Letters for the week of January 31-February 6, 2007

“Gunslinger Girl,” advertisement, 1/3

Can’t have it both ways
On the inside front page of your January 3 issue you have a full-page drawing of a young child, blood-spattered and pointing a gun at us. It’s pretty horrifying, but I thought, “Oh, well, they don’t give a shit, they’re just trying to appeal to young hipsters.” But then a few pages later I find an ad endorsed by you for an organization called “ACT Against Violence” with the bold headline “WHAT A CHILD LEARNS ABOUT VIOLENCE A CHILD LEARNS FOR LIFE.” It seemed a little hypocritical to me. I don’t think you can have it both ways and have any credibility.

Mittie Cuetara, Oakland

“Tearing Down Terroir,” Wineau, 1/10

Appreciate the finish, says wine curmudgeon
Let me first say I am not a wine snob. I am, however, an unabashed bitter old wine curmudgeon. I’m rabid for accuracy and can’t stand uninformed (albeit at times innocent) pontification on the subject of wine. I say this because the following may appear as harsh but please understand I mean it only as constructive (and grumpy) criticism.

I appreciate your bringing to your audience the horrific assault the influence Mr. Parker has had on terroir by promoting what we both feel is only ripeness and grass as the prerequisite to great wine. However, you as a wine writer must have your facts down first. To say any wine from Aragon has been “Parkerized” shows a lack of understanding of terroir of this region. These wines have been big and alcoholic since the Romans first planted vineyards there centuries ago. Plus, it’s Grenache. Grenache is a big wine, i.e. Gigondas, Priorat, etc. A critical understanding of the world’s terroirs is essential in the fight against those who seem to be keen on destroying them.

Secondly, I’m amazed that a published wine writer would need a $7 Grenache of no great lineage to show the importance of the finish of a wine (“aftertaste” was your word). What!? The finish is second only to aroma in understanding a wine’s greatness and before any criticism of any wine can be put forth an appreciation and awareness of this must be understood. When young, the greatest Burgundies can be tough, tannic, and not the most appealing wines up front, but it’s on the finish one can flesh out the complexities rewarded with time. Fine young German Riesling is delicious and loaded with fruit at first sip, but its on the finish one receives the minerals and smoke lingering on and on that tell of its profoundness! Chateau d’Yquem is so great because of the broad swath of flavors it gives up for minutes after one has swallowed. So, if you are only now grasping the full importance of the finish please dedicate your tasting to the discovery of the full importance of this crucial aspect of wine evaluation. It really is Wine Appreciation 101.

Please forgive me if I sound like some snobbish wine geek. I’m not. I only want to make sure the fight against Parker is fought on the right grounds (against 15.3 percent alcohol Pinot Noirs but not traditionally fiery wines that can handle the heat) and that those who are with us understand what he doesn’t: Wine is about the subtle nuances (finish being one of them) and not the power of the flavor itself.
Stephen Laborde, Oakland

“Harp Locker,” This Week, 1/3

How about “legend”?
Needing to do some investigation on the harp players mentioned, I tapped into my mammoth Blues Who’s Who collection of 571 biographies of selected blues artists. Looking first for Paul Oscher’s name, I didn’t find it. Rod Piazza and Rick Estrin — no luck. Even the “certified blues master” Mark Hummel and Kim Wilson, the headliner, were exempt. What I did find was a lengthy bio featuring William “Billy Boy” Arnold. After reading it, you can believe me, he was/is more than a “onetime Bo Diddley sideman.” After teaching himself harmonica in 1947, he, eventually, worked with some of the cream of Chicago blues: Johnny Shines, Muddy Waters, Howlin’ Wolf, Earl Hooker, and Little Walter. I know this would give Mr. Arnold more extensive stature than being a “veteran Chicago harp player.” How about … a legend?

Lasana Taylor, Palo Alto

The problem with King Jorge
I read with great interest Jonathan Kaminsky’s article. As a teacher, I appreciate the work being done in California schools to better the future for our kids. However, there were a number of serious problems that I detected with Mr. Lopez’ style of leadership.

King Jorge is a dictator, pure and simple. His methods work because people who are in need will respond to bullying and unethical treatment because they are needy. King Jorge has simplified life to simple formulae: Do what I say and you will succeed.

The end does not justify the means. Somewhere along the line, this kind of dictatorship fails because the foundation is false and weak. Lest we build on sand, we must make sure testing scores are not the only factor we consider for a rich education. And about the faculty: Craigslist? You have to be kidding. Teaching credentials do not guarantee excellence, but they establish a minimum standard toward it. Using King Jorge’s standards in evaluating teachers is just another notch in his dictatorship.

The concept that even the people who are “against” him can say that he did a good job in raising scores just begs the question. If the only standard that people can agree on is testing scores then we are indeed going backwards.

Hitler did a great job in stabilizing Germany’s decrepit economy and national prestige. All of history’s dictators, benevolent or otherwise, had strong points in their favor.

I guess, though, my real concern here is his treatment of teachers. I really believe that one of the most sacrosanct pillars of education is the right of the teacher to create the physical environment in the classroom. No principal would ever get away with ordering me to put a computer that I have in storage out in the classroom to make a point.
Michael J. D’Augelli, San Lorenzo

“Jerry Brown Was Right,” Feature, 1/3

Jerry made us a joke
Mr. Thompson must’ve been living in Tampa the last eight years. Jerry Brown did nothing but use Oakland. Mayor Missing? He has the Bushlike arrogance to snub being at City Hall for council meetings. He spent more time in San Francisco, pandering for future support to be attorney general, than dealing with the decaying infrastructure of East Oakland. I’m still trying to figure out how stretches of Foothill and International boulevards don’t look like stretches of College or Piedmont avenues. We’re in the same city, right?

Jerry Brown was an absentee father to a struggling child as mayor. Where are the ten thousand residents who were supposed to make downtown so thriving? Where is the retail or commercial business boom that a competent mayor, looking to make the city financially strong, would’ve pushed for? Thompson writes about Brown as if he’s transformed 14th & Broadway into Rodeo Drive and Wilshire Boulevard. Jerry hasn’t galvanized Oakland. He divided it, polarized it, and is leaving it with a bunch of empty lofts and live/work spaces, high murder rates, more potholes and bad streets than one city should have, a fleeing baseball team, and no quality downtown nightlife or money-generating attractions. If we’re giving out grades, Jerry Brown gets an F.

A mayor’s job is to, in Oakland terms, “hustle” for the city and guide it toward positive social, economic, and cultural growth. Oakland has not achieved anything close to what he so arrogantly projected eight years ago, and Jerry Brown will be THE ONLY ONE who benefited from his having “dictated” over the city when he’s gone to Sacramento. If you, dear Oaklander, don’t believe it, take a drive around our city. The whole city! Then come back and believe the BS Mr. Thompson spewed like roses about Jerry Brown’s “Great Reign.” Please!

Jerry Brown and his co-con artists Larry Reid & Ignacio De La Fuente should sit alongside Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld on the Great Day of Judgment for liars. Oakland might be getting a facelift, but who’s waiting in line to date us?

The biggest lie is Jerry Brown made Oakland “cool”! Huey P. Newton and Bobby Seale made Oakland “cool”! The Oakland Raiders! The music scene! The climate! The food and the people, W — we make Oakland “cool”! Not Jerry Brown. He made us a joke, and a lot of citizens aren’t laughing.
Solomon Kaiser, Oakland

The making of an issue
I have seen two references to this cover story in the letters section. Both were quick to point out that, according to Express editors, no one has challenged the accuracy of the reporting or story — only that folks were upset with the accompanying mug shot on the cover. Well, consider that over.

The story was poorly sourced and poorly fact-checked. It mentions Oakland’s rising homicide rate, but only to imply — along with the loaded image that so many have complained about — that young people of color are solely to blame.

From the article: “To understand why it’s important to pay attention to youths like Cyrioco, one need only look at Oakland’s surging crime rate. The city is facing its highest homicide rate in ten years, with 129 murders as of press time, claiming numerous teen victims as young as fourteen years old. Meanwhile, juvenile crime appears to have spiked. Oakland Police Lieutenant Kevin Wiley said the majority of the city’s criminals are sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds. Moreover, he said, their crimes have become increasingly violent.”

No study is mentioned to back up the claim, nor are any official numbers offered to corroborate Wiley’s anecdotal, and outrageously erroneous, response. A MAJORITY of the city’s criminals are sixteen or seventeen? No sane person would say that, quote it, or publish it. It’s simply a statistical impossibility. Last summer, the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice issued a report (www.cjcj.org/pdf/CAYouthCrimeSept06.pdf) on the huge declines in California youth crime and violence in urban areas over the last thirty years. Oakland wasn’t reported to stray from that trend.

If Wiley was misquoted, then it’s the Express‘ fault. If those were his words, he should at least be censured, if not fired, for having such a bias against the young people of Oakland, and the Express should apologize to its readers for quoting him without any response from someone who can debunk his claim.

Young people continue to be more likely to be victims of a violent crime than perpetrators. In the end, there’s no denying the horrible effect the violence epidemic has on communities of color and young people. But omitting the facts and implying young people are to blame leaves us no closer to a solution.

Here’s to hoping the Express thinks of better ways to tell stories of hope, opportunity, and solutions for communities dealing with poverty, violence and media bias — not more distortion, deception, and sensationalism. The values, interests, and needs of a whole generation are at stake. Fairness and accuracy must be more than a slogan, and mean more than just giving a couple of sides to a story. It means fact-checking, backing up sourced quotes with facts, and ensuring that stories represent reality.

If readers want to report more instances of media bias, go to Youth Media Council’s new Web site (YouthMediaCouncil.org/home) and use our Bay Area Media Bias Monitor to alert others about biased coverage in Bay Area outlets.
Karlos Schmieder, Youth Media Council media strategist, Oakland