Generally, I can tell the difference between “news” and an ad. It’s not that hard; usually near the ads there’s some sort of notice identifying certain information as sponsored by some company or other. I try to avoid the sponsored links, because I know that clicking on one will not only make somebody some money off of my viewing, but that very often my computer will accept a cookie that may track my activities. I don’t know about you, but I just find it creepy to be tracked like this. Not that I do anything terribly illegal (well, mostly) when I’m on line, but I just, well, don’t like the idea of someone keeping track of the pages I peruse.

Side bar for a thought experiment! What if some store owners somehow, unbeknownst to you, tagged you electronically when you were in their store and tracked you around for a few days or weeks afterward to observe what you did and what you bought? Even if it were for your own good, you know, to help improve how the business world serves you, I bet you’d feel a bit creeped out, right? If you put it this way, I think more people would strongly support anti-tracking cookie legislation.

Anyhoo, today I noticed two columns of stories side by side under the story I had just read. One was labeled “More from the Times,” and the other “From around the Web.” At first glance (I think you’ll agree), they appear to be presented on equivalent terms. “Here are some of our stories, and here are some stories from other places.” (Apologies for the size of the image.)

I noticed that one of the stories (not pictured above) in the second column was about how the economy is going to hell and there’s some sort of attendant consumer trend catching on. Lately I’ve had a hunch that the economy is going to hell soon (I mean really, *really* going to hell, and really, *really* soon). It’s not really a hunch that’s exclusive to me, of course. Maybe you, too, have noticed that things don’t seem to be going that well, economy-wise. All the same, I sensed that this story would help me develop my hunch into a theory.

Anyway, of course the second part of the headline link, about how there’s some sort of trend, should have tipped me off that this was not just a news story link, but I guess my guard was a little down because the story was in a column just like the column to the left of it, a column of legitimate news stories. Right?

I was taken to a site with “Money News” in the URL, and the story itself was written in that way that lengthy emails that are trying to sell you something are written. It kept saying the same thing again and again, punctuated with links to some sort of product that would advise the reader on just what to do with her/his money in order not to lose it all in the coming shitstorm.

I knew that I’d been duped, but I kept reading the story anyway, half thinking to myself that maybe this was actually a slightly legitimate news site, like maybe Fox Money News. After I had thoroughly failed to convince myself that the site was anything but an attempt to part me from some of my money, I hit the back arrow and looked more closely at the second column of stories on the LA Times page.

Clicking on the little “[what's this]” link on the lower right brought up a box with the following text. “An Outbrain customer paid to distribute this content. We do our best to ensure that all of the links recommended to you lead to interesting content. To find out more information about driving traffic to your content or to place this widget on your site, visit outbrain.com. We welcome your feedback at feedback@outbrain.com. View our privacy policy here.”

I noticed that some of the stories had more legitimate sounding goals for their readers, imparting important information like why not to ignore “GERD symptoms,” whatever they are. Others were more clearly just blatant propaganda, like the story from “ExxonMobil Perspectives” on how oil companies are stimulating the economy to the tune of $1 trillion.

It occurred to me right then that the wall between “news” and “ads” is highly permeable indeed (if not even non-existent), that the left-hand column, the “More stories from the Times” *are* more or less equivalent to the stories “From around the Web,” that this sort of advertising doesn’t raise its information to the level of news, but helps to bring the news down to the level of advertising. The LA Times, after all, wants me to click on its stories just as much as it wants me to click on those ads. It gets paid for both, right? I know this isn’t exactly a novel thought, but it’s something that I think I often forget when I look at news websites expecting simply to be informed.

1.) This song “A Real Hero” by College (feat. Electric Youth) is from the movie Drive. I could not stop playing this song every day, ten times a day, for a week straight. Especially after experiencing the movie. Go ahead, see the movie and see if you do not play this song obsessively. And if you go, which I strongly recommend, know this: it has some serious violence. I felt a bit traumatized when the movie ended. But also, I felt like I had just watched something amazing. One of my favorite movies of the year. Anyone else feel the same?

Click here to view the embedded video.

2.) Berlin. While visiting that city a couple weeks ago we were struck by a few things. First, it’s a really really fun place to visit right now (ok, for a few years now, but we’re late to the party). It’s cheap. It’s energized. There is a DIY artistic entrepreneurial-ness everywhere. Except for the food–which is terrible (Such a weird defect in a world-class city. But, communism, I imagine, was not a nurturing patron of inventive cuisines. Also, as a guide book pointed out, Germany’s short-lived stint as a World Empire meant that its colonies never got a gastro-foot-hold in Berlin, unlike say, Britain’s Indian cuisine, France’s Moroccan, Dutch’ Indonesian, etc.) Another thing, a lot of people walk their dogs off-leash. And people don’t seem to care. And people walk their dogs right onto the subway. It’s a very permissive city. You can buy beer, wine, liquor at just about any corner store. And throughout the night. And you can carry it on the street. Or onto the subway. Berlin’s treatment of alcohol is fascinating. I’ve never seen people on a subway car at 10:30 in the morning enjoying a large green bottle of beer. People who look like they’re on their way to work. Perhaps other countries in the world are just as permissive, I’ve just never seen it displayed like this before. The other thing about Berlin is how it makes you confront some heavy heavy shit. You don’t get that gut-kick visiting Barcelona or Beijing. The War, the holocaust, the Wall. There are some really moving memorials and museums completed in the last few years, in particular, the holocaust memorial and the Jewish History Museum (by Daniel Libeskind). I won’t describe them here, but by themselves they would make the trip to Berlin worth the trouble.

3.) Amsterdam. Has anyone else been there recently? Is it just me, or is it just a little bit boring? For all the ground-breaking permissiveness of this city (red-lights, coffee houses, legalized outdoor sex in their public park, etc.), it felt really sleepy. Central Amsterdam–outside of the red-light district–is a gorgeous and dreamy world of canals, bridges, and 17th Century houses and is clearly inhabited by very wealthy people. It’s like visiting those tiny brownstone streets in the West Village, except with much greater acreage and more beauty, and everyone rides bikes instead of cabs, but it still feels unwelcoming, like you don’t belong there. And for a city known for its nightlife, it closes down really early. We had a hard time finding a place for dinner after ten. And it was hard to get find a decent place to have a drink after eleven. It felt at times like a movie-set that gets abandoned by night–except for that occasional bike whisking by. Maybe Summer is a lot different than October. And with a pack of friends in the know, it’s probably a lot more fun. Did we miss something? Is there a good reason to visit again soon?

4.) Occupy Wall Street. A couple days ago I came across this link to Adbusters that proposed OWS finally take up a unifying cause: The Robin Hood Tax. Why hadn’t I heard of this until now? The Robin Hood Tax video (feat. Bill Nighy) below is from February. Of 2010. I should really check my facebook more often. Regardless, the video’s pretty clever. Could this idea really work? Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have signed on. And a lot of smart economists too. Could this be the unifying rallying cry that OWS could finally manifest? Maybe. Is this the time? Adbusters proposes October 29th. The Robin Hood Global March. Torches and pitchforks. And our TGW masks. If this is for real, my fellow travelers, let’s make ourselves heard! Anyone in?

Click here to view the embedded video.

I don’t know what kind of neighborhood you live in, but I live in one that is owned, not by the residents or even the banks, but by a bunch of realtors. On most days, I can expect that a member of this cadre will place a magnetic calendar or some other such piece of ridiculous crap on my doorstep.  Can you tell by my tone that this bothers me?  It does so partly because I like to view my house as a home, not as an investment. For the realtors, however, their game-plan is to convince me of the reverse — to monetize the walls and roof that act as a shell for much of the love that I own in my world.

So what does any of this have to do with 9/11?  Great question! One of the strategies that this insidiously self-promotional group employs is to plant my neighborhood with little American flags a few days before patriotic holidays.

Why does this bother me?  Great question! Partially because I’m ME, and I’m sure that some of you know what I mean by this, but the other reason is that the realtors usually attach business cards to the flags of which I speak. I think you’re starting to see where I’m going with this.  The other day, I came home to a neighborhood flag planting in honor of 9/11.  The above image was attached to each flag.

Is there anything printed on the back of the image? Why yes, there is; thanks you for asking. Here’s the text:

“On this observance of Patriot Day, we remember and honor those who perished in the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001. We will not forget the events of that terrible morning nor will we forget how Americans responded in New York City, at the Pentagon, and in the skies over Pennsylvania — with heroism and selflessness; with compassion and courage; and with prayer and hope.  We will always remember our collective obligation to ensure that justice is done, that freedom prevails, and that the principles upon which our Nation was founded endure.”

Oh, then underneath that moving (yet somehow so deeply troubling) tribute is this: “X CRUZ: REALTOR * www.XCruzRealtor.com * Direct: (562) 313-****.”

Again, you may wonder why this bothers me so much. Well I’ll tell you. I see right through their little ploy (and it’s actually quite brilliant): unless one wants to be seen as an unpatriotic heathen by their neighbors, homeowners are compelled to leave the little flags planted on their lawns, so passers by can examine the cards, and hopefully list their homes with X. Cruz — Ms. Cruz and her kind are playing a really messed up game with us here.  Even if we disagree with the sentiment on the card that reads, “We will always remember our collective obligation to ensure that justice is done…” we are still supposed to feel a guilt-driven compulsion to swallow it and leave the flags firmly planted in our yards.

As I see it, the flags are not a patriotic expression as much as a reminder that the realtors have lain claim to our home. They are little Columbuses, Desotos, Cabots, and Hudsons who fail to understand that someone already lives here, that this is a neighborhood, and not simply an untapped resource. But given that this is the spirit upon which America wasdiscovered and founded, I guess maybe it all makes perfect sense — maybe too perfect.

This is why when one is planted in my yard, I pull the cheap, plastic advertisement out of the ground and toss it in the recycling bin. Does that make me a bad American? Maybe so, but not unAmerican.

It’s hard to sum up what April 29, 2011 means, but the copy writer at the Franklin Mint has nailed it:

Kate Middleton is living the dream every little girl holds dear…and every woman remembers with a smile…becoming a Princess. For the first time in over 350 years, a non-royal like one of us is beginning that journey for real.

Not having the time or patience to verify, I have to trust that the historical observation is accurate…but really?  No commoners in 350 years?  That must take us back to Henry VIII’s wives.

And isn’t the Franklin Mint an American company?  So has it adopted the British monarchy or has someone researched global monarchy and concluded that it’s been commoner-free for 350 years?

Perhaps I’d understand more if I read this:

Commoners – time is running out.  You need to decide what merch will you be rush shipping for your Royal Wedding festivities.

Will it be Franklin Mint’s Kate Middleton Royal Engagement Vinyl Portrait Doll?

Or these charmingly low tech paper dolls?

Which turn out to be rather saucy.

Although not as saucy as these “crown jewels.”

Of course, no party would be complete without a ring.

And no royal memorabilia collection can live without a mug.

What else has tickled your royal fancy?

This photo appeared in Friday’s LA Times, and I’m sure in several other papers across the country. The accompanying story is about former NHL player Bob Probert, who recently died of heart failure.  The article doesn’t have as much to do with his death as it does about what was found afterwards. Mr. Probert’s post-mortem brain shows signs of chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a degenerative disease that more commonly affects former boxers.

This announcement is troubling, but apparently, not a huge surprise; more and more retired athletes (primarily football and hockey players) are receiving this diagnosis.

Saddest to me, and what the story doesn’t touch upon, is the way the lure of careers in professional sports drive (mostly) boys and young men to damage their bodies in different ways.  And how they’re encouraged by coaches to “walk off” any number of injuries, from twisted ankles to concussions.  At 15, I was even told to walk off what wound up being torn ligaments and cartilage in my knee.

So why would we send young people into the arms of these demon taskmasters to suffer the perils described above? I’d suggest that because there’s physical exercise and “life lessons” involved, we’ve collectively assumed that organized sports are inherently good for kids. And as the media perpetually reminds us, every child is about a heartbeat away from becoming a strung-out, zombie gang member who has complete disregard for his own or any other life.  Given this choice, staying after school and practicing for whatever team seems very much like god’s gift of salvation.

I recently had a conversation with a professional football trainer who shared with me his understanding of the likely financial and physical ruin that awaits even successful players.  According to him, all those young and healthy linemen that you see beating each other up on Sunday won’t be able to walk, use their hands, or raise their arms above shoulder lever by the time they are 45.  And to make matters much worse, players’ NFL health insurance runs out (I believe he told me) 5 years after retirement — hence the financial ruin part of the equation.

The stories that the trainer told reminded me of the flack that Rasheed Wallace caught from NBA executives and the press when he equated being a professional basketball player with being a slave. I know that it’s difficult to feel sympathy for millionaire athletes like ‘Sheed. But the reality is that the vast majority of people who make it to the pros, regardless of the sport, only last a few years, and wind up making much less money than we might imagine — the league minimum for NFL players last year was $350,000.00, and the average pay was about $788,000.00.  That’s not a lot if you consider that the player who earns this has likely given up a college degree, and played for only 3 or 4 years before facing an uncertain future, likely with few marketable skills and possibly no health insurance.  And to this, we might consider adding the great possibility of depression that comes with the loss of lifelong dreams — imagine the intensity of spending every part of your being in pursuit of one single thing, and that thing being taken away from you.

But parents and children still buy into the myth that a pro contract is a one-way ticket to an instantly glamourous lifestyle.  Except for the extreme minority, it isn’t — I’m not sure of the odds, but I imagine that the likelihood of becoming a millionaire athlete must be similar to the likelihood of winning some mega-million-dollar lottery. The problem, of course,  is that there are really, really rich people who become even more wealthy by selling this dream to starry-eyed parents and children.

What further bewilders me about professional sports, and what this post was originally going to be about is that, to my knowledge, professional athletics is the only career in which one can bloody a coworker without going to jail.  Isn’t this totally bizarre?  Have any of you ever heard anyone talk about how weird this is?  I know I haven’t. Other than when spectators are involved have any of you ever heard of an athlete being arrested for an on-the-field/ice/court brawl?

A more interesting question might be, why do people in the sports industrial complex celebrate on-the-field violence?  Or, why don’t the cameras stop shooting, as they do when fans misbehave? (The accepted norm of sports broadcasting is that when a fan jumps onto the field or otherwise draws attention to him- or herself, the cameras stop shooting as a way of not encouraging such behaviors.)

The answer is that players getting away with misconduct that would be jailable offenses for the rest of us, is one of the sports dream’s most alluring messages: professional athletes live in a special realm — a never-never land where children don’t have to grow up. To be a professional athlete is to live outside of the norms and laws that the rest of us must obey.

And this reality highlights the hypocritical tightrope that team owners walk: making a sport appeal to family viewers, while still understanding and perpetuating the violence that is inherent (and profitable) in professional sports. So players get fines for fighting, and league higher-ups go public with their condemnation of violence, but they are clearly disingenuous in their criticisms. If they were serious, wouldn’t they encourage legislation that would have players arrested for attacking one another?  Wouldn’t violent players at least be barred from league play?

These are obviously rhetorical questions. We all know the answer; it is spelled M-O-N-E-Y.

…for more on this subject, this article was published in yesterday’s NY Times.