spurs and soyrizo

no. 44: too much to say

2011-10-14T19:01:00.001-07:00

Man alive, I think I have figured out why I post so infrequently. There is too much to say about too many topics that I get discouraged midway through a draft and want to pitch it entirely. In fact, I am tempted to ctrl-a backspace this sucker right now, but I will resist.

I decided to axe my defunct-for-a-year teacher blog I started with the grand ambition that I would start contributing to the education world in some way (suffice to say, I'm too tired to go on at length about my day job).

Which is not to say I don't have lots of super cool stuff to say about education, but I feel like, even after a year of teaching under my belt and one quarter of the way through year 2, I don't really have a whole hell of a lot to offer in the way of expertise. So, it's gone.

I think I have better ideas about education/school policy than I did two years ago, that's for sure. So, I guess at one point in my life, lack of expertise was no barrier to me blabbing on about something.

At any rate, my hope is that I will stick to short, pithy posts unless I legitimately have something well-developed to say.

I may have something to say about the whole 99%, 53/47% business because I've been a little consumed by it this week. We'll see.

In the meantime, I contributed to a pre-cover of the Lou Reed/Metallica album done by some people on a message board where I spend an inordinate amount of free time.

no. 43: vegan in san antonio, part 5023237

2011-10-03T18:42:00.000-07:00

Can I say...

Five years ago, there were precisely 0 vegetarian restaurants in San Antonio.

One year ago, there was 1.

Today, there are 4, and a possible fifth on the horizon.

I take sole credit for starting this whole thing.

You're welcome.

no. 42: the haps

2011-07-20T21:11:00.000-07:00

I thought that I was going to get much better about this being a public journal of my thoughts, but I'm finding myself to be a lot more private with those since I've started teaching.

Speaking of which, Year 2 is going a lot better than Year 1, so much so that I can only imagine what Year 4 or 7 is going to look like.

I am teaching the middle school Sunday school with my wife now, too (ha, phrases I never would have thought I would be saying 10 years ago.) Approximately 1,000,000 times easier, substantially less fulfilling, also approximately 1,000,000 times less profitable (rounding up to the nearest million).

Last time I updated, I had started drafting this tome about Teach for America (of which I am a member beginning this year). It's been...all right! I'm not wild about how many of my Saturdays have been swallowed whole for them (lol, first world problems). But, I'm excited for the opportunity to be in the organization and for what TFA might bring to San Antonio. But, I don't know that a tome would be appropriate here, somehow. Kind of trying to avoid TL;DR situations (because if I don't have time to write them, what business do I have thinking people have the time to read them?)

The short version of that is that I'm sold on TFA's mission if ambivalent about their methods and wary of their private sector bedfellows. Subject to change at some point, I suppose.

More to come in three months time, or sooner if I'm feeling charitable.

BTW, the jams:

no. 41: hiatus on hiatus

2011-07-17T15:17:00.000-07:00

Hi, folks.

Who knew I would wait nearly a year to update this? Answer: me, because I have abandoned multiple blogs in similar fashion. PS also having a full-time job teaching definitely messes with some blog time. Like, it is a time vortex.

What has happened since my last update? Well, (1) the restaurant I sang high praises about went under in about October, but an all-veggie Indian restaurant opened a lil while later, so I guess shit balances out. (2) The Spurs overachieved in the regular season, underachieved in the playoffs, the Mavs won the title and the league is locked out. THE WORST. (3) I got some training this summer as part of being a part of Teach 4 America and met a bunch of rad people who will be living in my hometown and for whom I'm excited to play the role of extended tour guide. This has inspired me to think about several posts, like TFA pros and cons or a non-definitive veggie guide to San Antonio. So, forthcoming!

Also, I have no plans to resume the abandoned "Decade in Jams" I abruptly left open. The short answer is I listened to a lot of southern rap, bedroom electronica, and noise, and these had formative influences on me. THE END.

Or not the end, but this post is to let you know that I'm not dead.

no. 40: two months later, the next post is about THE BEST FALAFEL EVER

2010-09-04T21:19:00.000-07:00

mediterranean/arab restaurants: you are all OFFICIALLY on notice cause the game done changed. so places i been at or driven by:

jerusalem cafe? good, but not quite what i'm lookin for.
zorba's? meh.
pappoulli's? pwned.
demo's? nice try, IDIOTS.
pasha's? literally the worst falafel i've ever eaten. seriously, what the hell...
john the greek: keep movin', pal.

OLD JERUSALEM YOU MY DOG YOU HAVE THE BEST FALAFEL IS THAT CINAMMON?? Y'all this is how it's done, for $7 I got 6 delicious amazing falafel patties and seriously fried cauliflower and eggplant, on top of amazing baba ghanouj, I ate the shit out of that food TONIGHT what up. Everybody should go here and order falafel. Yo the owner/chef cooked for the King and Queen of JORDAN, on some monarchy shit, how many restaurants got that? I'm guessing none but even if it is more than none, they are mere trifles in my book. FOR REAL.

I mean, FOR HELLA SERIOUS, go eat here. DO IT.

Eat here eat here eat here eat here eat here eat here eat here.

no. 39: open letter to raja bell

2010-07-14T12:23:00.000-07:00

Dear Mr. Bell,

I'm writing this post to recruit you to the San Antonio Spurs basketball franchise this summer. There are several reasons why I think it would be totally dope:

You play "Spurs basketball" - which is to say you d-up fools, you hustle, and you can shoot the lights out
You fit a need - Spurs have had a gaping hole on the wing for a shut-down defender/3 pt shooter since Bowen has been gone. I think you're the best dude for the job, frankly.
Can't trust Kobe - I know Kobe's trying to get you to ride the Lakeshow wagon right now, but I'm going to be straight with you: I think Kobe wants to feel like he owns you now by bringing you in. Like, ah ha, now he's on MY team or whatever. I don't know, just something to consider. Also something to consider:

Okay c'mon, you know that was cathartic. Even though you were in Phoenix, I think most Spurs fans became Raja Bell fans after that.
I want to run into you around San Antonio - I admit this is a purely selfish move on my part, but I think it would be rad to see you macking on some Green burgers since I understand you are a veggie like me.
SA can offer you more money - Sabes que, money isn't everything, but it can be a good thing. Shoot, right now, it's sunny, we have a low cost of living, and that $2.3 mil the Spurs saved by signing Tiago Splitter to a sweetheart deal means they can offer you the rest of that. Just sayin'!
The Spurs are going to be real good - Duncan and Ginobili are getting older, true, but Ginobili played some of his best basketball after the All-Star break last year and Timmy can still put up 18 and 10 on bad knees. He's got some help coming with the best big man not in the NBA with Tiago Splitter. Got a young buck in Dejuan Blair who seems poised for a sophomore surge, George Hill is a rising backcourt talent with some of your skills. Oh yeah, Tony Parker is here and healthy. Top to bottom, it doesn't have the starpower of the Lakers, but it could be the best team to contend with them in the West this year given the shift balance of power. And when it's playoffs, it's anyone's game. Celtics showed us that this year.

Look, you're a grown-ass man and you're gonna do what's best for you (as you should). Just know this: when you put on the Spurs' silver-and-black, people give a shit. The Spurs are our only major sports team, so the whole city goes in when it comes to las espuelas. If you were to come on board, you'd be an impact player in my mind.

The Lakers are already a championship team: they're ostensibly asking you to come along for the ride. Double goes for the Heat. I'm not blinded by hometown allegiance, so I know they're the odds-on favorite to meet in the Finals (and probably for a while after, too). So if you want the best chance to get a ring, either one is a good choice. But, if you come to the Spurs, you've got a very professional organization, a die-hard fan base, and a chance to play a significant role on a strong team that could make some noise in the postseason. And, you can get paid pretty decently for it!

If you have any questions about the best hot spots for vegetarian food, just holler at me through the appropriate channels.

Signed,
a fan

no. 38: spurs offseason

2010-07-09T19:27:00.000-07:00

more cautious optimism!!!

looks like matt bonner, the patron saint of not baller behavior, is reupping with the spurs for another 4 years and the limited details are that it's a raise from his previous contract. gotta say, spurs fans love to hate him because of his lack of killer instinct or softness on defense, but i would totally kick it with him and eat good sandwiches. he's a floor-spreading big and in this free agent market* he's probably the best option the spurs had given that they are cap-constrained and have their big cap exception set aside for...
tiago splitter is coming, rejoice and be glad up in here. by all accounts he is a big man that plays solid positional defense, good post moves, and looks like seann william scott or something, i dunno (he's good-looking, not gonna lie). also he is from brazil, thus adding to the list of nations represented that have worn the spurs silver and black.
given that the nba free agency season has the league completely turnt out, the west is weaker and the east is the power conference! may you live in interesting times, indeed. so, the lakers are ostensibly unchallenged in the west barring injuries or other moves. the spurs are in a decent position to be a strong team, tbh!! like, i don't think they can challenge the lakers right now, but they could very well be #2 seed and then who knows what happens? life is crazy etc. etc. basically, from the 8 playoff teams at west who were for the most part fairly evenly matched: utah got worse, probably not be playoff team anymore; phoenix got a lil worse, who knows where they'll be; dallas, denver, portland, and la are basically standing pat; houston got better by virtue of a "healthy" yao and has a good shot to usurp utah's spot; okc got better by virtue of being older and wiser. there's still some intrigue, but jesus christ how do you compete with goddamn nWo in miami or orlando's bloated but talented squad, or boston's old-ass big three, or new-look chicago ft some jazz players?
old news: richard jefferson opted out of the last year of his current deal ($15 mil) to test the free agent waters for a long-term deal. this was seen as stupid, and then draft bust darko milicic signed a $20 million dollar deal, then a career backup PF amir johnson signed a $34 million deal, and then it was evident that nba GMs are huffing glue on the daily. so, maybe not so stupid. then, lebron and bosh decided they wanted 10000 championships and the market for RJ is drying up. so, maybe a dumb move, and maybe awesome for the spurs who can lock him up for a much cap-friendlier amount later this month. who knows? but if they do hold ont him and with splitter and rookie james anderson in tow, spurs look better than last year, at least on paper and if only marginally.

* - btw "in this free agent market" is the annoying nba equivalent of "in this economy"

no. 37: animals matter

2010-05-28T07:30:00.000-07:00

I want to take some time to discuss the most recent Mercy for Animals investigation in Ohio which is the first animal abuse video I've ever watched that I've had to turn it off before I got five seconds into it. The footage was obtained as part of an undercover investigation and comes a few months before Ohio may vote on new livestock standards.

Mercy for Animals has been doing a spectacular job of regularly getting these investigations out to the public to shed light on the kind of abuse that is endemic in animal agriculture. This most recent piece is universally repulsive and seems to have enraged people from a variety of ideological backgrounds, animal activists and farmers alike.

However, agricultural interests continue to defend their respective industries by pointing to these documented cases of abuse as exceptional and not representative of standard practices. I fear that in their rush to protect their industries from negative fallout, these groups miss the moral forest for the trees. That is to say, they do not feel that this level of abuse is part and parcel of animals' legal status as commodities and prefer to see this is as an aberration.

To be sure, this is an incredibly cruel demonstration, but perhaps this underscores just how bad things are in everyday practices, the industry standard stuff, that it takes something this bad to get folks' attention.

What I hope this video underscores, though, is that you cannot trust a commercial entity to act on behalf of the best interests of animals. This is where the camps within the animal protection movement parts philosophically.

First, a short primer on animal protection in general. The movement is split between the welfare and rights-based approaches. Animal welfarism believes that using animals towards human aims is acceptable, but that the animals used for food, research, or entertainment should be treated with utmost care. The Humane Society of the United States roughly falls into this camp, at least nominally (the CEO is a vegan, for what it's worth.) These parties push for stricter standards for animal care and husbandry which include but are not limited to "humane" slaughter, allowing conditions so animals can practice natural behaviors, or eliminating tail docking and other forms of mutilation.

The animal rights platform, on the other hand, posits that human beings do not have an inalienable right to use animals for their own purposes and that animals should have legal rights bestowed upon them for their protection. Mercy for Animals is one such animal rights group.

Animals are currently property and as such have a sliding scale of what's acceptable behavior towards their bodies. Pets seem to get the best of it while chickens have virtually no laws protecting them (chickens make up about 95% of the land animals slaughtered every year.)

I believe that the tenets of animal welfarism are a self-serving, ad hoc assortment of values that attempt (and fail) to reconcile the disparate use of animals contemporary society with our evolving concern for the lives of animals. In essence, animal welfarism want to have its steak (as a "happy" cow) and eat it, too.

While extreme on its face, animal rights is the only way from a legal perspective we can truly act in the best interests of animals and ensure their protection. The power afforded to a man towards his property is too great when that property has the capacity for suffering.

Let's take agribusiness on their word and say this level of abuse is an outlier. Considering that 10 billion land animals are slaughtered every year in the United States alone, what percentage of their animals withstanding this level of torture is acceptable? Even if it was just 2% of the time, that's 200 million animals suffering the worst of the worst abuses, more than the number of dogs, cats, and other land animals cared for as pets in the US combined. Because animal agriculture is so averse to any meaningful form of public accountability, we can't truly know the extent of how pitiful things really are and we must rely on undercover investigators to document these conditions.

This is why I have been vegan for my entire adult life. It's been better for me, better for the planet, and better for the animals spared.

no. 36: back 2 tha ~future~

2010-05-08T10:31:00.000-07:00

Now that I'm looking forward to next season, I can go back to everyone's favorite pastime after armchair coaching: fantasy general manager! This is a chance to look at what the Spurs already have before exploring what they'll do via the draft, free agency, and trades.

First, there are bright spots. We have two young pieces in George Hill and Dejuan Blair who made legit contributions this season and will continue to improve. George was exposed defensively in this Phoenix series. Creative point guards like Nash and Deron Williams got the better of him, but he a solid defender of most finesse guards in the league. This year, he played with more poise, vastly improved his shooting (especially from distance) and provides the Spurs with a combo guard who can be paired up with Ginobili and Parker.

Blair is a rebounding machine and has some serious post moves, but as an undersized power forward, he will need to learn to use his body better to avoid taller shotblockers. Defensively, he commits far too many fouls and despite a long arm span, can be taken advantage of by bigger competition. He's still very young and I imagine he will learn and be taught ways to compensate for his physical shortcomings.

Under contract for next season right now are Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, McDyess, Blair, and Hill. I'm going to assume Jefferson is not stupid and will take his $15 million rather than test a buyer's free agent market, new pending collective bargaining agreement or not. That leaves the Spurs starting 5 from last night plus the two youngsters. Rest assured, the most likely path of rebuilding will be slight changes in the role player rotation and not any earth-shattering deal.

BACKCOURT
For strengths, Manu, Tony, and George is as good a three guard rotation as you can get. Hill and Ginobili are very good defenders where Parker is capable, and they can all put points on the board. Pretty straightforward.

In years past, the Spurs have had guys like Mike Finley or Steve Kerr who have been 3-point specialists. Roger Mason Jr. was supposed to be this guy, but he did not respond well to reduced minutes and is a free agent this year. I expect the Spurs to let him walk. Keith Bogans was not a very reliable 3-point shooter but provided good spot defense. Bruce Bowen he was not, though. He was signed for the veteran's minimum and I'd say there's a 50-50 chance he's back at that price and no higher. Hopefully he'll be further down the rotation than he was this year.

Out of the D-League, the Spurs plucked Garrett Temple who had some outstanding games playing for an injured Tony Parker. He's a very long point man who I hope is back with the team next year as the third PG.

FRONTCOURT
You've already got Tim Duncan which means good post defense, rebounding, and buckets. His game will continue to erode as he gets older, but he's still a great player. McDyess proved very valuable as a defender, the best one-on-one defensive option we've ever had cover guys like Nowitzki. He's got a solid mid-range jumper and plays tough, physical hoops. I've already said mostly nice things about Blair.

Jefferson, if he returns, is interesting. This year was a career worst for him save for his rookie year and it's clear that he could not settle into a consistent role on the team. He used to generate his offense in motion where a playmaker would set him up for athletic moves to the basket. This year, he played better with Manu on the floor to facilitate, but he was not aggressive enough on the wing and not a good enough spot shooter to be much of a threat. Maybe another year will allow the Spurs to find a role that suits his skill sets. He is a talented player, he just needs to be banned from taking mid-range jumpers. However, he showed some mental errors while guarding Jason Richardson and he was torched. I don;t know that he's mentally on the same level that the best Spurs players are on.

Matt Bonner is a free agent and I'm of two minds of him. Save this past game, his three-point shooting has bent noticably abset in the playoffs and he is worthless as a basketball player without. A man of his size should be a much better rebounder and defender, but he is a liability in both of those fields.

On the other hand, he's improved overall and become more tough. He's been with the team a while and knows his place, doesn't make a lot of mistakes. You need guys like him in the regular season if you know you won't get much from him in the playoffs. For the right price, I'd actually like to see him back, but with reduced minutes and more emphasis on becoming a 3-point dynamo in the clutch.

There are a couple of interesting notes on our D-League converts here. Ian Mahinmi has been a project 5 years in the making. He's athletic and very long but never received consistent playtime. Spurs management know more than we would, and I'm guessing he's not there mentally. An up-and-coming team would love to have him though as a prospect.

Finally, Mailk Hairston didn't play a ton of minutes but he is another athletic energy guy on the wing whom I hope will see more playing time next year as he's got some defensive chops. His ceiling isn't very high, though, so he probably won't be a gamechanger that the Spurs may need on the permiter, but he can be productive.

no. 35: RIP 09-10 Spurs

2010-05-08T10:10:00.000-07:00

I don't know if it's bad luck to declare a team dead when they're still officially in the playoffs, but no team has ever crawled out of an 0-3 hole and I don't expect the Spurs to do that now. With last night's loss, I can -- officially or not -- starting looking forward to next season.

Last season, when the Spurs made the huge trade for Richard Jefferson, Spurs brass hinted that they needed to make a move to take advantage of Duncan while he was still strong enough a player to allow them to contend for a title. They put this window at two years, so I suppose we're now down to one.

If the Phoenix series (and to a lesser extent, the successful run against the Mavs) proved anything, it was this: the Spurs did not have the personnel to contend for a title. The Big 3 is there and will put you in the playoffs almost without exception, but the role players around them are a drop off in production from championship years.

It's difficult to assess the Spurs this year. Coming into the season, I had high expectations. I figured they were among five teams that would contend this year (Boston, Cleveland, Lakers, and Orlando to round it out). All but Boston, who had a similarly underperforming year, came to play. Phoenix crept under the radar and had a lot to prove this playoffs. The way the Suns are playing, it would surprise me none to see them make the finals (though I believe Orlando will ultimately win this season). But based on that initial expectation that they reach 3rd round, the season was a C- given how badly they're flaming out right now.

But, they struggled most of the year. My expectations ratcheted down dramatically. At one point they weren't even a lock to make the playoffs, much less beat a two-seeded Mavs team that had just made a big-time trade. So, maybe a B for the year, given all that they improved upon.

I'll do some more posts wildly speculating on how they might improve for next year, but for now I grieve for the Spurs on their deathbed.

no. 34: spurs-mavs post-mortem; spurs-suns preview

2010-05-01T08:22:00.000-07:00

It's May and the Spurs are still in the playoffs! I consider this positive news.

The Spurs were able to contain Nowitzki in stretches in a few games and put the clamps down on Terry and Kidd. Butler has a few big games, but was kinda 50-50 considering his non-good games were him chucking mid-range jumpers all night. Dampier proved that he is less than worthless and Haywood showed that he's got some heart. I don't know where the Mavs go from here. Dirk has proven that he can win you 50-plus games in the regular season but that he's not enough of a defensive competitor to mkae you a legit title contender. If I'm Mark Cuban I would just say fuck it and blow the team up if he's serious about contending, but I'm not sure what Dirk can get you in a trade these days (certainly not value in return) so he's gotta press for some kind of sign-and-trade deal to bring a legit 2nd all-star on board (they've had guys make all-star team before, but never guys I would consider top 25 guys year-in and out). So, there's that.

Now we get to play the Suns on what is turning out to be the second stop on the Spurs' Big Rivals Tour. I am a little nervous despite the Spurs having the Suns' number the last four times they've played each other. Number one, Spurs are already running a very tight rotation wih 7 guys getting more than 15 minutes of playtime and Dejuan Blair getting some spot time. The Suns are rolling 10 deep. Number two, the Suns are shooting an obscene percentage from 3.

In effect the Suns present all the same matchup problems that the Mavericks did, only more intense. They are the most lethal offensive team in the league and while their defense has improved, that is still going to be their weakness in this series.

The key is Duncan (don't look so surprised.) In the Suns last series against the Blazers, they never really needed to face a premier inside scoring presence, so they could afford to keep 4 perimeter players on the floor to defend against a depleted Blazers offense. Now with Duncan playing better than 35 minutes a game, the Suns will need to have Collins and/or Admundson on the floor to counter him. The two combined for fewer than 30 minutes a game last series. THeir increased playing time will likely take away from Channing Frye, Jared Dudley or other perimeter threats. Those guys aren't slouches and Tim is no spring chicken, but he will take advantage of them. If the Suns double him, the Spurs will need to circle around to find the open man (McDyess' mid-range jumper has been reliable as has George Hill from outside and in).

Moreover, pace will be critical. If the Spurs struggle to execute offensively, the Suns can score in floods in the transition game. I look to Ginobili and Hill to slow down Nash and Jason Richardson in halfcourt sets, but if they are on the fastbreak, it will be dunks, threes, and fouls for the Spurs.

The Spurs did play well defensively against the Mavs and that's a big part of why I think the Spurs can ultimately prevail, but I would like to see Manu and Tony recover on offense efficiency (Manu's game has been especially erratic though he's still making plays and disrupting on D.)

No predictions, I didn't make one last time and the Spurs won so I'm taking that as a good omen (lol @ dumb superstitions).

no. 33: the decade in jams - THE-DREAM

2010-04-28T10:52:00.000-07:00

Decade Highlights:
The-Dream - Love/Hate - 2007 (album artist/songwriter/producer)
The-Dream - Love Vs. Money - 2009 (album artist/songwriter/producer)
Electrik Red - How To Be a Lady: Vol. 1 - 2009 (album songwriter/producer)
J. Holiday - "Bed" - 2007 (songwriter)
Beyonce - "Single Ladies (Put a Ring On It)" - 2008 (songwriter/producer)
Rihanna - "Umbrella" - 2007 (songwriter/producer)
Mariah Carey - "Touch My Body" - 2008 (songwriter/producer)

To start, I feel like there should be a caveat. When I sing the praises of Terius Nash a/k/a The-Dream , equal amounts of praise go to his producers, Christopher "Tricky" Stewart and Los da Maestro who bring that lil something extra that makes The-Dream my favorite artist of the last few years.

Nash's reference points are heavy-hitters in the world of R&B and pop. You can hear shadings of R. Kelly's vocal mannerisms in his own voice. Sometimes he dabbles in throwback style (definite Prince angle with "Fast Car", definite MJ angle with "Walking on the Moon") but not the extent where he's borrowing their sounds wholesale. Bits and pieces of the past are used more as threads to sew into his own musical fabric.

At this moment, The-Dream has a "sound", that je ne sais quoi that feels like hit records even if they're not always chart-toppers, (which they often are). In short order, he's got his share of imitators (Jeremih's "Birthday Sex" immediately comes to mind). There are springy drums, usually tom toms. There's the twinkling, pulsing piano, often backed by trancey, chorusing bass lines. Tracks are usually draped in a shimmering reverb or delay, though his voice is like most pop vocals typically at the forefront.

Thematically, he's typically not an angry writer, although there is some bitterness like the revenge-love song "Nikki." But more often than not he gravitates towards the reverential love songs ("Shawty is Da Shit", "Rockin' That Shit"), super swagger jams ("Mr. Yeah", "Ditch That", "I Luv Your Girl"), or straight-up booty music ("Falsetto", "Purple Kisses", "Sweat It Out".) But songs like "Nikki" or the above-linked "Fancy" show off his range in terms of mood and -- especially in the case of the latter -- his gift for building tension, creating drama in the structure of the song.

His own albums are phenomenal, but his production and writing for other artists is without peer in the last 5 years. "Umbrella" is a monster song full of The-Dream and company's signature touches, and "Single Ladies" brings some things straight out of left field (that drum pattern is unreal!) And I cannot leave out the stellar Electrik Red album which was a commercial flop but a feather in his cap for sure. It's all anthems for brassy broads with some incredibly lush production ("Devotion" is not reinventing the wheel, just making it spin faster...and "Bed Rest", whew, like a goddamn summer breeze.) I can only selfishly hope that he and his producers will have enough steam to keep them banging in 2010 and beyond.

no. 32: the deacde in jams - a primer

2010-04-28T09:34:00.000-07:00

An intro 2 let u know, I debated doing a list or something but I don't feel it's really representative of the decade of a whole if I pick such and such singles and albums or what have you. I can really only represent certain periods of my life where I: listened to a small number of artists within a very narrow band of music a lot (ca. 2000-2); listened to a to a large number of artists within a slightly less narrow band of music (2003-4); listened to a wider band of artists (2005); met a girl and stopped listening to a lot of new music and started obsessing over the 70's (2006-9).

So, I think it would be appropriate to approach music from this decade as I came to know it rather than pursue a fool's errand and be representative of everything that was happening in music, because no matter how voracious a listener I can be at times, there are some for sure glaring blind spots.

If I may, that leads me to my greater beef with a lot of summary lists done in most publications. I think the exceptions are specialty magazines which have a specific genre or sensibility about them so they give some accolades interesting, unsung music some accolades. But my greater issue is with mainstream pubs (print and online) that have a hivemind when it comes to these things (see: Spin's top 125 albums of the last 25 years list for the latest example). There's a sort of self-perpetuated canon (older pub sez: "these are imporant records!" and readers go and listen and if they like them, they will spread the "important records!" gospel and if they become writers themselves, will continue to cast ballots for the agreed-upon canon in larger numbers than works who perhaps never got a fair shake in their time from listeners at-large.

And it's not so much that canonical picks are, by default, bad or unworthy of attention in my eyes. There are a lot of great albums on that top 125 list as well as dozens that I wouldn't give a second look 4 tha rest of my ~lyfe~ but the bigger point is that there are countless other publications at any point in time singing the praises of certain artists that I don't feel like anything is really explored by the veneer of quantative data that list-making provides. It would be like a sports columnist today writing a "Michael Jordan: Still the Greatest Player EVAR!" article every year or two.

On top of that, what about the artists who don't crack into the canon? Is this music unworthy of side-by-side comparison with the established artists? To use my example above of specialty magazines again, Vibe doesn't come out with a list and say "The Greatest 100 Albums of All Time" because their focus is primarily hip-hop/rap/R&B, so you wouldn't expect a list of 80-90% artists whom they typically cover plus a token 10% for honkey jams. Because (I would think) they know better than to assume their musical world is so important to the exclusion of other music they don't usually cover.

Rock-centered publications tend to list "Top x of Whatever in Rock and Roll" but do branch out of the established confines of rock music which I feel gives the illusion of inclusiveness but further pushes those artists and genres to the margins by saying "There are a lot of musical forms out there, but remember that rock music is the best!!!"

I think that if I learned one thing this decade, it's that records are not objectively important. People will attach meaning to them in their personal lives and a great number of pop records will be personally important to a lot of people and they'll want to say "YA ME 2" and that's great, but I grow weary of The List as a magazine/web feature 2 b perfectly honest! It's just lazy as balls.

no. 31: the deacde in lols - judd apatow

2010-04-27T12:48:00.000-07:00

Kinda forgot about this series! It's okay, I was almost done with the lols, and now I have some time to look back and reëxamine some thangs.

Decade Highlights:

Freaks and Geeks - 1999-2000 (tv)
The 40-Year Old Virgin - 2005 (film - director/writer/producer)
Knocked Up - 2007 (film - director/writer/producer)
Superbad - 2007 (film - producer)

Anyway, I would be remiss to wrap up this series without mentioning Judd Apatow. He's getting a fair amount of backlash (not entirely undeserved) but I think he's an important touchstone in 2000's comedy.

I guess this should be clarified a bit further: Apatow is the figurehead upon which a certain comedic philosophy is bestowed. He's only been the mastermind behind a few of the films singularly credited to him, but I look at him as more than a comedy writer and director. I look at his role at like a coach/general manager where he assembles a team of funny guys (and they are almost nearly all guys, hence something of a backlash) and gives them a particular framework to work in. So when I say "Apatow movies", I mean more than the three features he directed this previous decade (40-Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up, and Funny People...progressively less funny as he's gone on, kind of troubling). But I include things for which he has produced, like Forgetting Sarah Marshall (Jason Segal is an unsung hero imo) or Superbad (maybe the funniest movie of the 2000s?) and the various Will Ferrell movies listed on my post devoted to his work.

I'm hardly someone who believes film needs to mirror precisely the mannerisms of everyday speech, but I can't argue with the results of doing take after take of ad-libbed jokes and finding the best material rather than bleeding a script to death to find the perfect, well-crafted snappy joke. It allows a part of the performer to enter the joke, so it's less like acting and more like "I bet it would be funny if I said this" which feels much more close to humor as it occurs "naturally."

I feel like I'm struggling to articulate this as well as I should, but I guess if I were trying to be pithy, I would say something like "Apatow characters sound like a funny version of real life conversations." And I think that's pretty awesome that this comedy magic can be replicated for many many films!

no. 30: personal (professional) update

2010-04-27T06:49:00.001-07:00

For my IRL homies, I thought I'd bring you up to speed in a more thorough, formalized way. I've shied away from getting too...I suppose LiveJournaly here since I tend to make this more a place to write about ideas (even if those ideas are pretty trivial) rather than an account of my personal history. But, I think this post could serve as a good prologue to future posts about teacher preparation in general.

Soon after I lost my job in February, I applied for the Teach for America which is opening a charter corps here in San Antonio for the 10-11 school year. I applied under the stipulation that I would only be able to accept a placement in San Antonio since my lovely wife has established a career here already and moving would place an unfair burden on her to find a job if one should be open to her.

After interviewing and applications and recommendations, I was ultimately selected -- much to my elation. This high lasted about 15 seconds when I read further that they had placed me in Dallas.

That was a week ago. Frankly, I'm still a bit stunned. I'm wrestling with a few feelings, actually. Anger, at myself for not properly ranking all other regions under the third tier rather than setting aside Dallas in the second tier. Would that have made the difference? Anger at TFA, for ignoring my application and interview which clearly states that I would only be able to serve San Antonio. A stupid part of me feels cheated, like this was dangled right above me just out of reach. Devastated, that this could have been not just a job but a potential for a lot of things down the road. Knowing that this is a prestigious program probably didn't help matters (what good is getting into something prestigious if you don't get to follow through and do it? Do you think people who get into Harvard but went to community college put "accepted into Harvard" on their resumes?) Above all, I'm struggling to channel my disappointment into productive outlets. I guess I've had more time to devote to my various recording projects (after about 6 or 7 years of doing this now, I can say honestly I've grown from "amateur bedroom recordings" to "polished amateur bedroom recordings") but this is hardly what I had in mind.

There is a chance albeit a small one that a spot will open up in San Antonio but I've essentially been advised to not hold my breath. And the phalanx of unfortunate life events marches onward!

no. 29: playoffs

2010-04-15T10:53:00.000-07:00

It's dallas again, which I hope gives them revenge motives considering how badly they were shellacked last year sans Manu. Earlier this year I ad resigned myself to them being a first-round casualty, but their play of late has given me optimism. HERE'S WHY:

1 - (Almost) everyone is healthy
Manu is back and in top form, Duncan is alive, Parker has returned from injury. The only question mark is George Hill who retweaked his ankle in last night's game. He'll be key as a defender against the likes of Dallas' three-headed hydra of speedy guards off the bench, Jason Terry, JJ Barea, and Rodrigue Beaubois. But otherwise, the team is at full strength.

2 - Antonio McDyess is as close to a Nowitzki-stopper as the Spurs have ever had
Dirk has prevented the Spurs with a nightmare matchup problem every year. As a 7-footer with outside range and probably the purest shooting stroke in the league, he's not all that athletic in the sense that he can beat guys off the dribble, but he can make a two-step move and elevate for a jumpshot that is difficult to contest in a meaningful way.

In years past, the Spurs have relied on undersized, but laterally quick small forwards to cover Dirk (Bruce Bowen and Mike Finley come to mind). For some stretches they will go small and have Jefferson cover him, and perhaps Bonner will spend some time on him. But not only does McDyess have the size, he's also a great defender. If Pop makes that assignment, Dyess' should be spending 25 minutes or so a night making life cumbersome for Nowitzki.

3 - Points differential
In addition to the Win-Loss records, a good way to gauge a team's strength is by looking at the average points they score a game versus the average points they allow. The Spurs beat their opponents by 5.1 points on average, good for 2nd in the West. Dallas beat their opponents by a mere 2.7 points., 8th among the 8 playoff teams. This means the games they did win were close, and the game they lost were not so close relative to the Spurs.

HERE'S WHY NOT:

4 - Dallas' excellent 3-point shooting vs. the Spurs unpredictable 3-point shooting
Last year, the Spurs were hoping their 3-point snipers (Bonner, Mason, Finley) would catch fire to allow them to take pressure off of Parker and Duncan on the offensive end. That did not happen, like, at all! This year, George Hill has emerged as an excellent 3-point shooter to replace Finley (now in Boston), and Bonner is still lethal when he's on his game. Manu has also improved from last season. Mason has disappointed this year and will likely not see many playoff minutes. Reliably, Bonner, Manu and Hill should be seen as the Spurs outside weapons, while Jefferson may be a good find on occasion.

The Mavs, on the other hand, have 3 players shooting over 40%, and 3 others shooting over 35%. If they are on their game, this will leave the lanes open for their slashers.

5 - We can never stop Nowitzki
We can only hope to contain him.

6 - Matchups
The Nowitzki problem creates overall matchup problems. First, Duncan typically covers whoever is playing center, so Haywood and Dampier will be neutralized when Duncan plays. In the backcourt, Hill and Ginobili are our best defenders. Parker's no slouch, but he can be beat by the likes of Terry and Barea. I think aside from Dirk, keeping Terry and Butler cold will be key. Keep them from slashing and force them into rushed shots.

Ugh, just start these things already.

no. 28: $40 million

2010-04-03T14:32:00.000-07:00

Don't know if you've been following the Spurs lately, but they are playing much better, finally in something of a defensive rhythm, and the timing couldn;t be better as their schedule of late has been BRUTAL. Absolute dogfight in the Western Conference, neck and neck for seeding (as it stands with about 3-4 games left in the season, Lakers are #1 and Denver, Dallas, Utah, and Phoenix are fighting for 2-5 while OKC, Spurs and Portland are jostling for 6-8. MADNESS.

Anyway, as recently as a couple months ago, I was basically writing the Spurs off this year because of their inconsistency and malaise. But then Manu Ginobili started playing the best basketball I've ever seen him play and now the Spurs have a puncher's chance. I mean, I still think it'll be Rocky and not Rocky 2, but it's something!

Okay, so in no small part in reaction to his ridiculous play since the All-Star break, Spurs gifted Ginobili a three-year deal which will keep him a Spur through his mid-30's (pretty old in basketball years) for nearly $40 million. There is some grousing that this overpaying for someone so injury-plagued through his career. The voices in favor cite his massive popularity in town (most popular player in SA and has been for at least 5 years) not to mention how dangerous a player is when he's on his game. For the last month-plus, he's been one of the top 5 guys in the league.

So, where does he fall in the "Is he worth it?" scale. I'm inclined to agree that he is. He's a poor man's superstar in that he transcends the game even if he doesn't do it with the same regularity that someone like Kobe Bryant does. He makes "how did he do that?" plays in a way that is not gimmicky or pure happenstance, and they change the tone of the game. They are risks, quite often calculated risks like lunging into a passing lane for a steal and a subsequent fast break. These put opposing offenses on edge, leery of a backdoor reach-in as they contemplate their next move.

He's great in large doses, though he occasionally makes thoughtless errors. But I think that's part of what makes him a great player. It's just an unpredictability that makes for great sports moments. I love Tim Duncan, but I know generally what I get from him (and that's what makes him valuable). Even if he's not scoring, Manu is still super important because of his defense and playmaking skills (he is, to my mind, the only "true" point guard the Spurs have in this sense even though he plays the "2").

We (San Antonians) get Manu for three more years. It's a good thing imo.

no. 27: animals and children in storytelling

2010-03-15T09:17:00.000-07:00

This is a topic I've been chewing on for a minute. I don't have a very sophisticated eye for film and have a thimble-deep understanding of literary criticism, so I wouldn't know where to begin in searching to elaborate on this, but I'm very interested in the use of animals in children's stories. Namely, the use of animals -- anthropomorphized or not -- as protagonists. My understanding is that folklore from agrarian or nomadic cultures is more involving of animal characters, but I'm really interested in how post-industrial cultures use animals to push a narrative.

In films or television or literature or whatever media, it's important to create characters that its audience can identify with or aspire to identify with. I'm wondering what it is about animals in particular that appeals to a child's sensibility. The exposure to animals for an average child in America is likely limited to house pets, the occasional trip to zoos or circuses, and the "urban wild" like squirrels and pigeons. So perhaps the novelty of the animal kingdom captivates in a way stories about human kids may not.

But, I can't help but think that something about the vulnerability of being subject to the mature adult world is something that both human children and animals share. Stories can bridge the species gap by taking creative liberties, giving the animals human voices and mannerisms that would render them effectively equal to the standing of children in their world. Their imagination allows them to take on the physical bodies of animals and retaining any of the same anxieties over one's own physical safety.

Disney has certainly produced a lot of the stories I'm thinking about. Specifically, animated features like Bambi or The Fox and the Hound or 101 Dalmatians (to name a few) which not only have anthropomorphized animal protagonists, but are also at odds with human antagonists. I wonder to what degree that is or was intentional on Disney's part, but I think these stories do an excellent job of allowing kids to identify early with the struggles of animals in the face of human intervention.

Of course, many of these stories and similar ones in this vein use animals allegorically (a la Animal Farm) but its more literal interpretation is no less interesting to me.

no. 26: how utsa football can succeed and fail

2010-03-13T10:17:00.000-08:00

A lot of talk abounds about the new UTSA football program as they will begin playing in 2011. I was enrolled when the students were voting on funding for it in 2007, and at the time I was very much opposed to the idea. I would not recommend reading this all the way through as I had not developed a professional voice for writing yet and there are some pretty cringeworthy moments for me personally (and I realize by saying this, you will read the whole thing and laugh at me).

My basic argument then was that it is very difficult for college football programs to develop into profitable ventures. Big money college athletics, particularly football, is a game of haves and have-nots. In Texas, there are essentially three programs worth noting: UT-Austin, Texas A&M, and Texas Tech. There are countless other teams struggling to carve out a niche in the college football world and spending precious lucre in the process. Schools of comparable size (Texas State, North Texas, Houston) have had football teams for some time and with the exception of Charlie Ward's Heisman win almost 20 years ago for Houston, there's not much to note here in terms of accomplishment on the national stage. While I'm sure these schools consider the exposure "worth it", it troubled me a great deal that the potential for disinterest in UTSA football would be ruinous on the financial side and that the Pollyannaish rah-rahs in favor weren't really considering that.

Since then, however, my rampant pessimism has evolved into a guarded ambivalence. A new program succeeding is not without precedent as South Florida has become a pretty respectable team (thanks, I think, in part to the collapse of U of Miami as a national powerhouse...more on that.) So, I'd like to mark this occasion as "that time I thought UTSA football might work" with a point-counterpoint and possible outcomes.

POINT: UTSA has a big-name head coach
This is probably the point with the most significance. Larry Coker was the former head coach of the aforementioned Miami Hurricanes team that won a national title 10 years ago. Hiring him was a major credibility coup in my estimation. So much of what makes a program successful is its ability to recruit and having a national title winning coach goes a long way to attract talent. He was fired from the team after going 6-6 during a season marred by a brawl between the 'Canes and FIU players. He's older, sure, but as long as he's around long enough to establish the program, that should be a good start.

POINT: The Alamodome is one of the best venues for college football in the state
Let's compare apples to apples. Obviously UTSA is not going to have the same atmosphere and capacity that Kyle Field in College Station or Royal Stadium in Austin have. But, compared to the type of teams they'll start off playing and compared with similarly sized schools in the area, they'll be in an indoor stadium that still hosts Final Four events and the Alamo Bowl, and is in decent shape despite being nearly 20 years old. The Alamodome holds about 65,000 in seating: a good 30K more than stadiums for North Texas, U of Houston, or Texas State; nearly 15K more than the Sun Bowl in El Paso (UTEP); about 5,000 more than the stadium for Texas Tech. Only the two most storied college football programs in Texas can boast a bigger seating capacity. I don't expect the Alamodome to fill up so soon (just look at this schedule, WOOF.) The potential, though, is definitely there.

COUNTERPOINT: The Alamodome is hella far away from the main UTSA campus
Even though UTSA is a major commuter school, most of the student body lives at least close to the campus. The Alamodome is just east of downtown. Granted, it could be just a bus ride away for students, but most of the major football teams have stadiums built on or near campus. Should UTSA desire its own stadium near its campus, it will be a drop in size for sure.

POINT: UTSA will be the best game in town
Most of the college football season is done by the time basketball season starts in late October, so the majority of the season, UTSA football will be able to get local media and attention. Who knows, maybe San Antonio will adopt UTSA as its football team the same way Austin doesn't have pro sports but they have UT football or how Los Angeles doesn;t have the NFL but they have USC. Alumni or not, it can become something of a local fan favorite.

COUNTERPOINT: Oh shit, everyone in San Antonio is already a UT or A&M fan

They both have bigger alumni networks statewide and UT is already has a big presence in San Antonio since Austin is so close (after the Spurs and Cowboys, probably more Longhorn gear than any other team in the city). Plus, it will be some time before UTSA gets regular national TV exposure in the way that UT, A&M, and Tech do. IF they indeed do get national TV exposure.

I don't know, I'm still not sold ultimately, but at the very least UTSA seems to have a plan. They're going to spend several years in the wilderness that is the Football Championship Series (aka Div 1 AA...jesus, this FCS/FBS thing is ridiculous) before they try to move up to Div 1 A I mean FBS. Who knows? It might get interesting then.

no. 25: and there was much kvetching

2010-02-17T08:01:00.000-08:00

If you are a casual Spurs fan who pops in every now and again during the season and saves up your energy for the playoffs, good news: you may get to save your energy this season!

That's right, after getting jacked up with new dudes with expensive contracts, the Spurs seemed poised to compete again. It turns out $80 million dollars can buy a lot of things but a dominant professional basketball squadron is not always one of them.

I should clarify: the Spurs are not "bad" in the same way the Nets are bad (5 wins, 48 losses, on pace to have a season that will live in infamy). No, Spurs will most likely still make the playoffs, albeit with a not favorable seeding. It's not so much a problem of talent as it is personnel. As it turns out, having a "Big 3" become a "Big 4" is not enough to compete in the NBA's current arms race. And while Duncan, Ginobili, Parker, and Jefferson are a formidable line-up with anyone else filling the fifth spot, it's not the right personnel to defend against teams like the Lakers who have long players who can stretch the floor (Odom, Gasol).

We're stuck with Jefferson. He's not solely to blame for the Spurs woes (see also: injuries, dissatisfaction brewing from some players in contract years, attempting to cultivate young talent at the expense of playing time for seasoned vets.) But, he and his bloated contract are emblematic of the problem the Spurs have for the next couple of years. The team, as it is currently assembled, is not competing for a title for the foreseeable future.

Because of this, there are a number of entitled Spurs fans who are overreacting in major ways. Among the craziest I've seen:

-- Calls to fire coach Popovich. The only coaches with more titles are Phil Jackson and Pat Riley...both of them are busy with their own teams)

-- Calls to trade Tony Parker. This is admittedly a small but vocal bunch who believe that the answer lies in either some less-talented "pass first" PG option somewhere out there or an untouchable piece of another team's puzzle (Chris Paul is not going to be traded unless the team is literally so broke it can't pay the maintenance crew for the arena). At any rate, any realistic Parker trade would be a sideways move at best. Reeks of desperation at worst.

-- The belief that a combination of Roger Mason Jr., Michael Finley, and Matt Bonner is every team's trade dream. I'll spare you a multi-paragraph explanation for the uninitiated, but these three guys' contracts are up next year, so their expiring deals are great money savers for whomever has them. The problem is they are not great players, so great players are not likely the return. The craziness comes when people insist that they can get all-star level talent in return or express willingness to accept shitty role players at twice the cost.

Basically, there is much kvetching going in the mistaken belief that one person or entity is responsible for the Spurs not being title contenders anymore. The reality is that there are lots of factor contributing. Duncan and Ginobili are getting older and showing it. Parker is starting to show signs of wear from playing so much. Jefferson isn't fitting in, McDyess is struggling to. It's not like firing Pop will suddenly get them to play like they did a few years ago. Unless RC Buford has a fucking time machine, nothing will.

Barring some unexpected moves, the Spurs are an above-average team, playoffs expected, 2nd round is probably as deep as they'll go. They have some good young talent (Hill, Blair) and a former All-Star still in his prime years if not yet in his prime health (Parker) and in two years when the NBA explodes due to it brokeness, the Spurs will only have three players committed to its books and will have a lot more flexibility to adjust (I hope Parker is part of this fwiw.)

So, the key is to ratchet down your expectations the next couple of years and you'll spare yourself some misery.

no. 24: a long layoff followed by a layoff

2010-02-17T07:27:00.001-08:00

Hmm, after a long layoff followed by a renewed zeal to start posting regularly, I proceed to go longer than a month without posting. Yeah, that sounds a lot like me.

At any rate, the major change in my life is that I was fired from my job two weeks ago (or, if you'd prefer to lessen the pain, "involuntarily terminated.") No warning about it, I showed up to work one morning and I couldn't log into my computer. Minutes later I was let go by phone call. Awesome.

This isn't entirely unusual for this particular company. In roughly 6 months, 4 people either quit or were fired in an office of three. If I've done my math correctly, that's a 133% turnover rate dating back to August.

Suffice it to say I was not happy about this. I wasn't exactly happy working there all the time, but I would have vastly preferred leaving on my own terms as anyone would.

The plus side is now I have an inordinate amount of "me time" which can at any time be devoted to more worthwhile pursuits like writing or music ~~or video games or watching sports or sulking~~ or finally working on becoming a teacher (I applied for Teach for America btw). So, there's that.

no. 23: the decade in lols - tina fey

2010-01-06T09:43:00.000-08:00

Decade Highlights:

SNL - 1998-2006 (tv)
Mean Girls - 2004 (film)
30 Rock - 2006-9 (tv)
Baby Mama - 2008 (film)

Man, what can you say about Fey that hasn't been said in a shitload of magazine interviews and things? 30 Rock is basically my favorite show or two of the decade. It's one of the few shows out there that doesn't rely on a straight-arrow, above-it-all protagonist (Liz Lemon is kind of like that some times, but she ventures out of that frequently) whose sole purpose is to point out how crazy/stupid everyone else is (Michael in Arrested Development, Kyle and Stan in South Park, Jim in the Office, etc).

Mean Girls is a great movie, too, the Clueless of its time (this is high praise from me, that movie is so dope). I feel like you get a sense of Tina Fey, person, from watching her stuff, but I don't think it's necessarily mere autobiography. In other words, I get that she is into sandwiches and slankets and grew up feeling like an oddball based on Liz Lemon, but a lot of her characters have trouble with relationships late in life (maybe exaggerated younger Tina Fey issues?) that betray her actual life. I think she's grown a lot as a writer and has made 30 Rock the funnier for it.

I'm going to throw Baby Mama in the mix because it is funny, though she's ONLY a performer there. She's a good foil for Amy Poehler in a Felix and Oscar way.

Oh yeah, she does a lolsy impersonation of the former governor of Alaska.

Anyway, Fey's about ready to blow up in this new decade, and I think it is very dope that she's cresting in popularity right about now. I hope 30 Rock has at least two more funny years in it

no. 22: HNY btw

2010-01-01T09:28:00.000-08:00

I don't usually do new year's resolutions because I consider myself kind of close to perfect (this is a lol). Uh, but I have a few and they're mostly pretty conventional. Number one, work out more and lose some weight. Been thinking more about my health since I am getting the early signs of the old man pains my dad has (stiff knees, neck, back, old man grunts getting up and around).

But! I also want to blog more because I started off with a shit ton to say and then it felt like work to post that regularly and then POOF I'd go weeks without touching the damn thing. I guess the real answer would be to make blogging feel less like work which means not writing so damn much and doing even less proofreading and caring less about making sense. So, if you see me make a Twitter-style post like PAUL MCCARTNEY IS THE BEST BEATLE DUDE without explication, you've been warned!

no. 21 - the decade in lols - will ferrell

2009-12-22T06:00:00.000-08:00

Decade Highlights:

SNL - 1995-2006 (tv)
Zoolander - 2001 (film)
Old School - 2003 (film)
Anchorman - 2004 (film)
Wedding Crashers - 2005 (film)
Talledega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby - 2006(film)
Step Brothers - 2008 (film)

I almost made this for Adam McKay since he directed Ferrell in Anchorman, Talledega Nights, and Step Brothers, and Ferrell shines in McKay's projects and sketches. But looking over Ferrell's film roll there is too much to pass over outside of that.

I'll start by saying that coming into the decade, I thought Will Ferrel was an unfunny turd. I was also 13, and if my years of experience since then have taught me anything, it's that adolescents have terrible, uninformed opinions and cannot be relied upon for anything worthwhile. Jokes!

So Will Ferrell closed the decade making a turd of a movie (Land of the Lost) which isn't terribly out of character (Bewitched, Kicking and Screaming). But I've chosen a handful of his projects that I think best highlight his abilities as an aggressive man-child or otherwise goofy dudes. Even his middling work is watchable (Blades of Glory, Semi-Pro). And outside of strictly comedic fare, he was pretty good in Stranger Than Fiction. He and Maggie Gigglinghall (I am not going to Google how to spell her name right) made an unlikely pair, for sure, still dug it!

All of this is to say that Will Ferrel made a ton of movies and a lot of them were great because he was in them. This will probably be less true in the 2010's. Cherish these precious moments.

no. 20: the decade in lols - bad santa

2009-12-14T10:05:00.000-08:00

Sorry for the delay, I'll just say I was on Christmas break or something equally inaccurate (i.e. I was lazy).

Anyway, I would be remiss to overlook 2003's Bad Santa which is more important than any other Christmas movie imo (I risk sending my wife into an apoplectic rage for saying this, Jimmy Stewart-devotee that she is).

But no movie better sums up the bullshit showy pageantry of the Christmas season than this one. It is ultimately about redemption and doing the right thing at the end, but not before Billy Bob Thornton captains the U.S.S. Hateful Alcoholic to shore.

God, the performances in this are astonishing. Bernie Mac (RIP) is ruthless, John Ritter (RIP) is is at his dithering and bumbling best, Tony Cox is abusive and cynical. Of course, this is Billy Bob's show, and he's lecherous, violent, and self-loathing. Just a miserable person through and through trying to make a dishonest living.

What makes Bad Santa work is a couple of things. Number one, the comedic storytelling is perfect. Rather than beat us over the head with ham-fisted backstory as to why our flawed hero is the way he is (think: unnecessary flashbacks or careful monologues cataloging his abused past), director Terry Swigoff instead just shows us what a selfish and directionless person he is.

Second, it allows Willie (Thornton) to change in a way that does not betray his character. There is not a "I've seen the light moment" per se, but he does begin to think of others in addition to himself. So he's still a chain-smoking and drinking scallywag, but a more humane one, certainly, by film's end.

It's a dark comedy, to be sure, so I realize it's not for everyone. But if you like guys getting hit in the balls, it has something for you.

no. 19: the decade in lols - zach galifianakis

2009-11-29T05:30:00.000-08:00

Between Two Ferns with Zach Galifianakis from Between Two Ferns

Decade Highlights
Comedy Central Presents - 2001 (tv)
Comedians of Comedy - 2005 (film)
Live at the Purple Onion - 2006 (video)
The Hangover - 2009 (film)

Feel kinda weird putting him here given his resume isn't terribly long and he doesn't carry pictures as a lead and etc. I guess I'm deciding that being prolific isn't reason enough to mention someone I like for this list.

I should start by saying I've loved Zach's stand-up from the first time I saw the Comedy Central special, but I don't know that I would include him on this list were it not for his performance in The Hangover. Other characters had funny bits in it for sure, but I have rarely seen a supporting character absolutely CRUSH a role like he did. A lot of it is shtick/material he borrowed from his own stand-up, but Jesus H. He was perfect. Not a wasted moment in the entire film. He does deadpan humor better than anyone around right now as far as I am concerned.

On top of that, he's done a number of great internet and TV appearances including the Between Two Ferns series linked above. And, as if it needed to be pointed out, was probably my favorite stand-up of the decade. Mitch Hedberg was equally funny on stage, but he never had a chance to go beyond it. I think of Chappelle and Chris Rock and George Lopez as TV and movie guys too much to be thought of as primarily stand-ups.

At this point, he may need to retire from stand-up if it means a mess of people showing up at gigs and clapping and cheering instead of laughing (this happens to a lot of comedians who get famous). But it should be noted that this mountain man-meets-hobo-meets-mentally ill looking Jesus had a hell of a run despite the relatively short credentials.

no. 18: the fallacy of witholding "support" in purchasing decisions

2009-11-23T07:46:00.000-08:00

I want to interrupt briefly my lols-in-review to go into something my wife and I were talking about this weekend. If you are vegan and on the internet, you are no doubt familiar with various discussion groups of other vegans in the way of message boards or group blogs, typically. This can be one of the most infuriating places on earth. No doubt, had Sartre been a vegan, he would've likely needed to revise his most famous line to read "Hell is other vegans."

As you might expect, many vegans are politically on the left and have a general distaste corporations in particular. Can't very well blame them there. But, there is a palpable distrust of business and the profit motive more generally which I believe can be counterproductive to the aims of making veganism and its consumer ancillaries more widespread and commercially viable.

For example, Dean Foods is a company that deals almost exclusively in dairy. That is, of course, until they purchased the Silk brand of soy milk. Now, for most people in North America, this is the most readily available source of dairy alternative. What's more, as a larger company, they have the kind of revenue and capital to take the brand bigger and do national advertising campaigns. This seems to be a resounding net positive. If it happens to be a dairy concern who is mostly hedging their bets and trying to corner the market on people who won't buy their main product, so be it.

Well, that they are a dairy company is objectionable enough for some vegans to boycott Silk altogether (and I may be exaggerating the problem, the percentage of vegans who have grievances and make a stink about it is small, but it is no less irritating). The fact that it is a dairy company is, in their minds, "supporting" the dairy industry to buy Silk. This line of thinking fails to consider the nuances of how a business is run and the importance of bringing products to a mass scale.

As consumers, when we buy a particular product, we are expressing demand for a particular thing. If I go to Target to buy a Wii video game, I am explicitly demanding Target, Nintendo, and the game's publishers to continue to supply video games. If enough people are like me, they will continue to do so recognizing the benefits in the way of profits.

Target also carries a variety of products I would never imagine buying for myself, like Hannah Montana backpacks or Slim Jims. The former I would not buy because I do not identify with that character, aesthetically the backpack would not match my personal style, and it would probably not suit my everyday needs for transport of a laptop or other materials. But Target will not suffer because I choose not to buy this. There is a market for these Hannah Montana backpacks and they will similarly benefit from stocking them. I do not object morally to the existence of Hannah Montana backpacks so I can happily pass by it without objection.

The Slim Jims are another story. I am morally put off by them since it requires the slaughter of cows to produce them. There is yet a market for them nonetheless. Certainly, as an individual consumer, I lack any sort of leverage to convince a large company to change its policies as to what it sells in its stores. So, what are my options? I can continue to purchase goods at Target that I feel are of good value, but am I not also keeping afloat the companies that sell Slim Jims and other ghastly food and clothing items in their stores?

Let's revisit that Wii game I bought. My purchase helped to support Target for stocking the game, Nintendo by buying a game they licensed, and the game's developers who invested a fair amount of money creating the game. If one of the game designers has a cocaine habit, I suppose by extension I am supporting drug trafficking. After all, were it not for me and other consumers of these games, this person would not have nearly the money he would now for his addiction.

That's just a risk you run in a market system. You can't tell people what to do with the money you have unless you're the government, and even then it must be within the bounds of the law of what government can say. Are we outside the law ourselves for "supporting" our cocaine-fiend game developer's habit? I would say certainly not.

I am trying hard not to make this comparison specious, but I hope that it has served a useful illustration. As consumers, our "support" only goes so far to buoy the interests of the merchant and/or the producer of a product or service. If I buy Silk Nog this holiday season, I am saying "Please make more Silk Nog and supply it a my local H-E-B." It is not a sponsorship of other things the company might do as part of their day-to-day operations. What happens with that money afterwards is just part of what happens in a market economy. You cannot hope to contain your financial contributions in a closed loop of vegans-only. Money will eventually exchange hands with someone who will spend that money on something you may not approve of, and occasionally do so outside the law in the black market.

This attitude can be counterproductive when good-intentioned people decide to stop consuming products that have come under the umbrella of a corporate giant. There's not only Silk under Dean Foods, but Tom's of Maine under Colgate Palmolive, and for some years Chipotle under McDonald's. If significant numbers were to pull out of those markets and stop buying products made by large companies, this is signaling to major businesses that vegan or organic products are not worth pursuing and providing since they will not realize any benefit (profit) in doing so. In essence, vegan products would forever be marginalized to specialty stores and online markets that reach a very limited customer base. Thankfully these products are successful enough to stand on their own and have carved out a niche in conventional supermarkets nationwide.

I do want to note that there is a legitimate use of a boycott or selective buying to seek the end of a particular practice. Recently, the default Silk brand no longer was an organic product instead marking itself as "Natural." Silk still sells organic soy milk, but at a premium. If this is something that is important to the consumer, they can choose to buy the organic variety to hopefully tip the company to ramp up organic soy milk production to increase supply. By increasing the demand, Dean might see a potential growth market and that can bring the price down to pre-premium levels, or at least split the difference somewhat. Further, a boycott of Silk products might be useful in a situation where Dean workers report systemic abuse in the workplace. A boycott might be useful to get the company to reform practices. The company will need the return business and the organized consumers should return if the desired benchmarks are met.

Politics is the art of the possible and making the world a more vegan-friendly place will require a more pragmatic approach to ensure that vegan alternatives not only exist but become more widely available to a public that may be unaware of what's out there.

NB: I'm sorry for shooting verbal vomit everywhere, this was much longer than I anticipated it being!

no. 17: this decade in lols - the big bang theory

2009-11-22T08:15:00.000-08:00

The decade begins with the traditional sitcom still king: multiple camera, laugh tracks, the same two or three sets used over and over again. Seinfeld has just ended its run as the most watched show in TV history. Friends and Everybody Loves Raymond were still huge until each of those shows wrapped up.

Something has definitely shifted since then. True, the biggest sitcom on TV now is still traditional (the regrettable Two and a Half Men) but the rest of the TV sitcom landscape is now dominated by a single camera and the laugh track has been removed. As the decade wraps up, Fox, NBC and ABC have abandoned the traditional format entirely. The CW doesn't have what can be reliably called a sitcom. That leaves CBS as the lone old-school network (NB: cable is still a good place to find a laugh track, if you are truly hard-up for them. Check Lifetime or Nickelodeon or Disney Channel...hmm, TV for women and children still need a laugh track, INTERESTING!)

I guess the eggheads won, right? People have complained for decades that audiences were smart enough to know when to laugh and that the tropes of the traditional sitcom were corny and outdated. So the fact that CBS still does it should come as no surprise. It is, after all, the premier old people channel.

So why is the Big Bang Theory here if it is part of some soon-to-be-forgotten history? Well, it's incredibly funny. The performances are outstanding, led by the kinda-Aspie, wholly-brilliant Sheldon played by Jim Parsons. Not one, but THREE Roseanne alum are regulars. Also, almost all the jokes are about SCIENCE. And not just physics (three of the four main dudes are physicists, the other an engineer) but anthropology and psychology factor heavily into the humor. You don't need to necessarily have a background in any of these areas to think it's funny since the jokes are more personality-based than anything, but it helps! If anything, the broadness of CBS-style humor helps to temper the esoteric nature of much of the humor so that my aunt-in-law, my brother, and my NASA-employed cousin both find something to love about it.

The Big Bang Theory along with How I Met Your Mother, Lucky Louie and The George Lopez Show have helped me appreciate the traditional format, regardless if the laughter is a live audience or canned. It truly is about documenting (or simulating, as it were) the live theater. The pacing is a lot less amenable to the editing of single camera shows or film. In some ways, the dialogue is more natural if not for the pauses between howls of laughter. I know, The Office is supposed to be like, lol, real life! But that show sacrifices jokes for process, which is an awful trade-off if you ask me (and how funny that the Jim and Pam getting married storyline became this decade's Ross and Rachel).

Anyway, I come not to bury The Office but to praise The Big Bang Theory which is routinely hilarious and -- in my estimation -- is the torch bearer for the oft-shunned laugh-tracked sitcom. CBS Monday ftw!

UPDATE: Upon further review, Fox has not entirely abandoned the laugh track. The Michael Strahan-led Brothers uses one.

no. 16: the decade in lols - wonder showzen

2009-11-21T15:16:00.000-08:00

As far as TV is concerned, there are some generally agreed upon conventions when it comes to comedy. If children are involved, they just say cute stuff and innocence is preserved. Wonder Showzen basically came onto MTV2, pulled down its pants, and took a smelly shit on that convention.

It's not that others haven't done bizarre humor on TV before (Tim and Eric Awesome Show, Great Job! is wonderful) or tasteless humor (there are a number of instances of Comedy Central going down this road, but mostly in the unfunny, Carlos-Mencia-making-fun-of-developmentally-disabled-people kind of way.) But Wonder Showzen did it in a way that was subversive and puerile, silly and sadistic. It was a backhand to your face, but wearing a velvet glove while doing it.

Wonder Showzen is ostensibly a spoof of Sesame Street in content and structure: cute little furry puppets introduce segments with kid interviews and short, educational videos. Only the kids are drug-addled, sullen and despaired, or unexpectedly wise beyond their years ("That's the dark nature of capitalism.") Whatever the part they are playing, it's almost always inappropriate.

Maybe the format was not one to hold anything beyond a cult audience, but Wonder Showzen was two short seasons of perverse, irreverent brilliance. How it managed to air is a miracle unto itself.

no. 15: the decade in lols - david wain

2009-11-21T12:12:00.000-08:00

Decade Highlights
Wet Hot American Summer - 2001 (film)
Stella - 2005 (tv)
Wainy Days - 2007-9 (web)
Role Models - 2008

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

A disturbing percentage of my favorite comedies have relied on the sort of man-child characters (oh, he just can't grow up!) that are caught in some perpetual adolescence. Wain takes this a step farther backward. For his television and online work, characters possess a kind of juvenile brattishness, such as the three protagonists from Stella who are three men in black suits who live together and do not have jobs and act like 30-year-old schoolyard chums.

This kind of exaggeration can at once be a variation of a common comedic trope as well as a commentary on it. Like the overgrown child characters, there's also the capricious, intense, and inexplicable romance that appears again and again. In the first episode of Stella, Wain is overcome with lust with someone showing them homes, makes out with her, pulls away defiantly and tells her to shut up. The relationship is already over.

Or in WHAM, the protagonist Coop (Showalter) spends the majority of the film pining for Katie (Marguerite Moreau) who is in with Andy (Paul Rudd) who, just because he can, is cheating on her with Lindsay (Elizabeth Banks). After Showalter makes a grand gesture to try to win her over, he succeeds only for her to change her mind the next day and decide to stick with her d-bag boyfriend because he's hot.

As for Wainy Days, the whole premise of the series of David Wain trying to find love in New York City and succeeding and failing in the same instant.

Role Models is somewhat of an exception in this, but no less funny for it. As a comedy, the jokes are wonderfully executed, and the performers are at their peaks. Rudd at his self-loathingest, Seann William Scott as his fun-loving if callous bud, Jane Lynch continues to have an absolutely perfect record of making everything she's in better for it. This is probably a bit more mainstream focused, but it certainly doesn't suffer for it. It's one of the most rewatchably funny movies from the decade.

The art of being silly is illustrious and, in no small measure, I believe David Wain and friends have contributed to the art form and taken it to a special place full of immaturity and retarded sexuality. Now that's he's 40, he may decide that he's too old for that kind of shit, so we must cherish these moments like little puppies with skeletons made of blown sugar.

no. 14: decade wrap-ups

2009-11-21T11:16:00.000-08:00

I think I'm game to do a series of posts on two of my biggest passions: music and laughing (specifically, creative endeavors with the intention of making me laugh). I think it would be odd to do a decade wrap-up of film and television considering I don't really do drama (or have a very thorough knowledge or sophisticated taste for it), so better just to review comedy, especially since it's a medium that has people bouncing between media.

Rather than do a list and write blurbs, I want to highlight mostly figures or specific works I feel have made the 2000's funny as balls or banging with great regularity rather than the implied objectivity and comprehensiveness of making a typical best-of list.

This series is meant to be in no order than whatever I think of it at the time. Obviously specific works probably won't get as much word count just because some figures have had more projects worth talking about, but you get the idea. Please comment if you have specific stories about any of the following works!

no. 13: just a lil bit of personal news

2009-11-20T12:55:00.000-08:00

Old news at this point, but shawty, that's what's UP:

I just did the drawing for our giveaway of 1,000 Vegan Recipes, by Robin
Robertson. Here are the five lucky winners:

Kristin L. of San Francisco,
California
Matthew C. of San Antonio, Texas
Jim W. of Salem, Arkansas
Tracy H. of Plainfield Illinois
David C. of Riverside, California

Just in case there was any doubt about me being a winner (hint: I am! I am a winner.)

no. 12: losing my damn mind watching the spurs play tbh

2009-11-20T08:12:00.000-08:00

Eurgh, this is rough. I spent all summer getting jacked about the new-look Spurs thinking they were talented enough to blow down doors right out the gate. Oops. The first 10 games are done and the Spurs are sitting at 4-6 for the year. I certainly think this is not indicative of things to come for the year over, but it's not promising to say the least.

The slow start is not without explanation: Tim, Tony, and Manu have all been hurt and have missed multiple games; over half the roster is brand new and players are struggling to find their respective roles and learn a new system; all 6 of their losses have come to playoff teams (CHI, DAL, POR, Utah twice) or soon-to-be playoff teams (OKC). It makes sense, but it is no less disappointing to see a team with so much talent falter so badly. It's the worst start to a Spurs season since Tim Duncan has been playing here.

The good news (for now): in the next 5 games, the Spurs are at home for 4 (they are winless on the road thus far) and 3 of those home games are against non-playoff teams (GS, MIL, WAS). They are in a good position to get some chemistry and confidence built over this stretch to close out November. They're a deep enough squad to not need the services of all of the Big Three (Richard Jefferson and the development of George Hill makes this a lot easier).

That said, there is a very big concern about how healthy the Spurs can be over the course of an 82-game season. Tony I'm not worried too much about since he is going to recover more quickly and more permanently because he's younger and has a less storied injury history. But Tim and Manu are both on the wrong side of 30 and are worse for the wear.

Tim has shown flashes of his typical defensive prowess, but his knees are severely limiting his range of motion and vertical jump. He is not as able a shot blocker as he once was, but thankfully he is still enormous and has great footwork to position himself to challenge in the interior. Offensively, the limitations on his range of motion puts a damper on his quickness to get around more athletic bigs. Expect him to average a career-low in points due to decreased minutes and a greater array of offensive options on the team.

Manu is always a wild card. Every year, we say "If only Manu was healthy." I've had mixed feelings about his erratic play, but there is no question the overall positive impact he has on the team. Part of that is his unorthodox methods of lane penetration (he will always go left first, but sometimes he'll do a step then cut the other direction and weave between defenders in a way that's uncanny). He is a good, not great spot-up shooter from 3, which makes him more dangerous because defenders now have to choose between giving him space and risking a 3 or playing up on him and having him blow by to get a lay-up.

But because of his chronic injuries, his once-orthodox coordination is now awkward, clumsy, and turnover-prone. This makes him more inclined to take a step back behind the arc and start jacking. When he's hot, it's basically game over, Spurs win. But he's not consistent enough game in and game out to count on that which is why his penetration is a much more important skill to lose. That assertiveness to the basket from both Manu and Tony is what creates opportunities for the Spurs' better spot shooters like Finley, Bonner, and Mason. When these players are looking for their own shots, their feet aren't set, they're off-balance, and the Spurs are losing long rebounds to fast, athletic teams who can get down the court quickly and punish a defense not getting back in time.

I understand Pop is more interested in keeping everyone healthy in time for the playoffs. After all, what good is home court advantage if you lose one or two of your main guys in the process? (Case in point: we had home-court advantage in last year's 4-1 loss to Dallas minus Manu and about half of Duncan). But considering how well the Spurs play at home, it would behoove them to try a little bit harder in the regular season so they don't have to spend most of the playoffs fighting uphill battles on the road to start each series.

For those who went "tl;dr" -- the Spurs are playing badly right now, and they'll get better eventually, but I'm worried about injuries making them suck long-term. THE END.

no. 11: sarah palin wants to me make me a salad and lecture me

2009-11-19T14:50:00.000-08:00

Um:

"If any vegans came over for dinner, I could whip them up a salad, then explain
my philosophy on being a carnivore," she wrote. "If God had not intended for us
to eat animals, how come He made them out of meat?”

Awesome! You mean I can eat a shitty bowl of mixed greens while I listen to America's foremost spokesperson for deliberate obtuseness harangue me about my ethical choices? I am wetting myself in anticipation of the day!

Also, if God did not intend for us to have sex with lady goats, why did He make them with vaginas, hmm??? Check and mate, Governor Palin.

no. 10: bring a friend

2009-11-12T11:16:00.000-08:00

che green at the humane research council is onto something:

Even if you’re not comfortable being an advocate for vegetarianism or veganism,
at least consider encouraging those in your social circle to reduce their meat
consumption – for their personal health, for the animals, and for the
environment. With good reason, your friends, family members, and colleagues will
trust you more than they will ever trust someone trying to hand them a leaflet
on the street.

i can see the temptation of going on a street corner and handing out literature, but to point out one example, the most successful churches are the ones that grow by word-of-mouth and referral. i've never been able to "convert" a stranger to going veg (none to my knowledge, anyway). i was able, however, to convince my mom and a couple of friends. some of them have gone off the wagon since then, but they are still sympathetic and may be the kind of on-again, off-again vegetarian that jonathan safran foer was prior to his research for eating animals (which i hope leads to a more permanent change for them in the future).

NB - this is not to say leafleting strangers is not a valid use of one's resources in advocacy, but it's important to note how effective one's example within an immediate network of friends and family can be in being living proof of the efficacy of making such a change.

no. 9: some early thoughts on "eating animals"

2009-11-12T08:58:00.000-08:00

i had a chance this weekend to whiz through jonathan safran foer's eating animals. it was a terrific read, not because the information shared was all that revelatory but because never has the story been so lucidly and artfully told.

there was some points that really struck me. one was the topic of sentimentality, namely the critique that people who care about animal issues and make a point to change their behaviors are basically mushy-headed. the criticism goes that, sure, it's nice to be nice to animals, but it's emotional to a fault to act like such a change is necessary to be ethically okay with them. this is supposed to be the sober, clear-eyed omnivore basically (i would throw michael pollan in this mix). safran foer does a great job of answering this: you take two people, and both would like to eat a hamburger. one does so because she enjoys the flavor, the other does not because she chooses to act in line with her values. why do we consider the latter the sentimentalist when it is the former acting on some emotional pull for the flavor of the hamburger and not rationally considering her own values of treating animals well?

before i digress any further, the primary source of power of this book lies not in a rational discourse of sorts. that's what peter singer excels at. but safran foer weaves meticulous research into a greater narrative, some of it autobiographical, some of it interview, and provides a sort of context for his decision to eschew meat altogether (he doesn't go so far as to eschew dairy and eggs, but it seems to be the logical endpoint given his criticisms).

if i were to say this book is about any one thing, it's about factory farming. again, the abuses of industrial animal agriculture have been exposed for some time, if not to a very large audience. but likely the most effective if indirect message of the book is that people need to act according to their values and that continuing to consume animals (since 99% of them are bred in these inhumane conditions) is in direct contradiction of our values.

this is something that i've struggled to articulate in the past. i do not believe veganism and the underlying motives behind it are radical. unusual, yes, if only because of its scarcity. but i don't think it requires a radical reconfiguration of humanity's relation to other animals. we already care deeply for animals.

what we have right now, though, is a sort of animal kingdom caste system borne of convenience and history that is wholly incomprehensible from a moral standpoint. the privileged class in the west are our pets. they are cared for in a way that is short of child rearing. next, there are wild animals, and there is something of a split of the "urban" wild (i.e. squirrels, pigeons) and the legitimately wild. endangered species are to be protected, but deer are hunted. squirrels become road kill, but this is lamented. farm animals are at the bottom. sure, there have been a few voter initiatives a la prop 2 in california that seek to address the worst of the abuses like gestation crates, cages that prevent chickens from being able to do basically anything, etc. but as a whole, we have failed to hold ourselves accountable for these animals' well-being. by continuing to eat meat, dairy, and eggs at the rate we do, there is no means by which animal suffering can be reduced.

the book has very clearly laid this out. i think there is a reluctance on both the part of consumers and producers to take full moral responsibility: the consumer would like to blame the agribusiness's excess and agribusiness would like to blame the consumers for demanding animals as food on such a large scale that there is no way for them to raise the animals without and immense amount of suffering involved. i'm actually more sympathetic to the ag side on this point at least. if you can find a way to raise enough animals to feed consumer demand for cheap animal food without resorting to some really terrible things, you won't stay in business.

and that's the fundamental objection to using animals in an industrial setting. there is no way to safeguard their well-being and remain profitable while using their labor and bodies. to underscore this point, safran foer discusses the purveyors of "humane meat." it is much closer to the bucolic ideal of the farm that many imagine farms to be. but there is still branding, there is still castration without anesthetic, and of course there is still slaughter. you can search far and wide for a farm to match what you think animals are entitled to, and there will doubtless be a problem so long as they are treated as commodities and not living creatures whose individual lives matter.

no. 8: spurs (so far)

2009-11-10T08:30:00.000-08:00

spurs looked much better last night despite not having tony or tim. george hill is a legit baller, mcdyess finally started to look comfortable in the spurs system, and manuuuuuu is back! i usually hate it when he gets an itchy trigger finger for threes because he's not as accurate a shooter from that distance, but when he's in rhythm, COT DAMN he kills teams. even matt bonner looked like someone who has played basketball for many years.

that said, this is cautious optimism. the spurs are 3-0 at home against middling competition and 0-3 on the road, all against playoff teams. i think they just need time to kind of learn things. jefferson had a rough first couple, but now he's in it for real, just mad cuts to the rim with some power that most of our guys haven't had for some time.

rotation still needs some work. i'm hoping finley doesn't start another game this season and comes in as a spot shooter a la steve kerr circa '03. i'm starting to warm to bonner some even though i feel he is a liability defensively against real big men. feel like he and ginobili and blair and george hill should just be their energy unit off the bench. i kind of like bogans as a starter, he's trying to fill in the big big defensive shoes of bruce bowen. if he can hit the three with regularity he'll be vital. tony, bogans, rj, duncan and mcdyess feels like the most natural starting 5 right now.

i am going to wait to be excited until we actually win some road games, though, shit is ridiculous!

no. 7: an open letter with tips for the non-veg restaurateur

2009-11-09T10:07:00.000-08:00

dear mr./mrs. san antonio restaurateur:

my name is m chesnut and i am a fan of eating. i have been for years. for about 16 of those years i ate pretty much whatever was put in front of me with gusto. i was such a big fan of food, i decided to carry it around with me everywhere i went! at the height of my fandom, i was probably carrying around about 260 pounds of it with me. short of getting a hot pocket logo tattooed on my chest, this was the best way to let people how much i liked to eat.

well, you know how kids are at that age, especially young men. we're just animals at that age, and we start to notice the other animals. over time, the other animals became more important to me than eating whatever was put in front of me. before you know it, by 17 i was not eating things that came from animals.

listen, still a big fan, just a little bit around the gut to let people know i haven't sold out to the man or something like that. but i feel compelled to let you know that going out to eat at a lot of your cribs is just not as awesome as it used to be and rather than be passive-aggressive and stop talking to you, i thought i would lay it out for you bulletin-point style on what you can do to make going out to eat more awesome. i know you're not going to stop serving animals as food, but these few tips on what you can change and still be you is, i feel, a fair compromise. buon appetito!

1 salads are not entrees aka BE CREATIVE
when i open up a menu, i am invariably scanning and immediately eliminating anything that has animal ingredients. if i have eliminated everything but a house salad, it's time to take your sock of quarters home from the arcade because it's game ovah.

allow me to elaborate: let's say you are travelling abroad for a business meeting in a culture that eats cats and dogs. let's say you have a pooch and kitty back home and can't bear the thought of slitting baxter's or mittens' throats, letting them bleed out, skinning them, and roasting them up on a spit for dinner. and finally, let's say your host brings you to pup-fil-a for a sampling of local fare. well, shit! you look at the menu and nothing looks remotely appetizing. you are really hungry and want to try something in a new place, but you won't eat the dog (hey, some of you might, but i will safely assume some of you won't.) since the main dishes all revolve around something you've categorically rejected, what's left? maybe a salad? a hush puppies appetizer? pretty lame, to say the least.

this is more or less what i feel going to most restaurants that i'm invited to. i must make this invitation distinction. restaurants i deliberately seek out have made an effort to advertise their veg-credentials and are rewarded thusly. if i know your menu looks like ahead of time and it reads like dog-fil-a to me, there is no reason for me to come on my own. further, it will be a solitary experience as i will likely not be back.

to remedy this, you might take a couple of approaches to kill more than one bird with one stone (metaphorically, of course) since failing to cater to vegans is, on its own, probably not going to kill your bottom line -- at least not yet! for instance, you may already have a portion of your menu for healthier eating. vegan options can very easily find their ways here as vegan diets are very heart healthy being natrually low in saturated fats (unless you chug a gallon of coconut milk) and have no dietary cholesterol. but maybe you think that trying to make everything healthy is for women and californians and you pride yourself on your gastronomic maximalism. fine, i enjoy an occasional burger, fries and sundae-induced food coma as the next guy. but these unhealthy items can be made healthier with vegan alternatives (veggie burger, fries in vegetable oil, soy ice cream) and thus lessen the impact an otherwise "bad" food choice might have.

but what of the high-end, classy joints? this is the destination for the special occasions in life that call for a higher price tag. certainly i should expect roughly to get what i pay for -- it does not even need to be a 1:1 correlation, but a better dining experience at the very least. but sadly, no! many of the higher-scale restaurants i have frequented in our fair city have been clueless as to what on their menu (if anything) was vegan, and equally clueless of finding a way to make it even comparatively interesting.

wait, you say. you mean pasta with vegetables and olive oil or a mushroom risotto isn't worth $20 a plate? of course not, you bandits! my word, we must have "sucker" written on our faces when we walk in, or at least "great profit margin." meanwhile the animal haters (too mean?) can order dishes with exotic ingredients like foie gras, squid ink, or duck tears. i mean, that's something you pay high dollar for! you're supposed to be the best chefs the city has to offer and the best you can come up with are things i can make at home, and sometimes just as well? oops, it looks like, according to my research, that is a terrible reason to frequent a restaurant. keep trying!

(p.s. - still scratching your head for ideas, mssr. fancy pants? start here and go buck wild from there.)

2 share information authoritatively
touching on something i mentioned earlier, everyone charged with knowledge of your menu should know the contents of your dishes. so, everyone from the wait staff from the kitchen should know if an item is vegan or not. if i ask a server what's vegan on the menu and they ask me what "vegan" is, i make this face :-/. that's strike one, for the baseball fans.

further, if you do know this information, share it! if nothing on your regular menu has what i'm looking for, it's acceptable if your kitchen is able to make something not on the menu to meet that criteria. better if an item is vegan but ambiguously so and i have to ask the server what ingredients are in said item, directly or not (tip: clean your pots!). but it is kind of a pain, to be honest, for both of us. i don't like being "that guy" who asks you a billion questions, and i HATE having special accommodations made for me. really. and you probably don't like being the guy who has to answer each of those billion questions and you probably don't like having some snot tell his kitchen how to make food (but isn't that what i'm doing right now, you might ask. remember, these are just recommendations! i mean, i don't have to eat at your restaurant, verdad?)

to avoid that whole mess, you can label it on the menu. some establishments have used one symbol for vegetarian and one for vegan. it is pretty harmless. you avoid all kinds of time-consuming discussion and you foster trust with the veg community since you have taken time to let us know ahead of time what we're looking for. this means repeat business, i promise!

3 don't be a douchebag (or alternately, have patience with us!)
restaurants are busy. we understand this. we understand people make mistakes and that occasionally someone will accidentally throw cheese on something where it doesn't belong or a stray piece of beef will get into the bowl. we don't expect 100% perfection if you do serve these items in your kitchen. but we are very sensitive to them and i would venture that we are unlike most other groups of customers in that no amount of an undesired ingredient is acceptable.

first, you can minimize these mistakes by separating parts of the kitchen so that the "vegetarian/vegan" section runs little to no risk of crossing paths with animal ingredients. maybe far-fetched, but something to consider! barring that, this bulletin point comes down to customer service.

if, for instance, a plate is ordered and cheese is erroneously melted prominently on the item ordered, please do not simply remove the offending item in question but keep the same plate and sides. just start over, i guarantee you the cost of frying up $.50 more worth of potatoes is not worth your soul's eternal damnation in vegan hell (or at the very least, eternal limbo in vegan purgatory.)

also, you may consult #2 on this one again, but don't be mad at me if you mess up on your own menu. i promise you, my reading comprehension skills are pretty fine. if your menu describes the dish (as opposed to merely listing) and it does not specify that cheese comes with it, i am just going to assume that this is something extra. this is usually a safe assumption, but i've been wrong a couple of times. in these instances, i make it known that the menu is vague on this point. most servers understand, but i hear the occasional chef complain or wait staff try to push back for my ignorance. confrontation turns my :-/ into :-( or sometimes >:-( and that's when i start muttering swears under my breath like a crotchety old man who hates life. suffice to say, not a good recipe for repeat business!

if you follow guideline #2, this shouldn't be a problem, but if you're being selective, at least do #3.

number 3 does not happen often which is why it is listed last, so don't fret, i don't expect everyone i meet to be rubbing my feet and telling me i'm pretty once i say i'm vegan.

please know that i write this letter because i love and care about food. i just happen to love and care about animals more, so i make that choice first. that doesn't mean we can't be friends.

love,
m

p.s. - if you would like me to consult you on your businesses outreach to vegan and vegetarian customers, i am knowledgeable, hungry, and i will do it for free. in other words, will work 4 food.

photo source: milleniumrestaurant.com

no. 6: when animal issues reach meanstream audiences

2009-11-05T11:18:00.000-08:00

yesterday, author jonathan safran foer ("eating animals") appeared on ellen's show to talk a little bit about his book. i still need to read it, it sounds fantastic. it's apparently a hybrid of memoir and investigative piece, odd coming from a fiction writer.

i'm interested to see what kind of impact this book has if it potentially has as wide an influence as say michael pollan's "omnivore's dilemma." pollan's prescriptions are usually pretty far-fetched in terms of reorienting the way agriculture operates as an industry, but he did pretty much popularize a whole sub-genre of food and agriculture non-fiction.

i have high hopes for what "eating animals" might be able to do for vegetarianism and veganism, especially if foer is able to reach an audience that has perhaps not been exposed to this body of information before.

this is something i definitely take for granted. most of the people in my life have known why I'm vegan and aware if only by my word and not video evidence and other investigations of the inherent cruelty of animal agriculture. but going on shows like ellen and martha stewart later this month, he has an opportunity to talk to people (mostly women, which is interesting!) who may not have a vegetarian or vegan family member or friend who has at some point or another talked their ear off about it.

i have some concerns, of course. when animal issues do reach mainstream audiences, there is considerable defensiveness and backlash. no doubt there will be a pr war which seeks to pit effete, brooklynites like foer against real americans in the heartland raising chickens the old-fashioned way. you can see where this might be a problem if you're trying to advocate for animal right/welfare: the average audience will likely seek the information that will confirm previously held notions and/or will trust a source who actually participates in agriculture over some egghead from new york.

the next challenge for animal advocates is to have a counterpunch. for the most part, animal advocacy has been an ignorable issue on the greater "issue landscape." now, the mainstream success of published animal issues/cookbooks and the increased concern of the contribution of animal agriculture to the degradation of the environment mean our arguments are going to looked at with more scrutiny and challenged with more vigor and vitriol than we have been accustomed to before by industry through pr firms and by the general public.

in response, we need to streamline our arguments. too often, i feel a certain kind of veganvangelist approach is to talk up veganism as a panacea for all things health and environmental. the claims can range from dubious to overplayed: it's supposed to make you immune from all sorts of sundry cancers and disease, solve world hunger, eliminate global warming, make your skin clearer, hair shinier. hell, it'll even make your genital secretions taste better. and while it can help in all these areas to varying degrees, it's important to sell the points about being a vegan that hold up best to heightened scrutiny and are at this point undeniable. yes, you will reduce carbon emissions and runoff into water supplies. yes, you will demand fewer water and land resources. and yes, you will spare the lives and well-being of hundreds of animals over the course of your life. isn't that compelling enough?

no. 5: peta v. manu, we all lose ;_;

2009-11-03T12:59:00.000-08:00

the last spurs game had some jackhole bring a bat into the at&t center. manu ginobili swats it out of the air and it tumbles down. presumably, it dies. people on the internet go nuts, basically treating the spectacle as some "lol halloween" story, calling manu "batman" etc. peta issues a press release (anyone wanna guess what it says?)

manu's now saying the bat was just stunned, but i've cringed at every aspect of this story nonetheless. you don't need to be delivering knockout blows to bats, so points off there. i guess there are worse ways to handle the situation, but it wasn't taking into account the bat's well being certainly. i don't think manu was being malicious, just careless. i cringe more at the general praise lauded for his ability to swat the bat out of the air. most of the tv press is treating this as a kind of novelty story instead of a "wtf who brought a bat into a large public space and omg why did he just punch that bat" story.

it should come as little surprise i am sympathetic to peta's complaint, but once again my issue with them is rarely the sentiment. it just seems that ostensibly the largest "animal rights" group should have bigger fish to fry (no pun intended) than attaching their name to the latest high-profile animal issue in the news.

frankly, i find their entire approach to media relations to be horrifically immature and petty. the primary goal is simply to get publicity, operating under the notion that any publicity is better than none at all. this is fine if your ultimate objective is to perpetuate your own organization. but if you are trying to win a hearts and minds campaign, focusing on comparatively trivial matters like this can trivialize your message, too.

this isn't to say that this is unimportant matter altogether, but the "peta press release" tactic has become predictable and thus ineffectual. combine this with their endless celebrity endorsement-seeking and their cynical use of female nudity to "make a statement" (seriously, how much of this sounds like the behavior of rebellious pissed-off teenagers?) and suffice to say i think they could handle things better. i just wish adults were running the show, or at least savvier pissed-off teenagers!

i'm not losing any sleep over this, but this might be my last chance to talk about the spurs and animal issues in the same post.

no. 4: the catch-22 of recruiting (and keeping!) 'STEM' teachers

2009-11-02T19:39:00.000-08:00

i'm going to use this space to elucidate on something my day job has allowed me to see firsthand, namely the challenge of staffing science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (collectively known as STEM) teachers.

from the dallas morning news earlier this year:

•The most acute teacher shortages in the state are in secondary math and science. Since 2004, those shortages have increased dramatically, especially in high school science where the shortage has jumped by over 80 percent.

it is exceedingly difficult to find people with upper level mathematics and science skills who want to and can teach, let alone those with math and science professional and academic backgrounds. there are few reasons for this shortage:

1 there is a shortage of math and science graduates period
there is something of a vicious cycle at work here. you have an american/texan school system that has underqualified and/or not as talented teachers in math and science and a more robust and more talented teaching pool in the humanities. by the time many bright students get to college, what skills do you think they have best cultivated? STEM fields become much less attractive at this point, and rather than struggle with something that doesn't have the 'fun' of humanities, most students will opt towards the paths of least resistance. for many, the math and science muscles will atrophy by the time they've graduated.

2 there is much stiffer competition from other industries if you have math and science skills
this scant pool of STEMmers makes their labor more valuable in the open market where qualitative skills are more sought after than their peers in the humanities. from the article linked above, "teachers made, on average, between $23,000 and $40,000 less than individuals in nonteaching careers in math and science." for most, the decision to maximize one's earning potential is simple when facing such a differential in pay. compare with history or english majors. since teacher salary is by and large uniform across subjects* and grades taught, an average salary of $47,000 for those with humanities is a pretty comfortable living compared with what the rest of the labor market has to offer. (*NB: most districts do offer stipends for high-need areas like math and science, but the difference is often too meager to make any substantial impact in the market at large, usually $1000-2000 per annum.)

3 there are too many barriers to entry for the teaching field period
texas has somewhat taken the lead on this issue and has the least restrictive environment for potential teacher candidates in the country, so this will be more applicable to other parts of the country. every state has some form of credentialing or certification required to be eligible to teach. there are also federal rules under the NCLB (no child left behind act) that require teachers to have some content mastery to be eligible to teach. the latter is probably a necessary barrier to prevent teachers from being in content areas for which they are not prepared. but the former is where it gets tricky. if one should decide not to major in education, it is a years-long, costly process to get eligible for hire. even many alternative programs are usually trimmed down state or university-run programs that fail to cut much of the fat. this more drawn out process does great for elementary education. indeed, there is rarely a shortage anywhere for elementary teachers since this is where the majority of the education majors focus their energy. the time and dollar costs are built into their undergraduate education, so this proves to be less of a burden than for the career changer.

suffice to say, there is no easy answer to these problems. the worst for me is the chicken-egg conundrum. how do you get students interested in becoming math and science teachers if we don't have a robust crop of talented math and science teachers for them to emulate? how can we have a level playing field when rural and urban schools -- the most difficult ones to staff -- continue to place underqualified and unqualified teachers in our most critically in-need field? here are a few ideas worth considering:

1 pay them what they're worth
there is much to be said in favor of across the board pay raises for educators, but we may be reaching a point where a more targeted raise may be in order. i may make some enemies saying this, but perhaps it's time we get serious about pay raises for math and science teachers. if teaching is to be a truly competitive field, districts need to be paying much closer to an average of $60,000/year for full-time teachers. this might mean pulling back on salary for elementary teachers (something this cataclysmic might lead to the creation of actual teacher's unions in texas, oops!)

2 innovate: change what being a "teacher" means
who says math and science teacher need this to be their day job? school districts might consider recruiting talented lecturers in the private sector or in academia to act as unit teachers perhaps with the assistance of a TA to handle the more administrative/discipline duties. they can work on a contract or furlough from their full-time employer and can be cycled throughout the year, allowing them to hold onto their big bucks jobs but have the benefit of their expertise and creativity in the classroom, if even on a part-time or temporary basis.

3 ease requirements for teaching credentialing
again, this isn't as pronounced a problem in texas, but there are a number of folks who possess the math and science skills taught at the upper levels of high school who just need the pedagogical skills to successfully implement lessons in the classroom. allowing anyone to demonstrate their content knowledge will create a more robust applicant pool.

4 innovate: change where "teaching" takes place
the role of technology needs to be expanded. small, rural districts can take advantage of their best teaching staff with video conferencing. suddenly, the best and most effective teachers can teach beyond however many desks can fit in their rooms, with a TA or even a novice teacher playing a co-teaching role live in the classroom.

as with any policy proposals i devise here, i suffer no illusions that these are panaceas, but this is a legit shortage and one that will not be easy to erase in any short time. i fear that acceptance of the status quo will only exacerbate the problem in years to come as the baby boomer generation of teachers begins to retire. state lawmakers and local school boards will need to get creative if they are serious in addressing this shortfall.

no. 3: let's hold hands and talk about hoops :D

2009-11-02T08:36:00.000-08:00

it's november which means the blight on america's sports landscape that is baseball is almost over and the national basketball association is back in full effect.

as the name of this blog might indicate, my favorite squadron is the one residing in my fair city and they are legit contendahs this year. we are only three games into the year so i don't feel late doing this:

THINGS I AM JACKED ABOUT FOR THE SPURS SEASON

1 dejuan blair
for my non-bball heads, dejuan blair was one of the top collegiate players last year for pittsburgh. teams were reluctant to select him because he has NO ANTERIOR CRUCIATE LIGAMENTS in either of his knees. so he fell to the spurs in the 2nd round, who then said "yoink" and oops, turns out he's okay to ball right now. and he's a really excellent rebounder, lots of hustle, kind of undersized for a power forward (he is generously listed as 6'7"). basically, he is destined to be a fan favorite. watching the first couple of games, he definintely needs some work on defense. he was pretty routinely getting burned by bigger opposition, but i think it's just a matter of learning how to use his low center of gravity and ridiculous armspan to alter shots against these bigger, badder dudes. also, i am at the age now where all rookies in all sports leagues are younger than me so dejuan blair is like a giant baby in my eyes (like if he called me to say what's up, i could impart LIFE LESSONS to him.)

2 there are like 50 great players on the team
more like 10, but that is a deep rotation! close games and playoffs i imagine they will go to a smaller lineup, but the possibilities are endless for dudes who can jack treys, slashers, down low bangers. insert classic "if we can stay healthy" caveat here...

3 popovich shaved his beard...
...which means there are going to be six more weeks of winter, or something.

4 being one of 5 times in legit contention for the nba title
coming into the season, i have lakers, spurs, magic, celtics and cavs in that order as teams that will compete in the summer for the title. cavs added shaq which was totally sideways to me, but they added some depth with anthony parker and jamario moon. it's too bad mo williams would be a 4th option on any of the other title contender teams instead of being a 2nd on the cavs. it's a good thing lebron is so good. celtics and magic are kind of a toss-up for me, but i'm going to put my money on their youth and dwight howard being howard huge (lol parade magazine joke, how did you get in here?) lakers are more talented that the spurs, but they do have artest who i imagine will be worse than ariza if not this year than very soon.

with every pinch of hope comes a dash of pessimism, so:

THINGS I AM DEF NOT JACKED ABOUT FOR THE SPURS SEASON

1 tim duncan is 74 years old
also manu thinks he's 12 but his bones are made of the same plastic used in cheap sunglasses you win in crane games. in other words, i dread the day when i read on mysa.com how manu tried traipsing through 4 defenders instead of a safe pass around the arc only to find his foot broke off in the process, or timmy believed he could fly in a game against the grizzlies and is now wheelchair bound.

2 michael finley is still starting
and he's about 113 years old. he's still got a great shooting touch sometimes, but he cannot keep up defensively due to his century-old legs.

3 matt bonner is also still starting
bitch, please! see above, only replace "century-old legs" with "crippling whiteness."

4 tony parker is the size of a small child and has sustained enough head trauma to lead to dementia at a young age
i just hope he remembers which way he's supposed to run every time he gets knocked down. poor little guy needs to be wearing a helmet out there (yes, i do realize he is actually taller than i am, but the NBA is a land where your life expectancy is maybe 5-6 years and dudes under 6' are practically dwarfs).

all in all, my hope for a fifth spurs title is tempered by the players' mortality (ugh!) but i am no less excited. let's shake hands and may the team with the best-paid refs win.

no. 2: on community and commerce

2009-10-30T21:45:00.000-07:00

my wife and i spend an inordinate amount of time and money at green san antonio, to the extent that i would be kind of embarrassed and not surprised to find some months our expenditures there exceed those of our groceries. it does not help matters that they basically just doubled the size of their menu. i think i am going to put on my traditional 10 extra fall pounds early (i do not exactly have a large margin of error with weight either, oops!)

at any rate, they've been open for nearly three years and we've been frequent patrons on a fairly routine basis since then. from its inception, it has been very important for me that they succeed.

this has me thinking about the role of community in helping to nurture niche markets, particularly ones that can be classified as altruistic entrepreneurship. one of the appeals of mass market products and services is its predictability. i know that more or less the bean burrito i buy at a taco bell in san antonio will be the same as one i buy in dallas or washington d.c. or peoria. and because these mass marketed restaurants are able to price more competitively with their economies of scale, they can push out independently-owned business pretty easily if these players don't perform.

i won't try to argue in good faith that independent businesses are per se preferable to mass marketed ones in the context of a community. there are intangible benefits, to be sure, even ones that can lead to tangible benefits. local color can help better create an identity for a neighborhood or community, so in addition to making people feel super cool unique, they can also attract greater traffic to the area than if a kfc/starbucks/wal-mart/kohl's opens up instead. but the independent must provide something to its market/community that the big box retailer or chain restaurant doesn't, and they must do so profitably lest the invisible hand gives them a thunderous bitchslap out of existence.

bringing us back to green san antonio. as a vegan of nearly 6 years and vegetarian over 7, the desire to have a business like green san antonio cater to me much in the way ihop caters to the morbidly obese and drunk is very enticing. this is how they've managed to grow. they have done something that no other restaurant does in san antonio in appealing to a number of underserved niches (in addition to being the only vegetarian restaurant in san antonio, they are the only kosher one, too) and have cultivated a community of shoppers, so to speak.

this is where the distinction between community and market differ, i believe. marketplace players are, by and large, interchangeable. to use grocery stores as one example, albertson's, kroger, and handy andy are a number of grocery chains that had to pack up and leave due to their inability to compete with regional giant h-e-b. since then, wal-mart and super target have come in with their greater diversity of products to help them compete on the grocery side. no one sheds a tear when these businesses lose. customers in a market care about the delivery of a certain basket of goods and each of these players do more or less the same thing.

let's use restaurants as a more direct comparison. mass marketed chains may close franchises that fail to perform and the community doesn't lose much (first one that came to mind was a burger king in leon valley on bandera that has since become a chinese restaurant). indeed, an entire chain might go under and it would appear to be a pretty unusual sight to see massive outpouring of community support for its return a la olmos pharmacy.

because of the interchangeability of players in a market, there is no loss to a community. communities lose something, though, if that which defines them as a community is not being fed (here the meaning is literal but it can also be interpreted figuratively). to be more specific, the vegetarian and kosher community loses something if there are not businesses catering to them exclusively. it's very nice that a number of restaurants offer vegan dishes, and it is even nicer when the staff knows what they are, better still when the chef and prep staff are cognizant of vegans and their wishes. but exclusively vegetarian (and vegan) restaurants are optimal for the customer (i.e. me) because you run little to no risk of receiving a little something more than you ordered (i'm talking the errant cheese in a cheeseless pizza, the chicken stock in the soup, etc.)

i'm not suggesting that local government a priori needs to play any role in preserving or cultivating these kinds of community or niche oriented businesses. some cities may choose to zone specifically for greater local color (think parts of austin). but if this is what the community desires, they need to express their demand with their dollars so that similarly-minded businesses have a successful model to emulate in the future. my hope is that other entrepreneurs, altruistic or otherwise, will seek to capitalize on a growing market that has blossomed from a community of conscious eaters.

no. 1: welcome

2009-10-30T21:15:00.000-07:00

friends and strangers, welcome to the beginning of what i hope to be a regularly maintained blog regarding topics i care or know a lot about. there is a very good possibility that i will go weeks at a time without properly capitalizing words, so if you're into that then -- hell's bells, darling -- we'll get along just fine.

the following is a non-exhaustive list of topics on which i can bloviate in real life and in written word that i imagine will carry over here:

*veganism
*san antonio
*politics
*spurs basketball
*transit
*education policy
*music

sometimes i will take a shot at talking about movies, nothing highbrow, and not because of anything anti-intellectual, i just don't have a very deep film background so i will do shit like make lists of movies that are stupid(ly) funny.

if this becomes a big enough thing i will quit my job and sell bad t-shirts and amazon ad space. just kidding, that is a terrible idea, YOUNG PEOPLE (this is the part where i remind people in my age cohort to get "REAL" jobs like ranch hands or mystery writers or oil tycoons).

if you would like to write me a big fat check, though, you can e-mail me with details. or just send me a note with the subject line "thanks for playing the price is right" along with your bank routing number and the last 4 digits of your social.

i'm just kidding again, folks, the only internet thieves left are russian teenagers bent on destroying america to get revenge for the cold war they never got to experience.