Gibberish, American Style

A (soon to be ex-) Facebook friend of mine put this up tonight:

My least favorite and most favorite moments in TV both relate to the same real life moment. That would be the moment that the US government decided that their own personal agenda was more important than passing a simple statement that allowed our country to continue running with our constant sense of unending spend. That was the extreme right that caused a panic that at best allowed some righty buddies to sell short and at worst destroyed the world's faith in a country that is still cocky enough to believes its the greatest. Why would I vote for one or the other? Left has been in for 4 years and yes that is not enough time when you have an entire congress majority that is strictly there to keep you from doing your job. Do I agree with the ideas? No, not fiscally, but like I said 4 years ago when Palin came in, its a better of two morons. It takes more than one mistake to turn me off, but McCain was everything I wanted in a president until he ran for the position. Who cares, I just bored and another worthless American with no real effect on the election, especially since I have more understanding of fiscal responsibility than the jack ass that some how represents my vote in the presidential election. Its not 1781, I have a clue about the candidates and would have more if they would stop fighting like sorority girls and discuss their positions on real issues.

Issues:

1) The "TV moment" is never clearly identified.

2) What does "sense of unending spend" mean? How can one have a sense of (participle)(verb)? An adjectival verb cannot modify another verb. This is perhaps the most grammatically confusing thing I have ever read.

3) What panic? And sell short on what?

3.5) Also, I don't think the extreme right's plan to "sell short" on...whatever it is is what destroyed the world's faith in America. (Largely because I don't know that the world put a ton of faith in America to begin with, but that's another debate).

4) The sentence that ends with "...cocky enough to believes its the greatest" contains two grammatical errors.

5) Why is he referring to the Democratic party as "Left?" Few elected officials stray from the center in this country. Also, what a stupid metonym. He doesn't even bother with "The left." LAZY.

6) "..its a better of two morons" confuses which article should be used (THE better... would make far more sense) and again contains a grammatical mistake. Ironically, this is in a passage where he is supposedly making himself out as the intellectual superior of these people by calling them morons.

7) "Who cares, I just bored and another worthless American..." is a lame attempt at self-deprecation as litotes about the importance of his beliefs and is also at LEAST one word shy of being an actual sentence. 

8) "...I have more understanding of fiscal responsibility than the jack ass that some how represents my vote in the presidential election." Yowza...okay, by subpoints:

     a) The fact that you can balance a personal budget and manage your finances does not mean you understand macroeconomics. They function in entirely separate ways. Not spending all your money at the beginning of the month doesn't qualify you to speak on national fiscal policy in a world with a rapidly changing economy. "Responsibility" is one of the biggest canards in politics right now. Personal responsibility has nothing to do with running a country in the macro sense.

     b) What the hell does "represents my vote" mean? I would give him the benefit of the doubt that he's talking about electors if the rest of this paragraph weren't a jumble of incoherent nonsense. Either he's insulting a presidential candidate (who is, regardless of party, almost certainly smarter than him) or an elector of whom he has no knowledge and likely never will.

     c) "Somehow" is one word.

9) "Its not 1781, I have a clue about the candidates and would have more if they would stop fighting like sorority girls and discuss their positions on real issues." Again, by subpoints:

     a) 1781? What the fuck? The first presidential election was in 1788. They didn't immediately hold elections after the Battle of Yorktown wrapped up.

     b) Also, why were people in 1781 ill informed? They had extensive newspapers and various other methods for transmitting information across the country. It wasn't like America was a group of ostriches with their heads in the sand who just voted by blindly casting lots. Actually, our 24-hour news cycle probably damages the ability of a voter to be informed more than the slower speed of information in the nascent America.

     c) We once again have the it's/its confusion.

     d) We also have a comma splice.

     e) What a great bit of useless misogyny thrown in here for NO FUCKING REASON. The reference to "fighting like sorority girls" doesn't do anything to strengthen the already hopeless stupidity of this screed. It is, on a good day, a tired image thrown out for a cheap laugh. More accurately, it's a worthless comparison designed to attack the candidates by comparing them to women. What a cutting and original insult!!! Heavens to Mergatroid, why does this man not have a cable show?!? Also, just to unpack the he-man woman-hateryness of this a bit more: why is fighting like a sorority girl a bad thing? What is the negative image he's trying to conjure here? Is the idea of two young women fighting somehow more embarrassing than two other types of humans? 

      e) Asking for a discussion on "positions on real issues" is another tired fart of an idea. What an original and refreshing call for clarity in the system!!! That's how it works, bud. They talk a lot and you have to divine from the things they say what's true and what they'll be able to do. That's how politics has always been.

      f) Politics is MUCH more civil and issue-oriented now than it was during the early days of the American nation. Unless you consider attacks on the moral fiber of a candidate's wife to be insightful into a man's fitness for office.

I don't ask that people share my beliefs. I do, however, ask that they KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT AND WRITE LIKE A HUMAN ADULT. Proofreading isn't hard! (I also didn't even mention that "most favorite" is the type of redundancy you hear from a toddler asking for ice cream). Also, here's a question: what is the point of this person's idiocy? IMPOSSIBLE TO TELL!

Perceval Preview

In the spring of 2008, fate happened to place four MFA candidates at the Brown/Trinity Consortium on the same night for their final recital projects. Recognizing a shared aesthetic and desire to continue working together. Thus, founding members Piper Goodeve, Elizabeth King-Hall, Scott Raker and Haas Regen created The Immediate Family, an exciting new company whose work is garnering attention in the notoriously overcrowded New York theatre community. Their inventive new take on a classic legend, Perceval, will play a limited engagement in Providence this Labor Day weekend following a successful run at the inaugural Westchester Square Arts Festival in the Bronx.

While it may be a less well-known bit of Arthuritania, the Perceval legend has long been an inspiration to artists. The story concerns Perceval, a young Knight of the Round Table, who must recover the fabled Holy Grail amidst the interference of a witch in order to heal a fisher king and restore the poisoned kingdom. In spite of the grandiose setting and fantastical characters, the story is essentially about a young man coming of age in the face of a world that is impossibly corrupted. This universal theme has inspired artists as diverse as Erich Rohmer, T.S. Eliot and Richard Wagner.  The Immediate Family and playwright/company member Haas Regen join elite company with their modern take on the Perceval legend. Incorporating elements as diverse as opera and cinema into a thrilling, actor-driven evening of theatre.

Speaking to company member Elizabeth King-Hall reveals a great deal about the group’s process and their ability to tell this story. Her role, the Troubador, was written specifically with her in mind as the performer. She laughs that the character’s theatricality grew out of “voices we’d do when we were drunk.” Such an intimate knowledge of one another’s specific abilities gives the company the flexibility and freedom to create characters tailored to the exact talents of their cast members. The most important aspect of The Immediate Family’s working method is their delineation of authority. While the cast features playwright Regen, King-Hall made it clear that his role as a writer was left outside the rehearsal room: “Oh, the only thing he’d ever remark on was my pronunciation of the French.” Guiding the process, then, was company member Scott Raker. King-Hall effusively praises his unflappability and calm under pressure. To illustrate her point, she shares a story about a phone conversation with Raker. One night she called the director to discuss various aspects of the production and he answered her in his usual measured tone. Throughout the phone call, though, she could hear his wife asking him questions in the background. Raker eventually told King-Hall that he would have to call her back later as he had discovered a gas leak in his apartment and had been dealing with it while talking to her. With such steady leadership, it’s no surprise that the company is able to create such intense and exciting projects.

For her own part, King-Hall makes it clear that her process is about creating action. She emphasizes that, though she brushed up on the Arthurian legends in preparation but she stayed away from the temptation to over-research the role. “I knew if I started intellectualizing it, the fun would go out of it,” she says. Far from being a way of avoiding doing work, this is a crucial—and often mishandled—step of the actor’s process. It is the job of the playwright and director to handle the thematic and intellectual content of the storytelling. The actor’s job is to bring the character to life through the use of their voice and body. Overly intellectualizing the process muddies the results and produces lifeless, boring theatre. The Immediate Family’s background, then, and ability to trust one another to handle their respective portions is a critical component of their aesthetic.

All this gives a picture of a young, dynamic company committed to making thrilling theatre. Perceval, featuring Elizabeth King-Hall, Michael Propster, Haas Regen, and Gillian Williams, plays AS220 in Providence from August 31^st at 8pm, September 1^st at 2pm and 8pm and September 2^nd at 2pm. Directed by Scott Raker and with music by Mackenzie Shivers, all tickets are ten dollars. Don’t miss this thrilling and unforgettable take on a classic tale.