Lucky

The ass looks a bit flat to me.

Wonderful Barcelona.

Yes, sure, but how will you get back from Rio? You sure won't be able to sit on a plane after that huge cock plucks your butt for a few hours! Then you will be wishing I had gone to New York instead, So why not save your butt and just root for me?

Here is the NY Times review. They hated it: http://theater.nytimes.com/2012/12/12/theater/reviews/bare-rock-musical-at-new-world-stages.html?_r=0

Yes, indeed. Soon I will be collecting donations for my next trip to New York so that the site can have updated reviews. All for a good cause, you know.

I don't remember any nudity.

hitoallusa continues to remind me that the values we cherish as our American freedoms are easily disposed of when those who don't value those freedoms take power.

Last week I was in New York. I was told, and subsequently saw for myself, that several nice things were said about me on the other site. I want all of those people to know that I appreciate their kind remarks, because I really do. Some mention that they miss my theater reviews, but if you know any of those folks, please let them know that my theater reviews are now here. Send them the link! http://www.boytoy.com/forums/index.php?/forum/253-theater-art-and-literature/ Some think that all I have to do is make a generic sort of apology to the owner of the site, and all will be well again. Cooper posted that I was done with the site and was moving on. He was right. So, here is the word straight from the horse's mouth: I do not want to be a member of the message board at Daddy's Reviews. I don't like Daddy, and I disdain deej. I don't care to apologize to a man who posted using my user name. It seems to me that he is the one who owes an apology. I was given no warning or right to know the reason why I was banned. It just happened when I complained about the name Lucky being on a post that I didn't write. The idea that I was banned because I didn't apologize for some unspecified crime came along well after I was banned. Rest assured, I have banned myself from posting at Daddy's reviews. My complaint about the misuse of my user name said that I could post there no longer without an apology, and I think that's where the idea came about that I should apologize rather than this person. It's a red herring meant to distract you from what really happened. The End.

No.

A columnist for the SF Chronicle says that the prosecutor's crime was worse than the one alleged to have been committed by Aaron Swarz: http://www.sfgate.com/business/bottomline/article/Prosecutors-crime-greater-than-Swartz-s-4193962.php

Lots of folks have been recommending The Piano Lesson, the August Wilson play at the Signature Theater that has been extended some three times. Prices started out at $25, but are now $75. Success has a price! I will get right to the point. Those folks recommending the show are right on. It's excellent. It's also different. It's a slice of black life in 1936 Pittsburgh, and involves a family and friends who come together at a time when one of he characters very much needs to sell his piano. Problem is, he only owns half of it. His sister owns the other half, and boy does she not want to sell. The piano has been in the family for some time, and has quite a history, which I will not go into. The story is interesting, for sure, but the attraction of The Piano Lesson is the fierce acting. We are watching black people recently moved to the North from the South. They have little education, and their accents and manner of speech take some getting used to, even for those of us with plenty of black friends. People just don't talk exactly like this today. But the language is part of the charm. (The set and costumes are too.) The fight over the piano is only part of what we see. The rest is the interaction of friends, a ghost, a minister, and a silk suit. Oh, there's also a truckload of watermelons. It's this interaction that gives each character his or her chance to shine, to show off their acting chops, and to move the plot forward. It moves at a leisurely pace, and at some point toward the end I found myself hoping it would move just a little bit faster, but that damn ghost had to have his show too. The ending is fun and makes the time worth it. I don't expect any further extensions, so if you can, see it soon- very soon. I think it closes Sunday. (There was a tiny sideshow to my night. The ticket taker was a doll, and several times I found myself checking him out. He apparently took some notice of this, and when the show ended, he was ready for me. When I tried for my last look at him, he gave me a smile. Now what to do? I was in a hurry to leave as I had to pack and get up at 5 am. If that smile meant something. I would have to wait for him to finish work. But, I could ask him to meet me "for a drink" when he finished. Instead I just looked back at his smile and gave him one of my own. I was then on my way. Sigh.) And that finishes Lucky's theater reviews for this trip.

My Saturday matinee schedule was open, and I had to decide if I wanted to see Scarlett Johansonn in Cat On A Hot Tin Roof, or Laurie Metcalf in The Other Place, which is only 70 minutes long. I decided to go for funny. Forbidden Broadway has been around for years. The show spoofs Broadway shows and is changed periodically to update itself. It has been on hiatus for some time, but the review by Ben Brantley in the NY Times said that the new version was a winner, so I decided to see it, even if only 90 minutes long! The show plays in a really tacky theater that seems to have some connection to Puerto Ricans, or did. But one forgets that fairly quickly when the 4 performers come out. There is nothing special in the way they look, but that seems to give them the ability to become chameleons and take on the characteristics of the Broadway performers they spoof. The spoofs come quickly, some longer than others, and virtually every Broadway show gets its due. Probably in order to change on the spur of a moment, the program does not list the shows being mocked,. But let me tell you, they do get mocked, and Forbidden Broadway is very funny. Mathew Broderick seems to get the worst of it, but all of your favorites will be on stage at some point. The satire can have a deep bite, and the laughs were free and easy. I recommend it. You don't need to be familiar with all of the shows to enjoy it.

Bare is a musical that has been around in various stages of development. It is now playing at the New World Stages, where I saw it last week. The story is about a gay high school boy who begins an affair with a closeted jock. What could go wrong with that? Of course the jock does not say anything when his boyfriend is bullied, and he even calls someone a faggot in front of his jock friends. Both boys end up in the school play, Romeo and Juliet. Jock plays Romeo, but no, the gay boy does not play Juliet. Jock has a drug dealing sister. When a slutty new girl comes in, he dates her in an effort to show his heterosexuality. Does she get pregnant? Is he the father? Does the pressure from his gay relationship cause him more stress? Read no further if you might see the show. But yes, she does, and yes, he is, and yes, it does. So he turns to his sister for some G to help him relax. Then, while on stage as Romeo, he is in a scene where his gay boyfriend is also appearing. Suddenly the jock collapses, dead from an overdose of the G his sister gave him. Having the gay character die is something I thought went out in the Sixties. But the cheesiness of this show needs an ending like that. The performers are all earnest, and they sing their little hearts out. But their voices are not little, and they sing VERY LOUDLY. This is accompanied by VERY LOUD MUSIC. Today's youth seem to need everything at high volume. The young audience at the performance I attended seemed to like the show very much. Some critics say it is an episode of Glee on steroids, or something like that. The two male leads- the lovers- are not particularly handsome. I thought that fact might be relevant to some reading this!

So I did disable the plug-in on Firefox. I don't use the other browsers,but they are on my computer. Do I need to disable on all of them?

This show plays in one of the most uncomfortable theaters in New York. They forgot to give audience members space for their legs and feet. And if you are 6'1, that's a problem. But once Asher Lev takes the stage, one forgets how uncomfortable he is and gets drawn into a fine performance. In a nutshell, Asher is a member of an Hasidic Jewish family, and he is also a talented artist. Sorry, Asher, but your religion does not approve of that. End of story, no? Well, of course not. Asher pursues his dreams. The show, based on a novel by Chaim Potok, is heartfelt if it is anything. Asher gets a tutor, interestingly played by the same actor who plays his father. He even paints nudes, a shock to his mother, who destroys them. But the play itself is about family, religion, and art. All are central to Asher's life. The young man who plays him, Ari Brand, is excellent, with much dialogue to remember. The supporting actors are fine too. The friends I saw the show with were very impressed. I was not unimpressed, but I tended to agree with the reviewer for the NY Times, who said: "For all its sturdy theatricality, though, “Asher Lev” remains stagebound. You may respect it, argue with it and enjoy it, without ever being transported by it."

Golden Boy is a revival of a 1937 play by Clifford Odets. It's about a young man torn between playing the classical violin and his desire to punch people out in the boxing ring. Yet fighting will ruin his hands, and his violin days will be over. Seth Numrich is the Golden Boy, and his sexual attractiveness is discussed in another thread. Since he plays his character in the 1937 time frame, he doesn't have some of the sexy attributes which men show nowadays. He is an awkward suitor of his boss's girlfriend, and seems to thrive only when he is in the ring. In my opinion, he didn't show much passion for playing that instrument. In the one scene where he does play a fancy and expensive violin given to him by his father, he seeks privacy to do so. Which means he goes off stage to play the instrument, making the audience wonder whether the actor can play it at all. The boxing career soars until fateful moments happen. These moments give the play its heft. Often appearing dated, the sets and costumes are wonderful reproductions of the time. The acting is fine too. The main thing missing for me is that I didn't buy his conflict over the two choices, and I didn't see what made his boss's girl so hot that he wanted to steal her. But there were no other women in his life, so why not go for the one at hand? The review from theatermania.com will give you a deeper look at the show: http://www.theatermania.com/new-york-city-theater/reviews/12-2012/golden-boy_63897.html

But he didn't.

Other than Picnic, I saw six shows in New York. My favorite was the first one, Vanya, and Sonia and Masha and Spike. It's a very funny comedy by Christopher Durang about contemporary issues. He uses character names from various plays by Anton Chekhov, and no doubt I missed a few insider jokes. TheaterMania provides this summary of the show: Vanya (Pierce) and adopted sister Sonia (Nielsen) are – in true Chekhovian fashion -- bored, lonely, and aimless sitting around their lovely Bucks County home (gloriously rendered by David Korins). Now in their 50s, they lament about having given up their lives (and apparently any chance of reasonable employment) to tend to their now-dead parents, while glamorous older sister Masha (Weaver) travels the world as a world-famous actress. Life gets temporarily upended when Masha unexpectedly shows up one day – with decades-younger boy-toy Spike in tow (the extraordinarily fit and often semi-dressed Billy Magnussen). She has returned ostensibly to attend a neighbor's costume ball, but also to deliver the shocking news that she has decided to sell the family homestead in order to cut down on her own expenses. Before that bombshell is even dropped, the siblings find enough to bicker about, including Sonia's unrequited romantic longing for Vanya (who is gay) and her lifelong resentment of the spectacularly self-obsessed Masha. Increasing the tension tenfold, as well, is the sudden appearance of winsome visitor Nina (a perfectly cast Genevieve Angelson), whose youth and innocence unsurprisingly threaten Masha's already precarious well-being. And providing even more fodder for arguments, are the constant (and seemingly nonsensical) presentiments of the trio's aptly-named housekeeper, Cassandra (a hilarious Shalita Grant). *** Last year I attended the comedy One Man, Two Guvnors, which was supposed to be an exceptionally funny British slapstick comedy. I laughed once. For the show at the Lincoln Center, i was constantly laughing. i guess I prefer more cerebral humor. I know I prefer dry humor. Each actor gets his or her moment. Sigourney Weaver is excellent in hers, but David Hyde Pierce is magnificent in his. He does a rant on how we communicate less with all the new-fangled devices such as smartphones. As he speaks, he gets more worked up, and the audience is just howling by the end. Billy Magnussen, sexy as can be, is also very charming on stage. He tells about his audition for a part in Entourage 2, and shows the sexy moves he performed. Since he is often in his underwear or practicing stripper routines, he gets lots of lustful applause. The show closes Sunday, and tickets are very hard to get. I got the last one available last week, and was very LUCKY to have done so. This is a great show. It may move to Broadway, but it won't be the same as in the smaller house where the actors are much closer to you. Next up: Golden Boy

citylaw makes a good point that so much is either overlooked by federal prosecutors or is treated much lighter than the Swarz was getting. The banks made out like bandits when they were shown to have committed fraud on foreclosures. They actually hurt people. The oil companies have also benefited from lax prosecution. They were proven to have made billions, yes, billions, in illegal profits, but paid fines in the millions. The Energy Department made a big deal out of the huge fines the oil companies were paying, but neglected to tell the public that it was a small price to pay for all the profit they made.

I would have said that the harder a top works, the deeper the reward!

Wayout, congratulations on your new family member. You have years of joy ahead of you.

Huffington Post takes a look at the law under which Swartz was prosecuted: Before his apparent suicide Friday, Internet activist Aaron Swartz was facing trial for allegedly stealing millions of scholarly journal articles from a digital archive at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Now, in the wake of his death, some of his supporters are calling for changes to the controversial law under which he was charged, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. They say prosecutors have widely invoked the 1980s-era statute to bring harsh criminal penalties for relatively minor offenses. In a tribute to Swartz on Sunday, MSNBC host Chris Hayes said: “You should know his death is a good reason to revisit the 1986 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the law under which he was prosecuted, since it is far too broad." Timothy B. Lee, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, wrote Saturday on the blog Ars Technica: “We should pay tribute to Aaron's memory by reforming the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to prevent such disproportionate prosecutions from happening in the future." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/13/aaron-swartz-death-_n_2468879.html

For some reason, the death of Aaron Swartz really bothers me. He hung himself. No one knows exactly what his reasons were, but surely the fact that he was facing 35 years in prison for stealing files from MIT was a factor. 35 years might seem like a long time to a 26 year old. I had never heard of him until yesterday, but such a brilliant mind gone so young is troubling. Why would the government seek such a harsh penalty? Swarz's family sure believes that the prosecution was a factor in his death. They issued this statement: “Aaron’s death is not simply a personal tragedy,” Mr. Swartz’s family and partner said in a statement. ”It is the product of a criminal justice system rife with intimidation and prosecutorial overreach. Decisions made by officials in the Massachusetts U.S. attorney’s office and at M.I.T. contributed to his death.” The issues involved here are complex. Read more on Aaron Swartz and file sharing legalistics: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/14/technology/aaron-swartz-a-data-crusader-and-now-a-cause.html?hp And in California federal prosecutors are going against a man who started a medicinal marijuana business. He followed every state law to the T, yet he faces 15 years from a prosecutor named to the office by President Obama, Read that story to wonder what Obama is doing. It's really surprising that one argument the feds make is that the guy is not himself a user of medicinal marijuana. Apparently only sick people can help the sick in Obama's mind: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/14/us/14pot.html?hp&_r=0 We would have thought that with the election of a Democrat President that we would get more liberal judges and more liberal prosecutors. And by liberal, in this sense I mean more rational, not hard-charging guys who cannot think through the intricacies of an issue. Yet when Obama was re-elected, there were 42 federal judgeships open that he had not even nominated anyone to.

I thought I would try again on the links, and it worked! http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/pets/China-made-treats-kill-hundreds-of-dogs-sicken-thousands.html From dogsnaturallymagazine.com: Hundreds of consumer complaints are aimed at dog food manufactures so far in 2012 and dozens – perhaps hundreds – of dogs are dead. Does this sound like deja vu? Could there be another massive recall like there was five years ago? The answer is, it is likely happening now. SAY "NO" To Pet Treats Made In China!!! Once again, an increasing number of complaints about sick dogs have been connected to chicken jerky imported from China, prompting the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to issue its third advisory since 2007. The FDA previously warned about these products (also called chicken tenders, strips or treats) in 2007 and 2008. The 2007 warning was issued after nearly 100 dogs got sick. According to the FDA, a urine test of canines sickened by eating the treats could indicate increased glucose (Fanconi syndrome), and blood tests could show indications of kidney failure. Some dogs have died, the FDA reports, but most seem to recover. The most recent warning states that the “FDA is advising consumers who choose to feed their dogs chicken jerky products to watch their dogs closely for any or all of the following signs that may occur within hours to days of feeding the products:

This is a thread for animal lovers, so if that does not describe you, my apologies. You can move on! Almost any dog food one buys these days has the three magic words that put fear into the heart of the owner: "Made In China." Take a look at your treats and tell me which ones are made in the USA. Why does that worry me, along with oh, say, fifty million other dog owners? Because Chinese food cannot be trusted! Just last week the NY Times had an article about a run on baby food in Australia. What's that got to do with this? Well, the run was due to Chinese tourists buying baby food in bulk to take home. They don't trust baby food made in China. So if the Chinese skimp on quality with baby food, just think what they do with dog food! Sure, dogs are not dying across the country, but what is the long term effect of eating potentially unsafe food, and what are the chances of bad food causing an epidemic of problems in the current market? The Times article says: "A number of recent high-profile scandals involving tainted food products in China have shaken public confidence in the safety of domestic supplies." The article goes on to discuss milk producers selling contaminated milk powder and another huge recall of milk. Even Chinese producers are leaving China. They are building plants overseas to ensure better quality control. Last September the website philly.com reported that Chinese made dog treats had killed hundreds of dogs and sickened thousands of other animals. Dog magazines warn readers constantly of problems with Chinese made dog food. I am unable to link or cut and paste from these sites as the boytoy software seems to be blocking links. Even the box to add a link is not working at the moment,. Are the Chinese running the software? I doubt it, but hey, why else can I not link anything for this post? What's the solution? Consumer pressure, as always. But usually that follows some really unpleasant event that captures the attention of the public. Perhaps this hard-hitting boytoy investigation will light the fire...or would if it had any links!