Look Out Below!

There are thousands of large objects -- asteroids, mostly -- that could one day collide with Earth with enough impact to render our dear blue sphere inhabitable to a demanding species such as ours. Fortunately, space is large and can contain thousands of objects quite safely for quite a long time. About 500,000 years or so. On average, that's about the amount of time between catastrophic impacts, like the one that may have turned the dinosaurs into the extinction cliche they have become.

NASA, however, has been trying to keep an eye on them for us. For the past years, they have been watching for and cataloging as many of the larger objects as they could. In fact, they are closing in on identifying at least 90% of all objects in near-Earth orbits that are larger than a kilometer across. If one of those hits the Earth -- anywhere -- humanity's lights will be turned out permanently. The agency was planning to catalog 90% of smaller objects, too, those that are a minimum of 140 meters across. Though much smaller, they could still leave a nasty mark.

Unfortunately, budget cuts have meant this goal will likely not be met. Which means one morning we could wake up to find a giant rock hurtling toward us.

I'm all for watching out, but if we see one coming, can we really do anything about it? NASA has a plan to try and deflect such an object, if it can be detected early enough, but do we really have the capability to turn a giant asteroid from its course? You can find a link to NASA's deflection plan here.

Here's the Cliff Notes: "Unless there are decades of warning time, hazardous NEOs (those are Near-Earth Objects) larger than a few hundred meters in diameter may require large energies to deflect or fragment. In these cases, nuclear explosions, either stand-off or surface blasts, might provide a suitable response. For the far more numerous objects that are smaller than a few hundred meters in diameter, and provided there is a sufficient warning time, a kinetic energy (KE) impactor spacecraft might be sufficient to deflect the hazardous NEO so that it would miss the Earth at the time of a predicted impact."

Key word in both those instances: might.

So wear a hat.

These are Real People We're Talking About

Whenever people get caught up in the abstract rejection of marriage equality -- almost always with religious "justification" (if the haters can put "marriage" in quotes when referring to my relationship...) -- I think it's important to remind them that the denial of equal civil rights has real consequences on actual human beings. Jonathan Rauch of the National Journal brought that home once again with a great piece yesterday, in which he details the struggles of his gay brother and the brother's partner of 30 years when one of them was hospitalized with a serious infection.

Money quote:

"Having just been told, at 3 a.m., that his partner of three decades might die within hours, Mike Brittenback was told something else: Before rushing to Bill's side, he needed to collect and bring with him documents proving his medical power of attorney. This indignity, unheard-of in the world of heterosexual marriage, is a commonplace of American gay life.

Frantic, Mike tore through the house but could not find the papers. He would need to retrieve them from a safe-deposit box. Which was at a bank. Which did not open until 9 a.m."

Target of Terror

While there have been plenty (far too many, in fact) instances of gay-bashing in this world, this is the first incident which I've heard of that feels like what we normally think of as "terrorism."

At the Outgames, currently taking place in Copenhagen, two bombs were thrown onto the running track at the stadium, injuring one runner. Earlier, three men were beaten on the streets of Copenhagen after the opening ceremonies. The hate, the hate, the hate -- what does it accomplish?

An Affirmation of Life

Reflections on the momentous achievement (despite the ultimate defeat) of Tom Watson in this year's Open Championship by Tom Friedman. Money quote:

"Watson has unique golfing skills, but if you are a baby boomer you could not help but look at him and say something you would never say about Tiger or Kobe: “He’s my age; he’s my build; he’s my height; and he even had his hip replaced like me. If he can do that, maybe I can do something like that, too.”

Answer the question, congressman (woman)!

It's a simple question, yet they avoid it. Hard not to get fed up with politicians, isn't it?

Africa Unite!

With the rest of the world.

The completion of a new submarine fiber optic cable will give Kenya and several other East African countries faster, more widespread, less expensive access to the Internet. Which means some huge opportunities for people in those countries to more effectively participate in the global economy. Which seems like a good thing. One of these days, when you call United Airlines, instead of getting someone in Bangalore, you might end up talking to Mombasa.

Handicapable

Labels get a bad rap. Yes, in some instances they can be abused when people allow stereotypes to affect their judgment of individuals based on attributes shared by a broader group. But when they are accurate (and used judiciously), they can communicate a lot of information very efficiently.

This thought comes to me as I apply for an online golf handicap and am asked to choose what sort of golfer I am from the following list:

Beginner
Hacker
High Handicapper
Bogey Golf
Mid-80s
Low Handicapper
Scratch
Teaching Pro
Touring Pro

Those are labels that work. Each is just about the right amount of information to determine how good a golfer someone is, and therefore how comfortable you might feel playing a round with them.

I'd quibble about the Teaching Pro and Touring Pro categories. I understand why the service would want that information, but it spoils the climb from least-skilled to most-skilled. At least the inclusion of Teaching Pro does, since I've known several teaching pros who are no longer scratch golfers. Give the pros a different box to click.

Now it was time to label myself. I was tempted at first to select "Mid-80s" for my skill level, but only for a moment until checking "Bogey Golf." I may have had a few rounds in the mid-80s, but I'm a much more reliable 88 or 92 still.

Then it got worse. They wanted to know my personality. But for this far more complex labeling task I was offered only four options:

Competitive
Passive
Playful
Focused

Which is why the choice was much tougher. I'm definitely competitive. (Oy, am I compeititive.) Certainly not passive. Playful? Yes, but I don't want people to think I'm frivolous. Focused? On golf, yes. In general? Well, I'm not called "ADD boy" by one who knows me well for nothing. Competitive it was, though I worry some might read "competitive" as "jerk who yells at himself, throws clubs and plays head games with you".

As labels, that meager collection doesn't tell you much. How much harder is it to choose 30 or so traits and let people choose three to describe themselves?

The Naked Truth About Air Safety

Air New Zealand has made the best safety video ever. It's not just the breezy approach to an ordinarily stuffy subject...it's those uniforms. (That came in a can.)

Can He Be Trusted?

Earlier this evening, 250 or so leaders of the LGBT movement had the opportunity to speak with President Obama about his administration's lack of movement of several issues of important to LGBT people. this is one of the reports coming out of the meeting, which was held in the East Room, in commemoration of the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall uprising.

Obama apparently mollified the attending leaders, who cheered his encouraging words: "I know that many in this room don't believe that progress has come fast enough, and I understand that. It's not for me to tell you to be patient any more than it was for others to counsel patience to African-Americans who were petitioning for equal rights a half-century ago."

But he went ahead and asked for patience anyway. Even though for people like Lt. Daniel Choi and Lt. Colonel Victor Fehrenbach, it's almost already too late.

Soon, he tells us. Soon we will get what the Constitution guarantees us. Wait just a little while longer. He wants, he says, to make sure that change (as he put it when speaking of overturning DADT) "is administered in a practical way and a way that takes over the long term."

I'll give him some more room. After all, Ronald Reagan wouldn't even say the word "gay," and today Obama asked some of us to stop by for cocktails.

I just want to know, how long is soon?

A little something...

...from my former neighbor, Robert Hass, courtesy of The Wall Street Journal. 18 or so years ago I lived in Inverness, California, a hamlet on Tomales Bay of rather remarkable natural beauty. (That's not the house in the photo above, but it gives you some idea of the loveliness of the region.) We rented the house, but the small cabin on the property (that had once been the garage) was rented separately to Robert Hass and his wife Brenda Hillman, both poets. Bob would go on to become the United States' poet laureate. They lived and taught in Berkeley (still do), but they came to Inverness on the weekends to write and relax and hike. I remember Bob's reaction upon meeting my daughter, then an infant: "she looks like a little Buddha."

Anyway, click the link. Bob's a very interesting guy.

Bring 'em On!

According to a new Pew poll, Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee are the most popular figures in the Republican Party. A dual-bill in 2012? We can only hope.

We Need MORE Like Him

Lt. Victor Fehrenbach, being ousted from the Air Force because of his sexuality. But click the play button and hear what he has to say -- and what some of his current and former squadron mates have to say.

How can Obama let DADT continue?

This is the first time The Rational Feast has not included a headline for a post. I just can't find the words to sum up k. d. lang in this clip.

There are voices I've heard both live and recorded and not felt that one outshone the other. Bono. Cher. Even Springsteen. Though his live shows were amazing, it wasn't because of his voice. It was his energy and storytelling and musicianship and the amazing E Street Band. The voice was fine, but it didn't jump out in comparison to the recorded version.

But some voices, when you're in the same room with them, even if the singer is amplified, have something about them that hits an ineffable "wow" space for me. k. d. lang is one. Van Morrison is another, especially in a small venue. But it's k. d. that just annihilates me. I mean, listen to her on this. The control and precision -- linked with a real sense of abandon and freedom...well, I'm out of words.

Good for him!

Apparently a San Francsico-based photographer who was a volunteer on the playground build that Michelle Obama visited as part of her west coast trip had the chance to have a few words with her about the need to repeal DOMA. You can read the whole thing here, but the upshot is that he told her how important it is to get rid of DOMA and the First Lady said she agreed and said it's going to get done.

Let's not forget...

...that at the core of the problem in Iran is the fact that the "Supreme Leader" derives his power not from a mandate of the masses, but from his supposed connection to, or understanding of, the wishes of an invisible superbeing. This is simply no way to run a government. Over at Slate, Michael Lind agrees. Read what he has to say.

Money quote: "Replacing a Muslim monarch like the shah of Iran with an "Islamic republic" is merely replacing a more autocratic with a more populist form of theocratic tyranny. Liberal democracy is sometimes defined as "majority rule with minority rights," but that is misleading. If a religious majority rules, not on the basis of secular reason, using arguments that can convince nonbelievers as well as believers, but on the basis of supernatural dogma, then you simply have a form of religious tyranny with a multitude of small religious tyrants."

From Inside Iran

Click here for an interesting interview with an anonymous photojournalist working inside Iran.

Money quote: "Landline to landline is still ok, but when people are out in the street then is useless. I can say the most effective way of communication at the moment is "word of mouth", people keep talking in the streets, they pass the messages and the info to each other and then one person tell 10 friends and then it goes on and on. The amazing part is even if there are changes happening last minute people still manage to pass the info!!"

What Exactly is Going On in the Toll House?

Is eating raw cookie dough a gay thing? I know I'd rather have chocolate chip cookie dough than any chocolate chip cookie I ever had. And my ex-mother-in-law's icebox cookie dough? I think I could live on it.

But is it somehow gay? I ask this, because two of the biggest gay blogs, Joe.My.God and Dan Savage's SLOG both have items about a recall of Nestle's Toll House Cookie Dough due to E.coli.

What up?

A Lovely Tribute

No golf fan should miss this link to a segment Charlie Rose did with Jim Nantz and Jaime Diaz, talking mostly about the U.S. Open. Rose dedicates the segment to Nantz's father, who passed last year, and Nantz relates a touching story about watching last year's Open, in the hospital, holding his father's hand. When Tiger made the putt on the 72nd hole to force the playoff, Nantz thought it a blessing that he would be able to spend one more day with his father, doing something they both loved.

Watch it. I'll embed a link if it becomes available.

Awesomeness Comes in a Box

So Much for Advocacy, 2

In the Tony Award-winning play "The God of Carnage" (spoiler alert!), the character played by James Gandolfini releases his daughter's pet hamster into the street because the noise from the rodent's wheel was disturbing his son's sleep. Of course he tells the daughter a lie -- the cage must have been left open, he claims, and the animal must now be better off, playing in a woodland paradise. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the character lied to the hamster itself: "You're going to be so happy with your other animal friends. It must be lonely for you in this cage."

I bring this up because I feel a bit like that hamster. Or the daughter. Or both. Either way, I was lied to. Obama made lots of promises to gay Americans (some of the best don't come until 2:55 in)...


...but so far, he's failed to live up to any of them. Then he went beyond just failing to take action, allowing his Department of Justice to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in the most ridiculous, reactionary way possible. The brief the DOJ filed in response to a suit by a California couple used arguments that sounded like something a graduate of Jerry Falwell's madrassa (as Dan Savage put it) would come up with: "There's no inequality of marriage rights, any man can marry a woman. And vice versa." "It's too expensive to extend rights to gay folks." "Homosexuality is like incest." (I've worded those a bit more bluntly than in the actual brief, but trust me, those are the core sentiments.)

So you can imagine how I feel like that poor, lied-to hamster. Told that good things are coming -- then kicked to the curb and abandoned to harsh elements and predators. The DOJ's brief in this case contains some of the most despicable anti-gay rhetoric imaginable.

Amid all the gloom across the gay blogosphere (I'm not the only one who feels betrayed), there are a few lights who are looking hard for a silver lining.

Laurence Tribe, the noted legal scholar, believe the specific case challenging DOMA's constitutionality (the case in which the DOJ filed this ridiculous brief) is the wrong case and hopes it goes away quickly: "As someone who wants to see DOMA dismantled and invalidated, I would love it if this ninth circuit case would evaporate into the ether. Even though I personally believe that DOMA is unconstitutional, I think that this particular lawsuit is very vulnerable; it’s not anywhere near as strong as the one that was brought in the federal district court in Massachusetts...the [Smelt] lawsuit in the central district of California...is basically a bet-the-farm lawsuit that almost dares a conservative Supreme Court to slap it down."

Dale Carpenter, writing at the Volokh Conspiracy states that "For lots of reasons, gay-marriage advocacy groups would like to see this case go away, but go away without damage to the substantive constitutional case against DOMA. A dismissal on jurisdictional grounds would nicely suit that purpose, and that seems to me the most likely outcome."

However, he also goes on to say that "the DOJ brief goes further than it needs to go at this point in the case by addressing the merits of the constitutional issues in the case," and calls out a few specific tidbits in the brief, such as the fact that it is "identical in form to the defense of Texas's Homosexual Conduct law in Lawrence v. Texas: a law banning only gay sex doesn't discriminate against gays because it equally forbids homosexuals and heterosexuals to have homosexual sex and because it equally allows homosexuals and heterosexuals to have heterosexual sex. This sort of formalism has incited howls of laughter over the years when made by religious conservatives. Now it's the official constitutional position of the Obama administration."

Some are claiming that some of the arguments are so ridiculous that it's just another example of Obama being cagey, presenting a case that's likely to be dismissed because of faulty logic.

Over at centerblue.org, they are telling folks to "calm down": "by insisting that such measures come out of Congress he covers his ass, and also ensures that he doesn’t end up weak and ineffectual like Clinton became when he was forced to sign the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell “compromise.” That’s politics, folks. Can he push Congress to repeal DODT or DoMA? Absolutely, and he should, and we should pressure him to do so. But this lawsuit was not that time."

Some of this may be true. It may also be true that the administration is obliged to defend its laws. My thought is the administration's first duty ought to be to the Consitution.

This one isn't dead by a long shot. But Obama has dealt the gay community a deeply wounding blow, and it will not be soon forgotten - though it could be healed if the man gets his act together and makes good on all those promises.

So Much for Advocacy

I can understand President Obama not actively working for full equality for GLBT Americans (OK, I can't really, but I'll give him some leeway given what's currently on his plate. But does he have to actively fight against our rights? And with such stupid "logic"?: "If [a State] were to permit homosexuals to marry, these marital benefits would, absent some legislative response, presumably have to be made available to homosexual couples and surviving spouses of homosexual marriages on the same terms as they are now available to opposite-sex married couples and spouses. To deny federal recognition to same-sex marriages will thus preserve scarce government resources, surely a legitimate government purpose."

So we can grant equality only when it doesn't cost anything?

This is beyond despicable.

Timing is Everything

Last night I went to a meeting sponsored by Spectrum, Marin County's GLBT center. Spectrum does some terrific work and Paula Pilecki, the executive director, seems to be doing a great job leading the organization.

The meeting last night was to give an update on what's happening in the marriage equality battle and to discuss what the next steps might be on the road to achieving full civil equality. As you may or may not know, lots of GLBT activists are looking to leverage the momentum created by the extension of marriage equality by courts and legislatures in Iowa, Maine, Connecticut, Vermont and New Hampshire, and get a repeal of Prop 8 on the ballot in November 2010.

While I understand the impatience (if anyone understands impatience, it's me), 2010 is just too soon. Marriage equality is a complex political issue, but at it's core, it's a generational issue. Old folks, raised in a world where closet doors were mostly hammered shut and the few gay folks who dared to sneak out were subject to criminal prosecution, don't like it. Don't see the need for it. And nothing is going to convince them otherwise. (Read here about former family friends who voted "yes" on 8.) On the other hand, people under the age of 30 or so are overwhelmingly in favor of full civil marriage equality. They don't even know why there's a question.

Unfortunately, by 2010, not enough of the intransigent old folks will have died, and not enough teenagers will enter the voting ranks.

So if we're smart, we'll wait. Until 2014, or 2016, when we can almost assuredly repeal Proposition 8.

Attorney Dale Carpenter put it better than I. Money quote:

"The problem is that losing has consequences beyond the immediate loss. Initiatives -- from gathering the needed signatures to running an effective campaign to winning -- require a huge investment of money, people, and time. Such resources are finite. The $60 million or more that will be spent in 2010 could go to other things, like state and congressional elections or fighting a possible SSM repeal (Maine? Iowa?) or amendment ban in another state. Those volunteers and organizers could be doing other productive things with their time. And losing in 2010, especially if the margin is greater than in 2008, will be deflating. It will harm morale. It will scare off legislators elsewhere. And it will be taken (incorrectly) as a sign that the tide is beginning to turn against SSM, with numerous political consequences in the short term."

Cheney the Mendacious

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Dick (Uncut)
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Economic Crisis

Wow.

Gotta Love The Onion

Risk-Reward Scenarios

I'm not a good enough golfer to always appreciate many of the subtleties of course design, but I've played a few that have taught me that one key element is the balance between risk and reward. At the 18th at Indian Valley, if you can pull off a long fade, you can be 180-190 yards from the green, a difficult but doable distance. Eagle is a possibility. If you can hit a high drive 250 yards, all carry, you can have a wedge in your hand and greatly increase that possibility. However, failing at the first brings out of bounds into play (a stroke-and-distance penalty), failing at the second guarantees it.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to work that way in the corporate world, where risk and reward often seem to be only loosely related.

This thought is brought to me by the peril faced by the town of Cissna Park, Illinois because GM will not renew its contract with the local Chevy dealer due to bankruptcy. (If you'd said that sentence to my father 20 years ago and told him it would be due to the bankruptcy of General Motors, not the dealer...well, let's just say I now truly understand when people say they are glad someone didn't live to see something because it would have killed him. The headline "GM Bankrupt" would probably not have literally killed my father, but it would have shaken him deeply. Deeply enough that I'm grateful seeing such news was something Dad never had to experience.)

The blame for the failure of the American car industry is wide.

I suppose one could say people who even bought a Malibu (or a Neon) just because it was American-made, though they knew deep inside it was of inferior quality to a Camry or a Civic, must shoulder a little of the blame. After all, their purchases sent the wrong message to upper management. It's not that Detroit made (or that Cissna Park sold) such bad cars, it's that Japanese and European companies sold cars that were so much better. Buying less-good cars just encouraged GM and Chrysler to keep making less-good cars.

You could blame workers, I suppose. I'm sure they made mistakes. But when one remembers that American workers build Hondas and Toyotas, too, it's hard to say this is a problem with American workers.

I suppose you could blame the dealer for his fate. We've known for a long time that oil is running out. Why didn't he chuck the business his grandfather had started and sign on with Honda when they came on the scene? I remember those early Accords and Civics -- they were better than anything Detroit was producing. So why didn't the folks at Rust (irony alert) Chevrolet see the writing on the wall? Don't they share some small bit of responsibility for their fate?

Perhaps. But perhaps some people are paying too high a price for failure, given their level of responsibility for said failure.

And I think it's fair to say less responsibility for the demise of Rust Chevrolet lies with the Rust family (which has been affiliated with Chevrolet for 94 years!) than with the top management of GM.

They're the ones, after all, who guided the company to its current state, a task for which they were well rewarded. The GM CEO, Rick Waggoner pulled down $15.7 million in compensation in 2007.

But what risk does he face to justify such a rich reward -- especially when compared to that received by workers? (Even well-paid union workers.)

The board entrusted Waggoner (and all his predecessors) with making the right decisions to ensure the continued health and profitability of General Motors. They failed. But Waggoner and other GM execs -- even if they lose their jobs -- will not face the sort of deprivation that could face the families of those who work not just for Rust Chevrolet, but for the workers who won't be hired to do street repair because the town can't afford it because Rust Chevrolet represented 20% of their tax revenue might.

I'm not saying top-level execs don't deserve higher compensation -- they do. But they do because what they do is of such importance. If they set the wrong course...well, we see what happens. Unfortunately, it is the company and its employees who carry the burden of this risk. Doesn't it make sense that if CEOs feel they deserve compensation that is so out of balance with that of line workers, that they also ought to assume more risk? He's been paid a salary that is ample enough to provide the sort of cushion that can keep him cozy for the rest of his life. A far cozier cushion than the vast majority of GM employees will be able to rest upon.

I'm not sure what the additional risk CEOs ought to face when they lead their companies to financial ruin (having to live on nothing but an assembly-line workers pension?), but it seems to me the ratio between it and the reward CEOs get for their efforts is enormously out of balance. Either they have to face more daunting consequences of failure, or their salaries get pulled back to more human dimensions.

"Keep Your Promise"

Obama made lots of promises to the GLBT community when he wanted our support to get elected. But since then, he's done virtually nothing for us. And last night at a big fundraiser in Beverly Hills he joked to the crowd that he saw a protester holding a sign saying "Obama, keep your promise," and he thought, "I don't know which one he's talking about."

I'm not laughing. Let's start with ending the HIV travel ban and Don't Ask, Don't Tell and move on from there.

Quick Thoughts on the Prop 8 Decision

Although yesterday's decision by the California Supreme Court to uphold Proposition 8 was, on one level, a major disappointment (a simple majority being allowed to vote away the rights of a minority seems un-American to me), I accept the results and generally agree with them.

First, whether I like it or not, the California Constitution allows the citizenry to amend it by a simple majority. Perhaps we need a new Constitution (our budgeting process is massively whacked, as well), but until then, we need to work with the one we have. And that one says only man-woman relationships can be called "marriage."

Second, the decision was very narrowly written, clearly stating that the only effect of Proposition 8 is to withhold that title of "marriage" from same-sex couples. We are allowed to be in relationships which have full legal equivalency, but (for now) they can't be called "marriages." Several activitists believe the decision was actually a win for marriage equality.

In addition, a judicial overturn of the "will of the people" (and as long as we're in the mood to eliminate rights, can we vote to outlaw toupees next, please?) would have resulted in a huge backlash against the courts and, by extension, to the gay community. No, it seems this is a freedom Californians will need to win at the ballot box.

But not in 2010, please. Although the community is already girding its loins for another electoral battle, wanting to capitalize on the marriage equality momentum from Iowa, Main, Connecticut and New Hampshire, I strongly believe 2010 is too soon. Last night I saw Gavin Newsom say something like, "We have to reconnect with the voters who weren't convinced last time and find ways of better persuading them."

I don't think the problem was persuasion - even though our campaign made some major errors. The problem is demographics. There are simply too many old people who see homosexuality as a scourge or a curse or a sin or some combination thereof. For many, no amount of logic or reason is going to change their minds.

On the other side of the coin, a solid majority of those under 40 have grown up in an era when many closet doors were blown wide open. They've watched "Will & Grace" and had friends in high school and college who were out. They've worked with openly gay people. For them, it's not really a big deal. It's even less of a deal to those under 30.

What we need to do is be patient and wait for a few hundred thousand old folks to die and a few hundred thousand teenagers to reach voting age.

2010 is too soon. Let's try 2012.

I'll Get Packing

I loved this house! (You may remember it from "Ferris Bueller's Day Off.") Only problem is that it's in Chicago, which is suitable for human habitation for only about seven weeks May and June and another six weeks in September and October.

5300 square feet. $2.3 million.

Fresh Cookies and Kink

Dan Savage addresses the seeming dichotomy presented by the gay community -- that though we generally seem to be less uptight about sexual matters (as he says: "Once you've told your momma that you wanna kiss boys giving yourself or your partner permission to indulge in this, that, or the other kink isn't anywhere near as scary."), we can still be rather ordinary in so many other respects:

"...there's nothing mutually exclusive about conspicuous displays of wholesome family values—like baking peanut butter cookies for your kids—and attending IML and indulging in the kinds of (preferably safe) sex acts that so shock and repel and redden the likes of Sally Kern."

Is It Really a Loss?

According to Seneca Doane at Daily Kos, today's decision on the validity of Proposition 8 may not be as big a defeat as initially thought: "It's hard to be outraged when a unanimous California Supreme Court just reiterated that California law gives every couple regardless of gender the fundamental right to be married in fact, even if voters have messed with the labels. Our opponents lost more today than we did."

Moments of Mayhem

A Chinese artist using acrobatics (backed up by the occasional wire, high jump pit, etc.) and tricky camera angles to fool us into thinking something dangerous is going on.

This Is Getting Ridiculous

We spent $25 million training him. He's served with honor for 18 years, winning nine medals. He has hundreds of hours of combat experience as an F-15 pilot. Now he is being discharged. Can you guess why? Of course you can.

We can't go on like this. DADT is an idiotic policy based on ignorance and prejudice. It has no place in America. It makes us less safe. It must be ended. Now.

Professional wrestling may be fake...

...but Jesse Ventura is as genuine as they come. Watch him put Elizabeth Hasselbeck into a sleeper hold on the torture issue.

I Loved 'Em Both

Watch My Favorite Movie (Star Trek vs. Star Wars) and more funny videos on CollegeHumor

The hero has a thousand and ONE faces.

Attention Cruise Lines

This seems like the sort of thing Princess Cruises would love to offer.

Brilliant Photo

The shuttle in silhouette against the sun. Stunning.

A Quick Note to Barack Obama

Earlier today, Barack Obama (or at least the administration) reneged on an earlier commitment to release more photos of prisoner abuse, one assumes similar in tone to the famed snaps of Lynndie England posing with piles of naked prisoners. His reason? "The most direct consequence of releasing (the photos), I believe, would further flame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger. ... I fear the publication of these photos may only have a chilling effect on future investigations of detainee abuse."

If I could slip him a note, here's what I'd write:

Mr. President -- it frightens me that I have to tell you this, but nonetheless you seem to have missed something very important. That is, that releasing those torture photos will make our troops safer than if you keep them classified. Letting the world see them sends the signal that America plans to deal - in an open, honest way -- with the fact that we tortured prisoners.

Of course, as you obviously realize, if we do this facing-up with anything approaching honesty your predecessor might be standing trial for war crimes. And since you (or rather AG Holder) seem to have no intention of bringing anyone to justice for these crimes, my guess is that you've decided not to take even a step down the path toward that rather substantial bit of terra incognita. Best not even think about it. Here be dragons. Releasing photos says you plan to do something. But since it looks like you plan on doing nothing, maybe you're right. Maybe releasing the photos would only tease the global community that America might be willing to own up to our bad behavior.

If you really want to make our troops safer, release the photos. Let the world know America is taking responsibility for our actions. Send clear signals that we will not let it happen again. Punish those who made this horrific error.

By keeping those photos classified, the world realizes we have no intention of giving up "enhanced interrogation." That we'd waterboard anyone we liked anytime we liked if we thought it furthered our interests. The message we send is that nothing, really, has changed.

And that, Mr. President, is how you recruit martyrs and make Americans everywhere less safe.

Getting the Vapors

Although it's nothing I've ever considered doing -- or even considered possible -- but a club in London has found a new way to knock back a couple of stiff ones.

"The concoction was top-shelf--Hendrick's gin and Fever Tree tonic--and when shot through a humidifier the gin's cucumber and juniper aromas came through to full effect. It was a pleasant scent, and I could imagine the boozy facial being a hit at a girl's spa weekend. But in a small subterranean room, lit by a single, bare bulb and filled with strangers in baggy white jumpsuits, it made for a decidedly strange, Willy Wonka Saturday night bar scene."

Lose the Shame

Writing on The Huffington Post, blogger Lane Hudson notes how quiet the White House has been regarding the progress of marriage equality.

Money quote: "Here's the problem: Everybody knows the Democrats are for equality for the gays. The Republicans have spent a gazillion dollars telling everybody that for the past 18 years or so. So when a Democrat back tracks and falls all over himself to answer a 'gay' question, it shows fear. It shows dishonesty. And nobody's buying it."

So Washington should get over it, do the right thing and embrace equality. Is that so wrong?

Maine House Votes for Marriage Equality

Just a while ago, the Maine House voted to approve marriage equality in the Pine Tree State. The governor, who has in the past expressed opposition to same-sex marriage still has to sign the bill in order for it to become law. However, his position has softened in recent months. Recently he said “I was opposed to this for a long time, but people evolve, people change as time goes by.” So there's hope.

In addition, the Washington D.C. Council voted 12-1 (with only crackhead Marion Berry voting no -- always good to have him on the other side of your issue!) to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

Equality is rolling, and it will be VERY interesting to see what happens when the California Supreme Court rules on whether Proposition 8 is a constitutional amendment or a revision. Whichever way it goes, it's going to make a big impact in the battle.

New York, Spring 2009 -- Day 13 "Happiness"

There's a reason why you can only copyright a script and not an idea for a script: a good idea isn't enough. This was made crystal clear to me on my last night in New York during the performance of "Happiness," the new musical by the same team that brought us the brilliant "Contact." The new show director/choreographer Susan Stroman and writer John Weidman (with help from the musical team behind "Grey Gardens") have staged at the Mitzi E. Newhouse Theater at Lincoln Center takes a clever concept and cripples it with cliches and rampant two-dimensionality.

The set-up of "Happiness" is this: a group of people find themselves on a New York subway car that stops suddenly, leaving them all trapped below ground. We first meet the characters (nine of them) as they rush to get wherever it is they're headed and are bludgeoned with the fact that they are either all so self-absorbed, depressed or out of touch that they aren't appreciating the joy of life.

As it turns out, they've lost their last chance to do so. They're all actually dead and the subway car is the waystation to the afterlife where Stanley the Train Man (Hunter Foster, doing his best to rescue this bit of treacle) informs them that they are each to choose one "perfect moment." Each of the moments is remembered via song and dance. In the first vignette the music and dance are organic -- an old woman chooses a WWII USO dance when a young private asked her to be his girl -- but in most of the other situations the music is stapled in place.

Once each has chosen their moment, the car doors will open and they will be able to live in that moment for eternity.

Unfortunately, virtually all the moments are ridiculous cliches and all the characters cardboard cutouts of real people. Joanna Gleason as a right-wing radio host (a more senior version of Ann Coulter it seems) gets off some good lines (of the senior citizen member of the group she says: "She'd make a great book -- the greatest generation remembers. But not much."), but she never feels real. Especially when her perfect moment turns out to be a night in the 60s when she was celebrating an election win by Eugene McCarthy, dropped acid and gave Mick Jagger a hummer. Apparently it represented the last night she held on to the liberal ideals she once loved. Yeah, didn't make sense to me, either. There's the doorman who remembers going to a World Series game with his dad; they were supposed to get the best seats in the house as a gift, but that didn't work out so dad buys the worst seats -- that turn out to be the best. There's the cruel lawyer, the clueless bike messenger/deadbeat dad who finally comes through, the harried (married) medical interns who choose the same perfect moment (everyone now..."awwww!"), the gay interior decorator with the sassy comebacks, etc.

This could be an interesting show if it had some of the tension and honesty that "Contact" did. As it is, it begins weakly, sputters with signs of life from time to time (e.g. one of the deceased remembering the embarrassing web page he left on his computer screen), but finally circles the drain before slipping off into its own afterlife. I can't imagine anyone in the audience choosing that night at the theater as their perfect moment.

New York, Spring 2009 -- Day 12 "Irena's Vow"

It's always difficult to criticize a play (or movie or book or mini-series) about the Holocaust. (It's even harder to applaud at the end of the play for an actor in a Nazi uniform; it just feels odd.) I don't really intend to criticize "Irena's Vow" too deeply. But I don't intend to praise it, either.

The show, by Dan Gordon, now playing at the Walter Kerr Theater, competently and simply tells the story of Irena Gut Opdyk, a pious Polish Catholic woman who was pressed into working for the Germans during their occupation of Poland. At the same time that she learns of plans to exterminate the Jews of the region, she is also offered the position of housekeeper for the German commandant. Irena decides -- in a brilliant bit of strategic thinking -- that the best place for the 11 Jewish men and women who had been working under her would be in the cellar of the commandant's new villa.

It's an amazing story by any measure (and became even more amazing when the daughter of Irena Gut Opdyk walked onstage at the conclusion of the play to answer questions and share some additional aspects of the story), but for a Broadway offering, "Irena's Vow" never really finds its feet. It's workmanlike, and if the story interests you, it's worth seeing, but it lacks the oomph required for me to wholeheartedly recommend it.

New York, Spring 2009 -- Day 11 "Blithe Spirit" "Why Torture is Wrong and the People Who Love Them"

"Blithe Spirit"
To be honest with you, I'm a lot more excited about "Why Torture is Wrong and the People Who Love Them," so I'm going to cut to the chase on "Blithe Spirit": Angela Lansbury is wonderful, and it's exciting to see her doing such good work at 84. Rupert Everett is not aging well, and he's still not quite 50. Christine Ebersole is elegant and ethereal. My favorite cast member was Susan Louise O'Connor as Edith, the maid. The play itself is witty at times, but a bit clunky. Production rather lackluster overall.

Now, on to...



"Why Torture is Wrong and the People Who Love Them"
Without spoiling your evening, "Why Torture..." is not really about torture. It's about reconciliation. It's about the desire to take back your bad decisions and make things right again. But since it's written by Christopher Durang, it goes at these serious issues in a relatively absurd, outlandish, biting, and frequently brilliant fashion.

The story is simple: Felicity (Laura Benanti) awakes after a night of drinking to find herself married to Zamir (Amir Arison), a man of vague Middle Eastern descent -- but who claims he is Irish. When Zamir turns out to have an extremely volatile temper, no job and no prospects, plus a mysterious past, Felicity decides to annul the marriage. Since Zamir threatens violence at this suggestion, Felicity turns to her parents for help -- especially her arch-conservative father, Leonard (Richard Poe).

Leonard obsessively toes all the Conservative lines: hates immigrants, loves guns, thinks the gays ruined marriage, won't have the U.N. spoken of in a positive way in his home and thinks shouting "Don't you remember 9/11?" atones for any statement of xenophobia, paranoia or incitement to violence. He's like one of the suits in a Tom Tomorrow cartoon: spouting the justifications of the Limbaugh dittoheads with such unashamed fervor that it lays bare the ridiculousness of their positions.

When Dad meets Zamir, you can imagine where his mind leads him. Actually, given the whacked nature of the world Durang has created, you probably can't. Which is exactly why you should see "Why Torture is Wrong and the People Who Love Them" as soon as you can, especially since it is scheduled to close May 10. Go if for no other reason than to see the brilliant comic actress Kristine Nielsen as Felicity's mother, Luella, who has built a wall of denial that would put the Chinese to shame. Go to see John Pankow's Reverend Mike (he married Felicity and Zamir), a Christian who actually champions the true principles of Christ (love, forgiveness, kindness, gentleness), while at the same time being a pornographer. ("God created sex. He watches it, why shouldn't we?") Go for the amazing turntable set that is able to create so many different settings that it is almost like a magic trick.

If I were being critical, I'd say the play is a bit loose in its timing, and starts a little slowly -- but I was laughing too hard and thinking too much to really be critical. This is satire that cuts so cleanly that it takes a while to realize you're up to your ankles in blood.

New York, Spring 2009 -- Day Ten "Offices" "Sleepwalk With Me" "9 to 5"

"Offices"
Move along, nothing to see here. An interesting, talented cast, with taut direction from Neil Pepe, on a great set by Riccardo Hernandez... performing what feels like a set of sketches or notes for a larger work. I love the Coen Brothers (Ethan [that's him in the picture] wrote this collection of three short plays that all take place in bland offices), but despite some good lines and some funny physical business, this isn't a play, it's a workshop.


"Sleepwalk With Me"
Since Mike Birbiglia, the writer and performer of this monologue/stand-up act confesses in the show that he subscribes to a Google alert that lets him know when he's mentioned in a blog, I'm going to assume he's reading this, so I'll address the rest of this post to him:

"Mike:

At one time I had some sleep disturbance issues, and before I saw the show I had this fantasy of hanging out afterward to meet you and share what-I-did-while-I-thought-I-was-asleep stories. But dude, I got nothin' on you. Sure, our stories have some similar aspects -- raised Catholic, ADD, insomnia, spending time in a relationship that we weren't being totally honest about, working as stand-ups...there may be a few more. But there were important differences, too. First, you took the sleepwalking shit to a whole new level. Second, you're actually a good standup -- I sucked. Not so much I didn't get paid, but enough that choosing a different career was a wise choice. So I didn't stay after. (But if you want to hear my semi-hilarious stories about sleep issues that I once considered doing a monologue on, send me a mail. We'll talk. I also want to hear your theory on bisexuality to which you referred but never expanded on.)

In the meantime, rest assured that I think your show is terrific. Funny, insightful, great timing, brilliant call-backs. I even became a Facebook fan. And if I took the effort to do that, well...

Anyway, I'll tell my New York friends -- and all eight readers of this blog -- that "Sleepwalk With Me" represents the best laugh-per-dollar ratio of any show we've seen in New York this trip."

Now, so I'm not lying to Mike: "Sleepwalk With Me" represents the best laugh-per-dollar ratio of any show we've seen in New York this trip. Go see it.

"9 to 5"
If you have fond memories of the 1980 film and are looking for a mostly faithful staged recreation of the film, you'll love the new show opening this week at the Marquis Theater. On the other hand, if you're hoping for a reinvention of the Dolly Parton-Lily Tomlin-Jane Fonda reeler, look elsewhere, as there is very little that is fresh about this effort. Oh, a few new lines have been added and the Lily Tomlin character gets a love interest (which I don't believe happened in the movie -- it was so long ago), but that's about it.

Not that that's so awful. "9 to 5" is a highly-entertaining -- if ridiculously implausible -- story, filled with outsize characters and farcical action. In fact, it's the elements of farce that give "9 to 5" the musical its biggest boost. The physical action -- especially the kidnapping of villain CEO Franklin Hart -- is perfect for the stage. All this -- the solid foundation of a good story and lovable (and hateable) characters -- combined with top-notch work in staging and lighting, plus a first-rate troupe of choristers make "9 to 5" a crowd-pleaser.

Unfortunately, for this member of the crowd, the production never really found its feet. Allison Janney (in the Lily Tomlin role), much as I love her acting, doesn't seem comfortable in the part yet. Her voice, while pleasing and in pitch, simply isn't powerful enough for a Broadway house. There's no Susan Boyle moment here. The other key roles are strong, but the cast doesn't feel like a true ensemble yet.

That said, the audience loved the show (and I loved being able to say "hello" to John Cleese, one of my heroes, who was sitting behind me), and it should have a decent run, especially with female audiences, who will no doubt appreciate the "womyn-power" theme. I'm guessing the mostly male crowd of critics will be a tad less kind.

New York, Spring 2009 -- Day Nine "33 Variations"

The big news about "33 Variations," the new Moises Kaufman play at the Eugene O'Neill Theatre, was the return to the Broadway stage (after a three decade absence) of Jane Fonda. Broadway seems to love it when big Hollywood stars return to the boards. They bring in new audiences and call attention to the world of legitimate theater, which mostly flies under the entertainment world radar.

Unfortunately, critics are rarely kind to the stars of the silver screen when they are there for the viewing night after night, in ordinary life-size proportion. Perhaps it's a case of familiarity breeding contempt. Once stars are there before our eyes in flesh and blood form, instead of gigantic representations in dancing light, perhaps something is lost in the minds of critics.

But this time around, Jane Fonda has bucked the trend and received mostly positive notices for her performance. Unfortunately, the play itself is coming under fire. I say unfortunate because I had a delightful evening. Not only was Jane terrific -- sincere, honest, displaying a wonderful, graceful physicality -- the play was compelling and entertaining, if occasionally a tad facile and predictable.

Fonda plays Dr. Catherine Brandt, a musicologist who has fallen ill but is obsessed with completing a final monograph before she dies. The subject of the paper is Beethoven's "33 Variations on a waltz by Anton Diabelli." Brandt has, after months of pleading, been given access to the Beethoven archives in Bonn, where she hopes to discover why Beethoven, in the last years of his life, spent so much time composing so many variations on such a simple, almost amateurish piece of dance music.

The scene shifts between the present day (incorporating the conflict between Brandt and her daughter, plus a budding relationship between the daughter and Brandt's nurse, Mike, and a friendship between Brandt and the scholar who oversees the archive and works closely with Brandt), and the early 19th century, where we see the imagined interaction between Beethoven, his assistant Shindler, and Anton Diabelli, Beethoven's publisher and -- for this project only -- collaborator/inspiration.

There's an intellectual mystery being solved here -- and like all mysteries, it takes a little attention. Dr. Brandt pores over the maestro's sketchbooks, even searching the "conversation books" used late in his life when he had gone completely deaf and visitors had to write their comments and questions to him. There's something compelling about watching a powerful mind attempt to solve a puzzle using only limited and ultimately inadequate evidence.

The bigger story, however, is not the search for the reason Beethoven chose to spend so much time on variations of what has been deemed an inconsequential piece of music, but the search for meaning in any life. Almost everyone in this play is obsessed: Catherine with solving the mystery, Beethoven with plumbing the depths of Diabelli's waltz, Diabelli with getting the variations published, Catherine's daughter with helping her mother deal with her illness, Mike with winning the daughter's love. Everyone, it seems, it caught up in the unsatisfying business of trying to explain the unexplainable or grasp the incomprehensible.

The mystery Catherine has taken on is really the ultimate mystery. As she says in the second act, "Beethoven exists in the silences." There is triple meaning to this, as she is referring first to the conversation books where only Beethoven's visitor's questions and comments were written out -- the maestro's replies were spoken and therefore lost to history. The second silence is the silence between notes; without it, music would not be music, but continuous noise, lacking rhythm, melody or dynamic range. But it's the third silence that is most important -- the silence of the void looming over both Beethoven and Catherine, both facing a too-imminent death.

Kaufman does a fascinating parallel to highlight the journey to silence: Beethoven is losing his hearing, Catherine her ability to speak. Too soon, both of these brilliant minds will be forced into a quiet neither desires -- but which may deliver unanticipated blessings. As they travel this hard, narrow path, Kaufman allows we in the audience to focus on our own search for the ineffable.

"33 Variations" is beautifully staged, well-acted, elegantly and efficiently directed, and well worth your time -- though you'll have to hurry, as Jane Fonda will be returning to the life of a movie star all too soon.

New York, Spring 2009 -- Day Eight "Shrek: The Musical"

In the transition from animated film to ginormous Broadway production (and I love that "ginormous" has become an actual word, in that my spell checker doesn't highlight it), some projects become casualties of the process ("Tarzan" "The Little Mermaid"), while others go on to find a way to reinvent the film and let audiences experience the story in new, powerful ways, as happened with "The Lion King" and "Beauty and the Beast."

Then there are the films that recycle their stories, losing some of the magic of the movie, but compensate with some new, stage magic, so the whole thing is a wash. You get a production that is better than the movie in some ways, worse in others, so that in the end the entertainment value kind of balances out. "Mary Poppins" is an example of this. The film is one of the most beloved of all time. The musical, still playing on Broadway, is a tour de force of stagecraft, but lacks the subversive heart of the movie.

"Shrek: The Musical" is another example of this film:Broadway show equivalence. I found much to love in the production: great performances by Sutton Foster, Brian D'Arcy James, Daniel Breaker, Christopher Sieber and John Tartaglia; a funny, ironic, smart book by David Lindsay-Abaire (one of my favorite contemporary playwrights); tons of witty pop culture references (including one to Siamese twins Chang and Eng, that I'm certain went over the heads of 99% of the audience); great costumes and plenty of new lines to make the experience fresh, even for those who have seen the film several times.

Yet there is an undercurrent to "Shrek: The Musical" that caused the show to lose traction and miss out on some of the vigor and vibrancy of the original. Hence, the equivalence. "Shrek: The Musical" is about as good as "Shrek" the film. Which, fortunately, is pretty good.

The basic story remains in place: Shrek, the ogre, is surprised to find "his" swamp overrun by fairy tale characters who have been expelled from the kingdom of Lord Farquaad. Except Lord Farquaad can't have a "kingdom" unless he's a king, which he can't be unless he marries a princess. So when Shrek comes to complain about his swamp being invaded, Farquaad sends him off to rescue Princess Fiona for him.

The underlying tone that beauty is in the eye of the beholder remains in place, as well, but it's brought even more to the surface here. The song "Let Your Freak Flag Fly" is a celebration of diversity, and Shrek cuts to the heart of the matter when he says, near the end of the show, "beautiful ain't always pretty." (In fact, "Shrek: The Musical" might make an interesting double bill with Neil LaBute's "Reasons To Be Pretty.") Or, as Pinocchio says, "I'm wood, I'm good -- get used to it!"

There is also a sub-theme of despotism, control and torture (Farquaad breaks the legs off the Gingerbread Man) that resonate with our recent political past and our current attempts to deal with it.

Ultimately, though, "Shrek: The Musical" isn't about anything more important than having a good time. And on that level, it mostly delivers.

New York, Spring 2009 -- Day Seven "Chasing Manet" and "Desire Under the Elms"

"Chasing Manet"
Early in this show (and several times during the first act), Catherine Sargent (Jane Alexander), a once-celebrated artist now shunted to a nursing home, shouts "Out! Out! I want out!"

I knew exactly how she felt -- and left at intermission. Absolutely one of the worst plays I've seen in New York. Or anywhere else, for that matter. Simplistic script, pitiful performances (Lynn Cohen, however, did show a few sparks) and clumsy direction. Add to all this the fact that one of the actors had a family emergency just before curtain, so one of the theater staff stepped in and performed that actor's roles -- but not in costume and carrying a script in her hand.

Dreadful.


"Desire Under the Elms"
From the very first moments of this production of one of O'Neill's earlier plays (a transplant from Chicago's Goodman Theatre), it's clear that one is in for an experience of raw, elemental power. First, it's a tremendously loud bang that precedes the raising of the scrim/curtain that shocks you to attention. Then, once that scrim flies away, it reveals a set composed mostly of large granite boulders -- into which come Simeon and Peter Cabot (Daniel Stewart Sherman and Boris McGiver), dragging a sled filled with more boulders. Sweating and straining, but saying not a word, they manage to offload the sled and move to their next task -- gutting the whole pig hanging by its feet above the stage, dripping blood into a bucket. As they haul guts and organs from the animal's belly, it becomes obvious that life is hard, unforgiving and relentless and the audience had best be prepared for an evening of the same. No happy endings expected. None received.

However, if you like your theater intense, laying bare deep human emotions, then you won't be disappointed by the story of the Cabot family. Ephraim, the patriarch (played by Brian Dennehy), has spent his entire life at such toil, and expects no less from his three sons: the aforementioned Simeon and Peter, plus Eben, their half-brother. Eben (Pablo Schreiber) has taken on the duties of his long-dead mother: cooking and housework. But he is, ultimately, the flintiest member of this New England clan. When dad brings home a new wife, Abbie (Carla Gugino), Eben is either smitten by lust or compelled by hatred of his father to have Abbie for his own.

Everything about this production is outsized: the rocks, the emotions, the performances. Even the house, though of modest size, seems massive in scale. I could imagine someone hating this version of "Desire"; it is, after all, quite a rough 100 intermission-less minutes. But I ate it up. It's tragedy on a brobdingnagian scale, performed by a uniformly terrific cast, under the obviously sure hand of director Robert Falls.

Though the Cabots comment regularly on how "pretty" the sky or the landscape (or the new baby) is, nothing is pretty about their lives or their outlook on life. But if you can see past the raw ugliness and tragedy, there's a shiny, pretty gem of a play waiting for you at the St. James Theater.

New York, Spring 2009 -- Day Six "The Marvelous Wonderettes"

Not quite. More like "The Perfectly Adequate Wonderettes." This cute, but ultimately insubstantial, offering at the Westside Theater is perfect for your aunt or grandmother looking to relive high school days in the 50s or 60s. Or, for young teens and tweens who will love the pop music, colorful costumes and silly humor.

"The Marvelous Wonderettes" is split into two acts. In the first, these four high school girls (Betty Jean, Missy, Cindy Lou and Suzy) are performing at their senior prom, singing the hits of the day -- "Sincerely," "Lollipop," "It's My Party" etc. Then, after the intermission, the show fast forwards to their 10-year reunion -- of both the group and their class. The songbook also shifts to the 60s -- "Respect," "Wedding Bell Blues," "Rescue Me," etc. The show is 90% singing -- which is great, because these four women have terrific voices -- and 10% the story of the girls' ups and downs in love.

It's the story that brings "The Marvelous Wonderettes" down. I liked the performers, but it's not much of a story, the characters aren't terribly well-developed and there are very few good lines.

As I said, not marvelous, but adequate.

New York, Spring 2009 -- Day Five "Rock of Ages"

According a review excerpted on an ad for the new Broadway musical "Rock of Ages," the show "does for 80s rock what 'Mamma Mia!' did for Abba." Thing is, I'm not sure that's something that needed doing. Don't get me wrong, I liked "Mamma Mia!" I thought it was silly, saccharine fun. To a certain extent, "Rock of Ages" follows the same model: a collection of existing songs that tell an all-new story. Well, maybe not "all" new: it is, after all, the oldest of stories -- boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl. Along the way, other boys get other girls (and one boy gets another boy), the bad guys are thwarted and Rock rocks on.

I was hesitant to go to "Rock of Ages," since the music (from Bon Jovi, Whitesnake, Poison, Twisted Sister, Pat Benatar, Journey, REO Speedwagon, etc.) was never my cup of tea, even in the 80s. But when the show got mostly positive reviews, I decided to give it a shot.

Though "Rock of Ages" has much to recommend it -- a terrific performance by Mitchell Jarvis as Lonny the sound man/narrator, a great backing band and the overall raucous experience in the Brooks Atkinson Theater (where you can buy drinks at your seat during the show) -- I still don't recommend it unless you are a huge fan of that genre of music. There are some good lines, and fun is poked at mullet-coiffed metalheads, but the show never really connects on an emotional level, and it never delivers (for me) the pure fun that "Mamma Mia!" or "Xanadu" did.

New York, Spring 2009 -- Day Four "The Singing Forest" and "Next to Normal"

The Singing Forest
Save yourself. It's too late for me, but you still have time to avoid this stinker at the Public.

As we are told several times during this three-act, two-intermission debacle, "there are no coincidences." Thing is, there are coincidences...
...it's just that most of them aren't worth talking about. And even though the coincidences are cresting well above flood level here, there's still no reason to focus on them. Act two is exceptionally awful, with some of the worst farcical, physical comedy I've seen in New York.

I've liked other Craig Lucas shows (especially my first, "Reckless" at Berkeley Rep), but this one should quietly fade away.



"Next to Normal"
When art works, it works because it has layers of appeal. "Hamlet" isn't just a story about revenge, or an indecisive prince. It's also about the beauty of language and the ephemeral nature of consciousness and the bonds we share with others...and a thousand other things. Jasper Johns' paintings aren't great just because they show us ordinary things in new ways, they're great because they cause a reaction within us, and because they force us to examine our world in ways we might not have if we hadn't seen his work. And because they are amazing technical creations.

Although "Next to Normal," the new musical that just opened at the Booth Theater is ostensibly about how a family copes with a mother who suffers from bipolar disorder with delusions, it's also about the condition of being human. It's about how we connect -- or not -- with our fellow beings. It's about what we give up in order to grow, and how we grow up by giving. It's about the fragility of love, the tenacity of biology, the frustration of not getting what you want -- and the perils inherent in getting it.

"Next to Normal" took hold of me from the moment I walked into the theater and saw Mark Wendland's amazing tri-level set and never really let go. I was drawn into the story of Diana (Alice Ripley), a wife and mother struggling to balance the meds that keep her on anything close to an even keel. Her husband, Dan (J. Robert Spencer) does what he can, but the strain is showing. Their daughter Natalie (Jennifer Damiano) has compensated for her mother's madness by excelling at school and music -- until the stress of mom's relapse (due to failing meds) finally send her off the adolescent deep end, as well.

But the real troublemaking teen is brother Gabe, who haunts and torments mom in ways the rest of the family can't truly comprehend. (Though you will, about mid-way through the first act.)

"Next to Normal" put me in mind of one of my favorite works of art, Dennis Potter's "The Singing Detective." Like that brilliant little mini-series, "N2N" is partly about the thin line between madness and sanity, fantasy and reality, selfless love and love of self. Things that seem to be there but aren't really -- or are they?

The music by Tom Kitt, combined with book and lyrics by Brian Yorkey, deliver a powerful punch of jangling sweetness and tough-minded emotion. Nothing is really hummable in the standard musical sense, but that's not really what "Next to Normal" is about.

In fact, what may be most brilliant about this show may be that it's about whatever is most important to you right now. And isn't that what makes art, art?

New York, Spring 2009 -- Day Three "God of Carnage" and "Mary Stuart"

"God of Carnage"
"Bravado is a kind of courage, isn't it?" This statement, uttered by Veronica, the character played by Marcia Gay Harden, seems to sum up the conflict at the heart of this excellent new play by Yasmina Reza, best-known for her Tony award-winning "Art." (Which didn't really move me, to tell you the truth.)

"God of Carnage" is one of those shows where you rather despise the characters as people, but love them as characters because they entertain. I'd never want to actually be in a room with Veronica, her husband Michael (James Gandolfini), or the couple they have invited into their home, Alan (Jeff Daniels) and Annette (Hope Davis). Michael is a self-confessed "total fucking Neanderthal" and Alan is wedded to his cell phone in the most impolite, self-centered way imaginable. (He's an attorney doing emergency damage control for his client, a drug maker who has been covering up some dangerous side effects of one of their meds.) Annette and Veronica display a tad more humanity, at least in the early going. But by the time the play reaches its exhausting conclusion (in which the characters are completely spent, as though they'd just completed an exceptionally draining four-way), the two wives have displayed quite a bit of false bravado themselves.

The two couples have come together because Annette and Alan's child had attacked Michael and Veronica's son with a stick, knocking out two of the boy's teeth. So yeah, there's some tension in the room.

What's great about the play -- besides four terrific performances from four seasoned pros -- is how the constrictions of the theater help lay bare the insecurities of the characters. How it puts their bravado on display, revealing a terrible lack of courage.

Although it sounds grim, "God of Carnage" is actually quite funny. Hard to imagine how you can milk laughs out of lines like "Every word that comes out of your mouth is destroying me!", but Reza's text (with exceptionally able direction from Matthew Warchus) manages it.

Terrific fun.



"Mary Stuart"
Intrigue never seems to lose its appeal. Subterfuge, double-dealing, mendacity -- all are staples of drama. And all are in full display at this British import that is a revival of Friedrich Schiller's classic play, first performed in 1800. This version is a new translation by Peter Oswald that opened in 2005 at the Donmar Warehouse in London.

The story of Mary, Queen of Scots has been told in many forms (none more to the point than the Monty Python version). Mary Stuart is cousin to Elizabeth I, and pretender to the throne -- though I suppose pretension is in the eye of the beholder. Ostensibly arrested for her role in the murder of her husband, she is held in custody primarily because of her ambition.

Although the rampant duplicity is fun to watch -- and reminds us that lying in the service of blatant self-interest is far older than the Bush administration -- the real draw here are the performances by Janet McTeer at Mary and Harriet Walter as Elizabeth. These are bravura performances, the sort of thing young stage actors ought to study if they want to learn how to hold a large audience in a Broadway theater.

Not many laughs here, but lots to learn.

New York, Spring 2009 -- Day Two "Billy Elliott"

"Billy Elliott," the London import that was a huge hit there and has accomplished a similar feat here has almost everything you'd expect from a big, crowd-pleasing musical: down on their luck (but plucky) kids, their beaten-down (but still hopeful) parents fighting the Man (or in this case, the Woman -- Maggie Thatcher), big sets, top-notch staging and lighting effects, heart-tugging ballads, funny uptempo numbers, tap dancing, men in tutus, brassy, trash-talking women. It's all here.

Except it never really connected with me. Remember, though, that I've never been one to connect with the more overblown examples of the musical theater form. I hated "Les Miserables" and "Phantom of the Opera" -- and we all know I was clearly in the minority there.

If you've seen the movie, you know the story: Billy Elliott is an 11-year old boy living in a coal mining town in northern England when Margaret Thatcher steps in to bust the unions. Billy's father and older brother -- both miners -- go out on strike at the same time Billy discovers ballet. ("Bally" in the argot of the region.) He's talented, but will dance be his way out of a life in the mines? (It's a musical, not an opera, so you can probably guess.)

"Billy Elliott" has a lot going for it, primarily a great cast of young performers, plus a few good songs by Elton John ("Solidarity" "Merry Christmas, Maggie Thatcher") and some good dance numbers. The choreography was occasionally imaginative, but mostly pretty straightforward and exactly what one might expect.

In fact, I think that's my biggest problem with the show -- it seemed completely predictable, delivering nothing truly groundbreaking or exceptionally imaginative in terms of music, book or dance. I was, however, mostly alone in my opinion. My three companions all loved the show and the audience gave it a standing ovation.

I stood too, primarily for the technical expertise of the show (even though it was stopped for three minutes in the first act due to a technical difficulty), but mostly for the bravura performance of young David Alvarez as Billy. The kid can dance, he can act, he can even sing -- and he's onstage for most of this three-hour show.

If this is your kind of thing, then "Billy Elliott" will be the thing for you.

New York, Spring 2009 -- Day One "reasons to be pretty"

One day, I'd like to see Neil LaBute and David Mamet go after each other for the title of Alpha Male Playwright. The Bard of Testosterone. Let's get 'em in the same room, liquor 'em up and let them really go at it. My money's on LaBute, if for no other reason than he seems to be trying harder at representing for the penis-owners, while Mamet is softening up, putting out sweeter, creamier work like the farce "Romance" or 2007's terrific satire, "November". LaBute, on the other hand, seems to keep his foot firmly planted on the accelerator, driving his audiences as quickly as possible into territory where hard, painful things happen. Things men cause, then move on from because that's what men do. His plays have a well-deserved reputation for stripping away niceties and laying bare the bad things that bad people (men and women) do.

"reasons to be pretty" is LaBute's latest, but his first foray onto Broadway. He's spared little of the emotional cruelty and misanthropy that have marked his work over the years. Here his focus is the fragility of human connection. What is the nature of love? On what is it predicated? More important, even if we can answer those two questions -- even if only for ourselves, can we find our way through all the obstacles that prevent deep connection between humans? You know, jealousy, envy, low self-esteem (why would anyone love someone like me?) and inflated self-image (how could anyone not love me?)?

At curtain, Steph (Marin Ireland) is fighting with Greg (Thomas Sadoski), her boyfriend of three years. He's apparently said something to his friend Kent (Steven Pasquale) about Steph's looks, within earshot of her friend (and Greg and Kent's co-worker, and Greg's girlfriend) Carly (Piper Perabo). What he said wasn't awful, and could be defended, but it wasn't a great comment, either.

But what he said isn't as important as what Steph hears -- and feels. Over the course of the next two hours (including intermission), these two couples go through a fair bit of emotional hell -- which LaBute sometimes manages to make funny, even when the cruelty reaches its height. (The best scene in the play is when Steph reads aloud her notes about all Greg's physical shortcomings -- not just to Greg, but to everyone else at the mall food court, as well.)

LaBute has written a great play, I think. He gets to some very deep places with some pretty elegant, efficient writing. And though the cast does a mostly first-class job, I regularly felt there was emotional depth that was present in the text that the actors (or director Terry Kinney) failed to plumb. There were times, especially in the first act, where there just didn't seem to be enough veracity in the interaction between Steph and Greg.

But given the rawness of emotion that would be exposed if the actors went as deep as LaBute's text, I'm not sure audiences are ready for that. At least not enough to keep a Broadway play going long enough to recoup anything close to its investment.

Departure Day

It's been a while since I posted here. Haven't had much to say, and what I did say I said on Facebook.

However, after nearly a year, it's time to head back to New York for another infusion of theater and culture. (Along with visits to friends we haven't seen in some time.)

As I write this, I am sitting in the waiting area in the Continental terminal at SFO, waiting to board the flight to Newark. (Hooray frequent flier miles!) Over the course of the next two weeks, we will see 18 shows. 10 Broadway, eight off-Broadway. Six musicals, 12 plays. Of the 12, one is comedy, one a monologue. The others all look to be relatively heavy. I mean, "God of Carnage"? Can't be too lightweight. (Of course, the one comedy is called "Why Torture is Wrong and the People Who Love Them" so what does a title really say.

Anyway, watch this space for what should be daily (or almost daily) updates and mini-reviews.