ARRRRGG!!!
Must . . . not . . . . blog . . . . . about . . . work.
I think my head is going to explode.
Simon Says
I recently discovered the blog of Secret Simon. It begins as the story of a man coming to grips with his sexuality and his marital status. It's been interesting reading, what little I've read so far. I've only read the first few months of his blog, which started in January of this year. I can relate to much of what he says. It has spawned flash backs to the time in my own life when I was dealing with many of the same issues. It makes me wonder what my blog would have looked like had blogging been the rage back in '99.
It's interesting that he started his blog in early January and by mid February he had come out to his wife and family. Denial is like that. A glass house. One well placed rock and the whole thing comes down.
Something I read has rubbed me the wrong way, which is hardly surprising. It's a pet peeve of mine. One moment while I get my soapbox.
To the chagrin of both of us, it seems as though some people around us want to move things along at warp speed, as if it's a life and death matter to "rescue" my wife from the clutches of my influence. I'm probably just too close to what's going on but I can't help feel that's been the major point of contention. There are now also some crazy notions flying around. If anyone can direct me to the "secret savings account" that apparently I've got stashed away (because you know it only makes sense that I plan on being a major ASS about this) please let me know.1
Why? Why is it that we always expect the worst of people? Is it so we aren't disappointed when it turns out they really are jerks? It seems to me that people tend to be what we expect them to be. There are limits of course and people are always free to tell the world to go to hell and be who they want to be, but that takes more courage than most people seem to have.
So why not make it easy on them? Why do we not expect two individuals to be grown up and mature about getting divorced? Why do we not expect people to continue to think about someone besides themselves, even during divorce? Why cannot we not allow two people to come to the realization that it is not going to work and walk away before things get worse? I read constantly from conservative pundits how devastating divorce is on children and families. Difficult? Absolutely. Devastating? Only because most people are generally too worried about their own petty sense of justice to be grown up about it.
Don't get me wrong. I don't know anyone who just walks away from a marriage, nor do I mean to imply it is that simple. It is hard. It is very hard. When you got married, you agreed to let someone into your life and put their needs at least on par, if not above, your own. Getting divorced doesn't change that. There are always hurt feelings on both sides. Anger is an emotion humans often use as a shield, to hide from the pain, shame or grief we are really feeling. Still, most people learned that unbridled expression of your feelings is not the acceptable course of action by the time they were four.
Almost two years after H and I split, I took her to dinner. I wanted to tell her about someone I had just met, someone I was very interested in. It was the first time we had discussed my private life since our split, and I was not entirely certain how the evening would go. I did not for one moment think she would be surprised that I was dating a man, but it can be difficult to tell how people will react to such information. Had she felt it necessary to limit my access to my children, I would have been devastated.
The evening went very well, however, and in the course of the conversation I thanked her for having had the courage to end something that was not working for either one of us. She teared up (which doesn't happen often) and said, "I didn't think I'd ever hear you say that." It was the first time I had made her cry for a good reason.
My ex-wife and I are still friends. I was the photographer at her wedding when she remarried. When she and her husband finally bought a new home and moved out of the one she and I had lived in, I helped them move. I am still welcome at her parents' home for Thanksgiving dinner and other special occasions. People just don't get it. Honestly, I love to watch the gears grind.
My favorite story is still when she sold the house. My name was still on the title so I had to go in to the closing. The title company was aware of the situation. The lady who would be handling the closing came out to ask me about the proceeds from the sale and how that would be split up. H arrived shortly thereafter with her new baby boy. He was only a few months old at the time.
Something had been fouled up in the paper work and we sat in the outer office for some time waiting for it to be sorted out. H's son, L, was getting fussy in his car seat so I took him out to entertain him. It was at least 20 minutes before they finally called us back to sign the papers.
By the time the title officer entered the room, H had given me a bottle to feed L. The title officer sat down and took in the situation. She got a very confused look on her face and said, "Now, he's her baby, right?"
I just smiled and said, "Yep."
She shook her head and said, "I need to bring my son and his ex in to see this."
The last time I went to dinner with my former in-laws was several months after I had moved out. H's mom took me aside in the parking lot on the way out. "This has been a very difficult time for everyone. You have been nothing but a gentleman through the whole thing and we love you for it." I don't know if she knows how much that meant to me. H's parents are truly wonderful people.
It can happen, people. I know of other similar situations. They just aren't the ones that make the evening news. I dated a guy for a little while who could have been in a similar situation except that her family got involved and totally messed things up. Fortunately for Simon that doesn't seem to have happened to him.
In the end, folks, it's none of your business. It is between the husband and wife and no one else. The urge to protect and defend is understandable, but if you really want to help, butt out and don't create problems in an already difficult situation.
F.Y.I.
Brian has noted my relative silence about D in my blog. "I'm in there more than he is," he pointed out. True enough. At this point I must confess that it is largely due to an irrational and superstitious fear of jinxing things. So, here we go. (Where's my rabbit's foot?)
D has been in Mexico the last five days visiting his family. He comes home tonight and I am having a hard time thinking about anything else today. Today is more about watching time go by until I can see him again than anything else. I don't remember ever having missed someone like this.
D often gives me a hard time about playing hard to get at first. Not that it was intentional. I am generally opposed to playing games like that. In fact, I hate it and I am embarrased and a little ashamed that I did it to him.
One evening, after a couple of months of hanging out with D, I was drinking margaritias and talking with a good friend of mine, T. It was mostly idle converstaion, discussing love and relationships in general, but something clicked and I began to realize what had been happening. I had been telling myself that I my feelings about D were ambvialent at best, and I didn't want things to get serious with him under those circumstances. What dawned on me as I sat and talked with T, was my ambivalent feelings were not about D specifically, but about being in a relationship again, period. That was when I decided I was being stupid and stopped "playing hard to get" and took the risk.
Some time after D and I started really dating, I stumbled onto a song by Deborah Cox that summed the situation up pretty well. I know. Deborah Cox. Gay man. Cliche.
At least it's not Cher.
I've spent all my life
On a search to find
The love who'll stay for eternity
That heaven sent to fulfill my needs
But when I turned around
Again love has knocked me down
My heart got broken
Oh it hurt so bad
I'm sad to say love wins again
So I place my heart under lock and key
To take some time and take care of me
But I turn around and you're standing hereHow did you get here
Nobody's supposed to be here
I've tried that love thing for the last time
My heart says no, no
Nobody's supposed to be here
But you came along and changed my mind
It's been an amazing and wonderful four and a half months, D. Here's to many more to come.
P.S. Lest you get the wrong idea, I love Cher.
Thou shalt not have fun.
Some of you may have noticed the brief appearance of thumbnails down the right edge of the blog. I've taken them down because they've become unreliable and have started slowing down the loading of the page. There are things I like about Deviant Art, but they have been plagued by performance problems from the start. I suppose that's what happens when a good idea has to be implemented on a shoe string budget. I'm sure they didn't expect to be as popular as they have become. Hopefully one of these days they'll get on top of it. Yes, I know. The rest of the world uses Flickr. Mabye one of these days, I'll have time to look into it.
Michael does some very fine work. I am absolutely jealous of the amazing skies that are in 95% of his photos. That's what I get for living in a desert, I guess. I hope he appreciates them.
This one struck me today. I don't think you'd ever see these two symbols juxtaposed like this in America. Church is not supposed to be fun. Maybe it's just Mormons, with whom I've had the most experience, but I think Americans in general seem obsessed with defining a hard line between spiritual and the secular and resist the notion that there may actually be quite a bit of overlap. Maybe it's our Puritan heritage. Fun and laughter were (are?) something which required penitence and contrition. God is irritable grump and you have to step lightly or you'll piss Him off. Life was not meant to be enjoyed.
Two hundred years later and we're still uptight.
Things that make you go hmmmm….
Christmas day. It was my plan to spend most of the day skiing. After dropping off my girls at their grandmother's, I headed up the mountain. However, upon arriving at the resort I discovered I had left my poles at home. I went to rent a pair only to discover I had also left my wallet. On the road down, I debated if I wanted to go back up or not. Granted, I am lucky enough to live within such short distance from half a dozen resorts that such a debate is even possible.
Once I got home, I felt more like taking a nap than going back up the mountain. My inner child doesn't like taking naps, so I didn't do that either. I enjoy a hot bath and haven't had the time to take one in months. So I climbed into the tub and had just relaxed when I heard an explosion from under the bathroom sink. I had reinstalled my sink yesterday and one of the flexible tubes that run water to the faucet had burst free of the slip joint and water was coming out of the pipes full blast.
I jumped out of the tub and turned off the water. I had started the laundry yesterday and fortunately had a pile of towels just out side the door with which to sop up the mess. Had I been on the slopes according to plan, water would have run for several hours. The damage would have been considerable. The bathroom being upstairs, water would have gone everywhere. As it is, I only lost eight rolls of toilet paper that were soaked through in the time it took me to hop out of the tub and shut the water off.
Happy coincidence? Hand of Fate? That is, I suppose, for each of us to decide for themselves.
Truth and Reality Indeed
He who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Several things have come across my desk recently that tell me that the transition to digital technology is still in the troubled adolescent period. ...
A good example from a fine nature photography book by an excellent phtographer includes this note from the photographer: "Nature is reality and truth. My goal in photography is a true and honest documentation of nature...none of my images have been digitally altered or otherwise manipulated." Now, besides that being a divisive and unnecessary statement, it's also quite misleading. Nature may be reality and truth, but photography, in itself, is not.
To say otherwise is to deny the very dualistic nature of photography—a combination of art and technology. Neither can exist without the other. To ensure that the camera (film or digital) better captures the reality of nature, we use many technological aids and gadgets, such as graduated neutral-density filters, to balance tones that we can see, but that the camera cannot. We use flash to highlight things in a scene that the camera wouldn't highlight or to balance a bright background. We use different focal lengths of lenses to change how perspective is seen. These are all manipulations of the scene to make a better and truer photograph.
I find it odd, however, that an arbitrary line has now been drawn. Technological manipulations of the scene done at the time of the photograph are "okay," yet technology used after the photograph was taken in service of making a more truthful image aren't, according to a number of conservative photographers and publications. It's almost as if they can understand the technology and it has been around a long time, it's okay, but new stuff that they don't understand is strictly taboo.
Let's look at a new technology used to make a photo truer to the scene. Suppose I come across a beautiful group of flowers on a ridge against the sunset. My eyes see the reality of color both in the flowers and in the sunset. The camera sees something totally different that in no way represents what was seen. Yet some reactionary folks would have us consider the camera's "reality" as the truth, a case of technology (the camera) being better than people (the photographer). I realize that may sound a little harsh, but I strongly believe publications have a responsibility to the public to present the best photos they can, images that reveal the truth and beauty of the world and that aren't arbitrarily limited by rules that restrict that revelation.
The flower and sunset scene can be influenced by processing that image after the picture is taken. I could definitely "manipulate" tonal values of the flowers and sky to bring them more in balance.
Just saying those words upsets some people. "Manipulation is wrong!" they say. Hackles get raised. But then I say that I used a flash to brighten the flowers and balance them against the sky in another shot. "Oh, well, that's different. That's capturing reality." Hmm. I've yet to see flash naturally occurring in any park or wilderness area.
Manipulation that changes reality from what we see or can interpret about the truth of a scene is wrong for nature photography. I also believe that only the photographer can correctly and accurately interpret what he or she saw in a scene. Some subjects need enhancement and proper manipulation for them to be truthfully seen, and the straight photograph right from the camera isn't "truth."
Let's continue with that flower example. Now, suppose I take two exposures—one for the sunset colors and one to accurately capture the flower colors. I bring those two photos into Photoshop and create a new image that combines the best tonalities and colors of each, making a photograph that now more accurately and truthfully represents what was seen. It's certainly more truthful than a silhouette and far more accurate than using a flash. Yet many folks will say this "composite" isn't true and is a manipulation of photography that shouldn't be done.
Now I have to scratch my head. An unnatural flash is okay, but the use of real tonalities isn't?
I really don't understand. Why would we not want to use technology to make our photos truer to what's seen in nature? Why wouldn't prestigious "nature magazines" want and even demand that photographers use technology in the service of more truthful images? The composited two-exposure photograph is a far better representation and truthful interpretation of the reality of the flowers and sunset than what any traditional photographic technique can do.
Back in the 1850s, a photographer I named Gustave Le Gray dealt with severe tonal limitations of the film used at the time. It couldn't register clouds in the sky and I proper exposure of the ground at the same I time. So he took two exposures—one for the sky and one for the ground-then put I them together in the darkroom. He did this many times and was considered brilliant for his innovative way of dealing with the challenge of technology of his time.
Yet [editors] don't want real truth based on the photographer's vision of the world, but on an arbitrary and superficial truth of the image straight from the camera.
...Certain editors have overreacted to the problems of false manipulation of an image such that they consider any change to a photo "wrong," even if a mistaken exposure makes the scene too dark! Now the mistake is "truth" because it came from the camera, but the photographer's correct and true "manipulation" of the image to bring it to a correct set of values and colors true to the scene is not "false" in these editors' minds.
...[The standard for photography should not be] basing truth on what comes directly from the camera. It is time to trust photographers to do the right in their work on an image, then deal harshly with those photographers who would deliberately lie to mislead the public, whether in how an image is shot or in manipulating an image in Photoshop.
Fake it till you make it.
I haven't said anything about Intelligent Design's defeat in Pennsylvania, because, well . . . duh. However, I can't help but indulge in a bit of schadenfreude after reading that ID was not just struck down, but pummeled into the dirt.
Kitzmiller provides an excellent case study of evolution in action; ironically, in this case how the language of creationists has adapted to changing cultural environments. The defense argued that Intelligent Design is an entirely new species unrelated to creation science, and the plaintiffs expertly demonstrated both the clear ancestral relationship between creationism and ID and the selective pressure of higher court decisions that caused the speciation. With that phylogenetic relationship clearly established in the trial, the judge evidently decided that creationism had not mutated enough to survive as the new species of Intelligent Design.1
Do read the whole article it is an absolute joy.
Folks, I tend to believe in a Creator. I have no issues with people who want to believe that there is an intelligent force behind the existence of life on this damp, little rock floating through the Universe. I have serious issues with people who try to dress up their narrow religious beliefs as science and foist it off on the rest of us. Any honest believer should not have an issue with evolution being a mechanism the Creator used to develop life. People want to believe in a god of magic who waves his magic wand and makes fish appear. What's wrong with a God who is so damn smart he can manage an evolutionary process? Get real people.
Oh, and while we're on the topic of honesty, I seem to recall that was big on Jesus' list. Hell, it goes all the way back to the Ten Commandments, you know, bearing false witness is no-no. I guess it does specify against your neighbor, so maybe they're trying to exploit a loophole there. On the other hand, Jesus pretty much closed that loophole with the Parable of the Good Samaritan.2 Do these yahoos [no affiliation with Yahoo, Inc. or any of its subsidiaries] really think that Jesus would approve of fudging, hedging, willful ignorance and lying to advance His their cause? I kinda doubt it.
HAT TIP: Greg Prince
2Luke 10:25-37, The Holy Bible, NIV, www.biblegateway.com, see also Matthew 25:40
Holiday Musing
Haves and Have nots
Another snow storm moved through the valley Sunday afternoon. I enjoyed walking in the quiet snow fall, a perfect storm with no wind and fluffy flakes drifting slowly to the ground. Even though I was crossing the crowded parking lot of Best Buy it seemed picturesque. And yet when D and I left the store and were getting back into my car, we noticed people standing waiting for the bus in the snow.
It got me thinking about how we often take so many things for granted. Here I had a nice car I was about to climb into and turn the heat on and over there was someone standing in the snow waiting for a bus. We even passed a family with strollers waiting for a bus on the ride home.
Now I've spent time standing in a snow storm waiting for a bus when I lived in Europe. It didn't seem to me a particular hardship, so maybe those people standing on the curb didn't mind so much. Still, having a car in Europe is a sign of wealth, and it's pretty easy to get by without one. On the other hand, not having a car out here in the western U.S. is a sign of poverty or hardship and can be a real hassle, especially here in Utah where public transportation is a joke.
I have never been poor by any stretch of the imagination. I have always had enough to meet my needs and be comfortable. I usually don't have that much for frills, but the reality is I have a nice car, a nice home, and plenty to eat. That makes me better off than 95% of the world's population. Some of it I have worked for, but my intelligence came built in and it wouldn't matter a damn how smart I might be if I had been born in a rural village in Ethiopia. I can't help but feel most of it is a gift and that I am incredibly blessed (or lucky depending on your belief system).
That being the case, I try and be generous with what I have, especially at Christmas. Finding a charity you believe in, which is responsible with donations can sometimes be harder than it would first seem. Here's an article from SmartMoney.com that gives advice and some good reference links for finding a charity that's a good fit for you. And don't forget to look locally. Many local charities struggle in their goals because large national charities are easier to find.
Salvation Army Bell Ringers
Certainly one of the most visible charities at Christmas time, the bell ringers were always a sign of the season for me as a kid. Maybe it was because growing up in Mesa, Arizona, the bell ringers were as close to sleigh bells as I ever got, but I loved it when the bell ringers started appearing in front of stores. Somehow the spirit of the season, selfless giving, was tied up in the bells for me as well. Sadly, that's not the case so much any more.
Bell ringers aren't nearly as ubiquitous these days as they were when I was young. I don't know if the Salvation Army just has a harder time finding volunteers, if it doesn't bring in as much money as it used to or if they just aren't as welcome anymore. Much has been made of Target Corporation's ban on solicitation of any kind. I'm sure many feel that an exception should be made for the bell ringers at Christmas time. Perhaps. But in today's world where morality has been abused to the point that it has little meaning any more, if Target makes one exception to the rule, how many other causes would demand the same exception be made? Bastards like Fred Phelps have forced a couple communities to ban monuments of any kind in order to justify banning his monuments to hate.
The bell ringers are complicated for me in my adult world in any case. On the one hand, they are a childhood symbol of the season of selfless giving. On the other hand the Salvation Army is one of those faith based organization that continues to discriminate against homosexuals in their employment policies. Kinda hard to feel warm and fuzzy giving money to such organizations these days.
There is something sad about the whole affair for me. I know some who get all bent out of shape over the presence of bell ringers. I'm not one of them. Like I said, I like the bells. It's a part of the season for me. Regardless of their views about my sexuality, they do accomplish some good in this world and it doesn't bother me that people are tossing their spare change into the buckets. I am just not one of them anymore.
Am I missing something that it seems that simple to me? If you have issues with the Salvation Army—whether it be their stance on homosexuality, or that they are a Christian organization and you are [insert non-Christian belief system here]—no one is forcing you to give them money. It seems rather selfish to deny others who have no such issues an easy opportunity to give money to those less fortunate than themselves, even if it's only spare change.
Eventually enough people might have issues with the Salvation Army that it becomes a thing of the past, that it, like the dinosaurs—unable to adapt to a changing world, unable to open their minds to a broader view of God's love for Creation— falls into extinction. And that is sad, too.
Tim Allen
Some will surely see Tim's Santa Claus movies as cheesy kitch, but I love them. If I had to describe how I envision God, Santa Claus is pretty damn close. I see god as a man who loves laughter. I see him as one who does not base his estimation of your worth nor does he limit his love or for you or his generosity based on your belief in him or on how strictly you adhere to "the rules." Whether or not you believe in him he is out there working to bring you what happiness he can send your way. It may only last a moment before it is swept away in the chaos that is life, but just like a toy in your stocking Christmas morning won't keep you from being teased at school or solve any of the myriad of problems we have in this life, it is a moment of joy when all the rest doesn't matter. Those moments are what keeps our souls afloat. White beard and red suit optional.
The best part of the stories is when the adults have their long lost faith restored and the disappointment they have harbored over the years is washed away with no recriminations or judgements, only love and generosity. If there is a God, and I tend to believe there is, that is exactly how I imagine our reunion with him will be.
I'm sure that some of it also has to do with looking back on simpler, more innocent times when the only concern I had during the holidays was the number and size of presents under the tree.
It’s not about waking up
An Army private is withdrawing from the military after having his nose broken for being gay. The Army apparently realizes it will have its nuts in a vice if the boy dies, so they had him sleep on a cot where his drill sergeant could keep an eye on him. That is where their concern ends, however, because the perpetrator has gotten off with a rap on the knuckles: his weekend passes have been revoked. This despite the police report that the assault was unprovoked and the offending soldier was charged with felony aggravated assault.1
The complete lack of accountability when it comes to anti-gay harassment in our armed forces is outrageous and inexcusable. How many more murders and assaults will be required to wake up Pentagon leaders?
What some people still cannot fathom is that many of the good ol' boys running the Pentagon, if not all of them, think homos deserve to have their noses broken. I'm sure there are many a religious conservative who also agree with the past Mormon sentiment that it were better a man have a millstone hung about his neck and drown in the depths of the sea than he give in to the love which dare not speak its name. In other words, faggots are better off dead. Violence against homosexuals was also advocated "to protect yourself from being seduced into a life of sin." So homosexuality is so pleasurable and tempting you have to combat its lure with violence? Sounds to me like someone has issues. It's been a few years now, but last time I heard anything on the subject, it was still being published in a widely distributed pamphlet. Someone who is more in the know might be able to shed more light on the subject.
Make no mistake. The leaders of the Pentagon are wide awake.