My 30 Day News Fast—Over in Five Days

I admit defeat. I lasted all of five days trying to avoid the news and politics, and honestly, it made me even more anxious, knowing that I was missing important information and online conversations. It also revealed the extent of my passion for current events and politics, so maybe it’s time to explore some paying opportunities in that realm, work on a campaign, or attend some democratic or progressive meet-ups here in New York City.

The first couple days were tolerable as I focused on the tasks at my day job and listened to soothing soundscape music on Music Choice instead of tuning in to NPR in the mornings while getting ready for work. In the evenings, instead of turning on Hardball with Chris Matthews as soon as I walk in my apartment, I turned on jazz or swing music, cooked some dinner then sat down to watch actual TV shows, study French, or read a nonpolitical book—Secretariat is the one currently on my nightstand.

I have avoided all my usual websites and blogs, but on Facebook I couldn’t help skimming the headlines peppering my news feed and catching snippets of comments. It took much willpower to not click on the headlines to read the story or engage in online conversations. I was so tempted though as I glimpsed the raging war on women's healthcare and the growing controversy surrounding the access to contraception as well as results from the last round of GOP caucuses and primaries. Still, my resolve held.

However, yesterday that resolve dissolved as I desperately needed my news fix. I received in the mail Thursday a complimentary/sample copy of a bi-monthly paper titled The Progressive Populist. I took the paper with me on the bus Friday morning and read some of it on the way into the office.

The question I now ask myself is: Why am I avoiding something that even though it often makes me crazy, I thoroughly enjoy? What am I gaining by depriving myself of information? I’m like my father—it’s one extreme or the other, when we both should aim for approaching goals or lifestyle changes in moderation. Obviously, I have a passion for politics and current events. I sometimes wish I’d had this passion at a much younger age; I may have been a political science major in college or went to law school or studied some element of public policy.

Still, my life’s trajectory has brought me where I am today, and it has been an interesting trajectory. I dislike being disengaged in current events; it’s not who I am, so I am going to reengage, yet not to the extent I was previously. Plus it’s too important to not pay attention. I can always choose to tune out the unpleasantness that arises from the media at times when it is needed.

Along the lines of not depriving myself of news, I am also no longer going to deprive myself of simple joys and experiences, or even indulgences here and there. If I want to do something, I will do it; if I want to purchase something, I will buy it. There will be no more saving clothes or perfume for special occasions only.

Thursday night I spent a small fortune on an Anne Fontaine pale pink blouse and camisole (actually more similar to a tank top) made of soft light-weight cotton knit fabric (French cuffs on the blouse) and decided I was going to wear them to work on Friday. I felt like a million bucks. I never splurge on myself this way, but I deserve it every now and then. Plus 20% of my purchase went to help the New York Women’s Foundation raise $2,100.

These days I wear my Donna Karan Cashmere Mist perfume almost daily. These are simple indulgences that make me feel great, and add a touch of beauty and pleasure to my life. So, instead of a news fast, or any fast for that matter, I will once again turn my focus to current events and politics, in moderation.

I hate to admit failure, and I thought this exercise would lead to some interesting insights and blog posts, but it did not; in fact, all I thought about was what information I was missing. I tried intentionally shunning the news and it wasn’t particularly good for me. I can avoid the news when that is not my goal, like on vacations and on weekends with the kids, but having tried to make an effort, it proved to be a highly unsatisfying experience. Last night, I had a date with Chris Matthews and thoroughly enjoyed it.

A 30-Day News Fast—Time to disengage, for a little while...

Per Webster's II New Riverside Dictionary Office Edition:
fast v. - To eat sparingly or to abstain from all or certain foods–fast n.

I need a break from politics and current events; I definitely do. I must confess that I have an addiction—to the news. I listen to NPR while I’m getting ready in the morning, I read political blogs all day long between work projects and tasks, and then I get home at night and watch three to four more hours of news programming. It would be different if I were employed in a field that required I be tuned into news all the time, but none of the work I do—administrative, acting, writing—demands that of me.

My immersion in news, political news in particular, has engendered anxiety and anger, much anger. I am sensitive by nature, prone to being overly empathetic to the plight of others, and a dismal failure at disguising my feelings. I react quickly due to my sensitivities, especially in response to actions and statements I perceive to be unjust, bigoted, or mean. This either sparks a self-righteous rant or confines me to seething silently in agony because of repressing negative feelings.

I am addicted to politics and the news so have decided that radical action is necessary. I am commencing a thirty-day fast—not from food as per the above definition—from politics and news. I have discovered that when I visit my sister Barbara’s home for the weekend and am engaged in activities with the kids, I am rarely connected in any way to news and feel more relaxed.

Prior to the Christmas holiday this past year, I was experiencing severe pain in the back of my head on the right side below my ear. The pain lasted for several weeks, so finally I scheduled an appointment to see my doctor, two days before my departure to Indiana. Those of you who have read my book, Rebirth, or who know me personally, know that in December 2003, I went to the doctor five days before my trip to Indiana for the Christmas holiday. Three days later, I was diagnosed with leukemia and in the hospital. Although that Christmas was ruined for everyone in my family, the fact that I had seen my doctor days before getting on the plane, most likely saved my life.

One can understand how I would be hesitant to once again see a doctor right before my Christmas vacation. I feared that because the headache had been ongoing, it could be a tumor. Secondary cancers are late-term effects from radiation and chemotherapy treatment. Though I do not dwell on that possibility, the thought of developing a secondary cancer is always lurking in the dark recesses of my mind. Still, it occurred to me that this could be serious, so I scheduled an appointment with my PCP, who recommended we schedule an MRI for right after the holidays.

What happened over the last two weeks of December 2011 is that I relaxed. I read a few political blogs between checking emails every other morning, but that was the extent of my attention to the news. Instead, I spent time with my parents, my sisters and their kids, and friends. I disengaged from the news, which I do when I am away from my home. The headache had disappeared by the time I returned to New Jersey. I still went in for the MRI that had been scheduled, just to make sure nothing was wrong and all was fine.

Over the past month, my addiction has become even more intense, especially since this is a presidential election year. Anger and tension are my daily companion. I did not survive cancer to be angry or anxious all the time. My goal over the next thirty days is to avoid the news, engage in activities that bring me pleasure, expand my mind and experiences, and become more centered emotionally. This experiment is being conducted to see how the quality of my life evolves without exposure to the negativity emanating from the 24/7 news cycle.

It’s not that I intend to shun the news for the rest of my life; I couldn’t. I take pride in being informed about current events and feel that as a citizen of the world it is my responsibility to be aware of what is happening. Still, this break will be good for me, and I will occasionally blog about my progress and challenges.

This news fast won’t be easy. Yesterday, not twenty minutes after having decided to commit to it, I was on my iPhone, clicked on my HuffPost app and nearly opened an article about Rick Santorum. I caught myself and immediately closed out of the app. My behavior is so automatic and I check various sites often for updates that I don’t even think about what I am doing. This news fast may prove challenging, but it may also prove to be quite beneficial.

President Obama was Right to Use the Recess Appointment

Republicans in Congress and conservative media pundits are so outraged by President Obama’s recent recess appoints: a director to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and three members to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Why the hypocritical indignation from conservatives when George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, and their hero, Ronald Reagan, all used recess appointments much more liberally than President Obama has since he took office January 2009?

Ronald Reagan – 240
George H.W. Bush - 77
Bill Clinton – 140
George W. Bush – 171
Obama – 28

GOP outrage is because President Obama ignored a little political maneuver called a “pro forma” session. As explained in the Washington Post last Friday: Every three days or so, a lone senator enters the chamber and gavels in a seconds-long pro forma session; a bipartisan agreement mandated that the sessions would proceed “with no business conducted.” With the Senate in session, critics argue, the president is prohibited from exercising his power to make recess appointments. Some also note that neither chamber can adjourn without the consent of the other. Lawmakers left for the holidays without such an agreement.

This tactic—which Democrats used during the George W Bush years—are merely used to obstruct federal appointments. Right now there are a large number of vacancies in federal judiciaries and departments because GOP lawmakers refuse to allow an up or down vote on them. A Talking Points Memo post rightly stated that “This has frustrated progressives and good government advocates who worry that the executive branch has become riddled through like Swiss cheese with vacancies and can’t function properly.”

President Obama had every right to make these appointments, pro forma session or not. Plus Obama supporters, who have been sorely disappointed in the way the president has capitulated to Republicans time and time again, welcome this bold move. Ezra Klein asks in his Wonkblog on the Washington Post website: “In a year when the Obama administration is unlikely to get much through Congress, these vacancies make it harder for them to do more through executive action, too. In some ways, then, the question isn’t why they’re making these controversial recess appointments, but why they’re limiting themselves to appointing four of the 202 nominees languishing in the confirmation process.” 202 nominees waiting for confirmation is shameful.

The New York Times recently reported that the White House and Senate Democrats say the experiences of Mr. Obama’s nominees had become intolerable. In the two years that Mr. Bush had to contend with a Democratic Senate, 740 of his 981 nominees for civilian positions were confirmed, a rate of 75 percent. During the 112th Congress, 285 of Mr. Obama’s 503 civilian nominees have been confirmed, or 57 percent, according to Senate statistics.
Pro forma sessions are only one way that Congress is allowed to obstruct. The filibuster is another handy little weapon the minority in the Senate can wield, which they have used with increasing frequency in recent years, to prevent an up or down vote on important legislation. Filibuster abuse has made the Senate completely dysfunctional. The filibuster is not necessarily bad because it gives the minority party a voice, a way to make sure their interests are not completely ignored. However, the use of this tactic was set up by the founders of this country to use sparingly and in special circumstances, one being impeachment. Republicans have been particularly tenacious using this procedure, both in the 110th and 111th Congresses.

It is amusing to hear people disparage the Democratic-led 110th Congress, the one in session during the last two years of George W Bush’s second presidential term—the one that conservatives called the “do-nothing” Congress (though isn’t that what everyone calls Congress these days?). Yes, Democrats were in charge, but they did not have enough votes to override a presidential veto, so many of their initiatives could not be passed. Once Obama took office in January 2009 and Democrats had a majority in Congress, in charge of both chambers, they unfortunately still lacked enough votes to override GOP filibusters, many times due to members of their own party, the Blue Dog coalition.

If a senator wants to filibuster, make him or her filibuster; make them stand up in front of the Senate and talk, even it if it is for days at a time. If our senators weren’t so lazy, they would insist the filibuster be used the way in which it was intended, which would almost guaranteed there would be significantly fewer filbusters or filibuster threats.

Filibusters are commonly associated with senators who engage in prolonged, and perhaps irrelevant, floor debate to prevent the adoption of a measure or nomination that is favored by the majority. In fact, today’s filibusters almost never involve actual continuous floor speeches — today’s filibusters are largely silent and often occur before a proposal even reaches the Senate floor. These ploys, when used repeatedly as political games and one-upmanship endangers our democracy because it obscures from the American populace which legislators are to blame and who to hold accountable; more importantly, effective governing is impossible in such an environment.

Secret holds are another way for senators to derail legislation. Here again, because this is done anonymously, there is no way for voters to hold their elected officials accountable. The Brennan Center for Justice’s December 2010 report on “Filibuster Abuse” documents the history of and provides great detail about filibuster and holds abuse in the Senate. The writers offered several suggestions for the 112th Congress, but their ideas have largely been ignored as is evidenced by the continued dysfunction in Congress.

American government can work; it is imperative that it work. Yet so many aspects of it need reforming. That reform could be initiated by addressing how to eliminate, or at least use sparingly, parliamentary tactics like filibusters, holds, and pro forma sessions that are used more frequently to do nothing more than obstruct the majority and stifle any legislation a president tries to advance, or to fill vacancies in the many federal departments that are woefully understaffed, and in many instances, lacking a department director. We can only hope for the sake of our country that someone starts addressing the abuse of these political strategies.

Filibuster Abuse - Brennan Center for Justice

My Only 2012 New Year's Resolution: Be More Fearless

In 2001 while residing in Cincinnati, I auditioned for The Movement, a made-for-television movie produced by Dreambuilder Celebration and sponsored by Procter & Gamble that was aired in January 2002. At the initial audition, I was called in for one of the leading roles that of Jayni, a young social worker or homeless shelter volunteer (I can't recall which). As I picked up the sides laid out on the table for this character, I noticed sides for Young Mrs. Wallington, a school teacher. Mrs. Wallington was another main character, but she was a retired school teacher. Young Mrs. Wallington was a supporting character, but I thought it would be wise to audition for that role as well, so I scooped up those sides and prepared for both while sitting in the waiting area.

When I walked into the room, the director and producers were all there. I did my read for Jayni, they gave me some adjustments then I read again. Before I left, I asked them if I could also read for Young Mrs. Wallington. The director responded that this was only a small supporting role in a flashback scene. I told him that I didn't care and that I'd really like to read for it, so they granted my request.

A couple days later, I received a call from my agent saying that I had a call back for the role of Young Mrs. Wallington. 'That was a good call on my part,' I thought.

When I arrived at the call backs, I scrutinized the ladies they were casting for both old and young Mrs. Wallington. I was trying to determine which older women I most closely resembled. The stressful aspect of this call back was that they were casting each role on the spot. As I watched the older actresses being eliminated, I was assessing my chances of being cast as her young counterpart. In the end, the woman I most thought would work with my physicality did not get the role. The woman who was cast, I felt looked nothing like me; however, I was determined that my assessment would not interfere with my audition.

Next, the director came out and informed us that all the Jayni candidates would be considered for Young Mrs. Wallington as well. 'Great,' I thought, 'my competition just doubled' (there were eight Jaynis and eight Young Mrs. Wallingtons). So began the most grueling audition I've experienced to date.

Prior to reading for the role (every round) each of us was positioned next to retired Mrs.Wallington so that the director and producers could examine our physical similarity. As the elimination process began, the pressure began to build. Those casting brought us all in at once, after having discussed who would not be advancing to the next round, and dismissed those they did not want to see again. To say it was nerve-wracking as the names were read is an understatement. I did not want to hear my name.

The first audition round included all sixteen us, after which four Jaynies and four teachers were eliminated. In the next round, two Jaynies and two teachers left the group, which left two actors for each role. They cast the role of Jayni first then Young Mrs. Wallington. The two of us being considered for Young Mrs. Wallington were waiting patiently outside the room to hear the decision. My competition was an attractive young woman who was probably eight years my junior.

Finally, the director appeared and looked at both of us. My heart was racing and the tension was mounting. He turned to me and said, "Deborah, we'd like for you to play the role of Young Mrs. Wallington." Inside I was jumping up and down and screaming in jubilation, but on the outside, I remained cool and calm because the woman who did not get cast was sitting right next to me. However, once she left, I let loose, thanking them all for the opportunity, and as I walked to my car, basking in the euphoria of having landed the role. (I later found out that they'd auditioned actors in Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Lexington and Louisville, and that knowledge made me feel even more honored to have been cast and prouder of my accomplishment.)

It was because I dared ask to read for that supporting role that I had the opportunity to perform it. That was the last time I asked to read for a role for which I was not brought in to audition. In the years since, I've left many auditions thinking I would be better suited for different roles yet have not had the courage (or even the thought) to request to read for them while in front of the casting directors.

Asking for what we desire is difficult for most of us.  Sometimes, we feel we do not deserve what we would like—a promotion, a raise, a role, a date, an interview, you name it. In my case, I don't want to hear the word "no" or feel the sting of rejection (I get rejected enough at auditions).

Fear of not having enough money is also a major factor in determining what I pursue and to what extent I pursue it. Money is a barrier that prevents many people from pursuing their passion, but it need not be with a little planning. I am a financially responsible person, and if I want to focus more on acting and to travel globally, I need to figure out how to make those happen within my financial security boundaries so that I'm not freaking out about my money situation.

I have always professed to being a cautious risk-taker which has served me well, up until now. Goals and dreams have been met to a certain degree and at a certain level over the years, but it's time to "up the ante", as they say  (whoever "they" may be). To do that I will need to be more audacious and self-confident (even if I am only acting "as if").

This year my one resolution is to be more fearless by taking more risks in pursuit of all my goals, asking for what I want, and refusing to take "no" for an answer. I hope to report positive results on December 31, 2012.

May 2012 be a happy, healthy, prosperous, and fearless year for you, dear reader. Happy New Year!

We the People and Occupy Wall Street

The U.S. Constitution and the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement are two topics that seem to be endlessly talked about and debated by politicians, media pundits as well as among friends and family – oftentimes with those possessing vastly different ideological leanings, but that’s what makes it interesting.

Two articles I read recently about these subjects reinforce how I view them, and I’d like to share with everyone. That doesn’t mean I expect everyone to agree with me, but I’m offering some ideas to contemplate. One piece is about the Constitution being inherently progressive and the other about why the OWS movement is a positive force for our country.

If there are articles or opinions you would like me to read that either support or refute my point of view or what these authors write, please fell free to send them to me by adding a link or referencing them in the comments section below.

Constitution is inherently progressive – Politico.com

“Our original Constitution was not perfect. It wrote women and minorities out and condoned an abhorrent system of slavery. But the story of America has also been the story of a good nation conceived in liberty and equality, eventually welcoming every American into the arms of democracy, protecting their freedoms and expanding their economic opportunities.” ~John Podesta and John Halpin

“Occupy Wall Street”: Approved! By Suze Orman – Huffington Post

My thoughts: These are people tired of the status quo. They are tired of seeing Wall Street getting bailouts and suffering no legal consequences from bad, sometimes even illegal, decisions that cost taxpayers a lot of money. Yet where is the help for millions of Americans whose homes are being foreclosed on or that are underwater, or where are the loans to small businesses?

This protest movement may not have a structured agenda yet and may never, but the OWS movement is making the country aware of the way big money interests and our government officials are deeply intertwined, and that’s a positive start. Getting money out of the political process is the biggest step we could take to change the system. The OWS movement is working because special interests and politicians beholden to those interests are demonizing and trying to discredit it.

Suze Orman, in her post supporting OWS, refers briefly to special-interest tactics against it: “When you feel threatened, work overtime to marginalize the threat before it establishes traction.”

OWS is definitely gaining traction and opponents are trying to marginalize it as well as police forces around the country using increasingly brutal tactics (one of which is pepper-spraying non-violent protestors) to discourage the right to assemble and free speech.

Read Orman’s entire post here: “Occupy Wall Street!” Approved

Careful What You Wish For...

“You know what the most incredible thing would be?” I asked my friend Yvonne one day at Cigna when we were at lunch in the fall of 2001. “Right when I am getting to leave for New York, Cigna eliminates my job and I receive four-months of severance pay!” I never thought in a million years that it would happen, mainly because the managers seemed so helpless without us assistants.

Four months of salary would definitely be a helpful financial cushion as I started my new life. I had decided earlier that year, after my positive experience meeting Lanford Wilson, that it was time for me to make the move to the New York market. I wasn’t getting any younger and if I were going to do it, it had to be then. So I started planning for a move to take place at the end of August 2002. Once I had set the end goal, the stars began to align in my favor.

I was cast in two films (one of which still occasionally pays a small residual fee) and a commercial that cemented my membership in AFTRA—I had to join the union. These jobs expanded my resume to include film and commercial work. I was also networking and collecting names of people I could call on once I arrived in New York as resources in the industry as well as for familiarizing myself with the city.

My plan was taking shape, as I researched apartments, neighborhoods, casting directors, agents, theatre companies, anything I needed to get my life started there. It was a bit intimidating because the financials of it all made me very nervous. How would I ever afford to live in that area and pursue acting, too? I began searching for temp agencies and marketing and promo jobs, whatever work I might be able to do that would allow me the flexibility to audition during the day. The financial fears made me ask: would I be ready to move at the end of August?

The summer of 2002, I ventured to Puerto Rico for a very memorable and exciting vacation with some of my closest friends. The day I returned to the office at Cigna, there was a nationwide conference call that required participation of all the assistants. I thought it was going to be the run-of-the-mill technology call outlining process changes for submitting RFPs or organizing policies.

What we discovered was that Cigna planned to downsize in the upcoming months. There would now be one assistant per region. Instead of my region having a couple assistants in Cleveland and a couple in Cincinnati (servicing Columbus and Indianapolis) there would be one assistant working all four offices. The offers would be made to those they wanted to retain and the rest would be let go with severance packages.

I sat there holding back a gleeful smile, knowing all the other women were panicking because they were about to lose their jobs. Unbelievable, I thought. This is exactly what I had wished for—the timing couldn’t have been more perfect.

When the call ended, I nearly ran to Yvonne’s cubicle, plopped down in the chair next to her desk and exclaimed, “ You are not going to believe what just happened!”

I told her and she responded excitedly, “Oh, my God, it’s meant to be!”

“I know!” I replied.

The only fly in the ointment was that I was one of two top-ranked assistants in the region. I didn’t want them to offer me the job because if they did and I turned it down, I would not receive my severance—at least that was my understanding. So I had to do some quick thinking. I decided honesty would be the best policy, so I called my manager, who was located in Philadelphia, to explain my situation to her.

I am very thankful for her. She made sure that I was not offered the job. I left Cigna at the end of August 2002 and headed to the Northeast on August 31, crying as I drove away from Cincinnati. As excited as I was to be starting a new life, I was sad to leave my friends and my sister Karen, who had been my apartment mate the previous nine years. Plus the unknown is always a little scary. Still my wish came true and now there was no backing down or delaying my departure date because I didn’t have the lure of job security to prevent me from pursuing my dreams. Once my wish was granted, I was then responsible for doing something about it, rather than ignoring it.

It’s been an adventure these last nine years. It was a positive move, for so many reasons. So a word of caution: careful what you wish for, it may come true.

Baby Steps: My Key to Achieving Goals

“ Honey, you want to go to the john and get one of those glasses before you leave, you look like you could use a drink.”

That was my closing line of The Moonshot Tape. Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright Lanford Wilson* clapped and smiled then rose from his seat, walked over to me, and hugged me warmly. He had loved my performance, which I’d just given in Ovation Theatre Company’s (OTC) warehouse where we built our sets, stored props and costumes, and often rehearsed. This had been a private performance for Mr. Wilson, along with my Ovation colleagues and a couple of my closest friends, by special invitation. I would go on to perform this 55-minute solo show a week later during Ovations’ two-week run of An Evening with Lanford Wilson. We staged four of his one-act plays during Cincinnati’s Lanford Wilson Theatre Festival in May of 2001.

                              After the performance - Lanford Wilson giving me feedback.


It takes a great deal of courage to get onstage and perform alone for that length of time, but I did not find that courage overnight. It took years of accepting bigger and more challenging roles to be comfortable (or as comfortable as one can be) in a solo performance situation.

I did not begin acting until I was twenty-three. By that age, many of the young actors I was studying with had been performing for years—on stage and in front of the camera—in grade school, high school, and college. I struggled with confidence—and still do to some degree—because I let all their years on the boards or in front of the camera intimidate me. Still, I wanted to be an actor, so I pushed through the fear and insecurity.

My first time on stage was a production of original one-acts in Bloomington, Indiana, that took place in a tiny, freezing theater—actually a warehouse. I memorized my lines and my acting partner’s and basically responded by rote, not engaging in the moment to moment actions and emotions based on what my acting partner was giving me. Learning how to react appropriately, develop my inner monologue, and trust in the moment all developed over years of training and experience.

As I took on leading roles in plays, I learned to connect with the other actors and to trust that my lines would be there when it was time for me to speak. I didn’t have to think ahead to what my next line would be, but rather merely listen to what was being said to me. Acting is reacting. Plus knowing what you are thinking as someone is talking to you onstage is like in life…we always have thoughts running through our minds; so it is the same onstage, which adds to the life of the character.

I was cast in my first two-person play as Aurelia Plath in Letters Home the summer of 1992. It was scary but I managed to tackle it pretty well for a novice actor. Once I left Indiana University, I moved to Cincinnati where I was involved in community theatre prior to co-founding OTC, a semi-professional company. My first audition landed me in the role of Vera Claythorne, the leading lady in Agatha Christie’s Ten Little Indians. The video performance of that play is a testament to how significantly my acting has improved since then.

Shortly after Ten Little Indians,I was involved in a fifties/sixties-style musical review that East Side Players orchestrated before their production of West Side Story. I’d always wanted to sing in public and knew I had a decent voice, but again, lacked the audacity to do it (except for a talent show in eighth grade, where, with some of my girlfriends as back-up singers, I sang “The Rose” and “Midnight in Memphis” from The Rose soundtrack, and that was along with the actual recordings).

I found the courage to audition for the revue and got cast. A few months later, I performed the role of Grace Farrell in Annie in which I sang a solo and some duets. That eventually led to my being cast as the Witch in Into the Woods, and I loved, loved, loved playing the Witch—one of my favorite roles. (Thank you, Lisa Hall Breithaupt.)

My performance trajectory is as follows: supporting roles followed by leading roles then two-person shows—one (Parallel Lives) that included an eight-minute monologue and my playing fourteen different characters, eventually culminating in my one-woman performance of The Moonshot Tape. The revue, led to musicals then to cabaret performances that I wrote and performed—two to three sets per show. My acting and singing solo performances were built on the foundation of taking risks with more challenging and scarier projects over time. When I succeeded at each level, I moved on to the next one.

Meeting, performing for, and receiving excellent feedback from Lanford Wilson was the pivotal moment in my decision to make the move to the New York City area to pursue acting professionally, which I’d wanted to do for ten years. Once my mind was made up, I set the wheels in motion, and how they turned in my favor. That story is for an upcoming post. Stay tuned…as the saying goes: be careful what you wish for…

* Lanford Wilson (April 13, 1937 – March 24, 2011)