Garofalo Joins “24”

Ken AshfordPopular CultureLeave a Comment

20070313garofalo1"24", the TV show that has caused the uber-right to air-punch with their fists and shout "America, Fuck Ya!" had a lackluster season last year.  Apparently, there wasn’t enough torture porn for its rabid fan base.

So what do they do?  They make it all touchy-feely liberal

First, they cast Cherry Jones as the President.  That’s right, a woman President (played by a lesbian actress, no less).

Then, they announced a plot-line that dealt with global warming.

And now they’ve added Janeane Garofalo to the cast.

Rightwing reaction:

Reihl World View: I could tolerate 24 going carbon neutral as part of Fox’s corporate nonsense, but Janeane Garofalo?? Janeane Garo-friggin’-falo …

Urban Grounds: "I’ve seen every episode of all 6 seasons of 24. But I’ll never watch another episode again… Janeane Garofalo? Are you fucking kidding me? She is one of the most vile, hate-filled, and divisive personalities in the entertainment industry. And that’s really saying something.  Why don’t they hire Rosie O’Donnell too and just bury the show proper?"

Balloon Juice: "A woman President and environmental concerns were bad enough. Now they have Michael Moore in a dress on the show."

Blogs4Bauer: "Was Carrottop busy?"

Hmmm.  Maybe I’ll watch it this season…

What Is Intolerance?

Ken AshfordSex/Morality/Family ValuesLeave a Comment

James Kerchick, a gay conservative, writes an editorial about his latest break-up.  The reason was because his lover couldn’t deal with the author’s conservative values.  So he writes:

So much for dating a proud, progressive, and ostensibly tolerant liberal. But with him, as with other liberals I know, tolerance does not always extend to appreciating someone else’s differing political views.

Others have addressed this comment, but I have to add my own views.

Kerchick is employing a very misguided and underhanded tactic here by bastardizing the word "tolerance".  He criticizes the "tolerant left" by arguing that the left is hypocritical — that the left is, when it comes right down to it, intolerant.

The flaw in Kerchick’s logic is that he assumes that "tolerance" means mindlessly embracing things with which we disagree.  It’s a fake definition, prompting people like Amanda Marcotte to ask: "Should feminists prove our ‘tolerance’ by handing out hand jobs at KKK rallies?"

The answer, of course, is ‘no’.  I am not tolerant of the KKK, I am not tolerant of the use of torture, I am not tolerant of indifference to AIDS, I am not tolerant of violent religious extremism, I am not tolerant of a lot of things.  But to my mind, this does not make me "intolerant" — it is merely (I hope) "tolerant of everything except intolerance".

There is a very interesting discussion in the comments section to Kathy G’s post on the Kerchick column (at Ezra Klein’s site) about how and whether differing values (especially political values) make for poison in personal relationships.  For myself, I know I can date a conservative person, or a person of a different religious persuasion, or whatever, and still respect her viewpoints.  That standing alone is not a problem.

But with everything, when one’s values dictate their actions, it makes things more difficult.  Take for example, this comment:

I probably wouldn’t be able to successfully date a very devout Roman Catholic (it’s not come up yet) because I would disagree with a number of their beliefs surrounding sexual intimacy and birth control. That’s not because I am intolerant of Roman Catholicism. Condoms are just non-negotiable for me.

The commenter there clearly is not expressing intolerance of the Roman Catholic faith per se, but the expression of that faith in action (the reluctance for birth control use) for that particular person within the context of a relationship.

The block quote above demonstrates that tolerance has a societal component, and a personal component.  Liberals espouse tolerance has a societal and political virtue, and indeed it is.  Conservatives on the other hand — especially social conservatives — have possess no such social value (go to a conservative website, and it’s a screed of intolerance — for atheists, for immigrants, for gays, etc.). 

But it is quite another thing on a personal level.  I’m tolerant of (and an advocate for) gay rights, but just because I won’t sleep with men doesn’t make me "intolerant" of gays.  Why is this so hard for the Kerchicks of the world to understand?

I Can’t Believe My Tax Dollars Pay This Guy’s Salary

Ken AshfordRight Wing Punditry/Idiocy, Sex/Morality/Family ValuesLeave a Comment

Dr. Mike Adams, Townhall columnist and moron:

Welcome to UNC-Wilmington! My name is Dr. Adams and you are enrolled in CRJ 105 (Introduction to Criminal Justice). If you are in the wrong class, please get up and leave now – unless you’re majoring in Women’s Studies in which case you would be ostracized for leaving now. And, by the way, if you dislike bad puns you should also consider leaving this class.

***

If you are gay and engaging in anal sex, it is unlikely that you will ever see the words “anal sex” listed among the risk factors for contracting AIDS in any campus publication anywhere.

Uh, Mike?

Ah, These Kids Today…

Ken AshfordRandom Musings1 Comment

Benoit College has published its annual "mindset" list — the list that reflects certain truisms about the incoming college freshman class.  Everytime I read this list, I feel like an old fogie.

For example, here’s some things to know about the Class 0f 2011 (those born in 1989):

  • They never “rolled down” a car window.
  • They have grown up with bottled water.
  • Rap music has always been mainstream.
  • Half of them may have been members of the Baby-sitters Club.
  • Being “lame” has to do with being dumb or inarticulate, not disabled.
  • Stadiums, rock tours and sporting events have always had corporate names.
  • MTV has never featured music videos.
  • They never saw Johnny Carson live on television.
  • The World Wide Web has been an online tool since they were born.

Feel old?

John Adams: A Music Review

Ken AshfordPopular CultureLeave a Comment

I haven’t blogged much lately, mostly because I don’t have much to blog about.  I haven’t been paying attention to the news.  My guess is that things are relatively the same as always: a hurricane, a shuttle which may or may not land, some ’08 candidate saying something stupid… am I right?

But I did want to write my review of a John Adams composition.

Now, I had never heard of John Adams until late last week.  I happened to hear him interviewed on NPR’s "Here and Now".  He is a classical music composer, which is interesting enough.  I mean, classical music composers are supposed to be dead and/or writing for movies.  But Adams is a real composer.  Unfortunately, modern classical music ("modern classical"?) is that dreadful atonal repetitive minimalism stuff.  Like Phillip Glass.

But the Adams interview struck me for a couple of reasons.  First of all, he wrote the opera "Nixon in China", which I had heard much about.  Secondly, he won the Pulitzer Prize for music in 2003 for his composition On the Transmigration of Souls, a choral work commemorating the victims of September 11.  I had heard it before, and actually kind of liked it. 

Lastly and most importantly, I learned that he grew up in my home town of Concord, NH, AND he composed a piece about it.

Well, I had to check it out.

I finally found the composition on his album "My Father Knew Charles Ives".  The work on this album is decribed as "the Ivesian mix of programmatic suggestion and spiritual transcendence".  Wow.  My hometown?

So I downloaded it from iTunes and gave it a listen.  Would the piece evoke memories of the idyllic town I grew up in?

Well, here’s the long short of it.  I don’t know about an "Ivesian mix of programmatic suggestion and spiritual transcendence".  And my musically eclectic tastes are admittedly lowbrow at times.  But that said, it was AWFUL.

The piece ("Concord"), a portion of which you can hear here, basically has two sections to it:

The first section evoked images that had nothing to do with Concord as I remember it.  I hoped for something Appalachian Spring-ish, conveying a sense of autumn trees and wind and childhood whimsy. 

But upon hearing it, all I could envision was a post-apocalyptic nightmare. 

Imagine, if you will, those orcs from Lord of the Rings. Now, imagine them walking around Dachau, defecating on the burnt bodies of Holocaust victims, as the sky is red with fire and smoke.  Now imagine the soundtrack to go with that.  That was the first section of "Concord".

Pretty bad.

The second section was more uplifting, with the addition of more brass and a hurdy-gurdy carnival feel to it.  But random.  Oh, so random.

I can only describe it to you by proposing the following experiment:

Take a cassette tape of Leonard Bernstein’s "An American in Paris" and "On The Town".  Cut the tape into one inch sections, creating a pile of thousands of little pieces.  Now take those pieces and throw them up in the air.  Then, gather them up, and splice them back together in whatever order you choose.  Put in a cassette play (remember those?) and hit "play".

That’s the second section of "Concord".

Nothing against Adams.  I really do like On the Transmigration of Souls and his Tromba Ionata — which I had heard before (you can hear some here) — is a well-deserved classic.  But his piece inspired by my hometown?  Well, it just made me want to kill myself.  I didn’t even dare listen to "The Lake", a piece inspired by Lake Winnepasaukee.

Bug: The Reviews

Ken AshfordLocal Interest1 Comment

It’s a hit(?)  The Winston-Salem Journal writes a review of Bug.  Largely a plot synopsis, but — s’okay — it’s a positive:

“Buckle up and brace yourself … ”

So begins the recording that callers will hear when they dial Theatre Alliance for reservations to its latest production: a play by Tracy Betts called Bug, which opened last night in Dunn Auditorium.

The advertising is true. Patrons should prepare to be unsettled at every turn, for nothing is ever quite what it seems in this tension-filled, slyly comic and occasionally gross science-fictionlike drama. One thing is certain: bugs definitely bite two characters in a seedy motel room outside Oklahoma City.

The two characters are Agnes (Kelly Wallace), a 44-year-old drug-abusing woman who is making the motel her home until her lesbian friend R.C. (Cheryl Ann Roberts) introduces her to Peter (Mark March). It doesn’t take long for Peter to move into the room and then into Agnes’ bed. When he does, the bugs appear and grow in number and ferocity, as does the flow of blood from the bites and self-inflicted surgery. The bugs might live under Peter’s skin or they might live under his tooth. Who or what is responsible? Peter or the military?

Peter might be an AWOL veteran of the Gulf War. And he might be the victim of some diabolical government experiment. He might have lost his marbles, or he might be perfectly sane.

Agnes may have “lost” her son when he was taken from her in a supermarket six years ago. And she may be hiding out from an abusive former husband, Jerry Goss (Don Gunther). And is Dr. Sweet (Ken Ashford) treating Peter for delusional paranoia or is he in cahoots with something the government would prefer you’d never know?

Strong acting, particularly by Wallace and March, contributes to a pacing that is just right in Jamie Lawson’s staging. And however improbable some of the play’s content may seem, we gain a greater appreciation of a way of living most of us haven’t seen and likely never will.

It’s difficult not to sympathize with Agnes: If you’re as lonely, desperate and scared as Agnes is, drugs and booze and maybe a man, any man, become your escape.

Friends who have seen the show seem to enjoy it, as their clearly unbiased blog entries attest…

Emily Mark, now with Blogger (which is good because we get pictures) sez:

I was a little wary of seeing this show, as I’d read the script before and didn’t particularly care for it and I’d seen the movie, which was awful. The five actors in this production, however, changed my feeling on the story. I enjoyed the stage play quite a bit. All of the roles were very well-played, and there is a particularly stunning death scene at the end of the show played with utter poignancy and spot-on accuracy by our own Ken Ashford. I was most impressed by how each of the actors found the humor in each of their characters. Michael Caine says a good actor always finds the humor in his scenes, even when they’re incredibly dramatic. Each of these actors found those particular moments and it made for an excellent opening night. Special kudos go to Kelly Wallace (as Agnes White) and Mark March (as Peter Evans) for not only playing their characters beautifully, but for remembering all those freakin’ lines! Bravo!!

Is it any wonder I, like the rest of the world, am madly in love with Emily?

Heather Maggs, the other platoon leader of the Schmancy Purse Brigade, writes:

I went to go see the Theatre Alliance of Winston-Salem’s production of Bug last night and I was pleasantly surprised to be absolutely entralled the entire performance. I am not someone who is usually interested in non-musicals. They just don’t entertain me. However, this was one of the most well acted performances I have seen in the Triad and the realism was what shocked and astounded me. The play centers around a waitress living in a seedy Oklahoma City motel and trying to avoid her abusive ex-husband. One night her good friend, RC, shows up with a man she just met and trying to talk the waitress, Agnes, into going to a party. When Agnes refuses, the mysterious man asks if he can stay with her. He ends up staying the night at the hotel and as their relationship develops, they have sex. Later that night, the man, Peter, wakes up with a bug crawling on him and there begins a series of questions to which there are no answers and even if there were, you aren’t sure you would want to know them. Peter continues to see the bugs as they infest his body and the hotel room. Other characters can’t see them. At first, Agnes can’t but then she can. In a dizzy spiral of what is either delusional paranoia or the unraveling of a sick government experiment, the story of Bug unfolds. I won’t give away the story, but for every bit that this scenerio sounds far-fetched, the actors carry it through with 100% believablity. There is not one weak performance and there is no one person deserving of more praise than another. Kelly Wallace is a powerful lead as Agnes and Mark March more than matches her energy as Peter. Cheryl Ann Roberts and Ken Ashford have two of the more stunning scenes: one of which features a shocking death and the other a head-to head showdown between two "realities." I can not for the life of me remember the name of the actor who played Agnes’s ex-husband, but menacing doesn’t even begin to describe his portrayal. I was physically and emotionally disturbed each time he was present on stage, part of that can also be contributed to Kelly Wallace’s fine acting. Jamie Lawson does a bang-up job directing this difficult piece while Jeff Driver’s set is a force all its own. The stage crew got to have a lot of fun with this show, I can tell!

Please go see this show. It will not only leave you questioning, but you will find surprising moments of laughter.

I’m glad Heather liked this.  Like me, she’s a psych major, and therefore kind of intrigued by the dark side of human psychosis.  Some people don’t like going to the theater for a mindfuck, but I had a feeling Heather would be into that.

Soldiers Write: Are We Winning?

Ken AshfordIraqLeave a Comment

In a fascinating and extremely well-written piece in the NY Times, a bunch of grunts get together and discuss the situation on the ground. Some selected excerpts:

To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day.

***

Given the situation, it is important not to assess security from an American-centered perspective. The ability of, say, American observers to safely walk down the streets of formerly violent towns is not a resounding indicator of security. What matters is the experience of the local citizenry and the future of our counterinsurgency. When we take this view, we see that a vast majority of Iraqis feel increasingly insecure and view us as an occupation force that has failed to produce normalcy after four years and is increasingly unlikely to do so as we continue to arm each warring side.

***

At the same time, the most important front in the counterinsurgency, improving basic social and economic conditions, is the one on which we have failed most miserably. Two million Iraqis are in refugee camps in bordering countries. Close to two million more are internally displaced and now fill many urban slums. Cities lack regular electricity, telephone services and sanitation. “Lucky” Iraqis live in gated communities barricaded with concrete blast walls that provide them with a sense of communal claustrophobia rather than any sense of security we would consider normal.

In a lawless environment where men with guns rule the streets, engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act. Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages. As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, “We need security, not free food.”

In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal.

Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.

I’m sure the war cheeleaders, particularly those in the right blogosphere, are going to attack these soldiers personally.  Watch the ugliness.

Tony C: A Life Too Short

Ken AshfordRed Sox & Other Sports2 Comments

TonyconigliaroIt will be 40 years ago today that Red Sox slugger and Boston legend Tony Conigliaro was hit below the left eye by a pitch from the California Angels’ Jack Hamilton, shattering his cheekbone, severely damaging his vision, and derailing a career that seemed destined to end in the Baseball Hall of Fame.

At the time, he was only 22, but was the youngest player in baseball to rack up 100 home runs.  He still holds the MLB record for most home runs (25) hit by a teenage player.

A year and a half later, Conigliaro made a remarkable return, hitting 20 homers with 82 RBI in 141 games. It was the comeback that made him legendary.

In 1970, he reached career-high numbers in HRs (36) and RBI (116). After a stint with the Angels in 1971, he returned to the Red Sox briefly in 1975, but was forced to retire because his eyesight had been permanently damaged. He suffered permanent brain damage from the beaning.

On January 3, 1982 Conigliaro, in Boston to interview for a broadcasting position, suffered a heart attack while being driven to the airport by his brother Billy. Shortly thereafter, he suffered a stroke and lapsed into a coma. Conigliaro remained in basically a vegetative state until his death more than 8 years later. In February, 1990 he died in Salem, Massachusetts at 45-years-old.

Fenway Park features a new section of bleachers for the 2007 season, called ‘Conigliaro’s Corner’, in honor of him.

Bug Plug [Bumped and Promoted Post]

Ken AshfordLocal InterestLeave a Comment

Advanced sales not what they should be.

C’mon, people.  This is a good show.  Yeah, I know.  "Eeeeeew.  But it’s about bugs!!  Who wants to see a play about bugs?!?"

Look, it ain’t about bugs.  I mean, it deals with bugs superficially, but it is about love, loss, fear, paranoia.  It’s a mystery in the tradition of Lost and X-Files — and a dark comedy — all rolled into one.  And best of all, it will ENGAGE you.  You will leave the theater arguing with your friends, theorizing about who/what was good/evil, and even wondering if you all saw what you thought you saw.

Outstanding performances by Kelly Wallace, Mark March, and the supporting cast.  Nicely detailed set by Jeff Driver.

Seriously, Underdog will be on video in a few months, and you can see it then (although you probably already know what you’re in for without seeing it).  But this is a show you will think about for some time to come.

August 17-19 & 24-26, 2007
Performed at SECCA, 750 Marguerite Street, Winston Salem
All shows at 8 pm, except Sundays at 2 pm.

FOR INFORMATION CALL 336.768.5655

Buglogo

P.S.  Theater is air-conditioned….

UPDATE:  Via Kelly, life imitates art:

Powered by AOL Video

Venturing Into Economic Waters

Ken AshfordEconomy & Jobs & DeficitLeave a Comment

Okay, I’m really in no position to voice an opinion about economic things [UPDATE:  Maybe I should read this primer], but I’m going to anyway.

From what I understand (and let me repeat the caveat — I don’t claim to have a mastery of this), the reason for the economic jitters and stock market decline is because of the subprime mortgage market.  Basically, for years, it was really easy to get lending for a home — lenders didn’t even really bother to check the credit of those who borrowed money to finance (or re-finance) a home.

How the credit squeeze is on, and people are unable to meet their mortgage payments.  And the holders of these mortgages now find themselves trying to collect money from people with bad credit — people who should not have been given such gracious loans in the first place.  We even see the possibility that home lenders are on the verge of going belly up.

So what does the fed do?  It lowers the interest rate.  And the market is up 300 points this morning.

But why would the fed do that?  Shouldn’t the market correct itself?  Isn’t this what the whole Adam Smith "free hand" is about?  Companies that lent to credit-risky people should not be "bailed out" in this way — they should be made to learn their lesson and take the economic hit.

Right?

Or am I missing something?