information from a blog as pure, unbiased fact.

I think it is unfortunate that many people think readers or the average person would not be able to recognize the difference between a blog and newspaper. Blogs, by definition, are just personal narratives. Newspapers have complicated things by adding blogs to areas that were otherwise off-limits to columnists.

To me, a blog is basically a column, only given the added option to be biased or fair in judgment. Some blogs do offer expert advice, almost like a online forum outfitted with expertise for a certain niche. Other blogs assume the traditional role of being just an online op-ed resource.

As newspapers move online and more multimedia is integrated into coverage, I do not think of blogs as a threat to journalism, but that is only if they are considered to extras, synonymous to sidebars or graphs.

The danger lies with the potential for readers to only subscribe to blogs and allow traditional, unbiased news reporting die out. In that instance, an average person would have to read three times the amount of news, via blogs with different perspectives, just to have a reasonably level understanding of the world; And, people already do not read the one newspaper delivered to their doorstep and plastered on their computer screen.