A Sleeping Bear Wakes!

First off, the following is completely my opinion based on news articles, personal opinions and my past experiences. This blog is not the New York Times, so while you can disagree with my opinion (and I invite anyone to do so, I am always open to learning and will change my opinions if I determine that they are flawed based on additional information) I am not about to reference anything I write. I'd like to think I'm reasonably well informed so I don't think I wrote anything that is obviously incorrect. Let me know if I did.

I apologize for the silly posting title. I could make the argument that it does not refer to Russia but to my long period of hibernation from posting here. However, that would be offensive and I would have no one to beat up for comparing me to a bear other than myself.
I have been somewhat reluctant to post as few topics have actually piqued my interest enough to post one of my trademark rambling pontifications and I feel no need to stoke my ego by writing a few thousand words on “Hamburgers: friend or foe?” or “What is the deal with all of the perscription strength deoderants coming on the market? Are Americans just getting sweatier?”
One topic did move me to write however; this topic is Russia’s clearly unacceptable actions in Georgia and recent saber-rattling in its dialogue with the West. Considering I was born there, I am conflicted in my desire to condemn an oppressive regime. I do not consider myself a “self hating Russian” but neither am I blind. So here I will attempt to reconcile Russia’s desire for Westernization (which I deeply believe exists) with its Evil Empire like movements in the last few months.


Point (as presented by all of Western media):
Russia is returning to its Soviet Union past in terms of military aggression, political intimidation, oppression of its citizens and undemocratic suppression of the press.

Counterpoint (as presented, poorly, by me):
Russia has realized that it has stagnated after losing its infrastructure post 1991. As a result, it is now attempting to revitalize its military (which could kick start its non-oil industries) and show off its military capability within its former sphere of influence. Refusing to be bullied economically or politically by the US and the West, Russia is displaying a willingness to go to war to prevent economic defeats (BP pipeline in Georgia, for instance), and is willing to do so in the face of Political pressure.
To prevent a turn of public opinion Russia is suppressing the press, with the assumption that the bad publicity from this suppression is not as bad as the outcry over what a free Russian press could potentially print.
As far as showing patriotic (read: communist) leanings (i.e. the anthem, military parades, etc) it is more about Russia trying to congeal its disconnected and disaffected populace than it is about legitimate political motivations: say what you will about Lenin (and there are many bad things one can say about the man), but prior to 1918 must of Russia was illiterate with no power or transportation in the eastern half of the country whereas post the revolution Russia became the worlds #1 grain supplier under Lenin and an industrial superpower under Stalin (despite his name being a near four letter word, and his history of genocide, incompetence and oppression, it is important to realize that the potential for a benign dictator exists in theory).
I would never condone the actions of Lenin, Stalin or any of their mass murdering cronies who took power after them, but it is important to realize that Russia has very much returned to the Feudal System that was in place pre Communist Revolution, except land is no longer the measure of wealth. Despite their countless crimes and failings, the Communist leaders did manage to create some semblance of economic equality, or at least bridge the gap between the disproportionately few haves and the multitude of have-nots. Because of this, and please keep in mind that by no means do I approve, Russia’s leaders, faced with a similar situation, have clearly chosen to adopt historically effective methods of redistributing wealth.

Does this mean that Russia should return to its Communist roots? No! But at the same time it is presumptuous to say that socialist-like economic reforms, which could revitalize Russia’s non-oil related industries, are morally wrong simply because they have the taint of socialism. Being conditioned to fear and suspect Communist countries, the West is terrified of a sickle and hammer flying over the Kremlin, but it is for this very reason that Russia will not fly it. The Russian people are hungry: they want Western goods, culture, and tourism.

I left Russia literally days before the collapse, and I remember standing in line at the US embassy in Moscow for three days, overlapping with the 1991 attempted coup by hard-line Stalinists. I remember clearly looking up at the telephone posts and listening to the loudspeakers telling us that there would a return to “Soviet Power” and that Gorbachev was “very sick” (can anyone doubt that these people would have had him “peacefully pass away in the night” as soon as they felt he was no longer a valuable hostage?) and seeing:
1) Old men and women yell at us, spit on us, and tell us that “you Jews will get what you deserve now” (except with more profanity and racism) and being absolutely terrified.
2) The vast majority rally, protest, blast music from cassette players and show their contempt for the coup leaders.
I wasn’t there weeks later when AC/DC, Pantera and Metallica played a huge free outdoor concert in Moscow. No, at this time I was traveling to the United States, possibly already in NY, my memory fails me on the exact dates. It is difficult for me to reconcile the optimistic and energetic Russia of that time of change to the lumbering, power/money hungry bear that it has become. Run by oligarchs and former spies, it is still a wild frontier where for the very few millions (if not billions) can be made and thrown away on luxury yachts and expensive cars. In light of the vast poverty stricken masses of the countryside these lucky few living in Moscow and St Pete’s are repulsive, “let them eat cake” indeed, but I sit back and watch Soviet era cartoons on YouTube, and I can’t help but feel some nostalgia for my childhood. It could just be my tendency to romanticize past experiences. There was nothing charmed about the anti-Semitism I encountered from rich and poor alike, but even then I can’t believe that an entire people are evil.




Common points: Russia is PMS'ing and needs to chill out.

Good things come to those who wait,
Better things come to those who go out and take them,
The best things are the ones you earn.

Did I read that on a Hallmark card? Allegedly.

When two poorly informed people argue, God kills a kitten

me: flan

Nicholas: Gut

er

Ros

me: jerk

Nicholas: You don't have to respond to that

me: i hate you

Nicholas: My typing speed occasionally exceeds my precognisance

My most sincere regrets, sir

Anyways, how's it going?

Besides the usual anger. :o

me: nick

i dont think you know what precognisance means

if you posessed precognisance you would have made millions in the stock market

just saying

i do not believe in what is commonly referred to as precognisance

i consider it more of a practical paranoia

a "fear" that something will happen

certainly mixed in equal portion to the possibility that it will not

however when it does happen, it is satisfying to say to oneself "ah, i knew that would happen!"

when in fact you knew no such thing

Nicholas: I disagree and in fact believe that the term applies

me: you are wrong

Nicholas: the term precognisance by definition reffers to knowing the outcome of some situation or another

me: wrong

and you know who disagrees with you?

mr webster

what you are missing is that it refers to knowing based on a sense of extra sensory perception

i.e. "i know something bad will happen to me today"

Nicholas: no

me: without any fundamental evidence

Nicholas: 1. knowledge of a future event or situation, esp. through extrasensory means.

me: extrasensory

Nicholas: it's not required

me: did you miss what i just said?

Nicholas: mr webster disagrees with you

me: the definition is wrong, if its not extrasensory it becomes just "cognizance"

so sry

fail

you has fail

taking things at face value ftl

Nicholas: furthermore I suggest you look up the word cognisance

and the prefix 'pre'

me: yes, i know

it means "knowing before knowing"

am i wrong?

Nicholas: I am cognisant of your displeasure because you already expressed it

me: tell me, am i wrong?

Nicholas: you are wrong.

or you wouldn't be arguing

It would have been easily predictable that you would have gotten angry

whether through extrasensory perception or not

just because the most common use of a word would not apply, doesn't mean that an alternate usage - which matches the very composition and definition of the word - is incorrect

me: let me explain

if you call me an asshole, you know before you say it that i will be upset

that is no pre-cognizance, you know this is true in every situation and you know its true based on past experience

you are on dictinary.com?

or webster.com?

Nicholas: I have been referred to as such

yes.

Referred, even.

me: one second, the term i want to use doesnt have the correct definition on dictionary.com

Nicholas: prediction?

anticipation?

me: priori

Nicholas: aha

me: essentially having knowledge imparted unto you by the ether (generally, god)

bah

webster doesnt have it either!

ridiculous

whatever, a synonym is epiphany

and you know what that means

Nicholas: I know what priori means as well

me: precongizance implies that you have knowledge without deducing

un-empirical knowledge

Nicholas: well, if it makes you feel better, I didn't bother to deduce in that instance

me: no, you knew based on past experience

Nicholas: untrue

I've never called you the last three letters of your first name

me: you knew exactly what you were doing you sly dog

you wont fool me

Nicholas: this whole argument is based on my statement that I didn't

me: from your point of view

hence pre-cognizance

whereas i disagree that you miraculously knew what my reaction would be, you knew what i would be upset

Nicholas: call it a 'Gut' feeling.

me: i will destroy you

Random Thought on Illegal Immigrants

I call bullshit on the argument that illegal immigrants are leeching off of the system. I’m no longer a tax guy but I do think about the relevant tax issues, so let me break down a simple scenario for you.

Lets imagine a grocery store; the owner of the store (lets call him Mr. Burns) is a millionaire. He is in the top tax bracket (35%). A guy named Ross works for him. Now, there are two possible cases that I want to address:

1) Ross is a legal immigrant or US born citizen.

2) Burns knows Ross is an illegal and pays Ross under the table.

Case 1:

Ross earns 100k working at the grocery store. Here is the tax impact

Ross takes the standard deduction, personal exemption, etc, so he gets his income down to 90k. With the step tax system his tax on income for the year is 19k. We are looking exclusively at federal tax impact btw, because the issue is with federal benefits (an army to protect Ross from the bad guys and social security to keep Ross warm when he gets old).

Medicare: 1.45% of the 100K = 1,450

Social Security 6.2% * 100K = 6,200

Total Tax to Federal Gov’t = 26,650

Case 2:

Obviously Burns won’t pay Ross as much money however lets disregard this for parity purposes (or, to make it more palatable, have it be two people earning 50k each; Ross and his evil twin Russ). However, it is important to realize that the 100K that Burns paid to Ross in case 1 was tax deductible which it isn’t in this case because he pays him under the table. So how much does the Gov’t get?

The additional 100K of income to Burns (who is, like I said before in a higher tax bracket than Ross) generates the following marginal tax liability:

Income: 35,000 (after earning approx 350k every dollar is taxed at a 35% tax rate)

Medicare: 1,450

Social Security: 6,200

Total Tax to Federal Gov’t: 42,650

So, the Federal Government actually gets more money because of our tax structure, good for the poor right? Our country has a wonderful array of support services for the needy, however guess what? Ross is ineligible for many of these services, leaving more money in the system for everyone else. Ross getting paid under the table helps US citizens.

Of course, this is disregarding the myriad other taxes that Ross pays, for which he receives no benefit at all. The landlord that gets his rent has to pay taxes on it, doesn’t he? The food, clothing, gas, cigarettes and liquor that Ross buys are taxed.

All Ross can really get out of paying all this money to the gov’t is that his kids can go to public schools.

If they receive no benefit out of paying these taxes, aren’t the taxes more of a fine? A fine that every illegal has to pay every day for being in this country.

More anger regarding coffee

There is something egalitarian about Dunkies; it’s cheap, you don’t feel like more of a snob for asking for a French Vanilla or a regular (or “regulah” in Boston) and they are open at all hours. My post below where I shake my fist in righteous indignation at Starbucks commercialization of coffee culture is a sign of snobbery, I admit. I do not want my coffee shop to be open to the filthy masses, which so regularly swarm into my North Beach café of choice. The longer I live in San Francisco the farther I move away from my apartment in the mornings and on the weekends in search for a quiet cup of java. I want to read Dostoyevsky (as if, more like National Enquirer) in silence! I want my barista to smile at me when she brings me my single estate Guatemalan dark roast (“rich, earthy flavors distinguish the slightly chocolaty finish of this dark, sweet and malty brew”).

Ok, I admit it; I just want to be left alone!

San Francisco is even now (the rainy season) inundated with tourists who insist on crowding me in line, taking all the seats so they can spread their maps of the city on the table and shouting their orders in Midwestern accents at the poor barista who look downright overwhelmed by all the commotion.

Despite all that…I miss Dunkin Donuts :-(

On that note: I was watching Smart Travels with Rudi Maxa on the Travel Channel the other day (because I hate my life) and he was in Madrid. There was a shot of the puerta del sol, the very center of Madrid. I was half watching half feasting on wasabi peas from Trader Joes (delicious!) and out of the corner of my eye I saw A DUNKIN DONUTS! IN SPAIN!

Explain to me please how it is morally allowable for there to be a Dunkies in SPAIN, where there isn’t a single on within 50 miles of San Francisco? How? I demand answers! The Bay Area has 7.2 million residents whose thirst for a delicious iced medium regular is as yet unquenched! Apparently the west coast does not run on Dunkin…

Klitchko vs. Ibragimov

Unification! Bring together three of the four boxing World Heavyweight Champions?

Wait what?

That’s right, there was, until recently four heavyweight champs! Whys that? Well, obviously because people like to watch title fights, even if it doesn’t mean all that much. It’s the same sort of bravado that lets us call the winner of the super bowl the “world champions” which is confusing, because as far as I know my beloved Patriots never competed on any other continent.

So

Before last Saturday there were three worth heavyweight champs:

Klitchko, holding two titles: IBF and IBO.

Sultan Ibragimov: holding the WBO title.

Ruslan Chagaev: WBA champ.

HBO broadcast the fight, marketing it as a big draw, when in fact the poor heavyweight division is far less popular than the middleweights (with such names as Mayweather, Hatton, even De La Hoya) or even the light welterweight (Cotto alone is more charismatic and marketable than any of the current heavyweight champs).

So there I was, sitting down to hopefully watch a good fight, I had the popcorn, I was psyched, they tapped gloves and off it went....

...

What the hell?

After about 30 seconds if fighting I was confused.

Ok, so there’s Klitchko, looks like hes in great shape, I head the announcers mention he lost weight for the fight and he looks fit.

Ibragimov…look like a beer barrel with legs. Shorter and stockier than Klitchko he looks a little like an angry drunk than an athlete, but ok, lets give him a shot.

But, what doesn’t make sense is why Ibragimov thinks he can:

1) Outside box, when hes clearly slower than Klitchko

2) Keep his forward hand down a la Roy Jones Jr and Ali, when again, he’s slower and shorter.

They say that despite the 4 inch height difference, Klitchko only had a 1 inch reach advantage; it sure as hell didn’t look that way.

To interrupt:

A boxer keeping his front hand by his hip is a risky but sometimes effective technique. If the boxer is fast enough to be able to throw jabs with the same speed as if he were keeping the front hand at shoulder or above, and if he can block his opponent as effectively as if he had his hand up, it gives him a tremendous advantage in being able to:

1) Throw orthodox jabs

2) Throw looping hooks with his forward hand, moving it around and over his opponent’s jabs.

Ali could do it, he was fast and agile, and Roy Jones could do it for the same reason.

Ibragimov? Not even close.

If you watch the fight you will see him trying again and again to throw a jab out of this position, and Klitchko, obviously prepared, utilized his greater reach and quicker hands to slap Ibragimov’s jabs down away, and stepping in for a hard jab…over and over again.

12 Rounds, with only about four right hands by Klitchko.

Everyone talks about Klitchko’s soft jaw; the man acts like he’s afraid to get hit. Throwing single jabs occasionally, without the follow up hard right that could have ended the “contest” at round 4, at round 12, disgusted with Klitchko for not making an end of it a half hour ago and with myself for watching this trash, the obvious conclusion (decision for Klitchko) left me feeling drained and disappointed with the poor showing.

We need an explosive heavyweight champ like Tyson to get people interested in this division again; otherwise they might as well close up shop right now.

Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang

I saw this movie after writing my post on film noir, and thought I should comment on it. If you haven’t seen it I highly recommend you do so; its witty, entertaining, fast paced and definitely sucks you in. However, there is one caveat: it is not genuine film noir. Oh sure, it’s a murder mystery in LA where people occasionally talk like it’s the 1930’s, but one of the basic principles of film noir is that it isn’t at all stylized; it is very gritty, with characters doing what they do for money or revenge. Rarely, if ever, are good deeds done for the sake of doing good.

I still thought it was excellent, the dialogue is so self aware and downright brilliant I can't in good conscience not include a quote:

Harry: Is she a looker?
Perry: She opens the door, and she got nothing on but the radio. Yeah, invites me to sit down, sits on my lap, fires up a spliff.
Harry: Jesus. Really?
Perry: No. Idiot.

I give in

so this morning i got Starbucks cause the line was too long at Jackson
disregard the below rant, S-Bux 4 eva!

Ipod>CD>Tape>8 Track>Gramophone>???

Crossover Music

Music flows through musicians, the music they produce is a product of all of the music they love and listened to growing up and the musicians they were influenced by. In that way, music acts as a filter; the aspects of music which are no longer relevant, or have become “old fashioned” are culled out. With this in mind there are subtle variations of certain musical styles that are timeless, the music we listen to now can easily be described as descending from a combination of slave chants and folk music, mixing the two in various quantities gets you anything from rap to rock to folk music.

Robert Johnson was a blues musician in the late 1920’s. Growing up poor he played harmonica and was interested in music, but had no means to take up an instrument with any real conviction (as compared to Miles Davis for instance, who came from an upper middle class family and went to Juilliard). When he was still a young man, in his late teens, he disappeared. He told his family he was going west to learn how to play the guitar. The story goes that he went to a crossroads at midnight and the devil came up behind him and handed him the guitar.

By taking it he sold his soul.

Whatever supposedly happened during his time away, he came back to Mississippi with a powerful command of Blues guitar, and would go on to be as great an influence as future guitarists Hendrix or Clapton (who have cited him as one of their greatest influences). It should be mentioned that he never settled down, many of his songs are haunting stories about his upcoming death and his fleeing the devil, such as Up Jumped the Devil, Hellhound on my Trail, Me & the Devil, and he did die completely insane and howling about the devil coming to get him in a psychiatric ward at the young (and ominous) age of 27.

Johnson was a contemporary of Howlin Wolf, John Lee Hooker and Muddy Waters, yet it was he that made the most lasting impression. Hendrix, Clapton, Stones, Led Zeppelin, they all cite Johnson as an influence.

But why?

Robert Johnson, while a consummate bluesman was also a crossover artist, willing to play Jazz, Country and ironically spirituals.

After hundreds of years of traditional classical music, a revolution was started by a Russian composer Igor Stravinsky. Stravinsky was very heavily influenced by ragtime, a precursor to blues (which is a precursor to jazz, which is a precursor to rock and roll and hip hop and arguably techno for that matter) which was known for its complex and upbeat rhythm structure. Perhaps the most well-known piece of ragtime music still being played is “the saints” with its familiar lyrics of “oh when the saints go marching in, lord how I want, to be in that number, oh when the saints go marching in.” Stravinsky was a fan of this sort of big band ragtime music, and applied it, strangely enough to an opera about Russian folk customs (specifically some, shall we say, “graphic” fertility rituals).

When “The Right of Spring” was first played at the Champs-Elysees Theater in Paris it caused a riot.

However, it served to introduce a whole new*, revolutionary, musical style to a generation of European classical musicians, who took it and ran with it.

*An earlier European composer, one Claude Debussy, did have a number of experimental works that arguably influenced jazz musicians, but his work in that area was very one directional, as opposed to Stravinsky who was both influenced by, and had an influence on, ragtime/swing music.

Rock & Roll

Elvis Prestley, in 1954 played a song called “That’s allright (mama)” and invented rock & roll. The song was written by a black musician name Arthur Crudup, sang by Elvis, and the whole genre came into existence on the spot. It’s not that black musicians weren’t playing that type of music before, but they weren’t playing it for mainstream audiences, and it took Elvis to make that crossover.

The next big transition was the Beatles, who were able to take an existing form of music, Rock & Roll, which at the time was fading into obsolescence, in part due to the sad and untimely deaths of Buddy Holly, Richie Valens and the Big Bopper in 1959. Up to that point, they had been some of the few non-manufactured rock & roll musicians (as opposed to Richie Valens, whose image was completely manufactured assembly line style) to be relevant as innovators. So, as the song goes, in 1959 was “The day the music died” but not to fear, in 1960, who should come along but the Beatles.

Beatle-mania “officially” hit the States in 1964, but they were fantastically popular in Britain since 1960. When they came over the united states they brought with them a style of music unheard until then: rock, but more importantly, psychedelic rock. Their innovation in bringing together all of the cultural memes (sitar, references to sex, drug use) was not only popular with the “in” crowd who were already listening to the Yardbirds (featuring Jimmy Page of Led Zeppelin fame, as well as another rock god: Mr. Eric Clapton), and in 65 the Grateful Dead.

The Beatles did not so much create the Rolling Stones as it did make it possible for there to be a Rolling Stones by creating a market hungry for music similar to the Beatles, but a little harder, edgier. Eventually, of course, this led (pun intended) to Led Zeppelin.

Led Zeppelin

Arguably the most important rock group in history, Zeppelin kept rock from becoming obsolete through a constant innovative drive. Influenced by (and influential to!) blues, folk, rock & roll, reggae, soul, funk, Celtic the Zep that ended their career with bluesy hits like No Quarter shows no resemblance to the Zep that made such pop rock hits as “good times bad times” (although even on their first album you could feel the blues influence with “Dazed and Confused”).

And of course, there’s Stairway to Heaven.

That’s all that needs to be said for the Zep: Stairway.

Of course, the Zep is responsible for a divergence in rock music; in the form of their invention (!!) of heavy metal, and of course for their stage antics and big hair, which had the terribly unfortunate side effect of creating 80’s rock (such teeth rotting “artists” as Journey, White Snake, Quiet Riot, Striper, The Scorpions, Motley Crue, and, of course, Van Halen). Thankfully 80’s rock is called that because it briefly thrived in the 80’s then was mercifully put down.

Hip Hop

Rap was born from gospel, spirituals and upbeat choruses. It was originally upbeat and celebrated community and unity but quickly moved to a more accurate representation of inner city struggles with Curtis Blow, Grandmaster Flash and Afrika Bambaata, the latter of which was very heavily influenced by the synthesized and dance sounds of disco. At a time when popular rock was quickly changing from the trashy 80’s hair bands and a new style of music was coming out of Seattle in the form of Nirvana, Soundgarden and Pearl Jam, Hip Hip caught on in the mainstream thanks to the musical efforts of aggressive, socially conscious and borderline heavy metal rap groups like Public Enemy (oddly enough, Flavor Flav once stood for something besides bad taste). Driven by instrumental beats, not so very different from a faster passed version of Stravinsky, these musicians were able to cross the border into music that, like rock and jazz, could be enjoyed by everyone; even people who in fact had nothing in common with the musicians.

However, what really made Hip Hop come to the masses were The Beastie Boys, a perfect example of musicians who not only embraced the crossover, but perfected it.

The Beasties were founded in ‘79 as a punk rock group, but only achieved a high level of success after merging punk with the music they were surrounded by in 1980’s New York: Hip Hop.

I think that fundamentally music moves at such a dynamic pace that it becomes difficult for a musician to achieve success/fame/fortune if they only perform within one musical style. One rapper is all rappers, one rock singer is all singers, but combine the two and you get Zach de la Rocha, of the tremendously important Rage Against the Machine. It is the in between singers that can accomplish the most, the ones that get into the music business because they don’t want to be in a “business” but want to perform and innovate.

Rant

I think the most important aspect to writing a blog is that it allows one the freedom of expression that can never be achieved through discourse with others. Specifically, a conversation via aim, gchat or the like cannot possibly allow one the time to express all of ones opinions without being interrupted. Were I to start a lecture with one of my friends (or trusted adversaries) I would likely be rudely interrupted, mid sentence, with an obnoxious interjection of their own pitiful and unenlightening “opinion.” Therefore, I have chosen to make my ideas known; all will read my thoughts and musings and tremble in the digital presence of a superior intellect.

How often I have been told to “go write it down, loser” because the insolent speaker did not know, could not know, the profound truths I had chosen to unveil to them. Ah, but now all will have my brilliance at their fingertips! My two cents? Ha! My pontifications are worth their weight in gold! You can keep your tupenny logic to yourself!

Film Noir and the Big Lebowski

What is film noir? Generally speaking it’s a movie wherein the main character is an antihero; with characters more grey than black or white.

“I couldn't be fonder of you if you were my own son. But, well, if you lose a son, it’s possible to get another. There's only one Maltese Falcon.”

A classic example is Sam Spade in the Maltese Falcon. One of my all time favorite movies (also books! Dashiell Hammett writes them hard boiled, fast and angry), it stars Humphrey Bogart as a detective trying to track down his partners killer. He finds himself right in the middle of an exciting quest by some very bad people who are hot on the trail of the falcon. A dark movie with a dark ending, what makes this movie noir isn’t that the good guy dies (he doesn’t) or that the bad guys win (they don’t) or the amount of violence in it (surprisingly little) but the tone of the move; that dark, brooding life-will-wear-you-down mood. Going just by this movie, the Big Lebowski certainly isn’t noir, but there are films that prove a film can be both funny and dark in tone.

Rick: And remember, this gun is pointed right at your heart.
Captain Renault: That is my least vulnerable spot.

Casablanca. A romance classic; this movie is so misunderstood it shocks me that people don’t see how unromantic all of the characters in this movie really are. From Rick, a bad man who happens to still be in love with a woman who walked out on him, in fact, left him for her husband (!!), left him standing on a train platform in Paris just as the Germans rolled in (is there any doubt he should have died?). A dark movie, brilliantly acted by Humphrey Bogart (the king of noir, I should mention, he and Orson Welles made the best noir films of all time), Ingrid Bergman, Claude Raines (as the delightful Captain Renault) and Peter Lorre, one of the most prolific and memorable actors in noir, his “YOU BLITHERING IDIOT!” In the Maltese Falcon never fails to make me roar with laughter (his greatest role as the pedophile child murderer Hans Becket in M, is one of the most disturbing performances I have ever seen, it doesn’t make it onto my list of noir classics because it isn’t noir, but the first serial killer movie ever made).

Of course, there is murder, betrayal, gunplay and a crushing self defeat by Rick at the end of the movie, when he comes to the realization that he’s done it all for nothing, and if she doesn’t get on that plane se would regret it (maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of her life). It’s that kind of defeatist attitude that makes a noir for me.

“You were born to be murdered”

The Third Man, starring Orson Welles (before he got fat and turned into Captain Quinlan) as Harry Lime. Harry is dead, but how? Two men carried him across the street after the car accident that killed him, the day before his best friend (Martins) came to Vienna. Was there a third man there? Who left? What did Harry say? More detective story than noir mystery, what makes this movie great is the moral ambiguity of Martins, who starts off demanding to find out what happened to his friend and ends up as arbitrator of justice. What does it take to do what he did? Martins comes off as a nice guy, but by the end he’s harder than Spade in making tough choices concerning his friends. Also, the music in the movie is eeeeevil, it stays with you.

"That was the last killer that ever got out of my hands"

Orson Welles as Cpt. Quinalin and Charleston Heston as a Mexican detective (of all things) investigate a bombing. A young couple driving across the US/Mexico border is blown up with TNT, Charleston Heston is on vacation with his new wife and takes on the investigation, and on the US side is the corrupt Cpt. Quinlan, ready to frame, kill and deceive to close the case (then again, his wife was killed so now he drinks). Soon Heston’s wife is kidnapped and drugged, people are dying and everything happens too fast to make a great noir. Touch of Evil is a fantastic movie, a great detective story, plenty of action, but a dark, deliberate noir? Look elsewhere.

There are a slew of other great noir films, but those are the ones that make the genre for me. What then can we say about modern noir? Let’s take a look at a movie that came out in 2002: The Quiet American.

Based on an excellent book of the same name, The Quiet American is a great movie about the conflict and friendship between a passive observer of the Vietnam War (played by my favorite actor, Sir Michael Caine) and an American aid worker (played with surprising weight by Brendan Frasier) over a Vietnamese woman who left Caine for Fraser. An insightful period piece where Caine makes some very disturbing and hard to follow decisions at the expense of his young (if not as innocent as he appears) friend, this movie showed me that noir doesn’t have to be a slow deliberate mystery, but can be a political statement and a moral statement.

"I'll tell you what I'm blathering about... I've got information man! New shit has come to light! And shit... man, she kidnapped herself. Well sure, man. Look at it... a young trophy wife, in the parlance of our times, you know, and she, uh, uh, owes money all over town, including to known pornographers, and that's cool... that's, that's cool, I'm, I'm saying, she needs money, man. And of course they're going to say that they didn't get it, because... she wants more, man! She's got to feed the monkey, I mean uh... hasn't that ever occurred to you, man? Sir?"

So, the question before us is: is The Big Lebowski a classic style film noir?

Well, the answer is difficult. It is obviously meant to be one; it has all of the characteristics of a film noir: kidnapping (like in Touch of Evil), moral ambiguity (like in the Maltese Falcon), a treasure which turns out to be worthless when examined closely (Maltese Falcon again), evil Germans (as the Third Man, Casablanca and the Maltese Falcon pointed out, a German villain is the very best kind of villain), a woman who wants our protagonist but not enough to stay with him (Casablanca) and someone coming back from the dead (The Third Man).

Really, what it comes down to is this: what is the overall tone of the movie? The movie had many brilliantly funny moments and is considered a comedy classic. Overall the movie felt dark, disturbing, with hallucinations, forced ingestion of LSD, Germans threatening castration and the amputation of a woman’s toe. Certainly the movie ends on a down note (Donnie who loved bowling) but the mixed messages inherent in the expression “the Dude abides” certainly lead one to conclude that nothing so far out of the ordinary has occurred. The Dude is a sick man indeed if he can take the passing of his friend with such a blasé attitude, even going so far as to go bowling immediately after his funeral. Are we also to believe that Mr. Lebowksi (the younger) will care for his offspring? Obviously not, do not be fooled, for all his charm and witless stumbling over words more complicated than “man” he is a dark individual indeed; drunk, drugged and heartless.

Other favorite noir movies:

The Big Sleep

Once Upon a Time in America

Ronin

Sin City

The French Connection

The Long Goodbye

What is Starbucks? And don’t say a coffeehouse.

Coffee, roasted ground up beans that we soak in water, doesn’t really sound that appetizing does it? But we know better; coffee can taste great, give you a pleasant boost in energy, possibly give you an “out” because much like a cigarette, coffee is a happy little excuse to step away from your hectic work life. A cup of coffee is an excellent reason to sit and read the newspaper, or a book, or play with the laptop (or in the case of so many San Franciscans, to sigh angrily and hold up your copy of Dostoevsky so everyone in the coffee shop knows how hopelessly misunderstood, angry, bitter and deep you really are).

So coffee tastes good and, as I pointed out above, can actually be a semi-social act. After all, in America do people gather to drink tea? Coke? Hot cocoa! Not really, nor are there a significant number of Coke snobs that demand that their organic Coke ingredients come from a single estate in Guatemala. Coffee is both an affordable luxury and in a way a status symbol. Walk through any financial area in any major city and you will see suited types walking around with their grande latte whatever. Which brings me to my point: Starbucks has according to popular belief accomplished two things since its inception, one potentially terrible and one wonderful:

1) Starbucks has killed the locally owned coffee shop (arguably, more on this below)

2) Starbucks has caused an explosion in the overall consumption of coffee, more to the point good coffee, worldwide

The death of the locally owned coffee shop

Retailers like Starbucks, Barnes & Noble, Wal-Mart drive mom and pop stores out of business, right?

Has the neighborhood coffee shop actually died? Living in North Beach in San Francisco, I am surrounded by at least a dozen excellent mom and pop coffee shops that sell fantastic organic coffee from Graffeo Brothers coffee roasters and Blue Bottle coffee roasters, both local companies. There is nary a Starbucks in sight; in fact they are (thankfully) scarce in this city outside of the financial district (or FiDi as we trendy, in-the-know types call it).

Let’s break down the facts of Starbucks and see where it can and cannot compete, in my opinion:

Coffee: Starbucks has no business calling itself a “Coffee House,” their coffee is terrible and few people get it, Starbucks sells liquid deserts which are essentially caffeinated, sugary, calorie-laden glop. Local shops, especially ones that care, will spend the few extra cents per cup to buy from local coffee roasters, the existence of which is a glorious side effect of the coffee drinking boom.

Food: No contest, the mom and pop stores, the ones who care at least, can easily surpass Starbucks in food quality.

Atmosphere: There is something unpleasant and plastic’y about Starbucks. Maybe it’s the thought that when I walk into one I could be walking into any Starbucks, anywhere. A total and absolute disconnect from its location. A Starbucks on the moon would look like a Starbucks in Boston.

Does this than mean that Starbucks is different from Barnes and Noble, Target, Wal-Mart and a variety of other massive “retailers” who drive local stores out of business? I think that it really depends on the location and just how sustainable a coffee shop really is. Essentially if a location can easily sustain at least one coffee shop, then I doubt that a Starbucks opening would have the effect of sucking all of the business to it.

Case in point: Jackson Café, here in San Francisco and across the street from me, is a wonderful little café on a side street (technically it is in what they call the Jackson Alley, a narrow brick paved street with gas lights, large windows looking into advertising agencies and tech businesses) with seating right outside. It is staffed by Giovanni and Gabriella, two Italians that get to know their customers. Giovanni makes the absolute best espressos and lattes that I have had in my life. Period. A lowfat latte, with nothing, is a perfect treat for me. They also have good paninis, salads, soups, it’s fantastic. Gabriella is more concerned with speed, so when she is running it (they trade off days, tell me, do you ever pay attention to your Starbucks barista?) I usually get a cup of Blue Bottle drip coffee; they make single cup drip coffee and its perfect black.

Here's the rub: there is a Starbucks less than a minute away! How does Jackson survive? Not just survive, there are always people there, and there is usually a wait as everything is made by hand so it takes longer (another point, you pour coffee into the filter, tamp it down, put it in the espresso maker, at Starbucks you just push a button and out pours espresso, its bitter and unpleasant and impersonal). I admit it, some morning at around 7:30 when I stop by Jackson before work to get my latte, and there are six or seven people there, I walk over to Starbucks (gasp!) and get my fancy schmancy latte beverage (triple short, non fat, no whip, peppermint mocha with only one pump peppermint and one pump mocha, bite me, its delicious) because I know that even if there are twice as many people in line I’ll get my drink in half the time.

Coffee! Can’t get enough of that black mud? Neither can the rest of the world!

London coffee houses were a fine and venerated institution, where men gathered to talk business (as opposed to pubs, where men gathered to talk about everything else). Of course a coffee house was more conducive to good business practices than a pub. Imagine a drunk businessman negotiating with an over caffeinated businessman, certainly the lack of vomit on his clothes probably makes the sober one more confident, aggressive and competent? One such coffee house was Lloyd’s Coffee House in London. Lloyd’s eventually became Lloyd’s of London, one of the world’s foremost insurance/underwriting houses, which it still is today.

Coffee culture exploded during the mid to late 90’s thanks to Seattle. Seattle is to blame for two reasons: the dot com bubble and Starbucks. The dot com bubble is responsible in that it created a work environment where all of a sudden non businessmen (i.e. techies) were businessmen but without any inclination to wear suits and ties. These new businessmen wore khakis, polos, had ping pong tables in the break room and, wouldn’t you know it, did business over coffee (rather than martinis).

Starbucks jumped onto the coffee scene with sugary, upscale sounding drinks. Just buying a starbucks beverage is a proclamation that “I am too good for ‘coffee, crème and sugar’ and I demand a Venti Low Fat half caf, mochachino, because I am a motivated go getter that knows what he wants and knows how to order get it!”

Every Starbucks (and Peets, Coffee Connection, Seattle’s Best, etc) was founded on the idea that people wanted to relax in a casual environment with a hot tasty beverage (or snack) that kept the energy levels up and Starbucks did it better than the competition.

However, eventually that very Starbucks-y nature has been lost. No longer can one go into an S bucks and sit down in a comfortable chair with a delicious beverage and relax; the experience feels more like an assembly line. I will concede that businessmen can still go and sit and order a beverage they are comfortable with and talk shop. Now however it’s more of a matter of an alternate location to work for everyone, not just the in-the-know hipsters.

What do I think will happen in the next five years? Exactly what is already happening: people are sick of Starbucks, and want local friendly independent coffee shops, with high quality beverages and food, in which to hang out. I think the applicable expression is the oxymoronic “no one goes there anymore, it’s too crowded.”

What I wouldn’t do for a Dunkin Donuts Medium Regular (lots of cream, lots of sugar).

A Blog? But why?

A Blog? But why?

So here is my first blog post, seeing as I am both a prolific and successful writer (both lies) I should have no difficulty in posting many times a day. Oh the things I will post! Funny things, touching things, things to warm the heart and stimulate the intellect.

Beginning with:

Why I hate Dane Cook

It is entirely possible that this blog was created solely because I wish to write a single post on my dislike of Dane Cook, and it is not inconceivable that I will never post again, so enjoy it while you imaginary people can!

There is a plethora of blogs dedicated to a dislike of this man, and I have, after much soul searching realized why: Dane Cook offers no insight.

I know that may not seem like the most “insightful” thing to say, but then I again I have no inclination to get up on a stage and point it out to paying attendees. I will however point out that I am like Dane Cook in that I will speak of obvious things and share my experiences (though I have never called a sandwich a “sangwich,” like Cook, to my parents, teachers and Rabbi’s immense relief) without offering a unique and insightful perspective from the point of view of someone “in-the-know” or someone living a lifestyle I can’t comprehend (Robin Williams delightful retardation, for instance(please don’t be upset, I love Robin Williams(in an entirely heterosexual way(not that there’s anything wrong with that)))).

At this point I’m sure that everyone is aware that Dane Cook steals jokes, most notably from Louis CK. If at all interested I would recommend you hop over to YouTube and search for the clip comparing his routine to one of Louis CK’s from years before. It is most enlightening and a little disappointing. Coincidentally, Carlos Mencia, that fraud (since when is it ok for a half Honduran half German to pretend to be a Mexican and call himself a “beaner” and a “wetback?” cant stand his bs) also steals jokes on a massive scale. There is a fantastic clip, also on YouTube from an incident when Joe Rogan called Mencia out on stage when they were doing a show together, it is priceless.

So everyone steals jokes, so what? People run out of funny material; my issue with Cook is that he doesn’t, and never has, had funny material. It isn’t the what that makes Cook funny (or entertaining) but the how. As far as I’m concerned he falls more into the category of a clown than a stand up comedian.

I saw Dane Cook do standup at college a few years ago, this was right before retaliation came out and he was playing to a hundred or so kids, mostly drunk. His act was perfect, he was able to get people involved (“yeah! I used to get so wicked trashed! It was AWESOME! Right guys? YEAH!”) and good for him. Recently I saw Kevin Nealon here in SF; I could not relate to a damn thing he said, but I can’t recall ever laughing harder for such a sustained period of time.

Whatever, I guess hating on Dane Cook is sort of a fad right now, hopefully he’ll get the message and come up with something not having to do with burger king, drunkenness or other peoples jokes (he should preface most of his set with “I heard a funny joke the other day…”).

last word