Using my skills to rebuild America

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

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 possibility for miracles

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.

Article 1 - The right to equality

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.

I shared my story

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

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.

The power of the people

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

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!

Do we really hate each other?

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

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

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.

No worse than the other guy

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.

The last stretch

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.

Raging at the dying of the light

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.

An unreasonable man

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.

Addendums to earlier posts

This is possibly, fantastic news! I just read that the San Francisco Zoo, under pressure since the tiger attack in December, might become a rescue zoo. Apparently it means that the animals would likely get more space and bigger habitats more closely resembling their natural ones. I won't take credit for this development, ha ha ha, BUT I will say that I think blogging is a powerful tool. Public opinion matters and the easiest and most visible way to track public opinion these days is on the Internet. If hundreds of people blog that they're upset and hundreds of people (or dozens in my case) read that blog, it adds up. This is still one of my favorite videos (Nick Park is a genius).

I met a guy who works at Yelp this weekend. Actually, another 24-year old who wanted to "date" me. It's bizarre how young this town is. I guess it's the dot com thing, and actually, this is a cool place to be. Young people graduating from college want to live in San Francisco or New York. He said that the CEO and founder of Yelp is 28 and came to a meeting the other day in a "hoodie and sneaks." This guy, at 24, was flabbergasted that his millionaire boss is basically a slightly older version of himself. Imagine how I feel! Anyway, he told me that doctor recommendations are HUGE on Yelp and that some doctors have had to stop taking patients for six months or more because of the demand. It's very interesting, when recommendation works, it really works!

As it turns out, I wasn't the first person to think of a virtual concert (I know, amazing!) A friend of mine went to the 3D U2 show and said it was really cool. He heard a guy comment on the way out that it was better than a live concert for all the reasons that I specified. It was in a movie theater which is not conducive to the concert vibe though as people were self-conscious about singing along, shouting, etc. I maintain that this kind of thing should be shown at a dark, loud club just like a real concert, except better. Miley Cyrus' concert movie has already made ten times what it cost to make and parents don't have to let their teenagers drive into the city to see her in real life. A friend wrote me that now you can now see your opera in HD at the local movie theater. I love this idea that culture comes to you.

I got such a delightful number of comments on my post about starting a village. I seem to have struck a nerve! I had a little bit of anxiety after that because I thought "what if someone actually expects me to do this?" My biggest concern was how I was going to find a boyfriend. All of my friends who are up for it are already married or coupled, so it's great for them I guess, but what about me? I can't date three guys in our community of 150 at the same time (awkward!) And then it wouldn't work out with any of them and they'd all have to leave. You know? But that book about my North Node said that I have an enormous amount of love to give and that the receptacle, if it's a person, isn't big enough. I'm supposed to pour that love into a philanthropic venture, something that will make life better for other people. Once I focus on that, love will come to me and it will be easier for the other person to deal with me if I'm already in love with my "work." There's a lot of buzz right now about eco-villages: building with green materials, using renewable energy and aiming to be carbon neutral. I totally support that but my village would be communal in that "it takes a village to raise a child" way; everyone could have a role but wouldn't spend their whole life working a job they hate, and we'd all have land to grow our own food! I'm starting to wonder, however, if maybe we can make that change right where we are? There's a growing movement to plant food instead of grass in lawns (here's a fun article in the NYT Magazine about it). One step at a time, we can transform our world.

I thought this op-ed in the NYTimes today was interesting. The author criticizes the abduction of Generation 9/11 by Obama's campaign, calling them "Generation Obama." He goes on to say:
The more you learn about him, the more Obama seems to be a conventionally opportunistic politician, impressively smart and disciplined, who has put together a good political career and a terrific presidential campaign. But there’s not much audacity of hope there. There’s the calculation of ambition, and the construction of artifice, mixed in with a dash of deceit — all covered over with the great conceit that this campaign, and this candidate, are different.

After watching his speech today, addressing the comments of his pastor, I have to say that he is an amazingly composed and grounded orator. He speaks plainly so the masses can understand, everything he says makes sense and as I've said before, if all he does is inspire us it's more than most have done. The accusation of a politician being a politician is pretty weak. The Republicans haven't had someone this inspirational in office in years, if ever.



It's wise to be wary, perhaps especially of politicians, but instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater we should instead remind ourselves that we have to bring our revolution to Washington as much as we expect our leaders to bring it to us. Right on, right on!

A word about Obama

I'm amazed at how consistent the media coverage seems to be on Barack and Hillary. Is it just the hype machine, spinning the same story over and over, or is it the truth? I've been reading for months in magazines, newspapers and even in my friend's emails about how inspired people are by Obama. It is clear that he is a phenomenon. Young people are talking about him the way I did Bill Clinton in 1992 when I volunteered for the College Democrats to help him get elected. We were over the moon about him. Young, fresh and hip, he seemed to get it and he promised big change.

I can't say that we weren't let down by him, but I also think that it's inherent in that kind of adoration. I think we expect too much from our leaders which is not to say that we shouldn't have high standards, we absolutely should, but we also need to accept that we can't just elect a leader and expect that person to do everything right. Democracy is a participatory process. It's our responsibility to make sure the people we put in office work for us. I think people have woken up to that in the last few years. We got vocal about the war in Iraq and it didn't make a difference. Our leader ignored us and basically said we didn't know enough to make the call. We might not know all the complexities of international relations and going to war, but we know the truth from a lie, we know right from wrong, and we know that peace is better than violence.

So the discussion about whether Democrats should vote for Obama or Hillary has been distilled to a single issue: competence. He's aspirational, she's not but she has the experience. He might set our hearts aflutter but will he be able to deliver? One email from a friend talked about how we just spent eight years with a politician that didn't have enough experience, do we really want another? I hardly think the lack of experience is what's wrong with our current president and frankly, it's a ridiculous argument. Bush is surrounded by veterans of his father's administration and beyond. He has plenty of experience at his fingertips, should he want it. No, Barack Obama is no George Bush, but how valid is this question of whether he can deliver?

People say that it takes a seasoned politician to bring people together in Washington, or more accurately, to play the games they play in Washington. I'm not sure that's something I want to support. I see Hillary, as a lot of people do, not as experienced so much as ingrained. She's part of the system, she's one of them, not one of us. But isn't it ironic that her husband, just fifteen years ago was fresh? As I've said, I think our government should be participatory and as such it's critical that our leader be someone who inspires us to participate. The light I see in people when talking about Obama gives me hope. If we put a leader in power that inspires us to participate in the system, maybe we don't have to live within the confines of "the system," maybe we can truly make the government our own.