The Musings of a Confused Man

The other day, I was listening to the radio while driving, and "Don't Want to Miss a Thing" by Aerosmith came on.  I absolutely love that song and want to include it here.  So thanks to YouTube, enjoy a nice rendition with lyrics, no less:



I actually have an emotional history associated with this song.  The song was quite popular on the radio back in 1998, thanks to Armageddon.  At the time, I was also involved with a young man name Zech.  It was actually my first relationship, providing you don't count the friend I experimented with in high school.  The song meant a lot to me back then.  Every time I heard it, I thought of Zech.

The other day when I heard the same song, it made me think of another guy.  I'll call this guy D (until he tells me he's ready for me to talk about him by name.  D and I have been talking, hanging out, and otherwise enjoying each other's company.  We're not actually dating, though I hope that changes some day in the not-too-distant future.

What I find interesting is that while similar, the reaction the song evokes in me regarding D now and the reaction I had back when I was involved with Zech.  In both cases, the theme of the song -- the desire to be with that special someone as much as possible -- resonated deeply with me.  However, the emotional undercurrents are worlds apart.

As I mentioned, Zech was my first boyfriend (though come to think of it, we never officially dated).  We were both young and immature, and I was only recently out (I had only finally accepted my sexuality two years earlier).  This meant that I was going through a lot of emotional turmoil, and tended to cling to Zech in a sense of desperation.  And that desperation came through back then as I'd listen to the song.  I didn't want to miss a thing, because I was terrified that things would end.  Part of me wanted to squeeze as much out of the relationship before the horrible ending came, and part of me foolishly believed that simply by being ever-present, ever-vigilant, and ever-suffocating, I could actually prevent the horrible ending from coming.

I've grown up a great deal in the intervening twelve years, and I now listen to that song again with a new guy in mind.  And once again, I find myself nodding along with the song.  But rather than a nagging sense of desperation, my heart is filled with a sense of peace and contentment.

The funny thing is, there area  few parallels.  There's no guarantee that things will work out between D and I.  (Is there ever really any such guarantee?)  I don't know how long I have with him or even if we'll ever become a couple like I'm hoping for.  I think it's likely though.

But in the end, it doesn't matter.  I have this time now, and I want to make the most of it.  Not out of fear or desperation, but out of hope and joy.

People often talk about how music can evoke powerful emotions and we can associate specific memories and feelings with a song.  However, I sometimes think that people forget that new connections and associations can be made with old songs that replace or overpower the old ones.  I know from personal experience that this is true, because I enjoy "Don't Want to Miss a Thing" far more today than I did back in 1998.

In fact, I think I'm going to go listen to it again.

A little over a year ago, I joined efforts with a small group of people to form a new coven.  We came to name our coven The Wick, inspired by the song we play in the background while we prepare ourselves for ritual.  (I hope the songwriter doesn't mind.)  Tonight, we led our first public ritual at Psychic's Thyme as a way to connect with and give back to our greater community.  It was a wonderful experience, and had several people participate with us.

While highly enjoyable and well worth it, planning and leading public rituals takes a bit of work.  Our coven spent the past few business meetings working out details and revising our normal ritual structure to account for working with a larger group and people unfamiliar with the way we do things.  (We use a very different method for casting a circle, for example.)

Tonight, I was given an incredible reminder why that effort is so worthwhile in the long run.  My friend, Cari, attended tonight's ritual an brought her two stepsons, ages nine and eleven.  In a conversation on Facebook, Cari had the following to say (quoted here with permission) about the experience:

On no the whole group was amazing and VERY informative, and patient with my boys. They will never forget tonight and you all I have to thank. Please pass it on to your other members. Colin is now making his own Alter now.

I can think of no greater praise or reward than to know that the work that my coven-mates and I put into tonight's ritual helped excite two young boys and even inspire one of them to start working on his own altar.  I don't know where they're spiritual journeys will lead these boys in the long run, but knowing that our efforts have helped move them along that path in any way is a great joy.  It's the sort of thing that makes me want to do more such rituals in the futures.

May the gods be praised.  And may the gods be served.  And may those around us prosper as a result.

The picture in this blog show's the coven's basic altar set-up.  The song "We Are the Wick" can be found on Castalia's second CD, Hidden.

I wouldn't wear those sunglasses.  But this definitely sounds like something I'd say.

I'm a couple of different online personals sites, including one dedicated to gay, bisexual, (and even closeted "straight") men.  The sites are often fun and prove to provide me with a lot of interesting experiences, and a few good friendships.

Every now and then, though, I get a reply like the following one:

hiya - thanks for you message - I hate to write this - makes me sound shallow, but its important to be honest - I'm into thinner, twinky guys. Otherwise, you sound like a really quality catch. Good luck!

Now, let me say up front that I totally get that guys are attracted to certain kinds of guys and might choose not to get involved with a guy because of a lack of attraction.  I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with that (unless a narrow definition of what you consider physically attractive is the only factor in your decision-making process).  In fact, I've been known to turn down a few guys who expressed interest because I didn't find them physically appealing as well.  (This is especially true if they come looking for sex rather than expressing an interest in friendship or relationship building.)

However, my advice is that if you're going to turn a guy down because you don't find him attractive, do not reply with a message like the one above.  To be perfectly blunt, such a message makes you look like a complete douchebag.  Allow me to explain my reasoning there by going through the email as a writer and a witch piece by piece, offering my own interpretation.

I hate to write this

This is a phrase that I find completely disingenuous.  I don't know about you, but as a rule, I don't do things that I hate doing.  To be blunt, if you start a message to me by saying "I hate to say this," finishing that message makes you a liar in my book.  Harsh?  You bet.  But try and argue with my logic.

 makes me sound shallow

So you're worried about sounding shallow?  But are you worried about being shallow?  Let's face it, if you feel like what you're saying or doing might make you appear shallow, maybe it's time to re-evaluate what you're saying or doing and acting less shallow.  But no, your actions make it clear you're only worried about how you're being perceived, not whether you actually need to do some uncomfortable soul-searching and attitude changes.

Again, I don't mind if you turn me down because you don't find me attractive.  But don't insult me by then worrying that I'll think less of you because of it.  Quit thinking about yourself for five seconds.

but its important to be honest

I agree.  Too bad I haven't found you to be very honest.  Sure, you're being up front about not being into me and that's quite cool of you.  But I find the whole "please understand that I'm still a nice guy so I'm going to say all kinds of things to make myself feel better about shooting you down" less than honest.  So you might want to work on being more fully honest in the future.  (I'd recommend starting by learning to be more honest with yourself.)

 - I'm into thinner, twinky guys.

This is probably the most direct and honest part of the entire message.  If you said exactly this and left out the other "trying to be nice" bullshit, I'd probably respect you more.

Otherwise, you sound like a really quality catch.

These kinds of statements always drive me nuts, because there's an implied phrase missing from the statement that you hope I'll forget about.  Let me rewrite the full sentence for you:

Otherwise, you sound like a really quality catch, as long as you're someone else's catch.

Telling me I'm a great guy who would be a great catch while you're turning me down is again disingenuous.  What you're really trying to do here is make sure that I still feel good about myself and continue to think that you're really a nice guy, rather than that shallow guy you're worried about sounding like (but not worried about so much that you give me a shot).  Let's face it, even when you're throwing me a compliment, it's really all about you in the back of your mind. 

But thanks for the compliment.  And I know I'm a quality catch.  But I'm certainly wondering about you.

Now don't worry, if you're actually dumb enough to send me a message like this, I will just reply with a "thanks" and move on.  So you can go on patting yourself on the back for being such a "nice guy."  You'll probably even never know that I'm actually shaking my head and smiling over what a douchebag you are.  Because quite frankly, after reading your message, you being "shallow" for turning me down is the least of my criticisms of you.

So yeah, we're definitely not a good match.  I deserve better than you.  Thank you for making that so obvious so quickly.  :)

I'm an avid follower of FAILblog, the blog where people post the most bizarre pictures mocking something that is or just seems wrong by marking the photographs with the word "FAIL."  Things mocked include bizarre car accidents, poorly worded signs that end up giving an unintended message, and people just doing crazy (and usually dangerous) things.

To be honest, I often find myself wondering if some pictures are faked.  The picture for the "anti-masturbatory gum" (see left) is one of those cases.  Setting aside the fact that I can't begin to understand how gum can make you lose interest in pleasuring yourself (short of messing with hormones, which I find a rather scary thing to do just to avoid a bit of sexual relief), I just can't imagine why anyone would WANT such a product.

Well, anyone who isn't a repressed bundle of unexpressed sexuality who's afraid that some Higher Power is going to strike them dead for enjoying their own bodies and the pleasure it gives them.  Thankfully, my gods tend to have a much more tolerant view of sexuality and sexual pleasure.  In fact, they think it's something to be celebrated!

Granted, they stipulate that such celebration should be done in a manner that is responsible.  But what could be more responsible than pleasuring yourself?  Let's face it:

• No one has ever gotten pregnant from pleasuring themselves.
• No one has ever gotten an STD from pleasuring themselves.
• No one gets used or abused when you pleasure yourself.
• Everyone involved -- you -- is bound to enjoy the experience.

So please, if you're feeling the urge, give yourself to take care of that urge.  It's far more ethical and responsible than using someone else to take care of your physical needs and hurting them in the process.

And really, am I the only one who thinks that trying to stop people from masturbating by encouraging them to develop a possible oral fixation might be a bit unwise?  ;)

It's been far too long since I blogged.  This has mainly been because I've been busy with work, family stuff, coven stuff, and illness.  However, I hope to get back to things soon.  For right now, I just wanted to share and comment on a recent French McDonald's ad that has been receiving some attention lately.



Personally, I think it's sweet, classy, and absolutely perfect.  I know some detractors have asked what it has to do with eating at McDonald's.  Well, to be honest, I don't think it has much to do with eating at McDonald's other than it's a way of saying that everyone from all walks of lives are welcome, which is the point of the greater "come as you are" campaign of which this ad is a part.  But even if we don't accept that argument, let's be honest here.  So much of the grist for so many of today's advertising campaigns have so little to do with the product or service being promoted, it's hardly reasonable to single this one ad out.  People never bothered asking what a talking gecko driving a sports car really had to do with car insurance, just to point out one example.  (And don't get me wrong, I adore that little green guy!)

And personally, I think the gay theme is done so tastefully and almost understated, that people like Bill O'Reilly just look all that much more stupid for making a fuss over it.

Cast

Queer:  A flamboyantly gay man in his mid-thirties.  Bears a striking resemblance to the playwright.

Straightboy:  A slender, fit man in his late teens or early twenties. Has a brush cut and looks like he works out a lot.

Straightboy Too:  A friend and near carbon copy of Straightboy.

Clerk:  An easy-going, mellow gentleman in his early forties.  Knows Queer, who is a regular customer at the gas station.

Bystanders:  A small group of people of various ages and genders.

Setting

The gas station where Clerk works.  Straightboy and Straightboy Too are at the counter and Queer is standing directly behind him.  The bystanders fill out the line behind the trio.

Action

Straightboy Too:  Do you need to see my ID, too?

Clerk:  Yes.  (Takes the card offered by Straightboy Too.)  I can't take this ID.  I see you have a New York driver's license.  Give me that.

Straightboy Too:  (Handing over a second card.)  You can't take military ID?

Clerk:  They don't have a barcode I can scan, so no.

Straightboy Too:  (Collects his ID and turns to Straightboy.)  I'll go move your truck to one of the pumps.  (Exits.)

Straightboy:  (Turning to address everyone in line behind him.)  I'm sorry it's taking so long.

(Several seconds pause.  Queer looks mildly amused at this point.)

Straightboy:  (Turning to Queer.)  I'm sorry to slow things down.

Queer:  (Smiling and affecting a nonchalant tone as Straightboy turns to face Clerk again.)  That's okay, hon.  You're cute so I'll forgive you this time.

(Straightboy turns with a startled, disbelieving look.  Queer continues to smile and Straightboy turns around and finishes paying Clerk before exiting.)

End Scene

Today is the International Day Against Homophobia, an annual day sponsored by Fondation Émergence to raise awareness of and combat the ugly phenomenon known as homophobia.  This is an important thing, as homophobia is something that adversely affects millions of LGBT people, not to mention those who choose to embrace homophobia.  (I hope to talk about that last bit in a later post.)

This is also an important issue because while some manifestations of homophobia are easy to spot, some are far more subtle, easily rationalized, and therefore more insidious in some ways.  It's easy to spot and speak out against thugs who go around beating up gay people.  It's pretty easy to spot and stop the school bully who calls smaller boys "queer" and otherwises taunts them.  It's much harder to spot and address the more decent, mild mannered person who still manages to be homophobic in subtler ways, the person who might not even be aware that what they're doing is homophobic.

Some will complain -- and quite loudly -- that believing that same sex sexual relationships are wrong or immoral is not homophobic.  Most days, I'm inclined to agree with them.  I think that such a belief is wrong and wrong-headed.  But I don't think taht such a belief in itself homophobic.

However, beliefs don't exist in a vacuum, and one of the biggest problems with such a belief is that it usually leads to actions that are homophobic.  So while keeping in mind that believing that same-sex sexual relationships are wrong is not homophobic, I'd like to point out some of the subsequent homophobic pitfalls that someone who holds such beliefs might fall into.

Refusing to befriend, get to know, and actually listen to gay people simply because they are gay is homophobic.  If concern for maintaining the purity of your beliefs gets in the way of being a friendly and personable individual, that's something you will need to address.

Having "gay friends," but quickly changing the subject whenever they start discussing their love life or romantic interests is homophobic.  Real friends don't get to pick and choose what aspects of their friends lives they're open to.  They don't even ask for such a privilege.

Making assumptions about what gay people are like, what they value in their relationships, and what their sex lives are like (and if you're spending that much time thinking about that last one, ew!) is homophobic.  Gay people are people too, and we can be very diverse.  Making assumptions based solely on who we are attracted too is wrong on a number of levels, including the homophobic level.

There are many other such examples.  In short, any way in which someone treats or thinks of an LGBT person differently from other people -- often in ways that are dehumanizing -- is homophobic.

The good news is that people can do something about homophobia.  We just need to work on making people aware of its existence and the need to change the way things are.

Related articles by Zemanta

• International Day Against Homophobia: 17 May (pinkbananaworld.com)
• Making the Small Things Count on International Day Against Homophobia & Transphobia (queerty.com)
• Homophobes, Hypocrites, and Redemption (friends-of-jake.blogspot.com)

Today, my parents (see the picture to the left) drove up from Pennsylvania to spend the day with me.  This weekend was the opening weekend for the Lilac Festival, and Mom decided that she wanted to check it out this year.  Since I usually go every year by myself, I was all for this, and spent a pleasant day with them.

After ascertaining that they would not be here until 12:30pm at the earliest, I arranged to have my parents meet me at Psyschic's Thyme so that I could run in and visit my friends when the shop opened.  This worked out well, as I had already planned on taking my parents to the shop to meet everyone (well, everyone who was working) today.

Once the introductions were done and we had a bit of conversation, I took my parents over to DiBella's for a quick lunch, and then we were off to check out the festivities.  My mother was quite amazed by the festival.  She was not expecting to see something quite on the grand scale as this.  This is because she is used to the Laurel Festival in Wellsboro, which is nice, but much smaller.  So as we walked all along the hill next to Highland Avenue, going from bush to tree to bush, she was impressed with all the colors and varieties of lilacs.

I admit that I found the experience far more enjoyable than when I go alone.  When I'm by myself, I don't spent quite so much time wandering through the lilacs or really appreciate them.  Of course, I also had to keep reminding Mom that no, she could not uproot one of the bushes (like the one that produced the lovely purple ones in the picture) to take home with her.  Of course, she was joking.  Or at least I think she was joking.

After we got done checking out the lovely flowers and the arts and craft fair, I took my parents over to Genesee Valley Park so she could see where I plan to take my sister and her family the evening they come to visit me later this month.  Mom was again quite impressed.  Apparently, she's just not used to city parks the size of the ones we have around here.

It was a wonderful day, if a bit exhausting.  Hopefully, I get plenty of rest tonight, as tomorrow is the Walk to Cure Diabetes.

I love this LOLCat!


see more Lolcats and funny pictures

And if you don't get it, I'm not explaining it to you!

This morning, while checking out Carol Boltz's latest blog post, I saw a link to a "survey" (and I use the term loosely) put out by the Public Advocate of the United States.  Apparently, the PAUS is yet another group of moralizing Christian busy-bodies posing as "defenders of traditional values." I put that in quotes because, given how little integrity they demonstrate in presenting the facts and issues they discuss, I have a hard time buying they'd know a traditional value if it bit them on the butt.  The truth is, they're just a bunch of moralists who want to say what kind of relationships and sexual activities are okay.  They don't care about anything like compassion, integrity, loyalty, hospitality, justice, or anything you might find in the Boy Scout Law, the fruit of the spirit passage in the New Testament, or any other treatise on what it means to be a moral person.

Their "survey," however, is instructive.  It demonstrates just how willing they are to put out leading questions that are worded in such a way that they practically beg to be answered they way PAUS wants people to answer them.  It's much like using the infamous "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" and only giving the options to answer yes or no.  What idiot is going to answer that question "no," even if he's never beat his wife.

So with that in mind, I want to take a moment to examine their five questions, dissect them, and demonstrate just how manipulative and misleading they are.

1. Should homosexuals receive special job rights and force businesses, schools, churches and even daycares to hire and advance homosexuals or face prosecution and multimillion-dollar lawsuits?

I believe that all employers should base their hiring decisions on exactly one thing:  The applicant's ability to perform the duties of the job being applied for.  And that's exactly what non-discrimination legislation is about.  It's not about "special rights."  It's a way of telling employers that, "Hey, if the guy applying for that job happens to be gay and that's the only reason you're not giving it to him, that's discrimination and you're breaking the law."  Personally, I'd add that any employer who turns down a highly candidate for such a reason should not be an employer because they're probably not a very good one.  They certainly don't have the best interests of their business or organization in mind.  That also tends to make them rather immoral, in my book.

But rather than own up to discriminating, engaging in bad hiring practices, and being and incompetent and immoral employer, it's much easier to pretend it's about "special rights" and being "forced" into everything.  No one wants to oppose a victim, so they'd rather play the victim.  And hey, what's a little dishonesty?  Like I said, they're just against sex.

2. Do you support the use of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to fund homosexual "art", so called AIDS-awareness programs and homosexual research grants that are frequently funneled to political advocacy?

I'm a strong believer that all art should be supported, and I find it interesting that these guys are only opposed to "homosexual" art.  I can understand and respect those people who believe that all art should be privately funded (though I disagree vehemently with them) because they're being consistent.  These guys, however, are going for the shock value of funding "gay art."

And I really would like to ask PAUS about what they would do about AIDS?  Just let everyone who becomes infected die?  Not very compassionate.  That's another traditional values failure on their part.

3. Should homosexuality be promoted in school as a healthy lifestyle choice, while information about the life threatening consequences are ignored?

The only life threatening consequences of "homosexuality" are the same life-threatening consequences of that anyone of any sexual orientation potentially faces.  Straight people contract HIV and other STD's as well.  What's more, the approaches to address and decrease those dangers is also the same for gay and heterosexual people alike.  People like the PAUS simply like to pretend that there's bigger risks for gay people.  However, the only support they have for those claims comes from outdated and/or bad (junk) science.

And no one's suggesting that we shouldn't have a frank talk about health risks and ways of preventing illness.  I'm all for talking about the very real risks of sexual activity.  The difference between me and PAUS is that I don't want to use that talk to scare and manipulate (that's another values failure, for those keeping track) people into doing what I want them to do.  I simply want them to be able to make informed decisions.  The PAUS wants them to make the "right" (determined by the PAUS, of course) decision based on misleading or outright false information.

4. Do you support same-sex "marriage" for homosexuals or "marriage-like" rights, like homosexuals being able to adopt children and raise them in their "lifestyle"?

Oh no!  The gays are raising children.  You can almost hear the implied screams of "They're recruiting" buried in this question.  There's just one problem.  There's absolutely zero evidence that a child raised by gay people is any more likely to be gay than those raised by straight people.  And let's be honest here, gay people just aren't going to care whether their kid is straight or gay.  This is more fear-mongering by PAUS.

5.   Should the U.S. Supreme Court overturn traditional marriage between one man and one woman?

The problem with this question is that it ignores the fact that the "traditional family" that people like PAUS keep touting is a fabrication of the 1950's.  People two hundred years ago did not marry for love, something that is big these days.  They often were involved in arranged marriages, and they were often for political reasons.  They also often involved paying a dowry.  Like the bumper sticker says, "I believe in traditional marriage.  How much do you want for your daughter."

In fact, the Bible makes it pretty clear that a one-man, one-woman marriage was far from the only possible or acceptable arrangement.  The number of Biblical heroes -- men established as God-fearing men and mighty instruments of Jehovah's will -- had multiple wives and even concubines.  And to top that off, considering that the only two Biblical prohibitions against polygamy were directed at specific groups of individuals (namely kings and ministers), one could argue that the underlying implication is that polygamy is perfectly acceptable.  Somehow, I don't think the PAUS will be looking to support quite such a "literal" interpretation of those passages, though.  ;)

But the PAUS would rather have you believe that this is the first time our understanding of love, marriage, and relationships has undergone any sort of shift.  This is because they want to let you believe that this will spell certain doom.  If gay people start getting married, existing stable families will magically crumble to dust (I never understood how that's supposed to work, anyway) and no one will ever want to raise a family again.  Because if you let us gay get married, your desire for a spouse and 2.5 kids will get absorbed by the resulting gay mojo that will be released or something.  Hey, the PAUS doesn't need to make sense.  They just need to prey on your fears enough that you do whatever they tell you to.

So there you have it.  That's how moralistic groups that like to pretend they're about "traditional values" spin and manipulate the facts to try and get people to agree with them.  But don't believe it for a second.  You won't find any true morality in them.

I wrote the following entry and posted it to Bloopdiary (when I was still there) on 19 August 2005, when I was still processing through my breakup with Mike, who I had been with for four years.  I recently mentioned this entry to someone else and realized I no longer had a copy online.  So now it's online again.  Enjoy!

As I'm getting settled into my new apartment and finding ways to establish myself in Rochester, I find myself realizing just how little I think of Mike. In some ways, I find myself in that strange state where it just doesn't matter anymore. I've cried my tears, and while I feel the slight ache of being alone once again (and not getting any younger), I have a strange peace about having lost him.

It was a rough journey getting here. I found myself emotionally distraught about the whole thing. I cried so many tears. To be honest, I never realized I could cry so much over the end of a relationship when I was the person to end it. But there you have it. And I think I learned a lot about it. I came to understand one of Freyja's myths a bit better.

When Freyja lost Od, she cried tears of gold. Indeed, according to Snorri, this is why "Freyja's tears" became a kenning for gold. I always found the fact that her tears were gold a mild curiosity. Now I see it as an incredibly profound mystery. And I have a much greater appreciation for the value of grief. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that true grief is a sacred act in its own right. Hence the tears of gold.

I wanted to quit being sad over the breakup. I kept wanting to "move on already." I didn't want to shed any more tears. I was "wasting time." But no, the tears, the sadness, the grief kept coming. And my sweet Lady kept telling me, "No, you need this. Cry your tears. They're my golden tears." So I did the only thing I could do, I cried, and I explored my grief.

Then I realized why I cried so much. I was experience true grief, the kind that only comes when one loves so freely and without reservation, only to lose that love. In effect, I wept bitterly because I loved fully. And there is a certain beauty in that.

You see, I think that's the mistake we too often make. We're too afraid of that kind of grief, so we avoid being so vulnerable. We only love grudgingly, often holding back and never truly letting go. We do that because we think that sense of grief is bad and to be avoided.

After the past couple months, I've come to a different way of thinking. As painful as such sorrow and grief may be, it is in its own way a celebration. My tears were bitter, but they were born of my precious love. I came to understand that as I cherished my love, I could cherish my grief which came as a result of it. In that view, they became bittersweet, and I could see how they really were tears of gold.

I'm not sure many people would understand that. But that's okay. I guess it's one of those things you have to experience and come to understand yourself. Me explaining it just won't do. But for those who do understand, I can just imagine their reaction to reading this.

For the past several years, I've had dreams that fit a certain recurring pattern.  In many dreams, I found myself required to do a task I was entirely unprepared for and lacked the skills to do.  This could be as simple as being required to go on stage and play a part in a play when I'd never learned the lines.  Or this could be as fantastical as me trying to perform some super-human feat in a life-or-death situation.  (Imagine everyone thinking you're superman and expecting you to fly up to catch Lois Lane when you're really just an ordinary human.)  Such dreams often leave me feeling frustrated and disappointed in myself.

I thought of these kinds of dreams after I woke up this morning from another dream.  In many ways, this dream had all the makings to be one of those dreams.  In this dream, however, I was up to the task before me.  And it felt good, if a little weird.  (I mean, the task is so out of character for me.)

In this dream, I walked into an old tavern or saloon.  As I walked through the door, I took in my surroundings.  By the time I reached the table I had picked to sit at, I became aware that everyone in the tavern wanted me dead.  In fact, they were prepared to kill me at any second.  So I did what any self-respecting gunslinger (for apparently, that's exactly what I was) would do:  I killed them first.

Just as I reached my table I drew my trusty guns (with an apparently endless supply of chambered rounds), and began firing in a measured and methodical pattern.  Each shot hit its mark and fell its target on the spot.  Few were able to respond in time before my bullet found a vital organ, and those who did missed.

I was amazed by the calm I felt during the entire experience, as though I was working entirely on automatic pilot the entire time.  In many ways, the entire experience reminded me of Roland from Stephen King's Dark Tower series.  In fact, i almost felt like I was Roland.  (This is interesting because King often compared his gunslingers from that series to the Arthurian knights, with a high code of honor and ethics.)

This was a pleasantly surprising dream in that this is precisely the kind of dream set-up where I'd normally be ill-suited and ill-prepared for the task and I'd know that I'm about to die.  So I felt a certain amount of triumph in the knowledge that I was perfectly capable of handling the situation.

I am a bit creeped out by the fact that the one thing I was capable of accomplishing is killing a room-full of people, though.

I've watched a number of movies that have dealt with the theme of young men coming to terms with being gay.  However, it is the rare movie that explores that theme with the intensity and rawness as Shank, the British film directed by Simon Pearce.  In this film, Pearce gives us a glimpse into the life of Cal, a teenage gang member who is trying to hide his sexual orientaion from his fellow thugs.

The movie quickly introduces us to Cal, who copes with his feelings by engaging in random sexual encounters, drug use, and gang violence.  The first few scenes show the gritty nature of his life in the gang.  However, Cal's life suddenly changes when his best mate, Jonno, and their de facto leader, Nessa, decide to pick on poor Olivier, a French exchange student who is stereotypically and somewhat flamboyantly gay.  In a moment of conscience and fear -- and perhaps seeing too much of himself and his potential fate in Olivier and the treatment he receives -- Cal stops the pair from beating the French boy, allows him to escape, and then abandons his fellow thugs to apologize to Olivier and offer him a lift home.

Cal attempts to return to his gang's hideout later, only to discover that he is not only unwelcome, but an acceptable target for his former comrades' anger and violence.  Cal escapes and returns to Olivier, and the pair soon get involved in a rocky, tenuous relationship.  However, Nessa and the other gang members discover Cal's secret and begin to hunt down the pair.

This movie is a masterful blending of grit (to rival FAQ's and Ethan Mao) and tender sensuality, demonstrating the storm of emotions that Cal experiences as he is tugged in different directions.  All of the actors play their parts well, filling each scene with emotion through words, tone of voice, body gestures, and expression.  Even characters like Nessa, whose deeper motives for her anger and rage towards Cal are beautifully fore-shadowed toward the beginning of the movie, are given a great deal of attention and depth.

One particularly interesting piece of cinematography in this movie was the use of the cell phone video footage. The gang always recorded their acts of violence via cell phone, and this fact was used in the movie to hint at violence to come at times.  It was an interesting way of adding a bit of suspense at critical moments.

My one criticism of this movie would be that there's a bit more synchronicity in the movie than is really reasonable.  For example, it's entirely too convenient that the first sexual encounter Cal has with the movie is with Scott, who later turns out to be one of Olivier's university instructors.  There were other coincidences involving Scott, which I will not go into, as it would reveal too much about how the movie concludes.

As a final note, I would warn readers that this is a very violent movie and even includes sexual violence.  Those who are bothered or emotionally trigger by such things should either skip this one or take appropriate precautions when sitting down to watch it.

When I filled out the online registration form last Wednesday, I was asked to set a fund-raising goal for the Walk to Cure Diabetes.  I decided to go with the recommended individual goal of $100.  When I set it, I never imagined that I would've reached that goal this soon!  I'm grateful to those generous people who have sponsored me already.

However, with more than a month still remaining before the Walk, it wouldn't make sense for me to just quit my fund-raising efforts.  After all, I still have plenty of friends I haven't asked yet.   So with a sense of accomplishment and a desire to press forward, I have decided to double my fund-raising goal.  I figure that since I managed to get enough support to raise $100 in less than a week, it shouldn't be much trouble to raise another $100 in the next month!

I would like to thank all of my current sponsors who have helped me meet my first goal so quickly.  And for those who are still debating about donating, I'd encourage you to give whatever you can.  Even $10 helps!

Thank you for your support.