45

Ok, I’m up now. Almost 1:30 p.m., and I’m up and about. It is not the first, or second or even third time I have been up today, but this time I’m staying up. Sleep has been a dubious luxury of late… my time has been stretched to the limit, but for now I am caught up. There is more coming - there’s always more coming, but for now I can take a little breather. Maybe I can get my equilibrium back. Perhaps tonight I can get to bed at a reasonable hour and sleep all the way through the night.

It’s a rainy, gloomy and wet December day in Sacramento. I have only two essays, a take home final, a photography portfolio and a column (this column) left to complete before I graduate with honors from California State University, Sacramento with a Bachelor of Arts degree in government-journalism. December 22 will be the pinnacle of a quest that has taken me to places both far and wide - figuratively and literally. It has been a quest that has spanned no less than 25 years. Today I turned 45.

Milestones such as these are cause for reflection and these sleepless nights are due in part, I am sure, to some of that. However, with the rapidly approaching conclusion of my undergraduate career, it is also a time to look forward. It is a time for optimism, but with uncertainty comes a certain degree of trepidation. I have been comfortable these past few years. Indeed, I know how to be a student. (Some may say it’s about time, but that’s a story for another time.) This uncertainty isn’t limited to my own future and where my path will lead me next - indeed, there are a multitude of good ideas and only a handful of bad - but in many respects it is spawned by a general restlessness that can be felt throughout the world.

Closer to home, there is an upcoming presidential election. Our nation is in dire need of competent leadership. This time there are more candidates than I can ever recall running and I cannot say that any of them is giving me much hope. We are in the midst of a housing crisis the magnitude of which, the experts say, is unprecedented - and the worst is yet to come. The nation is polarized based of false ideology where the most significant difference between Republicans and Democrats is how they spell their party’s name. And then there’s that pesky little undeclared war that has claimed nearly 4,000 American soldiers’ lives and maimed countless others.

More than entering the work force to begin yet another career, I am asking myself what I can do beyond making a living. In 45 years, I have seen some bad times and I have seen some good. The nation and the world are at the same time both better off and worse. We have taken a thousand steps forward in places and in others our feet have remained firmly anchored in cement. The United States has grown more powerful and prosperous than any other nation in recorded history - and in record time. I have seen nations built and borders dissolve, heroism and tyranny, compassion and cruelty. The question still remains: What can I do?

Although the answer isn’t anywhere near crystal clear, one piece of it absolutely is - write about it. If not for those of us running the show today, perhaps for our children who will be steering us tomorrow. For our grandchildren who will be paying for our foibles and for anyone who is a seeker, thirsty for perspective, hungry for knowledge - the words, other's and mine, will be there. We did not achieve what we have due to our own brilliance. It came from the generations upon generations of our predecessors. Where we gleaned their knowledge and wisdom, we have thrived and where we have failed to study their mistakes, we have failed miserable.

What can I do? Maybe it means nothing today, but perhaps my children, my grandchildren and countless generations of successive great grandchildren will benefit from my experience written here and elsewhere. By myself and by others. By the scribes, the philosophers, the thinkers and the journalists.

Maybe they will read what I wrote.

On this wet, rainy, gloomy December day in Sacramento.

On my 45th birthday, 6 December 2007.

DRUGS

It must be drug awareness season again. Periodically, it seems, a rash of public service announcements from the likes of the Partnership for a Drug Free America begin to flood the media outlets. Don’t get the wrong idea; this is very definitely a good thing. Drugs are bad, they do bad things and something has to be done. The timing is just curious, that’s all.

At the same time, the documentaries are hitting the airwaves. Some are new pieces about old problems - others are old pieces about current problems. The names and the faces have changed, but the destruction hasn’t. Nor has the knee-jerk reaction to the problem that is, by all accounts, growing exponentially.

Now is not the time to rehash the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the “War on Drugs” or Nancy Reagan’s ever-so effective “Just Say No” campaign. It’s not so much about the virtues of legalization, of incarceration or rehabilitation. I’m afraid I just don’t have any answers - I’ll leave that up to the experts and the (gulp) politicians.

I have, however, been around the block once or twice in my nearly 45 years on the planet, and that gives me a considerable amount of experience. It’s not all about the dope or the prisons or the crime created by the epidemic or the families destroyed by drugs (alcohol included), it’s about political consistency and the ability to change one’s mind.

I don’t like the government telling me what to do. I never have and I doubt that is going to change anytime soon. There are a number of political labels I could adopt, but it would be highly issue dependent and completely irrelevant. Suffice it to say that I don’t believe the government has any business regulating what I put in my body - even if it will kill me. I believe that to be my right.

Ok, I can hear it now. "He’s one of those guys who want to legalize everything so he can smoke pot all day." Well, perhaps once upon a time that would have been a fair, yet baseless accusation, but I haven’t smoked anything in a very long time - and I like my lungs nice and pink, thank you very much. Despite the preceding and despite my adamant stance against government intervention of this sort, I am not now for the legalization of any drugs.

It used to be the perfect solution - and so simple. Legalize drugs, tax them, regulate them and take the criminal component out of the picture. It was Utopian naiveté at its best.

Drugs are bad. They do bad things to even good people and even if legally available, the psychosis and addiction they introduce brings about an element of crime that is random, senseless and completely self-generated. And, yes, statistics show that alcohol and other drugs are involved in the vast majority of violent crime - especially domestic violence. Never mind the lack of productivity and the social costs.

Drugs are bad. Even marijuana. It robs our youth of their motivation and contrary to popular belief, it does lead to other drugs - not that pot isn’t bad enough by itself. Medicinal use? There probably is a legitimate one, but not the way it is administered in California.

And now, according to a report from the Partnership for a Drug Free America, about one third of teens and only slightly fewer adults think taking prescription pain medication recreationally is safer than illicit drugs. Extrapolation: It is safe.

Drugs are bad. So is locking up drug offenders. Treatment works and the trends seem to be moving more in that direction. There are, however, no easy answers and once violence or other crimes beyond simply using the drugs comes into the picture, well, there has to be some accountability. I used to think it was so simple…

Drugs are bad.

The Way of the Dinosaur

With Christmas shopping now in full swing, maybe now is not time to think about the shopping experience. No, with consumers on autopilot and the mad rush now on, it is probably not a good time to examine a concept that is disappearing faster than a stack of $200 laptops at 4 a.m. on Black Friday.

Customer service.

What?

Yes, customer service… it’s often all that we will remember come April when the holiday shopping adrenaline has finally worn off. Good customer service is getting scarcer all the time while bad, or non-existent customer service has become the norm. Remember when there were no “self-service” gas stations? Not only was gas less than $1 per gallon, but the attendant did it all - washed the windows, checked the oil and tire pressure… oh, and put the gas in the car too.

Today, gas stations don’t even say “self-service” anymore - it’s assumed.

It used to be that knowledgeable and friendly sales people assisted us in identifying what the right product was - and left us alone when we were just looking. Now they will read what’s on the box and tell us where the checkout is. Stores have become warehouses, parking lots need shuttle service and shopping carts have a two-ton capacity. And let us not forget the “food court.”

There used to be customer loyalty. Sometimes there still is.

I used to buy my groceries at Safeway. The store was large, but not too big, close by and the employees knew me and were always friendly. They did not have the best prices, but they were fair and I don’t mind paying a little more for a pleasant shopping experience. Unfortunately, the “customer-service” people sitting in some cubicle in some corporate office felt it necessary to get involved in what was otherwise a perfectly harmonious relationship.

At the time, I wrote checks to pay for my groceries - usually about $300 per week, every week. Due to a bank error, one of my checks bounced. Safeway put it right back through and it cleared - the bank straightened out their mistake and got the funds back into my account. I was happy, the bank was happy… but someone at Safeway was not happy. They felt that one check - one of about 100 such that went through without any problem - was worth $25 to them.

After explaining there was an error at the bank, my “customer service representative” asked me to get a letter from the bank stating that they had indeed made a mistake. They might as well have told me my word was worthless. I made them a little deal: You forget the $25, and I’ll continue to spend $300 per week there. After being put on hold so a manager could be consulted, the customer service representative told me that Safeway was willing to go the extra mile and credit me… $5.

I have been shopping at Raley’s ever since. Every week for more than 3 years, Safeway has lost whatever the profit on $300 is.

It is not at all uncommon. Perhaps retailers have become too big. Maybe the cost/benefit analysis shows competent customer service is a waste of money. It is not universal - there are still some businesses that remember where their money comes from, but many seem to have forgotten.

The sad part? Safeway doesn’t care. And neither do too many other retailers. Now with Internet shopping where there is no human contact at all, finding competent customer service is getting even more elusive. Unfortunately, many of us do not demand or even expect to be served with courtesy and respect. It has gone the way of the full-service gas station…

Check your oil today?

Pushing Daisies - A Prophetic Title

Ned, the piemaker, has an odd gift - he can make dead things, people included, come back to life simply by touching them. Of course, there is a catch (there’s always a catch). ABC’s new series, “Pushing Daisies,” is based upon this minor technicality and how Ned (Lee Pace) deals with it.

“Pushing Daisies” is the latest creation from Bryan Fuller whose credits include “Dead Like Me” and “Wonderfalls.” It is a somewhat dark comedic drama in which Ned and his maladjusted cohorts solve murders by bringing the victims back to life - for one minute.

Like the legendary King Midas and his golden touch, Ned must be very careful how he administers his magic touch. If he touches the recipient again - ever - they will die again, this time permanently. And if he does not touch them again within one minute, someone else nearby - randomly selected, apparently - will die. But the original once dead person must still avoid Ned’s repeated touch for eternity.

There are holes in this premise, but hey it’s TV, it’s certainly solid enough for the small screen.

With all the basic pieces of the plot in place, the fun can begin. Ned first brings his dog, Digby, back, but can never touch him again. Funny.

What if Ned were to bring his childhood sweetheart’s dead body back to life to solve her murder? What if he couldn’t bring himself to touch her again before her minute was up? According to the rules, someone must die. The sacrificial “random” lamb? A corrupt funeral home director - it couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.

But the zaniness doesn’t end there. Ned and his now very much adult, long lost, childhood sweetheart Charlotte ‘Chuck’ Charles (Anna Friel) fall in love all over again, but they cannot touch. Add to the mix the unrequited love of Olive Snook (Kristin Chenoweth), Ned’s neighbor and employee at his pie shop, The Pie Hole, and the possibilities are endless.

In the meantime Ned and his partner, Emerson Cod (Chi McBride), a private investigator who accidentally discovered Ned’s strange talent, and Chuck are the only persons who know of Ned’s odd gift. Of course, Chuck is a source of friction between Ned and Emerson. Of course.

Throughout the show, the familiar voice of narrator Jim Dale, in his trademark “Christmas Special” manner, fills in the details.

“Pushing Daisies” is amusing at times and frustrating at others as it takes a whimsical, if not entirely original look at death and redemption. The characters are offbeat and quirky, but then they almost have to be. The story line is simple and the plots only slightly less so. Although it might be a good way to kill an hour once a week, it probably hasn’t got the legs or the cuteness to carry it beyond more than a few episodes.

Kid Nation

Maturity is a tricky thing to identify. It comes at different ages for different individuals and can vary widely depending on how maturity is defined. And although we are magically transformed from a minor to an adult at the stroke of midnight on our 18th birthday, the process surely occurs gradually over a period of time. For the sake of feasibility, most of the rights and responsibilities of adulthood are granted en masse at an age where decision-making has been determined to be at least somewhat responsible.

There is a reason why we don’t allow children to make their own decisions.

And just because the clock has passed the midnight hour, it doesn’t mean new adults always make adult decisions.

We force children to do things they do not like. If we didn’t, there would be no vegetables on their plates; they would never do their homework; they would do exactly as they please whenever they please. Generalizations? Ok, fine. You have that one rare and exceptional 10 year-old who will ask, “Excuse me. What are the long-term repercussions of eating cake for every meal?” And congratulations, your kid will be supporting the other 99 percent who are not so special.

A recent video on the YouTube circuit is a class project from Kansas State University called “A Vision of Students Today.” It is filmed in a “low-budget” style and amounts to social science students answering and editing their own survey questions based on the state of education in America today. Wait - make that based on their perception of the state of education in America today.

It is compelling stylistically, produced in much the same way many other contemporary social commentary videos are. There is a key difference, however, between those commentaries and this one. This one has no relevant content. And it could have been so much more.

There are serious problems with education in America, at all levels. There are budgets being cut while administrators are awarded exorbitant compensation; reductions in course selection and increasing class size; and there are over-worked professors and grade inflation. Indeed, the basic writing skills of college undergraduates has become so dismal that curriculum and testing has been required just to insure graduates can at least write a simple essay.

Although the video did touch very briefly on the class size issue, the bulk of it amounted to little more than adolescent whining. One student holds a sign stating that only 18 percent of her teachers know her name. Really? That is interesting because all of my teachers know mine and I know that years later, they still do. How about putting away the laptop and participating in your education, honey?

Another’s says that she only completes 49 percent of the readings assigned to her and that only 26 percent are relevant to her life!

Well maybe if you read the other 51 percent you might find that far more is relevant than you think, sweetie. And are we talking about the 18 or 19 years of your life so far? Perhaps those in charge have greater insight as to what will be relevant in your life than you do.

The commentary has much to say about the state of modern technology as it applies to the life of the modern college student. The students appear to blame their access to and use of this technology for their inability to leave it alone when there are more pressing priorities - like homework.

Adding up their (self-described) daily activities, these students are running at a deficit of 2 ½ hours per day. Included in this 26 ½ hour day are: 1 ½ hours of TV, 3 ½ hours online, 2 ½ hours listening to music and 2 hours on the cell phone. Then there are those three hours in class and three hours studying - ah, the sacrifices of being a student today.

Poor babies! There is a reason we don’t let children run the world.

The Power of Love

If the way to a man’s heart is through his stomach, then the True Love Coffeehouse should stop and get directions. But as its name implies, the True Love Coffeehouse’s forte is not food, but coffee - and it does do coffee and other related beverages quite well. But so do a lot of other coffee places as well as other establishments. Yet there is more to a coffeehouse than just its coffee and food.

True Love is first and foremost an uncommon coffeehouse. Even before entering through the converted Victorian’s front gate at 2315 K Street, it is apparent that this is no ordinary place. From the progressive and unorthodox décor to the intimate, dark, yet strangely warm interior to the backyard patio, kicking back at this place is an exercise in relaxation. Although the backyard is technically outdoors, the patio is covered to protect it from the elements and heated to keep the chill off.

And for those who still smoke, it is outdoors - smoking is allowed.

Nothing at the True Love is outrageously expensive nor are there any particularly great deals. Coffee drinks and other beverages come with prices comparable to other specialty coffee places and the food is fairly priced as well. Expect to pay from $7 to $10 to have your thirst quenched and your appetite satisfied.

All items are ordered after standing in a (usually short) line at the counter in the central passage between the front door and the rear exit of the house. It is not a particularly spacious location and it would not take many people to constitute a crowd. Some items are delivered at the point of sale while the more labor-intensive items are placed in a small window for pick-up a few minutes later. There is no table service.

The demeanor of the staff at the True Love matches that of the décor and to a large extent, its clientele. It caters to a younger, somewhat edgy crown and although True Love’s patrons might reject the term “avant-garde” as a generalization or a label, it is a fitting description nonetheless. If there was a modern equivalent to the beatnik coffeehouses of days gone by, True Love is it.

The charm of the True Love Coffeehouse is not in its beverages. True, the selection is huge and they blend as good a white mocha as anyone, but there are many - too many - good coffeehouses. Its magic certainly is not found in the food. The menu has some unusual dishes and does accommodate vegetarian and vegan diets, but the food is not particularly exceptional. My order of nachos ($4.00) with black beans ($1 extra) was competent, but nowhere near spectacular. It was no more noteworthy than Taco Bell nachos - and that is being kind.

But the True Love Coffeehouse, like true love itself, is more than the sum of its parts. It provides an atmosphere that feels like lounging around wearing an old t-shirt and blue jeans on a lazy Saturday night. It is a nice place to hang out with friends, read a book, or use the free wireless Internet to surf the Web or engage in online chat. If I lived in midtown, this review would likely be written out on True Love’s back patio, sipping a large white mocha and observing the buzz all around.

Good Fences Make Good Neighbors

The battle over abortion has changed little since the US Supreme Court made its landmark decision legalizing it in 1973. The justices ruled in Roe v. Wade that laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

A constitutional right to privacy…

Abortion has proven to be as polarizing an issue as gun control, gay marriage or capital punishment. One is either in favor of a “woman’s right to choose,” or an advocate for the “right to life.” Pro or anti abortion, respectively - there is precious little middle ground.

These defining issues place us on one side or the other of an ideological fence; the divide is clear and stark. And although there have been some changes in the tactics of the protests and counter-protests, very little is considered “off limits.” Indeed, it has been guerrilla warfare from the very start.

A recent campaign by those opposed to abortion is being staged at the Planned Parenthood clinics in Sacramento and Roseville, the only two area clinics that provide abortions. It has been billed not as a protest or a picket, but rather a public “prayer vigil” just outside these clinics.

Part of a nationwide protest orchestrated by an organization calling itself 40 Days for Life, it began on Sept. 26 and runs until Nov. 4. The protesters - by talking to patients, praying and handing out literature - have replaced the in-your-face graphic photos and confrontational tactics of the past.

A welcome operational change to be sure, and one that likely will attract more sympathy than the methods of their more militant counterparts, but there is an insidious component that the anti-abortionists seem to have a penchant for - no matter how reasonable they might appear to be.

The Planned Parenthood clinic on B Street recently had a red cedar fence installed along the parking lot. It was planned before this current protest, but its purpose is not so thinly veiled. It is meant to protect the patients’ privacy… from the protesters.

The installation of the fence just happened to take place in the midst of this most recent vigil. And of course, 40 Days for Life doesn’t like the fence. Not one bit.

They don’t like it so much that they have taken aim at the company that built it.

The following was lifted directly from 40daysforlife.com/sacramento. It was cut and pasted, no spelling or grammar corrections have been made. They are, however, boldly noted where needed.

As you all know, Planned Parenthood has erected a redwood "screen" in front of it's clinic. While we respect that they have every right to do so, we feel it would not be appropriate for anyone who considers themselves pro-life to do business with a company who does business with an abortion provider. We encourage you to contact the fencing contractor to express your dissapointment in thier affiliation with Planned Parenthood.

The name of the fence company, its phone number, address and the name of its owner are listed as well.

This is a local, small company just trying to make a buck. Although it is perfectly legal for 40 Days for Life to call for this boycott and even for it to encourage its supporters to “harass” the owner, it is a low blow all the same.

But since Pandora’s Box is now open, lets take a look at 40 Days for Life. In addition to having a complete lack of care when it comes to grammar and spelling, it would appear that the organization is associated with eChristianChurches.com, a division of WEBPRO PRODUCTIONS, LLC - a decidedly for-profit business.

WEBPRO PRODUCTIONS is a web-design house like so many, many others. It has an affinity for certain segments of the market, and religious “right to life” organizations appear to be among them - but not exclusively so. It also markets its services to a wide variety of other secular business interests - businesses that might not want to be associated with a web designer with such strong ideological stands.

I’m not suggesting that anyone should boycott WEBPRO PRODUCTIONS - I would never stoop so low - I’m only suggesting that it has already chosen which side of the fence it stands.

I am, however, suggesting that we should leave the guy who built the fence alone.

National Holiday Day

Christmas is nearly upon us once again. Many would call it the undisputed heavyweight champion of all contemporary holidays. It has it all - decorations, presents, a grand meal, family tradition, a religious origin, symbolic icons, parades, music and extreme commercialism. And like only a handful of other holidays, it has an “-eve” to welcome its arrival. It even has its very own season with its very own greeting... "Season's Greetings." Yes, Christmas might just represent the pinnacle of what every holiday aspires to be.

Which means that all other holidays are lacking by comparison. Where’s the justice? Why should some holidays receive all the glory while others deserve only a footnote on the calendar?

There are other holidays that have religious overtones, perhaps even more so than Christmas. Take Easter, for instance. Not just one day, but actually three starting on Thursday night, through Good Friday (aren't all Fridays "good"?) and ending on the evening of Easter Sunday. Talk about holiday potential! Instead of one day, there are three solid days for gift giving, parties and festivities. Imagine the commercial build-up. Imagine the spectacle. Throw in a Monday and it can't lose.

But no, all we get is a cheesy bunny. He somehow lays multicolored eggs and then cleverly hides them. If we’re lucky, he pushes out (from where I don’t want to know) some that are made of chocolate and puts them and other candy in a basket with plastic grass that gets everywhere.

And speaking of candy, what about Halloween? Here’s a holiday that’s not a holiday. There are the parties, sure… and decorations galore, but there has never been a day off. An included day off really is a must for any self-respecting holiday.

There are holidays better known by the dates they fall on like the Fourth of July or, hijacked from our neighbors to the south, Cinco de Mayo.

Then there are the “Monday” holidays. These are the holidays that are on one day, but “observed” on another. In 1971, the Uniform Monday Holiday Act moved Veterans Day, Memorial Day and George Washington’s Birthday (before it was given an identity crisis by combining it with Lincoln’s Birthday into “Presidents Day”) from their original date to a convenient Monday so federal employees would have more three-day weekends.

The act also created Columbus Day, the dumbest holiday of all time - glorifying a wayward sailor who got lost and discovered… India. No. America. No - India. No, ok, America, but let’s call the people there Indians. Oddly enough, there is no Indian or Native American Day. It wasn’t a “new” world to them, they knew it was here all along.

After protests by veterans groups, in 1978 Veteran’s Day was moved back to its original November 11th date. The vets felt it had lost its importance and had become nothing more than just another three-day weekend.

Lost its importance?

Well then, let’s move on to some of the more innocuous holidays. In no particular order and with no particular importance, some of the most pointless are: Groundhog Day, Flag Day, the afore mentioned Presidents Day (Honest Abe and George must be rolling in their graves), Pioneer Day, Patriot’s Day, Valentine’s Day, Saint Patrick’s Day, and the ever-popular Grandparent’s Day.

And just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse, here are some of the “unofficial” holidays created to commemorate God knows what: Bloomsday, Buy Nothing Day, Friendship Day, Husband Appreciation Day, Wife Appreciation Day, International Talk Like a Pirate Day, International Kitchen Garden Day, Mole Day, Monkey Day, National Gorilla Day and a day that needs no description - No Pants Day.

Yes, seemingly there is a holiday for every occasion. Not yet mentioned - Mother’s Day and Father’s Day. I have one of each and I am a father - these are among my favorite holidays. It was not always the case - when I was young, there was the perennial question children always ask, “How come there’s no Kids’ Day?” The reply, always the same, “Every day is kids’ day.”

And so it is.

That must be why adults need so many damned holidays.

How to be a Patriot

It happened again. This time is was the Navy. At least they had the decency to wait until after my son turned 18. The Army, the Air Force and the Marine recruiters all called my son - at home and asking for him by his name - while he was a still a minor. And the mail that comes to his/my home is addressed to him as well - not “to the parents of Matthew Althouse.”

The San Juan Unified School District kindly provides the information to the military recruiters, directed by provisions in the Education Code as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act. Although not thrilled with this provision in the act, I have stopped fighting, at least on my son’s behalf. I know he is not joining and he is my youngest - I’m through. From a personal perspective, this battle is over - I win.

But there is still a nagging question… What if?

What if they had reached my son? What if they had convinced him to enlist? What if they had sold him before I even had a chance to discuss it with him?

Before we go any further, let’s get a couple of things straight: No one loves this country more than I do - I am as patriotic as one can be. To prove it, I question my government with great regularity. Furthermore, I have nothing against the principle of serving in the military and, more importantly, nothing against any of my sons serving themselves. In fact, there is great virtue in serving and much opportunity available. Granted and granted.

However…

Now is not the time. I am not willing to send my boys to Iraq to be just another pawn in this administration’s deadly game. Of course, the decision is ultimately theirs and if they decided to go, that decision would be supported. But know this also - if I get to them before some recruiter does, there’s not a snowball’s chance in Iraq that they would make that decision.

Taking this stand does not take away from the honor of those who are serving in Iraq. Not supporting this administration’s policies does not mean I do not support our troops. The notion that disagreeing with the administration regarding the war somehow means I do not support the troops is idiotic. I have the utmost respect for them and their families should be proud. I would be if my kids were there.

Raymond Spencer, Sr. is. He last spoke with his son on June 17 - Father’s Day. Raymond Spencer, Jr. was scheduled to come home on leave from Iraq on July 1. He never made it. On June 21 he was killed in action when a rocket-propelled grenade struck his Bradley fighting vehicle. Just 23 years old, Spencer, Jr. wanted to follow in his father’s footsteps as a soldier... as a combat veteran. Before enlisting, father and son discussed the risks involved... the pros and the cons. Spencer, Jr. wanted to be a soldier. Raymond Spencer, Sr. is proud of his son - his only son.

Whether Matthew follows in my footsteps or not is really not important. It is, however, vitally important that I have a voice in that decision-making process, just like Raymond Spencer, Sr. did with his son. When military recruiters try to circumvent my parental influence, it is irritating like nothing else. This is my government - nationally at the level of the military and locally at the level of the school district - trying to bypass my rights and obligations as a parent and sell my son on a future we didn’t discuss.

Yea, I’m questioning my government. I am a patriot.

Warhol Knew

I was on TV today. It happens with infrequent regularity in my line of work as I am often caught in the video crossfire of my broadcast journalism brethren while covering the same story for our respective outlets.

I didn’t see it myself as I was still covering the story, but when the snippet was broadcast on a local morning news program, one of my friends did. And although it is not everyday one might find oneself on TV, with the proliferation of cable TV stations and cameras capturing every little detail, it is much more common than when I was a kid with one family TV (black and white, no remote) and only five stations - seven if you count UHF.

Indeed, the luster of the accidental television appearance has all but worn off… and to make matters worse, along comes YouTube.

Now anyone, and I do mean anyone can appear via video anytime and as often as he or she likes. Once upon a time, an appearance on the small screen was a one-shot deal. Home video recorders were not invented yet and when they came along, they were not the ubiquitous “must-have” appliances they are today. Even when home VCRs were commonplace, the replaying of these magic moments of fame only took place within the privacy of one’s own home.

YouTube and other sites that accommodate video publishing like Blogger and MySpace have proven Andy Warhol’s prediction, “In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes,” as a coming reality. Although there is no guarantee a video will garner widespread fame - the odds are considerably better than they were in days gone by. YouTube eliminates an element that prevented many from ever being broadcast - being in the right place at the right time. It has taken the luck of the draw or whatever powers that be out of the picture - um… so to speak.

A simple search of the most watched videos on YouTube reveals a veritable smorgasbord from the inane to the important, the silly to the sad and everything else imaginable. There is no telling what might strike the masses’ fancy on any given day at any given moment.

Video Pabulum? Sure, much of it is, but not all of it and the mainstream media and other very much “for profit” entities have begun to recognize YouTube’s commercial value.

Nokia, Verizon and Best Buy are just a few of the multi-national, multi-million dollar corporations that have taken advantage of the YouTube phenomenon. Even the United States Navy has a YouTube channel. Other specialized campaigns such as movie releases, new product launches and promotional contests have found a home on YouTube as well. Additionally, there are companies who have produced particularly clever campaigns that are reproduced and posted by private, everyday citizens with an urge to share… or perhaps enjoy some vicarious fame.

Recently I was searching for some older video clips from one of my favorite rock bands. In my YouTube quest, I turned up a video produced by the Sacramento Bee. It was originally posted on the Bee’s Web site, SacBee.com, but not surprisingly it found its way to YouTube. I had an opportunity recently to speak with Sue Morrow, the Bee’s photo editor, and I asked her if the Bee was posting any of its material - specifically that clip - on YouTube. Although she didn’t know, she was adamant that the Bee should be taking advantage of sites like YouTube. Like many others, Morrow’s vision of the future for the news media includes the use of non-traditional outlets.

The clip I found was covering a free concert by Sacramento’s own Tesla at Cesar Chavez Plaza on May 31, 2007. I was looking for older material, but I happened to be shooting that concert as well. It wasn’t long before I recognized the video as the one produced by the Bee, and if there was any confusion, it would have been cleared up by the title attribution, “A Sacramento Bee Video.”

I watched it again. I was in it.

The Last Word

Every writer has his or her own style. True, some resemble others - and to an extent some can be imitated, but in the final analysis, a writing style is a unique manifestation of the life experiences that created it. Elements such as clarity, authenticity, and credibility are revealed not only in what is written, but how it is written. Real life transcends the hyperbole, the extremism and the sensational. Writers such as Anna Quindlen use their mastery of the written word to do more than just write.

They talk with us. They remember. They give us context.

Quindlen, a Pulitzer Prize winning columnist and best-selling novelist writes about the world as seen though the eyes not of a writer per se, but as a member of the human race. In the preface of her 2004 book “Loud and Clear,” Quindlen writes about not writing.

“I do not fly to my desk each morning with a full heart and a ready hand. I skirt the perimeters of my home office with a sense of dread, eyes averted from an empty computer screen. Instead of creation there is always procrastination.”

She was describing the beginning of a day like any other, yet one that would be tragically different. It was September 11, 2001. Although the piece was written long after the fact, Quindlen chronicles the day’s events like it was yesterday. She recalled it in terms of her relationship with her family, her friends and her profession. And though neither the preface nor the collection of columns that follow it are about the events of that traumatic day, the tone and the gravity of what such an event means to a mother, a wife and a journalist comes through with the clarity Quindlen is known for.

“The morning of September 12, 2001, I was at my desk first thing, no preliminaries, no computer games, seizing the chance to write about an event more destructive, more transformative, and more important than any I had ever written about during three decades as a journalist. And at that very moment I thanked God, not only for the safety of my family and friends, but for the gift of being permitted to do what I do for a living.”


Quindlen began her career as a reporter for the New York Post in 1974. She joined the New York Times as a general assignment/city hall reporter in 1977. By 1981 she had her own column, “About New York,” and from 1990 until she left the Times in 1994 to become a full-time novelist (and mother), she was the writer of the nationally syndicated column, “Public and Private.” Currently, Quindlen writes Newsweek’s back page column, “The Last Word,” alternating weeks with columnist George F. Will.

In her March 19, 2007 Newsweek column, Quindlen begins, “This is not a column about Ann Coulter. Otherwise, it would be irrelevant.” And indeed it was not, but rather a means to contrast Coulter’s most recent publicity stunt with issues that are relevant.

“This is an election that really matters…”
“The war that is a fruitless quagmire…”
“An education system that seems not to educate…”

More than just commentary, Quindlen brings a bit of herself to her work, and it comes through. In the April 2, 2007 issue of Newsweek, she writes of how things might have been if her then boyfriend’s draft number had been lower. She wrote about the husband and three children that might never have been. Of course, her column that week wasn’t about Vietnam, but about how war affects everyone and whether the policymakers know that. “Do they realize they have dragged heavy hands across the map of the world and altered the details of daily life?”

It’s not just about public policy or government, but also about insight. She has an ability few possess; she allows the reader to crawl inside her head. Quindlen gives us a piece of herself in everything she writes… and plenty of it has nothing to do with public policy. She writes about her family, her job(s), her friends and about life in sweeping generalities as well as decidedly specific personal anecdotes. Her writing leaves one with the feeling that, no matter what she writes, it’s personal.

Livin' in the Future

This is not a column about Bruce Springsteen. It is not a review of his soon to be released album, “Magic,” or an endorsement thereof. Indeed, I have never been a Springsteen fan. It’s not that I dislike the man or his music; I just never understood the hype.

Perhaps I wasn’t listening close enough.

Springsteen and the entire E Street Band performed on NBC’s Today Show this morning, “on the plaza,” like so many other performers who are promoting… something. A new album or a tour usually, but sometimes it is something more. As big as the Today Show gig is, Springsteen certainly doesn’t need NBC’s help selling records or tickets.

Among the characteristics many associate with Springsteen, patriotism has to be right up there. He is as American as apple pie and Chevrolet. Although he has made political statements in his music in the past, this album takes the gloves off. When introducing “Livin’ in the Future,” a track from his new album, Springsteen makes the following statement while the E Street Band plays a soft prelude:

“This is a song called ‘Livin’ in the Future,’ but it’s really about what’s happening now. Right now! The things that we love about America like cheeseburgers and french fries... the Bill of Rights, V-twin motorcycles... trans fats, the Jersey shore… We love all those things. However, in the past six years, we’ve had to add to the American picture: Rendition; illegal wiretapping; voter suppression; no habeas corpus; neglect of our great city New Orleans and her people; an attack on the Constitution and the loss of our best young men and women in a tragic war.”

More than just a list of gripes, Springsteen goes on with his own call to action.

“This is a song about things that shouldn't happen here happening here. Right now we plan to do something about it. We plan to sing about it. I know it’s early, but it’s late. So come and join us.”

It is interesting that his last album with the E Street Band, “The Rising," was released in 2002 - just before the junior Bush’s war in Iraq. It is probably safe to say Springsteen doesn’t need the money and equally safe to say that he did not need to produce a new album to sell out a tour. No, it is clear there is something else he needed to do. He needed to exercise his first amendment right to freedom of speech - before it too has been swallowed up by a fear-mongering, power-hungry and arrogant administration. More than a right, it is likely that Springsteen views it as a responsibility.

The chorus from “Livin’ in the Future” warns, “We're livin' in the future. And none of this has happened yet.” It’s an ominous message and a thread that runs throughout the entire album.

So often the arts have been the conduit for political change. So many artists have been the victims of suppression, exile and and many have paid for their activism with their lives. In America our right to vocalize our disagreement or even our disenchantment with the government is guaranteed by the Constitution - but as Springsteen points out, so too are so many other rights that are slowly being eroded by our government.

They call him the “Boss,” a moniker I have always taken issue with - my reply always, “He’s not my boss.” But in this case at least, I’ll take heed of his message. His values, when it comes to nationalism… to constitutionalism, are absolutely mine.

He asks some very pointed questions. Today, I am listening.

Buy a Car, Get a Check

Robert B. McCurry, Jr., former vice president of sales and marketing for Chrysler died almost a year ago.

So what?
Never heard of him?

Perhaps not directly, but because of a marketing ploy he developed more than 30 years ago, retail advertising has never been the same.

McCurry holds the dubious distinction of inventing the factory (or manufacturer’s) rebate.

The gimmick was originally introduced in a half-time TV commercial during Super Bowl IX. Former professional baseball player turned sports commentator turned advertisement pitchman Joe Garagiola announced that those who purchased a brand new Plymouth Duster or Dodge Dart would receive a $200 check directly from Chrysler.

“Buy a car, get a check,” Garagiola said, without one single wardrobe malfunction. It proved to be pure genius. Sales rocketed the very next day as Ford and GM scrambled to catch up.

Today that pesky rebate has inundated every area of consumer and retail life.

Googling the term “rebate” returns no less than 36 million hits. There are sites dedicated to tracking rebates, finding the most attractive rebates and even locating those products that are “free” after the rebate. There are rebates for electronic gadgets, garage door openers, laundry detergent and pharmaceuticals, just to name a few. Some products even carry multiple rebates - a combination of offers by the manufacturer, the distributor, the retailer and others. It’s enough to drive even the most conscientious shopper insane.

Surely if McCurry knew how his creation has evolved, he would be rolling over in his grave.

According to data collected by Brian Grow for a November 2005 article in BusinessWeek, fully 40 percent of all rebates are never collected. The data, supplied by the market research firm Vericours, Inc., goes on to conclude that roughly $2 billion in extra revenue remains with the manufacturers and retailers every year. And that was in 2005.

It’s no wonder the rebate is such an appealing marketing strategy. The customer is sold the product based on the advertised “after rebate” price, but 40 percent of those customers never realize their discount - they have actually paid the full price. And even those who are able to navigate the exceedingly narrow path to redemption, often they are so thrilled to have won the prize that they have forgotten who paid the sales tax on their rebate. Furthermore, they fail to realize who has been earning interest on their money during the weeks and months spent waiting for the check to arrive.

I avoid rebates. The labyrinth set up between me and my money most often renders the victory hollow. Occasionally the rebate is sufficiently large or perhaps it is offered through a retailer or manufacturer that I know and trust. Sometimes it’s worth the risk, but as a general rule they only serve to make me take my business elsewhere. Once in a while, just for grins, I’ll go through the motions and jump through the hoops for the $5 or $10 rebate. Sometimes they actually come, but so long after the fact that I can’t even remember sending off for it. Like finding a five spot in a parking lot - I feel as though fortune has smiled upon me. There is no telling, however, how many checks are still languishing in rebate purgatory.

California Assembly Bill 1673 is currently sitting on Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s desk. The bill is an attempt to make retailers truthfully advertise the price of merchandise with rebates. The bill would give them two choices: Either emphasize the full, un-rebated price or process the rebate instantly - at the time of purchase. Of course, those on the business end of the continuum say the fine print is clear enough and that consumers are aware of how rebates work while those representing consumer interests say the rebate claims process has become so convoluted that advertising the “after rebate” price with the details in the fine print amounts to false advertising.

This bill goes a long way to reeling in the rebate monster. The manufacturers and retailers can still offer their rebates, but the price featured in bold print will have to be the full retail price. Or, if they really want to advertise the discounted price prominently, they would have to assure that the customer actually pays the advertised price by giving the rebate at the point of sale.

Maybe then McCurry could rest in peace.

Misplaced Loyalty

Our Constitution leaves to the individual states those powers not specifically designated to the federal government. Although hierarchical supremacy always goes to federal law, there are certain limitations on federal authority that is supposed to be left to the states. However, through a number of means - typically by holding money over the states’ heads - the federal government does influence state law.

The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act is an attempt to control the educational curriculum that has been historically decided at the state level. Although the feds cannot mandate anything regarding curriculum, it can coerce financially strapped state educational institutions with the lure of cash. There is something inherently disingenuous about the federal government collecting taxes from the residents of the various states, ostensibly to be used to run the federal government, only to give it back to the states with strings attached. Unfortunately, this is not at all uncommon in this day and age.

Perhaps if the money were to be used to forward legitimate scholastic goals only, the ends might, perhaps, justify the means. And let us assume that NCLB was created and born of the purest of motives and, further, that the procedures are universally agreed upon and accepted as the best curriculum for all students nationwide. Yes, let’s just suspend all skepticism and grant that such a universal standard actually exists and that the feds have stumbled upon it. And just to add the icing to this unbelievably utopian cake, let us presume that the act has been fully funded and supported by those who championed it. Let’s just say that NCLB has been all it could be…

Then what about section 9528? The section’s heading reads:

ARMED FORCES RECRUITER ACCESS TO STUDENTS AND STUDENT RECRUITING INFORMATION.

The following 297 words buried within the 670-page document codify exactly what its title says. Apparently, NCLB would have our kids be all they can be as well. No access to the students’ names and numbers - no money. Although there is an “opt out” clause, often parents find recruiters have their children’s information only after it is too late, if they find out at all. The recruiter calls in the afternoon, after school is out but before many parents are usually home from work. I am not, however, “many” parents.

I was home when the calls came for my 17 year-old son. The caller ID said “private number,” but when anyone calls on a phone that I pay the bill on, I ask who is calling. There was only one place the information could have come from, but I asked the recruiters anyway just to confirm my suspicion. As it turns out, they were more forthcoming and better informed than the San Juan Unified School District was. Eventually, after many calls, the district’s legal department informed me that they were merely complying with federal law - as though they had no choice. Although it is true that NCLB is a federal law, it is misleading to imply that the district somehow has no choice.

On page 45 of the 2007-2008 Parent Handbook, there is a short paragraph that states federal law permits the access to this information and that parents may opt out - in writing - to Pupil Personnel Services. There is no contact name, no department phone number or address listed. Had I not been home when the recruiters called, I would have never known. The district contends there is a federal law it must comply with - it doesn’t. In fact, although there are certain procedures that must be followed or else the money is yanked, there are no provisions in case the feds renege on their deal; they want compliance even when they won’t fully fund the act.

It is understandable that schools are after every dollar they can get and it is no surprise that the feds would try to regulate - through creative means - anything they can, but it is dismaying that the district would roll over so easily. NCLB offers an opt-out clause, but it doesn’t say how loudly it is to be announced. The San Juan Unified School District chose to burry the information in a place that parents are not likely to find it.

The district has perhaps forgotten where its loyalty lies - and where the vast majority of its money comes from. The opt-out provision of NCLB should be made a priority. It should be a proactive announcement and not a few words buried in a slew of parental reading passed out at the beginning of the year. The recruitment provision goes well beyond any legitimate educational goal and in practice it circumvents the influence a parent has on molding his or her child’s future. The district has a responsibility to give the parent back the first word - and it can do it without risking any NCLB money.

The Lion's Den

A friend was recently laid off her job after nine years of employment. These things happen even in a good economy and even to good employees; it’s life. She filed for unemployment, is looking for a new job, enrolled for classes at the local junior college and is otherwise proactively dealing with this major upheaval in her life. She is 38, she’s healthy and her husband is self-employed. Since she received her family’s health insurance through her employer, they are now in need of their own plan.

She was turned down due to a pre-existing condition. Allergies. Yes, allergies. Nothing exotic, mind you. No lethal food allergies; she doesn’t have to avoid peanuts or shellfish. She is not going to go into anaphylactic shock over some esoteric medication - no, we’re talking about plain old hay fever. A dangerous pre-existing condition if there ever was one. It is only but a symptom of the general meltdown in our health-care system.

Although there are far too many issues, both global and specific, to enumerate here, there is an overarching unfairness to how the alliances fall out. There are essentially three players in the game: The caregivers (doctors, hospitals, etc.), the insurance company and the patient. Although there is an almost sacred relationship between the doctor and patient and certainly an economic relationship between the insurance company and its customer, these alliances both crumble when it comes to who is legally responsible for paying the bill.

Stories circulate about how doctors and other caregivers are bound by the insurance companies in what they can and cannot do. They would have us believe that the three-piece suits dwelling in glass towers dictate their every move. Conversely, the insurance industry tells of the sky-rocketing cost of medical care and that they will surely go broke if they can’t somehow control their costs. Neither the caregiver nor the insurance company wants us to know that they enjoy a symbiotic relationship; that they are on the same side; it is really these two powerhouses versus the patient.

Blue Cross of California recently settled a class action lawsuit because it was refusing, without cause, to pay the claims of its customers. It is one of many lawsuits against insurance companies. Blue Cross had no trouble paying it. They still won. Even after the legal expenses and after the payouts to their “customers,” Blue Cross is still doing just fine, thank you very much. They’re holding all the cards, along with the doctors and hospitals and the supporting cast, this alliance is in the business of collecting money - from you. And they are good at it.

Because the patient holds the ultimate legal responsibility to pay for his or her medical bills regardless of whatever insurance coverage is in effect, the insurance company can afford to drag it’s feet when it comes to paying; the bill collectors are not coming after them. Someone pays the caregivers eventually - insurance (after two, three or more billings), the patient who can afford it (often paying what the insurance company should have but didn’t), by inflating the costs to everyone else and finally by the taxpayers. The insurance industry collects premiums from you and then actively avoids - successfully - ever paying for your care. And these two players are playing the game all day every day.

The “responsible” party is the newcomer. The patient comes in as prey. Wandering into the lion’s den often already wounded by a catastrophic accident or illness, the patient does not know the rules or even that there is a game. He or she is expecting the insurance company to uphold its contract and the doctors to provide the best possible care no matter what the cost. Foolish patient! The ultimate responsibility is theirs and often the cold hard reality comes far too late. As long as the responsibility party is the weakest player in the game, the patient will continue to lose.

Born to be Mild

There is something undeniably American about the idea of having the sun upon one’s face, the wind in one’s hair and the wide-open spaces in which to experience it. The thought instantly conjures up images of sailing the high-seas, racing through the old west on horseback, barnstorming in a vintage biplane… or riding a motorcycle on ribbons of endless asphalt into the sunset. It is the definitive vision of liberty and freedom that so many Americans hold close.

Except, that is, when said activity might be “dangerous.” Picture that sailor, cowboy or pilot wearing a Department of Transportation (DOT) approved helmet and the vision of freedom quickly comes apart. Yet in 47 states, some sort of motorcycle helmet law robs America’s two wheeled enthusiasts of this iconic American experience.

We live in a country where liberty is among our stated “unalienable rights.” This “self-evident” truth is so important that it is specifically enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. Boiled down, it is an idea that allows us to do as we please so long as it doesn’t harm anyone else.

Of course, the interaction between government, society and politics is rarely that simple, but there are some cases when it is. Enter the motorcycle helmet law.

Many motorcycle enthusiasts are opposed to these laws on the grounds that helmets are actually an impediment to safety or because the statistics are wrong or somehow misleading. However, the data from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and other organizations is pretty overwhelming - helmets do save their wearers from serious injury and/or death. Granted.

But shouldn’t we be able to determine the level of risk acceptable for each of us?

Those advocating for helmet laws say there is financial harm done to others who had no part in the decision-making process. It is a form of involuntary social welfare granted to those who choose not to take precautions and suffer serious injury as a result. Without adequate medical insurance, society as a whole picks up the tab. It is a valid argument, although hardly unique to motorcycle riders.

The do-gooders who have lobbied for these laws are hiding behind the tried and true “it’s not fair that I should have to pay for your carelessness,” or, let’s just say what they mean, stupidity. But there are a host of dangerous activities that are not regulated - far more than are. Although this is an inconsistent and somewhat myopic argument, it is still true enough. This is a problem when people engage in “risky” activities without adequate insurance - someone has to pay.

Unlike some other “dangerous” hobbies, however, there is a simple and relatively painless way to address the financial cost of those wishing ride without a helmet. Simply add a small surcharge to all motorcycle registrations or licenses to fund an account that pays for those wishing to take the risk. Because all motorcycle riding could be defined as risky, motorcycle riders should not mind funding an account to cover their collective butts - or heads. If it was about money, there is a solution.

But, alas, it is not about money… it is about control and the idea that we, or at least some of us, don’t know what is good for us. There is a not-so-hidden agenda at work here. Those who are absolutely convinced that anyone who would decide to ride without a helmet must surely be insane and as such, must be unable to make rational decisions for themselves. Therefore, it's the government's job to step in and save us from our own stupidity.

The idea is one that extends well beyond two wheels and a motor; it is about who decides what is best for us. Has the government evolved into some kind of nanny that tells us when to wipe our nose and what time to go to bed? Is that what we really want?