...strikes again, as he so often does, at the heart of an issue, not through bluster, but with style and wit that in another age would have been called rapier-like. On tonight's show, Stewart is disucssing the Wolfowitz scandal (He hired his girlfriend. which doesn't get much play on the major networks, having to do only with one of the most powerful and influential institutions in the world, and not a rather bosomy corpse). After a few salient points to make ready the ground (be fair, Wolfowitz pleaded, "I was new to this institution."), Stewart gives us a video bite of Wolfowitz apologizing: "I made a mistake, for which I am sorry."
That's when Stewart hits it: "There you have it -- Paul Wolfowitz, one of the principal architects of the Iraq War, apologizing. For something else. I imagine it's like when Charles Manson left a note on the Tate and LoBianca houses, saying 'Sorry about the carpets.""
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
O'Reilly the Understater
It's hard not to watch the coverage from the Virginia Tech massacre -- it's everywhere. On Fox, the tease for "The O'Reilly Factor" included this comment from the brobdingnagian bloviator himself: "Greta, we've been investigating this mass murderer, Cho Seung-Hui, and we have disturbing stuff to tell you. Comin' up." He just killed 32 people -- how much more disturbing does it get than that?
Whiteboard Madness
Do take a moment to check out this web site, which is a promo site for an author's new book of stories. Be patient, it gets funnier as it goes along.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
New York, April 2007 - Day Eleven
TODAY: "The Coast of Utopia: Salvage" "Love/Musik"
After 18 shows in 11 days, it was both a challenge and a pleasure to close with one of the most attention-demanding (but also one of the best) shows of the trip. I saw the first two installments of Tom Stoppard's massive trilogy on the birth of modern revolutionary thought back in December and blogged about them here and here.
Today, I headed back up to Lincoln Center for the final production of the troika. Although I can see how some might be disappointed in this last installment (it's a bit clunkier than the first two), taken as a whole, the production of "The Coast of Utopia" trilogy is one of the most stunning works of theater I've ever seen. The scale of the sets and staging and effects and lighting that Lincoln Center can put on never ceases to amaze me. The cast is terrific, maintaining focus and energy throughout these long works. I can hardly imagine what they must look (and feel) like on the days they perform all three plays as a marathon.
The final line of the trilogy is simple: "There is going to be a storm." The line is meant both literally and figuratively -- both in terms of the coming storm in Russian in 1917 (the play ends in 1868) and in terms of the ongoing war between tradition and modernity.
There is far more in "The Coast of Utopia" than I have the energy, the time or the intellect to fully explore here and now -- but if you have the opportunity to experience this amazing production, take it.
I'm witholding my opinion, however, on "Love/Musik," the Manhattan Theatre Club production now in previews at The Biltmore. The story of the relationship between composer Kurt Weill and his wife and muse Lotte Lenya, has a great deal to recommend it, primarily that fascinating story, two solid leading perfomers and a lot of Weill music. Unfortunately, the show is long. But it's early in previews so additional cuts could be made. What is more unfortunate, however, is that the show lacks that dark, edgy quality I get from Weill's music. The songs all seem to have been overdusted with musical Splenda, sweetened almost beyond recognition. It's the same music, but the arrangements and orchestration seem to have changed the core mood of Weill's songs. And that's a pity. On top of that, I could just never get behind the idea of Donna Murphy as the dissolute, world-weary Lotte Lenya. Michael Cerveris is eminently-believeable as Kurt Weill, but Murphy is just too healthy-looking to be Lenya.
For now, I say give it a pass, but keep an eye on it, in case they can make the major changes needed to rescue Weill's music and bring the solid book by Alfred Uhry to the fore.
TOMORROW: Home!
After 18 shows in 11 days, it was both a challenge and a pleasure to close with one of the most attention-demanding (but also one of the best) shows of the trip. I saw the first two installments of Tom Stoppard's massive trilogy on the birth of modern revolutionary thought back in December and blogged about them here and here.
Today, I headed back up to Lincoln Center for the final production of the troika. Although I can see how some might be disappointed in this last installment (it's a bit clunkier than the first two), taken as a whole, the production of "The Coast of Utopia" trilogy is one of the most stunning works of theater I've ever seen. The scale of the sets and staging and effects and lighting that Lincoln Center can put on never ceases to amaze me. The cast is terrific, maintaining focus and energy throughout these long works. I can hardly imagine what they must look (and feel) like on the days they perform all three plays as a marathon.
The final line of the trilogy is simple: "There is going to be a storm." The line is meant both literally and figuratively -- both in terms of the coming storm in Russian in 1917 (the play ends in 1868) and in terms of the ongoing war between tradition and modernity.
There is far more in "The Coast of Utopia" than I have the energy, the time or the intellect to fully explore here and now -- but if you have the opportunity to experience this amazing production, take it.
I'm witholding my opinion, however, on "Love/Musik," the Manhattan Theatre Club production now in previews at The Biltmore. The story of the relationship between composer Kurt Weill and his wife and muse Lotte Lenya, has a great deal to recommend it, primarily that fascinating story, two solid leading perfomers and a lot of Weill music. Unfortunately, the show is long. But it's early in previews so additional cuts could be made. What is more unfortunate, however, is that the show lacks that dark, edgy quality I get from Weill's music. The songs all seem to have been overdusted with musical Splenda, sweetened almost beyond recognition. It's the same music, but the arrangements and orchestration seem to have changed the core mood of Weill's songs. And that's a pity. On top of that, I could just never get behind the idea of Donna Murphy as the dissolute, world-weary Lotte Lenya. Michael Cerveris is eminently-believeable as Kurt Weill, but Murphy is just too healthy-looking to be Lenya.
For now, I say give it a pass, but keep an eye on it, in case they can make the major changes needed to rescue Weill's music and bring the solid book by Alfred Uhry to the fore.
TOMORROW: Home!
Saturday, April 14, 2007
New York, April 2007 - Day Ten
TODAY: "Tea & Sympathy" "Some Men"
This is probably the gayest day of theater a person could experience. The only thing that could make it even the slightest bit more homocentric would to have added a performance of "Gypsy."
"Tea & Sympathy" is a revival of a 1953 play that must have been quite racy and even shocking in its time. The story concerns a boys' boarding school and the scandal that ensues when one of the teachers is seen skinny-dipping with one of the boys, who is already perceived as an "off horse" and "not a regular fellow." The accusations fly fast and fierce, and the only ally this poor 17-year old has is the wife of the most homophobic (and therefore possibly gay himself) of his tormentors. She, of course, is ready to stand behind him, not because he's gay, but because she feels it's not fair to accuse him of such a heinous crime without solid evidence.
Taken as a period piece, I think the production is quite successful, especially given how far off-Broadway it is. The incriminations, the shame, the teasing -- all combine to paint a picture of what it was like to be young and gay (or any age and gay) in the early 1950s. When I was a kid, being a faggot was the worst thing you could be -- and it must have been a LITTLE better in 1973 than it was in 1953.
Whatever gay issues "Tea & Sympathy" didn't cover at the matinee, "Some Men" got to at the evening performance. "Some Men" was written by Terrence McNally, who also authored the current disaster, "Deuce." Now we know where all his passion and energy was going. Where "Deuce" was false from start to finish, "Some Men" has almost nothing but truth. There's not a whole lot of structure here, other than the fact that the show begins and ends at a same-sex wedding ceremony at the Waldorf-Astoria, and a few of the characters (played by eight actors) appear in multiple scenes.
The show felt almost like a collection of scenes from half a dozen great gay plays: one about the Stonewall pioneers, one about gay marriage, one about "don't ask, don't tell," another about AIDS, one about gay parenting, one about gay men finding God and still another about long-term relationships. There are probably a few more in there, but the great thing about it feeling like a collection of the best scenes from different plays is that you got a show full of great scenes.
"Some Men" is a terrific show, and not just for gay men. The two straight friends we went to the show with liked it even more than we did!
TOMORROW (last day): "The Coast of Utopia: Salvage" "Love/Musik"
This is probably the gayest day of theater a person could experience. The only thing that could make it even the slightest bit more homocentric would to have added a performance of "Gypsy."
"Tea & Sympathy" is a revival of a 1953 play that must have been quite racy and even shocking in its time. The story concerns a boys' boarding school and the scandal that ensues when one of the teachers is seen skinny-dipping with one of the boys, who is already perceived as an "off horse" and "not a regular fellow." The accusations fly fast and fierce, and the only ally this poor 17-year old has is the wife of the most homophobic (and therefore possibly gay himself) of his tormentors. She, of course, is ready to stand behind him, not because he's gay, but because she feels it's not fair to accuse him of such a heinous crime without solid evidence.
Taken as a period piece, I think the production is quite successful, especially given how far off-Broadway it is. The incriminations, the shame, the teasing -- all combine to paint a picture of what it was like to be young and gay (or any age and gay) in the early 1950s. When I was a kid, being a faggot was the worst thing you could be -- and it must have been a LITTLE better in 1973 than it was in 1953.
Whatever gay issues "Tea & Sympathy" didn't cover at the matinee, "Some Men" got to at the evening performance. "Some Men" was written by Terrence McNally, who also authored the current disaster, "Deuce." Now we know where all his passion and energy was going. Where "Deuce" was false from start to finish, "Some Men" has almost nothing but truth. There's not a whole lot of structure here, other than the fact that the show begins and ends at a same-sex wedding ceremony at the Waldorf-Astoria, and a few of the characters (played by eight actors) appear in multiple scenes.
The show felt almost like a collection of scenes from half a dozen great gay plays: one about the Stonewall pioneers, one about gay marriage, one about "don't ask, don't tell," another about AIDS, one about gay parenting, one about gay men finding God and still another about long-term relationships. There are probably a few more in there, but the great thing about it feeling like a collection of the best scenes from different plays is that you got a show full of great scenes.
"Some Men" is a terrific show, and not just for gay men. The two straight friends we went to the show with liked it even more than we did!
TOMORROW (last day): "The Coast of Utopia: Salvage" "Love/Musik"
Friday, April 13, 2007
New York, April 2007 - Day Nine
TODAY: "Our Leading Lady" "Los Angeles"
Charles Busch, Tony Award-winning author of "The Tale of the Allergist's Wife," is generally capable of delivering a good time, and "Our Leading Lady" is no exception. Busch has a deft hand with a one-liner, and is even more skilled at creating compelling comic characters and guiding them through a story. His plays are often campy fun (especially the ones in which he goes in drag to play the lead female characters).
"Our Leading Lady" tells a story of Laura Keene, the actress who was on stage in the Ford's Theater production of "Our American Cousin" the night Abraham Lincoln was shot. The first act is all comic antics as Keene comes in as the traveling star who is forced to work with the local cast -- and throwing everything into disorder. After the intermission, the mood turns much darker, as the cast (especially the diva) comes to terms with the fact that they will forever be associated with the tragedy of April 14, 1865.
Kudos to Kate Mulgrew for her delicious portrayal of the egotistical, self-centered (yet madly charming) Laura Keene and Ann Duquesnay, who plays Madame Wu-Tan, the stage star's dresser/assistant. Duquesnay is a zaftig black woman playing a Chinese woman (at least for most of the show -- but let's not spoil anything, shall we?) to tremendous comic effect. Kristine Nielsen is excellent, as usual -- though I would like to see a bit more range from her. She seems to be relying on the same sets of eye rolls and shuddering takes that got her laughs in "Miss Witherspoon" and "Wonder of the World."
Overall, a fun show, but nothing especially earth-shattering here.
"Los Angeles," on the other hand, while not perhaps truly earth-shattering, is nonetheless a very good production -- an exceptional one if you consider the size of its theater (and presumably its budget).
"Los Angeles" is the story of Audrey, a girl who lost her self-esteem somewhere on the road through adolescence. Now that she is a young woman, she is once again on the search for something resembling her genuine self. Unfortunately, like too many sensitive, but unassertive young woman, Audrey looks for love in drugs, alcohol, unreliable men and users of both sexes -- as well as well-intentioned people who would help Audrey, if only she could make the first step on her own.
Katherine Waterston is a revelation in this role. As portrayed by Ms. Waterston, Audrey is gentle, fierce, intelligent, foolish, needy, bossy, impetuous and passionate -- all delivered with tremendous skill and feeling. My only problem with her performance is that when she was at her worst moments (on a five-day meth binge, for example), she still looks gorgeous. In a film role, makeup could help her overcome this, but she could use a little more experience in using her prodigious physical acting skills in creating the sense of defeat, the sense of bearing the bruises delivered by hard living. (I think of how Lisa Emery in "Iron" was able to make me believe she had been on a hunger strike between act one and act two.) I hope she can get there, because tonight she showed me she has a huge amount of talent.
Only one scene in tonight's performance felt wrong to me, and it came late in the show when Audrey meets her father (long-estranged from her) for lunch. After so much that felt so true, this scene -- which rang as completely and utterly false -- was jarring to me. It felt like the show ground to a halt for those five minutes and I was so glad when Dad left the stage.
I could go on about what I liked about "Los Angeles" (the band [except for the singer, who needs to monitor her pitch a bit more closely], the simple staging, the direction of Adam Rapp), but since it closes tomorrow night, I doubt it will make much difference. But keep your eye on Katherine Waterston -- she's a keeper.
TOMORROW: "Tea & Sympathy" "Some Men"
Charles Busch, Tony Award-winning author of "The Tale of the Allergist's Wife," is generally capable of delivering a good time, and "Our Leading Lady" is no exception. Busch has a deft hand with a one-liner, and is even more skilled at creating compelling comic characters and guiding them through a story. His plays are often campy fun (especially the ones in which he goes in drag to play the lead female characters).
"Our Leading Lady" tells a story of Laura Keene, the actress who was on stage in the Ford's Theater production of "Our American Cousin" the night Abraham Lincoln was shot. The first act is all comic antics as Keene comes in as the traveling star who is forced to work with the local cast -- and throwing everything into disorder. After the intermission, the mood turns much darker, as the cast (especially the diva) comes to terms with the fact that they will forever be associated with the tragedy of April 14, 1865.
Kudos to Kate Mulgrew for her delicious portrayal of the egotistical, self-centered (yet madly charming) Laura Keene and Ann Duquesnay, who plays Madame Wu-Tan, the stage star's dresser/assistant. Duquesnay is a zaftig black woman playing a Chinese woman (at least for most of the show -- but let's not spoil anything, shall we?) to tremendous comic effect. Kristine Nielsen is excellent, as usual -- though I would like to see a bit more range from her. She seems to be relying on the same sets of eye rolls and shuddering takes that got her laughs in "Miss Witherspoon" and "Wonder of the World."
Overall, a fun show, but nothing especially earth-shattering here.
"Los Angeles," on the other hand, while not perhaps truly earth-shattering, is nonetheless a very good production -- an exceptional one if you consider the size of its theater (and presumably its budget).
"Los Angeles" is the story of Audrey, a girl who lost her self-esteem somewhere on the road through adolescence. Now that she is a young woman, she is once again on the search for something resembling her genuine self. Unfortunately, like too many sensitive, but unassertive young woman, Audrey looks for love in drugs, alcohol, unreliable men and users of both sexes -- as well as well-intentioned people who would help Audrey, if only she could make the first step on her own.
Katherine Waterston is a revelation in this role. As portrayed by Ms. Waterston, Audrey is gentle, fierce, intelligent, foolish, needy, bossy, impetuous and passionate -- all delivered with tremendous skill and feeling. My only problem with her performance is that when she was at her worst moments (on a five-day meth binge, for example), she still looks gorgeous. In a film role, makeup could help her overcome this, but she could use a little more experience in using her prodigious physical acting skills in creating the sense of defeat, the sense of bearing the bruises delivered by hard living. (I think of how Lisa Emery in "Iron" was able to make me believe she had been on a hunger strike between act one and act two.) I hope she can get there, because tonight she showed me she has a huge amount of talent.
Only one scene in tonight's performance felt wrong to me, and it came late in the show when Audrey meets her father (long-estranged from her) for lunch. After so much that felt so true, this scene -- which rang as completely and utterly false -- was jarring to me. It felt like the show ground to a halt for those five minutes and I was so glad when Dad left the stage.
I could go on about what I liked about "Los Angeles" (the band [except for the singer, who needs to monitor her pitch a bit more closely], the simple staging, the direction of Adam Rapp), but since it closes tomorrow night, I doubt it will make much difference. But keep your eye on Katherine Waterston -- she's a keeper.
TOMORROW: "Tea & Sympathy" "Some Men"
Thursday, April 12, 2007
New York, April 2007 - Day Eight
TODAY: "Deuce"
"Deuce" is stage icon Angela Lansbury's first role on Broadway in more than 25 years. Given the quality of what was put on the boards earlier this evening at the Music Box, she might have been wise to hold off a bit longer. Although allowances must be made for the fact that this was only the second preview, I still don't see enough in the text from which to construct a Broadway hit. I'm willing to forgive the fact that Lansbury and her co-star Marian Seldes had to be prompted on at least half a dozen occasions. I can forgive a script that lags from time to time -- cuts can be made as the show develops. I can even forgive the use of a pair of broadcast blowhards commenting from the TV booth overlooking center court. (The show concerns Lansbury and Seldes as a pair of tennis doubles legends who are sitting in box seats at the US Open, where they are to be honored after the match.) That they can cut. What I can't forgive is the fact that there was only a single moment that felt true to me. (It was the moment near the play's end when the two women were bathing in the applause of the crowd in the stadium -- the two characters appeared to be genuinely touched by the ovation, even though it was pre-recorded.)
I think both women are tremendous performers, and even at this early stage of production they look comfortable on stage, even though neither knows her lines. (Thank goodness there is minimal blocking -- they are in their seats for almost the entire show.) But neither acts remotely like a former world-class athlete. I don't think that's their fault, but rather the fault of playwright Terrence McNally. The dialogue is not just overly stage-y, it has no ring of truth at all. How hard could it have been for McNally to watch a few tennis matches on TV, and maybe a few interviews with players? Or listened to what today's tennis broadcasters really sound like? Because the commnetators in the booth were simply ridiculous caricatures, unlike anything one hears during the broadcast of a Grand Slam tennis event. Then there's the fact that I never once cared about these characters as people. I never understood why there was tension between them, or if, in fact, what I was seeing was supposed to BE tension.
What a mess. Too bad, too, because the story of how women's professional tennis achieved its currently level of popularity, through the bravery and tenacity of women who spent their entire careers earning what many of today's pros get for wearing a pair of shoes for a single season. It was a dramatic time, and though "Deuce" touches on it, it's not even close to a central theme. In fact, I'm not sure I could FIND a central theme.
"Deuce" is filled with dozen of unforced errors, double faults, bad line calls -- and just that one winner. It goes down in the first round, 0-6, 1-6.
TOMORROW: "Our Leading Lady" "Los Angeles"
PHOTO: New York's finest dealing with a situation at 41st and Lexington. Don't worry - it's not smoke, just a whole LOT of steam.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
New York, April 2007 - Day Seven
TODAY: "Inherit The Wind" "Losing Something"
There is a war, an ancient war. It pits reason against faith, tradition against modernity. Its genesis was at dawn of humanity, but it came of age at the battle of Copernicus. But once the defenders of faith were finally forced to let go of their idea of an Earth-centric universe, and face the physical reality of our orbiting a mass of incandescent gas, you'd think people might have become a tad more willing to accept subsequent theories backed by overwhelming physical evidence. Global climate change, for example. Or evolution.
Alas, such is not the case. Which is why, more than 50 years after its first production, "Inherit The Wind," still resonates as fundamentally true. The play, as you likely know, is a fictionalized account of the 1925 Scopes "Monkey" trial in which a Tennessee teacher, John Scopes, was recruited to be a defendant in a case designed to challenge Tennessee's prohibition against teaching anything other than creationism in its public schools.
And though the production is first rate (although I'm a tad disappointed with Santo Loquasto's set -- it's not up to his standards), with bravura performances by both Brian Dennehy and Christopher Plummer, plus a wonderfully acid turn by Tony-winner Denis O'Hare as the reporter covering the trial (more on that in a moment), it ultimately felt too stodgy -- and too innocent -- to make the impact it needs to. For as universally-accepted is the correctness of evolution, teaching creationism as a valid explanation for the origins of the universe was until recently the policy in Kansas and was only rejected in February of THIS year.
My concern is that audiences may look at this production, with its period costumes and non-air-conditioned court rooms and think the battle between science and zealotry was fought and won years ago.
The show opens with a mixed quartet singing "I Shall Not Be Moved," which I think points to the core issue: believers will stick to their positions no matter how compelling the evidence against them. Whether it is the true theocrats in the Islamic world, or the wanna-be theocrats of the religious right, the bumper sticker sums it up: "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." That's a very dangerous position to hold, and while I'm glad "Inherit The Wind" is defending that position, I think we need more (and better) artistic defenders of reason and verifiable truth.
The lead character in "Losing Something" is indeed losing something -- his mind. Or his grasp on reality. One or the other. Doesn't really matter, as the piece is both pretentious and pointless. Though the staging and imagery are fascinating in this performance piece (it utilized a new 3D projection technology), and some interesting philosophical points are raised in the final 20 minutes (of an hour show), it ultimately failed to move me in any fundamental way.
TOMORROW: "Deuce"
There is a war, an ancient war. It pits reason against faith, tradition against modernity. Its genesis was at dawn of humanity, but it came of age at the battle of Copernicus. But once the defenders of faith were finally forced to let go of their idea of an Earth-centric universe, and face the physical reality of our orbiting a mass of incandescent gas, you'd think people might have become a tad more willing to accept subsequent theories backed by overwhelming physical evidence. Global climate change, for example. Or evolution.
Alas, such is not the case. Which is why, more than 50 years after its first production, "Inherit The Wind," still resonates as fundamentally true. The play, as you likely know, is a fictionalized account of the 1925 Scopes "Monkey" trial in which a Tennessee teacher, John Scopes, was recruited to be a defendant in a case designed to challenge Tennessee's prohibition against teaching anything other than creationism in its public schools.
And though the production is first rate (although I'm a tad disappointed with Santo Loquasto's set -- it's not up to his standards), with bravura performances by both Brian Dennehy and Christopher Plummer, plus a wonderfully acid turn by Tony-winner Denis O'Hare as the reporter covering the trial (more on that in a moment), it ultimately felt too stodgy -- and too innocent -- to make the impact it needs to. For as universally-accepted is the correctness of evolution, teaching creationism as a valid explanation for the origins of the universe was until recently the policy in Kansas and was only rejected in February of THIS year.
My concern is that audiences may look at this production, with its period costumes and non-air-conditioned court rooms and think the battle between science and zealotry was fought and won years ago.
The show opens with a mixed quartet singing "I Shall Not Be Moved," which I think points to the core issue: believers will stick to their positions no matter how compelling the evidence against them. Whether it is the true theocrats in the Islamic world, or the wanna-be theocrats of the religious right, the bumper sticker sums it up: "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." That's a very dangerous position to hold, and while I'm glad "Inherit The Wind" is defending that position, I think we need more (and better) artistic defenders of reason and verifiable truth.
The lead character in "Losing Something" is indeed losing something -- his mind. Or his grasp on reality. One or the other. Doesn't really matter, as the piece is both pretentious and pointless. Though the staging and imagery are fascinating in this performance piece (it utilized a new 3D projection technology), and some interesting philosophical points are raised in the final 20 minutes (of an hour show), it ultimately failed to move me in any fundamental way.
TOMORROW: "Deuce"
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
New York, April 2007 - Day Six
TODAY: "Curtains"
"Curtains" comes from the same songwriting team (Kander and Ebb) that created two wonderful musicals: "Cabaret" and "Chicago." They began writing it about 20 years ago -- and should have stopped writing it 19 years ago.
It's not that I hated the show... but it was awful nonetheless. It was like a musical being staged within a Christopher Guest movie, the one the actors don't realize is uninspired dreck, yet give themselves over wholly to their performances. Unfortunately, I don't think this cast has the comfort of ignorance. I think they're all too good and too experienced not to realize this show is, at its heart, a lead box filled with forced joy, from which there is no escape (at least contractually).
The songs are forgettable, done in mostly by the lack of cleverness in the lyrics. (The lyricist half of the team, Fred Ebb, died in 2004, clearly before he could finish his work -- or perhaps even begin it.) They all have a first-thing-that-comes-to-mind sort of flavor to them. "Thataway...hmmm...throw your hat away? That works. What's next?" The script is clunky and both obvious and obtuse at the same time -- which is tough to do. There must have been half a dozen times where a line was delivered, fell flat and I instantly thought -- "you know, if you'd phrased it this way..."
Then there was the profanity. I don't have a problem with blue language (I think "Deadwood" is one of the best bits of drama ever), but it needs to serve a purpose. Profanity can have the ability to heighten a line or punctuate a point -- but not here. Here it almost always falls flat and sounds forced.
David Hyde Pierce, to his credit, is quite funny. In fact, I don't think the faults of this show can in any way be blamed on the cast. They are the innocent victims in this debacle. We can only pray for an early close and wonderful new jobs for them all. Especially Edward Hibbert, who does his usually wonderful bitchy comic turn.
The bridge and tunnel crowd seemed to have a good time, and that, combined with David Hyde Pierce's star power, will probably keep the show open for a year or so. But no matter how long they keep these curtains up -- turn away.
TOMORROW: "Inherit the Wind" "Losing Something"
PHOTO: The very crowded 4 train, 3:30 this afternoon, near the Union Square station, just before the guy with the dreads threatened to break the neck of the man with the glasses. ("Go ahead," the guy in the glasses said, "you'll look good in handcuffs." "Yeah, but I'll get to fuck you up first," Dreads replied. "That would make it worth it. That would turn me on."
Monday, April 09, 2007
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"
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"
Sunday, April 08, 2007
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.
"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!
Saturday, April 07, 2007
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!
Friday, April 06, 2007
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"
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"
Thursday, April 05, 2007
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.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, April 02, 2007
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.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
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.
“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.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
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.
All that is a long way to say that this guy is going 151mph! On skis.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
A Bit of a Stretch
When your yoga practice gets to this level, let me know. A prize is waiting for you.
Monday, March 26, 2007
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.
Friday, March 23, 2007
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.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
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.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
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.
Monday, March 19, 2007
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.
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.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
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."
"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."
Saturday, March 10, 2007
(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.
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.
Friday, March 09, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
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.
Friday, March 02, 2007
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.
Breathe. Look (or go) outside. Find something to appreciate. Appreciate it. Remember how mysterious is our existence.
Now back to our regular programming.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Sunday, February 25, 2007
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.)
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.)
Friday, February 23, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, February 16, 2007
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.
"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.
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.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
"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.
Monday, February 12, 2007
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.)
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
"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.
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.
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.
Monday, February 05, 2007
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.
Saturday, February 03, 2007
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.
You can read the full story here.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
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.
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."
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."
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
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
Former PGA Golfer Graham Marsh
Sunday, January 28, 2007
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.
Friday, January 26, 2007
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.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
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"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
