So can money bring happiness? More specifically, can acquiring more stuff or nicer stuff make you happier? In some ways, we need only look at the true happiness of the wealthy, with lots of stuff to manage, protect, move, store, etc. That’s a lot of work. Further, studies by a generation of behavioral scientists show that material goods often fail to deliver lasting happiness.

According to the article, what does give happiness? Dozens of studies show that people get more happiness from buying experiences than from buying material things. Experiential purchases — such as trips, concerts and special meals — are more deeply connected to our sense of self, making us who we are.  Experiences come with one more benefit: They tend to bring us closer to other people, whereas material things are more often enjoyed alone. Decades of research point to the importance of social contact for improving mental and physical health.

Perhaps this is why I enjoy going to live theatre and concerts. It is an experience — in fact, live entertainment is a unique experience (unlike movies, which are the same everytime you watch them).

The article goes on to note that the author’s research suggests that doing things for other people can provide an additional boost. In experiments they have conducted around the world, including in Canada, the United States, Uganda and South Africa, they find that people are happier if they spend money on others. And we’ve found that spending even just a few dollars on someone else provides more happiness than using the cash to treat yourself. Again, this is easier to see in small theatre. In the large theatre/touring shows, one feels your money is going to a machine. But going to a small theatre — a black box ala The Blank, REP East, Celebration Theatre, etc — directly brings happiness to others. You can see it as you interact with the artistic staff.

That’s not the only way to spend on someone else. We’ve all seen the fun in gift giving. There are also charitable donations. Does sending a check to a charity bring happiness? Alternatively, does charitable happiness come more from volunteering one’s time in addition to money? This ups the social aspect quite a bit. I’ve seen this in synagogue service — people are happy and make friends serving on synagogue boards. I have other friends that get happiness by volunteering with charities such as animal rescue, helping those in need.

The article’s conclusion?

Who was happiest? Those who treated someone else and shared in that experience with them. So the cost of increasing your happiness may be as cheap as two cups of coffee.

Taken together, the new science of spending points to a surprising conclusion: How we use our money may matter as much or more than how much of it we’ve got. Which means that rather than waiting to see whether you find $1 million under your mattress tomorrow, you can make yourself happier today. Switching your spending to buying experiences — for both yourself and others — can lead to more happiness than even the most amazingly Amazonian rain shower.

So what makes you happy?

(*: The piece was posted over the weekend; I wrote this up Monday night before posting it at lunch on Tuesday)

Seeing this, the Colony Theatre in Burbank decided to mount a musical centered around the works of Lorenz Hart. Working with playwright Mark Saltzman, the resulting piece — titled Falling for Make Believe: Lorenz Hart,His Life, His Love, His Songs — premiered on April 27, 2013. We just saw the musical today, at what was supposed to be the last performance (it has been extended — more on that later). As for what I thought about it — that is, was it good or not — is hard to put into a single word or two because there are so many different ways to judge it.

Jukebox musicals have a problem. They can go the easy route and be a simple revue of songs. This is what shows such as Smokey Joe’s Cafe does. That creates an enjoyable evening, but it is ultimately not satisfying. They can create a fake plot around the songs in the existing catalog that weren’t designed for a plot — this can sometimes work (e.g., Mamma Mia), but usually doesn’t. They can also take the hard route and select songs and build a story that tells the story of the person at the heart of the catalog. This is what Ain’t Misbehavin’ did so successfully — each song actually provided insight into the characters and the times.

Falling for Make Believe took this latter approach. It created an artificial character — Fletcher Mecklin — and used him (combined with eulogies at the funeral of Lorenz Hart) to tell the story of Hart. This story was primarily centered around Hart’s drinking and Hart’s homosexuality — how it drove his work, and how it ultimately led to his destruction. Most of the reviews of this show center on this story and its impact — and how it was never really told during the life of Hart. Certainly, the world well knew of Hart’s drinking (in fact, it eventually led Rodgers to dump him as a lyricist for Hammerstein). They didn’t know the other side of his life, as contrasted to other other famous Broadway homosexuals, such as Cole Porter or Noel Coward. In general, this aspect of the story worked. Mecklin served as a good vehicle to discuss how homosexuality was viewed during the time period, and how it affected Porter’s life. It provided a good way to show how Hart’s agent, Doc Bender, enabled the behavior, and how the others in Hart’s circles — Rodgers and his wife, Vivian Ross (their regular leading lady) — reacted to it all.

So where was the problem? First, the songs that were chosen from the catalog did not always amplify the chosen story. Often, the songs were chosen (seemingly) because they were popular and well known, not because they might be construed as making any statement. Further, although the show attempted to present the songs in chronological order, it skipped back and forth and back and forth (a good example of this is Blue Moon, which is seemingly referenced before it was written). It also only highlighted a number of shows.

Right now, this show is only about 90 minutes with no intermission. For the show to move to the next level, I believe it needs to figure out how to present the songs and shows in a chronological order. It needs to figure out how to make the selected songs show how Hart was changing over the years, and perhaps discovering both his homosexuality and his love for alcohol. This may require introducing additional characters, especially to cover the early years. In particular, was his homosexuality affected by the number of years he spent in Hollywood working on film songs. In other words: we need to see Hart’s lyrics present a deeper picture of Hart, not the superficial picture we get with the show.

Note that the above is not meant to imply the show is bad — rather, it is more my thoughts on how to improve the book. As it is now, it is still a very enjoyable one-act with great performances and wonderful Rodgers and Hart music.  The direction by Jim Fall and the Choreography by Lisa Hopkins work well to keep the stage alive and engaging, and to bring out realistic performances from the ensemble. This does take some creativity given the stage constraints of the flyspace-less Colony facility — I can imagine a completely different staging were there set pieces that could fly in and out (such as at the Pasadena Playhouse).

Of course, it doesn’t hurt that the performances were excellent. In the lead positions were Tyler Milliron as Fletcher Mecklin, Brett Ryback as Richard Rodgers, and Ben. D. Goldberg as Lorenz Hart. Milliron had a lovely tenor voice that was just great to listen to. Character-wise… he was a chorus member. In other words, his character served more to move the story along than to have any depth or substance of his own. The main character in the story — Hart — was portrayed by Goldberg. He also had a pleasing voice and captured the drunk Hart well. I’m not sure how well he captured the homosexual Hart, for it is hard to know homosexual behavior that isn’t just a caricature or a stereotype. More problematic is that there wasn’t a strong demonstration of the behavior — other than chronic lateness or drunkenness — that would lead Rodgers to say what he actually said about working with Hart. Hart was more of a nice gay drunk, and I’m not sure that’s how he really was. More problematic was that he had a very similar look to the actor portraying Rodgers, and this occasionally led to some confusion for me. Ryback’s Rodgers was quite enjoyable — nice voice, nice movement, and nice acting.

The second tier of characters consisted of Megan Moran as Peggy/Dorothy Rodgers/Police Woman, Jeffrey Landman as Doc Bender, and Rebecca Ann Johnson as Vivian Blaine. Here I was smitten by the look and performance of Moran — she was a very strong singer and performer. We haven’t seen her before, but I do hope to see more of her. Johnson was also very strong as Blaine with a great singing voice and very good performance skills — especially in her interactions with Goldberg’s Hart. We saw much less of Landman’s character; he only had one song.

The scenic design by Jeff McLaughlin was relatively simple — a number of levels with a piano and a small bar area. Properties and set dressing were by the resident prop-people, MacAndMe. The lighting by Sohail e. Najafi worked well, although there were at times the attempts to focus the lighting through aluminum foil structures created some odd reflections. The sound design by Drew Dalzell provided good sound. The costumes by Dianne K. Graebner were for the most part good, although I was unsure about the first costume for Vivian Ross (I would have expected something a little more risque for a performance in a speakeasy when the actor wanted to show they could do something more daring — especially in the 1920s).

Musical direction was by Keith Harrison, and the 4 piece orchestra (two keyboards, bass, and percussion) was conducted by Kathryn Lounsbery. The production stage manager was Leesa Freed, and the assistant stage manager was Brian Cordoba.

Falling for Make Believe was scheduled to close today, but an extension has been announced. After a two week hiatus, the show will return on June 6 and continue until June 30 (and there was a hint it could continue after that, if demand is sufficient). Tickets are available through the Colony box office, as well as through the usual discount places. As for the next season at the Colony, the official word from Barbara Beckley, Artistic Director, is that they are working on it. Unofficial word is of a more binary nature — it is likely there will be a season, but when it will start, how many shows there will be,  and what those shows are is all unknown. Likely, it all depends on how long this last show extends and the state of the Colony budget. My guess is that the next season, if there is one, will be a recovery season with shows selected to draw in the audience and new subscribers, with sufficient spacing to extend the shows if demand warrants. So we’re still in a “wait and see”, but I’m not going to give up quite yet.

Upcoming Theatre and Concerts:   The last weekend of May brings “To Kill a Mockingbird” at REP East and The Scottsboro Boys” at the Ahmanson Theatre. June brings “Priscilla – Queen of the Desert” at the Pantages, and (tentative) Sweet Charity“ at DOMA (although DOMA may be replacing it with “Nine“). June will also bring a Maria Muldaur concert at McCabes.  I’m also considering Rent at the Hudson Theatres or A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Forum at the Hillcrest Center for the Arts in Thousand Oaks. July is currently more open, with “9 to 5 – The Musical” at REP East in the middle of the month, and “Legally Blonde – The Musical” at Cabrillo at the end of the month. August is currently completely open due to vacation planning. I’m also keeping my eyes open as the various theatres start making their 2013 season announcements. Lastly, what few dates we do have open may be filled by productions I see on Goldstar, LA Stage Tix, Plays411, or discussed in the various LA Stage Blogs I read (I particularly recommend Musicals in LA and LA Stage Times).

Growing up is on my mind in many ways. First, my daughter has just completed her first year at UC Berkeley, and is no longer the little girl. My wife is up in Berkeley picking her up and bringing her home. This led directly to the second thing that put growing up on my mind: while they were out I took the chance to go to Hollywood and see the Ovation-recommended play “Peter Pan: The Boy Who Hated Mothers” at the Blank Theatre in Hollywood.

Most people are familiar, yet not familiar, with J. M Barrie‘s Peter Pan. First and foremost, forget the Disney adaptation. I’ve actually never seen it, but I’m pretty sure it was Disney-fied and lost some elements of the story. My familiarity with Pan comes from the 1954 musical with book by J. M. Barrie, and music by Jule Styne, Moose Charlap and lyrics by Carolyn Leigh, Betty Comden, and Adolph Green. The story in Peter Pan: The Boy Who Hated Mothers hewed very close to the story in the 1954 musical (no surprise, as both used Barrie’s book as the basis) — in face, there were points where Michael Lluberes‘s script almost seemed word for word with the older musical (this was especially true in the opening nursery scenes). But there were also some significant differences — the major one being the catalyst in the story. In both the Disney version and the 1954 musical, there were three children who go off with Peter: Wendy, Michael, and John. In this version, there is only Wendy and John; Michael had died some unspecified time earlier at an ambigous age (the script makes you think 5-6, the props make you think it was while he was an infant). Michael’s death is the reason for discussing Peter Pan: Does Peter take the souls of children who die too early? Is he a real boy?  Is he a boy lost in childhood? It is never made clear.

This Peter Pan, unlike many of the other versions (and I’m intentionally ignoring the prequel Peter and the Starcatchers and the sequel Hook), is a drama and is not played either for laughs or for the children. That’s not to say there isn’t humor in the piece; rather, it means level of the story is not simplified for children. Peter is petty and mean; he is an immature little boy thinking only of himself. Whereas the musical and the Disney version leave one with the message that one grows up only if one wants to, and that you need to embrace the child in you… this play leaves a very different message indeed. This is where the subtitle of the play comes in.

This play is titled Peter Pan: The Boy who Hated Mothers. The subtitle is important. One might ask: why, if Peter hated mothers, did he go to the effort to bring Wendy back as a mother for himself and the lost boys? Why does the period in Neverland revolve around the presence of Wendy as the mother… even to the point of where Capt. Hook (who is the reflection of the grown Peter) talks about the importance of the mother and as the mother as Peter’s weakness? The answer is that Peter’s relationship with mothers was that of wanting one, but of making choices that always seemed centered around himself and hurting mothers. This becomes especially poignant at the end of the play. We all remember how the musical ends: Peter comes back annually to Wendy to bring her back to Neverland for a week in the Spring; as Wendy grows up he does the same thing with Wendy’s daughter, Jane. In fact, the play ends exactly as the book ends:

“As you look at Wendy, you may see her hair becoming white, and her figure little again, for all this happened long ago. Jane is now a common grown-up, with a daughter called Margaret; and every spring cleaning time, except when he forgets, Peter comes for Margaret and takes her to the Neverland, where she tells him stories about himself, to which he listens eagerly. When Margaret grows up she will have a daughter, who is to be Peter’s mother in turn; and thus it will go on, so long as children are gay and innocent and heartless.”

The last line of the play mentions how this is heartless — and just think about this: Having someone come in and take your daughter away — every year, unthinkingly — is the act  of someone who doesn’t feel the pain of a mother, and essentially hates them. Peter also takes away from Jane Darling and the children the last physical reminder of Michael — and I’m sure there are some aspects of hatred in that action as well.

The play also has a number of commentaries about growing up. Peter refuses to grow up, even though he is clearly a man in a physical sense (although with a baby’s skin and teeth). I saw this as saying that although Peter may grow up someone physically, he remained mentally and emotionally immature — and there are far too many men today who are the same. All the other “lost boys” eventually found their way to maturity (and Lluberes script actually describes how they matured)… but not Peter. Whereas other versions portray remaining a child as a good thing, this play gives the impression that it is somehow wrong — that remaining immature can hurt the others around you, and in your immaturity you won’t see the pain it causes (for when you are immature, you think only of yourself … in fact, a sign of maturity is starting to think and care about others around you). Wendy, although a little girl, is mature before her age. John is maturing with the help of Wendy. Peter never grows up. It’s not something to crow about.

The play does retain the one thing that always made me uncomfortable: the involvement of the audience in the saving of Tinkerbell after she drinks the poison. This time, it is having the audience shout out their belief in fairies with the lights out, but it is a hook that is also present in the musical version. Perhaps I don’t like it because I’ve never had the imagination to truly believe in fairies (which is why I’ve always been in the role of fan-at-a-distance, not the fanboy fanaticism many get. I’d love to be able to believe in fairies again; alas, I think I’m too grown up.

This version of Peter Pan works especially well because of the excellent direction of Michael Matthews and the excellent performance of the cast. Matthews kept the cast small, forcing most of the background players (the lost boys) to double as pirates and other characters. When combined with the limitations of the black box theatre, this plays up the emphasis of the Neverland side of the piece as being a large effort in Make Believe — pretending many things that are not real are fully real. One comes out asking the question: Was Peter real? A true question for the ages. LA Stage Week has a nice writeup on the genesis of this version.

The cast does an excellent job at making this all become real. In the lead positions are Daniel Shawn Miller as Peter Pan and Liza Burns as Wendy Darling. Miller’s Peter is childish and angry, strong and unthinking, and decidedly not mature. He doesn’t play Pan with the spritish-nature that most of the actresses has given (Peter is traditionally played by a woman); he is that mean little boy who only thought about himself. Still, Miller’s Peter does have his tender side, especially when playing father to the Lost Boys. Burns’ Wendy is much more mature. In fact, you can sense that she wants to do more with Peter and have a deeper (perhaps adult) relationship with him, but he never understands what she is hinting in. A typically clueless man-boy! Wendy’s pretend mother highlights the disciplinary aspects of being a mother, but you can see that underlying love and concern for the Lost Boys. Burns’ portray of Wendy does a great job of bringing out both the mature and the childish, often turning from one to the other on a time (as children growing up will do). At one moment she is playing; at the next, she’s remembering her mother and thinking about the pain she is causing. Contrast this with Peter: he never thinks about the pain he causes — he happily takes actions that hurt adults.

Miller and Burns are supported by an excellent ensemble. As John Darling, Benjamin Campbell mostly blends in with the Lost Boys,but especially in the closing scenes he shines as you can see his maturity beginning. Trisha LaFache doubles as both Mrs. Darling and Capt. Hook. This casting creates a different impression than the traditional approach (which has Wendy’s father doubling for Hook): the notion of a female captain lusting after little boys is very disturbing, especially with some of the implications the script creates. LaFache is versatile as both characters, bringing out both the mother and the devious Captain. The remaining ensemble members double as both Boys and Pirates, as well as other Neverland characters. Amy Lawhorn plays the lost boy Nibbs, the pirate Bill Jukes, as well as Tiger Lily and (essentially). Tinker Bell. Each comes off with a clearly different persona, and you get the sense that Amy is having fun with all the different characters. You see the same thing with Jackson Evans (Tootles/Smee) and David Hemphill (Slightly/Starkey). Evans’ Smee is particularly fun — you can see that he has a very different attitude towards Hook than does any of the crew. All of the actors were just remarkable, and appeared to truly be having fun with their roles. They are also very creative and versatile, switching from character to character with ease.

Technically the production is a very clever hoot. The set design by Mary Hamrick was remarkably clever, making great use of the Blanks’ black box space. She created a raised floor with compartments underneath, simple bedroom furniture that with imagination easily became places on the island or the ship, and wonderful use of flowing silk for water or blood. Her creative approaches to the crocodile were also fun. She was aided in this with the property design of Michael O’Hara. Kellsy Mackilligan‘s costume design was equally clever, creating the run-down clothing of children lost on an island, yet still retaining the echo of Victorian bedclothes. Rebecca Kessin‘s sound design was particularly noteworthy — usually sound design focuses on amplification, but I really noticed Kessin’s design in the sound effects and ambient noise. This was particularly emphasized during the ship scenes where the stereophonic effects and the creaking made my mind think we were actually on a ship. The lighting design by Tim Swiss and Zack Lapinski was also strong — both in the use of overhead lights to create the mood and establish scenes, but even more in the use of floor and prop lighting to create the magic, and the use of lighting to create Tinkerbell in a way I haven’t seen before. Dialect coaching was by Coco Kleppinger and was mostly good, creating the British flavor of the story. However, at one of two points the heavy accent combined with fast narration made it hard to follow the words. Sondra Mayer provided the fight choreography, and it is always fun to see swordplay on stage. The production was stage managed by Rebecca Eisenberg (who also served as assistant director), assisted by Jillian Mayo. It was produced by Noah Wyle, Sarah A. Bauer, Stephen Moffatt, and Matthew Graber; Dawn Davis, Emily Mae Heller (who we know from Temple Beth Torah); Even Martin, and Noelle Toland were associate producers. Daniel Henning is the founding Artistic Director of the blank; Ed Murphy is the Managing Director, and Noah Wyle is the Artistic Producer.

Peter Pan: The Boy Who Hated Mothers runs through June 2 at The Blank Theatre and is well worth seeing. Tickets are available through the Blank Box office, and may be available through Goldstar.

Seeing this production reminded me of how impressed I am with the productions at the Blank. If the Colony subscription dies (we still don’t know), the Blank is on my short list of places that might replace that subscription (other places include the Falcon Theatre in Burbank or the Odyssey in West LA). However, none of these has the mid-size feel we got with the Colony or its predecessor, the Pasadena Playhouse. I’ve considered the Playhouse if Colony dies, but their season just doesn’t excite me. I am open to suggestions.

Dining Notes: Dining out before the show was at Eat This Cafe, which is across the street from The Blank and part of the building that houses the Hudson Theatre.  It is a simple place, but very good and very nice. If I’m attending theatre at the Hudson (they are soon doing Rent, which is a possibility), the Blank, or any of the theatres nearby on Santa Monica, I will be back to Eat This.

Upcoming Theatre and Concerts:   Sunday brings “Falling for Make Believe” at The Colony Theatre. The last weekend of May brings “To Kill a Mockingbird” at REP East and The Scottsboro Boys” at the Ahmanson Theatre. June brings “Priscilla – Queen of the Desert” at the Pantages, and (tentative) Sweet Charity“ at DOMA (although DOMA may be replacing it with “Nine“). June will also bring a Maria Muldaur concert at McCabes.  I’m also considering Rent at the Hudson Theatres or A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Forum at the Hillcrest Center for the Arts in Thousand Oaks. July is currently more open, with “9 to 5 – The Musical” at REP East in the middle of the month, and “Legally Blonde – The Musical” at Cabrillo at the end of the month. August is currently completely open due to vacation planning. I’m also keeping my eyes open as the various theatres start making their 2013 season announcements. Lastly, what few dates we do have open may be filled by productions I see on Goldstar, LA Stage Tix, Plays411, or discussed in the various LA Stage Blogs I read (I particularly recommend Musicals in LA and LA Stage Times).

• Wasting Time in Google. Yet again, Google has resurrected an arcade game as an Easter Egg (how’s that for a metaphor!). First, it was Pacman as a Google Doodle. That doodle, when it was released, caused a significant time waste. This time, it is Atari Breakout hidden in Google Images. Just type “Atari Breakout” into Google Image Search, hit enter, and start knocking your way through the various levels. Photo tiles appear just as they would on any Google search results page, but this time are lit up with their corresponding row’s color, creating a rainbow of Atari and Breakout images across a black screen. Game play is exactly as you may remember it: Knock out all of the blocks and rack up points, while trying to keep the ball from falling off the screen, and then move on to the next level.
• Photos in Art Museums. Ever wonder why you couldn’t take pictures in art museums. Part of it is the damage from the flash, but it is also that the museum often doesn’t own the copyright for the works. From the article: “Museums often do not hold the copyrights to the works they display, which creates legal problems when visitors start snapping away. According to Julie Ahrens, a lawyer who specializes in issues of copyright and fair use at the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford University, a photograph of an artwork could be considered a “derivative work,” which is “potentially a violation of the copyright holder.” But the deluge of cameras, along with the fact that the vast majority of visitors simply want to snap a pic for a Facebook album, has led some institutions—such as MoMA, the Indianapolis Museum, and the Brooklyn Museum—to ask lenders for permission to shoot, with the stipulation that pictures are for noncommercial use.”  But that all is changing…
• Photos in Art Museums, Take II. Here’s another photo issue related to art. A New York City photographer took pictures of people in an apartment building without their knowledge, later using them in an exhibition. He did this from across the street with a birder’s telephoto lens. Now the people in the photographs are upset (even though their faces are obscured), calling it an invasion of privacy. So, is it an invasion of privacy if someone in a public space can see you doing something? What if they take a picture of it?
• Apostrophes in Place Names. Did you know that there is an active effort to scrub apostrophes from place names in the US, so that Caesar’s Palace becomes Caesars Palace. That example was a joke, but the scrubbing is not. Here’s the scoop. Specifically, the Domestic Names Committee of the U.S. Board on Geographic Names doesn’t like apostrophes. The program took off when President Benjamin Harrison set up the Board on Geographic Names in 1890. By one board estimate, it has scrubbed 250,000 apostrophes from federal maps. The states mostly—but not always—bow to its wishes. An apostrophe, the argument goes, implies private ownership of a public place. When names appear on maps, “they change from words having specific dictionary meaning to fixed labels used to refer to geographic entities,” the names committee explains in its statement of “Principles, Policies and Procedures.”
• AM Radio. It appears there is an active effort to get rid of AM Radio. You remember radio, don’t you. It’s that thing that streams music, talk, news, and commercials wirelessly to a movable receiver… oh, nevermind. In any case, here’s one reporters opinion on how to save AM radio.
• Dr. George. A short update on Dr. George Fischbeck, who used to do the weather in Los Angeles. The man with the bow tie and glasses is 90 years old now, but is still a character, a performer and a teacher. He has never pretended to be a meteorologist, but he does know how to get peoples’ attention (he actually doesn’t have a doctorate, just like Sheriff John was never a Sheriff, nor was Hobo Kelley a hobo). Here’s another, older, article on Dr. George.

• UCLA. Back when I was at UCLA, one of our favorite underground activities was a hike through the steam tunnels. Usually we would enter through the portal in the basement of Boelter Hall (someone in the Computer Club had a master key), and we would wander through the tunnels, usually up to the underground bridge near Murphy Hall. I bring this up because the Daily Bruin has posted a photographic tour of the tunnels. There weren’t as many pictures as I would like, but it does bring back memories.
• CSUN/UC Berkeley. I ran across an interesting opinion piece on the website of the Daily Sundial at CSUN. This piece looks at the identity of CSUN, and constrasts it with that of UC Berkeley and UC Santa Barbara. The conclusion: “CSUN may have a non-existent party scene like UCSB, it may not have diverse student housing cooperatives or the prestige of UC Berkeley. It may have no strong culture to identify with and it might have no definitive identity in the scope of UCs and CSUs other than “that commuter school,” but that’s fine. I wanted an education, and I took what I could get. Being able to drive 30 minutes to school every day from the stability of my mom’s house is exactly what I need. CSUN is the only university that offered me the luxury of not having to turn my world upside down to get a degree. Maybe we lose out on a definitive identity,  but I’m okay with that.”

In closing, I wish all the college graduates out there good luck, and I’d like to reassure those high school graduates that you’ll survive the first year of whatever school you choose.

Rule Nº 1: Never Ascribe To Malice That Which You Can Ascribe to Stupidity

I sometimes change the last word to “laziness”, but the intent is the same. Often, we see people putting sinister thoughts and actions behind a move when there is likely nothing more than someone just being stupid, lazy, or inept. Good example of this is the recent IRS kerfluffle. I’ve seen a number of folks insisting that Obama is behind all of this, implying some sinister intent or conspiracy. The answer, more likely, is that some office had to make a decision… and given the intensely partisan climate, made the wrong one. To put it another way (as I saw in the LA Times):

The decision by agents in Cincinnati to flag groups that appeared to have a conservative ideology was “very bad,” said Brett Kappel, a campaign finance lawyer at the firm Arent Fox in Washington. “But I don’t think it was politically motivated; I think it’s incompetence.”

We’re also seeing this rule apply in the Benghazi situation. More and more the situation is not looking like an elaborate conspiracy from the top — it is looking like various fiefdoms trying in a very stupid way to protect themselves. In particular, this one looks like there was CIA involvement in facility in Benghazi, and the CIA made some stupid choices to try to hide the fact.

The important take away from this is that usually there are not elaborate conspiracies behind everything. Life really doesn’t want to be complex. In reality, people are just stupid.

Rule Nº 2: The definition of “Insanity” is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

The primary example of this rule today is the House of Representatives, which just tried for the 39th time to repeal the Affordable Care Act. I get the first couple of times. But at this point, it is just a waste of time and money. The House has more important things to do, such as passing legislation to move this country forward: immigration reform, tax reform, budget bills. Am I trying to say that the ACA (Obamacare) is perfect? Far from it — we’re all starting to see ways in which it isn’t working right, and the recent IRS situtation also shows the importance of providing the IRS with clear definitions of how to interpret the provisions. Instead of trying to repeal Obamacare — which is a waste of time — the House should be working at this point to incrementally improve the bill to make it something workable.

The take away from this rule: If you keep failing at what you do, perhaps you need to achieve the goal in a different fashion.

Rule Nº 3: People will go for “best abuse of the rules”.

The point here is that people will always go through the existing rules, and try to find the loopholes and use them to their advantage — be that political or personal advantage. We certainly saw bankers doing that during the financial crisis, and we’re still seeing that today. We’re also seeing it politically. After the Citizens United decision, non-profits realized that they could donate to political campaigns (previously, they couldn’t as they were corporations). They discovered the 501c(4) organization, which was originally designed for civic groups such as parks or beautification associations. These organizations could receive donations without having to declare the income as tax and without having to disclose the donors. The IRS had ruled they could do limited political activity, but that was never specifically defined. So after Citizens United, the number of applications for such groups grew… and many people thought they were doing this to do political activity. This was the root cause of the problem at the IRS. There were originally a small number of these groups, and the IRS was focused on real charities (think religious institutions) being too involved in politics. After the Citizens United decision in 2010, 1,735 groups applied for 501(c)4 status — a figure that nearly doubled by 2012, according to the inspector general’s audit. This overloaded the office, and made that IRS office need to find a way to determine which groups to examine. How did they do it? Consult  Rule Nº 1.

We’re also seeing this in the partisan climate. I think everyone will agree that the partisan atmosphere led the IRS office to make the wrong decision. But such an atmosphere was also likely legal — there were no direct orders, only an environment that took advantage of people’s stupidity.

The primary take away from this: Take the time to get the specification correct the first time, and try to think through all the angles. If it looks like people are abusing the rules in an unintended way, the first thing to do is refine the rules to solve the problem.

The secondary take away from this: If the rules appear to be being abused, investigate in a neutral manner. There should be three goals from the effort: (1) to discover the errors in the rules that need correcting; (2) to discover errors in guidance and education that need correction; and (3) to determine if there are any real and significant legal violations (which should be prosecuted).

Rule Nº 4: Discuss to understand, not to convince.

Far too often, I see discussions on Facebook or elsewhere on the Internet where the end goal is to convince someone that you are right and they are wrong. That’s too ambitious of a goal, and one that ends up just wasting people’s time. I do not believe that I will get my Conservative friends to switch over to the Liberal side, and I don’t believe that Conservative arguments (especially as I’ve seen them done) are going to convince Liberals to change. Remember Rule Nº 2 here and the definition of insanity. The purpose of our discussions should be more to gain an understanding of where the other side is coming from, and what their real concerns are.

Again, let’s use the IRS example on this. I wrote the other day about the underlying tax problems that led to the mess. A conservative friend of mine hijacked the discussion to start discussing criminal wrongdoing by agents. He was trying to convince me of his agenda of a large conspiracy from the top. I was trying to illustrate the underlying problem with the system in a different way. In other words, my conservative friend was trying to argue ¬Nº-1 (i.e., that there was malice), and I was trying to argue Nº 3 (that there was abuse of the rules going on and we need to fix the rules). We were talking at cross purposes and not listening to understand. I simply ended the conversation.

This is often a problem on the Internet. People come in convinced of a particular Worldview — Obama is a socialist [he isn't, if you look up the definition of socialism], the GOP wants to destroy the social safety net [no they don't]. Our discussions should be to learn information, not convince. Hopefully that’s something I do with my discussions — I’ve learned a lot from how I behaved during the previous administration.

• Sexism. A few days ago, I wrote about sexism, bringing together articles about Angelina Jolie, Merida, and Proms. First, I’d like to note that it looks like the Merida makeover has been rescinded. Alas, sexism hasn’t. Two articles illustrate that quite well. In the first (h/t Andrew Ducker), we read about a female engineer dealing with the sexism of her on-site coworkers. You would think people know better these days. In the second, we learn about the problematic outfits that female MMORG characters seem to always get. Game designers do this, and then wonder why their games don’t appeal to anything other than teenage boys.
• Elections. A few days ago, I wrote up my analysis of the sample ballot for the Los Angeles Municipal Election next week. A few more election articles of interest. First, here are two articles (one and two) providing basic comparisons of the mayoral candidates. Secondly, the Jewish Journal did some character studies of each candidate (Mr. Twinkledum and Ms. Twinkledee). I keep telling myself it will be over on Tuesday; I just hope we get something better than the projected dismal turnout.
• Garbage. Almost a month ago, I wrote an article that linked to an LA Times article on a pig farmer in North Las Vegas. This enterprising fellow was using buffet slops to feed the pigs that he fattened up, slaughtered, and then sold back to the buffets as ham. The LA Times had another interesting article on recycling wasted food. This time it is the Kroger chain (Ralphs in Los Angeles) that is taking old food, turning it to slop, and anaerobically processing it to generate methane and generate energy. Much as I hate to see food waste (we waste far too much), it is good to see it put to somewhat of a good out (and much much better than using food-grade food to produce energy).

Music: On a Clear Day (You Can See Forever) (Original Broadway Cast – John Cullum): “On a Clear Day (You Can See Forever)”

• Delays, costs build up for 405 Freeway project in L.A. The 10-mile project is expected to be mostly finished by mid-2014, a year later than anticipated. Meanwhile, who pays what for cost overruns is up in the air.
• Cosumnes River Boulevard Extension Finally Breaks Ground After 50 Years. The Cosumnes River Boulevard Extension and Interstate 5 Interchange Project is of the of the city’s largest public works projects ever, which will bring 228 jobs to the construction site. Also: Caltrans Newsletter. This is along the proposed routing for Route 148.  [h/t Joel W.]
• Urban Sacramento 1959: West End. You-Tube clip. Per Joel W: “Interesting clip from KCRA on US 40-99e future Capitol Mall featuring a Union 76 station”
• Last remnants of Doyle Drive start to come down, work on new viaduct to start in summer. The second phase of the Presidio Parkway project is picking up steam and drivers should expect to see late-night detours as they head into Marin in the coming weeks. Work has started to remove what’s left of the old Doyle Drive. The roadbed, steel trusses, columns and finally the foundation of the structure will be peeled away.
• San Francisco Bay Bridge repair could cost $5M-$10M. The planned repair for seismic safety rods that snapped on the new span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge could cost between $5-to-$10 million, a state transportation official said Wednesday.
• Broken Bay Bridge rods: Caltrans faulted for inadequate specifications. In the most comprehensive examination to date of why bolts broke on the new Bay Bridge, an analysis released Wednesday faults Caltrans for inadequate specifications and insufficient testing of the steel. It will cost as much as $10 million to fix the mistake and could delay the span’s Labor Day opening. State engineers also assured members of the Bay Area Toll Authority that the chosen fix for key seismic stabilizers compromised by the snapped bolts — a steel saddle and heavy metal strands — will make the span as safe as the original design.
• Fate of interchange project looking brighter. Attempts to get $24 million for an Interstates 80 and 680 interchange project while state money is still available look like they might overcome bureaucratic hurdles.
• Caltrans’ plan to rebuild the W/X freeway could back up traffic in Sacramento. Caltrans will close a section of the elevated W-X freeway through central Sacramento in each direction for two months next spring for major repairs.
• HIGHWAY 91: Toll lanes coming to Corona stretch. In a few years, the main freeway connecting Riverside and Orange counties should go from 10 to 14 lanes, including toll lanes that are expected to shave 90 minutes off drivers’ commutes. The Riverside County Transportation Commission on Tuesday, May 8, approved a $632.6 million contract to build the new lanes on Highway 91 in Corona.
• TRANSPORTATION: Nearly $70 million provided for Inland projects. The California Transportation Commission has allocated nearly $70 million in funding to nine projects in Inland Southern California, including $12 million toward a four-lane grade separation on Riverside Avenue at the railroad tracks in Riverside. The projects are among 114 statewide that were allocated $878 million in funding by the Transportation Commission this week. The projects will alleviate delays, repair aging roads and bridges, and boost the state’s economy by increasing jobs in the construction industry, said Caltrans Director Malcolm Dougherty in a news release.
• LACMTA receives more than $390 million from CTC and Caltrans for improvements. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) was awarded more than $390 million from the California Transportation Commission and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to support construction of new rail, upgrade existing transit service, buy much-needed rail cars.
• Vast network of express lanes on way. Despite nationwide declines in ridesharing, the San Diego region is embarking on a vast expansion of “next-generation” carpool corridors. These new roadways, called express lanes, would accommodate car pools, buses, select “clean air” vehicles and solo drivers willing to pay a toll.

• The IRS Scandal. Lots of heat and noise on this one, including calls for firing and jail time. But is the outrage really correct? The scandal really isn’t what you think it is. What happened was this: the tax code permits social welfare groups to hide their donors and get tax deductability (these are 501c(4) organizations; most of the charities you know are 501c(3)) [Clarification: What 501c(4) organizations permit is hiding the source of funds, which can then be used as funds for a third organization, hiding the origin. They can also accept donations, without having to then declare those donations as income (and thus, presumably pay taxes on that income).]. After the Citizens United decision, a number of groups decided to go after 501c(4) status — so many, in fact, that they overwhelmed the capacity of the IRS to ensure they were social welfare and not political groups.  The “scandal” is really an approach the IRS took to try and get a handle on ensuring the law was met, as the bulk of the organizations applying for the status were tea-party-ish. Was that IRS office wrong in doing this? Yes. It should look at all organizations. Should Obama fire people over this? Yes, but he can’t, because he can only fire appointees and none of his appointees have been approved — perhaps Congress should approve the acting person just so they can fire him. Where is the “scandal”? The real scandal here — and the one that is not being reported — is that these quasi-political organization get tax deductability in the first place social welfare organizations can get tax free income, hide the donors, and then use that money for political purposes. How do we advance the goals of doing good for society (for which tax deductability exempting donated income from tax may be reasonable) without permitting influence in the political arena (which is increasingly hard in this day where advocacy on social positions is polarized on political lines)?
• The Benghazi Scandal. This is something that seems to be a problem solely for the GOP, who want to use it for political purposes to hurt Hilary. I don’t believe there was anything criminal (in the sense of prosecution) here — there were lapses of intelligence and lapses of judgement, but that is part of politics. I don’t think we’ve had a recent President who hasn’t had to deal with intelligence lapses and making bad judgement calls. Do we need to investigate this? Yes, but solely to identify what the process problems were and how to fix them for the future. Anything else is a waste of money.
• The DOJ Phone Records Scandal. Of all the scandals, perhaps this is the most scandalous. The problem was that the DOJ had a serious leak, but the method they used to investigate the leak simply was inappropriate. Again, this doesn’t look like something the President directed, so there simply needs to be an investigate to figure out who made the bad judgement calls, and to get that person looking for a new job.

What’s sad is that all of this “scandal and outrage” (does anyone recall the source of that line) is diverting attention from some significant news: The Federal Deficit is shrinking. This is what people have been pushing for since Obama was elected. Specifically, the federal deficit is shrinking more quickly than expected, and the government’s long-term debt has largely stabilized for the next decade, according to the CBO. The deficit projection for this year — $642 billion — is almost 25% less than the deficit the CBO had forecast as recently as February. At the new level, the annual deficit would be back to where it was before President Obama took office. It would continue to fall for the rest of Obama’s tenure, the budget office now projects. By contrast, the deficit for fiscal year 2012 came in at just over $1 trillion. The federal government’s annual deficit this year amounts to about 7% of the gross domestic product. By 2015, the budget office forecasts, the deficit will fall to just over 2% of GDP, a level that most economists would consider relatively insignificant. At that point, the deficit would begin to climb slowly again, reaching about 3.5% of GDP by the end of the decade.

The articles talk about the deficit, not the debt, so this means the debt is still increasing. Yes, folks, this is where calculus comes into play in real life, for the deficit is (essentially) a measure of the rate of change of the debt (it’s actually the amount of change, but you can easily convert that to a rate). Aren’t you glad you paid attention in Math 31A?

• Being a Boob. If you’ve been reading the news at all today, you know that Angelina Jolie had a double mastectomy recently due to a high risk of breast cancer. Why was there so much attention? Surely, it wasn’t because all of the editors were concerned about women’s health (although that’s what they’ll claim). No, it is because articles about women’s breasts — especially a sexy celebrity — will attract the eyeballs of male readers. I, of course, read the comments and there is the usual number of trolls out there bemoaning Brad’s loss. I refer everyone to an excellent piece by The Ferrett on this, where he notes that the attitude of “Poor Brad” has the implicit statement that women are good for only one thing in a relationship: sex. Once that is gone, why have the relationship. For anyone really in a relationship, we know this isn’t true: we are with our partners for much more than sex: we love the person and the brain and the attitudes and the fun — and for that, we want the physical package to be healthy. True relationships don’t depend on breasts.
• Getting the Look. Of course, one part of selling the “sex” (and perhaps the submissiveness) of women is marketing, and how characters are marketed to little girls. We’ve already seen Belle lose any nerdiness she had, and Disney was attempting it again with Merida from Brave. They were attempting to turn Merida into the typical princess, not the tomboy she was, and this got people upset. Of course, the good news (for now) is that it looks like the battle has been won.
• Indoctrinating Them Early. Lastly (and the article that actually inspired this post), we have an article from CNN on the damaging effects of proms. The article details a number of items — cost being only one aspect … with most of them having to do with the message a prom sends. What are these messages? Conventional beauty is valued most. Straight is better. Valued girls are submissive, not assertive. Share everything.  These messages may not come through at all schools, but I’m sure for many they do (especially in more traditional areas).

It seems sometimes that the battle is hard, with the media sending the message that there is only one shape desired, and women are good for only one thing. Luckily, there are some men out there who haven’t swallowed that line: who love their partners because of who they are, not just what they look like or how they are in bed, and who realize that a relationship is more than just sex… it is finding someone who you truly connect with and will be there for… no matter what.