Daily Archives: December 4, 2017



You Might Like

Videos | Dating

Live Cams | Live Chats
 

NEWS

How to Save Civilization from Certain Disaster? Take a Cue from ‘SpongeBob’ on Broadway (Yes, Seriously): REVIEW

How to Save Civilization from Certain Disaster? Take a Cue from ‘SpongeBob’ on Broadway (Yes, Seriously): REVIEW

spongebob broadway

There’s a reason kids like gummy vitamins. They’re fun and sweet and colorful, with all their vital nutrients cleverly disguised. The SpongeBob SquarePants musical — which, yes, opened on Broadway last night — is loads more fun than mere chewy candy, and about a million times more colorful: hardly an inch of the Palace Theatre isn’t covered over by some vibrant, shiny thingamabob or another. (The genius psychedelic set and costumes are by David Zinn.)

But the wildly entertaining new musical also offers sage lessons in how to save civilization in the face of doom. So. Listen up, it seems SpongeBob’s got our playbook.

Fans of Stephen Hillenburg’s Nickelodeon franchise will be happy to see the gang’s all here, brilliantly sprung to life by visionary director Tina Landau. Along with book writer Kyle Jarrow, a host of pop-rock songwriters contributed their talents, including John Legend, Cyndi Lauper, The Flaming Lips, Panic! At the Disco, Sara Bareilles, David Bowie, and Brian Eno, to name just a few. It’s a buoyant and rollicking score that flows together remarkably well, thanks to music supervisor Tom Kitt.

For the uninitiated, we’re in Bikini Bottom, SpongeBob’s native habitat somewhere under the Pacific. He lives in a pineapple with a pet snail that meows like a cat; his best friends are a dim-witted starfish and a whip-smart Texan squirrel. (Just go with it, you’ve gotten this far!) But now doomsday is nigh: A volcano is set to erupt and wipe everything out.

As we know, the great war to come — for all of us — will be sponge…er, man versus nature. Here’s SpongeBob’s disaster playbook, courtesy of his new Broadway musical, so help us all.

Put faith in science. What may be hard to grasp for some is a cinch for Sandy Cheeks (Lilli Cooper). May her unwavering belief that she can save the world by crunching numbers be an inspiration to #GirlsWhoCode everywhere.

Don’t be an asshole. Looking for someone to blame for the apocalypse, some residents turn on Sandy the squirrel because she’s the only land mammal (Cooper also happens to be Black, lending some resonance to this plot). Fear and ignorance are wack.   

Value friendship over attention. The show’s great love story is between SpongeBob (Ethan Slater, in a breakthrough performance) and Patrick Star (Danny Skinner), who inadvertently attracts a following of sardines that think he’s their savior. Adoration goes to his head, but it’s only when he reconnects with his real friends that they stand a chance. So, yes, it pays to look up from your phone.

Put sentient beings before money. This is apparently very hard for some people! That includes SpongeBob’s boss at the burger joint, the greedy Mr. Krabs (Brian Ray Norris). Fortunately he gets some sense knocked into him by his daughter, Pearl (Jai’Len Christine Li Josey, whose voice you will not soon forget).

Know your worth. This one gets driven home by Gavin Lee as Squidward Q. Tentacles, whose eleven o’clock number, “I’m Not a Loser” by They Might Be Giants, stops the show. It’s a full tap extravaganza — on four legs! (Choreography is by Christopher Gattelli.)

Most importantly, don’t turn on your fellow…well, whatever they are. Sheldon Plankton (a wickedly funny Wesley Taylor) and his computer paramour (Stephanie Hsu) are the clear, and mostly ineffectual, villains here. But the real trouble comes when the citizens of Bikini Bottom turn on each other during the final countdown to annihilation.

That they’re able to bridge their differences, and SpongeBob and the gang get a happy ending — like, bubbles and confetti-cannon happy — may be where the real fantasy comes in. But you didn’t think anything like this could actually happen, did you?

Recent theatre features…
In Broadway Revival of ‘Once on This Island,’ a Modern Fable, Beautifully Told: REVIEW
Uma Thurman Opens in ‘The Parisian Woman,’ a Fiction That’s No Match for Reality: REVIEW
Amy Schumer Rains Down Laughs in Steve Martin’s Curious ‘Meteor Shower’: REVIEW
In Drew Droege’s ‘Bright Colors And Bold Patterns,’ a Hilarious Portrait of Living Out Loud: REVIEW
In New Musical ‘The Band’s Visit,’ an Exquisite Meditation on Hopes Won and Lost: REVIEW
Julie Taymor Directs Clive Owen in Stylish but Earthbound ‘M. Butterfly’ on Broadway: REVIEW
Transcendent ‘Torch Song’ Starring Michael Urie and Mercedes Ruehl Is Required Gay Viewing: REVIEW
‘A Clockwork Orange’ Shows Plenty of Skin, Skimps on Danger Off-Broadway: REVIEW

Follow Naveen Kumar on Twitter: @Mr_NaveenKumar
(photos: joan marcus)

The post How to Save Civilization from Certain Disaster? Take a Cue from ‘SpongeBob’ on Broadway (Yes, Seriously): REVIEW appeared first on Towleroad.


How to Save Civilization from Certain Disaster? Take a Cue from ‘SpongeBob’ on Broadway (Yes, Seriously): REVIEW

NEWS

Paul Manafort Planned to Publish Op-Ed Ghostwritten by Russian Spy to Sway Public Opinion About Case

Paul Manafort Planned to Publish Op-Ed Ghostwritten by Russian Spy to Sway Public Opinion About Case
Paul Manafort

Paul Manafort

Special Counsel Robert Mueller has withdrawn support for a bail agreement struck last week with lawyers for Paul Manafort following revelations that Trump’s former campaign manager was planning to publish an op-ed in order to sway public opinion about his case.

Manafort is facing multiple felony charges.

The op-ed was reportedly being ghostwritten by a man with ties to Russian intelligence,

Business Insider reports:

Special counsel Robert Mueller has abruptly reversed course on a bail agreement his office struck with Paul Manafort’s legal team last week that would have allowed him to be released from GPS monitoring…

…”Even if the ghostwritten op-ed were entirely accurate, fair, and balanced, it would be a violation of this Court’s November 8 Order if it had been publish,” the government argued. “The editorial clearly was undertaken to influence the public’s opinion of defendant Manafort, or else there would be no reason to seek its publication.”

The filing continued: “Because Manafort has now taken actions that reflect an intention to violate or circumvent the court’s existing orders … the government submits that the proposed bail package is insufficiently reasonable to assure his appearance as required. The government’s prior general consent to the bail package presupposed that Manafort was complying with the Court’s existing orders.”

The AP adds:

In the court filing, prosecutors say Manafort and the colleague sought to publish the op-ed under someone else’s name and intended it to influence public opinion about his work in Ukraine. The op-ed was being drafted as late as last week, with Manafort currently under house arrest. Prosecutors did not name the colleague but noted the person is based in Russia.

The post Paul Manafort Planned to Publish Op-Ed Ghostwritten by Russian Spy to Sway Public Opinion About Case appeared first on Towleroad.


Paul Manafort Planned to Publish Op-Ed Ghostwritten by Russian Spy to Sway Public Opinion About Case

NEWS

‘Family Guy’ Takes A Jab at Kevin Spacey

‘Family Guy’ Takes A Jab at Kevin Spacey
family guy kevin spacey

family guy kevin spacey

You knew a show like Family Guy—which is run by noted Harvey Weinstein antagonizer Seth McFarlane—was going to hit the Kevin Spacey situation head on. And hit it Family Guy did. On Sunday’s episode, “Crimes and Meg’s Demeanor” (Season 16, Episode 8), Peter, Lois and Meg catch the end of The Usual Suspects on TV. Anyone…

The post ‘Family Guy’ Takes A Jab at Kevin Spacey appeared first on Towleroad.


‘Family Guy’ Takes A Jab at Kevin Spacey

NEWS

Supreme Court Allows Full Enforcement Of Donald Trump’s Travel Ban

Supreme Court Allows Full Enforcement Of Donald Trump’s Travel Ban
The Supreme Court is allowing the Trump administration to fully enforce a ban on travel to the United States by residents of six mostly Muslim countries.

The justices, with two dissenting votes, said Monday that the policy can take full effect even as legal challenges against it make their way through the courts. The action suggests the high court could uphold the latest version of the ban that Trump announced in September.

The ban applies to travelers from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. Lower courts had said people from those nations with a claim of a “bona fide” relationship with someone in the United States could not be kept out of the country. Grandparents, cousins and other relatives were among those courts said could not be excluded.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor would have left the lower court orders in place.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, will be holding arguments on the legality of the ban this week.

Both courts are dealing with the issue on an accelerated basis, and the Supreme Court noted it expects those courts to reach decisions “with appropriate dispatch.”

Quick resolution by appellate courts would allow the Supreme Court to hear and decide the issue this term, by the end of June.

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/supreme-court-trump-travel-ban_uk_5a25be96e4b07324e83ff3e4

NEWS

Debunking ADF’s bad logic is piece of cake (*but not art)

Debunking ADF’s bad logic is piece of cake (*but not art)

At a recent meeting before a group of fellow lawyers, Kristen Waggoner, the Alliance Defending Freedom attorney who will be representing Jack Phillips before the United States Supreme Court, is quoted as saying that the discriminatory baker’s case isn’t “about the who, it’s about the what.” To which I reply: what?

You’ve likely heard about this case. This is the one out of Colorado where the owner of a business called Masterpiece Cakeshop refused to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple. The couple in question, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, didn’t even get the chance to specify what sort of design they might want on the cake, so there wasn’t any one message or theme to which Mr. Phillips objected. The baker simply refused to consider the request to sell the couple the very same product that he has gladly sold to straight couples for decades prior. It’s a very straightforward case of discrimination, and up to this point, every panel to weigh in on the case has sided with fairness.

The Supreme Court is a different beast, however. The high court has long tilted toward the conservative, and even more so with the addition of Neil Gorsuch. The Alliance Defending Freedom knows this is a major chance for them to regain the miles of ground they lost when marriage equality was legalized across the nation, and they are carefully crafting their arguments so that they seem persuasive, mainstream, and on the right side of history.

Of course, the truth is that this case is all about “the who.” It’s about one man who purported to sell wedding cakes to all-comers, but who didn’t uphold his commitment as a business owner. It’s about a loving couple whose money was rendered no good by nothing more than their sexual orientation. And in the broadest sense, it’s about every “who” in this country who believes nondiscrimination policies are a net good for our communities and our economies, as an ADF win in this case would place every such policy, and every minority population, under severe threat.

On one hand, it’s no surprise that the ADF lawyer is attempting to distance her client from the gay couple that he pointedly rejected, since denying discriminatory intent is the only chance they have of winning before the high court. But still, one does have to marvel at this, an attempt by an organization whose long record of anti-LGBTQ animus has landed it on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s list of known hate groups, to say that a cruel act in which a loving couple was turned away is really not about the couple at all, but rather about a cake. And it’s just one of ADF’s many flawed talking points in this case.

.@AllianceDefends will appear before SCOTUS tomorrow in the #MasterpieceCakeshop case. Here’s your reminder that they’ve spent DECADES targeting LGBTQ rights t.co/DVqyiUsY0j

— GLAAD (@glaad) December 4, 2017

As a way to sell the idea that this case is about a product rather than fair business practices, ADF has also made central to its case the claim that a wedding cake is really more like art than like commerce. But the truth is that even gallery art is a commodity if that art is put on sale in a shop. Mr. Phillips advertised himself as a man who sells a commodity commonly known as a wedding cake. The couple at the center of this case requested that very commodity, without even offering up any details about how they would like to customize that commodity. Mr. Phillips told them they couldn’t have that commodity, and the sole reason he denied them the request is because they were two men. And what he denied them was a business product that he purports to sell.

Most of us are asking “Is it discrimination?” while ADF is asking “but isn’t it pretty?” The product might be gorgeous, but the discrimination is quite ugly.

In other commentaries, ADF staff members have pushed the notion that vendors like Mr. Phillips should be enthusiastic about an event if they are going to agree to work on it. Sure, it’s a nice idea. It’s also a legally meaningless one. In a perfect world, everyone who ever sells you anything, be it a good or a service or somewhere in-between, would be enamored with you and every aspect of your life. But a business owner’s excitement is an untenable standard, even more so for the business owners themselves than for the customers.

One can discriminate “nicely” or accommodate rudely, and it won’t change the issue. The issue is the discrimination or accommodation, not the smile or frown attached to those choices. It is silly to suggest that wedding professionals are somehow lacking in their job if they fail to make a “special and unique” connection to a person who is paying them for their services.

The other major claim that ADF likes to tout is one about coercive government. ADF Senior Counsel Jim Campbell insists that “if the government has its way, it would compel not just cake artists to celebrate what their faith prohibits, but other professionals who create art for a living, such as graphic designers, filmmakers, photographers, and painters.” And he’s right that this is not the role of government. But it’s also not anyone’s goal in this or any related case.

No, the government cannot tell a painter he has to paint something he doesn’t wish to paint, a sculptor that he must design a statue outside of his interest area, or a soloist that she must sing an opera for which she doesn’t seek an audition. Every artist, and every business owner, has the right to set his or her own performance slate, gallery presentation, menu, or product line. The Jewish chef need not sell pork, and the Christian baker does not have to purchase cake pans that are shaped like menorahs. Champions of fair-minded nondiscrimination policy don’t want to change this, and progressives would be the first ones to speak out of the government did have this goal.

But Jack Phillips does indeed choose to sell wedding cakes. No government told him to do so. He loves selling wedding cakes. They are kind of his thing. He just doesn’t want to sell one to a gay couple. He loves mixing together the eggs and the milk and the flour and the sugar and then baking it all up into a pretty pastry suitable for a wedding reception’ s silver platter. He just refuses to make that product—the very same product that he does, in fact, sell—for customers who love in a way with which he disagrees.

We have a word for that in society. That word is discrimination.

To learn more about this case and what’s at stake, visit glaad.org/DroptheFWord

 

December 4, 2017

www.glaad.org/blog/debunking-adfs-piece-cake-not-art

You Might Like

Videos | Dating

Live Cams | Live Chats