I am working my way through the winners for Best Picture (as awarded by the Academy of Motion Pictures).  Yesterday's film was The Life of Emile Zola, and I was lightly mocked (and the film much maligned as boring) by my viewing companions.

I will admit that the film has the sort of schmaltzy feel (aided by the over the top score) of its era.  It was released in 1937, so some of the acting is what we'd describe as overwrought today.  The inital life of Zola is less interesting than his transformation at midlife to successful writer from starving artist.  The film really hits stride when Zola (played by Paul Muni) finds himself confronted with the choice between righting an injustice or resting in his comfortable status as a man of letters.

He chooses to fight injustice, championing a man unjustly convicted of treason (Captain Alfred Dreyfus played admirably by Joseph Schildkraut).  He does so at great cost to himself, his reputation and his wife.  Which makes the story that much more inspiring to me.

A few quotes from the movie may illuminate why I fell in love with this old sleeper:

"We of France, who gave the world liberty, shall we not now give it justice?"

"What matters the individual if the idea survives?"

"The world must be conquered, but not by force of arms.  But by ideas that liberate--then we can build it anew for the humble and the wretched."

"He had the simplicity of a great soul."

"He was a moment of the conscience of man."

That last one really gets me.  And the first one, too.  We've spent a lot of time, us Americans, telling the world in recent years how democracy can offer freedom, wealth and a way out of tyranny.  Where we've dropped the ball (with Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, for example) is in the realm of justice.  Justice cannot be found in courtrooms where the accused have been silenced or tortured, where they cannot have access to evidence given against them, where their advocates are unable to obtain detailed information about such evidence.

The Life of Emile Zola reminded me of that truth...and it plays, especially in the trial scene, perilously close to home.

I had an interesting talk last week with Hal (as Charlie was walking and running us), we had an interesting discussion about Carrie Prejean--the Miss California who was asked her opinion of gay marriage during the Miss USA pageant.

Here is her response: 

"Well, I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other.  We live in a land where you can choose same sex marriage or opposite marriage and ... you know what, in my country and in my family, I think that I believe a marriage should be between a man and a woman--no offense to anybody out there--but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be, between a man and a woman.  Thank you.'

Since that answer, Carrie Prejean's fame has grown as she's been vilified by gay activists and sainted by the religious (and irreligious) right.  I agree with Hal that Carrie had a right to her opinion and to freely express her opinion on that stage.

Soon after she gave her answer, Celebrity blogger  and pageant judge, Perez Hilton went on camera and said she lost the title of Miss USA not because of her controversial answer but because she was a "dumb b*tch and a divisive personality rather than an uniting personality.  He also said, rather hubristically, that he was "the...moment" of the pageant.  Get over yourself, girlfriend.

Perez Hilton, by the way, is equally entitled to his opinion and to the free speech protections that Carrie Prejean holds so dear in every interview since.

I quibble with Perez Hilton's vlog about the answer and Carrie Prejean because he resorted to personal attacks rather than reasoned argument for the ways in which he took issue with Prejean's answer.

In a similar way, I have issues with Carrie Prejean's answer.  First she states, inaccurately, that it's great to live in a country where people can "choose" same sex marriage.  Very few people in very select parts of the country can make that choice.  So she overstates her initial attempt at an appeasement answer.

Then she stops herself and reverses course.  And I especially note the words, "in my country" that marriage should be between a man and a woman.  This is her genunine opinion and she has the right to voice it.  However, it sends chills up my spine because that's exactly the point...it's not just Carrie Prejean's country, it's my country and the country of my gay friends and relatives.

Various defenders have pointed out that she was representing California because the "majority" of Californian's voted for Proposition 8.  But they neglect to mention that it was a bare majority, not a landslide by any means.

In later interviews, a couple of other comments by Prejean really rankled me.  When asked her opinion of Perez, she said she would be "praying for him" and that he's obviously angry and hurt about something greater in his life.  And she knows this how?  She doesn't.  It's the typical "christian" answer that says see how pious I am, pitying this poor creature who is attacking me.

She also said instead of being politically correct, she chose to be biblically correct.  I'd love to sit down and talk with her about the 7 instances which could remotely be interpreted as being condemnations of homosexual activity.  And at the same time I wonder about a young woman who claims to adhere to biblical principals as a guide yet prior to this had stated, according to the LA Times, that her goal was to be a Victoria's Secret model and who surgically enhanced her bust size in order to do better in the contest.  While neither is directly addressed in the bible, there are more urgings of women to be modest in their dress than there are strictures supposedly against homosexual acts.

The lessons I hope we all can take away from this brouhaha are:

1.  People in the USA enjoy the right to free speech.

2.  If one disagrees with another's opinion, it's best to disagree with the opinion, form counterarguments, etc., than to attack the person (whether you do it by name calling as Hilton did or pseudo-piety as Prejean did).

3.  If you put yourself in the public eye, you'd best be better prepared to defend your opinion than saying "that's the way I was raised."  Otherwise, the arguments will keep on coming.

Such is my not so humble opinion.  Now off to yoga!

Just back from Yoga with my nephew/godson, Chad.  It was the gentle yoga class, so it wasn't too challenging for him...but I did hear a pop or two of his joints and a tremendous crack of his back during "Dead Bug" or "Happy Baby" pose (depending on your preference for descriptives).

It's been a lovely two days of getting energy back, celebrating my Mom's 75th birthday with a dinner and overnight here...and then welcoming Chad for a short visit tonight and a longer visit, including tickets to see Grease on Saturday, this weekend.

I've been doing some interesting reading in the short hiatus from blogging.  Newsweek really rocks, lately.  It's not just Fareed Zakaria, although I admit to a secret intellectual crush on him.  They are getting quality reporting on issues, providing balanced opinions and generally making me question my positions rather than merely supporting preconcieved notions.  Fine work, Newsweek.

For example, (and it's a small example), they have a quick little blurt on gaffes each week.  In covering the Miss California anti-gay-marriage response, they found that her expression of her own opinion and beliefs was more palatable than one celebrity's response.  (She cited her religious beliefs...would love to have an afternoon with her to educate her on just how little the bible has to say about homosexuality but that's another topic...the celebrity merely called her a b*tch.  Which is the more considered opinion?)

An unrelated article in the same issue (March 14th) talked about an art critic, David Hickey, during the 70's who came to the audacious conclusion that the principle transaction of art takes place between the viewer and the finished work...that museums, art dealers, setters of taste, they all get in the way of the pure response.  "I like that."  Or "I don't like that."

Of particular note on Hickey was his stand on Mapplethorpe (loved his art, especially the controversial stuff) and his stand on Jesse Helms who, in response to Mapplethorpe, gutted funding for the arts.  Hickey also supported Helms' right to his opinion...and to exercise whatever power he had to further that opinion, because freedom of opinion was the very thing his book, The Invisible Dragon, was about.  Imagine...integrity of opinions about the freedoms of folks with whom you disagree to disagree with you.

Now if only disgruntled righties would learn that lesson.  It was a hard, painful 8 year lesson for those of us on the left in the Bush years.  Yet for the most part, I feel I managed to attack the issues rather than the person, the ideas rather than the ideals of Bush.  From what I can see of the frothing right these days (libertarians included), it's all a bunch of noise.  Sort of like a piece of art with which you don't connect.

As I was driving to yoga tonight, there seemed to be a lot of traffic at the corner of La Paz and Marguerite Parkway.  Whatever could it be, I wondered?  Then I remembered a few tweets about a Tea Party and an essay (with which I happen to agree) about the "Huh?" response I'm having to the whole concept of the nationwide "rebellion" against higher taxes.

In his op-ed piece in today's LA Times, Marc Cooper asks the important question up front:  "What, exactly, are the protesters protesting? The marginal tax rate rising 3% for millionaires?"  I would like to up the ante and ask where all this anger was when Bush was busily cutting taxes on millionaires (and billionaires), cutting programs for the lowest paid workers among our citizenry and building up the biggest deficit in history?

I understand in California (especially in Orange County) that there is the frustration of actual taxes going up (vehicle taxes, for example)...but again, my question is what are these folks protesting?  That ballot box budgeting (which they've consistently voted for in the past 10 years) ties the legislature's hands and makes it impossible to balance our budget due to "required spending?"

Yeah, we're a wreck economically but we (or the majority of we) are the ones who voted for this system.  Maybe we should recall ourselves instead of our governors.

Then there was the very amusing (and right on the button) piece by Jon Stewart on the Barackaphobia going on over at Fox "News" and generally throughout the right wing these days.  I know it will slow down my page's loading, but it's worth it to let you just click below and enjoy.

(Or if you're of the opposite political pole, perhaps it will provide you with a sense of how I felt watching the last 8 years.)

So...yeah...what Cooper and Stewart said.  This "Tea Party" belongs to the Mad Hatter's realm...not on the corner of La Paz and Marguerite.

Turns out you can issue either ultimata or ultimatums...at least according to dictionary.com.  So, in keeping with my day of poetry (wrote two today), I go with the old fashioned, somewhat rhyming, Obama's Auto Ultimata.

With that bit of tivia out of the way, a bit of background for those not keeping score at home.  We (the U.S. Taxpayer) provided bailout money for two of our Big Three automobile manufacturers: Chrysler Motors and GM.  Despite flying in with his two counterparts, Ford's CEO Alan Mullaly has declined bailout funds.

As part of the deal to provide bailout funds ($19.3 billion to GM; $5.5 billion to Chrysler), the automobile companies were required to come up with a plan as to how they were going to become viable enterprises and to submit that plan to the government--in this case, to the Obama administration's Auto Task Force.

The Auto Task Force was composed primarily of adminstration officials, including Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Economic Council Chair, Lawrence Summers, along with economists and professors, a UAW representative and numerous administration aides for background work.  After reviewing the proposed changes to the way GM and Chrysler do business, the task force and the President decided that neither plan would be able to ensure that we didn't need a second and a third...maybe even a fourth bailout for these companies.

In GM's case, President Obama and his task force determined that with more work to pare unprofitable product lines, the company had the flexible manufacturing infrastructure and enough of a global purchasing strength to turn itself around.  Part of the deal to give GM what amounts to a 60 day working capital loan was the ouster of GM President Rick Wagoner.

There's been a HUGE hullaballoo by Rush and the dittoheads about how asking for better, more specific, more future oriented plans (and the resignation of Wagoner) amounts to government meddling and hubris.  But for those who take the time to read the summary reports by the Auto Task Force, the moves make a lot of sense. 

As to Wagoner, my personal opinion is that he was tone deaf and slow to adapt his company (although, ironically...he was better than Chrysler's head who gets to stay) and he gets a $23 million retirement package.  I think he'll be just fine.

In the meantime, GM has 60 days to amend its plan; prove that its marketing schemes are working and if it doesn't work, the option of bankruptcy--a stick Obama was quite comfortable wielding in his speech on Monday.

For Chrysler, the news was not so good.  The report indicated that their plan was much weaker than GM's.  In addition, they do not have the flexible plants capable of quickly adapting to build new models, nor the global purchasing power that GM has.  In effect, the Obama administration told them they need a white knight (putting Fiat forward as the potential savior of the company via a merger) and that otherwise, they would not be considered a viable company.  Chrysler was given 30 days to come up with a deal with Fiat, along with 30 days worth of operating funds.

Much has been made by conservatives (especially Limbaugh) about how these ultimata are driven by Obama's green obssession.  They claim (erroneously as it turns out) that the SUV's, trucks and behemoths that the Big 3 had pushed were the most successful lines of autos and that consumers don't want little gas sippers, they want big gas guzzlers.

The data do not support Rush's assertion (despite his claim that he's 100% right).  Midsize and large SUV sales are down 57.9% and 58.5% respectively with regard to American car makers.  Small cars, by comparison, were down only 32.3%  And the auto manufacturer impacted the least in car sales to Americans?  Hyundai...with its dependable, small, gas sipping car line.

My opinion overall?  I think Obama's absolutely right when he says we need to have a vibrant, future oriented, innovative car industry in the United States.  I don't believe any of the big 3 are going to get us there without the pain of a reorganizing bankruptcy, although Ford might eke it out.  It's certainly wouldn't be reasonable for us to provide more money to these companies at this point. 

I realize this is in contradiction to my original opinion on bailing out the Big 3.  I thought the problems were less dire and the organizations were more capable of nimble reorganization.  We've saved some jobs in the short term...and if GM comes up with a more achievable plan and Chrysler gets married, we may save some of those jobs for the long term.

But the real source of jobs for the long term is for American car companies to come up with innovative solutions to American travel needs.  Otherwise, they will just be consigning us to oil dependence, wars and aggression over oil rich countries, and an endless stream of bailouts.

As many of you know, I worked with the Santa Clarita Valley Food Pantry for about 10 years--from the late 90's until we moved to Orange County.  During that time, the Food Pantry grew in many ways.  Computer systems were overhauled to better track and serve clients.  The number of clients we served and the locations at which we served them grew.  The Board of Directors grew (in more ways than one!) and we went from a part-time manager to a full-time Executive Director.

Oh, and we bought our building and expanded our warehouse.

My work with the Pantry is one of the most fulfilling, challenging and meaningful "jobs" that I've done.  We asked ourselves a lot of questions as we grew.  Should we provide assistance to "illegal aliens" (or as I preferred to call them "undocumented workers.")  Our former President, Pat Rose had the answer to that one.  Any time we received a complaint about feeding these folks, Pat would ask the person complaining to come down to the Food Pantry "and pick which child we shouldn't feed."

We asked ourselves if we were in competition with other pantries in the area or if it was possible that since we all had the same concern, we were working together.  We built bridges between organizations and shared excess inventory with other nonprofits.

One question we never asked ourselves, however, turns out to be the one question that's changed the way an entire city manages the issue of food insecurity/hunger.  Is adequate food a basic human right?

The city of Belo Horizonte in Brazil answered that question with a resounding "Yes!" and then changed the way they approached hunger issues.  With a population of 2.5 million people, 11% of whom were poor, and with 20% of their children going hungry, Belo Horizonte established a policy that sufficient food was a basic human right.

Once they'd decided the question, they set about finding solutions based on the idea that we all deserve, rich or poor, to have sufficient food.  They put together a multidisciplinary committee and revamped the way food was produced and accessed, bringing local farmers into the process.

"The City that Ended Hunger," an article by Frances Moore Lappe', is eminently worth reading, imo.  It details the process and the changes that Belo Horizonte went through to meet its commitment that all citizens deserve to eat.  Belo Horizonte started with a problem and asked how to solve it in a new way.

Today, their success is an example to us all.

A lot has been written lately about America's current crises: economic, energy, education.  There are doomsayers all around us--many of them with the bully pulpit of the media, who are declaring a losing battle...or at least a long morass before we pull ourselves into some semblance of the America we've been.

And I believe that last part of the message is one of the obstacles we face in our road to recovery.  I believe it is a common trope of our national concept of self that there's a better day, a simpler day, that we left behind when we left the 1950's.  While I believe there are some values from the 50's that can serve us in our approach to these crises (thrift, community service, assigning a high value to innovation and exploration), the way forward is not through nostalgia.

We are facing some daunting challenges.  For the newer generation of Americans, this is an unprecedented experience.  For many, the loss of home and the reality of parents working hard and not being able to keep up with bills despite these heroic efforts has been their first taste of adversity.

Students at the Village Academy High School in Pomona put together a video that amply and poignantly demonstrates the emotional effects of confronting adversity.  Called simply, "Is Anybody Listening?" the video consists primarily of students talking about the way the economy is impacting them and their families.  It's worth a look.

A while ago, my mother-in-law, Dotty Morefield, said the following:  "If you're not prepared to deal with adversity, you're not prepared to deal with life."

Adversity is something I've learned a lot about in the last three months.  And the most important lesson I've learned about dealing with adversity is that what matters most is what I tell myself about my situation.

I have Stage IV Colon Cancer.  That's adversity.

From there, I can (and do) choose the story I am weaving around that adverse situation.  Literally from the moment of my diagnosis, I have been choosing between living with cancer and fighting it...or giving up (as some statistics would imply is the more reasonable option) and counting out the rest of my days like too few beans.

Since I'm busy living (as opposed to busy dying), I have found many blessings in my path.  The depths of the family and friend relationships I have continues to astound me.  The beauty that surrounds us every single day (sunny or rainy, cold or warm) enlivens my heart.  Even the low energy days after discontinuing chemo have their own lessons to instill.  Lessons about being content with what I have rather than mourning what I had.  Lessons about letting go of goals that belong to the non-chemo weeks and making my d/c days about resting the warrior.

I recognize that there's a big leap from my dealing with this adversity and the nation dealing with our adversity.  But there are some compelling parallels.

Our road to recovery involves many of the same things:

1.  Coming together in communities to meet the needs of those who live near us, who are facing more difficulty than we are.  Such an approach is a retelling of the loaves and fishes where the crumbs of many fed the bellies of all.

2.  We can be content with less.  We, as a nation, can change our habits of overconsumption to habits of contentment with sufficiency.  We don't have to have bigger houses every two years, brand new clothes for each school year, the latest bag or the hottest new t.v. set.

3.  We can take the "hangover" that comes from bursting economic bubbles and use it like post-chemo time--to redirect our priorities, to rest from our frenetic pursuit of an ideal that was never real to begin with.  We can engage our creativity, our warrior spirits.  We can replace our sense of America as a guaranteed easy ride with the truer sense of America:  that we are a work in progress.  That we choose our path.  That adversity is part of the warp and woof of history, and we are prepared to battle through it.

Dan and I had just a fabulous day yesterday.  After running errands in the morning (which is one of my favorite things to do with Dan, believe it or not), we played a round of golf (18 holes!) in the afternoon.

It was supposed to rain on Friday afternoon according to the forecasters, but as you'll see from Jon Stewart in a moment, predictions of weather, the stock market (and even how "healthy" one is), can be WAY off beacon.

As a result, we had a sunny if windy day...a few clouds here and there...and a golf course that felt like we were the only two on it.  We started the round with a single ahead of us and no one behind us that we ever saw.  We had a relaxed (if somewhat less than stellar from a score perspective) round.  I shot a 105, which is about average for me...7 strokes over my index.

There were lots of wonderful things to see on the golf course.  Wish I'd taken my camera!  There was a gorgeous tree in full pink bloom, set off amongst palm trees and just to the side of one of the lakes (the one I didn't go in).  There were coots, ducks and geese aplenty.  Flowers are starting to bloom and the course is in excellent shape after recent rains and the diligent efforts of staff.

I find golf even more enjoyable than I did before because I take it a lot less seriously (and maybe take myself as a golfer less seriously).  As I told Dan's brother, Bill, cancer sort of puts golf in perspective.

(He laughed uproariously, fellow golfer that he is, and I was quite pleased.)

And speaking of perspective, my friend, Erik, forwarded a link to me of Jon Stewart talking about CNBC's financial "advice" over the past year or so.  It's worth a look so I embedded it below.

Hope your day is sunny and your endeavors all pay dividends today, gentle readers.

Yesterday, the California Supreme Court heard arguments about Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment passed by a narrow majority last November that defined marriage in California as "between a man and a woman."

There are a number of reasons why Prop 8 passed in "liberal" California.  The campaign against Prop 8 never really got it's message out clearly; the campaign for Prop 8 became a cause celebre with three factions of the religious right--fundamentalists, Catholics and (ironically imho) Mormons.  The Pro-Prop 8 campaign saturated the public with false claims about the impact equal marriage rights might have on the rights of religious institutions to adhere to their own set of beliefs about gay marriage.  Unfortunately, the scare tactics worked.

This is, in some ways, a California issue to be resolved by the California Supreme Court (and the passage of time...because I do believe that another amendment defining marriage as an equal right will inevitably pass as younger voters...who've grown up in an era of acceptance of homosexuality as a variation rather than an abomination...begin to outnumber older voters).

In other ways, it's a national conversation about whether or not individuals have equal rights under the law.  Mom #1 sent me an interesting op-ed from the NY Times about a week ago.   Titled "A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage," and co-written by a liberal and a conservative, the op-ed proposed a "third way" for resolving the contention surrounding gay marriage.

Essentially, the authors (David Blankenhorn and Jonathan Rauch) propose that Congress enact a law recognizing Federal Civil Unions in states where civil unions or same sex marriages are legal.  Their proposal comes with a couple of interesting caveats.

The Federal Civil Union would confer "most or all of the federal benefits and rights of marriage."  Forgive me for quibbling, but I have a problem with defining something as equal (even if it's just a temporary solution designed to make our "national conversation...considerably less contentious") where the words "most or all" are part of the solution.  If such a plan were to succeed, the rights would have to be absolutely equal.

Second, they limit Federal Civil Union recognition to states that have "robust religious conscience exceptions" providing that "religious organizations need not recognize same-sex unions against their will."  This is the proposal in the piece that I find most promising.  Not because I believe that a separate but equal category of life-partnership is a stepping stone to genuine equality.  Rather, I see a fourth way to proceed.

What if our next "Proposition 8" says that California recognizes both opposite sex and same-sex marriages while providing those "robust" religious exceptions?  If Mormons, Catholics and Fundamentalists are deprived of their chief scare tactic (We'll have to let them marry in our church!), and their chief source of fear (The government will force us to believe something we don't want to believe--that gay individuals are no different from straight in terms of civil rights), then I believe same-sex marriages would pass with a healthy majority in California.

I don't believe we need a federal band-aid to achieve the goal of equality.  But I do see a place for religious conscience exceptions (similar to abortion rights exceptions) in the crafting of our next constitutional amendment to extend equal marriage rights to same sex couples.  It's an approach worth consideration. 

I didn't get to watch President Obama's first address to Congress live...I was a little too melded to the recliner last night.  But I take the time (about two hours total) to listen to Obama's speech and then to the Republican response by Governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal.

I thought Obama's speech was right on the money.  He inspired hope by reminding Americans of times in the past when we rose to meet vast challenges and overcomin.  More than that, he reminded us that it was in the very act of overcoming challenges that we became a nation of innovaters, of world changers, of moral character and bedrock foundations.

My favorite line from the speech speaks to this point:  "In my life, I have learned that hope is found in unlikely places."  It's obvious why that statement resonates with me given my current situation.  But it also resonates with me as an American who watched 8 years of this nation lose its direction, lose its character and lose its leadership through abject mismanagement.

Which is why I found Bobby Jindal's speech somewhat flat in comparison to Obama's.  Invoking the government's poor response to Hurricane Katrina (especially when it was his party's government) as a way to say that government is not the most efficient provider of recovery, strength and hope seemed to be reaching, imho.

Governor Jindal also talked about the Republicans offering "better ideas" but all I heard was more of the same mantra they've been repeating since 2000.  Cut taxes.  Provide businesses with incentives.  Turn more Americans into homebuyers by providing incentives.

We cut taxes for the last 8 years--developing at the same time the largest deficit in our history.

We provided businesses with incentives (let's call the businesses banks) to open up our lending flows again--and nothing's happened.

Part of the reason we're in the mortgage mess we're in is the assumption that every American should be a homeowner.

By comparison, Obama outlined three top priorities:  Energy, Health Care and Education.  He harkened back to the Great Depression, to the space program and to the building of a national railway system--well, heck.  He said it better than I do.

"For history tells a different story.  History reminds us that at every moment of economic upheaval and transformation, this nation has responded with bold action and big ideas.  In the midst of civil war, we laid railroad tracks from one coast to another that spurred commerce and industry.  From the turmoil of the Industrial Revolution came a system of public high schools that prepared our citizens for a new age.  In the wake of war and depression, the GI Bill sent a generation to college and created the largest middle-class in history.  And a twilight struggle for freedom led to a nation of highways, an American on the moon, and an explosion of technology that still shapes our world. 

In each case, government didn’t supplant private enterprise; it catalyzed private enterprise.  It created the conditions for thousands of entrepreneurs and new businesses to adapt and to thrive. 

 I suppose it is here that I see the biggest contrast between Jindal and Obama, between left and right.  Jindal painted a picture where the answers to all of our questions are provided by small government and the sweat of the American people; where government is the enemy and people are the heroes.

Obama paints a picture where government is the catalyst, during times of nationwide challenge, that boost individuals towards a better future by addresssing systemic problems in a way that allows individuals to thrive, grow, innovate and plant the seeds for a better future for our nation.

No surprise to regular readers, but I think Obama's is the more sensible, indeed, the more proven approach.