L.A. County officials offer a novel idea to save millions
Supervisors suggest putting unemployed parents to work caring for their own children as part of proposed changes to CalWorks and other state government aid programs.
By Molly Hennessy-Fiske
June 17, 2009
With steep state budget cuts under debate in Sacramento, Los Angeles County supervisors voted Tuesday to push for changes to CalWorks and other government aid programs they said would save nearly $270 million.
Included in their suggestions is a novel proposal: Put unemployed parents to work caring for their own children.
"What we're saying is do not cut Welfare to Work outright: Target the cuts to the people who are the most expensive," said Miguel Santana, a deputy to the county's chief executive.
Parents now receiving assistance must attend job training and search for work. While they fulfill those requirements, they are eligible for subsidized child care, which typically costs the state about $500 a month per child in L.A. County.
The parents of children under age 1 may stay home and still receive benefits. Now, county officials propose expanding that to parents who have one child under age 2 or two children under age 6. Monthly job training and child-care costs for such parents often exceed their welfare check, Santana said.
In Los Angeles County, 8,000 households with more than one child under age 6 receive CalWorks-subsidized child care, according to the county's department of social services. If adopted, county officials estimate the proposal -- intended to counter Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's threat to eliminate CalWorks -- could save the state $140 million this fiscal year.
Some parents who would be affected by the change had mixed feelings.
After Antoinette Levenson's husband was laid off by a boat dealership two years ago, the mother of two applied for cash assistance and joined the state's Welfare to Work program.
Now Levenson, 27, is about six months from earning her associate degree in culinary arts and has a job lined up at Ralphs. She receives about $750 a month in assistance. The state also pays about $1,000 a month for her sons, Jaden, 4, and Gavyn, 2, to attend Canyon Vista Children's Learning Center in Chatsworth while she finishes school.
"If I had it my way, I'd stay home all day with my kids," Levenson said as she dropped the boys off Tuesday. "Then again, I love day care. My kids have learned so much."
Although Levenson said she is not sure she could replace her eldest son's preschool teachers, she is willing to try.
"There's times I just drive by and watch the kids," she said. "You'll never be able to get the kids' little years back."
But Priscilla Murillo of Canoga Park, a single mother with three children under age 5, said she wants to finish school and find a job as soon as possible. With her youngest child just a month old, Murillo, 27, could stay home now and still receive benefits. But she said the Welfare to Work program motivated her to continue pursuing her associate degree.
Murillo worries that if the state pays fellow single mothers to stay home, they will become dependent on welfare.
"I think it's good to push people," she said. "It helps them and it helps the economy."
Child-care providers also said they are concerned about looming cuts.
Michael Olenick, who heads the nonprofit Child Care Resource Center in Chatsworth, said 12,000 child-care staff members and parents in northern L.A. County alone rely on CalWorks.
"For many of them, it's the only source of revenue that they have," Olenick said of the CalWorks subsidies. "If they lose the revenue, then they end up on cash aid as well."
On Tuesday, a legislative budget committee in Sacramento rejected the governor's plan to eliminate CalWorks, proposing instead to cut it by $270 million. Those cuts include $175 million in reductions to child-care and employment services.
That would allow the county to move forward with its proposal, said Philip K. Browning, director of the county Department of Public Social Services.
"But it's still not a done deal -- the governor hasn't signed off on it yet," Browning said.
A spokeswoman for the governor said he will continue to push for the elimination of CalWorks but remains open to other options as he tries to close the $24.3-billion budget shortfall.
County supervisors -- who plan to pursue a waiver to get federal welfare funds even if CalWorks is eliminated -- also proposed Tuesday that the state cap and overhaul general relief for single people, as well as reduce payments to adoptive parents, disabled foster children and some child-care providers.
The proposal to allow more parents to stay home troubled some of the county supervisors, including Supervisor Mike Antonovich, who voted against exempting parents of children under age 2 from Welfare to Work.
"They should be seeking employment. In the long term it benefits everyone in the county," Antonovich said.
Supervisor Gloria Molina grudgingly voted yes.
"It doesn't fit with the spirit of Welfare to Work, but we're in a different situation," Molina said. "What we're doing is trying to say to them don't eliminate Welfare to Work -- here are some savings."
Showing posts with label ruminations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ruminations. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
perversity on childcare
Below is an article from today's LATimes. What does it say about a society where the state is proposing to pay parents to care for their own children?
Monday, June 15, 2009
medical liability reform
The topic of medical malpractice never seems to be mentioned when discussing universal healthcare. I find it disingeneous to force doctors to lower their revenues but not allow them to lower their costs. If nothing else, I'm glad Obama is bringing it to light. The following is an article from the NYTimes today.
Obama Open to Reining in Medical Suits
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and ROBERT PEAR
WASHINGTON — The American Medical Association has long battled Democrats who oppose protecting doctors from malpractice lawsuits. But during a private meeting at the White House last month, association officials said, they found one Democrat willing to entertain the idea: President Obama.
In closed-door talks, Mr. Obama has been making the case that reducing malpractice lawsuits — a goal of many doctors and Republicans — can help drive down health care costs, and should be considered as part of any health care overhaul, according to lawmakers of both parties, as well as A.M.A. officials.
It is a position that could hurt Mr. Obama with the left wing of his party and with trial lawyers who are major donors to Democratic campaigns. But one Democrat close to the president said Mr. Obama, who wants health legislation to have broad support, views addressing medical liability issues as a “credibility builder” — in effect, a bargaining chip that might keep doctors and, more important, Republicans, at the negotiating table.
On Monday, Mr. Obama will go to the annual medical association meeting to face a group that has come out against a central component of his broader health care proposal — his call for a new public insurance program that would compete with the private plans. The White House says he will make the case that “reform is the single most important thing we can do for America’s long-term fiscal health,” and how important it is to have the cooperation of doctors.
But whether he can get them on board is an open question. The speech comes as the president’s ideas on health reform are facing mounting criticism — not only from the A.M.A. and Republicans, who also vehemently oppose a new public plan, but also from the hospital industry, which is up in arms over a proposal Mr. Obama announced on Saturday to pay for his health care overhaul in part by cutting certain hospital reimbursements.
Medical liability is an important component of the debate, but that, too, is controversial. White House officials said Mr. Obama was likely to refer to the issue in his speech to the medical association, but would not offer any specific proposal.
Mr. Obama has not endorsed capping malpractice jury awards, as did his predecessor, President George W. Bush. But as a senator, he advanced legislation aimed at reducing malpractice suits. And Dr. J. James Rohack, the incoming president of the medical association, said Mr. Obama told him at a meeting last month that he was open to offering some liability protection to doctors who follow standard guidelines for medical practice.
“If everyone is focused on saying, ‘How do we get rid of unnecessary costs,’ ” Dr. Rohack said, recounting the conversation, “if we as physicians are going to say, ‘Here’s our guidelines, we will follow them,’ then we need to have some protections. He listened and he said, ‘Clearly, that concept is worthy of discussion.’ ”
Health care experts estimate that preventable medical errors kill more than 100,000 Americans each year, yet doctors and hospitals, fearing lawsuits, do not openly discuss their mistakes — an impediment to improving quality of care. At the same time, doctors complain that “defensive medicine” — ordering tests and procedures out of fear of being sued — drives up health costs.
On Capitol Hill, Democrats drafting health legislation have so far shown little appetite for tackling the liability issue. But one Republican who met with Mr. Obama in April recalled that the president said he was willing to go against his party to get medical malpractice reforms into a health bill — but that he would expect Republican support for the legislation if he did so.
Mr. Obama also raised the issue at a recent meeting with two dozen Senate Democrats, some who attended said.
“He’s touched on this issue at a number of meetings,” said Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, who is also a proponent of liability reform. Mr. Wyden said the president articulated “the common sense message that if doctors act in line with their own professional guidelines, that ought to create a certain presumption that they have acted reasonably.”
As a senator, Mr. Obama joined Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2005 in proposing legislation aimed at reducing both medical errors and lawsuits through a program known as Sorry Works, rooted in the idea that injured patients value an apology as much as money. Their bill encouraged doctors and hospitals to investigate errors and apologize for mistakes, to facilitate what Mr. Obama described as “a reasonable settlement that keeps the case out of court.”
Although the A.M.A.’s highest legislative priority is capping jury awards, highly unlikely under the Obama administration, it does favor legislation like that proposed by Senators Obama and Clinton. Dr. Rohack said the group’s legislative experts were also working over the weekend to draft a bill that would set out a way to protect doctors who are sued if they have followed professional practice guidelines.
“We are supportive of anything that may reduce liability,” Dr. Rohack said, adding that he was heartened by Mr. Obama’s “recognition that defensive medicine contributes to unnecessary health costs.”
But to deliver a deal with doctors, Mr. Obama would probably have to defy senior members of his party in both houses of Congress. Many Democrats oppose putting limits on medical lawsuits because they believe it is ineffective and unfair to patients.
Senator Max Baucus of Montana, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, is expected to outline his proposal for a health care overhaul this week, and aides said liability protection for doctors is not part of the plan.
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, resisted medical malpractice legislation when it was pushed by Republicans in the past. “The whole premise of a medical malpractice ‘crisis’ is unfounded,” Mr. Reid said on the Senate floor in 2006, in a speech that quoted extensively from a book titled “The Medical Malpractice Myth.”
And any effort to restrict patients’ legal rights to sue will face tough opposition from the American Association for Justice, which represents trial lawyers and has met with Nancy-Ann DeParle, Mr. Obama’s point person for health reform, to express its concerns. Linda Lipsen, the association’s chief lobbyist, said practice guidelines were established by unregulated medical societies and “should not be conclusive” in a court of law.
The association may have an ally in Mr. Obama’s health secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, who is a former director of the Kansas Trial Lawyers Association. But Mr. Obama’s first choice for health secretary, Tom Daschle, who advised the president throughout the campaign, was a strong proponent of linking evidence-based medicine with protections against lawsuits.
And another top health adviser to Mr. Obama, Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel, has written extensively on liability reform.
“There is no doubt that comprehensive health care reform requires a monumental change to the current malpractice system, which not only hurts both doctors and patients, but also is far too expensive,” Dr. Emanuel, the brother of the White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, wrote in a 2008 book, “Healthcare Guaranteed: A Simple, Secure Solution for America.”
But Mr. Obama has signaled that the solution may not be all that simple. Speaking to a group of chief executives in March, Mr. Obama said malpractice law changes should be part of the health care debate, although he conceded it would not be an easy sell.
“Medical liability issues — I think all those things have to be on the table,” Mr. Obama said. “And I won’t lie to you that everybody agrees on this theoretically until you start getting into the specifics.”
Saturday, June 6, 2009
perversity of society's priorities
The complete text of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's budget speech to the Legislature this week, which his office also released as weekly remarks is below. How is it that we live in a world where the amount spent on inmates per year is approximately double the average income of a non-inmate?
Thank you. Thank you very much, Speaker Bass, Senate Leader Steinberg, Assemblyman Blakeslee, Sen. Hollingsworth, my fellow constitutional officers and my fellow servants of the people.
First of all, I want to thank you for the gracious invitation to address you here today and to address the people of California.
Today I want to talk about financial crisis. Three months ago the members of this body came together to set aside their ideological differences and did what they believed was best for California. We solved $36 billion of a $42-billion deficit.
But as you know, part of our budget agreement required us, by law, to go back to the people for approval, right at a time when the people wanted to send Sacramento a powerful message. And that message was clear: Do your job. Don’t come to us with those complex issues. Live within your means. Get rid of the waste and inefficiencies and don't raise taxes.
Now, as I stand here today, we are in the midst of the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. In the past 18 months one-third of the world's wealth has vanished. And because of that and because of California's outdated and volatile tax system, our revenues have dropped 27% from last year. And you can see this right here on the charts next to me; it's very clear.
We are now back to the same level of revenues we had in 2003, and when you adjust for inflation and population, we are back to the level of the late '90s.
Today, just three months after our February budget, we once again face a $24-billion deficit. California's day of reckoning is here. In order to deal with our....
...limited amount of money, I have proposed some dramatic changes in our May revision.
Those spending cuts represent much more than the hard decisions necessary to balance our budget. They represent the transformation of what services Sacramento can provide and how those services are delivered.
The immediate task before us is to cut spending to the money that is available to us. We have no time to waste. The controller has told us that we have 14 days to act or California is at risk of running out of cash. I've already used my executive authority to reduce the state payroll and I've proposed the necessary cuts to the three largest areas of our budget, which is education, healthcare and prisons.
I know the consequences of those cuts are not just dollars. I see the faces behind those dollars. I see the children whose teachers will be laid off. I see the Alzheimer's patients losing some of their in-home support services. I see the firefighters and the police officers who will lose their jobs.
People come up to me all the time, pleading, "Governor, please don't cut my program." They tell me about how those cuts affect them and their loved ones. I see the pain in their eyes and I hear the fear in their voices and I hear the demonstrations outside of our Capitol. It's an awful feeling, but we have no choice.
Our wallet is empty, our bank is closed and our credit is dried up. I know for many of you these will be the hardest votes that you will ever make. But the people sent us here to lead not only in times of prosperity but also in times of crisis.
We must make these cuts and live within in our means, because what is the alternative? If we don’t act, the state will simply run out of money and go insolvent. You see, we are not Washington. We cannot print our own money, we cannot run trillion-dollar deficits, and we can only spend the money that we have. That is the harsh but simple reality.
Now, at the same time, we cannot take this budget and make it just about cuts. There are also some great opportunities here for structural reform. Like Winston Churchill said, "A pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity, but an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
So let's use this crisis as an opportunity to make government more efficient and to find innovative ways to stretch the taxpayer dollar. Can we not find a way to provide those services at a lower cost? For example, I've asked our State Board of Education to make textbooks available in digital formats.
Now, we expect the first science and math books to be digital by this fall. If we expand this to more textbooks, schools could save hundreds of millions of dollars a year, and that's hundreds of millions of dollars that could be used to hire more teachers and to reduce class sizes.
In so many areas of government there are opportunities like this for reform. All we have to do is go out and seize them. Spending on prisons has nearly doubled in the last five years. We spend $49,000 per inmate per year; the national average is only $32,000. Now, other states have privately run correctional facilities that operate at half of the cost. Why can't we?
We must also restructure the relationship between state and local government. We all hear from the local officials about the heavy hand of Sacramento. If we are providing fewer resources we have an obligation to cut most of the strings and mandates and to get out of the way.
California Rrepublican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger reacts to news of the new state budget deficit
Right now we are cutting billions of dollars from our schools, so shouldn't we give districts more freedom and flexibility and not tie their hands with strict rules like who is allowed to mow the lawn or fix the roof, or do the plumbing?
I’m also proposing once again to eliminate and consolidate more than a dozen state departments, boards and commissions.
These include the Waste Management Board, the Court Reporters Board, the Department of Boating and Waterways and the Inspection and Maintenance Review Committee and so on.
There is absolutely no reason to hold onto those redundant boards in the crisis. We should not, and I will not, cut a dollar from education or a dollar from healthcare or a dollar from public safety or a dollar from our state parks without first cutting the Waste Management Board and other boards like it. [Applause] Every dollar that we save from those boards and commissions is a dollar that can help vulnerable citizens.
I'm also proposing to sell off state property, because Sacramento should not be in the real estate business, especially when we are in a fiscal crisis like this. Now, I know that the money that we receive from this property won't go directly to the general fund; it will pay off debt. But that lowers our debt payment, which then does help the general fund.
Everywhere I go, I hear stories about families selling off their boats and motorcycles to make ends meet. They have garage sales, they have yard sales. They know that you don't have or keep a boat at the dock when you can't put food on the table.
All of these proposals I have talked about for years and yet they never got done. I remember in 2004, I talked about blowing up the boxes and consolidating agencies. But now we are here in a crisis.
Then we had the revenues go up and we had the economy come back in a big way, so we couldn’t get it done. Now we're in a crisis and we are running out of excuses and we have run out of time. And the people have run out of patience.
Early this year we began consolidating all of our IT departments. My proposal to consolidate all of our energy functions is in the legislation before you right now. So is a proposal to consolidate the departments that oversee financial institutions, and I will soon send you legislation to merge our tax-collection operations.
These are all actions that we here can take, on our own, to save money and to make government more efficient, and we don’t have to bother the people with those things and we don't need permission from the federal government.
Now, I know that Sen. Steinberg is talking about reforming and restructuring the relationships between the state and local government, and Sen. Hollingsworth and the Republicans have some great ideas about performance-based budgeting. And in July, we should receive the bipartisan recommendation from our tax-modernization commission.
This will be a tremendous opportunity to make our revenues more reliable and less volatile and to help the state avoid the boom and the bust budgets that have brought us here today. Let's all work together on all of those issues and make it happen.
I don’t expect every single one of those reforms to happen within the next 14 days, but we can certainly get them done before this party adjourns for summer recess on July 17.
Now, there are other big reforms that I continue to believe in very strongly, like a spending cap and the rainy-day fund in order to further stabilize our revenues, but I’m not going to talk to you today about that because those reforms require voter approval.
As we all have learned just a few weeks ago, the voters will never trust us on those big issues until we show that we can do our job in this Capitol and make the tough decisions.
There is no doubt that the challenges before us are enormous. They will test our will. They will test our resolve. They will test our leadership. Many of those things that I’m proposing are despised by the special interests that rely on the status quo, and we are all too familiar with the interest groups and their army of lobbyists. But let’s not forget, it is our job. We have been sent here to Sacramento to lobby on behalf of the people and on behalf of the great state of California.
So in the coming days and weeks, the entire nation will be watching how we react and respond to this crisis. Last week Paul Krugman from the New York Times wrote that California is at a state of paralysis and that our political system has failed to rise to the occasion.
People are writing California off. They are talking about the end of California dream. They don’t believe that we in this room have the courage and the determination to do what needs to be done, or that the state is even manageable.
Let’s prove all the pundits wrong. Let us use this crisis as an opportunity, as an opportunity for great changes, lasting changes. Let’s not think just in short term; let’s think big; let’s think outside the box. Let’s think long-term and lay a new foundation for California’s future.
Let’s meet those challenges head-on without gimmicks. I don’t want to hand these problems to the next governor, and I know that you don’t want to hand them to the next Legislature.
So I have faith in all of you. I have faith in our ability to once again come together for the good of our state.
So I say let’s move forward and put California back on the path to prosperity. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
happily ever laughter
this is love, as love should be, between two people, as people should be.
from the latimes
---
Happily Ever Laughter
JAY and MAVIS LENO on strong women, real men—and why theirs is a love for the ages
by Sue Smalley
When you first meet Mavis and Jay Leno, it’s the electricity between them that gets you and their long-lasting love that makes them the anomaly. Two strongs can make one—they fit.
She arrives first—on time—doesn’t need hair or makeup and graciously agrees to be touched up, as a team is waiting. Unassuming, thoughtful and at ease, she exudes an air of total calm, a quiet dignity that you somehow know is deep and true. An intelligence and genuine concern lead her to bring me up to date on the condition of women in Afghanistan, her lifelong passion, even as she allows us to curl those curls because “my husband likes them wild.”
Then her husband enters, one of the most famous faces in the world, with white hair that begs to be smoothed (yet why would you—it’s the trademark that says, “Let me be, it’s who I am”) and a presence that makes everyone smile. Jay’s eyes are tired (he’s just returned from a trip to Detroit, where he entertained unemployed autoworkers), but they light up when they focus on his wife of 28 years. They touch, and the bond between them envelops everyone. Welcome to the Lenos’ love story.
I met Mavis a few years ago at our monthly book club. (She is a voracious reader whose passion is English history.) I was first struck by her depth of character and self-awareness—she is someone with a strong sense of purpose, compassion and curiosity. What I have come to know is that she’s someone who turns her wisdom into action. She works unceasingly with the Feminist Majority Foundation to help girls and women around the world gain rights through education so that human equality is realized.
Given the never-wavering glare on celebrity couples, I was impressed with their authentic relationship, one that feels grounded and decidedly non-Hollywood. Although I liked her before our interview, I told my husband of 34 years that in its aftermath, I had fallen in love with Mavis Leno. By that I mean the kind of unbridled universal love we feel for others when we realize what qualities they bring to humanity. What I learned from the Lenos’ love is how much a partner can help us discover such qualities in ourselves. Jay brings out the best in Mavis, and Mavis brings out the best in Jay. That has to be the definition of a perfect marriage.
Sue Smalley: Jay, I’ve heard Mavis talk about you so many times and how much in love she is. I guess I always felt you should share that story. Even just having your pictures taken a few moments ago, I could feel how happy you are being next to each other. You’re best friends, aren’t you?
Mavis and Jay Leno: [In unison.] Oh yeah.
JL: I had this discussion with Drew Barrymore on The Tonight Show. She was asking about being married, and I said, “You should always marry your conscience.” By that I mean, in show business—it happens in sports and politics, too—you go through the usual avarice, and you need someone who will go, “What are you doing? You don’t act like this.” If you wind up with someone who enjoys those things, you go to hell pretty much together. I spent half of my life trying not to disappoint my mother and the other half trying not to disappoint my wife. I mean, you have to respect the standard. You need to be able to look in the mirror.
SS: Mavis says, from the bottom of her heart, “He could never disappoint me.”
ML: No, because I truly know him, and he truly knows me. I met Jay in 1976. I’ve known him—
JL: Over 33 years.
ML: It was in January—I don’t remember the day. But at the time I thought, Holy s--t! That comedian is gorgeous! I had gone to the Comedy Store with my girlfriend because I was writing comedy with some partners. Friends kept saying, “You have to hang out at the Comedy Store and the Improv—you’ll meet people who can give you jobs.” The first time I went, they sat us front row center—that means you’re this far from the comic. And there was Jay.
SS: Was that at the very beginning of your career, Jay?
JL: Yeah, pretty much. But the interesting thing is, I’ve probably lived with five women—and every one of them was born on the same day. I can look at a woman and go, “September 5.” I don’t know why that is. I don’t look for a woman born on September 5, I just wind up attracted to them.
ML: Just casually, he asked what my birthday was, and I said, “September 5.” He started laughing. I remember it so clearly. I said, “What?” And he said, “Aw, nothing.”
JL: I remember I had Cathy Guisewite [of the “Cathy” comic strip] on, and I said, “I’m happily married...don’t take this wrong...I am attracted to you but in an odd way. Were you born on or around September 5?” And she said, “Yes, on September 5.” I said, “Sorry, I’m not flirting,” and then I explained. It made me laugh.
ML: When he finished his act the night we met, I needed to go to the ladies’ room. What I didn’t know was in the Comedy Store back then, that area was the only place for the comedians to hang out. So when I came out of the bathroom, he said, “Are you that girl in front?” and I said, “Yes, that was me.”
SS: Did you really notice her?
JL: Yeah!
ML: My friends spent most of their time at the Improv, so that’s where I started going. It just gradually evolved, you know? I had made up my mind when I was little that I would never get married or have children, so I had no agenda.
JL: Then I started to work. Her family were like church mice—they didn’t have two cents. I mean nothing—not even, like, taxes.
ML: My father was an actor. Enough said.
JL: But you know, I had this insurance policy, and I thought if something happened to me, my girlfriend wouldn’t be covered, but if we’re married, we’re covered, so...we might as well get married. Not the most romantic. Mavis didn’t even get an engagement ring until—
ML: He was going to get me one, but we had just bought a house, so why would I do that? I’m not that kind of person. So this is what he bought me 10 years ago. [Laughs and looks at the large diamond on her finger.]
SS: Mavis, your parents were happily married...why didn’t you want to marry?
ML: Maybe because my parents were not the typical American couple of that time. They had a very egalitarian relationship—actually, most of the traits I have that people consider feminine, I got from my dad, and the common sense, self-control and practicality is from my mother. When I was little, we would watch The Honeymooners. Here’s a very attractive woman, and whenever her husband is with Norton, what are they talking about? “How can we get away from the wives?” “If only it wasn’t for the wives.” Meanwhile, this woman has nothing to do, lives in this tiny place, cooks his dinner and listens to him talk. As a feminist even then, it was difficult to watch.
SS: You’re mad about it now.
ML: I am! I would see Lucy and other shows—if they wanted money, they had to ask for it, like they were a kid. That was not my plan for myself.
JL: My mother was from Scotland, had a horrible childhood—came to the country by herself when she was 11. My grandmother had run off with a younger guy, and my grandfather was stuck with six kids.
ML: His mom was the youngest.
JL: But he could only afford to take care of five, so they took her around the neighborhood as a servant girl to try to see if people would keep her for a few weeks.
ML: Jay, how are you telling this story? Her father took her there but not as a servant!
JL: But it gets to the comedy angle. My mother was not a depressed person, but I always sensed a sadness. Every time I could get my mother to laugh, it was like a huge gift. My dad was Italian and very outgoing. He would say, “Show people you’re Angelo’s boy.” My mother would say, “Whatever you do, don’t call attention to yourself.” So it was hilarious to be stuck in the middle. When I made it sort of big, I bought my dad a Cadillac, and of course, he had to get the white Cadillac d’Elegance with the red velour interior. My mother was mortified. They would drive down the street, and she would sit below seat level, and people would say, “I saw your father driving and yelling at somebody.” Sometimes if she saw people looking, she would roll down the window and go, “We’re not Cadillac people. My son got us this.” My father would yell, “Of course we’re Cadillac people! We’ve got a goddamn Cadillac! We’re driving the goddamn thing. It’s paid for!”
SS: And they were together their whole life?
JL: My dad was never sick a day in his life, but when my mother died, he was gone in nine months.
SS: Interesting how that happens.
JL: My mom took care of the inside of the house. Dad took care of the outside. We went through three ovens in my lifetime.
ML: She was like a short-order cook. There would always be steam coming out of the kitchen, pots boiling.
JL: Every breakfast, lunch, dinner—always a full thing. She didn’t even buy a box of spaghetti. She would make her own.
ML: I was crazy about Jay’s parents.
JL: We married on their wedding day, November 3.
SS: On purpose? As an honor?
JL: I thought my mom would like that—November 3, 1980.
ML: We had a very small wedding at a friend’s house with a couple friends.
JL: We didn’t tell anybody.
SS: Mavis, you didn’t want to get married, and now there’s such a connection. What changed your mind? Was Jay different?
ML: It was just that by the time we were together, I was 34. I had been a feminist for years, and I finally realized that fight was won, you know? I was past it, although that was an important gesture for me to make—that I could live without being married.
SS: What was it about Jay?
ML: Well, I was insanely in love with him—but I had had a long relationship before and never for one minute thought about marrying that guy. My belief was that I was a voyager, that I was just going to spend some time on this island and sail along and spend some time on that island. But with Jay, I realized all this time I’d been sailing, he was the destination.
SS: Jay, what was it about Mavis?
JL: Well, probably the sense that you don’t want to be somewhere else when you’re together. I mean, I’m home every night after work. I don’t go out—no boys’ night, card night or any of that stuff. I don’t feel the need.
ML: He thinks the same things are important that I think are important, the same things are wrong that I think are wrong. We have the same temperament, and we understand each other completely. Before Jay, I had the opposite experience with men to what most women have, because my father was so demonstrative. He must have told my mother he loved her a million times a day. So I always had relationships with men who were that same way—gave lots of presents but were flaky and unrealistic, tending toward the depressive. Stuff that means so much to women means nothing to me. Just be there when I need you, but the rest of the time, I take care of myself. And that was—and is—Jay.
SS: Interesting that Jay picked a woman who’s so strong. He looks at you with the admiring sense of someone who is her own person.
ML: Funny thing is, when we first got to know each other, in the ’70s, it was that in-between time with feminism. Men had stopped saying it was awful and started saying they were supporters, because they could get laid that way.
SS: So it was inauthentic?
ML: Yeah, but the thing with Jay was, from day one, he just saw me. I remember saying that I often felt I was from another planet, that I connected to people but I wished I could meet somebody from my own species. The first time talking to Jay, I said, “Oh! You’re one, too! Hi!”
SS: I think that may be the definition of “soul mate.”
JL: Well, I always look for qualities in women that I don’t have. I am attracted to the do-gooder—the rescue-a-cat type.
ML: Don’t be ridiculous—you’re the most do-gooder type in the world!
SS: I guess Jay means he values it in another person.
JL: I always tell guys, “Look like a man, think like a woman.” That’s the best way to get through life.
ML: I think we’re both saying the same thing—the quality we admire is somebody who aspires to goodness.
JL: Yeah.
ML: Here is who Jay is: When we were first going out, he’d get off at the Comedy Store late at night, and we’d go get groceries at the all-night Ralphs on Sunset. One night, there was this man harassing a woman. Suddenly, Jay yelled, “Honey! Hold on, we’re coming!” and he started walking across the lot, and the guy took off. Jay said to the girl, “Do you want to me hang around or follow you a little way? To make sure this guy...” She said no. I’d lived almost all my life in Hollywood, and there aren’t any men I ever went out with who would have done that. He didn’t even think twice. Right there, I said, “Okay!” I mean, a component of love, really, has to be admiration. Of course, I thought he was the sexiest thing I’d ever seen. I still do. And certainly, he was the funniest. He made me laugh till I almost died many times in the course of a lifetime.
JL: Yeah, it’s better than with women who are like, “I don’t get it...”
SS: I love thinking of those many nights you’ve been cracking up.
ML: I don’t think it’s an accident that comedians have the longest marriages in show business.
SS: Do they?
JL: Oh, yeah.
ML: Sure, think about it. Don Rickles, Bob Newhart, Bob Hope. You could go on and on. It’s a huge advantage. Being funny is just the best way to get through life in a relationship.
JL: I think that’s probably true.
ML: I mean, I can’t ever fight with him—he is very even-tempered.
JL: If you marry someone, there’s really nothing worth fighting about. I mean if you marry someone who is not crazy—that’s the first step. Because everything emanates from that. So when the wife says, “I have to do this.” Well, is this that important to you? All right, then.” It doesn’t matter that much, so why argue?
ML: Like I said, it’s the admiration. When Jay and I didn’t have that much money, when we were first married, we went to Monte Carlo because Jay was doing some stuff for—
JL: John Davidson.
ML: Yeah, The John Davidson Show. One night, Jay found a wallet lying on the ground. There was money and a work visa and, without thinking twice, Jay said we had to find this guy. He went back out in the square and just yelled—
JL: “Jean-Paul! Jean-Paul Tourneau!” I kept yelling, and this guy came running over, saying, “I am Jean-Paul!” like in one of those bad movies where the guy steps out of the dark and goes, “I am Jean-Paul—why you call my name?”
ML: That was funny, but the guy was in tears, you know. He was so glad to get it back. That’s Jay.
SS: You have the same values. And you laugh. Those are two key things to this marriage’s long life.
ML: Exactly. It’s really important to think the same things are funny. And the good examples—Jay’s and my parents’ happy marriages undoubtedly contributed. I think a lot of people have a very unrealistic idea of what a long relationship will be like.
JL: Happiness is a privilege, not a right. Read the fine print.
ML: People always say, “Work on a marriage.” I think if you work on knowing your own faults and trying to correct them, you’re not going to have to work on your marriage.
JL: I got a job. I don’t need another.
ML: When we got married, it dawned on me that his then manager, who was a lawyer, would want a prenup, even though Jay didn’t have a lot of money then. So I decided to preempt it for him. I told Jay, “You know your manager is going to want a prenup. I’ll be perfectly happy to sign it, so don’t worry.” And Jay got mad. He said, “What? You’re already planning we’re going to get divorced?” We just trust each other in a really deep way.
SS: You really do fit.
ML: I knew a lot of funny and interesting people, but I didn’t know very many trustworthy people. But with Jay, I didn’t have to think about it. When a quality is there, it stands out.
JL: There are no jokes about wives. If someone is joking about their wife onstage, consciously or subcon-sciously, they mean it.
ML: Jay’s thing is, you elevate the powerless person and make fun of those who are misusing their power.
SS: It’s funny, Jay, because in the beginning you said Mavis is your conscience, and that’s exactly what you show in your jokes.
JL: The Wall Street guy you can nail, the plumber—
ML: If he asks someone in the audience, “What do you do, sir?” and the guy says, “I’m a plumber,” Jay will say, “Oh, someone who does an honest day’s work!” But if it’s a banker, he’ll say, “Oh, so you screw widows and orphans for a living.”
JL: Hopefully funnier than that...
ML: Am I a stand-up? No.
SS: My husband and I have been together 39 years. When I look back, I can see our relationship change. Do you find that in yours?
ML: A couple of periods were a little more difficult. When Jay got The Tonight Show, the first years were hard for me. All of a sudden, Jay had this day job, and every person on the planet was asking him for something. So I thought, I’m going to be the one who doesn’t ask for anything. Then it gave him relief at home, but that can also feel like distance. I don’t know if he was aware of it because he was so swamped by the job—just the time demands alone, and the pressure.
JL: It’s not really a high-pressure job. Do I look like I’m under pressure? Write joke, tell joke, get check. It couldn’t be simpler. You go to a place like Detroit, and you meet people with real jobs. Show business, let me tell you: The higher up you go, the more retarded people assume you are. They’ll say, “Jay drove here by himself! He drove to the studio alone—yes, he did! He came in his own car!” [Applauds.]
SS: You’re in a business where people are so self-important, and yet you remain the same.
JL: I think that’s the key—not to take yourself too seriously. It’s not high pressure unless you make it that way. It’s not like doing CPR. I was always happy with whatever level I was at. If you’re always looking for the next level, you’re not going to be happy.
ML: At that time, for me, he was gone a lot, and it was not only a new situation for him, it was a situation I had never experienced. And I didn’t know anybody to ask, “Well, how did you handle this?” So it took a little while before I figured it out.
SS: Did it make your relationship stronger?
ML: Absolutely, because you know, however steadfast your feelings for each other, your life circumstances are going to go all over the place. We’ve been through the death of my parents and his and the loss of Jay’s brother. We started off with not very much money, and now we have a lot. But we’ve stayed the same. The great thing about Jay is whatever he says, that’s it. It’s genuine.
JL: That’s right! I put my foot down. It’s the law!
ML: No. If he says, “Oh, I’ll do that,” then it’s done. When we were first together, if I wanted to talk to him about something, I would fall into the mode I had used with men in my past, where I would come in with a chip on my shoulder, all my arguments marshaled. But Jay would just say, “Okay.” Finally I realized I don’t need to do all that.
SS: You thought you could depend on him, and now, all these years later, you have all this documentation that the theory was correct.
ML: The whole thing is simple: Pick the right person; be the right person.
SS: That’s a great line.
ML: If I have one more conversation with a woman about what she wants in a man and how little she’s willing to give in return—I mean, wake up. When Jay and I lived together for a year before we married, he had an opportunity to be in a show in New York. He was actually nervous when he said, “I have this chance...” I thought, That’s great—why is he so rattled? And he said, “If I take it, I have to be in New York—would you move?” And I said, “Of course. Look, I’m with you now—I’m really with you.” And then he relaxed. I asked, “Would you turn it down if I didn’t want to?” and he got serious and said, “My career is for us. Everything I do is for us.” And the last wall inside me fell—I knew he would be on my side in everything. If you can’t do it for the person because you love them—
SS: Then you’re never going to do it. Mavis, do you still go to the show after all these years?
ML: Off and on, but we watch The Tonight Show together every night at home.
JL: Look, I always tell people, you don’t fall in love with a hooker. That’s what show business is. You can enjoy show business...and then go home.
from the latimes
---
Happily Ever Laughter
JAY and MAVIS LENO on strong women, real men—and why theirs is a love for the ages
by Sue Smalley
When you first meet Mavis and Jay Leno, it’s the electricity between them that gets you and their long-lasting love that makes them the anomaly. Two strongs can make one—they fit.
She arrives first—on time—doesn’t need hair or makeup and graciously agrees to be touched up, as a team is waiting. Unassuming, thoughtful and at ease, she exudes an air of total calm, a quiet dignity that you somehow know is deep and true. An intelligence and genuine concern lead her to bring me up to date on the condition of women in Afghanistan, her lifelong passion, even as she allows us to curl those curls because “my husband likes them wild.”
Then her husband enters, one of the most famous faces in the world, with white hair that begs to be smoothed (yet why would you—it’s the trademark that says, “Let me be, it’s who I am”) and a presence that makes everyone smile. Jay’s eyes are tired (he’s just returned from a trip to Detroit, where he entertained unemployed autoworkers), but they light up when they focus on his wife of 28 years. They touch, and the bond between them envelops everyone. Welcome to the Lenos’ love story.
I met Mavis a few years ago at our monthly book club. (She is a voracious reader whose passion is English history.) I was first struck by her depth of character and self-awareness—she is someone with a strong sense of purpose, compassion and curiosity. What I have come to know is that she’s someone who turns her wisdom into action. She works unceasingly with the Feminist Majority Foundation to help girls and women around the world gain rights through education so that human equality is realized.
Given the never-wavering glare on celebrity couples, I was impressed with their authentic relationship, one that feels grounded and decidedly non-Hollywood. Although I liked her before our interview, I told my husband of 34 years that in its aftermath, I had fallen in love with Mavis Leno. By that I mean the kind of unbridled universal love we feel for others when we realize what qualities they bring to humanity. What I learned from the Lenos’ love is how much a partner can help us discover such qualities in ourselves. Jay brings out the best in Mavis, and Mavis brings out the best in Jay. That has to be the definition of a perfect marriage.
Sue Smalley: Jay, I’ve heard Mavis talk about you so many times and how much in love she is. I guess I always felt you should share that story. Even just having your pictures taken a few moments ago, I could feel how happy you are being next to each other. You’re best friends, aren’t you?
Mavis and Jay Leno: [In unison.] Oh yeah.
JL: I had this discussion with Drew Barrymore on The Tonight Show. She was asking about being married, and I said, “You should always marry your conscience.” By that I mean, in show business—it happens in sports and politics, too—you go through the usual avarice, and you need someone who will go, “What are you doing? You don’t act like this.” If you wind up with someone who enjoys those things, you go to hell pretty much together. I spent half of my life trying not to disappoint my mother and the other half trying not to disappoint my wife. I mean, you have to respect the standard. You need to be able to look in the mirror.
SS: Mavis says, from the bottom of her heart, “He could never disappoint me.”
ML: No, because I truly know him, and he truly knows me. I met Jay in 1976. I’ve known him—
JL: Over 33 years.
ML: It was in January—I don’t remember the day. But at the time I thought, Holy s--t! That comedian is gorgeous! I had gone to the Comedy Store with my girlfriend because I was writing comedy with some partners. Friends kept saying, “You have to hang out at the Comedy Store and the Improv—you’ll meet people who can give you jobs.” The first time I went, they sat us front row center—that means you’re this far from the comic. And there was Jay.
SS: Was that at the very beginning of your career, Jay?
JL: Yeah, pretty much. But the interesting thing is, I’ve probably lived with five women—and every one of them was born on the same day. I can look at a woman and go, “September 5.” I don’t know why that is. I don’t look for a woman born on September 5, I just wind up attracted to them.
ML: Just casually, he asked what my birthday was, and I said, “September 5.” He started laughing. I remember it so clearly. I said, “What?” And he said, “Aw, nothing.”
JL: I remember I had Cathy Guisewite [of the “Cathy” comic strip] on, and I said, “I’m happily married...don’t take this wrong...I am attracted to you but in an odd way. Were you born on or around September 5?” And she said, “Yes, on September 5.” I said, “Sorry, I’m not flirting,” and then I explained. It made me laugh.
ML: When he finished his act the night we met, I needed to go to the ladies’ room. What I didn’t know was in the Comedy Store back then, that area was the only place for the comedians to hang out. So when I came out of the bathroom, he said, “Are you that girl in front?” and I said, “Yes, that was me.”
SS: Did you really notice her?
JL: Yeah!
ML: My friends spent most of their time at the Improv, so that’s where I started going. It just gradually evolved, you know? I had made up my mind when I was little that I would never get married or have children, so I had no agenda.
JL: Then I started to work. Her family were like church mice—they didn’t have two cents. I mean nothing—not even, like, taxes.
ML: My father was an actor. Enough said.
JL: But you know, I had this insurance policy, and I thought if something happened to me, my girlfriend wouldn’t be covered, but if we’re married, we’re covered, so...we might as well get married. Not the most romantic. Mavis didn’t even get an engagement ring until—
ML: He was going to get me one, but we had just bought a house, so why would I do that? I’m not that kind of person. So this is what he bought me 10 years ago. [Laughs and looks at the large diamond on her finger.]
SS: Mavis, your parents were happily married...why didn’t you want to marry?
ML: Maybe because my parents were not the typical American couple of that time. They had a very egalitarian relationship—actually, most of the traits I have that people consider feminine, I got from my dad, and the common sense, self-control and practicality is from my mother. When I was little, we would watch The Honeymooners. Here’s a very attractive woman, and whenever her husband is with Norton, what are they talking about? “How can we get away from the wives?” “If only it wasn’t for the wives.” Meanwhile, this woman has nothing to do, lives in this tiny place, cooks his dinner and listens to him talk. As a feminist even then, it was difficult to watch.
SS: You’re mad about it now.
ML: I am! I would see Lucy and other shows—if they wanted money, they had to ask for it, like they were a kid. That was not my plan for myself.
JL: My mother was from Scotland, had a horrible childhood—came to the country by herself when she was 11. My grandmother had run off with a younger guy, and my grandfather was stuck with six kids.
ML: His mom was the youngest.
JL: But he could only afford to take care of five, so they took her around the neighborhood as a servant girl to try to see if people would keep her for a few weeks.
ML: Jay, how are you telling this story? Her father took her there but not as a servant!
JL: But it gets to the comedy angle. My mother was not a depressed person, but I always sensed a sadness. Every time I could get my mother to laugh, it was like a huge gift. My dad was Italian and very outgoing. He would say, “Show people you’re Angelo’s boy.” My mother would say, “Whatever you do, don’t call attention to yourself.” So it was hilarious to be stuck in the middle. When I made it sort of big, I bought my dad a Cadillac, and of course, he had to get the white Cadillac d’Elegance with the red velour interior. My mother was mortified. They would drive down the street, and she would sit below seat level, and people would say, “I saw your father driving and yelling at somebody.” Sometimes if she saw people looking, she would roll down the window and go, “We’re not Cadillac people. My son got us this.” My father would yell, “Of course we’re Cadillac people! We’ve got a goddamn Cadillac! We’re driving the goddamn thing. It’s paid for!”
SS: And they were together their whole life?
JL: My dad was never sick a day in his life, but when my mother died, he was gone in nine months.
SS: Interesting how that happens.
JL: My mom took care of the inside of the house. Dad took care of the outside. We went through three ovens in my lifetime.
ML: She was like a short-order cook. There would always be steam coming out of the kitchen, pots boiling.
JL: Every breakfast, lunch, dinner—always a full thing. She didn’t even buy a box of spaghetti. She would make her own.
ML: I was crazy about Jay’s parents.
JL: We married on their wedding day, November 3.
SS: On purpose? As an honor?
JL: I thought my mom would like that—November 3, 1980.
ML: We had a very small wedding at a friend’s house with a couple friends.
JL: We didn’t tell anybody.
SS: Mavis, you didn’t want to get married, and now there’s such a connection. What changed your mind? Was Jay different?
ML: It was just that by the time we were together, I was 34. I had been a feminist for years, and I finally realized that fight was won, you know? I was past it, although that was an important gesture for me to make—that I could live without being married.
SS: What was it about Jay?
ML: Well, I was insanely in love with him—but I had had a long relationship before and never for one minute thought about marrying that guy. My belief was that I was a voyager, that I was just going to spend some time on this island and sail along and spend some time on that island. But with Jay, I realized all this time I’d been sailing, he was the destination.
SS: Jay, what was it about Mavis?
JL: Well, probably the sense that you don’t want to be somewhere else when you’re together. I mean, I’m home every night after work. I don’t go out—no boys’ night, card night or any of that stuff. I don’t feel the need.
ML: He thinks the same things are important that I think are important, the same things are wrong that I think are wrong. We have the same temperament, and we understand each other completely. Before Jay, I had the opposite experience with men to what most women have, because my father was so demonstrative. He must have told my mother he loved her a million times a day. So I always had relationships with men who were that same way—gave lots of presents but were flaky and unrealistic, tending toward the depressive. Stuff that means so much to women means nothing to me. Just be there when I need you, but the rest of the time, I take care of myself. And that was—and is—Jay.
SS: Interesting that Jay picked a woman who’s so strong. He looks at you with the admiring sense of someone who is her own person.
ML: Funny thing is, when we first got to know each other, in the ’70s, it was that in-between time with feminism. Men had stopped saying it was awful and started saying they were supporters, because they could get laid that way.
SS: So it was inauthentic?
ML: Yeah, but the thing with Jay was, from day one, he just saw me. I remember saying that I often felt I was from another planet, that I connected to people but I wished I could meet somebody from my own species. The first time talking to Jay, I said, “Oh! You’re one, too! Hi!”
SS: I think that may be the definition of “soul mate.”
JL: Well, I always look for qualities in women that I don’t have. I am attracted to the do-gooder—the rescue-a-cat type.
ML: Don’t be ridiculous—you’re the most do-gooder type in the world!
SS: I guess Jay means he values it in another person.
JL: I always tell guys, “Look like a man, think like a woman.” That’s the best way to get through life.
ML: I think we’re both saying the same thing—the quality we admire is somebody who aspires to goodness.
JL: Yeah.
ML: Here is who Jay is: When we were first going out, he’d get off at the Comedy Store late at night, and we’d go get groceries at the all-night Ralphs on Sunset. One night, there was this man harassing a woman. Suddenly, Jay yelled, “Honey! Hold on, we’re coming!” and he started walking across the lot, and the guy took off. Jay said to the girl, “Do you want to me hang around or follow you a little way? To make sure this guy...” She said no. I’d lived almost all my life in Hollywood, and there aren’t any men I ever went out with who would have done that. He didn’t even think twice. Right there, I said, “Okay!” I mean, a component of love, really, has to be admiration. Of course, I thought he was the sexiest thing I’d ever seen. I still do. And certainly, he was the funniest. He made me laugh till I almost died many times in the course of a lifetime.
JL: Yeah, it’s better than with women who are like, “I don’t get it...”
SS: I love thinking of those many nights you’ve been cracking up.
ML: I don’t think it’s an accident that comedians have the longest marriages in show business.
SS: Do they?
JL: Oh, yeah.
ML: Sure, think about it. Don Rickles, Bob Newhart, Bob Hope. You could go on and on. It’s a huge advantage. Being funny is just the best way to get through life in a relationship.
JL: I think that’s probably true.
ML: I mean, I can’t ever fight with him—he is very even-tempered.
JL: If you marry someone, there’s really nothing worth fighting about. I mean if you marry someone who is not crazy—that’s the first step. Because everything emanates from that. So when the wife says, “I have to do this.” Well, is this that important to you? All right, then.” It doesn’t matter that much, so why argue?
ML: Like I said, it’s the admiration. When Jay and I didn’t have that much money, when we were first married, we went to Monte Carlo because Jay was doing some stuff for—
JL: John Davidson.
ML: Yeah, The John Davidson Show. One night, Jay found a wallet lying on the ground. There was money and a work visa and, without thinking twice, Jay said we had to find this guy. He went back out in the square and just yelled—
JL: “Jean-Paul! Jean-Paul Tourneau!” I kept yelling, and this guy came running over, saying, “I am Jean-Paul!” like in one of those bad movies where the guy steps out of the dark and goes, “I am Jean-Paul—why you call my name?”
ML: That was funny, but the guy was in tears, you know. He was so glad to get it back. That’s Jay.
SS: You have the same values. And you laugh. Those are two key things to this marriage’s long life.
ML: Exactly. It’s really important to think the same things are funny. And the good examples—Jay’s and my parents’ happy marriages undoubtedly contributed. I think a lot of people have a very unrealistic idea of what a long relationship will be like.
JL: Happiness is a privilege, not a right. Read the fine print.
ML: People always say, “Work on a marriage.” I think if you work on knowing your own faults and trying to correct them, you’re not going to have to work on your marriage.
JL: I got a job. I don’t need another.
ML: When we got married, it dawned on me that his then manager, who was a lawyer, would want a prenup, even though Jay didn’t have a lot of money then. So I decided to preempt it for him. I told Jay, “You know your manager is going to want a prenup. I’ll be perfectly happy to sign it, so don’t worry.” And Jay got mad. He said, “What? You’re already planning we’re going to get divorced?” We just trust each other in a really deep way.
SS: You really do fit.
ML: I knew a lot of funny and interesting people, but I didn’t know very many trustworthy people. But with Jay, I didn’t have to think about it. When a quality is there, it stands out.
JL: There are no jokes about wives. If someone is joking about their wife onstage, consciously or subcon-sciously, they mean it.
ML: Jay’s thing is, you elevate the powerless person and make fun of those who are misusing their power.
SS: It’s funny, Jay, because in the beginning you said Mavis is your conscience, and that’s exactly what you show in your jokes.
JL: The Wall Street guy you can nail, the plumber—
ML: If he asks someone in the audience, “What do you do, sir?” and the guy says, “I’m a plumber,” Jay will say, “Oh, someone who does an honest day’s work!” But if it’s a banker, he’ll say, “Oh, so you screw widows and orphans for a living.”
JL: Hopefully funnier than that...
ML: Am I a stand-up? No.
SS: My husband and I have been together 39 years. When I look back, I can see our relationship change. Do you find that in yours?
ML: A couple of periods were a little more difficult. When Jay got The Tonight Show, the first years were hard for me. All of a sudden, Jay had this day job, and every person on the planet was asking him for something. So I thought, I’m going to be the one who doesn’t ask for anything. Then it gave him relief at home, but that can also feel like distance. I don’t know if he was aware of it because he was so swamped by the job—just the time demands alone, and the pressure.
JL: It’s not really a high-pressure job. Do I look like I’m under pressure? Write joke, tell joke, get check. It couldn’t be simpler. You go to a place like Detroit, and you meet people with real jobs. Show business, let me tell you: The higher up you go, the more retarded people assume you are. They’ll say, “Jay drove here by himself! He drove to the studio alone—yes, he did! He came in his own car!” [Applauds.]
SS: You’re in a business where people are so self-important, and yet you remain the same.
JL: I think that’s the key—not to take yourself too seriously. It’s not high pressure unless you make it that way. It’s not like doing CPR. I was always happy with whatever level I was at. If you’re always looking for the next level, you’re not going to be happy.
ML: At that time, for me, he was gone a lot, and it was not only a new situation for him, it was a situation I had never experienced. And I didn’t know anybody to ask, “Well, how did you handle this?” So it took a little while before I figured it out.
SS: Did it make your relationship stronger?
ML: Absolutely, because you know, however steadfast your feelings for each other, your life circumstances are going to go all over the place. We’ve been through the death of my parents and his and the loss of Jay’s brother. We started off with not very much money, and now we have a lot. But we’ve stayed the same. The great thing about Jay is whatever he says, that’s it. It’s genuine.
JL: That’s right! I put my foot down. It’s the law!
ML: No. If he says, “Oh, I’ll do that,” then it’s done. When we were first together, if I wanted to talk to him about something, I would fall into the mode I had used with men in my past, where I would come in with a chip on my shoulder, all my arguments marshaled. But Jay would just say, “Okay.” Finally I realized I don’t need to do all that.
SS: You thought you could depend on him, and now, all these years later, you have all this documentation that the theory was correct.
ML: The whole thing is simple: Pick the right person; be the right person.
SS: That’s a great line.
ML: If I have one more conversation with a woman about what she wants in a man and how little she’s willing to give in return—I mean, wake up. When Jay and I lived together for a year before we married, he had an opportunity to be in a show in New York. He was actually nervous when he said, “I have this chance...” I thought, That’s great—why is he so rattled? And he said, “If I take it, I have to be in New York—would you move?” And I said, “Of course. Look, I’m with you now—I’m really with you.” And then he relaxed. I asked, “Would you turn it down if I didn’t want to?” and he got serious and said, “My career is for us. Everything I do is for us.” And the last wall inside me fell—I knew he would be on my side in everything. If you can’t do it for the person because you love them—
SS: Then you’re never going to do it. Mavis, do you still go to the show after all these years?
ML: Off and on, but we watch The Tonight Show together every night at home.
JL: Look, I always tell people, you don’t fall in love with a hooker. That’s what show business is. You can enjoy show business...and then go home.
Friday, May 1, 2009
fashionable politics
More people tuned in to the tv show "lie to me" than they did to Obama's speech after his first 100 days. It seemed like yesterday (to use a cliche) that politics enveloped everyone's lives. How much of that enthusiasm was the result of fashion, i.e. it was the fad topic of the day?
Friday, August 29, 2008
Sarah Palin for VP?
A friend asked about my thoughts of Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate. My response is below. (No one has asked me about Joe Biden being Obama's pick, so I have not written any up yet.)
---
What I know of Palin (and personal commentaries):
- She's a fiscal conservative. One of the biggest accomplishments she's had in office is to cut government spending. I share this view, because I think it's unsustainable for the government to continue raising taxes while increasing spending. Too many people have financial difficulties in their personal lives because they lack fiscal constraint to spend within their means. The government should be no different. She also sold the commercial jet that the previous governor used for travel on eBay when she took office, and drives an old Jetta to work everyday. That contrasts with other elected politicians who drive expensive cars on government expense.
- That she used eBay to sell the jet tells me that she is not behind the times, and will certainly be innovative in getting things done.
- She has integrity. She filed a corruption complaint against the establishment, even though it ostracized her from the Republic Party in her state. That shows courage and the integrity to do what is right, and ultimately she was vindicated, when the people chose her over the establishment.
- She is against abortion. Her fifth child was diagnosed with Down's syndrome, and she refused to get an abortion. That's a personal choice which I can respect. What is unclear to me is whether she believes that the government should enact and enforce pro-life laws (or overturn existing pro-choice ones).
- She is LGBT friendly. While she is against such lifestyles, and despite being in one of two states that forbid such lifestyles in its constitution, she signed into law in effect giving equal rights to civil unions and domestic partnerships.
Overall:
McCain's pick of Palin is a better choice than Obama's pick of Biden. (I won't get into why I think Biden was a bad pick in this email.) Too many people (and I think it's mostly Democrats) are too worried about how inexperienced she is to be "a heartbeat away from the presidency". While she is inexperience, she is no less so than Obama, as she already as executive level experience, whereas Obama has none in that respect, and he'd actually *be* the president. As VP, her role would be to learn the ropes, so that 4 or 8 years later, she can take lead of the party. What I see here is that McCain is looking beyond just this election. He realizes that even if he does not win, he now is in the position to change the course of the Republican Party. And if he does win, then she will definitely be the standard bearer come the next time around. I'm glad he did not choose Romney, who just seems too ambitious. She is a better pick than Pawlenty, as that would have been a purely political decision to win his state. Being from Alaska and being that Alaska always votes Republican, and that it only has 3 electoral votes, winning the state could not have been the motivation.
---
What I know of Palin (and personal commentaries):
- She's a fiscal conservative. One of the biggest accomplishments she's had in office is to cut government spending. I share this view, because I think it's unsustainable for the government to continue raising taxes while increasing spending. Too many people have financial difficulties in their personal lives because they lack fiscal constraint to spend within their means. The government should be no different. She also sold the commercial jet that the previous governor used for travel on eBay when she took office, and drives an old Jetta to work everyday. That contrasts with other elected politicians who drive expensive cars on government expense.
- That she used eBay to sell the jet tells me that she is not behind the times, and will certainly be innovative in getting things done.
- She has integrity. She filed a corruption complaint against the establishment, even though it ostracized her from the Republic Party in her state. That shows courage and the integrity to do what is right, and ultimately she was vindicated, when the people chose her over the establishment.
- She is against abortion. Her fifth child was diagnosed with Down's syndrome, and she refused to get an abortion. That's a personal choice which I can respect. What is unclear to me is whether she believes that the government should enact and enforce pro-life laws (or overturn existing pro-choice ones).
- She is LGBT friendly. While she is against such lifestyles, and despite being in one of two states that forbid such lifestyles in its constitution, she signed into law in effect giving equal rights to civil unions and domestic partnerships.
Overall:
McCain's pick of Palin is a better choice than Obama's pick of Biden. (I won't get into why I think Biden was a bad pick in this email.) Too many people (and I think it's mostly Democrats) are too worried about how inexperienced she is to be "a heartbeat away from the presidency". While she is inexperience, she is no less so than Obama, as she already as executive level experience, whereas Obama has none in that respect, and he'd actually *be* the president. As VP, her role would be to learn the ropes, so that 4 or 8 years later, she can take lead of the party. What I see here is that McCain is looking beyond just this election. He realizes that even if he does not win, he now is in the position to change the course of the Republican Party. And if he does win, then she will definitely be the standard bearer come the next time around. I'm glad he did not choose Romney, who just seems too ambitious. She is a better pick than Pawlenty, as that would have been a purely political decision to win his state. Being from Alaska and being that Alaska always votes Republican, and that it only has 3 electoral votes, winning the state could not have been the motivation.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Apathy to the plight of airlines
Corporations in the transportation industry, more specifically passenger transportation, has never been capitalistic ventures. They have existed much too long on government subsidies. As a result they are inefficient and ineffective.
It seems to many that the price of gasoline will continue to skyrocket. An effect of this increase of gasoline prices is that it cuts deeply into the bottom line of airlines, to the point where many are cutting back flights, declaring fees for checked baggage, no longer serving snacks, and charging exorbiantly for drinks in flight. And yet they continue to bleed red ink.
My stance towards the plight of the airlines is complete apathy. I recently took a flight with a layover in London Heathrow. The only reason I was even there was because my original flight was cancelled, so the airline had booked me to go through Heathrow. Knowing that it can be impossible to get through that airport, I agreed to a 5 hour layover. Upon getting there however, I got through security rather quickly, and was even in time for an earlier flight. So I went to the counter and asked if I could catch the earlier flight. The person at the desk, while helpful, could do nothing except tell me that I would have to pay a $200 change fee. I declined and decided to wait until the flight was about to close. 20 minutes prior to its departure, I asked again. Once again, I was told that I would have to pay $200. The person at the counter (a different person than the original) stated that the airline would rather fly with an empty seat, than to not charge me $200, switch me to an earlier flight, and have an empty seat available for sale for 4 more hours. If the airlines have such an attitiude about their business, then why should I sympathesize?
It seems to many that the price of gasoline will continue to skyrocket. An effect of this increase of gasoline prices is that it cuts deeply into the bottom line of airlines, to the point where many are cutting back flights, declaring fees for checked baggage, no longer serving snacks, and charging exorbiantly for drinks in flight. And yet they continue to bleed red ink.
My stance towards the plight of the airlines is complete apathy. I recently took a flight with a layover in London Heathrow. The only reason I was even there was because my original flight was cancelled, so the airline had booked me to go through Heathrow. Knowing that it can be impossible to get through that airport, I agreed to a 5 hour layover. Upon getting there however, I got through security rather quickly, and was even in time for an earlier flight. So I went to the counter and asked if I could catch the earlier flight. The person at the desk, while helpful, could do nothing except tell me that I would have to pay a $200 change fee. I declined and decided to wait until the flight was about to close. 20 minutes prior to its departure, I asked again. Once again, I was told that I would have to pay $200. The person at the counter (a different person than the original) stated that the airline would rather fly with an empty seat, than to not charge me $200, switch me to an earlier flight, and have an empty seat available for sale for 4 more hours. If the airlines have such an attitiude about their business, then why should I sympathesize?
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
irrational absurdity
MoveOn.org is asking for people to sign the following petition.
why should it be a crime to be profitable by selling a product that everyone wants (by virtue of the choices they have made in their lifestyle) to buy?
why should it be a crime to be profitable by selling a product that everyone wants (by virtue of the choices they have made in their lifestyle) to buy?
Stop Price Gouging
Gasoline prices are predicted to be even higher than last summer, even though Big Oil just announced record profits.
Enough is enough! A bill in the House would make gasoline price gouging a federal crime, and it could pass this week! Can you help be sure it does?
A compiled petition with your individual comment will be presented to your Representative.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
the hybrid myth?
how environmental is a hybrid vehicle? ie, given today's technology, is a hybrid vehicle truly a better choice?
here is an editorial about the environmental costs of building a prius. the author does not provide citations for the claims he makes, but it does highlight the possibility that we cannot automatically assume that a car which consumes less gas is more environmental.
on another note, besides the environmental factor, the other argument for purchasing hybrid vehicles is that the amount of gas one saves. this is easier to analyse.
the following is based upon information taken from carsdirect.com
2007 Nissan Altima 2.5 S 4dr Sedan
price: $19144
mpg: 26/35 city/highway
2007 Nissan Altima Hybrid Base 4dr Sedan
price: $24046
mpg: 42/36 city/highway
here we use the nissan altima as our example. why not the prius? first, nissan does not actually build their own hybrid engines. they license the technology from toyota [citation], so we are discussing essentially the same technology. second, toyota does not make a non-hybrid version of the prius, so its hard to make a comparison with another car. on the other hand, the nissan altima base version comes in both regular and hybrid versions.
so, given the quotes we retrieved, the hybrid is more expensive by $4902. there are many factors that will make this number go up or down. some states have emission control charges. some states impose a sales tax. some states give "rebates" to purchasers in order to further an environmental agenda. due to the high demand for such vehicles, some buyers may have to pay above dealer cost. most people cannot afford to shell out the entire amount of the price of a car, and take out loans. just for reference, a $20,000 loan at 5.75% for 5 years will garner about $3000 of interest. in any case, we will not delve into all the possibilities, and just take the $4902 as the basis of our argument.
given today's prices (and let's take the most expensive prices of $3.50/gallon, currently in california), 26 miles of city driving on a regular altima will cost $3.50. 26 miles of city driving on a hybrid altima will cost $2.17. the difference, $0.0513. thus, it will take 95,500 miles of city driving in order to make up for the difference in cost. the difference in cost of highway driving is negligible. even assuming that the driver only drives in the city, that's about 7-8 years to make up that difference.
here is an editorial about the environmental costs of building a prius. the author does not provide citations for the claims he makes, but it does highlight the possibility that we cannot automatically assume that a car which consumes less gas is more environmental.
on another note, besides the environmental factor, the other argument for purchasing hybrid vehicles is that the amount of gas one saves. this is easier to analyse.
the following is based upon information taken from carsdirect.com
2007 Nissan Altima 2.5 S 4dr Sedan
price: $19144
mpg: 26/35 city/highway
2007 Nissan Altima Hybrid Base 4dr Sedan
price: $24046
mpg: 42/36 city/highway
here we use the nissan altima as our example. why not the prius? first, nissan does not actually build their own hybrid engines. they license the technology from toyota [citation], so we are discussing essentially the same technology. second, toyota does not make a non-hybrid version of the prius, so its hard to make a comparison with another car. on the other hand, the nissan altima base version comes in both regular and hybrid versions.
so, given the quotes we retrieved, the hybrid is more expensive by $4902. there are many factors that will make this number go up or down. some states have emission control charges. some states impose a sales tax. some states give "rebates" to purchasers in order to further an environmental agenda. due to the high demand for such vehicles, some buyers may have to pay above dealer cost. most people cannot afford to shell out the entire amount of the price of a car, and take out loans. just for reference, a $20,000 loan at 5.75% for 5 years will garner about $3000 of interest. in any case, we will not delve into all the possibilities, and just take the $4902 as the basis of our argument.
given today's prices (and let's take the most expensive prices of $3.50/gallon, currently in california), 26 miles of city driving on a regular altima will cost $3.50. 26 miles of city driving on a hybrid altima will cost $2.17. the difference, $0.0513. thus, it will take 95,500 miles of city driving in order to make up for the difference in cost. the difference in cost of highway driving is negligible. even assuming that the driver only drives in the city, that's about 7-8 years to make up that difference.
Monday, April 16, 2007
truly green?
i recently received the following evite to a milonga, which i've copied verbatim (with the exception of personal identification info). the event is meant to be "green" as in environmental, as 22 april is earth day (or something like it). i find the invitation to be lacking with respect to the presumed intention of the hosts. here's why. my comments are in red.
| a big green milonga welcoming tango beginners! |
| ||||||||||
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)