Thoughts from Coachella

So I just got back from Coachella and figured I'd share some thoughts and bands that appealed to me. Plus, enough of you asked that I figured it'd be easier to write it down once. If nothing else, be sure to read about and listen to the last 3 bands on this post. Without further ado...

First off, some bands that stuck out to me...

The Ting Tings - UK rock band. They put on a great show and are a solid band. Lead singer Katie White really stole the show and worked the crowd. That's Not My Name is their hit song, and it's quite good, as are they.

MIA - put on a great show, as usual. Also notable for an interesting introduction featuring a montage of people holding up signs saying "MIA supports terrorism" and such, a reference to MIA's Sri Lankan roots. Her background really come through in her work. For good measure (and in honor of the holiday) a link to that one song she does...

Yeah Yeah Yeahs - a close friend called them the best female-led rock group today, and they lived up to that assessment. Katie O (their lead) was charming and spunky, in-your-face yet the girl next door. (Yes, I have a bit of a crush on her. Judging by the Borat-themed "Hot!" some dude next to yelled, I'm not the only one.) My favorite song is Heads Will Roll, but others might disagree.

Paul McCartney - showed up, started with some solid solo tunes, rocked out the last half of the set with classic Beatles, including Blackbird, Let It Be, Drive My Car, A Day in the Life, Something (played acoustic on a ukulele given to him by George), and Hey Jude. People sang, danced, and cried over his awesomeness. There was much peace and love.

The Killers - amazing band and an even more amazing set. Being the headline on Saturday night, they were the biggest act and didn't disappoint. I managed to get less than 50 feet from the front, and it was an experience to remember. From the opener (Human) all the way to the encore, it was difficult to tell whether we were, in fact, humans or dancers (yes, I know that was an awful pun). Seriously, though, it was one of the best music experiences of my life, and I'd strongly recommend seeing them if you have the chance.

Finally, the 3 bands I most want to shout from the rooftops about...

Tinawiren - first off, they have one of the most amazing and inspirational stories out there. In short, they are Tuareg (a nomadic people from western Africa), and their music speaks to the Tuareg movement for indepenence from Mali. Their sound is melodic rather than harmonic (a bit like Indian music) and their music is in French and Tamashek, so it's tougher than Western music to embrace immediately. Once you do, though, you're in for a treat. Their story, music, and spirit combined in a way that I can't quite put into words. Check them out.

Fleet Foxes - as they are a folksy band (they describe themselves as "baroque harmonic pop jams"), I wasn't expecting anything mindblowing from them going in. To be sure, I love their songs and think they have one of the most unique sounds out there - simple yet sufficiently complex music with very tight vocal harmonies (a bit like Simon and Garfunkel, actually). And to this end, they delivered with songs like White Winter Hymnal. What blew me away, though, was their (potential) diversity of sound. Much of their current stuff is like White Winter Hymnal, slow and great sounding, but they really rocked out on a few tunes, and they did it in their own way. Ultimately, they are able to maintain their sound regardless of the genre of music they're doing (sort of like how Coldplay or U2 have that same it in all their songs - slow, fast, rock anthem, or love ballad). They're already a great band, but if they explore with their music and push the envelope, I think they could be huge.

K'Naan - I'll go with what my buddy said about this guy - "It would have been worth the 500 mile drive to see just him." Like Tinawiren, K'Naan's story is ridiculously awesome and inspirational. Born in Somalia, he braved Mogadishu before making it to America and then Canada, where he taught himself English and eventually got into hip hop and spoken word.

I really can't say enough about this guy. First and foremost, he is pure genius. His lyrics are in the vein of Tupac and Lupe - meaningful and often poignant, and his wordplay and flow are out of this world. I'll post more of his spoken word when I can, but he did a couple peices at Coachella. I couldn't find my favorite of the two, but here is one (it's the lyrics to Somalia, which is also one of his songs). Secondly, he's extremely gifted musically - he can sing and rap, and he even rocks out on songs like If Rap Gets Jealous and Bang Bang. Third, he's on a mission. He has seen things most of us can hardly imagine, and he wants to share them with the world. He is extremely intelligent and socially conscious, and he knows how to use his music to convey a point and open eyes, both emotionally and rationally. He could really do some great things...

Oh, and I couldn't forget - one of his best songs: Wavin' Flag. Enjoy.

A closing thought (or rather, incoherent rambling) for me was the role of music in defining and shaping cultural memes. Music has always brought people together (and it was great seeing this in its literal form this past weekend, with 18,000 camping out at the 3 day festival, not to mention those who came to the festival just during the days), but it's mostly stayed out of politics and society in the mainstream as of today.

I wonder if that's about to change. Music can be a glue in the building of social movements and has done so in the past (the 60s being the most salient example). As society continues to open its eyes to the major issues our planet is facing (sustainability, war, etc.), music may well play a powerful role in speeding that process along. For example, it's impossible to listen to K'Naan and not be moved to think more deeply about what's going on in Somalia. If other artists start to take it on themselves to give voice to the unheard or to society's overlooked ills, it will be interesting to see what comes of it...

In defense of pirates

Wanted to pass along a great article I came across about the Somali pirates that are heavily in the news. People tend to to antagonize the pirates (and I'm in no way condoning hijacking ships, taking hostages, etc.), but it's important to see things from their point of view...

http://www.businessinsider.com/a-partial-defense-of-somali-pirates-2009-4

Blog back online

Due to some domain issues I overlooked, my blog has been offline recently. However, it's back now, both at www.ravimishra.com and ravimishra.com. Posts are on their way - enjoy.

Start your own Athleague Network

We're proud to announce that Athleague has now opened it's doors so that anyone can start their own Athleague network to run a sports league or team, or even organize a pick up game. You'll have your own URL and be Master of your (Athleague) Domain! (Yeah, we love Seinfeld. What can you say.)

You can sign up at athleague.com by clicking Start a Network, or you can just click here. Be sure to designate the network as "Private" unless you're starting one for an intramural program at a university.

So sign up, explore, and let us know what you think. We're going to be adding tons of functionality over the next few months. For example, right now, you'll have to organize a team to get a pick up game together (have the members join the team and then plan the pick up game as an event), but we're working on making pick up games independent.

And we really want to hear from you. Be sure to give us feedback and let us know what you think. The changes you want to see will be the changes we make. Enjoy!

Why Yahoo! Sucks

I'm looking for the full text of Obama's inauguration speech (to reference a line out of it), so I google it. The top link is a Yahoo news story that claims to have the full text. I click on it, and it's a dead link. Ok, I guess that happens from time to time.

Then, beneath the Yahoo 404 message, it offers Yahoo search results for my google search phrase (obama inauguration speech full text). Again, the top link is a Yahoo news story claiming to have the full text (though a different URL than the Google result). Again, it's a dead link.

So... this Yahoo news page is down (and has been for a while, I think), but even Yahoo's own search results haven't updated and continue to send me to a bad page. Perhaps this isn't so bad, but for some reason I don't seem to ever have ran into this problem with Google...

PS - random issue encountered while typing this post: Do you capitalize the "G" in Google when you're using it as a verb? As a noun, I see the need for capitalization. As an adjective as well. But for a verb, I'm thinking no... (wow, I must be tired...)

Quick thoughts on Slumdog Millionaire

Wow. Slumdog Millionaire won 8 Oscars tonight, including Best Picture.

I think it's a great development for movies as a whole, even though I'm not entirely sure it was literally the Best Picture. As films go, I thought Dark Knight and Wall-E were better, and I haven't even see Benjamin Button, Milk, and a few others yet.

But, at a larger level, I think it deserved the award (and all the others it got) because it pushed the envelope and hopefully has ushered in a new era in film-making. It proved that America has an appetite and curiosity for cultures other than it's own. While other movies have been based in foreign countries, Slumdog truly broke ground by focusing so intimately on a way of life that is so different from that which we have here in America. And what's more is that Americans were genuinely interested. The movie became a hit not because it was that well made (some plot elements were sketchy) or had fantastic acting (I'm sure I wasn't the only one to get some cheesy Hindi movie vibes) but because it brought to life a culture and people in a way that fascinated viewers but also allowed them to relate to it at some level.

Aside from the pride of seeing a movie from the land of my birth attract such a wide following and critical acclaim, Slumdog appealed to me most for this very reason. Each culture is to be celebrated, and I really hope Slumdog's success encourages a more international and eclectic side of Hollywood. Perhaps it's naive or premature, but I honestly believe the movie could mark a turning point in the types of movies that get green lit, and we could see an increased number of foreign culture-focused films come out of Tinseltown.

The American people, it seems, are perhaps not as shallow and self-centered as pop culture might have you believe...

(As always with this blog, and especially now that I'm venturing to realms about which I honestly have no clue, you probably want to take the above with a huge grain of salt. I watch about 5 movies a year. It just strikes me as ridiculous/awesome that a movie so about India won so many Oscars and has gotten so much national attention. Americans seem to be fascinated with Indian people (makes sense, we're sort of awesome), but I think/hope it also reflects a larger fascination with the world as a whole...)

Why we don't stand a chance (a food post)

I thought I'd break up the depressing economic/political commentary with a random moment of insight (or madness) about food. I ventured to the kitchen for a snack recently and, lo and behold, there was a box of Wheat Thins on the counter. Despite knowing to avoid packaged food and yearning for some delicious Indian food (dahl and chaval (lentil soup and rice)), I couldn't help myself, and snagged a couple while checking out the box.

A few things popped out. The marketing on the package screamed "HEALTHY" - they were trying to do everything they could to convince the consumer that this product did the body good. The Wheat Thins bragged about having "low fat" and was covered in little wheat symbols and such. Of course, quick turn to the nutrition facts showed that, despite it's relatively low fat, it had huge amounts of sodium (11% of your daily value in one serving).

As a side note, to channel a little Michael Pollan, that's the secret of packaged food - it hits you with abnormally high concentrations of fats, sodium, and/or sugar (those far, far higher than any food found in nature). That's it. Nearly every single packaged food is basically a carrier for one or more of those macronutrients. It doesn't matter how "healthy" the product says it is, or whatever cool marketing it has on it. Just fat, sugar, and/or sodium (or maybe one of those cancer-causing fake sugars).

But it just tastes good. Or, rather, the instant it hits your tongue, the chemicals that go surging through your brain feel awesome for a split second. Because in reality, it doesn't taste good at all - go try and taste whatever packaged food is lying in your kitchen. Try to savor the thing the entire time it's in your mouth. It's impossible - at some point, the "food" becomes a sort of cardboard-textured mess. Compare this to fruit or veggies, or any home-cooked meal - stuff that has flavor, texture, and true taste. There really is no comparison - seriously, try the experiment.

And this is why we don't stand a chance. I know this (and I've probably pissed off friends and family by belaboring the point since reading Michael Pollan's Omnivore's Dilemma last summer), and I still couldn't help myself.

The companies that make our food have intimate knowledge of our evolutionary response system, and leverage it to make food that they know will release a flood of "reward" chemicals in our brain and keep us coming back for more. To top it off, their food can brag about things like "low fat," "low sugar," "antioxidants," and "omega 3 fatty acids" while the spinach (very low fat), banana (very low, and natural, sugar), pomegranate (full of antioxidants), and avocado (deliciously filled with omega 3s) must remain silent, unable to make a case for being purchased.

And they wonder why we're the most unhealthy nation on the planet...

Market Reaction

Just a quick note, but, wow, the market really hated Geithner's financial rescue plan. I really liked what Obama had to say yesterday about the stimulus (we should be investing in projects that will save us money and reap rewards down the road), but I have to side with the market on this one - Geithner's plan doesn't cut it.

Bottom line is that most US banks today are probably insolvent. I think he failed to articulate a clear strategy to turn this around (though the public-private partnership to public toxic assets might be a start), and he completely missed the notion of holding people responsible and investigating the fraud that occurred. And the latter point is important not because of vengeance but rather trust - ultimately, his plan does not address the root of the problem, which is a completely lack of faith in US markets.

Also, here is a very interesting article in the Times chronicling what apparently was the internal debate on the stimulus. I'm disappointed to see the exec compensation limitations largely left out...

Changes (and hey Stu)

After my last post, a good friend from college, Stu Stein, sent me a great one line email:

Dude, come back to your Whartonian roots. You've been spending too much time in Berkeley.

I reread my last post and laughed to myself. He's probably right. (Although, in my defense, Berkeley is great.)

Really, I'm not sure what to say. Times change, people change. For starters, I'm not sure I ever was much of a "Whartonian" in the first place - those of you who were there probably remember my rants on Wharton's culture or my stubborn desire to only wear sweats to class (mostly for comfort, but also as a metaphorical finger to all the kids who took themselves way too seriously:).

But Stu is right about one thing: I've shed much of my ideological support for capitalism.

Don't get me wrong - I am an entrepreneur, first and foremost (at least as professions go). And entrepreneurship needs capitalism, at some level.

But, ultimately, there needs to be a better check on two innate human flaws - short term thinking and greed. For all its merits, capitalism often encourages the former and always relies on the latter. Now, this is often a good thing, as pointed out by Milton Friedman in this must-watch for capitalism haters.

His point is simple - greed will exist regardless of the system in place, and capitalism is the best way to harness this greed to produce positive outcomes for society. However, he discounts one aspect of the situation, on which I'll base my argument against capitalism as we practice it: culture.

Basically, our culture in American has spiraled out of control. While greed is a fine driver for enterprise, when left unchecked, it can have disastrous consequences. And we encourage it, deifying the rich and famous, so much so that much of our population, particularly those at the top, the ones throwing around the kind of money and making the kind of decisions that can bring our economy to its knees, base their self-worth on their bank accounts.

Wow, this totally turned into a rant on materialism. Didn't intend for that to happen. But what are you going to do - it's true, and it's the root of our country's problem. Maybe I've changed and now I can see it, maybe it's always been there. Who knows.

And then the more important question - what do we do? How do you change culture? Because as long as we glorify extravagance and excessive opulence, our problems will continue, in one form or another. Clearly you can't solve the problem in one fell swoop, but if we had a society that shamed the bankers, regulators, and other perpetrators of the fraud and greed that led us here - truly put them to public shame - we'd be in better shape. If we didn't feel the need to buy another car, house, or flat screen TVs so intensely that we were willing to take out debt to do so, we probably wouldn't be here.

In short, we need a cultural force more powerful than capitalism to keep capitalism in check. Religion is the only one that comes to mind. But, of course, that brings us Nietzsche, and I'll leave you with his most famous words...

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers?

ps - for the record, I'm very agnostic and identify more with a godless religion (Buddhism) than any other. but the quote certainly frames our society from an interesting perspective.
pps - hey stu. having fun selling out in new york? :P

How do we keep this from happening again?

It's becoming increasingly clear that the banking sector, in particular, has messed up a lot of stuff. Yesterday, Senator Claire McCaskill introduced legislation to keep Wall Street salaries from being no higher than what the President makes ($400,000). While that's a good start, there is a deeper issue at play here: the long term effects of the crisis on business decisions.

Over the course of this crisis, it's become clear that poor, greedy decisions on the part of few have had dire consequences for the rest of the economy. Agents and tellers loaned money to people that weren't likely to pay it back, brokers mislabeled the risk of the packages of these loans, and executives and accountants hid (and continue to hide) the true nature of the losses their companies suffered.

Quite simply, these people screwed up, and now it is much worse than it otherwise would have been, for all of us. And yet, these same people, who - more than anyone else - caused this mess, are not only getting off scot-free, but they're also getting bonuses or, even if they lose their jobs, fat severance packages.

Yes, this is bad, and we're all getting pissed off, but the bigger issue that's been bothering me lately is the precedent that our actions will set for future executives and decision-makers. If we are too lax, we run the risk of encouraging corporate irresponsibility; if we're too harsh, we violate civil rights.

The problem is indeed quite complex. My knee-jerk reaction, and what I consider to be the most "fair" solution, is to have the people who are at fault pay for this, literally. I mean, we know who they are, we have a documented history of what they've done. At best, we could go through and "assign" an amount for each person to pay back - lowly loans salesmen would foot a small amount, complicit money managers a little more, and executives would be forced to pay back a significant portion of their salaries and bonuses that let them pocket the false wealth that they created.

Of course, such an action is impossible - it violates a number of civil liberties and sets a potentially dangerous precedent for government interference in the market (though it's the former that is probably the overriding reason at this point).

How about something a little more realistic? If we focus on the executives, we could make an example out of the heads of the companies, deterring future executives from allowing these practices to exist within their organization. This would be a powerful deterrent, but again the approach runs the risk of infringing on civil liberties.

But if we don't do something (and something significant), we'll create a larger problem for ourselves. There needs to be some sort of justice, to punish these men and women and ensure future citizens know that corruption, greed, and incompetence at these levels (which have the ability to bring our economy to its knees) will not be tolerated.

Yes, our crisis has been of many causes, many of which are above my head. But there is a clear line that has been crossed, and we must ensure the line is not crossed again (or at least give people a reason not to cross it).

It'll be interesting to see how the government handles this. And, as a side note, it'd be great if Obama said tomorrow that he'd be forgoing his $400,000 salary and encourage others within the government to do so as well if they have the means...

(Too bad none of this will likely happen, and the criminals who played a part is causing this crisis will probably go unpunished...)