It's the time of the year when most members of the sports media act like they haven't paid any attention to baseball for the past decade. For weeks I've been hearing that the Dodgers need to "make a move" in order to prove that they're contenders.

Usually this entails a sports talk radio host advocating the Dodgers give up "prospects" for the best available starting pitcher and "a bat" without any clarification on what prospects they might be talking about and who that "bat" could be.

The trade deadline has now passed, and Ned Colletti once again made several moves, acquiring Scott Podsednik, Ted Lilly, Ryan Theriot, and Octavio Dotel. Say what you want about the McCourts or the Dodgers, no one can argue that Colletti is not one of the most active GMs at the deadline every year. I'll evaluate these deals later in this post, but before anyone else moans that the Dodgers didn't acquire a Cy Young Award winner consider the last decade's worth of World Series champions and their deadline trade acquisition:

2009- Yankees: Eric Hinske, Jerry Hairston, Jr.
2008- Phillies: Joe Blanton
2007- Red Sox: Eric Gagne
2006- Cardinals: Jeff Weaver
2005- White Sox: Geoff Blum
2004- Red Sox: Orlando Cabrera, Doug Mienktiewecz
2003- Marlins: Ugueth Urbina, Jeff Conine
2002- Angels: No one
2001- Diamondbacks: Albie Lopez
2000- Yankees: David Justice, Jose Vizcaino, Denny Neagle, Glenallen Hill

This list of relatively unimpressive players illustrates that championships are not won in July with a swift move, but rather they're won over time through years of planning. It appears that most title-winning teams add just a useful piece, whether it be a decent starting pitcher (Blanton, Weaver, Lopez) or an extra bench player (Hinske, Blum, Conine). Only David Justice and Denny Neagle were really high-profile players at the time they were traded, but the Yankees have seen other deadline deals for big names like Bob Abreu and Raul Mondesi fail to deliver championships.

Eric Gagne was high profile at the time of his trade, but he pitched so poorly for the Red Sox that he actually hurt their chances more than helped. And the Red Sox 2004 deal for Orlando Cabrera and Doug Mienktiewicz came in exchange for a bigger name in Nomar Garciaparra, and was highly controversial at the time.

My point in showing this is that I don't believe any deadline deal will dramatically alter the Dodgers chances this season. A baseball team still has 25 guys, and the impact of one player at this stage of the year is often marginal.

I still keep hearing media members complain that the Dodgers aren't winning because the McCourts aren't letting them spend money. There's potentially truth to that argument, but when is the media going to wake up and recognize that payroll doesn't equal wins? Of the eight teams that would be in the playoffs if the season ended today, five of them have a lower payroll than the Dodgers. That's right, a LOWER payroll.

While I can understand why fans want to complain about the McCourt's spending (especially in light of the embarrassing divorce related stories), shouldn't the media be asking how the Padres are in first with just a $37 million payroll? Shouldn't the media be trying to figure how the Braves, Reds, Rays, and Rangers are playing so well, all while spending substantially less than the Dodgers? You can groan that the Dodgers should be acting like a major market team, but perhaps a bigger problem is that they aren't being efficient enough with the resources they have.

Just this morning, I heard a clip from ESPN Radio's Colin Cowherd claim that Dodger fans were so frustrated because the McCourts weren't willing "to lose $20-30 million" like the Yankees, Red Sox, and Phillies. If anyone reading this post is a business owner, I'd love to know how you'd feel about a radio host going on the air to say your company should just lose $20-30 million because that's what the customers want.

As someone who works in pro sports and understands a team's balance sheet, I'm probably more sensitive to organizational concerns than most. But it's not like all those other teams have a lot to show for their losses. The Dodgers are currently closer to a playoff spot than the Red Sox. They're just two games behind the Phillies. I also heard a sport talk host complain earlier this week that the Detroit Tigers, playing in America's most desperate city, spend more than the Dodgers. But what do the Tigers have to show for their $120 million annual payroll? The Tigers have one World Series appearance in 2006, haven't won a division since 1987, and are currently just two games over .500.

Let's not forget that the Dodgers did actually make baseball's proverbial Final Four the past two seasons, and have been more successful over the past three years than most teams, including the media's darling Angels. While the Dodgers have struggled at times this year, they're hardly a hopeless cause. I honestly believe that any MLB team spending what the Dodgers are in player payroll, should be able to contend for a World Series. So what's wrong with the Dodgers this year?

First off, the team's organizational depth is a major problem. I've been harping on this for a while, but the team has not drafted well in recent years. While some point out that the team's draft spending is the lowest in the majors, I'd note that the Phillies spend almost as little and they seem to have the prospects to trade for anyone. I'd love for the Dodgers to go over-slot on more picks, and I'd like for them to take some more chances internationally, even though those international prospects fail at a glaringly high rate. But at the end of the day, the Dodgers just haven't drafted well, and perhaps Logan White isn't quite the draft day genius we all thought he was. (On a side note, I'm still mystified as to why they'd draft Zack Lee with their first draft pick this year, when everyone knew he wanted to play quarterback at LSU. When you're an organization with little depth, why take a kid who may be impossible to sign, even if he's technically the best player on the board?)

But I'd take it one step further. Perhaps White is drafting good players, but the Dodgers aren't developing them properly. Since De Jon Watson took over as player development director in 2006, the Dodgers have hardly developed any impact players. I've spoken to scouts who believe that many high school and college players coming into the minor leagues are similar, and the real variable that determines their success is development. The Dodgers really need to take a hard look at their minor league coaches, instructors, and their development philosophy and determine what hasn't been working.

If the Dodgers had greater organizational depth, then they would be able to fill in holes on their Major League roster when an injury occurs or a relief pitcher goes to rehab. They would also be able to swing a deal for a top player, and not have to tell the press that the Mariners would only take Chad Billingsley or James Loney for Cliff Lee. Right now, the Dodgers don't have a tradable prospect better than Justin Smoak, or else Lee would be a Dodger today.

Another little-discussed reason for the Dodgers struggles is defense. The Dodgers currently rank 27th in the majors in Ultimate Zone Rating (UZR) one of the best metrics used to analyze defensive performance. Who's in the Top-4? The Padres, Rays, Giants, and Reds, all teams that would be in the playoffs today with relatively modest payrolls.

As much as I've defended Matt Kemp over the years, I can't hide that he's last in the majors in UZR for centerfielders. He's taken a step back this year, and it's disappointing. But Andre Ethier also has the worst UZR in the NL for rightfielders and we know Manny Ramirez can't play defense even when he's healthy. With an outfield like that, it's no wonder that fans get frustrated with the occasional struggles of great young pitchers like Chad Billingsley and Clayton Kershaw. With their lack of range, more fly balls drop for hits. If it weren't for Rafael Furcal sporting the best UZR among NL shortstops, then the Dodgers would be in even worse shape.

The third major problem facing the Dodgers is the brand. The McCourts somehow pissed off the local media the day they took over the team. The media never seemed to trust them, partially due to the unconventional way in which Frank purchased the team, leveraging a Boston parking lot for $130 million. In turn, the fans seemed to lose trust in ownership, and every mistake the team made, from customer service to Andruw Jones, was pounced on. I felt like the tide was finally beginning to turn last season, but all that fell apart with the divorce, where we've read one embarrassing story after another.

As a result of the hit to the Dodgers brand, the no-show rate for games is high, resulting in lost revenue at the concession stands and in the parking lots. The brand devaluation and the no-show rate have also taken away sponsorship opportunities. All of what I just wrote is just opinion on my part, but I really believe that a more likable ownership presence would improve the team's public image and in turn, lead to higher revenues, and make it seem like the Dodgers are cutting corners less often (And I do believe the Dodgers are cutting corners with small expenditures more often than they will admit).

I heard Jon Weisman from Dodger Thoughts this morning on the radio say he's disappointed with the lack of leadership shown by Frank McCourt recently. I think that's a fair criticism, but I'd be shocked if the divorce didn't have a significant impact on his ability to be that leader. For once I actually agree with Bill Plaschke, that a sale would benefit the team. But if Frank winds up keeping the team after the divorce, then he will need to be a stronger public leader to restore fans' faith in the organization.

I've jumped around quite a bit here, but I do want to evaluate the three Dodger deadline deals.

With regard to Scott Podsednik, I'll start by saying he's one of my least favorite MLB players. He's known for having a low OBP, no power, and being a mediocre defensive player despite his speed. Supposedly Podsednik can play centerfield, but I think that's debatable. There's no question he's an upgrade over Garrett Anderson and he will help the team marginally while Reed Johnson and Manny Ramirez are both hurt. They also only had to give up a 25-year old AAA catcher in Lucas May to get him. But at a time when outfielders like Ryan Ludwick and Austin Kearns (both of whom I'd rather have) were dealt for relatively little, I can't help but think the Dodgers could have done better.

I have mixed feelings about the Ted Lilly deal. I'll start by saying that I really like Ted Lilly and believe he will have a significant and positive impact on the Dodgers. He's been a very consistent starting pitcher in recent years and is actually worth the $10 million a year he's making. With Hiroki Kuroda coming off the books after the season, the Dodgers have no excuse not to at least offer Lilly arbitration. He'll either be a part of the 2011 rotation or net the Dodgers a much-needed high draft pick. Because of Lilly, I'd argue that the Dodgers ultimately come out ahead in this deal.

I'm not particularly concerned about giving up Brett Wallach, even if he is Tim's son. Kyle Smit will probably be in a Major League bullpen one day, but he was tradable. However, I don't like the Blake DeWitt for Ryan Theriot swap at all. Theriot has a lower OBP than DeWitt, hits for virtually no power, and he's statistically equal to DeWitt for second base defense. Theriot does have a marginally higher batting average, and steals more bases, but he's also older, somewhat more expensive, and has less upside than DeWitt.

When I talk about the Dodgers taking advantage of the resources they have, these are moves I like to highlight. Colletti appears to have a fetish for low-OPS leadoff men with mediocre defensive skills like Theriot, Podsednik, and Juan Pierre. Why the Dodgers needed a third leadoff man (to join Furcal) is beyond me.

Now, I'm not a huge Blake DeWitt fan, and I'm not exactly sad to see him go. But he does have little bit of upside, can hit for some power, and he's been playing out of position because the Dodgers are paying $6 million to an aging Casey Blake at third base. On the open market, DeWitt has more value than Theriot, who most Cubs fans wanted benched.

As for the third deal, acquiring Octavio Dotel does help the Dodgers bullpen. As I'm writing this, I'm watching Jonathan Broxton blow another save, and the Dodgers are in desperate need of more help in the middle and late innings (bullpen is one area where organizational depth makes a big difference). With Dotel, you know what you're going to get - a competent relief pitcher with a high-3 ERA. Giving up James McDonald and Andrew Lambo seems like a bit much though. I know fans have soured on McDonald, but he had some success coming out of the bullpen last year, and could have a future as a reliever. Admittedly, I'm not sure what to make of Lambo, who was once a top prospect. He was suspended for 50 games for testing positive for a banned substance, and I've read that drug was marijuana. But I also know that it takes multiple positive tests for marijuana before the suspension is actually 50 games, so maybe there's a bigger issue at hand.

Overall, it was a busy day for the Dodgers, who are a better team in 2010 as a result of Colletti's deals. But the trade deadline highlighted the organization's lack of depth, something they will need to improve moving forward. Their ability to do so will have a greater impact on the team's success than a spending spree that increases payroll.

When the L.A. Times broke the news July 15 that certain employees of blue-collar Bell were paid enormous salaries by their diminutive realm, the outcry was palpable.

People struggling after being laid off from their $9-an-hour city jobs wondered why Bell's chief administrative officer was paid $787,636. Why the police chief pulled down $457,000. Why the part-time city council jobs were compensated at nearly a hundred grand.

Boy howdy, reserve me a place at that public trough!

The swift response was predictable: The curiously self-contained entitlement program came to a screeching halt with the departure of three top city officials and the delicious scrutiny of the check-fat council. The story still has legs, with new! improved! gob-smacking revelations of uncivil servant behavior developing almost daily.

When the planet Bell does return to a normal rotation of public service, it will be because a big metropolitan newspaper spent time and resources digging out facts, putting them into context and illuminating the harsh truth for all to see. In fact, Joe and Jane citizen could have done the same. They could have asked the Bell city clerk for a public records request form and waited the 10 days it took Times reporters to get the information.

And if Joe and Jane didn't get precisely what they sought, if they didn't quite know exactly what to request, they could keep revising what the clerk, on the phone, described to me as "the nature of your request" until they found, say, what The Times found; that city council members got paid thousands more each month for serving on city agencies that sometimes meet for a couple of minutes concurrent with city council meetings. Then the citizens could have done the same, presumably, with the seven other cities whose compensation statistics were used for comparison in the initial LA Times story. Then they could have researched the federal salaries that further enhanced the "wow" factor of paying a guy who runs a 2.6-square-mile city of 36,664 residents nearly double what the president of the United States is paid.

Citizens, of course, don't do this. They're busy working, looking for work, raising families and watching "American Idol." They're busy figuring out how to understand not municipal arcana, but student loan terms. And as much as the concept of "citizen journalism" has been embraced by the digital media keen to capitalize on the population's hunger for local news and to satisfy their own interest in producing journalism at the lowest possible cost (free is best), citizen journalists don't do this.

They're busy working, writing stories about how the city council is dithering over graffiti clean-up, how the local swimming pool is cutting hours, how the local dog park is the best place in town for hooking-up for both kinds of species.

There will come a time when public information such as municipal salaries is Googleable by a 10-year-old; indeed, some of these databases are available online now, although most require some research expertise. Even though citizen journalism is a wonderful addition to the collection and dissemination of news and community development, it isn't going to replace the kinds of stories people need with regularity to expose civil servants gone wild, hold them accountable and effect positive change of a profound and sustained nature.

There was a lot in the first L.A. Times story about Bell you could have found out yourself. But you're not going to, and neither is anybody else who doesn't have the financial support of a publisher willing to fund the effort society requires to make informed decisions and protect public resources from egregious misappropriation. This isn't new, and you're tired of hearing it and what it costs. But it bears repeating because malfeasance never sleeps and because people who live free don't know what they have until they don't have it.

If you are a fan of arcane rules of baseball, Tuesday's Dodgers-Giants game was a feast for the eyes. Unless you happened to be a hardcore Dodgers fan, in which case you were more likely to go Oedipus Rex on your eyes after the Giants turned a 5-1 deficit into a 7-5 win.

To sum up: the Dodgers led the Giants 5-4 starting the ninth. Dodgers closer Jonathan Broxton came in and found himself in a bases loaded, one out situation with leadoff hitter Andres Torres coming up.

Enter Don Mattingly. The Dodgers hitting coach had become the teams acting manager after both manager Joe Torre and bench coach Bob Schaefer were ejected, both related to a flurry of bean balls and near bean balls involving Clayton Kershaw, Tim Lincecum, and Denny Bautista. Essentially, Mattingly was the Dodgers Nancy Pelosi, third in the line of succession. Or, if you're British, Mattingly is Prince William. For our Luxembourg readers, Mattingly is Prince Felix.

Sensing a crisis, Mattingly came out to the mound to speak to Broxton as well as gather the Dodgers infield to discuss how they would position themselves for Torres. Mattingly finished his talk and left the mound. But, as he was leaving, first baseman James Loney (who was honored Tuesday night with a bobblehead), asked Mattingly a question. Mattingly walked back on to the mound to answer Loney and returned to the dugout.

Giants manager Bruce Bochy came out to protest to the umpires that Mattingly, by walking off the mound on to the grass, and then walking back on to the mound, had, by rule, made two trips to the mound in one inning to talk to a pitcher. The rules state that a second trip to the mound require that the current pitcher has to be replaced. The umpires agreed with Bochy. Broxton had to leave the game. George Sherrill came in (with little warmup as it turned out due to some communication errors) and gave up a 2-run double to Torres. The Giants would go on to win 7-5.

Mattingly had run afoul of Baseball's Rule 8.06. The rule has two relevant parts:

8.06 (b) A second trip to the same pitcher in the same inning will cause this pitcher's automatic removal;

and 8.06 (d) with a long comment:

A manager or coach is considered to have concluded his visit to the mound when he leaves the 18-foot circle surrounding the pitcher's rubber.
Rule 8.06 Comment: If the manager or coach goes to the catcher or infielder and that player then goes to the mound or the pitcher comes to him at his position before there is an intervening play (a pitch or other play) that will be the same as the manager or coach going to the mound.
Any attempt to evade or circumvent this rule by the manager or coach going to the catcher or an infielder and then that player going to the mound to confer with the pitcher shall constitute a trip to the mound.
If the coach goes to the mound and removes a pitcher and then the manager goes to the mound to talk with the new pitcher, that will constitute one trip to that new pitcher that inning.
In a case where a manager has made his first trip to the mound and then returns the second time to the mound in the same inning with the same pitcher in the game and the same batter at bat, after being warned by the umpire that he cannot return to the mound, the manager shall be removed from the game and the pitcher required to pitch to the batter until he is retired or gets on base. After the batter is retired, or becomes a base runner, then this pitcher must be removed from the game. The manager should be notified that his pitcher will be removed from the game after he pitches to one hitter, so he can have a substitute pitcher warmed up.
The substitute pitcher will be allowed eight preparatory pitches or more if in the umpire's judgment circumstances justify.

In the aftermath of the game, it has been argued by some that the umpires should have ejected Mattingly and allowed Broxton to pitch to one more hitter: Torres. If the Dodgers had filed a protest (which they had to do prior to a pitch being thrown to Torres), they might have had it upheld. Or, they might not. The chief of this particular umpire crew, Tim McClelland, said before Wednesday's game that the situation in the comment only applied if a manager deliberately made two visits to force a premature pitching change. The umpires interpreted the rule to punish the Dodgers for two accidental visits. (There is more discussion here and a link to video of the situation.)

Regardless, if the Dodgers protested, the Powers That Be in MLB would have to have made a decision on a matter that may be of slightly less import than Marbury v. Madison.

Rule 8.06 went on the books in 1967, primarily to standardize differences that the American and National Leagues had in enforcing the number of visits to the mound a manager could make in one inning.

The first time I could find someone running afoul of this rule in a Dodgers game was on September 7, 1967. The Cubs, managed by Hall of Famer Leo Durocher, were in town to play the Dodgers.

In the eighth inning, Durocher brought in Pete Mikkelsen to relieve. Mikkelsen hit Lou Johnson with a pitch and then made an error on a sacrifice attempt by
Jim Lefebvre to put runners on first and second with no outs and John Roseboro due up.

Cubs pitching coach Joe Becker (who had been fired as a coach by the Dodgers along with Durocher after the 1964 season) came out to talk to Mikkelsen and give rookie lefthander Jim Ellis time to warm up. Becker left the mound and headed back to the bench. But Durocher told Becker that Ellis was warmed up and sent Becker back to pull Mikkelsen and Ellis came in.

Dodgers manager Walter Alston then came out of the dugout to tell homeplate umpire Tony Venzon that Mikkelsen couldn't come out of the game because Becker had already made a trip to the mound and left and he had to stay in to face one more batter. The umpires realized their error and ordered Mikkelsen back into the game. And Mikkelsen was able to get Roseboro to hit a grounder to second base that Glenn Beckert
ran to first base on his own after Ernie Banks fell out of the play and Johnson and Lefebvre moved up.

Now Durocher decided that he wanted Chuck Hartenstein to relieve. But Venzon declared that Ellis had to come in to pitch since he was already brought in. Becker and Durocher argued with Venzon about this and Becker got ejected. And Ellis had to pitch to Ron Fairly, who walked. Finally, Hartenstein was allowed to come in. Third baseman Bob
Bailey lifted a fly ball to Cubs right fielder Bob Raudman, who threw out Johnson at the plate for a double play to end the inning.

Newspaper accounts state that Durocher and Becker's arguments took 30 minutes. The Cubs were down 2-1 coming into the 9th, but tied it up and won in 12 innings.

Bochy had caught the Dodgers in a similar situation when he was managing the San Diego Padres. I will let the play-by-play from Retrosheet explain the gory details from August 23, 2006. Dodgers manager Davey Johnson protested the actions of Bochy in a game on June 27, 2000 when he felt that Bochy made two trips to visit pitcher Kevin Walker during one at bat without removing him. The Dodgers won the game, so the protest was withdrawn.

When Tommy Lasorda managed the Dodgers, he seemed ready to protest managers making too many visits whenever he could. Lasorda got the umpires to force Cubs closer Lee Smith to leave the game with two outs in the ninth in a July 1, 1984 game. Lasorda noticed that Chicago manager Jim Frey had yelled instructions from the dugout to first baseman Keith Moreland, who relayed them to Smith. As it turns out, managers can't use an intermediary to get around the two visit rule. (It really is, it's detailed above.) It didn't help as Warren Brusstar came in and held on for a 4-3 Cubs win. [The LA Times article of the game, which I can't link, has quotes from a Cubs P.R. official: Ned Colletti.]

(For the record, some of these games I remembered, although I checked newspaper accounts to double check my memory. Having a memory that retains such matters is a curse, not a blessing.)

Mattingly's mistake on Tuesday was used as ammunition by some to show that he doesn't have what it takes to manage. (Warning that link is to a Bill Plaschke column. Surprisingly, Plaschke does not blame the loss on either Paul DePodesta, or, the sports world's greatest monster, Lindsey Jacobellis.) That doesn't seem to be the case. It seems more of a case of multiple things going wrong at the same time. It's not as if managers practice making trips to the mound in spring training to make sure they do it correctly. It's just a matter of Mattingly making a mistake, just like the players making a mistake in the field or on the basepaths. It's possible that even the umpires made a mistake.

On a night when Dodgers left fielder Xavier Paul dropped a fly ball that set up a three-run inning for the Giants, and Joe Torre sent Clayton Kershaw to the mound to deliberately hit a batter and get kicked out, and Broxton walked a batter who was trying to sacrifice, that there were plenty of mistakes to go around.

And how did the Dodgers fare the night after Mattingly's double take on the mound? They beat the Giants 2-0 as Chad Billingsley tossed a shutout. The acting manager for the game: Don Mattingly.

* Lasorda was guilty of the same mistake as Mattingly, et al., in an April 29, 1989 game in St. Louis when he walked out to the mound to calm down pitcher Alejandro Pena after pitching coach Ron Perranoski was ejected. Perranoski had already visited Pena, so Pena had to leave the game after he finished pitching to the current batter, Willie McGee. Ray Searage came in to finish the game.

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

• Lisa Gardner reads Live to Tell @ Vroman's. 7 PM.

Thursday, July 22, 2010

• Gina Cloud, "Women: A New Definition," 7:30 p.m. @ Village Books


• Joshua Braff reads Peep Show at Book Soup. 7 PM


• IRIS Nights presents Stanley Greene at Annenberg Space for Photography. 6:30-8:00 PM


• Slake magazine launch party at Track 16 Gallery in Santa Monica. 7 PM.

Friday, July 23, 2010

• The GRAMMY Foundation presents the Starry Night Benefit Concert, featuring performances by Keith Urban and the Avett Brothers. UCLA - Los Angeles Tennis Center.

Saturday, July 24, 2010

• MSFriends hosts the Rock For MS fundraiser at the Petersen Automotive Museum 11:00 AM.


• The Killer Shrews (1959) screens at the B Movies and Bad Science series on the South Lawn of The Natural History Museum at Exposition Park. Lecture starts at 7:30 PM.


• Hollyrod Foundation hosts the 12th Annual DesignCare fundraiser, a featuring Naeem Khan fashion show and performance by Robin Thicke, at the Green Acres Estates in Beverly Hills. 6:00 PM.

Sunday, July 25, 2010

• HiddenLA Grunion Run Night starts at 9:30 PM in Malibu. Surfrider Beach, facing the Malibu Pier, 23198 Pacific Coast Highway


• Los Angeles Visionaries Association presents the Sunday Salon at Clifton's Cafeteria, downtown.


• Johnny Ramone Cancer Research presents the Sixth Annual Johnny Ramone Tribute, featuring screenings of "Bride of Frankenstein" and "Rock N Roll High School". Hollywood Forever Cemetery. 6:00 PM.

• St. Anne's holds its Feast Day luncheon after 11:30 AM Mass. 155 North Occidental Blvd., Los Angeles.


• Sam Wasson reads Fifth Avenue, 5 A.M.: Audrey Hepburn, Breakfast at Tiffany's, and the Dawn of the Modern Woman at Book Soup at 7 PM.

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

• Brian May and Elena Vidal discuss their book A Village Lost and Found at Downtown Independent, 251 South Main Street, downtown LA. 7 PM. h/t to Film Radar for the find.

Pat Haden will replace Mike Garrett as the new athletic director at USC. On the surface, Haden sounds like a terrific hire.

A former USC quarterback, Haden graduated Magna Cum Laude, was a Rhodes Scholar, and has a law degree from Loyola. Better known for his broadcasting work on NBC (which includes Notre Dame football), Haden is also a partner in the private equity firm Riordan, Lewis, and Haden.

I have written multiple times that Mike Garrett needed to go, and his "retirement" is a long-time coming, particularly in light of the recent NCAA sanctions. But while Haden sounds like a great hire on paper, it's prudent to ask if he's the right hire.

Personally, I felt like USC needed someone who was an established athletic director at another school and had longstanding relationships within the NCAA. The new USC AD will ultimately have to repair USC's image and standing with the NCAA. UCLA's athletic director Dan Guerrero sits on numerous NCAA committees (including the basketball tournament selection committee), and has plenty of buddies within the organization of college athletics. Conversely, Garrett seldom involved himself with the NCAA bureaucracy, and ingratiated himself to few people within the system, despite being at USC for nearly 20 years. In hindsight, USC's sanctions shouldn't have been a surprise given how few friends Garrett had.

This is not to say that Haden can't build some of these important relationships. He's incredibly well-liked and has an affable and comfortable personality that comes through when he broadcasts games. He also has the intelligence and business savvy to handle a complicated operation like the USC athletic department. But Haden will have to learn the NCAA rule book, and he'll need to learn sports besides football in order to be successful. Haden wasn't the first name I thought of when I considered new athletic directors, but I do think he has the ability to put USC on the right track.

Photograph by Iris Schneider

Even before Andy Warhol hung his painting of a soup can, people have pondered what is art, who is an artist, and what role do museums have in determining either. But after spending a few hours at MOCA walking through the new Dennis Hopper show, ironically titled "Double Standard" — after one of his most famous photographs — curator Julian Schnabel and MOCA director Jeffrey Deitch seem to have re-opened the debate anew and added several layers to the stew.

I went to the show to see Hopper's photography. And somewhere, nearly buried in the rambling exhibit, there are several hundred photographs, mounted grid-style on a couple of walls. The photography was shot over several decades beginning with the civil rights march on Selma, the early birth of pop art in Los Angeles, Hopper's moviemaking years in Hollywood and his more recent fascination with abstract street art in Venice.

After looking at those pictures, my main thought was: what an interesting life this guy had. And he had the presence of mind and artistic inclination to document every inch of it. While it would be easy to dismiss his photography as a case of being in the right place at the right time, his photographs are more than that. He had an eye for the ironies of life, a sense of humor and history, an appreciation for the struggles of the common man, and for his own fortuitous place at the corner of art and commerce. Some of his photographs moved me, made me laugh ("Is that really Jane Fonda in that bikini?") and shake my head. Lucky guy, I thought, and talented. And, apparently, very likeable. This, I think, is what got him in trouble MOCA-wise.

As museum director Jeffrey Deitch explained for the press last week, the show was rushed into production in two or three months due to Hopper's illness. (He died a few months before the show was to open). As his condition became more grave, Schnabel, a good friend, told Deitch "We've got to do this" and volunteered to curate the show. It feels as though his relationship with Hopper clouded his vision of what exactly is art. In Hopper's case this show reflects as much the fact that he was an appreciator of art, and a knowledgeable collector, than an artist himself.

The two huge pop sculptures — a 30-foot-tall "La Salsa Man" and an Esso gas station attendant — at the entrance of the show are a puzzling case in point. Hopper apparently saw the Mexican waiter towering above PCH as he was driving through Malibu and thought it was fabulous. These figures are common in the California landscape. I remember seeing that waiter myself, and thinking if I had the money I would love to buy one and put it in my backyard.

Hopper did have the money. He bought the mold and hired someone to fabricate one that he could call his own. This, in the world of pop art, would be "found art" or a "readymade." It now sits at the entrance of the exhibition, attributed, like many pieces in this show, to the Dennis Hopper collection.

Deitch said Hopper was very involved in every step of the fabrication of these pieces, even determining that the hair on the Esso man should be blonde, not brown. But if you recognize something as great, buy it and put it on display, does your name go on it as the artist? Hopper may have recognized its coolness but Salsa Man is not his creation. What is it doing in a museum show of his artistic works? If the show were a re-creation of his home, which was filled with pop art he had collected over time, I could understand it. But as a retrospective of his artwork, it feels wrong to be here, and misleading.

This kind of clouding of the waters is rampant at the show. The gallery walls are filled with huge paintings that replicate his photography. These are described in the press release as "Hopper's monumental billboard paintings from the 2000's." One wonders how and when Hopper did those? Did he project the negatives from his photos onto the canvas?

When Schnabel was asked about the technique, he clarified: Hopper hired billboard artists to create these renderings of his photographs. Those artists' names are nowhere to be found, and the assumption that Hopper created the paintings is only corrected in conversation with the curator. I'm sure that many who visit the show will think that these works were done by Hopper.

In the end, what was meant to be a tribute to Hopper has become a messy example of throwing everything on the wall to see what sticks. If Deitch and Schnabel had focused on his photography, and exhibited it so it could be appreciated as an artful and interesting document of a life well-lived, and a history of the burgeoning art scene, Hopper's friends would have given him a much more fitting tribute.

Double Standard is at the Museum of Contemporary Art until Sept. 26.

Now that all that football and basketball business is over, we can return our gaze to the social swirl.

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

• Find a mate amid the cocktails and staged readings of the worst office horror stories ever at Metro Mixer . E3rd Steakhouse & Lounge, 734 E 3rd St. downtown. 6-9 PM


• Celebrate Bastille Day with French Tuesdays at Pacific Design Center from 8 PM to 2 AM.


• Artist/writer talk with Maxi Kim regarding "The Principle of North Korean Charity" at 2 PM. Followed by a Performance by Maxi Kim & Robbie Hansen, plus video by Gina Clark at 4 PM at LACE, 6522 Hollywood Blvd.


• Eli Horowitz and Mac Barnett read their book, The Clock Without a Face, 7:30 PM at Skylight Books


• ESPN hosts the 18th Annual ESPYs awards at Nokia Theatre. 6:00 PM.

Thursday, July 15, 2010

• Randy Schmidt introduces Little Girl Blue: The Life of Karen Carpenter @ 7 PM. Book Soup


• Russell Shubin and Robin Donaldson discuss their book, Live & Work Modern Homes and Offices, 6 PM @ Hennessey + Ingalls, Santa Monica

Friday, July 16, 2010

• Hollywood Reporter hosts its Power Lawyers Breakfast, honoring Leah Weil. Speakers include Alan Horn, Matt Belloni and Amy Pascal. Four Seasons Hotel Los Angeles.

Saturday, July 17, 2010

• Author/Hollywood Historian and LA Observed Contributor, Cari Beauchamp, will give an illustrated talk on actress Marion Davies for the American Cinematheque and Art Deco Society at the Egyptian Theater in Hollywood. Fun starts at 2 PM


• LA Times architecture critic Christopher Hawthorne and other architecture experts discuss "Dingbat as Cultural Icon" at at LA Forum Events @ WUHO* (formerly called W.H.E.), 6518 Hollywood Boulevard, Hollywood CA, 90028 3 PM


• Meghan Daum, Richard Rushfield, Christopher Rice and Marisa Matarazzo read at Spoken Interludes at Palihouse Holloway in West Hollywood. Supper Buffet arrive anytime between 6:00 - 7:30 PM; Reading at 7:30 PM


• Opening Reception for the "California Design Biennial: Action/Reaction" show at the Pasadena Museum of California Art. 7:00 PM


• Miracle Mile Art Walk. 2 PM - 10:00 PM

Sunday, July 18, 2010

• LAXART Space celebrates its Fifth Year Anniversary with a Secret Gathering and Garden Party at Steven Weber's residence. 3:00 PM.

Monday, July 19, 2010

• Ernessa Carter reads 32 Candles at Vroman's Pasadena. 7 PM.


• Eighth Annual NFL 101: An Intimate Evening with NFL Legends at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum. 5:00 PM Speakers include Joe Theismann, Steve Mariucci, Tim Brown, Trent Dilfer and Warren Moon

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

• Umami Burger and a Movie: Independent Features Showcase at Space 15 Twelve, Hollywood. 8-10 PM


• Los Angeles Business Journal hosts the 2010 Asian Business Awards luncheon at the Wilshire Grand Hotel & Centre. 11:00 AM

It seems like once every few months, Bill Plaschke writes a column saying the Angels are better than the Dodgers in something. It's part of the general pro-Moreno/anti-McCourt narrative that he's been propagating since 2004. And it's somewhat understandable, especially in light of the embarrassing stories that have come out about the McCourt divorce. Yesterday was no exception, as Plaschke showed his true bias.

Plaschke compared Angel Stadium and Dodger Stadium, and of course he likes Angel Stadium better. A lot better. (It's actually the second LA Times article comparing the two parks in eight days, after Chris Erskine's more even-handed piece.)

He writes: "This week's All-Star game was awarded to Angel Stadium because it is the best ballpark in Southern California by about a 450-foot homer."

Plaschke's preference is what it is, and it's not the first time he's expressed his distaste for Dodger Stadium. But the column is really unfair, even by Plaschke's standards, and contains some inaccuracies.

Before I continue on the column further, let me note that I attend multiple Dodger and Angel games every year. I'm fortunate enough to occasionally get excellent seats at both parks, and I go to plenty of games in the cheap seats. I know both ballparks extremely well, and feel very qualified to discuss their differences.

Personally, I like Dodger Stadium better (by a wide margin), but I don't want to diminish Angel Stadium. Arte Moreno has done a phenomenal job of picking up the baton from Disney, and has created one of the most fan-friendly atmospheres in the game. I can certainly understand why some people might prefer the Anaheim experience. But if someone is going to compare the two parks in the LA Times, then they should at least be fair.

Plaschke criticizes Dodger Stadium, noting that after Tuesday, Angel Stadium will have had two All-Star Games (1989 and 2010) in the time since the Dodgers last hosted the game in 1980. Plaschke writes: "First, it is because the Dodgers, with baseball's third-oldest stadium, realize their limitations and have simply stopped pushing for All-Star games. Second, well, they wouldn't get one if they asked."

The first sentence is simply inaccurate. The LA Times has reported multiple times in recent years that the Dodgers have been pushing for an All-Star Game. As recently as April 2009, the Times' Dylan Hernandez wrote that Bud Selig had acknowledged the Dodgers desire to host the game.

As for the second sentence, well MLB actually selected the Dodgers to host the 2009 World Baseball Classic, in a bidding process similar to the All-Star Game. Numerous other teams wanted to host semi-finals and Final of the WBC, yet obviously MLB didn't think Dodger Stadium was too old or decrepit. I actually went to the final of the WBC, and it was one of the most enjoyable baseball games I've ever experienced (World Series games included).

The real reason why Dodger Stadium hasn't hosted an All-Star Game in 30 years is because of all the new stadiums in MLB. Bud Selig has made a policy of rewarding teams that build new stadiums with All-Star Games, partially to help justify the enormous expense of doing so. As a result, new stadiums in Colorado, Atlanta, Milwaukee, Houston, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, and St. Louis have hosted the last seven All-Star Games held in NL parks. Next year, Arizona's new park will host the game, and new ballparks in New York, San Diego, Washington, Florida, Cincinnati, and Philadelphia are all probably in the queue for the National League.

As for the American League, new parks in Baltimore, Cleveland, Texas, Seattle, and Detroit have already hosted the game, and now MLB has given the game to Anaheim after it made substantial stadium renovations. Kansas City's renovated park is set to host the game in 2012 and will probably be followed by Minnesota.

My point is, Dodger Stadium has no glaring deficiency that has prevented it from hosting the All-Star Game, and MLB clearly thought it was worthy of hosting a premier event like the World Baseball Classic. But unfortunately for the Dodgers, they will likely have to wait for several more new parks to host the All-Star Game, or they will have to undergo dramatic renovations to jump the line.

Plaschke has some other biased and rather silly statements. He writes:

"Angel Stadium concession stands are so efficient, the other night I fed my children from Panda Express and missed all of three batters. Dodger Stadium concession stands are so overworked, the other night there were 15 people in line for one guy selling pretzels -- and this was on the renovated field level."

In all truth, Plaschke could have swapped the words "Dodger" and "Angel" in that paragraph and been equally accurate. Just recently I got stuck waiting in line for about 20 minutes at Angel Stadium for food, as one of the guys at the counter was completely incompetent. At Dodger Stadium, if you know what you're doing, you can get food pretty quickly. (I've even missed fewer than 3 batters!) If a fan is willing to walk a few sections over they can often find a less crowded concession stand serving the same food as the one closest to their seat. There are express lines in several places around the stadium, including a quick Panda Express line on the Reserved Level. (The Panda Express is equally tasteless at both ballparks.)

The fact of the matter is that the Dodgers and Angels both are among MLB's leaders in attendance, and long lines are going to happen no matter what. If you don't want to wait in line, then I recommend not getting food in the 3rd inning when the visiting team is batting. That's when it's always the worst.

It's also worth noting that the Dodgers employ Levy Restaurants and the Angels employ Aramark as their respective concessionaires. The concessionaires, not the teams, typically hire and train the workers. So it's hard to blame the Dodgers when some guy is fumbling around with soft drinks and a roll of quarters.

It's true though that the Dodgers concession stands are older (with the exception of the renovated field level). The Dodgers have plans to renovate the all levels of the stadium, which will include bigger and better kitchens to increase efficiency, and a greater number of points of sale to reduce the lines. But the current system isn't awful, and you have to be a pretty negative person to excessively complain about it.

I also think the Dodger Dog (when it's grilled) is far superior to the Angels hot dogs. And I'd argue that the Dodgers open-air grills taste better than the Angels BBQ areas, but that's all a matter of preference.

Plaschke goes on to say that Dodger Stadium "doesn't always feel safe" because of the "closeness of the crowds, and the literal heat in those tight concourses." However, for the Angels, he writes: "Two acts of violence in Angel Stadium last season have been well-documented. But the general stress among fans there is absent. C'mon, it's Orange County. Nobody even frowns."

Obviously Plaschke and I have dramatically different perceptions of the same ballpark. I've never once felt unsafe at Dodger Stadium, and I've been there literally hundreds of times. But I do know plenty of people who will frown simply on the idea of being in Orange County for more than five minutes. And clearly Angel Stadium is capable of having "well-documented acts of violence."

Plaschke also writes: "Walking into Angel Stadium, with its wide, clean concourses and comfortably spaced seats, is like opening a sunroof. Walking into Dodger Stadium, with its low ceilings, dark corners and claustrophobic concourses, is like clenching a steering wheel."

It's funny how different some people can be. When I walk into Dodger Stadium, I admire the beautiful views of the San Gabriel Mountains and feel relaxed in the cool California air. When I walk into Angel Stadium, I see a freeway, the Honda Center, and fake rock formations that look a little tacky. There are no obstructed seats at Dodger Stadium, and the seats themselves are all comfortable and fairly new. Most of the seats at Angel Stadium are good too, but I've gotten stuck in the 200 level several times. In those seats, the overhang juts out so far that fans can't see one of the two main scoreboards. Yet those seats still can cost up to $80 each.

Plaschke cites the "Fan Cost Index" from Team Marketing Report, which shows Angels games are about $90 cheaper than Dodgers games for a family of four. I'm very familiar with how the FCI works and there are numerous ways to manipulate it when teams care enough to do so. For example, the FCI assumes that a family will purchase two caps, and the Angels somehow have a cap available for just $6.99. The Dodgers caps are sold for the more standard amount of $16, so caps alone account for $18 of that $90.

I could spend a whole column breaking down those numbers, but the point is, you can walk away from both stadiums paying about the same amount and having a relatively equal experience. It's true though that the Angels concessions are slightly cheaper than the Dodgers, and I'd love it if the Dodgers could work with Levy Restaurants on reducing prices. It would also be nice if parking cost less than $15 at Dodger Stadium.

Perhaps the only area where I really agree with Plaschke is on cleanliness. Outside of the field level, the Dodgers need to do much a better job of keeping the bathrooms clean. The Angels do a fantastic job of keeping their stadium clean, but they did have an embarrassing incident three years ago when they were cited for 33 major health violations, including rat infestation at concession stands.

I also have to give credit to the Angels for their customer service, which is as good as any in MLB. Angels employees are friendly and helpful and their efforts help lead to a positive fan environment.

Overall, Arte Moreno has done an amazing job of turning one of baseball's more mundane parks into one that does truly offer a first-class fan experience. It's hard to go to an Angels game and not have a great time. I can even understand why someone might prefer Angel Stadium to Dodger Stadium.

But even with the recent increase in sponsorship signage, there is a sense of baseball purity to Dodger Stadium that is truly special. Even if it's a little old and starting to show its age, I walk into Dodger Stadium every time and feel like I'm in the perfect baseball venue. It feels real and authentic, whereas Angel Stadium can sometimes feel fake. I've taken numerous friends from out of town to Dodger Stadium, and they're amazed that a baseball stadium can be so great without pretending like its 1920.

Yes, Dodger Stadium needs some renovations, and those will happen in due time. But to write: "Although Southern California baseball's soul was born in Chavez Ravine, its heart is in Anaheim," is bewildering.

For 48 years Dodger Stadium has been "Blue Heaven on Earth" and it has fostered generations of Southern California baseball fans. A 15-minute wait for a pretzel doesn't erase its memories or its beauty. And being upset with the McCourts doesn't mean you should report biased information about the Dodgers home stadium. My heart is still in Chavez Ravine.

"Advice for Greenies in a Complicated World"

Dear JJ:

Since my neighbor and I are both tearing down our leaky '50s beach houses and building state-of-the-art green ones, we're having a friendly competition to see who can build the most energy-efficient house. How should we measure, though? My house is 8200 ft² and his is 7800 ft², and I have 4 kids and he has 3, and so on. Help!

Jared
Malibu, CA

Dear Jared:

Great question!--and a common dilemma for Greenies. As you imply, you can take one of two basic approaches to reductions in energy use when you build a new green house or green up your old one.

You can try to use as little energy as possible. Or you can use as much energy as you want to, but try to save as much energy as possible whenever you use it.

Each method has its pros and cons.

The obvious advantage to the first approach--to use as little total energy as possible--is that you'll use as little energy as possible. The chief drawback, however, is that asking how much energy you need to use can make your green-home decisions exceptionally complicated.

How many square feet do you actually need to build? Does each kid need a separate bathroom? How many TVs, and should the screens be 2 ft. or 8 ft. wide--and what about in the bathrooms, guest houses, pool houses, and doghouses (Puppy Bowl!!)?

Take such questions to an extreme, and you're out of the 'Bu and in a one-bedroom next to the freeway. Take this method far enough, though, and you're out of the Home section in the New York Times.

The second approach, on the other hand--to save as much energy as possible whenever you use it--offers several real advantages. To begin with, the decisions you have to make are comparatively simple and straightforward. You don't have to ask how many TVs you need--or whether your dog can get by without a DVR. You just have to ask which Energy Star brand of TV or DVR to purchase, and then buy as many as you want of them.

In fact, every time the DVR fires itself up to record Treme, your super-energy-efficient TV and DVR will save a lot of energy. If you buy 28 TVs instead of 7, you can save up to 4 times as much energy.

So with the second method, the more energy you use, the more you can save. Which is why this often tends to be the preferred method for Greenie homeowners with larger houses.

Another advantage to this second approach is that it's just a lot more positive. You save energy. You don't not use energy. You're doing something versus not doing something.

Which makes it a lot more tangible and rewarding. It's a lot less satisfying--and a lot harder to see the difference you're making for all of us--when you say, "Here's the 3000 square feet I decided not to build" than to say, "Here's the solar-powered, bamboo-paneled screening room with smart windows, recessed LED lighting, and a remote-controlled thermostat."

And the disadvantages? Well, with this second method, you may or may not actually use less total energy than you did in your previous or unrenovated house--especially before you pay off the energy costs of the construction. Also, with a beach house, it's always important to remember that if you only use it 25 days a year, then you might not be able to use as much energy, and therefore save as much energy, as you can with your main residence.

And finally, remember that this method does tend to work better if you have a larger house. How about if you already live, say, in a one-bedroom in Eagle Rock or Pacoima? Since you need to use a lot of energy to save large quantities of energy--and since you'll have to buy new green appliances and smart up your windows--this second method tends to be less rewarding for folks without significant financial resources.

Unfortunately, if you don't have the resources to use significant quantities of energy to begin with, then the first method--to use as little total energy as possible--might be more feasible, but it still won't allow you to contribute very significantly to the efforts to stop climate change.

In JJ's opinion, we need to give a lot more thought generally to how absolutely everyone in our society can reap the civic, social, and psychic benefits of greening up one's house and home.

That's grist for future columns, though. Good luck with the contest!

Green Me Up, JJ is an occasional advice column. You can e-mail JJ with your burning questions about how to act and think environmentally smart in our complicated 21st-century world.

For previous entries, click here.

E-mail JJ to be on the e-mail list for future columns.

Become a Facebook fan here!

This Sunday morning at 11:30 am PT in Johannesburg, Spain and the Netherlands will play in the final match of the World Cup. This will be a matchup of two of the best soccer-playing nations in the world that have never won a World Cup. One nation will get to sit at the grownups table of soccer powers, while the loser will remain at the kids table for at least another four years.

The Spanish and Dutch have a history. The Dutch won their independence from Spain after the Eighty Years War. However, that conflict ended in 1648 with the Treaty of Westphalia (which also concluded a separate conflict known as Thirty Years War.) But since then, the two nations have been on fairly good terms, the War of Spanish Succession notwithstanding.

This final is the first time that the World Cup final matches up two countries that I've already visited. (Since I've never been to Brazil, Argentina, Italy, or France, it's not easy for me. On the other hand, if Estonia ever makes it to the World Cup final, I'm covered.) And I enjoyed visiting both countries, even though I had my wallet lifted on the Madrid Metro. But I won't hold that against Spain. After all, I've had my pocket picked in Century City, too.

Both Spain and the Netherlands have rarely lost recently. In 42 matches since the beginning of 2008, Spain has lost just twice, to the U.S. in the Confederations Cup in 2009 and a loss in its first match in the World Cup to Switzerland. Spain also drew with Italy in the 2008 European championships, but won on penalties. Over the same time period, the Dutch have played 36 times and have been beaten just twice (by Russia in the 2008 European championships and a loss to Australia in a friendly later that year) along with six draws.

The Dutch lost in the finals in 1974 to Germany (played in Germany) and in 1978 to Argentina (played in Argentina). Spain has never gotten this far in the World Cup. Spain's win in the European Championship in 2008 was the nation's first of its kind. The Dutch won a European Championship in 1988. The two teams have never faced each other in the World Cup. Spain has won the most matches in the World Cup (24) without winning a championship than any other country. The Netherlands is second in that category with 19 wins.

The Spanish are slight favorites. Spain does almost everything perfectly except put the ball in the net. Spain has dominated possession in every match it has played, however, with the exception of David Villa who has five goals, La Roja have had problems converting their numerous chances into scores. Fernando Torres, who was supposed to pair with Villa to create an unstoppable combination up front, has played so poorly that he was benched for Spain's 1-0 semifinal win over Germany.

As for the Oranje, they've played a style of soccer that has not been full of flair and dash. Instead, they've settled for playing a style that gets them wins, i.e., it's much more physical than people who remember the era of Johan Cruyff and Total Football. The Dutch have five goals from Wesley Sneijder, including two in a quarterfinal win over Brazil. (Villa and Sneijder are tied with Diego Forlan of Uruguay and Thomas Muller of Germany for the tournament lead in goals.)

For a recap of the tournament as a whole, I'll direct you to my brother's work for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. He gets to vote on the MVP (Golden Ball) for the tournament also. However, there are about 10,000 voters so I doubt lobbying him would make much of a difference in the final outcome.

If Spain can score early, the Dutch could get frustrated. But, Spain has not shown much ability to score early. In its last three matches, Spain has scored just one goal, scored in the 63rd, 83rd, and 73rd minutes of the match. The Dutch gave up an early goal to Brazil however and that didn't seem to bother them.

Paul, the psychic octopus of Oberhausen, has picked Spain to win. I thought Spain would win before the tournament started, so I guess I should agree with our clairvoyant cephalopod overlord. I own jersey for both Spain and the Netherlands, so I can go outside Sunday appropriately attired.

Although the World Cup final is one of the most widely watched television programs in the world (I can't find any reliable estimates, but I would imagine that the number would put the Super Bowl ratings to shame), ABC, with Martin Tyler and Efan Ekoku calling the action, will have just a one-hour pregame show. For Super Bowl XLIV, CBS ran close to 6 1/2 hours of pregame programming. And there aren't any commercial breaks during the action, so after the match, there will be critiques of what happened on the field instead of discussions of advertising.

There will also be a regular 15-minute halftime that will serve as a time for most people to go to the bathroom instead of subjecting people to the South African version of Up With People or other such Super Bowl halftime nonsense. (I've been deeply scarred by Up With People halftime shows. I've woken up in the middle of the night screaming, "Make the maniacally perky people stop singing sappy pop tunes!")

For many people in the U.S., their interest in soccer will go into hibernation until this same time of the year in 2014, when Brazil hosts the World Cup. And in four years, there will be people complaining about how they don't like soccer, or people complaining that Americans don't appreciate soccer.

I don't see why this argument has to be brought up again and again. You can look at the World Cup (and soccer) this way. Pretend that the world of sports is like an art museum. Some people go to see modern art. Some people go to see antiquities. Some go to see Renaissance art. The World Cup this year is like going to a museum and finding out that there is a big special exhibition of the works of Rembrandt and Velazquez. Maybe you don't want to see those artists. You know what? You don't have to. The museum has other things to go see.

Sunday's match might not be a work of art for everyone. But, for the winning nation, the game will be a masterpiece no matter what.

Bruce Lisker and ex-juror Lorraine Maxwell. All photos and text by Iris Schneider.

Part 5 of an occasional series

We've all groaned when the letter for jury service arrives at our door. But Lorraine Maxwell, one of the twelve jury members who convicted Bruce Lisker of the 1983 murder of his mother, has a very different perspective. "I tell them I've already served on a murder trial and can't do that again. Maybe embezzlement, but never another murder trial."

The diminutive 80-year-old, sharp as a tack, still feels committed to serve, but those few weeks so many years ago, when she was a wire operator for a stock brokerage firm, changed her life as well as Lisker's. "My son Patrick remembers what I was going through," she remarked the other day as Lisker, freed from prison in July of 2009 and exonerated in August by a federal judge who overturned the verdict, sat by her side. Her sons were just around Bruce's age, 17, at the time of the trial.

The two have been getting together periodically for lunch now that Lisker has been released from prison. He has filed a civil suit against the city of Los Angeles and the LAPD for wrongful incarceration and a case against him built on lies, deception and incompetence. The court date has been set for March 29, 2011.

Maxwell had been the last holdout on the jury that voted to convict Lisker, and she has carried the weight of that decision with her ever since. And then, in 2005, after a series of articles in the Los Angeles Times questioning Lisker's guilt and the prosecution of his case, Maxwell remembers getting a call from Paul Ingels, the private investigator who had worked on Lisker's case for a decade. "I found out all the stuff we had never been told. Any one of those things would have been reasonable doubt," she said. When another juror heard that news, Maxwell says she told her, "The first thing I thought of was Lorraine. We should have listened to her more."

Maxwell remembers all the details of the case, the prosecution and defense. She and Lisker can reconstruct much of what happened in that courtroom so many years ago. They remember specific questions, and answers, allegations and decisions as if it were yesterday.

"Your lawyer should have put you on the stand," she said. "If he had done that I would have believed you." She recalls the jury deliberating 3 or 4 days. When they finally reached the guilty verdict it was too much to bear. "After we made the decision, I said, 'Can't we just go home? I just can't do this now."

They did go home, and resumed the next day, delivering the verdict of guilty. Some 28 years later, as she thinks about Bruce's life, and his eventual exoneration, she says, "After I found out, every time I'd think about it, I'd just start crying. It was so wrong to let this happen, so wrong. And people knew."

Over the years, she had thought about visiting Bruce in prison. "I couldn't bear to visit him," she said. "I couldn't bear to think of him there." Now she is so glad she didn't. "It would've been a very hurtful thing to remember him there."

After Lisker's release from prison, Paul Ingels asked the jurors if they would want to get together with him. Maxwell said yes. Lisker was anxious to meet the jurors. "I thought 'I have to tell them that they didn't do anything wrong. The jurors gave the decision their due diligence, but they were lied to," he says.

When Maxwell is asked how she felt upon learning of Lisker's release she says simply, "It's indescribable." In looking at him now, she says she still sees the boy she saw in that courtroom. "He hasn't changed a bit." It's a kind of extraordinary relationship. Every now and then, Lisker will reach out and stroke her hand. "I felt so bad that Lorraine was carrying this terrible burden. I knew she was lied to. But that doesn't surmount it." So, they have decided to keep in touch.

Lorraine wants to know what Bruce is up to now and he tells her about his A in English at Santa Monica College and his courses for next semester: Advanced composition, MS Word and Dreamweaver, all online, and a Speech and Argumentation class. He's working on his AA degree, and is thinking maybe he'll pursue a career in law, possibly become a lawyer like his Dad.

He recently went to the Convention Center to watch his girlfriend Kara become a U.S. citizen.

Although she has kept her English citizenship as well, he called the ceremony moving, with a caveat: "Whenever there is a judge presiding, and the talk of 'liberty and justice for all', I view it with mixed emotions."

And he talked about his birthday, just celebrated last week. Kara had been collecting gifts for weeks in advance. "I wanted to give him a gift for every year he had to celebrate his birthday in prison," she said. Twenty-seven gifts, small and large, a big basket of them that she gave to Bruce. "A Playboy Magazine from June 1965, when he was born. An Underdog t-shirt. A magazine rack for the bathroom. He said he wanted one of those when he got out. A framed picture of Marilyn Monroe. He loves Marilyn. Some framed Rick Griffin prints. I had sent him some when he was in prison, but they got lost in the shuffle."

Kara explained that she had started writing to Bruce three years ago after reading an article about his case. "And tickets to see Roger Waters play The Wall, at Staples Center. Those were expensive. Everything else was just little stuff." She pauses. "There was wrapping paper a foot deep in the apartment," Lisker said. "I'd open a present and throw the paper by the door. We didn't even try to clean it up."

"It was his first free birthday," said Kara, shaking her head. "I can't even take it in. I was going to bake him a cake, but I never got around to it. Maybe tomorrow."

Their tomorrows will be busy. In the past few weeks, they've gone to parties--one with a mustache theme where Bruce wore a Fu Manchu--and been taken to a fancy birthday dinner by a TV magazine producer who's been working on a story about Bruce scheduled to air in the fall. "The bill was $350. In prison, the allotment for meals was $2.45 per day," Lisker says. That meal alone was worth 140 days of prison food. They have three trips scheduled in the next few weeks: Las Vegas, a road trip up the coast to Northern California, and a trip to Maui. Kara remembers reading an article about Bruce the day he was released from prison. "He said he wanted to lie on a beach in Hawaii," she says. They have friends there, so will make the trip.

For Bruce, the hardest part of all this fun is the fact that he can't contribute financially. He's done some carpentry per diem, and is hoping for a job with a relative but it hasn't panned out yet. He has gone through all the money he inherited from his Dad in 1995, plus the $200 he was given when he was released from prison.

Mounting his campaign for exoneration while incarcerated proved to be very expensive. He estimates he's spent $30,000 hiring private investigators and almost three times that on lawyers. "My car's got problems, I can't afford a therapist and I need glasses but don't have the money to get them. I'm dealing with my depression by myself. I'm looking for a job, but finding it difficult to get one. It's hard to be broke in Paradise," he says.

But he looks at Kara. "At least I know I've got someone who's there for me 100%. It's a struggle for both of us. I try to look at the silver lining. I keep reminding myself that the worst day out here is better than the best day in there."

Lorraine, the ex-juror, reaches out and grabs Bruce's hand. "It's a miracle you survived all that and can be yourself now," she says. "I just like to touch your hand to know that you're here." She holds on for a long time.

When they are ready to go, Lisker carefully walks Maxwell to the door. She waits with Kara while he brings the car around. Maxwell tells Kara that seeing Bruce and the life he has now, with her, makes her feel so good. "He's a wonderful person and he will have a wonderful life."

But for Lorraine, it will always be difficult. "I've become resigned to what happened. It doesn't hurt as much as it did when I first found out," she says. And she will continue to see Bruce and stay in touch. Next time she wants to take him to Pogo's, her neighborhood bar to meet her friends and shoot some pool.

"People ask me about closure. But there will never be any closure," she says. "It will be with me for the rest of my life."

This is the fifth part of photographer Iris Schneider's series following Bruce Lisker as he returns to society. He was released from prison last August, after a court vacated his murder conviction.

Last Friday, there were hopes in some parts of the world (the southern half of it), that there would three or even four South American teams in the last four at the World Cup. And, once the quarterfinals wrapped up, there was but one team from South America left, Uruguay, and that one won thanks to either a miracle or some horrible cheating.

The semifinals of the World Cups start Tuesday at 11:30 am PT in Cape Town, when Uruguay takes on the Netherlands. On Wednesday at 11:30 am, Germany will face Spain in Durban.

So what happened to the supposedly unstoppable South American squads of Brazil and Argentina?

The Dutch upset Brazil 2-1 in their quarterfinal match on Friday. Brazil took an early lead, but then never threatened much except for one shot by Kaka that forced Dutch keeper Maarten Stekelenberg to make a leaping save to keep it out.

In the second half, the Dutch caught a break when Felipe Melo deflected a Wesley Sneijder shot into the net (Sneijder received credit for the goal.) A few minutes later, Melo received a red card. Not too long after that, Sneijder scored again to give the Dutch a 2-1 lead that held up.

The second half saw Brazilian coach Dunga melt down on the sidelines as he seemingly could not believe what his team was doing. Dunga has been told to look for new work.

Argentina and Germany was expected to be a wild affair, but the Germans dominated the match from the outset. 20-year old Thomas Mueller scored in the third minute to get the Germans off to a fast start. Miroslav Klose added two goals in the second half and defender Arne Freidrich added another. The Germans made Argentina, a team with stars like Lionel Messi and Carlos Tevez, look like they belonged in a park league.

Spain's match with Paraguay had its share of high drama. After a scoreless first half, Paraguay's Oscar Cardozo won a penalty in the 60th minute. Spanish keeper Iker Casillas made the save.

Spain then went on a quick counterattack and won a penalty of their own. Spain's Xabi Alsonso scored on his first try, but the referee waived it off for encroachment. (All the other players on a penalty kick have to remain a set distance away from the ball until it is kicked.) The kick was retaken and Paraguayan keeper Justo Villar made the save.

It wasn't until the 83rd minute when Spain's David Villa scored the only goal of the match. Spain is in the semifinals for the first time ever.

Tuesday's match between Uruguay and the Netherlands may not have a lot of scoring. Uruguay tends to play somewhat conservatively. Also, Uruguay hasn't faced anyone who is the quality of the Dutch team so far in South Africa. Uruguay's best hope will be to get some good set piece opportunities for Diego Forlan. The team's other scoring threat, Luis Suarez, is suspended for the semifinal after drawing a red card for his game saving handball in the quarterfinal against Ghana.

The Netherlands have been to two World Cup finals before, in 1974 and 1978, only to end up facing the host nation each time (Germany and Argentina) and losing. The Dutch team has a lot of star power, although they are not exactly a team that gets along well. Robin van Persie, Arjen Robben, and Wesley Sneijder, are all sizeable talents with sizeable egos. However, the Dutch are the only team left in South Africa that has neither a loss nor a draw on its ledger. And, the Dutch did not lose or draw a qualifying match.

The Spain-Germany semifinal should be outstanding. Germany has scored four goals in each of its first two games in the knockout round. The last team to score more than eight goals in two straight knockout round matches was Brazil in 1958.

Germany likely won't score four against Spain. The Germans will be missing Mueller, who is out for one match because of yellow cards. Spain may have more of its stars available, but the Spanish team so far has looked better on paper than on the field.

I now think that a repeat of the 1974 final between the Netherlands and Germany is likely. Which, if the World Cup continues in the way it's gone for me, means that you can get ready for Spain-Uruguay final next Sunday.

This week, several of the brightest lights of the photography world turned out to honor the still image.

Susan Meiselas, James Nachtwey and Lauren Greenfield are three of the photographers whose work is represented in a Getty Museum exhibition called Engaged Observers: Documentary Photography Since the 60's. They were treated like celebrities as they autographed books and answered questions on opening night.
Indian dance mask worn by rebels in Nicaragua, 1978. Copyright Susan Meiselas / Magnum Photos

I remember looking at some of these very images in the 70's and 80's, at the time I was just beginning my career as a photojournalist, and I was moved by their power and emotion. Meiselas' photos of the revolution in Nicaragua from 1979, Nachtwey's reportage of wars on foreign soil, Walker Evans' and Dorothea Lange's images that captured the Depression era in the United States and its effects on the people across the United States who were struggling for their survival. They inspired me and seeing them on the walls of the Getty was like reconnecting with old friends.

Sheena and Amber, San Jose 1999. Copyright Lauren Greenfield/Institute

As we now know, things have changed for photography and photographers. Meiselas is working in video along with stills. Greenfield, who has documented the effects that money, marketing and society's emphasis on beauty has over young people in books like "Fast Forward" and "Girl Culture," has also begun working with film. Her last effort was "Kids + Money," a powerful film that explores how teens feel about the role money plays in their lives.

Even the photographers at Magnum Photos, one of the few remaining photo agencies and whose members are among the elite and most accomplished in the business, recently had several intense days as they met for their annual business meeting.

The agenda that made things so stressful? "Survival," said Larry Towell, a Magnum member and one of the photographers whose work graced the walls of the Getty show.

El Cuervo, Chihuahua, 1992. Copyright Larry Towell / Magnum Photos

The exhibit provides a welcome respite from all the worry, and a chance to revel in the pure power of photography.

The show features the seminal and iconic work of some of the best documentary photographers working since the 60's, each of whom have passionately pursued personal projects. Two whose work are represented, Leonard Freed and Philip Jones Griffiths, recently passed away but not before the Getty purchased their collections. Freed, whose work on civil rights highlighted the struggles and pride of the African American community, and Griffiths, whose early work in Vietnam helped to document the effects of the war on both the American soldiers and the Vietnamese people, are strongly represented at the show.

In addition, some early documentary work by Lange, Lewis Hine, and Walker Evans, among others is on exhibit, to give a historical perpective and show how the work of the more contemporary photographers evolved. Also in the show is the work of Sebastião Salgado, Mary Ellen Mark and W. Eugene and Aileen M. Smith.

Nachtwey, who has dedicated his 30-year career to doggedly documenting war and its toll on humanity across the globe, hopes that his work will serve as a statement against man's inhumanity to man. His riveting images from Iraq were represented by a photographic collage that flowed across 32 feet of the gallery like a river of pain. It was made up of 60 11x14 images digitally rendered to form one continuous print. Called "The Sacrifice," Nachtwey says it is something he "dreamed up and then found he could do" with special software on his computer.

One of the images in "Sacrifice," 2007. Copyright James Nachtwey

"The only way to see this is on the wall," he says. "The single images were good, and they were published, but I really wanted to convey the sense of chaos and carnage that I saw when I was witnessing this. To really show what it was like, the real...urgency to save lives."

The images are hard to look at, each one showing a wounded soldier being cared for in field trauma centers in Iraq, and were made by Nachtwey in 2006 and 2007. It stands as a testament to Nachtwey's fortitude in pursuing a story and graphically shows the human toll of war.

Meiselas' work, composed of seminal images shot during the start of the revolution in Nicaragua, began when she arrived shortly after the assassination of publisher Pedro Chamorro, whose opposition newspaper was critical of the repressive government in power. She recalls being "pulled into history" and as one of few women doing such work, and the photographs reflect her personal commitment to show the struggle of the citizen army up close.

Meiselas said this work could not have been done today. "It was sustained by reproduction in magazines and newspapers," she said, many of which no longer exist. "But photographers are very entrepreneurial, innovative and flexible in their partnering," she said. "I'm optimistic, even though it is a dark time for photographers," she said. As Larry Towell says, "We are trying to stay ahead of the curve, but don't know where the curve is headed."

Despite the challenges ahead, Meiselas says she still has the same advice for young photographers. "I tell my students, commit to something you care about. Then adapt and do whatever needs to be done to continue doing the work."

Engaged Observers: Documentary Photography Since the 60's is at the Getty until Nov. 14.

With short-time visitors like the United States and Mexico gone, the World Cup in South Africa has been whittled down to eight teams, with still a significant number of former champions left in the mix. The tournament has been seen its share of great goals, some dull play, a lot of noise, and more than a few bad calls from the officials. In other words, it's pretty much like any other international soccer tournament.

For the first time ever, the final four teams in the tournament could all come from South America. In the history of the World Cup, only two teams outside of South America and Europe have ever made it to the semifinals, the USA in 1930 and South Korea in 2002.

The quarterfinals start on Friday morning at 7 am PT with a match in Port Elizabeth between Brazil and the Netherlands. Brazil shut out Chile 3-0 in its second round match and the Dutch beat Slovakia 2-1. The two teams last met in the World Cup in 1998 in Marseilles, when Brazil won a penalty kick tiebreaker, 4-2, in the semifinals. The Dutch haven't beaten Brazil since Johann Cruyff's heroics in 1974.

Later on Friday, at 11:30 am in Johannesburg, one surprise team will make it to the semifinals as Ghana takes on Uruguay.

Ghana is the last African team standing in the tournament. The Black Stars eliminated the U.S. for the second straight time in the World Cup with a 2-1 win on Saturday. Uruguay beat South Korea 2-1 on Saturday.

Uruguay used to be a dominant power in international soccer, winning two Olympic gold medals and two World Cups. However, Uruguay hasn't been this far in the tournament since 1970. Joe Posnanski wrote about Uruguay's soccer history and how it affects the team today.

Saturday morning brings what should be the most interesting of all the quarterfinals. At 7 am in Cape Town, Argentina will face Germany. Argentina has cruised through its first four games, obliterating Nigeria, South Korea, and Greece in group play, and then beating Mexico 3-1 in the second round.

Germany went 2-1 in group play, losing to Serbia. But, the Germans sent England home with a 4-1 win that rendered the bad call on a potential English goal moot.

Germany knocked Argentina out of the tournament at this stage in 2006 with a win in a penalty kick tiebreaker, 4-2. Germany also beat Argentina, 1-0, in the 1990 final in a foul-marred game. Argentina beat Germany, 3-2, in the 1986 final.

The 1986 final marked the last time that Argentina defeated a Western European team in regulation in the World Cup. Argentina's voluble coach, Diego Maradona, has started a war of words with German players Bastian Schweinsteiger and Philipp Lamm, over Saturday's match. Saturday's match should be both exciting and contentious.

Even if Brazil, Uruguay, and Argentina all win, getting a fourth team from South America into the semifinals will be tough. The last quarterfinal will be on Saturday at 11:30 am in Johannesburg. Spain will take on Paraguay. The latter has conceded but one goal the whole tournament, but has only scored three times and needed a penalty kick tiebreaker to beat Japan in the second round. Spain has come back from a first game loss to Switzerland to win its last three matches, knocking out Portugal, 1-0, in the second round.

Paraguay's best hope for a win Saturday will be getting the Spanish to fall asleep. Literally. The Spanish should dominate possession in the match, and should be able to beat Paraguay barring a defensive lapse.

I'm expecting a final four that would match Brazil versus Uruguay and Argentina versus Spain. Of course, I'm probably not as good as picking matches as an octopus at a German aquarium.

* Insert Portuguese expression of shock and dismay here! The Netherlands shock Brazil 2-1 in the morning game on Friday. It was the first time Brazil had lost a match after leading at halftime. Prior to today, Brazil had won 35 of 37 matches they had led at halftime and the other two were draws.

** In an ending that almost defied belief, Uruguay defeated Ghana 4-2 in a penalty kick tiebreaker after playing to a 1-1 tie after 120 minutes. Ghana had a chance to win on the last kick of extra time after being awarded a penalty after Uruguay's Luis Suarez deliberately knocked what would have been a goal out of the net with his hands. Suarez was given a red card. Asamaoh Gyan of Ghana hit the crossbar with his try, and Uruguay moved on to the semifinals for the first time since 1970.

*** So, I'm completely wrong about South American dominance. Germany dominated Argentina, winning 4-0. Two goals for Miroslav Klose, along with ones for Thomas Muller (in the 3rd minute) and Arne Freidrich. Klose now has 14 goals in World Cup play, one behind the alltime leader Ronaldo of Brazil.

**** Spain advanced to the semifinals for the first time in its history, beating Paraguay 1-0 on a David Villa goal in the 83rd minute. Spanish keeper Iker Casillas saved a penalty kick and made a pair of tough saves in the final minutes to keep Paraguay off the board.