Quid Pro Quo

 “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” didn’t scare me one bit.

Neither did “Nightmare on Elm Street”

Didn’t see “Saw”. Slept through it.

In order for a movie to truly scare me, it needs to get into my head.  Anyone can throw blood and guts in front of the camera, and it’ll scare the kiddies, but it doesn’t do a thing for me.  True horror doesn’t always show the blood—it doesn’t have to.  But if it gets your imagination working and makes you feel vulnerable and uneasy, if the movie can scare you silly instead of shocking you for split-seconds at a time, that’s horror.

There is a distinct absence of gore in Alfred Hitchcock’s 1954 movie “Rear Window” starring Jimmy Stewart and Grace Kelly.  But the slowly unfolding implication of one’s neighbor being a killer kept the audience riveted, and made “Rear Window” one of the greatest classic films of all time.

As a matter of fact, the only true horror movie to win an Academy Award for Best Picture was “The Silence of the Lambs” in 1991.  In it, Jodie Foster portrays a newly-minted FBI agent, Clarice Starling, assigned to capture a serial killer. To gain insight in the way the killer thinks, she seeks help from another serial killer: a former psychologist named Hannibal Lecter (played by Sir Anthony Hopkins).

Clarice begins by attempting to cajole Dr. Lecter into helping her, to no avail.  Lecter offers to help only if she reveals pieces of her personal history to him, teasing each jewel of vital information in front of her with the haunting phrase: “Quid pro quo, Clarice”.

Quid pro quo.

It’s a Latin phrase meaning “this for that” or “a favor for a favor”.  In other words, it’s a simple bartering tool.  In the movie though, Hannibal Lecter made this common phrase sound more like a deal with the Devil.  As you watch the movie, a part of you doesn’t want Clarice to tell Lecter anything—even her boss tells her, “Don’t let him get into your head”.  But she does it anyway. You see Clarice making herself more and more vulnerable to a psychopathic killer.  Willingly.

That still scares the beejeezus outta me.

That old bartering phrase has been popping up in my mind quite a bit lately.  It pops up when I read the newspaper, or watch a news item on TV.  It happens whenever I see a story about the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.  It happened today.

Today, there was a story in the Los Angeles Times that DWP employees received raises of 15% over the last five years, outpacing the payrolls of even this city’s first responders, our police and firemen.  This amount equates to about three times the rate of inflation in the greater Los Angeles area.

Elsewhere in the very same article, mention is made of the amount the DWP is spending in support of City Controller Wendy Greuel’s candidacy in the May 21 mayoral runoff election. 1.45 million dollars.

The DWP’s name also pops up in mayoral debates.

When her opponent, 13^th District Councilmember Eric Garcetti makes mention of the DWP attempting to buy the race, Ms. Greuel scoffs at the notion as a case of “sour grapes” since Mr. Garcetti, like Ms. Greuel, sought the DWP’s endorsement. 

Ms. Greuel stated that she could remain independent of the DWP’s influence should she become elected, and make the “hard choices” that would need to be made to bring Los Angeles’ budget back from the brink of insolvency.

Ms. Greuel’s main platform in this election is her claim to have found over $160 million of what she terms as “fraud, waste and abuse” in the City’s budget.  An amount that included $80 million of such waste in a line item called “Street Furniture”, but in the seven items related to the DWP, she found a grand total of $0.00.

The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power has spent $1.45 million dollars supporting Wendy Greuel in this election.

One-point-four-five-million-dollars.

Quid pro quo.

A favor for a favor.

…scared yet?

Becoming Engaged

Becoming Engaged
by J. Evert Jones

 

Call them The Engaged.

Parents and teachers, barbers and bartenders, students and steelworkers.

Fellow passengers on the train of the future, riding on the bleeding edge of the moment. To The Engaged, the future is a summit in the distance, begging to be attained.  To them, the future is a blank canvas, bursting with the possibilities of their paintbrush.

Bankers and pastors, librarians and CEO's, doctors and baristas.

The Engaged are the investors, those who take a slice of their value and place it in a commodity.  Many consider this sort of value to be money.  Don’t confuse them with The Engaged.  Think about someone who deals not with money, but with time.  The Engaged are people who take a slice of their time, their worth and value, to invest it in knowledge, or even more time.

The Engaged are the people who notice.  They may notice a possible short cut on their way to work.  They may recall a loaf of bread or a cut of meat that sells for a little less money at the market across the street.  They may see their child’s gaze linger on one particular toy on the shelf, just weeks before their birthday, or take note of their spouse’s tone of voice in the middle of the day, and pick up a bouquet of roses on their way home. 

The policemen and the paupers, the nurses and the technicians.  The Episcopalians, the Muslims and the Baptists.  Each of them takes a bit of their time and socks it away in a commodity they believe will reap a benefit in the future.

It looks as if it always comes back to the future, doesn’t it?  And indeed, it does.

In Los Angeles we are just days away from making a decision to decide who will not only lead the government of the city, but also who will best represent the face of Los Angeles, and who will best serve her people.  Those who are engaged in this process take their time to study the condition of their neighborhood, the quality of their air and water, the schools their children attend, and the parks they visit.  They study how their local elected officials represent them, how their problems are solved and how timely this is done.

In short, the future of this city belongs to The Engaged.  They are diligent and vigilant, they are informed and knowledgeable, they want a good future and they want the best for Los Angeles.

Most of all, they are registered to vote.

As Election Day draws closer, you will see a battle raging on the airwaves for the attention of The Engaged.  On one side, one candidate focuses on their record in serving the city, the improvements they have made in the district they serve, and the vision they have for the city, for the future.

On the other side, another candidate uses the airwaves not to inform the public about their record of service, but to sow seeds of doubt into the other candidate’s campaign and to pepper the audience with third-party recommendations.  There is no hint or promise from this person about how they can best serve the City.

One candidate embraces The Engaged.  Another seeks to drive them away from the polls, to hold back their voice, to keep The Engaged silent.

Mailmen and paramedics, mechanics and sales people, waiters and dog walkers.

We may never see the other side of the second where the future awaits, but we can all take a slice of time to become involved, to become knowledgeable, to become Engaged.

Register to vote.  Then vote on Election Day.

It takes only a thin slice of your time to do so.  This investment, and your voice, have the power to shape this city into a jewel of achievement.  The deadline to register is this Monday.

Become Engaged.

Don’t hold back.