Youngsters enjoy Stockton Opera

We were pleasantly surprised by the Stockton Opera Company's performance of Madama Butterfly. It was performed at the Faye Spanos Concert Hall in Stockton. The voices were all outstanding and the orchestra, though small, did a yeoman's job. The guy on the drums was especially enthusiastic.

I noted from The Record article that "the audience for opera in San Joaquin County... has been aging and shrinking." Judging from the audience at Sunday's performance, this observation seemed confirmed.

Well, we went with two enthusiastic youngsters aged 10 and 14. A few we met there spoke with us and more than one was curious how we were able to "get" the youngsters to come out to the opera. (i.e. how were we able to drag kids to the opera or how did we "get them interested" in the opera?) The nature of the implied question reveals a fundamental misunderstanding about both classical music and young people.

In fact, the kids begged us to take them. Surprised? Read on...

The simple answer to the question is that young people love the opera and classical music! That probably sounds surprising to some. We think we live in a new age of iPods and Internets and mp3's, and that youngsters can't possibly be interested in something like the opera. But I don't believe that. There are several lines of evidence for this belief I won't go into depth about here; but briefly I've read movie review forums and often someone would remark how this or that movie wouldn't interest young people because it was "slow" or "boring" and didn't have enough explosions, etc. And invariably, a young person, someone like 15 years old or so would remark that is was one their favorite movies. Likewise with classical music and opera.

One fellow during the intermission did express concern that we (they) weren't doing a very good job at passing on the love of opera to the next generation. So, I thought I'd share with you "Joe's tips for how to pass on the love of great music:"

Joe's tips:

First, and most important, don't ever assume for one second that a child won't like classical music. This is simply not so. I can't say every kid will instantly love the opera or classics, but to assume "they won't like this" is the worst mistake you can make. You've lost your connection with the next generation before you even start if you believe that! In my experience, in almost every case young people find something appealing about classical music.

Start by introducing classical music when they are young. Have recordings playing in your home. In the modern world, if you have computer (and I presume you do if you're reading this, duh), there's a vast amount of music of all types available to you. If you're a cheapskate, you can stream classical music for free.

Of course, it helps if you have a love of classical music and "know something about it." However, if you don't, it's never too late to start. The secret is knowing that classical music varies widely, some is hard to listen to (so don't) and some is readily accessible. So start googling for what's good.

We found the kids loved the videotapes and DVD's of operas, particularly Puccini. When the kids were just "hanging out" we would pop in a DVD of Turandot or Madama Butterfly. Without any fanfare, and without any lectures on how you should watch this, you should like this, how much better this music is than that stuff they listen to today is, etc. Just let it play and see who's drawn in. It helps if you know something of the story and can relate it to the modern world when they ask -- and they will.

Which leads to the next important tip: Never denigrate your kids music or "the stuff they listen to." Instead, ask about their music. Who's that singing? What band is that? What's your favorite? Or "what's the popular thing kids at school listen to?" I asked that and to my horror, the answers were things like "My Humps" and "My Chemical Romance." However, avoid the urge to make a face or degrade that choice in any way. We've been through this "generation gap" thing before. In my view, we should be thankful if your child shares with you. So appreciate it! Every generation listens to music their parents hate. Just accept that. It's fine. There's no reason to make a "choice." Kids don't have to give up their music or make any choices, they can like both modern music and the classics.

Lemme digress a bit with another example...

I used to annoy my brother, who didn't have the slightest inclination or appreciation for classical music, by setting the buttons on his car radio (in the family van) to the classical music stations. I had to do it a few times, which of course annoyed him to no end, but fortunately, his wife liked the idea so I had an ally. After a few years of complaining to the family how they should never let me sit in the front seat because "he'll change the buttons on the radio." (I actually only changed the last button, the one to the extreme right so it would be easy to find) one day he said to everyone at the family dinner that something odd had happened. The youngest, a toddler, had asked when they were driving around to put "that music that feels (something I can't recall)?" And he was perplexed by the request and went through the buttons till he found the one, as you can probably guess, was the one I had set on the classical music station. She exclaimed "that's it." He was shocked by this. I wasn't.

Now I can't promise this to everyone, I think this is a quirk, but that child, just a few years later, started playing classical music on the piano. I mean, without ever taking lessons. And she was like 5 or 6 years old. And she played with some astounding skill. It was like some kind of thing you see in the movies about an idiot savant, except that she was otherwise normal. When dad asked "how do you know how to play like that?" She responded, "I can just 'see' (or feel) the notes in my head" or something to that effect. And as she grew, her talent advanced 'till she was some kind of world class pianist. I don't know if she'll ever be famous or anything, but I found it a fascinating event and a great source of pride for her parents. Guess what, I never had to explain or apologize for messing with the car radio buttons that's for sure.

To be fair, the other child didn't do any such thing, and I've never seen this phenomenon in any other child since then even if they were exposed to classical music. So I speculate it was some pre-disposition of talent that she had. But I wonder, would it ever have expressed itself had she not been exposed to classical music? You never know, maybe you have the next budding Mozart in your family!

But I digress...back to the opera

Jackie wondered if the girls were interested in Madama Butterfly because, well, they were girls and it's the story of a young girl, etc. Maybe. So that got me thinking, what would be some good classics for boys? I wouldn't rule out Butterfly or Turandot. (stories of Yankee imperialism and a heroic prince who fights the odds and gets the girl) But also, maybe something like Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture, maybe Prokofiev's Peter and the Wolf? And for an opera, maybe La Fanciulla del West? Heheh. Yes, that's some stereotypes. (The story of war, hunting trips, and a "western" about an outlaw set in gold rush California). I'm sure there are others, maybe some of you have some suggestions? Share them here!

Happy New Year

Is Manteca adding a new firehouse?

Are they really adding a fourth fire station? Here's a map showing the current fire station (the red blob on the right) and the proposed "new" fire station (circled in red on the left). Personally, I have my doubts, but we'll see.



One thing still raises some doubt -- why did the fire chief talk about how the new station will cover the 2,000 or so homes not currently within the 5 minute response time window, and then add that there might be "200 or so homes" (on the east side of town) that will become just outside the 5 minute area? Why would that be so? Wouldn't that only occur if the eastern station was closed? (i.e. the 200 homes in the 5 min. range now -- how will they become out of range unless a fire station is closed?) hmmmm.


Correct me if I've misinterpreted something or leave a comment.

Council wrap up

Last night's city council meeting had some issues that I thought I'd note here.

1. The "memorandum of understanding" for the police union was presented. Check out the raises involved here. There are eleven raises, ranging from 2 to 7.5 percent over the five years (about two raises each year, one in January and one in July.) Two of the raises in years 3 and 4 are unspecified, but may be up to 7.5 percent each and based on some "study" of what other cities are paying their people. How much you want to bet they pick 4 or 5 cities that pay a lot to compare us with?

Just the listed raises turn out to be about a 37 percent increase over the five years. And the two unspecified raises could increase that more, maybe a lot more. The part that I find interesting is that if you do a back of the envelope kind of calculation, if you assume the fire depart will has gotten a similar contract, you find the added costs for payroll is just about $3.9 million. The Measure M tax was estimated to "bring in" about $4 million! So, more or less, the Measure M tax wasn't for "improved public safety" it has gone to lavish pay raises.

And this isn't even considering the two unspecified raises. My guess is whatever money happens to be left in any department or in any source will be used up by the unspecified raises. But maybe I'm too cynical.

Bullhorn permit law in Manteca

I want to clear up my comments made to the council last week. The newspaper just said I thought the new "noise ordinance" was turning Manteca into something "like the Soviet Union!" Which is kind of dramatic. Heck, I would have printed the same thing.

But that was only part of my comments. I don't think anyone has the right to disturb the peace of their neighbor. (The newspaper made it sound like I was against any reasonable noise law.)

What's odd about the new idea from Manteca is two things:

First, the fines for a loud party are "open ended." The police just "decide" how much the fine is. Yes, you read that right. The chief explained how, well, it might be $500, maybe $1500 or $3000 depending on how many police cars have to come out there, what kind "of attitude" they get, etc.

It's this idea of open ended fines determined by the police -- acting as judge and jury -- is why I said it sounded oppressive. Actually when the police, without any judge or a court or even a written guideline can just hand out any fine or punishment they see fit, that's the definition of a police state.

Secondly, the law also requires anyone using a bullhorn or any sort of sound system to give lectures or give political talks has to get permission from the chief of police ten days in advance! That's what the law actually says, it talks about lectures and talks to people, it's not just aimed at "loud car stereos."

When questioned, the chief defended this, saying that it was a "must issue" type of thing. So, in other words, he has to issue the permit. OK, so my question is, then why require the permit then? And if it's "must issue" and there's no decision making, why does it take ten days to issue the permit? Also there's a reference to some unspecified fee associated with the permit. No one could say what the fee might be.

All of these kinds of laws are subject to abuse. Some politically favored group might get a permit for a bullhorn for $5, and some other unpopular group might be charged $500 for the permit, who knows. Also, if by chance there's a labor strike or spontaneous protest, and the protesters take to the street the leader could be arrested and his bullhorn seized even if it was otherwise a peaceful assembly of people protesting something -- if the leader didn't have the proper "permit" for his bullhorn.

That's what I was talking about when I said this reminded me of how in the old Soviet Union you needed a permit to have a typewriter. If you're curious, there's a good depiction of this in the movie Das Leben der Anderen (The Lives of Others).

Talking back!

Here I give the city council (actually sitting as The Redevelopment Agency) a piece of my mind. As if I can spare it. We touched on three topics. Two of my comments have been subjects of discussion in the local newspaper. So here are the comments, edited slightly for clarity:

The first issue was the council/rda (the people I'm addressing) wanted to spend $60,000 to hire some guy or "consultant" or "guru" to analyze the city and "bring in" better restaurants and hotels. That's where the comment about "the free market" comes from -- it's the free market that determines what restaurant moves in.

The next thing I'm scoffing at is there was some discussion that our "fast food" to "grocery store" ratio is off kilter and that's why everyone is so fat. So there was talk that they should give preferential treatment to food sellers who claim their stuff is "healthy" and we should keep out the evil McDonald's and things like that. "Because of the obesity epidemic." I didn't really have the time or inclination to explain why this "crazy talk."

Next, and it's worth waiting for, I compare the council to the queen's court where they grant special favors to people they like. In this case, developers with lots of money....

Which leads to the last point, they appropriated $150,000 of your tax money to be given to some special people to "help them" buy houses (down payment assistance/gift). I have as much compassion as the next guy, but I ask, "where's my house?" How can we justify taking money from the hard working poor people of Manteca to give it to some selected special people so they can buy a house?

The part that's really infuriating is that while they are pretending to be "compassionate" and "helping people" buy houses (using your money), everything else they do hurts people by making houses more expensive to buy. It takes years to go through "the process" and get permission to build something on your own land. Only a rich corporation with a team of lawyers and consultants can afford to do that. And for that privilege, the city charges a plethora of special fees. It adds up to about $60,000 for each new home. Even though the taxes on new homes are called "development fees" and they make it sound like it's paid "by the developers" it's not. The tax, I'm sorry, "fee" is paid by the new home buyer. And now they want to use tax money to "help people" pay this tax fee in the form of that "assistance program" mentioned above.

What I'm saying. in other words, is that if the city didn't charge an extra $60,000 per house, that would help people a hell of a lot more than this "special program" that gives a few certain special lucky people "up to $50,000" to buy a new home using your money.

Manteca checkpoint not so voluntary

The Manteca Bulletin reports that the Manteca police set up two checkpoints in the city in the hopes of finding drunk drivers. From the sound of the article (click on the headline to read article), the clever Manteca PD wasn't going to let anyone slip past them. Most of the arrests, interrogations, DUI tests and seizure of vehicles seems to have taken place by chasing and stopping people who turned off the road before going through the checkpoint.

The article tells us one guy turned right onto a side road before the checkpoint, and thought he would escape the iron grip of the law, but intrepid police officers knew this trick all too well, and were hiding in the side streets for just such a thing. I forget what eventually happened to the motorists, you'll have to read the article...

It all sounds great except for one little thing. Actually, they aren't supposed to do that. The police aren't "allowed to" stop a car just because the driver decides not to go through the checkpoint. Don't believe it? Read on...

DUI checkpoints have been subject to debate for years. The debate was sort of settled in the early '90's when The U.S. Supreme Court, somehow, found the checkpoints didn't necessarily violate a citizen's 4th amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches. So long as the checkpoint is "voluntary." And "voluntary" means you don't have to go through the checkpoint, they have to put up signs letting you know a checkpoint is up ahead, and if you turn off and decide to exercise your right not to be interrogated and searched, they can't chase you. Because it's your right, you can't grab someone off the street for simply exercising their rights Well, in Manteca, "can't" is relative apparently.

Specifically: First, it went to the California Supreme Court in 1987. (Ingersoll v. Palmer (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1321 , 743 P.2d 1299; 241 Cal.Rptr. 42). Here, the court looked at the procedures being used, and decided so long as these rules were followed, the checkpoint was legal:

A sign announcing the checkpoint was posted sufficiently in advance of the checkpoint location to permit motorists to turn aside, and under the operational guidelines no motorist was to be stopped merely for choosing to avoid the checkpoint.

and ...

Checkpoint personnel were specifically instructed
that drivers were not to be stopped merely for avoiding the checkpoint. fn. 5 The road sign announcing the checkpoint was placed sufficiently in advance of the checkpoint that motorists could choose to avoid the checkpoint.

and...

FN 5. Cars avoiding the checkpoint would be stopped, however, if in avoiding the checkpoint the driver did anything unlawful, or exhibited obvious signs of impairment.

So, if you blast through the checkpoint with tires screeching or you make a sliding U-turn like you're filming Dukes of Hazard II, then they can chase you and stop you. (And should chase you. I want to be clear -- I'm not arguing for our rights because I have any love for drunken drivers.)

Here's where it gets interesting. In 1990, the Dept. of Transportation issued some instructions for police departments on how to conduct DUI checkpoints, and that same rule noted above, and the same exception appears. This is from DOT HS 807 656, also known with the catchy title The Use of Sobriety Checkpoints for Impaired Driving Enforcement, published in 1990. And it says, on page A-3:

• 
  A motorist who wishes to avoid the checkpoint by legally turning before enterning the checkpoint area should be allowed to do so unless a traffic violation(s) is observed or probable cause exists to take other action. The act of avoiding a sobriety checkpoint does not consititute grounds for a stop.

Not to nit pick too much, but extra points for spelling in that last quote.