Tuesday, October 17, 2017

Hate Groups and Why They Matter

Well, the Elected Narcissist Who Shall Not Be Named made a bit of dubious history this last weekend. For the first time in modern history, a sitting president has appeared at a conference of a hate group. Specifically the “Values Voter Summit,” hosted by the Family Research Council. That Steve Bannon was also was a featured speaker is key to understanding what happened here.

I decided to write about this, not primarily because of its political implications - it would be a full time job to write about politics - but because of a more personal connection here.

Regular readers of my blog will have noted that I have mentioned my own break with our longtime church, and also that I do not consider myself an Evangelical any longer. Mind you, I am someone who has been active in church life and ministry for more than 30 years. My children were raised in Evangelicalism, as was I. So this is no minor rupture. Evangelicalism has lost one of its most devoted members - and another generation besides. Why? Although any decision like this is complicated, one reason stands about above the others, and is the reason I didn’t just leave a particular church, but the entire tradition.

Our former church, and (white) Evangelicalism as a whole embraces - or at least tolerates - hate groups.

In the case of our former church, leadership went behind our backs to promote a hate group in my kids’ Sunday School (specifically the American Family Association - which I very much intend to write more about in the future). This was despite our clear objection.

The problem is, it isn’t just the one church. American (white) Evangelicalism is wedded to the politics of hate. No, not every Evangelical, obviously. There are good people in Evangelicalism, just as there are in Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Islam, and Atheism. But the overall system and tribe is wedded to a version of politics that places Republicanity (loyalty to the GOP) above the teachings of Christ.

So we left. We removed our children from this toxic environment.  And I personally am never going back. 


But what I want to specifically talk about in this post is what a hate group is, and why it matters. Let’s start with a definition.

Hate Speech: (n) speech that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability. (Dictionary.com)

In the laws of some countries (not the United States, which does not outlaw hate speech), such speech is defined as:

Speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which incites violence or prejudicial action against a protected group, or individual on the basis of their membership of the group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected group, or individual on the basis of their membership of the group.

Here is the FBI definition of “Hate Crime”:

[A] criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.

The reason I bring the definitions into this is that whenever you point out to a conservative (or particularly an Evangelical) that a particular group is a designated hate group, the defense is always something along the lines of “[group] is only considered a hate group because it believes gay sex is a sin.”

This is baloney.

Here in the US, the Southern Poverty Law Center is the best source for the list of hate groups, and it doesn’t consider mere differences in opinion about human sexuality to be sufficient to designate a group as a hate group. Rather, they use specific criteria.

The Southern Poverty Law Center defines a hate group as an organization that – based on its official statements or principles, the statements of its leaders, or its activities – has beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.

Let me put this together into my own summary of the issue. As I see it, hate groups do the following:

  1. Tell lies about certain groups of people.
  2. Stir up fear and hatred against those groups.
  3. Advocate the use of political or economic power, or even violence against members of that group.

Or, to sum it up even more simply:
  1. Lies
  2. Fear/hatred
  3. Harm

It’s that simple.

Now, let’s look at the claim. If the claim was true, then nearly every Evangelical church in the United States would be labeled a hate group. One estimate I was able to find on the number of churches in America was that there are nearly 400,000 churches in the US. (That’s about 1 for every 1000 people, incidentally.) The Southern Baptist Convention (the largest Protestant denomination in the US) alone counts in excess of 47,000 churches. And yet, you won’t find them on the SBC hate list. (The SBC gets mentioned occasionally because it appoints people associated with hate groups to leadership positions, however. But despite its recent issues with sexual obsession and racism, it is NOT listed as a hate group.)

So, clearly, merely being a non-affirming church won’t get you labeled a hate group.

The key difference is what I noted above. Look for the three prongs: lies, hate, and harm.

And let me give you an example here. There was, not too long ago, a person I know very well, who believed homosexual acts were sinful. This person, however, knew that it was wrong to tell lies about LGBTQ people, or to try to get others to fear and hate them, and this person would never dream of trying to harm LGBTQ people by denying them employment, housing, health care - or by advocating for their prosecution, imprisonment, or (horrors!) execution. That person was me in my 20s. And there were - and are - many like that me in Evangelicalism. In fact, that was how I was raised!

However, that is not what these designated hate groups do. In fact, they clearly meet the three criteria:

  1. They tell lies about LGBTQ people. Chief among them is the lie that LGBTQ people are a bunch of sexual predators, out to rape the children. Also, that there is a “gay agenda” to that effect. A few others would be the historically ludicrous one that the Nazis were a bunch of gays (actually, they murdered the gays along with the Jews and other ethnic minorities…), that being gay is bad for your health, and that being gay is contagious, like a virus. These lies have been disproved over and over. And that is even before one gets to the theological lies. Those are obviously beyond the scope of what the SPLC does - and the scope of this post. The lies are told for a particular reason:
  2. These hate groups stir up fear of LGBTQ people. That is the whole point of the lies. Stir up fear, and then use that fear to raise money. This is the only reason organizations like the AFA exist. They prey on gullible and fearful parents (usually Baby Boomers) and then feed them a steady diet of conspiracy theories about all the nefarious liberals/atheists/gays/brown people out to destroy white America. And people send them money. And then they focus on:
  3. Lobbying for laws to do harm to LGBTQ people. This can go all the way from using a fear of same-sex marriage to elect open white supremacists to the White House to pushing “religious freedom” laws making it legal to deny LGBTQ people the right to access to the basics of society - housing, employment, healthcare, government services, to calling for the criminalization of gay sex. And yes, some of the featured speakers at the “Values Voter Summit” have called for just that. (That includes the likely future senator from Alabama, Roy Moore, who has said that we should imprison or execute gays.) Heck, some of the speakers have openly called for the murder of gay people. (Hello, Kevin Swanson - no relation, thank God…)

I am not going to list all of the ways in which the various players in the Values Voter Summit qualify for hate group status. The SPLC website has information, or you can spend some quality time with Google. Probably the best site for primary sources is Right Wing Watch, which has painstakingly recorded and linked the actual audio, video, and text of the specific things these hate groups have said and written.

But I didn’t need to go look up audio for most of this. I lived it. During our time in the Bill Gothard cult, I heard ALL of this crap. And during my years as a homeschooler, this was in the background. Sure, my parents didn’t buy all - or even most - of it. But it was in the air we breathed. It has been pushed strongly for the last several decades.

And unfortunately, it has gone increasingly mainstream in American Evangelicalism.

Now, let’s talk a bit about an uncomfortable truth.

Hatred toward LGBTQ people goes hand in hand with racism and misogyny.

If you had told me this in my teens, I would have laughed.

After the last election, I was faced with the inescapable conclusion that the Left has been all too correct about this.

Hatred toward LGBTQ people does indeed come from the same dark place in the soul as racism and misogyny. And one tends to be associated with the other.

Here is where Steve Bannon comes in. Bannon has bragged about making Brietbart.com into a platform for the “alt right.” Which is a hip way of saying “white supremacy and misogyny.” He has praised the neo-Nazi novel The Camp of the Saints, which envisions the destruction of “white civilization” by immigrants and native brown and black people. I mean, this shouldn’t even be debatable. The guy is solidly and obviously a white supremacist with a political agenda that matches that of the KKK.

And here he is at a “moral values” conference. Apparently, one of those “values” is whiteness. (And don’t think those outside the Evangelical bubble haven’t noticed...this one - brought to my attention by an African American - and Christian - friend of mine -  is worth watching…)

For that matter, the AFA is deeply committed to a white supremacist worldview and political agenda. I hope to write about this in more detail in the future, but the AFA has always stood for hostility toward immigrants, denigration of African Americans, contempt for the poor, fear and hatred of Islam, religious supremacy, racial and cultural supremacy, opposition to feminism, and glorification of the middle class white culture of the past. Oh, and the AFA was a big supporter of Le Toupee. Big surprise! (Yes, that's Bryan Fischer, who was supposedly dismissed from the AFA for saying African Americans "rut like rabbits".. of COURSE he is still part of the organization.)  Again, I intend, when I have time, to write a fairly exhaustive post laying out (with links) all the appalling stuff the AFA and its personalities have said over the last couple of decades. They have thoroughly earned the designation as a hate group. (Let me be clear - I pointed this out to church leadership a few years ago - and apparently it was ignored.) 

 Ah, one of the gems from Bryan Fischer, STILL writing for the AFA...because one of the tenets of Christianity is CLEARLY to tell poor sick brown people to go someplace else and die, so that deserving rich white people don't have to pay for the undeserving poor...Christ would surely approve...

And here is another gem, a sentiment shared by Dominionists everywhere, including Roy Moore and (historical revisionist) David Barton. So nice to have lies  like this taught to your children...see Thomas Jefferson...

Oh, and one more thing. About the time we left our church, several leaders were re-posting stuff from Milo Yiannopoulos. Yeah, the openly white supremacist and misogynist guy, who would end up excusing statutory rape (thus giving credence to the lie that gays are out to get the kiddies...yeah, good move there…) It has been rather like discovering the white robe and hood in people’s closets. Definitely enough for me to realize that someone like me would never be truly welcome in Evangelicalism - but the Steve Bannons of the world will be more than welcome - celebrated.

Again, to be clear, this isn’t everyone in Evangelicalism. There are so many great people there! But great people are in the Mormon church too - I know many of them - but that doesn’t mean that the system itself is okay. I have enough serious theological differences with the LDS faith that I would never consider converting. Likewise, I have enough moral and political differences (and yes, theological differences - I don’t believe Christ would be okay with either white supremacy or social darwinism) that I can not consider Evangelicalism to be a morally acceptable place to raise my kids. The good people are not enough to overcome the poisonous politics and unchristian theology.

This is why hate groups matter. They cannot be dismissed as a mere fringe, unfortunately. Lies, fear and hatred, and the intent to harm others have become endemic to our religious and political discussion here in the US. And they have become a key part of the indoctrination of our children within Evangelicalism, which is why I left.

Why do we even want to be associated with hate groups?

This is my question. I mean, I don’t see anything about even the most literalist and conservative approach to Christianity that should justify telling lies, stirring up hatred and fear against those outside the tribe, and trying to harm others. The whole idea just seems contrary to the spirit of Christianity and the teachings of Christ.

Furthermore, it seems rather risky to tie religious faith to a particular political party, or even a particular political point of view. Shouldn’t Christianity be bigger than politics? Shouldn’t the call to love our neighbor be paramount over party loyalty?

Do we really want to send the message that those who do not adhere to a particular political philosophy aren’t welcome?

Do we want to have the reputation as a bunch of racists, misogynists, and bigots?

Or, as much to the point, do we really think Christianity is for whites? Really?

A friend from law school sent me this article from Scot McKnight, which really resonates with me on why I cannot in good conscience call myself an “Evangelical” any longer, and why I cannot raise my kids in that tradition. The word “Evangelical” now means “Trump voter.” Or, more broadly: Evangelical = Republican = Trump supporter = White Nationalism = Affinity for hate groups. Sadly, this is pretty much diametrically opposed to the original meaning of Evangelicalism back in the early 1800s, which supported Feminism, opposed slavery, advocated for social justice, and generally went against the wealthy establishment. How things have changed…

Money quote from McKnight’s post:

“Then came Reagan and Jerry Falwell, James Dobson and James Kennedy and theology and sociology were usurped by politics. Evangelical meant Republican. What they didn’t recognize is that “evangelical” became “whiteness” and many Latin Americans and African Americans and Asian Americans were excluded. Then came 81% for Trump. Something’s very very wrong here.”

“Don’t call me ‘evangelical’ if you mean Republican!”

Theology has indeed been usurped by politics. And that is why Steve Bannon is a featured speaker at a “Values” conference, Milo Yiannopoulos and Ayn Rand are adored by church leaders, and the symbol of 1980s greed, sexual license, racism, and nativist demagoguery gets 81% of the white Evangelical vote.

And why a seemingly elementary moral question - should hate group propaganda be part of what we teach our children - is something the American Evangelicalism gets consistently wrong.

And why I am done. And why my children will not be raised in the Evangelical faith tradition.

Stop whistling past the graveyard on this. My family is just the tip of the iceberg. The younger generation is abandoning Evangelicalism in droves. Gee, I wonder why?

***

Just an observation: this election and its aftermath has done more than all the Richard Dawkins of the world have ever done to convince people of the moral bankruptcy of American Christianity - particularly Evangelicalism. The very fact that Steve Bannon is welcome at a homophobic conference is the strongest possible argument that opposition to gay marriage is indistinguishable from vicious racism. And so many Evangelicals - including my former pastor - are so eager to excuse hate groups and their poisonous teachings rather than take a moral stand against lies, fear and hatred, and harm of other groups. I stand by my prediction on the morning after the election: 20 years from now, Evangelicals will be wondering why the young people have left, and why Evangelicalism is reduced to a bunch of old white people, it won’t be because they didn’t focus on apologetics, or because they didn’t spend enough time on systematic theology. It will be because they allowed politics - and hate - to take precedence over the teachings of Christ. “Evangelicalism” now - and in the future - will look an awful lot like Steve Bannon, Ayn Rand, and Donald Trump. And not the least bit like Jesus Christ.

***

Just a reminder: I blogged about this before the election. Le Toupee managed to slander and show contempt for every single group in the hate speech list:

National origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability.

And we aren’t even a full year into his term, and he has taken time to cause harm to EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. OF. THESE. GROUPS.

Ask yourself if this reflects the character and teachings of Christ...

And then, think of the deathly silence about all of this in the last few years. Um, yeah. I had to endure several screeds from the pulpit about homosexuality. And not one freaking word about racism or social darwinism. Or one freaking bit about, let’s see, sexual assault, slander against immigrants. Or one rebuke against hate group affiliation, immersion in white supremacy, or contempt for the poor. Nope, it was too damn clear that it you could hold any political opinion - as long as it was Republican - and Trumpian - in every respect. Others need not bother.

***

Before commenting, please read my comment policy. In the context of this post, I don’t need an argument about why I am wrong and why Evangelicalism is right. I have left. I am not going back. And you have likely lost two generations - probably more - as a result. Maybe instead of arguing you need to look in the mirror. It isn’t me that has chosen hate groups over keeping the next generation. It isn’t me that has made Evangelicalism = Trump. Take a look in the mirror.

Sunday, October 15, 2017

Dolly, Hamlet, and Frankenstein

It has been a bit of a crazy couple of weeks with Symphony, so I never got a chance to write up Hamlet. Then, we did back to backs on the other two this weekend. So, I decided just to do three quick reviews. All three of these plays have iconic characters which are challenging to play.

Hello, Dolly! (Stars Theater)

I got a chance to play Hello, Dolly! half a lifetime ago, and my wife knows pretty much every song by heart. It is a fun show, with some lines I dig out every so often.

Unfortunately, this particular show was a bit disappointing. While the singing was generally good, the acting was a bit uneven. The sets were also pretty minimalist by Stars’ standards. I was a bit surprised, since the last two shows I saw at Stars (Ragtime and The 39 Steps) were both quite good. I do wonder if the uncertainty regarding their lease led to some belt tightening. In any case, it was enjoyable, just not up to the usual standard. 

Minnie (Caitlin Wolfenstein), Barnaby (Lucas Shearson), Irene (Amanda Locke), and Cornelius (Kyle Ball)
 
 Horace (Bob Anderson) and Dolly (Lori LaMacchia)

Newcomer Lori LaMacchia was good in the title role, as were Kyle Ball as Cornelius and usual suspect Bob Anderson (who played multiple roles in The 39 Steps) as Horace Vandergelder. Some of the others seem to have been picked for vocal chops rather than strong acting. A couple of high school brothers ended up taking parts at the last minute (according to the program), and, while they acquitted themselves well overall, the youth showed a bit.

Again, I had fun, but it wasn’t as good as previous Stars shows.

Hamlet (Bakersfield College)

My wife and I attended quite a few of BC’s Shakespeare productions during our dating and pre-kid years. Back then, Randy Messick was the theater professor; my wife took his Shakespeare class a few times during nursing school as a change of pace. Well, Messick retired a few years back, and got ordained as an Anglican priest. One wonders if a few times of playing Friar Lawrence prepared him for his second career. Through the years, his hair has gotten shorter (and has now disappeared altogether) while his beard has gotten longer and longer.

Taking over for Messick is Brian Sivesind, a local theater veteran who we have also watched since our dating years - he was in The Comedy of Errors, at the first iteration of The Empty Space, then called Stone Soup. Sivesind continues as executive director at The Empty Space.

Believe it or not, neither my wife nor I had ever seen Hamlet live. The closest we came was seeing the Benedict Cumberbatch version on the big screen. Because BC’s Shakespeare plays are performed right around our opening Symphony concerts, we often struggle to fit it in, and the timing had just never worked out. That was the case this year, almost. We would have loved to have gone and seen Rosencranz and Guildenstern Are Dead, but there was no date I didn’t rehearse, sadly. But at least we got Hamlet.

This production was a bit of a “who’s who” of local theater, with plenty of familiar names, both students and pros. Ryan Lee, who I have praised for his work in a number of other local productions over the last couple of years, was outstanding in the title role. While I haven’t yet seen him attempt a humorous role, he has a way with brooding characters (as evidenced by his performance as Tom in The Glass Menagerie), as the straight man in a screwball comedy (Arsenic and Old Lace), and as a subtle character in a tragedy (Of Mice and Men). I thought Lee’s interpretation of the character in this play was compelling, consistent, and emotive. I also should mention some of the athletic moves - not everyone could pull off that kind of choreography.

Sivesind as King Mark was also solid. Sivesind is pretty delightful as a villain - he was chilling and malevolent in Othello last year, for example. Messick took a turn as the stuffy Polonius - a role he had never played before. Bob Kempf was hilarious as the chief gravedigger, and Nolan Long, who seems built to play humorous bit characters played off him as the assistant. Nancee Steiger, who has show some real range as the fragile Laura in The Glass Menagerie and as the lead in If/Then, brought a totally different vibe to Guildenstern, giving him(her) a bit of a tic and a too loud laugh. Carlos Vera, who seems to be in just about everything these days, as Laertes. Vera seems to have a bit of a menacing edge to every part he plays, whether Cassio in Othello or Carlson in Of Mice and Men.

I want to also mention Tevin Joslen as Horatio. Joslen was last seen (by me at least) in the role of Coalhouse Walker in Ragtime, and he has a huge stage presence. Playing opposite to Lee isn’t easy, as he tends to own the stage, but Joslen and Lee had real chemistry in portraying the close relationship of Hamlet and Horatio. Both of these young men have real promise. 

 Hamlet (Ryan Lee) and Horatio (Tevin Joslen)

There were a couple of performances which were disappointing mostly because of how good the actors usually are. Amy Hall as Gertrude and Shelbe McClain as Ophelia both suffered a bit from the venue. BC’s outdoor theater is large and, well, outdoors, and projection can sometimes be an issue. Particularly when facing to the side. While I thought both performances were good overall, I lost a few lines to low speaking volumes for each of them. Mostly, this is a minor complaint, but adapting to the venue is important. Outdoor performance is a much different beast, particularly if no amplification is to be used.

BC chose to make a bit of a change to the script in this case. I am not a Shakespeare purist, exactly. I find setting plays in different eras to be perfectly acceptable. However, I am not sure how I feel about this one.

As the play opens, we see the very last scene, where Hamlet bids Horatio tell the tale. At that point, the play is told as a flashback. When we get to the end, the lines were (if I am recalling correctly) changed just a bit so that we don’t get the epilogue in total. (I think a few lines were cut. I wish I had had my script to check it at the time, and two weeks have gone by now.) Finally, at the very end, Horatio, having told his story, drinks the poisoned cup as well.

The sets were minimalist in this case, with copied pages of the script used as wallpaper on everything. In between scenes, echo-y fragments of the lines were played in a mashup. Rather atmospheric, and fitting to a low-budget operation by students. The acting more than made up for it. Naturally, BC’s stuff is going to be uneven, since the point is to give students a chance to act. This particular one was stronger than most. Kudos to Sivesind for maintaining the high standards that Messick brought to the program.

Young Frankenstein (The Empty Space)

This musical was a new one to me. In fact, my experience of Mel Brooks is pretty much limited to Get Smart. Yeah, I know. I am just not that much of a movie person, and I really don’t remember the 1970s very well. (Give me a break, I was born in 1976…)

But I couldn’t resist a chance to see Young Frankenstein, particularly since a number of friends really love it. I was not disappointed. The Empty Space has been outstanding the last few years, and have managed to put on several musicals despite limited space.

My wife and I brought the four oldest kids, and they had a blast. However, I will caution that there is a certain amount of sexual content in the play, so your parenting may vary. We are not particularly puritanical, in spite of (because of?) our Fundamentalist upbringing, so we went ahead and brought the kids. I should not be surprised that the older three got a lot of the jokes - including the innuendo. After all, they are good at wordplay, and read voraciously. I am reminded of the time Amanda and I saw Much Ado About Nothing early in our marriage, and we were the only younger people who got all the naughty jokes. Never underestimate the innocent looking ones…

For those unfamiliar with the plot, the young Frankenstein (“it’s pronounced Frahnk-en-steen!”) is the grandson of the familiar character. As this play is a spoof on the old Hollywood movies, rather than the more thoughtful original book by Mary Shelley, it doesn’t line up with the book, but contains the gloomy castle, and Igor. (“It’s pronounced EYE-gore!”) It is also set in “Transylvania,” even though the accents, names, and foreign words are all German. (Including some German swear words. Don’t ask me why I know them. My German is pretty much limited to food terms, musical terms, and vulgarities.)

Anyway, Frankenstein inherits the old castle back in the old country, but must go there in person, or the property will escheat (go back to the state.) When he gets there, he is met by Igor (grandson of the original), taken to the castle where he meets Frau Blucher, and sees his grandfather’s ghost, who convinces him to “join the family business.” Things, naturally, go awry.

I won’t spoil it more than that. Along the way, the old tropes are spoofed, there are fun song and dance numbers, and the monster gets to do a soft shoe Irving Berlin number.

The cast was outstanding, as usual. Kyle Gaines is quite young, but he has acting in his blood. His mother Julie was also in this production, as well as in Arsenic and Old Lace. (His grandmother had a few big screen parts back in the day, and has done ad work up until the last few years.) Kyle got the part of Young Frankenstein, and he was fabulous. He has a good voice, and an expressive face, and thoroughly inhabited the part. I hadn’t seen him before, although I understand he has been in other plays around town. I also approve of the little mustache he grew for the occasion. Perfect. 

 Young Frankenstein (Kyle Gaines)

Igor was played by Perrin Swanson (no relation), last seen in You Can’t Take It With You as the nerdy xylophone player Ed. Swanson is skinny as all get out, and in black tights with a hump and hood, would have been funny even if he hadn’t done anything. But he was hilarious to watch and listen to. Particularly when he danced, but the rest of the time too. Perfect part for him, and the chemistry between him and Kyle Gaines was excellent.

Igor (Perrin Swanson)

Julie Gaines got the part of Frau Blucher, in which she was appropriately creepy. Perhaps the best was her number “He Was My Boyfriend,” where she describes her love affair with the elder Frankenstein in awkwardly lurid terms. Kyle looked appropriately horrified. (One can only imagine watching one’s mother singing this song. Acting families must be fun…)

Victoria Lusk is an Empty Space regular, usually taking smaller parts. It was fun to see her flirt and pout her way through the part of Inga. Likewise, the other point of the love triangle, Elizabeth, was played by Marti Hoyt in an appropriately uptight and controlling manner.

Inga (Victoria Lusk), Igor (Perrin Swanson), and Frau Blucher (Julie Gaines)
 
Steve Evans brought the monster to life in a convincing manner as well, both in the original form, and then as the suddenly intelligent monster who “talks like Noel Coward.”

 
The Monster (Steve Evans)

Director Ron Warren, who is a longtime veteran of the stage, also played the ghost of the old Dr. Frankenstein. Warren is bigger than life on stage, with a voice that could fill a much larger venue, and a naturally sinister aspect that he plays for all it is worth. (If my memory serves, he played Caliban in The Tempest, which was the first Shakespeare I took my older daughters to see.) Warren is also a fantastic knitter - his knit creatures have graced the theater’s art gallery - and knows my wife from the local guild. He also serves as technical director for The Empty Space. Really one of the veteran theater guys who works behind the scenes to make good things happen.

As is the usual case, The Empty Space used creative sets, making the most of a very small space. The sliding door used in this play was a nice touch.

I really can’t think of any negatives to this production. The kids laughed the whole way through it, and we had a great time.