Springsteen tribute joins founding fathers on Independence Mall

One nation under ... Bruce?

The National Constitution Center would like to think so. The museum on Independence Mall more used to founding fathers and government branches announced Thursday it will be the only venue outside the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland to host a hugely popular Bruce Springsteen exhibit.

"From Asbury Park to the Promised Land: The Life and Music of Bruce Springsteen," will run at the Center from Feb. 17 to Sept. 3, 2012. Tickets, which the museum expects (hopes) will sell out, are available on the museum's website, www.constitutioncenter.org.

"It explores one of our most treasured rights, freedom of expression," Constitution Center President and CEO David Eisner said at a press conference Thursday morning, surrounded by guitars that belonged to, no, not Bruce, but to museum staff members.

(Actual Springsteen guitars will be at the exhibit, including the Fender Esquire featured on the cover of Born to Run, along with handwritten drafts of lyrics, the outfit he wore on the Born in the USA album cover and his 1960 Chevrolet Corvette.)

"Bruce Springsteen has always pushed the boundaries of free speech, pushed the boundaries of artists and politics, and of music as a form of popular protest. Springsteen gives voice to everyday Americans, the working class, immigrants, veterans. He shows in a deep way the struggle to attain the American dream and the distance we have to go to attain it."

The exhibit was created by the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum and ran there for two years, drawing members of E Street nation from all over the country. Springsteen himself visited on one of the last days, but quietly and unannounced.

Eisner said the center "has no expectations" about whether Springsteen would make an appearance at the museum, but said he and his people approved the exhibit's move to the streets of Philadephia.

"They approve everything," he said.

Source http://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/music/20111027_Springsteen_tribute_joins_founding_fathers_on_Independence_Mall.html

Lust, Betrayal, and A Streetcar Named Desire

Friday night I had the pleasure of seeing Tennessee Williams’ iconic classic, A Streetcar Named Desire at Dragon Productions Theatre Company in Palo Alto. Streetcar won Tennessee Williams a Pulitzer Prize for Drama in 1947.

In this production, director Jeanie K. Smith chose to focus on Blanche’s story as opposed to Stanley’s as many other renditions have. We follow Blanche DuBois who is an aging Southern Belle trying to run away from her shameful past in Mississippi. When she moves to New Orleans to live with her sister, Stella, and brother-in-law, Stanley, Blanche clashes with their rough, industrial lives and learns that she can run but she cannot escape trouble.

I went into the theatre having never seen a staged production of the show. I saw the movie years ago, but tried not to compare what I was seeing on stage in front of me with what little I remembered from the movie. It’s difficult not to compare if you’ve seen other versions of this play. Have you ever seen this play in a small theatre that seats 42 audience members?

Jeanie had a challenge; how do you tell such a big story in such a small space? Her answer? Simplicity. Keep the set minimal and let the actors tell the story. This worked wonderfully because we were able to be right there with the characters and feel their emotions, see every layer, every nuance and not be distracted by a busy set. And the actors did a fantastic job of telling the story.

Blanche DuBois is a very complex character. She puts on airs and insults her sister’s way of living, all the while taking one shot of whiskey after the next and obviously not being able to deal with whatever she is escaping. Meredith Hagedorn, who plays Blanche, creates a somewhat likeable character who you just can’t seem to take your eyes off of, arrogant and an emotional wreck, or not. Meredith sucks you into Blanche’s story and makes it easy to feel pity for her and to want everything to work in her favor.

Andrew Harkins is perfect as the rough and crude Stanley Kowalski. I wasn’t sure the momentum of the scene leading up to the famous “Stella” line was enough to put him in the emotional state of someone who is ashamed of what he’s done and is madly and deeply in love with the woman he did it to, but he did. He dropped to his knees, sobbing, and the whole audience felt the intensity.

Katie Anderson is brilliant as Stella Kowalski. She plays a very calm Stella. Her calm nature gives the audience someone to turn to during times of chaos. She is nurturing, understanding, and lovable.

Also lovable is Mitch, played by Troy Johnson, Stanley’s friend who dates Blanche. Troy creates an extremely likable character in Mitch. Sweet and innocent, like a big teddy bear.

The rest of the cast was quite talented as well: Charles McKeithan, Monica Colletti, Phillip Raupach, and Mary Lou Torre.

Source http://sanjose.metblogs.com/2011/07/31/lust-betrayal-and-a-streetcar-named-desire/

Donald Trump finally finds his official birth certificate

Donald Trump really is an American citizen, documents released Tuesday finally verify. While bloviating at length about the validity of President Obama's birth certificate on a variety of talk shows through most of March, the billionaire real estate developer released what he thought was his own proof of citizenship on Monday, only to discover that he was wrong.

Indeed, the document Trump handed over to a conservative website Monday turned out to be a "certificate of birth" and not an official birth certificate. After cries of hypocrisy rang through the blogosphere and commenters pointed out all the reasons why what he produced wasn't what he proclaimed it was, on Tuesday Trump's team got their hands on his actual birth certificate.

"A 'birth certificate' and a 'certificate of live birth' are in no way the same thing, even though in some cases they use some of the same words," Thuy Colayco, from Trump's staff, wrote to ABC News. "One officially confirms and records a newborn child’s identity and details of his or her birth, while the other only confirms that someone reported the birth of a child. Also, a 'certificate of live birth' is very easy to get because the standards are much lower, while a 'birth certificate' is only gotten through a long and detailed process wherein identity must be proved beyond any doubt."

Colayco went on to explain that a certificate of live birth would not be accepted to obtain a passport or a driver's license, whereas a birth certificate could.

Although some Republicans, like Trump, are questioning the validity of Obama's birth certificate, one conservative who is likely to run for president in 2012 is making it clear that he is not a birther.

"I, for one, do not believe that we should be raising that issue," former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty said Tuesday of the president's birth certificate on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." "I think President Obama was born in the United States."

Source http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/03/donald-trump-barack-obama-birth-certificate.html?cid=6a00d8341c630a53ef0147e3a0341e970b

81 Reps Condemn Obama's DOMA Stance

A House resolution with 81 Republican cosponsors, including Rep. Michele Bachmann, condemns President Barack Obama for his decision to stop defending section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act in federal court cases.

Obama in February directed Atty. Gen. Eric Holder and the Department of Justice to stop defending DOMA, which bans recognition of gay and lesbian couples by the federal government, even if they are married in other countries or partnered in states where same-sex marriages, domestic partnerships, or civil unions are legal. House speaker John Boehner and Republican leaders last week took the option to defend the law in court.

The resolution finds fault with the the Obama administration for ceasing to defend DOMA, despite a large majority in Congress approving it, but in contrast, the administration is defending other laws, such as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act after it "barely passed both chambers of Congress on party line votes."

The Congress members added that "the vast majority of Americans believe that marriage should continue to be what it always has been — the legal and spiritual union between one man and one woman." The resolution goes on to condemn the Obama administration's decision and demand that the Justice Department continue defending the law.

The resolution is cosponsored by representatives including Virginia Foxx of North Carolina and Darrell Issa of California. The lead sponsor is Rep. Vicky Hartzler of Missouri.

Source http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/03/15/81_Reps_Condemn_Obamas_DOMA_Stance/

Thank you, Obama, for showing the Israeli left your true colors

The decision by 2010 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Barack Obama, to veto a resolution urging Israel to refrain from activities deemed subversive to peace efforts represents a victory of domestic politics over foreign policy in the world's leading superpower. The lame excuse that denunciation of construction in the settlements would harm "the peace process" constitutes a victory of opportunism over morality.

Just two weeks ago, during the demonstration in Cairo's Tahrir Square, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared that the United States honors "the universal right of all persons to live in freedom." Even Israel's former prime minister, Ehud Olmert, a graduate of the "nationalist camp," argues in his book that settlements violate human rights, the quality of life and freedom of movement of the Palestinians.

What would happen were the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, to join other states in the Security Council and cast a vote in favor of the resolution condemning Israel's settlement activity? Would the Netanyahu-Lieberman-Barak government place a freeze on settlement activity? George Mitchell, the special envoy for Middle East peace, knows the answer to this question. Ten years ago, an international committee he headed found that Israel's settlement policies cause humiliation to residents of the territories and disrupt their lives. Mitchell and his associates called on Israel to decide whether the settlements are a bargaining chip for future negotiations or a provocation that will prevent the start of such talks. The committee recommended that a freeze be placed on settlement expansion, even for purposes of "natural growth." Israel's government accepted the report.

Since then, the population of the settlements has grown by 50,000. The Mitchell committee's recommendation for a general settlement freeze, along with the dismantling of settlement outposts set up after March 2001, was included in stage A of the Road Map plan, presented by the quartet to the two sides in April 2003. (The Sharon government did not refer to this recommendation for a freeze when it submitted 14 reservations regarding the Road Map plan. )

A few months later, the Security Council voted unanimously in favor of a Bush administration proposal calling on Israel and the Palestinians to uphold their obligations under the Road Map (Resolution 1515 ). What happened afterward? That's correct: The settlements continued to grow. So did the settlement outposts. It bears mention that in June 2009, Benjamin Netanyahu informed the Knesset that his government intended to adopt a policy of "dismantling the unauthorized outposts."

Contrary to the claim made by the Americans, another Security Council denunciation would not have reduced the chances of promoting peace negotiations, just as the veto they cast does not increase the probability that Netanyahu will come around and present his positions on core issues. Since 1967, the international community, headed by the United States, has paid lip service to the Palestinians, and in recent years, also considerable taxpayer funds. No state will be created as a result. Were it not for the masses of Egyptians who stood up bravely to the policemen at Tahrir Square, the Americans would continue to chirp duplicitously upon reading the State Department's chilling reports about human rights abuses in Egypt. "There is a young generation in the Middle East which seeks opportunity," declared Obama, when he grasped that the Mubarak era had reached its end. The president added: "The leaders cannot lag behind the demands made by young people." These words obviously also apply to the young people of Nablus and East Jerusalem, who, after 43 years of occupation, hunger for liberation, freedom and dignity.

Instead of castigating Obama's hypocrisy, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas would do well to take off his jacket, leave his compound and invite young people to a protest tent in Ramallah's Manara Square. Instead of toying with the illusion that the United Nations will recognize a Palestinian state, Abbas should announce that should Netanyahu persist with his refusal to present a permanent border plan, the Palestinian Authority will tell donor states that it is closing its gates and returning the keys to Israel's military government. Under such circumstances, perhaps even the Israeli left will stop whining about the world's "hypocrisy" and purge itself of the illusion that some foreign politician will risk his job to save us from ourselves.

Thanks, Obama, for taking off the mask and showing us your real face. It's high time we took a look at ourselves in the mirror.

Source http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/thank-you-obama-for-showing-the-israeli-left-your-true-colors-1.344721

Mubarak to President Obama: Drop dead! Egyptian leader shows no signs of backing down in speech

President Hosni Mubarak's speech is the equivalent of Gary Cooper, Charles Bronson or Clint Eastwood sneering, "You want power? Come and get it!" He may be a dictator but he is one tough dude.

Or maybe he is a dictator because he is one tough dude. The most important thing spoken during this whole crisis was when Mubarak told President Obama that he didn't understand Egyptian (Arab) culture.

Mubarak meant that in Arab culture you don't give an inch unless you are prepared to have your enemy take a mile. If you back down, you're kicked down. Once that process starts the result is not a slippery slope, it's an avalanche. Unlike the American leadership, Mubarak and his colleagues know that the Muslim Brotherhood is not a group of social welfare advocates or moderate reformers.

They have watched as one place after another - Iran, the Gaza Strip, and then Lebanon - has fallen to revolutionary Islamists. And they saw how in nearby Algeria when the gates of power were opened the result was a civil war in which tens of thousands of people died.

So Mubarak delegated power to equally tough Vice President Omar Suleiman to handle a regime-directed reform policy. There will be a constitutional committee and a national dialogue. But that means the current rulers, not the protesters, are going to decide just what reforms there are going to be.

In confronting the protests, the regime clearly has the full support of the army. They know very well that this is going to inflame the opposition and there's going to be violence. They signal that they are prepared to meet it with force if necessary.

While the demonstrators thought the speech would end with Mubarak retiring to go abroad, it ended with Suleiman telling them to go home. Now there will be a period of clashes and a test of wills. If the protests crumble, the regime will have won. No doubt, there will be increased violence, as happened in the 1990s when hundreds of people died. Yet the military will see it out and prevail.

This is going to be accompanied by some changes including, one would think, subsidies that lead to lower food prices. Yet little or no real power will be yielded. There will be elections for a new president in September. But how will "free" elections be defined? It is hard to see the Muslim Brotherhood being made legal.

The challenge thrown down by Mubarak is especially clear to the Brotherhood: Do you want to fight or submit?

Source http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2011/02/10/2011-02-10_mubarak_to_obama_drop_dead_egyptian_president_shows_no_signs_of_backing_down.html

Obama to nominate Verrilli as solicitor general

President Obama announced Monday that he would nominate Donald B. Verrilli Jr. for solicitor general, turning to a veteran Supreme Court practitioner to be the government's advocate before the high court.

If confirmed by the Senate, Verrilli would fill the post held by Elena Kagan, who served as the Obama administration's solicitor general before her nomination to the Supreme Court. Verrilli is a deputy counsel to the president and a former top Justice Department official and private attorney.

Often called "the 10th justice,'' the solicitor general is the government's representative at the Supreme Court, advising the attorney general on legal matters and deciding whether the government will appeal adverse lower court rulings. The job is one of the most prestigious in the Washington legal world and has been held by such historical luminaries as future president William Howard Taft and future Supreme Court justice Thurgood Marshall.

In a brief statement, Obama said that Verrilli and another administration nominee announced Monday, David S. Cohen for Treasury Department undersecretary for terrorism and financial crimes, are "accomplished individuals" and that "I'm confident they will serve ably in these important roles."

Verrilli had been an associate deputy attorney general before moving to the White House. As a private litigator for more than 20 years at Jenner & Block's D.C. office, he participated in more than 100 Supreme Court cases and argued 12. They included such subjects as the entertainment industry's efforts to stop illegal sharing of music and videos, and whether executing prisoners by lethal injection is constitutional.

Lawyers said Verrilli is among the most respected members of the Supreme Court bar.

"He's an excellent choice,'' said Theodore B. Olson, who was solicitor general in the George W. Bush administration. "He is a hard-working, very intelligent, very well informed, thoughtful and articulate lawyer.''

Walter Dellinger, who was acting solicitor general in the Clinton administration, said Verrilli will be effective because "he is well known to the Supreme Court justices" and is respected within the administration. "That will ensure that the views of the solicitor general's office carry great weight,'' Dellinger said.

Kagan's deputy, acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal, had been among the candidates to replace her. He had represented Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a convicted former driver for Osama bin Laden, and had helped win a 2006 case in which the Supreme Court struck down the initial system of military commissions President Bush established to try detainees.

Some conservatives have criticized political appointees in the Obama Justice Department who represented detainees earlier in their careers.

Source http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/24/AR2011012406187.html