Survivor 20 Ranking

In honor of having now viewed 20 seasons to completion I have updated my ranking of all the seasons. Not bad considering I only began watching Survivor a little more than a year ago. That is a lot of hours of TV watching, so maybe I shouldn't be so proud of it. Either way, it is some kind of feat. 

Currently, I am on episode 3 of Guatemala, after which at which I can get rid of the CBS app and just watch on Hulu. My wife will appreciate that we won't have a $7 charge every month so I can watch one show. 

20. Vanuatu-I had a hard time getting through this one. I found it pretty boring. Maybe it was just where I was when I watched it. I just finished it recently and I had to look up who the winner was and who the people were because I couldn't remember. In contrast to Kaoh Rong, which is the season airing while watching it, Vanuatu paled. The woman's alliance really did nothing for me. None of the characters really stick with me. Blah. 

19. Australian Outback

18. Cook Island

17. Fiji

16. Marquesas

15. Thailand

14. All-Stars-There was lots of drama and the love affair between Rob and Amber I know was probably riveting television in 2003. I found it all rather entertaining but mostly in a soap-operaie way. I found myself liking players less in this season than I liked them in their original seasons. Lex was one example. He may have been my favorite from Africa but I thought he really let Rob manipulate him in All-Stars. Of course this could have been due to the editing, but also to Rob's own abilities. I've never read this mentioned anywhere else, but has it ever been discussed that the FTC was a little boring due to the fact that Rob and Amber didn't really want to lay into each other. Also, with my unfortunate foreknowledge that Rob and Amber are still successfully married, there was a sense that it mattered very little who actually took home the money. 

13. Gabon

12. Worlds Apart

11. Africa

10. China

9. Pearl Islands-This is the last season that I remember being so much in the public consciousness at the time of its airing, even though I didn't watch Survivor back then. There were lots of memorable, fun characters including Rupert, FairPlay, Lillian, Andrew and Sandra. I, like many people, disliked the plot twist of bringing back Lillian and Burton, but maybe not as much as others. With that said, it seems like a pretty obvious twist to be made and it was bound to happen eventually. They had to get it out of the way, at some point. It went as fine as it could have, although I hated to see Andrew as the casualty of that twist. As far as the winner, I thought Sandra was a flawed, however worthy winner, who did a good job of bobbing and weaving and keeping her cool even when she clearly was frustrated. The Fairplay grandma thing that was all over the news at the time of airing was, frankly a little lame. I'm not sure I really get what all the hype was about. On the flip side, Rupert did live up to the hype. I very much enjoyed his personality and how he played the game. I can see why he was so popular at the time. 

8. Amazon


7. Micronesia-Time has it's effect. I reordered Micronesia to place it lower than Panama. 

6. Panama-I moved Panama above both Amazon and Micronesia. The more I thought of it the more found memories I had of this season over the others. 

5. Palau-From the time of the merge this season was pretty great to watch. The only thing that really made it compelling pre-merge were the personalities of the Ulong tribe. I really felt for them as they went back to TC every episode. Koror was relatively non-existent in my mind before the merge, although I did love watching Ian. While Tom could certainly be overbearing at times and a little unfair, IMO I did like seeing his leadership and style of honest play, that is so rare. A very solid season. 


4. Tocancins

3. Koah Rong-I hesitate to place the most recent season in such a high place because of how recent it is, but I thought this season didn't have a boring episode. It seemed that something unprecedented was happening every episode from the first Tribal Council where Alecia nearly sabotaged herself, to Tai's betrayal, to Aubry's badassery. Not to mention the crazy weather elements that nearly killed a guy. My biggest complaint of this season is the winner. Not unlike the general population, I really thought that Aubry should have won. Michelle certainly came into her own as a player, but Aubry was the architect of the entire season, and I hated that she came in second. 

2. Borneo

1. Cambodia-Moved up another notch. I suspected I would move this one up a spot, but I wanted to give it some time. A lot of these returning players I was not familiar with, because I didn't watch until recently, and I still haven't seen a lot of the newer seasons before Season 30, but I loved seeing the experience and perspective that players like Spencer, Andrew, Fishback (who was my favorite player from Tocancins), Wentworth and Kass. I also couldn't have loved a better winner than Jeremy. I thought his play was earnest, without malice or lack of feeling, but still with a sense of direction and purpose. His FTC speech was excellent.

From a Reddit post 12/30. My updated rankings. Not sure why but this post switched my numbering. It should start with 15 and rank down to 1.  

1. Australian Outback-As the second season there wasn't much to compare it to, so naturally it was a hit at the time. I, however, was one of the few Americans not watching apparently, so the insane hype around it is odd to me, looking back at it. I had no clue what was going on. Now, as a fan, I hold no nostalgia for The Australia season and found it pretty boring. I honestly think that if it had been my first season to watch instead of Borneo, Panama, and Worlds Apart, I would not have kept watching. 
2. Cook Island
3. Fiji
4. Marquesas-Just as I was starting to connect with particular players they are voted off. The crawl to the end was pretty uneventful and I lost interest as it went along. I'm glad to know Boston Rob is coming back, as that should be fun.
5. Thailand-A lot of people don't seem to like Thailand, and the first is definitely a slog. However, overall it seems underrated, in my opinion. There's a lot going on here, even if it takes until the last few episodes to realise it. 
6. Gabon
7. Worlds Apart
8. Africa- lots of great characters in Africa that made it pretty compelling to watch, even if the game play wasn't yet on par with later seasons. 
9. ChinaPanama In addition to adding one of the seasons that I have seen since my initial ranking I've reordered my top 5 a bit. 
10. Amazon-I was never bored in this season. Even when stuff wasn't happening the personalities kept me entertained. The only thing I would have liked was for Rob to have gotten a shot at the FTC. Reminds me of Tocancins in a lot of ways except with a less likeable winner. 
11. Tocancins-moved it down a couple pegs. Still like it but it just doesn't hold the appeal over time the way some of the others have. 
12. Micronesia
13. Cambodia-One sluggish episode in the middle, but overall a riveting season. I was on the edge of my seat for most eps. I'm tempted to make it number one but I'm holding off because I'm afraid it's just the recentcy bias talking. 
14. Borneo

Survivor: Ranking My New Addiction

Last April (or March, or May, who can remember?) I started watching Survivor: Worlds Apart on a lark and found myself intrigued. I had never watched an entire episode of Survivor before and only had a vague, simple understanding of the show. It's, of course, a true story about 20 strangers picked to live on an island and have their lives taped to see what happens when you stop being polite and start getting REAL! I may be confusing my reality TV, but I got the gist. I enjoyed the show, but was a little lost when it came to all the lingo and "game play" talk. What does it mean to split votes? What is the significance of alliances and why are these people talking as if they aren't starving? Basically, I was watching a show that assumed the rules, both written and unwritten were understood by the audience. I thought I'd understand better if I went back to season 1 and watch it from the beginning, a time when Survivor, and even the concept of competition reality shows, was new to everyone. I already knew who won that season because if you were alive in 2000 there were 2 things that were impossible to ignore in the media: Gore v. Bush and Richard Hatch's naked butt. I loved the first season anyway, and wanted to continue watching but after falling in love with Borneo the production of the newest season seemed season too slick and manufactured, unlike the gritty documentary feel of the first season. Essentially, Survivor seemed to emulate the fast paced, boom-chicka soundtracked, fast camera angled reality shows of the genre that Survivor helped to create.

 So, I came to the Reddit/Survivor page to have longtime, hardcore fans convince me to stick with it. They did, and, I did, and now it's my new addiction. Over the course of Season 30: Worlds Apart I watched seasons 12-16 on Hulu in the intervening days between episodes. I took a break during the summer because I was starting to lose all sense of reality, but once Season 31: Cambodia, Second Chances I fell right back into wanting more of the show during the week, between episode airings. With more episodes to conquer I immersed myself, yet again, in the episodes available on Hulu, right where I'd left off in the Gabon season. The added bonus to watching old episodes for the first time was that I was getting to know players that were now returning for Cambodia, only with that kind of surreal notion that they are actually younger and less wise than the version I was getting to know through the current season. Now, having just finished Tocantins and deeply entrenched in Second Chances I wanted to return to Reddit to fulfill my need to discuss the show, something my friends and family will appreciate, as they are likely getting sick of me telling them about what Joe and Wentworth did last night, or about the inspiring bromance between JT and Fishbach, or the tears I shed when Taj got to see her husband. And, Coach. My friends didn't quite understand why I was so amused by a soccer coach/Maestro/world adventurer.

So, now to commemorate my 10th season (including the current season) of Survivor I want to rank my favorite seasons so far, in order of my least to most favorite. While, not unlike beer, my favorite season may be the one I'm enjoying at that moment, I'll do my best to be objective.

10. Cook Islands-While looking at any of these seasons in retrospect differs from how I was feeling at the time, as I truly enjoyed watching every season, in its own right, I can't say that I really connected with this season that much, compared to the others. The racially divided tribes aspect was an interesting idea at first, but quickly lost it's significance in the game. I had a hard time thinking of any of the players that I really connected with, other than perhaps Penner, but he was loathed by everyone else, it seemed, and I got tired of feeling sorry for him. Other than watching Ozzie's impressive physicality, this was a relatively dull bunch. Even the likable Yul Kwon wasn't that interesting of a character, despite playing a well orchestrated game. A bonus reason to put Cook Island at the bottom of my list is that Adam and Candice were the two most insufferably unlikable players I've seen thus far. I wanted to punch Adam in the face every time he flashed that cocky, douche bag grin. For me to hate the core members of the most interesting plot within the show is reason enough to rank this one last.

9. Fiji-Like Cook Island, I didn't really connect with any of the story lines or players this season, as much as some of the others. The relationship between Earl and Yau-Man, and maybe just Yau-Man, himself, gives it the edge over Cook Islands, for me. Also, Dreamz was an intriguing character, as the ultimate fish out of water, socially, that found a surprisingly strong correlation between being on the island and having spent part of his life without a home. Dreamz, more than almost anyone else who I've seen play the game, thus far, understood what it is like to survive in a harsh world. Still, the season over all was uneven and had lots of dragging moments, without many big moves to make things interesting.

8. Gabon-This was the first season I watched after taking a long break from past seasons on Hulu. There were many interesting and compelling people to watch in Randy, Ken, Chrystal, and Bob. The initial relationship between Ace and Sugar was a little disturbing to watch, as he came across like a Bond villain, just stringing his puppet along. Where this season fell off, for me was in the mean spirit of some of the players, like Corinne and Randy, and even Marcus. I tend to watch the players’ "Ponderosa" videos after each of their eliminations, and the way that they treated Chrystal after getting voted off was disheartening and sad. While it may be unfair to judge a season based on these "bonus" videos and not solely on the show proper, when I watch them intermingled with the episodes, it's hard to separate them out. Plus, by the end it was a pretty forgone conclusion that Bob would win and Susie's presence was superfluous throughout the whole game.

7. Worlds Apart-Unlike many other fans whom I have read that disliked the whole "Blue Collar vs. White Collar vs. No Collar" concept, I found it pretty compelling and enjoyed watching and thinking about how each players' jobs and normal lives influences their play in the game. Which character in any season you identify with probably says a lot about you, but I think this is especially true of Worlds Apart, since those personalities were separated out so distinctly. Interestingly enough, as we all saw, there were still a wide variety of personalities within each tribe, where someone as free spirited as Shirin was considered "white collar" while Hali was a "no collar" because of her current status as a student, despite her future as a lawyer. Still, like Gabon, I found the grating personalities of some of the players off-putting and the way some of the players took things too personally. Seasons that are dominated by angry, immature people don't really connect to me as much.

6. China-I really loved the backdrop of China and the beauty the scenery, as it added to the overall watching experience. This was also the first time I really noticed major moves that affected the game in big ways, and began to appreciate how strategy and social skill worked in the outcome of the game and the enjoyment of Survivor, overall. While James seems to push against my dislike for "mean" players, it never seemed personal and I found him to be a lot of fun to watch, with sole and kindness that betrayed his rough exterior. He and Denise were two extremely enjoyable players to watch, the latter being the anti-Susie-from-Gabon. A player who seemed out of place in the later rounds of the game. But, unlike Susie, I completely loved how she had come out of the shadows and took on a major role as a highly affective player. Watching how Todd bobbed and weaved his strategy through the game was the first time I'd really seen such an effective game play outside of the first season.

5. Panama-This was the second season that I finished watching all the way through, due to Hulu not carrying seasons 2-11. I don't particularly remember a lot about the game play, but this season gave us so many likable and memorable players, like Cirie, Terry Deitz, Aras and Austin. And, while I've only watched 10 seasons, based on the number of people on the internet that feel the same way I do, there has likely never been another player quite like Shane Powers. At first, I thought this guy must be crazy, but as the season progressed and his self-awareness endeared itself to his fellow survivors, he endeared himself to me. I loved the relationship he had with Cirie and the love he showed for his son was touching. Shane Powers made this season one of my favorites, and one that I continued to place on a pedestal in subsequent seasons.

4. Fans vs. Favorites-Two moments really stand out in my mind when I think about Fans vs. Favorites. Number one, the Black Widow Brigade's "stir the pot" moment was both hilarious and empowering. I loved seeing these women take control of the game and put the dudes in their place. Parvati, after coming across in Cook Island as a bit of a high school mean girl, aligning herself with the cool kids, Candice and Douche-Bag-Adam, struck me during this season as a more mature, more strategic player, who ran that game from the beginning. The next moment that sticks out was the way the BWB blindsided poor, naive Erik after convincing him to give up his immunity. It was a brilliant, bold move that placed the final etches on the plaque that would hang over Parvati's door.

3. Cambodia/Second Chances-My initial thoughts on bringing back old players were not positive. I'd read about how many people loved the seasons featuring returning survivors from previous seasons, and wondered why. Isn't part of Survivor’s appeal the fascination with watching people discover how to survive in the wild? After 9 1/2 seasons and two of them featuring returnees, I have to say that the old players generally make for better players and by extension these seasons are pretty great. It's certainly too early to say for sure whether or not Cambodia will go down as a great season, or not, but as of this writing I've seen one of the greatest blindsides I've seen in any of the previous seasons. I think these seasons work because they are all there to play and play hard. There isn't the obligatory waffling that goes on when you have all new players, or people who are unsure whether or not they can make it. Even the super-fans that make their way onto the show are usually way over-eager to prove their game smarts, when they are not returning players. Returning players are usually relaxed and better understand the nature of the game. Gone is the pettiness (comparatively), the personal attacks (at least outside the game context), and the annoyingly irrelevant concept of honor or trustworthiness within a game that is all about deception and manipulation. It is understood in these games that the truly "honorable" thing to do in the game of Survivor is to be dishonorable. Otherwise, you disrespect the game.

2. Tocantins-The idea that playing the game the right way is to be dishonorable and sneaky was front and center in Tocantins. Coach, the completely delusional, hyper-spiritual "Maestro" kept asserting that the game should award the player with the most honor, and lying deems you unworthy to win Survivor. That is like saying that everyone in a game of Texas Hold-Em should just lay all their cards out on the table and accept the cards they are dealt with honesty. You should not attempt to deceive the players about what you are holding, as if it should completely depend on luck of the draw and nothing else. If that were how you played poker, you would not have a game, you would have the lottery. The very nature of Survivor is about deception and manipulation in the same way that tennis is about hitting a ball over a net. What I loved about this season is that every player in Tocantins seemed to understand this, except for Coach. The lovable Taj, the lovable JT, the lovable Sierra, the lovable Stephen, the lovable Debbie. These were all great players who, while at times being emotionally swept away in the game, knew deep down that it was a game, and it wasn't to be taken as a personal slight if they were voted off. Instead, they focused their energies on playing the game the way it should be played: to win. That means making big moves, alliances, lying, manipulation, and even backstabbing. I have no doubt that had Stephen won immunity in the final challenge he would have brought Erin instead of JT to the final vote. As well he should have. It would have been the right strategic move. As JT correctly observed in the Tocantins reunion episode, he wasn't in the same spot as Stephen. He had the votes needed to beat Erin or Stephen and even could have earned more votes by appearing to take the high road by choosing his friend, instead of the girl that betrayed her alliance. But, how many of the jury would have voted for Erin, regardless, after JT and Stephen voted off Taj, who was as beloved as almost everyone? The argument could be made that the correct strategic move for JT was to bring Stephen. Fishbach had no such luxury. One of my favorite quotes of the season was when he was asked if he deserved to be sitting at the final vote, despite having hidden in the shadows, instead of running the strategy (a premise with which I vehemently disagreed, by the way. I never understood why the other survivors saw JT as the strategic leader, when in my mind it was always Stephen), Stephen responded that hiding in the shadows is a valid strategy. A wonderfully, strategically played season with heart, a bit of kookiness and players who knew how to keep perspective. Despite my dislike of Coach as a player, every season needs that outlier, and he certainly made for a fascinating character to watch. Even Coach’s presence helped make Tocantins my favorite season since watching Borneo. Which brings me to...

1. Borneo-When the forward pass was used for the first time in a football game it was decried as cheating. Likewise the stolen base in baseball was seen as low and dishonest. When it became apparent that Richard, Sue, Kelly, and Rudy had packed together to eliminate the rest of the players, they cried foul. Gretchen and Gervase mocked their "strategy" by wearing sitting duck and target T-shirts that seemed to imply their fate was based on nothing more than an unfair advantage, while the rest of them had been voting on...what? Who they liked? Who was a better "survivor?" The alphabet? It seems so quaint and naive, now. That there was ever a time when it was just a bunch of strangers battling the elements together and voting off the individual who didn't have the grit or skills to make it in the wild on limited food, seems strange and other worldly after watching 9 seasons of strategy and the "unskilled" making it to the later rounds, not based on their physical attributes or contributions to camp, but because they could manipulate people, or fly under the radar. When seen through the lens of later seasons, Borneo wouldn't really be anything other than mediocre, perhaps. If you don't understand the significance of what Citizen Kane brought to film, then it just seems like a typically old, black-and-white movie. It must be acknowledged that much of we take for granted in modern filmmaking owes itself to the Orson Wells classic. The first season of Survivor could have made or broken, not just the Survivor series, but also the entire reality competition show genre. While I could have gladly done without The Bachelor, or American Idol, or most of the shows in this category, for that matter (with The Joe Schmo Show being a hilariously awesome exception), if Richard Hatch had not turned a social experiment into a game of strategy and social manipulation, there may not have ever been a Naked and Afraid! For better or worse. Borneo is the alpha, the New Hope, the George Washington of one of the most successful shows of the past 15 years that launched a new era in television. It's also probably why we don't have to suffer through summers of reruns and instead get to spend the summer watching American Ninja Warriors. So, thank you Survivor: Borneo. Thank you Sue for delivering a speech that became the ultimate metaphor for how this game was to be played henceforth. Thank you Richard Hatch for orchestrating the structure of the game. It’s not often that the players of a game get to determine how it’s played.

And, thank you Mark Burnett and Jeff Probst. Without you I might actually have to get the work done that I am actually paid for in my real life, instead of spending hours on a Saturday writing a more than 3000 word diatribe. I have now begun to see life through a Survivor filter. How I deal with my coworkers, my students, and even my own family are all subject to the scrutiny of a Survivor scenario. This may seem like I’ve gone off the rails, and you may now feel sorry for anyone who has to come into contact with me, let me assure you that this way of seeing the world really only extends to the stretches of time when I am on a Survivor binge. I will eventually burn out and need to take a break, as I did before. And, soon enough I will burn through all 31 season, at which time Survivor become like any other show I DVR and watch when I get a chance. For those who may think that thinking of real life from the perspective of Survivor is a dangerous way to see the world, you’re probably right. But, just for fun, let me entertain the idea anyway. In life we have to deal with many different personalities, often in close surroundings with tasks that we should accomplish. Thankfully, we have our homes to go to at the end of the night with people whom we choose to live. Survivor is just an extreme version of our lives that marries the two worlds in which we already live and survive. Survivor can actually teach us how to better coexist with our loved ones and coworkers. To live in the real world takes patience, cooperation, alliances, and compromise. Ultimately, we also have to think of ourselves and our families and if that means cutting someone out of our lives, moving jobs, or simply moving away, we must do what is best and learn how to deal with what is in our control, and not worry about that which is not. That is really all a survivor can do and all that we can do in the real world. We have to vote people off of our island, sometimes. But, hopefully, we don’t have to do it often and in the meantime we discover how we can make life in our own little tribe as comfortable as possible for the short time we have here.

Should an Expensive Cordless Power Drill Break in Half After Falling From Four Feet Up?

So, this happened to my expensive drill gun after falling to the floor off a counter. Bummed, but hoping that Hitachi Power Tools will hook me up. Feel free to help by emailing them on my behalf. I only had the drill for about a year when this happened. It had never been mistreated and hadn't even been used that much, due to the fact that I wasn't teaching theatre last year.

Chicken on the Fence

I have been on the fence. Not about Gay Marriage. There's no question, gays and lesbians should absolutely have the right to marry. I've never heard a relevant or reasonable argument otherwise.

No, I have been on the fence as to whether or not I should demonize, or more specifically boycott Chick-Fil-A over the recent remarks made by their CEO, Dan Cathy. There's other people to think about, like local franchisees and employees who are innocently stuck in the middle of this controversy.

I've always been aware of the Evangelical Christian nature of Chick-Fil-A, and despite some minor annoyances when I get a chicken craving on a Sunday, I've always admired the way they seemed to conduct business. I felt that they represented Christ well, without being in everyone's face about it. I'm now hearing about lawsuits due to wrongful termination of women and gays, but I don't know enough about those to really use it as a basis for any stance I might take. So I won't comment on the lawsuits further, except to say that it's reasonable to assume that a company that size would be ridiculously lucky to avoid litigation of that kind, from time to time.

The money they donate to anti-gay organizations is certainly troubling. I've heard a myriad of claims about what these groups stand for, from wishing death on homosexuals to their imprisonment. I didn't dig deep enough into their websites to verify any of the harshest claims for myself, but I took a look at the website for the Family Research Council, and the rhetoric and fervor with which they demonize homosexuals and same-sex partnerships got pretty ridiculous to the point that I believe it falls way outside the mainstream beliefs of most Americans. Still, there are lots of companies that likely give money to organizations with whom I might disagree. A Facebook friend of mine did some looking and listed all the oil companies that purchase from Saudi Arabia, a country with laws that degrade and sanction violence on women, not to speak of their stance on homosexuality. Would it not reason that, unless I'm willing to do the research on every single company I patronize, wouldn't it be hypocritical for me to boycott Chick-Fil-A, simply because it is fashionable to do so in this moment?

Then I read this article that another Facebook friend posted. And, it made me realize, if I really believe what I say that I believe, if I really do love my gay friends and family, if I truly believe that they should be given the same rights as I have, and that it matters whether or not they are treated like a second class citizen then I need not support organizations and companies that actively support such oppression of gay Americans. To be clear, there is a difference between a company with a CEO who is against same-sex marriage and a company that gives money to organizations that are dedicated to making life more difficult for homosexuals.

As for other companies that might support misogynist governments or other social problems with which I disagree, perhaps I need to be more vigilant, and do a little more research on these companies before I give them my business. But I already know where Chick-fil-A stands on this issue that I believe is a matter of civil rights. They make no apologies or qualms that they are against giving gays a right that all straight people take for granted. The groups they support financially go even further by rallying against legislation that would simply allow gay people to keep their jobs and not have to fear for their safety. I don't have to guess or shrug and say, "who knows how they are spending my money?" because I do know. To say that I disagree with them, but they have the right to disagree would to put it on the level of an opinion regarding taxes or economic theory. They do have the right to disagree, but they should not have the right to discriminate or infringe on the rights of others. It's a matter of right and wrong, rather than simply agreeing to disagree.

So, as for future visits, I can't say whether or not I'll ever set foot in a Chick-fil-A again, but, to be perfectly honest, it is very likely that I will, I'm sorry to say. Amanda and I are bound to break down amid the regular indecisiveness and "where do you want to go" routine. I certainly wasn't going to go today given the amount internet activity surrounding "Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day." Going today would have been tantamount to a cruel stance of betrayal to those gay people in my life for whom I care, dearly. Every Facebook post I read from a Christian boasting of their haul from Chick-fil-A broke my heart a little more, because it was an open display of their allegiance to a chicken store above the feelings of their LBGT peers. With the new amount of knowledge I now have about the company of Chick-fil-A (including the way the "f" in "fil" is not to be capitalized), and where my chicken-dollars are going, it's far more likely for me to think twice about eating there, and choose to go somewhere else. Here in Abilene there's a Rosa's Tortilla Factory right next door. They serve chicken there, too, although I doubt they can do a Peach Milkshake. But, the Chick-Fil-A can't really do tortillas, so we'll call that a draw. All I can say is that I'm urging Cane's to open here ASAP.

The Best BLT Sandwich in Existance

I just created a BLT Sandwich that was so awesome I want to share it with the world. I made this sandwich with lower fat ingredients due to me being on Weight Watchers*. However, as you'll see, it's not really that good for you. Oh, we'll. Here it is.

Ingridients:

2 slices of whole wheat bread
4 slices of Center Cut Bacon (or regular bacon, but center cut is lower in fat, but that probably doesn't matter)
2 slices of American Cheese
1 leaf of iceberg lettuce
2 slices of tomato
1 sandwich stack sliced Clausen pickle (Clausen are crunchier than regular pickles)
2 tablespoons of light mayonnaise
1 tablespoon of light butter or margarine
Spicy brown mustard
Salt and pepper

Directions:

1. Fry the bacon like you normally would in a frying pan. Do not microwave or bake or do some other kind of ridiculous thing. Once the bacon is finished place on a paper towel covered plate to cool and collect some of the fat. I'm not really sure what the point of soaking up the fat is, given what is about to happen. (DO NOT throw out the bacon fat that remains in the frying pan.)

2. Spread butter or margarine on one side of each slice of bread.

3. Place a slice of cheese on the buttered side of each slice of bread.

4. Place the bacon on one side then close your sandwich.

5. Spread mayonnaise on both sides of the outer side of the sandwich. Make sure you still have about 1/2 Tbsp remaining.

6. Fry the sandwich in the bacon fat remaining in the frying pan. About 3-4 minutes on each side. Place on a clean paper towel to soak up some of the bacon fat. Again, this is sort of a laughable thing to do, but it might give you some sense that you are a reasonable person.

7. Carefully open the sandwich. It's okay if the bacon doesn't all end up on the same side. Just don't let the bread tear. There will be cheese all over the place. This is a good thing.

8. Place the lettuce, tomato and pickle (in that order) on one side of the sandwich.

9. Slather the remaining mayonnaise on top of the pickle.

10. On the non-vegi/mayo side squirt a respectable amount of spicy brown mustard.

11. Salt and pepper the mayo/vegis to taste.

12. Close the sandwich.

13. Cut the sandwich in half at a diagonal...A DIAGONAL!!!

14. Eat that thing and thank me in your dreams. Chips go well with it.

15. Go to the gym.

*Weight Watcher PointsPlus: 25**

**Based on 7 points for the bacon fat. It may be more or less, for all I know.

The Beauty of E=mc2

Yesterday I watched an 80 minute video of an interview with Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson, the director of the Hayden Planetarium in New York, but more importantly (and the reason I knew who he was) a frequent guest on the Daily Show and Colbert Report. The interview, which was conducted by Steven Colbert, himself, out of his normal egotistical character he plays on his show, was held at a local middle school as part of a series their PTA holds as a way to help inform and cultivate knowledge to their students, faculty and community. (Educators and lovers of knowledge in Texas may sigh with jealousy now.)

I highly recommend spending an hour and a half watching the interview, which I've linked below. The whole interview is fascinating for lots of reasons, and because it is hosted by Colbert it's pretty funny (Tyson is funny, in his own right). but a few key points really stuck out at me from the interview.

I posted a couple of quotes from Tyson on my Facebook page yesterday after hearing them in the interview. The one that got me the most is at about the 22 minute mark. Colbert had asked Tyson if he sees beauty in science and, if so, which is the most beautiful. Tyson answers with very little hesitation that E=mc2 is the most beautiful thing in science. After his explanation, one would be hard pressed to argue that it may not be the most beautiful thing in the world.

Not just a famous equation that is a cliched "sciencey" thing to quote and throw about, E=mc2 is the concept that connects all human beings to each other, the earth and the cosmos. If you aren't aware, E=mc2 essentially means that if we (or anything, I guess) could travel at the speed of light times itself we would become energy. Read that sentence again and wrap your head around that for a moment or two.

Energy, which for my non-scientific brain is easiest to understand as light, and matter are essentially made out of the same thing. All of the elements in the world, in space and throughout the known universe are biproducts of the same material and can, infact become that material again. We are all connected in a very real way.

This struck me from a spiritual perspective, as well. Tyson, from what I've been able to gather is either an aetheist or agnostic. And yet, when he speaks of physics and science, he does so in a way that is reminiscent of theologians and spiritual leaders. He sees hope and beauty in the world through the lens of science in the same way that I, myself have learned to view it through God and through worship. I don't want to speculate or come to conclusions as to what this means for religion or Tyson, himself, but I find it incredibly fascinating and oddly coincidential. I love when he calls us "stardust" referencing back to the Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young song "Woodstock" that says, "we are stardust, we are golden, we are billion year old carbon and we've got to get ourselves back to the garden." The way that I interpret these lyrics refers to the grandest idea of the hippy movement and Woodstock, itself as a time and place when the idea of coming together and recognizing our spritual and psysiological link to each other. This idea reinforces the need for us to not hate, not hurt, and help each other. This is a concept that is understood by Christians and scientists like Neil deGrasse Tyson alike, whether or not they recognize it on a normal basis or not.

Finally, after reiterating his expertese as an astrophysicist and not as a poet, Tyson said this:

"Some of the greatest poetry is revealing to the reader the beauty in something that was so simple you had taken it for granted."

Tyson is specifically referring to the relative simplicity in Einstein's E=mc2, but the grand and wonderful conotations that are revealed because of it. However, I loved this quote so much because it is very true in a much greater sense. Often the best art, whether it be plays, films, paintings or poetry, are that which ask us to look at something simple or common with a new perspective.

Here's the link to the interview.

1/4/2012 UPDATE: So, I likely misinterpreted E=mc2. Regardless, watch the video and you will get what I'm talking about. Maybe.

Defense of The Arts

This is quoted from an article at Theatre Ideas the blog of . I'm taking it out of context, but I loved the quote, nontheless.

"Culture and the arts are essential means by which all people explain their experience, shape their identity and imagine the future...People need the arts to make sense of their lives, to know who they are. But our democracy needs the arts, too. The arts animate civil society. They stretch our imagination. They increase our compassion for others by providing creative ways for us to understand and deal with differences. The arts protect and enrich the dignity and the public discourse that are at the heart of a healthy democracy."

This is a quote from Holly Sidford of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy. The quote is made in reaction to the disparity between the amount of funds that go toward large theatre and arts in big metropolitan areas and smaller, rural communities.

The article on the Theatre Ideas blog addresses this issue in a 3 parter on the similarities between the financial disparity that Occupy Wall Street protesters are arguing against and the disparity in arts funding. Read all three parts if you have the time.

How Life Decided I Needed to Stop, Part 3

I had just left the Administration building after turning in my resignation notice, and placing myself a pool of teachers who would receive a financial incentive for saving the school district the task of firing us. The mood in the Human Resources office was understandably sad. I stood there with young and old teachers, all visably shaken and bewildered. The ones who were talking were rambling and flustered, unsure what the next move was.

The news of losing my job couldn't have come at a worse time. In late March, early April every theatre director in Texas is focused on the One Act Play contest. The week before our play had advanced past the first round of competition for the third year in a row and that Saturday, the day after I was told I was being let go, was the next level of competition. The year previous we had gone on to the third round and hoped to move even further this year. The play we were performing was August: Osage County, the play de jour for the theatre world at the time. I felt like we were really stepping out with this production, due to it's edginess, it's brilliance, but mostly because it had never been done before in the UIL One Act Play competition. It was right in the sweet spot of being well-known, but not overdone, and impressive without being out of range. Or, at least I thought so. The point is that I had very high hopes for our production's success at the competition.

By the time a play has already had been through 5 weeks of rehearsals including several clinics, and one round of competition, hopefully it is self-sustaining and the job of the director is over. If that were the case my own state of mind wouldn't have mattered much, as I would have simply told my students to do the great job I knew they were capable of and left it at that. Unfortunately, high school theatre, especially when traveling a show to a competition, is an ongoing process. That Friday afternoon and into the day of the contest, dispite the students' ignorance of my situation, there was an aura of chaos. The kids were a talented bunch, and very much wanted to do well. While no one has told me this, it's always been my feeling that they could sense something was wrong with me. I had a feeling they were cueing from me, even unwittingly, to be unfocused and haphazard in their preparation. There were missing props, confused sound elements, disorganization throughout the preparations on that Friday and the morning of the competition. Perhaps it was just because they are high school students and it's a lot to handle, but my feeling all weekend was that it was because of me.

As much as I wanted to continue our run of success and show the school district that they were getting rid of the wrong guy, we didn't advance that night. When we got back to the school after the contest I gathered the students and the parents that had stuck around and told them the news. There were a lot of tears and hugs and parents asking what could be done. I genuinely thought, at that time, that it was a done deal, but told them anything they wanted to do would be appreciated.

By Monday word had spread and the general population knew about my dismissal. I recieved lots of support from other teachers, students, and parents. Before I was told I was being let go my ego had elevated some, and I started thinking of myself as the goldenboy of the district's theatre teachers. Within some exclusive circles, this might be considered a big deal, but I'll understand if the gravity of this distinction doesn't quite land with all of the readers. After all, I had been in the district now for 4 years and had built a theatre program that consistently won in UIL, but also had made a reputation for producing daring materials and pushing students to go beyond what was typical for high school theatre. Being let go kind of put me in my place, as I was extremely humbled, left wondering if I had actually made an impact, at all. The support that I was being shown and the way that everyone seemed to think I was being wronged made me feel very good about what I had done there. Regardless, I knew I had some cosmic humble pie in my belly.

Nevertheless, I still didn't have a job for the next school year my focus now turned to looking for and applying for jobs in the Houston area and throughout the state. While only a few years back I was being approched by other schools wanting me to join them, now it seemed that the jobs were going to be very few and far between. Every school district in the state of Texas was cutting back and the arts were not in the sites of any school to be able to hire, let alone expand. So, I also began looking at other types of jobs doing other things. I had worked the previous summer setting up lights and sound for trade shows for an audio/visual company in Houston. The General Manager was a students' parent and he told me he might be able to hire me full time in a project manager or sales capacity. Maybe this would be an opportunity to see if there was something other than teaching theatre that I would like doing.

As it was, even without being RIFd, I had been considering a possible change in scenery. I taught at a very large high school and every year more students were signing up for theatre. My second year there they had hired another theatre teacher to take on a couple of lower level classes, but she didn't help out very much after school. The next year we hired an honest to God assistant theatre director, but after two shows, she decided that she didn't want to work with the theatre program after school and wanted to focus on teaching English. So, for the majority of my time there I was a department of one. The next year looked to be even worse as the other theatre teacher wouldn't even be taking theatre classes all of my sections would be filled to the brim, and overflowing. For the third year in a row, my advanced theatre class would have to combine with another class, making it very difficult to establish the high level of theatre I knew was possible. I had thought that I would just ride it out the best I could, but with this new development, I began to see returning as a very scary proposition, fraught with large inconveniences and even more time spent at school, away from my family. Leaving began looking more and more appealling.

While I was going through all the stages of grief, (disbelief, anger, blame, depression, acceptance... are there more?) there were apparently things working in the background. My students parents had organized a letter writing campaign on my behalf and were inundating the Human Resources office with emails and phone calls. The students went in mass to a school board meeting, along with band and orchestra students, who also lost teachers, to tell them what kind of teacher they were losing. Even more importantly, and to my surprise my principal was working behind the scenes to affect the final outcome. I was shocked when, only three weeks after I'd been told I wouldn't have a job next year, my principal stopped me in the hall to tell me that I had gotten my job back. She told me not to worry about why, but just to know, while it wasn't official, it looked like I would be back next year, after all.

But, in my mind, things weren't that cut and dry. I had multiple applications in to various school districts, including two districts in Abilene, where my wife was from. I had even lined up an interview for a theatre job at one of the high schools, where I would head up a much smaller program, at a smaller school, with less stress, teaching well-to-do, well behaved kids. I decided to go to the interview, which I was confident I could get, and then decide if I would take the job or stay in Houston.

But, as the year drew to a close, and the district was asking if I was going to accept the offer to stay in my position, I became more and more confident that I would be staying. After all, starting over at a new school, doing the same thing wouldn't necessarily fix my problems. Even small schools have issues, of course. I even decided to hold auditions for the first show of the next school year. On the second to last day of school I got a call from the principal of one of the high schools in Abilene. He had a job for me. It wasn't teaching theatre, but I would work with a new grant-funded program at the school helping struggling students recover credit they needed to graduate. It would be less hours, allowing me time to work on my Master's Degree, which I'd put off due to the hours I was spending at the theatre. The job didn't require planning, after school hours, or weekends, which I'd spent mired in for 4 years.

My initial reaction was a big "no." I couldn't see myself working in something not remotely theatre related. I felt like I would miss it too much. Furthermore I had a strong sense of loyalty to the students in my theatre program. It was my baby, after all. But, that was the problem. I had an actual baby at home. This new job would give me more time with her and with my wife. I had always been heavily involved in theatre, and as a teacher, I had always been very busy. But, over the last 4 years, my job wasn't just a part of my life, it had become my life. I was neglecting several things that I had always been passionate about. This included my family, but also music, exercising, writing and doing things in the community. I hated that I had lost all of this, and moving into this new job would give me time to do all of these things, again.

I talked to Amanda to get her opinion, but I knew what she wanted to do without asking. This was going to be my call. I thought about the stress of running a theatre program, and about how much I've always envied people who had time for hobbies. Then I thought about how the next year was already shaping up to be difficult and frustrating, with even more on my plate than before. I thought about how happy this would make Amanda. Every now and then in life, an opportunity comes along that a person just has to follow their gut and take a plunge. It was this same intuition that brought me to where I was to begin with.

So I took the plunge. I wanted to tell the school before we let out for the summer. I felt like I owed it to my students and my principal to let them know what I planned as soon as possible. I especially didn't want my kids to find out over Facebook or when they got back in the fall. So, on the last day of school I went into my principal's office and informed her that I'd been hired by another school district and would take the job. Later that day I gathered as many of my students as I could and let them know my plans. I thought they would hate me, but to their credit, despite their disappointment, they were happy for me. A few weeks later they even threw me a going away party.

I still went to the other job interview in Abilene. The job wasn't for me, and even though I didn't get it, I had decided that I would definitely take the position in the credit recovery classes. I figured that if I was going to take a break from teaching theatre that I needed to really take a break from teaching theatre.

The move was fairly painless. I know my parents were sad to see me move away from the Houston area. We had been there for 8 years and it had become common to meet them for dinner or to schedule a Sunday afternoon together with extended family. I knew I would miss that. Amanda and I had also become close with several people at our church in Sugar Land. It was sad to say goodbye to them, but finding friends in Abilene wouldn't be too difficult. We already had Amanda's sister and one of my best friends from college there. While I had never fully fallen in love with Sugar Land, I certainly would miss many of the people I had come to know there. With Facebook and Twitter we could stay in touch, but of course, it's not the same as being able to walk down the street and share a beer. It's not the same as handing your daughter over to the same person who has cared for her since she was born, then seeing that same person at school to work on costumes. It's not the same as knowing that any day you could just get in the car and drive less than an hour to see your brother. That is, if you have the time.

So, that brings me to where we are now. It's been 5 months since Amanda and I moved here. In that time we've rented a house, been to Fort Worth to see Amanda's sister, twice, started new jobs, and helped host a party for my 10 college reunion. Personally, I've lost 15 pounds by eating better and running, written the first few chapters of a novel and generally relaxed. I've also been working on my Master's Degree and read 4 books. These are all things that I wanted to do before, but didn't have the time or energy. Things are quantitatively looking pretty good. I would like to do more to meet more people, get involved in church and travel on the weekends, now that I have the time. But, all in all, I can't complain.

Sometimes I think about the stage at my previous school. I think about standing on the stage when no one else is there and looking out at the empty seats. From there I can look up and see rows of batons, hanging silently from the high ceiling above. Behind me are old set peices, placed against the back wall for storage until we need it again. The black floor, newly painted, clean and free of marks, is the perfect surface to recall some of the old tap moves I learned in college, made difficult by the rubber soles of my running shoes, that I rarely run in. I walk around the edge of the stage into the house and sit in one of the auditorium seats. Sitting in the dark, looking at the shadowy stage, florescent light from behind the curtains spill out and create an erie, but calming mood. It was never given to me by any authority, but it was mine. I controlled that space as if I had bought and paid for it myself. It was, without any sense of metaphor or exageration, a second home. And, when those students whom I had trained and watched grow in talent as well as character and maturity walked out on that stage and performed under the the halogen lamps (I had to fight tooth and nail for the district to pay for) songs and speeches and dances that would have never occured if not for a confidence they did not have when they arrived in my class their freshman year; and sound cues and scene changes happen at the exact right time, set in motion by students who had come to me only months before with only a vague sense of wanting to belong to something larger than themselves; when all these things happen at once and all I have to do is sit back and know that the whole process has been rehearsed over and over, and the students who are backstage barking orders into their headsets feel as much of a sense of responsibility toward the outcome of the production and the future of the theatre program as I do--when I can sit in the seats and feel confident that I have had an impact by setting these peices in motion, the sense of pride that builds in me is very real, even when the their existance only survives in my imagination and memory. And I miss it.

The past five months have convinced me of three things: One, I needed the break. The time I've had with Olivia and Amanda, not to mention the time I've had to run and take care of my health, has been extremely valuable. I don't regret this year and the break from theatre, at all. Two, I'm not finished with theatre and theatre isn't finished with me, and I will be back there someday, directing and teaching and building sets. The question a theatre major is always supposed to ask himself is, "Can I imagine myself doing anything else?" If the answer is yes, you shouldn't do theatre. I can honestly say that, for me, the answer is no, I can't. It's what I'm meant to do on this earth and the legacy I should leave behind. Finally, when I do eventually get a chance to either teach theatre or run a theatre company, or wherever I'm led, I need to learn to control the program and not let the program run me. Theatre is what I do, and it's what I know, but it won't always be there when I need it. The theatre program I ran, the job that I left and the art form itself may run through my blood, but my heart will always be lying next to me at night and bringing me coffee on Sunday mornings. My soul will greet me tomorrow morning with big blue eyes, a wisp of blonde hair and a big grin saying, "Wake up, Daddy!"

How Life Decided I Needed to Stop, Part 2

I took a long time to write this part because as I started writing I became unexpectedly emotional and filled with anxiety. Partly, I think because it was only months ago, and the feelings are still fresh. Also, I started to wonder if I wasn't crossing a line by divulging the manner in which I was dismissed. The proceedings and criteria by which teachers were RIFd are public to anyone who seeks them out, and I don't work for this particular district anymore, anyway. So, why care? Something just told me that it wouldn't be wise to go on at length on my personal opinions regarding the district and their methods, even if I keep them anonymous. So, I'm leaving out a lot of details that might help explain how I was let go, but really only act as more of a diversion to the main story. I also found that as I write about certain details I tend to sound defensive and legalistic, like I'm trying to prove that I was wronged. That is not the purpose of this story. The story is about how I found myself in my current job, not teaching theatre. The real purpose is to tell how I made a choice in my life for the betterment of myself and my family.

The principal was sitting at her desk, looking sullen and serious. This was not normal for her. Furthermore, our Associate Principal was also in the room. He always seemed serious, if not a little pissed off. This time he was uncharacteristically gentle. My principal did not greet me in her normal fashion, with energy, piss and vinegar. She was quiet and calm. I have never really been the most punctual person in the world, and while I was always at school before the kids arrived, I did sometimes come in after the time I was supposed to be there. I know that other teachers had been called in to inform them that they needed to do a better job at getting to school by 7am, so I thought that this is what I was going to be addressed. Even so, it seemed a little too formal for even that.
My principal spoke about budgetary concerns in the district and the problems facing all districts in the state. She spoke of the need to cut back in certain areas of the school. Maybe she was going to tell me that our funding was being deminished or cut. We were never given enough money from the school district before and had learned to supplement the budget with fundraising. We had even formed a parent booster club for that very purpose. Less money would mean we had to raise more and use it for the actual plays and less on extras, but it was nothing I couldn't handle.
Then she said something completely unexpected. "Kyle, your position in the district is being cut, and you will no longer have a job here, next year." My heart felt immediately empty and I could feel my pulse beating in my ears. This made absolutely no sense.
"There's not going to be a theatre program next year?" I asked.
She explained that they would still offer theatre, but that one of the schools, not ours, decided to cut a theatre position for the following year. There were 11 high schools in the district and several of these schools had more than one theatre techer. All of the theatre teachers in the school district were measured against each other on various criteria. The measure that seemed to matter most was the yearly teacher evaluations (the PDAS) and the one with the lowest score was the person who was let go. It didn't matter that it wasn't my job being let go, or even that I was the head theatre teacher on my campus, I had apparently received the lowest PDAS score of all the theatre teachers that year.
Again, this didn't make sense to me. That year I recieved an unusually low PDAS, but still it was not a bad appraisal by most observers' standards. I mentioned that there might be a mistake due to the fact that my evaluator had given me a low mark in a single category, that I had subsequently contested. The evaluator agreed to change it, but this was not reflected on the evaluation that was used to determine my place in the Reduction in Force. My principal assured me that the decision that had been made was final, regardless of anything else that might be discovered at a later time.
There was seemingly a silver-lining. The district was offering an insentive to resign for teachers who would do so before April, and they were only allowing so many. I was told that I needed to make a quick decision about whether or not I would take the resignation incentive, as many people were being let go the same day and I didn't want to sign up for the incentive too late. I was told that I didn't want to have the blight of a "non-contract renewal" on my record.
I found out later that my principal was reading from a script and that she was instructed to tell me these things. But, I trusted her and so I dutifully went to the administration building to turn in my resignation and incentive agreement. Before I left, though, my principal told me through tears how sorry she was, and that this wasn't my fault. She looked over my evaluation and confirmed that it was a good evaluation and that it didn't seem to make sense to her, either.
I had to tell my wife, Amanda. Her school was only a few miles away from my own and I regularly dropped by, if I needed to. Normally, I might just sign in at the front then go to her room. I didn't want to tell her the bad news in front of her student's, though, so I told her principal first, and asked if she could have someone cover Amanda's classes. Amanda's principal would have been aware of the district RIFs being done that day. I waited by the offices while Amanda's principal went and got her. Amanda was understandably worried that I hadn't just walked down there myself and thought the worst. She was almost in tears as she came down the very long hallway from her classroom. Her principal already assured her that Olivia was okay, which was Amanda's first thought.
The principal let us use her office, where we sat at a conference table. I held her hand and told her about the budget cuts and that I was one of the people the district was letting go. She began to cry, and I decided to let her for a moment. Then she started asking all of the regular questions. Why me? Who was going to replace me? How dare they do this after all the time and energy I put in? A good wife has your back, for sure, as I would always have hers.
Of course, I didn't have a lot of answers, except what I'd been told, which was that it wasn't fair, but it didn't matter. She agreed that I should take the incentive if there wasn't anything else to do. It seemed that there wouldn't be any use fighting it. I noticed a page at the back of my resignation incentive agreement indicating that I could resend the agree within a week, so with this as a seemingly solid safeguard I went to the administration building and turned in my incentive agreement. I had now officially resigned my position of theatre director at Travis High School. What I would do next was a complete mystery.

End of Part 2

How Life Decided I Needed To Stop, Part 1

Anyone who has spent much time with me over the past 6 months or so are no stranger to the recent changes that have occured in my life during that time. A couple of weekends ago I went to my 10 year college reunion and was a little surprised that, even with Facebook and Twitter, many of my college friends were in the dark about these changes. Then I realized that I'd been relatively quiet on the social media front regarding the matters that transpired that lead to me living in Abilene, Texas and (more surprisingly) not teaching theatre.

The internet silence was partly due to privacy, I suppose. I've never been a terribly private person, but over the years I've discovered that it is sometimes better to keep somethings to myself. The main reason, though, is that for a long time I didn't really know how things would transpire, and I wanted to be wary about discussing my thoughts on a public forum that could potentially be seen by students or parents of students, or, God-forbid, school administration.

The story begins back in late March of this year. I was feeling very good about myself, for a number of reasons. For the third year in a row the the UIL One Act Play I had directed had just advanced from the first round of competition, and I had a good feeling about the next round. The kids were focused and doing well, we were performing a very risky and challenging play that had not been done in UIL OAP competition before. We had lots to work on, but I was confident that we had something special. I was in a large school district at a large high school and was building a theatre program that had a very positive presence on campus amoung students and faculty.

Not that the year was without it's low points. At the beginning of the year, I'd found out that my assistant no longer wanted to help in the theatre department with productions after school and would only be teaching classes during the day. This meant that I would, again, be directing, teching and producing on my own every show of the season. This is a stress that I was used to, but not one that I wanted. Nevertheless, I had several very devoted and capable parents who helped out tremendously with costumes as well as fundraising. Also, our department was able to afford to hire a woman to come in and serve as technical director and designer for the musical, which essentially gave me an hour or so per day of extra time, and a full Saturday to do things that would have normally been ignored or put-off. So, we were able to move along despite a reduction in the number of full-time theatre faculty.

The first show of the season was lots of fun. The set didn't turn out exactly as I'd planned, but the cast was small and dedicated and everyone who saw the show gave great feedback. We had to switch the musical from Fiddler on the Roof to Pippin about three weeks into rehearsals because of casting issues, but we plugged on and put on a show that was, while far from perfect, a great experience for myself and the students.

With the highs and lows of the season mostly behind me and looking toward the next year I began to see the 2010-2011 school year as a turning point for the theatre department as well as myself. It was the year where I decided to take control of the fate of the theatre program and learn from past mistakes. No longer would I attempt to produce shows beyond our means or put up with people who were getting in the way of making the theatre program successful. I wasn't going to beg the band directors to help or worry that others weren't doing my bidding. I was going to take those dedicated and hungry students and develop them into the highest quality theatre troupe that I possibly could, even if it meant losing a few. I was going to stress quality over quantity. I was very excited for the future and the UIL One Act Play was going to be the coming out party.

On April 1, the day before we were to compete at the second level of competition I was rounding up the normal last minute details of taking a show on the road: making sure that boxes were organized with props, racks were full of costumes and the required buses and permission forms were secured. Sometime around lunch I received an email stating that I needed to go meet with our principal. I joked with our bookeeper that I hoped I wasn't in trouble. I had a good relationship with my principal, and despite a few grandmotherly tongue lashings because of my tendency to, at times, be a little..."independent"(?) she liked me and I liked her. She cussed like a sailor, called you names and you realized that she loved you all at the same time. Still, there was a very real possibility that today was one of those loving repremands. At any given moment I was possibly violating some minor (and ridiculous) policy or making the custodian mad because a performance ran long. When I entered the principal's office I knew this was different.

End of Part 1

The Hunger Games Bigger Picture

*Disclaimer* I did my best to leave out major spoilers, but you may still find some of the information within this post to be more than you want to know, if you plan to read these books.

I'm currently reading the book Catching Fire by Suzanne Collins after quickly reading through the first book of the Hunger Games Trilogy. I was really impressed with the first book. It was fun and kept me on the edge of my seat, but I also had a few problems with many elements of the story. Basically, I thought that things wrapped up way too easily for the protagonist, Katniss. What I mean is that things were fairly predictable and Katniss really never had to do anything wrong, or morally questionable. She kills and breaks the law, but in ways and within circumstances that any normal and sane person could reasonably be expected to do the same.

If you aren't familiar with the premise of the The Hunger Games it's not giving too much away to explain that the plot revolves around a Not-Too-Distant-Future nation called Panem that exists where North America once was. The country is divided into "districts" and Katniss is from one of the poorer districts, District 12, although all of the districts are at the mercy of a controlling, totalitarian government. As a reminder of the power of the government, which exists in a District known simply as The Capitol, each district, except The Capitol, must choose by lottery a boy and a girl to participate each year in an event known as the Hunger Games. This Nationally televised, mandatory viewing for all citizens is a fight to the death between kids, age 12-18, with the winner receiving wealth and fame for the rest of his or her life. Since you already know that there is a sequel, it's also not too much to tell you that Katniss survives.

When I say that the plot is too easy for her, what I mean is that Katniss is never really faced with a situation that would force her to do something she finds morally wrong. For instance she never has to kill someone who is portrayed as a "good" person. The subject is discussed throughout the book that the so-called "bad-guys" who are out to kill the other contestants, known as tributes, are not really the enemy, since they are all forced to participate. However, when these kids die you never really feel bad for them, like you would if the "good-guys" die.

I understand why the book was written that way. Obviously, as a reader, you don't want to see your protagonist do something abhorrent or evil, but I also feel that the story should have been told more honestly. A teen reader, for whom the book is primarily written, may be more sensitive to this kind of moral ambiguity, and therefore it may explain why Collins chose to not compromise Katniss's goodness by having her face such a morally perplexing decision as killing someone she didn't want to kill. In other words, in a graphically violent book perhaps we as the reader needed at least something, in this case Katniss's righteousness, to fully rely on. I still would have liked to see her at least face such a decision, and she never did.

So comes Catching Fire which my wife, as well as the internet see as the superior book in the trilogy. While I have still not delved very far in the second novel, (I've decided to come to terms with the fact that Katniss will probably survive this book, seeing as how there is a third) I can already see that this book will be bleaker, and truer to the world that Collins created. It also deals with at least one subject that is quite relevant to the current state of the world. In the chapter I'm currently reading, Catching Fire describes a party at the Capitol where people gorge themselves on food and drink, only to regurgitate periodically so they can continue partying throughout the night. In the following passage Katniss relays the stark contrast she sees between the citizens of The Capitol's wasteful behavior and in the faces of the starving children within her own district and others throughout the country:

"All I can think of is the emaciated bodies of the children on our kitchen table as my mother prescribes what the parents can't give. More food.... And here in the Capitol they're vomiting for the pleasure of filling their bellies again and again. Not from some illness of body or mind, not from spoiled food. It's what everyone does at a party. Expected. Part of the fun."

This passage made me feel shame. It's what we do every day in the U.S. while there are people starving in other countries. Forget other countries, there are people starving right under our noses, but most of us throw away more food in a day than many get to eat in a week.

I never felt rich, by any stretch. I always saw the shoes that other kids wore, or the cars that other parents drove and felt cheated, somehow. I wanted to know why I couldn't afford the expensive Nikes with the little air pockets and the pants with the tag on the fly; made by some designer with a name I had trouble pronouncing. But, I never worried about where food would come from. We had a car that was always full of gas and a house that was warm in the winter and cool in the summer. I was fortunate to have parents that expected me to get an education so that one day, when I was an adult with a family I wouldn't have to worry about these things, either.

When I see people in my own town who struggle with these very issues it makes me at once thankful, and determined. Determined to always provide that same feeling of comfort for my daughter, so that she never has to worry either. But, even more than that, I'm determined to show her that not everyone is as fortunate as she, and that there is a corner of our society that struggle to gain basic needs like food and shelter. Not because I want her to feel guilty or ashamed for what she has, but so that she stays aware and thankful for her position and doesn't fall into a trap that I think so many in the western world fall into. The trap is to think that because we have it, it is readily available and easy for everyone who wants it. "It" being prosperity, or at the very least, self-sufficiency. Those who don't have "it" are either lesser beings or are in that situation because they want to be there. It would be very difficult to say those things if they had ever been in that situation, I'm sure, but even just working with the students that I have worked with over the years have given me a clue about life in poverty and the difficulty in getting out of it.
I'm happy that Suzanne Collins decided to make Catching Fire a more difficult read (if, in fact, that's what she did. It's still early in the book, but so far, it seems that way). I read a critique from Stephen King that spoke highly of The Hunger Games but regretted the squandered opportunity to fully delve into the social and political issues inherit in the fictional Panem, that relate to our present world. I'm already seeing this particular critique addressed and my hope is that it will continue. It's a great read and I'm really into it from a story and character standpoint. I just hope that the younger audience that the book is marketed to can catch onto and understand the correlation between the world of fiction and the one outside their door.

This Entry Wanders. A Lot

I've been listening to the Adam Carolla Show Podcast lately. I began listening because I was about to go on a long roadtrip this summer and needed some good listening material to help pass the time. If you aren't familiar with Adam Carolla he is a comedian who has been on several TV shows, usually with some kind of hosting duty. Probably his most famous show was The Man Show which was on Comedy Central in the early 2000s. Before that he did a call-in relationship advise show with Dr. Drew Pinsky (Celebrity Rehab) called Love Lines, which was a TV version of a radio show he did with the same name. On Love Lines Dr. Drew would give sound advise and Adam would generally make fun of the person, or give funny and at times common sense advise.

If you saw Adam on the Man Show then you probably also know Adam's more famous best friend, Jimmy Kimmel. On the Man Show Adam and Jimmy generally portrayed exagerated versions of the "typical guy." They drank beer, looked at hot chicks and would talk about men stuff like sports, cars, wrestling, bratwurst, and you name it. It was supposed to be fairly toungue and cheek and the humor was derived from the fact that Adam and Jimmy were not understood the ridiculousness of their ultra-macho behavior.

As I have been listening to Adam I've discovered that he is really a pretty funny guy. He would chastize me for pointing this out as he has been a working comedian for years now and of course he's funny. We don't feel the need to point out that accountants are good with numbers! I suppose I was surprised that I found him funny. On the surface he didn't seem like my cup of tea. He generally comes off as the very type of guy I didn't like in high school. He generalizes people based on their race, their job, income, and makes blanket assumptions about who people are without giving any possibility for alternative views. But, that's kind of his shtick and he also has surrounded him with people who don't necessarily believe like he does. This tells me that this is all (in part, at least) just how he has gotten laughs, and not his deeper feelings. He is also very knowledgable of politics and the goings on in America and comments frequently on the state of our economy. He holds some pretty strong opinions about anything from welfare to steroid use in professional sports.

I don't tend to agree with him on much of anything, but I don't really think he cares if you agree with him, when he decides whether or not you are worthy to talk to him. He is pretty cordial to all of his guests whether they be liberal Hollywood types or conservative politicians. His own politics are very libertarian. He is an atheist and can't understand why things like marijuana, prostitution and gay marriage aren't legal. On the other side of the spectrum he is brutal on taxes and welfare.

He talks about his upbringing and his parents quite a bit. In fact, most of his most strongly held opinions tend to be linked to the way he was raised as a poor kid whose parents were either neglectful or just plain mean to him. Or both. For instance, one reason that he doesn't believe in God is because his family would only attend church on special holidays and he realized the ridiculousness of people who treated God like a cash machine or magic genie. This soured him on religion and he eventually decided he didn't believe in God at all. His parents didn't have much money and they would talk about wealthy people in extremely negative terms. Further, according to the way he talks on the podcast his parents didn't give him much in the way of attention or material things. This is my own sort of armchair analysis of Adam, but based on what he says during his podcast, the attitudes of his family as well as his desire for wealth seem to be what drove him to his own success. Apparently, when he first became successful and told his family they responded with apathy or outright disdain. It's this part of his life that seems to have had the biggest impact on his worldview toward poor and economically challenged.

The other day on his show he was discussing taxes with one of his guests and he was talking about the Democrats wanting to raise taxes for the wealthy. He used a really great analogy to indicate how horrible it is to want to ask the wealthy for more. His basic point was that the wealthy are already the ones contributing the most to the government til and therefore we shouldn't ask them for more. Besides they worked hard to get themselves to the point where they are and therefore deserve the benefits of their hard work and tanacity. You know, the old line.

His analogy was this: We're all in a row boat and the wealthy are the only ones paddling, or at least taking on the brunt of the work, while the poorest (especially those who don't make enough to pay any taxes all) are sitting lazily on the deck, not helping out at all. His argument was that everyone needed to be putting in their fair share of paddling.

I liked his analogy a lot. However, I don't really see it like Adam sees it, and I think he stopped short of taking the analogy to a fuller and more accurate realization. So, I'd like to add to his analogy by offering a broader picture of of the rowboat reflecting how I see the world and how wealth is distributed, as well as the fairness of how we are taxed.

In this boat (that is powered by paddles, I guess) the wealthy are certainly the ones doing the majority of the work. However, that doesn't mean that they are working that hard. What Adam failed to mention was that the ones doing most of the paddling are extremely well built, healthy and strong. They are all huge Goliaths that are capable of lazily turning the paddle through the water without really breaking a sweat. Adam's version of this analogy fails to mention that the poor lazy bums not doing anything have broken limbs, are suffering from cholera, respirtory failure and any attempt they make at rowing cripples or kills them altogether. As a liberal tax and spend democrat, I feel this boat would be going a lot faster if the big, strong, muscle bound guys with their health and stamina should start using both hands and push a little harder. They don't have to strain, but maybe the big guys can pitch in the effort they are capable of exerting.

In other words, it doesn't matter that wealthy contribute more to the national debt. What matters is that the amount that the poor do pay is way more detrimental to thier living than what the wealthy pay. Weathly people and poor people, dispite the idea that the poor should live within their means (which I whole-heartedly agree with) live in the same world and much of the expenses of living are the same, regardless of your income level.

To illustrate this point I did some figures. I assumed that there were two families of four, both consisting of a stable mother and father with a boy and a girl below driving age. I tried to come up with a reasonable budget for both families based on current utility prices, percentage rates and tax brackets. One family has a joint income of $30,000 and the other family earns $250,000. I placed these families in Abilene, Texas. First, bescause that's where I live and I know about how much things cost here, and second, Abilene has a generally low cost of living, so I thought it would be a simpler comparison. I only included items that I felt were necessary to live and hold down a job (i.e. While cable TV is a luxury, I think it can be argued that cell phones have become a modern day necessity. I could make that arguement about internet, as well, but I've left that out of figures.) I also took pains to not inflate the Poor Family's expenses or deflate the Wealthy Family's. Here are the two budgets.

Wealthy Family earning 250K per year:

Income/Month 20833

Rent/Mortgage 2044.75 based on a $319K home and good credit
Electricity 225 based on Bill Estimator by Consumers Power, Inc.
Food 400 Based on my own monthy grocery bill.
Phone 270 Based on a Verizon Family Plan with 4 lines.
Car 2260 Based on a 2012 Lexus GX (assuming a 2 car family) used Edmunds.com
Insurance 200 Based on my own car insurance bill plus more to account for car type
Gas 240 Based on filling up once a week at $60 per tank
Taxes 6875 Based on a 33% tax rate (Source: bargaineering.com)

Total Bills 12514.75

Ending Balance 8318.25


Poor Family earning 30K per year. Unless indicated, estimates are based on the same sources as the Wealthy Family.

2500

Rent/Mortgage 850 Based on the low end rent of a decent 3 bedroom house in Abilene
Electricity 150
Food 400
Phone 70 Based on a Cricket, no contract, month to month plan with 2 phones
Car 180 Based on a 2006 Dodge Caravan*
Insurance 200
Gas 240
Taxes 375 Based on a 15% tax base

Total Bills 2465

Ending Balance 35

*I find it hard to believe that someone, even with good credit, would get such a low monthly payment, or that a Dodge Caravan in good condition would go for so little, but this is what Edmunds.com estimated for a 2006 Dodge Caravan. My suspicion is that it would be more.

If I only had $35 left after all of my other bills had been paid, I'd be pretty nervous. This of course doesn't account for kid's asking for money for a feild trip, or new clothes, or car repairs, or the miriad of other things that we find ourselves needing money for here and there. The wealthy family, on the other hand, have a very comfortable cushion to sustain them through the sundries that pop up from time to time, to put into savings, or to simply use for vacations, movies, or other entertainment. I won't get into the value of these types of experiences to a child's worldview, therefore giving the wealthy kids a much greater opportunity for success in the future.

So, what does this mean? I think Adam Corolla, and many conservatives, would say that the wealthy family has earned the distinction of having more because they have worked harder to acheive more. I won't debate that rich people are going to have more stuff. And that's okay. What I am saying is that if they can throw a little more in the til and still have most, if not all of that, they should. From what I've heard and read in the news raising taxes to pre-Bush levels would essentially solve the debt crisis within a few years. If this is true, I think it should be looked at much more seriously.

The problem of course is political, as it always is. Republicans would lose their seats to more conservative Republicans, or (gasp!) a Democrat, and Democrats won't hold the line either for the same reason. Furhter, as I think we've witnessed over and over during the Obama years, Republicans are so adamant on getting their way that Democrats are essentially forced to give in, time and time again, or else risk failure in much greater porportions.

I often wish that people could come and work with me in my job, or any teacher for that matter and really get to know kids from other cultures and upbringings from themselves. Not that all teachers are raving liberals, but there is a reason that teaching is a more liberal profession. When you speak to a kid whose dad was murdered in gang activity and whose mother is uneducated and unemployed, it's hard to really blame that kid for not wanting to read "To Kill a Mockingbird." Education is the key to get that kid out of poverty, but it's near impossible to make that kid realize that. If Adam Corolla, who against all odds was able to pull himself out of the clutches of cynicism, abuse, and apathetic parents, could see the gulf that lies in front of a person who is trying to simply survive, let alone succeed, I think he would stop calling them "lazy," "losers," and "scum." From his vantage point, he was able to overcome lots of adversity. He lashes out at the idea that it was all dumb luck, because he scraped and clawed and found a way to wealth and success. But, he's neglecting the fact that he is a funny person. He acknowledges his lucky brakes, but maintains that he would have come through anyway, because he was determined enough. His story really is pretty amazing. I just wish he would realize that a., not everyone who was born into poverty is a worldclass stand up comic, and b., sometimes those breaks don't come. C., and I believe that psyche plays a much bigger part in success or failure than some people want to believe. Mental barriers and limitations are not superficial limitations. Generations of uneducated family members have a much larger effect on ones ability to escape poverty than the poverty itself. Race and pressures due to race also play a large role in determining what a student is willing to even try. For instance, I've never heard a white claim that he or she can't do something because of their race. I hear this from Black and Hispanic students frequently.

So, should we try as hard as we can to fix poverty? Absolutely! But, should we help those who are engulfed in it? We have to.

Idea.

I was engaged in a very necessary and daily routine earlier...let's just say this is a sitting activity that usually I try to accompany myself with some reading material of some sort.... You get it. Anyway, I found myself without any reading material. Not a problem there's always my trusty BlackBerry with it's handy Twitter and Facebook applications...but, oh, my phone's battery is dead. So, now here I was with nothing to occupy my brain for these next several minutes and I realized that this was going to be a difficult task for me. The very idea that I was nervous about spending some alone time with just my thoughts did not settle well with me (at least no better than the Mexican food I'd had for lunch. Hey-oh!). Could I really not stand the thought of not occupying my mind with twitter or Facebook or something to keep my mind elsewhere.

So, I decided that I would think of a problem that I had to deal with and figure it out over the course of the next few minutes. And, that's just what I did.

The problem: The play that I'm directing for the UIL One Act Play this year is a play called August: Osage County by Tracy Letts. The play is in three acts and there is an unwritten rule in the UIL OAP that you shouldn't have blackouts in your play. The play is only 40 minutes long and you don't want to have to stop the flow of your story with a blackout. It's not always a bad idea, but there are some judges that think it's a no-no. So, I try to avoid blackouts at all costs. Well, many of the scenes in this play would normally call for a blackout to change scenery. One of the main problems I've been having is how to effectively change scenes without a blackout. While sitting in my my throne I began thinking. The play is set in Oklahoma. Oklahoma is on the plains and know for it's America Indian culture. Part of the play actually deals with Native American culture. Perhaps there could be Native American music over lighting effects that try to elicit a feeling of sweeping plains? Well, one of the characters, the housekeeper, is a Native American. Maybe, we can show her throughout the house during the changes. That's it! Johnna, the Native American housekeeper, will be seen working in the house, fixing something, or organizing or moving or doing some type of proactive task during the scene changes to signify both that she is constantly moving in the house, that she is slowly repairing the home and tying the idea back to location of the play.

Then I was done. It is probably the best idea I've had for a play in a very long time and I wouldn't have had it had I been looking at my BlackBerry.

I'm starting to think that these bits of technology that we think are making our lives better aren't actually preventing us from being and creating and thinking. I'm actually pretty sure that this can happen. And does happen.