|
|
-
You can't grow up
listening to Tupac and then be told real rap should sound like Little
John. You can't eat filet mignon for ten years then make the switch to
salisbury steak. You can't grow up watching Mark McGwire and then get
pumped about Rajai Davis. But such is the plight for a whole generation
of Bay Area baseball fans.
Here's a list of my favorite baseball players in chronological
order "Jose Canseco, Mark McGwire, Barry Bonds, Jason Giambi, Miguel
Tejada." I was raised watching the most impressive run of power hitters
in history. Sure they were more juiced-up than the cast of Jersey Shore, but they still produced amazing moments that shaped my childhood.
The people often identified as "victims" of the steroid era are
aging baseball fans. Your grandfather who grew up idolizing Ted
Williams, your uncle who saw Hank Aaron hit number 755, your dad who
caught a foul ball from Willie Mays. These fans have seen the memory of
their heroes besmirched by steroid using cheats. So it's understandable
that they would welcome the return of the defensive second baseman and
the pitchers duel. If you try real hard you can almost forget about the
twenty years of inflated numbers and equally inflated hat sizes. Focus
instead on that warm summer day, cold soda pop in hand, Harey Carey's
voice crackling through the radio.
Lost in this
rush to bury baseball's black eye, and return to the Golden Age, are
all of us born in the 1980's. I've got a different image of baseball,
one where my shortstop hits 40 home runs and my first baseman is built
like a middle linebacker. I'm a Moneyball baby, let's have two guys
walk and then hit a 500 foot jack. The Bash-Brothers, splash hits, and
big biceps. That's my kind of baseball. That's what I remember.
The most telling excerpt from McGwire's confession letter reads:
"Looking back, I wish I had never played during the steroid era."
Well, I wish I wasn't born during it. I wish I could erase Bonds' 73
and Tejada's MVP. Wipe out that A's 20 game win streak and the Giants
NL Pennant. I wish instead I could get excited about Kurt Suzuki's OPS
stats and Brian Wilson's haircut.
But the truth is I can't. I remain irreparably damaged from a
decade spent in the epicenter of the steroid storm. Take away my juiced
memories and you leave me with nothing. Big Mac's confession does
little to change any of that. It only serves to remind me why I like
football season.
|
-
|
We're going with twenty-ten. That's it, end of debate. We didn't say one-thousand-nine-hundred-and-ninety-nine. I can update my Facebook profile and play a round of Words With Friends in the time it takes you to say two-thousand-and-ten.
While I'm solving society's great debates, let me continue my push to describe everyone under 30 as a member of the iGeneration. Critics, pundits, media icons everywhere have been vainly searching for a way to define this last decade. I contend that the iGeneration perfectly encompasses the two defining characteristics of the 2000's: technology dependence and self-absorption.
Those of us born after 1980 got on the ground floor for the greatest information explosion in history. With each successive technological leap our attention span has diminished in kind. I got stuck in a Starbucks line without my iPhone and nearly died of boredom waiting for my Frappucinno. The internet broke for a whole day at work and I contemplated giving up journalism. I've started trying to rewind my DVR remote in real life.
Some of you over-thirty folks out there are thinking: "Hold on, I love my cell phone. I use online banking. I've played Wii Tennis. I'm just as reliant on technology as these kids are." No, you're not. If a terrorist attack destroyed the internet (why have there not been 10,000 sci-movies made about this?) you would no doubt be distressed. You would malign the destruction of your Facebook pictures, lament your lost cell phone numbers, cry over the shoes you just ordered off EBay. But you would move on. You'd start reading the real paper, rent your movies at the movie store and dust off the land line.
People under 30 would spend their post internet days talking into a broken cell phone and writing Facebook updates on bathroom walls. We've crossed the line, we can't go back. We're completely addicted to the personal empowerment we associate with technology. Which brings me to the second aspect of the iGeneration, self-absorption.
For past generations media was all about a larger connected experience. Rosevelt's fireside chats, The Beatles on Ed Sullivan, The Moon Landing, these were communal events experienced simultaneously by everyone.
For the iGeneration, media is something to be controlled not received. It's no coincidence that Apple rose to power during the last decade on the strength of its "i" marketing campaign. i make the playlist so i can listen to the songs i like. i record the show so i can watch when i want. i text message so i can control when and how i communicate. We can tailor our information so specifically to our needs that we forget that the world doesn't spin OnDemand.
It should come as no surprise that from this era of self-absorption Facebook, Twitter and the blogosphere emerged as the dominant forms of communication. It has become a social requirement that we flood the world with our pictures, daily updates and random musings. As the mass of information grows larger, the line between social media and real life gets fuzzier and fuzzier.
Despite our inherent flaws, it's hard not to be excited about the iGeneration's potential. We've been handed the keys to the sweetest vehicle in history. If we use this technology for good instead of Farmville we can do great things. With each new person who logs on or signs up we grow closer. And can we really go to war if we are all Facebook friends?
,
|
-
|
It used to be that you would check out your Facebook Feed and be assaulted by a plethora of information you didn't care about. Somebody went to the store, another person is at the gym and third person isn't excited about being at work. Don't get me wrong, I love each and every one of my fabulous Facebook friends, but there are certain bits of info I could live without.
My perspective on Facebook changed earlier this month when I learned about the sudden death of a friend via a Facebook post. At first the cynic in me bemoaned the lack of human contact normally associated with such a traumatic event. Rather than learning about the sad news in person or over the phone, it was stuck between someone's Farmville update and pictures from a Hawaiian vacation.
But the more I looked at it, the more I was touched by the responses to the Facebook post. Within hours the person's page was filled with well wishes, pictures and memories. Most of these posts were addressed directly to the person, a chance for everyone to share and say goodbye. The end result is a digital memorial, literally hundreds of messages that pay tribute to the person's life and the people who were touched.
It's strange to think that Facebook, once the domain of drunken college students and sketchy stalkers, is now the avenue through which we share life's most meaningful events. In the past month I've learned about engagements, break-ups, deaths and births all via the Facebook. The immediate nature of the medium allows us all to celebrate or mourn at the same time. Instead of waiting months or years to see pictures of a friend's baby, the whole world gets to meet little Johnny a few days after his birth
I've always believed that at its core social media drives us apart. It discourages human interaction, encourages narcissism and is an awful influence on impressionable teens. But clearly Facebook (and to a lesser extent Twitter) has the potential to bring us together. Sorry if I sound like a Sprint ad, but the world is getting smaller and we have access to more information than ever. If we choose to share that information via the News Feed instead of a phone call, it makes it more public but no less important.
The Feed is still inundated with useless information (a quiz says that in the past life you were a fish, awesome) and I'm still giving Facebook partial credit for the eventual downfall of Western Civilization. But props to people who are using the power of the Feed to spread funny, relevant, poignant and inspiring information.
Excuse me, I have to go update my profile.
|
-
|
It's 5:30 pm on a Wednesday, do you know where your elected officials are? I ask because your answer probably depends on your political predisposition. If you lean left you think those hard working civil servants are putting in extra hours trying to fix a broken America. If you lean right you think those overpaid bureaucrats are charging happy hour martinis to the taxpayer while waiting for their pensions to kick in. The ideological divide over the role of government is certainly nothing new (we had a civil war over it), but recently it has reached hysterical proportions.
This problem has taken center stage because of health care, which has served as a nationwide litmus test for our trust in government. But the rhetoric reaches even more absurd proportions at the local level. Last week I listened to a two hour discussion on restricting wood stove burning in Chico. One side was convinced that regulating their right to burn was a clear violation of their civil rights and was another step towards a complete government take over. The other side was convinced that wood stoves were violating their right to clean air and it was the government's responsibility to do something about it. In the end we're left arguing the merits of the Constitution, when all we're talking about is a fireplace.
As the debate become more and more polarized it slows the already tedious legislative process to a crawl. If every tiny issue becomes a referendum on the definition of democracy, no governing body has a prayer of getting anything done (in Chico they've been debating a Wal-Mart expansion for two years). And as people retreat farther into their political fox holes they leave little room for legitimate debate. Before an issue is even discussed, the line in the sand is drawn and you are forced to immediately pick a side based on your political allegiance. A vote for health care reform is a vote for big government, higher taxes and gay marriage. A vote against reform is a vote for a laissez faire legislature, looser gun laws and prayer in schools. The line along the middle has become so razor thin that if you deviate the slightest bit you will fall head long into extremism.
There are plenty of good reasons to oppose issues like a wood stove restriction, but sticking your head in the sand and saying "I just don't like the government" is not one of them. At the same time you can support health care reform, but don't do it just because "I voted for Obama and I like him." That's being intellectually lazy and failing in your duty to hold your elected officials accountable.
Though it's easy to forget sometimes, politics is not a sport. You don't need to be on a team and follow that one side blindly. If you do that, we all lose.
|
-
|
Take a lap through the mall these days, and you'll notice something strange. Every store geared towards teenagers is two decades behind the times. And I'm not talking about vague homages like torn jeans or head bands, every item looks like it was literally taken from the Breakfast Club prop room.
And it's not just one style from the 80's that has made the comeback. Punk kids are wearing tapered jeans with Flock of Seagulls hair-cuts. Preppy kids are wearing skinny ties and colored nylons. Surfer kids are wearing day-glow swim trunks and spray painted t-shirts. Walk the halls of a local high school and half the kids want to audition for Depeche Mode, the other half just got back from the Bayside High pep rally.
I have a lot of problems with this 80's revival, but my biggest beef is it's painfully uncreative. Do kids think they're being original by dressing exactly like their 30 year-old uncle did on his first date? I understand fashion is cyclical, kids in my high school wore flared jeans, but at least we sagged our pants half-way down our butts. Take an old style and add your own touch, don't just rip it off exactly.
It's easy to blame lazy clothing companies for just recycling the styles they sold twenty years ago. But I think the obsession with 80's clothing springs from another annoying trend that has spiraled out of control: the 80's party. What started as an original idea done maybe once a year is now done ever week at fraternity parties and college bars (I'm looking at you La Salle's). Why do the 80's have a monopoly on the decade theme parties? Why are there no 70's disco dances or 50's sock hops? I loved Kelly Kapowski as much as the next guy, but leggings and crimped hair once a week is a horrible look. Throw in a hoop skirt or some bell bottoms and switch it up a little.
What's also bizarre is the 80's might be the worst music decade in the last century, but people under 30 have this bizarre attachment to it. Inevitably at every 80's party the DJ plays Pour Some Sugar On Me which prompts every college girl in the bar to scream, "this is my song." Really, you were two years old when this song came out. Were your parents playing Def Leapord for you in the crib? This is not your song, you were listening to Raffi when this song hit the charts. You grew up during the golden age of rap and R&B, throw on a little Mariah or Doctor Dre, put away the Cindy Lauper.
I understand that each generation has nostalgia for the period they grew up in. If you're over 30 and you lived through the 80's, by all means fire up the Trans-Am and bump the White Snake. But if you're under 20, loosen up the bottom of your jeans, break out your iPhone and listen to some 3oh!3. Stop forcing the 1980's upon all of us, let the decade fade gracefully into the collective memory.
|
-
Bloggers Note: The following post contains numerous references to Mad Men. If you've never seen the show, I'm sorry for you, it's awesome. I recommend you start watching then return and enjoy this entry. To call Don Draper cool is like saying Usain Bolt is fast. It's accurate, but a momentous understatement. Mad Men's main character is the sweetest throwback since the Charger's powder blues. The archetype for an era when men were men, women had curves and everyone was drunk most of the time. The kind of hero who doesn't need an action figure, just a fedora and an Old Fashion. Draper's character is so much sweeter than anyone else on television it's silly to try and find a comparison. But if we expand the search into the sports world, things get interesting. Who epitomizes cool without trying too hard? Who dominates the field like Don dominates a pitch meeting? Who leaves women swooning and men wishing they were him? He's got to be out there and I'm on a mission to find him. For the purpose of this search we are only considering current athletes. Michael Jordan, Mickey Mantle and Joe Namath would all be perfect answers but this is a blog (the medium of the short attention span). If they're not playing now, I've already forgotten them. Without further ado, a countdown to the sports world's Don Draper. 5) Roger Federer. It's hard to remember a player who dominated his sport with more quiet swagger than Federer. He never sweats, never smiles, just lays back and waits for his opponent to fall apart. Silent confidence is pure Draper. You can almost imagine Roger and Don sipping whiskeys in the back corner while the rest of the board room falls apart. Also, my girlfriend says Federer is hot and she has great taste in men, so more bonus points. But you'll notice I said "almost imagine" Roger chilling with Don. The problem is Federer is just too dorky to fill the Draper fedora. If he wasn't a tennis god, I can imagine him designing road signs and updating his avatar. Sorry Roger, cry yourself to sleep with your mountain of major trophies, you are no Don Draper. 4) Kobe Bryant Kobe certainly has the icy cool that Don displays. He controls everyone around him through will-power and intimidation. I bet Kobe talks down to his teammates the way Don talks to his brother-in-law . "Lamar, we'll pretend you know how to do the right thing on your own and pass me the freakin ball." Kobe also has Don's ability to be utterly charming at one moment and then heartlessly cold the next. In the end, it's Kobe's evil side that eliminates him from contention. Maybe it's the Colorado scandal or maybe it's just my innate Laker hatred, but the bottom line is Draper is a flawed hero and Kobe will always be a villain. 3) Derek Jeter Jeter has the throwback thing down and he lives in New York. He would fit right in during Draper's days of larger than life heroes. A "ball player" in the classic sense, sipping whiskey after the game surrounded by legions of curvaceous groupies. Don and Derek could hit the town and not come home for three days. The problem is, I'm not sure Jeter can back it up on the field. He's always been overrated because he had so much success early and charmed the New York media. His defensive deficiencies and failure to win a big game for the last decade are always conveniently overlooked. Jeter just doesn't dominate his profession the way Don does.
2) Tom Brady Brady was my first reaction when I began this search. He's got the looks, the skills, the incredibly hot wife. And he certainly fits the "women want him, guys want to be him" criteria. He also shares Don's lack of pedigree. Brady never stole anyone's identity, but Tom the back-up at Michigan is a lifetime away from Tom the Golden Boy. In the end Brady lacks the edge, the substance, that Don embodies. Brady's all cologne ads, fancy hair cuts and two word sound bites. You never get the sense that there's a dark side to Super Tom. Maybe he throws five touchdown passes, get's drunk on Bourbon and starts a bar fight, but I doubt it. More likely he goes home and watches game film while checking Patriot fan blogs. Brady's just a little too one dimensional to match Don's depth. 1) Tiger Woods It seems only fitting that the best TV personality should be compared to the most dominant athlete in sports. Like Don, Tiger is always the coolest guy in the room. His clothes, his stare, his fist pump, are all original and all emulated by guys everywhere. Tiger doesn't try to live up to standards, he establishes them. He also makes hordes of money and has a smoking hot blond wife, both Draper characteristics. But what sets Tiger apart as Draper's equal isn't just his outward successes, it's his inner motivations. Both men seem motivated by a pathological need to prove they're the best at what they do. You get the feeling that if you stand in their way they'd punch you in the face. And though he always keeps a cool head when the cameras are on, friends say that in private Tiger swears like a sailor and likes to break balls. It's that dichotomy, that depth of character, that makes Draper and Woods kindred spirits. I'm not saying the comparison is perfect. Draper has an easier time epitomizing cool because he's not a real person. But for my money Tiger is the best Don Draper imitation the sports world has. I'm sure there are other athletes out there I'm leaving out, feel free to add your suggestions below.
|
-
|
George and Jerry are pitching a show about nothing to NBC.....
RUSSELL: I got up and came to work.
GEORGE: There's a show. That's a show.
RUSSELL: (Confused) How is that a show?
JERRY: Well, uh, maybe something happens on the way to work.
GEORGE: No, no, no. Nothing happens.
JERRY: Well, something happens.
RUSSELL: Well, why am I watching it?
GEORGE: Because it's on TV.
At its best, television enjoys a symbiotic union with the viewing public. TV networks present options, the viewers pick the one's they like, networks put on more of that programming, etc. But somewhere along the line that relationship got skewed, and networks stopped listening to the viewers and started telling them what they should be watching.
Exhibit A of this problem is the return of Brett Favre. At some point 10 years ago the sports media decided that Brett Favre was the coolest person in the history of sports. Maybe it's because he's a great sound bite, maybe they liked the cut of his Wranglers, maybe they really loved the Something About Mary cameo, whatever the reason Favre was anointed as The American Sports Figure. And what started out as a small crush grew slowly into stalker-style obsession.
Like any love struck Romeo the media conveniently ignored Favre's horrible interceptions, his egocentric waffling over retirement, his me-first attitude when it comes to his teammates. And they did their best to convince all of us that we should love Favre as much as they do. They bombard us with constant Favre coverage, stuck a reporter on his lawn, did countless fluff pieces on his battle with pain killers, his wife, his father, anything to justify their love affair him.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Favre doesn't deserve some coverage. He was a great player and there were fans everywhere who liked him. But he was never head and shoulders better than John Elway, or Steve Young, or Petyon Manning. If you came out of cave and saw ESPN showing live helicopter coverage of Favre's SUV driving through Minnesota, you would assume he was visiting dignitary or at least the best player in football. You certainly wouldn't think he's a 39 year-old quarterback who threw the most interceptions in the league last year and fell apart down the stretch.
This misguided media coverage is a growing problem that goes well beyond just a sports. I refuse to believe that THAT many people really cared about John and Kate's relationship, or Ocotmom's life, or Britney Spear's weight, until the powers-that-be anointed them as "it" stories.
So if we're not really interested why do we tune in? Why not read a book, go for a walk, or play with our dog? The problem is that we have our own misguided love affair with television. No matter how crappy the programming, how incessant the coverage, we'll continue to return to that flickering box that offers us escapism. And the media execs have figured that out. They know that sports fans watch whatever stories they pick out for us. Not because we like and not because we want it, but because it's on TV.
|
-
I was doing a story the other day about a mountain lion in Paradise
and I wrote the following phrase: "Several cougars are known to wander
the area near the playground." Upon further review I realized I needed to
do a little revision. If we ran that story as is, undoubtedly viewers
would call in worried that a pack of botox-infested middle age women
were patrolling a Paradise playground looking for some action.
I write that as proof that the cougar craze has gotten
completely out of control. For example, try doing a Google search on "Cougar." The first result you get
is a link to UrbanDictionary.com explaining that a cougar is "An older
woman who frequents clubs in order to score with a much younger man."
After that you do get a Wikipedia entry for actual mountain lions,
but it's followed by another Wikipedia entry with the heading "Age disparity in
sexual relationships." After that it's just a slew of news articles
describing the latest cougar themed television shows, none of which are
on Animal Planet.
As always the real victims here are the children. Pity the poor 5th grader who's assigned to do a book report on
mountain lions. Instead of finding awesome facts on actual pumas (like
how they can jump 15 ft) little Jimmy comes back with a bio of
Courteney Cox. Now mom has to explain what "Cougar town" is and why
Monica from Friends is living there.
Given the sudden onslaught of cougar coverage on television can
we all agree that this movement has jumped the shark. It's become more
cliche then the middle age man buying a Porsche and running off with
his secretary. I also have a fundamental problem with the perception
that an older woman has to have plastic surgery and sleep with the pool
boy to be sexy. What's wrong with a hot mom who makes great sandwiches
and dates the nice divorced doctor from down the street? I'm
calling for a boycott on all cougar related media that doesn't involve
actual animals. No more reality shows, dramas or websites. The only
cougar related video I want to see is this sweet Youtube clip of
a mountain lion fighting a bear. If attractive older women want to seek
out younger men they can do it for their own entertainment, not to fulfill this bloated stereotype. It's time for the majestic mountain cats
can reclaim the name that was so wrongly stolen from them. Growwwwl!
|
-
It's the 40 year anniversary of the moon landing and I'm jealous of people who care. The event is remembered with such fond reverence by everyone who lived through it and I wish I could somehow share in the excitement. But for me, as a 25 year-old, the moon landing exists as a sort of isolated feat of hubris. More a monument to the era's pathological competition with the Russians than a testament to man's ingenuity. Don't get me wrong, I think astronauts are amazing. Anybody who has the guts to literally go where no man has gone before (yeah, that's a lame reference but it applies) deserves our admiration. And to come up with the "One small step line...." Shakespeare eat your heart out. But four decades later Neil Armstrong has earned a spot as one of history's greatest dare devils, more Charles Lindbergh than Christopher Columbus. Armstrong's position in history is no fault of his own. But exploration only stands for something if it is built upon. If Lewis and Clark trekked across the country, took a dip in the Pacific, and nobody every went back, their wouldn't be a college named after them. Unfortunately the space program has lagged to the point that it no longer has any connection with people under 30. To prove my point, in a recent survey by the electronics magazine E&T, 11 people out of 1000 said Buzz Lightyear was the first man to step on the moon. Which if you think about it, is actually wrong on two levels. I understand that most people aren't actually that ignorant, but the survey is reflective of the apathy that has arisen surrounding the space program. In the last three decades the seminal NASA moment was the Challenger disaster. The only reason space shuttle launches are still shown live on television is because people are worried something catastrophic is going to happen. Watching just to make sure no one is killed isn't a sign you've captured the imagination of the public. I fully admit my stance sounds like sour grapes from an ignorant member of the iGeneration. I understand there is no way I can fully appreciate the gravity of the lunar landing, the sense of accomplishment and closure it gave people following Kennedy's assassination. It makes me wonder if those types of communal television experiences are even still possible. The only two times I remember everyone glued to the television was right after 9/11 and the OJ verdict. These days it takes either shocking tragedy or circus level spectacle to get us to unplug our earbuds. Overwhelming accomplishment just doesn't get the ratings it used to. In this economy it hard to imagine us spending billions, much less trillions, on something as far fetched as a mission to Mars. But for my money I'd love to see us invest our technological savvy in something besides the latest smart phone. How about we go back to the moon and this time do something useful, set up a space station, look for new energy sources, seriously answer how far we can hit a golf ball. Anything that gets kids to look up at the sky and start dreaming again.
|
-
It's been a busy week in the newsroom, and I'm doing a
little research for next week's blog, so in the meantime here are some
random rants...
- We've already done Transformers and G.I. Joe, there has got to be a Thundercats movie in production right?
 
- "Kung Fu Panda" is the sweetest sports nickname since "Thunder" Dan Marley. And
while I love me some Pablo Sandoval it always depresses me to see Benji
Molina standing behind him in the on-deck circle. Here's a crazy
idea... if the Giants are in contention come September how about a call
to Mr. Barry Bonds, I hear he's available. Have Barry scare pitchers
into a .400 on-base percentage, sneak into the playoffs, and have the
best pitching staff in baseball carry you to a World Series.
-
Props to Chico city council member Larry Wahl for saying the city's
budget "isn't sustainable." Fiscally unsound, short-sighted, penny wise
pound foolish, all these things we can live with, but one thing we will
not stand for in Chico is an affront to our sustainability.
-
We've discussed this around the office a couple times but it's great
food for thought: What other celebrity gets the Michael Jackson
treatment when they die? I don't think there's anybody out there who
hits the public on so many levels, but here are a few who may
contend... - Madonna probably
comes closest, but Al Sharpton isn't speaking at her funeral. And I'm
not sure she really crosses the gender gap. Don't get me wrong, Like A Prayer is a great song, but I'm not bumping the Immaculate Collection in my car.
- Britney Spears would dominate TMZ for a month, but people my parents age could care less.
- Paul McCartney
cues a massive media barrage of Beatles montages, but has the opposite
effect of Britney, kids under 20 wouldn't unplug their ear buds for his
funeral. And he's not tabloid enough.
- Michael Jordan has got the world-wide recognition, but his personal life is too boring and every year he's retired he gets less relevant.
- Muhammad Ali has
historical and racial relevance, but boxing isn't even on the sports
radar anymore. And people have too much respect for him to spark the
circus aspect.
- Oprah has the same gender-gap issue as Madonna, but since she's worth like 10 billion dollars CNBC would have to do live coverage.
- There's buzz about the NFL
expanding the regular season to 18 games. Let's get that ball rolling.
And while we're at it let's kick the season off in mid-August. I've
already got my entire Fantasy draft mapped out and we have like 3
months till the first real game. I want it to be socially acceptable to
start NFL talk a quarter of the way through the baseball season.
|
-
 Few projects in history have aged with less grace than Mt. Davis.
15 years after its construction it remains a towering monument to
hubris and ineptitude, Oakland's own Xanadu. 
With each passing year life before Mt. Davis fades from memory. For me
it's just a series of flashing images: The Oakland Hills above the ice
plant, watching The Wave pass unimpeded through the bleachers, the
field flickering through gaps in the fence so
the action plays out like a flip-book comic. Like so many things we
forget the bad as we grow older, choosing only to remember the good
times. The Coliseum was never a great place for baseball, it's
cavernous, ugly and in a bad location. But it's hard not to dream what
would have happened had Mt. Davis never been built.... It's
1995 and the Raiders are moving back to the Bay Area. Instead of
agreeing to Al Davis' demands for major stadium upgrades the city of
Oakland tells him to stuff it. Davis agrees because he's
already burnt all his bridges in L.A and the Coliseum is fine for football. With a stadium capacity of
around 50,000 demand for Raiders tickets goes up, games aren't blacked
out and a new generation of Raiders fans is spawned throughout the East
Bay. Davis and the city also avoid a messy lawsuit and taxpayers are
spared the indignation of feeling like they've been held hostage by a
mad man. Meanwhile the A's begin to take stock of the success of
baseball-only parks in places like Baltimore and Colorado. With a city
government still sweet on the idea of expanding the sports presence in
Oakland, and a tax base that hasn't been soured by the Raiders stadium
fiasco, plans develop to build a new baseball stadium on the waterfront
near the West Oakland BART station. Construction is fast-tracked and Safeway Field opens in the summer of 1999, one year before Pacbell Park.
With the real estate market booming, developers rush to fill the empty
lots around "The Safe" with lofts and restaurants. Oakland steals its
share of the urban revival from San Francisco, giving the city much
needed tax revenue. The A's have a packed stadium to greet a new wave
of players named Hudson, Mulder, Zito and Tejada. Able to re-sign their
stars, the team goes on to win two titles by 2005 and becomes the
poster child for small market team success. Following their
appearance in the Super Bowl, in 2004 the Raiders privately fund
upgrades to the Coliseum, installing permanent seats in the outfield,
new luxury boxes and a special discounted "costumed fans only" section
officially named the Black Hole. John Madden Stadium reflects the gritty, blue-collar, nature of the franchise and remains one of the few truly great tailgate spots in the NFL.
Clearly this revisionist history is disillusion. Even if Mt. Davis was
never built, it's likely the city would have bungled some other equally
stupid expansion project. And the A's owners would have been too cheap
to build their own stadium anyway. But any slight change in the future
would have to be better than our current reality: A decrepit,
tarped-off baseball stadium that provides no hope for the future of the
franchise. And a half full football stadium that only empowers the ego
of a crazed owner. I realize dreams of a baseball-only stadium
in Oakland are foolish and hopes of the Raiders returning to relevancy
in the NFL are far off, but I'd settle for somebody taking a wrecking
ball to the top half Mt. Davis. At least we could see the hills again.
|
-
I pulled up to the state Capitol on Monday and noticed something
was weird. At first glance the area in front looked the same as always,
cop cars and news vans lined the sidewalk, reporters and onlookers
filled the front lawn, a stage and banner were set up on the steps. But
when I looked closer I realized that I didn't recognize the names on
any of the news vans. Then I noticed the cop car parked across the
street had Atlanta Police on the side. Finally I looked to the lawn and
saw the giant banner read "Save Georgia." Obviously I looked befuddled
because a guy sitting in a truck in front of me yelled out, "They're
shooting a movie." (I later found out it is a Bollywood picture called My Name is Khan). The
news vans, the cop cars, even the reporters were all fake. Props
brought in to create and elaborate and convincing illusion of state
government. Maybe it was that surreal entrance, or
maybe it's the cynicism I've developed from too much coverage of the
state budget, but the entire time I was in the Capitol I couldn't shake
the notion that actors were everywhere. It just seems like everyone
involved in the budget debate has conformed to this stereotypical
character and isn't interested anymore in solving the problem.
The left wing cries out about all these cuts. The old, the sick, the
disabled, the orphans, they'll all be on the street if we continue to
trim the budget. But how do they plan to pay for all this necessary
government spending? More taxes on cigarettes, big oil and big
business. This is not really a realistic solution (they should just
throw in Nixon, the American war machine, and country music to round
out the list of things liberals hate).
Meanwhile
politicians on the right should stop answering phone calls and just
change their message to: "Hi I'm _____ . No more taxes. Smaller
government. We have to run the state like we run a family, tighten our
belt when the going gets tough. I miss Regan. Beep." Unfortunately
families don't have the option of laying off Little Jimmy and not
offering Little Jane health or dental coverage. And the
governor, speaking of movie analogies, has flipped-flopped so bad on
this budget issue I wonder if someone told him this was Total Recall 2.
He went to sleep warning of how devastating the cuts would be if we
didn't raise taxes with the Special Election, he woke up promising to
veto any budget plan that raises taxes. I think he's waiting for the
mythical opposition leader to pop out of Karen Bass's stomach (okay,
you really need to watch Total Recall to get any of those jokes).
It's all enough to make you laugh until you remember it's real jobs,
real lives and a real state that is suffering. The anger and fear I saw
on the faces of the people who gathered that day to protest wasn't
acting. I wonder what it will take for everyone, the legislator, the
governor, the protesters on all sides, to break character and realize
the answer has to be somewhere in the middle.
|
-
With the conclusion of the NBA Finals on Sunday we officially
entered the dog days on the sports calendar. Fond memories of the Final
Four, NBA Playoffs and Stanley Cup die slowly in the hot summer sun,
leaving us with only the slow drag of mid-season baseball. Don't get me
wrong, I'm a big baseball fan, but even I can't get excited by a
mid-July contest between the A's and the Royals. And in recent years,
both our Nor Cal teams were out of playoff contention by the All-Star
break, making the remaining 82 games especially worthless.
The bleak sports landscape is made even worse because it forces
ESPN and the other sports networks to manufacturer and bludgeon to
death tired sports stories (Brett Favre, Michael Vick, Yankees-Red
Sox), until we're forced to read a book or something to free our minds
for a moment. It's as if the sports gods are begging us to fill this
black hole with entertaining programs to tide us over until our fantasy
football drafts.
So I've decided to pitch a few new ideas to make the summer a
little more bearable. I'm not saying any of these ideas are going to
reshape the sports landscape, they're just other options we can turn to
when the A's pitching blows another four run lead. Because reality
shows have slowly become a sport of their own, I'm expanding these
ideas beyond regular sporting events to include "sports related" shows
that can kill a couple hours.
Without further ado:
Women's Volleyball I have never understood why
women's basketball and soccer get their own leagues, but volleyball
dies after college. For my money volleyball is the most exciting and
marketable women's sport out there. I'm not talking about the beach
variety, I'm talking about indoor, 6 on 6, high-flying action. Almost
every play ends with a spike or a block, and either way the players on
both sides react like they won the Super Bowl. It also helps that the
uniforms are attractive and so are the players, two factors that would
draw-in sponsors. Try and tell me companies wouldn't pay a pretty penny
to throw their logo on a pair of spandex shorts. I say it's time to put
together a professional women's indoor volleyball league, I would watch
the W.I.V.L.
Wipeout Meets Ninja Warrior
Sure Wipeout is pretty entertaining, but it has the potential to be
so much more. It's great to watch some fat guy fall off a foam-covered
pendulum, but there isn't any real drama in who wins. I want to see a
Wipeout style course tackled by real athletes. This is where the Ninja
Warrior formula comes in (FYI: Ninja Warrior is a Japanese show where
competitors train for years to complete in an impossibly hard obstacle
course). Incorporate the same zany obstacles from Wipeout, but up the
difficultly level and recruit legitimate gymnasts and martial arts
masters. Wipeout Master would incorporate the drama of watching people
who actually want to show off their athletic talents, while still
giving us the sadistic pleasure of watching people fall in the mud.
America's Cup Soccer
I know we already have soccer in America, and there is
already an Americas Cup boat race, but nobody watches either. I say,
steal the name for a new summer soccer tournament that incorporate all
the teams in the Western Hemisphere. Everyone likes watching the World
Cup because it involves the world's best soccer players, the fans are
insanely into it, and most importantly it lets us root for our country.
Every two years there should be a tournament involving the best teams
from North and South America (similar to the Euro Cup). Granted the
U.S. would get killed by teams like Brazil and Argentina, but it sets
the stage for an amazing underdog victory (kind of like the U.S. Hockey
win over the U.S.S.R.). Alternate the America's Cup with the World Cup
and the Olympics, and basically every year we have a chance to break
out the U-S-A, U-S-A chant.
Men's Cheerleading
What makes a guy who is big enough to be a linebacker, decide
instead he wants to stand on the sidelines and cheer? These are the
kind of questions we would answer in the new reality series, "Behind
the Short-Sleeved Sweater: The Lives of Male Chearleaders." Cameras
would follow them during the summer as they prepare for the big fall
football season. We would see all the backstage drama about who's the
Alpha-Cheerer, the budding romance in the pyramid, and the art of
shrugging off the torrent of insults coming from the stands. I'm not
even trying to be funny, I think this would be compelling television.
So You Think You Can Dunk
The NBA's dunk contest has become so contrived and mismanaged
that it's almost unwatchable. Enter a new reality series looking for
America's next great slam dunk champion. The common misconception is
that the NBA has the best dunkers in the world. To be in the NBA you
have to be a great athlete but you also have to be great at basketball.
The high school and college ranks are littered with guys who could jump
out of the gym but couldn't make a jump shot. Meanwhile every city
playground has a legend about a guy who could jump over a car, touch
the top of the backboard, go off two feet from the foul line.
S.Y.T.Y.C.D. (okay, maybe the acronym needs a little work) is just like
all the other American Idol style
contests: you pick the best twenty athletes from city's across the
country, each week the guy has to come up with a new dunk and do it in
front of a live audience, America votes, winner gets a million dollars.
Knowing that kind of cash is on the line will ad an extra couple inches
to everybody's vertical.
Adult Double Dare
I'm talking about bringing back the original DD format. I
want the goofy set, the safety goggles, and the slime. I'm pretty sure
Mark Summers is hosting a show on Food Network, so let's bring him back
too. Of course with DD '09 the physical challenges would be more
embarrassing, the obstacle course much tougher, and the prize would way
bigger (I'm think like 250K to the winning team). I also don't want any
kids involved. I think parents are far more likely to get
overly-competitive and make complete fools of themselves if Little
Johnny isn't in the arena. If this works, it could launch a rebirth of
classic Nickelodeon Game shows: Guts, Nick Arcade, Legends of the Hidden Temple, but all involving middle-aged adults.
These are just a few suggestions to get us through to Labor
Day. As always, if you've got any ideas of your own throw them in the
Comments Section.
|
-
|
Thirty years ago Gil Scott-Heron famously predicted "The revolution will not be televised." Well today I'm predicting that the sustainable revolution will be broadcast world-wide, using streaming Internet video, and simultaneous Twitter technology, all powered by solar energy. And you better get on the bandwagon baby because green is the new black.
Once the province of tree-huggers and hippies, you can't turn left these days without running into a company proclaiming themselves to be "green." But what has triggered this sudden movement towards earth-conscious thinking? Have years of environmental studies in public schools finally kicked in? Did a generation of kids watching Bambi and Finding Nemo change our perception of nature? Should we just give all the credit to Al Gore? All these explanations play a part, but I credit a fundamental shift in the way environmentalism is being sold.
For years, being green was all about sacrifice. Take the debate over plastic bottles. The traditional green party line was always: Don't use plastic bottles because they end up in landfills, they deplete our natural resources, they help foster a disposable culture. Sure they are lot easier to carry than a big thermos and they're taste better than a drinking fountain, but remember it's all about giving up personal convenience for the greater good.
That's great logic if you're talking to somebody who really cares deeply about the environment. But for your average Joe City, let's just say it's not enough to keep me away from the Aquafina. But now here comes Klean Kanteen. Their whole sales pitch is: Carry a Klean Kanteen because it looks sweet, it will keep your water cooler, it keeps out harmful chemicals, and it's a lot cheaper than continuously buying water bottles. It's no longer about telling you all the horrible things that will happen if you don't do something, it's about telling you all the awesome things that will happen if you do.
I've asked dozens of people over the last three years, "What is sustainability? Why is it different than every other environmental movement that's come along over the last twenty years?" And since no one can ever give me a straight answer, this is my new definition: "Doing stuff that will make your life better and help save the environment." Buy an electric car because you'll save thousands on gas. Get solar panels because you'll save hundreds on home heating. Use reusable grocery bags because they're easier to carry, and you'll get a five cent discount. This is the way you sell things to people. This is the way you get people to change their behavior.
This type of proactive sales pitch is even more effective when it comes to businesses. Sure there are companies out there, like Sierra Nevada, who legitimately care about the environment. But most businesses won't budge their bottom line to save a tree. But tell them they can save twenty percent on their transportation costs by switching to bio-diesel and suddenly Jim's Refrigerator Delivery is all about sustainability. And the real topper is after they make this change that actually saves them money, they can send out a press-release proclaiming how they've suddenly gone green because: "It's time for every company to start making responsible choices."
That's why I say the sustainable revolution will definitely be televised. It will be brought-to-you-by, sponsored, supported, and provided-without-commercial-interruption by every company under the solar producing sun. But that's okay, self-promotion is a powerful part of the sustainable revolution. We can fall over trying too hard to pat our own backs, but in the end we are finally moving down a path that could save our planet. It's enough to make tree-hugging hippies out of all of us.
|
-
Are libraries still relevant? That's the question I
attempted to answer the other day when I was covering proposed cuts to
Butte County's library system. But I soon realized I was glossing over
the more basic and important question: Are books still relevant?
A 2007 study by the National Endowment For The Arts found that
reading rates have declined steadily for the last 20 years. According
to their info the typical 15 to 24-year-old watches two hours of
television a day. They spend about seven minutes a day reading for
leisure. I conducted my own highly scientific study of 18 to 30
year-olds working at Action News. Only half the people I surveyed had
read a book in the last month. and only two said they had read multiple
books. These are some of the best and the brightest people in Chico, if
they're not reading, who is?
It's not like this is a new problem, parents have been bemoaning
the death of the written word since the first kid turned on a radio,
but the scenario has suddenly changed. It used to be that everyone was
scared kids would just watch TV and play video games until their brain
rotted and no one could spell Nintendo. But with the advent of the
Internet and text messaging, reading and writing are suddenly
incredibly important to a kid's social development. If you are a high
school guy looking for a girlfriend, your ability to write a good tweet
or text message may be as important as your ability to hit a jump shot.
In the digital age, writing is sexy. Shakespeare would be a stud.
Of course writers in the Elizabethan era expressed their emotions
through sonnets and plays. It's a little more difficult to lament
society's ills in a 140 character tweet. Can you really tell a
meaningful story via text message: "2 b or not 2 b, that's the ?" Just
like reality TV is ruining our attention span for legitimate drama, I
worry the Internet is killing our ability to create classic literature.
On the other hand, maybe our definition of literature is just evolving.
I would argue the primary job of a great writer is to hold a mirror up
to society. The 21st century world is fast paced, fun, and incredibly
narcissistic. Maybe a Facebook post is the best way to capture that.
When western civilization is inevitably destroyed by the rise of
killer robots (yeah, I'm excited for the new Terminator movie) future
historians will search for ways to understand the generations that came
before them. And while blog entries and even CNN articles will be an
important part of understanding this generation, I refuse to believe we
will be defined only by works written on an iPhone. Somewhere out there
an angst-filled teen just devoured the latest copy of Twilight and they
are quietly planning the next Great Gatsby.
But where are they going to learn how to write a great novel if they
can't find a copy of one? That's my long-winded explanation for why we
need libraries. Especially in this economy. Not everyone has the money
to blow at Barnes and Nobles.
|
|
|
