I recently returned from Washington, DC, where, as I expected, I got an earful from public interest advocates about what a disappointment Nancy Pelosi is as Speaker of the House. This almost always happens. Democrats get into power, we have a brief surge of joy at their arrival and then they disappoint us. Or, more accurately, they disappoint the people working most closely with them, with the highest expectations. And then they tell the rest of us.
Putting aside my spiritual interest in the power of expectations and how much freedom can be gained from letting go of them, I am really freaked out by what I've heard. Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are allowing bad legislation to come to the floor of their respective houses and pass with a small minority of Democrats supporting it. An unholy alliance between the Republicans and a group of about 40 House Democrats and 12 Senate Dems is enough to pass all sorts of bad legislation.
And pass it they have. The most recent outrage is, of course, allowing legislation to pass which would expand executive power (currently concentrated in the hands of known criminal Alberto Gonzalez) to authorize wire-tapping. Not only is this expanded authority blatantly unconstitutional, a violation of separation of powers as well as 4th amendment privacy rights, but it is exactly what having the new majority in Congress was supposed to protect us against!
When the Republicans ran the Houses of Congress, they wouldn't let ANYTHING come to the floor that didn't have a majority of their own party supporting it--period. This power to control the agenda should be exercised here--it's imperative for the good of the country.
One way to get this message across to Pelosi and Reid is through their pocketbooks. If you've ever given a dime directly to a candidate for House or Senate, chances are your name, phone number and address are known to the Democratic party campaign committees--the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC--known to insiders as the "D-triple C" or "D-trip") and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (the DSCC--known to me as D-send).
If you're like me, these committees periodically call your home number and ask for money to preserve the Democratic majority. If you're like me, you never give money to the Democratic Party per se, only directly to candidates. Nonetheless, one of these calls is the perfect time to vent your rage at the party's leadership.
Here's what you say, "What good is a Democratic Majority if you let Republicans control the Agenda? I'll contribute money to you when you start acting like Democrats. Don't send Bush Republican legislation!" and hang up.
Do it a lot. It'll get their attention. What the hell, do it when anybody calls. It can't hurt.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Thursday, August 09, 2007
14 White Men Hold CA Budget Hostage
Republicans won’t vote for schools & hospitals without the promise of dirty(er) air
Senator Perata set out to prove once again that he is a better poker player than his colleagues across the aisle, saying “I will not bargain away
Sierra Club’s Bill Magavern [so I don’t become another Mirthala Salinas (I look a lot like her), full disclosure: Bill is my husband] named names, “I came here this morning to induct some new members into the California ‘Hall of Shame,’ and these are the new inductees, Aanestad, Ackerman, Ashburn, Battin, Cogdill, Cox, Denham, Dutton, Harman, Hollingsworth, Margett, McClintock, Runner, and Wyland. This gang of 14, all privileged white men, is obstructing the budget for the entire State of California, holding up funding for health care, for schools, for parks.”
Drawing a firm line in the sand may be a risky strategy for the Democrats. Unquestionably, Republicans are out of step with the mainstream of
Still, if any single one of the Gang of 14 have aspirations for statewide office, this is their time to get out of the entrenched minority and into the mainstream. Otherwise, we can write the attack ad now, “Tom Harman says he’s for better schools and a better life for
Better yet, let’s get 2/3 Democrats in the next election and render them completely irrelevant.
Monday, August 06, 2007
Watch John Edwards at the Yearly Kos Convention
This is an inspiring clip on Youtube (short, 3 minutes?) of John Edwards speaking to the Yearly Kos Convention of bloggers in Chicago. Watch it and let me know what you think.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, July 13, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
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!
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!
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
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.
(:)(:)(:) 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.
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.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
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!
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!
Monday, July 02, 2007
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.
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.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, June 22, 2007
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.
"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.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, June 18, 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
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."
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."
Monday, June 04, 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
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).
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).
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Four Snouts Up for An Unreasonable Man
(:)(:)(:)(:) for An Unreasonable Man seen tonight. I found this to be a balanced overview of Ralph's career, showing what made him who he is, with lots of air time for his critics.
Clearly the world is crying out for a great Nader date movie. Bill and I and the other Sacramento couple who used to work for Ralph Nader's Public Citizen, Nancy Drabble and John Sims, represented roughly 25% of the crowd at the film's opening night this evening at our huge beautiful old-fashioned Crest Theater downtown.
We couldn't stick around to compare notes with the Drabble/Sims, but we liked the film. However I can't begin to pretend to be objective about whether it's a good movie. For me this was closer to watching home movies than a documentary--Bill and I no doubt annoyed the people around us by keeping up a running whispered commentary,
"oh my God, is that Bob Fellmuth in the 60's?"
"Which one?"
"That one?"
"No. That's not Fellmuth."
"I can't believe that's what Ridgeway looks like. The number of times he's interviewed me over the phone, I never saw him in person."
"Oh my god, is Gene Karpinsky gonna tell is 'there's the hard core and then there's the spouse core' Ralph quote again?"
"He is!"
"he's telling it again"
"Jesus Christ, is that Joan Claybrook or Abby Hoffman?"
"Ralph and Joan are still having the same argument about air bags they had 30 years ago"
"Where's Russell Mokiber and JR? How could they have a movie about Ralph without Mokiber and JR?"
"Shit, they're not going to let Harvey talk about Proposition 103! Oh god, they are."
And so forth. So no. I'm not objective. But listen. The one thing I wish they'd done differently, is explained more about the Clinton administration, and what it did to Ralph's policies. I really think that every Democrat who hates Ralph for running for President in 2000 and 2004 would understand at least the 2000 race if they really knew what Clinton did to turn back the clock on food safety, auto safety, worker safety, the environment. If people understood that Clinton worked with a Democratic Congress to undo laws enacted primarily with the help of Ralph Nader, that Republican Presidents since Reagan had tried unsuccessfully to get the Democrats to repeal, they'd know why Ralph ran.
But hey, it's quite possible that no one but me cares. I still love and respect Ralph Nader and always will. And I'll defend him with my last breath. As this film shows, he's human. But he's also the ultimate citizen, and the ultimate American. He loves this country's promise of Democracy and its legal system, and he has tested both like no one else. And while he may be slightly Messianic, he's far from megalomaniacal--his fights have never ever been about Ralph, they've been about the future of this country.
Clearly the world is crying out for a great Nader date movie. Bill and I and the other Sacramento couple who used to work for Ralph Nader's Public Citizen, Nancy Drabble and John Sims, represented roughly 25% of the crowd at the film's opening night this evening at our huge beautiful old-fashioned Crest Theater downtown.
We couldn't stick around to compare notes with the Drabble/Sims, but we liked the film. However I can't begin to pretend to be objective about whether it's a good movie. For me this was closer to watching home movies than a documentary--Bill and I no doubt annoyed the people around us by keeping up a running whispered commentary,
"oh my God, is that Bob Fellmuth in the 60's?"
"Which one?"
"That one?"
"No. That's not Fellmuth."
"I can't believe that's what Ridgeway looks like. The number of times he's interviewed me over the phone, I never saw him in person."
"Oh my god, is Gene Karpinsky gonna tell is 'there's the hard core and then there's the spouse core' Ralph quote again?"
"He is!"
"he's telling it again"
"Jesus Christ, is that Joan Claybrook or Abby Hoffman?"
"Ralph and Joan are still having the same argument about air bags they had 30 years ago"
"Where's Russell Mokiber and JR? How could they have a movie about Ralph without Mokiber and JR?"
"Shit, they're not going to let Harvey talk about Proposition 103! Oh god, they are."
And so forth. So no. I'm not objective. But listen. The one thing I wish they'd done differently, is explained more about the Clinton administration, and what it did to Ralph's policies. I really think that every Democrat who hates Ralph for running for President in 2000 and 2004 would understand at least the 2000 race if they really knew what Clinton did to turn back the clock on food safety, auto safety, worker safety, the environment. If people understood that Clinton worked with a Democratic Congress to undo laws enacted primarily with the help of Ralph Nader, that Republican Presidents since Reagan had tried unsuccessfully to get the Democrats to repeal, they'd know why Ralph ran.
But hey, it's quite possible that no one but me cares. I still love and respect Ralph Nader and always will. And I'll defend him with my last breath. As this film shows, he's human. But he's also the ultimate citizen, and the ultimate American. He loves this country's promise of Democracy and its legal system, and he has tested both like no one else. And while he may be slightly Messianic, he's far from megalomaniacal--his fights have never ever been about Ralph, they've been about the future of this country.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
The 2 or 3 Habits of a Semi-Effective Snichols
Perhaps this is obvious, but the more I plan my days and my weeks, the better they go. Granted, unlike 99% of the people reading this blog, absent planning, my week includes huge blocks of unscheduled time--thank you, God, I am so lucky.
I engage in 3 levels of planning, monthly, weekly and daily.
1) Once a month I look over the whole month, block out all the regular appointments in my life--things that happen every single week. I also look ahead a few months at what is in the hopper--check out deadlines for things and schedule backwards from them.
2) Once a week, usually Sunday night, I get out my planner and block the week. If the monthly planner did its job, this is easier, because I have left time for the things I always need to do. So, every day I schedule time, literally schedule, for prayer, meditation, reading, writing, exercise, studying, and housecleaning. This usually takes up a total of about 3 hours a day. Then I schedule time for board and volunteer responsibilities, job hunting and errands or what I call do it now. This usually adds another 2-3 hours to the day. And that's my kids' school day right there. I sometimes have 2 to 3 hours left over in a week where I will schedule the luxury of a hair cut or lunch with a friend. Usually after school and evenings are taken up with kids or church activities, but sometimes, as now, the kids are at swim team for large blocks of time and I can get something accomplished or have some fun during that period.
A word on exercise: the exercise really doesn't happen unless I write down when it's happening and what it is, e.g., running, biking, swimming, or Tae Bo. If I just say exercise then I have to figure that out daily and that can be tricky.
3) Daily. Every morning I look over the schedule and make sure it's realistic. In implementing it, and adjusting it, I use Steven Covey's guides as my priority, 1st) urgent and important (e.g. making a speech that I agreed to make), 2nd) non-urgent and important (prayer and meditation, planning, setting a future appointment), 3rd) urgent and unimportant (dropping off something at the dry cleaners, 4) non-urgent and unimportant (most emails).
A word about email. For me, for this strategy to succeed, it is crucial that I delay looking at emails for as long as possible, it is a giant time sink. After I've finished all the important stuff, I can look at emails. This is particular difficult when one of the urgent things is sending out an email. I can be tempted to check my email and often fall into that trap. I am trying to discipline myself into getting in, sending the email, only opening the emails that obviously pertain to the urgent and important activities of the day and getting out. Deferring random email checking to a period of time in which I can quickly respond to emails.
This is also important because if I open an email and read it when I have time to respond, my chances of responding later become sharply diminished so it really is a losing proposition.
I engage in 3 levels of planning, monthly, weekly and daily.
1) Once a month I look over the whole month, block out all the regular appointments in my life--things that happen every single week. I also look ahead a few months at what is in the hopper--check out deadlines for things and schedule backwards from them.
2) Once a week, usually Sunday night, I get out my planner and block the week. If the monthly planner did its job, this is easier, because I have left time for the things I always need to do. So, every day I schedule time, literally schedule, for prayer, meditation, reading, writing, exercise, studying, and housecleaning. This usually takes up a total of about 3 hours a day. Then I schedule time for board and volunteer responsibilities, job hunting and errands or what I call do it now. This usually adds another 2-3 hours to the day. And that's my kids' school day right there. I sometimes have 2 to 3 hours left over in a week where I will schedule the luxury of a hair cut or lunch with a friend. Usually after school and evenings are taken up with kids or church activities, but sometimes, as now, the kids are at swim team for large blocks of time and I can get something accomplished or have some fun during that period.
A word on exercise: the exercise really doesn't happen unless I write down when it's happening and what it is, e.g., running, biking, swimming, or Tae Bo. If I just say exercise then I have to figure that out daily and that can be tricky.
3) Daily. Every morning I look over the schedule and make sure it's realistic. In implementing it, and adjusting it, I use Steven Covey's guides as my priority, 1st) urgent and important (e.g. making a speech that I agreed to make), 2nd) non-urgent and important (prayer and meditation, planning, setting a future appointment), 3rd) urgent and unimportant (dropping off something at the dry cleaners, 4) non-urgent and unimportant (most emails).
A word about email. For me, for this strategy to succeed, it is crucial that I delay looking at emails for as long as possible, it is a giant time sink. After I've finished all the important stuff, I can look at emails. This is particular difficult when one of the urgent things is sending out an email. I can be tempted to check my email and often fall into that trap. I am trying to discipline myself into getting in, sending the email, only opening the emails that obviously pertain to the urgent and important activities of the day and getting out. Deferring random email checking to a period of time in which I can quickly respond to emails.
This is also important because if I open an email and read it when I have time to respond, my chances of responding later become sharply diminished so it really is a losing proposition.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Fear & Loving in Disneyland
Last Friday, my son and I journeyed to Disneyland to watch his sister's 5th grade class receive a big award (for their project to create habitat for endangered burrowing owls, to learn more about it go to their save the burrowing owls website) with lots of hullabaloo. For me, the wildest ride of the day was the Big Corporate Rollercoaster of Love ride--my own strange conflicted relationship with Disney.
In the days before the trip, the ride began:
Down the rollercoaster dipped as I saw the "Environmentality" hats they handed to each of the 30 some kids--shaped and colored exactly like army hats, creating an army of Disney aficionados.
Up I flew as the kids ran to embrace a live Jiminy Cricket who came to their school in Sacramento to give the award--the kids were so thrilled and honored!
Once inside the park, down I rushed as several Bush administration officials shared the stage with the 10 and 11 year olds--"how dare they posture as pro-environment!" I even went so far as to ineffectively heckle this fish and game guy who said "it is with great pleasure that we will turn stewardship of the environment over to [a new generation]...," while I suggested "the Democrats" loud enough to annoy my son and a couple of proud fellow parents.
My ride climaxed as two obviously professional actors (Gladys and Dwight) dressed as owls "interrupted" the ceremony and proceeded to sing a hilarious and perfect medley of bird songs backed up by the girl group with chick yellow feathered hair, "the Peeps" (get it? Gladys, Dwight and the Peeps?). Tears actually came to my eyes at Disney going to the trouble of creating this whole production just for these children (putting aside the thought of Shakespearean actors being paid to dress up as owls).
Down down down I came as I looked at the PR hacks in the back handing out paper to the cameras and reporters, desperately using our children to create a "pro-environment" image even as they had given each kid Jiminy Cricket lunch boxes almost certainly made by 13 year old girls in China and laden with lead (according to recent reports).
But up I came for the final enjoyment of the ride as their (liberal) teacher Mitch Carnie, right in front of Sleeping Beauty's Castle, asked the crowd to remember John Lennon's lyrics and "imagine" what it would be like if every child in California did a project like this that genuinely improved the environment before they graduated 6th grade.
And from there, I kept enjoying it as my son and I continued on real rides, seeing the improvements to Pirates of the Caribbean, Space Mountain, and other face lifts to the park--we love Disney's California Adventure. And having a fabulous meal with friends at the Blue Bayou restaurant (the New Orleans-style "outdoor at night" atmosphere that the Pirates of the Caribbean ride takes you right by), something I've always wanted to do.
So in the final analysis, even though I mistrust the Disney corporation, I love Disneyland, Disney movies and Disney production values--my recommendation, just enjoy the ride.
In the days before the trip, the ride began:
Down the rollercoaster dipped as I saw the "Environmentality" hats they handed to each of the 30 some kids--shaped and colored exactly like army hats, creating an army of Disney aficionados.
Up I flew as the kids ran to embrace a live Jiminy Cricket who came to their school in Sacramento to give the award--the kids were so thrilled and honored!
Once inside the park, down I rushed as several Bush administration officials shared the stage with the 10 and 11 year olds--"how dare they posture as pro-environment!" I even went so far as to ineffectively heckle this fish and game guy who said "it is with great pleasure that we will turn stewardship of the environment over to [a new generation]...," while I suggested "the Democrats" loud enough to annoy my son and a couple of proud fellow parents.
My ride climaxed as two obviously professional actors (Gladys and Dwight) dressed as owls "interrupted" the ceremony and proceeded to sing a hilarious and perfect medley of bird songs backed up by the girl group with chick yellow feathered hair, "the Peeps" (get it? Gladys, Dwight and the Peeps?). Tears actually came to my eyes at Disney going to the trouble of creating this whole production just for these children (putting aside the thought of Shakespearean actors being paid to dress up as owls).
Down down down I came as I looked at the PR hacks in the back handing out paper to the cameras and reporters, desperately using our children to create a "pro-environment" image even as they had given each kid Jiminy Cricket lunch boxes almost certainly made by 13 year old girls in China and laden with lead (according to recent reports).
But up I came for the final enjoyment of the ride as their (liberal) teacher Mitch Carnie, right in front of Sleeping Beauty's Castle, asked the crowd to remember John Lennon's lyrics and "imagine" what it would be like if every child in California did a project like this that genuinely improved the environment before they graduated 6th grade.
And from there, I kept enjoying it as my son and I continued on real rides, seeing the improvements to Pirates of the Caribbean, Space Mountain, and other face lifts to the park--we love Disney's California Adventure. And having a fabulous meal with friends at the Blue Bayou restaurant (the New Orleans-style "outdoor at night" atmosphere that the Pirates of the Caribbean ride takes you right by), something I've always wanted to do.
So in the final analysis, even though I mistrust the Disney corporation, I love Disneyland, Disney movies and Disney production values--my recommendation, just enjoy the ride.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Big money developers win as County Supervisors prepare backroom deal to stop
Housing activists are protesting a meeting of the Sacramento County Supervisors this morning to try to blow up this deal.
After adopting an award winning program to ensure affordable housing for lower income Sacramento families in 2004, lobbyists for big money developers sued the County. Despite a judge’s ruling that the developer suit is without merit, County Supervisors have agreed to settle the suit and concede affordable homes to developer interests.
“This program is not broken, why is the County trying to fix it in a backroom deal? Why are they going back on their compact with us?” asks Mike Camino, lower income resident.
“By making this backroom deal, affordable homes are taken away from working families to put money in the pocket of big developers.” Ethan Evans, Sacramento Housing Alliance.
After adopting an award winning program to ensure affordable housing for lower income Sacramento families in 2004, lobbyists for big money developers sued the County. Despite a judge’s ruling that the developer suit is without merit, County Supervisors have agreed to settle the suit and concede affordable homes to developer interests.
“This program is not broken, why is the County trying to fix it in a backroom deal? Why are they going back on their compact with us?” asks Mike Camino, lower income resident.
“By making this backroom deal, affordable homes are taken away from working families to put money in the pocket of big developers.” Ethan Evans, Sacramento Housing Alliance.
Monday, May 07, 2007
Thinking Like Doolittle
Yikes, I'm thinking like John Doolittle. Today's Sacramento Bee reports (Republican congressman) Doolittle believes that the FBI raid on his house last month was timed to bolster Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Bee is so appropriately anti-Doolittle that they make the claim sound paranoid and desperate.
But Doolittle has got to be right. When it went down, I thought the same thing. The timing was just too cute. On the very day that Gonzales is scheduled to be raked over the Judiciary Committee coals for politically motivated actions of the Justice Department, the FBI just happens to raid a high profile Republican Congressman's house in California early enough in the morning and with enough press coordination to make the morning papers in the east?
C'mon, it has Karl Rove written all over it--desperate play at distraction. Of course it didn't work, Gonzales still got reamed and people noticed it. And of course Doolittle's attempt to change the subject is equally desperate. It seems clear in recent weeks that his reign of terror is coming to an end.
I picture Rove the week of the Gonzales testimony pulling from a hat he carries around with him the names of people he's willing to take down to save the President. That week, it came up Doolittle. And they say Democrats eat their young...
But Doolittle has got to be right. When it went down, I thought the same thing. The timing was just too cute. On the very day that Gonzales is scheduled to be raked over the Judiciary Committee coals for politically motivated actions of the Justice Department, the FBI just happens to raid a high profile Republican Congressman's house in California early enough in the morning and with enough press coordination to make the morning papers in the east?
C'mon, it has Karl Rove written all over it--desperate play at distraction. Of course it didn't work, Gonzales still got reamed and people noticed it. And of course Doolittle's attempt to change the subject is equally desperate. It seems clear in recent weeks that his reign of terror is coming to an end.
I picture Rove the week of the Gonzales testimony pulling from a hat he carries around with him the names of people he's willing to take down to save the President. That week, it came up Doolittle. And they say Democrats eat their young...
Thursday, May 03, 2007
James Saxon on the Suspense behind Clean Money
I participated by listening to the live stream of the Appropriations Committee over the internet. It's like before horror films there was radio! It was full of all the same "suspense" but with baited breath, you get to imagine all the scenes without seeing the smiles, winks, nods, and of course the lobbyists pouring in money (but even with strong disclosure laws, few ever really see that.).
I wish I could have been there nonetheless to voice my support for AB 583 to save the world from the unfair influence of money in our democratic system! It's our government's own "global warming".
So it was very heartening to learn the weight that Mr. Leno has to wield in bringing this bill out of suspense.
The chairperson was clearly very positive and excited about AB 583. And seemed to suggest that it would be continuing to have a life (I guess as far as he can help). So I'm betting we'll be seeing more of AB 583, Clean Money, Fairer Elections, Full Public Financing of Elections really soon. It's time has come for sure.
Hopefully along with Nunez, Leno, and Hancock, maybe Governor Schwarzenegger can also join in, giving the bill the momentum it needs to get to his desk and into law!
I wish I could have been there nonetheless to voice my support for AB 583 to save the world from the unfair influence of money in our democratic system! It's our government's own "global warming".
So it was very heartening to learn the weight that Mr. Leno has to wield in bringing this bill out of suspense.
The chairperson was clearly very positive and excited about AB 583. And seemed to suggest that it would be continuing to have a life (I guess as far as he can help). So I'm betting we'll be seeing more of AB 583, Clean Money, Fairer Elections, Full Public Financing of Elections really soon. It's time has come for sure.
Hopefully along with Nunez, Leno, and Hancock, maybe Governor Schwarzenegger can also join in, giving the bill the momentum it needs to get to his desk and into law!
James Saxon on the Suspense behind Clean Money
I participated by listening to the live stream of the Appropriations Committee over the internet. It's like before horror films there was radio! It was full of all the same "suspense" but with baited breath, you get to imagine all the scenes without seeing the smiles, winks, nods, and of course the lobbyists pouring in money (but even with strong disclosure laws, few ever really see that.).
I wish I could have been there nonetheless to voice my support for AB 583 to save the world from the unfair influence of money in our democratic system! It's our government's own "global warming".
So it was very heartening to learn the weight that Mr. Leno has to wield in bringing this bill out of suspense.
The chairperson was clearly very positive and excited about AB 583. And seemed to suggest that it would be continuing to have a life (I guess as far as he can help). So I'm betting we'll be seeing more of AB 583, Clean Money, Fairer Elections, Full Public Financing of Elections really soon. It's time has come for sure.
Hopefully along with Nunez, Leno, and Hancock, maybe Governor Schwarzenegger can also join in, giving the bill the momentum it needs to get to his desk and into law!
I wish I could have been there nonetheless to voice my support for AB 583 to save the world from the unfair influence of money in our democratic system! It's our government's own "global warming".
So it was very heartening to learn the weight that Mr. Leno has to wield in bringing this bill out of suspense.
The chairperson was clearly very positive and excited about AB 583. And seemed to suggest that it would be continuing to have a life (I guess as far as he can help). So I'm betting we'll be seeing more of AB 583, Clean Money, Fairer Elections, Full Public Financing of Elections really soon. It's time has come for sure.
Hopefully along with Nunez, Leno, and Hancock, maybe Governor Schwarzenegger can also join in, giving the bill the momentum it needs to get to his desk and into law!
Clean Elections: the suspense is killing me
If the California Appropriations Committees were a summer movie, it’d be a blockbuster. After all, they’ve got all the right ingredients: suspense, mass murders, graveyards. Unfortunately for me, I’ve never liked horror films—I can’t stand the suspense.
Today the California Assembly Appropriations Committee moved AB 583, the Clean Money and Fair Elections Act by Assemblymember Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley) to the “suspense file,” leading me to wonder whether, once again, the suspense will kill me before we have public financing of elections in California. What rule, concept or decorum is actually “suspended,” I’ve long since forgotten. What I do know is that the suspense is not whether a bill will go “to suspense,” the suspense is whether it comes off.
And off it should come. As Susan Lerner, Executive Director of the California Clean Money Campaign, the sponsor of AB 583, said today, “the issue is no longer how can we afford to pay for it, but how can we afford not to pay for it?” Indeed, it is long overdue to inject clean public financing into California elections. However, this bill, coming as it does on the heels of (losing) Proposition 89 on last year’s ballot, faces a tough challenge in the legislature, even though it contains only parts of that initiative.
Sacramento insiders know that virtually every bill worth passing (i.e., every bill with a price tag) moves to “suspense” in Appropriations. The legitimate rationale used to be that bills that would cost the taxpayers over a certain amount of money per year would all be considered together. This process would ensure that California could afford the legislation it passed.
I have no quarrel with the theory behind considering these bills in tandem. I do take issue with the extreme secrecy with which these decisions are made. I’ve never understood why the handling of the suspense calendar isn’t a violation of the Brown Act (California open meeting law).
What it boils down to is that a handful of legislators can prevent the most important legislation in the state from moving forward without explaining their reasons or having to vote in public.
Here’s how it works: all the Assemblymembers and Senators who have their bills “on suspense” in the Appropriations Committee are forced to submit a secret (closely guarded) ranking of all their bills in order of priority.
It’s the Sophie’s Choice of legislators—“if only (sob) one of my (sob) bills gets to (sob) live, I guess it will have to be (sob) this one.” This ranking is then reviewed by a small cadre consisting of (if memory serves) the Appropriations Chair, the leader of the house, in private consultation with other members of the Appropriations committee, who decide which bills will come “off suspense” and therefore be granted an actual vote in committee.
Every year these “graveyard” committees bury scores of important (and less important) bills by having them never come off “suspense.”
Last year’s version of AB 583 came off suspense in a new form: without operative language and passed “in concept” off the Assembly floor and into the Senate where it fizzled out in the Senate Elections Committee despite the strong support of then chair now Secretary of State Debra Bowen.
The bill today was supported by over 20 activists and spoken well of by several legislators, including Assemblymember Fiona Ma (D-San Francisco) who asked to be added as a co-author.
The Chair of the Assembly Elections Committee Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) also spoke highly of the bill, having been a leading co-author for years. He hailed author Loni Hancock as more than an author, as the leader of a movement.
Despite my misgivings about the process, if the fate of this bill has to be decided in secret, I’m thrilled it’s in the hands of the capable and trustworthy Mark Leno, in consultation with Speaker Fabian Nunez, who has also been a strong supporter in the past.
Nunez, Leno and Hancock have the power to give this movie a happy ending if they put their heads together behind the scenes and bring to the screen a real version of this bill, with enforcement provisions and the necessary funding source off “suspense” for the vote the public deserves. When will California have real campaign reform? The suspense is killing us.
Today the California Assembly Appropriations Committee moved AB 583, the Clean Money and Fair Elections Act by Assemblymember Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley) to the “suspense file,” leading me to wonder whether, once again, the suspense will kill me before we have public financing of elections in California. What rule, concept or decorum is actually “suspended,” I’ve long since forgotten. What I do know is that the suspense is not whether a bill will go “to suspense,” the suspense is whether it comes off.
And off it should come. As Susan Lerner, Executive Director of the California Clean Money Campaign, the sponsor of AB 583, said today, “the issue is no longer how can we afford to pay for it, but how can we afford not to pay for it?” Indeed, it is long overdue to inject clean public financing into California elections. However, this bill, coming as it does on the heels of (losing) Proposition 89 on last year’s ballot, faces a tough challenge in the legislature, even though it contains only parts of that initiative.
Sacramento insiders know that virtually every bill worth passing (i.e., every bill with a price tag) moves to “suspense” in Appropriations. The legitimate rationale used to be that bills that would cost the taxpayers over a certain amount of money per year would all be considered together. This process would ensure that California could afford the legislation it passed.
I have no quarrel with the theory behind considering these bills in tandem. I do take issue with the extreme secrecy with which these decisions are made. I’ve never understood why the handling of the suspense calendar isn’t a violation of the Brown Act (California open meeting law).
What it boils down to is that a handful of legislators can prevent the most important legislation in the state from moving forward without explaining their reasons or having to vote in public.
Here’s how it works: all the Assemblymembers and Senators who have their bills “on suspense” in the Appropriations Committee are forced to submit a secret (closely guarded) ranking of all their bills in order of priority.
It’s the Sophie’s Choice of legislators—“if only (sob) one of my (sob) bills gets to (sob) live, I guess it will have to be (sob) this one.” This ranking is then reviewed by a small cadre consisting of (if memory serves) the Appropriations Chair, the leader of the house, in private consultation with other members of the Appropriations committee, who decide which bills will come “off suspense” and therefore be granted an actual vote in committee.
Every year these “graveyard” committees bury scores of important (and less important) bills by having them never come off “suspense.”
Last year’s version of AB 583 came off suspense in a new form: without operative language and passed “in concept” off the Assembly floor and into the Senate where it fizzled out in the Senate Elections Committee despite the strong support of then chair now Secretary of State Debra Bowen.
The bill today was supported by over 20 activists and spoken well of by several legislators, including Assemblymember Fiona Ma (D-San Francisco) who asked to be added as a co-author.
The Chair of the Assembly Elections Committee Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) also spoke highly of the bill, having been a leading co-author for years. He hailed author Loni Hancock as more than an author, as the leader of a movement.
Despite my misgivings about the process, if the fate of this bill has to be decided in secret, I’m thrilled it’s in the hands of the capable and trustworthy Mark Leno, in consultation with Speaker Fabian Nunez, who has also been a strong supporter in the past.
Nunez, Leno and Hancock have the power to give this movie a happy ending if they put their heads together behind the scenes and bring to the screen a real version of this bill, with enforcement provisions and the necessary funding source off “suspense” for the vote the public deserves. When will California have real campaign reform? The suspense is killing us.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Mersmann on Kucinich
Sara,
I think it's time to vote your heart and soul and principles and come
back to Dennis. Kucinich has boldly introduced legislation calling
for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney and he is the only candidate
who has consistently voted against the Iraq war. Furthermore he is in
favor of single payer national health care. Sure he may look like a
geek, but he is the best the Dems have to offer. A long shot, sure;
but YOU, of all people, should know how powerful belief and intention
are in the world.
Look at his ten key issues:
Universal Health Care
International Cooperation: US out of Iraq, UN in
Jobs and Withdrawal from NAFTA and WTO
Repeal of the "Patriot Act"
Guaranteed Quality Education, Pre-K Through College
Full Social Security Benefits at Age 65
Right-to-Choose, Privacy and Civil Rights
Balance Between Workers and Corporations
Environmental Renewal and Clean Energy
Restored Rural Communities and Family Farms
See anything you don't like? See any other Dem who comes close?
Kucinich 2008 In Your Heart You Know He's Right.
Be Well,
Harry
Harry J. Mersmann, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
I think it's time to vote your heart and soul and principles and come
back to Dennis. Kucinich has boldly introduced legislation calling
for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney and he is the only candidate
who has consistently voted against the Iraq war. Furthermore he is in
favor of single payer national health care. Sure he may look like a
geek, but he is the best the Dems have to offer. A long shot, sure;
but YOU, of all people, should know how powerful belief and intention
are in the world.
Look at his ten key issues:
Universal Health Care
International Cooperation: US out of Iraq, UN in
Jobs and Withdrawal from NAFTA and WTO
Repeal of the "Patriot Act"
Guaranteed Quality Education, Pre-K Through College
Full Social Security Benefits at Age 65
Right-to-Choose, Privacy and Civil Rights
Balance Between Workers and Corporations
Environmental Renewal and Clean Energy
Restored Rural Communities and Family Farms
See anything you don't like? See any other Dem who comes close?
Kucinich 2008 In Your Heart You Know He's Right.
Be Well,
Harry
Harry J. Mersmann, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
More on Edwards
In the self-referential world of blogging, I feel the need to link above to the California Progress Report, which has put my post here from yesterday up as their post for today--so this week I'm one day ahead of the best blog on California politics ;)
More importantly, everyone who has responded to my post yesterday has said that they're for Edwards too. Of course, this is probably self-selecting. My Obama-supporting friends may just be lying low--still, this is their chance to make their pitch to me. No one so far, in my limited circles, has made the case for Hillary (although I know that some female legislators I respect, such as state Senator Sheila Kuehl, are high on her).
And, according to yesterday's California Progress Report, Edwards gave a helluva speech Sunday which converted some of the crowd.
My radical New York Times and Nation-reading, social studies teaching friend Sandra Childs in Portland, Oregon reports that Obama gave a very pro Israel speech to the Israeli lobby and speaks well of Edwards work on poverty in the last few years.
So, keep the information and opinions coming folks, the election's only 10 months away :).
More importantly, everyone who has responded to my post yesterday has said that they're for Edwards too. Of course, this is probably self-selecting. My Obama-supporting friends may just be lying low--still, this is their chance to make their pitch to me. No one so far, in my limited circles, has made the case for Hillary (although I know that some female legislators I respect, such as state Senator Sheila Kuehl, are high on her).
And, according to yesterday's California Progress Report, Edwards gave a helluva speech Sunday which converted some of the crowd.
My radical New York Times and Nation-reading, social studies teaching friend Sandra Childs in Portland, Oregon reports that Obama gave a very pro Israel speech to the Israeli lobby and speaks well of Edwards work on poverty in the last few years.
So, keep the information and opinions coming folks, the election's only 10 months away :).
Monday, April 30, 2007
Uninformed Musings on the Dem Presidential Primary
With the Democratic Convention just wrapping up in San Diego and John Edwards' face plastered in the Sacramento Bee this morning, my thoughts turn to the Democratic presidential primary. Here are my badly uninformed thoughts so far:
First, as most of you know by now I am badly frightened by Hillary Clinton being the frontrunner (as measured by polls and fundraising). In an election which currently promises to favor the Democratic candidate, nothing could galvanize the right like having Hillary to campaign against. And how am I to be enthusiastic about her? Yes. I recognize and appreciate that a woman is a strong viable candidate in this race--that is progress. But she has been wrong on the war, she has been a dealmaker/Republican accommodationist in the Senate, and I don't trust her. I don't believe she has any strongly held beliefs from which she governs. I think she's power hungry.
Second, Obama. Many of my friends and colleagues are completely ga-ga for Obama. I can see why, he's charismatic, he's leftwing, he's been consistently anti-war, he's got dark skin (some argue we can't call him "black" or even "African-American" because he's not descended from the enslaved people of West Africa), he's fresh and a relative outsider. All intriguing and exciting, but he is so new that I don't have a sense of his record, his commitment or, perhaps mostly importantly, his ability to campaign effectively for national office (we know Hillary can)--his election to the U.S. Senate was a cakewalk.
Then there's John Edwards, for whom, truth be told, if the primary were held today I'd vote. Why? Because I have met him (I've met Hillary too, but...). I have seen him speak. I have watched his career closely. I like him. I trust him. I believe him. I like plaintiff's lawyers. Do I agree with every position he's ever taken? No. Was I blown away by him in person? No. In fact, after meeting him I voted for Dennis Kucinich in the California primary last go round, largely because it was a walk for Kerry already and I thought I should just vote my conscience. But I think he's strong on the stump, has the courage of his convictions, has a way to connect with middle-Americans, and would be a good commander in chief.
As I learn more about Obama, have a chance to see him speak more, I may well gravitate towards him. I am wary of early and heady support for particular presidential candidates--mindful of the Deaniacs last time around (I knew a fair amount about Howard Dean and couldn't see how they could like him so much).
I'm willing to be educated. And of course I haven't even mentioned Bill Richardson, Joe Biden (whom I've always loved), (liberal insurance company guy) Chris Dodd or the possibilities of Kerry or Gore getting into it late. What do you think?
First, as most of you know by now I am badly frightened by Hillary Clinton being the frontrunner (as measured by polls and fundraising). In an election which currently promises to favor the Democratic candidate, nothing could galvanize the right like having Hillary to campaign against. And how am I to be enthusiastic about her? Yes. I recognize and appreciate that a woman is a strong viable candidate in this race--that is progress. But she has been wrong on the war, she has been a dealmaker/Republican accommodationist in the Senate, and I don't trust her. I don't believe she has any strongly held beliefs from which she governs. I think she's power hungry.
Second, Obama. Many of my friends and colleagues are completely ga-ga for Obama. I can see why, he's charismatic, he's leftwing, he's been consistently anti-war, he's got dark skin (some argue we can't call him "black" or even "African-American" because he's not descended from the enslaved people of West Africa), he's fresh and a relative outsider. All intriguing and exciting, but he is so new that I don't have a sense of his record, his commitment or, perhaps mostly importantly, his ability to campaign effectively for national office (we know Hillary can)--his election to the U.S. Senate was a cakewalk.
Then there's John Edwards, for whom, truth be told, if the primary were held today I'd vote. Why? Because I have met him (I've met Hillary too, but...). I have seen him speak. I have watched his career closely. I like him. I trust him. I believe him. I like plaintiff's lawyers. Do I agree with every position he's ever taken? No. Was I blown away by him in person? No. In fact, after meeting him I voted for Dennis Kucinich in the California primary last go round, largely because it was a walk for Kerry already and I thought I should just vote my conscience. But I think he's strong on the stump, has the courage of his convictions, has a way to connect with middle-Americans, and would be a good commander in chief.
As I learn more about Obama, have a chance to see him speak more, I may well gravitate towards him. I am wary of early and heady support for particular presidential candidates--mindful of the Deaniacs last time around (I knew a fair amount about Howard Dean and couldn't see how they could like him so much).
I'm willing to be educated. And of course I haven't even mentioned Bill Richardson, Joe Biden (whom I've always loved), (liberal insurance company guy) Chris Dodd or the possibilities of Kerry or Gore getting into it late. What do you think?
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Round I to the Democrats in Congress
Probably a function of distance from Washington, but I'm impressed with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid's maneuvers on Iraq this week. By using Bush's certain veto to create strong party discipline and send a $124 billion military spending bill to Bush laden with a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, the Democrats have put the Republicans in a tight position:
If Republicans vote against the package, they are simultaneously:
a) undermining the troops by refusing to support new spending for all the things the troops need to keep them out of harms way--thereby jeopardizing them with their base;
b) going on record as opposing a sensible timetable for withdrawal from Iraq thereby leaving them vulnerable with swing voters who oppose the war.
By supporting the package (which almost none of the Republicans did), they:
a) "undermine the troops" by bringing them home (something I've never understood but elements of the Republican base are rabid about);
b) undermine the President (see above).
Pelosi no doubt used her liberal San Francisco bona fides with the left wing of the Democratic party, coupled with MoveOn support for this strategy, to bring most of them along to vote for huge war spending, despite the pressure from some peacenik quarters not to do so.
As deplorable as a $124 billion war infusion is, the knowledge of a certain veto by Bush allows most Democrats to participate in this brilliant strategy protected from the possibility of genuinely having helped fund the war.
After the veto is a different story of course, all bets are off and the party factions will probably scatter to their respective corners. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.
If Republicans vote against the package, they are simultaneously:
a) undermining the troops by refusing to support new spending for all the things the troops need to keep them out of harms way--thereby jeopardizing them with their base;
b) going on record as opposing a sensible timetable for withdrawal from Iraq thereby leaving them vulnerable with swing voters who oppose the war.
By supporting the package (which almost none of the Republicans did), they:
a) "undermine the troops" by bringing them home (something I've never understood but elements of the Republican base are rabid about);
b) undermine the President (see above).
Pelosi no doubt used her liberal San Francisco bona fides with the left wing of the Democratic party, coupled with MoveOn support for this strategy, to bring most of them along to vote for huge war spending, despite the pressure from some peacenik quarters not to do so.
As deplorable as a $124 billion war infusion is, the knowledge of a certain veto by Bush allows most Democrats to participate in this brilliant strategy protected from the possibility of genuinely having helped fund the war.
After the veto is a different story of course, all bets are off and the party factions will probably scatter to their respective corners. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
4 Snouts Up for Blue Door at Berkeley Rep
(:)(:)(:)(:) for Blue Door at the Berkeley Repertory Theatre. A few hours before I discovered new high quality professional theater right here in Sacramento, I reserved seats for last Saturday's performance of Blue Door written by Tanya Barfield and directed by Delroy Lindo.
I liked it very much--the two-man play is well-acted, well-staged (a beautiful yet spare set) and covers an important subject matter in a way which is accessible, occasionally funny and not at all didactic.
I don't like to recount plotlines, so here's the official Berkeley blurb:
Not surprisingly, the subject matter attracted a slightly more diverse audience than the typical white over 50 throng--"is that Loni Hancock*?" "No, that's Loni Hancock."
*Berkeley assemblymember Loni Hancock looks just like 50% of the Berkeley Rep season ticket holders.
I liked it very much--the two-man play is well-acted, well-staged (a beautiful yet spare set) and covers an important subject matter in a way which is accessible, occasionally funny and not at all didactic.
I don't like to recount plotlines, so here's the official Berkeley blurb:
When he refuses to attend the Million Man March, an African-American professor finds his personal and professional lives thrown into turmoil. Unable to sleep in the bed abandoned by his [sara's note: white] wife, Lewis is visited by his ancestors—men who fought to be free, to vote, to obtain justice. Two exceptional actors embody three generations in this powerful new play from a promising young writer. Blue Door is a searing examination of family and identity that will resonate with anyone who has ever struggled to live with—or escape—the past.
Not surprisingly, the subject matter attracted a slightly more diverse audience than the typical white over 50 throng--"is that Loni Hancock*?" "No, that's Loni Hancock."
*Berkeley assemblymember Loni Hancock looks just like 50% of the Berkeley Rep season ticket holders.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Bush, Virginia Tech and the Freedom to Bear Arms
Musings:
Playing catch-up on the news here but did anyone else but me (and an Australian newspaper) notice that President Bush's first comment on the shooting at Virginia Tech included this statement, "The president believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed. Certainly, bringing a gun into a school dormitory and shooting ... is against the law and something someone should be held accountable for."
Why was this necessary? Has it gotten to the point where the NRA has such dominance that Republicans are unable to offer sincere condolences to the victims of a tragedy without pandering to this interest group?
Why wasn't there more fallout from this statement? Has everything the President says been rendered that irrelevant.
Playing catch-up on the news here but did anyone else but me (and an Australian newspaper) notice that President Bush's first comment on the shooting at Virginia Tech included this statement, "The president believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed. Certainly, bringing a gun into a school dormitory and shooting ... is against the law and something someone should be held accountable for."
Why was this necessary? Has it gotten to the point where the NRA has such dominance that Republicans are unable to offer sincere condolences to the victims of a tragedy without pandering to this interest group?
Why wasn't there more fallout from this statement? Has everything the President says been rendered that irrelevant.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Four Snouts up for Three Days of Rain and the Capital Stage
(:)(:)(:)(:) for Three Days of Rain at the Capital Stage in Old Sacramento now playing through May 13th. This play is the first I've seen from a relatively new professional theater company in Sacramento, the first such new ambition in years, now in its second season. If this play is any indication, the company is an answer to my prayers.
Currently housed in the modest theater on the Delta King, the limits of the space are obvious. Yet, in Three Days of Rain by Richard Greenberg, the production house has chosen to stage a darkly funny one set play with only 3 actors (playing 6 parts, by clever design)--perfect for the space.
The play itself is well-written, playing with familiar themes of family legacy, secrets, and assumptions--definitely influenced by the plays of Sam Shepard, but lighter, and New Yorky.
The play was well-staged and well acted with an exceptionally strong performance by Johnathon Rhys Williams. Williams and the other male actor Gillen Morrison easily outshadow the only non-Equity actor, Megan Smith playing the role Julia Roberts starred in on Broadway (who, while famous, has never displayed any but surface level acting ability in any vehicle I'm aware of).
Gillen Morrison's choices in the second act work but were a bit too close to Russell Crowe's interpretation of John Forbes Nash in A Beautiful Mind for my taste.
Still, the whole experience is delicious compared to almost anything I've seen at the B street Theater (exception: Copenhagen a few years back). And the season ticket prices for next year are wickely low--$55 for 5 plays (normal price is $22 a ticket). I'd encourage all Sacramentens to run not walk to this production and future ones. Important to support local theater.
Currently housed in the modest theater on the Delta King, the limits of the space are obvious. Yet, in Three Days of Rain by Richard Greenberg, the production house has chosen to stage a darkly funny one set play with only 3 actors (playing 6 parts, by clever design)--perfect for the space.
The play itself is well-written, playing with familiar themes of family legacy, secrets, and assumptions--definitely influenced by the plays of Sam Shepard, but lighter, and New Yorky.
The play was well-staged and well acted with an exceptionally strong performance by Johnathon Rhys Williams. Williams and the other male actor Gillen Morrison easily outshadow the only non-Equity actor, Megan Smith playing the role Julia Roberts starred in on Broadway (who, while famous, has never displayed any but surface level acting ability in any vehicle I'm aware of).
Gillen Morrison's choices in the second act work but were a bit too close to Russell Crowe's interpretation of John Forbes Nash in A Beautiful Mind for my taste.
Still, the whole experience is delicious compared to almost anything I've seen at the B street Theater (exception: Copenhagen a few years back). And the season ticket prices for next year are wickely low--$55 for 5 plays (normal price is $22 a ticket). I'd encourage all Sacramentens to run not walk to this production and future ones. Important to support local theater.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Is it just me or is carbon offsetting dumb?
The past few weeks we're having to read how Governor Arnold is "off-setting" his travels (new term "off-jet-setting?") by paying someone in Northern California to plant more trees at a rate of $10 per ton of carbon monoxide produced or something.
Is it just me, or this an idea whose time has dumb? Maybe I should be more upset at people who jet around the world for their convenience, but I know I'd do it in a heartbeat if I had the time and money. However, it's clear that such travel patterns eat up a tremendous amount of fossil fuel and generate a corresponding amount of pollution.
Even so, is there any way in which paying people to plant trees even begins to truly "offset" this pollution? And doesn't this whole notion just increase the idea that rich people get to consume as much of the world's resources as they want (now they just need to be even richer to do it?)?
My husband (Bill Magavern of the Sierra Club) has pointed out to me that if Arnold really wants to do something about pollution he could recant his endorsement/creation/obsession of the hummer--or at least stop driving one. Maybe that would off-set my nausea.
Is it just me, or this an idea whose time has dumb? Maybe I should be more upset at people who jet around the world for their convenience, but I know I'd do it in a heartbeat if I had the time and money. However, it's clear that such travel patterns eat up a tremendous amount of fossil fuel and generate a corresponding amount of pollution.
Even so, is there any way in which paying people to plant trees even begins to truly "offset" this pollution? And doesn't this whole notion just increase the idea that rich people get to consume as much of the world's resources as they want (now they just need to be even richer to do it?)?
My husband (Bill Magavern of the Sierra Club) has pointed out to me that if Arnold really wants to do something about pollution he could recant his endorsement/creation/obsession of the hummer--or at least stop driving one. Maybe that would off-set my nausea.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
When Mom and Dad are lawyers--PJ Day Raises Policy Questions
Our 10 year old daughter EM yesterday: so um I didn't wear my pajamas to school on Friday, but other kids did, and Mr. C***** did because we thought it was pajama day and last month there was a lollipop day and we think there is a violation of the Brown Act.
Mom and Dad: what??
EM (looking at us like we're dense): Weren't you listening? I'm concerned because Pajama Day at my school may violate the Brown Act--you know the California Public Meetings Law?
Dad: Yes. We know what the Brown Act is.
EM: Well you didn't act like you did.
... (we tend not to respond to such accusations from her)
EM: So, C*** in my class is the school treasurer. And he was at every meeting of the student
council and it was decided at the last student council meeting that last Friday would be Pajama Day. And so he announced it to our class, and a lot of kids wore their jammies and so did Mr. C****** and it turned out it wasn't Pajama Day and no other kids or teachers had pajamas!
So this means that either there was a meeting that C*** wasn't invited to at which time the date of Pajama Day was changed, or there was a failure to post the agenda or adequately advertise the meeting--both of which are violations of the Brown Act--so we're protesting and writing letters. Do you think that this was a violation of the Brown Act?
Bill (cautiously): well, it sounds like you've got a good case, my only question would be whether your school Student Council is considered one of the public bodies whose meetings are subject to the Brown Act.
EM (looking at us incredulously again): Well, we don't know if it's subject to the Brown Act, but we think that even if they don't have to follow this law, they should.
Whereupon Mom and Dad launch into a brief exigesis on the difference between the spirit and the letter of the law with some fascinating examples of situations where people argued both. During which time EM seemed largely to be reading her Kids Almanac and not listening.
Stay tuned...
Mom and Dad: what??
EM (looking at us like we're dense): Weren't you listening? I'm concerned because Pajama Day at my school may violate the Brown Act--you know the California Public Meetings Law?
Dad: Yes. We know what the Brown Act is.
EM: Well you didn't act like you did.
... (we tend not to respond to such accusations from her)
EM: So, C*** in my class is the school treasurer. And he was at every meeting of the student
council and it was decided at the last student council meeting that last Friday would be Pajama Day. And so he announced it to our class, and a lot of kids wore their jammies and so did Mr. C****** and it turned out it wasn't Pajama Day and no other kids or teachers had pajamas!
So this means that either there was a meeting that C*** wasn't invited to at which time the date of Pajama Day was changed, or there was a failure to post the agenda or adequately advertise the meeting--both of which are violations of the Brown Act--so we're protesting and writing letters. Do you think that this was a violation of the Brown Act?
Bill (cautiously): well, it sounds like you've got a good case, my only question would be whether your school Student Council is considered one of the public bodies whose meetings are subject to the Brown Act.
EM (looking at us incredulously again): Well, we don't know if it's subject to the Brown Act, but we think that even if they don't have to follow this law, they should.
Whereupon Mom and Dad launch into a brief exigesis on the difference between the spirit and the letter of the law with some fascinating examples of situations where people argued both. During which time EM seemed largely to be reading her Kids Almanac and not listening.
Stay tuned...
Monday, March 05, 2007
Four Snouts up for the Pillowman at Berkeley Rep
(:)(:)(:)(:) for The Pillowman by Martin McDonagh which just closed (sob) at the Berkeley Repertory Theatre.
Oh. My. God.
Where has McDonagh been on all my life? After dropping out of school at 16 and lying around watching television and drinking beer for 20 years, this amazing young (London working class) Irish playwright cranked out 7 plays in one year--five of which have been produced to critical acclaim in the London West End and Broadway.
I absolutely loved this play, but, as the usher who tore my ticket warned, it's not for sissies. This alternately cruel, hilarious and tragic "something-esque" piece defies categorization. Many of the audience members hated it. Several left at intermission.
Admittedly, it's hard to take the vivid descriptions of cruelty, dismemberment and horror to children--fortunately, it's supposed to be. However, the clever patter, smooth direction, brilliant writing and acting of this production allowed this viewer to simultaneously be horrified, drawn in, concerned and yet strangely distant from the material.
For me it helped a lot that the playwright cleverly frames the narrative so as to cast doubt on whether several of the horrors are real or only imagined--and you don't have to see most of them, just hear about them.
I for one, can't wait to see/read more McDonagh. The only other playwright that he reminds me of a bit is my erstwhile college friend Gordon Dahlquist--I played a violent lesbian pirate in his play Dangercave many years ago, but that's a different post.
Oh. My. God.
Where has McDonagh been on all my life? After dropping out of school at 16 and lying around watching television and drinking beer for 20 years, this amazing young (London working class) Irish playwright cranked out 7 plays in one year--five of which have been produced to critical acclaim in the London West End and Broadway.
I absolutely loved this play, but, as the usher who tore my ticket warned, it's not for sissies. This alternately cruel, hilarious and tragic "something-esque" piece defies categorization. Many of the audience members hated it. Several left at intermission.
Admittedly, it's hard to take the vivid descriptions of cruelty, dismemberment and horror to children--fortunately, it's supposed to be. However, the clever patter, smooth direction, brilliant writing and acting of this production allowed this viewer to simultaneously be horrified, drawn in, concerned and yet strangely distant from the material.
For me it helped a lot that the playwright cleverly frames the narrative so as to cast doubt on whether several of the horrors are real or only imagined--and you don't have to see most of them, just hear about them.
I for one, can't wait to see/read more McDonagh. The only other playwright that he reminds me of a bit is my erstwhile college friend Gordon Dahlquist--I played a violent lesbian pirate in his play Dangercave many years ago, but that's a different post.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Believing in a Safe World
I'm interested in a return to a belief that the world is safe. When you talk with people about child-rearing, one of the fondest memories is of unfettered play in childhood--walking to and from school without an adult, playing with the kids in the neighborhood until mom called you home for dinner.
But today's middle class parents keep their children under close supervision. They are dropped off and picked up from school sometimes until their senior year. Their orbits are very small for the first 13-14 years of life. Many kids are not allowed to even run down the block to a friend's house without an adult for fear of being snatched.
My experience is that it's a safe world. I have never been snatched and no one I know has ever been snatched, except by a noncustodial parent. Yet the news would have us believe that there are predators around every corner. That we are bad parents if we let our children have freedom of movement. That it is criminally negligent to let your child play in the neighborhood outside of the watchful eye of an adult.
I have these questions:
More on this later.
But today's middle class parents keep their children under close supervision. They are dropped off and picked up from school sometimes until their senior year. Their orbits are very small for the first 13-14 years of life. Many kids are not allowed to even run down the block to a friend's house without an adult for fear of being snatched.
My experience is that it's a safe world. I have never been snatched and no one I know has ever been snatched, except by a noncustodial parent. Yet the news would have us believe that there are predators around every corner. That we are bad parents if we let our children have freedom of movement. That it is criminally negligent to let your child play in the neighborhood outside of the watchful eye of an adult.
I have these questions:
- Is it really a less safe world?
- At what point does our own experience get to contradict what we're being fed by the media?
- If we have a nostalgia for another time, why don't we re-create it?
- How does a generation of children raised in a culture of fear govern?
Monday, February 19, 2007
Four Snouts up for Bridge to Teribithia
(:)(:)(:)(:) for Bridge to Teribithia the new Disney flic playing everywhere. I loved this movie. I really did. Of course, part of this is a function of low expectations. I hadn't read the book. And it's a kids film and it's Disney. But the reviews have been mostly positive, so I was hopeful. It wasn't like I was going to see Norbit (the thought of which just terrifies me).
Bridge to Teribithia is about two remarkable 6th graders who create a kingdom that shimmers in the ambiguity between imaginary and real.
Part of my enjoyment is that I took 3 remarkable 6th and 5th graders to see the film. I loved watching them watch it. The movie is perfect for this age group because the story line lives on the edge between "reality" and "imagination." Between the cruel social world of school and escapism of after school play. That edge is the true realm of my 6th grader, who spends his days at school battling the cruel tyrant of the lunch room and his afternoons battling mythical creatures in novels, video games and with his friends.
The story has complexity and depth, more than you'd expect. It's uncomfortably, tragically sad in parts and silly and sweet and in others. I'd recommend it for anyone except children under 8 or 9, depending upon emotional maturity.
Bridge to Teribithia is about two remarkable 6th graders who create a kingdom that shimmers in the ambiguity between imaginary and real.
Part of my enjoyment is that I took 3 remarkable 6th and 5th graders to see the film. I loved watching them watch it. The movie is perfect for this age group because the story line lives on the edge between "reality" and "imagination." Between the cruel social world of school and escapism of after school play. That edge is the true realm of my 6th grader, who spends his days at school battling the cruel tyrant of the lunch room and his afternoons battling mythical creatures in novels, video games and with his friends.
The story has complexity and depth, more than you'd expect. It's uncomfortably, tragically sad in parts and silly and sweet and in others. I'd recommend it for anyone except children under 8 or 9, depending upon emotional maturity.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
My California Day
8:00am Rise, dress, brush teeth, quickly revise flyer for Unconditional Love movie night
8:30 Drive to and attend personal recovery meeting, don't hand out flyer because may be precluded by recovery tradition
10:20am Return home and make calls to neighbors in my intentional community
11:30am Eat lunch of fresh organic greens with tuna, organic apple and organic peanut butter
12:30pm Pray and meditate in park
12:45pm Random Senagalese man asks for help in park, tell him he'll have to wait until I'm through meditating. He sits down next to me and says, "I will meditate with you."
1:00pm After meditating with him, help Senagalese man fill out job application for busboy position--he would rather sell drums
1:30pm Run 3 miles in park
2:00pm Take hot tub with sick child
2:30pm Review recovery literature with sick child's head on lap
3:00pm Head toward natural food co-op to pick up wheat and dairy free necessities, make phone calls on cell
3:05pm Abrupt U-turn into free "psychic fair"
3:15pm Receive free aura cleansing
3:30pm Receive partial psychic reading
4:00pm Sit in car and make notes from psychic reading, make cell calls to people to tell them to come down to the free psychic fair
5:30pm Return home from natural foods co-op, make wheat and dairy free dinner, with vegan option
6:45pm Eat dinner with family--quiz well child on spelling words
7:30pm Clean kitchen wearing ipod and headlamp
8:20pm Clean intentional community Common House wearing ipod only--if only I had brought the headlamp!
9:15pm Kiss children goodnight
9:30pm Watch HBO netflix DVD episode of Six Feet Under with husband...
11:30pm Download old gospel music to itunes and burn to disk for New Thought Gospel Choir Director
11:50pm Blog about it
8:30 Drive to and attend personal recovery meeting, don't hand out flyer because may be precluded by recovery tradition
10:20am Return home and make calls to neighbors in my intentional community
11:30am Eat lunch of fresh organic greens with tuna, organic apple and organic peanut butter
12:30pm Pray and meditate in park
12:45pm Random Senagalese man asks for help in park, tell him he'll have to wait until I'm through meditating. He sits down next to me and says, "I will meditate with you."
1:00pm After meditating with him, help Senagalese man fill out job application for busboy position--he would rather sell drums
1:30pm Run 3 miles in park
2:00pm Take hot tub with sick child
2:30pm Review recovery literature with sick child's head on lap
3:00pm Head toward natural food co-op to pick up wheat and dairy free necessities, make phone calls on cell
3:05pm Abrupt U-turn into free "psychic fair"
3:15pm Receive free aura cleansing
3:30pm Receive partial psychic reading
4:00pm Sit in car and make notes from psychic reading, make cell calls to people to tell them to come down to the free psychic fair
5:30pm Return home from natural foods co-op, make wheat and dairy free dinner, with vegan option
6:45pm Eat dinner with family--quiz well child on spelling words
7:30pm Clean kitchen wearing ipod and headlamp
8:20pm Clean intentional community Common House wearing ipod only--if only I had brought the headlamp!
9:15pm Kiss children goodnight
9:30pm Watch HBO netflix DVD episode of Six Feet Under with husband...
11:30pm Download old gospel music to itunes and burn to disk for New Thought Gospel Choir Director
11:50pm Blog about it
Friday, February 16, 2007
Term-inator II
(say this in a movie announcer voice):
they terrified you last summer when they teamed up to
terminate real campaign finance reform. Now they're back at it again--Term-inator II: term limits extended.
Okay, Sara, speak English--it's this: it made news today that the Chamber of Commerce, California Teachers Association and Sacramento Democratic political consultant Gale Kaufman
have created "an unholy alliance" to extend term limits for state legislators.
Trouble is, no one reported that this alliance is not new. As recently as 3 months ago, the exact same players (with the exception of Schwarzenegger strategist Matthew Dowd), CTA, Chamber of Commerce and Kaufman put their heads and their budgets together to defeat Proposition 89, the measure on the California ballot that would have given the bums' rush to political corruption in this state by creating publically funded elections.
It's powerful to couple the friendly face of teachers with big business money and GOTV know-how and they intend to do it again.
I happen to think that term limits should be extended. Not so members of the legislature can keep their jobs, so voters have a chance to elect legislators capable of passing complex legislation.
What brings this alliance together in both instances is the need to protect entrenched power. Maybe they can use that rallying cry to name their committee. You know, "paid for by Sweet Innocent Teachers To Protect Entrenched Power" or, just Term-inator II
they terrified you last summer when they teamed up to
terminate real campaign finance reform. Now they're back at it again--Term-inator II: term limits extended.
Okay, Sara, speak English--it's this: it made news today that the Chamber of Commerce, California Teachers Association and Sacramento Democratic political consultant Gale Kaufman
have created "an unholy alliance" to extend term limits for state legislators.
Trouble is, no one reported that this alliance is not new. As recently as 3 months ago, the exact same players (with the exception of Schwarzenegger strategist Matthew Dowd), CTA, Chamber of Commerce and Kaufman put their heads and their budgets together to defeat Proposition 89, the measure on the California ballot that would have given the bums' rush to political corruption in this state by creating publically funded elections.
It's powerful to couple the friendly face of teachers with big business money and GOTV know-how and they intend to do it again.
I happen to think that term limits should be extended. Not so members of the legislature can keep their jobs, so voters have a chance to elect legislators capable of passing complex legislation.
What brings this alliance together in both instances is the need to protect entrenched power. Maybe they can use that rallying cry to name their committee. You know, "paid for by Sweet Innocent Teachers To Protect Entrenched Power" or, just Term-inator II
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Hair on DVD: Flawed Movie with Amazing Scenes & Score
(:)(:)(:) for the movie Hair on DVD, directed by Milos Forman and starring John Savage and Treat Williams (yum).
(:)(:)(:)(:)(:) for the music, and the scene of Black Boys, White Boys.
This is one of those movies that clearly strove for excellence and missed the mark, but contains some dynamite screen moments that are a shame to miss. Director Milos Forman attempted to make the most of the transition from a relatively low budget groundbreaking Broadway hit to the silver screen.
Trouble is, he did it at the just the wrong time: 1979, after the anthems to drugs, free love, racial equality, clean air and anti Vietnam War message had lost their shock power and long before nostalgia for the 60's/70's set in. 1979 was also during that 2 decade stretch when every live action movie musical flopped, long before Chicago revived the possibility.
Still, the movie is beautifully filmed and the score is in my judgment better interpreted (at least for modern audiences) than the Broadway recording, with stronger talent, harder rock sounds and driving beats in some key numbers, and just stronger dramatic choices.
A perfect example is "Easy to be Hard"--which is performed with consequence in this movie by a pregnant churchgoing middle class girl, abandoned by her hippy boyfriend, as a heart-wrenching inquiry into the hypocrisy of the left:
But the single best number in the movie, and one of my very favorite scenes in any movie ever, is "Black Boys, White Boys" in which Forman chose to cut back and forth between formidable teams of black and white women singing in Central Park while ogling passing boys and an all male (black and white) draft board singing about how they love "black boys" and then "white boys" while inspecting nude recruits reporting for duty. It is hilarious, musical, sexy and perfectly edited.
Okay, enough about Hair--if you get a chance to see it, you're lucky, it doesn't sit on many video shelves.
(:)(:)(:)(:)(:) for the music, and the scene of Black Boys, White Boys.
This is one of those movies that clearly strove for excellence and missed the mark, but contains some dynamite screen moments that are a shame to miss. Director Milos Forman attempted to make the most of the transition from a relatively low budget groundbreaking Broadway hit to the silver screen.
Trouble is, he did it at the just the wrong time: 1979, after the anthems to drugs, free love, racial equality, clean air and anti Vietnam War message had lost their shock power and long before nostalgia for the 60's/70's set in. 1979 was also during that 2 decade stretch when every live action movie musical flopped, long before Chicago revived the possibility.
Still, the movie is beautifully filmed and the score is in my judgment better interpreted (at least for modern audiences) than the Broadway recording, with stronger talent, harder rock sounds and driving beats in some key numbers, and just stronger dramatic choices.
A perfect example is "Easy to be Hard"--which is performed with consequence in this movie by a pregnant churchgoing middle class girl, abandoned by her hippy boyfriend, as a heart-wrenching inquiry into the hypocrisy of the left:
"Easy to be hard. Easy to say no. Especially people who care about strangers, who say they care about social injustice, do you only care about the bleeding crowd, how about a needy friend, I need a friend. "
But the single best number in the movie, and one of my very favorite scenes in any movie ever, is "Black Boys, White Boys" in which Forman chose to cut back and forth between formidable teams of black and white women singing in Central Park while ogling passing boys and an all male (black and white) draft board singing about how they love "black boys" and then "white boys" while inspecting nude recruits reporting for duty. It is hilarious, musical, sexy and perfectly edited.
Okay, enough about Hair--if you get a chance to see it, you're lucky, it doesn't sit on many video shelves.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Make Mine Vanilla
Food bugaboo of the week:
You see it everywhere now, vanilla milk, vanilla yogurt, vanilla creme, but not many people know that vanilla is the new codeword for sugar. In fact, if you scan the ingredient list on a "vanilla" item, there's a decent chance you won't find "vanilla" listed as an ingredient, but it's a lock that you'll find sugar (aka corn syrup, cane syrup, cane juice, rice syrup--sorry, it's all sugar).
My particular favorite is soy "milk." Regular soy milk is already loaded with sugar. Many health conscious people, who wouldn't dream of putting chocolate milk on their cereal or feeding it to young children buy vanilla soy milk, which has almost as much sugar as chocolate milk.
...and if it says "very vanilla," do not pass go, go directly to diabetic coma.
You see it everywhere now, vanilla milk, vanilla yogurt, vanilla creme, but not many people know that vanilla is the new codeword for sugar. In fact, if you scan the ingredient list on a "vanilla" item, there's a decent chance you won't find "vanilla" listed as an ingredient, but it's a lock that you'll find sugar (aka corn syrup, cane syrup, cane juice, rice syrup--sorry, it's all sugar).
My particular favorite is soy "milk." Regular soy milk is already loaded with sugar. Many health conscious people, who wouldn't dream of putting chocolate milk on their cereal or feeding it to young children buy vanilla soy milk, which has almost as much sugar as chocolate milk.
...and if it says "very vanilla," do not pass go, go directly to diabetic coma.
Friday, February 09, 2007
Four Snouts up for Quinceanera
(:)(:)(:)(:) out of a possible five snouts up for Quinceanera on DVD. This bittersweet film captured my heart by depicting a small but completely unexplored subject for mainstream America, the latin American rite of passage for girls on their 15th birthday.
By weaving together the difficulities in a 14 year old girl's life with the realities of gentrification in Echo Parque, Los Angeles, this movie gives us a peak into a tender, bittersweet, but credible situation. The casting was sublime, especially the role of Tio Tomas--our heroine Magdalena's great great uncle with whom she comes to live as her Quinceanera celebration approaches--he absolutely is the old guy who for years has sold everyone in the neighborhood some delicious concoction from thermoses in a shopping cart.
See this movie: it's sweet, it's got drama, sex, ambiguity, and humerously unusual culture clashes.
Some cynics will lament the happy ending, or question whether the ending can really be so happy when it embraces a Hummer Limo? I say si, si, a mi me gusto La Quinceanera!
By weaving together the difficulities in a 14 year old girl's life with the realities of gentrification in Echo Parque, Los Angeles, this movie gives us a peak into a tender, bittersweet, but credible situation. The casting was sublime, especially the role of Tio Tomas--our heroine Magdalena's great great uncle with whom she comes to live as her Quinceanera celebration approaches--he absolutely is the old guy who for years has sold everyone in the neighborhood some delicious concoction from thermoses in a shopping cart.
See this movie: it's sweet, it's got drama, sex, ambiguity, and humerously unusual culture clashes.
Some cynics will lament the happy ending, or question whether the ending can really be so happy when it embraces a Hummer Limo? I say si, si, a mi me gusto La Quinceanera!
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Political Consultants Need to Be Reigned In
With it now looking likely that there will be a February presidential primary next year in California (adding a third election to the regular June primary and November general election), our political consultants are beginning the mad feeding frenzy for the cash laid out in any new round of ballot initiatives.
Yes, for some reason our Constitution allows ballot initiatives every time there's an election. These animals called political consultants are completely unregulated and make big money off every dollar contributed to any campaign in the state.
What does the public get in return? In the couple of months before elections: vast amounts of negative television and radio ads in our eyes and ears and voluminous manipulative direct mail pieces in our mail boxes--especially pernicious are the misleading slate mail pieces that endorse all your favorite electeds linking them to the wrong position on a given initiative or two.
And in the slow times? Mystifying full page ads "thanking" Governor Schwarzenegger for his support.
Enough. It's time to regulate these political parasites. I'd suggest taxing political consultants as a great funding source for public financing of elections if it didn't ensure that every political consultant in the state dropped everything to defeat that idea.
Sigh. I gotta go. I have an urgent email to respond to from Ahamed Ahamed--apparently he's got a sick brother and needs my help with a banking matter...
Yes, for some reason our Constitution allows ballot initiatives every time there's an election. These animals called political consultants are completely unregulated and make big money off every dollar contributed to any campaign in the state.
What does the public get in return? In the couple of months before elections: vast amounts of negative television and radio ads in our eyes and ears and voluminous manipulative direct mail pieces in our mail boxes--especially pernicious are the misleading slate mail pieces that endorse all your favorite electeds linking them to the wrong position on a given initiative or two.
And in the slow times? Mystifying full page ads "thanking" Governor Schwarzenegger for his support.
Enough. It's time to regulate these political parasites. I'd suggest taxing political consultants as a great funding source for public financing of elections if it didn't ensure that every political consultant in the state dropped everything to defeat that idea.
Sigh. I gotta go. I have an urgent email to respond to from Ahamed Ahamed--apparently he's got a sick brother and needs my help with a banking matter...
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
All Republicans are saying...
is give General Petreaus a chance. Can't you just picture them holding hands and swaying together?
What they aren't saying, mind you, is support our President. The Republicans in Congress who still support the escalation, are rallying around the new and supposedly highly respected general.
BTW, whenever I think of people holding hands and swaying I can't help but flash to the Brady Bunch's cover of "American Pie"--grinning broadly and belting it out as only the BB's can "and as I saw him on the stage, my hands were clenched in fists of rage..."
What they aren't saying, mind you, is support our President. The Republicans in Congress who still support the escalation, are rallying around the new and supposedly highly respected general.
BTW, whenever I think of people holding hands and swaying I can't help but flash to the Brady Bunch's cover of "American Pie"--grinning broadly and belting it out as only the BB's can "and as I saw him on the stage, my hands were clenched in fists of rage..."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)