Animal, Vegetable or Enharmonic Interval

The voice for hopeless semantics

A few thoughts for the National Review

I wrote in to the National Review the other morning.  As you’ll read later in my post, I pepper in a bit of the ultra and moderately conservative rhetoric into my daily dose of ultra to moderately liberal media each day (I like to hear both sides of these pointlessly polarized debates).  I figured that whether they posted my letter or not, I would pop it up onto my blog.  Here ya are (with a link the original editorial piece is below):

In response to http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/299533/devolution-marriage-editors

To the Editors of the National Review,

      While these questions of love and equality through the eyes of one nation sets fire to every fiber of my being - I’m not mad.  And though I’ve hung my head on so many days, ashamed at how a country with such deep, cross-cultural roots and the potential for unprecedented social harmony could continue to stumble in circles, led by some cracked moral compass - I’m not disappointed.  My spirit is aching, my heart is broken, my brain is exhausted – but my faith in you grows stronger each and every day.  You may be asking, “Faith in what, exactly?”  Is it the faith in knowing that people may unequivocally commit to traditional values without serious reflection or asking questions?  Is it the faith in understanding that there is a yin to every yang?  Or is it simply an unwavering faith in humanity – that out of the darkness comes a new dawn; a brand new age of reason and compassion? An age of reason where God is not dead?

      I’m remembering the timeless adage of the old dog and the new trick; timeless because it always seems apt at times like these – when old school will not or cannot compromise in spite of their better selves.  But who can blame them?  Change is hard, especially when the effort it takes to simply engage in the conversation is, well, exhausting.  And at this point, I don’t think I’m the only one who is worn out over the argument of Church V State, no matter whose side you speak with.  I can sympathize with your weariness, but you cannot justify denying anyone a right to happiness and – as I’ll touch on later – opportunity. 

I don’t think it’s unreasonable [and all that difficult] to want to keep religion from having so great an impact on politics and legislation for much the same reason it was important to give everyone the right to celebrate and practice their own religious customs.  Hypothetically speaking, I suppose we could have stopped with the settling of the Puritans, founded the United States of Scorned English Protestants, and done away with the freedom to express our own unique faiths entirely, but that would defeat the purpose of why we came here in the first place.  The idea today is much the same as it was back then, “If I can’t change your religious institution, then at least allow me the right to practice my own.”  The legalization of gay marriage doesn’t change your Christian, Jewish, or Muslim Institution, nor does it mean you are required to marry someone of the same sex – in fact, it has no bearing on your faith whatsoever!  To prohibit gay marriage, however, infringes on my civil liberties and flies directly in the face of the same freedom our country has mercifully granted you to practice your religion and your ideals.

With that said, I’m not naïve.  While our nation’s responsibility is to protect and celebrate our human rights, religion – in one way or another – has either been at the center of campaign polemics or has surreptitiously shaped legislation since the time that this country was founded.  It quietly and not-so-quietly defines us, whether we are for it or against it.  But while our Democratic system has had to go through quite the overhaul since the late 1700’s, religion – on almost every front – has not.  As if the saying goes, “The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry…so try and try again.”  Religion is invaluable and I don’t mean to come off sounding too critical, but it does have a tendency to devalue other people’s convictions and humanity despite its best efforts to stress compassion and community.  It’s the hypocrisy that drives me crazy and that same hypocrisy appeared in a paragraph I read in a letter from your collective editors:

All people, whatever their sexual orientation, have equal dignity, worth, and basic rights, by virtue of being human beings. We have previously explained why we believe that this premise does not entail the conclusion that the marriage laws should be changed (and defended our views from critics). For now, we will merely repeat one point: The only good reason to have marriage laws in the first place — to have the state recognize a class of relationships called “marriage” out of all the possible strong bonds that adults can form — is to link erotic desire to the upbringing of the children it can produce. 

            While you haven’t gone so far as to say that marriage is about procreation before any real, true love or deep connection between man and woman (as I’ve heard many others suggest for some inexplicable reason), I’m curious how you might recommend preventing dissenters from entering into this ‘recognized class of relationships’?  By dissenters, I mean married women who can’t conceive, but are admonished by the Catholic Church for researching in vitro fertilization in order to satisfy their desire to have and raise children.  I mean the men and women who enter into a marriage with the understanding that neither one ever wants to have children and prevent conception by using contraception, abstaining from sex, or (worst case scenario for the best of any practicing Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc.) abortion.  I mean the men and women who ultimately get divorced and break their vows to one another, creating a familial rift and emotional disconnect while trying to raise children in a relatively dysfunctional environment.

            Perhaps we’ve lost sight of the point.  If the idea is really to link erotic desire and love with the intention of rearing children in the process, then humor me and consider this radical, new idea: Support gay marriage for the sake of supporting the many children left to the state after their drug-addled, dead-beat parents lost custody and who need a happy, healthy couple willing to raise them.  Or you can support gay marriage because that same-sex couple is a great alternative to raise the child of a young, unwed, pregnant teen in lieu of her having an abortion - a procedural option of far greater retribution and scorn in the eyes of the Church.  Or you can support gay marriage because many same-sex couples have as much the same desire to raise children as the infertile woman or man that I mentioned earlier (neither one has a biological shot of procreating, but their want-to is undeniable and should be admired).

            Or you can support gay marriage because it’s simply the right thing to do and because we all have a right to life, liberty, and our own pursuit of happiness, not the least of which is love.  Then again, I wonder if it’s the word “marriage” that gets us so upset – as if we can’t separate the secular from the religious definition.  Perhaps the idea of marriage is evolving even faster than we are and we’re simply too slow or too stubborn to catch up.  Whatever the case, you – editors of The National Review - are intelligent enough.  I began reading your website to offset some of the other online publications I subscribe to at the request of my father (another smart man).  And while I’ve managed to see a few things from your perspective, this is one issue where I know that you are dead wrong, but still have faith that you might come around one day and change your opinion on the matter. 

            That is unless, of course, you’re an old dog.  In which case, I would suggest tucking your tail between your legs and getting back into that proverbial cage to watch this wonderful new world pass you by.

With love,

                                                                                                            A Reader

Charlottesville knows all about the 1st amendment…U-S-A! U-S-A! (Taken with instagram)

Charlottesville knows all about the 1st amendment…U-S-A! U-S-A! (Taken with instagram)

I’m nuts about Raleigh…hardy har har! (Taken with instagram)

I’m nuts about Raleigh…hardy har har! (Taken with instagram)

B-day at the aquarium. AWESOME! (Taken with instagram)

B-day at the aquarium. AWESOME! (Taken with instagram)

Sexy Times Pt. I Finally!  A book about rats in polyester pants! I bumped into an old friend of mine late last year and, after the usual, polite chit-chat about how life is good and things are going well and how the holidays are fast approaching, she asked if I was reading anything worth recommending.  The answer was “No” - disappointingly and unequivocally “No”.  In fact, I hadn’t read anything all that affecting since reading the 60’s cult-classic Stranger in a Strange Land and that was way back at the beginning of LAST year.  I suppose the exceptions were the natural science books I love digging into, but most non-fiction of the science kind is exciting in its own geeky way and that’s not exactly a ringing endorsement when someone’s asking for a captivating new read.  It was that last point about geeky science books that had my friend so eager to suggest Bonk - because what could be more awesome than a book that touts the tagline, “The Curious Coupling of Science and Sex”?  Rhetorical question - the answer is nothing.  Well, I might be exaggerating a bit, but so long as science and the natural world continue to peak my interests, the science of sex might be the most exciting and stimulating of them all!  EPIC MINDGASM! Bonk, written by Stiff author Mary Roach, at the very least is smart, funny, and original (all words commonly used to describe lowbrow comedy sitcoms just before fall sweeps), but what’s most endearing is how unpretentious the book reads while still digging deep into some complicated scientific research.  That’s the trouble with non-fiction - it’s tough to be original when you’re just relaying the facts and even harder to simplify the information without jeopardizing the integrity of the subject.  Roach is able to do both and I’ll go one step further in applauding her for her willingness to go the extra mile in the spirit of investigative reporting of the sexy kind (see: “coitus” in an MRI machine with spouse).  I realize that most people might not be as adventuresome as Roach in unlocking the mysteries of sex, but even the most prudish can discretely read this book in the comfort of their own bedroom.  And once that step is made, our author takes over from there, guiding you through taboo topics with great insights, illustrative anecdotes, and a wonderful sense of humor.  She eases your anxiety and then DESTROYS your preconceptions!  Your mind will be blown by your new-found open mindedness!   And for that reason I believe books like this are important.  I’m of the opinion that people (at least here in America) had taken a step back during the 40’s and 50’s once sexuality became a hush-hush thing and, putting the sexual revolution of the 60’s aside, it’s something we haven’t totally recovered from.  While some continue to push for better sex education for the sake of our youth and more open and honest conversations about sexuality within the general public (talk of STDs still makes even me blush), there are many who are just as vehemently opposed and perpetuate the idea that such talk is lewd, inappropriate and even taboo.   Though everyone is entitled to their opinion, I find it difficult to extricate sex from the conversation when it is such an important part of our existence!  For that reason, Mary Roach has done a great service in writing a book that anyone will enjoy reading; a book that is so stacked with exciting and interesting tidbits of information that maybe, just maybe, it can help ease people into talking about sex without shame.  It was a tall order, but Roach delivered, and I would recommend this book to anyone and everyone.  Even you, Mom…even you.* *Seriously though, Ma, you don’t have to read it.  But might I suggest, There’s a Boy in the Girls’ Bathroom?  Scandalous…

Sexy Times Pt. I

Finally!  A book about rats in polyester pants!

I bumped into an old friend of mine late last year and, after the usual, polite chit-chat about how life is good and things are going well and how the holidays are fast approaching, she asked if I was reading anything worth recommending.  The answer was “No” - disappointingly and unequivocally “No”.  In fact, I hadn’t read anything all that affecting since reading the 60’s cult-classic Stranger in a Strange Land and that was way back at the beginning of LAST year.  I suppose the exceptions were the natural science books I love digging into, but most non-fiction of the science kind is exciting in its own geeky way and that’s not exactly a ringing endorsement when someone’s asking for a captivating new read.  It was that last point about geeky science books that had my friend so eager to suggest Bonk - because what could be more awesome than a book that touts the tagline, “The Curious Coupling of Science and Sex”?  Rhetorical question - the answer is nothing.  Well, I might be exaggerating a bit, but so long as science and the natural world continue to peak my interests, the science of sex might be the most exciting and stimulating of them all!  EPIC MINDGASM!

Bonk, written by Stiff author Mary Roach, at the very least is smart, funny, and original (all words commonly used to describe lowbrow comedy sitcoms just before fall sweeps), but what’s most endearing is how unpretentious the book reads while still digging deep into some complicated scientific research.  That’s the trouble with non-fiction - it’s tough to be original when you’re just relaying the facts and even harder to simplify the information without jeopardizing the integrity of the subject.  Roach is able to do both and I’ll go one step further in applauding her for her willingness to go the extra mile in the spirit of investigative reporting of the sexy kind (see: “coitus” in an MRI machine with spouse).  I realize that most people might not be as adventuresome as Roach in unlocking the mysteries of sex, but even the most prudish can discretely read this book in the comfort of their own bedroom.  And once that step is made, our author takes over from there, guiding you through taboo topics with great insights, illustrative anecdotes, and a wonderful sense of humor.  She eases your anxiety and then DESTROYS your preconceptions!  Your mind will be blown by your new-found open mindedness!  

And for that reason I believe books like this are important.  I’m of the opinion that people (at least here in America) had taken a step back during the 40’s and 50’s once sexuality became a hush-hush thing and, putting the sexual revolution of the 60’s aside, it’s something we haven’t totally recovered from.  While some continue to push for better sex education for the sake of our youth and more open and honest conversations about sexuality within the general public (talk of STDs still makes even me blush), there are many who are just as vehemently opposed and perpetuate the idea that such talk is lewd, inappropriate and even taboo.  

Though everyone is entitled to their opinion, I find it difficult to extricate sex from the conversation when it is such an important part of our existence!  For that reason, Mary Roach has done a great service in writing a book that anyone will enjoy reading; a book that is so stacked with exciting and interesting tidbits of information that maybe, just maybe, it can help ease people into talking about sex without shame.  It was a tall order, but Roach delivered, and I would recommend this book to anyone and everyone.  Even you, Mom…even you.*

*Seriously though, Ma, you don’t have to read it.  But might I suggest, There’s a Boy in the Girls’ Bathroom?  Scandalous…

To all you paraskevidekatriaphobics: Happy Friday the 13th! Carpe Die! I mean, “Diem”…my bad. (Taken with instagram)

To all you paraskevidekatriaphobics: Happy Friday the 13th! Carpe Die! I mean, “Diem”…my bad. (Taken with instagram)

The Mysterious Case of your Missing Appendage - Fun with Phantom Limbs! Fun?  Well, not really.  And to be quite honest, I’m not sure why I started fixating on this head-scratching topic, but it turns out our brains have the tendency to fixate on much more than just an obnoxiously catchy song or that thing you forgot to buy at the store (Note to self: Remember to write down that I need to start writing things down…).  People have been finding ways to burn brain cells and exhaust the psychological threshold for centuries.  From the first sip of wine to Huxley’s unlocked doors of perception to late-night, college cram sessions to working a tiresome nine-to-five - it’s amazing our brains aren’t so fried that we forget who the 27th U.S. President was (Wikipedia says it was Taft, but you probably already knew that).  But at least trying to remember where you left your car keys isn’t putting you through any true, physical pain.  Because when you give up your left arm to get those Lady Gaga tickets you wanted so badly, your brain is the last to know.  And now your brain is pissed. Sort of. The idea of the phantom limb sounds like it would be ripe for analogies and metaphors.  Originally, I was going to chase a familiar concept in Consciousness versus Conscience, or the idea of what we innately know to be true without having to reason (“This is my right hand and this papercut really stings…”) versus what we’ve reasoned to be righteous and true, whether logical or not, no matter the circumstance (“I have no right hand, but I swear it hurts!”).  This kind of philosophical waxing is right in my wheelhouse, but it felt like a stretch and, frankly, seemed unfair to make the comparison between seemingly phantasmagorical pain and moral fortitude (Phantom Limb Pain: Bad; Conscience: Really not such a bad thing).  But after digging into the topic a bit more, I realized that it was strangely becoming an issue of ethics and morality, but in a more disturbing way. Almost 90% of amputees report some kind of Phantom Limb Pain (PLP).  Although the percentage is so high it seems impossible to refute its existence and effects, it has been and continues to be perplexing because, well, an amputated limb does not exist - at least not anymore.  The first reported case of PLP was made back in 1500’s by a French Military surgeon named Ambroise Pare, but it was not until almost 400 years later, in 1872, that Military surgeon Silas Weir Mitchell coined the term “phantom limb” (Mitchell was working at Philadelphia’s “Stump Hospital” during the Civil War).  It’s not hard to see why so much time elapsed between when the first case was reported to when the condition was given a somewhat clinical term – explaining the unexplainable has always been difficult to quantify much less identify (When’s the last time you saw a ghost?).  But strangest of all is that this seemingly complicated problem could have such a simple solution, and one that wouldn’t come for another century. The man with the ingenious idea was Dr. V.S. Ramachandran of the University of California in San Diego.  One of Ramachandran’s patients came in complaining of pain where his arm and hand used to be.  He likened the sensation to a hand being clenched so tightly that it was digging fingernails into the palm.  Though the patient was fully aware that he had no fist to clench, Ramachandran suspected that the patient’s brain was the one out of the loop.  The idea is that your brain and the rest of your body work closely together in figuring out the perception of your physical body, and in this case, the brain, after networking for so long with your limbs, isn’t getting the memo that it’s not there anymore (“Can you hear me now?”).  Ramachandran came up with what is now known as the “mirror treatment”.  Basically, you place a mirror inside a cardboard box, place your existing limb inside of the box and the reflection of your limb rests visibly in the place where your amputated limb USED to be.  Basically this devious doctor is tricking your brain into thinking you have two functional limbs of the same kind.  In 2007, a study done at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in D.C. found that 100% of patients who were given the mirror treatment reported less PLP than groups treated solely by using mental visualization or a “closed box” mirror treatment.  This finding was encouraging when you consider that the alternative remedy was prescribing pain medications which, not surprisingly, would lead to a high percentage of pain killer abuse in veterans who had been suffering from PLP.  It seemed Dr. Ramachandran had achieved the first “successful amputation of a phantom limb”.  Go figure. By trying to tie in my original idea of Consciousness V Conscience and how I might relate it to phantom limbs, I stumbled onto a few psychological therapies that mercifully knocked me off track.  There is a therapy called desensitization therapy that is similar to the mirror treatment, but focuses on psychological disorders and phobias (If you’ve got a fear of spiders, I’ll teach you how to center yourself and then chuck you in a room full of spiders.  It’s not that cruel, but you get the idea).  However, the content and focus of one particular therapy reminded me just how far we are willing to go to chop off that limb just to spite ourselves; conversion therapy - the therapy that takes the “gay” in you and makes it “straight” (See? Abracadabra…).  If you are willing to have certain parts of your body hooked up to an electro-shock device or ingest nausea-inducing drugs while you take a glance at some homoerotic pornography, you might stand a chance at changing your sexual orientation and finding some kind of spiritual redemption (or so says conversion therapy).  Now there are less brutal ways of applying this form of therapy and to be fair, as is mentioned by the American Psychological Association according to their policy on conversion therapy, psychiatrists are asked to “…refrain from discriminatory practices in their work, to recognize cultural differences, including those due to sexual orientation, and to respect individuals’ right to self-determination.”  The point being made is that a person’s spiritual or religious convictions might be even more important to them than their own sexual identity, so those beliefs need to be respected and taken into account. But while psychiatrists are being held accountable for how they treat patients and are asked to be mindful of a person’s religious beliefs and practices, there are still groups that exercise their right to rub your nose in their moral-righteousness (National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality) and they are willing to help you rid yourself of that unwanted, same–sex attraction.  And so long as there is ignorance, there will always be those that naively think they can cure themselves and their communities of homosexuality (and so long as people are born into this world as homosexuals, the cycle will continue).  The problem, which I hope seems clear to most, isn’t that people can have a same-sex attraction, but that people have a difficult time accepting themselves or those around them.  There are groups that aim to help those trying to make sense of their sexuality (www.itgetsbetter.org www.thetrevorproject.org) and offer an outlet for the confused and persecuted (What a Christian thing to do…), but that’s just the icepack after the punches have been thrown.  How do we approach the groups bullying their communities into conformity, into misguidedness?  How do you speak to someone that doesn’t want to listen?  How is it that this is as far as we’ve come with all that we know and all of the rights we’ve been given?  If the mirror treatment taught me anything, it’s that we need to rewire our brains; we need to adapt and learn how to work with who we are.  Perhaps Dr. Ramachandran was onto something when he asked his patient to look at his reflection and to study it.  Maybe there are those that need to take a long look in the mirror, really see themselves for who they are and think deeply about how they perceive others; think hard about how little difference there is between one another and try to rid themselves of whatever burden it is they carry around - because maybe only then can we have a successful amputation of sexual preconceptions and human ignorance from our culture.  It’s a thought. References: The Moth – Aimee Mullins: A Work in Progress (Podcast) – CHECK THIS OUT! http://www.aimeemullins.com/gallery/index.php http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071123195218.htm  http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101788221 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100806125508.htm http://www.csulb.edu/~tstevens/Desensit.htm http://drdoughaldeman.com/doc/GayRightsPatientRights.pdf www.itgetsbetter.org www.thetrevorproject.org

The Mysterious Case of your Missing Appendage - Fun with Phantom Limbs!

Fun?  Well, not really.  And to be quite honest, I’m not sure why I started fixating on this head-scratching topic, but it turns out our brains have the tendency to fixate on much more than just an obnoxiously catchy song or that thing you forgot to buy at the store (Note to self: Remember to write down that I need to start writing things down…).  People have been finding ways to burn brain cells and exhaust the psychological threshold for centuries.  From the first sip of wine to Huxley’s unlocked doors of perception to late-night, college cram sessions to working a tiresome nine-to-five - it’s amazing our brains aren’t so fried that we forget who the 27th U.S. President was (Wikipedia says it was Taft, but you probably already knew that).  But at least trying to remember where you left your car keys isn’t putting you through any true, physical pain.  Because when you give up your left arm to get those Lady Gaga tickets you wanted so badly, your brain is the last to know.  And now your brain is pissed.

Sort of.

The idea of the phantom limb sounds like it would be ripe for analogies and metaphors.  Originally, I was going to chase a familiar concept in Consciousness versus Conscience, or the idea of what we innately know to be true without having to reason (“This is my right hand and this papercut really stings…”) versus what we’ve reasoned to be righteous and true, whether logical or not, no matter the circumstance (“I have no right hand, but I swear it hurts!”).  This kind of philosophical waxing is right in my wheelhouse, but it felt like a stretch and, frankly, seemed unfair to make the comparison between seemingly phantasmagorical pain and moral fortitude (Phantom Limb Pain: Bad; Conscience: Really not such a bad thing).  But after digging into the topic a bit more, I realized that it was strangely becoming an issue of ethics and morality, but in a more disturbing way.

Almost 90% of amputees report some kind of Phantom Limb Pain (PLP).  Although the percentage is so high it seems impossible to refute its existence and effects, it has been and continues to be perplexing because, well, an amputated limb does not exist - at least not anymore.  The first reported case of PLP was made back in 1500’s by a French Military surgeon named Ambroise Pare, but it was not until almost 400 years later, in 1872, that Military surgeon Silas Weir Mitchell coined the term “phantom limb” (Mitchell was working at Philadelphia’s “Stump Hospital” during the Civil War).  It’s not hard to see why so much time elapsed between when the first case was reported to when the condition was given a somewhat clinical term – explaining the unexplainable has always been difficult to quantify much less identify (When’s the last time you saw a ghost?).  But strangest of all is that this seemingly complicated problem could have such a simple solution, and one that wouldn’t come for another century.

The man with the ingenious idea was Dr. V.S. Ramachandran of the University of California in San Diego.  One of Ramachandran’s patients came in complaining of pain where his arm and hand used to be.  He likened the sensation to a hand being clenched so tightly that it was digging fingernails into the palm.  Though the patient was fully aware that he had no fist to clench, Ramachandran suspected that the patient’s brain was the one out of the loop.  The idea is that your brain and the rest of your body work closely together in figuring out the perception of your physical body, and in this case, the brain, after networking for so long with your limbs, isn’t getting the memo that it’s not there anymore (“Can you hear me now?”). 

Ramachandran came up with what is now known as the “mirror treatment”.  Basically, you place a mirror inside a cardboard box, place your existing limb inside of the box and the reflection of your limb rests visibly in the place where your amputated limb USED to be.  Basically this devious doctor is tricking your brain into thinking you have two functional limbs of the same kind.  In 2007, a study done at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in D.C. found that 100% of patients who were given the mirror treatment reported less PLP than groups treated solely by using mental visualization or a “closed box” mirror treatment.  This finding was encouraging when you consider that the alternative remedy was prescribing pain medications which, not surprisingly, would lead to a high percentage of pain killer abuse in veterans who had been suffering from PLP.  It seemed Dr. Ramachandran had achieved the first “successful amputation of a phantom limb”.  Go figure.

By trying to tie in my original idea of Consciousness V Conscience and how I might relate it to phantom limbs, I stumbled onto a few psychological therapies that mercifully knocked me off track.  There is a therapy called desensitization therapy that is similar to the mirror treatment, but focuses on psychological disorders and phobias (If you’ve got a fear of spiders, I’ll teach you how to center yourself and then chuck you in a room full of spiders.  It’s not that cruel, but you get the idea).  However, the content and focus of one particular therapy reminded me just how far we are willing to go to chop off that limb just to spite ourselves; conversion therapy - the therapy that takes the “gay” in you and makes it “straight” (See? Abracadabra…).  If you are willing to have certain parts of your body hooked up to an electro-shock device or ingest nausea-inducing drugs while you take a glance at some homoerotic pornography, you might stand a chance at changing your sexual orientation and finding some kind of spiritual redemption (or so says conversion therapy).  Now there are less brutal ways of applying this form of therapy and to be fair, as is mentioned by the American Psychological Association according to their policy on conversion therapy, psychiatrists are asked to “…refrain from discriminatory practices in their work, to recognize cultural differences, including those due to sexual orientation, and to respect individuals’ right to self-determination.”  The point being made is that a person’s spiritual or religious convictions might be even more important to them than their own sexual identity, so those beliefs need to be respected and taken into account.

But while psychiatrists are being held accountable for how they treat patients and are asked to be mindful of a person’s religious beliefs and practices, there are still groups that exercise their right to rub your nose in their moral-righteousness (National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality) and they are willing to help you rid yourself of that unwanted, same–sex attraction.  And so long as there is ignorance, there will always be those that naively think they can cure themselves and their communities of homosexuality (and so long as people are born into this world as homosexuals, the cycle will continue).  The problem, which I hope seems clear to most, isn’t that people can have a same-sex attraction, but that people have a difficult time accepting themselves or those around them. 

There are groups that aim to help those trying to make sense of their sexuality (www.itgetsbetter.org www.thetrevorproject.org) and offer an outlet for the confused and persecuted (What a Christian thing to do…), but that’s just the icepack after the punches have been thrown.  How do we approach the groups bullying their communities into conformity, into misguidedness?  How do you speak to someone that doesn’t want to listen?  How is it that this is as far as we’ve come with all that we know and all of the rights we’ve been given?  If the mirror treatment taught me anything, it’s that we need to rewire our brains; we need to adapt and learn how to work with who we are.  Perhaps Dr. Ramachandran was onto something when he asked his patient to look at his reflection and to study it.  Maybe there are those that need to take a long look in the mirror, really see themselves for who they are and think deeply about how they perceive others; think hard about how little difference there is between one another and try to rid themselves of whatever burden it is they carry around - because maybe only then can we have a successful amputation of sexual preconceptions and human ignorance from our culture.  It’s a thought.

References:

The Moth – Aimee Mullins: A Work in Progress (Podcast) – CHECK THIS OUT!

http://www.aimeemullins.com/gallery/index.php

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071123195218.htm 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101788221

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100806125508.htm

http://www.csulb.edu/~tstevens/Desensit.htm

http://drdoughaldeman.com/doc/GayRightsPatientRights.pdf

www.itgetsbetter.org

www.thetrevorproject.org

BEST ALBUMS OF 2011!* *According to me. If you were to ask me how I felt about this past year as whole, I’d probably say, “Uh…um…hmm….Uhhhhh….”  And then you’d say, “Use your words, Matt.”  And I’d reply, “Well, it’s complicated buuuut…..If I had to sum up how I felt in one word, it would be ‘grateful’.”  Very grateful, indeed.  Grateful for the opportunity to tour the country and see wonderful places I never thought I’d see (like Surprise, AZ which lived up to its nominal reputation); grateful that I released two records (one of my own, the other with friends - Tony Lucca and Jay Nash); grateful for the people I’ve worked with and continue to work with; grateful for good health at the end of the year; grateful for the love of family, friends, and cat; grateful even for mistakes and poor decisions that ultimately teach us a great deal.   And, of course, I can’t forget to thank all of you who continue to support me in my artistic efforts, buy records, come out to shows, speak up through social networking, and tolerate my misguided attempts at creating video updates that are usually very (what’s the word?) weird.  So thanks, everyone!  And now ENOUGH ABOUT THAT!  Below are my picks for Top 10 Albums of the year.  My number 1 may surprise you, but if you listen to what I considered to be the single of the year - “Surgeon” - it just might make more sense.  Happy Holidays, all! Top 10 Albums of 2011: 1. Strange Mercy - St. Vincent 2. 21 - Adele 3. Bon Iver - Bon Iver 4. James Blake - James Blake 5. The Hunter - Mastodon 6. A Creature I Don’t Know - Laura Marling 7. Wasting Light - Foo Fighters 8. New Blood - Peter Gabriel 9. Barton Hollow - The Civil Wars 10. Ghost Town - Owen

BEST ALBUMS OF 2011!*

*According to me.

If you were to ask me how I felt about this past year as whole, I’d probably say, “Uh…um…hmm….Uhhhhh….”  And then you’d say, “Use your words, Matt.”  And I’d reply, “Well, it’s complicated buuuut…..If I had to sum up how I felt in one word, it would be ‘grateful’.”  Very grateful, indeed.  Grateful for the opportunity to tour the country and see wonderful places I never thought I’d see (like Surprise, AZ which lived up to its nominal reputation); grateful that I released two records (one of my own, the other with friends - Tony Lucca and Jay Nash); grateful for the people I’ve worked with and continue to work with; grateful for good health at the end of the year; grateful for the love of family, friends, and cat; grateful even for mistakes and poor decisions that ultimately teach us a great deal.  

And, of course, I can’t forget to thank all of you who continue to support me in my artistic efforts, buy records, come out to shows, speak up through social networking, and tolerate my misguided attempts at creating video updates that are usually very (what’s the word?) weird.  So thanks, everyone!  And now ENOUGH ABOUT THAT!  Below are my picks for Top 10 Albums of the year.  My number 1 may surprise you, but if you listen to what I considered to be the single of the year - “Surgeon” - it just might make more sense.  Happy Holidays, all!

Top 10 Albums of 2011:

1. Strange Mercy - St. Vincent

2. 21 - Adele

3. Bon Iver - Bon Iver

4. James Blake - James Blake

5. The Hunter - Mastodon

6. A Creature I Don’t Know - Laura Marling

7. Wasting Light - Foo Fighters

8. New Blood - Peter Gabriel

9. Barton Hollow - The Civil Wars

10. Ghost Town - Owen

Adaptive Radiation is so Punk Rock, you know what I mean?  Sort of?  Yea, I suppose it could be a stretch, but hear me out!  Really!  This is verrrrry interesting…  I’ve had my nose fixed deep in a book about evolution and island biogeography (and other things that make for great first date conversations) and the concept of adaptive radiation was presented using the tenrecs of Madagascar (as wonderful a place as the Galapagos for island biogeography research).  Never seen a tenrec?  Neither have I, but if you google an image you will be surprised by their “cuteness”.  That’s the scientific term for their looks. Tenrecs, benefiting from lack of predation on the island, have thrived and there are approximately 34 different species of tenrecs!  Much like Darwin’s finches who, though part of the same family, developed different shaped beaks per each species to specialize in eating a particular food source as well as eliminate the odds of fighting for space and good eats with other types of finches.  That is thanks to adaptive radiation or convergent evolution - the idea that members of the same family are afforded the chance to develop differences among themselves to lessen competition and ensure that species survival.  Pretty cool stuff.  So what does that have to do with punk rock or Animal of The Muppets? Well, consider MUSIC our Kingdom; POPULAR MUSIC our Class; ROCK AND ROLL our Superfamily; PUNK ROCK our Family.  We’ll pretend also that New York City is our own personal Madagascar - an island unto itself.  Tired of competing with the species known as the Singer/Songwriters of the Lower East Side (Paul Simon, you son of a…)?  How could you - you shaggy haired, angst-driven, alcohol induced music enthusiasts - make your mark in the Kingdom of Music?  Television, Patti Smith and others decided that they could start their own family, take over certain venues and attract a different crowd of people entirely.  From there, you find different species of the family PUNK ROCK evolving - The Ramones, The Stooges, Angel and the Snake, etc.  It was survival of the fittest and while I agree that the nonconformity and DIY nature of Punk Rockers led to their evolution, I’d hate to tell them that they are all a part of Mr. Darwin’s popular theory of Natural Selection. Animal is the ultimate rock n’ roll puppet.  The Muppets defined the family that is POPULAR PUPPETRY and I’m just happy to see them hitting the big screen again!  Sure I might have stretched my unevolved theory into including The Muppets for the sake of putting Animal’s picture on my page, but who cares?  The next generation will be better for having seen a green frog share a special love with a grossly self-involved pig and that, my friends, might lead to a whole other conversation about where evolution is headed.  Happy Thanksgiving!

Adaptive Radiation is so Punk Rock, you know what I mean?  Sort of?  Yea, I suppose it could be a stretch, but hear me out!  Really!  This is verrrrry interesting…  I’ve had my nose fixed deep in a book about evolution and island biogeography (and other things that make for great first date conversations) and the concept of adaptive radiation was presented using the tenrecs of Madagascar (as wonderful a place as the Galapagos for island biogeography research).  Never seen a tenrec?  Neither have I, but if you google an image you will be surprised by their “cuteness”.  That’s the scientific term for their looks.

Tenrecs, benefiting from lack of predation on the island, have thrived and there are approximately 34 different species of tenrecs!  Much like Darwin’s finches who, though part of the same family, developed different shaped beaks per each species to specialize in eating a particular food source as well as eliminate the odds of fighting for space and good eats with other types of finches.  That is thanks to adaptive radiation or convergent evolution - the idea that members of the same family are afforded the chance to develop differences among themselves to lessen competition and ensure that species survival.  Pretty cool stuff.  So what does that have to do with punk rock or Animal of The Muppets?

Well, consider MUSIC our Kingdom; POPULAR MUSIC our Class; ROCK AND ROLL our Superfamily; PUNK ROCK our Family.  We’ll pretend also that New York City is our own personal Madagascar - an island unto itself.  Tired of competing with the species known as the Singer/Songwriters of the Lower East Side (Paul Simon, you son of a…)?  How could you - you shaggy haired, angst-driven, alcohol induced music enthusiasts - make your mark in the Kingdom of Music?  Television, Patti Smith and others decided that they could start their own family, take over certain venues and attract a different crowd of people entirely.  From there, you find different species of the family PUNK ROCK evolving - The Ramones, The Stooges, Angel and the Snake, etc.  It was survival of the fittest and while I agree that the nonconformity and DIY nature of Punk Rockers led to their evolution, I’d hate to tell them that they are all a part of Mr. Darwin’s popular theory of Natural Selection.

Animal is the ultimate rock n’ roll puppet.  The Muppets defined the family that is POPULAR PUPPETRY and I’m just happy to see them hitting the big screen again!  Sure I might have stretched my unevolved theory into including The Muppets for the sake of putting Animal’s picture on my page, but who cares?  The next generation will be better for having seen a green frog share a special love with a grossly self-involved pig and that, my friends, might lead to a whole other conversation about where evolution is headed.  Happy Thanksgiving!

Not Good Enough

The college sports world always seems to find itself steeped in controversy.  Through the last few years alone, we saw USC vacate wins from a National Championship season thanks to improper benefits received by Reggie Bush followed by an investigation and then subsequent resignation of Jim Tressel from Ohio State thanks to improper benefits received by…well…practically half of his starters including Terrelle Pryor.  Even the term “student-athlete” has become controversial in and of itself over the last decade.  And how does this BCS Bowl System work and where are those millions of dollars in bowl earnings allocated by season’s end?  College sports - football in particular - has and will continue to be a hotbed of touchy issues that makes for great water-cooler blabber and, most times, meaningless arguments.

Joe Paterno, the iconic head coach of the Penn State Nittany Lions and winningest coach of all time in Division I Football, is worthy of the respect and admiration by his piers and the praise heaped on by his loyal following at Happy Valley.  Even coaching in his 62nd season, he has already been inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame and is boasting an 8-1 record atop the Big 10 with a great shot at winning yet another Big 10 championship.  Though I never graduated from Penn State myself, I too have come to appreciate all that Paterno has achieved in his storied career and find it hard to picture a College Football season moving forward without him.

That said, Penn State University and College Football should think about moving forward without him.

Former PSU Defensive Coordinator Jerry Sandusky has been charged with 40 counts of sexual abuse-related charges while AD Tim Curley and VP Gary Schultz are charged with perjury linked to a cover-up of an incident that took place between Sandusky and a 10 year old boy.  Sandusky, who worked with at-risk kids through his Second Mile charity, is said to have abused or made sexual advances on eight boys between 1994 and 2009.  Curley and Schultz are accused of not reporting an incident (that took place in 2002 and was witnessed by a former graduate assistant) to the proper authorities and could each face up 7 years in prison if convicted.  The former graduate assistant said that he first reported the incident to Paterno who then brought the information to Curley and Schultz to be dealt with.

No charges have been filed against Joe Paterno and in a statement said of the graduate assistant’s report that he “at no time related to me the very specific actions contained in the grand jury report.”  He also said that he “did what I was supposed to do with the one charge brought to my attention” referring to his reporting the incident to his superiors at the very least, while neglecting to contact the police (a Pennsylvania state law).  It seems unlikely that anything will happen to Paterno and that, for me, is part of the problem.

Debates rage on about college athletes being paid or accepting improper benefits or the monopoly that is the NCAA and big bowl games and so on and so forth - the discussion is harmless and really doesn’t have all that much of an impact on the players or the school unless, of course, they’re caught.  When they’re caught, the talk over the NCAA’s judicial power (judge and jury) and the hypocrisy that exists in college sports becomes a hot topic once more and, at the end of day, we move on and find that there are far more important things to be concerned with.  Like our nation’s economic state or the idea of pulling our troops out of Afghanistan by year’s end.  Like looking for a job or wondering how we can help the victims of the earthquake in Turkey.  Like children who are sexually abused and the monsters that cover up the crime.

Oh…sorry.  We seem to be talking about college football again.

I don’t want to hear any apologists.  It’s rare that I ever make a statement so demonstrative - I like to try to see things from another perspective, but this is different.  I don’t care what side of the fence you’re on when we’re talking about all of the other college sport short-comings and controversial allegations - this is disturbing and more than just the AD and VP need to be held accountable for the covering up what happened in back in 2002.

I was insulted by Paterno’s statement (a la Scott Paterno who is serving as his father’s spokesman) and I’d be even more beside myself if he really believes he did everything he could concerning the accusations made against Sandusky.  It’s confusing when you read that he was unaware of the specifics of the incident and it’s even harder to picture what the graduate assistant could have said that might have sounded so vague, “Uh, Coach Paterno…I saw something inappropriate in the locker room between Sandusky and…uh…someone else.”

Care to be more specific?

“No.”

Good enough!  I’ll make a note of it and we’ll move on.

There is no point in digging deeper into why Schultz and Curley covered up for Sandusky - whether it was for the sake of saving face, protecting a dear friend and employee (which I find hard to believe), or because they simply didn’t care - none of that matters at this point.  So long as we know for certain that they knew, they should be held responsible and convicted.  People, and the jury especially, are going to want to know what they knew and when they knew it and I’m sure the answers will eventually bubble up to the surface whether willingly or not, but what happens to Paterno?

Is it too far-fetched to believe he’s going to get a pass on this one?  Not necessarily.  Does he owe us and, more importantly, thenfamilies of those children Sandusky would later accost after 2002 a better explanation?  Absolutely.  Should he have done what anybody should have done and simply reported that behavior to the cops?

Do I need to answer that last question?

I can only imagine how hurt the people of Penn State University must feel having to deal with such a sordid issue.  It’s not the issue that any other college or university has had to deal with in my lifetime at least and it would be tough to watch your beloved Joe Paterno’s reputation be sullied by such a disturbing chain of events.  He has done so much for the University and maybe it’s not unreasonable to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.  In a sports world full of unethical, immoral people looking to get ahead at the expense of their integrity as a human being, Paterno has gone against the grain and tried to instill good values into his players and has always led by good example.  It’s hard to imagine PSU moving forward without their saintly man in the coke-bottle glasses - that beacon who led by good example.

And it’s hard to imagine how those families and young men and boys feel at this moment in time too.  In fact, I don’t want to know what that feels like.  And there’s much of this we could have avoided had that saintly man in the coke-bottle glasses just spoken up - like he would have wanted anybody else to do.  So hopefully PSU will take a tip from their revered head football coach and lead by example starting with the firing of Joe Paterno.  Or maybe they won’t.  Because whatever happens, unfortunately, will just not be good enough.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/college/penn-state-ad-tim-curley-vp-gary-schultz-charged-perjury-step-jerry-sandusky-sex-abuse-scandal-cover-up-article-1.973110?localLinksEnabled=false

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hIiL1EGjAZZnI3lln6viLsSFaf_A?docId=9f148d569cea49c9b8c6c9580c8f9200