Local Hero

If you step into any Oakland City Hall meetings, or tune into the broadcasts of such meetings on KTOP, you've seen Sanjiv Handa, an activist-journalist and in my opinion, a local hero.

Last night, Mr. Handa finally made it to our Keep Oakland Beautiful meeting, and I had the pleasure of meeting him.

Journalist (Bulldog)
Sanjiv Handa, East Bay News Service

Keeping public officials honest and in compliance with good-government laws is no small task, but Oakland's Sanjiv Handa has taken on the chore as his life's work. An activist reporter with a taste for rooting out corruption, Handa says he devotes nearly 100 hours each week to watchdogging Oakland officials and publishing a batch of newsletters on government activity for the press and public.

"He's like a one-man news service, activist organization, and law firm all rolled in one," said Randy Lyman, FOI Committee chair of the SPJ's Northern California Chapter. "He's sued the city a number of times to get records. He never seems to slow down."

Handa's crusades have so angered Oakland mayor Jerry Brown that about a year ago Brown severely limited access to the City Hall pressroom, which used to be available to reporters at nearly any hour of the day. Journalists can now only use the space during city council meetings.

Still, that hasn't seemed to deter Handa. He continues to stay on top of the "open meetings and public records aspect of things and files any number of complaints with the Public Ethics Commission," Lyman said. "He wins about half the time."

While most journalists won't speak publicly at City Hall meetings as a matter of principle, Handa ignores that convention. In the middle of a session, it's not uncommon for him to head up to the podium to scold officials for failing to give proper notice of agenda items or events.

Handa's East Bay News Service has put out many publications over the years (including the Six Minute Report, the Oakland Shadow, and the Oakland Digest) in which uncovered scandals at the Port Commission, unveiled juicy details of high-paid officials' contracts, and profiled the city's best and worst employees. (Rachel Brahinsky)

From the San Francisco Bay Guardian

Three Points for Bleh

1. American Idol sucked last week and sucked again last night. I imagine that the finalists have advisers, but still they can't pick songs that highlight their own vocals.

2. After almost settling down on Springfield Apartments in Durham, I decided to do the proper consumer thing and check out ratings at www.apartmentratings.com. Springfield was not rated well, nor were most other complexes I was considering. There were many mentions of crime: car and apartment break-ins, drug deals, and armed robbery; complaints of ridiculous price increases after the end of your lease; complaints about management and the high turnover of management staff. I decided that safety was still my first concern, so instead of going for the low rent I will probably stay at a safer, gated, and more expensive complex with intruder alarms and individually locked garage parking. My mom said just take out more loans, it's the American way. Erik said it would probably only amount to $3000 extra in loans, and that's nothing.

3. I looked into internet access in Durham, and being a Duke student apparently gets you a discount, but you need a unique Duke ID. I figured I wouldn't be able to get that ID until orientation, which would be after move-in, and thus inconvenient. But I decided to look up my ID anyway, just for kicks. Turns out I'm already in the Duke online directory, and they've already assigned me an ID--and even an email address. I was so excited! And then I found out the discounted internet connection rate per month was $39.95. If that's called savings, then just slap me now.

My 15kb of Fame

I submitted a picture of myself wearing the "Polar" Threadless shirt, and now it's in their gallery:

Fur

From the Furisdead.com "Get Active" page:

Shop ’til they drop! Whenever you’re ready to hit the shopping mall, make sure you don a fur "public service announcement" before heading out the door. Attach an anti-fur button to your winter coat or, if Aunt Irma’s old moth-eaten mink stole is still hanging around in the attic, dust it off and bring it up to date with a red paint job and an anti-fur message. A similar impact could be made with a red-paint-spattered fake fur or a jazzed-up jean jacket decorated with colorful designs and catchy slogans.

While fur industry practices are horrifying, I absolutely hate it when fur activists even hint at destroying other people's property ("bring it up to date with a red paint job").

Even if people acquired their property illegally (which is not yet true of all fur), I don't believe other citizens have to right to destroy it. In addition, paint dumpers can't always tell the real from the fake.

The Furisdead.com site does, however, offer interesting and constructive activities, e.g., getting people to donate their old fur to keep homeless people warm. That's all fine and great, as long as no one takes to dumping paint on homeless people.

Wear Me

I just ordered a t-shirt from Threadless, and I am almost certain that someone was drawing me:



Dark hair, pig tails, bear hat? Me.

One Day Ryan Will Get His Wish...

...and Anthony Federov will be voted off American Idol. I give him two more weeks, tops. I still hope domestic abuser Scott Savol will leave before Anthony. Scott's voice is so thin, and no matter how much he says he wants to win, his soporific voice lacks the excitement you'd think he'd want to express. Of course, he did also claim he was the true rocker. Uh...yeah. Both he and Anthony are obviously out of their leagues.

I like Anthony, even though I don't think he understands why he was so appealing, at least to me. I think people liked his nice-guy nerdiness, not his faux-suavité (ok, it's suavity). I don't think he should have thrown away his glasses nor have worn torn jeans. Then again, I don't think he should have made it this far with his voice. I did almost pity vote for him once, when they showed his hurt puppy-dog face when Simon tore his performance apart. But then I reminded myself that he really does suck.

As for the people I think will be in the Final Four:

Bo has been the most consistent performer, but his rock renditions just bore me--every week he seems to be singing the same song. He started off strong, but now that other people have improved, I think he will be the first of the four to go.

I used to hate Constantine and how he butchered random songs (e.g., "Kiss from a Rose"), but he's getting better and much more confident vocally. What I like about him now is his ability to pick seemingly random but completely appropriate songs for himself. Still, I doubt he could sustain an original album. To me, he's only interesting for performing covers.

I think that Vonzell is the best singer, but her voice isn't unique like Fantasia's. She does seem to have a sweet personality, and the USPS couldn't have asked for a better representative.

Carrie seems destined to be one of the final two, no matter how boring and terrible I might think she is. She was out of breath Tuesday night, off-key, and "danced" awkwardly. Still, she garnered praises from the judges.

I would love to see Constantine and Vonzell in the Final Two. I'm not terribly excited about anyone winning the title. I just love to rant.

Things I Like Right Now

Starfish: I saw part of a documentary that followed researchers who filmed starfish and then sped up their film to observe the starfish's movements. You see starfish fight for territory and "rush" to food sources--things you don't normally associate with starfish because they appear stationary. I love how they live in an entirely different time from us, and most of all, I loved seeing those aggressive little suckers attack.

Camille, "Le Fil": Her new album, "Le Fil," is more focused and earthy than her first. She uses her voice as background instruments, and I have to say that there are few female French chanson/pop stars who could pull off the same. I'm not talking of the Celine Dion types, but rather Coralie Clément and Keren Ann, who have great songs but are obviously already pushing their limited vocal talents to their limits. Anyhow, Camille's official site has some videos, although only one is off the new album (Ta douleur): www.camille-lefil.com.

Alan Dundes

I can't believe it. Alan Dundes has passed away. I found this out while visiting Nader's page, of all places.

Dundes's Intro to Folklore class at Berkeley was such a blast that I signed up to work for him at the Folklore Archives, where I stayed until I graduated.

I know he will be missed. He was an extraordinary teacher.

Copy-Protected CDs

It's unclear to me whether the release of copy-protected CDs is legal or not. Ripping your own CDs to put on your iPod is fair use, but copy-protected CDs do not allow you to digitize the music you bought, denying you fair use. In addition, the CPCDs don't necessarily play on all players, so to some people the CPCD is a defective product.

However, even assuming that the record companies screwed up, it is also unclear to me whether or not it is legal for the user to use software like CloneCD in order to digitize their collection, as it bypasses the copy protection.

I'm Going to Duke Law

Technically, I haven't sent in my deposit yet, but that's just because I'm waiting for the revised scholarship offer to arrive, since I have to send it in with my deposit.

 

I am uncertain whether I have enough summer clothes--apparently I will suffer a portion of the humid, hot summer days in Durham by starting school in early August.

 

I will be selling things, so let me know if you want to buy anything of mine.

iTunes and mp3s

I am against buying music off of iTunes; unfortunately, they are probably have one of the biggest digital catalogs.

My main objection to iTunes is the price of tracks/albums. Their tracks are encoded at only 128kbps, a bitrate much too low to charge customers $.99/track or $9.99/album--prices a little cheaper, but comparable to an actual CD. In addition, because mp3s bought off iTunes are controlled by DRM, the record companies should not need to offset potential losses (cf. to the possibility of easy, illegal sharing of non-DRM mp3s) by inflating the price.

I do wonder about the costs of producing an actual CD--including the case, printed inserts (including designer charges), shrinkwrapping, and sometimes stickers--and if they are comparable to the costs of producing the digital release. I would assume that digital release costs would include server space, bandwidth, and encoding files. But since the price of the album is mostly marked up for profit reasons, I suppose the $2-8 difference between buying digital vs.actual disc is probably reasonable--if you were actually getting the same quality and rights as buying a disc.

I hope that the digital music scene will grow closer and closer to the Russian model, e.g. www.allofmp3.com (only legal in Russia). You choose the quality and file format, and pay accordingly. I am a believer that if you offer cheap tracks, people will gobble them up, and you may end up with more profit.

I read a comment from a recording artist on David Pogue's reader forums (visit forum) that file sharing is like a progressive tax on artists; i.e., artists like Britney Spears may be more hurt from it than lesser-known artists like himself. In fact, free trading of his files would probably boost his profile and level the playing field. I would like to extend that argument towards having music available cheaply and perhaps eliminating many roles of the record company. That is, every artist becomes independent, and exclusively reaps the benefits from their mp3 sales. Those bent on achieving superstardom would have to work that much harder, but I could see record companies transform into PR companies instead.

In the meantime, I very much like Emusic.com and AudioLunchbox.com, but both carry mostly independent artists. I use Rhapsody to stream music. Not only does Rhapsody have a great mainstream catalog, they stream albums from independent labels as well. They claim to stream and burn at CD quality, but I haven't truly tested that claim. Tracks do cost less at $.79/track, but unfortunately Rhapsody does not offer album deals.

Switching from Netflix to Blockbuster Online

Netflix used to ship new movies the same day the discs I rented were returned. More recently, however, they would receive my movie and ship out a new one as late as three business days later. They attributed this to their increase in distribution centers; movies used to be shipped to me from San Jose, now they could be coming from, say, New York.

That response, of course, would address a postal delay, but not why it would take three days to drop a movie off in the mail--the question at hand.

I got fed up and quit Netflix to join Blockbuster Online, which is also cheaper for the same plan.

Netflix does have a more extensive dvd collection. But I figured that I watch too many movies as it is, and Blockbuster is more than adequate. Blockbuster Online also allows you to print two free rental coupons per month, so if you have that itch to go out and rent something right now, you could.

However, I do have problems supporting Blockbuster. Its "No Late Fees" promotion could be construed as consumer fraud (read article). Before the "No Late Fees" days, I believe Blockbuster participated in late fee fraud--that is, almost everyone I know who has rented a movie from Blockbuster has been erroneously charged late fees for movies returned within the due date. I admit that there could be more innocuous causes for the late fees--for example, I imagine there are few incentives for employees to pay enough attention to check in every movie. However, Blockbuster could have built in QC procedures to reduce such errors, but these erroneous charges occurred in such frequencies that I believe the store preferred to turn a blind eye to such practices. This is conjecture, of course, but a class action lawsuit was also raised in Canada for this very reason (read article).

Beyond consumer fraud, the Blockbuster CEO has been accused of going on a "spending spree with the shareholder's money" (read article) by the company's largest shareholder. Sounds unethical, though I am uncertain of the consequences to the consumer. Feel free to let me know what the possibilities are.

I feel a moral dilemma coming on. Blockbuster also stands for a lot of things I don't believe in--movie censorship (I need to do more research, but I believe the censorship happens before a movie is released in theaters, rather than cutting content off dvds like Walmart does. Blockbuster did only stock R-rated versions of NC-17 movies, but the Online service seems to include unrated or NC-17 versions.), destruction of local video businesses, etc. However, I need to budget my money, as I will be a grad student soon. How do I balance my immediate financial needs with my "principles"?

I am also a member of Curves. An Opinion appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle that condemned the owner of the chain. The piece is now prefaced with "corrective" statements about the writer's claims (read article). What seems to be provable is that the owner of Curves profits from owning the chain, and that he donates money to Christian and pro-life causes. Some other pro-choice people have told me not to support Curves because of this. Do I agree with this? No, but I am trying to understand my motivations.

I joined Curves because it is a somewhat mindless workout for my entire body--I just follow the circuit without planning any routines. More importantly, I only have to give up a half-hour a day. The minimal time commitment is what keeps me going back, is what helps me stay in shape (ok, whether I'm in shape or not is debatable). It is also signficantly cheaper than the other fitness chains I looked into. (Although 24-Hour is cheaper for other people, I knew I would be going to grad school and could not commit to their 3-year contract.) I also hate running; I love team sports, but that team can be somewhat harder to organize.

I conclude that Curves is the best fitness option for me.

Does it bother me that the owner of Curves donates the money he earns from his successful franchise to a cause he believes in but I don't? No. People can do what they want with their money. I am pro-choice, not a fan of indiscriminate abortion, but I can see why people would be pro-life. They are free to support their causes, and I am paying them for different services altogether, and they should be judged based on how well they provide that service.

But where do I draw the line? Or, where should I draw the line? Would it be ok for me if the owner of Curves supported hate groups with his Curves money? How about illegal activities? I think the answer for me would then be no. And now I've just contradicted what I've just written in the previous paragraph. Hey, and although I can see why some people would be pro-life, I suppose there are people who think it is just wrong as well.

Since I want to be a consumer advocate, I suppose the decision to switch to Blockbuster maybe does undermine something I believe in. I have too many conflicting interests: saving money, convenience, not supporting big bad corps, etc.

This is getting to be too long an entry...