Take a Deep Breath

It's going to be a nail-biter tonight. I'm really hoping that Obama takes California, I would be so overjoyed. The increasing excitement about him here has been palpable in the past week. There's been the high-profile endorsements of course, Ted and Caroline Kennedy, and Maria Shriver (our state's first lady), and moveon.org was huge. More locally significant, El Piolin, a top Spanish-language radio morning show host was plugging Obama last week, and Obama was endorsed by La Opinion (the largest Spanish-language paper in the LA area, and the second largest paper of any language in the area) as well as the LA Times. But even cooler was the stuff happening on a local level. At the market the other night, there was a young woman who had come from the Obama rally earlier that day, wearing an Obama shirt and just gushing with excitement about the rally, and practically holding a mini-rally in the checkout line, getting everyone at Gelson's pumped up about Obama. And George, who drives all around town as part of his job, says he saw mini-rallies for Obama on street corners all over town.

Of course we won't know anything about California until late into the night, if not tomorrow, thanks to California's big step backwards on electronic voting (more on that in another post). The elimination of electronic voting machines also meant elimination of early voting options that has caused a much larger number of mail-in ballots than usual. That works a bit against Obama, whose momentum has really developed significantly just in the last couple of weeks. Something that works in his favor here is that independents were able to vote in the Democratic primary but not the Republican one. However, a ballot controversy may take away a bit of that. Independents who wanted to vote for the Democratic primary not only needed to punch the hole for their Democratic choice, but there was another hole labeled merely "Democrat" that also needed to be punched, or else the vote wouldn't count. Not sure whose idiotic design that was, but there will certainly be some number of people whose obvious choice gets disqualified because of that, and probably a lawsuit to follow, shades of Florida's butterfly ballots.

A couple of "notes to self" for future campaigns, should I be so motivated again. I did a blanket email of a bunch of friends and aquaintances (about 170 people) telling them how excited I was about Obama, and encouraging them to check out my blog. I got a nice number of positive responses, including several thoughtful ones from some people who were on the fence. I replied to those and hope I might have nudged a few of them over. But I wish I had been more actively on the ball a month earlier, as I had a surprising number of friends who were registered Republicans, but really wished they could have voted for Obama, and would have switched their registration to independent if they had been prompted to do so in time. Shoot. Several missed votes I could have picked up.

It's also important to take a deep breath here, and remember that it's a race for delegates, not states per se. Unlike the Republicans, whose primaries are mostly winner-take-all affairs, the Democratic races are mostly apportioned, often by congressional district. In Nevada, for example, Clinton won the popular vote, but Obama actually got more delegates because he won most of the districts outside of Las Vegas. Nobody is going to get the "magic number" of delegates needed to seal a win tomorrow, and if the delegate total is within 100 after the dust settles on Wednesday, there's still a real horse race. That is good for Obama, who is on the rise. I'm no expert on this, but it's still looking to me like it may well not be decided even after all of the primaries, and may go all the way to the convention in late August. The superdelegates could be decisive. The early read on them is that they were heavily for Clinton, but they're not pledged, and if there's a rising tide, they could well be switched. The race is on!

Barack Obama: Style Counts

"real leadership is about candor, and judgment, and the ability to rally Americans from all walks of life around a common purpose"

Barack Obama inspires people. I know I am more inspired by him than I have been by any presidential candidate in my lifetime. (JFK was before my time, though given the "Camelot mystique" that is his legacy, I'm not surprised that JFK's brother and daughter recognize the phenomenon in Obama.) I wrote the other day about his refreshing candor, but I think it's his ability to inspire, linked with his style of getting things done that makes him so compelling. And this "inspiration business" is not just some squishy insubstantial thing, it has a significant impact on what he can get done. The substance is definitely there: just go to his website and you can read for yourself positions articulated on all of the major issues. Impartial analyses of the candidates identify mostly minor differences in the details of policy proposals from Clinton and Obama. But anyone who's been around for a presidential term or two knows that what a candidate proposes while running, and what (if anything) ultimately gets delivered is always different, the result a function of politics. That's where style really counts. It's not just what they say they're going to do that's important, it's how they are going to do it. What we've suffered for the last couple of decades is an increasingly bitter partisan divide, where most things get stymied, and what gets through is rammed through on a 51/49 majority. What we don't need is someone who will just flip the 51/49 to 49/51 and dig the trenches deeper. That's where Obama is really different. He won't just go off in seclusion with some experts and come back with "the answer" and expect everyone to buy into it. (Remember Hillary's health plan?) His style of working is to engage all of the stakeholders early on, really understand their positions, and work toward a win/win solution. (You can read about how Obama worked with activists pushing for universal health coverage, as well as worked with doctors and insurers, to craft a policy for Illinois that people on all sides of the issue were content with -- in this article, skip about halfway down.) Jonathan Cohn, investigating Obama's record in the Illinois state house, says this: "Time after time, Obama brought adversaries into the process early, heard out their concerns, then fashioned compromises many of them ultimately supported." If this talk about "win/win" and bringing in stakeholders early sounds familiar to you, it's probably because you've worked in or with business consultants, or taken a course in business process improvement at a large company. This is not just "singing I have a dream" squishy stuff. They teach this stuff in business schools, because that's how change in any large organization gets successfully accomplished. It's about understanding all the stakeholders, and what is the "right" way to change. It's also about understanding what motivates people, and motivating them, leading them, and sometimes inspiring them. That's the sort of experience and the sort of character that we need in our next president, and nobody has it like Obama. That's why I am voting for Barack Obama on Tuesday.

Barack Obama speaking at Ebenezer Baptist Church on Martin Luther King Day

Obama: The Candid Candidate

When I listened to Barack Obama's victory speech after winning South Carolina, the whole speech was great, but one sentence jumped out and caught my attention as a great summation of why I am so excited about Obama:


"real leadership is about candor, and judgment, and the ability to rally Americans from all walks of life around a common purpose"

I am so sick and tired of spin, of elected leaders who tell us what they think we want to hear rather than level with us about what we need to hear, of candidates who will say anything and do anything to win the next election. I honestly believe that Obama is different. He has already shown that he is different. The man does not change his tune to suit the audience. He has stood in front of a hall full of Democrats, when it would have been easy and welcome to trash Republicans, and he has instead talked about the importance of working with them. He has stood in front of a teacher's union and said he thinks there may be some merit to merit pay. And time and again he has been inclusive of gays and lesbians, not just in his general stump speech, but when he spoke at Auburn University, and when he spoke from Martin Luther King's pulpit at Ebenezer Baptist Church. (Compare and contrast with Hillary Clinton, who doesn't utter a word that's not poll-tested and focus-group screened. She speaks a big game when in front of the Human Rights Campaign, claiming she would overturn the ban on gays in the military, and yet she is already sitting on the Senate Armed Services Committee, in the ideal position to do something about it, and has done nothing. I think it's clear we can expect Hillary to pander to the gay community when she needs our votes, but then throw us under the bus once elected, just as her husband did. Bill Clinton courted the gay vote, then not only gave us the Don't Ask Don't Tell compromise, but he signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Why should I expect Hillary Clinton to be any different?)

The level of politics in our country has sunk so low, that I would so much rather have someone who is honest, candid, and straightforward, even if I don't agree with all of his specific ideas, than someone who will spin, lie, and obfuscate. I'd much rather have someone who takes the high road, rather than someone who believes the end justifies the means (for instance, Hillary's willingness to break her pledge and change the rules on the Florida and Michigan primaries, which shows the only "principle" she's familiar with is "whatever it takes to win"). I look forward to being able to travel abroad and have a president I can be proud of rather than ashamed of. I hope that the rest of the country is as hungry as I am to restore the greatly damaged credibility of the presidency, and to elevate the tone of politics in Washington, by electing someone who can be trusted to speak openly and honestly. I think Obama is that man.

BOOKS: The Kite Runner

The last many days of commuting to work have been emotional, sweeping, and at times tearful, as I have been listening to Khaled Hosseini read his novel The Kite Runner. What a beautiful tale of friendship, cowardice and honor, profound regrets and ultimate atonement. The story is driven by its fascinating characters, centered around the narrator, starting from his boyhood as he struggles to win his larger-than-life father's approval and affection, while navigating a complicated relationship with his best friend who is also his servant and from an "inferior" ethnic group. The plot follows an arc from an idyllic Afghanistan under the king, through a coup, Soviet invasion, an Afghan community in exile in the San Francisco Bay area, and a harrowing return to Afghanistan under the Taliban to confront the past. Hosseini's story is embedded in rich descriptions of the exotic Afghan countryside and culture (it helps hearing the author read his own work, pronouncing all the Pashto and Farsi words effortlessly), and had me wanting to visit Afghanistan (through a time machine, anyway). He deploys some beautiful imagery, describing coming to America as wading into a great river whose vast waters cover up regrets from the past, or the end of grief not in a revelatory moment but as packing up its bags and quietly slipping out. But most of all he had me thoroughly engrossed in this tale of fatal turning point moments, how they can shape a life and have repercussions across generations. As with Sheherezade's tales, each new episode in the life of these rich characters had me eager to hear the next, and it was bittersweet to have it come to an end.

FILM: 27 Dresses

George and I both love a good "chick flick", so yesterday we went to see 27 Dresses, with much anticipation after having seen a barrage of trailers and commercials for months. We both enjoyed the film, but we both agreed that it was a cream puff of a movie -- sweet, light, and not very filling. Certainly it was fun to watch Katherine Heigl's character Jane work through her "always a bridesmaid" complex, with some good laughs along the way, and I was appropriately misty-eyed at the big "I love you" declaration moment, and at the final scene. We were smiling and saying "yea!" at the end. But we had hoped for more. This romantic comedy was, well, a bit light on the romance. One of the things we crave from a good romance is seeing the chemistry between two characters, moments when sparks fly off the screen, and, in a truly great romance, scenes that make us sigh even years later as we recall them in vivid detail, projecting ourselves into them and wishing for such moments in our own lives. Much as we wanted to like this movie, it left us wanting that kind of chemistry. I don't blame the actors (who are often to blame when chemistry fizzles instead of sizzles). Katherine Heigl was perfectly endearing in her part, and her expressiveness and range, everything from dreamy-eyed pining to guilty rationalization to happy-face-covering-hurt to pent up angry release, was everything you could want. Alas, Jane was the only character in the film that showed more than one dimension. James Marsden did the best he could to rescue Kevin, a character of poorly-conceived motivations, from the limitations of the script, and he really did some wonders with purely facial expression to try to persuade us of some sympathetic depth, but there's only so much an actor can do when the words he needs weren't written. (We know from Heights and The Notebook that he's certainly capable of more, if given good material to work with.) Sure, some crazy and inexplicable things are allowed to happen in the world of romantic comedy, but we need the characters to have a certain truth to them in order to draw our sympathy. Willing suspension of disbelief allows us to overlook unrealistic devices (e.g., that some wedding-crazy girl devotes a closet in her Manhattan apartment to bridesmaid dresses), and to forgive pesky continuity details (so those dresses show up in the final scene even though we saw her put them in the trash just a few scenes earlier). But the main characters, and their trajectory, have got to be believable.

[Mild spoilers ahead… in case you're worried that you won't guess how the story turns out, skip this next paragraph...]

Jane's 11th hour switch of affections comes from what, exactly? Fond memories of a drunk one-night stand? And Kevin -- who knows whether he truly is a sweet romantic guy hiding behind a mask of obnoxious cockiness, or is he really a cynic spinning sentimental crap? He doesn't know himself, neither do we, so how is Jane supposed to figure it out? Was Kevin smitten with Jane from first sight, or was he initially out to exploit her and then had a change of heart? (And if a change of heart, when, how, and why?)

The problem is that the writer just didn't think this character through coherently, so that Kevin's apparent motivations spin like a weathervane from scene to scene, with no explication except that he does what is needed to propel the plot. There are a few hints of dimension (that he was left at the altar in the past, that he did once cry at a wedding), which are just teases at how much more compellingly this character could have been written if given his due complexity. (And the ironic potential of a wedding-cynical reporter assigned to the wedding beat is missed, serving only as a bare plot contrivance.) What meagre crumbs of complexity Kevin has are tossed away by the director, whose lack of romantic vision didn't help. Perhaps director Anne Fletcher is guilty of what Kevin accuses Jane of: she doesn't want a relationship so much as she wants a wedding. But much as it pains me, I blame writer Aline Brosh McKenna for this film not living up to its full potential. This was especially surprising as she had written the screenplay for The Devil Wears Prada (as the 27 Dresses promotion machine constantly reminded us), where she did a stellar job, that very rare achievement where the screenplay actually improved on a great book (and the improvement came from deepening the characters). Based on Prada, I'd be willing to give McKenna another shot in the future. And I'd love to see Heigl and Marsden in a better story. They were like vintage burgundy and black truffles used to make meatloaf. Mind you, meatloaf's fine for a weekday meal. So if you go with appropriate expectations -- just wanting to be entertained rather than inspired, looking for something amusing for an evening rather than memorable for a lifetime -- 27 Dresses is good cute fun.

Neighborhood Notes: Top Bookshops of the World

Via Andrew, I caught this Guardian piece on the "top ten bookshops of the world". I was curious to see what might be on it. I had expected to find Powell's Books, of Portland, Oregon, which in my experience is probably the most awesome brick-and-mortar bookstore I've been to in terms of mind-boggling selection (not just mass market, but thoughtfully selected stuff in a wide range of fields of inquiry). Alas, Powell's was not on this list. I also thought maybe to find City Lights, the literary landmark in San Francisco, but not that either. Being a world list, most of the selections were around the world in places I haven't been -- Maastricht, Buenos Aires, Kyoto, Porto, Mexico City, etc. But much to my surprise, the list included a comic book store in my own backyard called the Secret Headquarters. We walk past this place often, on our usual Friday night beat between the great neighborhood Mexican restaurant and the awesome gelato place. The place looks really cool, like a place you'd want to hang out, in fact, I thought it was a cigar bar when I first saw it. The Guardian piece describes it thus: "Nestled in the creative cluster of Silver Lake, just east of Hollywood, this boutique store offers a sophisticated alternative to most of its rivals and has a reputation for being one of the neatest, friendliest comic stores anywhere. Canadian science fiction author Cory Doctorow rates it as the finest in the world." You can check out photos of the place here. Just when I thought our neighborhood couldn't get any cooler.

Where's My Candidate?

I've done this before, but it's interesting to try the "electoral compass" exercise with the current crop of candidates projected on it. The Republicans are distributed vertically along the socially conservative axis of their quadrant, but with narrow variation in their economic positions. The Democrats are pretty tightly bunched in their quadrant, except for Obama who shows more progressive socially and a bit more conservative economically. Ron Paul is an outlier, aligned with Republicans economically, but verging on libertarianism socially. (Interestingly, this survey puts him in the libertarian quadrant, but just barely. Aside from Paul on the margin, the libertarian quadrant, where I find myself (the pencil), is vacant, as is the opposite fascist quadrant. It's a shame that there's a whole swath of "position space" unrepresented by candidates, but in which a fair chunk of Americans may locate themselves. (You can try the survey yourself here.) To me, that's a clear defect of the two-party system. I note that the two candidates closest to me in this survey are Obama and Paul. That's about right. I would add, as others have noted, that this survey captures policy position but not temperament, and in this race, I'm considering temperament as much if not more than policies. I'm hungry for a candidate who is pragmatic, able to understand viewpoints on both sides of an issue, and formulate policies that can appeal to common ground rather than division and polarity. That's why Obama is my choice.

FILM: The Great Debaters

Still working the year-end backlog of good films, we caught The Great Debaters on Saturday night. We expected an uplifting inspirational film, and it definitely delivered. The baseline story you know going in, so the success of the movie depended on the vivid depiction of life in east Texas 1936 for black people, the richness of the characters' backstories and development, and the powerful performances of a great cast. Denzel Washington plays Melvin Tolson, the English and rhetoric professor who inspires and coaches the famous team to victory, with great verve, and Forest Whitaker gives an outstanding performance as James Farmer, Sr., the educator, theologian, and father of one of the younger debaters. The elder Farmer is portrayed as a gentle, thoughtful man, and Whitaker conveys a rich variety of feeling in this character with masterful reserve. These are the "stars", but the film wouldn't have worked without strong performances from the three young actors who play the debaters. Nate Parker, as Henry Lowe, the oldest of the college kids, shines in this role as a scrappy orphan with a good heart and hard edges, torn between dropping out and striving toward a higher calling. Jurnee Smollett is spot on as Samantha Booke, the modest but passionate girl determined to become a lawyer. And Denzel Whitaker (no relation to Forest Whitaker, nor to Denzel Washington, except that he was named after him) won me over as the youngest debater, James Farmer, Jr., trying to grow in the shadow of his renowned father. Some of the best parts of the film were the interplay between James Farmer Junior and Senior, with each growing and responding to the other, illustrating the generational differences in that time of great trial. There is a powerful scene where James Farmer Sr. is shaken down and humiliated in front of his family by a white trash pig farmer, and his concern is to mollify the farmer just to keep his family safe and get out of the situation quietly. This makes a pivotal impression on James Jr., who is both appalled at the injustice of the situation and disappointed in his father for not standing up for what was his right. We see how the experience influences and reverberates in both father and son later in the film. With both James Jr. and Samantha, we come to see how much they've been sheltered by their parents from knowing exactly how brutal life could be for black people in Texas 1936, when they come face to face with the reality in a sudden harsh encounter. Their experiences, both of being somewhat sheltered and of having some harsh reality calls, ring true, I think, to explaining how these remarkable kids turned out to be the great people they would all three turn out to be.

Fairly early in the film, there is a scene where the professor is drilling the students on enunciation by making them answer a catechism while holding a radish in their teeth. The prophetic catechism (which makes a poignant reprise later in the film), goes like this:

Prof: "Who is the Judge?"
Students: "The judge is God."
Prof: "Why is He the judge?"
Students: "He decides who wins and loses; not my opponent."
Prof: "Who is your opponent?"
Students: "My opponent does not exist."
Prof: "Why does your opponent not exist?"
Students: "He is a mere dissenting voice to the truth I speak." *

It's a great message, and it's absolutely right. Nothing is so compelling as the truth. That message came back to me on Sunday when I was thinking, not about this movie, but about various people who have preached at our church, and about what made one sermon better than another. We have one young intern in particular, who has given a few sermons this past year, and she is dynamite. I remember her very first sermon, she had that congregation on the edge of its pews like nobody before her, there were moments you could have heard a pin drop. And there were other moments where our congregation -- which is NOT prone to doing this -- was spontaneously shouting out "amen!". Why was it so good? Because she spoke the truth -- the raw, unvarnished, vulnerable truth of her own experience. It doesn't get more powerful than that. Thinking about that, my mind flashed back on the movie, and that catechism, and the injunction "speak the truth". And that's exactly what those debaters did in 1936 when they beat Harvard.** And that's exactly what this movie did when it told this story.

---

* This is my memory of the quote. I've seen slightly different versions of it floating around the Internet, so I'm not sure which if any is authoritative. I don't think the one on IMDB is exactly right, as parts of it don't even make sense (a "dissenting voice of the truth I speak"??).

** Apparently, the Harvard part was a fictional embellishment. In the real life story, the historical debate was between Wiley College and University of Southern California. California leading the nation again, but then I suppose Harvard makes for better drama.

Catty gay postscript: In addition to being an impressive actor, Nate Parker is fine, easy on the eyes.

Awards Without Perspective

Tonight, as the Golden Globes are being announced (not awarded in a glitzy ceremony, due to the writers' strike, but just announced in a press conference), I'll take the occasion to register my perennial complaint about the short-sighted awards process. In the Golden Globes (which are usually a bit better than the Oscars), of all the many nominations for 2007, you can find few films that were released more than six weeks ago. Even though the awards are supposed to be for all 2007 films, in practice nothing counts before November. (They did manage to remember Hairspray, La Vie En Rose, and Across the Universe. But as I said, the Globes are usually a bit better about this. Oscar's memory won't go back to last summer.) This, of course, is just a manifestation of our society's short attention span problem. But the unhappy result of this is that movie studios all trip over each other to release their best movies in December, giving us a glut of movies at Christmastime, right when most of us are up to our ears in Christmas shopping, Christmas parties, getting together with family, not to mention year-end job pressures, and have little time to see any movies. Then there are other times of year that are real "droughts" when it comes to finding a movie to see. The various awarding bodies could do us all a favor, as well as up the quality of their awards, by delaying their decision process until later in the year. Just as it's impossible to judge the historic importance of any event right after it's happened, you also need some perspective gained with the passing of time in order to judge a truly great film. Many movies are very enjoyable, and you may be excited about them the next day or week. But give it the perspective of half a year or so, and then see which films you truly remember. (That's how I know "Once" was such a stand-out film. But where are the awards for that?) So, want to have some serious Oscars? Move the nominations back to July and make the awards in September for the prior year. Then a reprise of the award winners could help fill that film drought that usually happens in October.

Nomination Mess

Since this year's primary races are much more competitive and interesting than any I can remember, I've been paying a bit more attention to the process than I ever have, and I'm starting to wonder whether there will be a clear winner, or whether the whole process is headed for a train-wreck. For starters, we've got Michigan on Tuesday, who is holding a primary which may or may not count for anything, and in which Hillary Clinton's only significant competition is "uncommitted". Michigan, along with Florida, got in a pissing match with the Democratic National Committee about which states were allowed to have early primaries. Officially, it's only supposed to be Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina. Michigan and Florida defied the national committee, and moved their primary dates up early anyway. The DNC announced that it was going to refuse to seat the delegations from those states (i.e., not count their votes). Obama and Edwards, deferring to the national committee, withdrew their names from the ballot. Clinton, however, did not, although she has pledged not to campaign in Michigan. Thus, it appears she is headed for a clear victory in Michigan, although there seems to be some grassroots efforts to encourage people to vote for "uncommitted", which is an option on the ballot. Uncommitted means that Michigan's delegates are free to make up their own mind on the spot at the convention. Also, Michigan has an open primary, so that frustrated Democrats can always cross over and vote the Republican primary. (And vice versa.) Of course, none of that will mean anything, if the DNC follows through on their threat and refuses to seat the Michigan delegates. But that's a big if. Many suspect that the DNC will buckle. If they do, that would give a bunch of not-really-earned votes to Clinton from a sizeable state. Then there's the "superdelegates". Only about 80% of the votes at the convention come from "pledged" delegates, who are pledged to vote according to their state election or caucus results. The other 20% come from "superdelegates", who comprise Democratic party leaders (e.g., Democratic governors, senators, and congressmembers). At least at the moment, the majority of those are breaking for Clinton. It seems to be a given among the beltway cognoscenti that Clinton is the choice of the Democratic party machine. Though given that the primary/caucus and convention process is supposed to be the decision-making process for the party, I'm not sure how the machine is supposed to have a "choice" in the primary process. But apparently they do. On the other hand, the superdelegates are "unpledged", which means that even though they may have given indications or promises as to how they will vote at the convention, they can ultimately change their minds at the convention. So it seems to me that if no single candidate has a lead greater than 20%, then we may not know until the convention in late August who the candidate is. That would be a first in my voting lifetime.

Looking Back on 2007 in Film

Looking back on 2007, it was a good year for us getting out to the movies (perhaps that was an unconscious resolution), as we saw nearly twenty films last year, more than double our average for previous years. One thing that stands out for 2007 is that it was the year of the musical. We had two new blockbuster musicals -- the rollicking film version of the Broadway musical Hairspray, which despite being an adaptation of an adaptation was fresh and rocked, and the very original new Disney musical Enchanted, which was totally enchanting. (We haven't yet seen Sweeney Todd, another Broadway musical brought to screen.) And 2007 also brought us a couple of movies that, while not musicals per se, were about making music and which featured music. Early in the year we had the cute but not particularly memorable Music and Lyrics (starring Hugh Grant and Drew Barrymore), which was the big studio take on the theme. It was totally, well, pwned, by the small indie hit of the summer, Once, which really showed how to do it right. It's been six months since we saw Once, but the music, the characters, the very fresh and real story are still vivid in my mind. It was truly one of the standout films of the year.

Since the Golden Globes are cancelled (and possibly the Oscars too), and since I'm in a look-back-on-the-year mood, I thought I'd make some of my own awards. Since it was the Year of the Musical, we'll start on that note and go from there:

• Most made me tap my feet and want to jump up and dance: Hairspray
• Most made me want to buy the soundtrack: Once (I also bought Hairspray, and may buy a few tunes from Enchanted and Juno)
• Most made me laugh out loud: Death At A Funeral, with Enchanted a close second, and honorable mention for Stardust and Outsourced.
• Most made me cry: Once, with The Namesake a close second.
• Most made me think: The Bubble
• Most entertaining story: Stardust, Enchanted, Juno
• Most made me want to hop on a plane: Outsourced
• Most visually beautiful film: After The Wedding (Susanne Bier is Bergmanesque in her filmmaking), Outsourced (a visual valentine to India, though not in the same league as Water), Love In The Time of Cholera (Mike Newell's filming of the decaying Spanish colonial splendor of Cartagena helped bring Garcia-Marquez's magical realism to the screen), Atonement (a classic English manor house, vivid wartime France scenes, and Sioarse Ronan's eyes)
• Strongest sensibility: After The Wedding (intensely psychological visual expressionism), Hairspray (Adam Shankman's kitschy Baltimore 1960 tone is pitch-perfect), Juno (quirky perky and totally coherent marriage of nostalgic values and hip young attitude), Atonement (Joe Wright makes us feel the space inside Briony's head)

In fairness, it should be noted that we didn't get to nearly every film we'd liked to have seen. Notable films we missed include La Vie En Rose, Lust/Caution, Lars and the Real Girl, Elizabeth: The Golden Age, and Into Great Silence. Films we may yet catch from the year-end rush-and-tumble of releases: The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, The Kite Runner, Sweeney Todd, The Golden Compass.

We look forward to see what 2008 brings.

New Years Resolutions

Even though, with one or two notable exceptions, I can't recall making New Years resolutions that have stuck, I nonetheless make resolutions every year. Hope springs eternal. If nothing else, it's a good excuse to pause on life's path, take stock of where you are, where you'd like to be, and what changes you'd like to make. That being said, here are my resolutions for 2008, most of which are retreads from last year(s).

1. Fit some volunteer work back into my life. This one should actually happen this year. Several years ago, I spent a couple hours each week in a great program called Wonder of Reading, that provides one-on-one tutoring for elementary school children. It was a great experience, but after my first year, my job situation changed, and I didn't continue. It's been in the back of my mind to get back to that for a while now, and at the end of last year, an email came across our Echo Park neighborhood mailing list that the local branch of the LA Public Library was looking for tutors for their adult literacy program. I thought, that's my cue. So I responded, spent a Saturday before Christmas taking their training, and now am just waiting to be matched up with a student. I'm looking forward to it. I like the idea of making a meaningful contribution to my local community, in a form where I can be effective with just a few hours a week.


2. Sit up straight. This one's been nearly a lifelong struggle. I have a great personal trainer who helps me out, but I need to do more on my own. It's a constant struggle against what I call "computer back". Somehow the screen has a magnetism that draws my head forward inexorably until I'm totally hunched over. I must learn to resist. I think this cartoon pretty much says it all:


3. Exercise. This one dovetails with the previous. I'm been going for walks nearly daily, but I some days I let myself get too absorbed in work. I need to be more dedicated about getting out at least once and preferably twice a day. (In addition to the exercise, it's good to break up the day from sitting too long at a stretch in front of the screen.) And daily ab exercises and stretching would be awesome. I can dream, can't I? (Yes, I can dream. But can I actually exercise daily? Let's see…)


4. Entertain a bit more. Last year, we had friends over for dinner once in a while, but not very often. And it's been over a year since we've had a party at our place. It's not hard to have one or two friends over for a weeknight dinner, a couple times a month. And we should have a few barbecues or something this summer.

In sum, not much new from last year, except that I've written them down. (Oops. I just looked at my blog history, and I see that I did publish my resolutions two years ago. They included exercise and entertaining. Sigh...

FILM: Juno

George and I saw Juno this evening after several friends had recommended it. What a fun charming quirky jaunty movie! It had such an amazing sensibility to it, a combination of teen-outcast-rebel attitude and genuine innocence embodied in the character of Juno, a teenage girl who's both wise-cracking and wise beyond her years (sometimes). Imagine how Claire Fisher (the sarcastic and perenially pessimistic teen daughter on Six Feet Under) might have turned out if she had a sunnier disposition and grew up in a functional family, and that's Juno. I was a bit surprised to see that the writer (Diablo Cody) and director (Jason Reitman) of this film were not the same person, because it is infused with such a consistent sensibility and vision carrying through the witty contemporary teen dialog, the realization of the characters, the soundtrack, everything. This is a film about a pregnant high-school teen, and this core disfunctionality is surrounded by other peripheral disfunctionality (divorced parents, couples breaking up), and yet it is somehow firmly grounded in functionality, and a nostalgic innocence reminiscent of The Wonder Years. Juno messed up getting knocked up, but she's basically got her head on straight and her feet firmly on the ground, and she ends up doing the right thing in her own unconventional way. Part of the alchemy of the film was its sense of timelessness -- it was obviously contemporary in its language, music, and costume, and yet there was something about the neighborhood and the families that had a bygone "Wonder Years" feel to it (subtly reinforced with occasional pieces of kitsch -- like the football team in training running through various scenes, or the hamburger phone. I mean really, who has a hamburger phone?).

Actress Ellen Page gives Juno a winningly persuasive performance of a teenager who thinks she knows it all at the same time as she knows that she doesn't. (Much as I loved Amy Adams in Enchanted and Nikki Blonsky in Hairspray, I think Ellen Page has my vote for best actress in a comedy/musical.) Michael Cera more or less reprises his character from SuperBad, although he's gone to the Hugh Grant school of acting, so he's a bit more deer-in-the-headlights stammering, kinda dorky, but kinda cute and vulnerable. It works for Hugh Grant though, and here it works well for Michael Cera's American teenage version of it. Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner are both strong as the apparently-perfect yuppie couple, her determined but apprehensive about becoming a mother, and him stifled in his dreams of being a music star instead of composing jingles for TV commercials. J.K. Simmons and Allison Janney give life and fun as Juno's father and step-mother.

It was interesting seeing this film after seeing Atonement. Both of them are very subjective films, although with Atonement the subjectivity is an integral part of the plot, while with Juno it's an integral part of the sensibility. Juno's views of her parents and her peers makes you laugh, but it has an underlying sophistication that sneaks up on you. It wasn't until late in the film that it really dawned on me how much we'd been seeing the other characters as colored by Juno's perceptions. That comes into focus late in the film when she has a loss-of-innocence moment, forcing her to find her way back to her core values (or forward to her self-discovery). The film has funny moments, poignant moments, and is ultimately reaffirming that even amidst the crazy disfunctionality of contemporary social life we can still hold on to the values we grew up with, but in our own way.

Obama! Our Time Is Now

If I may indulge in some "l33t speak", in reax to Obama's clear victory and Hillary's third place finish in Iowa tonight, let me just say: w00t! Obama pwned her. (I had never heard of "w00t" until the other week when it was named the "word of the year" by Merriam-Webster. Since then, my 14-year-old godson has been filling me in.) But back to plain English… I am thrilled that Americans in the heartland seem to be as tired of the old politics as I am. Between Obama's 38% and Edwards' 30% (plus a few scraps for Richards and Biden), Iowa Dems rejected the "foregone conclusion" by over 70%. And over on the "red" side, though Huckabee triumphed, independent-minded GOP'ers accounted for 23% (McCain 13% and Ron Paul 10%). Note that that's 23% of GOP voters who would be quite likely to go for Obama over Huckabee if it came to that in November. Aside from the puerile and baseless Muslim smears, Republicans really have little to say against Obama. His negatives are the lowest of any in the blue field. But more importantly, Obama stands for a way forward, or upward, as the name of my blog suggests is the way beyond the stale left vs. right false dichotomy. I don't necessarily agree with every policy proposal of his, but I absolutely believe in what he stands for. Here is a man who will tell us straight what we need to hear, not what he thinks we want to hear. Here is a man who's not afraid to say that Social Security is broken, and who can face the teacher's union and talk about merit pay. Here is a man who is not afraid to work "across the aisle" to get things done that he believes in. Here is a man who just might be able to restore America's damaged credibility in the eyes of the world. Here is a man with a healthy measure both of idealism and pragmatism, who can inspire and who just might get some things done. This may be the first time in my life that I vote for a presidential candidate out of affirmation, rather than picking the lesser of two evils. That click you just heard was the sound of me sending a donation to the Obama campaign (also a first for me). Here is the face of hope:

(Obama's speech in Des Moines, December 27. Text here.)

FILM: Atonement

On New Years Day, we met some friends and caught Atonement, which was highly heralded by a sweep of Golden Globe nominations. I think the film almost completely lived up to my heightened expectations. There were some great performances from Keira Knightley and James McAvoy in the lead romantic roles, and a knock-out performance by 13-year-old actress Saoirse Ronan, who plays Briony Tallis, the young girl who sees something she doesn't understand, and sets events in motion that change the other characters' lives irrevocably. She has the most intense eyes, which director Joe Wright took great advantage of. Wonderful performances too from all of the other actors, including Romola Garai as 18-year old Briony, and Vanessa Redgrave as the older Briony.

The story, taken from the book of the same name by Ian McEwan (I haven't read it, but heard it's great), is a novel and intriguing story, both in its plot and in the creative way that it is unfolded. I'm not sure how it went in the book, but Christopher Hampton's screen adaptation does some wonderfully clever plays on subjectivity and viewpoint, showing us a scene through one character's eyes, and then revisiting, Rashomon style, the same scene through another character's eyes. Sometimes it is signaled by a visual link, such as a dropped earring, while other times it is intentionally unmarked, so that you only realize partway through that the timeline has folded on itself. The scenery is as lush as you would expect for an epic of this scale, with the first part of the movie shot on a sumptuous Victorian manor estate (actually, an old pile semi-restored from harder times that this film is probably helping to save), and the latter part with vivid depictions of Normandie, London, and Dover during World War II. Many of the images are the sort of beauty that stay in mind long after the film: close-ups on Saiorse Ronan's face and eyes, soldiers walking through a French apple orchard and later finding the beach, both Keira Knightley and James McAvoy diving into the water at various times. The music by Dario Marianelli is pitch-perfect for the tone of the film, and brilliantly incorporates the sound of an old Corona typewriter throughout (as well as piano performances by the masterful impressionist interpreter Jean-Yves Thibaudet). And there's a very effective use of utter silence as "score" in Vanessa Redgrave's scene as the older Briony, where the absence of music and sound creates an intense vacuum, signifying the emotional weight of Briony's guilt. (The technique is unusual, but can be used to great effect -- Bob Fosse's All That Jazz comes to mind.)

One thing I didn't expect, and that ever-so-slightly disappointed me, was that I found the film a bit cold and detached. Everyone was talking about having tissue handy, and I cry at the slightest provocation, yet this film did not make me cry. (Okay, my eyes moistened a few times, but the tears never flowed.) In retrospect, I think the fault was mine rather than the film's, in that I was just expecting it to be something other than it was. The romance between Cecilia (Knightley) and Robbie (McAvoy) was never really explained, but then that wasn't really the point. It wasn't about them, so much as it was about Briony. The title of the film is not "Love In Wartime", it's "Atonement", and that should have been a big clue to me. That's not to say that there aren't some very poignant scenes of the lovers, separated by events including the war. But the director made a choice not to cue up the violins and make any gushy scenes, instead keeping a taut psychological tone throughout, building the pressure for the ultimate need for atonement. Appreciated for what it was meant to be, rather than what I expected, it was a brilliant film.

Mitch Henson, Radical Christian

Just a couple days after Christmas, we received the news that Mitch Henson, our beloved pastor at Glendale City SDA Church, passed away following complications from a surgery. It wasn't supposed to be this way. This past year, he had been battling brain cancer, but he was getting excellent care, and he was winning that battle. The surgery was unrelated to his cancer, and the fatal complications so unexpected. Our whole church family is greatly saddened by his untimely passing, and Mitch's wife, children and grandchildren remain in our prayers.

One of my earliest recollections of Mitch's sermons was one where he was preaching about the acceptance of all. I'm paraphrasing, but I remember it something like this:

All are welcome in this church, all are accepted. We have no guards at the door, checking for moral worthiness. All are welcome. It's not "all except those who are divorced, except those who are single parents, except those of a different faith, or a different orientation, except those who have deviated in any way from moral codes and social customs". Have I left anybody out? Have I left anybody in? Here, it's not "all except". It's "all". All are welcome here. Which part of "all" don't you understand?

That sermon was about seven years ago, but I still remember those words because it felt like Mitch was talking directly to me. I was a newcomer to the church, a non-Christian with little knowledge of Adventism, attending only because my fiancé regularly attended and brought me along. So I initially came in feeling like a total outsider, but I was warmly welcomed by the congregation. And when Mitch preached his sermon, his message spoke right to me, reassuring me that there were no "outsiders" at Glendale City Church.

It's a simple message, but it's a radical one, and it was one of Mitch's fundamental themes. He saw judgmentalism as one of the greatest and most devious of temptations, and he found in the gospels a radical rejection of judgmentalism. As Mitch once observed, Christ was radical in his day, and because of his radical message of acceptance of all, he was not allowed to speak in the temple, he could only teach outside of it. Christ ministered to the lepers, the tax-collectors, the prostitutes and the outcasts, rather than the scribes and Pharisees. In following Christ's example of radical acceptance and anti-judgmentalism, Mitch found his calling, and in his 23 years of ministry at Glendale, he made the City Church a haven for those who felt unwelcome in other places. Under his leadership, City Church has a remarkable following. We have people who regularly drive over 70 miles to attend our church, and we have members all over the country who have chosen to make Glendale their "home" church, because they have felt ostracized (or been actually "disfellowshipped") from their local church. The spirit of compassion and inclusiveness is pervasive in City Church's membership, but it has been Mitch's courageous leadership that has set the tone, and made City Church a shining beacon of Christian compassion, and a spiritual liferaft for the outcasts of more judgmental churches.

Mitch undertook many special ministries, but the one that has touched me most directly is his ministry to gay people. I think Mitch recognized gay people as the contemporary equivalent of lepers in the gospels, unjustly despised and outcast as unclean, and worthy of compassion and acceptance. City Church is not a "gay church", but it has a healthy gay attendance (about 5-10% of the congregation, representative of the general population) because it's one of the few churches where gay people are not treated like lepers. The very first time I met Mitch, it was at a picnic for SDA Kinship, a support group for gay Adventists, and he was there to show his support. George (my fiancé) introduced me to Mitch, and we told him that we were planning a wedding ceremony, and asked him if he would be willing to take some part in it. We didn't ask him to officiate the ceremony, as we knew this could place him in professional jeopardy with the conference, but we invited him to do a Bible reading, or whatever part he felt comfortable doing. Taking any part at all was risky for him, but he readily agreed. We gave him a copy of our ceremony, with a place indicated for a New Testament reading, and asked him to pick whatever scripture he felt was appropriate. We didn't know what he would say, but when the day came, and it was his turn to do his reading, in his own characteristic style, he not only gave us a reading (Matthew 18:18-20) but spun it into a whole homily, personal comments, and a blessing. It was a wonderful gift to us, and a very courageous thing for him to do, given the denomination's official position on gay marriage. But he was being true to his calling, doing what he thought was the Christian thing to do, knowing that someday years in the future the official denomination will catch up. (Mitch was years ahead of the Adventist mayor of Philadelphia, for instance.)

Mitch performed many courageous ministries and righteous deeds, but he often did them quietly, sometimes partly out of professional prudence, but more out of his inherent humility. He was never one to trumpet his good deeds, to brandish his righteousness, or to think he was better than anyone else. His personal style of preaching, wandering around the dais, just talking extemporaneously from a few notes, points illustrated with homespun stories from his own family and life experiences, in his disarming North Carolina drawl, had a way of putting everyone at ease even while giving us something to think about. He delivered his sermons just like a regular guy talking to his peers. His informality of tone and off-the-cuff delivery often belied the depth of thought that went into his preparations. We'll always remember his excitement at discovering new insights in old passages ("stay with me now", "fasten your seatbelts", he'd say). He always spoke to his congregation genuinely, humbly, and personally.

Among so many others, my life has been touched by Pastor Mitch. I will always remember him for his compassion, his courage, and his humble righteousness. He was truly a radical Christian.

What's He Destroying Now?

When I heard the news this morning that there was a fire in the Vice-President's office, my immediate reaction was "Good lord, what is he destroying now?" In other news this morning, the CIA agreed to cooperate with a Congressional inquiry and hand over documents concerning the destruction of torture videotapes. I wonder if the documents in question were in the Veep's office...

(AFP Photo snarfed from Yahoo! News)

Commuting with the Dalai Lama

Since I got an iPod for my birthday earlier this year, my commute to work (about 40-60 minutes each way) has become much more enjoyable. I have a bunch of regular podcasts I enjoy (including Good Food, This American Life, Left Right and Center, Dan Savage). I've "read" a number of books from audible.com. I've been getting my dose of classic lit with The Classic Tales podcast (a free weekly download). And now, I've just started to sample from Apple's new offering iTunesU, which syndicates audio content from colleges and universities across the country. I spent the last couple of days listening to the Dalai Lama and Cornel West, courtesy of Stanford's Aurora Forum. I'd read both of them before, but you get such a different sense of the person from hearing their actual voices and their own more spontaneous words. The Dalai Lama took a bit of concentration, because he spoke some in English and some Tibetan through a translator, his accent was thick, and sometimes I wasn't sure when he switched gears. But it was worth the concentration to hear the words of this amazing man. He is much more down-to-earth and pragmatic than you might expect, and he laughs and jokes often. He is compassionate and politic in a way that is so foreign to the American temperament. A number of questions were put to him where he was encouraged to take a position, American-style, in such a way that the questioner hoped to be able to go off and say "I'm right about X, and the Dalai Lama says so." Instead, His Holiness' answers were always Solomonic, expressing his thoughts clearly, but with a lot of appreciation for context and the complexity of life, and not giving anyone any ammunition for an argument.

I've only just started Cornel West, but his voice is different than I had imagined. He speaks pretty softly and kind of raspy. I was a bit surprised at first by his cadence, which is somewhere between preacher, rapster, and poetry performance (think City Lights), but reflecting on some of his writings (his appreciation of jazz), it seems in character. It really makes the commute go by more enjoyably having such intriguing company in the car.

Fisking the Pope on Families

On Tuesday, the Pope published a message on "The Human Family, A Community of Peace". The politicized takeaway of some was that "Pope says abortion, gay marriage are 'obstacles' to world peace". (Andrew Sullivan frets that the Pope blames gay married couples for world war.) It's true enough that the Pope did say something that pretty clearly implies that, and I won't dispute that Benedict would intend that implication. The exasperating thing is that he's so close to being right about everything he says in his message. He just can't seem to see that gay families are valuable families for nearly all the same reasons straight families are. Let's look at the Pope's message:

Indeed, in a healthy family life we experience some of the fundamental elements of peace: justice and love between brothers and sisters, the role of authority expressed by parents, loving concern for the members who are weaker because of youth, sickness or old age, mutual help in the necessities of life, readiness to accept others and, if necessary, to forgive them. For this reason, the family is the first and indispensable teacher of peace. ... The family is the foundation of society for this reason too: because it enables its members in decisive ways to experience peace.

Do gay spouses not love one another, care for one another, accept and forgive one another, just as straight spouses do? Do gay parents not love and teach their children as straight parents do? Do gay people not care for their family members in sickness or old age, just as straight people do? Indeed, every virtuous element of families that the Pope has enumerated here applies equally to gay families as to straight ones. (It may be said to apply somewhat less to childless families than to childful ones, but despite common confusion to the contrary, that is not a gay/straight issue.)

Consequently, whoever, even unknowingly, circumvents the institution of the family undermines peace in the entire community, national and international, since he weakens what is in effect the primary agency of peace. This point merits special reflection: everything that serves to weaken the family based on the marriage of a man and a woman, everything that directly or indirectly stands in the way of its openness to the responsible acceptance of a new life, everything that obstructs its right to be primarily responsible for the education of its children, constitutes an objective obstacle on the road to peace.

Except for the over-specification of marriage as to a man and a woman, I can agree with all of this. As discussed above, gay families are as relevant as straight families in serving to exemplify and reinforce the fundamental elements of peace. Given that, following the Pope's logic then entails that anything that undermines the institution of the family (including gay families) undermines peace in the world. In other words, if the Pope would properly recognize gay families as valuable families, he would have said: "This point merits special reflection: everything that serves to weaken the family based on the marriage of two loving people (such as not giving all marriages their just legal recognition and societal support), everything that directly or indirectly stands in the way of its openness to the responsible acceptance of a new life (such as banning adoptions and foster care by gay parents), everything that obstructs its right to be primarily responsible for the education of its children (ditto the previous), constitutes an objective obstacle on the road to peace." Sure, I know what the Pope has in mind by "openness to the responsible acceptance of a new life", but the words he has chosen here captured the essential part of it. Who could possibly be more open to the responsible acceptance of a new life than gay parents who must make a monumentally intentional effort just to become parents?

The social community, if it is to live in peace, is also called to draw inspiration from the values on which the family community is based.

Indeed. Some of the most inspirational examples are those who hold to the traditional marital values of lifelong loving commitment, not when it is easy, supported, and encouraged, but when it is hard, when it is discountenanced by society and by government, when our partners are sick and dying of disease without a cure. You want inspiration for values? Try Curtis Watson, rather than Britney Spears. The Pope is right about the crucial importance of the family to the larger community. Which is precisely why it is wicked to not be supporting all of us who wish to create and sustain families.

Knowledge of the natural moral norm is not inaccessible to those who, in reflecting on themselves and their destiny, strive to understand the inner logic of the deepest inclinations present in their being. Albeit not without hesitation and doubt, they are capable of discovering, at least in its essential lines, this common moral law which, over and above cultural differences, enables human beings to come to a common understanding regarding the most important aspects of good and evil, justice and injustice. It is essential to go back to this fundamental law, committing our finest intellectual energies to this quest, and not letting ourselves be discouraged by mistakes and misunderstandings.

That's nearly perfect, but there's one crucial omission, which may tell the Pope's blind spot. I believe knowledge of the natural norm is inaccessible to those who reflect only on themselves. It is simply not possible to discern the essential vs the contingent, the common vs the distinct, without reflecting on all of nature and the glorious variety of the Creation. Without striving to understand the deepest inclinations present in other beings, one may mistake deep inclinations distinctly present in one's own being for the deepest ones common to our nature. Those of us who have experienced "coming out" can tell a thing or two about coming to understand "the inner logic of the deepest inclinations present in our being". We were not discouraged (or only temporarily so) by our prior misunderstandings of who we are. We -- out of necessity -- committed our finest intellectual energies to the quest of discovering the essential parts of the values we were raised with, the most important aspects of good and evil, justice and injustice. Our initial image of the good life, based on mistaking our parents' contingency for our essence, once shattered, forced us to reimagine a good life for us as God created us. And for many of us, this quest has lead us back to marriage, discarding the contingent part not found in our deepest inclinations (the man and woman part), and keeping the essential part, the lifelong loving commitment of two people. From my own quest, I am absolutely certain that gay marriages (like my own) and gay families embody all of the goodness that the Pope rightly sees in families, for they are families, just like any other in the essential aspects. And undermining them is indeed an obstacle on the road to peace.

FILM: Enchanted

I have to say that we were utterly enchanted by Enchanted. In recent years, Disney has been aiming their films more at everyone in the family, keeping it for kids, but with some lines thrown in with a wink and a nod to the adults. In this latest film, they've really brought ought their A-game on that concept, creating an absolutely magical film that is layered in its sophistication, an earnest sweet story that engages the kid in all of us, while worldly adult themes are woven in. Unlike previous films, it's not just an occasional wink to the adults, but there's a whole part of the story that's almost a coming-of-age story, except that it's not about kids growing up (directly), it's about innocent Disney cartoon characters crashing into real world New York City, and gently learning the difference between the cartoon world and the real one. So while the kids are watching the story about the good princess and prince evading the poison apples of the evil sorceress queen and her henchman, the adults are watching an engaging romantic comedy that happens to feature some ripped-from-cartoon characters, and seeing that both the cartoon characters and the "real" ones have something to learn from one another. Along the way, the adventures of an innocent princess and prince in the "big city" are quite amusing, and the semi-earnest, semi-self-parody all-Disney musical numbers are laugh-out-loud funny. I was laughing and grinning ear-to-ear during the Central Park extravaganza, and I split a gut with the apartment cleaning number. The film is very well cast. Amy Adams is pitch-perfect as Giselle, the indomitably optimistic would-be princess who sees the good in everyone, and Patrick Dempsey is perfect as the big-city romance-attracting but commitment-repelling emotionally complicated man (skills he's honed to a fine art on Grey's Anatomy). James Marsden is excellent as the gallant but simple Prince Edward, with his classic good looks, pure resonant tenor, and good physical comic talent. Susan Sarandon is a wonderfully wicked queen, Timothy Spall is amusing as her half-hearted henchman, Idina Menzel does a nice turn as Patrick Dempsey's fiancee (a comic and non-singing role must have been fun change for this Wicked diva), and Rachel Covey charms as Patrick Dempsey's daughter. Bill Kelly's script and Kevin Lima's direction work together flawlessly to balance sincerity and parody, reverence and playfulness. If you have a kid, or if you've ever been a kid, you should go see this clever, witty, funny, sweet story. Truly Disney at their best.


(A footnote on James Marsden: He must have shaved a dozen times a day making this film to be so Disney-princely-smooth! I have to say, I'm quite impressed with his versatility as an actor, from X-Men to Heights, The Notebook to Hairspray, 24 Days to Enchanted, he's really explored a broad range of roles. And it doesn't hurt that he's gorgeous and adorable. Which certainly made him pack an extra charge as a Disney prince come-to-life. For me, and I suspect for a great many gay men, the Disney prince is a powerful archetype. As a child, years before I knew I was gay or understood anything about that, as I watched Disney movies, on some deep subconscious level, I desperately wanted my prince to come someday. A Disney prince is a symbol that resonates deep, so to see one come to life, even in a parodical way, connected with some deep feelings. I would so wake up if James Marsden kissed me!)

Today Republican No More, Tomorrow Parties No More?

I've been a registered Republican for 27 years, ever since I first registered to vote in the 1980 presidential election. My initial decision was entirely tactical: I wanted to vote for John Anderson against Ronald Reagan in the Republican primary. Ever since then, it's largely been inertia that's kept me in the GOP, as I lacked any strong feeling of affiliation with either party, and with the closed primary system that had been effect in California until a decade ago, it seemed a form of self-disenfranchisement to not affiliate with one of the major parties. Now, however, with California's "modified closed primary", it seems reasonable to become unaffiliated with any party, as I can vote in the partisan primary of my choice (if the party allows). With that proviso, I can agree with KipEsquire that registering independent is an appropriate way to take a stand against the two party system.

As indicated in Kip's post, the open/closed primary issue is a bit of a mess. Here in California, we voters passed an initiative to have an "open primary" in 1996. That meant that voters could vote for any candidate in any party in the primary, regardless of their affiliation. In other words, if you're a Democrat, but the Democratic primary is not very competitive one year, you were welcome to vote in the Republican primary instead. Unfortunately, the US Supreme Court shot that down a few years later, holding that it violated the parties' freedom of association to be forced to allow non-members to vote in their primaries. In other states, however, closed primary systems, where only partisan-registered voters can vote in their party's primary, have also been shot down on association grounds. In particular, in Connecticut, the GOP wanted to allow independents to vote in their primary, but the state's closed primary system prevented that, and again the court held that the party's right of association was being violated. California currently has a "modified closed primary", in which each party gets to choose whether it will allow unaffiliated voters to vote their ballot. (Unlike the open primary, though, cross-over voting is still prohibited. The "modified closed primary" is only potentially a good deal for independents.) In the 2004 and 2006 elections, both the Dems and the GOP allowed independents to vote in their primaries. However, I just noticed that the filing deadline has passed for the upcoming presidential primary, and the GOP chose not to renew their invitation to independents. So it looks like only the Dems (and the American Independent party, in case anyone cares) will be open to California independents in February. I'm curious whether that was an intentional decision by the GOP, or they just missed the filing deadline. (The option needs to be explicity renewed for each election, 135 days in advance.) The Ron Paul forums are on top of this, but I didn't see any statement from the GOP. Plausible speculation is that party HQ is afraid if they let the independents vote the GOP ballot, too many of those votes would go to Ron Paul.

Personally, I liked the "open" or "blanket" primary that we had for a couple of election cycles, mostly because it was subversive of the two-party system. Constitutionally, I understand the freedom-of-association problem that the parties have with the open primary (as well as the strict closed one), and can even imagine a similar argument being made against the modified closed primary (i.e., what if a party wanted to allow its ballot to be offered to anyone, even if they were registered in a different party?). I think the fundamental problem is that if the parties are truly private associations, then why are public funds being spent to conduct "their" primary elections? Official elections are expensive affairs. If people want to form private associations to promote candidates, that's great, but why should taxpayers bear the cost of these associations conducting their private business of deciding who they want to promote? I say the constitutional solution to primary elections is to drop them altogether as a government-sponsored event. Or better yet, keep primaries as a chance to winnow the field, but keep it completely independent of the parties.

So, tomorrow I'll drop my registration in the mail officially declaring my independence from the party system. And look forward to the decreasing relevance of the D and R tags.

The Mormon Thing

There's been a bunch of buzz lately around Mitt Romney and whether America is ready to accept a Mormon for President, forcing him to do his version of John F. Kennedy's "I don’t take orders from the Pope" speech. Personally, I'm a bit bemused by the whole fuss. Sure, the Mormons have some official beliefs that look a little crazy to those of us on the outside, like some guy in the 1820s finding golden tablets hidden in upstate New York, magic glasses enabling him to read the ancient language, and so on. But if we were anthropologists looking in on western culture, rather than being so embedded in it as we are, would those beliefs seem much more crazy than a virgin birth, the parting of the Red Sea, a guy being swallowed alive by a large fish for several days, and many other things that most of us Americans don't blanch at? I can't really think of any good reason that one set of miraculous narratives should be more crazy than another. The only objective difference is distance in time and space, and some unexpressed but commonly held notion that supernatural events that happened on another continent a couple thousand years ago are somehow easier to accept than supernatural events that happened in this country just a couple centuries ago. As if the laws of nature may be more wobbly in ancient Israel or Egypt, but they're hard and fast in New York and Pennsylvania. It sounds a little irrational when it's put so starkly, because, well, it is irrational. But I think that's what most Americans really feel in their gut. So as far as that goes, I think it's unfair to beat Romney up with urim and thummim.

As to the question whether it's fair to judge a candidate by his religion, I think it depends on the candidate and it depends on the religion. I think it's certainly fair to want to understand how a candidate's religion influences his policy views and his character. It would be a mistake to say that religion is completely off the table. While the Constitution prohibits any "religious test" for public office, I think the Constitution implies a "theocracy test" for weeding out inappropriate candidates. Anyone whose policy views include establishing their religion with the force of government, enacting laws to enforce their religious values, or selecting judges based on their religious views, that candidate should be soundly rejected. So I want to understand that a candidate, even if personally religious, which is fine, has a healthy understanding of the proper role of religion in American government. (See JFK speech if a refresher is needed.)

As I said, it also depends on the religion. I should be up front about my own prejudices here: I would be a priori bothered by a candidate from some weird cult religion. If Romney were a Jehovah's Witness, a Christian Scientist, or a Scientologist, that would strongly put me off. And Romney's problem is probably that many Americans think of Mormonism as in the same bucket with the Witnesses, the Scientologists, and other cults. But I certainly don't. I've known enough Mormons to get a sense of what sort of people they are. And so far as one can generalize about such things, my experience is that Mormons are very decent people. I admit I find some of their beliefs wacky, but their values -- honesty, hard work, helpfulness to others, love of family -- are solid and upstanding. And I guess what impresses me most positively or negatively about religions are their cultural manifestations, the sort of people they produce. And if a belief in magic spectacles and golden tablets gets people to be honest, helpful and decent, well then, I won't quibble about the spectacles. To use one of those completely far-fetched hypotheticals to illustrate my feeling: if I had children, and if I were being suddenly taken away somewhere for a long time, and I had to leave my children in the care of one of four neighbors -- a Mormon family, a JW family, a Christian Science family, or a Scientologist family -- I would pick the Mormon family in a heartbeat, and I would feel pretty comfortable about it.

So I would certainly not be deterred from voting for a presidential candidate just because he is a Mormon. In fact, since I hold the prejudice that Mormons are generally decent people, Romney's religion is a net positive influence on me. Romney's problem, for me, is his transformation during this campaign into a man with no apparent willingness to hold to any principles and a complete willingness to pander. In my case, it's fair to say that Romney has lost my vote despite his being a Mormon.

Maccabees Of This Year

As I have been lighting the Hanukkah candles this year, thinking about the Maccabees fighting to defend their faith and freedom, and about the miracle of the oil, which to me is a symbol for enduring spirit in the face of opposition and oppression, I cannot help but think about the Buddhist monks in Burma, and the other Burmese people who have risen up with them in protest of the Myanmar regime. (And I'll agree with President Bush to call that nation Burma, and not Myanmar, in pointed disrecognition of the illegitimate junta.) It has been amazing this year to see those brave people march in protest, get suppressed, beaten, and disappeared, only to have more rise up and protest some more. As we remember G-d who made miracles for our fathers in their years in this season, let us also think of those who are the Maccabees in this year, and pray for them to be rewarded with justice.

Star-Sighting Trifecta

George's mother has been visiting us for the holiday, so we've been showing her around town. This afternoon / evening, we took her to The Grove, a beautifully done shopping center in the Fairfax district that is especially decked out at Christmas time, with a gigantic live tree, Santa's sleigh and reindeer flying across the central court, and occasional flurries of snow generated when the dancing fountain plays "Let It Snow". It's also one of the best places we've found for star-sightings, and this evening we scored a trifecta. First, we saw "All My Children" soap star Cameron Mathison out with his "Dancing With The Stars" partner Edyta Sliwinska. The "Dancing With The Stars" finale was being filmed nearby, and they were out for some drinks after the show. Then we saw one of "The Bachelor" guys from a few seasons ago. We haven't followed that show closely enough to know whether the girl he was with was the one he chose. And then to wrap it up, we saw Paris Hilton come striding in, with a small flurry of camera flashes to greet her arrival. Gave George's Mom a great impression.

FOOD: 15

Last night, we finally had an occasion to try out the new restaurant right in our neighborhood, simply called "15" (apparently a lucky number for the owners). The place used to be a pupuseria, and we enjoyed the food there, but it was definitely a dive, with uncomfortable plastic picnic-bench-style tables and a couple of video games for ambience. When the pupuseria closed, we wondered what would become of the space, and after a while, we noticed that it had been spruced up, given a nice paint job, and a few simple but nice accents put on the building. When we stepped inside, well, wow, this is so not the pupuseria anymore. The interior space is simple, but elegant, with red teak tables, comfortable black chairs, hardwood floors, and a classic bar along the back. As we perused the menu, I was quite impressed with the sophistication of the choices. There is some simpler family fare here, like mac and cheese, and burgers (though kobe beef with Maytag blue cheese, mind you, or portabello mushroom). But there was also quail stuffed with pears, salmon on a white bean puree, pork loin on turnip mash, and more. The meal that ensued lived up to the promise of the menu, in quality of ingredients (lots of fresh local produce here), skill of preparation, and class of service.

The proceedings started with a small thing that impressed me greatly. I asked about their whisky offerings, of which they had five or six, the usual popular choices, including Macallan and the Glenlivet single malts. When I asked for a glass of Macallan, our server asked if I wanted it neat, which I affirmed. I then overhead him discussing with the barman how a single malt is properly taken neat, and shouldn't be marred by ice. That’s absolutely correct, and yet so many places assume that you'll be wanting ice in your scotch. And then, as if I weren't already impressed enough, he brings with the glass of whisky a small pitcher of water, as he said, "for manners". True whisky connoisseurs know that just a little splash of water can improve the drink, not to water it down, but just enough to open up the oils. None of this was pretentiously done, it was just a simple touch, yet in my mind, this put them a notch above even the venerable Dining Room at the Huntington Ritz as far as knowing their whisky.

Both George and I were drawn to a roasted beet salad for our starter, a lovely plate of arrugula lightly dressed, with pieces of red and gold beets, topped with toasted goat cheese. The beets were delicately seasoned with a touch of citrus (ponzu?), something I'd never heard of before, but it worked perfectly. The goat cheese was coated in panko crumbs, and toasted, so it had a bit of crunch on the outside, but was very soft on the inside. (The panko didn't work for George's gluten allergy, but they were able to redo the salad for him with feta cheese.)

For mains, I went for the quail, which was absolutely delicious. The bird was perfectly cooked, with a nice crisp on the skin, moist meat, and the mild game flavor nicely complimented by the pear stuffing. The quail was partly filleted, "airline" cut, giving the nice presentation of a nearly-whole bird (as is customary with smaller game birds), but with surprisingly few bones to fuss with. (A truly whole game bird can require surgical dexterity with knife and fork.) It was served with a lovely smattering of lightly sauteed fresh vegetables, including baby asparagus, green and yellow summer squash, and brussels sprouts. George seemed similarly pleased with his pan-grilled salmon on white bean puree (which was but one of many gluten-free options he had to choose from).

We didn't get a chance to stay for dessert, as we were heading off to the theatre, but we definitely look forward to returning to 15 again. It has a comfortable neighborhood feel: we saw other neighbors in there, and we saw other diners recognizing other people who came in, giving it that very neighborhood feel (enhanced by being a single space, where most tables are in view of most other tables). The service was professional and classy without being at all stiff or pretentious. And the prices on the menu were very reasonable, especially for the quality being served. (Many entrees were $12-16, and we had a two-course meal for two with drinks for $60.) We're delighted to see a place like this come into Echo Park, and doing well. (15 is found at 1320 Echo Park Ave., just a half block north of Sunset.)

Moral Capital

I was sorry to read that the Senate went ahead and confirmed a man for Attorney General who equivocates on whether torture is legal. That should be unequivocal, and it's a sorry state of affairs when people find that the least bit acceptable. The Democrats tried to take a stand on this point, but six of them (including one of mine -- shame on you, Senator Feinstein) joined with 47 Republicans in voting to confirm Mukasey. Alas, of the 40 Democrats who voted against confirmation, none of them felt strongly enough to raise a filibuster (which would have done it in, as the approval margin was nowhere near filibuster-proof).

At the start of President Bush's current term, he used to talk about all the "political capital" that he had. It's too bad that his administration wasn't more concerned with the moral capital that the United States used to have, before Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, before our Constitution was dismantled at the altar of the omnipotent war powers of the President to fight the nebulous and unending "war on terror", before we became a country that endorsed and practiced torture. One might say that our current administration lacks a decent respect for the opinions of mankind. While Bush 43 proudly wields a reckless cowboy attitude about the rest of the world, I'm sure Bush 41 could tell his son a thing or two about the value of moral capital. In the First Gulf War, when we first started crossing the border into Iraq, hordes of Iraqi soldiers were willing to drop their arms and surrender to the Americans, confident in the knowledge that the Americans would treat them decently. That was when we had a well-earned reputation in the world for being the good guys. That was before Bush 43 (ill-advised by Cheney and his cabal) saw fit to throw our reputation away, to tarnish the shining city on the hill. Now our enemies won't be so willing to surrender, if the treatment they can expect from us is to be disappeared to Guantanamo, sleep-deprived and waterboarded.

Glad to see the Senate is doing their patriotic duty to restore the lost moral capital of our great nation. Senators, you're doing a heckuva job. Too bad you couldn't have brought this vote in time for Guy Fawkes Day.