Why can’t we have a Stupidity Recession?

**Pottymouth Warning** Read at your own risk.

Seriously. There’s really quite an abundance of stupidity around, in good economic times and bad. So why is it that stupidity never seems to flag, lag, cease, or at least ease off a bit?

I received a “forwarded email” (read: chainletter spam freakout) from a “friend” (read: paranoid person). This chain email was filled with alarming and badly misused language about how “women in Sacramento” are being targeted for robberies by, get this, two “black women.” The perps are apparently packing knives and causing their own little crime wave throughout the city. The letter exclaims that it’s “TRUE!!!” and even KCRA reported it!!!

I hate shit like this. I really do. It seems like I get a forwarded email like this from a well-intentioned friend every six months or so. These emails are all the same: The message is that women need to be fearful. We need to fear going out in broad daylight as much as at night. We need to fear strangers. We need to fear other races. We need to fear each other.

These “claims” of truth are backed up by a link to a single robbery at the Downtown Plaza. None of the other claims in the letter are backed up by any news source. Not one.

Whoever wrote this letter had way too much zoloft that day and is in dire need of remedial English lessons. I’m also pissed at the people who keep circulating this crapola.

If I learned anything in Women’s Studies 101, it’s that we need to reject these faux warnings about what “women should fear” because they’re ultimately intended to “put us in our places”–which apparently for some is still hovering about in the kitchen, safely cooking up brisket for hubby.

I call bullshit.

Some fine examples:

If you don’t have money in your wallet, they still can disrupt your life by stealing your drivers licenses, social security cards, credit cards, and other important info that most women carry in there purses. And your Gucci or coach, or fendi, or other expensive purses that most women have.

Really? Gucci, Coach, Fendi? MOST women have these? Good lord, please don’t take my FENDI! Here, you can take my firstborn, but leave the designer handbag…

Here’s another screamer:

These women have been spotted at Target on Power Inn Road, Wal Mart on Florin, Elk Grove and Natomas, Dee Dee’s on Mack Road and the one on Stockton Blvd. Various food chains and grocery stores. Places that all women like to shop at.

Places that “all women” like to “shop at”? Yes, I consider shopping at Wal Mart a real treat. I usually take my Fendi handbag, stuffed full of my credit cards and spare cash. It’s hard to balance all that weight on my little bound feet, but somehow I manage.

And a personal favorite:

We are living in desperate times, and all kinds of desperate crimes are happening right under our noises.

Well, at least we’re not being quiet about it, apparently.

In the words of Jon Stewart, f**k you, whoever wrote this crap. The biggest crime here  is your felony abuse of spelling, grammar, and common sense.

Oh, yeah, Sarah Palin–you complete me.

Every time I hear the voice of Sarah Palin, I am seized with the desire to run to the Sacramento for Obama office and immediately start placing phone calls. And it’s not just that godawful I-wish-I-were-midwestern accent (WTF).

I won’t go in to the fear and loathing I’ve felt over the past few years. But I’ve actually been heard to say (prior to the past couple of weeks), that I wouldn’t feel like dying inside if John McCain were elected. But now? Yeah, fear and loathing, part deux.

Do I want to see a woman in the White House in my lifetime? Hey, it wouldn’t suck, now, would it? But that one? I’d rather be skewered alive and roasted over the flames of Satan’s own barbecue. Seriously, I am not so enamored of “woman power” that I am stupid enough to vote for someone just because she’s female.

Subliminal message.

Let’s take stock: So far, as I understand it, Sarah Palin is opposed to pretty much everything I believe in. She opposes sex education and birth control. Frankly, it’s…uh…showing, dear. Look, I don’t care what your politics are, I simply cannot fathom a world where young women are denied the information they need about their bodies and their sexuality. I got basic sex ed in something like 6th grade, and you know what: the message was that our bodies are normal, here’s what they do, here are some of your options. It didn’t seem all that controversial to me at the time (I remember lots of giggling in the room), but good information is preferable to ignorance in any situation, I’d wager.

Next? Choice. Okay…here we go. I would put this statement forward: Just about no one is “pro” abortion. Think about that one for a minute. Did you ever stop and say to yourself “hey what a great idea”? (Okay, you ZPGers are excused from answering that one.) But really, the idea of women having that choice is, in fact, important to me. Whether it’s in theory or in practice. Nobody wants to have an abortion, but sometimes it is a critical life decision. To have a woman in office who is anti-choice (oh, pro-life, whatever), is to acknowledge that we want to send our young women back to the Dark Ages. Show me a world where women are educated, empowered, and make as much money as their male counterparts; I’ll show you a world where abortion rates drop dramatically. 

On gun control, I disagree with Our Lady of Wasilla yet again. I was raised in a family of hunters. I believe in the right to keep and bear arms. My family believed in gun safety, yet four people I know have taken their own lives–or others’–with guns. Not only that, I believe that while NRA members have the right to carry guns, criminals do not. Yet, how do you reconcile that? From a simply practical standpoint, the right of a citizen to carry an AK-47 does in fact make me raise my eyebrows a bit. The right of a hunter to possess a gun that can bring down a moose that she can then field-dress? Hey, I’m okay with that as long as she doesn’t try to make me help with the gutting. 

On the book banning…well, do I need to say it? I will anyway. It is the first step of the despot, and the narrow-minded. Let us not contaminate our children’s minds with such filth, you say? My response is: hello, parental responsibility (don’t I sound all Republican). Seriously, the first thing the crackpot rulers do is throw out all the artists, thinkers, philosophers, and writers. It’s easy to control illiterate masses…

On the environment and energy…again Palin and I are polar (ha!) opposites. Look, we’ve had at minimum 30 years since our last “energy crisis” to figure out alternative solutions. Yet, we have done almost nil because of lack of political will and political pressure. We the people have been slackin’ a bit. That does not mean it’s time to panic and head for the nearest convenient oil source (which she overstated ridiculously, mind you).  To turn back the long-fought, hard-won protections of our coasts and wildlife refuges is anathema.

My issue with Sarah Palin is not with her as a mother, a woman, or a person. But as a leader, she fills me with dread. She is a slap in the face of the women who came before us. 

But, Sarah has done something I consider quite wonderful. She’s shown me that I have more in common in my soul with a black man who grew up poor and went to an Ivy League school, than I do with a white woman who shares my race, gender, culture, early education, hair color, eyewear preferences, and a whole lotta other demographics that are supposed to count.

Hmmm.

Is it too much to ask for a bit more honesty from our bigots these days?

Couldn’t help but crib that great line from a comment by Flys4Food on Salon.com today in a comment to the article about one illustrious local couple who decided they needed printed t-shirts to indicate who was the bride and who was the groom.

Are these people really “Christians”? If so, they just confirmed the exact reason why I turned my back on organized religion years ago. Where’s the love, people? Seriously, don’t they have anything better to worry about? What a contrivance. What an ugly, bigoted contrivance. Their “rights are violated” because they don’t like a government form? Good (and I say this without irony) Lord.

And since I’m cribbing, here…The article’s author, Tracy Clark-Flory, gave us this wonderful line that sums it up perfectly for me:

They’re throwing a tantrum of privileged prejudice, and to pretend otherwise and debate them on the topic would be like trying to decipher a hideous, cacophonous alien language.

Folks, go volunteer all that extra time you’ve got at a food bank or something.

Argh.

The Irony of Freedom

I admire the many couples who are choosing to get married today. People who are my neighbors, colleagues, and friends have struggled long and tirelessly against bigotry and ignorance about their lifestyles.

Californians are infamous for our tolerance and strange ways. Having grown up here means I find it mystifying that people would protest gay marriage. I really don’t get that. While I have no desire to marry someone of the same sex, I cannot conceive of denying someone else their right to do so.

The folks who oppose gay marriage seem to be overlooking a great hypocrisy in their own actions:

Mayor’s Race: In a word? How about “shenanigan”?

I’m concerned that I may be losing my mind.

I actually agreed with two things Padilla said last night in the mayoral candidates’ forum. First, I thought his comment about mudslinging was great (I can’t re-locate the exact quote…but it was to the effect of: It’s only mudslinging if it’s not true.). Second, he completely showed up KJ and Fargo with his response to the question about which city would he most like Sacramento to resemble. Fargo responded “Portland,” KJ said “Phoenix” (huh?), and Padilla said “Sacramento.” And a big freaking Thank You, Leonard, for that one. He may be a tax-protesting, prison-time serving, self-aggrandizing casino promoter, but at least he has a tiny little clue about what Heather might be overlooking.

If you missed the forum on Wednesday night, you can watch it here.

Adam Daniel withdrew from the race, citing the astonishing statistic that he was unlikely to win. Brilliant deduction. At least by withdrawing, he did one thing right in his shampaign. Richard Jones apparently fell asleep shortly before it was his turn for closing arguments. I want to officially waggle my finger at both of these guys and say “Shame on you.”

Why?

Cary Tennis, will you engage in a polygamous marriage with me?

Okay, so, it’s been a while since my last post. But that doesn’t mean the little hamster wheels haven’t continued to churn. They’ve been churning mostly about corporate America, which is my excuse for not having posted recently (and hopefully, I’m brewing up a good post on this, at least it’s all there in my head). They’ve been churning on KJ and Fargo, and that, friends, is enough to drive me to drink right there. They’ve been churning on the economy.

And the little f*ckers are churning on religion, polygamy, and child abuse at top speed.

I’ve actually been saving up one of my favorite Cary Tennis (columnist for Salon.com) pieces for a while, planning to write about left-coast liberalism (LCL) and his interesting take on our beliefs about racism and other social no-nos…but I’m co-opting some words of wisdom because they just freaking work with this topic, too.

And how can you miss it? The prairie-skirt-clad women of the poetically named Yearning for Zion Ranch (aka the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints), aghast at the government raid on their compound, the separation of them from their children (and underage marriage fodder)?

I know my liberal street cred is going to take a huge hit with this one, but…well, who really cares? It’s been dubious since I turned 30 anyway. I’ve been asking myself some questions that are not necessarily unique, but which certainly don’t have many answers, about these people. And I’m having a hard time with it. Does anyone else get a whiff of a burning pyre for the witch hunt? Does anyone else see certain parallels with society-at-large’s treatment of gay marriage?

Wait…before you freak out…allow me to explain.

Slap forehead. Groan. Repeat.

Contrary to appearances, I did not start this blog solely to bitch about Heather Fargo. Until recently, I didn’t even have any major objections to her. After reading the Bee’s front page today, though, I am thoroughly disillusioned.

http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/734633-p3.html

On the other hand, as much as I appreciated the Bee running this story, I was surprised by the negative bias of it. I got the feeling that the Bee has an ax to grind and has presented damning information in the most damning light possible. Certainly, it appears Mayor Fargo has been…uh… misbehaving, but I also feel like I only got a snippet of the full story. For example, one of the trips noted, Cap-to-Cap, is almost required attendance and, while it’s certainly a junket, one that I would expect our mayor to attend, if only for the purpose of keeping Sacramento on the DC radar when it comes to economics, flood control, job creation, etc. As much fun as it can be to shred a public figure, the Bee is IMHO bumping up against the boundaries of responsible journalism on this one. Anyway, I give the whole thing an “Ick” on all counts.

Fargo’s big epiphany

So, a while back I posted a rant about Mayor Fargo and the Sacramento levee situation. In the days that followed, what I saw in the news and elsewhere was that pretty much nobody bought her and Kerridge’s responses of “shock and outrage,” for the good reason that they were patently ridiculous.

In my post, I also mentioned that moving the city toward true sustainability meant not relying heavily on new construction as a primary revenue stream. So I was sorta pleased a couple weeks later to see a similar comment from Fargo. If we really are going to have a livable city, our leaders and we citizens are going to have to look seriously at what sustainability is and how to get there. At least the people in City Hall have the issue in mind–even if the follow through seems a bit whimsical:

From the SacBee, 2/7/08:

“Sacramento Mayor Heather Fargo said Wednesday the city is too reliant on development as a revenue source and a change is in order. ”

However, from the same article:

“When asked how she would lessen the city’s reliance on development as a revenue stream, Fargo said she thought that development service employees should be contract workers, rather than full-time employees.”

Now, I can see some cost savings there, but where’s the plan for assuring a stable, reliable revenue stream? Yeah, I thought not.

Lest I sound like a complete basher here, let me just say I dig Fargo. I think she’s a good human being. I think she means well. I have voted for her in the past, and I may even vote for her in the next mayoral election (if KJ is the only opposition). But I am seriously disappointed in the leadership coming out of City Hall these days. And I’d like nothing more than to see Sacramento elect a mayor with some real vision and gumption. Actually, the redevelopment plan for the railyards is one of the best ideas that has come out of Fargo’s mayorship. When I drive/walk around midtown, I see the quickly changing face and the infill development that is (arguably) a good thing. But really, when I look back at Fargo’s record since 2001, I have to say, it just seems, well, mostly bland with a few serious lapses in leadership that deeply concern me.  I actually laughed out loud when I read Josh Pane’s sycophantic OpEd in the Bee on 2/3/08:

“Not stopping or stumbling in the face of problems, Fargo continues to pursue our collective vision as other great urban leaders do.”

You’ve got to be kidding me…I don’t despise Fargo, but “great urban leader” is a bit of hyperbole. More realistic, I think, is the comment by Marcos Breton in one of his Feb columns, noting that:

“…Fargo has been running unopposed so far not because she’s a strong leader, but because she has stronger name recognition than other local elected officials.”

What a bummer. I think Sacramento needs a mayor who is really serious about maintaining (and improving) the quality of life here and who is serious about moving the city toward capital-S Sustainability: stable revenue streams, balanced budget, effective public services, more environmentally friendly, and not dependent on the ridiculous/soulless old-school sprawl of the past. (And a plug here: Heather, how ’bout getting that city trolley idea up and running? Less pollution, less traffic, more people out and about in the central city. It wouldn’t suck.)

That all being said, I shudder to think of KJ running for mayor. I really do. I mean, St. HOPE is a pretty cool idea, but the guy is obviously not overly enamored with what we call “follow through.”

Is this really the best we can do for a mayor? C’mon. Somebody please step up. Sacramento does deserve a “great urban leader”–especially right now. Let’s get one.

News flash: We live in a floodplain.

So, last week FEMA made the very unexpected, startling, and downright stunning (ahem) announcement that the Natomas area was not safe from flooding. The federal agency is calling the area a “flood hazard zone,” which could end up halting the somewhat-mindboggling pace of construction there.

This news did not seem all that surprising to me (and a lot of other people), but apparently it did come as a shock to some Sacramento leaders. On January 16, 2008, the Sacramento Bee noted that “The designation was greeted with anger and shock by Sacramento city officials who have supported bold levee repair plans but oppose restrictions on building.” The Bee quoted City Manager Ray Kerridge as saying, ”I’m totally outraged…I don’t know how the federal government can do this to this city.” Similarly, the Bee quoted Mayor Heather Fargo as follows: ”I am very frustrated and very angry with the Army Corps of Engineers and FEMA because Sacramento has really become the poster child of what to do right in flood protection.”

When I first moved to Sacramento, there was little development between downtown Sacramento and the airport. Arco Arena stood by itself, a large, bland building plunked awkwardly in a field.  North Natomas was merely a twinkle in some developers’ eyes at the time, although its predecessor, Natomas, was already there. It doesn’t take long, once here, to learn about the floods that have historically affected Sacramento and its growth. We’re surrounded by rivers–part of what made this area appealing to Sutter, who got here around 1840, and other early settlers.

As rivers tend to do, Sacramento’s rivers have repeatedly overrun their banks into the surrounding area, which has been a somewhat pesky issue for our fair citizenry over the years…in fact, there’s a handy timeline about flooding and flood issues at: http://www.safca.org/floodRisk/index.html (This is the SAFCA–Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency–website. This will be important in a sec. Bear with me.)

The Bee’s 1/16/08 article summed up the facts nicely, noting that, “Sacramento is considered the urban area most vulnerable to catastrophic flooding in the nation.”

Okay, so given that Sacramento’s flooding has not exactly been a secret for, oh, about 150 years…it seems a bit disingenuous to me that our city leaders are expressing outrage, particularly outrage at the feds for saying, essentially, ”You shouldn’t build here because it’s dangerous and people could die.”

What they’re really pissed about, though, appears to be the revenue the city will lose if construction doesn’t go forward. (Again quoting the 1/16/08 article from the Bee, ”North Natomas today accounts for 47 percent of the development in the city.”) 

Even more appalling is that it’s not like they didn’t see this coming. There’s plenty of evidence and, just as a small example, the Bee reported the following on February 16, 2006 (yes, two years ago): 

“ New engineering studies indicate Natomas may not have the minimal 100-year level of flood protection that marked the safety threshold for opening the area to widespread development less than a decade ago.

“The sobering news, which will be publicly discussed at a meeting this afternoon of the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, has been quietly circulating among local politicians and flood control experts.

“ ’It’s a combination of disbelief, dismay, frustration and a little bit of anger,’ said Sacramento Mayor Heather Fargo, who sits on the flood control agency board. ‘We may not have the 100-year level of protection that we had thought, that we had been told.’ ” (emphasis added)

So, just to recap:

1. Sacramento lies in a floodplain and has been dealing with flooding for the entire 150+ years of its existence. (The native Americans–Miwok and Maidu–who were here first were apparently smart enough to note the seasonal flooding of the river and plan their housing accordingly for the several thousand years preceding Sacramento’s founding.)

2. Our mayor sits on the SAFCA board, which was aware of the pending FEMA decision in early 2006 (if not long before).

3. The city repeatedly has made decisions to allow growth and development in an area that is patently not safe for people to live and work. Even when faced with the blatant evidence of what happens when cities build in floodplains (“Hi! My name’s Katrina! What’s yours?”), the city is still pushing to keep the construction going.

4. Not only are we allowing growth in that area, but the immediate health of our city’s economy is in jeopardy if we can’t continue building houses where houses should not be.

Oh. Come. On.

Really, the people who should be (and likely are) outraged are all the people who bought new homes or moved their businesses to the area after being assured time and again that their levees were safe. (Don’t get me started on caveat emptor…)

However, this is not the point of my post, believe it or not. My point is actually related to some other news that recently appeared in the Bee (January 11, 2008): “Fargo said in December the City Council passed two of her long-term goals for Sacramento: a sustainability master plan to reduce the city’s energy use and carbon emissions and a green building program to promote sustainable, private development.”

And this is my actual point: If we are truly trying to become a “sustainable city”–something our mayor reportedly wants to do–then it doesn’t make any sense whatsoever to base our economy on the need for continual growth…and not just growth, but sprawl in an area that really shouldn’t have buildings on it. I mean, if you have to continually grow to keep the economy moving, that by its very definition is unsustainable. Is allowing greed to overcome common sense sustainable? Is building more homes and levees in a floodplain sustainable? Is putting more people in new suburbs away from the city center going to help us reduce carbon emissions? In the words of Mayor Fargo, I too am feeling “combination of disbelief, dismay, frustration and a little bit of anger.”

This is not to say I agree or disagree with the Corps and FEMA’s decision–frankly, I don’t have enough information and I’m not a levee engineer. The point here is, we keep putting people in a place that belongs to the river. The more people we put there, the more we’ll have to spend to protect those people and their property. And the more beholden we’ll be to changing federal safety standards. And I doubt if anyone, except maybe a handful of people who understand these things, knows if those levees will actually protect us in the long run anyway.