iStock_dkfielding(WASHINGTON) — A flight attendant detained by immigration authorities for more than a month after traveling to Mexico for work was set for release Friday, her lawyer and husband said.Selene Saavedra Roman was living in the U.S. under the Obama-era program known as DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. DACA is a program that allows young immigrants brought to the country as children to stay and work legally.Roman, who is 28 years old, came to the U.S. from Peru as a 3-year-old.When President Donald Trump ended DACA enrollment for new applicants in 2017, he also prevented those currently in the program from leaving the country with the promise of legal reentry.“It’s been extremely difficult,” Roman’s husband said on a call with reporters. “I could only visit her once a week through two inches of glass.”The online travel site “The Points Guy” first reported on her detainment Thursday.Thousands reacted to the news calling for her release including members of the flight attendants’ association as well as immigration activists. It even prompted a response from 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.“This is an awful story,” Clinton tweeted Friday. She encouraged her followers to sign an online petition calling for the flight attendant’s release.“What happened to Selene reminds us that our DACA positions are not stable,” said Damaris Gonzalez, a DACA recipient and immigration activist.Roman’s lawyer said she had informed her employer of her situation and they assured she would not have an issue returning to the U.S.U.S. Customs and Immigration Services, which administers DACA, would not comment on the specifics of Roman’s immigration status.Copyright © 2019, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.
The Arctic springtail, Megaphorura arctica Tullberg 1876 (Onychiuridae: Collembola), is one of the few organisms known to survive the extreme stresses of its environment by using cryoprotective dehydration. We have undertaken a proteomics study comparing M. arctica, acclimated at -2 degrees C, the temperature known to induce the production of the anhydroprotectant trehalose in this species, and -6 degrees C, the temperature at which trehalose expression plateaus, against control animals acclimated at +5 degrees C. Using difference gel electrophoresis, and liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry, we identified three categories of differentially expressed proteins with specific functions, up-regulated in both the -2 degrees C and -6 degrees C animals, that were involved in metabolism, membrane transport and protein folding. Proteins involved in cytoskeleton organisation were only up-regulated in the -6 degrees C animals.
February 17, 2021 /Sports News – National Scoreboard roundup — 2/16/21 FacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailiStockBy ABC News(NEW YORK) — Here are the scores from Tuesday’s sports events:NATIONAL BASKETBALL ASSOCIATIONBoston 112, Denver 99LA Lakers 112, Minnesota 104New Orleans 144, Memphis 113Portland 115, Oklahoma City 104Toronto 124, Milwaukee 113San Antonio at Detroit (Postponed)Brooklyn 128, Phoenix 124NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUENY Islanders 3, Buffalo 0Washington 3, Pittsburgh 1New Jersey 5, NY Rangers 2Nashville at Dallas (Postponed)Colorado 3, Vegas 2Los Angeles 4, Minnesota 0TOP-25 COLLEGE BASKETBALLGeorgia 80, Missouri 70Arkansas 75, Florida 64Illinois 73, Northwestern 66TCU at Texas Tech (Postponed)Virginia Tech at North Carolina (Postponed)Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved. Beau Lund Written by
View post tag: LPD Photo: HII rendering of LPD 30 The US Naval Sea Systems Command has awarded Huntington Ingalls Industries’ Ingalls Shipbuilding division a $1.47 billion contract for the detail design and construction of the amphibious transport dock LPD 30.The ship will be the 14th in the San Antonio class and the first Flight II LPD.LPD 30 is the evolution of the dock landing platform that strengthens the Navy and Marine Corps’ needs in future warfare. Utilizing the LPD 17 class’ proven hull, the Flight II ship will feature a fully capable flight deck and hangar, a well deck, and the vehicle and cargo capacities to support and sustain more than 500 combat-equipped marines for up to 30 days.Ingalls has delivered 11 San Antonio-class ships to the Navy and has two more under construction. Fort Lauderdale (LPD 28) will launch in 2020 and deliver in 2021; the keel for Richard M. McCool Jr. (LPD 29) will be laid later this year.Start of fabrication on LPD 30 is scheduled for 2020.“Ingalls looks forward to continuing our strong legacy of providing the men and women of our naval forces with the capable and survivable warships they need and deserve,” said Ingalls Shipbuilding president Brian Cuccias. “The LPD Flight II builds upon the significant investment that has been made in this platform to improve the capability and flexibility of our deployed Navy-Marine Corps team. LPD 30 will leverage a hot production line and further benefit from the investments we continue to make in our shipbuilders and facilities. We are honored to be a part of the team that will provide this next-generation platform today.”The 684-foot-long and 105-foot-wide San Antonio-class are used to embark and land Marines, their equipment and supplies ashore via air cushion or conventional landing craft and amphibious assault vehicles, augmented by helicopters or vertical takeoff and landing aircraft such as the MV-22 Osprey. The ships support a Marine Air Ground Task Force across the spectrum of operations, conducting amphibious and expeditionary missions of sea control and power projection to humanitarian assistance and disaster relief missions throughout the first half of the 21st century. View post tag: San Antonio-class View post tag: LPD 30 View post tag: US Navy View post tag: HII Share this article
Many businesses get fire alarm testing wrong. Some assume it is too specialist to do in-house and spend money unnecessarily, while others delegate the job, without giving proper instructions. Although it is quite an easy job for staff to undertake, it needs to be done correctly, as making mistakes could create serious fire risks. What’s more, if staff make errors which lead to unnecessary building evacuation or fire service attendance, the costs can be significant.Fortunately, with some simple instructions, all of these concerns can be easily resolved and that’s where our new document will help.How to use itYou can use the instructions as they stand to remind staff of the proper testing procedure or, if you prefer, you can adapt them to create your own site-specific procedure. The individuals you assign to the testing job will need to be familiar with the basic operation of the fire alarm system for example, how to switch it on and off, understanding the panel and so on.Note: weekly testing should be supplemented with routine servicing by a specialist fire alarm engineer. This should take place at least every six months.Introduction and purposeYour procedure should begin with a short introduction, which explains that the fire alarm should, “be tested on a weekly basis, by activating a different call point each time in rotation until all have been tested”. This ensures compliance with legal requirements.The second section of the procedure should outline the purpose of the test. “The employee undertaking the test must be aware of the purpose in order that they can make the appropriate checks.”The types of checks to be made during the test will vary, depending on the individual workplace, so we have outlined the most common of these scenarios:l Testing the ability of the alarm panel to receive a signall Checking the audibility of the alarm throughout the company’s premisesl Checking that other devices are triggered by the operation of the alarm, as necessary for example, security locks released, deaf pagers and beacons working.Test procedureThe final part of the procedure should describe the step-by-step sequence for staff to follow, including:l Having the necessary keys or codes for cancelling the alarml Where applicable, notifying the alarm receiving centre and staff/visitorsl Activating the selected call point using the appropriate triggering devicel Allowing the alarm to sound for no more than one minute and completing the checks requiredl Making a record of the outcomel Arranging for repairs as needed.
For journalists Media enquiries Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt and Minister for Asia and the Pacific Mark Field have today (15 May) met London Ambassadors and High Commissioners of the member states of ASEAN, to underline the UK’s commitment to, and growing presence in, South East Asia.Following the meeting, Minister for Asia and the Pacific Mark Field said: Email [email protected] Follow the Foreign Office on Twitter @foreignoffice and Facebook Follow Foreign Office Minister Mark Field @MarkFieldUK UK-ASEAN trade is worth nearly £37 billion per year and our ever closer partnership will provide even more increased trading opportunities for British businesses after the UK leaves the EU. We also enjoy strong people-to-people connections through education and research collaboration and important security and defence co-operation with many ASEAN nations. With a new, permanent British diplomatic mission in Jakarta specifically dedicated to growing our links with the ASEAN group set to open later this year, I look forward to our links with South East Asia growing even stronger after Brexit. As a P5 member, the world’s fifth largest economy, and a leading defender of the Rules Based International System, the UK looks forward to working together with this diverse, dynamic and quickly growing region. As part of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s expanding diplomatic network and the UK’s commitment to forge a stronger relationship with ASEAN, a new and dedicated UK Mission is due to open in Jakarta later on this year. The UK is only a handful of European countries with an Embassy or High Commission in every member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) includes Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam, and was established to promote co-operation on political, security and economic issues in the region. With a rapidly expanding middle class and a market of 650 million people, the UK will strengthen links with ASEAN on education, trade, economic reform, climate, cybersecurity, defence and the digital economy.Further information Follow the Foreign Office on Instagram, YouTube and LinkedIn
Read Full Story The Harvard Graduate School of Education faculty members participating in an Askwith Forum panel discussing the controversial documentary Waiting for “Superman” expressed mixed emotions about the film’s emphasis on charter schools and teachers unions, and agreed it’s a small glimpse of a large and complicated education problem.“You could tell a number of stories about why the American education system is not measuring up and children are not getting the opportunities that we want them to have, but the movie essentially picks one of those stories — the ‘how markets can combat bureaucracy and create efficiency story,’” said Assistant Professor Jal Mehta, noting that he would have broadened the picture to include how poverty, inequality, and inequities in the teaching profession hamper school reform efforts. “This story is not told.”Waiting for “Superman,” directed by Davis Guggenheim, who also produced Academy award-winning film An Inconvenient Truth, was screened three weeks ago at the Ed School. Since the film’s release in early October, it has garnered significant attention and debate in the media including two one-hour specials of The Oprah Winfrey Show. The film follows a group of students and their families – all except one live in low-income urban communities – and their quest to get into a local, successful charter school as means to a better future.
Of all the factors that make the 2016 presidential election one for the history books, one of the most fiercely debated ones involves the degree to which the mainstream media coverage may have shaped the outcome of the Democratic and Republican primaries.Much attention has been given to the theory that Donald Trump, a celebrity businessman with no prior political experience, was propelled to the top of a vast Republican field because he received unending, unprecedented media coverage and was able to dominate the daily news cycle from the moment he entered the race by making sensational statements, which effectively pushed his 16 opponents out of the spotlight.Is there merit to the perception about the quantity and quality of media attention of the top candidates on both sides: that journalists went easy on Trump because he was good for ratings and clicks; that Sen. Bernie Sanders was ignored early on but later got little of the negative scrutiny that Hillary Clinton did; or that the press corps fixated on Clinton’s so-called “scandals,” not her positions, and held her to a harsher standard than it did male candidates?In short, yes, according to an analysis released Monday of mainstream print and television content in 2015 during the crucial period preceding the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary, known as the “invisible primary,” by Thomas E. Patterson of the Harvard Kennedy School (HKS). Both events traditionally mark the formal start of each presidential race.Using data from eight news outlets — CBS, Fox, NBC, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post — Patterson and his team evaluated both the quantity and the positive or negative tone of reports about candidates and found:Graphic by Judy Blomquist/Harvard StaffThe Democratic race got less than half the coverage that the Republican race received. Trump got the most coverage of any candidate running on either side, the vast majority of which was favorable in tone, despite claims that his rise was mostly driven by cable TV and social media. Sanders supporters were right: He didn’t receive much attention in the first half of 2015. Clinton got three times more coverage, and even Trump, Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Ben Carson each got more than Sanders. But once he did get coverage, the attention was far more positive than it was for Clinton. In fact, Sanders received the most favorable coverage of any Democrat or Republican running, collecting three positive pieces for every negative one. Meanwhile, the study said that the press distrust of Clinton is demonstrable. She received the least favorable coverage of any Democratic or Republican candidate. In the first half of 2015, there were three negative reports about her for every positive one. In the second half, the ratio was 3:2 negative to positive. Fox led the way, broadcasting 291 negative reports about Clinton and just 39 positive ones. In contrast, Fox gave Sanders 79 positive mentions and 31 negative ones.In an interview, Patterson, the Bradlee Professor of Government and the Press and interim director of the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy at HKS, spoke with the Gazette about the findings.GAZETTE: What prompted this analysis, and what for you was most surprising?PATTERSON: We’ve done this in some of the past presidential elections. We did it in 2000, we did it in 2008, and we did it a little bit in 2004. It’s one area where we’ve sometimes tried to make a contribution to understanding what’s going on in the media coverage.Given all of the attention that was devoted to Trump by the press, it certainly wasn’t surprising that he got the lion’s share of the coverage. The interesting part is how much of that was favorable coverage, which contradicts the media narrative that they were tough on him from the beginning. They gave him a pretty good ride in the early going, not only in terms of how much coverage they gave him. It’s pretty unusual to give heavy coverage to someone at the bottom of the polls.It wasn’t all that surprising to see the negative coverage on Hillary Clinton’s side, although the degree of the negativity was a bit of a surprise for us. And how much of the press was what we would put in the “bad press” category. The press normally covers the horse race, not so much the issues. In her case, her issues got twice the coverage of the other candidates and it was largely negative. So I think the press certainly contributed to the rise of Donald Trump and the struggle that Clinton has with her unfavorability ratings.GAZETTE: Why was the Trump coverage so favorable and voluminous given the controversial and even incendiary nature of many of his early public remarks? And why didn’t Jeb Bush, who had a massive war chest, a campaign operation, name recognition, and status as the frontrunner, get similar positive attention?PATTERSON: I think there are two explanations for Trump’s favorable coverage that also help explain Bush’s unfavorable coverage. One is they tend to embed their narrative in the horse race, and if you’re a candidate like Trump who’s rising in the polls, the press tends to treat that in a favorable [way]. So much of what’s said about the candidates is where they are in the horse race. And as a rising candidate, in every case we’ve ever looked at, that’s always accompanied by favorable coverage. It’s O.K. to be the frontrunner if you can stay there, but the minute you start to drop, the narrative becomes “what’s wrong with this candidate; why is this candidate losing ground,” and that’s a negative story.The other thing with Trump: We were for the most part looking at the traditional press, and they pursue what’s sometimes called the “objective model,” or “balance.” So if they quote someone attacking Trump, they have a tendency to [also] quote someone who’s saying good things about Trump. So if he’s going to get attacked by someone about his stance on building a wall, their model says you go out and find somebody who’s going to say something nice about that.GAZETTE: While the media’s horse race preoccupation and taste for what’s good copy rather than what’s helpful for voters was similar for both parties, you say the coverage of the Democratic race was “markedly different” than the Republican contest. How so?PATTERSON: It got much less attention than the Republican race. I think the press really was preoccupied in many ways with what was going on on the Republican side, maybe because they thought there was greater uncertainty about how it was going to come out.GAZETTE: So it was not primarily a function of having a 17-person field?PATTERSON: That plays into it. The Republican debates started earlier, and the debates triggered a lot of the coverage, so there were a number of factors that played into it. I just think they thought that was going to be the race, [and] on the Democratic side, it was going to be Clinton from the beginning, so that got underplayed. After Bernie Sanders started to move upward in the polls and Clinton started to decline and something that looked like a horse race was beginning to emerge, then you saw an increase in coverage. But even then, most of the attention was on the Republican side.The other difference is, by far, Hillary Clinton received the most negative coverage of any of the candidates, Republican or Democratic, as a percentage of her coverage.GAZETTE: Why didn’t Sanders get the kind of early press boost that Trump got, given that both started as underdogs who unexpectedly drew large crowds?PATTERSON: It took a while. After he started to campaign, it took him a while to draw those large crowds and start moving up in the polls. Whereas in Trump’s case, there wasn’t that much of a time lag between his announcement and then making some of the statements that drew a lot of attention. Bernie was sounding like Bernie, so once you told ‘the Bernie story,” there wasn’t necessarily a lot of fresh news coming out of his mouth, while Trump was saying something pretty new and sensational every day. Once they thought, “Could there be a real race here?” then he started to get more attention. As he rose in the polls, it was as positive a story for Bernie as it was for Trump.His issue coverage was very positive, more positive than any of the other candidates, in part because there weren’t a lot of attacks on him coming from journalists. Even Hillary Clinton wasn’t attacking his positions on student loans and the minimum wage and economic fairness. They were part of her platform, too — not in the same way, but it wasn’t at odds with anything she was saying fundamentally — so you didn’t have that attack/counterattack dynamic going on. And then there’s always a little bit of that David and Goliath story whenever you have someone like a Sanders coming at a frontrunner who’s got lots of money, lots of endorsements, thought to be the presumptive nominee almost from the start, then that becomes part of the narrative too.GAZETTE: The paper debunks some popular notions about the coverage in 2015: that the media establishment didn’t boost Donald Trump’s early candidacy because it was mostly negative, or that the excessive and uncritical coverage was a phenomenon of cable TV only; that Bernie Sanders was consistently ignored and treated unfairly because the media favored Hillary; that Hillary wasn’t held to a different and higher standard than her male rivals. What did you find?PATTERSON: The traditional press was operating out of news values, as they always do. The press always has an appetite for the sensational, the outrageous. That always beats the ordinary. [Trump] was a colorful story, and the mainstream press is susceptible to that. That’s so ingrained in the model, so when he was saying those things, it was front-page news everywhere. It wasn’t just on Fox. They were very much part of the Trump boost.In terms of Clinton, they’ve always had a terrific appetite for scandal. It doesn’t have to be proven, it just has to be in the air. So the [State Department] emails and Benghazi chewed up a lot of Hillary’s coverage. Those were big stories. If you’ve got a touch of scandal around you and you’re way at the bottom of the polls, they don’t much care about that. But if you’re the frontrunner and those things are clearly driving up your unfavorable ratings, chewing away at your poll standing, that all feeds into the horse race narrative and you have a nice merging of the “scandal stream” and the “horse race stream.” Both are irresistible, and when they combine, it becomes doubly so.Sanders was treated like virtually every other candidate who’s at the bottom of the pack. They always struggle for press recognition. He was not singled out in that sense. He was the norm. Trump was the outlier on that variable. Bernie got a pretty good ride after they started to pay attention to him. He increasingly got the news attention he was looking for. It was favorable on the horse race dimension, and then of all the candidates, his issue coverage was the most favorable. One can argue exactly why that was the case, but a large part of it was that at that point, no one was attacking him on those issue positions. Without a conflict, the press is going to pretty much go with what he’s saying on the issues. He’s going to be able to define his candidacy without a counter voice coming into the mix.GAZETTE: Why is the political media’s self-assessment seemingly so at odds with your findings? And what should they do better to guard against inadvertently or inappropriately putting their thumb on the scale to help or hurt a particular candidate in the future?PATTERSON: I think journalists are so trapped in the horse race narrative they don’t recognize the degree to which it drives both the volume and tone of the coverage. When they do have a little more discretion or when they do step back a little bit, they might be more critical of a candidacy like Trump’s. It’s those exceptional moments that stick in their minds: “Well, in October we said this about the danger he posed on this particular issue.” But what they’re missing is the day-to-day narrative they’re creating by being so tightly focused on the candidate’s standing in the race. They’re just not seeing the forest; they pick out the tree that’s pretty favorable to their argument. They do write stories of that type, but it’s overwhelmed by the day-to-day headline story about the candidate on the rise and the issues that are driving that rise, and the like.I think the press over the last half-century has become increasingly fixated on inside baseball and the political game. As long as they’re in that frame, you’re going to get this kind of coverage. They’ve got to step out and cast their vision more widely and think about elections. Elections are about voters as well as about candidates. They’re about the condition of the country as well as whatever the campaign organizations might be doing. They just have to broaden their lens. Once they broaden their lens, then you start to bring in other elements of the campaign in a fuller way and you diminish, to some degree, this driving narrative around the race.[There’s] an assumption that that’s what the audience is looking for, they really are interested in following the race as a race. The other reason is: It’s easy journalism. It was very interesting that it took them a couple of months to say “Who are these Trump voters?” They were focused on “The Donald” and what the pollsters were showing. They weren’t all that interested in why this guy is resonating, what the people who are backing him thinking about? Those stories could’ve come much earlier. But you can’t find those stories if you don’t go looking for them.This interview has been edited for clarity and length.SaveSaveSaveSaveSave
BEST ORIGINAL SCOREFRONTRUNNERSLeft: Wayne Kirkpatrick & Karey Kirkpatrick, Something Rotten! — This country songwriting brother act has delivered a vibrant score filled with showstoppers and will get their first nom. Right: Lisa Kron (lyrics) & Jeanine Tesori (music), Fun Home — Kron and Tesori, a four-time nominee, are basically guaranteed a spot for their deeply felt score filled with unshakable moments.IN THE MIXLeft to Right:Gary Barlow & Eliot Kennedy, Finding Neverland — A pop-flavored score doesn’t always impress nominators, but this duo deserves love for their bright tunes.John Kander & Fred Ebb, The Visit — This legendary duo’s final collaboration (Ebb died in 2004) is mysterious, moving and finally on Broadway.Sting, The Last Ship — After pouring his heart into his autobiographical musical, this music superstar is likely to earn well-deserved respect from nominators.BROADWAY.COM SHOUTOUTJason Robert Brown, Honeymoon in Vegas — Last year’s winner in the category (for The Bridges of Madison County) wrote a bright, bouncy ode to musical comedy scores of the ’60s and ’70s and some of the most singable songs of the season.ALSO POSSIBLEDoctor Zhivago, It Shoulda Been You BEST DIRECTION OF A MUSICALFRONTRUNNERSLeft to Right: Sam Gold, Fun Home — Not only did he create a stirring staging when the show premiered downtown, he restaged the entire musical in the round on Broadway, earning even better reviews.Casey Nicholaw, Something Rotten! — The current golden boy of Broadway musicals should earn his third directing nod for this hilarious new musical that he helped craft out of thin air.Christopher Wheeldon, An American in Paris — To see his show is to be dazzled by his talents as not only a choreographer, but as a visionary director.IN THE MIXLeft to Right:John Doyle, The Visit — The Tony winner has created a dark, beautiful world that should excite nominators.Diane Paulus, Finding Neverland — It’s hard to imagine this magical new musical taking flight without the extraordinary vision of this always-reliable past winner.John Rando, On the Town — He hasn’t been nominated since he won in 2001 for Urinetown, but this always-working director has earned big respect for dusting off a classic and turning it into a hit.Bartlett Sher, The King and I — He won a Tony for another Rodgers and Hammerstein hit, and is definitely in the running this year for this classy revival.BROADWAY.COM SHOUTOUTBill Condon, Side Show — Thank you, Bill Condon, for bringing Daisy and Violet Hilton back to Broadway in a gorgeous new staging. It truly will never leave us.ALSO POSSIBLEScott Ellis, On the Twentieth Century; Gary Griffin, Honeymoon in Vegas; Kenny Leon, Holler If Ya Hear Me; Joe Mantello, The Last Ship; Des McAnuff, Doctor Zhivago; David Hyde Pierce, It Shoulda Been You; Eric Schaefer, Gigi BEST BOOK OF A MUSICALFRONTRUNNERSLeft: Karey Kirkpatrick & John O’Farrell, Something Rotten! — Both Broadway newcomers, this pair wrote one of the funniest scripts for a new musical in years and will be honored appropriately.Right: Lisa Kron, Fun Home — The acclaimed playwright will be in the running for her musical debut, in which she deftly adapted Alison Bechdel’s book for the stage.IN THE MIXLeft to Right:James Graham, Finding Neverland — This British playwright is new to Broadway and in the running for his elegant, moving stage version of the popular movie.Craig Lucas, An American in Paris — Twenty-five years after getting a Best Play nom for Prelude to a Kiss, this esteemed playwright is likely to be remembered for the impressive feat of adaptating the beloved film for Broadway.John Logan & Brian Yorkey, The Last Ship — The two respected writers teamed up to craft an engaging story of family, religion, rekindled love and, yes, shipbuilding, inspired by Sting’s life.Terrence McNally, The Visit — A two-time winner in the category, McNally is a contender for the long-brewing project that turned a bizarre play into the ultimate Chita Rivera vehicle.BROADWAY.COM SHOUTOUTTodd Kreidler, Holler if Ya Hear Me — Looking back on the season, we’re filled with mad respect for this August Wilson protege who turned the songs of Tupac into a searing urban story with poetry and pathos.ALSO POSSIBLEDoctor Zhivago, Honeymoon in Vegas, It Shoulda Been You BEST CHOREOGRAPHYFRONTRUNNERSLeft to Right:Joshua Bergasse, On the Town — This former chorus boy is now a big-time choreographer who will be honored for kicking off the ballet revival on Broadway this season.Casey Nicholaw, Something Rotten! — Nobody can make a classic Broadway showstopper like this guy. Nobody.Christopher Wheldon, An American in Paris — This ballet icon slipped into the category with a nom for his jazz-infused work on the flop Sweet Smell of Success, but this year he’s a big-time frontrunner.IN THE MIXLeft to Right:Warren Carlyle, On the Twentieth Century — He won last year for After Midnight and could easily be a contender again for his classic Broadway work in the splashy revival.Graciela Daniele, The Visit — Never count out this eight-time nominee, who has staged some beautiful new dances to show off her friend and icon Chita Rivera.Christopher Gattelli, The King and I — This past winner is in the running, assuming nominators can tell where original stager Jerome Robbins’ work ended and his began.Mia Michaels, Finding Neverland — So you think you can Broadway? This contemporary dance star sure can, creating unforgettable numbers with Pan and co.BROADWAY.COM SHOUTOUTSteven Hoggett, The Last Ship — Last year, he crafted boxing matches for Rocky Balboa and this year, he made believable dance numbers for the manliest ship builders you’ve ever seen. We can’t wait to see what’s next.ALSO POSSIBLEJoshua Bergasse, Gigi; Wayne Cilento, Holler If Ya Hear Me; Kelly Devine, Doctor Zhivago; Denis Jones, Honeymoon in Vegas; Danny Mefford, Fun Home; Josh Rhodes, It Shoulda Been You; Anthony Van Laast, Side ShowStay tuned for more Tony cheat sheets! BEST MUSICALFRONTRUNNERSLeft to Right:An American in Paris — This throwback to the kind of romantic musicals that actually make you want to be in love will land lots of nominations, including this one.Fun Home — This expertly crafted, deeply felt musical about real people with real struggles will become the first Best Musical nominee based on a graphic novel (of all things!).Something Rotten! — A completely original musical comedy about the first musical comedy, and audiences can’t get enough? It’s a slam dunk for a nomination.IN THE MIXLeft to Right:Finding Neverland — If nominators have a heart, they’ll acknowledge this moving family-friendly show with Tony love.Honeymoon in Vegas — Although this musical comedy recently closed on Broadway, it deserves to be remembered.The Visit — Although this dark creation might not be everyone’s cup of tea, Kander and Ebb’s final musical collaboration is total Tony bait.BROADWAY.COM SHOUTOUTThe Last Ship — The musical inspired by Sting’s childhood in a shipbuilding town never caught on, but it lives on in our hearts and on our iPods.ALSO POSSIBLEDoctor Zhivago, Holler if Ya Hear Me, It Shoulda Been You OMG, it’s Tony time! We’re totally obsessing at the Broadway.com offices over which shows, creatives and stars will wake up to good news on April 28, the morning that this year’s Tony nominees are announced. Because we know you’re in the same boat, we’re running through the top categories to offer our take on the frontrunners, hopefuls and a special Shout Out that we hope won’t be forgetten. Today, we’re kicking it off with the top musical categories! BEST MUSICAL REVIVALLeft to Right: Gigi, The King and I, On the Twentieth Century, On the Town, Side ShowFive shows, four slots. Yikes! The King and I is big and grand and definitely a shoo-in. On the Twentieth Century and On the Town are both lively productions of musical comedies that are rarely on Broadway and will both be acknowledged. The final slot comes down to Gigi or Side Show, both polished new takes on tarnished musicals. Although it’s closed, Side Show seems to have the edge. View Comments