Sunday, September 9, 2012

I Went to the Alabama Game (A Southern Gothic Tale)

My deep love of the brawny men is no secret. I would estimate that I spend at least three hours per day reading about college football in some form. This brings me great pleasure, but, for the most part, I am assaulted on all sides by my nearest companions about the foolishness of my passion. Regardless, I ignore them and soldier on. In the parlance of John L Smith, my piss is hot.

The big time game of opening weekend this year was the annual Cowboys' Classic, held at Jerry Jones' stadium in Arlington. It's meant to be a showcase game for high profile teams (occasionally, it's not) and this year happened to feature a top 10 matchup, #2 Alabama vs #8 Michigan.

My younger brother happens to be an Alabama student, and, through the back alleys of the natural gas world, my father managed to secure four suite tickets to the game - so it was decided that the three of us would attend. This meant missing a UT home game, but, much to my girlfriend's chagrin, I made up for this absence during the week by securing a ticket to our upcoming game against Ole Miss in Oxford.

It should be noted that I bear an intense dislike of the SEC as a whole and Alabama in particular. I find the conference's athletic achievements to be overstated and won through unscrupulous means. The fact that SEC has now become a thinly-veiled codeword for some of the worst parts of southern culture is also troubling. There may be a nobility in the idea of this ragtag group of largely poor and obese states coming together in unity to challenge the rest of the nation, but any grandness is rapidly nullified by the boorish crowing of these yokels.

Bama is the focusing lens for all of this SEC pride, and perhaps that is why they are the most deplorable. The school claims 14 titles (of which only a handful are legitimate), they backed into an undeserved championship last year, and they are coached by an unethical egomaniac who routinely bends rules meant to protect student-athletes in order to give himself an advantage on the playing field.

That said, I somehow found myself walking through the parking lot of Cowboy's Stadium in a red shirt, surrounded by similarly clad southerners with red faces and red solo cups.

Both fan bases had assembled an impressive contingent of tailgating rigs, so hats off to those intrepid travelers.

As my father and I approached the stadium, a young, friendly looking drunk pounced ahead of us and shouted, "Roll tide!" My conditioned response whenever yelled to in a parking lot on a fall Saturday is to cast up my pinky and forefinger and shout, "Hook 'Em." I was halfway through the ritual when I realized that this was an inappropriate setting. Luckily, the drunk wandered off during my confusion, so no harm was done.

We accidentally tried to enter the wrong gate, so we were forced to lurk further around the outside of the stadium. This provided time for more people watching. There wasn't much of note to see. There was an A&M tailgate set up, doubtless the work of some poor Aggies desperate to ingratiate themselves with their new SEC overlords. There was also a tailgate manned by a Bama fraternity which featured a tasteful cardboard sign that simply read, "Tits?" I didn't see any evidence that this act of romance was having its intended effect.

My brother and the proper gate located, we headed into the air-conditioned confines of what is informally known as the Death Star. The suite is a pretty nice place to watch a game, particularly if it's a game between two teams that you don't take any particular interest in. There are three televisions mounted on the walls. One was showing Mississippi State, the other Auburn, and the third the Rangers. If this game had taken place in 2008, there's no way in hell that a Ranger game would be on the television. Anyone who suggested such a stupid thing would be summarily tossed out.

There was a small table with hors-d'ouvres - shrimp, veggies and hummus, macaroni and cheese. I loaded up on shrimp and hand cut chips while my father paraded us about, introducing my brother and I to all of the folks from his company who had come out to the game. One man showed us a photo he had taken with Gene Stallings, who had apparently been wandering around our area. Stallings coached at Texas A&M from 1965-1971 where he amassed a 27-45-1 record, as well as two NCAA probations.  He also contributed to the maelstrom of idiocy that was the Texas A&M move to the SEC this past summer. He also won a national title at Alabama (where he earned another major NCAA infraction), which is why he was at the game. I'm glad I didn't have to see him and pretend to respect him.

Introductions and whatnot over, I settled in with a Shiner Bock to endure the war of attrition that is Nick Saban football.

The game quickly got out of hand, which was unsurprising. What was surprising was the behavior of the Alabama fans around me. As I stated previously, I really love college football. I am often chastised for how much I love it, and yet, I don't think that I can say I love college football in the way that these Bama fans did. I'm not sure I love anything the way the love Bama. It was a sort of primal passion that I don't think I could summon unless threaten by a bear or other woodland creature. Even the most insignificant play was greeted with uproarious cheers or vicious curses. Grown men were stomping about like angry schoolchildren after poor play - it was, quite frankly, unnerving.

I hate to perpetuate the idea that the SEC has the best fans in college football, as I think there is more to being a fan than pure unadulterated passion. I think that a sense of decorum and an understanding of the game is a necessary component to ideal fandom. Passion is important, yes, but if it's purely passion then all of the WGS wanks who love to prattle on about sports being a modern day form of barbarism have a point. It reduces fandom to an animalistic fervor that is decidedly unbecoming. There were also some sequined ladies in front of the band, whose only purpose appeared to be shaking their chests back and forth to the fight song, another thing that said WGS wanks would not care for.

Paul Tillich, imminent 20th century scholar of religion, postulated that the essence of faith is Ultimate Concern. As defined in his work Dynamics of Faith here.


"Man, like every living being, is concerned about many things, above all about those which condition his very existence...If [a situation or concern] claims ultimacy it demands the total surrender of him who accepts this claim...it demands that all other concerns...be sacrificed."
(Thanks Wikipedia).

Now, I would never compare football driven ecstasy to religion, because that is reductionistic and unhelpful and, generally the work of first-year philosophy student wanks who don't know their ass from the exit to Plato's cave.

However, what I witnessed last Saturday came awfully close to Ultimate Concern. For those three and a half hours, nothing mattered more to the fans in red than Alabama football. I suddenly understood how these grown and semi-educated (no offense, Ryan) were capable of deluding themselves into believing that they had earned 14 championships, that Nick Saban was an honorable coach, that Alabama deserved to be the number one team every year. In the words of Tillich, their love of Alabama football had "transcended the drives of the nonrational unconsciousness and the structures of the rational consciousness." Football had rendered their thinking bodies inert, all that was left were rammers and jammers and yellow hammers spilling out of their hearts and mouths.

So, I watched a hapless Michigan team get beaten down. I watched Saban joylessly command his squadron of oversigned troops. I engaged in a ridiculous dance with the bartender upon the acquisition of each fresh Shiner Bock, due to his insistence that I utilize the utterly impractical koozie that he had foisted upon me. But most of all, and for the first time I ever, I watched myself become a little disgusted by the Brawny Men and the effect that they had on those around me.

Luckily, I got to go home and watch OU struggle against UTEP, and all was right with the universe.





Wednesday, August 1, 2012

I Don't Care About Your Opinion (An Exercise in Hypocrisy)

Preface: This is a slipshod piece of opinion. If you'd like to read something of actual value, I point you toward Walter Wink's Biblical Perspectives on Homosexuality.

I'm a bad journalism student.

I don't read the paper, I don't watch any news networks, and I don't read any online news. In my opinion, most events outside of my immediate sphere are so inconsequential that they may as well just not exist. (College football happenings excepted).

Sadly, through the wonders of social media, I'm sometimes overrun by a typhoon of winging and hand-wringing because of some insignificant cultural or political issue. This effect is exacerbated when the issue of the day involves the plight of the homosexual. 

I reside uncomfortably between two very verbose camps, journalists (or, even worse, amateur journalists) and evangelical Americans. This means that anytime the sodomists take command of the national zeitgeist I'm forced (by virtue of casual Facebook browsing) to read 200 word excoriations from both sides, often riddled with incomplete thoughts, rampant generalizations, and an appalling lack of perspective. 

I realize that this issue could be resolved quite easily by averting my eyes from the offending posts, but this has proven difficult. Facebook is little more than a 21st century bathroom window, and we're all pervs in the bushes, hoping for glimpses of exposed humanity.

And, like (I assume) real peeping toms, this exercise leaves us with nothing but a sort of perplexed shame, wondering how we got ourselves into such a mess. 

Humanity is often beautiful and transcendent and moving, but this is never the case on Facebook. 

Facebook is where the sublime goes to rot away - discarded amongst the farmville and vampiretown requests. Facebook is a limitless reservoir of ignorance.

Which brings me to today's issue. A popular chain of fast-food chicken restaurants rustled all sorts of jimmies when the company president stated that he was steadfastly opposed to marriage equality.

This was a dumb thing for the president of Chick Fil A to say. It does nothing but alienate people and the franchise is already outspokenly evangelical, so most could likely surmise the higher-ups' views on gay marriage. He certainly can't have helped his business.

Things escalated from there. The laity mobilized on social media while those with actual clout began taking sides. The mayor of Boston crafted a letter to discourage the franchise from expanding in the city. Politicians began eating at Chick Fil A to show their support. Thousands of blogs were written and the whole world got dumber. Eventually, Mike Huckabee got involved and we're now all sitting here, existing, on Chick Fil A Appreciation Day (which is exactly what it sounds like).

So now, this is officially a thing.

The udder (little Chick Fil A mascot pun there for you guys) ridiculousness of this is hopefully not lost on you, dear reader. 

We should all be ashamed of ourselves. (I'm not ashamed, because I'm sitting comfortably on my high horse).

I understand that everyone has an opinion and that everyone feels that their opinion is of value, but that's because we all exist in our little solipsistic universe where we believe that eating or not eating from a certain restaurant, or, worse, writing a holier-than-thou Facebook status is doing any good for anyone. 

If anything, you're just annoying people and contributing to the already noxious level of acrimony that permeates the American political and religious discourse.

Even if you're delivering an even-handed and thoughtful critique of the situation you're at fault. This situation does not dignify even-handed and thoughtful critique. This situation should not exist and anything that gives it legitimacy should be cast down.

If I had any integrity, I would delete this blog right now and never share it, but I'm on the Internet, so I can do whatever I want. 

This kerfuffle will do nothing to bring LGBT equality, it will just give bigots an excuse to go bigot it up. 



Tuesday, July 31, 2012

I Went to Los Angeles (Part One: The Thing I've Already Written)

I've recently returned to Lubbock after spending the majority of the summer in Los Angeles (California). I was there as part of a school program, taking a couple of classes and doing an internship. I applied for this program over a year ago, in the hopes that I might demonstrate my value to some television tycoon and thereby find employment and fame in the city that never sleeps.

This was a misguided notion.

In the months before I was to depart, I had been interning for a local radio conglomerate in Austin. I was writing blogs, shooting video, going to concerts and generally just having a gay old time. This company even helped me find an internship in LA. Los Angeles magazine was part of the corporate family, and they were willing to take me on as an intern, sight-unseen. 

I should have realized that Bob Evans was never going to discover me building websites in a cubicle, but so it goes.

What follows is a harrowing account of my internship experience that I was required to write in order to get credit for the program. It's written as a weekly journal, but in reality, I wrote it all the weekend before it was due (rebellious). 


Week one: June 4 - June 7


I honestly didn't know what to expect from my internship at LA mag. I had been interning for a radio company in Austin, and their parent company happens to own LA mag. Our HR lady in Austin referred me, and I got the internship without even having to do an interview. The first day was a little intimidating. There was an editorial meeting first thing in the morning. The topic of the meeting was the website, and since I am a web intern, I was invited to tag along. I got the sense that most of the magazine people have a somewhat tenuous grasp of the web, but they all seemed to like the site.
           
 My bosses are Shayna and Israel. Shayna handles more of the content side of things, while Israel does backend work to make sure the site looks nice and runs properly. I assume we have an actual webmaster somewhere, but it's possible we farm that out to the corporate office.
           
 My first day wasn't super exciting. I have a cubicle near Shayna and Israel, but I can't see them unless I lean around. It's a minor annoyance, but I suppose it's an efficient way to minimize small talk. At our office in Austin, we all just worked in a single room (basement, technically) and traded jokes via instant messenger. The magazine environment is a bit more professional.
            
My first day was also somewhat awkward in that, one of the big features in the magazine this month was about a local shop that manufactures sex toys. As a web extra, I was charged with watching youtube videos of homely women reviewing their favorite adult products and picking out the funniest ones to post on the site. The women were so clinical that humor was harder to come by than one might think. Shayna and I narrowed down my choices and I wrote a little blurb about each one.
           
On Wednesday, I worked on our restaurant finder page. It's basically just a database of all of the food reviews the magazine has ever done, with contact information and a map. We're working on making an app for the magazine, and the restaurant finder is going to be an important part.
            
Thursday, I got to do a little more writing. I did a blog post and also wrote some entries for our calendar page. Because it's a large magazine with a professional staff, I'll probably never be able to write anything remarkably long, but the calendar page is a fun place to just sneak in jokes.
           
Overall, I enjoyed my first week. I'm kind of intimidated by the structure of the organization, but I think I'm just intimidated by LA overall, so that's nothing new.

Week two: June 11 - 14
            
I've opted to abandon the daily rundown in this week's journal and will instead just speak broadly about the events of the week, unless a certain day was particularly noteworthy. This week, I worked mostly for Israel, building pages for the website, particularly slideshows. I think I'm given these tasks because I'm the only intern with a working knowledge of web programming, so I'm able to do them much more quickly, even though it's fairly easy, as there's already a template built for you.
            
There are two other interns in the web department, Marielle and Sean. Marielle is older than me, she has a master's from Columbia College in Chicago - I don't know what her degree is in. Sean is younger than me; he's studying English at USC. Sean and I do most of the tedious work; I think Shayna trusts Marielle with writing more than either of us because of her age and advanced degree.
            
The most interesting thing that I did this week was edit together a video for the site. We did a feature on the Hollywood Sign this month, and the Hollywood Sign Trust sent over an educational video for us to put up on the site. The video was a bit long, and kept cutting to an awkward talking head, who explained the history of the sign. Since I am the only one who knows FCP, I was charged with making this video more web friendly. I chopped out the awkward talking head, left all of the cool historical footage, and ran a VO over the interesting bits. I chopped out all of the boring bits. I then had to find free music to use, which is harder than it sounds, as we don't have any kind of audio bank. I just had to scour the Creative Commons for applicable stuff.
            
Shayna was impressed, and now she wants me to shoot a talk that the magazine is hosting next week, so that's pretty cool.
            
I'll be shooting a conversation about religion in the media with Mike White and two professors from Pepperdine and USC. I'm also a religious studies major, so I think it will be pretty fun. My only concern is that the camera we have is an older gen Sony Handycam. It shoots in HD, but sound is going to be a real issue. Israel doesn't keep a tripod at the office, but he said he'd bring one from home before the event next week.

Week three: June 19 - 21
            
What a frustrating week. I showed up early to the event on Tuesday. It was at some fairly nice, but not too nice, restaurant in West Hollywood. I had the Handy Cam, and Shayna was supposed to meet me there with the tripod. As I said last week, I was concerned about having only the Sony, so I asked Ty if I could borrow his camera. He wants to be a DP, so I assumed he'd have something a little more high-end. He ended up having a Canon 7D, which is a wonderful camera, but he only had a 35 mm lens and I figured it would have the same sound concerns as the Sony. I took it anyway.
           
Things start off pretty well. I'm there before Shayna, and I'm getting some beautiful b-roll with Ty's camera. I'm feeling good. I figure that I'll set up the Sony on the tripod right in front of the speakers and I can get close ups with the 7D. It wouldn't be great, but it'll look nice and fairly professional.
            
Then Shayna arrives, tripodless. I'm concerned, but not overly so. The room is fairly small, and I can sit on a stool near the back and film by hand. I won't get all those pretty close ups, but it'll look the same as most of the videos they have on the site.
            
I get caught off guard by the start of the talk, getting on my stool and flipping on the camera right as the introductions begin. I then realize that I've made a terrible mistake. The stool is not bolted to the floor, as I originally assumed. Rather, it was a swivel chair, which meant that I had to maintain my equilibrium, while simultaneously filming three different people. Needless to say, there was some camera shake, but I honestly felt that I did a pretty good job.
            
The sound, on the other hand, had me very concerned. I could barely hear it from where I was sitting, and I was directly across from the speakers. I knew that it would be hell trying to get useable audio from this, but one soldiers on.
           
I spent the afternoon Tuesday and all of Wednesday working on the video. The audio was terrible, which I had anticipated, but I thought the camera work was pretty good for a tripodless non-cameraman sitting on a swiveling stool.
            
I wasn't given explicit instructions about how to cut the video, but my first draft was around 20 minutes long and a pretty accurate facsimile of the event. I feel like I captured the overall tone of the talk and provided a sense of what each panelist was like. Then Shayna emailed me and told me to make it around 8 minutes, so I cut out most of the stuff, but allowed the speakers to linger on certain questions and flesh out at least one solid idea. I showed Shayna and Israel, and let me tell you, things did not look good.
            
I started the video with 45 seconds of gorgeous b-roll, with a clever VO from the magazine's editor, who moderated the panel. My Malickian camera work was not appreciated by Israel, who suggested that I cut out some of the intro. Then, we got to the talk itself, and I & S were apparently revolted by the camera work. It was a little shaky, but I had cut around the most egregious bits, and it honestly looked like your run of the mill one-camera video.
            
I took my supervisors notes and went to work. Honestly, I was pretty annoyed with Israel. He was being overly critical, despite the fact that it was his negligence that forced me to rely on the uncertain power of my forearm, as opposed to a steady tripod. He compromised my entire vision for the project.
            
I kept my cool though, and cut the video down to the suggest three minutes, allowing only the most pristine shots to be used. At this point, the video had basically devolved into a series of one response - but so it goes. I did my best to salvage the audio, but it was clippy and horrible. I still stayed an hour and a half late to try to make it better, but eventually I had to just let it be. Our editor deemed it acceptable, and it went online. I think Israel saw how disappointed I was by the video, and he was very kind to me before I left.
            
The worst part of the entire ordeal was as I was driving home, stuck on Highland staring at a billboard with a rainbow condom, I realized that all I had to do was go see Neil at the UTLA center and I could have checked out a tripod, an HMC150, and probably an audio recorder with an XLR port.
            
It was my lowest moment in Hollywood.

Week four: June 26 - 28
                        
Despite my seeming incompetence, it appears that my dedication to the botched video project did not go unnoticed by Israel and Shayna. They both treated me as more of a peer this week than as an intern. I've also started talking more to Sean. He's a friendly guy, but we don't have a ton in common. He's into classical music and art, and it doesn't come across as an affectation, which is uncommon in someone so young. He and I are still plugging away at the site, specifically the restaurant finder. I have been placed in charge of the project (a dubious mantle), and I'm doing my best to make it fun. We need to find and crop over 500 photos of restaurants. This is complicated by the fact that these photos cannot be copyrighted, and many of the restaurants are tiny ethnic joints without websites. Still, we soldier on. I'm doing my best to endear myself to Shayna through witticisms in my emails to her. She seems to be warming up to me.
            
The president of Emmis visited one afternoon. He was very personable and answered any questions that were thrown his way. He's on the BoT at USC and used to own an MLB team, so he talked about sports, which was gratifying for me, as most magazine people are magazine people precisely because they've run from sports their entire lives.
            
He also said that Emmis is looking good financially, which was also gratifying for me, as I'm trying to get a job at our Austin offices this spring.
            
All of the interns have also been invited to go to a meeting next Tuesday to discuss ways that we can get more involved on the content side. It seems a bit late in the semester for this, but it could be profitable.

Week five: July 3 - 5
            
I had another wretched Tuesday. My front bumper has been secured to my car through high-strength epoxy since the beginning of the summer. It finally gave way as I was leaving for work Tuesday morning. With the bumper half severed, and with no sensible way to reattach it, my only recourse was to tear it all the way off and go bumperless. This necessitated a 4-mile round-trip walk to the dollar store for some basic tools. I managed to get there and back and remove the bumper by noon. I had to boogie to work in my newly modified car in order to make it to the 1 p.m. internship meeting.
            
I arrived just in time to find Shayna, a friendly looking woman (Elina), and a severe looking woman (Nancy) all sitting across from the troupe of interns. There were pastries and pie. I had a slice of icebox pie, and it rivaled the much-heralded Czechspertise of Grandma Sheblak, my roommate's industrious grandmother/baker.
            
Even deeply satisfying pie couldn't rid me of the sense of intimidation that I've felt my entire time here. I had no way of knowing for sure, but looking across the table, I had the immediate sense that neither of these two new women would appreciate my literary sensibilities. To make matters worse, the Hollywood Sign was visible directly behind them, silently giving the finger to a small-town kid yearning for the comforting confines of Austin.
            
The meeting was brief and awkward. The two editors told us to pitch stories to them and they'd see if they sounded publishable. Sean asked if there were any specific gaps in coverage that they wanted filled; this was met with one of the least-committal responses I've ever seen.
            
We all filed out, confused and wanting more pie.


We were closed on the fourth, and on the fifth I attacked my restaurant finder duties with gusto.

           
Week six: July 10 - 12
            
Elina has taken to sending out the occasional email asking us to blog about something. I'm trying to get over my fear of Hollywood, so I've been submitting responses. I'm not used to being heavily edited, so it's a new experience for me. I think it's profitable though, I can't imagine that I'll work in an office as laissez-faire as Emmis Austin my entire life.
            
I'm at my most comfortable point so far. Maybe it was the confusing pie meeting, or maybe it's the realization that I only have a few weeks left, but I feel like the master of my domain. I've started wearing jeans to work. I bought all manner of adult clothing before coming out here, because I assumed that professional journalists all dressed like Aaron Sorkin characters. I was disabused of this almost immediately, but for some reason stubbornly continued to do my best fat Ryan Gosling impression. I fear it made me look overly earnest and therefore unapproachable. 
            
Whatever the reason, I'm starting to warm up to the office and the people around me. Although, this came too late for Shayna.
            
As I was leaving on Wednesday, Shayna came up to me and told me that it was great working with me over the summer and she was thankful for all my help. I was perplexed, as it was far from my last day. She then told me that she wouldn't be back from her trip before I returned to Austin. I then realized that this trip was her honeymoon. I knew she was getting married; she always had little pre-wedding tchotchkes around her desk. I just didn't realize that it coincided with the tail end of my internship.
            
I was sad to see her go. I felt like we had started to develop a rapport. It had been somewhat awkward around Shayna and I, although I don't know why. If I had to single out a specific moment, I think it was on my first day. I wrote some blog about horse racing and used the phrase "day at the races." Shayna thought the expression was "day at the track." I deadpanned, "I don't know, I'm not a degenerate. I'm not DeNiro." This was an attempt to reference the television series Luck, and I meant to say Dustin Hoffman, not DeNiro, but I was on the spot and flubbed it. So rather than a hilarious topical reference to a David Milch television program (that had been cancelled six months earlier), it appeared as if I was just some douche who hated gambling and mistakenly believed that Robert DeNiro was one of its emissaries. Or it could have been that she made me watch 30 videos of middle-aged women reviewing buttplugs on my first day at the office. Who can say?
            
The first post-Shayna day was pretty good. I reported to Israel, who has always been very kind and encouraging since the video incident. He gives me a task, I complete it, he says, "Woooooow, that was fast," (he has a very distinctive "wow"), and then he gives me another task. I feel productive and validated.

Week seven: July 17 - 19
            
It's just Israel and I against the world these days, and, so far, it's worked out well. Shayne left us a list of tasks for each day, and we're usually finishing them with an hour or two to spare in the day. I've started factoring this in, and it's making me more productive. I don't stress over every task. I do it at a leisurely pace, and I do it right the first time. It's a much more relaxed environment.
            
We hired a new intern, Matt, solely to take over the restaurant finder project, so I've sadly been relieved of duty as captain. I hope they offer that poor kid a job, because that is some thankless work.
            
On Wednesday, I conquered one of my fears. Nancy - the severe woman from the meeting. Israel tasked me with writing up some tweets for the weekend related to one of our August features. I took great pains to write the most concise, elegant, and informative tweets that left no extraneous characters. I even felt that I had captured the magazine's voice, which has, honestly, kind of alluded me. Israel told me to show them to Nancy, so, trembling, I did so.

"How long are these?"

"Oh, they're all around 140 characters or less. I plugged them in, and stuff."

"Can you make them shorter? I want people to be able to retweet them."

"Oh, uh. Yeah. Ok."
        
Internally, I thought of about six reasons why my tweets were flawless and of how Nancy clearly misunderstood Twitter, but I returned to my desk. I painstakingly edited my tweets until they were able to communicate all the necessary information in as little space as possible. It was a good editing exercise and it only took about five minutes. I then spent the next 10 minutes debating whether or not I had the courage to print and deliver these new tweets to Nancy and face a second rejection. Then I thought about how she would react to some sweaty intern cowardly emailing her over something as insignificant as some tweets.
            
I summoned my courage, booted Matt off the computer with a connection to the printer, and printed my tweets in order to hand-deliver them to Nancy.

"Yes?"

"I have the new tweets."

"Oh? Let me take a look."


She read them and flashed me a smile.

"Good work. I just wanted them to be a little shorter. You know how (I think she may have inserted a curse word here as a display of camaraderie, but I was flying so high on approval that It's possible that I just inserted it into my memory) lazy people are."

"Uh, yeah. They can be. Thanks," I stammered.

I returned to my desk a new man. I had accomplished an incredibly minor task, and in the process potentially endeared myself to someone that I found intimidating. Triumphantly, I handed Israel the tweets.

"Here are the tweets. Nancy approved them."

"Oh, ok cool! See you tomorrow!" Israel said.
           
I could tell he was proud of me.





Monday, June 25, 2012

Defending Adam Carolla (A Losing Proposition)



I know that too much time has passed to reasonably comment on the "Adam Carolla is sexist allegations." But, I feel compelled to anyway.

Full disclosure, I would consider myself a fan of Carolla. His podcast is in regular rotation on my long walks to class or commutes to work and I find him to be occasionally hilarious, often thought-provoking, and sometimes any number of "ists."

Carolla exists in an interesting comedic space. He's a lifelong Angeleno from a blue-collar background who decided to take some classes with the Groundlings and eventually found himself hosting several different television and radio programs, often with Jimmy Kimmel. His podcast is the most downloaded on iTunes and he has guests from every spectrum on, and -- for the most part -- treats them with respect.

His working-class roots show through in his show. He often pontificates on things like race, gender, and class with a level of temerity and certainty that you'd be unlikely to find from anyone who has spent substantial time in liberal arts courses. Any subject where my first statement would be, "Well, it's a nuanced situation..." is expounded on with unassailable confidence by Carolla. He shines a light on unpleasant truths, like the breakdown of the Black family structure, the notion that AIDS is an "equal-opportunity killer," and the contemporary American tendency to obsess over non-issues like peanut allergies, second-hand smoke, and the barbarism of sports.

All of this seems out of place in the relatively learned echelons of popular comedy which is, for the most part, occupied by neurotic, left-leaning folks who take pride in being somewhat enlightened.

Which would make one think that these sorts of people would be turned off by Carolla, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Almost every comic that I like (and some that I don't) have stopped by his show and interacted well with him. From Aisha Tyler to Patton Oswalt to comedy pariahs like Carlos Mencia -- Carolla hosts everyone and they all get along.

I can only think of three instances where a guest appeared uncomfortable on the show.

On a recent live episode with Wyatt Cenac in New York, Carolla aimed a few racially tinged jokes his Cenac's way, and Cenac seemed to stiffen.

Ira Glass once got a little standoffish about the fact that Carolla had been awarded the Guinness record for most downloaded podcast, but even he seemed to enjoy the change of pace from This American Life.

Lastly, Ben Schwartz lampshaded Carolla's tendency to refer to Adam Carolla Show newsgirl Alison Rosen as "babydoll," (which makes me cringe as well) but Rosen doesn't appear to mind and Schwartz played along after he pointed it out, referring to Rosen as "babydoll" himself.

What I'm trying to say is, I find it odd that there exists this perception of Carolla as some sort of neanderthal on the fringes of comedy, when he seems to get along swimmingly with most other comics.

I posit instead, that Carolla is subject to so much backlash because critics and comedy fans have deemed his humor "the wrong kind of comedy."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's examine this most recent kerfuffle.

On June 16, Carolla did an interview with the New York Post where he made the following statements.

The lesson you learned from a sexual harassment seminar was “Don’t hire chicks.” Do you hate working with women?

No. But they make you hire a certain number of chicks, and they’re always the least funny on the writing staff. The reason why you know more funny dudes than funny chicks is that dudes are funnier than chicks. If my daughter has a mediocre sense of humor, I’m just gonna tell her, “Be a staff writer for a sitcom. Because they’ll have to hire you, they can’t really fire you, and you don’t have to produce that much. It’ll be awesome.”
The interviewer followed up.

The “are women funny” debate has grown very contentious. You’re not worried about reactions to this?

I don’t care. When you’re picking a basketball team, you’ll take the brother over the guy with the yarmulke. Why? Because you’re playing the odds. When it comes to comedy, of course there’s Sarah Silverman, Tina Fey, Kathy Griffin — super-funny chicks. But if you’re playing the odds? No. If Joy Behar or Sherri Shepherd was a dude, they’d be off TV. They’re not funny enough for dudes. What if Roseanne Barr was a dude? Think we’d know who she was? Honestly.
Obviously, Carolla is painting with a very very broad brush, but it helps to illustrate my point. His thesis should have been, "You know more funny dudes than chicks." Now, this is empirically unprovable, but I'm comfortable saying that I am familiar with more men who make me laugh than women. Instead of jumping to the conclusion that men are therefore inherently funnier than women, it behooves us to examine why Carolla and I find that there are more funny men than women.

The easiest answer is that comedy is subjective, and Carolla's tastes tend toward male comics. Another, less comfortable (but I think possibly more true) answer is that men feel a societal pressure to be funny that is not as strongly impressed on women. Lastly, of course, we can't forget that existing societal structures may make it more difficult for women to find an outlet for their comedic voices. (Although, in the age of the internet, this is less of a concern).

The interviewer's assertion that there is an "are women funny debate" is ridiculous, of course funny women exist. Carolla himself lists three. I may be shooting myself in the leg here, but Tucker Max of all people had a reasoned take on this at HuffPo.

So this interview, which certainly doesn't reflect highly on Carolla, has comedy nerds and the media up in arms. A Google News search for "Adam Carolla Sexist" turns in 86 results. The majority of which have some play on him being either unfunny or the chauvinistic clown from The Man Show, or it just provides a list of successful, funny women.

The first two characterizations are baseless, sheer numbers attest to the fact that someone finds Carolla funny, and the second accusation has no legs since The Man Show was largely a tongue-in-cheek send up of masculine stereotypes.

The third response is valid, if patronizing. If anything, it just makes the concept of a funny woman seem more remarkable. Let's also not forget that successful, "funny" women have subjected us to three different Chelsea Handler vehicles and two Whitney Cummings atrocities, which do a pretty decent job of setting female comics back all on their lonesome.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To get back to my larger point, these critics appear to be attacking Carolla because he traffics in the "wrong kind of comedy."

The modern comedy fan is cultured. He or she listens to Marc Maron's podcast and supports Louis C.K and Aziz Ansari's independent comedy releases. They watched Arrested Development before it was cancelled. If he or she is as cool as me, they may have this spectacular Bill Murray print.

Comedy is for people with degrees that love Dr. Who and their iPhones, not former carpenters from the Valley. I bet Carolla hasn't even read A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius!

It's the same level of entitlement one finds in the AV Club comments section whenever the site deigns to review an episode of Workaholics. (Which honestly perplexes me. The Mail Order Comedy guys are clearly comedy nerds like everyone in that comment section aspires to be, and yet they are lampooned for being "bros").

Carolla might be a dick, and he might be backward, but that doesn't mean you need to go around white knighting for females everywhere. If they're funny enough they'll prove it without your help.

I'm tired of it, you guys. People can be funny without being your cup of tea. Stop using someone else's words to prove how enlightened and comedy-forward you are. You're ruining it for everyone else.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go talk about what an asshole Dane Cook is.








BONUS


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hold on, I just found this EW story that demands an FJM-ing. (Fire Joe Morganing, for those of you not in the online sports-comedy know).
Adam Carolla just turned the tables on himself. The funnyman became the laughingstock today after word got out that he told The New York Post that female comedy writers were usually the least funny people in the room. "The reason why you know more funny dudes than funny chicks is that dudes are funnier than chicks," Carolla cracked while promoting his new book, Not Taco Bell Material. Given a chance to, er, explain, he continued: "When you're picking a basketball team, you'll take the brother over the guy with the yarmulke. Why? Because you're playing the odds. When it comes to comedy, of course there's Sarah Silverman, Tina Fey, Kathy Griffin—super-funny chicks. But if you're playing the odds? No."

Leaving the other problems with that statement by the wayside for now, let us introduce Carolla to a whole bunch of funny people, dudes and chicks alike... 
"Wait, Adam Carolla, is he the one who did the voice of the parrot in Aladdin??? He makes me giggle," tweeted Girls creator and star Lena Dunham.
This is not funny, and Girls is a terrible, self-indulgent show.
"Currently collating today's 50,000 Twitter jokes about Adam Carolla by gender. Should be able to settle this shortly," noted record-setting Jeopardy! champ Ken Jennings.
Not a dig at Carolla, but a decent joke. Ken Jennings is pretty clever and worth a Twitter follow.
"The biggest impact this whole Adam Carolla scandal has had is discovering 95% of people have no idea how to spell 'Carolla,'" tweeted writer and comedienne Jenny Johnson.
Jenny Johnson is pretty funny as well, once again, this isn't a dig at Carolla.
"Thank you, Adam Corolla. Your terribleness gives all of us the opportunity to scream how NOT TERRIBLE we are!! YAY!" added Chappelle's Show cocreator Neal Brennan, who perhaps unintentionally proved Johnson's point as well.
Brennan appears to be taking Carolla's side right here by trying to do what I'm doing with this blog in >140 characters.
MORE: Christina Applegate in Anchorman Sequel: "She Will Be Back," Predicts Producer Judd Apatow; Miley Cyrus Wows in Sheer Top; Jessica Simpson's Super Low-Cut Top
These are other stories that I accidentally copy and pasted into here. I'm glad EW is here to protect us from sexism.
 And the tweets from assorted actors, comedians and writers went on:

John Ross Bowie: "Adam Carolla saying women aren't funny is like cancer saying women aren't funny."

Danielle Corsetto: "In an ironic twist, 'women aren't funny' ranked number one funniest thing Adam Carolla has ever said."

Dave Holmes: "Why are we ruining our perfect not caring what Adam Carolla thinks streak?"
I don't know who these people are.
Kelly Oxford: "You know what Adam Carolla said about women not being funny is bull, at a party last week I made him laugh three goddamn times."

Molly McAleer: "I don't take Adam Carolla saying women aren't funny seriously. He once told a caller on Loveline to eat a used tampon, y'know?"

Morgan Murphy: "lets all stop being sexist and just admit that PEOPLE aren't funny." 
Lauren Ashley Bishop: "adam who?"
I don't know who these people are.

Carolla had a fleeting chance to not be the object of quite as much scorn, but he only dug the hole deeper on The Talk this morning. Asked by Sara Gilbert how he feels about gay people, he said, "That's dangerous—not being gay! Listen, I wish more people were gay. If you've driven over to the gay section of Los Angeles, it's like a golf course...Real estate values go boom!" But then the former Man Show host acknowledged making cracks about gay people in his comedy routines, saying, "Nice doesn't get laughs, especially on stage, that's what I'm saying...When did we start holding comedians up to the level of politicians and school teachers? We're comedians. We're supposed to say these things."

Perez Hilton, who was also a guest on The Talk today, tweeted: "Ugh. Adam Carolla is attempting to explain his homophobic jokes and failing miserably."
Perez Hilton draws penises on people for a living.










Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Defending Stephanie Eisner (A Losing Proposition)



This cartoon, by Stephanie Eisner, recently appeared in my university's venerable student publication, The Daily Texan.

This has, justifiably, caused quite a stir. The whole cartoon seems loathsome, mean spirited, and ignorant.

What this entry pre-supposes is, maybe it isn't?

To preface this, I really wish that this cartoon had not been published. It embarrasses Texas, the university, the Texan, and, by association, myself.

To further preface this, I think the Trayvon Martin story is one of the most heartbreaking and despicable that I have ever heard. I think Zimmerman should be arrested and tried for murder or manslaughter. (I would say that I hope he is sentenced, but, as an American, I'm obliged to give him the benefit of the doubt).

Lastly, and I realize that I'm tackling a sensitive topic, I would like to emphasize that The Wire is my favorite television program, and therefore it is physically impossible for me to be a racist. Therefore everything I say comes from a place of thoughtful introspection, not hate.

(I realize this is impossible to prove, and the idea of being "fair and balanced" is often used as a smokescreen for racist opinion. I hope that's not what I'm doing here, but who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?)

It's important to keep in mind that this cartoon is addressing the media coverage of the Trayvon Martin case (or at least how Eisner perceives the coverage), not the details of the case itself.

I think a large part of the public outcry about this cartoon emerges from the public being unable to separate the two. One can't blame them, the case is so emotionally shattering that the emotional charge is going to carry into every aspect of the Trayvon Martin discourse. But, in order to be fair to Ms. Eisner and to fulfill our role as responsible media consumers, one must attempt to distance oneself from this emotional reaction.

The outrage lightning rod for this cartoon is Eisner's use of the word "colored." I refuse to believe that a college educated person is unaware of the connotations that this word carries, so I'm going to give Eisner the benefit of the doubt and assume that she intentionally used such a charged word in order to communicate a larger point.

Why did she choose this word? Why not "African-American" or "black?" If all that Eisner wanted to communicate was that the media tends to latch on to stories of racial violence and frame them in a very black and white (literally and figuratively) way, then both of those words would have sufficed. So there must be something deliberate that she was trying to communicate with the use of "colored."

The interpretation that I'm going with (which may not be Eisner's) is that she chose "colored" precisely for its patronizing roots. The word recalls white imperialism and the "white man's burden." I think that Eisner is trying to communicate that the discourse around Trayvon is in many ways condescending. Framing the story exclusively as white on black crime simplifies many complex issues into one easy to follow narrative. This simplification does no one any favors, with the possible exception of White people, who are content to use the incident as a way of "empathizing" with black America, thereby absolving themselves from engaging with racial issues in any real way.

The use of the word "handsome" is perplexing. "Sweet" and "innocent" make sense, but handsome seems to come out of nowhere. My interaction with the Trayvon Martin case has come largely by way of Twitter and message boards, so I don't know whether or not the media is actually commenting on Trayvon's appearance. If this has any basis in fact, then maybe this is another example of Eisner trying to point out the way that people are trying to use this incident to rebuff imagined accusations of racism. Western art and pop culture has often portrayed black men as grotesque and animalistic. Perhaps Eisner is using the word "handsome" as a way of saying that the media is intentionally distancing themselves from this racist past by using language that would normally have no place in a news report. While not as explicitly patronizing as the word "colored," any media focus on Trayvon's appearance would be pandering, at best.

Unfortunately for Eisner, none of this really qualifies as yellow journalism. This isn't an example of the media being deliberately inflammatory. In this instance, the media is merely a reflection of the American cultural zeitgeist.

I think that Eisner was attempting to express frustration with the way our culture deals with racial issues, but misdirected her ire.

Eisner should not be directing her anger at the media, instead, she should be confronting American society itself.

Rather than use the Trayvon Martin tragedy as an excuse to show how non-racist we all are, we should instead use it to explore some of the ugly problems in American society that it exposes.

In many ways, I'm uncomfortable writing this post. I feel like any incident can serve as an opportunity to explore some larger issues, but for this case in particular, it almost seems impertinent. The whole ordeal is so pointless and tragic, it's as if any attempt to analyze the situation trivializes it. Perhaps I am no better than Eisner's imaginary media.

Maybe that's ok. Maybe it's ok to be utterly defeated by a situation, but at the same time, try to learn from it. It's such a powerful story.

Why did this incident happen in the first place?

Why did Zimmerman react the way he did to a young black man in his neighborhood?

Why did Zimmerman feel the need to carry a firearm and patrol his neighborhood?

Why did Zimmerman find it necessary to shoot Martin, if Martin was clearly unarmed?

Why did Martin and Zimmerman get into a physical altercation?

Why do legal mechanisms exist that prevent Zimmerman from being arrested until all the facts come out?

How did our society get to the point where wearing a hoodie is equivalent to looking like a criminal?

Why is merely "looking like a criminal" an excuse to be harassed?

Why was the hispanic Zimmerman described as white?

Why have people used this incident as an excuse to further their own biases?

Over the past few weeks I've seen totally shameless things online.

Things like this.


Seriously, you guys. What is this? How do people like this still exist in the United States?

In addition to open racism, like the photo above, there are the people who are quick to dismiss any suggestion that there was a racial element to the incident by using the old stand-by "race baiting."

Let's just banish the phrase "race baiting" from public discourse. It's the bastion of the person who is too cowardly to admit that race is a huge issue in this country.

On the other side, there are the people I mentioned earlier. Those that are taking advantage of this tragedy in order to show how enlightened they are -- demonizing Zimmerman and idealizing Martin without taking the time to think about the larger issues that this incident exposes.

Rather using Travon Martin as an excuse to further your own biases and agendas, or to expose the supposed biases and agendas of your ideological enemies. I'd encourage everyone to reflect on this incident for what it is -- a totally avoidable tragedy that was made possible by a mad cocktail of idiocy and willful ignorance.

The unexamined society is not going to get better. American attitudes about race and violence will never improve if we keep pretending that everything is going to be fine, and that all starts with the individual. We can't help being blind to nefarious forces in society if we are blind to them within ourselves.

Maybe all of this is what Eisner was trying to communicate with her cartoon. Or maybe she's just an idiot.

"I feel the news should be unbiased. And in the retelling of this particular event, I felt that that was not the case. My story compared this situation to yellow journalism in the past, where aspects of news stories were blown out of proportion with the intention of selling papers and enticing emotions." -- Eisner in an interview with the Daily Texan.


Thursday, February 23, 2012

Writing Everyday (My New Goal)

This is the newest addition to the vast and somnolent Kyle's _______ blogging empire. I feel as if my writing skills have been deteriorating lately, suffocating beneath the insubstantial demands of my journalistic writing. In an effort to correct this, I am attempting to write something every day. My friend Jordan is currently writing a novel, and he claims that consistent writing causes the mental rust of the world to slough off of one's mind, so I'm hoping that is true.

It's a strange thing, having an acute awareness that one's skills are atrophying -- particularly a skill like writing, which has the tendency to be romanticized. I find that people who are good at writing (or, more often, believe themselves to be good at writing) often wrap the entirety of their being into their skill with the written word.

I am not innocent of this, of course. In any given class, I operate under the assumption that I am the best writer in the room, because I am "the writer."

I have always been "the writer."

Even amongst a group of equally skilled and talented folks, I am "the writer."

I once articulated this sentiment (in a somewhat more roundabout way) to a college minister here at UT.

I spoke about how much I loved writing, and how my strongest ambition was to be known as a great writer.

When I had finished pontificating, he responded by saying, "So do you think God has brought you out of that?"

I was taken aback. I'd never considered my authorial ambitions to be prideful. I didn't want to be well-known for the sake of being well-known. I wanted to be well-known because it would validate who I was as a person.

This kicked off a rather strange period in my life, where my attempts at sanctifying myself led to a lot of negativity. I pursued a brand of holiness that I now recognize as somewhat misguided. It was also a time of great spiritual turmoil.

The odd thing about all this, was that I had stopped writing because I had been made to feel that Kyle's Magic Blog was hubris. I was in an unusual state, having just moved to Austin, and instead of doing what felt natural (and is easily the most cathartic thing I know), I took some bad advice and stopped writing.

As time passed, I stopped thinking about writing. The thing is, when you write almost every day, like I did with my first blog, you look at everything that happens to you as material for exposition.

I stopped doing that, and in the meantime, I've become very proficient at journalistic writing.

Lots of white space.

Short paragraphs.

Third grade reading level.

It's pretty easy, and once you master it, you can throw in just a little bit of flair -- professors love judicious flair.

Anyway. Over Christmas break, Jordan started writing his novel, and it's very good.

It's funny, it's touching, it explores big ideas -- it's everything that I wish my writing could be.

As such, I've started writing again out of spite. I will be better than Jordan. I will reclaim my rightful title as "the writer," and never accede it again.