This is a great bit of comedy. It’s been a while since I heard it.
Browsing Posts tagged player
I’ve never had to wonder where my knack for music and poetry comes from. In the 50′s my Zaydie bought the family a record player and provided a set of records of himself. Some records tell the story of Hanukkah while others provide a family history. All are in rhyming couplets some set to music.
There is much debate of late as to who is the patent holder on the term ‘Marriage’. Conservative heterosexual monogamists have put their moral stake in the ground claiming that ‘Marriage’ is their intellectual property. The proponents of a traditional definition can be subdivided into the religious, who claim divine rights to the word, and traditionalists that appeal to the naturalistic fallacy that the definition is as it ought to be, proven and tested by time.
First, let us set things straight. What is the traditional definition of marriage? The short answer is: one woman, one man, for life. Yet, is this the definition that both proponents of the traditional definition truly espouse?
Those religiously minded who claim a divine definition for marriage point you conveniently to the Bible. Yet, weren’t many of the biblical greats polygamists?! Clearly some historical modification of this divine lexicon has occurred.
The traditionalists have also modified matrimonial definitions over time. As recently as 1997, Ireland legalized divorce, reducing the certainty of the ‘for life’ part of the definition. Throughout most of recorded history, divorce was simply, ‘not an option’ yet it seems that societal needs have forced us to alter that definition.
So what the proponents of a traditional definition of marriage present as an immutable and timeless definition, turns out, upon closer inspection to be a shifting definition which is a product of the defining times.
Having knocked the moral ascendancy of the conservatives down a peg, we move on to possible solutions to this problem. Most people believe in homosexual marriage-style rights, leaving the word used to describe this solution as the only sticking point to be debated. They turn to homosexuals and say: what’s in a name? Wouldn’t ‘a marriage by any other name be as sweet?’ They give them the rights but just wish that they’d stay out of their lexical backyard.
Same sex marriage proponents contend this would be tantamount to the tenets ‘different but equal’ and point back to the inequalities such thinking created in civil rights history. While they have a point on this issue, I believe that the semantic battle for the word ‘marriage’ is a bid to gain popular acceptance and I believe that their opponents see it as such. I would like to see advocates for the broadened definitions of marriage speak to why homosexuality should be accepted in general. In dealing with the issues at the core of the debate they have the best chances of evoking understanding, hence change.
The main points at the core of the debate as to whether to accept homosexuality are: 1) is it natural 2) is it evil and 3) is it a choice or endemic? We’ll examine each point in turn.
First what is natural? There are two aspects to natural, first the examples taken from nature around us and next the notion that the way things are, even in the human (not natural) world are the ‘natural’ way they should be. Looking to nature we see some examples of heterosexual monogamy in say, the Bald Eagle. However, more often we see examples of harems (polygamy) and loose monogamy (infidelity, or pair bonding for only a few mating seasons). While the traditional definition of marriage does exist in the animal kingdom, it is a minority player amongst many other definitions of bonding. Further, in nature we see examples of homosexuality amongst, say, male mice who often make female sexual displays in high population densities. Thus to say that heterosexual monogamy is nature’s way is tunnel sighted and uninformed.
Next we look to the idea that homosexual marriage is not natural since the heterosexual definition has been the prevailing one across the centuries. This is a classic example of the naturalistic fallacy which says that the way things are, is the way things ought to be. If we subscribe to the belief that the way things are is the way things they ought to be then we are forced to conclude that the world we currently live in cannot, and/or should not, be improved upon or changed in any way. Imagine if we all had subscribed to this belief, as many did, when it came time to review our ways in the face of slavery. Imagine again telling many suffering couples that they were stuck together for life because the definition of marriage was the way it was meant to be. Yet today we tell homosexuals that marriage is as it ought to be and if you want your rights, well then fine, but go do it on another page of the dictionary please. If we want the rights of deep, fulfilling, long term relationships to be extended to all humanity, heterosexuals must not drink the stupefying elixir of a ‘natural’ definition of marriage, because no such definition exists.
Is homosexuality evil? Well first, what is evil. To the religiously minded, they say evil is what God says is evil as given in the book of absolute truth. I’ve found that people who believe in absolute truths usually do so only because they are absolutely wrong. I admit that I have little respect or patience for those who derive their definitions of evil from a book and thus outsource their thinking. I dismiss them quickly for the same reason I scrape cold peas of my dinner plate, because they are cold and uninteresting. For those who are prepared to think about what good and evil really are, we come to the notion of utility. Good things serve a purpose and bad things do harm. This categorization is relative to a certain frame of consideration.
The ‘packages’ your dog delivers on the neighbourhood park are not good for you to eat, yet are gourmet meals to the community of flies. Thus the truth to the statement: “doggy packages make good eating” is relative to whom is speaking. In a thinking world, to show that homosexuality is evil, we must demonstrate that it is evil in one of two frames. We must prove harm to either homosexual individuals or to society as a whole.
To homosexual individuals, the main harm done to them by being homosexual is the lack of acceptance they receive. Many heterosexuals quickly point to the often ‘sad’ lives some homosexuals end up living. However, to borrow from the poet Andrew Lang, they do this “… like a drunk leans on a lightpost, for support instead of illumination”. The truth is that heterosexual intolerance of homosexuality is the cause of the ‘sadness’ they observe. Still, as acceptance slowly increases, we see many more homosexuals today live productive and successful lives. They do not necessarily live reproductive lives, but either do all heterosexuals.
To our society at large, homosexuality may have a reproductive impact, but on a planet of 6 billion, is this really an issue? If we really would like to have a discussion about harm, let’s talk about the harm of subverting this ‘evil’ impulse to be homosexual, only to have men live in a traditional marriage unhappily, hurting both himself, and his wife and perhaps children. Thus aside from the heterosexual discomfort it causes, there is no harm caused by homosexuality and hence it is not evil.
Finally, is homosexuality a choice? Why ask the question? We ask because if it is a choice, we can ask them to make a different choice. Well, homosexuality is a choice but only in the same way heterosexuality is a choice. Heterosexuals could choose to be homosexual if they really wanted to. What we refer to in common speak as a choice actually has two components, first a pressure and second a pure choice. When faced with an oncoming freight train, we have a tremendous survival pressure to move. Still we have a pure choice as to whether to move or not. Most of us would move. In the case of our sexuality there are pressures given to us by our environment, genetics and evolution and in the case of heterosexuals there are no other pressures which would cause us to use our pure choice to override this strong evolutionary pressure. In the case of homosexuals, societal pressures can cause individuals to use their pure choice to over-rule their evolutionary pressures. The fact that the natural pressure can be overruled does not suggest or imply that it should because most such individuals live lives with the constant stress of juggling conflicting priorities and are never truly at peace.
In order to determine the existence and severity of this pressure to be homosexual, being unable to jump into the minds of others, we need to empirically observe the effects. The empirical proof comes from asking: Why would any person willingly join a historically persecuted group if the pressure wasn’t strong to do so? Throughout history homosexuals have been shunned and forced to lead marginalized lives. This fact is common knowledge, thus it is impossible to state that homosexuals became or become homosexual on a flight of fancy.
So are heterosexual monogamists the patent holders on marriage after all? Why do homosexuals want the word so badly, even if they’ve already got the equivalent rights? Homosexuals want the word for the same reason that heterosexuals want the word, because of its meaning. It represents a deep, long-term, and socially recognized relationship between two people. Heterosexual monogamists claim to be the patent holders on marriage because tradition, the bible and nature have provided immutable and clear definitions of marriage that conveniently agree with them. None of that is true.
Photo Gallery (click to see more detail):
It may seem at first counterintuitive, but being a member of the Jewish clergy can be a most diverse and exciting career. The star of a Jewish clergy member can chart many courses, only some of which land him or her on the bima (worship platform). Jackie Mason interspersed so many jokes in his sermons that he eventually went on to charge “a cover and a minimum“. Then there is the story of the “Jazz Singer” starring Al Jolson in 1928 and Neil Diamond in 1980 remake which tells the mildly fictionalized story of a young boy Jolson, then Asa Yoelson, who must defy his father’s cantorial dreams for his son to achieve stardom.
The May 21st 2009: “Cantors Do Broadway” concert hosted by Cantor Ben Sharpe skillfully fa-mish’d (mixed) together all the aforementioned components into a well received, beautifully performed production. The concert featured Cantors Ben Sharpe, Eric Moses, Ben Silverberg, Marshall Loomer, and Laura Wolfson. Many of the cantors were given to bouts of stand up comedy in their introductions. There was a jocular banter between the cantors reminiscent of the “Three Tenors” Concerts. Comedy again showed up in a parody of Irving Berlin’s “Anything I can do” which Judaically morphed lyrics like: “I can get a sparrow with a bow and arrow” into “I can bake a challah, while singing the havdallah”.
The concert featured pieces showcasing pure chazzanut (Jewish liturgical singing) as well as more modern Hebrew songs such as “Hamilchamah Hachrona” (The Last War) — touchingly delivered by Cantor Ben Sharpe — which is a soldier’s promise to his little girl that there would be no more war. The staple of the concert were the songs of Broadway which were all sung with great talent and occasional peppering of cantorial coloratura. The cantorial peppering was not out of place in the Broadway tunes as many of the composers were themselves Jewish. In fact, when gentile Cole Porter set out to write show tunes in a field dominated by Jewish composers, Richards Rogers, of composing fame, asked Porter how he planned to achieve success. Porter replied simply, “I’ll write Jewish tunes“.
The concert was hosted by the Beth Jacob in Hamilton and had a warm hometown feeling. Hamilton, it turns out, is not only famous for steel but has also forged many a fine Chazzan (Hebrew/Yiddish for Cantor). Most of the cantors had ties to and origins in Hamilton and extended heartfelt appreciation to the city which had given so many of them their start. Notably, Cantor Ben Silverberg, now of the Shaar Shalom Synagogue in Toronto, had his first tenure at the Beth Jacob. The cantors recalled audience members who had given them a home on a Shabbat (sabbath) night, offered them a delicious meat loaf meal, or who had a friendly Werther’s candy on hand whenever needed. Love for Hamilton poured out from the cantors who had come to love the city that had come to love them.
The love was reciprocated by congregants who had taken these cantors into their hearts. Entre-act there was a ‘Secondary Audio Program’ provided by the audience members behind me discussing how cute and adorable the given cantors were. They provided running biographical commentary: This one was married, that one was single, one just had twins, but I never found out which one because, just then, the cantors burst back into song.
This love of cantors comes from their greatest charm: Despite some notable exceptions, most cantors are not national celebrities, but instead local heros. The can have an almost celebrity status yet they remain accessible. As such, they are not judged merely on their musical talent but also upon their ‘menschlachkeit’ (being of upright moral composition). The standing ovation at the end of the concert was an expression of both these sentiments for the assembled cantors with emphasis directed at host Cantor Ben Sharpe who concludes his tenure at Beth Jacob this summer.
Ray Charles has been featured on the Cosby show several times. Most commonly people remember the Cosby children performing a lip sync rendition of “Night Time is the Right Time” in honour of the Huxtable Grandparents’ anniversary.
There is however, a lesser known — certainly lesser discussed — Ray Charles vocal appearance on the Cosby Show. In Season 4 Episode 3: “It Ain’t Easy Being Green” when Rudy is upset when her parents forbid her from wearing her chosen sweater to a party.
Evidently this audio was only ever commercially released on an out of print record by Golden Music: “Sing: Songs of Joe Raposo”.
Barbara Ehrenreich examines the flip side of the bright side. The flip side to forced optimism and the new age philosophy of the ‘law of attraction’ is that “If you’re not doing well, if you’re sick or poor or lost your job… it must be because you sent out the wrong type of vibrations to the universe”
Ehrenreich contends that forced ‘positivity’ reveals: “an empathy deficit in our society: don’t tell me your problems; just be positive. I don’t want to hear it.” Ehrenreich further traces the crash of 2008 to this forced positivity in that any naysayers or ‘non-positive’ employees in the financial realms were deliberately rooted out as ‘negative’ ‘not team players’.
Barbara Ehrenreich Interview:
Canada: http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart/#clip226294
USA: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-14-2009/barbara-ehrenreich
Book Review:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/books/review/Rosin-t.html
Book Excerpt:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/10/books/excerpt-bright-sided.html
My latest pet project www.simple2chat.com seeks to make the world of chatting, conferencing and blogging simple and accessible.
I currently have 4 messenger clients on my desktop. I have different collections of friends on each. If I want to conference them all in, it’s nearly impossible. I want to be able to talk to them all instantaneously and easily. I don’t want to have them all install software and exchange usernames, adding each other to friends lists well into the night.
I just want to chat. www.simple2chat.com seeks to accomplish this. Upon visiting the site, a conversation is set up for you automatically. All you need do is pass this link around to your friends and you can chat instantly.
Comparing the alternatives for this type of service we have:
Messenger programs: Yahoo!/MSN/Google/Skype.
Pro’s: They offer rich services. They have web interfaces but you can only access people on their respective networks.
Con’s: Need to install programs, register, add users and you can only conference people who are registered.
Net Meeting Software:
Pro’s: Rich functionality including the ability to share screens.
Con’s: Can be costly and requires installation and registration
Adobe Connect Now:
Pro’s: very rich, no login for your guests, ability to share screen.
Con’s: Needs the flash player plugin which may not be installed on a public computer. Requires a login for the meeting initiator (why? don’t we all have enough logins?!). Only supports THREE (?!) meeting participants in the free version.
www.simple2chat.com
Pro’s: No login, no software to install, no plugins, simple. Users can share images and screenshots using provided instructions.
Con’s: No video. (By the way, have you seen 12 people try to video conference? If 1 can be choppy 12 are definitely choppy.) Yes, video is great, but it doesn’t leave a transcript of the meeting so someone ends up typing the important points anyways.
Admittedly, this is my own site, so I may be biased. Don’t take my word for it then. Visit www.itssoeasytochat.com and try it out for yourself.
Gene DiNovi Presents Benny Goodman...
http://www.jccc.on.ca/calendar/view_entry.php?id=290&date=20090530
A special thanks to my reader “Nobi” for letting me know about this.
Saturday May 30, 2009 is the 100th birthday of the great clarinetist Benny Goodman.
On that day Gene Dinovi will present the Benny Goodman Centennial Orchestra playing selections from “The Sound of Music”and Goodman favourites, including Let’s Dance, Memories of You, Don’t be that Way, Stompin’ at the Savoy, Sunny side of the Street, Rose Room, Moon Glow, One O’clock Jump, Sing Sing, Sing and more!
Pianist and composer DiNovi, who is one of the great icons of Canadian and American jazz, together with Order of Canada-winning musicians Campbell (clarinet) and Young (Bass), will be performing with and passing on a legacy to the next generation of premier jazz musicians who make up the rest of the Benny Goodman Centennial Orchestra This top talent includes: Bryden Baird (trumpet), Graham Campbell (guitar), Ernesto Cervini (drums and clarinet), Tara Davidson (alto saxophone and flute), David French (tenor saxophone), and RJ Satchithananthan (trombone).
Exactly 50 years ago pianist Gene Dinovi recorded the music from “The Sound of Music” with Benny Goodman at a famous New York club called “Basin Street East”. The band was a stellar “Tentet” featuring Benny Goodman (clarinet), Jack Sheldon (trumpet) ,Gerry Dodeion (alto sax), Flip Phillips (tenor sax), Bill Harris (trombone), Red Norvo; (vibes), John Markham (drums), Red Wooten (bass), Jimmy Wyble (guitar), and Gene DiNovi (piano).
DiNovi, Campbell and Producer Ted Ono all agreed that this was an opportunity to make a legacy of this music for the younger generations of jazz players. The first half of the concert will highlight the music from the perennially popular “Sound of Music”
These were (and remain) fresh and modern arrangements by a very talented young man in 1959 named Fred Karlin. Gene DiNovi served as an emissary between Benny and Fred at that time. Benny thought Fred a little young for the job at hand but Gene convinced Benny to go with the young guy. Sounds perenally familiar. In any case the Yale University library was very kind in the arrangements to DiNovi who enlisted the talented young musicians who fill out the exciting group.
Date & Time: Saturday, May 30, 2008, 7:30PM
Location: The Japanese Canadian Cultural Centre
6 Garamond Court, Toronto, Ontario, M3C 1Z5 (Don Mills and Eglinton)
Tickets: $35 for General Public, $30 for members of the JCCC. To purchase, call 416-441-2345 x222.
