From Arianna Huffington:

We've seen the exit polls. We've read the unequivocal quotes. Many women who are avowed Hillary Clinton supporters are declaring they won't vote for Barack Obama in the fall. I get the anger and the disappointment. But to quote SNL's Amy Poehler and Seth Meyers: Really? You'd rather vote for John McCain, a man who has a 25-year history of voting against a woman's right to choose? A man who over the last eight years that NARAL has released a pro-choice scorecard has received a 0 percent rating? A man whose campaign website says he believes Roe v. Wade "must be overturned"? A man who has vowed that, as president, he will be "a loyal and unswerving friend of the right to life movement"? Really?

Gillian Parrillo
SacWomen.com

Posted by Gillian Parrillo at 7:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Today Pierre and I went to a local arena where multiple high school graduations were being held throughout the day. We thought that there was one more thing these graduates needed to do on their awesome day - register to vote.

We arrived with clipboards and pens and forms and we got busy. We registered young graduates and family members and friends and anyone else we could. We were excited to watch the parents encourage their kids to sign up.

It was exhilarating, sharing this special day with these beacons of the future. Many of these kids came from very poor neighborhoods. The fact that they had persevered to graduate is celebration enough. But now they are even more empowered. They are voters!

And more ceremonies to come next week.

Gillian Parrillo
SacWomen

Posted by Gillian Parrillo at 4:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A great post on the subject written by a feminist, just like me! Here's a subset:

People are writing about her as though she were a bomb that needed to be expertly defused, as opposed to a person who can govern her own life, and is responsible for her own choices.

I am aware that it must be hard to face the fact that you've lost. But it became clear that she was not going to win the nomination months ago -- I would say after Wisconsin, but certainly after Texas. Moreover, this is not unprecedented. People lose the nomination every four years. Most of the time, they do not stay on until it is mathematically impossible for them to win; they leave when it has become clear that they will not win. They do not complain about disenfranchising all the states with later primaries, they do not threaten to keep their supporters home, and they certainly do not threaten "open civil war" if they don't get nominated for Vice President. On those rare occasions when some candidate does this in the absence of some truly monumental issue, we normally think that that candidate is a narcissistic and unprincipled person who has just shown why s/he should never, ever be President.

There is absolutely no reason not to apply these same standards to Hillary Clinton. Right now, instead of floating demands in the press and comparing herself to abolitionists and suffragists, she could be telling her supporters that she lost fair and square; that while there was a lot of sexism in the campaign, there was racism as well, and that sexism does not explain why a candidate with literally every institutional advantage over her opponent lost the nomination. She could be reaching out to the voters who supported her in places where Obama has had trouble, and urging them to vote for him. She could, in a word, be doing the right thing: trying to earn that respect she seems to want.

Instead, she's throwing tantrums, making demands that she has no right to make, and threatening civil war.

I can't imagine a better demonstration of why she should not be President or Vice President. Nor can I imagine a better demonstration of why some of us who are committed feminists are not happy with her as our standard-bearer. She lost. It happens. If she were an adult or a professional, she would deal with it. Apparently, she is neither.

Gillian Parrillo
SacWomen

Posted by Gillian Parrillo at 4:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Chinese American Council of Sacramento (CACS) has published Canton Footprints, Sacramento's Chinese Legacy.

This book captures Chinese Americans contributions to Sacramento's diversity and their integral part in Sacramento's rich history. Canton Footprints, Written by eminent Chinese American historian Philip P. Choy, it brings together over 150 years of Chinese American history in Sacramento. Through more than 40 oral histories, Choy shows the role and influence that the Chinese American community has had in shaping Sacramento.

The 160-page book includes 178 historical photographs and is offered in soft bound and hard cover. The photographs from the Anna Wong Lee Collection and 19th Century lithographs and engravings from Philip Choy's private collection give visual impact to the importance of the Chinese American Community's role in Sacramento history.

The author, Philip P. Choy will give a lecture and sign copies of the book on Sunday June 1, 2008 at a CACS dinner to be held at the Holiday Villa Restaurant, 7007 S. Land Park Dr.
Sacramento, CA. The cost is $25 per person.

The book costs: $20 paperback, $30 hardbound.

To place orders for the book, contact: Donna Scotti, PO Box 60267 Sacramento, CA 95822
e-mail: CACSbookorder@comcast.net.

Gillian Parrillo
SacWomen

Posted by Gillian Parrillo at 10:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Gillian Parrillo
SacWomen

Posted by Gillian Parrillo at 10:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I hear it all the time. When people find out that I am supporting Hillary, they are shocked. "Oh, we thought you would be for Hillary." Read, you are old and white and a woman. But I knew all along that supporting the wrong woman was much worse than supporting the right candidate.

Overtime, I have had many conversations about this because, as women, the guilt constantly churns. The other day, my friend, who is a professor, asked me if people weren't supporting Hillary because she was a woman or was it because she was the wrong woman. I agreed with the latter conclusion.

Later, I told my husband that I was sick of all those white men in politics and he reminded me Hillary was a woman. "Not really," I responded. "She acts like an old white guy in politics." I haven't seen any of the positive feminine traits. Just the negative ones - the "I am a victim" being the most prominent. Sore loser, second.

And today I read an interview in the newspaper with one of the women who helped her when she was struggling to be content as the First Lady. She summed up my thoughts well:

....may be that Obama has given better voice to that new pattern of possibility -- that he embodies a more female, inclusive approach to problem-solving, while Clinton has become mired in proving herself capable of emulating the male model, which requires combat and the demonization of enemies.

Gillian Parrillo
SacWomen

Posted by Gillian Parrillo at 6:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As the experts weigh in, it's become clear to me. We are in a recession, and it's going to be a deep one.

Today, I received in the mail a marketing piece from Coach. They addressed me as a preferred Coach customer. Now, that's a pretty huge stretch. I don't think I have bought a full retail Coach item since I purchased a briefcase in 1995 in London. I have bought a few items from the outlet stores, but that doesn't add up to being a preferred customer in my book.

But, back to the mailing. They are offering me a 25% discount on my total purchases during their Early summer event days (notice, there is no mention of an actual sale!) at their Coach Full Price stores.

Yep, definitely, a deep recession. Even the Bush tax cut winners must be struggling!

Gillian Parrillo
SacWomen

Posted by Gillian Parrillo at 4:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Yesterday I thought for a second I was back in the 1960's - a time when I couldn't get a credit card in my own name and as a naval officer's wife, I had to have calling cards in my husband's name - Mrs. Douglas Parrillo - property of.....

I was on the phone with United Airlines. I was attempting to take some of my miles and purchase two tickets for my in-laws. How hard could that be? And then I was informed that I couldn't use my miles because we didn't have the same last name. Later, I thought I should have agreed to have my in-laws change their last names to match mine, but at the time, I went into my completely sarcastic mode. "It might surprise you to know, but actually women are now allowed to have different names from their husbands, etc. etc." Nope, that didn't work, except to raise my blood pressure to some dangerous level.

So, then, I did what I always have to do with United Airlines. I asked to be transferred to International Reservations where the agents are firmly rooted in the 21st century.

Gillian Parrillo
SacWomen

Posted by Gillian Parrillo at 2:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I received this in my email today:

SACRAMENTO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Women’s Empowerment (www.Womens-Empowerment.org), an organization devoted to “Ending Homelessness One Woman at a Time”, attracted over 500 celebrants to its 7th Annual Gala at The Grand event center in downtown Sacramento.

The event featured moving presentations from some of the 468 graduates of the Women’s Empowerment program as well as community leaders such as Bishop Quinn of the Sacramento Catholic Diocese, Dana Howard of Sacramento’s News10, and many more. The event raised more than $60,000 to support the programs that help women and their children transition from homelessness into stable jobs and safe housing situations.

Local philanthropist and Sacramento real estate developer Moe Mohanna donated the use of his venue, The Grand at 1215 J. Street, as well as all of the food and staffing to provide a first class banquet. The Executive Director of Women’s Empowerment, Lisa Culp, presented Mr. Mohanna an award for his support and said, “Moe’s involvement has meant the world to our organization, our graduates and their families.”

And it continued....

I have never heard of this group, but what a wonderful thing they do. And right here in Sacramento, working to help women get off the streets and back to leading productive lives to include employment and housing.

I am sure there are many SacWomen who could provide lots of very valuable support. I checked out the website and they are looking for volunteers to do lots of things, but one caught my eye. To spend an hour a week to work one on one with a woman who needs help to build a resume, coach by undertakinga mock interview, and providing self-confidence development. Check it out and lend a hand.

Gillian Parrillo
SacWomen

Posted by Gillian Parrillo at 8:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Check out the frightful prospects for women and minorities at Dallas-based companies. Written and researched by my husband, Pierre Cutler, who was shocked by what he found. I taught him well!

Gillian Parrillo
SacWomen

Posted by Gillian Parrillo at 1:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I am married to a lifer who got life for these stupid 3 strikes laws and he never killed anyone or hurt anyone it was just his drug addiction, if he could have gotten the help he needed for that instead of a life sentence.

I took this from a comment on a website. It could have been written about a large percentage of the prisoners in California. Never done anything violent, had a drug addiction, got locked up for life.

What does that mean to you as a taxpayer? A big bill. For each prisoner. $40,000 a year (and increasing each year) for 40 years. $1.6M.

The alternative? Cost of drug rehab? Let's be generous $10,000 - that allows for a relapse or two.

The difference? Savings of $1.5M which could be used for better education, health care for kids, name your passion of choice.

Remember, that's for each prisoner. And there are 170,588 prisoners as of 2007 in California.

And if that isn't enough, there is a plan to fuel this madness even more. It comes in the form of a constitutional amendment which will appear on your November ballot. There will be TV and radio ads right before the election that will pull at your heart strings. They have wrapped the whole package around a young girl who died years ago. They have named the law after her and she has a website to tug even harder at your heart strings. They even say it is a victims' rights bill.

But don't be fooled. This is not a victims' rights bill, this is one more blatant attempt to continue fueling the increase in the prison budget. They will play up the fact that if they don't allow prisoners to have annual parole hearings and conjugal visits that it will save taxpayers money, but it's simple not true. If you deny prisoners parole, then it will cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in increased prisoner housing costs.

Don't keep letting the state pour money into the prison system. Let's use it for schools and health care and after school care and job creation and green jobs for the unemployed and infrastructure repair or any number of positive things that are additive to our economy and population well-being.

Locking up drug addicts, providing them with no drug treatment, no training, little or no family contact, and no prospects when, and if, they get released is simply a bad deal.

This time, say no more.

Get informed - check it out.

1325. (07-0100, Amdt. #1NS) - Raw Count
Criminal Justice System. Victims’ Rights. Parole. Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

Summary Date: 02/08/08 Circulation Deadline: 07/07/08 Signatures Required: 694,354

Proponents: Henry Nicholas, Marcella Leach and LaWanda Hawkins c/o Ashlee N. Titus (916) 442-7757

Requires notification to victim and opportunity for input during phases of criminal justice process, including bail, pleas, sentencing and parole. Establishes victim safety as consideration in determining bail or release on parole. Increases the number of people permitted to attend and testify on behalf of victims at parole hearings. Reduces the number of parole hearings to which prisoners are entitled. Requires that victims receive written notification of their constitutional rights. Establishes timelines and procedures concerning parole revocation hearings. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Unknown potential increases in state prison and county jail operating costs due to provisions restricting early release of inmates. To the extent that any such costs were incurred, they could collectively amount to hundreds of millions of dollars annually. A potential net savings in the low tens of millions of dollars for the administration of parole reviews and revocations if the changes related to parole revocation procedures were not overturned by potential legal challenges. (Initiative 07-0100.) (Full Text)

Italics added by me for emphasis.

Gillian Parrillo
SacWomen

Posted by Gillian Parrillo at 4:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)