2 Snouts Up for "You Kill Me"

(:)(:) for You Kill Me, directed by John Dahl (Red Rock West) and starring Ben Kingsley and Tea Leoni in theaters everywhere. First of all, haven't we had enough of the hit-man with a heart of gold genre? I know I have. I love The Sopranos tv series as much as, probably more than, the next guy, but it's got to stop.

Under no circumstances let your wanton love of the genre, or even, as in our case, your love of Buffalo and 12-step groups, to lead you to break down and see this absolute dog of a film. Nothing about this movie which centers on a "Buffalo" hit-man forced to move to San Franciso to enter a "12-step program" and meets a "girlfriend" works on any level.

The quotes above are used advisedly. I will address them in turn. First "Buffalo." I married a Buffalo boy, went to law school and lived here for 3 years. I'm in Buffalo now. The movie was filmed in Winnipeg where they managed to find a house and some snow that look like Buffalo. Ben Kingsley, however, is not even vaguely believable as a member of a tiny Buffalo "Polish" mafia. He doesn't look or sound Polish or Buffalo in any way. Nor do the other actors in the Polish gang. They don't even sound midwestern, or Great Lake-ish broadly defined. There is no sense of place created by any of the other unrealistic, sometimes downright Canadian-looking, outside shots.

Secondly, "12-step program." Traditions of anonymity prevent me from sharing all the reasons that I know this, but let's just say no 12-step program worth its salt would rally to help a man who kills people for a living stop drinking so that he can kill people better. Theoretically, it's a funny premise, but it works on NO level. My husband has never set foot in a 12-step meeting and found it ludicrous and stupid.

Thirdly, "girlfriend." It simply stretches credibility to the breaking point to assume that gorgeous (if thin) Tea Leoni, playing a successful television ad exec in San Francisco, would be so desperately lonely (because all men are gay) that she is reduced to dating a self-proclaimed drunken hit man who works part-time in a funeral home. There is no chemistry between them and while Leoni gamely makes the most of her lines and seems to have fun with this irredeemable script, nothing can rise above the basic idiocy of the plot.

If you're desperate for movies about hit men, watch Gross Pointe Blank (1997) starring John Cusack and Minnie Driver, directed by George Armitage, which was fresh and funny, despite its hellish premise. Or I give you permission to watch the over-rated and predictable, yet entertaining alternative, Analyze This (1999) starring Billy Crystal and Robert DeNiro directed by Harold Ramis which at least works on its own terms.

Four Snouts Up for You Tube--CNN Presidential Debate

(:)(:)(:)(:)for the You Tube--CNN Democratic Presidential debate last night broadcast on CNN. I found this a very refreshing and sometimes disarming debate to watch. Anderson Cooper did a surprisingly good job of moving through the new format where the Democratic presidential candidates responded to crudely produced You Tube video questions (displayed on individual computer screens in front of each candidate along with a small subscreen for the television audience--presumably the quality was too low to blow them up to full screen size).

What made the debate disarming was the candor of the questions. I'd judge that at least 50 percent of them were questions I simply would not want to field as a front runner--and only a few were out and out softballs. For example, a question directed to Hillary: how do you justify the possibility of two families (Bush and Clinton) dominating the white house for 28 consecutive years? Another: would you work for the minimum wage if that's what the presidency paid?

Some were cute but policy-oriented, a snowman asks "how will you address global warming so that my son can live out a normal life?" Others quite odd, two "good old boys" commenting on the speculation about Al Gore getting into the race. Wondering, "does that hurt y'all's feelings?"

This was actually the first debate I've watched this year. I thought that Edwards comported himself extremely well, with bold decisive answers on health care, nuclear energy and other issues. He seemed to genuinely enjoy the format and the questions and took it all with good humor. Frontrunners Obama and Clinton had a lot more to lose.

All this talk about Obama being a progressive seemed ludicrous to me after watching this debate. Obama seemed visibly uncomfortable to me. As far as I'm concerned he waffled on everything from health care to nuclear power to putting his kids in private school.

Hillary put decades of waffling experience to use, waffling much better than Obama and coming off like the pro she is. She didn't make me want her to be President, just more fearful that we might have to contend with her as the nominee.

Of the lesser candidates, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden were all pretty impressive. Dodd especially good on the environment. Richardson was passionate on covering undocumented workers for health care, clearly campaigning for the latino vote. Biden was excellent on the war and wierd but effective on gun control. Kucinich was sweet with his comb-over and ernest face.

Garcia vs. Parra--How Republicans Don't Serve Their Constituents II

And another thing about Republicans in the California legislature, they don't vote their district, even when they win a tough election. They cow tow to a minority of the party instead of their constituents. Case in point Bonnie Garcia (R-Palm Springs). In 2004 she picks off a Democratically leaning Assembly district in a squeaker of an election. You'd think she'd be watching her back, voting somewhere near the middle, giving her constituents what they think they'd be getting from a latina legislator.

Well, in her first term, she might have given the Democrats like two tough votes (maybe she was one of the budget votes). Those two votes, coupled with telling the public that she wouldn't kick the Guvernator out of bed, got her labled a "moderate" from the press.

But the rest of the time, she's right there with the Republican pac(k): anti-
environment, anti-consumer, anti-working family, right down the line. She rides this "moderate" label into an easy victory for a second term. Now, the budget is late and she's showing no signs of moderation.

Contrast this to Nicole Parra (D-Bakersfield)who campaigned as a progressive in a hotly contested Democratic primary in 2002, won the general election by a coupla hundred votes and then proceeded to become a "50 percent vote"--meaning she votes the right way 50% of the time. The other half of the time she's voting like a Republican (see above).

Why is that Republicans are called moderate just for flirting with the Governor and the Budget and Democrats actually worry about watching their back with constituents?

My guess is that the answer is a combination of corporate money and lazy media. The media is complicit in this, never pointing out that Republicans routinely vote against the interests of average people. And many legislators want an excuse to sell out to big corporations which means for tow the Republican line, or move over to it.

Three and a Half Snouts Up for "the Golden Door" at the Crest Theater

(:)(:)(:)(;) for The Golden Door directed by Emanuele Crieslese in Italian, now showing at the marvelous Crest Theater in downtown Sacramento (and probably at a theater near you). This film makes captivating cinematic choices as it centers on a fascinating subject: a turn-of-the-last-century Sicilian family's long travel to the new world (indeed the original Italian movie title is Nuovomondo).

I loved the verisimilitude (which, btw, Stephen Colbert, is the original "truthiness" there was no need for you to coin a new word), the faces, the guttural Italian, the eccentricities of the voyage. I was fascinated by the entry process at Ellis Island.

My single favorite moment in the movie is when the men are settling into their bunks on the ship and our Sicilian protagonist observes that it is weird to be surrounded by "foreigners." His bunk neighbor explains that they are all Italian. The concept of a national identity as Italian seems completely new to him. My guess is that this is extremely realistic and a fascinating change of identity that occurred as a result of large-scale immigration.

In the end though, there was too much unspoken, too many unconnected threads for me to be completely wrapped up in the story. At times I felt like I was watching a movie at an immigration museum, instead of a feature film. True, the surreal segments depicting an immigrant's idea of the boundless wealth of America were far from museum-fare, but I also felt pretty distant from them.

I suspect that fans of the more ponderous abstract European films would find more than enough plot and character development to go around. I didn't ... quite. Still, I highly recommend seeing the film if only because of the subject matter.

Why Ain't Schwarzenegger Got No Environmental Coattails in his Party?

Despite lots of lip service and some actual action from the titular head of the party, Republicans in the California Legislature continue to vote in lock-step against pro-environment measures. Leading me to wonder, why doesn't Schwarzenegger have any followers in his own party?

Two recent examples of Republican legislative insanity:

1) in the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee last week, amidst a huge scandal at the state Air Resources Board, Committee member Senator Tom Harman (R-Costa Mesa) praised AB 233 by Assemblymember Dave Jones which would require the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to develop and adopt a comprehensive plan for the enforcement of ARB's diesel emission control regulations and increase penalties for violations of idling restrictions. He made a lengthy statement about the need for these improvements and for cleaner air. He then proceeded to vote "No" on the measure. Fortunately there were enough Democrats on the committee to pass the measure without his vote.

2) Assemblyman Cameron Smyth (R-Glendale) whose official bio brags that he is "the Vice Chair of the important Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee" routinely praises pro-environmental legislation that comes before the committee. He talks openly about the need for protecting the environment and then he proceeds to vote "no" or "stay off" the same legislation. "Stay off" is Capitol-speak for failing to vote, the effect of which is the same as a no vote on the legislation whether in committee or on the floor.

Having lived in the northeast part of this country for a time, I have compassion for the assemblymember. Mr. Cameron Smyth, dear, I wish to inform you that there are parts of New York state in which you can play tennis, drink cocktails at the club, and vote for the environment to your hearts' content all the while retaining your safe Republican assembly seat (note: you must continue to rail against public employee unions no matter what).

But as to Mr. Harman and the rest of the California Republicans: take a freakin' clue, people! Your constituents want to breath clean air, drink clean water and have their children play on non toxic play equipment. Some of them may even want to see an animal or tree once in a while, to shoot it if nothing else. You're term limited. You'll be out of a job soon. You have hardly a prayer of getting elected statewide with your voting record on the environment (to say nothing of health care). Why not grab the political cover of your party's only popular and dynamic figure and watch his back in the legislature then ride it to victory statewide?

And, Ah-nold? Why not back a slate of pro-environment candidates against these jokers in the next primary? They do nothing for you!

SF's De Young Museum and Green's Restaurant on the Luckiest Day of the Year

(:)(:)(:)(:) for Golden Gate Park's newly refurbished De Young Museum. Gorgeous building, eclectic but huge collection. Admission is expensive, spring for the audio tour and plan to stay a while. Don't miss the Bay Area Beat room or the post abstract modernists or whatever they're called. Also very powerful is a piece comprised entirely of the charred remains of one of the Southern Black Baptist churches that were fire-bombed. Take a trip to the top of the tower for a spectacular view of the city.

(:)(:)(:) for a forgettable meal at Green's Restaurant. At $48 prix fixe menu, this famous vegetarian restaurant delivered not one memorable dish (and we tasted virtually everything on the menu. However the atmosphere and the setting (right on the water at sunset in the Marina, reconditioned army barracks) are unforgettable. Outside our window as we were seated, "hello, I'm Tom, I'll be your blue heron this evening."

The company, conversation, wine and food were all tasty and enjoyable too.

Three Snouts up for Frisco Institution--"Beach Blanket Babylon"

(:)(:)(:) for "Steve Silver's Beach Blanket Babylon" at Club Fugazi in San Francisco's North Beach. The best part about this play is eating at Il Pollaio, a North Beach long time hole-in-the-wall around the corner from the play at 555 Columbus Avenue (near the corner of Green) which I give four snouts (it would need atmosphere to get another snout). Il Pollaio has an unforgettable eggplant salad with an amazing amount of garlic (imperative to share it with your date if you want to get laid that night), spectacular sour dough bread, crispy perfect roast chickens and fresh lovely salads (also a gorgeous waiter). Our meal for two came to $32 including tip with wine.

The play on the other hand, is notable only for its institution-ness, gigantic headdresses (the Tina Turner hair must have been 8 feet high) and some outstanding vocal talent. Otherwise, it's strictly pitched at mainstream American tourists, nothing that wouldn't get put on CBS primetime. I also surprisingly found it vaguely homophobic and overtly racist (Bill says it wasn't homophobic, just run of the mill gay jokes, references to Gavin Newsome-style weddings, Brokeback Mountain and King Louis being gay because he wears pink all were HILARIOUS, gag).

Some of the political humor was funny though--we liked the designated hot bod girl as Nancy Pelosi singing Leader of the Pack in all leather on a motorcycle backed up by Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein (who was, I confess, a man in drag). Also liked an Elvis-style Bill Clinton with massive hair getting in the way of Hillary's election by flirting with every woman in sight (I forget what they sang).

For some reason seeing this play reminds me of my friend Abe Opincar's take on the city, "San Francisco is full of Americans pretending they're in Europe and Europeans pretending they're in America."

This play has an audience full of mid-western and central valley-ites (California's midwest) pretending they're in San Francisco.

A health care advocate's take on Sicko

(:)(:)(:)(:) for Sicko directed by Michael Moore now playing in theaters everywhere (I hope). Even though Ralph and Mike are at odds, I consider this another great Nader date movie--Bill and I and the two or three other couples who both worked for Ralph Nader are so blessed to have this genre.

We loved this film. I laughed, mostly I cried, and I walked out with a renewed sense of how much of a crucial difference in real people's lives it would make to have national health insurance.

As someone who spent a decade working for almost every major organization in the country that fights for universal health care, I expected to agree with this film; I didn't expect to learn much.

I was wrong on both counts. I didn't agree with all the film-maker's choices and I learned a few things. If Michael Moore's goal was to make a film which could convince mainstream audiences that they'd be better off under national health insurance, he could have shown a little more restraint. In France he should have stopped short of showing us the amazing state-funded childcare and laundry services and in Cuba, he should have simply pointed out that a poor nation like that can afford good health care. By setting up a totalitarian society as an example, he risks undermining his whole point: we can do this here in America, national health insurance is compatible with a capitalist democratic system.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not the target audience here. My resume reads like that of a socialist girl scout. From 1992 to 2002 I worked as an advocate for single payer health care for Public Citizen, Physicians for a National Health Program, Neighbor to Neighbor and the California Nurses Association.

My father was an activist college professor who marched for Democratic Socialists of America. He used to say a socialist "is a communist with 3 children." At age 12, I stood in Balboa Park for hours collecting data for a study I was doing about people's views on publicly-funded programs.

What I learned that day was later confirmed as a health care advocate, most Americans still think they hate Socialism and government-run anything, even while they depend upon the fire department, library, post office and schools. I have even heard people in focus groups say, I kid you not, "let the government keep its hands off of my Medicare."

In other words, Americans want national health insurance...without the government.

What I learned in this movie was that I carry a buried pain in me from living in a society that has been duped by doctors and HMOs into not taking care of its own.

With health care reform likely to fall apart on the California legislature's watch yet again, and a compromised Hilary Clinton a leading contender for U.S. President, what Moore most accomplished for me is to revive a latent dream of mine to move to Paris and become a deliriously happy ex-pat.

See the film, and join me on the Left Bank.

A bientot, enjoy the Fourth of July!

Three and a Half Snouts Up for Evan Almighty

(:)(:)(:)(: for Evan Almighty directed by Tom Shadyac, starring Steve Carell playing in theaters now. I loved this movie, yet I give it only 3 1/2 snouts out of a possible five. Why? Because I can tell that not everyone is the target demographic: people who used to live in Buffalo and DC and focus on politics who now focus on God--in other words, me.

Other critics have panned it as being too expensive to make, not funny enough and too didactic. I found it charming, disarming, thought-provoking, hilarious and fun and I don't know or care how much it cost to make. It cost me $6.50 to see at a matinee.

I think it helps if you go to the film thinking you're seeing a spiritual film, rather than a comedy. For a spiritual film it is side-splittingly funny. For a comedy, it's disturbingly spiritual. This is also a perfect family film--kids will enjoy the animals, Steve Carell's weird beard and the wild boat ride. My kids will like the environmental message.

And everyone's got to like Morgan Freeman as God--as far as I'm concerned, Morgan Freeman is God.

Health care quagmire screams for public financing of elections

Here's that Cliff's Notes version of an old joke: a U.S. Senator spends his whole life fighting for single-payer (Medicare for all) health care. He loses a lot of battles. Towards the end of his life, people ask the Senator, "will the U.S. ever have single payer health care?" The Senator says, "yes, but not in my lifetime."

The Senator dies, goes to heaven and gets a special audience with God. He only has one question, "God, will the U.S. ever have a single payer health care system?" God yes, "yes. But not in my lifetime."

I've been working for universal health care reform since 1993-94 when I fought for it at Public Citizen in Washington DC at the height of the Clinton reform effort. The past few years I do it by working to pass public financing of elections.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that the folks in Sacramento like Senator Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica), Senator Don Perata (D-Oakland) and consumer groups are giving it another try. But despite Schwarznegger's stated intentions and leadership on the issue, and the crying public need, it still seems that there's very little that can be done as long as health care controls a huge percentage of the Gross Domestic Product and the interests that are benefiting from the current system disproportionately fund campaigns.

That's why I like AB 583 by Loni Hancock, a bill which creates a pilot project for public financing of elections for the Governor's race as well as one assembly and one senate seat. The bill has passed the Assembly and is in the Senate Elections Committee where it died last legislative term despite Senate Pro Tem leader Don Perata's promise that it wouldn't.

This year Senator Perata is a co-author of the reform legislation. If he wants to eventually get universal health care, I think it's essential that California start moving seriously in the direction of public financing of elections. AB 583 is a good way to start.

Public Outcry: "Garamendi, Name the Smelt!"

Delta--With the number of smelt in the California Delta dwindling daily, the public is an uproar calling for Lt. Governor John Garamendi to name the remaining smelt.

"Let's get real," said Gloria Gussmacher, a petite resident of the Delta region, "while the rest of the state government seems powerless to stop the daily smelt slaughter, there is one man who can help--Lt. Governor John Garamendi. Please Mr. Garamendi, these smelt are going to their deaths nameless and afraid. Please Mr. Garamendi, name the smelt!"

The Lt. Governor has already established clear naming jurisdiction over whales who have made their way within the Delta region. Recently he made headlines by naming a mother and calf "Delta and Dawn" as they explored the Sacramento River.

But does the Lt. Governor have the authority to name anything but sea mammals? And who is looking into the problem?

"Frankly, I'm upset. The Lt. Governor keeps holding these press conferences and workshops to discuss what happened with the whales. But they already have names!!! Meanwhile the smelt are dying daily, and we have no idea what to put on their graves," said 10 year old Emily Stevens, an avid smelt watcher.

Others have suggested that the Lt. Governor could spare 3 or 4 members of his staff to at least research whether he has the authority to name tiny fish.

And some have gone straight to a solution. Apparently there are only about 2 fish left, the popular and obvious choice for their names seems to be "Smelta and Spawn."

But will the Lt. Governor leap into action? Or will he remain focussed on the animals he has already named? Stay tuned.

I love you, Chuck Calderon

I'm here to impart some shocking news. After 15 years of examining Congressmen and California state legislators at close range, I've determined that they are human beings. In fact, I think a mistake that many public interest advocates make (and lord knows I was one of 'em) is forgetting the degree to which they are dealing with human beings not some sort of super race, or robot version of ourselves, but ourselves.

Like people, legislators breathe, eat, sleep, have dysfunctional upbringings, and experience a full range of human emotions.

We tend to remember that they lust for power, praise and money and that they respond to pressure from constituents out of fear for their political future. But we tend to forget that most basic human desire, the need for love and understanding and compassion. The need to belong. The need to be okay with themselves and their own core values. And yes, they all have core values, even if they don't seem to be driven by them.

I am mindful of a story about Martin Luther King Jr. prior to his first face to face meeting with Attorney General Bobby Kennedy. As he prepared for the meeting with his closest advisors and allies, they talked trash on Bobby--he was white, he was Catholic, he was never going to understand, the administration would never help--they despaired of getting through to him.

King said something to the effect of "no, we can't go into this meeting with any of that in our minds. We have to love this man as we love ourselves. We are not going to anything else to prepare for this meeting but pray for the love and understanding of this man." And so they did. They prayed and focussed on love of Bobby Kennedy for several days prior to the meeting. And when they went in, they made history.

Too often here in Sacramento, I've been a party to preparation for meetings where we have the idea that the legislator we're talking to is a lost cause, an asshole, a coward, a sell-out. I doubt it would go over well if I asked us to hold Chuck Calderon in love, for example (a California Democrat whose voting and legacy has been a constant challenge to liberals).

But I have noticed that even a Chuck Calderon wants to think of himself as a good guy. Even a Chuck Calderon wants to believe that he does what he does for the benefit of all. He tells himself that siding with a business interest against a consumer group thereby killing bills that would advance the rights of working people is seeking "balance" or protecting jobs. He has a strong rationale for all he does.

Who among us has not rationalized harmful behavior? I know I have. I have hurt people I loved and come up with a way that it is okay. Ultimately it is this weakness, this humanity that binds us together, not our strength, or show of force. Ultimately, I can't help but think that love is the missing ingredient in public policy.

I love you, Chuck Calderon, for you are me.

Craig's List is God

I have determined that's Craig's List is God--not figuratively, and not in the sense that we're all, like, God, but, literally, Craig's List is God.

Craig's List has all the qualities of God:

It is ever present, all-knowing, all powerful.
It is free most places.
It is a consistent loving presence.
It is all-sufficiency--meaning it fulfills all your needs.
It always says yes.
The more specific you are, the more you know about what you want, the more quickly and particularly Craig's List fulfills your deepest desires.

What am I talking about?

It's this: there are always lots of ads on Craig's List for everything under the sun. As in all things, if you don't rely on what you perceive 'out there' to determine what you get, you can be disappointed. Hence, if you simply browse on Craig's List kind of looking at want ads, looking at furniture ads, looking at housing swaps, hoping that something may catch your eye, you will find things. Just as you will see things outside of you in the world that you desire all the time.

If you email the people who put up those ads, you may be the one that gets to buy it, live in it, work for it or own it, but you may not. It's hit and miss, a crap shoot--sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

On the other hand, instead of looking outside yourself to see if someone has what you vaguely want, how about you look inside yourself. Figure out what it is that you want with a great deal of specificity, and place a free ad on Craig's List--voila!

Now it's a different story--in Craig's world, the advertiser always wins. The people answering your ad are now in a crap shoot--but you're lucky every time.

An example: I wanted to find a cheap apartment to rent in Manhattan for a few nights--a real place that someone lived, not a hotel. There were two adults and 4 kids among us. Most of the apartments were too small or fancy. Everything suitable turned me down. So I placed an ad, "two law professor moms seek any manhattan abode big enough for 1 10 year old, 2 8 year olds and a two year old from August 1 to August 10, will pay up to $100 a night." Within hours, I get all kinds others-- one of them is perfect, we stayed there and all was well.

This has happened over and over again for me on Craig's List. Recently I came to the realization that this is exactly how God works. If I am clear about what I want and place my free ad with audacious specificity--God comes through, lickity spit. It's when I'm vague and "shopping" for happiness, that I falter.

How good it is to know that Craig's List is God.

Elizabeth Edwards is Inspiring

You need to watch Elizabeth Edwards' inspiring speech captured by the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights at their recent annual "Rage for Justice" Awards Dinner.

I believe her when she says that she and John Edwards are running for President because they want to speak out against the current policies. She speaks from her heart but with a depth and specificity that we rarely hear from mainstream candidates (or their wives).

It is imperative that we begin to work for a progressive viable Democratic candidate who has actual conviction and the courage of those convictions. I think John Edwards may just be that candidate.

Listen and tell me what you think.

4 Snouts Up for The House of the Scorpion

(:)(:)(:)(:) for The House of the Scorpion by Nancy Farmer. This is the best "children's" book I have read in years. Anyone who likes good fiction should read it.

Written from the perspective of a brilliant, inquisitive growing boy who is painfully (and uniquely--from our perspective) different from other children, the book beautifully examines the many forks in the road of human moral development. Each painful experience we have (and he has many) shapes us and gives us an opportunity to choose compassion, love and redemption, or to choose bitterness, isolation and hatred as a matter of survival. Sometimes we start down one fork, only to cross over to the other.

This perfect coming of age story is set in a compelling yet subtly revealed back-drop of a futuristic North America that plays out one set of disturbing consequences to the current environmental, trade, immigration and labor practices.

Although the cover boasts a Newberry Award and other accolades, none of the blurbs on the back really do the book justice, perhaps because they are pitched to the target market: people buying books for 13 year olds. The target market should indeed buy this book, but so should everyone else.

Mark Leno Ends the Suspense on Clean Money

Having written before how the Assembly Appropriations Committee was keeping me in suspense, I am remiss in not stating precisely that Assemblymember Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), chair of the Assembly Appropriations Committee, ended the suspense last week by bringing a streamlined, pilot project of public financing out of committee. AB 583 by Loni Hancock, as I reported yesterday, will go to the floor of the California Assembly today for a vote.

This is significant not only because it will be the first floor vote in California on a real clean money bill, but because of what it says about Mark Leno.

As Chair of Assembly Appropriations Committee, Leno is in a position to (and indeed is expected to) raise a lot of money from special interest groups. Last week, he was appropriately taken to task for holding a fundraiser the night before his committee's biggest hearing of the year so far--the one where they decide which major bills live or die.

Believe it or not, holding it the night before was actually an improvement over the practice of former Assembly Appropriations Chair (now Senator) Carole Migden (also D-San Francisco) (against whom Leno is running for State Senate). At least one year, I can remember Migden breaking for lunch in the middle of huge Appropriations hearing, announcing that she hoped to "see us all across the street at a little event"--her big fundraiser. After the event, she moved the business of the committee to the most important issues.

Either way, fundraising of powerful committee chairs right before or during a huge hearing is distasteful at best and unethical at worst. If memory serves, another former Assembly Appropriations Chair Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) declined to hold "events" (insider speak for fundraisers) anywhere close to the hearings he would run--a better choice.

Still, in moving AB 583, a bill which would benefit no well-heeled special interest and only the people of California, out of Assembly Appropriations Committee, Leno paves the way for a new era of politics in California. He is to be applauded for his leadership and courage.

Clean Money to Assembly Floor

SACRAMENTO - Last Thursday, an amended version of the Clean Money and Fair Elections Act of 2007 (AB 583) was voted out of the Assembly Appropriations Committee by a vote of 12 to 5. The bill now moves on for a vote of the full Assembly, most likely on Wednesday. If enacted, the amended version of AB 583 (Hancock, D-East Bay) would create voluntary, fully-funded public financing for the 2010 Governor's race, one open Assembly seat, and one open Senate seat.

In its amended form, AB 583 will serve as a pilot program and allow California voters and candidates to see how a Clean Money system would actually work in California. "We applaud Appropriations Chair Mark Leno and Assemblymember Hancock for adopting this creative answer to the question of whether a system which works so well in Arizona and Maine can be properly scaled for California. We know that it can, and we are excited about the possibility of testing the system on the offices which the public feels are primary magnets for outsized campaign contributions. AB 583 will help restore faith in California's government," said Susan Lerner, Executive Director of the California Clean Money Campaign.

Clean Money systems have been adopted across the country; Arizona and Maine started public-financing state elections 7 years ago, Connecticut's legislature passed a Clean Money bill last year, North Carolina provides public financing for judicial races, and New Mexico just instituted a similar system for its judicial elections. New Mexico also established a pilot Clean Money program for elections for its Public Regulations Commission, while New Jersey has a pilot program for public financing of three legislative districts.

Speaking after the Committee vote, Assemblymember Hancock said, "AB 583 is an effective way for the public to test how well the full public funding of campaigns system runs. AB 583 will go a long way to restoring faith in our campaign financing system."

Hillary Nightmare Starting to Come True

It's happening, people. Hillary Clinton is scooping up prime endorsements and fattening her campaign account at an alarming rate. It's starting to look possible, even probable, that she will win the Democratic nomination (hence lose Democrats the White House).

But, Sara, hold on, you say. Remember Howard Dean whose victory was "all but assured" in November of 2003, how can you say anything in June of 2007? Answer: I can't. And believe me, I'm hoping for the front-runner mantle to eventually smother her. I have a sneaking suspicion that the Hollywood stars, politicians and union leaders that Billary is able to snooker into endorsing her cannot deliver the average Democratic voter to Clinton in the primary.

Aside from a giddy group of professional women who go verklempt at the idea of someone in the White House who has been at the business end of a tampon, most Democratic voters, whether they like Hillary or not, intuitively get that she's just the person to lose us the White House.

Don't get me wrong, I don't absolutely hate her. There are things I admire about her and she's obviously got some real strengths as a candidate and a campaigner. The problem is, as I've stated over and over, a poor combination of factors:

1) She voted for the war. In an election that will be decided on the basis of the war, how can we rally around her? How can she distinguish herself from a Republican who wasn't in Congress? (like Guiliani?)

2) She is the poster child for all the Christian right hates: the "feminazi" who is out to force your daughter to have an abortion, wear a business suit and marry a man named Gloria. Hillary Clinton as top of the ticket could energize and motivate an otherwise dispirited band of conservatives to prevent the "Hollywood elite" from re-taking our country.

3) She's not a "feminazi" -- she's a pragmatic centrist who as far as I can tell has no closely held beliefs other than it's better to be in power than out of power. So if she's the Democratic candidate and we want to forestall four more years of Republicanism, we're forced to rally around and cheer for someone who may or may not stop the war and protect our civil liberties and most assuredly will not stop the encroachment of big corporate control of our government--paving the way for the 2008 summer blockbuster, "Ralph Nader III: Curse of the Toxic Tomato."

In short, I'd urge us all not to leave this completely to chance. I think we should begin looking very closely at Edwards and Obama (and, no, sorry to my real lefty friends, not Dennis Kucinich--although we may agree with all he says, he's not viable and that's that) and start giving them some early time and money.

I still don't know where to come down between Barak and Edwards. I'm going to read Dreams from my Father by Obama, which I have heard is great. Keep me posted on what you hear and what you think.

I'm Grateful for Bill Magavern reducing Diesel Emissions

Every day I start my day making a list of 10 things for which I am grateful (well, truth be told, the first thing I have to be grateful for is that I often start my day cuddling with a sleepy 10 year old girl and prodding her gently to get on with her day).

I do this because it makes me have a better day. It shifts the focus of my attention away from what I don't have, to what I have (which is plenty!). Even though I have a conscious relationship with God, I am not grateful to God. God doesn't need my gratitude. The universe is providing what it's providing, whether I'm grateful or not.

No, the gratitude is for me. The gratitude is, cliche and rhyming but nonetheless true, an attitude. I need the gratitude.

I do this especially when I'm at my worst. I try to make every single thing on the list unique. In other words, I am not grateful for my husband and children and mother every day (even though I am).

Today I am grateful for the way N. head-butted me and grunted at 9:45pm last night when I told him it was time for lights out. I am grateful for Emily's 4th freckle below her right eye.

I am grateful that even though I missed the Capitol Public Radio report last week, I (and you) can hear Bill talking about reducing diesel emissions it by clicking here (or above).

Sacramento Humans Swim Circles Around Whales

I admit it, I keep up on current events--the things of importance to the world, like whales in the Sacramento River delta. The kids and I scour the news every day for the latest on these large mammals in our midst. I haven't been obsessed enough to join the 10,000 people who endangered the levees in West Sacramento to catch a glimpse of this mother and calf cavorting in fresh water, but I understand the impulse and certainly, time permitting, the kids and I would have ridden our bikes 2 miles to get a peek.

The current commentary lines in our household/community on the whales are these:

1) On their names. The Sac Bee had a naming contest, but before they could complete it, Lt. Governor John Garamendi took it upon himself to name the whales "Delta" for the mom and "Dawn" for the calf. The Bee then decided to accept these names as an official act of state. It's nice that whale-naming falls within the Lt. Governor's limited jurisdiction. Apparently he has some experience in this area. Over a decade ago, when the last whale made its way from the San Francisco Bay up the river, John Garamendi was in the State Assembly representing a Delta district. At that time he made the bold decisive move to name that whale "Humphrey," thereby saving his constituents from the horror of a nameless whale in their midst.

I'm assuming (but am too lazy to check) that in running for his current office he had a whale-naming plank (or should I say plankton?) in his platform--he has now fulfilled that campaign promise (Note: I think his naming rights are limited to the Sacramento River; all LA River whales are to be named by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa; all Mendocino County Russian River whales are to be named by Cheech and Chong).

Not being Lt. Governor, I have no business in whale naming, but I still think the best monikers for these Humpback whales (known to marine biologists as the "cows of the sea") would be "Dumb and Dumber"--why the heck did they leave the sea and swim upstream in fresh water? Hel-lo!? You're whales?!

2) How the "scientists" "affect" the whales' behavior. Is it only me or are the reports on what the "whale experts" are going to try, completely ludicrous? It's obvious to me that these guys have no idea what they're doing. Their actions on getting the whales to head back out to sea so far have been about as purposeful and well-thought out as my brother in law's when he chased a bat in his house around for an hour and a half before beating it to death with a tennis racket.

Here are some of their "expert" activities:
a) "give the whales the weekend off" before intervening. Do whales observe weekends? Was it really the whales that needed a weekend off?
b) run tugboats by them and hope they'll follow--"here, whale, follow the tugboat, whale".
c) (today) start banging on pipes underwater hoping that it will send them downstream (apparently my two year old nephew IM'd them this suggestion).

Could someone at least please call Sea World and send one of those cute trainer girls in a wet suit up? Maybe that could get some action (out of the scientist if not the whales).

3) On why the whales came inland in the first place--my son N (who was sick all last week as the whales made their journey inland) had a theory as to why they chose to come up:

"They heard I was sick and they came to see me and make me feel better. When they found out I was well, they turned around."

This statement would of course be adorable in a 5 year old--in a 12 year old, it's, well, it's even more adorable. Unfortunately, his explanation only holds water through Sunday when, yes, N's health and the whales both turned around and headed out to sea (okay, the health didn't head out to sea but you get the idea). By yesterday, however, the whales had done another 180 and were apparently seen shopping for beach chairs and towels at Ikea in West Sac. My daughter E has a cold today, maybe that's why they're staying.

Don't get me wrong, I wish "Delta" and "Dawn" well, and do very much hope they make it safely back to sea. It's the humans that seem to be swimming in circles--bang on the pipes, maybe it'll help.