Much has been recently made about the 'slump' world #1 Roger Federer is experiencing. After amassing the most dominating three years in the history of the ATP, a triad that includes 10 grand slam titles and a slew of Masters' shields and a couple of YEC's to boot, four losses before Wimbledon seem out of step with the usual style of the world's best tennis player. Add to that the pressure of adding the sole title to elude him thus far, a title that would bring far more prestige with it than any other title Federer has garnered so far and you can see why the step to part ways with long-time, part-time coach Tony Roche has most fans and pundits alike confused about this particular path world #1 has chosen. Especially at this particular time, with the clay court championships a mere two weeks away, with your clay court nemesis at his very best and snatching every clay title in sight, it seems foolhardy at best to part ways with the person in which you've put trust in for the past two years to give the proper direction. But part ways with Roche he has, and he says that there's no coach on the horizon..."I'm not taking a coach because I know what it takes to win. I don't want anyone interfering," the Swiss star said. "Maybe down the road I'll look for someone to help me out for practice."
Fans as well as beleagurers of world #1 will do well to remember that the first stellar year of the Swiss tennis player was had without a coach, when he nabbed three of the four slam titles in 2004 with only the French Open trophy absent from his roster. It would be the start of the three most dominating years in the history of men's tennis; Federer would go on to amass seven more grand slam titles and have an unbroken stint at the #1 position, a stint still intact. But Federer also nabbed the leadership of revered Aussie coach Tony Roche after his first amazing season, and up until now, had hit only one roadblock to total and complete domination of the men's tour; Raphael Nadal. And after two years of making little if any headway on the Spaniard who has held the #2 position for as long as Federer has been #1 and who has amassed a record on clay as equally dispiriting (77 consecutive wins and counting), Federer has decided that perhaps he can do bad all by himself..."It's something that's been inside myself for a few months," Federer said. "It was a decision that wasn't easy, of course, because we're good friends and get along very well and he's helped me a lot over the last couple of years. But in the end, he was a part-time coach. We were together only 15 weeks a year and I just thought the communication wasn't going very far any more."
If this is a precurser of things to come, then we have to expect Federer, who really does know what it takes to win and how to win it, will eventually right the turned back wheels and give himself the best opportunity to win. Even so, world #1 failed to win the French title when he was coachless, so it doesn't bode well that he will be able to snag the elusive title this year. Perhaps it will take another year of "gathering information," the phrase he has stated whenever accepting a loss to Nadal on clay. Perhaps this year will be the end all moment for Federer, a moment when he will finally face the clay court demons that have haunted him since his rise to the top, and conquer them. He seems to see no problem with this scenario..."In Monaco, I reached the finals. I'm very happy the way I played there from the quarters on," Federer said. "Last week (back in March/April) was obviously disappointing and I wasn't happy with my performance there. But it's basically one tournament, because at Indian Wells I had a bit of a blister and then in Miami I think I played well but ended up losing...So nothing really happened in my point of view." Maybe nothing really happened for him, but for the rest of the tour, who have been complacent in the light of Federer's greatness, it has been nothing short of revolutionary. Finally a ray of light has appeared through the Federer storm that has battered the ATP tour for years now. Players now have a modicum of hope when playing Federer outside of a grass court. Unfortunately, his main and most important nemesis has to look at this recent slide as more fodder for him; he has to like his chances on extending his win streak over the world's top ranked tennis star even as they both gear up for the Hamburg final, a clay tourney that he has owned in the past. Stay tuned...
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Innocuous mishaps...
I was hanging with a friend recently when something went very wrong. We’re not close friends, although we’ve been trying (vainly) to remedy that, but what happened between us highlighted the fact that we may be too different to get along smashingly.
He had invited me to dinner over a late evening call. He’s a great cook, and he’s shown me before his skills in the kitchen over a great tomato, shrimp and basil pasta he made one day. So there was no question that I’d be headed over, it was just a matter of when. I had a few errands to run, so I ran them then headed over. I arrived, parked, and hopped out of my car, already tasting the delicious food he’d prepared; I was starving after having not eaten for hours already. But before I could shut the door of my car all the way I heard the welcoming starting barks from his dog, which was alertly holding sentry at my friend’s open front door. Now, I’ve seen this particular dog several, several times already, at least in the double digits. We’re very familiar with each other, as she’s sat in my lap while I rubbed her behind the ears, she’s sniffed my crotch, and she’s run her nails down my exposed leg before, so we’re definitely not strangers. However, she goes into spasms upon my arrival EVERY TIME, barking and barking and barking as I head up his stairs to his porch, a bark so loud and vicious sounding (even though he swears she’s never harmed a fly) it reverberates throughout his small neighborhood, and once he comes to the door to actually open it, forget about it. She goes absolutely berserk, barking and jumping up and down, and the minute I step inside she’s all over me, and not in a friendly way. I’m not scared or timid of dogs as I had so many growing up that they are like second nature to me. But several times this dog has seemed on the verge of tearing into me, so much so that she froths at the mouth as she jumps up to semi-attack me, her big paws digging into my thighs. She’s not a small dog either.
Finally, and only after a long delay of ferocious barking, my friend gets the dog to settle down, but only after she’s put herself all in my face and after he has warned me to pet her, or do something on my end to try and calm down this deranged animal. And that’s when I kind of take offense. I mean, this happens every single time I come over, without fail, so it seems that knowing this, my friend would take step before my arrival to make sure it doesn’t happen. Steps such as securing the dog in his upstairs bedroom at least until I’ve come inside. That way she can make her way down at her own pace if she feels so threatened by me. Or he can have a snack to give her once I do get there (she loves carrots), rewarding her for barking less. Or he can muzzle her; I don’t care really as long as this scene doesn’t endlessly repeat itself. But he doesn’t seem to think it’s a big deal, even as her paws leave their mark on my body. I should just pet her, he insists.
If that event weren’t enough to make a slightly uncomfortable evening, then the next incident surely sealed our fate. After a long while, the dog has calmed down and settled for sniffing wildly around my person; seems she can’t shake the idea that I’m there to do her owner harm and she won’t leave me in peace. But I’m the best at ignoring annoying happenings, so I don’t let the dog bother me once she’s stopped assaulting me. My friend asks if I’m still hungry, to which I reaffirm. Once in the kitchen, though, he looks at me, shakes his head, and then takes his hands and rubs them vigorously through my hair, saying no, no, your hair’s all messed up…he rubs his hands around in it every which way, and then steps back to admire his creation. There, he states proudly, fixed it.
I was totally taken aback. Whoa, I say, trying to move my head from under his destructive fingers. WTF??? What are you doing, I ask him, too late though as he’s done the damage to my creation. What, he asks, very innocently, as he tries to explain that my hair had been stuck to the side of my head, I looked like I had bed head, and he just wanted to fix it for me. Now I’ve been growing my hair for not quite two years in a dreaded way (I promise to have a pic up soon). It’s not too lengthy yet, but just right, being long enough for me to mold it into whatever shapes I can think of. I take my appearance very seriously, even though to outsiders who pay little attention to me or for peeps who don’t know me as well as they think they do, it can seem like I simply wake up and face the world. Rest assured that’s not the case, and for him to not even take that into consideration as he fumbled through my design, which for that day was a Mohawk pushed on its side, was simply unbelievable. To me, it speaks of a much deeper and totally invalid disrespect this ‘friend’ carries for me if he thinks that I would go out without putting my best foot forward (he knew that I had run errands before coming over to his place, I had explained it perfectly), and that I would need him to fix my hair, or any part of my appearance for that matter, for me. I indignantly told him this, and I told him that I felt really disrespected that he didn’t feel the need to tell me he hated my hair before he put his hands in it. And I took my leave.
Now I’m well aware of my instinct to react negatively from my emotions, and perhaps leaving didn’t do anything to alleviate the situation, which was awkward to say the least. But I felt that was the best way to show him how his actions had left me feeling. I do hope this will be a learning experience for the both of us and that it doesn’t mark the end of our already shaky relationship…
He had invited me to dinner over a late evening call. He’s a great cook, and he’s shown me before his skills in the kitchen over a great tomato, shrimp and basil pasta he made one day. So there was no question that I’d be headed over, it was just a matter of when. I had a few errands to run, so I ran them then headed over. I arrived, parked, and hopped out of my car, already tasting the delicious food he’d prepared; I was starving after having not eaten for hours already. But before I could shut the door of my car all the way I heard the welcoming starting barks from his dog, which was alertly holding sentry at my friend’s open front door. Now, I’ve seen this particular dog several, several times already, at least in the double digits. We’re very familiar with each other, as she’s sat in my lap while I rubbed her behind the ears, she’s sniffed my crotch, and she’s run her nails down my exposed leg before, so we’re definitely not strangers. However, she goes into spasms upon my arrival EVERY TIME, barking and barking and barking as I head up his stairs to his porch, a bark so loud and vicious sounding (even though he swears she’s never harmed a fly) it reverberates throughout his small neighborhood, and once he comes to the door to actually open it, forget about it. She goes absolutely berserk, barking and jumping up and down, and the minute I step inside she’s all over me, and not in a friendly way. I’m not scared or timid of dogs as I had so many growing up that they are like second nature to me. But several times this dog has seemed on the verge of tearing into me, so much so that she froths at the mouth as she jumps up to semi-attack me, her big paws digging into my thighs. She’s not a small dog either.
Finally, and only after a long delay of ferocious barking, my friend gets the dog to settle down, but only after she’s put herself all in my face and after he has warned me to pet her, or do something on my end to try and calm down this deranged animal. And that’s when I kind of take offense. I mean, this happens every single time I come over, without fail, so it seems that knowing this, my friend would take step before my arrival to make sure it doesn’t happen. Steps such as securing the dog in his upstairs bedroom at least until I’ve come inside. That way she can make her way down at her own pace if she feels so threatened by me. Or he can have a snack to give her once I do get there (she loves carrots), rewarding her for barking less. Or he can muzzle her; I don’t care really as long as this scene doesn’t endlessly repeat itself. But he doesn’t seem to think it’s a big deal, even as her paws leave their mark on my body. I should just pet her, he insists.
If that event weren’t enough to make a slightly uncomfortable evening, then the next incident surely sealed our fate. After a long while, the dog has calmed down and settled for sniffing wildly around my person; seems she can’t shake the idea that I’m there to do her owner harm and she won’t leave me in peace. But I’m the best at ignoring annoying happenings, so I don’t let the dog bother me once she’s stopped assaulting me. My friend asks if I’m still hungry, to which I reaffirm. Once in the kitchen, though, he looks at me, shakes his head, and then takes his hands and rubs them vigorously through my hair, saying no, no, your hair’s all messed up…he rubs his hands around in it every which way, and then steps back to admire his creation. There, he states proudly, fixed it.
I was totally taken aback. Whoa, I say, trying to move my head from under his destructive fingers. WTF??? What are you doing, I ask him, too late though as he’s done the damage to my creation. What, he asks, very innocently, as he tries to explain that my hair had been stuck to the side of my head, I looked like I had bed head, and he just wanted to fix it for me. Now I’ve been growing my hair for not quite two years in a dreaded way (I promise to have a pic up soon). It’s not too lengthy yet, but just right, being long enough for me to mold it into whatever shapes I can think of. I take my appearance very seriously, even though to outsiders who pay little attention to me or for peeps who don’t know me as well as they think they do, it can seem like I simply wake up and face the world. Rest assured that’s not the case, and for him to not even take that into consideration as he fumbled through my design, which for that day was a Mohawk pushed on its side, was simply unbelievable. To me, it speaks of a much deeper and totally invalid disrespect this ‘friend’ carries for me if he thinks that I would go out without putting my best foot forward (he knew that I had run errands before coming over to his place, I had explained it perfectly), and that I would need him to fix my hair, or any part of my appearance for that matter, for me. I indignantly told him this, and I told him that I felt really disrespected that he didn’t feel the need to tell me he hated my hair before he put his hands in it. And I took my leave.
Now I’m well aware of my instinct to react negatively from my emotions, and perhaps leaving didn’t do anything to alleviate the situation, which was awkward to say the least. But I felt that was the best way to show him how his actions had left me feeling. I do hope this will be a learning experience for the both of us and that it doesn’t mark the end of our already shaky relationship…
Spantime...
So, here are a few musings from CSpan…
Representative Howard Coble, N.C. Republican, 6th district on upcoming bill HR-15-92…
“Why don’t policemen or kids get comparable treatment? Why are we singling out a group of people for special treatment?” Rep Coble opposes the bills unnecessary duplicaty, saying that the US already has “too many laws restricting the rights of the American people…” I guess Rep. Coble forgot about the harmful and confining restraints of the Patriot Act, a bill he helped pass, along with plenty other legislation that slowly degrades our privacies and freedoms.
Representative Mark Steven Kirk, Illinois Republican, 10th district…
“…the US stands for freedom, democracy, and tolerance…” Rep Kirk is diametrically opposed to providing freedom, democracy and tolerance for gay people, whom this bill would directly affect. Remember, gay people aren’t really citizens, after all.
Representative Tom Feeny, Florida Republican, 24th district…
“…we mustn’t punish people for thinking…must treat everyone equally…unequal protections as given by this bill would tear the country apart…” Rep Feeny, (along with Rep Steve King, and others) feels that punishing people for crimes they have yet to commit but are thinking of, borders on the line of ‘crimethink’ and for that reason, doesn’t support the hate crimes legislation. Bill HR-15-92 expands Federal protection to include punishment for crimes committed against persons based on their sexual identity.
Representative Steve King, Iowa Republican, 5th district, also quoted George Orwell’s 1984, when he likened the bill to the ‘thought crime bill’, quoting ‘If you control thought, you control death’. Much like this current administration is doing with suspected terrorists, keeping them in inhumane torture traps like Abu Graid and .
But none spoke more keenly against the bill than Representative Bob Goodcatte, Virginia Republican, 6th district… “…additional legislation is unfair and unconstitutional…new Federal laws restricting crime against a specific group are unnecessary…and undermine the spirit of the first amendment.” He specifically stated that the bill would create ‘classes of citizens’ who were above the rest and requiring special attention that would, in the end, be more harmful to the victims than not…
Representative Howard Coble, N.C. Republican, 6th district on upcoming bill HR-15-92…
“Why don’t policemen or kids get comparable treatment? Why are we singling out a group of people for special treatment?” Rep Coble opposes the bills unnecessary duplicaty, saying that the US already has “too many laws restricting the rights of the American people…” I guess Rep. Coble forgot about the harmful and confining restraints of the Patriot Act, a bill he helped pass, along with plenty other legislation that slowly degrades our privacies and freedoms.
Representative Mark Steven Kirk, Illinois Republican, 10th district…
“…the US stands for freedom, democracy, and tolerance…” Rep Kirk is diametrically opposed to providing freedom, democracy and tolerance for gay people, whom this bill would directly affect. Remember, gay people aren’t really citizens, after all.
Representative Tom Feeny, Florida Republican, 24th district…
“…we mustn’t punish people for thinking…must treat everyone equally…unequal protections as given by this bill would tear the country apart…” Rep Feeny, (along with Rep Steve King, and others) feels that punishing people for crimes they have yet to commit but are thinking of, borders on the line of ‘crimethink’ and for that reason, doesn’t support the hate crimes legislation. Bill HR-15-92 expands Federal protection to include punishment for crimes committed against persons based on their sexual identity.
Representative Steve King, Iowa Republican, 5th district, also quoted George Orwell’s 1984, when he likened the bill to the ‘thought crime bill’, quoting ‘If you control thought, you control death’. Much like this current administration is doing with suspected terrorists, keeping them in inhumane torture traps like Abu Graid and .
But none spoke more keenly against the bill than Representative Bob Goodcatte, Virginia Republican, 6th district… “…additional legislation is unfair and unconstitutional…new Federal laws restricting crime against a specific group are unnecessary…and undermine the spirit of the first amendment.” He specifically stated that the bill would create ‘classes of citizens’ who were above the rest and requiring special attention that would, in the end, be more harmful to the victims than not…
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Absurd comedy...
Few, if any, are unfamiliar with the cliched phrase "...Those who forget history are bound to repeat it..." And it seems this phrase should be the basis for the American people's attitude towards our fascist, imperialistic regime currently in office. For even a cursory glance in any astute history book will yield fascinating similarities between our current 'PresiKing' and the leader of the Third Reich, Adolf Hitler. Since the attacks on our World Trade Center in 2001, this PresiKing has fetered and destroyed American civil liberties on a whim consistently, starting with the overreaching and illegal Patriot Act, unwarranted and illegal spying techniques crystallized by the overreaching and illegal Homeland Security initaitives that include the entire branch, waging and continuing an overreaching and illegal war for another country's oil, and, most recently, a little publicized National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, signed on May 9, 2007. With this new directive, the PresiKing takes tyranny to levels never before seen in a democratic state, a new low even for this restrictive and power hungry regime.
The NSHSPD basically extends the powers of the presidential office in the face of a "catastrophic emergency" to those of an imperialistic monarch. "...The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government..." The directive also speaks of "...cooperative efforts...coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers." The White House website, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases, states the purpose of the directive is "...to establish a comprehensive national policy on the continuity of Federal Government structures and operations and a single National Continuity Coordinator responsible for coordinating the development and implementation of Federal continuity policies..." The directive also provides that "...National Essential Functions continue to be performed during a Catastrophic Emergency..." and ensures "a comprehensive and integrated national continuity program that will enhance the credibility of our national security posture and enable a more rapid and effective response to and recovery from a national emergency."
The road to the Fourth Reich continues...
The NSHSPD basically extends the powers of the presidential office in the face of a "catastrophic emergency" to those of an imperialistic monarch. "...The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government..." The directive also speaks of "...cooperative efforts...coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers." The White House website, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases, states the purpose of the directive is "...to establish a comprehensive national policy on the continuity of Federal Government structures and operations and a single National Continuity Coordinator responsible for coordinating the development and implementation of Federal continuity policies..." The directive also provides that "...National Essential Functions continue to be performed during a Catastrophic Emergency..." and ensures "a comprehensive and integrated national continuity program that will enhance the credibility of our national security posture and enable a more rapid and effective response to and recovery from a national emergency."
The road to the Fourth Reich continues...
Monday, May 14, 2007
The mighty one.
As the world grows more unsure and less stable by the day, as American militia-men kill more civilians and are in turn, brutally killed as well, as inflation slowly but surely erodes the already meager institutions of middle class Americans, there is but one global constant; Raphael Nadal's win streak on clay courts. Seems the Spaniard can't be stopped. With his latest victory, a third consecutive win at the Rome Masters series tournament, he topples John McEnroes' record for most consecutive wins on any surface at 77. And what a victory it was, dismantling a very game Fernando Gonzalez, the current finalist of the Australian Open, in straight sets. The guy just can't be defeated on clay it seems. His streak now equals that of Federer's grass court streak, which is residing somewhere in the 40's, but also includes 3 consecutive Wimbledon titles, the pinnacle of the grass court season and perhaps the most revered trophy in all of sports.
Talk of GOAT subsiding for the moment, the Mighty Fedster is in the throes of a 4 tournament lose streak, one that for the moment doesn't seem likely to end. Hamburg is the next tourney up, and the German series is in its own throes of a bad streak. The ATP, the governing body of men's tennis, has put the once revered tournament on the chopping block, threatening to reduce its status as a Masters Series tournament, the title given to events one step below the major slams for men. Lagging ticket sales as well as disfranchisement from the players themselves has really spelled the demise for the once mighty event. The site also of Federer's first big breakthrough, Hamburg has yet to be conquered by the mighty Nadal and remains one of the few clay championships the young Spaniard hasn't added to his growing cabinet. So it is here that the 10 time grand slam champion can begin to make a stand for himself on the surface that has been the demise of so many great, past champions. He will have to make a stand here if he has any chance of snagging the Roland Garros title in two weeks. And what a struggle Roland Garros is shaping up to be. More on Rolland Garros when the draw is released...
Talk of GOAT subsiding for the moment, the Mighty Fedster is in the throes of a 4 tournament lose streak, one that for the moment doesn't seem likely to end. Hamburg is the next tourney up, and the German series is in its own throes of a bad streak. The ATP, the governing body of men's tennis, has put the once revered tournament on the chopping block, threatening to reduce its status as a Masters Series tournament, the title given to events one step below the major slams for men. Lagging ticket sales as well as disfranchisement from the players themselves has really spelled the demise for the once mighty event. The site also of Federer's first big breakthrough, Hamburg has yet to be conquered by the mighty Nadal and remains one of the few clay championships the young Spaniard hasn't added to his growing cabinet. So it is here that the 10 time grand slam champion can begin to make a stand for himself on the surface that has been the demise of so many great, past champions. He will have to make a stand here if he has any chance of snagging the Roland Garros title in two weeks. And what a struggle Roland Garros is shaping up to be. More on Rolland Garros when the draw is released...
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Manly sexuality.
After years of trying to figure others out, perhaps it's time I start a little self-indictment. I've never been one to shy away from fingering the shortcomings of other people, especially other gay men. It's my 'gay' trait, even though other peeps may say that's one of many. I won't disagree, although I tend to think of myself as a 6 on the Kensington gay scale (the scale that measures gayness in every man, with 1 being a complete hetero, 10 being a complete homo), sometimes a 5, but only in 'manly' situations. Like sporting events. I deeply enjoy spending a day at a Braves game (not just to watch the guys in tight uniforms, that's just gravy) or an evening watching the Falcons lose (here's to hoping that changes!!!!!). And of course I breathe anything tennis related. But my sporting habits are growing ever larger and more encompassing. Pride fighting and it's subsidiaries (it has now teamed with the IFL) have me engrossed every weekend with their fresh and original take on hand to hand combat. Showcasing the beefiest, strongest fighters in the world with the rawest and most dangerous fighting techniques, Pride fighting highlight the levels to which men will stoop in order to proclaim themselves King of the Jungle, for where else would the mind numbing, skull cracking, bone shattering happenings inside the legal street fighting ring be acceptable? From flying, roundhouse kicks administered to swollen cheeks to devastating gloveless fisticuffs to the torso, this brand of street fighting is only replicated in a video game. Poker is another 'sport' I've taken a liking too, although I've called it less than in other places so I'll stick to that. Poker isn't a sport it's a hobby, but try telling that to good old ESPN, the sports network dedicated to remaking the sports industry. Why else would they define darts and cheerleading and poker as sports when clearly they are not?
Which leads me to the main point. I'm feeling less and less like a gay man, even though that epitaph has described at least the active half of me since I was able to differentiate between straight and gay tendencies. For men, at least in this country, defining and living up to their sexuality is one of the highpoints of being a man. Society still tilts in men's favor, providing a double standard whenever it can get away with it, from sports to work to sex. Gay men tend to not be chronicled with the greater, firmer, straight laced American male population, but that's due to the American straight male's overcompensating aversion to the 'threat' posed by gay men, which is nil, and not to the overwhelming similarities between the two. But therein lies the problem; at the core, the only real separating factor between gay and straight men is the person in which they choose to have relations with. Everything else is perhaps too similar for the average American straight man to handle, from the rampant promiscuity to the inability to maintain lasting, fruitful, respectful relationships. Of course there are exceptions to every rule, but in the case of American men in general, it isn't inappropriate to group us in one big slothful, selfish lot.
Twice I have had the opportunity to engage in a lasting, respectful, loving relationship only to come up short in both. And for pretty much the same reasons did both relationships die, and in pretty much the same fashion. Self sabotage. Both instances were in part ruined by lies and deceit, lies so petty and inane they warrant only the brief mention here. Lies that would not have caused any disruption for the status quo had they simply been revealed by me before other means could do so. If I had just come clean about the instances that mattered not at all in the long run, perhaps the demise of the relationships would have come at a later date, perhaps not at all. For it is the cheap, quick lies that often do us in, hardly ever do the big ones catch up to us because we spend all of our time making sure the big ones, the lies that would cost us a great deal, never see the light of day. It has been my unlucky position to have not learned from the first set of relationship mishaps, so much so that the pattern was repeated with the same results. Am I now to lay the blame of my own failings and faults at the doorstep of the gay nation and it's constituents and constitution? I could, but it would slide off as surely as rain slides from a clean car windshield. For only the loony expect different results from the same actions. So in my own way, I purposely sabotaged the second relationship, if not the first, for reasons I have to conclude are related to the continuing foreignness I feel for the gay nation and all it entails. For one, I hate drag queens. The sound of a singing chica, doled up in tons of make-up, poured into an evening gown fit for a court jester doesn't in any way satiate my comedic hunger. I find them mildly repulsive, similar to the way a run over rodent, split and convulsing on the hot, sticky tarmac from being smashed underneath two tires, appeals to my senses. For two, I hate the established gay scene, especially that which encircles gay friendly cities. And three, there's just not much about the gay scene that is appealing to me, and I'm not sure where to lay the blame for that. Not sure that any blame needs to be appointed...
I'm pretty sure my mixed feelings concerning my gayness and the gayness of others stems from my unwillingness to accept the stigma that is automatically attached to the gay referendum. It is still very much acceptable to make fag and gay jokes; hate crime legislation that would have made it illegal and unacceptable to base crimes on sexuality was voted down in the Senate after a very narrow passing in the House. Reasons given; specific legislation to protect gays is unfair to those left out of the bill's wording, namely children and women, two groups who already have substantial support in that area. Gays are routinely demoted to second class citizens, from the outdated and harmful Military ban to outright discrimination in the workplace. Perhaps to fully acknowledge my gayness and the part it plays in my life would mean having to accept responsibility for making a change. And perhaps I'm not at that point yet...
Which leads me to the main point. I'm feeling less and less like a gay man, even though that epitaph has described at least the active half of me since I was able to differentiate between straight and gay tendencies. For men, at least in this country, defining and living up to their sexuality is one of the highpoints of being a man. Society still tilts in men's favor, providing a double standard whenever it can get away with it, from sports to work to sex. Gay men tend to not be chronicled with the greater, firmer, straight laced American male population, but that's due to the American straight male's overcompensating aversion to the 'threat' posed by gay men, which is nil, and not to the overwhelming similarities between the two. But therein lies the problem; at the core, the only real separating factor between gay and straight men is the person in which they choose to have relations with. Everything else is perhaps too similar for the average American straight man to handle, from the rampant promiscuity to the inability to maintain lasting, fruitful, respectful relationships. Of course there are exceptions to every rule, but in the case of American men in general, it isn't inappropriate to group us in one big slothful, selfish lot.
Twice I have had the opportunity to engage in a lasting, respectful, loving relationship only to come up short in both. And for pretty much the same reasons did both relationships die, and in pretty much the same fashion. Self sabotage. Both instances were in part ruined by lies and deceit, lies so petty and inane they warrant only the brief mention here. Lies that would not have caused any disruption for the status quo had they simply been revealed by me before other means could do so. If I had just come clean about the instances that mattered not at all in the long run, perhaps the demise of the relationships would have come at a later date, perhaps not at all. For it is the cheap, quick lies that often do us in, hardly ever do the big ones catch up to us because we spend all of our time making sure the big ones, the lies that would cost us a great deal, never see the light of day. It has been my unlucky position to have not learned from the first set of relationship mishaps, so much so that the pattern was repeated with the same results. Am I now to lay the blame of my own failings and faults at the doorstep of the gay nation and it's constituents and constitution? I could, but it would slide off as surely as rain slides from a clean car windshield. For only the loony expect different results from the same actions. So in my own way, I purposely sabotaged the second relationship, if not the first, for reasons I have to conclude are related to the continuing foreignness I feel for the gay nation and all it entails. For one, I hate drag queens. The sound of a singing chica, doled up in tons of make-up, poured into an evening gown fit for a court jester doesn't in any way satiate my comedic hunger. I find them mildly repulsive, similar to the way a run over rodent, split and convulsing on the hot, sticky tarmac from being smashed underneath two tires, appeals to my senses. For two, I hate the established gay scene, especially that which encircles gay friendly cities. And three, there's just not much about the gay scene that is appealing to me, and I'm not sure where to lay the blame for that. Not sure that any blame needs to be appointed...
I'm pretty sure my mixed feelings concerning my gayness and the gayness of others stems from my unwillingness to accept the stigma that is automatically attached to the gay referendum. It is still very much acceptable to make fag and gay jokes; hate crime legislation that would have made it illegal and unacceptable to base crimes on sexuality was voted down in the Senate after a very narrow passing in the House. Reasons given; specific legislation to protect gays is unfair to those left out of the bill's wording, namely children and women, two groups who already have substantial support in that area. Gays are routinely demoted to second class citizens, from the outdated and harmful Military ban to outright discrimination in the workplace. Perhaps to fully acknowledge my gayness and the part it plays in my life would mean having to accept responsibility for making a change. And perhaps I'm not at that point yet...
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Sports time!
That should read Tennis time, but oh well.
After a unique yet unimportant exhibition featuring an inbred clay and grass court, Raphael Nadal, the world's #2 ranked tennis player, defeated Roger Federer, the world's #1 ranked tennis player, in three sets. Of course, every tennis pundit is quick to declaim the relevance of this 'exhibition' match, and to some degree exhibitions are just that; a forum for players to show off their skills in a non-threatening environment. But after three loses already this season (two to Canas and one to Nadal), and a string of losses to world # 2, Federer could have used this 'false' sense of confidence as much as anyone, and he played as if he wanted to win it as much as Nadal did. Why else would the third set tie-breaker reach 10 points? If the match wasn't an important bragging rights tool, why the exertion at all in the second set for Federer (which he won) after losing in the first??
Nadal himself, 20 years of age with 20 titles, is already far ahead of Federer's pace at the same age. It wasn't until 23 that Federer broke through with his first major win, but that fact may also be his saving grace as he begins the trek down the other side of his peak. At 26 years of age, Federer is approaching that time when tennis champions, no matter the ilk or nature of their dominance, begin their slow but steady descention into tennis obscurity; for in tennis, as in every other form of modern entertainment today, significance is given only to those who win, now. Past greats are fondly recalled during rain delays of otherwise tension filled slam tournaments, filling otherwise useless hours with former glory captured forever on film. Sure, it would be folly to condemn Federer, already the owner of 10 grand slam titles, to the has-been table, but the invitation's already been sent. He's only to RSVP. Does he have more slams in him? Absolutely, and to give him credit, he will probably break Sampras' standing record of 14 slams by one or two. He is currently King of Grass.
However, Raphael Nadal, at only 20, can look forward to at least five more years of dominance despite his taxing style of play. While running down every ball now is the bulk of his game-plan, a game-plan that has granted the youngster two consecutive Roland Garros titles as well as a Wimbledon final, Nadal has to realize that he will eventually have to economize his game if only for his own continuity. And he has been doing just that; another win at Indian Wells in California, a semi-fast hardcourt which he's mastered twice before showcased how hard the Spaniard has been working on the less than stellar parts of his game. His serve is much amped, and he's starting to own the placement. And his backhand, always a weapon on clay, has now become a cleaver on hardcourts as well, and should he gain in confidence from a third Rolland Garros title (he's already well on his way with the Monte Carlo title and he's playing Barcelona this week where he's dispatched Federer in doubles), a win at Wimbledon cannot be counted out. Stay tuned...
After a unique yet unimportant exhibition featuring an inbred clay and grass court, Raphael Nadal, the world's #2 ranked tennis player, defeated Roger Federer, the world's #1 ranked tennis player, in three sets. Of course, every tennis pundit is quick to declaim the relevance of this 'exhibition' match, and to some degree exhibitions are just that; a forum for players to show off their skills in a non-threatening environment. But after three loses already this season (two to Canas and one to Nadal), and a string of losses to world # 2, Federer could have used this 'false' sense of confidence as much as anyone, and he played as if he wanted to win it as much as Nadal did. Why else would the third set tie-breaker reach 10 points? If the match wasn't an important bragging rights tool, why the exertion at all in the second set for Federer (which he won) after losing in the first??
Nadal himself, 20 years of age with 20 titles, is already far ahead of Federer's pace at the same age. It wasn't until 23 that Federer broke through with his first major win, but that fact may also be his saving grace as he begins the trek down the other side of his peak. At 26 years of age, Federer is approaching that time when tennis champions, no matter the ilk or nature of their dominance, begin their slow but steady descention into tennis obscurity; for in tennis, as in every other form of modern entertainment today, significance is given only to those who win, now. Past greats are fondly recalled during rain delays of otherwise tension filled slam tournaments, filling otherwise useless hours with former glory captured forever on film. Sure, it would be folly to condemn Federer, already the owner of 10 grand slam titles, to the has-been table, but the invitation's already been sent. He's only to RSVP. Does he have more slams in him? Absolutely, and to give him credit, he will probably break Sampras' standing record of 14 slams by one or two. He is currently King of Grass.
However, Raphael Nadal, at only 20, can look forward to at least five more years of dominance despite his taxing style of play. While running down every ball now is the bulk of his game-plan, a game-plan that has granted the youngster two consecutive Roland Garros titles as well as a Wimbledon final, Nadal has to realize that he will eventually have to economize his game if only for his own continuity. And he has been doing just that; another win at Indian Wells in California, a semi-fast hardcourt which he's mastered twice before showcased how hard the Spaniard has been working on the less than stellar parts of his game. His serve is much amped, and he's starting to own the placement. And his backhand, always a weapon on clay, has now become a cleaver on hardcourts as well, and should he gain in confidence from a third Rolland Garros title (he's already well on his way with the Monte Carlo title and he's playing Barcelona this week where he's dispatched Federer in doubles), a win at Wimbledon cannot be counted out. Stay tuned...
It took months...
But I finally remembered my freakin password!!
So many things to tackle, I don't know quite where to start. Let's get some quotes out of the way...
"I recognize that many Democrats saw this bill as an opportunity to make a political statement about their opposition to the war. They sent their message, and now it is time to put politics behind us and support our troops with the funds they need." Bushco...
This from a president who has been perhaps the most political president in our country's history, from instigating an imperialistic war to steal oil from the Iraqi people to shielding himself from criticism using our once revered troops, this president and his croonies have politicized nearly every aspect of their asministration.
"No one likes to pay higher taxes...But the people who elect us send us to the capital to do what is best for the state. The vast majority didn't send us so that we would never raise new revenue..." Texas R Senator John Carona
Really?? I think a few Texans might have different feelings on the subject, but it's high time that Democrats especially use this new tax momentum to take the 'anti-tax' forum away from the Republicans, who live pretty much tax free while the rest of us bear their burden. Aren't you tired of hearing about the 'trickle-down' economic mode that rarely if ever seems to benefit those most in need?
"Obviously, the president would prefer a straight funding bill with no benchmarks, no conditions, no reports...Many of us, on both sides of the aisle, don't see that as viable." Maine R Senator Susan Collins.
Nor should you, Susan, and kudos to you for standing up (she's not the only Republican to voice opposing opinions, see TheNation.com for more...) After the vetoeing of a bill that would have continued funding for his war (as well as providing substantial funding for 'other' programs, some viable most not), Bush has said he is 'ready' to compromise, ready to work out some issues. But what issues are he willing to compromise on? The amount of money to be spent? The amount of soldiers to be spent? Surely not the amount of time it will take him to figure out a winning strategy...
So many things to tackle, I don't know quite where to start. Let's get some quotes out of the way...
"I recognize that many Democrats saw this bill as an opportunity to make a political statement about their opposition to the war. They sent their message, and now it is time to put politics behind us and support our troops with the funds they need." Bushco...
This from a president who has been perhaps the most political president in our country's history, from instigating an imperialistic war to steal oil from the Iraqi people to shielding himself from criticism using our once revered troops, this president and his croonies have politicized nearly every aspect of their asministration.
"No one likes to pay higher taxes...But the people who elect us send us to the capital to do what is best for the state. The vast majority didn't send us so that we would never raise new revenue..." Texas R Senator John Carona
Really?? I think a few Texans might have different feelings on the subject, but it's high time that Democrats especially use this new tax momentum to take the 'anti-tax' forum away from the Republicans, who live pretty much tax free while the rest of us bear their burden. Aren't you tired of hearing about the 'trickle-down' economic mode that rarely if ever seems to benefit those most in need?
"Obviously, the president would prefer a straight funding bill with no benchmarks, no conditions, no reports...Many of us, on both sides of the aisle, don't see that as viable." Maine R Senator Susan Collins.
Nor should you, Susan, and kudos to you for standing up (she's not the only Republican to voice opposing opinions, see TheNation.com for more...) After the vetoeing of a bill that would have continued funding for his war (as well as providing substantial funding for 'other' programs, some viable most not), Bush has said he is 'ready' to compromise, ready to work out some issues. But what issues are he willing to compromise on? The amount of money to be spent? The amount of soldiers to be spent? Surely not the amount of time it will take him to figure out a winning strategy...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)