It has been a long time since my last post, and I just realized this will be #100! Woah. I like to talk. Well in true Rick Raven fashion, no easing in from my long break. Why not tackle the big questions!?
A conversation I have had a few too many times to count happened again today, and it made me think a lot about a much larger question.
The conversation settled around what being gay meant. This friend happens to be one of those “enlightened” gays who insists that being gay is an infinitely small part of who they are and “doesn’t define who [he is].”
Statements like this of course bring up all my standard responses such as what other aspect of your life dictates so much of your time as who you love, etc. My view has always been that the closest thing to your sexuality is probably your religion in relation to your life, but after the conversation was over, I realized that there was a much bigger argument and question to be put forth.
What exactly defines our lives?
My friend, for example says that he defines his own life. This statement is of course obvious. Unless you are a weak willed puppet, this will always be the case. So we define our own lives. But how? What measuring stick do we use? What is ok to allow to define your life?
I would venture to say that many people choose to let religion define their lives. I would say that most of us are defined in large part by our jobs. Is this ok? What about your upbringing? Your education? Are there rules as to what can define your life and what cannot?
To me it all seems pretty ridiculous to say that something can’t define a part of your life. I would say that the only time that some definition to your life is really a bad thing (even if I happen to hate it, Hellllllo Christian Right!) is when that is ALL that you are. When one single aspect of your life is so all encompassing that it doesn’t allow the vast complexities of life to mesh together to create some greater you, that is a problem. For the rest, let what you will define who you are!
Looking inwardly, off the top of my head, I can definitely say that I am definitely defined by being gay, living on the East Coast, specifically NYC, being a hopeless romantic, being a Sagittarius, having experienced an Ivy League college, and being encouraged to read as a child. I am sure that I would think of more given some time.
Now that I think about it, we may have both past and present definitions to our lives. By this I don’t mean things that don’t define who you are anymore, but rather things that are in our past that still shape our lives, and the things that are our present, and our person that continue to shape and define us. When you mesh these together, you make up who you are. I think that we all have things in our past, and aspects of our present that could make us who we are, but we choose for ourselves what will have the biggest impact. And I don’t necessarily mean events. X event will definitely cause Y which may have a huge impact on your life, but you may still not choose to let it define you. For example, being adopted definitely changed the course of my life, but I don’t think it defines me as a person.
In the end, I guess I agree in part with what my friend says. We do choose what defines our lives. We do so by embracing aspects of our lives, memories, people, places, thoughts, and ideas. Some may be huge like your religion, some may be small like who you met on the street. But our choices make this matter or not. I think that the fallacy that so many fall into is thinking that nothing defines who you are, or running away from things that might. To me, who you love is always a HUGE matter to your life. Many other things can fall into this as well. The true enlightenment is not in running away from things that might define your life, but rather embracing those things you want about yourself and learning to discard the rest and letting it fall away, making you the meshing of your own choosing.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Nature in the cities
Spring has finally come into its non-rainy fullness, and as such, I have noticed a lot about the way people react to the weather.
When I moved to New York, so many of my Midwestern friends and relatives commented on how it was to live in a city where it was all buildings and no nature. In some ways, it was a pretty valid question, as I am pretty sure that there is more concrete in NYC than in most places in the world, so of course, nature has to make way.
Last Sunday, I spent nearly all day at Central Park, and I began to think about what people had said to me, and then I started to really watch people and think about how people were reacting to the weather in comparison to how it was back in the Midwest.
This is my second Spring living in the Big Apple, and one thing that I say for sure, is that the people living here LOVE our nature. The moment that the weather eclipsed 50 degrees, the invites to come to the park started flying. Even walking by any of the hundreds of parks in the city, you could easily be overwhelmed by the sheer number of people that turned out.
As I walked around a great area in Central Park, I looked at all the people that came out just to hang out. Rich, poor; young, old; all were present. Some with kids, some with pets, some with lovers, some just alone, people were everywhere for no other reason than that they wanted to enjoy the weather and the beauty that the Park provided.
While this may not surprise that many people, especially those that live in the City, the thing is, Kansas City was NOTHING like that. I remember one day, one of my friends invited me to Loose Park to hang out and drink some wine. It was a great time, but I remember thinking at the time how bizarre of a request that was. It just wasn’t something that you hear all that often. Sure enough, when at the park, it was a gorgeous day, but there weren’t that many people present. The only places that people seemed to spend much time outdoors was in Lawrence or Columbia, where the college-town environment encouraged a slightly different attitude.
What I have realized is that major cities like NYC may seem to have “less” nature than our more wide-open counterparts, but it seems like many places in the country, it doesn’t make a difference. You run from your house to your car and from your car to your store/office/event and that’s it. When you live there, you are surrounded by more wide open spaces, but they do little good, as no one gets to really use them.
In cities like NY or Chicago, you are CONSTANTLY outdoors. You walk everywhere, and when the weather is nice, you make it even moreso. In the Midwest, enjoying nice weather was rolling down windows in your car. In the big city, it’s getting off a stop early to walk an extra 10 blocks and enjoy yourself. At least 1/3 of the restaurants here have outdoor seating. Events at a park are commonplace. Trips half an hour away to the beach are standard weekend destinations. The only things that are *standard* in the Midwest to be outdoors are barbeques (which granted, we did very well) and the very rare camping trip.
I lived in the Midwest a long time. Looking back, I can’t fathom why some of these situations exist. Is it because big cities are so much CITY that when you get the chance you hunt for nature more ardently than someone in the Midwest who has it all the time? I think that there may be some truth to this, but when the chips are down, perhaps those raised outside cities have gotten so placated with the idea that they always have nature, that they don’t really actually use it.
I will say that there are a few cities that I know have done their space well. People that live in Denver for example seem to relish in the nature that surrounds them. I know some of the Western big cities do it well too. I am not sure what it is about these cities that set them apart, or what it is about the lifestyles in these places where some seem to breed natural enjoyment while others seem to ignore it. Perhaps if some of the underlying reasoning were more understood, we could all enjoy what we have that much more.
Ah well… this is what hours of meandering through beautiful weather will get you… or at least me: a head full of ponderous thoughts.
When I moved to New York, so many of my Midwestern friends and relatives commented on how it was to live in a city where it was all buildings and no nature. In some ways, it was a pretty valid question, as I am pretty sure that there is more concrete in NYC than in most places in the world, so of course, nature has to make way.
Last Sunday, I spent nearly all day at Central Park, and I began to think about what people had said to me, and then I started to really watch people and think about how people were reacting to the weather in comparison to how it was back in the Midwest.
This is my second Spring living in the Big Apple, and one thing that I say for sure, is that the people living here LOVE our nature. The moment that the weather eclipsed 50 degrees, the invites to come to the park started flying. Even walking by any of the hundreds of parks in the city, you could easily be overwhelmed by the sheer number of people that turned out.
As I walked around a great area in Central Park, I looked at all the people that came out just to hang out. Rich, poor; young, old; all were present. Some with kids, some with pets, some with lovers, some just alone, people were everywhere for no other reason than that they wanted to enjoy the weather and the beauty that the Park provided.
While this may not surprise that many people, especially those that live in the City, the thing is, Kansas City was NOTHING like that. I remember one day, one of my friends invited me to Loose Park to hang out and drink some wine. It was a great time, but I remember thinking at the time how bizarre of a request that was. It just wasn’t something that you hear all that often. Sure enough, when at the park, it was a gorgeous day, but there weren’t that many people present. The only places that people seemed to spend much time outdoors was in Lawrence or Columbia, where the college-town environment encouraged a slightly different attitude.
What I have realized is that major cities like NYC may seem to have “less” nature than our more wide-open counterparts, but it seems like many places in the country, it doesn’t make a difference. You run from your house to your car and from your car to your store/office/event and that’s it. When you live there, you are surrounded by more wide open spaces, but they do little good, as no one gets to really use them.
In cities like NY or Chicago, you are CONSTANTLY outdoors. You walk everywhere, and when the weather is nice, you make it even moreso. In the Midwest, enjoying nice weather was rolling down windows in your car. In the big city, it’s getting off a stop early to walk an extra 10 blocks and enjoy yourself. At least 1/3 of the restaurants here have outdoor seating. Events at a park are commonplace. Trips half an hour away to the beach are standard weekend destinations. The only things that are *standard* in the Midwest to be outdoors are barbeques (which granted, we did very well) and the very rare camping trip.
I lived in the Midwest a long time. Looking back, I can’t fathom why some of these situations exist. Is it because big cities are so much CITY that when you get the chance you hunt for nature more ardently than someone in the Midwest who has it all the time? I think that there may be some truth to this, but when the chips are down, perhaps those raised outside cities have gotten so placated with the idea that they always have nature, that they don’t really actually use it.
I will say that there are a few cities that I know have done their space well. People that live in Denver for example seem to relish in the nature that surrounds them. I know some of the Western big cities do it well too. I am not sure what it is about these cities that set them apart, or what it is about the lifestyles in these places where some seem to breed natural enjoyment while others seem to ignore it. Perhaps if some of the underlying reasoning were more understood, we could all enjoy what we have that much more.
Ah well… this is what hours of meandering through beautiful weather will get you… or at least me: a head full of ponderous thoughts.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Oscar Gold!
Last night was the 81st Annual Academy Awards, and though it is indeed the gay SuperBowl, I was not that excited. The last several years have left me completely underwhelmed and I watch mostly just to see those 3 actual moments that people will talk about for the next week or two. Even with good hosts, something about the way the Oscars work made me feel like I was at a bad charity dinner- lots of interesting people doing nothing at all of interest.
This year, I was VERY pleasantly surprised! Since the winners were really not all that surprising, I want to instead talk about the show itself. Although I should note that Sean Penn’s speech was incredible, and most of the women looked AMAZING! This year they brought in new producers and completely changed the format and from top to bottom, the changes were a definite winner for me.
First off, Hugh Jackman was an incredible host! He was funny and entertaining, without simply using standup which was a nice change. He also wasn’t afraid to bring his musical background into the show, which seemed to be backed up well by the producers. This both made me happy, and of course made the show even gayer than before.
Another major change was the way that they presented the Acting awards. In years past, the last year’s winners of the opposite sex gave the award to the current winner after a small speech and clips from the nominees’ performances. This year, they pulled 5 (one for each nominee) previous winners of the same category, and each of them gave a personal tribute to the nominees. Each speech was so personal and moving, it actually felt the all the nominees were being honored, and by their peers. Several of them had tears in their eyes, and no wonder. It was moving.
They also had each team of presenters for non-acting categories present more than one award. This did several things. First, it saved time introducing people, which is always an issue. Secondly it allowed the presenters to actually carry through their personal presentation style so that nothing seemed rushed. Very nice all around.
Something else that was totally new were montages that included movies not at all mentioned in the Oscars. They did one for love, comedy, and action, and I would say at least 80% of the movies shown were all great movies that had no chance of winning a nomination. By showing these movies, it felt like they were still acknowledging their great effort, even though it was outside the traditional Academy honors.
The memorial was also made more moving when Queen Latifah sang. She was really good, looked great, and added a nice depth to the somber moment.
While all of these changes may seem small, in many ways for the show, they were revolutionary. And with ratings for the event consistently sliding, it was nice to see them finally make some changes that the audience could embrace. All in all it was more entertaining, and the show seemed far more personal than ever before.
Bravo!
This year, I was VERY pleasantly surprised! Since the winners were really not all that surprising, I want to instead talk about the show itself. Although I should note that Sean Penn’s speech was incredible, and most of the women looked AMAZING! This year they brought in new producers and completely changed the format and from top to bottom, the changes were a definite winner for me.
First off, Hugh Jackman was an incredible host! He was funny and entertaining, without simply using standup which was a nice change. He also wasn’t afraid to bring his musical background into the show, which seemed to be backed up well by the producers. This both made me happy, and of course made the show even gayer than before.
Another major change was the way that they presented the Acting awards. In years past, the last year’s winners of the opposite sex gave the award to the current winner after a small speech and clips from the nominees’ performances. This year, they pulled 5 (one for each nominee) previous winners of the same category, and each of them gave a personal tribute to the nominees. Each speech was so personal and moving, it actually felt the all the nominees were being honored, and by their peers. Several of them had tears in their eyes, and no wonder. It was moving.
They also had each team of presenters for non-acting categories present more than one award. This did several things. First, it saved time introducing people, which is always an issue. Secondly it allowed the presenters to actually carry through their personal presentation style so that nothing seemed rushed. Very nice all around.
Something else that was totally new were montages that included movies not at all mentioned in the Oscars. They did one for love, comedy, and action, and I would say at least 80% of the movies shown were all great movies that had no chance of winning a nomination. By showing these movies, it felt like they were still acknowledging their great effort, even though it was outside the traditional Academy honors.
The memorial was also made more moving when Queen Latifah sang. She was really good, looked great, and added a nice depth to the somber moment.
While all of these changes may seem small, in many ways for the show, they were revolutionary. And with ratings for the event consistently sliding, it was nice to see them finally make some changes that the audience could embrace. All in all it was more entertaining, and the show seemed far more personal than ever before.
Bravo!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)