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..

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Read my column in Rudolf's Diner

And read Rudolf's Diner.

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?

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.

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?

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.

(:)(:)(:)(:) 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.

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.

John Diaz Said it Better than I Could

John Diaz, editorial editor of the San Francisco Chronicle had the same rant I did yesterday about the California Assembly Democrats. Pulling no punches he tells the story of their walk of shame. I forgot to mention, of course, the pivotal gay marriage bill that went down in flames on the California Assembly floor last week too.

Now some may quarrel with me on this, but I can kind of see a politician being worried about casting a vote for gay marriage--there is a possibility that he gets out ahead of his constituents on the issue, especially in the central valley (our kansas). Sure, theoretically they could take a hit in a Democratic primary for not supporting gay marriage, but most of these guys do not face credible primary threats. When you have term limits, why would try to run against someone in a primary? You wait your turn.

But "taking a walk on" (not voting for) an environmental bill? Nah, that plays everywhere with everyone. In fact, they could take a serious hit in a general election for not supporting it.

If fact, you could say that these guys have real courage, the courage of their conviction--and their conviction is that if you pay good money to put them in office, you should get what you pay for, their vote.

The Assembly Democrats are Worse than Ever

I don't have the energy to do it justice, but you all should know that the Democrats in the California State Assembly have been acting up big time again in the past 2 weeks--they're worse than ever and it's just not tolerable.

Last week most notably they joined with Republicans to kill (by refusing to vote for) bills that would have allowed communities to bring a private right of action against polluters for environmental hazards, made it more difficult for corporations to hide their misdoings behind secret settlement agreements and killed many other environmental bills. They even made it tough for bills favored by labor unions to get off the Assembly floor, and not for any noble reason, just stubborn closeness with the Chamber of Commerce.

Forget about being politically savvy enough to put Schwarzenegger on the hot seat with environmental and consumer bills--these guys know where their bread is buttered and it ain't by their constituents, it's by their contributors. They don't want to cede credit for the kill to the Governor--they can terminate people's rights with the best of 'em.

Some of the worst offenders are the Assemblymembers below, if you live in one of their districts, call and complain--I'll give you the number if you don't have it--and vote against them in the next primary:

Joseph Canciamilla--east east bay
Alberto Torrico--Fremont
Barbara Matthews--Stockton
Juan Arambula--Fresno
Lois Wolk--Davis
Nicole Parra--Bakersfield
Joe Coto--San Jose
Rebecca Cohn--Silicon valley
Jerome Horton--Inglewood
Edward Chavez--San Gabriel valley
Carol Liu--Pasadena
Hector De La Torre--east LA
Rudy Bermudez--Norwalk
Ronald Calderon--LA
Juan Vargas--South San Diego
Gloria Negrete McLeod--Ontario
Joe Baca Jr.--San Bernardino

(:)(:)(:)(: Cleveland Orchestra at Mondavi Center

Despite the fact that it's from Cleveland, the Cleveland Orchestra is world renowned for its precision and virtuosity. So, although I know next to nothing about classical music and have no business having opinions about it, I am thrilled to accompany a friend to see them play at the Mondavi Center in Davis Monday night.

As we settle into our seats, I loudly squeal with joy as I read that two of the pieces are Ravel--I adore Ravel! I proclaim, only narrowly escaping je l'adore Ravel which is actually what comes to mind, I kid you not (I can get carried away). I chalk up the rolled eyes and embarrassed glances around me to envy for my joie de vivre.

As the first strains of Ravel's Alborada del gracioso come, I settle into my seat. Many many minutes pass as I struggle to keep my mind on the concert. Wow, I think, this is so mellow and mathematical, not so exciting, it must be his early stuff.

At the end of the first movement, my companion points to a different page of the program, one which says June 6 instead of June 5--it's not Ravel, she whispers, it's Mozart. Turns out Ravel was yesterday.

I don't know much, but I know that you cannot go around thinking Je l'adore Ravel when you're listening to Mozart.

At the end of the Mozart (Symphony No. 36 in C Major, K. 425 if you must know), I smugly observe that while technically flawless, the piece was soulless. My companion agrees, although she blames it on herself--I guess I'm just not in a place in my life where Mozart can really move me.

I think, I guess I'm not in a place in my life where I can fucking tell if it's even Mozart

The next piece, Concerto for Alto Saxophone and Wind Ensemble by Ingolf Dahl (some obscure german immigrant to the US) is amazing. The passion and virtuosity of the saxophone soloist Joseph Lulloff, whose solos dominate the piece, is palpably infectious--the wind ensemble devours his music and uses each solo as fuel for a brilliant echo. The audience is on its feet for 5 standing ovations as I rush to the bathroom, desperate to recover from an ill-advised 11th hour decaf, then rush to the concessions line to begin the process anew.

Dvorak's Symphony No. 5 in F major is performed beautifully as well, but again my mind drifts, and I find myself comparing music to meditation as many better minds before me must have done.

The drive home from Davis is mostly filled by the sound of one part of my head blaming me for things throughout the evening, the Ravel fiasco, the decaf rush, the fact that I didn't visit the ladies' room before driving home afterwards. Fortunately, though, it is drowned out by the plaintive wail of the alto sax and a determined witness for peace, my better self.

Spanglish is Magnifico!

(:)(:)(:)(:) for Spanglish just reviewed on DVD. It's been a helluva month and I haven't prioritized the blog lately, but let me say I had NO idea how good a movie this was. I just thought it'd be decent hollywood fluff. Wrong. This movie is beautifully acted and written.

I don't have time to do it justice right now, but a few thoughts. The highlights: Adam Sandler and his character are magnificient. Who knew that Adam Sandler could act? Certainly not I. That is one of the best-written most complex characters I've ever seen for a man--3 dimensions is not enough to cover it. Tea Leoni is always good, but she's spectacular in this especially as she takes a character that could have been simply despicable and makes her 3-dimensional human, draws us in compassionately to her world. Cloris Leachman as her mother is also marvelous.

My only beef with this film, and it's a biggie, is that while the anglo family is marvelous, the Mexican mother and daughter are considerably less fully drawn characters--you get some of their complexity but it's very much from the anglo gaze in. Glenn Backes points out to me that the poster for the film does the same thing--you see the anglos in full form, the maid and her daughter hazy. Maybe it's a sophisticated statement of some kind by the filmmaker/screen writer, but I doubt it. Probably the limitations of their viewpoint coupled with laziness.

More on the Judges and Those Senate Dems

I like that the word on the street in DC is that the White House is even more unhappy than "our" side. And I see that MoveOn.org is crowing about the victory, but that still doesn't do it for me. See, this way mell have been a big victory for the Senate Democrats. For once they may have outmanoevered Bill Frist and his merry men.

But that doesn't mean that it's a victory for the American people. I would have been, and the American people should have been, perfectly happy if the Senate had been shut down for months due to a standoff over this filibuster. Nothing good was going to come out of this Congress. It would have been fabulous to frustrate the otherwise uninterrupted flow of the Chamber of Commerce's agenda to raid Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and every other successful social program we have.

To me what happened here is that when push came to shove, the Senate Democrats developed a spine and went to the mat for what really matters to them: Senatorial privilege--the right to the filibuster. They did not go to the mat for what really matters to me, who is on the federal bench.

What's more, it isn't even clear that the Democrats even won a meaningful right with their pyrrhic victory. If Priscilla and Janice aren't "extraordinary circumstances," in which you can justify the use of the filibuster, who is?

Is that the standard now?

"We'll filibuster as soon as we find someone nuttier than Janice Brown?"

In the final analysis, it was more important to them to preserve the appearance of preserving the filibuster, than it was to keep these complete wacko outliers from deciding whether children raped by their fathers will be able to get an abortion.

Yay, We Win! Priscilla Owens will be a Federal Judge!

So let me get this right: 3 judges (so far to the right ideologically that usually wimpy Senate Democrats threatened to filibuster their confirmation) will be appointed to the bench in a Democratically-annointed deal. And we're supposed to be happy about this?

Am I the only one out here who finds this scenario ludicrous? Look, I know you can spin this as a loss for the Bush administration because they were the ones to back down first from the brink of the "nuclear option," but here's what happened as I understand it.

White House: Confirm all our judges.

Senate Dems: We don't like 10 of them. We'll filibuster.

White House: Confirm all our judges.

Senate Dems: But we don't wanna.

White House: Confirm all our judges or we'll take away your right to filibuster judicial nominations.

Senate Dems: No! We like that right! Please don't take that right! We like it!

White House: Confirm all our judges or we'll go nuclear.

Senate Dems: Okay, let's be reasonable. How about we confirm 3 of your judges but not the rest and you let us keep the filibuster.

White House: No.

Senate Dems: Please?!

White House: No.

Senate Dems: Pretty Please?

White House: No. We're going nuclear.

Senate Dems: Pretty please, with Priscilla Owens on top?

White House: O-kay. When you put it that way.

Senate Dems: Goodie! We're confirming 3 far right judges! Naa-naaa we get to keep the filibuster!

White House: No you don't. We can go nuclear any time.

Senate Dems: But you said...

White House: I know you are, but what am I?

The Pushback

I must be changing because a phenomenon known in the personal growth community as "the pushback" is occurring to me. The "pushback" happens when people around you notice that something is different, either they can put their finger on it or they can't, and they begin trying to push you back into the shape you were before, the mold they are used to seeing you in.

Lately I have been experiencing pushback because I have been casually mentioning that I've given up drinking. I have gotten long emails and diatribes and sad looks and even outright weeping because of this. Why, Sara? Why?? There is so much outrage, so much of a sense of despair.

My husband would be the first to point out that I can't afford to get too outraged about the outrage. Afterall, I have practically made a living out of ridiculing people for giving up alcohol. For years it has driven me nuts that so few people in my cohousing community drink. "The puritanical left" I've dubbed them.

And I've also taken serious issue with my wonderful in-laws for such famous quotes as "who wants to split a beer?" and "oh, do you think we should have wine for Christmas? What if the leftover wine in the bottle goes bad?"

In other words, I've been there. I've been the leader of the outraged pack. The Queen ridiculer of reduced consumption.

From the other side of the bottle, it all seems very odd. It seems to me that this should have nothing to do with anybody else. That people should be pretty much neutral to pleased that I've made a life change I feel good about.

Which brings me to why I did it. First of all, for the time being I'm allowing myself special occasion exceptions. Like this Thursday, when I go out dancing at my birthday party, I may decide to have a drink.

I decided to quit because I just generally tend to feel less crappy when I don't drink. I get sick less. I have fewer headaches. I have fewer hangovers (and I experience hangovers of a sort after only 1 glass of wine). It's kind of a sugar hangover with me; I start to crave bad carbs to take away the feeling, so I eat a lot worse when I drink.

Although I have experienced occasional poor impulse control while drinking, I generally haven't ever experienced the other problems associated with alcohol use. I've always been able to stop drinking for long or short periods of time without difficulty (I can quit anytime?). And I rarely crave alcohol as a soothing or calming thing--I've almost never had that "god I need a drink" feeling. I've had "god, I need a huge bowl of ice cream" and "god, I need a midnight bowl of cereal" and "god, I need to lie on the couch and watch a bad movie" much more often.

So the much more interesting question for me here is, what's at stake for my friends? One thing a bunch of them seem to think is that I won't want to dance any more. Wrong. I have never been one of those people who need a drink to dance. I'll dance at 10am stone cold sober (although coffee would help).

2) Maybe they think I won't stay up late talking about all kinds of ridiculous things with them. Well I don't think that's true either, I definitely plan to stay up a late talking a lot more and it would be unlikely that I would stop being ridiculous.

3) Maybe they worry that I'll start trying to convert them to non-drinking. Wrong. I would definitely drink if it didn't seem to have this negative effect on my health. I don't try to talk people out of drinking unless they are puking on me night after night.

Ultimately, other people's opinions of this matter and other changes I'm going through are going to have little or no effect on me, but they'll have a large effect on them and the lense through which they see me. I guess this is one way to find out who loves you just the way you are.

Phil And Thropy

I have said before that a fundamental problem in American life is asking for too little. Nowhere is this more clear than in the case of public interest advocacy organizations who are constantly jumping through hoops to create a "new" program for funders to get excited about.

The right doesn't do this. The right funds general operating expenses of its organizations, its think tanks--it doesn't make its key grassroots players beg and it doesn't make them pretend to be doing something new all the time. It's understood that if an organization is good, its operating expenses need to be met before it can expand.

If you've ever looked at this from the point of view of a funder, it sort of makes sense. You want desperately to make your mark, to see that a good organization gets better. What does it mean to get better? It means it does something new.

What if the nonprofits band together and tell the funders: here's how it's gonna be, you wanna fund us? You fund our operating expenses first. You want us to get bigger and better? Let us stop having to figure out how to make payroll each month and put our resources and staff to program.

Then you'll have a situation where funders might understand this differently. Ah, if I want to improve this excellent organization, I have to make sure the lights stay on then they'll let me fund a new program--it requires a paradigm shift for the advocates. They need to proceed from a position of abundance rather than lack. They need to trust and understand their own value and ask for what they're worth and what they need.

I think they'll get it.

Social Security Media Apology

I have had trouble blogging the past couple days because I am writing too many other things--it's funny, it's not a time issue so much as a something to say issue. If you're not familiar with the Center for Economic and Policy Research --get familiar. This economic thinktank is clean and independent and has important information for all of us--like what's going to happen when the housing bubble bursts. And this article by CEPR economist Mark Weisbrot entitled Social Security Media Apology:

By Mark Weisbrot

After it was established that the major reasons that the Bush administration had offered for invading Iraq were false -- Iraq's alleged nuclear program, weapons of mass destruction, links to Al-Qaeda -- many journalists, editors, and producers felt that the U.S. media had not done its job during the march to war. The New York Times and Washington Post published articles from their editors criticizing their own reporting.

A similar letter from the media -- broadcast, cable, and print -- is in order for their misreporting of President Bush's effort to change social security. Here is what an honest confession might look like:

"We apologize for having failed our listeners and readers in our reporting on Social Security. The extent of this failure can be clearly measured by the public's complete lack of understanding of the problem being discussed. A recent poll found 64 percent of Americans think they won't even get a benefit from Social Security. Even according to President Bush's (Social Security Trustees') numbers, Social Security will always be able to pay a benefit that is higher than what retirees get today. This is after adjusting for inflation, and it is true even if we were to do nothing and allow the Social Security Trust Fund to run out of money.

Where did the majority of Americans get such a ridiculous idea? They got it from us, the same place the got the ideas that Iraq was close to producing nuclear weapons and was involved in the massacre of 9/11. One thing we did wrong was to report false or unsubstantiated allegations over and over, without countervailing facts. This makes it easier for politicians to pursue a "big lie" strategy -- to deliberately repeat false information until it is accepted as truth.

President Bush can say, as he did recently, "Without changes this young generation of workers will see a UFO before they see a Social Security check."

This should be given the same credibility as the statement, "Elvis Presley is alive; I just talked to him yesterday."

The second mistake was to leave out or downplay crucial facts. Few Americans know that according to the President's own numbers: (1) Social Security is financially stronger than it has been throughout most of its 70-year history; (2) the whole shortfall over the next 75 years is less than what we fixed in each one of the decades of the 50s, 60s, and 80s; (3) fifty years from now, the average real wage will be over 70 percent higher than today (so workers won't be hurting if they have to pay a little bit more to Social Security) (4) the year 2017 -- when Social Security payments are projected to exceed payroll tax revenue -- has absolutely nothing to do with Social Security's solvency.

We encouraged deception about the Social Security Trust Fund by describing the government bonds it holds as "I.O.U.s," and allowing politicians to pretend that default on these bonds was a real possibility. We should have used the Congressional Budget Office's numbers in our reporting, since the CBO is non-partisan; instead we generally reported the numbers provided by the Social Security Trustees, who are partisan (four of six are Bush appointees, and a fifth is pro-privatization). The CBO numbers show Social Security to be financially solvent for the next 47 years; if just this one fact were included in every news report on the Social Security "problem," most people would surely see the whole debate for what it is: a farce.

There were exceptions to these reporting failures, but they were few and far between.

We hope you will forgive our sloppy, careless reporting on Social Security. At least this time, nobody was killed as a result."

---

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

---

Center for Economic and Policy Research, 1611 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20009
Phone: (202) 293-5380, Fax: (202) 588-1356, Home: www.cepr.net

How to Make Real Change in the World

No, this is not like those hilarious old SNL commercials for "The Change Bank" (we can give you 2 dimes and a nickel for a quarter; or we can give you 25 pennies; it's all up to you; the secret is volume). But there is a connection between change and change.

What I'm talkin' 'bout is that other kind, that theoretically we all are for--the kind where every child goes to sleep every night with a full belly and a full heart.

For over a decade, I've advocated national health insurance. For most of those years, I was lucky enough to have been paid to fight for it. Now I sit at home and blog. Have I given up that dream?

Au contraire, mon frere. Dr. Quentin Young, , a great Chicago progressive and one of my heroes in the fight for single payer health care, once said to me, "Sara, if you're not serious about money, you're not serious about social change." That sentiment has stuck with me--ever since he said it, I can raise money for anything that I care about and feel great about it.

I'm working on two things right now very very hard: making enough money to make a difference, and making enough difference to make the money. The latter requires more explanation than the former.

In addition to lack of money for "the good guys" there is another problem, so scary we good guys are loathe to recognize it, let alone tackle it and that is the definition of "good guy." We think we know the answer. Scratch that. We're sure we know. It's us. And it's not them.

What I am working on right now is re-examining everything I thought I knew about good guys/bad guys, us/them, Democrats/Republicans. Believe me, for a pink diaper baby like me this is painful upsetting work roughly akin to re-examining the belief that the sun rises every morning.

Could it be that there are Republicans who have equally good hearts and minds as mine and don't eat their children for supper?

Could it be that this great divide that we feel in this country between blue and red is illusory? That we mostly care about the same things?

Could it be that instead of focussing most of our intention and resources on making more of us and less of them and focussing on winning a margin of seats or electoral votes we should be focussing on redefining the us to include all of us and doing a lot more listening than talking?

This is what I hope and pray for every day: that I will heal myself so that we might heal the country so that we might together heal the world. Still not political?

The Politics of Blogging

Some of my faithful readers have been complaining of late at my lack of "political" content. Although I would call my readers attention to recent posts of April 27, 25 and 19, I do admit, the content lately has been more personal than political.

But you have to remember the personal is ... no, that really isn't my point here.

You don't have to be a rocket surgeon to figure this out: I am blogging about what I am thinking about. This either interests you or it don't. I hope it does, but until someone starts paying me to blog, I am going to blog (predominantly) when I have something to say.

And speaking of paying me, there are tons of people/entities not paying me to do what I do right now: the Sacramento Bee isn't paying me to write the op ed I'm working on for them; What's the Big Idea? isn't paying me to develop my businesses; my son hasn't paid me to stay home with him sick for 12 out of the past 30 days; my community isn't paying me to put forth a proposal for new tables that they're in the process of shooting down; my neighborhood association isn't paying me for drafting a letter in a controversy. The list is long.

At the top of the list of people I want not to pay me is Arianna Huffington. I really admire her for launching The Huffington Post, which as most of you probably know is an on-line newspaper filled with her favorite bloggers and wire stories and good pictures.

I link to it on my blog, which, Harry, you can always find by hitting the "Home" button if you're reading a link to a particular post.

If anyone has an in with Arianna, I wish to be a blogger in her newspaper--show them my blog and talk me up and I'll do something for you--most likely I'll do it for free.

The Storm Before the Calm

After working for a while to clean out my son's closet, I made the mistake of taking a break to look around the room: total chaos. A pile of stuff to give away in one corner; another coupla things to move into my closet; recycling; trash; mismatched shoes; a pile for other judgment calls and way way more. It was much worse than when I started, and gross and ugly and actively stressful to be in the room with.

Instinctual door number 1 upon really looking at this vile wasteland, was to throw it all back into the closet and close the door, leave it for another day.

Door # 2, tell my son to finish the job (as if) and go make myself a nonfat sugar free dessert--yum!

Door #3, leave it for a few days and come back to it, hoping it would take care of itself.

Okay, so you noticed, my 1st, 2nd and 3rd "instincts" were all basically the same: run!

Fourth, not instinctual, but based on knowledge and experience, suck it up, keep on sorting, go downstairs and get some bags and boxes, start getting things out of the room and into other places.

That's the door I chose. Thirty minutes later, the room looks great, the stuff is elsewhere and I feel that fantastic and slightly pathetic sense of accomplishment that only finishing tangible petty projects can give.

Why is it that we can know this and trust this when it comes to reorganizing a closet and not when it comes to reorganizing our lives? It's exactly like this in emotional and spiritual change too: very very close to the end, when you're just about to see real beauty and feel real accomplishment, you look around and see only chaos: the money you haven't made since you quit your day job, the people who have trouble with your changes, the fear you feel at the unknown.

At that point (okay, I know you have my point now, but hear me out) we think it's "instinctual" to close the door, run away and stuff the chaos down, choose your poison. We fool ourselves into thinking that we're hearing our inner voice speak the truth, "Sara, who are you kidding? why did you think you could do this?", etc. But this voice is only what author, psychologist and workshop leader Maria Nemeth calls "monkey mind."

Monkey Mind is not your friend. Monkey Mind is the toxic mimic of intuition, posing as your better self to get you to walk away from your real better self. Don't listen to this so-called voice. Success is close at hand. Trust your intention. You did this for a reason. Follow it through. It will work.

Coke Justice

It all started with Tab. As a teenager desperately struggling to lose weight on a series of fad diets, I abused Tab to the tune of 6 to 12 cans a day.

When I was 16, for 30 days I ingested nothing but 2 tablespoons of liquid protein a day and 6 Tabs. I was desperate to slim down in time for opening night of The Music Man. The sad irony was that the reason I was desperate to lose weight was that I had been cast as Ethel Toffelmeyer, a plump single girl who danced well. As the pounds dropped away (I lost 25 that month), my costume had to be continuously altered. They added padding to make me look plump!

In the final week of rehearsal, with my parents and brothers out of town on summer vacation, I fainted in the middle of dancing and fell into the orchestra pit, fortunately landing on a commodious Tuba player. When I came to, a parent/doctor asked me how long it had been since I had eaten and I asked him what the date was and passed out again. Next thing I knew they were force-feeding me orange juice and oreos.

Eventually Tab gave way to Diet Coke, the more manly version. In the early 80's, I read some terrifying cancer predictions on aspertame and cut back to a few a week. From then on it ebbed and flowed. I'd drink a lot if I was on a diet. Less when I wasn't.

A year or so ago, I gave up caffeine cold turkey--I mean all of it, chocolate, decaf, everything (ever seen those people who brag that they don't do any drugs? They rasp, "I gave up alcohol, coffee, cigarettes, you name it, honey" all the while they're stuffing their face with hi octane dark chocolate--Dik, I'm not necessarily talking only about you).

Anyway it was extremely painful to give up caffeine, harder than it had been to give up heroin--oops, strike that. It was bloody hard. Eventually I phased back in decaf coffee rationalizing that the caffeine (while equal to that in caffeinated tea, especially the way I make decaf) was deminimus. But the dealbreaker was the diet coke. I thought it was a goner but the coke came back the very next month.

Then I discovered diet coke with vanilla--oh, baby! I love that stuff. Like But-tah. After that, combined with giving up alcohol and sugar this year for good, fuggedabout it, back up to 2 or 3 cans a day.

Then I read that Coca Cola owns a lot of water and has pursued heinous policies in developing nations, especially India. I am SHOCKED! I thought Coca Cola was pure and good! No, seriously, it is sobering and one more reason to quit.

But then what'd I drink? Water owned by Coke?

(:)(:)(:) for Robots on IMAX

3 firm snouts facing upward for Robots on IMAX. I liked it very much. I really did. True to expectation, the computer-animated film created an amusing and fascinating world of robots and the many problems they face.

What I did not expect was yet another in a spate of animated films (following Monsters, Inc. and Shrek) cleverly critiquing corporate culture (the 4 Cs). Listen I know corporations are the bad guys in my world (that's why I'm starting one, but that's for another column), but since when did CEOs of corporation seeking profit become the most evil creatures imaginable?

Even more interesting than demonizing the pursuit of profit, this movie takes on the essence of the consumer culture: the idea that products and to a certain extent people are disposable and replaceable and inherently imperfect. The motto of Big Weld, the company taken over by the evil Ratchet CEO, is changed from "No matter what you're made of, you can shine" to "why be you, when you can be new?" a slogan designed to stop people from fixing things (themselves) and change to buying new bodies--a not so subtle zing at cosmetic surgery.

The movie is filled with exciting whizzing and zooming and special effects that seem particularly intense in IMAX (I would have been perfectly happy with a regular screen version I think). The movie's plot is completely predictable and the dialogue passable. But the notion of fixing things triumphing over throwing them away is a winner of theme, one that I am drawn towards.

Silent Hamster

For years now, every night when I tuck her in, my eight year old daughter requires me to sing a version of the following song (sung to the obvious tune). I sing the words in regular type, she chimes in with the ones in italics. Some of the "regular words" have morphed over the years. She has been making me sing this for years but every so often, she changes the animal inserted. Currently, it is:

Silent hamster, holy hamster
All is calm, all is hamster
'Round yon virgin, mother and hamster
Holy infant, so tender and hamster
Sleep in heavenly hamster
Sle-ep in heavenly ham-ster

Silent hamster, holy hamster
Shepards quake, at the hamster
Angels on high sing al-le-lu-hamster
Shepherds below sing al-le-lu-hamster

[This is my favorite part coming up]

Christ our savior is hamster
Chri-ist our savior is ham-ster

The Power of Gratitude

Lately I have been experimenting with gratitude. I have always thought of myself as generally grateful, appreciating, at least on an intellectual level, that I had options, choices, worries that were luxuries for 99% of the world population. In recent years, I have gradually gotten more specific about what I'm grateful for, listing either in my head or on paper, the people, things and conditions for which I was truly thankful.

Then recently I found myself in a tough transition in which I was questioning everything I thought I knew about the world, my sense of self, my communication skills, my politics even (or at least the force with which I reject other world views). In the midst of this swirling confusing sea of self-doubt, I needed a raft to grab hold of, even a tiny corner would do. Turns out that raft was gratitude.

I was advised this time to be even more specific than before, not I'm grateful for my health, my family, my friends and my house, but particularly things that happened that very day. I starting writing these down (I refuse to say "journaling"--it's an unnecessary verb in my opinion) and beautiful, extraordinary changes started to take place.

Today I am grateful for my daughter's face as she showed me the baby pig at the county fair. I am grateful for my son's playful air bites at me while he got his first haircut in a while. I am grateful to my community for screening The Incredibles in the Common House for all the kids this evening thereby allowing my husband and me to curl up on the couch together and watch Igby Goes Down ((:)(:) (:) if you must know). And I'm grateful for the opportunity to tell you all of this and have a reasonable certainty that someone is actually reading my blog.

How sweet and easy it all is as long as you look.

Memory Walks

What is it about the human mind that so enjoys retracing its steps? On a recent trip to New Orleans, I greatly enjoyed finding the hotel we stayed in when we eloped there 15 years ago (today) and the restaurants in which we ate such memorable meals.

You'd think that each new trip to a place we would be more interested in visiting parts that we haven't been before. And we are a little, but in most respects we aren't. If you rent a little house somewhere for a week or two in the same town, don't you take great pleasure in finding a little bakery or restaurant or store that you love so much that you frequent it while you're there? And then when you come back, you've just got to go there again and get that cafe au lait, or dim sum or whatever it was that you associate with it.

I think it's because we lose access to so many pleasant memories in our daily life. We become preoccupied with mistakes we've made, regrets we've had. I recently learned that the word resentment comes from the French, "re-sentment" literally feeling again. All too often we spend time cultivating and harvesting bad feelings instead of good.

But when we return to a place we once spent time in, whether for a weekend or for years, we are magically given access to pleasant memories long dormant. The smell of a given street, the taste of a dish, the color of a flower, are where we store our treasures. Ah, forget that, they are our treasures. How good that something within us wants to open up those boxes covered with dust in our mental attics and play.

A Bug's Life

Michael "Bug" Deakin is an artist who re-captures amazing wood, fallen trees, old barns and chicken coops and buildings that had to come down, and remakes them into gorgeous furniture, new buildings and treasures. Along with two other Amazonian beauties (I was by far the shortest and least impressive), I visited Heritage Salvage in Petaluma today to tower over Bug and smooth the way for him to make 8 gorgeous, unique tables for my cohousing community for less money than any artist should ever have to make.

Bug is everything you'd want a man named Bug to be--funny, smart, warm, creative, committed and with great forearms. His business cards are made from cedar and smell wonderful. Legendary redwood sitter Julia Butterfly Hill just spent 3 weeks camping in her bus on his property. As a parting gift, he fashioned a strangely erotic knob for her vehicle's entry way.

His website shows you scores of articles written about him, and why he's special. For my community the idea of commissioning extraordinary tables made from 15 inch Fir captured from the liberty building in Sausalito is pretty compelling. Now if we could only get Bug to create his brilliant, perfect, timeless, unique pieces for free, I think we'd have a deal.

The Poly Bodytick

So like while you were all working today I was getting a fabulous massage from a woman named Pao, and I had like this great idea for my blog today and I was going to call it like the Poly Bodytick and it was going to be awesome.

And now I barely remember my awesome idea. This is what happens when you spend 4 days in Jazz Fest in N'awlins celebrating your15th wedding anniversary. Your brain turns to happy mush. I almost never left the gospel tent by the by--we gawn have us some church here at jazz fest today!--and ohmigod did we ever. I LOVE the gospel tent. I want to live in the gospel tent.

Back to the poly bodytick. It goes something like this. Activists and politicians are not scientists. We don't have the luxury of isolating the variables that make social change possible. We want to win, and win fast. So when we go after a problem, we throw everything we've got at it. Or, at least, I've always believed we should. We sue the bastards, introduce a bill, show up in droves to protest, run someone against 'em, you name it. And then if, say, their approval rating drops 20 points in a month, we have no idea how to replicate our success.

We often do the same thing when we're in pain, don't we? Like my right shoulder has been giving me grief for 3 years straight. When it gets really bad what do I do? In the space of a month, I make appointments for my internist, my acupuncturist, a physical therapist, a spiritual healer, a massage therapist, a cranio-sacral therapist, an Alexander technique teacher and Maori healers in town from New Zealand for only a week--I'm not taking any chances, this is pain I'm talkin' 'bout--we gawn have us some pain here tonight! (I am convinced that the Maori Healers work best by the way, $200 for 20 minutes of excruciating pain--we're talking childbirth here--and then for 6 months, no pain whatsoever--these huge people are like pain collection agents, they stand on your body, pull you limb from limb until you give up the pain, okay! okay! you win, you can have the pain, just take it! Take it! I'll tell you where it is!... Let me know if you want to be on the list when they're next in town.)

The point is, everything I'm learning now is making me question whether this blitzkreig on pain or the Governator is effective. Might it make more sense to slow down, pick one thing to do and do it really really well?

I'd Rather the Democrats Fight than Dance

Earlier this week, I was excited to see that there was a rift developing between the business-oriented Republicans in Congress and the cultural conservatives over the filibuster rule change showdown on judicial appointments. Apparently the Chamber of Commerce is worried that it will hurt "their priorities" in Congress (things like stripping away consumers' right to class action status and bankruptcy protection--oops they've already done that, well other nefarious priorities) if the Senate is at a standstill over the filibuster rule change play.

Historically, as Thomas Frank detailed so well in his What's the Matter with Kansas?, Republicans in Congress, elected by a powerful combination of business money and cultural conservative grassroots, fight to the death over business "priorities" and win, and make a show on values issues, and lose. Rarely, at least publicly, are the two pitted against each other though. Interesting to see what the Republicans will do when the Chamber throws down like that against their whacko base.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, yesterday it was reported that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid is seeking a compromise over the nine or ten judicial appointees in question. He clearly stated that he wanted to avoid the showdown, "I'd rather dance than fight."

Well, doesn't that just sum up the Congressional democrats main problem nicely?

I sense a leetle pattern here: chamber of commerce has plenty of juice with the Democrats too (who voted in numbers for the anti-consumer bills referenced above)--clearly they're pressuring the Dems to avoid bringing the Senate to a standstill.

Now as much I prefer dancing to fighting outside Congress, at this point I believe the American people have little to lose and everything to gain from a showdown--Congress at a standstill sounds like heaven to me and even to let half those nominees on the bench is a disaster. Democrats could use the press that such a showdown would give them and the longer we stretch it out the better off we are going into the 2006 congressional elections.

So call Senator Harry Reid (202) 224-2131 and tell him you'd rather fight than dance.

Is emailing doing anything about anything?

Bill wants me to blog about how there's a disturbing subsection of the email population who seem to think that joining into an email "discussion" with an impassioned "me too!" is actually doing something.

Witness this exchange on our neighborhood association email list. A woman writes in saying that there will be a hearing on downtown, and specifically on whether Wal-Mart should be allowed to build a store downtown. Her goal is to get people to go to the hearing. Now that makes sense. You're sending out an email to urge others to do something. But then the recipients begin writing back, "oh, I know. I hate Wal-Mart!" "I hate Wal-Mart too!" "I'd like to echo that remark!"

And that's where it begins to make Bill crazy. Not a single one of these people indicates in anyway that they're actually going to do anything about Wal-Mart, that they're actually going to go to the hearing. They just want to "register" their opposition.

So he asks me to blog about it-- which raises a more frightening question for me: is blogging really more of the same?

Swami Parmanandi & Me

Friday night I experienced the hindi equivalent of seeing Bono play a room of 40 people. I went to hear Swami Parmanandji talk. The man is an official saint and is said to be followed by hundreds of thousands of people in the world, consulted by prime ministers, etc. Yet, I'd never heard of him.

I attended the speech not because of the hype (there really was none in the publicity at my church) but because I wanted to have the promised guided meditation (there also was none).

Once I got there and learned that I was in presence of someone whom people have compared to Buddha, Ghandi and Christ, I became curious about this man. I heard two women who looked like they grew up swimming in the gene pool next door tell how their first meeting with Swami (the "the" is silent) changed their life; they left home to follow him and now live in India for months every year.

This made me a little nervous. I have been exploring the boundaries of my spiritual path a little lately; I live in California; I've also got blond hair and blue eyes. Was there a chance that I was going to be so strongly overcome by this man's presence that I was going to kiss my family goodbye and move to India and sleep on mats? I only came for the guided meditation!

I settled in, accustoming myself to the line by line excellent translation provided by yet another devotee, an ex-IBM executive who grinned ear to ear at everything Swami said. I must say he made a lot of sense. He spoke well (my Hindi is excellent) and told the truth in a simple, memorable, accessible way that is useful for modern life.

I got to ask him a question regarding whether it matters what the reasons are that you do the right thing. His answer confirmed my emerging belief in the matter (basically that it does and it doesn't simultaneously). Afterwards, I ate almonds that had been blessed by him and was extremely grateful that they were low carb.

But whether it was the long long beard, the orange hood or the toe socks, I find myself, one day later, not even considering considering dropping everything and following him--a little disappointing, but ah well, I have never been the devotee type.

I'm a dabbler extraordinaire. I subscribe to the thesis of the visionary political astrologer Caroline Casey, "believe nothing, entertain possibilities." And there is strong possibility that this man that I have spoken to and eaten of his almonds is one of the greatest spiritual teachers alive.

Next week: 40 Indians meet Oprah.

David Lynch is All Growed Up

(:)(:)(:)(:) Four Snouts Up for The Straight Story directed by David Lynch.

We've happily entered that unfortunate phase of American life where every sector of the family has its own Netflix queue.

The movies Bill picks are uniformly excellent, one 4 snouter after another. The kids are watching every Free Willy movie in succession, ending with The War Room (that was a bad Bill Clinton joke, in case you missed it).

Bill sticks to his films. The kids stick to theirs. But I brouse. I watch everyone's films. And when I need a break from the whales and the 4 starsers, I watch one of the 2 or 3 snouters that I've put in my own queue-- I'm afraid Bridget Jones Diary: beyond reason provides a representative example.

Tonight, Bill pitched his feature presentation simply but clearly to me, "do you want to watch a David Lynch film about a man who rides across the country on a lawn mower?"

Who could say no to that invitation? I hopped up next to him on the John Deere and we headed off.

If you're like me, when you think David Lynch you think dwarves, you think Laura Dern hotter than wet asphalt, you think Dennis Hopper in a clown suit and most of all you think rape, with scissors or without--your choice--but you don't think sweet old man on a rider mower spreading wisdom and hope across the middle west.*

But that's what this film is. It is just a sweet sweet film, not sticky sweet, not saccharin (and I've got quite the taste for fake sugar, my friend), but profoundly and deeply sweet. From the bottom of your soul, end of your life, no regrets, sweet.

Based on a true story with lovely lovely performances by Richard Farnsworth and Sissy Spacek. Rated G.

*One scene does contain a nod to the old Lynch where a woman becomes hysterical from killing her 12th deer on the same stretch of highway in as many days. "I've tried everything. I even play Public Enemy full blast! Where do they come from?!!"

My two favorite coaches...

My two children had a conversation today in the back of our car while arriving at the library:

N(10): E---, don't take this the wrong way, but one thing you need to work on in your life is taking more responsibility for stuff.

E(8): N---! Just because I accidentally knocked your corn nuts on the floor of the car doesn't mean that you get to be mean to me!

N: See now, E---, that's exactly the kind of things I'm talking about. When something happens that you caused, you usually try to make excuses for it or shift the blame somewhere else. Like if you spill the milk at the table, and Dad tries to get you to clean it up, you want to talk about how you didn't mean to do it. That may be true, but it doesn't matter. The milk still needs to get cleaned up and you still need to clean it.

E: But you don't always take responsibility for what you do, N---!

N: (patient tone) E---, there you go shifting the blame again. Think about this, if you were a grown-up and you drove a car while you were drinking, you could hit somebody and hurt them and then a policeman came and said that you hurt someone for hitting a car and you said it wasn't your fault because you didn't see them and that was only because you were drinking--now do you see why you need to work on this?

E: No! I don't see, N---! I don't wanna talk about this! I don't like this!

snichols: It's okay, E---, most grownups don't want to think or talk about this kind of stuff too much either. Even I have trouble with taking responsibility for things. I'm grownup and I just paid several hundred dollars to spend a whole weekend to figure out what N--- knows when he's 10. You don't have to talk about it until you're ready.

E: I'll never be ready! I never want to talk about it! You can't make me talk about it! I need to get 3 books from the library about different salaries that you can earn in different careers. But it is not a comparation (sic)--it's just different! And now N----'s made me too upset to do my research!

snichols: Sweetie, take a deep breath. It's going to be okay.

(but she was talking to herself...)

Bizarre Antics in the Elections Committee Today

A rag tag but decent sized mob of public financing supporters thronged through the capitol today armed with full-sized brooms to help them "clean up Sacramento." After all of us marched into Senate leader pro tem Perata's office, it suddently occurred to the crack security force of the Capitol that many people sporting beards and fanny packs were carrying large sticks and chanting, inside the Capitol, not out at a rally.

The seargeants began randomly confiscating the brooms whenever they saw them ("hey you, gimme that broom" was the drill). We responded by frantically secreting them away. I could tell you where they are, but then I'd have to sweep with you and god knows we don't want that.

Basically, upshot, bottom line, final analysis, cut to the chase, long story short, the hearing on the AB 583 (Hancock's) Clean Money bill was a bloody disaster. Our author was attacked from Democratic idiots who thought the bill didn't go far enough and Democratic idiots who thought it went too far--and these were the supporters. The bill was "put over" until an undisclosed hearing next week. Heaven help us all.

Beware of Frozen Juice

Many people walk around every day blissfully unaware of the dangers that lurk in the frozen food section of every grocery. Such was the case with me, prior to today that is. I was attacked today by a can of Minute Maid orange juice (with added calcium).

Here I am walking around Raley's on Freeport calmly praising myself for accomplishing my whole day with "clarity, focus, ease and grace" (something I am working on, okay?), I suddenly see a short line in the checkout, throw my cart into the spot, scream "I'll be right back, I'm just getting something I couldn't find!" over my shoulder as I hurtle down to aisle 3 (if I couldn't find it, how come I go right to it?), frozen foods, last door on the left juice.

I begin pulling out 4 or 5 juices, cramming them into my hands (ow, they're cold) when suddenly I inadvertantly liberate another can of juice which comes flying out and lands, right on its edge, as hard as possible on one of those very tender spots just below the ankle bone on my right foot. "F---k!" I scream, which attracts attention. I thank her for her concern, assure her that after all it's just juice, I'll be fine, hobble back to the checkout stand (where they're through checking and just waiting for me).

Seven hours later after almost continual ice and elevation I am still in great pain and my neighbor the nurse practitioner tells me there's actually a possibility I broke a bone in the thing, oh my god!!!

So I'm telling you, don't take any chances, drink only fresh juice.

The Dark Side of the Mood

(:)(:)(:)(:) for Magnolia viewed on DVD this evening at home. I became aware of this film in the following way:

Bill: Wanna watch Magnolia with me tonight?

snichols: What is it?

Bill: It's a DVD I got from Netflix.

snichols: No. I mean, what's the film like or about?

Bill: It's an Anderson film.

snichols: Loni?

Bill: No.

snichols: Belina?

Bill: No. Paul Thomas.

snichols: I don't know that director. What can you tell me about the film?

Bill: I'm watching it tonight.

snichols: (sigh) Okay, I'll watch it (quickly grabbing Leonard Maltin to look the movie up--he gave it 3 stars and called it depressing--now I can't wait. Will this surpass Ratcatcher?)

I am fascinated by the series of wierd, inexplicable, coincidentally mostly bad events happening to the lives of the people in this film. It is superbly written, directed and acted. It is dark dark dark dark dark. Everyone says fuck and motherfucker a real lot. And I mean everyone, elderly dying people say it, children say it, even educated fleas say it.

Many many people would hate this movie. In a different time of my life, I might have hated it too. I have been cursed/blessed with the quintessentially American obession with the light and fear of the dark. All my life I have eschewed dark books, dark movies, dark news stories--closed my eyes, closed my ears, closed my mind. I thought, on some level, that if I could shut it out, it wasn't there. It didn't happen.

My recent mental state convinces me that you can't possibly shut these things out, that dark is as much a part of life and spirit as life is and that when you can't face the dark, you can't grow. Magnolia is an exercise in facing the dark. And it faces it well.

Three and a Half Snouts Up for Bride and Prejudice

(:)(:)(:)(. for Bride and Prejudice the so-called Bollywood take on Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice. I absolutely loved it and it may be one of my new favorite movies, so in my heart it will always be a 4-snouter. I loved the romance, the music, the color, the characters and most of all the pageantry--see this film on the big screen if you're going to see it at all. The riot of orange and red and pink saris in the dance and music scenes is nothing short of delicious.

But I reserve a half snout, and maybe should reserve a whole one, for wooden acting on the part of the Darcy character and for some moments where the deliberately unreal and unbelievable quality of the film instead of delighting distracts. Yet, even these moments are often quickly corrected with adorable self-consciousness.

For example, in the classic falling-in-love montage of delightful things our two main lovers do in a couple of special days together, we can't help but roll our eyes at why a previously closely watched chaperoned Indian girl would be allowed to go alone on an impromptu helicopter ride from L.A. to the Grand Canyon with her unsuitable European-American suitor. But just as we're thinking, "oh, come on..." it cuts to a scene on the beach in Santa Monica where about a hundred gospel choir members in matching blue robes surround them with a serenade. And then you go, instead of c'mon, "wow! " and a huge grin spreads over your face at the sheer self-conscious ludicrous act. You forgive it and give yourself to it again.

Caution: women will like this chickpea flick musical much more than men. And it is entirely suitable for children--teenage girls should be encouraged to see it.

Let's be truthful about the filibuster

So the Washington Post is reporting today that Frist Likely to Push for Ban on Filibusters. This is bad news in the short term because it runs the risk of taking away the supermajority lever that the 44 Democratic Senators have on judicial appointments (not that they use it nearly enough).

The progressive blogosphere and Air America have going nuts about this change, and rightly so. The current threat that Democrats can filibuster a confirmation is all that stands between many of these awful nominees and the federal bench.

But the general tone of the protests is at best ignorant and at worst disengenuous. The argument they make against losing this rule is that it is "anti-democratic," that it eliminates "checks and balances that the founding fathers wanted." This simply isn't true.

First of all the rule wasn't created by the founding fathers. It was created by the Senate in 1806 and has been protested ever since. It is not "democratic;" it is anti-majority. And it was not designed to protect the interests of the "minority", it was designed to increase the power of each senator. Lyndon Johnson and many others before him used the filibuster for decades to prevent civil rights legislation from coming to a vote. The legislation had a majority of the votes for some time before it passed in the 1960s (once LBJ changed directions and made it happen).

Don't get me wrong, I don't want Frist to succeed. We need the filibuster right now, in this moment in history. And maybe our friends need to lie to keep it. But right here, in the confines of this blog, let's admit the truth: it's got to go eventually and someday when our guys are in power, we'll thank them.

Will Tom Umberg Stay True to his Conscience?

I have always liked California Assemblymember Tom Umberg from Orange County. When he was in the Assembly the first time, before term limits and the "new Orange County," it was what we insiders like to call a tough seat. A Democrat had a genuinely tough time holding onto it and could easily lose to the Republican in the general election. Nonetheless, Tom Umberg voted his conscience. He didn't do what was politically expedient. He did what was right for his constituents.

Now after some 10 years out of the legislature, Tom Umberg's back in a redistricted, term-limited, solidly Democratic seat. After 4 months in office, next week he faces his first big test. On Tuesday, April 19th, the California Clean Money bill is up in the committee he chairs, Assembly Elections and Redistricting. Assembly Bill 583 by Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley) is a serious effort to take special interest money out of politics and make politicians beholden to the right people: the voters. The bill is a California-tailored version of successful public financing laws that have been in place for years in Arizona and Maine.

The buzz is that Chair Umberg will not vote aye on this landmark legislation (which passed out of this committee last year). The other Democrats on his committee, Leno (San Francisco) Levine (Los Angeles), and Klehs (Contra Costa County) say they will vote for the bill. The two Republicans will vote no. If Umberg ducks it, he'll kill the bill for year.

True, the California electorate (certainly in Orange County) has a long way to go before it fully understands public financing of elections. But after a few years, the voters and elected officials of Maine and Arizona, across party lines, love it. They report that the new system has rejeuvenated politics in their states, luring more ethical and accountable people to run for office and win and allowing politicians to focus their efforts on serving their constituents instead of fundraising.

If you live in Orange County or Assemblymember Tom Umberg's district and care about this issue, or if you think Tom Umberg will care what you think, please give his office a call and let him know that you want him to vote YES on AB 583 the California Clean Money bill. (916) 319-2069

Talk to Her

(:)(:)(:)(:) Four snouts up for Pedro Almodovar's Talk to Her -- a wonderful haunting film about two men involved with women in comas. I've been meaning to see it for years. I generally like Almodovar films. This one came like 2 weeks ago from Netflix and I have been avoiding watching it, thinking it would be depressing and kind of hating myself for being so shallow that I want to see an "uplifting" movie.

Finally, while Bill struggled with a movie called Time Code or something where there are 4 different screens simultaneously (I gave it a try. I think I'm too old to get it. I'm also annoyed by headlines running across the screen while I try to watch the news--which am I supposed to pay attention to? How do I do both? p.s. I can whine really well if I want to), I watched Talk to her tonight and absolutely loved it.

Caution: way less sex than any other Almodovar film and the only cross-dressing was the woman Matador--or was she a woman? Very androgynous, of course, characteristic of his work.

The trailer for this film was one of those inpenetrable promos with no words, just music and a series of eerie scenes. This one featured a tiny man sitting on the bed talking with a full size woman and a lot of dancing--while those scenes are technically in the film, they have nothing to do with the main characters or plot and for a long time influenced my choice to stay away from it. Why do they choose to promote their films that way? I will never get it.

Anyway, most of you probably aren't interested in a review of a film out on DVD that you've long since forgotten about. But I made a commitment to post daily and that's what I've got to say today. Good night.

The Art of Control

I'm trying to release control over things. Like the blog. I stopped sending the posts to everyone so that people could make a choice of coming to read it. Frightening for me that they might not.

At home, we've instituted a new system for getting the kids to brush their teeth, do their chores and homeworks and clean up their stuff without being nagged about it:

At 8:30am and 8:00pm I do an inspection. The list is posted of what they need to do. They can get up to 10 "privilege points" as a result of the inspection.

At first, I told them the inspection was coming and what to expect. I'd call out, "it's almost 8:30!" or, "I don't see any evidence of toothbrushing!" because I wanted them to succeed. But then, it hit me: it really wasn't important for me to want them to succeed. They had to want to succeed. And in order to want to succeed, they were going to at first have to fail.

So the warnings stopped and the inspections came, ready or not. The first couple inspections were a disaster, very low points awarded calmly but clearly explaining what was not done on the list. There was screaming. There was crying. There were protests. "This isn't fair! You didn't warn us! We didn't know it meant that!" etc.

But then we kept going. After only a couple of days of this, they were hyper vigilant. "it's almost 8:30!" would call one to the other. "Have you fed the hamster?" would respond the other. Because we couldn't otherwise tell whether they were doing it, we came up with them calling out "I'm brushing my teeth!" when that was happening and moving out into the public house spaces with their toothbrushes, brushing for two minutes to the second staring at the clock.

After only another day, they were doing their own inspections: "hamster? check! teeth? check! stuff cleaned up? check! backpack ready for school? check! I say I get 10 points, Mom, what do you think?" I think so too.

Now if only I could get all of you to scream it out so I could hear it, "I'm reading your blog!" I think I could be happy.

P.S. Notice anything? I got tired of snichols. It'll just be me for a while.

Unions vs. Corporations

It's a worthwhile observation that the commentors make on the last post about the difference between shareholders and union members--shareholders having considerably more choice in what company they invest in than which union they join. That point need not be disputed. But to focus on that in the context of the debate over the anti-union initiative misses a more important truth. It assumes that the initiative is motivated by trying to make unions more democratic.

The initiative to require unions to get express permission from members to use union dues for political money may be cleverly cloaked in the rhetoric of democracy for union members, but its clear purpose is to weaken the power of working people's only real force for counteracting the dominance of huge corporate money in politics. In California, at least, unions sometimes beat the chamber of commerce at its own game.

Further democratization of unions is a laudable goal. It would be excellent, for example, if unions weren't so quick to side with the employers against environmental and consumer measures. But if we're going to get seriously excited about cleaning up money and politics, it would be a lot more to the point to slow down the flow of big corporate money than union money.

At least union money buys better politicians.

Sauce for the Corporation

The most annoying aspirant to the California ballot this year is a proposition to restrict public employee unions from spending political money without getting written permission from each member of the union before spending their dues.

Today in From Defeat: Governor Has Chance to Win Dan Weintraub urges Schwarzenegger to back this initiative (along with the redistricting and budget caps initiatives) as roadmap to victory and renewed popularity.

snichols would like to see an initiative on the California ballot that would force every corporation to get written permission from each shareholder before spending political money. Now wouldn't that be something? Imagine a letter from one of these financial institutions to its shareholder--

dear snichols:
here at citibank, we think it's vital to protect every shareholder's interest in their money, but we can only protect your money if we continue to be able to invade the financial privacy of every resident of this state. Won't you help us by giving us permission to spend a huge amount of your potential profits funding the campaigns of politicians who will vote against everyone's financial privacy. We implore you! Your return on your investment depends upon the outcome of this legislation.

If only Schwarzenegger got behind an initiative like that, his popularity would soar, at least with snichols.

she might even let him grope her.

Kosher Adultery

What's on snichols' bedside table? Kosher Adultery: seduce and sin with your spouse by Shmuley Boteach. She'd give this book so far (:)(:)(:)(:) 4 snouts up, but remember, she's not through with reading it and may never be (it's overdue at the library already). This is by far the best marriage handbook that snichols has read (a relatively small universe, but still).

Prior to reading this book, snichols was not conscious of Rabbi Shmuley. But now that she's reading it, it's Shmuley this and Shmuley that, everyone wants to talk Rabbi Shmuley. Turns out he's huge. Who knew?

Anyway, the book is about how you can have an affair...with your own spouse. And it's not dumb; it's really credible and interesting. He has the most cogent analysis of the common pattern of marital sex breakdown that snichols has ever seen--and the best advice for getting out of it. Under the heading of TMI* snichols is smug to report that she has been unwittingly applying many of Shmuley's tips for years, to great effect, without even knowing that was what she was doing, but she has more to learn so she reads on.

Many of snichols' friends need to read this book (although snichols doesn't want to say which ones, out of uncharacteristic respect for privacy). Buy and implement this book. Oh, and if it isn't obvious, you don't have to be Jewish to benefit--ah, but it helps.

*"Too much information" for the uninitiated.

On snichols' bedside table

Today we launch a new segment entitled "on snichols' bedside table" in which we get to find out what snichols thinks of various books as she is reading them--this is crucial since it could take her years to finish any of the books she is reading.

Today, snichols finds herself giving (:)(:)(:) three snouts up to The Piano Tuner by Daniel Mason. Given to her ages ago by her mother-in-law, snichols finds herself reading it and more other novels now. It is a compelling story of a 40 year old tuner of Erard pianos who is called upon to journey from London to the furthest reaches of Burma in the late 19th century to tune the piano of a military legend. With echoes of EM Forster's A Passage to India, it is often unclear, at least to the piano tuner, what is real and what is not.

The only factor keeping snichols from awarding a 4th (and highest) upturned snout to the novel in progress is that she finds the voices and descriptions in the book to be jarringly 21st century. Words are spoken by the characters that it seems to snichols absolutely wouldn't have been said even remotely that way in the late 19th century. Every author injects the perspective of their own time into every book but in this case the perspective/voice of 110 years later is repeatedly distracting.

And yes, snichols knows exactly what was going on inside the heads of late 19th century piano tuners, please do not ask how?

Changes on snicholsblog

Changes are afoot on snicholsblog. First the minor ones: new look, links on side, updated profile.

Then the major: new URL for the blog snicholsblog.blogspot.com; and as of now snichols has terminated the automatic post to email. If you want to read snicholsblog now, you've got to remember to find it on the web.

snichols is going to wean you from it though. She'll send out an email now and again with a link and a tease. And she'll tell you how you can "subscribe" through a real webservice that does that for many blogs, not just this one.

Oh, and also, it's daily posts from now on. Hell or high water. She'll post.

This is old--go to snicholsblog.blogspot.com, my new blog!

NOTE: THIS IS AN OLD URL THAT IS NO LONGER UPDATED. GO TO MY NEW URL AT SNICHOLSBLOG

Sex and the snichols girl
[Warning: this post will not be as racy as it promises to be]
Most of her life, snichols has either been oblivious or lucky or both when it comes to experience of sex discrimination. Raised at the tail end of the baby boom, she has always been keenly aware of the history of her gender, and the women who blazed a trail before her. She has not been a trailblazer herself, however. Over 50% of her law school class were women. Women hired her for her first, second and third jobs out of law school. As a public interest lobbyist and legislative about half of her colleagues were women.

Don't get snichols wrong, she has occasionally suffered indignities afforded to her gender. She once, for example, heard a pin and a job offer at Georgetown Law School drop at the same time when she was being interviewed by a room of over 20 male private criminal defense lawyers. In it, she was called upon to explain why she would be uncomfortable using a rape victim's sexual history to tear down the witness's credibility as a tactic for defending her male client accused of rape. The room went completely dead when she had the audacity to suggest that there was an ongoing power imbalance between men and women with regard to sex, and the job, which she had been told was hers prior to that pro forma interview, was withdrawn.

Also it wasn't until the 3rd grade that she was allowed to wear pants to school and she once had to make onion dip for a superbowl game in which she wasn't even remotely interested.

But currently snichols is stepping simultaneously into two new arenas that appear frought with yesterday's problems for women: op ed writing and business.

snichols has entered the fray on the now national debate intiated between Susan Estrich (of Friend of Hilary fame) and Michael Kinsley (of New Republic neo con pretending to be liberal now editorial editor of the LA Times fame) on why there are so few women on the op ed page of the LA Times and other national publications. She recently had her 3 top notch (well, 2 top notch, 1 serviceable) pieces shot down by Kinsley--obviously sexism what else could it be? It couldn't be that he just had crammed the page so full of his own column and those of his New Republic neomod cronies that he has no room for anyone else, could it? Or is that sexism? snichols isn't sure.

She has submitted the pieces to the NY Times and the SF Chronicle and is waiting to hear back. Meanwhile NPR's Talk of the Nation debates "why women don't have more opinions," as if that were really the problem.

Meanwhile, snichols has started a company, now called What's the Big Idea?, to make money for social change from selling businesses and ideas--it's doing great but she and her female partners keep running up against a male-dominated business world that has trouble with the very concept of women. She is having to talk to people who refer to women as "little gals" for example, and she doesn't cotton to being called a "l'il gal" especially when she's a big 'un.

So what does all this mean, for snichols, and for the world? She hasn't quite sorted it out. She'll keep plugging away and let you know. Her working assumption, though, is that if Ray Charles can overcome poverty, racism and blindness to become an icon. She can overcome Kinsley and the "l'il gal" set.