Why We Are Who We Are

Also, since I'm finding the Democrats and, to a lesser extent, Republicans to be even more sickening and offensive than usual, I want to try to keep an open mind here, since I know there's plenty of people who think these dumb parties are our salvation.

PLEASE, explain it to me, because I TRULY do not understand.

Why are you a <>?

What does it mean to you to be a <>?

What do you get out of being a <>?

Would you ever change your political affiliation and, if so, under what circumstances?

What are 5 things about being a <> that you believe make it substantially different from other political affiliations?

How often do you disagree with the leadership of your political affilation, if ever? What do you do if/when you disagree?

I wrote an article in a similar vein for the New Paltz Times a while back, although I think even that requires some revision at this point.

Health Care, SRSLY?!?

Who are we thanking, and for what??? The Obama logo suggests we are, in fact, thanking the golden boy himself, but... HUH?!?!?!

So I'm getting really aggravated at the stupid viral Facebook status message about health care. If you haven't seen it, I'll paste it below for the sake of recordkeeping, but UNDERSTAND THAT I AM NOT ENDORSING IT!

"No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and nobody should go broke because they get sick. If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day."
Sigh. How can we be so misguided? It breaks my heart. So, of course, I put up a status message expressing my disdain ("believes in it, supports it, wants it to happen, but recognizes that the approach being taken is counter-productive and essentially sabotage. no number of dedicated facebook statuses will change that.") and all sorts of crankiness ensues.

One friend, a fellow Green, used the status as a basis for opening conversation with some friends who are not as engaged in the issue. OK. I guess I can deal with this, even though I don't really see the point. If you're in need of an introductory health care conversation via facebook this late in the game... um... yeah. Plus, I've never known a conversation that accuses the opposition of essentially being murderers to lead to a lot of enlightened soul searching, but who knows.
Another, this one a Democrat, hasn't participated in the homogeneous status posting but felt resentful and attacked based on my obvious disgust with all things big D. This one is kinda complicated. Instead of being offended by my hatred of this sham of a party, shouldn't she be offended by what her party has done? I'm hugely offended, and I'm not even a member!

Does she really believe in these issues or does she believe in the collective solidarity of standing for absolutely nothing? If it's the latter, well, whatevs, but if it's the former, she should be outraged and, more importantly, she should be doing something about it. Why not work to change the structure and absence of any values exhibited by this party for decades? Why not refuse to donate to, volunteer with or vote for another one of these lying imbeciles until "hope" and "change" actually become meaningful? Better yet, why not just walk away?
The majority of people endorsed and elected by the Democrats are manipulating and defacing whatever ideological remnants still guide the party, assuming there are any at all. Registered Democrats would be much better served by coming to terms with the fact their party's promises are hollow. They need to start supporting the issues and candidates who are actually worth something instead of clinging to a party that doesn't seem to espouse much of anything.

Another friend, this one from my hometown, embraced the "to hell with them all" mentality and suggested I let her know once I have that up-and-running. Which is exactly right. Because the "third parties" aren't doing much of a bang-up job, either.

Then, as if the status updates weren't enough, a Democratic elected official from my former county of residence posts a link to a petition, begging Obama to please support a single-payer option. The first line actually reads, "We worked so hard for real change." And the whole thing appears to be sponsored by the Obama campaign itself (or else someone is seriously engaging in trademark violations). WTF?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
So, let me get this straight.

1. Barack Obama campaigns on a platform that includes a public option for health care, available to all Americans.
2. People "work so hard for real change" and Barack Obama is elected President.
3. Barack Obama and the other Democratic hacks take the public option "off the table."
4. We beg the people we elected less than a year ago to do what they said and keep the promises that they made during their campaigns....

Is that about right? When they refuse to "listen" (aka do what they said they were going to do in the first place), was it because we didn't have enough people at the rallies? Was it because corporate dollars somehow controlled the debate, and our elected officials can't be expected to allow their promises to stand up against the pressure? Was it because we didn't get enough facebook statuses or signatures on the petition supporting it? Or is it because we've elected a bunch of liars and can't admit that all that "hope" and "change" was BS?

We obviously can't rely on the two major parties, and third parties are sidelined due to a combination of systemic ineffectiveness, disorganization and general fluffiness. And that's assuming that we even have real third parties, rather than just branches of the existing two, which I'm really beginning to question (but that conversation is for another time).
Now what?

This entire mess just reaffirms the fact that it isn't a problem with partisanship or corporate interests or lobbyists or apathy or any of the other junk excuses that we come up with. The disaster that we know as the American political system is completely upside down, backwards, inside out and knotted up. It's a super unfunny joke and we should scrap it and start again. Yeah, that seems really complicated and challenging, but at least it's proactive rather than waiting for the inevitable catastrophe guaranteed by the existing system.

We have so much diversity, so many different views, such high stakes that we simply cannot count on a two-party-majority-but-only-by-a-little-electoral-W-T-F-is-the-point-college-but-it's-how-we-were-founded tradition. THIS IS NO WAY TO GOVERN, PEOPLE! Maybe it made sense when the population of the country was 3 million people, but so did slavery and property laws and a bunch of other really dumb ideas that obviously sucked. Why we invoke tradition so fervently to protect a system that is blatant in its disservice to absolutely everyone is beyond me.

Wayyyy back in the day, when we had our first kinda-sorta-real elections in the US, there were two parties: the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. Well, guess what. We still have the Democratic-Republicans, but they've split into two wings of the same party. Aside from a few issues and a few approaches, there really aren't tremendous differences between the two (you get a prize if you can come up with one that is actually, truly, really, really, really meaningful). To top it all off, Democratic-Republicans used the terms interchangably, calling themselves Democrats, Republicans, Democratic-Republicans, and, yes, even Federalists and Federalist-Republicans! Ok, so we let a bunch of really confused people set up a really confused system.

Instead of continuing to try to create differences where, really, few exist, maybe we can try letting everyone have a say and work with the differences that are actually there? Maybe, instead of basking in the glory of shutting out thousands and, even, millions of American citizens from leadership opportunities in our governments we could try letting everyone have some representation, mixing things up a bit and see where that gets us. Maybe we should just consider the merits of a system based in proportional representation, where the proportion of votes cast for parties and candidates determines who governs. It seems to make sense and it's gotta be a helluva lot more productive, transparent and honest than the gig we've got going now.

Dontcha think?

The Girlfriend Experience

I just watched The Girlfriend Experience and loved it.

If you want to watch it, don't read further, because I may have spoilers. I've been combing over the IMDB and critical reviews and am finding that most people completely missed the point, acting in the same manner that they consider to be the film's downfall.

I'm not a film critic and can't get into the details of cinematography or soundtrack, although all enhanced the film and were critical components. The Girlfriend Experience wasn't about "The Girlfriend Experience," where an escort provides personal services beyond sex to her client. It may be a particular brand of GFE, where the escort provides a blank slate for clients to project themselves onto, but that isn't the common understanding. Instead, the film offers a glimpse into the daily life of one escort in a realistic manner that avoids both the black-and-white moralistic judgments or trendy romanticism that tend to characterize all films dealing with sex work.

Most of the negative reviews criticize Sasha Grey's real-life work in pornography, flat acting or failure to act as a girlfriend to any of the men she engages with, including her boyfriend. I found the acting to be far from flat; instead, it was delicate and nuanced, depicting a 22 year old beauty who is not only in complete control of her life but also unsure of what life actually is. She's good at her job, knows what needs to be done to move forward in her career and is also subject to bad decisions, with regard to both work and also her personal life. She could be anyone.

Ah, yes, but she's not. Because she charges $2,000 an hour to have sex with strangers. The film, however, contextualizes sex work as it should be -- a job, just like any other, with good days, bad days and indifferent days. Leading up to the 2008 Presidential Election, we see each character dealing with apprehension over politics, the economy and sex. And we see those same individuals who are so quick to judge falling prey to the same opportunistic tendencies that they attribute to someone like Chelsea. Because they don't cross that line, selling themselves isn't the same game. But it is.

One of the most striking interactions is between Chelsea and her boyfriend, Chris. She certainly appears to provide GFE to her boyfriend, albeit probably unknowingly, yet Chris is also offering his own brand of BFE. At one point, he lashes out, proving her suspicions that he detests her career and finds her spiritual beliefs silly, without any recognition of the fact that he is a willing participant in their lifestyle, underwritten by her career and guided by her values. This argument shows the unwillingness of either character to truly respect and appreciate the other, highlighting the fact that each has a selfishness that will ultimately compromise the relationship. In Chelsea's case, her selfishness relates to her honesty, with herself and her partner, and her desire for personal growth and fulfillment. In Chris' case, the selfishness seems focused on having a beautiful, successful girlfriend and a beautiful, successful lifestyle in an apartment financed almost wholly by Chelsea's profession. While both may be selfish, only one comes across as shallow and it isn't the hooker.

The lack of explicit sexual interactions between Chelsea and her clients is notable. It allows the film to explore an important part of their interactions, which is rarely the sex and more often the customer service. In only one instance does Chelsea appear to provide the true GFE, in an interaction with a man who she doesn't even have sex with. She tells him what he wants to hear and this is helpful to him. In each instance, she offers something beyond sex that, while perhaps not exemplifying extraordinary GFE, is something that each man is seeking. In some instances, it's enough, in others it isn't, but Chelsea rarely finds herself sacrificing her boundaries in order to go that extra step, although she does come dangerously close at least twice, and not without consequences. Any time a career is so reliant on interactions with other people, an individual will walk that very fine line and encounter some difficult situations as a result.

Many reviewers have focused on the final scene before the credits as being a sad, repulsive and pitiful commentary on Chelsea and her decisions, but I found the contrary to be true. The film isn't a grand and striking commentary on escorts. It simply reaffirms the idea that for Chelsea, this is a job and one she does well. For her clients, it has the potential to be so much more.

I'm not done formulating my thoughts on the film and I consider that a good thing. Highly recommended, especially for those interested in watching with an open mind and a willingness to see everything in shades of gray.

Congratulations!

I want to offer my sincere congratulations to the NPHS Class of 2009. These kids are absolutely incredible and I have been so lucky to get to know many of them over the past few years. I have never met such a fun, talented, intelligent and inspiring group of people and I wish everyone the very best in their future endeavors!

Celebrity Death Watch

OK, the phone calls earlier were fine but now this is getting a little ridiculous...

Here's the rundown:
Ed McMahon - Dead
Farrah Fawcett - Dead
Michael Jackson - Dead
Jeff Goldblum - Not Dead
Harrison Ford - Not Dead
Brad Pitt - Not Dead
Chesney Hawkes - Not Dead

We're good now.

Joining the ranks of the Bikeys

So, now that I'm in Sacramento surrounded by beautifully wide, paved, flat streets, bike lanes and sunshine, I have decided to join the ranks of the bikeys that I so deeply admire (yes, Rebecca, Rachel, Lagusta, etc., this would apply to you).

But, because I'm still me, I'm facing the difficult dilemma of exactly what color/style bike to purchase. It needs to be skirt friendly, needs to have great options for baskets, bells, streamers, etc. and it needs to be classic.

I've pretty much settled on an Electra because they are so beautiful and perfect and there are a lot more color and design choices than Schwinn currently offers. The fenders on nearly every model and skirt guards on the Amsterdams are also a HUGE incentive. Plus, Electra is my Aunt's middle name, so that's cool.

The frontrunners include:

The Alexander Girard 3i Tree of Life Amsterdam. So beautiful and probably the most expensive choice, but there simply are not words for HOW MUCH I LOVE THIS BICYCLE!!!

The Original 3i Amsterdam... this is probably in my top 3 choices right now...

The Holiday 3i Townie... I love the front basket but there have also been some safety problems with this model. Apparently, the basket can separate from the rest of the frame and make contact with the front wheel, causing injuries such as "bruises and scratches." Which, in my world of perpetual bruises and scratches, would probably mean sudden death.
The Original 7D Townie... not my hugest favorite, but I'd certainly be happy with it. The Townies seem to have some bolder color options than the more pastel Cruisers.

The Original 3i Townie... again, I'm not going to fall down and marry this style, but it's nice.

The Jenny 3i Cruiser... fun design, love the dots.

The Navy 3i Cruiser... I'm crazy about this one, although I'm not sure that it matches enough of my wardrobe? I have been increasingly obsessed with everything sailor, but it doesn't negate the fact that I have a lot of prissy, pastel flowery things. Will they work with this?? I'm not sure... I just might not be cool enough to pull off the Navy.

The Gypsy 3i Cruiser... the Gypsy is super fun and I love the accessories available for it. In a lot of ways, it is *similar* to the Girard Amsterdam, but will probably be much closer to my price range.

The Blanc Et Noir 3i Cruiser... this one is definitely beautiful, but I think it'd be better for me if it had the black and white floral without the green accents and multicolor seat, etc.

Committed Volunteers

Sorry for the hiatus, I've been packing up everything I own to get a better tan 3,000 miles away. Luckily, I'm done with that now.

This week's Village Board Meeting, the last for The Gatekeeper and The Renegade, was a disaster. Because there was no meeting. See, The Mayor and The Gatekeeper showed up, but The Renegade, The Butterfly and The Financier were all absent. Apparently The Financier's absence was excused (this time) due to a personal issue. No one seems to know where The Butterfly was, although her husband was present for the first time in anyone's memory. The Renegade was simply out, due to personal obligations and priorities that may or may not have been communicated or excused. So, without a quorum, the meeting was never called to order and business in the VoNP is stalled, yet again.

In the wake of The Butterfly's unjustified and unprofessional tirade against the NPFD, many of her defenders are pointing to the meager stipend and supreme level of commitment that she has demonstrated in her capacity as Trustee. So, as is my way, I did some data entry and found even my overly cynical self disappointed by the results.

Instead of dealing with the personal qualities of The Butterfly as Trustee, and without even attempting to tackle the subjective issue of voting record, let's stick to something we can all agree is a requirement of office: attendance. We all know that Trustees should show up and participation is apparently a bonus. But I've been stating that The Butterfly and The Financier fall far short of even this basic obligation and we don't need to have a philosophical debate about positions or abilities; the facts back this one up.

Section 31-5 of the Village Code outlines that "Any person appointed to a board, commission or committee of the Village shall be expected to attend at least 75% in number of the regular and special meetings of such board, commission or committee during a period of 12 consecutive months." There does not appear to be an attendance policy for elected board members, but I think it is reasonable to assume that these officers should be held to this standard at a minimum. I'm assuming the absence of this specification is for this exact reason; we shouldn't have to hold elected officials to an attendance policy. After all, they're the ones who chose to seek public office!

Of the 54 available meetings for all of 2008 and 2009 (38 available meetings for The Renegade), who actually shows up?

For the purpose of my averages, "attendance" is considered complete attendance. You show up to the meeting, on time, and stay until the meeting is adjourned. I did not count instances where someone leaves the meeting for a few minutes, as these are expected to occur. Also, as a courtesy to The Butterfly, I did not count instances where she left for significant blocks of time, as it would be nearly impossible to calculate due to the frequency and duration of such "emergency" phone calls, snacking, socializing and web surfing. Each instance of arriving late and leaving early, even from the same meeting, is counted as a separate, distinct violation. I could've weighted lates and earlys as being less offensive than full absences, and also could've formed penalties based on the extent of lateness or leaving-earlyness, but I didn't. They're all equally offensive as far as I'm concerned, plus it's early and I'm not that big into math. I'll gladly email my spreadsheet to anyone who would like to tackle it.

- 100% Attendance Record. The Mayor has attended all joint, special, and regular meetings of the Village Board. He has not been late, nor left early, for any of these meetings. This isn't surprising; The Mayor strikes me as exactly the type of person who would graduate High School with the prestigious K-12 Perfect Attendance Award. Plus, they're his meetings and his agenda and clearly nobody else is going to run them, so it makes sense that he would have to be present in order for business to be conducted.

- 87% Attendance Record. The Renegade, with fewer meetings being counted since he did not take office until June 1, 2008, has missed 1 regular meeting and was late to 1 regular meeting (although, at the request of the VB, was present at a School Board meeting as the Village representative on the evening in question). He was present at both joint meetings and missed 3 special meetings, one of which he would've been late to had it lasted longer than 10 minutes.

- 83% Attendance Record. The Gatekeeper is in third place, being absent from 2 regular meetings, late to 1 regular meeting and leaving early for 4 regular meetings. The Gatekeeper has faced a tremendous loss in his family in 2009, thus excusing one of these absences. He was absent from 1 special meeting and 1 joint meeting.

- 65% Attendance Record. The Financier, in a dead heat with The Butterfly, has an abysmal attendance record. She has been absent from 7 regular meetings, late to 5 regular meetings, and left early for 3 regular meetings. She has also been absent from 3 special meetings.

- 54% Attendance Record. The Butterfly comes in last, being absent from 6 regular meetings, late to 12 regular meetings and leaving early for 5 regular meetings. She has also been absent from 2 special meetings.

Now I know there will still be some who are uppity and defensive about the attendance record.

"But the meetings run so LATE!" Well, shorten the agenda or your soliloquies. Either way.

"But they can't be expected to be at everything, all the time!" I agree. But Village Board meetings are a basic requirement of their office. Showing up occasionally is disrespectful to the voters, the community and the other officials.

"Well, The Financier CALLED into a meeting, shouldn't that count?!" No, it shouldn't. If you're not present to vote, you're not there. For all we know, Scott Schulte could've taken the called-in Trustee hostage, forcing them to make comments at gunpoint.

I am sure there are plenty more pathetic excuses for why Trustees shouldn't be expected to participate in their own meetings. Please, let me know. Especially The Butterfly and Financier. I think an explanation is long overdue.

Also, I think it's worth pointing out that the two Trustee-Elects, Patrick O'Donnell and Brian Kimbiz, have been showing up to meetings for a few weeks. Kudos. Sadly, no one has ever seen their faces at a meeting until recently. We can only hope that they follow the example of The Mayor, The Renegade and The Gatekeeper when it comes to attendance. Actually, we can hope O'Donnell does. We might be better off if Kimbiz just stays home.