What's he on about now?

In case the articles, essays and opinions throughtout this site just weren't enough for you, here's my online diary (a.k.a. 'blog'). It's as close as you'll come to the inside of my head, so don't say I didn't warn you
(and remember, you can always e-mail me if you love or loathe anything you're about to read)...


   Tuesday, February 22, 2005

   NO TOPIC TOO SMALL

Yikes, haven't posted in a week! I don't like the delay but I didn't feel there was anything exciting or amusing enough to pass along. I have to remember though, that this is a diary -- it's about me, that guy I'm too busy railing about politics about to discuss.

So what's been going on this week? Well, after my letter to the White House (why bitch about when you can bitch at?), I had what I've called my 'existential weekend' at home -- spending time with Jon Kabat-Zinn's mindfulness guide "Coming To Our Senses" and DVDs of the philosophy cartoon "Waking Life" and the Buddhist comedy "I ♥ Huckabees." I was delighted by the movies (though "Huckabees" seems to divide people into two camps; many seem to have really hated it!) and I'm still chugging along through Kabat-Zinn's thick book.

My friend Jason is back in Toronto after a couple of years in Vancouver and we've had long reunion chats. He's goaded me into reviving the (formerly) traditional Oscar gathering this Sunday (probably at Danielle's -- she's got cable!)

My sex life has been great; my love life's flatlined. Confused? Me too, but I've spent evenings lately with two different men, both of them delightful, both in love with other people. Being a stop-gap obviously has its perks but I don't think this'll be good for the ego if I go much longer. Oh, to have it all in one person...just a dream?

In the meantime, one of them has introduced me to a filmmaker friend who's taping a video project tomorrow that needed an Irishman. He was thrilled to meet me and said I'd be ideal -- why can't all men react like this when I'm introduced to them? (ha ha) So, tomorrow, I'm taking the afternoon off for a spot of acting.

This is the Toronto I work so hard to live in -- once in a while, it loves me back!

Labels: Trawna

One of the guys at work here in the Fortress of Geeks sent around a long article on George Lucas, in anticipation of the opening of the final "Star Wars" film, "Revenge of the Sith," on May 19.

Big friggin' deal.

If you're going to geek out over something that won't happen for another three months, why not back up two days and join me in losing my mind over the release of the third season of "Six Feet Under" on DVD May 17th?

This was the season that completely divided the show's fans, as the Fisher family's already-rocky lives settled into an ominous melancholy. The first few episodes were virtually plot-free and the show's infamous black humour was muted. In short, it was no longer fun for many people but others (like me) found the show richer than ever. By the end of the year, I couldn't believe how unpredictable the show had become and how I'd found myself openly weeping for a character I hated. That's writing!

If "Star Wars III" makes me cry, I'll take it all back.

A source of some tension in my life is the split I feel between my respect and admiration for friends who are religious and my deep irritation with religious people. There's a certain type who pity you when you tell them that you don't believe in God (or at least their God) and a worse type who actually condemn you for not believing. How do I express how annoying organized religion is without offending my friends' beliefs?

All I can really do is simply keep affirming my own, hoping that there'll be enough overlap for us to agree on some points. I discovered years ago that most of the beneficial things in Christianity are echoed in various strains of Buddhism, only without a lot of the dogma. On the other hand, there's too much chanting involved for me to claim I'm a Buddhist!

No, today I'm 'thanking Tao' for a lovely piece called "The Soul of Science" by Michael Shermer, editor of 'Skeptic' magazine. While the tone may sound disturbingly close to Scientology for those not on board, it's as clear an agreement of my own beliefs as I've found.

I checked out the 'Skeptic' website and was, well, skeptical since organized atheism often seems as peculiar as organized religion. But isn't that lack of easy answers part of the mystery of it all? What Richard Feynman called 'the joy of figuring things out'?

A German zoo is importing some female penguins in hopes of encouraging breeding of the endangered species. Turns out that three of the five male penguins they've captured are gay and have had no interest in the previous female penguins offered. The zookeepers have tried splitting them up and pairing them with a rotating series of female partners but nothing has worked.

The penguins in Germany aren't alone -- Japanese researchers have logged about 20 gay penguins. Meanwhile, there's Roy and Silo, two male penguins in New York's Central Park Zoo, who not only paired up but 'adopted' an egg, cared for it until it hatched, then raised the baby girl until she was old enough to fend for herself.

This amuses me, since gay people often have to endure homophobic yammering about "unnatural acts." The relatively similar prevalence of homosexuality among various species throughout the animal kingdom says otherwise (though, of course, if you point that out, you're then accused of indulging "animal" behaviour -- sigh). Fortunately, scientists tend to be more curious:

Marlene Zuk, a professor of biology at the University of California at Riverside and author of "Sexual Selections: What We Can and Can't Learn About Sex From Animals" (University of California Press, 2002), notes that scientists have speculated that homosexuality may have an evolutionary purpose, ensuring the survival of the species. By not producing their own offspring, homosexuals may help support or nurture their relatives' young. "That is a contribution to the gene pool," she said..

Indeed. Those who bleat that leaving homosexuals alone would eventually doom the human race by attrition should check out an episode of "Queer Eye For The Straight Guy" -- without the help of the 'Fab 5', some of these guys would never get laid!

Risking the most controversy, transgendered Stanford professor Joan Roughgarden has written an intriguing challenge to Darwin's sexual selection theory, "Evolution's Rainbow -- Diversity, Gender and Sexuality in Nature and People":

Her theory, put simply, is this: Diversity of sexual behavior and gender roles, whether in the animal or human kingdoms, is not an aberration. More than 300 species of vertebrates have sex with the same gender. There are gay sheep and lesbian lizards. Some animals change gender or have more than one type of male or female. History, science, even the Bible shows us the multiplicity of human nature, she argues..."The time has come," she writes, "to take a stand, to say that we, in all our shapes and sizes, in all our gender expression, sexual orientations and body parts, are healthy."

Even the penguins!

I'm praying this is another Internet hoax but a woman who runs an otherwise saucy website posted a couple of photos taken at her friend's house. It seems her friend's son, just hitting puberty, has found a new game to play with his old Lego bricks -- constructing a Lego replica of the Abu Ghriab prison! It's very creepy yet oddly reassuring -- I knew Jar Jar Binks was a terrorist!

Because we simply need to know what's happening in the world of monkeys, the BBC reports on Delhi's plans to remove a hundred monkeys from the city. It seems they've been an incredible nuisance for the government:

The monkeys who have moved into residential areas and official enclaves due to Delhi's shrinking forests, are said to have become a 'security threat'. Last year, the ministry of defence found some of its top secret documents scattered all over the place one morning.

It was blamed on the many rhesus monkeys which flock around the colonial-era building. The prime minister's office, which is situated in the same block, is also within reach. A cabinet minister couldn't enter his official bungalow for months because the monkeys wouldn't let anybody enter the house.

Perhaps the monkeys have become the Official Opposition. They sound more effective than most!

I'm reeling in surprise this morning with the news that Paul Shanley, a Catholic priest in Boston, has been finally convicted of sexually and physically assaulting young boys two decades ago. Convicted! Not quietly censured or moved to a different parish or (in Shanley's case) eventually defrocked, but convicted! Boy, it's enough to make you think that people are serious about solving the problem.

The BBC has helpfully given a (brief!) rundown of the major incidents in the ongoing Catholic scandal. My personal favourite is this little gem:

27 February 2004: A report commissioned by the Church says more than 4,000 US Roman Catholic priests had faced sexual abuse allegations in the last 50 years, in cases involving more than 10,000 children - mostly boys.

Let's be wildly generous, shall we, and say that eighty percent of those cases were made-up with crazy 'repressed' memories. That would still leave two thousand children -- forty kids a year -- and the church's response is, as always, a complete denial of any wrongdoing on their part and a renewed zeal in scapegoating adult, open homosexuals with no sexual interest in children.

While the Right bleats that most gay men will only be happy when it's legal to molest children, I joke -- only half-kiddingly -- that most gay men will only be happy when children can play in their own country, far away from us. And don't give the priests any passports.

(Oh, was that last bit too unfair? Happily slandering Catholic priests, the vast majority of whom are honourable people living moral lives and trying to do some good? Welcome to my world!)

The 365Gay.com Newscenter (boy, I love that) reports that a school board member in Virginia went 'rogue' this week and issued his own letter to Fairfax high school principals urging them to give students "a choice" on homosexuality, a "very destructive lifestyle" (Having been indoctrinated entirely -- yet unsuccessfully -- in heterosexuality, I now wish I'd gone to school in big gay Fairfax, Virginia!)

Stephen Hunt wrote that "Children are being taught that homosexuality is normal and natural. It is neither. To state that it is normal or natural is to promote the myth that accompanies the homosexual activist rhetoric." Homosexuality normal? No, not really. Natural? 'Fraid so.

Hunt's letter then takes an odd turn, insisting against intolerance. "If a person does choose a gay lifestyle, we should respect their freedom, their safety and their choice," he wrote. By repeatedly insisting that their lives are abnormal, unnatural and destructive? R-E-S-P-E-C-T, sock it to me!

Happily, the school board was quick to distance themselves from Hunt. Schools Superintendent Jack Dale said, "We want our schools to be seen as welcoming places for all individuals." Thank you, Mr. Dale, though I'm afraid my 'White Knight' award has to go to Kelly Schlageter who, the article says, "worries that Hunt's views may send a message to students that it is wrong to be gay." Gee, Kelly, you think? Those students may not be smart enough to pick up on Hunt's delicate subtlety.

Oh, but enough fun -- here's the real reason I've spent my time on yet another outburst of prejudiced drivel: Hunt proposes bringing guest-speakers into the classroom to provide "balance" against all that pro-homosexuality propaganda they apparently spend their days hearing. He suggests conservative groups (who've had such luck in the grade schools, turning the kids against cartoon characters) and, better yet, ex-gay people.

I met an ex-gay person a few years ago at an Anglican Church conference (sort of a 'what to do with the homosexuals' affair). Catherine (an alias) was a very thin, six-foot tall, almost bird-like woman with a lazy eye. She discussed her gawky, painful adolescence, leading to a series of brief, dismal affairs with men. Eventually, she "fell into" lesbianism and, sadly, an abusive relationship with an angry woman. Catherine seemed very proud of mustering up the self-esteem and courage necessary to leave this woman and, apparently, the entire gender.

We all listened to her story with compassion but I noticed the crowd and I nodding intently during different bits. Catherine's teenage years and string of failed relationships had me nodding and thinking, 'Yes, self-hatred is awful' while the abuse portion seemed to have the crowd agreeing, 'Yes, lesbianism is awful.'

After Catherine's speech, people came up to talk to her directly. I shook her hand and said, "It was very brave of you to talk about all that." She was completely unable to make eye contact with me and my heart cracked for this poor, damaged woman, abused by men and women alike. I didn't have the heart to start grilling her with "homosexual activist rhetoric". I've heard the (very) occasional argument against homosexuality that's made me think, 'Well, they do have a point there,' but Catherine's tremulous voice praising her nick-of-time conversion was not one of them.

That's just one woman's story, of course -- there's actually a Christian 'ex-gay movement' whose rhetoric is far more confused than anything the gay or anti-gay activists can muster. Exodus International is the largest and most well-known and I'll let them speak for themselves:

Exodus International is a distinctly religious organization offering services and referrals to people who are in conflict with their sexual feelings and Christian beliefs. However, detractors often say that the message of Exodus is compromised due to the failure of the co-founders of the organization to remain heterosexual. In a recent Cleveland Plain Dealer article, also on the subject of sexual orientation change, Mr. Besen claimed that Michael Bussee and Gary Cooper were the co-founders of Exodus International. He noted again that the men became gay partners.

The second claim is true. As documented in the 1992 film "One Nation Under God," the two men did indeed leave their families in 1979 and engaged in a commitment ceremony in 1982. However, the first claim is false. Mr. Cooper and Mr. Bussee were not the co-founders of Exodus International.
...
The truth is that some people who were ex-gay ministry leaders or participants have reverted to a gay or lesbian identity. Ex-ex-gays exist. However, the majority of people who began with Exodus have not returned to a gay identity. Speaking of Exodus, Mr. Besen and those detractors who say all ex-gay leaders are “extraordinary failures” are simply ignoring the whole truth.

Clear as mud. I like the dodge about members not reverting to a 'gay identity' as opposed to 'behaviour'. A sarcastic person might notice that married heterosexual men are never seen in gay bathhouses -- no, no, never!

But, in all fairness, they're not entirely wrong. Exodus and the ex-gay movement fascinate me because, in the big scheme of things, they're the most correct -- Kinsey and his researchers found decades ago that a great many heterosexual men had at least one instance of what they used to call 'messing around' with other boys and most gay men have had sex with a woman at least once. Exclusive heterosexuality was and always will be the most common, but sexual fluidity is far more prevalent than straights or gays care to discuss. Too bad Exodus spoils their message with all that 'saved' talk. They 'rescue' homosexuals as if such a thing were necessary, desirable or perhaps possible. They may be rushing to the flimsy lifeboats but the ship I'm travelling on is in no danger of sinking.

Labels: religion

The fine folks at Boing Boing (best blog ever!) have alerted everyone to The Saga of BloodNinja, the collected works of a multi-aliased prankster who's ruining the cyber-sex lives of a great many people in America Online chat rooms:

Partner6: So you're really a 18 yr old girl right?
J-Dogg: Yeah, J for Julie.
Partner6: So whats with the "Dogg"
J-Dogg: Uh, It's cause I'm into the latina gangs and shit. You know, rollin with tha homies and shit.

And it's downhill from there -- the dumbest, raunchiest, funniest thing I've read this week!

The one good thing about a truly horrible movie is reading the vicious, vicious reviews they incur. Since the majority of their time is spent watching mediocre or poor films, movie critics are by nature a grumpy lot. A truly awful movie will tip them over into outright cruelty.

That's the cue for "Alone in the Dark," a dopey "Aliens" rip-off starring C-list actors Christian Slater, Tara Reid and Stephen Dorff, based on a video game, and directed by the hack who made the equally-stupid "House of the Dead." That's a recipe for terror, all right, but not the kind the filmmakers intended, and The Orlando Sentinel's Roger Moore responds beautifully by calling the film "too stupid to watch, too loud to nap through."

Out of all the harsh reviews for the film (a great many collected by the always-reliable Rotten Tomatoes in probably its lowest rating for a film ever), my favourite comes from Pajiba.com, insisting that the creators of "Alone in the Dark" are "clearly a cabal bent on the total destruction of the art of the motion picture":

I’m willing to assume that anyone who chooses to see it is simply a masochist of the first order, but I still can’t grasp the reasoning that led Slater, Reid, and Dorff into this miasma. When your career has dropped to this low, why not chuck your pretenses and just do porn?

Wow -- even Joel "1 Out of 5 Ain't Bad" Schumacher doesn't get reviews like that!

Even if you've no desire whatsoever to play chess against a computer, I insist you check out this link to 'Thinking Machine 4', where you can see the computer's thought processes being laid out before you as you play. First, I was quite fascinated, then I felt unbearably stupid.

[good -- and lengthy! -- enough to move to its own page]

I'm even at the point where I'm agreeing with Peggy Noonan, special assistant to President Ronald Reagan and chief speechwriter for Vice President George Bush in 1988:

To declare that it is now the policy of the United States to eradicate tyranny in the world, that we are embarking on the greatest crusade in the history of freedom, and that the survival of American liberty is dependent on the liberty of every other nation--seemed to me, and seems to me, rhetorical and emotional overreach of the most embarrassing sort.
...
As for criticizing Mr. Bush on something so big, that's why I did it: It's big. And so important. When you really disagree, you have to say so. In the end I found the president's thinking perplexing and disturbing. At any rate, in the end, as Jack Kennedy once said, "Sometimes party loyalty asks too much."

This is what I've been maintaining from the very start. Opposition to Bush's plans -- or mine, at least -- stems less from 'left-wing vs. right-wing' than reason vs. blind willfulness. If they won't listen to me, hopefully they'll listen to Peggy.

Labels: George W Bush