Random Thoughts, Notes, & Incidents

Returning Democracy to the (Natural) People

2012-01-21T09:26:00.000-08:00

Today marks the second anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, which unleashed unlimited spending by corporate "persons" to influence our elections. We saw some of the effect of this in the 2010 mid-term elections, and we're seeing it already this year in the wildly expensive and nasty fight for the Republican nomination. But, while Citizens United expanded the concepts of corporations as legal persons and money as speech, it didn't start there.

It actually started about 125 years ago with the case of Southern Pacific Railroad v. Santa Clara County. In that decision, the court held that the railroad corporation was entitled to rights under the 14th Amendment. Many cases between Southern Pacific and Citizens United have further expanded the concept of corporate rights and personhood, often at the expense of human citizens.

But the humans have not given up hope, and have begun to fight back. Move to Amend is an organization trying to pass an Amendment to the Constitution that would clearly state that corporations are not people, and money is not speech. Yesterday, they held rallies across the country themed as "Occupy the Courts" aimed at overturning Citizens United and educating people on the need for a Constitutional amendment.

I attended in San Jose, where our rally took place in Saint James Park, across the street from the very courthouse where the Southern Pacific case began 125 years ago. There were a few speakers, including a city councilman and a woman who was fired from Walmart for being a whistle-blower, followed by a skit of "campaign speeches" from a robot representing different corporations. We then marched through town, past the Federal office building, and ending for second, smaller, rally in front of City Hall.

At its height, there were maybe a couple hundred of us. Not too large, but a good sized group for a rainy weekday. But where was the media? I saw only a couple of people who seemed to be taking notes or a few professional photos, but no TV crews. The Move to Amend folks are going to need to get much better at PR if this movement is to take off.

Passing a new amendment to the Constitution may be difficult, but is not impossible, and the stakes could not be higher. While there has always been an undue influence of money in our political process, Citizens United amplifies it hundreds of times over. Corporations are now able to give untraceable millions to SuperPACs that are not bound by any of the controls or limits that we've placed on candidates or individuals. They can say pretty much anything and will drown out the voice of We the People.

We have to make it clear to our leaders, and to the corporate interests that fund them, that democracy is for us human citizens only, and is no longer for sale to the highest bidder. One person, one voice, one vote.

Why 15% Should Matter to the 99%

2012-01-19T10:15:00.000-08:00

This week Mitt Romney let slip the real reason why he's reluctant to divulge his tax returns. It's not how much money he earns that he's hiding - we're all aware that it's a considerable sum - it's the tax rate he pays on that income that is controversial.

Because Mitt's income is mostly from investment earnings, he pays the capital gains rate of 15% on his millions rather than the current top marginal rate for wages of 35%, or even the average middle-class top marginal rate of 25%. This has left his supporters to explain why this very wealthy man should pay a lower tax rate than most middle-class Americans.

Capital gains, we are told, are very special because of the risks involved. Not every investment pays off, after all. Very true. But, of course, that's why losing investments can be written off as business expenses and deducted from one's over-all income, reducing one's taxes. So, why, when an investment is successful should it be taxed differently than regular employment income?

Well, 15% of $1,000,000 is still more than 25% of $75,000! Kinda like how, if you buy in bulk at Costco, you get a lower price on food. That's fair, right? Well, in as far as that analogy does hold water, the tax code already has provisions for the "bulk buyer" (IE: additional children = additional deductions). In my case, my home (modest by CA standards, but expensive by national standards) gives me quite a mortgage interest deduction. Add that to my business and other expenses and I probably deduct as much from my income than a minimum wage worker earns in a year.

But on the taxable portion (after deductions), I gladly pay a rate that's somewhat higher than the minimum wage worker because of my relative success. And somebody who earns 10-20 times what I do should pay a little higher yet. Certainly no less a percentage. So, why so much lower?

Well, they say, the rich need an incentive to invest. Why bother if your earnings after taxes will barely keep up with inflation? When I hear this argument I always have to reply that I don't think the rich are as lazy as you think they are. I have faith in their entrepreneurial drive that they'd still invest, create, and build, even if capital gains were taxed as regular income. As long as the tax rate is below 100% any gains are still better than a mattress full of cash (and, no, I'm not suggesting a 100% tax).

If you buy that "incentive to beat inflation" argument, then people should be turning down C-level jobs that hit the 35% marginal rate, and even middle-management positions in the 25% range, and all the MBAs would be looking to work in mail rooms. It turns out, however, people prefer to have 65% of $500,000 over having 75% of $75,000. So, why does investment income require a tax rate so much lower than income from labor?

Gosh! You're just envious! After all, everybody has the opportunity to invest and get the tax benefits of capital gains! Well, perhaps we do have that opportunity, but not to the same extent. According to the Washington Post, "The 400 richest taxpayers in 2008 counted 60 percent of their income in the form of capital gains and 8 percent from salary and wages. The rest of the country reported 5 percent in capital gains and 72 percent in salary." When you defend 400 out of 312,877,450 with "everybody can do it," it's more than a bit of a stretch.

Here's the thing about all this in relation to Willard Mittens Romney: the millions he makes each year from capital gains are not even from investing his own money. There is no risk involved. Mitt's millions are part of his retirement agreement with Bain Capital. Every year he gets a nice slice of Bain's profits, even though he hasn't worked there in 13 years.

Of course, while most of his income comes from Bain and other capital gains, Mitt does work part-time as a public speaker. He describes his income from speaking fees as "not very much." It's actually $374,000/year. As a point of reference, $380,000 is the cut-off point for being in the top 1% of earners.

Capital gains have not always been taxed as low as 15%. This rate is the result of tax cuts (from both GW Bush and Clinton) that were supposed to inspire and encourage the wealthy to invest more, thus creating new jobs. As you can see, that plan didn't quite work out.

Many Republicans are now pushing for a new rate on capital gains: 0%. Romney, in his defense, is not one of them (although he does have other tax cuts in his plan). But if Newt Gingrich is elected, Mitt's tax bill will fall to nearly nothing.

So, please, remind me again, why are capital gains taxed so much lower than income from actually working for a living?

New eBook Availalbe

2011-12-02T10:21:00.001-08:00

I've been playing around with the idea of publishing some ebooks of various material I've written over the years, and the first result of that experiment is now available for Nooks, iPads, Kindles, and most any other device you might have: A Bottomless Cup of Coffee (Short Stories).

I've self published before - several of the stories in A Bottomless Cup originally appeared in the print collection, Aaron’s Intifada and Other Short Stories (still available on Amazon.com), and my Introduction to Fund Development Planning continues to sell (available on Amazon.com as well) - but I've not done any eBook specific projects, which is odd considering how involved I've been with social media and online content creation.

Anyway, I'm now entering the eBook age, and hopefully this is just the first of many projects. If you want to check out the new eBook, it's yours for about two bucks at:

The Occupation is Over: Long Live the Occupation

2011-11-15T09:44:00.001-08:00

News from Portland is that the parks have been cleared of all OWS protesters. Closer to home, efforts have been made in Oakland and Santa Cruz to end, or severely curtail, the extent of encampments and daily protests. In the online world it is in current fashion to write Occupy Obituaries, with a general theme of "enough is enough," repeating some popular myths about the movement, and be done with all this protesting nonsense before the holiday shopping season. So, here's my attempt at summing up a few points.

1 - "Enough Already" - Of course, the far right, tea party crowd never supported OWS, but this last week I've seen many posts from people who describe themselves as (at least somewhat) liberal echoing that they're bored of OWS, sick of seeing/hearing about the protesters, worried about conditions in the camps (see #5), and "most important", concerned about the cost to the taxpayers for law enforcement and park clean-up.

While I understand and appreciate each of those concerns, none of them rises to the level where a repeal of the Bill of Rights seems to be necessary. There's nothing in the First Amendment that limits "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" only to when it's convenient for commuters, good for business, in the budget, or when it's sunny outside.

I've not been very active in OWS, but I have spent some time at Occupy Santa Cruz (attended a couple of General Assemblies, took part in protesting, brought food and supplies to the campers). I am also a tax payer and I protest because I pay more in federal taxes than General Electric, PG&E, Dupont, Wells Fargo, and Verizon ... combined.

Is there a cost to the taxpayer (me!) for exercising our right to free speech? Yes. Of course there is. Just as there is a huge cost for elections, multiple branches of government, etc. Democracy and freedom are far more expensive than dictatorship, and generally worth the investment. Freedom is not cost effective, but I'll take it anyway.

And I really don't care if you preface your posting with "I supported them for a while, but..." Whether or not the protests are well organized, whether they have fifty million or only a single supporter, whether or not you've reached the end of you're limited attention span doesn't much matter. Either you support freedom of speech or you don't. You don't get to pick and choose the voice, the time, or the place.

2 - "Get a Job!" - Much of the criticism from the right, that the bench-warmers on the left now seem to have accepted is that the occupiers are all unemployed, on the public dole, and just looking for a hand-out. I can't speak for other cities, but in talking to people at Occupy Santa Cruz I've been surprised by how many of the key people are employed full-time. And not just among the day-time protesters, but even those camping out are packing up at 6 AM, running home for a quick shower, and then going to work before returning the camp in the evening.

The occupiers I've spoken with include lawyers, high-tech engineers, and other "respectable" sorts. Yes, there are people there who are victims of the economic downturn, who have lost their jobs, homes, health care, etc., but they are not the total occupy population.

3 - "Get a Message" - As much as people are repeating the mainstream media's contention that the OWS protesters have no message, I find it hard to believe that there's anybody outside of Fox News who doesn't know that this is about economic injustice, from the ponzi scheme that led to the foreclosure crisis, to the bailing out of the very banks that profited from that ponzi scheme, to Congress' inaction on any comprehensive jobs bill, to the Supreme Court's declaration that corporations are people.

Considering the lack of centralized leadership (see #4) or the engagement of a national PR firm, there's remarkable unity in this message across all the occupations, and coordination of imagery/branding. Yes, there's other complaints being voiced, but the overall theme of economic injustice has been clear.

Others admit that the message is clear, but follow up quickly with, "Complaining is easy, give us solutions." I agree, it's easy to say the outhouse stinks, but tearing it down before installing modern plumbing is a bad idea. Looking back at that First Amendment again, however, I don't see that the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances is limited to those who have ready solutions.

Meanwhile, looking at the signs of protesters I see that they are offering some ideas, whether required or not, including closing tax loopholes and ending corporate welfare, a Constitutional Amendment reversing the Citizens United decision, forgiveness of student loans, prosecution of those responsible for the foreclosure scandal, the passage of a comprehensive jobs bill, and much more.

(And, going back to #2 and the idea that the protesters are all just looking for something for nothing, the only one of the above demands that comes close to that is student loan forgiveness. Most of the protesters are willing to pay their fare share; they only want the same from the corporations and for their government to put people first.)

4 - "Get a Leader" - One of the most frustrating things for the mass media has been the lack of a single person, already in their contacts list, who they can call for comment. This "everybody's a leader" has been great in getting more people involved, amusing to watch the press attempt to navigate, as well as frustrating to those of us in General Assemblies who lack the patience to herd cats for even the most basic and simple decisions.

But beyond being a symbol of the desire for true democracy and consensus, the distributed leadership has been one of the messages of OWS. Distrust of leadership - any leadership - is such an inescapable symptom of our current global political crisis, that OWS protesters rejected any form of hierarchy, even when it would have benefited them.

The right also recognizes and feeds on this distrust of self-appointed leaders. The irony is that the Tea Party protests have been largely funded by the Koch Brothers, and that two of the largest Tea Party groups are suing each other over trademarks and (more vital and valuable) mailing lists. The right's answer to distrust of leaders has been pure astro-turf and deception.

As messy as some Occupy meetings have been, at least it was authentic. But, to move forward, the movement will have to develop some form of leadership, as distasteful as many may find that to be.

5 - "We're Concerned for their Health & Safety" - Yes, it's a concern when you have a few hundred people camping out with a couple of port-o-potties and no showers. But it's their choice. This "we have to clear them out for their own good" argument would have been more effective if the first several times I heard it wasn't from people who opposed health care reform and want to dismantle the EPA and OSHA.

There's much more to write about the Occupy movement, and I'm sure there will be ample opportunity to do so in the future. Yes, there have been problems with the way the occupations have been handled, some of which have kept me from becoming more personally involved, but on the whole I still believe they have been a good thing.

While many of the camps have been cleared for now, I don't believe this is over by a long shot. Lessons will be learned, leadership will be developed, and the people will not politely go inside and be quiet.

Verdict In: Football More Important than Child Abuse

2011-11-10T15:44:00.000-08:00

By now you know the story: In 2002 a graduate student at Penn State witnessed an assistant coach sodomizing a young boy in the showers. He tried to report it to university authorities and was given the run-around. Now, nine years later, that assistant coach is finally facing charges of molesting several boys over a 15 year period. Also charged are a couple of the university officials who led the cover-up.

Two officials who were aware of the accusations and did nothing, but are not currently under arrest, include legendary football coach Joe Paterno and Penn State president Graham Spanier. Well, make that former coach Paterno and former president Spanier; the Board of Trustees canned them each last night for their failure to protect children from the sexual predator they knew was on their staff.

That should be the end of the story. Justice served. Far later than it should have been, but the right thing to do.

But no. In America we pretend to care about child abuse. But apparently we care about winning football games even more.

Shortly after the news of Peterno's firing was announced, riots broke out on the Penn State campus protesting the actions of the trustees. Preserving the legend of beloved "JoePa," it seems, is more important than any little boys who make have been robbed of their innocence and youth.

Paterno now says (in his prepared statement), "With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more." Is that the hindsight that by protecting his former heir apparent many more children were abused, or the hindsight that it would end his career in disgrace? I fear it's only the second that motivated that minor bit of remorse.

The coaches and officials at Penn State are not alone in their quiet dismissal of societal condemnation of abusing and raping children. Another major story this last week was the release of a video showing a Texas judge brutally whipping his teenage daughter.

One would think that the judge would have no supporters, but up steps a former English Headmaster to reminisce about the good old days of beating children for a living. While he faults the judge for having acted out of anger, instead of calmly and dispassionately beating his child, this headmaster has no regrets and offers no apologies, "I was merely doing my job in upholding the discipline of the school."

Sure, protecting children is important. But not when it interferes with maintaining order or winning football games. We are Penn State. Go Team!

Ending Corporate Personhood

2011-10-20T12:43:00.000-07:00

Way back in 2002, Congress passed the bi-partisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly referred to as McCain–Feingold in reference to its primary sponsors. One of the provisions of McCain–Feingold prohibited corporations (for-profit, nonprofit, unions, etc.) from broadcasting “electioneering communications” either for or against a particular candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary.

Last year (January 2010), the Supreme Court struck down that provision in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission on the grounds that it violated their first amendment rights to free speech. While there have been many laws and court decisions over the years that have treated corporations like people or citizens, Citizens United was never-the-less a landmark in overtly saying that the protections of the Bill of the Rights are explicitly applied to corporations as well as people.

Justice Stevens, in his dissenting opinion, wrote:

At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding... It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense.

In the nearly two years since then, many have talked about the need to over-turn this decision. Part of that is the movement to amend the Constitution to be clear that corporations are not people, and are not entitled to the same rights and protections as persons, and that money is not speech!

To learn more about this movement, and add your name to the petition, see movetoamend.org

Occupying This Blog

2011-10-15T08:32:00.000-07:00

I have been having many conversations with friends the last few weeks about the Occupy Wall Street Movement, and have been down to take part in Occupy Santa Cruz for a few hours at a time on a couple of occasions, so it seems fitting I should finally post something here as well.

Part of what I have found surprising is that some of the friends who I would have expected to be the most supportive of this movement have been the most skeptical of it, while I see support coming from a few unlikely quarters.

Some of my associates who have been with me through a few decades of protests, from the anti-nuclear movement to trying to prevent and/or end a few wars, are impatient with the "start-up phase" and distrustful of some of the younger leaders of the Occupations. But what gives me hope is the support from people who've never been a part of any mass movement, but who are now ready to take a stand.

I find myself frustrated with those who have bought the mainstream media line that "there's no message." Spend any amount of time at your local Occupation and it's quite clear that this is about economic justice. Within that theme, there are specifics around a fair tax code, re-regulation of the banks and bringing the crooks behind the foreclosure crisis to justice, and the end of corporate personhood.

But, even if it weren't that clear, what does anybody expect from a movement that's barely a month old? On top of that, a movement that's based on consensus and democracy, without clear pre-existing leadership? I'm actually pretty amazed at the success of the OWS movement so far, with over 1,000 local occupations in support of the original in NYC.

I feel the greatest success is simply that people are talking about the protests and economic justice. People have discovered that they are not alone; there are millions of us who are angry but are not represented by the tea partiers. And, they are willing to take to the streets to return democracy to the people.

The media would prefer that there be one spokesperson with whom they are already familiar and whose staff is already in their speed-dial. They don't like the messiness of consensus building among large groups. It takes time, and can be endlessly frustrating. But nobody promised that revolution would be easy or pretty.

Remember, it took the Continental Congress two years to get around to passing that Declaration of Independence. I'm willing to give the Occupy movement a few more months before being disappointed that they failed to change the world.

A couple of obligatory links:
* Who are "the 99%" who are protesting?
* Where can I find Occupy (My Town)?

More Popular Lies

2011-07-16T09:28:00.000-07:00

You know, the classics: "War is peace. Freedom is slavery." And today's favorite, "Tax cuts create jobs."

The right's answer to solving the nation's economic woes has for the last thirty years been the dictum that cutting taxes creates jobs which, in turn, increases revenue, thus decreasing the deficit. Maybe sometime when I have all day to get way into economics I'll do an extended blog post about the Laffer Curve, and it's misapplication by opportunists, but today let's keep it pretty basic.

Check the trajectory of our debt and job growth: The above theory has been empirically proven wrong again and again over the same thirty year period.

A few of the facts (not ideological theories, but observable, measurable events):

The Federal tax burden is at its lowest point in 60 years.
The debt exploded the most under Presidents Reagan and Bush (Jr.), the Presidents most closely associated with the above economic theory.
Job growth under George W. Bush, perhaps the strongest believer in "tax cuts create jobs" - even more so than Reagan - was the worst in 75 years, since Herbert Hoover and the start of the Great Depression.

Let's take a quick look at the 32 years leading up to the current administration:

President	Job Growth
Carter	3.1
Reagan	2.1
Bush (I)	0.6
Clinton	2.4
Bush (II)	0.2

Now, let's say I run a widget company. No amount of tax cuts will ever convince me to hire a new widget salesperson. The only thing that would convince me to hire a new salesperson is demand for more widgets.

The best thing for increasing demand is a growing economy that inspires consumer confidence. And, as we've seen, the economic answers of modern conservatives have repeatedly failed to do that.

We currently have a President who is at least nominally "progressive" in many areas, but held hostage to a conservative Congress, and all too willing to go along with them far too often.

What he seems prepared to go along with now is cutting Social Security benefits to appease the right. Do you believe that cutting the spending power of a large group of Americans is going to increase or decrease consumer demand? Cutting Social Security to "balance" a cut in taxes will be a double hit to the economy.

The Republican lies about economic growth have been repeated so many times that it seems the majority of the public believes them, despite the facts. Well, it's time for us to wake up and say enough is enough. It's time for the President and the remaining Democrats to stand up and tell the public the hard truth: we can't afford another tax cut today.

No, you don't create jobs by cutting taxes or benefits, and - listen carefully - you can't save the economy by defaulting on the national debt.

Read more here - and here.

In Memory of Jim Harris

2011-06-12T08:13:00.000-07:00

Jim Harris was a computer consultant, a software developer & programmer, a teacher, a union organizer, president of a trade school, a gifted musician, and a social activist. It is in that last role that I became aware of Jim, soon after he and Pat Murphy co-founded Progressive Secretary in 1997.

Progressive Secretary was not the first organization to see the potential for using email and the net and what we now call "social media" to encourage activism, and bring people together for progressive causes (MoveOn.org had them beat by at least a year), but they were certainly early in the line.

And, for all the changes and advances in technology in the last fourteen years, Progressive Secretary has remained true to their original, simple concept:

Progressive Secretary sends out progressive email letters to Congress, the President, and other officials on peace, the environment, civil rights and other issues.

The letters are suggested by participants in the cooperative and are sent to you as a proposal. If you tell us to "send", then the letters are sent ... over your signature and return address.

Whether or not you consider yourself a "progressive" or not, and whether or not you agree with Jim's politics is not my point here today. It's the simple elegance of the concept of using email to organize cooperative grassroots campaigns. So obvious today; not so much in 1997.

Today, the flip side is that such efforts have become so commonplace that they are derided as "slacktivism" - faux activism designed to appeal to the lazy. But Jim Harris was no slacktivist. He worked for social justice all his life, was part of the Civil Rights movement, going to Mississippi with SNCC, and later working with Cesar Chavez and the UFW. When he co-founded Progressive Secretary in 1997, he was recovering from leukemia, and considered it part of his healing.

Jim finally passed last Friday, June 3, of glioblastoma, an aggressive brain cancer. There will be a Quaker memorial service today at the Sacramento Friends Meeting House. He was seventy-years old. Progressive Secretary lives on.

50 to 50

2011-06-04T16:19:00.000-07:00

It's early June, and today we're having record rains... So I stayed inside all afternoon and wrote and recorded a new song... Didn't intend for it to be so sappy. Sorry about that.

50 to 50 by kenrg

50 to 50
© 2011 K.R. Goldstein

today it's hard to see through the rain
but I feel it coming around again
reviewing it all from way back when
and long-lost friends

the cast of characters come and go
some too fast and some to slow
only the rare have a chance to rust
turn to American dust

to those I've loved and those who cared
hold up high those times we dared
when all was lost and all was found
we held our ground

this next big day could turn the tide
of this long confusing ride
set the course for the final stretch
of this comic sketch

can't let all these aches and pains
tie me down with battleship chains
and if the wind blows it all away
refuse to fade away

(not fade away, not fade away, not fade away)

Bye Bye Borders

2011-02-20T09:53:00.000-08:00

By now you've probably heard that Borders Books is entering bankruptcy and will be closing many of its stores. The two Borders outlets nearest me are both on the list to be axed. This blog post is not so much about Borders itself, but a comparison of the two towns that are losing the massive retailer.

On one side we have the beach-side college town of Santa Cruz, and on the other the Silicon Valley suburb of Los Gatos.

Santa Cruz is known for being on the funky side. The shops downtown cater to a younger, hipper audience. Walking down Pacific Avenue on any given day, you're likely to encounter several street musicians and even more homeless (or near-homeless) asking for handouts.

Los Gatos is known for being decidedly more upper-crust. The shops are high-end and expensive, and the restaurants compete with San Francisco for cutting-edge gourmet dining experiences. Only one homeless person at a time is allowed on North Santa Cruz Avenue (yes, Los Gatos' main drag is called "Santa Cruz").

Santa Cruz culture emphasizes the small, the local, the sustainable, the unique. Los Gatos also stresses unique and special, but is more open to corporate influence and its perceived worldliness. In Santa Cruz many of the shop windows have signs for the 3/50 Project - a nationwide campaign to get people to shop locally. I'm not sure I've ever seen 3/50 references in Los Gatos.

Santa Cruz has always been home to multiple bookstores, each with their own specialties and market niches. When Borders announced they were moving in, there were protests saying the chain store was neither needed nor welcome. Since Borders opened there's been some changes in the local book scene, but they never managed to supplant the major local players.

Borders was welcomed with open arms in Los Gatos, where, at the time, there were only two other bookstores: One locally-owned specialty mystery bookstore and one Crown Books discount book chain outlet. Shortly after Borders came, each of these closed. The Crown is now the Pier One Imports and the mystery book shop is now quite an excellent little restaurant.

The loss of Borders in Los Gatos means the closest thing to a bookstore will be going to the Apple Store and purchasing an iPad to read your iBooks. For as much emphasis as Los Gatos places on being a place of "culture" and refinement, the lack of a bookstore should be a major embarrassment. For a community that bases its overblown property values in a large part on the quality of its schools, the inability of the town's adults to support even one bookstore demonstrates where their real values are.

For Santa Cruz, the loss of Borders won't alter the town's voracious appetite for literature and learning in the least. The only concern for Santa Cruz will be such a large vacant space in a prominent location.

Is your community ready for the loss of Borders? What if the other large box retailers were to pull out of your town? Do you have any more local retailers left?

Support your local bookseller and read about the 3/50 Project before it's too late.

Updates, Changes, Travel, and History

2010-12-19T09:08:00.000-08:00

So, how have you been the past two months? It's hard to believe that my last post was a pre-election summary of ballot initiatives. I suppose following any election comes a bit of a let-down. Either my candidates lost, and that - of course - is depressing. Or, as happened recently, my candidates won, and given what they've got to work with, they can only disappoint and embarrass me. And that - of course - is depressing as well.

But November also brought news of exciting changes to come, and that is a large part of what has distracted me from my usual social media participation. After a long interview process and much discussion, I have been offered, and have accepted, the position of executive director at a local, Santa Cruz County nonprofit agency, effective January 3, 2011.

It is a wonderful agency, with excellent professional staff, a great board, and an incredible contingent of volunteers, and I am very much looking forward to getting started. Of course, it is also a bit bittersweet in that I will be giving up my consulting practice and "independent contractor" status.

The next distraction from blogging was, of course, the Thanksgiving holiday, around which time I was contacted by an old friend who said, "How about Pearl Harbor Day in Pearl Harbor?" I replied that he was crazy, it was barely two weeks out, and there was no time to plan, etc. He said he'd found some deals on airfare and hotels and I ran out of objections. So, on December 6, I took off for a week's vacation in Oahu.

It was quite moving, being at Pearl Harbor on December 7th - the 69th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor. There was, of course, much ceremony, both in memory of the nearly three thousand soldiers and civilians who died in the attacks, and in honoring the more than 100 survivors who were present (average ages 86-97). They were also dedicating the opening of the new visitors' center.

It was good to see so many people turn out, when for many of us it's not even a memory, but something we learned from history. For our generation, it's 9/11 that marked us the way Pearl Harbor did for that previous generation. And the shadow of 9/11 was present, as the new visitors' center was momentarily evacuated due to a "suspicious package."

We returned again on December 8th - the 30th anniversary of the assassination of John Lennon - to continue our tour with smaller crowds. The coincidence of the anniversaries did not strike us until we were there, honoring those who died at the start of WWII, and remembering an artist who's message was that war is over, if we want it.

For more of my thoughts on these Pearl Harbor visits, and the dual anniversaries, please play the podcast embedded below (...video posted here...):

Listen!

I'd been to Hawaii twice before, each time with my wife, and we'd stayed on Maui and Kauai, so this was my first time spending any time on Oahu, other than stopping over at the airport. The cities of Honolulu and Waikiki were not like the Hawaii I'd known before. I kept commenting that they seemed a strange mix of Hawaii and San Diego.

That's not necessarily bad. I like San Diego; I just don't need a five hour cross-ocean flight to get there. But in terms of it being a busy, metropolitan area, with a large military presence, lots of traffic, tall buildings, etc., it's like San Diego. But with volcanoes in the background. Wonderful, but a bit odd. Next time, it's back to Maui, or maybe the big island.

I started this post with a remark about politics, it turned to the topic of bittersweet changes, and touched on history. I'll finish with a bit of news that hits all three; the demise of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

It's a bittersweet and historic victory, that gay and lesbian Americans can now openly enlist in our armed forces, and ironic that those of us civilians who fought the hardest for this this change, are also - largely - those who are most opposed to our current wars.

The end of DADT is a wonderful moment for the advance of civil rights. But, somehow, I don't feel much like celebrating. Or, maybe it's just the rain speaking.

Propositions "R" Us

2010-10-23T10:27:00.000-07:00

There will be nine statewide propositions on Californian's ballots on November 2nd, including one I'm very excited about. In fact, back in May of 2009 I called it my "Fantasy Proposition: Majority Rule!" On November 2, I get my fantasy with Proposition 25, "Changes Legislative Vote Requirement to Pass a Budget From 2/3 to a Simple Majority." What I wrote then was that:

"California is one of only a handful of states that requires a super-majority (2/3 vote) to pass its annual budget. This allows a minority of legislators (34%) to hold the majority hostage... The stalemate has to end, and the way to do it is with a simple majority rule, like we imagined a democracy would be. If the minority party wants to have a say, they've got to come to the table to work, not just be obstructionist babies."

The budget stalemates, and resulting partial shut-downs, have cost our state billions in interest and other costs. These political theatrics don't just hurt state workers, but effects our entire state economy as it punishes small businesses who rely on state spending (such as food vendors to state prisons) when they aren't paid on time. I believe Prop 25 to be one of the most important reforms Californians could possibly pass, and I urge a strong "YES" vote.

I'm also voting a strong "YES" on Proposition 22, "Prohibits the State From Taking Funds Used for Transportation or Local Government Projects and Services," and I'm appalled at the Democratic Party and other "progressives" who are recommending a "no" vote. Yes, I'm fully aware of the state's budget problems and the tough choices to be made. But the state's habit of fixing its problems by raiding other funds has been a disaster for local services and needs to stop. Now. And while I'm shaming the Democratic Party, here's also a bit of scolding for the California Teachers Association, who rightly screamed bloody murder when the Governor raided education dollars, but now aren't willing to help the cities and counties in the same fight.

My strongest "NO" vote recommendation is on Proposition 23, "Suspends Air Pollution Control Until Unemployment Drops Below Specified Level." This has nothing to do with "saving jobs" ... at least, not California jobs. This is simply a couple of Texas oil companies who don't want to comply with our new pollution standards.

I will probably vote for Proposition 19, "Legalize Marijuana and Allow It to Be Regulated and Taxed," but it's largely symbolic as this does nothing to change Federal law. An interesting note is that some of the Medical Marijuana advocates are recommending "no" votes here, as current Medical Marijuana law allows for larger "private gardens" than does Prop 19.

On the two redistricting propositions, I'm torn. Proposition 20 adds Congressional districts to the responsibility of the State Commission on Redistricting, while Proposition 27 eliminates the Commission completely, and turns that power back to the State Legislature. The Democrats, who are in the majority, are for Prop 27 and against Prop 20. But I'm leaning toward Power to the People and going against the "official liberal" grain on this pair of conflicting propositions.

If you would like to see a great master list of who has endorsed "YES" or "NO" on each of the propositions (includes groups from all across the political spectrum), see the California Choices website (californiachoices.org). Meanwhile, here's a quick list with my choices (subject to change without notice):

19 - Legalize Marijuana and Allow It to Be Regulated and Taxed - soft "yes"
20 - Redistricting of Congressional Districts - "yes"
21 - Establishes $18 Annual Vehicle License Surcharge to Help Fund State Parks and Wildlife Programs - "YES"
22 - Prohibits the State From Taking Funds Used for Transportation or Local Government Projects and Services - "YES!"
23 - Suspends Air Pollution Control Until Unemployment Drops Below Specified Level - "HELL NO!"
24 - Repeals Legislation That Allow Businesses to Lower Taxable Income - "yes"
25 - Changes Legislative Vote Requirement to Pass a Budget From 2/3 to a Simple Majority - "PLEASE YES!!!"
26 - Requires Certain State and Local Fees to Be Approved by 2/3 Majority - "NO"
27 - Eliminates State Commission on Redistricting. Consolidates Authority - "yes"

Two Week Warning - Get Out and Vote!

2010-10-19T15:35:00.000-07:00

It's hard to believe two weeks from now, as I write, we'll be starting to see the mid-term election results coming in. Even harder to believe that I've blogged so little about this election (see It Ain't Over Till it's Over). It's not that I don't care, or that there's nothing to say; perhaps there's so much that it's overwhelming.

To recap for newer readers, I call myself "left-of-center, Independent." I left the Democratic party in disgust around late '94 or early '95. I was registered as Green for several years, but have most recently registered as "Decline to State." Simply put, I have always rejected the idea of voting for "the lesser of two evils" when there are multiple "3rd party" and independent options on the ballot.

But this year, much as I expected and hoped for more from President Obama and the great Democratic majorities in Congress, I am terrified of the possibility of the Republicans taking back either (or both) houses of Congress.

This year's Republican nominees are not the principled conservatives we debated with in the past. These are fringe candidates with dangerous ideas, not just to turn back the small progress the Democrats have made in the last 21 months, but to turn the clock back decades, if not centuries, on our fragile democracy.

These are candidates who want to repeal not only the new health care reforms, and the new student loan reforms, but who want to repeal Medicare and turn your Social Security over to the same Wall Street fat-cats who put us into our current economic mess. These are candidates who question whether the Voting Rights Act of 1964 went too far. They don't just question Roe v. Wade, they've vowed to ban all abortions, even in cases of rape and incest.

But I'm sure you've read all that, or seen it on TV or online. My only point here is if you're staring in disbelief at candidates like Christine O'Donnell or Carl Paladino, just imagine having to hear from them for the next two, or four, or six years, or more.

Maybe you're disappointed in the Democrats too. I know I'm sure as hell overdue for an economic recovery myself. The rebuilding of our future may still have a long way to go, but at least we've stopped digging the hole.

This year, this left-of-center independent is proudly voting a full Democratic ticket, and I'm encouraging everybody who's concerned for their future to do the same. The stakes are just too high to sit this one out.

Blog Action Day: Water!

2010-10-15T10:10:00.000-07:00

An old adage in California politics, dating back at least 150 years, is, "In California whiskey's for drinking, water's for fighting." And, indeed, battles between the northern, water-rich mountain regions of the state, and the arid, desert south have shaped our politics, and our maps, with laws pitting agriculture against industry, and a massive system of aqueducts crossing the landscapes. But California's water situation is nothing compared to that faced in much of the world.

Just a few statistics to begin to paint the picture:

African women walk over 40 billion hours each year carrying cisterns weighing up to 18 kilograms to gather water, which is usually still not safe to drink.
Every week, nearly 38,000 children under the age of 5 die from unsafe drinking water and unhygienic living conditions.
Many scholars attribute the conflict in Darfur at least in part to lack of access to water. A report commissioned by the UN found that in the 21st century, water scarcity will become one of the leading causes of conflict in Africa.
Every day, 2 million tons of human waste are disposed of in water sources. This not only negatively impacts the environment but also harms the health of surrounding communities.
The problem is not just in the "Third World" - Today, 40% of America's rivers and 46% of America's lakes are too polluted for fishing, swimming, or aquatic life.
The problem is not just "other people's" issue - The cotton t-shirt I'm wearing right now took 1,514 liters of water to produce.
The iPhone sitting on my desk is currently using half a liter of water to charge up for the day. Multiply that by over 80 million active iPhones in the world, and that's 40 million liters.

What can we do about this?

Be aware of our water footprint; think of ways you can conserve.
Donate to a charity that's building clean-water wells in Africa.
Educate yourself and your community about the issues.
Volunteer to clean a local stream; be aware of your effect on your local watershed.
Click the widget below to sign a petition to the U.N.

For a related post, please see my recap of a presentation by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on the topic of Crimes Against Nature (April 2009).

Petitions by Change.org|Start a Petition »

Calling "BS" on Twitter Study

2010-09-30T08:29:00.000-07:00

I'm seeing many people tweeting and trembling over yesterday's Mashable headline story, "Most Tweets Produce Zero Replies or Retweets." Many are reading this as "Tweets Are Ineffective Means of Communication" (one exception: Tom Guarriello). Okay, first the data, then why I am seeing the silver lining.

71% of all tweets produce no reaction "in the form of replies or retweets"
23% of all tweets solicit replies
only 6% of all tweets produce a retweet
96.9% of replies and 92.4% of retweets happen within the first-hour

The first dangerous assumption here is that 100% of tweets were intended to inspire a reply or retweet. Many (maybe the majority) of my tweets are intended to inspire a click through to a link (such as, perhaps, the one you followed to this blog post). This study did not include click-throughs, lumping them in as "no reaction."

The study also looked at "All Tweets." While this sounds like a fair basis to pin their analysis on, we are all aware of certain companies and marketers who don't quite "get" twitter, and whose twitter stream is nothing but "Buy our Products" repeated every hour. These thousands (millions?) of tweets are included in the study sample. Is anybody other than the hucksters surprised that these tweets get no retweets or replies?

While it may not have been quite so democratic an approach, I would really expect that if the study were of "top tweeters" the number of replies and retweets would be far higher. The inclusion of twitter spam in the study skewed the data set to produce these results: Garbage in, garbage out.

The creators of the study, Sysomos, a "maker of social media analysis tools," seem distressed that retweets are so low (6%). Frankly, while it's really nice to when somebody is inspired to retweet something I've posted, I'm thrilled that 94% of what I see in the stream of tweets from my friends is original content. If somebody I follow does nothing but repost other people's content, why would I follow them?

Of course, Sysomos has a different point-of-view. They're selling their services: to "Identify and engage with key influencers to build relationships and buzz." In other words, they sell their clients retweets. My point-of-view is different: I'm only a lowly user of twitter.

And then there's the "shocking" news that most activity on a tweet happens within the first hour. Of course it does! Did anybody really think that a tweet had a shelf-life any longer than that? It's a conversation, and it's constantly moving on. Jump in when you can, and don't worry about catching up on what happened yesterday.

That Sysomos and others who think of twitter as nothing but an advertising tool are dismayed by the results of the survey does not surprise me. But Mashable should know better. They begin the article on the survey by saying, "[It] suggests that an overwhelming majority of our tweets fall on deaf ears," and concludes with, "Perhaps our tweets really are just pointless babble after all."

Think about all the chit-chat and small-talk you put up with during an average day. Pleasantries exchanged with co-workers, neighbors, the clerk at the grocery store, etc.. If 29% of that led to a measurable reaction (your being quoted, or a getting a memorable reply), you've had quite a productive day. Perhaps Mashable is just pointless babble?

Social Media Training for Voters

2010-09-28T08:53:00.000-07:00

Here's an interesting item (well, to those of us obsessed with social media). On the Jerry Brown for CA Governor YouTube channel, along with posting various interviews, campaign ads, biographical bits, and so on, the campaign has now posted a "Social Media Webisode" -- a short training video on how Jerry's supporters can help get the word out. The first webisode is on promoting the Brown campaign via Facebook:

Now, whether or not you're a Jerry Brown fan (I am) or support his campaign for Governor of California this year (I do), you have to admit that this is a brilliant strategy. Faced with a challenger who has so far spent over $119 million of her personal fortune, making hers the most expensive campaign for statewide office ever anywhere, Brown has not only made good use of social media to get his message out, he is harnessing the full power of social media by turning supporters into advocates.

Too many of the social media campaigns that I see, whether political or for products or whatever, treat facebook, twitter, etc., as one-way broadcast mediums. They neither engage the audience in dialogue nor tap into the extended networks of each of their followers. Brown 2010 has now done both.

It Ain't Over Till It's Over

2010-09-15T16:21:00.000-07:00

With yesterday's dramatic ending to the 2010 primary election season, starring anti-masturbation activist Christine O'Donnell winning the Delaware GOP Senate nomination, and racist-sexist email comedian Carl Paladino winning the New York GOP Gubernatorial nomination, each over the "official" Republican party candidates for those offices, today's headlines are mostly of the Tea Party Victories that are expected to sweep US politics into a new era of populist know-nothing-ism come November.

As much as I fear some of these far-right xenophobic dilettantes actually being elected, I think the story line of this being a warning of what's to come in 2012's presidential race is a bit overblown.

Here's what the pundits are going off of:

The president's party, historically, "always" looses seats in the first mid-term election.
The majority party, historically, "always" looses seats when the economy is down.
Trust in Washington is at "historic lows" (they say this, but I haven't actually seen polls going back very far to demonstrate just how historic these lows are).
Turn-out in Republican primaries this year has been higher than in Democratic ones.

But let's look at things in the proper perspective.

Despite the handful of high profile nut-cases winning Tea/Republican Party nominations this season, over 95% of Congressional incumbents seeking reelection won their primaries.
Of course Republican primaries had higher turn-outs: they were the ones being contested by the Tea Party wing-nuts. Most of the Democrats had little serious competition to draw out voters.

And here's the big kicker of why 2010 does not guarantee a Tea Party Victory in 2012:

They're winning this year by bringing out lots of first-time voters, and if there's one more "historically, always" we can add to our list, it's that first-time voters are typically one-time voters.

Yes, the Republicans will pick up several seats in Congress seven weeks from now, perhaps even capture a slim majority of one of the houses. And, yes, there will likely be some fresh new tea-stained faces among them. And, yes, they will cause plenty of trouble for the president. And, just as certainly, they will fail to completely destroy Washington.

While they will certainly have some successes, they will fail to eliminate the IRS, Social Security, and the Department of Education. They will not end the debate over gay marriage, put a stop to legal abortion, and effect the deportation of every Muslim and Latino. And when they fail to achieve all their goals (remember, it's all or nothing for these guys), their followers will turn on them and crawl back under the rocks where they've been hiding all along.

The Tea Party Movement may be big news today, but most polls show that they only represent about 19% of the electorate. If they're the only ones who show up on election day, they can win. But they cannot put together enough of a majority to govern. And I predict that these political neophytes will not have the stamina or the momentum to put Sarah Palin (or similar) in the White House in 2012.

At least, this is what I keep telling myself in order to get to sleep at night.

Why the Wrong Person Always Gets the Job

2010-09-07T08:10:00.000-07:00

I have many good, smart, capable friends right now who are looking for work, and finding nothing. Other friends who, like myself, are self-employed, are having trouble lining up new clients and customers and we're finding our businesses faltering. And now I know who to blame: Stupid People.

Over the long weekend I read an article that introduced me to the "Dunning-Kruger Effect," a cognitive bias in which an ignorant person makes poor decisions and reaches erroneous conclusions, but their own incompetence prevents them from realizing how wrong they are. Basically, "ignorance begets confidence."

The opposite is also true: Those who are truly skilled or knowledgeable in any given area, knowing enough to know that they can't know everything, will tend to be more modest about their abilities compared to the bombast of the dullard.

The article I was reading was talking about the Dunning-Kruger Effect in relation to politics, and certain pundits who prey on the ignorance of their followers for political gain. But in thinking about the article, I realized it applies to all sorts of situations, including employment.

Who stands out during job interviews? Who does the recruiter remember? Is it the guy who calmly and honestly says, "I believe I can do it, and if there's anything else I need to learn, I'll do my best to learn it." Or is it the guy who proudly boasts, "I'm the best! I could have written the book on how to do this job!"

Nine times out of ten, it's the second guy, the self-deluded moron, who gets hired, and through the same process gets promoted over the years, over all the truly competent co-workers. And now, they're the ones at the top, screwing up the entire economy.

So, if you're looking for work right now, and you're lucky enough to get a job interview, and the interviewer asks you, "Why have you been out of work for so long?" Look that son-of-a-bitch right in the eye and with all the confidence you can muster say, "Because of stupid bastards like you!"

You may not get the job, but at least you'll know why.

(NOTE: Some might ask, isn't this really just another way of describing the Peter Principle? Not quite... The Peter Principle explains how, should a competent person be lucky enough to get a job, he or she will be promoted to their level of incompetence. The Dunning-Kruger Effect explains why the competent person probably won't even be hired in the first place.)

Book Review: Medium Raw: A Bloody Valentine to the World of Food and the People Who Cook

2010-08-29T08:17:00.001-07:00

Medium Raw: A Bloody Valentine to the World of Food and the People Who Cook by Anthony Bourdain

Warning: I'm an Anthony Bourdain fan. No, that's not strong enough. It's the kind of fandom that in younger days I'd reserve only for those who'd turned their guitars up to 11 shortly before smashing them. Yes, Tony's my new rock star.

So, of course, five stars and a strong recommendation for others who already love and follow Tony for both the No Reservations TV show and his previous books, particularly Kitchen Confidential. But, perhaps, only three stars for somebody who's never heard of Anthony Bourdain, and just stumbled upon this book on the New Releases rack at Borders.

Not that the writing isn't excellent. It is. His style is flowing and conversational, vivid and detailed, bringing you into the various kitchens and dining rooms, and making you smell and even taste every morsel. But many of the subjects are self-referential. Many chapters (really, only semi-related essays) assume you've read Kitchen Confidential, and provide follow-up on certain topics, characters, and places. Some make reference to specific episodes of No Reservations.

But if you're the type of person who's ever enjoyed a meal so much that it made you cry, and you're not aware of Anthony Bourdain, then you need to be. But start with Kitchen Confidential, catch Tony a few times on the Travel Channel, and then enjoy Medium Raw as your decadent, oh-so-rich, guilty little dessert.

Kitchen Confidential is required reading for anybody who ever has, or ever plans to eat in a restaurant, any restaurant.

Medium Raw is for those who've days on the phone, fighting busy tones to get through to that most exclusive restaurant for that most elusive reservation. Medium Raw is for those of us who've closed the regular menu and gladly put ourselves into the hands of the chef for the tasting menu.

Medium Raw is for those who've traveled far from home, turned down the hotel's recommended list of "safe" places for tourists to eat, deliberately wandered into the "locals only" part of town, and grinned happily while eating a dish you would have never ordered in a million years at home.

Anthony Bourdain is not for the squeamish. If you always get the same chicken dish from the same "reasonably priced" place down the street, then you may want to stay away. If you're ready for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, then this "bloody valentine to the world of food and the people who cook" might be right up your alley.

Talking About Audio

2010-08-27T13:58:00.000-07:00

As mentioned in the previous post, I've been on Blogger for nearly ten years. I've also been on YouTube for four years. So, I have no problem sharing, and I enjoy creative hobbies. But one thing I've never gotten into was podcasting.

I opened an account at PodOmatic.com back in 2007, but I never really knew what to do with it. By that point I was already vlogging on YouTube, so it seemed like, if I was going to put in the effort to "produce" an audio program, I'd rather put the same effort into producing a video.

Just in the last week or so, my friend Rich (WorldAccordingToRich on YouTube, and on Blogger) started playing with podcasting over at Audioboo.com. My first reaction was, "Hey, where's the video?" Then, in his blog, he made a great point about some people being more comfortable opening up to a microphone than they would be to a camera. Audio could be a great tool for getting some quick on-the-street interviews that otherwise would not make it to video.

Then, poking around the Audioboo site, I found they had one thing that PodOmatic does not have, and perhaps it's the one thing that guaranteed I would try it: Audioboo has an iPhone app.

And so, once again, I'm testing out podcasting, and here's my first attempt... if you enjoy it, you can check out my Audioboo profile page and subscribe by RSS feed, follow me on the site, or even subscribe using iTunes.

Listen!

Blogging is Dead! Long Live the Blog!

2010-08-17T11:48:00.000-07:00

Pretty much since blogger.com launched eleven years ago, giving the average non-total-geek access to the tools to create frequently updated, timely, personal websites, the mainstream press has been declaring the death of blogging. First off, they said, what we were creating now were not truly "weblogs" as the pioneers had created, they were more along the lines of diaries or journals, or even worse, according to the professional pundits, amateur punditry. And so they looked to any signs to show that it was all just a passing fad and fancy.

Newsweek (remember them? they used to publish a magazine?) is the latest to pound these well-worn drums in an online article titled "Take This Blog and Shove It!" with the clever sub-title of "When utopian ideals crash into human nature—sloth triumphs."

Among the horrifying (yawn) statistics uncovered:

"Amateur blogs, the original embodiment of Web democracy, are showing signs of decline. While professional bloggers are "a rising class," according to Technorati, hobbyists are in retreat, and about 95 percent of blogs are launched and quickly abandoned...

"[W]hile Twitter carries more than 50 million tweets per day, its army of keystrokers may not be as large as it seems. As many as 90 percent of tweets come from 10 percent of users...

"Citizen journalism also has stabilized. Fewer than one in 10 Web users say they have created their own original news or opinion piece..."

First off, I love the quotes around "rising class" when referring to professional bloggers. If ever a typed quotation mark had to be read as air quotes, this was it. Leaving that bit of editorializing through punctuation aside, let's look at the 95% abandonment rate and why I think that's just fine.

Starting a blog is the modern version of starting a novel or screenplay. In any office in any city anywhere in the world, you'll find accountants, clerks, middle-managers, and other assorted board pencil-pushers who all have the seeds of their dream project tucked into the back of a drawer. Nobody has ever put a number on their abandonment rate, but I'm willing to guess it's somewhat over 95%.

If 5% of first novels started this year were actually completed and published, we'd be seeing more new authors than at any time previously. 95% of blogs are abandoned? Fine. Does that take into account blogs that were started for a particular limited time purpose, like promoting a (now past) event? I doubt it. Some blogs have a final post for a reason, but still remain live for archive purposes.

The only difference between blogs started and abandoned and writing the first few pages of the Great American Novel is that one is a far more public declaration of the would-be writer's creative ambition. Writing is tough work, whatever the medium. Not every idea pans out the way we hoped it would, and not everybody with a creative idea has the stamina and drive and determination to see it through.

I've certainly abandoned my share of blogs. This particular blog (9-1/2 years and over 1,100 posts) is still going strong, as is my Nonprofit Consultant Blog (nearly 5 years and over 200 posts). But my attempts to do a food blog or a guitar blog have not fared as well. Big deal. Next point.

So, 10% of tweeters account for 90% of tweets? Again, not surprising, or any different than we'd expect in any type of communications medium, including face-to-face meetings. Does your workplace have staff meetings? Keep track of who does the most talking. This is just human nature. Some people have the common sense to keep their mouths shut once in a while.

To me, what I see in that sentence is "50 million tweets per day." That's a big number, representing an awful lot of written text, even at 140 characters per tweet. And that's from only 10% of people with Twitter accounts? I don't see failure; I see an awful lot of written communication and I'm still impressed.

Next point... the "stabilization" of citizen journalism. Again, "only" one in ten web users has created a news or opinion piece. I wish somebody had ever thought to keep track of how many newspaper readers had ever even written a letter to the editor, let alone had one published in the paper.

When in the history of the planet, has 10% of the population been able to share their ideas, opinions, and creativity with mass audiences beyond their immediate family and a few associates without editors, censors, and expensive hurdles to cross?

And this amazing amount of participation, writing, and reading, is what Newsweek terms "sloth"?

For the social media revolution to succeed at changing our society it does not need the majority of citizens to be constantly publishing their every thought. All it requires is that a greater percentage of people participate than have ever had the opportunity to participate previously. That has happened.

So the participation figures have leveled off a bit. Great. They've not declined. A leveling-off should be expected after the initial bursts of growth. There will be more growth, but at a slower and more sustainable rate, in the years to come.

The tools are out there, and getting better every day. The cat is out of the bag. There's no turning back. Sorry, Newsweek, but your days of being relevant are what is losing steam.

Social Media Meet-Up in Santa Cruz, CA, September 18, 2010

2010-07-28T13:09:00.000-07:00

Along with my friend Curt (known as OhCurt on YouTube and elsewhere online), I'm organizing a Social Media Meet-Up (or SMMU) on the Santa Cruz Pier for September 18, 2010, 10 AM to 3 PM.

In the past I've been to several YouTube gatherings, but the social media landscape is much broader than that now. I've been here, on blogger, for nearly a decade, YouTube for about four years, twitter and facebook since they each launched, and the community is very fluid, with people migrating from on platform to another as their interests and needs shift.

One day video bloggers may be posting vlogs on YouTube, but the next on Vloggerheads or Vimeo, or micro-vlogs on 12seconds. Bloggers now tweet, and status updates from twitter now automatically post to facebook or buzz. It's a fascinating time, and there are lots of great people involved, and the SMMU is an attempt to get them all together for a great time and learn about how we're all using social media in an informal and fun setting.

For all the details on the SMMU (location, time, etc.), please see the SMMU blog at sc-smmu.blogspot.com, or the join our facebook group. Meanwhile, here's a little announcement video about the event:

Why I'm Not Going to Vidcon

2010-07-05T11:43:00.000-07:00

Next week in Los Angeles is Vidcon: "The first ever gathering of the most influential and popular independent video makers online and the communities that have made them a force in the world."

Many are saying Vidcon "is just a con," "It should be free," "What do they know that I don't?" etc. I disagree with all that. I would love to attend, and find true value in, a serious conference about online video, and where all this is going, and $140 would be a bargain ... if it were the right conference.

Unfortunately, Vidcon is not that conference. And not because they're charging admission, or because of who is organizing it, or who the speakers are, but simply because of the lack of serious in-depth content.

Looking at which of my own vlogs have received the most hits, the strongest reactions, and most emotional comments, it's the ones on copyright and DMCA issues. I think most of us agree, that's a major problem on YouTube. But at Vidcon, there's a single 1/2-hour break-out session on "YouTube Policy, DMCA and Fair Use" (with "Meet Charles Trippy" going on in the next room over), but nothing on "What IS the law," "What IS fair use," "How to protect yourself," or anything on finding royalty free music, public domain images, etc.

There's a handful of sessions under the heading of "Online Video Film School," but none of them long enough to teach anything in depth or that will be remembered once the attendees return home. And, for each "Online Video School" there are two "Meet-up with [famous 'Tuber]" sessions.

There's a session on the Future of YouTube, lead by YouTube's "Director of Product Management," but nothing on the future of online video or social media as a new and exciting medium in which to create original work.

It seems to me (IMHO) that Vidcon – however well-intentioned the organizers may have been – will be more of trying to fit new media into an old media shell, and relying on "star power" to drive attendance and excitement for the event.

I look at the schedule and there's dozens of short sessions with no point to them, and not a single in-depth educational session that I might get anything out of. It's the short-attention-span YouTube gathering, and not much more.

I've attended many, many professional conferences over the years, and I've even helped organize at least a dozen or so conferences, but I've never seen such a jumbled, aimless mess of a schedule than the one for Vidcon.

My friend Rich of WorldAccordingToRich will be at Vidcon. He's interested in what "approach the entertainment industry at large is taking with the YouTube phenomena," and is hoping to get some insight into that. I get the importance of it to him professionally, but it has very little significance to me.

For social media to truly continue its growth into something new and different, we must allow it space away from "the entertainment industry at large." YouTube is more a phenomenon from Silicon Valley than from Hollywood, and its impact is (and should be) anything but localized to any dominant region. Social media belongs to the world, and there's nothing Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, or London can do about it.

In the last couple of years, the growing and nearly over-powering influence of old media on YouTube, simply as a means to promote movies/TV, has threatened to drown out those who are using YouTube to develop something entirely new. Yes, social media (YouTube, twitter, etc.) can be used to promote other traditional media, but if they become mediums that are nothing but promotional vehicles, they will die quickly.

I think there's so much more potential to new media yet to be discovered that I – personally (IMHO) – have no time to care about how Hollywood will use it.

I will watch the vlogged reports from Vidcon from WorldAccordingToRich and Renetto and others I know who are attending. But I don't expect to regret my decision to stay home.

Not Technically Unemployed

2010-07-03T09:59:00.000-07:00

I'm not technically unemployed... I just have no work. There's a difference...

This is a blog post I've thought about writing for a couple of weeks, as so many of my friends are going through extended periods of unemployment, under-employment, or "being made redundant." Isn't that a great term? Being told that you're now "redundant." Great way to add insult to injury, don't you think?

On the one hand, I like to [try to] keep a positive public face about my current situation, be optimistic about future opportunities, and not look like I'm seeking sympathy, but in the end, I've decided it's more important to let my "redundant" friends know that they're not alone.

So, no, technically I'm not unemployed, as I'm a self-employed consultant ... I just haven't had anyone to consult to since April 1, and my only income for the last three months has been $22.82 in book royalties. Being self-employed means that when the work dries up, there's no unemployment benefits or severance packages, just the search for the next gig.

Part of being independent is that there's ups and downs. The last several long-term gigs have come one on top of the other, even over-lapping major assignments. A "high quality problem," as Tom G. would say. But since April 1, there's been a disconcerting silence from my usual sources of leads, and very little I've been able to dig out on my own.

I've been searching for irons and fires and trying to put them together, but I can see I may have a significant bit of down-time before the next long-term assignment. In six and-a-half years of being in business for myself, this is the most difficult time I've had. Of course, considering the economy, I suppose three months of downtime after a 6-1/2 year stretch isn't all that bad.

That said, overall, I again count my blessings and say "high quality problem," but that doesn't make it any easier. Especially when it's summer, and my wife (a teacher) is also without paycheck for a couple of months, and we've got contractors bidding on re-doing our bathroom and other repair work.

So, I keep in touch with colleagues and let them know I'm available, I read the job listings to see if there's anything to tempt away from my independent practice back into "a real job," and I've started another book project of some nonprofit case studies from my last several long-term consulting gigs.

All-in-all, I've been keeping myself busy, and I plan on enjoying the summer, even if I have to do it on a lower budget than I might prefer.

So, for those of you who are redundant, I share your pain. Even though we all know "it's the economy, stupid," it's hard not to take some of it as a personal failing in moments of weakness. But we just have to push past that, keep ourselves occupied, and look for that next great opportunity. It's out there somewhere. It has to be.

Summer Movies (so far)

2010-06-25T10:51:00.000-07:00

We tend to go to the movies more during the summer months. First, we have more free time, as my wife (a teacher) is off of work. Second, when the temperature starts rising, it's nice to go someplace dark and cool for a couple of hours.

But it can be frustrating, as the types of movies that are out in summer tend to be the types of movies we avoid: anything with a number in the title, anything that's a remake of something we watched on TV 30 years ago, and the all important Rule of 15 (anything that's likely to have more than 15% of the audience under 15 years old). Still, we've managed to see a few good films so far this month; Exit Through the Gift Shop, Solitary Man, and Micmacs.

Exit Through the Gift Shop is a documentary about Thierry Guetta, a shop-keeper, turned documentary film maker, turned street artist, and the world of graffiti artists such as Banksy, Space Invader, and Shepard Fairey (the guy who designed the iconic Obama poster). It's an absurd story that calls into question the fine lines between street art and fine art, between fine art and commerce, between paying ones dues (the suffering artist) and overnight success, and between being a filmmaker and being just another guy with a video camera and a mental problem.

Yes, the big question is always "but is it art?" but it's all the other questions along the way, and larger-than-life characters, that make this a fascinating, fast moving, and entertaining movie.

Solitary Man is the most commercial of the three films we've seen so far this summer. Michael Douglas plays a successful businessman who hits the mid-life crisis free fall with swift, steep, and beautifully self-destructive results.

It's a story we've seen before (catering to aging baby boomers is big business itself), and if you pay too much attention there are enough holes in the plot to fill the Albert Hall, but the performances (including far too little of Susan Sarandon, Danny DeVito, and a wonderfully viscous and spoiled Mary-Louise Parker) make it an enjoyable afternoon at the cinema never-the-less.

Micmacs is the truly amazing, charming, and creative gem of the group. Director Jean-Pierre Jeunet (Amélie) gives us the world of the luckless Bazil. While a boy, Bazil's father is killed by a land mine, destroying his family and childhood. Years later, the quiet life he's made for himself is again sent into turmoil by a stray bullet finding his head, which he barely survives. Now, out on the streets, he's taken in by an underground group of misfits and petty thieves (think Terry Gilliam directing Fagan, the Artful Dodger and the rest of the Oliver Twist gang), who help him exact revenge on the companies who made the landmine and the bullet.

But that plot, and characters like Elastic Girl, Slammer, and Calculator, only scratch the surface of how wildly inventive and visually stunning this movie is. I saw one review that said it was like a live action Toy Story. Having not seen the Toy Story series (see my rules for summer movies above), I can't say how accurate that is, but I would say that the style owes much to Tex Avery and Chuck Jones. There is a political message underneath all that creativity, but Jeunet slips it in quietly and without disturbing the creative flow. Best movie of the summer so far.

Post Election Hangover

2010-06-09T08:19:00.000-07:00

Yesterday was election day in California, and I have to say, I'm pleasantly surprised with the results on most of the ballot propositions - an area where I was preparing myself for bitter disappointment.

Despite putting $46 million of our (ratepayers) money into Prop 16, PG&E's power grab attempt went down to defeat, along with Prop 17, Mercury Insurance's "please make us give you a discount" attempt. Nobody is giving you something for nothing, and just enough people saw through these two corporate abuses of democracy for what they were, and by slim margins turned them down. Good for California and good for Californians! We're not as dumb as we might look.

My one really big disappointment was the passage of Proposition 14, deceptively and cynically titled, "Increases Right to Participate in Primaries." The idea here is to eliminate the power of political parties, by putting all primary candidates on a single ballot. The top two vote getters then face off in the November general election.

Now, if you read this blog regularly, you know I'm a registered independent, and all for breaking the stranglehold of the two major parties ... if it is to open up the process to more choice. But nature abhors a vacuum, a rule that also applies to political power. In this case, party structure is simply replaced by money and name recognition.

The diagram from the official voter information pamphlet (shown here) says it all. Instead of several party primaries, each with maybe four or five candidates selecting their nominee to face off in a general election where again there will be a half-dozen candidates, each representing a different party, we'll now have a primary with a confusing dozen or more candidates leading up to a general election choice of only two ... and both potentially of the same party!

Supporters say this will give us "more moderate candidates" as everybody will have to play to the middle. But to rise above a field of 15-20 candidates in a state the size of California, it will only give us better connected and wealthier candidates. More corporate shills to continue the status quo.

Speaking of which, the Republicans nominated two former Silicon Valley CEOs for top office; eBay's Meg Whitman for Governor and Hewlett Packard's Carly Fiorina for Senate.

In her victory speech, Whitman, who will face off against former Governor Jerry Brown in November, said that she was ready to "shake up" the Governor's office with thinking from "outside Sacramento." Whitman (who spent over $70 million of her own cash to secure the nomination) said she'd be a different kind of Governor because she isn't "beholden to anybody."

Now, if she were following a Democratic Governor, or even a Republican "career politician," that might be a good argument. But she's hoping to follow the non-politician, self-funded millionaire, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Has she not been paying attention? Probably not. She's so new to this "democracy thing" that she's rarely bothered to even vote in her adult life.

The one thing I can say for Whitman, however, is that she at least was a successful CEO, not that that will automatically translate to governing success. On the other hand, Carly Fiorina, who will be trying to unseat Senator Barbara Boxer in November, just about destroyed Hewlett Packard. When they finally fired her, their stock value was about 1/3 what it was when she was hired. Along that path, she laid off over 30,000 employees, sent thousands more jobs from California to Asia, and accepted a $20 million golden parachute to leave Silicon Valley. Ummm... she's seeking to represent me?

At Fiorina's celebration, a spokesman for the California Republican Party expressed his joy at having these two candidates to run against the Democratic "professional politicians." He says he welcomes the perspective of these leaders because they'll remove the shackles of oppressive regulation from businesses. How he managed to say that with a straight face while millions of gallons of oil having been spilling into the Gulf of Mexico for the past 50 days show that he learned some acting skills from the current Governator.

This post is getting quite long ... sorry, that's what happens when I don't blog for a while ... so I'll end it here, but in coming months I'll explain why I fully support Jerry Brown, our once and future Governor, and our Senator Barbara Boxer. And where, and why, I will likely not be voting a straight Democratic ticket in November.

What's So Wrong About Enforcing Citizenship Laws?

2010-04-21T15:37:00.000-07:00

A friend, who I consider of at least average intelligence, and reasonably reasonable, just innocently put out the statement, "The folks opposing the efforts of Arizona to enforce citizenship laws have yet to convince me why it's a bad thing."

Well, of course, I gasped in shock. How could any right thinking person not recognize this obvious evil? But then, I tend to get outraged easily and these are easily outraging times. So I've learned to maintain my calm and think about a reasonable answer that might explain "why it's a bad thing."

Simply, it puts the concept of justice as we've practiced it in the USA for over 200 years on its head. We have a justice system in which we value the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and we have a dedication to freedom that includes freedom of movement and travel without harassment from authorities. Each of those is reversed by the Arizona law.

What has been voted on by the legislature and is awaiting the governor's signature is a law that requires all law enforcement figures to presume that anybody who may not have been born here is here illegally, without any proof or reasonable suspicion that any crime has taken place. All immigrants (and anybody who might look or sound like an immigrant) would essentially be required to carry their papers proving they're here legally with them at all times and subject to this question on a continuous basis for simply going about their daily business.

People who came to this country legally - and many who were born here but "look wrong" - will be subject to a burden that no other citizen or legal immigrant is subject to. And, of course, only a complete fool would deny that this is aimed solely at those of Latin decent. No British tourist or immigrant is likely to be hassled under this law. But Latinos who've lived their entire lives in Arizona will be.

This law has very little to do with "enforcing citizenship laws" and quite a lot to do with holding out one group of people and making them subject to additional official harassment. That is racism, pure and simple.

And, of course, there's the question of proper authority. Border patrol is the jurisdiction of federal authorities, not state or local police. This law creates an unnecessary burden on the police as well, who will be charged with carrying out this racist policy.

Of course, where there is evidence of a crime, the proper authority must investigate. And if, in the course of investigation of a local crime, police determine that a suspect may be in the country illegally, they should turn that fact over to the federal authority to prosecute. But the presumption of a crime is un-Constitutional and un-American.

When I was young, and the Soviet Union was still our greatest threat, one of things we were told that made our country so much better, was that we had no need for "Internal Passports." That in the USSR, people had to carry papers to travel from town to town, whereas we were free to move about within our borders. When I think of the effect of this law on the Latino population of Arizona, I am reminded of this and again, I say, anything that makes us resemble the old Soviet Union is most likely un-American.

Requirements for internal passports, the presumption of guilt before evidence of a crime, and a policy that singles out one group for official harassment all add up to why I think "it's a bad thing," a dangerous thing, and one more major blow to democracy and freedom and all that I love about America.

I don't know if that will convince my friend, but I certainly know where I stand. And I won't be standing in Arizona anytime soon if this becomes law.

Keep Your Laws Off My Cappuccino Stout!

2010-04-06T12:21:00.000-07:00

Assemblyman Jim Beall (D-San Jose) is normally somebody I really like. He's a great, honest guy, who actually cares about the community. Both now, in the state legislature, and earlier, on the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, he's been a friend and advocate of the nonprofit community in which I work. But, Jim, if you're reading this, now you've pissed me off.

Assemblyman Beall has introduced legislation to ban caffeine in malt beverages (IE: Beer). The target product, it seems, is this:

...sweet malt beverages known as "alcopops," which often mask the flavor of alcohol and tend to be marketed to younger drinkers. ... many of these products come in 23-ounce cans that contain the equivalent of five to eight cups of coffee, are 12 percent alcohol and are sold for $1.99. A regular energy drink, by contrast, can cost $2.99...

Personally, I've never heard of these before, but I can see why it would be an issue. But there's a couple of problems with attempting a ban.

First of all, the products are likely just a response to consumers who were already mixing energy drinks with vodka. Those who want a "buzz-drunk" will continue to do that, whether or not the pre-mixed version is on market shelves. This could be yet another law that will have absolutely no effect on the actual situation: those who market alcohol to under-age drinkers and lack of public knowledge of the dangers of the buzz-drunk.

Secondly, and what's really got me worried, is in trying to remove a few products aimed at under-aged drinkers, they could accidentally ensnare and ban legitimate adult products, such as ales, porters, and stouts enfused with coffee or chocolate.

According to the article, "Beall said he is working with beer lovers to make sure they can still enjoy brews such as the Cappuccino Stout from Lagunitas brewery in Petaluma." Well, I hope so! I love that brewery, and their product. But, somehow, I'm nervous that this bill can be written broadly enough to target all offending products, but narrow enough to keep Lagunitas and other creative craft brewers in the clear. It seems that whatever loophole is written in to save craft brews will be exploited by those market to kids.

Aren't there already laws against marketing booze to minors? Whether it's the manufacture who promotes the product to kids or the retailer or bartender who sells it, we have the tools to crack down on wired drunk adolescents already. Let's use these resources to get rid of the "alcopop crisis" and leave the craft brews alone!

Can Lesbians be Funny?

2010-03-13T17:18:00.000-08:00

Well, of course, the answer is yes, lesbians can be very funny. But that doesn't mean that all lesbians have a sense of humor. Let me explain...

Last Saturday evening, I went to see the Queer Queens of Qomedy show at the Rio Theater in Santa Cruz with my wife and sister-in-law. When the sister-in-law first invited us, she also warned us, "It's an all lesbian show, are you sure you'll be comfortable?"

We assured her we would, but it did raise a moment of concern of whether or not the "comedy" would be overly politically correct rants against the male dominated society and inside "jokes" that would go over our heads. Luckily, that moment of concern didn't last long, and we decided to go to the show.

Simply put, one of the best and funniest nights of comedy we've enjoyed in a very long time.

The organizer of QQQ is Poppy Champlin, and she led off the show with an act I thought couldn't be topped. But the second comic, Sandra Valls came close. After a brief intermission, and bit more from Poppy, Roxanna Ward closed the show with a musical-comedy combination that had us crying from both laughing so hard and her beautiful singing (when she wasn't mooing).

And there was no need to worry about political correctness. Sacred cows were slain and eaten raw. And any "lesbian-centric" humor was at least as raunchy and outrageous (and easily understood) as any male comic you'd see in Las Vegas. No, strike that; it's hard to find raunch in Vegas anymore. This was much better.

Which brings us to the point: Just because lesbians can be damned funny, doesn't mean all lesbians have a sense of humor. Last night I received an email from Poppy Champlin (I signed up for the QQQ mailing list after the show) saying that of the 370 people in attendance at last Saturday's show - the vast majority of whom seemed to be loving it as much as I did - one person was highly offended by the non-politically correct humor, and is starting a campaign to get QQQ in trouble with their sponsor, Olivia Travel - an organizer of lesbian cruises and vacation packages.

Poppy's email was asking for those of us who enjoyed the show to let Olivia know. I have sent them a direct message thanking them for bringing the show to Santa Cruz, and asking that they do it again next year. And, I'm taking this space on my blog to give a shout-out to all funny lesbians who dare to be outrageous and risk offending people. And thank you, Poppy, Roxanna, and Sandra, for a great night out.

Standing Up for California's Schools

2010-03-03T09:22:00.000-08:00

About a year ago I blogged about "Pink Friday" - the designation given last year to the March 15 deadline to give teachers layoff notices, or "pink slips," due to California state budget cuts in education.

Well, this year, March 15 falls on a Monday, and the pink slips have already begun appearing. So far, statewide, over 18,000 teachers have been told that their services will not be required for the next school year. That number will increase over the next twelve days. Of course, the number of children in school will not be likewise cut. Instead, class sizes will increase and services will be cut.

In my wife's school, second grade classrooms will increase from 20 to 30 students each, and teachers will have less time to prep lessons and grade work because they'll each have additional yard duty to fill in for other adjunct staff who have also been pink slipped. Oh, and she'll take home less money as health insurance premiums increase and the district considers whether to enact three or five mandatory furlough days.

Yes, this is obviously personal to me, but if you have children in California's schools, or you run a business that hires graduates of California's schools, or you see the benefits of an educated population on such things as civil participation and crime prevention, it should be personal to you too.

A few things to consider:
• Lawmakers have cut more than $17 billion from public schools and colleges in the last two years and more cuts have been proposed.
• Class sizes have increased to unmanageable numbers, denying students the one-on-one attention they need. More than 70 percent of elementary schools reported class size increases.
• Art, music, PE, career technical education and summer school programs have been eliminated.
• California spends $2,400 less per student than the national average and ranks 46th in per-pupil funding.

This is not just about K-12 education either, but our state colleges and universities:
• Student enrollment fees increased more than 30% this year. Rising student fees and reduced course offerings mean fewer students can go to college.

So, what can you do? Tomorrow, Thursday, March 4, there will be Stand Up For Schools rallies throughout the state. From silent protests in the morning before classes begin, to informational meetings in the evening where you can learn how to fight Sacramento and demand a quality education for your community, there's something you can do.

Search the events page at Stand Up For Schools to see what's happening in your community. If you don't see anything listed on the website, contact your child's teacher, school, or district office.

Another nice thing about these events is the teamwork behind them. These are not just organized by the teacher's unions, or just a few administrators working together, but a collaboration between the unions, the districts, the administrators, and other education staff and groups.

Many times we say things like, "Our state's future depends on this." Well, it may be trite to say it again, but this time, I really mean it.

A New Obsession?

2010-02-19T08:28:00.000-08:00

... or an old one? Or, maybe, a bit of each. I've played guitar for years and years (not expertly well, but I enjoy it), and have often thought that someday it would be a great project to build an instrument of some sort.

Lately I've seen several videos on YouTube about cigar box guitars, including some by a vlogger I've watched on-and-off for some time. Seeing somebody I sort-of know doing it was a bit of an inspiration. Within a few clicks of his video, I came across a link like this:

"How to build a cigar box guitar - Free Plans at www.cigarboxnation.com."

So, I checked it out... and I read some more, and I watched some more videos, and I downloaded the plans. And I thought, I might actually be able to do this...

Okay, so I haven't started yet, but my current big work project should be wrapping up in the next month or so, and I'm going to need something to keep me busy through the spring. Till then, I'll be looking for good materials (nice thing about the plans is that it shouldn't cost me more than $30-50 to get it all done), and learning all I can from the cigarboxnation.com web site.

So, if you don't see me posting an update here with photos and videos of my finished project by mid-summer, please demand an explanation and force me to do this thing. Thank you.

Giving up on a New Constitution?

2010-02-13T09:03:00.000-08:00

Back in November I wrote about efforts underway to call a California State Constitutional Convention that would take our bloated, unworkable governance structure (California's Constitution is the world's third longest; eight times the length of the U.S. Constitution) and reform our state government from head to toe.

Well, as of yesterday, Backers of the campaign have suspended their efforts because of a lack of money. To date, they've only collected 100,000 of the million or so petition signatures required to get the Constitutional Convention on the ballot. Further, they've only raised about one million dollars ("only?") and some pledged donations have failed to come in.

"Campaign officials said they would need at least $3.5 million for a successful signature-gathering effort, plus millions more for the actual campaign. They blamed the tough economy and people focusing charitable efforts on Haiti for the lack of donations to their effort."

Well, first off, the nonprofit consultant part of me wants to yell at them for making excuses: Never blame the donors! They failed to get their message out and make a strong case to the average voter, plain and simple.

But, more to the point of this blog, part of my reason for supporting a Constitutional Convention and other reforms is to reduce the influence of money on our political processes. Now, we need another $3.5 million to fight against the high price of democracy. Huh?

As I wrote in that initial blog, the whole Initiative process (roughly one century old) was also an attempt to take power from the elites and corporations and return it to the people. Now we need new reforms to save us from the expensive mess that the old reforms have become. And so it goes.

The Repair California web site is still live, if you have an extra few million dollars lying around to give them to re-ignite the campaign.

Double the Surgery - Double the Fun!

2010-02-03T16:31:00.000-08:00

Okay, I'm warning you right off that this is one of those medical update blog posts that turn a lot of readers off. If that's you, please click someplace else before going any further, I don't mind. I do these medical posts because when people are thinking of having a procedure done, or are having a problem, they often search out answers from other patients instead of always getting all their information from the doctor's point-of-view. This post is for those readers.

For those who have read my blog, or have known me, for any length of time, you know that I've been diagnosed with severe Obstructive Sleep Apnea or "OSA" (see my posts on the subject here). OSA is far more than just loud snoring; it's a health endangering condition wherein I actually stop breathing for several seconds at a time throughout the night, depleting the oxygen in the brain, disrupting sleep patterns, putting extra strain on my heart and lungs, and annoying the hell out of my wife.

For the last few years I've been using a CPAP device - a machine that basically forces you to keep breathing by putting a continuous flow of air into your nose by way of a face mask. I like to call it my "hose hat." The nickname is the most fun part about it.

While the CPAP has been effective at reducing my symptoms by about 75-80%, it's uncomfortable, I can only sleep in two positions without dislodging it (flat on back or at just the right angle on my right side), it's a damn nuisance if I want to get up in the night to pee, a damn nuisance to carry through an airport when traveling, and, frankly, being attached to an air hose while in bed inhibits intimacy with my wife.

The surgical options originally presented to me by my sleep doctor were not very enticing. I was told they could basically break my jaw and rebuild my entire windpipe and nasal system, giving me at least six months of the most excruciating pain imaginable and a lower success rate than the CPAP. I passed on that. But I also could not imagine strapping the hose hat to my head every night for the rest of my life. I kept my eyes open for other options.

But recently I heard of a new, minimally invasive option called the Pillar Procedure. The procedure, done in the doctor's office (not a surgical center), is the insertion of three to five small plastic pillars, each about the size of a match stick, into the soft palate at the back of the mouth. As tissue regrows over the pillars, over several months, this stiffens the palate, reducing the vibration that is the cause of most snoring.

After some additional research, I signed up for it and had it done yesterday.

Here's what the procedure looks like (warning: graphic video):

My procedure went pretty much as in the video above. Five pillars inserted in fairly quick time. Unlike the video above, mine was not completely painless. While I didn't feel the first one, the second one hurt like hell, but only for a minute. I felt the others go in, but it was bearable. This did not surprise me, as when dentists work on me I always require additional drugs before I'm numb.

In addition to the pillars, I had a second procedure done at the same time: Turbinate Coblation, which is a procedure to reduce the swelling of tissue in the nasal passages as a result of allergies. While it was technically for my allergies, having a chronic stuffy nose also contributes to the snoring problem.

Here's a the Coblation procedure looks like:

Mine was much as the above. Very easy and quick. Altogether, I think I was in the chair in the examination room for a total of 35 minutes for both procedures, including signing the release forms, getting prepped, and going over my instructions for follow-up.

Yesterday I had a bad sore throat, not so much pain as discomfort in a place I wasn't used to. Also there was some bloody, mucus discharge from my nose (expected). I only ate soft, mild foods: a smoothie, yogurt, scrambled eggs. I did take Tylenol for pain, although I wasn't even sure if I needed it past the first hour or so.

Today I'm already feeling much better and haven't needed the Tylenol at all, and my nose is already clearer. Still some roughness to the throat so I'm not talking much, but definitely no pain or severe discomfort.

Now comes the waiting. Right now there's scar tissue in both palate and nose which will last for the next week or so before I start noticing the real benefits of the procedures. The full effect of the coblation should be known in a few weeks. The full effect of the pillars should be known in a few months.

And you know I'll post again letting you know if it was all worth it.

(BTW: The article links and videos are NOT the doctors I used, they're just informative links.)

Last Words from George Carlin - a book review

2010-01-15T15:38:00.000-08:00

Last Words, George Carlin's posthumous memoir, is a must read for every fan of Carlin as well as those who want a look inside the mind of the word-obsessed, meaning-searching, stand-up comedian. What we find inside is not always pretty, but it's as open, honest, and truthful as any memoir can be.

While the book is, at times, uproariously funny, the focus here is not on making comedy, but on how comedy is made. Humor, it turns out, is no laughing matter. Carlin worked meticulously on notes on topics, slowly and carefully shaping his 'bits' over years, carefully nursing them until they were ready for public view. This book, too, was decades in the making, and the effort paid off.

But also on view here is the private Carlin. The father who tried so hard not be the over-bearing parent that his own mother was that he missed huge chunks of his daughter's childhood. The addict and co-dependent with an addict wife. The workaholic who's career was declared dead several times, and who fought back with comeback after comeback.

Those who hate Carlin will find reason here to find him as the self-centered, uncaring, drug addled freak that they expect. And those who love Carlin will find the working class intellectual who rose above two-dimensional shtick to rip the lid off polite society and show it for the hateful, greedy, violent mess that it is, and did so with great humor. They're each part of who George Carlin was, and what made his work unique.

I miss George Carlin, I miss his work, and I am grateful that this book invited inside his head one last time.

The Dream About the Van Dyke

2010-01-06T14:18:00.000-08:00

Last night I dreamed that I accidentally shaved off my mustache.

For some reason I was shaving in the dark, without a mirror, and it was only after running the razor over the right side of my upper lip that I realized that that was a mistake.

I felt around, to asses the damage, and that one swipe had pretty much eliminated the hair from that region for the first time in several decades. I considered what to do. Should I leave it as is, with one side intact and the other reduced to stubble? Should I shave off the rest of the mustache? Or should I shave off everything, mustache and beard?

In the dream, I decided to continue on the other side of the upper lip and remove the mustache, but I left the goatee on the chin below. Yes, I thought, it will now truly be "just a goatee." No longer the full Van Dyke... Van Dyke; a much nicer term than "goatee" for a far more symmetrical beard. Yes, I thought, I like the symmetry of hair above and below the mouth, connecting at the sides.

I remembered this dream not when I first woke up, but later, as I stood before the mirror, preparing to shave. I wondered for a second whether I'd take the dream as a dare or even a prophecy and go for a new look. But, no, I left the Van Dyke intact.

I've worn my beard this way for nearly a decade. Previously I had a full beard and mustache, but I trimmed it back to the Van Dyke on the advice of one of my staff who thought the full beard was "too rabbinical."

I've also considered cutting it all down even further, to not even a goatee, but a mere triangle of fuzz below the lower lip: The Soul Patch. A minimalist approach to facial hair that's perhaps the coolest beard of them all. If I do it, of course, I'd also have to shave my head to go with it.

And I'd do it today - soul patch and shaved head - if I didn't think I'd wind up looking like Howie Mandel's chubbier brother. Not that I don't love Howie. He's an incredibly funny guy. I just don't want to encourage that kind of comparison. No, the "Full Howie" will have to wait.

For today, and tomorrow, at least, the Van Dyke survives. Except in my dreams.

A New Year and a Look Back

2010-01-01T09:06:00.000-08:00

Happy 2010 to one and all! Personally, I'm glad to leave 2009 in the dust. Not that it was the worst year, far from it, but it wasn't quite the best either.

Probably the best highlight that comes immediately to mind this New Years' morning was when my short film, "Gravehunting With Steve," was accepted as an Official Selection at IndieFest USA, to be held at Downtown Disney, Anaheim, CA. So, in August, I went Behind the Orange Curtain to spend a week as a "real filmmaker." It was a great week, and the fulfillment of a long-time goal.

Other highlights of 2009 also revolved around a bit of in-state travel. We went to Desert Hot Springs in April, up to Bodega Bay and the Sonoma Coast in July, and shorter weekend getaways to Carmel/Monterey (twice) and the wine country (Napa and in-land Sonoma Counties).

Unfortunately, the major downer event of 2009, my car wreck in May put a bit of a dark shadow over the rest of the year, as I'm still dealing with major back pain and a very slow recovery from that. (The wreck was not my fault: I was rear-ended at high speed by a hit-and-run driver).

As a result of being somewhat incapacitated, we've had to put off a lot of work around the house that I'd planned to do over the late spring and summer. Yes, contractors would do most of it, but I was unable to even do the basic prep, cleaning, and moving of stuff so the contractors could start. So now, 2010 will have to be "the year of the house."

The upside of having your car crushed while you're sitting in it is that you get to pick out a new car when it's all over. I picked out the new VW Tiguan and filled it up with nearly all the options. I am loving that, but I'm sure there must be easier (and less painful) ways to get a new car.

Work-wise, 2009 was good and busy, with a mix of rewarding projects and stress. When your work is about nonprofits in trouble, recessions can be a boost to business. While so many of my friends are out-of-work, or "under-employed," I'm not going to complain about being busy. As my friend Tom likes to say; "High quality problems."

Socially, 2009 was also very good, with Bay Area visits from many friends from the on-line world of YouTube. In fact, today will be spent having a traditional Southern New Years lunch of Hoppin' John, Corn Bread, and Mississippi Mud, and we'll follow that up with a wild night of Karaoke and drinks in San Francisco (we'll get a room in the city and take a cab to the club - no drinking and driving this weekend) ... Each with YouTube friends.

Yes: Online community is true community!

Which leads us to the last highlight of 2009, a creative collaboration that resulted in a fundraising event. Gary (known on YouTube as Anakin1814 - and one of tonight's karaoke participants) noticed that a lot of us vloggers are also into photography, and organized a 2010 calendar of our photos from around the world. Best part: the proceeds from the calendar will all be donated to the Nature Conservancy!

Learn more about that collaboration and the calendar at vloggerhood.org.

Have a great 2010 and thank you for being with me for 2009.

Last minute gift idea...?

2009-12-24T08:42:00.000-08:00

It's Christmas Eve, have you done all your holiday shopping? Looking to make one last online order?

How about yourself... Are you set with a beautiful new photo calendar for 2010?

Well... my good friend Gary (aka aka Anakin1814) has organized the 2010 "As Seen on YouTube" vloggerhood calendar with 15 photos by our online friends (including myself).

This has been a fun project to be a part of, and I'm thrilled with how the calendar has turned out. It's a fifteen month calendar (Jan 2010 - March 2011), and each picture is spectacular.

The best thing? All creator royalties will be donated to the Nature Conservancy. What are you waiting for? Order a few right now!

... Purchase the calendar today! (only $18.99)...
... Get more info on the project (including thumbnails of the 15 images)...
... Get more info on the Nature Conservancy...

The Right Policy Too Late?

2009-12-02T08:14:00.000-08:00

Watching the President last night one thing is certain; you could see that he knew he was making the unpopular decision, that he was set to anger those who'd voted for him, and fail to appease those who didn't. One conservative friend commented via twitter, "Have to wonder what the cadettes sitting in the stands thought of this weak man before them." I, too, was wondering what the cadettes thought of him, but not because he was weak. I think it took a tremendous amount of strength to go forward with that difficult decision in the face of overwhelming opposition. But strength of mind does not make you right.

Beyond announcing the 30,000 troop surge to "finish the job" in Afghanistan and be back in time for July 4th fireworks in 2011, President Obama also went through great pains to tell us that a) the delay in announcing the decision wasn't really a delay since the plan he was asked to consider doesn't go into effect until January, b) we are progressing in the plan to get out of Iraq, even if we haven't really noticed any difference yet, and c) Afghanistan is where we should have been putting our efforts in the first place, as it was from here that Osama bin Laden planned the 9/11 attacks.

I don't think anybody can seriously argue against 'c' - whether or not you believe Iraq was justified or just a distraction, bin Laden is the confessed ringleader behind 9/11, and he was certainly on the run in Afghanistan. And, on at least one occasion following 9/11, we had him in our sight and failed to capture or kill him.

But that was 2002 and this is 2009. What makes us realistically believe we have a better chance at getting bin Laden or neutralizing al qaeda today? What makes us realistically believe that more foreign soldiers on their soil is going to help de-radicalize the Afghan populace? And by what magic leap of faith do we believe that 30,000 is the magic number of troops to finish it all up in eighteen months?

As eloquent and powerful as the words he spoke were, these are the questions that were left unanswered. Many good things were said, and much that I agree with. But it all fell short of selling me on the surge. Yes, if either war was justified it was the one in Afghanistan. But has the opportunity for success there passed? Is the mision still relevant? And do the American people have the will to support it? I'm afraid the time has passed. The right idea, just a few years too late.

Looking back at my archives here, I found my review of the speech in which President Bush announced his "surge to the finish" in Iraq, back on January 11, 2007. What I wrote about the Iraqi surge that day was;

... it's not exactly the same failed strategy. It's more of the same failed strategy. It's the same, but different.

Well, as they say, history repeats.

The one highlight last night was shortly after the speech when The Onion came out with the headline Obama Tells Nation He's Going Out For Cigarettes. In the Onion story, the President gets a paragraph or two into his speech and says,

"Anyway, I'm going to go get some smokes, but I'll…be right back," added Obama, his voice trembling slightly. "Don't wait up."

We won't wait up.

Am I Wasting Your Time?

2009-11-25T16:50:00.000-08:00

Today, my good friend Tom Guarriello, asked a rather innocent question on Twitter, "Is it just me or are all Facebook apps really, really annoying?" He then commented on some of the responses he received in a post called What('s) A Waste Of Time? on his True Talk blog.

I'll get to his first question in a second, but first, more about his blog post... After quoting some dialog from Hamlet in which the title character defines Denmark as a prison while Rosencrantz says that it's not that bad, Tom comes to the conclusion that just as one man's prison may be another's paradise, the same goes for whether or not Facebook apps are an annoying waste or not.

But here's the part I want to comment on... Following the Hamlet scene, Tom writes:

... Western culture has a pretty sturdy set of guidelines about activities that are not, de facto, a waste of time:
Economic - anything leading to personal financial gain
Education - anything leading to fulfilling requirements for a diploma, certificate or degree
Exercise - physical activity for the sake of maintaining bodily fitness (this is a relatively recent addition to the Western canon of acceptable endeavors)
Activities in either of these categories (let's call them "productive") are safe from the charge of wasting time.

Time spent doing things that fall in other categories is more "questionable," i.e., if you do, it's likely that someone or other will think that you are being "unproductive"; wasting time (and, by "thinking make it so").
Entertainment - anything done for personal enjoyment/amusement
Expression - any creative activity that is not directly tied to vocational/economic/educational/fitness purposes
Exploration - anything done out of curiosity; i.e., doing things "for no good reason"
Philanthropy - anything done for the benefit of others

As somebody who's spent his entire career pretty much in that final category, I'd like to suggest that the line between the two groups is not as clear cut as Tom might suggest. I'd say that even the three items in teh first group could be considered "questionable" by some.

Why is activity done for "personal financial gain" automatically useful, while activity done "for the benefit of others" is questionable? I can think of several professions that I would define as a drain on society (anybody want to post a comment defending telemarketers?). And I would defend true philanthropy - doing for others without any expectation of return or recognition - to be the highest calling to which any of us could aspire.

And, really, just where the hell do I fit into this continuum? After all, I work in the charitable/philanthropic sector for personal financial gain. Which part of that equation is the waste of time?

Now, I'm sure Tom didn't mean to imply that crime was "not, de facto, a waste of time" but it is, after all, purely for personal gain and not for the benefit of others (unless you're Robin Hood). And, while I believe in education and (occasionally) try to get to the gym, I know that there are many people who consider both education and exercise to be major wastes of time (probably to their own detriment).

Meanwhile, how much scientific discovery would have been stifled had the discoverers remained in the lab because they felt guilty about wasting their time by going out "exploring"? Curiosity may have killed that cat, but it's also led to a greater understanding of the world around us.

The truth is, everything is a waste of time - including Facebook apps - to the person who has no interest in it and everything is worth pursuing if the person doing the pursuing gets one moment of pleasure from it - including Facebook apps.

It's just fine that some (most?) people think that everything I do is a waste of time, just as my opinion of how they spend their lives is completely irrelevant to them (or, at least, it should be).

I'm sure I had more to say on this topic, but my crops are ready to harvest in Farm Town...

Defending Sarah Palin

2009-11-18T09:52:00.000-08:00

This isn't what you think it's going to be. No, I'm not going to bash those defending Sarah Palin's self-serving, ghost-written memoir. Nor am I going to comment on her book, or the controversy it's stirring up at all (beyond that first sentence). I'm actually going to defend Sarah Palin against an unfair attack myself. (Pause for the gasps from the readers).

The group American Right to Life (ARTL) has claimed that Palin secretly supports abortion rights based on her having appointed to the Alaska Supreme Court a judge who has served on the Board of Directors of Planned Parenthood. On their Prolife Profiles page on Palin, they have archived the press release about Judge Christen's appointment. The press release details many of Christen's qualifications, but makes no mention of her service to Planned Parenthood. But, what I did find very interesting, was the last sentence of the press release:

Under current judicial selection procedures, the Alaska Judicial Council received applications from six Alaska attorneys, winnowed the list to two names, and forwarded them to the governor.

So, only six people wanted the job, only two were qualified, and Governor Palin selected one of those two. Without knowing who the other candidate was, and what their "prolife profile" would say, how can ARTL crucify Palin for the selection she made?

Learning that Palin may have actually, in some cases, put her duties as Governor ahead of her personal agenda is something knew and interesting to me. Good for her!

It should come as no surprise to any of my regular readers that I do not support ARTL's mission, but clearly these people are out of line and way overboard when they describe Judge Christen as "an abortionist" (she's not; she's a lawyer who served on a nonprofit Board), and just as wrong when they use guilt by association (and a rather tenuous association at that) to try to discredit Palin (and here's where I get in my digs; Palin does enough to discredit herself).

Okay. So don't let it be said that I'm a hypocrite of an independent who only sticks up for the liberals and leaves the conservatives out to hang when unfairly attacked. Now, excuse me while I go scrub my hands.

Can California be Saved?

2009-11-13T09:59:00.000-08:00

There are those who would place all the blame on Hiram Johnson. It was Johnson, as Governor, and the Progressives who brought the great reforms of the Initiative, Referendum, and Recall (along with direct election of US Senators) to California nearly 100 years ago to break the monopoly on power held by the State Legislature and the corporate interests who owned the individual members of that body.*

The legacy of a century of Initiatives and Referendums is a state Constitution with over 500 amendments (often conflicting with or negating each other) that is the world's third longest (eight times the length of the U.S. Constitution), a practice of budgeting through the ballot box that has left the Governor and Legislature very little authority in dealing with fiscal emergencies, and a state that is considered by many on both the right and the left as being virtually un-governable.

Far from being a tool for the people to self-govern when leaders fail, it has become accepted that to pass any statewide ballot measure requires the backing of the same large monied interests that the Progressives sought to silence. And yet, we still cling to the progressive reforms. While nearly all see the need for reform in how our state is governed, virtually nobody is suggesting an overhaul of the Initiative and Referendum process.

In fact, a year from now, in November 2010, we are likely to have at least half-a-dozen reform efforts using the Initiative process to cure us of the problems caused by abuse of the Initiative process. Can Alanis Morissette write a verse about that irony?

Yesterday I went to a lunch meeting of the American Leadership Forum, Silicon Valley, to hear about the history of some of these reform movements, previous efforts to save our state, and to discuss whether too many reform efforts on the same ballot will doom them all. The guest speaker was Don Benninghoven, a former Executive Director of the League of California Cities, and the vice-chair of the Constitutional Revision Commission (1996-98) appointed by Governor Pete Wilson.

That Commission actually did recommend some changes to the Initiative process, including adding a requirement that the Legislature review all submitted initiatives and have the opportunity to amend them before being submitted to the voters. This was suggested as a way of cutting down on the law suits that inevitably follow most initiatives by having them conform to certain standards of Constitutional review. They also recommended that rather than be set in stone and require another costly initiative to amend once an initiative is passed, that there be a set time frame (five years?) after which the Legislature could amend initiatives without putting it before the people. By the time their report was finalized, however, a new Republican majority had taken over the Legislature and they shelved the entire project.

But on to November of 2010... Several organizations have submitted Initiative language to the State, and will likely soon receive approval to start collecting signatures for ballot access. They include...

The League of California Cities will have their "Save our Cities... Again" Initiative. Basically, their aim is to protect local jurisdictions (the only level of government that most citizens still trust) from having their funds grabbed by the State each time the State is in trouble. The League has been successful with this type of Initiative before.

California Forward has their 2010 Reform Plan as well. This will likely be on the ballot in two (or three?) different measures, including such reforms as changing the vote needed to pass a state budget from 2/3 majority to simple majority, holding legislators personally responsible for failing to pass a budget on time, and protection of local government, similar to the League of California Cities effort.

And then there's the biggie: Repair California's call for a new State Constitutional Convention (Repair California was initiated by the Bay Area Council, but has grown to be a statewide coalition). Rather than work piecemeal around this problem or that problem and just add to the clutter of our unworkable governing document, they want to start fresh. Of course, that fresh start requires two Initiatives to set in motion: One to amend the current state Constitution to allow for citizens to call for a convention, and the second one to actually make that call.

Of course, this is the Initiative (or two) that has me the most fascinated and interested. It could be the greatest thing to happen to this state politically since 1911, or it could be total chaos. Or both. Either way, it could be a lot of fun and something I want to take a part in, either as an official delegate or just as an observer.

And, of course, even if all goes well, and they come up with the greatest state constitution of all time, it will still need to be approved by the people. After all that work, if it contains too many changes to current law, or anything even remotely controversial, it could fail miserably, leaving us right where we are now. It is for this reason that many of the participants in yesterday's meeting did not want to support Repair California's plan. But for me, even with all the potential pitfalls, I'm drawn to it and feel we have to give a try.

Soon the signature gathering will begin, and assuming all of the above qualify for the ballot, it will be up to the good people of this state (and many of the bad ones) to decide which way to go. Personally, I see no conflict between them. We can amend the budget process (CA Forward) and protect local government (League of CA Cities) today, and work on a new Constitution for tomorrow.

* While Johnson was a forward thinking and progressive leader on domestic issues for the first half of the 20th century, first as Governor then as US Senator, he was also an isolationist and xenophobe who supported the California Alien Land Act, prohibiting Asians from purchasing property, and was the only US Senator to vote against both the League of Nations and the United Nations.

Starbucks VIA Ready Brew - Thanks, but no thanks

2009-10-05T10:59:00.000-07:00

Dear Starbucks,

Thank you very much for the free cup of coffee this morning, and the opportunity to taste test your new VIA Ready Brew instant coffee. While I didn't care for the VIA (more on that in a minute), your staff was helpful and nice, and I enjoyed the cup of real coffee.

First, a bit of background on what type of coffee drinker I am. I'm not a daily, gotta-have-it kind of guy. It takes an effort sometimes, but I try to keep it down to no more than a couple of times a week. I'd prefer to have an occasional cup of really good coffee than to be constantly swilling bad coffee. When I drink it, I like it dark and strong - same as I like my whiskey or my beer.

I have no patience for Miller Lite, and will pass on beer if that's all that's offered (Guinness, please!). Same with coffee; if Denny's Swill is all that's available, I'll have a Diet Coke, thank you. And, frankly, when it comes to the chains, I usually prefer Peet's over Starbucks, and when there's a locally owned and fresh roasted coffee shop around, I'll take that over any chain.

So, back to the VIA taste test... Your barista prepared the two cups for me, one of the VIA Ready Brew and one of your Pikes Peek and set them out for me. On sight alone, I could not tell which was which, and I was hopeful. Then I sniffed them.

One smelled like fresh coffee should, and warmed me right up. The other was, well, kind of rancid smelling. On second sniff I identified it as cleaning chemicals following a sewage spill. That was enough to identify it as the instant coffee, but in the interest of science I went forward with the taste test.

The taste of the one I'd identified as the instant was not as bad as the smell, but certainly not as satisfying as the taste of the real coffee. The instant was thin and weak, and lacking in any body. The Pikes Peak was quite satisfying.

The barista confirmed my suspicion of which was the Pikes Peak and which was the VIA Ready Brew.

I suppose if somebody is already drinking instant coffee, or doesn't care about flavor and only wants a hot drink with a caffeine jolt, it might be a good product if drunk from a lidded cup (to hide the odor). But it isn't for serious coffee drinkers, and should probably be kept out of serious coffee stores.

So, sorry about the failed product launch, but thanks again for the free cup of coffee.

Best,

- Ken

Another Annoying iPhone User is Born

2009-09-27T18:50:00.000-07:00

I have joined the ranks of annoying iPhone users. You know, those people who can't stop playing with their phones because they're so cool and do so many things, and they're really happy about it, and the rest of world wishes they'd just shut the heck up already. I know. I know because last week I was one of you.

Here's how it went: For many years I was a Sprint customer for my cell phones. I was never thrilled with Sprint, but the service usually seemed decent enough. I was also pretty sure I only wanted a phone to be a phone, and not to be a camera and an organizer and a game unit.

But, as time went on, I became more and more annoyed by Sprint's problems. Large areas where they claim to have service where there's no signal at all, and calls that I never receive until I get the notification that somebody left me a voice mail (sometimes hours later). I also got used to the idea that having several uses to a single gadget could be a benefit. But I still wasn't convinced that I wanted to go with AT&T, the only "legal" carrier for the iPhone.

So I decided to seriously study which cell services were the best. I asked everybody I work with. I posted the question on Twitter and Facebook. I also checked articles on CNet and elsewhere for reviews of the services from the "professionals." I only found one other person who still used (and liked) Sprint. The AT&T and Verizon supporters were pretty much split, with Verizon coming out slightly ahead in the reviews.

AT&T (and I believe the others as well) will allow you to cancel an account within 30 days without penalty and return a phone for a refund, less a 10% restocking fee. I figured that fee would be worth it to take the iPhone for test drive and see if AT&T service would suffice. If it failed, I could always go to Verizon. So I picked up an iPhone a little over a week ago.

I tested the phone from the Santa Cruz pier, to my home in the mountains, to Los Gatos and Sunnyvale, and up to the Stanford Mall in Palo Alto. The only place I had no signal was in the dead center of the Ikea store (but it worked closer to the entrance). I can't say that AT&T is vastly superior to Sprint, but it's certainly no worse.

Beyond finding the service acceptable, I've been loving the device itself. I love that the calendar and address book on my Mac automatically syncs with the calendar and address book on the iPhone using the MobileMe service. I love having my email with me, wherever I am. I love the camera - far better than any other in-phone camera I've seen. And I love the apps (checking movie times while out and about, posting to Twitter whenever I like, and, yes, the games).

And so, this last Friday, I returned to the AT&T store and had them re-assign my Sprint number to the iPhone, picked up a new phone for the wife, and canceled our Sprint account. Like there was any possible way I was going to return the iPhone once I had it in my hands.

Term Limits? No, thank you.

2009-09-11T07:27:00.000-07:00

Back in May, I wrote here of my fantasy of repealing California's Term Limits. Term limits, I wrote:

... only help [the politicians] escape the blame. If any of them had a long-term interest in keeping their seats, they'd work out a budget compromise, as they did in the days before term limits. Now, they are on to the next position before the full estimate of the damage they've done currently is in. Musical chairs may be fun to watch and keep score, but it has left the lobbyists and political consultants in charge of neophyte electeds. It has failed the people and bankrupted our state.

Yesterday, one of my YouTube buddies, Frank (aka Ockteby), made a vlog reviewing the problems of entrenched politicians; representatives who no longer represent. I agree completely on the problem, but not on the solution. Here's my response to Frank:

The Myth of Health Care Rationing

2009-08-25T09:46:00.000-07:00

Of all the idiocy being spewed against any attempted reform of our health care system in an attempt to cover all Americans is the myth that any government provision of health insurance (not care, mind you, but just the payment for it) will lead to rationing.

Contrary to what some idiots on the right will tell you, all properly functioning free markets lead to rationing... by design!

If this were not true - if we could all easily afford anything we wanted without work, saving, or sacrifice - we'd all be driving Porche's to our weekend homes in Aspen before hopping on our private jets for dinner in Paris.

It's called supply and demand and for most products and services it functions well and gives us an incentive to work harder. Freely functioning, self-rationing markets, lead to innovation, competition, and economic growth. God bless America.

Then there are those few things we deem necessities and so we allow government tinkering to make sure rationing doesn't occur. Public education (that helps us all by providing a [minimally] literate workforce), housing subsidies (not just HUD, but development incentives, mortgage interest deductions, etc.), and food subsidies (from Food Stamps to agriculture supports, etc.) are a few items that spring to mind.

At this stage in US development, however, we've done more to ensure that everybody can afford a pint of milk and a loaf of bread than a visit to the doctor. I'm pleased that we consider hunger unacceptable (at least, for those with dependent children), but I'm horrified that we still consider a basic level of good health to be a perk of success.

Leaving the provision of health care coverage entirely to the private sector and market forces has - as it is designed to do - left us with a situation where health care is currently being rationed, with tens of millions of Americans - many with good jobs and families - left out, unable to pay for their own or their loved ones' medical needs.

Now, I'm not 100% thrilled with the current Obama plan or the way it's been handled politically, but I still say that overall, it's about damn time we step in to stop the rationing of health care that our free market has left us with.

(Oh, and thanks to Phil aka "Fantastic Babblings" for inspiring this post)

Behind the Orange Curtain

2009-08-23T21:11:00.000-07:00

This morning I left the liberal comfort of the Bay Area to take the 90 minute flight into John Wayne Airport in Orange County, then grabbed a taxi to just outside of the Disneyland Resort, where I'll be spending the next five days participating in Indie Fest USA, where my short film Gravehunting With Steve: A Journey Beneath Los Angeles will have its theatrical premiere Wednesday night.

Today was about getting here, getting settled at the hotel, and checking in with the Festival folks to pick up my "VIP Filmmaker" passes. The Festival is taking place at the AMC Theaters in Downtown Disney® - a place that did not exist the last time I went to Disneyland, well over 20 years ago.

Downtown Disney® is an outdoor mall/restaurant district placed between Disneyland and Disney's California Adventure on one end and the hotels of the Disneyland Resort on the other, featuring such restaurants and shops as House of Blues, Rain Forest Cafe, Sephora, and at least three different Disney stores that I could count.

If bad haircuts, inappropriate shorts, and fanny packs are in this year, then this is definitely where all the cool people are hanging out. I was also warned ahead of time that the rules of conduct on all Disney property is quite strict, so I checked ahead on the FAQ of What items are not permitted within the Downtown Disney® District.

On that FAQ I was surprised to see "Cremated remains (e.g., urn, vase, box)" included on the forbidden list. Luckily, my friend Bill enlightened me at to why it was necessary. According to the Mice Age website, there's quite a problem with people wanting to spread their loved one's cremains around the Happiest Place on Earth (scroll down to "A Pirate's (After) Life For Me"). The Haunted Mansion is the top choice, followed by the Pirates of the Caribbean, but some tone-deaf Disneyphiles actually choose to spend the rest of eternity listening to It's a Small World.

Of course, not only do they not spend eternity at Disneyland, but they rarely spend more than a few hours on their favorite ride as Disney "cast members," armed with special vacuums with HEPA filters, quickly dispatch them to their true final resting place - somewhere decidedly less campy, and certainly without the animatrons and constant music.

Anyway, Indie Fest starts in earnest tomorrow, and I'll spend the next several days watching movies non-stop - a favorite activity I haven't indulged in like this for several decades.

If you're in Southern California, and are willing to brave Downtown Disney®, please consider joining me Wednesday night for Gravehunting With Steve. Click here for ticket information....

Happy [Fiscal] New Year?

2009-07-01T14:12:00.000-07:00

July 1 is the start of the fiscal year for many businesses, as well as the state of California and our neighbor, Arizona. Besides a border and fiscal year, CA and AZ share another thing in common: they will each begin issuing IOUs to their employees, vendors, contractors, and others due to the inability of our elected representatives to agree on a state budget. In fact, 19 states are on the verge of such financial calamity.

Some cheer this as a bit of political anarchy and showmanship. I, however, am not alone in finding this grandstanding mockery of the democratic process to be an irresponsible dereliction of duty.

My friend in Arizona, JR Snyder, Jr., has blogged about his thoughts on the state government shutdown. Although from the opposite side of the political spectrum on many issues, JR and I are agreed on this fact. From JR's blog:

If you choose to take the position that the state needs a shutdown to get it's house in order, know the consequences no matter which side you're on. Social services may be distasteful but the answer is not abruptly halting them without some thoughtful unwinding. The chaos ensuing affects all citizens, because the ripple of destruction will run through the state economy on all levels.

Destruction is not the same as Disruption.

There are good reasons why even a partial shutdown is a very bad idea right now. A shutdown will destroy the state's credit rating. We are already insolvent and any money borrowed to operate will have to be paid back at higher interest rates due to bad credit. The entire state economy is in a precarious position and even a 24 hour shutdown will have a negative impact and far worse if protracted. The law suits against the state alone will hinder us for decades.

Many find these state shutdowns to acceptable because of the assumption that it will only hurt either "welfare queens" or faceless bureaucrats. And wouldn't it be fun to think of this as our way of getting revenge on that idiot at the DMV who kept me waiting in line for three hours?

But, as I commented on JR's blog, the IOUs will be going to more than just these usual political scapegoats. They'll be going to suppliers and contractors to all sorts of state run or funded institutions and offices. The companies that supply food to the prisons, or who have maintenance contracts with the universities, or provide linens to hospitals (etc., etc.).

Those suppliers, in turn, cannot pay their staff with IOUs; they need money. Many of them are small, local businesses that will be forced to lay off staff, and possibly shut their doors for good, if the budget impasse continues for more than a couple of weeks. This will slow down local spending and hurt the economy in communities up and down each of the 19 budgetless states, and far beyond the state capitals or the homes of bureaucrats from the other party.

Demand your representatives do their jobs and pass a budget! Whichever side of the political fence you're on, our legislators have a duty to run their states in a responsible manner. Political grandstanding that costs regular citizens their livelihood is wrong, from the left or the right.

Don't Cry for He, Argentina

2009-06-25T07:27:00.000-07:00

Over the last twenty-four hours I've posted variations of the following in comments on various other blogs, vlogs, and emails, so I suppose I may as well put my feelings on Governor Mark Sanford (R, South Carolina) in my own blog as well...

#1 - I don't care about the affair - That's between him, his wife, his large-breasted girlfriend (did you read those emails!?!), and her husband (unclear right now whether or not she's still married). An affair just makes him human and flawed, and who am I to pass judgment.

#2 - That he skipped out of town for a quickie on the weekend of father's day is what makes him a class one SOB in my book. I pity his poor kids and the years of therapy they'll be facing as a result of this public humiliation.

Summary so far: Dump your wife? Fine. Dump your kids? Screw you. But...

#3 - What makes this whole thing a public affair, and what makes Sanford unfit for public office, is his skipping out on his elected duties as governor. His staff couldn't reach him, the Lt. Governor didn't know he was in charge... What if there were an emergency? A train wreck, plane crash, flash flood, terrorist act, Columbine style massacre, etc., etc. Shit does, in fact, happen. Even in South Carolina.

Yes, Chief Executives deserve vacation days. But there's a proper way to do it that allows the State to continue to function under its Constitution. He walked away from those duties and the Constitution; he should be removed from office.

And to those who question whether or not my outrage is partisan in nature, I'll remind you of this: When Clinton was under investigation what I said then was that an extra-curricular blow job was not an impeachable offense, but lying about it under oath was.

BTW: Mark Sanford thought that the blow job was the impeachable offense.

I'm very tolerant about perversions - I'm not very sympathetic to hypocrites.

An Ode to Silicon Valley

2009-06-24T07:15:00.000-07:00

From "plump, purple plums to shiny silver apples" and "fading start-up t-shirts filling Gold's gym" to traffic on 101, 280, and 85, and don't forget the food from pho to falafel... it's the Silicon Valley, for better or worse, exposed bare, dark underside, shiny future, the entrepreneurs and the laid off (and sometimes both), coming together in Santa Clara County's first official poem, "A Family Album, Santa Clara County, 2009."

County poet laureate, Nils Peterson, (does your county have an official poet?) assembled the poem from lines submitted by 500 county residents, ages 11 to 80. About 100 of the submitted lines, each with nine to 13 syllables, made the final cut.

"This poem captures the heights and the depths of life in Silicon Valley," said Peterson, professor emeritus at San Jose State University, who was moved to tears as he recited "A Family Album, Santa Clara County, 2009" at a press conference at the county government center. "We are reflecting the family of Santa Clara County, that's our extended family, and we are lucky to have each other."

Listen to Poet Laureate Nils Peterson reading the first official Santa Clara County poem:

Why literacy programs are important

2009-06-20T21:07:00.000-07:00

One Day Sale ... but which day? Caught at Macy's Cupertino. (click on photo for full image)

Fifteen Songs Meme

2009-06-13T12:04:00.000-07:00

More FaceBook/Blog memes... This time we play "Fifteen Songs"...

To play along, here are the rules:

(1) Turn on your MP3 player. (What, no MP3 player? What century you living in, man?)

(2) Go to SHUFFLE songs mode.

(3) Write down the first 15 songs that come up--song title and artist--NO editing/cheating, please.

(4) Choose some people to be tagged. It is generally considered to be in good taste to tag the person who tagged you. Feel free to participate even if not tagged.

These are my 15 songs:

1 - Poets Into Space - Peri Urban
2 - Come Away With Me - Norah Jones
3 - Hot Sun - Adrian Belew
4 - So What (live) - Miles Davis with John Coltrane
5 - Permanent Hurt - John Hiatt
6 - House of the Rising Sun (live) - Bob Dylan & Tom Petty
7 - Dirty Life and Times - Warren Zevon
8 - Dave - The Bears
9 - Winter Sun - Lem Kuper
10 - Jesus is Vlogging for Me - Peri Urban
11 - Giving - Dave Davies
12 - Rollin' and Tumblin' - Eric Clapton
13 - Worried Life Blues - Eric Clapton & B.B. King
14 - Bandit of Love - Carlene Carter
15 - Accidentally Life a Martyr (demo) - Warren Zevon

I just gotta laugh that my buddy Peri Urban came up twice - purely accidental. Not surprised by the duplicates of Zevon and Clapton, but I am surprised that one Dave Davies cut was the only Kinks-related track.

Over-all, though, I'm pleased with all fifteen songs. It was tough hitting the "next" button to make the list - I wanted to sit and listen to them all!

Okay - Tagging aside, if you want to do a Fifteen Songs post, go ahead, if you don't, I truly understand. No tags here.

(BTW - The picture of me is from the debut and final performance of the Mutant Armadillos, Sacramento, CA, 1997.)

Dr. George Tiller, 1941-2009

2009-05-31T10:33:00.000-07:00

For the first time in over a decade, a doctor has been murdered for providing abortions. Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed this morning attending church in Wichita, Kansas. Tiller had previously been shot (and, obviously, survived) in 1993. He led one of the few clinics in the country where late-term abortions were performed in cases where the health and safety of the mother were in jeopardy, putting their health above his own life.

Anti-Abortion group, Operation Rescue, immediately put out a statement saying "We are shocked at this morning's disturbing news that Mr. Tiller was gunned down... We denounce vigilantism and the cowardly act that took place this morning. We pray for Mr. Tiller's family..."

Now, on the face of it, that may seem like a benign enough statement. They're denouncing violence - even though they help to incite it - and they pray for Tiller's family. And yet, even in this tragic moment, they cannot bring themselves to refer to him as "Dr. Tiller." Even in death, they insist on insulting him and belittling his work. Nothing like turning a murder into PR moment.

I've said it before in various ways, and I'll say it again: The terrorists I'm most afraid of are born and raised in our own backyards.

Eat, Drink, Blog

2009-05-22T22:06:00.001-07:00

I've started yet another blog, this one called Drink, Eat, Blog (drinkeatblog.blogspot.com), obviously about food and beverages. So far I've only posted reviews of a couple of local restaurants and a re-post of a winery review that originally appeared here.

For a long time I've wanted to do something like this, but haven't because of the geographic limitations. Why would somebody outside of the Silicon Valley/Santa Cruz area care about where I'm eating? But finally, I realized that although my blogs are read "far and wide," the main reason I write them is just for myself anyway. So, maybe nobody will bother reading Drink, Eat, Blog, but I'm going to write it anyway.

And, yes, I'll continue to write on this blog as well. I've just been out of the writing mood the last couple of weeks since the car accident, but that's all getting settled, I have a new car now (I'll blog about that later), and I'm feeling much better.

Car Accident!

2009-05-11T17:10:00.000-07:00

A funny thing happened on the way to a meeting Wednesday morning...

I was cruising along Summit Road, minding my own business, when I came up behind a car signaling to make a left turn. I stopped a safe distance behind her and was patiently waiting when I was suddenly hit from behind by somebody who must have been going full at least 40-50 mph.

My first thought once it was over and I caught breath: "Where's my damned airbags?"

Second thought, once I glanced into the rear view mirror to see who hit me: "Where's that asshole going?"

Yep. He was pulling out and speeding off down the road. Probably no insurance, no license, who knows what else he lacked or had (warrants? guns? drugs?). Whatever it was, he didn't want to share with us. But I got a description of the vehicle and a partial license number. (Older white pick-up truck, possibly Ford 250, license starts with 7L9...).

Two lucky things:

First, a witness. A resident who just happened to be out on her front porch heard the crash, saw the truck speed off, and called 911 for us.

Second, a good Samaritan. The first person to drive by and stop happened to be a volunteer fireman. He got out flares, helped push my car off to the side of the road, and started checking our vitals even before the paramedics got there.

Once the EMTs did arrive, they got my neck in a brace, strapped me to a body board, and loaded me into the ambulance for a ride down to the hospital for x-rays. Nothing broken, but neck very swollen, and sore lower back. They gave me a couple of prescriptions, untied me from the board (after 2-1/2 hours), and sent me on my way.

I'm fine now, other than continued soreness in my neck and lower back, but not half as bad as it could have been. Went back to work today and barely made it through six hours. Tomorrow morning I see the chiropractor.

Still waiting to hear from the insurance if they consider the car a total loss or not. The fun never ends, does it?

For a couple of photos of the damage to the car, click here.

California's Sham Election

2009-05-01T14:51:00.000-07:00

On May 19 California voters will have special election on six propositions (1A-1F) placed on the ballot by the legislature in an attempt to solve our enduring budget crisis (we are now ten months into the fiscal year, with no final approved budget). Of course, the legislature could have actually done their jobs and come up with a workable budget solution on their own, but they've now, once again, failed to do their jobs and have put it to the citizens of this great state to do it for them. Can you tell that I'm just a little upset about this?

Prop 1A - Rainy Day Stabilization Fund - NO
On the surface, this sounds like a good idea; put money away in a special fund in case of a fiscal emergency. Except, the time to start this fund would have been a decade ago. It's pouring now, and yet 1A would immediately grab control of a chunk of the state's non-existent budget, forcing further cuts in needed services. Further, according to the League of Women Voters of California, "If Prop. 1A passes, the Governor would be given new power to make mid-year cuts and suspend COLAs in state programs without legislative oversight."

Prop 1B - Education Funding Re-payment - NO
Some years ago California voters approved a measure that would guarantee that Education's share of the state budget, as a percentage, would never be decreased. For the last several years, however, the Governor and legislature have broken that rule, "borrowing" billions from education with the unfulfilled promise to pay it back. 1B again promises to pay back the $9.3 billion owed... but not until 2011. The legislature already has the ability and the obligation to pay this money back, the proposition only grants them more time, and another two years to ignore the will of the people from previous elections.

For me, this is the most upsetting of the measures, and it is galling because the CTA (California Teachers Association) is endorsing this nonsense. Basically, the school bully took their lunch money on Monday. On Tuesday and Wednesday the bully took their money again. Then, on Thursday, the bully said to CTA, "We'll pay you back next week if we can have your lunch money again today." And now the CTA is telling the principal that bully is their best friend. Fear of deeper cuts if 1B fails is what drives this, but why should these guarantees be any more valid than the guarantees the legislature and Governor have already ignored? The CTA are fools and are complicit in the legislature's abrogation of their duties.

Prop 1C - Lottery Modernization - NO
Okay, if it were just "modernization" of the lottery, that would be fine. But they are so convinced that modernization is going to bring in new revenue that 1C will allow the state to borrow $5 billion (IE: sell bonds) from these future earnings to balance this year's budget. Never mind that most reasonable financial experts say that in the current market we probably won't be able to sell the bonds, or that the interest we'd pay if we do sell them would be unbearable, or that the lottery money was already guaranteed to education (see 1B, above). Idiocy upon idiocy. We're close enough to bankrupt already, thank you.

Prop 1D - Children's Services Funding - NO
How could I recommend a "no" vote on a proposition with a title like that? Because it's a lie. It takes away Children's Services Funding. 1D allows the state to take back the money that now funds each county's First 5 Commission and programs (as approved by voters in Prop 10) and use it to "achieve state General Fund budgetary savings" (according to the official voter information guide from the state). First 5 does great work throughout the state, and I've been pleased and proud to work with several First 5 programs in both Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties; programs that will likely close down in July if 1D passes.

Prop E - Mental Health Services Reallocation - NO
As with 1D taking back voter approved funds for Early Childhood Education, 1E takes back voter approved funds for Mental Health. As with this entire package of propositions, it demonstrates the Governor's and the legislature's disregard of the will of the people while at the same time asking the people to approve of their disregard. They have failed to do their job, and are now looking to us take the blame. They cannot accept responsibility for cutting spending (or raising taxes) and so they've wiped their hands clean and when First 5 folds, and mental health facilities close, and classrooms return to overcrowding, and the state's credit rating takes a [futher] dive from pawning worthless bonds, they can say, "It was the will of the people."

Prop 1F - Elected Officials' Salaries - YES
This, like the rest, is completely unnecessary. Elected officials have (in theory, at least) enough common sense not to give themselves raises in years of fiscal emergency. But, one self-serving State Senator thought it would score him points with voters to put it in writing. Ordinarily I'd like to tell him screw himself and recommend a "no" vote here, but I'm afraid that if 1F fails the legislature will take that a showing of support and give themselves unearned and undeserved raises.

So, what happens if 1A-1E fail? We don't know. Certainly nothing good. The legislature will certainly have to cut programs, and it won't be pleasant. But that is the job we elected them to do. We have let them slide, with late budgets, and ignoring previously passed propositions, for far too long.

But they are using this uncertainty to get our support for propositions unfairly. A co-worker of mine said it was like, "They're holding a gun to our heads." We agreed, pretty much, on the above analysis of the situation. She's giving in to the fear and voting "yes" on the full slate; I'm daring them to pull the trigger and voting "no."

So, what could help now? What propositions should they have put on the ballot?

Fantasy Proposition 1 - Majority Rule!
California is one of only a handful of states that requires a super-majority (2/3 vote) to pass its annual budget. This allows a minority of legislators (34%) to hold the majority hostage. In this way, both parties have become complicit in a dance that doesn't allow them to blame others for fear of taking their share of the blame. And there's plenty of blame to go around. The stalemate has to end, and the way to do it is with a simple majority rule, like we imagined a democracy would be. If the minority party wants to have a say, they've got to come to the table to work, not just be obstructionist babies.

Fantasy Proposition 2 - Repeal Term Limits
I know a lot of people are going to disagree with me here, and say that term limits help us remove these do-nothing politicians. On the contrary, it only helps them escape the blame. If any of them had a long-term interest in keeping their seats, they'd work out a budget compromise, as they did in the days before term limits. Now, they are on to the next position before the full estimate of the damage they've done currently is in. Musical chairs may be fun to watch and keep score, but it has left the lobbyists and political consultants in charge of neophyte electeds. It has failed the people and bankrupted our state.

More information:
League of Women Voters of California election site - Their press release is one of the best written analysis' of the measures I've seen

no on proposition 1d
no prop 1d & 1e coalition
courage campaign
vote no on 1a

RFK Jr.; Crimes Against Nature

2009-04-25T07:38:00.000-07:00

Last night we had the opportunity and pleasure of seeing Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. give a keynote address at the Cocoanut Grove Ballroom, Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk, as the opening to the UCSC all alumni weekend. The theme of his talk was Crimes Against Nature.

It's rare that any modern orator (particularly one that suffers from spasmodic dysphonia) can hold an audience's attention for 90 minutes without a break, but Mr. Kennedy did just that, and did it handily, pausing only for a sip of water when the audience was applauding one point or another.

His comfort with, and mastery of, the keynote medium was evident from the start, when rather than stand behind the lectern with a pile of notes, he stood in front of it and started right in. That the talk was extemporaneous was brought home when, about 75 minutes in, he said, "And the point I wanted to start with, before I went off on that tangent, was..."

"Show me a polluter and I'll show you a subsidy." Mr. Kennedy made a point of saying that he's a free market capitalist, but that environmental destruction is a result of breakdowns in the market. If we were paying the true cost of gasoline, it would be around $12/gallon. Instead, the oil companies externalize the true costs in the form of billions of dollars spent defending foreign oil fields, making local communities pay for the clean up of their polluted waterways, direct subsidies in the form of tax breaks from the Federal Government, and so on.

Cheap "clean coal" at only 11 cents/kilowatt is anything but cheap or clean when you consider that the mercury used in mining, that's now flowing through our rivers, has raised mercury levels in American's bloodstreams to the point where a sizable percentage of American women have doomed their future offspring to cognitive disabilities, or that the effluents from burning coal (despite laws to install scrubbers) cause over a million asthma attacks each year and a million lost days of work, or that the mountains, valleys, and waterways of West Virginia are being filled in and leveled - a feat that not even the last ice age could accomplish - to extract the coal that will then have to travel on special, re-enforced, 18-inch thick roadways, built, again, at public expense.

Meanwhile, the American Southwest is "the Saudi Arabia of solar." An area of Arizona, 85 miles by 85 miles square (smaller than the area currently being strip-mined in Appalachia), could in theory supply enough solar energy to power the entire country. The Great Plains are the "the Saudi Arabia of wind" with some of the windiest places on the planet.

But that farmer in the Great Plains cannot build wind turbines and start selling energy, and even if massive solar fields were installed in Arizona, they can't power the nation, because of an antiquated power grid, and archaic rules that don't encourage innovation or the entry of small entrepreneurs into a market dominated by oil and coal and the politicians they control.

There is hope and reason for optimism, however. Those nations that gone carbon-free have thrived. Contrary to all the warnings of the naysayers, those that have taken bold moves to rapidly get their power grids off of oil (or, at least, foreign oil) have had booms of innovation and entrepreneurship that lifted entire national economies, as well as increased quality of life through environmental stewardship.

Mr. Kennedy estimates that the United States could be off of foreign oil by "the end of Obama's second term" and off of oil completely in 12 years. While this may sound pie-in-the-sky, and too rapid, we have many historical examples of where we've made and met just such challenges.

In the lead-up to World War Two, FDR said we'd build "a ship a day" and airplanes and tanks, etc. We built them, and it helped lift the economy out of the depression. But "the assets we built were taken to Europe or the Pacific and blown up." This time, we can put the economy to work building new assets - clean power plants, a modern power grid - and keep these assets here, working for us, providing the clean, inexpensive energy we require without digging, blasting, drilling, or importing a thing.

Following the 90-minutes speech, and a standing ovation, a 20-minute Q&A session was held, moderated by Vinod Khosla (founder of Sun Microsystems), who had also introduced Mr. Kennedy.

One of the questions from the audience asked about those who use religious arguments to refute global warming or to oppose environmental legislation. Mr. Kennedy said that his reading of the bible, and other religious texts, always points to taking care of the earth and all its inhabitants. "God didn't say to Noah, 'Get two each of the animals that are profitable.' He said, 'All my creatures are worthy of saving.'"

The final question was a request for one thing we could each take away from evening and do immediately, to which Mr. Kennedy answered, "Sometimes it's more important to change your politician than your light bulb."

Mr. Kennedy stayed after, in the lobby, signing autographs, posing for pictures, and talking to members of the audience. It was an honor to get to thank him personally (and have him sign my ticket stub).

As long as this post is, I'm afraid I only touched on a few of the important points made, and facts presented. That there was a lot of technical information is true; but it was presented with warmth, humor, enthusiasm, heart, and a spirit that held us rapt, and inspired us all to be better stewards of our planet, and better citizens of our country.

Odd-Uncomfortable Historical Note: The venue for last night's speech was the Cocoanut Grove Ballroom in Santa Cruz. Cocoanut Grove (with the same, old-fashioned spelling, coco-a-nut) was also the name of the nightclub at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles, where Mr. Kennedy's father was assassinated in 1968, although the site of his final speech was the Embassy Room.

Human Race '09

2009-04-21T14:55:00.000-07:00

It's almost Human Race time again in California, coming right up on May 9. The Human Race is a number of different events held by the Volunteer Centers in most California counties as fundraisers for local nonprofits.

This year, I'll be walking in the Santa Cruz County Human Race for Mountain Community Resources, a family resource center in Felton providing a variety of social services and emergency preparedness programs, and where I'm currently serving as the Interim Executive Director.

And, of course, I'm looking for pledges... If you'd like to support me in the Human Race this year, please click this link and then enter an amount and click the donate button. (If it asks for the Agency number, it's #140 - "Mountain Community Resources"). Thank you in advance for your help!

Wine Tasting with Hitch

2009-04-19T07:50:00.000-07:00

Yesterday my wife and I went up to Heart O' the Mountain Winery above Scotts Valley for a special tasting event. This is a relatively new winery that only does Pinot Noir, and has only had two publicly available releases (the '05 and the '06) but they've both been gold medal winners and very well received.

The wine is great, but the really cool thing about Heart O' the Mountain for me is that they're on the former Hitchcock estate. This was Alfred and Alma's weekend getaway from about 1940 to about 1970 or so (they sold it in '74, but hadn't been up for a few years before that due to declining health).

I'd actually gone in search of this house before, but not quite found it. Turns out, I was on the right path, and had identified the correct driveway, but that there were still two or three locked gates between me and actually seeing anything.

As a life-long Hitchcock fan it was a great thrill to finally be on the estate property and see the house and courtyard, which is still pretty much the same as when Hitch was there entertaining Grace Kelly, Ingrid Bergman, and Jimmy Stewart.

Unfortunately, none of the wine is from Hitchcock's vineyard, or the original 1881 vineyard. By the time this family bought the place in '78, those vines were all dead and buried, so they've had to replant the entire estate over the last decade.

Yesterday we had some of the '04 (unlabeled and never for sale), the '06 from the bottle ('05 is now sold out), and '07 from the barrel. All very yummy, and the progression promises that Heart O' the Mountain will be a leading contender in Pinot competitions for some time to come.

Sharing Three Things...

2009-04-12T18:12:00.000-07:00

Yet another meme. I was tagged by Maria on Facebook. Here's the drill:

Now, here's what you're supposed to do... Create a new note or blog, copy and paste this message, delete my answers and type in yours. Then tag 23 good friends (I ain't tagging nobody) INCLUDING the person who tagged you. The theory is that you will learn one new thing about each of your friends. Do the questionnaire if you want to...

THREE OTHER NAMES I GO BY
Ken, Ummm.... Ken?, Stephen-David-Kenneth

THREE JOBS I HAVE HAD IN MY LIFE
Record store manager, Music video production assistant, Political canvasser

THREE PLACES I HAVE LIVED
Newton, MA, Grover City, CA, North Hollywood, CA

THREE TV SHOWS THAT I WATCH
Hell's Kitchen, House, Ace of Cakes

THREE PLACES I HAVE BEEN
Luxembourg, Amsterdam, Washington, DC

THREE PLACES I WANT TO GO
Scotland, Russia, Tahiti

THREE OF MY FAVORITE FOODS
BBQ Chicken, BBQ Ribs, Any kind of red meat set on fire, I suppose.

THINGS I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO
Finishing this meme, Going to dinner, Getting a good night's rest

THREE PETS THAT YOU HAVE OWNED
Big George, Eartha Kitty, Mr. Flash (all cats)

THREE FRIENDS WHO WILL REPLY
I ain't tagging anybody, so I really don't know

THREE FAVORITE BANDS/SINGERS
Tom Petty, The Kinks, Eric Clapton

THREE FAVORITE SPORTS TO WATCH
Does Iron Chef count?

THREE FAVORITE DRINKS
Manhattan, Single Malt Scotch (straight up), Guinness

Okay - I'm done. Your turn! (and something about doing this made me hungry...)

Sabotage!

2009-04-09T19:52:00.000-07:00

A deliberate act of expertise vandalism is now being blamed for the phone system outage that today stifled electronic communication through Santa Cruz and parts of Santa Clara and San Benito Counties along the southern edge of California's Silicon Valley.

Last night, at around 2 AM, cables were cut in several locations throughout the area using specialized equipment:

"... saboteurs had to use a piece of equipment to lift heavy manhole covers and climb down several feet to get to the cables. They would have to have been equipped with heavy-duty cutting equipment to slice through the thick cable coating."

The outage effected most cell phones, many land lines, and much internet traffic in the region. 911 emergency lines could not be reached, and fire departments took to hillside perches to scan the area for smoke or other signs of problems.

The good news is the lack of panic. While stories are now emerging of people frustrated by the situation, and people driving to hospitals who otherwise would have called ambulances, there was no vandalism or crimes reported (yet) as a result. Banks allowed only a customer or two in at a time, issuing hand-written receipts, stores and restaurants hung "cash only" signs on their doors, and life went on as usual. Well, usual for 1975.

My own experience of the day was seeing a headline about the outage early this morning, and not really thinking about it until I got in my car, turned on my bluetooth headset and realized that I had no signal. My first stop was to meet with some people at a coffee shop in Ben Lomond.

That's when I heard more about the outage, but, somehow, their wi-fi was working. Although I couldn't use my personal email because my ISPs server was rejecting connections, I was able to get some messages out through Gmail, and Twitter gave me connections to a few friends.

After that it was on to my client's office. By then phone lines were restored for local service only, but no long distance calls were getting in or out, cell phones were still not working, and the Internet connection was down.

A motive for the sabotage is still unknown, and systems are still not fully functional after nearly 20 hours.

A Few Thoughts on Iowa

2009-04-05T09:38:00.000-07:00

By now pretty much everybody has heard the news that the Iowa State Supreme Court has ruled that the state's law limiting marriage to a man and a woman violates the constitutional rights of equal protection. And, if you've been to this blog before, you know that I agree with that ruling.

But, while I agree that this is an important ruling, and a step in the right direction toward the inevitable recognition of marriage equality nationwide, I'm not exactly partying like it's 1999 over this.

Basically: We've been here before. We, in California, have certainly been here before. And if the California experience teaches anything, it's that the pendulum swings both ways before finding its resting position.

The Iowa Court found that their current state law does not fit within their current state constitution. There are two ways to fix this. Either amend the law to recognize same-sex marriages. Or amend the constitution to clarify and cement the ban.

I applaud the Iowa Supreme Court for their unanimous decision, but all they've really done is select the stage for the next big battle. The war is far from over.

Wayne's World No More

2009-03-26T08:26:00.000-07:00

The local access channel on our basic cable line-up is something we all take for granted. From cheesy local shows (as parodied in Wayne's World) to gavel to gavel coverage of the local planning commission's meetings, we may not have ever watched it much, but it was comforting to know it was there.

These stations (known as PEGs for "public, educational, and government") are now a dying breed. According to Newsdesk.org:

California and Illinois are among 20 states that enacted laws allowing cable companies to end their support for PEG studio facilities, equipment and staff, and giving control of programming to state agencies rather than local communities.

When California's Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act took effect Jan. 1, Los Angeles closed 14 studios.

The article from Newsdesk, "Access Denied to Cable Viewers", goes on to describe pending legal action against AT&T and Comcast, who have sponsored the legislation that makes it easier to take local views and ideas out of the broadcast spectrum.

The future of Wayne and Garth is secure on YouTube. I'm not worried about them if PEGs vanish completely. But losing coverage of local city council, board of supervisors, etc., would be a great loss.

Yes, it's true that these meetings are open to the public, but transportation and other considerations make it difficult for many to get to them on a regular basis. On the PEG stations, these proceedings are often repeated several times, giving citizens many opportunities to check in on their local elected officials.

I don't mean to raise an alarm that if these stations go, it will give rise to fascism and tyranny in local politics (insert your own rude remark here). But anything that diminishes public oversight of government affairs - even the slightest bit - does diminish democracy in the end.

Broadcast and cable licenses are a public trust. They are a valuable commodity, and big business, with very little asked for in return. One of those things is public access to the airwaves. I think it's worth preserving.

50 Things About Me

2009-03-23T17:24:00.000-07:00

Another traveling meme, this one came to me on Facebook, but I'll post it here. And, no, I'm not tagging anybody - if you want to do it, fine, but I ain't forcing anybody...

Here's the instructions I received: "Copy and paste these questions on your own 'note' replacing my answers with yours, then tag 25 people to do the same thing. Remember to tag me back so I can see your answers!"

1. WERE YOU NAMED AFTER ANYONE?
Yes, my mother's uncle, the bigamist. Well, they didn't know he was a bigamist at the time, but years later information about his "other wife" from back in Russia showed up quite unexpectedly. But they tell me he was a very nice guy. Really.

2. WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU CRIED?
Since we had to put our cat, Big George, to sleep about six months ago there's been quite a few tears shed whenever we think of him. Like right now, dammit. Don't get me started.

3. DO YOU LIKE YOUR HANDWRITING?
Depends. If I want to read it again later, then no way. If I want to write it and forget it, it's just fine.

4. WHAT IS YOUR FAVORITE LUNCH MEAT?
Roast beef, usually. Pastrami, when it's done right (rarely is). And ham, on occasion.

5. DO YOU HAVE KIDS?
No.

6. IF YOU WERE ANOTHER PERSON, WOULD YOU BE FRIENDS WITH YOU?
Well, that would depend on who else I was. I'd probably find me pretty annoying.

7. DO YOU USE SARCASM?
No shit.

8. DO YOU STILL HAVE YOUR TONSILS?
No.

9. WOULD YOU BUNGEE JUMP?
I think that time has passed. I like vacation activities that don't include the possibility of hospital visits.

10. WHAT IS YOUR FAVORITE CEREAL?
I'm not wild about cereals, but I do like a Clif bar in the morning. The Apricot one is my favorite.

11. DO YOU UNTIE YOUR SHOES WHEN YOU TAKE THEM OFF?
If they have laces, yes.

12. YOUR MOM?
I'm sure she unties her shoes too. What was the question?

13. WHAT IS YOUR FAVORITE ICE CREAM?
Cherry Garcia is pretty damned good. Chocolate chip cookie dough is always welcome. I wouldn't mind a bowl of Espresso Chocolate Chip right now either.

14. WHAT IS THE FIRST THING YOU NOTICE ABOUT PEOPLE?
Their height.

15. RED OR PINK?
Red.

16. WHAT IS YOUR LEAST FAVORITE THING ABOUT YOURSELF?
I have an annoying voice. (Yes, I know, that's not all).

17. WHO DO YOU MISS THE MOST?
Big George.

18. DO YOU WANT EVERYONE TO COMPLETE THIS LIST?
If I have to, so do they.

19. WHAT COLOR PANTS AND SHOES ARE YOU WEARING?
Blue jeans. Brown shoes.

21. WHAT ARE YOU LISTENING TO RIGHT NOW?
Silence.

22. IF YOU WERE A CRAYON, WHAT COLOR WOULD YOU BE?
Brown.

23. FAVORITE SMELL?
Ribs on the smoker.

24. WHO WAS THE LAST PERSON YOU TALKED TO?
Joan.

25. DO YOU LIKE THE PERSON WHO TAGGED YOU IN THIS?
Maria? Oh, she's alright ;^)

26. FAVORITE SPORTS TO WATCH?
Iron Chef America. Well, I consider it a sport.

27. HAIR COLOR?
Dog shit brown (okay, I haven't looked in the mirror for a decade or so, I assume it's still brown).

28. EYE COLOR?
Hazel.

29. DO YOU WEAR CONTACTS?
Nope.

30. FAVORITE FOOD?
BBQ!

31. SCARY MOVIES OR HAPPY ENDINGS?
Both.

32. LAST MOVIE YOU WATCHED?
The Reader. (Excellent, btw)

33. WHAT COLOR SHIRT ARE YOU WEARING?
Blue & grey.

34. SUMMER OR WINTER?
Autumn.

35. HUGS OR KISSES?
From whom?

36. FAVORITE DESSERT?
Apple pie, the crumbly kind.

37. MOST LIKELY TO RESPOND?
Well, I ain't tagging anybody so... Steve?

38. LEAST LIKELY TO RESPOND?
Me.

39. WHAT BOOK ARE YOU READING NOW?
I'm not reading a book right now. I'm typing up 50 things.

40. WHAT IS ON YOUR MOUSE PAD?
I don't use a mouse pad (I don't use a mouse).

41. WHAT DID YOU WATCH ON TV LAST NIGHT?
Celebrity Apprentice.

42. FAVORITE SOUND(S)?
Waterfalls, fountains, the tide coming in.

43. ROLLING STONES OR BEATLES?
Which year? Probably Beatles, but tough choice.

44. WHAT IS THE FARTHEST YOU HAVE BEEN FROM HOME?
The Netherlands.

45. DO YOU HAVE A SPECIAL TALENT?
Of course.

46. WHERE WERE YOU BORN?
Boston, MA.

47. WHOSE ANSWERS ARE YOU LOOKING FORWARD TO GETTING BACK?
Yours.

48. HOW DID YOU MEET YOUR SPOUSE/SIGNIFICANT OTHER?
Astronomy class at UCSC. She thought I might be smart enough to help her pass the class.

49. IS THE CUP HALF FULL OR HALF EMPTY?
Don't they offer free refills here?

50. IF YOU COULD SIT DOWN TO DINNER WITH FIVE PEOPLE WHO WOULD YOU CHOOSE?
Thomas Jefferson, Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., Charley Parkurst (aka "One-eyed Charlie"), Francis Coppola (well, gotta pick somebody who's still alive), and you.

Obama on Leno

2009-03-20T07:40:00.001-07:00

Last night I broke my boycott of the Tonight Show to watch the interview with President Obama. As annoying as I find Jay Leno to be, it was worthwhile viewing. No abundantly serious hardball questions, but a mix of light banter and non-threatening inquiries into the state of the nation, which the President answered in an engaging and thoughtful manner.

And then there are the naysayers. "It's beneath the dignity of the Presidency to be on late night TV." "Speaking with comedians diminishes the office of the President," "Yadda, yadda, yadda." I'm amazed that a) people still think that way, and b) that it's taken so long for a sitting President to do the late night circuit.

In an age when more people under the age of 40 get their news from Jon Stewart than from Katie Couric, what better forum is there for exercising the bully pulpit of the presidency than a show like Leno's?

That we have a president who wants to avoid the isolation of the beltway and engage the general public in an ongoing dialog about our nation's future is something that I find refreshing and inspiring. Having a leader who meets us where we are and talks with us, rather than over or around us, is reassuring and gives many of us hope.

Then, this morning, I heard a commentator complaining about the expense of Obama's Tonight Show visit. What? The President was already in California to meet with the Governor. The expense and trouble of having the Secret Service protect him at NBC was probably not much different than if he had visited a school or a factory, and I never heard anybody complain about any Presidents making those types of appearances.

But I guess the "serious news person" giving that analysis was simply upset at being bypassed for a washed up former stand-up comedian with an over-sized chin.

Late night TV appearances are no substitute for serious, in-depth interviews and news coverage. But if this is the worst complaint we have about this President, I'm pretty happy.

For those who missed it, here it is on NBC.com.

Very Progressive (no surprise)

2009-03-18T08:28:00.000-07:00

The folks over at American Progress have an Interactive Quiz: How Progressive Are You?. The quiz consists of 40 questions which you either agree or disagree with on a 10 point scale.

My final "ideological score" was 297/400, which makes me "very progressive." The average score, according to American Progress, is 209.5, with Obama voters averaging 244 and McCain voters at 169.

So, just in case you hadn't noticed from the previous 1,100 or so posts here: I lean slightly to the left. As if we needed this quiz for proof.

Premio Dardos Award Winners

2009-03-15T11:53:00.000-07:00

I was recently notified that I am a recipient of the coveted "Premio Dardos Award." Not familiar with the award? Let me quote:

"Nobody knows who came up with the Dardos Award, but it is given in recognition of cultural, ethical, literary, and personal values transmitted in the form of creative and original writing. These stamps were created with the intention of promoting fraternization between bloggers, a way of showing affection and gratitude for work that adds value to the Web."

The rules (I'm quoting what was sent to me):

Accept the award by posting it on your blog along with the name of the person that has granted the award and a link to his/her blog.
Pass the award to another five blogs that are worthy of this acknowledgment, remembering to contact each of them to let them know they have been selected for this award.

Well, first of all, yes, I graciously accept this award, which was given by my brother, Steve, author of LA's Graveside Companion: Where the V.I.P.s R.I.P. Is it cheating if your brother gives you the award? Let's assume not and continue...

I had a couple of questions, too, like, "Who is Premio Dardos anyway?" I'm pretty sure it translates roughly to "dart prize," which makes no sense at all.

The next thing that interested me was that Steve did not give me the award at what I consider my main blog, Random Thoughts, Notes, & Incidents (hosted blogspot.com), but at Vloggerheads.com. Now, it is true that I have a blog at Vloggerheads, I use that site mostly for posting videos. Of course, I've pretty much been ignoring the Random Thoughts blog for months...

So, did Steve mean to give me the Dart Prize for vlogging? But the rules are very specific that it should be in recognition of "creative and original writing."

Does it make a difference, or are blogging and vlogging interchangeable? Most every vlog starts with an idea and some thoughts in mind before the camera starts to roll, even if it's not all written out. And, frankly, even those that are shot randomly, end up being scripted in the editing. Perhaps, by the time it's posted, you could say video blogs require more work and preparation that a typed blog like this.

Both are legitimate means of communication, of getting our ideas out to others, or simply to clarify things to ourselves, and both are worthy of Dart Prizes if done well.

So, I'm expanding the prize - Instead of awarding it to five blogs - I'm going to award to both bloggers and vloggers and people who do both ...

I am now honored to present to you the latest five winners of the Premio Dardos Award:

Blog of Ice by Marc aka TheFrozenGhost
The True Talk Blog by Dr. Tom (aka tlg847)
The Urban Blog by Peri Urban
Anakin1814 (YouTube)
AndyMooseman (YouTube)
Gilligan (Vloggerheads)
JohnAintWright (Vloggerheads)

WTF Are Internet Friends?

2009-03-14T15:18:00.000-07:00

Diesel Bodine wants to know about the difference between "real friends" and internet friends. His main focus is on the expectations - how online we "present" to each other through videos, but off-line we converse without notes. I see that more as a quirk of the medium than a measure of the depth of a friendship.

See, I don't see much difference between online or offline friendships. We have "friends" at work, or in our neighborhood, that are only friends because of a situation, an accident of place or time, and when you move, or change jobs, you never see them again. And then there are your real friends you keep forever. The Internet just puts that process under a microscope, and maybe speed it all up, but it's really not all that different.

There are friends we expect to come visit us when we're sick, and there are friends who we expect nothing more than to be sitting on a particular bar stool when we meet at the neighborhood pub. There are people you dearly love and care for, but if you have to put up with their crap today you'll end up killing them. There are people you expect to stay and help wash the dishes, and there are people who constantly surprise you with what they do - or do not - do for you.

Friendships online can be just as real as all that, and it has nothing to do with clicking a "friend" button. There are people online that I've had to my house, or that I've been to their house. There are people I've traveled some to see and be with. There are people I consider my brothers. And there are people who if they vanished tomorrow I'd barely notice the difference.

But that's not so different than "real life." Real life friends change interests, drift away, whether by boredom or a change in their situation. Somebody got a different job, a new house, got married, had a kid, joined a different gym, whatever, and we don't see them so much anymore.

You run into them 18 months later at the 7-Eleven and it's really awkward as you stand there, shuffling your feet, until one of you says, "Well, I'll call you, okay?" and the other replies, "We'll grab lunch at that place we used to go" and you both know neither of you ever will.

And then there are the friends who've moved half-way across the country and you only speak to on the phone once every few months, but when you do get together every couple of years, it's four days of nonstop conversation and laughs and not a beat is missed in knowing you're still on the same wavelength, and they'll always know you better than you know yourself, and your wives think you're each crazy, but it's okay 'cause you're with your friend.

It's kind of like that.

(Originally posted at Vloggerheads.com during my break from blogging here.)

It's Pink Friday in California

2009-03-13T12:47:00.000-07:00

No, "Pink Friday" has nothing to do the ongoing battle to overturn Proposition 8, or anything to do with Gay Rights at all. "Pink Friday" refers to termination notices, often called "pink slips," and that the California Constitution mandates that local school districts notify teachers of any layoffs for the coming school year by March 15 each year.

As the last workday before March 15, today is the day when an estimated 25,000+ teachers throughout the state will receive notice that their services will likely not be needed for the 2009-10 school year. Well, actually, they'll be needed; they just won't be funded.

In Santa Clara County it will be about 1,000 teachers receiving their pink slips today. But that 1,000 will not be evenly distributed throughout the county. In the Cupertino district (where my wife works), they have managed to make other last-minute budget adjustments, and last week announced there would be no teacher layoffs this year. Needless to say, districts that aren't also home to companies like Apple or Hewlett Packard will not fare as well.

In many parts of the state, there will be protests today in support of teachers. But they're not likely to do much good.

Like the March 15 mandated deadline, the budget crunch is coming from Sacramento, where legislators "solved" their budget deadlock by overturning the people's commitment to funding schools and early childhood education.

Although we're now nine months into the 2008-09 Fiscal Year, the budget (which was only passed last month) will not be official until after a May 19 special election, which will ask the people to ratify the legislature's reworking of five previous ballot measures. These include voter approved minimums for funding K-12 education, early childhood programs (First 5), and mental health funding, as well as "borrowing" against future lottery earnings.

Not among the special ballot initiatives: modifying the 2/3 vote requirement for the legislature to pass a budget. California is one of only a handful of states that requires such a super-majority to pass its annual budget. This 2/3 super-majority has allowed a vocal minority (34%) in the legislature to stalemate and bankrupt the state.

And on Pink Friday, it's teachers who get to pick up the tab. Oh, and the kids? They'll do just fine as class sizes increase ... won't they?

50 Days In

2009-03-12T20:12:00.000-07:00

No, not 50 days since I've posted a blog here (actually, it's been a little longer than that), but 50 days (plus a couple) since Barack Obama was sworn in as President, and I know you're all just dying to find out what I'm thinking. Is the honeymoon over? Do I regret my vote? Am I loving everything he does?

No. No. And No.

The honeymoon is not over, I think he's doing a great job in a very difficult situation. I'm still pleased with my choice, and have no regrets over not sticking with an independent or third party candidate. But, no, I'm not thrilled with everything.

But I'm fine with not being thrilled with everything (and, really, who can be seriously paying attention and agree with any politician all the time?). The point is that even where I've disagreed or had a different opinion on something he's proposed, I can at least understand where he's coming from. It may be a different approach, or a different degree of attack than I would have preferred, but I can agree that it's for reasons that I can at least respect.

I'm still finding this a refreshing change from the previous administration, where it was not simply an honest disagreement with a particular detail of a policy, but where I was constantly being outraged with what I perceived to the wholesale destruction of all of what I believe to be great about this country. But back to Obama...

Example one of my disagreement: Obama's tax plan will cap the tax deduction for charitable contributions at 28 percent (current cap 35%). The positive side: this is to help pay for some rather expensive, but needed, health care proposals. The negative: this could put a damper on on major donor giving at a time when the nonprofit sector is being hit on all sides with reductions in revenue coupled with increased demand for services.

As a guy who lives in the nonprofit sector, this concerns me. But I'm not as panicked about it as some people are. The truth is, we won't really know how much of a hit this will bring to the nonprofit sector until long after it's happened, and it's being done for all the right reasons. Taking a hit to fund health care reform feels a whole lot better to me than taking a hit to give billionaires another tax cut.

Another area of disagreement is in Education. My wife is a teacher, and she and her co-workers are upset about the President's recent speech on the topic of failing schools and education reform. Obama crossed in front of a few sacred cows and promised more of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) policies that failed so miserably before.

Again, my wife and I (and many others) believe that NCLB was a failed policy from the concept (other than a nifty title), and that the problem was not simply "not doing enough of it." But, as I reminded my wife at dinner tonight, we knew this was coming. Obama, the candidate, was clear about his support for NCLB. This was a trade-off we made back in November so we have no right to start acting surprised or hurt by it today.

So, am I still drinking the KoolAid and thinking that President Obama can do no wrong? Absolutely not. But I'm still willing to give the man a chance. Overall, I'll give the First Fifty a strong 85% approval rating. Will it remain that high for the next four years? I doubt it, but I'm enjoying this moment while I can.

Tact in the event of tragedy (or not)

2008-11-16T12:23:00.000-08:00

By now it's probably been broadcast nationally about a local incident that happened Friday afternoon, when a disgruntled worker killed three of his former employers. A manhunt ensued, and the shooter was taken into custody yesterday.

At first, speculation and rumor was that the shooter had been laid off from his job at Silicon Valley start-up, SiPort. Layoffs were in the news, as many Valley firms had announced them in the previous few days, including such major local employers as Sun Microsystems and Applied Materials.

When the identities of the victims was released as the company's CEO, the Vice President of Operations, and the Human Resources Director, it seemed like a pretty good assumption that the shooter, an engineer, had been laid off.

But, the surviving folks at SiPort don't want anybody to think their company isn't doing well. Announcing layoffs is not good for business, and, apparently, the headlines about them laying off somebody were more distressing to them than the loss of three executives.

While I have yet to see or hear a statement from SiPort saying anything about "mourning the loss... senseless tragedy... our thoughts to the families..." (etc., etc., pretending to care), I have heard "company spokesman" making it clear that the shooter was not laid off, but rather fired for cause.

What I heard from "company spokesman" on the news last night is that SiPort has never had any layoffs. In fact, in 2008, they raised $20 million in venture capital and added more jobs, and they expect to add hire more in 2009!

Well, sure they'll be hiring. We know that they have at least four openings right now: CEO, VP of Operations, HR Director, and Crazy-Ass Engineer.

And, given the current climate here in Silicon Valley, you better believe that as soon as the company name and job titles of the victims were released, that the corporate email and fax machine were filling up with resumes for each one of those jobs. They'll have thousands of applicants by the time they show up Monday morning to clear away the yellow crime scene tape that police investigators left behind.

Now, there's really no reason why a well-funded tech start-up should listen to a lowly nonprofit consultant like me, but don't you think their spokesman could have used a little more tact in responding to the correct crisis?

I do understand their needing to privately reassure their venture capital backers that the company will go on, and that this will not deter them. But shouldn't their public statements in the first 48 hours be focused on the human tragedy, and not their business plan?

Or maybe it's just me who thinks that. But then, that's why my clients are nonprofit organizations, not tech start-ups.

The fat lady has yet to sing on this one

2008-11-06T05:52:00.000-08:00

Along with the hopeful euphoria of Obama's election came the sobering slap in the face of California's Proposition 8 passing. From an overwhelmingly "blue" state came the first ever amendment to a state constitution removing rights already granted. This is embarrassing to me as a Californian, far beyond the mere disappointment of losing an election, it's major step backwards in the civil rights battle that helped bring Obama to the White House.

But there are two things I'm focusing on the remain hopeful that, although we just lost a major battle, we will eventually win the war.

First: Prop 8 barely passed, with votes still being counted till late on Wednesday before an official result was announced. Compare this to the 2002 "defense of marriage" ballot proposition that passed with 61% of the vote. Despite the loss, many minds have been changed over a relatively short period of time.

A few years of "domestic partnerships" and a few months of same-sex marriage have managed to convince a large part of California's electorate that the world won't end, and their own marriages will not be damaged, by extending the marriage right to all law abiding, competent adult citizens.

This is a hopeful sign, because the real battle is just beginning. Which brings us to the second point:

Marriages that are recognized in some states, but not in others, are tainted anyway, and eventually this will need to be answered at the federal level. The lawsuits already filed as a result of Proposition 8 may be the key to that. And, if they are challenged all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, by the time they reach that level, President Obama may have appointed one or two new justices.

Our state Attorney General, Jerry Brown, has said that, once challenged, it will be his job to defend Proposition 8, and that he will do his job - even though he opposed its passing. But he also said that, since there's no language in Proposition 8 making it retroactive, he will defend the 18,000 same-sex couples who were legally married to retain their marriage.

This pretty much guarantees that there will be legal challenges from both sides: Gay and lesbian couples who are now not allowed to marry, and Prop 8 supporters who are upset that there are still 18,000 legal gay marriages among their neighbors.

The forces of progress may have lost this one proposition battle (due in large part to deceptive advertising and intervention by religious forces from outside California), but time and history are on the side of marriage equality.

I'm not giving up just yet. Like somebody else has been saying lately, "Yes we can." Fire it up! Ready to go!

Let the healing (and the hard work) begin...

2008-11-05T07:27:00.000-08:00

I keep going back to CNN.com and MSNBC.com etc., to recheck those headlines. It wasn't a dream. It really happened; we've really changed the world! And that was the easy part.

Last night was great; the unbelievable wave of emotion that came over me when the election was officially called for Obama at 8 PM Pacific, the shots of the cheering crowds in Chicago, DC, and NYC across the TV screen, the gracious and conciliatory speech of Senator McCain, and the historic and inspirational speech of President Elect Obama. It was a moment that will always be remembered.

Now comes the hard part. For better or worse, the President Elect will have stronger Democratic majorities in the House and Senate than has existed in years. It will now be his job to keep them in check; to not overreach and to keep a few ideas from outside DNC headquarters on the radar.

I fear a Congress that's like a kid in the candy shop, thinking they've got a mandate to do whatever they want without consulting the people who sent them there. If they behave in that manner, these majorities will only hold for two years. If President Obama is unable to control them, he will only be in charge for four years.

If President Obama is able to show the type of leadership I believe him capable of, and keep Congress in check, he'll be able to enact a great deal of his programs, but carefully, slowly, and with cooperation and advice from all parties. And, if he does that, the next eight years could truly change our country far beyond the symbolism of his historic election.

I'll have more to say about this, and other election results (as of this writing, it looks like Prop 8 is passing, but so narrowly that they still haven't called it officially nearly 12 hours after polls closed) in the coming days and weeks.

For today, I simply offer my congratulations to the Democrats. I was with you during this election, but I'm still an independent, and there's no guarantee I'll be with you again.

Final Pre-Election Blog (part two)

2008-11-03T07:14:00.000-08:00

Okay, I have a few minutes before hell week gets under way here, so one more "final thought" before election day in the form of a shocking revelation: John McCain is neither Satan nor a Nazi.

Yes, it would make this election a lot clearer if either candidate were a total idiot slime bag. But the fact is, John McCain has earned our respect both in his many years in the Senate and in his service in Vietnam. He's no fool, and he's ten times the man and leader that G.W. Bush ever was or ever could be.

Yes, I admitted it: McCain isn't Bush. But in many policy areas, and the economy in particular, they both worship at the same alter of failed Reaganomics. In the economic and domestic policy realm, McCain's battle cry and Bush's are each the continued death of regulation and reliance on "trickle-down" policies that have lead directly to the current crisis that is crushing America.

I trust Barack Obama (bolstered by the endorsement of Warren Buffet and others who should know) to not just plug the current holes, but to enact meaningful changes to keep this from happening again. In Obama I see the hope and the energy needed to inspire a nation to rebuild, and bring out the best of America and in Americans.

In Obama I see our best hope for solving our healthcare crisis, with one in seven Americans lacking access to anything but the emergency room. In Obama I see the leadership needed to get us out of our oil dependence within a decade. In Obama (bolstered by the endorsement of Colin Powell and others who should know) I see a new direction in our struggle against terrorism and extremism that could ease the tensions.

If McCain wins, it won't be the end of the world. But it won't be much different or better either. He's not Bush, but the direction we're headed will be the same. And, if McCain wins, you better believe I'll be praying for his good health every morning and night of his tenure. But wouldn't a fresh start be so much better?

Oh, and now that I've admitted that McCain is neither Satan nor a Nazi, can somebody on the right please admit that Obama is neither a terrorist nor a socialist?

As the great poet, Joey Ramone, once said, "Twenty- twenty- twenty-four hours to go. I wanna be sedated."

Final Pre-Election Blog (maybe)

2008-11-02T17:25:00.001-08:00

Driving around doing my Sunday errands today I was stopped at an intersection with a few people holding up signs in favor of Proposition 8, the California constitutional amendment that would deny same-sex couples the right to marry (see my No on 8 vlog here). The slogan on their signs was, "Prop 8 = Free Speech."

Having nothing else to do while waiting for a long signal, I rolled down the window and and asked, "How does Prop 8 have anything to do with free speech?"

"The people voted against gay marriage in 2002, and judges overturned it!" was his reply.

"Because it was found to be unconstitutional. It had nothing to do with free speech," I answered. "Obviously you still have the right to be as intolerant as you like," (maybe I shouldn't have said that?)

"They already have all the rights!" he said, thankfully changing the subject from my accusation of his intolerance.

"Let me ask you something," I attempted, "What would you do if somebody decided that your marriage could only be called a 'partnership'?"

He turned away. I guess I stumped him.

"Would you call that equal?" I tried again.

"Have a nice day," he told me between clenched teeth.

"Can you answer the question? Would you be satisfied if your marriage were reduced to a 'partnership'?"

A scowl was all I got from him.

"Of course not," I answered. "So you're a hypocrite as well as a liar," (I have a tendency for going too far), "Have a nice day!" The light changed and I drove off.

On the brighter side, I had a nice talk with a McCain supporter at Trader Joe's (I was wearing an Obama shirt, of course). We each agreed that it looked like an Obama victory, but that we didn't trust the polls either way. So, if you haven't voted yet, be sure to get out there on Tuesday and do what you've got to do!

Vote Early, Vote Often

2008-10-31T07:38:00.001-07:00

Okay, of course the second part of that title is a joke. It should be assumed, but I need to say it explicitly or the right-wingers will use this blog as evidence of voter fraud from the Obama camp. So, here's the real title: "Vote Early, but only once."

About 30 states now have "early voting" in which certain poling places are opened up in the week(s) preceding the official election day. I love this. As much as I usually love to experience the excitement of the "real" election day, I love expanding democracy even more. And having at least a full week for citizens to cast their votes is having a tremendous effect on turn-out this year. Regardless of who wins (or which ballot propositions pass), this is a good thing for our democracy.

I went yesterday, to the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters, in San Jose, California. It was fairly well organized; could have been a little better, but could have been a lot worse. On arrival I was asked to take a number; number 74. They were calling number 24 at that time.

This was much better than standing in line, as we got to sit around the lobby of the building. Not the most comfortable seating, but better than standing. It took about 40 minutes for them to process the 50 people ahead of me and call 74.

Once my number was called, it still was not time to vote. That's just to talk to the counter clerk, who punches your name and address into the computer to verify your registration. They then order up your ballot. (Santa Clara County is fairly large, with several cities, and school districts, etc., so there are dozens of possible ballots based on your specific address).

It took about another 15 minutes, waiting back out in the lobby, till another clerk appeared with a box of absentee ballots and called out my name. We could either take the ballot home with us and vote by mail, or use one of the booths to mark our ballot there and return it immediately. I chose to vote there.

After marking the ballot, I put it in the slot, and peeked into the back room where it looked to be about 25 or 30 people sorting and processing the voted ballots. Remember the scene from the original movie version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, where Veruca Salt's father is having all the peanut shellers opening up chocolate bars? Picture that with absentee ballots and you have an idea of the operation.

All-in-all, a very interesting experience, and a great satisfaction to have this done with, so I can ignore all the political ads for the next week. On the news they said that they expect 1/3 of the votes cast nationwide to be done through early voting, but yesterday, I think they said they'd already processed 30% of the expected vote locally.

The whole thing took just a little over an hour, altogether. Considering the crowds expected at polling places next Tuesday, if you can get your voting done early, I highly recommend it. Especially if you've moved or are a first time voter, or have any other reason to question whether or not you'll have any trouble at the polls.

For those keeping score, on the partisan offices I voted for two Democrats (including Barack Obama), one Republican (yes, really!), and one Green. NO on 4 & 8.

Ron Howard's Call to Action

2008-10-23T15:40:00.000-07:00

Ron Howard and a couple of his old TV buddies have something to say about this election (and an amusing way of saying it)...

See more Ron Howard videos at Funny or Die

Standing up for What's Right (No on Prop 8)

2008-10-15T14:54:00.000-07:00

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
(you know the source)

Does this apply to gays and lesbians? It seems to me that marriage would be covered under those unalienable rights. "Defense of marriage" laws today are no different or less hateful to me than anti-miscegenation laws a generation ago.

In California we're about to have that referendum again, with Proposition 8 on our November 4 ballot. I can't see how anybody could view this as anything other than legalized discrimination, and yet according to the polls, it just might pass. It's rare that I feel ashamed to be a Californian, but this is one of those moments.

Find more videos like this on VloggerHeads

Fear and Loathing on North Santa Cruz Blvd.

2008-10-12T16:27:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, we were walking along the main drag through Los Gatos, North Santa Cruz Ave., when we spotted a woman with a sign reading:

SOCIALISM!
Obama = ACORN
-------------
McCain - Palin
While I bit my tongue, Leslie calmly started in on her with, "Where do you get your information?"

"I read," the woman answered.

"Read what?" Leslie countered.

"A lot, you should read too." (A slightly better answer than Sarah Palin gave to Katy Couric.)

I asked, "Don't you think this charge of socialism is a little inflamatory?" She didn't want to talk about socialism just yet, she wanted to talk about ACORN.

"He was an organizer for ACORN!" (Fact: Obama was an organizer for Project Vote in 1992-93, not ACORN. Project Vote is currently a partner with ACORN on one project, but that partnership came about years later. This woman didn't care to hear that, she reads, after all.)

"What you're doing is guilt by association. Why don't you have a sign saying something positive about your candidate instead of smearing Obama with these outrageous claims?" I politely suggested (well, as polite as I could muster being as angry as I was; the result of over-caffeination from some yummy French Roast earlier that morning).

"I'm an independent," was her reason for not saying something positive about McCain.

"OK... I'm an independent too," I offered, "and part of the reason for that is because of dirty campaigning like this." We go around again about guilt by association, and a few other things, each time she refuses to answer direct questions, or answers with an absurd question or suggestion to me. Somewhere along the way, Leslie has given up getting a word in once I'd started, and has crossed the street ahead of me.

Again, I tried to ask her why she wasn't out promoting her candidate. This time I tried to give her something nice to say, "Why don't you have a sign saying 'McCain = Leadership' or 'He's a hero' or 'Independent for McCain'?"

This time she didn't even give me her independent line, this time she changed the topic to the mortgage crisis and implied that Obama was responsible for it.

I was shocked, as I didn't get her reference to the false rumor that the current crisis is because Obama and ACORN each worked to force banks to make loans to poor minorities. (In real life, ACORN and Obama have each fought against redlining practices to make sure banks treated similarly qualified applicants equally, regardless of color).

But since I didn't catch her veiled reference to a proven lie, I instead answered, "Neither one of these guys is directly responsible for the current crisis, but if either one of them is to share in the blame, it's McCain, who's been a Reaganite de-regulator for 26 years, and it's de-regulation and the lack of oversight and enforcement that's lead to this meltdown."

Then I went too far for her: "McCain was part of the Keating Five, after all!"

"Ah ha!," I made her happy, apparently. "Talk about guilt by association!" She finally actually responded directly to something I said, but it was again far from reality.

"What 'guilt by association'? He was one of the five! He was..." she didn't let me finish.

"Have you ever lived in a socialist country?" she asked me.

"What has that got to do with..."

"They're trying to steal the election! ACORN is registering fake people and they're stealing the election!" I tried to bring up 2000 and 2004 as examples of stolen elections, but she was done with that topic. "They're against us!" she cried.

"Against who?"

"Against us! ACORN is against Americans!"

"Because... why? Because they represent poor people or..." before I could ask if it's because they represent minorities she's cut me off and is onto another subject. Out of the corner of my eye I see the light has changed and I have the walk signal I'd been waiting for (and missed the last two or three cycles).

This time I cut her off, "Sorry, I've got to get back to the real world. Have a nice day."

Walking back a few minutes later, we noticed that she'd moved on. Leslie was concerned for a moment that I was too rough on her, and scared her from voicing her opinion, but I'm sure she just moved on to a busier intersection someplace else.

Saying goodbye to Big George

2008-09-28T10:12:00.000-07:00

My best fuzzy friend, Big George, lost his five month long battle with lymphoma on Friday. He was strong till the last couple of days, and was a loving pet till the end.

George was always around while I made my vlogs and short videos, and would sit by my side and talk to me while editing. I joked that he was my producer. This is a short tribute to him.

Find more videos like this on VloggerHeads

Defending Ralph Nader, but Voting for Barack Obama

2008-09-21T09:29:00.000-07:00

Long-time readers of this blog and my other writings know that I've been a pro-democracy crusader for many, many years, and have supported many "third party" and independent candidates over the years. You probably also know that this year I am supporting Barack Obama for president.

Here's a little video I did explaining this evolution, and the reasons for it:

Find more videos like this on VloggerHeads

Now... does this mean I've sold out and have given up on third parties or independent candidates? Hell no! I'm still committed to the cause of restoring democracy and building the electorate.

But, believing, as I do, in the rights of all candidates to be heard, I accept that this includes the candidates of the "big two" parties, and if I'm going to be fair, it means accepting that once in a while, one of them might actually have the best candidate for me at that time.

This is one of those rare times when a Democrat is the best choice for me. But I respect Ralph Nader, and recognize his right to run, and support his attempts to be included in the debates. But I'm not voting for him this time.

How Privileged Are You?

2008-09-20T08:24:00.000-07:00

What Privileges Do You Have? based on an exercise about class and privilege developed by Will Barratt, Meagan Cahill, Angie Carlen, Minnette Huck, Drew Lurker, Stacy Ploskonka at Illinois State University. If you participate in this blog game, they ask that you PLEASE acknowledge their copyright.

Items that are true for me are bolded, false are in italics - some items have notes in parenthesis.

1. Father went to college (two year business school)

2. Father finished college (finished business program, but not degree)

3. Mother went to college

4. Mother finished college (BA from BU)

5. Have any relative who is an attorney, physician, or professor

6. Were the same or higher class than your high school teachers.

7. Had more than 50 books in your childhood home.

8. Had more than 500 books in your childhood home. (might have been close, but probably not more than 500)

9. Were read children's books by a parent.

10. Had lessons of any kind before you turned 18

11. Had more than two kinds of lessons before you turned 18 (swimming, music)

12. The people in the media who dress and talk like me are portrayed positively. (sometimes true, sometimes not - can't answer this one)

13. Had a credit card with your name on it before you turned 18.

14. Your parents (or a trust) paid for the majority of your college costs. (parents paid a lot of my undergraduate, but not graduate program, maybe majority?)

15. Your parents (or a trust) paid for all of your college costs

16. Went to a private high school

17. Went to summer camp

18. Had a private tutor before you turned 18

19. Family vacations involved staying at hotels (sometimes hotels, often staying with family)

20. Your clothing was all bought new before you turned 18 (much of it new, but many hand-me-downs from older brothers)

21. Your parents bought you a car that was not a hand-me-down from them

22. There was original art in your house when you were a child

23. You and your family lived in a single-family house

24. Your parent(s) owned their own house or apartment before you left home,

25. You had your own room as a child (usually, shared for some of the time)

26. You had a phone in your room before you turned 18

27. Participated in a SAT/ACT prep course (It was at the high school, but I think it was an optional program)

28. Had your own TV in your room in high school

29. Owned a mutual fund or IRA in high school or college

30. Flew anywhere on a commercial airline before you turned 16

31. Went on a cruise with your family.

32. Went on more than one cruise with your family

33. Your parents took you to museums and art galleries as you grew up.

34. You were unaware of how much heating bills were for your family.

Okay, that looks like 19 "Yes", 14 "No", and one abstention, or about 56% privileged. No wonder when they call my candidate "elite" I say, "And what's the problem?"

Experience or Issues?

2008-09-04T08:52:00.000-07:00

According to McCain-Palin campaign manager, Rick Davis, "This election is not about issues" (see video clip, below). Really? Not about the issues?

The continuing foreclosure crisis, with thousands of families losing their homes due to spiking mortgage rates? Only a crisis in our minds, according to the McCain camp.

The continuing rise in health care costs as the number of uninsured Americans climbs to greater than 15%? Not relevant to the presidential race, says McCain-Palin.

An overstretched military bogged down in Iraq while the real villains of 9/11 roam free, planning their next attack on us? Situation taking care of itself, McCain assures us.

No, what's important here is just the guy with 25 years in the Senate proving that he's a change agent by selecting a relatively unknown Governor with less than two years in that office. And, of course, that we recognize that his opponent is somehow the ultimate political insider, despite the fact that he's less qualified than that neophyte Governor. I'm sorry, I'm getting dizzy with that last paragraph.

Look, I'll tell you what this race is not about: It's not about experience. Each of the four candidates for President and Vice President are qualified and experienced in their own way. McCain and Biden have decades in the U.S. Senate. Obama and Palin each have a different variety of experiences that brought them to this point in time.

So if it's not about experience, what should we be talking about? How about ideas? How about the issues? How about the direction that each of these candidates will take our nation? Mr. Davis doesn't want us to focus on that, because he knows that's a losing proposition for the Republicans.

From health care, to the war, to education, to the economy, and everything else, there are clear differences between the two parties, with one ready to move us forward and provide hope for American families, and the other trying to hold us back and put us in our place.

Rick Davis is just a cheap nightclub magician saying, "Look, there's nothing up my sleeve," when he tries to misdirect you with his claim that this election "is not about the issues." There's nothing up his sleeve, alright: no new ideas, no relief, no hope. Just the usual rhetoric, pandering, and fear.

Is this bad for Obama, you want to know?

2008-08-29T11:28:00.000-07:00

John McCain has announced his VP choice, and it's none other than Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Um. Who? You know, Sarah Palin, the former Miss Alaska runner-up who was mayor of Wasilla (population 5,470) before losing a race for Lieutenant Governor and finally scoring an upset win for Governor of Alaska in 2006 (population 683,478 - 47th largest state in the Union!).

Apparently, this move is supposed to cinch the election by attracting all 18 million of Hilary Clinton's supporters to the Republican ticket.

There will be a few former Hilary supporters who's main objective is seating a woman in the White House, regardless of party or policy, who will be swayed. But I believe they are a tiny sliver of HRC's former supporters.

Anybody who was for Hilary for what she stood for will back away in horror from the McCain-Palin ticket, and specifically from McCain's "appeasing" of them by selecting a pro-life, big-oil connected, NRA member who returned to work last April only three days after giving birth to a premature baby with Down syndrome.

That Palin is willing to hit the national campaign trail at this time in her family's history says volumes about her ambition and priorities, but very little for her judgment - or McCain's.

(Just forget the fact that she's served less than two years as governor of a state with fewer people than most mid-sized cities - We will not play the "experience card").

I applaud McCain for choosing a woman (24 years after the Democrats nominated a woman VP candidate), but why Palin? Christine Todd Whitman would have attracted many more crossover voters and independents, to name one possibility.

So, I'd be tempted to say, this is good for Obama and bad for McCain, but in the end, the VP choices don't mean all that much (how do you spell "Quayle?"). The battle is between the two at the top of their party's tickets.

First thoughts on the Biden choice...

2008-08-23T09:09:00.000-07:00

I like Big Joe. Earlier I was hoping for Jim Webb, but he took himself out of the running. So, good choice. I have no complaints.

The criticism of Biden that I've seen so far (and this is just from a few hours of the news being out) do not focus on Biden (he's hard to find fault in), but on Obama.

The same people who two weeks ago were saying that "Obama needs to shore up his outsider status and domestic policy expertise with somebody who knows how Washington works and has foreign policy expertise" are now saying "This shows Obama knows he's weak, and is really another DC insider."

Look, these people were not going to approve of Obama's VP choice, no matter who it was. Another outsider would have been criticized as lacking experience or depth. Another minority or a woman would have been criticized as "asking for too much" or "insulting the mainstream."

Senator Obama did the right thing by "balancing the ticket" - something every nominee strives to do, no matter the party or situation.

Invisibility, Anyone?

2008-08-12T07:44:00.000-07:00

Way back, a few decades ago, I was in a screenwriting class, and the assignment was to do an adaptation of a classic short story. I chose "The Damned Thing" by Ambrose Bierce; the story of an invisible beast causing all sorts of havoc. I loved the opening scene of the coroner examining the latest victim spread out on a table in a room full of onlookers, and that chapter's title: "One does not always eat what is on the table."

The instructor for the course said I did a good job of translating the narrative into action, and succeeded in being faithful to the original story, while still making it my own, and yet he still graded me down for my choice of story. "The damned thing about it," he said, was that it was "just completely unbelievable." Perhaps Bierce could fool some 19th century boobs into thinking an invisible creature or some sort of invisible material could exist, but not a mature audience three-quarters of the way into the 20th century.

Well, here in the 21st century, researchers at the University of California Berkeley have just invented a light-deflecting technique that could one day be used to make materials that would render objects invisible. Yep. The invisibility cloak. Real. And the scientists say that "there is no fundamental reason why the same principles cannot be scaled up one day to make invisibility cloaks big enough to hide a person, a tank or even a tanker."

The work at Berkeley is the latest development in the 40-year scientific quest to make light, and other electromagnetic waves, jump through hoops and bend to human will.

In essence, the Berkeley scientists created two unimaginably tiny mazes using nanotechnology that, by virtue of the materials used, exert subtle electromagnetic effects that confuse light waves into developing the physics equivalent of a split personality.

Yes. It is now theoretically possible to create a material that bends light around it, giving it the appearance of whatever is behind or beside it. "And the Damned Thing is of such a color."

When are flip-flops okay?

2008-07-17T10:36:00.001-07:00

This posting is not for or against any particular candidate or party. It is just a general observation about the way each side of nearly every electoral battle abuse the waffler argument.

You've heard it every day and from every direction; "Candidate X sways with the wind, first he was for Z and now he's against it. This proves you can never trust candidate X." And, often times, they're right.

But they're also often wrong.

Are politicians never allowed to change their minds? Are they never allowed to reconsider an issue or to grow intellectually? Are they never allowed to admit that they were wrong in a previous decision?

To me, a change in position could be a sign of maturity. But even when a candidate does come to a change of position over the course of time and through deep introspection, they've been trained to try to hide that fact. "Well, this is really how I always felt, you just misunderstood my previous position." So much for maturity.

I guess what I'm saying is that if a candidate makes a gradual shift from one position to another, I'm willing to accept that it might not just be swaying in the wind. I will hold off on accusations of being a waffler for a unidirectional shift that doesn't appear too sudden.

But a shift that occurs over the course of a single news cycle, and shifts back depending on the make-up of the audience being addressed, is a problem.

In other words; it's not the flip that concerns me - it's the flip-flop. And especially the flip-flop-flip.

So, let's all be mature, and allow candidates to grow and change their minds, and appreciate that. But watch out for people with no anchor at all.

Stand up for Privacy!

2008-07-06T10:50:00.000-07:00

The judge in the Viacom versus YouTube/Google copyright case has ruled that YouTube/Google have to turn over our private user data of every video viewed on the site, since it launched in 2005 (New York Times article).

To me, this goes far beyond what would be reasonable for Viacom to ask for in relation to their copyright claims. It effects not just those users who posted infringing video clips, but all those who even watched non-infringing clips.

It's a complete violation of our Fourth Amendment rights to be free from "unreasonable searches and seizures" and part of the broader, continued attack on freedom and democracy in general.

Please consider signing our online petition to Judge Stanton asking him to reconsider this ruling (click here).

July Fourth Parody Video

2008-07-04T07:26:00.000-07:00

Here we are, on the Fourth of July. For those who've followed this blog a while, you know that I love this day, and what it stands for, and yet in recent years it has also made me sad to see where we appear to be heading.

This year on the Fourth, I've prepared a little video for you in which I get to have a little fun with one of my heroes, Thomas Jefferson, as he puts the finishing touches on the Declaration of Independence...

Enjoy the holiday, and remember the true meaning of the day as we enter the final phases of this upcoming presidential election.

Copyright Ramblings

2008-06-18T08:07:00.000-07:00

"The Congress shall have Power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8
Over the past eighteen months or so, I've made several YouTube videos on the subject of copyright: copyright criminals, copyright bozos, and the death of fair use.

My position has shifted slightly over this time, from just trying to explain the law, and why it's wrong to simply re-post somebody else's creative work and then claim "fair use" to focusing on the abuse by copyright owners that threaten our common culture. I've shifted from trying to correct the pseudo-libertarian viewpoint that "information wants to be free" to a growing anger at the attacks on fair use.

Certainly, I support copyright. While it's not a major part of my income by any stretch, I do get book royalties monthly and would be upset if somebody else started selling my books. But on the other hand, when I get a call asking if a certain example in the book may be used in a larger collection, I'm honored to allow that.

The constitution put in the power to make laws regarding copyright and patents to encourage "science and the useful arts" not just to make authors and inventors rich, but to enrich the public commons. These protections were for the creators, not their publishers, and only to be for a limited time before ownership would pass to all humanity.

That Warner Bros still owns (and jealously protects) the Happy Birthday Song nearly 100 years after the author's death (and really, all she did was adapt an existing folk song), to me, signals the death of the public commons. That the State of Oregon would prosecute public interest web sites that post the law is simply beyond absurd.

Yes, I still get pissed off at the teenagers who post an episode of The Simpsons and then claim it's fair use. But they just don't know any better. They can be educated, and controlled. The entire concept of fair use should not be discredited and discarded because of their stupidity.

But when high paid corporate lawyers, who do know exactly what their doing, try to reshape the law in way that goes against both common accepted use and the long-term public interest, I get angry.

Here's a couple of good links for you:

And here are a few of my videos on the subject from November of 2006 to now:

For more blog postings about copyright, click here.

(and thanks to B.K. for inspiring yet another blog post)

The VP Guessing Game

2008-06-07T07:04:00.000-07:00

Now that the presidential nomination process is all over but the dropping of the balloons, all arm-chair prognosticators are turning their attention to the "veepstakes." Who will Obama and McCain pick as running mates?

Before we begin, I want to make one thing clear: I don't believe that this is "the most important choice" either of them will ever make. The VP nomination may make the difference for a handful of voters, but you have to go back to 1960, and LBJ helping JFK carry Texas, to find an election where the choice of VP put a candidate over the top. And even Dan Quayle couldn't sink Bush I's presidential bid. But let's play veepstakes anyway...

Of the rumored leading contenders for the Democratic ticket, I'll venture a guess that Jim Webb, the junior Senator from Virginia, is a strong possibility, and would make a good VP choice. He has what Obama is accused of lacking, military experience. He's a Vietnam vet and former Assistant Secretary of Defense. And, of course, he'd help in Virginia, where Obama will almost certainly lose otherwise. He'd be a reassuring presence on the ticket for those Democratic voters who are concerned about "too much change."

Okay, it wouldn't right to address this topic without saying something about Hillary. I don't think she'd be a good VP choice, but she wouldn't sink the ticket. The amount of extra votes she'd bring to the ticket are probably balanced by the number of votes she'd scare away from the ticket. And, as VP, her husband presents some problems. The Second Spouse should not be the most visible person in any administration. But you've heard all this before...

So, on to the Republican ticket. Here's where I break from the crowd. My suggestion for McCain is one that I'm surprised to not find anybody else suggesting: Christine Todd Whitman. She's the former governor of New Jersey who went on to be Bush II's head of the EPA. She quit that job "to spend more time with her family" (translation: she thought the administration, and VP Cheney in particular, were pushing too hard to reduce regulations on air pollution emissions). While she's remained active in Republican politics, she's also been vocal about criticizing the current administration's divisive political tactics.

As a more moderate Republican (and woman, obviously), she could help pull in some of the Hillary supporters who are unsure of Obama, and show that McCain hasn't become a total tool of the right. Also, New Jersey is a state that often threatens to go Republican, but usually ends up Democratic; Whitman could make the difference there.

Okay, you heard it hear first. If Whitman gets the VP nod, I want credit for suggesting it. On Jim Webb, I'm just one of the pack, I know.

Universal Health Care

2008-06-05T10:37:00.000-07:00

Here's my second political collaboration video with my conservative friend, PappyStu. The topic today is Universal Health Care, and whether or not the U.S. needs some form of reform to provide health care for all.

As with my previous collaboration with PappyStu, the point of these videos isn't to reach consensus; it's just to begin a civil conversation on issues that are important in our national life.

I'm the guy on the left, politically speaking.

Is Civil Discussion Possible Anymore?

2008-05-22T11:09:00.000-07:00

Political debate in this country has been turned into nothing more than a verbal slugfest. We turn on those with views that are different than our own, and attempt to isolate ourselves from dissent. And, with many of my posts on this blog, I'm as guilty as anybody else in this regard.

So here's my stupid, vain attempt to apologize for my part in all of this, and try to begin a respectful discussion between political opposites. The idea is not to reach agreement, but to more fully understand other points of view. This is not a debate; there's no winner or loser - just two friends who see things from different angles sharing their opinions.

And, since YouTube is as polarizing a place as any, I'm doing this over there. Helping me out on this project is my conservative friend, PappyStu. (Oh, and intro music by audionautix.)

Big George

2008-04-30T11:53:00.000-07:00

From time to time you may have seen me mention my cat, Big George, here on the blog. George, who's about 11 or 12 years old, is mostly Maine Coone, and a great cat. But today I have some bad news about George. He'd been having bad diarrhea for several nights (and not in his litter box), so we took him in to the vet yesterday.

In checking him out, the doctor felt a lump in George's abdomen and so he took a couple of x-rays that showed a "mass" pushing against his small intestine causing both problems (loose stool and loss of control).

Today we went back for an ultra-sound and needle aspiration. We're still waiting another day for the official lab results, but we're now pretty certain that it's some sort of lymphoma or lympho-carcinoma.

Untreated, this type of cancer in cats moves very quickly, and he could be gone within a month. With treatment, depending on how aggressive, he could have six months to a year. There's no surgery available for this, and the drugs and kitty-chemo cannot cure it, but they can make him comfortable to enjoy at least a few more good months.

Our next appointment is with the oncology specialist at a different vet office (just like for humans, moving from the GP to getting a referral for the specialist). That will be Monday afternoon, after we have the results from all of this morning's tests.

And now I realize that I should have taken the idea of pet health insurance far more seriously than I previously had.

Carnival of the Decline of American Democracy - Edition 3.06

2008-04-28T11:06:00.000-07:00

Welcome to the Carnival of the Decline of [American] Democracy, Edition 3.06 - Blogging 'till the secret police take us away. Special "Never Say Never" Edition.

Yeah, it was just a month ago when I said I was giving up doing the carnival - at least for a while - but you people keep sending me blog entries to include! So, here we go again....

CPD gets us going in a grand way with On Silencing Dissent: National Awareness and Dismissing the Idea of Impeachment posted at We Op-Ed.

Leon Gettler looks at the issue of transparency in corporate political backers in Directors and donations posted at Sox First.

Collin Williams takes another long look at the Patriot Act, and how it has worked to destroy democracy, in All in the name of patriotism posted at RejectSociety.com.

And Madeleine Begun Kane wraps things up with a bit of humor in Presidential Election Blues posted at Mad Kane's Political Madness.

Information on future carnivals (should there be one) will be found on the carnival home page or on this blog. That's it for today.

Free Business Cards for Bloggers

2008-04-24T13:54:00.000-07:00

Do you blog? Do want everybody to know about it?

Then get on over to ooprint.com and get your free blogger business cards! (Also available, free FaceBook and Ziki.com business cards). The attached image is a sample of what your card could look like.

Of course, if you want a real business card, it'll cost you, but these little give-aways are a great promotional device for them, and maybe for you too.

Mudcrutch Rocks the House in Santa Cruz

2008-04-15T06:12:00.000-07:00

I'm up early 'cause I just couldn't sleep, and the song running through my head at top volume is I Don't Scare Easy - the first single from the re-formed Mudcrutch, who we saw last night at the Santa Cruz Civic Auditorium.

Who's Mudcrutch, you ask? They were a band from Gainesville, Florida, in the early '70s, who came out to Los Angeles seeking fame and fortune, then promptly broke up just as they got a record deal. The remains of the band met up with some other old Florida friends and started recording under the name "Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers." TP & company have had a few hits over the years, but the legend of Mudcrutch has lived on.

This past year, after a 35 year break, members of the original Mudcrutch reunited and finally recorded that first album (to be released shortly) and have set out on a two-week "World Tour" that goes all the way from Malibu to San Francisco, then down through Santa Barbara to inland of San Diego, and finally winds up with a week at the Troubadour in West Hollywood. Okay, so maybe a short trip up and down the California coast doesn't sound like much of a world tour, but the t-shirt I bought says it's a world tour, so I'm sticking to that story.

So, who's in the band: Tom Petty (bass, vocals), Tom Leadon (guitar, vocals), Mike Campbell (guitar, mandolin), Benmont Tench (keyboards, vocals), and Randall Marsh (drums).

Tom Petty is certainly still the star of the show, but this is NOT a Heartbreakers tour, and TP shares songwriting and lead vocal duties with his bandmates quite handily. Most prominent among those singing-writing bandmates is Tom Leadon, who also challenges Heartbreaker extraordinaire, Mike Campbell, for dominance on lead guitar. Mike and Tom (L) traded licks throughout the evening to the crowds delight.

Mudcrutch took to the stage at 8:15, without any opening act to warm up the crowd (wasn't needed), and went right into Shady Grove, the new CD's opening track. The 90 minute (plus) seemed to take us through the entire disc, including Orphan Of The Storm, Six Days On The Road, This Is A Good Street (featuring Benmont Tench), The Wrong Thing To Do, Queen Of The Go-Go Girls, Topanga Cowgirl, Bootleg Flyer, Lover Of The Bayou, June Apple, the previously mentioned Scare Easy,and TP's latest masterpiece, Crystal River, which featured some of Mike Campbell's best guitar work.

A couple of those songs might be familiar to you as old country or bluegrass standards, but they all rocked the house. Mudcrutch filled out the set with some of the other favorites they used to perform on the Gainesville bar scene 35+ years ago, including a couple of excellent Dylan covers, Most Likely You Go Your Way and I'll Go Mine, and the show's finale, Rainy Day Women #12 & 35 ("everybody must get stoned"). Encores included a classic version of Eddie Cochran's Summertime Blues to rival the Who's famous cover.

And, yeah, you didn't hear me listing American Girl or Free Fallin' or any other Tom Petty and/or the Heartbreakers songs. And, believe me, they were not missed. Mudcrutch is a different animal than the Heartbreakers and to hear those songs would have been out-of-place and awkward, even if three out of five musicians are the same. I'm sure the show promoters would have preferred those songs be included, and that the show were listed as "Tom Petty and Mudcrutch" but the correct decision was to leave the last 35 years out.

I've been a fan of Tom Petty pretty much from the start of his recording career, and have seen him in concert many times before (including the best show ever: Bob Dylan, Tom Petty, and the Heartbreakers). But this was one of the best shows yet. Seeing him not as rock-star/headliner, but as the greatest bar band from Florida, just having fun and rocking out in a smaller venue (the Santa Cruz Civic is smaller than most High School gymnasiums), brought back the magic, power, and immediacy of what American Rock and Roll is all about.

Links:
Official Mudcrutch site: www.mudcrutchmusic.com
Tour & CD info & short article about reunion
Tom Leadon bio on wikipedia

Walking for Early Literacy

2008-04-10T11:34:00.000-07:00

On Saturday May 10 I will be taking part in the Human Race, a fundraising event for Silicon Valley nonprofit organizations. I will be doing the 5K walk to raise funds for Grail Family Services (GFS), an organization in East San Jose that I have been working with as a consultant for a little over a year now. And, of course, I'm asking for your support - Click here if you can pledge any amount of money to help our efforts.

GFS "fosters learning and the empowerment of vulnerable families with young children through the delivery of programs that educate, develop leadership skills, and build a sense of community." All GFS programs target parents and their young children ages 0-9, and are designed with community input to address the issues most important to the neighborhood. This approach enriches the child, as well as the parent, and helps them each on the path to success in school, in work, and in life.

Your sponsorship of my Human Race participation could mean:

$25 – five new books for the GFS Children's Library.
$50 – developmentally appropriate toys for GFS' child care program.
$100 – case management services for one parent.
$250 – four weeks of subsidized child care services for one low-income toddler.
$1,000 – eight weeks of literacy services to boost the reading skills of one child.

If you can help out, click here - And thank you for your support!

Ray Davies at the Warfield Theater, San Francisco

2008-03-29T10:27:00.000-07:00

Ray Davies of Kinks fame opened the North American leg of his current tour at the historic Warfield Theater in San Francisco last night. I've seen Ray solo at least three times now, and the Kinks countless times since 1976 (Schoolboys in Disgrace tour), and last night's show ranked among the best Ray concert experiences ever, and certainly the best for many, many years.

This was not the mellow but charming Ray Davies Storyteller show we've enjoyed and gotten used to over his last several American visits (or, at least, the ones I've caught). This was a real Rock 'n' Roll show that rivaled seeing the Kinks in the late 1970s (Low Budget/Give he People What They Want era), just before their last surge of early 80's popularity took them out of the mid-sized theaters and put them into arena territory.

The first set opened up with Ray alone on stage, Stratocaster in hand, playing the opening verse of I'm Not Like Everybody Else. By the end of that song the entire four-piece backing band is on stage with him and you know you've made a very wise ticket purchase decision. A handful of other early Kinks classics follow before alternating between Kinks favorites and newer songs from Other People's Lives (2006) and the title track of the recently released Working Man's Cafe.

The second set opened looking more like the previous tours, with Ray on a stool with an acoustic guitar, music stand nearby, and only the lead guitarist (in a chair) to accompany him, treating us to This is Where I Belong. It didn't take long, however, for the rest of the band to join them, and for the stool, chair, and music stand to be taken away. While Ray still has a magic way of connecting to an audience and telling stories about the songs, there would be no readings from the big book of X-Ray on this tour. This set included more material from the new album along with some Kinks gems.

Encores included Days like you've never heard before, Lola, and the expanded version of You Really Got Me. The audience (seeming sold out?) remained in place and on their feet cheering for quite some time after the house lights came up before reluctantly exiting the theater.

For those keeping score, I'd estimate about 40% Kinks songs and 30% each from Other People's Lives and Working Man's Cafe. Of course, with a catalog that now spans 45 years (Forty-Five Years!!!), there were many favorites that did not make the set list and entire eras were left out completely.

If you have the chance to catch Ray on this tour, don't think twice, just buy the ticket. And, in case I didn't make this clear enough, the new album is great too.

Other details: Opening band, Everest, (acoustic trio) was very good. Their first album comes out on May 6. If you are going to a show at the Warfield, don't eat first. Just get there early and order the Chicken Burrito. It's excellent.

Carnival of the Decline of Democracy - Edition 3.05

2008-03-26T15:23:00.001-07:00

Welcome to the Carnival of the Decline of [American] Democracy, Edition 3.05 - Blogging 'till the secret police take us away.

Laslo Weger starts us off with a double header. In his first entry he looks at political parties as feuding tribes in Modern Tribalism. Laslo follows that with an examination of the detrimental effects of official privacy on democracy It's Time to End the Executive Privilege, each posted at Outsider's View.

Whereas government secrecy is detrimental to freedom, Timothy Moreland worries about the loss of personal privacy in U.S. Presidential Candidates Passport Information Scandal Has Broader Implications for U.S. Citizens posted at timmorelandonline.

Count Florida is a new blog dedicated to the single issue of whether or not the Democratic primaries in Florida and Michigan should count, even though they "violated party rules." I think you can guess which side they take in Florida's Vote Should Count! posted at COUNT FLORIDA!.

Barry Leiba looks at religion creeping into our public life in Why we have to keep close watch... posted at Staring At Empty Pages.

Madeleine Begun Kane leaves us with a little humor in Ode To Eliot Spitzer posted at Mad Kane's Political Madness.

Information on future carnivals (should there be one) will be found on our carnival home page or on this blog. Yes, I'm thinking of halting this carnival for at least a short time, but I'll write a separate blog entry about my reasons for that in a few days. Thank you for your support during the time this carnival has run.