I'd Rather the Democrats Fight than Dance

Earlier this week, I was excited to see that there was a rift developing between the business-oriented Republicans in Congress and the cultural conservatives over the filibuster rule change showdown on judicial appointments. Apparently the Chamber of Commerce is worried that it will hurt "their priorities" in Congress (things like stripping away consumers' right to class action status and bankruptcy protection--oops they've already done that, well other nefarious priorities) if the Senate is at a standstill over the filibuster rule change play.

Historically, as Thomas Frank detailed so well in his What's the Matter with Kansas?, Republicans in Congress, elected by a powerful combination of business money and cultural conservative grassroots, fight to the death over business "priorities" and win, and make a show on values issues, and lose. Rarely, at least publicly, are the two pitted against each other though. Interesting to see what the Republicans will do when the Chamber throws down like that against their whacko base.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, yesterday it was reported that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid is seeking a compromise over the nine or ten judicial appointees in question. He clearly stated that he wanted to avoid the showdown, "I'd rather dance than fight."

Well, doesn't that just sum up the Congressional democrats main problem nicely?

I sense a leetle pattern here: chamber of commerce has plenty of juice with the Democrats too (who voted in numbers for the anti-consumer bills referenced above)--clearly they're pressuring the Dems to avoid bringing the Senate to a standstill.

Now as much I prefer dancing to fighting outside Congress, at this point I believe the American people have little to lose and everything to gain from a showdown--Congress at a standstill sounds like heaven to me and even to let half those nominees on the bench is a disaster. Democrats could use the press that such a showdown would give them and the longer we stretch it out the better off we are going into the 2006 congressional elections.

So call Senator Harry Reid (202) 224-2131 and tell him you'd rather fight than dance.

Is emailing doing anything about anything?

Bill wants me to blog about how there's a disturbing subsection of the email population who seem to think that joining into an email "discussion" with an impassioned "me too!" is actually doing something.

Witness this exchange on our neighborhood association email list. A woman writes in saying that there will be a hearing on downtown, and specifically on whether Wal-Mart should be allowed to build a store downtown. Her goal is to get people to go to the hearing. Now that makes sense. You're sending out an email to urge others to do something. But then the recipients begin writing back, "oh, I know. I hate Wal-Mart!" "I hate Wal-Mart too!" "I'd like to echo that remark!"

And that's where it begins to make Bill crazy. Not a single one of these people indicates in anyway that they're actually going to do anything about Wal-Mart, that they're actually going to go to the hearing. They just want to "register" their opposition.

So he asks me to blog about it-- which raises a more frightening question for me: is blogging really more of the same?

Swami Parmanandi & Me

Friday night I experienced the hindi equivalent of seeing Bono play a room of 40 people. I went to hear Swami Parmanandji talk. The man is an official saint and is said to be followed by hundreds of thousands of people in the world, consulted by prime ministers, etc. Yet, I'd never heard of him.

I attended the speech not because of the hype (there really was none in the publicity at my church) but because I wanted to have the promised guided meditation (there also was none).

Once I got there and learned that I was in presence of someone whom people have compared to Buddha, Ghandi and Christ, I became curious about this man. I heard two women who looked like they grew up swimming in the gene pool next door tell how their first meeting with Swami (the "the" is silent) changed their life; they left home to follow him and now live in India for months every year.

This made me a little nervous. I have been exploring the boundaries of my spiritual path a little lately; I live in California; I've also got blond hair and blue eyes. Was there a chance that I was going to be so strongly overcome by this man's presence that I was going to kiss my family goodbye and move to India and sleep on mats? I only came for the guided meditation!

I settled in, accustoming myself to the line by line excellent translation provided by yet another devotee, an ex-IBM executive who grinned ear to ear at everything Swami said. I must say he made a lot of sense. He spoke well (my Hindi is excellent) and told the truth in a simple, memorable, accessible way that is useful for modern life.

I got to ask him a question regarding whether it matters what the reasons are that you do the right thing. His answer confirmed my emerging belief in the matter (basically that it does and it doesn't simultaneously). Afterwards, I ate almonds that had been blessed by him and was extremely grateful that they were low carb.

But whether it was the long long beard, the orange hood or the toe socks, I find myself, one day later, not even considering considering dropping everything and following him--a little disappointing, but ah well, I have never been the devotee type.

I'm a dabbler extraordinaire. I subscribe to the thesis of the visionary political astrologer Caroline Casey, "believe nothing, entertain possibilities." And there is strong possibility that this man that I have spoken to and eaten of his almonds is one of the greatest spiritual teachers alive.

Next week: 40 Indians meet Oprah.

David Lynch is All Growed Up

(:)(:)(:)(:) Four Snouts Up for The Straight Story directed by David Lynch.

We've happily entered that unfortunate phase of American life where every sector of the family has its own Netflix queue.

The movies Bill picks are uniformly excellent, one 4 snouter after another. The kids are watching every Free Willy movie in succession, ending with The War Room (that was a bad Bill Clinton joke, in case you missed it).

Bill sticks to his films. The kids stick to theirs. But I brouse. I watch everyone's films. And when I need a break from the whales and the 4 starsers, I watch one of the 2 or 3 snouters that I've put in my own queue-- I'm afraid Bridget Jones Diary: beyond reason provides a representative example.

Tonight, Bill pitched his feature presentation simply but clearly to me, "do you want to watch a David Lynch film about a man who rides across the country on a lawn mower?"

Who could say no to that invitation? I hopped up next to him on the John Deere and we headed off.

If you're like me, when you think David Lynch you think dwarves, you think Laura Dern hotter than wet asphalt, you think Dennis Hopper in a clown suit and most of all you think rape, with scissors or without--your choice--but you don't think sweet old man on a rider mower spreading wisdom and hope across the middle west.*

But that's what this film is. It is just a sweet sweet film, not sticky sweet, not saccharin (and I've got quite the taste for fake sugar, my friend), but profoundly and deeply sweet. From the bottom of your soul, end of your life, no regrets, sweet.

Based on a true story with lovely lovely performances by Richard Farnsworth and Sissy Spacek. Rated G.

*One scene does contain a nod to the old Lynch where a woman becomes hysterical from killing her 12th deer on the same stretch of highway in as many days. "I've tried everything. I even play Public Enemy full blast! Where do they come from?!!"

My two favorite coaches...

My two children had a conversation today in the back of our car while arriving at the library:

N(10): E---, don't take this the wrong way, but one thing you need to work on in your life is taking more responsibility for stuff.

E(8): N---! Just because I accidentally knocked your corn nuts on the floor of the car doesn't mean that you get to be mean to me!

N: See now, E---, that's exactly the kind of things I'm talking about. When something happens that you caused, you usually try to make excuses for it or shift the blame somewhere else. Like if you spill the milk at the table, and Dad tries to get you to clean it up, you want to talk about how you didn't mean to do it. That may be true, but it doesn't matter. The milk still needs to get cleaned up and you still need to clean it.

E: But you don't always take responsibility for what you do, N---!

N: (patient tone) E---, there you go shifting the blame again. Think about this, if you were a grown-up and you drove a car while you were drinking, you could hit somebody and hurt them and then a policeman came and said that you hurt someone for hitting a car and you said it wasn't your fault because you didn't see them and that was only because you were drinking--now do you see why you need to work on this?

E: No! I don't see, N---! I don't wanna talk about this! I don't like this!

snichols: It's okay, E---, most grownups don't want to think or talk about this kind of stuff too much either. Even I have trouble with taking responsibility for things. I'm grownup and I just paid several hundred dollars to spend a whole weekend to figure out what N--- knows when he's 10. You don't have to talk about it until you're ready.

E: I'll never be ready! I never want to talk about it! You can't make me talk about it! I need to get 3 books from the library about different salaries that you can earn in different careers. But it is not a comparation (sic)--it's just different! And now N----'s made me too upset to do my research!

snichols: Sweetie, take a deep breath. It's going to be okay.

(but she was talking to herself...)

Bizarre Antics in the Elections Committee Today

A rag tag but decent sized mob of public financing supporters thronged through the capitol today armed with full-sized brooms to help them "clean up Sacramento." After all of us marched into Senate leader pro tem Perata's office, it suddently occurred to the crack security force of the Capitol that many people sporting beards and fanny packs were carrying large sticks and chanting, inside the Capitol, not out at a rally.

The seargeants began randomly confiscating the brooms whenever they saw them ("hey you, gimme that broom" was the drill). We responded by frantically secreting them away. I could tell you where they are, but then I'd have to sweep with you and god knows we don't want that.

Basically, upshot, bottom line, final analysis, cut to the chase, long story short, the hearing on the AB 583 (Hancock's) Clean Money bill was a bloody disaster. Our author was attacked from Democratic idiots who thought the bill didn't go far enough and Democratic idiots who thought it went too far--and these were the supporters. The bill was "put over" until an undisclosed hearing next week. Heaven help us all.

Beware of Frozen Juice

Many people walk around every day blissfully unaware of the dangers that lurk in the frozen food section of every grocery. Such was the case with me, prior to today that is. I was attacked today by a can of Minute Maid orange juice (with added calcium).

Here I am walking around Raley's on Freeport calmly praising myself for accomplishing my whole day with "clarity, focus, ease and grace" (something I am working on, okay?), I suddenly see a short line in the checkout, throw my cart into the spot, scream "I'll be right back, I'm just getting something I couldn't find!" over my shoulder as I hurtle down to aisle 3 (if I couldn't find it, how come I go right to it?), frozen foods, last door on the left juice.

I begin pulling out 4 or 5 juices, cramming them into my hands (ow, they're cold) when suddenly I inadvertantly liberate another can of juice which comes flying out and lands, right on its edge, as hard as possible on one of those very tender spots just below the ankle bone on my right foot. "F---k!" I scream, which attracts attention. I thank her for her concern, assure her that after all it's just juice, I'll be fine, hobble back to the checkout stand (where they're through checking and just waiting for me).

Seven hours later after almost continual ice and elevation I am still in great pain and my neighbor the nurse practitioner tells me there's actually a possibility I broke a bone in the thing, oh my god!!!

So I'm telling you, don't take any chances, drink only fresh juice.

The Dark Side of the Mood

(:)(:)(:)(:) for Magnolia viewed on DVD this evening at home. I became aware of this film in the following way:

Bill: Wanna watch Magnolia with me tonight?

snichols: What is it?

Bill: It's a DVD I got from Netflix.

snichols: No. I mean, what's the film like or about?

Bill: It's an Anderson film.

snichols: Loni?

Bill: No.

snichols: Belina?

Bill: No. Paul Thomas.

snichols: I don't know that director. What can you tell me about the film?

Bill: I'm watching it tonight.

snichols: (sigh) Okay, I'll watch it (quickly grabbing Leonard Maltin to look the movie up--he gave it 3 stars and called it depressing--now I can't wait. Will this surpass Ratcatcher?)

I am fascinated by the series of wierd, inexplicable, coincidentally mostly bad events happening to the lives of the people in this film. It is superbly written, directed and acted. It is dark dark dark dark dark. Everyone says fuck and motherfucker a real lot. And I mean everyone, elderly dying people say it, children say it, even educated fleas say it.

Many many people would hate this movie. In a different time of my life, I might have hated it too. I have been cursed/blessed with the quintessentially American obession with the light and fear of the dark. All my life I have eschewed dark books, dark movies, dark news stories--closed my eyes, closed my ears, closed my mind. I thought, on some level, that if I could shut it out, it wasn't there. It didn't happen.

My recent mental state convinces me that you can't possibly shut these things out, that dark is as much a part of life and spirit as life is and that when you can't face the dark, you can't grow. Magnolia is an exercise in facing the dark. And it faces it well.

Three and a Half Snouts Up for Bride and Prejudice

(:)(:)(:)(. for Bride and Prejudice the so-called Bollywood take on Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice. I absolutely loved it and it may be one of my new favorite movies, so in my heart it will always be a 4-snouter. I loved the romance, the music, the color, the characters and most of all the pageantry--see this film on the big screen if you're going to see it at all. The riot of orange and red and pink saris in the dance and music scenes is nothing short of delicious.

But I reserve a half snout, and maybe should reserve a whole one, for wooden acting on the part of the Darcy character and for some moments where the deliberately unreal and unbelievable quality of the film instead of delighting distracts. Yet, even these moments are often quickly corrected with adorable self-consciousness.

For example, in the classic falling-in-love montage of delightful things our two main lovers do in a couple of special days together, we can't help but roll our eyes at why a previously closely watched chaperoned Indian girl would be allowed to go alone on an impromptu helicopter ride from L.A. to the Grand Canyon with her unsuitable European-American suitor. But just as we're thinking, "oh, come on..." it cuts to a scene on the beach in Santa Monica where about a hundred gospel choir members in matching blue robes surround them with a serenade. And then you go, instead of c'mon, "wow! " and a huge grin spreads over your face at the sheer self-conscious ludicrous act. You forgive it and give yourself to it again.

Caution: women will like this chickpea flick musical much more than men. And it is entirely suitable for children--teenage girls should be encouraged to see it.

Let's be truthful about the filibuster

So the Washington Post is reporting today that Frist Likely to Push for Ban on Filibusters. This is bad news in the short term because it runs the risk of taking away the supermajority lever that the 44 Democratic Senators have on judicial appointments (not that they use it nearly enough).

The progressive blogosphere and Air America have going nuts about this change, and rightly so. The current threat that Democrats can filibuster a confirmation is all that stands between many of these awful nominees and the federal bench.

But the general tone of the protests is at best ignorant and at worst disengenuous. The argument they make against losing this rule is that it is "anti-democratic," that it eliminates "checks and balances that the founding fathers wanted." This simply isn't true.

First of all the rule wasn't created by the founding fathers. It was created by the Senate in 1806 and has been protested ever since. It is not "democratic;" it is anti-majority. And it was not designed to protect the interests of the "minority", it was designed to increase the power of each senator. Lyndon Johnson and many others before him used the filibuster for decades to prevent civil rights legislation from coming to a vote. The legislation had a majority of the votes for some time before it passed in the 1960s (once LBJ changed directions and made it happen).

Don't get me wrong, I don't want Frist to succeed. We need the filibuster right now, in this moment in history. And maybe our friends need to lie to keep it. But right here, in the confines of this blog, let's admit the truth: it's got to go eventually and someday when our guys are in power, we'll thank them.

Will Tom Umberg Stay True to his Conscience?

I have always liked California Assemblymember Tom Umberg from Orange County. When he was in the Assembly the first time, before term limits and the "new Orange County," it was what we insiders like to call a tough seat. A Democrat had a genuinely tough time holding onto it and could easily lose to the Republican in the general election. Nonetheless, Tom Umberg voted his conscience. He didn't do what was politically expedient. He did what was right for his constituents.

Now after some 10 years out of the legislature, Tom Umberg's back in a redistricted, term-limited, solidly Democratic seat. After 4 months in office, next week he faces his first big test. On Tuesday, April 19th, the California Clean Money bill is up in the committee he chairs, Assembly Elections and Redistricting. Assembly Bill 583 by Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley) is a serious effort to take special interest money out of politics and make politicians beholden to the right people: the voters. The bill is a California-tailored version of successful public financing laws that have been in place for years in Arizona and Maine.

The buzz is that Chair Umberg will not vote aye on this landmark legislation (which passed out of this committee last year). The other Democrats on his committee, Leno (San Francisco) Levine (Los Angeles), and Klehs (Contra Costa County) say they will vote for the bill. The two Republicans will vote no. If Umberg ducks it, he'll kill the bill for year.

True, the California electorate (certainly in Orange County) has a long way to go before it fully understands public financing of elections. But after a few years, the voters and elected officials of Maine and Arizona, across party lines, love it. They report that the new system has rejeuvenated politics in their states, luring more ethical and accountable people to run for office and win and allowing politicians to focus their efforts on serving their constituents instead of fundraising.

If you live in Orange County or Assemblymember Tom Umberg's district and care about this issue, or if you think Tom Umberg will care what you think, please give his office a call and let him know that you want him to vote YES on AB 583 the California Clean Money bill. (916) 319-2069

Talk to Her

(:)(:)(:)(:) Four snouts up for Pedro Almodovar's Talk to Her -- a wonderful haunting film about two men involved with women in comas. I've been meaning to see it for years. I generally like Almodovar films. This one came like 2 weeks ago from Netflix and I have been avoiding watching it, thinking it would be depressing and kind of hating myself for being so shallow that I want to see an "uplifting" movie.

Finally, while Bill struggled with a movie called Time Code or something where there are 4 different screens simultaneously (I gave it a try. I think I'm too old to get it. I'm also annoyed by headlines running across the screen while I try to watch the news--which am I supposed to pay attention to? How do I do both? p.s. I can whine really well if I want to), I watched Talk to her tonight and absolutely loved it.

Caution: way less sex than any other Almodovar film and the only cross-dressing was the woman Matador--or was she a woman? Very androgynous, of course, characteristic of his work.

The trailer for this film was one of those inpenetrable promos with no words, just music and a series of eerie scenes. This one featured a tiny man sitting on the bed talking with a full size woman and a lot of dancing--while those scenes are technically in the film, they have nothing to do with the main characters or plot and for a long time influenced my choice to stay away from it. Why do they choose to promote their films that way? I will never get it.

Anyway, most of you probably aren't interested in a review of a film out on DVD that you've long since forgotten about. But I made a commitment to post daily and that's what I've got to say today. Good night.

The Art of Control

I'm trying to release control over things. Like the blog. I stopped sending the posts to everyone so that people could make a choice of coming to read it. Frightening for me that they might not.

At home, we've instituted a new system for getting the kids to brush their teeth, do their chores and homeworks and clean up their stuff without being nagged about it:

At 8:30am and 8:00pm I do an inspection. The list is posted of what they need to do. They can get up to 10 "privilege points" as a result of the inspection.

At first, I told them the inspection was coming and what to expect. I'd call out, "it's almost 8:30!" or, "I don't see any evidence of toothbrushing!" because I wanted them to succeed. But then, it hit me: it really wasn't important for me to want them to succeed. They had to want to succeed. And in order to want to succeed, they were going to at first have to fail.

So the warnings stopped and the inspections came, ready or not. The first couple inspections were a disaster, very low points awarded calmly but clearly explaining what was not done on the list. There was screaming. There was crying. There were protests. "This isn't fair! You didn't warn us! We didn't know it meant that!" etc.

But then we kept going. After only a couple of days of this, they were hyper vigilant. "it's almost 8:30!" would call one to the other. "Have you fed the hamster?" would respond the other. Because we couldn't otherwise tell whether they were doing it, we came up with them calling out "I'm brushing my teeth!" when that was happening and moving out into the public house spaces with their toothbrushes, brushing for two minutes to the second staring at the clock.

After only another day, they were doing their own inspections: "hamster? check! teeth? check! stuff cleaned up? check! backpack ready for school? check! I say I get 10 points, Mom, what do you think?" I think so too.

Now if only I could get all of you to scream it out so I could hear it, "I'm reading your blog!" I think I could be happy.

P.S. Notice anything? I got tired of snichols. It'll just be me for a while.

Unions vs. Corporations

It's a worthwhile observation that the commentors make on the last post about the difference between shareholders and union members--shareholders having considerably more choice in what company they invest in than which union they join. That point need not be disputed. But to focus on that in the context of the debate over the anti-union initiative misses a more important truth. It assumes that the initiative is motivated by trying to make unions more democratic.

The initiative to require unions to get express permission from members to use union dues for political money may be cleverly cloaked in the rhetoric of democracy for union members, but its clear purpose is to weaken the power of working people's only real force for counteracting the dominance of huge corporate money in politics. In California, at least, unions sometimes beat the chamber of commerce at its own game.

Further democratization of unions is a laudable goal. It would be excellent, for example, if unions weren't so quick to side with the employers against environmental and consumer measures. But if we're going to get seriously excited about cleaning up money and politics, it would be a lot more to the point to slow down the flow of big corporate money than union money.

At least union money buys better politicians.

Sauce for the Corporation

The most annoying aspirant to the California ballot this year is a proposition to restrict public employee unions from spending political money without getting written permission from each member of the union before spending their dues.

Today in From Defeat: Governor Has Chance to Win Dan Weintraub urges Schwarzenegger to back this initiative (along with the redistricting and budget caps initiatives) as roadmap to victory and renewed popularity.

snichols would like to see an initiative on the California ballot that would force every corporation to get written permission from each shareholder before spending political money. Now wouldn't that be something? Imagine a letter from one of these financial institutions to its shareholder--

dear snichols:
here at citibank, we think it's vital to protect every shareholder's interest in their money, but we can only protect your money if we continue to be able to invade the financial privacy of every resident of this state. Won't you help us by giving us permission to spend a huge amount of your potential profits funding the campaigns of politicians who will vote against everyone's financial privacy. We implore you! Your return on your investment depends upon the outcome of this legislation.

If only Schwarzenegger got behind an initiative like that, his popularity would soar, at least with snichols.

she might even let him grope her.

Kosher Adultery

What's on snichols' bedside table? Kosher Adultery: seduce and sin with your spouse by Shmuley Boteach. She'd give this book so far (:)(:)(:)(:) 4 snouts up, but remember, she's not through with reading it and may never be (it's overdue at the library already). This is by far the best marriage handbook that snichols has read (a relatively small universe, but still).

Prior to reading this book, snichols was not conscious of Rabbi Shmuley. But now that she's reading it, it's Shmuley this and Shmuley that, everyone wants to talk Rabbi Shmuley. Turns out he's huge. Who knew?

Anyway, the book is about how you can have an affair...with your own spouse. And it's not dumb; it's really credible and interesting. He has the most cogent analysis of the common pattern of marital sex breakdown that snichols has ever seen--and the best advice for getting out of it. Under the heading of TMI* snichols is smug to report that she has been unwittingly applying many of Shmuley's tips for years, to great effect, without even knowing that was what she was doing, but she has more to learn so she reads on.

Many of snichols' friends need to read this book (although snichols doesn't want to say which ones, out of uncharacteristic respect for privacy). Buy and implement this book. Oh, and if it isn't obvious, you don't have to be Jewish to benefit--ah, but it helps.

*"Too much information" for the uninitiated.

On snichols' bedside table

Today we launch a new segment entitled "on snichols' bedside table" in which we get to find out what snichols thinks of various books as she is reading them--this is crucial since it could take her years to finish any of the books she is reading.

Today, snichols finds herself giving (:)(:)(:) three snouts up to The Piano Tuner by Daniel Mason. Given to her ages ago by her mother-in-law, snichols finds herself reading it and more other novels now. It is a compelling story of a 40 year old tuner of Erard pianos who is called upon to journey from London to the furthest reaches of Burma in the late 19th century to tune the piano of a military legend. With echoes of EM Forster's A Passage to India, it is often unclear, at least to the piano tuner, what is real and what is not.

The only factor keeping snichols from awarding a 4th (and highest) upturned snout to the novel in progress is that she finds the voices and descriptions in the book to be jarringly 21st century. Words are spoken by the characters that it seems to snichols absolutely wouldn't have been said even remotely that way in the late 19th century. Every author injects the perspective of their own time into every book but in this case the perspective/voice of 110 years later is repeatedly distracting.

And yes, snichols knows exactly what was going on inside the heads of late 19th century piano tuners, please do not ask how?

Changes on snicholsblog

Changes are afoot on snicholsblog. First the minor ones: new look, links on side, updated profile.

Then the major: new URL for the blog snicholsblog.blogspot.com; and as of now snichols has terminated the automatic post to email. If you want to read snicholsblog now, you've got to remember to find it on the web.

snichols is going to wean you from it though. She'll send out an email now and again with a link and a tease. And she'll tell you how you can "subscribe" through a real webservice that does that for many blogs, not just this one.

Oh, and also, it's daily posts from now on. Hell or high water. She'll post.

This is old--go to snicholsblog.blogspot.com, my new blog!

NOTE: THIS IS AN OLD URL THAT IS NO LONGER UPDATED. GO TO MY NEW URL AT SNICHOLSBLOG

Sex and the snichols girl
[Warning: this post will not be as racy as it promises to be]
Most of her life, snichols has either been oblivious or lucky or both when it comes to experience of sex discrimination. Raised at the tail end of the baby boom, she has always been keenly aware of the history of her gender, and the women who blazed a trail before her. She has not been a trailblazer herself, however. Over 50% of her law school class were women. Women hired her for her first, second and third jobs out of law school. As a public interest lobbyist and legislative about half of her colleagues were women.

Don't get snichols wrong, she has occasionally suffered indignities afforded to her gender. She once, for example, heard a pin and a job offer at Georgetown Law School drop at the same time when she was being interviewed by a room of over 20 male private criminal defense lawyers. In it, she was called upon to explain why she would be uncomfortable using a rape victim's sexual history to tear down the witness's credibility as a tactic for defending her male client accused of rape. The room went completely dead when she had the audacity to suggest that there was an ongoing power imbalance between men and women with regard to sex, and the job, which she had been told was hers prior to that pro forma interview, was withdrawn.

Also it wasn't until the 3rd grade that she was allowed to wear pants to school and she once had to make onion dip for a superbowl game in which she wasn't even remotely interested.

But currently snichols is stepping simultaneously into two new arenas that appear frought with yesterday's problems for women: op ed writing and business.

snichols has entered the fray on the now national debate intiated between Susan Estrich (of Friend of Hilary fame) and Michael Kinsley (of New Republic neo con pretending to be liberal now editorial editor of the LA Times fame) on why there are so few women on the op ed page of the LA Times and other national publications. She recently had her 3 top notch (well, 2 top notch, 1 serviceable) pieces shot down by Kinsley--obviously sexism what else could it be? It couldn't be that he just had crammed the page so full of his own column and those of his New Republic neomod cronies that he has no room for anyone else, could it? Or is that sexism? snichols isn't sure.

She has submitted the pieces to the NY Times and the SF Chronicle and is waiting to hear back. Meanwhile NPR's Talk of the Nation debates "why women don't have more opinions," as if that were really the problem.

Meanwhile, snichols has started a company, now called What's the Big Idea?, to make money for social change from selling businesses and ideas--it's doing great but she and her female partners keep running up against a male-dominated business world that has trouble with the very concept of women. She is having to talk to people who refer to women as "little gals" for example, and she doesn't cotton to being called a "l'il gal" especially when she's a big 'un.

So what does all this mean, for snichols, and for the world? She hasn't quite sorted it out. She'll keep plugging away and let you know. Her working assumption, though, is that if Ray Charles can overcome poverty, racism and blindness to become an icon. She can overcome Kinsley and the "l'il gal" set.