/mike

In yet another humiliating experience during my first few months at the Port, I've severely injured my ankle during a lunchtime basketball game. I'm on crutches and probably will cancel all the assorted Halloween festivities we've planned.

I'm curious to see if I'm going to get addicted the Tylenol with Codeine that I was prescribed.

-----

Kaiser gets a bad wrap, but they always treat me well.

Planetizen posted a link to a speech on planning by University of Cape Town Professor Dave Dewar. The overall excerpt was a good read, but one aspect (of many) that I wanted to blog about, was the discussion on the social values of planners.

What are the values of professional planners? Is there a set of predominant values in each profession? Based on the Professor, one such value for planning is equitable access:

Equity does not mean that all parts should be the same. This is neither possible nor desirable, for choice is central. Equity does mean, however that all people should have easy access to broadly similar opportunities, facilities, special places and events.

To be a bit more specific, Professor Dewar’s plans encourage situations where people can conduct most of their daily activities on foot, or via public transportation.

Even with that caveat in the definition, I wonder about the word equity. It’s one of those words that sounded more important in college. The shift is subtle, because I think that in general, my planning application would be very similar to the Professor’s. The best I can say at the moment is that my opinion is that equity is not an entitlement, but governments do have a duty to provide access that facilitates an individual’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Of course, I'm still thinking this through...

Yesterday I went to work, watched Unsolved Mysteries, and listened to radio coverage of the southern california wildfires til I fell asleep. This morning, I ran out of milk and had Calpis with my honey bunches of oats. I have no life but I like my life.

I'm in a good mood. Off to Torrance...

Traffic is worse than ever in LA. The strike has increased the tension on the streets. I'm not rooting for any paritcular side, but I am a member of labor's family.

I expect L.A. to be tightening its belt, along with the rest of California. I know that City Council has initiated the possibility of "renegotiating" contracts recently signed for the Police Union and Engineer's Union (which includes Planners). The veterans at my old job always told me about the recession in the 80's - layoffs and no promotions for 10 years.

Another article I enjoyed was Village Vices: The Contradiction of New Urbanism and Sustainability, by Ruth Durack. She argues that planning models prescribed by New Urbanism are not sustainable. Of course, her definition of sustainable is to maintain flexibility, which precludes any planning model that establishes a set, singularly controlled development style.

The idea of being nimble enough to meet new challenges is attractive, but isn’t a strong point of government. In my experience, layers and layers of regulations are established in bureaucracies in order to prevent injustice. I’m proud to be a civil servant, but the cost of tighter control, in this case, results in a decrease in effectiveness.

It occurs to me that both articles I’ve blogged about negatively critique New Urbanism. This isn’t because I don’t respect or value New Urbanism. I touched upon this before, but New Urbanism is a lightening rod for planning discourse because it is the leading planning concept that actually makes definitive statements. It’s always easier to critique and deconstruct someone that actually believes in something. Hopefully, I'd like to think that the discussion ultimately builds on the movement.

Recently, Cindy found a small Planning treasure for me in her school library. Places: A Forum of Environmental Design is great to flip through, but I’ve found it difficult to blog about (therefore the delay).

Of the articles in the Fall 2001 journal, Problems With Mistaking Community Life for Public Life, by Michael Brill, most captured my interest.

The idea is that a person’s social relationships can be categorized as public, private, or community life. Private life includes our family and most intimate friends. Community life refers to friends and acquaintances – people we see all the time at school, work or on our block. And public life is with a diversity of strangers, who may or may not necessarily be people you want to meet.

Part of Brill’s point is that current planning ideals set out to contribute to people’s community lives, but may in fact simply add to our collective public life. And as an aside, modern society typically fights to decrease public life in order to increase space for private life (and subconsciously seeks out community life).

Outside the planning talk, "community life" reminds me of church community. For many, that is a major source of their community life. While I'm guessing that modern society in general lacks community life, all religious groups have it in spades. In select cases, it may even be too much of a good thing.

I wonder if there is a proper balance between the three types. It probably depends on the individual, but I do think that one type can never fully substitute for another.

My interest in Urban Planning originated by chance, if there's such a thing. Urban Studies and Planning 1, 2, and 3 were supposed to be simple prerequisite fodder for graduation. Hardly a carefully cultivated area of interest, it nevertheless became my college major.

Four years past graduation (and almost four years of working planning experience later), I'm thankful for my good fortune thus far. So far so good. During this time, I've noticed that working life and academic interest don't always come together. When beginnings are happy surprises, I suspect that further development eventually requires a person like me to be more intentional.

My next post was supposed to be about Urban Planning, but I’m compelled to write that I feel badly for the Cubs fan that inadvertently contributed to Chicago’s loss yesterday. He doesn't deserve to have his personal information documented in an Associated Press article – even a slightly sympathetic one. Included in the article are his name, age, hometown, occupation, and interviews with his friends and family. I've been impartial throughout the 2003 playoffs, but for this poor sap’s sake, I'm pulling for the Cubbies to make it to the big dance.

I often care about the stupidest things.

I got Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots by Flaming Lips, which currently serves as my soundtrack during drives. Partly a concept album about a Japanese girl that fights evil robots for the city, there is a track about the robots, a track about Yoshimi, and a track where they duke it out - it's all funky drums, screaming, and cheering at the end.

So I'm constantly listening to the CD. I was thinking about the beautiful, sad, somewhat existential vibe of the album, and got worried about Yoshimi. Does she win? Do the robots eat her? Oh no, the CD inside art shows the robot walking into the sunset. I was still able to cognitively recognize the good tunes, but this was starting to bother me. I just couldn't enjoy the CD as much if I knew this fictional heroine had cruelly lost out.

Deep down, I knew that she probably won, but I needed confirmation. Then again, did the band even care about that detail? Maybe it was left ambiguous. But how could they do that to her? I was getting mad and I hadn't started searching.

Thankfully, my google search proved that she indeed wins against the pink robots. The official site displayed artwork of the battle. Yoshimi kills the robots, but the last one kills himself because he fell in love with her! Sad, but the kind of tragic that only makes me want to listen more.

I also read interviews of Lips point man, Wayne Coyne, which increased my appreciation for his lyrics. I'm too critical of different perspectives. Besides, the lyrics to Fight Test (a song that sums up what I think it means to be a man) are enough for my instant respect. Everything's cool. Yoshimi lives.

A few days ago, Cindy and I attended my company picnic at Magic Mountain.  There are 600-some port employees but I'd guess that less that 10 percent attended.  I wasn't necessarily looking forward to schmoozing anyway.  I've learned that in casual wear, cohorts think I'm either unrecognizable or real funny looking. 

So we wandered around, took rides, stuffed ourselves at the buffet, drove go carts, and did lots and lots of waiting in line.  My roller coaster strategy wasn't sound because I didn't expect the wait differential to be so extreme (X was 2 hours, while Revolution was 10 minutes).  Cindy saved us a lot of grief by convincing me to bail some lines. 

My highlight was Gotham City at night.  For Halloween, they hired crazy monster/clown/devil types to wreak havoc and scare people.  You could tell the actors relished their roles.  We watched our backs amid fake fog and edged against the walls, terrified.  Cindy clung to my arm, but I was too scared to enjoy the moment.

There was a farewell potluck for a student worker yesterday. He's leaving to work part time helping autistic kids. We talked about his plans, jobs, and how jobs can sometimes become soley a means for money. He never wants his job to be "just a job".

I attribute most of his perspective to student naivety, but I believe there is enough in there to warrant reflection. Given the ridiculous amounts of opportunity many of us have (especially in the United States), it would be a shame if a person's job didn't fit the individual.

Personally, I have difficulty seeing what fits me. Isn't the grass always greener? I also have difficulty gauging my opportunities. Obviously, I'm not Major League Baseball material, but for arguments sake, what if I wanted to be a FBI agent? Would that be possible? Every choice has a cost and a level of risk. I also believe that failure doesn't make the attempt a poor choice.

I suppose this applies to more than occupations. Artie Moreno said that a goal is just a dream with a deadline. His was to be a millionaire by 40. What's mine? What's yours?

Dream 1:

Driving home, I went to a drive through pet store. My brother worked there part-time and chose a pet for me. He handed me a puppy.

When I went home, the puppy was still asleep so I lay in bed thinking about how much I’d always wanted a pet. The puppy had short white hair and can only be described as perfect. He was in a ziplock bag with air holes along the side. I realized there were chemicals keeping him asleep, so I lifted him out. The puppy was curious and inspected my fluffy white comforter. He jumped between my bed and the wall and the dream was over.

Dream 2:

I was now on my way to shower. I was in a multi-purpose locker room and happened by a couple I know. I was surprised to find that she was in line to receive cosmetic surgery. I went on my way, but when I got to the shower, I kept thinking about her.

Soaping up, the girl came by asked me for my opinion. She was outside the shower, wearing only a towel. I handed her a bucket of warm water so she wouldn’t get cold, but couldn’t let her in the shower because she’s a girl. Her boyfriend waited outside while I suggested that she didn’t need cosmetic surgery. When she went on her way, I wasn’t sure what she was going to do, but the dream ended.

I'm excited to rock the vote today.

-----

In my mind, I've been contrasting two recent controversies: Rush Limbaugh and the L.A. Times.

Rush proved himself to be smug, arrogant, and wrong, when he accused sports media of overrating Eagles quarterback, Donovan McNabb, because he was black.

Before someone wants to paint broad strokes over each individual that covers football, it is advisable to choose a defensible position. Being over or underrated is too vague. It makes for great sports talk, but is very difficult to confirm. Even if he was right, Rush shouldn’t presume to know everyone’s intentions and thought process. Finally, the topic of race is too charged and sensitive for Rush to be throwing out charges left and right.

Oddly, I think that Donovan McNabb may very well be overrated. Who knows, maybe the media does want more black quarterbacks to succeed. But the way Rush went about his argument was plain stupid.

The other controversy has to do with the L.A. Times printing the famous Grop-inator story. Dropping a political bomb the Thursday before an election is not new. Commentators suggest the tactic ruins the crucial Friday newsday for the politician’s campaign, and doesn’t give the spinsters enough time to counter the story, or possibly prove it false.

But this time, the Times exposed its own bias and damaged the newspaper’s already questioned credibility. For starters, the story is simply too old and the timing too perfect. The general public believes that the story was timed, especially since accusations regarding incidents stem from back in the 70’s. Second, bias is inferred because no Time’s staff covered documented stories regarding the opposition’s own issues, including battery of his staff. Finally, the nature of the recall is not your typical California election. There been simply too much coverage for it to have an impact, and new media (a.k.a. cable and talk radio) speed up the time that political attacks can be rebutted.

Similar to Rush, I think that the issue itself may have validity. In general, a candidate’s treatment of women is worthy of discussion. It’s fine to throw it in the mix, but the way the Times played their hand made them look irresponsible as journalists.

Ultimately, Rush quit and has been bashed by sports media. I never followed him anyway. As for the Times, there's been some backlash. Maybe people will lose respect for them. I'm sure both Rush and the Times will move on and continue stir up trouble for their respective enemies.

I'll still read the sports page.

Fortune's article (subscription required) on Artie Moreno joined a growing list of praise for the new Anaheim Angel owner, despite expert assertions warning that when it comes to major league teams, the economic model won't let you be successful.

The uphill battle for profitability is exactly the reason why Disney ownership was sure to be short lived from the start. A huge media franchise that answers to shareholders will never derive any of the sheer fanboy bliss that owning a team brings. The bottom line shouldn't be restricted to numbers and ledgers; you need pure passion for the game.

Artie is good for the Angels. He loves baseball and seems a shrewd businessman. His basic ownership game plan thus far has been very sound. He is already characterized as a fan friendly owner by lowering ticket prices, slashing concession prices (aka cheaper beer), and personally upgrading customer service - he walks through the ballpark during games, meeting and greeting fans.

This all builds on the fan base, which is one part of an overall business plan that includes getting more games on television, increasing billboard revenue, and reaching out to the yet untapped orange county, hispanic market (as the first minority to own a major league team, he is the perfect guy to head up the outreach).

Of course, when the day is done, winning sure helps. So the question is do the Angels have what it takes to remain competitive and maybe even win another championship?

The opportunity is there. The roster is good, minor league help is on its way, and Artie Moreno has signed current management to long term deals and promised to loosen up the budget strings. Knowing his role, and keeping the current GM and manager, in my eyes, has been the best indication that Artie will work out just fine.

GM Bill Stoneman will not be flashy. He simply gives the Angels a winning chance by building a good minor league system, filling roster holes, and avoiding big free agent or trade mistakes. On the flip side, his low risk attitude also keeps potential rewards at a conservative level, which is fine by me.

Manager Mike Scioscia, on the other hand, is hands down one of the best young managers in baseball. He is media savvy, sets a hard working, unselfish tone to the team, and depending on the situation, can either defend or correct the fragile ego of the modern player.

I'm convinced that even though the Angels will never become a dominant franchise like the Yankees, the near term future has promise. There will be years like 2003 (third place finish), but long suffering Angel fans can handle a poor year or two standing on our collective heads while juggling bobble-head dolls and researching stats for a fantasy league. Just take us back to the post season within 16 years and maybe a world series before 42; I'll be more than satisfied.

Yup. That's why I'm going to dish out major bucks for another 20 game mini-plan. Who knows, maybe I'll run into Artie during a game.

I've found recall politics fascinating. For the most part, I have a good idea where the candidates stand on issues and their expected political personalities, which is all I really ask for. The circus aspect is somewhat amusing, but not anymore. The whole business of a political bombshell prior to an election is par for the course, so I wasn't surprised to find the Arnold gropes women and is a Nazi revelations. Still, it's too mean spirited and ugly to follow. I'm tuning out. That's just me. I have a low tolerance for that kind of stuff. Did you know I don't listen to Kevin and Bean anymore because I find them old and mean?

Yup. Controversy isn't always about the controversy, if you know what I mean. More often than not, the population is disgustingly nasty. I'll bet that those who do nasty deeds even have good intentions. I give good intentions some credit, but not much. That’s why I like my friends (yes that means you!). See, I know there aren't many of you good souls out there.

------

I'm really enjoying my day off thus far. I allow myself to drift awake. No alarm. I look up, turn on the radio, and fall back asleep. That way I can let my dreams go back and forth between reality and my subconscious.

By the time I got downstairs today, I found some classic Cham Dad breakfast waiting: bagel, cheesy eggs, fried ham. Yum. Who needs to brush their teeth? It's my day off. It can wait. I wander off to do some leisurely internet surfing. Listen to some good tunes, read about baseball, and interact with the parents. Oh yes, it is good to be home.

I'll eventually find my way to the shower I suppose. My hair is standing up and Cindy is coming over soon. If she saw me in my inside out Angels t-shirt, worn gap shorts, and hair still standing straight up, she be sure to call me "ratty".

now playing: beginnings of the mix i might make (ha!)

I walked over to get my morning cup of coffee and saw some guys chatting in the next cubicle smoking fake cigarettes. They were realistic enough for me to take a few confirmation sniffs.

-----

Playoff baseball puts me in a good mood. Down with the extreme purists I say! Give me baseball under the lights. Give me monkey rally movie clips. Give it all because I love the division series. I’ll take the wild card and the extra round of MLB playoffs because it thrills me.

Here’s one reason why: The Yankees and Braves are dominant teams. Seasons come and go, and these two franchises prove their mettle year after year. The regular season is 162 games long and they know the cream will ultimately rise to the top. But then comes the division series. Let’s play best of five. First team to win three keeps playing. In such a short series, one hot pitcher, one clutch hit, one miscue, or one bad call can be the difference between baseball glory or going home. After being invincible all year long, the cocky dynasties are now scared to death. Everyone starts over and a team's heart is put to the test. The tension is absolutely delightful. In a short series, anything can happen. Just ask the 2002 Angels.