Okay - cuz I'm bored.

Here is an example of what I'm talking about.

The first clip is Johnny singing "Epiphany".
The second clip is George Hearn knocking it out of the park on the same number.

Notice how much more George does with his voice - because he can. You can hear the anguish, rage, sorrow, frustration in his voice - and the madness.

Now, the Johnny clip ends before the song actually does, but I'm pretty sure that Johnny doesn't sing the last line of the song, which you will hear in George's clip.

"I am alive again and I am full of joy."

It's that last line that just sends the creepy-meter into the red zone.

Look, I'm a Johnny fan and he does a creditable job in this role, especially for a non-singer. But this is exactly why you cast a SINGER. There's a clip on YouTube of Johnny talking about being asked "can you do it? can you sing it?" and he replies, "I don't know." Is that really how you should approach a musical project? "Hmmmm...Johnny would look great in the role. I wonder if he can sing?"


[Error: unknown template video]


[Error: unknown template video]

Happy Birthday, buccaneer!

Okay, so we still have alot of cider left in the keg. We should finish it off.

But. The weekend is pretty hellaciously busy, so no real time to have a "party".

However...much of the people I know who might actually want to come over, hang out and drink alcohol will be at the Trivia Contest on Saturday night.

So - this is an invitation/casual notice that any of y'all as wants to come over to Muppet Labs after the Trivia Contest and drink some cider will be MOST welcome!!

Paul Krugman's latest deals with healthcare:

Those of us who accuse the administration of inventing a Social Security crisis are often accused, in return, of do-nothingism, of refusing to face up to the nation's problems. I plead not guilty: America does face a real crisis -- but it's in health care, not Social Security.

Well-informed business executives agree. A recent survey of chief financial officers at major corporations found that 65 percent regard immediate action on health care costs as "very important." Only 31 percent said the same about Social Security reform.

But serious health care reform isn't on the table, and in the current political climate it probably can't be. You see, the health care crisis is ideologically inconvenient.

Let's start with some basic facts about health care.

Notice that I said "health care reform," not "Medicare reform." The rising cost of Medicare may loom large in political discussion, because it's a government program (and because it's often, wrongly, lumped together with Social Security by the crisis-mongers), but this isn't a story of runaway government spending. The costs of Medicare and of private health plans are both rising much faster than gross domestic product per capita, and at about the same rate per enrollee.

So what we're really facing is rapidly rising spending on health care generally, not just the part of health care currently paid for by taxpayers.

Rising health care spending isn't primarily the result of medical price inflation. It's primarily a response to innovation: The range of things that medicine can do keeps increasing. For example, Medicare recently started paying for implanted cardiac devices in many patients with heart trouble, now that research has shown them to be highly effective. This is good news, not bad.

So what's the problem? Why not welcome medical progress, and consider its costs money well spent? There are three answers.

First, America's traditional private health insurance system, in which workers get coverage through their employers, is unraveling. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that in 2004 there were at least 5 million fewer jobs with health insurance than in 2001. And health care costs have become a major burden on those businesses that continue to provide insurance coverage: General Motors now spends about $1,500 on health care for every car it produces.

Second, rising Medicare spending may be a sign of progress, but it still must be paid for -- and right now few politicians are willing to talk about the tax increases that will be needed if the program is to make medical advances available to all older Americans.

Finally, the U.S. health care system is wildly inefficient. Americans tend to believe that we have the best health care system in the world. (I've encountered members of the journalistic elite who flatly refuse to believe that France ranks much better on most measures of health care quality than the United States.) But it isn't true. We spend far more per person on health care than any other country -- 75 percent more than Canada or France -- yet rank near the bottom among industrial countries in indicators from life expectancy to infant mortality.

This last point is, in a way, good news. In the long run, medical progress may force us to make a harsh choice: If we don't want to become a society in which the rich get life-saving medical treatment and the rest of us don't, we'll have to pay much higher taxes. The vast waste in our current system means, however, that effective reform could both improve quality and cut costs, postponing the day of reckoning.

To get effective reform, however, we'll need to shed some preconceptions -- in particular, the ideologically driven belief that government is always the problem and market competition is always the solution.

The fact is that in health care, the private sector is often bloated and bureaucratic, while some government agencies -- notably the Veterans Administration system -- are lean and efficient. In health care, competition and personal choice can and do lead to higher costs and lower quality. The United States has the most privatized, competitive health system in the advanced world; it also has by far the highest costs, and close to the worst results.

Over the next few weeks I'll back up these assertions, and talk about what a workable health care reform might look like, if we can get ideology out of the way.

***************************

Hunh. Well, I've known that the US has terrible infant mortality rates for an industrialized country.
I guess we're discovering yet another area where we're not "#1".

Last night out at Stillwater, not only did I hear about Techtard leaving...
not only did I let the kids know I'd prefer "Pajama Game"...

I also got to chat briefly with Dennis Lindsay, the orchestra conductor from KMK.
Dennis is absolutely fantastic. We talked briefly about the musical, he wasn't familiar with it, but then I started listing numbers ("Hernando's Hideaway", "Steam Heat") and he recognized them and was getting all excited.
He's definitely back next year, so at least the budget cuts didn't force something awful to happen.

He's good people.

On the other hand, two of my quite promising sophomore boys (they were both suitors in KMK) are leaving Stillwater to go to the new Ordway performing school for the arts or whatever it's called. Good for them, but dammit! Leaves Stillwater shorter two good male talents - and male talent is hard to come by.

And I also got to chat some with Cheryl, the accompanist, who is always delightful. I look to her to be the "voice of the parent" on the more questionable language choices in scenes and songs. Funnily, she was okay with "son of a bitch" in "Class", but a bit freaked by the very concept of "A Little Priest" from "Sweeney Todd". Actually, it's not funny - it's what you'd want, if you think about it. "Profanity is just a word, but cannibalism used for comedy? That's disturbing!" Of course, that's what Sondheim was going for...

Do you still need a ride tomorrow?

Trying this again:

Can someone tape a show on the Arts & Entertainment Network for me? This Sunday, 7-9am Central.
It's a tribute to Sondheim.

Help??

I had talked about a lunch today, but I need to choreograph on my lunch break.

No rest for the wicked...the wickedly talented, that is!! hah!

109th CONGRESS
1st Session

S. 520

To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

March 3, 2005
Mr. SHELBY (for himself, Mr. BROWNBACK, and Mr. BURR) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A BILL
To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Constitution Restoration Act of 2005'.

TITLE I--JURISDICTION

SEC. 101. APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

(a) Amendment to Title 28- Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 1260. Matters not reviewable

`Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.'.

(b) Table of Sections- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`1260. Matters not reviewable.'.

SEC. 102. LIMITATIONS ON JURISDICTION.

(a) Amendment to Title 28- Chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end of the following:

`Sec. 1370. Matters that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review

`Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the district courts shall not have jurisdiction of a matter if the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to review that matter by reason of section 1260 of this title.'.

(b) Table of Sections- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`1370. Matters that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review.'.

TITLE II--INTERPRETATION

SEC. 201. INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

In interpreting and applying the Constitution of the United States, a court of the United States may not rely upon any constitution, law, administrative rule, Executive order, directive, policy, judicial decision, or any other action of any foreign state or international organization or agency, other than English constitutional and common law up to the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States.

TITLE III--ENFORCEMENT

SEC. 301. EXTRAJURISDICTIONAL CASES NOT BINDING ON STATES.

Any decision of a Federal court which has been made prior to, on, or after the effective date of this Act, to the extent that the decision relates to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction under section 1260 or 1370 of title 28, United States Code, as added by this Act, is not binding precedent on any State court.

SEC. 302. IMPEACHMENT, CONVICTION, AND REMOVAL OF JUDGES FOR CERTAIN EXTRAJURISDICTIONAL ACTIVITIES.

To the extent that a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States or any judge of any Federal court engages in any activity that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court of that justice or judge, as the case may be, by reason of section 1260 or 1370 of title 28, United States Code, as added by this Act, engaging in that activity shall be deemed to constitute the commission of--

(1) an offense for which the judge may be removed upon impeachment and conviction; and

(2) a breach of the standard of good behavior required by article III, section 1 of the Constitution.
END

************************
That is perhaps one of the most frightening things I've yet seen come out of this administration. And that's saying alot.
Really read that - it says that the courts would have no jurisdiction over cases where one of the parties says that "god [is] the sovereign source of law". So much for cases that decide the separation of church and state. Hell, so much for separation of church and state!

And there's that other little cookie in there - the US shouldn't look to the standards of laws in other countries (like when the Supreme Court cited other countries' laws when deciding against executing minors). Because the US is a law unto itself, durnit!

I doubt this has much hope of passing - it was sponsored by 5 Senators on the one hand, and 25 Reps on the other. But Christ! It's certainly something to keep an eye on. And regardless, it's just ... icky.

If this administration had been in power, civil rights and desegregation would have been called "judicial activism". Hell, I'm not up on my civil rights history - maybe it was called that at the time. I know it certainly wasn't the popular thing to do at the time and alot of people fought it.

Well, more of you voted for Jimmy John's.

However, if you would prefer Potbelly (hot hoagie sandwiches, located in the IDS building on the Skyway level)...

speak up NOW.

I will make a decision/confirmation of location by noon for our noon-thirty lunch date.