A new cocktail: The Smoky Topaz

Riffing off the Bijou cocktail, specifically my favorite variation using barrel-aged gin, I now have the Smoky Topaz!

updated, 12/12/16: I’ve made a small adjustment to the original, upping the gin and going for a balance between the yellow and green Chartreuse

The Smoky Topaz

  • 1.5 oz barrel-aged gin (Tom Cat preferred)
  • .75 oz yellow Chartreuse
  • .25 oz green Chartreuse
  • .75 oz Averna Amaro

No orange bitters in this one; maybe the next one.  Or cranberry bitters.  But definitely an orange peel for garnish.

A Christmas Carol: The Sleepover Edition

Astoundingly, I have not been blogging about this year’s production of A Christmas Carol, my musical retelling of Dickens’ classic.

To be honest, it’s been a scary rehearsal process, starting with the first night of auditions.  Why?  Because instead of the 20 or so adults I needed to perform the roles and sing my not-very-easy songs, I got eight little girls and a handful of teens and adults, most of whom had not done theatre in a while.  And on top of that, several of the adults dropped out the first week of rehearsal; I’m sure they were daunted by the prospect (as you will see).  I’d hate to think they thought it was not going to work.

Usually in community theatre when one does not have the cast one needs after auditions, one gets on the phone and recruits people.  But I was not in the mood, and on top of that I was up to my earballs in designing the nation’s largest regional burn at the time, if you will recall.

And so I made a fateful decision: we would use the performers we had and screw all those people who didn’t bother to come to auditions.  This meant, of course, re-envisioning the entire piece.

Oy.

I decided to invent a frame story—I know, I know, but hear me out—about Natalie Fairgood, a spoiled, horrible little rich girl, who was born on Christmas Day and resents it because she feels as if she never gets enough presents.  That’s why, she says, she celebrates the week after.  This year she’s having a sleepover with all her friends, but she’s been forced to invite the daughter of her mother’s personal assistant, Jessica.

When the show opens, Natalie’s grandfather shows Jessica into Natalie’s bedroom and chats with her a moment before leaving her to wait for the other girls, who are somewhere in the huge house.  When they enter, Natalie immediately begins taunting Jessica, ending in  a meltdown because Jessica is holding one of her dolls.

Grandfather intervenes, and when he offers them storytime to chill them out, Natalie demands a ghost story.

“I have just the story,” he says.  “I read it every year, and I’m reading it now.  I’ll read it to you.”  They all sit, attentively, and he begins: “Marley was dead…

Figures emerge from the shadows and begin to narrate as well, and soon we are back in Scrooge’s tale.

As the show progresses, the girls go from being passive listeners to Grandfather’s reading to observing the action directly.  Soon they are taking part in the story, using toys and costume pieces from Natalie’s shelves as they become guests at Fezziwig’s party to shoppers on the street to Young Cratchits.

By the time we reach the Finale, they are fully empowered to join Grandfather in telling the story themselves, and that’s the point: we celebrate the power of story, how we listen to stories, become part of them, and in turn pass them on to the next listeners.  Hearing a story changes us.  Telling a story changes us.

And by the end, both Scrooge and Natalie have changed.  And so have we.

Script now available upon request.

A new answer to an old question

Yesterday I was at home when the pleasant-voiced Drew Robinson from Sen. David Perdue’s office called, and so I was able to chat with him directly about Perdue’s stance on waterboarding.

Drew wanted me to know that last summer Sen. John McCain (along with Dianne Feinstein, D-CA) submitted an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which expanded previous bans on torture.  Whereas before the Department of Defense was forbidden to torture prisoners (under the Geneva Conventions as well as by U.S. law), that left a lot of wiggle room for other federal agencies.  (Looking at you, CIA.)  The McCain-Feinstein Amendment extended the ban to the entire federal government.  Read more about it here.

Sen. Perdue was one of 78 senators who voted to pass the amendment.  Although the bill passed both chambers, it was vetoed by President Obama for its budget shenanigans, i.e., moving routine defense spending which was above the limit set by the budget into the “let’s just charge this war on our credit card” funding stream.  (Other details available at the link.)

So while the bill (and the McCain-Feinstein Amendment) didn’t pass, I’m going to give Sen. Perdue the benefit of the doubt on this one and record that he is, unlike the PPE, opposed to waterboarding.

Since this was my first time speaking with an actual congressional aide, I was polite and complimentary, but I also neglected to ask whether Sen. Perdue’s opposition would continue into the next administration.  I’m still developing my craft here.

For those who are keeping track, that’s three responses from Sen. Perdue, and zero from Sen. Isakson.

“Presidential behavior”: an easy answer if ever there was one

In our continuing curiosity about how our elected officials feel about the presumptive president-elect [PPE], we have a new entry in our Easy Answers series.

Today I emailed my senators:

On 60 Minutes this past Sunday, in reference to the presumptive president-elect’s tweet that “millions of people voted illegally,” Speaker of the House Paul Ryan said, “It doesn’t matter to me.”

Does it matter to you that the presumptive president-elect tweeted an obvious lie?

(N.B.: it is an obvious lie.  Any references to the Pew Study will be disregarded, since 1) the author of the study has repudiated any validation of this lie; and 2) the study was performed in 2012,  not for this election.)

Also, Kellyann Conway made the astounding claim that because he is the presumptive president-elect, any such tweets were de facto “presidential behavior.”

Do you agree that the presumptive president-elect’s behavior is “presidential”?

Unclean! Unclean!

With A Christmas Carol and the Tour of Homes in the books (albeit with one more weekend of CC performances to go), it’s time to excavate the study.

—click to embiggen—

That may not look so bad to you, but trust me—it’s a mess: the detritus of three months of shedding as I move from one project to another.  It will be therapeutic to get everything tidied up/stored/tossed.

And then it’s on to… TBD.

updated:

Et voilá!

—click to embiggen—
—click to embiggen—

Notice not only the clear floor and desks, but the addition of the Assistive Feline™.

None dare call it lying

In her Washington Post op-ed on Friday, Ruth Marcus bemoaned our post-truth PPE.  She’s on point with her facts and her opinions, but on one item she completely missed the boat.

Ironically, while gigging the PPE for “not quite understanding what euphemism means,” she bends over backwards dancing around the hard truth[1]: “consistently heedless to truth”; “untrue assertion”; “untruths”; “chock-full-of-lies”; “truth-impaired”; “unconstrained by facts.”  Only in her last paragraph does she nail it: “The journalist’s challenge is not to tire in refuting the torrent of lies.”

The way to do that, Ms. Marcus, is to use the exact terminology each and every time: the PPE won by lying.  He continues to lie. He is a liar.

—————

[1] See what I did there?

A non-answer to an easy question

One of the easy questions I recently asked of my senators was whether they agreed with the PPE’s tweet that people who burned the flag should be “stripped of their citizenship,” and whether they would vote for legislation that mandated that.  (Spoiler alert: there is no mechanism for “stripping” a U.S. citizen of his citizenship.)

Sen. David Perdue (R) responded via email:

 Thank you for contacting me to express concern over desecration of the American flag. I always appreciate the opportunity to hear from my fellow Georgians.

Like most Georgians, I find desecration of the American flag to be personally offensive, but unfortunately the Supreme Court ruled in the 1989 case of Texas v. Johnson that flag desecration is protected speech under the First Amendment. A year later, in the 1990 case of United States v. Eichman, the Supreme Court struck down the Flag Protection Act as an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment’s protections on free speech.

In light of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Johnson and Eichman, the only option available to Congress to prohibit desecration of the American flag is the passage of an anti-flag desecration amendment to the Constitution. This would require the support of a two-thirds majority of each house of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the States. I will support the passage of such an amendment if it is proposed during my time in Senate.

Well.  Number one, as I replied to the senator, my concern was not over the “desecration” of the American flag; my concern was protecting free speech.  The idea that the U.S. flag is sacred is ridiculous.  That would imply it is part of some kind of state-sponsored religion, one that worships the state in fact, and we all know that is not the case.

Number two, he (once again) did not answer my question.  But I’m going to presume that yes, he does support passing legislation to “strip” a U.S. citizen of his citizenship if that citizen exercises his right to free speech.

note to Sen. Perdue and/or staff: I welcome any clarifications or corrections

 

An answer, kind of, to an Easy Question

When I got home from the theatre yesterday, there was a message on the phone.  It was from a Drew Robinson, a pleasantly-voiced man, letting me know that Sen. David Perdue’s office had gotten my email about waterboarding (the PPE and several of his surrogates had suggested it was dandy).

This was just prior to my deciding to make this a blog series so I don’t have the exact wording of my email, but I essentially asked if my elected officials if they were down with the U.S. torturing prisoners in contravention of international law.

Mr. Robinson’s message, and I paraphrase, was to assure me they would be passing it along to the senator that I opposed the reintroduction of waterboarding in the Executive Branch.

You, being the astute reader that you are, will already have noticed that this is not really an answer to my question.  I appreciate that they’re not going to keep my opinion from the senator, but my question was whether David Perdue agreed with the PPE that we should be waterboarding.

And so back we go:

I had a voice mail on my machine yesterday from Drew Robinson from your office, assuring me that they would pass along to you my opposition to the U.S. waterboarding in contravention of international law (“in the Executive Branch,” as Mr. Robinson phrased it).  I appreciate the contact, but my question remains:

Do you agree with the presumptive president-elect’s position that the U.S. should waterboard its prisoners?

Astute readers will also have noticed that Mr. Robinson (presumably following office protocol) did not call the PPE by name.

Easy answers

Oh my.  Our PPE certainly has some rather —what’s the word I’m looking for?— ignorant suppositions about U.S. citizenship and protest.

(There are those who are beginning to posit that whenever he does something dumb as shit like this, he’s just squid-inking to keep us from being even more outraged at his real problems.  I am not discounting the proposition.)

And so off we go to our elected officials:

The presumptive president-elect has tweeted: “Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag – if they do, there must be consequences – perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!”

Do you agree with his statement?  Would you vote for legislation which stripped an American of citizenship for participating in an unpopular form of protest?