Touched

I have long been a fan of Jeff Blumenkrantz.  Jeff is an obscenely talented musical theatre composer and actor.   A couple of years ago, he published a songbook and then invited a parade of big-name Broadway stars (his buddies) to sing the songs on a podcast.  Then, once he had run through the twenty songs in his songbook, he started periodically recording other songs of his.  Last weekend, he released yet another.

This morning I noticed the new podcast on my iPod and immediately dropped everything to listen.  I hope you will do the same.  This gorgeous song is a prime example of a master songwriter at the top of his craft.  And I dare you not to be moved.  Or should I say "Touched."

The Jeff Blumenkrantz Songbook Podcast: Special episode 9 - "Touched"

I'm gonna do my best not to gush.  Suffice it to say, Jeff's work is some of the most affecting musical theatre writing I know.  His songs range from sublimely hilarious to profoundly moving.  On the podcast, you'll hear Carolee Carmello frantically beg for help in overcoming her laziness so she can finish writing "My Book."  You'll experience Megan Mullally's heart wrenching "Lament" as a mother breaks the news to her young children of their father's passing.  Add to that Celia Keenan Bolger as the lovesick toll worker pining for the man in the beanie in the blue Chevrolet; Judy Blazer as the pragmatic grandchild-hungry mother of a gay son; Victoria Clark as a childless aunt filling her life with her siblings' children; and the incomparable Sally Mayes reprising her showstopping number from Urban Cowboy...among MANY others.  Many, many others.  Seriously, this is just off the top of my head.  In two minutes I'll be kicking myself for leaving out a dozen songs.

Jeff Blumenkrantz is a composer you NEED to know.  At least his music.  Go to http://www.jeffblumenkrantz.com/ and check it out.  On his site you'll find links to all his podcasts, information about how to buy (yes, own a LEGAL copy of) his music, and even a delightful romp through the Martha Stewart Cookbook!

Do yourself a favor and spend some time on  his website.  Then go buy his music.




Why are you still here?  Go!

Observations

This morning while I was waiting for the bus, a sweet elderly Greek woman joined me at the bus stop.  Through her broken English, I could make out that she was on her way to English classes and wanted some help practicing her most recent lesson en route.  What was most striking, though, was the fact that just like American tourists abroad, she spoke loudly and slowly as if that would help her message get through better.  When Americans do that, it's irritating.  When Gigia Immigrantakis does it, it's adorable.  Clearly it's not an issue of behavioral--we Americans are just annoying.

A friend announced her impending trip to the gynecologist in her Facebook status and followed it up with "See you on the other side."  I'm not sure whether it was a brilliant or unfortunate choice of words.  Either way, I giggled like a little girl.

In honor of Stephen Sondheim's 80th birthday, the Roundabout Theatre Company in New York City named a Broadway theatre after him.  What once was "Henry Miller's Theatre" is now the Stephen Sondheim theatre.  A Broadway house named after arguably the most influential artist in the history of American Musical Theatre.  And what venerable show will have the distinction of playing under the new marquee bearing this Broadway legend's name?  The Pee Wee Herman Show.  Connect the dot dot dot dot dot dot sitting dot dot waiting...tra la la!  Pity Gerard Alessandrini stopped writing Forbidden Broadway.  The spoof on THIS show practically writes itself.

An academic argument?

Last night on her show, Rachel Maddow interviewed Dr. Rand Paul, the recent recipient of the Republican nomination for Kentucky's upcoming senate race. She (rightly, I think) told him that the media was going to get hung up on one specific issue--his statements about the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Specifically, he alluded to the idea that business owners should be able to set their own rules for the patrons they serve.

The whole debate was fascinating and I applaud both Rachel Maddow and Rand Paul for their civil disagreement. (Video is below...and I highly recommend it.) Considering Dr. Paul's argument, I wholeheartedly support a business owner's right to bar patrons wielding guns from entering the premises. Likewise, I think the anti-smoking laws as applied to private businesses are ridiculous--if a bar or restaurant owner wants to cater to smokers, then those of us who don't like to smell like chimneys simply shouldn't patronize the establishment. And it's the same with seat belt laws. I wouldn't dream of riding in a car without a seat belt, but some knucklehead's choice not to wear one doesn't in any way affect their ability to drive.

Rachel kept trying to get a clear, concise answer from Dr. Paul clarifying his statements about the part of the Civil Rights Act that prohibits a business owner from barring clientele based on their race. Dr. Paul wouldn't give her a simple answer. But instead of a concise answer, he kept repeating platitudes to the tune of "I abhor racism, but the first amendment protects the numbskulls' rights to say offensive things."

While I agree that for the first amendment to work, we have to allow assholes their (ahem) assholery, essentially he was avoiding making a statement his opposition could use as a sound bite to call him a racist. Which makes sense politically, I guess. He's saying that no matter how abhorrent the idea of racism, the first amendment protects the rights of a racist to be a racist...and a racist business owner should be able to express that racism by limiting access to his business. Just like an anti-gun business owner should be able to bar guns from his establishment.

But when it comes to barring someone from a business because of their race, the government has a responsibility to step in.

What Dr. Paul fails to mention is that gun ownership (along with smoking and wearing seat belts) is a choice. Race is not. There's an idea that "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins"--the idea being that your freedom of expression ends when you impinge on another person's well-being. You can be a racist in this country, but not when it encroaches on someone else. You can be a sexist in this country, but not when it becomes sexual harassment. Business owners can bar people from entering the establishment based on modesty (No shirt, no shoes, no service)...they can toss people out for behavior deemed inappropriate...and until 1964 they could prohibit patronage based on race. But one of these things is not like the others. And the government rightly stepped in and corrected that.

Rand Paul spins a pretty argument--one that on the surface appeals to staunch defenders of free speech. But until Dr. Paul acknowledges that it is a perversion of the first amendment to use it to justify the creation of "whites only" establishments, this issue will continue to dog his campaign...and may cost him the election.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

UPDATE:

Rand Paul regrets his visit to the Maddow show.

Delightful! La Cage on GMA

Wonderful show...delightful excerpt on Good Morning America today:

While we're waiting...

My computer is taking forever to boot. So while we wait, here's a photo I took last week at the High Line park. Yay pictures!

**UPDATE**
My computer is now up and running.  Adding the link and back to work.

Fwd: Multimedia message

Did you know you can blog from your cell phone? Yeah, me neither! Anyway this is kind of a test...

So have I told you about the time Michael Rupert signed my Falsettos playbill?

P.S. Does this playbill make my thumb look fat?

Free Speech/Hate Speech

I'm all for free speech, and have regularly exercised the right to call into question the sanity of the previous president.  But calling for "divine assassination"???  Is this appropriate?  I realize the "Dear God, you killed my favorite actor/actress/singer...Obama is my favorite president" page is supposed to be funny, but why is it that everything we seem to hear from the Right lately is framed in violence toward those with whom they disagree?

Dissent and debate are a part of the political process that makes us strong as a country. But guns at rallies, targets on key electoral districts, prayers for the death of our president...none of this does anything to build up our country. None of this furthers the debate. And none of this makes YOU look like a reasonable human being. And frankly, if you're going to be an ass, we have nothing to talk about.

It's so frustrating that lately the standard M.O. for the opponents of the party in power seems to be simply to appeal to the lowest common denominator.  If you don't like Health Care Reform, make up a lie and say it threatens violence to my grandmother.  If your party wants to pick up seats in congress, put cross-hairs on the districts you want to win so your base knows where you've "set your sights".  If you don't like the president, bring a gun to a rally.

I wholeheartedly believe in freedom of speech.  I also believe that rational people of differing opinion CAN come together and work toward a better future for this country.  But currently the discourse in this country, particularly the noise coming from the right, isn't based on rational argument.  It's not intended to solve problems.  It's specifically (and I'm afraid almost solely) designed to get the base riled up for political gain.

Hate speech, threats of violence, the fear that's being stoked among the wing-nuts on the fringe...I'm sure it's protected by the first amendment, and I'll defend peoples rights to express themselves...but ultimately it's not good for the country.  15 years ago, indignant about the liberal policies being "rammed down the country's throats" (or just angry that they were no longer in power), the right riled up their base and it could be argued that this mentality directly led to the bombing in Oklahoma City.  Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that peoples right to free expression should be curtailed.  I'm just saying that at its most benign, this kind of nonsense is still counterproductive...and at its most extreme, it can be deadly.  And the people in power who prey upon the feeble minded among us, stirring them up to blind violence against a perceived threat...those people have blood on their hands.

I think there's a better way.  There's got to be.  The wing-nuts won't listen to any liberal.  I wish the moral people on the right would stand up and speak out.  Can you imagine the impact of Orrin Hatch or Mitt Romney standing up and saying, "I'm a republican, and I think praying for God to kill Obama is offensive and a symptom of a deeper discomfort with the president that we should address and move past."

Most of my family dismisses anything "serious" I have to say because my views tend to be pretty liberal.  But if people they respect...say church leaders or conservative political figures or talk show hosts...if these people stood up and denounced the lies and the nonsense and called for more productive discourse, I think my family would listen.  And so would the country.

So listen up, Republicans...want to get back in power?  Want a chance at getting my vote?  Stop behaving like children and encourage your constituents to do the same.   Stop hiding behind the lies and the furor of the corporate manufactured tea party bullshit and get off your thumbs and do something!  Stand for something!  Despite our differences, there was a time I respected men like Orrin Hatch and John McCain, not because I felt they were politically right, but because I felt they were honorable men.  Win that back by behaving honorably and encouraging your supporters to do the same.  Then we'll talk.

John McCain EATS BABIES!!!

Remember during the 2008 election when I flippantly suggested that John McCain eats babies?  Guess what.  JOHN MCCAIN EATS BABIES!!!!  Run for your life!  Hide your children!

Here's proof.  (Warning: it's not for the weak of heart.)  Mind you, I'm only showing the "before" photo.  The "during" and "after" photos are all too shocking.

A mid-afternoon pick-me-up

Thanks, Ms. Donna Murphy, I needed this:

Pants on fire much?

I'm so tired of being represented in government by people who insult our intelligence, vote against our best interest, and then expect us to blindly reelect them as we do every year.  

Orrin Hatch in the Washington Post:

This use of reconciliation to jam through this legislation, against the will of the American people, would be unprecedented in scope. And the havoc wrought would threaten our system of checks and balances, corrode the legislative process, degrade our system of government and damage the prospects of bipartisanship.

Seriously Senator Hatch, stop with the hypocrisy and the lies.  If you have substantive problems with health care reform, feel free to air them, but I'm personally insulted that you think that Utahns are too stupid to fact check the malarky that comes out of your mouth.  A fourth grader with a computer could disprove your distortions.  


The Republican minority has damaged the prospects of bipartisanship by voting against everything put forward (even ideas they used to espouse...and worse, legislation they actually sponsored.)  

From the Salt Lake Tribune:

Hatch said Thursday that using reconciliation would be “one of the worst grabs for power in the history of the country” that would permanently impact relations between the two parties. 

“It is going to be outright war and it should be, because it would be such an abuse of the reconciliation rules,” Hatch said. “If they abuse those rules it is going to lead to even more heated animosities between not just the two parties, but even between individual senators.”  

Fascinating political posturing Senator...but in case your memory is shot, let me remind you that you voted for… 

• The College Cost Reduction Act of 2007 ( passed through reconciliation)
• The Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 (which passed through reconciliation)
• The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (which passed through reconciliation)
• The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (which passed through reconciliation)
• The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (which passed through reconcilation)
• The Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000 (which passed through reconciliation)
• The Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999 (which passed through reconciliation)

(source: whorunsgov.com and www.sunlightfoundation.com)

AND major health care reform has already passed both legislative bodies.  The stuff that's set to pass through reconciliation amounts to a handful of tweaks (and if we're lucky, an option for the general public to buy into some public program like medicare.)


So Senator Hatch, grow a pair.  Stand up and be vocal about things if you must, but be honest with us.  Argue with the democrats on substance, not straw men.  But most importantly, be a part of the solution or get the hell out of the way.