ABC Power Trip: SF Clubs Face Financial Ruin

By Amy Kniss

California is a fairly lax state when it comes to regulating the sale of alcohol – we sell hard liquor in supermarkets, we sell it on Sundays, we sell it until 2:00 a.m. and in many places we begin selling it again at 6:00 a.m. Businesses make money when people drink. No big deal.

That laid-back attitude may be changing, in San Francisco of all places!

California’s Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) is taking a closer look at local music venues that host shows without age restrictions. Venues like Slim’s, Bottom of the Hill, the Great American Music Hall, Cafe du Nord and the Fillmore are all at risk, according to an article in today’s SF Gate: State goes after legendary all-ages music clubs.

At issue is a seemingly obscure enforcement power claimed by the ABC, which if you want to get technical isn’t actually a matter of “law.” Despite the absence of a statute requiring clubs that hold music events open to minors, the ABC is insisting that half of such establishments’ revenue come from food sales – rather than (disproportionate) alcohol sales.

Fans and promoters of the local music scene are understandably concerned that ABC’s new “rules” will negatively affect emerging talent and clubs’ ability to preserve their livelihoods by attracting large audiences.

"Without these businesses, there's no local music scene - it's that simple," said Jordan Kurland, co-owner of San Francisco's Noise Pop music festival in an interview with The Chronicle. "It's such a special experience when you are young to see a band you love in an intimate place ... where they are able to charge a more reasonable ticket price. These small-capacity venues are very generous about paying bands, and, like any club in the world, they predominantly make their money off the bar, not off ticket sales."

What the ABC isn’t acknowledging is that California law explicitly permits minors to enter establishments licensed to sell liquor, so long as the establishment has the capacity to serve meals (California Business & Professions Code §§ 23787, 25665). Such establishments may maintain bars on the premises and function more as nightclubs, particularly late at night. According to California Business & Professional Code (§§ 23787): “The operation of such premises is limited solely to the service of meals and beverages at prearranged events of a social or business nature and where admission is by ticket only.” Notice the code mentions no age restriction on ticket purchasers, nor does the code specify any ratio requirement for food-to-alcohol-sales for venues providing ticketed admission.

Serving food allows bay area and California clubs to host as all-age events. This continues to be the case. The San Francisco Entertainment Commission doesn’t take kindly to assaults on its businesses, especially when it comes in the form of enforcing non-legislated “rules” (requiring equal sales of alcohol and food at all-age events) targeting revenue and limiting the operating conditions.

Look for this fight to continue as a legal battle arises over the ABC’s authority to impose restrictions that are not a matter of law.

Obama Subverts Congressional Oversight

Seriously? We need to persuade companies "to participate in programs funded by the $700 billion" bailout? The White House thinks so.

Why? Well these "poor" companies "desperate" for government money only want the handouts if they don't come with restrictions about how they may squander the money. Perhaps they're reluctant to take any greater restrictions than those Congress saddled on AIG,: none. It seems financial oversight, like restrictions on lavish executive pay, is a deal-breaker for organizations otherwise willing to accept tax payer cash.

The accommodating Obama administration agrees and has added more bureaucracy to circumvent Congress' attempt at oversight and satisfy the financial demands of companies in need of federal funds. How now brown cow.

Silly me. I thought when a company needs to borrow money than the lender sets the terms and regulates how the money is spend. If a homeowner seeks a home loan, the money can't then be used to buy a car, send a kid to college or pay for fertility treatment. Money borrowed has use restrictions. Why should companies that need bailout bucks get a pass, especially when their only recourse is refusing to accept the money?

President Obama, using "a special-purpose vehicle" to blatantly ignore the terms of Congressional oversight is ingeniousness and insulting. Even the Bush administration decided to apply executive-pay limits to firms participating in the bailout program.

The Ethics of Outsourcing Academics

Reading "The Dark Side of Freelancing," on a Harvard Business Review blog, got me thinking about the author's final question: Is there "something inherently lazy and unaccountable about outsourced intellectual labor"?

As a freelancer myself I want to say no. That it is just a byproduct of the pace and connectedness of our world. While I do believe that when it comes to corporate communications outsourcing intellectual labor, when transparent and fairly compensated, is perfectly ethical. However, I can't say the same when it comes to academics and the so-called "essay mills" that lurk in the Far East and many nations notorious for permissive sweat-shop cultures.

Working at UVA in graduate school showed me that too many students are ill prepared for any sort of robust academic/intellectual endeavor — most would rather rip their own teeth out than write an essay on Hobbes' State of Nature. Those from affluent means were more than willing to buy a pass on course requirements, even if that meant cheating. Despite the Jeffersonian "Honor Code," we found students desperate to "clear the academic bar" were willing to risk expulsion rather than put time and effort into writing a decent paper themselves. Students' willingness to "outsource" work and claim credit for the product points to grave ethical problems ahead (not to mention decreasing intellectual standards).

Commuter Nightmare: Woman Jumps Into Oncoming Traffic

When a woman jumps off an Interstate connector onto oncoming traffic, it's fair to say she may be taking her life in a new direction.When it happened today, ERIC S. PAGE, of NBC's San Diego affiliate station 7/39, posted a news article on station's website. Detailing the event, Page described the situation as "creating a commuters [sic] nightmare." Lack of appropriate apostrophe aside, Page is an idiot.

The woman, who leaped approximately 50 from the edge of the freeway connector into oncoming traffic on Interstate 8, wasn't even hit, despite the taking the plunge near the start of rush hour. Yes, the fall left her pretty banged up ("seriously injured"). Hitting asphalt at 50 feet usually has that effect. But Page's claim that the situation created a "commuters [sic] nightmare" is a little far-fetched. A body splattering on your windshield or a toxic spill or terrorists taking out a bridge, those are situations of which commuters' nightmares are made.

Rubber-neckers slowed down traffic for approximately half an hour. The CHP had cleared up the situation and had her all scooped up and carted off by 3:45. Talk about service, the report of her jump came in at 3:15.

eHow Featured in ABC News and Sacramento Bee

7 On Your Side

SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) -- In economic times like these, it is good to do more things yourself. Say change the oil or cut your families hair. The website www.ehow.com is helpful to some and a money maker to others.

The website eHow.com can show you how to do just about everything. A pretty big brag, but not that far off the mark.

Log on and learn to build rabbit cages or start an Internet business from scratch.

"You can imagine, tough economic times people feel a little more empowered. They want to do things themselves, they think twice about calling that plumber who charges $85 just to ring the doorbell," said Gregory Boudewijn from eHow.com

"Have you ever logged on to find out how to do something?" asked 7 On Your Side's Michael Finney.

"Yes, I do, every day," said Boudewijn

"What?" asked Finney.

"I have fixed my garbage disposal. My wife has learned to hang a pendent lamp in our dining room. I have gotten some tax advice -- a lot of information," said Boudewijn.

Amy Kniss uses the site a lot, too.

"I am not good at following real directions, like reading a VCR manual -- that is going to be a disaster, or whatever, how to connect my DVD player to something, it is probably not going to work out. But this, this, is written in basic steps," said Kniss.

And where does this advice come from? From people just like Amy. She writes articles.

eHow pays for advice based on the subject matter and how many read the articles.

"I started writing because it was kind of fun and basically you could write about what you know about and didn't have to do too much research. And from there I figured, 'you can actually make some money doing this'," said Kniss.

And she is, although she won't tell me how much she earns. Some writers are making $10 or so a month, others are actually earning a living, thousands of dollars every month.

"They are everyday people like you and me. People who have free time and expertise and sure there are some aspiring writers who like to be on our site and getting a portfolio of their work, but then there are just average people who are sharing information they have accumulated throughout their lives," said Boudewijn.

They check for plagiarism and have editors going through the articles as well.

www.ehow.com

Today's latest headlines | ABC7 News on your phone
Follow us on Twitter | Fan us on Facebook | Get our free widget

(Copyright ©2009 KGO-TV/DT. All Rights Reserved.)

Omegle: As Anonymous as You Want to Be

Omegle pairs up strangers for a random conversation about anything, everything or nothing. The site bills itself as "a brand-new service for meeting new friends."

Assuming you make new friends with people whom you know nothing about, don't necessarily share any common interests and may or may not live anywhere near one another. If you like making these sorts of new friends, then yeah, Omegle is the perfect service for you to meet.

When you access Omegle, its algorithm pick another user at random, shoves you together into a virtual version of an empty elevator, then slams the doors closed, leaving the two of you alone together in silence. You may choose to speak, mutter a few pleasantries or wait out the ride in silence until one of you reaches your floor.

What is the intimacy factor of sitting at your keyboard waiting for someone you don't know to enter your life? What words do you hope will appear? What will you say to a stranger that you won't say to your non-virtual friends. Will this format of anonymous conversation become a means of therapy for the uninsured or out of work?

While Omegle says the "chats are completely anonymous," it notes, "there is nothing to stop you from revealing personal details if you would like." What's more, there is nothing to stop you from making up any personal details you'd like. This sounds eerily similar to Hitchcock's "Stranger on a Train."

Perhaps this "service" will grow more sophisticated. Will there eventually be an option to select a topic for the chat before being paired with a stranger? Say if I wanted to talk about Congress or the 2010 CA governor's race, then I could enter that in a text field, and a stranger could select that topic? Also, how will this be monetized and what's to keep it from becoming some creepy anonymous sex-chat platform?

Google Gains Ground in Quest for World Domination

It's true: "You can decline to submit personal information to any of our [Google's] services, in which case Google may not be able to provide those services to you."

But it's important to know what Google considers "personal information" and how it handles said information.

How does Google handle "User communications", like your gmail account and its included chat features? Well, according to the company's Privacy Policy, "When you send email or other communications to Google, we may retain those communications in order to process your inquiries, respond to your requests and improve our services.

Wha? First of all, few of us consider that our email or IM exchanges are "sent to Google" rather than through Google. Unlike the phone company, or even a cellular service provider, that keep records that a call took place, between which numbers, when it occurred and how long it lasted, Google's retention of your exchange includes the actual content of the conversation. Google does not disclose how long it retains this content, presumably it does so in perpetuity.

We may soon see the day when our gmail conversation of today is subpoenaed, to prove anything from ongoing infidelity in a divorce proceeding to undeclared craigslist earnings in a tax or fraud investigation. I realize that once sent, emails exist in cyberspace indefinitely. Still, it is creepy to know that they also exist in Google's archives, where one day scholars may pour over them like they once examined the correspondence exchanges of great thinkers, wtiters, celebrities and politicizations.

Be careful what you say and where you say it.

If it's any consolation, Google makes its users this promises:

"If Google becomes involved in a merger, acquisition, or any form of sale of some or all of its assets, we will ensure the confidentiality of any personal information involved in such transactions and provide notice before personal information is transferred and becomes subject to a different privacy policy."