As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be

“People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are “The Advertisers” and they are laughing at you.

You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity.

F*ck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It’s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.

You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don’t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don’t even start asking for theirs.” — Banksy

And that's the way it is...

Why is it that the people that make the most political sense these days are comedians?

Oh yeah, it's always been that way.

Happy birthday a little bit late, George. Hope you're watching over the primaries some.

The Plan

Alright, I admit it: I was in a weird and not-so-good mental space when I wrote my last post. Lotta things just came to a head yesterday. But of course there is plenty of good work to be done.

Here's an interesting perspective by Nicholas Kristof on the sitch in Afghanistan.

And thanks to Mike Daisey for this next tidbit sharing a Master Plan from a website that's currently down for repairs. (Hmmmm...) Looks like a swell time for all!



Daisey's new show is happening at the Public, by the way. You know it's gonna be good - Cory and I are seeing it next week. Very limited run for this one, so don't wait too long...

I've been a busy auditioner/theatergoer these days too. Besides the brilliant From the House of the Dead last weekend, I saw the very worthwhile, if imperfect, A Streetcar Named Desire at BAM on Tuesday (may end up writing fuller posts on those two shows if time permits), and am going to Love Child at New World Stages tonight. Oughta be good. Looking forward to some laughs.

Crazy Christians

Not to be confused with 'regular' Christians, or any of the vast majority of Christians who hold beliefs that contain a striking amount of diversity but that don't fall into a category I'd call Totally F*cking Whacked Out.

Nope. Not them. I'm talking about Crazy Christians. The ones who are apparently out there praying for Obama's death. (and, it seems plausible to construe, praying for all kinds of other nutty things too.)

There's an article in Salon that pursues this notion further, and looks into the actions of a few choice zealots of hate (or intolerance, or fear, or whatever they are), but this Frank Schaeffer quote from the first piece I linked to seems worth repeating:

"And what surprises me is that responsible, if you can put it that way, Republican leadership and the editors of some of these Christian magazines, etc. etc., do not stand up in holy horror and denounce this. You know, they're always asking 'Where is the Islamic leadership denouncing terrorism? Why aren't the moderates speaking out?' Well, I challenge the folks who I used to work with... I would just say to them: 'Where the hell are you? This is not funny anymore. And be it on your head if something happens to our President..."

More Texas

But then there's this, which would seem to be an improbably forward-thinking decision, and reason for (very) cautious optimism. Even in Texas.

I don't understand anything.

Dear President Obama

Your next Big Speech is tonight. How exciting for you! Everybody's back from summer vacation and ready to roll up their sleeves and work together for a better future for everyone, without the faintest whiff of partisanship or political maneuvering. It's the American Way!

I understand that the first item on tonight's agenda will have to do with Health Care. Good thinking! Permit me to mention a few ideas on the subject: think of them as Talking Points if you like (I'm told that people like Talking Points.) Feel free to refer to any or all of them in your speech if you like. You probably shouldn't feel totally free to avoid mentioning at least one or two of them...

• Health Care is a point of National Pride.
  The World Health Organization ranks the overall quality of the U.S. health system at 37th in the world: a little better than Slovenia's, but not quite as good as Costa Rica. That isn't really good enough for a place that still runs around claming to be the Greatest Country in the World.
  
  
• No One's Health should be compromised for the sake of Anyone's Bottom Line.
  In the face of your less-than-scrupulous adversaries' reckless talk of death panels, you may want to point out that their precious Private Insurers have been denying care to Grandmas and Grandchildren willy nilly, in the form of widespread rejection of claims, and systematic cancellation of policies, even long-standing ones, when the patient's needs become too expensive. Yes, they are accusing you of what they have been guilty of for years. And I do mean guilty: this situation would appall the people who built the insurance industry in the first place - which, after all, is supposed to, um, insure that people get health care, not withhold it from them at just the moment they need it most. The practice is wrong, cruel, and greedy. And it should be illegal.
  
  
• The Whole Point of Insurance is to Spread Risk.
  Not to make a gajillion dollars for companies and their stockholders. You may have to tweak this one, or people will start screaming about Socialism. To do this, I'd refer to the previous point. Assure people that there is not one thing wrong with making a good living - a really good living - providing health care. It's a very important job, and it should be richly rewarded. Profit motive is not necessarily a bad thing, but when we're talking about people's lives and health, I'd think that profit could be a secondary consideration rather than an all-powerful one. And anyone who gets filthy rich by gaming the system - and in the process making the system worse, keeping quality care out of people's reach - is just that: filthy.
  
  
• Catastrophic Care is not good enough for the Poorest of the Poor.
  I'll buy the argument that if you make a decent living and just don't believe in Insurance, for whatever reason, you shouldn't have to get too much of it - coverage for only the severest illness and injury might be enough for you (though you really do need to be covered for that, or the potential costs are too great for you and eventually for the rest of the country.) There is some debate as to whether preventative care is much of a long-term cost saver, but it is universally acknowledged that it helps maintain long-term health. Whatever plan is put into place must provide for an affordable option of ongoing heath care, not just Castastrophic coverage.
  
  
• Core Costs must be held in check.
  Here's a point where you can completely agree with your opposition! Pretty much everybody acknowledges that overall health care costs have skyrocketed and need to be managed. (Well, except for those who will insist on disagreeing with you no matter what you say. Come to think of it, that may be a bigger group than you'd like to admit.) Article after article has been written on the subject, and some of the better ones even discuss some possible solutions. I'm talking about creative solutions, based on experience, with the actual goal of reducing costs, not kneejerk conservative calls for Tort Reform that are actually just gifts to big business (with an assault on the environment thrown in for good measure) disguised as social justice. That transparent maneuver aside, the Conservatives are right, and you probably should grant as much - any real reform MUST address overall costs head on.
  
  
• We need to develop a Culture of Health.
  You're going to need to phrase this better - people get freaked out when you use the C word. Get Jon Favreau to help. But what I'm talking about is spreading actual patterns of healthy behavior (as opposed to lipservice about healthy behavior) across the breadth of society. Getting people to DO the healthy thing more often (nothing crazy - eat better, don't drink too much too often, get enough sleep most nights, exercise a few times a week.) Talk about your easy and obvious ways to improve health care while reducing costs. But to actually put it across? That will take your best effort. And, you'll be criticized for it, just as you were run through the wringer for (even I have a hard time believing this) telling kids to stay in school. Oy.
  
  
• Fight back.
  This stems from the previous point, and again, you'll need smarter people than I to help you finesse it. But please, please go after these dipshits when they say stupid things, and especially when they lie. Which they have done, are doing, and will continue to do until you stop them. You will be called a Socialist when you try to improve health care. You will be compared to Hitler when you advocate education. You will be called a Harbinger of Doom when you engage in diplomacy. Most people (I hope) know that this is crap, and those that don't aren't going to change their minds no matter what you say, so GO AHEAD AND CALL IT CRAP. I know that sometimes it's hard for Democrats to call people out because they don't want to look like hypocrites when they're shown to be sitting in the same corporate pockets as Republicans. Which the Dems should, you know, stop doing. But even before that Hailstorm in Hell, you should give yourself permission to call the truth the truth and call a lie a lie. We'll respect you more for it. Really. Continue to rise above their tactics, by all means, but don't just stand there when they get together to bring you down. Be like a master martial artist and use their own momentum against them. The wackos (and the charlatans who guide them) have been nasty and don't show any signs that they will slow down. What they have shown is that they can be counted on to go to extreme, even absurd, lengths to stand in the way of policies that change some perceived social status quo (or that might cost the richest of the rich a little bit of money.) Reveal their arguments for what they are, and they'll wind up tangled in their own rope.
  

There we go. We did it. We solved health care! Good for us. Tomorrow maybe we can get together and figure out how to get me an agent...

A Chat about Baseball and Steroids

Here's a slightly edited version of an IM conversation I had with Sue today. For those of you keeping score at home, this would be Boston Sue, not to be confused with Williamstown Sue, or 14th Street Sue, or San Francisco Sue, or any of the other assorted Sues in my life. The discussion presupposes a little bit of knowledge about the situation, but if you've got that, we do a pretty good job of conveying my opinions on the Baseball Juicing Scandal.

It opens up with a quotation Cory sent to me today.

from the A-Rod press conference:

Freudian Slip of the Decade:
“I’m here to take my medicine.”
Alex Rodriguez, February 17, 2009



Sue: oh that's an unfortunate choice of words.
Me: hehehe
Sue: personally i think all the steroids stuff is b.s. - as far as calling out individual players.
Me: oh i totally agree
Sue: 1. mlb knew damn well it was going on, but it was filling the seats, so they were completely happy to look the other way
Me: at least for things that happened before 2004
Sue: 2. it wasn't even illegal when some of these guys were doing it.
Me: well, it kind of was, but it was awfully fuzzy until '05
Me: and a LOT of them were doing it
Sue: 3. the ones who were able to stay ahead of the testing or who were just better at hiding it will never be called to the carpet.
Sue: let the past go. set a competent testing (and punishment) policy now and just move forward already
Me: and while it's kind of fun to watch mr. rod wriggle around and try to sell the idea that he had no IDEA what his 'cousin' was shooting into his ass (other than that it was purchased over-the-counter in d.r.)
Me: it would be one of the all-time peaks of hypocrisy for MLB to punish him for it at this point
Sue: exactly
Me: what's more, i haven't spoken to a single baseball fan who disagrees with us
Me: but, of course, i live in fake america, not real america
Sue: lol!
Sue: but even what they're doing to reputations, future hall of fame chances, etc. is disgusting
Me: the sports writers are vying for attention
Me: the hall of fame and MLB record keepers know better
Me: and hopefully will act like it
Sue: i dunno. people are already saying clemens won't make the hall of fame after his debacle
Me: it's a pity that mcgwire became the poster boy for juicers so early in the discussion

Me: because i don't think that his not getting into the hall had anything to do with 'roids*
Me: clemens not getting in would devalue the hall of fame to the point of reducing it to an homage to the past

Me: it would be a HUGE mistake
Me: bonds too

Me: a-rod too
Sue: agreed
Me: and now that we've solved everything, it's time for me to go home!
Sue: woo-hoo!!!
Me: thanks once again for the brilliant and witty I-correspondence

So there that is. Let me clear up a something before people get all yitzy. I am not endorsing or advocating the use of anabolic steroids, for ballplayers or anyone else. I am opposed to them. They're bad for you. Really bad.

A co-worker of mine said something to the effect of "I have no problem with steroids. I like home runs. Baseball players are like horses - they should shoot up with whatever they want if it makes the game more entertaining for the fans." Now, I disagree with that on a whole bunch of levels. That said, I also disagree with the notion that pro athletes are a good compass for healthy living and/or ethical behavior. That ideal hasn't been particularly valid since World War II, at least not in this country. Henry Aaron, who was and is one of my all-time baseball heros, admits in his book I Had a Hammer that he 'tried using' amphetamines, as was common in his era to increase alertness and endurance over the long season on the road. We don't know for sure how much he used them. And I don't care. He was a great baseball player. If you think the fact that he took speed compromises his claim to being a great man, so be it. I actually think there's an argument to be made that Hank Aaron may be a 'great man.' (You'd have to look far and wide to find someone who'd say that about Barry Bonds.) No one is perfect. And, once again, I think one would be ill-advised to turn to Major League Baseball for models of healthy living.

To sum up:

A bunch of guys (including but not limited to Bonds, Rodriguez and Clemens) took steroids.

A bunch of guys (including but not limited to Hank Aaron) took speed.

Don't know how you'd call it a performance-enhancing drug, but Doc Ellis threw a no-hitter while he was on LSD.

Babe Ruth's regimen of high-fat food, beer and cigars is the stuff of legend.

And while we're on it, baseball's alcohol consumption has never exactly been limited to the champagne at the end of the World Series.

Let this be a reminder to the people who want to start pasting a bunch of asterisks all over the record books and bolt the doors of the Hall of Fame.

I think it's good that Baseball is getting serious about making sure that its athletes don't take steroids. (If it is in fact serious - Baseball had no trouble with steroid use when all those home runs were bringing back disillusioned fans. If you believe that the owners and coaches - and sportswriters - weren't aware of what was going on, I've got a stadium in the Bronx to sell you.) And while there's still a civil libertarian part of me that thinks that there should be a wide berth of freedom in terms of a person's right to put things into his or her own body, I think an honest and enthusiastic national education effort about the effects of anabolic steroids (not to be confused with a big ol' propaganda campaign) would be a great idea. While they're at it, maybe they wouldn't mind covering things like food additives, high fructose corn syrup, livestock antibiotics and growth hormones, and the environmental ramifications of agribusiness.

We can hope, right?

Meanwhile, the full teams are reporting to Spring Training. Can we shut up and play ball?

*For those of you who don't really follow baseball - I think the media stink about Mark Mcgwire being excluded from the Hall of Fame because he admitted juicing is just more fog. He didn't get into the Hall because his career didn't warrant it, steroids or no steroids. He was, as dad would say, a One Tool Player. He could hit for power. Period. And not necessarily when you needed him to. Argue with me if you want (by all means!) but I think that you'd almost have to admit that if they let in Mcgwire, they have to go back and let in Roger Maris.

thoughts from a walk in the east village on a sunday afternoon

I will not be a "good old days" person, if for no other reason than that the good old days always had something bad about them.

The spot where CBGB was is now some kind of gallery called 'Morrison Hotel'



[a moment, for you to let the irony of that simmer]

The building that once housed the Bouwerie Lane Theatre now offers Retail Space for Rent. And I think I saw in an article that a talented new developer has his eye on the residential space in the upper floors.

I will not sit inside a hot and badly ventilated coffee shop in the East Village on a gorgeous spring day, no matter how hip it is, or how beautiful its patrons.

I will, however, get one of their very delicious iced coffees and walk around the neighborhood for a while.

Much as it bugs me to admit it, the new facade of 40 Bond Street is pretty fucking rad.



I may sit in a cool and comfortable theater lobby while waiting for my partner for the matinee, no matter how un-hip.

Especially when there are nifty little tables & chairs.

No matter how geriatric I may seem in other circumstances, I am still likely to be one of the youngest people at certain live performances.

Especially matinees.

No matter how long I've known her, and how likely I know it to be, it still annoys me when she shows up late.

**addition**

I don't want to be one of those "I could have done that better" actors, but I auditioned for this show, nailed it, and goddam it, I could have done it better.

Jon, Jon, Jon...

Ok, I've held back. The last few weeks have given us all such fodder for some rage against the political/media machines, and I've been restraining myself for the sake of good Spring vibes.


But now I'm going to cut loose just a little bit and unleash on one of my fave commentators. (side note: why 'commentator'? why not just 'commenter'?) Mr. Jon Stewart, who has consistently been there to skewer the Stupid - left, right and center - let a big ol' grapefruit of a ball drop last night.



He had Newt Gingrich as a guest on The Daily Show. Yes, that Newt Gingrich: former Speaker of the House, Clinton Nemesis, author of the Contract On America (What? it's Contract With America? C'mon, when you hire a hit man to grease some guy, you don't call it a contract with said guy, you call it a contract ON him), architect of the Neocon Revolution. And I'm thinking: "Yes! Now, in light of all the things that have been happening lately - the economy, the war, the food crisis, the back room approval of torture - you can get in some really good jabs, maybe even land a knockdown or two." And he set it up pretty well, showing a clip of Justice Antonin Scalia insisting, with a straight face, that 'torture' isn't 'punishment' (as, get this, part of his "charm offensive." I have lived too long.)

And what do they talk about? Obama's former minister.



WHAT?!?!??!?!



I know, I know - these things are vetted and scripted, or at least outlined. But this was the best outline you could get Gingrich to agree to as he's hawking his new co-authored novel about WWII? Really??

It's not that I don't have my problems with Reverend Wright, who seems extra special self-serving these days. It's not that I don't think it's fair for a Republican to kick the Democrats while they scuffle and scorn. It's not that I don't already have a HUGE issue with this sense among progressives that watching satire on TV is some kind of substitute for real activism. But Jon, if you're gonna hold a satire party and invite a pig, don't forget the meat fork.

The thing that may be bothering me most is that a lot of people would consider me a wing nut for thinking that the fact (fact, people, there's evidence, and they all admitted it) that the Vice President, Secretary of Defense, National Security Advisor and a room full of others, with the President's knowledge, got together and mapped out/approved of processes of torture - I'm sorry, "extreme methods" - that would be conducted by American Soldiers might be, oh, I don't know, MORE IMPORTANT than Bittergate, and who does what shots in what bars, and who eats what kind of cheesesteaks.

Yet there it is, all over the "liberal media": proof, time and again, that accountability, analysis and critical thinking are not part of the game.

Work with me folks. I think it's time to rewrite the rule book.

Body Sushi

Ok, I was scanning the interweb for some more information on Aliza Svartz, the Yale student who created a performance art piece that claimed to involve inseminating herself then intentionally inducing miscarriages by eating legal 'abortifacient herbs'. She wasn't really doing any such thing, it turns out. Or maybe she was; she likes to keep the question open. I'll be happy to engage you if you want, but my brief overall take: it was definitely a clever way to stir up some controversy by tweaking a bunch of the right wing's hot buttons: 'those elitist Ivy Leaguers,' 'liberal sluts,' 'wanton abortionists,' 'Godless East Coasters,' not to mention 'performance artists' in general, and successfully provocative - while disingenuously pretending not to be - but I'm not seeing it having done a whole lot to draw attention to real right-to-choice issues. Though maybe I'm wrong; I so often am.

Anway, while I was perusing the world wide grid, I found this little tidbit about Body Sushi, or nyotaimori, in Minneapolis. Yup, that'd be eating sushi using an (almost) naked body as a plate.


My first thought was of some of my peeps in the good ol' Midwest. "Well dang, I'd figure to see that kind of thing in New York or San Francisco (aka Barack Hussein Osama bin Laden Godless Bittertown Radical Feminazi Hippie Food Co-op Homoville), but out here in Minnesota?!" And then I had one of those little "can this be an ok sort of sex positive thing, or do I automatically need to get upset about body objectification and such?" inner monologues. The fact that (unlike in most places where Body Sushi happens, which overwhelmingly favor female models - to the extent that I coudn't find a single male image in my search) this Minneapolis nyotaimori-torium has both men and women as human platters helps me, um, swallow it.


So, whadya think? Most of you would agree that if you want to eat sushi or sardines or ice cream off your spouse's, lover's or roommate's naked bod in the privacy of your home (not that there's any such thing as privacy anymore, but that's another box of wine), that's a right granted you by the deity of your choice. How 'bout spending a bucketload of money to eat raw fish off a well-paid model in a restaurant? (And I personally find it amusing that the establishment in this particular article is called 'Temple') How about the notion of reinforcing racial stereotypes (the exotic sexualized 'otherness' of Japan, and Asia in general)? Is that diluted/assuaged by the fact that the models at Temple appear to be Midwesterners? Just don't try to claim that this is primarily a 'high end dining' experience, not a sexual one, or you'll get laughed out of the discussion.

Just some more stuff to make you go "hmm..."

uptown/downtown

The argument over whether uptown or downtown yields better art/entertainment is essentially a pretty boring one: uptown art is reputedly commercial, and crassly so, whereas downtown art is presumed to be edgy and authentic. Or: uptown art is professional, highly skilled and attentive to its audience while the downtown variety is shabby, amateurish and self-absorbed.

As it happens, the cliches are true sometimes, but not all the time (shocking!), and that both good and bad stuff happens in both areas, uptown and downtown having as much to do with attitude as geography, especially since much of what used to be 'downtown' Manhattan has all-but-utterly commercialized and much of the exciting new work is being done in the outer boroughs and (gasp!) New Jersey. Yes, there has always been a bunch of crap happening on Broadway, trite, thoughtless pablum aimed at the lowest imaginable common denominator; but there are also fantastic productions put on by true artists, brilliant playwrights and some of the best acting in the English speaking world. And the downtown scene is full of posers who create intentionally oblique nonsense and couldn't put two coherent thoughts together on a bet; but it also provides some of the most adventurous, exciting and vital work I've ever seen. My personal pet peeves from working in the worlds of conventional and experimental theater extend to the stick-up-the-ass cowardice of some of the decision-makers in the more commercial environments, and the crazy disorganization and overwhelming disregard for people's time in the fringy stuff (ok, ok - maybe an inflated sense of respect for scheduling does smack of the patriarchal, but that whole thing about never starting rehearsal on time gets old. Really.)

This all returns us to the shows I started writing about last week. Rock 'n' Roll was one more example of Tom Stoppard bringing it all back home with a team of top-notch artists at the top of their game. The central trio of Rufus Sewell, Brian Cox and Sinead Cusack are impressive in a way you just don't get to see very often. Damn Brits.

And the play itself is one of those shows that you walk away from smarter than when you walked in that night. Don't know much about the history of Communism in Czechoslovakia? You will. Unclear about the progression of British intellectual thought on the subject of the Party before and after the '68 invasion? Serving of mental Windex, live on stage. Wait a minute, wait a minute: you think those subjects might be boring? The use of rock and pop music to tie the scenes to the culture of the time and place isn't sugar to help it go down; it's a dramatic framework that makes an essential connection between popular expression and political environment. The fact that it's an irresistible musical element is a pretty bitchen bonus though.

Couple quick questions: might the show have benefited from some more truly underground or radical music? Not to take anything away from the Stones, Dylan or Pink Floyd, but I'm guessing there were more radical/less 'classic rock' musical forces at play in Prague, as there surely were in London. The Velvet Underground is a little closer to a counter-cultural phenomenon, and The Plastic People of the Universe certainly fit the bill. Maybe it wouldn't have been worth the time to introduce bands that would have required explanation, but I wonder if this uptown play could have used some more downtown sounds to illustrate its points. And where was the Zappa?! Not only was he important to the London scene, and absolutely integral to the Czech scene, his music spurred the very name of The Plastic People of the Universe, and, with the Velvets, was their most important influence both musically and theatrically. He was barely mentioned in the show, and not one note of his music was used. Why not?

And the mention of that musical artist who below-the-belted his way to a permanent spot in the fringe pantheon brings me back to The Nutcracker: Rated R. What a fun show! Not polished to a shiny gleam, the rough edges were part of the point, kinda like the sharp edge of a broken bottle. The fantasy of a bourgeois girl in this version of the Tchaikovsky ballet takes a turn through pre-Giuliani (and mostly pre-Dinkins) New York of the 80s (or at least someone's version of the 80s). Some creative variations on the music were employed, and the dancing had raw energy that got through to the packed audience.

There was a nasty line in the cold for the box office, in spite of our having bought tix in advance online, that I'd have liked to avoid (ah, the downside of downtown). But I digress. The show was worth the wait, however aggravating. Good primal energy in service of good arty entertainment. The sexuality could have gone farther without crossing any dangerous line (and this show sort of tempts one to cross dangerous lines - at the very least, it advertises itself as 'R-rated' ) but they delved into different dance forms and style choices with exuberant abandon, and made living contact with the audience that, well, that you don't always get.
Not so sure about the pat anti-drug message-y kind of resolution. (Did you know that coke can give you a sense of euphoria and energy to party all night? But that then it might kill you? I know, so did everyone else.) But they had to end it one way or another, and those after-school specials were part of the 80s too. There were some sound problems early on in the performance I saw, which caused the company to stop for repairs and start over, but I actually think the way they handled it was pretty perfect, and if anything juiced the dancers up to give a little extra on this cold and rainy matinee day. Way to have a show ready to weather any storm. Good luck bringing it back next year!