Podcasts about Richard Adler

DAMN YANKEES  Book by Douglass Wallop & George Abbott | Music & Lyrics by Jerry Ross & Richard Adler | Based on the novel The Year the Yankees Lost the Pennant by Douglass WallopWorks Consulted & Reference :Damn Yankees (Libretto) by Douglass Wallop & George AbbottDamn Yankees (Revised Libretto) by Joe DiPietroDamn Yankees (1958 Film) Directed by George AbbottFosse by Sam WassonSense of Occasion by Hal PrinceThe Secret Life of the American Musical by Jack ViertelMusic Credits:"Overture" from Dear World (Original Broadway Cast Recording)  | Music by Jerry Herman | Performed by Dear World Orchestra & Donald Pippin"The Speed Test" from Thoroughly Modern Millie  (Original Broadway Cast Recording) | Music by Jeanine Tesori, Lyrics by Dick Scanlan | Performed by Marc Kudisch, Sutton Foster, Anne L. Nathan & Ensemble"Why God Why" from Miss Saigon: The Definitive Live Recording  (Original Cast Recording  / Deluxe)  | Music by Claude-Michel Schönberg, Lyrics by Alain Boublil & Richard Maltby Jr.  | Performed by Alistair Brammer"Back to Before" from Ragtime: The Musical (Original Broadway Cast Recording)  | Music by Stephen Flaherty, Lyrics by Lynn Ahrens | Performed by Marin Mazzie"Chromolume #7 / Putting It Together" from Sunday in the Park with George (Original Broadway Cast Recording)  | Music & Lyrics by Stephen Sondheim | Performed by Mandy Patinkin, Bernadette Peters, Judith Moore, Cris Groenendaal, Charles Kimbrough, William Parry, Nancy Opel, Robert Westenberg, Dana Ivey, Kurt Knudson, Barbara Bryne"What's Inside" from Waitress (Original Broadway Cast Recording)  | Music & Lyrics by Sara Bareilles | Performed by Jessie Mueller & Ensemble"Whatever Lola Wants" from Damn Yankees (Original Broadway Cast Recording)  | Music & Lyrics by Jerry Ross & Richard Adler | Performed by Gwen Verdon"Maria" from The Sound of Music (Original Soundtrack Recording)  | Music by Richard Rodgers, Lyrics by Oscar Hammerstein II | Performed by Evadne Baker, Anna Lee, Portia Nelson, Marni Nixon"My Favorite Things" from The Sound of Music (Original Soundtrack Recording) | Music by Richard Rodgers, Lyrics by Oscar Hammerstein II | Performed by Julie Andrews"Corner of the Sky" from Pippin (New Broadway Cast Recording) | Music & Lyrics by Stephen Schwartz | Performed by Matthew James Thomas“What Comes Next?” from Hamilton (Original Broadway Cast Recording) | Music & Lyrics by Lin-Manuel Miranda | Performed by Jonathan Groff

Skovånder, magiske figurer og den enøjede Odin. I dagens Kulturen ser vi nærmere på væsner i det hinsides. Vi taler om guder og magiske væsner både nord- og syd for ækvator. Vi taler også med den danske kunstner Kim Richard Adler Mejdahl om hans kærlighed til den venezuelanskfødte musiker Arca. Her fortæller han blandt andet om sin fascination af Arcas majestætiske musiklandskaber. Vært: Jesper Dein.

The Broadway wunderking with a lotta heart. In the mid-1950s no one on Broadway was hotter than the team of Adler and Ross. Composer Richard Adler and lyricist Jerry Ross produced back to back Broadway hits TPe Pajama Game and Damn Yankees, featuring songs that would remain popular for decades. But Ross died suddenly in 1955, taking Adler's career in new and unexpected directions. Adler looks back on his up-and-down career in this 1990 interview. Get You Gotta Have Heart by Richard Adler You may also enjoy my interviews with playwright Neil Simon and with singer Tony Bennett For more vintage interviews with celebrities, leaders, and influencers, subscribe to Now I've Heard Everything on Spotify, Apple Podcasts. or wherever you listen to podcasts. #broadway #adlerandross #damnyankees #composers

Richard Adler is an Entrepreneur, Advisor and Investor with a colored and diverse background that spans industries. His accolades include Feld Entertainment (Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus; The Walt Disney World on Ice Shows), Florida Panthers, and most recently advising the new artists platform with the "largest digital tip jar" PickleJar, among his many interests. Richard grew up in Canada and developed his entrepreneurial mindset from a very young age. His passion to hustle and take great leaps of faith have led him on an amazing journey and career path. From working for the Greatest Show on Earth to following his love for hockey, there is no set path for Richard and that's how he likes it. Every day is an adventure! Some powerful takeaways from today's episode: Don't stop until someone tells you “no” seven times Leap with faith Not every decision has to last forever Live life and have a career without a rearview mirror Know how to make it happen, not why it can't If you're not doing what you want in life, tune into your passions and Reinvent Working for yourself: We're not in the good business. We're in the great business! Links: Richard Adler's LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/richard-adler-4332b65/ THE RE:INVENTION EXCHANGE - for more Inspired Content, Blogs, Podcasts, Virtual Chats, or to buy a copy of my book RE:INVENT YOUR LIFE! WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR? visit https://www.TheReinventionExchange.com IG: KathiSR_Chief_Reinventor FB: Kathi Sharpe-Ross or The Reinvention Exchange LinkedIn: Kathi Sharpe-Ross Twitter: KathiSR or The Reinvention Exchange

Stacy's brain dump is especially manic this week since she's still trying to recover from Covid-brain. For her Stacyism she offers her thoughts on what staying silent says, which is also the exact moment it‘s clear she needs to leave psychiatry to the experts. It's no coincidence then that her guest is Dr. Richard Adler, a forensic and clinical psychiatrist. The conversation starts with their meet-cute, and touches on their shared love of NY and deli. At the heart of their conversation though is Dr. Adler's mission of providing resources to those suffering from PTSD; a dream that led to his founding the PTSD Institute in Seattle in 2018; a dream that is slowly and steadily becoming realized. To learn more about Dr. Adler, his practice and the PTSD Institute, go to www.fcpsych.com.

Lola's mother had found out about new life in Europe, and she went into mourning as if her daughter was dead, sending out customary funeral letters on stationary edged in black. Lola could have easily been the richest woman to ever live, had she preferred her own advantage over political freedom. Lola's identity had been revealed at Her Majesty's Theatre, it led to an arrest on a charge of bigamy. Lola's wealthy new husband George Trafford Heald bailed her out of jail and they ran to Spain. The feisty and sometimes violent Montez and Heald were not getting along and the couple eventually decided to split while in Portugal. When George Heald suddenly and mysteriously drowned there in Portugal, Lola gained Heald's large inheritance. Lola, with her new fortune, was ready to find a new start. It was 1850, and she left for the land the whole world had been rushing to, The United States of America.   On the stages up and down the east coast of the New World, Lola Montez debuted a southern Italian folk dance, her own gussied up version of a lively tarantella. She wore tights in the color of her flesh, and layers and layers of petticoats in every color that bounced with her quick, flirtatious steps.  In her act, she was playing the part of a maiden in the country, who had spiders in her clothes. The spiders hung from her gloves and gown and hid under the layers of her petticoat. As she shook off and stomped away the toy spiders that riddled her costume and the stage, she exposed her shapely legs and as she lifted her skirt, the men cheered for her to find each and every spider. Lola lifted her petticoat so high that the men in the audience went crazy, for they could see, onstage, Lola wore no underclothing at all. Lola Montez was a smash. Although not everyone impressed, and some believed her performance was unprofessional, and talentless.    Lola stirred up excitement on that side of the new world for two years. After one particular show at an East Coast theatre, the manager openly criticized her spider act. Backstage, the sassy star retaliated with the bull whip she used onstage, busting the manager's face open. Denying the assault later, Lola said instead “there is one comfort in the falsehood, which is, that this man very likely would have deserved the whipping.” It was soon decided that she may be a better match with the lawless west. Without telling anyone, Lola caught a ride via a Pacific Mail paddle-wheel steamer in New Orleans, headed for California.   After the passage along the isthmus of Panama, and finally on the last ship of the voyage, Lola stood on the deck with a male distinguished fellow passenger looking out over the water. He asked her about her life. “My father was Irish, she told Brannan. “Irish! Well, then where did you get the name Montez?” Lola Montez stared out into the still ocean, “I took it”. She said. Just like I have taken everything I ever wanted.”    He chuckled, approvingly. This man was Sam Brannan. California's first millionaire. Brannan was on his way home after doing business in Boston and New York, he had a wife and 4 children at home in California yet he was paying much attention to his glamorous shipmate. The 29 year old Lola was by now an epic tabloid sensation in The United States. Her political schemes, erotic expolits and violent temper had made the top headlines through out the world. Yet no one would be at the long wharf to greet her when she stepped off the ship into San Francisco in 1853. She was arriving unannounced.   On the northeast corner of Sansome and Halleck streets, stood the American Theater. The American Theatre was the first brick large building built on the newly made soil along Sansome Street on land reclaimed from Yerba Buena Cove. During its opening night two years earlier in 1851, The American Theatre was so crowded that the walls sunk a couple of inches from the weight.    The irish satirist Richard Brinsley Sheridan's comedy "School for Scandal” was playing, and Lola Montez was playing Lady Teazle. The theater was able to charge $5 for the best seats. An outrageous price.  The reason being, the men in the audience truly desired to see her famous risque Spider Dance they had read about in the East Coast papers, and with that it was more than a dance they wanted to see. If you know what I mean. Lola obliged on the second night, to the delight of the mostly male audience her body exposed by her contortions.  She won the people over through naked charisma and pure force of personality. The act was reasonably well received by some, and it outraged others who felt they were obliged to look for the spiders in improper places.    Lola Montez was an eccentric woman who fascinated the masses entirely. She wore trousers and she carried a bull whip. She had an uncommon for ladies' fondness for hand-rolled cigarettes, and smoked openly! She became the first woman to ever be photographed while smoking. She straddled highbrow and lowbrow classes, rejecting the restrictive social codes associated with Victorian notions of “true womanhood.” Lola had the appearance of a Duchess.  As she spoke the royal illusion evaporated. Her vial mouth would have been considered to be unacceptable even in the wee hours of the city's most provocative men's smoking clubs.  Although they watched her every move, and even sometimes copied her style,  San Francisco's respectable classes never truly embraced Lola Montez, and she really felt it.   Lola was being courted by the married Sam Brannan. He was spoiling her in finer style than her Bavarian King Ludwig had ever provided her. Quite an impressive feat. Sam Brannan had an income of one thousand dollars a day, which is over 30,000 in 2020. He owned one hundred and seventy thousand acres, over 250 square miles where present day Los Angeles County lies. He lived well and lavishly, drinking and womanizing freely. Ann Eliza Brannan, his wife eventually divorced Sam, and when she did, she took half of everything he had. Lola moved on.  In San Francisco's early years, attending the theatre was a mostly male centered activity for they were the majority of the population. By 1853 it had become a highbrow sophisticated activity for audiences of both genders. Giving a place that countered the degrading, debilitating atmosphere of the times. The American Theatre had a rival theatre that was aptly named The San Francisco. One of the first original plays staged in the city was put on at the theatre San Francisco. "Who's Got the Countess?", a satire that profited off of Lola's deflating balloon. For two weeks, the burlesque packed the house. Some audience members accused the play of going too far. A writer for the Herald said the show was "an exceeding coarse and vulgar attack upon one who, whatever her faults and foibles may have been, has proved herself a noble-hearted and generous woman."   Lola Montez was performing onstage one evening in Sacramento, when someone laughed during the Spider Dance. Lola berated the audience and then stormed offstage. In the papers, it read that it was believed Montez had papered the house with her supporters. A letter challenging the editor to a duel soon surfaced, assertedly from Lola that read "You may choose between my dueling pistols or take your choice of a pill out of a pill box. One shall be poison and one shall not."   When Lola first sailed to San Francisco, on the same trip she met Brannan, she also met Patrick Purdy Hull. He was an irish reporter and the owner of the newspaper The San Francisco Whig. Lola said Patrick Hull could tell a story better than any other man she had known, and that was why she fell in love with him. On 1 July 1853 at the Mission Dolores, in a catholic ceremony, Lola Montez and Patrick Hull were married. Making Lola a US citizen. Lola did not want to live among the ridicule in the city, and instead bought a mine in a swelteringly hot ravine. The property was close to two of the richest mines in Nevada Country, California, Empire Mine and North Star Mine. She left San Francisco for the unincorporated town of Grass Valley.   Three years prior to her move to Grass Valley, the town held its first election under a large oak tree and one year later a building was constructed on the site. It was first used as the office for Gilmor Meredith's Gold Hill Mining Company, and then as a schoolhouse. Lola Montez purchased the building at 248 Mill St in Grass Valley and made it the home where her parrot, pet monkey, herself and Hull would live.     The town's disdain for the woman was proven by Grass Valley's Reverend when he spoke in a sermon denouncing Montez, warning the locals of the newest evil in town, calling the woman a hussy. Word passes to Lola, who was outraged at the statement and decided she would prove the quality of her act to the man herself. That night, she stormed into the Reverend's house where he was sitting to eat dinner with his wife. Lola Montez demanded the couple watch her full performance. She stomped and clapped and shook around his living room until he finally agreed she was in fact, a professional.  Montez ended up hated her life with her newest husband, and rather spent her days in Grass Valley with the young girl next door. Patrick Hull was tired of the parties and extremely spiteful of his wife's popularity. When a baron who was visiting from Europe attended one of Lola's social gatherings, he gifted her a grizzly bear to add to her exotic collection of pets. She named him Major. Patrick Hull was insanely jealous, and this final straw yanked a tear in the relationship that could not be mended. Hull sued Montez for divorce, naming a german doctor as the co-respondent. A few days later, the doctor was found in near-by hills, shot dead.   The neighbors, who ran a boarding house, had a daughter who was fascinated with the clearly unique Lola Montez and her private menagerie. It was not long before Lola was equally fascinated by the little girl, who was genuinely talented. She taught her to sing and dance and live wildly and allowed her to play in her extravagant costumes. Lola taught the young irish girl to sing ballads and perform ballet steps, fandangos, jig reels and Irish Highland flings from Lola's own childhood. The little blonde child's sense of rhythm surpassed Lola's, and she impressed the theatrical elite, strolling players and entertainers who came to the lavish parties Montez hosted. The unlikely pair rode bareback together, on a horse and pony. Despite the townspeople's opinion, the mother of the girl liked Lola and appreciated the time she spent with her daughter.  In the two years that Lola lived in Grass Valley, the California Gold Rush was ending, yet there was another gold mining rush in full swing. She hired Augustus Noel Folland, a married American actor as her new manager, hired a company of actors, and within two weeks, they were all sailing to Sydney Australia, aboard the Fanny Major. By the time they arrived, two months later, she had taken her new manager on as a lover. The following week, Lola's show opened at the Royal Victoria Theatre in a show titled 'Lola Montez in Bavaria'. That night, Montez fired some of the company, and they quickly sued her for damages.    As Lola and Folland were waiting to depart Sydney for Melbourne on board the Waratah, A sheriff's officer boarded the ship with a warrant of arrest, demanding she paid the sacked actors. Lola ran to her cabin, where she undressed. She sent out a note inviting the officer in to arrest her and drag her out. He left empty handed.     Audiences began to diminish at the Theatre Royal in Melbourne as Montez performed in her Bavarian role. Monttez made the decision to bring out her 'Spider Dance'. It was an instant hit for the men in the audience, again, Montez raising her skirts so high that the audience could see she wore no underclothing at all. The papers roared that her performance was 'utterly subversive to all ideas of public morality'. The theatre began to show heavy losses when respectable families ceased to attend the theatre. One even summoned the mayor of Melbourne to issue a warrant for her arrest for public indecency, but he refused the application. Months later in Ballarat, packed houses miners were showering gold nuggets at her feet yet again, the papers attacked her notoriety. Lola by now had a motto, “Courage---and shuffle the cards".  When Lola ran into the Ballarat Timeseditor Henry Seekamp at the United States Hotel, she retaliated by publicly horsewhipping him. Resulting in the rest of her tour being canceled. Folland and Montez quarreled excessively as they left for San Francisco on May 22 1856. On the journey near Fiji on the night of July 8th, Folland mysteriously fell overboard and drowned. Some believed he committed suicide after there fight, other believe he was pushed. No official investigation followed.    When Lola arrived back in the United States in 1856, she was different, subdued. Whatever happened on that ship, changed Lola Montez.Her previous lover from the past Alexandre Dumas once said 'She is fatal to any man who dares to love her'. Uncharacteristically, she sold her jewelry and gave the proceeds to Folland's children. She began using the remains of her bank account to give homeless and less fortunate women food, water and money. She decided to spread knowledge rather than performance, and began lecturing on her life, fashion, beauty, and famous women.  "I have known all the world has to give -- ALL!"  She began to write her book titled The Arts of Beauty, Or, Secrets of a Lady's Toilet: With Hints to Gentlemen on the Art of Fascinating.    Dance with all the might of your body, and all the fire of your soul, in order that you may shake all melancholy out of your liver; and you need not restrain yourself with the apprehension that any lady will have the least fear that the violence of your movements will ever shake anything out of your brains. I never claimed to be famous. Notorious I have always been.    She moved to New York, and reinvented herself once more. Embracing christianity, and with the Reverend Charles Chauncy Burr she arranged to deliver a series of moral lectures in Britain and America written by him. She returned to Ireland and did her final lecture in Dublin, “America and its people”, speaking in Limerick and Cork. Then returned to America in 1859. Later that year, the Philadelphia Press wrote Lola was iving very quietly up town, and doesn't have much to do with the world's people. Some of her old friends, the Bohemians, now and then drop in to have a little chat with her, and though she talks beautifully of her present feelings and way of life, she generally, by way of parenthesis, takes out her little tobacco pouch and makes a cigarette or two for self and friend, and then falls back upon old times with decided gusto and effect. But she doesn't tell anybody what she's going to do.   Within two years, Lola Montex began showing the tertiary effects of syphilis, the last contribution to the marriage from Patrick Hurdy Hull, and her body began to waste away. Lola, 39 years old, suffered a massive stroke and died alone in poverty on January 7th 1861. She is buried in the Greenwood cemetery, in Brooklyn. The marker simply reads “Mrs. Eliza Gilbert / Died 7 January 1861.”   You can read Lola's own writing, The Arts of Beauty, Secrets of a Lady's Toilet: With Hints to Gentlemen on the Art of Fascinating, Lectures of Lola Montez, Anecdotes of love, and Timeless Beauty: Advice to Ladies & Gentlemen. Lola's restored house  at 248 Mill St in Grass Valley is now a registered California Historical Landmark. Mount Lola, Nevada County and the Sierra Nevada's north of interstate 80 highest point at 9,148 feet, is named in her honour as well as two lakes you can find in the Tahoe National Forest. Named the Upper and Lower Lola Montez Lakes.   Now, let's talk about song lyrics, you many have heard this famous lyric.  "Whatever Lola Wants, Lola Gets".  "Whatever Lola Wants” was written by Richard Adler and Jerry Ross for the 1955 musical play Damn Yankees. The saying was inspired by Lola Montez. Or what about “Her name was Lola, she was a showgirl, With yellow feathers in her hair and a dress cut down to there", even Copacabana by Barry Manilow was inspired by our girl Lola.   In light of the BLM movement and the incredible change we are seeing, I would like to mention a quote said by Marian Anderson. "No matter how big a nation is, it is no stronger than its weakest people, and as long as you keep a person down, some part of you has to be down there to hold him down, so it means you cannot soar as you might otherwise."   Until recently, historians and the public have dismissed "conflict history," and important elements that are absolutely necessary for understanding American history have sometimes been downplayed or virtually forgotten. Lola constructed an identity as a “Spanish dancer” when Anglo Americans in California swayed between appreciating aspects of non-white cultures and rejecting them. If we do not incorporate racial and ethnic conflict in the presentation of the American experience, we will never understand how far we have come and how far we have to go. No matter how painful, we can only move forward by accepting the truth.  I am Andrea Anderson, thank you for taking the time to listen today,  let's meet again when we meet Lola's neighbor, the little irish girl in Grass Valley, next time, on “Queens of the Mines.    Queens of the Mines was written, produced and narrated by me, Andrea Anderson.  The theme song, In San Francisco Bay is by DBUK, You can find the links to their music, tour dates and merchandise, as well as links to all our social media and research links at queensofthemines.com  

durée : 00:58:03 - Le centenaire du compositeur Richard Adler - par : Laurent Valière - Richard Adler a rencontré un énorme succès dans les années 50 avec deux comédies musicales coécrites avec Jerry Ross : Week end en pyjama et Damn Yankees. - réalisé par : Céline Parfenoff

Hey gang! Had a very fun conversation with Richard Adler, who knew - and played with members of - the seminal punk band The Ramones. We talked about the early days, as the band was just getting started - and Richard has great stories to tell. He also brings a great perspective to the table. A long-time veteran of the music business, Richard tells some great stories of the early days, in particular with his good friend and original Ramones drummer Tommy Erdelyi - aka Tommy Ramone - and the Ramones guitarist, Johnny Ramone. But of course, Johnny was just John Cummings back then!  I'm very grateful for Richard for spending some time with me; we could have talked for hours. I'm sure you'll enjoy hearing about the early days of one of the most important, and musically enduring bands, in history.  See you soon with a new episode!   Monte

The Brain Injury Alliance of Washington has been involved in improving sports safety policy for kids for over a decade. In this episode, Deborah speaks with three key players who have helped BIAWA improve sports policy in the state and across the nation: the University of Washington's Dr. Stan Herring, the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association's Justin Kesterson, and Richard Adler, a renowned personal injury attorney with the firm Adler Giersch. The four discuss the passage of the Lystedt Law in 2009, which was eventually adopted across the country, the Kenney Bui rule, which passed in 2020, what each policy entails and the heroic families that honored their loved ones by lending their names and sharing their stories to advocate and pass better sports safety policy in Washington and beyond.  This episode of Brain Injury Today was produced by Goal 17 Foundation and sponsored by the Washington State Traumatic Brain Injury Council. View and download the form that resulted from the Kenney Bui Rule If you'd like to get in touch with the guests from this episode, you can find their emails below: Dr. Stan Herring: sherring@uw.edu Richard Adler: radler@adlergiersch.com Justin Kesterson: jkerterson@wiaa.com Brain Injury Today is the official podcast of the Brain Injury Alliance of Washington. Hosted by BIAWA Executive Director Deborah Crawley, the show brings listeners inspiring conversations with survivors, researchers, counselors, caretakers and more, in an effort to strengthen connections within the brain injury community.  For more resources related to traumatic brain injury visit: Brain Injury Today Podcast  Brain Injury Alliance of Washington  The Pooled Alliance Community Trusts  Brain Injury Art Show 

Get more at podsematary.com! Read our afterthoughts for this episode at https://twitter.com/PodSematary/status/1396298626561822721 CW: Sexual Assault, Rape, Harm to Animals, Suicide, Self Harm It’s Australia Week on Pod Sematary! Chris & Kelsey drive on the wrong side of the road and piss off an entire outback hunting village. The Classic Film: Razorback (1984) "As a vicious wild boar terrorizes the Australian outback, the husband of one of the victims is joined by a hunter and a farmer in a search for the beast” (IMDb.com). A (perhaps unsurprisingly) beautiful and striking horror film in the vein of Tremors or Jaws, Razorback most disappoints when you aren't getting *enough* of the good stuff. The Modern Film: The Loved Ones (2009) "When Brent turns down his classmate Lola's invitation to the prom, she concocts a wildly violent plan for revenge” (IMDb.com). The Loved Ones is unmistakably torture-porn-esque, but it manages to charm even these two haters of the genre with its compelling characters and teen drama tropes. Audio Sources: "Bruce's Sketch" written and performed by Monty Python "Lola" written by Ray Davies and performed by The Kinks "Lonesome Loser" written by David Briggs and performed by Little River Band "The Loved Ones" produced by Screen Australia, et al. "Monster in the Closet" (Brooklyn Nine-Nine S04E06) produced by Fremulon, et al. "Pet Sematary" written by Dee Dee Ramone & Daniel Rey and performed by The Ramones "The Pink Purse" produced by Fenslerfilm "Razorback" produced by UAA Films, et al. "Science Fiction/Double Feature" written by Richard O'Brien & Richard Hartley and performed by Joan Jett and the Blackhearts "Whatever Lola Wants" written by Richard Adler & Jerry Ross and performed by Sarah Vaughan

Jimmy and Roya dive deeper into the business of sight with Dr Richard Adler. There's more to Glaucoma than reducing pressure, but just how EXTREME can the team get on this weeks episode?SOURCESAllergan presbyopia dropUpneeq dropDurysta ImplantDr. Adler: Bellcara Try Not 2 Blink Education Credit Assessmenthttps://www.belcarahealth.com/medical-team/dr-richard-adler/

Jimmy and Roya speak with Dr Richard Adler about the ways to understand Glaucoma a little more thoroughly. SOURCEhttps://www.belcarahealth.com/medical-team/dr-richard-adler/

Welcome back to Episode 29 of I Saw The Beatles! This week's special guest is Richard Adler who had the pleasure of his first concert experience being that of seeing the Beatles perform at Carnegie Hall! But that wasn't all...he went on to see them 3 more times! 

“Who’s Got the Pain” premiered on April 16th, 2019. Like the pilot, it was written by Steven Levenson, and directed by Tommy Kail. As always, the numbers featured in the episodes were choreographed by Bob Fosse himself, but were reconstructed by members of his artistic progeny: Dana Moore recreated the choreography to “Who’s Got the Pain” and “Whatever Lola Wants,” and Lloyd Culbreath recreated the choreo and rehearsal staging for “Two Lost Souls.” All the featured songs in the episode, including “Heart” in addition to those previously mentioned, are all from the musical “Damn Yankees,” with music and lyrics by Richard Adler and Jerry Ross. Featured in the rehearsing cast of Damn Yankees are a legion of Broadway vets, including Ryan Vandenboom, Kyle Brown, Darien Crago, Haley Fish, Shonica Gooden, Afra Hines, Evan Kasprzak and Adrian Lee. Rounding out the cast performing “Heart” are also Broadway’s PJ Benjamin, Brain Cali, Nick Blaemire, and Aaron Kaburick. The viewership for this episode was down from last week all across the board, with a live viewership at 425,000, and a DVR viewership of 597,000. The total viewership was 1.023 million, down 321,000 from the premiere. At least its still in the millions though! During production of the film of Cabaret, Joan Simon is so glad that Gwen and Bobby have escaped to Majorca with them for some time away together. But Gwen has been burned by Bob one too many times - cheated on so often that she practically has a script in place for how he will apologize. He doesn’t see why he shouldn’t be able to see his German translator on set and then come home to Gwen, and offers that she should be able to do the same. But Gwen isn’t the cheating type. Or at least, she isn’t now. We flash back to 1955, when Gwen learns that her new Broadway musical, a baseball-themed show called Damn Yankees will be choreographed by a young talent named Bobby Fosse. She’s concerned that he won’t be dark enough for this modern-day Faust, but the producer promises her there is a real sense of humor in his work. Gwen swallows her pride and agrees to a work session with the young upstart. After making small talk about each other’s significant others, Bob begins to teach Gwen the seductive steps to “Whatever Lola Wants.” They bond over witty banter and their childhoods working in burlesque houses and Gwen - obviously - lands the job. The new team quickly begins seducing each other in the rehearsal room as well as in the bedroom, until it becomes too complicated for Gwen to be fooling around with her choreographer behind the back of his ailing wife. Things get more complicated when the Damn Yankees producers threaten to cut Bob’s Act I finale because it isn’t landing with audiences. Knowing he has to prove himself to both the creatives and the critics, he wakes up Gwen in the middle of the night and takes them both away from their respective spouses to get to work on a new number. Working through the night, Bob and Gwen are out of ideas. That is, until the pianist suggests a silly mambo and Bob realizes that the lighthearted number can be a cover for characters in agony. And with that, “Who’s Got the Pain?” is born. But while Bob is solving problems onstage and making a name for himself with Gwen as his new muse, Bob’s current wife Joan McCracken lets Gwen know that this scene has been played out before - when Bob left his first wife for Joan. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We continue to look back on my high school play from 20 years ago, "Damn Yankees" with my friend Marilyn Derr (Lester)! She and I talk about her time then, including what it was like playing the reporter Gloria Thorpe, backstage stories, cast notables, the songs and the challenges that came along doing the musical. Also, we go through the timeline of the story as well that we remember. A fun baseball musical comedy/movie that was also a 1955 book created by Richard Adler and Jerry Ross that we have to give credit to creating. Thanks to those two for fusing theatre and baseball together to making one "Home Run" of a masterpiece!!

This week we chat with Laurene Cooper-Fox about which of life's truths can be gleaned from that classic tale of love and unionization - The Pajama Game!"This is about capital and labour," a character announces at the start. But it's fair to say that the book by George Abbott and Richard Bissell is just as much about the romance that develops between an arrogant superintendent and a shopfloor militant in a midwestern pyjama factory. Refreshing as it is to find a musical in which passion collides with politics, I notice how cannily the show harks back to the past. The fractiousness of the lovers echoes Annie Get Your Gun and, when the workers go on a picnic, I was reminded of the box social in Oklahoma! and the clambake in Carousel. It adds, however, rather than detracts from the pleasure to find an original theme reinforced by a sense of tradition. What really counts in this revival is the brilliance of Stephen Mear's choreography in matching the mood of the songs by Richard Adler and Jerry Ross. - Michael Billington, The Guardian- FURTHER READING -Wiki - Musical, 7½ Cents, FilmIMDbiTunesSpotifyLike us on Facebook! Follow us on Twitter! Support us on Patreon!Email us: musicalstaughtmepodcast@gmail.comVisit our home on the web thatsnotcanonproductions.comOur theme song and interstitial music all by the one and only Benedict Braxton Smith. Find out more about him at www.benedictbraxtonsmith.com

durée : 00:58:40 - "Whatever Lola Wants" (Richard Adler / Jerry Ross) (1955) - par : Laurent Valero - "De la comédie musicale "Damn Yankees" sur un livret de George Abbott et Douglas Wallop. Une intrigue qui transpose le mythe de Faust dans les milieux du baseball à Washington. Le spectacle crée à Broadway (1955) connaitra un grand succès avant de devenir un film réalisé par George Abbott" L. Valero - réalisé par : Patrick Lérisset

durée : 00:58:40 - "Whatever Lola Wants" (Richard Adler / Jerry Ross) (1955) - par : Laurent Valero - "De la comédie musicale "Damn Yankees" sur un livret de George Abbott et Douglas Wallop. Une intrigue qui transpose le mythe de Faust dans les milieux du baseball à Washington. Le spectacle crée à Broadway (1955) connaitra un grand succès avant de devenir un film réalisé par George Abbott" L. Valero - réalisé par : Patrick Lérisset

(Поколения Американцев ч.2 Baby Boomers)Поколение Американцев ч.2 Baby BoomersРусские Стэнд ап комики (Иван Абрамов, Дмитрий Романов, Алексей Щербаков) Сериал "Ненастье" P.S.Ted talk about Baby Bommers (English) by Richard Adler https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=579&v=pfJnCs_clicПоддержи подкаст Radio Grinch на Patreon https://www.patreon.com/radiogrinch

(Поколения Американцев ч.2 Baby Boomers) Поколение Американцев ч.2 Baby Boomers Русские Стэнд ап комики (Иван Абрамов, Дмитрий Романов, Алексей Щербаков) Сериал "Ненастье" P.S.Ted talk about Baby Bommers (English) by Richard Adler ссылка Поддержи подкаст Radio Grinch на Patreon ссылка

(Поколения Американцев ч.2 Baby Boomers)Поколение Американцев ч.2 Baby BoomersРусские Стэнд ап комики (Иван Абрамов, Дмитрий Романов, Алексей Щербаков) Сериал "Ненастье" P.S.Ted talk about Baby Bommers (English) by Richard Adler https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=579&v=pfJnCs_clicПоддержи подкаст Radio Grinch на Patreon https://www.patreon.com/radiogrinch

Поколение Американцев ч.2 Baby Boomers Русские Стэнд ап комики (Иван Абрамов, Дмитрий Романов, Алексей Щербаков) Сериал «Ненастье» P.S.Ted talk about Baby Bommers (English) by Richard Adler скачать подкаст mp3скачать подкаст mp3 Поддержи подкаст Radio Grinch на Patreon

This week we chat with Laurene Cooper-Fox about which of life's truths can be gleaned from that classic tale of love and unionization - The Pajama Game!"This is about capital and labour," a character announces at the start. But it's fair to say that the book by George Abbott and Richard Bissell is just as much about the romance that develops between an arrogant superintendent and a shopfloor militant in a midwestern pyjama factory. Refreshing as it is to find a musical in which passion collides with politics, I notice how cannily the show harks back to the past. The fractiousness of the lovers echoes Annie Get Your Gun and, when the workers go on a picnic, I was reminded of the box social in Oklahoma! and the clambake in Carousel. It adds, however, rather than detracts from the pleasure to find an original theme reinforced by a sense of tradition. What really counts in this revival is the brilliance of Stephen Mear's choreography in matching the mood of the songs by Richard Adler and Jerry Ross. - Michael Billington, The Guardian- FURTHER READING -Wiki - Musical, 7½ Cents, FilmIMDbiTunesSpotifyLike us on Facebook! Follow us on Twitter! Support us on Patreon!Email us: musicalstaughtmepodcast@gmail.comVisit our home on the web thatsnotcanonproductions.comOur theme song and interstitial music all by the one and only Benedict Braxton Smith. Find out more about him at www.benedictbraxtonsmith.com

This week, we welcome Sharell Bryant to talk with us about The Pajama Game (1954) with book by George Abbott and Richard Blissell, music and lyrics by Richard Adler and Jerry Ross, directed by Abbott and Jerome Robbins, choreographed by Bob Fosse, produced by Hal Prince (and others) and several songs were secretly written by Frank Loesser! With the most star studded production team yet, surely this will rank among the best musicals of all time, right? Hahahahahahahahahaha no.

The Internet plays an essential role in our modern society and yet the way the Internet will be governed is still unclear. In anticipation of an impending Federal Communications Commission vote to reverse the so called “net neutrality” regulation implemented during the Obama administration, we look at the law which the FCC is trying to enforce. We also examine our current lawmaker’s plans for Internet governance by listening to highlights of three hearings featuring testimony from lawyers from Facebook, Twitter, and Google. Please Support Congressional Dish Click here to contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or Bitcoin Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Bills H.R. 3989: Amend Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 S. 652 (104th): Telecommunications Acto of 1996 Additional Reading Article: House foreign surveillance turf war heats up as law sunset nears by Daniel R. Stoller, Bloomberg, December 1, 2017. Article: Colorado warns families to be prepared in case congress doesn't come through on CHIP funding by Kimberly Leonard, Washington Examiner, November 27, 2017 Article: Congress confronts jam-packed December with shutdown deadline looming by Mike Debonis and Ed O'Keefe, The Washington Post, November 26, 2017 Article: States prepare to shut down children's health programs if congress doesn't act by Colby Itkowitz and Sandhya Somashekhar, The Washington Post, November 23, 2017. Article: Here's how the end of net neutrality will change the internet by Klint Finley, Wired, November 22, 2017. Article: What is net neutrality? by Aaron Byrd and Natalia V. Osipova, NY Times, November 21, 2017. Article: Will the Telecommunications Act get a much-needed update as it turns 21? by Richard Adler, Recode, February 8, 2017. Article: Cable tv price increases have beaten inflation every single year for 20 years by Nathan McAlone, Business Insider, October 31, 2016 Article: 20 years after the Telecommunications Act of 1996, rekindling Congress's political will by Stuart N. Brotman, The Hill, February 8, 2016. Article: The city that was saved by the internet by Jason Koebler, Motherboard, October 27, 2016. Article: This was 1995: A pop culture snapshot by Patricia Garcia, Vogue, September 1, 2015. Article: Why your internet prices are bound to go up by Brian Fung, Washington Post, July 23, 2015. Report: In a nutshell: Net neutrality, CBS News, March 1, 2015. Report: AT&T buys DirectTV for $48.5 billion by Roger Yu, USA Today, May 18,2014. Article: Federal appeals court strikes down net neutrality rules by Brian Fung, Washington Post, January 14, 2014. Article: Legal gymnastics ensue in oral arguments for Verizon vs. FCC by Jennifer Yeh, Freepress, September 10, 2013. Report: Comcast completes NBC Universal merger, Reuters, January 29, 2011. References Bill Resources: H.R.1555 Communications Act of 1995 Bill Roll Call: H.R. 3989 Vote Roll Call FCC Resources: Telecommunications Act of 1996 Mission Statement: AIPAC - America's Pro-Israel Lobby Network Map: Community Networks Publication: Public Law 104 Telecommunications Act of 1996 Publication: The USA Liberty Act Report: Akamai's State of the Internet 2017 Report: FCC Fact Sheet Support Page: AT&T HBO Channels Visual References Cable Prices vs. Inflation, 1995-2015 Sound Clip Sources Senate Select Intelligence Committee: Facebook, Google and Twitter Executives on Russian Election Interference; November 1, 2017 (Senate Social Media) Witnesses: Colin Stretch - Facebook Vice President & General Counsel Sean Edgett - Twitter Acting General Counsel 1:49:24 Sen. Roy Blunt (MO): Mr. Stretch, how much money did the Russians spend on ads that we now look back as either disruptive or politically intended? It was at $100,000. Is that— Colin Stretch: It was approximately $100,000. Blunt: I meant from your company. Stretch: Yes, approximately $100,000. Blunt: How much of that did they pay before the election? Stretch: The— Blunt: I’ve seen the— Stretch: Yeah. Blunt: —number 44,000. Blunt: Is that right? Stretch: So— Blunt: 56 after, 44 before. Stretch: The ad impressions ran 46% before the election, the remainder after the election. Blunt: 46%. Well, if I had a consultant that was trying to impact an election and spent only 46% of the money before Election Day, I’d be pretty upset about that, I think. So, they spent $46,000. How much did the Clinton and Trump campaigns spend on Facebook? I assume before the election. Stretch: Yeah. Before the elec— Blunt: They were better organized than the other group. Stretch: Approximate—combined approximately $81 million. Blunt: 81 million, and before the election. Stretch: Yes. Blunt: So, 81 million. I’m not a great mathematician, but 46,000, 81 million, would that be, like, five one-thousandths of one percent? It’s something like that. Stretch: It’s a small number by comparison, sir. 2:19:55 Sen. Tom Cotton (AR): Do you see an equivalency between the Central Intelligence Agency and the Russian Intelligence Services? Sean Edgett: We’re not offering our service for surveillance to any government. Cotton: So you will apply the same policy to our Intelligence Community that you apply to an adversary’s intelligence services. Edgett: As a global company, we have to apply our policies consistently. Cotton: This reminds me of the old line from the Cold War, of one who did not see a distinction between the CIA and the KGB on the other hand, because the KGB officer pushed an old lady in front of an oncoming bus, and the CIA officer pushed the old lady out from the path of the oncoming bus, because they both go around pushing old ladies. I hope that Twitter will reconsider its policies when it’s dealing with friendly intelligence services in countries like the United States and the U.K. as opposed to adversarial countries like Russia and China. House Select Intelligence Committee: Facebook, Google and Twitter Executives on Russian Election Interference; November 1, 2017 (House Social Media) Witnesses: Kent Walker - Google Senior Vice President & General Counsel Colin Stretch - Facebook Vice President & General Counsel Sean Edgett - Twitter Acting General Counsel 39:05 Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ): Social-media platforms have the responsibility of striking a balance between removing false information and preserving freedom of speech. Can you give us some brief detail of how each of your companies plan to target perceived false news while protecting the robust political discourse? Kent Walker: Let me take that because that was the sort of next stage to my answer to Mr. Shift’s question. We are taking a number of different steps beyond advertising to focus on fake news. We are working to improve our algorithms, to provide additional guidance and training to the Raiders who provide quality feedback for us, and to look at a wider variety of signals to improve the ranking of authentic and genuine news on our sites and to demote sites that we feel are deceptive or misleading. We are also making broader use of fact-check labels, working with third parties, for both Google Search and Google News. And when it comes to advertising, we’ve taken steps to disallow advertising on sites that misrepresent their nature or purpose, and to add to our policies around or against hate speech, incitement of violence, and the like. Colin Stretch: I would group our efforts with respect to false news into three buckets. First, we find that most false news is financially motivated, and we’re making efforts to disrupt the financial incentives. That, we think, will make a big dent in it. Second, we’re looking to stop the spread of it. So when we have information that’s been disputed by independent fact-checkers, we limit the distribution and we alert users who are attempting to share it that it has been disputed. And third, we’re engaged in a number of user-education efforts to help, particularly around the world, users approach some of the content they see with a more discerning eye. Sean Edgett: We’re tackling this challenge in a few ways, and I think the way this was characterized is correct: it’s a balance between free speech and what’s real and what’s false. And we often see there’s a lot of activity on the platform to correct false narratives, and one of those things, for example, is the text-to-vote tweets that we turned over to you, which we took off our platform as illegal voter suppression. The number of tweets that were counteracting that as false and telling people not to believe that was, like, between eight and 10 times what we saw on the actual tweets. But we’re working on the behavior. That’s where we’re focused right now. We’ve had great strides in focusing on that for things like terrorism and child sexual exploitation. We’re trying to figure out how we can use those learnings to stop the amplification of false news or misinformation, and think we’re making great strides there, but it’s a definite balance. We also have work we’ve done, just like my peers, around ads transparency that, I think, is going to help educate the consumer about who’s paying for an ad, what else they’re running, what they’re targeting, what they’re after—especially around electioneering ads, who’s paying for it, how much they’re spending. We are also working with third parties. We have a Trust and Safety council of experts, academics, around the world who are helping us think through the things that we’re trying to employ to tackle these issues and how they will impact the debate and free speech on our platform. So we’re working hard on this, but it’s a challenge. 59:39 Rep. Terri Sewell (D-AL): I submit to you that your efforts have to be more than just about finding malicious and deceptive activity, that you have a responsibility—all of you have a responsibility—to make sure that we are not adding to the problem by not being as rigorous and as aggressive as we can in terms of vetting the content and in terms of making sure that we are being really dynamic in doing that. And I also want to just say that I think it’s ridiculous that a foreign entity can buy a political ad with rubles but can’t give a political contribution to me—a Russian person can’t give me a political contribution. There seems to be some legislation that needs to be had here, is all I’m saying. 1:16:05 Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL): Let’s look at unpaid content for a second. Sometimes these fake accounts are pulled down, but the fake story takes the false claims of widespread voter fraud, for example, generated by these accounts have spread thousands of thousands of times, often picked up by legitimate news accounts. What do you do to flag that? What do you sense is your responsibility? And before any of you answer, let me just notice this, that if we’re asking is, are we still in this situation? As of just a short time ago—and I’m talking about when this meeting started—on Twitter, if you clicked on the hashtag “NYCTerroristAttack,” which is “trending,” marked with a red button saying “live,” the top tweet links to an Infowars story with the headline, “Imam: I Warned De Blasio About New York City Terror; He was Too Busy Bashing Trump.” This is a real-time example of when we talk about this information being weaponized. How quickly can you act, and what’s your responsibility to set the record straight so that the people who saw this know that it’s fake news and at least at some point in time it can’t keep spreading like some sort of virus through legitimate world? Sean Edgett: That’s something we’re thinking about all the time because it’s a bad user experience, and we don’t want to be known as a platform for that. In your example, in for instance, the system self-corrected. That’s not—that shouldn’t be the first tweet you see anymore. It should be a USA article, the last time I checked. Quigley: But you saw this. Edgett: USA Today. At lunch I did, yeah, and I also saw the system correct it. Quigley: Can you give me a really good guess on how long it was top? Edgett: We can follow up with you and your staff on that, and I don’t have the stat in front of me. Quigley: Yeah. Edgett: So I don’t know. But we are, like we said earlier, trying to balance free speech with making the information you see on the system—especially around trends that we direct you to, so if you’re clicking on a hashtag, we want to make sure you’re seeing verified accounts and accurate information and reporting. Sometimes it doesn’t work as we intended. We learn from those mistakes and tweak and modulate going forward. Quigley: Beyond the correction, do you have a responsibility to flag something as “this was fake news”? Edgett: We see our users do that a lot. We’re an open, public platform with respect to journalists and other organizations who point these things out. You may have seen that on this instance, for example. Quigley: Yeah, if someone’s breaking the law, you’ve got to feel like you have a responsibility to do something about that. It’s not—as you said, this is a—with this extraordinary gift, this platform of free expression, comes the responsibility you all talked about. So, if you know something’s illegal, you know you have the responsibility to do something. At what point does this become something where you can’t just correct it; you’ve got to say to the public, this isn’t true. Edgett: Right. And we take swift action on illegal content, illegal activity, on the platform. A good example of this is the text to vote, voter suppression tweets that we’ve turned over to this committee. We saw swift action of the Twitter community on disputing those claims; and Twitter actively tweeted, once it discovered these things were on the platform, to notify our users that this was fake information, that you could not, in fact, vote by tweet, and pointing people to a tool that would allow them to find their nearest polling place. That tweet— Quigley: Is this [unclear] because that was illegal activity, or is this—if something’s just fake, do you think you have an equal responsibility? Edgett: We took that down because it was illegal voter suppression. We are actively working on, how do we balance what is real and fake, and what do we do in the aftermath of something being tweeted and re-tweeted, like you said, and had people even seen it and how do we make sure that they’re seeing other view points and other facts and other news stories. Quigley: Do you have a policy right now where if you know something’s out there that’s not true, of saying so? Edgett: We do not. We have a policy that fosters the debate on the platform. We have a policy that takes down a lot of that content because it comes from automated malicious accounts or spammers. That stuff we’re removing and acting on as quickly as we can. Quigley: And I understand how you’re trying to distinguish that, but the fact is if something’s fake, it doesn’t matter if it’s from a fake account or some bot or something. If it’s just not true and it’s wildly obvious, before it goes viral and gets picked up legitimate, you must feel like you have some responsibility. Edgett: We are—we are deeply concerned about that and figuring out ways we can do it with the right balance. 1:57:39 Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA): RT, Russia Today, on your platform, has 2.2 million subscribers. Fox News, on your platform, has 740,000 subscribers. CNN has 2.3 million subscribers. The Intelligence Community assessment that was made public in January spoke about RT, and it said, “RT conducts strategic messaging for Russian government. It seeks to influence politics and fuel discontent in the United States.” So my question to you is, why have you not shut down RT on YouTube? Kent Walker: Thank you, Congresswoman. We’ve heard the concerns, and we spoke briefly about this previously. We recognize that there’re many concerned about RT’s slanted perspective. At the same time, this is an issue that goes beyond the Internet to cable, satellite television and beyond. We have carefully reviewed RT’s compliance with our policies. We’ve not found violations of our policies against hate speech and incitement to violence and the like. Speier: It’s a propaganda machine, Mr. Walker. The Intelligence Community—all 17 agencies—says it’s an arm of one of our adversaries. Walker: And we agree that— Speier: I would like for you to take that back to your executives and rethink continuing to have it on your platform. Walker: Yes. We agree that transparency’s important for all of these different sources of information. We are working on additional ways to provide that for all government-funded sources of information, including Al Jazeera and a range of government organizations. 2:05:27 Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC): Is it constitutionally protected to utter an intentionally false statement? Colin Stretch: So, it depends on the context, but there is recent Supreme Court precedent on that. On Facebook— Gowdy: On which side: that it is or is not? Stretch: That it is, in most cases, protected. However, on Facebook, our job is not to decide whether content is true or false. We do recognize that false news is a real challenge. The way in which we’re addressing it is by trying to disrupt the financial incentives of those who are profiting from it, which is where most of it comes from. Most of this, most of the fake-news problem is coming from low-quality websites that are trying to drive traffic on every side of every issue, and by disrupting the financial incentives, we’re able to limit the distribution. We’re also trying to make sure that users do know when a story has been disputed by a neutral third party and alerting users to that fact— I’ll stop. I’ll stop there. Gowdy: Well, I’m smiling only because on the last break a couple of my colleagues and I were wondering who those neutral fact-checkers are, and I really do appreciate your desire to want to have a neutral fact-checker. If you could let me know who those folks are, I’d be really grateful, because people in my line of work might take exception with the neutrality of some of the fact-checkers. So, if I understand you correctly, the authenticity of the speaker is very important; the accuracy of the content, less so. Stretch: That’s how we approach it. That’s exactly right. Gowdy: All right. For the life of me, I do not understand how a republic is served by demonstrably, provably, intentionally false information. And I get it, that you don’t want to be the arbiter of opinion—I don’t want you to be, either—but today’s not Thursday, so if I say it is, I swear I don’t understand how my fellow citizens benefit from me telling them something that is demonstrably false, and I am saying it with the intent to deceive. I just—for the life of me, I don’t get it, but I’m out of time. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism: Facebook, Google and Twitter Executives on Russian Disinformation; October 31, 2017 (Social Media) Witnesses: Colin Stretch - Facebook Vice President and General Counsel Sean Edgett - Twitter Acting General Counsel Richard Salgado - Google Law Enforcement & Information Security Director Clint Watts - Foreign Policy Research Institute, National Security Program Senior Fellow Michael Smith -New America, International Security Fellow 38:25 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): And I gather that all of your companies have moved beyond any notion that your job is only to provide a platform and whatever goes across it is not your affair. Colin Stretch: Senator, our commitment to addressing this problem is unwavering. We take this very seriously and are committed to investing as necessary to prevent this from happening again. Absolutely. Whitehouse: Mr. Edgett? Sean Edgett: Absolutely agree with Mr. Stretch, and this type of activity just creates not only a bad user experience but distrust for the platform, so we are committed to working every single day to get better at solving this problem. Whitehouse: Mr. Salgado? Richard Salgado: That’s the same for Google. We take this very seriously. We’ve made changes, and we will continue to get better. Whitehouse: And ultimately, you are American companies, and threats to American election security and threats to American peace and order are things that concern you greatly, correct? Stretch: That is certainly correct. Edgett: Agree. Salgado: That’s right. 52:15 Sen. Dianne Feinstein (CA): Mr. Salgado, why did Google get preferred status to Russia Today, a Russian propaganda arm, on YouTube? Richard Salgado: There was a period of time where Russia Today qualified really because of algorithms to participate in an advertising program that opened up some inventory for them, subjective standards around popularity and some other criteria to be able to participate in that program. Platforms or publishers like RT drop in and out of the program as things change, and that is the case with RT. They dropped out of the program. Feinstein: Well, why didn’t you revert RT’s preferred status after the ICA came out in January 2017? It took you to September of 2017 to do it. Salgado: The removal of RT from the program was actually a result of, as I understand it, is a result of some of the drop in viewership, not as a result of any action otherwise. So, there was nothing about RT or its content that meant that it stayed in or stayed out. 2:03:15 Sen. Mazie Hirono (HI): So, Mr. Stretch, you said that there are 150 people at Facebook just focused on the content of what’s on your platform. How many people do you have, Mr. Edgett, at Twitter to concentrate on the content and ferretting out the kind of content that would be deemed unacceptable, divisive? I realize there are a lot of First Amendment— Sean Edgett: Right. Hirono: —complicated issues, but how many people do you have? Edgett: Well, we harness the power of both technology, algorithms, machine learning to help us, and also a large team of people, that we call our Trust and Safety team and our User Services team, it’s hundreds of people. We’re at a different scale than Facebook and Google, obviously, but we’re dedicating a lot of resource to make sure that we’re looking at user reports about activity on the platform that they think is violent or activity on the platform they think is illegal, and prioritizing that accordingly. Hirono: So, you have fewer people than Facebook. Facebook has 150; you said you have hundreds. Edgett: Yeah, we have hundreds— Hirono: Hundreds. Edgett: —across User Services and Trust and Safety, looking at the issues of content on the platform. Hirono: What about you, Mr. Salgado? Richard Salgado: Google has thousands of people. There’s many different products, and different teams work on them, but internally we’ll have thousands of people working on them. We also get a good deal of leads on content that we need to review for whether it’s appropriate or not that come from outside the company as well. Hirono: You have thousands of people just focused on the content— Salgado: On various types of content. Hirono: —as Mr. Stretch indicated to us that he has at Facebook? You have thousands of people dedicated? Salgado: We have thousands of people dedicated to make sure the content across our—and remember, Google has many different properties within it—but, yes, the answer is we have thousands that look at content that has been reported to us as inappropriate. Hirono: So, in view of that, Mr. Stretch, do you think 150 people is enough people? Stretch: Senator, to be clear, the 150 people I mentioned earlier is people whose full-time job is focused on addressing terrorism content on Facebook. In terms of addressing content on the site generally, we have thousands. And indeed, we have a Community Operations team that we announced earlier this year that we were going to be adding additional thousands to the several thousands that are already working on this problem every day. Hirono: I think it’s pretty clear that this is a whole new sort of use, or misuse, of your platform, and you may have various ways to address terrorist content, but this is a whole other thing. 2:32:10 Clint Watts: Account anonymity in public provides some benefits to society, but social-media companies must work to immediately confirm real humans operate accounts. The negative effects of social bots far outweigh any benefits that come from the anonymous replication of accounts that broadcast high volumes of misinformation. Reasonable limits on the number of posts any account can make during an hour, day, or week should be developed and human-verification systems should be employed by all social-media companies to reduce automated broadcasting. 2:33:07 Clint Watts: Lastly, I admire those social-media companies that have begun working to fact-check news articles in the wake of last year’s elections. These efforts should continue but will be completely inadequate. Stopping false information—the artillery barrage landing on social-media users comes only when those outlets distributing bogus stories are silenced. Silence the guns, and the barrage will end. I propose the equivalent of nutrition labels for information outlets, a rating icon for news-producing outlets displayed next to their news links and social-media feeds and search engines. The icon provides users an assessment of the news outlet’s ratio of fact versus fiction and opinion versus reporting. The rating system would be opt-in. It would not infringe on freedom of speech or freedom of the press. Should not be part of the U.S. government, should sit separate from the social-media companies but be utilized by them. Users wanting to consume information from outlets with a poor rating wouldn’t be prohibited. If they are misled about the truth, they have only themselves to blame. 2:44:20 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): Mr. Watts, you’ve been a U.S. Army infantry officer, you’ve been an FBI special agent on the Joint Terrorism Task Force, you’ve been executive officer of the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, and you’ve been a consultant to the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division and National Security Branch, so you clearly take American national security very seriously. It is, and has been, your life’s work. So, when you say, ”The Kremlin disinformation playbook,” which we’re talking about here, “will also be adopted by authoritarians, dark political campaigns, and unregulated global corporations who will use this type of social-media manipulation to influence weaker countries; harm less-educated, vulnerable populations; and mire business challengers,” you’re not just talking about the Russian election-manipulation operation getting worse and having to be contained. You’re talking about it as if it’s a technology that other bad actors can adopt and have it metastasized entirely into new fields of dissimulation, propaganda, and so forth. Clint Watts: Yes. Whitehouse: Correct? Watts: Everybody will duplicate this if they don’t believe in the rule of law, if they want to destroy democracies from the inside out. Anyone with enough resources and time and effort, if they put it against us, they can duplicate this. I could duplicate it if I chose to. Whitehouse: So, if we don’t stop it now, it’s going to get exponentially worse. Watts: Yes. And I think the one thing that we should recognize is even in the U.S. political context, if we don’t put some sort of regulation around it, if bodies like this don’t decide how we want American politics to work, everybody will be incentivized to use this same system against their political opponents, and if you don’t, you will lose. 2:51:35 Sen. John Kennedy (LA): The First Amendment implications of all of this concern me as well. I mean, what’s fake news? What do you think fake news is? Clint Watts: Fake news, over the years since I’ve been involved and talking about this, is any news the other side doesn’t like, doesn’t matter what side it is. Kennedy: That’s right. Michael Smith: Senator, if I may. I’m teaching undergrads a course at Georgia State University this semester titled Media, Culture, and Society; and we’re about to start classes focused on fake news later this week. I would submit that fake news might best be defined as deliberate mis- or disinformation, which is tailored or engineered to achieve a particular outcome in the way of behaviors, to persuade perceptions in a manner that lead to behaviors such as perhaps a vote for or against somebody. Kennedy: Well, that’s a good definition, but I’ll end on this: in whose opinion? Watts: But I think there are parameters that we could come around. I mean, reporting versus opinion is a key point of it. I think also in terms of fact versus fiction, I’ve actually set up rating systems on foreign media outlets before the U.S. Government’s paid me to do that, you know, in the Iraq/Afghanistan campaigns. House Energy and Commerce Communications and Technology Subcommittee: FCC Oversight; October 25, 2017 Witnesses: Ajit Pai: FCC Chairman 14:00 Rep. Greg Walden: Ultimately, Congress is the appropriate forum to settle the net neutrality debate. I think you hear a little of that passion here on both sides. And I’ve been continuing my efforts to negotiate a compromise. Although my staff continues to engage in the various affected parties in productive discussions toward that end, my colleagues in the minority have, unfortunately, seemed largely uninterested at this point. Love to see that change, by the way. Door remains open. We’re willing and able to codify net neutrality protections and establish a federal framework in statute for providing certainty to all participants in the Internet ecosystem. I don’t think we need Title II to do that. 1:31:45 Rep. Bob Latta (R-OH): Voice-activated virtual assistants like Siri, Alexa, and Google Assistant are becoming an increasingly popular consumer gateway to the Internet. Some day soon they might even become consumer-preferred interface with the Internet, leaving the age of the desktop Google Search behind. You get Yelp results in Siri, OpenTable in Google, TuneIn radio from Alexa. These interactions are occurring through private partnerships among these companies to have their apps interact. However, it creates a situation where, by definition, the consumers’ access to other Internet content is limited or completely blocked. It’s the question of, who answers Siri’s question when you ask Siri something? Chairman Pai, can the FCC do anything about this? Ajit Pai: Congressman, under our current Internet regulations, we cannot. Those do not apply to edge providers. 1:36:12 Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA): Will you commit to us that you’ll apply or consider applying broadcast-transparency requirements to state-sponsored media outlets like RT? And if not, why not? Ajit Pai: Congresswoman, thank you for the question. As I under— Eshoo: Uh-huh, you’re welcome. Pai: As I understand the law— Eshoo: Uh-huh, mm-hmm. Pai: —there is no jurisdictional hook at this point, no transfer of a license, for example, that allows the FCC to a certain jurisdiction. Eshoo: But what about those that have a license and carry them? Do you have—doesn’t the FCC have any say so in that, or is this, as the Intelligence Community said, that they are a principle international propaganda outlet? So are they just going to operate in the United States no matter what? Pai: Congresswoman, again, under the Communications Act and the Constitution, the First Amendment, we do not have currently a jurisdictional hook for taking and doing an investigation of that kind. If you’re privy to, obviously, classified or unclassified information that suggests that there might be another agency that has, obviously, a direct interest in the issue—and we’re, obviously, happy to work with them—but at the current time, as I’ve been advised, neither under the First Amendment nor under the Communications Act do we have the ability to— Eshoo: Well, First Amendment applies to free speech in our country. It doesn’t mean that the Kremlin can distribute propaganda in our country through our airwaves. I just—I don’t know if you’re looking hard enough. 1:40:05 Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY): In 2013, and I was one of the households affected by this, there was a carriage dispute between CBS and Time Warner Cable. And CBS blocked Time Warner Cable Internet customers from viewing its shows online through a CBS.com website. So I couldn’t get any of CBS or SHOWTIME or any of that on TV. If you went to the website, because Time Warner Cable was our cable provider and Internet service provider, you couldn’t go to CBS.com—it was blocked. Or SHOWTIME to watch any of the shows that was coming out. And that was when some new ones were coming out that August, so we were trying to find that. But some members of Congress said, bring this up, and I think Chairwoman Clyburn was acting chairwoman at the time and said that she didn’t believe the agency had the jurisdiction to intervene in this situation. And Chairman Pai, do you think if it happened now, do you think the FCC would have the opportunity to intervene in a similar case? Ajit Pai: Congressman, I think the legal authorities have not changed to the extent that the FCC gets a complaint that a party is acting in bad faith in the context of retransmission dispute, then we would be able to adjudicate it. But absence to such a complaint or additional authority from Congress, we couldn’t take further action. Guthrie: But currently the Title II, open Internet, is still in effect. Is that—how would that affect it? Pai: Oh, currently, yes. Just to be clear, I should have added was well then, our Internet regulations would not apply to that kind of content to the extent you’re talking about, the blocking of online distribution of [unclear]. Guthrie: Because it only applies to the service provider, not to the content provider? Pai: That is correct, sir. Federal Communications Commission: Open Internet Rules; February 26, 2015 (Open Internet Rules) Witnesses: Agit Pai: FCC Commissioner 38:05 Ajit Pai: For 20 years, there has been a bipartisan consensus in favor of a free and open Internet. A Democratic president and Republican Congress enshrined in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 the principle that the Internet should be a vibrant and competitive free market “unfettered by federal and state regulation.” And dating back to the Clinton administration, every FCC chairman—Republican and Democrat—has let the Internet grow free from utility-style regulation. The results speak for themselves. But today the FCC abandons those policies. It reclassifies broadband Internet access service as a Title II telecommunications service. It seizes unilateral authority to regulate Internet conduct to direct where Internet service providers, or ISPs, make their investments and to determine what service plans will be available to the American public. This is not only a radical departure from the bipartisan market-oriented policies that have serviced so well over the past two decades, it is also an about-face from the proposals the FCC itself made just last May. So why is the FCC turning its back on Internet freedom? Is it because we now have evidence that the Internet is broken? No. We are flip-flopping for one reason and one reason only: President Obama told us to do so. Barack Obama: I’m asking the FCC to reclassify Internet service under Title II of a law known as the Telecommunications Act. Pai: On November 10, President Obama asked the FCC to implement his plan for regulating the Internet, one that favors government regulation over marketplace competition. As has been widely reported in the press, the FCC has been scrambling ever since to figure out a way to do just that. The courts will ultimately decide this order’s fate. Litigants are already lawyering up to seek a judicial review of these new rules. And given this order’s many glaring legal flaws, they’ll have plenty of fodder. 40:46 Ajit Pai: This order imposes intrusive government regulations that won’t work, to solve a problem that doesn’t exist, using legal authority the FCC doesn’t have. Accordingly, I dissent. 1:03:15 Ajit Pai: And I’m optimistic that we will look back on today’s vote as an aberration, a temporary deviation from the bipartisan consensus that has served us so well. I don’t know whether this plan will be vacated by a court, reversed by Congress, or overturned by a future commission, but I do believe its days are numbered. Telecommunications Bill Signing: February 8, 1996 (Bill Signing) 4:59 Vice President Al Gore: I firmly believe that the proper role of government in the development of the information superhighway is to promote and achieve at every stage of growth, at every level of operation, at every scale, the public interest values of democracy, education, and economic and social well-being for all of our citizens. If we do not see to it that every project, every network, every system addresses the public interest at the beginning, then when will it be addressed? How can we expect the final organism to express these values if they are not included in its DNA, so to speak, at the beginning? For that reason, in 1993, on behalf of the president, I presented five principles that the Clinton administration would seek in any telecommunication reform legislation: private investment, competition, universal service, open access, and flexible regulations. Telecommunications Act Conference: December 12, 1995 (Conference) 22:15 Rep. Rick Boucher: In the very near future, most homes are going to have two broadband wires that will offer the combination of telephone service and cable TV service. One of those will have started as a telephone wire; the other will have started as a cable television wire. The programming that is affiliated with the owners of those wires obviously is going to be available to consumers in the homes, but other programmers may very well be denied access. And if access to other programming is denied, consumers will be deprived of video offerings to which they should be entitled. Telecommunications Act Conference: December 6, 1995 (Conference) 27:14 Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL): No one has a right to give pornography to children. While we have not previously criminalized this area on the federal level, it’s necessary to do so now. This is because of the advent of the Internet, which enables someone in one location to instantly send or make available pornography to children in every city in America. Children don’t have the right to buy pornography in any store in America, yet some would argue there’s a right to give it to them free, delivered to their home by computer. Telecommunications Act Conference: Telecommunications Reform Act of 1995; October 25, 1995 8:58 Sen. John McCain: I believe the Senate bill in its present form is far too regulatory. Any bill that gives 80 new tasks to the Federal Communications Commission, in my view, does not meet the standard that we have set for ourselves of trying to allow everyone to compete in a deregulated—in an environment that is changing so quickly that none of us predicted five years ago that it would look like it is today. And today we have no idea what the industry will look like in five years. 32:00 Rep. Steve Buyer (R-IN): One thing that does please me is when I think about one of the last renaissance of electricity, electricity goes to the big cities and leaves out the rural areas, and then we have to come up with the REMCs. When we move America to the World Wide Web, though, we’re not allowing cherry-picking and to move to the great resources in the big cities, but the rural areas will be included in the World Wide Web. And so I congratulate both of you to making sure that that happens, that some of the strength of this country lies in the heart of America, and I think that’s pretty exciting. House Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance: Telecommunications Act Part 1; May 11, 1995 1:25:36 Rep. Dan Schaefer (R-CO): Unlike the case for telephone service, every American household has access to at least one, and soon many more, competitive video providers today. The case simply has not yet been made that the federal government has a duty to do anything other than provide for access to alternative in the case of a purely entertainment service like the upper tier of cable. We have provided that access. We will expand that access in this bill. It is time we focus on the real issues addressed by 1555, the building of advanced broadband networks and the benefits that it will bring to all Americans. House Energy & Commerce Committee: Cable Television Deregulation; February 2, 1994 Witnesses: Bill Reddersen - Bell South Corporation Senior Vice President Jeffery Chester - Center for Media Education Executive Director Edward Reilly - President of McGraw-HIll Broadcasting 7:27 Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA): As telephone companies are able to offer cable TV service inside their telephone-service areas, they’ll have the financial incentive to deploy the broadband technology that will facilitate the simultaneous transport of voice and cable TV service and data messages, building out the infrastructure, creating the last mile of the information highway, that distance from the telephone company’s central office into the premises of the user homes and businesses throughout the nation. 24:36 Bill Reddersen: It is our goal to have you pass legislation this year that enables us to deploy a second broadband network that will compete effectively with cable and bring consumers new and innovative educational healthcare information and entertainment services. 25:12 Bill Reddersen: However, unless you eliminate the competitive advantages this bill confers upon cable companies, our industry will not be able to compete effectively against companies that already have a dominant, if not monopoly, position in programming markets, nor will the bill encourage telephone companies to make or continue the substantial investments required for widespread development of broadband networks. Cable companies are formidable competitors and do not need protection. Cable is a 21-billion-dollar-a-year-gross business, passing over 90% of U.S. homes. According to a recent survey, only 53 out of over 10,000 cable systems compete against a second cable operator. Cable has vertically integrated and diversified into multi-billion-dollar programming and communications businesses. Cable companies and the emerging cable telco alliances clearly do not need protection from telephone companies that currently have no video programming market share, virtually no broadband facilities to the home, and little or no operational experience in the video marketplace. 37:55 Jeffrey Chester: While we share the goal of this committee that every community be served by at least two wires, there are no guarantees that this will be achieved in the near future, even with the proposed legislation. We are also troubled by the unprecedented wave of mergers and acquisitions taking place in the media industries. Serious concerns are raised by the emergence of new media giants controlling regional Bell operating companies, cable systems, TV and film studios, newspapers, broadcasting properties, and information service providers. Without federal intervention, control of the nation’s media system will be in the hands of fewer and less-accountable companies, possessing even more concentrated power. 40:45 Bill Reddersen: Just as we have established private librar—public libraries—and public highways, we need to create public arenas in the electronic commons in the media landscape. A vibrant telecommunication civic sector will be an essential counterbalance to the commercial forces that will dominate the information superhighway. 2:24:38 Bill Reddersen: The common carrier requirements of this legislation are essentially, if executed the way they have in the telephone industry, the second model that you articulated, and that is that if additional capacity was required and someone shows up, we build. Okay? That is the fundamental premise underlying common carrier regulation. 2:30:04 Rep. Michael Oxley (R-OH): Does it really matter if BellSouth builds the wire, the limitless wire, or the cable industry builds the limitless wire if indeed it is essentially a limitless technology that is open to everyone who wants to sell his or her product, including Mr. Reilly, on that particular technology? If you have the common carrier status and you have the ability to deliver your programming, is it really relevant whether BellSouth owns the wire or Mr. Angstrom owns the wire, and if it is indeed relevant, why is it relevant, Mr. Reilly? Edward Reilly: Well, it’s relevant in any instance where the company that owns the wire is also engaged in the programming business at all. If someone is prepared to build a wire and agree that they would never want to be in the programming business, and that we were given very strong safeguards— Oxley: Why is that a problem? Reilly: Well, because we end up inevitably competing with our programming— Oxley: Of course you do. Reilly: —against someone who owns both the wire and the programming content that goes on that wire. Reilly: Why is it relevant, though, if BellSouth owns the wire and you’ve got limitless access and limitless capacity, why does it make any difference that the people who supposedly own the wire are competing against you? They’re competing head to head. You are simply paying the same shelf space for your product as the owner of the product that’s providing that kind of service. Oxley: Well, we have—we believe that there is ample opportunity in that type of environment for a number of anti-competitive activities that would certainly damage our ability to try and be an equal player. Where we get positioned on the wire, what comes up when the menu first comes up, how the billing is organized—there’s a whole host of issues that go along with owning the wire and setting up the infrastructure that can create a significant competitive advantage to someone who chooses to use that for their own program service. 2:38:47 Rep. Billy Tauzin (D-LA): I think the key for us here is to guarantee that there are comparable providers of services and how they get it to us, as long as it’s comparable and we have choice and all people have access to it. If we guarantee that kind of policy for America, we don’t much have to worry about the risk. Consumers take over from there as long as we guarantee, if we do have common carriage on a line, that the owner of the line can’t discriminate; can’t play games with the competitors who own that line; that you can’t play bottleneck games, as publishers are complaining about in the other bill we’re going to debate pretty soon on MMJ; that, in fact, there’s fairness on the playing field. Here’s a question for you in regard to that fairness: If the telephone companies or the utility companies can in fact do what you can’t do—produce their own programs and send them over those lines, even if we restrict them in the number of channels they can use, which I really have a problem with, as Mr. Boucher does—are we going to make sure that the same provisions of program access apply to those producers of programs that we’ve applied to the cable producers? You raised the issue in your testimony. You talked about the problems we had in cable where they own both the software and the hardware—in essence, the content and the conduit—and the problems consumers had as a result of that. Are we going to require the cable companies make 75% of their channels available to competitors? Are we going to require that the utility companies, when they build lines, fiber optic lines, are going to be similarly required to make access available to their competitors? If we’re talking about a real competitive world here, are we going to build a world where some have obligations others don’t have? Some must carry and some don’t? Some must give access to their programs to competitors, as cable is now required to do because of the bill we successfully passed over the president’s veto last year, and over cable’s objection? Are we going to make that same requirement now available—enforced upon other competitors who build wires, or who build some other systems, who decide to deliver it under some particle-beam technology we haven’t dreamed of yet, or the satellite delivery systems that are coming into play? Are we going to create some real equality in this competition, that’s going to give consumers comparable choices? That’s the key word to me—comparable choices. Are we going to do that? Or are we going to dictate the technology, confine you to so many channels, not require you to carry what others have to carry, put requirements on one competitor—the cable company can get on the telephone company’s lines, but the telephone company can’t get on the cable system’s line? Come on. It seems to me if we’re going to build policy that gets consumers real, comparable choices out there, we have to answer all those questions. Video: What the world looks like without net neutrality Video: Net Neutrality II: Last Week Tongight with John Oliver Special Thanks! To Adam Hettler for performing The Most Dangerous time of the Year! See more of Adam here! Background music for The Most Dangerous Time of the Year. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)  

Discuss on Reddit ➤ Support the Show ➤ Got your peanuts? Got your crackerjack? Got your camp demonic storyline? Then you’re all set for the latest podcast on Richard Adler and Jerry Ross’s ‘Damn Yankees.’ This time around the guys try and wrap their heads around sports, discuss whether this show needs a 21st century update and Jimi starts his multipart series on Bob Fosse. Let’s play ball! Damn Yankees: Original Broadway Cast Amazon / iTunes / Spotify SHOW NOTES The recent Encores! production stayed extremely faithful to the original Broadway production, coded gay characters and all. Here’s Sean Hayes giving his hilarious performance as Mr Applegate. Do you think Damn Yankees needs a 21st century update? Head over to Reddit and tell us all about it! Can you think of other musical composer copycats like Pajama Game/Damn Yankees? Come and tell us on Twitter! If you’re a Fosse nut like Jimi, come and join the celebration! Here’s a kickass mashup of Michael Jackson (who was great inspired by Fosse) and Bobby! Into the literary side of musical theatre history? Look no further than Sam Wasson’s amazing biography of Bob Fosse here. All of the props got to the glorious Vicki Lewis for her spectacular turn as Gloria in the 1994 Tony Awards performance! Also if you’d like to, feel free to send us an email at jimandtomic@gmail.com! A HIGH SPEED QUIZ QUESTION The Tony Award winning leading actress in this show auditioned with a ballad – ‘What Did I Have That I Don’t Have’ from On a Clear Day You Can See Forever. When asked if she had an uptempo song, the actress responded, “No…but I can sing this one five-times faster.” So she did, and got the part. What show?   

Reviews of (1) TWISTED MELODIES, by Kelvin Roston, at The Black Rep; (2) BOSNIAN/AMERICAN: THE DANCE OF LIFE, by Deanna Jent, at Mustard Seed Theatre; (3) IVANOV, by Anton Chekhov, at St. Louis Actors’ Studio; (4) THE SOUND OF MUSIC, by Richard Rodgers & Oscar Hammerstein II, Howard Lindsey & Russell Crouse, at the Fox Theatre; (5) TRASH MACBETH, by William Shakespeare & others, at Equally Represented Arts; (6) THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING EARNEST, by Oscar Wilde, at Saint Louis Univ.; (7) DOUBLEWIDE, TEXAS, by Jessie Jones, Nicholas Hope, & Jamie Wooten, at Over Due Theatre Company; (8) COCK, by Mike Bartlett, at the Webster Univ. Conservatory; and (9) THE PAJAMA GAME, by George Abbott & Richard Bissell, Richard Adler & Jerry Ross, at the Webster Univ. Conservatory.

Painter discusses his father lyricist Richard Adler ("Pajama Game" and "Damn Yankees") and his own choice to take his rich musical background as inspiration for a life as a painter rather than a musician.

In this episode of the Endurance Sportswire Podcast, Richard Adler, who has spent over 30 years working with some of the most iconic brands in the sports industry, will share with you how he led the expansion of Philadelphia Triathlon, LLC from one event in Philadelphia to 11 events around the USA, and then sold it. Additionally, find out how Richard got involved in the Philly Cycling Classic unintentionally, and how he was able to then bring the biggest one day pro bike race in the USA, back from the dead.

Nothing's quite the same as the Pajama Game – or the talented team of Richard Adler and Jerry Ross who brought Broadway two of its biggest hits in the 1950s: the back-to-back smashes The Pajama Game and Damn Yankees.

Richard Adler who, with Jerry Ross, wrote both THE PAJAMA GAME and DAMN YANKEES, passed away on June 23rd. Tonight we celebrate his career.