New York, April 2007 - Day Five

TODAY: "Frost/Nixon"

If it weren't for the fact that the names are so familiar as politicians, the title of Peter Morgan's play could be mistaken for a boxing match-up: Frazier/Ali. Mayweather/De La Hoya. It wouldn't be far off target, either, for the conflict at the heart of "Frost/Nixon" feels very much like a face-off between two heavyweights.

I'm pretty sure 92% of my readers remember the interviews British talk show host David Frost conducted with Richard Nixon, the first interviews he gave (or rather, sold) following his resignation. For the two of you who don't, here's the brief: after Richard Nixon resigned in disgrace, every journalist with an eye to furthering their career wanted to bag the most important interview in a generation. Whoever could convince Richard Nixon to sit down and tell his side of the story was going to be a famous man. At the time (I was 18), I remember wondering why David Frost of all people would be the one to interview Nixon. Why not Walter Cronkite? Or Mike Wallace? I remember Frost had a reputation for being a bit of a lightweight. It would be like having Al Roker get the gig of interviewing Ahmedinejad on the day he decided to conduct Iran's first test of a nuclear weapon. (Well, not quite that, but I think you get the point.)

Still, Frost got the gig. This play is not about HOW he convinced Nixon to sit down with him (the Nixon camp thought he would be a pushover compared to Mike Wallace, and Frost was offering more money than CBS), but about how Frost and Nixon prepare for, and perform in the interviews. It's about the posturing and the deals and the negotiations surrounding the production of the interviews.

And it's bloody fascinating. I don't want to go into the resonances the piece calls up re our current president (but one gets a distinct chill when Frank Langella's Nixon says "If the President does it, then it isn't illegal. That's what I believe."), but if you liked the movie "The Queen," (also written by Peter Morgan), you'll like "Frost/Nixon."

When these two men finally get into the "ring," the play (which already had my full attention) kicks into another gear, and it's a ball to imagine what the real confrontation must have been like. For all his faults, Richard Nixon wasn't a pushover, and David Frost, while initially seen as a lightweight chat show host, ultimately more than held his ground. Michael Sheen plays Frost as a bundle of charm and ambition, and though Frank Langella's portrayal of Nixon seems to be getting more attention, I actually preferred Sheen's work. Although Langella does a passable impression of Nixon (especially when he's doing bits that there are video records of), I was struck by the fact that occasionally he sounded less like Richard M. Nixon than Thurston Howell, III.

I could pick nits with the stage design (the video wall just seems so 1995) and the rather ordinary staging, but overall I was enthralled.

TOMORROW: "Curtains"

New York, April 2007 - Day Four (part two -- "I'll be just a moment."

TODAY: "In The Heights" "Jack Goes Boating" "Jackie With a 'Z'"

"In The Heights" is both a completely traditional musical (it's all about people with dreams), and a contemporary musical (lots of reliance on hip-hop beats and Latin rhythms). The problem with it is, that by combining the two types, they had too much musical and need to cut a bit of it. I had a good time at "In The Heights" (which tells the story of an owner of a bodega in Washington Heights who dreams of going back to the Dominican Republic), but the problems I had with it were exactly the problems I didn't have with "Jersey Boys." That show was so economically told that it fairly thundered along. "In The Heights" needs to get on the express.

Lin-Manuel Miranda conceived the show, wrote the music and lyrics, and is the star, as well. Talk about carrying the weight of a show on your shoulders... But Miranda has the chops to pull it off, especially when he's on stage. This guy commands your attention from the show's first moments, but knows when to let the focus off of him and let it shine on some of the other fine performers (especially Robin de Jesus as Sonny and Eliseo Roman as "the piragua guy." ["piragua" being a sno-cone like treat]). If only he could learn to cut 20 minutes from the show. And he should, because "In The Heights" has a lot going for it, mostly a great big heart. They get to their message (which is the same as "The Wizard of Oz" -- happiness isn't somewhere over the rainbow, it's right in your own backyard) in a sweet, sincere -- but hot -- fashion. Fortunately for the backers, the audience seemed to love it and the house was almost completely full.

"Jack Goes Boating" stars Philip Seymour Hoffman, who is clearly the big draw. Unlike Julianne Moore, Julia Roberts or Denzel Washington, who came to New York with high expectations but failed to deliver, Hoffman pulls off his role with an easy comic aplomb. His Jack is a big lumbering galoot who likes good bud and simple living. It's a terrific comic performance.

What surprised me was how good the rest of the cast was, how balanced they were as a comic (and dramatic) team. Beth Cole, John Ortiz and Daphne Rubin-Vega all take this concoction (by playwright Bob Glaudini and director Peter Dubois) and serve it up with tremendous skill.

The play covers some rough territory, but at its heart it has the same "positive vibe" that Jack seeks from the reggae music he loves. It's the dramatic version of a piece of Sourpatch Kids candy -- on your first bite you say "wow, what is this?," but as you chew you discover the sweetness at the core.

(SPOILER WARNING: I give away a surprise from the show in the last line of this paragraph.)
"Jackie With a 'Z'," on the other hand, is sour on the outside and bitter on the inside. Its star and namesake, comic actress Jackie Hoffman, hates children, cops to being racist -- and still delivers laugh talking about the brush with cancer that kept her from completing her turn in "Regrets Only," the Paul Rudnick play at MTC that I enjoyed so much in December. I mean, any show that ends with a singing uterus hand puppet.

New York, April 2007 - Day Four (part one - "Does anyone still wear...a hat?"

Just because it's below freezing in Manhattan doesn't mean the Easter Parade is cancelled, only that the sea of pastels seems oddly incongruous. Never having experienced the Fifth Avenue Easter Parade, I was expecting a more formal sort of parade: floats, bands, classic convertibles with minor political figures sitting on the trunk, grinning and waving. What I found was more of a promenade: crafty types who have come out to show their headwear handiwork.

This was one of my favorites:
There were actually four of these girls, I just couldn't fit them all into the frame with the crowds:
I know this LOOKS like a centerpiece designed by a florist during a rather intense LSD experience, but it is, in fact, a hat:
This one suggests the layers of nature, from flowers to roots:
I believe those are supposed to be ants on her face.

This trio seemed to be having a good time:
Another crown:
"NOW do you like my hat?":


Ultimately, there were more of these......than there were people with hats.

Happy Easter!

New York, April 2007 - Day Three

TODAY: "Blackbird" and "Journey's End"
The set of "Blackbird" looks like any ordinary office environment, a pre-fab, anonymous space that could be found in tens of thousands of offices anywhere. Bland carpet, nondescript furnishings, flourescent lighting and a suspended acoustical tile ceiling (including several with large, brown water stains, indicating a sense of neglect). The character Jeff Daniels plays, Ray, is also ordinary: a seemingly-average guy working for an average company.

Yet among all this ordinariness lurk dark secrets. As the play opens, Ray leads Una into a conference room or lunch room. The table is strewn with the detritus of several employees' meals. It's as if everyone left every bit of trash behind, leaving someone else to clean up their mess. These two elements -- the ordinariness and the mess no one is paying attention to -- are the heart of the message of "Blackbird." That message, I believe, is that what seems very ordinary, even pleasant and acceptable, can mask the presence of evil. The mess in the room at the beginning of the play (which ultimately gets much bigger) is a metaphor: that unless we learn to see what's really happening around us and take the initiative to do something, very bad things can result.

I don't want to say much about the plot, for fear of ruining the twists and turns, but suffice it to say Una and Ray had a previous relationship that did not end well, and Una has surprised Ray in his new life, where he now goes by the name Peter. Ultimately, this is a bit of a tough play: the subject matter is sensitive, the way it is dealt with is raw, and no quarter is given. No one is sparing your feelings.

As in last night's show (but to a much smaller degree), I feel there are still depths to the characters that Daniels and his co-star Allison Pill haven't quite plumbed (though to be honest, the show is still in previews, so this may change). Overall, though, I think their performances are excellent and the play is well worth seeing. Just don't be looking for things to turn out the way you expect -- and certainly don't expect them to turn out well.

"Journey's End" doesn't end well, either, and though the ensemble cast is terrific and the production first-rate, the play ultimately left me cold. This is a revival of a 1929 work set in the trenches of France during WWI, when German and English soldiers faced each other from only a few dozen yards apart. The cast, including Boyd Gaines ("Contact"), Hugh Dancy ("Elizabeth I" as well as a Burberry model) and Jefferson Mays ("I Am My Own Wife") in a brilliant turn as the company cook, is uniformly excellent, but I found myself (as I often do) searching for a bit more story.

For the moment, I'd have to say pass on "Journey's End."

TOMORROW: "In The Heights" "Jack Goes Boating" "Jackie With a 'Z'"

PHOTO: The New York Athletic Club on 44th street, a block or so from the Belasco Theater. Love those windows!

New York, April 2007 - Day Two

TODAY: "Dying City"
An inauspicious official beginning to the trip. First, it's April, Easter is this Sunday...and it was SNOWING this morning! Second, tonight's show was a bit of a disappointment, especially for a writer. I hate to see a good text mangled by the actors. Well, if not exactly mangled, certainly not lifted to the level of art. The two actors, while skilled (after a fashion), simply failed to discover the humanity of the characters created by playwright Christopher Shinn.

The show is centered around the relationship of Kelly and a pair of identical twins, Peter and Craig. Craig and Kelly were married -- until Craig went off to Iraq (like so many Harvard grads) and died under somewhat mysterious circumstances. A year later, Peter barges in on Kelly, who's clearly been trying to avoid Peter.

The story unfolds rather nicely, as Shinn shifts the time back and forth between the night Peter intrudes on Kelly, and an earlier evening, the night before Craig was to head off for Iraq. Pablo Schreiber plays both brothers, and as the play moves forward, more and more details are revealed about the relationships between the three characters, and what happened between them to cause the tension we feel in the opening moments of the play, when the buzzer rings in Kelly's apartment and she discovers it's Peter downstairs.

As "Dying City" progresses, the stage itself moves. In fact, almost the entire stage (consisting of a couch and a TV on a stand in front of the couch) rotates ever...so...slooooowly throughout the course of the play, In fact, over the 90-minute intermissionless show, the set rotates exactly once. It's so slow you almost don't notice it (I had to have it pointed out to me first, and even then I didn't quite buy it), and then suddenly you realize that when you took your seat the couch was facing an entirely different direction.

Lincoln Center does its usual excellent job with production -- I'm just disappointed the director and the actors couldn't give the characters the sense of truth and dimension that I believe is there in the text.

TOMORROW: "Blackbird" and "Journey's End"

New York, April 2007 - Day One

TODAY: Jason Robert Brown
To set a record, it helps to get off to a strong start. And though we didn't set out to establish a personal record for theater-going on this excursion, I'm sure we will. A show every day, two on Wednesdays, three this Saturday, two next. Plus, one tonight. Arrival days are usually dark, as I refuse to get up early enough to take a flight that could get us to New York in time for an 8:00 curtain. Tonight, though, after a relatively stress-free flight, I found my way across town to Birdland, the famed jazz club that was hosting Jason Robert Brown, a composer/songwriter/singer/piano player.

For the most part, a good show. I knew none of the songs, but ended liking a couple, even though they tended to try a bit too hard for me, some of which I blame on the fact that several of the songs were from off-Broadway musicals I'd never seen ("Parade" "The Last Five Years"). He has an easy stage manner, very relaxed and confident and his lyrics tended toward the clever and/or poetic. I loved the lyric of "I'm Wearing Someone Else's Clothes -- And Looking Better," and the fact that he rhymed "gotten her" with "rottener" -- and pulled it off.

It was also a visceral experience sitting at the first row of tables, with a massive Bosendorfer grand piano no more than eight feet from me. It wasn't mic'd, yet it filled the room and had a power that was almost alive. I don't know that I've ever been that close to that big a piano being played with that much power.

To learn more, hit his web site.

A Step Forward

Not that I would ever WANT to get married at Disneyland, with Mickey and Minnie greeting us and costumed trumpeters heralding our arrival, but at least it's an option.

Quote for the Day

"Only the shallow know themselves." Oscar Wilde

Ah...THAT's why I'm so confused.

Three Graphs on Golf

As the golf season gets into full swing (this weekend is the first major, The Masters), I decided to take a few minutes to examine my own golf game. (And, now, to subject you to this analysis. But, you have no one to blame but yourself -- you clicked here, probably expecting some half-baked idea of mine, or a link to a video of something odd or interesting or amusing, or a rant about the state of civil life in this country. Instead you get to step into my obsession for a few paragraphs.)

After I really started playing golf seriously, in 2004, I signed up with an online handicap service. I enter my scores, it maintains a USGA handicap for me. And, because I enter not a total score, but a hole-by-hole score, and keep track of three key statistics (fairways hit, greens in regulation and number of putts), I can monitor my progress (or plodding, as the case may be) as a golfer.

Here's how my overall handicap has gone over the past three years:


Not as steep a decline (lower is better in a golf handicap) as I would like, and though the trend was down in 2004 and 2005, it bubbled back up in 2006 before starting back down again.

But if you look at the percentage of fairways hit...

And greens in regulation...

...you'll see there is almost no improvement. (Ignore the first few months, as there were too few rounds to make the statistics relevant.) In fact, I'm making fewer greens in regulation now than I was two years ago.

So where is the improvement in my handicap coming from? Here...

I've gone from taking an average of more than two putts per hole to taking 1.8. That's between 32 and 33 strokes per round. The best putter on the PGA Tour this season is averaging 1.68 putts per hole. The worst putter is averaging about 1.9. So I'm probably not going to get significantly better in this aspect of the game. If I could improve my putting to 1.7 per hole I could go from a 17 index to a 16 index.

But...if I can learn to strike the ball better, hit more fairways and (more important) make more greens in regulation, I could have more chances to be putting for birdies and my index could plummet. At least, that's the idea. Now I just have to figure out how to do that.

Coming Out Right

It's still not easy for a kid to realize he is gay, accept himself and come out to family and friends. But it's a heck of a lot easier than it used to be.

The Inner Circle Crack'd

From the early days of George W. Bush's campaign to be president, Matthew Dowd was a trusted adviser, an expert interpreter of polls who helped Karl Rove get Bush elected both in 2000 and 2004. Today, however, Matthew Dowd has officially broken with the administration, saying he has come to a fundamental disagreement with Bush's handling of the office. Specifically, he feels the President and Mr. Rove have focused too much on divisive politics. Money quote:

“I think we should design campaigns that appeal not to 51 percent of the people, but bring the country together as a whole.”

Sounds similar to a post I put up in the early days of this blog.

Maybe, just maybe, people are beginning to realize that what unites us can be far greater than what divides us. If only our president would come to the same realization.

Faster Than Falling

If you fall from a sufficient height, you will reach terminal velocity in just under five seconds. Terminal velocity is the top speed (for a human, it's about 120mph) of a body moving through a fluid (usually our atmosphere) and varies by the density of the liquid and the mass and cross-section presented by the falling body. By "cross-section presented" I mean how UN-aerodynamic can a falling body make itself in order to present as large a surface area as possible to the atmosphere? This is why cats regularly survive falls from great heights. Even above 30 floors, the mortality rate is only about 10%. Cats, you see, upon reaching terminal velocity, relax. This causes their legs to spread, and their skin spreads out rather like a flying squirrel's. This is mostly why their terminal velocity is half of a human's. Granted, 60mph still means a sudden stop, and cats usually don't walk away from these falls without a bit of a limp as a souvenir. I had a cat once that fell four stories down an air shaft. Of course, the cat can't reach terminal velocity in such a short time, so she didn't have time to reach the relaxed phase of the fall and was still experiencing the "oops" response. Had she fallen six stories instead, she might have relaxed, let nature pull the ripcord and walk away unharmed. Instead, her foreleg was broken. And she was, already, in the opinion of our vet at the time, "easily in the top three" of the most difficult animals he'd ever had to treat. No matter what you did to her at the vet, she made sounds that hell's hoariest demons must make when Satan is flaying their skin for the 12,234,844th time. You would have thought the vet was trying to saw her in half with a broken bottle, when, in fact, he was only trying to stick a piece of smooth, sanitary piece of glass up her ass.

All that is a long way to say that this guy is going 151mph! On skis.

The Rift Widens

According to new data from the IRS, the income gap -- the ratio between the top 1% of earners and the rest of us -- is at its widest since 1928. I've long felt there is a widening chasm between the rich and the middle and working classes; simply put, the upper class train is leaving the station, and if you're not on it by now, you'll be left behind with the Wal-Mart greeters and the counter help at Starbucks. I think this bodes ill for our country as a whole, for history is filled with the chaos that comes when too few have too much and the too many will no longer settle for too little. As the economist who analyzed the data said, “If the economy is growing but only a few are enjoying the benefits, it goes to our sense of fairness. It can have important political consequences.”

I'm a large fan of free markets, but I also think it's to our benefit as a society to prevent (or at least slow) a burgeoning oligarchy.

A Bit of a Stretch

When your yoga practice gets to this level, let me know. A prize is waiting for you.

Will someone please tell Ian Paisley...

...that Talk Like A Pirate Day isn't until September. I'm glad he and Gerry Adams sat down with each other and decided to share power in Northern Ireland, but if you heard his soundbites, all that's missing is a few "Arr, me hearties" and the clunking of a peg leg.

More Angry Elephants

If you read my post last year about the increase in acts of elephant-on-human violence, you won't be surprised to read this. Our relationship with the animal world seems broken on some basic level. How long before the geniuses of the animal world, the cetaceans, rise up in revolt?

The Trigger Finger is Itching

Bush has been looking for an excuse to invade Iran, and this may be just what he's looking for. Finally, he must be thinking, a chance to mess with a charter member of the Axis of Evil.

Kissing Update

The Kansas City Star updates its story on the lesbian kiss. Mostly unsatisfying, as it has turned into a "he said, she said," face-off. IHOP says the public displays of affection were "bold displays," and took place in several locations in the restaurant, the women continue to insist their kisses were chaste. Guess we'll never know the truth.

Garrison Clarifies

A few days ago I linked to a column by Dan Savage, as he took Garrison Keillor to task for a column he wrote for Salon. Here, he responds to the kerfluffle.

Great Gift Idea

It's not graduation time yet, but Travel Essentials has a fantastic solution: the Timbuk2 "design your own bag" card. $100 and your recipient gets a package that allows them to design a Timbuk2 messenger bag (Timbuk2 being a very cool bag company in San Francisco's hip Hayes Valley), choosing their own colors and options. Timbuk2 assembles the bag and ships it to your recipient's door step in a few days.

This would also make a great business gift, for people in the right business (architects, designers, yes. accountants, patent attorneys, not so much).

"I'm Trying to Help You, Bitch!"

And you thought YOU had a crazy boss. Check out this video of director David O. Russell going simian on Lily Tomlin on the set of "I Heart Huckabees."

"Don't Fuck With Me, Fellas!"

Our President is pulling a Joan Crawford on Congress, telling them they better shut up and accept his offer to allow White House aides to speak to a Congressional committee -- but not under oath or on the record. Watch this one, this could be a real Constitutional crisis brewing. Bush has already shown to whom he feels the President should answer. Hint: it's a non-corporeal Supreme Creator with an unlisted number. It's certainly NOT a Democrat-controlled Congress.

Bush claims he's avoiding an investigation being pushed solely for political reasons -- which is interesting, because the issue we want to get to the bottom of is whether or not he (or his team) fired US attorneys for political reasons. If White House aides were constantly under subpoena, I could see the President's point, but when has Karl Rove EVER testified under oath (not that I'm sure his oath means anything, given his record).

Let's see some transparency, George. If your guys were on the up and up (while they were doing OUR business, by the way), then you have nothing to fear.

The Night Larry Kramer Kicked Me

This is not a call to action. It is depressing, angry, a bit over the top...and true. But in this opinion piece from the LA Times, playwright Larry Kramer comes off as resigned. Angry as ever, but resigned. As though he is saying, "I have done all I know how to do. And it's still awful."

I have some issues with Kramer's tendency to exaggerate, ("There is not one candidate running for public office anywhere who dares to come right out, unequivocally, and say decent, supportive things about us." Really? How about Gavin Newsom? How about Barney Frank, for that matter?) and I don't agree with him entirely on free speech ("Do you consider it acceptable that 20,000 Christian youths make an annual pilgrimage to San Francisco to pray for gay souls? This is not free speech." And just why not?), or the reason we don't have equal civil rights ("Forbidding gay people to love or marry is based on hate, pure and simple." More like fear and/or ignorance.) but on the main, I'd say he's striking a vein. When he lays it out the way he does here, it's hard not to feel a little assaulted.

PHOTO: Larry -- on a day he didn't feel so resigned.
p.s. Sorry to be such a one-issue blog lately -- I'll get back to the golf and the theater and the odd bits of things you ought to watch or read or do soon.

Intolerance on Parade

If you'd like to see what Middle America really thinks of gay people, read the comments associated with this column from the Kansas City Star. Seems an IHOP in Grandview, Missouri tossed a quartet of lesbians because one kissed the other -- affectionately, not sexually. "It was a kiss I would share with my uncle," one of the women said.

I guarantee if you read through the comments section, you will be amazed at the level of hatred, ignorance and intolerance you find there. One guy even asks to be able to put us all back in the closet and lock the door himself. Others want a return to criminal prosecution of gay people. Plenty of others fall back to the old saw that homosexuality is being "shoved in their face" -- as if the millions of chaste straight kisses one sees on the street don't amount to heterosexuality being shoved in people's faces. I don't like public displays of sexual affection, gay or straight, but what I really hate is self-righteous intolerance in the name of God.

UPDATE: I wrote a quick note to IHOP, asking what they knew about this situation and received a reply that read, in part, "The guests were asked to refrain from bold displays of public affection as guests had found it offensive. They were not asked to leave, they were asked to refrain from bold displays which included open-mouthed kissing and caressing. They elected to leave the restaurant about 20 minutes after the request to refrain was made."

Then I wrote the writer at the Kansas City Star to ask why the stories don't match. He replied that an update is coming in tomorrow's paper. Stay tuned.

Here's something few candidates would say...

"So what if it's risky, it's the right thing to do."

That's from New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, after being confronted about the potential political fallout from his signing a bill to provide medicinal marijuana for 160 ill people who have had pain significantly alleviated through the use of the herb.

I generally support the repeal of many drug prohibitions (but especially marijuana), but my larger point is Richardson's willingness to actually stand on principle. Why should that be so rare among candidates as to be notable when it happens? My friend Amy, after my earlier post in which I wrote of how impressed voters might be with Rudy Giuliani's management skills, especially in comparison with The Chimp's, suggested I take a look at Bill Richardson. I will. He's low on the radar at the moment, but given the current climate, that might be the right place to be for the moment. It's a long campaign. But having someone who is willing to actually believe in something he feels is right, as opposed to what the polls tell him he ought to believe is quite refreshing, and could resonate with voters as the election draws nigh.

Alan Simpson Lays It On The Line

My friend over at The Salinger Hotline alerts me to an excellent column in today's Washington Post. The author is Republican senator from Wyoming, Alan Simpson. In it, he lays out an excellent case for rescinding the policy of "don't ask, don't tell," which he had voted in favor of during the Clinton administration.

His logic goes that first, Americans -- even those in the military -- are more accepting of homosexuality in years past and that a majority favor allowing gay Americans to serve openly. Second, that 24 other countries allow open service. Third, that the armed forces are, according to Colin Powell, "about broken." He continues, saying,

"My thinking shifted when I read that the military was firing translators because they are gay. Is there a "straight" way to translate Arabic? Is there a "gay" Farsi? My God, we'd better start talking sense before it is too late. We need every able-bodied, smart patriot to help us win this war."

I'd like to think gay Americans ought to be allowed to serve openly because expanding equality is the right thing to do, and not merely the most expedient. That whether or not a majority agrees, it is the right thing to do, and that just because other countries have implemented a policy, it is not necessarily incumbent upon us to follow suit -- we should do it because it is STILL the right thing to do.

But since it doesn't look like it will happen simply because it is, in fact, the right thing to do, I think the obtaining of another measure of equality is worth the reasons given to justify it, at least in this instance.

Dan Savage...

...may be my new hero. This guy wields a keyboard that's sharper than a scalpel. His current target is the hypocritical Garrison Keillor.

Chilling

The following is an excerpt from a column on a major conservative web site, talking about the recent Ann Coulter dust-up over the use of "faggot.":

Here's what [Coulter] should do immediately:

1. Start a website called 'Global War on Fags' today.

2. Begin writing essays calling for the cleansing and purification of society via the mass murder of homosexuals.

3. Distribute videos on the website showing the actual murders of homosexuals.

4. Circulate instructions on how to bomb gay bath houses in San Francisco.

5. Circulate a 'battle dispatch' to give people specific information on America's most notorious bath houses.

Amazing.

You can read the full column here.

How long can they last?

An interesting piece on Salon by Gary Kamiya, talking about the effect of right-win reactionaries on the conservative movement. Here's an excerpt:

"For this isn't really about Coulter at all. This is about a pact the American right made with the devil, a pact the devil is now coming to collect on. American conservatism sold its soul to the Coulters and Limbaughs of the world to gain power, and now that its ideology has been exposed as empty and its leadership incompetent and corrupt, free-floating hatred is the only thing it has to offer. The problem, for the GOP, is that this isn't a winning political strategy anymore -- but they're stuck with it. They're trapped. They need the bigoted and reactionary base they helped create, but the very fanaticism that made the True Believers such potent shock troops will prevent the Republicans from achieving Karl Rove's dream of long-term GOP domination."

(Not So) Bleak House

I haven't finished all three DVDs yet, but I can tell you already that the Masterpiece Theater version of Charles Dickens's "Bleak House" is a winner. Almost all the performances are wonderful in their own way (my main quibble is with the scenery-chewing portrayal of Mr. Smallweed), and the story is, well, Dickensian: filled with rich characters (including consumptive waifs, imperious lords, common folk of both good and evil intention) and intricate plot turns. It's a ball.

It's also fascinating for the look it gives into English life of the period. Directors Justin Chadwich and Susanna White have done an incredible job of recreating all the worlds of 19th century England, from the lowest slums to the finest houses. (Or so it seems to me, being neither a historian nor a time traveler.) With night scenes seemingly lit only with candles and lanterns, the grime and offal of London's poorer quarters fully in evidence and the finery of the aristocracy muddied at the hems, the frame feels like it looks directly into 1838. When you see a messenger arrive with word from a neighboring house -- that must then be returned by yet another messenger -- it reminded me how amazingly different is a life where communication is ubiquitous and instant. For that reason alone, "Bleak House" is worth the seven or so hours it requires to take the entire journey.

A Question for Mitt

I'd like to know if any reporter has asked Mitt Romney a question about alcohol use. As a devout Mormon, Mitt believes that imbibing is sinful. But if asked whether his religious beliefs would interfere with his ability to govern a country where alcohol consumption is not only legal, but a part of the cultural landscape, I imagine he'd talk about how he could keep his religious views separate from his civil duty. Once he communicated that stand, I'd like to hear a follow-up question: "If you are able to separate your religious beliefs from your civic duty, why do want to deny equal civil marriage rights to same-sex couples when the primary argument against such unions is a moral one?"

Epiphanies on the Range, Part 2

After being chained to my computer for the past few days, I finally got back out to the driving range yestereve. While I was warming up, I came up with a visual swing thought: I pictured myself as one of those robots that fight in "robot wars" -- a cylindrical device equipped with articulated arms holding a mace-like weapon. As the robot rotates in one direction, the mace and the arms are flung to the right. Then the arms and mace come back left hard -- but ONLY because the body of the bot has rotated back to the left.

It worked, especially on the three-wood -- I was spanking those babies out to 200 yards on the fly. Now all I need is the time to get out to the golf course and see what happens if I apply this epiphany in real life.

Ann Coulter Backpedaling?

In the dust-up over Ann Coulter's remarks at the Conservative Political Action Conference last week, she has twice tried to reframe what she said. (In case you've been marooned in Mauritius, near the end of her speech she said: "I was going to have some comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you say the word faggot -- so I am kind of at an impasse.") Her first comment about the hotly-discussed demo diss was that she would never compare gay people to John Edwards, as that would be cruel to gay people. An ancient trope, and therefore not really very funny anymore.

Then, a day or so later, Ann comes out and says "faggot" has "nothing to do with gays," that "it's a schoolyard taunt meaning 'wuss,' and unless you're telling me that John Edwards is gay, it was not applied to a gay person." Really? And had you called Barack Obama a "nigger" do you suppose a claim that the word "has nothing to do with African-American people," that "it's a sign of brotherhood in urban cultures, almost a term of endearment, as in 'break that shit down, nigga!'" would have gotten you anywhere? Nigga, please.

All Doors Lead Out

This fascinating graph (click on the image to make it larger) tells us what we all know, but sometimes have a hard time facing: that the odds of dying are 1:1. We're all going. HOW we go is the important question. The graph is laid out in a nautilus-like spiral, with dots representing causes of death becoming larger the more common the cause. Many surprises lurk here. For example, you're more likely to be executed by the state than struck by lightning. Suicide is fifth on the list, taking almost as many lives as motor vehicle accidents. But I'm not sure why deaths by "flood" aren't included in the category "drowning." Isn't drowning how a flood kills you? Or is it a separate category when the water comes up and grabs you instead of you voluntarily going to it?

Breathe

Sorry I've been away so long, leaving all eight of you nothing to read. I apologize for any boredom I may have either caused or failed to relieve. Today is brief:

Breathe. Look (or go) outside. Find something to appreciate. Appreciate it. Remember how mysterious is our existence.

Now back to our regular programming.

Who trusts scientists anyway?

As usual, Tom Tomorrow cuts through the bullshit:

You can see a larger version on Salon, here.

Oscar High(and low)lights

#1. Ellen
Not perfect, and not quite as comfortable as Billy Crystal (especially in the first moments of her monologue), but overall I think Ellen acquitted herself quite well. Certainly better than Jon Stewart or David Letterman. I also think she made a great fashion choice -- the velvet tux walked the line between masculine and feminine quite adroitly.
#2. The "Sound Effects Chorus" Stuck in the middle of the show was one of its best moments -- a tribute to sound effects people in the form of a chorus of human voices creating some very convincing sound effects for scenes from actual films.
#3. Pilobolus
Pilease. I can appreciate the skill it takes to create those shadow shapes with their bodies and a few simple props, but every time they cut to one of the Pilobolus segments, I felt the show grind to a halt.
#4. The Ovation for Martin Scorcese
Long overdue.
#5. Jennifer Hudson
Not for her win, but for the look on her face in the opening moments of the show when Ellen called attention to her and said, "I mean -- look at that." It felt like a sexual comment was coming and Jennifer looked very uncomfortable with being the possibility of being desired by a lesbian in front of an audience of billions.
#6. Philip Seymour Hoffman
For worst hair of the night. His head looked like it was being prepared for commercial agriculture.
#7. "The Nominees"
Errol Morris's beautiful, simple, egalitarian look at excitement, anticipation and dedication to craft.
#8. Meryl Streep
For being herself and dressing it down. (And her amazing take when she and Emily Blunt and Anne Hathaway got back into their "Prada" characters for a moment.)
#9. Alan Arkin
I'm just glad "Little Miss Sunshine" was recognized. I had hoped Peter O'Toole would be a surprise winner over Forest Whitaker, but an upset is always fun.
#10. "I Need to Wake Up"
And there was no bigger upset than this -- I mean, the song from a documentary about the potential life-changing effects of global climate change beating out not one but three songs from "Dreamgirls"? Melissa handled the excitement with grace, especially her loving (but nearly chaste) kiss for her girlfriend.
#11. The Show Itself
A reinvention of the form, but familiar enough not to shock. Mostly well-written, with interesting inside looks at the industry. (Especially Errol Morris's short film, reference in #7.)

Getting Real About Global Climate Change

In the first installment of the new season of HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher," Maher addresses the current controversy over global warming with relative balance, even giving air to a recent column by George Will, which attempts to counter the current consensus on global warming that while it may be happening, it's not necessarily our fault and it's not necessarily a bad thing.

Though I think Will is protecting some secret interests of his, he does raise an interesting question: "Are we sure the climate at this particular moment is exactly right, and that it must be preserved, no matter the cost?"

He raises two points in this question. The first is whether we humans are acting with hubris by saying the climate as it is now is optimal enough to attempt to maintain it. Who are we, after all, but simple bipeds wandering this shimmering orb for but a moment, to think we should try to control the forces of nature? Global warming, Will maintains, could merely be part of a natural cycle of troughs and peaks of temperature. "Was life better when ice a mile thick covered Chicago? Was it worse when Greenland was so warm that Vikings farmed there?" he asks. (Since the former was 25,000 years ago and the latter a millenium removed from us, meaning sugarless gum was still in its infancy, I'd say yes and no. Or rather, no and yes.) Does the Earth know better than we what it needs?

On the show, Maher's guest, former HP CEO Carly Fiorina said "How sad if 90% of the species on the Great Barrier Reef perished within the next 25 years. That would be a bad thing." If one follows Will's reasoning to its logical conclusion, one would have to assume the opposite, that the death of those species is what is meant to happen, just as other climatic shifts in previous epochs have meant the extinction of other species. And that interfering with the cycles of Earth's climate is not to be done. Now George goes all crunchy granola on us -- just when people want to use our human powers of reason and ingenuity to try to repair some of the damage past efforts of human ingenuity have inflicted -- or to at least reduce the damage we continue to inflict. Now conservatives decide Earth's natural order must be respected. How convenient.

However, at the core level, I think Will's question deserves an answer. Perhaps this warming would be happening anyway, regardless of what humankind has pumped into the atmosphere. Perhaps carbon emissions do have an accelerating effect, but they merely speed our arrival at a temperature that would have been reached any way due to natural causes. Or perhaps their accelerating effect isn't as strong as we might believe.

The second part of Will's question refers to the price tag for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Clearly, solving a technology problem on such a massive, global level will require the investment of billions upon billions of dollars. Here, like Fiorina, I take a pragmatic view. My reading leads me to believe our meddling with the atmosphere is responsible in large part for the changing weather patterns we are seeing and it's time to fix what we've broken, or at least to stop breaking it.
As Fiorina puts it, "the risks of doing nothing are far greater than the risks of doing something, so let's do something." What's more, she continues, there are so many benefits that could accrue from doing something: "We might reduce our dependence on foreign oil, we might ignite a cycle of innovation in this country -- and that's a good thing." (At least for technology companies that will benefit from the investment required to attack this problem.) Why not invest more money in new energy technologies instead of new military technologies, which are designed to help us wrest the old energy technology from the people who live on top of much of it. The innovations we develop along the way to creating new sources of energy might turn out to be just as important as the energy itself.

The Correct Response to Hater Hardaway

Dan Savage of The Stranger, a Seattly newsweekly, gets it right when offers what gay advocacy groups SHOULD be saying about the recent bigoty exhibited by NBA star Tim Hardaway:

"Mr. Hardaway is entitled to his opinions—and his prejudices. He is not entitled to live in a world or a United States that’s free from homosexuals. We are ‘in the world,’ we always have been, and we always will be. And gays and lesbians should not be subject to discrimination because some people are homophobic any more than African Americans should be subject to discrimination because some people are racist. But if Mr. Hardaway doesn’t care to know or associate with gay people in his private life, that is his right. It is also his loss."

You can read the complete column here.

Dying for Jesus

"Jesus Camp" is a documentary film, one of five nominees for this year's Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature. It is frightening, fascinating and thought-provoking; I recommend it highly, but still with reservations. (More on those later.)

The film follows Becky Fisher, a Pentecostal youth minister who hosts a summer camp for Christian children each year in North Dakota. Becky Fisher is truly a force to be reckoned with; she is a powerful preacher, connects well with kids, and (except for some of what she says) comes off as very normal, very intelligent and completely sincere. So do the three kids the filmakers follow during the course of year (leading up to camp, at camp, and after camp on trips to Washington, D.C. and Ted Haggard's New Life Church).

Becky's goal is very clear and stated early in the film:

"Where should we be putting our focus? I'll tell you where our enemies are putting their focus: on the children." She then goes on to discuss how in the Middle East, Muslim children are going to camps where they learn to operate machine guns and strap on bomb belts: "It's no wonder that with that kind of intense training and discipline that these young people are ready to kill themselves for the cause of Islam."

Then, instead of offering how the children she ministers to are going to bring peace or counteract Islamic hate with Christian love, she instead says: "I want to see young people as committed to the cause of Jesus Christ as the young people are to the cause of Islam. I want to see them as radically laying down their lives for the Gospel as they are over in Pakistan and Israel and Palestine. Because we have...excuse me, but we have the truth."

There in that one paragraph is a philosophy that can lead us into a world of even greater violence and bloodshed than the one we currently inhabit. Two opposing forces, each believing they are divinely endowed with a sacred, immutable truth. And without this truth, no person on Earth can enter into their idea of Heaven. There is no explaining, no logic, no reasoning with fanatics such as these. They WANT Armageddon, they encourage it, because they believe it is the only way the world will see that they have been right all along, that their truth was indeed THE truth.

The rest of the film only reinforces the frightening nature of fundamentalism. When you see Becky shouting "This means war! This means war!" referring to a holy Christian war against non-believers, or hear the children chanting "Righteous judges! Righteous judges!" during a sermon on the evils of abortion and the need for Christians to influence government, it will give you goosebumps. And nothing can prepare for the moment when a sweet, smart, sincere nine-year old girl talks about how being a martyr is "really cool."

The film also shows you how the children reach this place -- through intensive indoctrination that causes them to weep for the sins they have committed, or to hear that "Had it been in the Old Testament, Harry Potter would have been put to death."

Now, to my reservations. Although the filmakers did include an alternative Christian voice (Mike Papantonio of "Air America"), I think it's important to watch the film with a sense of the filmaker's point of view. Although the co-directors claim they tried to approach the subject with complete balance and fairness, I think there are several instances where their bias comes through.

Overall, though, I think "Jesus Camp" is well worth a rental.

"And I am telling you...

...I'm not braking!"

This guy (under the influence), drove his SUV through the wall of a movie theater during a showing of "Dreamgirls." And I thought Jennifer Hudson could stop a show.

I Want Candy

This post is strictly for my Marin County readers (or for those who might be traveling through). The rest of you will just have to suffice with the picture.

The old downtown of Grant Street in Novato is undergoing a renaissance of sorts. New restaurants have opened there (though The Kitchen at 868 Grant, which held such promise after our first visit, has tumbled in my estimation after a second trip there) and there are many new retail stores popping up.

But by far my favorite store in this neighborhood is Powell's Sweet Shoppe, notwithstanding the fact that I hate stores that add an extra "pe" at the end of "shop" -- unless of course your "shoppe" happens to be in Surrey or Nottingham or some such. Stepping into Powell's is like going back to the 60s -- all tha candies of my youth are there: Flicks, Pixy Sticks, Chick-O-Stick, Abba Zabba, Clark bars, Big Cherry, Zero bars and more. There are drawers of all the defunct gums of days gone by: BlackJack, Teaberry, Beamans, etc. Every flavor of Jelly Belly is represented, plus dispensers that allow you to fill a bag of M&Ms in a single color, so you can have nothing but green ones if you like -- or teal or silver or... I've been to what is generally considered the world's best candy store -- Dylan's Candy Bar on New York's upper east side, founded by Ralph Lauren's daughter -- but Powell's is better.

Go -- find a gift for your valentine. (They even have attractive vellum/glassine bags for all the treats you buy.)

"Legally Blonde" World Premiere

Last night I was fortunate enough to be invited to opening night of "Legally Blonde," a musical based on the hit movie, and bound for Broadway. The scene at the Golden Gate Theater (once you got through the Tenderloin spectres outside) was electric. Great crowd, lots of buzz in the lobby beforehand. A handful of minor celebrities in the crowd, Michael Bolton being the most major of the minors.

My overall impression of the show is that it will be the pinkest thing to hit Broadway in, oh, forever. They may not have to rename the street "The Great Pink Way," perhaps, but New York is going to have to reckon with Elle Woods. Though Laura Bell Bundy does a mostly terrific job in the role, it's the character of Elle that stands out, not the actress inhabiting her. As she was in the movie, Elle is ditzy but smart, insightful in a subtle way, and always true to her heart, with great courage in her convictions. (Or acquittals, as it turns out.)

The show has a lot of what Broadway audiences want -- I laughed quite a lot, smiled most of the rest of the time, and walked away happy. There are some wonderful dance numbers (especially the act two opener, "Whipped Into Shape" and "Bend and Snap), and the sets are great. The costumes are fun, as long as you love pink (and blue and gold -- Elle's a UCLA girl).

Some of the music is a little predictable and cliched, but the lyrics are fun and clever, and Jerry Mitchell has done excellent work in the staging of the show. I especially liked "What You Want." In the film, Elle sends a video of herself in lieu of a personal essay. Here, director Jerry Mitchell has turned the video into a live performance -- and a pretty good one at that.

I do think Mr. Mitchell needs to cut 10-15 minutes from the show, as it drags occasionally in the exact same way that "Jersey Boys" doesn't. I might suggest Jerry take the axe to one or two of the weaker songs, such as "Ireland" or "Chip on My Shoulder" or "Take It Like A Man"), but I think overall the show is a winner. It won't do what "Wicked" has done, but it can certainly have a run like "Hairspray" had. The audience certainly ate it up tonight -- I don't know when I've been to a premiere where the audience was more amped.

Reality-Based

Today on Andrew Sullivan's blog (now hosted at The Atlantic, not Time): "the Christianists are not going to put up with secular, inclusive, reality-based conservatism." Wouldn't a shot of reality-based conservatism taste good right now? More important, when will our politicians wake up and realize their pandering to the Religious Right for votes has ended with God's boot on their necks? They can't act on policies that might be effective and efficient unless those policies pass biblical muster.

Case in point:
Religion holds an important place in the lives of individuals, families, communities, our nation and the world. Religious faith, however, takes many different forms, between which there is often very minimal agreement, as evidenced by the deaths of tens of millions of people throughout history on religious grounds.

There must be tolerance for people of all faiths, and for people of no faith. The choice of what tools to use in building a coherent understanding of existence and their place in it must be left up to each individual. Buddha or Allah, Jehovah or the Great Void, believe what you wish. But when it comes to our shared life on this planet, during the time we have, we should guide ourselves by principles which can be tested and proven effective, no matter who does the testing. Theologians may disagree about the nature of God, but scientists do not dispute the effects of gravity, or what happens when molecules of water are heated to 100 degrees Celsius, what is the escape velocity for a spacecraft of a given mass to break free from Earth's orbit. The Christianists (and the Islamists and I imagine several other "ists") would have us believe the Bible is universal and unchanging, God's true Word. If that were true, ultimately, all Christians would come to the same conclusions. Unfortunately for all of us, that is not the case.

So when it comes time to make public policy, let's use science and logic and rationality -- let's make our civic life reality-based.

Can Rudolph Guide Our Sleigh?

I don't think it's an accident Giuliani chose to announce the same day the Bush White House requested an additional $93 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Giuliani's reputation as an expert manager was certain to stand in sharp contrast to Bush's bumblings. Even before watching Giuliani talking on Fox with Sean Hannity this evening I felt so much more comfortable with the idea of having him in charge than any of the other leading candidates, and certainly more than the current occupant of the Oval Office. I don't think I'm alone. The man is impressive; he speaks simply, seems to think rationally, and exhibits a nice balance of confidence and humility. He has gravitas, but not of the stuffy variety. Add that to the turnaround he oversaw in New York, and his response to 9/11, and I think you have a very desirable candidate. This is not a man who would sit glassy-eyed for seven minutes after being informed the nation was under attack. After eight years of one of the worst managers-in-chief in the history of the country, having the man who made New York City safe and financially secure seems like a pretty good option.

But is he an electable option? If die-hard religious conservatives represent 30% of the vote, that's 30% Rudy will have a hard time pulling in. The two divorces and his positions on gun control and equal rights are going to be major stumbling blocks for those whose faith also dictates their civil life. He needs to find a corresponding bloc of voters who can offset that 30% - people who might otherwise vote for a Democrat, but who appreciate Giuliani's skills and rationality enough to give him their vote.

I don't think Barack Obama has the experience to lead the nation yet, John Edwards doesn't inspire enough trust, and I don't like the way Hillary is handling herself -- that stupid jest about Bill is just the most recent example, but her whole campaign feels insincere to me. Giuliani, on the other hand, feels presidential. The question is, are there enough people out there who might vote Democratic in most races, but would crossover to Giuliani for the big race?

One of the main issues for me is obviously equal civil rights for the GLBT community. There are still more than a dozen states where people can be denied housing or fired from their jobs solely for being gay, for pete's sake. On the most visible gay equality issue, marriage rights, I think Giuliani is taking the best position he can, given the political realities. Here's what he said tonight on Hannity & Colmes:

"I feel the same way about it today that I did eight, ten years ago when I signed the domestic partnership legislation: marriage should be between a man and a woman. It should remain that way. We should be tolerant, fair, open and we should understand the rights that all people should have in our society, and I thought the best answer was domestic partnership. So that you recognize the rights of people that are lesbian and gay and you protect them, but marriage should be between a man and a woman."

In other words (I hope), "Let straight people keep the word 'marriage,' as long as full civil equality is provided to all people." I don't have a problem with that -- if everyone has to obtain a civil union license in order to get the full civil benefits of official couplehood, I don't care if heterosexual couples want to take an additional step of having a church recognize the union, I can get behind that.

Perfect Party Place

Check this out -- looks like a great place for an Oscar or Super Bowl party. Or any occassion where you want comfy seats, a big screen and huge sound.

The Decline of Western Civilization, Part 8732

Oh. My. God.

Soy Vey!

Here's an interesting theory -- tofu causes homosexuality. According to James Rutz, chairman of Megashift Ministries, the rise in the use of unfermented soy products, such as tofu and soy milk, causes an increase in estrogen production: "Soy is feminizing, and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion and homosexuality. That's why most of the medical (not socio-spiritual) blame for today's rise in homosexuality must fall upon the rise in soy formula and other soy products."

You can read the full story here.

He's Your Man

A word to the Nobel Committee:

How about Leonard Cohen for the Literature Prize? While not a poetry critic, I find myself touched by his lyrics (and poems), and I know tens of millions of others (or more) have had similar experiences. I don't know exactly what criteria the Nobel committe apply, but I think Cohen has certainly produced a body of work over the course of his lifetime, which counts for a lot I should think. Plus a lot of it is brilliant. The committee has honored novelists and poets and playwrights and politicians -- why not a songwriter (who also happens to have published many volumes of poetry)? He basically reinvented poetic performance, by cloaking it in song.

Give the man the medal.

On Altman

ArtForum has an interesting piece on Robert Altman, by Michael Tolkin, the author and screenwriter who created "The Player," one of the best movies ever about Hollywood.

Epiphanies on the Range

After picking up some matzo ball soup for my ailing daughter, I stopped off at the driving range to hit a bucket of balls. I’m attempting to put into use a new move away from the ball: instead of accomplishing my weight shift onto the right side with my lower body, I’m trying to get more upper body lean in order to get a bigger arc with the club head in order to get more swing speed and therefore greater distance. After about two dozen swings with the 7-iron, I started hitting some 3-woods. I’d hit that club well my last round, and it’s one of my most consistent clubs. I was hitting the ball about 175-180 yards, which isn’t too bad with range balls. (“Real” golf balls have a lot more pop.)

Then, after about three swings with the 3-wood, I readjusted my grip, holding the club more in my fingertips (as I have been taught) and less in the palm of my hand. And then, in that moment, the grip felt right. The club felt light and balanced in my hand. I felt like I would be able to use the flex in the shaft to get more club head speed. For about six swings, I was able to do it. The ball started exploding off the club face and flying 200-215 yards. Then, as quickly as it arrived, the feeling left. But at least I now I know where to look for it.

English Usage Peeve of the Day

I realize it's slightly twisted to think this way (and probably more twisted to actually be blogging about it), but I have a hard time expressing how annoyed I get hearing so many people misuse the terms "less" and "fewer." To be fair, people generally use "fewer" correctly -- it's "less" that throws them off for some reason. "We want less troops in Iraq," you'll hear a politician say. Or on a cooking show the host might say, "If you want to put in less meatballs, it's OK." In both instances, the items to be reduced (meatballs and troops placed in harm's way) can be counted. A specific number can be assigned to them. If those sentences read "We want less violence in Iraq" or "If you want to put in less oregano, it's OK," then the usage would be correct, as one cannot assign a specific quantity to violence or herbs.

So please, help maintain the minimal level of sanity I currently enjoy and spread the word to friends and family on the proper usage of "less" and "fewer."

Significant Stonehenge Finds Announced

Although you can read a fine overview at Time of the discovery of a relatively undisturbed collection of neolithic buildings linked to Stonehenge, this article gives some additional details that help illuminate what the findings might mean in terms of understanding how our ancestors (at least, some of mine) approached the duty of living.

Quote for the Day

"There isn't a man on this planet who wouldn't like to hole more putts."

Former PGA Golfer Graham Marsh

It WAS Satire!

As it turns out, the gay-hating "ex-gay" Pastor Donnie Davies is in fact a Dallas area actor. You can read more here.

Was It Self-Hatred or Was It Satire?

Here is a follow-up to the "God Hates A Fag" music video, a link to which I posted earlier.

I was already beginning to think that my first response to the video -- that this guy is a twisted individual -- may be wrong. That what he is doing is in fact supporting gay rights by highlighting the ridiculous extreme of certain evangelicals' opinion. That Donnie Davies is in fact an artist, and propaganda is his medium. After all, how can one explain some of his lyrical choices?: "there's no back door to heaven" and a reference to getting on one's knees. In the new video, he thanks gay blogger Andrew Sullivan for "getting behind him."

Watch them both and see what you think.

The Ultimate in Self-Hatred

This is about as scary as it gets. Not only are the words of this song filled with hate, if you listen closely, you'll hear that he's actually directing his vitriol at himself. In all the civil rights struggles in history, has any other minority been persecuted with the added force of "God's word"?

A Life of Magical Thinking

An interesting article in today's New York Times about the neurological and psychological underpinnings of magical and wishful thinking. In other words, why do some seemingly rational people cling to rituals or lucky shirts or other superstitions to try to "persuade" the universe to give them what they want?

Money quote: "The point at which the culture withdraws support for belief in Santa and the Tooth Fairy is about the same time it introduces children to prayer. The mechanism is already there, kids have already spent time believing that wishing can make things come true, and they’re just losing faith in the efficacy of that.”

We Know He Thinks He's Right

Speaker Pelosi and the White House are duking it over the President's plan to add more troops. (It's no longer being called a "surge" -- Condi Rice has offered "augmentation," according to Condi Rice, but most Democrats are sticking with the more martial "escalation." I think the Democrats are closer on this one: you escalate a conflict, you augment a breast.) Pelosi said the President "knows that because the troops are in harm's way that we won't cut off the resources. That's why he's moving so quickly to put them in harm's way."

In response, White House spokesperson Dana Perino said, "Speaker Pelosi was arguing, in essence, that the President is putting young men and women in harm's way for tactical political reasons, and she's questioning his motivations, rather than questioning his policies."

First of all, she (as well as most of Congress, or for that matter most of America) ARE questioning his policies. But second, I don't think Peroni's "in essence" was required. I think her questioning of the President's motivations was very clear. I haven't seen a response from Pelosi, but I think she'd admit to this. I think she SHOULD question his motivations. The American people quite clearly expressed their opinion about the President's performance and decision-making abilities in the mid-term election. We want a check on his powers.

Bush, stupid as he is, is not stupid enough not to use everything in his arsenal to get his way. As Peroni stated in the White House press briefing today, "The one thing you can say about President Bush is that he's not moving forward with this new plan because he thinks it is popular; he is doing it because he thinks it is right." We KNOW he thinks he's right -- that's the problem. That's why his side lost the election. We think he's wrong. So we voted in people who would start questioning his policies. But he's putting his plan into place before any real debate about the plan can really begin.

Our Attorney General vs. The Constitution

Read this. Our Attorney General believes the right of habeus corpus isn't guaranteed in the Constitution. Apparently, the only thing the Constitution guarantees is that lawmakers are not to pass laws restricting it.

Wile E. Serenade

The coyotes are out in force tonight, howling and yelping. Closer I think than I have ever heard them. I wonder if the cold is causing this?

Schoolyard Idol

Perhaps I am behind the times, never having watched "American Idol" much before, and then never during the early stages, when they apparently trot out the people who truly believe they have a great voice and depths of talent but in fact are freakishly lacking in both tune and clue. The producers search for (and clearly find) people who are either demented or lack some vital cortical structure that allows them to sense when a pitch is off. These are people who felt their voices ought to be heard, or who were encouraged to audition by cruel acquaintances.

I'm certain there are many people who show up to auditions and purposely sing badly in a quest to be on television -- but I think the producers discover them rather quickly and whisk them out the door. Fox wants no phonies -- they want people who truly believe they can be the next American Idol. The ones that come from Pleasant Fork, Utah and Salina, Kansas all the way to Seattle for the audition because they have a dream.

And then Simon Cowell crushes them. He exposes them to themselves. To see them melt when the message finally comes through: you are an AWFUL singer, one of the world's worst. Some immediately turn to denial and ask Simon what he thinks HE knows about music, that he should be judging them. Others rationalize, saying they were sick or were having an off day. Some plead, asking for second and third chances. Some just sing and continue to sing when told not to, sometimes until the bouncers escort them offstage.

Ultimately though, a few of the true believers come to understand the scale of their misunderstanding and are humiliated. While millions watch.

Imagine their journey through the world of "American Idol." 70,000 people auditioned for the most recent season. Paula, Randy and Simon saw only 1200 of them. The rest were filtered out by 12 preliminary judges. So you go into a room and you massacre a song and if you're really awful, so awful you might be funny or tragic, the judge might say, "That was amazing. Never heard anything like it. I want you to sing for Paula, Randy and Simon." You're excited -- you've made the first cut. They ask you to sing a song. What you don't know is they are asking all the tuneless and clueless to sing the same song so they can make a wacky medley of their immelodious brayings.

Then you get your big chance and you are told you are "useless at everything," "pathetic" and that "your future involves not singing." Some of them break down weeping on a parent's shoulder, sobs racking their bodies. "I could tell they hate me!"

It's like a cruel practical joke -- we'll find the delusional and the congenitally tone deaf and play into their fantasy that they can sing, until we convince them otherwise on national television.

Perhaps Simon and Randy and Paula are actually doing these people a favor, helping them wake up to reality. But the alarm they use to rouse these poor souls takes the form of some rather intense emotional convulsions. I don't know that I like it.

Jake Gyllenhall Superstar

Watch it now. NBC is removing the files as fast as they can find them. But it's pretty funny.

Head Game

As I've stated in an earlier post, golf takes place primarily between the ears. Unfortunately, it's not standard IQ that seems to dictate success over the course of 18 holes, but emotional intelligence. Perhaps it's a bit like the difference between "book smarts" and "street smarts." Call it "links smarts." Unfortunately, I don't seem to have it.

This thought comes to me because I recently had the opportunity to play a couple of rounds of golf with my older brother and his two sons, my nephews. My brother and his oldest son have played the game since they were kids. (His younger son took up the game only a few years ago, and we had never played together before.) At one time, my brother was a single digit handicap. His son is a solid mid-handicapper whom I have bested a total of one time. (And that was the most recent time we played, this past summer at the Presidio Golf Course.) I believe one is also the number of times I have scored lower than my brother. Believe me, those are both numbers I would like to see climb a touch higher.

Knowing, however, that placing too much emphasis on results is bound to affect my game, I made a conscious effort in the days leading up to our excursion to get myself in the right state of mind. I tried to remember the course we were playing was a tough one and would likely eat me up. I tried to relax and tell myself the score didn't matter. I tried to simply enjoy the beauty of the place, take a few pictures and have a good time.

As the round went on, though, and one bad shot followed another (save for the notable exceptions of a wicked 3-wood and a nearly perfect knockdown 5-iron), my attempts to maintain zen-like non-attachment were working about as well as my putter. Which is to say, not at all. I generally average 32 putts/round -- I took 41 our second day. Though I normally shoot in the mid- to low-90s, I failed to break 100 either day.

The thing that has me most in a funk is that this is almost exactly how my mind reacted when I played in my very first sanctioned tournament, almost a year ago. I told myself I didn't care about results, that I was going to enjoy myself and not worry about the score. But when I teed it up, I hit shank after shank and failed to break 100.

The worrisome part is that when I tell myself I should be caring the least, that's exactly when I care the most. My mind lets me down (or I let IT down, either way) and I find myself in a deep funk over disappointing myself -- both in terms of playing poorly and overreacting to my poor play.

The question now is, how do I prepare myself for the next time I play and really want to do well? Do I try again to put pressure out of my mind? Or do I give up on telling myself there's no pressure and accept that it's going to be there? Deep inside, in both these situations, I REALLY wanted to play well. Perhaps someone with "links smarts" would like to chime in and offer advice on how to detach myself from expectations.

Real Music from Tim Hockenberry

Go see Tim Hockenberry.

Simple as that.

Who is Tim Hockenberry? I'm tempted to say singer/songwriter, as that is where a marketing type would probably catergorize him. But you could also call him a pianist, bandleader, trombonist...I think the broader term "musician" is best. Tim Hockenberry makes great music.

Before reserving a place at his recent gig at The Empire Plush Room (which closed tonight, so unfortunately, if you want to see him, you'll have to wait), I'd never heard of him. My guess is you haven't either. But after seeing him play, I wouldn't be surprised if his name recognition skyrockets over the next year or so. Of course, the music business being what it is, I also wouldn't be surprised if he remained in relative obscurity. Given his talents and the amazing band he's put together, though, I'm rooting for the former.

It's hard to adequately describe the magic Hockenberry works. But I'll begin with the voice. A cross between Joe Cocker and Randy Newman with a soupçon of Tom Waits, it's a voice that has real presence. A voice that has gravitas -- without seeming to be overpowering. He doesn't load his performances up with aural fireworks, but he always seems to be singing the truth. And that, I think, is very tough to come by.

Next, his amazing band. I didn't write down the names, but they could make some sounds. The guitarist did some great work, and the rhythm section could really lay down a groove. (My favorite being the foundation they laid for "Built for Comfort, Not For Speed.")

Hockenberry also has a great arranger (and if he's doing them himself, it's just too much talent in one man) that gave us incredible versions of The Beatles' "Girl" and "I Left My Heart in San Francisco."

Top that off with the fact that he has a natural stage presence, blows a mean trombone and is also undeniably handsome, I have a hard time understanding why he doesn't have a fat record contract somewhere.

Keep an eye out. Go.

Is littering no longer a ticketable offense?

Not to pile on the smokers any more than we already have (the poor junkies have fewer and fewer places to indulge in their drug of choice, and I'm all for limiting it even more than it already is), but have you looked down at your feet lately? The litter that is strewn in our gutters and sidewalks is at least 50% cigarette detritus: butts, matches, cartons of Kool. I think they might even be doing it more than any time in the past, as subtle (and perhaps subconcious) rebellion against the restrictions placed upon their habit. After all, when was the last time you saw a smoker snuff out a cig and place it in a nearby trash receptacle? Instead, the butt usually goes (still smoldering) into the gutter or in a doorway. I see signs here in California that littering is punishable by a $1000 fine. Start enforcing that (on everyone, not just smokers -- but the way smokers behave, my guess is they will bear the brunt of increased litter enforcement) and we could balance the budget before you can say "inoperable lung cancer."

Am I being harsh? Insensitive? Unnecessarily judgmental? Who cares? Put your butts in a can.

A New Front?

I've read a couple of interesting things (here is one) in the last few hours about the alleged US incursion onto Iranian soil via a raid at a building which Iran claims as an embassy in Iraq. Apparently the rumor going around Washington is that next on W's hit list are Iran and Syria. If you parse the President's speech from last night, he dropped some rather obvious hints that these two are the real troublemakers in the region. For example: "Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

Take that information and add it to our incursion into a building claimed by Iran as an embassy. Is the real goal there to inflame Shi'a passion and get Iran to respond militarily in some way, thereby earning a military response which Bush can justify as a reason for further attacks against Iran? I don't like where this is heading.

Ziggy (July 4, 2005 - January 7, 2007)

Our sweet boy, Ziggy, is gone. He appeared to be fine when we returned from New York, but the next day he seemed listless. On New Year's Day, he was much worse and I took him to the emergency vet, where -- after extensive testing -- it was determined he had a disease of the central nervous system. After some antibiotics, he rallied for a few days, giving us some hope he might recover. Unfortunately, he took a turn for the worse today and began to seem as though he might be in pain. He could no longer stand or move. So we made what was a tough, but we believe right, decision.

Ziggy left this world peacefully, purring to the very end.

Doogie Howser Mocks Les Miz.

Fantastic. Funny.

Sometimes, all you can say is "wow"

This is an actual quote from a thread in a discussion board on TheGolfChannel.com:

"Hey, you just brought out a great idea! Force all the homosexuals into slavery and send home all the illegals."

About...FACE!

It looks as if the warped policy on gay and lesbian servicepeople, "don't ask, don't tell," has some momentum to be lifted. Here you can read former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff John Shalikashvili's NY Times editorial in which he claims that he has changed his position on the issue.

Of course, the general makes absolutely no mention of the moral rightness of creating greater equality. His major reason is wholly practical: "Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job."

What's more, he's not QUITE ready for it:

"As the 110th Congress opens for business, some of its most urgent priorities, like developing a more effective strategy in Iraq, share widespread support that spans political affiliations. Addressing such issues could help heal the divisions that cleave our country. Fighting early in this Congress to lift the ban on openly gay service members is not likely to add to that healing, and it risks alienating people whose support is needed to get this country on the right track."

How about a simple executive order? Have the President make it the policy of the nation and let Congress deal with issues it needs to deal with.

UFO Sighting at O'Hare

Check this out. Always a skeptic, but this sounds relatively credible.

Predictions for 2007

Since I felt I ought to have a post on the first day of the year, and since I have not made any resolutions (I already lost 25 pounds during the second half of 2006), I thought perhaps I would take a few moments and make a few predictions on what might happen in 2007.

1. Iraq remains a nightmare. As the country continues to slip into greater sectarian violence, the plan to increase troop levels is adopted -- but the extra soliders are there primarily as cover to consolidate operations and pull out fully from the country. International efforts will be applied to find a solution to Irag's political turmoil, but to no avail. If by the end of the year the country is not on track to be partitioned into Sunni, Shia and Kurdish states in a loose federation, then I fear it will take several years of civil war before Iraq stabilizes to any significant degree.

2. Hillary Clinton and John McCain, once front-runners for 2008 presidential noms, slowly slip into the background as also-rans. McCain lasts longer than Hillary, as the Dems begin to realize she is too polarizing to be electable. But McCain's willingness to sell his soul for a voting bloc will prove his undoing, as voters realize that what they loved him for (his independence) was actually an illusion.

3. Barack Obama is too young to get the traction he needs for an '08 campaign and, after exploring a run, decides to pull out of the election. He may actually cite his youth in withdrawing, saying he wants to gain the further knowledge and insight it will take to lead the country.

4. Mitt Romney pushes his credentials with the ultra-conservative right and seems like he could win the Republican nomination, until the Republicans realize he can't win, and go all out to convince Giulliani to run hard. (The GOP doesn't like that he's divorced and lived with a gay couple for a few months, but they will overlook that to retain the White House, which Giuliani can deliver -- unless there are skeletons he doesn't want seen in the light of day.)

5. Bush finally sees how tarnished is his legacy and looks for something to be remembered by, other than the fiasco in Iraq. He settles on global warming. However, he's too tight with his oil buddies and -- like everything else about his presidency -- his attempts to do something about the environment ultimately become another toxic stain on his presidency.

6. The California Supreme Court rules that the state's constitution guarantees marriage equality for all citizens, and California becomes the second state to offer full marriage equality. The right makes an attempt to amend the California constitution, but the effort fizzles.

7. The housing market in the Bay Area rebounds faster than expected, as Silicon Valley's resurgence reinvigorates the local economy. Palm Springs sputters for another season because of overbuilding.

8. "Spring Awakening" is the surprise winner of the Tony for Best Musical.

9. Tiger Woods devotes himself almost entirely to winning all four majors. He takes the Masters, loses the US Open after a very tough Friday round from which even a Sunday 64 won't help him recover, but rebounds by winning the Open Championship and running away with the PGA by a record margin.

10. I shoot another 39 on the front nine of a golf course somewhere, but can't maintain the pace on the back side and end up with an 83, which is my low round of the year.