From outside the box

When Chico was smaller it had an extra hospital. When Chico was smaller it had a water park. When Chico was smaller it had 3 bowling alleys and two pool halls. It seems as Chico grows, we keep loosing things. I guess its the law of supply and demand, or corporate take over, or whatever. In my thirty some years living in Chico I've seen a lot of great improvements and I've seen a lot of blunders, not to mention the blunders that happened before my time here.

Now to me a blunder is when you do a "What in God's name were you thinking?" kind of thing. I'm talking about things like building over the parkway on the north and south sides of the creek between 2nd St. and Esplanade, putting the freeway thru the middle of town, everything we built in the sixties, taking out the giant oaks that bordered the corner of W. Sac. and 32 when they built Safeway, turning the Senator theatre into a 4 plex movie theatre, that road way that takes you out of Red Lobster onto 20th St., all the unnecessary stop signs around town, the "in your face" McDonalds on Mangrove Ave, and removing the rail tracks that ran from Diamond Match to the airport and from Chico to Paradise (how cool would that be to have some type of passenger rail service that ran from the airport, down along Esplanade, thru town, and up to Paradise?).

There is another blunder we have been repeating over and over for too many years. And like most blunders, once they are done, they can never be unblundered This is the blunder of city infill without compensating for the extra traffic that will be created. As Chico fills in instead of filling out we are becoming like rats in a maze. It is only a matter of time until we all go insane and start eating each other. Condensed traffic brings more pollution, more stress getting places, too much noise, and it becomes too dangerous for kids to ride bikes. When a city becomes snarled in traffic jams, that city has lost its heart and soul.

The problem here is that there is not a winning solution that will work for everybody. A growing city must either fill in, grow out, or both. When you grow out you take out wet lands or forests or you destroy the view shed of the foothills. When you fill in, you go crazy and start eating each other. For a desirable city like Chico, not growing is not an option. It seems we have made our decision to fill in. I would have rather seen us grow out. I like breathing space, that's why I moved here. We can expand in a way that would preserve most of our natural beauty....by spot spreading. However, there would have to be compromise. Without getting into too much detail, it seems to me it could work like this....There are areas where the green line could be tweeked because there may be little to no agriculture going on, the foothills could have some designated growth areas, and the Vina plains could have spot growth leaving open plenty of wet land areas. The ground out there has poor drainage so city sewers would be needed. I for one do not like any of these options, but all growth options are painfull one way or another. To me the answer is simple....we spread out and maintain our easy going way of life or..... we keep up the infill, go insane, and start eating each other.

Posted by Joe Shaw at 02:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Hello, my name is Joe and I am a movie theatre junkie, an addict. (At this point you have to imagine a crowd responding, "Hi Joe, we love you Joe"). Ok, enough of the AA thing....Now I use the term movie theatre junkie/addict because it is not just movies that I am addicted to but the experience of the movie theatre as well. There is nothing like loosing yourself in a dark room where the audio and visual surround you and encapsulate your senses, where nobody can find you, telephones will not ring, a place where life's petty problems seem to be a million miles away.

So as you can see, I take my movie going quite seriously. Although a crying baby or over reacting teenage girls will irritate the hell out of me, I am on the other hand, very appreciative of the nice things like a comfortable chair, lots of leg room, or good sound quality. I will leave the actual movie critiquing to others. My area of expertise is in the experience of watching the movie. So I share with you some thoughts on theatres, past and present.....

I remember the El Rey theatre quite well. I liked to go there because of the size of the screen, great visuals, good seating. But the El Rey had two problems that were never addressed and had they been, it might still be showing movies today. The sound system was lousy. You couldn't hear the movies. I never understood why they couldn't turn the sound up, I mean who's gonna hear it except the people in the theatre? If it was a speaker problem would it really have been that expensive to just get bigger speakers? But the main problem with the El Rey was the fact that when a movie came there, it would stay for months and months. They would get a popular movie, fill the theatre for a week or two, and then four months later that same movie is playing to a crowd of four. I think with proper management this theatre could flourish again as a movie house or any other type of entertainment.

The Senator theatre was the perfect movie theatre (it had a balcony for God's sake!) until some idiot got the bright idea to divide it into a four-plex theatre. It never worked as a four-plex. In the two downstairs theatres the screens were not centered right. You had to sit in the exact middle, which oddly enough was right next to the side isle, or the screen appeared to be wobbly and somewhat out of focus. The upstairs theatres were too steep and the theatres were not deep enough. The top row was like 20 feet from the screen, just plain weird.

I remember how exciting it was when the new Cinemark theatre opened up out on Springfield by the Chico Mall. It meant that we could have more than 4 or 5 movies playing at a time in Chico. To me this was the Christening of Chico from a town to a city. My excitement was soon dampened when you realized that all of the theatres were so small that unless you were sitting in the very back row, you were too close to the screen.

I love the idea of the Pageant theatre, but not the Pageant theatre. I am 6'3" and I just don't fit well in those seats. It seems to me that they would do well to invest in better seating. I will go there if there is a must see movie, otherwise I will avoid this theatre. If I feel that way, there must be others. I know I'm not the only large man in town who likes to go to the movies. Also, the seating is not slanted enough. At the Pageant I try to sit where there is nobody behind me because I know I will block their view.

And the Cinemark 14? All in all it's not too bad. I love the way they crank the volume, they usually handle the crowds pretty well, and the stadium type seating means you can see over heads. But can anybody tell me why they took out that wonderful 2 story parking lot? Not only could you park closer but the bottom level offered cover from the rain as well as shade from the sun.

Now all that being said, I have a few final thoughts on the theatre experience. Have you ever looked at the movie pages in the Chronicle or the Sacramento Bee and noticed all the movies out that we never get or never heard of? Chico needs another Pageant (artsy) type movie house, with maybe 2 or 3 screens, so that we would not have to miss so many of these foreign and independently produced films. The Pageant can't keep up, and it's uncomfortable. Other movie needs that could be improved upon in Chico is more comfortable chairs, better food and snack selections, candy wrappers that aren't so noisy, ban babies from any movie rated PG-13 or higher, and change the commercials more often that are shown before the previews begin. I hate it when I have them memorized.

I would just like to say in conclusion (picture me with wet eyes right now) that movies are Gods greatest gift to mankind. Without them we would die. Whenever somebody tells me that I am being too much of a couch potato, that I need to get out and get a life, do something constructive, I usually agree. So I get up, brush my hair, get my walking shoes on, and drive to a movie!

Posted by Joe Shaw at 11:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I've heard a lot of talk lately that Mexican immigrants are taking away our jobs. This may be true for some jobs, but certainly not all jobs. When I was younger, I tried some of the jobs that these people are doing. I was fit and strong and not afraid of hard work (well, maybe sometimes). I've picked oranges, hoed weeds in the fields, picked apples, shoveled chicken manure from the chicken houses, picked up garbage back when garbage was put into heavy 50 gallon metal drums, and shoveled olives in the "hot houses". I performed these jobs for anywhere from a few hours (hoeing weeds, acres of weeds!) to a week (the chicken manure). That was it, that was all I could do! Anybody who says that Americans would do these jobs if there was only better pay, has never done these jobs.

In the winter of 74, I worked in an olive processing plant in Orland. There were two kinds of jobs there: the ones that the white guys could do, and the harder ones that only the Mexicans could do. Now I don't have answers to the boarder problems that we are facing but I know that many of these immigrant workers can do things the average white guy not only won't do, but is not even capable of doing! Ever since that olive plant experience, I have had the highest respect for immigrant workers. I know there are those who would come here and mooch off of the system, just as there are more than a few white homegrown low lifers who do the same thing. But the folks that come here to work, legally or illegally, we are lucky to have them, we need them.

Posted by Joe Shaw at 01:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Over the last few decades I have become aware of a formula used in stories, movies, and TV shows, especially sit com's, that has fascinated me. It has to do with the human psyche, the whole self actually.....OK, let me back up a bit. Many would agree that we exist as multi functioning creatures, that is to say that we operate from different levels of consciousness. The fabric of our whole "being", or self, is the soul, mind, emotions, and body. Now to be a complete and balanced entity, to operate at a peak level, we must function from all four of these levels, or sources of our self. If any are missing, then there is a part of the story of who we are that is missing. I say "story" because that is what I am relating this to, how this formula of self is used in story telling. Now in real life most of us operate from all of these levels and do so somewhat in balance. However, in story telling, characters must be exaggerated so that any given character will lean towards representing just one (or maybe two) of these aspects of the human psyche. And to get the complete human embodiment (the whole self) it will usually take four characters. Here are some examples I've noticed over the years.

"Star Trek" is a classical example. You have Scotty the mechanic. He is the one who keeps the Enterprise working. He is concerned with the nuts and bolts side of things. He represents the "physical". Then there is Bones the high strung doctor who is always at odds with Spock because of his "logic". Bones is always saying something like "Damn it Jim, I've got 430 lives aboard this ship and I won't let you jeopardize them with some dangerous tactic like that!" Bones represents the "emotional". And of course Spock, with his over use of logic, represents "mind". Captain Kirk is the main character who brings all of these other characters together to balance them out. He is the over view, or the "soul".

Now lets look at a couple of sit com's where the formula is obvious. "Cheers" is classic example. You have Norm who is a large physical presence, not much of a thinker, and he loves his food and beer. He is the "physical". Then there is Diane Chambers who is always upset at Sam, always angry or extremely happy. She is the "emotional". Cliffy, the post man, is always spouting off trivia. He is the "mental". And of course Sam, the owner of the establishment, who brings all of the characters together represents the "soul". Now these characters do slip in and out of their roles and often embody 2 of these characteristics but you will usually notice that they stay pretty much assigned to exaggerate one character. It was interesting on "Cheers" when they bought in the "Frazier" character. He was a combination of the emotional and the mental. I think he was thrown in to add to the color of those characteristics that were already being represented by Diane and Cliff.

Sienfeld has four main characters. Kramer is the physical, always sliding thru the door. His humor is based on the exaggerations of his body language. George is the emotional, always irate about something. Elaine is the mental, always trying to figure out what is going on with her job, her relationships, etc. And Jerry is the over soul. Now Elaine and Kramer do share their physical and mental characteristics often. You see Kramer often trying to figure out a new angle to make some money or Elaine being just plain beautiful, which gives her a strong "physical" presence.

OK, lets look at one more. "Malcolm in the middle" spreads the four characteristics around a little more. We have Reese, bullying brother, low functioning, definitely the physical. Lois, the mother, is always emotional, and Malcolm, the genius, is the mental. Hal is an interesting character because he embodies an extreme of all of these characteristics. Also, the "soul" or over view is shared by the mother, the father, and Malcolm, mostly Malcolm.

I've also noticed an exaggerated use of this formula on a lot of cartoon shows. South Park, The Simpson's, King of the hill, Rugrats.....actually, you can see this formula in varying degrees on just about any movie or TV show. Probably the most classic use is in the classic stories like Cinderella, Sleeping beauty, and of course, the Wizard of Oz. I'm not sure if any of this is good for anything, but I've always thought it was interesting. I know, you are probably thinking that I need to get a life. I would have to agree.

Posted by Joe Shaw at 10:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It seems that there are many conservatives who still do not understand why everybody else in the country is so darn angry. Yes, the Iraq war is probably the biggest reason but there are a lot of other issues to consider here. After six years of republican dominance in Washington there has been nothing done on immigration or health care. Pork barrel spending in congress was taken to new heights, innocent Americans are being spied on, jobs are being shipped over seas, gasoline is spiraling out of control and nobody is doing a thing, we've lost our moral superiority in the world, the environment has been placed on the back burner, and our national debt has escalated to numbers that the human brain cannot comprehend. We are angry because conservatives that trashed liberals over "tax and spend" policies (doesn't that mean pay as you go?) are practicing a "barrow and spend" policy that has taken us almost to the point of economic bankruptcy. We are angry because the same folks that once touted getting big government out of our lives are legislating their morality and religious ethics into our lives weather we like it or not, weather we believe in it or not. I'm talking about things like medical marijuana, euthanasia, prostitution, women's rights, things that are really nobody else's business. We are angry because it is now obvious that what republicans really mean by "getting out of peoples lives" is to deregulate corporate industry, to get out of THEIR lives. How about deregulating peoples personal rights? And then there's that darn war, plenty to be angry about there.

Personally, I am getting a little fed up with hearing folks say that it's OK for soldiers die in Iraq because they were not forced to go into the service, they volunteered. This whole line of reasoning is wrong on so many levels that I don't know where to begin to address it! When young people sign up for the military, they are trusting that our government will not send them into war unless it is absolutely necessary. And if it is necessary, then they are more than willing to go. Many of these young folks in Iraq do not have the education or the life experience to know the difference between what is necessary and what is political spin. Many of them do, and they fight anyway because they are asked to. We owe them better than that. And shame on you who condone these kids dying because you do not have the insight or the courage to question this war just because it was bought about by your political party whom many of you would blindly follow over a cliff. On top of that, you dare to call those of us who would put an end to this needless mess, unpatriotic!

If pulling out is loosing then please tell me what winning is? This is where I hear the echoes of Vietnam. There was no winning over there as there is no winning in Iraq. We lost this war the day we went in. We did not understand the mind set of mideast fundamentalism. They will engage us into the next century, they will fight us until we are economically bankrupt. I am just glad that a president cannot serve more than 8 years or Carl Rove would figure a way to rig another election and this mess would go on endlessly.

Now before you tell me how sick and tired you are of liberals who do not understand that we are fighting terrorists to keep them off of our soil, I ask you if you would send your child to Iraq to fight for WMD'S that were never found, to fight people that had nothing to do with 911, to bring democracy to a race of fundamental fanatics who want nothing to do with it, to fatten the pockets of Haliburton and Mobile Exxon, to fight a country that never attacked us, or to get caught up in the middle of a civil war where both sides want to kill our soldiers? First tell me which one of these reasons will you send your child to die for and then you can trash my silly ignorant liberalism. Tell me why I should not be mad at what conservatives have done to this country and I will try to understand your anger over Bill Clinton lying about sex.

Posted by Joe Shaw at 05:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Recently while waiting to get my oil changed I picked up a "People" magazine and skimmed thru it. The last time I read a "People" magazine was 10 or 15 years ago and I remember that it was always full of articles about teachers, Nobel prize winners, humanitarians, and an occasional story about a movie star. What I noticed now was that the whole magazine was about movie stars. My first thought was that this was a special Hollywood edition or something like that, but no, it was just a regular weekly "People" magazine.

Why have we become so fascinated with the popular and the beautiful? Not only have we digressed to an unhealthy obsession with these people, it seems that our movie stars don't even need to be talented or working. Many of them are just popular for being popular. It's like the news media is exposing us to us as to how shallow we are and we don't even get it. Why have we dumbed down? Why do we give a crap about these people? We used to make fun of England for the obsession they had with their royal family because these were people that basically were popular for being popular. We have become that which we once laughed at.

Have we become so complacent about important issues that we just take for granted that the folks in charge of things will make sure we are kept safe, the economy will be fine, and we will survive? Are we so bored and drawn to fluff because we no longer engage ourselves in these larger issues? We are in a war (maybe an illegal one), tens of thousands of innocent civilians are being slaughtered in Africa, we may be starting the cold war back up with Russia, we are so far in debt to China and Saudi Arabia that they pretty much own us, oil companies are hijacking the economy and nobody is noticing that the politicians are not doing a thing to stop them, Habeas Corpus is in jeopardy, our constitutional rights are being eroded, we are being called non patriotic when we do our patriotic duty of questioning our government, the middle class is evaporating due to outsourcing of jobs, the poor are getting poorer, the rich are getting richer, were all getting fat, and all we are interested in is a spoiled no talent blond heiress going to jail, or who gets Anna Nichols baby.

America is ours to embellish, to strengthen, and to fix when things go wrong. It is also ours to loose. And if we loose our freedom, it will not be because of terrorism. It will be because of apathy. It will be because we have been conned into trusting the fox that is guarding the hen house. It will be because of laziness and our lack of attention. It will be because we trusted "they" to make decisions for us that will have effects we did not see coming until it's far too late because we were too caught up with Paris Hilton.

We can change this direction. We need to care more about the larger issues and trust those in charge less. We need to question more and follow less. We need to start paying close attention to the hen house because the wolves are surrounding it. There are too many in power that keep wanting a bigger piece of the pie. And they know that when we are more interested in Paris Hilton than we are in their shenanigans, then all they have to do is start dishing up the pie and snatching up the hens. And that is exactly what is happening right now.

Posted by Joe Shaw at 04:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Writers note....This article was written about a week ago

Earlier today I went out to Butte Valley to write up an estimate for some work to be done on a ranch house. I was out behind the garage looking at the siding when the homeowner told me to freeze and slowly walk away. Turned out there was a little rattlesnake right at my feet. It blended so well with the gravel walkway that you had to take a second look to find it. The lady that lived there got a shovel and asked if I could take care of it. I thought she meant for me to remove it. So I asked for a box to put it in. She got the box, but her intention was for me to kill it with the shovel and put it in the box. My intention was to pick it up with the shovel, put it in the box and go dump him on the edge of her property. Well, I tried but the little guy kept sliding off of my shovel. "Please don't let him get away!" she said half panicked, worried he would show up somewhere else around her house. Left with few options, I decided I had to kill it.

Now you'd think that killing a rattlesnake wouldn't bother anybody but it bothered me. I realized that I hadn't killed an animal since high school. Back then I worked on a chicken ranch and killing diseased chickens was part of my job. That was about 40 years ago. The poor snake did not want to die, he just wanted a shady spot to hang out and, well, just be. In retrospect, I wished now I hadn't killed the snake. I think that with a little more effort I could have caught him and saved him.

So I have asked myself why this experience has been bugging me all day. Seems the older I get, the less I am attracted to violence. Maybe raising children does that to you. Maybe it's because I have always tried to see the sanctity in all life, to realize that all creatures have a right to exist. That kind of thinking was partly why I became a vegetarian about 35 years ago. But today, I broke one of my rules when I killed that snake. He wasn't attacking me or anybody else, and that, I have always said, is the only reason I would ever kill or use violence on another living creature (other than pesky insects).

Then again, I guess there was some good in this experience. It has strengthened my resolve against violence and killing, even rattlesnakes. I know that hunters don't get this. I know that meat eaters don't get this. I know that people who have no problem inflicting pain on another don't get this. I know that Christians who believe that God put animals on earth to serve mankind in any capacity that we see fit do not get this. And that's too bad. Could you imagine a world where all creatures had the right to exist and problems were never settled with violence? Wars would not happen. Battered women would not happen. Gang violence would not happen. Abused children would not happen. This kind of world could exist, it could be our reality some day. But you have to want it and you have to be able to imagine it, that's the first step. When we can see that we are all connected on a deeper level then we can feel true empathy and compassion for all creatures because we see a bit of ourself in all creatures, even rattlesnakes.

Posted by Joe Shaw at 07:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (7)

Global warming is either the worst nightmare the human race could ever imagine, one of the biggest hoaxes ever perpetrated on mankind, or just bad science. Being a liberal, my first reactions to global warming was that it was real. But soon I realized that global warming had become another catalyst that divided the left from the right, politically speaking. We seem to have a lot of these catalyst nowadays. We have the Iraq war, abortion, church and state issues, and the biggest catalyst of them all, George Bush. Why is it that political patronage always takes precedent over common sense? Are these all really black and white issues? Do we really take the time to look at opposing points of view before taking our own posture on our personal politically correct views? I like to think that I do and therefore I would never blindly follow any political parties core beliefs, mainly because core beliefs in politics seem to change with the flow of money, power, and public opinion. So...getting back to global warming, is the jury still out? I have to admit that when it comes to science, I am certainly a light weight. And Im not going to accept it as gospel because Al Gore says is it so (although I have to admit, the fact that Rush Limbaugh says it is a hoax, tilts me towards the side of believing it's real). There are compelling arguments on both sides of this issue and certainly room for much debate. But here's how I see it....If you get a flat tire, it doesn't really matter if the flat was caused by a nail you left on your driveway or some act of God out on the highway. The bottom line is, you have to get the flat tire fixed. So, why are we arguing about the cause of global warming? Does it really matter how or why its happening? Even if there was no global warming, is it not a fact that we humans have polluted the planet almost to the point of no recovery? It seems to me that if we can clean up our house, and we are the cause of global warming, then we will not only have a cleaner environment but we may stop global warming. If we clean up our house and global warming is not man made but a natural cycle, then there is nothing we can do about it anyway, but at least we will have a cleaner house! So keep an open mind, keep debating, and for God sake, lets start house cleaning!

Posted by Joe Shaw at 03:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Everybody thinks they know what is true. Aren't most truths really just a viewpoint? Is it not more accurate to say there is some truth in just about everything but not complete truth in anything? True ignorance is when you think you've got something all figured out. I believe that political parties, religions, governments, those with social agendas, and everybody in between would get along much better if we could adopt the idea that we have a viewpoint about our belief and not the truth. Truth does not change. Viewpoints change. Truth is not relative, it just is. That which is truth is universal. We exist, all things are connected, and all of life is evolving towards something greater than what it is now. Those are truth's(in my viewpoint). Everything else is relative and subject to change.
Slavery was once ok because it was a truth that the black man had no soul, he was equal to an animal. As we evolved the "truth" about black people changed. Limbo used to be a truth in the Catholic church, but no longer. Cutting and bleeding the sick used to lead to healing, it was true then but not true now. There was a time when cigarettes where harmless to your health, then they became harmful. Spanking children is ok and a few years later, it's not ok. There wasn't any truth that changed here, just our viewpoint because we evolved on these issues. We can look at any aspect of religion, medical science, or any social issue and see that things we once adopted as truth eventually changed as we evolved in our knowledge or decided as a culture to change the way we looked at something.
An artist knows that what they create is just an expression or a viewpoint. Modern science and research knows that they are engaged in a process of learning about something and that whatever truth they learn, it is only temporary until a greater truth is discovered. On the other hand, religions, political parties, and about 90% of the people on earth believe they are blessed with the truth. Is this not the basis for most wars, and in fact, isn't this the real reason for most communication breakdowns between governments, religions, cultures, and even families? If we could accept the truth that we are operating from a viewpoint more often that from truth, wouldn't we all get along a lot better? Viewpoints are ok because that is saying that this is who we are at this moment in time and therefore this is how things appear to be to me at this moment in time. And we can say that, knowing that we are open to evolve and eventually have a finer or higher viewpoint on whatever that thing is that we are expressing as our truth. In a black and white world everything would be right or wrong, good or bad. There would be one true religion, one right government, and every argument would have a right and a wrong person. Aren't we lucky the world is not black and white, but colorful! All this being said, it's really just my viewpoint....and that's the truth!

Posted by Joe Shaw at 10:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)