The best thing about travel—Coming home!

I enjoy traveling and Rick and I want to continuing doing so as long as we can, but maybe not so much as I once thought we would. Even though our trip was only for 2 weeks and we really enjoyed Barcelona and Southwest France (more on that later), I was so happy to be home.

Also, I’m finding that although I still very much enjoy planning for a trip—as the time gets closer I find my self increasingly reluctant to go. This year it was especially hard to leave my garden. With the unseasonably (or is this the new normal??) weather, my late March garden looked like a mid-April garden. I was overcome by a powerful urge to plant and I thought I’d really rather go to a garden center than go to Barcelona. I did not want to leave all those emerging bulbs and spring flowering shrubs and trees. My beloved redbud was just coming out and I was afraid its gorgeous purple blossoms would be gone by the time we returned.


I need not have worried; the temperatures cooled down somewhat during the time we were away and there are still flowering shrubs and trees and those incredibly beautiful pale green leaves which last for just a short period of time. And to my surprise redbuds were blooming all over Barcelona! I had thought of the redbud as a North American tree—after all, its botanical name is Cercis Canadensis--but it flourishes in Mediterranean climates as well as the temperate zones of North America. The early flowering shrubs and trees were blooming in Barcelona and Southwestern France, so I didn’t miss early Spring after all.

Nature--Pristine and off the Beaten Track in Costa Rica: Part I, Quetzal birds in the Mountains

Nature--Pristine and off the Beaten Track in Costa Rica: Part I, Quetzal birds in the Mountains by Fran Gilmore

Last time I wrote for this blog, it was to tell the stories of a small environmental success and a travesty of oil company pollution of monumental proportions, both in Ecuador. But today a happier topic--eco-friendly destinations in Costa Rica.

My friend Nicole is an American anthropologist who has for many years been deeply involved in conservation efforts in Costa Rica. On my January visit, she was an enormous help, telling me where I could find two beautiful natural environments, with accomodations run by people dedicated to preserving and sharing a pristine environment. She spent hours making arrangements in her fluent Spanish, but it can all be done on line English, so don't fear. And now I will share them with you.

The first is a tiny and charming hotel in the mountains about 2 hours from the capitol, San Jose, called Paraiso de Quetzales (www.quetzalsparadise.com). I was to learn that the beautiful quetzal bird you see is not mythological, as I'd thought, probably confusing it with the phoenix.


We were lucky to be there in late January, the beginning of the nesting season, and to see a tranquil pair seated near each other on different branches. We delighted in the beautiful tails of the male and the sweet little head with its punk feather-do. Jorge Serrano, who owns the hotel and the lovely hilly land around it, is a man who loves his job being close to nature, and makes sure the land is taken care of. He runs the hotel with his kind and gentle teenage son. Both speak passable English. I was surprised when I left by a hug from the son. Can you imagine a teenage boy hugging a paunchy middle aged woman? Spontaneously?

But that was just the last delight of many. For a modest sum of $62/person you get a tiny cabin with 4 heavy blankets (it's freezing in the mountains--bring winter togs), a good dinner near a friendly wood fire (fresh trout from a neighboring fish farm is an option), breakfast and an early morning walk to find the birds. Other times, you can hang around in the cozy living/dining area, or walk through it to a balcony overlooking a hummingbird garden. This is my picture of the Magnificent hummingbird. He obligingly posed.

As I spent a lot of the afternoon trying to capture these fleet creatures in flight, the day finally melted into the sunset you see.


You can find a whole gallery of pictures at www.quetzalsparadise.com.

A good place to start your trip is at my friend Carol's B&B, Rainforest Dreams, located in Escazu, a suburb of San Jose, the capitol. You will delight in her company and knowledge of the country, and enjoy the simple but pleasant atmosphere at a moderate price. Find it at rainforestdreamscostarica.com. For another beautiful coastal destination, see Part II. Buen eco-viaje, amigos!

Pristine and off the Beaten Track in Costa Rica: Part II, Wonderful Hotels and Motor Launch through a Mangrove Swamp

You read about our quetzal quest in the mountains if you read Part I. Following that, we headed west for a boat trip in a mango swamp off the coast at Isla Damas (Women Island, so named for its hourglass shape.) The Island is near one of Costa Rica's most popular tourist destinations, Manuel Antonio, famed for its lovely beaches. Though I'd lived in Costa Rica for three years, I never got there, and wanted to go. But in retrospect, if you have limited time on the coast, for my money, do the Damas Island tour (or a host of other tours offered by the same company, Iguana Tours, at www.iguanatours.com). We did a guided bird walk at Manuel Antonio, and there were so many tourists (about 5 groups, each about 10 people), that any bird with sense was far from the trail. We did see a sloth or two and assorted reptiles. The beaches were gorgeous--little jewels in bays with trees, as lovely as the best Caribbean beaches. The park is pristine, and there are no stands or stores. Bring your own food and anything else you need.

That said, I can rave about our mango tour on a motor launch with a canvas "roof" and an expert, bilingual guide. The area will remind you of the everglades, if you've been there. We saw what you'd expect--lots of beautiful shore birds, like the golden-crowned night herron pictured. We learned that this smart guy catches insects, wounds them so they flutter madly, and then uses them to attract fish, his real target. Smart as he is beautiful.
We also were treated to a monkey show. We saw a whole troop of whitfaced capuchin monkey, including several mothers with babies on their backs. As we were enjoying watching them feed and jump, suddenly the whole troop decided to cross the canal, right in front of our boat, leaping from trees on one bank to the other. I totally forgot I could take video with my little point-and-shoot, but I did manage a mediocre still of a mom with babe, just before she reached her target tree (below).


Again, the guy in charge (not sure if he's the owner) is Jorge Cruz. He is another devoted lover of nature. When I mentioned Nicole, he said she was a very good friend. The tour was $40/person for us, because we arranged it ourselves. Others who booked through their hotels paid $60, presumably there was a $20 cut for the hotel. Here's how it works. They pick you up early in the morning (about 6:30 if memory serves--you birders know the birds don't wait for late risers). They take you to the boat launch area and provide a snack, mainly fruit and cookies. Our hotel served good coffee at 5:30 AM, as I imagine most do, since they house many birders. Aftert the trip, which lasts about 2 hours (it goes by in a flash), they provide a full breakfast (with coffee this time).

One last thing--your hotel. As you might imagine, hotels in the Manuel Antonio area tend to be pricey. We stayed at one which was not only moderate in price, but had an ecological mission. It's called Hotel Mono Azul (Blue Monkey, at hotelmonoazul.com). The website lists a host of environmentally friendly measures, such as using waste food to feed animals, non-toxic detergent and cleaning products, etc. The daughter of the owners, when she was 13 years old, wanted to do something to help the rainforest. So she organized Kids Saving the Rainforest. Young people around the world can join, and contribute money, or do something that serves a rainforest where they live. We heard of one boy, I think in India, who lived in a place where there were many poisonous snakes. Many people killed them. But this brave soul captured them and returned them to the forest. If you buy anything at their gift store, all proceeds go to KSTR. The hotel is attractive, accomodations are acceptable but not luxurious. Food is ordinary. The price was $52/person, not including breakfast. Like I said, prices in the area are higher than more remote destinations. Buen eco-viaje, amigos!

Summer in March

Well maybe not exactly summer, but certainly late Spring. We had high 70’s temperatures in Philly last week. I loved every minute of it and was out there cleaning beds, dividing daffodils and fertilizing. Yes, you can divide bulbs when the foliage is still green as long as there is enough moisture in the soil.

This March has been magical—I've actually been spending balmy days working in the garden in March!!

However,it is worrisome—what in the world is happening to our planet? But I admit to really enjoying the early spring.

There is nothing I enjoy more than working in the garden (except having dinner with Rick over a good bottle of wine). When I am cleaning beds, pulling weeds, fertilizing bulbs, I am totally absorbed in the task. It’s the mind cleansing experience my Buddhist friends describe when they meditate. When I am in the garden I am totally in the "Now." And how wonderful to have this extra month of unfrozen soil and warm weather. (Yes, I know there may be a serious price for this.)

The Black Power Mixtape 1967-1975

Every month when I get my netflix bill I think about getting rid of this subscription I rarely use, but when I rent something like The Black Power Mixtape it all seems worth it. The Black Power Mixtape 1967-1975 is a documentary consisting of interviews conducted by Swedish television journalists; the footage remained buried in the archives of Swedish television for over 3 decades and has recently been edited and released.

The film brought back the intensity of those days when the world seemed to be coming apart—-the assassinations of Malcolm X, Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy, the killings at Kent State, a time when the forces of the state (J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI, many local police forces) were out to destroy radical challenges to the existing order. The film includes interviews with Stokely Carmichael, Angela Davis, Louis Farrakhan, Huey Newton and Bobby Seale, among others.

By far the most powerful segment was the interview with Davis while she was awaiting trial on charges of providing the guns used in a California courthouse shooting that left four people dead. Responding to a journalist who raised the issue of Black Power advocates’ justification of violence, she bitterly attacked a society that ignored and in some cases condoned a history of violence against African-Americans. With cold fury she replies to the Swedish journalist: "When someone asks me about violence, I find it incredible. A person asking that can have no idea about what black people have gone through in this country."

For me the biggest surprise was the interview with Stokely Carmichael, especially the segment when he interviews his mother about the effects of poverty and discrimination on her family. Carmichael is clearly a man who loves and respects his mother. He comes across in the film as at times gentle, witty, ironic—very different from the angry militant I remember who famously said in response to a question about the position of women in the Civil Rights movement, “The position of women in the movement is prone.” This anecdote has been retold in countless feminist histories of the 1960’s and Carmichael has been roundly condemned for his sexism.

He later said it was a joke. I saw that as an attempt to defend the indefensible. But after seeing this film, I think it is entirely possible that the Carmichael portrayed here might have been joking. The very fact that he would make such a joke says volumes about the culture of the times—-the social movements of the 1960’s were riddled with gross sexism. However, Carmichael just might have been making a crude joke rather than issuing a proclamation on women’s inferior position.

The DVD includes additional interviews,including one with Shirley Chisholm which for reasons I cannot understand was not in the film. Perhaps this was because Chisholm was not using the incendiary rhetoric of the Black Panthers and other Black Power militants, but clearly she was an advocate of Black Power. If you rent the DVD, don’t miss the interview with Chisholm in the supplementary material.

Should Judges be Elected? PA House Judiciary Public Hearing on Merit Selection

On March 1, I attended the PA House Judiciary Public Hearing on merit selection on behalf of the Philadelphia Democratic Progressive Caucus. This is something I would never have squeezed into my schedule if I were not retired. Merit selection (an appointive system of choosing judges) is not one of those hot button issues that grab the attention of the public. I probably would not have taken any interest in this issue were it not for my almost three decades as a Democratic committeeperson—a job I enjoy EXCEPT for the task of recommending judicial candidates to my neighbors. It is extraordinarily difficult to get reliable information about judicial candidates and I’m uncomfortable making endorsements when I don’t feel I can personally vouch for these candidates.

Last January, Philadelphia Democratic Progressive Caucus Chair Gloria Gilman organized a meeting of a group of civic/advocacy organizations with representatives of the Philadelphia Bar Association to express our dismay at their recommendation of recently elected Common Pleas Judge Thomas Nocella, who has a well-documented history of ethics violations and other dubious practices. The officers of the Bar assured us they were making changes to their process which should prevent another such occurrence. But given the serious problems with our system of electing judges, an improvement in the Bar Association’s internal process for recommending judicial candidates is not enough.

Our coalition of civic/advocacy organizations has since met with Lynn Marks and Shira Goodman of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts who presented the key features of a proposal (HB 1816) for an appointive system on the appellate level (Supreme, Superior and Commonwealth Courts). They noted that Pennsylvania is one of only six states that elects all judges in partisan elections. The others are Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, West Virginia and Illinois . According to the PCM website, HB 1816 calls for “the creation a 15-member citizens-based Nominating Commission to screen candidates and develop a short list of potential nominees for the governor. Following nomination by the governor and confirmation by the state Senate, a judge would serve an initial term of 4 years and then stand before voters in a nonpartisan retention election. Voters would decide at that point, and every 10 years thereafter, whether the judge should stay on the bench.”

There seems to be some momentum in favor of the bill; however, change will not be easy. Moving to merit selection requires a constitutional amendment. The proposed constitutional amendment (HB -1815) can be read here, and the implementing legislation (HB -1816) here. The legislature must pass the bills in two consecutive sessions and the final decision is made by the voters in a referendum.

Why not include trial courts?

Several members of the House Judiciary Panel asked supporters of merit selection why they were not also advocating for merit selection for local trial courts. Given attorney Walter Philips’ passionate indictment of the Philadelphia Court system, his failure to advocate for inclusion of local courts was especially surprising. Philips described the swearing in ceremony of a man who “very much deserves to be a judge under any system we have of selecting judges.” According to Phillips:

…the gauntlet that he had to go through, which is the same for everybody running for Common Pleas Judge in Philadelphia, is unfathomable. It requires spending huge sums of the candidate's own money, payable to ward leaders and other political operatives, money which is euphemistically known in Philadelphia politics as "street money", and which is used to pay for what is also euphemistically known as "election day expenses." A state grand jury report of a decade ago and a Philadelphia Magazine article a few years back described the amounts spent by a judicial candidate for Common Pleas Court in Philadelphia as running into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Presiding at the swearing-in was a Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice who took pains to recognize all the elected officials present, including ward leaders. One former Councilman and ward leader in particular that he singled out was Leland Beloff, who some years ago received a ten year federal prison sentence for trying to extort $1 million from a Philadelphia developer.

When it came time for the newly elected Common Pleas Judge to give his remarks, he devoted virtually all of his time to thanking those who had helped him get elected. In particular, he recognized a former Congressman and ward leader by the name of Ozzie Myers. Mr. Myers, the Committee may recall, was famously heard on tape in the Abscam bribery investigation saying to an FBI agent posing as an Arab sheik, as he accepted a $50,000 bribe for selling out his public office, "Money talks, bullshit walks", words that were heard literally around the world and hardly put Philadelphia and its politics in a good light...

However, as long as we have a system of electing judges we will always have, and can expect to have, not only the infusion of vast sums of money, but the involvement of those who have gone to jail for violating their public trust, now posing as political operatives, profiting handsomely from the process and being recognized at swearing-ins. To borrow a line from the film Godfather II: "This is the life we have chosen." Well, this is the system Pennsylvania has chosen, so we can hardly complain if convicted felons play a role in it, since there is nothing to prevent them from participating and making money off the candidates who are running for judge.

The public, however, might be understandably upset if they knew how many bright, competent, honest attorneys are deterred from seeking the bench because they know what they have to go through to get there. The public might be doubly upset if they knew that under our system people who have been convicted of serious crimes involving a violation of their public trust play an integral role in how we select our judges. Maybe, just maybe, it's time to change the system.

I’ve quoted Mr. Philips' testimony at length because it was so compelling, one of the highlights of the hearing. It was surprising after this powerful testimony to hear his uncertain reply to the chairman’s question as to why he was not also advocating for merit selection for the local trial courts. He replied that people in other parts of Pennsylvania were not unhappy with their local courts. The representatives of PMC made a similar response when the question was posed to them. Both Philips and the PMC representatives assured the Judiciary committee that they were only advocating for change on the appellate level and had no plans to extend this to the trial courts. I assume they’ve done their research and came to the conclusion that the votes were not there for a bill which included trial courts.

The Opposing Arguments:

Although most of the testimony at the hearing was solidly in favor of both the principle of merit selection and the plan proposed in HB1816, there is considerable opposition out there. The opposing arguments fall into four main categories.

First, opponents argue that the bill will never succeed in its objective of taking money out politics. Supporters concede there is no way to take money completely out of the process but merit selection can prevent money from directly changing hands between trial lawyers and judicial candidates. If they are not independently wealthy, judicial candidates have little choice but to raise money from trial lawyers. The only people (other than the candidates’ friends and relatives) who give to judicial candidates are trial lawyers who might later appear before a judge to whom they had contributed. Judicial candidates are frequently indebted both to trial lawyers and to the Party machine; this hardly inspires confidence in the independence of the judiciary.

Robert Heim from PMC said this is only going to get worse with money unleashed by the Citizens United decision. He stressed the ever-escalating costs of state-wide judicial races, now well into 7 figures. Also according to PMC written testimony, “the magnitude of the problem becomes clear when one realizes how often campaign contributors actually appear before the judges they supported. In 2010 the American Judicature Society studied the 82 civil cases decided by the PA Supreme Court during the 2008 and 2009 sessions. In 60% of those cases, at least one of the litigants, lawyers, or law firms had contributed to the election campaign of at least one of the justices.”

Matt Berg of Justice at Stake also testified in support of the bill and cited a report written by his organization and the Brennan Center for Justice which documented skyrocketing spending on state Supreme Court elections. Pennsylvania is near the top of the list of the big spenders and “its total spending of 22.7 million dollars from 2000 to 2009 ranks third nationally coming in at number behind only Alabama and Ohio. Berg stated that “many judges often feel trapped in a bad system, forced to raise money from parties who appear before them.”


A second argument is that in a democracy the people should choose their judges. But that does not happen; voters have opted out of the process. In an off-year election when many local judicial candidates are selected, turn-out is often quite low—-between 15% and 20%. However, that figure is the number of people who came out to vote; cut that in half for those who vote in judicial elections. Even in my middle class Mt. Airy neighborhood, with a high percentage of educated voters, about half choose not to participate in judicial races. Committee people get the number of undervotes in each election—-that is, the number of people who did not vote in a particular race. I’ve been checking this for years now and the pattern is consistent. Participation drops off dramatically in the judicial races. One interpretation is that the people are sending a message that they do not want to elect judges.

Proponents of the bill argue that HB1816 gives the people the right to decide if they want to change the way judges are selected. The results of a popular referendum rather than the votes of legislators will determine the ultimate outcome. Also the people will have the final say in retention; although the initial appointment will be made by a nominating committee, the voters will make the decision whether judges should be retained. Unlike the present system in which judges do not come up for retention for ten years, under the proposed merit selection system judges will come up for retention after 4 years. If retained they will then have a ten year term. The bill builds in a relatively short probationary period.

Third, there is the slippery slope argument. If we take away citizens' rights to vote for appellate court judges soon we will be getting rid of elections all together. This was the argument presented by Temple University Law Professor Marina Angel in written testimony: “Why stop at taking away the right to vote for appellate judges? The same arguments can be made by a group called ‘Pennsylvanians for Modern Democracy’ for all elections. Voters don’t know who they are voting for and elections are too expensive, so let’s have the state and the country run by an elite group of the ‘merit-selected.’” This is quite a leap; judges are are different from legislators. As Andy Hoover, Legislative Director of ACLU PA, stated in his written testimony in support of the bill: “Too often, those most in need of protection under the law are not popular with the majority, including religious minorities, criminal defendants; lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and transgender people and ethnic minorities. Judges must be comfortable ruling on the law and not what will resonate in the next election.” Merit selection can (to a much greater extent than electing judges) insulate judges from the vagaries of popular opinion, thus affording greater protection to minorities.

The fourth argument made by advocates of electing judges is that women and minorities would not fare as well under an appointive system. Philadelphia Bar Association Chancellor-Elect Kathleen Wilkinson contended, however, that “the election of appellate judges can lead to less diversity. Appointive methods are more likely to value diversity... and to seek to nominate diverse judges to state appellate courts.’ (She cited Malia Reddick et al., Examining Diversity on State Courts, 2010.) Also according to PMC testimony, only three women have been elected to the PA Supreme Court and only one person of color has ever been elected to serve a full term on the PA Supreme Court. PMC cites research by the American Judicature Society that “of 340 judges on the highest state courts in the nation, 35 are minorities; 5 were elected while 30 reached the bench through some form of appointive system, including merit selection. Women too have greater success in reaching appellate courses in merit selection states. Of 340 judges on the nation’s highest state courts, 103 are women; 31 were elected, and 72 reached the bench through some form of appointive system.”

Merit selection has the potential to expand the applicant pool: how many well-qualified women and minorities who might make excellent judges have not run for election because they lack the financial resources and/or don’t want to participate in a process riddled with potential conflicts of interest? Advocates of electing judges often say that the electoral process provides an opportunity for a candidate who might never get through an appointive process. No doubt this is true, and this includes some seriously tarnished candidates like Thomas Nocella and perhaps some worthy candidates as well. However, many good candidates who might make excellent judges will not get down into that gutter.

This is going to be a long protracted struggle. Some of the opposition is principled; some is more self interested. Local judicial elections are big money-makers for the Philadelphia Democratic Party; it's not surprising that local party operatives have their own fears of a slippery slope.

Someone ripped our Obama bumper stickers off our car

Someone ripped our Obama bumper stickers off our car

Last week when Rick and I were at King of Prussia Mall, we returned to the parking lot and found that our Obama bumper stickers had been ripped off our car. One sticker was a really nice round rubber bumper sticker from 2008 that I had to make (what was for me) a large contribution to get. The other was a paper bumper sticker which the Obama campaign was apparently sending out to all the 2008 donors. Fortunately, I received two of them and was able to replace one bumper sticker.


That round sticker will be impossible to replace; we’ve been driving around with it for almost 4 years, including some deep red state areas—-southern Ohio and Indiana--with no problem.

My response was to make another online donation to Obama campaign and to buy several more bumper stickers. Has anyone else out there had his experience?

Primroses planted on Feb. 5: more evidence for climate change

On February 4, a friend gave me 2 primroses. On Feb. 5, I took a big gamble and planted them. Incredibly the ground was not frozen—as it usually is in early February. I didn’t expect the primroses to survive; their little roots would be vulnerable to the first frost. But they survived our light snowfall last week and although a bit bedraggled, the primroses are alive and well.

As an old person, unlikely to be on this beautiful planet for much longer, I am enjoying our mild winters. This is like a Seattle winter with a bit of sunshine. But what does all this mean???

Henry Ossawa Tanner exhibit at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts!

Before we retired, my husband Rick and I could never get it together to attend an exhibit at the Philadelphia Art Museum until the very last day. We were contending with huge crowds of procrastinators and we vowed that when we retired, we would make sure this didn’t happen. Unfortunately, we didn’t kick the bad habit in retirement. Last fall we went to a Rembrandt exhibit the very last day and once again spent time waiting in long lines and putting up with crowds. We once again vowed this will not happen again—after all, we’re retired; there’s no excuse.

I’m happy to report that we finally did it right with the Henry Ossawa Tanner exhibit at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts.

We went a few weeks after it opened on a weekday and were among the very few museum- goers. We really had a chanced to enjoy the exhibit. However much as I liked not having to deal with crowds, it was a little disturbing that this first rate exhibit was so sparsely attend. Sure hope it’s different during the week end.

From the the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts website:

The subject of this exhibition is the career and life of the artist Henry O. Tanner (1859-1937) - including the pioneering African-American artist’s upbringing in Philadelphia in the years after the Civil War; the artist’s success as an American expatriate artist at the highest levels of the international art world at the turn of the 20th century; Tanner’s role as a leader of an artist’s colony in rural France and his unique contributions in aid of American servicemen to the Red Cross efforts in WWI France; his modernist invigoration of religious painting deeply rooted in his own faith; Tanner’s depictions of the Holy Land and North Africa interpreted through comparison with contemporary French orientalist painting and photography; and the scientific and technical innovations of the artist’s oeuvre.

Henry O. Tanner was a student at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts from 1879 to 1885. PAFA is proud to organize this exhibition, and especially to elevate Tanner’s reputation through new scholarship and to bring his greatest works together for the first time in a generation.

See the slide show of Tanner’s paintings at the PAFA website to get some sense of the range of Tanner’s work. His portraits are really powerful and the portrait of Booker T. Washington alone is worth the price of admission. Don’t miss this one!

She Was One of Us: Eleanor Roosevelt and the American Worker by Brigid O’Farrell

I just read /She Was One of Us: Eleanor Roosevelt and the American Worker by Brigid O’Farrell for my feminist/progressive book club. The book club is a small group but the women are terrific and we have a lot in common—all of us are progressive/feminist activists involved at various points in our lives in feminist, labor, civil rights and peace movements, in community organizing and in grassroots electoral politics. We range in age from 47 to 67 (I’m the old person in the group), and I think we all hope to continue social change work as long as we can.

I remember when I presented at /attended panels at Women’s Studies conferences on feminist activism and it was always so obvious which (usually a very few) panelists had actual experiences as activists. It’s so much more gratifying to discuss these issues with women who have walked the walk and bring their own activist experiences to the discussion.

She Was One of Us is no page turner, but it’s filled with fascinating information. I knew that ER (as she’s referred to throughout the book) was a supporter of the labor movement but I had no idea she was so closely allied to the labor movement and that she managed to form deep, long-lasting cross-class friendships with labor union women --friendships that lasted until the end of her life.

One goal of our group is to read books which will inspire and inform our activism. At my age I need inspiration to keep going. I’m not sure whether I was inspired (by ER's commitment) or depressed that we don’t have anyone like her around these days. At a time when we read story after story about labor’s declining membership and about right wing attacks on labor, it’s a very welcome relief to read about a time when the labor movement had such powerful allies.

There were a few surprises in the book: ER did not initially support public employees unions but eventually came around to the realization that they were necessary. Also, ER did not initially support the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). There were labor feminists who thought the ERA would wipe out the protections for women they had fought so hard to establish. But those protections came with a price—-barring women from higher paying jobs. ER along with the labor movement eventually came around to supporting the ERA.

This is an important book and I hope that it manages to get into the required reading lists of Women’s Studies courses—especially to get into the reading lists of the Introduction to Women’s Studies courses I taught for many years. These courses usually do not assign books but rather anthologies with a snippet of this and a snippet of that. Probably the only way O’Farrell’s valuable material will make it into the intro courses is if she works with a documentary filmmaker to translate her material into film. This is the easiest ( and most effective ) way to get the message out. It’s a very important message for those of us in the 99%.

Citizen groups meet with Bar Association to discuss judicial elections, but is it possible to improve our deeply flawed process of electing judges?

I have been a committeeperson for almost three decades—a job I enjoy EXCEPT for the job of recommending judicial candidates to my neighbors. It is extraordinarily difficult to get reliable information about judicial candidates and I’m uncomfortable making recommendations when I don’t feel I can personally vouch for these endorsements.

Last week a group of civic/advocacy organizations which endorse candidates met with representatives of the Bar Association to express our dismay at their endorsement of recently elected Common Please Judge Thomas Nocella, who has a well-documented history of ethics violations and other dubious practices. . The officers of the Bar assured us they were making changes to their process which should prevent another such occurrence.

The Nocella appointment was unusual due to the last-minute resignation by a sitting judge, which allowed the Democratic Party to make an election eve appointment. Because the Bar Association recommendation is good for three years, Nocella could make his last-minute entrance into the race as a recommended candidate. Well, a lot happened in those three years, including citations by the Ethics Commission. Also, the last minute appointment of Nocella was particularly egregious as he had been previously rejected by the voters three times.

The Bar Association acknowledged that there were flaws in the process which they intend to correct. They described their process to us and it was apparent that they spend considerable time and effort on judicial recommendations. Several of us expressed concerns about the secrecy surrounding the process. Voters are given a recommendation of endorsement or non-endorsement without knowing the reasons why. (A rejected candidate gets that information but not the source of the information. The public simply gets the recommendation.) The representatives of the Bar Association made a good case for the necessity of confidentiality-—principally the difficulty of getting accurate information without guaranteeing confidentiality.

However necessary confidentiality may be, there are serious tensions between guaranteeing confidentiality and the democratic process. It’s clear that if we are to elect judges we need some independent agency to certify that candidates are at least minimally qualified. But the Bar Association recommendation is often trumped by Party affiliation, and both are trumped by ballot position! The Party this year, according to some news reports, waited until candidates had received their ballot positions before making endorsements, thus making it more likely that Party-endorsed candidates would win. Judicial elections are money-makers for the Party. If its candidates don’t win, its endorsement no longer seems so necessary, and more candidates might balk at paying 35,000 for a Party endorsement.

Advocates of electing judges often say that the electoral process provides an opportunity for a candidate who might never get through an appointive process. No doubt this is true, and this includes some seriously tarnished candidates like Nocella and perhaps some worthy candidates as well. However, many seriously good candidates who might make excellent judges will not get down into that gutter. If they are not independently wealthy, they have little choice but to raise money from trial lawyers. The only people (other than the candidates’ friends and relatives) who give to judicial candidates are trial lawyers who might later appear before a judge to whom they had contributed. Judicial candidates are frequently indebted both to donors and to the Party machine; this hardly inspires confidence in the independence of the judiciary. Opponents of appointing judges say that politics and money would be still involved in an appointive process. True, but at least we would not have money directly changing hands between trial lawyers and potential judges.

Advocates of electing judges argue that in a democracy the people should choose their judges. But that does not happen; voters have opted out of the process. In an off-year election when many local judicial candidates are selected, turn-out is often quite low—-between 15% and 20%. However, that figure is the number of people who came out to vote; cut that in half for those who vote in judicial elections. Even in my middle class Mt. Airy neighborhood, with a high percentage of educated voters, about half choose not to participate in judicial races. Committee people get the number of undervotes in each election—that is, the number of people who did not vote in a particular race. I’ve been checking this for years now and the pattern is consistent. Participation drops off dramatically in the judicial races. One interpretation is that the people are sending a message that they do not want to elect judges.

Another argument made by advocates of electing judges is that women and minorities would not fare as well under an appointive system. The research I’ve done is inconclusive, with some studies contending that women and minorities do better in appointive systems, others indicating they fare better under an elected system. Since I lack a subscription to Law Library Journal, there are many studies I can’t access. Presumably this is an empirical question, as we have a sample of states in each category. A much more difficult question: how many well-qualified women and minorities who might make excellent judges have not run for election because they lack the financial resources and/or don’t want to participate in a process riddled with potential conflicts of interest?

Several representatives of the groups involved in the meeting with the Bar Association spoke informally after the meeting about these questions, and there does seem to be sentiment towards working together to change the way we choose judges. I realize that some progressives think that election of justices is in the best interest of progressive politics. Getting a consensus and action plan around this issue will not be easy.

There was great deal of outrage about Nocella but, as one officer of the Bar said, one good thing about the Nocella debacle is that a better process may emerge. The Bar Association will no doubt improve its process and we will be able to rely on their recommendations with a greater degree of confidence. But is it possible to significantly improve our deeply flawed process of electing judges????

I never, never expected in 1973 that we would still be fighting to protect abortion rights 39 years later!

Yesterday I forced myself to go downtown on a on a bitterly cold (although thankfully sunny) day to a demonstration in support of abortion rights. When you are 67 you find out which causes matter most to you—these are the demonstrations you go to no matter what the weather. Tomorrow will be the 39th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. I never, never expected in 1973 when I was a young woman that we would still be fighting to protect abortion rights 39 years later!

Although we have a pro-choice majority, a well-organized, vocal minority has managed to chip away at a women’s right to control her won body. But as I wrote in last year’s anniversary of Roe v. Wade post:

There is some good news. Fortunately, there is a generation of young feminists out there ready to fight for reproductive rights. I don’t think young women are going to meekly stand by and accept the loss of hard fought rights. But women in my generation thought at one time that we had spared them the necessity of that fight.

We must elect a pro-choice President and Congress next November and finally put this issue to rest.

This post is part of the We've Had Enough Campaign's Roe v. Wade Blog Carnival. See other posts on the importance of Roe and the attacks against women's health here: http://www.wevehadenoughpa.org/blog.html

Report on January 2012 PA Democratic State Committee meeting

I spent the weekend at State College at the PA Democratic State Committee meeting. My husband and most of my friends can’t believe I enjoy this, but yes this is my idea of a good time and one of the reasons I retired—more time for politics.

First, some good news: the PA Democratic Progressive Caucus is up and running; bylaws have been passed and officers elected. Bruce Slater, the chair of the caucus, wants to address the issue of Tracey Gordon, a duly elected committeeperson the party refuses to seat, as a state-wide issue. Apparently Philly is not the only place where the Democratic Party violates basic democratic principles. So the remedy for Tracey Gordon is being pursued on two tracks—in court and in Democratic State Committee.

Also, thanks to the efforts of Brad Kirsch, the Senior Caucus is up and running. Brad made a powerful case for the importance of the Senior Caucus. Seniors used to be a reliably Democratic voting bloc, but as Brad put it, the Republicans “have stolen them.” He plans an aggressive campaign around the state to get the Democratic message out to seniors.

In the bad news category, at the Progressive Caucus meeting, Daniel McCaffrey, a candidate for Attorney General, referred to one of his opponents, Kathleen Kane, as “a sweetheart.” Philadelphia Party Chair Bob Brady, when discussing the candidates with the Philadelphia Caucus, referred to her as "somebody named Kane—can’t remember her name.” Considering that signs for Kathleen Kane were plastered all over the convention hotel, it’s hard to believe he couldn’t remember her first name. When she arrived to address the group, Brady did manage to remember her first name but introduced her as “the young lady.” Maybe I’m being overly sensitive but those "sweetheart" and “young lady” references rankled.

The real action at the State Committee meeting was the Attorney General’s race. There are three strong candidates for Attorney General. I was torn between two candidates, Patrick Murphy and Kathleen Kane. I thought Murphy gave the most powerful presentation on the issues, and made a good argument about his electability and willingness to take tough stands for which he might pay a political price. Murphy was the first Congressperson outside of Illinois to endorse Barack Obama. He spoke very movingly about the impact of having lost 19 persons in his division in Iraq, and added that his very early endorsement of Obama was based largely on Obama’s stand against the Iraq war. My husband, who is a Murphy supporter, made a very good point: an Attorney General needs guts and Murphy has demonstrated that he has the courage to stand up for what he believes is right. Murphy is an impressive candidate.

But having written articles and made presentations about the importance of electing women, and having invested time and money in organizations which encourage women to run for office, when a very well-qualified woman runs, how can I not support her?

So I went back and forth, unable to decide what to do. However, from a source least expected, a solution arose. At the Philadelphia Caucus meeting, Chair Brady was giving out proxy votes—perhaps because he was concerned there would not be a quorum. He asked the group if any delegates had driven to State College with anyone who was not a delegate and would like a proxy vote. I raised my hand and said, "My husband was good enough to drive me here and he would like a proxy vote." So my dilemma was more or less resolved. In a sense I had 2 votes; Rick would vote for Patrick Murphy and I would vote for Kathleen Kane.

Daniel McCaffrey was number 3 on my list. At the Philadelphia Caucus meeting, Chair Brady introduced him as someone who wanted to run before “but we told him to wait—now it’s his turn.” This is the way the Philadelphia Democratic Party machine works: a potential candidate does pro bono work for the party, demonstrates the requisite loyalty and then waits for his/her turn. I’m very happy there are stellar candidates like Murphy and Kane who are willing to step forward and not wait until the Party machine decides it’s their turn.

McCaffrey stressed his extensive experience and told the Philadelphia Caucus “Don’t vote for Kathleen Kane because she’s a woman; don’t vote for Patrick Murphy because of his stand on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Base your decision on which candidate has the best chance of beating the Republican in November.” McCaffrey reckons that because of his experience as a prosecutor he is that candidate. Yes, experience matters, but so do energy, enthusiasm, and a fresh perspective.

Brady’s impassioned plea for McCaffrey ended with the argument that McCaffrey was from Philadelphia and Philadelphians had to stick together. Not a convincing argument, from my point of view. Rick thought that Brady did a good job of making the case for McCaffrey. I didn’t, but I was the minority in that room. The Philadelphia delegation was clearly receptive to McCaffrey.

Brady ended the Philadelphia Caucus meeting by stating he would not retaliate against anyone who did not vote for McCaffrey: “I do look at the names on the ballots but I won’t hold it against anyone if you don’t vote for McCaffrey.” (Delegates must sign their names to the ballots.) Reassurance or veiled threat? You decide.

The actual balloting took a while, as there is a roll call vote, with each delegation stating how its members would vote. This was quite interesting because you could tell where each candidate’s base of support was if you were familiar with the location of the counties. Next time I’ll bring a map of PA counties with me. Fortunately, Rick somehow knew where most of these counties were located and so we could piece together a pattern. Kane’s support appeared to be primarily in her home base of Northeastern PA, McCaffrey’s primarily in the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh areas, and Murphy’s spread throughout the state. Of course this doesn’t necessarily reflect the voters in the Philadelphia area. With support from Mayor Nutter, Congressman Chaka Fattah and other Philadelphia elected officials, Murphy could very well win in Philadelphia in April.

The results of the first ballot were:

Philadelphia CountyKane: 1(my vote!); McCaffrey: 40; Murphy: 8
All counties: Kane: 58; McCaffrey: 99; Murphy: 161

Endorsement requires a 2/3 majority for endorsement. If no candidate gets a majority, the two highest vote getters go on to the second ballot. The results were:

Philadelphia County: McCaffrey: 40; Murphy: 9
All counties: McCaffrey: 125; Murphy: 191

No candidate received the 2/3 majority necessary for endorsement (211 votes were required), and so there was no endorsement. As a result, there will probably be a 3-way primary in April. The good news is that all three candidates are well qualified and all three have positions consistent with Democratic values on social issues. Unifying the party around the eventual winner should not be difficult.

The bad news (for me) is that I will have to make a tough choice between two strong candidates. I won’t get to vote for both Murphy and Kane in April. At this point, my bet is on Murphy as the eventual winner—-both because of his broad-based support and because he is such a hard worker. One revealing incident: while the second round ballots were being handed out, Murphy was going around asking people for their vote on the second ballot, not letting a minute go to waste. McCaffrey was standing around chatting with Brady. Kane was not in my line of vision, so I have no idea how she was spending this time. She was no longer a candidate but the rumor (and I have no direct knowledge of this) was she was encouraging her supporters to vote for McCaffrey so that neither candidate could get 2/3 of the vote, thus ensuring an open primary.

Although all the attention was on the Attorney General’s race, there were other votes for candidates unopposed in the primary: Bob Casey, U.S. Senate; Eugene DiPasquale, Auditor General; Rob Mc Cord, Treasurer. To me, the most impressive was Rob McCord who is smart, funny, a natural politician. We Democrats have some seriously good candidates—-a real contrast to the ideologically confused, ethically challenged candidates the Republican Party puts up.

Landreth Seed Catalogue: the most beautiful seed catalogue I’ve ever seen

January is the time when gardeners curl up with seed catalogues and fantasize about the prefect garden. A friend gave me the most beautiful catalogue I’ve ever seen, Landreth Seed Catalogue. Landreth’s was founded in 1784 and specializes in heirloom seeds.Unlike most catalogues which arrive unsolicited in our mailboxes, this is one you have to buy, but it is a work of art and definitely worth the $5.00. From the catalogue:


Tomatillos, Chinese lanterns

I don’t grow as much from seed as I once did. For one thing, my garden is so over-planted, there’s no room for new plantings. But as long as I’m capable of gardening I will grow some things from seed. There is something so magical about putting this tiny little speck in the ground (or in a pot) and seeing it turn into a gorgeous head of lettuce or a spectacular larkspur.

A tip for new gardeners: grow annuals (cosmos, zinnia, larkspur, and cleome are among the easiest) and grow salad greens from seed. Never buy over-priced super market arugula; it grows like a weed, by far the easiest salad green to grow. But buy perennials from the garden centers; perennials are so much harder to grow from seed.

The gardening season will be here before we know it!

I enjoyed the holidays,but I’m so glad they’re over

I enjoy the holidays BUT there’s still that element of stress and I’m really glad they’re over. Two years ago, I wrote a post, No longer haunted by holiday depression. I stand by that post and now would put it more positively. Not only am I no longer “haunted” but I actually (for the most part) enjoy the holidays.

When I had a young child, the holidays were high stress. I wanted my son to have the “perfect Christmas” (whatever that is) and knocked myself out buying presents and putting up a Christmas tree, decorating the house etc. It was seriously high stress—especially with major marital problems that always worsened during the holidays. When the marriage ended, there was the tension of the joint custody years with all those negotiations about how my son would spend the holidays.

My life is so much less stressful now and the holidays reflect that. My son and my nieces don’t want presents—just checks-- which makes life easier, and I no longer feel any need to decorate the house. My sister still does that Christmas thing and I’m always taken aback when I see all the Christmas decorations in her house. My sister's house during the holidays:






Even the dog is in Christmas finery:


For me it’s just a poinsettia, but in a way I enjoy my sister's celebration of Christmas.

We had a great New Year’s Eve—an amazing party right in the neighborhood. It was a multi-generational event (which as an old person I really appreciate) with live music and dancing. I hadn’t been to a party like that for a while and I’d forgotten how much fun it is to dance. I was a little reluctant at first, but “Black Magic Woman" got me to my feet.

The only holiday entertaining Rick and I do is an open house on New Year’s Day. We used to have a New Year’s Eve dinner, but a few years ago after Rick had spent the whole day cooking a fantastic dinner, only 2 of our dinner guests showed. They were ill, were worried about the weather, uncomfortable about driving at night. We spent the next day driving around to deliver food to those friends who hadn’t come.

We decided that a lot of our friends were getting too old to be reliable New Year’s Eve guests so we switched to an open house on New Year’s day which has worked out very well. We don’t cook; we just buy hors d'oeuvres and our friends bring wonderful dishes. Some of the best pastry chefs in the city were there, bringing wonderful baked goods. (Thanks, Kathy.)

But there’s no way around it—-entertaining is stressful for the hosts. I fell down on the job and got so involved in conversations, I didn’t notice we had run out of clean wine glasses and utensils. Rick can deal with paper plates for hors d’oeuvres, but he insists on real glasses and utensils—which means monitoring the glasses and throwing some in the dishwasher if necessary. Fortunately some of my friends took up the slack and I found them washing glasses and utensils in the kitchen. I’ll never be the perfect hostess—too scattered for that.

So we got through the holidays and although I enjoyed them, I’m so glad they’re over and so happy to settle back into routine.