We’ve Been Through Some Crappy Times Before

userpic=obama-superman

You say the last election didn’t turn out like you planned.
You’re feeling blue and clueless, you just don’t understand.
You’re sad, sulky, sullen, moping and morose.
You’re woefully weak and weary, semi-comatose.
You stare at your computer screen devoid of any joy and hope.
You’re so depressed, you can’t get dressed, your noose is up a rope.
Just remind yourself, when you can’t stand it any more:
That we’ve been through some crappy times before

 

Starting last evening, I’ve been seeing the cries of woe and misery from my progressive friends. Meanwhile, those conservatives that I still talk to are cheering their victory. Both are wrong to cry or celebrate for their side, because this really isn’t a long-term victory for the Republicans or a long-term loss for the Democrats. This is an opportunity for the nation, and it may be a good thing. It may also be good, in the long run, for the Democrats, and perhaps even for the Republicans. Hence, this lunchtime musing.

 

We’ve been though some crappy times before.
Slavery, unbridled knavery and the civil war.
Don’t stop caring, stop despairing, get up off the floor.
Because we’ve been through some crappy times before.

 

Here’s why I’m not worried. First and foremost, the Republicans do not have a supermajority (67%) in either house. To overrride a veto, a supermajority is required in both houses: 290 in the House (at best, if all the uncalled races went R, they would be at 259), and 67 in the Senate (at best, they are at 55). That is a very rare occurrence; only 10% of Presidential vetoes have been overridden. This means if the Republicans want to pass any legislation that has a chance of becoming law, they must make it sufficiently moderate that the President will sign it (or that they can get sufficient Democratic colleagues to come over to their side to override the veto). This is much better than the 2012-2014 Congress, where we couldn’t even get laws to the President because they couldn’t get out of Congress, even if they were moderate.

I’ll note that one article I read today believes it to be a myth that more might get through Congress. They claim the problem was not the Democratic Senate, but the much more conservative Republican house under John Boehner. However, all this means is that we won’t be worse off then before, but the more moderate Senate might still veto the bills (or the Dems filibuster them), and the President would surely veto them.

Ah, but the Presidential appointments will never get through, you say. I can’t guarantee they will get through, but they actually are more likely to get voted upon. This time, in the Senate, it is the Democrats who control the power of the filibuster, being the minority party. They won’t be stopping votes, and the Senate is required to vote on appointments. They don’t do they, they can legitimately be called on the carpet for not doing their Constitutional jobs. It may also push the President to appoint more centrists (which are a better reflection of the country at large, vs. more party-oriented ideologues)

Ah, but you say the Republicans won’t allow the filibuster. My friend, Rich Wales, over on Facebook, addressed this concern: “While the GOP senators could indeed abolish the filibuster (by simple majority vote at the beginning of a session of Congress, if I recall correctly), it would be a phenomenally short-sighted and stupid thing for them to do. First, it would gain them nothing in terms of enacting their party’s agenda — because even if a bill could sail through the Senate as well as the House, the President still has his veto power, and the GOP is not going to have enough votes in either house to override a veto. Second, even the most fanatically single-minded Republicans know they will not always be in power on Capitol Hill. If they abolish the filibuster in the Senate, they will effectively be abolishing it for all time — and when the Democrats one day regain control of the Senate, it will be their turn to be able to ram anything they want through that body, and a GOP minority won’t be able to stop (or even appreciably slow down) a Democratic majority. Even if the Republican leadership in the Senate are bound and determined to abolish the filibuster, enough Senators with a broader view of things are likely to oppose the idea that a rule change’s chances of passage are small. Go to Wikipedia and read about the “Gang of 14” for a reasonably recent example of how Senators went to great lengths to avoid invoking the so-called “nuclear option”.”

 

Intolerable intolerance has swept across the land.
The gospel thumping homophobes have got the upper hand.
They are peeping though the windows and they are creeping through the door.
But we’ve been through some crappy times before.

We’ve been through some crappy times before.
McCarthyism, Prohibition, and the World Wars.
We’re up a the creek, the boat is leaking, still we will reach the shore.
But we’ve been through some crappy times before.

 

But “It’s the Republicans”, you say. Consider this. During the primary elections, many of the more strident Tea Party candidates were defeated in favor of the establishment Republicans. None of the Republicans elected to the Senate, to my knowledge, were Tea Party. Combine this with the fact that in order to do anything, they have to be moderate, not Tea Party, to get their actions signed by the President. This is not a Tea Party take-over; it may be an opportunity for a rebirth of the Republican party for the moderates.

More significantly, most of the Republicans elected were elected because the electorate was dissatisfied with a Congress that was doing nothing. If the new Congress continues to do nothing, what will happen? That’s right — they may not keep their seats. That happened to many Tea Party candidates.

 

We hear reassurances that everything is fine.
It’s been a while since we were a canary in this mine.
When you think it’s really bad, it gets a little worse.
But keep on looking forward, though we’re going in reverse.

We shout out that the emperor is not wearing any clothes.
He lies so much that you could hang your laundry from his nose.
The fox is in the hen house and the wolf is at the door.
But we’ve been thought some crappy times before.

 

This election is also an opportunity for the Democrats. Using the election as an excuse, they can adjust their leadership to move away from the polarizing Reid and Polosi. Both are good people, but bring a lot of baggage. They also have the opportunity to distance themselves from the President, if he remains unpopular. They can easily blame the Republican Congress for not taking any action. Congressional inaction is no longer the fault of the Democrats.

This election also provides the Democrats with the opportunity to groom and identify additional candidates. Hilary is great, but Hilary brings with her significant baggage (and I don’t just mean Bill). This election could very well be setting the stage for a Democratic victory in 2016, whereas retaining the Senate might very well have led to a Republican victory in 2016.

 

We have been thought crappy times before.
Indiscretion, floods, Depression, Vietnam and more.
The sun has set but don’t forget another day is in store.
Because we’ve been thought some crappy times before.
Yes, we’ve been though some crappy times before.
Yes, we’ve been though some crappy times before.

 

Another day is in store. It is important to remember that control of the House, Senate, or the Executive Branch is like the weather. It always swings back and forth. When it is hot, you know it will eventually be cold…. and then hot again. When we have Democratic leadership, you know that will swing to the Republicans…. and then back again. It has been this way throughout the nation’s history, although some of the cycles have been longer than others. As long as the Democratic party is one of the two major parties, they will eventually be in control of both houses again. In fact, it is likely that will happen when we have a Republican president. The electorate loves having Congress as a check for the President, not a rubber stamp.

Lyrics from “We’ve Been Through Some Crappy Times Before”, Austin Lounge Lizards, available on “The Drugs I Need“.

P.S.: Courtesy of Amy Angel on FB, here’s another interesting take on the subject.

Share

Circuses and Magic

Pippin (Pantages)userpic=broadwaylaPippin” has one of my favorite scores — I love all the music on the original 1972 cast album, and I’ve seen the show twice in Los Angeles: once in the Reprise 2005 production (with Sam Harris as the Leading Player, Michael Arden as Pippin, Jean Louisa Kelly as Catherine, Mimi Hines as Berthe, and Conrad John Schuck as Charlemange), and once in the East West production (with Marcus Choi as the Leading Player, Ethan Le Phong as Pippin, Meagan McConnell as Catherine, Gedde Watanabbe as Berthe, and Mike Hagiwara as Charlemange). The two were as different as night and day, but served the story well. When I heard that Diane Paulus had reimagined in a Cirque-de-Solais (Circus) style, and after I saw the performance at the 2013 Tony Awards, I knew I had to see it when it came to LA. This, of course, meant toddling down to the Pantage, which we did this afternoon, to see the revival of Pippin.

So what did I think of this retelling of Pippin’s journey. Much of it worked, and much of it worked well. Some things didn’t. Let me give you the basic story, and then we’ll explore the good and the bad.

For those not familiar, Pippin is the story of the son of Charlemagne, King of France. It is the story of Pippin’s search to find meaning in life, egged on by the leading player (and hence, note that the Leading Player is “leading” in the sense of “leading the witness”, not “in the lead”). Pippin wants something extraordinary out of life, not an ordinary existence. He tries to be a soldier, but it is not for him. He visits his grandmother, but her lessons are not for him. He tries the life of physical pleasure. Not for him. He kills his father, but being King is not for him, so his father comes back to life (don’t ask). He tries many different things, including the simple life on a farm. Nothing is extraordinary. Finally, the lead player attempts to egg him on to a glorious finale in flame. But he comes to realize that it is alright to be ordinary, with the love of a good woman and son.

Let’s start with what I didn’t like. First: the hands. Mind you, I’m not complaining about the dancing in general, which was great, nor am I complaining about the use of hands in the dance, which is a Fosse trademark. Rather, they overused hand motions to ill-effect making them seem exaggerated and off. I’ll fault the director on this one. Second: the Leading Player. I liked the sense of the reimagining of the leading player with a bit more of a jazzy take on the songs — that was fine. The problem was: Sasha Allen (FB) just wasn’t up to it. She was good — I’ll give you that — and she had the acting and dance side of the role down pat. The problem is that I grew up with Ben Vereen‘s performance, and I’ve seen Sam Harris in the role. Her voice just doesn’t currently have the sustained power that the role requires: this was clearly evident in “On The Right Track” or in “Glory”, where she kept taking breaths at odd places. Patina Miller, who led the revival, had the requisite power and presence. Ah, the perils of a tour cast. Lastly, they (in my opinion) butchered “War Is A Science” when they reworked it for the revival. The original version, perhaps, had too many echoes of Vietnam that don’t fit as well today, but I just didn’t like the rewording and it made the song off for me.

Let’s go from there to what I did like. First and foremost, the circus addition was spectacular. Pippin has always had the elements and feeling of a circus, and this just brought it, and the magic, to life. As with Bring It On – The Musical, the producers brought in real circus performers as part of the cast, and it worked well. Now they just need to do this to Barnum! Seriously, the additional balance and risk of the performances added a lot to Pippin’s journey. Next, Andrea Martin as Berthe. In the original cast, Berthe was played by Irene Ryan, who everyone knew as Granny on the Beverly Hillbillies. She was on stage for the one scene. Subsequent performances have played similarly: older actors on for just that role. As promised in her LA Times article, Martin brought something new and special to Berthe — something I won’t spoil — but it changed her character completely. She was reworked to be part of the characters on stage in a number of group scenes, and it was just great. Third, the other original revival stars: Matthew James Thomas (FB) as Pippin, and John Rubinstein (FB) as Charlemange. Thomas brought a wonderful boyish energy and playfulness to Pippin. His voice wasn’t as strong as some as the other’s I’ve seen, but it worked well for his performance in the role. Rubinstein was the original Pippin in the 1972 production, and he seemed to just be having fun with with this production and the role. Modulo the problems with “War is a Science” (which I blame more on the director and Stephen Schwartz tinkering with the music), he was just fun to watch.

What else worked… and didn’t. I liked the revised ending, with the hint of Theo (Lucas Schultz (FB) at our performance, alternating with Zachary Mackiewicz (FB)) continuing the quest. Schultz, in general, gave off a great “kid” vibe in his few scenes. Lewis (Callan Bergmann (FB)), on the other hand, came off as more playful than menacing — I think my favorite portrayal of Lewis was the one in the East West version, where there was real menace.  I really liked Kristine Reese (FB)’s portrayal of Catherine, but then I seem to love Catherine’s in general (I really liked Jean Louisa Kelly), perhaps because the role is so, ordinary. On the other hand, although Sabrina Harper‘s performance of Fastrada was very strong (and her costume changes and vocal performance during “Spread a Little Sunshine” were amazing), she came off as a little young for a stepmother of Lewis — and not quite as menacing as a Fastrada should be (again, here the East West production excelled).

Hmm, that seems to have covered all the primary players. Rounding out the cast as the players, with additional specialty roles as noted, were: Skyler Adams (FB) (Swing), Sascha Bachmann (FB) (“With You” Hand Balancing), Bradley Benjamin (FB), Dmitrious Bistrevsky (FB), Mark Burrell (FB) (Dance Captain, Swing), Mathew deGuzman (Peasant, Manson Trio), Fernando Dudka (FB) (“With You” Hand Balancing), Mirela Golinska Roche (FB) (Bolero), Kelsey Jamieson (FB), Preston Jamieson (FB) (Bolero), Lisa Karlin (FB) (Noble), Alan Kelly (FB) (Head), Mélodie Lamoureux (FB), Tory Trowbridge (FB), Mackenzie Warren (FB) (Swing), Borris York (FB) (Manson Trio).

Turning to the music side. If you’re not dead, you likely know that Pippin has music and lyrics by Stephen Schwartz (and a book by Roger O. Hirson, although no one ever remembers the book writer of Pippin). If you know Pippin, you likely know that there was lots of uncredited tinkering by Bob Fosse, and a well publicized feud between Fosse and Schwartz. With the revival, Schwartz had the last laugh, and it is unclear if some of the changes to the music were the result of restoring cuts that Fosse made that Schwartz liked. As I noted before, I wasn’t that crazy about some of the changes. Modulo that, it was performed and orchestrated well — kudo’s to Larry Hochman. Music supervision and arrangements were by Nadia DiGiallonardo,  with Music Coordination by John Miller and Music Direction by Ryan Cantwell. Cantwell also led the combination touring and local orchestra, which consisted of, well, a whole lotta people who you probably don’t want me to list and link — I count 14 people!

The choreography by Chet Walker (“in the style of Bob Fosse”), assisted by Associate Choreographers Mark Burrell (FB) and Brad Musgrove, in general, worked very well — with the exception noted above of too many “wow” hands or hands to express emotion. Now Fosse was well known for his use of hands and body parts, but I think this was not only in the style of Fosse, but above and beyond. Other than that, the dance integrated well with the circus performances. Speaking of the circus side of things, that was spectacular — and credit goes to Gypsy Snider of Les 7 doigts de la main. In general, the movement — be it circus performance or dance — was just great to watch. Illusions were by Paul Kieve.

Turning to the technical side: the scenic design of Scott Pask was very clever and evoked the circus feel well; this was aided by the costume design of Dominque Lemieux. The sound design of Jonathan Deans and Garth Helm was clear and crisp — a pleasant surprise at the Pantages! The lighting design of Kenneth Posner worked well in creating mood and illuminating the festivities. Jake Bell was the technical supervisor, Mahlon Kruse was the production supervisor, and Bill Schaeffer was the company manager. Tour casting was by Telsey * Company, with original casting by Duncan Stewart and Benton Whitley.

“Pippin” continues at the Pantages through November 9, 2014.

[Ob. Disclaimer: I am not a trained theatre critic; I am, however, a regular theatre audience. I’ve been attending live theatre in Los Angeles since 1972; I’ve been writing up my thoughts on theatre (and the shows I see) since 2004. I do not have theatre training (I’m a computer security specialist), but have learned a lot about theatre over my many years of attending theatre and talking to talented professionals. I pay for all my tickets unless otherwise noted. I believe in telling you about the shows I see to help you form your opinion; it is up to you to determine the weight you give my writeups.]

Upcoming Theatre and Concerts:  October currently has one show remaining: Los Angeles Symphonic Winds (FB) at Calabasas High School on 10/26 (followed by the MoTAS Golf Tournament the next day at the Calabasas Country Club). November is back to busy, with “Big Fish” at Musical Theatre West (FB) on Sat 11/1, “Handle with Care” at The Colony Theatre (FB) on Sun 11/9 (shifting to avoid ACSAC and opening night), a trip out to Orange Empire Railway Museum to see my buddy Thomas on 11/11,  “Sherlock Holmes and the Suicide Club” at REP East (FB) on Sat 11/15, the Nottingham Festival on Sun 11/16, and “Kinky Boots” at the Pantages (FB) on Sat 11/29. I may also see some theatre when I visit my daughter Erin in Berkeley between 11/20 and 11/26. Right now, I’ve scheduled “Harvey” at Palo Alto Players (FB) in Palo Alto for Friday 11/21, and I’m looking at The Immigrant at Tabard Theatre (FB) in San Jose, , “Rhinocerous” at the UC Berkeley Theatre Department (FB), or possibly a show at UC Santa Cruz featuring a family friend in the cast or crew. [As a PS on the above: I’m trying to figure out a way to balance “The Immigrant”, the show at Santa Cruz, and Dickens Fair on one weekend. Am I crazy?] As for December, right now I’m just holding one date: “She Loves Me” at Chance Theatre (FB) in Anaheim on 12/20, and we’ll probably go see Joseph and His Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat” at Nobel Middle School just before ACSAC. Right now, there is only one show booked for January 2015 – “An Evening with Groucho” at AJU with Frank Ferrente. As always, I’m keeping my eyes open for interesting productions mentioned on sites such as Bitter-Lemons, and Musicals in LA, as well as productions I see on Goldstar, LA Stage Tix, Plays411.

Share

November 2014 Election Analysis – Part III: The Judges

userpic=voteAs I wrote in Part I, which covered the major offices and in Part II, which covered the propositions, the general election is just about a week away, and that means it is time to go through the ballot to revisit how I should vote. I do this afresh each election, and I post my analysis here for you to review. If you disagree, let me know with a convincing reason why I should support the other side. But more importantly, I encourage you to do the same: Go through your sample ballot, where ever you are, and study the candidates and make an informed decision. Put some critical thought behind your vote. Don’t just vote a slate without thinking — on either side. Don’t just vote against the other guy; vote for the positions you like. This is your chance to make a difference. Most importantly, remember to vote. Many many many, and even many more, have given their lives so that you have the ability to vote. Respect them, and exercise your franchise. Even if you disagree with me.

On to Part III: The Judgeships. Often, it is asked why we vote on these — after all, no one knows any of the candidates. It often seems a waste of candidates money; a waste of ballot space; and it opens the judges up to bribes in the form of campaign contributions. We vote on judge because the electorate demanded it: they wanted to be able to throw out judges that they felt were soft on crime, or who ruled the way that didn’t like. In other words, they wanted judges to enforce their political positions, not necessarily the law. So, what do I look for in a judge? Simple:

  • Strong qualifications from respected legal associations
  • Absence of evidence of malfeasance or bias
  • Evidence of strong ethics, and ideally, being governed by the law even if they personally disagree

Do they have to agree with me? No, they have to follow the law. Secondary considerations are encouraging the vision of a judicial body that reflects the makeup of society. We are judged by our peers, and that is more than just the jury. Judges require varied backgrounds to understand and interpret, and that is something not exclusive to white men and white women.

So, as they used to say, “Here come ‘de Judge”. Note that many of these offices are not races; they are confirmations of appointments.

Read More …

Share

November 2014 Election Analysis – Part II: The Propositions

userpic=voteAs I wrote in Part I, which covered the major offices, the general election is just about two weeks away, and that means it is time to go through the ballot to revisit how I should vote. I do this afresh each election, and I post my analysis here for you to review. If you disagree, let me know with a convincing reason why I should support the other side. But more importantly, I encourage you to do the same: Go through your sample ballot, where ever you are, and study the candidates and make an informed decision. Put some critical thought behind your vote. Don’t just vote a slate without thinking — on either side. Don’t just vote against the other guy; vote for the positions you like. This is your chance to make a difference. Most importantly, remember to vote. Many many many, and even many more, have given their lives so that you have the ability to vote. Respect them, and exercise your franchise. Even if you disagree with me.

(Note: Although this post is posted at lunch, it has been in development since the weekend)

On to Part II: the propositions. Part III, the minor offices, will be in a future post.

Read More …

Share

November 2014 Election Analysis – Part I: The Major Offices

userpic=voteThe general election is just about two weeks away, and that means I should start going through the ballot to revisit who I should vote for. I do this afresh each election, and I post my analysis here for you to review. If you disagree, let me know with a convincing reason why I should support the other bum. But more importantly, I encourage you to do the same: Go through your sample ballot, where ever you are, and study the candidates and make an informed decision. Put some critical thought behind your vote. Don’t just vote a slate without thinking — on either side. Don’t just vote against the other guy; vote for the positions you like. This is your chance to make a difference. Most importantly, remember to vote. Many many many, and even many more, have given their lives so that you have the ability to vote. Respect them, and exercise your franchise. Even if you disagree with me.

On to the ballot… as this is long, I”m going to split this into three pieces: the major offices, the propositions, and the minor offices.

Read More …

Share

June 2014 California Primary Analysis — Part II (Non-Partisan Offices)

userpic=voteAs I noted in my previous post, there’s a California election in 1.5 weeks. This is Part II of my election analysis, looking at the non-partisan races and propositions. This is where I go through the sample ballot and figure out my preferences… and it is your opportunity to convince me that I’m totally wrong and should vote for that other bum. There are some significant issues in this part of the ballot, particularly for those living in Los Angeles County. As such, I’m moving the LA County stuff up in front of the judgeships and such. Let’s jump in…

Read More …

Share

June 2014 California Primary Analysis — Part I (Partisan Offices)

userpic=voteFor those of you living in California, there’s an election in 1.5 weeks. You can probably guess what that means. Yup, it’s time for me to go through the sample ballot and figure out my preferences… and your opportunity to convince me that I’m totally wrong and should vote for that other bum. This is a large ballot with very little press and advertising, so let’s get started. I’ll break this into multiple parts.

Read More …

Share