?

Log in

entries friends calendar profile Previous Previous
Moses Supposes His Toeses Are Roses...
From his phalangeal digits to your ganglionic cells!
So I'm trying out the Google Blogger system... not sure how it'll feel to me, since I'm so accustomed to LiveJournal's format, but I figured I'd give it a try. It's at http://bemoresexy.blogspot.com .

Current Mood: tired tired

5 comments or Leave a comment
Used to be that I hated precasting, I thought it was against creative possibilities, but I'm not so sure anymore. There are a lot of arguments against it... It precludes people from showing up to audition, it makes fellow actors a little resentful that the precastee didn't have to audition, it's not egalitarian, etc. But recent thoughts have made me ponder this issue a little closer.
A director's job is not to be fair. A director's job is to produce the highest quality production he can. If a director knows that a performer would be perfect for a role, why shouldn't they try to grab them when they can? Of course, no performer should be so full of themselves that they'll only do a part if they're asked. But what about time constraints? What if someone simply cannot make the auditions?
I don't know. It's a tricky issue. I don't know what to think. Precasting seems to be related to calling someone who didn't audition to take a role. Is it fair to those people who did audition? A director doesn't need to be fair, and if no one showed up who fit the role the way the director wants, what's to keep them from calling someone ahead of the auditions, if they can't see anyone else fitting the role?

Current Mood: contemplative navel-gazing
Current Music: Joseph - Pharoah's Dream Explained

6 comments or Leave a comment
ABC announced that production begins Aug. 7 in Hawaii on the upcoming third season of its hit SF series Lost, which returns on Oct. 4 and will air Wednesdays at 9 p.m. ET/PT.

read more | digg story
Leave a comment
OK, so this may sound incredibly pointless to you, but believe me, I found it fascinatingly applicable to life, particularly Game Theory and the Prisoner's Dilemma. We have a snack food vending machine at work, and while I avail myself quite happily of their Nacho Doritos, I always keep a close eye on the peanuts. We have three peanut items in the little coil: Salted Cashews, Salted Peanuts, and Honey Roasted Peanuts (in that order). I noticed at one point that someone had bought the Salted Cashews, bringing the Salted Peanuts to the front of the queue, and the Honey Roasted Peanuts tantalizingly closer to me. So, cunning being that I am, I decide to wait for some poor, misguided fool to come along and buy the Salted Peanuts, and I check the vending machine every time I walk by it.
A day passes by. Nothing happens. Yet I am unperturbed, for I know my plan will work.
Another day comes to an end. Still no movement on the peanut front. My cravings for honey-roasted goodness begin to get the better of me.
Finally, a week goes by, and still no movement. I begin getting paranoid. What if everyone else in the building is thinking the same thing I am? Perhaps no one wants those cursed salted peanuts, but everyone wants to get at the goodies behind them. Finally, I begin to wonder that someone may tire of this game, and buy both the Salted Peanuts AND the Honey-Roasted Peanuts for a total sum of $1.50.
There are three possible outcomes:
1 - I continue to wait, and someone buys the Salted Peanuts, allowing me to buy the Honey-Roasted.
2 - I continue to wait, and someone buys the Salted Peanuts, but I miss the opportunity to buy the Honey-Roasted. (This is essentially identical to the outcome of someone else buying both Salted and Honey)
3 - I give in to my base peanut cravings and buy both, costing me twice what the Honey-Roasted alone would have cost.

I figured after a week of them sitting there, no one else would come through in the foreseeable future to buy the peanuts. But this could also be disastrous, I realized; the company stocking the machine might see the lack of sales and replace my peanuts with something else (say, Corn Nuts).

$1.50 later....

Current Mood: relieved mmmm.. peanuts...
Current Music: Titanic - Dressed In Your Pyjamas In The Grand Salon

6 comments or Leave a comment
So, I found this circulating the chain e-mail forest, and thought it was pretty funny:

Chapter 1

Personal computers, the Internet, the Web, and e-mail make it possible to access any type of information anywhere in the world. Discuss the advantages unlimited access provides and who benefits the most from this access. Also discuss the dangers it invites and how to prevent them.

Well This chapters is great and I think that the advantages is that they have to know what is a computer is and what did they do. Most people need computers to do their works and others stuff. A computer is a device that accepts input, processes data, stores data, and produces output, all according to a series of stored instructions.The dangers thing that between computer is that if you don't know how to touch the computer then don't touch because you will cause some problem on the computer. Also drinks too, drinks can make your computer died if you put a soda or some other drinks near your computer and they pour all over your computer and then your computer will died and will never work again.


Remember, folks: the dangers of unlimited access to information is that you might spill soda on your computer. Also, one of these sentences is not like the others. Try to guess which has been copied-and-pasted. :-)

Current Mood: jubilant laughy
Current Music: Evita - She Is A Diamond

Leave a comment
... when you're Darth Vader's less-charismatic, less-imposing younger brother.

Chad Vader: Day Shift Manager

Current Mood: jubilant Ha-ha! Socially awkward!

Leave a comment
Falsettos opens tonight! Best of luck to Artistic Differences and break a leg to the actors!

Looks to be a really good show. I spent a lot of this past week (basically end-of-work-time to 9 or so at night) putting it all together, and I had the help of some of the most talented set builders in the Sacramento area; much thanks to the Daves Hushbeck and Lack! I wish I had some pictures to show you all, but I can't seem to find my camera. There are some good pictures of the set on it, and I want to get them online ASAP. I just have to find it. The performers are all very talented, and the production staff have all worked very hard to make sure this inaugural production goes well.

To make reservations, go to their website or call (916) 233-5480 and leave a message with their reservation line.


That's about it for now, I think.

Current Mood: thankful thankful fer the kewl helpers!
Current Music: I Do! I Do! - Flaaaaaaming Agnes

Leave a comment
This was posted in response to my last entry about Ann Coulter:

Mike,
I'm sure the book that you had to apologize for buying will be reviewed by you fairly.

Ann Coulter is the voice of the conservative republican that has not been able to be heard before. Don't you find it interesting that not one liberal has mentioned being offended by being called Godless?

All this fuss is being made about 2 paragraphs out of a whole book about how America is losing the fabric of what has always made us strong - our faith and our goodness.

The point Ann Coulter seems to be trying to make is that these 4 women who tragically lost their husbands have set themselves up for rebuke by agreeing* to be the human shields of the liberal Democratic Party attacks against our President and the war that threatens all of us. Cindy Sheehan is another tragic example of a person allowing themself to be used by a political ploy: they can say anything they want and no one can respond to them because they lost someone in 9/11 or in Iraq. I guess the conservative Republicans are missing out on a great opportunity to put on display 4 widows with viewpoints that agree with our President and the war and no one would be able to disagree with them.

There are many other women who lost their husbands in 9/11 and they feel exactly the OPPOSITE of these 4. Have you heard their viewpoint? Why has Vanity Fair not sought them out? Has Donny had them on his show? Has Chris Matthews had them on his show? Why do these hosts insist on asking Ann what she thinks of her own words... why DON'T they ask some of the other widows (since, according to their logic, they would be the only ones who could respond)?

But again the point Ann is making is that when you thrust yourself upon the political stage* then you have to be ready to be responded to. Just because their husbands died does not give them any special protection if they are going to go up on that stage and make pronouncements that do not sit well with over half the country! *Raising money for the opposite political party of whom you are speaking against IS agreeing to and thrusting yourself upon that stage.

The same is true of blogging I believe. I know that I may be responded to for my reply. That's okay - I am entering this with my eyes wide open which they did also. Well, actually maybe not. They were probably in grief and people took advantage of them and their grief - hence an ironic example of the Godlessness (my word) written about.

Did you really think Donny Deutsch (sp?) was a good host (or just because he beat her with a "stupid" stick - whatever that means)? He yelled over her (basically shouted at her much of the time) and rarely let her finish her answer. Was I supposed to be taking him seriously when he proclaimed that there is no such thing as a liberal (because he had never met one) and demanded that she agree with him on his premise? I think he sounded off his rocker by the end and she handled it all with a smile and wit (unfortunately he was only half-armed). I am surprised that that display of rudeness and obvious hostility with no regard for their guest impressed you.

Say your prayers tonight and add in a special Hail Mary and Our Father for the leader of our country and the IMPORTANT things that we need to worry about ... like Godlessness.

This also:
Ann is just responding to the four (count them, only four) women who have chosen to become spokeswomen for the anti-bush, anti-war group - If you put yourself out there you have to expect people to respond to you rhetoric. BTW I have never seen so much use of the word hate just plain vile meaness as I have from you when you wrote about Ann herself.

Someone else wrote:
>snip!<
I am glad that your goodness towards humanity has not been diminished but that is not to say that humanity is not being diminished by the liberal viewpoint that is undermining the tenets of our judeo/christian value system upon which our great nation was built (the point of the book).

So it's happened. They've found my blog. I knew this would happen one day.
Since you obviously don't know me well enough, or perhaps NEVER knew me well enough to begin with, let me introduce myself.
I'm a married white male, aged 23, with two cats and a menagerie of other animals. I watch a little television, mainly reruns, play computer games and have a considerable collection of war movies and musicals. I like cooking every now and then, and people love my Honey Mustard chicken and my Osso Buco (with beef, not veal).
I use my blinker to change lanes, and wave at people who slow down to let me merge. I accelerate slowly to save gas, have a minimal commute, and am considering buying a bicycle to get myself to and from work. I speed on open freeways, but never much more than 75.
I have performed onstage, have worked backstage, and have worked myself to exhaustion building sets on more than one occasion. I volunteer frequently, am very friendly towards new people, and feel I am a decent person. I used to play the clarinet, as well as the Scottish Highland Bagpipes.
I respect everyone initially, as I feel that everyone deserves a first chance. I maintain or increase that respect unless the person gives me a reason to dislike them, such as a flat-out desire to remain ignorant, or no desire for self-improvement.
I hold myself to a higher standard than I hold others to. I expect more from myself, because I feel it's better to give more of yourself than to take more from others.
I have never, for as long as I can remember, and this goes a long way back, felt comfortable in a church. I have always felt like an outsider, like I'm not wanted, and no one has ever tried to change my mind about that. (Perhaps this isn't true, I was once stalked by two lovely older ladies in Davis handing out pamphlets around my neighborhood. I'm sure they would have tried valiantly had my Spaghetti-O's not been burning on the stove every time they came around) I feel this has led, not improperly, to my self-classification as an agnostic, as well as my distaste for most organized religions. That said, I have gone and probably will go again to churches with family members because I respect their beliefs, as I hope they respect mine. I realize that some may not, but that is their prerogative.
Scientific understanding of our world is of paramount importance to me. I feel that science is, as Carl Sagan phrased it, "a candle in the dark", lighting our steps in a cold, mysterious place, helping us remember where we've been, understand where we are, and know where we're going. Evolution is a valid theory to me, one with falsifiable precepts, and has been proven effectively and often. I suspect it will be refined over time, as have many theories before it. As someone has said, and I cannot remember or find the quote, Einstein's theories better described the effect of gravitation than Newton's, but apples did not cease falling in the interim. It is my opinion that science is the tool with which humanity will cast away the shackles of ignorance binding them for so many millennia.
I am for a woman's right to choose an abortion, and am uncomfortable, as a male, making any decisions that affect only women. I don't feel that gay marriage in any way cheapens the ~40% divorce rate in America, and I support the right of everyone to marry same-sex partners, if they so choose. I support our troops in my own way, but refuse to let them be human shields for anyone. I am for spreading democracy, but against forcing it on anyone. I guess you could say I don't like forcing my views on anyone, and many people can attest to that.

That's pretty much me in a nutshell. Ann Coulter would label me a "liberal", and you would say that I am "undermining the tenets of our judeo/christian value system upon which our great nation was built (the point of the book)." What would you call the "judeo/christian value system upon which our great nation was built"? I would say this great nation was built on documents such as the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

From the Introduction of the Declaration:
When, in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the Causes which impel them to the Separation.

I don't see much there relating to Judeo-Christian values. In fact, many of the Founding Fathers were Deists: those who believed that knowledge of God should be brought about by rational thought, reason and experiment rather than through revelation or dogma. But maybe the Constitution has some reference to it:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Nope, not much there. But wait, there's a little word in there that looks religious: ordain. A quick google definition search provides:
# order by virtue of superior authority; decree; "The King ordained the persecution and expulsion of the Jews"; "the legislature enacted this law in 1985"
# appoint to a clerical posts; "he was ordained in the Church"
# invest with ministerial or priestly authority; "The minister was ordained only last month"
# issue an order

(formatting added by me; from http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=ordain)

Looks to me like the best definitions here are 1 and 4, and neither of those are very Judeo-Christian.

I defy anyone to say where it is said in these documents that these United States are bound together under those values. Many values may be similar, but that does not mean all J/C values are, or should be, ours. I would say that the United States is built upon a desire for the communal protection of individual human rights.

As for the first posting:
Mike,
I'm sure the book that you had to apologize for buying will be reviewed by you fairly.

I will not be reviewing it as a literary work. I will be responding to it.
Ann Coulter is the voice of the conservative republican that has not been able to be heard before. Don't you find it interesting that not one liberal has mentioned being offended by being called Godless?

Ann Coulter has written five books. They've all appeared on the NY Times' Best Sellers list. She also writes a weekly syndicated column for Universal Press Syndicate, and published in over 100 papers nationwide. I'd hardly say she has not been able to be heard before. Also, have you read the book? Because the entire tome entreats the reader to compare liberalism to a religion, with its own deities. The title seems to be a play on words, saying liberalism is Godless in the Christian sense, but is more a pagan creed.
All this fuss is being made about 2 paragraphs out of a whole book about how America is losing the fabric of what has always made us strong - our faith and our goodness.

She makes many off-base comments and horrifying generalizations. If you read the book with a neutral eye you might recognize the fallacies in a lot of what she says as well as some truth. Zealots don't always lie, but they don't always tell the truth or even give the facts.
The point Ann Coulter seems to be trying to make is that these 4 women who tragically lost their husbands have set themselves up for rebuke by agreeing* to be the human shields of the liberal Democratic Party attacks against our President and the war that threatens all of us. Cindy Sheehan is another tragic example of a person allowing themself to be used by a political ploy: they can say anything they want and no one can respond to them because they lost someone in 9/11 or in Iraq. I guess the conservative Republicans are missing out on a great opportunity to put on display 4 widows with viewpoints that agree with our President and the war and no one would be able to disagree with them.

The point I and many others are trying to make is, "How is it easier to respond to Howard Dean than these four women if the message is the same?" She continually trots ol' Yeller out as an example of who should make the point, but the POINT is the point. It's more difficult to engage in an ad hominem attack against these women, because people will recognize it and get upset, and rightly so! But if a politician goes out there, the message is not replied to, but the character of the messenger is called into question. Read up: Ad Hominem Fallacy.
There are many other women who lost their husbands in 9/11 and they feel exactly the OPPOSITE of these 4. Have you heard their viewpoint? Why has Vanity Fair not sought them out? Has Donny had them on his show? Has Chris Matthews had them on his show? Why do these hosts insist on asking Ann what she thinks of her own words... why DON'T they ask some of the other widows (since, according to their logic, they would be the only ones who could respond)?

The question is, why HAVEN'T we heard any of these women? Conflict sells newspapers. If these widows came forward and rebuked the "Jersey Four", papers would go wild! A catfight! Holy cow! Throw a little mud in there and you've got the world's attention!
But again the point Ann is making is that when you thrust yourself upon the political stage* then you have to be ready to be responded to. Just because their husbands died does not give them any special protection if they are going to go up on that stage and make pronouncements that do not sit well with over half the country! *Raising money for the opposite political party of whom you are speaking against IS agreeing to and thrusting yourself upon that stage.

Well then, she's a victim of her own rhetoric, because that's exactly what's going on to her. The only difference is, people are actually responding to what she said and calling her out on it. No interview I have seen with her shows her defending herself well enough.
The same is true of blogging I believe. I know that I may be responded to for my reply. That's okay - I am entering this with my eyes wide open which they did also. Well, actually maybe not. They were probably in grief and people took advantage of them and their grief - hence an ironic example of the Godlessness (my word) written about.

And here you exhibit a bias. You think that anyone on the liberal's side is being controlled by some covert person holding the strings, making the puppets dance. A "Higher Power", shall we say. But assuming everyone is being influenced is ridiculous and the easiest path to closed-mindedness.
Did you really think Donny Deutsch (sp?) was a good host (or just because he beat her with a "stupid" stick - whatever that means)? He yelled over her (basically shouted at her much of the time) and rarely let her finish her answer. Was I supposed to be taking him seriously when he proclaimed that there is no such thing as a liberal (because he had never met one) and demanded that she agree with him on his premise? I think he sounded off his rocker by the end and she handled it all with a smile and wit (unfortunately he was only half-armed). I am surprised that that display of rudeness and obvious hostility with no regard for their guest impressed you.

I don't think he yelled at her. He spoke over her from time to time, as she spoke over him, and as I've seen her speak over others. The political climate seems to be not so much survival of the fittest, or most intelligent, or even the swiftest, but survival of the loudest. He treated her very well, and I believe he was very civil to her. His talk about going out to dinner, having a few drinks, argue over a few topics, but all in all have a good time I feel was very well-put, and a point sadly missing in the national discourse nowadays: You don't need to agree with everything a person says to be friendly towards them. In what part did he sound off his rocker? Are we supposed to believe Ann's position that "Liberals are more upset when a tree is chopped down than when a child is aborted"? Does anyone really believe that of me? Do you?
Say your prayers tonight and add in a special Hail Mary and Our Father for the leader of our country and the IMPORTANT things that we need to worry about ... like Godlessness.

I will not and have not. I also refute the idea that "Godlessness" is something we should worry about. It is apparent to me that just about all the major violence today is because of people being "Godful". And the strangest thing is, Jews, Christians and Muslims all pray to the same god, the God of Abraham and Moses. Perhaps religion is an archaic concept which should go the way of the steam engine, the bow and arrow, and the castle. It should still exist [Edit: Some truly great things have happened through religion], but it should not be as important a part of our world policy anymore.

[Edit: removed last line]
I don't hate religious people. I love my many family members who are religious and Republican, but I cannot discuss politics with them. It's something I've come to accept as a part of them. We should all try ESPECIALLY hard to accept people who have different views than us, if for no other reason than because it's ESPECIALLY hard to.

Current Mood: calm calm

4 comments or Leave a comment
Recently, the world's favorite icon of hatred appeared on "The Big Idea with Donny Deutsch", and found herself being beaten with a "stupid" stick. From the amazingly unbiased Crooks And Liars website, there's a video linked containing her whole 25 minute interview, including an in-depth argument about her consideration of 9/11 widows. I especially like the screencaps they took of the interview as it progressed, and she looked more and more frazzled until they cut to break to fix her up.

The problem I have with a lot of this is that people make far too many generalizations. "Liberals are all out to eat your babies", "Liberals want to coddle the criminals", "Liberals are indoctrinating children with ideas that homosexuality is all right", and so on. It just seems ridiculous to me. As someone on one of my favorite websites, Digg said, "Here's a generalization: Generalizations are retarded."

Watch the video. It's good stuff.
10 comments or Leave a comment
Bev Sykes wrote a feature article detailing Erik Daniells' new theatre company, "Artistic Differences". It looks pretty good, and I hope that it got some good coverage in the paper because of it.

Artistic Differences

For more information, go to AD's website. I'm helping them organize to build sets this weekend for their theatrical debut, "Falsettos", at DMTC's Peña theatre, July 21st-23rd, August 4th-6th.

Current Mood: cheerful cheerful
Current Music: Pippin - With You

Leave a comment