Wednesday, February 15, 2006

The previous post? Yeah, it's officially out-dated. The Intro and 2nd Chapter to my thesis?

Done. Fuck yeah.

I think this calls for me to finish that 6-pack of Blue Moon (Belgian-style ale), and maybe even top it off with that old bottle of tawny port.

Boo-yah, grandma.

What monosyllabic vocalization of frustration haven't I used?

Grrr... This first draft of the thesis was supposed to be done a month ago. I type this as I'm putting the finishing touches on the second (of three) chapters. 52 pages down, about 30 to go. I've learned at least one thing: I'm a slowing fucking typist. I wrote this thing out by hand over a month ago. It's taken me this long to type the first 52 pages of it.

What's even worse is that a day has rarely gone by where I haven't done at least a couple pages. And somehow, I'm barely behind in only one class. I don't know how; I'm just thankful.

And I was having such a good morning, too. Had a good V-day with my lady, yesterday. Slept in today. And then... my assistantship. I thought things would be okay. I thought my thesis-writing would give me a little leeway to be a little less active this semester.

Nope. I'm in or directing every scene we have, save one. And I'm still doing my administrative / script / dramaturg duties. And, today, in a post-show discussion of our overview show, I was vocally critical of all the directions to go with it. I hate didacticism. I hate bowdlerizing a script and simplifying the issues for mass consumption. I hate direct, beat-you-over the head activist drama.

But that's where we're heading, and I guess it's time for me to shut up and just do what I need to earn that paycheck.

Back to the thesis...

Thursday, February 09, 2006

Columnists! Augh!

Anyone arguing that all media are part of the liberal elite need to read the opinion section of the BG News on a regular basis. This semester especially, they have a lot of columnists who can tow the Conservative line, but few who can put together a valid argument.

Take everybody's favorite hyperbole artist, D.J. Johnson. He recently begged (his words) readers to avoid this year's BGSU production of The Vagina Monologues. Mein Gott in Himmel, how does this happen? It wouldn't be so bad if he said, "I hate it, it's vulgar." No, he called everybody, including cast, to be absent from it. And he's the Asst. Opinion Editor! He should know better!

Anyway, just in case he's the editor laying out the page (and therefore deletes it), I'll reprint my Guest Column here:

There’s a Denis Leary sketch that I enjoy: it’s just a bunch of people saying a taboo word (penis) over and over.

Crude, but effective. I would say that Eve Ensler’s Vagina Monologues takes a far more artistic and personal approach to a far more important idea, female sexuality.

Not everyone might agree. Columnist D.J. Johnson hates Ensler’s play so much, he appeals to people like me in his reading audience: “Even if you have disagreed with what I have had to say in the past…”

Ah, yes, the wisdom of this particular columnist’s past. First, liberals are treacherous “by nature” (as though it’s a genetic defect). Then, liberalism is a sin. Heck, such columns display the basic inability to distinguish between “liberal” and “not conservative.” After those gems, I thought the BG News had plumbed the depths of disagreeable, ill-formed arguments.

Then came this one.

Here’s what I mean:

Blaming an annual show for the “degradation” of “this great nation”? By such logic, this nation should already be at the gates of Hell. After all, the Vagina Monologues have been around since 1996, and have been performed annually by campuses nationwide in the decade since. And I’m willing to bet it’ll still be performed at BGSU when everybody reading this has graduated. Apocalypse, here we come.

It’s not in my interest to disparage an opinion different than my own. Back in the hoary days of my youth, when I worked on the Opinion page, it was encouraged that columnists had opposing viewpoints. Of course, we usually asked authors to make some attempt at logical arguments, with at least a hint of evidence.

Such is not the case here. Johnson boldly states that because of this show, “If anything, women are more ashamed and more unwilling to discuss any aspect of their sexuality.” That’s what we would call an unsupported assertion masquerading as a fact. Where’s the evidence for this? Something besides anecdotes, please; I can pull those out of my own nether regions.

And while I’m pulling, the author contradicts himself by saying that women “need to talk about their sexuality more.” The contradiction comes when he implies what talking about sex means: only the “sacred” aspect of it, or about assault. Apparently, confidence and empowerment in one’s own sexuality (through the metaphor of the “unspeakable” vagina) is not considered talking about a woman’s sexuality.

While we’re on the subject, and maybe this is a minor point, but since when is a man the expert on what women’s liberation needs? Not to be essentialist, but this is the same columnist who wrote the following in another section of the same paper: “Men always seem to know where the relationship is heading more than women.” With such a viewpoint, he’s now going to argue what is and is not immature?

Even better, Johnson ends the column with a plea that makes me use the term “insufferable” for the first time in my (short) writing career: he asks everyone to avoid the show like the plague, including the cast, if possible. Apparently, in his worldview, attending the Vagina Monologues will do nothing to help women, despite the tangible result of the show’s proceeds going to the Cocoon shelter and SAAFE.

I could go on about the hyperbole Johnson engages in that no serious columnist should (This script is the single document that has jeopardized American morality? Worse than The Last Temptation of Christ, the existence of a porn industry, the re-emergence of the Gnostic texts, or even Maplethorpe’s art?!). But I’ve already wasted enough ink.

Perhaps I should just leave with a hypothetical: Let’s set the Puritanical views in a Johnson column next to Ensler’s script, and ask women which one is more likely to hinder the progress of female equality.
All I ask (not beg, and not on my knees), is that people see the show once in their lives, especially if the proceeds are being donated. In this case, it is better to form your own opinion, rather than taking the one found in yesterday’s BG News.

Sunday, February 05, 2006

(...grumble grumble grumble...)

Start with the caveats:

No. I'm not a regular sports commentator.
Though my dad is a ref, I am not.
I was kinda hoping that Seattle would win a hard-fought game.

Those aside, I really felt gypped by Super Bowl XL. It's as though the league wanted an emotional story with a happy Steeler ending. The Pittsburgh fans had reason to gripe with the game-calling in their match-up with the Colts. Now the Seahawks have reason.

Look at the game flow: The first score (a Seattle TD) is called back on a very iffy penalty. How iffy? I borrowed the adjectives from ESPN, and ABC commentator Steve Young looked sick when mentioning it.

Next, we have the grandson of the Immaculate Reception: Ben's Hidden Ball TD. Upon further review, I'm not ready to believe that Big Ben scored. Granted, I'm not ready to go the other way; the video evidence is not sufficient to overturn an on-field call. The on-field call was a delayed "touchdown" (so delayed the announcers thought the judge was coming in to mark the spot).

Finally, we have the drive that lead to the only Seattle turnover. After driving almost the length of the field, the Pittsburgh defense was jumping a little early. In fact, when Hasselbeck completed a pass down to the 1, I thought the penalty flag was going to be offsides. Instead, it was a holding call that, upon review, was also iffy (and the announcers couldn't see it, either).

Rather than first-and-goal, Hasselbeck tries to force a long pass, and is intercepted. To add insult to injury, the QB draws a bogus penalty when he makes a game-saving tackle (the refs no-call what looked like a horse-collar tackle by Pittsburgh, but flag Hasselbeck for a normal QB tackle?!). So not only do the Steelers get the ball, but they get an extra 15 yards. And on a crucial third and short, Ben calls time out "two beats" after the play clock hits zero (again, Madden's words). No delay of game, the Steelers barely make the first down, and then pull out a trick play to seal it.

Now this is not to detract from the Steelers; they played a good game (not great, but good... look at the stats). It really felt like everybody wanted this game to shape up to be the storybook tale for Cower, Bettis, and Ben. And when it wasn't, they had to hammer it into the right shape. It feels... cheapened.

Oh, well. Now Ben and Rutherford B. Hayes have more in common than their Ohio roots... Though they didn't ask for or want it, they got a little outside help to win their respective campaigns.