The Rage Diaries

Attention, East Bay residents and businesses

EBMUD has introduced mandatory water rationing. I read the press release, and here are the salient points:

The bravest woman in San Francisco

We passed each other at Embarcadero and Harrison. And how do I know she's the bravest woman in San Francisco?

Because she was walking into the cold wind whipping off the Bay. And she was wearing an above-the-knee wrap skirt.

Dating outside your palate

I read "Culinarily Mismatched Mates Achieve Harmony in the Kitchen" (SFChron, Feb 13, 08) on the ferry this morning, and was charmed by how the people in the story still managed to break (gluten-free) bread together. The story seemed to highlight how couplehood is often just a series of everyday decisions to let something ride, give something up, recognize what's important to someone else.

So then I hit the computer and read "I Love You, But You Love Meat" (NYT, Feb 13, 08). It's got roughly the same points, but wow, does it delve into the differences between diets that are circumscribed by health versus those circumscribed by creed. And the poor vegetarians -- I'm afraid y'all don't come off very well in the piece.

What food compromises do you make for your partner? How has s/he compromised for your picky palate?

In defense of the zoos

Last month, Phil and I went to the Lowry Park zoo in Tampa. It was uncrowded the day we went, what with it being the Monday after Thanksgiving and all, so we had much of the place to ourselves. We were the only ones in front of the white tiger habitat. The mother padded around on paws as big as dinner plates; you could see the muscles under her coat rippling, smooth and powerful as waves under whitecaps. The cubs were gangly, but their thin limbs still contained a promise of menace.

"That poor silly magician never had a chance," I murmured appreciatively.

Last Friday, Phil and I took our younger nephew to the Oakland Zoo. We arrived not long after it opened, so the animals were still lively, relaxed in their unexamined state. We passed the tiger habitat. One tiger was bounding up and down, pouncing on branches and amusing itself; the other flopped on its back and began arching and wriggling appreciatively. It was almost like watching a cat -- except it's obvious to anyone with half a brain that the tiger could take you out with a well-aimed cuff.

This week, I have been reading all about the terrible tragedy at the San Francisco Zoo ("Tiger Kills One San Franciso Zoo Patron, Injures Two Others," SFChron, Dec 25, 07).

The terrible tragedy I refer to is the destruction of the Siberian tiger Tatiana. These animals are rare, and the emerging accounts suggest she died because she acted like what she was ("SF Zoo's Tatiana Acted Her Part As An Alpha Predator, Experts Say," SFChron, Dec 27, 07) once she had been goaded by someone or several people ("Trail of Blood Apparently Led Escaped Tiger to Victims," SFChron, Dec 27, 07).

One of the more infuriating side effects of this whole thing has been to listen to the vox populi natter on about how this proves zoos are bad things and animals are better off in the wild, yada yada. To which I say: balderash, bosh and buffaloshit.

There are bad zoos and mediocre zoos, but there are also very good zoos, and the one thing all these zoos do is sustain the possibility that someone will look upon an animal utterly unlike anything they're likely to run across in everyday life, and they'll decide, "Yes -- I think it's worth giving a damn about a living being, even when it doesn't affect me directly." Zoos impart an important truth, early on: we are not alone on this planet, and there are marvelous creatures that can live and do things we can't. But the one thing we can do is be aware of how precious every species is, how vital to others -- and to preserve what we can. Zoos reconnect us to the primitive fear and wonder our ancestors had; they reconnect us to our roots.

And zoos are often responsible for keeping animal species going when they'd die in the wild. I'm currently reading Alan Weisman's The World Without Us, and he mentions that the Korean DMZ has become an important -- albeit inadvertent -- ecological refuge for species that are losing their homes across the rest of Asia. This narrow, uninhabited slice of Korea is all some species have left.

Safer in the wild? Only when man's not around. Consider the terrible casualties that war has visited on gorilla populations. Or consider what's happening on America's rural roads: bears and people die when the former get in the way of the latters' cars ("As Cars Hit More Animals on Roads, Toll Rises," NYT, Dec 22, 07).

Zoos are keeping some species alive and thriving. If the accounts in the Amy Sutherland's Kicked, Bitten and Scratched are to be believed (and I see no reason why not), zoos don't do this because they like subjugating animals to human whim. They don't do it because they disrespect animals. They do it because they respect what different species are, and can do, and they want them -- and us -- to thrive by the virtue of their existence.

So -- go, zoos! Take time soon to go to your local zoo soon. Support it. Without it, how can we understand what else lives on this pale blue dot? Or how they make us more fully human?

Devaluing the word "literati" since 2007

I don't know if y'all have this weekend's plans set in stone already (hey -- maybe some of you have already had long weeks. It could happen!) or what, but if you're in the Bay Area and you're casting about for a way to spend your Saturday, come on out to the Alameda Literati book fair and writer's conference.

Extra bonus: you can see me in action. I'll be speaking on an 11 a.m. panel titled "The Blab on Blogging: How to Get Started and Where to Go Next." My co-panelists are Matt Holohan of I Fought the Law; Dan Brodnitz of Cecil vortex; and John Knox White of Stop, Drop & Roll. It promises to be an interesting mix, what with a smart lawyer, a vibrant artist, a civic activist and, um ... me.

This is going to be like the panel I did at last year's Flow conference, I know it. There, we had a boatload of PhDs and -- again -- me. And all of them were saying these fantastically insightful and penetrating things about HBO's role in the business and pop culture landscapes of television, and when it was my turn to talk, the first words out of my mouth were, "I'm just here because somebody has to stick up for Real Sex."

So come on -- you know you don't want to miss the sequel to that!

On a related note: there are other Alameda bloggers who don't appear to be speaking at the event but should be called out anyway. You've seen Lauren Do in the comments recently -- she writes Blogging Bayport Alameda. Ayse Sercan writes Casa Decrepit, which is a fantastic reno blog and an inspiration for my own gardening. And finally, two of the three bloggers over at the Oakland As blog Catfish Stew are Alamedans: Ken Arneson and Philip Michaels. So our tiny island is simply packed with bloggers. Awesome!

Princess for a Day -- the day is nigh

Do you have a slightly flexible schedule? Do you think you would love to get a vicarious thrill as someone else gets her prom dress? The Princess Project is looking for the following volunteers at their San Francisco site on the following dates:

Monday, March 19 from 4 – 7pm

Wednesday, March 21 from 4 – 7pm

Thursday, March 22 from 4 – 7pm

Clean-up on Sunday, March 25, from 10am – 1pm

If you’re interested in volunteering, contact volunteer@princessproject.org for more information.

I wrote about the Princess Project earlier.

Next time, I'm putting my money in tulips

There are many benefits to owning a house: I am no longer rousted from my bed at an ungodly hour by the mid-coital shrieks of the downstairs neighbor, I can (and did) paint doors with chalkboard paint because I feel like it ... and I do not have to tear out my hair trying to figure out if now is a fine time to buy a place. I only have to tear out my hair wondering if we perhaps got rooked in buying a place 18 months ago.

Anyone who read Friday's "Home Prices Fall in More Than Half of Nation’s Biggest Markets" (NYT, Feb 16, 07) and "Bay Area Home Sales on a 24-Month Slide" (SFGate, Feb 16, 07) might look at the numbers -- California sales down more than 20% compared to the year-ago, the Bay Area's January sales hitting an 11-year low -- and conclude that now is a fine time to buy. A rotten time to be a relatively new owner, but a fine time to buy.

The good news continues with the WSJ reporting that the total values recouped from remodeling are sliding too. ("Home Improvement Lite," Feb 16, 07)

Yes, this is just what the relatively new home-owner who's redone a bathroom likes to read. One wonders if, in olden times, someone may have prised the lid off their wooden crate of tulip bulbs just as their pal began talking about the collapsing market.

Except all is not lost, maybe. Housing starts are down, which means that the glut of inventory could soon ease. ("January Housing Starts Dive," WaPo, Jan 16, 07) The law of supply and demand would take care of the rest.

Except not where I live, maybe. Today, the SFGate reported that only 12% of Bay Area households can swing the price of a median-priced home in the area, $645,300. (Note: we are in that other 88% -- thank God for listings on the left-hand side of the median, eh?) ("A Money Pit? Maybe It's More Like a Pendulum," Feb 18, 07)

I can't help but wonder: if people can't afford to enter the market, does it really matter if supply contracts? I have no idea what the market will do over the next few years -- or if things like housing starts and the state's overall market will affect the Bay Area at all.

Princess for a Day

MaryLynn (of Rockin' Poncho and Fashion Bitchslap) wrote today about the Princess Project, which matches prom dresses with the girls who otherwise wouldn't be able to swing the big night out. The Princess Project rounds up the inventory via a combination of new dresses and donated frocks. In her Princes Project entry today, MaryLynn makes this offer, reproduced here with her permission:

If you have a dress that meets the guidelines and want to donate it, I will pick it up from you and bring it there myself. If I have to, I will even pay to get it drycleaned (but help a sister out if you can). Just let me know by next week and I will arrange something with you. Now - TO YOUR CLOSETS! Email me at marylynn@fashionbitchslap.com.

MaryLynn wrote about her volunteer experience last year, and frankly, it sounds great. I'm off to e-mail them and see what I can do this year.

The Gap post y'all knew I was going to write

That handsome gentlemen to the left is former Gap CEO Paul Pressler. As you may well know, he resigned Monday ("Gap CEO Pressler Resigns," SFChron, Jan 22, 07). The Gap is now in the unpleasant position of finding a new CEO to rescue a sinking brand. ("Gap Needs a CEO and Many Qualify; Will Any Apply?" WSJ, Jan 24, 07)

Here's the money quote in that article:

Perhaps Gap's biggest problem -- and the new CEO's biggest challenge -- is that it has lost its way with American shoppers who once flocked to its Gap, Banana Republic and Old Navy stores as the darlings of the mall. The Gap brand is now so large that it can't be too trendy, or it might not appeal to enough customers to keep its stores running. But to make its styles attractive to a huge group of shoppers, it produces clothes so basic that they can't command a price premium.

This really is a problem. An interview Teri Agins did with fashion consultant David Wolfe summed up the woes any basic clothing vendor faces:

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: What's the biggest change across the greater fashion landscape nowadays?

MR. WOLFE: I think there is going to be this big breakdown of the whole system. I think there is going to be a clothing/apparel industry that dresses the great American public in casual everyday clothes. And then there are going to be the fashion specialty chains -- the fast-fashion people, the boutiques, whatever you want to call them, who deliver fashion with a capital "F." At every price point.

[...]

WSJ: Now that Americans at every level can buy the newest fashion looks at every price level, have their tastes become more sophisticated?

MR. WOLFE: I think there is no such thing as a broad-based American mainstream anymore. And that's one of the major problems that fashion retailers are having at the moment. Instead of becoming one great homogenized society, after the Internet we are now much more segmented and layered..

-- "Goodbye, Mainstream," WSJ, Jan 22, 07

The interview goes on to note that size isn't always an asset: the larger you get, the greater the pressure to appeal to more shoppers, and the more homogenous the clothing.

So here is my crazy suggestion the Gap can grow by shrinking. Take Forth & Towne. (which we have, here and here and here and here and here) That chain is tiny, yet that chain has fans, if MayLynn's recent post "Forth & Towne? No. Forth & Love" is any indication. So maybe it's time to convert some Gap stores to Forth & Towne. It gives Gap the chance to redefine a market niche early on -- setting itself apart from Chico's, for example -- and create a group of loyal shoppers. Loyal shoppers = higher same-store sales, which make for happier investors.

Alternately: the Gap can take a page out of the J. Crew playbook (which, heh, was written by former Gap CEO Mickey Drexler -- see "Mickey Drexler's Redemption," NYMag, Nov 29, 04). I vividly remember the company's relaunch of its flagship catalog in fall 2003, and here's what stuck out: the total number of items for sale dropped dramatically, the total number of looks in the catalog narrowed dramatically, and each (much more expensive) item came with a backstory explaining why the materials or craftsmanship made this a new basic for a discerning customer.

And the company's continued that strategy -- in some circles, the names "Wellesley cable" or "Sophia short dress" are now cultural shorthand and collectible items. J. Crew seems to be continuing that with their new, more casual brand, Madewell 1937. It's not enough to buy a pair of jeans -- you have to get an education on the washes and hand-finishing.

Pretentious? Probably. Effective. Probably. People who buy something from J. Crew or Madewell have an idea what the brand stands for -- who "probably" buys it. And as a smart woman told me in 2005," What does the Gap stand for? Nobody has any idea."

So maybe the company needs to grow by closing some doors. Shut down some stores, pour some love into F&T, then look at the Gap and decide, "This is who we are for and this is what they want." Everyone else? Well, they're not shopping there now. Who cares what they think?

(EDITED TO ADD: And, in reading this recent report on a speech he made at the National Retail Federation's, it seems like I am not too far off my assessment of Drexler's J. Crew strategy:

 

He dismissed the notion that the popularity of "fast fashion," or the type of low-priced, trendy merchandise sold at chains like H&M, has shrunk demand for high-priced, high-quality clothing. J. Crew sells mid-to high-end clothing and accessories.

 

"At the end of the day, there are enough customers buying high-quality products. But it's our job as merchandisers to create the needs and wants of customers," Drexler said. "That's what I do for a living."

-- "Drexler: American Retailing Lacks Inspiration," CNN, Jan 16, 07)

Emphasis mine.)

Frostbite in California, sunburn in D.C.

Our Subaru has an external-temperature gauge in the dashboard, and it is somewhat weird to be tooling toward the gym in the morning and seeing the gauge read 43 degrees Fahrenheit. I'm used to it being at least a little warmer here. And this nippy-Bay-Area-winter phenomenon felt a little weirder after I read yesterday's "Seldom Heard in January: Hot Enough for Ya?" in the WaPo. 73 degrees Fahrenheit! In January? Back when I lived there, January was all about fretting over how not to freeze during inauguration, stocking up on bread in anticipation of snow days, casting longing looks at Bahamas posters strategically placed in travel agency windows.

That this should appear the same day the NYT runs the speculative piece "The Ununited States, When It Comes to the Weather," is just delightful. The argument in the piece is this: because the U.S. has such vastly different weather systems, it's hard for anyone to make global warming seem like a national issue. Days like yesterday certainly seem to back that theory up.