Stop comparing Social Security "Crisis" to Clinton Health Care Crisis
Jesus, snichols is about to go snake on the punditocracy's ass. Thrice this week she has heard Democrats and their spokesmodels compare the Bush administration's manufactured social security "crisis" and their management of it with the Clinton administration's very real health care crisis and their management of it.

The comparison appeals to the insiders because they think it means that they get to smash the privatization of social security, throwing the Bush administration into a tailspin, forcing Laura Bush to wear headbands and fire whitehouse travel agency employees and thereby win back both houses of the Congress in 2006--hel-lo!?

Okay, much as snichols completely utterly embraces that as a lovely fantasy and chain of events, she's here to tell you that the comparison in-ept--these insiders don't know what they're talking about.

She knows this because she was an insider of a sort during the Clinton health care crisis (and used to like to think of herself as one of the principal critics of the Clinton health care plan, until she started to nostalgically yearn for Clinton as President and wish that every American got their health care from a "byzantine insurance-industry controlled bureacracy" as she used to like to trash talk it).

But this is the thing: 1) there really was (and still is) a health care crisis. And however misguided the Clinton plan might have been in addressing or solving that crisis, there was no doubt of there actually being a crisis; 2) to the extent that the Clinton health care debacle played a role in the midterm Republican gains (and there were other factors, mobilized gun nuts, the budget/tax increase), it seemed to predominantly play into anti-government sentiments.

The Dems should pursue their fantasy of using social security as a key issue in the 2006 elections, but they should drop the tactic (if it is one) of referring to the Clinton Health Care plan--it could really backfire--and they should resist the temptation to put up their own Social Security crisis remedy--that stupid tired serving of warmed up leftovers of Republican policy "strategy" has failed like seven times in the past couple of years and always leaves us doubly-screwed: the bad law gets made, with complete complicity by our "champions."

See Arnold Run
snichols watched the "better" part of Run, Arnold, Run tonight on A&E against her better judgment. She'd give it maybe one snout (:) -- mainly it was a poorly written puff piece. An infomercial, as her principal advisor and co-tv watcher put it, for Arnold's constitutional amendment.

Meanwhile, snichols has been putting her recently Saul Alinsky primer to use in application on Arnold:

Rule #1: Use your opponent's greatest strength against him.

Rule #2: Turn your greatest weakness into a strength.

Rule #3: Make it personal, never about a particular corporation or entity, but about a CEO or manager or bad actor (anyone come to mind as a "bad actor"?)

We all know that in defeating John Kerry, Karl Rove applied these rules brilliantly.

Here in California almost every campaign the good guys engage in on every issue follows its' own opposite rules:

#1: Attack your opponent's greatest weakness.
#2: Lead with your own strength.
#3: Make it about the special interests.

Examples abound: the budget, health care, education, various initiative fights come to mind.

The closest kin to a campaign being waged in the tradition of Alinsky/Rove (is Alinsky rolling over in his grave? Is he even dead?) is the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Right's ongoing Arnoldwatch.org.

One could argue that Arnold's greatest strength is his commitment to "clean up Sacramento" and thus any and all allusions to his strong ties to special interests taint this strength of his. Moreover one could argue that by attacking him rather than the special interests, you ARE making it personal, and it will stick in the public's mind. So there's real merit to this approach.

But is it working? It seems that Arnold's popularity is falling, but is that enough to achieve the policy goals we all have? And is Arnold's perceived "cleanliness" really his greatest strength?

snichols thinks that perhaps Arnold's greatest strength is the degree to which he has generally accomplished what he puts his mind to: he set forth to be the world's best known body builder, a movie star and the Governor of California and no one can deny that he accomplished all those things.

Most recently he set his intention to pass or defeat certain initiatives, and he (mostly) did that too.

If Arnold is to be focussed on, argues snichols, why not take that strength squarely on? He's a strong man, a bully, a man who gets his way no matter who stands in his way. snichols thinks it might not stick to him or even be relevant to the average voter that he collects tons of special interest money to achieve his goals. This only makes him seem that much more powerful and attractive. So every single time we hype the money and the corresponding payoff in public policy, we're drawing attention to the degree to which this Austrian muscle-boy has people pay $100,000 a pop to eat breakfast with him and then gets his stuff donen using their money, and you don't.

What if instead, we went for the jugular? What if we could make this ultimate success story the ultimate failure? The budget is the perfect place to do it. Don't make the story the special interests are the problem, or Arnold's ambitions are the problems. Make the story: Arnold can't do it. He's too weak. He's too scared. He's met his match in the legislature. He's a baby. He has to go to the initiatives because he doesn't know how to do it. There's ample evidence to back up these claims, and some of it even overcomes some of the Democratically controlled legislature's greatest perceived weaknesses.

He's absolutely got to respond to the goading. This is why he constantly goads. If you kick sand in this 100 pound weakling of a governor's face, he's bound to over-react and show his cards. This tactic has worked for bullies and strong men from time immemorium, and it'll work here.

snichols will apply rule 2 tomorrow.

Iraqi Vote Blah Blah Blah
Is there anyone else out there who is sick to death about hearing about the impending Iraqi election? Well, snichols is. She knows it perhumps (as her grandmother used to say) doesn't speak very well for her, but she is sick of it anyway.

For one thing, the chart on the front page of the Sacramento Bee today told snichols more about the Iraqi election system than she's ever seen explained in any newspaper about the American election system.

Every single time this completely farcical election is reported upon as if it's anything less than a completely farcical election, the reporter is effectively hiding the truth about the war in Iraq.

And the degree to which the media have been predicting violence in the elections tomorrow for months prior is the degree to which we'll be treated to a raft of news stories tomorrow with headlines such as "Despite Predictions of violence, millions of Iraqis vote" or "Violence breaks out during voting, as expected" instead of the only possible acceptable headline to snichols:

"TRAGIC AND HORRIBLE DEATHS ACROSS IRAQ TODAY DURING LUDICROUS SO-CALLED ELECTION PROVE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HORRIBLY HORRIBLY WRONG"

Back to you.

in snichols' mind
To increase the eerie but annoying quality of referring to herself in the 3rd-person, snichols has often frightened her children by narrating aloud their day as if they were all in a cheezy potboiler--it goes something like this:

"As she picked up N--- and E---, she smiled, looking forward to their weekend together. These were good times and these were good kids and they're especially cute this afternoon clad in the 'CU Later Alligator' and ripped dinosaur t-shirt and pants replete with bathrobes that have sufficed for a sleepy rainy Friday pajama day at school. So she expected a good time and a good welcome.

What she got was this, 'no!!!! I don't want to go to gymnastics. I'm tired. I just want to enjoy my Friday. You never let me enjoy my Fridays!' And this, 'what? oh no. Is she going to scream about gymnastics again? Do I have to go too. I've done all my homework and I don't have anything left to read, I don't have anything left to d0-oo.'"

At this point, her narrating aloud the events has only caused the screaming to increase. "'Stop narrating!!! You're not being nice at all! I don't love you anymore!' 'Wait. I like the narrating. Keep narrating, mom. It's cool.' She begins to wonder whether the afternoon will be so sweet and fun afterall, and whether, in the final analysis, she'll wish that she were chained to the proverbial desk, watching the clock and trying to keep from eating that last cookie in the lunchroom."

Kondoleeza Kickback?
snichols takes it as an encouraging sign that yesterday all eight Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted against confirming White House counsel Albert Gonzales as Attorney General.

Judging from the strong and unequivocal quality by which (traditional swing votress) Senator Diane Feinstein of California voiced her concerns with Gonzales, snichols detects a possible kickback from the combined power of her sisterly suckup to now SS Rice through the committee last week with her decision to run for re-election--Feinstein apparently was indundated by thousands of calls protesting her Rice-uh oh (pronounced "risotto") (snichols' call among them).

Feinstein apparently distinguishes the 2 positions with a belief that AG requires "perceived independence" while the SS does not. See SF Chronicle for full story. Could a filibuster on a cabinet appointment be in the offing?

Meanwhile here in Cah-lee-4-knee-a, Schwarzenegger's poll numbers are dropping (not as quickly as snow in the high sierras, but they are falling).

Great Week
snichols is having a fabulous week--almost too fabulous to blog about. Her mother has miraculously recovered from her debilitating sciatic pain; her career is going fabulously her brother is blogging constantly and her husband is doing so well that he would rather not be mentioned by name.

Put that in your blog and link it.

(:)(:)(:)(:) for Rules for Radicals
After years of meaning to, snichols finally finished reading the bible of grassroots organizing, Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.

By checking it out from the public library, she has no doubt now placed herself on some sort of high level enemy combatant list. So in her remaining moments of freedom, she should say this:

The book is totally different from how she thought it would be. snichols found the book not at all dated and indeed extremely applicable almost prescient of today's political dilemmas.

The chapter on means/end calculations in politics includes a devastating myth-shattering analysis of Ghandi's (and the civil rights movement's) nonviolent tactics as merely pragmatic not driven solely by belief, and not applicable to many other political situations.

And the chapter on calculating tactics to use your opponent's strength against him could be used more effectively by every advocate snichols knows.

Read this book (but better buy a copy--can you blog from Guantanamo, anyone know? Anyone want to take over the blog?)

Productivity at office vs. home
snichols is currently fascinated by the topic of whether it is possible to be as productive working from home as the office. A dear friend recently went back to daily office work after years of working out of her house.

She reports, "I'm afraid I have to confirm the worst fear of the part-time working mommy, I am way more productive working out of an office than from the house--there's no comparison."

Running it by another friend, friend 2 tried to flatter snichols by claiming that while that might be true of others, it would be less true of snichols, since snichols was always so productive.

And while snichols appreciates any and all flattery (bring it on), she demurs. Today she spent a mere 2 hours working out of a would-be office and it yielded about a day's worth of phone calls and insights (not to mention an over-priced salad and latte--oh how she missed those!) and she absolutely loved it.

At home the problem has not been the lure of the refrigerator, the tv or the couch. Those are mere background noise, no more troublesome than the plate of cookies in the staff lounge or that cute new guy in cubicle four might be to a weaker soul.

No, the problem has been the sheer fact that no one else under the sun gives a flying fenwick whether she produces anything at all. And no one can tell. After all, there's no one there.

So bring on the office space; bring on the windows that don't open, the endless carpet and the walk down the hall to the loo, but for god's sake, let it come with someone who cares.

On politics
It may have come to snichols' readers attention the degree to which she has not been blogging about politics since a certain election in early November of aught four. It's as if some sort of political depression descended over, and she has yet to awaken.

Oh, she still follows things, sort of. Here's some stuff that's interesting her but not enough to write about it:

*Barbara Boxer becoming the Paul Wellstone (or here in California, we might say, "the Tom Hayden") of the U.S. Senate with her lone stance forcing a formal vote to ratify the electoral college results of the presidential election followed by (last week) her pummeling of Condoleeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzzza (snichols would like it if she'd pummel DiFi too while she's at it).

*Leader Pro Tem of the California Senate Don Perata (presumed to be worse, or less liberal than his powerful predecessor John Burton) introducing and pushing a single payer full government health care plan for California.

*And ever, as always, the strong and abiding death wish of the national and state Democratic party.

These are topics that interest snichols enough to keep her awake at night. Perhaps she will blog about them soon.

Bill on Hotel Rwanda
snichols' kids got unexpected sleepovers tonight (a great perk for the middle-aged parents of middle-aged kids) so snichols and snicholsqueeze went out for Spanish food then to Hotel Rwanda.

(:)(:)(:) for Restaurant Aioli Bodega at 1800 L in Sacramento--excellent tapas and tomato-based seafood dish with equally dishy French (go figure) waiter. Only downside was when snichols spilled ice-cold water on the husbandry, but it strategically got them moved to a better table.

After Hotel Rwanda at the beautifully renovated (take a clue, Tower) Crest Theater in downtown Sacto, home for, among other treats, an interview with Bill on the movie.

"Using a snout-based rating system, how many snouts up would you give Hotel Rwanda?" said snichols to him as he's brushing his teeth.

Rinse, spit. "Oh I don't know, whatever's the most, I guess." More brushing.

"You don't know what the highest number of snouts is?!" snichols screams. "Everyone who reads snicholsblog knows what the highest number of snouts is!"

More brushing.

sigh. "Okay, what else would you want to tell the readers about Hotel Rwanda?"

Rinse. Spit. "That they should go see it, I guess."

"Anything else?"

Now leering. "Not that I want to put in the blog..."

"Okay."
-----------------------------------

So that's it. (:)(:)(:)(:) for Hotel Rwanda, a powerful and ultimately uplifting story about a quiet hero in the midst of hell. To read a real review, click here.

(:)(:)(: for A Very Long Engagement
First, unrelated to the movie, a shout out to snichols' brother Evan and his blog. He's been blogging every day since January 1. And snichols has challenged herself to do the same.

So first, 2 1/2 snouts up for A Very Long Engagement which snichols saw on January 3rd in a jet-lagged-cabo-then-christmas-than-virgin-islands-what-a-month haze and then never reviewed.

snichols would not recommend this for the jet-lagged set. Granted, the seppia-toned cinematography is gor-juz and the script, cast and acting is more than adequate. And snichols is normally nothing if not up for (or down for depending on your decade) a long, slow-moving French film at Sacramento's delightfully run-down Tower Theater, n'est-ce pas?

But, again maybe it's the 4 time-zone trip talkin', but snichols could not begin to follow or care about the riveting decades old "detective" tale. Everytime she would get up to pee (and people were starting to whisper "when's the baby due" to her by the 4th or 5th time so next time she's wearing a Depends (tm) undergarment to the movies) she would hiss "whad I miss?" to her husband who would ignore her, so she basically has no fucking idea what the movie was about.

So that's the review. Ain't you glad snichols is blogging again? Well ain't chew?

You Need to Know About this Self-Help Legal
It has come to snichols' attention that despite their great reputation and her big mouth, there are some people that snichols knows who don't yet know about Nolo Press. Nolo is a wonderful self-help legal publisher that has books and software on everything from will and estates to divorces to finances and small businesses and non-profits and home-buying.

For a very reasonable cost, you can download many of the books and forms in an instant and get high quality legal advice. If you, like many of snichols' friends, are a lawyer who knows no law, this is the place for you to refer all those "hey, you're a lawyer..." people who ask you stuff from time to time. If you're not a lawyer, snichols can tell you that all the real lawyers she's shown Nolo advice to tend to agree with it.

Since Nolo is based in Bezerkeley, some of the advice is particularly to California, but they always state that up front in the title. Have at it!

Acts of God and Money
snichols, like all her fellow internationalists, has been interested in the tidal wave of money pouring into the regions most affected by the tsunami. Why, we all have been asking ourselves, not the Sudan, not AIDS in Africa?

Many have speculated that there is something more neutral, less political, less haunting about a "natural disaster" or "act of god" than genocide or massive death spread through the disease of ignorance.

But something else interests snichols about this--first, that this is proof positive of billions of latent dollars lying there, unmoving, untapped, ready to be mobilized by the right emotion. Second, that we believe there is a distinction to be drawn between one act of god and another. That we believe that one disaster is "natural" and the other isn't.

It matters not whether you want to tag the tsunami as an act of man (global warming) or AIDS as god-made (has all the earmarks of the"great and terrible" god of the jews). The fact is that acts of man are acts of god and vice versa. If there is a god or a spirit, it is clearly in the fabric, the cellular structure, the very stuff that connects us all.

And one large ripple in the blanket throws back massive money and another doesn't--why?

We must shift universal consciousness to recognize these as the same so that we know a disaster when we see one.

long time no post
birthdays Christmas Virgin Islands epiphany
here I am.
Whatever brilliant thoughts I had during that intervening time are gone.

But here's what's on my mind: I spent a coupla hours looking through magazines for inspiration the other day--literally.

What may be no surprise to you, but was something of a surprise to me was the extent to which Madison Avenue takes the deepest longings of the soul and uses them to sell products--phrases like "blissful peace" "perfect love" and such crop up in car ads, clothing ads, you name it.

The brilliant "visionary political astrologer" Caroline Casey [really: she's the daughter of a congressman, astrologer for cynics, uses phrases like "believe nothing. entertain possibilities;" speaks around the country doing what Bertrand Russell used to call "stand-up philosophy"] quotes from the New York Times science pages that substances if deprived of what they need most will seek out their "toxic mimic" which ultimately destroys them.

So one of the reasons why styrofoam containers are so odious is that one of the chemicals in the styrofoam is a toxic mimic of estrogen that can be attracted by animals and humans and negatively affect their reproductive systems.

Although it's been said many times, many ways, I simply had a visceral sense that consumer culture, and the drive to consume, is the toxic mimic of soul food. In other words, these advertisements trigger and appear to feed our deepest innermost longings of the human spirit or soul and so we eagerly gobble up what they serve us. But then it doesn't work. And it poisons our spirit and our soul is even needier and we are driven to consume more and more to fill that hole.