This is for the large number of people who know my name and maybe know me for a facet or time in life, not the relatively small percentage of those people who "get" me. If you know me and don't get me, but care enough to take 5 minutes to read a note, maybe this will help. If you already know me well, maybe this will clarify some things.
Hi. My name is Wayne Self. Yes, that's my real name. I didn't make it up. Here are some things you should know:
- I'm from Louisiana. By "from", I mean that my ancestors settled the small town where I was born and raised in the 1750's, and they still live there today. It's in my blood, bones, and sinew, my music, my food, my soul. I love it. It's my home. If you misunderstand it, you misunderstand me. If you insult it, you insult me. I consider myself a refugee from Louisiana. Or maybe a battered spouse. I love it, but I can't live with it, because of all the, you know, crazy.
- So I live in California, which is just as crazy, but far more medicated. I like California a lot, because it's still a place for people who want to invent or re-invent themselves. Aside from the language issue, I consider myself just as much an immigrant here as anyone else. This is a foreign country to me, but I love the opportunities that come from being here.
- I work on Sundays at two progressive churches. One of them is Peninsula MCC, a church of by and for LGBT people (though straight people are welcomed and affirmed). My feelings about Christianity, religion, church, and working on Sundays continue to evolve, but my affection and regard for the people at these churches is unchanging.
- I have a family in my house. It consists of my beloved partner, my elderly mother-in-law, and my ridiculous dog. This makes my life perhaps a little different from the lives of other gay men that you may know--maybe even other coupled gay men. Because of the mother-in-law and our suburban locale, my house is not a place for parties, or a central meeting place for my fabulous friends. I'm mostly not off having amazing weekends doing amazing things (See "I work on Sundays"). When I'm not working, my first priority is to be with my partner, who is a little more of a loner and homebody than I.
Now that the basics are out of the way, here's the meat of the matter and the real reason for this note:
I'm a creator.
I know that sounds pretentious, but settle down. It has taken me years to be able to even say that out loud. Being "creative" was not something valued in my world, and calling yourself a creative person is "getting above your raising," rather than keeping your head down and getting your job done.
Saying I'm a "creator" is not saying anything about the quality or value of what I create. I don't even mean it as a compliment to myself. It's like saying "I'm a Capricorn".
I only mean to say that I spend the majority of my time writing new stuff: Mostly songs that fit together to tell a story suitable for the stage.
Or, if you insist, Musicals.
I've always done it. I can't really not do it. I do it in my sleep. I do it when it looks like I'm doing something else. I had a career in the tech field and I have a partner who has a good job. Between those things, and my church jobs, we're blessed to able to live okay while I do this work.
Whether I do it well, or will be be financially able to do it forever is another matter. I only know that the times when I haven't done it have been the most miserable times of my life.
I'm driven to do it, even when I'm sick of doing it. Does that make sense?
Because I'm a creator, and more than a little OCD about it, there are things that come up about the way I work and the way I conduct human relationships. I'm not trying to excuse things that you may be unable to excuse, or asking for dispensation from you, but I'm asking you to not be surprised, and to maybe understand, even if you can't tolerate. If you understand, and really value whatever friendship we have, maybe you'll meet me halfway on some of these things.
- I make friends through collaboration. If you want to get closer to me, the best way is through working together on a project. If I approach you for collaboration, I'm approaching you for friendship. If you refuse collaboration, it feels to me like you're refusing friendship, though I am able to get over it. If we start a project and you disappear, it will feel to me like you have stepped on our friendship.
- To know me is to know my work. My work is intensely personal--even the things that don't seem so. It's hard to write. It comes from vulnerable places. If you get a chance to see one of my plays and decide not to, it feels like you're deciding not to know me as well as you might. If I pour my soul out and you decide to watch TV that night, it feels to me like you simply don't want to be that close. Which brings me to:
- It's okay not to know my work. I don't come to your job and watch, in order to know you, no matter how much of yourself you pour into it. You don't have to see my plays to be my friend. I will encourage it, to the point of annoyance, and I will of course feel gratitude and a deeper connection to those that do, but it's not a requisite for basic friendship.
- I value people who encourage and support my work, even if they can't or don't see it, and I mistrust people who go out of their way not to. I do occasionally get the feeling that some of my FB "friends" are actually rooting against me, when people go out of their way not to see something I've done, or withhold even basic courtesies of encouragement, or actually attempt to discourage or berate me. If you're one of those people, you probably haven't gotten this far into this post, but if you have, please say your goodbyes, because I'll be culling you from my friends list soon.
- I'm not impressed by your tastes, or how discerning you are in your consumption of food or music or movies or culture or computers or automobiles. Your consumption does not impress me. Your creation does. I like people who follow through in making things, because I know how hard that is. Your film, your completed marathon, your six-pack abs, your MFA, your evening classes... Those things make me proud to know you, and I am rooting for you 100%.
- I am "absent-minded". I always have been. I'm involved with this thing that's going on in my head. My concentration is split 100% of the time. I lose things. Car keys. Wallets. Sunglasses. I forget to take the right exit. No amount of consternation on your part will change this. Nothing will. Believe me, I don't like it either.
- I get obsessed with what I'm doing. I spend a fair amount of time waiting for the songs to come. If they're coming, and I can, I will let them. Sometimes, in so doing, I'll forget what time it is and miss appointments. I'm sorry. I truly am. I don't mean to. I know it's frustrating and I understand. But I'd rather you didn't take it personally.
- If you txt or email me and don't hear back, it's not because I don't like you. It's because you happened to catch me during one of these times. A few of you seem to have a knack for that. If I forget to return your call, please call me again. I really don't mind being pestered.
- I may vanish for a bit. Please don't take it personally. I know that part of friendship is being there, day in, day out, and I know I'm missing out on that crucial element. But don't take my absence as uncaring or lack of loyalty. I'm extremely loyal to those who have taken the time to understand me. I'll never run you down behind your back. I'll cheer for you. I'll forgive most anything. If you really need me, I'm there. Just call. I may not be there for your birthday party or your weekly poetry slam, but I will be there to help you sort through a problem or bail you out of jail. When I'm through being vanished, I appreciate being able to pick up where we left off.
I'm so fortunate to have a partner who does "get" me and finds whatever I bring to our relationship valuable enough that he's willing to put up with some of my foibles.
I'm also fortunate to have friends new and old, colleagues, and supervisors who value my contributions enough that they've taken the time to understand how to best work with, befriend, supervise, or teach me.
But I do feel a bit hamstrung by a few professors, acquaintances, friends of friends, etc. who ought to know me by now and don't, or whom I feel don't sincerely have my best interests at heart, or value my contributions enough to alter their approach.
Many of us are on a journey of self-acceptance in this life, accepting the good and bad things about ourselves that we can't change. Part of self-acceptance is accepting that not everyone will really appreciate the "self" you're bringing into being. For my part, in those cases, I'd prefer to come to that understanding with you individuals sooner rather than later, so we can stop wasting one another's time.
And I hope that this note explains me a little bit to those people who don't know me well and want to know me better. I know this was a whole lot of talking about myself, but maybe it was helpful. I don't know. I know I wouldn't mind reading such a "care and feeding guide" from some of you.
Around 8pm last night, I finished Wise Up!
For those of you who don't know, this is a musical I've been working on for about two years. It's a full-length play, with a cast of a dozen and about 30 songs, each of which had to be notated and recorded. The first staging of the play will take place in Jan 2011.
I find it tiresome when people talk about the process of working instead of just letting the work talk, but I'm going to indulge in this because, dammit, I finished! This is the first thing I've completed that took years, rather than weeks, months, or a semester, and I have things to say about that!
I have friends who may read this note who have finished things that took years: novels, dissertations, complex code projects. And I'm sure they faced challenges that they hadn't foreseen when they started; challenges related to the sheer length of time and amount of work produced in that time.
For example, there's the matter of internal consistency. Not just factual consistency, but consistency in terms of quality and point of view. Doing this much work causes one to change, grow, and improve, so that the work completed at the start may not resemble the work completed at the end.
There were many such challenges (stamina, maintaining interest, keeping the faith), but the one I'm most interested in, right now, is the challenge of when to say a piece is "done".
What do I mean when I say "done", anyway? Is what I've written perfect? Could it be added to? Edited? Waitaminute, didn't I finish this play a year ago? And haven't I been hawking tickets to it online for a month? It wasn't completed then?
"Done" is especially problematic in theatre, where scripts often change right up to opening night. And it's not like having a novel printed, where the act of publishing sort of establishes a finish line. Even if hundreds of people see the play, that wouldn't preclude me from changing it later, basically up to the point that I sell it to someone (should that point ever come).
So, yes, it could definitely be improved upon. There are notation inconsistencies. The rehearsal tracks are quick and ugly. There are months of work ahead, should I ever wish to get this piece published or submit it to a festival.
Depending on the play's future, there are thousands of person-hours still to put in. Typically, a full-length musical, properly funded, is more like a movie than anything else, with script doctors, lyricists, book writers, arrangers, and countless assistants and notators putting in time, not to mention everything that the directors and actors who initiate the staging and the roles bring to a first-time production.
By comparison, my work is more like "outsider art": one relatively untrained person's quixotic project that he completes for no other reason than that he must. I'm fortunate to be part of an extended community that can rally, gather talent together, and stage a production like this.
So it's not done. And yet, in another sense, it was done months ago. Actors have had scripts and music in their hands for many weeks, though the scripts have changed a bit and not all the music was ready. And the initial treatment of this play, a much shorter version, but with the same story, was developed a year ago for Peninsula Metropolitan Community Church.
So there've been many "done's" along the way, and there are probably more to come. Yet, despite the multiphasic nature of this work, around 8pm last night, I passed a milestone.
The biggest milestone, really.
Two years ago, I had this idea. Gold, Frank, and Myrrh sounded like fun, evocative drag names. Turning semi-biblical Christmas characters into draq queens would give me the opportunity to write, in a clever and irreverent way, about gender, religion, gay culture, and queer family. I had a lot to say. It took awhile.
And, with music, writing something isn't the same as writing something down. Writing it down can be a tedious process. But now it's done.
The scripts are out there, as are the lead sheets and rehearsal tracks. If I died today, someone (hopefully, the amazing cast and crew of the current production!) could take these materials and present the play in full, intact, as I wrote it.
Yes, mounting a production is a whole other process, and a huge one, and there's much, much to do. But the writing, and the writing things down, are done.
Done.
So what does this mean? What's next?
Well,the multiple hours and days at the computer and piano can let up a little. I sacrificed and endangered a lot to get here, so some things need to be remediated. I can get into the gym more regularly. I can get to class and try to rescue my grades from real calamity.
I'm in a production of Putnam County Spelling Bee at NDNU, where I am in grad school, so I jump right into that.
I have another project already begun that will serve as my Master's Thesis, provided I can keep a high enough G.P.A. to stay in school. I have Christmas at PMCC, and two songs commissioned by members there that are long overdue for completion.
Others will decide what value this play has as art or entertainment. And I will judge it for myself, when I've got a little distance from it. But, for now, what the completion of this play means for me is this: it proves that, whatever my training or ability, I'm not doing this as a hobby. It's something I'm willing to strive for. It's something I've ordered my life around (with indulgence from my longsuffering partner, Cody). It's so much more difficult than the casual songwriting I've done my whole life. But I know that I'll do it again. In fact, I can't wait.
(For ticket information on Wise Up! go here: http://www.brownpapertickets.com/event/1First things first... in most (not all) cases, these teens were not bullied for being gay.
Being gay, depending on your definition, has to do with how you identify yourself or what sex acts you perform and with whom. But these were kids. We don't know (in most cases) whether they had sex or not, with whom, or whether they identified as gay. Their nascent sexual identities were only forming. It's likely that they, themselves, weren't sure yet.
Yet we do know there was a general perception among their peers that these kids might be gay, based on their likes, mannerisms, self-labeling, etc.
It seems pretty clear that, in many cases, these kids were bullied, not for BEING gay, but for ACTING gay.
In other words, they were bullied for being effeminate.
This shouldn't come as a shock to anyone, but it's an important distinction to make, because it cuts closer to the real--and more serious--root of the problem.
Teens with effeminate mannerisms are victimized for much the same reason that "nerds, geeks, dweebs," etc are victimized...perceived lack of a certain set of alpha-male qualities that seem to be so valued in our school and in our culture.
Children learn quickly what behaviors and traits are expected from them, and, for the most part, eagerly act to not only meet those expectations to the best of their ability, but to enforce those expectations on their fellow children.
Children know what a boy is supposed to wear, what a girl is supposed play with, what a good, real boy looks and acts like, and how a good , real girl behaves. And they know because we tell them.
Sure, we've made strides, especially in making it more acceptable for girls to play sports, be tough, be tomboys, etc. But have we even tried to make it more acceptable for boys to be sensitive, artistic, or pretty?
Even in this anti-bullying discussion, what's the first thing you hear? "Well, you have to stand up for yourself! It teaches you how to be a man. It builds character!"
I'm all for a fair fight, but it never is. This isn't the movies. The victim isn't merely fighting an individual bully; the victim is fighting an environment: an environment where his mannerisms, his way of being in the world, are deemed unacceptable--an environment of our creation.
OUR creation. We've chosen to make it it a man's world. Sure we've allowed women to join it (to an extent), as long as they can match men in what we value: the aggressive, the competitive, the athletic, the big, over all else. We select our celebrities, our CEO's, and our Presidents based on these factors. Kids are shrewd. They see this. They know what we value and what we ridicule.
Even in the gay community, we idolize big muscles and big dicks, hairy chests, aggression, and all traits traditionally deemed "masculine", and have, at times, heaped scorn on those who do not fit the masculine ideal or who embarrass us with "gender confusion."
There are all kinds of anthropological and sociological reasons for it, dating back to prehistory, but we're not living in caves anymore. In a digital world, where war is made remotely, maybe it's time to take a closer look at what we value, what we elevate, what we insist that our kids become, what we ask from each other.
If we really do live in a world where only physical toughness matters, then the bullies are right. Some people just need to get a thicker skin. Toughen up. Man up. Whatever up.
Maybe that was true at some point (though I have my doubts), but that's not the world we live in (for now).
I'm not saying we should all go beat up the athletes (Geaux Saints!!!!). But we need to "celebrate diversity" in more than just culture and skin tone.
There are so many traits that we as a society not only value, but NEED. Listening. Art. Intellect. Eye for detail. Diplomacy. Caring. Musicianship--traits that make the best things in our world possible. And we're beating them out of our children, when they should be celebrated, everywhere and always, enthusiastically and in truth (not merely ironically) in anyone who evinces them, no matter their gender.
First things first... in most (not all) cases, these teens were not bullied for being gay.
Being gay, depending on your definition, has to do with how you identify yourself or what sex acts you perform and with whom. But these were kids. We don't know (in most cases) whether they had sex or not, with whom, or whether they identified as gay. Their nascent sexual identities were only forming. It's likely that they, themselves, weren't sure yet.
Yet we do know there was a general perception among their peers that these kids might be gay, based on their likes, mannerisms, self-labeling, etc.
It seems pretty clear that, in many cases, these kids were bullied, not for BEING gay, but for ACTING gay.
In other words, they were bullied for being effeminate.
This shouldn't come as a shock to anyone, but it's an important distinction to make, because it cuts closer to the real, and more problematic, root of the problem.
Teens with effeminate mannerisms are victimized for much the same reason that "nerds, geeks, dweebs," etc are victimized...perceived lack of a certain set of alpha-male qualities that seem to be so valued in our school and in our culture.
Children learn quickly what behaviors and traits are expected from them, and, for the most part, eagerly act to not only meet those expectations to the best of their ability, but to enforce those expectations on their fellow children.
Children know what a boy is supposed to wear, what a girl is supposed play with, what a good, real boy looks and acts like, and how a good , real girl behaves. And they know because we tell them.
Sure, we've made strides, especially in making it more acceptable for girls to play sports, be tough, be tomboys, etc. But have we even tried to make it more acceptable for boys to be sensitive, artistic, or pretty?
Even in this anti-bullying discussion, what's the first thing you hear? "Well, you have to stand up for yourself! It teaches you how to be a man. It builds character!"
I'm all for a fair fight, but it never is. This isn't the movies. The victim isn't merely fighting an individual bully; the victim is fighting an environment: an environment where his mannerisms, his way of being in the world, is deemed unacceptable--an environment of our creation.
OUR creation. We've chosen to make it it a man's world. Sure we've allowed women to join it (to an extent), as long as they can match men in what we value: the aggressive, the competitive, the athletic, the big, over all else. We select our celebrities, our CEO's, and our Presidents based on these factors. Kids are shrewd. They see this. They know what we value and what we ridicule.
Even in the gay community, we idolize big muscles and big dicks, hairy chests, aggression, and all traits traditionally deemed "masculine", and have, at times, heaped scorn on those who do not fit the masculine ideal or who embarrass us with "gender confusion."
There are all kinds of anthropological and sociological reasons for it, dating back to prehistory, but we're not living in caves anymore. In a digital world, where war is made remotely, maybe it's time to take a closer look at what we value, what we elevate, what we insist that our kids become, what we ask from each other.
If we really do live in a world where only physical toughness matters, then the bullies are right. Some people just need to get a thicker skin. Toughen up. Man up. Whatever up.
Maybe that was true at some point (though I have my doubts), but that's not the world we live in (for now).
I'm not saying we should all go beat up the athletes (Geaux Saints!!!!). But we need to "celebrate diversity" in more than just culture and skin tone.
There are so many traits that we as a society not only value, but NEED. Listening. Art. Intellect. Eye for detail. Diplomacy. Caring. Intellect. Musicianship--traits that make the best things in our world possible. And we're beating them out of our children, when they should be celebrated, everywhere and always, enthusiastically and in truth (not merely ironically) in anyone who evinces them, no matter their gender.
I called Comcast and they said it wasn't a service outage. They said the modem wasn't sending a signal and it was likely a problem on our end. The cable wiring in our condo is weak, so I took it upon myself to try to improve the wiring and use an amp for signal boost. I spent hours reconfiguring this and that. Went to Radio Shack twice. Nothing I did worked.
But this morning, the problem fixed itself. :-/ I should have known the Comcast guy was full of it, since the problem suddenly started and I've never had a problem before.
Anyway, the lack of Internet and the general anger and frustration made yesterday's "fast" more difficult. I found myself practically pacing around the house out of anxiety yesterday evening. I probably checked the fridge 100 times. It really illustrated how frustration and eating go hand-in-hand for me.
What it did not do, however, is give me any clue how to better deal with this kind of low-grade, but still annoying and anxiety-inducing frustration.
My history and upbringing have given me these options:
1. Hit something.
2. Hit someone.
3. Smoke.
4. Yell.
Since none of these are really where I'm at, except the yelling, and the occasional hitting of something, which only make things worse, it's fair to see eating as quite an improvement, actually, especially when I can manage to eat something healthy.
But ideally, something else would take the place of eating.
Suggestions?
(A few notes: Yes, there's another obvious choice that some of you dirty-minded people are already thinking of. Let's just assume, that that particular option was exhausted. As it were.
Also, I know there are people out there who like to be 'Answer Men' (or women). When a person puts himself out there with a post that is slightly confessional, using 'me' words, telling his own story, there's always someone who breezes through and takes the opportunity to show how clever he is by providing an easy answer of the 'what you should do' variety. Often, it's an answer so obvious as to be slightly insulting. My favorite example is from X-Men 2: "Bobby, have you tried NOT being a mutant?"
If you're that person, my request is that you take time to understand and acknowledge my situation, then bother to tell your own story. Tell me what you have tried and the challenges you have faced. Tell me what's worked for you and what hasn't.)
By the way, my fastlet is now over, technically, but I'm unsure what to eat. Seriously, it has felt so good that I'm almost afraid to end it. But it will end. This, I know. And I might as well end it on my own terms. Just not sure how. I haven't eaten yet today.
The good news: you're welcome to respond with tedious food consumption rant and I'll listen with real interest. I could talk about diet and exercise ceaselessly.
So for the past several years I've been what you might call a "More Careful Eater". I use this in place of the phrase "Healthy Eater" because, as we will see, the term Healthy means different things to different people and is certainly a matter of degree.
Gone are the days of biscuits every morning and mashed potatoes every night. The casseroles and pot roasts that used to greet us every evening, courtesy of my live-in mother-in-law, have been replaced by grilled chicken breasts and lots of vegetables, much to her chagrin.
When I say "lots of vegetables", I mean LOTS. I eat a lot, in general. My portions tend to be large, and I tend to eat frequently, so it helps if I'm able to eat vegetables instead of other, more detrimental things. I think I eat so much because my eating is motivated by several things:
* I eat to support my workouts and other physical activities and my diet, in general, is higher in protein and lower in carbs than most.
* I eat as part of my social life, including my relationship. Typically, this involves restaurants, and includes alcohol, deserts, and the bane of my existence, the Corn Tortilla Chip.
* I eat from frustration, stress, and boredom. I eat when I drive. I eat when I'm watching TV. I eat when my piece of crap computer is taking way to long to perform a simple fucking task (but I'm not bitter). When I was going to school in Berkeley, I gained 10-15 pounds because of the drive and the stress.
So I've noticed these patterns, and I've just recently finished up a very busy and stressful--though thankfully short--period of time. During that time, I was unable to keep myself from eating more and eating worse. The readily available foods were unhealthy, and I didn't have (or take) the time to make healthy foods more readily available.
But now that said time is over, I'm trying something. For the past two days, I've eaten nothing but:
- Green or orange vegetables.
- Fruits or fruit juice.
- Water.
- Green Tea.
- 1 protein supplement bar.
I wanted to go on a total fast, but I also wanted to continue my workouts. This was a compromise that allowed me to re-assert conscious control over what I'm eating without caffeine withdrawals, protein deficits, or blood sugar levels too low to support a workout.
Okay, I just looked back over what I read and I'm not really happy with it. I feel like what I'm telling you is the same old story you've heard everywhere: "I binged during a stressful time and now I'm on some kind of crash diet because I feel guilty."
But that's absolutely not the story I'm trying to tell. The story I'm trying to tell is this: "After a stressful few weeks, I'm now able to reward my body by giving it time off from the crap I was eating." And that's really how it feels. And this is evidenced by:
- An increase in energy and less need for rest/sleep.
- No allergies (I forgot my daily dose of Claritin both days and only noticed today that I've had no trouble with allergies)
- A feeling of general well-being bordering on euphoria.
Okay, maybe it's all psychosomatic. Maybe I feel good because the stressful time is over for now. Maybe there are no allergies because allergy season is over. But maybe not. Maybe my system has a hard time with one or more of these things:
- Artificial sweetener (as in Diet Coke)
- Eggs
- Dairy
- Meat
- Gluten and/or Grains
I'm pretty sure the Diet Coke as such isn't the problem. i've given it up before and noticed no change in mood or energy level. But I've never given up artificial sweeteners until this time. I suppose it would be a good idea to slowly introduce these things, one at time, back into my life and see what works. But it's all so subjective and subtle. It's hard to imagine having any success with this.
Plus, I keep thinking one thought over and over, in my euphoria: VEGANS MUST FEEL THIS WAY ALL. THE. TIME.
I feel so good, I don't want to eat whatever will fuck it up.
Becoming a vegan is not in my future. The way I wish to live with my family and friends simply will not support it. I'm not willing to be "that guy". The guy who brings his own food to your house or won't eat your specialty because it was made with beef stock. Don't misunderstand: if you're "that guy" or "that girl," I love and respect you for it and will do everything I can to support you and accommodate what I think are tremendously admirable choices. But it's not for me. Not presently.
Cody's mom already thinks we're off the deep end with our "healthy eating." She mostly eats individually wrapped snack cakes and canned meats. Bomb shelter food. Our shopping cart looks ridiculous. Cody's gluten free rice crackers, my organic, locally grown broccoli, and Ms. Carolyn's Vienna sausages.
But what I'm looking for at this point is not to be vegan or vegetarian, or even to be a "healthy eater"; I want to be a conscious eater. I want to know what I'm eating, when I'm eating, and why I'm eating, and I want to be able to make an informed decision of the consequences, good and bad, short and long term, of eating what I'm eating. And by "consequences," I don't necessarily mean weight loss or weight gain. I mean allergic reaction, blood sugar level, energy level, nutrients, toxins, and consequences for the environment and the economy.
That's a lot to know. I think I'll go puke.
It's like this: The heroic Brett Favre, battling valiantly through a terrible injury caused by unfair hits, had the game won, but then made a stupid mistake. It was a lucky break for the Saints, who don't deserve to be in the Superbowl and who will lose to the Colts.
And maybe they're right. Maybe the Saints will get clobbered in two weeks.
Or maybe:
1. The Minnesota defense was one of the top 5 defenses in the league and the Saints still managed to score 31 points on them. 28 in regulation. This included ample running yards against one of the best run defenses in the league. The Colts defense...is not elite.
2. These points came despite a Drew Brees that clearly was not himself. He had two unforced drops, himself, plus some wobbly passes. If you look closely at the drops, you can see that they weren't simply jitters, but a difficulty gripping the ball. My guess is that he had a hand injury in the 2nd Quarter (prior to which, he looked like his usual phenomenal self), and will be recovered in two weeks.
3. The Minnesota pass rush was supposed to be among the best in football. Sean Payton clearly committed resources to doubling their star pass-rushers and gave Brees protection all night. This limited other offensive options. Add the injury to Shockey and this explains why the offense scored "only" 31 points instead of its usual 41. FYI: The Colts pass-rush? Not so much.
4. But what about the Colts' offense, you ask. Look what they did to the Jets! What they did to the Jets was switch from a 2-receiver set to a 3 receiver-set and the over-rated Rex Ryan inexplicably did not respond with an adjustment of his own. Until the Colts made the switch, the Jets were doing quite well. In many ways, the Jets were an over-hyped product of the New York-centered media and Rex Ryan's gaseous pronouncements. Best defense in football? Who did they play? Roughly 1/8th of the teams they played were NOT ACTUALLY TRYING TO WIN!
5. But the Saints' defense is porous, right? Especially against the run? Okay, maybe so. But the Colts don't have much of a running game.
6. The Saints' are 20th in the league in total defense, though! The Colts passing attack will carve up their secondary. That stat accounts for the whole regular season, but the Saints lost their starting secondary to injuries a few games into the season and just got them back for the playoffs. Remember all of those dominant performances early in the year, when the Saints' defense was top 5 or 10? That was when the Saints had these guys. Remember the Cardinals game? Again: these guys.
7. "Those guys" were there last night and Favre threw all over them. Well, not really. The Vikes are a team with a hall of fame QB at the helm; a team that ran up the score on the vaunted Cowboys defense until the poor things actually complained about it! The "merely average" Saints defense somehow managed, even with one of their corners out with a hamstring injury.
8. But come on. The Vikings earned so many yards on the Saints. Yards, not points. In football, they use a strange system to determine the winner. What they count are points. I know, right?
9. But the Vikings would have scored more if not for all those unlucky turnovers. Ah. And here we get to the crux of the issue and the thing those TV suited sausages don't understand. This is the reason Gregg Williams is a coach and those guys aren't and a secret about football today: Turnovers aren't a matter of luck; they are a matter of design.
Your idea intrigues me. Please explain.
Certainly, Gorgias. The Saints are at or near the top of the league in takeaways not because Jesus loves them (though he does), but because that's how Gregg Williams designed it.
The Saints D tends focus more on attacking the football during a tackle than actually wrapping up a player. Sometimes, they focus more on getting the interception than on being in a position to make the tackle after a reception. Or they focus more on the blitz than on covering receivers. This means there is always a danger of giving up the big run or the big gain after a relatively short pass. There is always the danger of getting burned on a blitz. But Williams is gambling on the SPEED of his defense to be able to get in a position to make a play. They drive to the quarterback. They attack the ball, not the runner. When they lose the gamble, they give up big yards. When they win, they cause fumbles, sacks, and interceptions.
This explains why, despite being middling in terms of yards allowed, the Saints are among the best RED ZONE defenses in the league. There's less ground to cover inside the 20 with that speed, and less chance of getting burned.
Williams gambles on the speed and aggression of his defense. It's a gamble that has nearly always paid off, even if the result is often a heart-stopper of a ball game.
Like on Sunday?
Like on Sunday. Nearly every one of those fumbles was a FORCED fumble. And those interceptions were the result of a hurrying and harrying of the quarterback. It almost started to seem like a broken record: The Saints would stop them on first down, stop them on second down, then blitz them on third down. Favre would pick up the blitz with a good throw for a first down and the Saints would knock him to the ground for his troubles. This happened over and over. While the Saints protected Brees at all costs, sacrificing total offensive yards in the bargain, the Vikes racked up yards on 3rd down passes, but at the expense of their quarterback's hindparts.
The more it happened, the worse Favre got. But, at the same time, the more it happened, the more yards the Vikings gained. With an offense like the Saints', Williams took the gamble that he could keep blitzing and hitting, and that Favre would run out of sense before the Saints ran out of points to spare. And he was right. Just barely.
10. But that plan won't work against Peyton Manning. It won't? Oh no! I guess Williams have to come up with a DIFFERENT PLAN for the Colts than the one he devised for the FUMBLE PRONE Peterson and the INT PRONE Favre. And he will. He's no Rex Ryan. The plan will rely on his smart, speedy defense and excellent secondary, but who knows what cover schemes or blitz packages he will use. It won't be the same as last week, that's for sure.
11. But the Colts are winners. They haven't lost a game this year that they've tried to win. They've been to the Superbowl before, while the Saints have, well, not. The Saints are likely to have first-timer jitters due to the pressure. Pressure? I don't expect you to understand, O Straw Man Alter-Ego, because there's no basis for comparison. This is unprecedented territory. This isn't like it would be if we were talking about Romo and the Cowboys and the pressure of trying to live up to the tradition of past teams. The Saints are in the Superbowl. They have already gone where no Saint has gone before. They are beloved by their city and by their fans. They are heroes today. What pressure? They're playing with house money. The only pressure they have is their desire to achieve. They get to go to Miami and enjoy playing in the biggest pro sports event in the world. They can have a good time and be loose, not like that tight-assed bunch up in Indy.
12. I saved this one for 12 because it was appropriate. It's very clear that the 12th Player, the Superdome Crowd, was a game-changing factor in the Vikings game. The Saints would not have won that game without the Dome. True. But there's one more x factor here and it's this: The Saints field one of the most aged teams in Pro Football. The media fall all over Favre because he's older than...well, he's my age, dammit. But the Saints' lineup is full of older players who were plucked from the edge of retirement through unrestricted free agency. And, well, older people need their rest. Payton knew what he was doing when he rested his starters. Look at the two games the Saints have played after a little bit of rest: The Patriots and the Cardinals. Both were blowouts. When the Saints are rested, that defense swarms. That could be the factor that lifts the Saints over the top against the Colts.
I get laughed at in dance class, especially tap. I get laughed at for having the nerve to call myself a "composer" in a school full of singers. I get laughed at for being older than my peers, for putting on a dress and a wig and doing a queer Christmas play.
My new school, NDNU, is full of undergrads who are somehow socially coarser, yet sexually more prurient, than my somewhat older and kinder friends at PSR. I caught a table full of them laughing at me the other day. I don't know why.
Fortunately, it's not what it sounds like. In many cases, people are laughing "with" me, not "at" me. After all, I put on that wig and did that play HOPING to get laughs!
Watching me trying to master tap steps IS comical. I'm laughing too! I also laugh at my relative age compared to the people around me, and I laugh at the situation that got me here.
Because I'm in school with people half my age and live with a person roughly double my age, I've been thinking a lot about youth and aging. Sadly, most of the examples I have from my mom-in-law in the aging department fall in the "don't" category.
One of the reasons Ms. Carolyn doesn't get out much is that she fears being laughed at. She doesn't want to be thought of as "that old lady with the limp" or "that woman with the bandage on her face" (she recently had a benign skin cancer removed and wouldn't go anywhere until the bandage was off).
I think a sense of humor about oneself, and a willingness to put oneself in positions where one is sure to be laughed at, are healthy things to nurture. They keep you from taking yourself so seriously or getting so wrapped up in vanity that you limit the things you're willing to try.
I hope my reach always exceeds my grasp. I hope I'm always a newbie at something.
And the mean kids at NDNU? They can't possibly be meaner than I was, at their age! If they bug me too much, I'll give them a li'l taste. :D
"When religions are gone, people will find Jesus."
I think it will happen like this:
Some people will get together, maybe over coffee, maybe over the Internet. They will have had one or more life-changing experiences, and they have been inspired by the teachings of Jesus. They want to share what they've learned and seen with one another.
They are thoughtful and caring people, and they decide that their love for one another will be placed before any doctrine or creed, so they won't have a statement of belief that they recite. They will eschew hierarchical systems, so that everyone can fully participate. They won't exclude anyone on the basis of race or gender or gender difference. Or political affiliation.
And they'll decide, because they live in the world and believe in love, and in justice, to take great care with the texts that they read together. When texts demand enforcement of gender and class roles established 2000 years ago, these people will be careful to place those texts in a historical context. And they will be equally careful to bring forth for examination the many texts that question, challenge, and point to the abolition of gender and class roles as we understand them.
When there is a disagreement or misunderstanding, they will err on the side of love. And they will do their best to serve the community around them. They will form a community inspired by the teachings of Jesus and the many Jewish sages in that tradition, and that community will save lives.
And, if they can somehow keep from getting assimilated or squished by the vestiges of some some top-down denomination or another, they will thrive.
Personally, I think that this sort of community has a better chance of growing up from within the MCC than anywhere else on the planet. In fact, in many ways, I think it already has.
I believe that MCC, at its best, provides a great example for the future. To wit (and to quote from something I sent to an MCC message board):
- Where else can disagreements about doctrine, theology, dunking or
sprinkling, trinity or unity, praise or prayerfulness, bells or
guitars, statements of faith, transubstantiation or symbolism, blah,
blah, blah actually take a back seat to the agreement to Love One
Another? They do at MCC, because they MUST. By our very definition
and inception, we have to be that way. Other denominations don't.
- Where else is there a chance that the wisdom of the gender
criminal, recognized through out the ages, will be placed front and center and respected
for what it is, not dressed up to look "respectable??
- Where else is there even a chance that we can tell our authentic
stories to one another and reveal our whole selves, without bumping
against the expectation that we look, act, and think like a "typical
christian"?
- Where else can all of our unique colors and flavas and quirks and
tastes and likes and dislikes--or tweaking of conformity be truly
celebrated, not put aside until church is over?
- Where else is it encouraged that we put aside tired traditions and
find new and creative ways to express and celebrate Christianity?
- Where is else the hard work and the resultant rich reward of
calling out, dealing with, and re-evaluating all of the difficult
things in Scripture around gender going to be done? The big bad daddy
God who demanded his own son's blood, and demands our uniform belief
and conformity to old ideas of taste and respectability is not
attractive to much of modern American society. Nor should he be. If we
even have a chance of getting to the point where there is no "male or
female" in Christ, who do you think is going to get us there?
Of course, not every MCC church does these things. And the ones that
do them sometimes fall well short. And, yes,
there are Christian denominations out there that do SOME of these things,
sometimes. But none of them do them all. And they are not institutionally predisposed
to them, like MCC is.
But I tell you this:
The denomination that DOES find a way to do these things, seriously
and with intent, is the one that's going to attract young people and
actually survive. Young people have turned their backs on religion
because of its hidebound doctrines, its stiff-necked refusal to warm up
to the world, and its absolute lockstep conformity. (Yet at MCC, we
often go out of our way to mimic these other denominations as much as
possible!)
MCC actually has a better chance than any denomination I know to shed
the doctrinal, conformist, traditionalist bonds that keep churches
from thriving.
But, to do it, we have to stop thinking of ourselves as a M*A*S*H
unit, existing only to provide a worship experience that the patients
can recognize, but with acceptance instead of condemnation.
So why do I go to church? Because the church I attend sure looks an awful lot like the scenario I described above.
It's a church founded by gay people primarily for gay people. It's colloquially called "the gay church," though MCC leaders tend to despise that designation.
Part of the job of an MCC or an MCC minister is to provide healing to those who have suffered the damage of being "ministered to" by people who did not have their best interest in mind.
Every day, some young gay or lesbian person goes to someone they trust, someone in a position to love and care for them, only to have this trusted person say, "you need compassion, reassurance, and hope, but I believe you're going to hell and my belief trumps your need."
"My belief trumps your need."
Sometimes, that seems like religion in a nutshell. Religion seems like a group of people for whom belief in a set of doctrines is more important than the health and well-being of actual people.
That's certainly the impression one gets, seeing religious people take loud public stands in the media on the "no" side of every attempt to have our society provide care to people. "But it's not government's job," you may say. You're probably right. It's actually the church's job. But the church has fallen down on the job. And it can't get up.
I'm not just talking about the conservative churches, either. The mainline protestant churches are just as bad. Every Episcopal church I've ever entered, they hand you a print-out of what to say you believe when you walk in the door. As far as I can tell, the only thing that church wants to make sure of is that everyone is on the same page in believing in the trinity and the bishop.
It's no wonder that religion is dying in the U.S. Denominations are shrinking up and blowing away, especially among the young.
Well, good riddance.
Don't get me wrong. I am a person of faith. I believe that there is much in the Christian tradition to inspire, to amaze, and even to save peoples' lives. But, if I believe that this is true, then I must also believe that people will find these things without help from the United Methodist Church, the Episcopaleans, or the Baptists. Indeed, they'll probably have a better shot, once these organizations are out of the way.
The church as it exists today seems like one of many institutions that have not adjusted quickly enough to the global information age and tend, for that reason, to get in the way. Like record companies, newspapers, and GM. Watching them die can be painful, because of the collateral damage, but it's a mistake to confuse the organization with the thing it purported to produce.
When the record companies are gone, there will still be music. And it will be more diverse.
When the newspapers are gone, there will still be a hunger, and thus a market, for news. And it will be less skewed toward the privileged.
When the big American car companies are gone, people will still get from place to place. And they'll do it in more efficient, less harmful, more fun ways.
When religions are gone, people will find Jesus.
That's how I feel about all of this right now. These are big blanket statements, of course. There are exceptions to things. And I do not intend to cast aspersions on any individual who might be part of these institutions, but on the institutions, themselves.
But I want to bring this back closer to home, first to my denomination, MCC, and then to my own individual situation.
In the grand scheme of things, MCC is very small and has had a very specialized role. It's a refugee camp. An emergency room. People wounded by the "ministries" of other churches come to MCC to heal. Or to die.
I'm not being melodramatic. I know a little bit of damage that someone's "beliefs" can do to another person. In my short history with MCC, I've seen individuals weep every time they come to church, just from the relief of being able to feel that God doesn't hate them. And I've seen people come to us too late or too wounded, too bent on their own destruction because they've been told, time and again, that they are worthless--less than worthless--in God's eyes.
The paradigm that places Christianity in one corner and LGBT people in another is so pervasive that many people on both sides seem shocked and sort of freaked out when someone claims to be both. It's like peanut butter with mayonnaise, or Michael Jackson with Priscilla Presley.
But what role will MCC have as religion dies and damages fewer and fewer people? The spiritual M*A*S*H unit will have no patients.
More later (hopefully soon).
Profile
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.1)
owldolatrous- Owldolatrous
Syndicate
