Fluffy Bunny Butts

This is it!

2010-03-06T15:26:00.000-08:00

After about a year of thinking about it, I'm shutting down FBB. I thought for a long time that I was just taking a break but now it's clear that it's over. I think of entries and write them in my head, like I used to, but now they float right out of my brain after I've "written" them. They don't linger like they used to, pestering me until I put them on the page for you all to read. The reason, I think, is clear.

I started this blog a few years ago as a way to make me write, on a daily basis, and as a way to counter my corporate existence. Now, I write daily on my scripts and I no longer have the corporate life. Weird how that works. Perhaps the blog willed my new life into existence. Now when I have thoughts that I might have explored in the blog, I explore them in my stories or jot them in a journal to be explored another time. The personal exposure got me into a bit of trouble as well and turned me off of the full disclosure feeling of the blog. But again, a script is as personal as writing can be and everything I am not putting down here will end up at some point on the page.

Thank you dear friends and readers! This site will remain archived at: http://fluffybunnybutts.blogspot.com/.

It's About Franken Time

2009-08-26T20:29:00.000-07:00

Last year, my boyfriend looked up the closest House and Senate races in "winable" states and donated to the Democratic candidates. He donated enough to get invited to all the fancy parties and two nights ago, we went to a Los Angeles victory party for Al Franken, the junior senator from Minnesota. It was hosted by Skip Brittenham, one of the most powerful entertainment attorneys in the business, known for his acquisition and merger deals (like Pixar/Disney) but who also still represents stars like Tom Hanks. His lovely wife Heather Thomas is best known for her starring role on the TV show "The Fall Guy" with Million-Dollar Man Lee Majors.

Their house is on a tree-lined street in Brentwood (between Westwood and Santa Monica) behind an unassuming wall that unless you really thought about it, would never suspect was the entrance to park-like gardens and an iconic and beautifully appointed Hollywood mansion. After depositing the car with one of the dozen valet guys, we went inside. The theme was a country fair. The tables were covered with red and white checkered tablecloths and held jars stuffed with sunflowers. There was cotton candy, popcorn and fried chicken. Clusters of red, white and blue balloons rose from ribbons tied to the ground. A clown on stilts juggled balls and a temporary tattoo artist awaited customers.

We got a couple of beers and decided to explore the grounds. Big beautiful dahlias and bright geraniums lined the lawn while huge trees canopied above. An ivy covered fence revealed the entrance to a tennis court. I snapped a few photos of us there but had decided that it wouldn't be kosher to photograph the whole house and lawn – even though I desperately wanted to! We decided to make our way towards the house. As we approached, we recognized our host who we both had looked up on the Internet. "There he is!" my guy said and Skip turned to shake our hands. We thanked him for having us and asked about the back gardens. He said "go on through the house, there are more people back there."

As we went through the door, we were asked by a man if we had wristbands – obviously the demarcation of who is allowed entry to the VIP party – and my boyfriend simply replied "Skip told us to go on through." And so we did. The house was amazing! Although we could only see a small portion, it was immediately recognizable as one of the Spanish Colonial Revival mansions that were so popular in the 1920's and 1930's. It was magnificently understated with its terra cotta tile floors, arched doorways, vaulted ceilings with rustic wood beams and Moorish detailing in the columns and windows. It was decorated in reds and yellows, Persian carpets, Mission revival furniture and filled with paintings and Chihuly sculpture. Absolutely gorgeous!

It opened up onto a tiered garden in the back. Umbrellas at tables and flowers were reflected in the swimming pool and beyond, the hills of Santa Monica and the ocean. We walked towards the small group of people gathered around tables on a small lawn. We immediately recognized Kevin Nealon (also of Saturday Night Live fame) and Jason Alexander (from Seinfeld). Looking at name tags, we picked out several big-time industry players including Thomas Schlamme (more commonly known as Tommy Schlamme) – a ubiquitous TV director and producer of The West Wing. Then, standing by himself at a table, I saw Martin Sheen.

Being a huge fan of The West Wing, I walked over and said hello, told him I was a fan of his and loved the show. We must have chatted with him for about twenty minutes. He even offered to get us drinks at one point! He was sweet and gracious and interesting. I always suspected that he was given his anti-war convictions and political activity, but he was truly delightful. He asked where we were from and when my boyfriend said he was Kurdish, he told us about accompanying a UCLA professor to Syria on an archaeological dig – he found a dog's jaw bone – and all the lovely Kurdish people he'd met. He then told us how he met Al Franken 30 years ago on Saturday Night Live. He was the guest host, Apocalypse Now had just come out, and Al Franken was a regular writer and performer on the show. Interestingly enough, the governor of California at the time was Jerry Brown who is running for the office again in the upcoming election. Martin says he's endorsing him.

We eventually excused ourselves to allow other people to talk to Martin and discussed which other celebrities to meet. None seemed nearly as alluring nor as approachable. As we were sitting there, I recognized a woman I'd had in an acting class many years ago who is now on SNL as well. I said hello and she introduced us to her party, Ariana Huffington and her daughter! My boyfriend was now officially starstruck. Finally, we were ushered back out front. Al was eventually going to give a speech and needed to mingle a bit with the non-VIP crowd. Still marveling at our good fortune, we were able to meet Jason Alexander and his wife, who borrowed a pen from me, before recognizing Garrison Keillor (Prairie Home Companion), Lawrence O'Donnell (MSNBC political analyst) and late-comer Conan O'Brien.

We joined the crowd around Senator Franken for photos and snapped one with him. Then, the speeches began. A few friends told funny anecdotes about his long road to Capitol Hill and one made a pointed observation that Franken is the only senator (who isn't married to a former president) to win on his first run. Martin read a speech prepared by Norman Lear who was there momentarily but must have decided he was too old to stand around for three hours. Before he started, Martin stammered a bit for effect and then said "I want this house!" to a big applause.

Then Al told a good story about being criticized by his opponent for taking "Hollywood" money. He noted that his opponent was taking money from big oil and big pharma and big tobacco and how all of these industries wanted something, nay expected something, in return. The Hollywood money, by contrast, was coming from his friends. People who wanted nothing in return, just to support a man they believe in. Then, he shared some of his time on the Hill so far and how he's made inroads with Republican senators by telling stories about the Hollywood people he knows. Turns out, no one is immune from being starstruck. Lastly, he promised to fight for health care reform and a public option. The number one cause of bankruptcy in America is health care and 2/3 of those people have health insurance.

After the speeches, there was a raffle and we won an autographed picture of Senator Franken being sworn in by Joe Biden. I took a picture of Franken autographing it. I turned around and saw another actress friend of mine. What a surprise. We chatted for a bit and then she took a picture of us with Martin Sheen who was now being mobbed by fans. At some point, Martin asked what kind of food there was. People pointed and asked him what he wanted. He said "all of it!" But he couldn't leave, he was mobbed. I took off and grabbed a Caesar salad, a box of popcorn, plate of fried chicken and corn on the cob and brought it back to Martin. He said he need a soda and as I spun off, he shouted "Coke, with ice!" I brought back two. He was very grateful. We said our goodbyes and said had been a pleasure to talk with him. He agreed. On the way out, we took a caramel apple for the road. The party was over. Now, as the buttons said, "It's finally Franken time."

It's never too late to be what you might have been

2009-03-18T21:58:00.000-07:00

I just finished reading Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell's latest book, and like his previous books, The Tipping Point and Blink, it's a fascinating look into why things are the way they are (one of my favorite subjects!) In Outliers, Gladwell debunks the myth that people are successful because of their "individual merit." Using established research and case studies, he shows that culture, family, luck and timing are powerful factors in whether a person is successful. It's very interesting and it made me think quite a bit about my own culture, family, luck and timing. It's not a self-help book so there isn't a chapter on "What to do if you didn't get the right combination of the four factors" but he does demonstrate that knowledge is power and if you understand who you are and how you came to be that way, the more you can change the outcome.

Here's an example from the book, very briefly encapsulated. In the nineties, Korean Air had three times the number of fatal accidents of any other airline and was on the brink of being shut down. It was discovered that because of the culture and the language, the co-pilots were not able to directly tell the captain when there was a problem. Here was an issue that would seem to stem from mechanical or technical problems but was actually a cultural problem. It was solved in two ways. One, the roles were switched so that the captain was in the co-pilot's seat and the junior pilot would fly the plane. That way if there was a problem, social protocol did not prohibit frankness. Two, the language of flying became officially English. Without the social stratification built into the language, it was easier for everyone to speak plainly without fear of offending.

As you might expect, people who are nurtured in their talent and interests while young, tend to be successful in those areas especially if culture, timing and luck were also on their side. It can be difficult, if not impossible, as an adult to put yourself in a situation where you can get the practice and confidence necessary to be good at something new. If that pursuit goes against how you've been raised or your culture, it is also more difficult. Or if you're born in a time when that field is extremely competitive, it will take more luck to get in. Luck is what you call all of those times when you were given access to equipment, training, contacts, information, money, a mentor or some other leg up that other people didn't get.

It's probably not a coincidence that I started this blog at around the time that I stopped acting and went back to work in marketing. I knew that I wasn't yet on the right path and must have known that the blog would help me focus on that quest. In another stop on the journey of self-discovery, I've just this week turned down what is basically the best job offer I've ever had. The non-profit that I had been working for pro-bono asked me to be their Director of Marketing and Communications, a brand new position. I had presented a plan for how to strengthen the brand, establish processes for the company and develop a strategy to grow the business over the next couple of years. I would have worked with some of the brightest and nicest people I've ever met and been able to make a tangible difference in education.

The problem is that marketing is not the path I'm supposed to be on. It's something that I'm naturally good at but no matter how much I accomplish, I never get any satisfaction from it. At the same time my inner critic keeps wondering why, if I was meant for something else, I'm not already doing it. Why is it so hard for me to know what I really want? I found the answer in Outliers. People who are successful are assisted by external forces in such a way that they don't have to wonder what they are supposed do with their lives. Mozart, Bill Gates, Michael Phelps and almost every movie star there is, were doing what they do when they were children. They had discovered their talent -- or it had been discovered for them -- and the four factors colluded to put them on a path to success before they were even old enough to ask what they wanted to do. In reviewing my life, I realize I've been all over the map, and back again.

Here's a synopsis:
Child: Wanted to be a teacher, Shirley Temple or the President of the United States; my mother wanted to take me to auditions but my dad said no.
Jr. High/High School: Wanted to take drama and was not allowed, my dad said it was stupid.
Jr. College: Took engineering classes because my dad made me; thought I might want to be an attorney (to blend my love of issues and performing) and got a job at a law office; considered acting school but believed I should be properly educated; started taking improv and acting classes on my own.
College: Dropped engineering for Women's Studies (which cost me the financial support of my dad); thought I might want to be a politician but continued to act; considered getting a masters in education; got feedback from professors that whatever I did should involve writing.
Post-college: Worked at creative agencies as a project manager (and although good at it, I was miserable); enrolled in acting classes and started performing in plays and short films.
Nearing 30: Quit my job to be an actress, moved to Los Angeles and planned to give it five years before re-evaluating; started to become friends with my mom following my parent's divorce.
35 to now: Worked in marketing and got laid off twice and felt like every interview and offer was a death sentence; continued to write scripts and make short films; offered a free place to stay for the next 2+ years by my mom.

Obviously, I have three strong interests: Politics, education and filmmaking. Politics is too nasty for me and frankly I'm not very good at saying the right thing at the right time. I'm also quite happy expressing that part of me on the blog. I decided long ago that I didn't want to be a teacher but the job I'm turning down would have allowed me to make a difference in education with my marketing skills. That made the decision very difficult because unlike other jobs in marketing, this one might have actually fulfilled me.

Filmmaking, though, has definitely persisted as the strongest interest. I remember seeing Goodfellas and Thelma and Louise in the early nineties (Jr. College era) and saying to myself "I'd do anything to make movies like that!" The reason I didn't plunge into it then or at every other opportunity is because of my upbringing, which is a very valuable thing to know. I also noticed something else in my list. All of the careers I've been interested in utilize the skills of communication, performance and persuasion; Teachers, politicians and attorneys all need these skills in abundance. Despite his misguided advice, my dad has told me he recognized these things in me at a very young age.

Of course, even a person who already knows what their talent is and has been put on the path to success could mess it up. What I think is the biggest obstacle to success, however, is fear. I can't imagine what fears might have sabotaged the success of Mozart or Gates or Phelps but I know that I am a long-time victim of fear. Fear is what has kept me in marketing and away from what I really love! I've been hiding in jobs instead of taking the plunge into the unknown, where the things I know are scarier than the things I don't know. The two layoffs might, in retrospect, be seen as the luck and timing I needed because they've made it more difficult for me to hide. So I've decided to stay at mom's for the next couple of years, make movies, write scripts and see where it leads me.

How to have a clean house

2009-03-09T14:30:00.000-07:00

When I lived in San Francisco, three people who visited my apartment asked me for the name and number of my cleaning lady. They couldn't believe it when I told them I didn't have one, that I kept my place clean and organized myself. It just so happens that my mother is a clean freak and I was raised to share that responsibility. Like eating healthy and exercising regularly, I've come to realize some of us were lucky to be taught these things by our parents and some of us were not. I don't intend this post to be preachy at all, it just occurred to me that I've been asked on more than one occasion, "How do you do it?" So here is the answer. There are three rules to keeping a clean and tidy house and they seem pretty easy -- stay organized, don't make a mess and clean regularly -- but they can seem next to impossible for some folks. It's about breaking habits and building new ones. These are also in order of importance. If you complete one and two, three is easy. If you don't, three will be so difficult that you won't make it.

1) Stay organized
Part one: Everything has a place that makes sense. It's important that everything belongs somewhere. If you can't put everything away even if you wanted to, then you have too much stuff or not enough places to put it. Also, if there is no absolute clean and tidy state that you aspire to, you will always live in filth and clutter. Additionally, the place where everything goes has to make sense. If it doesn't, you'll never remember where anything is and you make it far more difficult on yourself to remember where things go. I have a stack of attractive boxes in my office that hide ugly office supplies. In the summer, I rotate out winter clothes from my closet and put them in a plastic tub that goes somewhere out of the way. In the kitchen, I have utensils for cooking near the stove, dishes near the sink and silverware near the dishes. Coffee mugs are near the coffee maker as is the coffee and tea, etc. Another advantage of organization is that when other people are at your house, they can put things away for you. Neato!

Part Two: Keep things put away. Now that you have a system of where everything goes, this is much easier. It also forces you to get rid of things. My mom has a rule: if something comes in the house, something else has to go out. Your place is not an eternally empty vessel. Plus, everything in your house collects dust so the most you have, the dirtier your place. I have a box for Goodwill that also sits in the same place all the time. When it's full, I donate the items and bring it back empty. Donations are tax deductive, much less hassle than selling and it helps your community. I don't advocate throwing anything useful in the trash but if that's the only way to get rid of something, do it. Back to putting things away. This is critical. I have a small chair by my closet because I like to pile clothes when I'm trying on outfits but as I said, it's a small chair. It limits how much I can pile before forcing me to hang them up. I know it's a cliché but it really is easier to put things away immediately than to save it for later. Every morning or every night, make it a habit to tidy. Put everything away, do the dishes, hang the towels, etc. It's wonderful for the mind to refresh your environment every day.

2) Don't make a mess
I think people who were raised with mothers who acted as maids (or who didn't clean at all) have a hard time with this one. They're hardwired to believe that someone else will clean up their messes. You have to train yourself, brainwash yourself, to counter these thoughts with the opposite. If you have the thought to throw something on a chair or the floor instead think "put it away!" If you have the thought that a spill or mess doesn't matter or someone else will get it instead think "clean it up!" Taking a minute or two throughout the day to be tidy will save you hours of cleaning on the weekend and give you a cleaner house all the time. The second part of not making a mess is being careful. It just makes sense: if you don't make messes, you won't have as much to clean up. I understand that kids change this picture but these are valuable lessons to teach children as well. Not to chastise but to train. If you make a mess, you have to clean it up so be careful. No one is going to do it for you!

Another aspect of not making a mess is being aware of what's making a mess for you. When it's windy outside, close the windows to keep dust from blowing in. Down furniture and comforters make quite a bit of dust so substitute with synthetic "down" if you're not happy to clean up after it. If you have items in your house that leak or drip or otherwise make a mess regularly, fix them or replace them. Are you tracking in dirt on your shoes? Get a better mat outside for cleaning shoes or take them off at the door.

3) Clean every week
Cleaning has to be part of your regular routine. I tend to do it on Sunday mornings. Those are mornings that I'm not anxious to get out of the house, or anxious to get out of my pajamas. Pajamas are great to wear while cleaning, by the way. They're comfortable, I'm not as worried about getting them dirty and when I'm done, they go in the dirty clothes basket and I go in the shower! I find that cleaning is a great time to get some thinking done and I quite enjoy it. I make my coffee or tea, crank up the music or put on a movie, open the shades to get some light in and get to work. First, I take the sheets off the bed, change the towels in the bathroom and get the laundry started. Then I sweep (or vacuum) and wash the floors (on hands and knees, it's the best way!) After that, I wipe all the surfaces with a damp cloth (no point in dusting before you clean the floor) and scrub sinks, toilets and tubs. If you don't have time to do everything every week, split it into two or even three weekends. The point is to do it on a regular basis. If you have kids, make them help. We always had to help clean the house and my brother and I are both very tidy because of it. I try to keep it simple in terms of equipment. I use a tub that I fill with only a few cups of hot water and change whenever it's dirty and an old kitchen sponge for floors first, then the sinks and last for the toilet, before I throw it away. It's a great time to change the kitchen sponge and throw the old one under the sink for the next weekend. If you clean regularly, the house is not as dirty and this can be done quite quickly. Every week/month, choose one room and move the furniture and clean behind and underneath everything.

I also think we should make an effort to clean with natural products for a couple of reasons:
1) It's better for your health and the health of your family to not use toxic chemicals in the house.
2) It's better for everyone's health if the toxic chemicals you use are not rinsed down the sink into our water supply.
3) It's better for the health of the planet if these toxic chemicals and products are not produced at all as some of them have more toxins in the byproducts than the actual product you're using.

Here's the list of my cleaning products: Hot water, vinegar, baking soda, coconut oil, rubbing alcohol. Kitchen and bathroom floors get hot water with a little bit of vinegar; it's a great disinfectant and leaves no residue to pick up dirt. Hardwood floors are cleaned with a a pea-sized amount of coconut oil in hot water; it conditions the wood and leaves the floor shiny without any residue. I also use coconut oil to clean the stove. It magically dissolves hardened oils without any scrubbing. It's amazing! I use the baking soda to scrub the sink, tub and toilet. You can use rubbing alcohol to clean mirrors instead of glass cleaner. All of these products are cheap, non-toxic and effective. I actually use coconut oil for cooking and for my skin so it's always in my house. I use apple cider vinegar because it smells nice and I keep it around for my salad dressings. I seriously urge you to look at the chemicals in your house and consider whether they are really necessary. A friend of mine started a company, Eco-Me, selling kits online to make your own natural products that are even better! Check out the site for more information on why using natural cleaners is so important.

Using my skills to rebuild America

2009-03-05T14:14:00.000-08:00

I don't have to tell you that a lot of people are losing their jobs these days. I was laid off last year from a job that I had just relocated for. It seemed like the perfect time to volunteer my services, expand my skills and network with other people in my field. I was excited to find Taproot, an organization that assembles teams of professionals to tackle a specific need for a non-profit. Taproot utilizes the skills that you've spent your career developing and applies them to non-profits who desperately need but cannot afford your expertise. They've developed a system that keeps the project on track so that it doesn't become more hassle than it's worth. You can request to work for organizations that appeal to you and are able expand your skill set by applying for more than one area of experience.

I've worked in marketing for ten years and while I'd been moving in the direction of being a brand strategist, it wasn't something I could call myself yet. After the orientation, I was interviewed by Account Executives and selected to work on a project in that capacity. Through this experience, I learned about a new business sector, had the opportunity to work with talented people that I would be thrilled to work with again and was able to push myself to deliver a brand strategy that everyone was excited about. Never in the corporate world have I encountered such a pure dedication to a project and to a client. Every time we met as a team, we were impassioned and energetic about what we could do for our client. It showed in the results and in the way we won them over, from skepticism to praise.

Around the same time, I met a woman at a dinner party who worked for an education nonprofit. She'd been thinking about applying for a Taproot grant but hadn't yet done it. I've always been very passionate about education so I volunteered to help her out and ended up writing and producing a brochure and then writing and releasing a press release for her company. They were both great experiences that gave me confidence in tackling something totally new and in being able to commit myself and deliver. As it turned out this company was looking for marketing leadership and were very impressed by the work I did for Taproot. I don't know yet if I have the job but I can say for certain that working and developing my skills was infinitely more valuable and rewarding than sending out resumes.

If you've been inspired by our new president this past month, consider donating your skills to a nonprofit – especially if you've been laid off, your hours cut back or your freelance work has dwindled. Taproot operates in seven cities and needs professionals in project management, marketing, creative services, human resources, information technology and strategy management. Or just volunteer the next time you hear someone say they need help. Let's rise to the challenge set forth by Obama of helping each other make America stronger.

I'll take hope over fear any day

2009-03-02T22:58:00.000-08:00

Today on Marketplace, Kai Ryysdal was speaking with Edward Miguel who teaches at the University of California, Berkeley. His most recent book is called "Economic Gangsters." Miguel's commentary on the new appointment for health secretary was focused on how difficult Republicans might make it for Obama's administration to get heath care reforms passed in congress.

One has to wonder if there are more than economic ideology differences at work on either side. Even Rush Limbaugh said about the stimulus plan: "I don't think it's designed to stimulate anything but the Democrat Party." Recent economics research suggests Limbaugh may be right on the politics.

Miguel says that in a recent economic study he conducted in democratic Uruguay, people who directly benefited from government programs enacted during a similar economic crisis were "15 percentage points more likely to voice support for the political party implementing the program." It's certainly not surprising that people would vote for a political party that has made their life better. And isn't that the whole point?

Republican majorities in Congress passed the largest expansion of federal government health spending in decades with the Medicare Prescription Drug Act of 2003, with strong support from President Bush.

The party who bangs the small government drum and cries "socialism!" at the mention of government funded programs? Did they pass this legislation to secure the votes of elderly Americans in the 2008 election? This explains all the animosity, finger-pointing and name-calling towards Obama by the Republicans. They're peeved because the Democrats are poised to steer this ship in a direction the American public might actually be happy about and want to continue on. They're pissed because their guy fucked up and they couldn't come up with anyone genuine enough to make us believe they care.

If Obama's reforms work, it's not just the economy that will get a boost. People will recognize the role government played in their ability to secure benefits like health insurance and reward his party at the ballot box later on. Millions of Americans who came of age in the Great Depression became loyal Democrats for life, rewarding the party that created the New Deal. President Obama promises a new set of programs, starting with the stimulus and extending into health care and beyond.

It starts to become clear, now, what the truth is behind the ugly rantings of Rush Limbaugh. He has said that he hopes the socialistic policies of Obama will fail but contends that he doesn't mean he wants our economy to fail. In the middle of an economic crisis, two wars and impending environmental doom, how is it possible for our President's "policies" to fail without it also adversely affecting everyone in America?

Socialism is a red herring. It's nothing more than a scary word that most Americans don't understand but have been taught to fear. The Republicans have usurped the word and are attaching it to anything Obama does. What is really going on is that the Republicans are afraid that Obama's policies won't fail and that they will make better the lives of millions of Republican Americans who may reward the Democrats with votes for years to come. This is why he can't be trusted.

We should be frightened, Limbaugh says, of someone who is this popular the world over. (Would he say the same thing if he was the subject of so much adoration and optimistic enthusiasm?) Obama is only trying to improve our lives so that we will continue to support him! We should fear a politician who cares what we think, a man who calls for hope, hard work and thoughtful, intelligent solutions.

Naturally the party that was willing to manufacture information about the threat Iraq posed ito launch a costly and unsupported invasion and occupation would be suspicious of someone who seems to be doing what is best for Americans. The same people who ran on a platform of staying in Iraq and Afghanistan for as long as necessary are now criticizing Obama for staying for two more years, calling him a war monger. They are continuing their ever so effective campaign tactic of calling the other guy exactly what they are.

Both parties will tell you that the other lies, cheats and steals to win and has ulterior motives. It seems that by politicians' own admission, none of them can be trusted to care about us. So let's say that all politicians only care about their careers, their party and their reelection and whoever speaks for either party is a willing and eager accomplice. Let's agree that both sides are equal in their motives – pursuing their own ideology at whatever cost to the American people. We are left with two parties, one that is pushing fear and another that is pushing hope. Which do you think will be more productive for our country and our souls? The Republican party is apparently led by Limbaugh, a man who believes our President is violating everything we hold sacred and intends to turn us into a slave state. He preaches fear and hatred and divisiveness.

The other, the Democratic party, is currently led by a Obama, a man who preaches hope and our ability to make the world a better place. He asks us to look into the future and imagine the world we want to live in and then work with each other to make it so. The more the Republicans try to expose the ugliness behind the motives and tactics of the Democrats, the more it just shows us how untrustworthy all politicians are. What they don't understand is that the election of Obama was not about a man, it never is. Americans don't vote for people, we vote for ideas, we vote with our hearts. Fear will never win out over hope. If they tear down Obama, the only thing they can accomplish is to tear down our belief in the government. If they do that, the result will not be Americans rushing to the polls to vote Republican. It may, however, prompt the even more feared specter of a third-party candidate swooping in and stealing our attention and our loyalty. Then things will really get interesting.

The true cost of everything

2009-02-13T09:05:00.000-08:00

A friend of mine recently had to take her daughter to the emergency room for stitches. After the procedure, the doctor gathered up the metal utensils she'd used and threw them in the trash. My friend, a very environmentally conscious young lady, was horrified and questioned the doctor about it. "Yeah," she shrugged, "it's cheaper for us to throw them away than it is to sterilize them." How is this possible, my friend wondered? Surely there must be someone in the world that could use this metal. "Did it get recycled? I asked. She said it went right into the garbage, medical waste. "That shit gets buried," she said. Wow.

In this month's National Geographic is an article about "The real price of gold." This metal, that has nearly no uses other than ornamentation, has been soaring in price since 9/11. As the economy of the world becomes more uncertain, people up their hoarding of gold. The article says that all of the nuggets of gold in the world have been mined or are totally inaccessible. What's left is dust. One of the largest commercials mines in the world digs for particles of dust so small that 200 would fit on a pinhead. Technology has made it possible for man to separate these tiny particles from rock but at great cost to our environment.

On one island in Indonesia, a volcano, once 1,800 feet tall, is now a gold mine a mile deep. To mine one ounce of gold (the amount used for the average gold ring), 250 tons of rock have to be relocated. To accommodate that rock, hundreds of acres of virgin forests are razed. The chemical runoff is dumped into the ocean. The company that operates this mine pays the local government to offset the environmental damage but everyone knows that in 20 years, the gold will be gone and so will the funds flowing into their homes, churches, schools and hospitals. What will be left is total environmental devastation.

That doesn't even take into account the human devastation that these industries are causing already. 25% of the world's gold is mined by enterprising individuals who camp in mountains by the thousands without any sanitation. They pour buckets of mercury-tainted water into the rivers even as the deadly element cuts their own life short. I can't help but think that the reason it's cheaper to throw metal into a landfill in America is because the true cost is being absorbed by someone less fortunate. Only when the cost of this devastation reaches our shores will it be too expensive for us to waste.

Suicidal maniacs

2009-02-10T20:57:00.001-08:00

Last week, a young man in Portland, Oregon took his own life. But before doing so, this unlikely murderer bought a semi-automatic weapon and went on a shooting spree that left two teens dead and seven wounded. One of the dead and five of the injured were foreign exchange students from Peru, Ecuador, Guatemala, Taiwan, Italy and France. The dead girl's parents will fly to the United States to pick up their daughter's body. Can you imagine the horror these families must feel at the insanity that is our country?

Other countries issue traveler's alerts if there's been recent war or terrorist activity but there is never an alert issued for traveling in the U.S. "Warning: you may be gunned down at any moment by a suicidal maniac." We live in a country that finds it totally acceptable to lock people up without rights if they are suspected to know anything about terrorist activity but vehemently defend the individual's right to buy a gun designed for killing lots of people in a short period of time and using it indiscriminately against U.S. and foreign citizens.

While the Republicans are hammering at Obama's every move, no one is even talking about this ever present assault on our mental, moral and physical well-being. Imagine the sorrow of the family of this young man who never expected him to become a killer and yet having found a note left to his roommate explaining how to sell his belongings for cash and "sorry," can only now remember their son as a murderer in the first degree. All during the presidential campaign, the Republicans painted Obama as a crazy hammer and sickle wielding liberal while they waved the constitution in one hand and a semi-automatic in the other.

It's no wonder the rest of the world thinks we're gun crazy. My cousin from England is finally coming out for a visit this summer after about ten years of coaxing. She was terrified, she said, of being gunned down and wanted to avoid the cities. We were planning to drive up the California coast into Oregon and to Portland to visit my brother. I remember saying to my mom that Portland wasn't really even a city, things like that didn't happen there. I guess I was wrong.

Home-brewed gingerberry Kombucha

2009-01-23T13:01:00.000-08:00

I surprised a friend the other day after offering him a glass of homemade Kombucha. "Kom...what?" he stuttered, adding that he didn't realize I was the "make your own food kinda gal." I explained that Kombucha, while not studied by the USFDA, has been around thousands of years and that before refrigeration, our ancestors survived on cultured and fermented foods. There are many people who believe that our bodies need these living foods, filled with cultures and bacteria and organisms, to properly digest our food, absorb nutrients and otherwise be healthy. My mom made and drank Kombucha over a decade ago when she cured herself of adult onset asthma.

When she reminded me of it about a year ago, I started buying it at the store. GT's Synergy Kombucha has a story it from the founder that credits the Kombucha with saving his mother from breast cancer and I loved the gingerberry flavor, with ginger and blueberry juices, but it cost $3.50 a bottle. Someone I knew who was making their own gave me a Kombucha SCOBY (Symbiotic Colony of Bacteria and Yeast) and I started making gingerberry Kombucha, which is what I offered my friend. He was surprised at first, not used to a fizzy, fermented tea drink but he liked it. He drank it down saying "wow" the whole time. Then he asked how to make it.

Making Kombucha is so easy. I make a one gallon batch each week, yielding 12-16 servings that would cost at least $50 at the store and it costs me about $6. I'm making it for myself and my mom and we both drink a glass every day. I make gingerberry flavor just like Synergy but you can drink it plain or add any fruit juice you want to it when you drink it. If you've never tried it, try the Synergy brand and see if you do. Then, find someone who makes it and get yourself a SCOBY. Every batch yields a new one.

Here's how to do it:
You'll need a one-gallon jar, four mason jars with lids, a fine mesh strainer that fits into a glass, a glass, a spoon and a chopper/food processor.

You'll also need a Kombucha SCOBY, a gallon of filtered water, ten black tea bags (no flavors), one cup of sugar and a glass of Kombucha as the "starter."

The first time, you'll wash the jars, rinse in very hot water and dry. You'll put the Kombucha SCOBY in the gallon jar with the starter. Since you haven't made any yet, will need to add a bottle of GT's organic raw Kombucha to use as starter.

Then, boil the gallon of water in a large pot. Take it off the heat and add ten black tea bags and one cup of sugar and stir. Let it cool to room temperature. When the tea is room temperature, put the jar in the sink and cover the opening with the mesh strainer. Pour the tea in and the strainer will catch the tea bags. Cover the jar with a lint-free towel, securing with a large rubber band and put it in a warm, dark place.

In 7-10 days, take the cloth of of the Kombucha jar and push the SCOBY down with a regular spoon to get a spoonful of Kombucha. Taste it to make sure it is tart. It will smell and taste like a bit like apple cider vinegar. If you're ready to bottle, make another pot of tea like above.

When the tea is cool, put one mason jar in the sink. Get the mouth of the Kombucha jar close to the jar and pour, filling it with Kombucha. Do that with the other three and that should leave you with the Kombucha SCOBY and starter in the large jar.

(Note that with every batch, your SCOBY will grow a new layer that can be peeled off and given to a friend with very clean hands and put into a Ziploc freezer bag with some Kombucha. Or you can just leave it but it will ferment more quickly.)

Then pour the new batch of tea into the Kombucha jar, cover with the linen and rubber band and put it in its dark cupboard for another week. Easy! If I'm going out of town and won't be able to bottle the Kombucha, I put the jar in the refrigerator to slow down the fermentation. You can also, instead of making a new batch, store the SCOBY and the remaining Kombucha in a large Ziploc bag in the refrigerator for several weeks.

OPTIONAL: Once you've bottled the Kombucha, you can add fruit juice. I add blueberry ginger because it was my favorite GT Dave's flavor. To do it, I defrost 3 cups of frozen blueberries the night before. Then I chop them in the food processor, put them in a strainer over a tall glass and press the juice out with the slotted spoon. I peel a 2-3 inch piece of fresh ginger root, cut it into chunks and chop in the food processor. I put the ginger into the blueberry juice and let it sit for a few hours (usually while the tea is cooling). Then strain the ginger and press the juice out so you're left with ginger-infused blueberry juice. Pour a small amount of it into each mason jar of Kombucha.

The most important thing to remember is that the Kombucha SCOBY is a living culture and must be treated in a sanitary way. Always wash your hands and use clean utensils and jars. Also, Kombucha has a reaction with metal and will turn it black so it should only be stored in glass. And don't forget that the only thing that should ever be in your Kombucha brewing jar is black tea, Kombucha and the SCOBY. The fruit juice is only added in the bottling. I recommend drinking Kombucha on a empty stomach rather than right after a meal. It does have a small amount of caffeine in it (from the tea) and is slightly alcoholic so it makes your tummy buzz when you drink it. Enjoy and let me know if you notice any health benefits!

The possibility for miracles

2009-01-22T11:34:00.000-08:00

It was September when I moved into the little apartment upstairs at my mother's house. Her husband is a quiet and reserved guy, an electrical engineer who builds circuit boards by day and reads electrical engineering magazines at night. We share an intellectual curiosity and can talk about things that my mother is not interested in. He pores over my National Geographic magazines and we swap podcasts and talk about the latest scientific discoveries.

The election was really heating up in September as Palin has just been thrown into the ring. Every night at dinner, my mom and I would compare notes on what stupid thing Palin had said that day or what incredible thing was going on in the Obama campaign. Her husband reacted to our conversations but didn't comment, which is not unlike him. I wasn't sure that he was on our side and got the sense that my mother even, didn't know who he had voted for. An early voter, he'd already sent in his ballot but as a registered Republican our mailbox continued to receive propaganda from McCain campaign and the NRA (even though there are no guns in our house). It went on like this for months.

After the election, in a casual conversation about Obama, my mom's husband finally broke the silence and remarked on something my mother said about Obama being so smart and precise with his words. "That's why I voted for him," he said, "because he's a nerd and it's about time we had a nerd in the White House." It's not just that he's intelligent, although that by itself is a major coup for intelligent people everywhere. It isn't only that he's incredibly well spoken, weaving together powerful imagery and wise quotes from leaders past with inspiration and ideas that will rebuild our country. What makes Obama stand out is that he is intellectually curious. He doesn't make decisions based on a personal feeling, religion or party politics. As President of the United States, he will pursue the ideals that our country was founded on with the zeal of a scientist on the verge of discovery. He'll consult experts, examine all the facts and surround himself with the best and the brightest to make the decisions that will shape our future.

During the process of appointing his cabinet, I rejoiced in each nomination reacting with "yes" "right on" and "of course." The assault on reason (at least in the White House) has finally subsided. Many nominees are more qualified than their predecessor and in some case more qualified than all of their predecessors. Many are people who are leaders in their field and are already running labs or schools districts or organizations in that capacity like Dr. Steven Chu for Energy Secretary, Eric Shinseki for Veteran Affairs Secretary, James L. Jones for National Security Advisor, Arne Duncan for Education Secretary and Tom Daschle for Health and Human Services Secretary.

My father, an insufferable sexist, had infuriated me after the election by positing that Obama won because he's "young and handsome" just like Kennedy and that's what "the women" want. I reminded him that women alone didn't get Obama into office and his theory didn't explain Eisenhower, Reagan or Bush Sr. Months before, my dad he said that Obama was capable of doing as much for this country as FDR, but now his inner cynic was trying to tell him that he was just a hot guy who duped the ladies.

Yesterday, I had a conversation with one of the couples living next door, a four-tour-Afghanistan Army Ranger veteran and his 8-month pregnant wife. They had been out shopping for a couch and remarked on how difficult it was to get help anywhere. No one working at the shops cares about the customer, they said. I agreed, having just been to Radio Shack where I waited patiently for my receipt while the boy at the counter watched a TV show on a screen behind me. I said these people were lucky to have jobs and maybe Obama will inspire people to get to work. The vet said he was a pretty political person but had voted "the other way" and was still in the 12-step grieving process. He said people whom he's met said they voted for Obama because he's black and they wanted to make history and he thought that was ridiculous. True, I said, "but these are the same people who voted for Bush because they thought he'd be fun to have a beer with." Ha, ha, the Vet laughed, "That guy IS a partier!"

But when I told him about how Obama had revamped the White House site with a blog and weekly video address to the nation, that he's going to post all legislation that he signs five days in advance to allow for comments from us, and that he wants to hear what we want him to do in office -- opening up forums on topics like health care -- I got his attention. I then told him that Michelle Obama plans to focus on helping veteran's transition back into their lives after returning from war, a cause she has already devoted years to. "I didn't know that," he said, "wow, I'll have to check that out."

While many people have been writing off Obama's popularity as a fan reaction to a novel candidate, other people were quietly rooting for the guy with the big brain to make it to the White House. On Marketplace yesterday a critic of Obama, David Frum author of "Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again," said he thought his stimulus plan is bad but acknowledged that the problem Obama brings up is real and no one on his side of the fence has offered a solution. "We said the Bush economy was the greatest story never told. We dismissed those who disagreed as 'whiners.'" But in reality, wages are stagnant and health care costs are rising to "devour potential wage increases." To me, that is what makes Obama so exceptional. Like a scientist, he talks about issues plainly and factually. He wants to fix what's broken and is willing to consider the best solution. He knows the power of collaboration and utilizes the latest technology to open up his administration to anyone with a good idea. You disagree with his ideas? Fine, let's hear yours.

And so it begins, the most exciting presidency in fifty years. Obama is awakening the American public from our cynical slumber, imploring us to believe once again that we can do anything. Not by saying that he'll be a better president than those who came before him but by asking us to believe in ourselves, instead of a politician. Yesterday, I watched a video about the Youth Ball where a young woman said, "I hope he doesn't disappoint us and not turn out to be this god." But our disillusionment comes from a misplaced belief that once we vote in our leaders, our job is done. A feeling that we are entitled to be taken care of by our government that is, like a parent, in charge of our well-being and has no right to be questioned. This is not a parent-child relationship; this is a government of the people, by the people.

Obama said yesterday in a statement, "On this Inauguration Day, we are reminded that we are heirs to over two centuries of American democracy, and that this legacy is not simply a birthright -- it is a glorious burden. Now it falls to us to come together as a people to carry it forward once more." It's a stroke of genius. It's not a matter of whether he'll disappoint us; it's a matter of whether we'll disappoint each other. Obama is already, every day, making miracles. He makes it easy for me to reach out to my neighbor, a person I'm friendly with but have opposing political views from, and invite him to participate in his government.

I vividly remember watching Obama's nomination speech. I drank down every word like the thirstiest person in the world. For the first time in eight years, someone that the world was listening to was speaking the truth about the challenges that our country and our generation face. I nodded and said "that's right" out loud like I was in a Baptist church. My inner skeptic tried, a few times, to caution me against too much enthusiasm but it didn't work. He has returned the presidency to what it is meant to be, a leadership position and we are the people he's leading. We are the people that are going to perform the miracles. He is the leader that will inspire a generation to think differently about its government and its role in the world than any before. There's a photo gallery of the people that will work in the White House and I'm struck by how youthful the group is and how few are career politicians. I feel that these people are as enthused as I am about the future and also believe in the possibility for miracles.

The book is better

2009-01-06T12:44:00.000-08:00

I recently went to see The Curious Case of Benjamin Button after hearing, as I'm sure you have, that it was really good. Oscar season is difficult for me because I have such high expectations. These are supposed to be the best movies of the year coming out between Thanksgiving and Christmas and yet most of them are disappointing. Ben Button was beautifully shot, looked expensive and had two big stars in it but I thought it was a bit of a bore. The whole time I was thinking I couldn't wait to read the book. I wanted to luxuriate in the story a bit more but the movie just kept trucking through time periods and costumes and CGI'd ages.

There was very little humor even though the whole situation is fraught with potential hilarity. And somehow the characters end up being devoid of likeability, I wasn't moved at all by their situations. I found it to be too long and slightly depressing. The next day, I was at the bookstore and found the short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald of the same name and read it. It was completely different from the movie. A different time period, different location, without any of the main plot points, and, it was silly. It couldn't have provided any ideas for the film. Harrumph, I thought, I was so looking forward to the book!

Then a few days later, quite by accident, I picked up a book in the same bookstore called "The Confessions of Max Tivoli." It's a novel about a man who ages backwards, has an epic love story and takes place in turn-of the-century San Francisco. How wonderful, the story I was looking for and it takes place in my beloved San Francisco! I read it in a few days and loved it. It has much more similarity to the movie's story than the F. Scott Fitzgerald short. In fact, the author Andrew Sean Greer said that he didn't even know of the short when he wrote the book but was relieved to discover how different they were. He says on his website that the production company tried to buy rights to the book in 2004 but he didn't want it to be made into a film. It makes me wonder if the writer, then, modeled his script after the book but with just the number of changes required to avoid a lawsuit.

What really boggles me, though, is why Greer didn't sell the rights to the book? His name and the book have come up in hundreds of mentions of the film anyway, with many people saying the book is better – a common remark about books turned into movies. So why not take their money and let them give us a better movie? He could have insisted it have a different title and could even opt out of the credits but still pocket the cash. In any regard if you liked the movie but though it would be a better read, I recommend "The Confessions of Max Tivoli."

Article 1 - The right to equality

2008-12-10T08:48:00.000-08:00

I've wanted to write about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for a while now. I have a calendar from Amnesty International on my wall that has an article from the declaration on each month and I've found it quite inspiring. I'm finally writing about it because today is Human Rights Day and the 60-year anniversary of the Declaration being adopted by the UN General Assembly. If you've never read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights before, I strongly recommend it. It's incredible to consider the rights that 48 nations agreed every human deserves to have. It's certainly far from perfect but is part of a vital conversation that has existed for thousands of years.

There's a lot of activity on this day this year. For one thing, Amnesty International and the ACLU are relentlessly reminding Obama that he promised to shut down Guantánamo. They want him to do it on his first day. For another, gay rights supporters have named this day Day Without a Gay and have pledged to call in "gay" to work and instead spend the day volunteering for a good cause. I'm not doing it because a) I don't have a job and b) I already spend every day volunteering, but I wholly support the idea. I think it's fantastic.

For millions of people on this planet, these rights are merely an idea, nothing that they have ever actually enjoyed. It's the reason that I believe the election of Obama caused such a worldwide phenomenon. In the days after the election, I read stories and heard first or second hand from black Americans who either voted for the first time or voted for the first time believing our political process can work. People whose children, as young as five, watched the election results with gleeful anticipation as if expecting to see a miracle happen right before their eyes. Indeed, to many in this country and abroad, what happened on election night was a miracle.

We elected a man who inspired us, made us hopeful about our country and made us feel powerful in our own ability to affect change. To much of the world, that has viewed the United States as the expression of these universal rights, that we overcame our history of black slavery and struggle for civil rights to elect an African-American as president is proof that these things are not merely ideas. They are ideas that we put into action every day. I don't think we can underestimate the profound impact that an event like this will have on the world, especially on the younger generations. To people all over the world it signaled hope that they too could make a difference and that their own struggle for human rights is not in vain.

While I admired McCain for his elegant concession speech, speaking of Obama with respect that he rarely afforded him throughout the election, there was something about the way he mentioned the "special significance" his election held for African-Americans that made me flinch. Looking at the nearly all white audience, some with anger on their faces and some shouting and booing, it seemed to me that they might hear, "If you're pissed off, you can blame the blacks." It seemed to me that his election signaled a similar but opposite thought in some; that the dominance of whites is over, not just in the U.S. but all over the world.

There was much talk after the election about the Republican base is now limited to the south. Half of Republicans now in office are from the south and the highest increases in voter turnout were in the south. It was speculated that it was due to blacks who had never voted before, thanks in part to the huge effort by the Obama campaign to help people get to the polls. But in fact, there is reason to believe that the record numbers were also due to whites voting to keep a black man from becoming president. There has always been an enormous fear by those of the dominant group(s) about what happens when those that are not, get more rights. In the same way that it took women 80 years to get the vote and how hard women had to fight to gain the right to a college education, gays are now fighting the same fear over what happens if they should be allowed to marry.

I really like this music video that Amnesty International sent me about the Universal Declaration and have decided that I will spend today editing the video that I promised to make for Amnesty International. I encourage you to spend the day thinking about how you can promote human rights. Write a letter. Volunteer. Voice your opinion. Get involved.

And now for something completely useless

2008-11-21T12:00:00.000-08:00

I've been wanting to do this for a while, actually, post the top viewed photos from my Flickr photostream that are viewed on a regular basis using the same search phrase. Counting down the top 10 they start out pretty normal but then get kind of weird:

10) The search phrase "Pacific Palisades park Santa Monica" puts this picture taken with my old 1.8 megapixel camera at number ten:

9) "Glass of wine," a common stock photo search I would imagine, brings up the only picture I have with that title:

8) Another common search phrase is "tennis courts":

7) I really like this photo so it makes me happy that so many people appreciate and are searching for "Karman Gia":

6) "Passport control" or more often than not, "Heathrow Terminal 5 passport control." Wow, really?

5) Another search I find curious for its specificity is "SFFD", not fire trucks or fire department but SFFD - San Francisco Fire Department:

4) All of my photos relating to feet - feet in sandals, cheerleaders socks, my friends wedding heels, pedicures - are in the top 25. The most searched term, however is "barefoot street" which brings people to a photo from Bay to Breakers, a crazy drunken costumed all-day parade that follows a 10k run:

3) Third most popular search is "deformed white tigers." I'm not sure if people want to see deformity or are trying to verify the fact that white tigers are the result of inbreeding (not a separate species), and are usually born with deformities. Here's my top viewed photo of stuffed white tigers trapped in a vending machine, under which I wrote the above description to explain why it bothers me that they are revered:

2) "Cracked glass," surprisingly popular:

1) But the number one search phrase is "men in diapers," making this pic from Bay to Breakers FIVE TIMES more popular than any other photo:

I shared my story

2008-11-19T21:39:00.000-08:00

Someone on NPR mentioned the amount of unsolicited advice Obama is getting from everyone these days. I hope with all my heart that the guy keeps his eyes on the prize and doesn't get distracted by all the nonsense. I'm so sick of hearing about the parties, party loyalty, party agendas, party majorities and minorities. Do these people completely forget that they're in office to serve us and not themselves? The Democrats are now saying that they think Obama might be getting ahead of his own party on environmental reform. Excuse me? Does he need to ask THE PARTY for permission to serve the American people? With over 2 trillion dollars estimated damage to real estate, a warning by the governor to prepare for rising sea levels, impending droughts and power shortages, polluted air that kills more people than car accidents, this state for one cannot afford to wait for action on global warming.

So I went on change.gov, Obama's website, and added my voice to the mix. Of course he's asking to hear from the American people, proving once again that he cares more about us than party politics. Here's what I wrote:

Dear President-Elect Obama,

I grew up in California, attended UC Santa Cruz and have lived all over the west coast. I'm a brand consultant and a writer/director. I voted for you and was continuously inspired by your attention to the issues. I was a student who campaigned for Bill Clinton in 1992 and met him later while in a Women as Leaders program in college. He disillusioned my generation when he made big promises that he didn't fulfill. Please don't do that to the young people who voted for you. Now IS the time for change. Here are my requests in no particular order. Thank you!

I would like my country to:
- Seize the opportunity to change an economic system based on consumption to one based on production.
- Stop bailing out failing businesses.
- Commit to effectively reducing carbon output, incentivize businesses to be cleaner and greener, encourage green technology R&D and entrepreneurship, and invest in a plan to get off of fossil fuels.
- Provide universal healthcare and eliminate the single biggest financial burden to both American families and American businesses.
- Have a serious debate on eliminating income tax.
- Acknowledge the national health crisis caused by over-consumption of processed foods comparable to health hazards caused by cigarettes and alcohol.
- Stop paying corn subsidies and growing corn for ethanol, and instead support the rise of small local farmers who are growing better quality and ethically raised food in a more environmentally responsible way than factory farms.
- Focus on issues instead of party politics.
- Make Election Day a national holiday.
- Lead by example, not by force, in human rights, animal rights and democratic process.
- Stop selling billions of dollars of weapons to nations involved in conflict.
- Stop justifying the sale of arms with "if we don't do it, someone else will."
- Stop lying to us about the real reasons we go to war.
- Overhaul the weapons acquisitions process to focus on producing weapons for wars we're already fighting, instead of trying to invent the weapons of the future.
- Spend half as much money as we spend on the military on education and health care.
- Make primary and secondary education a priority.

Let's do something else

2008-11-17T23:19:00.000-08:00

One of the big hullabaloos during the campaign was around health care – Obama wanted to essentially socialize it, making coverage available through the government and force insurance companies to bring prices down, while McCain wanted to continue using the current system but give people money to pay for it. Opposition to Obama shrieked at the idea of socialism and opposition to McCain said the amount of money he proposed wouldn't cover the costs and many people would be worse off. For all of the Republican yakking about free markets and how much better everything is when it isn't run by the government, we sure have made a mess of health care. Not a single person in this country thinks our health care system works, except maybe the insurance companies (who have made out like bandits in a bigger and more blatant scam than the current home-loan debacle). Noam Chomsky said health care has long been the number one issue of the American people but only started to get talked about when big companies began complaining about the high cost of providing coverage. There are few instances in recent history when the complaints of companies are the same as of the people and we're at a moment right now where so many things are broken that if we take the time, we can put them together right and turn a bad situation into an incredible opportunity.

One of those broken things is our consumer-based economy. 76% of our GDP is made up of spending on consumer goods and they're related like a spiral. When spending is up, the economy does better, more jobs get created, people have more disposable income and they shop more. But when spending is down, like in a recession, the economy does worse, jobs get cut and people stop spending, increasing the speed of the downward spinning. Over the past few months, we've watched our lawmakers flailing around crying wolf and begging for bailout packages and stimulus packages without any real strategy. From where I sit, and I'm sorry for this analogy but it reminds me of a guy trying to regain his erection when the moment has already past. You can spend the next half hour working to get it back only to find that your partner doesn't care anymore, or you can just go do something else. I would like to propose that we do something else. I'm tired of watching my representatives trying to pump life into the economy by throwing money at it. The money doesn't build anything that will stimulate a long-term upward spiral, it might give us a short boost but then we'll fall limp again.

The thing that everyone is talking about is green tech and for a good reason. The warnings about global warming are getting louder and louder and to anyone paying attention, they make everything else seem a little trivial. The governor of California just issued a directive to the state to start preparing for rising sea levels and a new study from the University of California shows the state losing trillions of dollars of real estate to fires. Among the other expensive disasters in store for us are drought, energy shortages, earthquakes, loss in tourism revenue and massive agricultural losses. To not change RIGHT NOW is the dumbest thing this country can do. We voted change into the White House but as Obama keeps reminding us, it's also us who will have to change. The whole world is registering the effects of global warming and so why not rebuild our economy around an industry that is not at odds with what the people need, an industry that will not only grow our economic future but will also keep us from financial ruin? We already know that there aren't enough fossil fuels in the world to meet the future energy demands of the U.S., China and India and while I'm sure we'll keep fighting over oil until every last drop is gone, why not also implement other technologies? We can't afford to wait and the acquisition and consumption of oil is largely responsible for global warming anyway.

So here's an idea. Let's do two drastic things right now to change our economy. First, let's socialize medicine and kill the insurance companies or make them work for us instead of the other way around. If we remove the burden of health care from employers, we will make huge strides towards keeping businesses here and maybe even luring some back. Second, let's level the energy playing field and create huge financial incentives for corporations to go green. If we did those two things, we could massively grow the green sector – putting new products on the market, giving unemployed people jobs, slashing emissions and pollution, promoting innovation and retaining more of our smart people – and relieve the country of the massive health care burden – putting more disposable income into the hands of Americans, increasing company profits and decreasing fraudulent behavior. President Bush says we don't have to give up on free people and free markets, and I agree. There are times, however, when we should do something else. This is one of those times.

Goodbye Ned

2008-11-13T13:35:00.000-08:00

People have been asking what's going on with me. I haven't updated the blog much and it's been mostly about politics in the last couple of months. In a way, I feel like I'm not doing anything newsworthy and on the other hand, who could think about anything else? There's been so much happening in the world – and so much that seems to be changing – that I can't keep up and also keep finding that everything I want to say is already being said. I commented to a friend a couple of months ago that the level of debate and discussion in this country has finally been ratcheted up. Everyone has been talking about the bailouts, the election, gay rights, the war and so many other important things. But there have been important changes happening in my life too. For one thing, I just turned 37 and I attend my 20th high school reunion next week so I'm thinking a lot about where I am in life. My mom was younger than me when she lost her mother to cancer and I am so grateful for this opportunity to spend this time with her. Time she never got with her mother. She's loving it too.

Yesterday, we had a sad day. One of our cats, Ned, had to be put down. He was almost 19 years old. My mom has already put down two 18 year old cats and has another one about to turn 17. She's lived in this house a long time and many neighborhood cats and kittens have found her to be adopted, she has never once chosen a cat herself. Ned was named after the band Ned's Atomic Dustbin in 1990 by my brother, and our cousins who visited from England that summer dubbed him "Little Chaps." He grew to be a big cat and was never the smartest one but he defended the yard for almost 20 years from intruders. In his last days, though, he couldn't hear other cats and didn't have the energy to chase them away. He was always a big teddy bear and loved affection; You could hold him, squeeze him and carry him around and he would purr and drool until you put him down.

His best friend was Jake, a fragile and beautiful cat a couple of years younger and much smaller, whom Ned protected fiercely. They slept together and washed each other, their gray fluffy bodies blending into one. Over the last few months, though, Ned began to waste away. His 20 lb. body went down to about 4 and his big head and feet looked funny on his smaller frame. He was skin and bones and even though we fed him well and treated his over-active thyroid, he continued to look more frail and become disoriented. He howled every night though we never knew why. Was it to try to hear himself speak? Was it a cry for help? Or maybe it was for his beloved Cricket, a gorgeous black and white cat that lived next door. He was madly in love with Cricket and used to follow her around and howl for her in the evenings until she disappeared one summer night a few years ago – perhaps taken away by marauding coyotes.

On the night before his last, Ned curled up with Jake for the first time in months and they washed each other. Ned spent the entire night sleeping in front of the fire he always loved, something he hadn't done in probably a year. He usually spent his days and night on the roof, we figured so he could see everything and no one could sneak up on him. But something did sneak up on him, a raccoon or maybe a coyote tore half of Ned's back foot off. Maybe he was trying to defend his Jake or maybe he just didn't hear his attacker, but my mom found him in a state of shock lying by the pool in the early morning. We took him to the vet and decided to euthanize him. Ned was a stubborn cat and would never have permitted himself to be kept indoors or get help taking a pee. He wouldn't have put up with bandages or opened his mouth for antibiotics, so there wasn't any point. And if it didn't heal, they'd have to amputate. He was already so weak and so fragile, it didn't seem right to risk him being eaten alive on another day or night or deprive him of his roof and his garden.

When the doctor gave him the shot, my mother and I were both holding and stroking Ned and even though she said it might take 15 seconds, he was gone in two. He was ready to go she said and we barely registered a change in him even though his heart had stopped. We took him home and buried him in the garden he loved so much and was his home for nearly two decades. My mom worked from home for the rest of the day and we both cried throughout the afternoon. We talked about what a long life Ned had, and what a great life all of her cats have had. Her yard is so full of trees and gardens that every cat on the block wants to live here. Since Ned's decline, we had about four neighbor cats who spent their days in the yard, something he never would have permitted before. We talked about what to plant over his grave and that we were glad we brought him home, where he belongs. I still am so sad today. I didn't expect to be so upset but I miss him, even in his distressed state, and it's hard to be responsible for taking a life away. Yet, we both feel it was the right thing and we think Ned did too. Dear Ned, rest in peace, you will be missed. (Photo is from July this year.)

The power of the people

2008-11-05T21:13:00.000-08:00

Well folks, we did it! Almost two years ago I said that America would never elect a man named Barack Obama to be their president and I have never been happier to be wrong. And for the first time in almost a decade, it wasn't a squeaker. He won with a healthy victory of more than 7 million popular votes and trounced in electorate votes. I am so proud of and grateful to my friends who donated money, phonebanked, bakesaled, drove to Nevada, registered voters, knocked on doors, posted information, emailed information and made sure their friends and family knew what an Obama victory would mean to us and the world. THANK YOU.

Have you ever seen a headline like this? "Election Unleashes a Flood of Hope Worldwide." I have never seen this level of participation in politics and more people voted in this election than any since LBJ won by a landslide in 1964 when the nation was reeling from the Kennedy assassination. Beyond his own victory as an African-American, Obama inspired millions of previously disenfranchised voters to cast ballots and brought young people into the process in a way no candidate has before. This country has once again proven the power of the people, if only we will use it. I hope America keeps its eye on the prize for the next four years and pitches in to help this guy out, he's got his work cut out for him. Yes we can!

On the eve of election day

2008-11-03T22:16:00.000-08:00

I woke up crying for no apparent reason. I'm on the tail end of a three-week cold and have felt my blood pressure rise on more occasions than I'd like to admit over the past few months. This is the first year that I've done a mail-in ballot (in anticipation of being a poll worker, that I never got to be) and I will miss going to the polls. Even though there are rumors of long lines and other wackiness, I love walking into that polling booth and exercising my right to vote. This race for the presidency is certainly one of the most exciting I've seen in my lifetime and the country seems to be divided into four parts (in descending order of popularity): Those who think Obama will usher in a new era in participatory politics, those who think he'll bring about the end of the world, those who think all politicians are crooks and liars and those who think Sarah Palin is the neatest thing since sliced bread.

I promised myself months ago that I would campaign for Obama if he got the nomination but I didn't end up doing it. Mostly because my life got a little bit complicated and I just didn't feel quite up to it honestly. I did, however, write letters and talk to friends and convince my mother about Obama - who in turn has convinced other people. The stubborn loyalty to the smear tactic by the McCain/Palin campaign and their fervently hateful supporters, however, has really disturbed me. I know this kind of division has happened in previous elections but it affected me more deeply this time. Every time Obama chose the high road, it seemed to make his competitor sink to an even deeper level of deceit, turning people off by the thousands. Eckhart Tolle talks about the collective human evolution that we're in the middle of, a process in which the ego and the insanity that it produces becomes apparent to us and once we turn our attention to it, it dissolves. I see the McCain campaign as embodying the insanity of the ego rallying against Obama's Zen-like acceptance and enthusiasm. It's why I believe his leadership is crucial right now. Tolle says if we do not complete this evolution, we will be destroyed by our collective ego. I believe the general unease with Bush, even by those who cannot articulate the reason, reflects our desire to do just that.

A few bills on the California ballot also address the commitment to our own evolution, as a society and as individuals. Prop 2 calls for more humane treatment of the animals we eat for food. Enormous sums of money have been donated by companies that have violated existing laws on waste, food safety and animal welfare to run ads using the same McCain scare tactics about what will happen if people vote YES. Many intelligent and reasonable people, already committed to their family's health, have been unsure how to vote. Even though the bigger issue is our responsibility to not cause needless suffering in the world, people still want to be assured that the price of eggs isn't going to go up. They don't yet have the space in their heart to weigh a few pennies against the suffering of a chicken. Not yet. This is just one of a series of measures that have been passing all over the country in the last few years that demonstrate a growing concern for the welfare of animals - a concern that I believe to be part of our overall consciousness. Religious leaders are finally joining the discussion and reminding their followers (for lack of a better word) of their God given responsibility to all creatures great and small.

Another bill, Prop 8, wants to limit the right of marriage to straight people. The folks pushing it say they want to protect marriage. I started out on this one thinking it was just laughable. I mean it's obvious that people are losing interest in marriage just as they are losing interest in religion, but what do the gays have to do with it? I have many friends who are married but I also have quite a few who have had children without getting married or who are well past middle age and show no signs of ever getting married. So when gays started getting married it really didn't matter to me. Then I saw Prop 8 ad on TV that made me stop in my tracks. It was so bizarre and freaky that I couldn't believe it was on, I think during The Daily Show! When I moved to the suburbs, I encountered mobs of white teenagers with their milquetoast parents holding signs on street corners that called Prop 8 "free speech" while signs were posted in yards all over the neighborhood. It galvanized me to find out what exactly it was all about.

I went to their ridiculous website, I read articles, I studied the Wikipedia entry on marriage and learned that this is nothing more than a group of people who believe that their discomfort with someone else's behavior warrants a law being passed to prohibit it. I thought of a dozen things that irritate me like people sawing down mature trees to make room for more concrete, those car stereos that boom really loud and shake my car when I'm at a stop light, baggy pants that guys have to hold up to walk across the street, or really strong perfume on a woman that burns my nose when I'm in a store. They derisively refer to the "four activist judges" who overturned their last attempt to infringe on our civil rights as if we should live by mob rule and condemn judges who don't agree. Then, on a Catholic website, I read an article by a Deacon urging his constituents to vote for Prop 8 but nearly every comment was in opposition! Catholics wrote to say they were voting AGAINST Prop 8 and were offended that the church thinks they have a right to tell people how to vote. One woman posted a fantastic article about the (aforementioned "activist") Republican moderate judge who led the majority opinion in the case and the journey he took to make a decision that respects the people's will as expressed by the Constitution.

Ironically, I think this bill has forced people to take a stand on an issue they may have been ambivalent about. Teachers and school administrators were furious to learn that proponents were lying in their ads, saying that schools would be forced to teach about gay marriage. Proponents outraged parents when they stole footage from the San Francisco Chronicle of children attending a gay wedding and used it without permission in their ads. My mother, whose gay boss and his partner are raising two special needs children they adopted, was horrified when I explained the bill to her. She then had a conversation with a woman in the neighborhood with a NO on Prop 8 sign who told her that her young daughter has a friend with gay parents but has never once asked why the girl has two daddies. Kids aren't confused or concerned; nearly every child these days has a complicated parental situation and I say a child with two parents is lucky! That same week, the band of propagandists picketed in front of an elementary school prompting kids to ask their parents what it was all about. The proponents of Prop 8 aren't defending marriage, they're just teaching their kids to hate people who are different.

I say that the chorus of hate and intolerance that echos around the country is the sound of our collective ego dying as we increasingly respect the earth, each other and all the other creatures on the planet. I also see Obama as focusing our attention inward in so many ways. He focuses on how we can take better care of each other, not how we can exercise control over the rest of the globe. Similarly, consciousness happens when we focus our attention inward and stop trying to control everything and everyone around us. I bet that the people who are afraid of Obama are really afraid of what happens when we start looking inward. That fear has been intentionally stoked but it isn't working as much as it used to. There is less and less room in our collective consciousness for the negative rhetoric of the ego, desperate for control. I say it's part of our evolution, and like the better treatment of animals and the acceptance of a broader definition of marriage and family, there's no stopping it. So vote and bring it on!

Why Sarah Palin won't be our Vice President

2008-10-24T00:44:00.000-07:00

"I have a question for the women in the audience," the Alaska governor began, "Are you willing to break the highest, hardest glass ceiling in America?"
What a cruel joke for a woman who is against everything I believe in – environmental reform, animal rights, a woman’s right to choose, the importance of education, peace, and freedom from persecution – to surround herself with feminists and ask me to help her break the glass ceiling.

It took women 50 years to get the right to vote after freed slaves did. Fifty years! These were women married to politicians, raising their children and running their homes and yet it was easier for white men to view a black man – whom only a few years was considered property – as a citizen than the women they shared a bed with. I bring this up because it’s vital to understand the deep-seated fear and resentment men had for women wanting the vote (and by proxy, full citizenship). They must have viewed us as children, demanding something that we could neither understand nor be trusted with. But in 1917, Montana (who had given women the right to vote) elected the first woman into Congress, three years before the Constitution was amended.

Nearly a hundred years later, there are still far too few women in Congress. Out of 535 members, only 90 are women: 16 of 100 senators are women (two of them are from California, Senators Feinstein and Boxer, both of whom I’ve met!) and 74 of 435 representatives are women. So it really irks me when I read about "Palinmania" in The New York Times, describing how popular Sarah is with the "dudes." They paint their chests and shout Maverick and "marry me" at her rallies. They say they prefer Palin over both Obama and McCain as if she’s running for president! A few are quoted as saying men have screwed things up enough, maybe it’s time to let a woman run the country for a while. While I couldn't agree more, I find it difficult to believe that these dudes felt this way when Hilary was running or that they’ve ever spent a minute in their lives thinking about the gender inequality in politics. No, because the Joe Six-Packs say Sarah's different, she's "their kind of woman."

The feminists have always said that in order to be regarded by men, a woman has to be sexually appealing, non-threatening and assume, in some way, the role model of wife and mother. But if she wants to be taken seriously, she can't be seen as using her sexuality. Maybe that explains the glasses? They say "I know I'm hot but I want you to take me seriously, okay? [wink, wink].” She certainly has that over Clinton who, as formidable as any man, didn't advertise her role as mother and was more concerned about being seen as qualified instead of sexually appealing. Many of these men said they came to the rally just to look at Palin, because she's so beautiful. I'd like to point out that this is not sexism by the other candidates or by the media, this is pure unadulterated sexism from the American public. What could be more dismissive than supporting a candidate because she's a VPILF?

The strategists that picked Palin specifically wanted a good-looking woman because they intended to play the gender card. People tend to be more sympathetic to an attractive woman and they're less likely to rip her apart (or expose her flimsy credentials). Despite what her supporters think, the reaction to her has been quite kind compared to the way Hilary Clinton was treated or even the way Nancy Pelosi is talked about these days. Women are crucified for being tough and attacked for being soft, but less so if they're pretty. I'm so tired of reading the public's comments about how Palin is being "picked on," a phrase that is decidedly sexist in its assumption that she can't take it. The charge that the media has unfairly focused on her appearance and clothing is completely unfounded. No one cared about her wardrobe until they discovered how much it cost and her attractiveness has been made an issue because the more we learn about her, the more we believe it's the reason she's a candidate. She thinks her family life has been delved into more because she's a woman. Really? We haven't heard about Obama's interracial parents, his mother leaving him with his grandparents, getting food stamps while going to medical school? We haven't heard about McCain's affair and leaving his crippled wife for another woman who just happens to be filthy rich?

A female supporter remarked at the same rally that she trusts Palin because she’s a mom. In any corporation in the country, the fact that she has five kids including a disabled newborn, would subject her to possible discrimination over a fear that she wouldn't have enough time for her job. When most women take six months to a year getting their full energy back after having a baby, Palin's running all over the country like Superwoman. No one's afraid she might exhaust herself or neglect her baby or her husband or her job? Such a curious exception to what is practically a rule in the working world. I met a woman who, while presenting her thesis for business school, was asked how she planned to start a business with a baby (she was pregnant at the time). If Palin were truly getting the sexist treatment, questions like this would be asked without impunity. While I have the utmost respect for the job of mother - and most of my girlfriends are mothers - I hardly think it is an automatic qualification. Andrea Yates, Deanna Laney and Dena Schlosser, all God-fearing Christian mothers, killed their children. I'm just saying, think before you speak people.

What bothers me most though is simply that Palin is the first female nominee on a presidential ticket. How utterly unfair that after all these years (the first serious female contender for president was in 1964) we should get a woman like her. Hilary Clinton was a serious candidate – smart, savvy, experienced, well spoken – and she deserved it as much as anyone. I would have been proud to call her my president but not this woman. She sounds like a third grade teacher who hasn’t spent a lot of time speaking to adults and if she doesn't have an answer to a question, she blames the question! She’s either as dumb as she appears or she’s feigning it in that “math is haaaaard” way that girls do when they first discover that boys are threatened by girls that are smarter than they are. Either way, it’s behavior unbecoming a woman promising to break the glass ceiling for all women. Men are threatened by women who are smarter than them which means the only woman capable of breaking the ceiling is as smart as the men around her and isn’t afraid to show it.

When I watched John McCain announce her as his running mate during the Republican convention, I thought it was a stroke of genius. I imagined all of his advisers in a room after the Democratic convention thinking that they didn’t have a chance in hell. How could McCain possibly compete against the youth, optimism, intelligence and charisma of Obama? We all heard that sucking sound when Hilary was pulled out of the race, though, and in that vacuum they decided to bring in a woman of their own. But unlike Hilary, this woman would be pretty and approachable in a fifties housewife kind of way and she’d be a real woman with a lot of kids and strong views against abortion. They also imagined, I’m sure, that if she literally had never been to Washington, she wouldn’t have any enemies there or anyone who really knew her background. Plus, they thought she’d be easy to manipulate.

The Republicans don’t give a shit about women. Oh sure, they’re happy to use the fire of pro-life conservative women to get elected but once in office, they don’t do a damn thing about it. The irony is, Roe v. Wade would probably have a better chance of being overturned if there were more women in office, or in the courts, because women care about this issue. Pro or against, it affects us profoundly. Out of 110 Supreme Court Justices that have sat on the bench in our history, only two have been women. Plus, since 1990, the number of female Republican representatives has been dropping. While women in state and U.S. congresses were split evenly then, now Democrats make up 69% of the women in state legislatures and 70% of the women in the U.S. Congress. When the Democrats had a black man and white woman as their top contenders for President this year, the Republicans had a bunch of white men. They weren’t looking for the candidate that would make the best Vice President; they were looking for someone that could help them win. They’re using Sarah Palin, exploiting her "aw shucks" ignorance and her bald-faced ambition, to try to win an election as if what happens after that is meaningless.

The flip-flopping that Palin's doing right now on whether or not she's a feminist further demonstrates that the strategy isn't working. The Republicans don't know how to position her and because of it we haven't a clue who she really is. At a rally a few days ago, Palin appeared onstage with a number of high-powered feminists who previously supported Clinton. The fact that NOW (National Organization of Women) has already endorsed Obama hasn’t stopped these women from aligning themselves with a candidate whose most fervent supporters want to take us back into the dark ages. So they too prove to be sexist by backing a candidate simply because of her gender and basically reversing their support on every major issue. During her Katie Couric interview, she answered the question about whether she's a feminist with a decisive "yes" but now she doesn't want to be labeled. The public thinks she's being asked the question only because she's a female and isn't that sexist?

Yes, she's absolutely being asked the question because she's a woman, but no, it's not sexist. Let's not pretend that gender neutrality is possible in this highly critical and personal arena. Equality is being treated with the same respect and being offered the same opportunities without rewards or punishment based on race, gender, etc. I think it's a perfectly legitimate question. We women are being asked to consider her despite her shortcomings, which can only mean that she intends to represent us in a way that a man can't. Besides, if she were really an intelligent leader, she would jump at the opportunity to educate us on what being a feminist means to her. She could say that being a feminist does not mean subscribing to a single political doctrine because that would be saying that all women are the same. (Clearly, we are not.)

She could say that being a feminist means taking the women's role as creator very seriously and that is why she cannot condone abortion. I would respect her if she could articulate a position, any position, even if I didn't agree with it. She could outline for us how she has promoted and stood up for women's rights – in the same way that she exposed corruption in the government and negotiated a pipeline in her state, which I also haven't heard her speak cohesively about. She wants to break the glass ceiling, so what's wrong with asking her how she's going to help me do it too? One editorial suggests that we haven't heard anything intelligent from Palin because the Democrats haven't asked her any real questions and suggests that they're being sexist by not engaging her. I say bullshit. I say she's had plenty of opportunities to say something worth listening to and has failed miserably. While sexism definitely contributes to the gender gap in political representation, it isn't the reason Sarah Palin won't be our Vice President.

That isn't to say this has been easy for me. I'm a dyed in the wool feminist who would probably draw blood to defend Palin if I saw some of the crap she's putting up with in person, but I also cringe at everything that comes out of her mouth. Clearly, we need more women in politics to choose from for these roles. One theory for the inequality is a lack of candidates. If nothing else, Sarah Palin has shown us that being a gutsy and attractive woman and mother are enough to run for office. So perhaps she will inspire women all over the country to get their names on the ballot. I'm planning for a woman president in 2016 but let me make one final note. People forget that we've already had quite a few women in the White House, the First Ladies. Many of these women have worked just as tirelessly for our country as their husbands and some have made enormous contributions. While it's not an elected position and they don't get paid, they also get very little credit for their efforts so I'd like to thank them now.

Do we really hate each other?

2008-10-22T16:55:00.000-07:00

Holy mackerel, every time I’m about to post about what’s going on in the election, another ridiculous thing happens. Why just this week…
- Famous conservatives jump ship to endorse Obama.
- Colin Powell, the only man in the White House who didn’t want to invade Iraq, endorses Obama and is dismissed by McCain because he's got the support of plenty of other military folks.
- Joe the Plumber turns out to be a fraud in every way but Palin's still chanting his name at rallies.
- The McCain camp continues to call Obama a terrorist and supporters at a rally in Minnesota held signs comparing him to Charles Manson.
- Palin is suddenly a feminist and shows up at a rally with a cadre of Clinton supporters despite the fact that NOW and Hilary herself have endorsed Obama.
- A Republican club in California mails out a racist anti-Obama flyer and makes one of their members cry for 45 minutes.
- Palin makes an appearance on SNL and Alec Baldwin, who made fun of her on Bill Maher only a week before, tells her she’s hotter in person.

I mean, you can’t make up stuff like this! It’s juicier than any TV show. Once again, this election has brought out the worst behavior and the ugliest thoughts of the Americans. But here's what’s really disturbing to me. Last night I saw these videos from the Alfred E. Smith annual charity dinner that all these people were at: McCain, Obama, and Hilary Clinton. It's traditional during election years for the candidates to roast themselves/each other, so John McCain gets up there and makes jokes about replacing his staff with Joe the Plumber and hiring him to work on his seven houses while Barack Obama makes jokes about his middle name really being Steve and how he wasn't really born in a manger, and they both joke about Hilary voting for McCain. They make jokes about Acorn registering Mickey Mouse and are all cracking up at each other; they can barely contain themselves.

So here they are, really, making fun of all of us for getting sucked into the bullshit: Democrats versus Republicans, us versus them, everyone calling each other ignorant and stupid and even the candidates call us names. And all the while, this is just what they do to win. It doesn’t mean anything. McCain doesn't REALLY think Obama is a terrorist; it's just a campaign tactic and Obama knows it. They oh-so-casually make stuff up about themselves, relying on the fact that we'll use it to make assumptions about how they'll govern. But while Americans are hating each other and fighting over this stuff, these guys go to a fancy dinner and have a laugh about it. At the end of the day, they're all buddies and they’ll still be running our government no matter who ends up as president.

Noam Chomsky said in an interview that if anyone is undecided, they should just vote Democrat because most people’s lives improve when a Democrat is in office. It’s that simple. Unless, he says, your personal beliefs are more important, in which case, vote that way. Then he said something else, about how public policy isn’t based on what the people want anyway. Politicians don’t talk address issues that are important to us, they talk about issues that are important to business and sometimes they just happen to be the same thing. For example, he says, health care has been the number one issue for the voters for decades. It’s a horrific system, totally broken, and another embarrassment to the rest of the civilized world that has already socialized their medical system.

Here we are being brainwashed, repeating “socialism is bad” without most people even understanding what it means. We have already socialized parts of our government and taxes are a form of socialism that, in fact, enable the American Dream and McCain knows that as well as Obama. Socialism is a red herring, it's just a campaign strategy to get elected. The reason health care is on the agenda this year, says Chomsky, is because big business is finally complaining about it. When GM says it’s cheaper to make cars in Canada because of the outrageous cost of providing health care in this country, lawmakers start to listen. See, the fighting isn't real. They just pretend to fight and disrespect each other so they can get into office. The two parties, Chomsky says, are really two branches of the same party, the business party.

I just finished watching Why We Fight, which is totally excellent and I highly recommend it. One point made in the film – which was also discussed at length in Gore’s book, Assault on Reason – is where was the fighting when it really mattered, when our Congress was deciding whether to go to war? The truth is, there wasn’t any debate. Republicans largely voted for it and Democrats mostly voted against it but they didn’t convene for a week or two to hash out the details and make sure this was the right thing to do. Not only that, they gave Bush the power to decide all of that for himself! They totally circumvented the checks and balances and said “Sure, the President can do whatever he wants in Iraq with our permission,” and sent us war with no budget and no exit strategy.

See, here’s what I think. I think people are angry, and rightfully so. We inherently know we aren’t being represented. We can’t trust our government and frankly, we don’t know whom to trust. We’re seeing our lives get worse and don’t know how to make them better. We see other people’s lives getting much better and suspect massive corruption, but aren’t sure if laws have been broken or if those people are just smarter than we are. We might also understand, although it’s difficult to admit, that for the last fifty years this country has taken whatever its wanted from the rest of the world and we’ve prospered even as we’ve fallen behind in education, health care, industry and infrastructure. The anger, though, has mistakenly been directed at each other as if all of this is the fault of people who don’t believe in God, people who hate gays or Jews or blacks, people who abort babies, drug addicts, perverts, socialists, because it must be someone’s fault, right?

This is, I must admit, the main reason that I support Obama. It's been a very long time since a politician has been so positive. He has managed to keep his head above the negativity and continue to call for togetherness and understanding. It's also a major reason that Colin Powell endorsed him. He says this country can't afford to be torn apart and I agree completely. Of course, the internet amplifies the negativity with its continuous critique and rehashing of every moment. Now a negative event doesn't happen once, it happens thousands of times. And people don't seem to need much encouragement for joining in the fray. But it makes me wonder yet again, if we are as backward as we appear. After all, we're about to elect a black man as our president, so clearly we are a progressive society no matter what the candidates or the media lead us to believe.

I had to post this

2008-10-16T12:35:00.000-07:00

It's too funny how easily situations reflect each other, further evidence that humans keep playing out the same dramas, just with different players.

Replace "hobnobbing with crooks" with "pallin' around with terrorists." I also love the reference to The Penguin's "enthusiastic fans." Tee hee.

A more humane president

2008-10-13T11:58:00.000-07:00

I wish I could think of something else besides the election and the economy but I can't. Arriving at the Farmer's Market on Saturday, I noticed that the Republicans have now joined the Democrats in handing out buttons and flyers. The Democrat Club has had a presence the last few weeks, several white-haired ladies sitting behind a table of Obama-Biden buttons, but on Saturday there was a horde of young men, in suits, handing out Republican literature. They looked like stock brokers. I immediately had this feeling that I needed to be declaring my affiliation, something I normally keep somewhat private with people I don't know. I went over to the women and bought a button, affixing it to my bag. One lady handed me a flyer to vote YES on Prop 2. I already know all about it, I said, and added that the Humane Society has just endorsed Obama. They have never before endorsed a presidential candidate and posted a detail analysis of his voting record and support for animals:
"The board of directors—which is comprised of both Democrats and Republicans—has voted unanimously to endorse Barack Obama for President. The Obama-Biden ticket is the better choice on animal protection, and we urge all voters who care about the humane treatment of animals, no matter what their party affiliation, to vote for them."

It may not mean much to some people but I say that you can tell a lot about a person by the way they treat animals (and the earth). And so does Obama. He said "I think how we treat our animals reflects how we treat each other, and it's very important that we have a president who is mindful of the cruelty that is perpetrated on animals." Humane Society and Amnesty International are my two charities, the ones I give the most money to and am the most active for. I realized this weekend that they essentially do the same thing, except one for animals and one for people. They fight to end suffering. What I like about both organizations is that they have excellent communications, informative websites and easily understood missions. They are surprisingly unsentimental, given the subject matter, and never condemn. Instead, they rely on the facts to speak for themselves. They understand that if suffering doesn't bother you, no amount of sensationalism is going to change that. If suffering does bother you, only the facts and an easy call-to-action are necessary. Amnesty International "neither supports nor opposes any political party or any candidate for public office and Amnesty does not seek to influence elections" but instead seeks to inform the public about their core issues and encourage them to influence policy. I have to say that the focus by these organizations on the welfare of people and animals is such a welcome respite from the hatred that infuses politics.

The recent behavior of Americans on the McCain-Palin campaign trail has really sickened me. I continue to find it sadly ironic that while we fight the Taliban in Afghanistan, people in this country are constantly trying to reverse our own progress and take us back into the dark ages as well. Had we not "waved the white flag of surrender" in Vietnam all those years ago, McCain might have died in a prison cell instead of coming back a war hero. Had radical women like Hillary Clinton not won out all those years ago, Palin would not be qualified to be a VP candidate because she would be denied the right to vote. Let's not forget how highly volatile these issues were when they were happening! So how is it possible that the people who support these two think they can deny gays the right to marriage, women the ability to terminate their own pregnancy and Obama the respect of a man running for The President of the United States? I refuse to believe that this country contains more hate and anger than it does hope and pride. The country I live in was founded on and has lead the world in many ways to becoming a more humane place and will continue to do so.

The real Joe Six-Pack

2008-10-10T10:41:00.000-07:00

My mother, who usually doesn't care about politics at all and sighs when I get to talking about it, has become engrossed in the presidential race. She's never been accepted by her mother-in-law and when she heard her on the phone going on and on about how sweet Sarah Palin is, it galvanized her. "Did you see the debate?" she asked me? "What professional person talks like that?" My mom, who works for the Navy, says she'd be laughed at or fired if she conducted a meeting winking at people and talking like a hillbilly. Her in-laws support McCain because he's NRA even though "they don't own a gun and never have" but they live in rural Oregon and that's the kind of thing people there are into. "Do you know Palin didn't even graduate from college?" my mother asks. I tell her that I know she went to six colleges but didn't realize she never got a degree. "AND," my mom goes on, "She got a GED from high school. She's a drop out!

"They're finally getting into that business about she and her husband being part of that radical organization that wanted to secede" she continues. What an embarrassment this woman is. The Europeans were horrified when they saw the debate. All the Euro-cred we got in nominating Obama went right out the window when they saw the local yokel on the TEE-VEE talkin' straight, "you betcha!" And they thought Americans only talked that way on the Dukes of Hazzard, boy were they wrong.

During the last debate, my mom kept mimicking Palin saying "There you go, Joe, talkin' 'bout the past agin." "All McCain talks about is the past," she continues, "Vietnam and Reagan and PRESIDENT HOOVER?! Who was even alive when he was president?" She throws up her arms. "He has terminal cancer!" she says, "The doctors have only given him three years to live!" It does seem ludicrous that he would be seen as fit to serve, especially given the extreme stress and aging that even the youngest presidents endure. I couldn't help but cringe as McCain repeated every speech from the first debate, verbatim. On and on again about the war and his service in the military. It's literally all he has to talk about. Obama on the other hand, seemed like he was genuinely finding new words to answer each question, and he did actually answer the questions.

After the debate, we watched as everyone shook Obama's hand and snapped their photos with him. McCain was awkwardly walking around the room with his skeletal wife. Together, they look like the walking dead, he looks like he's been stuffed. "Oh, she's lovely," mom added when Michelle Obama started greeting audience members. When Obama went to shake McCain's hand, he pointed at his wife and Obama shook her hand. My mother gasped in horror, "He won't even shake his HAND," she says and continues about how we're going to find out just how racist this country is.

This, though, was the kicker. The next day, she read this news story about a 10-year old who crashed a van in Tennesee going about 90 mph. In the back of the van were his two siblings and parents who were popping pills, snorting coke and drinking. The dad, wore a T-shirt that said, "Buy this dad a beer." "That's Sarah Palin's Joe Six-Pack!" she said and laughed hysterically. "That's who's supporting Failin and McSame, ha ha ha."

Talking about an evolution

2008-10-09T13:00:00.000-07:00

I’ve been thinking about religion lately, mulling it over for the last year or so. When I saw Bill Maher’s film Religulous on Saturday it inspired me to finally write about it. I enjoyed the film and while I think it was a bit unfocused and incomplete, it brings up an excellent point. Bill Maher makes a case that religion is an outmoded social structure based on myth and superstition that we can no longer afford. Al Gore says in his book The Assault on Reason: "We are currently faced with the urgent task of accelerating our own psychological, emotional, intellectual and spiritual evolution in order to see over the internal walls that may have served some useful purpose ages ago but are now merely obstacles that prevent us from securing the new path we must take." Eckhart Tolle, in A New Earth, says we must “evolve or die.” Watching, in Religulous, the way people defend their creation myths to the point of insisting that man lived with dinosaurs and refusing to believe the same myths had been repeated in civilizations for over 50,000 years before the Bible was written, makes me wonder if many wouldn’t rather die.

Religion, as a means of government, is an archaic idea that has been replaced by every advanced nation in the world with reason, law and social responsibility. Religion, as the quest for meaning, is not archaic – human beings will seek the answers to how we got here and what our purpose is for as long as we are in this world – but religion no longer satisfies the quest for these answers. Eckhart Tolle is one of the most popular new age writers of our time and while he frequently quotes Jesus in the book, he is clearly promoting an agnostic philosophy. The dictionary defines an agnostic as “one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine.” I love the use of the word ‘refrain’ here. It suggests that precisely because the desire to know about our origins is so strong, we may be tempted to accept easy answers as truth. Tolle cleverly uses the quotes of Jesus to illustrate that he and other spiritual leaders were ahead of their time, teaching a Zen philosophy, and because they were not understood have been misinterpreted and their words misused to further the careers of religious leaders. He no doubt also knows that many Christians are searching for answers beyond their religion and will find comfort in the references to Jesus.

Tolle says that we are in the midst of the great awakening and spends most of the book explaining that in order to evolve, humans will have to free themselves from the grip of the ego. To do it, we must become aware of the insanity of the ego and its control over our thoughts and actions. By being aware, we become present and no longer operate unconsciously. He describes how the ego, when it feels that threatened, grows in power and become increasingly insane. This is what I think is happening now. The religious institutions of the world, fueled by ego, are severely threatened by their declining relevancy in our global culture and are reacting in a fanatical way to survive. Bill Maher says in the film that 16% of Americans do not subscribe to a religious doctrine, the largest percentage in the history of one of the most religious nations on earth.

‘Unconscious’ is how Tolle describes the unenlightened. They are not bad or stupid or inferior, they simply have not yet awakened the part of themselves that is their true being. They are living through the mind and the ego. Unconscious might also be how Maher would describe faith – often referred to as “blind faith.” Religulous humorously demonstrates the absurdity of the “truths” accepted by followers, truths that not only vary from church to church but also contradict truths by other religions. The most frightening thing about faith is that it cannot be questioned without terse rigidity and suspicion. Maher says, once the word faith is spoken, conversation stops. I read, in one article about the film, that Americans would rather vote for a Jew, a black, a woman or a homosexual than an atheist. For all the prejudice in the world, Americans find a person without belief in the talking snake, the virgin birth and the second coming of the messiah, as anathema. Is it because people without “faith” are not likely to take anything at face value? Is because they question everything? Is it because it is assumed that their lack of belief in God means they a lack of belief in anything?

Atheist comes from the Greek word áthe, which means godless. The dictionary defines atheist as “a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a deity or divine beings” but defines godless as “wicked, evil and sinful.” How can anyone believe that a person who doesn’t believe in god is wicked? Both of my parents are atheist yet they went to church growing up. Their mothers were fairly devout as women of that generation tended to be. Half of the kids became atheists and the other half, became born again so I grew up in the conflict of religion as my father said it was stupid and my aunts told us we were going to hell. They tried to save my brother and me by leaving bibles in our rooms whenever they came to visit.

But despite the lack of god in our lives, we were raised in a very strict and moral way. There was no drinking, no swearing, no lying and no smoking in our house. We couldn’t watch television, eat junk food or have friends spend the night in our rooms. We lived on a steady diet of exercise, studying and health food. I have always been hardworking, honest and fair. My born-again relatives, on the other hand, were petty and judgmental, they home schooled their kids and restricted contact to only their church congregation, they lied and swindled money from my grandparents and fought amongst themselves about who was most worthy of their charity. They always appeared to me to be the worst kind of people, the kind that preach good but aren’t themselves.

It wasn’t difficult to see the hypocrisy of religion then and it isn’t difficult to see it now. Our President says God told him to run for office and has often used this religious calling to justify his actions which include an unprovoked invasion of a country (that some liken to a holy war and that has left more dead than the ruthless dictator we overthrew), unlawful detention (and alleged torture) of hundreds of innocent people and the erosion of civil liberties promised to us by our intentionally non-religious government. This President who claims to use God and religion as his guiding force is on track to become the least popular president in our history. Odd considering his devout beliefs!

It is easy to understand how 2,000 years ago a belief in god might have been requisite to establishing a set of rules but it seems to me an ancient idea that a person who doesn’t believe in god has no moral code! Religion has never succeeded in getting everyone to agree on a moral code. Nor has it ever succeeded in keeping people from committing sin. So it can be argued that it isn’t an effective method of social control, advancement or enlightenment at all. In addition, governments such as ours were crafted with a level of insight and lucidity not shown in any organized religion. Our founders specifically designed a government based on reason that protects the welfare of people by establishing universal beliefs that determined laws of fairness. As Bill Maher so aptly asks in the film, “Do we really need religion to tell us not to kill people?”

A friend of mine says that I’m not an atheist because atheists are certain that there is no mystery to the universe, no grand design, just a swirling mass of matter bumping into each other. Each of the major religions are also certain that their story is the right one and their way is the right way, making their followers equally rigid in their view of others. This is what makes religion so dangerous in today’s global culture. Religious followers have made it their purpose to judge others and decide who is deserving and who is not, who is sinful and who is not and who is good and who is not. There simply isn’t room on this planet for this kind of nonsense, for fighting over creation myths, gods, messiahs, promised lands, second comings, Armageddons and end times. Maher says his belief is “I don’t know!” but Tolle describes it more like “We couldn’t possibly know.” I wonder why we need to know. Clearly, the creation of the universe and everything in it is beyond our comprehension. We can't even comprehend what we don't know! Enlightenment, then, comes by becoming aware of the temptation to accept a limited truth and instead gain a greater acceptance of the unknown, become more patient with things we don’t understand and learn to appreciate the miracle of life as it manifests within us and around us at every moment.

The evolution has already begun. There are over a million organizations dedicated to positive change, fueled by believers, atheists, agnostics and seekers alike. Some religious leaders are breaking from the establishment to speak out against war, stand up for the welfare of animals and advocate for a better relationship with nature. Scientists and activists are starting to talk about the need for a spiritual aspect of the green movement and in the quest for human and animal rights. In online profiles, included in the list of religions that you could be is the choice “spiritual,” a broad term that says, “I don’t subscribe to a religious doctrine but I am on an individual quest for meaning.” I think the term will soon be broadened to also imply a desire to live in greater harmony with the environment and a need for peace.

The film, The 11th Hour, compares what is happening to our environment as a reflection of what is going on inside us. We have lost our connection to nature and have caused others and ourselves great suffering as a result. But nature is not just leaves and grass and the birds we sometimes get a glimpse of, nature is life. We are life. The life force, what people call god, manifests through all of us as a single being. To choke the life out of other living creatures, no matter how small, is to be truly unconscious and disconnected from the collective miracle of life. My mom just told me a story about her friend’s neighbor who bought the house next door and ripped out all the plants. The yard had been beautifully landscaped but was now just an expanse of dirt in the front. After about a year, my mom’s friend knocked on his neighbor’s door to find out what “his plan” was for it. The neighbor replied, “Nothing. My wife doesn’t like plants.”

When I was growing up, I attended many different churches with friends and relatives. I got to sample quite a few and as an adult found myself curious enough to keep going whenever an opportunity would arise. I went to Tibetan Buddhist services with a boyfriend, Catholic services with my dad and his second wife (I know, bizarre!), and when in D.C. as a college student, went to the oldest Baptist church there. Each time I remember thinking that what was being said was fairly unremarkable, but what was amazing was the energy in the room. Hundreds of people together, shaking hands and meeting their neighbor, bowing their head in silent contemplation, giving their full attention to another person. These were remarkable and uncommon experiences in my life. The other outlet for this kind of community gathering, the town hall, Al Gore says we've lost. Now instead of people getting together to discuss issues, the direction of our world is communicated to us as a one-way conversation. The first time I went to yoga, I recognized that a class contained the incredibly powerful elements of church, which I think explains the rapidly growing popularity of yoga. In each class I’ve taken in more than ten years of practice, the teacher asks us to be thankful for the privilege of being able to do yoga and for a full hour and a half we mindfully turn our attention inward.

The evolution of religion has taken us from god-fearing people who believed god was angry or happy with us based on the weather. We made ritual killings and other sacrifices to appease the gods. Later, that type of religion was considered barbaric. At another point in time, there were special priests who said that only they could speak to god and they would translate for us. Later, we came to regard that type of religion as elitist and a way to control the people. The Jews suggested that people could speak directly to god, that we didn’t need priests, and they were banished for it. Now, people gather in churches or pray in groups or home alone, believing that god is listening. Bill Maher says, isn’t it ridiculous to think there’s a guy somewhere listening to all of us murmur about our lives?

We’re certainly getting closer to the truth but I say, isn’t it time for another evolution? One in which we finally turn our focus inward and stop talking to an external god. Let us be released from the bondage of our collective insanity and recognize the life force in all of us. We are part of a whole that is much bigger than ourselves. We’re like the blood cells in a body sitting around trying to figure out how we got there and what we’re supposed to be doing. I'm not saying we should stop seeking answers but it seems to me that science, not religion, is doing that. And for everything that scientists say they have found an answer to, hundreds more things are revealed that they don't understand. The mystery only grows with exploration. That applies to our bodies and our brains as much as our planet and our universe. We’re trying to figure out what makes the universe tick instead of simply being a part of it. We’re busy launching wars and choking the life out of on various other parts of the whole because we don’t understand ourselves. Clearly, the answers are not out there, they’re in here.

A freedom-fighting power-grabbing maverick

2008-10-03T11:28:00.000-07:00

A few thoughts on the debate last night:
1) The whole maverick thing is baffling to me. The dictionary defines a maverick as a lone dissenter, as an intellectual, an artist, or a politician, who takes an independent stand apart from his or her associates. Our current president is a maverick and look where that has landed us. McCain keeps talking about Obama's liberal voting record and wondering how he can possibly "reach across the aisle from that far left." I wonder, how does a maverick reach across the aisle? It would seem to me that a maverick doesn't give a fuck about the aisle at all, or about bridging differences. Palin said that she never compromised when she was governor, somehow things just worked out and she also said that McCain would give up nothing to accommodate the bailout plan. Both of those sound like statements made by a person who gets what they want (what THEY want) no matter what. No one likes compromising but we all know that to get anything done in politics (and in life), compromises have to be made. And with a nation as ideologically divided as we are right now, I sure don't want someone in office who is going to tell us all to fuck off while they get their way. Last but not least, let's have a chuckle over her description of herself, McCain and the rest of their camp as a "team of mavericks." Sounds like an oxymoron to me, a team of individualists? Interesting.

2) When she started the Reagan quote that "freedom is always just one generation away from extinction," it made me think about watching the mini-series John Adams, and how concerned our founders were about freedom. It's what our country was founded on, why people fought and died and why the constitution was so vital to establishing the new government. What they warned against and what our government is set up to prevent is a consolidation of power. They knew that unchecked power is the single biggest threat to freedom. We've seen that freedom eroded by the unchecked power of Bush and the most indicting examination into the record of Sarah Palin is how she has wielded power in ways that go beyond the boundaries of her office. But then she continued, saying that "We don't pass it to our children in the bloodstream" and there was something about the use of the word blood that made me think "yes, but we do pass it to them in a stream of blood." Her and McCain's rants about how we're WINNING in Iraq but those damn liberals want to pull us out waving "the white flag of surrender" before we've had a chance to really fully kick some ass made me queasy. Fighting for freedom to me means fighting against the corruption of power in our own government, not killing people thousands of miles away.

3) Speaking of power, did you catch this statement by Palin? "I'm thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chose to exert it in working with the Senate and making sure that we are supportive of the president's policies and making sure too that our president understands what our strengths are." I don't know what the last half of that is supposed to mean but holy shit, the woman's already power-grabbing and she's not even there yet! Did you see the twinkle in her eye when she said it? They're combing the constitution looking for loopholes that extend the executive branch even farther into the other branches than Bush did. God help us. She's a shark in the skin of a kindergarten teacher (with the vernacular of Ned Flanders) determined to have history remember Dick Cheney as a pussycat.

4) Last but not least, Palin said many times said government should get out of our way and let us live our lives but still believes it has the authority to deny gays the right to marriage? Actually, I was pretty dismayed that this was one of the only issues both parties agreed upon. How does shrinking the role of government and defending freedom fit into a belief that people should be denied the legal right of union? She said "Ameerican peeople" eleven times in the debate but I still don't believe for a second that she cares one iota about me. And what about her confusion between government and Wall Street? She mentioned the greed and corruption on Wall Street every time she made reference to how government has failed us. Unbelievable that she still can't make sense of the issue. You can't say you stand for smaller government and bash the players running the deregulated markets at the same time, jeez!

Biden, I think, came across like a guy just as capable as Obama of being president, who has his own opinions but is also committed to supporting Obama's agenda. He seemed comfortable and natural while Palin was running on such a high level of adrenalin, I thought she might collapse at the end of it. Did anyone else notice how red her eyes were? I guess she's probably been practicing twelve hours a day for a week and hadn't had much sleep. About half-way through, the whole thing turned into a big love-in with those two swapping comments about how much they admired and respected each other. Biden was definitely under her spell. Did you see Palin's husband hovering over her shoulder at the end when she was chatting with Biden? Hilarious! He doesn't trust her any further than he can throw her and, I'm sure, rightfully so.

Bailout or power grab?

2008-09-29T17:38:00.000-07:00

I've been swimming 2-3 times per week, trying to get back in shape. I love exercising but it doesn't happen unless I have an easy to maintain routine and for the moment I've found it. Lunchtime lap swim at the community pool. It takes me about an hour to go, swim and come back and I love swimming, I grew up swimming. One of the other joys is listening to NPR there and on the way back, even though I plan to someday ride my bike (it's about two miles). I was thinking last week about what an exciting time we're living in. For better or worse, this is truly an exciting millennium so far. It's easy to get dismayed by the widening gap in ideology, lifestyle and economic status between Americans, but at the same time, these are the conditions from which great change can come.

Every day, driving to the pool, there's someone on the radio talking about the current economic situation. Every single person has a different piece of the puzzle. There is honest-to-god debate going on. The war in Iraq has been reduced, over the years, to a couple of soundbites and a position of either being for the war, okay with torture and willing to forgo civil liberties or being against the war, not okay with torture and unwilling to forgo civil liberties. But this current crisis is fresh and this time people and are not falling for the alarm bells and just handing over the keys to the store. This morning in the New York Times, there was a graphic of the Dow falling and a headline about yet another big bank consolidation. Then, this afternoon, the Dow falls even more and is blamed on the house not passing the bailout bill.

Now I understand that the banks want this to sound confusing so that we don't really understand what's happening. It's funny because I've been watching episodes of Hercule Poirot (from BBC) every day since landing at my mom's house and I now figure out the mysteries in the first few minutes. Let's look at the facts the way Poirot would:
1) The current disaster was predicted by many people over the last several years which means that the stage was being set for a certain disaster and we can only assume, either intentionally set or intentionally not averted.
2) Several big banks fail because of years of high-risk practices that have made many people in the industry very wealthy, leaving homeowners and taxpayers, high and dry.
3) The former CEO of one of the failed banks works with the Federal Reserve (a central bank created with precisely this kind of situation in mind) to devise a plan in which the federal government bails out these failed banks. They predict a massive collapse if that does not happen.
4) Nothing is done to help or protect homeowners that are losing their homes.
4) Republicans vote against the bill and the stock market crashes at precisely that moment.

There are a couple of things about this situation that are very suspicious. Hercule Poirot, a fictional character, could himself arrive from the 1930's and ask these questions:

First, if the current disaster was predicted, why was nothing done about it? The Republicans favor deregulation and do not support government run businesses. This explains why they are voting against the bail out bill and it explains why no regulations were put in place. Their policy is to allow business to operate in a free market which means if a business fails - and that includes banks - it is not the government's job to bail them out. Poirot might speculate that nothing was done to allow certain people to get very rich. In his world, almost all crime is motivated by money.

Second, the fact that it is big banks failing – banks that indulged in risky practices – instead of an overall economic collapse seems to indicate that in fact the economy is not failing, it is just these banks that are failing. But what has their demise produced? A massive consolidation of banks, increasing their financial power. The bail out plan would further empower these banks by wiping out their bad debt and giving them a superior advantage over all the other banks that acted responsibly. And who devised this plan? The former CEO of one of these failed banks. Poirot would definitely be interviewing Henry Paulson right now.

Third, the government already bailed out several institutions, promising each time that it would stop the bleeding, but it didn't. So what are the chances that Wall Street would hang on, even performing well last week and wait until this day to crash, perfectly coinciding with the rejection of the bill? It would be easy to wonder if perhaps there are people who can pull strings to make things happen, kind of like how the gas prices rise and fall to perfectly coincide with certain political movements in this country. And if that is the case, then who is to say that this entire event isn't the product of certain strings being pulled so that it will happen this way? We all know that Bush's Iraq invasion was planned and on the table shortly after he took office. He only needed an inciting incident to put the plan in place. Couldn't it be argued that this collapse is merely an inciting incident to allow a massive consolidation of power by the banking industry?

Someone commented on the article about the Citigroup acquisition that bigger, fewer banks would be easier to regulate. Is that why it was so easy to regulate them to avoid this disaster? Let me repeat a story of how I was robbed by Bank of America. Although only $1,300, it perfectly illustrates how powerless the "little man" becomes against a big bank. In a nutshell, the money was taken from my account and BofA claimed no responsibility for it, nor did they show any interest in figuring out how it was stolen. I relentlessly campaigned to get it back and eventually did, immediately moving my account to a small credit union. In the end, it really isn't about regulation, it's about power. These banks are already incredibly powerful and have more power over our money than we do. A friend of mine wrote a very interesting blog post looking at the situation not from an economic standpoint but for what it is really is, a power grab. What do you think?

Learnin' 'bout bizness

2008-09-26T09:30:00.000-07:00

My head is spinning from the crazy headlines in the paper yesterday, not just words on the screen but actual insanity in the world. There may or may not be a presidential debate, the government just seized WaMu in the biggest bank seizure in our history, the longest-running senator in the senate (from Alaska of course!) is being prosecuted for accepting $188,000 in home renovations as a gift, the U.S. troops and Pakistan are shooting at each other, the settlers in the West Bank have decided to crank up the violence, North Korea has basically put itself back at the top of the terrorist list (in an apparent attempt to get some f'ing attention around here), and Sarah Palin has managed to make herself look ten times more clueless this week than she was last week. And yet, the thing that horrified me the most was an article about a school program, in California of all places (god help us) where teenagers get to make ads for milk.

In a time when our country is fighting a war in two countries, our economy hovers on collapse, civil liberties are being curiously erased under our noses and we're two months away from one of the most critical presidential votes in decades, our kids are being taught "business" by learning how to sell milk to each other. Goodby, the ad agency behind this stroke of genius, will undoubtedly still collect their multimillion dollar fee while the kids do their work for free. The justification for this hideous waste of the student's time is that they're learning about business even though ad people are notoriously clueless in business matters. One teacher reports that her kids were "surprised to find that the executives they met this week are in the business world but 'had no business degrees.'" The "business world"? What is that, the place where people have jobs?

The milk board doesn't have any qualms about describing what they get out of the deal. They want more teenagers to drink milk and why not use our schools as a medium to disseminate product propoganda? The executive director explains that “They are a mysterious demographic and we want to reach them with an authentic voice in an authentic way.” And teach them about business, right?

Al Gore says in his book The Assault on Reason that since the prevalence of television over reading and the radio, in this country, the national debate has ceased to exist (although is arguably on the rise via the Internet). Communication now happens in one direction, from those who have millions of dollars to the rest of us, through the television. Watching on average over four hours a day of TV, Americans are stimulating the part of the brain that experiences instead of the part that processes, evalauates and interacts. Images flashing on the TV have a cumulative effect similar to brainwashing. Eckhart Tolle says when people watch TV they're still thinking but they're thinking the thoughts of the television. In Wall-e, we saw a futuristic version of people so focused on watching a world that didn't exist that they became obsolete. At the same time, the trend in advertising is for brands to be more interactive. The article calls it a move "from a top-down lecture into a two-way conversation." So the discourse about issues like war and economics and international relations is being replaced by 30-second ads while brands are managing to create conversations about their products?

In the film, The 11th Hour, a study is referenced that found college kids could identify 1,000 corporate logos but could not name 10 plants or animals native to their area. The film's interviewees all seem to agree on one seemingly radical idea. In a recent evaluation, it was determined that the earth provides goods and services worth $35 trillion a year, yet the combined economies of the world produced only half that at $18 trillion in 2006. That means the earth is twice as valuable to us as our economies and yet, every policy decision we make is to benefit the economy, not the earth. Even if it were possible to exist without nature or replace nature with technology, it would still cost us more than we have. Here's another radical idea. Wouldn't we be better off teaching our kids about how our planet works than blurring the lines between learning and selling, education and consumerism?

The sky is falling!

2008-09-24T15:24:00.000-07:00

About a year ago, when I was taking the bus down to San Jose every morning for my job, I subscribed to The Economist to have regular reading materials. I let my 6-month subscription lapse after noticing that every issue was filled with doom and gloom. At one point, though, I was going to blog about how little economists actually know and understand about how "the economy" works. I put it in quotes because what is it really? It's like the human body in that it's more complicated than anyone even realizes. We develop drugs to treat disease but because drugs only address symptoms, they have multitudes of side effects, some so severe that it's sometimes advisable not to even take the drug. Very little in medicine is holistic in that it addresses the health of the entire ecosystem (the body). This is how I see the economy being treated right now, like it has cancer and we're just going to give it a massive dose of chemo even though chemo has drastic side effects and, depending on the health of the subject, sometimes only makes things worse.

I had saved an in-depth interview with Ben Bernanke about the levers he was pulling a year ago. There must have been over 20 quotes that basically said that no one really knows how the whole thing works. He just either turns up or turns down the volume on various dials and sees what happens. The problem, he admitted, with that approach is that it takes time to see the results so every adjustment is followed by a period of growth or decline before another adjustment can be made. Even then, it's not reliable to assume that if raising interest rates was bad then lowering them must be good because everything affects something else. In every interview on NPR lately, I keep hearing that the system is far more complex than it used to be and "we're just discovering that now." The truth, I believe, is no one knows how it works. I wish I understood it just a little, because I feel like this whole thing is being grossly mishandled.

It eerily looks like the 9/11 scenario to me. In both instances, there were many warnings that a disaster was coming and nothing was done to prevent it from happening. I've been reading articles for a couple of years now about an impending housing crisis. These people making the loans knew there was a chance that the whole thing would blow up. They knew, but they didn't care. Why should they? There were huge profits to be made and like the Enron fiasco, some people still made out like bandits while the entire company lost their jobs and savings plans. Secondly, after the disaster, instead of investigating how it happened and figuring out how to prevent it from happening again, our leadership asked to have total control without any restrictions. This is no time for asking questions, they said! Instead, they invaded two countries, locked up hundreds of people without rights, restricted our civil liberties, skirted accountability and spent billions of dollars (not on our economy and infrastructure) and seven years later, we're still fighting the "war on terror" with no end in sight. How do we know this "bailout" won't be more of the same? I can't help wonder if this constant comparison to the Great Depression isn't just a way of scaring us into making a bad decision.

I heard the plan described as basically a way for these financial institutions to unload bad debt without any scrutiny and without having to make any promises in return about how they'll conduct business in the future. These are the same companies that have previously been treated with a "hands off" approach because the government shouldn't interfere, right? This is what we always hear about how the "free market" works and how it rights itself when unrestricted. Kind of like the explanation that when left to the market, the global warming crisis will just magically right itself without any interference from the government. So why does that approach suddenly get turned on its head when these companies, unfettered, behave badly and put everyone in a bad spot? Now they expect the government to bail them out? Bush says to just fork up the cash and not give any lectures. He threatens congress with being responsible for a total collapse of the economy if they don't ask fast enough, if they stop to ask questions or make demands, for instance. And yet no one's asking the question that should be asked which is why it's so difficult to afford a house in the first place.

There has been some speculation that Wall Street should just take the hit. People say that this could go on for much longer than we think. Bailout after bailout after bailout. Has anyone actually done an analysis on the long-term effects of this approach? Certainly, a parent could tell you that bad behavior that goes unpunished, and in fact rewarded, only encourages more bad behavior. Wasn't this the argument when last year, the government made it more difficult for individuals to file for bankruptcy? Why should it be easier for financial institutions to be bailed out while the executives make out with salaries of $10 million and more? Oh no, though, they say this is all for the taxpayer. It's to protect us from total disaster. But don't ask how it works.

Building a more secure world, with guns

2008-09-18T13:49:00.000-07:00

The industrial war machine is one of those things that the people in power like to say is too complicated for us, mere citizens of the world, to understand. I've heard that wars boost the economy, or at least that's what we're told in the U.S., although I imagine it only works if your country is involved in a war elsewhere. War on a nation's own soil doesn't seem to boost anything except the death toll. The U.S. had made it a special kind of a habit to be continuously involved in a war somewhere, anywhere but here.

Our country has been at war with one country or another since its inception with only short 5,10 or 15 year breaks, not including all the covert activities. In fact, the longest period of "peace" was after the Civil War, probably only because we were too broke and had too few young men to fight anyone. Not since the Civil War has there been war waged against the U.S., which probably makes us one of safest countries on the planet. We've never been invaded and yet our military spending far exceeds that of any other country. The entire world spent $1.2 trillion last year and the U.S. accounted for almost half of that. Apparently, though, we're so rich that it doesn't even constitute 4% of our GDP, putting us pretty low on the list of spending as a percentage of GDP. North Korea tops that list at a whopping 22%, yikes!

In the last two years, the U.S. has tripled the number of tanks, helicopters, missiles, jets and warships sold to the international community. At about $32 billion (so far this year), it's still just a drop in the bucket compared to the $583 billion we're spending, but likely represents quite a hike for the buyers. The biggest sales were to Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Iraq and Pakistan. The Pentagon says the deals are to solidify relationships and make the world safer. We can only assume the arms to Afghanistan are to help fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda but 2008 has been the deadliest year yet for U.S. troops there. We've already lost more soldiers this year than all of last year so the proliferation of weapons doesn't appear to making anyone safer. (Poor Australia has probably had to stock up because they're sitting next to Indonesia, which is now a terrorist hot spot.)

Just as I don't believe violence as a strategy leads to peace, it's also hard to believe that having more weapons in the world makes it a safer place. Even a child could figure that one out. It does, however, seem to ensure that there is always a war going on. It would be difficult to wage war on your neighbors without weaponry. Selling our technology to other countries also ensures the need to keep innovating better weapons, to stay ahead of the curve, thus keeping the war machine alive. We have managed to lose far less soldiers in each war but the death toll remains frighteningly high for those whose country we occupy. The U.S. does not keep that count and the whole world is trying to figure out how many Iraqis have died since the invasion. The figures inhabit a terrifying range of 90,000 to 1.5 million civilians and combatants. The Bush administration maintains the lowest number, of course. "Every other source, from the WHO to the surveys of Iraqi households, puts the average well above the Saddam-era figure" of 29,000 per year making our occupation more dangerous than Saddam's.

This latest round of wars, however, are different for the U.S. than previous ones. For one thing, we don't really know who the enemy is which makes it difficult to determine whether we're succeeding to defeat that enemy. Especially as this new kind of war seems to generate a steady supply of new enemies as it progresses; more effective war insurance! Another difference is the number of people who die from non-combat related causes. I just read that 16 soldiers were electrocuted to death because of faulty wiring in their living quarters. One while taking a shower, another while washing the humvee! The contractor responsible, KBR of Houston, who I have no doubt is boosting our economy, was paid "despite the problems, and was hired as recently as 2007 to repair its own faulty electrical work." Finally, because of the duration of the war and the relatively low death toll, most of young men and women are coming home and are physically handicapped and/or mentally damaged. What will be the long-term effect on that generation?

How do we know that the weapons we're selling to those countries will not fall into enemy hands and be used against us? How many times have we supported governments that have later become our enemies? We all know the story of how Osama Bin Laden came to power in the aftermath of being trained by the U.S. as a rebel to fight the Soviet invasion. Haven't we learned that lesson yet? It seems like the best way to defeat an enemy would be to disarm them by stopping the flow of weapons in their direction. Is that not something the international community is capable of?

No, apparently not. Russia and other European countries are also vying for big ticket sales to India and Brazil. In addition to the numbers above for "sophisticated" weapons, the U.S. also sells less sophisticated weapons and those numbers are already $96 billion this year, up from $58 billion in 2005. Then, added to that is the $4.5 billion in aid given to countries to buy weapons (presumably from us) and doesn't include the weapons we give away. According to this article, "The United States has long been the top arms supplier to the world. In the past several years, however, the list of nations that rely on the United States as a primary source of major weapons systems has greatly expanded." Expanded? Clearly, the world is buying because we're selling, not the other way around.

Again, I ask: Isn't it possible that the world would be safer if the U.S. didn't sell weapons to everyone else? It seems that we are in a unique position to stem the flow but the response from the Pentagon is if they don't buy from us, they'll buy from someone else. But countries are buying from us because we make the best and because we're selling. And what exactly would be the harm in the arms being bought from someone else? I would love to know. I think Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said it best when he told a congressional committee Wednesday that the U.S. is "running out of time" to win the war in Afghanistan. "We can't kill our way to victory," he said, "and no armed force anywhere, no matter how good, can deliver these keys alone. It requires teamwork and cooperation."

No worse than the other guy

2008-09-17T12:30:00.000-07:00

Sunday morning, someone asked me if I'd read the front-page article about Sarah Palin in the New York Times. "It read like an op-ed piece," she said, "not like a serious news article." Curious, I went home and read it, a five-page “expose” on Palin’s dealings with colleagues as gathered from "60 Democrats and Republicans." I didn't think it was very interesting, frankly, and it only confirmed what I already thought: This woman is not a contender for our highest office. (Although now she is reminding me more of Nicole Kidman's character in To Die For than Dolores Umbridge.)

What I found more interesting than the article, though, were the 1,051 comments (before commenting was closed). There were three types of responses. Those from people who already didn't like Palin and this just confirmed it, those who weren't sure what to think and are now horrified and those who think Palin is unjustly being crucified by the liberal press. The last category is of the most interest to me because it exposes the questions.

Some people simply cannot tolerate the ugliness of politics and I am one of those people so I understand that they may feel compelled to stick up for the person they feel is being picked on. But Sarah Palin seems to be a bully in every sense of the word, not someone to feel sorry for. It is precisely seen as one of her strengths, like it was for Hilary Clinton, a woman who can fight with the men. Then there are those who say the article is just a gossip piece and scoff at the Times for spending so many resources to only come up with this. I have to agree with this although I’m inclined to believe it’s because Palin doesn’t have much to offer but gossip. Mayor of a town only twice as large as my high school and governor of a state the size of the county I grew up in, it’s hard to believe she has much substantive experience to really dig into.

This isn't a news story, just a waste bin of mindless small town gossip. You could write a story like this about every mayor in America.
— White River, Arkansas

I'd love to point to Mayor Villairagosa in Los Angeles who has tackled issues the magnitude of which are actually comparable to those of a higher office. But what I find most troubling is the pervasive belief that all politicians are corrupt. An alarming number of comments sarcastically feign horror at a politician who "hires friends" and "fires enemies" and so in that regard, she is no different than Obama.

I am a registered Democrat and don't see Palin as being any more or less qualified than Obama. They both have huge experience holes. I do believe that the transcendent issue of our time is ENERGY. She seems to be the only person in the group of four who understands how to truly produce more energy.
— Bill, Pennsylvania

Sarah Palin is no worse than anyone on the other side. In fact, I think she may be better. So I will vote McCain with her on the ticket.
— Roy Pendergraft, San Antonio, Texas

Do you think your favorite Democrats are different or better???
— S charles, Northern, NJ

I actually interpreted what was being questioned is how one comes to BE labeled a friend or an enemy, not whether it makes sense to hire friends and fire enemies. Can you imagine the new ads for McCain/Palin: "No worse than the other guy, maybe even better." I suppose it is naïve of me to expect something better from the President but I don’t intend to simply relinquish the standards of our government laid down by our constitution because “that’s just the way people are" and refuse to believe that this type is behavior is required in our current government.

Well it appears that Palin runs a very tight ship. I am not at all surprised about the findings in this article. I am a teacher and my previous school underwent a change of guard in my last year. When the new principal came in she brought new cronies, new policies, and singled out her favorite teachers. Some of the teachers deserved the accolades and some didn't. Some policies were absurd, some weren't. Most of the cronies were incompetent.

The bottom line is that business is not as professional as anyone would like to make it seem. Especially in the government. Taxpayer money is the easiest checkbook to throw around. I'm not letting Palin off the hook, I'm just not surprised. A lot of people get jobs because they "know" somebody.

I'm sure we have all been victims of workplace unfairness at some point or other. I'm sure most of us have even participated in it. Most of this behavior is human nature. Do I think Palin will act any differently if elected to the White House? No. Do I think that she will be the first president or vice-president to use her power to get back at people? No again. I don't want Palin in office at all. But this article isn't making me like her any less. I'm more concerned about her policies.
— Toussaint, NY

While I agree that corruption is not a new idea, it’s certainly not ideal. We’re supposed to have a choice here! Are we not? And while I’ve been in really frustrating and annoying work situations where incompetent people were rewarded, good ideas were shot down and people played dirty, I fought them. I didn’t just say “that’s the way it is” and go about my business. To my detriment, perhaps, but I didn’t vote those people into their positions and the future of our country was not at stake. To compare the Vice Presidency to a teacher’s job or my marketing job is a joke. To say that it doesn’t matter how she behaves only what she produces is also absurd. I learned first hand that no matter how good a person’s direction, it is meaningless if we cannot learn to achieve these things in a way that is respectful and that builds roads and bridges to more progress.

Several readers suggest that the Times has yet to do such in-depth reporting on Obama, because surely they would find the same kind of gossip about him. Some simply dismiss the Times as pro-Obama and say they "will do anything to make this woman look bad." Two readers end by saying "no wonder your stock is tanking" and "look at your revenues," suggesting that the paper is going bankrupt because of their unfair reporting. Isn't it contradictory to accuse the paper of being biased and then making reference to their financial status? If fairness were truly the bottom line, their finances wouldn't matter.

It is nice but who is reading your paper, only the people who would rather vote for a pig than for a Republican. Have you ever done such a lengthy research on Obama's record?
— Igor Dolgachev, Ann Arbor, MI

I look forward to seeing similar in depth investigation of Joe Biden and, for that matter, Barack Obama.
— Dennis from the Bronx, NYS

You know there are times when I really feel like just saying goodbye to the NYT! You cannot simultaneously deride her lack of experience and also meticulously cut up her record. I am not saying that she is the most experienced but I have never read an article like this as critical of Obama or excoriating him like you did Palin. Your bias is so clear it is despicable.
— tom, Bronxville, new york

i will donate $1,000.xx to the charity of JO BECKER, PETER S. GOODMAN AND MICHAEL POWELL's collective choice if they can point me to a New York Times story in the last twelve months similar in tone, depth, length and quotes from critics about either Senator Obama or Senator Biden.
— michael schrage, cambridge

Clearly, it isn't more in-depth articles people want, they just want the bashing to be even. Don't make Sarah Palin look bad if you aren't going to equally discredit the other candidates. Is it really our desire to see all of our candidates dragged in the mud until it’s impossible to believe in a leader that we can respect? It's funny because I doubt these people are as upset about McCain bashing Obama because that's just fair politics for one candidate to trash and lie about another. I, for one, am more upset about our presidential candidates engaging in this type of behavior than I am the press. The press has always been inflammatory. I might be wrong but I thought it was their role to ask the brazen questions and uncover the truth, not to present a fairly balanced scorecard of all candidates with equal amounts of ugly and pretty. Our candidates, however, are supposed to convince us why we should vote for them. It is NOT their job to slander the other candidates.

In another article about the investigation into a firing by Sarah Palin that several Republicans are suing to halt, one of the attorneys says:
"There is no nonpartisan reason to complete this investigation until after the election," said Anchorage attorney Kevin G. Clarkson. "We just want to take the politics out of it and bring fairness back into it."

Good lord! It's no wonder the public is so confused, these people can't stop talking out of both sides of their mouths! They want the investigation to stop because they think it's going to unfairly affect the election? But they ALSO think it's somehow totally unrelated and the public doesn't need to know the truth about her until AFTER the election? I am sickened by the ever-present reference that politics is inherently dirty and, according to the above quote, the OPPOSITE of fair. It seems to confirm that people really believe there is no difference between any candidate, they’re all corrupt egomaniacs, so it really is a mere popularity contest. If it doesn't matter what a person stands for and what they've actually accomplished, it only comes down to is whether you personally think they're neat. Which is so interesting in light of McCain's claim that the Obama supporters are just a bunch of glassy-eyed sycophants, implying that his supporters are meat-and-potatoes issues people. From the fainting spells the Republicans are having over Palin I'd say the opposite is true, but of course she wasn't in the picture then.

I just watched the Sarah Palin special on CNN: sorry, but I can't see anything wrong or that would disturb me - seems to be just a fine woman, and with a spine! So would you please stop bashing her now?
— Richard Streiff, California

I agree. I’m tired of hearing about her! On another note, I caught a little speech by Jill Biden who comes across as a truly lovely person — genuine, likeable and intelligent. She is the perfect antidote to all this ugliness.

Stretching for peace

2008-09-11T22:08:00.000-07:00

I found myself in a yoga class tonight, here in the suburbs, and it occurred to me that I've been in a yoga class every September 11 since 2001. I think unconsciously I gravitate towards a place, towards people, that I know are peace-loving. It's a funny term, given Bush's constant use of "freedom haters" and "freedom lovers" when he should have been talking about peace. Freedom doesn't mean much when people are killing and dying for it. Anyway, I find it interesting that yoga is always the same. In every country, in every town, a yoga class is always about finding inner peace and radiating it out to the world. Yoga has become one of the largest counter-culture communities in a world that prefers war and violence to peace and love. It is amazing web of individuals who travel all over the world spreading that message of love and peace. Even if the towns are different from one another, within the walls of a yoga class, everyone is the same. A woman in the class had on a shirt that said "My religion is simple, my religion is kindness." Her husband's shirt simply said "peace." It was exactly the place to be on this day.

Just as the past seven years have been, the week was filled with irony as "In three reports delivered to Congress on Wednesday, the department’s inspector general, Earl E. Devaney, found wrongdoing by a dozen current and former employees of the Minerals Management Service, which collects about $10 billion in royalties annually and is one of the government’s largest sources of revenue other than taxes." Whoa, the second largest source of revenue? Who knew that? I certainly didn't. It sheds quite another light on the idea that this country is addicted to oil. Even more ironic is our pal Palin's comment in an interview tonight that she is ready to lead and in fact, ready to be president! She says "“You have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we’re on, reform of this country and victory in the war.” What kind of reform is she talking about I wonder. Moral reform? I think that's the platform George W. Bush rode in on and look where that got us. Enron, Guantanamo, and now this, "a culture of ethical failure, a dysfunctional organization that has been riddled with conflicts of interest, unprofessional behavior and a free-for-all atmosphere for much of the Bush administration’s watch."

Reports describe government employees taking gifts and accepting vacations, having sex with and taking drugs with oil company employees. Sounds fun! All this while taking in the second largest haul for the government. Suddenly people are wondering if pushing for offshore drilling is such a hot idea and Palin's talking about drilling in Alaska. This is one of those stories that makes me think, finally, people will hear the truth. Finally, people will see what a mess Bush has made. Palin called them "blunders" as if someone tripped over the dog or spilled milk. I wouldn't describe what's happened in our country for the last seven years as a series of blunders, I'd call it a culture of ethical failure.

Back to school

2008-09-10T13:37:00.000-07:00

It's well into September already and I only posted three measly times last month, my all time low. I intend, this month, to get back on track. It's so hard to do. Everything worth doing has be done all the time: eating healthy, exercise, loving your friends/partner/family, forgiving yourself, writing and even gardening. Without practice and dedicated attention, these things wither - body, relationships, mental health, passion and the plants. I'm settled now, for the time being, in the suburbs. I have a one bedroom apartment to myself and although it's quite nice, I'm still very aware of not wanting to get comfortable, or maybe to not get too used to not having to work. What if making a living is like those other things and without practice I will cease to do it?

The suburbs are dreadful and even my mother thinks so. She's here because of me. In 1980, my parents got jobs in this area and bought a house in the place they could afford that was also a good area to raise kids. Many of the parents of the kids I went to school with left when the kids graduated. The others, like my mom, still work for the Navy and have to stay until they retire. Many stay here after retirement but a lot of them are anxious to go somewhere else. The food is dreadfully average and if you ask a barista if they have organic milk, they look at you like you just vomited. It's always been Republican country but the demographic seems to have changed. People drive huge SUVs with license plates that say "LUVRKIDS," right next to a sticker of a little girl praying. Many of my friends don't believe the stories of people here chopping down mature trees and paving the front yard in order to park the boat, RV or 4-wheelers there. Every night someone buzzes by one of those "mini motorcycles" and we can hear it coming for ten minutes before it passes by. It's a concrete paradise! Some of the American flags in the yards are bigger than the one at the USA gas station.

I went to the Farmer's Market on Saturday and made a lot of new friends. It wasn't as fun as the one in San Francisco but that's to be expected. One of the vendors told me that more people are coming to these days, that it's in vogue. The checker at Trader Joe's told me more people bring their own bags these days too. So I'm encouraged by that. I brought home from the Farmer's Market, the sweetest tomatoes, the crispiest cucumbers and the tastiest chard I've ever had. I also found pastured eggs (for half as much as they are in San Fran), raw milk cheese and homemade avocado cilantro hummus (yum!). I'm going to try the yoga studio soon and check out the new pool at the community center and, yes, I'm going to blog about something interesting. I'm kind of floored over this Sarah Palin thing and still formulating what to say about her except the fact that she is Dolores Umbridge from Harry Potter. Ironic, considering that she tried to ban the Harry Potter books from the library in the town she was mayor of.

Dolores Umbridge, if you don't recall, is the woman who showed up from the Ministry of Magic in the last film and dismantled everything that was good about Hogwarts. Under the guise of spreading the truth, her main objective was to put to bed the rumors that something bad was about to happen. She took over the Dark Arts class and banned the useful books that actually taught magic and insisted that they instead study from these 1950's style books with innocuous illustrations. She took over the school and fired teachers that she didn't like and established hundreds of rules limiting the freedom of the kids, including free speech and the right to assemble. It's precisely what Sarah Palin has already done in her "leadership" positions.

Umbridge, played with delightful malice by Imelda Staunton, was adorable. She smiled and wore pink and had an office decorated with kitties but behind closed doors was not above torturing students to get to the truth. Nor was she above pitting the students against each other, turning them all in to spies, or lying to get what she wanted, kind of like what Sarah Palin did at the Republican Convention. See, most people don't really want to know the truth, they WANT to believe what they're told. You can tell them out-and-out lies and they won't look it up online to see if it's true. Even if it's later revealed to be a lie in the media, they'll chalk it up to the fact that the press is liberal (another Republican "distortion") or liars themselves.

The good news is that Dolores Umbridge was eventually sacked, after people started to believe Harry that you-know-who was back, but things got really bad before that. The bad news is that the religious right doesn't watch Harry Potter movies (magic is evil) so they won't see for themselves how dangerous Ms. Palin aka Ms. Umbridge is. Nor will their children learn the valuable lesson of how important it is to think for (and stand up for) yourself. The one thing I know most people can understand, however, is the potential for malice in politics. Just because Palin is on McCain's team, recruited to help him win, doesn't mean she's on his side. Look what happened to Kennedy! All I'm saying is that McCain should watch his back, I wouldn't trust that woman. If I were McCain, I would be sure to resist seduction by Palin and I sure wouldn't go hunting with her.

The last stretch

2008-08-14T23:10:00.000-07:00

It takes a while to get settled in a new city and I know that San Francisco could have been amazing for me if I were here doing what I loved. Now, I'm racing in fourth gear towards the finish line with a growing list of things to do before I leave. Saturday, after the usual trip to the farmer's market, I bought the most amazing cookies to support Obama from a local bake sale (and made a new friend!) Then I drove down to Santa Cruz on an absolutely gorgeous day, to pick up a good friend of mine visiting from L.A. On the way back, we actually saw the fog blowing to the coast from San Francisco and returned to a sunny city!

Over the weekend, we shot monologues for this goofy contest. We spent time in the sun in Sausalito, walking along the water and indulging in midday drinks and food, sitting by the Bay. We laid in the grass at Golden Gate Park where the flowers in the Conservatory lawn almost blinded us with their color. I got a ticket on the way home for an illegal left turn but the cop apologized profusely for having to give me a ticket. We saw the international space station while lounging in yet another park and watched it twinkling along its orbit for at least 15 minutes. Something shot off from it and went on its own trajectory, and we wondered if it was a spacecraft on a mission. Both former competitive swimmers, we watched with glee as Michael Phelps became the most decorated Olympian of all time. And we saw a fantastic film, Man On Wire, about a guy who, after eight months of plotting, illegally tightrope walked between the twin towers of the World Trade Center "for no reason."

In the last week, I pulled my fourth gray hair and wondered how long I have before plucking is no longer an option. I was passed over for the job that I talked myself out of and was proposed to by a toll booth operator on the Bay Bridge. An interesting combination of events! I have a string of visitors, finally making it up from L.A. before I leave. Tomorrow I'll be volunteering with one at a community supported kitchen (CSK) - they make fresh, local, healthy food and deliver it to your door - and then attending a Full Moon Feast on Saturday.

I'm also volunteering for a number of projects that are more interesting than any I'm usually paid to do. Yesterday, I interviewed an autistic teenager who, after taking violin lessons for a year, starting reading and writing for the first time. She had a bright, sweet face and a smile that sparkled when she spoke. Inspired by her favorite band, Bôa, she finds music that she hears on TV and in movies and brings it to her lessons to learn. She's also a huge Manga fan and draws them herself, attracting her own fan club of readers. She's also an archer and has studied a bit of Japanese and is going to ask her school if she can take classes at the local college. She wants to travel to Japan after graduation. Joy and inspiration are infiltrating my life despite the hectic schedule and sore neck that accompanies it.

An artist in corporate clothing

2008-08-08T14:50:00.000-07:00

Last week I interviewed for job I'm still being considered for here in the Bay Area. It's another one of these marketing meets filmmaking type positions, that in reality is all project management with enough marketing for me to convince myself it's a creative job and enough connection to filmmaking to convince myself that it's related to what I'm really interested in. They told me that two people would be selected from this round to meet the SVP of Marketing and then the decision would be made. I got an email right away that I was one of those two.

This is the job that I gave the presentation for and had a sick feeling afterwards. I thought they were they were not enthused with my ideas, I thought they were grilling me because they didn't think I was qualified. Neither was true. I'm realizing now that everything that happens, is happening inside me. What I see on the outside is only a reflection of what's happening in my mind. It may or may not even be happening!

It occurred to me that I still didn't know why I was even continuing to interview for it. I wondered if it was because I don't like to leave things undone and I didn't want to walk away from an opportunity without understanding fully what the opportunity was. Maybe I thought if they made me a good offer, I'd stay for a little while and do my thing later. "Do my thing later?" Then I realized I didn't even know what the salary range was for this position. When the HR assistant emailed me to set up the next interview, I asked. The salary range was far below what I was expecting and what I would have asked for. Interesting.

Now, all of a sudden, it seems easier to walk away from this position. It becomes the final vote to do my own thing. But it wasn't! Somehow this threw me into an even crazier loop because it made me start to understand that it really doesn't matter whether I have a job or how much the job pays. I reviewed the benefits for the company: Three weeks vacation, over a week of holidays and the time between Christmas and New Year off, free gym and classes, free lunch twice a week, flexible work weeks, free counseling, first time home buying assistance, a $5,000 rebate if you buy a hybrid, paid jury duty and volunteer hours, discounts, free tickets, on and on and on. This is why people want to work there. This is why they can hire people who are over qualified and pay them less than they're used to getting. It's not a stepping stone to something else, this is a lifestyle.

After a talk with the HR gal, she said she could add $10k to the top end of the range and with the potential 20% bonus, it was within $8k of the low end of my range. I felt my throat clench and my stomach turn. I felt myself in danger of considering this job (that I haven't been offered yet) even as everything that came out of my mouth was meant to get them to go away. It was like when I was trying to break up with the last guy I dated: he was perfect on paper but he made my stomach turn. I decided to go to the last interview anyway, wait for the offer and then consider it. The SVP asked me very directly why I wanted the job. My answer was weird, weak and unconvincing, even to me. I couldn't think of a reason in the world why anyone would want this job. All of a sudden it made sense why they keep asking me that question.

A friend of mine asked me the same question only an hour earlier and my answer to her was honest. For this and the last three jobs I've considered, I wanted them "because of the potential that it could help my film career." That was my only answer. I couldn't believe it. How absurd! I'm too afraid to pursue what I really want so I look for it in a job. There's a part of me that wishes I could just get a job in a great company like this one, buy a house, meet a guy, get married and make a bunch of babies and friends who like to ski and camp and take trips together. As the years pass, however, more of me begins to accept that I'm just not that person. I'm an artist. I have more ideas than could ever be utilized in a job and at the end of the day, the only thing that matters to me is expressing myself. I can live without the other stuff but living a life without sharing my ideas and creating art with like minded people isn't living; it's dying a slow, comfortable death. I've spent the last three years discovering what came to me yesterday afternoon in an instant. I *don't* want that job, I never did and no one is convinced that I do, even if they see how my ideas and energy could benefit their company.

Starting my own business is also, I realize, not a means to financial independence in the usual sense. I'm not looking for a business idea that will make me rich. Living in this world of tech startups and VC capital has made me think that I probably could. I certainly have the ideas and smarts and enough talented friends to make it happen, but it isn't what I want. What I want is to make movies. That's it. Documentaries, shorts, features, low budget, big budget, webisodes, it doesn't really matter, as long as it's a film. I had a boss once who said my problem was I have "too much potential." He said that it would be hard for me to stay committed to art because I was capable of too many other things. He said that in 2002. It's true that choice can be paralyzing. It is extremely difficult to intentionally give up the earning potential of a steady career to be an artist. There's no clear path, no guarantee of success and no automatic respect in title.

When I get emails from actor friends, desperate for a job because they're flat broke, or when I hear filmmakers talking about spending everything they have on a film that didn't pay out, it scares me. This is a life of poverty and uncertainty, sometimes temporary, sometimes not. All of this time I've been accusing myself of running away from security, responsibility and commitment because I didn't have a solid career, a husband and a house. It turns out, I'm not not running away from anything, I'm just fumbling towards where I belong. The truth is, I do want those things, but not at the cost of giving up who I am.

I left my mark on this town

2008-08-05T12:03:00.000-07:00

I'm making a short documentary on a mural project sponsored by Amnesty International and got to paint one of the puzzle pieces. It was cool how a theme of love and peace evolved between the 40 or so participants, without any prompting. Most of the pieces were painted by pre-teens from various youth organization and several were painted by passerbys and the organizers of the project. Mine, lower left, says "Imagine." I wanted to do the doodle of John Lennon (by John Lennon) but forgot to look it up before I went. I painted it on a jean jacket when I was in high school!

Here's the finished mural, decorating the Tenderloin district of San Francisco. It's where all the shelters and housing for the (previously) homeless are so there are a lot of people on the street all the time down there. We got many enthusiastic comments over the course of the week of painting. "We're all connected," "Life is like a puzzle, except you never get all the pieces," and "Why are you guys making it look like it was painted by pre-schoolers?" were some of the more memorable.

Back to mother nature

2008-07-31T09:30:00.000-07:00

I know you're dying to know what will become of my garden! I haven't even had a chance to post about its progress and it's been seven weeks since I planted it. I started out with a lasagna garden but ended up hacking back the bamboo and making the garden bigger. I dug into the earth and pulled out pounds of debris - broken glass, rusted nails, old saw blades! I amended the soil with compost and manure and planted even more plants. I love digging out there, it's so relaxing.

San Francisco is chilly so my plants don't get enough consistent warmth and sun to really produce the way the seed packages promised. My mom's garden in So Cal, by comparison, runs wild and they can barely keep up. I will enjoy giving it some love and eating the fruits of my labor but will also miss my little city garden.

I returned a derelict patch of dirt filled with debris back to mother earth and there's an enormous amount of satisfaction in watching the cycle of life happening in the garden. I found this photo of what a dreary scene it was when I moved in.

I just hope that someone who loves vegetables moves in here and takes over. I won't have been here long enough to reap the full harvest of this garden:

I've been eating lettuce, arugula, fresh herbs, cilantro and radishes from it for weeks and there just might be summer squash before I hit the road.

A butterfly has been visiting me for the last week, flying around me as I water and pull weeds. It's the first time I've ever seen a beautiful creature back there and I believe it's because the garden is a happy place now. I did that.

Bohemian like me

2008-07-30T09:07:00.000-07:00

When I was a girl, I used to wish that I had the kind of family that played musical instruments and recited poetry at parties, that would sit around talking about books they'd read and travel all over the world. I imagined animals in the house. A dog running excitedly after children, barking with delight, birds twittering in a cage and a cat slinking around a chair. Eclectic people would drop by for enlightening conversation; professors and travelers, visitors from other countries. We'd have a library full of books and all kinds of instruments sitting around like telescopes. I can see it so clearly, even now. It was probably from a movie I saw.

What I didn't realize then is that I actually had a pretty eclectic family, compared to most people I knew. We grew our own food and eschewed traditional medicine. We went for long hikes and bike rides together and to museums and historical sites. We drove cross country twice. My parents took us to Europe several times. I climbed the Eiffel Tower and stayed in a French country house. We toured Neuschwanstein Castle and picnicked in the Black Forest. We drove all over England and Wales and my brother and I danced all night at The Hacienda in Manchester. At home, we didn't watch TV, instead our favorites were The Marx Brothers and Alfred Hitchcock movies. I knew movies from the sixties better than any from the eighties. Exchange students from Japan, Germany and Sweden stayed at our house for a year at a time and my best friends in school were usually from other countries.

Instead of artists or professors, though, my parents were engineers and didn't care much for the arts. My dad was strict and controlling, not the kind sympathetic father that Gidget had. My friends didn't like being at my house (no TV, no junk food!) and I wasn't allowed to stay at anyone else's house. We rarely had animals and spent years sneaking cats into the house before my dad gave up protesting. Even though my parents had friends, they rarely came over and most of them weren't the kind that belonged in my bohemian household. The elements missing were art, chaos and wacky but genuine love and affection. I still dream of that household even though I'm unmarried, have no pets and keep a pretty tidy house.

In recent weeks, however, I've noticed myself frequently commenting (to myself, of course) that I have so many cool friends! The kind of friends that I imagined dropping by my dream family's house. Max was on Charlie Rose talking about his book, Adam is making a feature and writes a biting political blog, Annmarie is educating people on native nutrition and making all of her own food from scratch, Ross' first feature premieres next month, Steve is putting investor's packages together for a soon-to-be Broadway musical and Addi plays a balloon bass in Unpopable, now available on iTunes. They have a fantastic video that really sums up that wackiness that feels like home to me. I guess it's not surprising that I've become the bohemian I always wanted to be.

Exactly what I needed

2008-07-29T09:10:00.000-07:00

Saturday, the day after I was wetting my pants over my complicated life, I got exactly what I needed: someone to challenge me. In yoga the day before, the teacher was asking us to be grateful for those people who challenge our choices, our life, our words, everything. You know who they are, sometimes our friends, our family or just people we meet in the laundromat. I had a friend coming over and she was going to spend the night on my couch. I rushed across the street to wash some sheets and towels for her impending arrival.

In the laundromat, there was a guy looking at me. He was very striking looking: Tall, white hair, tanned skin, bright blue eyes, in his 50's or 60's. I could tell by the way he was watching me that he was going to butt into my life. I quickly put my clothes in the washer and headed back home. 25 minutes later I was back to put them in the dryer. Now the man was sitting outside on a bench talking to another guy. He looked at me again, as I went inside. Oh brother! I put my clothes in the dryer and then read my National Geographic while I waited. He came in as I was checking my clothes and saw the magazine. "National Geographic? Do you get that regularly?" I said yes and he asked me if I actually read it or just looked at the pictures. It took me a minute so he told me that he was making that old joke about the naked breasts on African women. Charming. I assured him that I did, in fact, read it and that I didn't think they showed tits anymore. They must be cracking down.

As I folded my clothes, he proceeded to ask me a hundred questions about where I live, what I do for work, etc, etc. I should have kept my mouth shut but he had a nice face and sounded like John Wayne. I told him about my plan to move back to L.A. and start my own business. Next thing you know, the guy is telling me that L.A. is awful and I don't want to live there, that San Francisco is the best place on earth, that before I go I should look for a job with the city. They, apparently, give lifetime health care after you work there five years, but they're changing it soon to twenty years. "You should be buying a house," he said, "with first time homeowners, you could buy a house with $10 grand." He added I should at least try that before I ran home to live with mommy. It's funny because in the moment, I was actually interested in what he had to say. We talked about how abysmal health care is in this country and I said that I thought the government was taking plenty of our money, they just weren't spending it on the things that are important to us. I also said that I think people rely too much on "health care" instead of just being healthy.

I told him my plan is to stay healthy and not get hit by a bus. It sounded ridiculous, but then again, so did his plan. Honestly, five years as a civil servant? Could you imagine? I felt like I was dying in a corporate environment for crying out loud. Buy a house, in the Bay Area? I've been laid off twice in a year, there's no security in a job and what happens when I have that huge mortgage payment and no job? It was in the hours later that I realized I am designing my own life, my own freedom, my own security. The encounter with this stranger, who iterated all of my own counter arguments to me, in person, made me defend my plan, face my doubts and realize that I'm doing exactly the right thing for me, right now.

"Oh agony, aaa-GO-KNEEEEE!"

2008-07-25T13:59:00.000-07:00

One of the things that has always made me a really good project manager is my ability to make decisions. I can assess a situation and instantly make a call, settle a dispute or change course to accommodate bumps in the road. Other people fret and worry over minute details for weeks, flap their arms wondering what to do when something goes wrong, or just spend hours complaining about how everything is screwed up. I just say "this is what we're going to do" and it's done and everyone is happy. Yet in my own life, I find that kind of decision making to be painfully difficult. I agonize over every detail and feeling and possible outcome, I worry about potential missed opportunities and future problems and about whether making these changes makes me a quitter, a flake or just a crazy person.

So here I am, less than a week away from the day that I have to give notice to leave this apartment and I've just been scheduled for another round of interviews at one of the places I last interviewed at. I'm still being considered for the other one as well, it's just that these companies take forever to actually hire a person. Seriously, like months. It's not that I really want this job but it's thrown me for a bit of a loop. I thought I had correctly deduced that they were not that interested in me and my big ideas but maybe I was wrong. I ask myself, what does it mean that I've still got these people after me when I've decided to do my own thing?

Maybe it's a test. If I was leaving San Francisco because I was broke and couldn't find a job, then surely getting one of these would mean that I could stay. If I was going to live at home because I was hurt and disillusioned then surely still being in the running for a job that seems to embrace my thinking would make me feel compelled to stay and take the job. If, however, my conviction to start my own company is strong, and I know that it's what I want to do, then no job is going to change my mind. Maybe it's just a reminder that there will always be jobs for me. They may take longer to get sometimes and it may not be easy to find one that interests me but they are out there. If I don't succeed in this new venture, surely I won't be any less qualified than I am now. That was what I told myself when I quit my career to go act. "If at the end of it, I need a job, I can always get one." And I was right.

The truth is, I have never been more excited about a JOB than I was about the job I moved up here for and yet it never came close to fulfilling the promise that it held. It became obvious that it would never yield the results I had imagined. What are the chances that one of these jobs will? And what about what I really want to do? How long will I make myself wait to finally be brave enough to try a second time? It is very scary to try something new, it took me two years to do it the first time and, actually, about two years the second time. Certainly, it's easier to make a change when one is miserable or down and out and the glimmer of a shiny new job is just the kind of lure that could divert attention from the bigger catch.

I have a plan

2008-07-19T09:24:00.000-07:00

My friend Natalie called me yesterday, distraught. "You're leaving San Francisco?!" It was only an hour and a half after posting my blog. I had already told most of the people here and many people in Los Angeles that I was thinking about it but not everyone knew.

"Yes," I said, "but I'm moving back to L.A., I thought you'd be happy. Why are you upset?"

"Because San Francisco is just so YOU!" she said.

I laughed. "Well, San Francisco isn't going anywhere, I can come back anytime!" Of course I love it here, of course I'd love to stay but I need to make a transition right now and can't do it while I'm paying $1,885/mo. rent. It's an expensive place to live. I could live more cheaply and have roommates but I don't want to. I was willing to do that when I lived in L.A. because I was pursuing something I was passionate about. That's the problem. In order to stay, I have to get a job that pays enough to afford the lifestyle of a single person in the city and with the money running out, I don't have the luxury of time to find the right opportunity.

Today, while on this call, I realized that none of these jobs will allow me to do what I enjoy. I also understood why I keep being drawn to marketing but find myself constantly disappointed by the jobs I've had. This morning I wrote down all the aspects of marketing that I like. Amazingly, they're all the reasons that I love filmmaking! I like telling a story, creative problem solving, collaboration and tapping into something that is meaningful to people. I love organizing information, research, using logic and intuition to come up with a strategy, testing my theories, seeing them work and making them better. No job is going to let me do all that. Even if companies SAY they want a person to do those things, in reality the job will be waiting for projects to start or be approved, fighting to keep a project from being ruined by the short-sightedness of other people, maintaining the lame status quo, putting together Powerpoint presentations that fabricate the effectiveness of the project or spending money in useless but high-profile ways.

See, I want to make an impact. The reason I like volunteering is because the people I'm working for need me. They WANT strategic marketing and they're willing to let me do what I'm good at. The fact is, I assured Natalie, I have a plan. I'm launching a company that provides a service to small businesses that will make a real and immediate impact for a relatively low cost. This is a simple, down-to-earth idea that provides a necessity. No bullshit, no fluff, no ego, or waste of time and money for something "cool" that means nothing. This is a company that I'm uniquely qualified to run, working for companies that I feel passionate about. I'm so excited about it. It started to come to me over the last few months when I found myself pitching and selling this idea in my interviews, more effectively than I was selling myself! While on the phone with Natalie, it all came pouring out of me, clear as day. Of course! I even thought, maybe I should write a book about it: "My year at mom's."

It's official

2008-07-18T10:09:00.000-07:00

This has been a difficult blog post to write. After three weeks of deliberation and two weeks of drafts on this post, I've decided to leave to San Francisco. There are so many things about this city that I love, I am very sad to leave it. It's a culturally vibrant, cosmopolitan city with liberal sensibilities, incredible food and a kick-ass public transit system. Masses of people commute by bicycle. On every doorstep there are plants in pots: exotic flowers, fruit trees, vegetables and even grapevines!

I remember a friend of mine who bought a house in Silverlake, Los Angeles, and within a few days, the potted plants she put on her porch were stolen. In San Francisco, the streets are clean, Europeans love to visit it, the air is fresh and it's surrounded by the ocean, a bay, mountains and redwood forests. Yes, I will miss it. I will miss my local farmer's market, walking to visit my friend Sharon in Hayes Valley, eating amazing food in little hole-in-the-wall restaurants like the vegetarian Japanese place Cha-Ya, getting to museums downtown in twenty minutes on the BART, picking up my freshly roasted and freshly ground coffee at Ritual Coffee and the cute boys who ride by on bicycles. The only things I won't miss are the fire trucks that scream by my apartment five times a day and freezing year-round.

A year ago, when I left L.A., I was contemplating the same decision I'm making now. I was unemployed and looking for a job. I didn't want any of the jobs I was qualified for and didn't even want most the ones I wasn't qualified for. I wondered what was wrong with me. Was I afraid? Lazy? Unambitious? The fact is, I had stopped pursuing acting, something I spent five years on, but didn't really have the opportunity to figure out what was next. What was next? Now, a year later, I'm fighting the same problem. I've been out of work for over three months. I've applied for jobs, I've worked my contacts, I've finessed the resume, I've gone to interviews and prepared presentations but still at the end of the day, I know that I'm not working very hard for it. I don't REALLY want these jobs and more and more I feel my life slipping away.

If I have a job, it's not that difficult to keep on keepin' on and just do the job. In fact, I care about my work, I enjoy work and I don't have a problem getting up and going but being out of work suddenly challenges me. Devoting a day to pursuing a job I don't want is ten times more difficult than just doing the job I don't want. Instead my interests have taken over and I've found the bulk of my time being spent planting a garden, taking photos, making a music video with a collaborator, making a video for Amnesty International, writing copy and developing strategy for a non-profit, volunteering for Taproot, uploading my video clips to YouTube and watching documentaries on Netflix. It turns out, I enjoy marketing much more when I'm volunteering my time. Why? Because it's my time to give, no one owns me.

I know that I am one of the privileged of the world, a person who has choices. Even when I've felt myself under stress, confused and sometimes depressed, I still know that I am happier, more optimistic and more capable than so many other people. At times, I have let the guilt of wanting more keep me from being what I want, from doing what I want. It has always been easy for me to say what I don't want. Maybe it's a because my father was controlling but I could always say "no": quit, leave, break up and take off, anytime. Embarking on a path towards doing something though, saying "yes" has always been extremely difficult. So that's where I am now. It's not the leaving that I'm afraid of, it's what comes after.

The truth is, I'm afraid. Afraid of not knowing what I want, afraid of failing to achieve what I want, afraid of disappointing the people I love, afraid of wasting my life. It's taken me several years to come to this decision, a decision to figure out what's next. What can I put my heart towards that will sustain me, financially and emotionally? That is the question I am embarking on a journey to answer. For the time being, I will move in with my mom. I'll stay with her as long as I need to find my path, launch a business, make a film, write a script or whatever it is I'm meant to do. I will reconcile myself to the fact that I'll be living at home with mom when I got to my 20th high school reunion later this year. I have to let go of my pride, banish fear and embrace my own potential. That journey begins now.

I just finished watching the first season of Mad Men and there's a great quote by Peggy, the secretary who finds herself taking on a career as a copywriter, something unheard for a woman in the ad world. She's on a date with a boy from "back home" and when he snips that "those people" in Manhattan aren't better than us she says: “Those people in Manhattan? “They are better than us. They want things they haven’t seen.”

How do you say Paul in Chinglish?

2008-07-17T09:36:00.000-07:00

When I was in England, my relatives were constantly correcting my and my mother's English. It was really annoying; it's not like these people are speaking the Queen's English, they're just regular folk with their own accents and mispronunciations. Finally I said to my cousin, "Isn't it weird? It's almost like we're from another country!" I mean, get over it. You speak your English and we speak ours. I know in theory there has to be a "right way" that we all aspire to but American English is a recognized language.

Eventually, I figured we were in their country and we can make an effort to say things the way they do. We didn't ask anyone where the restroom or the bathroom but every one of my relatives brought it up anyway. "RESTroom?" they'd say, "who's doing any RESTING in there?" "BATHroom? How ridiculous, there's no BATH in there!" Yes, we'd say, shaking our heads in agreement at how stupid our language (and presumably, our country) is, "I know." Forget trying to explain that for whatever reason, in America we don't like to talk about the toilet because we consider it to be dirty and disgusting and it's much more polite, say at dinner, to ask the waiter where the restroom is. Come to think of it, it used to be called a washroom which might be more accurate. The difference, of course, is that in England, the toilets in the old houses were in their own room (hence, the water closet or WC) and the sink is in the same room as the shower. But I digress.

I was ready to forgive them for making me feel like I don't have the right to my own language when, while at my hair salon, I had a similar interaction with a Brit here in San Francisco. While I was paying, a guy came in. My hairdresser, looking at the appointment book, asked him how to pronounce his name.

"Paul," he replied.

"Oh, it says B-A-U-L in the book!" she said and we both laughed.

I remembered a good friend of mine named Paul who once complained about having such a common name and I lightly remarked, "I bet that's never happened before!"

"Actually," he said, "only about four times per day."

Huh? You see, British Paul refuses to pronounce his name is a way that any American would understand.

"Oh," I said, because you say "Paul" (pronouncing his name in my best British accent).

"Paul" he replied, correcting me.

"That's what I said."

"No," he said without a shred of humor, "it isn't."

Unbelievable! This guy would rather walk around his life in San Francisco with a stick up his ass about his name, correcting all of us stupid and ignorant Americans who can't speak, than just have a friendly interaction with a couple of nice and (actually) interesting women. I thought it about it all the way home. My name is French but I've never insisted that people pronounce it so. I don't particularly want it truncated but that's a different story. When I go to Italy, I introduce myself as "An-JEL-ica." To Spanish speakers, even in the U.S., I'm happy to be called "An-HELL-ica." Some Europeans pronounce it the French way and I love that. I see nothing wrong with people changing it to suit their language, especially in their own country.

Would Paul chastise people in Italy if they called him Paolo? Or in Spain for calling him Pablo? Or is it just because we speak English here that he thinks we should pronounce it HIS way, the ENGLISH way, the CORRECT way? I find it hard to believe that even in England, everyone would say it to his satisfaction. And what about in Australia? Same story or is it just us Americans that they are so disgusted with? According to a YouGov poll for the Daily Telegraph in May, 35% of the British think the United States is a "force for evil." I suppose because of our president's bad speech, they assume the two go hand in hand. I wonder how they'll feel in 2020 when, according to Wired, only 15% of English speakers will be native to the language. The Chinese are quickly eclipsing the rest of the world in English speakers and are inventing their own version of it as we speak. I'd love to be a fly on the wall when Paul gets his English corrected by a Chinese non-native speaker!

Beauty products you can eat

2008-07-16T09:29:00.000-07:00

I just got my hair cut, and yes it's super short again. I let it grow for three months, hoping to retain some length, but no one does what I want them to. This lady cut it and it looked cute and still didn't look too short. Then she shampooed it and brought me back and let it dry. She put product in it, I liked it! Then she showed me the back but the whole time I was looking in the mirror she was chopping away at the front! Then she used the blow dryer to get the pieces off. It was starting to look short but I thought she was done. Nope, snipping away at the sides at the speed of light, she asked me what I thought of the back. More product. More snipping! By the time I was done, it was only slightly less short than the last time. I guess I won't bother waiting three months next time.

Anyway, she washed my hair with shampoo and used styling product from this new line of beauty products, John Masters Organics. The packaging is biodegradable yet stylish and the products have enticing names and delicious smells. Everything is edible and organic and produced in an environmentally friendly and human friendly way. I love the way they made my hair look and feel and they have absolutely no chemicals! For salon quality products, they're really reasonably priced and much better than Aveda, whose products I never liked and were never all natural. He makes pet products too, endorsed by PETA if you can believe it. Check out his mission statement and video.

See, if you eat chemicals, your body has an army of protections working to save you before they reaches your bloodstream. When you put products on your skin and lips and hair, the chemicals in those products soak right into your bloodstream. It's more dangerous to put chemicals ON your body than it is to put them IN your body yet the FDA has much more lenient restrictions chemicals in beauty products than they do for our food. My friend blogged about this and mentioned a company called Terressentials, which I haven't tried. Either way, not only it is much better for us to stop polluting our bodies with chemicals, when you shower those chemicals go down the drain and into our water supply passing them on for someone else to drink or shower with.

Who cares what I have to say

2008-07-15T10:03:00.000-07:00

Last time I talked to my dad, I was recapping the last round of interviews I've had. I told him about the one company, looking to me to run an established film festival, that asked me to make a presentation of ideas. I spent three days on it, and it was twice as long as they'd asked for but I had done an incredible amount of research and thinking about this brand. I had something to say and I was really excited about it. My presentation was totally positive, enthusiastic and I spoke as a representative of the brand. I stated my excitement for the festival and the brand throughout.

This was the second meeting but the first was a phone interview, with the woman who would be my boss. She was there with an HR gal and a "half person" that supports the role. I got the feeling throughout the presentation that they weren't impressed, or more that they just weren't responding at all, like maybe they didn't get it. It was a pretty big idea. Basically I said that they had enough reach, they'd already done a lot of the things I thought of. Their problem isn’t exposure; it's their message. The tagline is limiting and uninspired, their pitch doesn't do the festival justice and the website was not a destination that communicated the uniqueness of this event. I presented a number of solutions and that would take their brand (and festival) to the next level.

This is a presentation I could have charged a lot of money for if I was a strategic consultant. Yet at the end, I got blank faces and dumb questions that had already been asked or just seemed irrelevant after showing them how uniquely interested and qualified I was for this job. "Why do you want to work here?" "Why do you think you're a good fit for this job?" "How would you expand the festival?" I had already said expansion is not the problem; that they aren't expanding because their story is too hard to tell. I said, make it a fun and easy story and people will tell it for you. Bloggers will write about it, people will tell their friends.

That's when the HR lady asked me how, when there were SO many blogs, could I possibly choose which ones to target? I don't know why that struck me as a particularly stupid question. Maybe because it was coming from the HR gal who later told me she used to teach classes at the company gym before getting into human resources. Or maybe because it epitomized the point that they were missing. I was talking big picture and a holistic approach where you change something that will affect everything. What they wanted was logistics. Some magical formula for selling tickets. Like buying a third-party email list, printing posters to put in coffee shops, handing out postcards at Whole Foods, or buying those flags that hang from the lampposts on major streets. Is that what they wanted from me? I think it is.

Anyway, while telling my dad this story, he suddenly says "I don't even know what a blog is. It's just someone's opinion right?" Before I can even answer he continues on this opinionated rant. He says there's a guy on the finance channel that's always talking about his blog, someone he obviously doesn't like. "What makes a person so egotistical that they think their opinion is so important? Do they really think people want to read what they have to say?" Then, even more disturbing, he said something about how if it was really important, it would be on the TV. He completely misses the point that the Internet is by the people, for the people and the TV is run by the corporations for the people who are too dumb to know otherwise.

It was so shocking. I mean, he was so upset about something he doesn't even understand. Which is probably the point. He's looking for a job right now too. He's been independent for ten years but with the economy slowing down thought he'd be better off with a job. It's not going well for him either. Hearing his daughter talk about things he doesn't know about probably makes him insecure about his age and looking for a job after being out of the loop. Knowing that the whole world is blogging is probably upsetting. It made me grateful that I never told him about this one. I never wanted to argue about post he read, some topic I wouldn't choose to talk with him about. He also comes from a generation of people that don't talk about themselves.

Calmly, I explained that a blog was like a diary, or could be more like a book or a column in a magazine. I gave him examples: a mother wanting to share the details of bringing up her children for other mothers, or for family and friends to follow along; a lady who grows a garden in the Bay Area and records her trials and tribulations, photos of what she's growing and maybe even what she's cooking with her harvest. I couldn't tell him that people harass me if I don't keep up the blog regularly and that people really do want to hear what I have to say.

Then I told him that he could keep a blog. A diary of his progress in building houses. He could share things that he's learned only after building his third house, tricks of the trade, and establish himself as an expert. I said that people are very interested in getting information from someone they can identify with, not just some guy on the TV. He was very quiet and shook his head a little. He might even have been thinking that I had a good point about starting a blog. I'm going to send him a few examples and the Blogger link to get started. I really think he'd take to it like a duck to water.

Crazy about Wall-E

2008-07-14T09:00:00.000-07:00

Over a couple bottles of Cherry Lambic the other night, two friends and I had a serious discussion about WALL-E. Every since I saw the 15 second teaser for the film, I've been driving by billboards saying "Waa-AH-lee!" My friend who is a designer loved the beautiful simplicity of Eve; her elegant shape, articulated hands and Japanese inspired eye expressions. She remarked on the fact that Eve is the first woman, the character is shaped like an egg and she puts the plant, a living being, inside of her. Our male friend wondered why Eve was so focused on her directive while Wall-E abandoned his the moment she arrived and never went back to it. We wondered if it was because he had outlived all the other Wall-Es and had seen the futility of his work. Or because he was just a much older robot who realized there were more important things in life than work. Eve, on the other hand, is young and eager to please. She doesn't even know she can defy her directive until the second or third time it threatens to overtake her consciousness.

My dad, a week ago, remarked on the statement it makes about the uselessness of what we do for "work" on this planet and how what's truly meaningful in this world is our interactions with other people, and love. We chatted about the comment it makes on how we've cut ourselves off from those interactions in our roles as consumers of product and entertainment. I couldn't help thinking it probably will take us destroying the planet, 700 years and a couple of robots to finally realize how incredible and beautiful life (other than us) on this planet is. But will we really just be able to come back and start over?

I saw it as a film about a character who has a simple dream, and even in the complete absence of possibility that it will ever come true, continues to dream it. The dream, I venture to guess, is what made him live longer than all the other Wall-Es. It's what makes him special. When an opportunity arrives for him to fulfill his dream, he seizes it and he never lets go. He doesn't look back and never questions his mission. He just, with blind and enduring passion, follows that dream. Eventually, Eve decides that she wants it too and must make her own sacrifice to have it. No matter how you slice it, it's a special film, like so many of the Pixar movies.

I rented the silent film, The General, after my dad suggested that Wall-E was similar to Buster Keaton. I don't really see the resemblance in the character but the story, of a man who continues to pursue something even when the odds are stacked against him, is very like Wall-E. I like the idea, though, that the character of a robot who doesn't speak and doesn't look human, would communicate the way a silent film actor does. My friends and I said that we loved the way that through one word, said in dozens of different ways, Wall-E's emotions are brought to life. After the Lambic, we walked home saying "Eee-EEE-vah?" and "Waa-AH-lee" and giggling like little kids. Then we saw a bus stop with a poster of the movie and took pictures of it. When can you remember seeing a movie that provoked both serious discussion and childlike glee?

This is what I love about San Francisco

2008-07-12T15:09:00.000-07:00

Today, some friends and I hit five sidewalk sales while walking off our brunch. We didn't have to park the car because we were on foot and all five sales were within a few blocks of each other. None of them were hosted by flea-market professionals disguised as regular people, there were no customers scooping up all the good stuff in the first hour to resell at their swanky overpriced vintage store, and everyone was nice and gave us things for free or for cheaper than they were listed, just because. This is the cool, fun bounty I brought home for a total of $35 and a relaxing afternoon:

Wicker basket $2
Lucky Brand scarf $1
1950's Gund Woolie Lammi $10
Brass bell $1.50
Painted wood frame $1
Vintage rabbit tapestry $7
Gold metal Italian bag $2
1976 series "Children of the World" mug $1
Two neckscarves $1.50
Four Cerve Italian glasses $8

Five years and no pay day

2008-07-11T09:00:00.000-07:00

The writer of my short film has just had his first feature made. He almost got screwed out of a credit and had to take the directors to arbitration, twice, but at least he got shared credit. It went to Sundance and got rave reviews and now is being released on a thousand screens in August. The trailer is really good and you can watch it here and read a bit about the film. I read this script a couple of times and made suggestions to develop the characters and story, so I was a big fan. The directors, of course, took out the good stuff and made it Hollywood bland but they got the job because they were able to cast name actors like Alan Rickman and Bill Pullman.

See, the studios still control distribution and still rely on theatrical to develop a buzz. They figure it takes $20 million to market a movie and that is the sole determinant for whether to distribute one. Is it worth $20 million? If there are no name actors, the answer is no. If the actors are recognizable but not bankable, like a movie my friend Steve is in called Plumm Summer with William Baldwin and Henry Winkler, the answer is still no. Sure, people know who they are but they won't go to the theaters to see them. It's to the point where no matter what the film or the budget, you better have at least one bankable name in the film or no one wants it, not even for cable.

What happens, then, is independent filmmakers can't make a film without a star in it, shunning their friends - fantastic actors who may have even originated the role - and other talent struggling for exposure. To attract top talent, it can't just be a fun romp, the script has to be really good or different or the characters have to be really interesting; requirements that no Hollywood film has to fulfill. And, the journey is a grueling five years for a movie made with independent financing; Little Miss Sunshine being the pinnacle of success.

Over the fourth, I met a couple - an actress/producer and a writer - who just finished making an independent film. They both spent five years on it and were involved in every detail of production and independent distribution. In the end, it sold and the investors almost broke even but they got no major distribution and didn't make a dime on it. It got rave reviews at festivals and in the press but it doesn't have any bankable talent in it. Now they're talking contingency plans and day jobs and these are two people that, to most of the struggling talent in Hollywood, are "making it." Stories like these make it very difficult to motivate oneself to make a feature.

We've all seen what's happened to film since the acceleration of visual effects. Basically it's all that films are about these days. People going to the theater expect to see something pretty spectacular. You can watch a good story on TV or get a laugh on YouTube but the cinema experience has to be eye-popping and better have one or more big stars. I expected that with On Demand and digital distribution, the field would have expanded. Instead it has contracted. Because all the Hollywood movies are soulless, empty effects extravaganzas, the name talent are starving for more substantive roles. They take the indie parts and push lesser known talent out of the running but still don't guarantee success of the film or the filmmaker. Filmmakers and investors are so worried about making their money back that they don't take risks that might make a better movie.

I know there's a huge demand for independent film. My mom will buy or rent a film from Blockbuster because she likes the cover and the title, even if she's never heard of or recognizes any of the actors. Some of them, she really likes. I read an article recently about how the record industry was digging out all these out-of-print recordings to distribute on iTunes. It said that the low cost of digitizing music made it possible to sell music that is obscure or rare and might have a small audience but they are sales they wouldn't otherwise be making. I was really excited by that; it sounded like the entertainment executives were finally realizing that there is big money in niche audiences. Just like Chris Anderson says that the way to make money on the Internet is to target a meganiche, because point one percent of Internet users is still a million, I think there is money to be made in film from the meganiche audience. So far, though, no one has tapped that potential because the greed and ego in the business has everyone stalking big game instead of catching the thousands of smaller animals running around. Too much work they say.

Imagine something like a game console with a sophisticated interface designed just for this: an On Demand platform just for independent film. Not the Sundance variety of stars in "small" 15-25 million dollar films, but real independent films. We could program our interests, rate films, browse titles, watch trailers, read synopses and get recommendations: It's like Xbox and Tivo met Netflix and Apple Trailers for a cocktail and they got crazy. These films could be $.99 instead of $3.99 On Demand charges for the Hollywood titles. If you don't like it, you could just turn it off. It's only ninety-nine cents! Or if you liked a film by a certain director, you could easily find more. The database would match talent too. If you enjoyed the guy in one film, you could watch everything he's in and rate him.

People think that the reason we don't already have this is because of some technical limitation. It's not true. 2 million people all over the world are playing massive multiplayer online roleplaying games, together, on XBox Live. On Demand is already bringing instant titles to people's TVs and Netflix to their computers. You can only watch one film at a time, so the selection does not slow down the system. The selection is limited because it is controlled by the studios. They don't want you to have more choices, they want you watch their third-rate film that bombed in the theater and they honestly don't care what you want.

If filmmakers could make movies without worrying about name talent and studio distribution, there would be many more stories to watch. They could make movies that some people will love without trying to please everyone. As it is, we're all watching the films that make the biggest box office, movies made for the slow moving masses. I hear people sigh and say that the entertainment industry is a business and that's just the way it is (and that I should stop complaining). But this business, like every other business in this country, is actually operating as a monopoly; the big guys work together to squeeze the little guys out by making it impossible for them to make a living doing it and then force feed us their mediocre product. In some countries, film is considered vital to freedom of expression and subsidized by the government. In this country, we shrug our shoulders and shell out $13 to see the latest superhero movie.

This makes sense

2008-07-08T11:24:00.001-07:00

Twenty flavors of Coffee Mate and only two presidential candidates?

I consistently find American's "choices" to be bizarrely inappropriate. On the one hand, some choices are severely limited even to the point of prohibiting things that should be ours to choose. On the other, it takes an hour to buy anything from the store because we are overwhelmed by choice. I didn't take a photo but there were also about fifteen flavors of rice cakes from the same brand. The only thing I could say was, "If it was real food it wouldn't need a flavor, it would just taste like food."

Why don't you write?

2008-06-26T12:04:00.000-07:00

I always think of our modern times as being characterized, in part, by an excess of communication. Phone, email, text, Twitter, Facebook, Flickr and blogs flood our days with the details of our friend's lives and yet, I still miss my long distance friends. I always think people a century ago must have had to wait weeks before getting important news about their loved ones. Then I read in National Geographic that a century ago, in large cities like New York, the mail was delivered up to seven times per day and that people used postcards to invite each other for dinner, inquire about their health or love life, or just say hello.

In that context, it would seem that we have always had the desire to communicate to each other on a frequent basis. I'll venture a guess, however, it was only the elite and the wealthy that had the opportunity to sit at home all day sending missives back and forth. The working class would have been slaving away 12-14 hours a day in a factory or someone else's home, and would have to wait to find out if something wonderful or dreadful had happened to a loved one. In that regard, we've made great progress. As annoying as it may be that we so addicted to communication, sometimes to the point that we use it to ignore or avoid actual in person communication, there is something lovely about the fact that should a person be accepted to a school, have a baby or come down with an illness, they can tell their loved ones right away regardless of their economic station.

An unsung hero

2008-06-19T09:42:00.000-07:00

I just finished watching the HBO miniseries John Adams, via Netflix. I found this brief portrayal of the first 50 years of U.S. independence, from the perspective of John Adams, to be fascinating. Adams is an unsung hero in our country's founding. Even in the story, he grumbles that he'll be eclipsed in history by Washington, Jefferson and Franklin. While the show illuminates his singular devotion to the cause, his tenacity in bringing the aforementioned men into their place in history, and his personal sacrifices, it also reveals why he is perhaps overlooked in the hearts and minds of Americans.

Adams was highly intelligent and principled but also abrasive, self-righteous and devoid of grace and charm. The guy just bugged people. Washington, tall and strapping, bravely led the army that secured our freedom from the British and even Adams saw him as a natural leader. Jefferson, charming and thoughtful, was an idealist who created some of the most beautiful thoughts and words that shaped our young country. Franklin, an entertaining eccentric, was a brilliant inventor and diplomat extraordinaire. The French were in love with him and they hated Adams.

Yet for all that made Adams unloved by history, without his pushing and tenacity we may never have declared our independence, may never have won the war and may never have had a lasting document declaring our rights. In the same way that Jared Diamond said (quoting Tolstoy) that all of the ingredients must be present to create a civilization and that only one missing is enough to prevent it from forming, Adams was part of a pot of ingredients that all had to be present in order for freedom to be formed. I think it's so interesting how messy our independence was; how many times it almost didn't happen and how much every man (and woman) sacrificed for the cause. Adams did not even live in the states during most of the revolution as he was in Europe trying to secure support for the war. Once America was free, he was serving as ambassador to England, and did not enjoy the freedom he helped build, nor spend time with his children for whom he secured that freedom, for many years.

Aside from the historical importance, the miniseries is incredibly well done. I hardly ever say this, but the directing is amazing. Everything from the script, production design, acting and cinematography supports the highly intimate portrait of a man and his relationships that is rarely seen in a historical drama. Astonishing is the humanness of the men who were our early presidents: Washington, Adams and Jefferson. Washington was exhausted by the position and couldn't wait to pass the torch. The job was a constant struggle for Adams as he was disliked and plotted against in party politics and only after 36 votes of the electorate was the tie with Aaron Burr broken to elect Jefferson.

Also fascinating, is the lifelong tie between Adams and Jefferson who died on the same day, 50 years after the declaration of independence on July 4. That they ended up on opposite sides of issues that have shaped American politics since, almost seems to be an intrinsic part of the success of our government. Whether we should have a strong central government or be a collection of republics, whether we should rely on a written constitution or allow each generation to dictate its own laws and whether a man should serve office strictly on his own sense of right and wrong or if party politics and the bigger picture should shape that term have been debated for over 200 years.

At times I was emotional, overcome with patriotism and in awe of the brilliance and faith of these men. Other times I was amazed that it all came together and disgusted to discover that despite the best intentions of most, even then greed, power and egos came into play to distort and corrupt our newly formed government. All throughout, the founding fathers have their own doubts as to whether this nation can actually live up to the ideas they set forth for it; can any collection of people really honor such high ideals? As Adams says "Posterity! You will never know how much it cost us to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make a good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven that I ever took half the pains to preserve it."

My friend Max is on Charlie Rose tonight!

2008-06-18T11:36:00.000-07:00

Max S. Gerber, an incredible photographer (The Latest Shot in my blog links), is going to be on Charlie Rose tonight talking about his book My Heart vs. the Real World.

I have been amazed by him since we first met next door to each other in Echo Park in 2000. Working for Time Magazine, The L.A. Times and various other weeklies, magazines and newspapers, he often has very little control over his subjects or their environments and very little time to set up but he always makes the most incredible portraits: arresting in their realness, intimate and beautiful. His book is a personal project, a diary of children who, like himself, have congenital heart disease (CHD) and have had various surgeries and transplants at a young age, to save their lives. It's touching to see the grown up dignity of these kids that only comes from an act of survival most of us never experience. Congratulations Max!

Raging at the dying of the light

2008-06-16T15:33:00.000-07:00

I am very excited. A friend of mine in L.A. has finally started a blog. One of the most interesting, informed and opinionated people I know, he writes as he speaks and his blog is eloquent, witty and a delight to read. The reason I'm so excited, however, is because his passion is for politics and he has started his blog just in time to cover, blow by delicious blow, the 2008 Presidential Election. I am also opinionated and interested but don't seem to have the inclination to follow politics in quite the same way.

Now, I can read a well-spoken and summarized rally cry without the misery of slugging through The Economist or watching television. Topics covered in his impressive first week: The excitement of having Obama as the Democratic nominee, why Clinton did not lose because of sexism, how Obama's camp is using the Internet to squelch rumors and who should be his V.P. It's great stuff and I recommend that you check out Free Radical.

I have sprouts!

2008-06-11T09:07:00.000-07:00

I just planted my garden on Tuesday and I already have sprouts! Nothing is more exciting than growing plants, especially from seed. Putting something in the ground that grows to make food? This is the stuff that civilizations are built on. Literally. I finally finished reading the 400+ page book Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. It's really dense, that's why it took me six months to read it. He's an academic and a scientist so he goes to great lengths to explain and provide evidence to support his theories but most of it can be summarized in a few sentences.

Basically he asks the question “Why do some civilizations grow to conquer other civilizations or groups of people and not the other way around?” The answer, he says is in dense populations. Dense populations require food production. Out of the 200,000 plant species in the world, a mere dozen, he says, account for 80% of our current crops and not a single major food plant has been domesticated in thousands of years. That some groups of people happened to live where these plants grew gave them an enormous leg up. Same story for domesticable animals which were much more prevalent in Eurasia. Out of those domesticated herds living in close proximity with people came most of the communicable diseases that became accidental weapons of mass destruction for civilizations conquered by Europeans. Actual weapons came from innovation and technology, a result of competition for land that again is borne of dense populations requiring land for food growing. In the sparsely populated Americas, traversed by hunter-gatherers, there was little need for technology.

Diamond describes food production as an autocatalytic process meaning that it "catalyzes into a positive feedback cycle" that goes faster and faster. I've heard that once you plant vegetable plants that they produce more year, especially if you continue to cultivate them. So last Friday, I went to the nursery and bought vegetable seeds, herbs and soil - peat moss, manure and planting mix. First, I blocked off my area (about 10x4') with cinder blocks to hold the soil (I ran out and used some stiff cardboard for the rest). Then I laid cardboard boxes over the soil (after removing the packing tape) and soaked them. I layered and layered the soil but had only covered about a half of an inch so I went back to the nursery. In the end, I built up the garden about two or three inches, and then watered it again. I tracked the sun to make sure I was getting at least five hours of sunlight before I planted.

I started to get a little freaked out. I haven't used a book and I'm pretty much making this up as I go. What if birds come and eat all my seeds? Or some little animals come and chew off the plants as they sprout? What if I can't find a job and have to move out before any veggies grow? A sign at the nursery about checking the PH balance of my soil made it sound like my seeds might be sizzling in acid in the ground right now instead of germinating. I also saw a lot of spiders in the garden and an army of ants, but a little Internet research informed me that both are very garden friendly.

I took a deep breath and planted my seeds. I put tomatoes with the parsley, basil and mint plants, a row of green onions and marigolds for bug protection for the entire garden, lettuces with radishes here and there to protect from critters, an assorted mix of summer squash and bordered the whole thing with cosmos, which are pretty and also keep bugs away. In the cinder blocks, I planted arugula, which apparently does well in containers. In the areas outside the garden, I planted a hummingbird flower mix and sweetpeas to climb the fence. The seed packages say they it 45-90 days to produce vegetables but I should have sprouts for everything by 5-15 days. I spent $140 total and if it provides four weeks' worth of vegetables, it will have paid for itself but I anticipate that it will produce much more than that and enough to give away to friends. I still have most of the seeds I bought so I can keep planting as long as the weather is nice.

An article in the New York Times said seed and food plant sales are up all over the country and not since the 1970's when inflation was high, have nurseries seen this kind of interest in fruit and vegetable gardening. A desire to eat better quality food and rising food prices are cited as responsible for the surge. The latest salmonella scare in tomatoes, they think caused by contamination upstream from another farm, makes me think that my city garden is potentially safer than an organic farm in a more rural area. And if food production really is the catalyst for civilization, then who ever controls food production will have power over us all. How cool would it be if we asserted our independence and expressed our liberty by starting a food growing revolution?

An unreasonable man

2008-06-10T10:13:00.000-07:00

Well folks, it looks like we've got ourselves a Democratic candidate. While I still support Obama, and will follow through with my promise (to myself) to volunteer for his campaign now that he has the nomination, I have to say a word about Ralph Nader. I just watched the documentary, An Unreasonable Man, about Nader's work and his bid for the 2000 presidency and I have to say, the guy has a point. If you haven't seen the film, I recommend it.

Dissent is an extremely critical part of our political process, it is the basis of free speech. The right to criticize our government doesn't apply just to the people already in power and the policies they enact, it also applies to those who want to represent us, the policies they promise to enact and the process by which those people and policies are elected. If we can't question those things, if we can't shine a light in the crevices of our candidates' contributions and connections and voting and personal histories, then we don't really have free speech or a democracy. Nader says he ran in 2000 because in a two-party system where both parties are heavily subsidized by corporate contributions, there really isn't that much difference between them. He was demonized for that sentiment and subsequently blamed for the Democrat's loss in 2000.

I do not believe he cost the Democrats the election. I do believe that he activated a group of people previously too disillusioned to vote, who largely in the end voted for Gore. Mostly though, I believe in what he's fighting for, real representation of the people. No, I don't think the two parties are indistinguishable, and we've seen that difference in this presidency more than any, but as the father of consumer rights he's right that they owe more to their corporate contributors than they do to us.

The Economist, in their World 2008 special, published their forecast of how much money will be spent in this years election compared to previous years. We started, in 1976 with $25 million spent by all candidates. It increased each election to $38m in 1980, $53m in 1984, $59m in 1988, $70m in 1992, $83m in 1996 and then jumped to $140m in 2000. Strangely, spending almost quadrupled in 2004 to $494m! What in the world is going on? How is that possible? The Economist predicts this year will shoot up $1 billion spent on the 2008 elections but then counters that figure with a quote from the columnist George Will who says that is only half as much as Americans spend every year on Easter candy. Oddly terrifying.

The point is that we need to consider this trend. How comfortable are we with this kind of money being spent on campaigns? Are we willing to examine where this money is coming from? And how, ultimately, does this affect how these people govern our country? They are voted into office by us, they are supposed to be representing us but if their financial backers feel they are representing their interests, we have a serious problem. This is the problem that Ralph Nader was the first person to address back in the seventies. He was the first person to claim rights on the behalf of the consumer. He said it's not acceptable for corporations to bypass those rights in the name of profits. Without Nader, we would not have seat belts, airbags, anti-lock brakes and a host of other features in our cars that keep our families from dying when the car loses control. It took a while for corporations to mobilize efforts against Nader and consumers but they have finally figured out the best way is through our elected officials.

In developing countries, people just starting to fight against corporate corruption, pollution and neglect, base their struggle on Nader's. They see him as an American hero. Here, Democrats have the gall to blame him for the atrocities committed by Bush in office. This is my request. Support your candidate but listen to what Nader has to say because he, as always, is the only one saying it. This issue on his platform, Corporate Personhood, illustrates how our rights are not being respected by our government or our candidates. He says:

In 1886 the Supreme Court, in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, was interpreted to have ruled that corporations were “persons”—before women were considered persons under the 19th amendment to have the right to vote.

But corporations are not humans. They don’t vote. They don’t have children. They don’t die in Iraq.

We cannot have equal justice under law between real people and corporations like Exxon Mobil. There is no way even an individual billionaire can approximate the raw power of these large corporations with their privileged immunities, and their control over technology, capital and labor.

The constitution reads, “we the people”, not we the corporations.

We put these people into office, they need to be beholden to what we want and it's up to us to make that happen. Think about it.

Concerned citizen

2008-06-09T22:40:00.000-07:00

This weekend I found a note on my car. It was a slip of paper printed on a laser printer. It read as follows:

Thank you for taking up two parking spaces.

Had you been more thoughtful, you could have moved forward/backward to allow another vehicle to park.

So rather than helping to solve the problem, you have helped to make it more difficult. Please make an effort to do otherwise in the future.

At first I was shocked. I couldn't have taken up two spaces because I am actually very thoughtful and would never do that. Even though I was in a hurry to get somewhere, I got out and looked. Sure enough, there was two or three feet of curb behind my car but it seemed as though the car in front of me had found plenty of room in the "other parking spot". Besides, I have a tiny car. My RAV4 is shorter than pretty much every car on the road except a mini so another car would have taken up those extra feet. Would they leave a note on a SUV saying that their car is too large for the city and how dare they take up so much space?

I drove away kind of incensed. This person has made it their job to monitor their street (neighborhood? city?!) for rude parkers, printing out sheets of these notes and cutting them into "tickets" to issue. It's hard to imagine that this note would cause anyone to change their behavior. Dripping with condescension and judgment, it fails to even indicate "the problem" the note is trying to address, so a truly clueless person would only be baffled.

For a moment, I was tempted to write a response and leave it on my car. This is what I would have written:

Thank you for being such a diligent citizen.

Without you, surely our city would fall into chaos and ruin, overrun by the rude and stupid.

At the time that I parked, another car was parked in front of the neighboring driveway and taking up a few feet of curb so I squeezed my tiny car into the only space available.

Damn you Flickr!

2008-06-06T09:38:00.000-07:00

Unless you're one of my dozen friends on Flickr, you wouldn't know that I've become obsessed; which is not a good thing to happen while I'm unemployed. A friend of mine had been bugging me to join for years and I kept writing back that I was perfectly happy with ofoto, now Kodak Gallery. Whenever I took pictures, which was usually trips and special occasions, I uploaded them there and invited friends and family to look at them. They could buy prints if they wanted although I don't know if anyone, other than me, has bought prints of my photos.

Finally, one day in June last year, after finding some pics of Santa Monica on Flickr, I thought it would be fun to upload some of my own since I'd been photographing my walks on the beach for a while. I uploaded several hundred photos from the last few years in L.A. only to discover that you have to subscribe to Flickr to upload that many. It took me almost a year but the day I planned my UK trip, April 1, 2008, I broke out the credit card and paid the $25 for a year of Flickr. Uh oh. I started uploading everything I had and tagging and sorting. Then I decided that I needed a new camera for my trip to the UK, my old one was well over four years old and less than two megapixels! Most camera phones are better than that now.

Two weeks and 700 photos later, I was a Flickr tagging and sorting maniac. Good thing I don't have a job because I spent about five whole days downloading, reviewing, tweaking, exporting, uploading, naming, tagging and organizing my photos. The reason I am reluctant to join these types of sites is not because I don't see the inherent value, it's because I know that if I like it, I'll get sucked in. It wasn't enough to have a place to send my friends to see pics of my trip, I needed to get more exposure! I joined groups, I looked at other people's photos, I submitted my photos, I made comments, I favorited and I tagged and tagged and tagged. Snapping like crazy at everything, I've uploading another 700 photos in the last month and signed up for Flickr stats which has since become a 7pm ritual, seeing how my photos performed that day. Performed? What's my ROI for this endeavor?

So far, it's not very good. Flickr'ing is keeping me from diligently applying for jobs and I've instead become obsessed with walls and pavement, no doubt fruitful pursuits. What I'd really like to see is more of my friends on Flickr. I know, I know! It's true though, you can't imagine how happy it makes me (and will make you) to see pictures of far away friends, family, babies, dogs and vacations pop up on the Flickr homepage. When I was in England, my relatives teased me for taking so many photos. They said I looked like tourist (imagine!) I explained that in the world that's young and hip, everyone takes pictures of everything. It's just another way that we communicate in this digital age. Showing people what we see through our eyes. That's a beautiful thing, no? So what are you waiting for?

Lasagna garden

2008-06-05T11:29:00.001-07:00

I've decided to plant a garden. I've lived in this apartment almost nine months, I'm not sure why it's taken me so long. My neighbor said the soil in our small patch of yard was shit but then I remembered it doesn't matter. Last year, I helped a friend of mine create a lasagna garden in her backyard. The idea is simple: You put layers of wet newspaper on top of any ground surface - grass, weeds, rocks, it doesn't matter - and layer peat moss and any organic material you can find like compost, manure, clippings, etc. Then you plant your garden! My mom always says that vegetables are the easiest plants to grow. People always complaining that they kill plants in their house don't have to worry. As long as you have light and water, veggies will grow. Fruits too!

The best thing about this method, other than the obvious ease of it, is that you leave the soil undisturbed. That means earthworms and other bugs that till the soil will find their way into your garden and keep it growing. I remember reading an article about a guy who turns lawns into food gardens. In the article, his company was rototilling this front yard and broke their machine on the grass roots and rocks. It was totally silly, renting that expensive machine and going through all that work, and killing all the sweet little earthworms! All you have to do is layer on top. The lack of light kills grass roots and anything else much easier than any chemicals or forceful extraction, the newspaper eventually gets eaten by worms and dissolves into the earth.

I've been mulling over this idea for some time. I can't see the garden from my apartment so it's easy to forget that there is a patch of land down there. Then yesterday, walking around, I saw that someone in San Francisco was growing vegetables in pots on the sidewalk! It really is that easy and I have no excuses. Here's how to do it.

Without getting into this too much, I believe that water and food are going to become serious battle grounds as people start to realize that mass production of food has driven it into very unhealthy directions. Big agribusiness is not likely to give up huge profits to make our food healthier and treat the earth better but we DO have control over our food - we can all plant vegetables. Power to the people!

The zero inbox

2008-05-30T18:00:00.000-07:00

I got an email from a reader last week and I, naturally, Google'd her to see who she was and what she had online. She actually has a page with links to her entire online life and blogs on it, not really all that difficult to find but one of her posts changed my life. I now feel much less old in that "I can't even keep up with my email" kind of way. This is it: freedom from organization.

It's a very simple guide to manage your Gmail and keep it at ZERO new messages. For someone who has become used to over 80 new messages and keeps subscribing and then unsubscribing to alerts and newsletters and then completely misses messages from friends, I was overjoyed. It took me all of a half hour to make the changes she suggests and I'm a changed woman! I wondered, of course, if ten years ago I would have been the one figuring this out and telling other people. I seem to have thrown my hands up over technology lately and just let it overtake me but Martina reminds us that technology is here to SERVE not to RULE.

Don't they have the Internet in Alaska?

2008-05-24T09:43:00.000-07:00

In a couple of weeks, my little map covered in red dots is going to be archived. It will have been a year since it was started and they have to start over. I've had around 8,000 visits in the last year and before the map went away, I wanted to document where the dots are.

The majority of visits are from the United States, Canada, Europe and Australia with a couple of other sizable dots in Iran (that's Sam's cousin!), India, and Indonesia (that's daysofturmoil).

Here’s where the rest of the dots appear with the notable absences in parentheses:

Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Peru, Bolivia, Columbia, Venezuela, Uruguay, Guyana, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Jamaica, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico and Mexico (No Cuba)

Hawaii and Newfoundland (No Alaska)

South Africa, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Ethiopia, Sudan, Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Canary Islands, Guinea, Senegal, Nigeria, Ghana, Cote d’Ivoire, Mauritius (all major cities or capitols of those countries) and Morocco

Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, (One dot in China), (Only two dots in Russia: Moscow and Siberia), (One dot in Kyrgyzstan and no other former Soviet “stans”)

Pakistan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Bangladesh, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Israel, Lebanon and Jordan (No Afghanistan)

I find it fascinating. It's a potentially good indication of the prevalence of the Internet (or at least Blogger) around the world. In the case of China, it's especially indicative: only one dot for a country that has more Internet users than any other and for a blog that mentions China in 22 (make that 23) posts.

Eight products that I don't need

2008-05-22T09:52:00.000-07:00

When I was in the UK, I stocked up on an over-the-counter lip cream for cold sores. It comes in a tiny tube and has 5% Acyclovir. Cold sores go away almost instantly with this cream which is available only by prescription in the U.S. I don't have a doctor and have only had health insurance about 6 of the 16 years that I've lived away from home. Needless to say, I won't pay for the doctor visit to get the prescription (that has to be represcribed every two years EVEN THOUGH herpes simplex is a very common virus that you can't get rid of) and can't afford to pay for the drug anyway.

In the U.S., there are no less than eight over-the-counter remedies for cold sores. All with a drug other than Acyclovir, and none of them work. I know because I've had cold sores since I was four and have tried everything. They don't have any of these "other" remedies in the UK because they don't NEED them. The one that works is available to everyone and it's cheap, cheaper even than our non-remedies. The cost of the Acyclovir cream in the UK is $6 for the generic brand and $8 for Zovirax, the name brand, compared to about $50 here for a prescription for Zovirax and $6-12 for our OTC products.

Our entire pharmaceutical industry works like this, marketing dozens of useless products to suckers like me who can't get the real deal and then charging a small fortune for prescription drugs. But here's what I find most interesting. GlaxoSmithKline makes Abreva, the over-the-counter remedy that I had been using, and they're the SAME COMPANY as GlaxoWellcome that makes Zovirax!

So these jerks are charging us ten times more than the Europeans are paying for the same drug, but keep access to it so restricted that they can make even more money marketing products to us that we don't even want! It's a total racket. How much longer are we going to put up with this?

If you have examples, please post. Thanks!

All eyes on China

2008-05-21T13:57:00.000-07:00

I got a request to blog more frequently. It very sweet and it made me smile but in order to do it, I’ll have to post more of my silly thoughts while I chew on those that surround my days and weeks and sometimes months, like what I’m thinking right now about China.

This month’s issue of National Geographic is all about China, every page. It's excellent. I love the timing of this magazine and I think they’re right on; in the very near future, the whole world is going to be looking at China. Not just the Chinese government that suppresses rights and imprisons those that speak out against it and not just the China that’s buying the world’s debt, investing in resources in Africa and South America and not just the China that’s hosting the Olympics.

I have yet to find someone who agrees with me but I’ll even go one further. Not only will the world be all about China and the Chinese people, soon, it will no longer be all about the United States. It’s already happening in conversations with friends, relatives and my parents. I can’t get into any conversation without someone bringing up what China is doing. All of a sudden, they’re in everyone’s country and everyone’s business.

There's a great article on WorldChanging about a collaboration between photographer Paolo Woods and journalist Serge Michel at FotoGrafia, the 7th edition of international festival of photography which runs until May 25th in Rome. Their presentation follows China's industrial neo-colonialism in Africa. The photos of Chinese running factories and building local economies and Chinese being taught by Africans in their classrooms are amazing. You can see all the photos from China's Wild West under stories, on Paolo Wood's website:

China is home to one of the oldest continuous civilizations on earth. They are by far the most populous country, making up 20% of the world’s population. There are more people on the Internet in China than in any other country, including the U.S. They are expected to overtake us as the world’s largest economy in less than 10 years. Over 30% of the population call themselves religious and that number is growing. 45% of women say they don't want to give up their careers to have children.

They are the world leaders in manufacturing, and in a few short decades, they have grown a rich class and an enormous middle class with healthy appetites for domestic and foreign goods and resources. They have quickly embraced the West’s competition for success and all the stress and malaise that goes with it. They still cannot freely surf the Internet or speak their mind but those days are numbered. As they continue to embrace technology, art and imported culture, they’ll find themselves in a much more visible role in the world struggle for human rights.

Most Chinese in school are now studying English and their English speakers outnumber those in the United States. There’s a mass migration going on of people from the country to the city and with increased wealth and population density comes a frenzy of information sharing and a demand for more freedom. I predict that in the next few years China will have a cultural explosion, exporting and importing people and culture with the same voracity that they have adopted everything else.

China is dealing with the issues we’re all dealing with, except in all cases their situation is already more dire. They need to provide healthcare for the biggest baby boomer population in the world, a generation that has less children to provide for them due to the one-child policy. They have the highest statistic for air pollution related deaths, have built more mega dams than anywhere in the world, and have deforested and leveled mountains to the point of serious environmental erosion. They’re only now beginning to embrace archeological digs and animal conservation. They’re dealing with a rapidly growing disparity between rich and poor, massive urbanization, and a serious shortage of natural resources.

Natural disasters are a constant but this time the Chinese are starting to ask questions like why so many schools collapsed in the recent earthquake. We’re already seeing a comparison between how China handled their rescue efforts compared to the disasters in the rest of the world. The incredible level of humanitarian aid offered by regular citizens has put the government in an uncomfortable position. No longer a closed society, there are at least three Flickr groups with photos from the earthquake: china 512 earthquake, Sichuan Earthquake 2008 and Just The News (were you there? - if not, don't add!)

They’ve turned the spotlight on themselves by bidding to host the Olympics and I’m afraid it isn’t going off for a while. I predict that the era of all eyes on America is coming to an end. The question is, will American eyes remain closed to the outside world or will we begin to learn by observing others?

Wired sells out to Monsanto

2008-05-19T12:02:00.000-07:00

I picked up my new Wired magazine and immediately read their cover story, an inflammatory ‘environmentalists are full of shit’ piece. It really pissed me off. They end their series of anti-arguments based on facts focused around cutting carbon dioxide, with a “take it with a grain of salt" letter from the editor of Worldchanging.com. He basically says the article is a short-lens focus that could get us into even more trouble. Isn’t the damage already done with a cover like “Keep your SUV, forget organics and screw the spotted owl?” I suppose it would be okay if they were using it to get people reading but then dole out some actual wisdom inside, but they don’t.

Here are my reactions to the articles:

1) A/C is OK. Here they say it takes more energy to heat a house in a cold climate than it does to cool a house in a hot climate. Good point, but really do we want everyone to move to the Southwest? The area is already burgeoning and just beginning a mega-drought that could last up to 150 years, where are they going to get enough water to live? What about clamping down on cheap housing construction and passing ordinances requiring better insulation. We’ll all have to pay more per square foot but maybe it will have the doubly beneficial effect of making our houses use space more efficiently.

2) Live in cities. Yes, for the most part, urbanization is cool and better for the environment but they make an argument that exurbs are the same as living in a truly rural area surrounded by trees. People don’t live in exurbs to be closer to nature, they sprouted up because people (like in Los Angeles) couldn’t afford to buy houses in the city so developers bought cheap land 50 miles out of town in the desert and built affordable housing there. The article points a finger at lawnmowers (a product of the suburb/exurb) and I totally agree that lawnmowers are a waste of energy. But why not encourage people with land to plant trees and grow a garden to feed themselves instead of trying to get them to move to a city? Not everyone wants to live in an apartment.

3) Organics are not the answer. This one really burns me up. They say we should screw organic because it takes 25 organic cows compared to 23 industrial cows for the same milk and they put out 16 percent more greenhouse emissions. Are they f’ing kidding me? We should drink hormone-laced pus-filled milk from sick suffering cows for that differential? The only smart thing they say in this article, albeit stuffed in the middle, is that if you really want to do something for the environment, stop eating meat altogether. It’s true that we can’t go organic at our current rate of consumption but we (in industrialized countries) eat and waste too much food anyway. Instead, I think we should go organic 100% and patronize restaurants that serve reasonable proportions of quality food.

4) Farm the forests. The only good thing in this section is about culling dead wood out of the forests, it does prevent fires and with the climate heating up, we can’t afford the kind of fires it’s going to bring. But the rest of it, about becoming full time forest farmers and cutting down old growth trees is total bullshit.

5) China is the solution, not the problem. I agree! (See next post) China has become the number one producer of alternative energy solutions for export and use in their own country. Due to decades of rapid and untethered production and growth, their feet are now much closer to the proverbial fire than ours; they will likely find and implement environmental solutions quicker than us.

6) Accept genetic engineering. If I read one more thing about biofuel, I’m going to be sick. They just made the point that we should use more public transportation in the “move to the city” argument but now they’re talking about how we should embrace genetic engineering so we can grow more biofuel. They attack fertilizer and say nothing of chemical sprays, but fertilizer is necessary because of our addiction to monocrops (and profits). Thousands of years ago, farmers rotated crops and used trees and companion plants that naturally kept bugs away or attracted complimentary insect relationships (like worms) and enrich the soil to the benefit of certain crops. The author mentions Monsanto as some kind of wonder company here to save our lives. Monsanto is a chemical company that produces the world’s best-selling “herbicide,” a chemical that kills everything. They then got into the agriculture business producing 90% of the GMO crops on the planet, specifically engineered to resist their herbicide. Roundup kills everything except the crops they engineer. They are corporate bullies who use lawsuits and threats to wipe out local farmers. "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food," said Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications. "Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job." Unchecked, everything we eat will be engineered by Monsanto. If Wired really gave a shit about us and the environment, they’d do a full report on how they control our food supply.

7) Carbon Trading doesn’t work. I agree, good idea that needs improved.

8) Embrace nuclear power. There’s been a lot of talk that the only way we’ll produce enough energy for the billions of us on the planet in the future is from nuclear. They call it the cleanest of the fossil fuels because of the low emissions, uh, but what about the huge volume of nuclear waste produced? We already have tons of it buried in leaking containers under the ground in Washington and other states, we have no safe way to dispose of it and it remains toxic for thousands of years. Let’s focus on energy saving and efficiency before we make feeding our voracious appetites the top priority, eh?

9) Used cars not hybrids. Okay, I get the argument. New cars cost a lot of energy to make. If you’re driving a ten-year old fuel-efficient Toyota like my RAV, it’s better for the environment to keep driving it than to buy a new car. Except that my RAV will never end up in the landfill, there will always be someone waiting to buy it. They suggest (again, to be inflammatory) by the same logic you’re better off driving a Hummer because making a Hummer contributes less carbon to the environment (because of the nickel in Prius’ battery). They say nothing about the fact that cars in Europe are twice as fuel-efficient as ours and are the same as a Prius, which is why you don’t see hybrids there. It’s all a bunch of crap. We’re sold gas-guzzlers on purpose so the hybrids look good in comparison. While it doesn’t affect our carbon output, the quiet drive of the hybrids has many other benefits.

10) Prepare for the worst. Yes, things are going to get much hotter and much worse before they get better and we do need to accept that and prepare. They quote Stewart Brand who says, "We are as gods and might as well get good at it" and suggest that we take over completely by using our technology to fix the things we've broken like helping birds migrate, for example. We're destroying their natural habitat, building over open spaces that break up long migration journeys, disrupting communication with our noise and killing them and their food with pesticides but the scientists are going to save the birds with assisted migration? Then again, they mention that Monsanto, who brought us Agent Orange, PCBs and Bovine Growth Hormone, will save us with genetic engineering. What is this issue sponsored by Bush and the chemical industry?

I agree we better figure out ways to adapt and continue to innovate but we are consuming and disrupting the natural order of the planet at an unsustainable rate and technology alone will not save us (or the birds). We need to continue to make our small but impactful changes like eating locally produced food, driving less, taking a tote the store instead of using plastic bags, planting trees and food in our yards if we have them, installing energy efficient appliances, using less energy by unplugging what we aren’t using, and continuing to pay attention, support innovation and demand responsibility from corporations and governments.

Here's the first part of a two hour-long show about Monsanto:

The World According to Monsanto 1 of 4 27min

Random interactions

2008-05-14T10:21:00.000-07:00

Every now and then, I have a string of what seem to be odd or funny fleeting interactions with strangers. I always wonder if these people are a kind of messenger delivering something to me that I wouldn't hear coming from a friend. Then again, I try not to read too much into them.

I was taking a cab to the wedding in Georgia. It was only a dozen blocks or so but I had some slight heels on and I’m such a wimp, I’d probably have blisters if I walked it. Anyway, the cab driver was chatting at me the whole time but a lot of it was unintelligible for some reason. I think I told him I was going to a wedding, he asked where I was from, I said San Francisco and then he said he’d spent some time there in the sixties. Oh, I said, that was a good time to be there. He looked at me, really confused, huh? Never mind. He chatted at me some more. Then when I got out (and he dropped me off in the wrong place as it turns out) he said “And just remember, it’s never too late!”

I was introduced to someone at a party on Friday and he said as he was leaving, “Your name is an adjective!”

The other day I had to mail some bills. I had been sitting at the computer for far too long and finally launched myself out the door when I had only 20 minutes to get there. I could make it if I walked quickly but when I hit the hills, I suddenly got a burst of energy and decided to run. There was one big hill, a street, and then another. Halfway up the first one, a guy on a bike came by. He said something and I paused the iPod (which I never take walking but did because I knew I needed motivation to get there quickly). I said, very impressive! He rode his bike exactly alongside me to the next street. Let’s see how you do on this one, he said. Challenged, I of course had to keep running. My chest pounded a bit on the top but I made it up at the same pace as him. As he pedaled off he said, “You have my admiration!”

While I was England, I went into a shop to get some photos printed. The saleslady asked me if I was Canadian. When I said no, American, she said “Really? Because your accent is so soft.”

In Georgia, I was at the apartment of my friend getting married. All the bridesmaids were arriving for hair and makeup and to generally get ready together. There were a lot of people milling around as my friend got her hair put into giant curlers. I introduced myself to a woman I didn’t know. You have good eyebrows, she said. I realized she must have been the makeup gal and said that I wasn’t getting made up. Embarrassed, she said “Oh, well it’s good you have nice eyebrows then, imagine if you didn’t!”

You write like a man

2008-04-18T18:19:00.000-07:00

My friend Paul posted this cool test (uh, several years ago) that I always meant to take but I suppose didn’t have the writing to. Basically it counts the number of times certain male/female indicator words are used in a piece of writing and determines the gender of the author. I decided to run the test on ten recent posts that have enough words. Here are the results:

“Fun sucking technology”, what to me seems like a totally female rant, comes out male.
Female Score: 1035
Male Score: 1114

So does “More protests” please!
Female Score: 1208
Male Score: 1245

“Uncivilized” squeaks out as female because guess what? “Not” is a female word!
Female Score: 1654
Male Score: 1653

But one about being scared? Male!
Female Score: 1027
Male Score: 1180

“Landing on my feet” is female too, and “was” is a female word. What are they trying to say?! That women are negative and talk about the past?
Female Score: 701
Male Score: 690

“A post I started in December” turns out female thanks to the word “and.” I guess we’re inclusive also.
Female Score: 937
Male Score: 906

"How to be on camera", my “how to” post, is overwhelmingly male thanks to heavy use of the word “are.”
Female Score: 1367
Male Score: 1480

Even though I use the word “with” (another inclusive female word) more times than any other in “Addendums to earlier posts,” it comes out male due to a consistent use of the male words “more,” “the,” “is,” and “a.”
Female Score: 1341
Male Score: 1588

Finally, “Dying to get here,” comes out male. My use of the male word “what” gives “with” a serious run for her money but still doesn’t catch up.
Female Score: 2553
Male Score: 3378

6 of 10 tests think I’m a man. Maybe I’m just “balanced.” BTW, I'm on vacation until May 5 and will hopefully have a slew of new posts. See you then!