Monday, May 31, 2010

John Ross: El Montsruo

John Ross moved to Mexico City after the earthquake in 1985 (I can't believe that's 25 years ago) and never looked back. I mean, maybe he looked back, "El Monstruo" isn't an autobiography, but he identifies as a Chilango- someone from Mexico City or el Distrito Federal (DF) or El Monstruo as he lovingly calls it. And it's monstrous, according to Ross, and only kind of in a Sesame Street, adorable, huggable, squeezable, I don't want to leave you, kind of way. Some of the statistics Ross scatters through the book make you wonder why Ross doesn't leave: 35,000 people a year dead from air pollution, 1/4 of the citizens of Mexico City suffering from Mental illness, 5 rats for every Chilango, 3.4 pedestrian deaths A DAY? Ok, I live in Oakland, so I know I don't really have a leg to stand on- everyone has somewhere they call home, and that somewhere is somewhere atrocious to someone else. And I love Mexico. I would live there. I would not live in Mexico City, though. I spent 3 days there and decided that those 3 days were enough torture to my lungs, and retreated back to the industrial burbs of Cuernavaca. When I returned for my second stay, I was in Oaxaca, and had no interest in revisiting Mexico City.

Ross is right, though, in many ways, Mexico City *is* Mexico. It's the center of an extremely centralized country. The mayor of Mexico, for many years appointed by the President, has control over a huge megalopolis which is steadily growing due to push/pull economic and social factors in the rest of the struggling country (and world). Ross starts from the very beginning, practically, with how the earth moved around to form the valley that Mexico City was built on. It's really not a great place to have a megalopolis, kind of like San Francisco/Oakland. Mexico City (unlike San Francisco) used to be a lake and some islands. Like Oakland, it's earthquake central, and as more people that build up their lives on unstable ground, the risk factors increase. Ross moves on to the Indians that predated the Spanish that predated the Mexicans. And then the growing growing growing that led to the never-ending revolution. Mexico was a democracy/dictatorship for a very long time- the PRI held power for over 70 years through coercion, bribery, force, and all kinds of other ugly words as every day Mexicans attempted to sort through how to revolutionize their lives and government. I don't think Ross thinks the revolution is really over: just when democracy and civil society really started to take off in Mexico after the quake in 1985, the Presidential election was stolen through massive voting fraud in 1988. And then again in 2006. In 2006, people took to the Zocalo for 6+ weeks and even held an alternative inauguration for the popularly elected president, refusing to accept the PAN stand-in.

I was in Mexico in the fall of 2001, when Vicente Fox of the PAN had just become the first democratically elected President of Mexico. The PAN is a right-wing party, but it was exciting- the revolution had finally produced a Mexico that could elect people, not just rubber stamp the PRI. The country was full of oversized posters of Fox (he's a tall guy anyway) and his guacho self with his famous "HOY" (today) slogan, fingers in a peace/victory sign. Fox is very rich and very guero looking. When I was in Mexico, the Zapatistas were very much at the forefront of Mexico's and the world's attention: would Chiapas be a leader in indigenous independence? Not if Fox had his way- he would deal with it in "15 minutes." The man Fox helped (illegally) to defeat in the next term is stood up for the poor and the brown. (I'm having a Florida moment) We didn't learn the intricacies of the Mexico City politics, though we did learn that PAN was all about neoliberalism, and his ties to the WTO/structural-adjustment programs. Basically, Ross brings it home: Mexico, though finally breaking through in the late '80s to have an active civil society, has an entrenched history of top down government preventing effective social change on any sort of rapid, local level, partially due to its extreme centralization in Mexico City. This doesn't mean it can't or won't happen, only that it happens slowly, at a snail's pace as Rebecca Solnit describes in her description of the Zapatista Movement, 15 years later. The Mexican government spends much time and energy catering to a much larger and more powerful US government: expensive and costly (money and in human lives) drug wars, structural adjustment programs, privatization of companies. Corruption, as described by Ross, cripples any attempt at trust in government or stopping crime. A tiny elite controls the vast majority of capital.

It's the United States, all over again. Same Same, but Different.

Saturday, May 29, 2010

Not My Car

There are two serious problems with this otherwise seriously almost perfect video. #1: what kind of Volvo driver doesn't have his seat belt on? and #2 WHERE is MAC?!








Thursday, May 27, 2010

Detain Them

Another post where I let someone else create the content.

Saturday, May 22, 2010

Oakland is Scrapertown

Must See TeeVee.

Scrapertown from California is a place. on Vimeo.

Friday, May 21, 2010

A "Good" Question and Kitten Season

Somehow I got into the "I could never do your job" conversation last night, which, of course, frustrated me. However, the conversation turned because a friend of a friend was involved, who asked me a question I've never heard, in the 7 years I've been doing this. It's a fair, hard, ugly question that deserved a fair, hard ugly answer. She asked me if I like animals any less because of my work.

I do like animals less because of my work.

I'm not a saint- I like animals, I really like certain animals like T's kids, and the pets of my friends and my sister, I obviously love/am obsessed with Mac, and in theory I love dogs. I love "dogs" as a group- I can't imagine a career without them, at this point. A friend just today said "do you still hate cats?" Well, I never "hated" cats, but they've never been my animals. I've actually learned to like cats a lot more since I started working at shelters- I never really knew a cat growing up and didn't realize that they had personalities- isn't that terrible? I've learned to really appreciate rabbits as companion animals. I've even met a couple nice roosters, no matter how much I bitch and moan about them. I consider myself an "animal person." But I don't seek out snakes and lizards and roosters and cockatiels, I don't run up to pet every dog on the street, though I do find myself cooing at some of them (yes, even I coo), and I don't think EVERY animal is cute, like some people think EVERY baby is cute by nature of it being a baby. I just don't.

But the answer is, yes, I think my general affection for animals has gone down since I started working as in animal welfare. I can generally tell fairly quickly when a dog isn't sound, or is a bite risk, and am generally not interested in interacting with these dogs. I judge them for this, whether they are stray or irresponsibly owned. I know it's not the fault of the dog, but I tend to resent the dog, although it's irrational. I've been snapped at and peed on (like leg lifted peed on), and as T will tell you, I take it personally. It's not rational, but it's true. Seven years ago, I wouldn't have taken it personally. Is that just age or overexposure? I'm pretty sure it's overexposure.

And then there's kittens and puppies. I do not like kittens. At all. I hate kitten season, I've mentioned that a thousand billion times. But when I see a kitten, something in me turns, and it turns on the kitten. No kitten has ever done anything to me, but the truth is, although there's some sick weird joke about "kicking puppies" (I don't know where it came from) as the worst thing you can do, I kill kittens. I really do. During kitten season, I kill them daily. So I've been conditioned to see kittens and kitten season as killing season. It sucks. It's compassion fatigue. It's a side affect of my job. And yes, I like them less. A lesser reason I dislike kitten is the sheer volume. There's so many of them- everything is more in kitten season- the numbers of animals, the amount of shit, the amount of people bringing in animals, etc. It's just MORE, and in certain businesses, more isn't good. Of course, there are more adoptions, too, which is great, but there's a lot before then that is not so great.

I feel similarly about puppies. Poopies. They are poopy, and most of the puppies that I deal with come from irresponsible breedings. They're often nervy, badly structured, sick with mange or parvo, etc. Again, not the fault of any dog anywhere. But I've gotten to the point where I see someone walking down the street with a puppy on a leash and I cringe and think "parvo bait." I see puppies in a kennel and I worry about what kind of temperament they're going to have, since they probably spent the first two months in a backyard, missing all kinds of crucial socialization. I see momma dogs with hanging teats and I wonder where her puppies are. Yes, this affects how I view puppies. It sucks.

Judge me all you want for this post. It's a great question: I can't pretend to love all animals. On the other hand, I don't treat the animals in my care poorly, and I want them to live long, happy, healthy lives. I'm not taking them home, though, either.

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Disaster Relief in Arizona: Artists Respond

Lucy Lippard and her theories of local and public art have obviously had a big influence on how I think in general, and look at art in specific. What is it responding to? How does it situate itself: where does the artist come from, what are they attempting, do they claim any ownership of place, or even any knowledge of place? Pushing the Arizona hurricane metaphor a little further (and probably too far), I've seen some pretty cool video responses to Arizona's craptastic, scary, racist new immigration policy that seem to fit as representations of local art: they are responses to events, and of the place. I don't know the artists, I don't know the places they are made, but they are topical, and they're using a medium- youtube and other social media outlets (I discovered them on twitter, am sharing them on a blog via youtube)- that is topical.

I saw the first video by following La Frontera Times on twitter. La Frontera Times is a "daily digital newspaper about immigration reform. information activism and attitude." Alfredo Gutierrez tweets in English and Spanish about border issues, activist events, and frustrations. He linked to the following video, made by Andy Cobb (an artist I'm not familiar with). The video is a spot-on satire about race, differing methods of entering the country, sexism, and class and their relationship to current events in Arizona.



The second video was tweeted by Obey Giant aka Shepard Fairy, a "street artist" ala Banksy. He's like street-art gone big- you've seen the posters with the big black and white cut-out looking faces, and like Bansky, he has a store on his website. Unlike Banksy, his store actually sells stuff. Anyway, he's an artist, and he prominently links to this video of a bunch of different rappers from Arizona, rapping about SB 1070. The video starts out with footage of protests with families holding signs, puppets, etc, and voice overs of the news about SB 1070, and Governor Brewer announcing that she would sign the bill into law. The artists are passionate in words and appearance, and talk about how immigration is not the enemy and the dangers of racial profiling.

Monday, May 17, 2010

Hurricane in Arizona

Here comes the story of the Hurricane
The man the authorities came to blame
For something that he never done
Put him in a prison cell but one time he coulda been
The champion of the world.




I'm going to start by recommending a fabulous article that ties it all together: baseball, terrorism and immigration. Really, you're saying, really? Yes, I am. Hey, I found one about baseball and cockfighting, didn't I? Basically, a 17 year old fool (redundant?) ran onto the field at a Phillies game and was tasered. The author, Will Bunch, reminds readers that Tasers have been justified as a tool to be used in situations when lethal force could alternately be used (I'm eerily reminded of Oscar Grant, but I'm not going there right now). When the kid ran on the field, it was annoying, a breach of baseball etiquette (I know, I've been on this for awhile), legally it was a misdemeanor, but it was not a violent act requiring police to escalate use of force. As Bunch writes, "There was a simpler, quainter time when causing pain to another person was called...violence," i.e. before 9/11. Bunch does not want to go there, but his readers reminded him of higher levels of security and he asks "must we see every single act of wrongdoing, even minor ones, through the prism of 9/11? Is a fan running on a field in the same ballpark with killing nearly 3,000 people? What has happened to us in this country?"

Bunch goes on to discuss how national responses to terrorism are "trickling down" to affect civil rights, violence, baseball(!), and immigration. Here comes Arizona. (He also discusses the failed(?) Times Square bombing, but I'm not going there tonight either.) He writes
But even more damaging is the way that attitude -- that any kind of lawbreaking or even potential lawbreaking requires the harshest possible response, with no regard to more than 200 years of momentum toward basic civil liberties and human rights -- is filtering down to other aspects of American life. Exhibit A is what's happening in Arizona.

Let's be honest -- although there are some very bad apples scattered in there, the vast majority of undocumented immigrants are the Steve Consalvis [fool who jumped on the field] of the American political debate. They've jumped over a fence and are running around on the field of national economy, and just like Consalvi they've broken a law but also aren't a threat to cause serious injury (especially with studies that show undocumented migrants have a low crime rate and tend to even pay more in taxes than they get back in services).


Here comes the story of the Hurricane
The man the authorities came to blame
For something that he never done
Put him in a prison cell but one time he coulda been
The champion of the world.


Arizona signed a law, SB 1070 that aims to "identify, prosecute and deport illegal immigrants." Immigrants have to carry their papers around and actually requires police officers "“when practicable” to detain people they reasonably suspected were in the country without authorization" (source). The civil rights violations go on and on. Within days, a story was on the news of an American born truck driver with brown skin being arrested and having to sit in a tank until his wife came with his birth certificate. Cities in California have announced boycotts of Arizona, groups are trying to get MLB to move the All Star Game that's scheduled there in 2011 (there I go with baseball again) and the MLB Players Association has also come out against the law. The crap doesn't stop there: Arizona tried to ban MLK day, has banned ethnic studies, and tried to keep teachers with accents out of schools. Yeah.

The border is a Big Deal. Immigration has always stressed (American) people out. Whiteness, and defining whiteness has always stressed people out. There had to be some justification for killing brown people (there's that violence thing, though without tasers) and "settling" or "exploring" not-so-empty lands. And then "importing" brown people to do the work that white people didn't want to do. And then making rules about which people could and couldn't come in- Chinese Exclusion Acts, etc- whole political movements like the Know Nothings who defined what was "white enough." None of this "keep them out" stuff is new to America, unfortunately. That doesn't make it OK. But I agree with Bunch- the post 9/11 factor a) gives nationalism/border strengthening more justifiable to some ("illegal" immigration=terrorism), b) makes border strengthening more militarized and violent and c) allows people to conflate skin color, immigration status and good/bad/evil/dangerous, etc.

Here comes the story of the Hurricane
The man the authorities came to blame
For something that he never done
Put him in a prison cell but one time he coulda been
The champion of the world.


I keep quoting Bob Dylan because I think the story of Rubin Carter, the Hurricane, is relevant. The cops knew that Carter was innocent, but set him up- a black man who was easy to frame during a time of race riots. The trial was set up so that black people and white people alike believe Carter was guilty and only the witness and the listener know the truth. (Note, this is how the song goes, you can read more here.) The situation with Mexico is complicated. I don't claim to have any answers. On the other hand, I feel like criminalizing immigrants is clearly moving in the wrong direction as always has been- the United States has always discounted its immigrant past while claiming to be proud of it. It doesn't work well both ways. Brown people continue to do the work that lighter skinned people do not want to do, at wages that white people spit on. I didn't go in depth on this in my review of Imperial, but Imperial County, a border county full of immigrants and migrants of varying immigration status ranks first in California counties in poverty and first in child poverty. Work is seasonal at best, there are no benefits to speak of, and the work requires migrating around to follow the crops. It sucks, basically. Crossing the border is a shitty project that often lands people in jail at best (giving them a criminal history- a catch 22, since this affects their future immigration status), and dead, at worst, as the border gets more and more militarized. And, now, living while brown is a potential crime. The analogies to Holocaust era Europe have been made, and I think of the Jim Crow era South, moved to Arizona: in the wrong state with the wrong paperwork. This is America in 2010?

Again, I don't claim to have the answers. But contracting civil rights in the name of preventing "another 9/11" is wrong, and we need to stand up and say so. Increasing "border security" and targeting brown people, or people who speak Spanish (or Arabic) is wrong, and we need to say so. We need proactive policies that decrease terrorism because there isn't a need for terrorism, not because we've put all our fingers in all the holes in all the dikes. The United States needs to move towards a policy of inclusion, rather than exclusion, which leads to hatred, derision, and ultimately terrorism. Immigrants want to come to the United States, for one reason or another. They are literally dying to cross the border. The vast majority of immigrants are not coming to the United States to commit acts of terrorism. We need to figure out how to make this work, not to criminalize people, or penalize people, or taserize people.

Now all the criminals in their coats and their
ties
Are free to drink martinis and watch the sun rise
While Rubin sits like Buddha in a ten-foot cell
An innocent man in a living hell
That's the story of the Hurricane
But it won't be over till they clear his name
And give him back the time he's done
Put him in a prison cell but one time he coulda been
The champion of the world.

Friday, May 14, 2010

Film Friday

guero

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Norman Mailer: The Faith of Graffiti, Bonus Banksy

Twenty-five years ago, Norman Mailer wrote "The Book" on graffiti: graffiti, he said, was not blight, but art in progression from artists like Picasso, Pollock, Matisse and Miro. Last year, his book, with photographs by Jon Naar (Naar's book with text by Mailer?) was reissued, with more of Naar's photography. The graff photos are unremarkable except for their historical value: the graffiti is almost primitive looking: tags on top of tags that look like plain old handwriting now, compared to the stylized writing that writers use. Even "gang" graffiti on the corners here is more stylized than the simple letters and bubble letters in the pictures. But the writing was everywhere, based on Naar's pictures. All over the insides of subways, the outside of subways, the walls, underpasses. Names over and over and over, on top of each other, next to each other, etc. No throwups, no pieces, just simple tags. The other notable thing is that Naar photographs the writers themselves, proudly grinning at the camera. I don't know if these shots were included in the original book or not, but they're not clearly visible in the shots. If they weren't included in the original, they're obviously un-knowable now, 25 years later, but the pride in the "vandalism"/artwork shows.



In the first paragraph, Mailer dubs himself "A-I", the Aesthetic Investigator, already positioning himself as a journalist investigating art, not blight. The accompanying shot of Michaelangelo's painting on the third page of the book suggests that the author/photographer feel that artists have always painted on walls, even artists considered as all time masters, and Mailer gives examples of other outsider art in his background to the graff discussion. Mailer takes a trip to MOMA and argues that modern life is one influence of graffiti artists, but that art history is all around us, and more traditional artists can't be discarded either, whether or not kids can point at a specific Matisse painting and say: "that's the one that defines my style!" He even visits the mayor (his ex rival in a New York mayoral race) to get a more in depth understanding of why Mayor Lindsay seemed to take such a personal offense at graffiti. Mailer paints Lindsay as an old patriarch, hungover and seriously, venomously, out of proportionally, pissed off at the young writers. In response, Mailer writes
Graffiti is the expression of a ghetto which is near to the plague, for civilization is now inimical to the ghetto. Too huge are the obstacles to any natural development of a civilized man.. In the ghetto it is almost impossible to find some quiet location for your identity. No, in the environment of the slum, the courage to display yourself is your only capital, and crime is the productive process which converts such capital to the modern powers of the world, ego and money.


And now for the bonus round.

If you haven't heard of Banksy, you've been living under a rock. Even if you're not a graffiti fan, you've heard of him, I feel like maybe he's the "street artist" for the bourgeoisie. I mean, his website even has a store on it. Sure, he has a disclaimer, tongue in cheek, about how he doesn't really sell them, and isn't on any social media site, but trust me, Banksy is making money on this stuff. Amazon lists quite a few books by the artist, who knows if he really makes bank on them. And now he has a movie. The question everyone is asking is "is the movie is a prank?"

The question I am asking is WHO CARES? To me, Banksy is a prank on people who claim to care about street art. Recently Banksy, or his crew of assistants, hit San Francisco. San Francisco went crazy with glee, excitement, awe, starstruck-ness, etc. It started in April, just a few days after the premiere of the movie in SF. Flickr was covered in the pieces, the blogs couldn't stop talking about it, and one piece was protected by local business in Chinatown. Another artist worked on some of the pieces, and local commenter were pissed off (read the comments).

I just don't get it. What is special about Banksy? As I've written about here before, people hate graffiti. The city of San Francisco hates graffiti. And yet here are local business owners and photographers of all stripes treating Banksy like a celebrity. He is the same as other graffiti artists as far as I can tell: he paints illegally on walls in a stylish way. Only, business on owners are happy to see him, tourists are interested, and when other artists do what other graff artists do and paint over him, the normally uninterested peanut gallery cares. And there doesn't seem to be any (or much) cynicism over the fact that he maybe, just maybe, is making money over this. He's not doing public art in the sense that he's doing legal murals that are in graffiti style- he's literally doing "graffiti" that vandalizes buildings (I haven't changed my tune, I still don't believe in the horrors of graffiti, I just don't get the sudden turn around in the change of tune of the public response).

The Bansky Boom strikes me as bizarre. What would Mailer Muse?

Friday, May 07, 2010

William Vollmann: Imperial

I can't believe I read the whole thing. It's been months. Really. I almost lost interest in reading while I read Vollmann's Imperial. Which is just wrong.

In a way, and not just in length and subject matter, this book reminds me very much of Bolano's 2666. Robert Bolano and William Vollmann both write with a twisted, talking-to-the-reader, in a whimsical, nonsensical, nonlinear, back and forth, unintelligible, needing-an-editor-for-at-least-500-pages way. And yet, I read the whole thing. Both books appealed to me because they touch on Mexico and the border. And both books were not good.

"Imperial" is a history of an area of Southern California and Northern Mexico that, while including California's Imperial County, is defined by Vollman to be greater than Imperial County. It's a history of the drawing of the border, the people, the people who cross the border, the agriculture, the economy, which revolves around the water, the Salton Sea, which falls within the area, some of the politics, and the very political issue of water. It also becomes a bizarre almost autobiography of Vollmann's sex life. Vollmann doesn't deal with anything personal except who he slept with- girlfriends, ex-girlfriends, and prostitutes alike. Maybe this works for other readers, but it doesn't do anything for me. The topics that did interest me were things like the border crossers, the water issues, the economy and descriptions of day labor, what life is like on each side of the border. I would tell you about Vollmann's take on these things only I. Can't. Remember. The book is too long, too crossed up with too many things, and too convoluted.

I will say that my reading of this book is timely (how could it not be- I've been reading it so long?) with current events: the Arizone racial profiling law (aka SB 1070 which is technically about immigration or something) and an attempted terrorist attack in New York by a brown person. Therefore, I will cut this blog/book review short and focus on an upcoming post about that.

Thursday, May 06, 2010

Here and There

I laugh and joke about Mac, and if you've met Mac, you probably laugh and joke about and at and with Mac, too. Today V and I went on our regular shooting expeditions and came home to let Mac out and generally hang with him. And I was inspired to video him doing one of his more benign tricks. It's not a trick, actually, it's a "formal heel." The dog (i.e. Mac) is supposed to sit in a specific spot, a specific distance from the handler (i.e. me). That's his "here" command. Here is a nice lady with a nice dog demonstrating "heel."



Nice, calm, focused. All words I probably wouldn't use to describe when discussing Mac and dog training. When Mac and I took our two "doggie dancing" classes, we learned all of our tricks on both sides of the body. So we needed a formal heel (or our version of it) on both sides of the body. Mac learned to spin in both directions, shake on both paws (he already did both paws, but not to match my coinciding hands), to walk on leash on both sides, watch both sides, etc. So, I needed a word I could remember on the other side of my body (my left) that was the same as heel/"here." Being the ever clever cookie, I chose "there."

Mac loves this "trick." People love watching Mac do this trick, because he is so... enthusiastic about it. Which is part of why I decided to video it today. Lots of people train dogs in hallways to help them do things "straight"- not out at the butt, or anything. We've never trained in the hall, though, so this was a first- I've always just kind of let Mac be crooked, and we've never worked in a constrained space, which made for even more flailing on his part and I believe at one point, he climbs the walls. Trust me, he always flails and flops and jumps. The hallway just exaggerates it.

Have fun.

Wednesday, May 05, 2010

Anger Management and Professional Baseball

Justin Duchscherer is still out, though not officially on the DL, which means I'm still a douche. He's out due to hip pain, as far as we know, which means I'm still worried about him, though I'm trying not to. All baseball players are human, as mentioned, it's just that Duchscherer is public about it.

I think about baseball a lot because it's the sport I know. It's also one of the few sports (in America) that appeals to me because it's not particularly violent, or fueled by rage. It's not like football, or hockey, and driven by big displays of testosterone and flashy muscles busting around. Even basketball is too much pushing and shoving for me. It's not angry. Now and then there are baseball players with tempers- I loved Jose Canseco was all kinds of bad and that's just one example. My dad and I still joke about Albert "Don't Call Me Joey" Belle. Read about his bad deeds.

And don't laugh, like even I'm almost tempted to do. This is not "boys will be boys" crap. These are grown, very very well paid, in the spot light, hero-worshipped men. I guess it's tempting to laugh: the Phil's Ryan Madson broke his toe last week when he kicked a chair in frustration. He subsequently apologized to his teammates and fans. Jockpost (I have no idea who they are except a top result on a search) mocks Yahoo!'s decision to warn that this is a violent incident: saying that "our world that we are living in is getting even pussier than I thought." Wow.

OK, this is all a sideline, though, to current events. Madson is so last week, Duscherer so last month. Yesterday, Milton Bradley who calls himself baseball's bad boy, made his own drama. Apparently he was breaking that famous rule 9.02 about balls and strikes and his manager told him to cool it. He didn't cool it, and Mariner's manger Wakamatsu took him out of the game. Bradley left the building, whether on his own volition or not is unclear. Like Belle, Milton Bradley is a career trouble maker. Trouble maker, trouble seeker, problem child, or angry man? It's all over the news that today, Bradley asked for help and told kids how he was raised and that his buddy Sweeney was going to help him get on track and that his management was all about seeing baseball players as human. How very.... unbelievable.

My point is that all this rage, while maybe not a mental illness, is an emotion displayed. A no-no in professional baseball, as eloquently described by Joseph Trumino. Trumino writes: "The spectators leap to their feet and cheer; they applaud wildly in recognition of
the skill of the shortstop." Fans express emotion when players make good or bad plays, when managers make good or bad decisions, when teams make good or bad decisions with their rosters. The level of emotion changes with context: early in the season or late, in a "clutch" situation or with two down and no one on base in a blow out. On the other hand, the emotions of players are not important, or worse, distracting:
Players’reaction to booing is usually stoic, or at least non-demonstrative; he is expected to “take it like a man.” Occasionally, however, players have been known to give in kind to the unkindly audience, by shouting back obscenities or simply giving fans “the finger,” which may invite either more boos or derisive cheering or both.
Baseball gives fans a chance to express their emotions in a tightly controlled, emotion free environment: "The world of baseball is ideal culture, a world is projected, a world of individuals acting within a very narrow range of behaviors." I've seen pitchers giving fist pumps on replays- even a happy pitcher showing that much emotion is news.

So what did Milton Bradley do? What has he done over his career, letting out all of his anger so publicly? Does he have "anger management" problems? Are fans just upset that he's "breaking the rules" of their metaphorical relief valve? Are they resentful because he is getting paid a bajillion dollars and seems to be not only ungrateful, but spiteful? Or is he just being human?