Biggest problem I see is with those making the funding decisions, and here I'm talking RACC and OAC in particular, and some of the utterly incredible panels they convene; ergo, the need for the nom de plume.

Those in charge down there are incapable of making aesthetic distinctions. We know what we do, they could never do if there lives depended on it. Yet they're paid (some of them 6-figure salaries) to do jobs we could be up and running on in a week and doing them better as intrinsic problem solvers.

Oddly enough they all call themselves facilitators, when they're really gatekeepers; "facilitating" only for feel-good amateurs while reinforcing the gates against exceptional levels of virtuosity in the face of which they wilt in fear. If you make a Portland audience laugh, they love you immediately; make them cry and they may never come back.

I wish it weren’t so, but I’ve almost given up on this place.