Wife and I saw a production of this musical. The musical, by Elton John and Tim Rice, is based on the Verdi opera of the same name. While the opera was in Italian & performed in for acts this musical was written in English and performed in two. The basic plot is the same.
The cast and crew are, in this production, junior and senior high school students. Everyone who performed in this production were capable or better. We personally felt at least some of them should have been using a microphone. The young woman who played Aida reflected training and skill. There was lots of energy.
Were we glad we went? Yes. We got to see one of our grandsons do his part. Did we feel we got our money's worth? Based on the whole performance, yes.
Best.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Monday, November 15, 2010
Steeler v Patriots 11 14 10
This game was truly amazing in some ways. H Ward was caught up in a helmet to helmet contact leaving him with a neck injury or maybe a concussion. I am waiting to see if the Commissioner will impose a stiff fine ont Patriot player who did it. If he does not then I have questions.
What I expected resulted. I went to bed after the first half. This morning, when I first got up, I thought there was the possibility that the Steelers pulled it off in the second half, but...
What was wrong with the Steeler defense? I guess I can't say "everything" though that is how it felt. Why: they held the Patiots to 10 points in the first half.
What was wrong with the Steeler offense: the line could not protect Ben at all in the beginning, allowing the Pats to score without Steeler scoring.
What the Steelers usually do to the other teams was done to them last night. The Pats did excellent man to man coverage, staying with Steeler recievers while the Pats receivers were successful.
I hope the Steelers can learn from last night and play much better hereafter. Otherwise, ...
Best
What I expected resulted. I went to bed after the first half. This morning, when I first got up, I thought there was the possibility that the Steelers pulled it off in the second half, but...
What was wrong with the Steeler defense? I guess I can't say "everything" though that is how it felt. Why: they held the Patiots to 10 points in the first half.
What was wrong with the Steeler offense: the line could not protect Ben at all in the beginning, allowing the Pats to score without Steeler scoring.
What the Steelers usually do to the other teams was done to them last night. The Pats did excellent man to man coverage, staying with Steeler recievers while the Pats receivers were successful.
I hope the Steelers can learn from last night and play much better hereafter. Otherwise, ...
Best
Friday, November 5, 2010
Cable TV
There is an interesting article in today's news reports. It deals with the high loss of subscribers to cable services. I am being generic when using the word cable as I am including every source except antenna.
When one reads the article through one suddenly discovers that the content suppliers are controlling how the retailers are packaging what they offer. In their bid to maintain high profits they are forcing the retailer to charge more than is actually necessary based on what the consumer watches. I should think that eventually the situation will reach the point whereat the retailer will be forced to charge so much that even the wealthy will walk away.
The other day I was surfiing to see what was showing on several channels. I found 2 stations showing the same movie. The only difference was that one channel had started showing it maybe a half hour earlier than the other channel. Further, and equally to the point, it is obvious that a group of channels owned by the same company shows a limited number of movies in a cycle over 3 months then changes the movies. Why do I need such "diversity"? Very simple, the content supplier has created a situation whereby I pay for more than I can use and that drives up their profits.
My suspicion is that the content suppliers have so many channels so that they can force this situation so that they can maximise their profits. I also think that the local stations have done the same thing for the same reason. Maybe those local additional stations may be the national network's idea, especially when one can tune into one of them & watch reruns of nationally broadcast shows.
How to get around this situation is an interesting question. The article noted what some internet/computer savvy people are doing. Still, to access anything via the internet one must buy into an ISP; no freebees. Pipeddream: if enough people left the cable companies completely then maybe the content supplier would be agreeable to a-la-cart. Oh, well.
Best.
When one reads the article through one suddenly discovers that the content suppliers are controlling how the retailers are packaging what they offer. In their bid to maintain high profits they are forcing the retailer to charge more than is actually necessary based on what the consumer watches. I should think that eventually the situation will reach the point whereat the retailer will be forced to charge so much that even the wealthy will walk away.
The other day I was surfiing to see what was showing on several channels. I found 2 stations showing the same movie. The only difference was that one channel had started showing it maybe a half hour earlier than the other channel. Further, and equally to the point, it is obvious that a group of channels owned by the same company shows a limited number of movies in a cycle over 3 months then changes the movies. Why do I need such "diversity"? Very simple, the content supplier has created a situation whereby I pay for more than I can use and that drives up their profits.
My suspicion is that the content suppliers have so many channels so that they can force this situation so that they can maximise their profits. I also think that the local stations have done the same thing for the same reason. Maybe those local additional stations may be the national network's idea, especially when one can tune into one of them & watch reruns of nationally broadcast shows.
How to get around this situation is an interesting question. The article noted what some internet/computer savvy people are doing. Still, to access anything via the internet one must buy into an ISP; no freebees. Pipeddream: if enough people left the cable companies completely then maybe the content supplier would be agreeable to a-la-cart. Oh, well.
Best.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
3rd Parties
Third parties serve an useful purpose, they make waves for the 2 major parties when they drift too far from the people. Someone wrote a blog reflecting frustration with the negative effects of some 3rd parties on GOP successes. Several GOP candidates, for whatever reason, were not able to overcome their respective opponents. Rather than begrudging the 3rd parties & the Tea Party the blogger should be asking the soul-searching question or 2 that deals with why the vote went the way it did.
Both major parties have been dwelling in their ivory towers, spinning their plans & dreams w/o fully appreciating what the People want. I believe the Republican Party (GOP) had a better handle on it, though. That is why the GOP did so well.
Anyone who thinks it is possible to win 100% in is living in a dream world. It appeared and was proven right that several of the Tea Party backed candidates never actually had a chance. I do not begrudge those candidates their respective bid, they were willing to take the gamble. That they won in the Primary may say something that the GOP needs to consider when choosing who to put up. Normally, candidates support the Party with donations and time and may even have run for local office. At the local level issues are different from the State & National level, at least in degree. What is the truly valid issues to run on? Who are the advisors? Are they properly attuned to the People or just to the Party? What is the political party majority of a given district, etc?
When a 3rd party or movement has a major impact on the outcome of an election then the 2 major parties need to regroup & try to accurately & in an unbiased way try to read the message being sent and take that message to heart.
Normally, 3rd parties & movements come along when there are enough dissatisfied people out there. 3rd parties are a response to the major parties going a route not agreeable to the voting public & this is more so for the party in power.
According to the polls, if I have it straight, a majority of adults are very unhappy with the health bill that was passed into law. The Democrats had an agenda, they did not care what the people thought and they used their overwhelming majority to force the issue. They paid the price, at least to some degree. I doubt if the framers ever considered how this law would impact job creation because they did not care.
Maybe we need a national health package of some sort. But rather than create something sane they created something that did not really save harmless the People. I strongly suspect the framers were as concerned with protecting the flow of reelection money as anything else. Also, they left out some critical issues, probably due to political sensitivity. Let me repeat what I saw in the news (left leaning even) the American People never supported what was made public from the git-go. Nevertheless, the Democratic Party went down the path they elected to go down.
As for the Stimulus package: How much of it was driven by the concept of "pay back"? A lot of what came to light very quickly after passage sure looked that way. Why hasn't it succeeded in creating more job, rather than just slowing down the number of jobs still being lost? Real long term impact may not have been properly considered.
The view that so long as I have enough money to push my message & my choice of people I can sway the People to vote the way I want, whatever else may be true. Eventually, their attitudes come to haunt them.
To repeat, 3rd parties and other movements have always come along & have a major impact when the 2 major parties forget who ultimately puts them in power.
This turned out to be longer than I expected when I started. There may be more to be said; nevertheless, I am stopping here. I have expressed my thoughts & opinions. Anyone who disagrees is free to do so. I do not demand conformational.
Best.
Both major parties have been dwelling in their ivory towers, spinning their plans & dreams w/o fully appreciating what the People want. I believe the Republican Party (GOP) had a better handle on it, though. That is why the GOP did so well.
Anyone who thinks it is possible to win 100% in is living in a dream world. It appeared and was proven right that several of the Tea Party backed candidates never actually had a chance. I do not begrudge those candidates their respective bid, they were willing to take the gamble. That they won in the Primary may say something that the GOP needs to consider when choosing who to put up. Normally, candidates support the Party with donations and time and may even have run for local office. At the local level issues are different from the State & National level, at least in degree. What is the truly valid issues to run on? Who are the advisors? Are they properly attuned to the People or just to the Party? What is the political party majority of a given district, etc?
When a 3rd party or movement has a major impact on the outcome of an election then the 2 major parties need to regroup & try to accurately & in an unbiased way try to read the message being sent and take that message to heart.
Normally, 3rd parties & movements come along when there are enough dissatisfied people out there. 3rd parties are a response to the major parties going a route not agreeable to the voting public & this is more so for the party in power.
According to the polls, if I have it straight, a majority of adults are very unhappy with the health bill that was passed into law. The Democrats had an agenda, they did not care what the people thought and they used their overwhelming majority to force the issue. They paid the price, at least to some degree. I doubt if the framers ever considered how this law would impact job creation because they did not care.
Maybe we need a national health package of some sort. But rather than create something sane they created something that did not really save harmless the People. I strongly suspect the framers were as concerned with protecting the flow of reelection money as anything else. Also, they left out some critical issues, probably due to political sensitivity. Let me repeat what I saw in the news (left leaning even) the American People never supported what was made public from the git-go. Nevertheless, the Democratic Party went down the path they elected to go down.
As for the Stimulus package: How much of it was driven by the concept of "pay back"? A lot of what came to light very quickly after passage sure looked that way. Why hasn't it succeeded in creating more job, rather than just slowing down the number of jobs still being lost? Real long term impact may not have been properly considered.
The view that so long as I have enough money to push my message & my choice of people I can sway the People to vote the way I want, whatever else may be true. Eventually, their attitudes come to haunt them.
To repeat, 3rd parties and other movements have always come along & have a major impact when the 2 major parties forget who ultimately puts them in power.
This turned out to be longer than I expected when I started. There may be more to be said; nevertheless, I am stopping here. I have expressed my thoughts & opinions. Anyone who disagrees is free to do so. I do not demand conformational.
Best.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Football
Last night's Sunday Night Football game was a good game in terms of action and, thus, excitement. The Saints apparently were hungrier than the Steelers, thus their win. Reading between the lines of the Steelers writeup afterwards leads me to suspect the writer saw the outcome the same way. To NO congrats on the win.
On the other hand, I think the Steelers could have won the game except for their offense. The Steeler offense, to my eye, has for a very long time had trouble with scoring even in games they win. For example, late in the game I watched a Steeler receiver catch the ball, carry it for great yardage twisting & turning only to have an opposition player knock the ball loose leading to a Saints score. In short, the Steelers have turnover issues.
From what I could also gather, the NO Saints had more men on the line than the Steelers had been facing for some while. Thus, the Steelers were having trouble making long plays. Did the Steelers make the necessary adjustments? To some degree.
For the Steelers sake I hope they learn the right lessons from their last loss fast. Two losses should not be fatal to their march to the Play Off season. However, that could mean they are tied, at best, for first place in their division (I haven't looked at the current standings yet).
Best
On the other hand, I think the Steelers could have won the game except for their offense. The Steeler offense, to my eye, has for a very long time had trouble with scoring even in games they win. For example, late in the game I watched a Steeler receiver catch the ball, carry it for great yardage twisting & turning only to have an opposition player knock the ball loose leading to a Saints score. In short, the Steelers have turnover issues.
From what I could also gather, the NO Saints had more men on the line than the Steelers had been facing for some while. Thus, the Steelers were having trouble making long plays. Did the Steelers make the necessary adjustments? To some degree.
For the Steelers sake I hope they learn the right lessons from their last loss fast. Two losses should not be fatal to their march to the Play Off season. However, that could mean they are tied, at best, for first place in their division (I haven't looked at the current standings yet).
Best
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)