The CIM orchestra is the best orchestra of its kind I’ve ever heard. These kids are also on a higher level than a number of professional orchestras I’ve heard. They play together, in tune, and intonation problems are very rare. I’ve never heard Loebel conduct before, but he certainly held them together.
The concert began with Beethoven’s overture from The Creatures of Prometheus ballet, played at a brisk tempo, but lacking in the bombast which characterizes too many Beethoven performances.
Following the overture was Tchaikovsky's Second Piano Concerto, somewhat off the beaten track, performed by soloist Zsolt Bognár. It was appropriate that the concert began with a ballet overture, because there are sections of the concerto which sound balletically inspired. The last movement is a case in point: It begins with a series of declamatory chords followed by a response. Most pianists bang out both parts with the same volume, not so Bognár, who gave these sections contrastingly. Bognár is a rarity among pianists--a virtuoso technique coupled with sensitive musicianship, and more than a dash of imagination. It takes that kind of poetry to make this Concerto work, and not sound like the kind of bombastic hardware Tchaikovsky heard too often in concert halls these days. To say I was impressed is an understatement. So was the audience. It has been years since I heard an audience splitting its palms and cheering for such a prolonged time.
The Mussorgsky-Ravel Pictures at an Exhibition that followed was well played, but after Bognár’s performance, a bit anticlimactic.
Sunday, February 5, 2006
Wednesday, November 3, 2004
Monday, November 1, 2004
One More Day
Went to the Kerry rally in downtown Cleveland this evening. The crowd was huge and motivated. I only hope that the voters will be equally motivated tomorrow.
There were several speakers as the evening progressed: Mayor Jane Campbell, Congressmembers Sherrod Brown, Stephanie Tubbs-Jones, and my Congressman Dennis Kucinich. John Glenn gave an eloquent speech about Bush's bungled war planning--unfortunately, some jerk behind me was talking on his cell phone, so I missed some of his points. Then, Glenn introduced Bruce Springsteen, who played three songs and spoke with dignity and wisdom about what's at stake tomorrow. The Boss introduced John and Theresa Kerry. The crown went wild. Mrs. Kerry made some pointed remarks, promising that President Kerry would know the difference between "pride and arrogance." Then Kerry gave a rousing stump speech, his fatigue showing only briefly when he stumbled over his words. But he recovered and gave a strong finish.
Tomorrow, I vote. Historically, high voter turnout has tended to help Democrats. In this election, things seem to be too close to call, so all bets are off.
There were several speakers as the evening progressed: Mayor Jane Campbell, Congressmembers Sherrod Brown, Stephanie Tubbs-Jones, and my Congressman Dennis Kucinich. John Glenn gave an eloquent speech about Bush's bungled war planning--unfortunately, some jerk behind me was talking on his cell phone, so I missed some of his points. Then, Glenn introduced Bruce Springsteen, who played three songs and spoke with dignity and wisdom about what's at stake tomorrow. The Boss introduced John and Theresa Kerry. The crown went wild. Mrs. Kerry made some pointed remarks, promising that President Kerry would know the difference between "pride and arrogance." Then Kerry gave a rousing stump speech, his fatigue showing only briefly when he stumbled over his words. But he recovered and gave a strong finish.
Tomorrow, I vote. Historically, high voter turnout has tended to help Democrats. In this election, things seem to be too close to call, so all bets are off.
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
Papers & Politics
The Plain Dealer, Cleveland's gutless wonder of a newspaper, has declined to endorse either Bush or Kerry in the upcoming election. Here's what led to this nonevent: The PD's editorial board voted 5-2 to endorse Kerry. But the PD's publisher, Alex "the Snake" Makashee overrode the board and demanded a Bush endorsement. Word leaked out, negative publicity ensued, and now the PD has had to save face by wimping out. Typical in this one paper town, where even the very Plain Dealer can't afford to lose any more subscribers.
The numbers in the race are such a confused muddle, all bets are off. My gut tightens whenever I think about it.
Bill Clinton was on the trail yesterday. He looked pale and thin--I wonder if he's on his daughter's Vegan diet. But his speech proved he's still the master. Damn that 22nd Amendment! Even with his recent health troubles, Bill Clinton would be a better President than Dubya on his healthiest day.
Speaking of politics, my father has been inundating me with chain emails, mostly political--and definitely politically incorrect! One recent whopper involved HIV tainted ketchup containers in fast food restaurants--warning to use ketchup from packets only. So, you can imagine what he has to say about Kerry!
The numbers in the race are such a confused muddle, all bets are off. My gut tightens whenever I think about it.
Bill Clinton was on the trail yesterday. He looked pale and thin--I wonder if he's on his daughter's Vegan diet. But his speech proved he's still the master. Damn that 22nd Amendment! Even with his recent health troubles, Bill Clinton would be a better President than Dubya on his healthiest day.
Speaking of politics, my father has been inundating me with chain emails, mostly political--and definitely politically incorrect! One recent whopper involved HIV tainted ketchup containers in fast food restaurants--warning to use ketchup from packets only. So, you can imagine what he has to say about Kerry!
Monday, October 11, 2004
Christopher Reeve: 1952-2004
Like most people, I first saw Christopher Reeve in Superman. My grandmother remembered him playing a bigamist in Love of Life back in the mid-1970s.
What made Christopher Reeve's version of Superman definitive was the delineation between his Superman and Clark Kent. Unlike some others who've taken on the role, his Superman was noble but not pompous--Reeve essentially let the uniform do the acting. Clark was a bumbling/stumbler with a different voice and mannerisms. Want to see a great bit of acting? Watch the scene in the first movie in Lois' apartment. Just after her ride with Superman, Clark appears to take Lois on a date. Lois leaves the room for a moment, Reeve takes off his glasses, grows about three inches in height, and BECOMES Superman. Reeve's voice lowers and he says "Lois, there's something I have to tell you, I'm really...". Then Lois appears, the glasses go back on, his height drops, and his voice rises about an octave, suddenly, he's Clark again.
Christopher Reeve was in a number of other movies which I encourage you to see: The Bostonians, the Remains of the Day, Somewhere in Time are but a few.
He was also a talented pianist. I remember an interview with Dana Reeve where she said she missed hearing him play even more than seeing him walk.
He suffered tragedy in 1995. Like Franklin Roosevelt, he used his misfortune to do a lot of good for many people. That's an example we can all try to emulate.
Rest in Peace.
What made Christopher Reeve's version of Superman definitive was the delineation between his Superman and Clark Kent. Unlike some others who've taken on the role, his Superman was noble but not pompous--Reeve essentially let the uniform do the acting. Clark was a bumbling/stumbler with a different voice and mannerisms. Want to see a great bit of acting? Watch the scene in the first movie in Lois' apartment. Just after her ride with Superman, Clark appears to take Lois on a date. Lois leaves the room for a moment, Reeve takes off his glasses, grows about three inches in height, and BECOMES Superman. Reeve's voice lowers and he says "Lois, there's something I have to tell you, I'm really...". Then Lois appears, the glasses go back on, his height drops, and his voice rises about an octave, suddenly, he's Clark again.
Christopher Reeve was in a number of other movies which I encourage you to see: The Bostonians, the Remains of the Day, Somewhere in Time are but a few.
He was also a talented pianist. I remember an interview with Dana Reeve where she said she missed hearing him play even more than seeing him walk.
He suffered tragedy in 1995. Like Franklin Roosevelt, he used his misfortune to do a lot of good for many people. That's an example we can all try to emulate.
Rest in Peace.
Monday, September 6, 2004
Why I'm supporting Kerry
WHY THIS GAY AMERICAN IS SUPPORTING JOHN KERRY (it’s not what you think)
Gay Republicans, those sad, deluded studies in futility, contend that gay Democrats are "one issue voters." In reality, they are the one issue voters--their one issue is whether the candidate’s name is followed by an "R" or a "D". Gay Republicans are willing--perhaps eager--to disregard their candidate’s stand on gay issues. They are also willing--perhaps desperate--to paper over the vast inconsistencies in their party’s own ideology, particularly the profligate spending habits of their current leader, George Walker Bush. Those spending habits are putting America’s fiscal house out of order and jeopardizing not only our economic future, but our standing and credibility in the world. As is well known, the outsourcing of American jobs to China has hurt countless American workers. Less publicized, and perhaps more ominous, is the fact that Chinese banks are financing much of our federal government’s deficit. Now, I have nothing against the people of China, but shouldn’t America’s future be in our hands?
Mr. Bush likes to state that he’s making America stronger. But a nation’s strength this not measured by how many countries we invade, how many weapons systems the government buys, or how much money we funnel into the military-industrial complex.
A nation’s strength rests on a firm foundation, rooted in fiscal responsibility. Today, the stability of that foundation is in grave danger. Mr. Bush has been telling the supporters who attend his campaign’s rigorously screened events that America’s economy is "turning the corner" on prosperity, which sounds disturbingly like Herbert Hoover’s "prosperity is just around the corner" uttered during the depths of the Great Depression. America’s economy may well turn the corner into prosperity in 2005, but only if new leadership is elected to the White House. But if George W. Bush is handed another term in office, our economy will continue on the same start-and-stall cycle we’ve had for the last four years--and that will only benefit America’s enemies.
Let us review some recent history: On September 10, 2001, George W. Bush was an unpopular president, not accepted as legitimate by a sizeable percentage of the American public. With the exception of his tax cuts, his domestic agenda was stalled in the Congress--and most pundits had already pegged him as a one term president.
The events of September 11 changed all that. As in past times when our country was threatened from the outside, Americans rallied behind their president.
On September 12, the civilized world stood in solidarity with America. But instead of using that opportunity to build a safer, more secure world, Mr. Bush squandered it. The Bush Administration left the job unfinished in Afghanistan--leaving the Taliban in control of much of the Afghan countryside, and Osama bin Laden uncaptured. Indeed, fewer American troops were committed to the Afghanistan conflict than the number of police in Manhattan. On one occasion, Mr. Bush said he didn’t particularly care where the man responsible for the deaths of 3,000 Americans was, or whether he was even alive. Already, Mr. Bush’s thoughts were elsewhere.
From the day he was inaugurated--indeed, before--Mr. Bush and his cronies were hell-bent on an armed incursion into Iraq. Even after it was conclusively proved that Saddam Hussein was not involved in 9/11, Mr. Bush continued to bang the drums of war, reverting to the argument that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction--chemical, biological, maybe even nuclear. The WMD argument has not produced any evidence, even a year and a half into the American occupation of Iraq. Indeed, during the course of Mr. Bush’s Iraq war, Saddam’s "elite" military was unable to get one plane into the air, or to launch one scud missile. Now, Mr. Bush says the invasion of Iraq was a war of liberation. Let no one doubt that Saddam Hussein is an evil man. The question is whether his removal was worth the cost paid in American blood--more American soldiers killed in action than at any time since Richard Nixon was in office.
The world is full of evil dictatorships which oppress innocent people, from North Korea, to Iran, to Sudan. Given Mr. Bush’s justification for the Iraq war, we are compelled to ask: Where do we invade next?
In reality, Mr. Bush is in possession of weapons of mass destruction--ordinary American’s call them LIES.
Lies are nothing new to the Bush political dynasty--neither is mudslinging. His family has been using these tactics to keep opponents from power since Mr. Bush’s grandfather was in the United States Senate. They are well documented elsewhere.
Mr. Bush likes to deride Senator Kerry as a flip-flopper. But his own actions in office do not jibe with his 2000 campaign pledge to be a "Compassionate Conservative."
What is compassionate about refusing to raise the minimum wage?
What is conservative about deficits spiraling out of control?
What is compassionate about an economy stuck in the ditch?
What is conservative about unprecedented government intrusion into our lives?
What is compassionate about gutting overtime pay?
What is conservative about the rape of America’s environment?
What is compassionate about 44 million Americans lacking health insurance?
Finally, what is compassionate or conservative about recklessly sending our troops into harm’s way?
Since I am a gay American, I should spend a moment on gay issues. Mr. Bush has been spending some time on gay issues--in opposition to them. Since he has no record of accomplishment to run on, he needs to find a scapegoat. He can’t scapegoat the Democrats, since Republicans hold power in the White House, both houses of Congress, and the majority of Governorships. So, he has been portraying gay Americans as a threat to America’s families. One would be hard pressed to find a President with a record more hostile to gay Americans. As Governor of Texas, Mr. Bush opposed every hate crimes law that came his way, opposed an end to employment discrimination against gay Texans, and defended his state’s Sodomy law. He has continued that trend as President. Even the conservative’s icon Ronald Reagan opposed the homophobic Briggs Initiative in the 1970s, and voiced his opposition to it before then President Jimmy Carter. President Reagan’s later discomfort with gay issues can at least be understood--if not condoned--when one recalls the fact that he was born in 1911. But Mr. Bush’s antipathy to the gay community is unforgivable in a man of the post World War II generation, who came of age in the ‘60s, and whose immediate subordinate has a daughter who is a lesbian.
In 1988, I cast my first vote for Mike Dukakis, partly because he had signed Massachusetts’ non-discrimination law into effect--only the second such statewide law in the nation. I was also appalled by the whispering campaign aimed at Governor Dukakis, questioning his mental health and even accusing his wife of burning an American flag in protest. But that’s the kind of campaign the Bushes run.
In 1992, I supported Bill Clinton because of his early embracing of the gay community--and also to revive an economy which had gone into recession under the elder George Bush. And in 1996, despite some disappointments in his handling of gay issues, I again supported President Clinton because his policies had restored America’s economy, reduced the federal deficit, and improved our relations with the world.
Thus, it was logical in 2000 that this American wanted to stay the course with Al Gore. So did the plurality of America’s voters, but the Electoral College--and five members of the Supreme Court--thought otherwise.
In 2004, I am voting for Senator John Kerry for President. But as can be gathered from what I’ve written, his stand on gay issues (which I mostly applaud) is the LEAST of many reasons I’m supporting him.
It is no exxageration to state that this is the most important election this nation has faced since 1940. We stand at the edge of a precipice: between financial responsibility or a descent into insolvency, between international cooperation or looming isolationism, between liberty or oppression. The "rendezvous with destiny" Franklin Roosevelt prohesied is fast approaching. The time has come for decision. Vote for John Kerry.
Gay Republicans, those sad, deluded studies in futility, contend that gay Democrats are "one issue voters." In reality, they are the one issue voters--their one issue is whether the candidate’s name is followed by an "R" or a "D". Gay Republicans are willing--perhaps eager--to disregard their candidate’s stand on gay issues. They are also willing--perhaps desperate--to paper over the vast inconsistencies in their party’s own ideology, particularly the profligate spending habits of their current leader, George Walker Bush. Those spending habits are putting America’s fiscal house out of order and jeopardizing not only our economic future, but our standing and credibility in the world. As is well known, the outsourcing of American jobs to China has hurt countless American workers. Less publicized, and perhaps more ominous, is the fact that Chinese banks are financing much of our federal government’s deficit. Now, I have nothing against the people of China, but shouldn’t America’s future be in our hands?
Mr. Bush likes to state that he’s making America stronger. But a nation’s strength this not measured by how many countries we invade, how many weapons systems the government buys, or how much money we funnel into the military-industrial complex.
A nation’s strength rests on a firm foundation, rooted in fiscal responsibility. Today, the stability of that foundation is in grave danger. Mr. Bush has been telling the supporters who attend his campaign’s rigorously screened events that America’s economy is "turning the corner" on prosperity, which sounds disturbingly like Herbert Hoover’s "prosperity is just around the corner" uttered during the depths of the Great Depression. America’s economy may well turn the corner into prosperity in 2005, but only if new leadership is elected to the White House. But if George W. Bush is handed another term in office, our economy will continue on the same start-and-stall cycle we’ve had for the last four years--and that will only benefit America’s enemies.
Let us review some recent history: On September 10, 2001, George W. Bush was an unpopular president, not accepted as legitimate by a sizeable percentage of the American public. With the exception of his tax cuts, his domestic agenda was stalled in the Congress--and most pundits had already pegged him as a one term president.
The events of September 11 changed all that. As in past times when our country was threatened from the outside, Americans rallied behind their president.
On September 12, the civilized world stood in solidarity with America. But instead of using that opportunity to build a safer, more secure world, Mr. Bush squandered it. The Bush Administration left the job unfinished in Afghanistan--leaving the Taliban in control of much of the Afghan countryside, and Osama bin Laden uncaptured. Indeed, fewer American troops were committed to the Afghanistan conflict than the number of police in Manhattan. On one occasion, Mr. Bush said he didn’t particularly care where the man responsible for the deaths of 3,000 Americans was, or whether he was even alive. Already, Mr. Bush’s thoughts were elsewhere.
From the day he was inaugurated--indeed, before--Mr. Bush and his cronies were hell-bent on an armed incursion into Iraq. Even after it was conclusively proved that Saddam Hussein was not involved in 9/11, Mr. Bush continued to bang the drums of war, reverting to the argument that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction--chemical, biological, maybe even nuclear. The WMD argument has not produced any evidence, even a year and a half into the American occupation of Iraq. Indeed, during the course of Mr. Bush’s Iraq war, Saddam’s "elite" military was unable to get one plane into the air, or to launch one scud missile. Now, Mr. Bush says the invasion of Iraq was a war of liberation. Let no one doubt that Saddam Hussein is an evil man. The question is whether his removal was worth the cost paid in American blood--more American soldiers killed in action than at any time since Richard Nixon was in office.
The world is full of evil dictatorships which oppress innocent people, from North Korea, to Iran, to Sudan. Given Mr. Bush’s justification for the Iraq war, we are compelled to ask: Where do we invade next?
In reality, Mr. Bush is in possession of weapons of mass destruction--ordinary American’s call them LIES.
Lies are nothing new to the Bush political dynasty--neither is mudslinging. His family has been using these tactics to keep opponents from power since Mr. Bush’s grandfather was in the United States Senate. They are well documented elsewhere.
Mr. Bush likes to deride Senator Kerry as a flip-flopper. But his own actions in office do not jibe with his 2000 campaign pledge to be a "Compassionate Conservative."
What is compassionate about refusing to raise the minimum wage?
What is conservative about deficits spiraling out of control?
What is compassionate about an economy stuck in the ditch?
What is conservative about unprecedented government intrusion into our lives?
What is compassionate about gutting overtime pay?
What is conservative about the rape of America’s environment?
What is compassionate about 44 million Americans lacking health insurance?
Finally, what is compassionate or conservative about recklessly sending our troops into harm’s way?
Since I am a gay American, I should spend a moment on gay issues. Mr. Bush has been spending some time on gay issues--in opposition to them. Since he has no record of accomplishment to run on, he needs to find a scapegoat. He can’t scapegoat the Democrats, since Republicans hold power in the White House, both houses of Congress, and the majority of Governorships. So, he has been portraying gay Americans as a threat to America’s families. One would be hard pressed to find a President with a record more hostile to gay Americans. As Governor of Texas, Mr. Bush opposed every hate crimes law that came his way, opposed an end to employment discrimination against gay Texans, and defended his state’s Sodomy law. He has continued that trend as President. Even the conservative’s icon Ronald Reagan opposed the homophobic Briggs Initiative in the 1970s, and voiced his opposition to it before then President Jimmy Carter. President Reagan’s later discomfort with gay issues can at least be understood--if not condoned--when one recalls the fact that he was born in 1911. But Mr. Bush’s antipathy to the gay community is unforgivable in a man of the post World War II generation, who came of age in the ‘60s, and whose immediate subordinate has a daughter who is a lesbian.
In 1988, I cast my first vote for Mike Dukakis, partly because he had signed Massachusetts’ non-discrimination law into effect--only the second such statewide law in the nation. I was also appalled by the whispering campaign aimed at Governor Dukakis, questioning his mental health and even accusing his wife of burning an American flag in protest. But that’s the kind of campaign the Bushes run.
In 1992, I supported Bill Clinton because of his early embracing of the gay community--and also to revive an economy which had gone into recession under the elder George Bush. And in 1996, despite some disappointments in his handling of gay issues, I again supported President Clinton because his policies had restored America’s economy, reduced the federal deficit, and improved our relations with the world.
Thus, it was logical in 2000 that this American wanted to stay the course with Al Gore. So did the plurality of America’s voters, but the Electoral College--and five members of the Supreme Court--thought otherwise.
In 2004, I am voting for Senator John Kerry for President. But as can be gathered from what I’ve written, his stand on gay issues (which I mostly applaud) is the LEAST of many reasons I’m supporting him.
It is no exxageration to state that this is the most important election this nation has faced since 1940. We stand at the edge of a precipice: between financial responsibility or a descent into insolvency, between international cooperation or looming isolationism, between liberty or oppression. The "rendezvous with destiny" Franklin Roosevelt prohesied is fast approaching. The time has come for decision. Vote for John Kerry.
Sunday, August 8, 2004
We are Impatient
Here's my recent letter to the Plain Dealer, which I doubt they will print:
To the Editor:
Apparently, Bush supporters in the Southland of Ohio have been referring to the Kerry supporters as the Impatient People.
We are impatient, but not for the reasons they believe.
We have grown impatient because in the summer of 2001, George W. Bush ignored repeated warnings of an impending Al-Queda attack, refused to inform the American people, and left the country defenseless. We are impatient because in the face of those attacks, the American people were offered no leadership beyond "go about your business." We are also impatient because that same administration now insists on crying terrorist "wolf" whenever it suits their political needs. We are impatient--and angry--that Bush didn't have the patience, or wisdom, to let the weapons inspectors finish their job or to build a real international coalition before preemptively striking Iraq, a policy which has left America alone in the world and left our soldiers in harm's way. We are impatient because Bush's war in Iraq took focus away from our real enemy, Osama bin Laden, who remains at large. We are impatient because Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy come in the face of skyrocketing government spending, and that the costs will be passed onto our grandchildren. We are impatient because this administration insists on clinging to a failed economic theory, despite all the evidence that Trickle Down Economics doesn't work. In this election year, we are doubly impatient with Bush's smear campaign against John Kerry, with the lies, and with the Administration's gallingly high sleaze factor.
In short, we are impatient with the arrogance of this Administration, the sheer tonnage of which would stun a team of oxen in its tracks. This Administration has the worst record of job creation since Herbert Hoover held office. The stock market remains lackluster, and the economic recovery has not taken hold. Worst of all, under George W. Bush, more American soldiers have died in combat than under any President since Richard Nixon.
So, are we impatient? You bet we are. The relevant question is, why aren't you?
To the Editor:
Apparently, Bush supporters in the Southland of Ohio have been referring to the Kerry supporters as the Impatient People.
We are impatient, but not for the reasons they believe.
We have grown impatient because in the summer of 2001, George W. Bush ignored repeated warnings of an impending Al-Queda attack, refused to inform the American people, and left the country defenseless. We are impatient because in the face of those attacks, the American people were offered no leadership beyond "go about your business." We are also impatient because that same administration now insists on crying terrorist "wolf" whenever it suits their political needs. We are impatient--and angry--that Bush didn't have the patience, or wisdom, to let the weapons inspectors finish their job or to build a real international coalition before preemptively striking Iraq, a policy which has left America alone in the world and left our soldiers in harm's way. We are impatient because Bush's war in Iraq took focus away from our real enemy, Osama bin Laden, who remains at large. We are impatient because Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy come in the face of skyrocketing government spending, and that the costs will be passed onto our grandchildren. We are impatient because this administration insists on clinging to a failed economic theory, despite all the evidence that Trickle Down Economics doesn't work. In this election year, we are doubly impatient with Bush's smear campaign against John Kerry, with the lies, and with the Administration's gallingly high sleaze factor.
In short, we are impatient with the arrogance of this Administration, the sheer tonnage of which would stun a team of oxen in its tracks. This Administration has the worst record of job creation since Herbert Hoover held office. The stock market remains lackluster, and the economic recovery has not taken hold. Worst of all, under George W. Bush, more American soldiers have died in combat than under any President since Richard Nixon.
So, are we impatient? You bet we are. The relevant question is, why aren't you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
