Here are my husband's famous ballot recommendations for how to vote in the special election in California, Tuesday, November 8th--it's pretty easy this time. Please forward them to anyone who think might need them:
From Bill:
Yes, the very existence of this election is idiotic, of benefit only to the state’s small cadre of campaign consultants, but don’t let that keep you from voting. If turnout is low, some of the idiocy might get written into law.
So, on the off chance any of you have not already voted, here are my brief thoughts:
73 – NO
Sure, it would be great if minors discussed all important life decisions with their parents, but having government require it is not going to make it happen.
74 – NO
With all the real problems in our schools, this is the best Schwarzenegger could come up with?
75 – NO
Funny how this initiative does nothing to address the ability of large corporations to spend money on politics without the consent of their shareholders, or to replace private campaign funding with public funding. It’s an obvious effort to tilt the political playing field even more toward the wealthy and big companies, and to dry up one of the only sources of political money for progressive candidates.
76 – NO, NO, NO
This is the worst measure on the ballot, a gubernatorial power grab that would make a dysfunctional budget process even worse by empowering a minority in the Legislature to stand in the way of solutions. The goal of 76 is to facilitate the erosion of needed social programs, especially for education, while making sure the rich get to keep all of their precious tax cuts. Even programs that are funded by user fees rather than taxes – like most of our clean air and water programs – could be mindlessly cut under this proposal, to satisfy a rigid formula.
77 – NO
It pains me to oppose this one, because we really need sound redistricting reform. Districts that are more competitive and representative of actual communities would benefit the public interest. Unfortunately, this proposal is badly flawed. It would draw new districts mid-decade, based on the obsolete 2000 census data, simply for blatant political advantage. New districts should be drawn every decade, right after the census, which had been the practice nationwide until Tom Delay’s criminal intervention in Texas. And having voters then decide on the new districts, at the same time as elections are being held in those new districts, is really harebrained.
78 – NO
79 – YES
These initiatives both address prescription drug prices. 78 was written by the big drug companies who are spending tens of millions of dollars to obfuscate the facts. 79 was written by consumer advocates. The key difference is that 79 would use the state’s purchasing power to keep drug prices down, while 78 relies on voluntary discounts.
80 – YES
Enron (you may remember them as “the smartest guys in the room”) and other energy companies sold our politicians on the canard that the magic of the market would bring down electricity prices. It didn’t exactly work out that way, so now a consumer group is trying to re-regulate electricity to make sure the market can never again be manipulated and the state held hostage by greedy amoral sharks. The opposition’s argument that 80 would hurt renewable energy is bogus. 80 would actually accelerate the current clean energy requirement, while allowing for future increases.
Monday, October 31, 2005
Monday, October 24, 2005
E for Treasurer
Our daughter E (almost 9) is running for Treasurer of her Elementary School Student Council. It was tough for her and her brother to work out who should run. Strategically it was decided that a 4th grader had a better shot at Treasurer than a 5th grader, so she ran and her brother N is her campaign manager.
After a week as her campaign manager, he decided to file to run against her for Treasurer. He wasn't going to tell her and asked me to sign the document authorizing his campaign. I demurred. I suggested that he think it through, "is this really how a good campaign manager behaves?" I asked.
He murmured something about Karl Rove (I am not making this up) and ran from the room.
When he returned, cooler heads prevailed. He decided to run for Secretary instead, even though at first it seemed boring, but he had heard about when I was Secretary of the student council in college and wrote really funny minutes. He thought he could write really funny minutes too. His friend E.E. could help him.
"Me and E.E. are infamous, Mom," says N.
"Don't you mean famous, N-----?" says his sister.
"No, E-----, I mean infamous. It all stemmed from the incident with the wasabi cashews," he bragged.
The wasabi cashew incident (hereinafter WCI) involved trying to pass wasabi-laden cashews (available in the fruit and nut aisle of Trader Joe's) off as sugared cashews. Apparently some of the reactions were x-treme.
Later, despite his infamy, he decides not to run for Secretary afterall. He throws himself into his sister's campaign. Actually, it might be more accurate to say that I throw myself into the campaign.
I kick into high gear:
"We gotta figure out your base, E-----; You're running against 7 candidates but how many of them have a chance?"
We carve up the numbers, map out a strategy. N---- says this guy D----- is the guy to beat. He's very popular among the 5th graders--he can pull like 50-60 votes. We figure we need 110 votes to win.
N is close with the leading candidate for President's little brother. Together, the brothers arrange a sit-down between their sisters to see if an agreement can be reached. If all goes well, E goes into Friday's election with the potential of serious coattails.
Caught in a perennial struggle for the dignified politician ("E, I don't think you realize the slogan is designed to attract other people to vote for you, it doesn't matter whether you like it.") , E rejected what she judged more frivolous sounding slogans concocted for her like "don't be mean, I'll watch your green" for the least sober slogan we could talk her into:
"EM for Treasurer: Honor, Trust...Fun!
At this point I'm paying more attention to this election than the Special Election to be held November 8th in California.
After a week as her campaign manager, he decided to file to run against her for Treasurer. He wasn't going to tell her and asked me to sign the document authorizing his campaign. I demurred. I suggested that he think it through, "is this really how a good campaign manager behaves?" I asked.
He murmured something about Karl Rove (I am not making this up) and ran from the room.
When he returned, cooler heads prevailed. He decided to run for Secretary instead, even though at first it seemed boring, but he had heard about when I was Secretary of the student council in college and wrote really funny minutes. He thought he could write really funny minutes too. His friend E.E. could help him.
"Me and E.E. are infamous, Mom," says N.
"Don't you mean famous, N-----?" says his sister.
"No, E-----, I mean infamous. It all stemmed from the incident with the wasabi cashews," he bragged.
The wasabi cashew incident (hereinafter WCI) involved trying to pass wasabi-laden cashews (available in the fruit and nut aisle of Trader Joe's) off as sugared cashews. Apparently some of the reactions were x-treme.
Later, despite his infamy, he decides not to run for Secretary afterall. He throws himself into his sister's campaign. Actually, it might be more accurate to say that I throw myself into the campaign.
I kick into high gear:
"We gotta figure out your base, E-----; You're running against 7 candidates but how many of them have a chance?"
We carve up the numbers, map out a strategy. N---- says this guy D----- is the guy to beat. He's very popular among the 5th graders--he can pull like 50-60 votes. We figure we need 110 votes to win.
N is close with the leading candidate for President's little brother. Together, the brothers arrange a sit-down between their sisters to see if an agreement can be reached. If all goes well, E goes into Friday's election with the potential of serious coattails.
Caught in a perennial struggle for the dignified politician ("E, I don't think you realize the slogan is designed to attract other people to vote for you, it doesn't matter whether you like it.") , E rejected what she judged more frivolous sounding slogans concocted for her like "don't be mean, I'll watch your green" for the least sober slogan we could talk her into:
"EM for Treasurer: Honor, Trust...Fun!
At this point I'm paying more attention to this election than the Special Election to be held November 8th in California.
Friday, October 21, 2005
The "other" Sara Nichols
The time has come to publically acknowledge the other Sara Nichols. I've never met her, but she's increasingly becoming a factor in my life by being in slightly overlapping circles, and generally more high profile than I.
I am an attorney and am politically active and progressive. The other Sara Nichols (spelled exactly the same way) is an environmental attorney and is also politically active and progressive.
For most of the time that I lived in Washington, DC this other Sara Nichols lived in Philadelphia. She ran for Congress in like 1994 as a sacrificial lamb candidate against some suburban Republican congressman (took like 38 points off him--I think it was the election where the Republicans took the House). I was in the media a lot more than I am now, and it was understandable that we would occasionally get mistaken for each other in print.
To make matters even more confusing, around the same that I moved to Sacramento, the other Sara Nichols moved to California too, Los Angeles, to be precise!
Then for a long time, nothing earthshattering, although it would occasionally come up and once my husband met her at an environmental meeting in L.A--I can't remember whether he said they talked about me, or whether he confirmed that she is aware of my existence.
But now, with me pretty much out of the limelight for a time, laying low, all of a sudden there's a spate of mix-ups.
Recent instances of Sara Nichols mix-ups:
1) At a dinner party of progressive legislators at my home, Senator Liz Figueroa (running for Lt. Governor of California) takes me aside. "I understand we have a mutual friend," she says conspiratorily. I give up, "who?" She says a woman's name. I stare at her blankly. "The fundraiser in LA?" she says. Again, I stare at her blankly. "Liz," I finally confess, "I have no idea who or what you're talking about." She sweetly explains. Long story short, it turns out that this fundraiser told her that Sara Nichols endorsed Liz's opponent, Senator Jackie Speier. And Liz was baffled and little hurt by this.
At once, the light dawns, "your fundraiser contact must mean the other Sara Nichols," I babble excitedly. "She's in LA, she's a prominent environmental lawyer, something of a sought after endorsement. It wasn't me." (I then hastened to point out how grateful I was that Figueroa even cared who I endorsed and that I would never endorse Jackie Speier over her. This is true--I think that Liz Figueroa is a fabulous public servant who really cares about the right things and I wholeheartedly do support her for Lt. Governor).
2) A candidate for Assembly in LA recently asked me to add my name to a letter vouching for her environmental credentials--I suspect that she wanted me because she had my credentials confused with those of my doppelganger.
and
3) today, probably the least interesting, but just to show you that the incidents are increasing in frequency, a LA-based statewide organization whose board I recently got appointed to recently informed me that the reason I wasn't getting key emails was that they had me confused with Sara Nichols.
I don't blame them. I have me confused with Sara Nichols too....
I am an attorney and am politically active and progressive. The other Sara Nichols (spelled exactly the same way) is an environmental attorney and is also politically active and progressive.
For most of the time that I lived in Washington, DC this other Sara Nichols lived in Philadelphia. She ran for Congress in like 1994 as a sacrificial lamb candidate against some suburban Republican congressman (took like 38 points off him--I think it was the election where the Republicans took the House). I was in the media a lot more than I am now, and it was understandable that we would occasionally get mistaken for each other in print.
To make matters even more confusing, around the same that I moved to Sacramento, the other Sara Nichols moved to California too, Los Angeles, to be precise!
Then for a long time, nothing earthshattering, although it would occasionally come up and once my husband met her at an environmental meeting in L.A--I can't remember whether he said they talked about me, or whether he confirmed that she is aware of my existence.
But now, with me pretty much out of the limelight for a time, laying low, all of a sudden there's a spate of mix-ups.
Recent instances of Sara Nichols mix-ups:
1) At a dinner party of progressive legislators at my home, Senator Liz Figueroa (running for Lt. Governor of California) takes me aside. "I understand we have a mutual friend," she says conspiratorily. I give up, "who?" She says a woman's name. I stare at her blankly. "The fundraiser in LA?" she says. Again, I stare at her blankly. "Liz," I finally confess, "I have no idea who or what you're talking about." She sweetly explains. Long story short, it turns out that this fundraiser told her that Sara Nichols endorsed Liz's opponent, Senator Jackie Speier. And Liz was baffled and little hurt by this.
At once, the light dawns, "your fundraiser contact must mean the other Sara Nichols," I babble excitedly. "She's in LA, she's a prominent environmental lawyer, something of a sought after endorsement. It wasn't me." (I then hastened to point out how grateful I was that Figueroa even cared who I endorsed and that I would never endorse Jackie Speier over her. This is true--I think that Liz Figueroa is a fabulous public servant who really cares about the right things and I wholeheartedly do support her for Lt. Governor).
2) A candidate for Assembly in LA recently asked me to add my name to a letter vouching for her environmental credentials--I suspect that she wanted me because she had my credentials confused with those of my doppelganger.
and
3) today, probably the least interesting, but just to show you that the incidents are increasing in frequency, a LA-based statewide organization whose board I recently got appointed to recently informed me that the reason I wasn't getting key emails was that they had me confused with Sara Nichols.
I don't blame them. I have me confused with Sara Nichols too....
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Good news, bad news
I'm trying to blog every single day. The result? I often will have very little to say. Some snippets. Last night I hosted an alumni function in the common house of my cohousing community. Everyone in the greater Sacramento area was invited. The RSVPs weren't to me, but to the Reed College alumni office. They were shared with me shortly before the event.
My heart leapt as I saw the name of my close friend & vital organ Harry Mersmann on the list. Wow! Harry's coming all the way from Stockton. It'll be so good to see him. I wonder why he didn't reply directly to me? Probably wants to surprise me.
Yesterday, while carefully slicing pears for the fruit & cheese tray, I learned that of all the RSVPs, one had sent their regrets that day, Harry. He would not be in attendance. I felt sad and immediately wondered if he would have come if I had contacted him upon learning of his intentions? Would he have come if he had contacted me?
Over and over I learn that we can't underestimate the value of direct communication between people (no matter what the relationship). In the hubbub (what kind of a word is hubbub? is it onomatopoetic? why does it have so many "bs"?) of middle-aged life, squeezed by family and work, whether or not we keep any optional commitments may really come down to the degree of human contact or effort used to make them. How do we most often communicate: in person, email, mail, phone, just through the alumni office or, worst of all, by blog?
My heart leapt as I saw the name of my close friend & vital organ Harry Mersmann on the list. Wow! Harry's coming all the way from Stockton. It'll be so good to see him. I wonder why he didn't reply directly to me? Probably wants to surprise me.
Yesterday, while carefully slicing pears for the fruit & cheese tray, I learned that of all the RSVPs, one had sent their regrets that day, Harry. He would not be in attendance. I felt sad and immediately wondered if he would have come if I had contacted him upon learning of his intentions? Would he have come if he had contacted me?
Over and over I learn that we can't underestimate the value of direct communication between people (no matter what the relationship). In the hubbub (what kind of a word is hubbub? is it onomatopoetic? why does it have so many "bs"?) of middle-aged life, squeezed by family and work, whether or not we keep any optional commitments may really come down to the degree of human contact or effort used to make them. How do we most often communicate: in person, email, mail, phone, just through the alumni office or, worst of all, by blog?
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Between the Right and a Hard Place
I don't know about you, but I'm loving the Bush administration squirming to have to frantically bolster Harriet Miers anti-abortion credentials, which in turn causes Democratic centrists like Feinstein to have to distance themselves from the possibility of supporting Miers.
I don't know what it all means ultimately about Miers chances at confirmation (could Bush really lose the far right on a confirmation vote?) and I'm not sure it'll result in anything good, but for now, it's quite riveting theater and no matter how you hoist it, his petard has been hooked--what is a "petard", anyway?
I don't know what it all means ultimately about Miers chances at confirmation (could Bush really lose the far right on a confirmation vote?) and I'm not sure it'll result in anything good, but for now, it's quite riveting theater and no matter how you hoist it, his petard has been hooked--what is a "petard", anyway?
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
On the New Supreme Court Judges
In all the focus, thought and obsession with Roberts and Mier, we may have missed an important point. That is, although there may be some wiggle room, some vague chance that these appointees are going to continue the razor thin support for some degree of protection of our civil liberties, there is exactly no chance that either of them is going to do anything to reign in the power of gigantic multinational corporations over individuals' lives.
Both Roberts and Mier are unequivocally, completely, avowed corporatists. By this I mean that they strongly believe (and not just in a legal sense) that corporations are people too. And that as "people," corporations have certain rights and deserve certain protections from government encroachment and regulations. Laws that protect our water and our air, laws that protect worker safety and minimum wage, laws that make it harder to make defective, poisonous, or harmful products and put them on the market, all these are at serious serious risk under the Roberts-Mier regime.
Ah, you hasten to point out, that battle was lost long ago, in 1886 in the Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad which created the legal fiction that corporations are "persons" deserving of protection from the constitution. Moreover, you add, O'Connor and Rehnquist were already avowed corporatists themselves, so what changes?
First I ask, have we reached the point in our history where we have given up on moving forward and all we can think about is not losing ground?
Secondly, what's palpable here is I think is the degree to which Roberts seems likely to make it part of his judicial philosophy to turn back the clock on these issues, and the degree to which Mier has devoted her whole life to supporting George Bush and his corporate cronies like Halliburton.
All I am saying is let's not let our civil liberties, as precious as they are, be used as a slight of hand to distract us while our collective pocket is thoroughly picked.
Both Roberts and Mier are unequivocally, completely, avowed corporatists. By this I mean that they strongly believe (and not just in a legal sense) that corporations are people too. And that as "people," corporations have certain rights and deserve certain protections from government encroachment and regulations. Laws that protect our water and our air, laws that protect worker safety and minimum wage, laws that make it harder to make defective, poisonous, or harmful products and put them on the market, all these are at serious serious risk under the Roberts-Mier regime.
Ah, you hasten to point out, that battle was lost long ago, in 1886 in the Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad which created the legal fiction that corporations are "persons" deserving of protection from the constitution. Moreover, you add, O'Connor and Rehnquist were already avowed corporatists themselves, so what changes?
First I ask, have we reached the point in our history where we have given up on moving forward and all we can think about is not losing ground?
Secondly, what's palpable here is I think is the degree to which Roberts seems likely to make it part of his judicial philosophy to turn back the clock on these issues, and the degree to which Mier has devoted her whole life to supporting George Bush and his corporate cronies like Halliburton.
All I am saying is let's not let our civil liberties, as precious as they are, be used as a slight of hand to distract us while our collective pocket is thoroughly picked.
Sunday, October 09, 2005
On the Obama Piece
I have thought a bit about the piece by Barak Obama that I posted the other day, and this is what I've come to. While I agree with much of what he says regarding the importance of respect, tone and eliminating certain kinds of rhetoric for the sake of rhetoric (note: snichols recognizes that this is something of an about face for her, but she's coming to it in her old age), and I still trust Obama's motives and heart, I think the proof is still in the pudding.
In other words, why should I fucking care what any Democratic U.S. Senator thinks about anything until they start winning some battles with their "thoughtfulness" and "room for debate?" I have recently started again reading Master of the Senate (Robert Caro's amazing 3rd biography in a series on LBJ). I had left off at page 400 out of 950 (the first 150 years of history on the U.S. Senate were sort of tough sledding) but now it reads like a page-turning thriller leading towards the amazing conclusion (I'll spoil it for you) of how LBJ, segregationist Texas Senator, uses his brilliance, his skill and above all his lust for power to overcome the power of the Old Southern Bulls and break the filibuster to pass the first significant civil rights legislation in decades.
How does he do it? He does it by creating party discipline by harnassing his party's lust for power to the forward advancement of civil rights. He does it by marrying naked political self-interest with truth and justice.
Under its sweeping lovely rhetoric (yes), Obama's statement is highly political and pragmatic but to what end? It is preaching the pragmaticism of moderation, the pragmaticism of letting politicians off the hook when they vote for corporate interests over the interests of working people, because the "average person" doesn't think that corporations are bad.
Well this may be highly pragmatic for him, but is it for us?
Okay, so not all corporations are bad, but are giant multinational corporations polluting our water and air, sending all the good jobs overseas, exploiting women and girls for pennies a day in China, and making products that kill you? Yes!
Are average people capable of grasping this? Yes!
Could good leaders play a role in helping people grasp this? Yes!
Ultimately though, Obama needs to just chill. He's an insider now and it's their job to make tough decisions and it's our job to let 'em have it when they make the wrong ones. And no, by being a generally good guy you don't deserve an occasional pass when you do the wrong thing--the wrong thing is the wrong thing and you deserve to have it pointed out to you. Every liberal politician I've ever known has hated it when they get called on the carpet for doing the wrong thing.
"I'm on your side," they whine. "You need me in here," they continue. "I have to do certain things to stay where I am," they conclude.
All this may be true, and we would be wise to think twice about how public our attacks are on generally good senators like Leahy or Feingold or Obama (or hey, my own homey Barbara Boxer, who failed to urge Schwarzenegger to sign the Gay Marriage bill, I'm told), but let's keep letting 'em know what's right and what's wrong. And let's not be shy about it.
I've been saying it for years and I'll say it again, an admonition to all of us activist/advocates: It's not up to us to make the tough choices, it's up to us to make the choices tough.
In other words, why should I fucking care what any Democratic U.S. Senator thinks about anything until they start winning some battles with their "thoughtfulness" and "room for debate?" I have recently started again reading Master of the Senate (Robert Caro's amazing 3rd biography in a series on LBJ). I had left off at page 400 out of 950 (the first 150 years of history on the U.S. Senate were sort of tough sledding) but now it reads like a page-turning thriller leading towards the amazing conclusion (I'll spoil it for you) of how LBJ, segregationist Texas Senator, uses his brilliance, his skill and above all his lust for power to overcome the power of the Old Southern Bulls and break the filibuster to pass the first significant civil rights legislation in decades.
How does he do it? He does it by creating party discipline by harnassing his party's lust for power to the forward advancement of civil rights. He does it by marrying naked political self-interest with truth and justice.
Under its sweeping lovely rhetoric (yes), Obama's statement is highly political and pragmatic but to what end? It is preaching the pragmaticism of moderation, the pragmaticism of letting politicians off the hook when they vote for corporate interests over the interests of working people, because the "average person" doesn't think that corporations are bad.
Well this may be highly pragmatic for him, but is it for us?
Okay, so not all corporations are bad, but are giant multinational corporations polluting our water and air, sending all the good jobs overseas, exploiting women and girls for pennies a day in China, and making products that kill you? Yes!
Are average people capable of grasping this? Yes!
Could good leaders play a role in helping people grasp this? Yes!
Ultimately though, Obama needs to just chill. He's an insider now and it's their job to make tough decisions and it's our job to let 'em have it when they make the wrong ones. And no, by being a generally good guy you don't deserve an occasional pass when you do the wrong thing--the wrong thing is the wrong thing and you deserve to have it pointed out to you. Every liberal politician I've ever known has hated it when they get called on the carpet for doing the wrong thing.
"I'm on your side," they whine. "You need me in here," they continue. "I have to do certain things to stay where I am," they conclude.
All this may be true, and we would be wise to think twice about how public our attacks are on generally good senators like Leahy or Feingold or Obama (or hey, my own homey Barbara Boxer, who failed to urge Schwarzenegger to sign the Gay Marriage bill, I'm told), but let's keep letting 'em know what's right and what's wrong. And let's not be shy about it.
I've been saying it for years and I'll say it again, an admonition to all of us activist/advocates: It's not up to us to make the tough choices, it's up to us to make the choices tough.
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Read this Posting By Barak Obama
My friend Vince Marchand called to my attention this fascinating post on The Daily Kos by Senator Barak Obama regarding the need for progressives to be more thoughtful and respectful. It's worth reading. I think I agree with much of it, even though it contradicts some of my favorite ongoing political rants.
Please read it and let me know what you think..
Please read it and let me know what you think..
Monday, October 03, 2005
Read my column in Rudolf's Diner
George Bush is to be forgiven Katrina. Not only in the long run by his Savior Jesus Christ and his other largest contributors but now, by us--for what we did to cause it, for our share of the blame...
Are you terrified? Read more, or less, by going to my monthly column Eye on the Pie in this issue of the fabulous on-line magazine Rudolf's Diner. Also not to be missed is a review of the Hurricane Katrina music tributes, The Winds Have Changed by my own Bill Magavern or the disturbing and hilarious humor of Mateo Burtch's Big Blue Ball. Give a listen to Kitchen Sing, I mean Sink by Evan Nichols, aka Uncle Rudolf and see some pictures of hands that I suspect contain similar DNA to mine.
I did my first triathlon yesterday (1/2 mile swim, 16 mile bike, 3 mile run--since you ask). My body is beginning to recover so I'm going to blog again. Blog for all I'm worth.
Are you terrified? Read more, or less, by going to my monthly column Eye on the Pie in this issue of the fabulous on-line magazine Rudolf's Diner. Also not to be missed is a review of the Hurricane Katrina music tributes, The Winds Have Changed by my own Bill Magavern or the disturbing and hilarious humor of Mateo Burtch's Big Blue Ball. Give a listen to Kitchen Sing, I mean Sink by Evan Nichols, aka Uncle Rudolf and see some pictures of hands that I suspect contain similar DNA to mine.
I did my first triathlon yesterday (1/2 mile swim, 16 mile bike, 3 mile run--since you ask). My body is beginning to recover so I'm going to blog again. Blog for all I'm worth.
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
Why I haven't been posting
Hi. Many of you have inquired as to why I haven't posted for many months. The answer is that I have been, and still am, in significant pain in my right shoulder and arm such that using a mouse consistently has been hard. Of course, I've also been out of town something like 5 out of the last 7 weeks. So I'm back and I'm a little better. I have lots to say of course--my God, there's so much going on.
A couple of thoughts on the biggest events of the day:
1) While it can't act quickly enough to save lives or provide humanitarian aid to its own citizens, the Bush administration seems plenty efficient when it comes to making sure that there are companies at the ready to financially profit off of this disaster and can quickly cut through red tape when it's necessary as long as the "red tape" happens to be environmental or labor standards.
2) As my husband put it, the best we can hope for with soon-to-be Chief Justice Roberts is that he is more of an east coast establishment type than he is a far right idealogue. Either way, he'll be a solid corporatist with all of its attendant problems for the environment and consumers, but if he's east coast establishment there's at least some chance that he's got a (secret) social libertarian streak or some consistent form of fiscal conservatism.
A couple of thoughts on the biggest events of the day:
1) While it can't act quickly enough to save lives or provide humanitarian aid to its own citizens, the Bush administration seems plenty efficient when it comes to making sure that there are companies at the ready to financially profit off of this disaster and can quickly cut through red tape when it's necessary as long as the "red tape" happens to be environmental or labor standards.
2) As my husband put it, the best we can hope for with soon-to-be Chief Justice Roberts is that he is more of an east coast establishment type than he is a far right idealogue. Either way, he'll be a solid corporatist with all of its attendant problems for the environment and consumers, but if he's east coast establishment there's at least some chance that he's got a (secret) social libertarian streak or some consistent form of fiscal conservatism.
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Two Snouts Up for War of The Worlds
(:)(:) out of a possible 5 snouts (I've changed my rating system) for War of the Worlds directed by Steven Spielberg, in theaters now.
Bill tells me that there are people who liked this movie. I find it hard to believe. I mean, I guess it held my interest and the apocalyptic hellscape was visually arresting and everything but other than that...
It was a good date film though because most of the time Bill and I spent rolling our eyes and snickering to each other sarcastically like:
"oh right, like he's got the only van in the world that drives when all energy sources cease;" or
"outer space invasions are great teaching moments for noncustodial parents;" or
"honey, if you were trapped in a basement with Tim Robbins and our 8 year old daughter, would you kill Tim Robbins if you had to?" (Bill's answer btw was: it would depend how close by Susan Sarandon was and what she was wearing; which I considered nonresponsive)
So see it, by all means see it, and send me your sarcastic comments. We had more such comments, but we wouldn't want to "spoil" the experience for you with them.
Like, I'm sure all of us would like to know, does every good apocalypse have a silver lining?
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?
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)