I’ll tell you, Mavericks used to be something, man. But now it’s all corporate and shit, man.
Hey, isn’t the Mavericks surf contest just like the Burning Man? Just look where they got started – same beach, different county:
Click to expand
I’ll you, ten years from now, you’ll hear about some underground event what’s been gaining in popularity and I’ll bet you it will have gotten its start on one of these Bay Area, Pacific Coast beaches that you can see in the photo.
Anyway, Mavs is on, once again, this coming Sunday, January 20th, 2013.
Now back in the day, to see Mavericks you’d just park you ride on the Pacific Coast Highway and then ride your bikes to the beach. Easy peasy.
And then they’d let you climb up on the bluff for a good view (even though people fell off of it all the time).
(Mmmm… why do these rocks a “breakwater”)
And then they didn’t want people on the bluff so they put up an “event village” or something on the beach below.
But apparently, that threat was all lies and jest.
Hey, do you like sports analogies ‘n stuff?
This is rich Marin County whacko Elisabeth Theriot’s inchoate SLAPP lawsuit against TheWrap blog, IMO:
See? Kicker Garo Yepremien tried to score a few points but then opposing counsel filed a special motion to strike what was so special that discovery was immediately halted. Then he lost the hearing and that was the end of the suit, it looks like. I’m saying Elisabeth Theriot got pwned in court.
With a quickness.
Which, you know, this kind of thing doesn’t happen every day so that’s why I made a post about it.
But now the world is supposed to end tomorrow ‘n stuff and there’s no Mayan Prophecy “film” to see.
Now, what about San Francisco Examiner President and Publisher Todd Vogt? Do you think he got some sort of request or demand or something from rich Marin County whacko Elisabeth Theriot or the wire service or somebody to take down the wire story on these topics, you know, that used to be posted right here?
Why would the ‘Xam have a page dedicated to rich Marin County whacko Elisabeth Theriot (just look at the URL bar) with nothing to say about her? It’s because the story about her that used to be there is no longer there.
Is there cowardice here?
I’ll tell you, TheWrap.com stood up to rich Marin County whacko Elisabeth Theriot and was/will be rewarded with mandatory attorney fees as a kind of reward.
Why couldn’t/can’t the ‘Xam stand up to rich Marin County whacko Elisabeth Theriot too?
I don’t know.
Now I’ll tell you, when an actual newspaper (improperly, IMO) caves to some rich lady, that just might have the effect of emboldening her. Then she just might start going after poor, defenseless WordPress bloggers.
But maybe I’m way off on this one.
If so, please somebody disabuse me.
* I call it a video because it was (mostly?) recorded on digicams – no film required. The current title of this still-troubled production is Mayan Revelations & Hollywood Lies. It’s delayed. It’s nonsense. Oh what’s that, we’re going to see just how important that Long Count calendar is tout de suite? No we won’t. Sorry. Oh, over the coming decades? No we won’t. Sorry.
Johannes Vermeer (Delft 1632–1675 Delft) Girl with a Pearl Earring, ca. 1665. Oil on canvas, 17 1/2 x 15 3/8 in. (44.5 x 39 cm) Royal Picture Gallery Mauritshuis, The Hague, Bequest of Arnoldus des Tombe, 1903 (inv. no. 670)
Well, guess what. They’re going to pack her up and send her to Golden Gate Park to be put on display for the first half of 2013 at our de Young Museum.
This is huge.
All the deets:
Girl with a Pearl Earring: Dutch Paintings from the Mauritshuis - At the de Young Museum January 26—June 2, 2013
San Francisco, October 2012–The Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco are pleased to announce that on January 26, 2013, the de Young Museum will be the first North American venue to present Girl with a Pearl Earring: Dutch Paintings from the Mauritshuis, a selection of paintings from the Royal Picture Gallery Mauritshuis, The Hague. The de Young will host 35 paintings from the collection, including the renowned Girl with a Pearl Earring by Johannes Vermeer, The Goldfinch by Carel Fabritius, and four works by Rembrandt van Rijn. Highlighting the spectacular artistic achievements of the Dutch Golden Age, these works reflect the culture of artistic, economic, and technological innovation that allowed the Netherlands to prosper in the 17th century.
At the center of this exhibition is one of the world’s most famous paintings, Vermeer’s masterpiece, Girl with a Pearl Earring. This work, sometimes called “the Dutch Mona Lisa,” is one of only 36 known paintings by the artist and rarely travels outside the Netherlands. Though little is known about Vermeer’s life, the quiet grace and virtuoso technique evident in his paintings, and in particular his rendering of light, have placed him among the most important artists of the 17th century. Many of the details of his technique can only be appreciated through close examination of the painting surface, such as the few tiny brushstrokes that indicate the reflection on the pearl, and the broader, more expressive painting of her ultramarine and yellow turban.
And here’s the vast bulk of the resulting lawyer letter:
Click to expand, if you dare.
Now I can understand why the San Francisco Chronicle might not want to get involved with all the allegations surrounding the making of some movie project about the Mayan calendar deal. You know, relationships ‘n stuff. And plus, it’s not like a whole bunch of people are going to watch this flick.
So that’s one thing, but the San Francisco Examiner, did it get a similar letter earlier this year? You make the call. See? Earlier this year it used to have something to say about Elisabeth Thieriot and the Mayan Prophecy and Mexico and whatnot, but not now. Mmmm. Did the San Francisco Examiner take down a Reuters news story on this topic because it was afraid of getting sued? Sure looks that way.
Of course that online trade journal TheWrap did get sued. Forone million dollarsto be exact. But then it responded with a Motion to Strike and that took care of that. And then TheWrap wrote about how it won, big-time. Then I linked to its story (and the entire decision itself) and now it sure looks like I’m the next to get sued.
Uh, do I know that this lawyer represented/s that lady? No, not all. I mean, I assume that’s the case, but what’s this “as you know” stuff?
Does the lawyer really want/expect me to retract the entire blog, all 6000 posts? (Does the lawyer actually know what a blog is? Apparently not.)
Does the lawyer want to write my blog posts for me, you know, using his point of view? Sure looks that way. Is that his right? And how can I retract something that’s not wrong?
And I’m supposed to rely on CA law about retractions what apply to the MSM, but not really? So what’s the point of bringing that up?
And I’m “not authorized” by the lawyer to disclose the contents of the lawyer letter so I can’t do it? Really? Well, similarly, I’m not authorized by that lawyer to have a delicious Taco Bell Doritos Locos taco for lunch, so does that mean I can’t have that for lunch IRL? And I can’t show the letter to anybody, even to get help with how to respond? Is that fair dinkum? I think not.
So who else in the bay area has gotten these kinds of communications from Down South? I don’t know.
Anyway, I guess I’ll take that email chain* out of the Spam folder and put it into the Archive folder and await further developments.
But I’ll think to myself, “Man, don’t you realize you just lost, in a big way, on the very same topic in the very same state?”
*Apparently, Elisabeth Thieriot herself sent me an email last month as well, on purpose, or by mistake, or something in betwixt. I’ll tell her what I told my grandmother,** about how Reply All is kind of an advanced email technique best left to the younger generation, you know, so you don’t email people by mistake.
** I still can’t believe she got a Hyundai, after all those decades of her having large RWD Ford products such as the Mercury Grand Marquis. She says her new ride is a “good snow car.”
“A Los Angeles judge threw out a lawsuit against TheWrap News on Wednesday, ruling that an article about movie financier Elisabeth Thieriot was both accurate and “took pains” in reporting on a production dispute with her co-producer. Judge Barbara M. Scheper of Los Angeles Superior Court sided with the news organization in granting an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss Thieriot’s complaint on the grounds that it had no probability of success on its merits.”
And you journos should check out the ruling – it’s very accessible.