Long Time

It is sometimes amazing how when you perhaps need to put your thoughts to paper most are the very same times that you never seem to bring yourself to have time to do so.

Looking over the past month and a half it feels like a blur. Between campaigns coming to their final boil, and the economy making effectively working almost impossible, life has definitely been rocky. When one feels down on life, there are occasions where you can be surprised at what bothers you the most, and what you miss. My current situation, as well as that in the country at large has certainly led to a lot of philosophical thinking.

Since I started doing project work for MTV, I have really enjoyed the way that life was going. Even when I had occasions to work on a project that was less than exciting, I was still buoyed by the work I was doing and the direction I was building for myself in my life. Unfortunately, working for one of the big companies in this city, means that there are times that the market is felt all too keenly, and so it was that MTV cut back their project outsourcing budgets significantly, and my work-life came to a screeching halt. While I certainly miss both the peace of mind and the spending cash of my consistent job, I found myself unable to do some things that I have certainly taken for granted that surprised me a lot.

For the first time in 7 years, I missed the HRC National Dinner. That was a bigger blow than I expected. Missing something that I considered a staple in my life made me think of how we incorporate things into our lives, barely knowing how important they are to us. When you look objectively, it was a dinner, which had good entertainment, was for a good cause and would have been attended by great people. All of these are good, but frankly, there are other events happening all the time that do the same thing. The fact of the matter is, that on some level, this particular event had carved a place in my life and my heart, and I never even realized it.

Sitting here now, I think that the elections have raised too many issues to include with anything else, and tomorrow, when I am either rejoicing or crying is probably a better time to entertain them.

Another thing that being between projects has brought into sharp focus is the different ways of seeing “doing what is necessary.” I have been having this discussion with many of my friends, and most of us see things differently from one another. Which is the better path? Should one choose to do whatever job you can get to make sure that you are making the money you need to make in the moment? Or, is it better to live with less than you want in order to build towards something else? Is there a point at which you must leave one path to pursue the other? Can they somehow both be followed at the same time?

When trying to build something for yourself and your future, which is the greater sacrifice? Which is the better path? This is something I am sure I will ponder more as time goes on, and the tough choices continue to be put before me.

Living With it All

So, I finally made a return visit to Boston. Having not been there since I left Harvard, it was a trip that was a long time coming. In the years since then, I have sometimes wondered if my love for the city was something that I had allowed to elevate to some mythic plateau. Being the first “big city” that I had ever lived in, I suppose that this was possible. Being back there however, disabused me of that notion completely. I still love it. It is still beautiful. It is still full of warmth and history.

My time there did firm up one nagging suspicion though. I doubt I could live there anytime soon. For all that I love about Boston, it simply doesn’t offer the life that New York does, and I consider that a great travesty. When I came back to NYC, I was saddened by the fact that the city that held more of what I wanted in so many ways, was lacking in so many others.

I find myself wanting a city that has it all. Having traveled all over the country, visiting nearly every major city that we have, I am beginning to think that this isn’t possible. Some people have intimated that Europe and Australia have come much closer, but as I have not experienced these cities, I cannot judge. From my experience, so many things seem mutually exclusive, though for the life of me, I can’t figure out why.

Would making DC have a 24hr train system make the subways dirty and run down like NY?

Would bringing more potent industry (more major corporations) to someplace like Boston damage the fabric of the city?

Does NYC have so many people that it is impossible to make it clean and have some semblance of form and history?

Can a city have an open and lively lifestyle and still maintain warmth?

These are the questions that plague me. I love the wealth of opportunities, the freedom, and vibrancy of New York. At this point in my life, I know that more than anything these things are important to me. But I long for the beauty, and warmth that I find throughout all of Boston and cities like it.

I wonder if I can find that happy combination anywhere.

Profound Pride

Growing up and coming out in the Midwest, Gay Pride to me was a big street festival for gay people. Booths with people hocking wares and supporting causes you might never see elsewhere and a park-like area filled with fun people pretty much summed it up for me. The Parade was an excuse to show off your gay-rights group, pretend to be a politician who cared, or just be… well, gay. These were the only things that seemed to come from Gay Pride.

This year, I learned differently.

This was my first year living in New York, and also my first NYC Gay Pride. I was expecting the mass insanity of the parade crowds, and basically, a much bigger version of all the Prides that I had seen in the Midwest. How wrong I was.

This year, I finally learned what Pride is supposed to be.


In New York, we have an entire week of Pride. During this time, I saw what pride really could be: a celebration of the diversity that gay people bring to a community at home, work, and in the cities we live in.

Walking down Times Square, and seeing the Hard Rock Café change their video board to honor Pride was completely unexpected. Many companies (including MTV, thankfully) had town halls both for their LGBT co-workers and for their company at large concerning gay issues. This effort showed that companies are doing more than what they need to get by. They are showing the value of the people that work for them. I smiled when I saw the shy co-worker wear his rainbow bracelet for the first time, just simply showing that he was comfortable and proud of that part of himself. I got a kick out of "allies" that made a concerted effort to show their support for their friends and family.

All of these examples showed me that we could use this time to celebrate an aspect of our lives in the same way that many cultures and religions do on their holidays. For them, it is more than a specific day on the calendar, it is a time for them to celebrate that part of who they are, and watch as the people around them celebrate it too.

I would never want to give up the parties, parades, or festivals that come with Gay Pride, but knowing now what can truly come out of this time, I would never want another pride without this deeper, more meaningful aspect. It is my hope that as the new additions to our Family come out, that they get the chance to realize what being Proud of who you are is all about. Hopefully, the community around them shows them how Proud they are that they are a part of it too.

Realize

Colbie Caillat recently put out a great song that speaks a lot to what I recently wrote about, though in a much more beautiful and artistic way.

The whole song speaks greatly to two very important themes: How one person can only so much, and how easily you can miss out on something great.

The whole song is saying basically that if the man she is in love with realized the same thing about her, they could have the perfect life together, but if they don’t realize it together it can never happen.
She says “Didn’t I tell you? But I can’t spell it out for you.” Then later, “No it's never the same if you don't feel it too. If you would meet me half way, it could be the same for you.”

One person can do all that they can, but in the end, the other person has to be willing to take that leap too. The video does a great job of showing how even when two people are on the same page, if they don’t share that with each other, they can miss out on each other.

So many things in our lives come and go, but the people are the one thing that can make the most difference, and should be held onto whenever possible. Losing people, seeing them as disposable, or just plain not taking chances with them truly makes it so life has a hard time giving us that ultimate happiness.

I hope that when you are given the chance, that you make sure you “Realize.”

Realize
V1: Take time to realize,
That your warmth is
Crashing down on in.
Take time to realize,
That I am on your side
Didn't I, Didn't I tell you.

But I can't spell it out for you,
No it's never gonna be that simple
No I can’t spell it out for you

C: If you just realize what I just realized,
Then we'd be perfect for each other
and will never find another
Just realized what I just realized
we'd never have to wonder if
we missed out on each other now.

V2: Take time to realize
Oh-oh I'm on your side
didn't I, didn't I tell you.
Take time to realize
This all can pass you by
Didn't I tell you

But I can't spell it out for you,
no it's never gonna be that simple
no I can't spell it out for you.

C: If you just realized what I just realized
then we'd be perfect for each other
then we'd never find another
Just realized what I just realized
we'd never have to wonder if
we missed out on each other now.

V3: It's not always the same
no it's never the same
if you don't feel it too.
If you meet me half way
If you would meet me half way.
It could be the same for you.

C: If you just realize what I just realized
then we'd be perfect for each other
then we'd never find another
Just realize what I just realized
we'd never have to wonder
Just realize what I just realized

If you just realize what I just realized

OoOoOOo

missed out on each other now
missed out on each other now

Realize, realize
realize, realize

Too many fish in the sea

“There are other fish in the sea.”

According to Random house, this proverb- or something so similar it is practically the same thing- has been around since about 1573. That’s a long history for a phrase that sums up the mindset creating the disastrous state of current relationships.

I have thought about writing about this for a little while, but a couple friends and their “issues” made it even more relevant for me. Saying that there are more people out there is indeed a positive way to help someone get over someone they lost. To help them realize that the death of one relationship does not mean the death of them all. In today’s world, that is doubly true. Between the internet and the ease of travel and moving, we can meet several thousand people in our lifetime. It is a great big world, and we can touch any part of it.

Long ago, when people rarely left their town, let alone moved cross-country, the idea that there were more people was true, but didn’t mean the same thing. The thought of knowing a hundred people used to seem daunting, even a couple decades ago, where now, the average friend list on Facebook is well over this mark. Factor in that we change careers and hobbies more quickly and more often than ever before, and the number of people that we touch is well beyond what anyone previously could have imagined.

So what’s the dark side to all these added social connections? Let’s face it, the more you have of something, the easier it is not to value it. People are no different, and our relationships show it. Very rarely will you meet someone who has held onto a friend since high school in a very meaningful way, despite the fact that it’s so easy to keep in touch. The reason? People have become more disposable.

While friendships are a sure sign of what I am talking about, in romantic relationships, the situation is even worse. My friend “Billy” met my friend “James” a while back and they seemed to hit it off really well. It was clear to anyone near by, let alone someone who knew them well, that they definitely had some serious chemistry. Being the mutual friend, they both continued to chat about each other to me, and I was pretty happy that two people I knew and loved might be starting something new. Then “Billy” said to me, “You know, it’s just not a good time for me.”

Doing my best not to scream back at him “WHAT THE HELL DO YOU MEAN?” I simply was reminded how easy it is to let someone go. So the ball was dropped. Chances are, they will never pick it up again. Of course nothing is definite, but knowing them both very well, they definitely had the potential to be a great couple.

Another friend, “Dan” said to me today, “I don’t know what I am going to do in a year, so I am really hesitant to get into a relationship.” Keeping my exasperation in check, I asked if it was worth giving up the potential for something great, for a problem that might never exist. “Dan’s” mumbled responses weren’t very convincing, but did show that clearly, the underlying reason he could think this way is because there is simply no notion that this could be his best chance.

In both these examples, and countless others I can name, one or both of the people involved are willing to give up people because “it isn’t the right time” or “they are worried about the future” or “they just aren’t ready for a relationship.” Ridiculous. Now I am all about leaving someone if they aren’t good for you, or you don’t see the relationship being worth something. Baring either of these things, however, people need to learn that what we have is valuable.

Relationships are work, but they pay off. The person in your life right now certainly won’t be your last chance for happiness, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t the best chance. Watching the rate of divorce go up and up and up, the number of people that can be classified as serial monogamists also on the rise, all stem from the idea that what I have is disposable because there is “another fish in the sea.”

The truth of the matter is that each person that walks into your life has the potential to be the best thing for you, but it is always work. No is ever as ready OR as unprepared to be in a relationship as they think they are. No one ever has the perfect moment in their life where now you can fit someone in. Our lives are meant to be malleable. You can control what you do with your life, but not the people in them. Given that who we meet is beyond our control, but what we do with them is completely ours to seize onto, it doesn’t make sense that we would give up the only power that we have to winds of fate, hoping that something better comes along rather than looking at the person standing right there, and seeing what is the most that person can be. Maybe they aren’t your Mr. or Ms. Right. Maybe they are. Either way, I guarantee that putting the most effort you can into that person will give you the best relationship possible with them. It may be that you turn out not to be meant for each other, but end up the best of friends (thank you, Chris Hahn!). Or maybe you just end up growing and learning about yourself. Or maybe, just maybe, you realize that the person you could have so easily let go of, is actually the person that is perfect for you. There may indeed be other fish in the sea, but I assure you, not all fish are created equal.

Wordle's startling revelations

While I was going to write about something entirely different today, I couldn’t pass this up. Today a friend sent me a link of what he made while playing around with an online app called Wordle. You put in whatever words you want and it makes digital “art” out of them. Above was what created for me when I pasted the “About me” section from my Facebook.

If you have ever seen this section, it is written in paragraph form, so I assumed it wouldn’t work well for something like this, but I wanted to see what happened anyway. I am pretty astounded by the results. Not only does this seem to work well as an interesting representation of my thoughts, it also adds and entirely new dimension.

Look at some of the words it listed. “Hold” is a great example. I wrote that, “An opera can hold just as much joy for me as a comic book.” In that sentence, hold has no significance. It is there to help me get to the point that I like opera and comic books, and to show my diversity. In that sentence, hold is a means to an end. In this picture, it is an end unto itself, and suddenly many more meanings can stem from it. When I looked at it, I thought of my joy at holding on to someone else. Thinking about it more, you can think of how one hold’s their life in their own hands, how sometimes we hold on to another’s heart. Holding on to what we hold dear. All of these thoughts stemming from one simple word, allowing me to see myself in that word, no longer as a bridge in a sentence, but as meaning itself.

How amazing language is that a simple word can have so much meaning. How “debate” can go from a subject I coached to the fact that I like to debate nearly everyone in the world around me. “Close” can go from “Being close to someone I care about” to bringing up images of how many aspects of my life are close to what I am striving for. How close I have come to some goals, and times in my life that I was so close to losing what I hold dear.

I may have never thought to include these things when thinking about myself or my life, nor would I have included them in something like an “about me” section, but the fact remains that they a part of who I am, and apparently right there below the surface, if I only had looked.

I won’t belabor the point or go n examining every word here, but suffice to say that sometimes the power of language is truly amazing, and it is great in these moments where we can look at ourselves and see things we didn’t even realize were right on the surface.

The Death of Courtship

I came across an article today about “courting.” The main focus of the article was the evolution if you will, of this complicated phenomenon. As with most things with a long history, there has been a lot of change to courting over the years- especially recently. In fact, when looking at the changes, the article eludes to, and I believe that we have all but lost the art of and even desire to court someone.

Even under the best circumstances, we live in a culture where you go on a couple “dates” and from that either end up with nothing, or a relationship. If the timing isn’t right, or something goes wrong and the relationship falters, the only way you really have to pick it back up again is to simply jump into the relationship again.

What exactly happened to make this change? Why is it that I am so surprised when someone actually asks someone out on a real date? How did this become such an exception to the way we live? While in most ways, the women’s movement and the sexual revolution have done great things for our society, it may be that in other aspects, we have lost some valuable things.

Though I myself have certainly followed this, it does seem incredibly limiting. I can’t think of a person I wasn’t dating that it felt ok to get romantic style gifts for. You don’t get flowers for someone your interested in, you get them for someone your with. This leaves you with little more than a first impression with which to actually begin dating, and doesn’t actually show whether or not you are actually looking to put effort towards that or not.

If you were to meet someone, and instead of immediately asking you out, they pulled the old fashioned card and tried to woo you, you are if nothing else guaranteed that you are someone they consider worth working for. That is a huge thing that we so often lack.

Throwing in the fact that so many dates are merely preludes to get sex from someone, the lines become even more blurred. Does interest lie only physically, or in actual courting, which was of course designed as a step towards a lasting relationship? Mix this with our societal ineptitude at communicating with one another, and you end up with a lot of failed relationships, or potential relationships that this never get off the ground.

With struggling relationships, the lack of courting can also be a hindrance. Especially in the global community that we live in, where people can move across the country or the globe with very little effort, relationships can become strained by time, distance, or circumstance. People being at different phases of their life face the same problems. Were a person willing to try and move towards a possible future, without tying up their present, there are very few options in these circumstances.

Imagine for a second that someone you are really interested in moves away. You want to see where this can go, but dating is really out, and the distance may be too much for a relationship. You really only have the options of being friends. In our society, there isn’t much in the way of a middle ground. If we were still in the mindset of courting someone, you could totally feel ok to send them gifts, letters, etc. that express your interest without negative repercussions. The way we currently view things, you really only do this with someone you are with. The person on the receiving end would find it near impossible to view these tokens as flattering, but non-binding. Our society has come to the point where we can have sex without commitment, but the idea that you can express real interest in someone comes only with the pressure of being together.

As mentioned, struggling relationships could benefit from the same thing if there was say, two people with similar ultimate desires, but dissimilar needs at the moment. The one with willingness and desire to commit, could continue to woo the other person as they moved through their life. Showing their interest, and keeping their “hand in the game” while still allowing the other person to live their life unencumbered. You can’t do this while being “just friends” because you lose all the romanticism, and you can’t do this while trying to date, because the one who isn’t ready isn’t given the space they need to grow.

In some ways we seem to have so much relationship freedom, but in that we seem to have created rigid guidelines for ourselves and the way we react to one another that though unspoken, may be even more binding in some ways than the understood traditions of old.

"Glory Days"- A Review

The title "Glory Days" brings to mind something grand and sweeping; a tale of men who looked far back into their lives to see those times when they were at their peak. Instead, viewers were given a show about four 20-year-olds who are trying to cling to the time in High School when they were still friends.

The themes of the show are actually the strongest part. The thought that went into a plot that touched on friendship, change, acceptance, and the struggles we all face is certainly something that can touch us all. The show is somewhat silly, with great one-liners that leaves the audience laughing, but still overall misses it's mark. Such as it was, "Glory Days" would have been better to stick to their song lyrics, and name their show "Glory-type Days" and capture more of the ironic humor the writers seem to be strong in.

The lyrics and dialogue simply couldn't carry the plot far enough. Despite some good characters and strong acting- particularly by Andrew C. Call (Andy) and Jesse JP Johnson (Jack)- the show was distracted by the words trying too hard to be "normal." I admit that it is a hard thing to script actors "being average and just hanging out" but with a show dedicated almost exclusively to this idea, it falls far short, failing again to capitalize on the potential it has.

Each of the four characters was meant to represent someone we know, and of them all, Skip (played by Adam Halpin) did the best. I can think of three or four people in my life that fall perfectly into who he was. In fact, I thought that had he been the narrator instead of Will (Steven Booth) the show would have been a lot stronger. Call successfully made us believe his character's emotions, and left us again wishing that the script would have given us more of him and who he was.

The songs, again, had potential. Some of the lyrics were witty, and the song "Open Road" captured everything the writers wanted it to, but overall they just failed to reach the goal, making the audience feel like it needed more to be complete. Some of the melodies were strained, and it was often hard to tell whether the actors were falling short, or it was a symptom of musical direction, especially since overall the direction was weak.

The staging is hardly worth commenting about as it was negligible save for the fact that the floor (representing a football field) was painted white so anytime the green lighting lost you were taken out of the scene and staring at a white floor.

In the end, I was felt like I had watched one of my friend's artists sketches. I could tell that a lot of incredible elements were there, and couldn't wait to see the final product. Unfortunately for this show, this isn't a rough sketch, and therefore its potential isn't going to be realized.

Rickology

Sometimes these can be fun, so here's some of me.

MOUTHOLOGY

What is your salad dressing of choice?
Vinagrette or Honey Mustard

What is your favorite fast food restaurant of choice?
Chick-Fil-A no question.

What is your favorite sit-down restaurant?
Probably one of the little Italian mom and pops here in NYC, or nationwide, definitely Bravo.

On average how much of a tip do you leave at a restaurant?
20% or more. Unless they are REALLY bad.

What food could you eat every day for two weeks and not get sick of?
Italian.

What are your pizza toppings of choice?
Sausage and Mushrooms, or if at a good place, Chicken, Spinach and Mushrooms.

What do you like to put on your toast?
Peanut butter if I have toast. More likely to have a toasted bagel. =)


TECHNOLOGY

What is your wallpaper on your computer?
Blue abstract art.

How many televisions are in your house?
3 technically, but only 2 are hooked up.

What color cell phone do you have?
Black Mogul.


BIOLOGY

Are you right-handed or left-handed?
Ambidextrous in most things. Write with right still.

Have you ever had anything removed from your body?
6 Wisdom teeth.

What is the last heavy item you lifted?
Weights. Woot for buffing up.

Have you ever been knocked unconscious?
Not exactly. Close though.


BULLSHITOLOGY

If it were possible, would you want to know the day you were going to die?
Not sure. It would definitely put things into perspective, but then again it might make it hard to have certain things as well.

If you could change your name, what would you change it to?
I love my name. Never ever ever changing.

What color looks good on you?
I wear blue, but my friends and family say Red is great on me.

Would you never blog again for $50,000?
No. I love getting my opinions down, and plan to do it at least semi-professionally, so $50k wouldn't be worth it.

Would you pose naked in a magazine for $250,000
Yes.

Would you drink an entire bottle of hot sauce for $1000?
No.

Would you, without fear of punishment, take a human life for $1,000,000?
Nope


DUMBOLOGY

What is in your left pocket?
Keys and money.

Is Napoleon Dynamite actually a good movie?
Not so much.

Hardwood or carpet in your house?
Hardwood. Carpet is DIRTY!!

Do you sit or stand in the shower?
Stand. Do people sit in showers?

Could you live with roommates?
One. But he's cool.

How many pairs of flip flops do you own?
3. Cheap replicable, nice black ones and nice brown ones.

Last time you had a run-in with the cops?
Well, I see em everyday with their horses in Times Square, but they are nice to me. Speeding ticket was probably last bad time.

What do you want to be when you grow up?
Isn't that the question. I loved my businesses, but I think that I need a more interactive training/teaching-type "career" with business and writing on the side.

Who is number 1 on your top 8?
Auralie

Last Friend you talked to?
Bryan

Last person who called u?
Mi madre

Last person you hugged?
Chris (McCurley)


FAVORITOLOGY

Number?
12

Season?
Spring

Holiday?
My birthday.

Day of the week:
Saturday

Month?
May

CURRENTOLOGY

Missing someone?
Yep

Mood?
Pleased

Listening to?
French station on iTunes (American music though)

Watching?
People scamper about Times Square

Worrying about?
Job future


RANDOMOLOGY

First place you went this morning
Work

What can you not wait to do?
Settle into what I want

What's the last movie you saw?
Sweeney Todd

Do you smile often?
Yep. Makes even bad days better.

Issues Only

A friend of mine recently engaged me in an issues only debate for President. We used for our discussion the New York Times Election Guide (Here).

Here are my responses, with (based on this guide) a few surprises:

Abortion: Obama and Clinton, similar positions. Fed government should stay out of a woman’s personal life whenever possible.

C- Supports Roe v. Wade; opposes ban on partial-birth abortions; judges should protect women’s rights.

O- Supports Roe v. Wade; criticized Supreme Court decision that upheld ban on partial-birth abortions.

M- Wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, but has been supportive in the past; supported Supreme Court decision that upheld ban on partial-birth abortions; "strict constructionist judges."


Climate Change: No preference (they all say the same thing) though in my personal opinion, these plans are FAR from sufficient. I will give a nod to Obama for proposing Al Gore as an appointed position for dealing with this issue.

C- Supports a mandatory cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

O- Supports a mandatory cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

M- Supports a mandatory cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions.


Economy: Clinton. Clinton’s package is more well-rounded offering multiple levels of stimulation, while not falling into the standard Democratic trap of being a crutch. More like medicinal shots than a permanent hospital bed. (Obama is close on this one)

C- $70 billion plan to "jump start" the economy; repeal the Bush tax cuts for households earning more than $250,000. (The plan is outlines on NY Times).

O- Said his plan for tax relief to middle and working classes would help stabilize the economy; repeal the Bush tax cuts for households earning more than $250,000.

M- Short-term plan is long-term plan: make the Bush tax cuts permanent; eliminate alternative minimum tax.


Healthcare: Clinton. Healthcare goes towards a basic standard of living for people. In fact a small amount spent on preventative care through insurance would save billions in care down the road. Very few things should be provided by government, Healthcare is one of them. (Obama is close on this one)

C- Require everyone to get health insurance, subsidized by employers and the government; pay for it by rolling back tax cuts for households earning over $250,000 and savings in the existing system.

O- Require that all children have health insurance; pay for it by rolling back President Bush’s tax cuts for households earning over $250,000; aims for universal coverage.

M- For free-market, consumer-based system; has pledged affordable health care for every American without a mandate; says universal health care is possible without a tax increase.


Housing: Clinton. Clinton’s plan offers the most flexibility and with our current situation, affects the most people. Obama’s plan is too tightly focused to make enough of an impact, and McCain’s plan doesn’t take into account that housing is a constant and long-term issue.

C- Extend at least $30 billion to states to help homeowners; extend F.H.A.’s capacity to guarantee restructured mortgages; 90-day moratorium on foreclosures and freeze subprime rates for at least 5 years.

O- Create new F.H.A. program to make it easier to convert subprime loans to fixed-rate, 30-year loans; create a fund to help people avoid foreclosures; require better disclosure from lenders.

M- Opposes large-scale federal assistance; any assistance "should be temporary" and "focused on homeowners"; opposes lower down payment on F.H.A. mortgages; lenders should help borrowers.


Immigration: No preference. All adhere to same plan. It is far too difficult for legitimate immigrants to be here, and that should be addressed foremost.

C- Supports a path to legalization for illegal immigrants that includes learning English and paying fines; toughen penalties for hiring illegal immigrants; voted for fence along Mexican border.

O- Supports a path to legalization for illegal immigrants that includes learning English and paying fines; toughen penalties for hiring illegal immigrants; voted for fence along Mexican border.

M- Supports a path to legalization for illegal immigrants that includes learning English and paying fines; voted for fence along Mexican border.


Iran: McCain. I know, surprising, but he is the most likely to use international support, which is what we constantly fail to do. Both the Democratic plans are very "Big Brother" whereas McCain is at least attempting a more "whole family" approach.

C- Direct diplomacy without preconditions; use economic sanctions; would not meet with the Iranian president; military option not off the table, but would not consider without congressional approval.

O- Engage in direct diplomacy; tighten economic sanctions with international cooperation; would meet with the Iranian president with no preconditions; military option not off the table.

M- Form an alliance with European countries to put economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran; no unconditional diplomacy; military option not off the table, but would consult with leaders of Congress.


Iraq: Obama (Clinton close second). Note that they have similar positions, but Obama’s plan is faster and more immediate, and I am NOT holding Clinton’s vote against her, as given the amount of false information presented to congress, many votes went different than they would have otherwise.

C- Voted in 2002 to authorize invasion, now opposed; opposed troop increase; start phased withdrawal within 60 days of taking office, with the goal to have most troops out by the end of 2013.
O- Opposed invasion from the beginning; opposed troop increase; withdraw one or two brigades a month to finish within 16 months.

M- Voted in 2002 to authorize invasion, still supportive; in favor of troop increase; against a timetable for troop withdrawal.

10:04 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment - Edit -

Don't disown your little voice

I was reading through my daily blogs (both friends’ and national ones) and came across a big discussion that talked about emotional intelligence, and EQ.

Most things about EQ I definitely agree with. I think that an emotional intelligence is in many ways as important as IQ, but for some reason these people decided to bring up something that bothers me a lot: Internal Noise.

Many different people and organizations have taken to the idea that internal noise is bad. One individual said, "Just about everyone has noise inside their head. It’s a noise that keeps them from being rational, that forces them to avoid the simple truths sometimes, that makes them unable to take a shortcut when a long (more emotional one) is available."

When I participated in Landmark, I was constantly told that the voice in my head was always negative and held me back from my potential. Now, don’t get me wrong, I am all about people meeting their maximum potential. What I don’t think is that people’s internal voice is "bad."

In case you are confused about what I mean by internal voice, I mean when you hear yourself talk internally. A lot of times I hear this referred to, it is to say something bad. As in "you aren’t good enough" or "look how fat you are." Funny, but my voice has never said bad things to me. I don’t think that it has anything to do with confidence either. When I was younger, I had lots of confidence issues, and even then, I don’t think that it was my "little voice" that contributed to it.

Interestingly enough considering the afore mentioned quote, it is often my internal voice that is what helps me make rational and logical decisions. It is my internal voice that lets me think things through and in many cases can build my confidence and override my more negative instinctual reactions.

I am really happy that there are a lot of people and organizations out there that are trying to better people and help them become more fully actualized and more effective and fulfilled individuals. What I am not ok with is the idea that people will be turned against the very thing that can be the most powerful and vital tool at their disposal.
People who offer advice can often find it easy to place blame. Their audience loves it because it gives them a chance to blame "something" be it their past, their internal voice, whatever rather than own up to their own flaws. In my experience it is your flaws that can bring out your greatest strengths, and only by accepting all of yourself, and not trying to tune out and short circuit parts of ourselves can we actually grow as people.

"Forced" a response

If any of you have been living in a cave, Lawrence King as a gay JUNIOR HIGH student, murdered a while ago. Today, this article was published:

Gay Tolerance

Schools overplay gay tolerance
Lazarus Austin
Lazarus Austin is a junior majoring in history. He can be contacted at opinion@reflector.msstate.edu.

In February, Lawrence King was shot to death at E.O. Green Junior High School in Oxnard, Calif. What sets his murder apart from others is that King was openly gay. He often flirted with his fellow male students and wore feminine apparel and accessories. His murder has brought onslaughts of paranoia and calls for tolerance by gay rights advocates.

According to The Washington Post, gay rights advocates are claiming that King’s murder is the "extreme consequence of a growing but often ignored phenomenon." The phenomenon they are referring to is homophobia.

As a result, they are calling for more tolerance education in schools and stricter anti-harassment rules. Many middle schools and high schools are opening gay and lesbian clubs for students. Other schools are openly teaching students about homosexuality at an early age, often at the frustration of parents.

Furthermore, schools are cracking down on bullying. They, of course, do not want bullies harassing people with a different religious belief, sexual preference, race or gender.

I have two problems with the controversy. First, people are blowing the situation out of proportion and automatically assuming King’s murderer killed him simply because King was gay. This reminds me of how people love to cry racism when someone kills a person of a different race.

His alleged murderer, Brandon McInerney, 14, and also an eighth-grader, had a rough upbringing. According to The Washington Post, McInerney’s parents divorced in 2002. His mother dealt with drug issues, the father had been accused of shooting his mother in the elbow, both parents had filed restraining orders against the other and both had been accused of domestic violence. Supposedly, McInerney was a good kid in school, so the results of his upbringing are hard to judge. However, if you ask me, McInerney was probably a fuse ready to explode, and King’s fraternization possibly sparked it, which brings me to my second point.

By imposing his homosexuality on McInerney, he may have set McInerney off. McInerney may not have had an innate hatred of gay people. In fact, he may have tolerated homosexuality, while simultaneously thinking it was immoral, sinful or simply "uncool," like many people do. King, however, may have gone too far by imposing his sexuality on others. Although King by no means deserved his fate, he may have unfortunately invited it.

Now, gay rights advocates would like to force their homosexuality on others and promote tolerance in schools. Doesn’t sound so bad, does it? The problem lies in their methods. Many of them, by teaching tolerance, also teach values, whether intentionally or not. In 2006, one school was sued because one of its teachers read a famous children’s book advocating homosexuality called "King & King" without parental permission to 7-year-olds.

"My problem," said the suing parent, according to a transcript of "American Morning" on CNN.com, "is that this issue of romantic attraction between two men is being presented to my 7-year-old as wonderful, and good and the way things should be."

The focus should be on targeting harassment, not tolerance per se. Some people may think gay people are immoral or, as Michael Venyah would put it, "going to hell." Promoting tolerance can instill in children’s minds moral and religious values. Furthermore, it can make them think that homosexuality is the norm and, in my opinion, encourages them to be gay, which is OK but not something schools should be promoting. If at all, tolerance should formally be taught at the upper grade levels, starting at high school.

Some gay rights advocates would have homosexuals permeate society, from TV shows and films to teachers and bishops. I say just let people be gay, don’t forcefully stick them in everybody’s faces and in the limelight.

King sounds like he was a good kid, and what McInerney did was absolutely unjustifiable. However, some want to use King as a martyr for the wrong reasons. Gay people should and do have just as many rights as the rest of us, but no more. Minorities shouldn’t get special privileges, only equal privileges. However, murderers, including those of gay people, should get a special privilege, the privilege of rotting their lives away in prison where they deserve to be.


Of course having read that, I had no choice, but to write a letter to the editor in response. Here it is:

Regarding Lazarus Austin’s article, "Schools overplay gay tolerance" I must say that this letter is, dare I say, forced, by Austin’s misguided words.

The most surprising thing about reading Austin’s article, was the following to the bi-line that said he was a history major. One who studies history should surely see the faulty logic that was displayed throughout the article.

Interestingly enough, I would not necessarily disagree with his first "problem with the controversy." It is entirely possible that the child’s upbringing had more to do with him becoming a murderer than his innate homophobia. The interesting thing is that he follows that up with refuting his own argument, by saying it was a "hate crime," but because he felt that King "forced his sexuality on him." You can’t have it both ways. Either it was a murder based on hate or it wasn’t. Whether or not King "invited" it is a different issue entirely.

As for the "forcing" issue, this is one of the most obtuse arguments a person can make. I mean that thusly:
We do not consider a guy flirting with a girl "forcing" their sexuality, yet if this girl happens to be gay, by Austin’s rules, he is indeed forcing his sexuality. One could equally make the same argument for forcing all children go to "traditional" sex education. Any gay children are instantly having straight sexuality being forced upon them. Similar arguments exist for any type of affection, etc. which is viewed as fine when it is a guy and a girl, but "forced" when it is two guys or two girls.

Lastly is the biggest disappointment of all. As a history major, Austin should know, that you cannot reduce crimes of intolerance (of which bullying and hate crimes both fall into) without teaching tolerance. No group in history has stopped "picking on" (also seen as murdering or enslaving in the historical sense) without the oppressors learning tolerance. It is a fallacy to think that you can reduce bullying in schools without teaching tolerance.

The argument about saying that gay people can be happy and "right" is teaching morals of course would go back to my earlier double standard argument. Allow me a moment of intesnse sacrcasm to point out that if you can’t show gay people as happy, please, don’t allow movies that show a person making a mistake and being redeemed, don’t correct children when they make a mistake, don’t share personal aspects of your life with your class, as I am sure, all of these, simply by existing show morality, and we certainly wouldn’t want that.

-Rick Raven

The test and therapists

As always, my friend Lana fills my days with interesting blogs, and today was no exception. She recently took one of the millions of personality tests out there, and so I thought I would do the same.

This particular one was a 78 question Briggs-Myers test, (Humantrics) and I was curious to see if my "life-reset" had changed my score much.
______________________________
Your Type is
ENFP
Extraverted: 78 Intuitive: 62 Feeling: 31 Perceiving: 44

Qualitative analysis of your type formula

You are:

* very expressed extravert
* distinctively expressed intuitive personality
* moderately expressed feeling personality
* moderately expressed perceiving personality
______________________________

I can’t seem to find my old score, but it seems if anything I have moved up in percentages with my attributes, which is interesting.

Another thing that Lana mentioned was the value of therapy. She spoke definitely in support of it, but wondered how it was that a person could still be seeing the same therapist for several years. Can the therapist be that effective if several years haven’t resolved their issues?

The funny thing about this timing is that I have nearly finished a book on gay relationships by a gay therapist who definitely has written his book as a psychologist, and so I have been thinking a lot about this lately.

Lana and I have one thing in common, which is we struggle to find personal value in a therapist, mostly because we often feel like what they are telling us is common sense. It is frustrating, because we often want to berate ourselves for feeling smarter than the people we are going to see. It isn’t "good" to think such things, so we can leave more mad at us than at them, which is really counter-productive.

Since psychology became a passion starting at Harvard, I have often been exasperated by therapists. I was given several recommendations by friends after my dad passed away, and always left feeling like I had wasted my time.

Lana pointed out something my first psychology professor told me, that often times, what people need more than anything is a sounding board. Someone who will listen intently no matter what, because often friends who we would like to fill that void simply can’t.

Over the last few years I have come to the conclusion that most therapists do 2 things wrong: They forget this first rule, and they try and systemize.

Many therapists will forget that mostly they need us to listen to what we feel is the problem, and what we don’t need is for them to try and follow a predetermined map. Jokes and exhagerations have been made for a long time about psychologists instantly relating your problems back to childhood, etc.

Very few therapists are able to model their methods to their patients, and as such, it is hard to find one that is a fit. One that is incredible to a friend of mine, might be terrible to me and that wading through the "bad ones" is what keeps people like Lana and I from finding someone actually a good fit for us.

I have come to the conclusion that therapy is a great thing. I think that the long-term relationships you develop with your therapists can really get you over hurdles and help you with your personal development. We are always growing, and having someone there foster that growth can be a great thing. The trick is finding someone who has the right style for you, and who doesn’t allow the relationship to become one of dependence.

Of course, thus far, I have yet to find this match, so I look to my good friends to be that slap in the face when I am blind to my own self. :-)

Turtle in the Hailstorm

Rarely do I take psychological theory and apply it to life and philosophical inquiry, but every once in a while I will be surprised by something that has actual application and isn’t just jargonized filler.

One such instance was the explanation given by Harville Hendrix on the progression of relationship communication. I won’t go through the whole thing here, but one point in particular really made me stop and think. He says that all relationship struggles (friendship or romantic) will undoubtedly turn on person into the Hailstorm, and the other into a Turtle.

The turtle turns inward in a fight. They will withhold their emotions, hide, and avoid the fight if possible. They are the ones who will try and keep the fight outside of themselves, and as he said, will go to bed in the middle of a fight and sleep just fine.

The hailstorm is the opposite. Rather than hide their feelings they start expressing more of them. Sometimes this turns to anger, but often times can simply be an excess of the normal things they are already feeling.

He mentions that both of these tactics are based in an instinctual fear, and that people do this all the time without realizing it.

He says that there is a lot of variation with people. Some people will switch back and forth (sometimes even in the same fight) while others will more often than not fall into one or the other. With friends, I can see where sometimes I am the turtle, but looking over my relationships, I have ALWAYS been a hailstorm in troubled times, and without fail, their inner turtle appears.

It isn’t always fun to realize when you do something instinctually that is for all intents and purposes "the wrong thing to do." In my case, I would try and "wash away" whatever the problems my guy would have, either with logic or my own emotion. The problem of course being that all I did was scare them more, making them turtle more, all the while their turtling scared me more and made me work harder. Talk about a cyclical recipe for disaster.

To hear that this is a natural response doesn’t actually make me feel better, but it is nice that when I see it laid out that I can recognize myself in this and lead towards more growth as a person. Now the trick will be to figure out how to respond to this situation without falling into my own trap while helping them come out of theirs. :)

Manditory Mistakes?

I have been spending a lot of time thinking about mistakes lately. Looking back over the quarter+ century I have lived, I can look at many things in my life that I would consider a mistake. Things I wish I had done, but didn’t, people I let go that I shouldn’t, people I held onto for far too long, and of course those decisions that I made that I would probably undo.

Most people who know me, know that I am definitely at a "reset" point in my life. Having given up what I thought would be my career vehicle, moving to a new city and for all intensive purposes "starting from scratch" in nearly every way certainly gives me a place to look back upon what was done. I am not one to linger on regret, but there are those twinging moments you wonder what would things be life "if."

Many people say that you grow from your mistakes, and the best thing you can do when you make a mistake or have a "regret" is to look back and think why you would have done something different so that you can learn from it, and next time take that knowledge to make better decisions. Such a line of thinking if of course both correct and helpful. The question that comes up however, is: Do we have to make mistakes?

Now this question is not asking if we can be perfect. Of course everyone makes mistakes now and then. Instead the question looks at if you can truly know the world, and be a wise person who functions to the best of their abilities if you don’t make mistakes. Especially big ones.

Say for example you are interested in someone whom everyone knows is bad for you. But say you have never had a bad relationship. 6 months down the road are you going to be a "better" or at least more effective and well-rounded person if you ignore the advice of your friends and family?

Often times, it seems we have a built in mechanism that kicks in making us ignore advice, and sometimes even logic when making a new decision. Psychologists have long pointed out that our sub or unconscious mind thinks a lot faster than our conscious mind, and that when it makes it makes a decision, it goes for what is going to be best for us, not necessarily what is least painful. Like looking for relationships that we need to heal rather than the ones we want.

If our unconscious is trying to do this work for us, it makes sense why some of the best parenting advisors suggest teaching and advising, but allowing children (of whatever age) make the big mistakes on their own.

Does this mean the that mistakes are mandatory not only because of our imperfections, but also for our development as people? Should we look back at our mistakes not with a desire to make them different, but only as steps to learning. One wouldn’t consider themselves to have the knowledge from a college education without "spending" the time there. Perhaps our development in other areas must be "purchased" with the time loss or the pain that mistakes so often bring.

More Idiocy

t never fails to surprise me how dumb some people can be.

Here are a few "brilliant" takeaways from Just Out’s interview with Oregon State Senator Gary George who is pushing a ballot initiative to repeal the Oregon Equality Act that was passed last year (among many things, preventing people from being fired based upon real or perceived sexual orientation).

Just Out: What if an employee is fired because of his/her sexual orientation or gender identity? Isn’t the Oregon Equality Act in place to guard against such discrimination?
George: As an employer, I don’t wanna hear about it. This workplace is for work purposes. My advice to the gay community is SHUT UP, just don’t talk about it. If you walk around talking about what you do in the bedroom, you should be on the pervert channel.

Just Out: What is your reaction to the recent murders of out gay youth in Florida and California?
George: Obviously murder is murder, there’s no excuse for that. Here’s what I’m saying, I think we’re seeing a backlash, in other words if you push me too hard don’t be surprised if I react. Gays will tend to react violently if people are oppressive toward them. If gays are oppressive toward straights, then you’ll see a violent backlash. You’re going to have a point where these groups develop and say I’m tired of these special privileges.

Just Out: Are you suggesting that gays, by virtue of being out and open, are inciting these types of violent reactions?
George: You have to recognize for every action there’s a reaction…we’re obviously not gonna tolerate anyone who beats up any other person.

If you do feel like you’ve been discriminated against as a gay, you have hard feelings. I remember when I was heavy and wore glasses as a child and I was picked on. We all know the gay person that nobody notices – I think that is where we need to head. Everybody knows where the line is, so when I see I’m offending someone, I have to back away from that. We have to adjust our behavior so as to not be offensive. If you push anyone too hard, they will react.

My plea to the gay community would be, hey, mature. We have brilliant, brilliant people within the gay community.

In his "defense" he said he was tired and wasn’t thinking about who he was talking to and was thinking of another incident…

Because that matters.

These are the people that represent this country. Aren’t we lucky?

Corporate Green

One of the great things about working in New York, specifically at a company like MTV (Viacom) is that they are constantly aware of their impact in the world, and working to fix it.

Recently MTV updated their "cafeteria" if you will, giving, more "green" options. One of the biggest changes is the addition of GreenWare cups. See them here.

Finally! "Plastic" I don’t mind using. Having used them, they really seem just like normal plastic cups. People wouldn’t have noticed if the company hadn’t mentioned anything.

I think that more and more there are options out there available to us to use. Too often we can convince ourselves that there isn’t anything that we can do. Having a party, and don’t want broken dishes, plastic or paper cups. Now, finally there are friendlier options for our normal use!

Personally I hope to see these cups more widespread. Good for the farming economy, good for the environment, good for consumers. Win/win.

Personally, my first target: Starbucks. Their frappacino cups could certainly use a makeover.

Feel free to express this yourself to THEM or anyone else for that matter! You may not think that the cups you use as making that much of a difference, but knowing that one letter is sometimes all it takes to tip corporate policy shows how profound an impact we can make.

Blocking the Hate

Yesterday, a conversation was initiated that talked about whether or not hate speech should be restricted at colleges. Today, the Kansas Supreme Court struck down the ban on funeral protests citing "technical issues." Many organizations are working to get the language re-worked and fast-tracked through the legislature. It is interesting because I am not sure that I agree with this. Many of the organizations that approve of the ban are ones that I support, but with this issue I find myself more in disagreement.

I understand the pain and hardship that people feel when they are laying a loved one to rest, and how to have people there expressing hate is certainly a horrible thing. On the flip side, I have always been a proponent of free speech. Yesterday though, during the college discussion, this very astute girl brought up something that I never thought of in regards to hate speech. She said, "I would rather have their hate up front, than hidden." When it is right in front of you, you can face it and move on. Hate that is hidden and festers is what leads to violent hate crimes, and greater unexpected backlashes.

This insight lends a strong psychological argument to an already impressive list. The slippery slope of what and who we can restrict is certainly scary. With college hate speech, the answer is clear to me: Restriction bad. If anything restricting it only makes it that much harder when those who are blindly hated go out into the world and find themselves unprotected. The issue with funerals is slightly different. You are intruding into a personal event. But what can the ban say? How far away is ok? Who can they ban? Again, there is risk of creating a dangerous situation. Though I feel strongly for those who have faced this, I wonder if legal action is really going about it the right way.

So far to go

It should come as no surprise that after a week of board meetings for the HRC, I would have the struggle for gay rights on my mind. Coincidnetally enough, when I peruse my friends' blogs, one of them had made a post about the Victory Fund. Part of that, was an inclusion of this video:

**Warning, you may end up angry after watching this.



*Thanks Lana
You can e-mail the… person… in the video at sallykern@okhouse.gov

I am sure she deserves to hear from us.

I have a lot of friends, particularly now that I live in NYC (where we have non-discrimination politicies, etc.) that think the fight is pretty much over, or unimportant. The fact that people in power are still able to say things like what was shown in this video says differently.

One of the people that we heard from this weekend was a guy who lost his partner in a plane crash. His story, while sad was made all the worse by the fact that no one would tell him anything. He watched the news, not knowing who if anyone survived, if there were injuries, etc. His calls the air controllers were met with "You're his partner, not family, therefore we can't tell you anything." Insanity.

The level of ignorance people still exhibit and the prejudices that exist towards different people (no matter whether the difference is sexuality, race, etc). I understand that people are built thinking of things in a certain way, but you would think that in times of crisis, your compassion would outweigh your ignorance and you would do what you could for someone else. Apparently this isn't the case.

So often I feel like the wins and loses that we face are the ones in the political arena. Examples like this remind me that there is a larger war going on in the minds and actions of individual people. Unfortunately, despite progress, it seems like there is still a very long road ahead. It makes me happy to know that myself and so many people I know are doing what they can to make a difference in this "conflict" that we simply cannot afford to lose, and that organizations like HRC makes enables us to make a dramatic change in the world.

The Need for Heart Stopping Traits

In another tangent on my long-standing philosophizing about love, I have pondered yet another question. Do you need a "heart-stopper" attribute to the person you are with?

This in part came from a book I was reading where the main character would describe in detail the things that "flat did it for her" about those people she was with (no, not a "dirty" book, just happens to be honest about her sex and relationships). This is quite distinctly a different question from general attraction. Wherever you fall on how much attraction you need or not, whether basing things on looks makes you shallow or not, are definitely separate from what I am pondering here.

I figured a good place to start in my exploration would be one of my friends that had long-standing relationships. I asked him if his partner had anything about him that after all this time could make his heart skip a beat; something that he found so uniquely attractive about him that it was beyond thought. For him, it was easy: his partner's smile. He said that no matter what happened, "his 12 year old smile will always make me crumble." And not in the way that a putty face or something that just makes you give up. No, he was talking about a deep attraction about this thing held by this one person.

I imagine that there are people who are so flat attractive that they have numerous things that their partners can find, but I think that everyone has their little things. I think that one of the things that makes people attracted to one another are these things, whether small or large. To me it almost seems like it is something that has to be there. Something that goes beyond, "Yes, I am attracted to them." Something that hits you deeper, and in other words is simply heart-stopping. Some people probably look for different things. Striking eyes? Texture of skin? Anything seems to be possible if it works for you. Though I am betting there will be some disagreement, necessary? I think so.

All the "News" Unfit to Print

During my daily read of various blogs, one guy made the following statement:

"I'm constantly amazed at how the media control our thinking. We can't just look at the candidates for president, listen to what they're saying and come to our own conclusions. They have to tell us what the candidates said and whether it was effective before we can decide for ourselves whether any of it rings true and influences how we're going to vote."

This election season has certainly shown this, and for the first time I am displeased with the way my favorite news station is reporting. CNN to me has always had the most diversity in their reporting. When they slant the story, they always seem to show the opposing side, etc. and for the most part I felt that they reported the news rather than filtering it. Recently this has changed.

The blogger I quoted was actually talking primarily about the slow rise of John McCain, but you can certainly see this everywhere. If you had no idea what was going on with politics and watched CNN you would think that McCain was probably going to run with Huckabee as a likely running mate, Obama is nearly unstoppable, and that the races were nearly over. Most of these "assumptions" are false.

I will admit that I am a Clinton supporter, and have been for a long time, so the fact that it is my girl that is getting the short end of the stick certainly bothers me a lot, but more than that the simple way that "analysis" seems to be given more than news is really exasperating. When a candidate does something, it is not the action that is reported on most, but all the consequences of that action. Whether or not these consequences come to pass is not really important. Assumptions are easy that way.

What is most interesting to me is that if they would quit analyzing the news so much, we would see the outcomes of what happens, when it happens and when they report it. I watched CNN for 4 hours the other day (in the background of doing other things) and followed it up with a viewing of the ridiculous Fox. Both had far more analysts on screen than reporters. I think the ratio was something like 5 to 1. When did NEWS stations become more like the op-ed section of the New York Times? I fully expect that when I watch the "Glenn Beck Show" I will get his unique opinions on things. When I watch regular news though? No thanks. CNN and other news stations are effectively taking the thought process out of our hands by handing us more opinions than news. It would be like the New York Times printing op-eds on their front page instead of news, making us hunt for the facts amidst all the theories and assumptions.

Take a look at what's going on and make your own decisions. Look at the numbers, listen to the speeches. Hear what is said and make decisions. Don't assume that the things said on these stations are actually news. Guesses are just that, guesses. The people on screen may be smart, but the elections should not be on which analyst is the more eloquent and interesting. I hope that this does not come to pass, and that people will actually look at the truth amidst all the fluff. To CNN and friends, hopefully when this election is over, you can go back to being a news station and I can start to watch you again.

Artistic Fascination

I am not sure that many of my friends know this, but I love art that is created from something that has nothing to do with art. As an example, I am working with a friend to create pieces of art out of blueprints, etc. Another great form is represented in this picture I found. Simply using colored arcs (color based upon length) to show connections between chapters of the Bible. Maybe it's strange for me to enjoy such things, but alas, I do, so here I am sharing it.

No surprise in the facts, but good action

For years we have known that the current administration has "misled" us about the need for our costly and unproductive war. Now, there's some nice, if not very surprising proof from the Center for Public Integrity:

President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.

On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings, interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration's case for war.

It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to Al Qaeda. ...

In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003. Not surprisingly, the officials with the most opportunities to make speeches, grant media interviews, and otherwise frame the public debate also made the most false statements, according to this first-ever analysis of the entire body of prewar rhetoric.

The good news is that several representatives (including a personal favorite, Tammy Baldwin) are urging the Judiciary Committee to conduct hearings about misconduct. Rather than throw out an impeachment charge right off the back, these intellegent people are urging that we gather all the facts in a formalized manner then make a decision. I have no douby that the CPI's information will be valuable indeed.

Fun Quotes 1/18/08

Some fun random quotes to make our day more interesting:

"Illegal aliens have always been a problem in the United States. Ask any Indian." --Robert Orben

"I generally avoid temptation unless I can't resist it." --Mae West

"The Bible tells us to love our neighbors, and also to love our enemies; probably because they are generally the same people." --G.K. Chesterton

"There is no moral precept that does not have something inconvenient about it." --Denis Diderot

"If everything seems under control, you're not going fast enough" --Mario Andretti

Hope you enjoy. I like them.

Home?

So the trip is over, and I return now "home" to New York. The past few months ending with this stint back in Kansas City have certainly solidified something that I have been mulling over for years. I don't have a sense of home. I don't think that I ever have. When I first went to Harvard, I felt a feeling that was very alien to me, and I thought that I had felt at home for the first time. Perhaps that it true, or it is entirely possible that I have never felt that feeling of Home.

Like most true sensations, I think that without experiencing something you can't be sure what it feels like. Sometimes in the interim you think you feel one thing when in fact you are feeling something else entirely. Love is a perfect example. If you have never been in love, you might feel like you are in love simply when you lust after someone, or perhaps feel an incredible comfort from them. Of course once you are in love, you then get to experience all the different types of love, each one meaning something different and having a feeling that is quite distinct from everything else. I imagine it is the same with the feeling of Home.

I am positive now, that I feel comfortable wherever I am. I am not saying that I couldn't feel out of place living in some specific place, but thus far, I have felt comfortable anywhere I have lived. Some might call this feeling at home. Perhaps. In that case, I suppose I have always felt at home, but somehow I doubt it.

I know for sure that I was happier living in Downtown KC than I was living in the suburbs. I know for sure that I am happier now living in New York than I was in Kansas City. I like the lifestyle better, and I am happier overall because of it. But do I feel more at home? I don't think so.

Coming back to Kansas City made me realize how little I missed the place. I missed people for sure, and I miss going out to my favorite bar (of which I have yet to find a better one for me in NYC), but I don't miss Kansas City as a place. Now that I am finally going back to New York, it is apparent to me that I do miss my life in New York, but I am not sure that I am feeling any less at home. Wouldn't I miss it if it was truly one and only Home?

I am pretty positive that I could maintain a mobile life. I have friends that call three or four places home, living there for three or four months at a time, and going onto different things. Some do it for their careers (one friends does shows for a couple months in each city, every year), while others do it just because they can (Brazil for 3 months a year? Sure!). One wonders if they ever feel at home at any of these places. Are they like me? Do they feel comfortable wherever they are? Does this mean they are at home anywhere? Or are they disconnected? If I make that my life would I feel disconnected? Or would I even notice since I have may have never been connected to begin with.

I do notice that I like having something that is mine everywhere. Something about me enjoys not giving up my apartment in KC, or making my family save me a room at their house. Places that are MINE when I am there. I don't need these for fear of needing to escape, or as a safety net, but something about me enjoys having these places, and makes me want more of them. Perhaps it is just more example of my ego wanting to leave it's mark everywhere, or perhaps that is my own subconscious way of making a little bit of Home wherever I go.

One quote has always stuck out to me from the movie "Sweet Home Alabama." A woman in the show says that you can have both Roots and Wings, in this case chasing your dreams in the big city while still having ties to where you grew up, your "Home." Does that mean that both become the true home? Or will one always be temporary, with that urge people talk about when they say they want to go home? *Thank you Michael Buble.

The cliché phrase that finds it's way into arguing against this idea is that "Home is where the Heart is." If you are with the people you love, then anyplace can be your home. I love my family, but I don't feel more at home when I am where they live than I do in NY. I love my friends, but I don't think that Home is based upon which of my many residences has more friends. Could it be that the lack of romantic love is what I am missing? If I had a family of my own would that make this elusive feeling of home come into existence?

I don't know what Home is to me, or what it will end up being. It could be, much like certain earth-shattering all encompassing love is to some people that I am simply aiming for something that isn't true. Maybe it is that I have always felt that feeling of home, but I carry it around inside me, making each location I encounter my own Home. Or perhaps the places where I find more joy in living are Home and that is what people mean. Possibly, I am still searching. With human emotions sometimes I think it is impossible to tell. The best I can do is keep philosophizing, and take things as they come. I do know that my heart is happy to reconnect with the big buildings, busy streets, and vast diversity that is New York City.

2007 Awards

Since this is the beginning of a new year, that means that it's time to hand out some awards from the previous one and look ahead. I like this little quiz because it helps me do just that.

1) DRINKING BUDDY OF THE YEAR: Justin Kennedy and Price. Strangely they both drank with me in NY and KC, are both straight, and both have the tendency to get me to drink things that are on fire!

2) LIFETIME SERVICE AWARD (longest friend): Wow. Tough to gauge. I would say that as far as *good* friends go, this would go to Chris (Curley). Though I have known people longer, I would say that at this point he is the close friend that I have had the longest.

3) NEWCOMER AWARD (newest friend): Should we again go with the good friend? I think so. I would say that Price wins this one. After working with him in Zanna he became one of my favorite people, and I didn't know him at all before this year.

4) HIGH POINT OF THE YEAR: Moving to New York.

5) LOW POINT OF THE YEAR: This was a rough year. I would say more lows than any adult year previous. Lets leave it at that.

6) BEST HOLIDAY: I would say that I had the most fun on Thanksgiving. It definitely isn't my favorite holiday, but this year being with fun people with great food really made it stand out for the year.

7) YOUR SONG FOR 2007: Hmmm. I am not sure on this one. Probably "You Can't Stop the Beat" from Hairspray. Technically it is pre-2007, but since it was released with a new version in the movie, it counts and since my year was rebounding from one problem after another, it is good to think that I can keep going no matter what.

8) MOVIE FOR 2007: 300 and Harry Potter (5) rank way up there, but there were lots of incredible ones.

9) WITH WHOM DID YOU SPEND VALENTINES DAY? Sadly, this one was a loner day.

10) BEST RELATIONSHIP: Hmm. I would have to say that the only romantic relationship that appeared this year ranks as the best, and actually the worst this year. Friends and family relationships were good, but it's hard to beat the high you feel with the right person romantically.

11) WHAT WERE YOU FOR HALLOWEEN? The Joker. Even better was that I partnered up with JVP who went as Poison Ivy.

12) RESTAURANT OF THE YEAR: Bravo. I am not sure that Kellie and I could have survived without it.

13) BOOK OF THE YEAR: Confessor. (Terry Goodkind) I have never been so impressed with the ending of a series in my life. (The Commitment by Dan Savage would be the top of the non-fiction).

14) BEST DECISION MADE THIS YEAR: To move to New York.

15) WHAT ARE YOUR PLANS FOR NEXT YEAR? Get the job I have been waiting for for far too long, and establish a life for myself in NYC.

16) MOST STUPID IDEA WHEN DRUNK: Well, drunk doesn't really fall into my equation, but I would say that the amount of money I spent on drinking without getting drunk was certainly a string of stupid ideas.

17) TV SHOW OF THE YEAR: Tie between Brothers and Sisters and Heroes. Love them both, and they are so different from one another that I think they are each the best in their respective categories… even if I did get jipped on Chapter 2 of Heroes.

18) MOST LOYAL FRIEND: Chris Hahn, no question.

19) BIGGEST CHANGE OF THE YEAR: I would have to use it again, but moving 1300 miles is a pretty big change, oh, and getting out of business certainly counts too.

20) BIGGEST RETARD AWARD: The TV producers who aren't fixing the fact that TV seasons aren't going!

21) NEW YEAR RESOLUTION: Resolution: (Generic, I know, but I got really close last year, I just need that extra push this year) Create a "get and stay in shape" plan that I will actually follow with my crazy schedule. Goal: Find a meaningful romantic relationship that doesn't end in heartache.

In brief, despite the lack of the kiss that I really wanted, it was a great time surrounded by lots of great friends, and of course being at my favorite bar certainly helped. I ended up with very few downer moments and had a great time when all is said and done.

2007 was one of the roughest years of my life. I know that the lessons I have learned will serve me well and that 2008 is going to be the start of a whole new and incredible ball game!