Readers will recall my recently launched series on spiritual lessons learned while losing my wedding rings--read Ring Cycle--Part I for background.
The problem with starting the ring cycle the way I did is that all the other stories will be boring in comparison, but here goes. We used to be members of this amazing camping and swimming park on the Cosumnes River near here called the Van Vleck Memorial Park.
Two of my ring stories start in this setting. The first time, I was with a group of cohousing women on our annual women's night out at the river. I removed my watch and rings, as was my custom, and put the rings on the watch and set them in my car on the divider between the front seats.
We all had a frolicking good time being river nudists after dark in the warm river (with no one else around to see) remarking once again how you can never predict which bodies will look better naked than clothed (it's true: you think you can, but you really can't!).
Afterwards, at home, I realized that one of my rings was missing--one of the diamond platinum set this time, I think the engagement one with the biggest diamond.
Retracing the evening's steps, I figure out (and confirm) that when a neighbor borrowed my watch, the rings fell off it and she thinks there are 2, not 3, she retrieves the 2, putting them on back on the divider, but the 3rd lies lonely and afraid in the cow-trodden grass of the Cosumnes River banks.
The next day I rent a metal detector and convince my friend Jane to take her 4 children and join me out at the river. It is a Monday, not a soul is there.
We locate what we think is the car spot, and crawl on our hands and knees (the children doing the same) looking for the ring. No luck.
We look more, using the detector. No luck.
Hours pass. We get hungry. We had not planned on being here for lunch. I give up looking. I am spent. I drive to the nearest taco bell in Rancho Murieta for sustenance for the group. Jane keeps looking.
While at Taco Bell, my cell phone shows a message has come through without ringing. I retrieve it and it's a very excited Jane, repeating inanely, "I found the ring. I found the ring. I found the ring. I found the ring. I found the ring. I FOUND the ring. I found the RING. I found the ring."
I rush with my tacos and sodas back to the river and we dance on the banks for joy, holding hands in a circle (I think I may have made this part up, but it makes a nice feature to the story).
There it is, the ring, some 100 yards from where we were looking for it. I would have long ago given up if it hadn't been for Jane. She had patience and persistence and a belief that it would be found.
Spiritual Lesson: sometimes to get what you seek, you must ask for help and let go.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Increased Violence in Children's Lit?
Three snouts up for Seeing Redd, book two in The Looking Glass Wars trilogy by Frank Beddor.
Astute readers will remember that I gave The Looking Glass Wars, book 1 in the trilogy, 5 snouts up instead of a measly three (read by post). In fairness, Seeing Redd shows the same depth of imagination and gift for storytelling that Beddor evidenced in his first book.
Actually, I docked the book two snouts because upon reflection I became appalled by the violence. Both books are filled with fighting--ingenious weaponry imagined by the powerful battling "warrior queens," extraordinary methods of defending against these horrors such as hoards of murderous "glass eyes" with showers of flying razors provide the main drama of the story.
And I'm just sick of it. I doubt if Frank Beddor was as cynical as I am, but I can picture some studio executive rubbing his hands together (yes, it is being made into a major motion picture), "it's got everything, the girls will love the queens and the imagination, the parents will love the quirky take on Alice in Wonderland and everyone will love the mass murder!"
Is it my imagination or has children's literature taken a particularly violent turn lately? The Harry Potter series (which I loved) gets more and more gory and violent. The Wonderland award-winning series is brutal and, although I haven't read it yet, it seems that The Golden Compass series which is about to be released on film contains its fair share of fighting.
Is this all necessary to capture children's imaginations? Is it all being driven by Hollywood and a thirst for the inevitable jump to the silver screen? Even children's classics like the Chronicles of Narnia seem to have been made more violent as they move to movies--I don't recall nearly so much emphasis on a battle or war between Aslan and the Ice Queen as the movie focuses on.
Astute readers of children's literature will no doubt point out the gruesome events in the original fairy tales of old and site Bruno Bettleheim's The Uses of Enchantment where I dimly recall that he posits the pivotal psychological importance of bringing children's worst fears out in the open to the page.
But these worst fears used to be: losing ones parent (ala Bambi or Lion King), an evil stepmother, or being lost in the forest. Now they're watching the Dark Lord murder your friend, cut off someone's body parts and then sic his snake on you or watching scores of "card soldiers" mowed down by flying knives.
I, for one, don't think it is necessary or appropriate. I have come to the conclusion that at best violence in children's literature is a lazy way for writers to introduce drama and court commercial success and at worst, it fills a generation of children's minds with countless horrors and gives them the impression that the best place to apply their creativity is in coming up with interesting ways to kill people.
I know its possible to write and read exciting imaginative books that hold kids' attention without all this violence. Seeing Redd and The Looking Glass Wars ain't it.
Astute readers will remember that I gave The Looking Glass Wars, book 1 in the trilogy, 5 snouts up instead of a measly three (read by post). In fairness, Seeing Redd shows the same depth of imagination and gift for storytelling that Beddor evidenced in his first book.
Actually, I docked the book two snouts because upon reflection I became appalled by the violence. Both books are filled with fighting--ingenious weaponry imagined by the powerful battling "warrior queens," extraordinary methods of defending against these horrors such as hoards of murderous "glass eyes" with showers of flying razors provide the main drama of the story.
And I'm just sick of it. I doubt if Frank Beddor was as cynical as I am, but I can picture some studio executive rubbing his hands together (yes, it is being made into a major motion picture), "it's got everything, the girls will love the queens and the imagination, the parents will love the quirky take on Alice in Wonderland and everyone will love the mass murder!"
Is it my imagination or has children's literature taken a particularly violent turn lately? The Harry Potter series (which I loved) gets more and more gory and violent. The Wonderland award-winning series is brutal and, although I haven't read it yet, it seems that The Golden Compass series which is about to be released on film contains its fair share of fighting.
Is this all necessary to capture children's imaginations? Is it all being driven by Hollywood and a thirst for the inevitable jump to the silver screen? Even children's classics like the Chronicles of Narnia seem to have been made more violent as they move to movies--I don't recall nearly so much emphasis on a battle or war between Aslan and the Ice Queen as the movie focuses on.
Astute readers of children's literature will no doubt point out the gruesome events in the original fairy tales of old and site Bruno Bettleheim's The Uses of Enchantment where I dimly recall that he posits the pivotal psychological importance of bringing children's worst fears out in the open to the page.
But these worst fears used to be: losing ones parent (ala Bambi or Lion King), an evil stepmother, or being lost in the forest. Now they're watching the Dark Lord murder your friend, cut off someone's body parts and then sic his snake on you or watching scores of "card soldiers" mowed down by flying knives.
I, for one, don't think it is necessary or appropriate. I have come to the conclusion that at best violence in children's literature is a lazy way for writers to introduce drama and court commercial success and at worst, it fills a generation of children's minds with countless horrors and gives them the impression that the best place to apply their creativity is in coming up with interesting ways to kill people.
I know its possible to write and read exciting imaginative books that hold kids' attention without all this violence. Seeing Redd and The Looking Glass Wars ain't it.
Monday, October 29, 2007
(:)(:)(:)(:)(:) for The Gospel Project of Austin, TX
Five Snouts Up for The Gospel Project of Austin, Texas, a terrific rocking peace and love gospel band.
Warming up for the wedding where I "discovered" them, I groaned slightly as I heard the first strains of "The House of the Rising Sun," but fell in love as they layered the lyrics to "Amazing Grace" over it (hilarious, inspired and musical, like the band itself). After that I couldn't get enough (in an alcohol-free state, I might add) of their blend of rock and gospel with fabulous vocals by (gospel soloist) Jessica Shephard--what a sound!
The next day I saw them pack South Austin watering hole Maria's Taco Express as they laid down tracks for their second CD backed up by the South Austin Unity Gospel Choir. The audience danced, laughed and sang along.
Listen for me screeching in the background during "Woke Up this Morning with My Mind Stayed on Freedom" and keep an ear and an eye on the The Gospel Project.
Warming up for the wedding where I "discovered" them, I groaned slightly as I heard the first strains of "The House of the Rising Sun," but fell in love as they layered the lyrics to "Amazing Grace" over it (hilarious, inspired and musical, like the band itself). After that I couldn't get enough (in an alcohol-free state, I might add) of their blend of rock and gospel with fabulous vocals by (gospel soloist) Jessica Shephard--what a sound!
The next day I saw them pack South Austin watering hole Maria's Taco Express as they laid down tracks for their second CD backed up by the South Austin Unity Gospel Choir. The audience danced, laughed and sang along.
Listen for me screeching in the background during "Woke Up this Morning with My Mind Stayed on Freedom" and keep an ear and an eye on the The Gospel Project.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Firestorms ask: How green is my insurance commissioner?
Although the job of (statewide elected California) Insurance Commissioner is not often associated with environmental issues, both the current and the immediate past job holders ran green. With the Southern California firestorms highlighting the effect of global climate change on the possibility of disasters and their attendant insurance claims, one wonders, what will/have these insurance commissioners done to move the insurance industry into political/economic reality?
In Europe, the insurance industry has been a crucial partner with environmentalists to pursue sane environmental policies that stem the production of greenhouse gases, thereby slowing global climate change, and protecting their bottom line.
In the U.S., the insurance industry routinely acts in lockstep with the Chamber of Commerce to oppose environmental bills which inconvenience polluters.
Past (Democratic) Insurance Commissioner and current Lt. Governor John Garamendi wants to be governor of California. He calls himself an environmentalist and campaigns on the need to do something about global climate change. Yet, when he was Insurance Commissioner did he use his position to nudge the insurance industry out of its historically anti-environmental stance? I don't recall hearing about such efforts.
Of course in his current job, the rigors of whale-naming duties prohibit him from having much affect over environmental policy--but did he do it when he could?
Current (Republican) Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner also calls himself an environmentalist (increasingly a requirement for election to statewide office--the only two Republicans elected, Schwarzenegger and Poizner statewide positioned themselves credibly as environmentalists). Here's his chance to prove it.
Of course no regulator alone can be responsible for the overhauling the recalcitrant political habits of an entire industry, but they can use the bully pulpit to raise the issues, educate the industry as to their bottom line interests and make it inconvenient to continue to behave irresponsibly, for their shareholders, if not for their insured.
In Europe, the insurance industry has been a crucial partner with environmentalists to pursue sane environmental policies that stem the production of greenhouse gases, thereby slowing global climate change, and protecting their bottom line.
In the U.S., the insurance industry routinely acts in lockstep with the Chamber of Commerce to oppose environmental bills which inconvenience polluters.
Past (Democratic) Insurance Commissioner and current Lt. Governor John Garamendi wants to be governor of California. He calls himself an environmentalist and campaigns on the need to do something about global climate change. Yet, when he was Insurance Commissioner did he use his position to nudge the insurance industry out of its historically anti-environmental stance? I don't recall hearing about such efforts.
Of course in his current job, the rigors of whale-naming duties prohibit him from having much affect over environmental policy--but did he do it when he could?
Current (Republican) Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner also calls himself an environmentalist (increasingly a requirement for election to statewide office--the only two Republicans elected, Schwarzenegger and Poizner statewide positioned themselves credibly as environmentalists). Here's his chance to prove it.
Of course no regulator alone can be responsible for the overhauling the recalcitrant political habits of an entire industry, but they can use the bully pulpit to raise the issues, educate the industry as to their bottom line interests and make it inconvenient to continue to behave irresponsibly, for their shareholders, if not for their insured.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Could Global Warming Melt the Insurance Glaciers?
Earlier this year, I had a snarky exchange with Pete at the annual Labor Day picnic in Foresta, which is a little community in Yosemite National Park in which my family has a home. Pete is an insurance agent and a Republican.
Pete is also the chair of the Foresta Preservation Assocation on which I used to serve as a board member. Every year at the 4th of July and Labor Day picnics, Pete brings park officials to the event to talk about what the park is doing to protect Forestans from forest fire. As he introduces them and throughout their presentation, he insults them as government officials, making remarks about the inefficiency of government.
As most of the problems Forestans have in the park stem from lack of funding from Pete's beloved Bush administration, this attitude tends to work its way under my skin festering into a full blown self-righteous rash if I'm not careful.
This year, after my husband (who is a lobbyist for the Sierra Club in Sacramento) gave his opinion on a matter of concern to the community, Pete thanked him, saying "we won't hold it against you that you work for the Sierra Club."
I quipped back, "that's great, Pete, and we won't hold it against you that you're an insurance agent."
He muttered, "you may find a time when you need insurance."
I thought, "you may find a time when you need to breath clean air and drink clean water." [I didn't have the presence of mind to say it though. The creators of deja vu, the French, naturally, have a phrase for this: L'esprit d'escalier, literally ghost on the stairs. It means, when you think of what you should have said, an instant too late.]
With the raging fires in Southern California this week, and reports that at least one major underwriter has recently stopped writing policies in California, I got to wondering about the link between the environment and insurance.
Does the insurance industry, which has historically been a driving force in the Chamber of Commerce in California and its "job killer" bill list, understand that being routinely anti-environment may ultimately affect its bottom line in the form of increased "acts of God" such as massive brush fires, floods and hurricanes?
Could global warming melt the historically glacial pace of change in this conservative industry?
Pete is also the chair of the Foresta Preservation Assocation on which I used to serve as a board member. Every year at the 4th of July and Labor Day picnics, Pete brings park officials to the event to talk about what the park is doing to protect Forestans from forest fire. As he introduces them and throughout their presentation, he insults them as government officials, making remarks about the inefficiency of government.
As most of the problems Forestans have in the park stem from lack of funding from Pete's beloved Bush administration, this attitude tends to work its way under my skin festering into a full blown self-righteous rash if I'm not careful.
This year, after my husband (who is a lobbyist for the Sierra Club in Sacramento) gave his opinion on a matter of concern to the community, Pete thanked him, saying "we won't hold it against you that you work for the Sierra Club."
I quipped back, "that's great, Pete, and we won't hold it against you that you're an insurance agent."
He muttered, "you may find a time when you need insurance."
I thought, "you may find a time when you need to breath clean air and drink clean water." [I didn't have the presence of mind to say it though. The creators of deja vu, the French, naturally, have a phrase for this: L'esprit d'escalier, literally ghost on the stairs. It means, when you think of what you should have said, an instant too late.]
With the raging fires in Southern California this week, and reports that at least one major underwriter has recently stopped writing policies in California, I got to wondering about the link between the environment and insurance.
Does the insurance industry, which has historically been a driving force in the Chamber of Commerce in California and its "job killer" bill list, understand that being routinely anti-environment may ultimately affect its bottom line in the form of increased "acts of God" such as massive brush fires, floods and hurricanes?
Could global warming melt the historically glacial pace of change in this conservative industry?
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Sitting alone in a room
For 3 weeks now, I have meditated alone in a beautiful room in the state capitol and it's been okay.
The reader naturally will have two questions, the first is necessary for understanding, the second is the subject of this piece: 1) why are you alone in the room? 2) why is it okay?
I am alone in the room because no one has attended the first three meetings of a new spiritual support group that I started in the capitol building October 5th. It meets Fridays from 1:30 to 2:30pm in Room 125 of the State Capitol, downtown Sacramento.
I started the group with the encouragement of several advisers, most importantly God. I am publicizing the meeting through the Capitol Morning Report and some emails to people I think would be interested. Several people have emailed, called or stopped me to say that they're interested in attending for meditation, reading, prayer and sharing, but none have come yet.
The more interesting fact (for me) is that it's completely okay. Room 125 is incredibly beautiful. I am so lucky that the room has been set aside for this purpose. I am so lucky that I get to sit in it every week (and I am committed to continue to do it for at least 6 months). I have had wonderful meditations in there--surprisingly, given the number of boondoggles that have probably been hatched in that very space, the room has a great feel, great energy as we say on the left coast. I have felt that the time is very privileged, very precious.
The main thing is that something in me has shifted. Two years ago, I could not have done this. I would have been filled with anxiety and resentment at sitting in an empty room. The demons would have control of the room: where are your friends? what could you have been thinking? what kind of an idiot sits alone in a room? what if someone sees you? what if someone blogs about you being in this room? what does this say about you?
And now, I simply don't care. Think of all things that have to be true to allow this to happen: I have time and money to do this. I have the room. I have my health. I have the ability to sit still. And most importantly, I have a cell phone.
Life is good.
ps If you come this friday, you'll get to sit alone too. I'll be in Austin, TX for a wedding.
The reader naturally will have two questions, the first is necessary for understanding, the second is the subject of this piece: 1) why are you alone in the room? 2) why is it okay?
I am alone in the room because no one has attended the first three meetings of a new spiritual support group that I started in the capitol building October 5th. It meets Fridays from 1:30 to 2:30pm in Room 125 of the State Capitol, downtown Sacramento.
I started the group with the encouragement of several advisers, most importantly God. I am publicizing the meeting through the Capitol Morning Report and some emails to people I think would be interested. Several people have emailed, called or stopped me to say that they're interested in attending for meditation, reading, prayer and sharing, but none have come yet.
The more interesting fact (for me) is that it's completely okay. Room 125 is incredibly beautiful. I am so lucky that the room has been set aside for this purpose. I am so lucky that I get to sit in it every week (and I am committed to continue to do it for at least 6 months). I have had wonderful meditations in there--surprisingly, given the number of boondoggles that have probably been hatched in that very space, the room has a great feel, great energy as we say on the left coast. I have felt that the time is very privileged, very precious.
The main thing is that something in me has shifted. Two years ago, I could not have done this. I would have been filled with anxiety and resentment at sitting in an empty room. The demons would have control of the room: where are your friends? what could you have been thinking? what kind of an idiot sits alone in a room? what if someone sees you? what if someone blogs about you being in this room? what does this say about you?
And now, I simply don't care. Think of all things that have to be true to allow this to happen: I have time and money to do this. I have the room. I have my health. I have the ability to sit still. And most importantly, I have a cell phone.
Life is good.
ps If you come this friday, you'll get to sit alone too. I'll be in Austin, TX for a wedding.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Pick your dream: fascism, terrorism or love?
In the spiritual tradition(s) that I follow, we take responsibility for attracting/creating the conditions of our lives. Sometimes the appropriate responsibility is collective, not individual.
From a scientific perspective, there is no evidence that what we label "war," "starvation" or "torture" exists in any form (for that matter, or more to the point, there is no evidence that "chairs," "people" or "trees" exist either--it is all just stuff that we form into being through consciousness).
In his mandatory book of Toltec wisdom, The Four Agreements, Don Miguel Ruiz describes the common dream thusly, humans dream the "dream of the planet." "The dream of the planet is the collective dream of billions of smaller, personal dreams, which together create a dream of a family, a dream of a community, a dream of a city, a dream of a country, and finally a dream of the whole humanity."
For some time I've been preoccupied with the dream of terrorism that many elements of the world share. I don't share that dream. I believe and espouse that we should act from love rather than fear and that making decisions as a society based on fear is frought.
Then I saw Naomi Wolf interviewed on the Colbert Report on her new book The End of America. (I have long admired Naomi Wolf for her pivotal work, The Beauty Myth.) In the interview I learned that the United States is currently exhibiting all 10 warning signs of (not becoming but) having become a fascist state. This scared the hell out of me.
Ever since I saw this interview (I haven't yet read the book--the link above is an article she wrote in The Guardian--btw, I assume even having the words Naomi Wolf (ding!), fascism (ding!), and The Guardian (ding!) in a blog post has put me on several lists if I wasn't already), I have been semi-obsessed with uncovering signs of our impending fascism. I scan every news article or action (or inaction) by the legislature for such.
And I plan my life accordingly. I kid you not, I literally day-dreamed recently about how soon I should get my family out of the country before I'm arrested as a political prisoner and which country would give us safe harbor and won't it be ironic when the land of the free generates thousands of political refugees?
Yesterday it hit me: by focusing on my fear of fascism, I am every bit as fear-based as the people who focus on their fear of terrorism. Yes, I can be interested in pursuing love-based policies. And yes, I can step up my involvement in the ACLU (ding!), but I do not have to focus on what I'm afraid of. I can focus on what I want.
Let's get back to a common dream of love and freedom. DING?
From a scientific perspective, there is no evidence that what we label "war," "starvation" or "torture" exists in any form (for that matter, or more to the point, there is no evidence that "chairs," "people" or "trees" exist either--it is all just stuff that we form into being through consciousness).
In his mandatory book of Toltec wisdom, The Four Agreements, Don Miguel Ruiz describes the common dream thusly, humans dream the "dream of the planet." "The dream of the planet is the collective dream of billions of smaller, personal dreams, which together create a dream of a family, a dream of a community, a dream of a city, a dream of a country, and finally a dream of the whole humanity."
For some time I've been preoccupied with the dream of terrorism that many elements of the world share. I don't share that dream. I believe and espouse that we should act from love rather than fear and that making decisions as a society based on fear is frought.
Then I saw Naomi Wolf interviewed on the Colbert Report on her new book The End of America. (I have long admired Naomi Wolf for her pivotal work, The Beauty Myth.) In the interview I learned that the United States is currently exhibiting all 10 warning signs of (not becoming but) having become a fascist state. This scared the hell out of me.
Ever since I saw this interview (I haven't yet read the book--the link above is an article she wrote in The Guardian--btw, I assume even having the words Naomi Wolf (ding!), fascism (ding!), and The Guardian (ding!) in a blog post has put me on several lists if I wasn't already), I have been semi-obsessed with uncovering signs of our impending fascism. I scan every news article or action (or inaction) by the legislature for such.
And I plan my life accordingly. I kid you not, I literally day-dreamed recently about how soon I should get my family out of the country before I'm arrested as a political prisoner and which country would give us safe harbor and won't it be ironic when the land of the free generates thousands of political refugees?
Yesterday it hit me: by focusing on my fear of fascism, I am every bit as fear-based as the people who focus on their fear of terrorism. Yes, I can be interested in pursuing love-based policies. And yes, I can step up my involvement in the ACLU (ding!), but I do not have to focus on what I'm afraid of. I can focus on what I want.
Let's get back to a common dream of love and freedom. DING?
Monday, October 22, 2007
The Ring Cycle--Part I
Spiritual Lessons Learned from Losing Wedding Rings
Unlike most women, I have 3 wedding rings, one that my husband of 16 years (living together 20) put on my finger, which was two kinds of gold and we chose together, and a platinum and diamond set that my grandfather gave me after Bill and I eloped to New Orleans. My grandfather designed the set and had it made for my grandmother when they were married in the 1920's--it's gorgeous.
Nonetheless, despite the meaning these rings have for me, unlike most women I remove them every night and when I shower or swim because I'm allergic to the metal and my skin needs breaks from it.
As a result of the removal and my corresponding general attitude of carelessness, I have lost these rings several times. In this blog, I am going to begin a series chronicalling the spiritual lessons I have learned from losing my wedding rings.
Story 1:
I am in Buffalo, New York visiting my in-laws. Due to previous close calls, I have deliberately left my diamond set in Sacramento, traveling only with the gold ring (I don't want anyone to think I'm not married!). While in Buffalo, we visit Betty Mensch a wonderful former law professor of ours whose mother has a little house down in the Chataqua, NY (aka PBS Disneyland).
After a nice visit and treat, we swim with the kids in the lake. Later we return to Buffalo and I discover that my ring is missing. Knowing that I went swimming, and would have removed my ring, I call Betty and she turns the little summer house upside down looking for it--no luck.
I look around the house in Buffalo too. I inform my husband that the ring is missing. He seems vaguely alarmed at two things: 1) that I'm categorizing it as "missing" when I'm constantly mislaying the rings and 2) that I don't actually seem particularly bothered by it.
The common theme throughout the ring cycle is this: whenever I am in throes of a ring loss, I am overcome with a feeling of peace. I am filled with a sort of inner knowing that all is well and that the ring will return.
In this instance, the ring didn't. We looked all over the house in Buffalo and didn't find it. We returned to Sacramento with assurances from my mother-in-law that she would have her house cleaner look for it carefully when she vacuumed.
Still no luck. I begin to think, "should I panic? where is my ring? I know it's somewhere." I can't describe this "I know it's somewhere feeling." It's craziness really. But all I can tell you is that throughout this loss, my feeling was "it's not lost. This ring is somewhere, I just don't know where."
Now to the average reader, the difference between "lost" and "I don't know where it is" may seem about like the difference between "dead" and "passed away," i.e., nonexistent. But to me the difference is this: lost is hopeless, and I don't know where it is is a temporary condition easily remedied by knowing where it is--ha!
Anyway, long ring story short, years pass and I don't find the ring. Once I even call the jeweler from whom we bought it to explore the possibility of a replacement, but something in me whispers, "don't bother. It is known where it is."
Two summers later we arrive in Buffalo get to the room in which we typically stay and I open the empty drawer in the dresser to begin to unpack my clothes. There, at the bottom of the drawer, all alone is the ring.
Elated, I pick it up and run around the house with it, "I found my wedding ring! See, it was there all along!"
Spiritual lesson learned: there is no time in God--that ring was there all along waiting for me, just like all my other gifts, if only I know where to look for them.
Unlike most women, I have 3 wedding rings, one that my husband of 16 years (living together 20) put on my finger, which was two kinds of gold and we chose together, and a platinum and diamond set that my grandfather gave me after Bill and I eloped to New Orleans. My grandfather designed the set and had it made for my grandmother when they were married in the 1920's--it's gorgeous.
Nonetheless, despite the meaning these rings have for me, unlike most women I remove them every night and when I shower or swim because I'm allergic to the metal and my skin needs breaks from it.
As a result of the removal and my corresponding general attitude of carelessness, I have lost these rings several times. In this blog, I am going to begin a series chronicalling the spiritual lessons I have learned from losing my wedding rings.
Story 1:
I am in Buffalo, New York visiting my in-laws. Due to previous close calls, I have deliberately left my diamond set in Sacramento, traveling only with the gold ring (I don't want anyone to think I'm not married!). While in Buffalo, we visit Betty Mensch a wonderful former law professor of ours whose mother has a little house down in the Chataqua, NY (aka PBS Disneyland).
After a nice visit and treat, we swim with the kids in the lake. Later we return to Buffalo and I discover that my ring is missing. Knowing that I went swimming, and would have removed my ring, I call Betty and she turns the little summer house upside down looking for it--no luck.
I look around the house in Buffalo too. I inform my husband that the ring is missing. He seems vaguely alarmed at two things: 1) that I'm categorizing it as "missing" when I'm constantly mislaying the rings and 2) that I don't actually seem particularly bothered by it.
The common theme throughout the ring cycle is this: whenever I am in throes of a ring loss, I am overcome with a feeling of peace. I am filled with a sort of inner knowing that all is well and that the ring will return.
In this instance, the ring didn't. We looked all over the house in Buffalo and didn't find it. We returned to Sacramento with assurances from my mother-in-law that she would have her house cleaner look for it carefully when she vacuumed.
Still no luck. I begin to think, "should I panic? where is my ring? I know it's somewhere." I can't describe this "I know it's somewhere feeling." It's craziness really. But all I can tell you is that throughout this loss, my feeling was "it's not lost. This ring is somewhere, I just don't know where."
Now to the average reader, the difference between "lost" and "I don't know where it is" may seem about like the difference between "dead" and "passed away," i.e., nonexistent. But to me the difference is this: lost is hopeless, and I don't know where it is is a temporary condition easily remedied by knowing where it is--ha!
Anyway, long ring story short, years pass and I don't find the ring. Once I even call the jeweler from whom we bought it to explore the possibility of a replacement, but something in me whispers, "don't bother. It is known where it is."
Two summers later we arrive in Buffalo get to the room in which we typically stay and I open the empty drawer in the dresser to begin to unpack my clothes. There, at the bottom of the drawer, all alone is the ring.
Elated, I pick it up and run around the house with it, "I found my wedding ring! See, it was there all along!"
Spiritual lesson learned: there is no time in God--that ring was there all along waiting for me, just like all my other gifts, if only I know where to look for them.
Friday, October 19, 2007
All the way with HBJ
Word on the street is that (former 35th California Assembly district) Assemblymember Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara) is throwing her hat in the ring to run for the Republican dominated 19th Senate district.
Past conventional wisdom has had it that this district, badly configured in the last redistricting go around, is lost to Democrats (it is currently held by Republican arch conservative Tom McClintock). But current polling data shows Jackson not only wins the Democratic primary but the general election handily.
Jackson in the Senate would not only be a vital pick-up for the Democrats (they only need 1 vote for the budget-proof two thirds) but a crucial victory for progressives. No shrinking violet, Hannah-Beth has always voted her conscience and her conscience is fabulous. Moreover, she's spent her forced (due to term limits) "retirement" from the legislature working hard to improve California through founding and running her effective organization Speak Out California.
That's why I'm going all the way with HBJ!
Past conventional wisdom has had it that this district, badly configured in the last redistricting go around, is lost to Democrats (it is currently held by Republican arch conservative Tom McClintock). But current polling data shows Jackson not only wins the Democratic primary but the general election handily.
Jackson in the Senate would not only be a vital pick-up for the Democrats (they only need 1 vote for the budget-proof two thirds) but a crucial victory for progressives. No shrinking violet, Hannah-Beth has always voted her conscience and her conscience is fabulous. Moreover, she's spent her forced (due to term limits) "retirement" from the legislature working hard to improve California through founding and running her effective organization Speak Out California.
That's why I'm going all the way with HBJ!
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Maviglio vs. Nichols
You may be interested in reading (Speaker Fabian Nunez' press secretary) Steve Maviglio's comments (and my response) on yesterday's post, CNA vs. Nunez which was also appeared in the California Progress Report.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
C.N.A. vs. Nunez
If it wasn't clear before, the gloves are officially off in the relationship between California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D-Los Angeles) and the California Nurses Association. Today's Sacramento Bee has CNA openly calling for Nunez (sorry, I don't know how to get my blog to bring the requisite tilde to Nunez's name) to recuse himself from the health care debate due to his wife's lucrative position with the hospital industry.
The same article has Nunez spokesman Steve Maviglio firing back calling the nurses "radical and out of touch."
In my experience this kind of open declaration of war between a progressive union and a Democratic leader of the legislature is unprecedented in recent California politics. It simply isn't done.
And, yes, I am known as the Miss Manners of the California Legislature. Everyone knows how much I respect the etiquette of the place.
But whether it is or isn't done, it has been. The CNA leadership clearly has decided that they are not going to let Fabian Nunez get in the way of their goal of achieving single payer health care in California.
I find this open push for what Californians really need refreshing, if risky politically. The goals of the deal that Nunez and Schwarzenegger are negotiating towards reveal that it is they, rather than the C.N.A., who are out of touch with the people of California who want universal health care, real systemic change, not whatever the meager parameters of the politically possible may bring.
Flagging Nunez' supposed conflict of interest is just a convenient way to attempt to blow up this deal. I remember when Paul Koretz was first sitting on the Assembly health committee he had a policy of "recusing" himself from voting on every health care bill that involved Kaiser Permanente because his wife worked for Kaiser. Since virtually every bill was opposed by Kaiser, the net result of Koretz' conflict resolution was to provide a convenient permanent abstention for Kaiser so that the proponents of these measures had to work to replace his vote. It was lunacy.
I don't think the Speaker of the Assembly can reasonably be asked to recuse himself from attempting to solve one of the most important crises of the state. I do, however, think he can be asked to get serious, stop playing the hospitals' game, and put the people of California first.
The same article has Nunez spokesman Steve Maviglio firing back calling the nurses "radical and out of touch."
In my experience this kind of open declaration of war between a progressive union and a Democratic leader of the legislature is unprecedented in recent California politics. It simply isn't done.
And, yes, I am known as the Miss Manners of the California Legislature. Everyone knows how much I respect the etiquette of the place.
But whether it is or isn't done, it has been. The CNA leadership clearly has decided that they are not going to let Fabian Nunez get in the way of their goal of achieving single payer health care in California.
I find this open push for what Californians really need refreshing, if risky politically. The goals of the deal that Nunez and Schwarzenegger are negotiating towards reveal that it is they, rather than the C.N.A., who are out of touch with the people of California who want universal health care, real systemic change, not whatever the meager parameters of the politically possible may bring.
Flagging Nunez' supposed conflict of interest is just a convenient way to attempt to blow up this deal. I remember when Paul Koretz was first sitting on the Assembly health committee he had a policy of "recusing" himself from voting on every health care bill that involved Kaiser Permanente because his wife worked for Kaiser. Since virtually every bill was opposed by Kaiser, the net result of Koretz' conflict resolution was to provide a convenient permanent abstention for Kaiser so that the proponents of these measures had to work to replace his vote. It was lunacy.
I don't think the Speaker of the Assembly can reasonably be asked to recuse himself from attempting to solve one of the most important crises of the state. I do, however, think he can be asked to get serious, stop playing the hospitals' game, and put the people of California first.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Three Snouts Up for Dirty Story at Capital Stage
(:)(:)(:) for the Sacramento premiere of Dirty Story by John Patrick Shanley at the Capital Stage in Old Sacramento. The production is well-directed, well-cast, and well-acted. However, the play, in this critic's humble opinion, doesn't work.
Marketed as a complex comedy with political overtones, the play is actually as heavy-handed a metaphor as I've ever seen on stage.
The most damning thing I can say about it is that it reminded me of something that I would have written in college (trust me). John Patrick Shanley is a known quantity, an experienced playwright(Danny and the Deep Blue Sea) and screenwriter (Moonstruck). He should know better than to experiment in this fashion.
Nonetheless, I commend Capital Stage for the choice and I can see why they made it. The cast, set and conceit work well for the space. It was a risky and bold choice not going with a chestnut or established success. And the ticket prices are so low at Sacramento's newest professional theater, that one can hardly resent having spent the money or (in my case) having walked the 12 blocks to see it.
In my estimate, Capital Stage is still the best professional theater company in Sacramento. See the show anyway, tell me what you think, and support their work. I believe it's not too late to buy their unbelievably cheap season tickets for the year (only $55 for 5 plays--you pay more than that for 1 play at Berkeley Rep).
Marketed as a complex comedy with political overtones, the play is actually as heavy-handed a metaphor as I've ever seen on stage.
The most damning thing I can say about it is that it reminded me of something that I would have written in college (trust me). John Patrick Shanley is a known quantity, an experienced playwright(Danny and the Deep Blue Sea) and screenwriter (Moonstruck). He should know better than to experiment in this fashion.
Nonetheless, I commend Capital Stage for the choice and I can see why they made it. The cast, set and conceit work well for the space. It was a risky and bold choice not going with a chestnut or established success. And the ticket prices are so low at Sacramento's newest professional theater, that one can hardly resent having spent the money or (in my case) having walked the 12 blocks to see it.
In my estimate, Capital Stage is still the best professional theater company in Sacramento. See the show anyway, tell me what you think, and support their work. I believe it's not too late to buy their unbelievably cheap season tickets for the year (only $55 for 5 plays--you pay more than that for 1 play at Berkeley Rep).
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Choose your candidate tool
This link is floating around--you answer a few questions, click on something and voila, a list appears of how the candidates for president stack up on your important issues.
I took it and found (no surprise) that Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) is the best match for me (we agreed on death penalty, Iraq withdrawal and line item veto while none of the other candidates will even bring these subjects up with me anymore). I was a little more disturbed to find that the tool thought Clinton and Obama were slightly better matches for me than John Edwards, my preferred mainstream candidate.
But then I realized, even I don't choose my presidential candidate strictly on the issues. If I did, I'd be Kucinich all the way, blindly supporting him no matter how little chance he has in hell (which is another word for presidential campaigns).
Instead, I favor John Edwards principally for 2 qualities not measured on this quiz 1) my perception that he actually has the courage of his convictions and will fight for them (I think Hillary stands only for Hillary) coupled with my 2) belief that he can win the White House in the general election (I continue to believe that nothing will galvanize a disorganized Republican party like Hillary Clinton and I worry that Obama is too inexperienced a campaigner/operation).
I should also add that regardless of what the quiz says, I think that Edwards is the most progressive of the viable Democratic candidates because he is the only one to speak routinely to challenging entrenched corporate power (he has a career of fighting big corporations and winning in court), he is the only candidate who supports single payer health care, and he is the only candidate who campaigns against poverty and works across the country in poor districts to register voters and educate them about the issues.
But take this quiz and tell me what you think--I'm truly interested to know.
I took it and found (no surprise) that Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) is the best match for me (we agreed on death penalty, Iraq withdrawal and line item veto while none of the other candidates will even bring these subjects up with me anymore). I was a little more disturbed to find that the tool thought Clinton and Obama were slightly better matches for me than John Edwards, my preferred mainstream candidate.
But then I realized, even I don't choose my presidential candidate strictly on the issues. If I did, I'd be Kucinich all the way, blindly supporting him no matter how little chance he has in hell (which is another word for presidential campaigns).
Instead, I favor John Edwards principally for 2 qualities not measured on this quiz 1) my perception that he actually has the courage of his convictions and will fight for them (I think Hillary stands only for Hillary) coupled with my 2) belief that he can win the White House in the general election (I continue to believe that nothing will galvanize a disorganized Republican party like Hillary Clinton and I worry that Obama is too inexperienced a campaigner/operation).
I should also add that regardless of what the quiz says, I think that Edwards is the most progressive of the viable Democratic candidates because he is the only one to speak routinely to challenging entrenched corporate power (he has a career of fighting big corporations and winning in court), he is the only candidate who supports single payer health care, and he is the only candidate who campaigns against poverty and works across the country in poor districts to register voters and educate them about the issues.
But take this quiz and tell me what you think--I'm truly interested to know.
Monday, October 01, 2007
Why Not A Leveraged Bailout?
Today's imminent collapse of the secondary loan market and talk of a bailout reminds me of nothing so much as the early 90s when I cut my teeth on public policy in the midst of the savings and loan bailouts. My former boss Michael Waldman (later a POTUS speech writer) literally wrote the book on 'em. I remember his cynical coaching, "the corporate interests hate socialism when it's for the rest of, but love it when it's for them."
So true. One need look no further than the classic red-baiting consistently used to bring down any form of credible proposal for health care reform. How can it be that the same interests that come together through the Chamber of Commerce to bash government so consistently can expect the taxpayers to foot the bill for a multi-billion dollar bailout for their crushingly bad investment decisions?
Of course I oppose a bailout of these interests. Yes, I vaguely understand the ripple effect, the number of potential homeowners that might not get a loan without a "secondary market" to buy it up from their bank, etc. I grok. But I stubbornly believe, however naively, that banks will make loans if they are good business decisions and they won't if they aren't. I don't believe it does consumers any good to pull them into loans they can't afford and will default on. I don't believe propping up the over-inflated housing market is in the short or long-term interests of working people.
Although the Fed's aggressive action may have staved off a bailout for a time, I tend to believe a bailout is probably foreordained because the combined interests of wall street, campaign contributors and the perceived interests of consumers in getting more risky loans, will be enough to create a congressional majority, if not consensus, for taxpayer bailout of the sub prime market.
So given that virtual inevitability, I suggest we prevail upon the liberal Democrats to leverage something major out of the deal, something they've never mustered the will for before: a truce against government. If Capital gets to raid the Treasury, they agree to a moratorium on government bashing for say, the life of a typical home loan: 30 years.
This way, Congress takes out a 30 year mortgage from big business (and it has to be the whole friggin' chamber of commerce and its interlocking directorates that sign off on it, not just the lenders). The interest paid is this: the space for Congress to regulate for the good of the American people in an environment not poisoned by anti-government toxins.
Better yet, the Dems should push for big business to agree to front a major pro government campaign. Start disclosing on all their advertisements the government breaks that make it possible for them to exist and make money.
Picture this:
"It's never too late to refinance your home with Nations Bank--come in for a free consultation tomorrow. We can afford to loan you this money because of your tax dollars."
or
"The relationship between you and your doctor is treasured by Sutter Medical Group and the federal government."
Now that's a bailout.
So true. One need look no further than the classic red-baiting consistently used to bring down any form of credible proposal for health care reform. How can it be that the same interests that come together through the Chamber of Commerce to bash government so consistently can expect the taxpayers to foot the bill for a multi-billion dollar bailout for their crushingly bad investment decisions?
Of course I oppose a bailout of these interests. Yes, I vaguely understand the ripple effect, the number of potential homeowners that might not get a loan without a "secondary market" to buy it up from their bank, etc. I grok. But I stubbornly believe, however naively, that banks will make loans if they are good business decisions and they won't if they aren't. I don't believe it does consumers any good to pull them into loans they can't afford and will default on. I don't believe propping up the over-inflated housing market is in the short or long-term interests of working people.
Although the Fed's aggressive action may have staved off a bailout for a time, I tend to believe a bailout is probably foreordained because the combined interests of wall street, campaign contributors and the perceived interests of consumers in getting more risky loans, will be enough to create a congressional majority, if not consensus, for taxpayer bailout of the sub prime market.
So given that virtual inevitability, I suggest we prevail upon the liberal Democrats to leverage something major out of the deal, something they've never mustered the will for before: a truce against government. If Capital gets to raid the Treasury, they agree to a moratorium on government bashing for say, the life of a typical home loan: 30 years.
This way, Congress takes out a 30 year mortgage from big business (and it has to be the whole friggin' chamber of commerce and its interlocking directorates that sign off on it, not just the lenders). The interest paid is this: the space for Congress to regulate for the good of the American people in an environment not poisoned by anti-government toxins.
Better yet, the Dems should push for big business to agree to front a major pro government campaign. Start disclosing on all their advertisements the government breaks that make it possible for them to exist and make money.
Picture this:
"It's never too late to refinance your home with Nations Bank--come in for a free consultation tomorrow. We can afford to loan you this money because of your tax dollars."
or
"The relationship between you and your doctor is treasured by Sutter Medical Group and the federal government."
Now that's a bailout.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)