Watching young people shine - Santa Monica's Teen Film Festival and Youth & Government delegation

I’m an outstanding uncle. From my recent-college-graduate niece (I’m so proud of you, Nyomi!) to the two-year-old nephew just learning the basics - and the ten in between - I’ve had decades of practice being a stand-in for this occasionally dirty dozen. I love working and developing friendships with youth and teens because young people are cool and because there is nothing like the fun I have when I’m around them. I’ve met some amazing kids in Santa Monica this past year and now that school is out and summer is here, using this space to recognize how incredible they are is the least I can do for them after all they’ve done for me.

I’ve never been one to miss an chance to see young people shine, so on Father’s Day, I spent the afternoon at the 4th Santa Monica Teen Film Festival. The city-sponsored, city-produced event shows the work of filmmakers between the ages of 12 and 18 and featured 21 films between 30 seconds and 30 minutes in length screened over two days. The young directors didn’t disappoint in either the quality or variety of their work – including moving documentaries, compelling live action films, and some new and innovative takes on animation and music video. Here are some of the festival’s stars and the advice they got from their dads:

Spencer Capiello - “The Rubik’s Cube Thing”
A student at New Roads Middle School who got his start “in video class with Michelle,” Spencer says the best advice he got from his dad (who was listening intently while we talked) was “everything.”

Jordan Howard - “A Day in the Life”
Jordan attends Environmental Charter High School in Lawndale and made this film as a part of an after school program. She says her dad is “now a reformed skeptic” when it comes to environmentalism. She won Sunday’s Audience Choice Award.

Zoe Malecki - "Frank & Geraldine Take On the Machine" & “Zap”
A prolific filmmaker since she realized “people actually make these things,” this wasn’t her first film festival - though it will be her last SMTFF because she’ll be past the age limit. “Check the spelling” was her dad’s advice. She won 2nd place Best Animation.

Evan Berger - “Squabble”
Evan’s playful claymation Scrabble game between an angel and a devil won 1st place Best Animation and 2nd place Best of the Festival. His dad “just clapped a lot for me.”

Jessica Deutchman - “Meet the Tindells”
A previous winner at the California Student Media Festival, her dad told her that “every detail matters.” She won 2nd place Best Documentary.

Mackenzie Evans - “Imagination”
2nd place Best Live Action winner, Mackenzie’s story about two boys playing with a stick turns into a four minute green-screen adventure partly thanks to her dad’s advice to “give people pleasing shots to look at.”

J. David Ruby - “The Pool”
A story about a little girl, her new house, and a magic pool is ironic subject matter given his dad’s advice to “think practically.” David won 1st place Best Live Action.

Ayana Cheadle - “Yoshidori”
Great camera work, anime-style drawing and Flash animation come together to win Ayana the Santa Monica Budding Filmmaker Award (given to the most promising young filmmaker residing in Santa Monica). What advice did she get from her Academy Award-nominated dad, Don Cheadle? “None,” she said. Sitting nearby and doing his best to stay out of it he wondered, “right under the bus, huh?” Like a good daughter, she said she was kidding and that he gave her lots of support and feedback.

The 4th Santa Monica Teen Film Festival was made possible by the hard work of four people who deserve to be recognized: Justin Yoffe and Naomi Okuyama from the Miles Playhouse & Cultural Affairs, Carla Fantozzi of Human Services and the Virginia Avenue Park teen center, and Erica Cuyugan, the Young Adult librarian at the Main Santa Monica Public Library. Excellent job!

I also have to show some love to the graduating Seniors in the Santa Monica delegation to the California Model Legislature & Court; a program in which a few thousand high school students from around the state practice being the legislators, judges, lawyers, lobbyists, and media who work in and around Sacramento (they’re also most likely to actually solve our budget problems). These young people are the cream of the crop, they’re super-smart, and the Santa Monica delegation is the best of the bunch.

Amanda Berger, August Thompson, Beth Morrison, Claire stringer, Dani Moscovitch, Danielle Ehsanipour, Emile Newman, Isabel Strohkendl, Josh Lavian, Kelsea Murphy, Kristin Kearsley, Lizzie Rich, Maggie Burton, Michael Ben-Zvi , Mick Raskin, Rebecca Kronovet, and delegation President Kate Fairweather – you’re all rock stars and you know it! You’ve worked hard to get to where you are, but remember this is just the beginning. Please be smart and be safe this summer so you can go on to places like Berkeley, S.F. State, Michigan, and NYU - and make it happen.

I couldn’t be prouder of all of you if I was your…well, you know.

Stick to the shtick - Bill Maher criticizes Barack Obama on policy?

I was reading the L.A. Times last Friday when I came across an op/ed by Bill Maher entitled “Enough with the Obamathon.” Thinking the comedian would write something funny like Larry David’s New York Times pieces on undecided voters and “Brokeback Mountain,” I read on. There was some good material that I’m sure will make it into Maher’s stand-up act, but I was surprised this 53-year-old skirt-chasing pothead of a comic thinks he’s qualified to offer advice on public policy to our Columbia undergrad, Harvard Law Review, elected-in-a-historic-landslide chief executive. By the time I finished reading, I realized two things: the L.A. Times is so desperate to sell papers that they’ll publish just about anyone and Bill Maher’s perception of himself has gotten so out of whack that he actually thinks he’s smart.

Before we get to his criticisms, let’s consider the source. Bill Maher isn’t a journalist or even a pundit, he’s a clown. I don’t care that he’s been hosting a political talk show with a comedic edge since 1993, he’s still the same guy who’s been on the road doing jokes about ganja and genitalia for three decades. Just because the guests on his show are knowledgeable about politics doesn’t mean he is, but he’s been in Hollywood for so long that he’s starting to buy his own shtick.

He’s the kind of person who thinks people suck up to him because he’s special, not because it’s their job - and he probably believes the models and video vixens he dates are attracted to him and not the power of his position. So when it comes to something like public policy, I’ll call Bill Maher to get his thoughts just as soon as I get off the phone with Sarah Palin.

Not to put to fine a racial point on it, but from my experience, Bill Maher’s idiotic rant is the perfect metaphor for what it’s like to be a minority in the workplace.

We’re barely halfway through the first year of Barack’s first term and the host of a comedy talk show wants to know why he hasn’t fixed the systemic, long-term problems of the financial services, energy, and health care industries yet. Even when facing multiple crises, each of historic proportions, being capable and competent at his job isn’t good enough; Obama has to be perfect. Whenever Bill Maher wants to start solving some problems himself, he’s got the cash and the name recognition to run for national office and win - though I’m sure he’d rather stay in L.A. and smoke joints at the Playboy mansion.

He expanded on his critique later on his HBO show when he said, “If you can’t shove some real reform down (the Republicans’) throats now, then when? Folks, Barack Obama needs to start putting it on the line in fights against the banks, the energy companies, and the health care industry…What he needs in his personality is a little George Bush. He needs to stop worrying about being loved and bring out that smug, insufferable swagger that says, ‘suck on it, America.’ I’m glad Obama is president, but the audacity of hope part is over. Right now, I’m hoping for a little more audacity.”

Let me tell you something about our president, Bill. Unlike you, he’s got class. He’s not going to shove anything down anyone’s throat (a cute line you’ve been wearing out lately – it must work great at Hef’s), pick fights with people whose help he needs, or be insufferably smug. Also unlike you, he’s probably never had to tell anyone to suck on it. Making policy deals in Washington is an art, not a science, and nothing is ever more than an election cycle away from being undone. Banks, utilities, and HMO’s make a lot of money doing business as usual and use it to buy votes in Congress. Their lobbyists have controlled the system for a long time, and they’re as interested in giving that up as you were in marrying Coco Johnson, buying her a house in Beverly Hills, and raising a family with her.

Just be careful not to end up on Michelle’s radar, Bill. I know you have a thing for black women like Karrine Steffans who work the pole. I can assure you that you are not ready for a black woman like Michelle Obama who passed the bar. Remember that you’re not a commentator, you’re a comic. And the fact that you’re befuddled by ballot questions means you should stick to doing bits where you pretend to soil and pleasure yourself and leave public policy discussions and analysis to those of us who are smart enough to understand it.

For me, the best moment in the HBO show on Friday came right after the Obama critique.

In case anyone was thinking of taking Bill Maher seriously, he made sure to get in a plug for his next stand-up gig; proving that despite his embarrassing attempt at editorializing, he’s really just a clown who’s here to make us laugh.

Courts must decide on gay marriage - Getting it wrong on Prop. 8

I love that California is the hippest, most progressive state in the country, but I hate that our Constitution can be amended by a majority of voters. In the Golden State, the people have the power to recall our governor regardless of job performance, to initiate government programs without any thought as to how they'll be paid for, and our Supreme Court ruled we can restrict the rights of groups of people we don't like. That's how $2 million from Rep. Darryl Issa put Arnold Schwarzenegger in office, how the state government ran up an $26 billion deficit, and how a loose affiliation of liars conspired to legalize discrimination by passing Prop. 8.

I like participating directly in our democracy and knowing my vote counts. As a man of the people, I know that not everyone can do the same because with the pressure of work and family, sometimes there aren't enough hours in the day. I don't like that my vote counts as much as the vote of someone who doesn't quite get the issues at hand and I was counting on our Supreme Court to beat back the bigots and re-affirm the fundamental right to marry for all couples. I'm sorry to say that through some ridiculously circular logic, they got it wrong.

About a year ago, the California Supreme Court struck down a law stating "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" on the grounds that it was discriminatory. This law started in 2000 as a ballot initiative called Prop. 22 (passed with a margin of about 1.6 million votes) and is known as the California Defense of Marriage Act. In his majority opinion, Chief Justice Ronald George wrote, "An individual's sexual orientation — like a person's race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights." Essentially, the court ruled that the D.O.M.A. (made up of only 14 words) was unconstitutional in California and rejected it. With that, Prop. 8 was born.

The most important thing to remember about Proposition 8 is that its wording is identical to the D.O.M.A. It says, "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The key difference is that Prop. 8 sought to change the state Constitution, not state law. By allowing the bigots behind this effort to exploit the California quirk that allows the ballot initiative to be a check on the three branches of government, the state Supreme Court basically legalized discrimination over the objection of the Legislature, the chief executive, and the court's prior ruling.

The effect of this decision is that the court has reversed itself on the meaning of 14 words in the span of 12 months. Last year, we were told there is a fundamental right to marry that must extend to gay couples since legal rights cannot be denied to a person because of sexual orientation. This year, we're told that the voters of California can deny the same rights to those same people on the same basis if they want to. Obviously, this makes no sense.

The sticking point is the question of "amending" versus "revising" our Constitution. An amendment can be placed on the ballot with either a two-thirds vote in the Legislature or as few as about 700,000 signatures. A revision needs two-thirds of the Legislature and a majority of voters because it's a "substantial change to the entire Constitution, rather than … a less extensive change in one or more of its provisions." The premise is clear: if the change to the Constitution is far-reaching in scope, then it needs overwhelming approval. Prop. 8, now the law of the land for over 35 million people, was passed with a margin of about 600,000 votes. The fact that we're only talking about 14 words (that the ruling refers to as a "single, simple section to the Constitution") seems to have made the four justices in the majority believe this change doesn't amount to much. They say, "The act of limiting access to the designation of marriage to opposite-sex couples does not have a substantial or, indeed, even a minimal effect on the government plan or framework of California that existed prior to the amendment." That may be true, but same-sex couples in California who could file their federal taxes jointly, collect each others' Social Security and veteran's benefits, or sponsor one another to immigrate before Nov. 4 no longer can.

The court upholding Prop. 8 means the issue has gone from discrimination (the illegal denial of rights based on sexual orientation) to designation (whether or not a same-sex partnership can be called "marriage") over the course of a year. But the real matter at hand — the key word that Prop. 22 and Prop. 8 have in common — is "recognition." By no longer recognizing gay partnerships as marriage, the court has created a second and third class of Californians: gay/married before Prop. 8 and gay/no right to marry.

Not exactly hip or progressive if you ask me.

Republicans need to ditch anti-abortion platform - RIP Dr. George Tiller

An abortion is a surgical procedure that is sometimes necessary in order to save a pregnant woman's life, so it must remain safe and legal. No matter what we think of the procedure, we can agree that in the most scientifically advanced society in the history of the world no woman should die in childbirth if it's possible for doctors to save her. After all, that's precisely why we have doctors in the first place.

Over the years, the abortion procedure has moved from the world of medicine into the realm of politics, co-opted as the unifying issue that brought fiscal and social conservatives together to elect Ronald Reagan in 1980. The Republican Party has been making political hay out of it ever since. The murder of Dr. George Tiller this past Sunday morning inside the Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita, Kan. should be a signal to these "pro-life" Republicans to finally accept and acknowledge the fact that the abortion procedure is — and must stay — safe and legal before they get more people killed over a Supreme Court case that was decided a generation ago.

I've had this discussion with some of my Republican friends more than once. They usually tell me that it's unfair to blame the party for the actions of a few crazy people. I say that the problem isn't a few people acting crazy, it's that the Republican Party's stated goal on abortion is crazy, so it attracts crazy people to its defense. They want to pass a "human life amendment" to the Constitution, effectively overturning Roe v. Wade and establishing a fundamental right to life for fetuses. That right would take precedence over that fetus' mother's Fourth Amendment right to "be secure in her person, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures." So the Republican platform on abortion is that the state should intervene to protect a fetus from its mother and/or her doctor if either attempts to deny that fetus' supposed right to life — and that is certifiably crazy.

Let's say they got their wish, a "human life amendment" was somehow passed, and Roe v. Wade was overturned. Some states would immediately pass laws limiting access to the procedure and others would pass laws banning it outright. This, of course, would not change the number of pregnant women seeking to have an abortion, it would just lead them to travel greater distances to get it — and have the added effect of further reducing access for poor or disadvantaged women. States would then pass laws making it a crime to cross state lines for the purpose of having this surgical procedure, a step that will become necessary after women's health clinics start opening up just across the border of those states where it's still safe and legal.

Establishing a right to life for a fetus would have the (unintended?) consequence of not only criminalizing the abortion procedure, but pregnancy itself. It would create a new class of people (pregnant women), new legislation (pregnancy law), new violations of that law (pregnancy crime), and it would require a new government agency to monitor those people, enforce that law, and investigate those crimes (pregnancy police).

We would then live in a country where the government could go sifting through medical waste from OB/Gyn offices looking for evidence of possible violations of the pregnancy code, then get warrants to search through some women's medical records based on a reasonable suspicion of an unlawfully terminated pregnancy. Or they could justify stopping women driving near state lines by saying they had reason to believe she might be pregnant and going to get an illegal abortion. The slope could get so slippery as to criminalize the act of impregnating and/or becoming impregnated if it's not done with the specific intent of bearing a child. The net effect of establishing a right to life from the point of conception is to turn women into child-bearing sex slaves with no free will of their own once they become pregnant, compelled by the government to carry to term under penalty of law.

This simply cannot and will not happen in the real world, and the Republican Party needs to admit as much and remove that plank from its platform; if for no other reason than to isolate the crazies within their party who believe they're advancing some kind of political agenda by murdering people for making sure pregnant women aren't hurt or killed by their pregnancy. Then they can get on the right side of history by passing legislation making the specific targeting of health care providers a hate crime.

Believe it or not, the abortion procedure has been good to the Republican Party. They've raised untold amounts of money because of their support for banning it knowing full well it will always be safe and legal somewhere in this country. The failure to square this circle with their lunatic fringe has left a good man dead, a Kansas family without a husband, father, and grandfather and all those women with doomed pregnancies whom Dr. Tiller could have helped with one less medical option.