Sunday, June 7, 2009


A Broadway show that I think is under appreciated is Jekyll & Hyde by Steve Cuden, Frank Wildhorn, and Leslie Bricusse. This may be due in some part to the fact that Baywatcher and Knight Rider David Hasselhoff had the lead role when the show finally closed. He was, how shall I say it, NOT Robert Cuccioli or even Sebastian Bach, two others who played the lead.

Regardless of who played the lead, there were a bunch of good songs. For starters we have Facade:

There's a face that we wear
In the cold light of day -
It's society's mask,
It's society's way,
And the truth is
That it's all a facade!

There are preachers who kill!
There are killers who preach!
There are teachers who lie!
There are liars who teach!
Take yer pick, dear -
"Cause it's all a facade!

If we're not one, but two,
Are we evil or good?
Do we walk the fine line -
That we'd cross if we could?
Are we waiting -
To break through the facade?

Facade introduces the concept of "evil" and "good" coexisting. The subject is explored further in Good and Evil.

My philosophy
Any child can see -
"Good is evil -
And therefore
All evil is good"

How do you tell evil from good?
Evil does well - good not so good!
Evil's the one that is free everywhere -
Good is the one that they sell!
You must decide which is heaven -
Which is hell!

Evil is everywhere -
Good doesn't have a prayer!
Good is commendable -
Evil's dependable!
Evil is viable
Good's unreliable!
Good may be thankable!
Evil is bankable!

Where does it all lead? Murder, of course:

Try to ignore the influence of Mary Poppins in this scene...

Murder, murder -
It's a curse, man!
Murder, murder -
It's perverse, man!
Murder, murder -
Nothing's worse than
Bloody murder
In the night!

Murder, murder -
Or our doorstep!
Murder, murder -
So watch your step!
Murder, murder -
Take one more step,
You'll be murdered
In the night!

What drove me to Jeykll & Hyde was Jeffrey Feldman's article The Politics of Murder.

The violent killing of yet another American doctor at the hands of yet another right-wing political activist forces us to ask a crucial question: Why does the right-wing anti-abortion movement in America repeatedly give rise to people who see murder as a legitimate form of protest?

The answer does not lie in any single procedure (e.g. "late term abortions"), but in the violent rhetoric that defines a political movement.

The murderer of Dr. George Tiller is the product of a political movement that has so thoroughly expanded the definition of "murder" that it now includes everything and everyone who rejects or even questions the idea that a zygote is a citizen. Until that movement changes its focus, it will continue to give rise to activists who kill doctors.


No matter how many or how few late term abortions are performed, so long as the right-wing anti-abortion movement continues to fold dissent into an ever-expanding definition of "murder," then the right-wing will continue to give rise to activists who kill doctors.
These sentiments were echoed by Jane Ahlin in her column Abortion Debate: Poisonous Rhetoric, Mainstream Silence...

Be clear. No one wants to suppress free speech or compromise freedom of religion. But good people understand the power of language. And in a democratic society, good people don’t call other good people “murderers.”


As for the many Americans ambivalent on the abortion issue? Ambivalence is inadequate. Consider what common ground might look like, and insist on civility in achieving it.

Ambivalence IS inadequate. Insist on civility. We have a choice between good and evil. We can all do better. We must...


goprairie said...

Talk to me about capital punishment. Tell me when it is absolutely OK to kill a person. When we are sure the eye witness saw the person kill someone when we now know that eye witness accounts are as inaccurate as throwing a dart in a dark room? Yet, the same people who scream murder at the deliberately caused end of the development of a fetus will demand the execution of the criminals on death row. Even as we find that some percentage of them are innocent, based on new science of DNA analysis. If we find one person erroneously on death row, isn't that good enough to stop it all now? Can there ever be a abolute certain reason to execute someone? Why must we do so? Won't locking them away prevent future crime? Is there anyone who ever said they were going to commit a crime but stopped because they remembered you could be killed for that? We know the justice system can never be perfect so we can never be 100% sure. We know killing the killer does not prevent any future murders by potential murderers. Yet we cling to this quaint tradition. Why?
The attempt to define absolute good and evil and draw lines fails at the examination of each case. Let the anti-abortion protestor shut up and listen to a couple of actual cases of women who seek abortions and why. Do they ever do that? Do they have any idea why women seek abortions? Have they looked at a single case and drawn out some conclusions on what the life of the mother, the fetus, other children already born into the family, what those lives might look like with and without the abortion? Do they dare look at a few of these cases? Do they offer any support to the problems that the lack of availablity of abortion might cause? Do they look at the real root causes of the NEED for abortion and try to focus some attention on solving them?
It is a ritual way to announce to a certain type of people that you are 'good' because you are anti-abortion. But few have actually looked into real reasons abortions are needed and real consequences of illegalization. It is a simple-minded declaration to make, bolstered by a group who finds it easier to throw time and money at bllboards and posters and accumulations of white crosses on roadside lawns that the real work of actual problem identification and actual involvement with time and compassion in solving real problems for real people.

Chuckles said...

"The attempt to define absolute good and evil and draw lines fails at the examination of each case."

I dislike generalizations, however...

It may be said that liberals tend to see things in too many shades of gray, while conservatives only see black and white. I think I'll go with the libs on this one...

Chuckles said...


Help yourself...