Thanks for a great class!

Grades were entered on Wednesday. Contact me if you have any questions. I enjoyed the class and I hope you did, too.

Keep in touch.

-D

Extra-credit Assignment

Your extra-credit assignment, the only one of the semester, is to write about California from the outside looking in. Your task is to write a two-page (minimum) essay in which you consider some of the negative views of our state. We have spent much time examining the positive ways in which the state is viewed, but what about the negative perceptions of the state? Certainly, it is no secret that certain segments of America view Californians negatively. In fact, many Americans take issue with everything from our politics to culture to lifestyles. So much so that in some places in this country anything "Californian" is considered undesirable. For this essay, consider the resentment of California from others in the country. Are we self-righteous? Too radical? Quick to lecture other states? Maybe just a bunch of loonies? How might our state look from a southern perspective? Or from an east coast point of view? Look at California from outside our borders to determine the sources of resentment toward us.

This assignment is worth up to 20 pts.

Due: Via email on Tuesday, August 17th by noon. No late papers accepted.

For Your Final Exam...

Below I've attached the sample prompts for your essay this week. I've also included the rubric from which your essay will be scored.

Sample prompt A
Sample prompt B
Final exam rubric

Finally, you'll also find a sample essay. It's for the 1A exam, but obviously the goals are the same.

Sample 1A prompt
Sample 1A essay

Week Ten: Mendocino

Russian Gulch State Park

Talk to me of Mendocino.
Closing my eyes I hear the sea.
Must I wait?
Must I follow?
Won't you say come with me?

—Linda Ronstadt, "Talk to Me of Mendocino"

Week 10
M 8.9
IN-CLASS
Writers workshop; Final exam prep

DUE  

Research paper, pages 1-8 (Bring 3 copies)

W 8.11
IN-CLASS
Final Exam; Course review (Note: The final cannot be made up if missed. And you cannot pass the course if you miss the final.)

DUE
Research paper

Katy Perry Faces Demand to Pay Beach Boys for "California Gurls"

By Chris Willman, Yahoo! News
08.05.10

And she'll have fun, fun, fun, till her lawyers take the money away...?

"California Gurls" may be intended to evoke images of the cool Pacific Ocean surf, but Katy Perry may be in a hotter kind of water over her smash hit's homage to the Beach Boys' "California Girls." The latter song's writers, Brian Wilson and Mike Love, have both gone on record as being big fans of Perry's tune. But the company that owns the copyright on behalf of Love and Wilson, Rondor Music, is more interested in compensation than flattery.

Roncor has reportedly threatened to sue if Perry doesn't hand over royalties on her single, which has sold more than 3 million digital downloads, and tied a record by reaching that figure in just 11 short weeks. If Wilson and Love do end up getting a piece of that action, needless to say, they'll be able to buy themselves and their grandchildren a lifetime supply of Hawaiian shirts.

Perry has borrowed song titles before and not gotten in trouble for it. Her breakthrough hit was "I Kissed a Girl," which bore thematic as well as titular similarity to the Jill Sobule single of the same name. If anything, Perry would have seemed to be in less danger with "California Gurls," which bears no similarity to the Beach Boys' oldie beyond the title. Well, except for the line "I wish they all could be California girls," uttered late in the song as part of a seeming improv by guest rapper Snoop Dogg. As far as Rondor Music is concerned, that one borrowed lyric crosses the line from tribute to plagiarism.

The dispute went public in a big way today after a report in the New York Post publicized Rondor's threat to sue Perry. But any attentive Rolling Stone readers already knew that trouble was brewing, if they got past her barely-lingerie-clad cover shoot to the accompanying story. In the article, Perry seems to be saying she's taking Snoop Dogg's line off the album version of the track, due to a demand that Wilson and Love should get credit and compensation.

"As much as I want a Beach Boys credit on my album, we have to take it out," Perry says in the Rolling Stone article.

That's right: When Perry's sophomore album, Teenage Dream, comes out August 24, Snoop will no longer be heard wishing they all could be California girls. Which may make the copies of the song that have already been sold collectors' items--all 3 million of them.

One of her managers is quoted in the Rolling Stone piece as saying: "You want a Brian Wilson credit, not a Mike Love credit." She responds: "Well, you said it, not me."

It's possible those remarks put an end to Love's sense of being flattered. Just a few weeks ago, Love was quoted in the Los Angeles Times as saying: "I think she's really clever. We have a lot in common now: We both have done songs called 'California Girls' and we've both kissed girls and liked it...[It] obviously brings to mind our 'California Girls,' it's just in a different vernacular, a different way of appreciating the same things. The Beach Boys have always accentuated the positive, and hers is a positive message about California Girls, so what's not to like?" In Billboard magazine, Love even referenced the rap portion of the song, saying, "I think it's probably a stroke of genius to have the king of canine cool, Mr. Dogg, do his thing."

Wilson, for his part, also waxed appreciative to the L.A. Times, at the time. "I love her vocal," he told the paper. "She sounds very clear and energetic...The melody is infectious, and I'm flattered that Snoop Dogg used our lyric on the tag. I wish them well with this cut."

Rondor has reportedly said that it's taking the action on behalf of Wilson and Love, but the two Beach Boys (who continue to be professionally estranged from one another) both said through their reps that they have not initiated any of this action themselves.

Odds are that this will all be settled out of court, though we can amuse ourselves considered the possibilities for followup lawsuits. Maybe Perry could sue Snoop for bringing on this trouble with his overly referential lyric. Maybe Snoop could sue the marijuana industry for impairing his judgment.

And Perry has said that the "U" in "Gurls" is an homage to the '70s cult rock band Big Star, who introduced the misspelling into the pop vocabulary with their song "September Gurls." No word yet on whether the Alex Chilton estate plans to sue for its own cut of Perry's royalties.

What do you think, readers? Do Brian Wilson, Mike Love, and their publishing company deserve songwriting credit and a cut of Perry's royalties for Snoop's fleeting homage? If Perry goes broke because of it, will this put an even bigger dent in her already evidently limited clothes budget? And would that be a bad or good thing?

Ruling Against Prop. 8 Could Lead to Federal Precedent on Gay Marriage

Judge says the same-sex marriage ban was rooted in 'moral disapproval' and violates constitutional rights to equal protection and due process. Opponents vow to appeal all the way to the Supreme Court.
 
By Maura Dolan and Carol J. Williams, Los Angeles Times
08.04.10

A federal judge declared California's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional Wednesday, saying that no legitimate state interest justified treating gay and lesbian couples differently from others and that "moral disapproval" was not enough to save the voter-passed Proposition 8.

California "has no interest in differentiating between same-sex and opposite-sex unions," U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker said in his 136-page ruling.

The ruling was the first in the country to strike down a marriage ban on federal constitutional grounds. Previous cases have cited state constitutions.

Lawyers on both sides expect the ruling to be appealed and ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court during the next few years.

It is unclear whether California will conduct any same-sex weddings during that time. Walker stayed his ruling at least until Friday, when he will hold another hearing.

In striking down Proposition 8, Walker said the ban violated the federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection and of due process.

Previous court decisions have established that the ability to marry is a fundamental right that cannot be denied to people without a compelling rationale, Walker said. Proposition 8 violated that right and discriminated on the basis of both sex and sexual orientation in violation of the equal protection clause, he ruled.

The jurist, a Republican appointee who is gay, cited extensive evidence from the trial to support his finding that there was not a rational basis for excluding gays and lesbians from marriage. In particular, he rejected the argument advanced by supporters of Proposition 8 that children of opposite-sex couples fare better than children of same-sex couples, saying that expert testimony in the trial provided no support for that argument.

"The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples," Walker wrote.

Andy Pugno, a lawyer for the backers of the ballot measure, said he believed Walker would be overturned on appeal.

Walker's "invalidation of the votes of over 7 million Californians violates binding legal precedent and short-circuits the democratic process," Pugno said.

He called it "disturbing that the trial court, in order to strike down Prop. 8, has literally accused the majority of California voters of having ill and discriminatory intent when casting their votes for Prop. 8."

At least some legal experts said his lengthy recitation of the testimony could bolster his ruling during the appeals to come. Higher courts generally defer to trial judges' rulings on factual questions that stem from a trial, although they still could determine that he was wrong on the law.

John Eastman, a conservative scholar who supported Proposition 8, said Walker's analysis and detailed references to trial evidence were likely to persuade U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a swing vote on the high court, to rule in favor of same-sex marriage.

"I think Justice Kennedy is going to side with Judge Walker," said the former dean of Chapman University law school.

Barry McDonald, a constitutional law professor at Pepperdine University, said Walker's findings that homosexuality is a biological status instead of a voluntary choice, that children don't suffer harm when raised by same-sex couples and that Proposition 8 was based primarily on irrational fear of homosexuality "are going to make it more difficult for appellate courts to overturn this court's ruling."

Edward E. (Ned) Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic Conference, said he believed the judge's ruling was both legally and morally wrong.

"All public law and public policy is developed from some moral perspective, the morality that society judges is important," he said. To say that society shouldn't base its laws on moral views is "hard to even comprehend," he said.

In his decision, Walker said the evidence showed that "domestic partnerships exist solely to differentiate same-sex unions from marriage" and that marriage is "culturally superior."

He called the exclusion of same-couples from marriage "an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and marriage."

"That time has passed," he wrote.

Although sexual orientation deserves the constitutional protection given to race and gender, Proposition 8 would be unconstitutional even if gays and lesbians were afforded a lesser status, Walker said. His ruling stressed that there was no rational justification for banning gays from marriage.

To win a permanent stay pending appeal, Proposition 8 proponents must show that they are likely to prevail in the long run and that there would be irreparable harm if the ban is not enforced.

Lawyers for the two couples who challenged Proposition 8 said they were confident that higher courts would uphold Walker's ruling.

"We will fight hard so that the constitutional rights vindicated by the 138-page, very careful, thoughtful, analytical opinion by this judge will be brought into fruition as soon as possible," pledged Ted Olson, one of the lawyers in the case.

Other gay rights lawyers predicted that the ruling would change the tenor of the legal debate in the courts.

"This is a tour de force — a grand slam on every count," said Shannon Price Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights. "This is without a doubt a game-changing ruling."

Wednesday's ruling stemmed from a lawsuit filed last year by two homosexual couples who argued that the marriage ban violates their federal constitutional rights to equal protection and due process.

The suit was the brainchild of a gay political strategist in Los Angeles who formed a nonprofit to finance the litigation.

The group hired two legal luminaries from opposite sides of the political spectrum to try to overturn the ballot measure. Former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson, a conservative icon, signed on with litigator David Boies, a liberal who squared off against Olson in Bush vs. Gore, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that gave George W. Bush the presidency in 2000.

Gay-rights groups had opposed the lawsuit, fearful that the U.S. Supreme Court might rule against marriage rights and create a precedent that could take decades to overturn.

But after the suit was filed, gay rights lawyers flocked to support it, filing friend-of-court arguments on why Proposition 8 should be overturned.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown refused to defend the marriage ban, leaving the sponsors of the initiative to fill the vacuum. They hired a team of lawyers experienced in U.S. Supreme Court litigation.

Proposition 8 passed with a 52.3% vote six months after the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was permitted under the state Constitution.

At trial, the opponents of Prop. 8 presented witnesses who cited studies that showed children reared from birth by gay and lesbian couples do as well as children born into opposite-sex families. They also testified that the clamor for marriage in the gay community had given the institution of marriage greater esteem.

The trial appeared to be a lopsided show for the challengers, who called 16 witnesses, including researchers from the nation's top universities, and presented tearful testimony from gays and lesbians about why marriage mattered to them.

The backers of Proposition 8 called only two witnesses, and both made concessions under cross-examination that helped the other side.

The sponsors complained that Walker's pretrial rulings had been unfair and that some of their prospective witnesses decided not to testify out of fear for their safety.

When Walker ruled that he would broadcast portions of the trial on the Internet, Proposition 8 proponents fought him all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and won a 5-4 ruling barring cameras in the courtroom.

The trial nevertheless was widely covered, with some groups doing minute-by-minute blogging. Law professors brought their students to watch the top-notch legal theater.

An estimated 18,000 same-sex couples married in California during the months it was legal, and the state continues to recognize those marriages.

Experiencing California: The Egg & Sperm Ride

Minnesota artist Janeki Ranpura has organized the Egg & Sperm Ride. An Egg will be pedaled on a solo ride from Minneapolis to meet up with Sperm Riders, here in San Jose, for a parade. Ranpura is looking for riders in Silicon Valley willing to wear a glowing sperm helmet and ride in a parade during the 2010 biennial 01SJ festival.

If you are interested, and you will be in San Jose on Sept. 18th and 19th, email janaki@eggandspermride.org.

Annotated Bibliography Assignment

For this assignment, you will create an annotated bibliography that supports your research paper. in addition to citing your source, you will briefly:

1. Summarize the cited source (2-3 sentences)
2. Explain how you intend to use the source in your paper (2-3 sentences)

Be sure to strictly follow MLA works cited formatting style (MLA examples can be found here). Find a sample annotated bibliography here.

Example:

Hibbs, Jay. Skinny at Any Cost: America Obsessed. New York City: Lowell Books, 2006.

Skinny at Any Cost is an analysis of the American dieting industry's stranglehold on consumers. It examines the techniques the industry uses to convince American women, and increasingly men, that perfection awaits them through a variety of dieting procedures and plans. I intend on using the book to support my thesis that the dieting industry actually impedes Americans from maintaining healthy lifestyles. Specifically, I will cite from the chapter on health care to illustrate the ways in which the industry endorses unhealthy practices.

Requirements:

• MLA format
• Minimum of 6 outside sources (do not count Wikipedia as a source), listed in a works cited page

Due: Wednesday, August 4th

He Lit Oakland's Fire for Pot Factories

Retired builder Jeff Wilcox's vision of a 'business park of cannabis' stoked the council's appetite for the jobs, and tax revenue, such a thing could generate for the desperate city.

By John Hoeffel, Los Angeles Times
08.02.10

Jeff Wilcox lopes across the nearly empty parking lot, aiming for a large brick building. Inside, he excitedly shows off the cavernous space, once used to make wire, vacant now for a decade. He imagines it running 24/7, filled with glowing lights, gurgling irrigation systems, whirling ventilators and workers coaxing thousands of pungent marijuana plants to bud.

And that's just one part of his proposal. Wilcox, a retired builder, owns a campus of aging, idled industrial plants. On a wall in an unused conference room, a sketch of the property shows how he could fill most of the 172,000 square feet with growers raising high-end pot and entrepreneurs turning out brownies, drinks, tinctures and other products.

"My idea was a business park of cannabis," he said.

He sold the idea to Oakland's City Council. Desperate for new jobs and tax revenue, the council gave its final approval last month to allow four enormous marijuana factory farms. Wilcox and more than 220 others have expressed interest in applying for the permits to be awarded next year.

The city's audacious plan has inspired talk that Oakland could become the Silicon Valley of pot, home to the world's first state-of-the-art marijuana start-ups.

Comparing the economic potential of tetrahydrocannabinol to silicon chips may seem far-fetched. Some observers dismiss the notion as the fever dream of budget-traumatized politicians. But others think Oakland could be uniquely positioned to capitalize on the business opportunities created by the growing tolerance toward marijuana.

Rebecca Kaplan, the City Council member who pushed the plan, has a simple retort when asked whether the vision of Oakland at the center of a marijuana economy is fanciful: Montel Williams. The television talk-show host and motivational coach has multiple sclerosis, smokes marijuana to relieve nerve pain and has visited Kaplan, as she put it, "live in City Hall."

"He has wanted for years to open up a facility where he could produce really high-end medical cannabis extracts," she said, explaining that Williams heard through the grapevine that Oakland was the place to do it. "I would love to have Montel Williams here running a business." Williams could not be reached for comment.

Kaplan said she believed that Oakland has two essential ingredients other California cities do not: political will and industrial space. "Oakland has been a major hub of the medical cannabis movement, so that's part of what I mean when I say political will," she said.

No other city has provided such red-carpet treatment. Oakland is essentially trying to set up legal sanctuaries for pot businesses, although the move may prove too brazen for federal narcotics agents who recently called city officials to request a copy of the ordinance.

Only Berkeley, its liberal neighbor, has considered anything similar. The city will ask voters to approve six marijuana operations no larger than 30,000 square feet. But Oakland has 10 times the available industrial space, about 2.3 million square feet, and it rents for half the price.

Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates said Oakland's stock of empty industrial buildings could make it a "major player."

"Oakland is trying to become the growing mecca of the north," he said.

Jeff Jones, who founded Oakland's first cannabis club, noted that the bayside city has another advantage. "Oakland is not Holland, it's not Amsterdam; it's more like Rotterdam. It's going to be a hub for transport," he predicted. "I can imagine walking into Holland's coffee shops and finding a strain of cannabis marketed as made in California."

There are skeptics. "I think it's a big stretch," said Larry Tramutola, a political consultant who lives in Oakland. He said marijuana could have a long-term economic effect on the city but thought it would be minor. "I don't think it's going to solve all the budgetary issues," he said.

Even Dale Gieringer, an Oakland resident who as the head of California NORML advocates for marijuana legalization, has doubts. He noted that state law blunts the get-rich-overnight incentive that powers Silicon Valley. Only nonprofit collectives are allowed to grow pot.

But Oakland, like Silicon Valley, has been fertile ground for entrepreneurs and innovative thinkers, luring them from all over. Jones is from South Dakota. Richard Lee, who started the first trade school to train marijuana businessmen, moved from Texas. Steve DeAngelo, who came from Washington, D.C., runs Harborside Health Center, a $20-million-a-year dispensary that has become the largest and arguably the most professionally run marijuana retailer in the world.

"As we get closer and closer to legal cannabis, more and more new players are going to want to get into cannabis," DeAngelo said. "I think it's a sign that this industry is emerging out of the shadows and into the light, and we are gaining acceptance among mainstream figures."

Wilcox is one of those mainstream figures. He says he started smoking pot when he was 15 and now uses it medicinally for back pain, but the 50-year-old single father with three teenagers is strait-laced. He sold his construction firm five years ago and retired. But he was bored. He didn't see marijuana as a business opportunity until DeAngelo approached him about growing in his buildings, which are next to Harborside.

"I don't look like a pothead, obviously," he said, "and I struggled with the moral issues for a while, security issues, everything else; and then I decided I wanted to do something with my life."

Now he is Oakland's equivalent of a Sand Hill Road venture capitalist and a tilt-up office developer rolled into one. He has money, connections and 7.4 acres off Interstate 880.

Wilcox, who knows his way around City Hall after two decades as a major contractor, approached the idea shrewdly. He set up a company called AgraMed and spent $16,000 to study its economic potential. The 68-page report concluded that he could sell marijuana worth $59 million a year. With a 5% pot tax that the City Council decided last week to put on the November ballot, Wilcox's operation could pay Oakland $3.4 million a year in taxes. "We did this to move the legislation," he said.

He also sought help from Dan Rush, a local labor leader with City Hall clout, and promised to hire hundreds of union workers. He reached out to Lee, who is well-regarded at City Hall. He donated $20,000 to the legalization initiative that Lee is backing in November. He hired a lobbyist. He made a few modest political donations.

And he made it known that he was willing to spend $20 million to convert his buildings into an incubator for marijuana businesses. "It's just such a mind-boggling thing. It makes you speechless," said Arturo Sanchez, who oversees the city's medical marijuana programs.

Wilcox won over City Council members despite intense opposition from some marijuana activists and growers who supply the Oakland market. Wilcox, who cheerfully acknowledges he enjoys a good brawl, boasts that he won the turf war.

"There was a transfer of power," he said. "In essence, you could say big business is here."

Week Nine: Santa Cruz

Cowell's Beach

Oh, you gotta be, oh, you gotta be
still living by the sea.
Oh, you gotta be, oh, you gotta be.
'Cause Santa Cruz you're not that far.
Oh, Santa Cruz, no, you're not that far.

—The Thrills, "Santa Cruz (You're Not That Far)"

Week 9
M 8.2
READ
MC: “Transients in Paradise” by Aimee Lu, “The Last Little Beach Town” by Edward Humes, “Bienvenidos a Newport Beach” by Firoozeh Dumas, “Berkeley” by Michael Chabon, “The Line” by Ruben Martinez, “Flirting with Urbanismo” by Patt Morrison, “My Little Saigon” by Ahn Do, “The Nicest Person in San Francisco” by Derek Powaze, “The Un-California” by Daniel Weintraub; MANY: “Los Angles Notebook” by Joan Didion, “Wildflowers” by David Mas Masumoto; eR: “What is San Francisco?” by Herb Caen, “Pink Elephant Hunting” by Gary Singh

IN-CLASS
Reading discussion; Presentations; Preview—Personal essay

DUE
Annotated bibliography (Note: Since I've had computer issues the past week, I'll take this on Wednesday, as well.)

W 8.4
IN-CLASS
Personal essay; Writers workshop

DUE
Research paper, pages 1-4 (Bring 3 copies)

UPCOMING:

Week 10
M 8.9
IN-CLASS
Writers workshop; Final exam prep

DUE  

Research paper, pages 1-8 (Bring 3 copies)

W 8.11
IN-CLASS
Final Exam; Course review

DUE
Research paper