Today's fractal "cookie" is Shadowrose. I picked it because it is a fairly simple, black-and-white image--quite similar to the issue on which I will be ranting. That being said, lets get on with it, shall we?
-
Saw something on this today's Good Morning America (2/17/11) that I found equally fascinating and horrifying. George Stephanopolous interviewed Congressman (and Tea Party Caucus head honcho) Michelle Bachmann (R-MN). Most of the commentary was pretty much "business as usual" (which I honestly don't have a problem with) but there were a couple of things which really made my head want to explode. Here's a link to the entire interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkX8EnkfEVg . First she was asked about her criticism of First Lady Michelle Obama advocating breast feeding to prevent obesity, (stating it promoted a "Nanny State"). When asked about the commentary Bachmann turned it into some strange diatribe on "Governmental Social Engineering" and the Tax Code--without really answering the question. (I get not wanting "governmental social engineering" but I just don't get why anyone--Republican or Democrat--would object to the First Lady coming out in favor of breast feeding.)
-
Shortly afterward she was asked about the "Birther" issue. For those of you living under a rock, this is the prevalent belief among a lot of folks--primarily Republican but not exclusively--that President Obama wasn't born in the United States (making him not a citizen) and isn't a Christian. (A recent poll had 58% of Republicans in Iowa actually believing this nonsense.) Although asked several times, Bachmann dodged the issue, refusing to give a direct answer. While researching this post I found another clip (this one from Larry King Live) where she pretty much did the same thing. (For those of you who doubt me, check it out here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkX8EnkfEVg ). Her answer was "I have to take the President at his word"--which addresses without answering the question.
-
The issues aside (although there's material for several posts in there), I'm getting thoroughly disgusted with Politicians who simply don't seem to be able to give straight answers to direct questions. I first noticed this during the last Vice Presidential Debates (Sarah Palin was notorious for this.) Sadly, the disease seems to be catching on in all candidates. What on Earth is wrong with answering a direct question with a simple "yes I do" or "no I don't"? Has the fear of "offending their base" become so prevalent that no Politician will go on record for anything--no matter how basic? (In the case of Obama's citizenship it's a matter of Public Record NOT opinion.)
-
It's mind-boggling to me that we even have to be discussing this in this day and age. Facts are facts and there shouldn't be a need for equivocation. I'd love to go back to good old days where Politicians just said what they thought but, sadly, I guess this won't happen.
-
Think about it.
-
'nuff said.
I chose 4 Red Rings as today's fractal "cookie" because of the red, white and blue color scheme. It's "all-American"--just like this rant! So--if you love juicy scandal just as much as I do, sit back and enjoy this one!
-
Ran across an interesting story earlier this morning: Republican Chris Lee from upstate New York suddenly resigned after gossip web site Gawker.com published a shirtless photo he sent to a woman he met at a "women seeking men" posting on Craigslist. (Here's the link to the story I published on my Facebook page: http://znmoment.amplify.com/2011/02/09/i-am-too-sexy-for-my-shirt-congressman-resigns-amid-craigslist-scandal/ .) My FB friends can find a really interesting and lengthy conversation regarding the scandal.
-
Gawker.com had the photos and e-Mail for a week before publishing (in order to verify their authenticity). Still, 3 1/2 hours after the story and pictures broke Representative Lee resigned. His resignation letter said: "It has been a tremendous honor to serve the people of Western New York. I regret the harm that my actions have caused my family, my staff and my constituents. I deeply and sincerely apologize to them all. I have made profound mistakes and I promise to work as hard as I can to seek their forgiveness."
-
What wasn't obvious as the story broke was a few interesting details that didn't make it into the early reportage. Representative Lee tried to be clever (my opinion) by not using his real name and by not admitting to profession in his flirtation. Still, he sent this lady the shirtless pic and the photo that was on his professional web site. Dunno why the lady in question felt the need to run them through a photo matching program to see who he really was. I also don't know why she felt the need to send them to Gawker but I'm sure glad she did! (I love the smell of scandal in the morning.) Further, there are reports that House Speaker John Boehner (R/Ohio) had warned him about partying with femal lobbyists. Oh, and one more bit of delightful dirt, turns out Representative Lee had recently spoken to a group of youngster regarding the "dangers of the Internet". Too bad he didn't listen to his own advice. Talk about putting the "duh!" in dumb!
-
In all honesty, I've got to say I feel sorry for the guy's wife and child. They don't deserve what's going to happen to them because of Representative Lee's "little mistake." But, also in all honesty, I have to say that I love it when folks who cloak themselves in "family values" and wrap themselves in the flag get brought low by their own stupidity. The fact that he was so quick to quit makes me wonder what else is going to come out about the guy--but I guess we're just going to have to wait to see what, if anything, falls out.
-
You'd think politicians would learn: times have changed! These days there is no such thing as a "cloak of invisibility." The press isn't going to cover up your indiscritions like they did in the good old days. Step out of line, you're going to get caught! Still, Representative Lee has one thing he can take comfort in--he looks half way good without a shirt. That pic is going to be out there for a very long time--and it would be even worse if he looked bad! Who knows? Maybe he'll have a new career as a centerfold...
-
'nuff said.
This Floral Fantasy fractal pretty much screams 60s. That's why I chose it for my review of Hair. Hmm--that was remarkably simple... Ah well--on with the review!
-
I've been fascinated by Hair (the musical not the stuff that grows on heads and other places) since my early teens: I had become aware of the musical through movies like The Music Man, West Side Story and Gypsy which used to play pretty regularly on Thursday Night at the Movies. (Does anyone remember those?) Still, Broadway was a long way away from the sleepy little desert town where I grew up--and there was no way I was going to go. Still, my next door neighbor Donald Ray Hale had an 8-Track tape of the show (dunno how he got it or why) but it seemed to be playing almost every time I was over there--hence I got pretty familiar with the show. Then Hair came to Los Angeles for an extended run (like two years) at the Aquarius Theater. Turned out my sister Syn Dee lived not too far from that storied venue (yeah right!) and we'd drive by it several times whenever we went to visit. For the first time there was the possibility I could see a real, live Broadway Show!
-
But sadly, that dream was never to be: my sisters (with the possible exception of Tanya--who I never asked) weren't interested in seeing the show and I doubt my parents would have wanted me to see anything that glorified sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll (and lets not forget the NUDITY!!!) Soon enough the 60s faded and Hair, the Tribal-Love Rock Musical (as it was called back then) faded with them. There was an ill-conceived movie version in the early 80s but it was nothing short of horrible. Eventually though, like everything else, the endless recycling of pop culture brought back to the Broadway stage in 2009--a generation after it first premiered.
-
I was surprised to see how many people attended the Saturday matinee (and even more surprised to see how many people were my age or older: guess they saw it the it the first time around). The new production gets the American Idol treatment with bigger voices, higher notes, more complex runs and generally amped-up production values. The plot is barely sketched in and the characters are little more than stick (some might say schtick) figures but the songs we remember and all the irreverence that made the original so controversial back in the day are still there in spades. The second act is completely confusing (and much of it is pretty forgettable) and the show ends on an ambiguous (yet equally effective and disturbing) image that gives you a lot to ponder.
-
You can't fault the cast for their singing or acting (or their general willingness to "go there"). Everyone has good "rock-anthem" voices and nice lithe bodies for the dancing. We had seats in the Orchestra section so the cast spent some time in the aisles interacting with the audience. The costumes hearken back to a bygone day and the 11 piece on-stage band is first rate. There is a lot of irreverence (the nude scene is preserved although it's not featured nearly as prominently as the original--but maybe that was just because the show was in Orange County). The set was minimal but effective and the lighting was effective as any rock show.
-
Watching the show was a strange, bittersweet experience for me. (I was almost there back in the day.) The "Hippie" movement eventually helped end the Viet Nam War and gave rise to Women's Lib and Gay Liberation (good things in my book). Sadly, their children were the Yuppies (who gave rise to the ultimate in "me"-driven crass consumerism). It was an odd experience for me to look back on the good--and--bad--times back then. (The reality is that everything wasn't all "peace/love/joy")
-
Still, if you were "there" in the 60s (and want to remember) or even if, like me, you just wish you were, Hair is a fun trip down memory lane. Right-Wingers won't like it because of the anti-Establishment message not to mention the "disrespect" to the American Flag but if you can get past that I suggest you catch the show while you can.
-
FINAL GRADE: A
I chose Peppermint Star as today's fractal cookie mainly because the show I'll be reviewing is a stellar effort and a sweet experience for all concerned. (But, then again, y'all pretty much had to guess that from the title of the review--right?)
-
Frankly, I was dreading Performance Riverside's production of The Sound of Music. The day was cold and an early rain was dripping out of a leaden sky. Worse--the first two shows I'd seen them do had their share of problems. Still, we had the tickets so I was going to use them. Still, a Rogers and Hammerstein show is hard to screw up so I hoped for the best.
-
And, really, The Sound of Music has it all--memorable (yet very singable) songs, a sweet, brave story (suitable for the entire family) a passle of cute kiddies and an easy-to-follow plot. What more could you ask from a show? Yes, you have to have skilled singers on stage and a good pit orchestra to send the show to the stratosphere (but luckily this show has that in spades). From start to finish your ears are in for a real treat.
-
Cassandra Murphy as Maria brings back fond memories of Julie Andrews in the same role. She's a pretty girl with a big smile and has the strong voice and winsome charm that couldn't fail to entrance even the hardest-hearted old curmudgeon. John LaLonde as Baron von Trapp has a fine tenor voice but I found his characterizatiosn maybe a bit too extreme. (Still the script requires him to go from grump to mushy love in a matter of pages and he carries it off.) As the Mother Abbess, Renee Jensen brings a kiler soprano and a gentle sternness to her role. She leads a "nun chorus" of 20 (not counting the three Sisters with speaking roles). The chorus (which shows up several times in the show) gives a performance that is nothing short of spectacular. (Six part classical music perfectly sung acapella--in the aisles no less! is a truly wonderous sight to behold.) The remaineder of the cast serves their roles adequately to very well.
-
As for the children, Kristina Brown (as Liesel) is a delightful inginue although I found Michael Milligan's Rolf rather less than believeable. (Still, he's far and away the best dancer in the cast and he gets a brief chance to shine in one number.) As Friedrich, Jordan Gomez seems a bit old for the part but he sings well enough in the ensemble. Berlynn Milliken brings the right mix of pluck and sweetness to the part of Brigitta but Taylor Snow (Marta) and Tayler Lynch (Louisa) get a bit lost in the crowd. Young Tyler Jenkins forgot his words in one solo but he kept right on going in character and never let it phase him or the audience. (God job, boyo!) Last, but certainly not least, youngest child Gretl (Rena M. Madura) is cute as a bug.
-
Yes, there are a few problems with this production: some accents are frankly less than perfect (and one or two actors don't even bother trying for an accent). The pacing of the show is fine but scenes are a bit jerky (the fault of the script not the production). Several minutes (and at least one song reprise) have been cut from the original script (to bring it more in line with the movie version) but I didn't find it at all troubling. The sets were minimal but not minimalist and of a much higher quality than what I've seen in past shows here. Still, considering the problems with sound mixing (among other issues) this show has really raised the quality-bar for Performance Riverside. Robyn and I thoroughly enjoyed the show but our friend Mary Lou Andrews had more problems with the production than we did. (Still, you'll have to find a review she wrote to see what she thoughtt.) As for me, (like I said in the title) this is pretty close to a perfect musical for the entire family. GO SEE IT!
-
FINAL GRADE: A
Almost any Christianity-related post gets a "Stained Glass" fractal so it should be no surprise that something related to Islam should get an "Arabesque" fractal cookie. I chose Arabesque 56 for this rant mainly because I don't think I've used this before. ANYway--enjoy the post (unless you have other plans) and here's hoping I don't get in trouble with the Concerned American Citizens group.
-
Recently a proposed Mosque in the lovely city of Temecula got my attention when a group calling itself Concerned American Citizens raised opposition to the building. Why? First, you go with the obvious (adding traffic to a residential area, parking problems, flooding) then then they add in concerns for "public safety"--whatever that may be. I get that there just MIGHT be some validity to the claim (having attended a church in a residential area I get that neighbors might have some legitimate concerns about parking). Still, where I start taking objection is the issue of public safety.
-
What got me was a comment by one unidentified woman saying the Mosque's leadership "refused to disavow Hammas". (The leadership of the Mosque says it's not ABOUT Hammas--it's about whether or not the city has a legal right to prevent construction.) About all they could really bring to the table was that some Islamic Centers support "insurrection and jihad". (Mind you--there's NO INDICATION that the Mosque in Temecula supported this other than the leadership being unwilling to engage in a political debate). We know that Timothy McVeigh (who was responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing) was a Christian Fundamentalist: does that mean all Christian Churches should be restricted? Obviously not: the same goes for Mosques or any other form of worship center--for ANY denomination!
-
Here is the commentary from Concerned American Citizens on the Temecula issue. http://concernedamericancitizens.wordpress.com/
It's both interesting and frightening: check out the first reply. (I love how things get bent and featured disproportionally.) Here's their companion site that comments on the entire religion of Islam. http://actforamerica.wordpress.com/ . On one level--I completely get it but then I realize the guy is talking about a VERY extreme version of Islam. We SHOULD be concerned about folks like this (and a foreign policy that encourage Islamic Extremists). But we shouldn't be any more concerned about them than we should be about Christian Extremists. American citizens--you DO have a right to be concerned! Maybe you're just not concerned about the right things...
-
Think about it.
I chose Queen Bee as today's fractal cookie mainly because Sarah Palin is the uncroowned Queen of the Mamma Grizzlies. This post concerns her (at least tangentially) and, really, there just isn't a better fractal image to choose. So--on with the rant!
-
What can I say sabout the Saturday (January 8) shooting that severely wounded Representative Gabrielle Giffords and killed six others--including a Federal Judge, a nine year-old girl and two senior citizens? Really--nothing that hasn't already been said other places (and probably better). Still, a wrinkle in the story has got my back up a bit and inspired me to write. Several month ago Sarah Palin put up an image on her Facebook page showing nine congressional districts (including Giffords') covered with crosshairs. Palin is also famous for her repeated comment "don't retreat--re-load!"
-
In fariness to Sarah Palin--she wasn't the only one to use this imagery and she quickly took the "offending" image down after scathing criticism (even from staunch Republicans). Now the only question that remains--did these images have anything to do with fueling the insanity of Jared Lee Loughner? I haven't heard one way or another but media speculation is running rampant. I do know the Palin camp was quick to announce that the images were in no way intended to inspire violence. So far there has been no indication whether this factored into the decision to shoot the Congresswoman.
-
I do know this thugh: blaming Sarah Palin (for the facts are in) is just plain WRONG! True, she's not one of my favorite Politicians but I have to give her the benefit of the doubt on this one. That being said--providing fuel to crazies (however unintentionally) is NEVER a good idea. There's no beating crazy but, really, there's no benefit in giving them fuel for their crazy fire. Ads featuring violent imagery do nothing to foster civility, reasoned debate and respectful disagreement in our society--qualities that are in short supply these days.
-
Yes, I hear the arguement--most people know the difference between violent images and real violence. Believe me--I get it: I watched my share of Bugs Bunny and Roadrunner cartoons back in the day and I don't feel the knew to hand my enemies an exploding carrot or drop an anvil on their head. I KNOW the difference between fantasy and reality. But we're not talking about the reasonable, intelligent folk (like the good people who read my blog) we're talking about nutbags. Don't you think it's better to err on the side of caution? I know I certainly do...
-
Think about it.
I chose Waterdeep as today's fractal cookie mainly because the movie because it takes place mostly at sea. What is today's review? Why, Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader, of course. (As if you couldn't tell from the title of tthis poost!) So--on with the review!
-
The "Narnia" franchise has run a twisty course: after a spectacular first movie (The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe), the second outing (Prince Caspian) was a critical and Box Office disaster. Disney dropped the franchise after taaking a major bath with the movie but 20th Centruy Fox (for reasons unknown and perhaps unknowable) took up the franchise. What they produced was a pretty good "quest" movie although purists won't care for it much: this "Voyage" often veers away from the C.S. Lewis story.
-
Peter and Susan (the two older children from the first two movies) have gone off to America with their parents leaving Edmund and Lucy (the younger kids--now well into their teens) in the care of cousins. For this trip to Narnia they are joined by cousin Eustace (played to priggish perfection by Will Poulter). Like Edmund before him, Eustace is transfromed by his visit to Narnia (literally and figuratively) and he comes out better for it. Prince Caspian (Ben Barnes) is back and Liam Neeson gives voice to Aslan the animated lion. Even Tilda Swinton's White Witch shows up briefly. Simon Pegg gives voice to Reepicheep, the impossibly brave and ceaselessly cheerful mouse (and he actually turns the little guy into an admirable character you want to root for).
-
Plot-wise, this is a standard "quest" movie. You can't fail to know how everything is going to turn out even before the movie starts. There are several "huh?" moments (where elements are introduced in a major way--then completely dropped). The costuming and sets are suitaly fantastic and the FX are first rate. I do have one major quibble however: Robyn and I saw this in 3D (paying $4.00 a piece extra for the "privelage"). 3D adds NOTHING (but a lot of extra expense) to this movie! In fact, the effects are rarely even noticeable--but maybe that's just me. Still, I found the extra expense rather hampered my enjoyment of the movie.
-
Purists are sure to be annoyed by the serious working-over the writers gave the plot but IMHO this was a good thing. (The book was awfuly "talky" and didn't have a lot of action to hold my interest.) Don't bother with the extra expense of a 3D showing unless you are seriously rich or seriously into 3D. Otherwise go and enjoy the movie.
-
FINAL GRADE: B
