Geoausch

On February 1, 1896, Giacomo Puccini’s classic opera, La boheme, opened in Turin, Italy. Almost 100 years to the day, on January 25, 1996, a modern day version of La boheme called Rent opened off-Broadway. Since its’ opening, Rent has inspired and moved many, but a small vocal minority continues to attack the musical and its’ fans. Whether out of ignorance, bigotry, homophobia, xenophobia, misogyny, those who choose to attack fail to see the irony in attacking a performance whose central theme involves looking past all that divides us, to see all that which unites us, and to cherish those around us one minute at a time—five hundred, twenty-five thousand, six hundred times a year.

Last week, I read about Rowlett High School’s attempt to stage Rent: School Edition, a version of the musical edited for high school performances. Initially, I Googled “Rent school edition” to see how it differed from the original Broadway musical and found that the changes were made with the blessings of Jonathon Larson’s estate, settling my first worry. Next, I felt jealous that a high school had the opportunity to perform one of the greatest works of art of the 20^th Century and wished that I had had similar opportunities in high school. After my fears resided and envy faded, I began to probe into the story deeper. I found the same bigoted response from certain individuals.

It is the same bigoted response my friend received a few years ago. He served as youth pastor at a church in the area. An avid fan of Broadway musicals, he hung a Rent poster in his office. When the senior pastor saw the poster, he made several derogatory comments regarding homosexuals and my friend soon found himself out of a job.

It’s the same bigoted response I hear when people continually refer to Rent as the “the AIDS musical,” or the same bigoted response I hear from Christian conservatives preying on the fears of others in their community.

In the end, it reveals ignorance and a weak faith. Anyone remotely familiar with Rent understands the universal themes explored therein—truth, beauty, love and the relationships that bind us all together. Only those who have never seen the musical, those who go on only what they’ve heard from their pastor, those lacking knowledge or comprehension of Rent’s message—the ignorant—would believe the bigoted responses.

I made the decision early in college to avoid a career that required wearing a suit. Although I changed my major at least once a semester for my first three years in college, I never strayed from the humanities-a half semester as a religion major, another half as a journalism major, a semester a piece in history, philosophy and political science, back to philosophy for a semester, and back to political science for a semester. Finally, at the start of my fourth year in college I decided to follow in my mother’s footsteps and three years later I graduated with a B.A. in English. 

Along the way, I took a lot of interesting classes, wrote a lot of interesting papers, spent a few years trying to imitate the lifestyles of the writers I loved and avoided taking any classes that involved business, finance, economics, or any other class that might leave me with some marketable skills. Even before I graduated, I understood the public’s perception of English degrees. 

My friends always asked, “What are you going to do with that?” I always spit out some bull shit answer, “Well, I’m going to move to the city and write of course,” never actually specifying which city or what I was going to write. 

I remember my excitement the first time I received a response, and subsequent offer, from a job inquiry with an electronic publication. Though not a book deal, I felt such a position could help me hone my writing skills, while providing for me financially while working on the “great American novel.” Plus, it involved relocating to L.A. after graduation. The position turned out to be with the Internet version of a publication devoted to the business side of the adult entertainment industry-a Wall Street Journal for the porn industry. While it sounded exciting, I never saw myself as Hugh Hefner or Larry Flynt type. 

Not long after, while roaming the local Books-A-Million, I stumbled across a Playbill (get your mind out of the gutter, I said Playbill, not Playboy) magazine and began to read about a new musical taking Broadway by storm, Avenue Q.  I discovered the show featured a number entitled, “What Do You Do With A B.A. in English,” and immediately ordered the soundtrack. In addition to instilling a new found appreciation for puppets and teaching me the meaning of the word “schadenfreude,” the musical accomplished its’ goal of teaching me several life lessons. 

But I digress, I write not as theatre critic, but as a man searching for the answer to the age old question, “what do you do with a B.A. in English?” 

I love to write. Something happens inside when you take a blank screen and transform it into a living thing. Something happens inside when you string together a series of letters to convey a message. We all have stories to tell, some better than others, and those select few who excel at transforming the blank screen (or paper) to a living thing, or who excel at stringing letters together to form art or those who excel at telling their stories, with a whole lot of luck, may make a living wage at their art at some point in life. However, a majority of those who excel at these tasks end up never earning a penny for the words they write. One can only imagine the challenges someone who lacks these skills faces. I knew that eventually I would need a contingency plan. 

I knew a contingency plan must consist of a couple of things. One, any career I chose must allow me the opportunity to write. At the same time, any career I chose would have to provide the flexibility of living either in the urban center or in the rural countryside, The energy of the city and the serenity of the country both provide the inspiration necessary for great writing; however, there is something artificial about the suburbs that make them unacceptable for me. Plus, I don’t do traffic. I either want to be able to drive somewhere on city streets, walk or use public transportation. 

Like every English major, I considered teaching, but only the university level. I loved college and I felt more comfortable in the world of academia than in most other social settings, so I thought long and hard about graduate studies in English. Being a professor not only allows you to write, but requires you to write and write abundantly.  Colleges exist both in the urban center and in rural America, so being a professor fulfills that requirement. However, the salary of a college professor leaves a lot to be desired. 

I kept on coming back to the law school option. Again, lawyers write and are needed in both the urban center and in the country. Attorneys have the ability to bring in an attractive salary and have a lot of options in regards to a career. Just because you earn a J.D. doesn’t necessarily mean you have to practice law. 

In February, I took the LSAT. I did ok, nothing completely Earth shattering, but I did manage to score higher than my sister (you know I love you). After reviewing my score, I decided to take the plunge and last weekend I submitted my first application to SMU’s Dedman School of Law. Without a doubt, SMU is my first choice. It’s proximity to my current residence allows me to stay within the urban core and avoid traveling to the suburbs. Additionally, their evening program would allow me to keep my current job while I attend classes at night. 

As with everything in life, I have a back-up plan. I also plan on applying at Texas Tech, University of Houston and the University of Arkansas-Little Rock. Lubbock and Little Rock are both “tweener” towns, not big enough to be considered urban and too big to be considered rural. Therefore, neither of those two locations is really appealing, though the tuition rate at both schools is a lot more attractive than SMU. Houston is definitely urban, but it’s also fucking humid. I’m keeping my fingers crossed that SMU accepts me and that I can complete my work there. 

From time to time, in addition to my normal blogging, I will try and post updates regarding the application process. I should know my status at SMU by January 31, 2008.

I quit smoking 371 days ago. I lost count of the number of times I tried unsuccessfully to quit, but I do remember talking to my doctor, a former smoker himself, about quitting and he told me directly that all the “stop smoking” aides in the world, all the literature, would be no good if I weren’t truly ready to quit. As always, this doctor was right. I used nicotine patches for the first two weeks, but since that time, I have fought my personal addiction to nicotine without any aides and have been successful. 

Since I smoked my last Marlboro Light, I’ve noticed, among other things, that my improved ability to process olfactory sensations has left me extremely sensitive to second-hand cigarette smoke. If I choose to walk in front of my office building, where the smoking masses gather, the cloud of smoke chokes me and causes my eyes to water. The scent of the smokers who ride the elevator with me causes my stomach to turn. Today at lunch, as I waited in line for a sandwich, a couple who had obviously finished a cigarette right before entering the restaurant stood behind me, causing my gag reflexes to work on over drive. Among other things, these experiences help me to see just how disgusting I was for 10 years of my life. 

However, through all of this, I still cannot understand the efforts of groups like, Smoke Free Texas, who seek to legislate anti-smoking campaigns. I don’t know anyone who will argue about the dangers of cigarette smoke and I think most people agree that smoking is a nasty habit; however, in the United States, we can’t ban habits we find offensive. Personally, I can’t stand people who crunch on ice. This does not give me the right to introduce legislation banning crunching ice in the private sector. 

Before we go any further, let me be clear. Anti-smoking campaigns are nothing new. Adolf Hilter loved anti-smoking campaigns and Nazi-Germany introduced the world to some of the toughest anti-smoking measures the world has ever seen. This does not necessarily mean that members of Smoke Free Texas, Smoke Free Dallas, are any of other incarnation thereof, are necessarily Nazis. It does tell me that they don’t have a problem with fascism in their government, a trait they share with Nazis. 

The point these fascist groups continue to pound into the heads of local and state governments is that “second-hand” smoke is a monster that we must be protected from and that man, left to his own devices, lacks the ability to fight the war against “second-hand” smoke without the intervention of the government. Indeed, as I write this post, fascists are trying to convince the city of Dallas to broaden their current smoking ordinance. 

But this represents something much larger than smoking. In essence, the fascists who comprise these anti-smoking groups promote an intrusive form of both local and Federal governments that create powers not found in the Constitution. If these fascists would have faith in free market capitalism, the smoking issue would be a moot point within 5 or 10 years. 

Let’s take the most common example, the attempt to ban smoking in restaurants. I submit that if given a choice between a restaurant that allows smoking and one that does not, most patrons would choose the non-smoking establishment. Over time, the restaurant that does allow smoking would change their policy in order to gain new business. One by one, restaurants that allow smoking would fade away without any government intervention. 

Of course, the fascist’s common retort states that we should consider the “poor employees” of the smoking establishments. Again, allow me to speak from experience. As a former member of the food service industry, I can assure you that a large majority of people employed in the food service industry smoke or engage in even more dangerous recreational activities. Those that don’t understand the dangers associated with “second hand” smoke and have every right to quit and look for a job at an establishment that does not allow smoking. In the United States, no one forces you to take a job and no one guarantees you a job. 

To be clear, I do not promote smoking. I wish that no one smoked and that this argument never wasted the time and money of any government. Unfortunately, people smoke. Unfortunately, people desire a bigger government and will exploit the smoking issue to achieve their goal-a “nanny state.” The one group of people more dangerous than “Big Tobacco” are the people who fight for a bigger, more intrusive government (socialists, communists, fascists, yuppies, Christian conservatives, etc.).  Instead of demonizing the smoker, we should offer him or her our help and support. Instead, let us focus our energy on and prevent organizations like Smoke Free Texas, Smoke Free Dallas, and all their other incarnations, from spreading their “smiley faced’ fascism.

In the past, I have been relatively hard on the environmental lobby as a whole, attacking both eco-terrorism and environmental extremism. However, today I find myself in their corner. 

Ash Grove Cement operates a cement plat in Midlothian, Texas, a town known locally as the “cement capital of the world.”  This particular Ash Grove cement plant uses only wet process kilns, as opposed to dry process kilns, which produce less emissions. Since the dry process kilns produce so called, “green cement,” many environmentally conscious municipalities, including Dallas and several other North Texas cities, have initiated policies favoring, but not necessarily requiring, all municipal cement to be produced by dry process kilns, as part of wider environmentally friendly measures. With that said, Ash Grove Cement filed a law suit in U.S. District Court in Dallas last Wednesday, alleging that the measures adopted by Dallas and other North Texas cities violates fair contracting practices. 

 The Ash Grove case raises several questions. 

First, does a city government have the right to impose guidelines for doing business with companies? Sure, every city in the United States has established guidelines on how they choose whom to do business with, be it for coffee in the city manager’s office or construction contracts. 

Has the city of Dallas specifically required something of Ash Grove Cement that they haven’t from other cement companies? Based on the information in the Dallas Morning News’ article, no! Again, based on the article, the city of Dallas simply looks more favorably on a company who uses dry process kilns. Nothing in the article suggests that the city of Dallas requires the dry kiln process. Even if the city of Dallas did, this would not be unfair since it would apply to all prospective contractors and not just Ash Grove Cement. 

Does anything about the city of Dallas’ policy go against the principles of free market capitalism? Again, based on the information reported in this article, no. One of the most basic elements of free market capitalism is “let the market take care of itself.” If the city of Dallas issued a mandate that all cement factories operating within the city limits of Dallas must use dry process kilns, they would border on violating this tenant and attempt to control the market themselves.

However, Dallas’ policy does not in anyway seek to control how Ash Grove Cement controls their business, nor does it attempt to control the “cement market.” Dallas simply makes a choice as any consumer would, based on certain pre-determined criteria. It’s really no different than you or I deciding not do with business with a company whose practices or associations we may disagree with or oppose.

In fact, Ash Grove Cement’s stance represents a far greater blow to free market capitalism than anything else contained in the article. Ash Grove seeks to control the market by requiring the consumer (Dallas) to consider their product, even if the product they manufacture doesn’t meet the consumer’s standards. Perhaps if Ash Grove Cement devoted the time and effort to make a better, cleaner product, Dallas and other North Texas cities would desire their product. Until then, Ash Grove and their corporate reps. should stop their bitching and live with the fact that they make an inferior product.

In his Meditations on First Philosophy, Rene Descartes wrote of an “evil genius,” a being whose sole purpose it is to mislead humans. For example, Descartes’ “evil genius” could try and get you to believe that 2+2=5, when we all know it to be 4. I’ve never been a huge fan of Cartesian philosophy and I’ve always been skeptical of all supernatural beings, but I am now convinced that an “evil genius” does exist in the form of the  BCS, as they attempt to convince us that the University of Oklahoma has a better football team than the University of Texas, when the opposite has been prove true on a neutral football field.

Put simply, OU being handed the Big XII South title (and the opportunity to earn a shot in the BCS title game) by the BCS is the single greatest travesty in sports since the 1972 Olympic Gold Medal basketball game.

I didn’t attend OU or Texas; I have no rooting interest involved. I’m simply a fan of sports, especially college football.  Even as a kid, I felt that college football’s method of choosing a national championship was idiotic.  Along the way, the system evolved into the BCS and now we, the college football fans, are supposed to believe a computer and a group of inane journalist and coaches who make up the voting panel, when they tell us that OU is a better football team than Texas, without any backing evidence, personifying the words, “evil genius.” 

I should know better than to expect fairness from the NCAA when it comes to college football. This is the same organization that punished SMU with the “death penalty,” destroying a proud football tradition, because the program paid players. The NCAA then let other universities, including the University of Oklahoma, field teams with criminals committing felonies, slip by with minor punishments, taking away scholarship here and there, but allowing the program to still field a team.

In the end, it comes down to money–money for the conferences, money for the schools and of course, money for the NCAA–but God forbid the players get any of that money. The BCS is a huge sources of revenue for the NCAA and the major conferences.  Ending the current BCS format and switching to a playoff system would mean an end to this current form of revenue and lead to an unknown financial future. It is possible that the NCAA could very  well increase their revenues with a playoff system; however, it is unknown and the suits in control are scare to death of the unknown.

The only way to change the system is to beat the system. The way to beat the system is to impact the revenue of the current system. If Oklahoma wins, as expected, on Saturday and the BCS invites them to their national title game, I call on each and everyone of you to boycott the BCS totally. Do not watch any of the BCS games on TV. Do not attend any of the BCS games in person. Write Fox, the NCAA and all the sponsors (I will try and provide a list) and tell them why you are not watching the BCS and what you expect in the future.

The Dallas Cowboys are rolling. Tony Romo is back and has led the ‘Boys to three straight wins, throwing for 300+ yards in the past two games. On top of that, T.O. has looked more like the T.O. we know and love the past couple of weeks and the defense, in spite of the obscenely soft coverage, has given up only two touchdowns, both in garbage time, over the past three games. Indeed, the Cowboys look more like the team that began the season with Super Bowl aspirations than the shit we saw against the Cardinals, Rams and Giants.

Leave it to the Dallas media to piss on our “blue star” blankets.

The Cowboys are the only NFL team to post a 25 point  victory and still get charged with a loss in the eyes of the local media. The theory is that since the Cowboys got little help today from the Packers, Saints and Chargers, they are doomed to miss the playoffs.

I choose to look at the situation from a different perspective. My mother always taught me, “if you want something done right, do it yourself.” The Cowboys would be wise to take these words under advisement. If they go out and take care of their own business, winning the remaining games on their schedule, they will finish 12-4–one game off their 13-3 record last season–and be assured of a Wild Card slot in the playoffs.

Sure, the road will not be easy. The Steelers rolled over a good Patriots teams in B.F.E., Massachusetts today and next week we must travel to their home. The Steelers have always been envious of the Cowboys (sorry Brian) and the “Terrible Towels” will be out in full effect. In addition, we must play on a grass surface in a city that the NFL should not allow a grass surface. We’ve all seen how Heinz Field plays in Decemeber, like a swamp. The temperature will be low; water in some form will probably soak the field and the Cowboys will start with a definite disadvantage, but we have a (healthy)Romo–the Great Equalizer.

Next, we have the Giants. Yes, they possess the best record in the NFL, but whose to say they can stay away from gun related accidents in the next two weeks? Plus, it’s the second to last game at Texas Stadium. There’s no way Brandon Jacobs leaves this game happy.

The Ravens? Yeah, they’re hot, but this is the last game at Texas Stadium.

Philly is Philly. They’re fans are far more dangerous than their football team. Before playing in Philly, you need to be up to date on all your shots and just tune out the obnoxious drunks. McNabb will eventually beat himself.

The Cowboys are more talented than any team left on their schedule and far more talented than the Falcons, Panters or Buccs.  Now, it’s a matter of mental toughness and how much they want the playoffs. If the Cowboys, don’t win out, it will be because of a lack of effort, in which case they don’t deserve to be in the playoffs.