Roughly three years ago there was this town hall meeting here in Los Angeles where some people gathered to ask local officials any questions they had about the future of the City. The event was live-streamed online, with a promise that the officials would also take questions from the Twitter audience. One of those officials was Councilman Eric Garcetti, whose district includes the neighborhood I had moved to a few months earlier. I followed the meeting live online to hear what my new representative had to say, and specifically because I was in equal parts intrigued and skeptical about one issue he was associated with: a somewhat insane project called the Hollywood Central Park.
The proposal for the Hollywood Central Park calls for a roof to be placed on a mile-long stretch of the 101 freeway, from just north of Hollywood Boulevard down to Santa Monica Boulevard, and then for a 44-acre park to be placed on top of this roof. I mean, look at this thing. It’s dramatic. It’s the kind of idea that reaches inside of your chest and gives your heart a little flick. Eric Garcetti was hooked by the idea, and he lent his name to the fundraising efforts behind the project.
By the time of the town hall meeting I had become cynical toward big dreams. It was a cynicism you could measure, exactly the distance between the euphoric heights of the first Obama campaign and the hard ground of political reality that followed. I was, to put it simply, let down. My skepticism toward anything big and dreamy framed the question I submit over Twitter.
“To @ericgarcetti,” it said, “The Hollywood Central Park project sounds amazing, but how is it anything but a pipe dream?”
The Councilman took my question. He started by explaining LA’s need for more parkspace, how our city ranked pretty low among other major cities in its ratio of parks to people. He talked about the number of jobs such a project would bring. He said the project would have a transformative effect not only on Hollywood but the whole city as well. Eric could have stopped there, but he didn’t. As if he wasn’t satisfied that he’d answered the real call of the question, he continued and said said this, which I’m paraphrasing slightly, but not much, because this is how I remember it.
“As for whether this is a pipe dream,” Eric said, “no, I wouldn’t characterize it like that. This is the kind of ambitious project that takes hold of the imagination of a community and brings people together. I wish there were more projects like this. If anything we need more pipe dreams. Because if we don’t shoot for the stars we’re never going to land on the moon.”
If I were to distill all the lessons I learned from all the schools I attended in Los Angeles, I would end up with this: that a man’s reach should exceed his grasp. It’s the secret to being better at anything, whether grades or sports or career-related things. It was always an individual value to me; I’m not sure I ever saw it as a community value as well. Not until that moment, anyway, when Eric Garcetti expressed it as such. I think he supported the Hollywood Central Park because he saw a community of people reaching for something together. I think their effort reflected his values, possibly learned at the same Los Angeles schools that I attended.
Anyway, the Councilman’s answer to my question was like a cup of ice water poured onto someone who refuses to get out of bed, with me the somnolent pouter in that metaphor. Get up and reach for it. Be part of a community that strives for something. When Eric announced his candidacy for Mayor, I signed up to help. I’ve been fundraising for his campaign for a year now. This week I start canvassing. I want this guy to win. I want Eric Garcetti to be the next Mayor of Los Angeles.
It’s crunch time. The election is on March 5th. (Well, the first round, at least. The top two candidates then face each other in a runoff if nobody gets 50% of the vote, which is likely here.) The media blitz is just beginning, and it needs to be strong to get Eric elected. Media is expensive. So, friends of Tumblr, I’m asking for your support. Please donate to the Eric Garcetti for Mayor campaign. Click here. $100, $50, $25, $10 —it doesn’t matter. Whatever number works for you. If you live in Los Angeles, give money because you want to care more about the city you live in. If you live outside of Los Angeles, give because Eric is exactly the type of human being you want in elected office, anywhere in this country.
Here’s that link again. Come on. Be part of this with me. And please reblog this post, if you would be so kind.
(Oh, and there’s a little box that says, “Please note the person who encouraged you to donate below.” If you’d put “Eric Spiegelman” in that little box, it would make me look really good. God, did I just ruin this whole thing? I hope not. But, you know, politics is politics.)
Ladies and gentlemen, your President is a robot. Or a wax sculpture. Maybe a cardboard cutout. All I know is no human being has a photo smile this amazingly consistent.
On Wednesday, the Obamas hosted a reception at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, during which they stood for 130 photographs with visiting foreign dignitaries in town for the UN meeting. The President has exactly the same smile in every single shot. See for yourself — the pictures are up on the State Department’s flickr. And, of course, compressed above into 20 seconds for your viewing pleasure.
This photo of the Connecticut General Assembly during a budget debate met with considerable outrage last week. The people who make the law are not paying attention! For shame!
In California, we have this thing called the initiative process, where the electorate votes directly on certain laws. Telecommunications regulation, the refinancing of bond obligations, creation of administrative agencies with specific tasks — these are some of the issues that the people vote on directly. How many of them are playing solitaire or watching baseball instead of paying attention? Plenty.
My point is this. We hold elected lawmakers to a certain standard of diligence, naturally. If they do not achieve this standard, we vote them out of office. But when we, the electorate, are the ones making the law (as is the case in California) we don’t seem to have a problem with an absence of diligence. And we don’t seem to make any connection between our lack of diligence and the state of the State. I’m fairly certain that if Connecticut found itself in a budgetary crisis, fingers would be pointed at the laptop solitaire players.
Perhaps we Californians need to vote ourselves out of office.
latimes, today:
Two of the people injured refused a mandatory evacuation order, said Sheriff’s Department spokesman Steve Whitmore. He said that the two didn’t realize how serious the threat of the fire was, and that they thought they could protect themselves by jumping into a Jacuzzi.
But when the 80-to-100-foot flames came barreling through their neighborhood, they were seriously burned, said Whitmore.
“These are two individuals who underestimated this fire,” Whitmore said. “This fire is serious.”
nytimes, 2 months ago:
“California’s day of reckoning is here,” Schwarzenegger said in a speech in early June, though in fact many Californians are convinced that the state is past its day of reckoning and that the governor is approaching his “end of days.” …
“Someone else might walk out of here every day depressed, but I don’t walk out of here depressed,” Schwarzenegger said. Whatever happens, “I will sit down in my Jacuzzi tonight,” he said. “I’m going to lay back with a stogie.”
Filed under “awkward Obama.”
Here’s a suggestion for your “feed,” Mr. President — explain in 140 characters or less why any aspect of your health care reform plan is essential. One tweet per issue.
There are two Obamas. One is the smooth, sleek, Birth of the Cool, Aaron Sorkin’s West Wing, badass Obama. He’s the Obama in sunglasses on the cover of Jet magazine. He’s the Obama who dispatched the Clinton campaign with makes-it-look-easy political judo. He’s the Shepard Fairey Obama, the sunrise logo Obama.
The other is the awkward, tacky, gaudy Obama. He’s the Obama on a bicycle, the Obama who hired Pete Souza to be White House photographer, the Obama who allowed a giant bunny furry on the Truman Balcony on Easter, the Obama who permitted that horrific display of CliffsNotes patriotism during the inaugural.
Guess which Obama likes this cake.
Obama’s Triangulation of Beer Choices at the Gates-Crowley Summit was a Frighteningly Clintonesque Move
PopPolitics calls the President out for being a phony.
Remember when Obama could tell a good story?
The President is doing a terrible job of selling health care reform. This is surprising, because we all know the man can tell a good story. “I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton’s army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas.” Remember that? Chills! But with health care, Obama can’t seem to find a narrative. It’s not even clear that he’s looking for one. And if you’re, say, a curious fence-sitter with an Internet connection, the Administration is doing little to sway you.
Go over to the White House website. Booming all-caps header: HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM, right there, front and center. Well done. Watch the video or learn more. Nice and simple. But now things get, well, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. The video is over an hour long. And it’s a single, uncut, town hall meeting. Mr. President, have you no postproduction team? Even the title is snooze-worthy: “The President Highlights Health Insurance Consumer Protections.” No wonder this video has fewer than 5,000 views. Those kids who danced down the aisle to the Chris Brown song found an audience 3,000 times bigger.
Sure, you can argue that the informed voter should take the time to study the issues, blah blah blah. But come on. A spoonful of motion graphics helps the policy go down. And this Administration knows that. Remember how well Candidate Obama was packaged? The whole Shepard Fairey thing? “In no other country on Earth is my story even possible,” (chills, again!) and all that? Just because an issue is complicated doesn’t mean it can’t be pretty, or that it can’t be made more digestible.
Here are some examples of how to get a policy message across with a compelling style: The Big Brother State, by David Scharf. The Hidden Cost of War, by the fine folks at GOOD magazine. Iran: A Nation of Bloggers, by a Canadian film school student. Health care policy is filled with charts and graphs and statistics that can be made to fly around the screen and make the audience feel smart. Health care policy is also filled with sob stories and horror stories of people without insurance, stories that can give the numbers a human face and bring the issue home for constituents. Captivating narratives. Heartstrings to be plucked. More chills! What Obama needs is to deputize Ira Glass.
But no, the best presentation the White House can muster is an eight-point summary of Obama’s plan that reads like a mattress commercial. (If you act now, no cost-sharing for preventive care or your money back, guaranteed!) The President can do better. He has a massive online reach; if he produces a compelling video, people will watch it. Until then, the only health benefit his reform ideas will provide will be a cure for the nation’s insomnia.
One in a series from the guy who painted Nick Denton with pancakes on his head.
“Now look, Mr. Chaudhary gave us very specific instructions for the Weekly Address. The thumbnail is the first thing the audience sees, right? It’s static, it’s what they click on, so it provides another opportunity to enforce our message. The President is all about transparency, okay, so we’re gonna give the audience a little behind-the-scenes action. They love that shit on DVDs, makes ‘em feel part of Hollywood. Anyway. So I want you to get some of the equipment in there. Get Obama on the monitor. Looks fancy. Says, we know that you know that this is a production. We respect your intelligence. Now look at our fancy monitors. And maybe get the President in the background, too. Shows we got nothin’ to hide. Throw in a Klieg light, maybe with some tissue paper over it. Why tissue paper? Because that’s really what the pros use! Isn’t that something? A microphone’s good too — but the Klieg’s more exciting. Oh, yeah — show the President’s water glass. He’s human. Very very human. He gets thirsty, just like us! See, by giving people this little glimpse, we enforce the idea that everyone has access to the President. He’s open with us. He tells us what’s what. What’s that? The crew? No, don’t photograph the crew, least of all the grips. They’re a rough bunch. Weathered and grizzly. They smoke Reds. Get some other guys. Prettier ones. Give ‘em papers to hold or something. And do NOT, under any circumstances, show the President getting his make-up applied. We’re supposed to emote authenticity, sure — but let’s not get crazy.”
Sympathy for the pitbull: following the money
During the election, Sarah Palin spent over $150,000 of GOP money on new clothes for herself, her husband, and her kids. As governor, she expensed $43,000 worth of travel for her family and didn’t pay taxes on it. Her salary as governor was $125,000; Todd makes $47,000 a year. Sarah Palin has five dependent children plus a grandson she probably supports. Her legal bills, for defending ethics complaints, now exceed $600,000.
Perhaps it just got too expensive to be Governor. Perhaps she hid her pregnancy because was worried about how she’d afford it, what with four other kids and a pregnant daughter. Perhaps she doesn’t understand the intricacies of the ethics laws that govern public money, and was biased in favor of taking what she could get so she could take care of her family.
Sarah Palin also rejected a pay raise on principal, rejected federal money for Alaska on principal, and rejected the abortion of a Downs baby and grandson on principal. I don’t think her scandals reflect a bankrupt morality. I think her morality is bankrupting her into scandal.
