WHY CAN'T WE TALK THINGS OUT?

A rather conservative Republican friend (yes, I'd like to believe such a thing is possible!) recently responded to me that maybe they couldn't love me anymore, if I insisted on giving any props to Obama -- he who apparently can do ABSOLUTELY nothing right (according to the conservatives).  Perhaps it was because I had just pasted a video of Rachel Maddow's rather intelligent listing of statistics on Facebook.  Ms. Maddow listed both many of the legislative achievements of Ronald Reagan (a lot of which would be frowned on today by many of the same conservative pundits who praise Reagan as their god), as well as a listing of legislation passed (imperfect or not) during the time Obama has been in office so far.  No matter if you agreed with the bills or not, just in terms of scope and activity it was actually an impressive list--countering many of those who feel our President has been inactive so far.

[My crime, in case you don't know, is not being one who dismisses his accomplishments.  Either that or it was my response to the "fracking" activities of the natural gas companies in this country, as explored in the excellent (and literally incendiary) documentary, GASLAND by Josh Fox, currently on HBO this month.]

But this post is not about natural gas or about Obama or even a specific ideology.  It's about what's happened to us as a people--a people who feel we can't talk to each other anymore if we have opposing viewpoints.  It seems that rather than come together to find mutual ground to solve really crushing problems--health care, the economy, the environment, energy, disasters (both man-made and natural)--we are suppose to stomp off to our corners and pout, convinced that ONLY we are right, only WE know the answers, and we are to brook no further discussion.  My way or the highway, as they used to say.

The place where we are, as a people, is a sad and lonely one.  We appear to be so bruised that we are unwilling to touch one another, lest we hit a sore spot.  Any ideology is just an idea--one that can be abused.  Yet to discuss pros and cons on either capitalism or socialism is anathema---rational thought is disdained, no look allowed at what positives can be drawn from either, and god forbid we admit that any theory or theology can be spoiled not by its pure practice but by the greed and corruption of those running the ideology.  It's like those who must have blind faith--you either accept it whole cloth or you reject it, and no intelligent compromise can be reached.  It's as if we've jumped back to the 1950s, and just a word, like "communism" invokes such fear and hatred that people become irrational, versus being able to discuss it as merely an ideology, an approach to a problem.  Like the mere mention of a word, an "ism," will corrupt your body like a social disease.  The contradiction--that we wish to preserve our cherished rights, like freedom of speech and thought and yet we wish to quell all voices and opinions other than our own--is depressing and even scary.

Can't we come to some consensus?  Or does that mean that WE don't win?  It is my personal belief that if we have any function on this planet at all, we are supposed to leave the place better than when we found it--and lately, we seem to be failing that mission miserably.

Especially strange to me is the idea that nobody should have ideas that fall somewhere in between the polar extremes, even though surveys of the American people show that we are nowhere near as polarized as the pundits and politicians wish us to believe.  We all want to be able to afford our homes, take care of our families, be able to work and be compensated, be prepared in case of a medical emergency or natural disaster.  The "how" is as variable as people are varied, but does that mean we can't discuss things in an effort to come to consensus?

I never expect everyone will agree with everything I say or think, I never have--but when I bring an idea with an open heart and, further, open ears and the door just gets slammed in my face?  I'm stunned.  I am a spiritual but not specifically-religious person, yet I believe only he who is without sin should cast the first stone (which means all gravel pits are safe for the time being).

All ideologies, democratic or socialistic, conservative or liberal, are only as successful as their inability to be abused.  It is greed that destroys ANY system.  My conservative friend fears that what she's worked so hard for will be taken away and re-distributed, apparently to those whom she's been told don't deserve it.  And further, it is assumed that I, as a relative liberal, wish to distribute and give away everything willy-nilly.

I believe that people should get to keep what they've worked hard for and deserve some security, as part of the guarantee of life, liberty and the pursuits . . . as John Locke wrote many years before we were even a nation.  But the limits should be that OUR pursuit should not destroy the pursuits of others, that our endeavors should not destroy what others are equally entitled to partake in and enjoy.  That those who stockpile rather than let anyone else have their share ARE wrong and greedy, and that those who damage our systems and our environments for their own gain at the expense of others ARE doing harm.

We form a social contract as a society to protect and enhance our lives and to equitably protect our rights.  It is then our job to do the best we can within that social contract.  The annihilation of others' rights is wrong, no matter what religion or ethical code you follow.  All should have equal rights, not some more than others (as was written on the barn wall in Orwell's ANIMAL HOUSE).  How we individually do within those parameters is up to the individual--and those who make no effort to contribute should indeed pay a price.  But those who are incapable of participation in the dream, either through frailty or through the deliberate actions of others, should not suffer the consequences.  That is not part of the ethic we supposedly believe in as a people.  Survival of the fittest was an idea Darwin explored in nature, but he was not suggesting that we consciously go out and crush those we don't want to win.

And my friend was right--blame should not be the order of the day.  But we are ALL accountable for letting abuses go by, and the mess we are in did not just begin in the past two years but were many, many years in the making.

So yes, I hope my conservative friend will still "love" me, even as we agree to disagree.  Because if we can't, the isolation may just be unbearable--and the ultimate destiny, unthinkable.

ART AT A GRASS ROOTS LEVEL

ME-ISM


Arizona's reactionary immigration law is not only disgusting in and of itself--legalizing racial profiling as a way to discriminate against those who aren't "us"--but is symptomatic of the dangerous mode we have moved into in recent months as a nation.

We have become so self-centered as a people that we are fighting each other over table scraps.  So-called democratic principles have become bald excuses for grabbing as much as one can grab for oneself.  People will knock you down on the street if they think they can get where they are going faster.

It's as if a vocal warm-up exercise has transformed into the new battlecry: "Me Me Me Me ME!"

The Tea Party Movement claims to be interested in the rights of Americans--but they wish to say who IS and who ISN'T a good American in their eyes, to make sure that they, the select few, receive all the spoils.  Check you dictionary, folks--that's not democracy, that's a form of fascism.

Capitalism was supposed to be a system that gave everyone an equal chance, but as in Orwell's ANIMAL FARM, it appears that some little piggies have been deemed "more equal" than others.  And perhaps most alarmingly, the very Judaio-Christian teachings of giving to others and caring for the less fortunate appears to be a revolting concept to the very people who claim themselves the backbone of America. They scoff at "community organizers" because they have absolutely no sense of community.  The very Bible they like to thump so much points to their lack of humanity as a sign of total hypocrisy.  And perhaps even worse than their lack of generosity--the total lack of respect for open discourse and the inability to engage in civilized discussion to solve the issues of a country perilously in need.  Rarely has name calling been as bold, ugly and divisive.

This country was founded as a place for all who feel oppressed to come and be an equal, regardless of race, creed or religion.  Freedom of speech was to be guaranteed in a land of equal opportunity.  People have died for this cause and continue to do so.  Our troops overseas are fighting for these principles every day.  And searching the ethnic and  religious backgrounds (not to mention the sexual preferences) of these fighting troops will no doubt reveal heavy concentrations of the very groups these so-called arbiters of American values wish to curtail.

The co-opting by the callous right abuses democratic principles and the capitalist system just as a handful took the Utopian notions of socialism and turned them into self-serving rules.  Any system suffers from repeated abuse.  The actions of these people not only defeats the basic principles of our country but spits in the face of those who work and have worked so hard to defend them.

We are a nation of immigrants, a nation that was always prized for its diversity.  Arizona's sanction to profile at will anyone deemed "suspicious" is a way for a privileged ruling class to fight back what they fear most--the loss of their supremacy in a demographically changing country.  Responsibly protecting our citizenry is one thing.  Giving carte blanche to racism is another thing altogether--and is distinctly un-American.

Then again, I suppose there is an upside to all this:  we can bring back Il Duce and at least the trains will run on time.

RARE OPPORTUNITY AT ENCORES!

ANYONE CAN WHISTLE at City Center's Encores! is a highly entertaining presentation of one of Broadway's quirkier footnotes.  The brilliant Sondheim score shimmers, as always.  The story is odd and at times interesting, even whimsical--but is really more ideas on display than a book that works. Still the staging is engaging and the choreography is a delight.  And of course, when you put Donna Murphy, Sutton Foster and Raul Esparza on that stage with those songs . . . it's musical theater heaven!  Everyone who's seen a Sondheim revue knows the title tune, and also the achingly lovely "With So Little to Be Sure Of," here done to perfection by Foster and Esparza.  But "A Parade in Town,"  "Everybody Says Don't," and "There Won't Be Trumpets" (among others) show that even an early Sondheim stumble is treasure chest of gems.  From start to finish, Donna Murphy rules with an iron fist and giddy humor--and an incredible set of pipes.  The always dependable Edward Hibbert does well with what at times is a thankless role.  And the gifted ensemble of dancer-singers do amazing work, especially in the 2nd Act ballet.  (Kudos especially to Cora's "Boys" who are indeed on their toes--literally!  If you've ever been curious about ANYONE CAN WHISTLE, go see it--it is doubtful that you'll ever see a better production of it, and it really is an enjoyable and at times thought-provoking evening. Now thru April 11th at City Center, West 55th btwn 6th & 7th Avenues, 212-581-1212.

AN OPEN LETTER TO INTELLIGENT CONSERVATIVES

Beyond any opinions over the state of American healthcare—some of us believe that the availability of good, affordable healthcare is the responsibility of a successful society, others of us . . . don’t—there is a principal tenant of any democracy: that after all are polled and a choice is made, we pull together with a sense of civility and a recognition that due process went into the decision.  We expect our elected officials to behave responsibly, with respect for colleagues regardless of differences of opinion.  We exhort many countries to model themselves on American principles of democracy and supposedly are willing to fight for a system that allows for different opinions, beliefs, and religions.  Common sense and decency is supposed to be our guiding light.

It is appalling the degree of poor behavior that has occurred in the wake of the healthcare debate.  Visible conservative pundits, such as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, have come out encouraging violent attacks against anyone who thinks differently than they do.  Active targeting for violence has occurred and even encouraged.  And their critique of the plan, as passed, is not a clear, point-by-point attack of the dangers of the bill but rather a personal attack on those who passed it—treating them as dreaded enemies versus colleagues who worked as hard as they did to arrive at SOME kind of improvement.

What is squandered here is opportunity—and valuable currency of opinion.  While I am admittedly of a liberal leaning, I am devoted to the idea of intelligent discussion and wanted very much to learn what was in the bill and what it would mean to me, pro and con.  There were lists posted citing the so-called merits of the bill, and in President Obama’s speech, he listed features (such as not being denied insurance for pre-existing conditions) that sounded merely rational.  I would have greatly welcomed learning about opposing points of view, the downsides of the bill, and the ramifications of certain points—especially those that were not being highlighted (liberals and democrats not having any particular stranglehold on the high road).  I wanted some real discourse, presented responsibility and intelligently.

What we got was personal name calling, brick throwing and exhortations for personal attack.  Much of the rhetoric was “We will defeat HIM” and "THEY should be run out of town".  Even the few items thrown out as parts of the bill were parts long-removed, keeping people misinformed with incendiary topics that were no longer at issue.  (“Public option” and “abortion funding” were items absent weeks ago, yet certain pundits kept waving the flag to keep folks riled up.  And claims that Medicaid and Medicare were bankrupt from poor government management were simply false and untrue—and not part of the bill being passed.)  All comments seemed about personally winning over an opponent, a grab and demonstration of power over service of the constituency.  Ego, bruised and out for vengeance.

In the old days, it was known as being a poor loser.

What supposedly sets democracy apart as a better form of government than that old demon socialism is our civility and good sportsmanship.  Instead, the behavior of the Republican Conservatives has descended into a "mob-rule" mentality.  And the fact that few leading conservatives (or Republicans) have condemned or called a halt to this immature behavior is enormously disappointing.

Leadership should be about leading with intelligence and decorum, setting an example for the constituency.  If brick-throwing, death threats, false accusations and name-calling are to be the paradigm of their leadership, then clearly we as a society have to be very cautious giving any more power to those who would so clearly abuse it.  Yes, perhaps the citizens will respond negatively to the bill itself, which will be reflected in upcoming elections.  But so too will the quality and behavior of our representatives be reflected in said election.  It is time to choose those who do not let self-interest overtake sound judgment and behavior lead--and to banish those whose antics bring shame not only to themselves but to the system of democracy and a country they supposedly love.  When opponents of the legislation scream "Throw out the scoundrels!", they should be aware that they just may get what they wished for--but not in the way they meant it.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, TENNESSEE WILLIAMS
Thomas Lanier Williams, better known as one of our greatest American playwrights, Tennessee Williams, would be 99 if he were with us this coming March 26th.   Like most great talents, he was a man of enormous appetites and passions and lived life to extremes.  His wild and crazy journey found expression in some of the most remarkable plays and poetry of the 20th Century.

Interesting that the "outsider as artist" should be such an American icon--in an age where the conservative right would have you believe that we must all be the same with the same values, the love of Williams work speaks more directly to the American spirit of individualism, free speech, and yes, God forbid, self-criticism.  Williams wrote of those who survived the tide of moral and mental mediocrity, and his characters always chose passion over convention.  Convention was to be mistrusted and questioned thoroughly, for underneath lay hidden violations more cruel than any foibles exhibited by those on the margins of our society.  He championed survivors, those who fought for their belief in life and love even in the face of evidence that proved the world was often a cruel and inhumane place.

Having said THAT mouthful, it is my pleasure to tell you that I will be taking part in a celebration on March 21st in advance of Mr.Williams' upcoming birthday.  (Though not here to celebrate himself, certainly we can do a splendid job for him--it's the least we can do!)

In celebration of his 99th birthday, Blue Roses Productions will present readings of The Lady of Larkspur Lotion, a jewel of a short play by Williams, in addition to four contemporary short pieces by Richard Cottrell, Craig Pospisil, Gary Giovannetti and yours truly – all inspired by Mr. Williams. Conceived and directed by the company’s Artistic Director, Erma Duricko, Blue Roses has been celebrating the birthday of Mr. Williams in New York City for the past ten years. A benefit for Blue Roses, the evening will feature stars Tandy Cronyn, Brandon Victor Dixon, Jeremy Lawrence, Joel Vig and other very special guests. The evening will also feature Tennessee Williams Scholar Annette Saddik along with Blue Roses company members Timothy Brown, Kara Corthron, Marissa Danielle Duricko, Karen Eterovich, Gary Giovannetti, Jennifer Graves, Michael Graves, Heather Lee Harper, Jim Ireland, Sarah Ireland, Donna LaStella, David Ojala, Blair Sams, George Sheffey, Megan Smith, Tom Matthew Wolfe and John Yearley.  Birthday cake and cocktails will be enjoyed at a party to follow the reading.

The benefit is scheduled to take place Sunday, March 21st at 7:30 pm at the St. Clements Parrish Hall, 423 W 46th St, NYC. Tickets for the Blue Roses benefit are available for a suggested donation of $15.00, available at the door or by calling 212-252-4915 for reservations.

(Blue Roses Productions is a national production company dedicated to presenting the works of Tennessee Williams, as well as nurturing and producing works by new American playwrights that champion the human spirit. Blue Roses Productions strives to create an artistic haven where established and emerging artists can challenge themselves while developing their craft.)

Here's hoping you can come and do your part to celebrate the birthday of a most remarkable artist--and do a bit of celebration of yourself as well!

COPING WITH THE ANGER ALL AROUND US---A MANIFESTO!

Have you felt it?  The anger that throbs as an undercurrent in our daily lives?  It seems we have reached a new state of ugliness, all one hair's-breadth away from the flashpoint of rage.

It is a road rage of the most pernicious kind:  it is the result of celebrity hype, the constant attention to the media darlings whose personal lives and power-mongering have overshadowed the real problems facing the every day American.

The economy's improvements seem slight to those still out of work or only able to work part-time at a rate below what they were earning a few years ago.  Middle-aged workers are particularly hard-hit, as most incentives are to protect young families, which is understandable, but also a bit unfair. Those who've put in the years and were downsized out of the workplace are feeling gypped by a system where they put in their time, hard work and faith, only to find few returns for all their efforts.  Meanwhile, health insurance companies are posting record profits, up 56% over last year, due to increased premiums, and more increases are in sight. (Sure, sure, there's nothing wrong with the U.S. healthcare system!)  And politicians on both sides of the aisle seem to be name-calling and blame-throwing with no regard for their constituents' wants or needs.  (Sure, they'll come back to us in a few months, tails between their legs, and contritely blame the other guys, but right now, they're just having fun in their own pseudo-olympic power struggle.)  And the media has spent so much time and attention on the foibles and exploits of Tiger Woods and John Edwards and Mark Sanford that it all sounds like one big sordid tryst.

But who should we be more angry with--the cheaters who made their own mistakes and hurt the people they care about, or the media scavengers who are determined to make US feel betrayed as well, even when these misjudgments are personal matters and hardly an affront to the average American?  I mean, would I rather attention was placed on my financial and employment plight and finding solutions to my health insurance woes or would I rather they talked about just how many playmates Tiger accumulated?  Let's face it, whatever Tiger's morals are, THAT is not what has placed me and my fellows in the financial, employment and health care hell that we currently find ourselves.

Maybe instead of sitting on our rage--or acting out, only to get ourselves in deeper personal and financial trouble--we need to express it to those who need to hear it.  Maybe we need to send verbal slaps to our representatives in DC to CUT IT OUT--keep a civil head and do the work you're getting paid to do or else get out!  We're not interested in how bad you make the OTHER guys look--we want YOU to come up with answers and solutions.  And if you don't have any, then just shut up and make room for those who DO want to make things better!

We don't want idle threats made to the executives who run their companies into the ground, get bailouts from us and then pay themselves obscene bonuses for their ineptitude!  State and federal attorney generals need to probe the misuse of funds.  And legislators need to stop protecting their campaign contributors and start protecting OUR funds.

Health Insurance?  Whoopi Goldberg has simply and elegantly put it out there: the Congress should stop fighting their dirty, petty little battles and showing off--we don't care.  WE WANT WHAT YOU'VE GOT--you apparently have the best health plan in the Nation, but you seem determined to avoid giving us the same consideration.

And finally, to the Media, who seem to delight in deepening our depression mentally and financially:  can we please have some positive stories about people trying to make a difference?  While everyone screams about transparency in government, the fact is that the media covers the dirty pool and the mud-slinging and celebrity misbehavior but has been sorely lacking in providing any kind of uplift, choosing to make their money through exposing dirt and cynically choosing for us the focus of our attention.

Finally, to the American public--we must reject the level of behavior and disservice shown us.  Our continued apathy and our willingness to let others dictate our benefits, our entertainment, and our policies, our willingness to turn a blind eye versus speaking up and demanding what we want is what got us here in the first place.  What's the good of fighting for a country of freedom of expression, free enterprise, and freedom to be an individual IF we don't exercise those same rights, allowing others to strip them away little by little.  The so-called greatest country now has one of the worst health systems, pathetically low educational test scores, a huge unemployment rate, high divorce rates, high drug and alcohol rates, increased teen pregnancy, increasing infant mortality rates--shall I go on?  We have to let the politicians and the media know that we're sick of what they're feeding us.  Accountability starts with us--to hold them accountable for what they do with our funds, our rights, our quality of life.

This is not a matter of Democrats versus Republicans, Liberals versus Conservatives, Fox News versus MSNBC.  This is a matter of personal accountability and it starts with each and every one of us.

And finally, to the hate mongers--the Lindbaughs and the Becks and the Palins, those who love to spread snarky fear and contempt but provide absolutely NO real ideas or improvements of their own?  Hit the road!  You capitalize and rabble rouse for your own gain.  You are perhaps the most repulsive of all.

If you pay careful attention, all of the media moguls and politicians have been careful to shut down anything that smacks of cultural or artistic endeavor.  Why?  Because art and culture increase personal aesthetics, creative problem solving and the deepening and strengthening of the individual's voice.  Who is easier to lead?  Individuals or sheep?

Don't be led, people.  Yes, it takes more effort to take a stand, but it's like everything else in life:  if you don't use it, you lose it!

Mister Blobfish Speaks

Desiring to set the record straight regarding certain misconceptions.

 

RUN TO "RAGTIME"

I thought I had plenty of time to write and rave about the glorious new production of the great musical, RAGTIME, now playing at the Neil Simon Theater:  one of the best scores of the late 20th century, beautifully performed; a superb ensemble, crisply staged and choreographed by Marcia Milgrim Dodge; a simple but handsome and effective visual design that focused on the story versus the trappings.  Timely when it opened in 1998, it is even more timely now in the age of Obama, reality TV, instant celebrity and people behaving badly in the face of financial struggle.  It won mostly excellent reviews in D.C. at the Kennedy Center, and had won similar praise here in New York.   Rumors had swirled that it was having a hard time catching fire at the box office, but those rumors were denied just this weekend in the Times.

My family took me tonight to see it, and while standing ovations are far too gratuitous these days, this was an amazing ovation of love by a deeply moved audience.  (I had seen the original, twice, and admit it is one of my favorites and, I believe, destined to be a classic.  The original ran for 800 performances and won several Tonys including Best Book and Best Score, only being eclipsed for the big prize that year by THE LION KING.)

I came home to read IT'S CLOSING THIS SUNDAY.

So run, don't walk!  Don't miss stunning performances by a strong cast led by Christiane Noll, Robert Petkoff and Quentin Earl Darrington, superb direction, terrific design, and a story that really means something to today's audiences.  Most of all, don't miss this amazing score, which due to this frightfully short run of 57 performances, will be a long time in coming back.  (There had been talk of New York City Opera doing it two seasons ago, but a schedule conflict caused its withdrawal.)  If you've never seen it before, you owe it to yourself.  If you know the show, you won't be disappointed by this lovely and lovingly-appointed productions.

Sigh . . . too many good shows suffering from the economy--and too many theater lovers are missing out.

A GIFT FOR THE HOLIDAYS

Well, the holidays are zipping along and we're almost at the end of a highly-tumultuous 2009. (Tumultuous is a neat-sounding word, ain't it, even if if isn't always a fun way to go!)

Jobs and finances were at their absolute worst for me and most of the folk I know. Very few people had a good financial 2009--maybe Dick Cheney, but then again, he probably had most of his funds stuffed safely away somewhere in Dubai. (That Dick knows a good deal when he sees one.)

And at times, the frustration REEEEALLY wore me down. Not sure what was trickier--being unemployed for months on end, or then working part-time but not having an easy time on the job AND still not making enough $ to pay bills. And little-to-no supplemental work in sight.

BUT . . . life is full of contradictions. I had a very productive year as a playwright (which may mean at least my tin cup will have a neat inscription when I'm out on the corner). Lots of thrilling experiences, the best of which was the Last Frontier Theater Conference in Valdez, Alaska. Terrific people, terrific work, and a great sense of things that are still right with life. And as a result, I'm heading off to Anchorage in a week to see the world premiere of HEART, which was read at LFTC. It's been a long birthing process for HEART, but I'm so pleased that it finally will get to reach an audience in a fully-staged production under the loving care of ACT in Anchorage. (And who knows, maybe there will be a life beyond that, too!)

And I have spent a year where I've felt great love and support from friends new and old. Yes, Facebook can be the bane of one's existence, but it also brought me back in touch with more friends than I ever knew I had and it has led to warm conversations, revived friendships and the development of new, long-term relationships.

Speaking of relationships, I'm now working towards 25 years with my significant other. That I'm still in love after 24 years is wonderful, but that my partner, Barry, still puts up with me after 24 years--that is TRULY miraculous, and I am extremely grateful.

And I'm still grateful for the love of a dog. Above you see Chloe, the Steely's shih tzu who is five and is one of the sweetest, funniest, most complicated little dogs I've ever known. When she plays, she doesn't just play, she plays WITH YOU. And when given a new toy, she not only is the epitome of joy, but she is also visibly and demonstrably grateful--she let's you know just how much she appreciates your getting her something, even as her delight is palpable thanks enough. There is something so magical about letting go of human hubhub and just communing with a dog--pure, direct, and trusting, a lovely thing.

And despite a continually crumbling wreck of a body, I am grateful that time teaches patience and reminds us that everything comes in cycles. For every downturn, eventually an upturn will come. That is a lesson that only comes with time, and I genuinely ache for my teenage students who don't know that riding out the pain will eventually lead somewhere--they just don't know it yet.

Accepting oneself takes a lot of work over a lifetime. I'm closer than I've ever been to accepting this nutcase/fruitcake I am or have grown into, although I know I still have a long, long way to go. I do know that acceptance of ourselves and of others, warts and all, is one of life's great challenges and also the source of its greatest rewards. And for that realization, I am truly blessed and grateful, even as I struggle to make peace with myself and others, as we all do.

So . . . this seems the perfect time to say thanks to family and friends, to wish everyone peace and (hopefully) prosperity in the New Year and a third "P"--patience. Life is not predictable and perhaps that is for the best. But one has to believe that putting one's best into the world will ultimately bring, if not peace, dignity.

Happy 2010.

REFLECTIONS

Regardless of whether or not you are religious, the better aspect of holidays is that they drag you (sometimes kicking and screaming) into a reflective mode.

The Jewish High Holidays, for example, are frequently about atonement (with a bit of self-flagellation for added zest!).

Thanksgiving, when not about the stresses of travel, family expectations, digestive concerns and a bunch of eagerly begun but ultimately incomplete conversations, actively encourages reflection. Its origins, no matter how distorted by time and history, are rooted in something rather simple and smart, which is to give thanks for our blessings and to realize how much we have for which we should be grateful.

It is not easy in these very difficult times to do and the encouragement to do so, no matter how seemingly external, is welcome. Indeed, it is all so scary right now that we often take refuge in our misery, more comfortable with the demons we live with than the angels we don't recognize. After all, so many are out of work or have taken jobs that don't cover the bills and bring about endless frustration. Rent is dear and hard to come by, and the growth of living costs is in no way matched by growth in our income.

And so, sadly, people seem to have switched into an "every-man-for-himself" mode. You see this on the streets and public transportation, as people push past and knock into you without a word of apology. Employees, fearfully following the scripts of their employers' increasingly absurd and usurious policies, lose their humanity when dealing with customers in need. And clearly we're following an example laid out by the blatant bad behavior on Capitol Hill these days. It seems that winning or taking power is all that matters, to the extent that the real function of society--to care for ALL of us, especially those less well off--has fallen by the wayside. The social contract we all subscribe to is rendered meaningless when the milk of human kindness (let alone civility) has run dry.

So while Thanksgiving may appear to some as "outmoded" in its quaint gauntlet for appreciation, such thoughts are needed now more than ever. We need to be thankful for a safe place to live, which is not afforded to all. We need to be grateful for our health, which can change at any moment and, unless things are fixed soon, can lead us to physical and financial ruin in the blink of an eye. We need to appreciate our loved ones, the folks who love us NOT for our official role in their lives but for who we are, what we share of ourselves and what we give to each other. We should be thankful for mirth and music, for creativity and imagination, for loyalty and the ability to disagree with someone without a loss of respect. Depressions, both financial and emotional, threaten to bring us down individually and as a nation--we should be grateful to those who rally us, actively trying to find a solution, picking us up when we are at our lowest. I'm all for separation of Church and State, but the value of true humanity, that runs through all religious doctrine, should indeed be part and parcel of how we function as a nation and as a people. Those who trumpet values should examine real human costs first, before price tags.

Supporting one another costs little. A smile to someone across a commerce counter costs next to nothing, but gives so much. Civility takes extra effort, as does respect, but it is perhaps our most valuable commodity. On this holiday and all days, maybe we should be most grateful we have these gifts to give--and we should give of them freely. Nothing else shows the better aspect of humanity.

POWERFULLY BEAUTIFUL

It is funny how the world of art has viewed the human body--and men and women as objects of art. While men have for centuries dominated as the maestros--frequently choosing the female nude as their object of choice--women artists were kept under wraps and the male form was more often than not kept discreetly cloaked or clothed. (Not always, granted--but why, if I were to ask you to name a famous male nude, would almost everyone gravitate to Michelangelo's David? Isn't it because after that they get harder to recall and name?) And while classical artists would at times revel in the architecture of the human body (mostly female), modern artists have seemed almost prurient when it comes to the male form. All too often, the male nude has been relegated to the category of homo-eroticism. (This is not to negate gay art patrons, mind you, who've always recognized beauty regardless of gender.)

Commendably, in the past two decades female artists of many stripes, generations and ages have been revealed. (Yes, there are more than just Georgia O'Keeffe and Frida Kahlo, wonderful though they are!) A whole new generation of fans have finally begun to realize that posing was NOT the only contribution women have made to art over the centuries.

But with changing times, modern artists have also begun to be willing to look at the beauty of the male form, not merely as part of the gay subculture, but as part of our willingness to accept our bodies as a source of pride. (What religious guilt has done will take centuries to repair!) Finally, both male and female artists have been willing to view and portray the male form in all its glory and come up with as many interpretations as they previously have for the female nude.

Firehouse Studio has come up with a stunning publication of contemporary male classical forms, entitled POWERFULLY BEAUTIFUL: Classically Inspired Living Painters of the Male Figure. It is a stunning and beautifully produced collection of paintings by a talented coterie of 29 male and female artists--sensual, colorful and often provocative, ranging in style from the photo realistic to post-impressionistic. With a foreword by Grady Harp and an afterword by David Jarrett, it is a magnificent new publication and a valuable addition to the modern library of 21st Century art and ideas--and well worth your exploration. Currently available in a surprisingly sumptuous paperback format, the book is distributed through Amazon.com and CreativeSpace (an Amazon subsidiary) and is a great addition to any personal or public art library. It is not only a celebration of classical painting of the male form but a celebration of active artists displaying enormous gifts in the service of the beauty around us.

In the interest of full disclosure--no pun intended!--I do indeed know one of the artists quite well, but then again, this IS a blog and I'm NOT a journalist here! But rather than take my advice on this, check it out for yourself at https://www.createspace.com/3382894 or on the "Powerfully Beautiful" Facebook page ( which is http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/pages/Powerfully-Beautiful/129778600457?v=info&ref=ts). And believe it or not, since this IS a blog, I can pass on a secret 10% discount code: BYJG6B5F.

POETRY FOR PETS

Over the past five years, as a founding member (and frequent writing and directing participant), I have regaled you with invitations to events presented by the sterling Playwrights for Pets, the organization that raises funds for animal shelters in New York City through staging theatrical readings, drawing on some of the best and brightest writers, actors and other artists.

And I am again. But this time is a bit different.

Oh, yes, there's certain to be wonderful writing. And the performers scheduled (Brian Fuqua, Laura Gillis, Jonna McElrath and John Moss) are superbly gifted performers who are veterans of numerous PFP benefits. There will even be wine & soft drinks, plus 45-minutes of entertainment. And all the money will go to benefit Animal Haven, who will also be hosting the event in their lovely Soho adoption, training and boutique space.

The difference this time: POETRY. Poetry, versus short plays, will be the literary format of the evening. (Not being a poet myself, I'll be sipping and enjoying like the rest of you!) Sue Yocum, Executive Director of PFP, has rounded up works from talented poets old and new to create what should be a most enjoyable evening. So if you are a pet person and want to spend a lovely early evening with a glass of wine and good company, you could either sit in your corner chair with a Cabernet and your cat OR you could come and help others who hope for a home where they can keep their master/mistress company. (C'mon, your pet can spare you for one night!)

Poetry for Pets will take place on Tuesday, October 27th at 7:30 at Animal Haven, 251 Centre Street (between Broome & Grand). Donations are $10. Reservations can be made by calling 718 -768-4213 or e-mailing to Sue@playwrightsforpets.com.

HAPPY AS A CLAM

This morning, eating my breakfast at Two Boots (my favorite haunt in Park Slope), I thought that at least for the moment I was "happy as a clam."

As I should be. Things could be better (on the employment front) but things could also be much, MUCH worse . . . !

And then, of course, it started . . . the brain, which hadn't dared to start prior to the first sip of iced coffee, lest it strain itself unnecessarily . . .

Just how happy is a clam?

Why are clams purported to be so damned gleeful?

Is it "low expectations"? Does a clam not expect that much--and therefore it doesn't take much to make one of them happy?

Do they keep life simple? Free from too much stress? Even before they end up on ice, are they staying cool?

And if they are successful at doing this--as most of us homo sapiens are NOT . . . are we then not even as smart as clams? Let alone, infrequently as happy . . . ?

Perhaps we should take a lesson from our mollusk friends and just keep our big fat bivalves shut . . .

Ah, to be as happy as a clam . . . discuss amongst yourselves . . . !

MANY FACES OF MERYL

I admittedly have not been dwelling in the camp who feel Meryl Streep can do no wrong. (I've frequently felt that she can . . . and does!)

Having followed her career studiously for many years (she is only a few years older than myself), I have fully understood her allure--after all, she is tall, attractive, smart as a whip, has a good ear, a great voice and, let's face it, quite a presence. She is understandably a major talent and it is not surprising that she is one of our most honored actresses. But there are times that I have found her self-conscious, mannered and, at times, overly self-congratulatory. There were certain films that I could feel her patting her own back, saying "good job, Meryl." Her prodigious technique may have been on display, but I also felt that her technique was showing. I won't bore you all with the roles I disliked--well, okay, I personally found her stilted, wilted and "in quotes" in SOPHIE'S CHOICE and SILKWOOD, among many others. (I can feel the angry hate mail being composed already, so hang in there a few more moments, if you will . . . )

Then there was a period where I felt she stopped taking everything (and herself) too seriously and just left herself alone, so to speak--instead of "working" it, she became the character just by trusting her own, perfectly wonderful instrument. She was remarkable as Karen Blixen (aka Isak Dinesen) in 1985's OUT OF AFRICA--although I think it's hard to be less than terrific in any film by Sydney Pollak. (And it was obviously a good year for her, as she gave an appropriately brittle and believable performance in the film version of David Hare's PLENTY. ) Somewhere around that time, a dingo ate her baby--but we'll just leave that be. In 1990, she was wonderfully real in the screen adaptation of POSTCARDS FROM THE EDGE, playing a roman a clef version of Carrie Fisher. She was actually enchanting as Albert Brooks' inamorata in DEFENDING YOUR LIFE, a shamefully neglected and highly enjoyable film that ranks as one of her best (and his, too--he wrote and directed it, after all). And while others may debate its merits, the triumvirate of Meryl, Goldie Hawn and Bruce Willis made DEATH BECOMES HER a black comedy I can still watch again and again. This was a looser, freer, more fluid actress, skilled in comedy and still truthful.

Then she started taking herself too seriously again, beginning to assume the role of "elder stateswoman." Lots of clunkers--and lots of adaptations of famous books and plays that preyed on her vaulted, vaunted status to guarantee some box office gravitas. Many of them sank like a stone. (I remain particularly grumpy about the film version of the wonderful play, MARVIN'S ROOM.) She was serviceable as an action hero in THE RIVER WILD, but a bit overwrought in BRIDGES OF MADISON COUNTY and fun but slightly self-conscious in ADAPTATION. She was so-so in THE HOURS, giving the least luminous among some wonderful performances, and I would have been perfectly happy if she had retired after trying to outdo Angela Lansbury as the Mother from Hell in the remake of THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE. (Then again, only Liev Schreiber survived that film unscathed--ONLY ONLY ONLY WATCH THE ORIGINAL OF THAT ONE!!!)

As for THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA--okay, but she could have phoned it in (and maybe did). Mannered, perhaps, but at least she was using the mannerisms to her advantage. She was skillful but not especially interesting.

ANGELS IN AMERICA--much deserved acclaim, really nice work under Mike Nichols terrific direction of Tony Kushner's masterpiece.

I am charitably skipping MAMMA MIA--it would just be too easy . . . !

Haven't seen DOUBT yet. Have it ready to watch, but I'm scared--scenes I've seen look overwrought (and I absolutely loved it onstage with Eileen Atkins and Ron Eldard).

So a drum roll, please . . .

JULIE & JULIA . . .

now THIS is the role she should be winning Oscars for, a whole passel of 'em! She is amazingly believable, funny, touching and full of life as the beloved Julia Child, catching the mannerisms, voice and SOUL we all feel we know so well. You cannot take your eyes off her, she is such a treat and a pleasure to watch. It is my hope that THIS ends up being one of the roles she is most remembered for--she is as magnificent here as Julia Child was herself in life.

I must hasten to add that JULIE & JULIA is a sheer delight, even BETTER than most of the reviews might lead you to believe--and they were mostly positive. I was thoroughly entertained from start to finish, even moved to tears a couple of times! The estimable Stanley Tucci makes a terrific partner as Paul Child, and the scenes between Streep and Tucci are sexy, funny, romantic, and irresistible. I found myself wanting to stay at the movie theater all day. (Of course, it also was air-conditioned there on the hottest day of the summer!) But I also think the "Julie" section of the movie has been unfairly under-rated, especially given the splendid performances of the always delightful Amy Adams as blogger Julie Powell and the sexy support of Chris Messina as her husband, Eric Powell. (Julie's decision to cook every single recipe of Julia's MASTERING THE ART OF FRENCH COOKING and blogging about it is the impetus for the whole film--which is told in juxtaposition with how Julia Child became, well, Julia Child, and how her famous career and book were born.) Nora Ephron's direction and screenplay are self-assured and great fun, making this her best film to date (and certainly her best looking film to date as well). There are many, many terrific cameos by some of the best actors on both coasts, with special mention going to Frances Sternhagen and particularly Jane Lynch. (Lynch, playing Julia's sister Dorothy, temporarily hijacks the film in a terrific performance that makes you think Dorothy's life should be another film onto itself! The scenes with the two sisters are hysterical, priceless!) This film is one of the truly adult treats of the summer of 2009.

But yes, ultimately, the film belongs to Julia--and Meryl's wondrous portrayal. If I was ever going to fall in love with her, well . . . okay, to misquote a Tom Cruise film (don't get me started!!!) . . . Meryl, you had me at bon appetit!

FACEBOOK BUSKERS

As an admitted addict, I am well familiar with the professed desire--to quit or curtail one's Facebook habit, presence, etc. Feeling somewhat whorish, smirk-y, embarrassed, like I've imbibed entirely too much, said a bit more than I meant to, eaves-dropped on one-too-many conversations, I swear to go cold turkey, to clean up my act, to at least set a limit, a curfew . . .

Of course, I am a man of few traditional bad habits--I don't smoke, drink (one glass, cheap date) or gamble.

Ah, but give me an audience . . .

In these tough economic times, being on Facebook is like being a street busker--performing your act to the crowd that passes by, sometimes attracting attention, maybe even winning a crown or two from a generous onlooker, entertaining the masses . . .

And sometimes, with too much time on my hands, I will I.M., add the witty quip, upload my latest twisted animation or my newest antique photos, lovingly hand-tinted, all with the assumption that my "friends" on Facebook can't wait for another of my bon mots, my special treats . . . and sometimes, I get so disgusted with myself, the sheer unmitigated ego of it all! I suddenly want to hide in shame, thinking what a needy cuss I've become!

But then, if I'm truly honest with myself . . . I am born to entertain, it's what I do, or rather, what I love to do. I live for wit and words and visual arts--and sharing those experiences with an audience. Whether this is a good thing or not, for me or for the assumed audience, is irrelevant. It is what I do, as medicine is what a doctor does, rocket science is what a rocket scientist does, etc.

And in an age where it is tough to get produced, tough to get presented, tough to even make a living no matter what the field, Facebook is providing a soap box, a street corner for FREE (at least for now, thank God!), and the passersby can either watch or not, throw a coin in your cup . . . or not . . . and you can put your wares out there: your wit, your opinions, your visuals, your projects, your connections, your dreams . . . it may not shake up the world but at least you are putting it out there INTO the world, and who knows . . .

The street performer is slightly sad. We'd always wish him/her a better venue to make performance dreams come true. And like Bert in MARY POPPINS, we know that those chalk drawings, no matter how beautiful and inviting, will disappear with this afternoon's sudden rain burst . . . but for the moment, it is lovely and the fact that it is there for us, however fleetingly, makes life a bit more lovely for the moment . . .

NOT ALWAYS SO SIMPLE

One of life's paradoxes--the things that should be so simple, like love, are in fact the things we complicate most for ourselves. Is it our love of puzzles? Our need for self-torment? Or does fear simply make us so irrational that we can't get out of our own way?

No blogger has yet found the answer to this--but then again, the poets have been working on the issue for far longer! And thank God they have! And likewise, let's be happy that Mark Von Sternberg has written and directed a charming new film called LOVE SIMPLE, currently showing as part of the HBO Latino Film Festival.

On a shoestring budget, Von Sternberg has created a quirky valentine, lovingly shot in Park Slope (with even more love than Noah Baumbach's THE SQUID AND THE WHALE). In a story alternately humorous and tender, love appears to two battle-scarred romance seekers in a neighborhood laundromat, and it should be a match made in heaven--except that, ashamed of their personal baggage, both start off with simple lies that turn into elaborate ruses that ultimately become difficult for them to unravel. People lying when pursuing the object of desire is nothing new, of course--Shakespeare has earned a pretty penny with such a premise time and time again. We all fear we won't be received by our beloved if we are not shown in the most favorable light. But in LOVE SIMPLE, even as we understand the young lovers' fears, we find ourselves wanting to call out, "No! Just say the truth, or you'll regret it!" That Von Sternberg's directorial/screenwriting debut awakens such urgency in even slightly-jaded hearts (such as this viewer) is a lovely accomplishment indeed.

The young technical staff belies whatever inexperience they may or may not have with an amazingly good-looking film on a tiny budget, and it is lovingly scored as well. The cast, to a man, is perfection. As Adam and Seta, the young couple navigating love's bumpy course, Francisco Solorzano and Patrizia Hernandez are funny, prickly and lovely, and they receive able support from their almost Shakespearean comedic counterparts (and best friends), played by John Harlacher and Caitlin Fitzgerald. A surprising supporting performance comes from famed playwright and screenwriter Israel Horovitz, playing Adam's ailing father with a touching blend of warmth and despair, and the scenes between father and son are quite moving. An assortment of fine supporting players lend to the Brooklyn ambiance, but this is not just another New York story--trusting the truth in love will always be tricky, but it is something that ultimately must be done if love is to survive.

LOVE SIMPLE will be shown again on Sunday, August 2nd, in NYC, 3:30 PM @ Clearview Cinemas Chelsea Screen 7 (260 W 23rd St, between 8th & 7th Ave). It will also be screened in Los Angeles August 7-9th at the Feel Good Film Festival.

And yes, I do know these folks--but the beauty of a blog is that you don't have to recuse yourself for journalistic ethics. (And if I didn't like it, I just wouldn't bother to write about it!)

"Stupid" Word Usage

I unashamedly adore Ms. Whoopi Goldberg and further admit to being hooked on The View. I find her admirably sensible, funny, practical, and warmly honest. So I begin this "dispute" with love.

Whoopi has an aversion to use of the word, "stupid," and I both appreciate and understand that aversion. In a strange but perhaps unsurprising development in our culture, the f-word is commonplace, but to call someone "stupid" actually stings. ("Fool," another four-letter f-word, is also a conversation-stopper.)

The good news, I guess, is that words still have their meaning-- and the power to make people sit up and take notice. While cuss words come and go, they are meant to be disposable, ultimately. But real words have power. Real words are binding. Real words can sting.

Now, President Obama is coming under his usual daily dose of attack for his use of the word, "stupid", in condemning the behavior of Cambridge police in arresting Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., an esteemed Harvard professor who was arrested and cuffed for breaking into his own house, even when he presented his I.D. (Apparently, the "absent-minded professor" had misplaced his keys during an overseas trip to China and needed to find a way into his own abode. Having had to search for my keys on a daily basis, I sincerely feel Prof. Gates' pain, as those things truly DO have a life of their own.) That the police responded rapidly to the burglary call from a neighbor is laudable, but that the police arrested Prof. Gates despite the evidence that this wasn't a crime, arrested him for disorderly conduct in his own home, did not read him his Miranda rights, and then refused to apologize for their mistake--WHAT WOULD YOU CALL THIS?

That Professor Gates is a highly-recognized and respected member of numerous communities shouldn't matter IF he had behaved badly--and only those at the scene would know what really went down. No member of ANY community should abuse those doing their civic duty, and lord knows the police need support in their actions and appreciation for the bravery they display on a regular basis. On the other hand, President Obama is absolutely right in pointing out that the degree of racial profiling informing the activities of law enforcement has statistically reached frightening proportions and politely ignoring this fact will not make it all go away. (As Whoopi sagely pointed out, it is also sad that neighbors don't get to know each other better--perhaps, had Professor Gates' neighbors taken the time to get to know him, they wouldn't have called to report a black man breaking into the house across the street.)

But to the word itself.

Asked a direct question, the President responded honestly, openly and directly with his opinion (which is in keeping with his style). He said the police had "acted stupidly" in arresting Professor Gates, given the evidence that there was no crime committed.

In looking at the definitions of the word, "stupid," one finds "lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind," and also "in a state of stupor, stupefied; stupid from fatigue." (see below for reference.) In short, acting stupidly is the action of one temporarily not at their best. It does not imply they are permanently or at all times deficient, but it does infer that they are not using their best judgment in the given circumstances. How much more correct can the President's usage be?

Also, just as parents have a right to bring a child up short when they've misbehaved, it is totally appropriate for the top law enforcement official in the country to reprimand his subordinates when those who serve in our name misbehave in the execution of their duty. (Especially when this behavior has been going on unchecked for far too long, to a degree that is practically an epidemic.)

Finally, it speaks to President Obama's character. I respect him for going to a friend's defense rather than taking the political high-ground, especially when this situation is not rooted in political gain. Reverend Jeremiah Wright was deliberately using his position and was keenly aware of the political consequences. Professor Gates was trying to get in his own front door. Barrack Obama, clearly, is a true friend, and as an African-American and as a friend, answered the reporter's question honestly, without "politico speak" and I, for one, appreciate that. (He further prefaced the remark, saying he did not know all the facts involved and was speaking from a personal response.)

Stupidity is the use of poor judgment.

For example, when the Republican Representative (whose name escapes me, sorry) was attacking Obama's health plan yesterday NOT by discussing its weaknesses but by saying how this would break Obama's power, further attacking the President himself and not the plan . . . I would say this was stupid, revealing an attack that was totally based in partisan politics and not on what is best for the health care of his constituency (a subject for another blog, another time).

Stupidity is today, when Sgt. Crowley, the officer in question, criticizied HIS boss (the President of the United States) for butting in. Stupid is Sgt. Crowley saying he will never apologize. He is 100% right for not apologizing for doing his job--but he is 100% wrong not to acknowledge that mistakes were made and that he could have handled things better in his position.

Reading the police account, it sounds like tempers and egos flared. When one has been travelling for hours and hours (back from China), one might be very fatigued and irritable. (I know I would be.) I suspect no one behaved in a sterling, clear-headed fashion that night. When President Obama refers to the behavior as "stupid," he is not casting aspersions. He has hit the nail squarely on the head in an attempt to insist that we all do better.

So Whoopi, my love--I still respect you, but I think one should use strong words when strong words are appropriately used.

---
References:

Modern Language Association (MLA):
"stupid." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 23 Jul. 2009. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stupid>.

American Psychological Association (APA):
stupid. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved July 23, 2009, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stupid

THE ROAD SHOW NOT TAKEN?

ROAD SHOW took many years to write, and like so many artists' pet projects, it may not end up being the most popular "child" no matter how much it is beloved by its creators. And if this is the "final" version, then WISE GUYS and BOUNCE are only of minor interest in the development process--it is the finished piece that counts. The reaction off-Broadway to ROAD SHOW was strangely cool, perhaps due to all the expectations. And no matter how "advanced" New York audiences and critics may claim to be, traditionalists still love central tracking "characters," a person who represents the audience. But Sondheim and Weidman have done musical "essays" before--a musing meditation on a historic event that changed the course of history. In PACIFIC OVERTURES, the central character wasn't a person at all--it was Japan, dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world. Great visuals, breath-taking music, a thought-provoking experience that questions our own responsibility in Japan's subsequent actions and development. (In ASSASSINS, it was the contorted dream of fame, of making a difference, of getting noticed--America's all-preoccupying past time.) Are you going to say two of our greatest current theater artists can't explore something of interest to them, something a bit more challenging? ROAD SHOW, especially now, is timely in its exploration of hucksterism, of bogus land deals and bilking the public trust. Some folks took what they took with deliberation, while others let circumstances usurp and corrupt their ambitions and dreams. How timely is that? If Japan was the central character of PACIFIC OVERTURES, America and its dream is the central character of ROAD SHOW. It is small, mean, efficient, essay-like--and pungent. And in its own way, quite subversive, asking the questions that we choose not to ask of ourselves. It points the finger at us, the bilked public, the Madoff victims, and asks us, "Aren't you complicit?" And the production at the Public was most admirable, small in scale and design (if somewhat overpopulated) but ably directed and paced by John Doyle, with an incredibly dedicated cast. Alma Cuervo, William Parry, and Claybourne Elder led a strong supporting ensemble, and Michael Cerveris was as brave as ever, portraying the self-serving Wilson Mizner. But it was Alexander Gemignani, a large imposing presence with a heart of gold and guilt (spelling intentional) who came closest to being if not the tracking character, then at least the guilty conscience of ROAD SHOW, in a beautifully sung and played performance (as Addison Mizner). The show was intellectually interesting in the theater and you had to listen to each detail as it hurried by. The recording gives more time to absorb--and like all Sondheim, it grows richer and richer with each replay.

Serious musical theater fans rejoice--a valuable cast album has arrived. As for Sondheim fans--recognize that the master hasn't softened one iota: he still wants you to sit up, listen and think.

INDEPENDENCE DAY

My recurring memory of the 4th of July is (as it is for most of my family) of getting together the entire family at my Aunt Doris' house in New London, CT. She and Uncle Morris had a house on Pequot Avenue across the street from a small strip of private beach, and we would spend the holiday there, living only a few blocks away on Glenwood Place. Sometimes Aunt Shirley and Uncle Nat would come in from Jericho, Long Island with my cousins. And usually, Aunt Joan and Uncle Roger would come in from New York--and Uncle Roger would sit all of us kids down, good attorney that he was, and read us the Declaration of Independence on Aunt Doris' patio. Then after a hot dog/hamburger cookout, we'd go across and down the street to watch a fireworks display--modest but, to a youngster, magical. (My favorite part was the sparkling, moving animals--it took me a long time to realize that someone had merely made large, animal-shaped frames, lit sparklers along the frames, and then walked the frames along the darkened beach, somehow creating the magic illusion of moving animals of flame!)

Today, aside from one Alaska governor's career going down in flames, most of the pyrotechnics will be limited to the skies. (Macy's is doing it on the Hudson versus the East River for a change--should be quite a show along the West Side.)

But I guess more than anything else, I find myself pondering what Independence Day means. Not in the historical sense, although it may be impossible to divorce history from this discussion. Indeed, the whole notion this nation was supposedly founded on was that we were a place where freedom of ideas--and expression of those ideas--was not only permitted but celebrated. Wars continue to be fought (supposedly) to protect that concept, a concept which, in turn, we hope to spread to other lands (sometimes even if it kills 'em). As a nation, we get obnoxious overseas, telling others that our democracy is the way, perhaps the ONLY way. (We're being slightly better with that behavior of late, thanks to a President with a modicum of taste and tact.)

I guess what I'm exploring is: for all the fighting to protect those rights--and God bless our soldiers and all who defend and protect those rights on our behalf--are we in fact cherishing them?

To me, this country is supposed to be where Independence of thought is sacred. You can worship as you please--which means organized or disorganized religion, mass worship or a congregation of one. Or none.

Independence means you can love whomever you choose to love, wherever you choose to love them. Love for another human being should be a fundamental right--regardless of gender, race or creed. Relationships are so hard and complicated--if two people want to commit to each other, no matter who they are, bless 'em for making a go of it! (To get hung up on who or what they are and what defines "marriage" is antithetical to the very basis of holy union, whose roots are pure and start with love and commitment.)

Independence means freedom of opinion--and while not always agreeing, respecting others' opinions or, at the very least, their right to their opinion. The venom spewed by extremists on both sides of the aisle (no parties immune) continues to erode like acid the very fabric of the flag. (In Albany, currently, ego and power trips won't even allow people to sit in the same room with each other to do the very duties they are sworn to uphold as public Representatives.)

Being an American means being able to take care of yourself and your family. Contributing to and taking from a system that allows you autonomy. And when you are unable to take care of yourself--or when the system has somehow failed you or even sadly screwed you over--there are still fail safes from our society that will help you till you get back on your feet again. As nearly one in ten citizens is now unemployed, it is depressing to think how hard it may be to claim your Independence when you can't afford your basic necessities.

Freedom should mean being able to fly, unfettered. And being a U.S. citizen should mean supporting each other in that pursuit. Do we?

Wishing you all an independent spirit--the most important freedom of all.