It is being widely reported that Cineworld, the UK based parent company of Regal Cinemas, has filed for bankruptcy, following a “return” from the pandemic that has proven less profitable than the company believed. Some articles are reporting a debt of $8.4 billion dollars. I’m no financial reporter, and I’m certainly not privy to any inside information, so I’ll take that number as gospel and say that seems like a large sum of money.

It is my job, as the resident loud fool, to complain, wax philosophically, and nerd out over the meaningless minutia of this largely insignificant news.

First, let us ponder what Cineworld actually said regarding the bankruptcy. The company stated that a “lack of blockbusters” was hurting their liquidity. This seems pretty straightforward from a boardroom standpoint. Fewer big ticket films mean fewer ticket sales. 1+1=2. As we all know, however, boardroom types are some the least imaginative people on Earth. If they had any creative-thinking skills at all, they’d be creators instead of tasteless arbiters of taste.

Cineworld runs a cadre of movie theaters. Perhaps the most magical thing about movie theaters is the way they make us feel. Movies invoke passion, spark deep nostalgia, and allow us to escape our stressful, tightly-scheduled lives for 120 minutes of shared experience with fellow dreamers. Anyone you know can easily name 10 movies they love, but not so easily name which one they love the most. Movies are wonderful, and movie theaters are still the best delivery system out there. Cineworld can and should be delivering on that nostalgia. Why wait around for the next shallow cash-in from the Marvel Cinematic Universe (full disclosure: I absolutely love Marvel films and will almost assuredly be buying a ticket to see the next one)? Why not host midnight showings of the old 1990 Captain America film (starring the always magnificent Ronnie Cox)? The film isn’t good, but you’re selling nostalgia and feelings. For those with no nostalgia around this film, and I’m sure there are plenty, there will be a curiosity at play that almost certainly outweighs the desire for another slog through the deepest, C-list superheroes Marvel is churning out now. Maybe I’m wrong, though, more on that later…

Perhaps this film is too pungent for Cineworld, not an unreasonable stance. Why not run showings of the 1986 Top Gun in the lead-up to Maverick? The recent film is nothing if not a play at nostalgia, and if Cineworld has decided that big-ticket nostalgia is the move, why stop at Tom Cruise? The Exorcist, Lost Boys, Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure, and Predator are just a few of the franchises that recently rebooted or re-appeared, to middling levels of success. I firmly believe that movie-goers would rather watch the originals that they may have been too young to see in theaters and have since grown to love than shabby reboots or prequels.

Yes, streaming services are a “problem”, I guess. In the same way maybe Blockbuster was a problem for theaters in the 1990s? Film studios want to make money. If you’ll pay them to run their films, they’ll take the deal. If showing the 1986 film creates more buzz for the 2022 version, great for them. Again, I’m no financial expert, but this seems like a flimsy excuse to me.

There is no shortage of disaffected, creative American youth. This means there is no shortage of creative American youth making films. The vast majority of them are absolutely starving for a chance to show their film on the silver screen. Theaters should host their local artists’ films. Friends and family would flock to the theater to walk the red carpet and shower their loved ones in the glow of cinematic success. Many of them will suck, but the quality of the film will not matter as much as the shared experience of movie magic. I promise you, many of them will not suck, and all of them will be better than Tyler Perry’s or Will Ferrell’s next picture. Have a film festival.

Nope. The non-creative financial geniuses in Cineworld’s boardrooms thought raising prices (again) on popcorn and candy, adding lukewarm, sub-par alcohol to the lobby menu, and waiting for Fast and Furious Pt. 25 with their fingers crossed was a solid plan.

But wait…

I pulled some comments from IGN’s Instagram post about this bankruptcy, and here is what members of the public had to say:

“No wonder. We don’t wanna see movies filled with political bullshit. Most Hollywood movies are like that now.”

“Movies are failing because it’s all just manufactured liberal garbage.”

“A lot of the original stuff coming out just doesn’t intrigue me”

There are also numerous comments about how badly employees are treated and how obscenely priced concessions are. As silly as the “political bullshit” comments may be, the rest of it is valid. Cinemas have lowered their own bar. It shouldn’t cost so much to see a film, especially in a shoddy theater. When I buy a $15 dollar bucket of popcorn, is it benefitting the employees who popped it, ensuring they are getting paid to sufficiently clean bathrooms and keep the theater pristine? Probably not. It’s probably the CEO of Cinemark who thinks he/she needs a second mansion in London. Of course, the theaters are not maintained in pristine fashion, as landlords cut corners and underpaid, bored employees say “f*** it.”

I suspect, though, that the comments about being uninterested in original material springs from someone who probably belongs in a boardroom. Theaters are, in some ways, at the mercy of the movie studios, and the studios are churning out dog shit. We’ve all seen dog shit before.

Filmmaker Kevin Smith, writer/director of Clerks, Chasing Amy, and Dogma (also dog shit like Cop Out and Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back) recently bought his hometown movie theater in Leonardo, NJ. It is being refurbished into a hybrid film school at which Smith himself will hold court, and is hosting a festival of independent films from filmmakers all over the US. Smith, while certainly a millionaire, is only one guy with one theater, but he gets it. Maybe his theater will be a little more niche’ than most, but rest assured these are the kinds of things that will reinvigorate the cinemaplex. It’s practically a given that the films being shown on his screens will not be the seventh sequel to Expendables. Surely, a company like Cineworld had the resources to do such a thing on a much grander scale, with the added bonus of still hosting the Marvels and Star Wars of the world. They chose the non-creative, corporate way. That’s how we all end up with a choice between dog shit or nothing. And really, why wouldn’t you choose nothing?

The first time I’ve watched a film on its release date since Rise of Skywalker. The popcorn in my living room is highly superior to the popcorn at Brenden Theaters.

Anyway, I guess there has been some sort of controversy around this film. Not that it’s too gory or overtly sexual, or that it is pushing cinema out of the general consciousness to make room for yet another super-hero popcorn film, but that it got made by James Gunn. At least I think that’s the controversy. I’m not really sure; my definition of controversy does not involve angry hate nerds dancing their fingers across their keyboards to “review bomb” something. I hear they’re mad because James Gunn isn’t Zack Snyder and these same nerds love the Snyder Cut of Justice League (full disclosure: I also very much liked the Snyder cut). Why this necessitates writing poor reviews for a movie before it is released, I do not understand. I’ve looked into reasons why Snyder snobs are doing so and only become more confused. For what it’s worth (in this context, nearly everything), I’ve seen this movie.

Is this film a sequel to the original David Ayer film, or a reboot? The official answer is the latter, but Gunn brought back characters from the first film, played by the same actors, and it is certainly implied that they know each other. Each of Harley Quinn’s (Margot Robbie) interactions with Rick Flag (Joel Kinnaman) strongly suggest these characters have dealt with each other before.

Speaking of Harley Quinn… Harley Quinn is in this movie. The character still looks and sounds like the Harley Quinn I remember from the animated series and video games and comic books (Robbie embodies her extremely well), but I do not necessarily recognize her. When did she become a trained fighter? Who trained her? She wasn’t granted magical or superhuman powers that I’m aware of, so how is she able to pull off some of these maneuvers? Isn’t she more of a guns and sledgehammers kinda gal? After contemplating this during a 10-minute stretch of the film, I decided that it wasn’t particularly important to know the answer. It looked cool; roll with it and enjoy the film, Ebert. To paraphrase the wife, the question posed to her: “She knows how to do this stuff because she’s a popular and marketable character who the Hot Topic girls dress as for Halloween.”

I became aware of Suicide Squad director James Gunn through his work on Troma Films like Tromeo and Juliet and Terror Firmer, although I didn’t specifically know them as James Gunn films* at the time. His name stuck with me later because of his work on the video game Lollipop Chainsaw. Gunn got his huge break writing/directing Guardians of the Galaxy for Disney. That film gives you a pretty good idea of what you can expect, tone-wise, from Suicide Squad, except the absurdity is turned way up and the gore, almost non-existent in the Disney-owned MCU, is gratuitous. I mean this as high praise. The movie is stylized in a way that is unrealistic even for a superhero movie, and there is one fight scene (involving Harley Quinn, naturally) that could have been pulled directly out of Lollipop Chainsaw. This movie is fun to look at, and quite a departure from a DCEU that can often be downright bleak.

The soundtrack is fun, I don’t remember a ton of orchestral, cinematic score, but the music of the Pixies and the Fratellis is used to great effect at points in the story.

Unbelievably, John Cena and Sylvester Stallone are scene-stealers, no easy feat when sharing a screen with the vivacious Ms. Robbie or the excellent Idris Elba. Elba’s portrayal of Bloodsport is effective because the character doesn’t let us forget that these protagonists are not “good guys”. Don’t get me wrong: no Oscars are going to be handed out. There was one point when I thought to myself, “I cannot believe they convinced Viola Davis to be in this movie,” but with the exception of some very cheesy dialogue (Quinn’s thoughts on rain), I didn’t get pulled out of the film by bad acting. An aside: I never thought I would ever hear John Cena say ‘fuck’.

The villain: It’s hard to even comment on this without spoiling it. The villain is definitely not who you think it is going to be, and even after you find out who it is, you might be wrong.

So, should you see this film?

Can you handle/do you enjoy over-the-top gore? This movie earns its R-rating there, most assuredly. Do NOT watch this children. Are you weirdly dedicated to Zack Snyder, to the point where you can’t enjoy anyone else directing a DC Comics film? Are you a fan of slightly strange, not-too-serious superhero films, or do you only enjoy the straightforward nature of films like Avengers: Infinity War and Justice League? If you answered yes, no, and “yea, I like slightly strange,” you should. It’s a tad on the long side, and some of the scenes gave me deja vu of the first film, but it’s fun! If a 5 is an average review, I’d give this one a 7-ish, keeping in mind that is on a scale of superhero films, not cinema overall. And seriously, if you haven’t checked out Gunn’s Troma work, go do that right away. You will not regret it.

7/10

* He wrote those films, they were directed by the very legendary Lloyd Kaufman.

Hello, lovely readers. The Xmas season is almost upon us, and there are outrages everywhere! This will be the first in what I hope to make a semi-weekly collection of rants on some of the awesome/stupid/heinous/glorious stuff that goes on in our awesome/stupid/heinous/glorious world. Instead of bombarding my Facebook feed with articles and posts, I’ve decided to leave that stuff alone and post my complaints or praises here. That way, only those who want to be subjected to them will be. But why wouldn’t you want it? Without further ado, let’s set sail on a sea of cheese, to paraphrase one of the world’s greatest philosophers:

First, “Baby, it’s Cold Outside” and now this…:

There is a petition swirling online, with 113,000 signatures as of this writing, calling for the Walt Disney company to denounce their trademark on the phrase, “Hakuna Matata”.

Why, exactly is this request being made? Because the trademarking of the phrase is, as the petition puts it, “an assault on the Swahili people and Africa as a whole.” First of all, Robert Mugabe would like to discuss their definition of an “assault on Africa”. Secondly, has anyone in the history of the world (or at least since 1994, when the trademark was initially acquired by Disney) been sued for saying “Hakuna Matata”? As soon as Disney takes an 8 year-old to court for cheekily saying the phrase to his folks after he has accidentally shattered the window of the neighbor’s home, I will be on board and will happily lend my voice to the masses who demand the revocation. Finally, if you have seen the movie, “The Lion King”, you know that featured therein is a song called “Hakuna Matata”. It was written by Elton f’ing John and Tim Rice. Should they not have a trademark on their work? Are we really sure that the people who created this petition are not, in fact, protesting the trademarking of an original piece of music written by two brilliant songsmiths? Of course Disney is going to make merchandise featuring the words, but are we quite certain that they are going to start pursuing the Swahili people through the American court system? Are we completely out of problems in the First World?

Yasiel Puig/Matt Kemp/Alex Wood traded to the Cincinnati Reds:

This trade just happened. Seriously, like an hour ago. I haven’t had time to fully process it yet, but you can read about it here.  The trade represents something of an end to an era, that being the Yasiel Puig era, in which he licked or flipped bats, turned doubles into triples, singles into outs, caused great consternation and euphoria among Dodgers fans, got demoted to the minor leagues, started a charity, tried to kill Madison Bumgarner, and had fun playing a child’s game. He will be missed, and I wish him luck.

Matt Kemp will be missed, but we’ve already been through this once before, and really, he needed the Dodgers more than they needed him at this point in his career. Alex Wood went 27-10 in the last two years, but he sealed his fate with a dreadful performance in the 2018 World Series.

However, I have a feeling there is a bigger move in play. Homer Bailey was a godawful 1-14 with a 6.09 ERA last season, and not even the malignant Dodgers front office could be that moronic (right?). He will be cut promptly, and now it looks like the Dodgers got essentially nothing for the three players they sacrificed. Kemp was due $20 million next year, Puig $11 million, and Wood $9 million. That’s significant money off the books, and there is now an opening in RF. I’m not having too hard of a time thinking of a very expensive, very young, very brash freeagent RF who would be worth every penny of at $200-300 dollar contract because he puts butts in the seats.

This must happen. If it does not happen, the trade is an absolute nightmare, a white flag waved by a hapless front office. If this does not happen, it is also a huge middle-finger to a fanbase that has showed tremendous loyalty to a team that they cannot watch locally on TV, a penny-pinching scrooge move just in time for Christmas. I have to admit, the more I stare at the two sentences I just wrote, the more pessimistic I become. It comes with being a Dodgers fan. We’ve essentially begged the rest of MLB to outbid us. Everyone “knows” Harper is gonna be a Dodger, so what do they have to lose. This could turn out very bad. Dammit…

“It is an old lesson of history that when a young party sure of its aim wrecks

the rule of a corrupt and inwardly foul system, when it takes into its own

hands the power of the state, it give the responsibility to a dictator, who must

conquer the state with new ideas and put them through. That is what we are

going to do.”    – Joseph Goebbels

Joseph Goebbels was Adolph Hitler’s Reich Minister of Propaganda from 1933 through 1945, the end of the second World War. Goebbels, for all his faults (to put them mildly), was a pioneer in the art of modern propaganda. Along with Hitler, he understood the importance of selling a message. We know very well that the message they were selling was repugnant (particularly with the benefit of hindsight), but Goebbels and Hitler demonstrated with utter clarity the power of the press, how it could be manipulated to ensure the reception and acceptance of a message, and why people were susceptible to propaganda. In today’s rapidly-moving, hyper-connected world, where information is not only abundant but constant, it can be easier than ever to be propagandized. One shudders to think how Hitler and Goebbels would have been able to manipulate people if they had the tools of mass communication available to an aspiring 21st century despot. For its part, the press, used so effectively by the Nazis during World War II, has today become an important tool in the chests of parties who are diametrically opposed in regards to propaganda: those who fight for objective truth as well as those who seek to obfuscate and propagandize.

In some regard, every bit of information we encounter is propaganda. How does it happen? Can society at large really fall victim to another Goebbels? Fear not, the resistance is already underway, and not a moment too soon. The election of Donald Trump has given us the unintended gift of a rejuvenated press that fights to keep the light of truth shining, even while elements inside that same media corps works to undermine the institution and prop up the Commander-In-Chief at all costs.  There are ways that we, also, can fight; by addressing some of the ways propaganda is disbursed or perpetrated, we can inoculate ourselves to some of its effects. Simply being aware of how propaganda is affecting you, or is intended to affect you, can help you be less susceptible.

Propaganda is defined by Richard Campbell, author of Media & Culture: Mass Communication in the Digital Age, as “a communication strategy that tries to manipulate opinion to gain support for a special issue, program, or policy, such as a nation’s war effort”. As addressed previously, modern humanity lives in a rapidly moving world, inundated with information. Johnnie Manzaria, et al, discusses this in the report, War & Peace: Media and War: in the last 100 years, technology has allowed us to spread information across a large group, and has evolved into a scientific process capable of influencing all people. The plentiful information is impossible to process, our minds need shortcuts. Propaganda provides these shortcuts by appealing to familiar feelings through slogans, stereotypes, or rules of thumb. Donald Trump has certainly shown a proclivity for this tactic. His screams of “fake news”, his “Make America Great Again” hats or hashtags, and the cries of “build the wall!” are repeated and have become familiar. The statements have very little substance, but work many of his supporters into an absolute frenzy of patriotism. “Make America Great Again” has become ubiquitous in our society, even though many of the proponents of the notion do not know what “great again” actually means, or at least do not agree on a single definition. To Donald Trump, the meaning is unimportant; what matters is the ferocious loyalty the slogans inspire. Herr Schiller, part of Goebbel’s Der Angriff, which was essentially the Nazi Office of Propaganda (Lemmons), said it thusly: “The masses want it. We can and must give it to them. We must see through the eyes of the masses” (Nelson). Indeed, a significant portion of the country has lapped this up, and the media was a very large part of the dissemination of his message. Estimates range from $2 Billion to $5 billion dollars worth of “free” airtime granted to Trump during the 2016 election, as opposed to $746 million for Hillary Clinton or $321 million for Bernie Sanders (LaFrance).

This power of the media to disseminate a message is called by Manzaria “The Dune Effect”.  The Dune Effect describes the theory that who controls access can control public opinion. In our modern media landscape, six major companies control 90% of the outlets from which we obtain our information (Wagner). Rupert Murdoch, owner of NewsCorp, is well-known for his pro-conservative leanings. He certainly makes no qualms about them. NewsCorp owns Fox Broadcasting, DirecTV, 20th Century Fox, The Wall Street Journal, and the New York Post, just to name a few. It doesn’t take a leap of imagination to see just how much power he (or his company) possess to control the narrative our country receives every day. Besides the ability to decide what news we see, they can determine the lens through which we view it. The news can be dramatized to make an emotional impact, which can be far more effective than facts when it is time to drive people to action. Again turning to Goebbels, he describes this in one of his 3 Maxims of Nazi Propaganda (as reported by Roger B. Nelson): “Dramatize your propaganda. All the world is a stage. Act well.” Of course, this drive to action is not always a bad thing; the ASPCA uses propaganda in their commercials whenever they show pictures of shivering animals locked in cages, set to the longing chords of Sarah MacLachlan.

Aldous Huxley, in his seminal Brave New World, posits that mass communication is “neither good nor bad, it is simply a force. It can be used for good or evil.” While those terms may be largely subjective, it is undeniable that we are experiencing this phenomenon today. Huxley mentions the value to the propagandist of crowds. Crowds are more likely to abandon reason and react to their passions, through peer pressure or sheer excitement. Crowds are likely to lend themselves to absolutes, issues become black or white, you’re either with us or against us. It feels good to be a part of a crowd, and it evokes an enjoyable emotion, which is perhaps the most persuasive form of propaganda there is. Confirmation bias is incredibly powerful, and is an evolutionary fact. Think back to our discussion of how we process information: We prefer familiar, easily digestible things, we care less about veracity. Entertainment is another form of this. When we are being entertained, we need not worry about what is true or false, because it isn’t real. Man’s capacity for distraction cannot be overstated (Huxley). One look at today’s Trump rallies, fawningly covered by a media all too willing to play the evil or bungling foil to Trump’s tough guy hero, is an embodiment of this.

The fractious and vacuous nature of today’s media was a natural occurrence, a free market feature that could not have been avoided. In a way, the media was forced to adapt or die; to find their audience and cater to them. This has led to rise of separate sets of “facts”; the truth depends on who you ask. It is incumbent on us, then, as consumers, to be aware of how propaganda works and act accordingly. There are still press outfits with veracity and dignity, but in order for truth to recapture the spotlight, we will have to demand it. The media will give the consumer what they want, so let’s reward truthful media with reads and dollars. More importantly, it will take a cultural shift. I can’t even begin to predict how to spark such a shift, it certainly seems like an uphill battle. Does anyone know any benevolent propagandists?

If Trump were politically astute and not an egomaniac, he would rescind the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh and select a new justice. His pride will not allow him to see this potential move  as anything other than a “loss”, but he should hear me out. He won’t.

First off, the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh should absolutely be taken seriously. As a general rule of a civilized, modern society, any time a potential victim of any crime comes forward, we owe it to them to take their claims seriously. It is obscene that there is an entire news network  granting Kavanaugh (and Trump) a platform to demean, obfuscate, and disparage Kavanaugh’s accusers. We should feel compelled to grant the potential victims the same courtesy. Yes, the accused has a presumption of innocence and the right to face his accusers, but the women who came forward are not on trial, and they are not in a position of power that allows them to exploit the media like Kavanaugh has been granted.

The accuser and the accused deserve to have their day in court, and rescinding the nomination would hasten the progress towards a real trial, not one played out in the court of public opinion or the absurdly partisan halls of congress.

For his part, the President could get to work on vetting and selecting a new nominee to the Supreme Court. He claimed to have an extensive list of candidates, and I’m quite sure that they all have “astounding conservative credentials”. The Republicans lose nothing by losing Kavanaugh.

Additionally, the Democrats would be forced to come to the table for a confirmation hearing and vote. Any new allegations that surfaced against a new nominee would be reasonably viewed with skepticism. I believe that the general public actually want a full, functioning, Supreme Court, and slow-playing another nomination for some unspecified time (the end of Trump’s term?) would turn public opinion against them. If Kavanaugh’s nomination is rescinded, a new Trump appointee would probably be far more rigorously examined, and that gives Democrats a chance to posture for a 2020 run.

Sure, Kavanaugh misses out on an opportunity. Cry me a river, Brett. Merrick Garland would like to have a word with you, speaking of obstruction.

Technology is inevitable. Advancement in technology is unavoidable, and has permanently transformed  the human experience. We can take our work wherever we go on our laptops, we can store and access family photos on the Cloud, and we have the entirety of human knowledge literally at our fingertips; our internet-connected smartphones assure it. It’s hard to envision our 21st century existence without technology as an integral part.

According to MSN, California’s technology industry contributed $93.1 billion to the state’s GDP in 2017, and employed 264, 698 people (nearly as many as the entire workforce of Wyoming), making it the largest industry in the state.

Undoubtedly, the technology industry, much of which is housed in Silicon Valley and San Francisco, has been a bastion for the state. However, there have been unintended consequences resulting from a glut of specialized, technical, high-paying jobs. Displacement of low-income and blue collar workers and the gentrification of old neighborhoods is one such consequence. San Francisco in particular has been hit by rising housing costs and high demand.

This is an investigation of how the technology industry has contributed to gentrification, defined by Whittle, et al, as “the process by which higher income households displace lower income residents of a neighborhood, changing the essential character and flavor of that neighborhood.”

I will use Neil Smith’s rent-gap theory of gentrification as a guide. Smith’s theory posits that gentrification happens when a site’s actual (current) value is measured against a site’s potential value at ‘best use’. When the gap in an area grows large enough to offset the cost of capital reinvestment, landowners and real estate developers will capitalize.

From 2011 to 2014, the technology industry in San Francisco grew 90% (Stehlin). To put this in perspective, it grew by a “mere” 30% in Silicon Valley during the same stretch. 1,800 new tech companies brought 42,000 new high-wage workers into the San Francisco Bay Area (Rosen, et al). Demand for housing increased along with the jobs.

60% of housing in San Francisco is renter occupied, and 70% of that is protected by rent controls (Stehlin, Rosen). Areas like the Mission and Chinatown concentrate low or very low income populations (Opillard). Real estate developers and property owners recognized that the demand for property was an untapped source of larger property incomes, due to the influx of higher-paid, specialized workers coming into the city, but rent controls and ordinances precluded many of them from making changes.

The San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization Ordinance (Rent Ordinance) and Condominium Conversion Ordinance are intended to protect renters from unreasonable rent increases or evictions. The Rent Ordinance applies to multi-family units built before June 1979 and limits rent increases to 2% per year for existing tenants.  The Condominium Conversion Ordinance (CCO) was intended to limit the number of rental conversions to no more than 1,000 annually, which would keep renters in their homes instead of being displaced by wealthier buyers of  refurbished or rebuilt condominiums (Rosen, et al).

However, there are loopholes. California law includes a provision called the Ellis Act. The Ellis Act allows landlords who wish to get out of the rental business the unconditional right to do so. Following certain guidelines, landlords can evict all of their tenants.  This law creates the opportunity for developers to convert rental units into condominiums. Corporations are able to buy out entire buildings, evict the tenants, and sell each apartment, piece by piece, as condominiums.

An example of how this works is the case of Elba Borgen. In 2006, Borgen led a group of speculators purchasing and evicting (under the Ellis Act) a property at 1530 McAllister Street. However, Borgen did not exit the rental business. She has continued to buy properties and serve residents with Ellis evictions. Borgen’s attorney, Lyssa Paul, told KPIX that evicting people is dirty work, but someone has to do it.

“If there is a six unit building and it’s Ellis-acted, then I have six new first time homebuyers who now have a place to live,” Paul said.

Of course, homeownership is a positive development for the city’s coffers. Homeowners pay property taxes. Selling each apartment piece by piece as condominiums also exempts the building from rent controls, enriching the landowners.  The human cost, however, is hard to ignore. Since 2013, 79% of Ellis Act evictions concerned properties that were bought five years earlier or less (Opillard).

How does this relate to the tech boom? Since 2008, large tech firms have sought offices in San Francisco to take advantage of the rapid growth. In 2011, Mayor Ed Lee attempted to spread this growth to the Tenderloin/Mid-Market areas. As a response to Twitter’s threat to leave San Francisco, Lee enacted the Central Market Payroll Tax Exclusion. The exclusion allowed any employer with an annual payroll of $250,000 or greater, located within the district, to have their payroll taxes waived for six years (Stehlin).

The Tenderloin/Mid-Market area has long served an impecunious population. Single room occupancy hotels, discount stores, and vacant storefronts have long been the face of this district. With the tax exclusion, Twitter’s offices have anchored a “turnaround” of the district, and at least 18 other firms have moved in since, among them Yahoo, Uber, and Pinterest (Stehlin).

The efforts to woo these corporations led to more neoliberal policies around private ownership and public funding. The tax exclusion is just one example (Whittle, et al). By 2014, over 40 new, privately-owned housing developments were planned or under construction. In short, what was once home to a host of “scary” urban subjects was becoming  gentrified with more palatable “street life”, one that was appealing to the higher-income crowd.

As Dan Hammel points out, rents are raised by positive neighborhood effects. Public investment in streetscape encourages the reevaluation of real estate at the parcel level, yielding higher rents or property taxes. The Rent-Gap Theory.

Another way that the tech boom has affected gentrification is with the introduction of private bus lines, “Google Buses”. The huge, unmarked, unregulated buses carry high-paid workers from the homes in San Francisco to their jobs in Silicon Valley, and have become symbolic of a gentrified Bay.

Alexandra Goldman, a researcher at UC Berkeley, examined the rental prices within one-half of a mile of five Google Bus stops around the city. She looked at rental prices for one- and two-bedroom listings in those areas, and found that the prices have risen drastically there. For example, from 2010 to 2012, the price of a two-bedroom rental near the Lombard stop rose 14%. More enlightening still, Goldman found that listings for these homes were very likely to list proximity to a Google bus stop as an amenity. This certainly implies that landlords are targeting tech employees, and that they can raise their rents accordingly.

Goldman, A. (2013). The “Google Shuttle Effect”: Gentrification and San Francisco’s Dot Com Boom 2.0. 43. Retrieved May 6, 2018, from http://svenworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Goldman_PRFinal.pdf

Hammel, D. J. (1999). Gentrification And Land Rent: A Historical View Of The Rent Gap In Minneapolis. Urban Geography,20(2), 116-145. doi:10.2747/0272-3638.20.2.116

Opillard, F. (2015). Resisting the Politics of Displacement in the San Francisco Bay Area: Anti-gentrification Activism in the Tech Boom 2.0. European Journal of American Studies,10(3). doi:10.4000/ejas.11322

Rosen, M., & Sullivan, W. (2012). FROM URBAN RENEWAL AND DISPLACEMENT TO ECONOMIC INCLUSION: SAN FRANCISCO AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICY 1978-2014. Retrieved May 6, 2018, from http://www.prrac.org/pdf/SanFranAffHsing.pdf

San Francisco Real Estate Investor Tops ‘Dirty Thirty’ List Over Ellis Act Evictions. (2014, April 24). Retrieved from http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/04/24/san-francisco-real-estate-investor-tops-dirty-thirty-list-over-ellis-act-evictions/

Smith, N. (1996). The new urban frontier: Gentrification and the revanchist city. London: Routledge.

Stebbins, S. (2017, August 17). Largest Industry in each state. Retrieved May 6, 2018, from https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/largest-industry-in-each-state/ss-AAqgcef#image=6

Stehlin, J. (2015). The Post-Industrial “Shop Floor”: Emerging Forms of Gentrification in San Franciscos Innovation Economy. Antipode,48(2), 474-493. doi:10.1111/anti.12199

Whittle, H. J., Palar, K., Hufstedler, L. L., Seligman, H. K., Frongillo, E. A., & Weiser, S. D. (2015). Food insecurity, chronic illness, and gentrification in the San Francisco Bay Area: An example of structural violence in United States public policy. Social Science & Medicine,143, 154-161. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.08.027

(I wrote this in January 2013, and I experienced a few formatting issues when re-posting here…Still learning!)

I refuse to begin this post by speaking in platitudes about “new year, new beginnings” and other such hogwash. Fact is, no extinction level events took place, so we should all be fairly satisfied to just continue on existing.

That said, welcome to the New Year!! We all know what January means: a new class of National Baseball Hall of Fame inductions! This year’s potential class has been extensively (exhaustively?) discussed, as holier-than-thou sportswriters continue to condemn and dismiss an entire era of baseball players because of suspected/admitted/proven/magical/forced P.E.D. use. A guy like Mike Piazza, who reigns supreme among catchers, all time, in home runs, is having his credentials questioned because he played in the wrong era and happens to be huge. A huge CATCHER. Because Carlton Fisk and Gary Carter, Hall of Famers who Piazza hit more home runs than, were tiny men. I don’t recall ever hearing Piazza confess to anything, and I certainly don’t remember his name ever being linked to steroid use. Until now, of course.

Just look at how Piazza dwarfs the rest of them!! He’s hulking! He’s enormous! He’s… oh wait, he’s just about the same size as Carter and Fisk. In fact, the only person in this photo he is considerably bigger than is Yogi Berra, who is shriveled, and 148 years old.

But I digress…

I am not here to discuss the new ballot entries, which I have already done, at great length. Let me just say that I have recently heard a few voters reconsider their votes, arguing that an entire generation of players should not be excluded. Hmm. Where have I heard THAT before?

No, I am here to prove, to the BBWAA*  and beyond all reasonable doubt, that a Hall of Fame injustice has been done, and must be set right!! Orel Hershiser must be re-instated to the ballot, and inducted post-haste, before the Baseball Hall of Fame becomes as meaningful as the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

Scoff if you wish, but I ask you: What attributes must a player possess to be not merely considered for, but inducted into, the Hall of Fame? I posit that the following five categories must be carefully weighed:

1. Was the player dominant in the era in which they played?

2. Was the player transcendent in their popularity?

3. Does the player hold any records, and how important or unbreakable are those records?

(Obviously, owning the record for most beanings does NOT qualify a person for consideration)

4. How do the player’s career numbers compare to other HOF players?

5. Did the player enjoy any significant post-season success?

I can (and will) argue that Mr. Hershiser possess astounding qualifications in all of the categories mentioned above.

So without further adieu, I present the case for Orel Hershiser’s induction into the 2013 Baseball Hall of Fame Induction Class:

Hershiser’s career began in 1983 as a September call-up. He didn’t even qualify for a decision that season, but in 1984, he finished 3rd in NL ROY balloting after appearing in 45 games, compiling an 11-8 record and tossing 8 complete games, 4 of them shut-outs. In 1985, “Bulldog” (a nickname given to the nerdy Hershiser by his ultra-motivational manager, Tommy Lasorda, to encourage him to be more aggressive on the mound), broke through with a mind-boggling .864 winning percentage, the result of his 19-3 record, minuscule 2.03 ERA and a league-leading .3(!) HR per 9 innings.

In 1988, Hershiser won the NL Cy Young Award, a Gold Glove, and a 2nd consecutive ASG appearance, going 23-8 with a 2.26 ERA, 8 complete game shutouts (15 CG overall), and a WHIP of 1.05. The Dodgers won the World Series that year, Orel himself going 2-0, both complete games, and being named series MVP. This, of course, after being named NLCS MVP. Truly, this adds up to the most ultimately dominant and transcendent season ever, right?

Of course, one (or two) dominant seasons does not a Hall of Famer make.

The Man Called “Bulldog” (Getty Images)

So, let’s compare Orel’s career numbers to a Hall of Famer’s, just to see how they stack up. After all, isn’t that a fitting measurement of HOF-worthiness? The best comparison is to fellow Dodger, Don Drysdale (I realize, at this moment, that there are some snarky, Giants-loving types out there who will take the following information and use it as evidence that, perhaps, Drysdale does NOT belong in the Hall):

Hershiser career (1983-2000): 

204-150, 3.48, 2,014 SO, 3,130 IP, 68 CG, .576 Win %.

13-8 in post-season with a 2.59 ERA (4-1 in AL)

 3-time All-Star, 1 Cy Young Award, 1 Gold Glove, 1 Silver Slugger

 Led league in IP 3 consecutive seasons (1987-1989)

Drysdale career (1956-1969): 

209-166, 2.95, 2,486 SO, 3,342 IP, 167(!) CG, .557 Win %

3-4 in post-season (although, he DID win 3 rings)

8-time All-Star, 1 Cy Young Award

Led league in SO 3 times, games started 4 times

Drysdale clearly holds the advantage in strikeouts and Complete games, while Hershiser is the obvious winner in post-season success numbers. The career win/loss records are virtually deadlocked, Drysdale winning 4 more games, but Hershiser losing 16 less (in 4 more seasons). I’ll give Drysdale points for the fact that he CERTAINLY didn’t need to be encouraged to aggressive (how many pitches does it take to intentionally walk a guy? One).

So, that makes THIS the clincher:

Obviously, Orel Hershiser is (was) a star of the HIGHEST order. This, along with his encyclopedic knowledge of the game of baseball, must be the reason he was asked to call MLB games on ESPN (Note: He has since been hired by the Dodgers to call games on their flagship station. The prodigal son returns! – Ed.).  Besides, if he wasn’t a star, why would they let him play Celebrity Poker? So we can check the “Fame” box on our list, as well.

This is becoming almost TOO easy. How could the writers NOT vote for a man so accomplished, so great?

In fact, there is only one reason I can think of why Orel should NOT be allowed entry into the Hall of Fame:

So remember, lovely readers, when you watch the Hall of Fame announcement on Wednesday, the whole thing is farcical. They won’t let in ANY of the most deserving players, including this man, the most deserving of all. You saw it here first. Cheers.

September 1, 2018. Chicago, Illinois. The Sears Centre Arena.  There are 10,400  indie wrestling fanatics in attendance, the biggest crowd for an American wrestling event not booked by WCW or WWF since the early 1990s. The event: “All In”; which seems to be an absolutely perfect title (RIP Curt Hennig). It encompasses, in a manner of speaking, the way in which many of the major disparate and independent wrestling companies came together for this “super-show”, as well as the nature of the things they would throw onto the card. Indeed, both good and bad were “all in”.

The show was booked, whatever that means in wrestling circles these days, by Cody Rhodes and Matt & Nick Jackson, aka The Young Bucks, all three of whom pulled double duty this evening as wrestlers. When tickets went on sale, they sold out in thirty minutes (the venue holds nearly 12,000 patrons, but the entrance ramp setup blocks out a section of seating). It brought together athletes from ROH, Impact, CMLL, the resurgent NWA, and the not-so-indie New Japan Pro Wrestling. The idea was simple: give fans of independent wrestling (see: any wrestling company that is not owned by Vince McMahon) a night of dream match-ups and generate some interest and money for all the parties involved.

This is how it turned out.

I experienced a great deal of audio-visual issues during the opening match. I do not think it was the fault of ROH, the promotion under whose banner the event ultimately flew. There was either full sound and a shoddy picture, or a pristine display accompanied by choppy audio. It took me until the conclusion of the opening bout to figure out that I needed to switch rooms and devices to experience the event without issues. Once I figured that out, we were off and running…

Madison Rayne v. “Hot Mess” Chelsea Green v. Tessa Blanchard v. Dr. Britt Baker

Britt Baker is apparently a dentist. I figured this out when her entrance video displayed a dental x-ray of a person getting their teeth kicked out. Then she came to the ring in what I can best describe as a bedazzled dentist’s outfit. This is already a million times better than Isaac Yankem’s gimmick. It is safe to say this is the best dentist gimmick in the history of pro wrestling. Chelsea Green entered the ring with half of her face covered in smeared makeup, carrying a bouquet of flowers, wearing half a wedding veil. The same side of her body that had the smeared makeup and veil was also adorned in white. The other half of her attire was, reminiscent of Two-Face, green and pink, while her visage was made into a perfectly reasonable amount of well-applied makeup. Chelsea Green is a very pretty girl, and it took me about half the match to realize that she was going for a “Two-Face” vibe. Believe it or not, it wouldn’t be even close to the last time the split-personality angle was explored by a wrestler this evening. Tessa Blanchard came down the ramp and was greeted by her father, the legendary Horseman, WWE Hall of Famer, Tully Blanchard, and Magnum T.Ahey…Wait just a minute! Why are Tully Blanchard and Magnum T.A. hanging out, hugging? T.A. once tried to take Blanchard’s eye out with a broken chair leg!

During the match, it became clear to me why Madison Rayne, who has been in the business for at least a decade, has never been interesting or broken through to the next level. It’s because she’s not very good. Everything about her is exceptionally mediocre. Tessa Blanchard would clearly destroy fellow Horseman’s daughter Charlotte Flair, were they ever to meet in the ring. In fact, Tessa should make it her mission in life to call Charlotte out whenever she can. She should give no regard to the fact that Charlotte works for Vince McMahon, Tessa should verbally attack Charlotte whenever the opportunity arises. If Big Poppa Pump can attack The Rock and Steve Austin across the airwaves on WCW Television, Tessa Blanchard should do the same. Tessa should demand to know why Charlotte is going around calling Bayley, Sasha Banks, Becky Lynch and herself the Four Horsewomen, when we all know that Blanchards and Flairs would never be caught keeping company with those lesser athletes. If Charlotte insists on continuing this charade, Tessa will be forced to come after not only her three little friends, but Charlotte as well. Anyway, Tessa won after hitting Green with a hammerlock DDT, and then all four girls stood around and did some more hugging. Despite the mutual respect, this was a decent little match.

DUDE! That was Sean Mooney!

Cody Rhodes v. Nick Aldis (NWA World Heavyweight Championship Match)

Third match on the card!?

A video package is shown that is supposed to inform us how Cody and Aldis got to this point, but really all it does is show them talking. Thing is, there is music playing over the video, so we can’t hear what they are saying. It does nothing to explain the back story between the two.

Cody’s music hits. Brandi Rhodes, his beautiful wife, is the first to hit the ramp, dressed in essentially the same outfit Britney Spears wore in the “Toxic” video. She looks great. The camera cuts backstage, and Cody is shown walking towards the entranceway, flanked by an entourage that includes Tommy Dreamer and Diamond Dallas Page. Hey, that’s pretty cool! The whole thing feels very MMA, and it lends to the big fight feel of the affair. Aldis’ entrance is treated the same way, although he has no female to precede him, and he is flanked by “Double J” Jeff Jarrett and… Daivari?

The crowd is electric as the two shake hands before the bell rings. Announcer Don Callis explains why Aldis’ tights say “dealer” on the back. To paraphrase:

Back  in December of 2017, Cody Rhodes failed to defeat then-ROH World Champion Dalton Castle for his belt. Rhodes had been demanding a match against Aldis for the latter’s NWA championship, a title that was held by Rhodes’ father, “The American Dream” Dusty Rhodes, on three occasions. Aldis responded that he would only defend his NWA Championship against Rhodes if he succeeded against Castle. Rhodes, in an act of desperation, offered to put his $10,000 Ring of Honor ring (as in, jewelery) up as collateral if Aldis would give him a title shot. Cody was the “gambler”.  Aldis, ever confident, believed he was playing with house money, and hence was the “dealer”. This is great stuff.

Cody is sporting a weightlifting belt emblazoned with the words “Do The Work”. The word “do” is colored with black and yellow polka dots, a tribute to Rhodes’ late father. “The” is simply gold lettering, a shout-out to Goldust, Cody’s brother. “Work” is red, white, and blue, a reference to Cody’s nickname, “The American Nightmare”.

The urgency with which Rhodes is chasing the title, yearning to follow in his father’s footsteps, is palpable. However, just over 9 minutes in, referee Earl Hebner stops the match and raises the universal “X over the head” hand signal that means one combatant is seriously hurt and help is required. DDP comes back down to ringside to help Cody get back in the ring and continue. Daivari, on behalf of Aldis, also returns to ringside, and attempts to cajole DDP into throwing in the towel on Rhodes’ behalf. DDP serves up a diamond cutter to Daivari, and the crowd pops mightily. Rhodes is spurred on to continue, and the match proceeds.

I’ve never been a huge fan of the “holy shit!” chants you hear at almost every wrestling event these days. We’ve seen people get put through tables so many times that I’m more likely to be impressed by a match that doesn’t feature such a spot. Chair shots are soooo 1989. I’ve always felt that if the crowd has it in them to muster up a chant, then they aren’t paying attention to the match. However, this match featured a moment that was truly worthy of a “holy shit!” In fact, that’s precisely what I wailed at my television set when I saw what I’m about to describe.

Aldis was climbing to the top rope to drop an elbow on Rhodes. As Aldis climbed, Brandi entered the ring to plead with her husband’s opponent to show mercy. Just as Aldis reached the top and jumped, Brandi threw herself on her husband’s prone figure and received the blow from Aldis. Holy shit, indeed.

In typical Hebner fashion, the match continued. Horrible officiating.

Miraculously, Cody would get the pinfall on Aldis at 20:45. New NWA World Heavyweight Champ! A great match. Everything that is good about pro wrestling was on display in this match. Things were about swing very hard in the opposite direction.

Joey Janella v. “Hangman” Adam Page

Blech. A no-holds-barred, falls count anywhere match. The IWC (Internet Wrestling Community) loves this stuff. I cannot stand it. However, the silly displays of jumping off ladders and literal cracker barrels rolling at people (Cracker Barrel was a sponsor of the event) were nothing compared to the absolute debacle that came before and after the match.  As great as Aldis/Rhodes was, this whole match, from beginning to end, was that bad.

Another video package was shown prior to this match. I didn’t really understand what was going on in this one, either, but it wasn’t because of an obnoxious musical overdub. It was because what I was witnessing was some of the most nonsensical, mindless, asinine, stupid shit I’ve ever seen.  Take the stupidest thing you’ve ever heard or done and try explaining it to lobster. You’d have to be twice as dumb as the lobster to understand what the hell was going on in this vignette. Dumber still to appreciate it.

Apparently, Adam Page “killed” Joey Ryan by bludgeoning him with a rotary phone. As revenge, Joey Ryan’s spirit inhabited Adam Page’s cowboy boots and proceeded to “haunt” him. Adam Page admitted to police that he murdered Joey Ryan and began calling himself “The Joey Killer”. That actually sounds cooler than it was, trust me.

So that’s where Joey Janella comes in, I guess. Here is some good news. Joey Janella’s valet, Penelope Ford, seems like a very lovely lady. She has nice eyes.

This debacle goes on for far too long until the lovely Penelope grabs a black garbage bag and dumps it in the ring, revealing… Page’s haunted cowboy boots! The crowd starts chanting, “this is awesome,” even though it is decidedly not so. Page tries his best to look petrified, but just looks whiny (or constipated), and I roll my eyes so hard I slam my head into the wall.

The arena suddenly falls dark. A dirge that sounds vaguely like the Undertaker’s theme music begins to play. A picture of Joey Ryan, laying in a coffin, appears on the jumbotron. The camera scrolls down to his crotch (really), and we all get to watch his pants stiffen as he grows a giant boner (really).

Joey Ryan’s dick has its own Undertaker entrance.

Oh, FFS, those are grown-ass men dressed as penises, coming down the entrance way, two by two, chanting like Gregorian monks.  Don Callis tries to appropriately capture the moment by referring to it as a “phalanx of phalluses”. Thank you for trying, Don. Please see yourself out.

Joey Ryan parades down to the ring with a lollipop in his mouth, thrusting his cock in everyone’s face. Page is still trying to act like he’s seen a ghost. It’s terrible. When Ryan reaches the ring, Janella has abandoned the premises, probably wishing he was dead for being a party to this. Ryan proceeds to oil himself up, including pulling out the band of his tights and squirting baby oil directly onto his cock. He takes the lollipop out of his mouth, and that goes down his tights with the lotion.

Then, by far the most absurd thing yet happened (can you even fathom that it still got more absurd!?). Joey Ryan grabs Page’s wrist and places Page’s hand on his dick. Ryan begins flexing his arms, and Page acts like he is having his arm wrung. Joey Ryan then flicks his penis to the side, and Page goes ass over teakettle to the ground. Adam Page has been bodyslammed by Joey Ryan’s johnson. Oh wait, did I mention that Joey Ryan also took the lollipop out of his trunks and jammed it into Page’s opened maw? To hell with this shit.

I immediately understood why this stuff is not considered mainstream and why they can’t sell tickets to children.

I couldn’t tell you who won or lost this match. I’d like to forget I ever saw it.

Flip Gordon v. Jay Lethal (ROH World Heavyweight Championship)

Jay Lethal is shown backstage, pumping himself up for his title defense. A nameless hand appears on screen and hands Lethal a pair of sunglasses. When I saw the sunglasses, I made a mental note: those look like Macho Man shades. Lethal is holding the glasses, examining them, when the same disembodied arm reaches over and slaps Jay Lethal on the shoulder. As if someone hit a switch, Lethal’s eyes enlarge and he begins to gaze at the ceiling.

Flip Gordon makes his way to the ring, accompanied by the vivacious (and returning) Brandi Rhodes! This time, she is dressed in 1940’s military attire, as if she is the last member of a trio that tours military bases singing “Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy”. The poor girl is still clearly smarting from the earlier elbow drop. Did I mention she is positively vivacious?

Suddenly, the strains of “Pomp and Circumstance” fill the arena. Jay Lethal appears, dressed in Randy Savage’s clothes. Literally. It is the same outfit Macho Man wore when he made his WCW debut in 1994. Lethal is accompanied to the ring by Lanny Poffo, aka “The Genius”, the Macho Man’s brother. Poffo is wearing a shirt that says “Brother From Another Mother” and has a photo of him and Lethal in a Mega-Powers pose. Lethal is in full Black Machismo mode, complete with Randy Savage mannerisms and movements. I’m really not sure how I feel about this.

Before the match begins, Poffo sticks his hand out to Lethal, requesting a handshake. Lethal obliges, but before they lock hands, Poffo and Lethal both act as though there is electricity running through them. Oh my god, they’re doing the MegaPowers handshake. I am speechless, and really not sure how I feel about this.

Lethal begins the match by insisting Brandi stand in his corner. He repeatedly leaves the ring and escorts Brandi to his preferred spot. At one point, Brandi is overheard objecting, “I’m not Elizabeth”. I don’t think I’m enjoying this.

Look, I get that Randy Savage himself gave Jay Lethal the blessing to do the angle when Macho was alive, but now that Randy is dead and gone, it feels a little dirty to me. Then again, who am I to judge?  If Lanny says it’s alright, it’s alright, right?

Finally, Brandi Rhodes runs into the ring to escape Jay Lethal’s groping outside the ring. Lethal follows her and tries to lift her up onto his shoulders, a’ la Liz and Randy, WrestleMania IV. She turns around and smacks him. On the shoulder. Lethal seems to “snap out of it” (feel a Slim Jim joke coming?), and looks around like he doesn’t know how he got there. Well, that’s it. I officially don’t like this.

So a slap on the shoulder “fixes” it, huh? I cannot decide if I’m relieved it’s over or if I’m afraid of the moment it inevitably starts again.

Wait, wait, wait. Is Flip Gordon “hulking up”? Oh my goodness, I hate this.

I had a hard time concentrating on the match after all of that, and I was still bearing the scars of Joey Ryan’s cock, so I did not enjoy what was probably a solid match. Jay Lethal retained his title after hitting a Lethal Injection on Gordon.

I am petrified when, at the conclusion of the match, Bully Ray runs down to assault both men and Colt Cabana runs down to save them. My sides are already aching from all the knee-slapping comedy, Colt Cabana might just put me on death’s doorstep. Cabana plays it straight and rescues his friends, which means that comedy act Colt Cabana actually got less comedy time on screen than ROH Heavyweight Champion Jay Lethal. I hate myself for loving pro wrestling.

Kenny Omega v. Pentagon Jr.

This was bound to be a fantastic match. I didn’t have a rooting interest, as it is clearly impossible to cheer for a guy who so recently feuded with Chris Jericho (Omega), but it is also impossible to cheer for a guy with both a luchador mask and paint on his face (Pentagon Jr). The announcers do a great job of putting over the contrasts between the two men, their styles, their strategies, and it seems like we are finally gonna get back  to some wrestling.

The crowd is split about 50/50, support-wise, which I found noteworthy, because most people seem to hate TNA Impact Wrestling, whom Pentagon is here representing. Kenny Omega is an internet darling, one of the few examples of good judgement from the IWC, making the crowd reaction even more surprising.

I’m a much bigger fan of Omega’s catch-as-catch-can style than I am of Pentagon Jr’s spot-heavy, luchadore style, but it was Pentagon who delivered the most breath-taking offensive attack of the match, if not the evening.

Late in the match, Pentagon hit Omega with a package piledriver ON THE RING APRON. “Eeeeee. Kenny Omega is dead,” I said to myself. Somehow, Omega kicks out of the pinning combination and manages to return the favor with a package piledriver of his own.

Omega eventually connects with four consecutive V-Trigger kicks and a One-Armed Angel for the win!

As Omega celebrates, the lights in the arena go dark. Oh no, please not Joey Ryan…

The announce team questions what is going on. Has ROH lost the feed? When the lights flash back on, Pentagon has restored himself to his feet and starts attacking Omega. Pentagon connects with a Codebreaker before… wait a minute… “Pentagon” unmasks, and it’s CHRIS JERICHO! Finally something to cheer about! He pummels Omega further before telling him that he will see him on the Jericruise! Fantastic! I feel very good for mentioning to my wife at the outset of the match that I could never cheer for someone who Jericho doesn’t like.

I feel like I should clarify that Jericho is not Pentagon. Jericho switched places with Pentagon when the lights were out. It’s a “swerve”, you know?

The final two matches, Kazuchika Okada v. Marty Scurll and the Six-Man Tag between Rey Mysterio, Fenix, and Bandido & The Young Bucks with Kota Ibushi aren’t of particular interest to me, to tell you the truth. I find Marty Scurll grating, and I actively dislike The Young Bucks and Kota Ibushi. The Young Bucks just seem infinitely punchable, and Kota Ibushi once wrestled a blow-up doll. That’s just not something I can wipe out of my mind or get excited about. Jim Cornette agrees with me, so there’s that.

My Final Thoughts:  If I was the booker, I probably would’ve put the Six-Man Tag Match in the spot where Rhodes/Aldis was. The NWA Title Match was my favorite match of the night, and despite the debacle that was Joey Ryan, all in all it was a good card. It was very much an independent wrestling show, in the sense that you would have a hard time convincing your buddy who doesn’t like wrestling that he would really enjoy the sport if he just watched this show. I like pro wrestling the most when it is trying to convince me it is real, when it isn’t hard to suspend my disbelief. Matches like Aldis/Rhodes and Omega/Pentagon are great examples of that. So truly, “All In” was exactly that: a little bit of everything, good and bad. The women’s match, along with the aforementioned two, make the viewing commitment worth it. I wouldn’t even blame you if your curiosity got the better of you and you watched that Joey Ryan segment. Just don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Jan 5, 2010

     What’s more metal?

July 2, 2016

We interrupt this program for a very important announcement:

Here at AFSL, I’ve tried to avoid too much political discussion. I usually do most of that on Facebook, quick and easy. After all, I barely have time these days to discuss truly important topics like sports and music, why add another millstone around my neck? However, I feel it is my duty to take a moment and express my concern and disdain for the current debate regarding gun laws. No, I do not oppose reasoned and informed discussion, as that is one of the most important aspects of a functioning democracy, as well as one of my personal favorite pastimes. I do, however, find it exceptionally cringeworthy (not to mention nausea-inducing) when platitudes and invective enter into the discussion to replace cooperation and veracity. The gun debate has become an epicenter of misinformation. Of all the Amendments to the Constitution, only the 2nd Amendment seems to inflame such disagreement and passion. It is not suggested daily that the 1st or 5th Amendments be revisited, after all.  I must admit to a certain bias in the following screed, so consider this nothing more than an editorial.

The Fecalator and a fan.

First, I’d like to briefly examine that argument that “if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” This is patently absurd, as there is not a politician from any party who is suggesting outlawing guns. This is a fiction established by the NRA to create fear and paranoia, which happens to be a perfect environment to sell more guns. An October 2015 article from factcheck.org examined a claim made by Donald Trump, current Republican Presidential nominee and endorsee of the National Rifle Association, that Pres. Obama was planning to sign an executive order that would order our “guns taken away.”  Not only is Trump clearly eloquent, he’s simply wrong (or lying). I have posted the full article below*, but to paraphrase, Obama has stated that he “respects gun rights” and that gun confiscation would be “impossible”. The only law regarding gun confiscation that is on the books currently allows gun confiscation from perpetrators of domestic violence. There is no instance of President Obama suggesting mass confiscation. An extension of this utterly ridiculous talking point employed by ammosexuals and NRA members is that we don’t need gun laws because criminals wouldn’t follow those laws, anyhow. If we follow that logic, why do we need any laws at all? What makes this talking point more disingenuous is that Republicans have demonstrated repeatedly that they understand precisely how laws restricting access to a good or service lessens the proliferation of that good or service. This is exactly why they have put so much effort into creating restrictive abortion laws across the South, shutting down clinics and enforcing “waiting periods”. Simply put, by decreasing access to an item, less people are able to obtain that item. Here, Obama lays it out more eloquently than I possibly could:

I cannot speak for anyone else, but guns make me nervous. I feel less safe when they are around, not safer. That said, the idea of a “good guy with a gun” appeals to me, and I absolutely understand the desire for an individual to carry a gun for self-security or the protection of their family and property. I do not endorse or condone the complete overturn of the 2nd Amendment. I’m not sure anyone does.

There also exists an argument that those with “evil in their hearts” would find a way to commit atrocities regardless of whether they have guns or not. That may be true, so why should we make it easier for them to commit those atrocities by arming them with efficient killing tools? Yes, I said it, and I confess it: a gun is merely a tool. A tool that was designed for killing, and it is a very well-designed and effective tool. I have heard it argued at least a few dozen times, that perhaps we should outlaw cars since so many people die in car crashes each year, far more than die in gun violence. Despite that fact that, again, no one is trying to “outlaw” guns, cars are not designed to kill people. In fact, cars are engineered to minimize the loss of life if they are used improperly. Guns are engineered to maximize the loss of life if they are used properly. Surely, any person who is genuinely attempting to recognize that difference can easily do so. Maybe a maniac would try to build a bomb, or go on a stabbing spree? Again, all these uses entail the misuse of materials that are intended for other purposes. Guns, when used properly, take casualties. That is their sole purpose. The NRA is correct, a gun cannot intend to commit murder, people do that themselves, but guns are the tool best suited for the job. It is their purpose. Am I repeating myself?

Finally, I’ve got to ask: why has the NRA pushed so hard to restrict research into the area of gun violence? Are they afraid of what we might find out? Here is an article discussing the dearth of research into gun violence, and how it is stifling action in Congress. It disturbs me greatly to think there are people who are content to simply allow this pandemic of gun violence continue unabated. It is understandable to have differences on how to solve the problem, but to refuse to acknowledge the problem is foolish at best, sinister at worst. We live in a society where, unfortunately, we have become accustomed to serious violence on an almost weekly basis. The events in Turkey this week are spurning the International community to finally say enough is enough. We are tired of violence, and we need to take action. How and why are we unable to make the same decision domestically?

*It’s right here..

New note: Let’s not even DISCUSS Trump’s comments calling newspapers “good sources”.