I used to be phenomenally well organized. But after I retired I decided to become, not disorganized, but more like non-organized. That led to occasional missed meetings and things not getting done (like the clutter room downstairs) and I learned to not worry about such things.
But I do have to get that downstairs room cleaned up - we have someone moving into it in February - and I'm going to be teaching a class at UAA in the spring and that means deadlines I have to meet for the students' sakes. Plus this blog has - so it tells me - 4387 published posts and 183 unpublished drafts. I need to do some housekeeping here. I want to give readers better guidance to what's here. What can I do with the redistricting posts? What about the notes to readers that need updating? And there are some academic articles to finish up and submit.
I can do this. I know how. But being non-organized for the last six or seven years has also helped me understand those of my students who could never get their work in on time.
I was already thinking about this when I heard the NPR piece on the tikker this morning. A Swedish guy has created a wristwatch that tells you how much time you have until you die. That's supposed to be a reminder to use the time you have on things you really want to do. That's how I'd use it. But the piece cited terror management experts who said that thinking about death makes people xenophobic. I don't think that would be a problem for me, since I think of myself as part of the human tribe.
I don't usually do New Year's resolutions and this isn't so much of a resolution as a decision and the new year is a good time to start.
Anyone else resolving things? Don't worry if you're not. Have a great new year's eve and day and may you enjoy the beauty around you in 2014. It's there if you look.
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
Monday, December 30, 2013
Are Special Elections The Unintended Consequence Of California Term Limits?
This assertion in a Culver City Observer article caught my attention in an article on the Dec. 3, 2013 special election in my mom's California Assembly race:
We'd tried to help her figure out who to vote for, but in the end, she had no basis for voting for one candidate over another and didn't vote.
It turns out she wasn't alone. A Culver City Observer article says that only 6.8% of the voters voted and that the winner, Sebastian Ridley-Thomas, (60% to 36% for the next candidate) spent $60 in campaign funds per vote.
Really, it was hard for a casual observer to figure out whom to vote for. The mailings and websites were all slick public relations work and I had trouble finding anything that gave me reason to vote for one candidate or another.
But what caught my attention in the article was this line:
The League of Women Voters tells us that a new term limit law came into effect in 2012:
The lifetime term limit seems pretty harsh. That means a great stateswoman would not be able to stay in office, even if her constituents wanted her too. That seems a little anti-democratic to me. It also aims at the wrong target. But then one district - like Alaska - keeping the same US Senator forever increased his seniority over other Senators. Gerrymandering of districts causes problematic long term incumbency, it would seem, more than lack of term limits. (Though not in a US Senate race.) But if seniority starts over again when there's a break in service, that wouldn't be a problem. Ironically, California's current governor served two terms from 1975-1983 and the voters reelected him in 2010.
Wikipedia lists the special elections in California since 1960. (Remember, term limits were passed in 1990 and went into effect in 1996 for Assembly members and 1998 for Senate members.) Here's how many special elections there were each decade since the 1960s according to Wikipedia.
This hardly looks like proof that there is a difference in the norm before and after term limits as the article suggests. The seven special elections so far in the 2010s is high, but less than the number by Dec 1993 in the 1990s.
Nevertheless, special stand alone elections would appear to be costly and one would expect a low turnout - as the Dec. 3 special election turn out to have.
A 2004 report by the Public Policy Institute of Calfiornia doesn't mention the increase in special elections outright, but says that legislative careerism hasn't changed. I've outlined their findings:
Since the advent of term limits, special elections have become the norm throughout California as politicians jockey from one office to another to avoid being termed out and losing a seat in what has become a game resembling musical chairs. [emphasis added]I was going through my mom's paper work and her ballot for that election was still there.
We'd tried to help her figure out who to vote for, but in the end, she had no basis for voting for one candidate over another and didn't vote.
It turns out she wasn't alone. A Culver City Observer article says that only 6.8% of the voters voted and that the winner, Sebastian Ridley-Thomas, (60% to 36% for the next candidate) spent $60 in campaign funds per vote.
Really, it was hard for a casual observer to figure out whom to vote for. The mailings and websites were all slick public relations work and I had trouble finding anything that gave me reason to vote for one candidate or another.
But what caught my attention in the article was this line:
Since the advent of term limits, special elections have become the norm throughout California as politicians jockey from one office to another to avoid being termed out and losing a seat in what has become a game resembling musical chairs. [emphasis added]That's interesting, was my first reaction. And it makes sense. Are there others who have found this? So I looked up how many special elections there had been in California. First, when did the term limits start?
The League of Women Voters tells us that a new term limit law came into effect in 2012:
In June 2012, term limits for California state legislators (Assembly and state Senate) were changed by the passage of Proposition 28. Newly elected members -- people elected to the legislature for the first time in 2012 or later -- will be subject to the new term limits. These rules are that they may serve a total of twelve years in either house, or a combination of the two houses. A person may serve all twelve years in either the Assembly or the Senate, or split between the two houses.They go on to explain the old law which was passed by the voters in 1990.
Those officials who have served terms prior to the passage of Proposition 28 will be subject to the old term limits rules. California State Assembly members are limited to three terms (6 years) since 1996. State Senate members have been limited to two terms (8 years) since 1998. These term limits are lifetime, not consecutive.The new law increased how long legislators can be in office in one house, but limited how long they could potentially be in office if they went from the Assembly to the Senate.
The Governor and all other statewide officers except the Insuance Commissioner can serve two terms of four years, with a limit of two terms. This constitutional limitation was passed in November 1990.
The lifetime term limit seems pretty harsh. That means a great stateswoman would not be able to stay in office, even if her constituents wanted her too. That seems a little anti-democratic to me. It also aims at the wrong target. But then one district - like Alaska - keeping the same US Senator forever increased his seniority over other Senators. Gerrymandering of districts causes problematic long term incumbency, it would seem, more than lack of term limits. (Though not in a US Senate race.) But if seniority starts over again when there's a break in service, that wouldn't be a problem. Ironically, California's current governor served two terms from 1975-1983 and the voters reelected him in 2010.
Wikipedia lists the special elections in California since 1960. (Remember, term limits were passed in 1990 and went into effect in 1996 for Assembly members and 1998 for Senate members.) Here's how many special elections there were each decade since the 1960s according to Wikipedia.
1960s - 5
1970s - 13
1980s - 5
1990s - 17 ( nine before Nov. 3 1993))
2000s - 6
2010s - 7
This hardly looks like proof that there is a difference in the norm before and after term limits as the article suggests. The seven special elections so far in the 2010s is high, but less than the number by Dec 1993 in the 1990s.
Nevertheless, special stand alone elections would appear to be costly and one would expect a low turnout - as the Dec. 3 special election turn out to have.
A 2004 report by the Public Policy Institute of Calfiornia doesn't mention the increase in special elections outright, but says that legislative careerism hasn't changed. I've outlined their findings:
- did not revolutionize—the type of legislator who comes to Sacramento.
- accelerated trends of increasing female and minority representation that were already under way in California.
- new members after term limits behave a great deal like their precursors.
- Careerism remains a constant in California politics.
- effects on Sacramento’s policymaking processes have been more profound.
- In both houses, committees now screen out fewer bills assigned to them and are more likely to see their work rewritten at later stages.
- The practice of“hijacking” Assembly bills—gutting their contents and amending them thoroughly in the Senate—has increased sharply.
- As a body, the Legislature is less likely to alter the Governor’s Budget, and
- its own budget process neither encourages fiscal discipline nor links legislators’ requests to overall spending goals.
- legislative oversight of the executive branch has declined significantly.
- widespread sense in Sacramento that something needs to be done soon to provide more stability and expertise to the Legislature’s policymaking process.
- leaders remain central to the process, and
- term limits cannot be blamed for Sacramento’s intensifying partisan polarization.
- Term limits have had a mixed effect on the Legislature’s policy products.
- no effect on the breadth and complexity of bills passed into law,
- recently instituted programs to train members and staff do not appear to improve a legislator’s “batting average”—that is, his or her chances of passing a bill or seeing it signed into law—although legislators who receive that training tend to write shorter bills that change more code sections.
Sunday, December 29, 2013
Lick Your Rat Pups: Epigenetics, Methyl Groups, DNA, Evolution
Can behavioral change of a parent be passed on to children and grandchildren? Darwinian evolution would say no. But scientists today are finding this a lot more complicated.
Think of this post as some notes to myself. I don't even remember what caused me to google 'epigenetics.' I'm a little behind the curve on this, but I suspect I'm not the only one. And it seems like something I should know more about. Here are some tantalizing quotes in fairly understandable English.
From Discover Magazine:
"Until researchers like Razin came along, the basic story line on how genes get transcribed in a cell was neat and simple. DNA is the master code, residing inside the nucleus of every cell; RNA transcribes the code to build whatever proteins the cell needs. Then some of Razin’s colleagues showed that methyl groups could attach to cytosine, one of the chemical bases in DNA and RNA.
It was Razin, working with fellow biochemist Howard Cedar, who showed these attachments weren’t just brief, meaningless affairs. The methyl groups could become married permanently to the DNA, getting replicated right along with it through a hundred generations. As in any good marriage, moreover, the attachment of the methyl groups significantly altered the behavior of whichever gene they wed, inhibiting its transcription, much like a jealous spouse. It did so, Razin and Cedar showed, by tightening the thread of DNA as it wrapped around a molecular spool, called a histone, inside the nucleus. The tighter it is wrapped, the harder to produce proteins from the gene."
From the University of Utah
These records showed that food availability between the ages of nine and twelve for the paternal grandfather affected the lifespan of his grandchildren. But not in the way you might think. Shortage of food for the grandfather was associated with extended lifespan of his grandchildren. Food abundance, on the other hand, was associated with a greatly shortened lifespan of the grandchildren. Early death was the result of either diabetes or heart disease. Could it be that during this critical period of development for the grandfather, epigenetic mechanisms are "capturing" nutritional information about the environment to pass on to the next generation?
From Epigenome:
"Male lions are among the most sexually active of mammalian beasts. In captivity they have even been known to mount female tigers. The resulting liger offspring make their parents look like pussy cats, often exceeding twelve feet in length and doubling parental weight. In contrast, if you mate a male tiger with a female lion, the resulting tigon is considerably smaller. What makes the liger so big and tigon so small?"
From the Johns Hopkins Center for Epigenetics Website:
Understanding how the information in the human genome is utilized is one of the central questions in modern biology. It has become clear that a critical level of gene regulation occurs through the chemical modification of both the DNA itself and the proteins that organize eukaryotic DNA into chromatin. This form of gene regulation, termed epigenetics, refers to cellular "memory" other than the DNA sequence alone, and occurs through mechanisms such as the addition of methyl groups to DNA, as a way of marking specific genes as active or silent. The Center for Epigenetics has brought together investigators in genetics, biochemistry, cell biology, biostatistics, epidemiology, and clinical medicine to develop new technologies to apply to both basic science and population-based epigenetic studies. The center has developed several new genomics, biostatistical, and biochemical methods and is applying them to cutting-edge studies of epigenetic mechanisms and disease research.
From Radio Lab:
As we reported, the duo's lab work shows that when a mother rat licks a pup (her sign of "I love you"*), the action sets off a Rube Golberg-esque cascade of hormones, which ultimately wind up all the way down at the level of the DNA.
Image from Radio Lab
What do those hormones do down there? It turns out, they change the chemical markers, or epigenome, surrounding certain areas of the DNA. And the end result of these changes hinges on how much the rat pup is licked: if a rat pup gets a lot of licks, the epigenetic changes cause the pup to grow up and lick its own kids a lot; if a pup doesn't get a lot of licks, the chemical changes cause that pup to be a low-licker. In both cases, the pattern of maternal behavior is carried across generations -- from grandmothers to mothers to grandkids. Or, in the words of Radiolab producer Soren Wheeler, "It's as if the epigenetic information leaps up out of the mother's genes through a tongue and lands back on the babies' genes." (Interested? Go listen to the show for more!)
From Science we get warned about calling every nongenetic system as epigenetic:
"The cells in a multicellular organism have nominally identical DNA sequences (and therefore the same genetic instruction sets), yet maintain different terminal phenotypes. This nongenetic cellular memory, which records developmental and environmental cues (and alternative cell states in unicellular organisms), is the basis of epi-(above)–genetics.The lack of identified genetic determinants that fully explain the heritability of complex traits, and the inability to pinpoint causative genetic effects in some complex diseases, suggest possible epigenetic explanations for this missing information. This growing interest, along with the desire to understand the “deprogramming” of differentiated cells into pluripotent/totipotent states, has led to “epigenetic” becoming shorthand for many regulatory systems involving DNA methylation, histone modification, nucleosome location, or noncoding RNA. This is to be encouraged, but the labeling of nongenetic systems as epigenetic by default has the potential to confuse (see the related video at www.sciencemag.org/special/epigenetics/)."
I don't know what this all means yet. As I said, notes to myself.
Saturday, December 28, 2013
When Is It OK To Hold Public Meetings In Secret? The Coliseum Case
The ultimate reason for government openness is to allow the public to keep their public officials accountable. It's a value I hold strong here at this blog. This is a story about a government agency not being open.
The other day I had a photo and personal comments on the LA Coliseum. Today, the LA Times has
an article enttitled:
But, apparently, in this situation, the two sides were not adversarial. The Coliseum Commissioners, according to the article,
About the Coliseum
Background from Wikipedia (which reflects the agreement that was negotiated in secret):
Disclosure versus Confidentiality
There are some legitimate reasons not to release some government information. Individuals who cooperate with the government and legitimately fear retaliation should be protected. Say, when there is gang violence or shakedowns of shop owners, and someone offers help to the police, that person's identity should be protected if it's likely there will be retaliation. And businesses who provide the government environmental or safety information about their company, should have trade secrets that are involved, kept secret so their competitors can't use it to their advantage. Without such protections, businesses are less likely to cooperate, just as in the previous example, witnesses are less like to cooperate.
The 1966 Federal Freedom of Information Act sets out a list of exemptions using the kind of reasoning I've outlined above.
Ultimately, we're weighing the short term public interest in knowing versus the long term public interest in having people cooperate with law enforcement and other government officials. We have to find the balance between keeping secret or revealing certain kinds of information. We want businesses to voluntarily provide information (including sometimes trade secrets) to government agencies that monitor them. We want clients to be honest with their attorneys. We want presidential advisers to be candid with their policy advice. If allowing that information to be confidential, and it's not critical to government accountability, then no problem. But sometimes the public needs to know some of that info in order to evaluate public decisions.
The public interest is so important that California makes it the test in some cases of disclosure or not.
The problem with secrecy
But whenever there is secrecy, there is the temptation to abuse that secrecy.
In the Coliseum case it appears the secrecy was used to hide how the public's representatives (the coliseum commissioners) gave USC all the advantages at tax payers' expense. (I say apparently because the LA Times was part of the lawsuit to get the information. They have a vested interest in showing that their lawsuit was legitimate. I've no evidence their report is biased. Evidence in their favor is the court's decision to make the data public. But we should take nothing for granted.)
The public interest is so important that, California makes it the test in some cases of whether to disclose or notn-disclosure.
My sense is that negotiation with an adversary is a good reason to keep information secret - though not necessarily the negotiation meetings. In any case, after the negotiation is done, there's no reason not to make all the proceedings public.
But, in this Coliseum case, the participants definitely did not want people to know what they did.
The question now is, if the public representatives do not work for the public in good faith, shouldn't that invalidate the agreement?
Sham public hearings
I think this attitude is pretty common among people used to having power and getting their way. USC is a private university that has raised $3 billion in its current campaign to raise $6 billion. The senior vice president is pretty used to dealing with very wealthy people who tend to get their way. Some examples of the kinds of people he probably works with comes from the USC fundraising page:
What's my point?
This isn't a gossip blog. When I post stories about specific events it's usually to either document what's happening and/or to make some larger point. Since the LA Times has already done the documentation here, I need to put this in a larger perspective. So, my points probably boil down to:
1. The openness of public information is a cornerstone of democracy. Without it, there is no way to keep public officials accountable.
2. When information is not disclosed, people should be suspicious and should demand its release.
3. People everywhere should remember what the secret emails reveal in contrast to the public statements:
Both those quotes come from the emails that the LA Times lawsuit revealed.
THEN, I hope people apply this to their own local and state officials. Recognize when you hear people proclaim their support of transparency, especially after opposing requests for more openness, that what they actually said in private was probably the opposite.
I think about how the DOWL Engineering group has held public hearing after public hearing with fancy charts and how they took public testimony which showed over and over again that the vast majority of the people were opposed to extending Bragaw through the University. Yet despite that testimony Anchorage's mayor managed to work a last minute deal to get $20 million to put the road through anyway. And then we hear it will actually cost yet another $20 million. The public process was a total sham. It was only to meet legal requirements.
I think about how the Anchorage Assembly allowed weeks and weeks of testimony on an ordinance to add gays and lesbians to our local anti-discrimination ordinance. People in were even bused in from Matsu to testify against the ordinance. And the hearings continued long enough that we changed mayors - from one who said he'd sign the ordinance to one who vetoed it.
And then that same mayor exclaimed about changes in the Labor Ordinance, "This was one of the most open, comprehensive public processes." Sounds a lot like the qote above. Fortunately, the audience at the Assembly meeting that night was heavily labor and they knew the truth.
The other day I had a photo and personal comments on the LA Coliseum. Today, the LA Times has
It begins:"Coliseum incurred big expense in trying to keep USC lease talks secret"
The Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum was flirting with insolvency, but that didn't stop its government overseers from incurring hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal expenses to keep secret their deliberations on a new long-term lease for the stadium.Starting with the US Freedom of Information Act and going through various state and municipal open records acts, there is usually an exception for private negotiations. If you're bargaining over a lease, it generally isn't a good idea to let the other side know what your last best offer is.
But, apparently, in this situation, the two sides were not adversarial. The Coliseum Commissioners, according to the article,
"The emails, along with others obtained earlier under the California Public Records Act, show the Coliseum's top executive granting nearly every wish USC had for the negotiations and then helping the university build and maintain political support for the lease."
About the Coliseum
Background from Wikipedia (which reflects the agreement that was negotiated in secret):
The Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, colloquially known as just "The Coliseum", is a large outdoor sports stadium in the University Park neighborhood of Los Angeles, at Exposition Park, that is home to the Pacific-12 Conference's University of Southern California Trojans football team. It is the largest football stadium in the Pac-12.
It is located next to the Los Angeles Memorial Sports Arena in Exposition Park, across the street from the University of Southern California (USC). The stadium is jointly owned by the State of California, Los Angeles County, and the City of Los Angeles, and is managed and operated by the University of Southern California. The Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission, which has board members drawn from the three ownership interests, provides public oversight of the master lease agreement with USC. Under the lease the University has day-to-day management and operation responsibility for both the Coliseum and Sports Arena. The 98-year lease took effect on July 29, 2013 and was signed by the parties on September 5, 2013. The agreement requires the University to make approximately $100 million in physical improvements to the Coliseum, pay $1 million a year rent to the state of California, maintain the Coliseum’s physical condition at the same standard used on the USC Campus, and assume all financial obligations for the operations and maintenance of the Coliseum and Sports Arena Complex.[7][8]
Disclosure versus Confidentiality
There are some legitimate reasons not to release some government information. Individuals who cooperate with the government and legitimately fear retaliation should be protected. Say, when there is gang violence or shakedowns of shop owners, and someone offers help to the police, that person's identity should be protected if it's likely there will be retaliation. And businesses who provide the government environmental or safety information about their company, should have trade secrets that are involved, kept secret so their competitors can't use it to their advantage. Without such protections, businesses are less likely to cooperate, just as in the previous example, witnesses are less like to cooperate.
The 1966 Federal Freedom of Information Act sets out a list of exemptions using the kind of reasoning I've outlined above.
Exemption 1: Information that is classified to protect national security. The material must be properly classified under an Executive Order.
Exemption 2: Information related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency.
Exemption 3: Information that is prohibited from disclosure by another federal law. Additional resources on the use of Exemption 3 can be found on the Department of Justice FOIA Resources page.
Exemption 4: Information that concerns business trade secrets or other confidential commercial or financial information.
Exemption 5: Information that concerns communications within or between agencies which are protected by legal privileges, that include but are not limited to:
Exemption 6: Information that, if disclosed, would invade another individual's personal privacy.
- Attorney-Work Product Privilege
- Attorney-Client Privilege
- Deliberative Process Privilege
- Presidential Communications Privilege
Exemption 7: Information compiled for law enforcement purposes if one of the following harms would occur. Law enforcement information is exempt if it:
Exemption 8: Information that concerns the supervision of financial institutions.
- 7(A). Could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings
- 7(B). Would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication
- 7(C). Could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy
- 7(D). Could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source
- 7(E). Would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions
- 7(F). Could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual
Exemption 9: Geological information on wells.
Ultimately, we're weighing the short term public interest in knowing versus the long term public interest in having people cooperate with law enforcement and other government officials. We have to find the balance between keeping secret or revealing certain kinds of information. We want businesses to voluntarily provide information (including sometimes trade secrets) to government agencies that monitor them. We want clients to be honest with their attorneys. We want presidential advisers to be candid with their policy advice. If allowing that information to be confidential, and it's not critical to government accountability, then no problem. But sometimes the public needs to know some of that info in order to evaluate public decisions.
The public interest is so important that California makes it the test in some cases of disclosure or not.
"In order to withhold a record under section 6255, an agency must demonstrate that the public’s interest in nondisclosure clearly outweighs the public’s interest in disclosure. A particular agency’s interest in nondisclosure is of little consequence in performing this balancing test; it is the public’s interest, not the agency’s that is weighed. This “public interest balancing test” has been the subject of several court decisions. In a case involving the licensing of concealed weapons, the permits and applications were found to be disclosable in order for the public to properly monitor the government’s administration of concealed weapons permits.The last example, of course, highlights the reason, in a democracy, for transparency: the public's ability to monitor the government's decisions and actions. They give a number of other examples of cases where they ruled for disclosure because the public interest was so strong.
The problem with secrecy
But whenever there is secrecy, there is the temptation to abuse that secrecy.
In the Coliseum case it appears the secrecy was used to hide how the public's representatives (the coliseum commissioners) gave USC all the advantages at tax payers' expense. (I say apparently because the LA Times was part of the lawsuit to get the information. They have a vested interest in showing that their lawsuit was legitimate. I've no evidence their report is biased. Evidence in their favor is the court's decision to make the data public. But we should take nothing for granted.)
The public interest is so important that, California makes it the test in some cases of whether to disclose or notn-disclosure.
"In order to withhold a record under section 6255, an agency must demonstrate that the public’s interest in nondisclosure clearly outweighs the public’s interest in disclosure. A particular agency’s interest in nondisclosure is of little consequence in performing this balancing test; it is the public’s interest, not the agency’s that is weighed. This “public interest balancing test” has been the subject of several court decisions. In a case involving the licensing of concealed weapons, the permits and applications were found to be disclosable in order for the public to properly monitor the government’s administration of concealed weapons permits.The last example, of course, highlights the reason, in a democracy, for transparency: the public's ability to monitor the government's administration.
My sense is that negotiation with an adversary is a good reason to keep information secret - though not necessarily the negotiation meetings. In any case, after the negotiation is done, there's no reason not to make all the proceedings public.
But, in this Coliseum case, the participants definitely did not want people to know what they did.
The question now is, if the public representatives do not work for the public in good faith, shouldn't that invalidate the agreement?
Sham public hearings
USC Senior Vice President Todd Dickey, who also received the email, responded: "If you want us to hold an open house … and listen to 500 people speak for 5 hours, and maybe answer a few questions, I guess we can do that, but I see no value in that at all."
I think this attitude is pretty common among people used to having power and getting their way. USC is a private university that has raised $3 billion in its current campaign to raise $6 billion. The senior vice president is pretty used to dealing with very wealthy people who tend to get their way. Some examples of the kinds of people he probably works with comes from the USC fundraising page:
Not only is the top of the USC hierarchy used to dealing with wealthy folks, they also can get those folks to lobby for them.
- An anonymous $20 million gift will endow student support at the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences, the USC School of Social Work and the USC Marshall School of Business.
- Selim Zilkha has pledged a gift of $5 million to the Keck School of Medicine of USC to fund a new endowed chair in Alzheimer’s disease research.
- A $1 million donation by USC Dornsife alumni has established the Linda and Harlan Martens Endowed Director’s Chair for the USC-Huntington Early Modern Studies Institute.
"Some of the emails the government sought to keep under wraps show that the stadium officials and USC collaborated in securing backing for the lease in City Hall and Sacramento.And they can reward those who cooperate with them:
In one exchange, Sandbrook asked Dickey if he knew an alternate commissioner who represented then-Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and might attend a lease meeting.
"Damn, no I don't," Dickey replied. "We need to get to the Mayor so he can encourage her to support the lease."
After receiving a report that Villaraigosa was miffed at not receiving advance notice on the lease terms, Dickey wrote to Sandbrook and then-commission President David Israel, that USC President Max Nikias and others had been lobbying the mayor:
"Tom Sayles has been in constant contact with the Mayor's office trying to get them to support the term sheet," Dickey said in the correspondence, referring to a USC administrator. "We even had President Nikias call the Mayor and he got him today."
Villaraigosa's two representatives on the commission voted for the lease.
The former mayor, now a USC faculty member, did not respond to interviewI'm not saying this was a quid pro quo deal. The former mayor certainly has a lot of knowledge to share with students and he makes USC's diversity stronger. But there is the appearance of something fishy here. And, for my own disclosure, I would add that I graduated from what is now the school he was appointed to.
What's my point?
This isn't a gossip blog. When I post stories about specific events it's usually to either document what's happening and/or to make some larger point. Since the LA Times has already done the documentation here, I need to put this in a larger perspective. So, my points probably boil down to:
1. The openness of public information is a cornerstone of democracy. Without it, there is no way to keep public officials accountable.
2. When information is not disclosed, people should be suspicious and should demand its release.
3. People everywhere should remember what the secret emails reveal in contrast to the public statements:
| private communication | "If you want us to hold an open house … and listen to 500 people speak for 5 hours, and maybe answer a few questions, I guess we can do that, but I see no value in that at all." |
| public communication | "To support a public and transparent process, the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission and the University of Southern California are jointly releasing a list of points of agreement that will serve as the basis for continuing negotiations on a modified lease between USC and the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission." |
Both those quotes come from the emails that the LA Times lawsuit revealed.
THEN, I hope people apply this to their own local and state officials. Recognize when you hear people proclaim their support of transparency, especially after opposing requests for more openness, that what they actually said in private was probably the opposite.
I think about how the DOWL Engineering group has held public hearing after public hearing with fancy charts and how they took public testimony which showed over and over again that the vast majority of the people were opposed to extending Bragaw through the University. Yet despite that testimony Anchorage's mayor managed to work a last minute deal to get $20 million to put the road through anyway. And then we hear it will actually cost yet another $20 million. The public process was a total sham. It was only to meet legal requirements.
I think about how the Anchorage Assembly allowed weeks and weeks of testimony on an ordinance to add gays and lesbians to our local anti-discrimination ordinance. People in were even bused in from Matsu to testify against the ordinance. And the hearings continued long enough that we changed mayors - from one who said he'd sign the ordinance to one who vetoed it.
And then that same mayor exclaimed about changes in the Labor Ordinance, "This was one of the most open, comprehensive public processes." Sounds a lot like the qote above. Fortunately, the audience at the Assembly meeting that night was heavily labor and they knew the truth.
Friday, December 27, 2013
Is LA Air Less Polluted? Yes, But . . .
Jacob commented on yesterday's post with extremely clear views of LA:
"Don't think I've seen LA air look so clear. Was it wind pushing pollution away or are environmental regs really making that much difference? A bit of both seems likely, but what's going here?"
nswfm commented that it was a bit windy.
But I haven't experienced any wind since I got here.
The answer, according to an LA Times article yesterday on the San Jaoquin Valley is that pollution is down, but EPA standards are up.
After spending decades and hundreds of millions of dollars cleaning upThe local officials argue the smog they get comes from pollution blowing in from Asia and non-local vehicles driving through the San Joaquin Valley. The Valley reported that they now meet EPA standards.
stubbornly high levels of pollution, air quality officials in the San Joaquin Valley are telling federal regulators that enough is enough.
DOT map San Joaquin Valley
San Joaquin Valley officials say that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is unfairly blaming locals for air fouled by outside sources and is failing to take into account the pollution-trapping topography of the mountain-ringed basin.
"Once we've done everything we can, we should not be penalized," Seyed Sadredin, executive director of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, said in reference to fees his agency has imposed on local drivers and businesses in recent years after failing to meet federal deadlines to curb smog.
"The EPA says that readings at two of the most polluted air quality monitoring sites are flawed and do not prove that the region's air has been cleaned up enough to reach the agency's 1979 standard for ozone. The EPA says that it will hold the San Joaquin Valley to the same standards as the rest of the nation and has asked the district for more data to back up its contention."You can read the whole LA Times article, but interestingly, the print version has graphics that are not online. They show a steady, but inconsistent decline.
The San Joaquin Valley starts north of LA. ABC News in April 2013 said that
"Los Angeles Tops ‘Dirty Air’ List for 13th Time in 14 Years"
They cite a report from The American Lung Association (Key Findings) where you can look up air pollution information on any state and city in the US. I say "look up" but it doesn't mean you'll find it. All of Alaska, for instance is labeled either INC (indicates incomplete monitoring data for all three years) or DNC (ndicates that there is no monitor collecting data in the county).
But they do have information on Los Angeles. Unfortunately I wasn't able to copy the table and preserve the format, so I'm posting a screenshot and the links below don't work - the image is just an image. But if you click on it, it will take you to the Lung Association page and you can read more. As you can see, despite getting failing grades, there are significant improvements.
So, Jacob, I hope that answers your question.
[Note: Just when I thought the Feedburner problems had been fixed, this post hasn't made it to other Blogrolls for over 7 hours now.]
AIFF 2013: Two Fine Films: De Nieuwe Wereld (The New World) and Hank and Asha
This is a continuation of this post on "What Makes A Good Film?"
My 1's (movies that had me walking out of the theater going 'wow!'):
7 Cajas (7 Boxes)
Die Nieuwe Wereld (The New World)
Hank and Asha
Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow? (明天記得愛上我)
All four of these movies pulled me in so completely that I wasn't watching the movie making - all the technical stuff worked to tell the story, not distracted from the story (either because it was bad or so spectacular that it distracted.)
All four, I left the theater with the feeling of having seen a really good film.
Of the four, I probably was the least swept away at the moment by The New World. But it wouldn't let go of me. Scenes kept coming back to me. When I saw Hank and Asha I walked out pumped. What a great film. But then, I wondered was there enough depth? Was this just a well made, but light romantic comedy? The New World seemed more important, but I didn't walk out with the same elation. Was I just being shallow?
At this point, I think they are both very fine movies. The New World told a complicated story deceptively simply. It quietly took us on a tour of two people's broken hearts. We slowly learn about Mirte and Luc and their similar losses that allowed her to reach out to help him. At the same time helping herself. On the surface though, it almost seems like a documentary about life at the airport's detention area for asylum seekers waiting for the decision whether they can enter Holland or not. It's so understated. Even the colors are muted. One audience member told me his initial reaction was negative because there was no humor. But the humor was there. It was just so quiet. Like a little dab of yellow in a grey-brown world. For example - people are coming in the door at the end of the hallway where she's just mopped the floor. She waves her hands at them to stay on the side - these are immigrants who probably don't speak Dutch. She makes 'chhhhhh...chhhhhh" sounds at them. An African stares at her as he walks down the hall. She again goes, "chhhhhhh. . .chhhhhhhhhh." He smiles and goes, "chhhhhhh. . .chhhhhhhhhh" back to her as though he were learning to say 'hello' in her language. It's such intimate cross cultural communications that make this movie so powerful. Two low level people in a political no-man's land at the airport, but not technically in Holland. In another scene, she catches him staring at her and she waves him off and tells him not to look at her. He comes up to her and in complete innocence says, "I've never seen a white cleaning woman before."
This is a movie where you have to look closely or you'll think nothing is happening, but it's just happening at a lower volume and slower pace than we're used to in US film. Slight gestures fill the screen with meaning if you're attuned to them. When they get to the scene where she's washing the glass wall and he dances on the other side along with her motions it's like an explosion in another movie.
We get glimpses behind the scene in this asylum center - the workers making bets on who's lying, the attorneys trying to find ways to mesh the clients' stories with the specifics of the law, the impossible responsibility of determining if someone is telling the truth. We see the healing relationship between the mother and her young son. There's the motor bicycle she rides everywhere. There's so much. I was only able to see this film once and I know that a second and third viewing would reveal so much more I didn't see.
Actors Bianca Krijgsman and Issaka Sawadogo were superb. This was, for me, one of the gems of the festival.
And then I saw Hank and Asha. This is a feel good movie. It's a video romance between two strangers, played by actors (Mahira Kakkar and Andrew Pastides) loaded with charm. It's all told in the videos they - two budding film makers - send back and forth to each other between New York and Prague. There's no nudity, no sex, no violence, just two well adjusted 20 somethings falling into an unexpected friendship that gets to the edge of something more. Everything worked for me as they shared their lives with each other via video. There's nothing heavy here, no imminent deportations, though there is appropriate cultural and parental conflict. The epistolary film, that uses an exchange of videos rather than letters, is itself a comment on what we have lost as we've moved to instant global communication. Everything worked for me. The story, the characters (I never thought of the actors as actors it was so real), the way it was all put together seemed so natural. We were simply eavesdropping as two people opened their video mail from their new found friend across the Atlantic.
The film makers - James Duff and Julia Morrison - were at the festival and I was able to learn more about the film. You can see my video with them in Anchorage discussing the film here. Most surprising was that the two actors only met after the filming was done. In fact Mahira did all her video in ten days in Prague before any of Andrew's video was made. This speaks well to the scripting, the acting, and the editing.
James and Julia said Hank and Asha will be available on Netflix in April and people should put it on their lists now. This is the kind of film I feel pretty comfortable recommending - it's hard not to like. We did see this one twice and it held up nicely the second time. I saw lots of things I'd missed the first time.
Next, two films that were not in competition because they were special selections - invited films, not submissions.
My 1's (movies that had me walking out of the theater going 'wow!'):
7 Cajas (7 Boxes)
Die Nieuwe Wereld (The New World)
Hank and Asha
Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow? (明天記得愛上我)
All four of these movies pulled me in so completely that I wasn't watching the movie making - all the technical stuff worked to tell the story, not distracted from the story (either because it was bad or so spectacular that it distracted.)
All four, I left the theater with the feeling of having seen a really good film.
Of the four, I probably was the least swept away at the moment by The New World. But it wouldn't let go of me. Scenes kept coming back to me. When I saw Hank and Asha I walked out pumped. What a great film. But then, I wondered was there enough depth? Was this just a well made, but light romantic comedy? The New World seemed more important, but I didn't walk out with the same elation. Was I just being shallow?
At this point, I think they are both very fine movies. The New World told a complicated story deceptively simply. It quietly took us on a tour of two people's broken hearts. We slowly learn about Mirte and Luc and their similar losses that allowed her to reach out to help him. At the same time helping herself. On the surface though, it almost seems like a documentary about life at the airport's detention area for asylum seekers waiting for the decision whether they can enter Holland or not. It's so understated. Even the colors are muted. One audience member told me his initial reaction was negative because there was no humor. But the humor was there. It was just so quiet. Like a little dab of yellow in a grey-brown world. For example - people are coming in the door at the end of the hallway where she's just mopped the floor. She waves her hands at them to stay on the side - these are immigrants who probably don't speak Dutch. She makes 'chhhhhh...chhhhhh" sounds at them. An African stares at her as he walks down the hall. She again goes, "chhhhhhh. . .chhhhhhhhhh." He smiles and goes, "chhhhhhh. . .chhhhhhhhhh" back to her as though he were learning to say 'hello' in her language. It's such intimate cross cultural communications that make this movie so powerful. Two low level people in a political no-man's land at the airport, but not technically in Holland. In another scene, she catches him staring at her and she waves him off and tells him not to look at her. He comes up to her and in complete innocence says, "I've never seen a white cleaning woman before."
This is a movie where you have to look closely or you'll think nothing is happening, but it's just happening at a lower volume and slower pace than we're used to in US film. Slight gestures fill the screen with meaning if you're attuned to them. When they get to the scene where she's washing the glass wall and he dances on the other side along with her motions it's like an explosion in another movie.
We get glimpses behind the scene in this asylum center - the workers making bets on who's lying, the attorneys trying to find ways to mesh the clients' stories with the specifics of the law, the impossible responsibility of determining if someone is telling the truth. We see the healing relationship between the mother and her young son. There's the motor bicycle she rides everywhere. There's so much. I was only able to see this film once and I know that a second and third viewing would reveal so much more I didn't see.
Actors Bianca Krijgsman and Issaka Sawadogo were superb. This was, for me, one of the gems of the festival.
And then I saw Hank and Asha. This is a feel good movie. It's a video romance between two strangers, played by actors (Mahira Kakkar and Andrew Pastides) loaded with charm. It's all told in the videos they - two budding film makers - send back and forth to each other between New York and Prague. There's no nudity, no sex, no violence, just two well adjusted 20 somethings falling into an unexpected friendship that gets to the edge of something more. Everything worked for me as they shared their lives with each other via video. There's nothing heavy here, no imminent deportations, though there is appropriate cultural and parental conflict. The epistolary film, that uses an exchange of videos rather than letters, is itself a comment on what we have lost as we've moved to instant global communication. Everything worked for me. The story, the characters (I never thought of the actors as actors it was so real), the way it was all put together seemed so natural. We were simply eavesdropping as two people opened their video mail from their new found friend across the Atlantic.
The film makers - James Duff and Julia Morrison - were at the festival and I was able to learn more about the film. You can see my video with them in Anchorage discussing the film here. Most surprising was that the two actors only met after the filming was done. In fact Mahira did all her video in ten days in Prague before any of Andrew's video was made. This speaks well to the scripting, the acting, and the editing.
James and Julia said Hank and Asha will be available on Netflix in April and people should put it on their lists now. This is the kind of film I feel pretty comfortable recommending - it's hard not to like. We did see this one twice and it held up nicely the second time. I saw lots of things I'd missed the first time.
Next, two films that were not in competition because they were special selections - invited films, not submissions.
Thursday, December 26, 2013
Tale of Two Cities - Divided Between Anchorage And LA
 |
| Ice Wall Seward Highway south of Anchorage |
It was several degrees below zero (Fahrenheit) when we left Anchorage just after midnight Christmas morning. It was ridiculously warm (on the way to mid 80s) and clear as we arrived into LA almost 40 minutes early around 8 am. (There'd been a stopover in Seattle)
So this post is going to mix some leftover Anchorage photos from a great sightseeing day with New York based film maker Thanachart Siripatrachai mid December with photos of flying into LA today. That jumble of hot and cold, wilderness and urban has been the last year as we try to spend as much time with my mom in LA as possible, yet maintain our Anchorage activities. So why shouldn't you go back and forth between the two too?
Anchorage sunset Dec. 12, about 3:45 pm returning from Glen Alps.
Flying into LA Christmas Day, looking south toward Palos Verdes with Catalina Island very clear in the background. LAX in the foreground. We were early and spent some time flightseeing over LA.
Benz (Thanachart) checking out mostly frozen Turnagain Arm. It was about 10˚F (-7˚C) that day and while it was mostly clear when we left the house, twenty minutes later it was mostly cloudy in the Arm and soon began to snow lightly.
And there was a brisk wind. We walked around Beluga Point checking the ice formation on the water. It was getting really cold with the wind. So it was a little surprising when we saw three people get out of a car. She was wearing lots of white. They climbed over the barricade and over the railroad tracks. She pulled off her shawl and they started taking wedding pictures. He had on an overcoat and scarf.
We came into LA, just north of the airport headed east (earlier photo above) came back a bit, and then looped around north with this view of downtown and all the mountain backdrops clearly displayed. When we completed the circle we were headed west right over the Coliseum.
It was the 1984 Summer Olympics that made me realize what a huge part of my life the LA Coliseum had been. From Boy Scout jamborees to rodeos, early Dodger games and UCLA football games - I'd been to the Coliseum for various events all my early life.
 | ||
| Click to see map better |
After we stopped at Bells Nursery (previous post on Christmas trees) Benz and I drove up to Glen Alps and walked to the Powerline Pass trail.
We're closing in on the airport here. I'm looking north as LA stretches to the hills. It stretches even further over the hills in the valley. And south out the other side of the plane. And east. But you can't see it quite this clear most days.
This part of Chugach State Park is about 20 minutes from downtown Anchorage. Nothing out there but nature- trees and bushes, a few trails, moose, bear, and other smaller critters.
Here's Benz, tanning, Anchorage winter style.
To put the top ice picture into perspective, I thought I better add this one Benz sent me. All these are sharper if you click them.
Wednesday, December 25, 2013
Alaskans Get Colorado Christmas Trees And Mexican Poinsettias
During the film festival, the creator of The Words I Love (Honorable Mention in the short docs category) stayed with us for several days. Thanachart Siripatrachai - Benz - for short and I went for a few outings and during one we stopped at Bell's Nursery and found, to our surprise, Christmas trees from Colorado.
Down on the bottom - it says Poncha Springs, CO.
Needless to say we were surprised to learn Alaskans buy Colorado trees.
Here's Benz taking pictures.
I don't think these particular poinsettias are from Mexico, but I did some checking and they come originally from Mexico.
From American Phytopathological Society:
Yes, I needed to look it up too. Here's what it says:
In any case, let me take this opportunity to wish all my readers who celebrate Christmas, a very merry Christmas!
Down on the bottom - it says Poncha Springs, CO.
Needless to say we were surprised to learn Alaskans buy Colorado trees.
Here's Benz taking pictures.
I don't think these particular poinsettias are from Mexico, but I did some checking and they come originally from Mexico.
From American Phytopathological Society:
The poinsettia, Euphorbia pulcherrima Willd., is a member of the family Euphorbiaceae. The genus Euphorbia contains some 700 to 1,000 species. It is characterized by a single female flower, without petals and usually without sepals, surrounded by individual male flowers all enclosed in a cup-shaped structure called a cyathium. The showy red, pink, white, or bicolored portion of the plant, popularly referred to as the flower, consists of modified leaves or bracts (Fig. 1).
The poinsettia is a native plant of Mexico and originated in a rather limited region near present day Taxco. Long before the arrival of Europeans, the Aztecs of central Mexico cultivated the plant and called it Cuetlaxochitl. Because of its brilliant color, the poinsettia was a symbol of purity to the Indians. It was highly prized by both King Netzahualcoyotl and Montezuma, but because of the high altitude climate, the plant could not be grown in their capital, now known as Mexico City. The Indians used poinsettia bracts to make a reddish-purple dye. They also made a medicine for fever from the plant’s latex. . . [emphasis added - and there's a lot more about the history of this plant at the APS link.]
Yes, I needed to look it up too. Here's what it says:
What Is Phytopathology or Plant Pathology?
The Study of Plant Disease
Plant pathology is an interdisciplinary science that includes knowledge of botany, microbiology, crop science, soil science, ecology, genetics, biochemistry, molecular biology, and physiology. Most plant pathologists have master's and doctoral degrees and are employed by colleges and universities, state and federal government agencies, industrial firms, international institutes, and as private practitioners.
In any case, let me take this opportunity to wish all my readers who celebrate Christmas, a very merry Christmas!
"I had never planned to become a savanna baboon when I grew up; instead, I had always assumed I would become a mountain gorilla."
That's the second sentence of Robert Sapolsky's A Primate's Memoir. They make lists of great first sentences of books, but the second line here is better. For the record, the first line is "I joined the baboon troop during my twenty-first year."
You can find out more about Sapolsky and the book here.
[UPDATE: here are two more posts I did based on this book:
You can find out more about Sapolsky and the book here.
[UPDATE: here are two more posts I did based on this book:
Did you realize that gnu dung is a palindrome?
Thank You - Another Culture Where It's Not Used So Much
Tuesday, December 24, 2013
AIFF 2013: What Makes A Film Great?
Great art occupies your soul. It reshapes your brain and plays with your heart.
Since everyone's brains and hearts are constantly changing and different from other people's, what gets to me might not get to you. What gets to me today, might not have gotten to me 20 years ago.
So picking 'best' movies at a festival is always going to be questionable and contentious.
But does that mean all movies are equal, that there are no objective standards people can agree on? I've written about how to evaluate films before. (Checking that link shows it similar to this list and more detailed. And here are my thoughts on good documentaries from last year.) But each year there are different things that happen that raise new factors to consider. So here's this year's take on (at least) features.
We've got the technical aspects
I would add that the great movies leave you walking out of the theater saying, "That was great." In the perfect movie experience, everything blends together so well that you are sucked into the movie thoroughly and you aren't also observing the movie making. These explicit factors emerge later as you have time to think about the film. And the really good films keep talking to you. Your subconscious lets parts of the film bubble out into your conscious to ponder further.
So, how did the 'bests' get distributed this year?
Festival Judges' Best Features:
A note on how the festival works. There are two kinds of fims
Of the films above, Mourning Has Broken was selected, but not in competition and Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow? was a special selection, not eligible for an award.
Here's a table of all the features at the festival with the official awards, the audience awards, and my choices.
I've marked my choices with these symbols:
I was trying to figure out how to write about so many films. Putting them all in one post seemed excessive. Now that I've finished writing about two of my favorites, I realize the best way is to just list my favorites (the films I rated 1 above) and end this post. I'll add additional posts about specific films. The first will discuss The New World and Hank and Asha. As I add posts, I'll link to them from here.
My 1's:
7 Cajas (7 Boxes)
Die Nieuwe Wereld (The New World)
Hank and Asha
Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow? (明天記得愛上我)
All four of these movies pulled me in so completely that I was engrossed in the story and not thinking about the movie making - all the technical stuff worked to tell the story, not distract from the story (either because it was bad or so good.)
For all four, I left the theater with the feeling of having seen a really good film.
When I have posted about the other features, I'll add links to this post.
Since everyone's brains and hearts are constantly changing and different from other people's, what gets to me might not get to you. What gets to me today, might not have gotten to me 20 years ago.
So picking 'best' movies at a festival is always going to be questionable and contentious.
But does that mean all movies are equal, that there are no objective standards people can agree on? I've written about how to evaluate films before. (Checking that link shows it similar to this list and more detailed. And here are my thoughts on good documentaries from last year.) But each year there are different things that happen that raise new factors to consider. So here's this year's take on (at least) features.
We've got the technical aspects
- visual experience
- the sound
- how it's all put together
- the characters
- the story
- the import in the world
- complexity of the story
- point of view
- clarity
- purpose
I would add that the great movies leave you walking out of the theater saying, "That was great." In the perfect movie experience, everything blends together so well that you are sucked into the movie thoroughly and you aren't also observing the movie making. These explicit factors emerge later as you have time to think about the film. And the really good films keep talking to you. Your subconscious lets parts of the film bubble out into your conscious to ponder further.
So, how did the 'bests' get distributed this year?
Festival Judges' Best Features:
- Tu Seras Un Homme (You’ll Be A Man)
- Die Nieuwe Wereld (The New World)
- Inja Hameh Chiz Khoob Ast (Everything Is Fine Here
Audience Choice – Features
A note on how the festival works. There are two kinds of fims
- those submitted for awards
- special selections that are solicited by the festival (or offered to the festival, as was the case of the films presented by the Anchroage Mexican Counsel)
Of the films above, Mourning Has Broken was selected, but not in competition and Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow? was a special selection, not eligible for an award.
Here's a table of all the features at the festival with the official awards, the audience awards, and my choices.
| Title | Status | Festival Award | Audience Choice | My Choices |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 Cajas (7 Boxes) | Special Selection | 1 | ||
| 9 Full Moons | Selected | * | ||
| Aanya Ka Banya (Delinquent Dancers) | Selected | * | ||
| The Animal Project | Selected | ** | ||
| Contracted | Special Selection | |||
| Detroit Unleaded | In Competition | 3 | ||
| Die Nieuwe Wereld (The New World) | In Competition | 2 | 1 | |
| The Frozen Ground | Special Selection | |||
| Hank and Asha | James E. Duff | 2 | 1 | |
| Inja Hameh Chiz Khoob Ast… (Everything Is Fine Here) | In Competition | 3 | 3 | |
| Juventud (Youth) | Special Selection | |||
| Mine Games | Selected | * | ||
| Mourning Has Broken | Selected | 1 | ||
| Route of Acceptance | Special Selection | |||
| Tu Seras Un Homme (You’ll Be A Man) | In Competition | 1 | 2 | |
| Vino Veritas | In Competition | 2 | ||
| Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow? (明天記得愛上我) |
Special Selection | 3 | 1 |
I've marked my choices with these symbols:
1 = Walked out thinking, wow, that was a good movie
2 = Good movie, just not quite level 1
3 = Lots that I liked, worth seeing
** = There's good stuff in it, but needs work
* = Saw the movie, but not that impressed
= Didn't see the movie
I was trying to figure out how to write about so many films. Putting them all in one post seemed excessive. Now that I've finished writing about two of my favorites, I realize the best way is to just list my favorites (the films I rated 1 above) and end this post. I'll add additional posts about specific films. The first will discuss The New World and Hank and Asha. As I add posts, I'll link to them from here.
My 1's:
7 Cajas (7 Boxes)
Die Nieuwe Wereld (The New World)
Hank and Asha
Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow? (明天記得愛上我)
All four of these movies pulled me in so completely that I was engrossed in the story and not thinking about the movie making - all the technical stuff worked to tell the story, not distract from the story (either because it was bad or so good.)
For all four, I left the theater with the feeling of having seen a really good film.
When I have posted about the other features, I'll add links to this post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)