Fall Broadway Preview

Ken AshfordPopular CultureLeave a Comment

MSNBC has a nice-roundup, which I now rip-off:

Here are our choices for the best bets:

Heartbreak House
The Roundabout Theatre Company is known for mounting strong shows for discerning theatergoers, so this flashback from Theatre Studies 101 may turn out very well. Swoosie Kurtz stars in this adaptation of the George Bernard Shaw classic about love, war and disappointment. Note: Think Oscar Wilde’s "The Importance of Being Earnest," only not so funny. (Opens Sept. 15, American Airlines Theatre, roundabouttheatre.org)

A Chorus Line
They just don’t make them like they used to. With just 17 dancers on stage, this classic’s reappearance is a singular sensation of dancing and singing—a musical lover’s musical without a single flying car or crashing chandelier. Note: The original “Chorus Line” was on Broadway for 15 years, making it not only Broadway’s longest-running show, but this season’s new holy grail—sorry "Spamalot." (Opens Sept. 18, The Schoenfeld Theatre, achorusline.com)

Dr. Seuss’ How the Grinch Stole Christmas!
Forget about the "Radio City Music Hall Christmas Spectacular"—Whoville is coming to the stage in a no-expense-spared extravaganza. This is the one to see if the kid in you loved the book, the TV special and the movie, not to mention special effects on stage. Note: "The Grinch" is a limited run for the holidays with the closing currently scheduled for Jan. 7. (Opens Oct. 8, The Hilton Theatre, thegrinchmusical.com)

Mary Poppins
Disney is at it again with its fifth Broadway musical. So, break out the piggy bank and bring the kids for what’s sure to be the family-friendly sensation of the year (and—given that “Aida,” “Beauty and the Beast,” “Tarzan” and “The Lion King” are all still running—many, many years to come). Note: This one comes to us after a smash-run in London. Rumor has it, it’s “supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.” (Opens Oct. 14, New Amsterdam Theatre, marypoppins.com)

The Coast of Utopia
Tom Stoppard’s trilogy about Russian intellectuals promises to be a highbrow and hilarious romp, because well, who else could make a three-part play on Russian intellectuals both watchable and funny? If you’re just not up to seeing all three parts, don’t feel bad. Just go see a single chapter … each one is self-contained. Note: It stars Billy Crudup and Ethan Hawke—both tremendous stage actors. (Opens Oct. 17, Vivian Beaumont Theater, LCT.org)

Butley
Nathan Lane returns to Broadway (without Matthew Broderick) as an acerbic professor having a very bad day in the title role. Note: This will be one of the hardest tickets in town to get, and it’s a limited run, so get thee to telecharge.com. (Opens Oct. 26, The Booth Theatre, booth-theatre.com)

A Vertical Hour
Julianne Moore’s Broadway debut is directed by Sam Mendes—need we say more? Note: This is a world premiere written by David Hare and a strong contender for best play come Tony time. (Opens Nov. 30, The Music Box Theatre, newyorkcitytheatre.com)

The Latest On Spinach

Ken AshfordHealth CareLeave a Comment

SpinachThe FDA’s latest announcement:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will continue to provide the public with regular updates on the E. coli O157:H7 outbreak each day until further notice.

Case Reports
To date, 109 cases of illness due to E. coli infection have been reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), including 16 cases of Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome (HUS) and one death. Illnesses continue to be reported to CDC. This is considered to be an ongoing investigation.

Symptoms of E. coli O157:H7 Illness
E. coli O157:H7 causes diarrhea, often with bloody stools. Although most healthy adults can recover completely within a week, some people can develop a form of kidney failure called HUS. HUS is most likely to occur in young children and the elderly. The condition can lead to serious kidney damage and even death.

States Affected
There are 19 confirmed states: California, Connecticut, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Consumer Advice
FDA advises consumers to not eat fresh spinach or fresh spinach-containing products until further notice.
If individuals believe they may have experienced symptoms of illness after consuming fresh spinach or fresh spinach-containing products, FDA recommends that they seek medical advice.

See also their hellpful Spinach-Ecoli FAQ.

I don’t know about you, but I spent the better part of the weekend throwing out all my fresh spinach and fresh spinach-containing products.

A Pop Quiz For Constitution Day

Ken AshfordConstitutionLeave a Comment

Yay!  Today is Constitution Day!  In late 2004, Congress passed a law (118 Statute 2809, 334-45 [§ 111]) mandating that "each educational institution that receives federal funds for a fiscal year shall hold an educational program on the United States Constitution on September 17 of such year for the students served by the educational institution."

The reason why today is Constitution Day (and not yesterday, the 17th) is because we don’t have national hoildays on Sunday.

So it’s time to test your knowledge of the Constitution, in a pop quiz by the Chronicle For Higher Education.  (Answers are below the fold)…

1. The Constitution was drafted in the summer of 1787 by:

  1. A multicultural body that reflected the broad diversity of America of the day, including women, Native Americans, free African-Americans, and slaves
  2. 55 white, privileged Protestant men
  3. 54 white, privileged Protestant men and one slightly confused white Catholic male thrown in for good measure
  4. Moses

2. Who believed that the American Constitution should be set aside and rewritten every generation?

  1. The liberal senator from Massachusetts
  2. Nikita Khrushchev
  3. Satan
  4. Thomas Jefferson

3. What are the first words of the Constitution?

  1. "Oh say can you see"
  2. "Yo, peeps"
  3. "We, the People"
  4. "In the beginning"

4. Where is the Constitution?

  1. In the National Archives
  2. In the Oval Office wastebasket
  3. In an undisclosed secure location
  4. In Senator Byrd’s pocket

5. Who engrossed the Constitution?

  1. Activist Supreme Court justices
  2. Franklin D. Roosevelt
  3. Jacob Shallus, the Engrosser
  4. Dolley Madison

6. Article One, Section Eight enumerates the explicit powers of Congress. Included is the power to "regulate commerce … among the several states." That power to regulate interstate commerce authorizes Congress to:

  1. Do anything it wants
  2. Do virtually nothing
  3. Do anything it wants except ban the carrying of automatic weapons in the vicinity of public schools
  4. All of the above

7. Article One, Section Eight further declares that it falls to Congress "to declare war." This means:

  1. Congress may cravenly delegate its war-making powers to the president.
  2. Congress may cravenly delegate its war-making powers to the president.
  3. Congress may cravenly delegate its war-making powers to the president.
  4. All of the above

8. Article Two stipulates that "no person except a natural-born citizen" can be president. As a consequence:

  1. No one born by cesarean can be president.
  2. Progeny of alien insemination cannot be president.
  3. Those born in Guantánamo Bay prison must take their case before the Supreme Court.
  4. Arnold Schwarzenegger is out of luck.

9. Article Two stipulates that the president will appoint judges of the Supreme Court with the "advice and consent of the Senate." This means:

  1. Senators may ask a nominee questions about everything except what he or she believes the Constitution means.
  2. Senators may ask a nominee any question but mustn’t expect the nominee to remember any of his/her opinions about any contested legal issue debated in the last 30 years.
  3. Senators may ask any question as long as it does not bear on any legal memos, articles, or decisions drafted by the nominee in the last 30 years.
  4. The president will advise, and the Senate will consent.

10. Those who believe the Constitution should be interpreted according to the original intentions of the framers overlook the fact that:

  1. The framers failed to leave behind complete records by which all their intentions could be reconstructed.
  2. Different framers had different views, making it impossible to speak of a univocal intent of the framers regarding almost anything.
  3. Society has so evolved that it is absurd to speak of the framers’ intentions with respect to the constitutionality of electronic wiretaps, copyright issues governing digital media, stem-cell research, and other matters of great import today.
  4. The leading framers intended that their specific intentions should not control future interpretations of the Constitution.
  5. All of the above

11. The Ninth Amendment states that "the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The Supreme Court has treated that language as:

  1. The constitutional foundation for a broad range of unenumerated rights
  2. Excluding the right to be free from indoctrination about the Constitution on September 17 of each year
  3. Irrelevant
  4. Embarrassing

12. The 14th Amendment guarantees the equal protection of the laws. This means:

  1. States are empowered to adopt a broad range of affirmative-action programs in order to deliver on the Constitution’s promise of equality.
  2. States are forbidden from adopting affirmative-action programs because these make hash of the Constitution’s promise of equality.
  3. Both a and b
  4. It all depends on Justice Kennedy.

Read More

Friday iPod Random Ten

Ken AshfordRandom MusingsLeave a Comment

CassetteLight blogging today because Typepad seems to be on the fritz.

  1. Thriller (Live) – Toxic Audio
  2. Generals And Majors – XTC
  3. Put On Your Sunday Clothes – Hello Dolly (motion picture soundtrack)
  4. Circle Game – Joni Mitchell & James Taylor
  5. Leave It Open – Kate Bush
  6. Daydream Believer – The Monkees
  7. What The World Needs Now – Jackie DeShannon
  8. Everything That Touches You – The Association
  9. Devil and the Dirk – Natalie MacMaster
  10. Don’t Ask Me Why – Billy Joel

Arm-Twisting To Get Torture Approval Letter

Ken AshfordWar on Terrorism/TortureLeave a Comment

Wow.

The Bush Administration got a bunch of JAG lawyers to "not object" to the Bush proposal to allow torture.

But as it turns out, the JAG lawyers were not all that eager to endorse Bush’s proposal, and only relented after extreme pressure from higher-ups.  From WaPo:

White House officials released a letter from senior Pentagon uniformed lawyers, who said they "do not object" to two key sections of the administration-backed bill that would reinterpret U.S. obligations under the Geneva Conventions and protect U.S. intelligence agents from war crimes prosecutions. They then summoned senators from the Armed Services and intelligence committees to an afternoon meeting with Rice and national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley. Seven attended, sources said.

The Pentagon letter immediately generated controversy. Senior judge advocates general had publicly questioned many aspects of the administration’s position, especially any reinterpreting of the Geneva Conventions. The White House and GOP lawmakers seized on what appeared to be a change of heart to say that they now have military lawyers on their side.

But the letter was signed only after an extraordinary round of negotiations Wednesday between the judge advocates and William J. Haynes II, the Defense Department’s general counsel, according to Republican opponents of Bush’s proposal. The military lawyers refused to sign a letter of endorsement. But after hours of cajoling, they assented to write that they "do not object," according to three Senate GOP sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were divulging private negotiations.

More details here.

Colin Powell Gets It

Ken AshfordWar on Terrorism/TortureLeave a Comment

“The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.”

That’s what Bush’s former Secretary of State Colin Powell says, as he joins the ranks of Senators McCain and Warner to stop the Bush attempt to legalize certain forms of torture, including waterboarding.

The Bush Administration wanted to spin this as the "fighting GOP" versus the "appeasing Democrats", but see how this is playing out? 

Here’s a hint: What do Colin Powell, Senator McCain, and Senator Warner all have in common (aside from being Republicans)?

Answer: They were all distinguished soldiers who served.  And they agree with Democrats that the Bush plan to legalize torture is (a) bad for America and (b) bad for our troops.

Here’s the latest from AP:

A rebellious Senate committee defied President Bush on Thursday and approved terror-detainee legislation he has vowed to block, deepening Republican conflict over a key issue in the middle of congressional campaigns.

Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Armed Services Committee, pushed the measure through his panel by a 15-9 vote, with Warner and three other GOP lawmakers joining Democrats. The vote set the stage for a showdown on the Senate floor as early as next week.

Earlier in the day, Bush had journeyed to the Capitol to try nailing down support for his own version of the legislation.

"I will resist any bill that does not enable this program to go forward with legal clarity," Bush said at the White House after his meeting with lawmakers.

The president’s measure would go further than the Senate package in allowing classified evidence to be withheld from defendants in terror trials, using coerced testimony and protecting U.S. interrogators against legal prosecution for using methods that violate the Geneva Conventions

The internal GOP struggle intensified along other fronts, too, as Colin Powell, secretary of state during Bush’s first administration, declared his opposition to the president’s plan.

"The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," Powell, a retired general who is also a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote in a letter.

Powell said that Bush’s bill, by redefining the kind of treatment the Geneva Conventions allow, "would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk."

Are We Winning The War On Terror?

Ken AshfordWar on Terrorism/TortureLeave a Comment

Well, I suppose that depends on how you measuse it.  Let’s look at three possible ways.

(1)  Al Qaeda

These were the guys that attacked us on 9/11.  If we’re winning the war on terror, one would hope that there are fewer of them now than there were five years ago.

A simple graph, based on recent research by the nonprofit, nonpartisan Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism, funded by the Department of Homeland Security and other government grants, provides the truth:

Alqaedamembers_2

That’s an increase of 150%.

Not to mention the fact that bin Laden hasn’t been caught yet, and the trail to find him has gone cold.  (Then again, the Bush Administration says that capturing “bin Laden doesn’t fit with the administration’s strategy for combating terrorism”, so that explains something).

So, al least by that metric, Bush cannot claim we’re winning the war on terror.

(2)  Iraq

Some say that Iraq is the central front of the war on terror.  It’s not, but let’s assume it is and see how the war is going based on that metric.  This data came out yesterday from the non-partisan GAO:

Iraq_attacks

Hmmm.  Doesn’t look good there.

(3)  What about Afghanistan?

Yeah, that was a success story in the war on terror.  The Taliban heading up that country were state sponsors of terrorism.  And we went in there can got rid of the Taliban.  Then we went to Iraq, leaving Afghanistan to, um —

Taliban_attacks

… um, make a come back.

So, to recap:

  • A 150 percent increase in the number of Al-Qaeda members in the world while we’re focused on a civil war in Iraq
  • Attacks on U.S. troops, Iraqi forces and civilians are skyrocketing, despite assurances from the White House that things are going just fine in Iraq
  • Our neglected troops in Afghanistan are facing a 1,200 percent increase in Taliban attacks and a 600 percent jump in suicide bombings.

This is all you need to know for the upcoming elections.

Iran: The New Fake Boogeyman

Ken AshfordIranLeave a Comment

Here we go again.

Last month, the GOP-run House Intelligence Committee released a report on Iran.  The report was not voted on by the full committee.

Its message?  "Ooooooh, they’re about to bomb us with a nuke!" It got a LOT of play in the press.

Surprise! It’s a fraud!

U.N. inspectors investigating Iran’s nuclear program angrily complained to the Bush administration and to a Republican congressman yesterday about a recent House committee report on Iran’s capabilities, calling parts of the document "outrageous and dishonest" and offering evidence to refute its central claims.

Officials of the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency said in a letter that the report contained some "erroneous, misleading and unsubstantiated statements."

***

Privately, several intelligence officials said the committee report included at least a dozen claims that were either demonstrably wrong or impossible to substantiate. Hoekstra’s office said the report was reviewed by the office of John D. Negroponte, the director of national intelligence.

Negroponte’s spokesman, John Callahan, said in a statement that his office "reviewed the report and provided its response to the committee on July 24, ’06." He did not say whether it had approved or challenged any of the claims about Iran’s capabilities.

"This is like prewar Iraq all over again," said David Albright, a former nuclear inspector who is president of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security. "You have an Iranian nuclear threat that is spun up, using bad information that’s cherry-picked and a report that trashes the inspectors."

The committee report, written by a single Republican staffer with a hard-line position on Iran, chastised the CIA and other agencies for not providing evidence to back assertions that Iran is building nuclear weapons.

Matt Yglesius reminds us that it was the IAEA who was right when it came to Saddam’s supposed WMDs:

After all the months of debate, lies, hype, more debate, handwringing, warmongering, exaggerations, etc. we came to the moment when IAEA inspectors were back on the ground in Iraq looking into Saddam’s nuclear program. They said there was no nuclear program. They were roundly ignored — the statement simply got no purchase in mainstream media or political circles. The war was on. Months later, everyone was scratching their heads wondering where the WMD were. Years later, people are still debating how the facts were gotten so wrong. The fact remains, though, that before the war, the IAEA was in the country saying the Bush administration was full of shit.

And now the IAEA is saying that the Bush administration is full of shit with respect to Iran.  Will they be listened to this time?

UPDATE:  Apparently not.  Look how the Washington Post treated the two stories: the House Intelligence Committee report (saying that Iran was coming to kill us) got page one treatment a few weeks ago.  The response by the UN inspectors (IAEA) today?  Page 17.

Blog_iran_report_wapo

[Graphic by Kevin Drum]

The Montreal Shooter’s Web Profile

Ken AshfordCrimeLeave a Comment

The crazed Montreal shooter was named Kimveer Gill.  He blogged at a goth site called vampirefreaks.com, under the handle Fatality666.  Don’t bother to go there — it looks like his profile and presence has been deleted.  But those who read Gill’s profile before it was removed say:

His list of ‘likes’ includes "Super Psycho Maniacs roaming the streets freely." Much of his writing is incoherent and rambly, and somewhere there is the line, "Life is a video game, you’ve got to die sometime."

12290228UPDATE:  Cached versions of his profile still exist.  Here it is.  A very scary dude.  (The pictures at the right are from his photo gallery)

His name is Kimveer. You will come to know him as Trench. He is male. He is 25 years of age. He lives in Quebec. He finds that it is an O.K place to live. He is not a people person. He has met a handfull of people in his life who are decent. But he finds the vast majority to be worthless, no good, kniving, betraying, lieing, deceptive, motherfuckers.

8565864_s"Not a people person"?  No shit.

He also writes "Life is like a video game, you gotta die sometime."  Yikes.

He also took one of the personality quizzes, some of which were prophetic.  Here’s one entitled "How F*cked Up Are You?"  The result:

WAIT THERE. We’re coming to get you now
we’ve called the guys in white coats to come and get you so dont commit a mass murder before they come or you’ll find you’ll be in there longer

8565883_sAnother personality quiz ("How Will You Die?") correctly foretold that his death would be a suicide.

Another personality test concludes: "You would most likely kill someone, so watch out Mr.anger management".

And here’s just a snippet from his long list of "likes":

Whiskey
Vodka
Beer
Marilyn Manson
First Person Shooters
Super Psycho Maniacs roaming the streets
Black Clothes
Black Everything
Night
Darkness
Cold Places
Individuality
My Knife
Blood
Ice Storms
The Crow
Frost
kittens
Black Metal
All Metal
Rain
Blizzards
Ravens
Crows
Grey Skies
Fire
Destroying My Enemies
Crushing My Enemies Skulls
Semi-Automatic Handguns
Combat Shotguns
Sawn-Off Shotguns
Assault Rifles
Hunting Knives

9937037_sAnd his dislikes?

THE WORLD AND EVERYTHING IN IT

That was one freaky dude.

RELATED: One eyewitness account to the shootings at Metroblogging Montreal.

“What’s God Like?” And Other Things

Ken AshfordGodstuffLeave a Comment

There’s a lot of interesting stuff in the recently released Baylor Religious Survey.  This is supposedly the most extensive survey of religious attitudes in America.  Specifically, the data examines such questions as:

• Just how religious is America?
• Do religious Americans favor any political party?
• How do religious Americans feel about the Iraq war?
• How does religious belief affect spending patterns in America?
• How do people’s perceptions of God affect their view of government and their religious practices?

You can find a general article about the survey here.

And although they’re still crunching the numbers, they’ve already issued one report of "selected findings", which is here (PDF format).

At one point in the report, there is a discussion about the characteristics of God, and where She/He lands on a two-dimensional scale.  On dimension measures God’s level of engagement — the extent to which God is directly involved in worldly and personal affairs.  The other dimension measures God’s level of anger toward individuals who commit sins and His tendancy toward punishment of sinners.

From these two dimensions, we get Four God types: (1) a high-engagement, high anger God (the "Authoritarian God"); (2) a high-engagement, low anger God (the "Benevolent God"); (3) a low-engagement, high anger God (the "Critical God"; and (4) the low-engagement low-anger God (the "Distant God")

4gods

From this, you can survey people as believing in one of these four gods (and a fifth category, atheism):

4godexplanation

So where do we fall as a nation?

4godgraph

But here’s some things that surface when this is cross-factored with other parts of the survey:

  • Women tend to believe in "engaged" Gods ("Authoritarian" or "Benevolent"), while men tend to believe in unengaged Gods ("Critical" or "Distant")
  • Those with less education and less income tend to believe in "engaged" Gods ("Authoritarian" or "Benevolent"), while those making over $100,000 tend to believe in a Distant God or atheism
  • Region of the country plays a factor.  Easterns trend toward a Critical God.  Southerners trend toward an Authoritarian God.  Midwesterners trend toward a Benevolent God.  Westerners trend toward a Distant God.
  • God’s anger alone seems to have no effect on people’s desire to engage in prayer or go to church.
  • Not surprisingly, those who believe in an Authoritarian God are more likely to oppose abortion in all circumstances, oppose gay marriage, support President Bush, support the Iraq War, oppose co-habitation, etc., etc.
  • Conversely, those who believe in a Critical God are more likely to favor equal distribution of wealth, affirmative action programs, and protection of the environment.
  • Another non-surprise: very few who believe in a Distant God — only 0.3% of them — think it is important to convert others.  But 21% of those who believe in an Authoritarian God think it is important to convert others.

There’s a lot of other neat little factoids spread throughout the initial report.  Most are not very surprising, but it nice to see the science.  For example:

  • Only 4% of Americans believe that God favors one political party over another

The study also takes a look at paranormal beliefs.  Here’s a look at paranormal beliefs, broken down by gender:

Parabeliefs

Anyway, there’s a lot of interesting things in there.  So if you’re browsing and bored, check it out.

From The WTF?!? Department

Ken AshfordWar on Terrorism/TortureLeave a Comment

I’ve read the same paragraphs four times now, and I still can’t believe what I’m reading:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Nonlethal weapons such as high-power microwave devices should be used on American citizens in crowd-control situations before they are used on the battlefield, the Air Force secretary said Tuesday.

Domestic use would make it easier to avoid questions in the international community over any possible safety concerns, said Secretary Michael Wynne.

”If we’re not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens, then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation,” said Wynne. ”(Because) if I hit somebody with a nonlethal weapon and they claim that it injured them in a way that was not intended, I think that I would be vilified in the world press.”

Okay.  So we should test microwave weapons on American citizens (not voluntary test subjects, mind you, but unsuspecting American citizens) before we use them on our enemies?

Why don’t they just come right out and say it: "That’s right, you buncha a lefty commie terrorist-appeasing hippies. Your next march on Washington is going to be a leetle bit painful!"

Quote Of The Day

Ken AshfordIraqLeave a Comment

Christopher Buckley (former speechwriter for Bush 41):

Bob Woodward asked Bush 43 if he had consulted his father before invading Iraq. The son replied that he had consulted “a higher father.” That frisson you feel going up your spine is the realization that he meant it. And apparently the higher father said, “Go for it!” There are those of us who wish he had consulted his terrestrial one; or, if he couldn’t get him on the line, Brent Scowcroft. Or Jim Baker. Or Henry Kissinger. Or, for that matter, anyone who has read a book about the British experience in Iraq. (18,000 dead.)