I just got back from Whole Foods and I'm alarmed to report that it suddenly contains a large number of thugged out white guys. Shorts were pulled low; fake earring bling sparkled in the afternoon sun; and stupid hats were in abundance — particularly wrongly-colored baseball caps. And the latter were fully-utilized: I saw the gentleman ahead of me in line proceed through an amazing three distinct ballcap-bill positions during our brief time together in line.

They talked about this obscure "Magic Hat" beer they were buying, and one enthusiastically introduced the other to Washingtonian, an up & coming restaurant-finding resource. Then they asked the cashier if they could split the checkout amount across two credit cards. All in all, it felt like I was standing behind Turtle from Entourage, except twice. Deeply unsettling.

Two stories that are a little old, but suddenly coming into better focus:

1. Remember when Google ran this custom logo to celebrate Joan Miro's birthday? And Miro's family complained, prompting Google to take it down? I know, it all happened ages ago (Thursday). But until today I didn't realize that the takedown request had come from the Artists' Rights Society, which did something similar when Google paid tribute to Salvador Dali in 2002. I had initially thought that this was a case of a stupidly litigious family, but it now seems that the attitude may be characteristic of the Great Dead Artist establishment.

   I find it all pretty unseemly. I realize that intellectual property is the only real asset an artist has. But Google didn't copy a work, they emulated a style — and a style that was formed by works more than half a century old. In any sane society that IP would already belong to the public domain.

   But let's be generous and assume that the motivations of Miro's estate in this matter are non-venal — that they aren't just trying to squeeze licensing fees out of Google, and that they realize Google's tribute doesn't represent competition for Miro-related income. Let's say this is just about controlling the man's legacy. You'd still have to count me as unsympathetic. I don't think a person has the right to control how society views him or his work. I suppose an artist is welcome to take a stab at doing so, but I don't think it's unreasonable for society to expect him or her to quit bugging us when they die. Lobbying from beyond the grave is just tacky.

2. I hate to unabashedly stick up for GOOG — I've got first shift on the "How Long 'Til They're Evil" watch. But on the issue of net neutrality, they've already publicly committed themselves to doing the right thing: the search engine says they won't pay protection money to ISPs when the broadband providers start making the rounds with hands outstretched. Good for them! Maybe completely surrendering every shred of privacy to a commercial venture won't be so bad after all.

   As worked up as I get about intellectual property controversies, net neutrality is a much more pressing and unambiguous issue — I find it genuinely hard to see why anybody would oppose NN unless they're in the pocket of the telecom industry. If you haven't got an opinion on the matter or don't totally get what it's about, you might be interested in watching this brief video on the topic (thanks to Mike for the link).

so a lot of the el stops as you go along the purple line up to evanston have murals hung on the platform walls. i don't know who commissioned them, who painted them, or when they were put up, but they all have one grand unifying factor: they are so awful, both in painting and in subject matter, that they make your eyes bleed. but i think this one, at the dempster stop, is the worst offender:

what in the world is going on here? we've got a floating rhienoceros head, an enormous evil rattlesnake, weird silhouettes and faces, and some landscape that looks like a second-grader painted it. what exactly might have been going through the artist's mind during the creation of this shot? the answer is probably: lots and lots of bad acid.

so some brave classmates and i attended a a milwaukee brewers game yesterday, where the following things happened: the brewers tied an MLB record for the most homeruns hit in one inning (five); we went on an epic hunt for wisconsin custard; and catherine drank 32 beers. the backhanded compliment of the day? from a 22-year-old: "you sure can hold your liquor for somebody who's been out of undergradute for so long!" yes, i'm cementing my reputation as the old lush, thanks very much. anyway, it was a rollicking good time. photos may be perused here.