Here's that Cliff's Notes version of an old joke: a U.S. Senator spends his whole life fighting for single-payer (Medicare for all) health care. He loses a lot of battles. Towards the end of his life, people ask the Senator, "will the U.S. ever have single payer health care?" The Senator says, "yes, but not in my lifetime."
The Senator dies, goes to heaven and gets a special audience with God. He only has one question, "God, will the U.S. ever have a single payer health care system?" God yes, "yes. But not in my lifetime."
I've been working for universal health care reform since 1993-94 when I fought for it at Public Citizen in Washington DC at the height of the Clinton reform effort. The past few years I do it by working to pass public financing of elections.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that the folks in Sacramento like Senator Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica), Senator Don Perata (D-Oakland) and consumer groups are giving it another try. But despite Schwarznegger's stated intentions and leadership on the issue, and the crying public need, it still seems that there's very little that can be done as long as health care controls a huge percentage of the Gross Domestic Product and the interests that are benefiting from the current system disproportionately fund campaigns.
That's why I like AB 583 by Loni Hancock, a bill which creates a pilot project for public financing of elections for the Governor's race as well as one assembly and one senate seat. The bill has passed the Assembly and is in the Senate Elections Committee where it died last legislative term despite Senate Pro Tem leader Don Perata's promise that it wouldn't.
This year Senator Perata is a co-author of the reform legislation. If he wants to eventually get universal health care, I think it's essential that California start moving seriously in the direction of public financing of elections. AB 583 is a good way to start.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Friday, June 22, 2007
Public Outcry: "Garamendi, Name the Smelt!"
Delta--With the number of smelt in the California Delta dwindling daily, the public is an uproar calling for Lt. Governor John Garamendi to name the remaining smelt.
"Let's get real," said Gloria Gussmacher, a petite resident of the Delta region, "while the rest of the state government seems powerless to stop the daily smelt slaughter, there is one man who can help--Lt. Governor John Garamendi. Please Mr. Garamendi, these smelt are going to their deaths nameless and afraid. Please Mr. Garamendi, name the smelt!"
The Lt. Governor has already established clear naming jurisdiction over whales who have made their way within the Delta region. Recently he made headlines by naming a mother and calf "Delta and Dawn" as they explored the Sacramento River.
But does the Lt. Governor have the authority to name anything but sea mammals? And who is looking into the problem?
"Frankly, I'm upset. The Lt. Governor keeps holding these press conferences and workshops to discuss what happened with the whales. But they already have names!!! Meanwhile the smelt are dying daily, and we have no idea what to put on their graves," said 10 year old Emily Stevens, an avid smelt watcher.
Others have suggested that the Lt. Governor could spare 3 or 4 members of his staff to at least research whether he has the authority to name tiny fish.
And some have gone straight to a solution. Apparently there are only about 2 fish left, the popular and obvious choice for their names seems to be "Smelta and Spawn."
But will the Lt. Governor leap into action? Or will he remain focussed on the animals he has already named? Stay tuned.
"Let's get real," said Gloria Gussmacher, a petite resident of the Delta region, "while the rest of the state government seems powerless to stop the daily smelt slaughter, there is one man who can help--Lt. Governor John Garamendi. Please Mr. Garamendi, these smelt are going to their deaths nameless and afraid. Please Mr. Garamendi, name the smelt!"
The Lt. Governor has already established clear naming jurisdiction over whales who have made their way within the Delta region. Recently he made headlines by naming a mother and calf "Delta and Dawn" as they explored the Sacramento River.
But does the Lt. Governor have the authority to name anything but sea mammals? And who is looking into the problem?
"Frankly, I'm upset. The Lt. Governor keeps holding these press conferences and workshops to discuss what happened with the whales. But they already have names!!! Meanwhile the smelt are dying daily, and we have no idea what to put on their graves," said 10 year old Emily Stevens, an avid smelt watcher.
Others have suggested that the Lt. Governor could spare 3 or 4 members of his staff to at least research whether he has the authority to name tiny fish.
And some have gone straight to a solution. Apparently there are only about 2 fish left, the popular and obvious choice for their names seems to be "Smelta and Spawn."
But will the Lt. Governor leap into action? Or will he remain focussed on the animals he has already named? Stay tuned.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
I love you, Chuck Calderon
I'm here to impart some shocking news. After 15 years of examining Congressmen and California state legislators at close range, I've determined that they are human beings. In fact, I think a mistake that many public interest advocates make (and lord knows I was one of 'em) is forgetting the degree to which they are dealing with human beings not some sort of super race, or robot version of ourselves, but ourselves.
Like people, legislators breathe, eat, sleep, have dysfunctional upbringings, and experience a full range of human emotions.
We tend to remember that they lust for power, praise and money and that they respond to pressure from constituents out of fear for their political future. But we tend to forget that most basic human desire, the need for love and understanding and compassion. The need to belong. The need to be okay with themselves and their own core values. And yes, they all have core values, even if they don't seem to be driven by them.
I am mindful of a story about Martin Luther King Jr. prior to his first face to face meeting with Attorney General Bobby Kennedy. As he prepared for the meeting with his closest advisors and allies, they talked trash on Bobby--he was white, he was Catholic, he was never going to understand, the administration would never help--they despaired of getting through to him.
King said something to the effect of "no, we can't go into this meeting with any of that in our minds. We have to love this man as we love ourselves. We are not going to anything else to prepare for this meeting but pray for the love and understanding of this man." And so they did. They prayed and focussed on love of Bobby Kennedy for several days prior to the meeting. And when they went in, they made history.
Too often here in Sacramento, I've been a party to preparation for meetings where we have the idea that the legislator we're talking to is a lost cause, an asshole, a coward, a sell-out. I doubt it would go over well if I asked us to hold Chuck Calderon in love, for example (a California Democrat whose voting and legacy has been a constant challenge to liberals).
But I have noticed that even a Chuck Calderon wants to think of himself as a good guy. Even a Chuck Calderon wants to believe that he does what he does for the benefit of all. He tells himself that siding with a business interest against a consumer group thereby killing bills that would advance the rights of working people is seeking "balance" or protecting jobs. He has a strong rationale for all he does.
Who among us has not rationalized harmful behavior? I know I have. I have hurt people I loved and come up with a way that it is okay. Ultimately it is this weakness, this humanity that binds us together, not our strength, or show of force. Ultimately, I can't help but think that love is the missing ingredient in public policy.
I love you, Chuck Calderon, for you are me.
Like people, legislators breathe, eat, sleep, have dysfunctional upbringings, and experience a full range of human emotions.
We tend to remember that they lust for power, praise and money and that they respond to pressure from constituents out of fear for their political future. But we tend to forget that most basic human desire, the need for love and understanding and compassion. The need to belong. The need to be okay with themselves and their own core values. And yes, they all have core values, even if they don't seem to be driven by them.
I am mindful of a story about Martin Luther King Jr. prior to his first face to face meeting with Attorney General Bobby Kennedy. As he prepared for the meeting with his closest advisors and allies, they talked trash on Bobby--he was white, he was Catholic, he was never going to understand, the administration would never help--they despaired of getting through to him.
King said something to the effect of "no, we can't go into this meeting with any of that in our minds. We have to love this man as we love ourselves. We are not going to anything else to prepare for this meeting but pray for the love and understanding of this man." And so they did. They prayed and focussed on love of Bobby Kennedy for several days prior to the meeting. And when they went in, they made history.
Too often here in Sacramento, I've been a party to preparation for meetings where we have the idea that the legislator we're talking to is a lost cause, an asshole, a coward, a sell-out. I doubt it would go over well if I asked us to hold Chuck Calderon in love, for example (a California Democrat whose voting and legacy has been a constant challenge to liberals).
But I have noticed that even a Chuck Calderon wants to think of himself as a good guy. Even a Chuck Calderon wants to believe that he does what he does for the benefit of all. He tells himself that siding with a business interest against a consumer group thereby killing bills that would advance the rights of working people is seeking "balance" or protecting jobs. He has a strong rationale for all he does.
Who among us has not rationalized harmful behavior? I know I have. I have hurt people I loved and come up with a way that it is okay. Ultimately it is this weakness, this humanity that binds us together, not our strength, or show of force. Ultimately, I can't help but think that love is the missing ingredient in public policy.
I love you, Chuck Calderon, for you are me.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Craig's List is God
I have determined that's Craig's List is God--not figuratively, and not in the sense that we're all, like, God, but, literally, Craig's List is God.
Craig's List has all the qualities of God:
It is ever present, all-knowing, all powerful.
It is free most places.
It is a consistent loving presence.
It is all-sufficiency--meaning it fulfills all your needs.
It always says yes.
The more specific you are, the more you know about what you want, the more quickly and particularly Craig's List fulfills your deepest desires.
What am I talking about?
It's this: there are always lots of ads on Craig's List for everything under the sun. As in all things, if you don't rely on what you perceive 'out there' to determine what you get, you can be disappointed. Hence, if you simply browse on Craig's List kind of looking at want ads, looking at furniture ads, looking at housing swaps, hoping that something may catch your eye, you will find things. Just as you will see things outside of you in the world that you desire all the time.
If you email the people who put up those ads, you may be the one that gets to buy it, live in it, work for it or own it, but you may not. It's hit and miss, a crap shoot--sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.
On the other hand, instead of looking outside yourself to see if someone has what you vaguely want, how about you look inside yourself. Figure out what it is that you want with a great deal of specificity, and place a free ad on Craig's List--voila!
Now it's a different story--in Craig's world, the advertiser always wins. The people answering your ad are now in a crap shoot--but you're lucky every time.
An example: I wanted to find a cheap apartment to rent in Manhattan for a few nights--a real place that someone lived, not a hotel. There were two adults and 4 kids among us. Most of the apartments were too small or fancy. Everything suitable turned me down. So I placed an ad, "two law professor moms seek any manhattan abode big enough for 1 10 year old, 2 8 year olds and a two year old from August 1 to August 10, will pay up to $100 a night." Within hours, I get all kinds others-- one of them is perfect, we stayed there and all was well.
This has happened over and over again for me on Craig's List. Recently I came to the realization that this is exactly how God works. If I am clear about what I want and place my free ad with audacious specificity--God comes through, lickity spit. It's when I'm vague and "shopping" for happiness, that I falter.
How good it is to know that Craig's List is God.
Craig's List has all the qualities of God:
It is ever present, all-knowing, all powerful.
It is free most places.
It is a consistent loving presence.
It is all-sufficiency--meaning it fulfills all your needs.
It always says yes.
The more specific you are, the more you know about what you want, the more quickly and particularly Craig's List fulfills your deepest desires.
What am I talking about?
It's this: there are always lots of ads on Craig's List for everything under the sun. As in all things, if you don't rely on what you perceive 'out there' to determine what you get, you can be disappointed. Hence, if you simply browse on Craig's List kind of looking at want ads, looking at furniture ads, looking at housing swaps, hoping that something may catch your eye, you will find things. Just as you will see things outside of you in the world that you desire all the time.
If you email the people who put up those ads, you may be the one that gets to buy it, live in it, work for it or own it, but you may not. It's hit and miss, a crap shoot--sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.
On the other hand, instead of looking outside yourself to see if someone has what you vaguely want, how about you look inside yourself. Figure out what it is that you want with a great deal of specificity, and place a free ad on Craig's List--voila!
Now it's a different story--in Craig's world, the advertiser always wins. The people answering your ad are now in a crap shoot--but you're lucky every time.
An example: I wanted to find a cheap apartment to rent in Manhattan for a few nights--a real place that someone lived, not a hotel. There were two adults and 4 kids among us. Most of the apartments were too small or fancy. Everything suitable turned me down. So I placed an ad, "two law professor moms seek any manhattan abode big enough for 1 10 year old, 2 8 year olds and a two year old from August 1 to August 10, will pay up to $100 a night." Within hours, I get all kinds others-- one of them is perfect, we stayed there and all was well.
This has happened over and over again for me on Craig's List. Recently I came to the realization that this is exactly how God works. If I am clear about what I want and place my free ad with audacious specificity--God comes through, lickity spit. It's when I'm vague and "shopping" for happiness, that I falter.
How good it is to know that Craig's List is God.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Elizabeth Edwards is Inspiring
You need to watch Elizabeth Edwards' inspiring speech captured by the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights at their recent annual "Rage for Justice" Awards Dinner.
I believe her when she says that she and John Edwards are running for President because they want to speak out against the current policies. She speaks from her heart but with a depth and specificity that we rarely hear from mainstream candidates (or their wives).
It is imperative that we begin to work for a progressive viable Democratic candidate who has actual conviction and the courage of those convictions. I think John Edwards may just be that candidate.
Listen and tell me what you think.
I believe her when she says that she and John Edwards are running for President because they want to speak out against the current policies. She speaks from her heart but with a depth and specificity that we rarely hear from mainstream candidates (or their wives).
It is imperative that we begin to work for a progressive viable Democratic candidate who has actual conviction and the courage of those convictions. I think John Edwards may just be that candidate.
Listen and tell me what you think.
Monday, June 18, 2007
4 Snouts Up for The House of the Scorpion
(:)(:)(:)(:) for The House of the Scorpion by Nancy Farmer. This is the best "children's" book I have read in years. Anyone who likes good fiction should read it.
Written from the perspective of a brilliant, inquisitive growing boy who is painfully (and uniquely--from our perspective) different from other children, the book beautifully examines the many forks in the road of human moral development. Each painful experience we have (and he has many) shapes us and gives us an opportunity to choose compassion, love and redemption, or to choose bitterness, isolation and hatred as a matter of survival. Sometimes we start down one fork, only to cross over to the other.
This perfect coming of age story is set in a compelling yet subtly revealed back-drop of a futuristic North America that plays out one set of disturbing consequences to the current environmental, trade, immigration and labor practices.
Although the cover boasts a Newberry Award and other accolades, none of the blurbs on the back really do the book justice, perhaps because they are pitched to the target market: people buying books for 13 year olds. The target market should indeed buy this book, but so should everyone else.
Written from the perspective of a brilliant, inquisitive growing boy who is painfully (and uniquely--from our perspective) different from other children, the book beautifully examines the many forks in the road of human moral development. Each painful experience we have (and he has many) shapes us and gives us an opportunity to choose compassion, love and redemption, or to choose bitterness, isolation and hatred as a matter of survival. Sometimes we start down one fork, only to cross over to the other.
This perfect coming of age story is set in a compelling yet subtly revealed back-drop of a futuristic North America that plays out one set of disturbing consequences to the current environmental, trade, immigration and labor practices.
Although the cover boasts a Newberry Award and other accolades, none of the blurbs on the back really do the book justice, perhaps because they are pitched to the target market: people buying books for 13 year olds. The target market should indeed buy this book, but so should everyone else.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Mark Leno Ends the Suspense on Clean Money
Having written before how the Assembly Appropriations Committee was keeping me in suspense, I am remiss in not stating precisely that Assemblymember Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), chair of the Assembly Appropriations Committee, ended the suspense last week by bringing a streamlined, pilot project of public financing out of committee. AB 583 by Loni Hancock, as I reported yesterday, will go to the floor of the California Assembly today for a vote.
This is significant not only because it will be the first floor vote in California on a real clean money bill, but because of what it says about Mark Leno.
As Chair of Assembly Appropriations Committee, Leno is in a position to (and indeed is expected to) raise a lot of money from special interest groups. Last week, he was appropriately taken to task for holding a fundraiser the night before his committee's biggest hearing of the year so far--the one where they decide which major bills live or die.
Believe it or not, holding it the night before was actually an improvement over the practice of former Assembly Appropriations Chair (now Senator) Carole Migden (also D-San Francisco) (against whom Leno is running for State Senate). At least one year, I can remember Migden breaking for lunch in the middle of huge Appropriations hearing, announcing that she hoped to "see us all across the street at a little event"--her big fundraiser. After the event, she moved the business of the committee to the most important issues.
Either way, fundraising of powerful committee chairs right before or during a huge hearing is distasteful at best and unethical at worst. If memory serves, another former Assembly Appropriations Chair Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) declined to hold "events" (insider speak for fundraisers) anywhere close to the hearings he would run--a better choice.
Still, in moving AB 583, a bill which would benefit no well-heeled special interest and only the people of California, out of Assembly Appropriations Committee, Leno paves the way for a new era of politics in California. He is to be applauded for his leadership and courage.
This is significant not only because it will be the first floor vote in California on a real clean money bill, but because of what it says about Mark Leno.
As Chair of Assembly Appropriations Committee, Leno is in a position to (and indeed is expected to) raise a lot of money from special interest groups. Last week, he was appropriately taken to task for holding a fundraiser the night before his committee's biggest hearing of the year so far--the one where they decide which major bills live or die.
Believe it or not, holding it the night before was actually an improvement over the practice of former Assembly Appropriations Chair (now Senator) Carole Migden (also D-San Francisco) (against whom Leno is running for State Senate). At least one year, I can remember Migden breaking for lunch in the middle of huge Appropriations hearing, announcing that she hoped to "see us all across the street at a little event"--her big fundraiser. After the event, she moved the business of the committee to the most important issues.
Either way, fundraising of powerful committee chairs right before or during a huge hearing is distasteful at best and unethical at worst. If memory serves, another former Assembly Appropriations Chair Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) declined to hold "events" (insider speak for fundraisers) anywhere close to the hearings he would run--a better choice.
Still, in moving AB 583, a bill which would benefit no well-heeled special interest and only the people of California, out of Assembly Appropriations Committee, Leno paves the way for a new era of politics in California. He is to be applauded for his leadership and courage.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Clean Money to Assembly Floor
SACRAMENTO - Last Thursday, an amended version of the Clean Money and Fair Elections Act of 2007 (AB 583) was voted out of the Assembly Appropriations Committee by a vote of 12 to 5. The bill now moves on for a vote of the full Assembly, most likely on Wednesday. If enacted, the amended version of AB 583 (Hancock, D-East Bay) would create voluntary, fully-funded public financing for the 2010 Governor's race, one open Assembly seat, and one open Senate seat.
In its amended form, AB 583 will serve as a pilot program and allow California voters and candidates to see how a Clean Money system would actually work in California. "We applaud Appropriations Chair Mark Leno and Assemblymember Hancock for adopting this creative answer to the question of whether a system which works so well in Arizona and Maine can be properly scaled for California. We know that it can, and we are excited about the possibility of testing the system on the offices which the public feels are primary magnets for outsized campaign contributions. AB 583 will help restore faith in California's government," said Susan Lerner, Executive Director of the California Clean Money Campaign.
Clean Money systems have been adopted across the country; Arizona and Maine started public-financing state elections 7 years ago, Connecticut's legislature passed a Clean Money bill last year, North Carolina provides public financing for judicial races, and New Mexico just instituted a similar system for its judicial elections. New Mexico also established a pilot Clean Money program for elections for its Public Regulations Commission, while New Jersey has a pilot program for public financing of three legislative districts.
Speaking after the Committee vote, Assemblymember Hancock said, "AB 583 is an effective way for the public to test how well the full public funding of campaigns system runs. AB 583 will go a long way to restoring faith in our campaign financing system."
In its amended form, AB 583 will serve as a pilot program and allow California voters and candidates to see how a Clean Money system would actually work in California. "We applaud Appropriations Chair Mark Leno and Assemblymember Hancock for adopting this creative answer to the question of whether a system which works so well in Arizona and Maine can be properly scaled for California. We know that it can, and we are excited about the possibility of testing the system on the offices which the public feels are primary magnets for outsized campaign contributions. AB 583 will help restore faith in California's government," said Susan Lerner, Executive Director of the California Clean Money Campaign.
Clean Money systems have been adopted across the country; Arizona and Maine started public-financing state elections 7 years ago, Connecticut's legislature passed a Clean Money bill last year, North Carolina provides public financing for judicial races, and New Mexico just instituted a similar system for its judicial elections. New Mexico also established a pilot Clean Money program for elections for its Public Regulations Commission, while New Jersey has a pilot program for public financing of three legislative districts.
Speaking after the Committee vote, Assemblymember Hancock said, "AB 583 is an effective way for the public to test how well the full public funding of campaigns system runs. AB 583 will go a long way to restoring faith in our campaign financing system."
Monday, June 04, 2007
Hillary Nightmare Starting to Come True
It's happening, people. Hillary Clinton is scooping up prime endorsements and fattening her campaign account at an alarming rate. It's starting to look possible, even probable, that she will win the Democratic nomination (hence lose Democrats the White House).
But, Sara, hold on, you say. Remember Howard Dean whose victory was "all but assured" in November of 2003, how can you say anything in June of 2007? Answer: I can't. And believe me, I'm hoping for the front-runner mantle to eventually smother her. I have a sneaking suspicion that the Hollywood stars, politicians and union leaders that Billary is able to snooker into endorsing her cannot deliver the average Democratic voter to Clinton in the primary.
Aside from a giddy group of professional women who go verklempt at the idea of someone in the White House who has been at the business end of a tampon, most Democratic voters, whether they like Hillary or not, intuitively get that she's just the person to lose us the White House.
Don't get me wrong, I don't absolutely hate her. There are things I admire about her and she's obviously got some real strengths as a candidate and a campaigner. The problem is, as I've stated over and over, a poor combination of factors:
1) She voted for the war. In an election that will be decided on the basis of the war, how can we rally around her? How can she distinguish herself from a Republican who wasn't in Congress? (like Guiliani?)
2) She is the poster child for all the Christian right hates: the "feminazi" who is out to force your daughter to have an abortion, wear a business suit and marry a man named Gloria. Hillary Clinton as top of the ticket could energize and motivate an otherwise dispirited band of conservatives to prevent the "Hollywood elite" from re-taking our country.
3) She's not a "feminazi" -- she's a pragmatic centrist who as far as I can tell has no closely held beliefs other than it's better to be in power than out of power. So if she's the Democratic candidate and we want to forestall four more years of Republicanism, we're forced to rally around and cheer for someone who may or may not stop the war and protect our civil liberties and most assuredly will not stop the encroachment of big corporate control of our government--paving the way for the 2008 summer blockbuster, "Ralph Nader III: Curse of the Toxic Tomato."
In short, I'd urge us all not to leave this completely to chance. I think we should begin looking very closely at Edwards and Obama (and, no, sorry to my real lefty friends, not Dennis Kucinich--although we may agree with all he says, he's not viable and that's that) and start giving them some early time and money.
I still don't know where to come down between Barak and Edwards. I'm going to read Dreams from my Father by Obama, which I have heard is great. Keep me posted on what you hear and what you think.
But, Sara, hold on, you say. Remember Howard Dean whose victory was "all but assured" in November of 2003, how can you say anything in June of 2007? Answer: I can't. And believe me, I'm hoping for the front-runner mantle to eventually smother her. I have a sneaking suspicion that the Hollywood stars, politicians and union leaders that Billary is able to snooker into endorsing her cannot deliver the average Democratic voter to Clinton in the primary.
Aside from a giddy group of professional women who go verklempt at the idea of someone in the White House who has been at the business end of a tampon, most Democratic voters, whether they like Hillary or not, intuitively get that she's just the person to lose us the White House.
Don't get me wrong, I don't absolutely hate her. There are things I admire about her and she's obviously got some real strengths as a candidate and a campaigner. The problem is, as I've stated over and over, a poor combination of factors:
1) She voted for the war. In an election that will be decided on the basis of the war, how can we rally around her? How can she distinguish herself from a Republican who wasn't in Congress? (like Guiliani?)
2) She is the poster child for all the Christian right hates: the "feminazi" who is out to force your daughter to have an abortion, wear a business suit and marry a man named Gloria. Hillary Clinton as top of the ticket could energize and motivate an otherwise dispirited band of conservatives to prevent the "Hollywood elite" from re-taking our country.
3) She's not a "feminazi" -- she's a pragmatic centrist who as far as I can tell has no closely held beliefs other than it's better to be in power than out of power. So if she's the Democratic candidate and we want to forestall four more years of Republicanism, we're forced to rally around and cheer for someone who may or may not stop the war and protect our civil liberties and most assuredly will not stop the encroachment of big corporate control of our government--paving the way for the 2008 summer blockbuster, "Ralph Nader III: Curse of the Toxic Tomato."
In short, I'd urge us all not to leave this completely to chance. I think we should begin looking very closely at Edwards and Obama (and, no, sorry to my real lefty friends, not Dennis Kucinich--although we may agree with all he says, he's not viable and that's that) and start giving them some early time and money.
I still don't know where to come down between Barak and Edwards. I'm going to read Dreams from my Father by Obama, which I have heard is great. Keep me posted on what you hear and what you think.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
I'm Grateful for Bill Magavern reducing Diesel Emissions
Every day I start my day making a list of 10 things for which I am grateful (well, truth be told, the first thing I have to be grateful for is that I often start my day cuddling with a sleepy 10 year old girl and prodding her gently to get on with her day).
I do this because it makes me have a better day. It shifts the focus of my attention away from what I don't have, to what I have (which is plenty!). Even though I have a conscious relationship with God, I am not grateful to God. God doesn't need my gratitude. The universe is providing what it's providing, whether I'm grateful or not.
No, the gratitude is for me. The gratitude is, cliche and rhyming but nonetheless true, an attitude. I need the gratitude.
I do this especially when I'm at my worst. I try to make every single thing on the list unique. In other words, I am not grateful for my husband and children and mother every day (even though I am).
Today I am grateful for the way N. head-butted me and grunted at 9:45pm last night when I told him it was time for lights out. I am grateful for Emily's 4th freckle below her right eye.
I am grateful that even though I missed the Capitol Public Radio report last week, I (and you) can hear Bill talking about reducing diesel emissions it by clicking here (or above).
I do this because it makes me have a better day. It shifts the focus of my attention away from what I don't have, to what I have (which is plenty!). Even though I have a conscious relationship with God, I am not grateful to God. God doesn't need my gratitude. The universe is providing what it's providing, whether I'm grateful or not.
No, the gratitude is for me. The gratitude is, cliche and rhyming but nonetheless true, an attitude. I need the gratitude.
I do this especially when I'm at my worst. I try to make every single thing on the list unique. In other words, I am not grateful for my husband and children and mother every day (even though I am).
Today I am grateful for the way N. head-butted me and grunted at 9:45pm last night when I told him it was time for lights out. I am grateful for Emily's 4th freckle below her right eye.
I am grateful that even though I missed the Capitol Public Radio report last week, I (and you) can hear Bill talking about reducing diesel emissions it by clicking here (or above).
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Sacramento Humans Swim Circles Around Whales
I admit it, I keep up on current events--the things of importance to the world, like whales in the Sacramento River delta. The kids and I scour the news every day for the latest on these large mammals in our midst. I haven't been obsessed enough to join the 10,000 people who endangered the levees in West Sacramento to catch a glimpse of this mother and calf cavorting in fresh water, but I understand the impulse and certainly, time permitting, the kids and I would have ridden our bikes 2 miles to get a peek.
The current commentary lines in our household/community on the whales are these:
1) On their names. The Sac Bee had a naming contest, but before they could complete it, Lt. Governor John Garamendi took it upon himself to name the whales "Delta" for the mom and "Dawn" for the calf. The Bee then decided to accept these names as an official act of state. It's nice that whale-naming falls within the Lt. Governor's limited jurisdiction. Apparently he has some experience in this area. Over a decade ago, when the last whale made its way from the San Francisco Bay up the river, John Garamendi was in the State Assembly representing a Delta district. At that time he made the bold decisive move to name that whale "Humphrey," thereby saving his constituents from the horror of a nameless whale in their midst.
I'm assuming (but am too lazy to check) that in running for his current office he had a whale-naming plank (or should I say plankton?) in his platform--he has now fulfilled that campaign promise (Note: I think his naming rights are limited to the Sacramento River; all LA River whales are to be named by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa; all Mendocino County Russian River whales are to be named by Cheech and Chong).
Not being Lt. Governor, I have no business in whale naming, but I still think the best monikers for these Humpback whales (known to marine biologists as the "cows of the sea") would be "Dumb and Dumber"--why the heck did they leave the sea and swim upstream in fresh water? Hel-lo!? You're whales?!
2) How the "scientists" "affect" the whales' behavior. Is it only me or are the reports on what the "whale experts" are going to try, completely ludicrous? It's obvious to me that these guys have no idea what they're doing. Their actions on getting the whales to head back out to sea so far have been about as purposeful and well-thought out as my brother in law's when he chased a bat in his house around for an hour and a half before beating it to death with a tennis racket.
Here are some of their "expert" activities:
a) "give the whales the weekend off" before intervening. Do whales observe weekends? Was it really the whales that needed a weekend off?
b) run tugboats by them and hope they'll follow--"here, whale, follow the tugboat, whale".
c) (today) start banging on pipes underwater hoping that it will send them downstream (apparently my two year old nephew IM'd them this suggestion).
Could someone at least please call Sea World and send one of those cute trainer girls in a wet suit up? Maybe that could get some action (out of the scientist if not the whales).
3) On why the whales came inland in the first place--my son N (who was sick all last week as the whales made their journey inland) had a theory as to why they chose to come up:
"They heard I was sick and they came to see me and make me feel better. When they found out I was well, they turned around."
This statement would of course be adorable in a 5 year old--in a 12 year old, it's, well, it's even more adorable. Unfortunately, his explanation only holds water through Sunday when, yes, N's health and the whales both turned around and headed out to sea (okay, the health didn't head out to sea but you get the idea). By yesterday, however, the whales had done another 180 and were apparently seen shopping for beach chairs and towels at Ikea in West Sac. My daughter E has a cold today, maybe that's why they're staying.
Don't get me wrong, I wish "Delta" and "Dawn" well, and do very much hope they make it safely back to sea. It's the humans that seem to be swimming in circles--bang on the pipes, maybe it'll help.
The current commentary lines in our household/community on the whales are these:
1) On their names. The Sac Bee had a naming contest, but before they could complete it, Lt. Governor John Garamendi took it upon himself to name the whales "Delta" for the mom and "Dawn" for the calf. The Bee then decided to accept these names as an official act of state. It's nice that whale-naming falls within the Lt. Governor's limited jurisdiction. Apparently he has some experience in this area. Over a decade ago, when the last whale made its way from the San Francisco Bay up the river, John Garamendi was in the State Assembly representing a Delta district. At that time he made the bold decisive move to name that whale "Humphrey," thereby saving his constituents from the horror of a nameless whale in their midst.
I'm assuming (but am too lazy to check) that in running for his current office he had a whale-naming plank (or should I say plankton?) in his platform--he has now fulfilled that campaign promise (Note: I think his naming rights are limited to the Sacramento River; all LA River whales are to be named by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa; all Mendocino County Russian River whales are to be named by Cheech and Chong).
Not being Lt. Governor, I have no business in whale naming, but I still think the best monikers for these Humpback whales (known to marine biologists as the "cows of the sea") would be "Dumb and Dumber"--why the heck did they leave the sea and swim upstream in fresh water? Hel-lo!? You're whales?!
2) How the "scientists" "affect" the whales' behavior. Is it only me or are the reports on what the "whale experts" are going to try, completely ludicrous? It's obvious to me that these guys have no idea what they're doing. Their actions on getting the whales to head back out to sea so far have been about as purposeful and well-thought out as my brother in law's when he chased a bat in his house around for an hour and a half before beating it to death with a tennis racket.
Here are some of their "expert" activities:
a) "give the whales the weekend off" before intervening. Do whales observe weekends? Was it really the whales that needed a weekend off?
b) run tugboats by them and hope they'll follow--"here, whale, follow the tugboat, whale".
c) (today) start banging on pipes underwater hoping that it will send them downstream (apparently my two year old nephew IM'd them this suggestion).
Could someone at least please call Sea World and send one of those cute trainer girls in a wet suit up? Maybe that could get some action (out of the scientist if not the whales).
3) On why the whales came inland in the first place--my son N (who was sick all last week as the whales made their journey inland) had a theory as to why they chose to come up:
"They heard I was sick and they came to see me and make me feel better. When they found out I was well, they turned around."
This statement would of course be adorable in a 5 year old--in a 12 year old, it's, well, it's even more adorable. Unfortunately, his explanation only holds water through Sunday when, yes, N's health and the whales both turned around and headed out to sea (okay, the health didn't head out to sea but you get the idea). By yesterday, however, the whales had done another 180 and were apparently seen shopping for beach chairs and towels at Ikea in West Sac. My daughter E has a cold today, maybe that's why they're staying.
Don't get me wrong, I wish "Delta" and "Dawn" well, and do very much hope they make it safely back to sea. It's the humans that seem to be swimming in circles--bang on the pipes, maybe it'll help.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Four Snouts Up for An Unreasonable Man
(:)(:)(:)(:) for An Unreasonable Man seen tonight. I found this to be a balanced overview of Ralph's career, showing what made him who he is, with lots of air time for his critics.
Clearly the world is crying out for a great Nader date movie. Bill and I and the other Sacramento couple who used to work for Ralph Nader's Public Citizen, Nancy Drabble and John Sims, represented roughly 25% of the crowd at the film's opening night this evening at our huge beautiful old-fashioned Crest Theater downtown.
We couldn't stick around to compare notes with the Drabble/Sims, but we liked the film. However I can't begin to pretend to be objective about whether it's a good movie. For me this was closer to watching home movies than a documentary--Bill and I no doubt annoyed the people around us by keeping up a running whispered commentary,
"oh my God, is that Bob Fellmuth in the 60's?"
"Which one?"
"That one?"
"No. That's not Fellmuth."
"I can't believe that's what Ridgeway looks like. The number of times he's interviewed me over the phone, I never saw him in person."
"Oh my god, is Gene Karpinsky gonna tell is 'there's the hard core and then there's the spouse core' Ralph quote again?"
"He is!"
"he's telling it again"
"Jesus Christ, is that Joan Claybrook or Abby Hoffman?"
"Ralph and Joan are still having the same argument about air bags they had 30 years ago"
"Where's Russell Mokiber and JR? How could they have a movie about Ralph without Mokiber and JR?"
"Shit, they're not going to let Harvey talk about Proposition 103! Oh god, they are."
And so forth. So no. I'm not objective. But listen. The one thing I wish they'd done differently, is explained more about the Clinton administration, and what it did to Ralph's policies. I really think that every Democrat who hates Ralph for running for President in 2000 and 2004 would understand at least the 2000 race if they really knew what Clinton did to turn back the clock on food safety, auto safety, worker safety, the environment. If people understood that Clinton worked with a Democratic Congress to undo laws enacted primarily with the help of Ralph Nader, that Republican Presidents since Reagan had tried unsuccessfully to get the Democrats to repeal, they'd know why Ralph ran.
But hey, it's quite possible that no one but me cares. I still love and respect Ralph Nader and always will. And I'll defend him with my last breath. As this film shows, he's human. But he's also the ultimate citizen, and the ultimate American. He loves this country's promise of Democracy and its legal system, and he has tested both like no one else. And while he may be slightly Messianic, he's far from megalomaniacal--his fights have never ever been about Ralph, they've been about the future of this country.
Clearly the world is crying out for a great Nader date movie. Bill and I and the other Sacramento couple who used to work for Ralph Nader's Public Citizen, Nancy Drabble and John Sims, represented roughly 25% of the crowd at the film's opening night this evening at our huge beautiful old-fashioned Crest Theater downtown.
We couldn't stick around to compare notes with the Drabble/Sims, but we liked the film. However I can't begin to pretend to be objective about whether it's a good movie. For me this was closer to watching home movies than a documentary--Bill and I no doubt annoyed the people around us by keeping up a running whispered commentary,
"oh my God, is that Bob Fellmuth in the 60's?"
"Which one?"
"That one?"
"No. That's not Fellmuth."
"I can't believe that's what Ridgeway looks like. The number of times he's interviewed me over the phone, I never saw him in person."
"Oh my god, is Gene Karpinsky gonna tell is 'there's the hard core and then there's the spouse core' Ralph quote again?"
"He is!"
"he's telling it again"
"Jesus Christ, is that Joan Claybrook or Abby Hoffman?"
"Ralph and Joan are still having the same argument about air bags they had 30 years ago"
"Where's Russell Mokiber and JR? How could they have a movie about Ralph without Mokiber and JR?"
"Shit, they're not going to let Harvey talk about Proposition 103! Oh god, they are."
And so forth. So no. I'm not objective. But listen. The one thing I wish they'd done differently, is explained more about the Clinton administration, and what it did to Ralph's policies. I really think that every Democrat who hates Ralph for running for President in 2000 and 2004 would understand at least the 2000 race if they really knew what Clinton did to turn back the clock on food safety, auto safety, worker safety, the environment. If people understood that Clinton worked with a Democratic Congress to undo laws enacted primarily with the help of Ralph Nader, that Republican Presidents since Reagan had tried unsuccessfully to get the Democrats to repeal, they'd know why Ralph ran.
But hey, it's quite possible that no one but me cares. I still love and respect Ralph Nader and always will. And I'll defend him with my last breath. As this film shows, he's human. But he's also the ultimate citizen, and the ultimate American. He loves this country's promise of Democracy and its legal system, and he has tested both like no one else. And while he may be slightly Messianic, he's far from megalomaniacal--his fights have never ever been about Ralph, they've been about the future of this country.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
The 2 or 3 Habits of a Semi-Effective Snichols
Perhaps this is obvious, but the more I plan my days and my weeks, the better they go. Granted, unlike 99% of the people reading this blog, absent planning, my week includes huge blocks of unscheduled time--thank you, God, I am so lucky.
I engage in 3 levels of planning, monthly, weekly and daily.
1) Once a month I look over the whole month, block out all the regular appointments in my life--things that happen every single week. I also look ahead a few months at what is in the hopper--check out deadlines for things and schedule backwards from them.
2) Once a week, usually Sunday night, I get out my planner and block the week. If the monthly planner did its job, this is easier, because I have left time for the things I always need to do. So, every day I schedule time, literally schedule, for prayer, meditation, reading, writing, exercise, studying, and housecleaning. This usually takes up a total of about 3 hours a day. Then I schedule time for board and volunteer responsibilities, job hunting and errands or what I call do it now. This usually adds another 2-3 hours to the day. And that's my kids' school day right there. I sometimes have 2 to 3 hours left over in a week where I will schedule the luxury of a hair cut or lunch with a friend. Usually after school and evenings are taken up with kids or church activities, but sometimes, as now, the kids are at swim team for large blocks of time and I can get something accomplished or have some fun during that period.
A word on exercise: the exercise really doesn't happen unless I write down when it's happening and what it is, e.g., running, biking, swimming, or Tae Bo. If I just say exercise then I have to figure that out daily and that can be tricky.
3) Daily. Every morning I look over the schedule and make sure it's realistic. In implementing it, and adjusting it, I use Steven Covey's guides as my priority, 1st) urgent and important (e.g. making a speech that I agreed to make), 2nd) non-urgent and important (prayer and meditation, planning, setting a future appointment), 3rd) urgent and unimportant (dropping off something at the dry cleaners, 4) non-urgent and unimportant (most emails).
A word about email. For me, for this strategy to succeed, it is crucial that I delay looking at emails for as long as possible, it is a giant time sink. After I've finished all the important stuff, I can look at emails. This is particular difficult when one of the urgent things is sending out an email. I can be tempted to check my email and often fall into that trap. I am trying to discipline myself into getting in, sending the email, only opening the emails that obviously pertain to the urgent and important activities of the day and getting out. Deferring random email checking to a period of time in which I can quickly respond to emails.
This is also important because if I open an email and read it when I have time to respond, my chances of responding later become sharply diminished so it really is a losing proposition.
I engage in 3 levels of planning, monthly, weekly and daily.
1) Once a month I look over the whole month, block out all the regular appointments in my life--things that happen every single week. I also look ahead a few months at what is in the hopper--check out deadlines for things and schedule backwards from them.
2) Once a week, usually Sunday night, I get out my planner and block the week. If the monthly planner did its job, this is easier, because I have left time for the things I always need to do. So, every day I schedule time, literally schedule, for prayer, meditation, reading, writing, exercise, studying, and housecleaning. This usually takes up a total of about 3 hours a day. Then I schedule time for board and volunteer responsibilities, job hunting and errands or what I call do it now. This usually adds another 2-3 hours to the day. And that's my kids' school day right there. I sometimes have 2 to 3 hours left over in a week where I will schedule the luxury of a hair cut or lunch with a friend. Usually after school and evenings are taken up with kids or church activities, but sometimes, as now, the kids are at swim team for large blocks of time and I can get something accomplished or have some fun during that period.
A word on exercise: the exercise really doesn't happen unless I write down when it's happening and what it is, e.g., running, biking, swimming, or Tae Bo. If I just say exercise then I have to figure that out daily and that can be tricky.
3) Daily. Every morning I look over the schedule and make sure it's realistic. In implementing it, and adjusting it, I use Steven Covey's guides as my priority, 1st) urgent and important (e.g. making a speech that I agreed to make), 2nd) non-urgent and important (prayer and meditation, planning, setting a future appointment), 3rd) urgent and unimportant (dropping off something at the dry cleaners, 4) non-urgent and unimportant (most emails).
A word about email. For me, for this strategy to succeed, it is crucial that I delay looking at emails for as long as possible, it is a giant time sink. After I've finished all the important stuff, I can look at emails. This is particular difficult when one of the urgent things is sending out an email. I can be tempted to check my email and often fall into that trap. I am trying to discipline myself into getting in, sending the email, only opening the emails that obviously pertain to the urgent and important activities of the day and getting out. Deferring random email checking to a period of time in which I can quickly respond to emails.
This is also important because if I open an email and read it when I have time to respond, my chances of responding later become sharply diminished so it really is a losing proposition.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Fear & Loving in Disneyland
Last Friday, my son and I journeyed to Disneyland to watch his sister's 5th grade class receive a big award (for their project to create habitat for endangered burrowing owls, to learn more about it go to their save the burrowing owls website) with lots of hullabaloo. For me, the wildest ride of the day was the Big Corporate Rollercoaster of Love ride--my own strange conflicted relationship with Disney.
In the days before the trip, the ride began:
Down the rollercoaster dipped as I saw the "Environmentality" hats they handed to each of the 30 some kids--shaped and colored exactly like army hats, creating an army of Disney aficionados.
Up I flew as the kids ran to embrace a live Jiminy Cricket who came to their school in Sacramento to give the award--the kids were so thrilled and honored!
Once inside the park, down I rushed as several Bush administration officials shared the stage with the 10 and 11 year olds--"how dare they posture as pro-environment!" I even went so far as to ineffectively heckle this fish and game guy who said "it is with great pleasure that we will turn stewardship of the environment over to [a new generation]...," while I suggested "the Democrats" loud enough to annoy my son and a couple of proud fellow parents.
My ride climaxed as two obviously professional actors (Gladys and Dwight) dressed as owls "interrupted" the ceremony and proceeded to sing a hilarious and perfect medley of bird songs backed up by the girl group with chick yellow feathered hair, "the Peeps" (get it? Gladys, Dwight and the Peeps?). Tears actually came to my eyes at Disney going to the trouble of creating this whole production just for these children (putting aside the thought of Shakespearean actors being paid to dress up as owls).
Down down down I came as I looked at the PR hacks in the back handing out paper to the cameras and reporters, desperately using our children to create a "pro-environment" image even as they had given each kid Jiminy Cricket lunch boxes almost certainly made by 13 year old girls in China and laden with lead (according to recent reports).
But up I came for the final enjoyment of the ride as their (liberal) teacher Mitch Carnie, right in front of Sleeping Beauty's Castle, asked the crowd to remember John Lennon's lyrics and "imagine" what it would be like if every child in California did a project like this that genuinely improved the environment before they graduated 6th grade.
And from there, I kept enjoying it as my son and I continued on real rides, seeing the improvements to Pirates of the Caribbean, Space Mountain, and other face lifts to the park--we love Disney's California Adventure. And having a fabulous meal with friends at the Blue Bayou restaurant (the New Orleans-style "outdoor at night" atmosphere that the Pirates of the Caribbean ride takes you right by), something I've always wanted to do.
So in the final analysis, even though I mistrust the Disney corporation, I love Disneyland, Disney movies and Disney production values--my recommendation, just enjoy the ride.
In the days before the trip, the ride began:
Down the rollercoaster dipped as I saw the "Environmentality" hats they handed to each of the 30 some kids--shaped and colored exactly like army hats, creating an army of Disney aficionados.
Up I flew as the kids ran to embrace a live Jiminy Cricket who came to their school in Sacramento to give the award--the kids were so thrilled and honored!
Once inside the park, down I rushed as several Bush administration officials shared the stage with the 10 and 11 year olds--"how dare they posture as pro-environment!" I even went so far as to ineffectively heckle this fish and game guy who said "it is with great pleasure that we will turn stewardship of the environment over to [a new generation]...," while I suggested "the Democrats" loud enough to annoy my son and a couple of proud fellow parents.
My ride climaxed as two obviously professional actors (Gladys and Dwight) dressed as owls "interrupted" the ceremony and proceeded to sing a hilarious and perfect medley of bird songs backed up by the girl group with chick yellow feathered hair, "the Peeps" (get it? Gladys, Dwight and the Peeps?). Tears actually came to my eyes at Disney going to the trouble of creating this whole production just for these children (putting aside the thought of Shakespearean actors being paid to dress up as owls).
Down down down I came as I looked at the PR hacks in the back handing out paper to the cameras and reporters, desperately using our children to create a "pro-environment" image even as they had given each kid Jiminy Cricket lunch boxes almost certainly made by 13 year old girls in China and laden with lead (according to recent reports).
But up I came for the final enjoyment of the ride as their (liberal) teacher Mitch Carnie, right in front of Sleeping Beauty's Castle, asked the crowd to remember John Lennon's lyrics and "imagine" what it would be like if every child in California did a project like this that genuinely improved the environment before they graduated 6th grade.
And from there, I kept enjoying it as my son and I continued on real rides, seeing the improvements to Pirates of the Caribbean, Space Mountain, and other face lifts to the park--we love Disney's California Adventure. And having a fabulous meal with friends at the Blue Bayou restaurant (the New Orleans-style "outdoor at night" atmosphere that the Pirates of the Caribbean ride takes you right by), something I've always wanted to do.
So in the final analysis, even though I mistrust the Disney corporation, I love Disneyland, Disney movies and Disney production values--my recommendation, just enjoy the ride.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Big money developers win as County Supervisors prepare backroom deal to stop
Housing activists are protesting a meeting of the Sacramento County Supervisors this morning to try to blow up this deal.
After adopting an award winning program to ensure affordable housing for lower income Sacramento families in 2004, lobbyists for big money developers sued the County. Despite a judge’s ruling that the developer suit is without merit, County Supervisors have agreed to settle the suit and concede affordable homes to developer interests.
“This program is not broken, why is the County trying to fix it in a backroom deal? Why are they going back on their compact with us?” asks Mike Camino, lower income resident.
“By making this backroom deal, affordable homes are taken away from working families to put money in the pocket of big developers.” Ethan Evans, Sacramento Housing Alliance.
After adopting an award winning program to ensure affordable housing for lower income Sacramento families in 2004, lobbyists for big money developers sued the County. Despite a judge’s ruling that the developer suit is without merit, County Supervisors have agreed to settle the suit and concede affordable homes to developer interests.
“This program is not broken, why is the County trying to fix it in a backroom deal? Why are they going back on their compact with us?” asks Mike Camino, lower income resident.
“By making this backroom deal, affordable homes are taken away from working families to put money in the pocket of big developers.” Ethan Evans, Sacramento Housing Alliance.
Monday, May 07, 2007
Thinking Like Doolittle
Yikes, I'm thinking like John Doolittle. Today's Sacramento Bee reports (Republican congressman) Doolittle believes that the FBI raid on his house last month was timed to bolster Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Bee is so appropriately anti-Doolittle that they make the claim sound paranoid and desperate.
But Doolittle has got to be right. When it went down, I thought the same thing. The timing was just too cute. On the very day that Gonzales is scheduled to be raked over the Judiciary Committee coals for politically motivated actions of the Justice Department, the FBI just happens to raid a high profile Republican Congressman's house in California early enough in the morning and with enough press coordination to make the morning papers in the east?
C'mon, it has Karl Rove written all over it--desperate play at distraction. Of course it didn't work, Gonzales still got reamed and people noticed it. And of course Doolittle's attempt to change the subject is equally desperate. It seems clear in recent weeks that his reign of terror is coming to an end.
I picture Rove the week of the Gonzales testimony pulling from a hat he carries around with him the names of people he's willing to take down to save the President. That week, it came up Doolittle. And they say Democrats eat their young...
But Doolittle has got to be right. When it went down, I thought the same thing. The timing was just too cute. On the very day that Gonzales is scheduled to be raked over the Judiciary Committee coals for politically motivated actions of the Justice Department, the FBI just happens to raid a high profile Republican Congressman's house in California early enough in the morning and with enough press coordination to make the morning papers in the east?
C'mon, it has Karl Rove written all over it--desperate play at distraction. Of course it didn't work, Gonzales still got reamed and people noticed it. And of course Doolittle's attempt to change the subject is equally desperate. It seems clear in recent weeks that his reign of terror is coming to an end.
I picture Rove the week of the Gonzales testimony pulling from a hat he carries around with him the names of people he's willing to take down to save the President. That week, it came up Doolittle. And they say Democrats eat their young...
Thursday, May 03, 2007
James Saxon on the Suspense behind Clean Money
I participated by listening to the live stream of the Appropriations Committee over the internet. It's like before horror films there was radio! It was full of all the same "suspense" but with baited breath, you get to imagine all the scenes without seeing the smiles, winks, nods, and of course the lobbyists pouring in money (but even with strong disclosure laws, few ever really see that.).
I wish I could have been there nonetheless to voice my support for AB 583 to save the world from the unfair influence of money in our democratic system! It's our government's own "global warming".
So it was very heartening to learn the weight that Mr. Leno has to wield in bringing this bill out of suspense.
The chairperson was clearly very positive and excited about AB 583. And seemed to suggest that it would be continuing to have a life (I guess as far as he can help). So I'm betting we'll be seeing more of AB 583, Clean Money, Fairer Elections, Full Public Financing of Elections really soon. It's time has come for sure.
Hopefully along with Nunez, Leno, and Hancock, maybe Governor Schwarzenegger can also join in, giving the bill the momentum it needs to get to his desk and into law!
I wish I could have been there nonetheless to voice my support for AB 583 to save the world from the unfair influence of money in our democratic system! It's our government's own "global warming".
So it was very heartening to learn the weight that Mr. Leno has to wield in bringing this bill out of suspense.
The chairperson was clearly very positive and excited about AB 583. And seemed to suggest that it would be continuing to have a life (I guess as far as he can help). So I'm betting we'll be seeing more of AB 583, Clean Money, Fairer Elections, Full Public Financing of Elections really soon. It's time has come for sure.
Hopefully along with Nunez, Leno, and Hancock, maybe Governor Schwarzenegger can also join in, giving the bill the momentum it needs to get to his desk and into law!
James Saxon on the Suspense behind Clean Money
I participated by listening to the live stream of the Appropriations Committee over the internet. It's like before horror films there was radio! It was full of all the same "suspense" but with baited breath, you get to imagine all the scenes without seeing the smiles, winks, nods, and of course the lobbyists pouring in money (but even with strong disclosure laws, few ever really see that.).
I wish I could have been there nonetheless to voice my support for AB 583 to save the world from the unfair influence of money in our democratic system! It's our government's own "global warming".
So it was very heartening to learn the weight that Mr. Leno has to wield in bringing this bill out of suspense.
The chairperson was clearly very positive and excited about AB 583. And seemed to suggest that it would be continuing to have a life (I guess as far as he can help). So I'm betting we'll be seeing more of AB 583, Clean Money, Fairer Elections, Full Public Financing of Elections really soon. It's time has come for sure.
Hopefully along with Nunez, Leno, and Hancock, maybe Governor Schwarzenegger can also join in, giving the bill the momentum it needs to get to his desk and into law!
I wish I could have been there nonetheless to voice my support for AB 583 to save the world from the unfair influence of money in our democratic system! It's our government's own "global warming".
So it was very heartening to learn the weight that Mr. Leno has to wield in bringing this bill out of suspense.
The chairperson was clearly very positive and excited about AB 583. And seemed to suggest that it would be continuing to have a life (I guess as far as he can help). So I'm betting we'll be seeing more of AB 583, Clean Money, Fairer Elections, Full Public Financing of Elections really soon. It's time has come for sure.
Hopefully along with Nunez, Leno, and Hancock, maybe Governor Schwarzenegger can also join in, giving the bill the momentum it needs to get to his desk and into law!
Clean Elections: the suspense is killing me
If the California Appropriations Committees were a summer movie, it’d be a blockbuster. After all, they’ve got all the right ingredients: suspense, mass murders, graveyards. Unfortunately for me, I’ve never liked horror films—I can’t stand the suspense.
Today the California Assembly Appropriations Committee moved AB 583, the Clean Money and Fair Elections Act by Assemblymember Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley) to the “suspense file,” leading me to wonder whether, once again, the suspense will kill me before we have public financing of elections in California. What rule, concept or decorum is actually “suspended,” I’ve long since forgotten. What I do know is that the suspense is not whether a bill will go “to suspense,” the suspense is whether it comes off.
And off it should come. As Susan Lerner, Executive Director of the California Clean Money Campaign, the sponsor of AB 583, said today, “the issue is no longer how can we afford to pay for it, but how can we afford not to pay for it?” Indeed, it is long overdue to inject clean public financing into California elections. However, this bill, coming as it does on the heels of (losing) Proposition 89 on last year’s ballot, faces a tough challenge in the legislature, even though it contains only parts of that initiative.
Sacramento insiders know that virtually every bill worth passing (i.e., every bill with a price tag) moves to “suspense” in Appropriations. The legitimate rationale used to be that bills that would cost the taxpayers over a certain amount of money per year would all be considered together. This process would ensure that California could afford the legislation it passed.
I have no quarrel with the theory behind considering these bills in tandem. I do take issue with the extreme secrecy with which these decisions are made. I’ve never understood why the handling of the suspense calendar isn’t a violation of the Brown Act (California open meeting law).
What it boils down to is that a handful of legislators can prevent the most important legislation in the state from moving forward without explaining their reasons or having to vote in public.
Here’s how it works: all the Assemblymembers and Senators who have their bills “on suspense” in the Appropriations Committee are forced to submit a secret (closely guarded) ranking of all their bills in order of priority.
It’s the Sophie’s Choice of legislators—“if only (sob) one of my (sob) bills gets to (sob) live, I guess it will have to be (sob) this one.” This ranking is then reviewed by a small cadre consisting of (if memory serves) the Appropriations Chair, the leader of the house, in private consultation with other members of the Appropriations committee, who decide which bills will come “off suspense” and therefore be granted an actual vote in committee.
Every year these “graveyard” committees bury scores of important (and less important) bills by having them never come off “suspense.”
Last year’s version of AB 583 came off suspense in a new form: without operative language and passed “in concept” off the Assembly floor and into the Senate where it fizzled out in the Senate Elections Committee despite the strong support of then chair now Secretary of State Debra Bowen.
The bill today was supported by over 20 activists and spoken well of by several legislators, including Assemblymember Fiona Ma (D-San Francisco) who asked to be added as a co-author.
The Chair of the Assembly Elections Committee Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) also spoke highly of the bill, having been a leading co-author for years. He hailed author Loni Hancock as more than an author, as the leader of a movement.
Despite my misgivings about the process, if the fate of this bill has to be decided in secret, I’m thrilled it’s in the hands of the capable and trustworthy Mark Leno, in consultation with Speaker Fabian Nunez, who has also been a strong supporter in the past.
Nunez, Leno and Hancock have the power to give this movie a happy ending if they put their heads together behind the scenes and bring to the screen a real version of this bill, with enforcement provisions and the necessary funding source off “suspense” for the vote the public deserves. When will California have real campaign reform? The suspense is killing us.
Today the California Assembly Appropriations Committee moved AB 583, the Clean Money and Fair Elections Act by Assemblymember Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley) to the “suspense file,” leading me to wonder whether, once again, the suspense will kill me before we have public financing of elections in California. What rule, concept or decorum is actually “suspended,” I’ve long since forgotten. What I do know is that the suspense is not whether a bill will go “to suspense,” the suspense is whether it comes off.
And off it should come. As Susan Lerner, Executive Director of the California Clean Money Campaign, the sponsor of AB 583, said today, “the issue is no longer how can we afford to pay for it, but how can we afford not to pay for it?” Indeed, it is long overdue to inject clean public financing into California elections. However, this bill, coming as it does on the heels of (losing) Proposition 89 on last year’s ballot, faces a tough challenge in the legislature, even though it contains only parts of that initiative.
Sacramento insiders know that virtually every bill worth passing (i.e., every bill with a price tag) moves to “suspense” in Appropriations. The legitimate rationale used to be that bills that would cost the taxpayers over a certain amount of money per year would all be considered together. This process would ensure that California could afford the legislation it passed.
I have no quarrel with the theory behind considering these bills in tandem. I do take issue with the extreme secrecy with which these decisions are made. I’ve never understood why the handling of the suspense calendar isn’t a violation of the Brown Act (California open meeting law).
What it boils down to is that a handful of legislators can prevent the most important legislation in the state from moving forward without explaining their reasons or having to vote in public.
Here’s how it works: all the Assemblymembers and Senators who have their bills “on suspense” in the Appropriations Committee are forced to submit a secret (closely guarded) ranking of all their bills in order of priority.
It’s the Sophie’s Choice of legislators—“if only (sob) one of my (sob) bills gets to (sob) live, I guess it will have to be (sob) this one.” This ranking is then reviewed by a small cadre consisting of (if memory serves) the Appropriations Chair, the leader of the house, in private consultation with other members of the Appropriations committee, who decide which bills will come “off suspense” and therefore be granted an actual vote in committee.
Every year these “graveyard” committees bury scores of important (and less important) bills by having them never come off “suspense.”
Last year’s version of AB 583 came off suspense in a new form: without operative language and passed “in concept” off the Assembly floor and into the Senate where it fizzled out in the Senate Elections Committee despite the strong support of then chair now Secretary of State Debra Bowen.
The bill today was supported by over 20 activists and spoken well of by several legislators, including Assemblymember Fiona Ma (D-San Francisco) who asked to be added as a co-author.
The Chair of the Assembly Elections Committee Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) also spoke highly of the bill, having been a leading co-author for years. He hailed author Loni Hancock as more than an author, as the leader of a movement.
Despite my misgivings about the process, if the fate of this bill has to be decided in secret, I’m thrilled it’s in the hands of the capable and trustworthy Mark Leno, in consultation with Speaker Fabian Nunez, who has also been a strong supporter in the past.
Nunez, Leno and Hancock have the power to give this movie a happy ending if they put their heads together behind the scenes and bring to the screen a real version of this bill, with enforcement provisions and the necessary funding source off “suspense” for the vote the public deserves. When will California have real campaign reform? The suspense is killing us.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Mersmann on Kucinich
Sara,
I think it's time to vote your heart and soul and principles and come
back to Dennis. Kucinich has boldly introduced legislation calling
for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney and he is the only candidate
who has consistently voted against the Iraq war. Furthermore he is in
favor of single payer national health care. Sure he may look like a
geek, but he is the best the Dems have to offer. A long shot, sure;
but YOU, of all people, should know how powerful belief and intention
are in the world.
Look at his ten key issues:
Universal Health Care
International Cooperation: US out of Iraq, UN in
Jobs and Withdrawal from NAFTA and WTO
Repeal of the "Patriot Act"
Guaranteed Quality Education, Pre-K Through College
Full Social Security Benefits at Age 65
Right-to-Choose, Privacy and Civil Rights
Balance Between Workers and Corporations
Environmental Renewal and Clean Energy
Restored Rural Communities and Family Farms
See anything you don't like? See any other Dem who comes close?
Kucinich 2008 In Your Heart You Know He's Right.
Be Well,
Harry
Harry J. Mersmann, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
I think it's time to vote your heart and soul and principles and come
back to Dennis. Kucinich has boldly introduced legislation calling
for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney and he is the only candidate
who has consistently voted against the Iraq war. Furthermore he is in
favor of single payer national health care. Sure he may look like a
geek, but he is the best the Dems have to offer. A long shot, sure;
but YOU, of all people, should know how powerful belief and intention
are in the world.
Look at his ten key issues:
Universal Health Care
International Cooperation: US out of Iraq, UN in
Jobs and Withdrawal from NAFTA and WTO
Repeal of the "Patriot Act"
Guaranteed Quality Education, Pre-K Through College
Full Social Security Benefits at Age 65
Right-to-Choose, Privacy and Civil Rights
Balance Between Workers and Corporations
Environmental Renewal and Clean Energy
Restored Rural Communities and Family Farms
See anything you don't like? See any other Dem who comes close?
Kucinich 2008 In Your Heart You Know He's Right.
Be Well,
Harry
Harry J. Mersmann, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)