The power to move the world

Lately, I've been spending a good amount of time in the year 1968. Several of the TV Guides I've written about in the last few weeks have been from the 1967-68 period, and I've been studying some media coverage of the news events of that year, in particular the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy.

I've never been a fan of the Kennedys politically, but I have often admired their style if not their substance. John was in a class by himself, and Ted had a long life, which means that Robert has been caught somewhere in the middle. To be honest, I'd never given a great deal of thought to his impact on history, despite the fact I have clearer (if still limited) memories of his death than I do of John's.

Quite by accident, I happened to stumble onto a website that proved a treasure trove of radio coverage about RFK's assassination and funeral, which I wrote about over at the TV blog. In listening to the broadcasts, and investing some money in the accompanying television broadcasts, I came to a bit more of an appreciation of Bobby Kennedy's style, and some of the convulsive reaction to his death. There is much that is hyperbole about his life and death; for example, I don't think he would have won the Democratic nomination, much less been elected president; Hubert Humphrey was already quite close to the number of delegates needed to win, and RFK's victory over Gene McCarthy in the California primary (which Kennedy had been celebrating when he was shot) was in fact much narrower than it should have been. Many of Kennedy's most astute advisors (Lawrence O'Brien, for example) felt that he never really had a chance of winning. At most, he might have assumed the position that wound up residing with George McGovern, and in that light one can contemplate whether or not Kennedy would have given Richard Nixon a run for his money in 1972.

Kennedy speaking at the University of Cape Town, 1966

But I digress. One of the benefits of being plunged into the Kennedy phenomenon is that it's given me exposure to some quite remarkable things. Whereas Jack's gift was his charming demeanor, and Ted's was his debauchery, Bobby's appears to have been his eloquence in the written word. In 1964, introducing the JFK memorial film at the Democratic convention, he quoted Shakespeare, which was perhaps the last time anyone spoke that literately at any political convention. I excerpted one of his most famous speeches last week, one that he'd given in South Africa in 1966, and I'm going to present another, longer excerpt here in a moment. I've recordings of Kennedy giving this speech, and I'll admit it comes across with a bit more power on paper than in his delivery, which at the time was more halting, more self-conscious than it would be later on. This portion of his speech was read by Ted at Bobby's funeral, and for all the grief I've given Ted Kennedy over the years for his bloviating style, in this particular case he nailed it. The words themselves, and the phrases, carry such power that Ted's flat, emotionless delivery stays out of the way and allows one to ponder their true force. If you want to hear either Bobby or Ted delivering it, you can easily find clips on YouTube; I prefer to look at them on the page. Some comments will follow.

"There is," said an Italian philosopher, "nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things." Yet this is the measure of the task of your generation and the road is strewn with many dangers.

[M]any of the world's great movements, of thought and action, have flowed from the work of a single man. A young monk began the Protestant reformation, a young general extended an empire from Macedonia to the borders of the earth, and a young woman reclaimed the territory of France. It was a young Italian explorer who discovered the New World, and 32-year-old Thomas Jefferson who proclaimed that all men are created equal. "Give me a place to stand," said Archimedes, "and I will move the world." These men moved the world, and so can we all. Few will have the greatness to bend history; but each of us can work to change a small portion of the events, and in the total of all these acts will be written the history of this generation.

[…] It is from numberless diverse acts of courage such as these that the belief that human history is thus shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance. […]

Few men are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change the world which yields most painfully to change. […] I believe that in this generation those with the courage to enter the conflict will find themselves with companions in every corner of the world.

[There is] the temptation to follow the easy and familiar path of personal ambition and financial success so grandly spread before those who have the privilege of an education. But that is not the road history has marked out for us. There is a Chinese curse which says "May he live in interesting times." Like it or not, we live in interesting times. They are times of danger and uncertainty; but they are also the most creative of any time in the history of mankind. And everyone here will ultimately be judged -- will ultimately judge himself -- on the effort he has contributed to building a new world society and the extent to which his ideals and goals have shaped that effort.

These are timeless words, more stunning because of how applicable they are to our times. For as we've experienced the collapse of confidence in government, the contempt (most of it justified) in which politics is seen, the decay of institutions formerly held in esteem, we realize that much that is important in life has been reduced to a bare essential.

There are many ways to, as Kennedy put it, "enter the conflict." It is not necessary for us to do everything, but imperative that we do something. For one man to stand up and fight the machine, whatever that machine happens to be, may seem a futile act; it is when others see and follow that man that change becomes a possibility. But, as Kennedy says, it takes the courage to stand up - despite threats, despite ridicule, despite the loneliness and isolation that often comes from being the first one to stand up.

And the change that will happen, the change that must happen, cannot come from institutions, but must come from people acting together. When I retired from competitive politics I remarked on the single most important lesson I'd learned: you can't change the world by passing a law; you can only change it by converting hearts and minds. And it isn't done in Washington, or in some state capital; it comes in your interactions with your family, your friends and loved ones, your neighbors, your co-workers, those in your wider community. It comes in the church you attend, the organizations to which you belong, the places you spend your spare time. And all the money, all the power, all the prestige in the world doesn't mean a damn otherwise.  You can't let the standards of the world determine your definition of success, of happiness, of making a difference.

There is much lamenting within the conservative movement that the culture war is lost, that Hollywood and the media have combined to freeze out the conservative voice. There are those on all sides who decry the corruption of Big Business, of the multimillionaires that often worship at no higher altar than the bottom line; and of Big Government, and those politicians who seek only to preserve their own power and line their own pockets. And here we must exhibit the courage of which Kennedy speaks, to turn away from the wealth and power which the modern world offers, in order to take the road less traveled, one which may contain hardship and heartache but ultimately emerges triumphant.

As I said, this is a remarkable speech, and whether or not RFK was responsible in toto for writing the words, he undoubtedly believed in what they meant. One of Kennedy's contemporaries, Ronald Reagan, was even more gifted at it - unparalleled, in my opinion.  Is there anyone today who uses such words to appeal to man's higher nature with an essentially optimistic message? And if not, why not? And what does that say about us? ◙

The sad state of television today

Movie theatres have a problem when the rating of a film is “R” or “NC-17” (an X rating before 1990) because they will appeal to adults only. Restrictions against children are strictly imposed in the theatre. However, it's clear now with the proliferation of cord-cutting and Web-only viewers they can escape the restrictions of theatres. Yet, with television's “TV-MA” rating, which is the equivalent of an NC-17 (or X) rating in television, we are seeing the rewards of the R/X-class programming on television.

Consider that HBO, Showtime, and Netflix can air TV-MA grade programming, and the Emmy nominations went mostly to that triumvirate, while the broadcast networks, which have a restriction of Y7, G, PG, and some 14 after 10 PM ET, were shut out of the prestigious drama category, you have to wonder what it says when pay television, with no restrictions on content, is defeating network television, which must cater to as many people as possible.

Does it seem that television's equivalent of the R and NC-17 ratings, unlike movies, is worth artistic gold, with Emmy nominations, while network television with their PG and PG-13 ratings, are being shut down by these R and NC-17 type shows? If the Emmys believe raunchy content that's not capable of being on network television is the golden goose to earn accolades, we are in trouble.

Speaking of which, the report on Al Jazeera America's launch this week is only fitting considering Al Jazeera effectively shut down three Fox sport-related channels (Speed, Fuel, Fox Soccer) as much of their content has gone to the pan-Arabic Qatar channel (and their partners at Time Warner Cable, for legal reasons), Comcast (see the rise of NBC Sports Network), and Fox is starting a basic cable channel with the R and NC-17 type HBO/Showtime/Netflix unrestricted raunch (FXX) to replace the football channel, while replacing the motorsport and action-sports and MMA channel with general sports channels (Fox Sports 1 and 2). Already, according to a report posted on ESPN, television providers are balking at FS1 and FS2 because of the carriage fees.  [Ed: Time Warner, DirecTV and Dish have yet to sign up with FS1, and here in Dallas we're seeing the Time Warner-CBS standoff.]

It is a sad sign of what we have become when acceptance of deviancy in violation of the Bible is glorified and mandated by federal law. Now it's even worse that Hollywood and the critics are forcing on us their attitudes of grotesque material that would not have been put on television years ago. ◙

Wish I'd Written That

And even government by the consent of the governed, as in our own Constitution, must be limited in its power to act against its people: so that there may be no interference with the right to worship, but also no interference with the security of the home; no arbitrary imposition of pains or penalties on an ordinary citizen by officials high or low; no restriction on the freedom of men to seek education or to seek work or opportunity of any kind, so that each man may become all that he is capable of becoming.

These are the sacred rights of western society. These were the essential differences between us and Nazi Germany as they were between Athens and Persia.

They are the essences of our differences with communism today. I am unalterably opposed to communism because it exalts the state over the individual and over the family, and because its system contains a lack of freedom of speech, of protest, of religion, and of the press, which is characteristic of a totalitarian regime. The way of opposition to communism, however, is not to imitate its dictatorship, but to enlarge individual human freedom. There are those in every land who would label as "communist" every threat to their privilege. But may I say to you, as I have seen on my travels in all sections of the world, reform is not communism. And the denial of freedom, in whatever name, only strengthens the very communism it claims to oppose.

- Robert F. Kennedy, speech in Capetown, South Africa, June 6th 1966

It would seem to me that if we substitute the word "terrorism" for "communism," we might have a very accurate description of the state in which we find ourselves today.

More thoughts on this and other things to come. ◙

If the lockout's settled, will he win the Nobel Peace Prize?

I had a long chuckle the other night at the news that George Mitchell had been enlisted as the mediator in the dispute between the Minnesota Orchestra and its musicians.  It was partly a reflection of how far Mitchell has fallen over the years - from attempting to broker a peace settlement in the Middle East to investigating PEDs in baseball to mediating a mid-level orchestra lockout.  After he's done with this, I'd like to see if he's available to talk to our upstairs neighbors about not walking so heavily late at night.

Seriously - and I guess we're supposed to take this seriously - I'm most amused by how Mitchell is held in such awe by everyone commenting on the situation.  We'll grant at the outset that he deserves credit for his efforts to broker a peace agreement in Northern Ireland.  His efforts on the "Good Friday Agreement" were noble, and successful.  But it would be a mistake to view his entire career through that one event.

As a U.S. Senator, Mitchell was - in my opinion - a partisan hack.  He was in fact my U.S. Senator for the four years I lived in Maine, and I'm not sure I agreed with him once.  And he was partisan - the opposite of the statesman that his supports like to portray. Mind you, there's nothing wrong with being partisan; Mitchell was, after all, Senate Majority Leader. But let's not try to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse.

Mitchell's "even-handed" approach in the Middle East was a disaster, quite possibly because the Palestinians didn't want an agreement that would work for everyone - they wanted something that would work for them.  One of the chief problems with negotiating a Middle East agreement is that the two sides aren't in search of the same thing: Israel looks for an agreement that acknowledges its right to exist, while the Palestinians - to the extent that their factions are even on the same page - seem more interested in wiping Israel off the map, not reaching an agreement for co-existance.  As one commentator put it, it was Mitchell's success in Northern Ireland that ultimately led to his downfall in the Middle East - by assuming he could broker a deal because he'd already done it before, he not only naively assumed that both sides wanted the same thing, that even-handed approach actually resulted in a further Palestinian intransegence that made the agreement all but impossible.

As for his involvement with Major League Baseball, reviews on the Mitchell Report were mixed at best - nobody named in the report was convicted of much of anything (save a minor charge against Barry Bonds), and Roger Clemens was actually acquitted (although his charges were a result of his testimony before Congress, he was prominently named in the Report).  Oh, and then there was that conflict of interest thing - Mitchell was on the board of directors of the Boston Red Sox, and as it happens no active members of the Red Sox were named in the report.

So, what should we anticipate from his turn as mediator? I don't know. What I do know is that this whole farce has increased my admiration for The Onion by leaps and bounds. After all, it shows how hard it is to write satire nowadays when the whole world's stealing your punchlines. ◙

25 years...

I never thought about it until after finishing my morning workout the importance of this day.

It's the 25 year anniversary of the birth of the modern talk radio movement, when WABC and Ed McLaughlin agreed to syndicate Rush Limbaugh's radio show, originally a KFBK (Sacramento) show, nationally. Never did we know that today marks a quarter century since the revolution in radio. ◙

Why I'm uneasy about the (short-term) future of the Church

It's been a while since we've taken any time here to discuss the Pope. It's mostly a futile exercise, since nobody really cares what I think, and in any event my opinions aren't likely to change anything.*

*Until I publish my forthcoming papal novel, that is, which isn't likely to change anything either but which I'd hope might make me a lot of money and a movie deal.

Nonetheless, since I am the blog editor, I do have something of an obligation to you, the reader, to share my opinions from time to time, and this seems as good a time as any.

I make no secret that I'm troubled by the trends of the current pontificate, thought I fall into neither the trap of the traditionalists ("The sky is falling!") nor the liberals ("Everything is new again!"). That is to say there is a happy medium between the two; however, it also is to say that I probably fall on the pessimistic side of that medium, which makes me not-very-happy.

Feelings alone aren't enough to justify that unease, though; if they were, then we'd all be worshiping Oprah Winfrey. And so when I find an article that clearly articulates why I have this discomfort, I like to highlight it and pass it on. Such comes from the blog of English priest Fr. Ray Blake, who has also voiced his apprehensions on this papacy from time to time. This is, I think, one of the best articulations of a concern I share, one that continues to spread like a dark inkspot on a white shirt:

One thing that does worry me about the the present Papacy is that on the one hand the Bishop of Rome is calling for transparency, especially with regard to the IOR [Institute for Religious Works], the Vatican Bank, and yet on the other hand seems to act as if he is unconstrained by Law or custom, just like a Renaissance Prince.

Setting as a priority the clearing out of any hint of waywardness in the IOR is certainly important and it is good place to start, It is important the Church can be trusted, especially with money but transparency has to be attached to everything in the Church not just its finances.

I admit I was quite shaken by Francis' disregard for liturgical Law and washing the feet of women despite what the rubrics plainly say. The recent negation of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate's right under the rules set out by Summorum Pontificum, which gave every Latin Rite priest the ability to choose which form of the Roman Rite he wished to use, seems not only worrying but also high handed and most probably illegal, that is worrying too. Even the decision to Canonise the Blessed John XXIII without the necessary divine sign of a further miracle, and today it is reported that the Pontiff is seriously considering the Canonisation of Pius XII. These things might be good or possibly necessary or pastorally fitting or whatever you might describe them as but what is worrying is that they cut across the proper and due process of Law. There is a very serious danger of the Church being seen as a Renaissance Principality, Papa vult is not the basis of the Church's law. If the Pope wishes for transparency he cannot act like a Renaissance Prince, he too has to be subject to the Law, bending his personal desire to it, not bending the Law to his desire.

If the Church's Law is disregarded then the Church simply becomes an institution based on it earthly leader's whim. The most important role of the Pontiff or any ruler is to ensure the law is as clear as possible and immediately obvious to everyone. The Church must be 'a just society' because God is Just. If the Pope acts without due regard to the Law why can't anyone, the answer is obvious, if we do not obey the Law we become not a just society but a band of robbers. Bringing in confusion, muddying the waters, does no good whatever and in the long term destroys the Church's credibility, especially in a time when, as His Holiness tells us some pretty dramatic reforms are likely to take place.

Perhaps Francis does not feel he is a "Renaissance" pope because he doesn't style himself pope at all, preferring instead the title Bishop of Rome. We can call ourselves anything we want, of course, but that doesn't necessarily make it so, any more than tying a cape around my neck and calling myself Superman means I'm going to be able to fly once I leap off the garage roof. It can, however, tell us a great deal about the one using the words, and the words he uses. And, as Rush Limbaugh says, words mean things.

The words that this Pope uses may indeed give us a picture of the man. Were he a mere politician, I would probably accuse him of half-asseninery. Because of his office, though, he deserves more respect than that, and will get it from me. I would merely add that the sooner we realize the power of the written and spoken word, the sooner we stop trying to play a Catholic version of linguistic Twister and take these words at face value, the sooner we deal with the implications of these words, as Fr. Blake has done - the better off we'll all be. ◙

Watch your enunciation

During Fox Sports' coverage of the eni Motorrad Grand Prix Deutschland MotoGP event held at the Sachensring, Bob Varsha (who was doing voiceovers and the ensuing Speed Center that evening) was inconsistent with the proper pronunciation of injured Yamaha MotoGP star Jorge Lorenzo. The proper pronunciation was given by the star to Fox Sports in the past, and has often been the source of criticism by fans for Fox preferring to saying the Palma de Mallorca star's name in the proper accents, as he has used himself (it has the sound, as we've heard from Adam Alexander, Danielle Trotta, and Rick Allen, as “Lohrhentho”. The pronunciation is not used by the British broadcasters of the event, but is the proper Spanish pronunciation, similar to Catalian golfer Jose Maria Olazabal (“Olathabal”).

The oft-mocked Fox use of being correct to the tee as the rider says it reminded me of the conviction of an Arkansas state government official whose higher-up's name was also mispronounced by a news reader on the radio Monday morning, as I drove back from my morning workout. A state lottery official's name was improperly pronunced on-air, even though he served as a South Carolina state senator before serving as the leader of the liberal expansion of the state government via the state lottery.

What gives in journalism today?◙

Retro TV Friday

I have never stuck up for any criminal. I have merely asked for the orderly administration of an impartial justice...Due legal process is my own safeguard against being convicted unjustly. To my mind, that's government. That's law and order."

— Perry Mason, written by Erle Stanley Gardner, in The Case of the Drowsy Mosquito ◙

The empty concert hall

Although Minnesota hasn’t been my home for over a year, that doesn’t mean I haven’t kept track on some of the things going on there. And one of the stories in which I’ve been most interested is the nearly year-long lockout of the musicians of the Minnesota Orchestra. It’s been a sensational story throughout the arts community, and even the mainstream press. (This site provides a very good, concise rundown of the history of the dispute.)

I have many good memories of the Orchestra, having been a season-ticket holder for several years, so it’s natural that I should eventually have chosen to share some thoughts on it. For some time though, I hesitated over exactly what word to use to describe the situation. Not tragic; a natural disaster, a fatal illness, a dead child – that’s tragic. If not that, then, how about sad? Well, yes, it was sad in a way, but it wasn't as if my heart was broken or anything that extreme. Painful? Maybe psychically, but my back is far more painful than an orchestra lockout.

Finally I settled on unfortunate, although that seemed in some way to be a copout. Saying a situation is unfortunate is somewhat like telling a woman her dress is interesting, or that a blind date has a great personality. It’s so noncommittal that its real meaning is not what is said, but what is unsaid.

But after considering the issue*, it struck me that unfortunate is exactly what the lockout is. And my reasons for choosing the word might be just as unfortunate – or at least noncommittal. For while I am a great fan of classical music, the truth is that I do not need to have a live orchestra in order to achieve the fullest enjoyment from that music.

*And the dictionary definitions: unfavorable, inauspicious, regrettable. Or the most appropriate, perhaps: suffering from bad luck.

I hadn’t given this concept much thought until I read a column by Terry Teachout in which he discussed why he seldom went to live concerts anymore. I won’t quote him here, partly because I can’t find the exact article I’m thinking about, but also because I don’t want to superimpose my words on his, or to distort his own personal experience. Suffice it to say that I took his sentiments as an inspiration for my own reasoning. Which is thus:

First off, going to concerts is expensive. Perhaps I didn’t realize how expensive it was until we stopped going a couple of years ago. This was partly because I was unemployed and we couldn’t afford it, and partly because we were preparing to move. Yet even after we moved (the first time) and I returned to a regular job (the first time), we didn’t go back to being regular concertgoers. And in the meantime, we found that it was getting easier to pay our regular bills each month.

So there’s a financial consideration to be made. But it’s also true that for many, live music is the pearl of great price – the pleasure it provides is far more important than any monetary consideration, and we’ve always been prepared to make that sacrifice. Therefore, it might be fair to ask why a live concert might not be worth the cost. And that’s where the real soul-searching takes place. For, after several years of attending both the Minnesota Orchestra and the Minnesota Opera, we found ourselves – bored. It’s not that the music wasn’t good – it was, and often was excellent. But it had lost the capacity to thrill.

It was partly because the Minnesota Orchestra didn’t seem to us to be quite as good as it once was, and the Minnesota Opera seemed stagnant in their productions. These observations may have been objectively true, or it may just have been the way we saw it, but it was there nonetheless.

It was partly because the selections themselves weren’t as interesting as they used to be. Now it’s true that everything’s exciting when it’s new, but it’s also true that familiarity can breed contempt. In short, there were too many old pieces we’d heard too often, and the new compositions were often somewhere between unsatisfying and unpleasant.

And, closely intertwined to those points, it was partly because technology has improved so dramatically in the past few years. For example, I can pop in a CD of any Beethoven or Mahler symphony, or any Wagner opera, and enjoy its crystal-clear sound and its excellent musicianship without leaving the comfort of my living room. No parking problems, no whispering people sitting next to us, no traffic congestion to deal with. The quality of the recordings is exceptional – at least as good as the live experience, and a far cry from the scratchy mono recordings of decades past. The quality of the playing, likewise, is meant to produce the best listening experience possible – anyone can enjoy the Chicago or Philadelphia orchestras even though they might be living in East Skitch. I can listen to what I want: maybe the Orchestra’s playing Haydn while I’m in the mood for Mozart, or the Opera’s performing Verdi when what I really want is Puccini. All of this for a fraction of the cost and hassle.

There’s also the fact that my visual experiences aren’t limited to attending the concert hall. A number of orchestras and opera companies broadcast in HD to movie theaters, and the performances are subsequently made available on Blu-Ray DVD, again for a fraction of the cost. Some, like the Metropolitan Opera, make past performances available to subscribers through online archives. All of this makes a great chunk of the history of classical music available to me, no matter where I live, no matter whether or not that area has an orchestra or an opera company, Great performances have been recorded and preserved for posterity, and I can access them for minimal cost. I’m guaranteed the best possible sound, I’m able to enjoy it in comfortable surroundings, and with an extensive enough library, I can pick and choose what appeals to me.

Now, I’m not immune to the argument that the experience of watching an opera in a movie theater or on television can’t compare to seeing it in person. Many operas, for example, are now starting to be staged and cast with the camera in mind, as opposed to the live audience. As well, the cameras, and not you, make the choice of what to look at on stage. I’ll leave it to as to what you might think of this trend, but I’ll readily concede that it’s not necessarily for the best.

On the other hand, the camera can also provide me with an angle unavailable to those in the opera hall; furthermore, considering the price of tickets, the camera can also allow me to actually see the performers from close range, instead of looking down on them from the nosebleed section. And as for the trend of staging productions for the camera rather than the live patron, the counterexample is that financial considerations often require companies to program familiar pieces in order to sell tickets, rather than new or underperformed works that might not put bodies in the seats – therefore, each approach has its own drawbacks.

Professional sports, especially the NFL, faces a similar situation, in that the home viewing experience now far outweighs that of attending a game in person. The HD picture on the big screen TV, with closeups, instant replays, and the pause button, and the Red Zone ability to watch other live games, all from a comfy couch with a few friends over, far outweighs sitting in a cramped seat, surrounded by obnoxious drunks, watching ant-sized players down below while consuming outrageously priced food and drink, in weather that could be wet, frozen or baking, all of which can be obtained for the cost of a second mortgage.

Much ink (and many pixels) have been, and will continue to be, used on the future of classical music, and what can be done to cultivate a new audience. The live concert isn’t, and shouldn’t be, dead. Nor have we sworn off live concertgoing ourselves, despite what I might have made it sound like; I love dressing up and going to the concert hall, and now that we’ve settled in Dallas, we may well return to being regular attendees at the orchestra and opera. But I cannot deny – I admit it, in fact – that my classical music appreciation has not only been enhanced but has grown as a result of this technology, and that at this moment I derive far more pleasure from it than I would if there was a Minnesota Orchestra for me to go and see.

Of course without live orchestras there can be no new music from new composers, no new recordings to make their way to CD or DVD, no ability for a communal experience with like-minded people. I don’t want that to disappear, and I don’t think anyone else does, either. The point I’m trying to make in this whole essay is that you could – and I want to emphasize could – make an argument that not every area needs a live orchestra or opera company, and the death of the Minnesota Orchestra, if it happens, shouldn't automatically lead to the death of the arts in the Twin Cities.

As we move increasingly to a virtual society of people who live in a cocoon of their own making, providing their own entertainment on their own timeline, consumed from the Cloud, connected only with earbuds and joined by friends who are seldom (if ever) seen in person, it shouldn't be a surprise that we would confront the same possibility for the world of classical music. It is, perhaps, tragic that this is the society in which we find ourselves, but we would be fools to deny it. ◙

Of Rent-A-Mobs, absurd health insurance reform, and running the Peachtree instead of watching 40 hot dog eaters

R ent-a-Mobs. The classlessness of the Christian bashers has grown. Fresh off successes in overturning religious freedom via the overthrow of common sense in favour of selling out to every sin-pusher in the world, they have returned to Austin, where weeks ago, a bill to ban the murder of children after they are 20 weeks old was killed by the filibuster of Wendy Davis that reminded me of the Indianapolis 500's three qualifying sessions (Day One Q1 and Q2, Day Two) and where rules may deserve a change.

The delay tactic used was the bill would die at midnight if it was not passed. The roll call in the Senate started just before midnight, but the final approved votes were at 12:02 AM, killing the bill.

If it was INDYCAR, this problem, and another current session, would not have been needed, all Gov. Perry would have needed was to sign the bill that passed. In INDYCAR, if a car leaves the designated pit box at 3:59:55 PM, just seconds before the 4 PM gun that ends Day One Q1, that driver is entitled to make his runs, even if the green flag waves at 4:02 PM and the run ends at 4:05 PM, and if the driver's time is between 10th and 24th, he is in the field, or between 1st and 9th, he enters Q2.

Would common sense have prevailed?

For someone who was taught to hate orange early and still does with reckless abandon, seeing orange tee-shirts and the classless dress of the protesters had me laughing at what they were doing.

And oh, by the way; the rent a mob told pro-life legislators they hoped their daughters were raped. Now this is thuggery.

Be in the worst shape, lower rates, but double or triple rates for healthy ones? I admit I'm a fitness person. I've run nine marathons and made my super sprint triathlon debut last year. I lift weights and with my best friend, often take barre classes together (she was my dance partner). I avoid colas and junk food when possible, and prohibit quick-service restaurants, colas, and coffee from any intake. And, to take a cue from our British readers (considering the number of football posts we've done here), I do not tolerate fags, nor do I even use them. (If you're not familiar, that's a Brit term for a cigarette.)

With mandatory “health exchanges” coming in play and new approved health care under the “Affordable Care Act,” in effect, a healthy person would pay two to three (or more) times greater than what they currently pay, including mandatory payment for baby murders, and with the anti-Christian agenda of Dear Leader, it is no longer possible to count AIDS as a “pre-existing medical condition” as part of pushing sin legalisation.

So it's perfectly OK to reward poor health but if you're fit and do marathons and the rest, but anyone who is obese, has morbid conditions (including STD's), and the works will be rewarded with lower rates. Go figure. That's ObamaCare.

When in the course of human events . . . Those words mean things. It was 237 years ago those words launched the Declaration of Independence against King George III. How much of this holds true today as we have Dear Leader leading a generation to believe in dependence on the government.

Cultural Outrage has a New Lead. ESPN, which has taken over tennis (and is perpetuating its decline), once again showed the ultimate Independence Day disgrace; the Nathan's Famous Hot Dog Eating contest. Once again, there were two contests, a women's and a men's. What is with that show? Forget the chemical loads, I ran Peachtree Street! ◙

Why I didn't celebrate the 4th last week

From this great takedown by Judge Andrew Napolitano, "Jefferson Weeping":

The litany of the loss of freedom is sad and unconstitutional and irreversible. The government does whatever it can to retain its power, and it continues so long as it can get away with it. It can listen to your phone calls, read your emails, seize your DNA and challenge your silence, all in violation of the Constitution. Bitterly and ironically, the government Jefferson wrought is proving the accuracy of Jefferson's prediction that in the long march of history, government grows and liberty shrinks.

Somewhere Jefferson is weeping.

Read the rest and weep as well. (H/T Mark Shea) ◙

Autogol

I danced for five years at a major dance studio in the region, and we competed annually. I do not think our choreographer wanted us to sabotage our routines, and cause us to lose to opponents. I played varsity baseball while a 6th grader for a small parochial school, and while we never won, I don't think Coaches Frazier and Griffin wanted us to throw games. We worked on fundamentals. I've debated, and would never consider doing ANYTHING to intentionally cause our team to lose.

Anyone who has played sports and is on defense knows the goal is to prevent the offense from scoring. The sad thing from overturning both Proposition 8 and the Defence of Marriage Act is that the Supreme Court ruled the defendants' attorneys were not entitled to defend the statutes in question. In the former, it was a private party, and in the latter, it was the Leader of the Loyal Opposition. In both cases, the attorneys entitled to defend the statutes were on the opposition, the respective Attorneys General (Kamala Harris in California and Eric Holder for the United States) were not defending the laws they were supposed to defend, but chose to side with the sexual deviancy lobby.

In effect, the Attorneys General told their teams to work against what they were supposed to defend. It would be a head coach telling his players to score own goals in an attempt to lose games. It is akin to being one of the members of the Black Sox, and Kennesaw Mountain Landis could not prosecute them.

That is the larger issue with overturning both DOMA and Proposition 8. The courts have said if an attorney jumps ship and sides with the opponent, the defence cannot hire a new attorney to defend them. Is that the court of law?

The only thing I can say about what both cases did is something you hear at football broadcasts but you do not want to happen.

¡¡¡¡¡AUTOGOL!!!!!

If you were a defender, and you scored an own goal, you would be ashamed of yourself. But in the overturning of both cases, the Mr. Holder and Mrs. Harris patted themselves on the back, since they worked against the side they were supposed to defend, and instead worked to score the own goal.

Sad. The real problem now is the Supreme Court ruled the attorney who is supposed to defend can now jump ship and cause an instant victory for the opposing side. ◙

Retro TV Friday

Lunchtime Thursday I contemplated something about evening news here in the Midlands of South Carolina. While we have the luxury of Charleston news available to us as do Columbia, the Columbia market was fortunate to be 2013 and not 1989.

Why?

Until the early 1990's, WIS, the NBC affiliate, was the only station with an evening newscast (WOLO-ABC in 1992, WLTX-CBS in 1995, and WACH-Fox in 1996 added evening newscasts, with WACH only being a junior newscast of WIS for the early years before they branched out on their own with the only local three-hour newscast in the morning in the 21st century and one hour at 10 PM -- they tried a 7:30 PM for a while as a "last word before primetime" but didn't work well though it was sold as an Idol pregame). Television reruns dominated the other three stations (Andy Griffith on WLTX and Cheers on WOLO; WACH was too new at the time).

That could have spelled disaster in the Midlands for situations such as the 2005 Firecracker 400 (rain; ended after 2 AM) or last Wednesday's Boston-Chicago Game 1 of the Stanley Cup Final (three overtimes; ended at 1 AM) if television was still that way with only one station having evening news. Could you imagine more people reading the morning paper for results as the newscast didn't air until 1:30 AM in off the air territory. ◙

Scouting's version of the USAC/CART war

The recent Indianapolis 500 reminded me of the tragic news among the National Council of the Boy Scouts of America selling the 100-year old organisation to the wolves of sexual deviancy advancement organisations that sacrifice children in order to advance the wants of this tiny minority that controls Hollywood and the government.

Scouting, as a result of this tragic move by the National Council, under the bullying of AT&T, Intel, and UPS, has sown the seeds of a split as a result of the cave to sexual deviancy activists. The majority of sponsoring organisations (churches for the most part) do not support the bullies that changed the policy to advance sexual deviancy, and it is evident that Scouting's version of the USAC/CART Split of 1978 has arrived with the tragic vote of the National Council.

Much as an airplane crash that killed United States Auto Club officials on the way home from Trenton, New Jersey, in 1978 accelerated the divisions that led to the owners' split with the national governing body, resulting in a split that reared its ugly head at Indianapolis for 30 years, Scouting's major split was a byproduct of the 2012 elections, one that according to Hillsdale College showed the power of the powerful group in the electoral process, the group now clearly in charge nationally, those without religious belief (mostly atheists, humanists, and those without a belief system). They control higher education, cultural institutions, the media, and Hollywood, while carrying a clear understanding of their power and momentum of their growth. It is a split between Scouting sponsoring organisations and the National Council that seems to be irrepairable after recent changes.

The Hillsdale report noted in a swing state for 2012, President Obama lost the Protestant vote by three percent and Catholic vote by eleven percent. However, with just one eighth of the vote, the Nones carried the election home with a nearly 2:1 margin that supported him. The results were shocking, and other elections, where Nones were in control, showed as sexual deviancy activists won all four elections on redefining “marriage” that were aimed at weakening churches, and following further state legislative votes, churches are now barred from ministry work for certain groups as a result of the Biblical worldview in conflict with the state's worldview in a full quarter of the states – twelve and the District of Columbia – in full, and more in part.

Liberal authorities want to eject Scouts for a Christian worldview (including Jamboree venues), which was the reason for the sellout in part in order to keep using facilities, and also to keep corporate sponsors, bullied by activist groups such as the Human Rights Campaign (which is not about human rights but about forced acceptance of sin and expulsion of those with a Christian worldview, as Matt Barber learned) and the Pride Foundation, and also by federal laws of this Administration, including Public Laws 111-84 (Shepard-Byrd) and 111-321 (redefines the military's goals to homosexual activism), and now even a bill to legalise bestiality and other gross conduct currently illegal. Sadly, this is the reason for the demise of the Boy Scouts of America.

In the Hillsdale article, they noted “dhimmi” means non-Muslim, and under Muslim rule, those who are not Muslims could only survive if they accepted Muslim dominance. The modern ruling Nones have adopted the same playbook in that Humanist dominance must be accepted and Christianity must be shut down.

The result of this massive decision by the National Council, and in effect the dhimmitude of Christians by the ruling Nones, has created the catalyst for the upcoming split in Scouting. It is on par with USAC and CART 35 years ago, but was not something we needed until activists ran roughshod with the power of humanists against Christians. These are splits that are necessary in order to preserve the Biblical truth, as the Scouts and the supermajority of sponsoring organisations have been abandoned for the 30 pieces of silver that the Nones took in order to advance an agenda pushed by the President. ◙

Opera Wednesday

I grew up in the Boston area and have always been a Red Sox fan. As a kid, I went to many ball games at Fenway Park and always found it to be a magical place. Of course, part of being a Red Sox fan is experiencing gut-wrenching disappointments, albeit, interspersed with moments of elation.” -- Richard Maltz, composer, Bambino.

And such is the opening notes for the recent South Carolina performances (in Aiken and Columbia) in the Month of May of Mr. Maltz's Bambino, a short (30 minute) one-act opera that's a work of fiction that was conceived ten years ago, but was made different following October 27, 2004.

Bambino starts innocently set above the Green Monster, yes, the well-beloved left-field wall that has a reason for being nearly ten metres tall near Lansdowne Street, with John Dooley as Buck (a young Red Sox player, ironic considering a top prospect currently in Pawtucket after having his first cup of coffee was Jackie Bradley Jnr) and Kelsey Harrison as Molly (his girlfriend) walk into Fenway, thinking this was to be the time the Red Sox finally would make it. Once Buck walks into the locker room, the story then focuses on Molly's fears and the staging moves to the box seats at Fenway, in a section that would be normally for players' wives and girlfriends.

While this takes place, a montage of famous moments from the past (all real life, unlike this opera!) are shown, from the story of the Curse (we know of course legend has it that “No, No, Nannette” was being funded resulting in the firesale) to the plays of the past. The most famous moments of those shown are the ones from 1975 (Game 6) but little, if any, reference to going between Buckner's legs or what is known as the Boston Massacre (1978 – Nike had to pull shirts thanks to Джоха́р and Тамерла́н Царна́ев).

Molly (dressed well for the event) is met by a few fans (and note the programs come from 2007), while in this game setting, Buck, in 21st-century home uniform, is patrolling the famed left-field area near the fence. After a few errors, he finds the Red Sox down two after just an inning. What happens is he is confronted by a ghost, George Herman Ruth himself (Kevin Eckhard). After a disappointing K in the inning he batted, the situation turns ahead to the end of the game, down two runs, two on, two out in the bottom of the ninth.

Suspiciously I see there is a gangster on top of the Green Monster. This sets the stage for the dramatic ending of this too-short operetta. Buck is up to bat in the situation and after two strikes are set (with appropriate recitatives), the dream of a big hit is there. Naturally, in the dramatic settings of theatre, you go unrealistic of the modern game. Buck hits a long fly ball and runs across the bases, and just as he is about reach the plate, and the relay, a few shots are fired (from the Monster, no less), reportedly trying to keep the Curse alive. Buck slides home but is killed from the gangster's fire. He's safe. The Red Sox win.

Poor Molly grieves while her beau lays dying the team had finally won. Thus was another chapter, legend says, the fate of Buck George dying while the curse ends, or so it goes in the story. Considering the Curse of Ben Tillman here for a long time that ended in 2002 (women's athletics), what else could you say? Makes you wonder how the opera was rewritten after the 2004.

But in actuality, as I learned, the real Curse isn't at Fenway. It's across town on the grounds of Boston University, at Nickerson Field, originally Boston's National League stadium (Boston was a two-team town until the end of 1952; Boston's National League team moved to Milwaukee in 1953 and to its present location in 1966 – note too that two other two-team towns were down to one as St. Louis and Philadelphia also lost their American League teams, the present Baltimore and Oakland teams). In recent years, teams that called Nickerson home have folded – Boston University's gridiron team, and a few women's professional footballers have failed. Could that be the true place where the Curse still stands, from the time in 1935 when George Herman Ruth came back to Boston for a curtain call in the NL and retired shortly into the season? ◙

Ken Venturi, R.I.P.

I first heard of Ken Venturi when I was ten or so. It was in Phil Pepe’s book Winners Never Quit, one of those books that I’d buy at the scholastic book sales they had when we were kids. Pepe’s book told the stories of athletes who’d come back from extraordinary adversity of one kind or another to become champions, and one of those chapters was on Ken Venturi.

Venturi had been a hotshot golfer with an ego to match. He’d finished second in the Masters as an amateur, had won early and often on the tour as a pro, and lived the life of the celebrity. Then, almost overnight, his game went south, that sweet swing turned into a mess, his mechanics crumbled. Soon he was reduced to begging for spots in tournaments. Even the Masters forgot about him. But because Venturi had ruffled so many feathers along the way with his cockiness, few people felt sorry for him, and even fewer believed he’d ever make it back. But he did, and the story of how the new, humbler Venturi overcame exhaustion and heat stroke to win the 1964 U.S. Open at Congressional is one of the great chapters in golf’s long history.

His rebirth was short-lived; carpel tunnel syndrome in both wrists devastated him, making it almost impossible for him to even feel the club in his hands. Without that touch, his game again faltered. Surgeries and endless practice brought him back, to the point that Pepe’s chapter ends with Venturi winning the 1966 Lucky Invitational in San Francisco, his final tournament victory.

Venturi retired from the tour the next year, and then began the remarkable next stage of his life, one that would surely have qualified for an entirely new chapter in Pepe’s book. As a child he had stuttered so severely that doctors told his mother he’d never be able to pronounce his own name; he’d overcome that, just as he would overcome the challenges that threatened his golfing career, and now Venturi would turn to broadcasting, where the next 35 years he would be the lead golf analyst for CBS.

I loved listening to Venturi cover golf, and over the years he became one of my favorite broadcasters. He might not have been as smooth as some, might not have had the way others had with words, but – like so many other broadcasters I’ve eulogized over the years, including his good friend and colleague Pat Summerall – Venturi was a big-match announcer. When you heard his hushed voice as Nicklaus stood over a put, you knew this was a big moment.

And like them, Venturi didn’t make the broadcast about himself. He told it like it was, but without the smarmy snark of a Johnny Miller or the harshness of a Curtis Strange. He wasn’t interested in showing the viewers that he was smarter and cleverer than the golfers on the course. And, perhaps most important, he was always on the golfer’s side. He didn’t want to see them fail out there, and took no delight when misfortune befell them. I remember during Jean van de Velde’s meltdown at the 1999 British Open that ABC’s team of Mike Tirico and Strange almost seemed to relish what was happening. Venturi wasn’t like that – he knew the pain of losing, and though he’d tell you what went wrong out there, he never suggested that he would have been above making that same mistake.

Venturi’s work with Vin Scully, Summerall, and Jim Nantz made CBS’s golf coverage the best on TV. When he retired a few years ago, to be replaced first by Lanny Wadkins and then by Nick Faldo, it just wasn’t the same. Don’t misunderstand me – I think Faldo can be very good, but he’s not Venturi.

When I’d heard a couple of weeks ago that Venturi was too ill to attend his (richly deserved) induction into the golf Hall of Fame, I worried that this might be the challenge he wouldn’t be able to overcome. His death on Friday, at age 82, leaves a void in both the sporting and broadcasting worlds. Ken Venturi was a class act, on the course and behind the microphone. He was a winner. ◙

Originally posted at It's About TV!

Classic Sports Thursday

There was actually a time in the 1950's when the “have car will race” adage came to ragtops. A Midwestern organisation, the Society of Auto Sports, Fellowship, and Education (SAFE), started its Circuit of Champions for convertibles. These cars were a mix of the wild and not fairly well organised touring car divisions at the time (NASCAR was only developing after the Barkheimer Associates deal in 1954 into the national organisation), and SAFE's Circuit of Champions was gaining popularity in the regions they raced with the odd convertibles.

However, the stunning changes in motorsport in the United States after the 24 Heures du Mans disaster led to the end of motorsport's governing body, the AAA Contest Board, and led to major changes that still affect motor racing today. In the Midwest, SAFE was purchased by Big Bill France (NASCAR), leading to the development of the NASCAR Convertible Division, a division that raced until 1959 officially, racing mostly on short tracks, where drivers could be seen sawing their hands on the wheels of these cars. Some circuits included quarter-mile tracks inside football stadiums such as Winston-Salem's legendary Bowman Gray Stadium (still in operation today and was the real-life site of the short-lived documentary Madhouse) and the home of what is now the Arizona Cardinals (that played in Chicago at the time), Soldier Field (the Granitelli family organised the races; the track was removed following complaints by hippies, and stadium renovation when the Bears were forced to leave Wrigley Field because of a requirement imposed by the NFL after the merger stadia had to seat a minimum of 50,000 spectators).

With the hardtops already having established the Labor Day race that became known as one of saloon racing's four majors (the Southern 500) and the grandest in stature (first paved NASCAR circuit, Daytona was still running on the beach and road circuit until the end of 1958), Bob Colvin of Darlington International Raceway decided he was going to have a big race for the ragtops also. That ragtop race was declared to be a Confederate Memorial Day race that would be their grandest in stature on the (then) 1 3/8 mile egg (there were a few slight rebuilds, one in 1953 and a few in the 1960's – the current track measurement of 1.366 miles was not established until 1971; based on running 10 feet from the wall, now seven feet from the wall after the SAFER barriers were installed for the 2004 races).

Mr. Colvin's Rebel 300, a “Grand National Convertible Championship” race, would be established for May 11, 1957, the Saturday before Mother's Day, and the day after the Confederate Memorial Day (May 10; the state did not officially observe it until the 21st century, but in South Carolina it is a reference to the capture of Robert E. Lee and also Thomas Jackson's death). But an interesting dilemma took place after rain interrupted the event plans. South Carolina law prohibited racing on Sunday (the law was modified to carry a 250-mile / 402 km exemption or if it started after 1:30 PM in the 1980's), and even though the rain date was not mentioned, “next clear day” was attempted, which was Sunday, in violation of the law. Darlington County authorities arrested Mr. Colvin after pulling the safety car to pit lane to start the Rebel 300 that Sunday, which the promoter posted bond.

Curtis Turner looked on his way to winning when a “Big One,” as called today, took place within the first 30 laps, but crashed in that incident (future Grand Slam race winner Jim Paschal and future official Dick Beaty were also involved), leading to an easy lead change by Lap 33 for Glenn (Fireball) Roberts, who led all but one lap afterwards to win the inaugural Rebel 300 in the Ford super team organised by Peter DePaolo, who just 32 years earlier was the first man to win the Indianapolis 500 in less than five hours. The other members of the podium were distinguished racers themselves, with Tim Flock (no Jocko to mess around this time) and Bobby Myers filling out the podium. Roberts and Flock are Motorsports Hall of Fame in America members, and Myers, known for his exploits at Bowman Gray, would sadly be killed that September at the Southern 500. (Myers' brother Billy also raced, winning two premiership races but died of a heart attack the next year; both brothers are memorialised by the National Motorsports Press Association Myers Brothers Award for lifetime achievement; Bobby Myers' son Danny became a well-known mechanic at Richard Childress Racing and in 1998 fueled both a Cup car and an IRL car at the Indy 500. It was the crying image of “Chocolate” best remembered from Kevin Harvick's tear-jerking 2001 Atlanta win three weeks after being hired by Childress to replace a legend, and Danny retired in 2002, becoming the Childress museum's curator. The Childress organisation also has a winery in the area also.) Roberts died in the 1964 Charlotte crash of burns, and Flock died in 1998 of cancer.

Other top five drivers were Bob Welborn, a legend in the division, with Buck Baker (2013 NASCAR Hall of Fame inductee) as co-driver, with Lee Petty (patriarch of the family) in fifth.

The 1957 Convertible race at Darlington was the first of six, with the first three being full Convertible Division races, and the last three being Grand National races that required convertibles. When the Rebel 300 became a Grand National hardtop race in 1963, they actually tried it was two 150-mile races. That didn't work and the race since 1964 has been a full hardtop race for 300, 400, or 500 miles, depending on the year of the race, and since 2005 returned to Confederate Memorial Day as a 500-mile race, televised on Fox.

Whatever people call it, Saturday's Bojangles' 500 is the 57th edition of the Rebel 500, and has an interesting take as the only NASCAR Convertible Divison race still run as a full championship race in what is now the Sprint Cup Series. The “convertible race” of the 100-mile qualifying races for the Daytona 500 (now Budweiser Duel) was a championship race for convertibles in that year, but even after the division was discontinued, the two qualifying races format continued though it lost championship status in 1972.

An interesting thought as convertible racing was popular in the 1950's as the Rebel 500 takes the green Saturday night.  ◙

Drawing the line

I read the news today (oh, boy)* that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie underwent gastric bypass surgery back in February.  Christie apparently underwent the weight-reducing surgery at the behest of his family, and told the New York Post that "he wasn’t motivated by thoughts of running for president." Now, I find that a little hard to believe in a man who's ego is at least as big as his waistline, especially considering how he bridled at former White House physician Connie Mariano when the later said she worried about him dying in office.

*If you don't get it, look it up.

Let's give Christie's motives a pass for now and assume he's telling the truth.  He wants to be healthier, he wants to be around for his family.  That' s a noble sentiment.   However, it does raise the question, which is this: should the health of a candidate for public office be a campaign issue?

Having said that, let's take it a step further: assuming that the health concern in question does not prevent the candidate from actually discharging the duties of said office, do we have the right - or the obligation - to consider whether or not that issue might limit the candidate's ability to complete the full term in office?

At first glance, I'll admit, this seems to be a very intrusive question.  Yet, should Christie make the run for president, at the weight he currently carries, it's going to be asked.  And the further one probes in considering it, the less clear-cut the answer becomes.

Let's take an example and work from there.  There are no right or wrong answers, per se, but you might feel that some are more easily answered than others.  So ask yourself if these are issues:

A cancer survivor, one whose cancer has been eradicated - an issue, or not?  You'd probably say not, and I'd probably agree with you.  But let's change it slightly - what about someone whose cancer was merely in remission?  Paul Tsongas, for example, famously retired from the U.S. Senate in 1984 due to non-Hodgkin lymphoma.  When he returned to politics, in his run for the 1992 Democratic presidential nomination, he made his survival of cancer an issue.  But as Tsongas later admitted, he'd been treated for a recurrence of the cancer in 1987.  It came back again after the campaign, and claimed his life on January 18, 1997.  That would have been two days before his (first) term as president would have expired.  An issue, or not?

What about a candidate, like the current president, who smokes (or has smoked)?  It can shorten a lifespan, after all, as those government warning labels keep reminding us.  An issue, or not?

How about someone with a history of Alzheimer's in the family tree?  An issue, or not?  Or does it depend on that person's age?  An issue only if they're older?  And how about age in the first place?

What about someone who's blind?  And does it matter if they were born blind, became blind recently, or is blinded while in office?  Does it affect that person's ability to exercise the duties of the office?  Does it make them easier to deceive?  An issue, or not?

What about someone with a condition that may well be terminal, but may not be?  HIV?  President Kennedy's Addison's disease?   What about other conditions, such as diabetes, which might leave someone more susceptible to a coma if the blood sugar plunges?  What about high blood pressure, which increases the risk of stroke?   What about stress-related illnesses?  MS?  An issue, or not?

Obviously some of these may be more credible than others, but the question remains - are any of these issues that should be raised in a campaign?

As medical science continues to progress, we are able to discover predilections for some diseases long before their effects can be seen - sometimes, even in the womb.  In some cases, a person could be disqualified for public office before they're even born.

We see Nanny Bloomberg's quest to rid New York City of anything that might possibly decrease the lifespan (i.e., things that aren't good for you) - so if these standards are being applied to the average consumer, do they exist for the candidate as well?

I don't pretend to have the answers, but that isn't going to stop me from asking the questions. ◙

"My college actually took me away from logical thinking"

So says Forbes magazine publisher Rich Karlgaard in this article (H/T NRO).  His experience pretty much jibes not only with my own, but with many of my friends who sit in "careers" for which they're vastly overeducated.

A friend of mine, like Karlgaard a PoliSci major, has never had a job for which his degree meant anything other than that he had a college degree in the first place.  "Unless I was actually going into teaching, that degree was pretty much useless from a job standpoint," he told me.  "I didn't take it because I thought it would improve my chances to get a job or to make more money.  I took it because I liked and was interested in politics, and I wanted exposure to the kinds of thought I would be encountering."  Meaning?  "Look, I didn't have any illusions that I'd be getting a good education.  After all, this was a school where the students cheered when they heard Reagan'd been shot.  They had bumper stickers that said 'Reagan in '80, Bush in '81.'  If they were any more left, they would have fallen off the table completely.  But I figure if you want to be involved in 'competitive' politics (as I did at the time), it's good to know what the enemy's saying about you."

But the point he went on to make is this: "Ultimately, it didn't matter what I studied.  I figured a successful school year was one in which I still knew as much at the end of the term as I did at the beginning.  As long as they didn't make me stupid, it was a good year.  But at the end I had that degree.  How many decent jobs can you get now where they don't ask for - demand - a college degree?  Even when it has nothing to do with the job itself?  It's lazy - they just use it as a gatekeeper to keep out the riffraff.  Most of the jobs out there can probably be handled just fine by someone with a degree from a vo-tech school."

I digress with that little anecdote, but only slightly.  Karlgaard's point in this article is similar to my friends - that college has become an enormous (and ridiculous) drain on family and individual finances, oftentimes for nothing more than a piece of paper that does little to prepare the student for life after college - and introduce him or her to a lifetime of debt. Karlgaard posits that the average student would "learn more and spend much less at a community college," and it's hard to disagree with that.  The money quote:

The U.S., I would argue, is driving itself crazy over early achievement. Expensive four-year colleges are a symptom. They’ve become a costly dream trap for too many kids and families. High school grades are overemphasized, SATs must be prepared for years in advance, youthful intellectual experiments (or pranks of the kind Steve Jobs famously engaged in) are discouraged–and for what? Most kids won’t get into the topflight college of their dreams. Worse, some who actually clear that bar will nearly bankrupt their parents in the process. Or they’ll find life so competitive at Elite U. that they drop down into the Mickey Mouse courses–which exist everywhere, even at Harvard–and end up with a worthless degree.

In fact, it's been my observation that education is really one of the last things the modern college is concerned with.  First and foremost is indoctrination, but after that there's the endless quest for prestige, to be able to say "we're the best business school in the world," or law school, or engineering school, or what have you, in the ratings that come out from publications such as US News  There's the desire for research dollars from governments and foundations.  There's the scam being leveraged on alums to provide financial support for the school.  There's a continuing, and growing, alliance with big government and big business to control access to the power in this country.

But don't just take my rantings - be sure to read all of what Karlgaard says, and discuss.   ◙

Giulio Cesare or, the Queen of the Nile

Dessay and Daniels in Cesare - but which one's the queen?

April Fools' Day may have been the first of the month but it didn't matter for the Metropolitan Opera last Saturday, as it pulled off one of the great practical jokes of recent time on a capacity crowd in New York and a worldwide HD theater audience, with David McVicar's hoax "production" of Handel's Giulio Cesare.

The idea of doing a broad parody of Handel's most famous opera - turning it into a sex farce complete with cross-dressers, hokey dance scenes, and over-the-top arias that seemed as if they would never end - would have been a risky stunt in less capable hands, but McVicar and his talented cast executed the spoof brilliantly, with nary a wink nor nod to the knowing audience, most of whom were in on the joke from the opening curtain. Not since This Is Spinal Tap has a genre been mocked so mercilessly - and hilariously - as it was here.

Cesare was ripe from beginning to end with scenes so ridiculous that they obviously weren't meant to be taken seriously as actual opera.  Take, for example, French countertenor Christophe Dumaux, whose Tolomeo was a joy to behold, a remarkable performance of over-the-top effemininity made all the more effective through Dumaux’s insistence on playing it all straight (so to speak). Surely the idea of turning the bloodthirsty co-ruler of Egypt into a fruit-flavored sadomachostic drag queen, and then suggesting that he actually had a sexual interest in Pompey’s widow Cornelia (shrilly played by Patricia Bardon) would have been madness in the hands of a lesser production team, but the sheer ridiculousness of it all just added to the general gaiety of the night.

Tolomeo’s bitter rival to the throne, his sister Cleopatra, was played to the hilt by the afternoon’s star, soprano Natalie Dessay. Dessay has long been recognized as one of opera’s greatest actresses, and her willingness to spoof her own reputation with an all-singing, all-dancing interpretation of the teenage queen that seemed to have come right out of a Judy Garland-Mickey Rooney “hey kids, let’s put on a show!” musical, with routines ranging from the Charleston to Bollywood-inspired schtick, was a risk from which lesser singers might have shied. Dessay, at least thirty years too old for the role, eshewed the use of any makeup that might have detracted from the impression she was actually playing Cleopatra's mother, and proved that in the generally stuffy world of opera, a diva willing to make an asp of herself is indeed a breath of fresh air.

Cleopatra’s love interest, Giulio Cesare himself, was the famed countertenor David Daniels. Up until the 1980s, the role of Caesar, written for the castrati of Handel’s time, had frequently been interpolated for high basses, providing a measure of authenticity for the work. That obviously would have been inappropriate in this case; thankfully, McVicar chose to go with the more modern practice of casting Caesar as a countertenor, and in the hands of Daniels, the military general became just another lovestruck boy. Daniels’ passionate make-out sessions with Dessay provided some of the biggest laughs of all.

We also shouldn’t overlook Alice Coote in the trouser role of Sesto, Pompey’s grieving son. The idea of Coote’s hermaphroditic Sesto vowing vengeance on the mincing Tolomeo would have been enough to keep anyone in stitches for the rest of the evening, were there not even more laughs in store.  And we must save a word for Rachid Ben Abdeslam, as Cleopatra's aide Nireno, obviously channeling Liberace's comedic talents in a flamingly flamboyant presence throughout.

The cast was ably led throughout by conductor Harry Bicket, perhaps today's premier interpreter of early music.  Baroque opera has gotten a bad rap through the centuries for its static staging and endless lyrical repeats (in which a single line is repeated as many as three or four times), making it rich for parody.  But by slowing the tempo even further, Bicket was able to produce exaggeratedly long set pieces - so long, in fact, that were this an actual opera many patrons probably would have fallen asleep.  This production, however, proved the old adage that nothing succeeds like excess.

Only base Guido Loconsolo, as Achillas, struck a sour note. His spot-on, realistic portrayal of Tolemo’s once-loyal aide turned traitor, was too grounded in reality to truly fit in, as if he were the only one of the cast not in on the joke. As it turned out, though, McVicar had an answer for that as well.

In an age when the world grows increasingly absurd, parody has become more and more difficult to pull off. Fortunately, McVicar’s crowning touch – that of bringing Tolemo and Achillas back from the dead to join in the chorus at the finale – surely removed any lingering doubt that this was a performance not to be taken seriously. After all, the alternative would be that the Metropolitan Opera was treating one of classical music’s greatest composers with utter disregard and contempt, mocking the story, the characters, and – most of all – the audience in a way that was both obscene and depraved, rendering the venerable Met as little more than a gay burlesque theater and Cesare a demented fantasy.

It would be so unthinkable, in fact, that only a madman would suggest that this performance was ever meant to be seen as anything other than this generation’s Rocky Horror Picture Show. Indeed, it’s likely that the Met’s Giulio Cesare can look forward to a long life of midnight showings at independent movie theaters. And for fans of absurdist musical comedy, that’s the best news of all. ◙