Phoblographer*

On Voting And Not Voting

2010-02-19T09:04:00.000-08:00

Please note that this post is about no candidate or person in particular. It just exists on its own in a little blog vacuum. Not a dyson vacuum, just, like, a dirt devil vacuum. One with less suck.

So, why and how should we use individual's voting records to evaluate their qualifications for a particular job, to determine their character, or otherwise judge them? Should we at all?

A few things seem clear to me.

First, I can't think about individual voting records without recalling my first day in Gov 20 at CMC. Professor Pitney pushed us all to defend the argument that every vote counts. You want to piss off and frustrate the hell out of a class of government nerds, by the way, this is the best way to do it. We all but shouted "yes." We used the "if everyone picks a flower from this garden, eventually it will be bare, thus of course each individual action matters" argument.

But you know what. In most elections (and there's a big * here, post 2000, of course), a single vote doesn't count. That's not say it doesn't matter, in the virtuous sense, but it probably doesn't count. Again, in most elections.

Second, I used to be angry at non-voters. Really, viscerally angry. Until I realized I should thank them. Every person who doesn't vote makes my vote that much stronger. I'm happy to be left to make the decisions, thanks.

Anyway - what's clear to me . . . .

There seem to be one main reason and one main excuse employed by non-voters. The reason: I was busy. The excuse: doesn't matter anyway. Is either the reason or the excuse valid? Ish.

Some people really are busy. I'd argue no one could ever be too busy to register to vote, but perhaps one could be too busy to cast a ballot.

What's the more, er, politic excuse, however? Certainly not "doesn't matter anyway." A candidate can't use that line and go on to ask for electoral support.

A better excuse: I didn't get it before! I was so moved by 9/11/Obama/California's budgetary woes/abortion/marriage equality/whatever that I just couldn't stay home, finally paid some attention, and got my ballot in this time. We love a lesson-learned narrative in this country, no?

What if, however, we tweak that a bit? What if, instead of "I had a come-to-Jesus moment with myself," the candidate instead explains that, while facing business challenges stemming from government regulation, the candidate realizes that "politics" is perhaps the only route to success?

What do we do with that explanation?

Do we allow a candidate to use politics and government interchangeably? Are they interchangeable? In all cases?

In the absence of a lesson-learned narrative, what will we accept as a legitimate storyline?

Many Important People In My Life Are Democrats, Too

2010-02-16T12:22:00.001-08:00

It's much, much too soon to be writing another post like this after Will's death, but I am again grieving the loss of another mentor and role model - Charmette Bonpua.

I met Charmette during my Assembly Fellowship on the first day I reported to my assigned office - then Assembly Member (soon to be Speaker) Herb Wesson. I had been warned by the previous fellow not to try to talk to Charmette before she had her morning coffee. Soon enough, in stormed a short, fiery Filipina with a single, burning mission to get some coffee. She may have grunted hello, but not much else. Ten or so minutes later, coffee in hand, she came over to my desk full of fire for the days work and enthusiasm over my arrival. The difference that coffee made was impressive.

Charmette was Herb's chief of staff and most trusted aide at many levels of his public service - most recently as he serves on the LA City Council. They were great friends and partners in politics - a perfect match of skill and temperament and vision.

The woman was scary smart. Emphasis on the scary. Well, and the smart, too. She passionately devoted her life to public service and whatever time was left after her day job went to working with young people and encouraging others to think past low expectations, to aspire to great things. I recall her once saying, tearfully (in a rare display of that sort of emotion), that she was told once she'd never amount to much in the US because of her accent, because she was just an Asian immigrant female. I think her core mission was making sure every girl in the state knew she had the potential to lead and affect change. And man did she have fun and love her job.

Charmette was only 44 when she died.

Rest in peace, Charmette, you will be greatly missed. Thank you for your service and your example.

Sex Ed's Biggest Failure

2010-02-09T15:15:00.000-08:00

I can vividly remember my high school sex-ed instructor showing us slides of genital warts. Really, really bad cases of genital warts. There were slides of genitalia infected with other sorts of sexually transmitted diseases as well, but the warts earned the biggest gasps and yelps of any photo flashed up on the screen. These were heinous cases: gardens of complex fungal structures like something you'd grow in a crystal growing kit Santa brings you in the fifth grade. Except on your junk. Certainly, those images helped convince many of us to wait and all of us to use protection.

I wonder, however, why pregnancy isn't more fully discussed in sex ed classes.

Yeah, it's discussed: you can get pregnant after just one sexual encounter; condoms aren't 100% effective; pregnancy will derail your college plans; babies are expensive. Yes, the notion that childbirth as a teen is something to avoid is well established. But I don't recall PREGNANCY being fully discussed at all. Or even glossed over, really.

Before we get to what details I'd like to see shared, I'll ponder why educators don't dwell on pregnancy more. First, I think there's a predominate "oh it's not THAT bad" opinion amongst many mothers whose shining babes erase from their minds the memory of how much pregnancy actually sucks nuts. Second, culturally, how could we expect young women and girls to continue to strive for the feminine ideal of motherhood if we spent a good chunk of time discussing its medical realities, rather than its romanticized ideals. Third, gotta procreate, so let's not make it seem ALL bad, mmm k? And motherhood is SO rewarding, why dwell on the other stuff?

But aren't we missing out on a key tool in the fight against teen pregnancy? How have we managed to take pregnancy out of the fight against teen pregnancy?

I keep looping a scene from a recent Private Practice in my head. In the episode, the 15 year old daughter of a main character admits to her parents she is pregnant. After much fighting and hand-wrining, the mother pulls the 15 year old into a birthing suite at said private practice and points to the panting, suffering, sweating, screaming, pain-riddled woman in labor and asks the 15 year old, roughly, look at that! Is that what you want?

A moment later, out pops a newborn, the woman stops moaning, and the 15 year old says, "yeah, but look at THAT." Read: look at the miracle of life mom, recognize what's really important.

Even if we take that as true for a 15 year old, does that negate the bad that comes before it?

I'm going with no and I think we should stop hiding the ball from young women about what pregnancy means, how taxing it is, and just how committed they'll need to be for 40 long weeks.

This blog has a good run down of stuff THEY won't tell you about pregnancy as well as the really awful, demoralizing way in which people respond to you if you bring up how crappy pregnancy is.

Not for one second has the notion that "it's okay, you'll forget the pain, the hormones have a good amnesiac effect and you'll just be in love with the baby" made what I'm going through NOW any better. That's great, later, but it's not great now.

The duration of recovery, what's involved in recovery, pregnancy sickness (good luck getting me to call it "morning" sickness), tearing, contractions, tearing, swelling, bleeding, crying, irrationality, weight gain, did I mention tearing?, and that final moment of actually birthing the child . . . . we don't think ANY of this might convince a girl to either wait to have sex or to tell her partner she doesn't care how much he needs proof of love or how much of a downer condoms are, it's condoms or no deal?

Are we cheating young woman out of information they should have to help make decisions about their sexual behavior? I think we are.

Yet even I am made to feel defective for "complaining" - as it is labeled by others; explaining as I would label it - by some people who are very close to me. And even I fear that I'm giving pregnancy a bad rap - because it's not supposed to be that bad and it's all supposed to be worth it, right? Our culture has a strong hold on us, ladies. I can barely fight it in my own head.

Parity, Childrearing, Expectations, And Stuff

2010-02-09T12:27:00.000-08:00

Where's all the female entrepreneurs at, yo?

With no demonstrable differences between men and women when it comes to motivation and education, what's left to explain why the Valley (and like areas) are dominated by men and nearly devoid of women?

One writer says: It's the babies, stupid. The overwhelming assumption that women have babies and leave the workforce prevents them from being taken as seriously or expected to hang around long enough to put in the hours and years required of a successful venture:

We can bemoan a scarcity of female role models in tech, entice women into the math and science professions or even blame women who leave the work force to take care of kids for the lack of gender diversity, but to fix the problem, we're going to have to discuss the lack of parity between men and women when it comes to raising children.

Sounds about right to me.

Nothing emphasizes all that more for me than last night's birthing class. It was - blessedly - the final of five classes, a wrap-up edition covering whatever questions were left as well as what to expect after you've delivered. It was one of the more enjoyable evenings out of the series, complete with that great last-day-of-school feeling. Yet, the swirl of foregone conclusions and generalizations left me - predictably - thinking less about the mechanics of my impending labor and delivery and recovery and more about These, Our Times, And What Is Expected.

The instructor devoted a notable amount of time to warning Dads that they should be prepared to jump in and help as soon as they get home from work. If they need 10 minutes to unwind after a day at the office, better do it in the driveway before you come in the house.

The teacher explained most of the stressful aspects of adjusting to life with baby from that vantage point: woman home on maternity leave, man home, maybe, briefly, man back to work, woman stressed. Maybe woman goes back to work, maybe not.

I should mention that the discussion made me more appreciative than ever that my partner won't be going back to an office and will be able to stick with me during the first few moths. So very, very appreciative.

But then I started to worry: who will support him when I go back to work? The local hospital has a mom's group. The only "parents'" group is some random evening up in Roseville. Unlikely. My husband will be in completely uncharted territory - or at least, infrequently and inadequately charted territory - once I'm back at the office. The birth class narrative doesn't suit him any better than it suits me.

Relevance In The Hands Of Men

2010-01-28T10:16:00.000-08:00

I'll admit first that it is dangerous to build a cultural analysis on the content of one news article. There could be many nuanced details of the court case I'm about to discuss that aren't mentioned. Reporters frequently ignore the finer, legal points. This is how we end up with the enduring pop-cultural reference of scalding burns from McDonald's coffee as a shorthand for the evils of lawyers generally. Which is lame because there are so many BETTER cases illustrating evil within the practice. Let's turn to a great one now.

In West Palm Beach, Florida, a very bad man, a multi-millionaire, plead guilty to two state charges: procuring a minor for prostitution and solicitation. And we're talking minor as in 14, not minor as in 17 1/2 (as if that makes a difference). He served 13 months of an 18 month sentence and as part of the bargain, he agreed with the feds not to contest the accusations in the civil suits filed by his victims later.

He CAN, however, still argue that they women don't deserve the amount of money they seek in damages. Okay, um, guess that's fair. Or "fair" if I may break my own rules against scare-quote use.

Ready for the evil-lawyer bit?

The felon's attorneys fought for the right to subpoena abortion records from the women seeking to recover damages from their assailant. The judge agreed that the records could help the felon "refute the women's claims that they suffered psychological ills after being paid to give him sexually-charged massages at his Palm Beach mansion when they were as young as 14."

The judge, in a generous move, however, said the felon's lawyers couldn't go "fishing" and can only seek medical records after asking the women whether they have ever had an abortion, how many, and where. And that the records wouldn't be made public and may not be admissible during trial.

May not be admissible during trial? Then why are we . . . nevermind, besides the point. Here's the point:

But, he said, since the women claim Epstein, now 57, is responsible for their emotional distress, his attorneys can explore the impacts of other events. Medical records, Hafele said, are a better source of information than a person's memory. . . .

The abortion question has been asked to at least one of more than a dozen women who have sued Epstein in federal and state courts. Most filed lawsuits using pseudonyms.

While quizzing a woman identified as Jane Doe 4, Epstein attorneys offered a glimpse of how they intend to use abortion information. "I want you to tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury whether or not aborting three fetuses is more traumatic than giving a man a massage in the nude?" attorney Mark Luttier asked.

Reluctantly, the woman admitted that the abortions were worse. The deposition was in a federal case which is not impacted by Hafele's decision.

Wow. Just. Wow.

I'd like to check transcripts to see if the felon's lawyers also asked the Jane Doe whether she wore a red dress during her abortion. You know, just to really wrap it up with a nice bow.

There's a staggering, if deeply troubling, elegance to this strategy. Let's look at it a bit more closely.

The defense's basic argument is this: You can't be offended to the tune of millions (or whatever damages they are seeking) if you've undergone a more severe trauma. A more severe trauma necessarily means THIS trauma must be discounted (in all the ways that word could be used in this sentence).

But they aren't looking for other traumas. Are they asking about parental or sibling deaths? Anyone Jane Doe knows been murdered? In front of her? Has she ever lost a pet? Was she ever in a traumatic car accident? Was she ever raped by anyone (else)? Kidnapped? Undergone a basic medical procedure when the anesthesia didn't work? Chased by a chain-saw-wielding maniac?

No. Jane Doe, have you had an abortion?

Let's parse further, shall we, because, brilliantly, this line of questioning works on So. Many. Levels.

Jane Doe, have you had an abortion? Because abortion, by definition is a traumatic event. How could an abortion NOT be traumatic. Multiple abortions? Most traumatic indeed.

Jane Doe, have you had an abortion? If you answer yes and you were traumatized, then we can discount this lesser trauma, right?

If you answer yes but you were not traumatized, well, then we get to run too, simultaneously fun, subtle attacks:

Jane Doe, have you had an abortion? Yes? And how traumatic was that? Not very?

Jane Doe is a liar and incredible because abortion is traumatic, for all women, at all times, period. Jane Doe's testimony should not be believed and my client owes her nothing.

Jane Doe, have you had an abortion? Yes? And how traumatic was that? Not very?

Jane Does is a cold-hearted, evil bitch of a woman who has no problem killing babies. Quite a turn-off, right, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. And frankly, not only should a cold-hearted person not be deemed credible, but if she can have an abortion and it wasn't the most traumatic thing to happen to her, then, really, was she traumatized THAT MUCH by my client?

It's a thing of beauty, this strategy.

And why any officer of the court would feel comfortable presenting it; why any judge would allow it as a relevant line of questioning; why, as a society, we would allow this to occur . . . I can't answer those whys.

This is absolutely the same as arguments citing victim's wardrobe choices or decision to have a few drinks at a party. This is the same as arguing that because the complaining party or victim presents herself as a promiscuous or sexually-free person, as someone who wears revealing clothing, etc, couldn't possibly have been THAT offended by a comment about that attire, ever, period.

This is where you end up. Ever had an abortion? Then for so many, many layered reasons, whatever sexual assault you suffer, before or after, for the remainder of your life, is a gimme because, well, because you had an abortion. Which is the worst thing to do. And only done by the worst people.

Forget MickeyD's coffee, fellow officers of the court. THIS is why people hate us. And it's a damn good reason.

[Scene Missing]

2010-01-25T10:53:00.001-08:00

Is It Worth It To Grasp The Third Rail With Both Hands?

2010-01-21T16:51:00.001-08:00

There's been a crushing dearth of political or policy content 'round these parts lately. Oh, not for lack of my thinking about issues. Not for lack of all sorts of important state news and national events. All the juicy races about which I'd like to comment, well, not going to happen right now - except to say that it must be fabulously easy to call for massive cuts in welfare and to promise to lay-off 40,000 people when you can spend $100M trying to get yourself a new job (ahem).

But there's been something on my mind for these past thirty-something weeks. Abortion.

No, duh, not having one - just the topic of abortion. It's such a sticky thicket at the best of times but seems especially so right now. After all, what would people think about a pregnant lady's views? And if I said those views were more ardently pro-choice than ever before, would those already against abortion see my views as all the more monstrous given my current state?

Then again, if pregnancy automatically changed women's views on abortion, then it probably wouldn't be such a hot topic, right?

So here's the short version of what I've been thinking lately:

Nothing made me more ardently pro-choice than becoming pregnant and carrying my child to term (well, I hope to term, not quite there yet). Now that I know exactly what it means to be pregnant, I understand more clearly than I could've thought possible that I have NO RIGHT to require anyone else to carry a pregnancy. This shit is hard and this commitment is monumental. The moral implications of abortion are for each woman to decide and I'm happy to fight in favor of whatever laws protect her right to do so.

Also - and, importantly - it is absolutely wrong to argue, as Sarah Palin does, "the culture of life empowers women by offering them real choices." What choices are those? Best I can tell, a choice between natural child birth and an epidural and not much else.

I Can't Help But Think That Will Would've Liked This News

2010-01-14T12:14:00.000-08:00

"Much to the delight of young Capitol denizens working their way up the ranks, Sacto's own Capital Fellows Programs has been named the nation's No. 1 internship in career site Vault.com's annual internship rankings." Click for more.

Because So Many Important People In My Life End Up Being Republican

2010-01-12T12:10:00.001-08:00

I just received some bad news - along with anyone else who subscribes to Capitol Weekly email alerts. But this isn't about the budget or stupid political posturing or policy initiatives or anything so inconsequential.

Long time Capitol staffer Will Smith died suddenly while playing basketball at a local church.

He was 41.

He was also one of the absolute best people who did, or probably ever has, worked in the Capitol.

Our politics couldn't be farther apart. Will was the chief of staff to George Runner - pretty much as conservative as they come. I doubt Runner (either Runner, for that matter) and any of my legislator bosses ever cast the same vote on measure.

Will was on the Assembly Fellow selection committee when I interviewed for the program. And, as often happens in my life, I'm pretty sure he's the one who argued hardest for my selection as a Fellow. I wasn't really Democratic enough on my own (the taint of CMC and the Rose!). I didn't necessarily fit the categories the right way. But even before I really knew him, or before he knew me, he championed me and I don't think I can ever be grateful enough.

Even past my fellowship year, however, I saw Will often. He was a mentor to one of my best friends - the fellow in George Runner's office. I saw Will whenever I was in the Capitol. We could joke about our political differences in a way that I didn't seem to get to do much after college. He was one of a rare few who could duke it out of policy and still genuinely appreciate the other side, the people, the motivations to be there, working on problems. He got it and not enough people do.

Will was a man of great faith. That should comfort his friends and family right now - but I always find that comfort slow to arrive for me. He was so dedicate to his church, his faith, and most of all his family - his wife Anissa and their gorgeous children. I last saw them all at Cober's wedding. Will was always happy to see you. I mean, the guy was never in a bad mood. I don't know how he did it.

It's probably foolish of me to be so emotional over this. But I can't chalk it up to hormones or pregnancy exactly either. But I can attribute it in part to being keenly aware of life and family right now. Of the awesome implications of bearing a child and the sudden rush of mortality. Of realizing how lonely and difficult it would be to try to do this without a partner.

Will Smith was a great man. He will be missed by those who knew him. He should be missed by every Californian - if everyone in the Capitol had his purpose, smarts, and kindness, we'd get a lot more done.

My heart goes out to his family and those who were far closer to him than I.

You will be missed, Will. You made a difference.

To My Daughter, On The Eve Of The First Year Of The Rest Of Her Life

2009-12-31T14:10:00.001-08:00

I'll point you to some advice before this post is through that includes the valuable edict not to disclaim before you speak. But I'm about to: your mom's not a fan of blogged navel-gazing, and only does so for special occasions. This seems like one such occasion, however, so we'll make an exception. I think you should use your voice as often as possible but use it for something worthwhile like public policy or political analysis. Or maybe, to start, commenting on your favorite episode of Sesame Street - that's a fine start.

There's too much advice to give you and I won't fit it all in here, except to say this: wow, next year is going to be HUGE for you. You'll exist, something you didn't do until midway through 2009 or potentially at all during 2009, depending on your philosophical beliefs. It's going to be a hell of a year for us both with the main difference between our shared experience being that you'll get to sleep for much of it and I won't.

I weighed the pros and cons of each sex before I found out your designation. It seems so easy for boys. Unfortunately, it probably still will during your lifetime. But then again, what fun is it to simply measure up to expectations? You have the chance to buck more trends, break more barriers, weasel your way into history more defiantly as a girl. My wishes for you are pretty simple: be healthy and become the first female, physicist, television comedy writing, CMC alumna, Formula 1 racing champion, American President. I think if you get an early jump on things with old episodes of 321 Contact, the Cosby Show, and the West Wing, you can make it.

Having a child is a funny thing. Or so I hear, since I'm still pretty much in denial that the result of this pregnancy business is a person you must bring home from the hospital and for whom you'll immediately need to start a college fund. The closest thing to immortality is reproducing - to ensure that at least one person knows you existed after all those before you, and then you, die. Of course, by the same token, nothing makes you fear death more or feel like your life is ending more than creating new life. I'm not finished yet - at least, I hope not. Not finished being me. Not finished accomplishing things. Not finished changing and exploring and loving and hurting and learning and writing and being. But it won't be about me for much longer. It will be about you. I wonder if it can be about us both - in appropriate amounts. That's a question women have been working on for a long time, small one. We're going to have to keep working on it.

You're already really lucky: you have parents who love each other and who love you. Your dad is super cool - way cooler than your mom. He's smart and fixes things and cares unfailingly about your well-being and my well-being. He introduced your mom to F1 racing and some fabulous television. You're going to like him. I do, however, encourage you to kick him every now and then since he seems envious that I've been the only one you've kicked so far. Try to make him feel like part of the family.

You'll notice as the years pass that I - along with most people - tend to get all introspective at this time of year. When I was younger, I tended more to get drunk. You'll go through the same evolution, I'm sure. Because of you, though, this year I'll focus on the introspective part of the calendar flipping from December 31 to January 1. I also found this blog - it's full of very sound advice for that blogger's daughter and I hope you pay attention to most of it. Just in case, though, here are a few things I really want you to pay attention to and follow:

1.) Learn to write.
2.) Care about how stuff works.
3.) Leggings are not pants.
4.) Be scientific in how you view the world, but also appreciate storytelling.
5.) Try the Nutella.
6.) Vote.

I wish you the best of luck in 2010. There's lots of complicated stuff in the world, but you won't worry about any of it for the first few years. You won't appreciate that until later, but hopefully you'll enjoy it at the time anyway.

Writing Became His Basketball

2009-12-16T09:42:00.001-08:00

Of all the reasons I've ever heard for why someone writes, this is quite possibly the single most compelling, gentle, and honest explanation ever.

Shark Bite Luv Fog from Milan Reed on Vimeo.

Go Stag.

In A Funny Lady State Of Mind

2009-12-01T17:26:00.000-08:00

I don't even know what to quote from this. It's a close tie between "I just wanna have babies" and "I'm bad a math." But holy hell, Ms. Amy, you are a force.

Happy Holidays - Enjoy Some Brilliant Lady Comedy

2009-11-30T16:02:00.003-08:00

Love these gals:

Also: combi gifts DO suck. Listen to Jesus on that one.

Law Stories I Love

2009-11-30T15:47:00.000-08:00

I'm pretty sure the moral of this story is: when a multi-million dollar land deal is on the line, spring for a local hotel room to avoid unforeseen delays.

The resulting litigation has an will continue to eat up a fair bit of the windfall here, but really, c'mon, big bad lawyers and bigwigs - you were late. I don't know too much about property law, judicial auctions, etc, but I'm pretty sure "that thing sold for way too little money" is neither a valid legal nor policy based argument.

On Writing, Personal Essays, And Our Schools Today

2009-11-16T15:07:00.000-08:00

This past weekend, we returned to Camp Roberts for the first Training & Elections Conference of the new program year. What program is that again? Thanks for asking - it's the California Youth & Government Program run by the YMCA. It's a model legislature and court program and you can learn more about it here. Also - my delegation needs money, so if you have any extra around and are feeling charitable, we're a 501(c)(3) and can give you a receipt. But anyway....

I've been urging the program to begin integrating a college prep component because I've witnessed just how badly California high school students need solid - hell, any - college guidance counseling. You thought only art and music were gone from our schools? Nope - add to the list a depressing shortage of qualified, dedicated college counselors. Even if schools employ qualified counselors, those counselors frequently spend half their time dealing with behavioral problems and the other half hoping the few likely college applicants will figure it out on their own. I don't blame the counselors, but the effect on our state's high school students is dramatic.

So much potential unrealized. So. much.

I spent two consecutive days in early October representing CMC at local college fairs. The first was held at a local public high school, for public high school students. The second was held at a local private high school, for private high school students. I was curious whether there would be a difference in the types of students attending each or the types of questions students asked.

The short answer: mostly the same level of questions and that level was not particularly high nor did it evidence much prior research by students in either population. The single greatest difference, however, was this: at the public schools event, most students who stopped at my table were seniors. At the private school event, they were juniors.

When a junior wanders up to your table and says she doesn't know whether she wants to attend a big university or a small college, you can forgive her and, in fact, you should expect that she's just drinking in this collegiate world and all the options spread before her.

When a senior wanders up - in October of her senior year and doesn't know which environment she prefers (because she's never considered it), that's all the evidence you need that we are failing our students. You can figure if she hasn't thought about what size school she wants, she's probably not very far along her application process. She probably doesn't know many schools offer application fee waivers. She probably doesn't know that in a down economy, her best bet can be a small, monied, liberal arts college over a state school that is broke as a joke.

She doesn't even know what she doesn't even know.

We've got 2500 or so bright, motivated high school students in Youth & Government. If we can get them 40 minutes of college advice, that might be more than they'll get at school.

Back to the weekend: as a small step into this preparatory field, I was asked to present a session called "Y&G to Go" for seniors in the program. What does that mean? Whatever I decided it meant, as it happens, which is frankly far too much freedom. I settled on a goal of giving kids some tools to better talk about their Y&G experiences. How do you present this program in a way that sets you apart from competing job or college applicants?

It was a bit of a haphazard presentation, I'll admit. Not bad on a few days notice, but not as clear as a few months notice might have made it.

I had the kids fill out a work sheet with a three-circle venn diagram. In one circle, they would enter the traits developed in the program (responsibility, honesty, confidence, etc). In another circle, they would enter the skills they developed (research, video editing, newspaper layout, whatever). The last circle was for concrete examples supporting the first two circles.

Traits they had down pat. Lists and lists of big-thinking, fancy words.

Skills? Their confusion here was troubling. I suppose responsibility is a skill as well a trait (and maybe my diction could've been more clear than "traits" and "skills"). No delegate - not one - suggested "research" as a skill learned or developed through the program (which makes me wonder what in the hell most of them do when writing legislation).

Concrete examples? Stories of their time at conferences? You'd think this would be easy, but 85% of the responses we heard were of the "Youth & Government is a great program because in it you develop responsibility and confidence and this makes me more qualified for being a college student."

Because?

Few got to the because.

I can't blame them - I'm the teacher here. At least I was correct in identifying the problem, however.

We divided the kids into groups and had them compete for a selection of hypothetical jobs, telling them to create the pefect, mashed-up candidate using everyone's venn diagrams of skills and examples. Only one group hit it spot on. That group managed to even make a page's role fetching coffee relevant to service as an intern to a congressional candidate. That group was probably already headed to college however.

Of course - it's so, so easy to want to shake a kid and say "why can't you just follow this simple instruction? How hard is it to fill in what comes after 'because?'"

That's the big secret all teachers and counselors withhold though, isn't it? That it never gets easier. After personal statements for college come essays for grad school. Then come cover letters for resumes in which we struggle and often fail to avoid saying "I am uniquely qualified for this position because" - blah blah blah.

Most prompts boil down to "describe something unique about yourself that will help us evaluate your application."

All the venn diagrams and all the practice in the world never make it any easier, do they?

Veterans' Day

2009-11-11T10:41:00.000-08:00

Thanks, Dad.

Back With A Randy Post

2009-11-03T13:38:00.001-08:00

As my mother frequently points out, I'm not blogging much these days. That's true. And lame of me. But alas, that's how it is right now. Blame it on a lack of time, but more accurately on a lack of motivation. Here's something worth linking, however. A review of two recent biographies of Ayn Rand - or more precisely, a piece using the recent publication of two bios as a chance to ask why we, as a country, have embraced something so asinine as Rand's rantings.

And does any debate better illustrate our asinine collective character than that revolving slowly around health care? Okay, not really our collective character - I hope - but a side of our character that gets a hell of a lot of press. I have friends who tell me with a straight face that caring about the health of anyone outside of the immediate family and maybe some close friends simply isn't his job.

Pause to consider our religious founding and frequently waived Christian flags. What would Jesus say to Ayn Rand?

Content to note:

I don't find it hard to understand why this happened to Rand: I feel sympathy for her, even as I know she would have spat it back into my face. What I do find incomprehensible is that there are people—large numbers of people—who see her writing not as psychopathy but as philosophy, and urge us to follow her. Why? What in American culture did she drill into? Unfortunately, neither of these equally thorough, readable books can offer much of an answer to this, the only great question about her.

Rand expresses, with a certain pithy crudeness, an instinct that courses through us all sometimes: I'm the only one who matters! I'm not going to care about any of you any more! She then absolutizes it in an amphetamine Benzedrine-charged reductio ad absurdum by insisting it is the only feeling worth entertaining, ever.

This urge exists everywhere, but why is it supercharged on the American right, where Rand is regarded as something more than a bad, bizarre joke? In a country where almost everyone believes—wrongly, on the whole—that they are self-made, perhaps it is easier to have contempt for people who didn't make much of themselves. And Rand taps into something deeper still. The founding myth of America is that the nation was built out of nothing, using only reason and willpower. Rand applies this myth to the individual American: You made yourself. You need nobody and nothing except your reason to rise and dominate. You can be America, in one body, in one mind.

She said the United States should be a "democracy of superiors only," with superiority defined by being rich. Well, we got it. As the health care crisis has shown, today, the rich have the real power: The vote that matters is expressed with a checkbook and a lobbyist. We get to vote only for the candidates they have pre-funded and receive the legislation they have preapproved. It's useful—if daunting—to know that there is a substantial slice of the American public who believe this is not a problem to be put right, but morally admirable.

We all live every day with the victory of this fifth-rate Nietzsche of the mini-malls. Alan Greenspan was one of her strongest cult followers and even invited her to the Oval Office to witness his swearing-in when he joined the Ford administration. You can see how he carried this philosophy into the 1990s: Why should the Supermen of Wall Street be regulated to protected the lice of Main Street?

The figure Ayn Rand most resembles in American life is L. Ron Hubbard, another crazed, pitiable charlatan who used trashy potboilers to whip up a cult. Unfortunately, Rand's cult isn't confined to Tom Cruise and a rash of Hollywood dimwits. No, its ideas and its impulses have, by drilling into the basest human instincts, captured one of America's major political parties.

It's not hard to feel the L. Ron Hubbard analogy coming - I thought of that too: how does a NOVEL inspire a movement? And not a marketing movement - sure, the latest Vampire teen sex/non-sex-a-thon can sell a lot of t-shirts and notebooks - but a movement by which we set public policy, for the love of all things holy.

Subscribing to Rand's writing and views is the slacker's way of dealing with life's problems. It's the easiest of easy ways out.

The Sexualization of Children, continued: Is It Art Or Is It Wrong

2009-09-30T15:00:00.001-07:00

Picking up from this post, what about this situation?

What Do You Do With The Face Of God Once You See It?

2009-09-29T11:28:00.000-07:00

Probably the least useful clarification ever:

A Republican congressman who called President Barack Obama an "enemy of humanity" said Tuesday through a spokeswoman that he should have made clear that he was referring to the president's policies related to abortion.

Trent Franks of Arizona said in a speech to conservatives Saturday in St. Louis that given Obama's decision to fund international family planning organizations that support legal abortion, "we shouldn't be shocked that he does all these other insane things."

"A president that has lost his way that badly, that has no ability to see the image of God in these little fellow human beings, if he can't do that right, then he has no place in any station of government and we need to realize that he is an enemy of humanity," Franks said to the "How to Take Back America" conference.

Bethany Haley, spokeswoman for Franks, said the congressman was referring to "unborn humanity" and should have clarified his statement. She also said that Franks meant to say that Obama's abortion-related policies have no place in government, rather than that Obama has no place in government.

So if Obama's failure to oppose abortion makes him an enemy of unborn humanity by sending money overseas that funds abortion, of what was Bush an enemy when he sent money overseas to fund a war? Did he have the ability to see the face of God in Iraqis, Afghans, and American soldiers, but feel confident he had the right to look past that to a higher purpose?

Also: once again we have a liberal group attacking the statement as "show a stunning lack of respect for our president and the office of the presidency." This misses the point and is a stupid retort. By those standards, I disrespected the president and the office of the presidency fairly consistently for nearly 8 years during Bush's terms in office. I don't think, however, that having no respect for the president - as I did not for Bush - equals a disrespect for the office. Regardless, the problem with the new, ugly Conservatism (I won't insult small c conservatism by failing to capitalize the new version) that SHOULD be recognized by liberals and Dems are these sorts of dichotomies: War is fine. Abortion is not. Abortion is not fine, but neither is fully funding support programs for single or struggling mothers or funding sex ed that includes meaningful information on contraception. Pushing for all Americans' better health is unamerican, socialist, fascist, and communist (simultaneously), but trashing the worlds' good will toward us and leaving two countries in disarray while failing to support our troops with the proper equipment or support upon their return is patriotic.

America: you can do better.

This Is What Happens When We Sexualize Children At A Young Age

2009-09-21T09:54:00.000-07:00

Parents get arrested for taking bathtub photos of their kids. We have these photos. Friends have these photos. One family has these photos framed and displayed in their bathroom to this day (and the kids are all grown up).

But when we question whether a doll that breastfeeds is inappropriate for a young girl to play with . . . when we dress our young daughters like miniature versions of ourselves (or worse, ourselves in our Forever 21 days) . . . when we fetishize teen girls and hold the age of 16 as the age to which we should forever aspire . . . when we confuse biological development with emotional maturity . . . .

The result is the conclusion that a naked child is a sexual object. Breastfeeding a baby doll is a sexual act. Scantily dressed preteens are sexually aware and wise. And it screws over women of all ages.

Abstinence pledges seem pointless these days - we've already lost our collective innocence if toddlers playing in a tub or running around the house naked makes us question whether they are being sexually abused or pimped out as instruments of pornography.

Basking

2009-09-09T18:13:00.000-07:00

So as not to ruin my speech-high before SYTYCD and Glee, I'm going to ignore most of the talking that will come immediately after the speech. There will be better reasoned, researched, and written analysis tomorrow.

But one thing I did catch from the mostly-pointless GOP follow up: this proposal to allow sale of insurance across state lines. I've mentioned this before, but: DON'T LET THIS HAPPEN. If you live in a state - like Cali - with at least some good consumer protection measures, you won't be protected by them anymore. This is a choice-of-law proposal giving companies a chance to pick the least restrictive, cheapest state to operate from. Work for Blue Shield of CA? Not for long! It'll be a race to the bottom by states needing corporate income and then a race by companies to resettle there and strip benefits from the insured.

It is beyond ironic that the party of states' rights champions this. Or maybe it's just expected since they are by far the most nationalist of our parties today.

Stream of Consciousness Reaction To Obama's Speech. Unedited, As Ever, Not Proofread

2009-09-09T18:05:00.000-07:00

Mitch McConnell will always be a creepy smiler.

I need an American President moment.

Could Michelle Obama be more beautiful or dress more beautifully? I’m going to go with no.

Joe Biden confirms the speech is in the envelope. Well done, Joe.

I’m still pissed he’s wearing a flag pin. There’s no need. Drop dumb Bush traditions. They aren’t even traditions.

Not the first; determined to be the last.

Teddy Roose first called for reform. God, we’re slow.

John Dingell Senior, Jr still introduces at beginning of each session. Nice. He’s old.

Biden has a few tics. Control them better.

If I lost my job right now, we’d have to move to England because there’s no way I can afford COBRA payments or purchase meaningful coverage. Come to think of it, both my husband and I have pre-existing conditions right now that would probably disqualify us. I might get away with mine, but only because I live in California. If they pass laws allowing choice-of-law for insurance companies, I’ll be screwed. Unless I’m sterilized.

Why don’t we want to stand up and keep on being the best about things? Or if we’re a Christian country why don’t we want our government to be Christian in its care of people? Of the poor? Of the sick?

Shout out to Canada!

So no single-payer and no pure individual market. Okay. We’re going to try to fix this piece of shit we have right now. To borrow from car insurance land: isn’t it totalled yet?

Charles Rangel sighting!

Ideological Camp. Note to self: there’s a sketch in that.

The time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed. Now is the season for action. Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together. Now is the time to deliver on health care.

Goals: 1) security and stability to those with insurance. 2) insurance for those who don’t. 3) will slow growth of costs for family, businesses, and government.

Details every American needs to know about this plan:
First – if you have insurance through your job, medicare, Medicaid, VA – nothing in the plan requires you to change the coverage or the doctor that you have. Makes insurance you have work better for you. Okay, sounds good. No more bounce for the pre-existing condition. So I won’t have to be sterilized. Thanks!

Sidenote: the color in the audience is heartening, but we need more: by that I mean, more colourful suits. By that I mean, more women.

Required to cover routine care and preventative care? Nutty idea! I’ll just wait for the ER, thanks.

If you don’t have insurance? Second part offers quality, affordable choices? Um, public option? A new insurance exchange? (Wah-wahhhh) Sounds like a bit of a cop out, but I’ll stick with you because SOMETHING is better than nothing. Tax credits. Okay. And we won’t get it for four years. This strikes me as politically and electorally shaky.

Shout out to John McCain.

What about the young and stupid? Or the mean companies who don’t give insurance? We ain’t paying for your ER visits anymore, yo. You’re going to have to cover yourself, people. (And there’s the carrot to get insurance companies to support – more customers – yea?) Employers must chip in if they don’t want to cover outright and there’s an out for holy small businesses.

Improving the system only works if we all do our part.

Laugh line at 5:36! Details need to be ironed out. Thanks, Prez.

Please say “Sarah Palin, shut it,” Please say “Sarah Palin, shut it.”

Here we go. Get her, tiger. Booyah. Too bad she, and the radio and TV show hosts and ignorant “I get my info solely from unsourced YouTube videos” types still won’t believe it. Oh no, did someone just yell “lie” at the President? WTF.

And he loses 10 points on abortion aspects and conscience laws. Again, I’ll let it go. For now. (But it isn’t a meaningful right if you can’t access it.)

BTW: Nancy P is going to ass-kick whoever yelled at the President in HER CHAMBER. Don’t disrespect the House, bitches. She keeps giving the stink-eye in that direction. Watch her.

(Also – I don’t want sick people making me sick. So if someone needs care, get care. Legal or not.)

Oh dang, he said public option should be available IN the insurance exchange. Holla!

The public option must be self-sufficient. This is possible. Look at immigration (INS or ICE, depending on how well you know it). They get NO tax money (except when BUSH gave them some because they were so backlogged).

Left. Right. Media. The three sides of our triangular bounce house.

Obama paraphrase: “Dear Republicans: Could you get the fuck over it and let’s just talk about it, okay? Seriously. You get on my nerves. And at least 50%+1 of America’s nerves too.”

Show me the money: won’t sign a plan that adds one time to our deficits. BTW: remember when we were balanced and stuff? Before the war? That was cool. I hope the math in this proposal doesn’t render it toothless. I’d rather go into debt to live longer and have longer to pay it, than to go into debt helping Americans die overseas.

BEST CALL-OUT OF THE NIGHT. He called out Bush and the war bidness. High-five.

Oh dang, he’s calling ‘em all out now. They’ll moan later. Don’t worry boys, you can find safety and comfort in the arms of Fox News and a high number of illiterate, ignorant supporters in your home district or even the one out of your district who are willing to write you checks.

Ho-hum: tort reform time. They may be standing too soon on this one. Biden knows it, look at that cat grin. Put patient safety first, let doctor’s focus on practicing medicine. Sounds good to me. I can’t help but think of that simple best-practices check list discussed in the last Atlantic that would help prevent a number of infection related deaths that should be lawyer bait. You want to lower legal fees, stop making mistakes and killing or maiming people.

Math man, Math man, Math man. I love it when you talk numbers to me, Obama.

Know this: I will not waste time with people who have made the calculation that it is better politics to kill this plan than to improve it.

Your 15 minutes are up, My name is Andrew Shepherd and I AM the President.
Wait, different speech, but I had a moment.

Oh shit, I’m going to go ahead and cry now with the Kennedy stuff. The great unfinished business of our society. What we face, above all, is a moral issue. The character of our country. Obama has thought about that a lot in recent days. So have I.

Don’t fear the future. Also, the reaper. Or do fear the reaper because that’s why we need health care reform? Wait, what?

Replace acrimony with civility. There’s my bumper sticker, kids.

THAT is our character.

In Lieu Of Flowers, Reform Health Care

2009-08-26T09:26:00.000-07:00

I reacted in an unexpectedly emotional way after turning on the television this morning to news of Senator Edward Kennedy's passing. Perhaps it was because I knew that my mother would be grieving his death even more significantly. Beyond his own accomplishments and history of service, he represents the last of a powerful tribe. The deaths of his brothers defined a generation - especially young, Democratic activists like my parents. Especially young, East Coast, Catholic, Democratic activists like my mom.

As a friend noted on FB, the vultures are circling, ready to tear at his legacy, revive tired Chappaquiddick jokes (which are meaningless for my generation), and express their unmitigated disdain for his policies, but more vehemently, for his person.

Many of those vultures will be Republicans. Not all Republicans, however, will attack the Senator. Some will celebrate a man whose dedication cannot be questioned. Like Jack Pitney does, here.

I suppose one could argue, as I will, someday, when figures like Bush or Cheney die, that celebrating their service free of acknowledging their philosophy and tactics would be a grave mistake of the "you must give him credit for being a great orator" variety. Perhaps that analogy would be apt. But I believe Bush and Cheney were wrong as much as I believe Ted Kennedy, personal foibles aside, fought for the public policy I support and upheld ideals I uphold.

Rest in peace, Senator Kennedy. You will be missed.

Today On Comedy: Basic Comedic Truths

2009-08-25T13:49:00.000-07:00

"It’s not funny to see someone powerless being mocked. I think most people react against that, actually—unless they are a particularly cruel audience. What’s much more fun is to see someone who does have power, and is in the dominant position, become exposed." (from here)

On Health Care Reform

2009-08-25T08:47:00.001-07:00

Being blogless frustrated me no end while such juicy bits of reform discussion were out there to be posted. Here are two things:

First, a James Fallows post about the amazing McCaughey-Stewart Daily Show showdown (with links to the entire interview - you need to watch it if you haven't yet).

Second, I find the comments to this Chron article fascinating. I think they probably give the best cross-section of national reaction to the debate. It doesn't bode well, either.

P.S. Here's one more article on why costs rise and how we got here.