(:)(:) out of a possible 5 snouts (I've changed my rating system) for War of the Worlds directed by Steven Spielberg, in theaters now.
Bill tells me that there are people who liked this movie. I find it hard to believe. I mean, I guess it held my interest and the apocalyptic hellscape was visually arresting and everything but other than that...
It was a good date film though because most of the time Bill and I spent rolling our eyes and snickering to each other sarcastically like:
"oh right, like he's got the only van in the world that drives when all energy sources cease;" or
"outer space invasions are great teaching moments for noncustodial parents;" or
"honey, if you were trapped in a basement with Tim Robbins and our 8 year old daughter, would you kill Tim Robbins if you had to?" (Bill's answer btw was: it would depend how close by Susan Sarandon was and what she was wearing; which I considered nonresponsive)
So see it, by all means see it, and send me your sarcastic comments. We had more such comments, but we wouldn't want to "spoil" the experience for you with them.
Like, I'm sure all of us would like to know, does every good apocalypse have a silver lining?
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Friday, July 22, 2005
Four Snouts up for March of the Penguins
(:)(:)(:)(:) belated snouts up for March of the Penguins the documentary about the huge and delightful Emperor penguins in antarctica--we went with my mother and our 8 year old and we all loved it.
Thursday, July 21, 2005
On the Roberts nomination
Okay, here's why we're completely screwed on Roberts: yesterday I was talking to a friend of mine who is so far to the left he once referred to me as the "quote unquote left". So "the real left" tells me, apropo of the Roberts nomination that if he were a senator he'd vote to confirm him:
oh
my
god
If The Real Left would vote to confirm, we are in such deep trouble--and no one knows The Real Left like the Quote Unquote Left.
At first, I found myself agreeing with The Real Left. I know why he thinks that. He, like many americans, feel that somehow the only legitimate role of the Senate in confirming judicial appointments is to determine whether a candidate is qualified for the bench, whether s/he has "a judicial temperment." Naturally, by any standards, Roberts has one, so let's not even debate that.
What makes this such an appallingly smart choice by the Bush administration is that in one fell swoop they have managed to a) shift the debate away from Karl Rove b) nominate an arch conservative c) have him appear to be the kind of affable, insider boy that no one in their right mind could ever block to confirm.
Yet it's becoming very clear that Roberts could easily be a Scalia in Souter clothing--a 50 year old brilliant young arch conservative avowed corporatist who could completely change the court for generations with a quiet affable demeanor.
Part of me, ala another friend in the capitol who shall remain nameless even though he'd probably like the credit, wants to say, screw it, let them have the court-- a real huge win for the far right is probably the only thing that ultimately will galvanize the middle to wake up and vote us out of this nightmare. But there are other parts of me (most of me) that think we need to fight.
To return to an earlier thread, we are supposed to have separation of powers here. This is not a dictatorship. Just because the President was elected by a razor thin mandate doesn't mean that he gets to have whomever he wants on the court--there is a process here; let's use it. When we Borked Bork we ended up with Kennedy (of Sacramento's McGeorge Law school thank you very much) and that was at least an improvement.
Let's not go around saying we're not going to get any better out of the Bush administration. We might not get anyone smarter. We might not get anyone with a cuter family. But we could do better...let's.
oh
my
god
If The Real Left would vote to confirm, we are in such deep trouble--and no one knows The Real Left like the Quote Unquote Left.
At first, I found myself agreeing with The Real Left. I know why he thinks that. He, like many americans, feel that somehow the only legitimate role of the Senate in confirming judicial appointments is to determine whether a candidate is qualified for the bench, whether s/he has "a judicial temperment." Naturally, by any standards, Roberts has one, so let's not even debate that.
What makes this such an appallingly smart choice by the Bush administration is that in one fell swoop they have managed to a) shift the debate away from Karl Rove b) nominate an arch conservative c) have him appear to be the kind of affable, insider boy that no one in their right mind could ever block to confirm.
Yet it's becoming very clear that Roberts could easily be a Scalia in Souter clothing--a 50 year old brilliant young arch conservative avowed corporatist who could completely change the court for generations with a quiet affable demeanor.
Part of me, ala another friend in the capitol who shall remain nameless even though he'd probably like the credit, wants to say, screw it, let them have the court-- a real huge win for the far right is probably the only thing that ultimately will galvanize the middle to wake up and vote us out of this nightmare. But there are other parts of me (most of me) that think we need to fight.
To return to an earlier thread, we are supposed to have separation of powers here. This is not a dictatorship. Just because the President was elected by a razor thin mandate doesn't mean that he gets to have whomever he wants on the court--there is a process here; let's use it. When we Borked Bork we ended up with Kennedy (of Sacramento's McGeorge Law school thank you very much) and that was at least an improvement.
Let's not go around saying we're not going to get any better out of the Bush administration. We might not get anyone smarter. We might not get anyone with a cuter family. But we could do better...let's.
Monday, July 18, 2005
Friday, July 08, 2005
Follow Your Mind...
Just spent 6 days in Yosemite reading Emerson's essay on Self-Reliance--this is the way to read Emerson (I can now say smugly, after only one essay, never having read Emerson before to my knowledge--I was a psych major, o-kay?).
As far as I was concerned Emerson was speaking directly to me in this essay--in many respects-- particularly in regard to the degree to which the integrity of mind is the only sacred thing.
Lately I have been praying for clarity, particularly in my career and focus. I have been preoccupied by external concerns, why don’t I have an income, a job title, an office; why don’t I have something easy to tell people?
I have been second-guessing my decision to concentrate so almost exclusively on my spiritual growth, on getting to know myself. Reading Emerson, for the first time in years I feel like an unqualified success. I have felt like the young man whom Emerson pities because he graduates from a top school and is lamenting and lamented for having not gotten a top appointment in the right city. Without realizing it, I have been more like the man whom Emerson lauds for fishing, farming, politicking and always growing, learning.
For Emerson, the right city is the city you’re in. The right job is the job you’re doing. Or, more accurately, what matters is not the job itself, but the integrity of mind with which one applies oneself to the job. Are you a cashier at Burger King? Fine. So long as you ring up the fries with integrity or, as Maria Nemeth puts it, “clarity, focus, ease and grace.” Are you the President of the United States? Well, who cares? The question is are you following your mind and true heart, or the mind of someone else, like, say, Dick Cheney?
As far as I was concerned Emerson was speaking directly to me in this essay--in many respects-- particularly in regard to the degree to which the integrity of mind is the only sacred thing.
Lately I have been praying for clarity, particularly in my career and focus. I have been preoccupied by external concerns, why don’t I have an income, a job title, an office; why don’t I have something easy to tell people?
I have been second-guessing my decision to concentrate so almost exclusively on my spiritual growth, on getting to know myself. Reading Emerson, for the first time in years I feel like an unqualified success. I have felt like the young man whom Emerson pities because he graduates from a top school and is lamenting and lamented for having not gotten a top appointment in the right city. Without realizing it, I have been more like the man whom Emerson lauds for fishing, farming, politicking and always growing, learning.
For Emerson, the right city is the city you’re in. The right job is the job you’re doing. Or, more accurately, what matters is not the job itself, but the integrity of mind with which one applies oneself to the job. Are you a cashier at Burger King? Fine. So long as you ring up the fries with integrity or, as Maria Nemeth puts it, “clarity, focus, ease and grace.” Are you the President of the United States? Well, who cares? The question is are you following your mind and true heart, or the mind of someone else, like, say, Dick Cheney?
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Go Senate Dems!
For once the Democrats in the U. S. Senate are standing their ground on something and have really blocked Bolton's nomination, for the time being. Meanwhile, an embittered and frustrated Bush White House threatens to send Bolton to the UN as a recess appointment.
Really, Congress needs to limit the use of this "recess appointment" power. I can see it making sense for the executive to appoint someone to temporarily fill an important position when Congress is out of session for extended periods and it is impracticable to bring them back together just to confirm somebody. But for the President to use to thwart the express will of the People of the United States as determined by the Congress is a violation of the separation of powers and just plain dangerous.
Really, Congress needs to limit the use of this "recess appointment" power. I can see it making sense for the executive to appoint someone to temporarily fill an important position when Congress is out of session for extended periods and it is impracticable to bring them back together just to confirm somebody. But for the President to use to thwart the express will of the People of the United States as determined by the Congress is a violation of the separation of powers and just plain dangerous.
Sunday, June 19, 2005
Hollywood films Reflect Political Tensions
(:)(:) for the new Star Wars film; (:)(:)(:)(: for Cinderella Man.
I have always been fascinated by the extent to which no matter what era a movie is set in, its dialogue, vision and look reflect the times in which it is made as much or more as the subject it purports to examine. These movies, one so-so, one very good, inject the political and economic realities of our time into outer space and the Great Depression, respectively.
Of the two, Cinderella Man is by far the better film. This is the true life comeback story of boxer James Braddock (Russell Crowe) and his trainer (Paul Giamatti) and his wife (Renee Zellweger). Set in New York in the height of the Depression, one can't help but see the backdrop and dialogue of increasing poverty and increasing wealth as commentary on our own times. Whether it's the perspective of the director, Ron Howard, or the screenwriter, Cliff Hollingworth, or merely my own, it's there. The terrifying visions of Hooverville, and the way in which they refer to it often and with reference to the President lay the blame for the economy and people's misery squarely at his feet.
Still, the images of fat cats vs. regular guys, as compelling as they are as commentary on current times, are subtly introduced--one sees no agenda here other than bringing a compelling story to the screen.
It is a compelling story, by the way, very moving and sentimental (Ron Howard) but entirely believable. I really loved it and the only reason I hold off the full 4th snout is because the film breaks no new ground.
Russell Crowe is one of the greatest screen actors of my lifetime--this is not his most challenging role, but he does it very well. He makes us care deeply about James Braddock and share the excitement and the hope of everyone else who does.
I'm glad Crowe does so because it took me months to recover from a vision of Russell Crowe that I glimpsed one night while channel surfing: in a pony tail singing lead in a band of his own assemblage, there was Crowe screaming out lyrics to a song one can only assume he had written, the title of which could easily make the cover of the next Spinal Tap album, to wit, "Swallow my gift." (I still shudder when I think of it).
On the Star Wars: revenge of the sith or whatever it's called, this is not a good film, even by Star Wars standards: the fights go on and on and get more and more ludicrous until we're having to see a battle to the death served over a hellscape of molten lava (and that comes with a side of molten flesh).
But what was most interesting about this film, and apparently has been fodder for bloggers, left and right, for weeks, is the unabashed, completely not subtle linkage of the Dark Side siths with the Bush administration. For more on the fun moments in dialogue and parallels see this USA Today article.
What I find astonishing is that it seems to be the right wingers who are most avidly pointing out the parallels between the Bush and the Darth Vader administrations--some are even calling for a boycott. You would really think that it would not be in anyone's interest to point out that a popular film with great anti-heroes is really about their leader. Since they point it out anyway, it makes one think that they are trying to scare off future efforts and perhaps are afraid that the message will shape or penetrate young impressionable minds.
Or, perhaps this is a precursor to a return to the Hollywood black list, could George Lucas be the first such casualty?
I have always been fascinated by the extent to which no matter what era a movie is set in, its dialogue, vision and look reflect the times in which it is made as much or more as the subject it purports to examine. These movies, one so-so, one very good, inject the political and economic realities of our time into outer space and the Great Depression, respectively.
Of the two, Cinderella Man is by far the better film. This is the true life comeback story of boxer James Braddock (Russell Crowe) and his trainer (Paul Giamatti) and his wife (Renee Zellweger). Set in New York in the height of the Depression, one can't help but see the backdrop and dialogue of increasing poverty and increasing wealth as commentary on our own times. Whether it's the perspective of the director, Ron Howard, or the screenwriter, Cliff Hollingworth, or merely my own, it's there. The terrifying visions of Hooverville, and the way in which they refer to it often and with reference to the President lay the blame for the economy and people's misery squarely at his feet.
Still, the images of fat cats vs. regular guys, as compelling as they are as commentary on current times, are subtly introduced--one sees no agenda here other than bringing a compelling story to the screen.
It is a compelling story, by the way, very moving and sentimental (Ron Howard) but entirely believable. I really loved it and the only reason I hold off the full 4th snout is because the film breaks no new ground.
Russell Crowe is one of the greatest screen actors of my lifetime--this is not his most challenging role, but he does it very well. He makes us care deeply about James Braddock and share the excitement and the hope of everyone else who does.
I'm glad Crowe does so because it took me months to recover from a vision of Russell Crowe that I glimpsed one night while channel surfing: in a pony tail singing lead in a band of his own assemblage, there was Crowe screaming out lyrics to a song one can only assume he had written, the title of which could easily make the cover of the next Spinal Tap album, to wit, "Swallow my gift." (I still shudder when I think of it).
On the Star Wars: revenge of the sith or whatever it's called, this is not a good film, even by Star Wars standards: the fights go on and on and get more and more ludicrous until we're having to see a battle to the death served over a hellscape of molten lava (and that comes with a side of molten flesh).
But what was most interesting about this film, and apparently has been fodder for bloggers, left and right, for weeks, is the unabashed, completely not subtle linkage of the Dark Side siths with the Bush administration. For more on the fun moments in dialogue and parallels see this USA Today article.
What I find astonishing is that it seems to be the right wingers who are most avidly pointing out the parallels between the Bush and the Darth Vader administrations--some are even calling for a boycott. You would really think that it would not be in anyone's interest to point out that a popular film with great anti-heroes is really about their leader. Since they point it out anyway, it makes one think that they are trying to scare off future efforts and perhaps are afraid that the message will shape or penetrate young impressionable minds.
Or, perhaps this is a precursor to a return to the Hollywood black list, could George Lucas be the first such casualty?
Thursday, June 16, 2005
The Bee and the Budget
I didn't like the headline in the Sacramento Bee this morning which reads "Budget Plan Voted Down: a Democratic proposal without tax hikes fails to entice GOP as -- no surprise -- a deadline passes" (the link above to the Bee story on-line has a different headline, but it's the same story).
The headline should have been "Republicans delay timely fair budget for ___ year in a row." Look, it may be old news to Sacramento insiders, but it's not well known to the public: because we are one of the only states in the country to require a 2/3rd vote to pass a budget, the people we elected to be the majority in the California legislature can't get a budget passed without getting a handful of radical rightwing Republicans to vote for it.
Because the Republicans are in the minority and their only power comes from their ability to block a budget and extract budget-busting pork projects for their district, they block it every year. This should be reported as such: Republicans block and delay the budget, Democrats don't.
The headline should have been "Republicans delay timely fair budget for ___ year in a row." Look, it may be old news to Sacramento insiders, but it's not well known to the public: because we are one of the only states in the country to require a 2/3rd vote to pass a budget, the people we elected to be the majority in the California legislature can't get a budget passed without getting a handful of radical rightwing Republicans to vote for it.
Because the Republicans are in the minority and their only power comes from their ability to block a budget and extract budget-busting pork projects for their district, they block it every year. This should be reported as such: Republicans block and delay the budget, Democrats don't.
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
(:)(:)(:)(:) for Mad Hot Ballroom
This adorable documentary about a mandatory ballroom dancing competition for New York City 4th and 5th graders is impossibly moving. It's a lot about dancing, but it's also about coming of age, about children's attitudes towards life, love and sex and about adults' attitudes toward competition, teaching and children.
I almost can't think of anything more to say except that anyone who likes dancing, kids, the possibility of change or good good movies should see this one.
I almost can't think of anything more to say except that anyone who likes dancing, kids, the possibility of change or good good movies should see this one.
Monday, June 13, 2005
Love That Bob (radio, that is)
I am hooked the new on 92.1fm "Bob" radio station in Sacramento. Bill told me about the new Jack and Bob radio formats a few weeks ago and I listened with half an ear, "uh-uh...sounds good...oh really?" that sort of thing.
Then I found Bob at 92.1fm in Sacramento and I love that Bob. I'm also probably in the distinct minority of people my age in loving the 1950s Love That Bob tv show in reruns. I had a huge crush on Bob Cummings. Later I had a huge crush on Bob Crane from Hogan's Heroes and he turned out to be a pervert.
I like the name Bob because my children routinely call me Bob--it started with them having a cold and pronouncing "Mom" "Bob" and then it became a way of singling me out in a crowd of people all of whom have the name "Mom"--they call "Bob!" and somehow it cuts through the noise and gets my attention. I'm supposed to say "yes, Bob" or they get all bent out of shape and have to yell my name again, a process that can get exhausting. Needless to say, they love the concept, if not the actual music, of Bob radio and basically assume the station is named after me.
So these are the two new hip formats: Jack and Bob. Jack format plays hits from the 60s, 70s, 80, and 90's but they have to have been in the top 40. Bob plays those and also adds new songs from today and tunes that were not huge hits (but not many). Google Bob or Jack radio and the name of your city to find out in your area.
The key is that it is across genres and has these kinds of jarring transitions, known as "trainwrecks" in the DJ community. Like you'll go directly from Lively Up Yourself by Bob Marley to Hot Blooded by Foreigner and you'll like it.
The format is widely considered to have been iPod-inspired in the sense that the popularity of the "shuffle" setting on iPod (where you randomly hear songs from your entire music catalogue) has let commercial radio stations know that there is a market for that kind of wierd jarring transition.
On my iPod (yes, Bill recently gave me one for my birthday) it can be especially jarring. You could go from a broadway show tune to hip hop to a lecture from a buddhist nun (I'd like to see that make it onto mainstream radio). And yet, even something that wierd is taking hold in the popular imagination. In a related move, KPIG radio, long considered to be of interest only to people with freestanding bathtubs filled with baby marijuana plants, announced this week that it is expanding from Santa Cruz into the San Francisco bay area. KPIG is basically Bob radio that slept on a friend's couch last night and doesn't remember where he parked his car, but he's a smart friend and he brought books and cleans up after himself. It is sweet, edgy, funny, and real.
Bob radio is slicker, infinitely more self-conscious, packaged and commercial. In the end, I think Bob radio is for those of us who like to think of ourselves as hip but really just want to listen to tunes that are familiar, but not too familiar. KPIG is for people who really know music and really appreciate lost cuts. I'm a little more Bob, while my sweetheart, Bill, is a little more KPIG grown-up, married and with his own bed.
Then I found Bob at 92.1fm in Sacramento and I love that Bob. I'm also probably in the distinct minority of people my age in loving the 1950s Love That Bob tv show in reruns. I had a huge crush on Bob Cummings. Later I had a huge crush on Bob Crane from Hogan's Heroes and he turned out to be a pervert.
I like the name Bob because my children routinely call me Bob--it started with them having a cold and pronouncing "Mom" "Bob" and then it became a way of singling me out in a crowd of people all of whom have the name "Mom"--they call "Bob!" and somehow it cuts through the noise and gets my attention. I'm supposed to say "yes, Bob" or they get all bent out of shape and have to yell my name again, a process that can get exhausting. Needless to say, they love the concept, if not the actual music, of Bob radio and basically assume the station is named after me.
So these are the two new hip formats: Jack and Bob. Jack format plays hits from the 60s, 70s, 80, and 90's but they have to have been in the top 40. Bob plays those and also adds new songs from today and tunes that were not huge hits (but not many). Google Bob or Jack radio and the name of your city to find out in your area.
The key is that it is across genres and has these kinds of jarring transitions, known as "trainwrecks" in the DJ community. Like you'll go directly from Lively Up Yourself by Bob Marley to Hot Blooded by Foreigner and you'll like it.
The format is widely considered to have been iPod-inspired in the sense that the popularity of the "shuffle" setting on iPod (where you randomly hear songs from your entire music catalogue) has let commercial radio stations know that there is a market for that kind of wierd jarring transition.
On my iPod (yes, Bill recently gave me one for my birthday) it can be especially jarring. You could go from a broadway show tune to hip hop to a lecture from a buddhist nun (I'd like to see that make it onto mainstream radio). And yet, even something that wierd is taking hold in the popular imagination. In a related move, KPIG radio, long considered to be of interest only to people with freestanding bathtubs filled with baby marijuana plants, announced this week that it is expanding from Santa Cruz into the San Francisco bay area. KPIG is basically Bob radio that slept on a friend's couch last night and doesn't remember where he parked his car, but he's a smart friend and he brought books and cleans up after himself. It is sweet, edgy, funny, and real.
Bob radio is slicker, infinitely more self-conscious, packaged and commercial. In the end, I think Bob radio is for those of us who like to think of ourselves as hip but really just want to listen to tunes that are familiar, but not too familiar. KPIG is for people who really know music and really appreciate lost cuts. I'm a little more Bob, while my sweetheart, Bill, is a little more KPIG grown-up, married and with his own bed.
Friday, June 10, 2005
John Diaz Said it Better than I Could
John Diaz, editorial editor of the San Francisco Chronicle had the same rant I did yesterday about the California Assembly Democrats. Pulling no punches he tells the story of their walk of shame. I forgot to mention, of course, the pivotal gay marriage bill that went down in flames on the California Assembly floor last week too.
Now some may quarrel with me on this, but I can kind of see a politician being worried about casting a vote for gay marriage--there is a possibility that he gets out ahead of his constituents on the issue, especially in the central valley (our kansas). Sure, theoretically they could take a hit in a Democratic primary for not supporting gay marriage, but most of these guys do not face credible primary threats. When you have term limits, why would try to run against someone in a primary? You wait your turn.
But "taking a walk on" (not voting for) an environmental bill? Nah, that plays everywhere with everyone. In fact, they could take a serious hit in a general election for not supporting it.
If fact, you could say that these guys have real courage, the courage of their conviction--and their conviction is that if you pay good money to put them in office, you should get what you pay for, their vote.
Now some may quarrel with me on this, but I can kind of see a politician being worried about casting a vote for gay marriage--there is a possibility that he gets out ahead of his constituents on the issue, especially in the central valley (our kansas). Sure, theoretically they could take a hit in a Democratic primary for not supporting gay marriage, but most of these guys do not face credible primary threats. When you have term limits, why would try to run against someone in a primary? You wait your turn.
But "taking a walk on" (not voting for) an environmental bill? Nah, that plays everywhere with everyone. In fact, they could take a serious hit in a general election for not supporting it.
If fact, you could say that these guys have real courage, the courage of their conviction--and their conviction is that if you pay good money to put them in office, you should get what you pay for, their vote.
Thursday, June 09, 2005
The Assembly Democrats are Worse than Ever
I don't have the energy to do it justice, but you all should know that the Democrats in the California State Assembly have been acting up big time again in the past 2 weeks--they're worse than ever and it's just not tolerable.
Last week most notably they joined with Republicans to kill (by refusing to vote for) bills that would have allowed communities to bring a private right of action against polluters for environmental hazards, made it more difficult for corporations to hide their misdoings behind secret settlement agreements and killed many other environmental bills. They even made it tough for bills favored by labor unions to get off the Assembly floor, and not for any noble reason, just stubborn closeness with the Chamber of Commerce.
Forget about being politically savvy enough to put Schwarzenegger on the hot seat with environmental and consumer bills--these guys know where their bread is buttered and it ain't by their constituents, it's by their contributors. They don't want to cede credit for the kill to the Governor--they can terminate people's rights with the best of 'em.
Some of the worst offenders are the Assemblymembers below, if you live in one of their districts, call and complain--I'll give you the number if you don't have it--and vote against them in the next primary:
Joseph Canciamilla--east east bay
Alberto Torrico--Fremont
Barbara Matthews--Stockton
Juan Arambula--Fresno
Lois Wolk--Davis
Nicole Parra--Bakersfield
Joe Coto--San Jose
Rebecca Cohn--Silicon valley
Jerome Horton--Inglewood
Edward Chavez--San Gabriel valley
Carol Liu--Pasadena
Hector De La Torre--east LA
Rudy Bermudez--Norwalk
Ronald Calderon--LA
Juan Vargas--South San Diego
Gloria Negrete McLeod--Ontario
Joe Baca Jr.--San Bernardino
Last week most notably they joined with Republicans to kill (by refusing to vote for) bills that would have allowed communities to bring a private right of action against polluters for environmental hazards, made it more difficult for corporations to hide their misdoings behind secret settlement agreements and killed many other environmental bills. They even made it tough for bills favored by labor unions to get off the Assembly floor, and not for any noble reason, just stubborn closeness with the Chamber of Commerce.
Forget about being politically savvy enough to put Schwarzenegger on the hot seat with environmental and consumer bills--these guys know where their bread is buttered and it ain't by their constituents, it's by their contributors. They don't want to cede credit for the kill to the Governor--they can terminate people's rights with the best of 'em.
Some of the worst offenders are the Assemblymembers below, if you live in one of their districts, call and complain--I'll give you the number if you don't have it--and vote against them in the next primary:
Joseph Canciamilla--east east bay
Alberto Torrico--Fremont
Barbara Matthews--Stockton
Juan Arambula--Fresno
Lois Wolk--Davis
Nicole Parra--Bakersfield
Joe Coto--San Jose
Rebecca Cohn--Silicon valley
Jerome Horton--Inglewood
Edward Chavez--San Gabriel valley
Carol Liu--Pasadena
Hector De La Torre--east LA
Rudy Bermudez--Norwalk
Ronald Calderon--LA
Juan Vargas--South San Diego
Gloria Negrete McLeod--Ontario
Joe Baca Jr.--San Bernardino
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
(:)(:)(:)(: Cleveland Orchestra at Mondavi Center
Despite the fact that it's from Cleveland, the Cleveland Orchestra is world renowned for its precision and virtuosity. So, although I know next to nothing about classical music and have no business having opinions about it, I am thrilled to accompany a friend to see them play at the Mondavi Center in Davis Monday night.
As we settle into our seats, I loudly squeal with joy as I read that two of the pieces are Ravel--I adore Ravel! I proclaim, only narrowly escaping je l'adore Ravel which is actually what comes to mind, I kid you not (I can get carried away). I chalk up the rolled eyes and embarrassed glances around me to envy for my joie de vivre.
As the first strains of Ravel's Alborada del gracioso come, I settle into my seat. Many many minutes pass as I struggle to keep my mind on the concert. Wow, I think, this is so mellow and mathematical, not so exciting, it must be his early stuff.
At the end of the first movement, my companion points to a different page of the program, one which says June 6 instead of June 5--it's not Ravel, she whispers, it's Mozart. Turns out Ravel was yesterday.
I don't know much, but I know that you cannot go around thinking Je l'adore Ravel when you're listening to Mozart.
At the end of the Mozart (Symphony No. 36 in C Major, K. 425 if you must know), I smugly observe that while technically flawless, the piece was soulless. My companion agrees, although she blames it on herself--I guess I'm just not in a place in my life where Mozart can really move me.
I think, I guess I'm not in a place in my life where I can fucking tell if it's even Mozart
The next piece, Concerto for Alto Saxophone and Wind Ensemble by Ingolf Dahl (some obscure german immigrant to the US) is amazing. The passion and virtuosity of the saxophone soloist Joseph Lulloff, whose solos dominate the piece, is palpably infectious--the wind ensemble devours his music and uses each solo as fuel for a brilliant echo. The audience is on its feet for 5 standing ovations as I rush to the bathroom, desperate to recover from an ill-advised 11th hour decaf, then rush to the concessions line to begin the process anew.
Dvorak's Symphony No. 5 in F major is performed beautifully as well, but again my mind drifts, and I find myself comparing music to meditation as many better minds before me must have done.
The drive home from Davis is mostly filled by the sound of one part of my head blaming me for things throughout the evening, the Ravel fiasco, the decaf rush, the fact that I didn't visit the ladies' room before driving home afterwards. Fortunately, though, it is drowned out by the plaintive wail of the alto sax and a determined witness for peace, my better self.
As we settle into our seats, I loudly squeal with joy as I read that two of the pieces are Ravel--I adore Ravel! I proclaim, only narrowly escaping je l'adore Ravel which is actually what comes to mind, I kid you not (I can get carried away). I chalk up the rolled eyes and embarrassed glances around me to envy for my joie de vivre.
As the first strains of Ravel's Alborada del gracioso come, I settle into my seat. Many many minutes pass as I struggle to keep my mind on the concert. Wow, I think, this is so mellow and mathematical, not so exciting, it must be his early stuff.
At the end of the first movement, my companion points to a different page of the program, one which says June 6 instead of June 5--it's not Ravel, she whispers, it's Mozart. Turns out Ravel was yesterday.
I don't know much, but I know that you cannot go around thinking Je l'adore Ravel when you're listening to Mozart.
At the end of the Mozart (Symphony No. 36 in C Major, K. 425 if you must know), I smugly observe that while technically flawless, the piece was soulless. My companion agrees, although she blames it on herself--I guess I'm just not in a place in my life where Mozart can really move me.
I think, I guess I'm not in a place in my life where I can fucking tell if it's even Mozart
The next piece, Concerto for Alto Saxophone and Wind Ensemble by Ingolf Dahl (some obscure german immigrant to the US) is amazing. The passion and virtuosity of the saxophone soloist Joseph Lulloff, whose solos dominate the piece, is palpably infectious--the wind ensemble devours his music and uses each solo as fuel for a brilliant echo. The audience is on its feet for 5 standing ovations as I rush to the bathroom, desperate to recover from an ill-advised 11th hour decaf, then rush to the concessions line to begin the process anew.
Dvorak's Symphony No. 5 in F major is performed beautifully as well, but again my mind drifts, and I find myself comparing music to meditation as many better minds before me must have done.
The drive home from Davis is mostly filled by the sound of one part of my head blaming me for things throughout the evening, the Ravel fiasco, the decaf rush, the fact that I didn't visit the ladies' room before driving home afterwards. Fortunately, though, it is drowned out by the plaintive wail of the alto sax and a determined witness for peace, my better self.
Friday, June 03, 2005
Spanglish is Magnifico!
(:)(:)(:)(:) for Spanglish just reviewed on DVD. It's been a helluva month and I haven't prioritized the blog lately, but let me say I had NO idea how good a movie this was. I just thought it'd be decent hollywood fluff. Wrong. This movie is beautifully acted and written.
I don't have time to do it justice right now, but a few thoughts. The highlights: Adam Sandler and his character are magnificient. Who knew that Adam Sandler could act? Certainly not I. That is one of the best-written most complex characters I've ever seen for a man--3 dimensions is not enough to cover it. Tea Leoni is always good, but she's spectacular in this especially as she takes a character that could have been simply despicable and makes her 3-dimensional human, draws us in compassionately to her world. Cloris Leachman as her mother is also marvelous.
My only beef with this film, and it's a biggie, is that while the anglo family is marvelous, the Mexican mother and daughter are considerably less fully drawn characters--you get some of their complexity but it's very much from the anglo gaze in. Glenn Backes points out to me that the poster for the film does the same thing--you see the anglos in full form, the maid and her daughter hazy. Maybe it's a sophisticated statement of some kind by the filmmaker/screen writer, but I doubt it. Probably the limitations of their viewpoint coupled with laziness.
I don't have time to do it justice right now, but a few thoughts. The highlights: Adam Sandler and his character are magnificient. Who knew that Adam Sandler could act? Certainly not I. That is one of the best-written most complex characters I've ever seen for a man--3 dimensions is not enough to cover it. Tea Leoni is always good, but she's spectacular in this especially as she takes a character that could have been simply despicable and makes her 3-dimensional human, draws us in compassionately to her world. Cloris Leachman as her mother is also marvelous.
My only beef with this film, and it's a biggie, is that while the anglo family is marvelous, the Mexican mother and daughter are considerably less fully drawn characters--you get some of their complexity but it's very much from the anglo gaze in. Glenn Backes points out to me that the poster for the film does the same thing--you see the anglos in full form, the maid and her daughter hazy. Maybe it's a sophisticated statement of some kind by the filmmaker/screen writer, but I doubt it. Probably the limitations of their viewpoint coupled with laziness.
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
More on the Judges and Those Senate Dems
I like that the word on the street in DC is that the White House is even more unhappy than "our" side. And I see that MoveOn.org is crowing about the victory, but that still doesn't do it for me. See, this way mell have been a big victory for the Senate Democrats. For once they may have outmanoevered Bill Frist and his merry men.
But that doesn't mean that it's a victory for the American people. I would have been, and the American people should have been, perfectly happy if the Senate had been shut down for months due to a standoff over this filibuster. Nothing good was going to come out of this Congress. It would have been fabulous to frustrate the otherwise uninterrupted flow of the Chamber of Commerce's agenda to raid Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and every other successful social program we have.
To me what happened here is that when push came to shove, the Senate Democrats developed a spine and went to the mat for what really matters to them: Senatorial privilege--the right to the filibuster. They did not go to the mat for what really matters to me, who is on the federal bench.
What's more, it isn't even clear that the Democrats even won a meaningful right with their pyrrhic victory. If Priscilla and Janice aren't "extraordinary circumstances," in which you can justify the use of the filibuster, who is?
Is that the standard now?
"We'll filibuster as soon as we find someone nuttier than Janice Brown?"
In the final analysis, it was more important to them to preserve the appearance of preserving the filibuster, than it was to keep these complete wacko outliers from deciding whether children raped by their fathers will be able to get an abortion.
But that doesn't mean that it's a victory for the American people. I would have been, and the American people should have been, perfectly happy if the Senate had been shut down for months due to a standoff over this filibuster. Nothing good was going to come out of this Congress. It would have been fabulous to frustrate the otherwise uninterrupted flow of the Chamber of Commerce's agenda to raid Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and every other successful social program we have.
To me what happened here is that when push came to shove, the Senate Democrats developed a spine and went to the mat for what really matters to them: Senatorial privilege--the right to the filibuster. They did not go to the mat for what really matters to me, who is on the federal bench.
What's more, it isn't even clear that the Democrats even won a meaningful right with their pyrrhic victory. If Priscilla and Janice aren't "extraordinary circumstances," in which you can justify the use of the filibuster, who is?
Is that the standard now?
"We'll filibuster as soon as we find someone nuttier than Janice Brown?"
In the final analysis, it was more important to them to preserve the appearance of preserving the filibuster, than it was to keep these complete wacko outliers from deciding whether children raped by their fathers will be able to get an abortion.
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Yay, We Win! Priscilla Owens will be a Federal Judge!
So let me get this right: 3 judges (so far to the right ideologically that usually wimpy Senate Democrats threatened to filibuster their confirmation) will be appointed to the bench in a Democratically-annointed deal. And we're supposed to be happy about this?
Am I the only one out here who finds this scenario ludicrous? Look, I know you can spin this as a loss for the Bush administration because they were the ones to back down first from the brink of the "nuclear option," but here's what happened as I understand it.
White House: Confirm all our judges.
Senate Dems: We don't like 10 of them. We'll filibuster.
White House: Confirm all our judges.
Senate Dems: But we don't wanna.
White House: Confirm all our judges or we'll take away your right to filibuster judicial nominations.
Senate Dems: No! We like that right! Please don't take that right! We like it!
White House: Confirm all our judges or we'll go nuclear.
Senate Dems: Okay, let's be reasonable. How about we confirm 3 of your judges but not the rest and you let us keep the filibuster.
White House: No.
Senate Dems: Please?!
White House: No.
Senate Dems: Pretty Please?
White House: No. We're going nuclear.
Senate Dems: Pretty please, with Priscilla Owens on top?
White House: O-kay. When you put it that way.
Senate Dems: Goodie! We're confirming 3 far right judges! Naa-naaa we get to keep the filibuster!
White House: No you don't. We can go nuclear any time.
Senate Dems: But you said...
White House: I know you are, but what am I?
Am I the only one out here who finds this scenario ludicrous? Look, I know you can spin this as a loss for the Bush administration because they were the ones to back down first from the brink of the "nuclear option," but here's what happened as I understand it.
White House: Confirm all our judges.
Senate Dems: We don't like 10 of them. We'll filibuster.
White House: Confirm all our judges.
Senate Dems: But we don't wanna.
White House: Confirm all our judges or we'll take away your right to filibuster judicial nominations.
Senate Dems: No! We like that right! Please don't take that right! We like it!
White House: Confirm all our judges or we'll go nuclear.
Senate Dems: Okay, let's be reasonable. How about we confirm 3 of your judges but not the rest and you let us keep the filibuster.
White House: No.
Senate Dems: Please?!
White House: No.
Senate Dems: Pretty Please?
White House: No. We're going nuclear.
Senate Dems: Pretty please, with Priscilla Owens on top?
White House: O-kay. When you put it that way.
Senate Dems: Goodie! We're confirming 3 far right judges! Naa-naaa we get to keep the filibuster!
White House: No you don't. We can go nuclear any time.
Senate Dems: But you said...
White House: I know you are, but what am I?
Monday, May 23, 2005
The Pushback
I must be changing because a phenomenon known in the personal growth community as "the pushback" is occurring to me. The "pushback" happens when people around you notice that something is different, either they can put their finger on it or they can't, and they begin trying to push you back into the shape you were before, the mold they are used to seeing you in.
Lately I have been experiencing pushback because I have been casually mentioning that I've given up drinking. I have gotten long emails and diatribes and sad looks and even outright weeping because of this. Why, Sara? Why?? There is so much outrage, so much of a sense of despair.
My husband would be the first to point out that I can't afford to get too outraged about the outrage. Afterall, I have practically made a living out of ridiculing people for giving up alcohol. For years it has driven me nuts that so few people in my cohousing community drink. "The puritanical left" I've dubbed them.
And I've also taken serious issue with my wonderful in-laws for such famous quotes as "who wants to split a beer?" and "oh, do you think we should have wine for Christmas? What if the leftover wine in the bottle goes bad?"
In other words, I've been there. I've been the leader of the outraged pack. The Queen ridiculer of reduced consumption.
From the other side of the bottle, it all seems very odd. It seems to me that this should have nothing to do with anybody else. That people should be pretty much neutral to pleased that I've made a life change I feel good about.
Which brings me to why I did it. First of all, for the time being I'm allowing myself special occasion exceptions. Like this Thursday, when I go out dancing at my birthday party, I may decide to have a drink.
I decided to quit because I just generally tend to feel less crappy when I don't drink. I get sick less. I have fewer headaches. I have fewer hangovers (and I experience hangovers of a sort after only 1 glass of wine). It's kind of a sugar hangover with me; I start to crave bad carbs to take away the feeling, so I eat a lot worse when I drink.
Although I have experienced occasional poor impulse control while drinking, I generally haven't ever experienced the other problems associated with alcohol use. I've always been able to stop drinking for long or short periods of time without difficulty (I can quit anytime?). And I rarely crave alcohol as a soothing or calming thing--I've almost never had that "god I need a drink" feeling. I've had "god, I need a huge bowl of ice cream" and "god, I need a midnight bowl of cereal" and "god, I need to lie on the couch and watch a bad movie" much more often.
So the much more interesting question for me here is, what's at stake for my friends? One thing a bunch of them seem to think is that I won't want to dance any more. Wrong. I have never been one of those people who need a drink to dance. I'll dance at 10am stone cold sober (although coffee would help).
2) Maybe they think I won't stay up late talking about all kinds of ridiculous things with them. Well I don't think that's true either, I definitely plan to stay up a late talking a lot more and it would be unlikely that I would stop being ridiculous.
3) Maybe they worry that I'll start trying to convert them to non-drinking. Wrong. I would definitely drink if it didn't seem to have this negative effect on my health. I don't try to talk people out of drinking unless they are puking on me night after night.
Ultimately, other people's opinions of this matter and other changes I'm going through are going to have little or no effect on me, but they'll have a large effect on them and the lense through which they see me. I guess this is one way to find out who loves you just the way you are.
Lately I have been experiencing pushback because I have been casually mentioning that I've given up drinking. I have gotten long emails and diatribes and sad looks and even outright weeping because of this. Why, Sara? Why?? There is so much outrage, so much of a sense of despair.
My husband would be the first to point out that I can't afford to get too outraged about the outrage. Afterall, I have practically made a living out of ridiculing people for giving up alcohol. For years it has driven me nuts that so few people in my cohousing community drink. "The puritanical left" I've dubbed them.
And I've also taken serious issue with my wonderful in-laws for such famous quotes as "who wants to split a beer?" and "oh, do you think we should have wine for Christmas? What if the leftover wine in the bottle goes bad?"
In other words, I've been there. I've been the leader of the outraged pack. The Queen ridiculer of reduced consumption.
From the other side of the bottle, it all seems very odd. It seems to me that this should have nothing to do with anybody else. That people should be pretty much neutral to pleased that I've made a life change I feel good about.
Which brings me to why I did it. First of all, for the time being I'm allowing myself special occasion exceptions. Like this Thursday, when I go out dancing at my birthday party, I may decide to have a drink.
I decided to quit because I just generally tend to feel less crappy when I don't drink. I get sick less. I have fewer headaches. I have fewer hangovers (and I experience hangovers of a sort after only 1 glass of wine). It's kind of a sugar hangover with me; I start to crave bad carbs to take away the feeling, so I eat a lot worse when I drink.
Although I have experienced occasional poor impulse control while drinking, I generally haven't ever experienced the other problems associated with alcohol use. I've always been able to stop drinking for long or short periods of time without difficulty (I can quit anytime?). And I rarely crave alcohol as a soothing or calming thing--I've almost never had that "god I need a drink" feeling. I've had "god, I need a huge bowl of ice cream" and "god, I need a midnight bowl of cereal" and "god, I need to lie on the couch and watch a bad movie" much more often.
So the much more interesting question for me here is, what's at stake for my friends? One thing a bunch of them seem to think is that I won't want to dance any more. Wrong. I have never been one of those people who need a drink to dance. I'll dance at 10am stone cold sober (although coffee would help).
2) Maybe they think I won't stay up late talking about all kinds of ridiculous things with them. Well I don't think that's true either, I definitely plan to stay up a late talking a lot more and it would be unlikely that I would stop being ridiculous.
3) Maybe they worry that I'll start trying to convert them to non-drinking. Wrong. I would definitely drink if it didn't seem to have this negative effect on my health. I don't try to talk people out of drinking unless they are puking on me night after night.
Ultimately, other people's opinions of this matter and other changes I'm going through are going to have little or no effect on me, but they'll have a large effect on them and the lense through which they see me. I guess this is one way to find out who loves you just the way you are.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Phil And Thropy
I have said before that a fundamental problem in American life is asking for too little. Nowhere is this more clear than in the case of public interest advocacy organizations who are constantly jumping through hoops to create a "new" program for funders to get excited about.
The right doesn't do this. The right funds general operating expenses of its organizations, its think tanks--it doesn't make its key grassroots players beg and it doesn't make them pretend to be doing something new all the time. It's understood that if an organization is good, its operating expenses need to be met before it can expand.
If you've ever looked at this from the point of view of a funder, it sort of makes sense. You want desperately to make your mark, to see that a good organization gets better. What does it mean to get better? It means it does something new.
What if the nonprofits band together and tell the funders: here's how it's gonna be, you wanna fund us? You fund our operating expenses first. You want us to get bigger and better? Let us stop having to figure out how to make payroll each month and put our resources and staff to program.
Then you'll have a situation where funders might understand this differently. Ah, if I want to improve this excellent organization, I have to make sure the lights stay on then they'll let me fund a new program--it requires a paradigm shift for the advocates. They need to proceed from a position of abundance rather than lack. They need to trust and understand their own value and ask for what they're worth and what they need.
I think they'll get it.
The right doesn't do this. The right funds general operating expenses of its organizations, its think tanks--it doesn't make its key grassroots players beg and it doesn't make them pretend to be doing something new all the time. It's understood that if an organization is good, its operating expenses need to be met before it can expand.
If you've ever looked at this from the point of view of a funder, it sort of makes sense. You want desperately to make your mark, to see that a good organization gets better. What does it mean to get better? It means it does something new.
What if the nonprofits band together and tell the funders: here's how it's gonna be, you wanna fund us? You fund our operating expenses first. You want us to get bigger and better? Let us stop having to figure out how to make payroll each month and put our resources and staff to program.
Then you'll have a situation where funders might understand this differently. Ah, if I want to improve this excellent organization, I have to make sure the lights stay on then they'll let me fund a new program--it requires a paradigm shift for the advocates. They need to proceed from a position of abundance rather than lack. They need to trust and understand their own value and ask for what they're worth and what they need.
I think they'll get it.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Social Security Media Apology
I have had trouble blogging the past couple days because I am writing too many other things--it's funny, it's not a time issue so much as a something to say issue. If you're not familiar with the Center for Economic and Policy Research --get familiar. This economic thinktank is clean and independent and has important information for all of us--like what's going to happen when the housing bubble bursts. And this article by CEPR economist Mark Weisbrot entitled Social Security Media Apology:
By Mark Weisbrot
Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
By Mark Weisbrot
After it was established that the major reasons that the Bush administration had offered for invading Iraq were false -- Iraq's alleged nuclear program, weapons of mass destruction, links to Al-Qaeda -- many journalists, editors, and producers felt that the U.S. media had not done its job during the march to war. The New York Times and Washington Post published articles from their editors criticizing their own reporting.
A similar letter from the media -- broadcast, cable, and print -- is in order for their misreporting of President Bush's effort to change social security. Here is what an honest confession might look like:
"We apologize for having failed our listeners and readers in our reporting on Social Security. The extent of this failure can be clearly measured by the public's complete lack of understanding of the problem being discussed. A recent poll found 64 percent of Americans think they won't even get a benefit from Social Security. Even according to President Bush's (Social Security Trustees') numbers, Social Security will always be able to pay a benefit that is higher than what retirees get today. This is after adjusting for inflation, and it is true even if we were to do nothing and allow the Social Security Trust Fund to run out of money.
Where did the majority of Americans get such a ridiculous idea? They got it from us, the same place the got the ideas that Iraq was close to producing nuclear weapons and was involved in the massacre of 9/11. One thing we did wrong was to report false or unsubstantiated allegations over and over, without countervailing facts. This makes it easier for politicians to pursue a "big lie" strategy -- to deliberately repeat false information until it is accepted as truth.
President Bush can say, as he did recently, "Without changes this young generation of workers will see a UFO before they see a Social Security check."
This should be given the same credibility as the statement, "Elvis Presley is alive; I just talked to him yesterday."
The second mistake was to leave out or downplay crucial facts. Few Americans know that according to the President's own numbers: (1) Social Security is financially stronger than it has been throughout most of its 70-year history; (2) the whole shortfall over the next 75 years is less than what we fixed in each one of the decades of the 50s, 60s, and 80s; (3) fifty years from now, the average real wage will be over 70 percent higher than today (so workers won't be hurting if they have to pay a little bit more to Social Security) (4) the year 2017 -- when Social Security payments are projected to exceed payroll tax revenue -- has absolutely nothing to do with Social Security's solvency.
We encouraged deception about the Social Security Trust Fund by describing the government bonds it holds as "I.O.U.s," and allowing politicians to pretend that default on these bonds was a real possibility. We should have used the Congressional Budget Office's numbers in our reporting, since the CBO is non-partisan; instead we generally reported the numbers provided by the Social Security Trustees, who are partisan (four of six are Bush appointees, and a fifth is pro-privatization). The CBO numbers show Social Security to be financially solvent for the next 47 years; if just this one fact were included in every news report on the Social Security "problem," most people would surely see the whole debate for what it is: a farce.
There were exceptions to these reporting failures, but they were few and far between.
We hope you will forgive our sloppy, careless reporting on Social Security. At least this time, nobody was killed as a result."
Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
Center for Economic and Policy Research, 1611 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20009
Phone: (202) 293-5380, Fax: (202) 588-1356, Home: www.cepr.net
Saturday, May 14, 2005
How to Make Real Change in the World
No, this is not like those hilarious old SNL commercials for "The Change Bank" (we can give you 2 dimes and a nickel for a quarter; or we can give you 25 pennies; it's all up to you; the secret is volume). But there is a connection between change and change.
What I'm talkin' 'bout is that other kind, that theoretically we all are for--the kind where every child goes to sleep every night with a full belly and a full heart.
For over a decade, I've advocated national health insurance. For most of those years, I was lucky enough to have been paid to fight for it. Now I sit at home and blog. Have I given up that dream?
Au contraire, mon frere. Dr. Quentin Young, , a great Chicago progressive and one of my heroes in the fight for single payer health care, once said to me, "Sara, if you're not serious about money, you're not serious about social change." That sentiment has stuck with me--ever since he said it, I can raise money for anything that I care about and feel great about it.
I'm working on two things right now very very hard: making enough money to make a difference, and making enough difference to make the money. The latter requires more explanation than the former.
In addition to lack of money for "the good guys" there is another problem, so scary we good guys are loathe to recognize it, let alone tackle it and that is the definition of "good guy." We think we know the answer. Scratch that. We're sure we know. It's us. And it's not them.
What I am working on right now is re-examining everything I thought I knew about good guys/bad guys, us/them, Democrats/Republicans. Believe me, for a pink diaper baby like me this is painful upsetting work roughly akin to re-examining the belief that the sun rises every morning.
Could it be that there are Republicans who have equally good hearts and minds as mine and don't eat their children for supper?
Could it be that this great divide that we feel in this country between blue and red is illusory? That we mostly care about the same things?
Could it be that instead of focussing most of our intention and resources on making more of us and less of them and focussing on winning a margin of seats or electoral votes we should be focussing on redefining the us to include all of us and doing a lot more listening than talking?
This is what I hope and pray for every day: that I will heal myself so that we might heal the country so that we might together heal the world. Still not political?
What I'm talkin' 'bout is that other kind, that theoretically we all are for--the kind where every child goes to sleep every night with a full belly and a full heart.
For over a decade, I've advocated national health insurance. For most of those years, I was lucky enough to have been paid to fight for it. Now I sit at home and blog. Have I given up that dream?
Au contraire, mon frere. Dr. Quentin Young, , a great Chicago progressive and one of my heroes in the fight for single payer health care, once said to me, "Sara, if you're not serious about money, you're not serious about social change." That sentiment has stuck with me--ever since he said it, I can raise money for anything that I care about and feel great about it.
I'm working on two things right now very very hard: making enough money to make a difference, and making enough difference to make the money. The latter requires more explanation than the former.
In addition to lack of money for "the good guys" there is another problem, so scary we good guys are loathe to recognize it, let alone tackle it and that is the definition of "good guy." We think we know the answer. Scratch that. We're sure we know. It's us. And it's not them.
What I am working on right now is re-examining everything I thought I knew about good guys/bad guys, us/them, Democrats/Republicans. Believe me, for a pink diaper baby like me this is painful upsetting work roughly akin to re-examining the belief that the sun rises every morning.
Could it be that there are Republicans who have equally good hearts and minds as mine and don't eat their children for supper?
Could it be that this great divide that we feel in this country between blue and red is illusory? That we mostly care about the same things?
Could it be that instead of focussing most of our intention and resources on making more of us and less of them and focussing on winning a margin of seats or electoral votes we should be focussing on redefining the us to include all of us and doing a lot more listening than talking?
This is what I hope and pray for every day: that I will heal myself so that we might heal the country so that we might together heal the world. Still not political?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)