As I've noted here, every once in a while I get burned out writing about Trump and am happy to let others jump in and carry the ball for a few days.  There are more than enough falling over themselves to chime in online, not to mention investigate (both in the judicial system and journalism) and report it all, so we're in good hands -- as the batteries recharge.

So, today instead I'll bring up something benign and of most worth locally, but which I've wanted to write about for a while, and this is as good a chance as any.

When I moved into my new home 2-1/2 months ago, a couple of things made me wary about the front door.  The first is that while it had a great lock with a wonderful "snap" (that I love), it didn't seem to lock smoothly, which struck me as pretty important.  Also, the door was set in a way that it swings closed and does so very fast, and then locks.  As sure as the sun rises, I was absolutely certain I would lock myself out at some point.  So, I made more spare keeps than usual and gave them to as many friends who live close by as possible.

The other day, the hinky front door got hinkier, and it became difficult to unlock.  Not a good thing.  Actually, it did unlock fine, just not smoothly, it became a two-handed job where you have to grab the handle and pull the door towards you, and turn the key at the same time.  (I'm mentioned the door issue before closing escrow, but the inspector didn't seem to thing it was worth noting.  Like a few other things I've had to repair.)

Though the door was passably okay, I thought it best to deal with it now, rather than later.  And checked out Angie's List, which I haven't used much, but have had very good luck the couple times I have.  And chalk up yet another.

If you live in Los Angeles, the fellow is David Leiderman at D Locks.  Though he's based in the Valley, he'll go all over -- and as it happens, when I called he was in Santa Monica about 10 minutes away, and had just finished up his prior job.  So, great timing.  

He showed up fast, was very personable, explained everything well and in detail, has a great and wry sense of humor, and got it all fixed quickly and properly, at a very reasonable price.  But the best thing is that I explained that I had another door issue -- that swinging shut fast thing.  And even though it wasn't really a locksmith matter, other than the door locks when it closes, I said I wanted to at least mention it.  And I'm glad I did, because it turned out he knew the issue and was able fixed it and in only about five minutes.  At no charge.

(I had an odd moment a couple weeks later, when the lock wouldn't turn without much difficulty.  David was very responsive, thought it was a minor, understandable issue that was explainable (short version, he thought it might be weather-related and described what why) but had an employee call me a few days later when he was in the area to come over.  I wasn't going to be in then, so we put it off -- and the matter hasn't cropped up again in the past month.  And all seems well.)

So, I now know of a very good locksmith if I need one.  My only quibble is that he doesn't take credit cards, but that's not a deal-breaker.  The wonderful service is what matters.  And I like too that he's a licensed locksmith.  So, if you're in L.A. and want to add a locksmith to your list of Home Service People to Call When In Need, you can find his website here, or call 818-209-0973.  Or write David@Dlocks.net.  Actually, it's worth checking out his website anyway, even if you don't need a locksmith right now or live in another city -- that's because he has a very information FAQ section with things to know about problematic locks and ways you might be able to fix some basic things on your own.

I've written about a few such business near me who provide great service at fair prices -- I write letters of complaint all the time, and I always figure that if I'm going to complain when things go wrong, I have a responsibility to praise those who do things right.  So, I'm very happy to add one more to the book...

The Wallis is a wonderful theater, and very good venue for the show.  When I saw it back in Glencoe, it was a jewel box of a theater done almost in the round, which is an ideal setting, though one few places can duplicate.  But the Wallis has an intimate feel to it, and should be a wonderful spot for the show.

This isn’t a “You should consider going if you live in Los Angeles" recommendation.  This is a “If you don’t go you will be doing yourself and your loved ones who you should go with a disservice.”  It’s not that I can swear you and Stella absolutely will LOOOOOVE the play.  I think most people will, but it’s an offbeat folk tale, so who knows.  But I know it's borderline impossible to no greatly appreciate the tremendous theatricality AND (most importantly) this isn’t a play you can see any time, some day in the futurein a revival.  It’s unlikely anyone else will ever do this show, it’s the PigPen Theater Company or nothing, and I don’t know if you’ll ever get the chance.

The show is unique and superbly, joyously done.  And it’s a joy for adults and kids.  This is not a “kids show.”)  When I saw it, the audience was probably 90% adults.  And they were enthralled.

You can get a link for tickets here.

Just get tickets.  Now, when you've finished reading this.  Do yourself a favor.  Because you likely won't get a chance to see it again.
  
And here is that original article I wrote about the show back in 2013 (before the Writers Theatre had built its new, impressive theater center with two stages and an auxiliary arena).  It includes a couple of videos from that 2013 intimate production -- neither of which, as I said, will give you a full sense of the show.  But it's close enough.

Back in May, I wrote here about going to Topanga Banjo & Fiddle Contest.  I've written about it several times, and have been going to it for over 25 years.  Not every year, but often, dating back to when they held it at UCLA on the athletic field.

It's grown significantly, and moved around, but they finally found a wonderful home several years back at the Paramount Ranch, which is where a lot of TV shows and movies have been filmed (most notably, perhaps, Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman).  In addition to the gorgeous local in the middle of the forest, there's a Western village built there for use in filming, which is far more substantially built than most movie sets.

Or was, I should say.  I was looking at a map of the Woolsey wildfire last night, and Paramount Ranch looks smack in the middle of it.  I have friends who live reasonably close by, but on the outskirts enough that at last report their home was fine, though they had to get evacuated, and a neighbor only a street away lost their home.

​But I can't imagine Paramount Ranch surviving.  Beyond it being all wood, it looks to be at Ground Zero.

I have no idea if they'll rebuild.  On the one hand, there isn't all that much to build, it's just a collection of a random structures of a Western town that aren't much more then shell.  And it's a great site for location filming.  On the other hand, since so much of the woods around it will be destroyed, the environs won't be as lush.  It will come back -- when I worked at Will Rogers State Historic Park, and the Topanga Fire burned much of the grounds (though the ranch house and barn and other facilities were save), the greenery was back within a year.  Not as thick and vibrant, but there was a foundation -- though not immediately.  And I don't know if there's enough filming to justify it.

I also don't know what the plans will be for the Banjo & Fiddle Contest.  They could certainly still hold it there.  But there won't be all the structures where they held various contests, nor so much of the surrounding greenery. (Though some may be back.)  That said, there were a lot of years when the festival was at places there were no more than big athletic fields, so they might stay -- particularly since the grounds are so vast, which would still allow them to put up their own makeshift stages.

Sad as it is, in the end, the structure there are just shells.  It's a wonderful locale, but they aren't homes.  It's the 250,000 people who've had to evacuate, the very real towns that have been wiped out, and the 48 people who thus far have died that are the tragedy.

May the winds die down soon and bring the fires to an end.

As you may have read -- or seen on the news -- today was the day the folks were once again mobilized to gather across the country to show support for protecting Robert Mueller and his investigation, and protest Trump's action of firing Jeff Sessions.  (That latter phrase is still one I have a difficult time typing without being amazed at the turns life takes.)  At five o'clock local time in whatever city one lived in, organizations sprouted up to get people together.

I decided to go, because what the heck it seemed like a proper deal.  Driving there I was trying to remember the ones of these I'd gone to, and I think we're up to five.  I'm not a sign carrier, but I do want to lend my support. 

I'd seen some footage in New York of their protest, and it looked like a pretty good turnout in Times Square.  The one here in West L.A., at the Federal building in Westwood wasn't as impressive.  I heard someone say 200-300 people, but I think that upper end was his heart speaking.  It looked closer to 150-200 to me, 

In fairness, there were still some people arriving when I left.  I stayed for about half an hour, though because there were no speakers, and no marching, and it was just standing around holding signs and trying to get cars to honk, and I didn't have a sign (which as I said is my thing...), and the signs that were there were pretty thin and uninteresting -- I'm guessing the most-creative folks stayed home, and were saving their gems for the next major event -- I didn't feel like staying around any longer.  I did get one chuckle:  when I arrived, I passed a van in the parking lot, and the couple looked like they were preparing their signs.  As I was leaving, a half hour later, they were still there, preparing their signs.  Though the signs looked well-prepared.  In fact, they sort of looking pretty prepared when I had arrived.

In additional fairness, this may not have been the only protest in Los Angeles.  I may have gotten my text message alert because I had long-ago signed up for the West L.A. area.  It's possible -- and I suspect likely, as I think about it -- that there not only were other similar protest groups around the city, but a big one in downtown L.A.

Although this song isn't directly appropriate for the occasion, it overlaps enough so I figure I'd toss in a bit of entertainment.  This is Tom Lehrer from his great album, That Was the Year That Was, with his song about protests, "Folk Song Army."

This morning, I headed to Downtown Los Angeles to join the masses in protest outside City Hall.  Speeches and entertainers were scheduled, before a march to the Federal Building.

The crowd was huge, and the speeches impassioned.  Honestly, I thought the event last week in Westwood was far better, even if overwhelmingly smaller.  The speakers were particularly good -- three congressmen (including famously now, Maxine Waters) and a lot of local and state officials.  They talked about what could be done and what was being done -- and there even were busses for taking blankets and toys and necessities down to San Diego detention centers.

The speeches Downtown were mostly telling us what was bad and terrible and horrific about Trump and his administration and this action separating children from their parents, along with a lot of immigration stories about themselves, including one young woman who was undocumented and told about her mother and father bringing their family to California.  To be clear, those speeches are incredibly valuable in building up emotion and support for unity.  But for me, speaking only personally, I didn't need convincing.

I have no idea exactly how many people turned out there, though the Los Angeles Times reports "tens of thousands."  MoveOn.org says 70,000.  (This appears to have been the biggest in the country.  They report Washington, D.C. and New York as each other 35,000.  And Chicago at 60,000.)  The crowds stretched in all directions -- this above is just looking at the rear.  And when I left after 90 minutes, people were still arriving on the Metro trains with signs.

I did leave before the march, which is actually the main thing I was looking forward to.  But after 90 minutes of speeches, I had no idea when the march would begin.  And since I was pretty much convinced at that point that putting babies in cages was a sick way for the government or humans to act, I took off, knowing that there was a flowing mass of outraged, motivated people shouting their anger still as loudly as when it all began.

​And everyone was absolutely civil.  Just really, really, incredibly furious.
​

You likely have seen some this video on the news the past two days, Rep. Maxine Waters talking bluntly about dealing with the enablers of the Trump administration.  This actually comes from the rally that I wrote here about going to the other day.  (That's Wilshire Blvd. behind her and the 405 San Diego Freeway.)

I know her blistering comments have been a bit controversial for her bluntness -- but that should come as no shock to readers of these pages, since I described her speech as how she "gave a fire-and-brimstone speech shredding the president."  So, at least there's video proof that I wasn't lying.

(The short version -- she laid out the case of the dangers of Trump and his administration, and then using that as a foundation said that GOP officials should be confronted peacefully and publicly shamed to let them know their actions are not acceptable.  There's no mention in the slightest of violence, but rather just that people should use their voices.  Indeed, I didn't mention her words of even peaceful confrontation in my original article, because it was such a small part of what she actually said.)

I'm not fully-decided if I agree 100% with what she says her -- though I may, and am leaning more for that -- but the larger point is that her speech went on much longer than just the minute which made the air, about another five minutes, and I have that full speech here, which you'll see was terrific in dealing specifically with the problems that Trump and Jeff Sessions and the administration has caused.  That's what her fury was about.

And as a bonus just for watching -- you get to see my friend Nick Melvoin, the L.A. School Board Vice President, in the background.  He's most clear coming in around the 5:25 mark.  Nick is the young man in the back to Rep. Waters' right, wearing the black jacket and light blue shirt vigorously...er, sending text messages.  But as you'll note, he does eventually stop.  Hey, he's the VP, he's a busy guy.  Sometimes, a man's got to text...

Though next week is when the big protests rallies are scheduled around the country over the Trump immigration policy that separates children from there parents, they had an earlier, smaller one today in West Los Angeles.  There might have been a few others around the country, but the point of this one was a bit different, initially set up as a way to get toys, blankets and necessities to the children.  Despite the short time organizing it and small locality, the turnout was quite good.  It seemed like about 500-700 people, but there were still many coming when I left after an hour-and-a-half.

It was supposed to be held at the Federal Building in Westwood, but a speaker said they couldn't get permission from the government.  However, the City of Los Angeles gave them approval to organize on the sidewalk next to it.  (Come to think of it, that might be why there was a young woman with a sign imploring people to keep on the paths.  It made no sense, since the grounds were basically dirt, and so it wasn't like you would be trampling grass.)
​

I was told about the event by my friend Nick Melvoin, who was recently elected to the L.A. School Board and was named Vice President.  He was one of the speakers, but the roster was impressive for such a hastily put-together event.  There were a couple of members of the L.A. City Council, the state senator and assemblyman, and also the two U.S. House representative for the area -- Rep. Karen Bass, and Rep. Ted Lieu (who you might have seen on Friday playing the audio tape on the House floor of crying children, being reprimanded by the temporary Sitting-Speaker).  I didn't stay around to hear them, but did hear another congresswoman, Rep. Maxine Waters, who gave a fire-and-brimstone speech shredding the president.  Not a bad line-up for something this quickly organized.

[UPDATE: Here's video of Maxine Waters' full six-minute speech, not just the one-minute played on TV and misrepresented by Republicans.  Short version -- she laid out the case of the dangers of Trump and his administration, and then using that as a foundation said that GOP officials should be confronted peacefully and publicly shamed to let them know their actions are not acceptable.  Not violence, but to use your voices.  As you'll see from above, her words of even peaceful confrontation aren't even mentioned by me in my original write-up, it was such a small part of what she actually said.]

There were more speakers during the 90 minutes I was there -- with another hour-and-a-half to go), including a representative of the Southern Christian Leadership Council (Martin Luther King's group), other religious figures, and a few celebrities and entertainers, most notably Kristen Bell.

Yes, yes, I know.  You were hoping for a picture of Nick Melvoin.  But sometimes we have to make decisions that might not be popular.

She actually gave a very good, thoughtful speech, mostly focusing on kids from her perspective as a mother.  (So many questions that children ask, she said, you can't answer, like "Do dinosaurs burp?"  But when they're older and see pictures in history books of this moment, and they ask, "Was this real??  Did you do anything?", that was a question we should all be able to answer "Yes.")

Side note:  about 45 minutes later when she eventually left, some people near me saw her heading off at a distance and called to her for a selfie with their toddler.  She wandered over and not only took a picture with the baby, but spent time talking with it.

There was an odd realization that hit me after about an hour or so.  The event was well-attended with people of all ages, from quite a bit older to parents and their kids, some being very young, along with areas for children to make signs.  And as I was looking around at some of the six-year-olds (and younger) playing on the ground and hugging onto their mothers and sitting on their dad's shoulders -- it struck me how terrified they'd be if they lost sight of their parents for just two minutes.  I couldn't imagine their reaction of their parents were gone -- just gone, for days and weeks.  If not longer.  The perspective was visceral and heart-breaking.  And sickening.

Fortunately, that wasn't an issue for anyone there.  And the spirit and anger was strong.  What I didn't know, though, until I got to the grounds was the larger purpose of the event.  As I noted above, they were gather items for the children who had been put in detention centers in San Diego, three hours to the south.  It turns out that they had also hired several buses to take as much of the material as they could -- they said they got 10 times more than they expected and were asking for people there with trucks -- and also bring people down to deliver it all and to try and get into some facilities.  Had I known in advance, I might have tried to go along, but I wasn't prepared for what they said would be an 11-hour journey.

All in all, a very well-done, admirable and sadly necessary day.  It'll be interesting to see what happens next week in Los Angeles and around the country.

​And oh, okay, giving in to popular demand, here's a photo of Nick Melvoin...

A month or so ago, I wrote here about an upcoming production of Shakespeare's Henry IV put on by the Shakespeare Center of Los Angeles -- and how most notable about it was that making his Los Angeles stage debut, playing the role of Falstaff, was...Tom Hanks.  Well, I got my tickets the moment I found out about the show, and last night was the night I went.

I'm not going to give a full review of the evening, but rather some general observations and a few comments.  But first things first, which is pretty much the only thing people have wanted to know.  So, to get that out of the way --

It was great.  Extremely well done.  And Hanks was…spectacular.  Let's do a thought experiment:  picture in your mind Tom Hanks doing the flamboyant, drunken braggart Falstaff as well as you could hope possible.  That’s pretty much what you got.  It wasn’t a star turn, it was a performance.  Full of bravado, but also great subtlety.  And generous, not hogging the stage but letting the other actors lead the scene when it was theirs to do so.  Not upstaging anyone so that actors speaking had to turn to him for all the attention, but often going downstage himself with his back to the audience to allow the others their full due.  But he had plenty of time in the limelight because that's what the role calls for.  And in one of the quieter moments, his soliloquy about honor was an absolute gem.  Indeed, he played the fat suit SO believably, struggling up stairs all night and lumbering around the stage, often fighting for breath, that you didn't see it as a gimmick, but felt his exhaustive weight.
​ 

(Photo credit:  Craig Schwartz)

To be clear, I've seen four major reviews of the show, and they all agreed, among them the Los Angeles Times.  All were raves.  The Times review even began by saying that this was a production that could have gone very wrong -- not just because it was largely actors not known for doing Shakespeare, but also because of how the production edited together both Henry IV plays (Part 1 and Part 2) and trimmed the text from what would have been six hours to 3-1/4 hours -- but that it all worked and wonderfully.

It was also a great venue – outdoors in the Japanese Garden of the West Los Angeles V.A. ground, fairly intimate, seating for only about 600, but (being in a wooded area) you had an actual forest behind the stage which they used to its fullest, particularly for all the battle scenes.  So, it was intimate, yet with great expanse.

And it's not just Hanks, but the show has a good supporting cast and high-end director, Daniel Sullivan who has seven Tony Award nominations, winning for the original production of Proof -- and has directed 10 productions for the New York Public Theatre's  Shakespeare in the Park.  The cast included Hamish Linklater as Prince Hal, who's done quite a bit of Shakespeare, and been in the films The Big Short, Battleship, 42, and A Midsummer Night's Dream, as well a regular on such TV series as Fargo, Legion, and HBO's The Newsroom.  Also Joe Morton who played King Henry IV, a regular on the series Scandal, Eureka and Proof, and a semi-regular on The Good Wife, as well as in such movies as Speed and Terminator 2.  And a personal favorite, the wonderful Harry Groener, with a long career as a character actor on TV and film (you'd know him instantly), and lots of Broadway credits, and who readers of these pages may recall starred in a world premiere play in Los Angeles I wrote about here, the very dark satire Vicuña, by Jon Robin Baitz (playing the lead character loosely based on Donald Trump running for president -- one of the most bizarre nights I've every had in the theater, seeing it the night after Trump won the 2016 election.)

The performances throughout Henry IV were all strong -- some excellent, though a few didn't bowl me over.  I thought Joe Morton was a bit stilted, though he brought much substance and presence to the role, which is critical when you're playing the title character King of England.  And Hamish Linklater gave a slightly moodier interpretation as Hal than is usual, but it generally worked well.  Harry Groener was great in a dual role -- Henry Percy (the leader of the rebellion, father of Hotspur) and the befuddled comic character Justice Shallow.  I also thought Jeff Marlow was standout as the Archbishop and Sir Walter Blunt.  (As you can probably figure, there was a lot of doubling up.)  And Rondi Reed was exuberant as Mistress Quickly.

As I mentioned, the show puts together an edited version of the two Shakespeare plays, adapted by director Sullivan.  Perhaps if you're a Shakespeare aficionado or purist, that might be sacrilegious, but it seemed to work well.  Part 2 pales a bit to Part 1 when seen together, and probably is better standalone -- it's more elegiac and thoughtful, compared to the adventurous, plot-driven and more-comic Part 1.   But put together, it seems to make for a richer evening.  What I'm curious about is if the adaptation was done for theatrical reasons, or if it allowed them to tell the Falstaff story more fully, which ultimately let them use Tom Hanks to a far-greater extent than if Henry IV, Part 1 had been done alone.

Sullivan also does something small, but very smart with the staging.  Because everyone knows the reason why they're all there, who the audience has come to see, but Falstaff doesn't appear right away, it was likely that the audience would be antsy and not be paying close attention until Hanks finally shows up, risking the distracting of "When will Tom Hanks be onstage??" throwing the balance of the evening off.  So, what they've done is have Falstaff rumble out on the empty stage first, alone, and struggle to get into a chair.  (It's an amusing bit of stage business.)  And then suddenly, with a WHACK, he slams down his mug and begins to sing -- and the ensemble offstage joins in with the madrigal, walking onto the stage as he keeps pounding the mug in relentless rhythm.  The song ends, they all stroll off, the audience is Hanks-satisfied, the mood is wonderfully set, and the play begins.

One thing separate from the show itself that I simply can't fully explain is why there were still empty seats.  Not many, but that there were any is bewildering.  In fact, there still are seats left for the rest of the run, in case you live in L.A. and are interested.  (You can check out availability here.)  After all, this is Tom Hanks -- as Falstaff -- in a limited, one-month run -- in an intimate venue -- and it got rave reviews.  Ticket prices are admittedly high (in part, I think because Hanks and his wife Rita Wilson are on the board of directors of the Shakespeare Center, and one of several reasons he may be doing this is as a fundraiser).  But if this was in New York City, and they took out an 1/8-page ad in the "Arts & Leisure" section of the New York Times that Tom Hanks would be appearing as Falstaff in a one-month run of Henry IV, tickets would be gone in three hours.  Everyone I've mentioned this to from New York agrees.  Part of the reason for ticket availability, too, is...well, that's Los Angeles.  People here are not as into theater, and they also wait for reviews.  (Though ticket sales were solid before the opening, there was still far more availability than was sane.  However, the reviews clearly have helped almost fill it up.  But "almost" is so bizarre to me.)
 
But again, having said all this, let me repeat -- Hanks was great. 
​

The good folks at the Nook bistro are back.  As I noted the other day here, their newsletter had a pointed, somewhat-subtle, but funny political description for one of their promotions.  I just got the latest newsletter.  The Subject line was -- "Alienate Your Allies All Night Long" and some of the text was the following:

Tomorrow is the California Primary.  So, this here will be of next-to-little interest to anyone who doesn't live in California.  And for all I know, it may even be of no interest to people here either.  But if you fall into the, "Hmm, I'm moderately curious what the lummox has to say about this," read on, McDuff.

Mainly, I largely repeat what I've said in the past, though with one day before the voting, it's a topic more on one's mind today (unless you voted by mail, which I did...)  Plus, a few words about another race you might likely ignore.

First, though, I want to address that recurring topic --

California has an idiotic law, the open primary.  Parties don't matter.  Whichever candidates get the two-most votes, they move on to the November ballot.  (Even though this tends to benefit Democrats in a Blue state like California, I still think it's an idiotic rule.)  As I've previously noted, with this law in mind, it's possible that Democrats could get the two candidates in both the highest-profile races -- governor and the U.S. Senate.  And if that occurs, such a result could drastically depress Republican turnout in the general election...which, in turn, could seriously impact all the other state races, most notably races for the U.S. House of Representatives, for which Democrats need to flip only 24 seats.

I've particularly mentioned the Senate race in the past because, for a while, it appeared that a neo-Nazi was the leading Republican candidate and in second place.  However, as more news of his views have been made public, and other polls have come forth, it looks like his candidacy has plummeted off the ledge, barely registering.  That's not certain -- the polls are all over the map -- but he doesn't appear to be a factor at this point. (Whether that's the case, we'll find out.)  

However, another Republican, James Bradley, has seemingly jumped into second place, a few points ahead of the the #2 Democrat, Kevin De Leon, the liberal President Pro Tem of the state senate.  Or some polls have him a few points behind -- as I said, the polls are all over the map, so it's uncertain the place of things.  What's not uncertain is that the race for this second spot is very close.  Not for first place -- incumbent Sen. Dianne Feinstein will win, and win handily.  She's up by between 20-30 points, leaving everyone in the dust.  And she'll win in November.  But -- that's where that whole "two Democrats on the ballot" thing comes into play, if De Leon can pick up even just 3-4 points.  And that's why I've been recommending to people that if they were planning on voting for Feinstein in the Primary, they should vote instead for De Leon.  She's still going win and win handily, but just a small shift of votes from her to fellow-Democrat De Leon could alter the field.  And having Feinstein and De Leon on the November ballot could potentially make a significant difference throughout the state in November.  (For that matter, liberal Democrats might even prefer De Leon.)

By the way, the fact that a neo-Nazi ever had noticeable polling in the Republican Party -- in any state, but especially California -- speaks volumes of the pathetic condition of today's GOP.  But happily, that ship here has seemingly righted itself.

I have no recommendations in the governors race, but it's an interesting situation.  For a long while, it looked like that was clearly going to be a two-Democrat race, between Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and former Los Angeles Mayor Anthony Villaraigosa, putting them both on the November ballot.  That's now not certain.  Newsom does seem to be safely in the lead, but Villaraigosa appears to have dropped to third place, behind Republican John Cox.  The uncertainty is that whole, "the polls are all over the map."  Some polls have Villaraigosa neck-and-neck with Cox, just a few points behind.  But other have him as far back as in fourth place behind Gavin Newsom and two Republicans.  So, I don't have a clue what's going on there.  We'll see.

So, there may be both a Democrat and Republican on the November ballot for governor and U.S. Senate.  Or two Democrats in one race, but not the other.  Or in both.  No idea.  The only thing I know is that it would be a good idea for Democrats to vote for Kevin De Leon for U.S. Senate in the Primary, even if they had been planning to vote for Dianne Feinstein.  She's still going to finish first, she's that far ahead.  But just a small switch could push him to second.

And that brings me to the other race.  One for State Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Like most people in California, I know absolutely nothing about the race for State Superintendent of Public Instruction, nor about the candidates.  But I do know Martha Melvoin and trust her implicitly.  So, when she sends me a note -- okay, a bulk email, but still, I'm sure she'd tell me in person, too -- that she recommends voting for Marshall Tuck in that race, I pay attention.  She also makes a good point when she notes that just a very few votes could make a huge difference since, as she noted, "this is one of those offices that people often leave blank because they don't know whom to vote for."

I've mentioned Martha here a few times, though more her TV-writer husband Jeff, and a few times their son Nick, who is currently Vice President of the L.A. School Board.  But deeply well-grounded as the latter two fellows are, Martha is the one you pay most attention to when she speaks, just on general principle.  So, I'll hand over the floor to her and let her explain herself --
 
"I met Marshall when he ran for the office 4 years ago and was so impressed with his commitment to improving public education.  He has been an inspiration to, and a supporter of, Nick and I know he will work in Sacramento for the same things that Nick has been working so hard for: increased funding for our public schools, eliminating the bureaucratic nightmare that is much of the state education code, and making sure that California's school children are well prepared for a bright future.  Marshall left the private sector to devote his energy and talents to improving education and he will work tirelessly in Sacramento to do so."  

But mainly, I find her most-compelling argument when she writes, "Having him in Sacramento will also make Nick's job easier and his mother will be grateful!"