Rumors about Lieberman

So there's some sort of rumor flying about in Washington that President Bush is considering appointing Senator Joe "I lost Florida" Lieberman to be Secretary of Defense (or at least, Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) treated it as a serious possibility in his appearance on Air America today.

If Lieberman would even consider this appointment, I consider him a traitor to his party. We have no reason to think he'd be a good Sec'y of Defense and it would just hand the Republicans an opportunity to have a high profile Democrat to receive populist anger against the war.

Air America & Mark Maron

Air America has grown in the year and a half it's been on from airing on 15 stations to some 84 stations across the country. Its shows are beating right-wing talk shows in many many markets.

Here in Sacramento, Air America started out on Talk City am1240 and then grew so popular that it outgrew its bandwith and moved to am 1320, now christened "Sacramento's left station." But Talk City did so well with leftwing talk that it stayed "Sacramento's progressive station" so now we have two progressive talk radio stations in Sacramento instead of none--great stuff.

The growth of progressive talk radio is easy to explain. The real appeal of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly is populist. But how can you get a good populist rant against a federal government run by people you totally supported and helped elect? Answer: you can't.

What's gonna be your rant? It's like John Stewart said when covering last year's Republican convention, "after 4 years of controlling the white house, the Congress and the federal judiciary, we're mad as hell and we're not gonna take it any more!" It doesn't work.

If Kerry had been elected, Air America might not be sitting so pretty, but no conspiracy theories here.

My one beef against Air America is that they've apparently fired "Morning Sedition" (weekdays from 6-9am) host Mark Maron. He is in his last days on the air. In my opinion, that show is fantastic--very funny and informative. Mostly funny. It has a lot in common with the daily show, only more like classic drive-time radio buddy stuff. I enjoy interviews with their reporter from "Planet Bush," and the daily faxed "Marching orders from the Streisand Compound" especially.

If you too will miss Mark Maron, or if you just want to make me happy. Call or write Air America at the email and numbers below and urge them to reconsider this decision.

1-866-303-2270 sedition@airamericaradio.com

The Trial Lawyers Get Smart

The Consumer Attorneys of California, as they are known to me, or "trial lawyers" as they are known to the world, finally got smart enough to start doing some affirmative public relations for the civil justice system.

And they enlisted two of my favorite people in the world to get the job done: my husband, Bill Magavern, and my close friend, Anne Bloom.

If you go to their website Protect Civil Justice, you can click on these wonderful 30 second spots that have running across the state and see Bill and Anne speaking from the heart about the importance of our civil justice system.

Too late for some of us, the trial lawyers in California have woken up to realize that the organized campaign against our civil justice system has worked. People across the country have gone to the polls and voted to abridge or give up their Seventh Amendment constitutional right to a jury trial.

This ad campaign shows the folly of that kind of thinking and how the civil justice system protects us all. Plus Bill and Anne look really cute on screen...

Food For Thought

I am simultaneously encouraged and worried by this blog posting by Dan Weintraub last
Monday on Clean Money. Dan makes the point that Democrats receive more corporate
money than Republicans and later says that the left supports public financing of elections
because it will allow Republicans to vote more freely. While this may be partially true,
the main reason I support public financing of elections is to allow the majority of Democrats
to vote more freely. I don't see the point of having Democrats in control of the legislature
if they are not going to be free to vote like Democrats. Consistently a rump group of
Democrats votes against bills to take poisons out of our air and water, make products more safe,
bring down the high price of prescription drugs, and extend health care coverage in a
meaningful way. I agree with Weintraub though in one major respect: public financing
of elections is an idea whose time has come--Sara

A Weblog by Sacramento Bee Columnist Daniel Weintraub
November 14, 2005

Clean Money

Supporters of the California Clean Money Act -- public financing for political campaigns -- plan to make a big push for their bill, AB 583, when the Legislature reconvenes in January, and they say they're looking for a new, dedicated source of revenue to fund it.

Here are my thoughts.

First, while I have never been a big fan of public financing, I think its time may have come. The defeat of Prop. 75 last week suggests that public employee union money will continue to be the primary source of funding for California Democrats for the foreseeable future. To a lesser degree, Republicans are prisoners of corporate money. While we often compare the public employee money to corporate money as if they were opposite sides of the same equation, they are not quite that. Corporate money tends to be from a much more diverse set of interests with a variety of goals. No one company has nearly the influence on Republican legislators that, say, the CTA has on Democrats. And business gives more to Democrats than the unions give to Republicans. Much of the time, when the public employee unions are pushing something in their narrow interest, almost nobody is pushing back on the other side. Did any individual company oppose the pension bills that went through a few years ago? The state, its people and its businesses would be better off if we find a way to elect Democrats who feel free to say no to the public employee unions. And the only way to do that is to wean them off that money, to match the union money with our money. The funny thing is that public financing has always been pushed by the left, as a way to free Republicans from corporate money. But in California I think it might play out differently.

For the revenue source, I'd suggest a 1 percent increase in the bank and corporation tax. (That's one percent of what they pay already -- not a percentage point on the rate, which would be a much larger increase in the total tax.) The corporations tax now brings in about $10 billion a year. A one-percent increase would yield about $100 million. I'd use that money to finance legislative races. Again, the business community, which normally squawks at both tax hikes and public financing of campaigns, should like this idea. It would be money well spent.

As for the method of distributing it, I'd prefer something as decentralized as possible. I like the "patriot dollars" concept that proposes using individual vouchers to allow each citizen or registered voter to direct his or her chit to a candidate of their choosing. I think this method has the added bonus of potentially re-engaging the public in government and civic affairs. When you feel like you have some money at stake, even a small amount, you tend to pay closer attention. The downside of this method is that each chit would be so small that, in practice, candidates would have to be well known before they could persuade citizens to transfer their chits, which gets us right back to where we are today. So another method might be more practical.

Many people would like to couple public financing with new limits on union and corporate dollars. That wouldn't break my heart. But I am philosophically opposed to such limits because I think they violate the right to free speech, and I think they just drive that money to hidden corners where it is more difficult to track. I would simply add the public money to the mix and hope it gave legislators some freedom from their normal impulse to kow-tow to contributors.

Finally, I would put a sunset on it. If all it did was add to the money-raising arms race, you'd want it to go out of business on its own rather than waiting for lawmakers to repeal it.

They're Just Crazy Enough to Do it

Here's the thing: I've been encouraged by the chaos in the Republican party lately. The environmentalist House Republicans defections in the amendment to the budget deal on drilling the Alaska Natural Wildlife Reserve was a thing of beauty.

And then I get waves of perverse excitement over how deeply in debt the nation is--clearly anyone, ANYONE would see that it is time to balance the budget or at least lessen it by repealing the Bush tax cuts.

But then I read, as I did yesterday, a front paid story in the relatively liberal Sacramento Bee in which the entire "objective" tone is to make clear that the real problem with our federal government is the ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS!!!! Sorry to use the large caps like someone who is receiving radio signals through his teeth and believes that there is a conspiracy to narrow mayonnaise jar necks but c'mon, people (and by this I mean reporters, so it's stretching it to say people), let's not report this as if it were received truth, that the reason our budget is in trouble is entitlements!

I can't believe I'm even having to say this: the budget was fine after Clinton left office. It became far less than fine when Bush pushed through massive tax cuts for the wealthiest citizens followed by sending more and more of our poorest citizens to war in Iraq with attendant massive expenditures for the benefit of Halliburton. My God, I have avoided having a conspiracy theory about this but I guess it's an avoidable conclusion now: the Republicans appear to have deliberately driven us into debt so as to use it as an excuse to cut health care, and programs for the poor and they are so determined to do it that they are willing to use Hurricane Katrina as an excuse to cut them.

Gunfighter a Brilliant Tour de Force

This just in: time and space are mere illusions. So go back in time and cross space to see Gunfighter: A Gulf War Chronicle directed by Katie Laris at the Santa Barbara City College, running October 21st through November 5th.

I can attest that the closing night performance, while by all accounts not as strong as some of the previous performances, will be fabulous. Laris' staging is nearly flawless: an extraordinary multi-media montage of CNN-footage from the first gulf war, riveting apache aircraft movement and sites and actual footage of people on-stage being interviewed by the ubiquitous on-stage tv reporter Heidi dogging the soldiers for a story. But the truth of the production is in the sum of its parts: the music, the video, the performances of the central characters all fit together perfectly. It was of a production level almost never achieved at the community theater level (and SBCC is a community theater, not a college theater, the actors are cast from a wide pool and paid).

The play takes place during the first Gulf War and shortly thereafter and is the true story of a Lt. Colonel who took the fall for faulty equipment in a friendly fire incident. I believe the play premiered in Sacramento at the River Stage at Cosumnes River College (which is incidentally, consistently the best community theater in Sacramento, sorry B Street...).

In keeping for my theme from this week, my only criticism would have been the reaction of the closing night audience. You could tell they were riveted to the stage, but it was more as if they were watching tv than at a theater performance--huge laugh lines were passed over by a passive crowd, opportunities to gasp were missed. Still, they clapped loud and long at the end and clearly loved it. It's a shame one has to drive 400 miles from Sacramento to see such high quality theater.

Nodding at the She-Mob

What a pleasure to be at the release party for She-Mob's new album, Not in My World, this past Saturday at the Starry Plough in Berkeley. Mostly, I just love the idea that I, a middle-aged mother of two, am friends with a punk-rocker: Suki O'Kane.

Of course, not completely coincidentally, it turns out that She-Mob is populated by, specializes in and thrives on middle-aged women. How many punk rock bands can say the same?

Watching them play their "album" "cuts" backwards first the "second side" of the disk then the "first side" was often not unlike life itself in that there were, especially in the last (hence played first) slower more esoteric songs, long stretches in which one kept waiting for whatever was going to happen to happen. And then one would realize (and this is the life part): oh! this IS what's happening. It's never going to be more than this. This is it. And then one relaxed and really loved it.

But the most surreal moments came towards the end when they got to their most head-banging thrashy pieces and were really tearing up the stage. Cut to an audience that could have been downloaded from a jazz club and superimposed on this punk scene. Polite nodding, slight tapping of feet, and nursing of drinks was the order of the day.

To hell with that thought Lisa Mennet and I. We'll change the order of the day. We get up, virtually stepping on mellow Berkeley-esque types sprawled on the floor and begin wildly dancing, thrashing ourselves around--the music demanded it. The music wasn't happy without us doing that. We had no choice.

The audience responded. Oh, not the way we had hoped, by leaping to their feet and thrashing with us. No, they responded by nodding, smiling, enjoying the show. Obviously we, painfully overdressed middle-aged women (well, I was, Lisa was understated), were part of the she-mob. Obviously, we were part of the show. Yay, She-Mob! Good show.

Yes. Yay, She-Mob! The songs were clever, fun and well-done. The music, particularly Suki's inspired rhythms, was great. These girls have been written up in the Village Voice. They're the real thing. Buy the disk. Have a listen at their website: http://shemob.com/.

Hurray for CNA!

When all is said and done, the turning point in being able to beat this special election came when Arnold made the mistake of attacking the California Nurses Association.

He shoulda asked SEIU first: you just do not pick on CNA. They may seem like a small insect of a union, that you can squash like a bug, but they're not--they're the feistiest, most ornery, most tendacious group of (mostly) women you'd ever "like" to meet. He should not have bragged about "always kicking their butts" ...or called them a special interest ... or ejected one of them from sitting at a movie premier he organized.

And CNA joined forces with another group to be reckoned with on the California scene: the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights. For years this Nader-derived group has been giving as good as it got. And its Arnold Watch played a pivotal role in changing the water the voters were swimming in in this no-so-very-special election.

Together CNA and FTCR had the guts to attack Arnold when the rest of the Sacramento insiders were still fawning over him and hoping to here the secrets of his orange tanning glow. Once these Davids pummelled Goliath to the point that he shed blood, the rest of the cowards took notice and began coming after him with all they had. (oops, pretty violent imagery for me: I'm trying to practice peace--forget all that: CNA and FTCR had the guts to LOVE where others merely HATED, that's what I'm trying to say).

Okay, this is falling apart, but what I'm trying to say is Hurray for CNA! You did it again. The People of Cah-lee-for-knee-a thank you.

BILL MAGAVERN'S BALLOT RECOMMENDATIONS, NOVEMBER 2005

Here are my husband's famous ballot recommendations for how to vote in the special election in California, Tuesday, November 8th--it's pretty easy this time. Please forward them to anyone who think might need them:

From Bill:
Yes, the very existence of this election is idiotic, of benefit only to the state’s small cadre of campaign consultants, but don’t let that keep you from voting. If turnout is low, some of the idiocy might get written into law.

So, on the off chance any of you have not already voted, here are my brief thoughts:

73 – NO

Sure, it would be great if minors discussed all important life decisions with their parents, but having government require it is not going to make it happen.

74 – NO

With all the real problems in our schools, this is the best Schwarzenegger could come up with?

75 – NO

Funny how this initiative does nothing to address the ability of large corporations to spend money on politics without the consent of their shareholders, or to replace private campaign funding with public funding. It’s an obvious effort to tilt the political playing field even more toward the wealthy and big companies, and to dry up one of the only sources of political money for progressive candidates.


76 – NO, NO, NO

This is the worst measure on the ballot, a gubernatorial power grab that would make a dysfunctional budget process even worse by empowering a minority in the Legislature to stand in the way of solutions. The goal of 76 is to facilitate the erosion of needed social programs, especially for education, while making sure the rich get to keep all of their precious tax cuts. Even programs that are funded by user fees rather than taxes – like most of our clean air and water programs – could be mindlessly cut under this proposal, to satisfy a rigid formula.

77 – NO

It pains me to oppose this one, because we really need sound redistricting reform. Districts that are more competitive and representative of actual communities would benefit the public interest. Unfortunately, this proposal is badly flawed. It would draw new districts mid-decade, based on the obsolete 2000 census data, simply for blatant political advantage. New districts should be drawn every decade, right after the census, which had been the practice nationwide until Tom Delay’s criminal intervention in Texas. And having voters then decide on the new districts, at the same time as elections are being held in those new districts, is really harebrained.


78 – NO

79 – YES

These initiatives both address prescription drug prices. 78 was written by the big drug companies who are spending tens of millions of dollars to obfuscate the facts. 79 was written by consumer advocates. The key difference is that 79 would use the state’s purchasing power to keep drug prices down, while 78 relies on voluntary discounts.

80 – YES

Enron (you may remember them as “the smartest guys in the room”) and other energy companies sold our politicians on the canard that the magic of the market would bring down electricity prices. It didn’t exactly work out that way, so now a consumer group is trying to re-regulate electricity to make sure the market can never again be manipulated and the state held hostage by greedy amoral sharks. The opposition’s argument that 80 would hurt renewable energy is bogus. 80 would actually accelerate the current clean energy requirement, while allowing for future increases.

E for Treasurer

Our daughter E (almost 9) is running for Treasurer of her Elementary School Student Council. It was tough for her and her brother to work out who should run. Strategically it was decided that a 4th grader had a better shot at Treasurer than a 5th grader, so she ran and her brother N is her campaign manager.

After a week as her campaign manager, he decided to file to run against her for Treasurer. He wasn't going to tell her and asked me to sign the document authorizing his campaign. I demurred. I suggested that he think it through, "is this really how a good campaign manager behaves?" I asked.

He murmured something about Karl Rove (I am not making this up) and ran from the room.

When he returned, cooler heads prevailed. He decided to run for Secretary instead, even though at first it seemed boring, but he had heard about when I was Secretary of the student council in college and wrote really funny minutes. He thought he could write really funny minutes too. His friend E.E. could help him.

"Me and E.E. are infamous, Mom," says N.

"Don't you mean famous, N-----?" says his sister.

"No, E-----, I mean infamous. It all stemmed from the incident with the wasabi cashews," he bragged.

The wasabi cashew incident (hereinafter WCI) involved trying to pass wasabi-laden cashews (available in the fruit and nut aisle of Trader Joe's) off as sugared cashews. Apparently some of the reactions were x-treme.

Later, despite his infamy, he decides not to run for Secretary afterall. He throws himself into his sister's campaign. Actually, it might be more accurate to say that I throw myself into the campaign.

I kick into high gear:
"We gotta figure out your base, E-----; You're running against 7 candidates but how many of them have a chance?"

We carve up the numbers, map out a strategy. N---- says this guy D----- is the guy to beat. He's very popular among the 5th graders--he can pull like 50-60 votes. We figure we need 110 votes to win.

N is close with the leading candidate for President's little brother. Together, the brothers arrange a sit-down between their sisters to see if an agreement can be reached. If all goes well, E goes into Friday's election with the potential of serious coattails.

Caught in a perennial struggle for the dignified politician ("E, I don't think you realize the slogan is designed to attract other people to vote for you, it doesn't matter whether you like it.") , E rejected what she judged more frivolous sounding slogans concocted for her like "don't be mean, I'll watch your green" for the least sober slogan we could talk her into:

"EM for Treasurer: Honor, Trust...Fun!

At this point I'm paying more attention to this election than the Special Election to be held November 8th in California.

The "other" Sara Nichols

The time has come to publically acknowledge the other Sara Nichols. I've never met her, but she's increasingly becoming a factor in my life by being in slightly overlapping circles, and generally more high profile than I.

I am an attorney and am politically active and progressive. The other Sara Nichols (spelled exactly the same way) is an environmental attorney and is also politically active and progressive.

For most of the time that I lived in Washington, DC this other Sara Nichols lived in Philadelphia. She ran for Congress in like 1994 as a sacrificial lamb candidate against some suburban Republican congressman (took like 38 points off him--I think it was the election where the Republicans took the House). I was in the media a lot more than I am now, and it was understandable that we would occasionally get mistaken for each other in print.

To make matters even more confusing, around the same that I moved to Sacramento, the other Sara Nichols moved to California too, Los Angeles, to be precise!

Then for a long time, nothing earthshattering, although it would occasionally come up and once my husband met her at an environmental meeting in L.A--I can't remember whether he said they talked about me, or whether he confirmed that she is aware of my existence.

But now, with me pretty much out of the limelight for a time, laying low, all of a sudden there's a spate of mix-ups.

Recent instances of Sara Nichols mix-ups:

1) At a dinner party of progressive legislators at my home, Senator Liz Figueroa (running for Lt. Governor of California) takes me aside. "I understand we have a mutual friend," she says conspiratorily. I give up, "who?" She says a woman's name. I stare at her blankly. "The fundraiser in LA?" she says. Again, I stare at her blankly. "Liz," I finally confess, "I have no idea who or what you're talking about." She sweetly explains. Long story short, it turns out that this fundraiser told her that Sara Nichols endorsed Liz's opponent, Senator Jackie Speier. And Liz was baffled and little hurt by this.

At once, the light dawns, "your fundraiser contact must mean the other Sara Nichols," I babble excitedly. "She's in LA, she's a prominent environmental lawyer, something of a sought after endorsement. It wasn't me." (I then hastened to point out how grateful I was that Figueroa even cared who I endorsed and that I would never endorse Jackie Speier over her. This is true--I think that Liz Figueroa is a fabulous public servant who really cares about the right things and I wholeheartedly do support her for Lt. Governor).

2) A candidate for Assembly in LA recently asked me to add my name to a letter vouching for her environmental credentials--I suspect that she wanted me because she had my credentials confused with those of my doppelganger.

and

3) today, probably the least interesting, but just to show you that the incidents are increasing in frequency, a LA-based statewide organization whose board I recently got appointed to recently informed me that the reason I wasn't getting key emails was that they had me confused with Sara Nichols.

I don't blame them. I have me confused with Sara Nichols too....

Good news, bad news

I'm trying to blog every single day. The result? I often will have very little to say. Some snippets. Last night I hosted an alumni function in the common house of my cohousing community. Everyone in the greater Sacramento area was invited. The RSVPs weren't to me, but to the Reed College alumni office. They were shared with me shortly before the event.

My heart leapt as I saw the name of my close friend & vital organ Harry Mersmann on the list. Wow! Harry's coming all the way from Stockton. It'll be so good to see him. I wonder why he didn't reply directly to me? Probably wants to surprise me.

Yesterday, while carefully slicing pears for the fruit & cheese tray, I learned that of all the RSVPs, one had sent their regrets that day, Harry. He would not be in attendance. I felt sad and immediately wondered if he would have come if I had contacted him upon learning of his intentions? Would he have come if he had contacted me?

Over and over I learn that we can't underestimate the value of direct communication between people (no matter what the relationship). In the hubbub (what kind of a word is hubbub? is it onomatopoetic? why does it have so many "bs"?) of middle-aged life, squeezed by family and work, whether or not we keep any optional commitments may really come down to the degree of human contact or effort used to make them. How do we most often communicate: in person, email, mail, phone, just through the alumni office or, worst of all, by blog?

Between the Right and a Hard Place

I don't know about you, but I'm loving the Bush administration squirming to have to frantically bolster Harriet Miers anti-abortion credentials, which in turn causes Democratic centrists like Feinstein to have to distance themselves from the possibility of supporting Miers.

I don't know what it all means ultimately about Miers chances at confirmation (could Bush really lose the far right on a confirmation vote?) and I'm not sure it'll result in anything good, but for now, it's quite riveting theater and no matter how you hoist it, his petard has been hooked--what is a "petard", anyway?

On the New Supreme Court Judges

In all the focus, thought and obsession with Roberts and Mier, we may have missed an important point. That is, although there may be some wiggle room, some vague chance that these appointees are going to continue the razor thin support for some degree of protection of our civil liberties, there is exactly no chance that either of them is going to do anything to reign in the power of gigantic multinational corporations over individuals' lives.

Both Roberts and Mier are unequivocally, completely, avowed corporatists. By this I mean that they strongly believe (and not just in a legal sense) that corporations are people too. And that as "people," corporations have certain rights and deserve certain protections from government encroachment and regulations. Laws that protect our water and our air, laws that protect worker safety and minimum wage, laws that make it harder to make defective, poisonous, or harmful products and put them on the market, all these are at serious serious risk under the Roberts-Mier regime.

Ah, you hasten to point out, that battle was lost long ago, in 1886 in the Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad which created the legal fiction that corporations are "persons" deserving of protection from the constitution. Moreover, you add, O'Connor and Rehnquist were already avowed corporatists themselves, so what changes?

First I ask, have we reached the point in our history where we have given up on moving forward and all we can think about is not losing ground?

Secondly, what's palpable here is I think is the degree to which Roberts seems likely to make it part of his judicial philosophy to turn back the clock on these issues, and the degree to which Mier has devoted her whole life to supporting George Bush and his corporate cronies like Halliburton.

All I am saying is let's not let our civil liberties, as precious as they are, be used as a slight of hand to distract us while our collective pocket is thoroughly picked.

On the Obama Piece

I have thought a bit about the piece by Barak Obama that I posted the other day, and this is what I've come to. While I agree with much of what he says regarding the importance of respect, tone and eliminating certain kinds of rhetoric for the sake of rhetoric (note: snichols recognizes that this is something of an about face for her, but she's coming to it in her old age), and I still trust Obama's motives and heart, I think the proof is still in the pudding.

In other words, why should I fucking care what any Democratic U.S. Senator thinks about anything until they start winning some battles with their "thoughtfulness" and "room for debate?" I have recently started again reading Master of the Senate (Robert Caro's amazing 3rd biography in a series on LBJ). I had left off at page 400 out of 950 (the first 150 years of history on the U.S. Senate were sort of tough sledding) but now it reads like a page-turning thriller leading towards the amazing conclusion (I'll spoil it for you) of how LBJ, segregationist Texas Senator, uses his brilliance, his skill and above all his lust for power to overcome the power of the Old Southern Bulls and break the filibuster to pass the first significant civil rights legislation in decades.

How does he do it? He does it by creating party discipline by harnassing his party's lust for power to the forward advancement of civil rights. He does it by marrying naked political self-interest with truth and justice.

Under its sweeping lovely rhetoric (yes), Obama's statement is highly political and pragmatic but to what end? It is preaching the pragmaticism of moderation, the pragmaticism of letting politicians off the hook when they vote for corporate interests over the interests of working people, because the "average person" doesn't think that corporations are bad.

Well this may be highly pragmatic for him, but is it for us?

Okay, so not all corporations are bad, but are giant multinational corporations polluting our water and air, sending all the good jobs overseas, exploiting women and girls for pennies a day in China, and making products that kill you? Yes!

Are average people capable of grasping this? Yes!

Could good leaders play a role in helping people grasp this? Yes!

Ultimately though, Obama needs to just chill. He's an insider now and it's their job to make tough decisions and it's our job to let 'em have it when they make the wrong ones. And no, by being a generally good guy you don't deserve an occasional pass when you do the wrong thing--the wrong thing is the wrong thing and you deserve to have it pointed out to you. Every liberal politician I've ever known has hated it when they get called on the carpet for doing the wrong thing.

"I'm on your side," they whine. "You need me in here," they continue. "I have to do certain things to stay where I am," they conclude.

All this may be true, and we would be wise to think twice about how public our attacks are on generally good senators like Leahy or Feingold or Obama (or hey, my own homey Barbara Boxer, who failed to urge Schwarzenegger to sign the Gay Marriage bill, I'm told), but let's keep letting 'em know what's right and what's wrong. And let's not be shy about it.

I've been saying it for years and I'll say it again, an admonition to all of us activist/advocates: It's not up to us to make the tough choices, it's up to us to make the choices tough.

Read this Posting By Barak Obama

My friend Vince Marchand called to my attention this fascinating post on The Daily Kos by Senator Barak Obama regarding the need for progressives to be more thoughtful and respectful. It's worth reading. I think I agree with much of it, even though it contradicts some of my favorite ongoing political rants.

Please read it and let me know what you think..

Read my column in Rudolf's Diner

George Bush is to be forgiven Katrina. Not only in the long run by his Savior Jesus Christ and his other largest contributors but now, by us--for what we did to cause it, for our share of the blame...

Are you terrified? Read more, or less, by going to my monthly column Eye on the Pie in this issue of the fabulous on-line magazine Rudolf's Diner. Also not to be missed is a review of the Hurricane Katrina music tributes, The Winds Have Changed by my own Bill Magavern or the disturbing and hilarious humor of Mateo Burtch's Big Blue Ball. Give a listen to Kitchen Sing, I mean Sink by Evan Nichols, aka Uncle Rudolf and see some pictures of hands that I suspect contain similar DNA to mine.

I did my first triathlon yesterday (1/2 mile swim, 16 mile bike, 3 mile run--since you ask). My body is beginning to recover so I'm going to blog again. Blog for all I'm worth.

Why I haven't been posting

Hi. Many of you have inquired as to why I haven't posted for many months. The answer is that I have been, and still am, in significant pain in my right shoulder and arm such that using a mouse consistently has been hard. Of course, I've also been out of town something like 5 out of the last 7 weeks. So I'm back and I'm a little better. I have lots to say of course--my God, there's so much going on.

A couple of thoughts on the biggest events of the day:

1) While it can't act quickly enough to save lives or provide humanitarian aid to its own citizens, the Bush administration seems plenty efficient when it comes to making sure that there are companies at the ready to financially profit off of this disaster and can quickly cut through red tape when it's necessary as long as the "red tape" happens to be environmental or labor standards.

2) As my husband put it, the best we can hope for with soon-to-be Chief Justice Roberts is that he is more of an east coast establishment type than he is a far right idealogue. Either way, he'll be a solid corporatist with all of its attendant problems for the environment and consumers, but if he's east coast establishment there's at least some chance that he's got a (secret) social libertarian streak or some consistent form of fiscal conservatism.

Two Snouts Up for War of The Worlds

(:)(:) out of a possible 5 snouts (I've changed my rating system) for War of the Worlds directed by Steven Spielberg, in theaters now.

Bill tells me that there are people who liked this movie. I find it hard to believe. I mean, I guess it held my interest and the apocalyptic hellscape was visually arresting and everything but other than that...

It was a good date film though because most of the time Bill and I spent rolling our eyes and snickering to each other sarcastically like:

"oh right, like he's got the only van in the world that drives when all energy sources cease;" or

"outer space invasions are great teaching moments for noncustodial parents;" or

"honey, if you were trapped in a basement with Tim Robbins and our 8 year old daughter, would you kill Tim Robbins if you had to?" (Bill's answer btw was: it would depend how close by Susan Sarandon was and what she was wearing; which I considered nonresponsive)

So see it, by all means see it, and send me your sarcastic comments. We had more such comments, but we wouldn't want to "spoil" the experience for you with them.

Like, I'm sure all of us would like to know, does every good apocalypse have a silver lining?

Four Snouts up for March of the Penguins

(:)(:)(:)(:) belated snouts up for March of the Penguins the documentary about the huge and delightful Emperor penguins in antarctica--we went with my mother and our 8 year old and we all loved it.

On the Roberts nomination

Okay, here's why we're completely screwed on Roberts: yesterday I was talking to a friend of mine who is so far to the left he once referred to me as the "quote unquote left". So "the real left" tells me, apropo of the Roberts nomination that if he were a senator he'd vote to confirm him:

oh
my
god

If The Real Left would vote to confirm, we are in such deep trouble--and no one knows The Real Left like the Quote Unquote Left.

At first, I found myself agreeing with The Real Left. I know why he thinks that. He, like many americans, feel that somehow the only legitimate role of the Senate in confirming judicial appointments is to determine whether a candidate is qualified for the bench, whether s/he has "a judicial temperment." Naturally, by any standards, Roberts has one, so let's not even debate that.

What makes this such an appallingly smart choice by the Bush administration is that in one fell swoop they have managed to a) shift the debate away from Karl Rove b) nominate an arch conservative c) have him appear to be the kind of affable, insider boy that no one in their right mind could ever block to confirm.

Yet it's becoming very clear that Roberts could easily be a Scalia in Souter clothing--a 50 year old brilliant young arch conservative avowed corporatist who could completely change the court for generations with a quiet affable demeanor.

Part of me, ala another friend in the capitol who shall remain nameless even though he'd probably like the credit, wants to say, screw it, let them have the court-- a real huge win for the far right is probably the only thing that ultimately will galvanize the middle to wake up and vote us out of this nightmare. But there are other parts of me (most of me) that think we need to fight.

To return to an earlier thread, we are supposed to have separation of powers here. This is not a dictatorship. Just because the President was elected by a razor thin mandate doesn't mean that he gets to have whomever he wants on the court--there is a process here; let's use it. When we Borked Bork we ended up with Kennedy (of Sacramento's McGeorge Law school thank you very much) and that was at least an improvement.

Let's not go around saying we're not going to get any better out of the Bush administration. We might not get anyone smarter. We might not get anyone with a cuter family. But we could do better...let's.

Read my column in Rudolf's Diner

And read Rudolf's Diner.

Follow Your Mind...

Just spent 6 days in Yosemite reading Emerson's essay on Self-Reliance--this is the way to read Emerson (I can now say smugly, after only one essay, never having read Emerson before to my knowledge--I was a psych major, o-kay?).

As far as I was concerned Emerson was speaking directly to me in this essay--in many respects-- particularly in regard to the degree to which the integrity of mind is the only sacred thing.

Lately I have been praying for clarity, particularly in my career and focus. I have been preoccupied by external concerns, why don’t I have an income, a job title, an office; why don’t I have something easy to tell people?

I have been second-guessing my decision to concentrate so almost exclusively on my spiritual growth, on getting to know myself. Reading Emerson, for the first time in years I feel like an unqualified success. I have felt like the young man whom Emerson pities because he graduates from a top school and is lamenting and lamented for having not gotten a top appointment in the right city. Without realizing it, I have been more like the man whom Emerson lauds for fishing, farming, politicking and always growing, learning.

For Emerson, the right city is the city you’re in. The right job is the job you’re doing. Or, more accurately, what matters is not the job itself, but the integrity of mind with which one applies oneself to the job. Are you a cashier at Burger King? Fine. So long as you ring up the fries with integrity or, as Maria Nemeth puts it, “clarity, focus, ease and grace.” Are you the President of the United States? Well, who cares? The question is are you following your mind and true heart, or the mind of someone else, like, say, Dick Cheney?

Go Senate Dems!

For once the Democrats in the U. S. Senate are standing their ground on something and have really blocked Bolton's nomination, for the time being. Meanwhile, an embittered and frustrated Bush White House threatens to send Bolton to the UN as a recess appointment.

Really, Congress needs to limit the use of this "recess appointment" power. I can see it making sense for the executive to appoint someone to temporarily fill an important position when Congress is out of session for extended periods and it is impracticable to bring them back together just to confirm somebody. But for the President to use to thwart the express will of the People of the United States as determined by the Congress is a violation of the separation of powers and just plain dangerous.

Hollywood films Reflect Political Tensions

(:)(:) for the new Star Wars film; (:)(:)(:)(: for Cinderella Man.

I have always been fascinated by the extent to which no matter what era a movie is set in, its dialogue, vision and look reflect the times in which it is made as much or more as the subject it purports to examine. These movies, one so-so, one very good, inject the political and economic realities of our time into outer space and the Great Depression, respectively.

Of the two, Cinderella Man is by far the better film. This is the true life comeback story of boxer James Braddock (Russell Crowe) and his trainer (Paul Giamatti) and his wife (Renee Zellweger). Set in New York in the height of the Depression, one can't help but see the backdrop and dialogue of increasing poverty and increasing wealth as commentary on our own times. Whether it's the perspective of the director, Ron Howard, or the screenwriter, Cliff Hollingworth, or merely my own, it's there. The terrifying visions of Hooverville, and the way in which they refer to it often and with reference to the President lay the blame for the economy and people's misery squarely at his feet.

Still, the images of fat cats vs. regular guys, as compelling as they are as commentary on current times, are subtly introduced--one sees no agenda here other than bringing a compelling story to the screen.

It is a compelling story, by the way, very moving and sentimental (Ron Howard) but entirely believable. I really loved it and the only reason I hold off the full 4th snout is because the film breaks no new ground.

Russell Crowe is one of the greatest screen actors of my lifetime--this is not his most challenging role, but he does it very well. He makes us care deeply about James Braddock and share the excitement and the hope of everyone else who does.

I'm glad Crowe does so because it took me months to recover from a vision of Russell Crowe that I glimpsed one night while channel surfing: in a pony tail singing lead in a band of his own assemblage, there was Crowe screaming out lyrics to a song one can only assume he had written, the title of which could easily make the cover of the next Spinal Tap album, to wit, "Swallow my gift." (I still shudder when I think of it).

On the Star Wars: revenge of the sith or whatever it's called, this is not a good film, even by Star Wars standards: the fights go on and on and get more and more ludicrous until we're having to see a battle to the death served over a hellscape of molten lava (and that comes with a side of molten flesh).

But what was most interesting about this film, and apparently has been fodder for bloggers, left and right, for weeks, is the unabashed, completely not subtle linkage of the Dark Side siths with the Bush administration. For more on the fun moments in dialogue and parallels see this USA Today article.

What I find astonishing is that it seems to be the right wingers who are most avidly pointing out the parallels between the Bush and the Darth Vader administrations--some are even calling for a boycott. You would really think that it would not be in anyone's interest to point out that a popular film with great anti-heroes is really about their leader. Since they point it out anyway, it makes one think that they are trying to scare off future efforts and perhaps are afraid that the message will shape or penetrate young impressionable minds.

Or, perhaps this is a precursor to a return to the Hollywood black list, could George Lucas be the first such casualty?

The Bee and the Budget

I didn't like the headline in the Sacramento Bee this morning which reads "Budget Plan Voted Down: a Democratic proposal without tax hikes fails to entice GOP as -- no surprise -- a deadline passes" (the link above to the Bee story on-line has a different headline, but it's the same story).

The headline should have been "Republicans delay timely fair budget for ___ year in a row." Look, it may be old news to Sacramento insiders, but it's not well known to the public: because we are one of the only states in the country to require a 2/3rd vote to pass a budget, the people we elected to be the majority in the California legislature can't get a budget passed without getting a handful of radical rightwing Republicans to vote for it.

Because the Republicans are in the minority and their only power comes from their ability to block a budget and extract budget-busting pork projects for their district, they block it every year. This should be reported as such: Republicans block and delay the budget, Democrats don't.

(:)(:)(:)(:) for Mad Hot Ballroom

This adorable documentary about a mandatory ballroom dancing competition for New York City 4th and 5th graders is impossibly moving. It's a lot about dancing, but it's also about coming of age, about children's attitudes towards life, love and sex and about adults' attitudes toward competition, teaching and children.

I almost can't think of anything more to say except that anyone who likes dancing, kids, the possibility of change or good good movies should see this one.

Love That Bob (radio, that is)

I am hooked the new on 92.1fm "Bob" radio station in Sacramento. Bill told me about the new Jack and Bob radio formats a few weeks ago and I listened with half an ear, "uh-uh...sounds good...oh really?" that sort of thing.

Then I found Bob at 92.1fm in Sacramento and I love that Bob. I'm also probably in the distinct minority of people my age in loving the 1950s Love That Bob tv show in reruns. I had a huge crush on Bob Cummings. Later I had a huge crush on Bob Crane from Hogan's Heroes and he turned out to be a pervert.

I like the name Bob because my children routinely call me Bob--it started with them having a cold and pronouncing "Mom" "Bob" and then it became a way of singling me out in a crowd of people all of whom have the name "Mom"--they call "Bob!" and somehow it cuts through the noise and gets my attention. I'm supposed to say "yes, Bob" or they get all bent out of shape and have to yell my name again, a process that can get exhausting. Needless to say, they love the concept, if not the actual music, of Bob radio and basically assume the station is named after me.

So these are the two new hip formats: Jack and Bob. Jack format plays hits from the 60s, 70s, 80, and 90's but they have to have been in the top 40. Bob plays those and also adds new songs from today and tunes that were not huge hits (but not many). Google Bob or Jack radio and the name of your city to find out in your area.

The key is that it is across genres and has these kinds of jarring transitions, known as "trainwrecks" in the DJ community. Like you'll go directly from Lively Up Yourself by Bob Marley to Hot Blooded by Foreigner and you'll like it.

The format is widely considered to have been iPod-inspired in the sense that the popularity of the "shuffle" setting on iPod (where you randomly hear songs from your entire music catalogue) has let commercial radio stations know that there is a market for that kind of wierd jarring transition.

On my iPod (yes, Bill recently gave me one for my birthday) it can be especially jarring. You could go from a broadway show tune to hip hop to a lecture from a buddhist nun (I'd like to see that make it onto mainstream radio). And yet, even something that wierd is taking hold in the popular imagination. In a related move, KPIG radio, long considered to be of interest only to people with freestanding bathtubs filled with baby marijuana plants, announced this week that it is expanding from Santa Cruz into the San Francisco bay area. KPIG is basically Bob radio that slept on a friend's couch last night and doesn't remember where he parked his car, but he's a smart friend and he brought books and cleans up after himself. It is sweet, edgy, funny, and real.

Bob radio is slicker, infinitely more self-conscious, packaged and commercial. In the end, I think Bob radio is for those of us who like to think of ourselves as hip but really just want to listen to tunes that are familiar, but not too familiar. KPIG is for people who really know music and really appreciate lost cuts. I'm a little more Bob, while my sweetheart, Bill, is a little more KPIG grown-up, married and with his own bed.

John Diaz Said it Better than I Could

John Diaz, editorial editor of the San Francisco Chronicle had the same rant I did yesterday about the California Assembly Democrats. Pulling no punches he tells the story of their walk of shame. I forgot to mention, of course, the pivotal gay marriage bill that went down in flames on the California Assembly floor last week too.

Now some may quarrel with me on this, but I can kind of see a politician being worried about casting a vote for gay marriage--there is a possibility that he gets out ahead of his constituents on the issue, especially in the central valley (our kansas). Sure, theoretically they could take a hit in a Democratic primary for not supporting gay marriage, but most of these guys do not face credible primary threats. When you have term limits, why would try to run against someone in a primary? You wait your turn.

But "taking a walk on" (not voting for) an environmental bill? Nah, that plays everywhere with everyone. In fact, they could take a serious hit in a general election for not supporting it.

If fact, you could say that these guys have real courage, the courage of their conviction--and their conviction is that if you pay good money to put them in office, you should get what you pay for, their vote.

The Assembly Democrats are Worse than Ever

I don't have the energy to do it justice, but you all should know that the Democrats in the California State Assembly have been acting up big time again in the past 2 weeks--they're worse than ever and it's just not tolerable.

Last week most notably they joined with Republicans to kill (by refusing to vote for) bills that would have allowed communities to bring a private right of action against polluters for environmental hazards, made it more difficult for corporations to hide their misdoings behind secret settlement agreements and killed many other environmental bills. They even made it tough for bills favored by labor unions to get off the Assembly floor, and not for any noble reason, just stubborn closeness with the Chamber of Commerce.

Forget about being politically savvy enough to put Schwarzenegger on the hot seat with environmental and consumer bills--these guys know where their bread is buttered and it ain't by their constituents, it's by their contributors. They don't want to cede credit for the kill to the Governor--they can terminate people's rights with the best of 'em.

Some of the worst offenders are the Assemblymembers below, if you live in one of their districts, call and complain--I'll give you the number if you don't have it--and vote against them in the next primary:

Joseph Canciamilla--east east bay
Alberto Torrico--Fremont
Barbara Matthews--Stockton
Juan Arambula--Fresno
Lois Wolk--Davis
Nicole Parra--Bakersfield
Joe Coto--San Jose
Rebecca Cohn--Silicon valley
Jerome Horton--Inglewood
Edward Chavez--San Gabriel valley
Carol Liu--Pasadena
Hector De La Torre--east LA
Rudy Bermudez--Norwalk
Ronald Calderon--LA
Juan Vargas--South San Diego
Gloria Negrete McLeod--Ontario
Joe Baca Jr.--San Bernardino

(:)(:)(:)(: Cleveland Orchestra at Mondavi Center

Despite the fact that it's from Cleveland, the Cleveland Orchestra is world renowned for its precision and virtuosity. So, although I know next to nothing about classical music and have no business having opinions about it, I am thrilled to accompany a friend to see them play at the Mondavi Center in Davis Monday night.

As we settle into our seats, I loudly squeal with joy as I read that two of the pieces are Ravel--I adore Ravel! I proclaim, only narrowly escaping je l'adore Ravel which is actually what comes to mind, I kid you not (I can get carried away). I chalk up the rolled eyes and embarrassed glances around me to envy for my joie de vivre.

As the first strains of Ravel's Alborada del gracioso come, I settle into my seat. Many many minutes pass as I struggle to keep my mind on the concert. Wow, I think, this is so mellow and mathematical, not so exciting, it must be his early stuff.

At the end of the first movement, my companion points to a different page of the program, one which says June 6 instead of June 5--it's not Ravel, she whispers, it's Mozart. Turns out Ravel was yesterday.

I don't know much, but I know that you cannot go around thinking Je l'adore Ravel when you're listening to Mozart.

At the end of the Mozart (Symphony No. 36 in C Major, K. 425 if you must know), I smugly observe that while technically flawless, the piece was soulless. My companion agrees, although she blames it on herself--I guess I'm just not in a place in my life where Mozart can really move me.

I think, I guess I'm not in a place in my life where I can fucking tell if it's even Mozart

The next piece, Concerto for Alto Saxophone and Wind Ensemble by Ingolf Dahl (some obscure german immigrant to the US) is amazing. The passion and virtuosity of the saxophone soloist Joseph Lulloff, whose solos dominate the piece, is palpably infectious--the wind ensemble devours his music and uses each solo as fuel for a brilliant echo. The audience is on its feet for 5 standing ovations as I rush to the bathroom, desperate to recover from an ill-advised 11th hour decaf, then rush to the concessions line to begin the process anew.

Dvorak's Symphony No. 5 in F major is performed beautifully as well, but again my mind drifts, and I find myself comparing music to meditation as many better minds before me must have done.

The drive home from Davis is mostly filled by the sound of one part of my head blaming me for things throughout the evening, the Ravel fiasco, the decaf rush, the fact that I didn't visit the ladies' room before driving home afterwards. Fortunately, though, it is drowned out by the plaintive wail of the alto sax and a determined witness for peace, my better self.

Spanglish is Magnifico!

(:)(:)(:)(:) for Spanglish just reviewed on DVD. It's been a helluva month and I haven't prioritized the blog lately, but let me say I had NO idea how good a movie this was. I just thought it'd be decent hollywood fluff. Wrong. This movie is beautifully acted and written.

I don't have time to do it justice right now, but a few thoughts. The highlights: Adam Sandler and his character are magnificient. Who knew that Adam Sandler could act? Certainly not I. That is one of the best-written most complex characters I've ever seen for a man--3 dimensions is not enough to cover it. Tea Leoni is always good, but she's spectacular in this especially as she takes a character that could have been simply despicable and makes her 3-dimensional human, draws us in compassionately to her world. Cloris Leachman as her mother is also marvelous.

My only beef with this film, and it's a biggie, is that while the anglo family is marvelous, the Mexican mother and daughter are considerably less fully drawn characters--you get some of their complexity but it's very much from the anglo gaze in. Glenn Backes points out to me that the poster for the film does the same thing--you see the anglos in full form, the maid and her daughter hazy. Maybe it's a sophisticated statement of some kind by the filmmaker/screen writer, but I doubt it. Probably the limitations of their viewpoint coupled with laziness.

More on the Judges and Those Senate Dems

I like that the word on the street in DC is that the White House is even more unhappy than "our" side. And I see that MoveOn.org is crowing about the victory, but that still doesn't do it for me. See, this way mell have been a big victory for the Senate Democrats. For once they may have outmanoevered Bill Frist and his merry men.

But that doesn't mean that it's a victory for the American people. I would have been, and the American people should have been, perfectly happy if the Senate had been shut down for months due to a standoff over this filibuster. Nothing good was going to come out of this Congress. It would have been fabulous to frustrate the otherwise uninterrupted flow of the Chamber of Commerce's agenda to raid Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and every other successful social program we have.

To me what happened here is that when push came to shove, the Senate Democrats developed a spine and went to the mat for what really matters to them: Senatorial privilege--the right to the filibuster. They did not go to the mat for what really matters to me, who is on the federal bench.

What's more, it isn't even clear that the Democrats even won a meaningful right with their pyrrhic victory. If Priscilla and Janice aren't "extraordinary circumstances," in which you can justify the use of the filibuster, who is?

Is that the standard now?

"We'll filibuster as soon as we find someone nuttier than Janice Brown?"

In the final analysis, it was more important to them to preserve the appearance of preserving the filibuster, than it was to keep these complete wacko outliers from deciding whether children raped by their fathers will be able to get an abortion.

Yay, We Win! Priscilla Owens will be a Federal Judge!

So let me get this right: 3 judges (so far to the right ideologically that usually wimpy Senate Democrats threatened to filibuster their confirmation) will be appointed to the bench in a Democratically-annointed deal. And we're supposed to be happy about this?

Am I the only one out here who finds this scenario ludicrous? Look, I know you can spin this as a loss for the Bush administration because they were the ones to back down first from the brink of the "nuclear option," but here's what happened as I understand it.

White House: Confirm all our judges.

Senate Dems: We don't like 10 of them. We'll filibuster.

White House: Confirm all our judges.

Senate Dems: But we don't wanna.

White House: Confirm all our judges or we'll take away your right to filibuster judicial nominations.

Senate Dems: No! We like that right! Please don't take that right! We like it!

White House: Confirm all our judges or we'll go nuclear.

Senate Dems: Okay, let's be reasonable. How about we confirm 3 of your judges but not the rest and you let us keep the filibuster.

White House: No.

Senate Dems: Please?!

White House: No.

Senate Dems: Pretty Please?

White House: No. We're going nuclear.

Senate Dems: Pretty please, with Priscilla Owens on top?

White House: O-kay. When you put it that way.

Senate Dems: Goodie! We're confirming 3 far right judges! Naa-naaa we get to keep the filibuster!

White House: No you don't. We can go nuclear any time.

Senate Dems: But you said...

White House: I know you are, but what am I?

The Pushback

I must be changing because a phenomenon known in the personal growth community as "the pushback" is occurring to me. The "pushback" happens when people around you notice that something is different, either they can put their finger on it or they can't, and they begin trying to push you back into the shape you were before, the mold they are used to seeing you in.

Lately I have been experiencing pushback because I have been casually mentioning that I've given up drinking. I have gotten long emails and diatribes and sad looks and even outright weeping because of this. Why, Sara? Why?? There is so much outrage, so much of a sense of despair.

My husband would be the first to point out that I can't afford to get too outraged about the outrage. Afterall, I have practically made a living out of ridiculing people for giving up alcohol. For years it has driven me nuts that so few people in my cohousing community drink. "The puritanical left" I've dubbed them.

And I've also taken serious issue with my wonderful in-laws for such famous quotes as "who wants to split a beer?" and "oh, do you think we should have wine for Christmas? What if the leftover wine in the bottle goes bad?"

In other words, I've been there. I've been the leader of the outraged pack. The Queen ridiculer of reduced consumption.

From the other side of the bottle, it all seems very odd. It seems to me that this should have nothing to do with anybody else. That people should be pretty much neutral to pleased that I've made a life change I feel good about.

Which brings me to why I did it. First of all, for the time being I'm allowing myself special occasion exceptions. Like this Thursday, when I go out dancing at my birthday party, I may decide to have a drink.

I decided to quit because I just generally tend to feel less crappy when I don't drink. I get sick less. I have fewer headaches. I have fewer hangovers (and I experience hangovers of a sort after only 1 glass of wine). It's kind of a sugar hangover with me; I start to crave bad carbs to take away the feeling, so I eat a lot worse when I drink.

Although I have experienced occasional poor impulse control while drinking, I generally haven't ever experienced the other problems associated with alcohol use. I've always been able to stop drinking for long or short periods of time without difficulty (I can quit anytime?). And I rarely crave alcohol as a soothing or calming thing--I've almost never had that "god I need a drink" feeling. I've had "god, I need a huge bowl of ice cream" and "god, I need a midnight bowl of cereal" and "god, I need to lie on the couch and watch a bad movie" much more often.

So the much more interesting question for me here is, what's at stake for my friends? One thing a bunch of them seem to think is that I won't want to dance any more. Wrong. I have never been one of those people who need a drink to dance. I'll dance at 10am stone cold sober (although coffee would help).

2) Maybe they think I won't stay up late talking about all kinds of ridiculous things with them. Well I don't think that's true either, I definitely plan to stay up a late talking a lot more and it would be unlikely that I would stop being ridiculous.

3) Maybe they worry that I'll start trying to convert them to non-drinking. Wrong. I would definitely drink if it didn't seem to have this negative effect on my health. I don't try to talk people out of drinking unless they are puking on me night after night.

Ultimately, other people's opinions of this matter and other changes I'm going through are going to have little or no effect on me, but they'll have a large effect on them and the lense through which they see me. I guess this is one way to find out who loves you just the way you are.

Phil And Thropy

I have said before that a fundamental problem in American life is asking for too little. Nowhere is this more clear than in the case of public interest advocacy organizations who are constantly jumping through hoops to create a "new" program for funders to get excited about.

The right doesn't do this. The right funds general operating expenses of its organizations, its think tanks--it doesn't make its key grassroots players beg and it doesn't make them pretend to be doing something new all the time. It's understood that if an organization is good, its operating expenses need to be met before it can expand.

If you've ever looked at this from the point of view of a funder, it sort of makes sense. You want desperately to make your mark, to see that a good organization gets better. What does it mean to get better? It means it does something new.

What if the nonprofits band together and tell the funders: here's how it's gonna be, you wanna fund us? You fund our operating expenses first. You want us to get bigger and better? Let us stop having to figure out how to make payroll each month and put our resources and staff to program.

Then you'll have a situation where funders might understand this differently. Ah, if I want to improve this excellent organization, I have to make sure the lights stay on then they'll let me fund a new program--it requires a paradigm shift for the advocates. They need to proceed from a position of abundance rather than lack. They need to trust and understand their own value and ask for what they're worth and what they need.

I think they'll get it.

Social Security Media Apology

I have had trouble blogging the past couple days because I am writing too many other things--it's funny, it's not a time issue so much as a something to say issue. If you're not familiar with the Center for Economic and Policy Research --get familiar. This economic thinktank is clean and independent and has important information for all of us--like what's going to happen when the housing bubble bursts. And this article by CEPR economist Mark Weisbrot entitled Social Security Media Apology:

By Mark Weisbrot

After it was established that the major reasons that the Bush administration had offered for invading Iraq were false -- Iraq's alleged nuclear program, weapons of mass destruction, links to Al-Qaeda -- many journalists, editors, and producers felt that the U.S. media had not done its job during the march to war. The New York Times and Washington Post published articles from their editors criticizing their own reporting.

A similar letter from the media -- broadcast, cable, and print -- is in order for their misreporting of President Bush's effort to change social security. Here is what an honest confession might look like:

"We apologize for having failed our listeners and readers in our reporting on Social Security. The extent of this failure can be clearly measured by the public's complete lack of understanding of the problem being discussed. A recent poll found 64 percent of Americans think they won't even get a benefit from Social Security. Even according to President Bush's (Social Security Trustees') numbers, Social Security will always be able to pay a benefit that is higher than what retirees get today. This is after adjusting for inflation, and it is true even if we were to do nothing and allow the Social Security Trust Fund to run out of money.

Where did the majority of Americans get such a ridiculous idea? They got it from us, the same place the got the ideas that Iraq was close to producing nuclear weapons and was involved in the massacre of 9/11. One thing we did wrong was to report false or unsubstantiated allegations over and over, without countervailing facts. This makes it easier for politicians to pursue a "big lie" strategy -- to deliberately repeat false information until it is accepted as truth.

President Bush can say, as he did recently, "Without changes this young generation of workers will see a UFO before they see a Social Security check."

This should be given the same credibility as the statement, "Elvis Presley is alive; I just talked to him yesterday."

The second mistake was to leave out or downplay crucial facts. Few Americans know that according to the President's own numbers: (1) Social Security is financially stronger than it has been throughout most of its 70-year history; (2) the whole shortfall over the next 75 years is less than what we fixed in each one of the decades of the 50s, 60s, and 80s; (3) fifty years from now, the average real wage will be over 70 percent higher than today (so workers won't be hurting if they have to pay a little bit more to Social Security) (4) the year 2017 -- when Social Security payments are projected to exceed payroll tax revenue -- has absolutely nothing to do with Social Security's solvency.

We encouraged deception about the Social Security Trust Fund by describing the government bonds it holds as "I.O.U.s," and allowing politicians to pretend that default on these bonds was a real possibility. We should have used the Congressional Budget Office's numbers in our reporting, since the CBO is non-partisan; instead we generally reported the numbers provided by the Social Security Trustees, who are partisan (four of six are Bush appointees, and a fifth is pro-privatization). The CBO numbers show Social Security to be financially solvent for the next 47 years; if just this one fact were included in every news report on the Social Security "problem," most people would surely see the whole debate for what it is: a farce.

There were exceptions to these reporting failures, but they were few and far between.

We hope you will forgive our sloppy, careless reporting on Social Security. At least this time, nobody was killed as a result."

---

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

---

Center for Economic and Policy Research, 1611 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20009
Phone: (202) 293-5380, Fax: (202) 588-1356, Home: www.cepr.net

How to Make Real Change in the World

No, this is not like those hilarious old SNL commercials for "The Change Bank" (we can give you 2 dimes and a nickel for a quarter; or we can give you 25 pennies; it's all up to you; the secret is volume). But there is a connection between change and change.

What I'm talkin' 'bout is that other kind, that theoretically we all are for--the kind where every child goes to sleep every night with a full belly and a full heart.

For over a decade, I've advocated national health insurance. For most of those years, I was lucky enough to have been paid to fight for it. Now I sit at home and blog. Have I given up that dream?

Au contraire, mon frere. Dr. Quentin Young, , a great Chicago progressive and one of my heroes in the fight for single payer health care, once said to me, "Sara, if you're not serious about money, you're not serious about social change." That sentiment has stuck with me--ever since he said it, I can raise money for anything that I care about and feel great about it.

I'm working on two things right now very very hard: making enough money to make a difference, and making enough difference to make the money. The latter requires more explanation than the former.

In addition to lack of money for "the good guys" there is another problem, so scary we good guys are loathe to recognize it, let alone tackle it and that is the definition of "good guy." We think we know the answer. Scratch that. We're sure we know. It's us. And it's not them.

What I am working on right now is re-examining everything I thought I knew about good guys/bad guys, us/them, Democrats/Republicans. Believe me, for a pink diaper baby like me this is painful upsetting work roughly akin to re-examining the belief that the sun rises every morning.

Could it be that there are Republicans who have equally good hearts and minds as mine and don't eat their children for supper?

Could it be that this great divide that we feel in this country between blue and red is illusory? That we mostly care about the same things?

Could it be that instead of focussing most of our intention and resources on making more of us and less of them and focussing on winning a margin of seats or electoral votes we should be focussing on redefining the us to include all of us and doing a lot more listening than talking?

This is what I hope and pray for every day: that I will heal myself so that we might heal the country so that we might together heal the world. Still not political?

The Politics of Blogging

Some of my faithful readers have been complaining of late at my lack of "political" content. Although I would call my readers attention to recent posts of April 27, 25 and 19, I do admit, the content lately has been more personal than political.

But you have to remember the personal is ... no, that really isn't my point here.

You don't have to be a rocket surgeon to figure this out: I am blogging about what I am thinking about. This either interests you or it don't. I hope it does, but until someone starts paying me to blog, I am going to blog (predominantly) when I have something to say.

And speaking of paying me, there are tons of people/entities not paying me to do what I do right now: the Sacramento Bee isn't paying me to write the op ed I'm working on for them; What's the Big Idea? isn't paying me to develop my businesses; my son hasn't paid me to stay home with him sick for 12 out of the past 30 days; my community isn't paying me to put forth a proposal for new tables that they're in the process of shooting down; my neighborhood association isn't paying me for drafting a letter in a controversy. The list is long.

At the top of the list of people I want not to pay me is Arianna Huffington. I really admire her for launching The Huffington Post, which as most of you probably know is an on-line newspaper filled with her favorite bloggers and wire stories and good pictures.

I link to it on my blog, which, Harry, you can always find by hitting the "Home" button if you're reading a link to a particular post.

If anyone has an in with Arianna, I wish to be a blogger in her newspaper--show them my blog and talk me up and I'll do something for you--most likely I'll do it for free.

The Storm Before the Calm

After working for a while to clean out my son's closet, I made the mistake of taking a break to look around the room: total chaos. A pile of stuff to give away in one corner; another coupla things to move into my closet; recycling; trash; mismatched shoes; a pile for other judgment calls and way way more. It was much worse than when I started, and gross and ugly and actively stressful to be in the room with.

Instinctual door number 1 upon really looking at this vile wasteland, was to throw it all back into the closet and close the door, leave it for another day.

Door # 2, tell my son to finish the job (as if) and go make myself a nonfat sugar free dessert--yum!

Door #3, leave it for a few days and come back to it, hoping it would take care of itself.

Okay, so you noticed, my 1st, 2nd and 3rd "instincts" were all basically the same: run!

Fourth, not instinctual, but based on knowledge and experience, suck it up, keep on sorting, go downstairs and get some bags and boxes, start getting things out of the room and into other places.

That's the door I chose. Thirty minutes later, the room looks great, the stuff is elsewhere and I feel that fantastic and slightly pathetic sense of accomplishment that only finishing tangible petty projects can give.

Why is it that we can know this and trust this when it comes to reorganizing a closet and not when it comes to reorganizing our lives? It's exactly like this in emotional and spiritual change too: very very close to the end, when you're just about to see real beauty and feel real accomplishment, you look around and see only chaos: the money you haven't made since you quit your day job, the people who have trouble with your changes, the fear you feel at the unknown.

At that point (okay, I know you have my point now, but hear me out) we think it's "instinctual" to close the door, run away and stuff the chaos down, choose your poison. We fool ourselves into thinking that we're hearing our inner voice speak the truth, "Sara, who are you kidding? why did you think you could do this?", etc. But this voice is only what author, psychologist and workshop leader Maria Nemeth calls "monkey mind."

Monkey Mind is not your friend. Monkey Mind is the toxic mimic of intuition, posing as your better self to get you to walk away from your real better self. Don't listen to this so-called voice. Success is close at hand. Trust your intention. You did this for a reason. Follow it through. It will work.

Coke Justice

It all started with Tab. As a teenager desperately struggling to lose weight on a series of fad diets, I abused Tab to the tune of 6 to 12 cans a day.

When I was 16, for 30 days I ingested nothing but 2 tablespoons of liquid protein a day and 6 Tabs. I was desperate to slim down in time for opening night of The Music Man. The sad irony was that the reason I was desperate to lose weight was that I had been cast as Ethel Toffelmeyer, a plump single girl who danced well. As the pounds dropped away (I lost 25 that month), my costume had to be continuously altered. They added padding to make me look plump!

In the final week of rehearsal, with my parents and brothers out of town on summer vacation, I fainted in the middle of dancing and fell into the orchestra pit, fortunately landing on a commodious Tuba player. When I came to, a parent/doctor asked me how long it had been since I had eaten and I asked him what the date was and passed out again. Next thing I knew they were force-feeding me orange juice and oreos.

Eventually Tab gave way to Diet Coke, the more manly version. In the early 80's, I read some terrifying cancer predictions on aspertame and cut back to a few a week. From then on it ebbed and flowed. I'd drink a lot if I was on a diet. Less when I wasn't.

A year or so ago, I gave up caffeine cold turkey--I mean all of it, chocolate, decaf, everything (ever seen those people who brag that they don't do any drugs? They rasp, "I gave up alcohol, coffee, cigarettes, you name it, honey" all the while they're stuffing their face with hi octane dark chocolate--Dik, I'm not necessarily talking only about you).

Anyway it was extremely painful to give up caffeine, harder than it had been to give up heroin--oops, strike that. It was bloody hard. Eventually I phased back in decaf coffee rationalizing that the caffeine (while equal to that in caffeinated tea, especially the way I make decaf) was deminimus. But the dealbreaker was the diet coke. I thought it was a goner but the coke came back the very next month.

Then I discovered diet coke with vanilla--oh, baby! I love that stuff. Like But-tah. After that, combined with giving up alcohol and sugar this year for good, fuggedabout it, back up to 2 or 3 cans a day.

Then I read that Coca Cola owns a lot of water and has pursued heinous policies in developing nations, especially India. I am SHOCKED! I thought Coca Cola was pure and good! No, seriously, it is sobering and one more reason to quit.

But then what'd I drink? Water owned by Coke?

(:)(:)(:) for Robots on IMAX

3 firm snouts facing upward for Robots on IMAX. I liked it very much. I really did. True to expectation, the computer-animated film created an amusing and fascinating world of robots and the many problems they face.

What I did not expect was yet another in a spate of animated films (following Monsters, Inc. and Shrek) cleverly critiquing corporate culture (the 4 Cs). Listen I know corporations are the bad guys in my world (that's why I'm starting one, but that's for another column), but since when did CEOs of corporation seeking profit become the most evil creatures imaginable?

Even more interesting than demonizing the pursuit of profit, this movie takes on the essence of the consumer culture: the idea that products and to a certain extent people are disposable and replaceable and inherently imperfect. The motto of Big Weld, the company taken over by the evil Ratchet CEO, is changed from "No matter what you're made of, you can shine" to "why be you, when you can be new?" a slogan designed to stop people from fixing things (themselves) and change to buying new bodies--a not so subtle zing at cosmetic surgery.

The movie is filled with exciting whizzing and zooming and special effects that seem particularly intense in IMAX (I would have been perfectly happy with a regular screen version I think). The movie's plot is completely predictable and the dialogue passable. But the notion of fixing things triumphing over throwing them away is a winner of theme, one that I am drawn towards.

Silent Hamster

For years now, every night when I tuck her in, my eight year old daughter requires me to sing a version of the following song (sung to the obvious tune). I sing the words in regular type, she chimes in with the ones in italics. Some of the "regular words" have morphed over the years. She has been making me sing this for years but every so often, she changes the animal inserted. Currently, it is:

Silent hamster, holy hamster
All is calm, all is hamster
'Round yon virgin, mother and hamster
Holy infant, so tender and hamster
Sleep in heavenly hamster
Sle-ep in heavenly ham-ster

Silent hamster, holy hamster
Shepards quake, at the hamster
Angels on high sing al-le-lu-hamster
Shepherds below sing al-le-lu-hamster

[This is my favorite part coming up]

Christ our savior is hamster
Chri-ist our savior is ham-ster

The Power of Gratitude

Lately I have been experimenting with gratitude. I have always thought of myself as generally grateful, appreciating, at least on an intellectual level, that I had options, choices, worries that were luxuries for 99% of the world population. In recent years, I have gradually gotten more specific about what I'm grateful for, listing either in my head or on paper, the people, things and conditions for which I was truly thankful.

Then recently I found myself in a tough transition in which I was questioning everything I thought I knew about the world, my sense of self, my communication skills, my politics even (or at least the force with which I reject other world views). In the midst of this swirling confusing sea of self-doubt, I needed a raft to grab hold of, even a tiny corner would do. Turns out that raft was gratitude.

I was advised this time to be even more specific than before, not I'm grateful for my health, my family, my friends and my house, but particularly things that happened that very day. I starting writing these down (I refuse to say "journaling"--it's an unnecessary verb in my opinion) and beautiful, extraordinary changes started to take place.

Today I am grateful for my daughter's face as she showed me the baby pig at the county fair. I am grateful for my son's playful air bites at me while he got his first haircut in a while. I am grateful to my community for screening The Incredibles in the Common House for all the kids this evening thereby allowing my husband and me to curl up on the couch together and watch Igby Goes Down ((:)(:) (:) if you must know). And I'm grateful for the opportunity to tell you all of this and have a reasonable certainty that someone is actually reading my blog.

How sweet and easy it all is as long as you look.

Memory Walks

What is it about the human mind that so enjoys retracing its steps? On a recent trip to New Orleans, I greatly enjoyed finding the hotel we stayed in when we eloped there 15 years ago (today) and the restaurants in which we ate such memorable meals.

You'd think that each new trip to a place we would be more interested in visiting parts that we haven't been before. And we are a little, but in most respects we aren't. If you rent a little house somewhere for a week or two in the same town, don't you take great pleasure in finding a little bakery or restaurant or store that you love so much that you frequent it while you're there? And then when you come back, you've just got to go there again and get that cafe au lait, or dim sum or whatever it was that you associate with it.

I think it's because we lose access to so many pleasant memories in our daily life. We become preoccupied with mistakes we've made, regrets we've had. I recently learned that the word resentment comes from the French, "re-sentment" literally feeling again. All too often we spend time cultivating and harvesting bad feelings instead of good.

But when we return to a place we once spent time in, whether for a weekend or for years, we are magically given access to pleasant memories long dormant. The smell of a given street, the taste of a dish, the color of a flower, are where we store our treasures. Ah, forget that, they are our treasures. How good that something within us wants to open up those boxes covered with dust in our mental attics and play.

A Bug's Life

Michael "Bug" Deakin is an artist who re-captures amazing wood, fallen trees, old barns and chicken coops and buildings that had to come down, and remakes them into gorgeous furniture, new buildings and treasures. Along with two other Amazonian beauties (I was by far the shortest and least impressive), I visited Heritage Salvage in Petaluma today to tower over Bug and smooth the way for him to make 8 gorgeous, unique tables for my cohousing community for less money than any artist should ever have to make.

Bug is everything you'd want a man named Bug to be--funny, smart, warm, creative, committed and with great forearms. His business cards are made from cedar and smell wonderful. Legendary redwood sitter Julia Butterfly Hill just spent 3 weeks camping in her bus on his property. As a parting gift, he fashioned a strangely erotic knob for her vehicle's entry way.

His website shows you scores of articles written about him, and why he's special. For my community the idea of commissioning extraordinary tables made from 15 inch Fir captured from the liberty building in Sausalito is pretty compelling. Now if we could only get Bug to create his brilliant, perfect, timeless, unique pieces for free, I think we'd have a deal.

The Poly Bodytick

So like while you were all working today I was getting a fabulous massage from a woman named Pao, and I had like this great idea for my blog today and I was going to call it like the Poly Bodytick and it was going to be awesome.

And now I barely remember my awesome idea. This is what happens when you spend 4 days in Jazz Fest in N'awlins celebrating your15th wedding anniversary. Your brain turns to happy mush. I almost never left the gospel tent by the by--we gawn have us some church here at jazz fest today!--and ohmigod did we ever. I LOVE the gospel tent. I want to live in the gospel tent.

Back to the poly bodytick. It goes something like this. Activists and politicians are not scientists. We don't have the luxury of isolating the variables that make social change possible. We want to win, and win fast. So when we go after a problem, we throw everything we've got at it. Or, at least, I've always believed we should. We sue the bastards, introduce a bill, show up in droves to protest, run someone against 'em, you name it. And then if, say, their approval rating drops 20 points in a month, we have no idea how to replicate our success.

We often do the same thing when we're in pain, don't we? Like my right shoulder has been giving me grief for 3 years straight. When it gets really bad what do I do? In the space of a month, I make appointments for my internist, my acupuncturist, a physical therapist, a spiritual healer, a massage therapist, a cranio-sacral therapist, an Alexander technique teacher and Maori healers in town from New Zealand for only a week--I'm not taking any chances, this is pain I'm talkin' 'bout--we gawn have us some pain here tonight! (I am convinced that the Maori Healers work best by the way, $200 for 20 minutes of excruciating pain--we're talking childbirth here--and then for 6 months, no pain whatsoever--these huge people are like pain collection agents, they stand on your body, pull you limb from limb until you give up the pain, okay! okay! you win, you can have the pain, just take it! Take it! I'll tell you where it is!... Let me know if you want to be on the list when they're next in town.)

The point is, everything I'm learning now is making me question whether this blitzkreig on pain or the Governator is effective. Might it make more sense to slow down, pick one thing to do and do it really really well?

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.