How Do We Cure Our Health Care Party Hangover?

Let's remember that when the Democrats controlled Congress and the White House, they used much the same hyper-partisan tactics we just saw from Republicans to pass the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which the Republicans derisively nicknamed ObamaCare. The Republicans had to do something in opposition because President Obama's plan was copied from the successful program then-Governor Mitt Romney a Republican, passed in Massachusetts, called RomneyCare. (Branding matters in dealing with low-information, partisan voters.)

Due to the capitalistic basis of our healthcare system, and the lack of focus on preventive care, costs in the US are significantly higher than every other country, so there's not much that is affordable about it for anybody. Given that these structural market factors are unlikely to change, pretty much the only way we can make health care more affordable for millions is to have as many people contributing their money into a shared pool to subsidize others. Hence, mandates. A source of conflict for many, including me.

As a person who has always been conservative with my body - I eat healthful foods, avoid unhealthful foods, regularly engage in sufficient exercise to maintain a strong, flexible body and a healthy weight, avoid unhealthful habits that degrade my body, etc. - I have sometimes resented that my pooled money goes to subisidize others who do not take the most basic personal responsibility for their own health. I remind myself that I would only be acting contrary to my own and everyone's best interest if I allowed that belief to dictate my politics, so I accept that my pooled money subsidizes others who are free to make personal life choices that cost everyone more and that I would not make.

Anyway, the Republicans named their latest unwritten bill the Health Care Freedom Act (HCFA) the freedom in this case being that no one would be forced to have health insurance coverage, so no one would be forced to help subsidize others' health care. Although I dislike knowing my money subsidizes health costs for many peoole who I think make consistently poor choices that result in entirely preventable disorders and diseases that monopolize our shared healthcare system, I know that if I did not do that, we would all be the worse for it. I'm selfish; I want to live in a country where everyone is as healthy as possible, as I think this is the surest basis (alongside excellent education for all) for a healthy and strong nation.

If you share my dislike of the current unhealthy hyper-bi-partisan legislative system that brought us not-optimal AHA and almost brought us mystery-awful-even-to-Republicans HCFA, I encourage you to re-examine your commitment to supporting that system by considering leaving whichever of the two parties to which you are registered. The fastest-growing political affiliation is each state's version of "decline to state" or "independent," so many people are already paving the way to our exodus from hyper-partisan gridlock. Until The People vote with their political registrations, the two major parties will continue to play their party-first, country-last politcial team games and we will all lose in the melée.

Remember what Albert Einstein said was the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. We've just witnessed the same thing twice, from both teams, on this and many other critical issues. If you expect them to put aside their need for party wins to prioritize wins for all The People, well, there may not be affordable health care to properly diagnose and treat your condition.

Games I Play - Pointless, Intentional and Kindness

Many people who know me know that I have strong feelings about games. I hate to be forced to play group games, like cards and dominoes. I'd much prefer to play solitaire or do a crossword puzzle, or, if I do play a group game, I enjoy games like Trivial Pursuit or Charades.

Fewer people who know me know that I love to make up and play my own games. I play two types of games - Pointless games and Intentional games. Pointless games have no real point, they're just something I do that is a fun way for me to enjoyably focus my attention for a period of time. I mostly play these games when I'm out in public walking or dining, and I'll often invite people who are with me to play too if they wish. Most of the time I just play and keep score for myself. It keeps me out of the troubles I might get into by engaging in otherwise unsupervised, catastrophic thinking.

One Pointless game I play as I drive the six hour drive back home from my favorite ski destination is to count the number of autos stopped by California Highway Patrol or local Police in opposite directions of travel. For example, a score of a memorable game from last ski season was Northbound 4, Southbound 1. I thank all those drivers for attracting the attention of speed ticketing operations, even though I always obey the speed limits. Another fun, low-scoring game is counting the number of vehicles I pass on that same trip.

One of my favorite Pointless games when I'm on a boat or at the seaside is to wonder and declare how far I think I am at that moment from the nearest shark, whale, octopus or submarine, etc. I appear to enjoy this particular Pointless game far more than others judging from the puzzlement I see on their faces when they realize there's no intention or practical way of verifying the guess. It's just fun for me to think about.

Intentional games can seem like Pointless games, but their purpose is to focus my attention and intention on something I consider favorable, positive and desirable. Some Intentional games focus my attention on positive aspects of what otherwise might be considered problems, frustrations or bad situations. Even though these Intentional games seem small, fleeting and unserious, my experience of playing them tells me they have a definite impact on my personal capacity to look for, perceive, accept and practice kindness and other positive aspects in myself and others. This is an example where serious, lasting, significant personal growth is wrapped in an apparently trivial, fast and fun habit. I have been judged and ridiculed for my obsession with game invention and playing and I stand by it as a powerful personal tool for supporting my unique spirit and temperament.

I play the Intentional Kindness Game every day, sometimes for just a limited period of time, like when I'm particpating in a contentious or controversial conversation, Sometimes I play for the whole day because I feel a need to. There is only one rule in the Kindness Game: interpret everything I witness, as in reading, listening or observing behavior, through the kindest lens possible. Often, to do this, I have to notice that I'm habitually and reflexively starting from the most unkind lens possible, and then I make an effort to find and believe the kindest possible interpretation.

How did I come to invent and play the Kindness Game? Years ago I was flatly told by someone who had credibility with me that I had a predictable tendency to hear and interpret what other people said in the unkindest, least charitable way possible and that it wasn't a happy experience for her. I'm sure many others have had similar reactions to me and just never had the courage, closeness, caring or capability to say it to my face. Although that was difficult to hear, thanks to how well I knew and trusted her, I knew she meant it in the kindest way possible. Thank you Susan.

I began to focus my intention on noticing whether or not what she said about me was correct. My observations of my reactions to other people and events overwhelmingly supported what she was saying. At that point I had a choice. I could either take the easy, lazy, irrresponsible way out: "I grew up that way. It's how I am and I can't change. If you don't like it, lump it." Or I could take the more difficult, effortful, responsible and character-building route: "Yeah, it's been a tendency of mine for several reasons. I don't like the experience of myself and others it gives me. I want to create a kinder, more peaceful, positive outlook." I chose the latter and it has made a real difference in my life.

I know that some others have noticed the change in me because they've told me so, while others have not noticed. Truth in advertising here: sometimes other people don't experience me as being kind because there are still times when I am unkind. I struggle from time to time with being respectful and kind in situations where I am unable to find an interpretation and response that perfectly fulfills either of those values. At those times, and other times too when I am being kind, other people will perceive me as being unkind either because it's demonstrably true or because they have their own filter of unkindness through which they are perceiving and interpreting. But that's not my business.  How other people see me is their business, not mine, and I'm happy to not be responsible for that. I'm happy to take responsibility for me and leave others free to be who they are.

I play the Kindness game whenever I notice I am having an unkind or other stressful response to something someone said or did. This could either be in person, while consuming news meida, or more likely in these days of social media interaction, online. I play it a lot.

For example, I like Facebook and I am on it pretty much every day. Because I have "Friends" across a very broad range of people who I've known at various points in my varied life, I sometimes am confronted by a post someone has made that strikes me as mean, spiteful, insulting or outright hateful. When I notice my judgment that whatever was posted is very unkind, I actually stop and look for what I could plausibly believe is the kindest interpretation possible in that situation. I don't just make up a pie in the sky, disconnected-from-reality, implausible story of kindness about that person's post. I really think about what I think I know of that person, what my experience of them has been over time, what might be going on with them right now and what their general character is. I look for a deeper truth about them and me. If it's someone I know really well, I'm able to quickly see and believe the kindest possible interpretation of what they've shared and believe it. Or not.

Sometimes, people actually mean to be unkind, so I recognize that and  accept it and let go of the judgment that they should be different when clearly they are not. Other times, I can see they're in reaction to something that's temporarily triggering their unkindness. In rare cases, I discover that I've overlooked when a person has displayed a history of unkindness and ill-intention. I then consider to what degree it benefits me to continue to be affected by their predictable stream of unkindness and choose how I want to continue interacting with them. Or not.

In cases when I don't really know the person well, because Facebook allows me to connect with people I knew decades ago and have not heard from since, or because we were never close to begin with, I can usually find the kindest possible interpretation, but not always. In the cases where I fail  to detect any kindness I become confused, because I assume that anyone who goes to the trouble of choosing to beFriend me on Facebook has kindly intentions. In instances where I care enough, my solution is to check. I ask their intention, either in a comment that may be seen by others, or in a personal message, and I ask in as kindly a way as is possible for me. Usually, the response is positive and they generously explain their intention for my understanding. I let them know I appreciate that and we're able to move along together in kindness.  Other people don't respond and so I can't reliably assume that their original post or comment was indeed meant in the kindest way possible. I accept that and move along.

No matter what happens in the Kindness Game, my goal is to make it possible for others to win as often as I can. I never keep score in the Kindness Game, and I always win, intentionally. Would you like to play? You can't lose.

Core Value of Being Respectful, Meet Your New Teacher, President-Elect Trump

In the two months following our last Presidential election, I have been struggling to accept and respect the fact that our electoral system and a sufficient number of my fellow Americans in certain states, elected Donald Trump as the next leader of my country. I've followed his public and private career for decades like most of us have, simply because he craved attention and the media found it profitable to give it to him. He has revealed, and tried to conceal, much of himself to the public over the years.

The fact of his election smacks painfully up against my belief, based on observing his life choices and values, how he treats others, and how what he says reveals about how he thinks, that he is the singularly most unfit person possible to occupy the Presidency. That statement seems hyperbolic only when I consider there may be others that might be even less fit based on similar criteria, but they are not visible to me in that political sphere.

Accepting and respecting the reality of what is, and what apparently will be, is a challenge for me right now. The universe could not have served up a situation more perfect for testing my resolve to be respectful. Donald Trump exists to serve as my teacher in my lifeclass in personal growth. How's that for a cosmic joke?

Accepting and respecting Donald Trump would not be such an issue or challenge if it weren't so vital to my own well-being. It is at times like this that I wish I was someone for whom being respectful and accepting reality was not a conscious concern, let alone a high priority. It sure doesn't help that my inner stand-up comedian repeatedly tosses up clever, cheap jokes at Trump's expense as I write this. But, as inconvenient and effort-intensive as it is to be respectful at times, it is my Core Value, so I'm stuck with it.

I'll tell you a bit more about why being respectful is a Core Value for me and how I know it's true. A Core Value may be defined as one which, if we personally don't live it, always puts us in misery. In my case, whenever I am disrespectful I feel awful to my core and I see that ugliness whenever I look in the mirror, metaphorically and actually. As a person who was raised in evironments in which disrespect was a habit - unconscious and conscious - and in a culture where it is also the basis of most humor, this personal experience of disrespect, as both recipient and disher-out, led to decades of judgment. Fortunately, as an adult I became interested in exploring, discovering and dismantling that self-judgment connection, which led me to learn about Core Values.

There are other values, among them honesty, fairness and unconditional love, that others say are their Core Values and those are not mine. Honesty? Not a core value for me. There are many situations in which I will choose to be dishonest and I will not feel bad about it in the slightest. I will also not believe I am being disrespectful in those specific circumstances. Indeed, I believe that, for me, in those circumstances, dishonesty is the best way for me to be respectful of my own self and values that others are not respecting.

What are some example of situations in which I will be dishonest wihtout feeling disrespectful? Political polls that will be used to unethically influence others, intrusive questions in which the answers are none of the inquisitor's business, ephemeral situations of no consequence where I will never encounter that person again and dishonesty insures safety and expedience - all examples where being honest is not a value I will uphold in that interaction. I will lie and not bat an eye. But disrespect? If I fail to uphold that value I feel like I've just stuck a needle in my eye.

Which brings me back to Donald Trump. To a man whose every Tweet, utterance and promise is either a demonstrable lie, an uniformed opinion that, if shared and acted upon, holds the power to cause others harm, or, based on  his own decades-long example, simply an unfiltered, self-aggrandizing fantasy with a childish insult added to bolster his apparently single-ply ego. At this point, those of you who are Trump supporters and are still curious enough to have read this far are probably thinking "She doesn't struggle with disrespect. She sits next to it on the couch and enjoys a nice long gossip with it" and you'd be right. On the surface. Inside I am experiencing the pain of cognitive dissonance of holding two clashing beliefs. One: Being Respectful is my Core Value and I am committed to live it as I live my life. Two: Donald Trump is not worthy of my respect. Until I can reconcile these two conflicting beliefs, I will continue to struggle and to give myself a free pass to speak disrespectfully about him from time to time.

So, how do I fulfill my personal mandate to be respectful of a person who I believe is not behaving in ways that are worthy of respect? As I write this question and sit with it, I notice that in my exceptions to being respectful that I outlined above, at first glance I don't think Donald Trump fits neatly into any of them. Further thought leads me to see how his speech and behavior fall into the political polls category. I see I need to refine the concept to fit how I actually perceive it - 'Political speech and actions, including polls, that attempt to unethically influence others are situations in which it is not important that I be respectful' is more accurate. Now I've successfully reached a slippery slope that will allow me to exempt myself from being respectful of Donald Trump as President.

Having rationalized disrespect through the slickness of my own thinking one would think that I would feel at peace about it, right? Only I don't. I still have a deeper belief that, for my own self, I need to find my way to being respectful of him. This is not an ephermeral situation and it is of great consequence, which apparently trumps the political ethics exception. Dang, this self-awareness and holding myself accountable to living my values can be hard cheese at times.

As everybody who knows me well knows, I'm not perfect and I never will be. So, until I find my way to finding more perfect respectfulness towards Donald Trump, those of you who choose to be in my life will just witness what that looks and sounds like. At times it will look like nothing but silence and absence. Other times it will look like whatever it will look like. That's for you to decide.

If the future is anything like the past, when you see or hear me being disrespectful towards Donald Trump, you'll either want to clobber me or cheer me. But that has nothing to do with me and everything to do with you. I'm one person, your reaction to me is yours, not mine and the fact that different people have completely differernt responses is proof of that.

Hey, it could be worse! I could be even more disrespectful and insist that you uphold my Core Value of being respectful too. Now, aren't you glad I've got that part of being respectful of you handled?

Threads - Greg Lake and Pictures at an Exhibition

Today I learned of the passing of Greg Lake, who, as a performer and songwriter as part of the 70s progressive rock group Emerson Lake & Palmer (ELP), occupied my listening time and handed me a thread that has woven curiosity, creativity and wonder into my life ever since. Today, I celebrate his contributions to my life.

Long ago, I recognized a happy pattern in my life-long learning path which I saw as threads of curiosity that I picked up and carried on weaving through my life, creating a structure of complexity, creativity and beauty. ELP and their rock interpretation of Russian composer Modest Mussorgsky's "Pictures at an Exhibition" was one of those threads that led me to deeper knowledge of, and appreciation for, classical music, Russian folklore and literature, which led further into medieval iconography, a love of live musical performance, and singer/songwriting in general. Each of these interests, in turn, led me to carry the threads further into other areas of music. art, history, culture and life, for which I am very grateful.

I played my ELP "Pictures" album endlessly as a teenager and young adult. I was fascinated by the contrasting and dramatic personalities of each movement. There were no lyrics, so the instruments were the background music to many half-hearted homework nights and days of reluctant, desultory room-cleanings. From the quiet invitation of the first movement, "Promenade," through the oddly dark, horned wobbling of "The Gnome," to the final victorious crescendo of Carl Palmer's percussion on "The Great Gates of Kiev," in my imagination I was right there, in the gallery, looking at those pictures and seeing through them to the old Russian folktales they painted in my imagination.

That album occupied my mind so much that I purchased a recording of a symphonic performance of Mussorgsky's original composition and listened to that with equal, if not greater, fervor. I discovered additional movements which ELP did not include in their interpretation and found myself captivated by even greater contrasts and nuance in the pictures conjured by my imagination as I listened. Near the end of that decade, when unexpectedly called to perform anything on-stage before an audience of about a hundred friends, I chose to perform a fully-committed enactment of "Battle of the Unhatched Chicks" accompanied by Mussorgsky's music, obviously puzzling and possibly horrifying many, and surely reinforcing my "weird" identify factor. The next time I was afforded the same opportunity, I enthusiastically lip-synched to Wham's "Wake Me Up (Before You Go-Go)" redeeming myself before the same audience for something comprehensible and relatable, if not particularly inspired. I still prefer the first daring and personal, although not understood, performance. I rocked myself right out of that shell.

I was very fortunate to attend a performance of the marvelous Cleveland Symphony led by Conductor Loren Maazel of Maurice Ravel's orchestration of "Pictures" in Spokane, Washington in the early 80s. I can remember what I wore (black), who I was with (my ex), how other people looked (fancy) and every piece of music on the program that night (Verdi's La Forza del Destino). It was my first time ever going to a classical music concert and, thanks to my familiarity with, and love for, that piece of music, it is still my most memorable. I took great pride in knowing not to clap between movements, a state of mind that remains with me still whenever I attend classical music concerts.

That evening, and all that led up to it, formed a strong thread that I wove as I continued listening to, and learning about, classical music, music composition and theory. I still have a lot to learn there; repeated exposures to music theory still have me feeling like I still 'don't get it'. One of these days, when my hand and wrist recover from an open-fracture which occurred in a roller-skating accident, I'll take up an instrument and learn hands-on, rather than just theoretically. (Ha, the phrase 'writing about music is like dancing about architecture" just popped into my head. Typing about hand injury is just painful.)

My curiosity about Ravel's arrangement of "Pictures," along with the fascination I had with Ravel that began when I saw a movie in a high school Film Appreciation class about the rehearsals and performance of "Bolero" led me to pick up the thread and explore Ravel as a composer and learn how his creativity through decades shaped, and was shaped by, history and other art forms. And that led to an entire thread into French Impressionist painters and French culture, an interest formed my Freshman year of high school when I took French from Miss Serafimidis/Ms. Thompson, a brilliant teacher capable of inspiring lasting passions in all her students.

So yeah, Greg Lake was a famous 70s rock guitarist and singer. And Wednesday, December 6, 2016 was his last day among the living here on Earth. But, his inspiration, passion, vision and work have formed warp and weft of some of the most interesting, meaningful and enjoyable parts of my imaginary an actual life. To quote his own songs "Oh, what a Lucky Man he was!  C'est la vie."

Another Side to "Beach City Enlists Private Partner to Rejuvenate Pier"

Rebuttal to NYT article 
“California Beach City Enlists Private Partner to Rejuvenate Pier”

(It has been brought to my attention that I reversed my fractions with respect to the downsizing of Seaside Lagoon. It's being reduced by 1/3, not 2/3. And the new parking garage is in addition to the current structure, which apparently, is fixable - bad news/good news. Also, I may have conflated the closing of Walmart with Macy's - I'll check that in the morning. Thank you for kindly being a stand for truth and transparency.)

On Sunday, January 12, the New York Times Commercial Real Estate section ran a one-sided, laudatory article titled “California Beach City Enlists Private Partner to Rejuvenate Pier,” written by Lauren Herstik. I’m a Redondo Beach resident (since 2002) and I think local readers deserve to hear another side that was not presented, and isn’t getting much press in local, commercial ad-dependent papers.

After reading the entire 6,883 page Draft Environmental Report (DEIR) and attending one open community meeting to learn as much as I can about this proposed project, I am left with many unanswered questions and unaddressed concerns. Foremost of these relates to the amount of risk in which this transaction places the city’s residents – taxpayers – and about the development of a shopping mall, which requires the destruction of popular ocean-related amenities and local businesses.  I guess this makes me one of what Redondo Beach Mayor Steve Aspel describes as the “small vocal minority” even though I was part of the majority of voters that rejected Measure B last March and the much smaller retail element that AES proposed on the adjacent property.

The current city leaders and their chosen private partner, CenterCal Properties, insist that a new, four-story tall, ocean- and peninsula-view blocking parking structure is the solution to a problem of a disintegrating public parking garage.  I agree that the existing  partially-underground parking garage, located at our famous Redondo Pier, is in need of much attention, but that is actually a symptom of the another, more serious, problem.

Our city has underfunded and deferred the appropriate and necessary maintenance and repairs to the pier parking garage for years. Now, some of our city leaders are trying to justify abandoning a repairable and adaptable structure in favor of building this expensive proposed concrete block in a prime harbor location that takes away public water and marina views. The solution that is so attractive to our leaders -  CenterCal paying for new public infrastructure - disguises the real problem: our city has not invested the public’s money in the required upkeep, and so we require rescue in the form of corporate crony cash. This kind of public/private partnership could lead to an addiction to maximum-revenue-seeking behavior to satisfy even an more expensive public infrastructure maintenance habit.

Ms. Herstik wrote with impressively glossy, if incomplete, detail about Redondo Beach’s proposed harbor-front redevelopment, presumably because it is reportedly the largest such current redevelopment opportunity in the United States, and because Redondo Beach has a well-known reputation as one of only two harbors on southern California’s Santa Monica Bay. This proposed project would not be newsworthy to such a renowned publication 3,000 miles away except for what makes it truly special – its location on the beautiful Pacific Ocean, and the easy public access afforded to water-related recreational, commercial activities and spectacular natural views. A massively ironic aspect of the proposed shopping mall, (even CenterCal ‘s CEO, Fred Bruning has referred to it as such), is that many popular, commercially-successful, unique ocean-related features and amenities will be completely eliminated, while others would  be scaled back and repositioned in such a way as to severely weaken Redondo Beach’s attraction as an ocean-front beach destination for locals and visitors alike. 

As described in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) CenterCal submitted for public input are many examples of our soon-to-be- disappearing ocean-front lifestyle: The Sportfishing Pier, the Seaside Lagoon, Lanakila Outrigger Canoe Club boat launch ramp and the current capacity for public boat ramp usage to name some of the major losses.  What CenterCal, the shopping center developer, proposes to do with them shows that they are clearly outside of their wheelhouse when it comes to appropriate, authentic, permitted coastal redevelopment, as I explain below.

Redondo Sportfishing Pier, which was built in the 1950s has been labelled “optional” in CenterCal’s plans, which in real people speak means “not part of the base model and, for land’s sake, we’re shopping center developers, ill-equipped to help Redondo Beach figure out how to sustain an integral harbor asset that supports successful locally-owned businesses.”  Highly-successful sportfishing and whale-watching businesses, as well as Polly’s On The Pier, the go-to breakfast and lunch destination for locals and visitors will fall off the radar – with the shove provided by those who support this public/private partnership. 

Our unique and incredibly popular enclosed Seaside Lagoon, which has served as a protected sandy swimming beach for families for decades is slated to be reduced in area by two-thirds. This cutback significantly reduces public access for families wishing to swim, picnic and relax in a safer environment than that provided by beaches open to the ocean. 

Remember that huge new parking structure proposed to replace the existing one in need of maintenance? They plan to build it right next to the Seaside Lagoon: a four-story concrete parking behemoth right next to a quaint kiddy pool. In addition to a much smaller lagoon, CenterCal also proposes to accommodate public access to the water by designating part of the lagoon as a beach for launching ocean craft such as kayaks and stand-up paddleboards. 

Additionally, the proposal seeks to relocate our hugely-popular Lanakila Outrigger Canoe Club so they will also launch and store their racing hulls at the lagoon. Currently, the club uses a launch ramp located in another part of the harbor, away from congestion posed by other recreational users.  If this proposed CenterCal redevelopment is built as described in the DEIR and marketing materials, what was once a child-friendly, family-oriented protected lagoon will become a hazardous, over-crowded, high-traffic launch site. But that’s still not the worst of it.

CenterCal is also proposing to open the lagoon, which has been closed to the open ocean for all of its existence, to the harbor.  Where children and families have previously swum in treated, calm water over a pleasant, shallow, sandy bottom, away from marine wildlife, this part of the plan will expose children and adults to several unpleasant effects.  Fuel and other marine pollutants that currently do not reach Seaside Lagoon swimmers will freely drift into the new, smaller environment. Our ever-present California sea lions, always a challenge to keep off of the marina docks and boats, can make their way into the lagoon to take up residence on the swimming and boat-launch beach.  It is likely that once the sea lions discover the Seaside Lagoon, they, like millions of humans before them, will want to come back time after time. Under California marine wildlife protection laws, that gives them more legal rights than many immigrants. Seaside Lagoon will be degraded for the first time ever by aggressive sea lions fouling the water and beach with poop and stench.

If you’re already thinking twice about wanting to come visit Redondo Beach’s newly-compromised  Seaside Lagoon, here’s another CenterCal proposal that will make you decide to go to Marina del Rey instead. Adjacent to the now-open-to-the-ocean lagoon, CenterCal is proposing to put automobile-launch lanes for trailerable boats. That’s right, bobbing babies, dog-paddling adults, kayakers, stand-up paddleboarders, power- and sail boats all together, sharing a relatively small space. This area is already the turning basin for King Harbor, where all of the commercial fishing, whale-watching and sailboat charters navigate to get in and out of the harbor.  The proposal also would reduce the number of boat launches per day due to severe space limitations. The Portofino Hotel next door doesn’t want their outdoor wedding business affected by smelly, noisy boaters.  If I operated a hotel smack dab in the middle of a busy harbor and several busy marinas, I wouldn’t want that either.

 If your reaction to these examples is “No thanks, it sounds awful, I don’t think I want to enjoy the ocean at Redondo Beach” who could blame you?  If the problem were too many people coming to Redondo Beach because of its location and unique outdoor, water-centered offerings, CenterCal’s plan would be a perfect solution. Our inland visitors who return here time after time, spending their hard-earned cash in our city, could easily be forgiven for thinking that goal might not be too far from the truth.

There are many other aspects to this particularly ill-suited shopping-centric proposal that I personally don’t think are workable at this site for the public and in particular, for Redondo Beach residents. This land is property of the people of the State of California and is held in trust for their use and pleasure by the City of Redondo Beach. This public/private partnership the city is considering with CenterCal puts residents’ tax money at too great a risk based on too few financial details and no guarantees for my comfort.

CenterCal has presented very pretty drawings and a flashy video selling the hoped-for benefits of their bailiwick, a shopping center.  Ms. Herstik’s article has trumpeted how generous CenterCal is going to be in putting up their money to make Redondo Beach’s waterfront redevelopment dreams come true. What is never mentioned is that the economic assumptions upon which their forecasts and pitches to as yet unknown and possibly non-existent shopping center investors are based, are no longer representative of reality. (Hmm, do you suppose the purpose for promoting this project in the New York Times Business section was to try to manufacture interest from potential investors?)

I see evidence that Redondo Beach does not have significant unmet retail, dining and hotel demand that correspond to the scope, location and nature of the proposed project. In fact, other popular malls in the area are struggling and investing heavily to create unique and relevant lifestyle experiences to draw shoppers. Macy’s, the anchor tenant of neighboring city Torrance’s Del Amo mall is closing. Nordstrom already left Redondo’s own Galleria mall to go to the Del Amo mall.

Toyota of America, one of the South Bay’s largest employers, many of whose 3,000 employees live, recreate  and spend in Redondo Beach,  is moving to Texas and taking their families, and their consumer  and outdoor recreation lifestyle demands with them. There are no economic trends that support the promise of growth in retail demand for CenterCal’s mall as the centerpiece of Redondo Beach’s harbor.  

Due to decades of medium- and high-density residential over-development in Redondo Beach, nicknamed ReCondo Beach for our view-blocking high-density residential buildup along the waterfront, there is not even much room to meet any increased demand if it suddenly appeared. We shouldn’t expect much consumer demand based on housing growth.

The ugliness and lackluster performance of our existing infrastructure and business mix that our town’s leaders cite as justification for their support of this shopping center are the result of decades of water-front redevelopment projects that were once entered into, funded and built with the same hype and high hopes that CenterCal is promising now.  That this proposed project is orders of magnitude higher in cost should be of great concern to Redondo Beach residents, our neighbors in the South Bay cities, and any potential investors.  If this shopping center performs the same way the current redevelopments have performed, the risk to taxpayers is great, while the risk to CenterCal’s business is much less. 

It is my understanding that with the current agreement, CenterCal can sell their interest in this huge capital project and walk away as they inevitably move on to other places and projects. Redondo Beach could find itself at a disadvantage in partnership with hedge funds or foreign investors who could then control our waterfront and our community’s invaluable natural and built-asset. There is no guarantee that whoever buys CenterCal’s interest will be as invested in our town as our residents and visitors. I was always taught to “dance with the one what brung ya” so I’m not comfortable with the prospect of the private part of this public/private partnership being able to leave the dance without me.

Redondo Beach does not have a Comprehensive General Plan and Zoning for our waterfront area.  Despite residents repeatedly clamoring for our city’s leaders to undertake creating a cohesive, community-driven plan, we are left to vote on major projects, one at a time, as if the cumulative effects of each and all of them are nil.  The last such redevelopment project, on land adjacent to CenterCal’s proposed waterfront shopping center, also contained multi-use retail, along with another hotel, medium and high-density residential and very little open space for public access. In contrast to what our Mayor repeatedly characterizes as a “small, vocal minority” the majority of Redondo Beach voters clearly demonstrated that they oppose significant expansion of retail in our valuable waterfront location. That concept was a losing proposal in last March’s election when the voters rejected it at the polls. Despite a heavily-funded campaign in support of that initiative, largely underwritten by AES Corp. who owns the land, voters said No then  to 85,000 square feet of additional retail and many of us are saying No to CenterCal’s  524,000 square feet of parking garage, national-chain retail mall, hotel and reduced water access and open space.

I am not anti-development and I agree that our waterfront, pier and harbor need upgrades and improvement. I am even in favor of expansion of waterfront infrastructure, amenities and appropriate revenue-generating businesses based on maximizing the value of our greatest natural asset – the Pacific Ocean. I am not inclined to support redevelopment projects until we have a Comprehensive General Plan and Zoning to focus efforts on community-driven needs. I am also, seriously questioning, studying and challenging this particular proposed retail redevelopment, at this particular waterfront location, from this particular kind of shopping mall developer, with this particular company, under these proposed troubling economic terms, at this particular time.

AUTOCORRECT, JOKE'S ON YOU!

As I was typing my Dumb Daily Joke onto my Facebook page this morning, Autocorrect tried to help by changing the spelling of the key word in the punchline.  The joke depended on the word malarious, which isn’t a word found in Autocorrect’s dictionary.  For the purposes of the hilarity of the joke, malarious it must be.  Nobody laughs at malaria. The same can’t be said of Autocorrect.

As Autocorrect persisted in changing malarious to malaria, I also persisted, with increasingly jabby key strokes, to change it back to what I wanted it to say, what the people who would read and laugh at the joke, needed it to say.  If I’d let Autocorrect win, the punchline wouldn’t have had any punch and there would have been no joke, no humor, no unique human expression, no sense of commonality among jokesters and laughers. There would have been no point at all.

Instead, every time I noticed that Autocorrect had imposed its own idea of rightness on me, I realized that I became more irritated, more insistent and made a mental note to find a way to disable or block the autocratic thing. I’m an excellent speller, and a communicator whose message is often best understood through creatively free use of language. I don’t need Autocorrect, I don’t want Autocorrect and I certainly didn’t ever enable Autocorrect. I view it as a nuisance, an unwelcome boundary-overstepper.

But Autocorrect is innocent. It’s just following its programming, the set of instructions its human authors gave it. Autcorrect’s insistence that there is only one way we could possibly mean to type, reveals a severe limitation in the vision and ability of its creators regarding real human use of language.  In trying to help us, Autocorrect, out of its lack of understanding and appreciation for the meaning communicated by creative use and invention of words, would prevent us from connecting with one another on a genuine human level. Even as I am fighting with Autocorrect when I defend my word choice, I know that Autocorrect is just doing the best it can based on its own limitations. 

Autocorrect is just a blind, unthinking tool carrying out instructions set up in its program, ignorant of the varied and colorful possibilities made real by humans’ seemingly incorrect use of words.  In other words, Autocorrect appears constantly confused, imposing its own programmed output because it just doesn’t understand humans. It doesn’t conceptualize that it’s not conscious and aware and it doesn’t know any other way to be.  And indeed, if Autocorrect’s programmers were somehow able to imbue their product with instructions to allow us typers to express the fullness of invention and creativity required to communicate the intent of our words, Autocorrect would be out of a job. 

Does the humor of your dumb joke require the rhyme of an invented word that looks misspelled?  No problema!  Your message requires non-standard sentence construction?  K!  e e cummings’ poetry quoted in your work? Autocorrect will see your lack of capitalization and raise no objections. With autocorrect out of a job, we’re able to express our singular human creativity and fulfill our communication needs with much greater color and ease, and certainly much less struggle and aggravation. We’re also free to make mistakes out of our own ignorance or inattention, and experience the consequences of our own choices. With us typers back in charge of our own textual lives, we feel free, we are free. We’re free to make and correct our own mistakes as we see fit. We’re free to allow our imaginations’ imagery to take shape through our words. We’re free to express our own unique perspective or to reaffirm those ideas we hold in common with others. 

How do you feel about Autocorrect?  Do you want it, need it, did you deliberately enable it to participate in your own typing process?  Or do you merely put up with its intrusiveness, its insistence, its controlling imposition of rightness on your own expression.  Do we all welcome the way Autocorrect imposes its will at the expense of our own freedom of expression?  Or do we want to make it disappear, especially since we never knowingly welcomed it in the first place?

As I thought about this, it occurred to me that the way I feel about Autocorrect’s impact on my typing and creative process, is very similar to how I feel when someone tries to impose their ‘correct’ way of thinking on me. And it’s certainly how I’d expect anyone else to feel when I believe that others should adopt my way of thinking.  As a matter of fact, I've been told several times that’s exactly how others feel when I over-step a boundary I was blind to and expect someone else to see things my way.

My reaction, when I see that someone is telling me the only right way to think, is one of confusion. Who do they think they are, telling me what the only right way to think is?  And more to the point, who do they think I am that I need to think exactly like them?  Most importantly, do they not realize that by imposing their correct beliefs on others, they’re trying to take away our freedom, our individuality, our humanity?  Or is the price they demand to be right the loss of our freedom, the submergence of our individuality, the expression of our own humanity.  If I require you to give up all of that in order for me to feel right because you now think like me, what does that say about me? To me, it says I’m confused, probably just following my own programming, like a dumb tool without my own understanding. It says I don’t have the willingness to conceive of your intentions nor the capacity to trust you at all. And it probably says I don’t trust myself either. So much for auto-correctness.

Autocorrect has become a joke, the valid excuse for when our messages are incomprehensable or ridiculously garbled.  We roll our eyes, we curse, we call it names, we don’t respect it.  All because it insists that it knows better than us and because it corrects what it thinks are our mistakes in an obnoxious, ignorant and unthinking way.  Imagine if we let autocorrect win the typing war it began, if we allowed our autocorrected communications to be delivered according to its programming.  People would read what autocorrect thought was right and be confused and unimpressed by it. They wouldn’t and they couldn’t understand the unique message we intended as we began, but then surrendered. No, they wouldn’t laugh, be provoked to thoughtfulness or feel moved. They certainly wouldn’t find it malarious, and that’s no joke. 

Are you in the American War?

Months ago we were encouraged to take sides in an American War of the 99% v. 1%. Now it's the 53% v. 47%.

I think 100% of us will be better off if we stop taking sides in a war and think of ourselves as the 100%.

What do you think?