Listening to an extensive series of interviews yesterday on the Forum show on KQED (Northern California public radio) about the big oil spill in San Francisco bay, I was struck by how strongly crises affect public policy in California, and elsewhere. Crises seem to have become a necessary ingredient for social change to occur.
From this vantage point, using only anecdote and my limited memory, it seems that clear, obvious, well-documented systemic problems are not sufficient to capture the attention of the public or their legislators. Well, I overstate the case. Problems such as millions of uninsured people, indisputable global warming, and widely weakened bridges do reach the attention of the public and their legislators, but for the most part, those systemic problems are not sufficient to result in policy changes.
Instead, we need Hurricane Katrina, dramatic bridge collapses, and killing sprees in highschools to force legislators to pass legislation and appropriate money to address such matters.
The container ship spilling oil into the bay recalls the dramatic massive oil spill of the Exxon Valdez many years back--that crisis resulted in legislation, which according to experts on the Forum show, produced a 90% decrease in the number of oil spills since then.
Crises are clearly the only way we get ethics or campaign finance reform too.
Perhaps this is the problem with health care reform--despite the many horror stories suffered by people without insurance or with inadequate health care access, it is all still at the level of individuals, documented systemically.
Maybe what we need is for a container ship to crash into the bay bridge and spill into the bay hundreds of uninsured middle class Americans on their way to Europe for medical procedures, then we could leverage the passage of universal health care.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
(:)(:)(: for Love in the Time of the Cholera
Two and a half snouts up for Love in the Time of the Cholera soon to be playing in a theater near you. Beautifully filmed and costumed, with an able performance by Javier Bordem in the lead role, nevertheless the film cannot transcend a stagnant screenplay and some atrocious performances (not mention casting choices).
I was looking forward to the first adaptation for the screen that I have seen of a Gabriel Garcia Marquez book. This was a beautiful book, which I urge you to read. Fortunately or not, I remember little of it. I was able to simply experience this as a film, unfettered by the book.
Nonetheless, it doesn't work. The single worst problem being Italian actress Giovanna Mezzogiorno in the lead female role of Fermina Daza. Her cold withholding performance and tired screen presence leave every doubt as to how Florentino Ariza (Javier Bordem) could possibly pine away for her for 51 years. There is no chemistry or energy between the two of the them. Her side of the story is not believable.
Having said this, somehow within the constraints of a weak script and a terrible leading "actress," Bordem's character comes to life. I absolutely believed that he was a mild-mannered clerk bedding over 600 women while he waits "with fidelity" for Fermina's husband to die.
One problem is that Fermina's husband Juvenal Urbino is played so well by Benjamin Bratt, that you can't believe Fermina could have lacked for anything--he comes across as handsome, loving and wonderful, the ideal husband, save for a brief affair later in the marriage.
Finally, in 2007 I consider it an unforgiveable choice to create the movie, set in turn of the (previous) century Columbia, in heavily-accented English instead of Spanish with subtitles or unaccented English. This stupid choice was made all the odder by random bursts of Spanish song or calls of "ayudame!" from the many cholera victims. Do people switch from heavily accented English to Spanish as they grow sicker?
Skip the movie and read the book, in Spanish if possible.
I was looking forward to the first adaptation for the screen that I have seen of a Gabriel Garcia Marquez book. This was a beautiful book, which I urge you to read. Fortunately or not, I remember little of it. I was able to simply experience this as a film, unfettered by the book.
Nonetheless, it doesn't work. The single worst problem being Italian actress Giovanna Mezzogiorno in the lead female role of Fermina Daza. Her cold withholding performance and tired screen presence leave every doubt as to how Florentino Ariza (Javier Bordem) could possibly pine away for her for 51 years. There is no chemistry or energy between the two of the them. Her side of the story is not believable.
Having said this, somehow within the constraints of a weak script and a terrible leading "actress," Bordem's character comes to life. I absolutely believed that he was a mild-mannered clerk bedding over 600 women while he waits "with fidelity" for Fermina's husband to die.
One problem is that Fermina's husband Juvenal Urbino is played so well by Benjamin Bratt, that you can't believe Fermina could have lacked for anything--he comes across as handsome, loving and wonderful, the ideal husband, save for a brief affair later in the marriage.
Finally, in 2007 I consider it an unforgiveable choice to create the movie, set in turn of the (previous) century Columbia, in heavily-accented English instead of Spanish with subtitles or unaccented English. This stupid choice was made all the odder by random bursts of Spanish song or calls of "ayudame!" from the many cholera victims. Do people switch from heavily accented English to Spanish as they grow sicker?
Skip the movie and read the book, in Spanish if possible.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
The Ring Cycle--Part III
Spiritual Lessons Learned by Losing (and Finding) my Wedding Rings
You would think, having lost one of my gorgeous antique unique diamond platinum wedding rings out at our spot on the Cosumnes River, I would have learned my lesson but no. On another occasion, I go out to the river with a group of women (see previous column for observations about nudity, still true).
We swim, we talk, we eat a great feast. We clean up. We return home.
As I'm getting out of the car, I remember that I took off my wedding rings before swimming (while it was still vaguely light), I begin looking through every bag I have as I walk to my house, reassuring my concerned women friends with call over my shoulder that "all will be well."
I get to my house and finish inspecting every bag in the light--nothing. Now I'm starting to panic. I call one of the women whom I drove home with, she's still up, where is the table cloth from the table? It's plastic, she tells me, she through it way with all its detritus.
Where is the trash bag? She has already taken it back to the dumpster in our cohousing community.
I look at the clock, it's late, my husband and kids are long asleep. I grab a flashlight (this is before my obsession with headlamps, a piece for another post) and walk back to the dumpster.
Good news bad news when I get to it. The good news? it is completely obvious which bag is the one Amy has just dumped in. The bad news? it's the only bag, alone and the bottom of a full size dumpster.
I pull over a milk crate and reach down low attempting to fish out the bag. Can't get it. I use tools. Still no luck. So, no choice, It's a warm night, with some moon and the alcohol from the evening hasn't completely worn off my bravado. I hoist myself INTO the dumpster.
I look through the bag painstakingly, hopefully. I find nothing. Disappointed, I move to get out of the dumpster. I discover that there's nothing to stand on except a small bag of garbage.
It isn't enough. I discover that I have virtually no upper body strength and cannot hoist myself out of the dumpster, gravity is no help here.
It's 2am and I'm trapped in a dumpster.
I consider yelling for help but I don't want to wake anyone up, but I sure as hell don't want to spend the rest of the night in the dumpster. When I'm under stress of any kind, I eat. I briefly consider the pie pan with remnants that I found when looking through the bag. I discard that thought--I might need the pie more at about 6am.
The floor is gross so I can't sit on it. I have to stand while I think. Periodically, I try to get a toehold on some side of the dumpster or to pull myself up. No luck.
I look at my watch again, it's 2:30am. I've been in the dumpster for half an hour. Time is passing very slowly. I want a shower, bed and clean pie.
The thought of a shower and clean pie somehow gives me a creative impulse and I realize that I have not been fully utilizing the garbage bag. My memory is foggy but there was a breakthrough of some kind and before you know it, I've found a way out of the dumpster.
Hallelujah! I am free. I come home, take my shower and get in bed. I thank god for getting me out of the dumpster, even if the rings could not be found. In the morning, as I open my eyes, I see my wedding rings on the bedside table next to my head.
Spiritual lessons learned: Before I go to drastic lengths to find something, make darn sure it's lost.
You would think, having lost one of my gorgeous antique unique diamond platinum wedding rings out at our spot on the Cosumnes River, I would have learned my lesson but no. On another occasion, I go out to the river with a group of women (see previous column for observations about nudity, still true).
We swim, we talk, we eat a great feast. We clean up. We return home.
As I'm getting out of the car, I remember that I took off my wedding rings before swimming (while it was still vaguely light), I begin looking through every bag I have as I walk to my house, reassuring my concerned women friends with call over my shoulder that "all will be well."
I get to my house and finish inspecting every bag in the light--nothing. Now I'm starting to panic. I call one of the women whom I drove home with, she's still up, where is the table cloth from the table? It's plastic, she tells me, she through it way with all its detritus.
Where is the trash bag? She has already taken it back to the dumpster in our cohousing community.
I look at the clock, it's late, my husband and kids are long asleep. I grab a flashlight (this is before my obsession with headlamps, a piece for another post) and walk back to the dumpster.
Good news bad news when I get to it. The good news? it is completely obvious which bag is the one Amy has just dumped in. The bad news? it's the only bag, alone and the bottom of a full size dumpster.
I pull over a milk crate and reach down low attempting to fish out the bag. Can't get it. I use tools. Still no luck. So, no choice, It's a warm night, with some moon and the alcohol from the evening hasn't completely worn off my bravado. I hoist myself INTO the dumpster.
I look through the bag painstakingly, hopefully. I find nothing. Disappointed, I move to get out of the dumpster. I discover that there's nothing to stand on except a small bag of garbage.
It isn't enough. I discover that I have virtually no upper body strength and cannot hoist myself out of the dumpster, gravity is no help here.
It's 2am and I'm trapped in a dumpster.
I consider yelling for help but I don't want to wake anyone up, but I sure as hell don't want to spend the rest of the night in the dumpster. When I'm under stress of any kind, I eat. I briefly consider the pie pan with remnants that I found when looking through the bag. I discard that thought--I might need the pie more at about 6am.
The floor is gross so I can't sit on it. I have to stand while I think. Periodically, I try to get a toehold on some side of the dumpster or to pull myself up. No luck.
I look at my watch again, it's 2:30am. I've been in the dumpster for half an hour. Time is passing very slowly. I want a shower, bed and clean pie.
The thought of a shower and clean pie somehow gives me a creative impulse and I realize that I have not been fully utilizing the garbage bag. My memory is foggy but there was a breakthrough of some kind and before you know it, I've found a way out of the dumpster.
Hallelujah! I am free. I come home, take my shower and get in bed. I thank god for getting me out of the dumpster, even if the rings could not be found. In the morning, as I open my eyes, I see my wedding rings on the bedside table next to my head.
Spiritual lessons learned: Before I go to drastic lengths to find something, make darn sure it's lost.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Take the Light Rail To Folsom and Ride the American River Parkway
Monday I took my bike on Sacramento's Regional Transit light rail train to the last stop in historic Folsom and then road it all the way back home, some 30 miles along the American River bike path.
If biking holds any appeal for you whatsoever, I highly recommend replicating some or all of this adventure. Some of my readers will be the sorts that can ride 60 miles in a day, in which case, enjoy riding both ways (uphill and down). But up until Monday I had never ridden more than 20 miles in one day, so this was a stretch for me.
It took me an hour and $2.00 to get from Sacramento to Folsom on the train. It took me 4 hours (even on my killer (borrowed) custom-made road bike I bike really slow) to bike back. A fit fast pedaling individual would probably do it in half the time.
There were some challenges presented in planning the trip. Nowhere online could I find an address or description of where the light rail station is in Folsom. The RT website confirms that it goes to "historic Folsom" but declines further information. Various friends of mine speculated as to where I would get out, most visualizing that I would be on the south (wrong) side of Highway 50, needing to cross it to get to the river parkway.
The reality is that it couldn't be easier to get on (I almost said "access" but I really think that's an obnoxious verb) the bike trail from the train stop. The Historic Folsom light rail station is located at Sutter and Reading in old Folsom. When you exit the train, you turn left, go to the end of the parking lot and there, to the left of the American River Bridge, is a little path that dumps you directly onto the parkway. It's maybe a total of 150 yards from the train to the river!
The ride from Folsom to the Nimbus Fish Hatchery is breathtaking. You're on the south side of the river, right down by the river seeing and hearing no traffic. On a gorgeous fall day, with my ipod blaring (hmmm, traffic?), I was completely blissed out. If riding all the way from Folsom to Sacramento intimidates you, consider doing just this stretch and then peeling off and crossing over the fairly obvious pedestrian bridge at the Fish Hatchery to return to Sacto from the Hazel ave.
Once you circumnavigate that part and the recreation places at the base of Lake Natoma (all easy and obvious on bike path that takes you slightly away from the river), there's another great stretch down to Goethe (inexplicably pronounced by the locals "Gay-tea") Park where you are forced to cross the river on a nice bridge. The whole rest of the way is very nice but less compelling than the initial stretch since you are often separated from views of the river by bushes or trees. If you're like me, you may spend the last hour thinking mostly about how sore your butt is.
Living right downtown, 5 blocks from the Sacramento River, I, of course, road to Discovery Park at the junction of the two rivers, crossed back over the American and headed down the Sacramento through Old Sacramento to get home.
Most importantly, I remembered along the way and at the end to be grateful for my health, the bike, the time on a weekday, healthy kids at school, the great weather, the river itself and the years, money and imagination it took to build the parkway and the light rail.
All in all, a day well spent.
If biking holds any appeal for you whatsoever, I highly recommend replicating some or all of this adventure. Some of my readers will be the sorts that can ride 60 miles in a day, in which case, enjoy riding both ways (uphill and down). But up until Monday I had never ridden more than 20 miles in one day, so this was a stretch for me.
It took me an hour and $2.00 to get from Sacramento to Folsom on the train. It took me 4 hours (even on my killer (borrowed) custom-made road bike I bike really slow) to bike back. A fit fast pedaling individual would probably do it in half the time.
There were some challenges presented in planning the trip. Nowhere online could I find an address or description of where the light rail station is in Folsom. The RT website confirms that it goes to "historic Folsom" but declines further information. Various friends of mine speculated as to where I would get out, most visualizing that I would be on the south (wrong) side of Highway 50, needing to cross it to get to the river parkway.
The reality is that it couldn't be easier to get on (I almost said "access" but I really think that's an obnoxious verb) the bike trail from the train stop. The Historic Folsom light rail station is located at Sutter and Reading in old Folsom. When you exit the train, you turn left, go to the end of the parking lot and there, to the left of the American River Bridge, is a little path that dumps you directly onto the parkway. It's maybe a total of 150 yards from the train to the river!
The ride from Folsom to the Nimbus Fish Hatchery is breathtaking. You're on the south side of the river, right down by the river seeing and hearing no traffic. On a gorgeous fall day, with my ipod blaring (hmmm, traffic?), I was completely blissed out. If riding all the way from Folsom to Sacramento intimidates you, consider doing just this stretch and then peeling off and crossing over the fairly obvious pedestrian bridge at the Fish Hatchery to return to Sacto from the Hazel ave.
Once you circumnavigate that part and the recreation places at the base of Lake Natoma (all easy and obvious on bike path that takes you slightly away from the river), there's another great stretch down to Goethe (inexplicably pronounced by the locals "Gay-tea") Park where you are forced to cross the river on a nice bridge. The whole rest of the way is very nice but less compelling than the initial stretch since you are often separated from views of the river by bushes or trees. If you're like me, you may spend the last hour thinking mostly about how sore your butt is.
Living right downtown, 5 blocks from the Sacramento River, I, of course, road to Discovery Park at the junction of the two rivers, crossed back over the American and headed down the Sacramento through Old Sacramento to get home.
Most importantly, I remembered along the way and at the end to be grateful for my health, the bike, the time on a weekday, healthy kids at school, the great weather, the river itself and the years, money and imagination it took to build the parkway and the light rail.
All in all, a day well spent.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Anti-Hillary Sentiment Tests Spiritual Principles
In the past few months, I have moved from generally worried that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee to full-on panicked that she will be. In this same period, I have moved from concerned that she might not win the White House if she were the nominee, to terrified that she will be President. [Note: Unlike most of the media, I do not assume that she will win the primaries. Stratified random samples of likely voters are not the same as real voters. I am still hopeful that the contrarian people of Iowa and New Hampshire will come to their senses.]
My spiritual and practical principles have kept me from ranting about this much in this blog. Why? Because I believe that wherever I put my attention and energy will bear fruit. So I should put my attention on what I want (peace, prosperity, sustainable development) not what I don't want (war, poverty, global climate change--aka Hillary for President--hey, I wonder if her handlers considered that as a slogan "Hillary for President--war, poverty, global climate change!").
I truly believe that one of the reasons that George Bush got (re-)elected President is the amount of energy that was focussed anti-Bush instead of pro-Kerry. The whole country was thinking Bush Bush Bush and so it happened.
Now I keep thinking Hillary Hillary Hillary. Here's why I don't want her to be the nominee:
My spiritual and practical principles have kept me from ranting about this much in this blog. Why? Because I believe that wherever I put my attention and energy will bear fruit. So I should put my attention on what I want (peace, prosperity, sustainable development) not what I don't want (war, poverty, global climate change--aka Hillary for President--hey, I wonder if her handlers considered that as a slogan "Hillary for President--war, poverty, global climate change!").
I truly believe that one of the reasons that George Bush got (re-)elected President is the amount of energy that was focussed anti-Bush instead of pro-Kerry. The whole country was thinking Bush Bush Bush and so it happened.
Now I keep thinking Hillary Hillary Hillary. Here's why I don't want her to be the nominee:
- She's for the war. She's never stopped being for the war in Iraq and now she's helping move along the war in Iran.
- She's got no articulated position on how to address global climate change quickly and effectively as president. There's no evidence that it is even in her top 10 issues.
- Her health care proposal could have been written by Republicans, it is a joke.
- There is no evidence that she has any closely held beliefs about anything--what does she care about except gaining power?
- She's a "centrist" without having any appeal in the center--the worst possible combination. She really is Republican light but the Republicans and center hate her viscerally. So we're forced to run a pro-Hillary (or anti Bush--no matter who the nominee is Democrats will run against Bush) campaign without being excited about anything she does.
- Nobody could galvanize and organize the Republicans like Hillary.
- Now I am aware of the inherent contradictions in this piece and in the list above.
- I'm equally afraid of Hillary winning and not winning in a general election--that I think makes some sense. Basically, she can't be the nominee because both outcomes are bad either we get a Republican as President, or we get Republican-lite as President.
- If being anti-something is such a powerful force, than that might be what gets her elected in the general election. And that's true.
- I can't get the numbering to turn off in this blog so I'll end it on this thought: if anything in this column resonates with you, go out right now and work really hard for John Edwards or Barack Obama and then when the first primary results are in, coalesce around the candidate that shows the most chance of beating Hillary. But please, concentrate on being pro-them instead of anti-her.
Monday, November 05, 2007
Was Dr. Jekyll a drug addict?
My guess is that this is a trite or tired observation, but it struck me hard as it hasn't before that the story of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde could really have been Robert Louis Stevenson's way of exploring the issue of drug addiction in the 19th century.
The good doctor drinks a concoction of his own making and becomes a different person with base instincts. He finds that he soon has to go to the apothecary for more and more of the ingredients. He must have the potion or he will go out of his mind.
At first, he denies that his drugged self is doing anything terrible. But slowly the evidence grows. Soon he is face to face with the horrible things he has done. Yet still he cannot stop. He must have the potion, he must become Hyde. He must pretend he is only Jekyll. In the end, he is driven into madness by his obsession and his inability to return to his former self.
The good doctor drinks a concoction of his own making and becomes a different person with base instincts. He finds that he soon has to go to the apothecary for more and more of the ingredients. He must have the potion or he will go out of his mind.
At first, he denies that his drugged self is doing anything terrible. But slowly the evidence grows. Soon he is face to face with the horrible things he has done. Yet still he cannot stop. He must have the potion, he must become Hyde. He must pretend he is only Jekyll. In the end, he is driven into madness by his obsession and his inability to return to his former self.
(:)(:)(:)(:) for Jekyll and Hyde at Runaway Stage
Four snouts up for Jekyll and Hyde at Runaway Stage, now playing at Sierra 2 in Curtis Park through November 25th.
I struggled with the number of snouts on this one, so here's the caveat, I am giving this four snouts out of a possible five judging it by the standards of community musical theater not Broadway (or better yet, off Broadway) productions. Second caveat, I hate community musical theater (even though I like Broadway musicals). Interesting for me, since I grew up absolutely obsessed with performing in children's community musical theater.
But this is a quality production. I've never seen this musical staged before. The show itself is well-written, well-scored, very dark, with the music echoing the themes. The script takes liberties with the plot of the original Robert Louis Stevenson book (as recently recounted to me by my 12 year old, and vaguely remembered by me)--in this version, there's sort of a trumped up love story focus rather than a detective story focus. Also, Hyde's rapacious sexual appetite is developed here.
The cast was really excellent for this sort of show--the vocal leads of Tevye Ditter (Jekyll/Hyde) and his fiancee Norma-Jean Russell (Emma) made up for their wooden acting skills and (in Russell's case) dubious physical charms) with extraordinary voices. Russell's is out of this world Broadway recording quality--you can see why she was cast. The ensemble is filled with voices you can tell could play leading roles in other such productions.
But the standout performance in the show clearly comes from Amber Jean Moore (Lucy) who is the only performer who has it all: voice, acting, physicality and perfect casting. You absolutely believe her as the hooker with a heart of gold who is simultaneously repelled and in Hyde's sexual thrall.
So if you like this sort of thing, see the show. Warning: I thought the themes and simulated (clothes on) sex on stage/dancing were too mature for my 10 and 12 year olds. I'd recommend limiting this to a mature 15 year old or up.
I struggled with the number of snouts on this one, so here's the caveat, I am giving this four snouts out of a possible five judging it by the standards of community musical theater not Broadway (or better yet, off Broadway) productions. Second caveat, I hate community musical theater (even though I like Broadway musicals). Interesting for me, since I grew up absolutely obsessed with performing in children's community musical theater.
But this is a quality production. I've never seen this musical staged before. The show itself is well-written, well-scored, very dark, with the music echoing the themes. The script takes liberties with the plot of the original Robert Louis Stevenson book (as recently recounted to me by my 12 year old, and vaguely remembered by me)--in this version, there's sort of a trumped up love story focus rather than a detective story focus. Also, Hyde's rapacious sexual appetite is developed here.
The cast was really excellent for this sort of show--the vocal leads of Tevye Ditter (Jekyll/Hyde) and his fiancee Norma-Jean Russell (Emma) made up for their wooden acting skills and (in Russell's case) dubious physical charms) with extraordinary voices. Russell's is out of this world Broadway recording quality--you can see why she was cast. The ensemble is filled with voices you can tell could play leading roles in other such productions.
But the standout performance in the show clearly comes from Amber Jean Moore (Lucy) who is the only performer who has it all: voice, acting, physicality and perfect casting. You absolutely believe her as the hooker with a heart of gold who is simultaneously repelled and in Hyde's sexual thrall.
So if you like this sort of thing, see the show. Warning: I thought the themes and simulated (clothes on) sex on stage/dancing were too mature for my 10 and 12 year olds. I'd recommend limiting this to a mature 15 year old or up.
Friday, November 02, 2007
Pay Attention to Coincidence
As the grandchild of a Jungian, I was raised on "synchronicity"--the Jungian term for paying attention to coincidence. My grandmother, Sally Stevens Nichols, author of Jung and Tarot: an archetypal journey lived by it, and my mother definitely tracked it as well.
As a teenager and young adult, I came to view the notion of synchronicity sceptically. So you kept seeing the same symbol or animal or person over and over again? So what? Unless you believe in an unseen hand that is arranging all things for you, it makes no sense to ascribe any meaning to it. It is merely a coincidence (which popularly means that two things coincide for no particular reason).
In the past couple years I have learned that (and why) there are no meaningless coincidences. Deepak Chopra, M.D., in his marvelous mandatory book The Spontaneous Fulfillment of Desire: Harnessing The Infinite Power of Coincidence, explains it best:
There are no meaningless coincidences. It is not that the universe, or some unseen hand that is ascribing meaning to these coinciding events, it is us. At any given time in our field of experience, there are hundreds if not thousands of things that we could pay attention to. Some of them we do, and most of them we don't. Right now, I'm moving my attention from my computer screen to the clutter of my office, the Halloween detritus, the random lipstick that may be smooshed, the ipod I need to charge up. No wonder I mostly look at the screen!
Have you ever had that phenomenon where you hear about something new, a word, a car, a movie, a concept, and "suddenly" you hear it, see it, everywhere? Of course you have. Is that because suddenly events are arranging themselves to display more of that item? No. It's because now your mind is interested in it and is paying attention to it.
What's interesting about coincidences is not the fact of the coinciding people, places or things. What's interesting about coincidence is that I notice them. Coincidences are a clue as to what is most important to me. Of all the things I could pay attention to, I pay attention to this.
Chopra calls them clues to one's heart's desire, one's life destiny--the best that our subconscious (or "non local intelligence") wants to bring into the world. He tells a compelling story of how he followed coincidences to leave a hard-won prestigious medical research fellowship to go work in the ER of a county hospital only to discover his life's work, the connection between mind and body and to becoming an incredibly successful writer, speaker, runner of institutes.
Another book I like on the subject is Synchronicity: the Inner Path of Leadership by Joseph Jaworski (Leon's son). This book tells Joe's story of how he followed synchronicities to go from being a Type A Republican Texas wheeler dealer lawyer to founding an international institute for connecting people and public policy.
I have been experimenting for the past year with this. I try to write down coincidences every night in my journal putting a star next to the big ones. I believe they are shortcuts. Example, if a bunny keeps showing up in my life, everywhere I turn I see a bunny, and then I am faced with a choice between two things, one of which involves a bunny, one of which does not, I choose the bunny option. That most likely will result in my getting quicker along my path. Going where I want to go faster, more smoothly, with more clarity, focus, ease and grace.
Coincidences or synchronicities are signposts on what otherwise would be my largely unmarked path.
As a teenager and young adult, I came to view the notion of synchronicity sceptically. So you kept seeing the same symbol or animal or person over and over again? So what? Unless you believe in an unseen hand that is arranging all things for you, it makes no sense to ascribe any meaning to it. It is merely a coincidence (which popularly means that two things coincide for no particular reason).
In the past couple years I have learned that (and why) there are no meaningless coincidences. Deepak Chopra, M.D., in his marvelous mandatory book The Spontaneous Fulfillment of Desire: Harnessing The Infinite Power of Coincidence, explains it best:
There are no meaningless coincidences. It is not that the universe, or some unseen hand that is ascribing meaning to these coinciding events, it is us. At any given time in our field of experience, there are hundreds if not thousands of things that we could pay attention to. Some of them we do, and most of them we don't. Right now, I'm moving my attention from my computer screen to the clutter of my office, the Halloween detritus, the random lipstick that may be smooshed, the ipod I need to charge up. No wonder I mostly look at the screen!
Have you ever had that phenomenon where you hear about something new, a word, a car, a movie, a concept, and "suddenly" you hear it, see it, everywhere? Of course you have. Is that because suddenly events are arranging themselves to display more of that item? No. It's because now your mind is interested in it and is paying attention to it.
What's interesting about coincidences is not the fact of the coinciding people, places or things. What's interesting about coincidence is that I notice them. Coincidences are a clue as to what is most important to me. Of all the things I could pay attention to, I pay attention to this.
Chopra calls them clues to one's heart's desire, one's life destiny--the best that our subconscious (or "non local intelligence") wants to bring into the world. He tells a compelling story of how he followed coincidences to leave a hard-won prestigious medical research fellowship to go work in the ER of a county hospital only to discover his life's work, the connection between mind and body and to becoming an incredibly successful writer, speaker, runner of institutes.
Another book I like on the subject is Synchronicity: the Inner Path of Leadership by Joseph Jaworski (Leon's son). This book tells Joe's story of how he followed synchronicities to go from being a Type A Republican Texas wheeler dealer lawyer to founding an international institute for connecting people and public policy.
I have been experimenting for the past year with this. I try to write down coincidences every night in my journal putting a star next to the big ones. I believe they are shortcuts. Example, if a bunny keeps showing up in my life, everywhere I turn I see a bunny, and then I am faced with a choice between two things, one of which involves a bunny, one of which does not, I choose the bunny option. That most likely will result in my getting quicker along my path. Going where I want to go faster, more smoothly, with more clarity, focus, ease and grace.
Coincidences or synchronicities are signposts on what otherwise would be my largely unmarked path.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Halloween theme overplayed in politics this year
Is it just me or did all involved overplay the halloween theme this year in political/policy circles? Every year there's at least one or two press hits at Halloween about what's "really scary." But this week I felt like it was a constant barrage of increasingly desperate and hateful emails from campaigns or organizations all with almost identical language:
This year for Halloween, dress up as someone really scary, "a right winger," "a Republican," "a prison guard," or "a supporter of compromise health care plans."
Strangely, I expected to see the corollary on the right--about how scary liberals are. Maybe it's because I'm not on any of their listserves, but I couldn't find it. I thought if People for the American Way is helping me dress up as the terrifying specter of Ann Coulter, surely someone has put together an Al Frankenstein costume?
Okay, I was able to find the Minnesota College Republicans Youtube posting on Al Frankenstein, but is that all?
Frankly, the whole theme needs to be put back in its grave for a couple of more years. These tired undead advertisements are mostly very boring and predictable.
Exception (and yes, I'm an Edwards supporter). I did find this alternate reality front page from the Edwards campaign both truly scary and funny. So if you're going to do it, be really really clever.
This year for Halloween, dress up as someone really scary, "a right winger," "a Republican," "a prison guard," or "a supporter of compromise health care plans."
Strangely, I expected to see the corollary on the right--about how scary liberals are. Maybe it's because I'm not on any of their listserves, but I couldn't find it. I thought if People for the American Way is helping me dress up as the terrifying specter of Ann Coulter, surely someone has put together an Al Frankenstein costume?
Okay, I was able to find the Minnesota College Republicans Youtube posting on Al Frankenstein, but is that all?
Frankly, the whole theme needs to be put back in its grave for a couple of more years. These tired undead advertisements are mostly very boring and predictable.
Exception (and yes, I'm an Edwards supporter). I did find this alternate reality front page from the Edwards campaign both truly scary and funny. So if you're going to do it, be really really clever.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
The Ring Cycle--Part II
Readers will recall my recently launched series on spiritual lessons learned while losing my wedding rings--read Ring Cycle--Part I for background.
The problem with starting the ring cycle the way I did is that all the other stories will be boring in comparison, but here goes. We used to be members of this amazing camping and swimming park on the Cosumnes River near here called the Van Vleck Memorial Park.
Two of my ring stories start in this setting. The first time, I was with a group of cohousing women on our annual women's night out at the river. I removed my watch and rings, as was my custom, and put the rings on the watch and set them in my car on the divider between the front seats.
We all had a frolicking good time being river nudists after dark in the warm river (with no one else around to see) remarking once again how you can never predict which bodies will look better naked than clothed (it's true: you think you can, but you really can't!).
Afterwards, at home, I realized that one of my rings was missing--one of the diamond platinum set this time, I think the engagement one with the biggest diamond.
Retracing the evening's steps, I figure out (and confirm) that when a neighbor borrowed my watch, the rings fell off it and she thinks there are 2, not 3, she retrieves the 2, putting them on back on the divider, but the 3rd lies lonely and afraid in the cow-trodden grass of the Cosumnes River banks.
The next day I rent a metal detector and convince my friend Jane to take her 4 children and join me out at the river. It is a Monday, not a soul is there.
We locate what we think is the car spot, and crawl on our hands and knees (the children doing the same) looking for the ring. No luck.
We look more, using the detector. No luck.
Hours pass. We get hungry. We had not planned on being here for lunch. I give up looking. I am spent. I drive to the nearest taco bell in Rancho Murieta for sustenance for the group. Jane keeps looking.
While at Taco Bell, my cell phone shows a message has come through without ringing. I retrieve it and it's a very excited Jane, repeating inanely, "I found the ring. I found the ring. I found the ring. I found the ring. I found the ring. I FOUND the ring. I found the RING. I found the ring."
I rush with my tacos and sodas back to the river and we dance on the banks for joy, holding hands in a circle (I think I may have made this part up, but it makes a nice feature to the story).
There it is, the ring, some 100 yards from where we were looking for it. I would have long ago given up if it hadn't been for Jane. She had patience and persistence and a belief that it would be found.
Spiritual Lesson: sometimes to get what you seek, you must ask for help and let go.
The problem with starting the ring cycle the way I did is that all the other stories will be boring in comparison, but here goes. We used to be members of this amazing camping and swimming park on the Cosumnes River near here called the Van Vleck Memorial Park.
Two of my ring stories start in this setting. The first time, I was with a group of cohousing women on our annual women's night out at the river. I removed my watch and rings, as was my custom, and put the rings on the watch and set them in my car on the divider between the front seats.
We all had a frolicking good time being river nudists after dark in the warm river (with no one else around to see) remarking once again how you can never predict which bodies will look better naked than clothed (it's true: you think you can, but you really can't!).
Afterwards, at home, I realized that one of my rings was missing--one of the diamond platinum set this time, I think the engagement one with the biggest diamond.
Retracing the evening's steps, I figure out (and confirm) that when a neighbor borrowed my watch, the rings fell off it and she thinks there are 2, not 3, she retrieves the 2, putting them on back on the divider, but the 3rd lies lonely and afraid in the cow-trodden grass of the Cosumnes River banks.
The next day I rent a metal detector and convince my friend Jane to take her 4 children and join me out at the river. It is a Monday, not a soul is there.
We locate what we think is the car spot, and crawl on our hands and knees (the children doing the same) looking for the ring. No luck.
We look more, using the detector. No luck.
Hours pass. We get hungry. We had not planned on being here for lunch. I give up looking. I am spent. I drive to the nearest taco bell in Rancho Murieta for sustenance for the group. Jane keeps looking.
While at Taco Bell, my cell phone shows a message has come through without ringing. I retrieve it and it's a very excited Jane, repeating inanely, "I found the ring. I found the ring. I found the ring. I found the ring. I found the ring. I FOUND the ring. I found the RING. I found the ring."
I rush with my tacos and sodas back to the river and we dance on the banks for joy, holding hands in a circle (I think I may have made this part up, but it makes a nice feature to the story).
There it is, the ring, some 100 yards from where we were looking for it. I would have long ago given up if it hadn't been for Jane. She had patience and persistence and a belief that it would be found.
Spiritual Lesson: sometimes to get what you seek, you must ask for help and let go.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Increased Violence in Children's Lit?
Three snouts up for Seeing Redd, book two in The Looking Glass Wars trilogy by Frank Beddor.
Astute readers will remember that I gave The Looking Glass Wars, book 1 in the trilogy, 5 snouts up instead of a measly three (read by post). In fairness, Seeing Redd shows the same depth of imagination and gift for storytelling that Beddor evidenced in his first book.
Actually, I docked the book two snouts because upon reflection I became appalled by the violence. Both books are filled with fighting--ingenious weaponry imagined by the powerful battling "warrior queens," extraordinary methods of defending against these horrors such as hoards of murderous "glass eyes" with showers of flying razors provide the main drama of the story.
And I'm just sick of it. I doubt if Frank Beddor was as cynical as I am, but I can picture some studio executive rubbing his hands together (yes, it is being made into a major motion picture), "it's got everything, the girls will love the queens and the imagination, the parents will love the quirky take on Alice in Wonderland and everyone will love the mass murder!"
Is it my imagination or has children's literature taken a particularly violent turn lately? The Harry Potter series (which I loved) gets more and more gory and violent. The Wonderland award-winning series is brutal and, although I haven't read it yet, it seems that The Golden Compass series which is about to be released on film contains its fair share of fighting.
Is this all necessary to capture children's imaginations? Is it all being driven by Hollywood and a thirst for the inevitable jump to the silver screen? Even children's classics like the Chronicles of Narnia seem to have been made more violent as they move to movies--I don't recall nearly so much emphasis on a battle or war between Aslan and the Ice Queen as the movie focuses on.
Astute readers of children's literature will no doubt point out the gruesome events in the original fairy tales of old and site Bruno Bettleheim's The Uses of Enchantment where I dimly recall that he posits the pivotal psychological importance of bringing children's worst fears out in the open to the page.
But these worst fears used to be: losing ones parent (ala Bambi or Lion King), an evil stepmother, or being lost in the forest. Now they're watching the Dark Lord murder your friend, cut off someone's body parts and then sic his snake on you or watching scores of "card soldiers" mowed down by flying knives.
I, for one, don't think it is necessary or appropriate. I have come to the conclusion that at best violence in children's literature is a lazy way for writers to introduce drama and court commercial success and at worst, it fills a generation of children's minds with countless horrors and gives them the impression that the best place to apply their creativity is in coming up with interesting ways to kill people.
I know its possible to write and read exciting imaginative books that hold kids' attention without all this violence. Seeing Redd and The Looking Glass Wars ain't it.
Astute readers will remember that I gave The Looking Glass Wars, book 1 in the trilogy, 5 snouts up instead of a measly three (read by post). In fairness, Seeing Redd shows the same depth of imagination and gift for storytelling that Beddor evidenced in his first book.
Actually, I docked the book two snouts because upon reflection I became appalled by the violence. Both books are filled with fighting--ingenious weaponry imagined by the powerful battling "warrior queens," extraordinary methods of defending against these horrors such as hoards of murderous "glass eyes" with showers of flying razors provide the main drama of the story.
And I'm just sick of it. I doubt if Frank Beddor was as cynical as I am, but I can picture some studio executive rubbing his hands together (yes, it is being made into a major motion picture), "it's got everything, the girls will love the queens and the imagination, the parents will love the quirky take on Alice in Wonderland and everyone will love the mass murder!"
Is it my imagination or has children's literature taken a particularly violent turn lately? The Harry Potter series (which I loved) gets more and more gory and violent. The Wonderland award-winning series is brutal and, although I haven't read it yet, it seems that The Golden Compass series which is about to be released on film contains its fair share of fighting.
Is this all necessary to capture children's imaginations? Is it all being driven by Hollywood and a thirst for the inevitable jump to the silver screen? Even children's classics like the Chronicles of Narnia seem to have been made more violent as they move to movies--I don't recall nearly so much emphasis on a battle or war between Aslan and the Ice Queen as the movie focuses on.
Astute readers of children's literature will no doubt point out the gruesome events in the original fairy tales of old and site Bruno Bettleheim's The Uses of Enchantment where I dimly recall that he posits the pivotal psychological importance of bringing children's worst fears out in the open to the page.
But these worst fears used to be: losing ones parent (ala Bambi or Lion King), an evil stepmother, or being lost in the forest. Now they're watching the Dark Lord murder your friend, cut off someone's body parts and then sic his snake on you or watching scores of "card soldiers" mowed down by flying knives.
I, for one, don't think it is necessary or appropriate. I have come to the conclusion that at best violence in children's literature is a lazy way for writers to introduce drama and court commercial success and at worst, it fills a generation of children's minds with countless horrors and gives them the impression that the best place to apply their creativity is in coming up with interesting ways to kill people.
I know its possible to write and read exciting imaginative books that hold kids' attention without all this violence. Seeing Redd and The Looking Glass Wars ain't it.
Monday, October 29, 2007
(:)(:)(:)(:)(:) for The Gospel Project of Austin, TX
Five Snouts Up for The Gospel Project of Austin, Texas, a terrific rocking peace and love gospel band.
Warming up for the wedding where I "discovered" them, I groaned slightly as I heard the first strains of "The House of the Rising Sun," but fell in love as they layered the lyrics to "Amazing Grace" over it (hilarious, inspired and musical, like the band itself). After that I couldn't get enough (in an alcohol-free state, I might add) of their blend of rock and gospel with fabulous vocals by (gospel soloist) Jessica Shephard--what a sound!
The next day I saw them pack South Austin watering hole Maria's Taco Express as they laid down tracks for their second CD backed up by the South Austin Unity Gospel Choir. The audience danced, laughed and sang along.
Listen for me screeching in the background during "Woke Up this Morning with My Mind Stayed on Freedom" and keep an ear and an eye on the The Gospel Project.
Warming up for the wedding where I "discovered" them, I groaned slightly as I heard the first strains of "The House of the Rising Sun," but fell in love as they layered the lyrics to "Amazing Grace" over it (hilarious, inspired and musical, like the band itself). After that I couldn't get enough (in an alcohol-free state, I might add) of their blend of rock and gospel with fabulous vocals by (gospel soloist) Jessica Shephard--what a sound!
The next day I saw them pack South Austin watering hole Maria's Taco Express as they laid down tracks for their second CD backed up by the South Austin Unity Gospel Choir. The audience danced, laughed and sang along.
Listen for me screeching in the background during "Woke Up this Morning with My Mind Stayed on Freedom" and keep an ear and an eye on the The Gospel Project.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Firestorms ask: How green is my insurance commissioner?
Although the job of (statewide elected California) Insurance Commissioner is not often associated with environmental issues, both the current and the immediate past job holders ran green. With the Southern California firestorms highlighting the effect of global climate change on the possibility of disasters and their attendant insurance claims, one wonders, what will/have these insurance commissioners done to move the insurance industry into political/economic reality?
In Europe, the insurance industry has been a crucial partner with environmentalists to pursue sane environmental policies that stem the production of greenhouse gases, thereby slowing global climate change, and protecting their bottom line.
In the U.S., the insurance industry routinely acts in lockstep with the Chamber of Commerce to oppose environmental bills which inconvenience polluters.
Past (Democratic) Insurance Commissioner and current Lt. Governor John Garamendi wants to be governor of California. He calls himself an environmentalist and campaigns on the need to do something about global climate change. Yet, when he was Insurance Commissioner did he use his position to nudge the insurance industry out of its historically anti-environmental stance? I don't recall hearing about such efforts.
Of course in his current job, the rigors of whale-naming duties prohibit him from having much affect over environmental policy--but did he do it when he could?
Current (Republican) Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner also calls himself an environmentalist (increasingly a requirement for election to statewide office--the only two Republicans elected, Schwarzenegger and Poizner statewide positioned themselves credibly as environmentalists). Here's his chance to prove it.
Of course no regulator alone can be responsible for the overhauling the recalcitrant political habits of an entire industry, but they can use the bully pulpit to raise the issues, educate the industry as to their bottom line interests and make it inconvenient to continue to behave irresponsibly, for their shareholders, if not for their insured.
In Europe, the insurance industry has been a crucial partner with environmentalists to pursue sane environmental policies that stem the production of greenhouse gases, thereby slowing global climate change, and protecting their bottom line.
In the U.S., the insurance industry routinely acts in lockstep with the Chamber of Commerce to oppose environmental bills which inconvenience polluters.
Past (Democratic) Insurance Commissioner and current Lt. Governor John Garamendi wants to be governor of California. He calls himself an environmentalist and campaigns on the need to do something about global climate change. Yet, when he was Insurance Commissioner did he use his position to nudge the insurance industry out of its historically anti-environmental stance? I don't recall hearing about such efforts.
Of course in his current job, the rigors of whale-naming duties prohibit him from having much affect over environmental policy--but did he do it when he could?
Current (Republican) Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner also calls himself an environmentalist (increasingly a requirement for election to statewide office--the only two Republicans elected, Schwarzenegger and Poizner statewide positioned themselves credibly as environmentalists). Here's his chance to prove it.
Of course no regulator alone can be responsible for the overhauling the recalcitrant political habits of an entire industry, but they can use the bully pulpit to raise the issues, educate the industry as to their bottom line interests and make it inconvenient to continue to behave irresponsibly, for their shareholders, if not for their insured.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Could Global Warming Melt the Insurance Glaciers?
Earlier this year, I had a snarky exchange with Pete at the annual Labor Day picnic in Foresta, which is a little community in Yosemite National Park in which my family has a home. Pete is an insurance agent and a Republican.
Pete is also the chair of the Foresta Preservation Assocation on which I used to serve as a board member. Every year at the 4th of July and Labor Day picnics, Pete brings park officials to the event to talk about what the park is doing to protect Forestans from forest fire. As he introduces them and throughout their presentation, he insults them as government officials, making remarks about the inefficiency of government.
As most of the problems Forestans have in the park stem from lack of funding from Pete's beloved Bush administration, this attitude tends to work its way under my skin festering into a full blown self-righteous rash if I'm not careful.
This year, after my husband (who is a lobbyist for the Sierra Club in Sacramento) gave his opinion on a matter of concern to the community, Pete thanked him, saying "we won't hold it against you that you work for the Sierra Club."
I quipped back, "that's great, Pete, and we won't hold it against you that you're an insurance agent."
He muttered, "you may find a time when you need insurance."
I thought, "you may find a time when you need to breath clean air and drink clean water." [I didn't have the presence of mind to say it though. The creators of deja vu, the French, naturally, have a phrase for this: L'esprit d'escalier, literally ghost on the stairs. It means, when you think of what you should have said, an instant too late.]
With the raging fires in Southern California this week, and reports that at least one major underwriter has recently stopped writing policies in California, I got to wondering about the link between the environment and insurance.
Does the insurance industry, which has historically been a driving force in the Chamber of Commerce in California and its "job killer" bill list, understand that being routinely anti-environment may ultimately affect its bottom line in the form of increased "acts of God" such as massive brush fires, floods and hurricanes?
Could global warming melt the historically glacial pace of change in this conservative industry?
Pete is also the chair of the Foresta Preservation Assocation on which I used to serve as a board member. Every year at the 4th of July and Labor Day picnics, Pete brings park officials to the event to talk about what the park is doing to protect Forestans from forest fire. As he introduces them and throughout their presentation, he insults them as government officials, making remarks about the inefficiency of government.
As most of the problems Forestans have in the park stem from lack of funding from Pete's beloved Bush administration, this attitude tends to work its way under my skin festering into a full blown self-righteous rash if I'm not careful.
This year, after my husband (who is a lobbyist for the Sierra Club in Sacramento) gave his opinion on a matter of concern to the community, Pete thanked him, saying "we won't hold it against you that you work for the Sierra Club."
I quipped back, "that's great, Pete, and we won't hold it against you that you're an insurance agent."
He muttered, "you may find a time when you need insurance."
I thought, "you may find a time when you need to breath clean air and drink clean water." [I didn't have the presence of mind to say it though. The creators of deja vu, the French, naturally, have a phrase for this: L'esprit d'escalier, literally ghost on the stairs. It means, when you think of what you should have said, an instant too late.]
With the raging fires in Southern California this week, and reports that at least one major underwriter has recently stopped writing policies in California, I got to wondering about the link between the environment and insurance.
Does the insurance industry, which has historically been a driving force in the Chamber of Commerce in California and its "job killer" bill list, understand that being routinely anti-environment may ultimately affect its bottom line in the form of increased "acts of God" such as massive brush fires, floods and hurricanes?
Could global warming melt the historically glacial pace of change in this conservative industry?
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Sitting alone in a room
For 3 weeks now, I have meditated alone in a beautiful room in the state capitol and it's been okay.
The reader naturally will have two questions, the first is necessary for understanding, the second is the subject of this piece: 1) why are you alone in the room? 2) why is it okay?
I am alone in the room because no one has attended the first three meetings of a new spiritual support group that I started in the capitol building October 5th. It meets Fridays from 1:30 to 2:30pm in Room 125 of the State Capitol, downtown Sacramento.
I started the group with the encouragement of several advisers, most importantly God. I am publicizing the meeting through the Capitol Morning Report and some emails to people I think would be interested. Several people have emailed, called or stopped me to say that they're interested in attending for meditation, reading, prayer and sharing, but none have come yet.
The more interesting fact (for me) is that it's completely okay. Room 125 is incredibly beautiful. I am so lucky that the room has been set aside for this purpose. I am so lucky that I get to sit in it every week (and I am committed to continue to do it for at least 6 months). I have had wonderful meditations in there--surprisingly, given the number of boondoggles that have probably been hatched in that very space, the room has a great feel, great energy as we say on the left coast. I have felt that the time is very privileged, very precious.
The main thing is that something in me has shifted. Two years ago, I could not have done this. I would have been filled with anxiety and resentment at sitting in an empty room. The demons would have control of the room: where are your friends? what could you have been thinking? what kind of an idiot sits alone in a room? what if someone sees you? what if someone blogs about you being in this room? what does this say about you?
And now, I simply don't care. Think of all things that have to be true to allow this to happen: I have time and money to do this. I have the room. I have my health. I have the ability to sit still. And most importantly, I have a cell phone.
Life is good.
ps If you come this friday, you'll get to sit alone too. I'll be in Austin, TX for a wedding.
The reader naturally will have two questions, the first is necessary for understanding, the second is the subject of this piece: 1) why are you alone in the room? 2) why is it okay?
I am alone in the room because no one has attended the first three meetings of a new spiritual support group that I started in the capitol building October 5th. It meets Fridays from 1:30 to 2:30pm in Room 125 of the State Capitol, downtown Sacramento.
I started the group with the encouragement of several advisers, most importantly God. I am publicizing the meeting through the Capitol Morning Report and some emails to people I think would be interested. Several people have emailed, called or stopped me to say that they're interested in attending for meditation, reading, prayer and sharing, but none have come yet.
The more interesting fact (for me) is that it's completely okay. Room 125 is incredibly beautiful. I am so lucky that the room has been set aside for this purpose. I am so lucky that I get to sit in it every week (and I am committed to continue to do it for at least 6 months). I have had wonderful meditations in there--surprisingly, given the number of boondoggles that have probably been hatched in that very space, the room has a great feel, great energy as we say on the left coast. I have felt that the time is very privileged, very precious.
The main thing is that something in me has shifted. Two years ago, I could not have done this. I would have been filled with anxiety and resentment at sitting in an empty room. The demons would have control of the room: where are your friends? what could you have been thinking? what kind of an idiot sits alone in a room? what if someone sees you? what if someone blogs about you being in this room? what does this say about you?
And now, I simply don't care. Think of all things that have to be true to allow this to happen: I have time and money to do this. I have the room. I have my health. I have the ability to sit still. And most importantly, I have a cell phone.
Life is good.
ps If you come this friday, you'll get to sit alone too. I'll be in Austin, TX for a wedding.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Pick your dream: fascism, terrorism or love?
In the spiritual tradition(s) that I follow, we take responsibility for attracting/creating the conditions of our lives. Sometimes the appropriate responsibility is collective, not individual.
From a scientific perspective, there is no evidence that what we label "war," "starvation" or "torture" exists in any form (for that matter, or more to the point, there is no evidence that "chairs," "people" or "trees" exist either--it is all just stuff that we form into being through consciousness).
In his mandatory book of Toltec wisdom, The Four Agreements, Don Miguel Ruiz describes the common dream thusly, humans dream the "dream of the planet." "The dream of the planet is the collective dream of billions of smaller, personal dreams, which together create a dream of a family, a dream of a community, a dream of a city, a dream of a country, and finally a dream of the whole humanity."
For some time I've been preoccupied with the dream of terrorism that many elements of the world share. I don't share that dream. I believe and espouse that we should act from love rather than fear and that making decisions as a society based on fear is frought.
Then I saw Naomi Wolf interviewed on the Colbert Report on her new book The End of America. (I have long admired Naomi Wolf for her pivotal work, The Beauty Myth.) In the interview I learned that the United States is currently exhibiting all 10 warning signs of (not becoming but) having become a fascist state. This scared the hell out of me.
Ever since I saw this interview (I haven't yet read the book--the link above is an article she wrote in The Guardian--btw, I assume even having the words Naomi Wolf (ding!), fascism (ding!), and The Guardian (ding!) in a blog post has put me on several lists if I wasn't already), I have been semi-obsessed with uncovering signs of our impending fascism. I scan every news article or action (or inaction) by the legislature for such.
And I plan my life accordingly. I kid you not, I literally day-dreamed recently about how soon I should get my family out of the country before I'm arrested as a political prisoner and which country would give us safe harbor and won't it be ironic when the land of the free generates thousands of political refugees?
Yesterday it hit me: by focusing on my fear of fascism, I am every bit as fear-based as the people who focus on their fear of terrorism. Yes, I can be interested in pursuing love-based policies. And yes, I can step up my involvement in the ACLU (ding!), but I do not have to focus on what I'm afraid of. I can focus on what I want.
Let's get back to a common dream of love and freedom. DING?
From a scientific perspective, there is no evidence that what we label "war," "starvation" or "torture" exists in any form (for that matter, or more to the point, there is no evidence that "chairs," "people" or "trees" exist either--it is all just stuff that we form into being through consciousness).
In his mandatory book of Toltec wisdom, The Four Agreements, Don Miguel Ruiz describes the common dream thusly, humans dream the "dream of the planet." "The dream of the planet is the collective dream of billions of smaller, personal dreams, which together create a dream of a family, a dream of a community, a dream of a city, a dream of a country, and finally a dream of the whole humanity."
For some time I've been preoccupied with the dream of terrorism that many elements of the world share. I don't share that dream. I believe and espouse that we should act from love rather than fear and that making decisions as a society based on fear is frought.
Then I saw Naomi Wolf interviewed on the Colbert Report on her new book The End of America. (I have long admired Naomi Wolf for her pivotal work, The Beauty Myth.) In the interview I learned that the United States is currently exhibiting all 10 warning signs of (not becoming but) having become a fascist state. This scared the hell out of me.
Ever since I saw this interview (I haven't yet read the book--the link above is an article she wrote in The Guardian--btw, I assume even having the words Naomi Wolf (ding!), fascism (ding!), and The Guardian (ding!) in a blog post has put me on several lists if I wasn't already), I have been semi-obsessed with uncovering signs of our impending fascism. I scan every news article or action (or inaction) by the legislature for such.
And I plan my life accordingly. I kid you not, I literally day-dreamed recently about how soon I should get my family out of the country before I'm arrested as a political prisoner and which country would give us safe harbor and won't it be ironic when the land of the free generates thousands of political refugees?
Yesterday it hit me: by focusing on my fear of fascism, I am every bit as fear-based as the people who focus on their fear of terrorism. Yes, I can be interested in pursuing love-based policies. And yes, I can step up my involvement in the ACLU (ding!), but I do not have to focus on what I'm afraid of. I can focus on what I want.
Let's get back to a common dream of love and freedom. DING?
Monday, October 22, 2007
The Ring Cycle--Part I
Spiritual Lessons Learned from Losing Wedding Rings
Unlike most women, I have 3 wedding rings, one that my husband of 16 years (living together 20) put on my finger, which was two kinds of gold and we chose together, and a platinum and diamond set that my grandfather gave me after Bill and I eloped to New Orleans. My grandfather designed the set and had it made for my grandmother when they were married in the 1920's--it's gorgeous.
Nonetheless, despite the meaning these rings have for me, unlike most women I remove them every night and when I shower or swim because I'm allergic to the metal and my skin needs breaks from it.
As a result of the removal and my corresponding general attitude of carelessness, I have lost these rings several times. In this blog, I am going to begin a series chronicalling the spiritual lessons I have learned from losing my wedding rings.
Story 1:
I am in Buffalo, New York visiting my in-laws. Due to previous close calls, I have deliberately left my diamond set in Sacramento, traveling only with the gold ring (I don't want anyone to think I'm not married!). While in Buffalo, we visit Betty Mensch a wonderful former law professor of ours whose mother has a little house down in the Chataqua, NY (aka PBS Disneyland).
After a nice visit and treat, we swim with the kids in the lake. Later we return to Buffalo and I discover that my ring is missing. Knowing that I went swimming, and would have removed my ring, I call Betty and she turns the little summer house upside down looking for it--no luck.
I look around the house in Buffalo too. I inform my husband that the ring is missing. He seems vaguely alarmed at two things: 1) that I'm categorizing it as "missing" when I'm constantly mislaying the rings and 2) that I don't actually seem particularly bothered by it.
The common theme throughout the ring cycle is this: whenever I am in throes of a ring loss, I am overcome with a feeling of peace. I am filled with a sort of inner knowing that all is well and that the ring will return.
In this instance, the ring didn't. We looked all over the house in Buffalo and didn't find it. We returned to Sacramento with assurances from my mother-in-law that she would have her house cleaner look for it carefully when she vacuumed.
Still no luck. I begin to think, "should I panic? where is my ring? I know it's somewhere." I can't describe this "I know it's somewhere feeling." It's craziness really. But all I can tell you is that throughout this loss, my feeling was "it's not lost. This ring is somewhere, I just don't know where."
Now to the average reader, the difference between "lost" and "I don't know where it is" may seem about like the difference between "dead" and "passed away," i.e., nonexistent. But to me the difference is this: lost is hopeless, and I don't know where it is is a temporary condition easily remedied by knowing where it is--ha!
Anyway, long ring story short, years pass and I don't find the ring. Once I even call the jeweler from whom we bought it to explore the possibility of a replacement, but something in me whispers, "don't bother. It is known where it is."
Two summers later we arrive in Buffalo get to the room in which we typically stay and I open the empty drawer in the dresser to begin to unpack my clothes. There, at the bottom of the drawer, all alone is the ring.
Elated, I pick it up and run around the house with it, "I found my wedding ring! See, it was there all along!"
Spiritual lesson learned: there is no time in God--that ring was there all along waiting for me, just like all my other gifts, if only I know where to look for them.
Unlike most women, I have 3 wedding rings, one that my husband of 16 years (living together 20) put on my finger, which was two kinds of gold and we chose together, and a platinum and diamond set that my grandfather gave me after Bill and I eloped to New Orleans. My grandfather designed the set and had it made for my grandmother when they were married in the 1920's--it's gorgeous.
Nonetheless, despite the meaning these rings have for me, unlike most women I remove them every night and when I shower or swim because I'm allergic to the metal and my skin needs breaks from it.
As a result of the removal and my corresponding general attitude of carelessness, I have lost these rings several times. In this blog, I am going to begin a series chronicalling the spiritual lessons I have learned from losing my wedding rings.
Story 1:
I am in Buffalo, New York visiting my in-laws. Due to previous close calls, I have deliberately left my diamond set in Sacramento, traveling only with the gold ring (I don't want anyone to think I'm not married!). While in Buffalo, we visit Betty Mensch a wonderful former law professor of ours whose mother has a little house down in the Chataqua, NY (aka PBS Disneyland).
After a nice visit and treat, we swim with the kids in the lake. Later we return to Buffalo and I discover that my ring is missing. Knowing that I went swimming, and would have removed my ring, I call Betty and she turns the little summer house upside down looking for it--no luck.
I look around the house in Buffalo too. I inform my husband that the ring is missing. He seems vaguely alarmed at two things: 1) that I'm categorizing it as "missing" when I'm constantly mislaying the rings and 2) that I don't actually seem particularly bothered by it.
The common theme throughout the ring cycle is this: whenever I am in throes of a ring loss, I am overcome with a feeling of peace. I am filled with a sort of inner knowing that all is well and that the ring will return.
In this instance, the ring didn't. We looked all over the house in Buffalo and didn't find it. We returned to Sacramento with assurances from my mother-in-law that she would have her house cleaner look for it carefully when she vacuumed.
Still no luck. I begin to think, "should I panic? where is my ring? I know it's somewhere." I can't describe this "I know it's somewhere feeling." It's craziness really. But all I can tell you is that throughout this loss, my feeling was "it's not lost. This ring is somewhere, I just don't know where."
Now to the average reader, the difference between "lost" and "I don't know where it is" may seem about like the difference between "dead" and "passed away," i.e., nonexistent. But to me the difference is this: lost is hopeless, and I don't know where it is is a temporary condition easily remedied by knowing where it is--ha!
Anyway, long ring story short, years pass and I don't find the ring. Once I even call the jeweler from whom we bought it to explore the possibility of a replacement, but something in me whispers, "don't bother. It is known where it is."
Two summers later we arrive in Buffalo get to the room in which we typically stay and I open the empty drawer in the dresser to begin to unpack my clothes. There, at the bottom of the drawer, all alone is the ring.
Elated, I pick it up and run around the house with it, "I found my wedding ring! See, it was there all along!"
Spiritual lesson learned: there is no time in God--that ring was there all along waiting for me, just like all my other gifts, if only I know where to look for them.
Friday, October 19, 2007
All the way with HBJ
Word on the street is that (former 35th California Assembly district) Assemblymember Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara) is throwing her hat in the ring to run for the Republican dominated 19th Senate district.
Past conventional wisdom has had it that this district, badly configured in the last redistricting go around, is lost to Democrats (it is currently held by Republican arch conservative Tom McClintock). But current polling data shows Jackson not only wins the Democratic primary but the general election handily.
Jackson in the Senate would not only be a vital pick-up for the Democrats (they only need 1 vote for the budget-proof two thirds) but a crucial victory for progressives. No shrinking violet, Hannah-Beth has always voted her conscience and her conscience is fabulous. Moreover, she's spent her forced (due to term limits) "retirement" from the legislature working hard to improve California through founding and running her effective organization Speak Out California.
That's why I'm going all the way with HBJ!
Past conventional wisdom has had it that this district, badly configured in the last redistricting go around, is lost to Democrats (it is currently held by Republican arch conservative Tom McClintock). But current polling data shows Jackson not only wins the Democratic primary but the general election handily.
Jackson in the Senate would not only be a vital pick-up for the Democrats (they only need 1 vote for the budget-proof two thirds) but a crucial victory for progressives. No shrinking violet, Hannah-Beth has always voted her conscience and her conscience is fabulous. Moreover, she's spent her forced (due to term limits) "retirement" from the legislature working hard to improve California through founding and running her effective organization Speak Out California.
That's why I'm going all the way with HBJ!
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Maviglio vs. Nichols
You may be interested in reading (Speaker Fabian Nunez' press secretary) Steve Maviglio's comments (and my response) on yesterday's post, CNA vs. Nunez which was also appeared in the California Progress Report.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
C.N.A. vs. Nunez
If it wasn't clear before, the gloves are officially off in the relationship between California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D-Los Angeles) and the California Nurses Association. Today's Sacramento Bee has CNA openly calling for Nunez (sorry, I don't know how to get my blog to bring the requisite tilde to Nunez's name) to recuse himself from the health care debate due to his wife's lucrative position with the hospital industry.
The same article has Nunez spokesman Steve Maviglio firing back calling the nurses "radical and out of touch."
In my experience this kind of open declaration of war between a progressive union and a Democratic leader of the legislature is unprecedented in recent California politics. It simply isn't done.
And, yes, I am known as the Miss Manners of the California Legislature. Everyone knows how much I respect the etiquette of the place.
But whether it is or isn't done, it has been. The CNA leadership clearly has decided that they are not going to let Fabian Nunez get in the way of their goal of achieving single payer health care in California.
I find this open push for what Californians really need refreshing, if risky politically. The goals of the deal that Nunez and Schwarzenegger are negotiating towards reveal that it is they, rather than the C.N.A., who are out of touch with the people of California who want universal health care, real systemic change, not whatever the meager parameters of the politically possible may bring.
Flagging Nunez' supposed conflict of interest is just a convenient way to attempt to blow up this deal. I remember when Paul Koretz was first sitting on the Assembly health committee he had a policy of "recusing" himself from voting on every health care bill that involved Kaiser Permanente because his wife worked for Kaiser. Since virtually every bill was opposed by Kaiser, the net result of Koretz' conflict resolution was to provide a convenient permanent abstention for Kaiser so that the proponents of these measures had to work to replace his vote. It was lunacy.
I don't think the Speaker of the Assembly can reasonably be asked to recuse himself from attempting to solve one of the most important crises of the state. I do, however, think he can be asked to get serious, stop playing the hospitals' game, and put the people of California first.
The same article has Nunez spokesman Steve Maviglio firing back calling the nurses "radical and out of touch."
In my experience this kind of open declaration of war between a progressive union and a Democratic leader of the legislature is unprecedented in recent California politics. It simply isn't done.
And, yes, I am known as the Miss Manners of the California Legislature. Everyone knows how much I respect the etiquette of the place.
But whether it is or isn't done, it has been. The CNA leadership clearly has decided that they are not going to let Fabian Nunez get in the way of their goal of achieving single payer health care in California.
I find this open push for what Californians really need refreshing, if risky politically. The goals of the deal that Nunez and Schwarzenegger are negotiating towards reveal that it is they, rather than the C.N.A., who are out of touch with the people of California who want universal health care, real systemic change, not whatever the meager parameters of the politically possible may bring.
Flagging Nunez' supposed conflict of interest is just a convenient way to attempt to blow up this deal. I remember when Paul Koretz was first sitting on the Assembly health committee he had a policy of "recusing" himself from voting on every health care bill that involved Kaiser Permanente because his wife worked for Kaiser. Since virtually every bill was opposed by Kaiser, the net result of Koretz' conflict resolution was to provide a convenient permanent abstention for Kaiser so that the proponents of these measures had to work to replace his vote. It was lunacy.
I don't think the Speaker of the Assembly can reasonably be asked to recuse himself from attempting to solve one of the most important crises of the state. I do, however, think he can be asked to get serious, stop playing the hospitals' game, and put the people of California first.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Three Snouts Up for Dirty Story at Capital Stage
(:)(:)(:) for the Sacramento premiere of Dirty Story by John Patrick Shanley at the Capital Stage in Old Sacramento. The production is well-directed, well-cast, and well-acted. However, the play, in this critic's humble opinion, doesn't work.
Marketed as a complex comedy with political overtones, the play is actually as heavy-handed a metaphor as I've ever seen on stage.
The most damning thing I can say about it is that it reminded me of something that I would have written in college (trust me). John Patrick Shanley is a known quantity, an experienced playwright(Danny and the Deep Blue Sea) and screenwriter (Moonstruck). He should know better than to experiment in this fashion.
Nonetheless, I commend Capital Stage for the choice and I can see why they made it. The cast, set and conceit work well for the space. It was a risky and bold choice not going with a chestnut or established success. And the ticket prices are so low at Sacramento's newest professional theater, that one can hardly resent having spent the money or (in my case) having walked the 12 blocks to see it.
In my estimate, Capital Stage is still the best professional theater company in Sacramento. See the show anyway, tell me what you think, and support their work. I believe it's not too late to buy their unbelievably cheap season tickets for the year (only $55 for 5 plays--you pay more than that for 1 play at Berkeley Rep).
Marketed as a complex comedy with political overtones, the play is actually as heavy-handed a metaphor as I've ever seen on stage.
The most damning thing I can say about it is that it reminded me of something that I would have written in college (trust me). John Patrick Shanley is a known quantity, an experienced playwright(Danny and the Deep Blue Sea) and screenwriter (Moonstruck). He should know better than to experiment in this fashion.
Nonetheless, I commend Capital Stage for the choice and I can see why they made it. The cast, set and conceit work well for the space. It was a risky and bold choice not going with a chestnut or established success. And the ticket prices are so low at Sacramento's newest professional theater, that one can hardly resent having spent the money or (in my case) having walked the 12 blocks to see it.
In my estimate, Capital Stage is still the best professional theater company in Sacramento. See the show anyway, tell me what you think, and support their work. I believe it's not too late to buy their unbelievably cheap season tickets for the year (only $55 for 5 plays--you pay more than that for 1 play at Berkeley Rep).
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Choose your candidate tool
This link is floating around--you answer a few questions, click on something and voila, a list appears of how the candidates for president stack up on your important issues.
I took it and found (no surprise) that Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) is the best match for me (we agreed on death penalty, Iraq withdrawal and line item veto while none of the other candidates will even bring these subjects up with me anymore). I was a little more disturbed to find that the tool thought Clinton and Obama were slightly better matches for me than John Edwards, my preferred mainstream candidate.
But then I realized, even I don't choose my presidential candidate strictly on the issues. If I did, I'd be Kucinich all the way, blindly supporting him no matter how little chance he has in hell (which is another word for presidential campaigns).
Instead, I favor John Edwards principally for 2 qualities not measured on this quiz 1) my perception that he actually has the courage of his convictions and will fight for them (I think Hillary stands only for Hillary) coupled with my 2) belief that he can win the White House in the general election (I continue to believe that nothing will galvanize a disorganized Republican party like Hillary Clinton and I worry that Obama is too inexperienced a campaigner/operation).
I should also add that regardless of what the quiz says, I think that Edwards is the most progressive of the viable Democratic candidates because he is the only one to speak routinely to challenging entrenched corporate power (he has a career of fighting big corporations and winning in court), he is the only candidate who supports single payer health care, and he is the only candidate who campaigns against poverty and works across the country in poor districts to register voters and educate them about the issues.
But take this quiz and tell me what you think--I'm truly interested to know.
I took it and found (no surprise) that Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) is the best match for me (we agreed on death penalty, Iraq withdrawal and line item veto while none of the other candidates will even bring these subjects up with me anymore). I was a little more disturbed to find that the tool thought Clinton and Obama were slightly better matches for me than John Edwards, my preferred mainstream candidate.
But then I realized, even I don't choose my presidential candidate strictly on the issues. If I did, I'd be Kucinich all the way, blindly supporting him no matter how little chance he has in hell (which is another word for presidential campaigns).
Instead, I favor John Edwards principally for 2 qualities not measured on this quiz 1) my perception that he actually has the courage of his convictions and will fight for them (I think Hillary stands only for Hillary) coupled with my 2) belief that he can win the White House in the general election (I continue to believe that nothing will galvanize a disorganized Republican party like Hillary Clinton and I worry that Obama is too inexperienced a campaigner/operation).
I should also add that regardless of what the quiz says, I think that Edwards is the most progressive of the viable Democratic candidates because he is the only one to speak routinely to challenging entrenched corporate power (he has a career of fighting big corporations and winning in court), he is the only candidate who supports single payer health care, and he is the only candidate who campaigns against poverty and works across the country in poor districts to register voters and educate them about the issues.
But take this quiz and tell me what you think--I'm truly interested to know.
Monday, October 01, 2007
Why Not A Leveraged Bailout?
Today's imminent collapse of the secondary loan market and talk of a bailout reminds me of nothing so much as the early 90s when I cut my teeth on public policy in the midst of the savings and loan bailouts. My former boss Michael Waldman (later a POTUS speech writer) literally wrote the book on 'em. I remember his cynical coaching, "the corporate interests hate socialism when it's for the rest of, but love it when it's for them."
So true. One need look no further than the classic red-baiting consistently used to bring down any form of credible proposal for health care reform. How can it be that the same interests that come together through the Chamber of Commerce to bash government so consistently can expect the taxpayers to foot the bill for a multi-billion dollar bailout for their crushingly bad investment decisions?
Of course I oppose a bailout of these interests. Yes, I vaguely understand the ripple effect, the number of potential homeowners that might not get a loan without a "secondary market" to buy it up from their bank, etc. I grok. But I stubbornly believe, however naively, that banks will make loans if they are good business decisions and they won't if they aren't. I don't believe it does consumers any good to pull them into loans they can't afford and will default on. I don't believe propping up the over-inflated housing market is in the short or long-term interests of working people.
Although the Fed's aggressive action may have staved off a bailout for a time, I tend to believe a bailout is probably foreordained because the combined interests of wall street, campaign contributors and the perceived interests of consumers in getting more risky loans, will be enough to create a congressional majority, if not consensus, for taxpayer bailout of the sub prime market.
So given that virtual inevitability, I suggest we prevail upon the liberal Democrats to leverage something major out of the deal, something they've never mustered the will for before: a truce against government. If Capital gets to raid the Treasury, they agree to a moratorium on government bashing for say, the life of a typical home loan: 30 years.
This way, Congress takes out a 30 year mortgage from big business (and it has to be the whole friggin' chamber of commerce and its interlocking directorates that sign off on it, not just the lenders). The interest paid is this: the space for Congress to regulate for the good of the American people in an environment not poisoned by anti-government toxins.
Better yet, the Dems should push for big business to agree to front a major pro government campaign. Start disclosing on all their advertisements the government breaks that make it possible for them to exist and make money.
Picture this:
"It's never too late to refinance your home with Nations Bank--come in for a free consultation tomorrow. We can afford to loan you this money because of your tax dollars."
or
"The relationship between you and your doctor is treasured by Sutter Medical Group and the federal government."
Now that's a bailout.
So true. One need look no further than the classic red-baiting consistently used to bring down any form of credible proposal for health care reform. How can it be that the same interests that come together through the Chamber of Commerce to bash government so consistently can expect the taxpayers to foot the bill for a multi-billion dollar bailout for their crushingly bad investment decisions?
Of course I oppose a bailout of these interests. Yes, I vaguely understand the ripple effect, the number of potential homeowners that might not get a loan without a "secondary market" to buy it up from their bank, etc. I grok. But I stubbornly believe, however naively, that banks will make loans if they are good business decisions and they won't if they aren't. I don't believe it does consumers any good to pull them into loans they can't afford and will default on. I don't believe propping up the over-inflated housing market is in the short or long-term interests of working people.
Although the Fed's aggressive action may have staved off a bailout for a time, I tend to believe a bailout is probably foreordained because the combined interests of wall street, campaign contributors and the perceived interests of consumers in getting more risky loans, will be enough to create a congressional majority, if not consensus, for taxpayer bailout of the sub prime market.
So given that virtual inevitability, I suggest we prevail upon the liberal Democrats to leverage something major out of the deal, something they've never mustered the will for before: a truce against government. If Capital gets to raid the Treasury, they agree to a moratorium on government bashing for say, the life of a typical home loan: 30 years.
This way, Congress takes out a 30 year mortgage from big business (and it has to be the whole friggin' chamber of commerce and its interlocking directorates that sign off on it, not just the lenders). The interest paid is this: the space for Congress to regulate for the good of the American people in an environment not poisoned by anti-government toxins.
Better yet, the Dems should push for big business to agree to front a major pro government campaign. Start disclosing on all their advertisements the government breaks that make it possible for them to exist and make money.
Picture this:
"It's never too late to refinance your home with Nations Bank--come in for a free consultation tomorrow. We can afford to loan you this money because of your tax dollars."
or
"The relationship between you and your doctor is treasured by Sutter Medical Group and the federal government."
Now that's a bailout.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Do cell phones really make our kids safer?
Our seventh grader informed me today that he is the only kid he knows without a cell phone. And while he didn't have the audacity to ask for one, he did make it clear that he feels different.
I have no intention of getting our child a cell phone to conform to peer pressure. This same child only got a video game system at age 12 (everyone else got one at age 6 or something), gets no electronic time during the school week, and can't digest wheat, corn or dairy. He's used to being somewhat different (note: he's very well-liked by his peers and not at all lonely--he's also a voracious reader).
It seems to be received wisdom that cell phones make our kids safer, but is that really true? The main justification (and believe me, I understand the impulse) seems to be the idea that we can always reach our kids if they have a cell phone, and they can always reach us. Therefore, the theory goes, we know where they are--but do we really?
Actually, I would posit that cell phones in children's hands potentially decrease safety in a couple of different ways, particularly as kids get older and more independent in their movements.
1) because it's not tied to a land line, we actually have NO idea where a kid is. We are entirely going by what they tell us on the phone. Hence, when he says he's staying over at Johnny's house, he could be at a party at Tiffany's house, or he could be in San Francisco, or he could be in a crack house, or he could be with Tiffany in a crack house in San Francisco.
Where are all these places that our children are hanging out that don't have telephone lines anyway? If he's anywhere I want him to be, my kid can use the real phone or use a pay phone (yes, they still have 'em, I've been checking). That way I have a real number coming up that I can call back. I can talk to a parent. Or I have independent corroboration.
2) if he's not near a land line because he's in transit, he probably shouldn't be on the phone. Does it increase my kid's safety for him to be on a cell phone instant messaging someone when he's crossing the street or on the bus (or, God forbid, he's 12, driving)? No. It decreases his awareness of where he is, which could get him lost and depending on how nice the cell looks, it might make him an increased target for mugging (cell phones and ipods remain the most popular items for theft, robbery, and crime that might not otherwise happen).
3) can I really reach him whenever I want? answer: no. He has to answer the phone. I have watched the existence of a cell phone increase parents' anxiety as they leave message after message and don't hear back from their teen. Therefore, the feeling of security (which is the real reason we buy these things, we can't buy real security, but we think we can buy feelings) dissipates and we feel anxious and scared.
In the old days, you didn't feel anxious and scared when you couldn't reach Johnny instantly. You felt anxious and scared when Johnny didn't come home or check in at the agreed upon times or when Johnny wasn't over at his friend's house which you called by "dialing" a number. All of these options are still available. I would rather have him check in and then be able to call a responsible adult on their cell phone and have them tell me what my child is up to.
4) And finally, our son tells me that the school justifies kids bringing their cells to school because it's a way for them to say one final goodbye or I love you to us as they die in a massive earthquake, fire or terrorist attack.
OH MY GOD, that makes me feel SO much safer!!!! Thank you cell phones, what would we do without you?
I have no intention of getting our child a cell phone to conform to peer pressure. This same child only got a video game system at age 12 (everyone else got one at age 6 or something), gets no electronic time during the school week, and can't digest wheat, corn or dairy. He's used to being somewhat different (note: he's very well-liked by his peers and not at all lonely--he's also a voracious reader).
It seems to be received wisdom that cell phones make our kids safer, but is that really true? The main justification (and believe me, I understand the impulse) seems to be the idea that we can always reach our kids if they have a cell phone, and they can always reach us. Therefore, the theory goes, we know where they are--but do we really?
Actually, I would posit that cell phones in children's hands potentially decrease safety in a couple of different ways, particularly as kids get older and more independent in their movements.
1) because it's not tied to a land line, we actually have NO idea where a kid is. We are entirely going by what they tell us on the phone. Hence, when he says he's staying over at Johnny's house, he could be at a party at Tiffany's house, or he could be in San Francisco, or he could be in a crack house, or he could be with Tiffany in a crack house in San Francisco.
Where are all these places that our children are hanging out that don't have telephone lines anyway? If he's anywhere I want him to be, my kid can use the real phone or use a pay phone (yes, they still have 'em, I've been checking). That way I have a real number coming up that I can call back. I can talk to a parent. Or I have independent corroboration.
2) if he's not near a land line because he's in transit, he probably shouldn't be on the phone. Does it increase my kid's safety for him to be on a cell phone instant messaging someone when he's crossing the street or on the bus (or, God forbid, he's 12, driving)? No. It decreases his awareness of where he is, which could get him lost and depending on how nice the cell looks, it might make him an increased target for mugging (cell phones and ipods remain the most popular items for theft, robbery, and crime that might not otherwise happen).
3) can I really reach him whenever I want? answer: no. He has to answer the phone. I have watched the existence of a cell phone increase parents' anxiety as they leave message after message and don't hear back from their teen. Therefore, the feeling of security (which is the real reason we buy these things, we can't buy real security, but we think we can buy feelings) dissipates and we feel anxious and scared.
In the old days, you didn't feel anxious and scared when you couldn't reach Johnny instantly. You felt anxious and scared when Johnny didn't come home or check in at the agreed upon times or when Johnny wasn't over at his friend's house which you called by "dialing" a number. All of these options are still available. I would rather have him check in and then be able to call a responsible adult on their cell phone and have them tell me what my child is up to.
4) And finally, our son tells me that the school justifies kids bringing their cells to school because it's a way for them to say one final goodbye or I love you to us as they die in a massive earthquake, fire or terrorist attack.
OH MY GOD, that makes me feel SO much safer!!!! Thank you cell phones, what would we do without you?
Friday, September 14, 2007
Four Snouts Up for Eat, Pray, Love by Elizabeth Gilbert
(:)(:)(:)(:) for Eat, Pray, Love by Elizabeth Gilbert, still on the New York Times nonfiction bestseller list. I absolutely loved this book and would recommend it to anyone who'd like a good read--especially if you're even vaguely into travel, food or a spiritual journey. Eat, Pray, Love chronicles journalist Gilbert's yearlong journey. She spent four months in Italy eating, four months in India in an ashram praying, and four months in Indonesia finding love.
Gilbert is wry, self-deprecating and hilarious in describing the disastrous divorce that lead to her decision to take this journey. As a working and serious travel journalist, she was able to get a publisher to give her an advance to take this year and write about it (dream come true for me). There's something for everyone here. If you love a good spiritual journey, you really enjoy watching her evolve over the year--I found her adventures at the ashram trying to get out of a key hour long morning prayer because it "wasn't for her" hysterically funny.
If you kind of hate spiritual anything you can enjoy her mocking herself and also her friends mocking her for this year. It reads like a wonderful novel and is suitable for moms--read this book.
Gilbert is wry, self-deprecating and hilarious in describing the disastrous divorce that lead to her decision to take this journey. As a working and serious travel journalist, she was able to get a publisher to give her an advance to take this year and write about it (dream come true for me). There's something for everyone here. If you love a good spiritual journey, you really enjoy watching her evolve over the year--I found her adventures at the ashram trying to get out of a key hour long morning prayer because it "wasn't for her" hysterically funny.
If you kind of hate spiritual anything you can enjoy her mocking herself and also her friends mocking her for this year. It reads like a wonderful novel and is suitable for moms--read this book.
Friday, August 31, 2007
I Guess I Can't Count Hillary Out
I think I need to come clean on something. I have rested my case against supporting Hillary in the primary on the idea that she can't win in the general election. I realize now that I may be wrong.
Here's why: Bill Clinton wasn't supposed to be the nominee. He wasn't supposed to win the general election. He wasn't supposed to be re-elected after he was embroiled in the Lewinsky scandal. Hillary wasn't supposed to waltz into the State of New York and become a U.S. Senator. She also wasn't supposed to be easily the front-runner in the Democratic field. The Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary weren't supposed to have been rendered potentially meaningless.
So what I'm saying here, if it isn't obvious. Is that with the Clintons, you can never say never.
Here's why: Bill Clinton wasn't supposed to be the nominee. He wasn't supposed to win the general election. He wasn't supposed to be re-elected after he was embroiled in the Lewinsky scandal. Hillary wasn't supposed to waltz into the State of New York and become a U.S. Senator. She also wasn't supposed to be easily the front-runner in the Democratic field. The Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary weren't supposed to have been rendered potentially meaningless.
So what I'm saying here, if it isn't obvious. Is that with the Clintons, you can never say never.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
California Democrats Need to Stand up for Government-Financed Health Care Coverage
Inevitably, every credible health care expansion put forward by Democrats will be attacked by insurance-backed Republicans as "socialized medicine." "Socialized medicine" the lore goes, lets government instead of your doctor decide whether you live or die or receive the procedure or device you so desperately need for a quality of life.
Fifty years after the death of McCarthyism and red-baiting, many Democratic elected officials still shy away from the dreaded label of "socialism" for anything they support. Scrambling to sell their "new idea" to a public they are sure is sceptical of government, they back away from the government part of their health care plan. They market whatever their health care expansion is in private sector terms, "putting doctors in the driver's seat," "leveling the playing field for business," or simply appealing to issues of basic fairness.
In doing so, Democrats flout the advice of Madison Avenue which has a long held tenet of marketing a product by its weakest feature, rather than its strongest. Karl Rove and the Republicans have perfected this tactic. Thus, George Bush was re-elected by re-characterizing his stubborn record of stupid bad decisions, as "a strong leader who stays the course." (Correspondingly, Kerry's greatest strength as a war hero was turned into a liability by swift-boating him)
Replacing the crazy quilt "system" of private health care financing with a simple government plan is the greatest single strength of the most obvious solution to our health care crisis. But it's also becomes our greatest weakness if we appear to be hiding the government part of it.
Similar to the debate on global warming, the debate over what to do about health care in this country is long since over. All experts who are not funded by people who stand to gain financially from the status quo in the highly-lucrative health care industry agree that removing the health insurance industry/HMOs from the equation is the way to go. Government-financed (so-called "single payer") health care similar to what they have some form of in every other developed nation in the world is the only way to save enough money to provide every man, woman and child with cradle to grave full portable high quality health care coverage, for the same amount we are paying now to cover only a fraction of the population.
SB 840 by Senator Sheila Kuehl is the only serious credible universal health care reform proposal before the California legislature. The Governor vetoed similar legislation last year while on the campaign trail.
The only arguments anyone can muster against SB 840 other than "it's socialized medicine therefore it's evil," are political. "It's too soon," "it costs too much," and "it requires a 2/3rds vote for a tax increase," all serve to distract from the basic fact: the entrenched interests, insurance, HMO and pharmaceutical and medical device companies, for-profit hospitals, medical groups as well as integrated health care systems like Kaiser Permanente and SEIU who carries its water in the legislature, all have a lot to gain from preserving the private financing structure of the current system--or at least the part of it that benefits them.
Given the entrenched nature of the current big health care players, AB 8, the compromise health care proposal put forward by the Democratic leadership, appears to be a worthy incremental step--expand coverage for children in the state who currently fall through the cracks in the system. How can we be against that? But there's no question that this type of expansion is fiscally irresponsible, a short-term non-solution to the problem and risks either over-stressing the public budget or under-funding the coverage in a time when inadequate health care coverage is perhaps an even bigger a problem than lack of coverage altogether.
I don't know what I'd do if I were a politician facing this conundrum in the California legislature. But I know what outside groups that care about health care reform should do. They should stop mistaking themselves for the politicians. They should push for what they know really works and not what doesn't work.
It's not up to us to make the tough choices. It's up to us to make the choices tough.
And to do that, Democrats and pro health care reform groups need to stop backing away from government. Government-financing is the solution and the reason it's the solution is the efficiency and accountability of government. Until we embrace that and lead with it, we'll keep losing.
Fifty years after the death of McCarthyism and red-baiting, many Democratic elected officials still shy away from the dreaded label of "socialism" for anything they support. Scrambling to sell their "new idea" to a public they are sure is sceptical of government, they back away from the government part of their health care plan. They market whatever their health care expansion is in private sector terms, "putting doctors in the driver's seat," "leveling the playing field for business," or simply appealing to issues of basic fairness.
In doing so, Democrats flout the advice of Madison Avenue which has a long held tenet of marketing a product by its weakest feature, rather than its strongest. Karl Rove and the Republicans have perfected this tactic. Thus, George Bush was re-elected by re-characterizing his stubborn record of stupid bad decisions, as "a strong leader who stays the course." (Correspondingly, Kerry's greatest strength as a war hero was turned into a liability by swift-boating him)
Replacing the crazy quilt "system" of private health care financing with a simple government plan is the greatest single strength of the most obvious solution to our health care crisis. But it's also becomes our greatest weakness if we appear to be hiding the government part of it.
Similar to the debate on global warming, the debate over what to do about health care in this country is long since over. All experts who are not funded by people who stand to gain financially from the status quo in the highly-lucrative health care industry agree that removing the health insurance industry/HMOs from the equation is the way to go. Government-financed (so-called "single payer") health care similar to what they have some form of in every other developed nation in the world is the only way to save enough money to provide every man, woman and child with cradle to grave full portable high quality health care coverage, for the same amount we are paying now to cover only a fraction of the population.
SB 840 by Senator Sheila Kuehl is the only serious credible universal health care reform proposal before the California legislature. The Governor vetoed similar legislation last year while on the campaign trail.
The only arguments anyone can muster against SB 840 other than "it's socialized medicine therefore it's evil," are political. "It's too soon," "it costs too much," and "it requires a 2/3rds vote for a tax increase," all serve to distract from the basic fact: the entrenched interests, insurance, HMO and pharmaceutical and medical device companies, for-profit hospitals, medical groups as well as integrated health care systems like Kaiser Permanente and SEIU who carries its water in the legislature, all have a lot to gain from preserving the private financing structure of the current system--or at least the part of it that benefits them.
Given the entrenched nature of the current big health care players, AB 8, the compromise health care proposal put forward by the Democratic leadership, appears to be a worthy incremental step--expand coverage for children in the state who currently fall through the cracks in the system. How can we be against that? But there's no question that this type of expansion is fiscally irresponsible, a short-term non-solution to the problem and risks either over-stressing the public budget or under-funding the coverage in a time when inadequate health care coverage is perhaps an even bigger a problem than lack of coverage altogether.
I don't know what I'd do if I were a politician facing this conundrum in the California legislature. But I know what outside groups that care about health care reform should do. They should stop mistaking themselves for the politicians. They should push for what they know really works and not what doesn't work.
It's not up to us to make the tough choices. It's up to us to make the choices tough.
And to do that, Democrats and pro health care reform groups need to stop backing away from government. Government-financing is the solution and the reason it's the solution is the efficiency and accountability of government. Until we embrace that and lead with it, we'll keep losing.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
(:)(:)(:) for DiCaprio's The Eleventh Hour
Three Snouts Up for Leonardo DiCaprio's The Eleventh Hour previewed at the Crest Theater last night.
Anyone whose top goal in life is learning more about the environmental destruction that humans have wrought on planet earth should see this film.
However, the Crest Theater snack bar missed an opportunity by not stocking up on cyanide capsules before showing it. The first 2/3rds of the film is relentless with expert after expert delivering the bad news: what we've done to deplete energy reserves, deforestation, over-fishing, threatening eco-systems, global climate change, air and water pollution. [On the plus side, my friend Tim Carmichael looked handsome and sounded wonderful talking about the consequences of dirty air.]
I learned some things from that section though. What it boiled down to is this: the entire "environmental" movement is misnamed. It isn't so much the environment that we're threatening as the human race. The heat, flooding, hurricanes, and the like won't destroy the earth, it'll destroy mankind. To save her other children, Mother Earth is basically saying "basta, I'll end this little experiment called the human race." Shrugging her shoulders, she'll move on, leaving our bones behind to deteriorate in the deserts we brought on.
The final third was wonderful: filled with the good news about cutting edge technologies, the hope that a massive, unorganized but magically parallel global environmental movement is bringing and the possibilities of coming together to save the human race.
I do wish the ratios had been reversed though. I know so little about all the wonderful things that people are doing to save the planet. I could have spent all movie learning about it.
All I can think is that something must have been off about how the choices the documentarians made. An Inconvenient Truth is also depressing and relentless, with Al Gore's droning voice and a slide show, yet I was riveted to my seat and glad to have seen it.
My guess is that the central problem for activists is that average Americans have no idea what the consumer culture they've opted for is doing to the survival of the species (or they know, and don't care). The goal of the bad news bears part is obviously to wake us up and move us to action.
But how many regular people are going to sit through such a thing just because Leonardo DiCaprio's name is above the picture? Leonardo DiCaprio is to be applauded for having made and financed this effort, but watching him squint in the haze of various L.A. locations to awkwardly read the cue cards for this film added nothing to my understanding or enjoyment (and I like him as an actor and a face).
Anyone whose top goal in life is learning more about the environmental destruction that humans have wrought on planet earth should see this film.
However, the Crest Theater snack bar missed an opportunity by not stocking up on cyanide capsules before showing it. The first 2/3rds of the film is relentless with expert after expert delivering the bad news: what we've done to deplete energy reserves, deforestation, over-fishing, threatening eco-systems, global climate change, air and water pollution. [On the plus side, my friend Tim Carmichael looked handsome and sounded wonderful talking about the consequences of dirty air.]
I learned some things from that section though. What it boiled down to is this: the entire "environmental" movement is misnamed. It isn't so much the environment that we're threatening as the human race. The heat, flooding, hurricanes, and the like won't destroy the earth, it'll destroy mankind. To save her other children, Mother Earth is basically saying "basta, I'll end this little experiment called the human race." Shrugging her shoulders, she'll move on, leaving our bones behind to deteriorate in the deserts we brought on.
The final third was wonderful: filled with the good news about cutting edge technologies, the hope that a massive, unorganized but magically parallel global environmental movement is bringing and the possibilities of coming together to save the human race.
I do wish the ratios had been reversed though. I know so little about all the wonderful things that people are doing to save the planet. I could have spent all movie learning about it.
All I can think is that something must have been off about how the choices the documentarians made. An Inconvenient Truth is also depressing and relentless, with Al Gore's droning voice and a slide show, yet I was riveted to my seat and glad to have seen it.
My guess is that the central problem for activists is that average Americans have no idea what the consumer culture they've opted for is doing to the survival of the species (or they know, and don't care). The goal of the bad news bears part is obviously to wake us up and move us to action.
But how many regular people are going to sit through such a thing just because Leonardo DiCaprio's name is above the picture? Leonardo DiCaprio is to be applauded for having made and financed this effort, but watching him squint in the haze of various L.A. locations to awkwardly read the cue cards for this film added nothing to my understanding or enjoyment (and I like him as an actor and a face).
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
DiFi Will be Key Player in Gonsalez Replacement
Gonsalez' resignation presents another opportunity for Dianne Feinstein to better serve the people of California. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Feinstein will be a key vote early on on whether to recommend whomever Bush puts up to replace him.
Unfortunately, DiFi's track record on protecting California from Bush's judicial appointees is less than stellar. She supports them more often than not.
Because she was recently one of only 14 Democratic Senators who defected to expand the Attorney General's power to spy on the American people, she has a special duty here to ensure that the next AG is ethical and scrupulous.
Because I don't trust her powers of discernment, she needs to hear from her constituents. Let's stay on top of this, Californians. Please let Dianne Feinstein know what we're expecting of her right now. Call (202) 224-3841. Tell Feinstein's staff you want her to hold out for an ethical AG, no matter what.
Unfortunately, DiFi's track record on protecting California from Bush's judicial appointees is less than stellar. She supports them more often than not.
Because she was recently one of only 14 Democratic Senators who defected to expand the Attorney General's power to spy on the American people, she has a special duty here to ensure that the next AG is ethical and scrupulous.
Because I don't trust her powers of discernment, she needs to hear from her constituents. Let's stay on top of this, Californians. Please let Dianne Feinstein know what we're expecting of her right now. Call (202) 224-3841. Tell Feinstein's staff you want her to hold out for an ethical AG, no matter what.
Monday, August 27, 2007
It's Not Me, It's You
All of my spiritual training tells me to focus on me. All of it. I'm the only person I can change. I'm the only person whose behavior I can affect. Only me.
That's the bad news. Here's the worse news: not only can I only affect me, but everything I see or experience in the world is a reflection of me. Worse still: until I change my insides, the outsides are going to reflect what I think they'll reflect.
Naturally, the Buddhists have a story that illustrates this point nicely:
A visitor seeks out the village wise man and tells him, "I'm looking for a new village and I'm thinking of moving to your village. What are the people in this village like?"
"What were the people like in the village that you left?" asks the wise man.
"They were horrible: petty, judgmental, angry, they lied, they cheated, they stole. They were completely untrustworthy," says the visitor.
"That's exactly what the people in this village are like too," says the wise man.
The visitor says, "then this village is not for me" and walks on.
Another visitor to the village comes to seek the wise man's counsel, "I'm looking for a new village and I'm thinking of moving to your village. What are the people in this village like?"
"What were the people like in the village that you left?" asks the wise man.
"Oh they were wonderful. They were loving and kind and warm. They were generous and honest and true. They were completely trustworthy," says the visitor.
"That's exactly what the people in this village are like too," says the wise man.
So the villager stays.
Unfortunately, despite the many opportunities I've had to learn this lesson, the illusion that the difficulties in my life are caused by other people is still very powerful.
And I find that it is easy to find co-conspirators, people who are eager to co-sign the idea that it's not me, it's you (and it's not them either).
"Some people are just assholes, Sara," I got counseled last week.
But I wonder, are people ever assholes for Jesus the Christ, Siddhartha the Buddha, Mother Theresa or the Dalai Lama? In other words, if the Dalai Lama met my best most intractable assholes would he experience them as such? I doubt it very much.
Granted I am far from an enlightened being (and I almost certainly never will be). But that doesn't reduce this basic truth, as much as I may want it to be you, instead of me, it's me and it always will be.
Next week: can I run away from the me in you?
That's the bad news. Here's the worse news: not only can I only affect me, but everything I see or experience in the world is a reflection of me. Worse still: until I change my insides, the outsides are going to reflect what I think they'll reflect.
Naturally, the Buddhists have a story that illustrates this point nicely:
A visitor seeks out the village wise man and tells him, "I'm looking for a new village and I'm thinking of moving to your village. What are the people in this village like?"
"What were the people like in the village that you left?" asks the wise man.
"They were horrible: petty, judgmental, angry, they lied, they cheated, they stole. They were completely untrustworthy," says the visitor.
"That's exactly what the people in this village are like too," says the wise man.
The visitor says, "then this village is not for me" and walks on.
Another visitor to the village comes to seek the wise man's counsel, "I'm looking for a new village and I'm thinking of moving to your village. What are the people in this village like?"
"What were the people like in the village that you left?" asks the wise man.
"Oh they were wonderful. They were loving and kind and warm. They were generous and honest and true. They were completely trustworthy," says the visitor.
"That's exactly what the people in this village are like too," says the wise man.
So the villager stays.
Unfortunately, despite the many opportunities I've had to learn this lesson, the illusion that the difficulties in my life are caused by other people is still very powerful.
And I find that it is easy to find co-conspirators, people who are eager to co-sign the idea that it's not me, it's you (and it's not them either).
"Some people are just assholes, Sara," I got counseled last week.
But I wonder, are people ever assholes for Jesus the Christ, Siddhartha the Buddha, Mother Theresa or the Dalai Lama? In other words, if the Dalai Lama met my best most intractable assholes would he experience them as such? I doubt it very much.
Granted I am far from an enlightened being (and I almost certainly never will be). But that doesn't reduce this basic truth, as much as I may want it to be you, instead of me, it's me and it always will be.
Next week: can I run away from the me in you?
Friday, August 24, 2007
Why do Californians like DiFi so much?
Today's California papers report on a field poll that shows we have soured on the new Congress. Democrats and decline-to-states are fed up with the failure of Speaker Pelosi and the new majority to even begin to get us out of Iraq. The poll shows plummeting approval ratings for the Congress. Yet, the same poll shows U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein's approval rating only "dipping slightly."
This really fries my ass. I mean I'm as disappointed in Nancita as anybody, she and the House deserve the disapproval of Californians, but what is it about DiFi that keeps her pretty much inoculated from blame?
The conventional wisdom has always been that she hugs the middle of California public opinion. She's pro life, she's pro death, she's pro business, she's pro environment. But her consistent support for the war, for Bush's judicial appointees (not all, but most), and most recently for expanding Gonzales' wire-tapping authority, are appallingly out of step with the California mainstream. She was one of only 14 Democrats in the Senate to vote for this recent expanded authority--fourteen!
Yet Californians direct their rage only at the new petite liberal in charge of the House. Can anyone enlighten me?
This really fries my ass. I mean I'm as disappointed in Nancita as anybody, she and the House deserve the disapproval of Californians, but what is it about DiFi that keeps her pretty much inoculated from blame?
The conventional wisdom has always been that she hugs the middle of California public opinion. She's pro life, she's pro death, she's pro business, she's pro environment. But her consistent support for the war, for Bush's judicial appointees (not all, but most), and most recently for expanding Gonzales' wire-tapping authority, are appallingly out of step with the California mainstream. She was one of only 14 Democrats in the Senate to vote for this recent expanded authority--fourteen!
Yet Californians direct their rage only at the new petite liberal in charge of the House. Can anyone enlighten me?
Thursday, August 23, 2007
(:)(:)(:)(:) for Blue Bottle Coffee in Hayes Valley
Four Snouts Up for Blue Bottle Coffee at 315 Linden Street (tucked in a sort of alley between Gough and Octavia off Hayes in Hayes Valley), San Francisco. This little gem is hardly a secret. At 10:30am on a weekday there's a line into the street.
But you immediately have confidence that it's worth the wait. It's a window, not a coffee shop. This is not Starbucks. This place is not about choices. It's about people who know more than you choosing for you. It's one of those precious places that has very few things on the menu--just the right apple juice, and hot chocolate, exactly the right size, only one. The sign that says, "we use organic Prairie Valley milk, soy is available," gives me the idea that I'd better forgo the usual soy for the dairy--again, they've chosen for me.
Even the soundtrack is perfect. Sam Cooke is playing just loud enough for everyone to appreciate. The barristas sway back and forth mouthing the words as they perfectly pour the foam into that little leaf shape on the top of the espresso, "cupid, draw back your bow, and let your arrow go..."
It was not the latte of my dreams (which remains Caffe Diem on Macarthur in Oakland's Dimond district), but it was excellent and the experience of waiting for it was a joy.
But you immediately have confidence that it's worth the wait. It's a window, not a coffee shop. This is not Starbucks. This place is not about choices. It's about people who know more than you choosing for you. It's one of those precious places that has very few things on the menu--just the right apple juice, and hot chocolate, exactly the right size, only one. The sign that says, "we use organic Prairie Valley milk, soy is available," gives me the idea that I'd better forgo the usual soy for the dairy--again, they've chosen for me.
Even the soundtrack is perfect. Sam Cooke is playing just loud enough for everyone to appreciate. The barristas sway back and forth mouthing the words as they perfectly pour the foam into that little leaf shape on the top of the espresso, "cupid, draw back your bow, and let your arrow go..."
It was not the latte of my dreams (which remains Caffe Diem on Macarthur in Oakland's Dimond district), but it was excellent and the experience of waiting for it was a joy.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
The Evils of Having an "Agenda"
Under the heading of "oh, snap," one of the biggest insults one Sacramento insider can dish out to another Sacramento insider is "she has an agenda." I know, because I have one.
Apparently, the top goal of many people in public service in California is not to have any firmly held beliefs. Free of these pesky constraints, one can, with impunity, hire on to represent the pharmaceutical industry, HMOs or known polluters, secure in the knowledge that everyone deserves a good lobbyist.
Since I'm law-ya, you'd think I'd know better than to have an agenda. A good law-ya never lets his beliefs get in the way of his client's interests.
What is my agenda, you may ask? Well, my political agenda is this, to create a stable and functional democracy such that the legislature is capable of representing the people's interests, which I interpret as including clean air, clean water, quality universal health care, good schools, protection of civil and consumer rights, affordable housing and jobs that pay a living wage. I have come to believe that one of the key ways to accomplish this goal is to enact a system of public financing of elections here, similar to what is already working in Maine, Arizona and Connecticut.
I generally work for people who agree with me so that I do not experience cognitive dissonance.
In last year's special election, the press excoriated the California Nurses Association (one of my former employers) for "having an agenda" in advancing the cause of public financing. The initiative they pushed was seen as a stalking horse for, horror of horrors, (whisper it, why dontcha) universal health care. Insiders used their "agenda" to sink the initiative.
Having said this, I do think that what many of the insiders are reacting to when they tag others for having an agenda is self-righteousness. From both a strategic and karmic point of view, self-righteousness is to be avoided (ask me how I know).
Moreover, in attempting to advance my agenda, I am now careful to avoid using tactics or strategies which themselves threaten to unravel the very utopia I seek. For example, since I want a peaceful world, I need to avoid talking about "fighting" for people's rights, or creating an "army" of activists. I must also avoid the term "jihad."
Mindful of these self-imposed constraints, all in all, I remain comfortable with my agenda and the beliefs which inform it. I urge you to get one too. I understand they are available used on Amazon.
Apparently, the top goal of many people in public service in California is not to have any firmly held beliefs. Free of these pesky constraints, one can, with impunity, hire on to represent the pharmaceutical industry, HMOs or known polluters, secure in the knowledge that everyone deserves a good lobbyist.
Since I'm law-ya, you'd think I'd know better than to have an agenda. A good law-ya never lets his beliefs get in the way of his client's interests.
What is my agenda, you may ask? Well, my political agenda is this, to create a stable and functional democracy such that the legislature is capable of representing the people's interests, which I interpret as including clean air, clean water, quality universal health care, good schools, protection of civil and consumer rights, affordable housing and jobs that pay a living wage. I have come to believe that one of the key ways to accomplish this goal is to enact a system of public financing of elections here, similar to what is already working in Maine, Arizona and Connecticut.
I generally work for people who agree with me so that I do not experience cognitive dissonance.
In last year's special election, the press excoriated the California Nurses Association (one of my former employers) for "having an agenda" in advancing the cause of public financing. The initiative they pushed was seen as a stalking horse for, horror of horrors, (whisper it, why dontcha) universal health care. Insiders used their "agenda" to sink the initiative.
Having said this, I do think that what many of the insiders are reacting to when they tag others for having an agenda is self-righteousness. From both a strategic and karmic point of view, self-righteousness is to be avoided (ask me how I know).
Moreover, in attempting to advance my agenda, I am now careful to avoid using tactics or strategies which themselves threaten to unravel the very utopia I seek. For example, since I want a peaceful world, I need to avoid talking about "fighting" for people's rights, or creating an "army" of activists. I must also avoid the term "jihad."
Mindful of these self-imposed constraints, all in all, I remain comfortable with my agenda and the beliefs which inform it. I urge you to get one too. I understand they are available used on Amazon.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
(:)(:)(:)(:)(:) for Clerks 2 on DVD
Five Snouts Up for Clerks 2 on DVD. Five snouts for Clerks 2???? You heard me. Faithful readers know I only give 5 snouts for the movies that I consider are in the top 100 movies of all times. This is one of the funniest movies I've ever ever seen. I almost died several times from stomach cramps and had to pause the film to wipe tears from my eyes.
This is not for the faint of heart. My mother and mother-in-law should not even consider watching this film. Nor should anyone who cannot appreciate the vilest possible things being discussed lightly and humorously. However, Vince Marchand should watch this film daily.
Rightly speaking, this is not a film for the ages. This is not something that should be put in a time capsule--it would convey terrifying images from our time.
But the thing is, this film is also not Dumb and Dumber. It's SOOOO not Hollywood fare. Director Kevin Smith spent 10 years making this and other films after the first Clerks film, which was a low budget indie sleeper hit. The budget for Clerks 2 appears to be roughly 100 times that of Clerks.
This is not your typical sequel. It's a stand alone movie about two losers in their 30's working at a burger joint after the convenience/video store they inhabited for 12 years burns down. Dante is sensitive, thoughtful and kind, Randal is ingeniously insensitive. Even without having witnessed it yourself, you can tell that the brutally funny, sexually explicit dialogue is acutely observed from the lives of white male losers in northern New Jersey (take a classic Seinfeld "master of my domain" conversation and crank it up to 11).
Low-key gorgeous and winning Rosario Dawson as the manager of the joint with genuine screen chemistry with Dante adds badly needed chick time to the ultimate dick flick.
If you do get the DVD and like the movie, don't miss the out-takes, especially the deleted scene between Dante and Randal on the road back from (centering, peaceful) go carts.
I fully admit in advance that my loving this film does not reflect well on me, but honestly, I don't remember ever laughing harder in my life.
This is not for the faint of heart. My mother and mother-in-law should not even consider watching this film. Nor should anyone who cannot appreciate the vilest possible things being discussed lightly and humorously. However, Vince Marchand should watch this film daily.
Rightly speaking, this is not a film for the ages. This is not something that should be put in a time capsule--it would convey terrifying images from our time.
But the thing is, this film is also not Dumb and Dumber. It's SOOOO not Hollywood fare. Director Kevin Smith spent 10 years making this and other films after the first Clerks film, which was a low budget indie sleeper hit. The budget for Clerks 2 appears to be roughly 100 times that of Clerks.
This is not your typical sequel. It's a stand alone movie about two losers in their 30's working at a burger joint after the convenience/video store they inhabited for 12 years burns down. Dante is sensitive, thoughtful and kind, Randal is ingeniously insensitive. Even without having witnessed it yourself, you can tell that the brutally funny, sexually explicit dialogue is acutely observed from the lives of white male losers in northern New Jersey (take a classic Seinfeld "master of my domain" conversation and crank it up to 11).
Low-key gorgeous and winning Rosario Dawson as the manager of the joint with genuine screen chemistry with Dante adds badly needed chick time to the ultimate dick flick.
If you do get the DVD and like the movie, don't miss the out-takes, especially the deleted scene between Dante and Randal on the road back from (centering, peaceful) go carts.
I fully admit in advance that my loving this film does not reflect well on me, but honestly, I don't remember ever laughing harder in my life.
Monday, August 20, 2007
The Five Presidential Candidates You Never Hear About
Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, Gravel and Richardson, any one alone of these “lesser" Democratic presidential candidates has spent more time in elected office than the "top three" combined. They are an extremely experienced group. Who are they and why aren't you hearing about them?
1) Senator Joe Biden (D-Delaware). Joe (I feel I can call him “Joe” because I lobbied Congress for a small part of the time he was in office. He was one of our solid liberal votes. We refer to our solid votes by first name. Biden was “Joe.” Joe Kennedy, then a congressman, was “Little Joe.” Any questions?) has represented the State of Delaware in the Senate since 1973 (must have won the seat in a special election?). He is a smart guy who has always been great on the war and most issues of concern to progressives. He likes the sound of his own voice tremendously and as such talks a lot and says repeatable things which get him into trouble on the campaign trail. Readers will remember his little gaff comparing Senator Obama (favorably) to previous black presidential candidates (by extension unfavorably).
2) Senator Chris Dodd (D-Connecticut). Dodd has served in the Senate since 1981 and before that the House. He is liberal on social issues and a strong vote and advocate for the environment and likes to make the point that he is not a millionaire. He is an equally strong whore for the insurance industry (the lifeblood of his state’s economy). He never met a pro-consumer bill that he wouldn’t either kill or screw up. He voted for the 2002 Iraq War resolution. He voted for all the free trade bills. He isn’t given much of a chance.
3) Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Cleveland). Dennis a fabulous Congressman, a true progressive. He is known as the peace candidate, and deserves the mantle. He also could be the energy candidate, the health care candidate, etc. If we had ranked choice voting, you could all vote for Dennis as your first choice and then vote for someone who has a chance—maybe that would get him in. Why can’t the Democrats elect someone from their far left? Dennis would be that guy. Jon Stewart mocks him daily as a lefty leprechaun. He isn’t given a snowman’s chance in global warming of winning any primary including Ohio.
4) Senator Mike Gravel (D-Alaska). He represented the State of Alaska in the US Senate from 1969 to 1981 before the state started electing only Republicans. He is a complete nut job who thinks we should scrap the income tax and substitute it for a national sales tax (which, if you don’t know is a BAAAAD idea).
5) Governor Bill Richardson (D-New Mexico). Last but definitely not least. Richardson is the one to watch with this group. First, he is the only governor of the bunch (and voters in primaries seem to like governors). Secondly, he is extremely experienced. He is a former US ambassador to the United Nations, a former Secretary of Energy under Bill Clinton and a former Congressman. He is also a self-proclaimed “Hispanic American” who is definitely campaigning for the growing Latino vote in the Democratic party. And he’s not a bad guy. I don’t agree with him on everything, but he’s a decent individual, likable and purportedly a good executive. Don’t count this guy out.
Finally, despite my focus on these five candidates, I can’t resist plugging the candidate whom I’m supporting, Senator John Edwards. Here’s why I think Edwards is the best bet for President: he’s simultaneously the most progressive and the most electable of the viable Democratic candidates. He’s come out for single payer health care, repudiated his former position on the war and articulated a smart and viable policy for going forward, and is the only candidate openly campaigning to do something about poverty. He is a person with the courage of his convictions (something I know is not true of Hillary Clinton and am beginning to suspect is not true of Barack Obama).
Here’s the Cliff’s Notes version of column for those of you skimmed it:
*If you need to vote for the best candidate regardless of viability, vote for Kucinich.
**If you want to make the most of your vote, give money to and support Edwards
***Watch RichardsonThursday, August 16, 2007
Spam the Democratic Party
Are you on the lists I'm on? I get email from John Kerry, Harry Reid, DCCC, DSCC, DNC--if you get an email from any Democrat in Congress or national Democratic party, email them back that you want them to act like Democrats!
Tell them to impeach Bush. Tell them to pull out the troops. Tell them to repeal the Patriot Act.
Tell them to impeach Bush. Tell them to pull out the troops. Tell them to repeal the Patriot Act.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
(:)(:)(:)(:)(:) for The Looking Glass Wars by Frank Beddor
Five Snouts up for The Looking Glass Wars by Frank Beddor. This "children's" book is the imaginative, mesmerizing "true story" of Alice in Wonderland where we learn that Alyss is a visitor in our world, rather than Alice being a tourist from our world to Wonderland.
I can't say more than that without spoiling it, but suffice it to say that any person over the age of 10 (lots of fight gruesome fight scenes) should love this book. I couldn't put it down.
I can't say more than that without spoiling it, but suffice it to say that any person over the age of 10 (lots of fight gruesome fight scenes) should love this book. I couldn't put it down.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Republicans Eat Their Own in California
Tonight's Dinner? Central Valley Senator Jeff Denham (R-Modesto).
In the ongoing budget stalemate in the California State Senate, Denham is the closest to low-hanging fruit that the 14 (white male) Republicans have to offer the Democratic majority. The Democrats only need one Republican to support the budget for them to have 2/3rds of the Senate, but so far none are budging.
Why Denham? He broke with Republicans twice before to vote for budgets, so he's considered gettable. Yet, this year, he's dug in big time, declaiming Democrats' "pressure" and "tactics."
While often mis-labled a moderate, Denham is no profile in courage. He votes lock-step with the Republicans, who, in California, represent the extreme far right of the party nationwide. When he voted for the budgets before, he was more in the role of sacrificial lamb than lone wolf--he did so with the party's blessing and with the political cover of Republican leader Dick Ackerman (R-Orange County).
This year you almost gotta feel sorry for the guy, he's caught between a rock and a hard political reality: he's said to be holding the line because he wants to run for Lt. Governor and believes he can't win a Republican primary without arch-conservative support, which means no voting for (even this relatively conservative) budget.
(Putting aside for the moment that Denham may not be capable of handling even the rigorous whale-naming duties of Lt. Governor) if he should by chance win his party's primary, his insistence on hanging tough to oppose the budget on behalf of out of state developers in their effort to restrict the state's new anti climate change law dooms him statewide.
Denham is this year's poster child for the strange political paradox Republicans have created for themselves: to win statewide you must be green, yet you must be anti-environmental to win Republican primaries.
Only Arnold Schwarzenegger can change this balance--he can commit to supporting whatever "moderate" Republican supports the budget throughout their political future in California and free up the long-overdue payments to hospitals, healthcare workers and teachers that the Republicans are holding hostage. What's it going to be tough guy? You chicken?
In the ongoing budget stalemate in the California State Senate, Denham is the closest to low-hanging fruit that the 14 (white male) Republicans have to offer the Democratic majority. The Democrats only need one Republican to support the budget for them to have 2/3rds of the Senate, but so far none are budging.
Why Denham? He broke with Republicans twice before to vote for budgets, so he's considered gettable. Yet, this year, he's dug in big time, declaiming Democrats' "pressure" and "tactics."
While often mis-labled a moderate, Denham is no profile in courage. He votes lock-step with the Republicans, who, in California, represent the extreme far right of the party nationwide. When he voted for the budgets before, he was more in the role of sacrificial lamb than lone wolf--he did so with the party's blessing and with the political cover of Republican leader Dick Ackerman (R-Orange County).
This year you almost gotta feel sorry for the guy, he's caught between a rock and a hard political reality: he's said to be holding the line because he wants to run for Lt. Governor and believes he can't win a Republican primary without arch-conservative support, which means no voting for (even this relatively conservative) budget.
(Putting aside for the moment that Denham may not be capable of handling even the rigorous whale-naming duties of Lt. Governor) if he should by chance win his party's primary, his insistence on hanging tough to oppose the budget on behalf of out of state developers in their effort to restrict the state's new anti climate change law dooms him statewide.
Denham is this year's poster child for the strange political paradox Republicans have created for themselves: to win statewide you must be green, yet you must be anti-environmental to win Republican primaries.
Only Arnold Schwarzenegger can change this balance--he can commit to supporting whatever "moderate" Republican supports the budget throughout their political future in California and free up the long-overdue payments to hospitals, healthcare workers and teachers that the Republicans are holding hostage. What's it going to be tough guy? You chicken?
Monday, August 13, 2007
Hang up on the "d-trip"
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)