The Not-So-Cranky Reviewer

Your humble reviewer has occasion to immerse himself in theatrical experiences in a variety of venues covering a fairly broad expanse of this nation of ours. I've visited theaters throughout California, Arizona, Utah, Oklahoma, and Washougal, Washington.

If you're anywhere near the Vancouver/Portland (the other Vancouver!) area today or next weekend, you owe it to yourself to enjoy "Beauty and the Beast" as presented by the Christian Youth Theater group. This is, of course, the Disney version of the show and is being staged in the Washburn Performing Arts Center at Washougal High School, about twenty minutes' drive from Vancouver, Washington.

Back in the day, yours truly was privileged to participate in the Teenage Drama Workshop. This was a summer drama camp that presented several musical productions throughout Simi Valley, California. The format was that of a true workshop; classes were given in various stage techniques, including set design and construction, as well as music and acting. It was all-inclusive and gave the students a chance to participate in all of the theatrical disciplines. The Christian Youth Theater is similar to this concept, except that it runs throughout the school year. They offer ten week sessions, at two hours per week, and an opportunity to participate in a major production. (I use "major" in the sense of "one humongous headache for the producers, but one thrilling show for the actors.")

The results are impressive.

Director Starleen Benke has crafted a wonderful children's fairy tale that can be enjoyed by audiences of all ages. This is possible because the kids, typically aged 10 through 18, have tremendous energy and not an insignificant amount of talent. The casting was extremely well balanced as to the ages and abilities of the principals. The chorus performed with tremendous gusto. On the one hand it's possible to argue that it's hard to go wrong with a Disney score, but it's altogether too easy to over-do such things. In the case of an iconic Disney characterization with so many familiar and favorite characters (Belle, the Beast, Cogsworth, Lumiere, and so on) it's even easier to fall into the emulation trap.

However, Benke largely succeeded in making the show her own, and allowing the kids to develop some wonderful characterizations along the way. My only quibble was with Belle (Abby Thompson). A wonderful actress with the chops required for the songs, they tried too hard to make her sound like Belle from the animated original. Indeed, it's hard to do any such production without at least trying to somewhat emulate these characters, but a female voice like Belle's is unique with its own timbre and cadence. Trying so hard to match those vocal qualities is akin to all those child actors of the 30's and 40's trying to sound just like Shirley Temple. It grates on the nerves after awhile. Still, such things are the responsibility of the director, and Ms. Thompson's performance was in all other respects equal to the task. Her singing left nothing to be desired, and she played a perfectly delightful Belle.

Also delightful was Casey Pitel as the Beast. A tall, good-looking young man, Casey brought a nice touch of vulnerability to his cantankerous exterior. He was also quite athletic in leaping about the stage, and highlighted the skills and talents of the ever-unseen set designers and carpenters.

All other support characters, from the pompous and fragile Cogsworth, to the effervescent and over-the-top Lumiere, down to the "Silly Girls" who titter and giggle endlessly over Gaston were all well casted and fun to watch. Mrs. Potts had to reach down in her range to handle the eponymous "Beauty and the Beast" number, but did a very credible job. Also worth mentioning are LeFou (Alex Low), Madame De La Grand Bouche (Janelle Harriman), Cogsworth (Scott Bradner), Lumiere (Caleb Adderly) and a wonderfully flirtatious Babette (the very French feather duster from the original) played by Aimee Hogan.

The production numbers were all comprised of a terrific form of controlled chaos, including some better-than-average dancing.

All in all, this show is well worth the $10 per seat. My entire family enjoyed themselves tremendously, and I'm pretty sure you will, too.

Blogging for the Sake of Blogging

New glasses are like the vernal equinox. Or not.

Today's Sports Glossary

Super Bowl, The

An annual event wherein two performance-enhanced teams compete to see who can score the most points in between commercial advertisements of costly yet dubious quality. Known more for "entertainment" involving "wardrobe malfunctions" during half-time than for the actual game.

Yikes!

Ushering in the holiday season last month, my extended family participated in a creche exhibit/concert series for the Simi Stake. We called ourselves "The Kindred Carolers," and we may have a return engagement this year if they get desperate enough or have very short memories. Anyway, Cameron links to a duet that we did (following a solo effort by yours truly) that was actually quite fun. We haven't sung together for about 20 years. In my own defense, I will only say that I was trying to ward off a very nasty case of bronchitis, and hadn't quite recovered my full upper register when we performed this in early December.

If you're feeling adventurous, scroll to the bottom of his post and check the video. There are others if you care to hear the whole family in action. We had a good time, all things considered.

Miracle? In Massachusetts? Hardly.

I've been reading with interest the bloggy reactions to Scott Brown's unprecedented win today, and I have to say: Don't over-do it, folks.

Scott Brown is, except for a few pithy quotes that you'd never have heard from a Democrat, largely an unknown quantity. Folks in Massachusetts may know this guy, but the rest of us are waiting to see what he does once he occupies the "Peoples' Seat."

It is nice to know that we have that critical 41st vote available, but of course that only applies when the rest of the senators on that side of the aisle actually act like Republicans. With Snowe, Collins, and Voinovich still in control of 3 of those votes, heaven only knows when all 41 will work in lock-step on the really important issues. We're still not convinced that Voinovich, for example, will hold to his stated intent to vote against Obamacare when the next opportunity arises.

Also, as my brother so eloquently puts it, the GOP has a fairly predictive pattern of screwing up every advantage they ever gain in Congress. In other words, we ain't holdin' our breath.

The fact is, Brown's election is just one step toward a much-needed reform of the GOP. If Brown can deliver on the promise, that's all to the good. From statements made by Barney Frank, Jim Webb and others, it may already have the effect of making legislators take a deep breath and admit that perhaps they've been a bit hasty in ramrodding this health care fiasco down our taxpaying throats. Too bad this comes too late to do the same for the "stimulus."

Now it remains to be seen whether the GOP can capitalize on voter unrest in the independent and moderate Democrat ranks in the November elections this year, and put a few more right/center-right fannies in more of the Peoples' seats. If they can, just please promise me that we won't have any of that Contract On America nonsense that torpedoed us back in the good ol' days.

That means, of course, that Michael Steele must go. Quickly.

We Won't Win California.

The GOP will screw it up, even with all momentum Scott Brown's win has just given us. On that note, Happy Celebrating!

ccwbass be bloggin' again

Yup. I'm back.

Have No Fear

So, with one exception my blogs have been more or less dormant for the past two months. Illness and the holiday season are the obvious reasons. Yet there's also been a metamorphosis of thought and feeling during this period. I'd hate to say that my recent bout with bronchitis (or, as I suspect, perhaps even walking pneumonia) made me somehow more introspective, but it's at least a possibility.

As with most conservatives, I've spent the better part of this year of Hope and Change hoping that change wouldn't come about too quickly, but fearing tremendously that it would. With liberal thought firmly in control of two branches of government it seemed a foregone conclusion that radical legislation would be enacted as quickly as possible while they still have the keys to the family car. And it's been true. 2009 saw the passage of a wildly irresponsible "stimulus" package that didn't stimulate anything but Congress' express desire to enact even more irresponsible (and even reckless legislation) in the guise of health care "reform."

Most troubling of all is the speed with which these acts have been committed. There is not one single member of Congress that can look America in the eye and declare that 1) they have read and fully comprehend the health care bill that their respective chamber passed last year and 2) that it will do everything that it is purported and has been told to America that it will do. Of course, there are many of us that are fearful that it will do everything it's purported to do. It has nothing at all to do with my being a huge fan of the health care "industry" as currently defined by our legislators. It has everything to do with my hard-earned understanding that everything the government administers, it ruins. Everything. Even Social Security is unlikely to be running as smoothly and efficiently as it probably could be given the fact that it is a government-administered program.

Given the government's track record on welfare, education, housing, transportation security, border security, and budget management, I find it highly improbable that they will have any better results with the administration of health care in this country. I do believe that our health care system will go the way of Canada and other socialized nations with outlandish waiting lists, fewer qualified doctors in highly specialized areas of medicine, and overall increased costs of medical care. Whether or not we have to pay those costs up front is immaterial: as taxpayers we will pay in the end.

I've had my share of restless, even sleepless nights this past year thinking about all of this. It makes absolutely no sense for Congress to be in such an all-fired hurry to do this. It would be far more prudent to take their time and get it right, rather than ramrod it down our throats with cries of "people are dying every day" by way of scaring us into submission. Well, guess what — people will be dying even after it is implemented and, perhaps, may die at a faster rate than before. Because one thing we've noticed about government-run programs: they always seem to exacerbate whatever problems they were designed to fix. Has the stimulus solved whatever problems got us into this mess in the first place? It has not. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are still issuing high-risk loans to people who cannot now and possibly never will be able to afford a house, and we will be required to pay for these people for the rest of our natural lives. Way to go, Congress!

I needed to say these things in order to clarify my next statement: I'm no longer all that worried about any of this. My opinions of what has happened and what will likely happen this year have not changed one iota. I still believe the Democrats and their Republican enablers in Congress are rushing headlong into turning us into just another socialized country among so many others in the world today. May as well join the European Union while we're at it. I firmly believe that between the stimulus and health care legislation we will find ourselves giving up more and more of our precious constitutional rights because the government will be in control of two things that make it possible for us to grow individually: our health and our money.

So why do I not fear as I did this time a year ago? Simply because we are Americans and there is one precious right they have not undertaken to cripple: my freedom to think and believe as I choose. So long as I enjoy this most basic of freedoms, I can survive this congressional tomfoolery. While I have the ability to raise my heart and voice in prayer to God, I have assurance that all will be well with my house. "Well" is, of course, a relative term, and I can only hope that we don't get seriously ill once the government controls our access to the care we need. But one thing the government cannot and will never control is my spirit.

Even if we were to assume the worst and find that the government had imposed itself into our public worship, we have the lessons of history to guide us. The year 1987, for example, reminds us that any wall, no matter how well constructed or what its intended purpose, can be torn down. The American Revolution teaches us that people, even those who are reluctant to do so, can join together and defend themselves from assaults on their God-given rights. Congress would do well to remember that had King George III ever relented and admitted that his colonies deserved the full rights and representation as his subjects in England, the outcome of the Revolution might have been very different. They would do even better to remember what happened to His Majesty's empire because he refused to do so.

Laws that are enacted by men can be undone by men. We've seen this time and time again. Granted, it's harder to do so once those laws have become entrenched in the fabric of our society, but it can be done. All it takes is the election of men and women that have the courage to foment true reform of the government and return that government to its constitutional limits. I know I make that sound far more simple than reality might otherwise dictate, but it's true nonetheless. We need to find courageous people to counteract the cowardice that permeates our Congress today. Find them, elect them, and hold them accountable for their actions in office.

Finally, as a spiritual creature, I of course turn to God and the church to guide my thinking. As a Latter-day Saint, I have the unique privilege of having a living prophet on the earth today. That prophet has not told me to live in fear of health care reform or despair of our becoming a second-rate power among the nations of the earth. He has told me to be prepared for an uncertain future, as his predecessors have also done for many, many years now. He has told me to make myself right with God, confess my sins, and live worthy of His blessings. So long as I do this, President Obama and his cronies in Congress can do whatever they will. Their (and my) day of accountability will come, sooner or later, and many will be found lacking.

I just pray that I won't.

Chariots of the Insects

Sometimes it's just weird where memories come from or why they infest our brains. Take, for example, two movies that my brain suddenly became desperately interested in remembering more than thirty five years after I'd seen them.

The year was 1971, and I was very nearly a teenager. It was, in fact, the summer before my 13th birthday if I'm not mistaken. In those days we weren't too hung up about sending our youngsters alone to the theater, and our lone walk-in theater in town was less than a mile from the house. This meant that I alternately walked or cajoled Mom into taking me. Then, for a buck-fifty we got a double feature, and another seventy-five cents got you popcorn.

For purposes of this narrative, I should point out that my mother was and is a voracious reader. She went through phases in her reading, though. One year it was romances, for example. Another year she went all Margaret Mead on us and started buying or checking out books like "Ishi: The Last of His Tribe." She became absolutely fascinated by tribes or races of people that no longer existed. But her most fascinating period for me was the "faux science or explorer" genre of books that were becoming ubiquitous in the late 60's and early 70's. Not to say that there weren't some legitimate scientists or explorers among them. Thor Heyerdahl, for example, had become famous for demonstrating that ancient peoples could very well have navigated across the vast Pacific ocean in boats manufactured entirely of reeds. Mom snapped up all of his books. However, for every legitimate author Mom patronized, there were plenty of supermarket pulp paperbacks to balance them out.

I remember Mom picking up a copy of Erich von Daniken's "Chariots of the Gods," and I decided to read it. I think it was primarily because we Latter-day Saints are fascinated with the whole premise of the Book of Mormon and its depiction of life in ancient America, and von Daniken devoted many chapters to those ancient cultures as part of his "research." It was pretty heady stuff for a young post-Star-Trekian male such as myself.

So you'll understand that, as soon as the movie by the same name was released, I was keen to see it. Back in those days movies would hit the theaters and hang around for absolutely months before disappearing into the void of TV "Movie of the Week" features. So it's not surprising that I didn't get around to seeing "Chariots of the Gods" until nearly a year after it first came out. By that time, it was being paired with a relatively newer film called "The Hellstrom Chronicle," and I decided to see them both.

"The Hellstrom Chronicle" was another faux documentary that was supposed to sound like a scientific treatise on the survivability of insects compared with mankind in a post-apocolyptic world. What it was, really, was a science fiction thriller designed to creep 13 year old boys out by making their skin crawl even faster than the insects were crawling. At least, that's the effect it had on me.

"Chariots" was first in the lineup that day, as I recall. I remember happily chowing down on popcorn during the movie and loving all the footage of ancient artwork that von Daniken kept trying to compare with astronauts or alien beings. The movie was every bit as entertaining as the book, although it may be indirectly responsible for the propogation of every nut-job UFO conspiracist and ET truther that we have out there today. Didn't quite convince me, but I was there for the entertainment value more than anything else.

Then came "Hellstrom." Now, for sheer cinematography, "Hellstrom" was hard to beat. The cameras did a nearly miraculous job of getting up close and personal with several species of insects that I never knew existed and have spent the past 38 years trying to forget. But that's the problem: It's a film I desperately needed to forget. The basic premise was, quite simply, that the earth would devolve back into some sort of tropical rainforest kind of planet (Al Gore had nothing on these people) and that it would be a race for survival between Man and Insects. And Insects (all of which were magnified to the size of industrial construction equipment) would win. (This is where I learned for the first time that cockroaches are pretty much indestructible. Thanks for that, guys.) I can also tell you that, even 38 years later, just thinking about this film can make my skin crawl. Now imagine spending an entire movie that way, and you'll understand why I resolved as a 13 year old boy never to think of that film again.

So why is it, 38 years later, that my brain suddenly, at 1:00 in the stinkin' A.M., decided it needed to remember the name of that film that played as a double-header with "Chariots of the Gods" (a film I don't really mind remembering) just so I could experience that skin-crawling sensation once again? There is no logical or even illogical reason that I can think of, except that it's one of those useless chores in which the brain engages from time to time, like trying to comprehend Congress, or staying awake in staff meeting.

Oh, well. One good thing has come out of this reminiscence. I'm tired enough now to go to bed and get some decent sleep. Assuming I can get these locusts the size of Mack trucks out of my head.

Trying Not to Overreact

It's so easy to overreact to news stories these days, especially when the entire nation has become so polarized over issues ranging from health care to gay marriage and everything in between. Thus when I saw the headline "Aborted fetus cells used in beauty creams" I found myself feeling that gut-wrenching rage almost immediately. All sorts of pre-conceived biases and prejudices came wallowing up from somewhere deep in my digestive tract.

Almost reluctantly I followed the thread from The Jawa Report (a bunch of hyper-reactive bloggists if any such exist), through The Interested Participant (one of the Report's frequent bloggers), and on to the actual article posted yesterday at The Washington Times. All the while I fully expected my blood pressure to skyrocket.

Written by Valerie Richardson, the article seems meant to provoke precisely the kind of strong emotional response one expects from the pro-life movement when it comes to any discussion of abortion. Richardson quotes extensively from Children of God for Life, a watchdog group that apparently "monitors use of fetal material in medical products." The target of their wrath is a company called Neocutis, Inc, and they are said to have used "skin-cell proteins from an aborted fetus" in their anti-aging creams.

So far, so good. This is exactly the sort of thing that gets our pro-life dander up because we 1) hold all human life, even aborted fetuses, to be sacred, and 2) always suspect that the right-to-choicers would stop at nothing to profit from their perfidy. And, I suspect, the Washington Times would love nothing more than to see this issue become a major controversy which, understandably, would sell papers.

Still, the article bears deeper reading.

[DISCLAIMER: I know nothing of either Children of God for Life, or Neocutis, Inc. beyond what I read in this article. This opinion I express here is based solely on the strength of this single article and no other research has been made or attempted.]

The fetus (singular) was that of a 14 week old child who, doctors had determined, would not make it to term.

Now we enter that grayest of areas in the entire abortion debate. It has often been said by pro-life politicians that they only support abortion in the case of medical necessity. With few other details available to us, we may presume that a difficult decision had been made by the parents. Certainly there are strong emotions even for this kind of decision; many parents would choose to carry the baby until the inevitable end, even if that end were a miscarriage. Yet other parents may not be able to face the emotional drain for any longer than is absolutely necessary. This is one of those times that we cannot second guess the participants. This was a personal decision and the reasons are theirs alone.

Next comes another hard decision. Post-mortem organ donations have been commonplace for many years now. Vital organs, skin and bone grafts, even full facial replacements have been made possible by those who decided at some point in their lives to donate their bodies for that purpose upon death. In this case, Neocutis claims that the cells harvested from the skin of this baby were used to develop a treatment for "severe dermatological injuries."

Having nevered suffered a "severe dermatological injury" myself, I can only imagine the pain and emotional stress caused by third degree burns, for example. Were I thus afflicted, I would likely be crying out for any available treatment. The provenance of that treatment would be of lesser import to me at that moment.

So, if the company's statement is in fact true, that makes the headline of this article somewhat misleading. The cells weren't used in mere "beauty creams" as the headline would have us believe, but for something that may well have healing properties for someone in critical need. Beauty creams smack of vanity and the hypocrisy of ever-younger-appearing Hollywood elitists. But a dermatological treatment is something used in healing — whether physical or emotional. But healing nonetheless.

Hence I find that I am not quite ready to jump on the boycott demanded by the watchdogs in this case. Given the circumstances, the choices made, and the outcome, I choose to leave this one be. All I would ask is that all women give such careful, even prayerful, consideration to the young lives entrusted to their care, especially when those young lives have no ability to speak up in their own defense.

Guys and Noise

When I was a kid, I well remember being on longish drives (in kid terms: anything > 1/2 hr = long drive) and trying very hard not to make noise in the back seat. Or, perhaps more accurately, trying very hard for, maybe, the first five minutes. After that, we'd revert to normal Kid Noise Levels (called "kennels" by the cognoscenti). Had I been more of an entrepreneur in those days, I'd have gotten rich off of forming pools to determine when, exactly, Dad would turn his head slightly and yell, "What's that noise?!"

Dad was always hyper-sensitive to car noises on long trips, and with good reason. Our cars were notorious for breaking down for any number of reasons, including rusting while in use. On a trip to San Diego one year, we broke down and had to be towed (oh, the shame!) to a local service station. Remember "service stations?" Me, neither. Anyway, I was mortified for some reason. Dad was just purple in the face.

The funny thing is, Dad wasn't nearly that bad on local trips. He seems to have driven around town pretty much on automatic. Side mirrors could fall off the car while we were driving to Church, for example, and he'd barely register. He was probably more concerned that we (his family) were making him "late," which happened nearly every Sunday.

Anyway, I bring this up because of a story told by Jay Tea over at Wizbang, wherein he has to Google instructions on how to start a Prius so his bosses could leave on a road trip.

Turns out that the Prius starts in "electric mode" which means there's no engine noise to inform the driver that the car is ready to roll. You just hit the "Power" button, put it in gear and roll.

Make that reason number 2 why I will probably never get a Prius.

Reason number 1 is because I am constantly getting behind one of these gutless machines in the HOV lanes out here in California, and I have yet to find the Prius that can reach anywhere close to the speed limit. When Yugos having a 75 to 1 rust-to-viable-steel ratio are passing me in the slow lane, I get a tad upset with the green-hugging driver in front of me.

So I will not likely ever get a Prius. I'd always be afraid that some maniac in a mini-van right behind me is about to deploy his tactical road-obstacle removing laser any minute now.

Guys need noise. This explains everything from making motor noises in the bathtub (BBBBRRRRMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM) to the Space Shuttle. Even the APU's on that baby make noise when you "fire 'em up." And wait until the ARES rocket makes its debut this week. Noise, dude! Noise!!

As a young man, I always envied the teenagers down the street that had those cars that made Dad crazy. They were always doing something with "headers" (removing them, I think), and either losing or heavily modifying their mufflers so that their steet 'rods would have roughly the same decibel level as a 747 at full thrust. And nearly the same horsepower.

(I notice, however, that teenagers don't seem to bother with headers and mufflers anymore. They're too busy installing sound systems in their vehicles that are medically proven to cause sterility. This is probably a good thing because I'm not sure I want these idiots to reproduce.)

I guess this all means that I will, for now, remain among the traditionalists who demand a car noise when I turn on the ignition. Preferably the one that goes "BBBBBRRRRMMMMMMMMMMMM."

Obama's WMDs

I seem to remember that it was not so long ago — months, perhaps? — that liberal backlash against the Bush administration amounted to "where are the WMDs?" Entire blogs and news-gathering sites were devoted to the idea that the whole reason why we were in Iraq, those pesky weapons of mass destruction, were in fact a figment of Bush's overworked imagination. Obama himself campaigned on that very idea, did he not? Certainly the mainstream media (those husky water-carriers for the current president) loudly trumpeted the fact that Bush's intelligence may not only have been incomplete, but had by that time caused the deaths of thousands of American soldiers.

Now it appears that Obama may have his own "weapons of mass destruction" to worry about.

For months now we have listened to this man and his enablers in Congress proclaim to anyone who would listen (and, of course, to those of us who stopped listening a long time ago) that one of the reasons we need a public "option" (which isn't really an option, by the way) is because of the obscene, immoral, illegal, unconstitutional, and even really, really bad profits of the apparently money-bloated health insurance companies. In fact, to hear Pelosi and Reid spin it, these insurers are even more deadly and rapacious than the people who run TARP-bailed companies and dare to award themselves bonuses for their clever work of driving a company into the ground and then receiving government tax money to keep it alive.

So tell me why, please, it is that the Associated Press, of all anti-conservative news organizations that exist in the world today, is the one to report that, on a list of profit-mongerers in this country, health insurance providers are number 35 on the list?

Here's a thought: if the company that owns the Taco Bell brand is running higher profit margins than the health care insurance companies, why not target putting Taco Bell out of business so our fast-food-driven health problems will go away and hence drive our insurance premiums down as well?

On second thought, leave Taco Bell alone. Their food is arguably healthier than most fast-food joints, and our personal favorite at the moment here at Hacienda Woody. Go after Pizza Hut instead. They're expendable.

Also, while trying their level best to drive insurance carriers out of business, I have yet to hear what constructive devices the Democrats in Congress will employ to make sure that those thousands of people who ultimately lose their jobs in the insurance industry will be able to find employment elsewhere. Not to mention paying for all their health care while they are unemployed because they won't be able to afford even the public option.

So profits of the health insurers will, I predict, become Obama's weapons of mass destruction. He will use them to get us into a war that we on the right don't want to fight, all the while assuring us that "levelling the playing field" is the only way to provide coverage to "millions" of Americans who will die unless we ACT NOW. PREFERABLY BEFORE ANYONE HAS A CHANCE TO READ THE ACTUAL LEGISLATION. Then, if Obama follows the Bush defense, he will shrug and say "we acted in good faith based on the facts we had at the time."

Guess what, Mr. President? We aren't any more likely to believe you than you were to believe President Bush.

Inmates Running the Asylum

I defy anyone to give me a reasonable explanation as to why this behavior is in any way considered appropriate. This is something I expect of a marriage about to hit divorce court. If someone can come up with a solid procedural reason for changing the locks on a committee room, I'll shut up about the whole thing.

The only explanation I can come up with is that the only reason why the Democrats complained so bitterly about Gingrich's term as Speaker was because they were itching to prove that they could be every bit as corrupt and scandalous as the Republicans were proving to be.

Congratulations, Pelosi. You've succeeded. Your "transparent Congress" now officially needs a modesty shield.

Obama-ganda

John Nolte, writing for Big Hollywood, talks about a press release from the Entertainment Industry Foundation (EIF) outlining "Play your Part America." This is a week-long blitz of TV programming on the four major networks (ironically including FOX in this case) designed to forward Obama's volunteerism and service social agenda.

Political manipulation of the entertainment industry is nothing new. Celebrities have, for decades, fronted for their favorite causes. Some, like Bob Hope, were classy enough to make a tradition out of serving others. As time has passed, however, many others have simply become shills for one cause or another; most notably those who shriekingly support the rights of animals over and above all other living creatures, including unborn children.

Nolte's piece, of course, takes note of the increasingly alarming ease with which Obama has made the media his all-too willing puppet in trumpeting his domestic and foreign agendas to the world. He is the first president, I believe, to have a completely integrated media strategy that relies on willing compliance from Hollywood. That's not to say that previous presidents have not had media strategies, of course. Even Bush, who more often than not wore a large red bullseye on his chest so far as the media were concerned, had strategies for making the Iraq war somewhat more palatable to the public while refusing to play into their hysterical reporting.

But Obama seems to be the first to have this integrated "organic" approach. A cooperative media is, in fact, a keystone to Obama's agenda because without their help he cannot hope to overcome the perceptions that so many of us have of a leader without experience or accomplishment trying to create a socialist utopia in this country. It's a truly disturbing trend.

Oddly enough, his media (and artistic: don't forget his rebranding of the NEA!) manipulations are not all that troubling to me. Not personally, anyway. I'm just not that big of a media consumer to worry about whether I'll be subjected to the latest Obama-ganda whenever I turn on the TV. I actually assume I'll be subjected to it, in fact, which makes it easier to simply be entertained, rather than indoctrinated.

My problem is that I'm pretty sure the government as a whole has absolutely no clue what "volunteerism" or "service" even are. Both activities are deeply personal in nature. You can have entire organizations performing service, such as Habitats for Humanity, but participation in such organizations should always be a personal decision borne of a desire to help others.

It is the desire that is lacking from Obama's perception of a nation full of volunteers providing service to others. The president's agenda is designed to "encourage" citizens to volunteer and provide service, preferably somewhat more than is provided today, to a growing number of those who are considered less fortunate. Unfortunately, insisting on having people volunteer often backfires.

For simplicity, let's assume that there are three basic types of volunteer:

1. The eager volunteer. This is the person who observes a need, feels a strong desire to assist, and does so. The only potential stumbling block for this person is the occasional reluctance of the recipient of this service. No reasonable person, however, would argue with the motives of the eager volunteer.

2. The impressive volunteer. This is the person who answers a call for volunteers, not because they just naturally like to help, but more because the service looks good on a resumé. Beware the impressive volunteer. Often their good intentions are somewhat marred by the sloppy or inept delivery of the service required, which may cause more harm than good. This is what has become of ACORN. They started with the right idea (giving them the benefit of the doubt here), but have become an enabler of thoroughly destructive behaviors.

3. The reluctant volunteer. Here is the person who has been ordered or requested to provide a service that they would not have otherwise provided. They will do so grudgingly, answering the call not because they want to, but because it seems to be expected of them. Akin to a petty criminal who has been ordered to "community service" in order to atone for some crime, these "volunteers" are, in fact, conscripts who will do the bare minimum required of them, and probably not do the best of jobs in the process.

Of course there are many variants of all three basic types. The problem with inducing people to volunteer, as Obama appears to be attempting, is that you more frequently get the impressive or reluctant volunteers to answer the call. The eager volunteers are already serving, happily, and probably expending whatever time they can to their current cause. The impressive volunteers will serve because it looks good to do so, but may not provide the intended results. That leaves the reluctant ones, who won't serve unless given a compelling reason ("we'll throw your fanny in jail unless...") to do so.

I don't know about you, but if I or my family needed service, I'm not altogether sure I'd want any but a truly eager volunteer to provide it. How on earth will Hollywood solve that particular problem?

Let me know if they do. Unless they've infiltrated NCIS next week, I probably won't be watching.

Let's Be Clear

The commissioner of an organization — an organization known primarily for its continual substance abuse problems; star athletes that have trouble staying out of jail; athletes who make more in one season than most of us will see in our lifetimes yet always seem to "need" more; athletes who, in fact, say a lot of outrageous things — is going to deny Rush Limbaugh the opportunity to become part-owner of a franchise because he says some things that make people uncomfortable.

Did I get that right?

A Fair "My Fair Lady"

There are problems with tackling iconic roles in theater. Yul Brynner, for example, will always "own" the role of King Mongkut in "The King and I," as he did through the film version and two or three revivals. Ultimately he played the role over 4500 times.

Another iconic role is that of Professor Henry Higgins in "My Fair Lady." Rex Harrison, like Brynner, performed the role both on Broadway, on film, and in at least one revival.

(Interesting side note: I never saw Yul Brynner on stage in "The King and I," but heard that even through his revivals he did a marvelous job. The 1981 revival of "My Fair Lady" I did see, and was immediately struck by the fact that here was a man (Harrison) who, in my humble opinion, desperately needed to retire.)

I mention this because those who try to fill such roles often find themselves compared — unfairly, of course — to those icons who gave the role their imprimature. So when we had a chance to see the Downey Civic Light Opera version of "My Fair Lady" yesterday, I wondered how the actors would handle this extra burden.

In a word, they did well. Those who are familiar with the movie version well remember Audrey Hepburn's performance as Eliza Doolittle, along with Harrison as Higgins, Stanley Holloway as the dustman cum "moralist" Alfred P. Doolittle, and Wilfred Hyde-White as Col. Hugh Pickering. I was delighted to see that Downey's main protagonists, while using certain mannerisms created by the film stars, were more than able to find their own characterizations in this delightful, if extremely long show.

Joseph Culliton is nothing like Rex Harrison, thankfully. Whenever Harrison would become at all excitable (which happens more often than not in this Lerner and Leowe production), his voice would take on an edge that reminded me forcefully of fingernails on a chalkboard. Culliton's voice is a much smoother baritone, and, whereas Harrison was no singer and generally spoke through his music, Culliton did the music justice. In fact, this may be the first time I've ever heard anyone actually sing "I've Grown Accustomed to Her Face." For the rest of his characterization, Culliton relied on the wit contained in the libretto. His delivery was appropriately deadpan as a depiction of the ultimate chauvinist.

His friend Pickering is played with great charm by Richard Gould, who has the good fortune to actually resemble Hyde-White somewhat. His portrayal of the benefactor in this attempt to create a lady of elegance from a girl who had only raw material to start with is compelling. He makes the perfect low-key foil to the mulish Higgins.

Charlotte Carpenter does a delightful job with Eliza. Her opening Cockney is, ironically enough, well articulated in the opening scenes, and she transitions into the proper English accents with sufficient aplomb. She also has the pipes to pull off the job. It is well known that Audrey Hepburn was no singer and had her songs dubbed. Carpenter needs no such assistance. She worked well through the standards of "I Could Have Danced All Night," "Wouldn't It Be Loverly?" and "The Rain in Spain." In fact, the only criticism I had of the entire show was what seemed to be uneven miking of the principals. I'm not sure if this was because I was in the front row of the orchestra section, but even with mikes it was sometimes hard to hear the leads over the energetic pit orchestra (ably led by Eddy Clement).

George Champion has perhaps the toughest challenge of the neo-icons in this production. Stanley Holloway's performance as Alfred Doolittle is a classic, and his interpretation of a common dustman with uncommon morals has set a rather high standard for all who follow. Champion, however, gives Holloway a run for his money, even winkingly grabbing several of Holloway's signature moves and expressions along the way. He does the role credit, though, and marks himself as a true showman in the process.

One nice surprise was the performance of Jason Marquez as Freddy Eynsford-Hill. It is altogether too easy to make this one of the sappiest roles in all of theater, because the part is basically written as a lovesick tenor, and there is nothing worse in this world than a lovesick tenor. Marquez is something of a warbler, but he commanded the role of the star-struck would-be lover. His singing was never over-the-top, and he still managed to give Freddy that breathless quality of a man out of his mind over a beautiful woman.

Taken altogether it was a wonderful performance. They started a few minutes late, but the show clocks in at just over 3 hours, so you need to be committed to the show in order to truly enjoy it. There's plenty of good choreography and ensemble work, particularly among those who portrayed the long-suffering staff of Prof. Higgins' household. Their work through "Poor Professor Higgins" was simply fun to watch. Equally fun was the male quartet that accompanies Eliza in "Loverly." Throughout the show the cast and chorus showed tremendous energy and focus, and provided us with many memorable moments.

If you're anywhere in the area this weekend or next, give this one your consideration. I believe you won't be disappointed.

Olympic Fail? Or Just Olympic Loss?

One of the things that surprises me about reaction to Chicago's loss of the 2016 games (to Rio de Janeiro) is that so many people seemed to think it was ours to lose. For all the attention these games got from our Commander in Chief, his wife, and even Oprah Winfrey, you'd think this was a major international policy failure on our part.

Yet, perhaps because I'm not from Chicago and hold no special affection for the city, our loss to Rio is less bothersome to me than the possibility that very soon I may be facing jail time if ever I can't afford to buy health care insurance. In other words, is it just possible that our priorities are a little skewed here?

Worse yet, the recriminations (Bush's fault! No, wait! Obama's fault! No, wait...) change nothing. For heaven's sake, people. Get over it, find the lessons learned, and be better prepared for next time. Also, who ever said these games were in any way inevitable? Jesse Jackson? Since when did he become a bellwether of American domestic policy?

Things we know about hosting the Olympic Games:

1. They always cost more than we plan. The costs go way beyond just dollar figures, too. Reputations are made or broken because of the games, and I'm not just talking about the athletes. The bottom line — the one no one ever wants to discuss except for a few malcontents in the editorial sections of obscure newspapers — is that the taxpayers always get stiffed. Consider this: how many millions of dollars did Chicago spend on their losing bid? Enough, probably, to build a few low-cost housing units would be my guess.

2. The Olympic Games are political. Always have been, always will be. Heads of state of the various participating nations take it as a point of national pride to send their teams to the Games. Thus nationalism, even patriotism, is closely tied to the competition. The athletes may take center stage, but how many of the last several games we watched were distracted by numerous political stunts. Remember the allegations of under-aged gymnasts in China? How about the figure skating judging fiascos of several years ago that have pretty much ruined the sport now? And, of course, how could we ever forget the terrorism of the Munich Games?

3. Not that the athletes are saints themselves. How many doping scandals have we witnessed just in the last three summer events? We want, desperately, to hold our Olympic athletes up as icons, heroes, or even just all-around good people. To have them mock that adoration by doping themselves up for the sake of a disc of medal to hang around their necks is seen as a betrayal by the devotees of the Games. Likewise, we always hope we've learned our lessons about sending primas donna to the Games. The so-called "Dream Team" (ver. 2.0) of several Games ago was a classic case of why narcissists should never be allowed to compete. I got so fed up with the prancing and preening of certain high-powered multi-million dollar talent from the basketball venue that year that I will probably never watch an Olympic basketball game again. Ever.

All of these things make me wonder why on earth we even bother competing to host the Games anymore. Cronyism is rampant in the IOC, and you have to play their game (while appearing not to play their game) in order to have any chance at all of winning. Given the sheer number of Games that this country has hosted over the years, I am not surprised to see other nations be given the chance.

Rio is significant for the fact that these are the first Games to be hosted in a South American nation. Good for them. I wish them well as they struggle now to get their venues built, deal with security concerns, displace all kinds of people in order to have Olympic Villages ready for the athletes, and drive their country into near-bankruptcy in order to pay for it all.

Hey, Rio! Let us know if you need any money, won't you? Chicago apparently has some tax revenue to burn.

The ACORN Never Falls Far from the Media Tree

Disclaimer: Yes, I read Michelle Malkin. I do so not because I particularly enjoy her prose; in fact I find her to be among the harsher voices of the conservative bloggers. Yet she also remains one of those who consistently finds and reports on those stories that mainstreamers either under-report, ignore, or mis-report.

The recent videos showing ACORN representatives encouraging people to lie in order to bilk the government out of housing that might be put to better use (i.e., anything but a house of ill-repute) are case in point.

Now, you know... you just know... that if this were a conservative organization, the networks would not hesitate to plant an undercover reporter in one of their offices if it meant getting their hands on this kind of video. In fact, our local newsies do this all the time. They have "special correspondents" whose sole job it is to track down and embarrass scoff-laws at any cost. They use Michael Moore assault tactics to accost these people at work, at home, or whereever the story leads, so that we get the "truth" of the matter from the horse's mouth.

Michelle finds two ironies here. First, she points to Charlie Gibson's apparent ignorance of the entire ACORN video fiasco. Based on the transcripts of the interview, I find Gibson's remarks that he was "unaware" of this story to be disengenuous at best.

Who for a minute would believe that ABC (along with every other news outlet of any repute) is not completely wired into the internet and keeping a close eye on both sides of the political blogosphere? That's what they have staff for, for crying out loud. This story has been percolating for a couple of weeks now, and this is the first the mighty Charles Gibson has heard of it?

Well, okay, let's give him the benefit of the doubt. In his crystal reporting booth, it's just possible that his staff and editors left him out of the loop on the decision of whether to run with this story, or treat it like a non-issue so their liberal customer base wouldn't roast them over a spit. That would give Gibson "plausible deniability" (a term I've come to completely despise over the years) and allow him to claim that he had no idea that ACORN was putting their collective feet in their over-large mouths.

But I don't buy it.

Malkin then points to a story out of Newsbusters.org wherein Nora O'Donnell of NBC frets that these videos may comprise a form of "entrapment." Oh, brother. ABSCAM could, conceivably, have been classified as "entrapment." The worst these videos could be considered is a violation of wire-tapping laws in certain states (primarily Maryland). Entrapment is a method of enticing or encouraging someone to do something illegal where they show reluctance to proceed. These ACORN representatives were only too happy to show these fake sex traffickers exactly how to lie to the government so they could set up their illicit brothels. Hardly entrapment.

Of course, we might still be waiting for NBC to report on this issue at all were it not for the fact that the Senate voted (finally!) to block ACORN funding last night. Even without a foreknowledge of the ACORN videos, then, this vote by the Senate should have sprung even the laziest mainstreamers into immediate action. Why the amendment in the first place? Why block funding to one of Obama's favorite organizations? What could possibly justify such an action?

Michelle calls this the "ostrich media" and wonders what we think. I think they should be renamed the "convenient-hearing media." Not as catchy, but more appropriate. Their heads aren't in the sand. They're watching those videos on the internet with their fingers in their ears.

"La, la, la! Can't hear you!"

(Corrected to show Gibson working for ABC, not NBC. Like I ever care to watch primetime news.)

Why Late-Night Blogging Never Pays

Two Obama-related items on my mind tonight.

First, the webcast directed at school-aged children across the country, scheduled for September 8.

This to me smacks of severe over-reach on Obama's part. Ostensibly the purpose of this speech is to motivate kids to stay engaged with their education. Not bad as topics go. However, if the intent is to keep kids in school to prevent them from dropping out at some point, does he really believe that anything he says is going to make a difference for more than a handful of kids? Also, I would guess that this will have even less impact on those who have already made the decision to leave school. Kids who have already given up on their education are not likely to change their minds at this point, no matter who delivers this message. If their own parents can't reach them, how is a man sitting in a mansion thousands of miles from their reality going to do the job?

The discussion questions distributed by the Education department are most revealing. Worded in such a way that I strongly suspect more than just staying in school will arise in Obama's speech. I'm guessing there will be pointed references to community service, and requests to convince Mommy and Daddy that Obama "needs" their help in promoting other points of his domestic agenda. Won't know that until the speech is actually given, but I will be surprised if I am much mistaken.

The other mind-waster in front of me tonight is (natch!) health care. I find it amusing that the administration is suddenly back-pedalling on the "public option." For one thing, even though Drudge trumpets its demise, the legislation is not Obama's. He didn't write it, and heaven knows he probably has no idea what's really in it. But assuming the report is correct, and Obama is truly ready to set aside (I don't for a minute believe it won't be resurrected at some point in the future) the public option, how do we know that it will be expunged from HR 3200?

We don't.

I can't see Pelosi or Reid being any too happy about striking any portion of this 1000 page nightmare because Congress seems to feel anymore that they're paid by the word. Also, the more liberal elements of the party will make hay of this should they capitulate on the public option at this point.

What interests me most, however, isn't the decision to take the public option off the table. What I find interesting is a post over at Wizbang that talks about progressive Christians getting into the act. Michael Laprarie talks about this development, and notes the opinions of folks like Father Jake, who says:

I must admit to being simply astounded that anyone who claims to be a follower of Jesus Christ would be against providing health care for every child of God.

Unless you cut out the 25th chapter of Matthew, the parable of the Good Samaritan, the year of Jubilee, and various other big swaths of scripture, it is simply impossible to refute the clear message that God has a preferential bias for the poor.

It's one of those yes-and-no statements, really. Yes, the Savior strongly advised His followers with respect to the poor (and the widows, and the sick, and so on). His strict injuncture was to turn them not away, lest the church fall under condemnation.

But (here's the "no") the Savior was also careful to separate the functions of the church (i.e., His followers) from the functions of government. Giving Caesar his due was the Savior's way of reminding us that governments are imperfect, if necessary, and that we should never trust them to do what the church itself must always do. Nowhere in scripture does the Savior say "set ye up an government with power to take from the rich and give to the poor." No, what He specifically says is, "sell that thou hast, and give to the poor" if you want access to the blessings of heaven (Matthew 19:21). He does not instruct Caesar and the government to do this; he gives this commandment to followers who wish to live righteous lives.

It's one of those arguments where you never find big-government proponents on the correct side. They always get it wrong. Only government, they insist, has the "power" to level the playing field and make things fair for all concerned. It's the same philosophy that creates welfare states, demonizes those who dare to profit from their labors, and dismisses any logic presented that does not match their own as so much ephemera. This is how we end up with thousands of home-owners who cannot pay their mortgages. (Remember that the mortgage crisis began not with the economic downturn and massive layoffs, but that the economic downturn and massive layoffs were driven in part by the mortgage crisis.) Forcing banks to restructure loans to make it easier for low-income families to keep their homes for now is no guarantee that these same families will ever be able to actually afford those loans.

Likewise, guaranteeing health insurance coverage for 15 million people (many people strongly dispute Obama's 45 million that he spins as incontrovertible fact) at the expense of those who can and do afford their current coverage makes no sense whatsoever. I'm all for doing my part to care for my neighbors, but let me do so as an act of service, rather than force me to do so through increased taxes that will eventually ensure that I can never retire on my pension. Assuming my company can still support my pension when that time comes.

If Obama's policies are allowed to continue unabated, I'm pretty sure I won't long be one who is able to help pay for these schemes. I will instead be one of the increasing number of those who must beg the government for more handouts, because my company won't be able to afford me any longer.

What a deal.

O Canada New York!

A Democrat from New York, Eric Massa, represents what is considered to be a "predominantly conservative" district in New York. This begs two questions:

1. Conservatives? In NEW YORK?? (No, really. Same question. Just, um, emphasized.)

2. How on earth did he get elected in the first place?

But of course these questions pale in comparison to the flash flood of conservative angst over the fact that this Democratic Congressman dared state that (gasp!) he would vote in favor of a single-payer health care system despite his constituents' wishes.

Big hairy deal.

Like Republicans haven't been doing that over the protests of their own constituents for years now.

No, the sin here isn't in stating a desire to vote contrary to the wishes of the electorate. As far as representation goes, even registered Democrats (including illegal aliens and dead people) are beginning to understand that they didn't necessarily get what they voted for last November. Also, I beg to point out that numerous delegates to both the Second Continental Congress as well as the Constitutional Convention were known to vote in direct opposition to the stated desires of the people who sent them there. It's how this nation got its start, for better or worse.

The sin, as I see it, is in propounding legislation that half of Congress hasn't even read, yet somehow firmly believes will be this wonderful, magical panacea that will suddenly have health care flowing down into the homes of every American (and millions of non-Americans) in this country. The sin is further exacerbated by not allowing each and every element of this "plan" to be dragged out into public and debated in honest, open forums where both sides can present their cases (using quotes from the actual legislation as opposed to talking points) so that we, the public, can make equally honest, open decisions about which elements of the "plan" to take out into the town squares and flog until their backsides look like so much chopped liver. Then subject them to a single-payer health care system such as they have in Canada, which is apparently so bad that the people charged with running it are furiously trying to figure out just how to "fix" it.

So let's not excoriate Rep. Massa just because he chooses to vote against his own constituents. Let's wait until he actually commits the sin, then apply the appropriate punishment.