Ah, yes, free time

Once upon a time, I updated this blog. Hopefully, I shall return to that habit.

Nominally, I'd have crafted something for this post... at least, that's the goal for this blog. Unfortunately, the current state of burnout means I'll merely update it so it doesn't look as though it's vacant.

The state of things:

• A Midsummer Night's Dream went well. Now that it's done I have some extra time


• Speaking of Shakespeare (in the park), I'm directing next year's feature, Macbeth. The only question is, how dark is too dark?


• This block of Rancid videos on Fuse does my heart good. "Salvation" indeed.


• Corporate rental/retail... not doing my heart (or my body, or mind) any good.


• As everyone has probably heard, Fahrenheit 9/11 has found a distributor. I love how the same people who label Michael Moore a propagandist tend to believe Bill O'Reilly is an unbiased dispenser of facts.

Let's face reality here, kids. Michael Moore is just the left's version of Rush Limbaugh or Joe Scarborogh. A lot of facts, construed through a certain (biased) critical lens. Anyone who's actually read Dude, Where's My Country (which first raised a lot of the points found in Fahrenheit) will notice two things: 1) Half the book is taken up by Moore sniping the right-wing, 2) The other half is a set of solid conclusions based upon reams of research.

For every loudmouth and wannabe "clever" documentarian who claims that Moore hates America, and demonstrates just how great this country is, allow me to provide a tip. A class in logic/debate would do you well. These arguments combine elements of ad hominem and distraction fallacies. "You can't believe Moore's work because he hates America" is a fallacy. It attacks the author (Moore is biased, don't listen), and it distracts us (America is great) from the original assertions.

What're these assertions? First: 9/11 put the Bush administration in a sticky situation because of his ties to Saudi Arabia and the bin Laden family. Second: the administration utilized 9/11 to further a pre-existing agenda. "Love of America" does not enter into this argument.

I could go on, but nobody wants another page of rhetorical analysis. SO I leave with this thought: During the Ashcroft Q&A session yesterday, I saw a Congressman re-affirm the Geneva convention. We don't want our soldiers (siblings, children, friends) tortured. Therefore, we do not engage in torture. Rather, we shouldn't.

When an American was captured and beheaded by Iraqi insurgents, I heard more than one person ask "And that country is still standing, why?" Conversely, when an Iraqi finds out that a fellow citizen had voltage shot through his penis, why do we expect them to think any differently?