(:)(:)(:)(:) for Closer
At first snichols was a little disappointed that the movie Closer wasn't, as snichols had hoped, pronounced "clozer" and actually about John Kerry's miraculous win of the Presidency. Instead, it's "closer" and about all kinds of cozy closeness between 4 dear people.

Ok, really, it's a brilliant Mike Nichols film (is there any other kind?). Although Jude Law and Natalie Portman are excellent, Clive Owens completely steals the film with his flawless, vulnerable, sexy, despicable performance. Julia Roberts is her usual blah underwhelming self except for one flash of truth which Owens teases out of her in an unforgettable scene between them.

Amazingly and painfully accurate dialogue--capturing perfectly the male obsession with the actual sex had during infidelity: who, when, where, what positions, rather than the seemingly more important question of why.

Critics other than snichols have called it a cold film without love or likeable characters. snichols isn't sure what it says about her, but she didn't find it that way. She thought everyone was sympathetic, and that it was as much about love as it was about sex.

But the best was the conversation overheard after the film in the bathroom, between 4 very young women (17? 18? who can tell anymore)

Girl1: Oh. My. God.

Girl2: I know.

Girl3: I so know.

Girl4: Dude. When you said it was a Jude Law and Julia Roberts film I had no idea it would be like this.

Girl2: Don't look at me! I didn't know. She knew (pointing at Girl3).

Girl3: I did not know.

Girl1: All I know is that people talked about sex all the time and they said nasty, dirty things that I have never heard anyone talk about before and I never want to hear again.

Girl 2: I know.

Girl 3&4: I so know.

Poem by snicholsdaughter (8)

Time feels like the wind blowing fast and moving on.

Time speeds up when I'm playing soccer on the field with

my friends.

Time stands still when I'm watching a movie.

Time slows down when I'm doing nothing.

Time is my friend when there's something ahead that

feels dull.

What does time mean to you?

Time evaporates when I'm deep in thought.

At the center of time is a map that uses plus signs and

minus signs to show how places across the world

have different time than the model city, Greenwich.

Time gives us a way to know when we should be

somewhere.

Time is like air to me.

snichols' Kids' Letters to Santa

Dear Santa,

this year for christmas can I please have a digital camera and the book The Grim Grotto by Lemony Snicket.

Thank you,

NM (9)

Dear Santa,

For Christmas I would like:

-->A watch

-->A broomstick that really flies. This is how it flies: powered by two AA batteries. (on and off switch on the broom) If needed add little wings.

-->A snitch that really flies by a long wire (please don't make the wire to noticeable.) On and off switch on the snitch.

P.S. please note that I would like the last two on my list more than the first one. If you can't get the last two please leave a note telling me why. (If you can't get them this year please try next year.

From, EM (8)

Read the Angry Girl
snichols is not too busy to be angry, but she is too busy to stay on top of why she's angry. As Nancy Rader informed me, Angry Girl is not. Read her website and see all the latest on election fraud, election watch, etc.

But don't give up on snichols. She'll be back in the saddle yet. She's finally almost through reading What's the Matter with Kansas? --mandatory read for all of you. Hilariously funny at the same time as being an important expose into how we got to the point where Angry Girl and snichols are so angry.

(:)(:)(:)(:) for Wifeswap
snichols returned from Cabo (with corn-rows, btw) only to find that Bill felt snichols had given the cohousing Wifeswap a bad review while Bill loved it and thought it was great tv.

Let's be clear: snichols thought it was great tv too! It was phenomenally entertaining to her. So 4 snouts up for Wifeswap. snichols hasn't watched last night's (non-cohousing) episode but taped it (no tevo here--Bill is snichols' tevo) and is looking forward to it.

Back from Cabo
snichols just got back from 5 days in Cabo. Read Sara Nichols' (a very close relative of snichols) column, Eye on the Pie in this quarter's issue of Rudolf's Diner (edited by snichols' brother--it's all very nepotistic). Indeed, read Rudolf's Diner.

Wifeswap
Snichols emerged from a Thanksgiving/8 year old birthday/bad cold fog to catch her first (and possibly last) episode of "Wifeswap" tonight--found it hilarious/disturbing/thought provoking.

In this one, more aptly titled "husband swap," a huge bearded biker who lives for motor vehicles, television and pissing off his neighbors, swaps lives with a small bearded environmentalist living for cycling, chanting, and composting in Colorado cohousing.

The hilarious and disturbing fact was that the enviro's organic, yoga-loving, compound-clinging, frigid wife and two adorable toddlers absolutely bonded and loved the biker while the biker's tv dinner eating, cat piss tolerating, fossil-fuel burning wife and 3 rude and reluctant teenage (step)daughters basically wanted to set fire to the enviro in his sleep.

But it wasn't all bad--each family learned from the other. The cohousers learned that wearing leather, eating steak in front of the tv and having your kids puke from cotton candy at an amusement park can be great fun. While the biker trash learned that they really do hate recycling, cleaning up their house, eating vegetables and talking to each other as much as they thought they would.

Why is this all thought-provoking when it's an extreme gag cooked up by the networks for entertainment? Well, maybe it's not, but here's what snichols thinks we should consider: if most of the Bush supporters think that liberals are like the enviro, judgmental, out of touch with reality and just plain not fun, maybe that's an image we need to work on.

Why? Because it's not true. Although snichols' life may be somewhat closer to the judgmental environmentalist's than the fun-loving biker's, she basically lives a happy medium--that is, she lives in cohousing, recycles, and eats vegetables, but she also wears leather, eats meat, has sex and watches tv--in short, you can be doing right by the planet and having fun--they're not mutually exclusive.

Back in the Ukraine
It seems like such an obvious point, someone must have made it. But snichols emerges from a turkey haze to wonder: why is that people are shutting down the entire country and factories in the Ukraine because the opposition candidate didn't get declared the winner of the election and here we're mocking our fellow democrats for wanting to look into it?

On a related note, does anyone detect any irony in the US demanding a fair election there but not here? Please flood snicholsblog with all the well-written punditry on this very point that she's missed...

Special paranoid point: snichols notices that on the precise day that Russia considers switching some of its investments from dollars to Euros, the US publically backs the Ukraine candidate, not the one the Russians want--is a new post cold war chilliness moving in?

Why is snichols not blogging?
snichols is not really sure why she hasn't blogged this week. She is not, contrary to popular belief, still rocking alone in the dark in a room moaning "mommy." You forget. snichols lives in California where you must pay large amounts of money to spend a weekend in a large retreat center doing this with hundreds of others. To date, snichols has drawn the line at that (although she's scrolling through websites even as you read this...).

No. snichols would like to think that she is thinking. She is thinking about hate and why she thinks it is okay to hate Republicans while she wants everyone else to love everyone else. And she is thinking about "hippocritism," which is what her son accused her of today--hitting the mark so squarely that he used his leverage to extract a promise from snichols not to drink diet coke for 2 days (but realistically how will he know when he is at school? and would the exclusion apply to caffeine-free diet coke?).

See? snichols is thinking. and that, for now, will have to suffice.

Randi Rhodes Rants
Hey, snichols doesn'tt know whether to put any stock in it, because snichols has found her to be wrong at times before, but Randi Rhodes, afternoon host for Air America Radio, has quite a rant going about the election. She is absolutely convinced it was stolen. She bolsters her case with the following:
She says that in Cuyahoga County (in which Cleveland, Ohio resides) there were 97,000 more Bush votes cast then there were registered voters in the county.

She had experts on which cite the scientific nature of various exit polls that showed Kerry with a 5% lead in Florida and Ohio. She cites evidence that if you compare counties with verifiable voting systems to counties with unverifiable voting systems, you find that in counties with verifiable voting system a higher percentage of Republicans voted for Kerry than did Democrats voted for Kerry in nonverifiable counties.

She says that for Bush to have won the populous Florida counties, virtually 100% of independents and 30% of Democrats would have had to have voted for Bush. Yet, some 60% of independents and 95% of Democrats have reported voting for Kerry.

You can listen a long "sermon" she gave in the style of a southern hellfire preacher "get thee behind me, exit pollster" that kind of thing by clicking here Listen here and then scrolling down to "sound from the show" for November 9th.

Unbelievably profane and cathartic (not for the faint of heart): http://www.fuckthesouth.com

The MSNBC link made hot.

Hope and Dreams Presumed Dead
Okay, snichols is coming out of the closet: snichols doesn't want to get any more emails telling her why not to slit her wrists or leave the country or how we need to stop whining and organize. She is not through whining. Not by a long shot. In fact, she'll go so far as to say, don't read snicholsblog anymore if you don't want to hear whining. snichols feels like someone whose loved one is presumed dead and everyone else has given them up for missing except her.

But wait, there's more!
At the risk of being branded a paranoid, non fact-based, black helicopter conspiracy theorist for the rest of her days, she's going to say it, unambiguously: snichols doesn't think George W. Bush won this election.

snichols suspects foul play on a massive scale. snichols points to an MSNBC story last night which showed thousands of more people voting in key Florida precincts than were registered in those precincts. snichols points to emerging and growing scores of stories out of Ohio and Iowa of people pushing the Kerry button and seeing it come up Bush.

Let's fight: but for 2004, not 2008
What is it with you people? For months in a run up to this election we hear about voter fraud, voter suppression, voter intimidation, and easy chance of hacking into Diebold machines without paper trails. Then Bush appears to get hundreds of thousands of votes more than Kerry and we say, "oh. he won. he must've done it fair and square, it wasn't close."

Well, would you make it close if you were going to steal an election? snichols wouldn't. if snichols were doing the stealing, she'd steal it but good.

So what now?
Okay, snichols, you convinced me. The election was stolen. But how do we prove it and isn't it too late because Kerry conceded? snichols admits. It looks bad. Damn bad. But let's get some backlash going here. Find out: who is looking into this? Who is doing what? What can we do? Who can we call? snichols knows there are people who haven't given up and she is joining them. In church last week, a woman whispered to snichols that there was a rumor in her community that Kerry's victory was still coming, but on "CP time." snichols is too much of a scaredy white liberal to spell out what that means if you don't know, but it gives snichols hope. And you?

(:)(:)(:)(:)
Four Snouts up for I "Heart" Huckabees
Nothing to shake you out of a post-election slump like a good movie, but hey, snichols would call this one great. It's her new favorite movie. Jeez, what's not to like? Lily Tomlin and Dustin Hoffman as existential dectectives alone makes it worth it. But it's brilliantly written, philisophical and political at the same time.

This movie, one observer said, is like What the Bleep do we Know? only better and funnier. snichols totally agrees--what wants in to the culture right now? Fascinating: profound transcendant beliefs about the inherent connections between all of us coinciding in a world where the winning sports and political theme out of Texas is "Just a bunch of idiots"

Shit. If we're all connected, what does that make snichols?

Frustration with your comments--methodology
For months snichols has set up the blog so that you can comment freely and have it posted either anonymously or not without her editing or intervention.

Yet none of you ever avail yourselves of this offer. Instead you persist in flooding snichols' email with replies to the email you get with the post, but you rarely make it clear whether you want snichols to post it or not and whether you would prefer to remain anonymous.

Could it be that you don't know how to do this? You need to click on the blog link at the bottom of the email and then click on comment and choose whether it's anonymous. It's that easy. Please do it.

Also, soon snichols is going to finally implement Daniel Weintraub's advice and stop emailing you my posts. snichols will wean you by emailing you the link but not the posts.

Culture Clash at the New Safeway
Everything about the spankin' new Safeway on 19th screams upscale mom, shop here: cool architectural features, gourmet items and corresponding wines everywhere, organic meats and vegetables prominently displayed. But that's not who is there on a sunny Saturday afternoon in Sacramento: it's hard-livin' white folks in for their cigarettes and quarts of beer and hard-working brown folks clutching coupons, food stamps, diapers and frozen food. More the crowd snichols remembers from shopping at the dismal Safeway on Capitol Hill in DC...well, and snichols, their target demographic.

So what does this mean for the latest midtown retail innovation? snichols has no earthly idea (so Bill sort of indicates he doesn't know why snichols is blogging about it and he has a point). Maybe the Land Park moms pass through on their way home from work weekdays. Maybe they will never come. In which case will it stay upscale in its focus or start having different displays?

Personally, snichols is cool with the current configuration--a great supermarket convenient to everyone with stuff for everyone. Good work, Safeway (unlikely kudos to a corporation snichols normally avoids, but hey, they're union and not Walmart).

Another reader (who is remaining nameless, only because it's 11:41pm and I forgot to ask his permission) doesn’t blame the “whole defeat” on gay marriage, but notes:

that homophobia was used as a tactic in this election to a degree we have never seen in our lifetime. Karl Rove, remember, said three years ago that, after the 2000 election, there was no middle in American politics. He noted that there were about 4 million evangelical Christians who did not vote in 2000, and determined that those four million could make the difference for Bush.

Abortion not being what it was as an issue on the political landscape, and stem cell research involving too much science for most people’s taste, Rove decided that gay marriage would be used as the bait to lure those people (a) into registering and (b) into voting. The constitutional amendment in Congress was only one part of that strategy. Similar (and worse) constitutional amendments on the ballots in key states (e.g. Ohio, Michigan) were placed there specifically to assure a higher turnout than would otherwise be expected from those “missing evangelicals.”

The strategy worked. First, Bush’s margin of victory in the popular vote was 3.5 million. Can’t say how many of those were from the missing 4 million from 2000, but the numbers are close enough for government work. Second, Bush’s victory margin in Ohio specifically tracks the difference between (a) the additional numbers of voters Democrats brought to the polls and (b) the additional number of voters Republicans brought to the polls. Among Ohio’s voters, 22 percent said that “moral values” were the most important issue for them. Not Iraq. Not terrorism. Not the economy (which, by the way, sucked in Ohio). “Moral values.” Read “gay marriage.” This 22 percent was a plurality among ALL issues that voters in Ohio said were most important to them. And of those, 85 percent voted for Bush.

Certainly, this election was about other things. But it sickens me, as a gay man, that the existing prejudice against us was used – that WE were used – as a tool of political strategy. Not since Nixon’s Southern Strategy has a political party (interestingly, the same political party) so nakedly used a minority against the other party.

Of course I regret that this tactic worked. But of course it worked. Karl Rove is apolitical and amoral, and he has an appallingly astute sense of the mechanics of ugliness, the machine of our dark souls. There were plenty of other gay issues that could have been talked about – and which a majority of Americans now agree on. A federal law protecting gays against workplace discrimination has over 54 percent support among all Americans. Even civil unions now enjoy broad enough support that George W. said he would not oppose them. But on marriage – and only on marriage – is there still majority support across the board against us. The President (and, to be honest the press) did not focus on any of those more acceptable areas. The focus was relentlessly, obsessively, on the single gay issue that a majority of Americans oppose.

I give political strategy an awful lot of leeway. I am, if anything, a political realist. But the use of gay marriage in this election is beyond the pale, is appalling beyond any measure. And I am confident that this victory will embolden the religious right in ways we can’t yet anticipate.

snichols concedes...
After thinking it over last night, snichols is ready to concede the election to George Bush. The time for division is through...screeetch! NOOOOOOOO!!!!

snichols spent all day keeping busy, retail therapy and the like; the alternative was rocking in a fetal position with her thumb in her mouth moaning.

Meanwhile snichols' readers have been much more focussed on the "internets" and sending her all sorts of tidbits:

**One faithful reader muses that this is really for the best because Kerry would've been set up for failure with a Republican Congress and the mess in Iraq, now the blame will be laid squarely at the Republicans' even larger feet. snichols finds this cold comfort since she already thought the whole f---ing mess was laid at their feet--they've been running the whole show for 4 years!

**Meanwhile in her analysis of the debacle, Arianna Huffington, who possibly is not a devotee of snicholsblog lays the blame squarely at defeat of Kerry (get it, the feet, defeat? hmmm...)

**Another reader feels tempted to blame the whole defeat on gay marriage but then rises above it and realizes that democracy is messy and these are growing pains. snichols admits she isn't feeling very gay today.

**Perhaps to comfort snichols, her most faithful contributor, Bill, offers these two thoughts:

1) The Colorado and Vermont legislatures made decisive Democratic gains in this election.
2) This poem by Irish poet Seamus Heaney:

"History says,
Don't hope
On this side of the grave.
But then, once in a lifetime
The longed-for tidal wave
Of justice can rise up,
And hope and
history rhyme."

Spiritual growth advisory in effect: in an upcoming post, snichols reserves the right to discuss the possibility of forgiveness and reconciliation (but sorry, not today).

No on Prop 64 Ads
Even though its proponents, the Chamber of Commerce and big tobacco and oil have been outspending its opponents by more than 10 to 1, this initiative may be going down. Part of the reason may be these great tv ads gotten out by the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights and others.

Click here to view them. And send them to any California voter you know who might be tempted to vote away their right to clean air and privacy because they Chamber of Commerce tells them it will help small businesses.

Bill's Excited Today...
...and it isn't just because I slept with my hair in curlers last night to prepare for creating "helmet hair" for the most terrifying costume I could think of: a Republican woman (red suit with matching pumps, big pearls, hair that doesn't move being the key ingredients). The late-night curlers prompted Bill to quip "if Republican women sleep in curlers, no wonder they're not worried about birth control..."

But no, that isn't why Bill's excited. Bill's excited because this morning, for the first time in weeks, electoral-vote.com has Kerry ahead in electoral votes and the trend is very much in our favor. Zogby has Bush nationally down to 46% and Kerry at 47%. And there's some interesting comparisons with 2000 if you scroll down below, 4 days out in 2000, Zogby had Gore at 42%, Bush at 46% and Zogby was the only pollster to accurately predict Gore winning the national vote.

Bonus points: here's what one Red Sox fan from Western Massachusetts has to say from the campaign trail in razor thin close New Hampshire:

I went up to Keene NH yesterday afternoon to help out any way I could... ended up at an intersection holding a kerry-edwards sign at a visibility. I understand that keene is more liberal than the rest of the state (they were out of stickers to wear btw so I opted for a "sportsman for kerry" sticker over an "italian americans for Kerry" sticker feeling that the former was slightly less a lie: hey i'm a sox fan) but I was pleased and energized to see that the kerry people outnumbered the bush people 3 or 4-1 and seeing all the young people made me think maybe we are reaching those who do not show up in the polls....Josh marshall of talkingpoints.com says the election will come down to field organizations and the springsteen funded America Votes (or whatever it's called) was also highly visible...keep your hopes up and fingers crossed.....

Zogby Predicts Kerry will Win
According to Bill, Zogby himself appeared on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart yesterday and in response to Jon's question of who will win the election, predicted Kerry will win due to the undecided factor breaking against the incumbent. He then said that he hoped he'd be right because otherwise he'd have to spend 48 hours in a fetal position

He's not alone...

Word on the Street
Positive responses all around to yesterday's blog give me the courage to blog exhaustedly tonight as well. Anne B. reports people calling her cell phone back from Colorado to California to report that they are supporting Kerry.

Less than thrilling phonecalls today to Cincinnati (how the hell do you spell this godforsaken city? "see eye en see eye en en ay tee eye?" Disappointedly they were voter ID. Voter ID less than 5 days before a presidential election in a key city in a key state? Seems wierd to me. (for lay people, this means we weren't calling already identified Kerry supporters to get them out to vote, we were still calling random Democrats and independents figuring out who was for Kerry, a much tougher job)

Out of 10 calls answered by real people, 5 seemed genuinely annoyed and pro Bush--Cincinnati is just too darn close to Kentucky, I've always believed it was a southern city.

This depressed and worried me a little, but here's what's what: the Boss played Kerry out to "No Surrender" to a crowd of 80,000 in Madison today. So baby we were born to run.

Current thoughts
Look. I've been too busy actually working to try to guarantee the outcome of this election to blog about it. And that's a good thing. So stop with the complaints already. You're all out doing it too, I think.

Anyway, phonebanking voters in swing states (Ohio and Colorado) this week here's the thing: We're trying to get low propensity voters who have been identified as Kerry supporters to the polls. Now I've phonebanked for years. And normally when you call these people, you annoy them, you bug them, you nag them and most of them don't respond or vote, but a few do and that's what makes it worth it.

Well, this year It's like this:
Kid who answers: Mom, it's Sara from the Kerry campaign calling, should I just tell her ...
Mom voter: Gimme that phone! Hi. Sara? You can definitely count on my vote for John Kerry. And I'm getting all my friends out to vote too.
Sara: Do you know where your polling place is?
Mom: Oh yeah. You bet I do. I'll see you there.
Sara: I don't think so.
(okay, this last line is a fabrication, although it is unlikely that I'll see them at the polls in Ohio).

The point is these people are pumped. They're not angry that we're calling. They're not annoyed. They want to vote. They plan to vote. And they mean it to count. Something's different and it's making me feel good about next week.

Bill Magavern's California/Sacramento Ballot Measure Recommendations*
*Annoted By Snichols--in other words--in all instances Snichols agrees with Bill except where noted
[Note: out-of-state readers need not care now but be prepared to care 3 years from now when these same ballot measures come your way!]

BALLOT MEASURES, NOVEMBER 2004 by Bill Magavern

CALIFORNIA-WIDE PROPOSITIONS

1A – NO
65 – NO
Both of these stem from local governments’ efforts to stop the state from taking their money. I completely sympathize with their cause. The problem is that their solutions would constitutionalize our current dysfunctional system of local government finance, which is so sales-tax driven that cities and counties chase auto malls and big-box stores, wreaking havoc with land-use planning.

59 – YES
This Sunshine Amendment will put the public’s right to know about government meetings and records into the Constitution, which will help to counter the secrecy efforts of state and local officials. Our public records and open meetings laws are pretty good, but they’re routinely abused by governments.

60A – YES
Saves the state some money and has no downside.

60 – YES
62 -- NO
60 would preserve the status quo, with political parties having the right to choose their own candidates through primaries. 62 would bring to CA the Louisiana system, in which all candidates compete in the same non-partisan primary, with the top 2 facing off in the general election. All the rhetoric about non-partisanship may sound nice, but the result of 62 would be a magnification of the role of money in campaigns. Progressive candidates who now usually win primaries in Democratic areas would have to face business-funded opposition in November. The political reform that we need (along with nonpartisan redistricting) is to provide clean money funding to candidates with grassroots support, and 62 would go in the opposite direction. The small gains to be made by less-conservative Republicans would be far outweighed by the increase in corporate dominance of both major parties. Also, the minor parties oppose 62 because it would make it almost impossible for them to even make it to the November ballot in most of the state.

61 – YES
63 – YES
67—?
71 – NO
These initiatives all involve funding for particular types of health care, so they all represent ballot-box budgeting, but in different ways. The most progressive is 63, because it uses a tax on the very rich to fund necessary mental health services. Some oppose it because they want to tax the wealthy for more general purposes, and in a better legislative world I would agree. The problem is that it takes 2/3 of both houses of the Legislature, plus the Governor, to raise taxes. Given the number of knee-jerk anti-tax zealots on the Republican side, I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for a tax increase on the people Dubya calls “my base.”

Stem cell research should proceed, but should the state spend $6 billion (which is what 71 will come to with the interest on the bonds) on this one form of biomedical research, which may or may not eventually lead to some kind of new cures? I’d much rather see medical research dollars doled out based on some kind of competitive grant process on the merits, rather than put on the ballot with a lot of funding from venture capital companies. As the Center for Genetics and Society says, 71 “grants control over a huge allocation of public funds for controversial research to a particular set of interested parties insulated from public accountability.” CA Nurses Assn opposes for similar reasons. Just on grounds of fiscal sanity, I have to oppose such a huge bond measure at a time when the state can not afford it. I realize that 71 appeals to Bush-bashing instincts, but those can be put to much better use by joining get-out-the-vote efforts, by phone or in person, in the swing states.

I’ll vote for 61, because funding capital costs of children’s hospitals is a much more appropriate role for the state and the amount of bond funding is much less.

I’m still undecided on 67. It does dedicate an ongoing revenue source to a genuine need – emergency rooms, trauma centers and health clinics. On the other hand, the revenue source, a sales tax on telephone service, is neither progressive nor directly linked to the cause being funded. Congress of CA Seniors, a credible group I’ve worked with, opposes 67 because “90% of the money goes directly to special interest groups.”
[Snichols, however, is decided on 67. She will support it because there is such a critical need and because they exempt the poor and cap the monthly amount to make it less regressive--She has fought for funding for emergency rooms and trauma centers before and the money aint there. The special interests are hospitals, clinics and emergency room doctors and I think we need them to get paid.]

64 – NO, NO, NO (yup, this is the campaign I’ve been active in). This is an attempt by big corporations to avoid accountability for their wrongdoing. The Unfair Competition Law has been an excellent tool for environmental and consumer groups to use directly against polluters and rip-off artists, because it allows anyone to sue over violations of the law. 64 would drastically limit such private enforcement, which would mean we would have to rely solely on government, which often lacks either the resources or the guts to take on corporate wrongdoers. Yes, some sleazy lawyers have abused the law, but they can be – and have been – disciplined without throwing out what makes this such a great law. Opposed by American Lung, CA Nurses, Consumers Union, AARP, Sierra Club and all the other major environmental groups.
[Snichols agrees and thinks you should click here to watch cute flash animation about the evils of Prop 64 and send it to all your friends because the no campaign is under-funded.]

66 – YES
This is the kind of common-sense reform of 3-strikes that’s been a long time coming. We’re now the only state that levels the draconian penalty of a 3rd strike for non-violent crimes.

68 – NO
70 – NO
These are attempts by greedy gambling interests to expand their profits. Both would allow casinos to run roughshod over workers’ rights and environmental safeguards. Even if these fail, we’ll soon be the biggest gambling state in the country, a dubious distinction. A number of the tribes that operate casinos worked out compacts with the governor that allow them to expand with some baseline protections for workers and the environment; 70 is backed by the tribes who weren’t willing to make such agreements.

69 – NO
I support DNA collection from convicted felons, because it can help solve crimes and establish the innocence of the wrongly convicted. My problem with this initiative is that it also would require DNA samples from anyone arrested for a felony, which is an invasion of the privacy of those entitled to a presumption of innocence.

72 – YES
The Legislature passed this health-insurance bill, then business lobbies gathered the signatures to put it to a referendum, so we have to vote yes just to keep it in place. It’s not the ultimate answer to the problems of high costs and lack of insurance facing many working families – what we really need is a single-payer system to replace the profit-making insurance companies. But 72 moves in the right direction by leveling the playing field between employers who provide coverage to their employees and those who are less responsible.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY
MEASURES

A – NO
The business lobby hijacked what was supposed to have been a community process, so this measure is opposed by environmental, pedestrian, cycling and taxpayer advocates. Measure A would continue Sacramento County’s disastrous pattern of subsidizing suburban sprawl into rural areas, while underfunding public transit and access for pedestrians, cyclists and the disabled. Its backers will tell you we have to pass this now to keep transportation projects going, but the truth is that the current funding continues until 2009, so we can reject this flawed proposal and force
presentation of a better one in 2006 or 2008.

K – YES
To support affordable housing.

X – YES
It will take a 2/3 vote just to continue the current library tax, which is all this measure does. Our libraries are already underfunded, and would face major cutbacks if Measure X failed. A community that won’t adequately fund its libraries is impoverishing itself.

Magavern Report
Over breakfast today Bill observes that today's polls show Kerry ahead in the "battleground" states and behind nationally raising the realistic chance that Kerry will win the electoral college and lose the popular vote.

Sara (after a brief confusion in which she clarifies that he means Kerry winning the electoral vote and Bush the popular, and not the other way around): so what? we'd still win.

Bill: I suppose we'll take it anyway we can get it but I'd rather it didn't happen that way.

Sara: Why? because the Republicans will be living hell for 4 years?

Bill: Yes, but come to think of it, they might finally abolish the electoral college, which probably needs to happen.

Sara: Yeah. N-----! get down here! You're going to be late for school!! Your hot cereal is getting cold and gross!

Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Sinclair Retreats on Kerry Film [PARA]By Elizabeth Jensen [PARA] The broadcaster plans a special with portions of 'Stolen Honor' after an outcry and stock losses.

Also - from today's Recorder -

Lerach Lashes Out at Conservative TV Chain

The Recorder
By Justin Scheck
October 20, 2004


William Lerach on Tuesday made his biggest political splash since following up a 1994 White House breakfast with a $45,000 campaign contribution to Bill Clinton. This time, all it took was a letter.

The lead partner of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins rounded up the press corps with three mass e-mails and two conference calls to announce a possible shareholder claim against Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. The suit would link the conservative broadcasting company's plan to run a movie critical of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry with allegations of insider trading.

Lerach told reporters that while no litigation has been filed, he sent a letter Tuesday to the Sinclair board of directors asking them to sue two executives and one director for unloading $18.5 million in stock within the past year with foreknowledge of events that would trigger a stock collapse.

While Sinclair's stock has been in free fall for about a year, the latest in a string of stock-devaluing events, Lerach said, is the decision to air "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," a documentary featuring veterans resentful of Kerry's opposition to the Vietnam War, on all 62 Sinclair TV stations.

The plan to show the movie resulted in "threatened boycotts from advertisers, and clearly had an adverse impact" on stock values, Lerach said. He said the executives knew months ago that they would air the movie, and that doing so would result in advertisers pulling out.

Sinclair's stock has fallen 15 percent since the news of its plans to air the documentary. The chain announced Tuesday that it did not intend to broadcast the entire film but only to show portions as part of a news show looking into Kerry's activities against the Vietnam War.

Lerach told reporters that it is normal procedure to send a letter to a company's board of directors prior to a shareholder derivative suit, in which stockholders can sue executives on behalf of a company, with any financial awards being returned to company coffers. "Of course, they will not do it. They'll reject the demand," Lerach said.

But other securities lawyers said it's rare for plaintiff attorneys to actually send such a letter before a derivative case, especially when the plaintiff attorney is certain the board will not sue.

"It's pretty unusual that someone would have a conference call to say that they're writing a letter. ... What Lerach could have done -- and what he usually does -- is sue, and argue that notifying the board would be futile," said Jordan Eth, a Morrison & Foerster partner who specializes in securities defense.

Other defense attorneys and a plaintiff attorney speaking on condition of anonymity said the pre-filing fanfare -- along with the fact that the only potential plaintiff Lerach has named is a New York union's pension fund -- raises questions as to whether the move was a political maneuver aimed at pressuring Sinclair.

Lerach has been a reliable donor to Democratic causes. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, he contributed $14,650 to Democratic candidates in 2004 federal elections through July of this year. Other Lerach Coughlin partners have given at least $112,000.

Lerach said on the first conference call that the suit is not tied to the election and that it is driven purely by claims brought by clients. "It is not politically motivated," he said. "We're equal opportunity suers."

Helping Kerry in PA
Know anyone who wants to help Kerry in PA but doesn't know where to go? Here's an option for the Sierra Club turnout:

One of our key sites is Philadelphia, so you’d be close to DC. You can sign up through this website, http://www.sierraclubvotes.org/roadtosomewhere/. The work, as I understand it, is mostly door-to-door or phoning to talk with voters and give them info on the environmental records of Bush and Kerry. As you may know, PA is a crucial state, because Kerry pretty much has to have it and the Bushies are going all out there. Environmental issues could make the difference with some of the swing voters in Phila. suburbs.

Bill Magavern

Rocky Horror Presidential Show
This is pretty funny for those of my generation who saw Rocky Horror more than once (I confess I was one of them, but I never threw toast!). Mock the vote.

Update in general
Feeling strong. Feeling positive. Dead heat. Working hard to make this happen, not just by blogging. Come phonebank Nevada from my house or go to Las Vegas and help my friend Lea-Ann.

This is a wonderful piece, which really addresses the immorality of the Bush administration: Understanding The Christian Roots of My Political Depression By John Shelby Spong (Author, lecturer, teacher, theologian, former Episcopal Bishop, Newark, NJ)

The Republican Convention in New York City forced me to face the fact that my feelings about the Bush Administration have reached a visceral negativity, the intensity of which surprises even me. So I decided to search introspectively to identify its source. Is it simply runaway partisanship?

That is certainly how it sounds to many who make that charge publicly, but that has not been my history. I did not react this way to other Republican presidents like Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford or Reagan. My feelings are quite specifically Bush related.

I first became aware of them in 1988 when George H. W. Bush's campaign employed the Willie Horton ad against Michael Dukakis. This dirty trick was successful and the insinuation entered the body politic that to be the governor of a multi-racial state where all were treated fairly meant that you favored freeing black criminals to commit murder. Lee Atwater, mentor of Karl Rove, devised that campaign. The Willie Horton episode said to me that these people believed that no dishonest tactic was to be avoided if it helped your candidate to victory.

The next manifestation of this mentality came in the South Carolina primary in George W. Bush's campaign in 2000, when the patriotism of John McCain was viciously attacked. It appeared that five years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam was not sufficient to prove one's loyalty to America.

The third episode came when the operatives of this administration destroyed Georgia's Senator Max Cleland in 2002, by accusing him of being soft on national security, despite the fact that this veteran had lost three of his limbs in the service of his country. Each of these attacks brought defeat to its victims but they also brought defeat to truth and integrity.

In 2004 we have seen the pattern repeated. John Kerry, a veteran who served with honor and distinction in Vietnam was told in countless surrogate ads that his service was not worthy and that his three purple hearts and his Silver Star for heroism were cheaply won. For a candidate who ducked military service by securing a preferential appointment to the Texas National Guard, part of which was served in Alabama, this takes gall indeed.

Then Senator Zell Miller, his face contorted with anger, recited a litany of weapons ystems that he said Senator Kerry had opposed. What he failed to say was that most of these military cuts were recommended by a Secretary of Defense named RichardCheney in the first Bush Administration!

The last time I looked, the Ten Commandments still included an injunction against bearing false witness.Yes, other campaigns bend the truth but these tactics go beyond just bending, they assassinate character and suggest traitorous behavior. When that is combined with the fact that this party does this while proclaiming itself
the party of religion, cultural values and faith-based initiatives is the final straw for me. I experience the religious right as a deeply racist enterprise that seeks to hide its intolerance under the rhetoric of super patriotism and "family values." For those who think that this is too strong a charge or too out of bounds politically, I invite you to look at the record.

It was George H. W. Bush who gave us Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court, calling him "the most qualified person in America." Thomas replaced Thurgood Marshall, who had been the legal hero to black Americans during the struggle over segregation. Clarence Thomas, the opponent of every governmental program that made his own life possible, is today an embarrassment to blacks in America. To appoint a black man to do the racist work against black people is demonic. Consistent with that pattern, this administration entered an amicus brief against the University of Michigan's Law School because in the quest for a representative student body that Law School used race as one factor in determining admissions. The strange 'Orwellian' rhetoric again was deceiving.

"We want America to be a nation where race is not counted for anything and all are to be judged on merit alone." Those are fair sounding words until one factors in centuries of slavery and segregation, or the quality of public education in urban America which just happens to be predominantly black. Next one cannot help noticing the concerted Republican effort to limit black suffrage in many states like Florida where it has been most overt, and to deny the power of the ballot to all the citizens of Washington, D.C. Does anyone doubt that the people of Washington have no vote for any other reason than that they are overwhelmingly black? Only when I touched these wells of resentment, did I discover how deeply personal my feelings are about the Bushes.

I grew up in the southern, religious world they seek to exploit. I went to a church that combined piety with segregation, quoted the Bible to keep women in secondary positions, and encouraged me to hate both my enemies and other religions, especially Jews. It taught me that homosexual people choose their lifestyle because they are either mentally sick or morally depraved. I hear these same definitions echoed in the pious phrases of those who want to "defend marriage against the gay onslaught." Are the leaders of this party the only educated people who seem not to know that their attitudes about homosexuality are uninformed? People no more choose their sexual orientation than they choose to be left-handed! To play on both ignorance and fear for political gain is a page lifted right out of the racial struggle that shaped my region.

Racism simply hides today under new pseudonyms. I lived in Lynchburg, Virginia, before Jerry Falwell rose to national prominence. He was a race baiting segregationist to his core. Liberty Baptist College began as a segregation academy. Super patriot Falwell condemned Nelson Mandela as a 'communist' and praised the apartheid regime in South Africa as a 'bulwark for Christian civilization.' I have heard Pat Robertson attack the movement to give equality to women by referring to feminists as Lesbians who want to destroy the family, while quoting the Bible to
defeat the Equal Rights Amendment. The homophobic rhetoric that spews so frequently out of the mouths of these "Jesus preaching" right-wingers has been mentioned time and again as factors that encourage hate crimes.

I am aware that the former Chief Justice Roy Moore of Alabama, famous for his attempt to place a three-ton monument of the Ten Commandments in his Montgomery courthouse to the delight of southern preachers, is on record as saying that "homosexuality is inherently evil."

I lived through the brutality that greeted the civil rights movement in the South during its early days. Congressman John Lewis of Atlanta can tell you what it means to be beaten into unconsciousness on a "freedom ride." I remember the names of Southerners who covered their hate-filled racism with the blanket of religion to enable them to win the governors' mansions in the deep South: John Patterson and George Wallace in Alabama, Ross Barnett in Mississippi, Orville Faubus in Arkansas, Mills Godwin in Virginia and Strom Thurmond in South Carolina. I know the religious dimensions of North Carolina that kept Jesse Helms in the Senate for five terms. Now we have learned that Strom Thurmond, who protected segregation in the Senate when he could not impose it by winning the presidency in 1948, also fathered a daughter by an underage black girl. I know that Congressman Robert Barr of Georgia, who introduced the Defense of Marriage Act in 1988, has been married three times. I know that Pat Robertson's Congressman in Norfolk, Ed Schrock, courted religious votes while condemning homosexual people until he was outed as a gay man and was forced to resign his seat.

I know that the bulk of the voters from the Religious Right today are the George Wallace voters of yesterday, who simply transformed their racial prejudices and called them "family values." That mentality is now present in this administration. It starts with the President,embraces the Attorney General John Ashcroft and spreads out in every direction.

I have known Southern mobs that have acted in violence against black people while couching that violence in the sweetness of Evangelical Christianity. I abhor that kind of religion. I resent more than I can express the fact that my Christ has been employed in the service of this mentality. My Christ, who refused to condemn the woman taken in the act of adultery; my Christ who embraced the lepers, the most feared social outcasts of his day; my Christ who implored us to see the face of God in the faces of "the least of these our brothers and sisters;" my Christ who opposed the prejudice being expressed against the racially impure Samaritans, is today being used politically to dehumanize others by those who play on base instincts.

David Halberstam, in his book on the Civil Rights movement entitled The Children, quotes Lyndon Johnson talking with Bill Moyers right after the Voting Rights Act of 1965 had passed by large margins in the Congress of the United States. This positive vote followed the arousing of the public's consciousness by the Abu Ghraib-like use of dogs and fire hoses on black citizens in Alabama. Klan groups, under the direct protection of Southern State Troopers and local police, had also attacked blacks with baseball bats and lead pipes in public places, which had been seen on national television. Moyers expected to find President Johnson jubilant over this legislative victory. Instead he found the President strangely silent. When Moyers enquired as to the reason, Johnson said rather prophetically, "Bill, I've just handed the South to the Republicans for fifty years, certainly for the rest of our life times."

That is surely correct. Bush's polls popped after his convention. It is now his election to lose. The combination of super patriotism with piety, used in the service of fear to elicit votes while suppressing equality works, but it is lethal for America and lethal for Christianity. It may be a winning formula but it has no integrity and it feels dreadful to this particular Christian.

I hope Kerry and his handlers know what they're doing...
Gee. I thought Kerry did very well in parts tonight, and I really enjoyed the debate dinner party we threw and a wonderful gymnastics and cheer show the kids put on afterward, but I'm going to bed feeling a little sad.

Why you so sad, snichols, you ask? I sad because I really thought Kerry weasled and wasn't straight on issues I know he's been good on in the past, I think it's a damn shame that he seems to feel that that's what is demanded of him.

First what he did well: I loved his answers on the Supreme Court, on jobs and taxes and foreign policy. I thought he was smokin' there.

But then some examples of weasle answers:
on Patriot Act (well whatcha gonna do, he voted for it)
on abortion (until the rebuttal)
on health care (cause his wimpy plan sucks)
on tort reform (trying to have it both ways again)
on stem cell research (although I think this issue is way overplayed)
and on the environment, it wasn't so much that he weasled as that he bungled: he shoulda hit that one outa the park. There couldn't be a clearer difference between him and Bush, but the public was left confused.

Why is it that arch conservatives whose views represent only 30% of the country feel they can unabashedly pander to that 30% and state unequivocably that they're anti-abortion, or anti-gay marriage or pro tax cuts for the wealthy and that Kerry can't be made to be comfortable being who he's always been: pro-choice, great on the environment, fiscally conservative and pro civil rights?

I guess my final comment is that it better be worth it. I have trouble believing that the f-ing idiots who are undecided at this point are more likely to vote for a candidate who tries to please everyone than one who appears to believe certain things and stick to them. But maybe Kerry and his handlers know something I don't know. I sure hope so.

All the Way with JFK
Iiiiiiiit's the 2nd Presidential Debate tomorrow, so lower your expectations and you'll have a good time. In fact, pretty much lower them all the time and you'll do fine.

Actually, I don't believe that and I hope you won't. After a long period of staring blankly at the walls considering how much of my stuff I could fit in a container bound for northern Europe, I now believe that we have the anti-Bush mo (men-tum).

Look, astounding record numbers of people have registered to vote all over the country, especially in swing states and so far where we're getting information it's 2/3rds Democrat. So, despite pollsters' claims of trying to "account" for this surge, they aren't and if even 1/3 of these new registrants make it to the polls, it's enough to put us over the top--it's that close!

My friend Sandra Childs, a highschool teacher at a working class high school in Oregon reports record levels of interest in the election, politicization--mostly of the our side variety.

Another friend, June Cummins professor at San Diego State reports her students are 100% registered and eager to vote--after all, my comment, their butts are on the line.

At this point, if this were really high tech, the requisite opening bars to "There's Somethin' happenin' here" would start up...oh yeah, but since it ain't, I'll sign off--All the way with JFK!

Too Tired to Blog
I loved the Edwards-Cheney debate, but I'm kinda too tired to blog about it. I think that Edwards scored significant points against the the creep-veep and never let up yet he came across as really believable and likeable [he drank a lot more water though--did anyone else notice that? Does Cheney come from a dry planet?]. I thought it was a bit much that they never had a question on health care but they had two on gay marriage. I don't think that Cheney did badly though. I think he did a lot better than Bush and a didn't make any major gaffs. Here's what the (other) pundits have to say:

CBS News tracked the reactions to tonight's vice-presidential debate of a nationwide panel of 169 uncommitted voters - voters who could change their minds before Election Day. Here are the initial results. This scientific poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 7 percentage points:· By 41% to 29%, uncommitted debate watchers say Edwards won the debate tonight.


Peter Jennings: “Anybody who thought that Senator Edwards was going to be rolled by the experienced Vice President I think will have a second thought.” [10:40, ABC]


Bob Schieffer: “This was a very testy debate. The vice-president tonight had the unfortunate task of defending a war that does not appear to be going very well these days. On the very day that the former top civilian official in Iraq was making a speech saying that we went about it in the wrong way. That was a tall hill for
the vice-president to climb tonight.” (CBS, 10:40pm)


David Brooks: "Edwards came right out from the git go and said you're not being straight with the American people." (PBS, 10:40pm)

Fred Barnes: "Now the second half, on domestic policy, I though Edwards did very well and he probably won that part." [Fox News, 10/5/04, 10: 40]Bill Krystol: "I think Edwards won the second half on domestic policy." [Fox News, 10/5/04 10:42pm]

Mark Shields: "John Edwards first one-on-one debate, had been billed that way, absolutely no nervousness, came out right from the start. And,and was aggressive. And Dick Cheney, I think, the vice president was really knocked back on his heels." [PBS, 10/5/04, 10:41pm]

George Will: "Mr. Edwards gave just as good as he got." [ABC, 10/5/04, 10:41pm]

Bob Schieffer: “The administration has got to find another way to argue and justify this war. The arguments that Vice-President Cheney was making tonight clearly did not take.” [CBS]

Carlos Watson: "… I think Edwards probably did a better job with persuadable voters." [CNN, 10/5/04]

Kit Seelye: "Edwards was the more engaging debater and personality. He laid out his arguments with the precision and logic that you would expect from a star litigator but also managed to smile and appear less rehearsed." [New York Times Online, 10/5/04]

Candy Crowley: “Probably for John Edwards the best moment was when he turned to Cheney and said, you know Mr. Cheney, I don’t—Mr. Vice President, I don’t think Americans can take another four years of this administration. Sort of a rendition of Ronald Reagan’s famous line of are you better off. That clearly was one that he had been waiting to deliver. Obviously an effective line.” (CNN, 10:51)

O'Reilly Thinks Kerry Won
What everyone really wants to know, let's face it, is how was the experience for snichols? And I can give to you, straight up. It's like this (warning: this story will raise more questions than it answers):

At 6:00pm pacific time, I'm in the backseat of my minister's RAV4* with a Jamaican practitioner* riding shotgun headed to a Meditation & Treatment class* in Placerville. I put on my radio's headset and tune into the clearest signal of the Presidential debate I can find.


John Kerry is asked the first question; he hits it outa the park. What's this? Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh (who really can tell the difference, but I think it's O'Reilly) is overlayed:

"That flip-flopper Kerry is at it already"

I scream. I explain the scream to women up front, and frantically try to find another clear signal without the O'Reilly overlay. I scream again. No non-O'Reilly reception is available in Folsom. I turn back. Bush is on the ropes. He's sounding whiney and desperate.

O'Reilly: "That Bolshevik Lehrer ought to be shot! The President's been on the defensive the whole debate! These debates are an outrage!

I hoot. The ministers ask for clarification. "I'm back on the Rush Limbaugh station," (I lie, thinking they may not know who O'Reilly is, and not wanting to explain) "Even he thinks Kerry is kicking butt!"

It goes on like this for sometime, with O'Reilly's invective getting stronger and stronger. He refers several times snidely to Kerry speaking French, to Kerry getting friendly with the "Krauts"! and at one point calls Jim Lehrer "a jew" (and I don't think he meant it nicely).

O'Reilly is outraged that John Kerry calls Lehrer "Jim"--"They're old friends!" he screams. "The whole thing is rigged! The state of Florida is controlled by liberals!" (okay, he didn't say that last part, but he was that freaked)

So, at this point, I'm loving it. Who knew it could be this fun to listen to a right wing fanatic implode. He's got absolutely nothin' and he is palpably quiet as Bush stumbles confusing Saddam Hussein for Osama bin Laden. The most he can muster after a while is "amens" after everyone of Bush's sentences.

Then I lose the signal in Shingle Springs. No more debate. Just a bunch of spiritual talk. When I get home, the television is asleep. I have not heard the second half of the debate or any of the spin. I am clean and pure except for Bill O'Reilly who clearly CLEARLY thinks that Kerry won the debate.

Questions raised:
*snichols has a minister?
*what's a Jamaican practitioner?
*what kind of cult is snichols into?

Is Chuck D a Public Enemy?
Successful writer Abe Opincar (top journalist for the San Diego Reader and author of a critically acclaimed book of essays called Fried Butter) responded to my Air America musings with a 15 year old piece from the LA Weekly which goes in depth into some allegations regarding Chuck D's old Public Enemy crony Professor Griff's homophobic and anti-semetic statements and Chuck D's seeming failure to condemn them.

Of this, I know nothing, and of course, will not defend any such statements or failures. However, I can say that I have heard nothing objectionable out of Chuck D's mouth on Unfiltered . When he speaks, he speaks with inclusionary tones and LOVE.

Mainly, I cite this as an opportunity to plug Abe--I'll be reviewing his book soon (long overdue, so far it's wonderful).

Hey, whatever happened to that liberal talk radio network?
Checking in with Air America.

6 months ago Air America started out with approximately 6 radio affiliates. Now the Air America network has 33 stations nationwide including in Sacramento, San Francisco, Portland, Oregon, Santa Barbara and San Diego--not, perversely, in Los Angeles, but I understand that's temporary. Also you can always go to the website and stream it into your computer-- Air America Radio

Click here to see a list of the stations and their call letters and numbers.

In other words, it's growing pretty fast. It's also beating Rush Limbaugh and the radio version of the O'Reilly Factor in many markets--a fact which they spend a disproportionate amount of time discussing on the air (I get it, but jeez).

I still listen a lot but now I can't stand Randi Rhodes. She is just wrong too often for me to take it. Al Franken has gotten a lot smoother after 6 months on the air, sort of found his sea legs.

The best shows at this point though are:
Unfiltered, which airs from 6-9am on the west coast, 9-12 on the east. Their official blurb is pretty accurate:

Unfiltered is co-hosted by The Daily Show co-creator Lizz
Winstead, Chuck D, leader and co-founder of legendary rap group Public Enemy, and Rachel Maddow, a rabblerousing broadcaster with a doctorate in politics from the University of Oxford. This uncompromising program puts politics and culture through the wringer, uncensored and unfiltered.

And The Majority Report which seems to air at 5pm pacific hosted by indie film favorite Janeane Garofalo and Sam Seder--very funny and very political (although all of Air America is political).

Right here in Sacramento we also have a local show from 4 to 5--the Power Hour with Christine Craft at am 1240. She's got an engaging style and earned my respect for organizing and promoting a pretty successful demo against Rudy Guiliani and some other big Bush bigwigs last week.

So listen to Air America in if they're in your town and tell me what you think.

(:)(:)(:)(:)
4 of what only appear to be snouts up for
What the @#$%! Do We Know?
Run, don't walk, to see this highly unusual movie about the relationship between quantum physics and our own perception of reality. It combines a documentary talking heads style with a fictional plot revolving around deaf actress Marlee Matlin's increasingly odd encounters with the world around her.*

I told our exceptional seven year old about the film right away figuring that except for the allusions to graphic sex, she would love it. It went like this:

Mommy: Wouldn't you love to see a movie that's how everything we think we know about what we perceive is possibly an illusion created by our own minds?

Exceptional Seven Year Old: No. Can we get ice cream after gymnastics?

*Bonus for Portland, Oregon fans, the movie begins and ends at the Baghad Theater.

Michael Moore and Susan Lerner
A few days ago, in a nice way, snicholsblog-enthusiast Susan Lerner, head of California Clean Money Campaign (to publicly finance elections in California) wrote to me in response to my Greek Tragedy post and suggested, although not in so many words, that I stop whining and start working to elect Kerry. After all, that's what she's doing.

I knew she was right. I did. But I had to let it sink in. Today, I catch wind of Michael Moore's latest diatribe Put Away Your Hankies... and it finally does sink in--as he puts it, do the Republicans wring their hands and give up when we look like we're ahead? "Hell no. It's never over for them until the last ballot is shredded."

That's the attitude we've got to take. None of my readers live in swing states, but if you can travel to a swing state, join a cell phone bank into a swing state or write letters to your friends and relatives in these places--please do it! Give your money to the Democratic Party Kerry Fund or Sierra Club's independent expenditure campaigns.

Or give your money to me and I'll spend it on hankies...

Kids for Kerry
My kids are becoming obsessed by how they can help defeat George Bush (where could they have gotten this from?). Their latest ideas:

1) Call up all the people who are thinking of voting for George Bush and scream into the phone, "those are all lies! those are all lies!"

2) Send everyone who is undecided an electronic George Bush like the one I was given today as an extremely late birthday gift ("Mom, make sure you tell them you have to put tape over the button that says 'inspiriational' so that they can only push the button that says 'funny'. That's key and after they hear how stupid the things are that Bush has said, they'll have to vote for Kerry!").

When I explained that the latter idea might not work because many people seem to like George Bush precisely because he says stupid things, they look at me blankly.

"you're kidding, right, Mom?" one says hopefully.

"I only wish I were, honey."

The Greek Tragedy in My Head
Transitioning from ebullient optimism to paralysis by fear over the coming election, I find myself unable to think straight enough to write--unable to find a dominant belief and tease it out.

Instead, there are competing optimistic and pessimistic Greek choruses in my head. They go like this:

The Pesimistiks: W is winning! He's winning! He's as good as won! Ohio is wierd. You don't know shit. They love this guy!

The Optimystics: John's a closer! He's a winner! You can't be so depressed! Look at Oregon! Look at, well, Oregon! Things are better than you think!

The Pesimistiks: Karl Rove's a genius, a fucking genius! He has. a. message. It's working! It's working! Kerry can't recover!

The Optimystics: But now there's Carville, and all the Clintons, and there are 8 (well close) weeks left! Look at the primaries, when it was January, we thought it was Howard Dean! Kerry's saving it! He's got the stuff!

The Pesimistiks: You are insane! You're out of touch! Look at the map, the red threat's growing!

The Optimystics: You know Republicans put out that map, it's full of lies, lies I tell you!

The Pesimistiks: Just like the lies that Dan Rather told, fabricating documents. Why it our side always gets caught? They lie like rugs. They get away with it. We can't get away with nothin.

And so on--I wish you could see me sing this whole thing to you with facial expressions. I think it would help, there's music and everything in my head and it never never ends. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Hogwarts Howler for Bush
Oh, I think it's cathartic to read Arianna Huffington's "Hogwart's Howler" column today. God why can't Kerry find his voice? Why can't they find a message and stick to it? Why can't they hammer this President who has destroyed peace and prosperity into the ground? Give me strength...

Bad Words and Stupid White Men
Our 7 year old daughter is reading Stupid White Men by Michael Moore. She absolutely loves it. She snatched it from Bill when he was about 40 pages into it. He was slightly concerned at the content, asked her if there were any bad words. She said, "so far there's d-a-m-m-i-t. I'll let you know if there's any others."

So last night, she's reading on the bed next to me, making outraged noises at the description of Michigan Senator Abraham's anti-environmental agenda and then soon all-of-a-sudden, she erupts, "Mommy! I found a really bad word in here! I think you should see it!"

So I lean in. She points with her finger and a twinkle in her eye, "see Mom? It's one of the worst words ever. "

There in print:

"Dick Cheney"

She laughs hysterically and keeps reading.

From Bill Maher :

And finally, New Rule:

You can't run on a mistake. Franklin Roosevelt didn't run for re-election claiming Pearl Harbor was his finest hour. Abe Lincoln was a great president, but the high point of his second term wasn't theater security. 9/11 wasn't a triumph of the human spirit. It was a fuck-up by a guy on vacation. Now, don't get me wrong, Mr. President. I'm not blaming you for 9/11. We have blue-ribbon commissions to do that.

And I'm not saying there was anything improper about your immediate response to the attacks. Someone had to stay in that Florida classroom and protect those kids. But by the looks of your convention, you'd think that the worst thing that ever happened to us was the best thing that ever happened to you. You just can't keep celebrating the deadliest attack ever as if it's your personal rendezvous with greatness. You don't see old men who were shot down during World War II jumping out of a plane every year. I mean, other than your dad. But even your dad didn't run for re-election based on a recession and his propensity to barf on the Japanese. Now, I know you'd like us all to get swept away with emotion and stop sweating the small stuff like the deficit and the environment, and focus on what's really important: how you look in a fireman's hat. But crying during your speech? I mean, come on! There's no crying in politics! It's not fair! That's a trick chicks use. How are we supposed to discuss this rationally if you're going to cry?! There's a name for people who exploit their participation in historical events for political gain. They're called the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. So I say, if you absolutely must win an election on the backs of dead people, do it like they do in Chicago, and have them actually vote for you.

Paul Krugman: Bush exploits the 'mythic reality' of war. If you haven't read this op ed in the New York Times and elsewhere--it's worth reading. Sara Faherty of Buffalo called it to my attention, something for which I'm very grateful, not only because of reading the piece but because of proof that Sara exists, something I was beginning to doubt.

Read: A Mythic Reality

Bluesing with the Bounce
Well, you'd never know it, but I've been back on-line for about 5 days and no blog yet. Why? The simplest answer: the post-Republican convention blues and bounce--a mi no me gusta as they say in El Paso.

I think this Bush strategy of "you're safer with Bush" is a prime example of madison avenue advertising tactic numero uno (why the spanish? I just returned from so cal): sell the product using its weakest attribute (choosy mom's choose [extra salt and sugar-laden] Jif).

I'm glad that Kerry has just hired every possible advisor in the world. Every advisor in the world has said it, he needs to play offense, not defense. I don't happen to agree (and neither does my nonfictional husband, Bill) that he should completely switch the topic of Iraq and the war and only talk about the economy and health care.

Look, this is a President who's destroyed peace and prosperity--hammer on him. Come on, pal!

The Latest Rudolf's Diner Issue is Out!
Uncle Rudolf, Editor in Chief of Rudolf's Diner (to which I contribute my Eye on the Pie column) writes this:

"Dear Readers,
It's that time again: a.m., crickets, bleary eyes, and I'm about to wrap up the latest issue of Rudolf's Diner! Issue Nine. Doesn't seem like a lot, but it's a lot. The Diner is slowly taking hold. This issue is graced by writing from Louisiana, Minnesota, Washington, California and Arizona. Our readership is international (OK, just my friend Freddy in Spain, but still!). Tomorrow Mars.

You are going to love this issue! It is about love, envy, strength, freedom, childhood, loneliness, transformations, dirt, the life of the nomad, caring for a child, caring for a parent, addiction, story and, above all, harmony with place.

I don't need to say a word. It's all there. Have a seat in the Diner. Enjoy!
Your Loving Uncle,
Rudolf

Click here, read, print them to take out back, read some more, respond!

http://rudolfsdiner.weblogger.com/"

California Screamin'
Driving from San Diego to Disneyland this morning I picked up Rush Limbaugh interviewing W. My first instinct was to switch channels, but then I thought, well, how often do I actually hear the President interviewed on a radio talk show? (answer: never) So I listened.

If I wasn't terrified before, as I reflect upon it composing on an outdated computer in the comfort of the otherwise well-appointed home of my friends Carmel and Todd Helm (located conveniently just steps from the Nixon library and birthplace), I am now.

Last week the Los Angeles Times had Bush slightly ahead in the latest poll. On the show today he came across, I am horrified to report, as relaxed, open, articulate, warm, reassuring and on top of things. No idiotic gaffs. No menacing statements. Perfectly perfectly able to appear as a reasonable choice to anyone who is stupid enough not to have made up their mind in August/September of 2004.

So, while the Tower of Terror, California Screamin' and the other sensational rides at Disney's California Adventure caused my stomach to drop and my adreneline to flow, they were really nothing compared to the Horror of the Hinterlands ride I took with the combination of this poll and interview.

I am not subjecting myself to the convention and I'll be off-line in Yosemite, but in the meantime please tell me and my readers what you think. Click on my actual blog (instead of remaining safely in the email version) http://sarasnichols.blogspot.com/ and click on comments and post your comment directly on the blog, please.

Answer these questions (or others): who do you think will be elected President this year and why (bonus points: how can I believe what I do and yet love Disneyland so much?)?

What Katie says Norman Mailer Says
So I'm visiting Katie Laris in Santa Barbara. It's beautiful here. We had a lot of fun at the beach today. While our children were screaming for us to join them in the water, no doubt seriously in danger of drowning, Katie and I were riveted in conversation on the beach.

Katie scorned me for listening to Air America instead of Amy Goodman's Democracy Now--like you could only listen to one or the other. She said that recently she heard Norman Mailer being interviewed on Democracy Now. She says Norman Mailer quoted either Lenin or Trotsky, whichever one of them was in Mexico, as saying "sometimes you just have to ask the question, to get the answer." And in this case, you have to ask yourself, "why did the Republicans decide to hold their convention in New York City? Do you feel lucky, well do you?"

Actually, scratch that last part, I'm pretty punchy. Anyway, the point is we're all giddy about the convention there and we've bought the 911 world trade center line, but Katie Laris says that Amy Goodman says that Norman Mailer says that "Republicans slash the media are just waiting for some wierd slash wacko slash violent slash (I can't make these things up, Katie is looking over my shoulder and she just keeps saying "slash" and I keep typing) whatever behavior to transmit to the oh-so-normal midwest." And, as Norman Mailer says (via...) "if some violence happens, you'd better check on who's paying them to be there."

So, in the paranoid fevered imagination of Katie slash Amy slash Norman some wacko Karl Rove slash Cheney funded sicko slash activist is going to slash the freedom barriers in central park and (Katie breaks in "this isn't helping. This was supposed to be about peace and freedom and tranquility and now it's just mocking Democracy Now or maybe, just democracy") "STOP!!! Stop typing whatever I say. I HATE YOU!!! I'M GOING TO KILL SLASH...

Hoping for disappointment
Drew Liebert lifted my spirits with this (seemingly continually updated) electoral math website. When you look at it you can't help but believe that John Kerry is going to win (even if you factor for the obvious flaw of counting states that their listed polls show are statistical dead heats as "Barely Kerry").

Anecdotally, I believe that people are starting to think that Kerry can and will win--and as a result, some of them are starting to panic. I'm getting a lot of comments like, I wonder if I really want him to win, maybe there's no difference between the two candidates and why did he say he would've voted for the war powers act? and won't he just disappoint us anyway?

My thoughts are that a) there's a world of difference between the two candidates on almost every issue, just sadly not enough on the vital issue of the war and b) he should repudiate the war powers act and c) let's pray, really pray people, that he disappoints us.

Why should we pray for disappointment? Because if we're disappointed, it'll mean 2 things: 1) Kerry got elected and 2) we had hope.

Death of a legendary colleague
Steve Thompson died early this morning as a result of an advanced cancer of the liver; he was 62. As the lobbyist for the California Nurses Association, I worked closely with Steve, who was, for the past 12 years, the Government Affairs Director of the California Medical Association.

Many of the people in the California Capitol are reeling from his death--he only discovered the cancer 5 or 6 weeks ago and it seems impossible that someone so completely and utterly vital and alive could go so fast.

Steve was a force of nature. There is no one I can think of even remotely like him on the California scene. He was Willie Brown's chief of staff when he was Speaker of the Assembly and met Willie in Mississippi during the civil rights fights; I think Willie bailed Steve out of jail.

Steve combined the energy and enthusiasm of a kid with the experience of a lifetime and the mind of a genius. Just about every time you'd run into him in the capitol, he looked like the cat that ate the canary; you just didn't want the canary to be you.

When you were on the other side of Steve on something, it wasn't a small thing to him. If you were a strong opponent for a time you felt one of you was a cartoon character nemesis, Joker or the Penguin, not just a lobbyist. The stakes were big and there was fun to be had and boy did he have it.

And it was great to be his co-conspirator. I know because I was one more than once. "Sara, come here," he'd whisper in an otherwise mundane legislative hearing. "whatcha up to?" "Not much," you'd reply. "Why? You got something?" "Oh yeah, I got something. Wait 'til you hear this..." And so it went. Next thing you knew you were flying around the Capitol or the state on the other end of his speed dial, playing out some wild scenario or another--a quick hit for adrenaline junkies.

Yeah, the doctors of California owe much of their slavish protection of MICRA (a California law which imposes ridiculous limits on compensation for medical malpractice lawsuits) to Steve. But that was the one gigantic untouchable for him as the CMA's top lobbyist. Everything else was on the table. Steve Thompson dragged that old-fashioned conservative Kaiser-controlled organization into the 21st Century, sometimes kicking and screaming, but always the better for it. He negotiated dox to back more death with dignity, stronger scrutiny of bad dox by the Medical board and revelation of medical malpractice lawsuits and more.

First and foremost, Steve was a proponent and fighter for universal health care 'til the day he died. He, more than any other single person in the state except for maybe (Senate leader pro tem) John Burton is responsible for last year's pay or play employer mandate health coverage expansion being signed into law--and now it's being forced onto the November ballot by its opponents to force the voters to reaffirm the law.

Let's pass that initiative, people, if only for Steve.

One more thing...
When you get to the Prairie Home Companion site, you have to scroll down to segment 2 and click on it to listen to Bush v. Kerry--I forgot that part.

Political Humor
These two bit(e)s of political humor really tickled me so much that I'm taking the liberty of posting them on the blog.

One you may have seen--I certainly heard about it, but hadn't been sent it--it's the Will Farrell as Bush "out-takes" from his campaign commercials.

The other was on the August 14th broadcast of Prairie Home Companion from Chicago, featuring brilliant Bush and Cheney imitators in a "blues-off" with Kerry and Edwards imitators. I almost had to pull the car over at the Bush riffs. Kerry/Bush Blues Off

Soon, more original thoughts. Bill still thinks its Kerry's to lose, you?

Craig v. Kerry
This week I have been avoiding blogging a bit because all I want to talk about is Craig's List at www.craigslist.org. I knew about Craig's List (you probably do too) but I didn't know they had it in Sacramento--I thought it was just in the SF bay area. Turns out it's practically all over the country now--free on-line classifieds, no ads, no fees, no nuttin'

Blah, blah, blah, you're thinkin', what's so great about that? Well check this: within 1 week of posting and answering on Sacramento Craig's List, I sold an antique I've been trying to sell for 6 years for a good price, found green cleaners that I had been trying to find for 3 years, found someone to come and haul away stuff real cheap and I've made friends that will last a lifetime--(guess which part is a lie).

Bill, in the meantime is glazing over again at my household frenzy. Instead, at our last community meeting when other people's announcements range from "I'm having a potluck next week" to "my daughter is in the Nutcracker again," Bill opens his eyes, leans forward in his chair, rubs his hands together vigorously and says with no preface, "lately I'm thinking Kerry with 50 to 51 percent of the popular vote and a slight edge in the electoral college, Bush with 47 to 48 percent of the vote and Nader with 1 percent."

This was big stuff to me. You'd think the room would erupt in applause; it's a pro-Kerry crowd, green party membership notwithstanding. But instead, the announcement circle passes to the next person, "I lost my keys last week in the laundry room. If anyone finds them..."

Tonight I arranged a private interview with Bill to find out more about his prediction.

"What was it again?" I asked (at an inopportune moment).

"Ask me later," he said.

Later, I asked and he laid it out like above, adding only that with Nader not getting on the ballot in California it will take a huge chunk out of this percentage, but in no way, obviously, harm his chances of affecting the outcome of the election.

"Does the fact that you're calling him Nader now instead of Ralph have any significance, Bill?" I ask.

"Nope. I still call him Ralph sometimes," he says, throwing a tissue into a wastebasket.

"What's this whole prediction based on?" I ask.

"On my intuition," he says.

"Nothing else?" I hope.

"Nope," he says cheerfully. "Hey, did you see that McGreevey* resigned?"

"I'm excited," I say. "Who's McGreevey? Is he on Craig's List?"

*See New Jersey Governor quits, says he's gay

Origin of Snouts Up (:)
Faithful reader David Allgood writes to ask where the snout concept comes from, so I answer:

It comes from the fact that I used to be obsessed with pigs and a lot of my old friends know that. I wanted to do something other than thumbs or stars, and thought snouts conveyed the level of self-mockery I needed to get away with a review, period--then I discovered that you could easily make a snout with a couple of parens and a colon and voila!

Don't you just love picturing the huge pigs underneath with their snouts pointed up to the stars?

(:)(:)(:)(:)(:)(:)(:)

3 Snouts Up for Crow Lake
(:)(:)(:)* for Crow Lake by Canadian author Mary Lawson. Billed as the "best novel he read this year" by one of my brothers-in-law, I dove heartily into this self-proclaimed "shimmering tale of love, death and redemption" (who could not be drawn to that?).

This is actually one of the best novels I've read this year, but that's mostly a testament to the level of brain candy I've been ingesting this summer (these days I tend to alternate weighty non-fiction with complete trash). It's strongly written, holds your interest and the characters are well-drawn, but the heroine and narrator of the story is such a cypher, existing mostly relative to her brothers and boyfriend, that you get a kind of shadowy picture of her glimpsed in snatches. Ultimately I had trouble caring much about her life.

The best novel I've read this summer is Portrait in Sepia by Isabel Allende--definitely (:)(:)(:)(:)--her best since the early days--a must as far as I'm concerned.

*For my newer readers--I have a snout-based rating system for movies, books and restaurants. 4 Snouts up is the best you can get.

Cultural Losers
Probably most of you have been aware for some time of the crucial glue that the culture wars form to bond working class voters to the Republican party. But do you know about the book What's the Matter with Kansas? by Thomas Frank?

I haven't read it or even bought it, but watching Bill Moyers and reading two articles qualifies me to say this: this book uses Republican-voting working class Kansas as an example of what's wrong with the whole country to make this fascinating additional contribution to public debate: the Republicans not only cynically use social issues (especially anti-abortion and gay rights) to distract working class people while they accomplish their broad economic agenda, the Republican party routinely loses in its culture fight and wins in its economic fight.

The Republican party uses social issues as populist issues, baiting people against limosine liberals and latte drinking Hollywood liberals. The class war is never connected with economic interests though, because tax cuts for the wealthy do not benefit people who work and shop at Walmart.

The result: working class people who care strongly about these issues lose both ways. I haven't figured out how this can help Democrats, but I suspect there's a way. I guess my approach of just mocking and taunting the Republicans won't fly, "losers, losers, gay people are getting married anyway while you're getting poorer."

According to good friends at Arnoldwatch.org

Weblog August 6, 2004 2:00 pm:
Questions Jay Leno Should Ask Arnold Tonight
Jay Leno has a tradition of using viewer-contributed material on the air. In honor of Governor Schwarzenegger's return to Leno tonight to mark the one year anniversary of his historic announcement that he would run for Governor, Arnoldwatch.org has sent in these questions for Leno to ask Arnold:
1. Arnold, last year you said that you're rich enough that you don't need anyone else's money. Now that you are raising campaign cash twice as fast as Gray Davis, does that mean you’re not as rich as you thought?
2. You said you would be the sunshine governor and we all thought that meant you would open up government records. But you made 250 state employees sign secrecy agreements when they met with lobbyists to revamp government, and you created a charity, which does not disclose its donors that campaign finance experts recently called a political "slush fund." Why didn't you just tell the public what you really meant by "sunshine governor" -- that you'd always have a tan.
3. You said you’d sweep "special interests" out of Sacramento. But you’ve taken more than one million dollars each from the auto industry, insurers, and HMOs, and $5 million from real estate and investment king pins. How do they define special interests in Austrian dictionaries? Anyone without campaign cash?
4. You're supposedly holding a big fundraising party in Napa this weekend...any chance you'll tell us where it is?
5. You call legislators "girlie men." Don’t you wear more make up than all the female politicians in Sacramento combined?

Bill and his children in the news today
It's a busy day in the Magavern household--trying to handle all the press calls. Here's what the fuss is about:

Both kids made all local evening news and online sources today by appearing at a press conference protesting diverting money from youth programs, like parks and pools, to a new taxpayer funded downtown sports arena. The announcement was (clearly purposely) overshadowed by a sudden breakoff in negotiations between the (Sacramento Kings-owning) Maloofs and the city of Sacramento, causing local news to speculate that children were forcing the Kings to leave.

Bill was rockin' and rollin' in the New York Times, in Plan Would Consolidate California Agencies where he unveils shocking news that regulation of air pollution actually works and would be harmful to roll back--who knew? (apparently, not Arnold!)

In the meantime, I forced my kids to make picket signs, drove them to press conferences, and cheered them all on dressed impeccably in white (actually, I was wearing a purple t-shirt and capris with unidentifiable stains and hadn't brushed my hair in days, but who's counting?).

Why Kerry will Win
Okay, this'll be one of those little headlines I stand a decent chance of wincing about next year, but here's what comes to me like a flash when I watch these candidates on the trail: Kerry wants to win and Bush doesn't.

Really. Yesterday, while I watched clips from Bush on the stump, I thought: this man hates his job. He doesn't want to win. Oh, he likes airforce one and all the good golfing trips, but the campaign is seriously cutting into his vacation schedule and it's become a pain.

And then when you look at Kerry you see utter utter determination, focus, force of will. This man is in the fight of his life and he refuses to lose.

And then today Randi Rhodes reads this clip on Air America Radio from Capitol Hill Blue--a mudslinging websheet of some sort--which reports Bush's Erratic Behavior Worries White House Aides--read this! If anything in here is to believed (actually, upon closer inspection, this little piece is 2 months old--why was RR only just reading it today? and why hasn't this blog been updated lately? and some of it contradicts my initial thesis, but heck read it anyway, it's awfully fun).

Bottom line: Bush is losin' it, people. He needs to be sedated and taken to a quiet place, not re-elected. For God's sake, if you love the President, get him help!

4 Snouts Up for NYC
I can attest that New York has still got it. While everyone else in the world was in Boston this week, Bill and I were in Manhattan. Among many other diversions, we saw two plays: Bug and Caroline, or Change.

(:)(:)(:)(:) 4 Snouts up for Bug
Very dark twisted minds created this stunningly well-acted and well-written play set entirely in a rundown residential hotel on the outskirts of Oklahoma City. Bug "off-Broadway" at the Barrow Street Theater in the west village is for you if you love a good paranoid schizophrenic naked violent comedy. If you're tired of that genre, go see Cats for the 3rd time, see if I care.

(:)(:)(:)(; 3 and a half Snouts up for Caroline, or Change
Still far from the Cats set but squarely on Broadway (well, the Eugene O'Neal on 49th, but who's counting) is the new Tony Kushner play Caroline, or Change.

This one is a musical set in 1963 Louisiana centered around a black maid working for a white Jewish family. Tony Kushner's story and Jeanine Tesori's music are fabulous, compelling, perfectly and unpretentiously staged and acted. I absolutely love Tony Kushner's writing in the two-part critically acclaimed Angels in America (which, if you haven't seen the made for HBO movie of, you must).

The only weakness, and for me, it is a biggy, is that so far I sense no particular talent in Kushner as a lyricist, and he wrote all the lyrics. The lyrics tell the story well and vaguely go with the music, but that's the end of it. Now I'm not lookin' for Cole Porter here; I know that era is sadly long gone. No. I'd settle for Webber or Rice (whichever one does the lyrics)--despite the great story, bouncy enjoyable early 60's rock 'n' roll and R&B score, there is not a single memorable song in the show. I hummed nothin'. And that says to me, why bother? Stick to the straight show, Tony.