A few messages regarding The Riot That Wasn't

Holy shit. "The Riot" was as badly over-hyped as "The Decision."

1. To the protesters: Excellent job. You managed to keep your cool when the media, outside residents, and those who seek violent confrontation did everything in their power to turn the situation as ugly as possible.

2. To the police: Excellent job, which is something I never thought I would say. You said all the right things going into the day and you followed through on your promises. You allowed the passionate residents to say their piece and express their First Amendment rights. When things started to turn ugly when a bunch of the same shit-starters came in from out of town, you immediately responded and kept the city safe without escalating it.

3. To the media and especially KRON: God, you fucking suck. What ended up being less violent and disorderly than a sports championship celebration has been turned by you into the second coming of Rodney King.

You wanted there to be a riot so bad before the day even started. You kept adding fuel to the fire with your questions throughout the day. You started reporting there was a riot even when there wasn't one.

The one exception I saw was Yobie Benjamin, blogger for The Chronicle. He kept his cool and managed to keep everything in perspective. You can read his live blog from last night here.

Epilogue: Yes, there was violence and arrests but try to look at the good side. The cops exercised maximum restraint and 99% of the actual protesters were peaceful. There were maybe a dozen crazies in a group of 1,500 or so. Most arrested did so within principles of passive resistance - quiet yet defiant. Damage was minimal considering what could have been. I sympathize with the victims of vandalism.

If one asks me what I think? The protest was largely peaceful and was a legitimate exercise of the First Amendment. The cops performed very well under very difficult circumstances and the Oakland community was commendable.

No, it was not perfect but it is a picture of America today... divided and imperfect but still able to rise to tomorrow's challenges.

4. To the anarchists or trouble-makers or whoever come in from out of town to try to escalate this situation: Fuck you and your whole ethos. There are people trying to live down here. We're not your pawns in your little suburban angst game. You may want the world to look like a Cormac McCarthy novel but we don't.

5. To the residents and workers of Oakland who freaked the fuck out and started fleeing the city and preparing for World War III: You are stupid, fear mongers and thinly veiled racists. I know you think any time minorities gather en masse that violence, mayhem and white lynching are a foregone conclusion, but your thoughts and actions just contributed to an atmosphere of panic.

As someone far more eloquent than I wrote on twitter:

the dehumanization of oakland's citizens that assumes they will riot is the same dehumanization that leads cops to shoot them in the back.

6. To anyone--including a friend of mine--who endorsed or called for rioting, especially those who don't live in Oakland: What the hell is wrong with you? There are people living and working here. Why would you ever endorse or wish for our city and residents to be harmed?

7. To the family of Oscar Grant: You got jobbed. Should have been 2nd Degree Murder.

The World Cup stole my ability to blog

But since I'm in a feisty mood and there's a certain NBA star who needs to be called out, here are some rants and raves about tonight's impending disaster (replete with lots of dirty words). My apologies to Adrian Wojnarowski of Yahoo Sports* for "borrowing" some of his insights.

A. Lebron really has dropped in my book. For him, this period of free agency has been his defining moment. He, and I think more so than the media, has been playing up the hype leading up to this summer for years. Nobody in the media forced him to don New York hats and make little hints and innuendos. Nobody forced him to have an hour special. Kobe definitely could have handled this situation the same way as Lebron, but he chose to quietly renegotiate a monster deal and go ahead and win a title. I never, ever in a million years thought I would say this, but at this moment, I would actually say I prefer Kobe, who has traditionally been one of my most hated basketball players, to Lebron.

B. Just because Lebron isn't in front of the cameras discussing free agency doesn't mean his publicity team and agent and entourage aren't doing stuff behind the scenes to encourage this feeding frenzy. You can't throw chum in the water and then be surprised when the sharks show up. How many times does it have to be said that none of the other monster free agents refer to themselves as the King and do specials? Lebron controls his camp. Period. You'd have to be crazy to think he hasn't had a hand in this. Getting others to do your bidding while you look innocent is what having power is all about.

Anyway, taking Lebron's silence under the best of circumstances, here are some things he has done that are still shitty.

1. Agreeing to this ridiculous hour-long special. No other star is doing this. As Stan Van Gundy said, it takes 15 seconds to say where you're going, not a produced special.

2. If he does sign with the Cavs, he could have done so long ago and spared us all this agonizing orgy of idiocy. If he doesn't resign, he's having this ridiculous espn love fest to rub it in the face of the city who loves him.

3. He had his camp leak the news of Wade and Bosh to the media, so today would be all about him.

4. Referred on his OWN Web site to this ridiculous TV program as "The Decision." Unless I missed something and he's the reincarnation of Harry fucking Truman about to incinerate a couple major cities, I think he's overestimating and over-hyping this moment.

C. Trying to hide his ego under a cloak of charity is despicable and insulting to our collective intelligence. The guy is a hundred-millionaire. He could donate the same amount directly to the Boys and Girls Clubs whenever he wanted and not even notice it missing from his enormous pile of gold bars. He could have held a press conference, donated the money ... See Moreand told the Worldwide Leader to go fuck themselves. His personal appearance money is pennies compared to the ad revenue espn will generate and I haven't heard espn say they're giving the money to charity. Instead, he would rather have his ego erotically stroked for 60 minutes by the suits at the MTV of Sports. In an era where it's always about the money even when it's not about the money, this is either about the money or about the ego. Take your pick.

In Germany, it's a crime to be an asshole.

To me, making it a crime to deny the Holocaust is giving way too much credence to idiocy. Why make a martyr of a scumbag like British Bishop Richard Williamson? As the famous First Amendment absolutist saying goes, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." In America, some of our strongest First Amendment protections have come at the expense of defending the Ku Klux Klan and Larry Flynt.

The real question is why the Catholic Church hasn't told this guy to shut his trap or defrocked his ass. With all their PR troubles, I'm surprised they're letting a creep run around making about the most inflammatory statements you can make.

In other news, free speech is also under attack in Bishop Williamson's home country. Yes, those rascally Brits are at it again. This time they're threatening to use censorship and surveillance in the form of the Digital Economy Act.

In case you didn't know, this Parliamentary act will regulate copyright law and give economic protections to those who need it most: huge corporations, of course. And if you believe their press releases, the mega media conglomerates are living hand-to-mouth these days because of piracy. So if we don't do something to help them--namely, set up a police state to monitor the Internet--our whole society will crumble. In fact, they're suffering so badly, they poured millions of dollars into lobbying for Britain's Digital Patriot Act.

According to this article, we can look forward to future extreme and Draconian measures here in the good ol' U. S. of A.

In the US, the MPAA and RIAA (American equivalents of the MPA and the BPI) just submitted comments to the American Intellectual Property Czar, Victoria Espinel, laying out their proposal for IP enforcement. They want us all to install spyware on our computers that deletes material that it identifies as infringing. They want our networks censored by national firewalls (U2's Bono also called for this in a New York Times editorial, averring that if the Chinese could control dissident information with censorware, our own governments could deploy similar technology to keep infringement at bay). They want border-searches of laptops, personal media players and thumb-drives.

They want poor countries bullied into diverting GDP from humanitarian causes to enforcing copyright. And they want their domestic copyright enforcement handled, free of charge, by the Department of Homeland Security.

Elements of this agenda are also on display (or rather, in hiding) in the secret Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a treaty being drafted between a member's club of rich nations. They've turned their back on the United Nations to negotiate in private, without having to contend with journalists or public interest groups. By their own admission, they intend to impose this treaty on poor countries as a condition of ongoing trade, and in the US, the Obama administration has announced its intention to pass ACTA without Congressional debate.

Look forward to lots of hot rhetoric comparing media consumers to people who steal cocaine (see the comments of the article if you don't believe me). Because, you know, only a criminal would think the Fourth Amendment is a good idea.

We'll see what happens, but if that IP Czar tries to tell us that unless we have something to hide, we all have to install spyware for copyright protection, then I'm going to feel kinda bad for calling all those Tea Partiers paranoid lunatics.

Which team would you rather be based upon the past 12 years?

Team 1:

1 National Title
Made tournament every year (Average seed: 4.8)
Overall record: 309-109 (73.9 winning percentage)
5 Double-digit loss seasons
5 Conference Titles
Taking out worst season (7th place), finished as low as 6th in conference
5 Players on current NBA rosters
Less time spent as #1 overall ranked team in nation

Team 2:

1 National Title
Made Tournament Every Year (Average Seed: 3.2)
Overall Record of 338-82 (80.5 winning percentage)
2 Double-digit loss seasons
8 Conference Titles
Taking out worst season (5th place), finished as low as 2nd in conference
9 players on current NBA rosters
More time spent as #1 overall ranked team in nation





OK, now what if I told you that Team #1 went to the Final Four 6 times the past 12 years and Team #2 went 3 times? Would that change your opinion? I guess it depends on how much you buy into conventional wisdom.

If it isn't obvious by now, Team #1 is Michigan State and Team #2 is Kansas.

Tom Izzo clearly has a better tournament record in terms of wins and losses than Bill Self/Roy Williams, but his success has produced the same number of titles, though he has a chance this weekend to add another.

Over the course of the next week, you will a constant refrain: 6 Final Fours in 12 years is an astounding feat and Tom Izzo is the greatest coach in the game. Both of which are arguably true but both need to be qualified.

Six Final Fours is an astounding feat considering how hard it is to string together wins in the tournament while avoiding bad games and bad luck. And Tom Izzo is great at winning games...to a point*. The question is what value do Final Fours really have. Fans enjoy the experience, potential recruits will see the game on TV, and the universities get to pat themselves on the back and add another few stitches to the Final Four banner. For some schools like George Mason, it might be the greatest athletic accomplishment that the school ever achieves.

But if you went to a Final Four, did you really win anything? Michigan State has also had to endure four (and a possible 5th) crushing defeat. Yes, they can look back at their seasons and be proud for a season well played, but why couldn't a team that lost in the Elite Eight be as proud--or even more proud--if they had an as good or better regular season? Why is the tournament success the only success that matters these days? Why is a Final Four so much better than an Elite 8 or Sweet 16 but reaching the championship game and losing is rarely regarded as much better than reaching the Final Four?

The tournament is important but it's not the end-all, be-all of a season. If Michigan State loses on Saturday or Monday, I will have no problem saying that their season wasn't any more successful than Kansas's, Kentucky's or Syracuse's. Many will say that Final Fours are great for recruiting. If that's true, then I hope Michigan State will use this second consecutive Final Four and sixth in 12 years to recruit some better players than they have in the past.

And, yes, I'm biased and bitter as hell.


*It's sort of like how you heard all year how Syracuse was SOOOO hard to match up to because of their zone. Yes, the zone is good but if it was such a weapon as the media makes it out to be, they never would have lost a game.

Pollan on the decline of cooking

Great essay in the New York Times from Michael Pollan on everything from how cooking has become a spectator sport to the new movie "Julie and Julia" to how a return to cooking could save your health. Like everything that Pollan has ever written, I highly recommend you set aside 20 minutes or so and take your time digesting what he has to say.

Ruhlman's post about Pollan's essay also makes a great point about the distinction between cooks and foodies, which is really quite a large distinction.

Nothing else really needs to be said. Read this stuff because it's a lot better than anything I've ever written. I'm not kidding, damn it. Read it.

More movies

Bruno

I don't need to say much else because I don't want to ruin anything and so much else will be written about it this summer, but I saw "Bruno" last night and my throat still hurts from laughing so much. Funniest movie I've seen in a long time.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A genius dies

Yesterday, July 6, somebody far more important than Michael Jackson died: Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense during the Vietnam War. He came off as pretty much a typical shithead politician while in office a la Condy Rice or Donald Rumsfield but later in life was in this absolutely amazing documentary called "The Fog of War." The whole thing is him talking about public policy and reflecting on his life. The guy has an incredible mind. Rent the movie. It won the Acadmeny Award for Documentary Feature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_McNamara

Robert Strange McNamara (June 9, 1916 – July 6, 2009) was an American business executive and the eighth Secretary of Defense. McNamara served as Defense Secretary for Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson from 1961 to 1968. Following that he served as President of the World Bank from 1968 until 1981. McNamara was responsible for the institution of systems analysis in public policy, which developed into the discipline known today as policy analysis.[4]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The two best trailers I saw during the latest movie binge:

"The Cove" - It's "Man on Wire" meets "Sharkwater"



"It Might Get Loud" - Jimmy Page, Jack White, and The Edge. Can't wait for this one.

Updating Previous Stories

ABC Drops the Hammer on Buckshot

I came across this article in the Guardian last week. The ABC, which had already been threatening to pull the liquor licenses of some of the city's finest music venues (Café du Nord, Slim's, Swedish Music Hall, Great American Music Hall, Rickshaw Stop, Bottom of the Hill, etc.) over some arcane Puritanical Blue law bullshit, has claimed its newest victims in The Campaign Against Fun.

When I first wrote about the evil ABC, I wasn't sure whether there really would fire accompanying the smoke (see e.g. any pre-smoking ban hysteria from bar owners), but according to the article, ABC has already body slammed two local bars over similar food sale-related issues. From the Guardian:

Most recently, Revolution Café in the Mission District had to stop selling beer and wine for 20 days after ABC cited them for patrons drinking on the sidewalk adjacent to its front patio. Inner Richmond's Buckshot's liquor license was pulled because of technical violations of alcohol and food regulations, forcing owners to close their doors for a few weeks.

This is government idiocy at its finest, and I pray to the god I don't believe in that they don't touch any of the city's music venues. I would say they need to go find something better to do, but they're already a pretty stupid bureaucracy to begin with, so I doubt there is anything else.

taxdollarsatwork'd

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lucero* Makes Me Look Stupid

After gushing about Lucero's dedication to being a professional bar band, I came across the trailer for a show called "$5 Cover" that recently premiered on MTV. Craig Brewer of "Hustle and Flow" fame apparently put his name on this, but from the acting and cinematography, I would guess the people behind "Undressed" may have had more to do with it than anyone else.

Check out Ben Nichols on the motorcycle and then the whole band playing "San Francisco" on stage near the end.

MTV five dollar cover Trailer (HD)


Normally I would be pumped that a band I like is doing a series about struggling bands and the Memphis music scene. But this series happens to be by MTV, and paraphrasing Broke-Ass Stewart, the "M" in MTV stands for "Making me hate humanity."

Furthermore, I learned via wikipedia that Lucero recently signed with Universal, so maybe they'll make it to the big show after all. If so, just go ahead and completely disregard my last Lucero post.

*And by Lucero, I'm really referring to myself here.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Media Gives Nadal a Pass

I'm not sure if I should be surprised at this or not. Nadal is a media darling, but we're also living in the age of gotcha journalism.

So far I have yet to see anyone in the mainstream media** call out Nadal for being a spineless coward. Shortly after I questioned the seriousness of Nadal's injuries, there was an article on espn.com/tennis about Nadal's parents getting divorced. called "Personal Woes Affecting Rafa?" The writer, Greg Garber says that his parents' divorce, and not his kness, may be behind Nadal's withdrawal, but he never takes Nadal to task for being the first champion ever to not defend because of dubious ailments.

The article was never was on the front page and was archived off the tennis page in a matter of minutes, hours at the most. Nowhere on the New York Times tennis blog did they mention the personal issues, nor have I heard any espn or NBC commentators mention it. I guess we're all just supposed to accept Uncle Toni's version of things.

I definitely find this free pass more than a little unpalatable, and I still say Nadal should be out there unless he honestly cannot move without risking serious injury. Looks like even in the gotcha age, some people are still above the law.


Oh, and I think Wimbledon has been pretty great so far. I like the Murray and Hewitt story lines.
Federer and Roddick both look great. What a compelling final it would be if either Murray or Roddick faces Federer. Roddick beating Roger would be an incredible moment for American tennis, and this could be the year it finally happens. Sucks that Oudin lost today, but the Williams sisters are looking awesome. Why, oh why, must I be working the one week when I could be watching tennis all day?

**I don't count.

The power of the female voice and spontaneous dance mobs

Last night at the Neko Case show at the Warfield, I couldn't stop thinking how absurd it was how impressed I was by a singer who can actually sing.

Silly as it sounds, in what may be the Golden Age of Autotune, it often seems like you don't even need to have an actual singing voice to be a singer. Stars are chosen for their looks or God knows what other reasons and we're presented with a live show complete with prerecorded vocals and multiple costume changes like it's supposed to mean something.

It doesn't seem like it would be that hard to find a woman who can sing and just let her do her thing. It worked pretty well for Patsy Cline, Janis Joplin, Emmylou Harris, and Aretha Franklin.

Despite the changes over the last fifty years in what society thinks popular music should be, female vocalists still seem to dominate the landscape. Apparently this Taylor Swift person has made quite the run on the charts, as did that Umbrella girl who got beat up a poor man's Ike Tuner.

My friend Jordan will probably read that last sentence and give me shit for what he sees as willful ignorance and hipster indifference, but I can promise that my apathy is real. I listen to pop music and feel like I have no idea if the people singing can actually sing. Everything is so manipulated that I get better idea of the producer's talents than the musician's.

I had no such problem last night.

Neko Case's soaring vocals had the crowd captivated and rapt for a couple hours with nothing but a solid band, a great backup singer, and the ever-present banter between the songs. There wasn't a single costume change or pyrotechnic display--just one talented ginger lady and a microphone.

For me, it was refreshing to hear a woman's voice and react with child-like wonder. It had been a long time since I paid to see a woman sing and I didn't know what to expect. Needless to say, I got my money's worth.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIDEO OF THE DAY

Check out the scene from Sasquatch Music Fest. We all need more of this.

"The Omnivore's Dilemma" a Controversial Book?

http://aglaw.blogspot.com/2009/05/pollan-book-selected-dropped-from-wsu.html

Apparently, The Omnivore's Dilemma was selected, then deselected, then selected again at Washington State for some sort of freshman reading list. WSU is a former land grant school (like K-State), so I'm sure agricultural issues are a big deal there.

The first comment on the blog is from an agricultural lawyer who says that it was a shame that the book was dropped because more discourse is a good thing, but the young lawyer also goes out of his way to paint Pollan as one of the most biased reporters on the topic. Another friend of mine asked me the other day if Pollan was super pretentious when I saw him speak. At the time, I thought it was a rather out-of-left-field question, but maybe now it makes a little more sense.

Is Pollan seen as an elitist member of the Liberal Media who has an axe to grind with industrial agriculture? I never even knew that this was a viewpoint held by anyone. He certainly doesn't paint the system with a positive brush, but I see little bias in his reporting. It seems to me that he often presents the point of view of agribusiness*.

My grandparents are traditional farmers, and I know a great deal about their point of view. I think they and their fellow farmers are adequately represented in Pollan's books. In fact, I see him as an advocate of any traditional farmers like my grandparents. He sees problems with the system that tells them what to grow.

Then again, I've never been very good at spotting bias in The Media, so maybe I'm not the best judge of what's straight truth-telling and what is "pusing an agenda."

* Right before he debunks it.