I think I need to come clean on something. I have rested my case against supporting Hillary in the primary on the idea that she can't win in the general election. I realize now that I may be wrong.
Here's why: Bill Clinton wasn't supposed to be the nominee. He wasn't supposed to win the general election. He wasn't supposed to be re-elected after he was embroiled in the Lewinsky scandal. Hillary wasn't supposed to waltz into the State of New York and become a U.S. Senator. She also wasn't supposed to be easily the front-runner in the Democratic field. The Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary weren't supposed to have been rendered potentially meaningless.
So what I'm saying here, if it isn't obvious. Is that with the Clintons, you can never say never.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Thursday, August 30, 2007
California Democrats Need to Stand up for Government-Financed Health Care Coverage
Inevitably, every credible health care expansion put forward by Democrats will be attacked by insurance-backed Republicans as "socialized medicine." "Socialized medicine" the lore goes, lets government instead of your doctor decide whether you live or die or receive the procedure or device you so desperately need for a quality of life.
Fifty years after the death of McCarthyism and red-baiting, many Democratic elected officials still shy away from the dreaded label of "socialism" for anything they support. Scrambling to sell their "new idea" to a public they are sure is sceptical of government, they back away from the government part of their health care plan. They market whatever their health care expansion is in private sector terms, "putting doctors in the driver's seat," "leveling the playing field for business," or simply appealing to issues of basic fairness.
In doing so, Democrats flout the advice of Madison Avenue which has a long held tenet of marketing a product by its weakest feature, rather than its strongest. Karl Rove and the Republicans have perfected this tactic. Thus, George Bush was re-elected by re-characterizing his stubborn record of stupid bad decisions, as "a strong leader who stays the course." (Correspondingly, Kerry's greatest strength as a war hero was turned into a liability by swift-boating him)
Replacing the crazy quilt "system" of private health care financing with a simple government plan is the greatest single strength of the most obvious solution to our health care crisis. But it's also becomes our greatest weakness if we appear to be hiding the government part of it.
Similar to the debate on global warming, the debate over what to do about health care in this country is long since over. All experts who are not funded by people who stand to gain financially from the status quo in the highly-lucrative health care industry agree that removing the health insurance industry/HMOs from the equation is the way to go. Government-financed (so-called "single payer") health care similar to what they have some form of in every other developed nation in the world is the only way to save enough money to provide every man, woman and child with cradle to grave full portable high quality health care coverage, for the same amount we are paying now to cover only a fraction of the population.
SB 840 by Senator Sheila Kuehl is the only serious credible universal health care reform proposal before the California legislature. The Governor vetoed similar legislation last year while on the campaign trail.
The only arguments anyone can muster against SB 840 other than "it's socialized medicine therefore it's evil," are political. "It's too soon," "it costs too much," and "it requires a 2/3rds vote for a tax increase," all serve to distract from the basic fact: the entrenched interests, insurance, HMO and pharmaceutical and medical device companies, for-profit hospitals, medical groups as well as integrated health care systems like Kaiser Permanente and SEIU who carries its water in the legislature, all have a lot to gain from preserving the private financing structure of the current system--or at least the part of it that benefits them.
Given the entrenched nature of the current big health care players, AB 8, the compromise health care proposal put forward by the Democratic leadership, appears to be a worthy incremental step--expand coverage for children in the state who currently fall through the cracks in the system. How can we be against that? But there's no question that this type of expansion is fiscally irresponsible, a short-term non-solution to the problem and risks either over-stressing the public budget or under-funding the coverage in a time when inadequate health care coverage is perhaps an even bigger a problem than lack of coverage altogether.
I don't know what I'd do if I were a politician facing this conundrum in the California legislature. But I know what outside groups that care about health care reform should do. They should stop mistaking themselves for the politicians. They should push for what they know really works and not what doesn't work.
It's not up to us to make the tough choices. It's up to us to make the choices tough.
And to do that, Democrats and pro health care reform groups need to stop backing away from government. Government-financing is the solution and the reason it's the solution is the efficiency and accountability of government. Until we embrace that and lead with it, we'll keep losing.
Fifty years after the death of McCarthyism and red-baiting, many Democratic elected officials still shy away from the dreaded label of "socialism" for anything they support. Scrambling to sell their "new idea" to a public they are sure is sceptical of government, they back away from the government part of their health care plan. They market whatever their health care expansion is in private sector terms, "putting doctors in the driver's seat," "leveling the playing field for business," or simply appealing to issues of basic fairness.
In doing so, Democrats flout the advice of Madison Avenue which has a long held tenet of marketing a product by its weakest feature, rather than its strongest. Karl Rove and the Republicans have perfected this tactic. Thus, George Bush was re-elected by re-characterizing his stubborn record of stupid bad decisions, as "a strong leader who stays the course." (Correspondingly, Kerry's greatest strength as a war hero was turned into a liability by swift-boating him)
Replacing the crazy quilt "system" of private health care financing with a simple government plan is the greatest single strength of the most obvious solution to our health care crisis. But it's also becomes our greatest weakness if we appear to be hiding the government part of it.
Similar to the debate on global warming, the debate over what to do about health care in this country is long since over. All experts who are not funded by people who stand to gain financially from the status quo in the highly-lucrative health care industry agree that removing the health insurance industry/HMOs from the equation is the way to go. Government-financed (so-called "single payer") health care similar to what they have some form of in every other developed nation in the world is the only way to save enough money to provide every man, woman and child with cradle to grave full portable high quality health care coverage, for the same amount we are paying now to cover only a fraction of the population.
SB 840 by Senator Sheila Kuehl is the only serious credible universal health care reform proposal before the California legislature. The Governor vetoed similar legislation last year while on the campaign trail.
The only arguments anyone can muster against SB 840 other than "it's socialized medicine therefore it's evil," are political. "It's too soon," "it costs too much," and "it requires a 2/3rds vote for a tax increase," all serve to distract from the basic fact: the entrenched interests, insurance, HMO and pharmaceutical and medical device companies, for-profit hospitals, medical groups as well as integrated health care systems like Kaiser Permanente and SEIU who carries its water in the legislature, all have a lot to gain from preserving the private financing structure of the current system--or at least the part of it that benefits them.
Given the entrenched nature of the current big health care players, AB 8, the compromise health care proposal put forward by the Democratic leadership, appears to be a worthy incremental step--expand coverage for children in the state who currently fall through the cracks in the system. How can we be against that? But there's no question that this type of expansion is fiscally irresponsible, a short-term non-solution to the problem and risks either over-stressing the public budget or under-funding the coverage in a time when inadequate health care coverage is perhaps an even bigger a problem than lack of coverage altogether.
I don't know what I'd do if I were a politician facing this conundrum in the California legislature. But I know what outside groups that care about health care reform should do. They should stop mistaking themselves for the politicians. They should push for what they know really works and not what doesn't work.
It's not up to us to make the tough choices. It's up to us to make the choices tough.
And to do that, Democrats and pro health care reform groups need to stop backing away from government. Government-financing is the solution and the reason it's the solution is the efficiency and accountability of government. Until we embrace that and lead with it, we'll keep losing.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
(:)(:)(:) for DiCaprio's The Eleventh Hour
Three Snouts Up for Leonardo DiCaprio's The Eleventh Hour previewed at the Crest Theater last night.
Anyone whose top goal in life is learning more about the environmental destruction that humans have wrought on planet earth should see this film.
However, the Crest Theater snack bar missed an opportunity by not stocking up on cyanide capsules before showing it. The first 2/3rds of the film is relentless with expert after expert delivering the bad news: what we've done to deplete energy reserves, deforestation, over-fishing, threatening eco-systems, global climate change, air and water pollution. [On the plus side, my friend Tim Carmichael looked handsome and sounded wonderful talking about the consequences of dirty air.]
I learned some things from that section though. What it boiled down to is this: the entire "environmental" movement is misnamed. It isn't so much the environment that we're threatening as the human race. The heat, flooding, hurricanes, and the like won't destroy the earth, it'll destroy mankind. To save her other children, Mother Earth is basically saying "basta, I'll end this little experiment called the human race." Shrugging her shoulders, she'll move on, leaving our bones behind to deteriorate in the deserts we brought on.
The final third was wonderful: filled with the good news about cutting edge technologies, the hope that a massive, unorganized but magically parallel global environmental movement is bringing and the possibilities of coming together to save the human race.
I do wish the ratios had been reversed though. I know so little about all the wonderful things that people are doing to save the planet. I could have spent all movie learning about it.
All I can think is that something must have been off about how the choices the documentarians made. An Inconvenient Truth is also depressing and relentless, with Al Gore's droning voice and a slide show, yet I was riveted to my seat and glad to have seen it.
My guess is that the central problem for activists is that average Americans have no idea what the consumer culture they've opted for is doing to the survival of the species (or they know, and don't care). The goal of the bad news bears part is obviously to wake us up and move us to action.
But how many regular people are going to sit through such a thing just because Leonardo DiCaprio's name is above the picture? Leonardo DiCaprio is to be applauded for having made and financed this effort, but watching him squint in the haze of various L.A. locations to awkwardly read the cue cards for this film added nothing to my understanding or enjoyment (and I like him as an actor and a face).
Anyone whose top goal in life is learning more about the environmental destruction that humans have wrought on planet earth should see this film.
However, the Crest Theater snack bar missed an opportunity by not stocking up on cyanide capsules before showing it. The first 2/3rds of the film is relentless with expert after expert delivering the bad news: what we've done to deplete energy reserves, deforestation, over-fishing, threatening eco-systems, global climate change, air and water pollution. [On the plus side, my friend Tim Carmichael looked handsome and sounded wonderful talking about the consequences of dirty air.]
I learned some things from that section though. What it boiled down to is this: the entire "environmental" movement is misnamed. It isn't so much the environment that we're threatening as the human race. The heat, flooding, hurricanes, and the like won't destroy the earth, it'll destroy mankind. To save her other children, Mother Earth is basically saying "basta, I'll end this little experiment called the human race." Shrugging her shoulders, she'll move on, leaving our bones behind to deteriorate in the deserts we brought on.
The final third was wonderful: filled with the good news about cutting edge technologies, the hope that a massive, unorganized but magically parallel global environmental movement is bringing and the possibilities of coming together to save the human race.
I do wish the ratios had been reversed though. I know so little about all the wonderful things that people are doing to save the planet. I could have spent all movie learning about it.
All I can think is that something must have been off about how the choices the documentarians made. An Inconvenient Truth is also depressing and relentless, with Al Gore's droning voice and a slide show, yet I was riveted to my seat and glad to have seen it.
My guess is that the central problem for activists is that average Americans have no idea what the consumer culture they've opted for is doing to the survival of the species (or they know, and don't care). The goal of the bad news bears part is obviously to wake us up and move us to action.
But how many regular people are going to sit through such a thing just because Leonardo DiCaprio's name is above the picture? Leonardo DiCaprio is to be applauded for having made and financed this effort, but watching him squint in the haze of various L.A. locations to awkwardly read the cue cards for this film added nothing to my understanding or enjoyment (and I like him as an actor and a face).
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
DiFi Will be Key Player in Gonsalez Replacement
Gonsalez' resignation presents another opportunity for Dianne Feinstein to better serve the people of California. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Feinstein will be a key vote early on on whether to recommend whomever Bush puts up to replace him.
Unfortunately, DiFi's track record on protecting California from Bush's judicial appointees is less than stellar. She supports them more often than not.
Because she was recently one of only 14 Democratic Senators who defected to expand the Attorney General's power to spy on the American people, she has a special duty here to ensure that the next AG is ethical and scrupulous.
Because I don't trust her powers of discernment, she needs to hear from her constituents. Let's stay on top of this, Californians. Please let Dianne Feinstein know what we're expecting of her right now. Call (202) 224-3841. Tell Feinstein's staff you want her to hold out for an ethical AG, no matter what.
Unfortunately, DiFi's track record on protecting California from Bush's judicial appointees is less than stellar. She supports them more often than not.
Because she was recently one of only 14 Democratic Senators who defected to expand the Attorney General's power to spy on the American people, she has a special duty here to ensure that the next AG is ethical and scrupulous.
Because I don't trust her powers of discernment, she needs to hear from her constituents. Let's stay on top of this, Californians. Please let Dianne Feinstein know what we're expecting of her right now. Call (202) 224-3841. Tell Feinstein's staff you want her to hold out for an ethical AG, no matter what.
Monday, August 27, 2007
It's Not Me, It's You
All of my spiritual training tells me to focus on me. All of it. I'm the only person I can change. I'm the only person whose behavior I can affect. Only me.
That's the bad news. Here's the worse news: not only can I only affect me, but everything I see or experience in the world is a reflection of me. Worse still: until I change my insides, the outsides are going to reflect what I think they'll reflect.
Naturally, the Buddhists have a story that illustrates this point nicely:
A visitor seeks out the village wise man and tells him, "I'm looking for a new village and I'm thinking of moving to your village. What are the people in this village like?"
"What were the people like in the village that you left?" asks the wise man.
"They were horrible: petty, judgmental, angry, they lied, they cheated, they stole. They were completely untrustworthy," says the visitor.
"That's exactly what the people in this village are like too," says the wise man.
The visitor says, "then this village is not for me" and walks on.
Another visitor to the village comes to seek the wise man's counsel, "I'm looking for a new village and I'm thinking of moving to your village. What are the people in this village like?"
"What were the people like in the village that you left?" asks the wise man.
"Oh they were wonderful. They were loving and kind and warm. They were generous and honest and true. They were completely trustworthy," says the visitor.
"That's exactly what the people in this village are like too," says the wise man.
So the villager stays.
Unfortunately, despite the many opportunities I've had to learn this lesson, the illusion that the difficulties in my life are caused by other people is still very powerful.
And I find that it is easy to find co-conspirators, people who are eager to co-sign the idea that it's not me, it's you (and it's not them either).
"Some people are just assholes, Sara," I got counseled last week.
But I wonder, are people ever assholes for Jesus the Christ, Siddhartha the Buddha, Mother Theresa or the Dalai Lama? In other words, if the Dalai Lama met my best most intractable assholes would he experience them as such? I doubt it very much.
Granted I am far from an enlightened being (and I almost certainly never will be). But that doesn't reduce this basic truth, as much as I may want it to be you, instead of me, it's me and it always will be.
Next week: can I run away from the me in you?
That's the bad news. Here's the worse news: not only can I only affect me, but everything I see or experience in the world is a reflection of me. Worse still: until I change my insides, the outsides are going to reflect what I think they'll reflect.
Naturally, the Buddhists have a story that illustrates this point nicely:
A visitor seeks out the village wise man and tells him, "I'm looking for a new village and I'm thinking of moving to your village. What are the people in this village like?"
"What were the people like in the village that you left?" asks the wise man.
"They were horrible: petty, judgmental, angry, they lied, they cheated, they stole. They were completely untrustworthy," says the visitor.
"That's exactly what the people in this village are like too," says the wise man.
The visitor says, "then this village is not for me" and walks on.
Another visitor to the village comes to seek the wise man's counsel, "I'm looking for a new village and I'm thinking of moving to your village. What are the people in this village like?"
"What were the people like in the village that you left?" asks the wise man.
"Oh they were wonderful. They were loving and kind and warm. They were generous and honest and true. They were completely trustworthy," says the visitor.
"That's exactly what the people in this village are like too," says the wise man.
So the villager stays.
Unfortunately, despite the many opportunities I've had to learn this lesson, the illusion that the difficulties in my life are caused by other people is still very powerful.
And I find that it is easy to find co-conspirators, people who are eager to co-sign the idea that it's not me, it's you (and it's not them either).
"Some people are just assholes, Sara," I got counseled last week.
But I wonder, are people ever assholes for Jesus the Christ, Siddhartha the Buddha, Mother Theresa or the Dalai Lama? In other words, if the Dalai Lama met my best most intractable assholes would he experience them as such? I doubt it very much.
Granted I am far from an enlightened being (and I almost certainly never will be). But that doesn't reduce this basic truth, as much as I may want it to be you, instead of me, it's me and it always will be.
Next week: can I run away from the me in you?
Friday, August 24, 2007
Why do Californians like DiFi so much?
Today's California papers report on a field poll that shows we have soured on the new Congress. Democrats and decline-to-states are fed up with the failure of Speaker Pelosi and the new majority to even begin to get us out of Iraq. The poll shows plummeting approval ratings for the Congress. Yet, the same poll shows U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein's approval rating only "dipping slightly."
This really fries my ass. I mean I'm as disappointed in Nancita as anybody, she and the House deserve the disapproval of Californians, but what is it about DiFi that keeps her pretty much inoculated from blame?
The conventional wisdom has always been that she hugs the middle of California public opinion. She's pro life, she's pro death, she's pro business, she's pro environment. But her consistent support for the war, for Bush's judicial appointees (not all, but most), and most recently for expanding Gonzales' wire-tapping authority, are appallingly out of step with the California mainstream. She was one of only 14 Democrats in the Senate to vote for this recent expanded authority--fourteen!
Yet Californians direct their rage only at the new petite liberal in charge of the House. Can anyone enlighten me?
This really fries my ass. I mean I'm as disappointed in Nancita as anybody, she and the House deserve the disapproval of Californians, but what is it about DiFi that keeps her pretty much inoculated from blame?
The conventional wisdom has always been that she hugs the middle of California public opinion. She's pro life, she's pro death, she's pro business, she's pro environment. But her consistent support for the war, for Bush's judicial appointees (not all, but most), and most recently for expanding Gonzales' wire-tapping authority, are appallingly out of step with the California mainstream. She was one of only 14 Democrats in the Senate to vote for this recent expanded authority--fourteen!
Yet Californians direct their rage only at the new petite liberal in charge of the House. Can anyone enlighten me?
Thursday, August 23, 2007
(:)(:)(:)(:) for Blue Bottle Coffee in Hayes Valley
Four Snouts Up for Blue Bottle Coffee at 315 Linden Street (tucked in a sort of alley between Gough and Octavia off Hayes in Hayes Valley), San Francisco. This little gem is hardly a secret. At 10:30am on a weekday there's a line into the street.
But you immediately have confidence that it's worth the wait. It's a window, not a coffee shop. This is not Starbucks. This place is not about choices. It's about people who know more than you choosing for you. It's one of those precious places that has very few things on the menu--just the right apple juice, and hot chocolate, exactly the right size, only one. The sign that says, "we use organic Prairie Valley milk, soy is available," gives me the idea that I'd better forgo the usual soy for the dairy--again, they've chosen for me.
Even the soundtrack is perfect. Sam Cooke is playing just loud enough for everyone to appreciate. The barristas sway back and forth mouthing the words as they perfectly pour the foam into that little leaf shape on the top of the espresso, "cupid, draw back your bow, and let your arrow go..."
It was not the latte of my dreams (which remains Caffe Diem on Macarthur in Oakland's Dimond district), but it was excellent and the experience of waiting for it was a joy.
But you immediately have confidence that it's worth the wait. It's a window, not a coffee shop. This is not Starbucks. This place is not about choices. It's about people who know more than you choosing for you. It's one of those precious places that has very few things on the menu--just the right apple juice, and hot chocolate, exactly the right size, only one. The sign that says, "we use organic Prairie Valley milk, soy is available," gives me the idea that I'd better forgo the usual soy for the dairy--again, they've chosen for me.
Even the soundtrack is perfect. Sam Cooke is playing just loud enough for everyone to appreciate. The barristas sway back and forth mouthing the words as they perfectly pour the foam into that little leaf shape on the top of the espresso, "cupid, draw back your bow, and let your arrow go..."
It was not the latte of my dreams (which remains Caffe Diem on Macarthur in Oakland's Dimond district), but it was excellent and the experience of waiting for it was a joy.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
The Evils of Having an "Agenda"
Under the heading of "oh, snap," one of the biggest insults one Sacramento insider can dish out to another Sacramento insider is "she has an agenda." I know, because I have one.
Apparently, the top goal of many people in public service in California is not to have any firmly held beliefs. Free of these pesky constraints, one can, with impunity, hire on to represent the pharmaceutical industry, HMOs or known polluters, secure in the knowledge that everyone deserves a good lobbyist.
Since I'm law-ya, you'd think I'd know better than to have an agenda. A good law-ya never lets his beliefs get in the way of his client's interests.
What is my agenda, you may ask? Well, my political agenda is this, to create a stable and functional democracy such that the legislature is capable of representing the people's interests, which I interpret as including clean air, clean water, quality universal health care, good schools, protection of civil and consumer rights, affordable housing and jobs that pay a living wage. I have come to believe that one of the key ways to accomplish this goal is to enact a system of public financing of elections here, similar to what is already working in Maine, Arizona and Connecticut.
I generally work for people who agree with me so that I do not experience cognitive dissonance.
In last year's special election, the press excoriated the California Nurses Association (one of my former employers) for "having an agenda" in advancing the cause of public financing. The initiative they pushed was seen as a stalking horse for, horror of horrors, (whisper it, why dontcha) universal health care. Insiders used their "agenda" to sink the initiative.
Having said this, I do think that what many of the insiders are reacting to when they tag others for having an agenda is self-righteousness. From both a strategic and karmic point of view, self-righteousness is to be avoided (ask me how I know).
Moreover, in attempting to advance my agenda, I am now careful to avoid using tactics or strategies which themselves threaten to unravel the very utopia I seek. For example, since I want a peaceful world, I need to avoid talking about "fighting" for people's rights, or creating an "army" of activists. I must also avoid the term "jihad."
Mindful of these self-imposed constraints, all in all, I remain comfortable with my agenda and the beliefs which inform it. I urge you to get one too. I understand they are available used on Amazon.
Apparently, the top goal of many people in public service in California is not to have any firmly held beliefs. Free of these pesky constraints, one can, with impunity, hire on to represent the pharmaceutical industry, HMOs or known polluters, secure in the knowledge that everyone deserves a good lobbyist.
Since I'm law-ya, you'd think I'd know better than to have an agenda. A good law-ya never lets his beliefs get in the way of his client's interests.
What is my agenda, you may ask? Well, my political agenda is this, to create a stable and functional democracy such that the legislature is capable of representing the people's interests, which I interpret as including clean air, clean water, quality universal health care, good schools, protection of civil and consumer rights, affordable housing and jobs that pay a living wage. I have come to believe that one of the key ways to accomplish this goal is to enact a system of public financing of elections here, similar to what is already working in Maine, Arizona and Connecticut.
I generally work for people who agree with me so that I do not experience cognitive dissonance.
In last year's special election, the press excoriated the California Nurses Association (one of my former employers) for "having an agenda" in advancing the cause of public financing. The initiative they pushed was seen as a stalking horse for, horror of horrors, (whisper it, why dontcha) universal health care. Insiders used their "agenda" to sink the initiative.
Having said this, I do think that what many of the insiders are reacting to when they tag others for having an agenda is self-righteousness. From both a strategic and karmic point of view, self-righteousness is to be avoided (ask me how I know).
Moreover, in attempting to advance my agenda, I am now careful to avoid using tactics or strategies which themselves threaten to unravel the very utopia I seek. For example, since I want a peaceful world, I need to avoid talking about "fighting" for people's rights, or creating an "army" of activists. I must also avoid the term "jihad."
Mindful of these self-imposed constraints, all in all, I remain comfortable with my agenda and the beliefs which inform it. I urge you to get one too. I understand they are available used on Amazon.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
(:)(:)(:)(:)(:) for Clerks 2 on DVD
Five Snouts Up for Clerks 2 on DVD. Five snouts for Clerks 2???? You heard me. Faithful readers know I only give 5 snouts for the movies that I consider are in the top 100 movies of all times. This is one of the funniest movies I've ever ever seen. I almost died several times from stomach cramps and had to pause the film to wipe tears from my eyes.
This is not for the faint of heart. My mother and mother-in-law should not even consider watching this film. Nor should anyone who cannot appreciate the vilest possible things being discussed lightly and humorously. However, Vince Marchand should watch this film daily.
Rightly speaking, this is not a film for the ages. This is not something that should be put in a time capsule--it would convey terrifying images from our time.
But the thing is, this film is also not Dumb and Dumber. It's SOOOO not Hollywood fare. Director Kevin Smith spent 10 years making this and other films after the first Clerks film, which was a low budget indie sleeper hit. The budget for Clerks 2 appears to be roughly 100 times that of Clerks.
This is not your typical sequel. It's a stand alone movie about two losers in their 30's working at a burger joint after the convenience/video store they inhabited for 12 years burns down. Dante is sensitive, thoughtful and kind, Randal is ingeniously insensitive. Even without having witnessed it yourself, you can tell that the brutally funny, sexually explicit dialogue is acutely observed from the lives of white male losers in northern New Jersey (take a classic Seinfeld "master of my domain" conversation and crank it up to 11).
Low-key gorgeous and winning Rosario Dawson as the manager of the joint with genuine screen chemistry with Dante adds badly needed chick time to the ultimate dick flick.
If you do get the DVD and like the movie, don't miss the out-takes, especially the deleted scene between Dante and Randal on the road back from (centering, peaceful) go carts.
I fully admit in advance that my loving this film does not reflect well on me, but honestly, I don't remember ever laughing harder in my life.
This is not for the faint of heart. My mother and mother-in-law should not even consider watching this film. Nor should anyone who cannot appreciate the vilest possible things being discussed lightly and humorously. However, Vince Marchand should watch this film daily.
Rightly speaking, this is not a film for the ages. This is not something that should be put in a time capsule--it would convey terrifying images from our time.
But the thing is, this film is also not Dumb and Dumber. It's SOOOO not Hollywood fare. Director Kevin Smith spent 10 years making this and other films after the first Clerks film, which was a low budget indie sleeper hit. The budget for Clerks 2 appears to be roughly 100 times that of Clerks.
This is not your typical sequel. It's a stand alone movie about two losers in their 30's working at a burger joint after the convenience/video store they inhabited for 12 years burns down. Dante is sensitive, thoughtful and kind, Randal is ingeniously insensitive. Even without having witnessed it yourself, you can tell that the brutally funny, sexually explicit dialogue is acutely observed from the lives of white male losers in northern New Jersey (take a classic Seinfeld "master of my domain" conversation and crank it up to 11).
Low-key gorgeous and winning Rosario Dawson as the manager of the joint with genuine screen chemistry with Dante adds badly needed chick time to the ultimate dick flick.
If you do get the DVD and like the movie, don't miss the out-takes, especially the deleted scene between Dante and Randal on the road back from (centering, peaceful) go carts.
I fully admit in advance that my loving this film does not reflect well on me, but honestly, I don't remember ever laughing harder in my life.
Monday, August 20, 2007
The Five Presidential Candidates You Never Hear About
Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, Gravel and Richardson, any one alone of these “lesser" Democratic presidential candidates has spent more time in elected office than the "top three" combined. They are an extremely experienced group. Who are they and why aren't you hearing about them?
1) Senator Joe Biden (D-Delaware). Joe (I feel I can call him “Joe” because I lobbied Congress for a small part of the time he was in office. He was one of our solid liberal votes. We refer to our solid votes by first name. Biden was “Joe.” Joe Kennedy, then a congressman, was “Little Joe.” Any questions?) has represented the State of Delaware in the Senate since 1973 (must have won the seat in a special election?). He is a smart guy who has always been great on the war and most issues of concern to progressives. He likes the sound of his own voice tremendously and as such talks a lot and says repeatable things which get him into trouble on the campaign trail. Readers will remember his little gaff comparing Senator Obama (favorably) to previous black presidential candidates (by extension unfavorably).
2) Senator Chris Dodd (D-Connecticut). Dodd has served in the Senate since 1981 and before that the House. He is liberal on social issues and a strong vote and advocate for the environment and likes to make the point that he is not a millionaire. He is an equally strong whore for the insurance industry (the lifeblood of his state’s economy). He never met a pro-consumer bill that he wouldn’t either kill or screw up. He voted for the 2002 Iraq War resolution. He voted for all the free trade bills. He isn’t given much of a chance.
3) Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Cleveland). Dennis a fabulous Congressman, a true progressive. He is known as the peace candidate, and deserves the mantle. He also could be the energy candidate, the health care candidate, etc. If we had ranked choice voting, you could all vote for Dennis as your first choice and then vote for someone who has a chance—maybe that would get him in. Why can’t the Democrats elect someone from their far left? Dennis would be that guy. Jon Stewart mocks him daily as a lefty leprechaun. He isn’t given a snowman’s chance in global warming of winning any primary including Ohio.
4) Senator Mike Gravel (D-Alaska). He represented the State of Alaska in the US Senate from 1969 to 1981 before the state started electing only Republicans. He is a complete nut job who thinks we should scrap the income tax and substitute it for a national sales tax (which, if you don’t know is a BAAAAD idea).
5) Governor Bill Richardson (D-New Mexico). Last but definitely not least. Richardson is the one to watch with this group. First, he is the only governor of the bunch (and voters in primaries seem to like governors). Secondly, he is extremely experienced. He is a former US ambassador to the United Nations, a former Secretary of Energy under Bill Clinton and a former Congressman. He is also a self-proclaimed “Hispanic American” who is definitely campaigning for the growing Latino vote in the Democratic party. And he’s not a bad guy. I don’t agree with him on everything, but he’s a decent individual, likable and purportedly a good executive. Don’t count this guy out.
Finally, despite my focus on these five candidates, I can’t resist plugging the candidate whom I’m supporting, Senator John Edwards. Here’s why I think Edwards is the best bet for President: he’s simultaneously the most progressive and the most electable of the viable Democratic candidates. He’s come out for single payer health care, repudiated his former position on the war and articulated a smart and viable policy for going forward, and is the only candidate openly campaigning to do something about poverty. He is a person with the courage of his convictions (something I know is not true of Hillary Clinton and am beginning to suspect is not true of Barack Obama).
Here’s the Cliff’s Notes version of column for those of you skimmed it:
*If you need to vote for the best candidate regardless of viability, vote for Kucinich.
**If you want to make the most of your vote, give money to and support Edwards
***Watch RichardsonThursday, August 16, 2007
Spam the Democratic Party
Are you on the lists I'm on? I get email from John Kerry, Harry Reid, DCCC, DSCC, DNC--if you get an email from any Democrat in Congress or national Democratic party, email them back that you want them to act like Democrats!
Tell them to impeach Bush. Tell them to pull out the troops. Tell them to repeal the Patriot Act.
Tell them to impeach Bush. Tell them to pull out the troops. Tell them to repeal the Patriot Act.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
(:)(:)(:)(:)(:) for The Looking Glass Wars by Frank Beddor
Five Snouts up for The Looking Glass Wars by Frank Beddor. This "children's" book is the imaginative, mesmerizing "true story" of Alice in Wonderland where we learn that Alyss is a visitor in our world, rather than Alice being a tourist from our world to Wonderland.
I can't say more than that without spoiling it, but suffice it to say that any person over the age of 10 (lots of fight gruesome fight scenes) should love this book. I couldn't put it down.
I can't say more than that without spoiling it, but suffice it to say that any person over the age of 10 (lots of fight gruesome fight scenes) should love this book. I couldn't put it down.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Republicans Eat Their Own in California
Tonight's Dinner? Central Valley Senator Jeff Denham (R-Modesto).
In the ongoing budget stalemate in the California State Senate, Denham is the closest to low-hanging fruit that the 14 (white male) Republicans have to offer the Democratic majority. The Democrats only need one Republican to support the budget for them to have 2/3rds of the Senate, but so far none are budging.
Why Denham? He broke with Republicans twice before to vote for budgets, so he's considered gettable. Yet, this year, he's dug in big time, declaiming Democrats' "pressure" and "tactics."
While often mis-labled a moderate, Denham is no profile in courage. He votes lock-step with the Republicans, who, in California, represent the extreme far right of the party nationwide. When he voted for the budgets before, he was more in the role of sacrificial lamb than lone wolf--he did so with the party's blessing and with the political cover of Republican leader Dick Ackerman (R-Orange County).
This year you almost gotta feel sorry for the guy, he's caught between a rock and a hard political reality: he's said to be holding the line because he wants to run for Lt. Governor and believes he can't win a Republican primary without arch-conservative support, which means no voting for (even this relatively conservative) budget.
(Putting aside for the moment that Denham may not be capable of handling even the rigorous whale-naming duties of Lt. Governor) if he should by chance win his party's primary, his insistence on hanging tough to oppose the budget on behalf of out of state developers in their effort to restrict the state's new anti climate change law dooms him statewide.
Denham is this year's poster child for the strange political paradox Republicans have created for themselves: to win statewide you must be green, yet you must be anti-environmental to win Republican primaries.
Only Arnold Schwarzenegger can change this balance--he can commit to supporting whatever "moderate" Republican supports the budget throughout their political future in California and free up the long-overdue payments to hospitals, healthcare workers and teachers that the Republicans are holding hostage. What's it going to be tough guy? You chicken?
In the ongoing budget stalemate in the California State Senate, Denham is the closest to low-hanging fruit that the 14 (white male) Republicans have to offer the Democratic majority. The Democrats only need one Republican to support the budget for them to have 2/3rds of the Senate, but so far none are budging.
Why Denham? He broke with Republicans twice before to vote for budgets, so he's considered gettable. Yet, this year, he's dug in big time, declaiming Democrats' "pressure" and "tactics."
While often mis-labled a moderate, Denham is no profile in courage. He votes lock-step with the Republicans, who, in California, represent the extreme far right of the party nationwide. When he voted for the budgets before, he was more in the role of sacrificial lamb than lone wolf--he did so with the party's blessing and with the political cover of Republican leader Dick Ackerman (R-Orange County).
This year you almost gotta feel sorry for the guy, he's caught between a rock and a hard political reality: he's said to be holding the line because he wants to run for Lt. Governor and believes he can't win a Republican primary without arch-conservative support, which means no voting for (even this relatively conservative) budget.
(Putting aside for the moment that Denham may not be capable of handling even the rigorous whale-naming duties of Lt. Governor) if he should by chance win his party's primary, his insistence on hanging tough to oppose the budget on behalf of out of state developers in their effort to restrict the state's new anti climate change law dooms him statewide.
Denham is this year's poster child for the strange political paradox Republicans have created for themselves: to win statewide you must be green, yet you must be anti-environmental to win Republican primaries.
Only Arnold Schwarzenegger can change this balance--he can commit to supporting whatever "moderate" Republican supports the budget throughout their political future in California and free up the long-overdue payments to hospitals, healthcare workers and teachers that the Republicans are holding hostage. What's it going to be tough guy? You chicken?
Monday, August 13, 2007
Hang up on the "d-trip"
I recently returned from Washington, DC, where, as I expected, I got an earful from public interest advocates about what a disappointment Nancy Pelosi is as Speaker of the House. This almost always happens. Democrats get into power, we have a brief surge of joy at their arrival and then they disappoint us. Or, more accurately, they disappoint the people working most closely with them, with the highest expectations. And then they tell the rest of us.
Putting aside my spiritual interest in the power of expectations and how much freedom can be gained from letting go of them, I am really freaked out by what I've heard. Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are allowing bad legislation to come to the floor of their respective houses and pass with a small minority of Democrats supporting it. An unholy alliance between the Republicans and a group of about 40 House Democrats and 12 Senate Dems is enough to pass all sorts of bad legislation.
And pass it they have. The most recent outrage is, of course, allowing legislation to pass which would expand executive power (currently concentrated in the hands of known criminal Alberto Gonzalez) to authorize wire-tapping. Not only is this expanded authority blatantly unconstitutional, a violation of separation of powers as well as 4th amendment privacy rights, but it is exactly what having the new majority in Congress was supposed to protect us against!
When the Republicans ran the Houses of Congress, they wouldn't let ANYTHING come to the floor that didn't have a majority of their own party supporting it--period. This power to control the agenda should be exercised here--it's imperative for the good of the country.
One way to get this message across to Pelosi and Reid is through their pocketbooks. If you've ever given a dime directly to a candidate for House or Senate, chances are your name, phone number and address are known to the Democratic party campaign committees--the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC--known to insiders as the "D-triple C" or "D-trip") and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (the DSCC--known to me as D-send).
If you're like me, these committees periodically call your home number and ask for money to preserve the Democratic majority. If you're like me, you never give money to the Democratic Party per se, only directly to candidates. Nonetheless, one of these calls is the perfect time to vent your rage at the party's leadership.
Here's what you say, "What good is a Democratic Majority if you let Republicans control the Agenda? I'll contribute money to you when you start acting like Democrats. Don't send Bush Republican legislation!" and hang up.
Do it a lot. It'll get their attention. What the hell, do it when anybody calls. It can't hurt.
Putting aside my spiritual interest in the power of expectations and how much freedom can be gained from letting go of them, I am really freaked out by what I've heard. Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are allowing bad legislation to come to the floor of their respective houses and pass with a small minority of Democrats supporting it. An unholy alliance between the Republicans and a group of about 40 House Democrats and 12 Senate Dems is enough to pass all sorts of bad legislation.
And pass it they have. The most recent outrage is, of course, allowing legislation to pass which would expand executive power (currently concentrated in the hands of known criminal Alberto Gonzalez) to authorize wire-tapping. Not only is this expanded authority blatantly unconstitutional, a violation of separation of powers as well as 4th amendment privacy rights, but it is exactly what having the new majority in Congress was supposed to protect us against!
When the Republicans ran the Houses of Congress, they wouldn't let ANYTHING come to the floor that didn't have a majority of their own party supporting it--period. This power to control the agenda should be exercised here--it's imperative for the good of the country.
One way to get this message across to Pelosi and Reid is through their pocketbooks. If you've ever given a dime directly to a candidate for House or Senate, chances are your name, phone number and address are known to the Democratic party campaign committees--the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC--known to insiders as the "D-triple C" or "D-trip") and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (the DSCC--known to me as D-send).
If you're like me, these committees periodically call your home number and ask for money to preserve the Democratic majority. If you're like me, you never give money to the Democratic Party per se, only directly to candidates. Nonetheless, one of these calls is the perfect time to vent your rage at the party's leadership.
Here's what you say, "What good is a Democratic Majority if you let Republicans control the Agenda? I'll contribute money to you when you start acting like Democrats. Don't send Bush Republican legislation!" and hang up.
Do it a lot. It'll get their attention. What the hell, do it when anybody calls. It can't hurt.
Thursday, August 09, 2007
14 White Men Hold CA Budget Hostage
Republicans won’t vote for schools & hospitals without the promise of dirty(er) air
Senator Perata set out to prove once again that he is a better poker player than his colleagues across the aisle, saying “I will not bargain away
Sierra Club’s Bill Magavern [so I don’t become another Mirthala Salinas (I look a lot like her), full disclosure: Bill is my husband] named names, “I came here this morning to induct some new members into the California ‘Hall of Shame,’ and these are the new inductees, Aanestad, Ackerman, Ashburn, Battin, Cogdill, Cox, Denham, Dutton, Harman, Hollingsworth, Margett, McClintock, Runner, and Wyland. This gang of 14, all privileged white men, is obstructing the budget for the entire State of California, holding up funding for health care, for schools, for parks.”
Drawing a firm line in the sand may be a risky strategy for the Democrats. Unquestionably, Republicans are out of step with the mainstream of
Still, if any single one of the Gang of 14 have aspirations for statewide office, this is their time to get out of the entrenched minority and into the mainstream. Otherwise, we can write the attack ad now, “Tom Harman says he’s for better schools and a better life for
Better yet, let’s get 2/3 Democrats in the next election and render them completely irrelevant.
Monday, August 06, 2007
Watch John Edwards at the Yearly Kos Convention
This is an inspiring clip on Youtube (short, 3 minutes?) of John Edwards speaking to the Yearly Kos Convention of bloggers in Chicago. Watch it and let me know what you think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)