HinesSight

#Salemia tweets show need to strange up Salem

Check out another Strange Up Salem post on my blog that's dedicated to weirding up Oregon's excessively blah capital. "Salemia video aims to Strange Up Salem" is the last of my three Salem Weekly columns that made it into the blogosphere rather than print.

Here's some excerpts:

In early February “Salemia” touched off a craze among Salem’s Twittersphere. It all began when filmmaker Mike Perron tweeted, “Salemia. Opening scene: five hipsters fighting over a half smoked cigarette outside Chelsea's place...”

...Keep Portland Weird is a rallying cry for residents who want to preserve their city’s uniqueness. Since I feel an urgent need to Strange Up Salem, my guess was that when other Twitter’ers started sharing their own “Salemia” scene ideas, boring would be a more common theme than bizarre.

I was right. Here’s some of my favorite tweets from the first wave of Salemia sharings.

"Birther" weirdness shows how Republicans deny reality

I'm optimistic about the future of the United States. But one fact makes me cautious about being wildly optimistic: about half of Republicans (maybe more) won't accept facts.

Working together to solve our problems requires that both political parties look upon clearly evident aspects of reality with the same fact-accepting eyes. Then we can have a vigorous debate about how to change the way things are now, so they can be better in the future.

But when Republicans refuse to accept obvious truths, this creates a gulf between reality-accepters and reality-deniers which keeps them so far apart, policy discussions are carried out with both sides talking about wildly different subjects.

The "birther" weirdness is a case in point. A survey found that 51% of GOP primary voters believed Obama wasn't born in this country, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The facts is we already knew that President Obama was born in the United States beyond any doubt. We already had his certificate of live birth, not one but two separate birth announcements in local papers who printed birth announcements from hospital records, witnesses who had seen this original birth certificate, and of course also the fact that his mother was an American and his grandfather fought in World War II.

Now Obama has proven the birthers wrong by asking the State of Hawaii to release his long form birth certificate, even though what had already been released was an official document.

When any citizen born in Hawaii requests their birth certificate, they receive exactly what the President received. In fact, the document posted on the campaign website is what Hawaiians use to get a driver’s license from the state and the document recognized by the Federal Government and the courts for all legal purposes. That’s because it is the birth certificate. This is not and should not be an open question.

The President believed the distraction over his birth certificate wasn’t good for the country. It may have been good politics and good TV, but it was bad for the American people and distracting from the many challenges we face as a country. Therefore, the President directed his counsel to review the legal authority for seeking access to the long form certificate and to request on that basis that the Hawaii State Department of Health make an exception to release a copy of his long form birth certificate. They granted that exception in part because of the tremendous volume of requests they had been getting. President Barack Obama's long form birth certificate can be seen here .

Any reasonable person would have recognized that Obama was born in Hawaii a long time ago. The fact that so many Americans, mostly Republicans, were wedded to being unreasonable is a disturbing symptom of what ails our body politic.

Reality acceptance dysfunction.

Being non-religious, I'm inclined to blame this largely on fundamentalist Christianity -- which loves to embrace blind faith and push away observable facts.

Other factors are at work here, though. Liberals and conservatives may differ in brain structure, with fear playing a bigger role in how conservatives see the world, and liberals being more comfortable with understanding complexity.

This could explain why Republicans who fear Obama are unable to comprehend simple facts about where he was born. Their brains filter reality in accord with primitive emotions rather than more evolved cerebral cortex functions.

Regardless, I'm hoping that reality-deniers will wake up to the danger this poses for not only the United States, but the entire world.

Global warming is another fact that gets denied by pretty much the same people who refused to accept Obama's American citizenship. Climate Progress has a post that lays this out, "The top 5 ways the 'birthers' are like the deniers."

Birtherism is a manifestation of the GOP’s embrace of anti-intellectualism and anti-science ideology whose “most harmful delusion” is climate science denial, as even Washington Post’s Editorial Page Editor — the guy who runs the disinformation of George Will, BJorn Lomborg and Sarah Palin — acknowledged.

So this seems like a good time to repost and update the 2009 CP post “The top 5 ways the ‘birthers’ are like the deniers“:

The people who refuse to accept the reality that President Obama was born in the United States share much in common with those who refuse to accept the reality that humans are dramatically changing the climate.

[Update: Politifact shows that the birthers aren't giving up on their craziness. Some people just won't take truth as the correct answer.]

How stranging up Salem is a job creator

Over on my Strange Up Salem blog I've put up another marvelously persuasive post that uses the example of Trader Joe's to show how strangeness is a key to economic development -- not to mention the secrets of the cosmos.

Check it out. Here's a sample:

Bottom line: A place and the people who live there are intimately intertwined. If we want Salem to be a more interesting and lively place, we have to cultivate those qualities in ourselves.

Free enterprise is adept at filling voids. When there is unfulfilled demand for new and different, a.k.a. strangeness, individuals and businesses will offer up out-of-the-ordinary wares.

Maui's Napili Bay is my "On Golden Pond"

I don't remember a whole lot of specifics about "On Golden Pond." The basics of the movie remain with me, though: every year an aging couple returns to the same vacation spot, a house on a lake.

My wife and I don't have a lakeside home. But over the past twenty years we've made almost annual visits to Maui's Napili Bay, renting a condo for ten days or so.

I understand the allure of going to different places. However, I'm more of an "On Golden Pond" guy. Nothing stays the same -- not us, not a place, nothing in the cosmos. So there's always plenty of differentness if we keep our eyes open for it.

Napili Bay changes a lot in a single day. Heck, in just a few minutes. The photo above isn't of lights from across the bay. It's the setting sun being reflected in windows.

And naturally every sunset is unique. I'm drawn to the sameness of our vacation spot, though.

Or rather, the sameness with which I enjoy the ocean: mainly by sidestroking my way back and forth across the bay and boogie boarding the waves when they're large enough.

Doing the same activities year after year, but for only a few days annually, offers me a free-of-charge Geezerhood Assessment -- not as scientific as a trip to the Mayo Clinic yet personally edifying. Also, satisfying, since so far I've been finding that age hasn't much altered how Napili Bay and I relate.

Eventually that will change. I'm not going to be a spry old guy forever.

One day I'll just be an old guy. Not a highly enjoyable thought. Yet the photos above and below were of the sunset a few minutes older. I found these moments even more attractive, how the colors in the sky stood out when the brightness of the sun lessened.

Picking out a rental car at the National lot, a young woman staffing the exit booth asked if she could help me. I was staring at the offerings in the Emerald Club Aisle, where members can choose whichever car they want.

"My wife and I don't travel light," I told her. "Some people come to Maui with a backpack. We come with two giant suitcases, a duffel bag, and a boogie board. So I need a car with quite a bit of space." I heard her chuckle.

A few minutes later, when I pulled up to her booth in a trunk-spacious vehicle, she said, "I laughed when you mentioned people who come to Maui with just a backpack, because that's what I did. No job. No place to stay. I just came. And now I have this job."

"You're young," I told her. "That's what young people do: whatever. If it rains and you don't have a raincoat, you just get wet. No big deal. But my wife and I plan ahead, envisioning what kind of weather Maui might throw at us. So we end up bringing a lot of just in case stuff. Hence, the big suitcases."

I liked talking with the National Car Rental girl. She reminded me of how footloose we are when we're younger, and how, as the years go by, we become increasingly set in our ways.

Part of me envied this twenty-something who could fly off to Maui to live with just a backpack, while my wife and I come to visit with a whole lot more. But, hey, we're us -- three times twenty-something.

Age has its own rewards. LIke finding your Golden Pond, and returning to it year after year, always finding something new in something old.

Strange Up Salem -- what it's about

Over on my new Strange Up Salem blog I've shared a version of what would have been my first Salem Weekly column (see here for why I'm publishing my paeans to strangeness in cyberspace rather than on newsprint).

Check out "Strange Up Salem! You know you want it."

It isn't only for those of us who want Oregon's capital city to, as I say, become more than a blandburger sandwiched between the spiciness of Portland and Eugene. My grandiosity extends way beyond that.

At one point in my life I worried about being considered strange. Now, I consider it a compliment. The most interesting people I’ve known, the most fascinating places I’ve been to, the most unforgettable experiences I’ve had -- they’ve all been compellingly strange.

This is why I feel qualified to preach a Strange Up Salem gospel: I’m strange, and I adore strange.

So much so, I've come to see strangeness as resting at the heart of many fascinating areas of human understanding that I love to learn about: neuroscience, philosophy, spirituality, land use, politics, physics, cosmology, psychology, artistry.

Strange is the key to everything! I've come to realize this. And now it's my unsacred mission to preach the Gospel of Strange wherever and however the strange spirit strikes me.

You can help out by clicking the Facebook "like" button in the right column. Don't think about it; just do it. Strangeness is spontaneity and freedom. So damn it, I order you to click on that button now!

Why I'm not a Salem Weekly columnist

Oh, man.

I could almost taste my Pulitzer prize -- leaving aside the minor details of (1) whether a Pulitzer is given for alternative newspaper column writing, and (2) the questionable edibility of whatever the Pulitzer folks give out as awards.

Regardless, I came so close to becoming a columnist for Salem Weekly, which actually is published bi-weekly, but alternative publications shouldn't be held to obsessive-compulsive journalistic standards.

That's part of what attracted me to the notion of writing for Salem Weekly when publisher A.P. Walther phoned me early in 2011 and said he wanted us to chat. Soon we had a pleasant get-together at the downtown Beanery coffee house. A.P. had been reading my blogs. He liked my "out of the box" thinking.

Music to my literary ears. I told him that blogging was satisfying, but it'd be interesting to dive into the alternative newspaper waters.

There's something about seeing your words in print, on paper. I've had three books published; it's an exciting moment when the first copy arrives in the mail, much more so than is clicking "publish" on a blog post and sensing electrons fly into cyberspace.

After that first meeting with A.P. I pondered what I'd want to write about during some dog walks, when I often come up with my best ponders. It didn't take long for an idea to pop into my mind.

It was weird. In fact, it was strange. I liked it a lot.

I wanted to Strange Up Salem.

I've lived here for 34 years -- over three freaking decades of listening to people (one of whom was me) bitch and complain about how boring Oregon's capital city is, how there's nothing to do here, how downtown is so yawn-inducing, how we suck compared to Portland and Eugene.

All largely true. But lighting a candle is different from cursing the darkness. I got more and more passionate about a Strange Up Salem campaign, which I came to think of as a happening, that would focus on changing Salem from the inside out.

Channeling Obama's 2008 message, I wanted to proclaim: "We are the strange that we've been waiting for."

And that's what I'm going to do. But not in the pages of Salem Weekly.

A.P. Walther, the publisher, resonated with three sample columns that I wrote along with several memos outlining how Strange Up Salem could bring new energy (and readers) to his publication, help make Salem a better place, and be a satisfyingly fun activity for me.

However, the Salem Weekly editor, who would go nameless if he didn't go by the name of Shawn Estes, wasn't nearly as enamored with my proposal.

After I met with Shawn for the first time, late in the column-planning process, I could tell that we weren't on the same wavelength -- a writer's nightmare, because an editor who isn't attuned to a writer's train of thought is going to de-rail the creative engine.

I suggested further meetings where A.P., Shawn, and I could discuss the Strange Up Salem notion. I wrote out my concerns in detail, hoping that it'd still be possible for both Salem Weekly and me to feel comfortable with each other, an obvious pre-requisite if I was going to write a regular column.

No go.

I realized that the silence I was hearing from Salem Weekly was a response, a conclusion eventually confirmed by A.P.. Not wanting to set aside the work I'd done on Strange Up Salem, I decided to be my own alternative to our city's alternative newspaper. (With the World Wide Web, everybody can be a publisher these days.)

I have no idea how Strange Up Salem will go.

This means I can't fail, because I have few specific expectations of success. I don't even know what "success" means in this context. That's how strange I want Strange Up Salem to be -- unpredictable, uncertain, uncontrollable, undefinable.

You can be a part of whatever the heck this is, no matter where you live.

Visit my Strange Up Salem blog, which functions as a landing place for www.strangeupsalem.com (naturally one of my first thoughts was: "got to reserve a domain name").

Give me a Facebook "like" via the blog. Or head to the Strange Up Salem Facebook page and like strangeness from there.

Follow the Strange Up Salem Twitter feed. Tweets are in short supply at the moment, but I'll get around to tweetifying strangeness before too long.

If you don't understand what Strange Up Salem is all about, join the club. I don't either. Not really. Strange is an idea that sends out tendrils in all directions. Why, I've come to see this concept as a philosophical Theory of Everything. It explains the whole freaking cosmos!

Well, Salem at least.

Friday I'll share the first column that I wrote for Salem Weekly, duly revised for the now-independent nature of Strange Up Salem. With this happening I'm the writer; I'm the editor; I'm the publisher.

More: I'm the goddamn self-appointed Philosopher King of Strange Up Salem.

I wish Courthouse Square was completely torn down and a public park was in its place; then I could get on a soapbox and rant about how strangeness will save Salem from the sins of boredom, lethargy, ordinariness, and lack of creativity.

But who needs a physical soapbox? I've got Facebook, Twitter, and my blogs! Cool.

(I want to end by saying that I like Salem Weekly and admire the dedication A.P. Walther, Shawn Estes, and the other staffers put into this publication. It's a terrific asset for our city. That said, A.P. repeatedly told me "I welcome suggestions for making Salem Weekly better." I'm going to take him up on that offer in a forthcoming blog post, after I get some Strange Up Salem writings percolating in cyberspace.)

Oregon legislature starting to look giddy

Hanging around the Oregon capitol building, waiting to testify at a legislative hearing, isn't my idea of fun. But the two hours I spent there this afternoon gave me some interesting insights into a political world that I observe rather rarely.

I arrived at Hearing Room C, where the House Agriculture and Natural Resources committee was to meet at 3 pm, about twenty minutes early -- wanting to be one of the first to sign up to testify on House Bill 2871.

(It has to do with how Metro deals with urban growth boundary expansion in the Portland area. I won't explain it any further, not wanting to put any blog readers to sleep and risking a concussion when their heads hit the edge of their computer desk.)

After claiming an empty chair with my coat, I sat down on a bench on the edge of the bustling corridor outside of the hearing room to soak up the 2011 legislative mid-session vibes.

First impression: things seem more hectic than when I testified several months ago on another land use issue. Lobbyists were striding along and having semi-hushed conversations on their cell phones with increased intensity.

Second impression: some of those lobbyists (at least that's who I assumed they were) are damn good-looking women. For a while I focused on the shoes of females walking past, mentally calculating the proportion of flats, low heels, and high heels.

I'm not sure what this proves, but the hottest lobbyist babes were wearing the highest high heels. And they tended to be blonde.

Now, I can only imagine what it's like to be a state legislator, but I'm intimately familiar with what it's like to be a man. So I can surmise that if a gorgeous female lobbyist strutted up to Rep. or Sen. Me in high heels and a short skirt, I'd be inclined to give her a bit (or a lot) more of my time and attention than if a frumpy guy wanted to convince me to vote a certain way.

After indulging in these sociological speculations for a while, I noticed that audience members were settling down in the hearing room.

Returning to my seat I exchanged pleasantries with a woman in the adjoining chair who was simultaneously clutching her smart phone and a white binder with a list of legislator's names/ phone numbers/ committee assignments taped to the front. Her appearance screamed lobbyist.

Before and during the hearing she gave me some further insights into the mood of this legislative session.

When I said, "The legislators seem to be acting sort of giddy," she replied that Wednesday was the deadline for moving bills out of committee, or they die. This explained why Rep. Brian Clem, who was chairing the committee, had such a full plate of legislation on that day's agenda.

The hearing had a night-before-term-paper-is-due urgent feel to it. Clem and other committee members lightened the mood with frequent injections of humor, some of which was of a political gallows nature.

("I assume you don't want to testify on this bill," Rep. Clem said to someone in the audience, "since we're about to kill it no matter what you say.")

Every time I see legislators in action, I'm impressed with how hard they work for the pitifully small salary they earn -- about $1,800 a month, I think. My lobbyist seatmate agreed when I said state legislators should be paid a lot more, so their public service isn't such an economic sacrifice.

I asked her where out-of-town legislators lived during the session.

She said that the "girls" and "boys" room together, in rented apartments and houses, I gather, because most can't afford to rent a place of their own. She pointed out which legislators on the committee are able to go home at night, and which have to spend most of the session away from their families.

The hearing went pretty smoothly, and I even got to present my testimony in person just before I planned to leave for my Tai Chi class (got to keep my own priorities straight). I sat at the witness table with some guys from the Oregon Farm Bureau and Oregon Nursery Association.

Since I was there to represent Friends of Marion County, an affiliate of 1000 Friends of Oregon, it wasn't surprising that each of us sang the same testimony tune, urging the committee to pass HB 2871 and help protect farmland near an urban growth boundary.

Before that bill came up, a Sierra Club lobbyist testified on a different bill that had something to do with burning biomass to generate energy. Rep. Clem had said that the bill likely wasn't going anywhere, but the guy said he'd testify anyway. The woman next to me whispered, "That's a mistake. Legislators will see this as wasting their time at a busy hearing where they have a lot to do."

Seems like she was right.

After he finished reading some fairly lengthy testimony, Rep. Schaufler (who isn't shy about speaking his mind and resents environmental regulations) sarcastically said to him, "Why doesn't the Sierra Club just come out and admit it wants to ban all logging in Oregon? Then we could be done with this bit by bit lobbying stuff."

To his credit, the Sierra Club lobbyist held his ground and responded pretty cogently. He said that the Sierra Club supports environmentally sound thinning in state forests, but so far the legislature hasn't been willing to pursue a balanced approach to this sort of logging.

Schaufler wanted to continue on with their back and forth, but Rep. Clem put it to a stop, saying they needed to move on with the rest of the committee agenda.

It was engaging political theatre.

Last night I enjoyed watching HBO's "Game of Thrones" more than I liked sitting through this committee hearing, but there were quite a few commonalities: palace intrigue, back stabbing, incestuous relationships. I can understand how political junkies can become addicted to this stuff.

For me, though, I was happy to head to my Tai Chi class.

How we stopped a robin's pecking at window glass

My wife and I have been battling robins at our rural Salem, Oregon home for many years. Almost every spring some crazed robin will obsessively peck at our bedroom windows, which are conveniently (for the bird) located next to a large oak tree.

The robin will sit on a branch, seemingly getting more and more irritated at another robin which has the gall to invade his territory during mating season. Of course, the other robin is his reflection in the glass, which makes it pretty damn difficult to chase the intruder away.

Back in 2003, I wrote about my frustrations with a bird who kept attacking my Volvo's mirrors and windshield. I unaffectionately called him Bastard Robin. Titling the post "Further evidence of male idiocy," at that time I assumed that only guy robins engaged in this sort of behavior.

I'm no expert on bird behavior, but I believe these are the basic facts. Bastard Robin wants to father some offspring. It isn't enough that he screw some sweet young female robin. In his delusional, and seemingly infinitesimal, robin brain, he is determined to be the only male in the whole wide world screwing a sweet young female robin, so all the baby robins everywhere will carry on the genetic heritage of Bastard Robin.

Hence, his singleminded determination to rid the neighborhood of other male robins. Now that makes some sense, I guess. But now the male idiocy kicks in, stimulated by what a character on Ally McBeal was fond of calling the man's "dumb stick."

However, when I went to our local bird store a few days ago to get some advice about how to deal with this year's extra-obsessed robin, the knowledgeable owner told me that female robins also are territorial and engage in compulsive window/glass pecking behavior.

Such is borne out by the best web site advice I could find about how to stop robins from doing this. "Preventing Window Strikes" explains why birds do this and the various options that can be used to deter them.

(Aside from shooting them -- an idea that I have to admit did pass through my mind after the robin started waking us retirees up at 6:30 am, way before our usual rise-and-shine time; but we're kind-hearted vegetarians who believe in a live and let live approach to animals unless they're truly destructive.)

I didn't find that web site until after my wife and I tried several approaches mentioned on it that we thought up on our own. Here's what didn't work for us, and what finally did.

Some years, lowering our bedroom window shades deters territorial robins. This year, it didn't. Robin Version 2011 kept pecking at his reflection whether the shades were up or down. So my wife got a plastic owl at our local Fred Meyer store.

The owl had essentially zero effect on the robin. It didn't take long before I saw the robin pecking right at the owl. So this is when I went to Wild Birds Unlimited for some sparkly, dangling, metallic ribbon stuff.

I climbed on the roof and tacked 20 five-foot lengths about every eight inches to a beam that ran above our bedroom windows. Problem was, the wind would blow the streamers every which way, including up onto the roof and under shingles. The ribbons also would get tangled around each other.

But even when they were hanging down properly, the robin began to ignore them after a brief "what the hell is that?" acclimation period from his perch in the oak tree. Time for another approach.

I dug up some old work clothes and made a scarecrow that, I felt, looked a lot like me. Bungee cords attached the scarecrow to a ladder, raising it to window level. My crowning touch -- which I was sure would do the robin-scaring trick -- was a head shot of a bird's worst nightmare.

But I was dismayed to find that this fearsome open-jawed cat photo didn't do the trick, not even combined with a bunch of the metallic ribbons that I draped on the scarecrow and the window frame. It didn't take long before the robin was darting right past the scarecrow and heading for his reflection again.

Back to the drawing board.

Fortunately, while I was working on the scarecrow my wife was on another shopping trip to Fred Meyer. This time she brought home some various-sized plastic netting for keeping birds off of vegetable gardens, fruit trees, and such. The 14' X 14' package turned out to be just right to cover our bedroom windows.

On a windy, rainy afternoon I climbed back up on the roof and managed to get one side of the netting attached to the eaves above our windows, draping the plastic mesh over nails that I pounded in every foot. Then I secured the other end of the 14' by 14' square to the siding under and around our windows, using more nails.

The netting is hard to see after it was stretched out. Here's what it looked like when still clumped together to some extent.

Looking through our bedroom windows now, the netting is barely visible. This photo was taken when the wind was blowing one of the scarecrow ribbons out to the side (I left the scarecrow up, even though it's robin-scaring value is minimal at best). The netting shows up against the ribbon, but otherwise is almost invisible.

Because the eaves of our house extend out 18 inches or so from the siding, in most places the stretched-out netting is at least several inches from the windows, even though the bottom of it is attached to the side of our house.

The robin has fluttered at the netting several times, but hasn't been able to reach the window. We were worried that it might get caught in the netting. It doesn't look like this will happen, since the bird notices the netting and avoids it. While it was kind of a pain to attach to the eave of our house, the angle this created meant we didn't need to make a frame that would keep the netting away from the windows.

This solution looks like it'll last. Yesterday the robin spent quite a bit of time perched on the oak tree, looking depressed -- like he's lost his purpose in life.

(Suggestion to robin: turn your attention to nesting and chick-feeding; become a sensitive stay-at-home robin dad instead of obsessing over your macho need to chase away male competition. Assuming you're a "he.")

Today I noticed that another robin, apparently the first one's mate, had joined in with some half-hearted window pecking on glass doors on another side of the house. Later I walked by that area and saw that a robin was sitting, dazed, on a stepping stone.

It's eyes were closed, but it was upright. Soon the other robin showed up, making for a poignant moment. The mate hopped around close to the dazed/comatose robin, as if it was trying to get its companion moving.

Must have worked.

The next time I walked by both of the robins were gone. Looking up, I saw one was back in the oak tree, staring at the netting. I was surprised by how happy I was that both were alive. Even though I couldn't stand the window pecking, seeing the dazed robin hurt (probably by bashing its head into glass) got me all sentimental.

These birds are just doing what comes naturally to them. While I imagine that they're out to drive my wife and I crazy with their window pecking, the rational side of me knows this isn't true.

They're just acting like robins. And we're acting like humans. Fortunately, for the moment we've managed to outsmart them, Homo sapiens that we are.

Scared male: the question I didn't ask of two feminists

Feminists usually aren't all that scary to me. But tonight I wimped out on asking a question of two who teach at the Oregon State University Women Studies program.

We were into the Q &A and guest speaker portion of the Salem Progressive Film Series showing of "Killing Us Softly 4," a documentary about advertising's image of women. Sexy, skinny, silent, and childish is, of course, promoted over sexless, fat, assertive, and mature.

The movie showed the filmmaker, Jean Kilbourne, giving a talk. As she made a point, we saw photos and videos illustrating how advertisers present an image of idealized femininity that is far removed from everyday female reality.

(Along this line, for someone who is 68 Kilbourne looked pretty good in "Killing Us Softly 4," almost exactly like her Wikipedia photo. My wife and I suspect she dyes her hair. And that either she has great genes or embraces feminist plastic surgery.)

Now, I'll confess that as I watched the advertising examples from Victoria's Secret, Gucci, and many other companies, countless times my male mind wordlessly responded with Wow, that chick is hot!

Yet in the late 70's, along with my young daughter and feminist first wife I listened a lot to Marlo Thomas's "Free to Be... You and Me." Back then I read Ms. magazine every month. And I wasn't many years removed from living with my mother, a strong, independent divorced woman who worked outside the home at a time when not many women her age did.

So when the opportunity to ask questions of the post-movie guest speakers came, I wanted to say something like this to Beth Rietveld and Amanda Littke:

Neuroscience knows that the human brain is made up of some very old parts, and some much newer parts. Our cerebral cortex, where we do our thinking, is a fairly recent evolutionary development. Emotional parts, instinctive parts -- they're much older.

So when it comes to how women are seen by men, and also how they see themselves, it seems like we need to take into account these differences between what we could call our "higher" and "lower" selves (I'm not speaking moralistically, but evolutionarily).

Can't it be argued that the objectifying of women shown in the film, and the emphasis on sexy youthfulness, is a holdover from our cave man heritage which still is reflected in those more primitive parts of the human brain?

I chickened out, though.

As Women Studies instructors, Rietveld and Littke were appealingly passionate about their commitment to rooting out sexist, male-centric cultural attitudes. Not having been in a college classroom for a long time, I was thrilled to hear one of them use the term "deconstruct," a post-modern feminist tool that wasn't around when I was in school.

I was worried that my question would be fodder for one of their classroom lectures.

"You wouldn't believe what this gray-haired guy asked us after a showing of Killing Us Softly 4 in Salem. This is a great example of deeply embedded attitudes toward women that are preserving the misogynist status quo."

So I didn't ask it.

However, the question I did ask was founded on the same sort of neuroscientific premise. Namely, that how we think and how we feel (or act) often are quite different. After I raised my hand and got a microphone handed to me, I said:

Perusing the offerings at the grocery store checkout lane, my male eyes are pleased to notice that women's magazines feature photos of beautiful half-naked women, and that men's magazines also feature photos of beautiful half-naked women.

Thus the ideal female image promoted by advertisers, and decried in the movie we just saw, is embraced by those who buy women's magazines -- who are almost all women.

Doesn't this imply that women are the ones who are perpetuating a supposedly overly idealized and sexist view of femininity? Or at least that women are as much to blame as advertisers for keeping that ideal alive?

Well, that's close to how I asked my question. I was sort of nervous about asking even this toned-down question, so rambled on even more than I usually do.

The answers I got from Rietveld and Littke were disappointing. I can't recall much of what they said because their responses didn't seem to address what I was getting at. Or maybe I expected them to understand the subtext of my question, that our primordial human instincts often outweigh our more modern reason and logic.

(I've read that in most cultures across the world, men tend to marry women younger than themselves; a certain curvaceous female form is valued; and beauty is more important to men than it is to women. Thus advertisers seem to be tuning in to how people actually feel, whereas feminists tend to emphasize how people should feel.)

A better answer came from an audience member later on in the Q and A session. She referred to my question, saying that women's magazines are part of a cultural mileiu that females grow up in and end up internalizing.

Yes, agreed.

But I still wonder to what degree feminists are swimming against a powerful evolutionary current, and whether it is even desirable to eliminate all of the supposedly sexist aspects of modern culture.

(Third wave feminists apparently don't think so.)

You win, NY Times -- I'll pay for your damn digital subscription

About a month ago I was disturbed to learn that the New York Times was going to start charging for online access. Yes, the NYT is a great newspaper, with terrific content. On my laptop and iPhone I read several stories every day.

But $15 a month? That seemed like a lot. So I resisted signing up for an online subscription plan for as long as possible.

Which turned out to be April 8. That's when I reached my monthly allotment of 20 free stories. I was faced with 22 days of going New York Times cold turkey until May brought me another week or so of gratis access.

That prospect wasn't appealing. So I fed my news junkie addiction and clicked on a digital subscription link. Pleasingly, the damage was only going to be 99 cents for the first four weeks.

Cleverly, that was the introductory price for all three digital options, which ranged from $15 to $35 a month after the 99 cent deal ended. Naturally I chose the best value option, helpfully shown in red.

Now I realize that my credit card is going to be charged $35 on May 6 for All Digital Access even though I don't need the tablet (a.k.a. iPad) access -- just smart phone and computer.

So I need to phone NYT customer service before then.

Just as with the not-so-good-old-days of America On Line (AOL), the Times makes it easy to sign up for a 99 cent introductory offer, but doesn't make it easy to change to a cheaper plan. I couldn't see any way to do that online, even with my vaunted All Digital Access.

Anyway, I've decided that I can suck it up and fork over $15 a month to the New York Times. Like I said in my previous post:

And here's a perspective on the issue that I came across today. I agree with this guy that we need to support genuine newspapers, because otherwise we'll end up only with bloggers like me making up stuff without a factual foundation. Am I still willing to pay $15 every four weeks to support a great newspaper, without which the world would be significantly lessened? Yes, I think so.

Now, let's make that I know so.

Republicans seek to end Medicare with no debate

You'd think that killing Medicare as we know (and love) it would require some serious open discussion. But nope, not in the brave new world the House Republicans have brought us.

Paul Ryan's proposal to force seniors to buy private health insurance that would pay an ever-decreasing share of their medical costs was announced last week. This week the House is expected to vote on a 2012 budget resolution that implements Ryan's voucher-based Medicare overhaul.

No hearings. No debate. No opportunity for citizens to express their opinions on ending the current Medicare system.

It's the political version of wham, bam, thank you ma'am --a rush to pass poorly thought out legislation that's unsatisfying for everybody but the Tea Party types who want to lower taxes on the rich and screw senior citizens.

Today local Oregon columnist Ron Eachus had a great column in the Salem Statesman Journal on this subject.
Download Ron Eachus column

It is a bold plan, with plenty of controversy. Most of the spending reductions come from the Medicare changes under which recipients are given vouchers they can apply to private health insurance. The Congressional Budget Office points out that it means shifting more costs to Medicare recipients.

This deserves a lot more scrutiny. You'd think it would receive some hearings, some expert testimony, some airing in public before Congress proceeds. Not in today's Congress, not in today's budget wars.

One day after Ryan put his plan forward, the House Budget Committee voted, along party lines, to send a 2012 budget resolution implementing the plan to the House floor, where it is expected to pass this week.

Remember when the Republicans chided the Democrats for ramrodding the health care reform through without enough time to review the bill or consider alternatives?

I sure do.

The Affordable Care Act went through months and months of deliberation, and even that was criticized by Republicans as being too hasty. Yet here they are, rushing a wholesale destruction of Medicare through the House of Representatives in one freaking week!

Hypocrites. S.O.B.'s  And next year, I hope, not re-elected.

(AARP Oregon isn't happy with Ryan's plan. Neither is the national AARP. Not a great start to re-election season for Republicans.)

I'm saving money with a Canadian pharmacy

As a U.S. citizen, here's my bottom-line experience with ordering a prescription drug from a Canadian pharmacy: I'm saving hundreds of dollars a year, and the quality of the generic drug seems just as good.

So, what's not to like? Well, only one thing so far.

The drug I'm getting is Dutasteride, the generic version of GlaxoSmithKline's Avodart, a prostate shrinking medication. (Like I said before, a prostate exam is the only time a man doesn’t want to hear from a female who is inspecting his genital area that he's larger than average.)

The Canadian pharmacy I'm using is called -- no big surprise -- Canada Pharmacy. I've been happy with their service, but wasn't aware that the generic Avodart I ordered was coming from India via the United Kingdom.

I sent in my order for 100 Dutasteride capsules on December 30, 2010. Canada Pharmacy told me it was shipped on January 3, 2011. But the package didn't arrive until mid-February.

When I asked what was taking so long, I got an email that said:

Please be aware that mail service in the UK from where your order has shipped has increased their security measures for items sent to the United States in response to restrictions imposed by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and this may cause some delays on the shipment of your order. The recent icy weather has also caused some delays. We apologize for your inconvenience and thank you for your patience.

Hopefully my next refill won't take so long to arrive.

Even with the time it took for me to get the order, I'm happy that I started using a Canadian pharmacy rather than getting brand Avodart through my Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon individual insurance plan.

Regence's increasingly crappy plan, now called "Evolve Plus," has a $500 deductible for prescription drugs. The full price for 30 Avodart capsules from our independent pharmacy has been $108. After the deductible is met, Regence pays 50%, or $54 -- leaving me to pay the remaining $54.

Given that I also take two much cheaper prescriptions each month, for four months I'd have to pay full price for Avodart until the $500 deductible was met. That's $432 ($108 times four).

For the remaining eight months in a year, I'd pay another $432 ($54 times eight). So getting brand name Avodart through our Regence insurance plan would cost me $864 a year, averaging $72 a month for 30 capsules. That's $2.40 a day.

By contrast, Canada Pharmacy sells 100 capsules of generic Avodart (dutasteride) for $145. That's $1.45 a day. So I'm saving 95 cents a day ($2.40 minus $1.45) on Avodart by getting my prescription filled through Canada Pharmacy.

Which is $347 a year.

All I had to do was get a new prescription from my doctor which said something like "generic OK." After scanning it, I emailed the prescription to Canada Pharmacy along with a scan of my driver's license. Pretty easy way to save $347.

The generic Avodart is made by an Indian company, Cipla. I'm comfortable with taking dustasteride that comes from India. A Business Week story says that Cipla has been one of the most successful Indian companies which specialize in making low-cost versions of American drugs.

And Canada Pharmacy assures its customers that the generics it sells are safe:

Yes, Canadian generics are just as safe and effective. Canada has a government agency that tightly monitors the safety and quality of all drugs sold in Canada.

So if you're unhappy, as I was, with how much prescription drugs cost in the United States, even when insurance pays some of the tab, consider a Canadian pharmacy. It's been a good move for me -- $347 a year worth.

(Previously I'd ordered some other items from Canada Pharmacy and signed up for a plan that gave me free shipping for a year for $20, if I recall correctly. So that's why I didn't include the usual $10 shipping fee in my cost savings.)

Government shutdown averted -- Republican wrongness remains

Damn! Bad blog post timing.

I was all ready to get a good rant going about Republican willingness to shut down the federal government in order to prevent women from getting Planned Parenthood health care, then I see that a deal apparently has been reached.

Well, there's no reason to waste a rant, so I'll fire up my outrage as if Boehner hadn't come to his senses. After all, it won't be long before social conservatives and Tea Party types find another opportunity to display their anti-women ridiculousness.

Cutting the budget is one thing. Slashing Planned Parenthood's family planning, cancer screening, and sexual disease prevention efforts is a whole other thing. Yet eliminating all funding for Planned Parenthood was the central concern of Republican negotiators.

Idiotic.

Contraception constitutes 35% of the organization's services, so obviously Planned Parenthood prevents many more abortions than its doctors perform (only 2-3% of visits are abortion-related).

Earlier in the day Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said:

“I think it’s really unfortunate Congress can’t come to a resolution on this year’s budget ... cutting [Title X] funding would increase the number of unintended pregnancies and increase the number of abortions, so the people who say they’re having this battle about abortion are actually not looking at what the statistics have indicated,” Sebelius told POLITICO Friday. “Federal funds have never supported abortion, do not support abortion, will not support abortion.”

So it's easy to see why many people view congressional Republicans as being anti-women. Why else was so much effort put into de-funding Planned Parenthood's health clinics which have nothing to do with abortion?

Anyway, abortion is legal. And as Sibelius stressed, no federal funds support abortion.

Yet the Republicans feel that if an organization has anything at all to do with providing abortion-related services, it is evil, useless, deserving of being thrown off the federal budget cliff.

That's dogmatism talking, rooted in the sort of faith-based know-nothing'ism that makes dealing with fundamentalist conservatives so irritating these days.

Earth to Republicans: nothing in the social policy arena is wholly black or white, good or bad, worthy or useless. Compromising. Flexibility. Open-mindedness. Embrace these qualities and the world will look a lot grayer. And more real.

I'm a vegetarian. Also, a non-smoker.

I don't like meat, and I don't like cigarettes. However, I have no problem shopping at a grocery store that sells these items to people who want them. Meat and cigarettes are legal, albeit unhealthy and to my taste, disgusting.

Likewise, I can appreciate how some look upon abortion providers. It's akin to how I see meat producers and cigarette companies: as purveyors of death. But I'm fine with people being able to buy their products.

I'm pro-choice. Republicans, though, want the federal government to dictate what sorts of medical services are available to women. These supposed libertarians are anything but when it comes to personal health choices.

By a 64-28% margin, registered voters oppose de-funding Planned Parenthood. Likely this had a lot to do with the Republican decision to give up on their effort to markedly reduce women's access to health care.

Soon the craziness will start up again, though, given the need to raise the debt ceiling and pass a FY 2012 budget. The good news is that the more Republicans go against what voters want, the better Democratic election chances look.

The bad news is that until the House of Representatives returns to a "D" majority, ill-considered budget plans are going to hurt our most vulnerable citizens.

Progressives are on the way up -- in Oregon and elsewhere

Maybe it's the Starbucks grande coffee talking, but who cares? Today this progressive is feeling pretty damn good about where the political winds are blowing -- in Wisconsin, here in Oregon, and in the whole country.

I remember how down Dems and left-leaning independents felt last November when the 2010 midterm tsunami wiped out "D" control in the House of Representatives, substantially narrowed the Democratic Senate majority, and put right-wingers in control of many governorships.

Such as Scott Walker, in Wisconsin.

Yet his union-busting overreaching has begun to backfire. Last night I obsessively kept refreshing the AP election results for the Wisconsin Supreme Court race between Walker sycophant David Prosser and a progressive, JoAnne Kloppenburg.

Currently, with all precincts reporting, Kloppenburg has a 210 vote lead (out of some 1,480,000 cast). That's amazing. And wonderfully encouraging. Liberals in Wisconsin showed they could muster some powerful political muscle. Come 2012, union supporters and progressives will demonstrate more of the same.

Here in Oregon, on a 49-48% vote in 2010 we narrowly escaped the disaster of electing Republican political newbie Chris Dudley as Governor. Our state House of Representatives shifted from Democratic control to a 30-30 tie.

Some pundits predicted that John Kitzhaber, a Democrat who'd already served two rather lackluster terms as Governor, would falter under the pressures of major state budget problems and a legislature nearly equally divided between R's and D's.

Yet so far the budgeting process is going smoothly, and Kitzhaber is looking all senior-statesmanlike. He's charting a centrist economic course, demonstrating that the voters chose wisely when they elected a governor with smarts and experience rather than Chris Dudley -- who was woefully deficient in both.

I don't sense signs of any Republican resurgence in Oregon. Nationally, the "R's" also seem poised to squander the political momentum that they had in November 2010. Overreaching and overconfidence will do that.

This weekend the federal government may shut down. If that happens, failure to reach agreement on a budget plan for the rest of FY 2011 will make Congressional Republicans and Democrats, along with Obama, look like incompetents.

The political fallout probably will irradiate both parties about equally. Eventually they'll come to their senses and reach the budget deal that should have been agreed to this week (hopefully this will happen, averting a shutdown, but I suspect it won't).

Much more beneficial, long-term, for the progressive cause is Republican Congressman Paul Ryan's recently released horrendous federal fiscal blueprint for the next forty years or so.

It's a huge political gift to the Dems. It almost guarantees a Democratic resurgence in 2012, and markedly improves Obama's already excellent re-election chances.

What's not for progressives to like politically in Ryan's plan? It demolishes the highly popular Medicare program, replacing it with vouchers for private health insurance. Wow, just what seniors want (not!) -- take away my Medicare and let me deal with the nightmare of private health insurers until I die.

Ryan also wants to make Medicaid into a block grant program, allowing states to leave people needing long-term care, children, and the disabled to their own health care devices.

Gee, another great Republican idea (not!) -- letting the most medically vulnerable members of our society struggle to pay for their own care, or rely on charity, while giving big tax breaks to the richest Americans.

As this editorial says, Ryan isn't pointing the United States on a path to prosperity, but a path to ruin.

If the House Republican budget blueprint released on Tuesday is the “path to prosperity” that its title claims, it is hard to imagine what ruin would look like.

The plan would condemn millions to the ranks of the uninsured, raise health costs for seniors and renege on the obligation to keep poor children fed. It envisions lower taxes for the wealthy than even George W. Bush imagined: a permanent extension for his tax cuts, plus large permanent estate-tax cuts, a new business tax cut and a lower top income tax rate for the richest taxpayers.

Compared to current projections, spending on government programs would be cut by $4.3 trillion over 10 years, while tax revenues would go down by $4.2 trillion. So spending would be eviscerated, mainly to make room for continued tax cuts.

This isn't going to fly with progressives and independents, along with moderate Repubicans and seniors. So things are looking up for progressives, way up compared to where Obama and the Dems appeared to be positioned politically just a few months ago.

There will be lots of twists and turns before the November 2012 elections, but on the whole I think the way is clear for a significant progressive bounceback.

Watch out for Republican "Ryancare" -- it destroys Medicare

Soon we'll learn specifics of the Republican plan to destroy Medicare.

Columnist E.J. Dionne has coined the term "Ryancare," since Congressman Paul Ryan is announcing the plan, and his Road Map for America's Future calls for moving health care for the elderly into a system where vouchers are used to buy private health insurance.

Ugh. No way. Keep your damn hands off of Medicare, Republicans.

I'll be eligible for Medicare in less than three years. I'm looking forward to this, being sick and tired of the bullshit our current private insurer, Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon, regularly piles on us.

Denying my wife's medically necessary care in order to save money (a decision that was overturned by an independent reviewer after we appealed). Discouraging colon cancer screening for the same reason: higher profits for Regence.

Now it looks like Republicans are going to try to convince Americans that private insurance is a better way for seniors to get their health care. This makes essentially zero sense. Hopefully it'll backfire big time on politicians with an "R" after their name come election time.

As Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman says, "Privatizing and voucherizing Medicare does nothing whatsoever to control costs."

Absolutely true.

In fact, it will increase costs for senior health care, since Medicare currently has very low administrative costs, being a single payer system. (Isn't it interesting that all those Tea Party types who have been screaming about how they want to keep Medicare as-is are proclaiming their love for single payer government-run health care financing?)

The vouchers that form the foundation of Ryancare would end up supporting marketing, advertising, claim denying, and other private insurance costs. Money available for actual delivery of health care would shrink, not expand.

Seniors would get screwed. To learn how, read an excellent article in Kaiser Health News, "Analysis: Medicare and Medicaid Get Squeezed in Ryan Plan."

If seniors are worried about doctors dropping them because of crappy reimbursement, and if health care providers are equally worried about how to care for sick seniors when medical costs keep rising faster than payments, they should be super-concerned about Ryancare.

Here's some excerpts from the article:

Capping expenditures is central to cost-control in the Ryan plan, which is essentially the same plan that he co-authored with former Congressional Budget Office director Alice Rivlin during the fiscal commission deliberations. The plan limits the annual growth in the amount earmarked for either premium support or block grants to one percentage point more than gross domestic product (call it GDP+1).

...But just because the government slowed its spending doesn’t mean that old people and the poor wouldn’t have the same health care bills they had before. Health care for these vulnerable populations absent some other force in the marketplace would continue growing at rates significantly faster than the Ryan plan’s GDP+1 formula, just as it has for decades.

Who would pick up the costs that once were picked up by the government? Under the existing system, doctors and hospitals already complain bitterly about the insufficient fees that Medicare pays for the services they provide seniors.

...One option for physicians and hospitals under a capped Medicare premium support system would be to step up what they have always done when faced with inadequate Medicare reimbursement. They could shift even more costs to private, non-Medicare payers, that is, employers and their covered employees. For working stiffs and their bosses, higher taxes would be replaced by higher insurance premiums.

Another option would be for insurers to begin making skimpier plans available to seniors, who would have to make up the additional costs out of their own pockets. Co-pays would rise. Deductibles would rise. Fewer services would be covered.

Our current health care system really is a non-system. Ryancare would only perpetuate the problems of what we have now: rapidly rising costs, rationing based on ability to pay, poor health outcomes compared to European social democracies and Canada.

What's the solution? Well, the article says that we're already on the road to it: the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare.

There is one way to avoid these negative outcomes. The government could set minimum standards for the insurance plans sold to seniors and the poor and set up exchanges, perhaps in the states, to enforce those standards. It could also guarantee that the premium support was adequate for poorer seniors (about half live solely on Social Security) to purchase those plans.

There’s a precedent for this approach. Republicans call it “Obamacare.” Democrats call it health care reform, which also included an Independent Payment Advisory Board that every year after 2015 is going to recommend to Congress cuts in Medicare anytime expenditures go over GDP+1. Republicans want to repeal this measure, along with the rest of the bill.

Yes, Medicare needs improving. But we shouldn't go backwards and return control of senior health care to the private insurance companies that are doing such a poor job of providing services to the under 65 folks.

My prediction is that Ryancare is going to get a big Thumbs Down from Americans. And that Republicans are going to pay the price at the ballot box come November 2012, helping Obama to be elected to a second term.

"Salemia" video starts shooting in Oregon's capital

Hah! Deal with this, Portland, you snooty we're-so-much-better neighbor city to our north.

You may have super greenness, nightlife, great restaurants, a thriving music scene, and Mt. Hood in your backyard, but as of today Salem -- yes, boring Salem -- has its own cinematic rival of the much-admired (also, reviled) "Portlandia."

Well, more accurately "Salemia" is on its way, filming having started today. (If you're not familiar with the fascinating history of Salemia, all two months of it, I've bloggishly recorded it here, here, here, and here.)

Having landed my dream role in this production, the Crusty Transient character, it was thrilling to get an email from Mike Perron a few days ago asking me if I was available for the initial shoot on Saturday.

I was excited.

My wife, markedly less so, as she'd been viewing this weekend through a finish cleaning up the garage lens. However, I assured her that My Art is totally compatible with My To-Do's -- though I wondered if Brad Pitt has to worry about whether his film career is interfering with home chores.

Today's filming was at the Capitol Mall, all festooned with beautiful flowering cherry trees. Not so beautiful was the weather, which ranged from unseasonably cold, to unseasonably wet and cold, to unseasonable windy, wet, and cold.

Cameraman Mike (on the right), though, was dressed in shorts -- typical attire for hardy Oregonians no matter what temperature it is. Here we see a rehearsal for the "save the cherry blossoms" scene, which I'm not going to further describe because I want to build up prospective audience tension for the Big Premiere.

The kids who were recruited for the scene did a great job, along with actual actress Lindsay and Mike's wife, Patty.

During today's filming the Crusty Transient (me) didn't have much to say. Mostly I wandered around, digging into a trash can, bumping into people, trying to portray the persona of an irritable outsider who looks upon the quirky lameness of Salem with fresh eyes.

In one scene I got to bust into the middle of a reporter's broadcast from the Capitol Mall. The reporter was ably and believably played by newspaper writer K. Williams Brown of the Statesman Journal.

All in all I had a lot of fun with the filming. I'd never done anything like this before, though since I visit Hollywood fairly often to visit my daughter and her family I've picked up some movie-making vibes.

Recently there's been criticism of the incentives Oregon has been giving to the film and TV industry. Some feel that those enticements to shoot here bring minimal economic benefits to our state.

I want to assure these skeptics that based on my vast three-hours of filmmaking experience with "Salemia," cinematic projects like this one are a huge boost to the local economy.

For example: during one of our periodic rain-refuges in Lindsay's van, Mike's wife asked him where the burrito was. After some hemming and hawing, Mike admitted that he'd forgotten to bring a burrito -- which turned out to be a crucial prop for a scene involving the Crusty Transient.

Becoming aware of this, I raised some creative issues that sprang from the depths of my artistic soul. "I'm a vegetarian. And I hate burritos because they have beans. Why can't the burrito be a piece of cheese pizza?"

Patty asked how I could be a vegetarian and not like beans, which is exactly what my wife has said to me countless times -- proving that while the Artist can pursue his craft away from Home, life and art are inextricably intertwined.

After this unhelpful beginning to the burrito vs. pizza debate, my suggestion met a further brick wall when Mike said "It has to be a burrito!" for reasons I never quite figured out, but probably had a lot to do with the fact that he likes burritos.

At any rate, Mike set off to buy a burrito, while I zipped off to the Beanery to get a bagel with cream cheese. My acting blood sugar was dropping and it was clear that the Crusty Transient food prop wasn't going to be anything I actually wanted to eat.

The bagel cost me a couple of bucks, which must also be what Mike spent on the pork burrito. I guess I complained so much about beans, he didn't see any need to get a vegetarian burrito; during the scene I nibbled on the tortilla and carefully left the innards alone.

So businesses in downtown Salem already have gotten an economic boost from "Salemia." As two Goodwill stores also did on Friday, when I did some shopping for my Crusty Transient attire. (Kind of weird, having to spend money to appear destitute.)

I'm looking forward to more filming.

There's a script, professionally rendered by Dave Jenkins, but as with most indie projects of this sort, improvising is a big part of the production. I'm not totally comfortable with speaking spontaneously when a camera is running (who is?).

However, I can tell that, as with most things in life, the more you do it, the more fun it is and the better it goes. Hopefully "Salemia" will help lead our semi-fair city in the same direction: towards more creativity, laughter, and spontaneity.