Rybak might piss himself: NYPD reprimands perjuring cop just in time for RNC

Christopher Long was riding in a monthly bike protest in NYC called Critical Mass when he rode directly into Officer Patrick Pogan. Anyway, that's what Pogan claimed when he filed charges against Long for attempted assault, disorderly conduct, and resisting arrest. Just for spice, Pogan added that Long was “forcing multiple vehicles to stop abruptly or change their direction” and that Pogan himself scraped his arms as he was knocked down by the bicyclist. Problem is, a tourist took a video that showed what really happened. Watch it. [Cont. after video]



The New York Times reported Tuesday that Pogan was being stripped of his gun and badge in connection with the incident. The guy abused his authority, knocking the shit out of this kid (bystanders said he and another NYPD cop repeatedly rammed him into a phone booth after the video), and then charged Long with assault. But Pogan never would have been held accountable if the video didn't surface on the interweb. And no, it was not, sadly enough, the New York Times. It was a blog called gothamist.com. (Take that, old media!).

Essentially, Pogan lied and it was so common a lie that he thought he'd get away with it. But technology interfered, you know, by showing what really happened. Now the NYPD is likely facing a civil suit, something they also faced after the last Republican Convention was held there. If you cared to know, NYC lost.

The very-short RNC angle: the brave new world

The whole situation above is obviously relevant to the upcoming RNC protests. Because of the shift in technology in recent years, citizens have evidence-gathering cameras in their pockets, and are able to effectively counter police testimonies that might not be, well, accurate. Everything at the RNC will be filmed. Everything. Unless the Twin Cities police take this into account, they'll end up in a similar situation, and in this YouTube-obsessed world, shamed across the globe. (Take that Rybak). Not only that, but police might actually be held responsible for abusive actions. As that internet cat says, "Oh, my dog." [Cont. after video].



Local connection: the Ganley trial

This fucked up-ed-ness also reminds me of the situation of Gus Ganley, which I covered in a three-part series for the Minnesota Daily. He went to trial on charges of assaulting a police officer after police broke up a Critical Mass protest in Minneapolis in August 2007. MPD Officer Craig Williams testified that Ganley punched him. MPD Officer Richard Lillard testified that he ordered Ganley's arrest after Ganley threatened him. Problem is, like with the NYPD, people had the whole confrontation on tape. They had Lillard running around like a maniac spraying people with pepper spray and knocking them down (although Lillard testified he didn't use any spray or touch anyone) and showed the sum of Williams interaction with Ganley to be kneeling on him after other cops take him down. Here's a couple videos, there's more if you want: 1 2.

Both of these officers sat in the courtroom and said one thing, while the videos and sworn testimony by nine witnesses said another. Did they perjure themselves?

Code of silence.

The god-damned Star and Tribune.

The police code of silence isn't, funny enough, a secret. But newspapers don't especially want to piss off these great sources for many of their stories. (Williams and the MPD froze out the Daily after our first story, when we tried to get his quotes at home. So, he's trying to send this Ganley to jail for years but can't have a message left for him at home?) Therefore, we rarely hear about police perjury, and anyway, from what people in the legal profession have told me, police are rarely prosecuted for perjure, even when it's obvious.

I haven't heard shit from the Star and Tribune regarding possible police perjury in Ganley's case. Why? Because they weren't there (even though Ganley's dad has worked at the non-newsroom Trib for years). (They also weren't there when cops finally admitted to forming a task force for the Pre-RNC, a conference for protesters preparing for the RNC, something they'd officially denied, which only the Daily and TC Daily Planet covered at the time. The City Pages' Matt Snyder also mentioned it in a May story about the RNC).

When the original incident happened, our beloved S and T covered the incident by quoting only the police, although there were obviously more than a dozen people arrested who might talk, as well as the couple hundred protesters. They used one source: police spokesperson. At the time, I sent an e-mail to both the writer, Joy Powell, as well as to the readers' rep. I pointed out the lack of sources to both, and pointed them to youtube videos countering what they had published, probably the same videos that were used in the Ganley court case. Neither responded.

Please, again, someone tell me how newspapers, the supposed fourth estate, promote democracy and accountability for local authorities.

One more reason for burying these dinosaurs.

Zine Review: Toxic by Lacey Prpic-Hedtke and Scott Seekins

Zine Review:
Toxic by Scott Seekins and Lacey Prpic Hedtke
To order or just talk about Brittney send an E-mail to polkaostrich@gmail.com

---

Britney Spears may not be much of a pop icon anymore, but something in the story of her public rise and fall resonates with local artist Scott Seekins (you know him) who, perhaps as someone experienced in the creation and maintenance of his own image, has come to identify with Spears. In fact, a painting of a fantasy marriage between the two hangs at the top of my stairs and frightens the shit out of me every time I go to the second floor of my house.

This zine is a collaboration between Seekins and my friend Lacey who runs the Polka Ostrich zine empire. The sketches, mostly by Seekins if I'm not wrong, are accompanied by cut and paste titles describing her condition at the time. The zine is worth picking up for the strangely empty sketches of Spears by Seekins, whose work is rarely seen outside art galleries, but the zine's most interesting characteristics can be found in the ideas backing up Spear's depictions.

It seems to be in chronological order, charting her fall from perfect and pure (remember the virginity thing?) to self-hating tabloid example of what not to do. Although I'm sure there's already websites devoted to her life, these drawings do a good job representing the public's generic perception of her in each stage, molded by the same tabloids that brought her fame. [Cont. after video]

A Brittney zine could be written in endless angles: the exploitative side of the fame machine, the strange cultural obsession with teenage girls and disgust with grown women, or ruminations on mental illness. Toxic doesn't reject any of these, in fact maybe it embraces them, taking up the banner of that "Leave Brittney alone" kid on YouTube.


I hate to say it, because it's so obvious, but Brittney has always been marketed and loved as a symbol. She represented the hypersexualized virginal Barbie Americana with all its lack of complication. It was all marketing, but it'd be foolish to think it wasn't an ideal that attracts a lot of people. In a strange way, Toxic laments the loss of this innocence. It takes its activism seriously, even ending with a drawing of old Brittney alongside the battle-cry, "Let's go save her," which, in a way, I guess, is kind of sweet.

From the Coffee Factory: Interview with an IWW barista from the Mall of America Starbucks

[Editor's Note:
The following is an interview I did on July 23rd with Jake Bell, one of the Starbucks baristas from the Mall of America who is leading a unionization drive with the Industrial Workers of the World. Similar campaigns have been started by the IWW, nicknamed Wobblies, all over the country since 2004.

The IWW represent a break from more traditional hierarchical unions because they focus on practical action, they call it solidarity unionism, rather than the bureaucratic and legalistic wrangling used by more traditional unions. They're also one of the few unions willing to take on big chains like Starbucks. At a time when decent jobs are increasingly going overseas, the long-maligned workers of the service industry could represent a new pool of strength for American unionism.

The Mall of America Starbucks IWW unionization effort was announced Monday by delivery of a letter to store management. The unionization effort at Starbucks in the Twin Cities is still relatively new. The IWW is open is open to contacts from other Starbucks workers who want to join, or people in the community who want to support them. They can be reached at 612-245-4871 or tcsbuxunion@gmail.com.]


(Pictured: Workers from the Mall of America Starbucks from City Pages, July 23)

Rhubarbarism: Can you start out by introducing yourself and telling me about your job?

Jake: Sure. My name is Jake Bell and I work at the Starbucks in the Mall of America. I've been working there since October 2006. Due to the rapid rates of turnover, I'm actually the second highest in terms of seniority in my store, including managers

Rhubarbarism: What’s a good overview of the situation that happened Monday?

Jake: Monday itself was not a particularly exciting day; one of my coworkers and I stepped off the floor and delivered a letter to our manager stating our demands, then we faxed a copy to the corporate office and strapped on our union pins. The intention for Monday's actions was not to do a work stoppage or walk off the floor in protest, simply to deliver the letter and make it known that we decided to form a union.

Rhubarbarism: What's the background behind the decision to form the union? How did it come to that?

Jake: Well my coworkers and I have all been talking about chronic problems that we have in our store for some time now. For instance, there is no air conditioner or fans in our store and it's about 100 degrees at all times. That's just one issue. In order to try and remedy these problems, we've approached our manager in all of the company-sanctioned ways: We've talked one-on-one to him, asked him nicely to make the changes, etc., but none of that ever worked.

They always pretend that they're listening and concerned about what we're saying, but at the end of the day we don't just want to be listened to. We actually want results.

Rhubarbarism: So it's the same reason workers have always formed unions, to effectively change their conditions of employment and give themselves a stronger collective voice?

Jake: Exactly. And I'm not sure if you've ever been to the Mall of America, but I would call the Starbucks there less of a coffee shop and more of a coffee factory. Since factory workers have unions, we should too.

Rhubarbarism: I haven't seen it, but I'm imagining a latte trough.

Jake: Yeah it's pretty intense.

Rhubarbarism: How popular is the idea of a union behind the counter?

Jake: The union idea is really popular, actually.

When my coworker Erik was fired (ostensibly for union organizing), we talked with a lot of Starbucks workers in stores around the city about working conditions, and people were very excited about a union.

Rhubarbarism: Can you give me an idea what the work environment itself is like?

Jake: Sure. It varies by season, of course; in the summer months and the holiday months, it's extremely busy all day. And the short-staffing doesn't help. Our store is right by the rotunda, which is where the mall holds all of its big events, which means that the noise level is very high on weekends especially. Also, we sell a lot of blended drinks in the summer, so our 3 blenders are whirring pretty much around the clock. So a good summary of the environment would be loud and busy.

Rhubarbarism: What sort of things would you all like to change about the environment or salary and benefits packages?

Jake: Regarding the "loud" and "busy" parts, we would like new blenders or blender shields to muffle the sound, and an end to under-staffing so that we can take our legally-mandated breaks and not have t

o, essentially, do two people's work for one person's wages

We would also like a couple of fans or -gasp- an air conditioner in our store.

About the pay and benefits: We are demanding a living wage of $13 per hour and an automatic 3% cost of living increase to make up for rate of inflation. And we are demanding a guaranteed minimum number of hours per week, so that we can stay above the 20-hour minimum and maintain benefits eligibility.

Rhubarbarism: Now Monday's action signaled an intent to form a union, there seems to be a little confusion about what this means in this case, can you explain how the IWW differs in its concept of unionism?

Jake: Well the IWW relies on a model called "solidarity unionism" to organize, which focuses on the strategy necessary to winning demands. So, if it is strategic to use the NLRB [National Labor Relations Board] election process and that's what people in the shop want, than we'll do it. But the IWW believes that our power as workers does not lie in our legal rights, but rather in the fact that we make the goods, that we're the ones on the shop-floor doing the work.

Rhubarbarism: So is the IWW legally recognized at the Mall of America? Are you planning to go through NLRB elections?

Jake: Not at this point, but we'll see. There is also another issue with elections, particularly with Starbucks.

When the first Starbucks store organized with the IWW in NYC in 2004, they went the election route. They had a union majority in the store, and were set to win the election. However, Starbucks used its political pull to gerrymander the bargaining unit to include all of the stores in the NYC metro. Since the baristas in that one store could not possibly do that much outreach, the union withdrew the petition for the election because it was clear that we would not be able to reach all the workers before the election.
[Ed: Text in bold revised at the request of interviewees].

Rhubarbarism: Starbucks has had a relatively thorny history with labor since this campaign started, right? Can you tell me a bit about what's happened nationwide?

Jake: Yeah, they have. Most recently, a union organizer was fired from a store in Grand Rapids, Michigan, for some bogus attendance issues. But the company fired a number of union organizers in NYC in 2004 through 2006, though most of them got their jobs back through the NLRB.

The NYC baristas filed a ULP [Unfair Labor Practices] and the company was issued a subpoena demanding they release all of their documents relevant to the case, and they released a huge quantity of documents relating to their union busting efforts... [Ed: Statements removed from interview for legal reasons at request of interviewees]. It's pretty clear that they don't like unions and, in some cases, operate illegally to prevent them.

Rhubarbarism: People have been bringing up to me the fact that Starbucks has a pretty decent salary and benefits package by service industry standards of course, which would usually mean zero benefits, why do you think this sort of grassroots organizing has taken off all over the country against this employer?

Jake: Well I don't think that it's just among this employer. A couple of years ago, there were huge union campaigns in Borders bookstores, and I know of a number of IWW campaigns in service-industry companies across the nation that are not yet public as unions.

Unions are making a resurgence across the board. Prices are up, wages and conditions are down, and workers are getting sick of it.

Rhubarbarism: How does that relate to the proliferation of these chain and service industry jobs? And why have more traditional unions ignored these service workers?

Jake: Well I think the job market is not as good as everyone wants to pretend it is. It's really hard to find good jobs these days, and frankly there aren't enough good jobs in this system to go around.

I mean, capitalism essentially requires that a majority of the people actually do the work for as little money as possible while a minority of people oversee them and profit off their labor. It isn't possible for everyone to have a well-paying job in the current system. Because of that, the standards are always rising. For instance, about a quarter of the employees in my store have college degrees and are generally overqualified for this job. The fact of the matter is that people have to pay the rent however they can.

Rhubarbarism: The news that Starbucks workers are trying to form a union seemed to bring about a lot of hostility that unionization of more traditional blue collar jobs doesn’t, on the Pioneer Press website for instance, why do you think that is?

Jake: We have more and more people being forced into the service sector.

Starbucks' PR department is pretty remarkable. People actually think that working at Starbucks is a good job, which is not the case. People are also under the misconception that all of the workers at Starbucks are bratty high-school kids or just part-timers, when in fact a lot of people rely on this job in a serious way. So people don't see this in the same light as a construction or truck-driving job, for instance. And, apparently, that means that we don't deserve to make enough money to live or something.

Rhubarbarism: It's obvious to me, having worked behind counters and in kitchens for years, that the economy has changed. It doesn't seem like many people realize how globalization has changed our work life. The decent blue collar jobs just aren't there like they were 20 years ago.

Jake: Yeah, you're right. And that's the thing about the service industry; they can't outsource behind-the-counter work. We're here to stay. Until they replace us with machines, we will demand that we be treated like human beings.

Rhubarbarism: So can you tell me what happened with Erik Forman?

Jake: Yeah, Erik was/is a coworker of mine who was fired last Thursday or union organizing by our district manager. The official reason was that he "violated the terms of his final written warning by discussing it with a peer."

So the whole story is that Erik received a final written warning (the step before a firing) for being a half-hour later after being on time for an entire year (his previous write-up was from May 2007). Then, a week later, they fired him for discussing the warning. They cited a "confidentiality agreement" that's in their policy that prohibits workers from talking about their write-ups.

Rhubarbarism: So he was fired for discussing his work conditions? What sort of penalties can a company face for violating a worker's constitutional rights like this?

Jake: We've since followed up with the NLRB and found out that it is illegal to prohibit workers from talking about wages, hours, and working conditions, including disciplinary actions. So we've filed a change and, chances are, he'll get his job back.

If the NLRB change goes through, the company will be forced to give Erik his job back with back pay, and post a notice in the back rooms of all stores in the area stating that they will refrain from breaking that section of the law again.

Rhubarbarism: Was the firing a motivating factor for actually forming the union?

Jake: Not so much, itself. It was more the support and solidarity that we saw when we were passing a petition to get Erik's job back that we decided to form a union. We realized that, by having brief discussions with people from other stores, a lot of us have the same problems at work and that we all want to do something about it. So this is the first step.

Rhubarbarism: Can you give me an idea of how the campaign, you called it solidarity unionism, might progress? How do you put pressure on a big chain like Starbucks?

Jake: It's hard to say. Starbucks is big, but at the end of the day, we do the work. If the workers say "no", they have to listen.

Rhubarbarism: The professor quoted in the Pioneer Press article seemed a little disdainful of Wobbly tactics, like the workers certainly wouldn’t mess with the IWW if the big unions cared, why would workers be attracted to the tactics of the IWW in contrast to the big unions?

Jake: There are a number of problems with big unions. For one, they are not democratic. They think that their power lies in their bargaining power and their ability to move contracts. Often, the union leadership is disconnected with people on the shop-floor and, essentially, becomes another bureaucrat. With the IWW, the decision-making and power always remains with the workers on the shop-floor.

We do not believe that unions are magic; for the IWW, unions are really just workers coming together and exercising power in groups.

Rhubarbarism: Have you received any support from mainstream labor organizations?

Jake: My father and grandfather are in the Teamsters and UAW, respectively, and they're very supportive. Does that count?

We haven't heard from any mainstream unions yet.

Rhubarbarism: Can you touch on the IWW history?

Jake: Sure. The IWW was started in 1905 in Chicago. Up until the 1930s and 1940s it was a major force in the US labor movement in many different industries. But it sort of died out in the middle of the century through a combination of red scare and anti-union politics.

Rhubarbarism: What's going on with the union these days?

Jake: It's really popular among workers that, as you mentioned, other mainstream unions won't deal with, like in the service industries or immigrant workers.

Rhubarbarism: It's interesting to me that it's been one of the only unions organizing chain businesses. How funny that a union based out of such industrial roots is the one organizing at the Mall of America, the mecca of American consumerism that it is.

Jake: What better place to start than at the center of the whole thing.

Rhubarbarism: What's the atmosphere like at work now, just red and black banners, and the radio blasting Joe Hill songs? How has management dealt with the unionization?

Jake: It's been pretty low key. The management is pretty nervous, actually. It's pretty cool to see that dynamic reversed; usually workers are scared of management, but it's the other way around now. They're scared of us.

We've also been visited a number of times by the company brass in the last couple of days. One of my coworkers was intimidated by a district manager about his pin.

Rhubarbarism: People in general seem rather skeptical of unions. As a former Teamster, funny enough of the Law Enforcement local, I almost felt like the union was one more set of bosses who wouldn't touch most issues that workers cared about unless it benefit them.

How, for instance, are dues collected [in the IWW]? Who does it go to?

Jake: I think you're right about that.

The IWW is different. Dues are not collected automatically out of paychecks like with other unions. Workers choose to pay the dues if they want to be in the union. It's a voluntary association.

In fact, you don't even have to pay dues. It's nice if you do, so that we can all support each other, but the focus is really not on dues at all. We just want you to join the struggle, and all that other stuff is secondary.

Dues are really cheap, also. I pay $6 per month.

All of our dues money goes to funding our organizing efforts. We use it to make copies, or to support workers who have fallen on hard times. There is only one paid staffperson in the whole union, and other than that it's completely volunteer run. For us, it's not about dues. It's about making our workplaces and lives better.

Rhubarbarism: Have there been any recent developments since Monday? Will the unionization effort spread to other stores? What's in the future?

Jake: It's hard to say what's in the future for our campaign. I can't say too much without tipping our hand. Let just say it's going to be huge.

Take your half-caf and shove it: IWW workers walk-out at MOA Starbucks

The Pioneer Press's Julie Forster reported today that members of the union, International Workers of the World, staged a brief walkout protesting the treatment of employees laid off in recent store closings.

The walkout occurred at a Mall of America Starbucks location. Workers said it involved giving a list of demands to their superiors, as well as faxing a copy to the local Starbucks headquarters in Bloomington.

Forster's piece gave a little historical background on the IWW (called Wobblies), as well as an overview of their Starbucks unionization campaign. It also tried to provide the context of the walkout by citing recent store closures.

In the end, it relied on a typical labor academic, Richard Hurd, a professor of labor studies at Cornell University, to explain how the IWW differs from more traditional labor unions. Hurd ignores the IWW's rejection of standard practices like contracts, and boils it down to the fact that bigger unions are hesitant to help workers in low-level service jobs.

That really misses the opportunity to explain the IWW's critique of these standard labor practices that are basically a criticism of hierarchical and unrepresentative labor unions (I know, as a former Teamster). She also doesn't touch on the changing nature of the economy towards service, or other recent non-traditional labor campaigns like United Food and Commercial Workers' attempts at organizing Walmart or the Steelworkers' organization of nursing homes.

But, well, all the Star Tribune bothered to do was sum up a press release.


------------------
I usually try to avoid outright commentary on this blog, but as a barista (at an independent shop) I think I might be able to counter some of the more vitriolic points made by PP readers commenting on the story.
------------------


Whether most of those Dilberts know it or not, the job market has increasingly veered towards customer service jobs: Blue collar was exported, white collar is on the way. What are young, even educated, people supposed to do? Corporations and baby boomers sold the basic economic infrastructure out from under them. The Democrats' pet, NAFTA, erased borders for corporations and sent wages and conditions into free-fall for the average worker. There is no longer such a thing as job security, or even of moving to another job to get better pay.

Let's balance the price of a large latte with the scant cost of a livable wage that also saves society money by lowering crime rates and the amount of people who need public subsidies. Anyway, why shouldn't more profit from the 4$ mochacino stay local rather than flying off to the pockets of shareholders and bosses in Seattle?

Workers use unions to even out the playing field in this Free market, which so often benefits the already wealthy. If the politicians in this country are unwilling to address the always increasing gap between the wealthy and those who work, than it falls to workers to do it. It's the natural cycle. It happened during our last Guilded Age and wasn't set right when people just whined about health co-pays, it wasn't set right by politicians; it was set right by unions, and held that way for 50 years to maintain a flourishing middle class that only now is disappearing, because the owners and bosses got too greedy, and people had finally eaten enough shit to stand up to them.

Naomi Klein explains disaster capitalism on Fox News

Naomi Klein appeared on a Fox News business program on July 17 and was able to counter Fox's homespun propaganda machine to offer the little-heard perspective, in mainstream media anyway, that corporations are exploiting the "energy crisis" to increase their profit.

Radio with fewer boundaries: KFAI will increase its power in September

In a recent posting on their website, KFAI, the long-running community radio station on the West Bank of Minneapolis, announced on their website that their proposal to increase broadcast power has been approved by the FCC.

The project, which will be completed Sept. 1, includes a new directional antenna in Minneapolis that will increase broadcast range as far south as Apple Valley and north into the Minneapolis suburbs. KFAI will also install a new digital translator in St. Paul to replace the old failing one that has been operating at 70 percent power, which will clarify the reception in St. Paul.

Also approved by the FCC was a request to transition both signals at 90.3 in Minneapolis and 106.7 in St. Paul to digital. KFAI produced a map for listeners showing the new range of their transmitters.

KFAI is a community-run radio station staffed by mostly volunteers that has broadcast in Minneapolis for over 30 years. Hourly shows are hosted by people from the community and cover such diverse subjects as punk, bluegrass, and blues, as well as shows tackling public policy like Democracy Now!. KFAI also maintains a small newsroom that compiles hourly updates in the afternoons as well as a nightly show on the weekdays. KFAI is an affiliate of the Pacifica Radio network and member of the Independent Public Radio, a network of community stations in Minnesota. Funding is acquired through listener donations, as well as a variety of grants.

[Disclosure: I formerly interned in the news department at KFAI]

The newspapers dug their own graves: A response to "An Open Letter to Craigslist"

Steve Outing, of Reinventing Classifieds dot com, published an "open letter" to Craigslist founder Craig Newmark last week. The gist of his well-intentioned argument is that Craigslist should share classified ad resources with the newspapers industry in order to preserve journalism.

The plea of Outing's letter, which is what it amounts to, is based on the premise that Craigslist took advertisers from newspapers, which sunk them in the troubled times the industry is currently weeping about-- which will no doubt intensify into outright caterwauling due to the resignation of evil cost-cutting publisher David Hiller from the L.A. Times this week. Even he, who seemed to revel in the do-more-with-less bullshit, couldn't stand more cuts.

My initial reaction was to dig up factoids about the newspaper industry: Wall Street's insistence on maintaining margins in the upper 20 and 3o percents, the gutting of news departments, how newspapers sunk themselves under speculative debt loads, and the failures of mainstream info-tainment to add to the public discourse. Better people than myself have argued these points factually: Molly Ivins, Jack Shafer of Slate, and, well, me a couple months back (I had a better haircut then).

Private profit or public interest?

Any liability for the health of the newspaper industry by Craigslist would have to be based on the premise that newspapers in their current form serve the public interest. As consolidation has increased under fewer companies since the 1996 telecommunications act which-- for those with short memories, was enacted under a Democrat named Clinton-- the mania towards profit has geared them away from real news. It just cost too much.

The Legacy of all this cost-cutting and consolidation?

The mainstream failed horrifically after September 11th, cowed by pressure from authorities, and a seemingly jingoistic public. For that failure, we have illegal internment camps, unregulated telecommunications companies spying on people, two wars in faraway lands with thousands dead, oh, and record profits for the oil industry. The newspapers may still do human interest pieces, resembling TV fluff more every day, but they (the publishers and decision-makers) mostly missed the mark on important issues where it took bravery and a willingness to be unpopular.

Anyway, would Craigslist's support even matter to journalism?

Outing makes the relevant point that journalism is necessary for a democratic society. Right. But, how would it realistically help journalism if Craigslist propped the profit margins of these media conglomerates back up at 30 percent? If they saw a way to make money without in-depth news, would they really rush to fill the newsrooms back up? Wall Street just doesn't work like that.

Outing is right when he says that the public needs full-time professional journalists to do real investigative work, but it will likely take a different form than the archaic, top-heavy newspapers. Anyway, Craigslist's efforts would be better spent in real journalism projects, non-profits like Pro-Publica that aren't so sullied by scrabbling for stockholders. Dare I suggest it: Cooperatives.

Shafer argues that Wall Street will eventually move on, leaving newspaper companies divested of most infrastructure and much of their reputations, only then, he says, will newspapers return to local ownership.

But in an increasingly online world, there's not much point in resurrecting newspapers. They should, as Shafer terms it, be liquidated. When they neglected the public trust for short-term profit it just happened to be during the biggest technological revolution since the printing press; they dug their own graves.

Review: The Agenda -Pessimism of the Mind, Optimism of the Will 7"

The Agenda
Pessimism of the Mind, Optimism of the Will 7"
Fashionable Idiots Records

---

The Agenda are one of those punk bands who manage to transcend the common banalities of the genre by throwing in unexpected influences, good lyrics, and unique vocals. They strike a nice balance between being unconventional without chopping off their roots in DIY punk.

The Agenda are from Minneapolis and play spastic high-energy hardcore and, like most good Minneapolis bands, also throw in a medley of weird influences that give them a uniquely fresh sound eschewing the irritating machismo so common in the scene. (I just googled the word spastic to make sure it wasn't offensive. Turns out, according to wikipedia, it isn't. Or, it is, but only to English people. Which I think is probably OK).

Perhaps the most striking feature of The Agenda on this recording is that the songs escape traditional structures-- belaying expectations of what's supposed to happen next-- because they're so tied to the political lyrics and frantic, ranty vocal delivery (a la a less irritating Dead Kennedys with maybe a hint of Rites of Spring). The sound, maybe due to being at 45 RPMs instead of 33 1/3, is better than their last 7", Articulation, and their guitar sound seems more developed with less of the straightforward leads and breakdowns, and more unrestrained vocals (although it's been a while since I've listened to it).

Pessimism of the Mind, Optimism of the Will was released by Fashionable Idiots records. It's got three songs, clocking in at around four minutes on each side. The jacket's design is in the same colorful, clear style as their last 7", with lyrics printed on a nicely designed insert (although the font on the last song looks so much like one of those blog word-balloon things that I can barely follow it).

I realized just now that I'm using a lot of big words to describe what's essentially just a furious, inspiring, raw, and unique band. Listen to an MP3 at the Fashionable Idiots site. It's good stuff, well worth checking out.

Three-car hit and run: Lack of accountability from local media

You know when you're cutting your hair or something and accidentally take a chunk out the back, so you try to even out the other side? Usually in the end, it goes from bad to worse and you end up looking like Bill the cat from Opus.

A recent City Pages blog posting managed to give a similarly bad haircut, only in written form.

Avista owns offshore drilling interests/ Trib doesn't disclose

Kevin Hoffman, editor of the City Pages, blogs out an online squabble (he titles it a "journalistic catfight") revolving around an article MinnPost's David Brauer wrote about the Star Tribune's flip-flop of their editorial position on offshore drilling. Brauer's argument was that the editorial board should have disclosed that their new owner, Avista Capital Partners, has investments in at least four firms that concentrate on offshore drilling.

Brauer's piece was chock-full of information about Avista and their business interests. It didn't delve extensively into the Star Tribune's response, but it was at least a starting point.

You'd think the Star and Tribune would go in the shower and do some basic self-examination. Instead, the article unearthed Star and Tribune editorial board member Jill Burcum, who posted a long pissed-off response essentially calling Brauer a hypocrite for daring to call out the Star Tribune when MinnPost also has undisclosed interests. It's pretty gross stuff that tries to validate the Star Tribune's editorial on offshore drilling by maligning MinnPost, one of the few bright spots on the local media horizon.

She's says this in the first line of her response:

"MinnPost views itself as a Star Tribune competitor. It stands to benefit directly from a weakened Star Tribune."

For Burcum to pretend that the Star Tribune should somehow be exempt from critiques by other media organizations, whether she respects their audience or not, borders on slimy monopoly-style conspiracy.

This statement from the Society of Profession Journalists code of ethics demonstrates why Brauer's critique of the Star and Tribune's lack of disclosure was valid:

"Journalists should:

—Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.

— Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility."

Here's the foundation for why Brauer's article itself is valid, and maybe a hint of how the Star Tribune should have reacted:

"Journalists should:

— Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.

— Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media."

I know no one really cares about this stuff anymore. But this is what Burcum is arguing about; just because she may be right that MinnPost has been sloppy in its reporting in the past doesn't mean Brauer's critiques of the Star Tribune aren't valid. Old media's insistence that bloggers and new media like MinnPost have no right to criticize them because we don't live in journalists' shoes smacks of outdated elitism. Just because we're uncredentialed doesn't mean you get a pass on your failures to inform the public.

The City Pages? White Knight? Good night.

The comments between Burcum and Brauer continued until City Pages' Hoffman stepped in with his own article that further sensationalized the conflict by portraying it as a wrestling match (a thin-skinned satire perhaps inspired by an earlier Brauer critique of Hoffman as "testosterone driven").

There's a couple problems with how this dialogue happened, most of which former City Pages staffer and current freelancer (including at MinnPost), Molly Priesmeyer, astutely summed up in her comments at City Pages:

"Nice to see a "journalist" ignoring the real story here: Avista's ties to big oil and the lack of transparency in corporate news rooms. Brauer wrote what was probably one the most important media stories of the year, and yet, because of big egos and a media landscape fraught with job uncertainty, it's been reduced to nothing more than a cage match?"

The fact that the formerly-reputable City Pages only stoked the fire of an ego-driven dispute while, as Molly P pointed out, ignoring the real story, is most disheartening. Many will undoubtedly herald it as further evidence of CP's decline that they squander the opportunity to raise the level of discourse (pretty clearly out of a personal vendetta of their own).

Hoffman's posting could have been funny because it satired the somewhat childish squabbling on MinnPost's comments page, but it wasn't worth the missed opportunity; It could have risen above, it could have brought up the media's accountability to the public interest. Unfortunately, that rising above stuff might be dangerous territory for a weekly paper also owned by a huge conglomerate, Village Voice Media.

How many more fluffy cover stories about Rhymesayers will we read anyway, before we look in the mirror and wonder how we got this fucked up haircut?

Bang!: Fireworks injuries and damages rise in Minnesota since legalization

From the middle of June until the middle of August, the arguable tranquility of my Phillips neighborhood in Minneapolis is broken by all sorts of whistles, snaps, pops, and bangs. Bikers scan the bridges overlooking the Greenway for kids shooting fireworks down. Dogs cower in bathtubs and piss all over the floor rather than go outside. In a neighborhood with its share of gun violence, people say,"That was just a firework, right?"

For 61 years after fireworks were banned in Minnesota in 1941, the only way for Minnesotans to get their paws on all these explosives was to drive to the Wisconsin border, where warehouses were packed with all sorts of exotic armaments with names like Public Outrage, Run Like Hell, and Dragon Farts. In 2002, a couple years after Jesse Ventura was elected governor, he signed a bill that legalized certain types of fireworks-- essentially sparklers and snap'n'pops. Any fireworks that are aerial or explosive are still banned, according to the statute.

When I work at the coffee shop in Kingsfield-- a relatively affluent neighborhood near Uptown-- there are no explosions. Riding east on the Greenway, the bangs get more common. I estimate you hear an explosion every 10 or 15 seconds until past midnight. These explosions, are not sparklers or snap'n'pops. I don't know quite why they're so common, but since Ventura legalized fireworks they've been a yearly nuisance in my neighborhood.

It's not only a matter of irritation, it's a matter of public safety. Every year the Minnesota State Fire Marshall collects data about the number of people admitted to the hospital during 4th of July weekend. In the four years before Ventura legalized them, there were about 25 injuries per year. In 2002, it abruptly bumped up to 92, steadily rising until 2004 when it reached a high of 111 before dipping back down to 67 last year, still almost three times the rate of the years before legalization. Remember that these stats also only reflect those who reported to the hospital on fourth of July weekend. Fireworks are flying in my neighborhood for two solid months.

On the economic side, the number of incidents of property damage has increased 15 times since before the legalization. Economic damage has risen by about six to seven times as much.

Minneapolis doesn't currently have a particular statute dedicated to fireworks regulation. They do have a word document on safety though!

I don't really want to criminalize the possession fireworks; what's the point? But I don't see why retailers should be selling glossy sets of them at Target (a WCCO "I" team report found last year that most big-box retailers don't check IDs, as you're supposed to be 18 to buy any fireworks in Minnesota). Whether that's where people are getting these explosive fireworks, or in the same warehouses at the Wisconsin border as always, I don't care. They're a nuisance that has gotten worse over the years. Anyone who doesn't think so should come see the chaotic aftermath of the fireworks gathering in Powderhorn Park, with bombs and flashes and sirens going off for hours.

So from now on, go to Powderhorn Park or the Taste of Minnesota, even explode them on Fourth of July weekend, but the rest of the time let's stick to those smoky worm pellets and sparklers.