|
|
11/10/05
Val Zavala>> Tonight on Life and Times --
[Broadcast error]
Jack Fancher>> The basic goal is to restore a tidal wetland to near its condition of a hundred five years ago.
Val Zavala>> All this and more straight ahead on tonight's Life and Times.
Announcer>> Life and Times is made possible through the generous support of the L.K. Whittier Foundation dedicated to improving the quality of life by supporting innovative endeavors in the fields of medicine, health, science and education.
And by a generous grant from Jim and Anne Rothenberg.
Val Zavala>> If there's one part of our environment that has taken a beating over the decades of growth in California, it is our wetlands. By some estimates, ninety percent of California's wetlands have disappeared and that's why a project south of Long Beach is so important. Roger Cooper takes us to Bolsa Chica where the past is making a comeback.
Roger Cooper>> For what's supposed to be a quiet wildlife habitat, there's a whole lot of racket going on at the Bolsa Chica Wetlands these days.
[Film Clip]
Roger Cooper>> Nearby bike paths and even Pacific Coast Highway have been sent on detours. Pile drivers are pounding in pilings to create a new bridge. Earth movers are scooping out a giant new basin. Workers have removed sixty-four oil wells and cleaned up their contamination. And they've brought in eight-ton boulders imported from Catalina.
Jack Fancher>> The basic goal is to restore a tidal wetland to near its condition of a hundred five years ago.
Roger Cooper>> Jack Fancher of the Fish and Wildlife Service is in charge of a massive one hundred twenty million dollar project to return Bolsa Chica to the way it was.
Jack Fancher>> Unfortunately, Southern California has an absolutely awful history of destroying its coastal wetlands that we have suffered in the view of some ninety percent loss.
Roger Cooper>> A hundred years ago, the Pacific Ocean didn't stop at this spot. It continued inland to a place we now know as Bolsa Chica, but the day is coming and soon when the ocean will return. An old map shows what it was like back when the ocean was free to ebb and flow through inlets letting its saltwater tides wash over the wetlands. Ironically, it was ducks that caused this bird habitat to be closed off from the sea.
Jack Fancher>> About 1899, a duck club and then private owner closed the ocean connection and started building dykes inside to create static water level ponds, duck ponds, and blinds. They had a duck club on the Bolsa Mesa and it was that way for about fifty years, up until about World War II.
Roger Cooper>> Then, for another fifty years following the duck club, Bolsa Chica was ground zero for the hundreds of oil wells drilled into the coast around Huntington Beach.
Jack Fancher>> That's a cumulative total of about a century that it's been cut off from the ocean.
Roger Cooper>> For many years, it appeared the final destiny for these coastal wetlands would be in the plans of developers who wanted to build thousands of houses and a marina at the site. But environmentalists like Barbara Sentovich waged a thirty-year war to see that didn't happen.
Barbara Sentovich>> Volunteer organizations began with the Amigos de Bolsa Chica thirty years ago. A group of people in Huntington Beach came together when they heard the development plan for the area and said, whoa, wait a minute. This place is valuable for other reasons than just development.
Jack Fancher>> I call that the cycle of pain where there was pain inflicted on both sides, those for development, those against development. We broke that pain in 1997 when we found the resources to buy the property from the private owner.
Roger Cooper>> The money to buy the property and restore Bolsa Chica came from the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, which put up seventy-nine million dollars in return for being allowed to remove marine habitats there for port expansion and that mitigation money is why this bridge will soon take Pacific Coast Highway over a newly created inlet, an inlet that will carry the ocean tide back into Bolsa Chica. Why do we want the ocean to come back?
Jack Fancher>> At its simplest, the ocean is life. Life is brought in by tidal currents. There are larval fish and phytoplankton, zooplankton. The things that live in the ocean water are carried into the wetlands by the ocean tides. It's also a place migratory birds, shore birds and water fowl seek out this abundant life that grows in the tidal wetlands and mud flats.
Grace Adams>> This is what you call a saltwater marsh which is basically a highly-threatened habitat next to a rainforest. This is probably one of the most threatened habitats in the world.
Roger Cooper>> This restoration project will create an additional six hundred acres of wetlands which will adjoin the existing one hundred seventy-five acres. Something that delights Grace Adams who directs the Bolsa Chica Conservancy.
Grace Adams>> I think that it's going to expand breeding grounds for the animals that we just talked about. More than two hundred species of birds come in and out of this area. We're right smack in the middle of the Pacific flyway, so wintering birds that come from north to south stop here as a breeding ground. They rest like humans do.
Roger Cooper>> The existing wetlands receive only a muted tidal flow that works its way through this inlet from Huntington Harbor. Even so, it's an eternal force of nature you can see with your own eyes. Much of the new wetlands will get the full effect of tides twice a day.
Jack Fancher>> Two highs every day, two lows every day. So the water level in the tidal basin is constantly changing on an hourly basis.
Roger Cooper>> Creating what Barbara likes to call a bird hotel.
Barbara Sentovich>> It's like a marsh Marriott. They're protected here. They have a wonderful food supply. There's no fishing, no boating, no swimming in here, so it is really a sheltered wonderful place for the birds to stop over.
Roger Cooper>> Bolsa Chica's abundance of wildlife already attracts hundreds of student groups and bird watchers and photographers from all over the world.
Grace Adams>> It's so much fun when we have our classes and exercise and you say, "Okay, open your lunch boxes or your lunch bags and let's see what you've got." You can see exactly the food chain that gets emanated from wetlands, that their food that's in their brown bags can be directly connected to what's out here in the wetlands.
Roger Cooper>> When will the ocean come back?
Jack Fancher>> Our schedule has us pulling the plug, as they call it, or removing the inlet dam in June 2006, so we're only about nine months away from that.
Roger Cooper>> For now, the people who love Bolsa Chica are excited by the knowledge that it will only get better.
Barbara Sentovich>> Today there's a Reddish Egret in here and that's most unusual for this area and we're watching it do a dance down at the other end to scare up fish and looking for its dinner.
Jack Fancher>> So saving a place by restoring Bolsa Chica saves an island of biological diversity in a sea of urban landscape.
Grace Adams>> It's a world of its own. It's a gift.
Roger Cooper>> And so a way has been found. The moon will pull the tides and the rhythm of nature will continue at Bolsa Chica. It just sounds like a pile driver right now. In Huntington Beach, I'm Roger Cooper for Life and Times.
[Film Clip]
Announcer>> Kcet.org is the place to look for the very latest on Life and Times. You'll find previews of upcoming stories, transcripts and audio of past episodes and links to some of our most interesting features. Just go to kcet.org and click on "Life and Times".
David Okarski>> We're talking today with State Senator Sheila Kuehl. In eleven years in the California legislature, she's championed children, families, victims of crime, domestic violence and discrimination and much more. Now she wants to provide health insurance for every Californian. Senator Kuehl, thanks for the opportunity to talk with you about this. Why do we need health insurance for every Californian?
Sheila Kuehl>> Well, right now about twenty percent of all Californians have no health insurance at all and another thirty percent are very seriously under-insured. They don't have any pharmaceutical coverage or they have a five thousand dollar deductible, so they can't even access their insurance. What happens is, a lot of them are forced to use emergency rooms for their primary health care and it's un-reimbursed care.
So hospitals aren't being paid, doctors aren't paid, or people just stay home and get very sick and then, by the time they go, they're so sick that they cost a lot of money. They have to be hospitalized. If everyone had health insurance, you'd get preventive care, you'd get primary care, and actually it saves a lot of money.
David Okarski>> We're talking about Senate Bill 840, which you authored.
Sheila Kuehl>> It's really important, though, to understand that we would have nothing to do with employing the doctors or the hospitals. That all stays private just like it is now. But instead of being stuck in a system where you can choose one out of six doctors or whatever, you can choose any doctor in California. You can choose any hospital in California. It's actually a much better choice for patients.
David Okarski>> You're talking about efficiencies and savings, but who actually pays for it? Does it come out of my paycheck? Out of my employer's paycheck? Does it come out of income taxes?
Sheila Kuehl>> It would not come out of income taxes or any taxes that we pay now for other purposes that go into the state coffers. We asked the Lewin Group to do an analysis about what is being paid now and what would be paid under a single-payer system. You pay it into a system that only goes for health care. The one I'm looking at, you would pay a percentage, maybe four percent, of your salary. That would be it. You would be totally covered including dental, vision, pharmaceuticals, durable goods, everything, for that. Your employer would also pay maybe seven percent. But it would be very predictable. It wouldn't be going up by double digits every year the way it is now.
David Okarski>> No income taxes, but does any of this come out of the state budget, which is already bending, you know, at the breaking point already?
Sheila Kuehl>> What comes out of the state budget is what's already coming out of the state budget, only with more predictable increases or no increases. That is payment for a portion of the indigent population. We pay for poor peoples' health care and we pay actually quite a bit. It's the second largest item in the California state budget. It's grown by fifteen or twenty percent every year because the Feds mandate that we pay for certain things. So I think this makes it much more predictable. We'll still be paying for it, but we won't be paying as much.
David Okarski>> But it is a single-payer system, which means no more private insurance companies. What do the insurance companies think about that?
Sheila Kuehl>> Well, they're not thrilled because, as you know, they've been making quite a bit of profit off of these insurance plans. The hospitals are not doing so well, but the insurance plans are very, very healthy.
David Okarski>> But what about doctors? I understand maybe the CMA isn't quite thrilled with it, the California Medical Association.
Sheila Kuehl>> The California Medical Association has been very interesting in their response to this. They've been cautious. They have not embraced it. They have a lot of questions. But they're engaged with us in questions and answers. We want to make it work for doctors. Doctors are the backbone of the health care system.
David Okarski>> Now what about businesses? I understand that the California Chamber isn't entirely on board with this yet.
Sheila Kuehl>> I think the California Chamber has two major concerns. One of them is that they are particularly dominated by big businesses and many of those big businesses are not paying health care right now and they don't want to. Under this plan, they would have to pay some percentage of their payroll for health care.
The second thing is that there are a lot of pharmaceutical companies that are on the board of the California Chamber. Not the local, but the state chamber. They are concerned because part of the plan of saving money is that California's going to negotiate -- not force -- but negotiate. Well, I say to the pharmaceutical company, you know, "I'd like to buy thirty-five million people worth of Damatol." And they say, "Well, that's a very big market." And I say, "Yes, that's exactly right. What price will you give me?" So I think the California Chamber is also concerned because their pharmaceutical companies want them to be concerned.
David Okarski>> Would this make California's health care system like Canada's or Great Britain's, for better or worse?
Sheila Kuehl>> This would not make it like Canada's or Great Britain's. Part of the problem with Canada's system is that it actually does come out of their tax income. It's not like you're paying a premium and all that premium goes into health care. So they vote in Canada how much is going to be spent on health care.
In Great Britain, to a great extent, the doctors can work for the government, so the government is -- I mean, it's like government-controlled health care. This plan is nothing but an insurance plan. It's just a way that everybody has insurance by paying a premium.
David Okarski>> How does this differ from "pay for play", which has been on the ballot recently?
Sheila Kuehl>> It's very different from "pay or play" because what that said was, if you're an employer, you have to buy insurance, period. There were no efficiencies. It was the same old insurance companies making twenty percent increases in their premiums every year.
David Okarski>> Is this a radical idea for America?
Sheila Kuehl>> I think it's a fairly conservative idea for America. It saves money. It creates efficiencies. It's very democratic. That is, everyone is covered. It doesn't depend on whether you're rich or poor. Everyone gets comprehensive health insurance.
David Okarski>> Okay, and yet, in the past, all talk of universal health insurance has been a big debate, but a really tough sell. Isn't that true? Why so, and why would it work now?
Sheila Kuehl>> I think there's been scare tactics about universal health care that created an atmosphere about it that really is just not true. I think people think that it's socialized medicine which really is where the doctors work for the government. We have nothing to do with running the health care system if we create a large insurance system. The system is really crashing in on itself. We absolutely need something that's a real reform, so I think that's why now there's growing support.
David Okarski>> It's been passed by the Senate. It's in the Assembly. Where is it now in the Assembly and the whole process and what do you think is going to happen next and what are its chances?
Sheila Kuehl>> We have long talks coming up with the governor, who has not indicated support for the bill, but there's a race next year for the governor's seat as well as a number of other seats. Some of the candidates may support the bill. That could actually be a factor in their election. So since I have two more years after that to serve, my intention is to keep this bill going until we get it because we need it.
David Okarski>> Senator Kuehl, thanks for spending this time with us.
Sheila Kuehl>> It's a pleasure. Thanks so much for doing it.
Announcer>> To send a comment or a question to our program, you can reach us by mail at this address:
Life and Times
4401 Sunset Blvd.
Los Angeles, California 90027
You can also call our viewer comment line (323) 953-5555) or contact us the fast way by e-mail at kcet.org.
Larry Mantle>> Welcome to FilmWeek on Life and Times. I'm Larry Mantle of 89.3 KPCC. Our first film this week is yet another adaptation of a Jane Austen novel brought to the big screen. "Pride & Prejudice" stars Keira Knightley in a film directed by Joe Wright.
[Film Clip]
Larry Mantle>> I'm joined this week by critics Jean Oppenheimer of New Times and Henry Sheehan of henrysheehan.com. Henry, what did you think of "Pride & Prejudice"?
Henry Sheehan>> Well, you know, the last thing I thought the world needed was another Jane Austen adaptation (laughter), but apparently it did because this was a wonderful, wonderful movie directed by a veteran television director, another bad sign, Joe Wright, an Englishman, but he does a marvelous job of setting the scene in the early nineteenth century. The country ball scene in the beginning is marvelous as are many other scenes. You really feel transported to the era.
But most of what's really wonderful about this are the performances of Keira Knightley as Elizabeth, the heroine, and Matthew MacFadyen as Darcy, the troublesome would-be love. Of course, the movie is all about how these two proud and prejudiced people get together. I'll tell you, the movie is just overflowing with emotion. It's completely successful. I think this is going to make Keira Knightley a star and I think Matthew MacFadyen's picture is going to end up on a lot of bedroom walls (laughter).
Larry Mantle>> (Laughter) All right, Jean. What did you think?
Jean Oppenheimer>> He can be on my bedroom wall actually. I mean, the fact that somebody could take over a role that Colin Firth had made his own in so many ways and just -- I mean, not to forget Colin, but Matthew MacFadyen is just wonderful. So is Keira Knightley. I could not agree more with Henry. Hugely entertaining. Just captivating. Wonderful production design. Wonderful cinematography. Obviously beautiful locations, all these country estates and manor houses.
Donald Sutherland as Mr. Bennet, I was so surprised. He did such a good job. He got the accent, he got that sort of, you know, I'm outnumbered five or six to one type attitude that Mr. Bennet had. There's a little bit from the Jane Austen novel, a scene that I don't remember from the book in a few things. I think that Keira Knightley plays her part a little bit tomboyishly, which is not a criticism. It's just how she's playing the character. Wonderful.
Larry Mantle>> Our second film is the family drama, "Bee Season", which stars Richard Gere and Juliette Binoche.
[Film Clip]
Larry Mantle>> Jean, what did you think of "Bee Season"?
Jean Oppenheimer>> I thought it was a very unconvincing story, even though I did like some of the acting all right. Now the last film these co-directors did was "The Deep End" which I have liked tremendously, so this was doubly disappointing. There are many images and references in this movie, visual references, to shards of glass and broken glass and you know immediately that this is going to be about a shattered family (laughter). Actually, they're in the process of disintegrating, both each member individually and as a family unit.
I think Richard Gere did a good job as the father, although there's just no way to buy him as a scholar of Jewish mysticism, which you have to in this. But I think he in general did a good job. The little girl, Flora Cross, in her film debut who plays the young spelling bee champion, I thought was really very good because she's sort of an ordinary type on the one hand, this sort of passive type, and on the other, there's this sort of other-worldliness about her, this sort of spookiness. She looks absolutely like she could be Juliette Binoche's daughter. So I thought it was very disappointing.
Larry Mantle>> The mystery thriller, "Derailed", stars Clive Owen and Jennifer Aniston.
[Film Clip]
Larry Mantle>> Henry, does "Derailed" deliver?
Henry Sheehan>> Oh, not at all. This is a movie that starts off with a lie and then proceeds into a morass of incompetence and bad casting. It's just the most -- you know, look, all thrillers are contrived, but you have to keep your contrivances in order. You know, you can't go around too many corners with surprise characters or surprise twists. You just begin thinking, you know, you're not on a square block, but an octagonal one. Everything that happens, you say, well, this can't be. I think there's time for another corner to go around.
Jennifer Aniston is just horribly cast in a kind of a Grace Kelly role as the mysterious woman who Clive Owen meets on a train. Clive Owen is in advertising and she says she's a stockbroker or something like that, and you know right from the start that this woman ain't no stockbroker. You know, she kind of manipulates him into a tryst and things go bad and things go sour, but you know it's too early on in the movie. This is a movie where all you have to do is watch your watch to know that everything you're looking at is phony.
Larry Mantle>> Our next film is a documentary which takes us into the historic world of dance, the film "Ballets Russes".
[Film Clip]
Larry Mantle>> Jean, "Ballets Russes"?
Jean Oppenheimer>> If a film can be said to burst with life, this is it. I mean, this is just a rapturous, vibrant documentary about the history of the Ballets Russes. What's so wonderful about it is that there is this reunion and all of these former dancers came together. They're all in their seventies, eighties, even nineties, and they're the most wonderful raconteurs. They're just delightful people to listen to and they have found a lot of footage of them dancing in the 1920's, 1930's, 1940's and it just goes fabulously with the stories they're telling. I mean, if you really want to do something nice for yourself or for somebody else, you should go to this film.
Larry Mantle>> Henry?
Henry Sheehan>> Yeah, it's just full of wonderful characters especially the former ballerinas, you know, who are always used to being looked up to and admired for their grace and beauty. Well, they're still used to it (laughter) and it just makes for some marvelous interviews. I mean, this is one of the most captivating movies of the year.
Larry Mantle>> Thanks for joining us for another FilmWeek on Life and Times. I'm Larry Mantle of 89.3 KPCC joined by critics Henry Sheehan of henrysheehan.com, and Jean Oppenheimer of New Times. We look forward to your joining us again next week at this same time for the next FilmWeek on Life and Times.
Val Zavala>> And KPCC public radio broadcasts a full hour of FilmWeek every Friday morning at eleven a.m. And that's our program. I'm Val Zavala. For everyone at Life and Times, thanks for watching. We'll see you tomorrow.
Announcer>> Life and Times was made possible through the generous support of the L.K. Whittier Foundation dedicated to improving the quality of life by supporting innovative endeavors in the fields of medicine, health, science and education.
And by a generous grant from Jim and Anne Rothenberg.
Sponsored in part by:
|
