Earlier this week, Curt Schilling was suspended from ESPN for tweeting something really stupid. In case you are wondering, it was the following meme.
It’s said only 5-10% of Muslims are extremists. In 1940, only 7% of Germans were Nazis. How’d that go?
So we are using Godwin’s law to compare all Muslims everywhere to Nazis.
The problem isn’t even the logical fallacy involved. It is the fact that Schilling works for ESPN and some of the people who watch ESPN are Muslims. ESPN could give a fuck about Schilling’s politics. In fact, I’m guessing sports fans skew slightly conservative so that probably isn’t an issue.
However, the fact that Muslims could choose to stop watching ESPN because they employ someone so publicly Islamophobic is going to be an issue.
Enter Sarah Palin, who apparently still gets to talk into microphones. Any time a conservative gets punished for doing anything, she figures it is because the liberal media hates conservatives. And she says so. And for some reason, she keeps getting air time.
So let’s make this really clear: Schilling didn’t get suspended because he’s a conservative. He got suspended because if ESPN didn’t do anything, his tweet could have cost them money.
Seems like a reason Republicans should be able to get behind.
Personally, I don’t like guns. I don’t like to be around them. I have never wanted to shoot one. I don’t want a gun in my house.
I also don’t like the almost sexual obsession we have with guns in America. The desire to carry our guns out in the open because IT IS OUR RIGHT is just silly. You don’t need an AK-47 to shop at Wal-Mart. All you need is a lack of self respect.
My dislike of guns, however, should not be misinterpreted as a desire to take away the rights of responsible gun owners. At least not all of their rights. Just a few limitations, maybe. When I ask questions about gun control, I mean exactly that.
I’m talking about controlling access to guns in some cases. I’m asking how we keep guns out of the hands of people who are truly dangerous. Because I think that is something we’d all genuinely like to do. Pro-gun and anti-gun alike, we all want to stop bad guys from shooting up theaters. Or killing two people in the middle of a news broadcast.
As a friend of mine pointed out online, Duggar’s apology about being “addicted” to online porn and looking for adulterous affairs was pretty good. He took full responsibility and admitted he was a hypocrite. So good for him.
I mean, he’s still an adulterer and a hypocrite but at least he realizes it.
But we all remember that he had some issues with sexuality in his youth as well, right? And his ultra-religious parents used some sort of faith-based counseling to “fix” him, right? It seems like he wasn’t fixed, doesn’t it?
But what if he was never broken? I’m not talking about sexually assaulting his little sisters. That’s fucked up.
But what I’m asking is this: if he didn’t live in a household where sexual repression is the norm, is it possible he wouldn’t be so sexually confused right now? Is it possible he would have gotten involved with a woman who was interested in an open relationship so he could have had extra-marital sex in a supportive environment?
What will happen in the wake of this scandal? No doubt Duggar will get more religious counseling aimed at “curing” him of having a sexual appetite that is deemed improper. And it won’t work.
Because Josh Duggar likes sex. And he lives in a community where that is not OK.
I know about Patreon. I have a couple of friends with Patreon sites. Joseph is one of them.
I haven’t taken the leap yet because the whole thing is…complicated.
If you are unfamiliar with Patreon, it is a crowdfunding platform where artists can invite the public to help support them in producing art.
Say, for instance, I tell people I’m going to produce one self portrait a month. I’m not going to do that because all I would produce is stick figures but let’s imagine that I could, in fact, do that well.
People then pledge a certain amount of money to be paid every time I produce a self portrait. Maybe it would be a dollar. Maybe it would be one hundred dollars. Most likely, it would be closer to a dollar.
The protests to mark the one year anniversary of Michael Brown’s murder (my bias may be showing in my selection of words) were mostly peaceful. And then some asshole shot at the police.
Now this idiot was not a protestor. He was an extremist who wanted to hurt someone and used the protests as an opportunity to do it. Even if he claims he was angry at the police for documented racism, there were a lot of people angry at the police for documented racism who didn’t bring a gun.
When one guy does something stupid, though, it is as if all the other people who weren’t doing anything wrong become co-conspirators. What they have to say is no longer considered important because of that one dude who tried to shoot the police.
So please, everyone, can we stop bringing guns to word fights?
I came nowhere close to seeing a show in every slot of the festival this year. While I know some people have such a goal, I try to strike a balance between watching theater and doing – you know – other things.
My choices are driven a little by who I know but also what I know I’ll like. For instance, everyone loves Transatlantic Love Affair. They produce really good dramatic theater. I think their theater is fine but I’m a comedian. I like to laugh. A really good drama is still a little bit of a waste of time for me.
It may seem strange that I’d rather watch a bad comedy than a good drama but the great thing about the Fringe is I can make that choice. It is the theatrical equivalent of a really good brunch buffet. Everyone is going to find something they like.
I find the Fringe one of the most enriching experiences of my theatrical career. It has made me a better writer. It has connected me with other artists I would never have known. It has taught me how to be a better producer.
The Fringe is over but connections I’ve made this year will bear fruit over the next several. And that’s while I’ll be back.
I saw four shows on the final day of the Fringe. Here’s what I thought!
I’ve done the Fringe for a few years now and one thing I can say for sure: my name alone doesn’t get butts in the seats. Audiences recognize the names of a few production companies (Transatlantic Love Affair, Four Humors) but it seems to me that at least part of what brings audiences back to the same artists year after year is the recognition of the personality.
Joseph Scrimshaw was a great example of a performer whose name drew people to his productions. It was both his writing and on stage charisma that keep them coming back.
In most cases, I don’t think audiences notice who wrote or directed a show at Fringe.
They see my name and they don’t think “hey – I remember the other shows that guy wrote.” They think: “who’s that guy?”
It’s my own fault, of course, for writing shows that don’t feature a part for me. And for being more of a character actor than a lead.
It can be frustrating, at times, to feel like you have to win your audience back with each successive year. Yet, that is what most fringe producers do. Those who don’t have to do that aren’t lucky. They are talented and consistent.
And I have to admit I’m just a little bit jealous.
I watched four shows on Saturday. One of them was mine so let’s talk about the other three, shall we?