Who Would Jesus Shoot?

How do people who consider themselves to be "good Christians" reconcile their love for guns with their love for Jesus Christ?  Does the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the good old U.S. of A. trump the Sixth Commandment from the Bible? This is the very Bible that these right-wing, red state Christians claim to revere.

Speaking of red states, I wonder if it's a coincidence that most of these school shootings take place in red states (or in the case of what happened at the Amish school in Pennsylvania, it took place in a conservative region of what is a borderline blue/red state).

And speaking of the Constitution, I've said it before, but it can't be said enough: the Second Amendment does not implicitly give Americans the right to personally own guns or to have them in our homes. It says specifically that for the purposes of maintaining a militia we have the right to keep and bear arms, but arms for a militia could be kept in an armory until we'd have a need to bear them.  The Constitution does not give anyone the right to build up a personal arsenal. Besides, the only time that right-wingers care about the Constitution or citizen's rights is when it comes to this one Amendment. Otherwise, the party that rails against "Big Government" wants to legislate every aspect of what we can and can't do with our own bodies, but God forbid if anyone wanted to legislate programs that might help the neediest of the needy in our country. "Ah, Jesus wouldn't just give them a fish, like a handout, he'd teach them how to fish." You know what, I don't think that Jesus would have minded giving out a few fish until the hungry were able to catch fish for themselves.

But even if you interpret the Constitution as saying that we can own guns, just because the Constitution allows something doesn't mean that you have to do it. The Constitution also supposedly guarantees free speech, but we've recently learned that there are caveats to that "right," especially if you're a sixty-something year old white man trying to be hip by spouting a ridiculous racially-charged, misogynistic comment that you've uttered because you think you're making an ironic cultural reference to the Hip-Hop vernacular popularized and oft-spoken by today's youth. You have the right to say what you want, but be prepared to have some hypocritical Reverends dogging your every breath until you are universally despised and utterly destroyed.

After the Imus blow-up, Al Roker was dour especially dour on the "Today Show."  I've seen him snap out of serious moments after tragedies of all sorts (violent crimes, fires, hurricanes, terrorism) with a simple "on a lighter note," which is fine because that's what's expected on a morning news program, but this Imus situation was the first time that I've seen him so noticeably serious since 9/11.

Roker is reported to have said that he was upset because Imus could have been talking about his daughter with such words. Well, does Al know for sure that none of his kids are gay, because when news of Isaiah Washington's homophobic comments came out Al should have been outraged that it was possible that Washington could have been indirectly maligning one of his children. Washington still has his job, even though there are many other parents in this country who love their gay children as much as Roker loves his daughters. Granted, Isaiah Washington's words were not intended for public consumption, as Imus's were, but the public still learned of his hate speech, just the same.

There were many Jewish New Yorkers who had young children back in 1984, so perhaps they should all have banded together and called (loudly and relentlessly) for banning the Reverend Jesse Jackson from radio airwaves and from making television appearances after he referred to New York as "Hymie Town" back when he was running for president(!)  that year. It's strange how Jewish people, whom anti-Semites believe control the media, were not able to ban Jackson from radio or TV for even one day, let alone take him of the air permanently, even though the good Reverend's comment was more deliberately mean-spirited than Imus's, which was just rooted in an unthinking, foolish attempt to be hip.

If you're going to go after people for making bigoted statements, then be consistent and go after everyone, even if you are not a member of the group who is being insulted. And don't you DARE go after someone else unless you know without a doubt that your own slate is clean.

I'm Dreaming of a White... Easter!?
Since my last blog entry was on Christmas Day, I suppose it's kind of appropriate for my latest to be on the day before Easter.  I know that it will certainly melt before tomorrow, Easter Sunday, but I woke up today and saw a lovely blanket of white on the ground and the trees looked as if they'd been dusted with confectioner's sugar. Not much else to say about this. It's just funny that we rarely ever have snow on the ground for Christmas Eve or Christmas Day, but her it is Easter Eve Day and we've got snow (I know there's technically no such thing. It's really called Holy Saturday. Don't call it Easter Saturday, because that's the Saturday after Easter. Don't believe me? See for yourself.)  A few days ago I was wearing shorts and a tee shirt when I went down to the Potomac River for a nice bike ride into Virginia. Those poor cherry blossoms down at the Tidal Basin must be really confused right now.

A Very Bush Administration Christmas

Ever since 9/11 all aircraft, commercial and private, have had to follow strict flight plans when approaching my city, Washington, DC. Jets, small propeller planes, helicopters, etc. have all had to fly over the Potomac river and turn at a sharp angle when they approach National Airport for landing, so they can avoid getting anywhere near the No-Fly Zone (NFZ) that has been declared around the memorials, White House, Capitol, and the various government agencies.

Although it hasn't been widely reported,  a small craft violated the NFZ rules last night by entering the forbidden air space. The Department of Homeland Security had the situation covered, though, and their fighter jets scrambled to the scene before this unidentified aircraft, which was headed directly for the White House, could reach its target.

The fighter jets shot the rogue craft out of the sky and witnesses claim that the power of their weapons was so devastating that not much debris remained, which has the wheels turning in conspiracy theorists' brains already.

One witness, however, who had seen the entire chain of events unfold, did actually find a piece of the charred red fusilage. When asked what kind of aircraft it was that was shot down, the witness described it as being built in the form of a red, old-fashioned, open carriage or sleigh, and also said that it appeared to have been pulled by nine large woodland mammals of some sort, the one in front having a bright red light attached to its face, possibly for navigation purposes.  Unfortunately, all witnesses have been spirited away to an undisclosed location, so we may never know what really happened last night over the National Mall, just a few hundred yards from the White House.

 

---

'Twas the night before Christmas
and in the capital of the U.S. of A.
not an aircraft approached the NFZ
except for a big, toy-filled sleigh

The fighter jets were summoned
and scrambled to the center of town
til they reached the offending target
and shot Santa down . . .

 

---

That Ugly Girl!
I was going to write this post about my "Ugly Betty" website, but I wrote the subject line that way because I'm watching a "That Girl" marathon on TV Land right now. I haven't seen this show in decades, but it feels as though it's only been a few years. Anyway, back to "Ugly Betty," my fan page for the show is appended to my tripod site until I can find a better hosting service. There are other great sites dedicated to the show, but mine focuses on all of the other international versions from Colombia, Israel, India, Germany, Russia, Mexico, the Netherlands, and Spain.  I already have a connection on "Ugly Betty," one of the show's stars, so if I'm lucky I might be able to visit the set someday, just as when I was invited to the set of "Strangers With Candy" back in 2000.

Legends! The world's most craptacular theatrical experience!

Today I turned 40, and what better way to celebrate aging than by watching Joan Collins and Linda Evans on the National Theatre's stage, starring in Legends!? (The exclamation point is part of the show's title, and the question mark just punctuates my rhetorical question.)

Back in the '80s I was a complete "Dynasty" addict, so  there was no way I was going to miss this opportunity to see the two divas during the two-week run of their comedy play here in DC.  I went to see it with my friend Rob, another big "Dynasty" fan who is probably the only other person I know who can reenact scenes from the campy primetime soap, especially the Moldavian wedding massacre.

It was fun to see the old gals in person, and being amongst the old ladies (not just Joan and Linda; it was a matinee, so most of the audience members were decades older than we are) certainly made me feel younger.  It's like the way that I feel thinner when I sit next to someone who is a little more on the corpulent side than I am.

The play itself is pretty much a steaming pile of... well, you get the idea. Is it the shoddy writing?  Certainly.  Could the fault lie with the director?  I'm sure he gets a large share of the blame.  Might it be the fact that the show just seems too dated?   Perhaps.

But despite its faults, as I said already, I wouldn't have missed this show for anything.  Plus, Rob and I shared many laughs during and after the show. Unfortunately, none of the laughs have been courtesy of what were playwright James Kirkwood's intentions. We've had the most fun thinking up other pairings that producers could come up with for alternate revivals of this show:  Joan van Ark and Michelle Lee, Linda Gray and Victoria Principal (who ended up being mentioned in the play's second act!),  Cicely Tyson and Leslie Uggams, Maureen McCormick and Eve Plumb, and a mini-male version with Gary Coleman and Emanuel Lewis (in Li'l Legends!).  Then they could do Legends Babies! which would feature child stars (Dakota Fanning and Hallie Kate Eisenberg, perhaps) as the tiny tot versions of Sylvia and Liatrice, Joan and Linda's characters, when they were competing to star in their elementary school's upcoming production of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?  Ah, the possibilities are endless.  Endlessly and totally crapulous!

 

Grey Gardens Revisited (soon to be revisited, that is)

You may have noticed that I've already written extensively about how much I enjoyed experiencing "Grey Gardens: The Musical" at Playwright Horizons back on February 18th of this year.  I was very disappointed when the show's run ended, because I wanted desperately to see it again.  I tried to get tickets, but even though the show had been extended a few times, it kept selling out and I just wasn't able to get decent tickets for any times that I might be available. And hopes for the show to be moved to a permanent home on Broadway were quickly dashed because the New York theater scene has been doing so well that there weren't any available houses to take the Beales in.

Needless to say, but here I am saying it anyway, I was thrilled to learn that the show is indeed going to be starting a Broadway run on November 2nd at the Walter Kerr Theatre, where I'd seen "Take Me Out" a couple times back in 2003.  Previews start on October 3rd and I've got two tickets (I'm taking my own Big Edie, my mother, to see it) for November 4th and can't wait.  I've been listening to the Off-Broadway cast recording every day since it arrived last week. Sometimes twice a day. Okay, usually twice a day. I can't help myself. It's the music and I'm it's hapless victim!  (That's a lyric from one of the songs. See, I'm obsessed.)

What is it about the documentary film and this musical?   I think that with the film I was captivated because it seemed to be what you'd get if John Waters directed a film inspired by the works of playwright Tennessee Williams.  And with the musical I love how the first act, set in 1941, seems like vintage Cole Porter, while the second act, set in 1973, seems like what Cole Porter would have come up with if he had been inspired by Tennessee Williams.

I'm also fascinated by the elements of Whatever Happened to Baby Jane and Sunset Blvd., without the really dark and sinister aspects, in which you have these women who clearly don't see themselves as others see them.  They had once lived the high life, yet they don't seem to realize how far they've fallen.

I'll be bringing my copy of the documentary on DVD to Connecticut next month, when I'm up there for my cousin's wedding, so my mother can get to know the real Edies, that way she'll be able to realize just how much of a revelation Christine Ebersole and Mary Louise Wilson's performances are.  Even if she doesn't care for the documentary (I think she might find it too depressing), I know that she will LOVE the musical.

I've got a sickness

I've always tried to speak correctly and whenever I've learned that I've broken a grammar rule or have misspelled a word, I've made a point of trying not to repeat the mistake(s) in the future.  But I've never really considered matters of grammar and spelling to be that important in the great scheme of things.  I don't know why I've become a little obsessed with this.

Perhaps I'm just fighting off the ravages of loneliness.  Oh, wait, that's what my imaginary baby is for.

Anyway, this is how bad it's getting:  My friend Wade jokingly (or maybe not jokingly) called me a "grammar Natzi" last week in an email, so what did I do?  Of course I wrote back to him to tell him that he spelled Nazi wrong.  Sometimes I just can't stop myself.

Another nit to pick with Mr. Crichton...

I was just reading the chapter that begins, "Century City/Monday, September 27/9:45 A.M." and the first sentence says, "Evans had heard nothing from Morton for almost two weeks."

It seems like such a harmless little sentence, doesn't it?  What could be wrong with it?

Well, two chapters earlier, the one that begins, "Century City/Thursday, September 2/12:34 P.M." we are told that over a week had gone by during which period Peter Evans had not heard from George Morton.

So by September 27 over thirty-two days had passed without any communication between Evans and Morton.  Don't thirty-two days equal four-and-a-half weeks, not just under two weeks?

I suppose it's possible that there was some cell phone conversation that had taken place around September 13, but Crichton makes such a big deal about the lack of communication between the two men when the first week had gone by that it seems like a pretty big oversight for him not to mention even a voice-mail message or two-second phone call that may have transpired.

I know that his mind was probably on all of the charts, graphs, and sources of scientific data that refute the existence of global warming, but I think that such a well-known author would have editors who are supposed to catch such things.  The man has got plenty of resources, come on!

 

I need a fact checker in California

I'm reading Michael Crichton's global warming/eco-terror novel "State of Fear" and he's got a lot of facts and figures that would require tons of research to verify, but there's one easy one that sticks out like a sore thumb in the first sentence of the chapter that's headed, "Beverly Hills/Tuesday, August 24/5:04 P.M."

The sentence begins, "It was almost dark when he went home to his apartment..."

Now, I need someone in the Los Angeles area to tell me if it starts to get dark at 5:04 P.M. in August.  It doesn't start to get dark here in D.C. until after 8:00 P.M. during the summer.  Could the West Coast be that different?  I don't think so.

Another matter may have been intentional.  Throughout the novel, a Pacific island nation called Vanutu is referred to rather frequently, but there is no such nation.  There's an island nation in the Pacific called Vanuatu, which is a very similar name.  Is "Vanutu" a fictionalized version of Vanuatu, or was this a spelling error that evaded detection by a slew of editors and fact checkers?  This one may very well be a fictionalization.

Perhaps Crichton figured that since most Americans can't even find Asia on a globe they probably wouldn't even know that Vanuatu exists, so why bother coming up with a name that doesn't closely resemble that of a real nation?

We've got a li'l problem
I've noticed that li'l is often spelled wrong, so I want to make it clear that the way that I've just spelled it is indeed the correct spelling, not that I recommend its frequent use.

Aside from its use in the possessive case ("Karen's son is getting so big!" "The Kravitzes are the Stephenses' nervous neighbors.") or to denote certain plurals ("Remember to dot your i's and cross your t's." "I bought my first CD's in the 1980's."), an apostrophe is also used to mark the omission of a letter or letters from a word. This is sometimes done to make contractions where two words are combined (don't=do+not, I'm=I+am), but can also be done to shorten a single word, as in the case of turning little into li'l, in which the apostrophe replaces two t's.   [Note: The apostrophe isn't absolutely necessary or required in my above examples of "CD's" and "1980's."  Those could be written as "CDs" and "1980s" and would still be considered acceptable by many grammarians, or in many cases those might actually be the preferred spellings.]

So, the skank-a-licious Lil' Kim gets it wrong. Even though her apostrophe could arguably be said to be replacing the missing e at the end of little, it's actually supposed to be replacing the two t's, as I said above (the silent e is just not accounted for in this instance). Back when the "artist" formerly known as Li'l Bow Wow, Kim's contemporary, was still known by that name, he actually got the name right... sometimes.  He was occasionally credited as Lil' Bow Wow. It's tricky keeping up with the name changes of some of these "celebrities" when they seem to be changing their aliases more than con artists and grifters who are wanted by the police in a number of states.

I guess, technically, if it's your own name you can pretty much call yourself anything that you damned well please. You can be Li'l, L'il, Lil', or even 'Lil. I suppose I've seen more egregious name choices than these in the past decade or two, but that will be a topic for another day...

P.S. For the record, even that inbred, backwoods, redneck hillbilly Li'l Abner gets it right, so there's no excuse for anyone else to get it wrong.