'I Wish He Was Funnier'

IMG_6192Oh, the list of thoughts that try to prevent us from taking the risk of loving wholeheartedly is quite long, but there are a few that always top the list, buzzing and darting in and around your ears like mosquitos in summer. I recently wrote about the “I wish he was taller” thought, and I’ve written extensively about the “I’m not attracted” thought. This week’s thought that topped the charts of my sessions was “I wish he was funnier.”

Here’s an excerpt from a client (published with permission):

“Over the past few weeks, I feel that I’ve been picking C apart in my head, specifically when we are with groups of close friends and family. I’ve recently been attaching this anxiety to his sense of humor, and how he may not be as funny as I wish he were. Sometimes he doesn’t laugh at my family’s jokes and vice versa and sometimes he tells corny jokes of his own. I think my family has always placed so much emphasis on having a good sense of humor, and I think that’s something I find important as well.”

This client is well-versed enough in my work to understand that the thought isn’t about the thought. In other words, she knows that embedded in the thought is her own addiction to approval and caring too much about what other people think. A diagnostic question that confirms this root cause – and one that I often ask clients when they believe that the thought is true and must be taken at face value (and therefore is just cause for walking away) – is, “If you and your partner were alone on a desert island, how much would you care about his sense of humor?” The answer is always some version of, “Not that much.”

For this spoke of the “I wish he was funnier wheel” (caring what others think and addicted to approval), the medicine is to learn to fill your inner well of Self so that you’re internally referenced instead of externally motivated. This is not a quick-fix and requires a deep commitment to turn inward and commit to practices – meditation, journaling, prayer, creative expression – that reconnect you to your center of wellness. When you’re filled up from the inside-out, you naturally care less about the approval and opinions of others. The work is less about trying to get rid of what’s “negative” and more about growing the good and compassionate actions that lead to self-love and self-trust. When we plant enough flowers, they shade out the weeds.

We then dissected the thought further and discovered several other spokes of her wheel: her own self-judgement and her desire for her partner to heal her sense of inadequacy among them. She was able to identify the place in her that is constantly judging herself, especially in social situations, and how afterwards she reviews the conversations and nit-picks each nuance and subtlety of what she said. As she stated above, she’s realizing that her parents place a high premium on humor, and in fact told her growing up that humor was the most important trait in a partner. This led her not only to expect that of her partner but also of herself. And when she found that lacking – at least in her own self-critical eyes – it led to self-judgement.

Every family has a code of values that is communicated either overtly or covertly. For some families, the highest premium is placed on intelligence, so for those sons and daughters their intrusive thought will often center on the “Is my partner smart enough?” spike. And I have worked with many clients who come from families who place social fluency at the center of their wheel. This causes not only a pressure to find a mate who is socially at ease, but also a pressure on oneself to attain these ideals. This is how the externalization of self-trust is born: from well-meaning parents who focus on how you perform and meeting external ideals instead of celebrating your intrinsic qualities.

We continued our excavation process and discovered that, following on the heels of the self-judgement spoke of her wheel, was a belief that if her partner was funnier then she would feel better about her own perceived inadequate sense of humor. This is another way that we project onto our partners: We expect our partner to pick up the slack where we feel lacking in the hopes that it will heal our own (misperceived) deficiency. This is a fantasy, of course, and the work, again, is to turn inward and meet ourselves in our own hurt places. For this client, as for many others, that means seeing herself as she is – which is more introverted than she realized – and the compensatory behaviors she developed early in life to cover-up the intrinsic way she’s wired that differs from the family value code.

By the way, as I shared with this client, humor isn’t actually the most important trait in a partner. And, contrary to what the culture teaches, neither is chemistry, attraction, intelligence, or any other external quality. In my book, and anyone steeped in the world of relationships will likely share this view, the most important trait in a partner is the willingness to dive two feet in and learn about love together.

How do we work with this thought? As I’ve shared in many other posts and extensively in my Break Free From Relationship Anxiety E-Course, the same basic work applies to all thoughts:

  1. We must first name the thoughts as a projection. You may not believe that it’s a projection, but unless it’s a true red flag, it’s important to name it as such. Naming creates a space between you and the thought so that you can step back and objectively work with it. It’s when you believe the thought is true that you slip down the anxiety slope that leads straight to inner hell.
  2. We then ask, “How do I feel inadequate?” or “What aspect of this perseveration relates to me?” or “What is this thought protection me from feeling?” Remember, whenever we’re focusing on our partner’s so-called deficiencies that manifest as “not enough” (not funny enough, not tall enough, not intelligent enough, not social enough, not attractive enough), it’s often a projection of our own sense of inadequacy. Sometimes it can also be a reflection of lack of connection with ourselves or with partner, which I wrote about here.
  3. Finally we practice seeing and celebrating ourselves exactly as we are instead of how we’ve been taught we should be. This often includes a grieving and healing process where we individuate from our family’s code of values and then learn to create our own.

At this point, you may be asking: But I find other people funny, like my co-workers and friends funny, so clearly I’m able to experience humor. Doesn’t that mean I’m supposed to be with one of them, or someone like them? Short answer: There’s no risk there. You may feel open-hearted and free-spirited with co-workers and friends and fall prey to the alluring and convincing belief that that means that you’re with the wrong partner, but you would be barking up the wrong tree. It’s only in our most intimate relationships, and for most people that means their romantic partner, that our deepest fears are stirred up and activated.

But here’s the lifeline that most people don’t tell you about, and one of the through-lines that underscores so much of my work: When you’re in the stronghold of anxiety, and, thus, tightly wound, you’re not going to open. Fear constricts; that’s part of its definition. Anxiety is a killjoy. And when you’re not open, you could be with the most hilarious person in the world and you wouldn’t think he was funny. He could be standing on his head while juggling with his feet and you wouldn’t crack a smile (and would likely find it annoying). Like sex, in order to be in the flow of humor we have to be loose, light, and open inside. Humor is about letting go. Anxiety and letting go are mutually exclusive.

If we’re shut down, we’re simply not going to see clearly. So here it is again: Fear alters perception. Conversely, when you attend to your own unhealed places that are clamoring for attention and you begin to fill your well, connect to your own source of joy, and experience more consistent lightness, you will see your partner differently. He could tell the same joke or use the same voice that you found nails-on-a-chalkboard irritating just months earlier and suddenly you burst out laughing. He hasn’t changed at all. It’s you – and the lens through which you see the world – that changes everything.

The work begins with you, and then is rippled out into our relationships, our community, and our world. That’s why naming these thoughts as projections is the first, and often most difficult step, in healing, as it’s the one that orients you toward the person that needs the focus of your attention: you.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Medicaid Works: 10 Key Facts

This is the next in our “Medicaid Works” blog series, which aims to inform the debate over Medicaid’s future by providing the latest facts and figures on this essential and popular part of the nation’s health care system.

Medicaid provides health coverage to low-income families and individuals, including children, parents, pregnant women, seniors, and people with disabilities.  Here are ten key facts about how Medicaid helps millions of Americans live healthier, more secure lives:

  1. Medicaid provided quality health coverage for 97 million low-income Americans over the course of 2015.  In any given month, Medicaid served 33 million children, 27 million adults (mostly in low-income working families), 6 million seniors, and 10 million persons with disabilities, according to Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates.
  2. Medicaid has cut dramatically the number of Americans without health insurance.  Since the implementation of health reform’s major coverage expansions in 2014, Medicaid and the new health marketplaces have helped cut the number of uninsured Americans from 45 million to 29 million, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates.  States that expanded Medicaid have had significantly greater reductions in the share of residents who were uninsured than non-expansion states (see chart).  By 2020, an estimated 13 million more adults will have enrolled in Medicaid and gained access to affordable health coverage due to health reform. 

 

  1. Medicaid participation is high.  Some 65.6 percent of low-income adults with children who are eligible for Medicaid are enrolled, according to the Urban Institute, a relatively strong participation rate compared to some other programs.  And evidence so far among states adopting health reform’s Medicaid expansion shows substantial increases in overall Medicaid enrollment, which indicates robust participation among expansion-eligible individuals.  In addition, 88.3 percent of eligible children participate in Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), according to the Urban Institute. 
  2. Medicaid has improved access to care for millions, including those with chronic conditions.  A landmark study of Oregon’s Medicaid program found that beneficiaries were 40 percent less likely to have suffered a decline in their health in the last six months than similar people without health insurance coverage.  They were also likelier to use preventive care (such as cholesterol screenings), to have a regular clinic where they could receive primary care, and to receive a diagnosis of and treatment for depression and diabetes.
  3. Medicaid provides significant financial support to low-income beneficiaries.  Medicaid lifted 2.6 million people out of poverty in 2010, equating to a 0.7 percentage-point drop in the poverty rate.  The program cut poverty most among adults with disabilities, children, seniors, African Americans, and Hispanics.  Research from Oregon’s Medicaid program also shows that beneficiaries were 40 percent less likely to go into medical debt or leave other bills unpaid in order to cover medical expenses, and that Medicaid coverage nearly eliminated catastrophic out-of-pocket medical costs.
  4. Medicaid produces long-term educational benefits for kids.  Children who are eligible for Medicaid do better in school and miss fewer school days due to illness or injury.  They’re also likelier to finish high school, attend college, and graduate from college.  Kids who are eligible for Medicaid earn more as adults and experience fewer emergency room visits and hospitalizations, research shows.
  5. Medicaid is cost-effective.  Medicaid’s costs per beneficiary are substantially lower (see chart) and have been growing more slowly than for private insurance.  Medicaid provides more comprehensive benefits than private insurance at significantly lower out-of-pocket cost to beneficiaries, but its lower payment rates to health care providers and lower administrative costs make the program very efficient. 

  1. Medicaid gives states flexibility to design their own programs.  The federal government sets minimum standards, including the categories of people that all states must cover.  Beyond that, states set their own rules, including whom they cover, what benefits they provide, and how they deliver health care services.  As a result, Medicaid eligibility varies substantially from state to state.  Moreover, states have taken advantage of Medicaid’s existing flexibility to improve beneficiary health outcomes while lowering costs by changing how health care is delivered.
  2. Health reform’s Medicaid expansion is saving states money.  The federal government will pay the entire cost of health care for newly eligible beneficiaries through 2016, and many states that have expanded Medicaid have found that it has produced net savings for their budgets.  States will spend just 1.6 percent more on Medicaid and CHIP with the expansion than they would have without health reform, CBO estimates.  Hospitals in expansion states are treating fewer uninsured patients, and the amount of uncompensated care they are providing is declining steeply.  Meanwhile, hospitals in the states that haven’t expanded Medicaid continue to provide large amounts of uncompensated care, and the states are missing the opportunity to leverage billions of dollars in new federal funding through the expansion.
  3. Medicaid expansion supports work.  Charges that health reform discourages poor families from working more don’t match reality.  In states that have adopted health reform’s Medicaid expansion, poor parents can earn substantially more and retain their Medicaid coverage.  In addition, some states have used their program flexibility to further encourage work overall among Medicaid beneficiaries by offering a set of supportive employment services.

Learn more about how Medicaid improves access to health care, its long-term benefits, and why states should expand Medicaid: www.cbpp.org/medicaid-works

 

This post originally appeared on Off the Charts,the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’

More on this Topic

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Conservationists Warn Endangered Species Will Vanish Forever Unless We Act Now

Scientists from around the world are calling for increased efforts to protect many of the Earth’s largest and most enchanting species before humanity wipes them out.

In an open letter published Wednesday in the journal BioScience, 43 wildlife researchers warn of a bleak future where elephants, gorillas and nearly a hundred lesser-known species could disappear from the planet without urgent intervention.

“Under a business-as-usual scenario, conservation scientists will soon be busy writing obituaries for species and subspecies of megafauna as they vanish from the planet,” write the authors, from groups including the Wildlife Conservation Society, Zoological Society of London and Panthera.

Nearly two-thirds of the world’s largest herbivores and carnivores are classified as threatened with extinction by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, which tracks such threats.

But few have garnered any significant attention, said William Ripple, a professor at Oregon State University and the lead author of the letter. Species like the African wild ass and the banteng are suffering alongside the enigmatic rhino and Siberian tiger.

“Extinction is forever,” he said. “For some species, it’s going to be too late if we don’t act soon. You can go down the list; especially among the herbivores, these animals are in obscure tropical locations where people all over don’t know about them.” 

The letter, which Ripple referred to as both a manifesto and a call-to-arms, paints a stark picture about the ongoing trials wildlife face. Humans have hunted, poisoned, eaten and shot many species into near-extinction. Some, like the western black rhino and Vietnamese subspecies of the Javan rhino, have already vanished.

Ripple and the letter’s co-signers drafted a 13-point declaration. Part of it calls on rich nations to shoulder a large burden of future protection efforts were humanity to successfully avert future extinctions. Regions like sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia, which hold the bulk of large wildlife, often lack the budget to conduct such efforts by themselves.

“The onus is on developed countries,” they write. “For conservation efforts to be successful, actions should be taken at all levels by authorities who have the public interest in mind.” 

“I personally think that the governments in the rich countries should bear a lot of the cost,” Ripple said. “We are not even close to the amount of funding for the conservation of these animals and the research needed to describe their situation.”

The authors hope such a declaration, a relatively uncommon move in the scientific community, will help raise awareness about the ongoing plight of the planet’s wildlife. Ripple said such a serious issue “needs to be a priority” that spans beyond a lone moment of outrage over a dead lion or giraffe.

“Without such a transformation, there is a risk that many of the world’s most iconic species may not survive to the twenty-second century,” the letter reads. “We must not go quietly into this impoverished future.”

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Watch Michael Fassbender And Alicia Vikander Recall Their Fairytale Meet-Cute

Behind every great love story is … another love story. 

Michael Fassbender and Alicia Vikander have been busy promoting their new romantic drama, “The Light Between Oceans,” but what everybody really wants to know is how the real-life couple fell in love behind the scenes. 

The duo have been linked together for years, but rarely make appearances with one another at public events. During an interview with Entertainment Tonight, however, the stars recalled the night they first met in a fashion only befitting two of Hollywood’s most in-demand actors. 

“It was sort of there from the beginning, really,” Fassbender told ET about his on- and off-screen chemistry with Vikander.

“We had met at Toronto Film Festival … just on the dance floor,” Vikander revealed. To which Fassbender quipped, “I thought [I was a good dancer] until she started dancing and then I felt like I had two left feet.”

They didn’t start spending quality time together until rehearsals for the “The Light Between Oceans” in 2014, but their connection from the onset was clear. 

However, nothing tanks a relationship faster than a box office bomb, so fingers crossed the film won’t be remembered as the “Gigli” of World War I dramas. 

“The Light Between Oceans” hits theaters Sept. 2.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Developing a Show: Actors v. Producers

If you’re friends with actors, you have probably heard complaints about these two things: 1) off-Broadway often not paying a living wage; 2) payment for their work on in-development projects. The first topic is the focus of a recently circulated petition among actors and I might touch upon it at another time. The second topic made big news in the last year because of the Hamilton actors requesting2016-07-27-1469633940-6121142-equity2.jpg profit sharing due to their participation in the development of the musical. The majority of theater actors I spoke to believe strongly that they contribute to shaping a piece by working with writers, directors, producers, etc. before the show is ever onstage. They think that work should be recognized. But the issue is more complicated than simple profit sharing for developmental labs. It includes, for instance, actors not having any protection for “readings.” I spoke to Actors’ Equity representatives, actors, authors and producers about this and more for this ridiculously long piece.

Actors’ Equity has long been thought of as sort of a union with two masters. Much more than Local 802, the musicians’ union, Equity in a way has to play nice with the Broadway League and other established producing entities, both non-profit and commercial. That is possibly because it’s somewhat easier for musicians to pick up related work beyond the theater whereas theater actors often feel dependent on the theater. (And, yes, this is a simplified version; I’m sure some of you already think I’m a moron.) Equity has to support its members and that is indeed its primary goal, but it has to–or feels it has to–tread carefully as well. This tension is particularly apparent in the way development of shows is treated.

This year the so-called “Developmental Lab” was in the news because of Hamilton. Typically actors in a Lab don’t have profit sharing or right of first refusal. Hamilton was developed with a modified-Lab contract, so the actors had right of first refusal but not profit sharing. Then the show was a hit and actors requested a cut. The producers eventually gave in. (Again, this is simplified, as will everything be in this post.) While the actors waged this battle, there was a ton of press about how horrible the Lab contract is. There seemed to be a perception that it had replaced the “Workshop” contract–which includes both right of first refusal and profit sharing–and all evils in the world would be cured by Equity not allowing it to be used for future productions. I never understood that spin because, while the Lab is bad, it is really not the worst link in the chain.

Readings

Labs were first developed in 2008 and their basic terms were amended in 2013. So if you talk to actors over 40, for most of their careers Labs didn’t exist. I asked 10 actors over 40, each with over five Broadway credits and many more regional and off-Broadway credits (read: people who work), and only two had ever been on an official Workshop contract. Of those two, one had been on one Workshop contract, the other two. That is because being on a real Workshop contract was never that common. Each of these folks have been in dozens and dozens of Readings. What is a Reading? Equity has something called “Stage Reading Guidelines.” This isn’t a contract–it is a way to work without a contract. Basically it must last no more than 29 hours and 14 days. There are a bunch of added guidelines that supposedly make it so producers don’t only use a Reading in developing their shows. For instance, there can only be a maximum of three Readings and, unless there is a special waiver, the Readings per project can be no less than 6 months apart. Only minimal staging is permitted and no choreography; actors are supposed to be on book (so script in hand). Readings can only be done for an invited audience and they can’t be videotaped or recorded. These Guidelines are currently being reviewed by Equity and new ones will hopefully be released soon, but those are the current high points.

It used to be that there was no solicitation of backers permissible at Readings, but even though the Stage Reading Guidelines that can be pulled by the public still list that as a condition, 1st Vice President of Actors’ Equity Paige Price told me that restriction was lifted many years ago. Even when it technically existed it was never honored.

Not only do these Readings come with no profit sharing or right of first refusal, they only pay $100. That is $100 for 29 hours of work–$3.45 per hour–without a contract or any of the protections a contract affords. Think if you’re on unemployment or have to pay for child care or have to stop working at a temp job during the reading period. You actually lose money by doing these as an actor. (If the Reading goes beyond 29 hours an actor must be put on contract, a “Staged Reading Contract,” which offers $500 a week. A Staged Reading Contract also requires producers to adhere to Equity formalities, such as putting up a bond and making benefit contributions. They are less frequently used than the non-contract version.) So why do actors do it? To get in on the ground floor of a new project that you will hopefully stay with. “If I’m not doing something, I might as well be seen,” one younger actress told me. “If I don’t get this role after the reading, maybe the director or producer will remember me. I can’t afford to do it, but I can’t afford not to do it. Some of these readings I’d quit a job to do.”

Now this all sounds ridiculous–$100 for 29 hours?!?!–but it would be one thing if producers stuck with the guidelines, used the Reading as a tool very early in the development of a project and then moved on. Except that isn’t reality. Sure, actors are technically supposed to be on book, but many actors reported to me being urged to be off book (both for themselves and for the good of the show) as powerful people were coming. “Minimal staging” has been stretched and that whole “no choreography” thing, well, sometimes “staging” and “choreography” blend. Also producers don’t just use Readings for the very start and then move on. I know producers who have done readings after out-of-town or off-Broadway engagements. I know producers who have done three Readings and moved to a major stage production after the third, basically never paying actors real money as the show develops.

The obvious question is: Why hasn’t Equity already fixed this? The answer is not easy. From a producer’s perspective, developing a show is expensive and the vast majority of shows do not recoup. The 29 hour musical Reading I described, for which each actor is getting paid a mere $100 and maybe some transportation expense, is often budgeted at $30k to $45k. That represents a significant monetary outlay and it is difficult to convince a producer to pay out even more.

An actor-composer I spoke to is against reigning in the abuses of Readings for just this reason. “Everything is expensive,” he said. “If the price for a Reading goes up any higher it’s going to be even harder to get a producer to do a Reading of my shows. It’s already difficult. As an actor I know wanting to get paid, but I don’t want the world to be only freakin’ things that are known, marketable quantities before the Reading. You make the cost of a Reading high, you get all Andrew Lloyd Webber musicals.” That sort of sentiment is something I heard repeatedly from producers and authors. It’s also occasionally heard by some actors. As much as actors find the Reading system “unconscionable,” some actors worry that if all development was paid for at an acceptable rate, better-known names would do it from Day One and lesser-known names would never get a chance. However that is far from the norm among actors; most say they need a higher pay day.

“I worked on this show for 2 years,” one veteran actress said. “The writers were always calling me and asking me how I thought X scene played in the second reading as opposed to the third reading. So I did three weeks of official work over three readings and then a whole bunch of unofficial work for basically $300. Then I was replaced with a Tony winner before the production. The director acted like I should have been thankful for the opportunity. Opportunity doesn’t prevent me from having to wait tables. It’s insulting.”

Producers have found other ways to get around the already loose Reading Guidelines as well–concerts. Broadway cabaret spot 54 Below often hosts new musicals, either produced by a commercial producer or the venue itself. Last year, when 54 Below and its Programming Director Jennifer Ashley Tepper produced a whole series of 10 musicals, New Musicals at 54, I started hearing actors complaining. You see these things play to a paid audience and they are often recorded and end up on Youtube. The venue isn’t an Equity venue though, so union actors don’t have to be on any sort of union contract to participate in these presentations. While Local 802 pressured 54 Below into entering into a collective bargaining agreement for its musicians in 2015, Price said that Equity “organizing 54 Below would need a tremendous sea change.”

Tepper, who said there are currently no plans to repeat the New Musicals at 54 series, has heard some of the same complaints I have, but she stressed that she believes the shows done at 54 Below are truly concerts. “When people do a show here, we tell them to restrict it to four lead-in lines to a song maximum,” said Tepper. “There are no costumes, no programs. Some people see shows here and think that it is a full show. They don’t know there is an hour more of book.”

Nevertheless some producers I spoke to, in light of the Hamilton hoopla, expressed to me possibly going to 54 Below with new projects rather than risk later royalty participation demands. (After the Hamilton producers decided to grant its actors profit sharing, other producers denounced this decision, likening it with a straight face to me as “negotiating with terrorists.” They continue to believe it destabilized the system, opening them up to claims on all current hits.) 54 Below also is a way for outside producers to present a show without an upfront cost. 54 Below does pay actors when they produce a project. For the shows not produced by 54 Below, producers or writers come to 54 Below with a project and Tepper decides whether it will sell to patrons and, if so, she buys it. Producers choose what to do with the money they make; as it is not union there is no set amount they need to pay actors (who often report not getting paid). But Tepper is right, 54 Below is not a way to present a full show. Whether it is a way to present enough of a show to generate interest from backers is another story.

Most actors I spoke with said they’d rather do a 54 Below concert than a reading because it is much less of a time commitment and at least they can get friends, family and their desired industry folk in to see the show. It’s often hard getting even one ticket to a private Reading. But actors still worry about these concerts, as they do with more full-scale early developmental productions for non-profit organizations such as New York Musical Theatre Festival or New York Stage and Film. (As I’ve written previously, I love seeing shows in-development, so I support public in-development offerings. They are a win-win in my eyes. The equation for actors is trickier.)

It seems there are so many ways to develop shows without giving actors protections moving forward. And, let’s face it, many better-known actors won’t do Readings. They aren’t working for $100 and a bottle of water. So while hope springs eternal and there are many actors who have been with a project from the very first Reading onward, often actors who do Readings are tossed aside with little to show for it other than the experience. While Price noted that “exposure is not the same as payment,” she does believe it has value. And it does, it is just that it’s hard to support oneself on an intangible benefit.

The Lab

There is no collectively bargained-for Lab contract. Indeed in neither the public section nor the members section of the Equity website can you even figure out what a Lab is supposed to be. There are information sheets regarding Workshops and Readings and agreements with theaters throughout the country, but no concrete Lab information. I’ve reviewed final Lab contracts for this story and they tend to be somewhat different. Indeed even how the Lab came about is open to debate, with Equity folks citing different years and processes for how the agreement was developed. One thing every Equity representative is clear on: the Lab has gone beyond what it was originally intended to cover.
2016-07-27-1469634279-87189-Hamiltonposter.jpg
“We developed it because we recognized that development costs became more significant, enhancement money became more significant,” Price said. “There were barriers to development that we wanted to break through with producing partners… But it has become another playground for commercial producers to play in.”

At is inception, according to Price, the Lab was supposed to be used for situations in which a producer wanted to focus on individual elements of the show. For an example, Price used Shuffle Along. Shuffle Along had specific dance Labs where Savion Glover tested out his choreography with his dancers, not necessarily the singing dancers you would need for a Broadway show. According to Price, the Lab was meant to sort of put the “puppet camps” Avenue Q used to have under an Equity contract. Except that was not written anywhere; I’m not sure how people were supposed to know. None of the many actors I spoke to for this post had any idea. Only one or two of the producers acknowledged that was at least the original purpose of the contract.

The Lab is now used to develop all kinds of productions from new musicals (including big-name properties such as Frozen) to revivals (Smokey Joe’s Café for one). During the 2015-2016 season, there were 19 Labs, whereas there were only two Workshops. Most, if not all, of those 19 were pretty fully staged affairs. Price said their actors started vigorously complaining about the contract after Something Rotten!. Something Rotten! had a New York Lab prior to a planned staging at 5th Avenue Theatre in Seattle. The producers then decided to go straight to Broadway. Actors complained this was essentially Broadway rehearsals (without the relevant production contract) masquerading as a Lab. The local actors from Seattle who would have had a right of first refusal had the show been under the appropriate contract for 5th Avenue ended up completely out of luck. To curtail abuses of the Lab contract, Tom Carpenter, Eastern Regional Director/Assistant Executive Director and General Council, says they now open it to only producing members of the Broadway League (unless an exception is granted). The idea being that established members of the Broadway League are somehow more respectful of Equity’s policies.

The Lab contract comes with a higher weekly payment than a Reading or an official Workshop ($1000 as compared to a maximum $757 under the Workshop). It does not generally come with right of first refusal or profit sharing. While there are no guidelines available to check out, Price said the Lab was supposed to be three to four weeks unless there were special circumstances, whereas a Workshop can be eight weeks. Other than that the big difference is really what the actors are getting long-term. Price said while they have not done a fulsome accounting, and so this is from anecdotal evidence, she thinks the Lab has actually benefited some members as compared to the Workshop because it is more money up front per week and few actors would ever collect a significant royalty anyway, because so few shows make money. However other actors note that when a show hits big those royalties mean a ton and in fact workshops are usually longer than Labs so the supposedly higher up-front pay is a fallacy.

While the Lab is often seen as an inferior Workshop, it is better than the Reading in most ways. At one point during our conversation Price stated one of the reasons for it was it offers greater money than a Reading and also did not “kill the momentum” like the six-month wait Reading to Reading. Of course the Workshop would have those same benefits.

Workshops

A ton of people refer to things as “workshops” that are not true Workshops under the Equity definition. True Workshops come with right of first refusal and royalty participation. Musical Workshops are usually at least a few hundreds of thousands of dollars to present. They also come with a little hiccup for a property’s author(s)–if the signatory producer remains with the project, the money comes from the producer’s share of the royalty pool, but if the original producer is no longer attached, the author(s) must be the one to pay the actor out of his/her/their share of the pool.
The way the royalty works is actors as a group usually have 1% of the royalty pool. Writing about royalty pools would take a while, but basically a pool is created for royalty holders that is a percentage of the weekly box office after weekly operating costs have been removed. In other words, actors only receive a cut if the show makes money in a given week. Producers try to make the entire royalty pool under 20% of that money, so 80% or more goes to investors in the project. That is just for the main production, but then there is also a royalty percentage on subsidiary rights. This doesn’t sound like all that much, but it can add up. Actors who worked on Book of Mormon, which had two Workshops in its development phase, are extremely happy with their small bit of income from it.

The Workshop, as has been written about ad nauseum, came out of actors’ contributions to A Chorus Line. It is to recognize actors’ contribution to shaping a work. With A Chorus Line, it was those actors’ stories. Actors, creatives and producers all have different takes on how much actors do shape a regular show (one not about actors) during its development. There is really no way of telling. I’ve been in rehearsal rooms where actors say: “That doesn’t sound right, let’s do this,” and the writer dutifully scribbles it down. Then I’ve been in rehearsal rooms where that seemingly isn’t happening. Actors might be influencing the crafting of the piece in other ways, they might not be. It is difficult to pinpoint all of this and it would be nearly impossible to judge it on a base-by-case basis. If a royalty is to be given, it makes sense to give the royalty no matter what, rather than judge it on a case-by-case basis. Whether you think any royalty at all should be given to actors depends on how much you think actors contribute to shaping a work. There are people who genuinely don’t buy into that part of the narrative.

Miscellaneous

These three contracts don’t even begin to scratch the surface of the contracts actors can be on during development of a show. The off-Broadway contracts have their own musical development tool. There is the extremely low-paying showcase contract some presentations (and more final productions) are under. The New York Musical Theatre Festival has its own Equity code. Shows going to a non-profit League of Resident Theatres (LORT) regional theater can be on a LORT production contract (no royalty) even if they are rehearsing and presenting in New York in advance of that regional run. And there are a ton of other contracts with various theaters and shows throughout the country. “Almost all of the contracts are a part of a bargaining relationship with an individual employer or employer group,” Carpenter explained. “Equity doesn’t just set those terms. They come out of whatever conversation happened in the bargaining relationship.”

What Now

“Ultimately you have a choice not to do” the project if you don’t like the terms, Paige noted. “I know our members don’t want to hear that, but that is their choice.”

That’s not an answer though and I think Paige and the rest of Equity knows that. Currently there are a lot of ways to develop shows without really valuing the actors you use. It’s not an answer to say to actors “then don’t do it” because that sort of defeats the point of the union. So what is the solution? I believe Equity is trying hard to find one. Price noted they had contacted the League about a year ago to get a meeting to discuss such things, and it wasn’t until the Hamilton conflict they finally got that meeting. Equity had a big town hall to hear from their members and plan on having others; they are listening. Discussions are underway with the League about how to fix the system.

“It has reached a tipping point,” Price said simply. There is more development going on now–indeed less Workshops, but more Readings and more Labs and the system has to be fixed.

In terms of royalty participation, many producers I spoke to, while currently happy, would be willing to broker a deal in which actors participate in the royalty pool after a show recoups. “As long as my investors have their money back, we’ll all share,” one said. So while authors and other creatives take part in the royalty pool right from Day One, actors would wait for a show to be a financial hit. But there are dissenting voices to this system. “Our responsibility is to investors,” one producer said. “Even if this project is making money, that investor has probably given money to things that have lost money like the majority of shows. So our responsibility is to get the most money for those investors who took this tremendous risk and went on this journey with me. While I want to be generous, smart businessmen don’t give money to people who don’t deserve it simply because they have it to give.”

Not all actors I spoke to are completely unsympathetic to this point of view. The longer you’re in this business the more you realize that producers and investors are often not the ruthless fat cats you had envisioned they were or hoped they would be. A lot of them lose money time and time again, but keep taking a chance. The issue is actors need to eat. And there isn’t a way to fairly hold a large corporate entity to a standard different than you are holding an unlucky independent producer to. Before Frozen, Disney had done four Labs since 2013, but when the Lab started getting press, many were upset Frozen was a Lab. They believe Disney can afford to be generous and enter into a contract that gives actors more. That might be true, but even before the Lab, Disney wasn’t known for using Workshops: they were often using readings and/or out-of-town contracts, sans royalties, to develop shows. And who can blame Disney? The truth is, the system is the system. Of course Disney will take advantage of it, as it should as part of a public company with responsibilities to its shareholders.

Price said most actors she speaks to are okay with a system that would begin royalty participation after a show recoups. There are also counter-arguments to that, with some actors not understanding why they would wait but no other “creative” would; it diminishes their contribution. Producers on the other hand say that writers often work for much longer periods with very little pay during a show development, so it makes sense for the authors to share weekly profits right away.

There is also the right of first refusal. Price said she considers this such a little thing in the scope of a Broadway budget, but producers hate having to pay out actors they don’t want to use. It adds up and many producers asked say it goes against the spirit of development. Per producers, you have an actor in a piece, you don’t like that actor in the piece, you should be able to replace that actor without penalty. Actors on the other hand say having no protection is a huge sticking point for them, because they’ve worked for so little and they want to know they will have something at the end of the day, if not a long-term job, a lump sum.

And so there is a lot to hash out. There are too many contracts to understand. Too many guidelines that are manipulated. Paige noted producers try to get out of requirements all the time by just forming a new LLC to present a show. Equity steps in on these occasions.

No one really knows what would happen if Equity just put its proverbial foot down and said: “No development unless it is on contract with…” But I do know that is unlikely to happen. Equity has always been reluctant to be that type of union. Perhaps because there are so many aspiring actors out there willing to cross the picket line? Or perhaps because the community is so small there are conflicting allegiances? Or perhaps it is that actors (many of whom are in leadership positions at Actors’ Equity) don’t want to anger producers too much? Or perhaps it is about not wanting to kill development of risky new works? You’d get a different answer depending on who you ask. And most on both sides know taking too hard a line would be idiotic–there is no way to get everything actors would possibly desire (and might very well deserve) at all stages of development; the costs would be too high.

I don’t envy anyone involved in these discussions. This is a mess. There are no easy answers. “You squeeze one end of the toothpaste and it doesn’t work if something comes out the other end,” Carpenter said. A wholesale comprehensive reform is needed. The community needs to work together to achieve it.

Authors note: I opted not to speak officially with representatives of the Broadway League, as League members are not the catalyst for this change. I am not naming anyone I spoke to other than representatives of Actors’ Equity; the Actors’ Equity representatives spoke to me in their official capacity to address actors’ concerns.

If you want to contact me, I welcome emails at carajoy@gmail.com. Please do not send me a Facebook message if we are not friends. I will not see it.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Donald Trump: 'I Hope' Russia Hacked Clinton's Email Servers

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){‘undefined’!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if(‘object’==typeof commercial_video){var a=”,o=’m.fwsitesection=’+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video[‘package’]){var c=’&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D’+commercial_video[‘package’];a+=c}e.setAttribute(‘vdb_params’,a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById(‘vidible_1’),onPlayerReadyVidible);

The Republican presidential nominee was referring to the widely held suspicion that Russia is responsible for hacking the Democratic National Committee’s servers, resulting in the leak of tens of thousands of emails just days before the party’s nominating convention in Philadelphia.

Trump said that he hoped the hackers had also accessed Clinton’s private email servers. “They probably have her 33,000 emails that she lost and deleted.”

Trump then addressed the rogue nation directly, saying “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you can find the 30,000 emails that are missing.”

By actively hoping that American servers were hacked by another nation, Trump broke an unwritten but cardinal rule of American public office: You don’t root against the United States, even when your political opponent is in power.

Regardless of party or platform, American public officials are expected to champion U.S. interests and defend U.S. national security. Trump seemed to do the opposite Wednesday. 

Within moments of Trump’s press conference, his running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R), released a statement distancing himself from the nominee’s words. “If it is Russia and they are interfering in our elections, I can assure you both parties and the United States government will ensure there are serious consequences,” Pence said. 

The 33,000 number refers to emails that Clinton said she and her staff deleted from her servers because they contained “personal and private” information, including correspondence about her daughter Chelsea Clinton’s wedding.

Earlier this year, FBI Director James Comey said an exhaustive investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state revealed that she and her staff were “extremely careless” in their handling of documents. But he recommend to the Department of Justice that “no charges” were appropriate.

Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liarrampant xenophoberacistmisogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims ― 1.6 billion members of an entire religion ― from entering the U.S.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Yemenis Fleeing A Deadly Conflict Find Themselves Stranded In Somaliland

Yemenis fleeing conflict are taking overcrowded livestock boats across the Gulf of Aden to Somaliland – an unrecognized country. Such is the magnitude of violence in one of the oldest centers of civilization in the Middle East.

HARGEISA, SOMALILAND – Last May, Sabrina Omar, 21 and mother to four-month-old Abdullah, fled her home in Taiz, a city in the Yemeni Highlands, at dawn.

The previous night a bomb or rocket had hit her home. She doesn’t know what exactly it was, or where it came from. All she knows is that one of her neighbors was killed, and that she and her mother, Said Mohammad Ali, 46, and her younger sister, eight-year old Shyak, left at first light. Shyak hadn’t been in school in months. All the schools in Taiz had closed.

Sabrina is just one of many people who have been sandwiched between the horror of Houthi snipers and American-supplied Saudi Arabian fighter jets, two of the daily threats in Yemen’s ongoing conflict.

She was six months pregnant when she left home, moving slowly and worried about the health of the baby. She sold her gold jewelry on the trip from Taiz to the port in Aden where they would get the boat. From Aden, they joined about 500 others on the 24-hour journey to Berbera, the central port in Somaliland.

Almost a dozen other family members joined the trio to make the crossing. But Sabrina’s husband wasn’t one of them. He was at work in another part of the city during the attack. She called to tell him they were leaving, but – stuck in the middle of the fighting – he couldn’t reach her in time.

Today Sabrina, baby Abdullah, her mother and her sister are in Hargeisa, the capital of Somaliland, a self-declared country, independent of Somalia. More than 10,000 refugees from Yemen left the nightmare of a war only to fall into hellish bureaucracy.

Reeling from the trauma of their forced migration, they wait in mind-numbing lines for basics such as plates and tampons, while navigating United Nations paperwork and the convoluted political system in a language they don’t speak, spending money they cannot afford.

Yemenis have been fleeing the bloody fracas at home for Somaliland since March 2015, when rebel Houthis began advancing on Taiz, Sabrina’s home, and quickly took the city from the government of President Abd Rabbuh Mansour Hadi. Hadi is friendly to Saudi Arabia and the United States; his predecessor, Ali Abdullah Saleh, had a similarly favorable relationship and even supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.

That was a political move that reignited the previously dormant Houthi opposition. Saleh remains politically influential and Yemeni security forces have split into those backing Hadi, others backing Saleh and yet others backing the Houthis. Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) has strongholds in the south and southeast of Yemen, and has staged deadly attacks on all parties.

An Arab coalition led by Saudi Arabia began airstrikes in March 2015, hoping to restore the former friendly ruling government. Ground forces followed last September, leading to continuing outflows of civilians.

Besides Somaliland, other countries in the region have also received refugees from Yemen. Nearly half of the 176,000 people who fled Yemen’s conflict have gone to the Horn of Africa. It is likely that there are well over 10,000 who fled Yemen for Somaliland, but many aren’t registered with the U.N.

For those who managed to flee, the memories have lived painfully on. Sabrina’s family had a mobile phone photo of their destroyed house in Taiz, but eventually she deleted it. Looking at the picture became unbearable for members of the family.

As the family started settling into their new life, worse news arrived. In Hargeisa, the capital of Somaliland, Sabrina received a phone call informing her that her husband and a close friend had been killed in an airstrike.

Given her limited options for refuge and the fate of her husband, Sabrina’s decision to come to Somaliland was sensible. Yemen and Somalia have a centuries-old relationship of trade between the ports of Aden in Yemen and Berbera in Somaliland. Both Somalis and Yemenis attest to shared cultural values. Well before the war, educated, middle-class Yemenis had been coming to Somaliland for business.

“The relationship between Yemenis and Somalilanders is good because of the historical business and religious links,” the executive director of the Comprehensive Community-Based Rehabilitation in Somaliland (CCBRS), Abib Ahmed Hirsi, said. “There are no obvious security threats or problems faced by Yemenis since they’ve arrived in Somaliland, but small incidents can happen as usual in any place. CCBRS has observed that a number of Yemenis have already made self-integration after they open some businesses in Hargeisa.”

Despite lack of formal acknowledgment from the international community, Somaliland has its own government and currency. The security situation is much calmer than in Somalia, from which it seceded. Somalia is fighting the insurgent al-Qaida-affiliated al-Shabaab.

The smiling co-owner of the bustling Yemeni Chicken restaurant in Hargeisa, for example, moved from Yemen only four years ago. He had two restaurants back in Yemen, as well, but they closed permanently because of the war. Once it became clear that Yemen was in dire straits and not changing anytime soon, he brought his wife and five of his children to Hargeisa with him. His children cried and wouldn’t eat on the boat ride over. “The boat is not for a human being, it is for a goat, ” he said.

The second part of the story will follow soon. It originally appeared on Refugees Deeply. For weekly updates and analysis about refugee issues, you can sign up to the Refugees Deeply email list.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Hundreds Of Wild Ponies Make A Splash During Annual Swim Fundraiser

Hundreds of wild ponies splashed into a saltwater channel along Virginia’s coast Wednesday morning while participating in the 91st annual Chincoteague Pony Swim.

A team of volunteers known as the “Saltwater Cowboys” rounded up ponies of every shape and size from their home on Assateague Island and herded them across the Assateague Channel to Chincoteague Island.

Once on dry land, the animals will be paraded to the local carnival grounds, and the foals will be auctioned off on Thursday to benefit the Chincoteague Volunteer Fire Company, which owns and maintains the herd.

The annual event dates back to 1925 and takes place during “slack tide,” when there is no current. Veterinarians monitor the ponies as an added precaution, CBS affiliate WBOC-TV reports.

Last year, 61 ponies were sold for a record average price of $2,780, bringing in a total of $169,519 for the fire company. The auction also set a record for the highest bid on an individual horse at $25,000, according to the Chincoteague Chamber of Commerce’s website.

In addition to purchasing a pony, auction participants have the option of buying a pony’s permanent freedom. In 2015, there were 12 of these so-called “buybacks.” The buyers receive certificates from the fire company and are allowed to name the pony before it returns to Assateague Island to live out its life.

“All proceeds from one of the buybacks this year will benefit Special Olympics of Virginia Eastern Shore Area 19,” Chincoteague Volunteer Fire Company Spokesperson Roe Terry told CBS affiliate WTKR.

“Buyback ponies have actually become some of the highest priced foals sold at the auction,” the chamber’s website boasts.

On Friday, unsold ponies will return to the island the way they came, where they’ll live for another year until the next auction.

Before Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1943, the firefighters purchased the horses living on the Virginia side of Assateague Island ― which also lies partly in Maryland ― and obtained a permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to graze up to 150 ponies there, according to the refuge’s website.

Each spring, an average of 70 new foals are born on the Virginia side of the island, according to the chamber’s website. The annual auction therefore serves a double purpose: to raise money for the firefighters and to thin the herd.

Approximately 75 percent of the island’s mature mares have foals each year. Because mares and can become pregnant once their foals stop nursing and have an 11-month gestation cycle, many of them are pregnant almost year around.

This year’s event is expected to attract tens of thousands of people by both land and sea, according to WTKR.

The event was made famous by Marguerite Henry’s 1947 children’s novel, Misty of Chincoteague, which turned into a book series and later a movie. 

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Today's Best Deals: Bias Lighting, Lenovo Notebooks, Waterproof Speakers

Lenovo Flex notebooks, $4 selfie sticks, and discounted Southwest Airlines gift cards lead off Wednesday’s best deals.

Read more…

The 16 Most Horrible Alternate Realities

It’s 2016, and things are looking pretty grim. As prognosticators of the future, io9 is here to assess the present, and remind everyone that as bad things are, they can always get much, much worse—and they are much, much worse in mirror universes and parallel worlds. Here are 16 alternate realities that make the original look like home sweet home.

Read more…