At What Cost

When I was 14, I went to the public library and checked out a replica of a Jackson Pollack painting and hung it on my bedroom wall. Yes, at the time when most teenage boys are hanging posters of sports heroes, rock musicians, or scantily clad women; I was hanging abstract art. To be sure, this should have been a warning sign for my parents that fifteen years later, I would tell them that I was gay.

Focus on the Family just published on their website some warning signs that your son might be gay. The reason for this, naturally, is to encourage parents to recognize the warning signs so that the child can be changed before it's too late. In looking for these red flags, the site cautions "A number of them had traits that could be considered gifts: bright, precocious, social and relational, and artistically talented." Now while the website sponsors don't delve completely into the argument of nature vs. nurture, they do decide that children are not born gay. They suggest that the child's rearing (the age old absent father, smothering mother model) is to account for the homosexual leanings and therefore un-rearing or re-rearing can reverse the trend. After all, children are not straight by accident. And someone always has to blame. But here's the confusing part for me. If raising a bright, social, artistically talented kid is a sign that you may be raising a gay kid, and if raising a gay kid means that you are failing as a parent; how does one commute those two? How can raising a bright, social, artistically talented kid ever mean that you are failing as a parent? And if you believe this propaganda, how does a parent go about removing the homosexuality without endangering the good stuff. Whether nature or nurture, if traits are intrinsically linked, can they be separated without endangering the whole?

Growing up, my parents encouraged our artistic side. We sang, drew pictures, auditioned for plays, learned musical instruments and foreign languages. We also played baseball or ran cross country if we wanted to. I didn't. As an adult, I am a physician who teaches at the post graduate level. I also sing, write, play guitar, and just like at age 14 admire and collect art. I am the sum total of all of my parts including my sexuality. I honestly believe that I would be a different physician, a different teacher, a different writer, a different person if I wasn't a gay one. Of course, I can't be sure. Though they did not have internet access back then, my parents definitely had access to Focus on the Family. They took alot of cues from that group. They were certainly influenced as young parents to raise their kids right. I have never asked my parents if they suspected that I was different from other boys early on and if they made attempts to change things given my red flags. Something tells me they were too busy attending all of our recitals and sporting events to give it much thought. They were too busy being good parents.

What's in a blog?

So, a while ago I started reading blogs. I had heard of them for sure but never got on the blog reading bandwagon. But once I started, I couldn't stop. As one blog's referencing to another blog led to further blogs, I spiraled into an addiction that consumed quite a bit of my time every day. I discovered blogs that kept me abreast of the latest news of interest, blogs commenting on the writer's own observations of human nature, gossip blogs, and the diaries of some of my friends. I have since pared down the number of blogs that I read and obviously noticed that the reason I am left with those particular blogs is because they give me what I want to read. I have discovered though, that if I am not careful, my relevant world becomes the one I see through the looking glass of my blogs. And it is definitely not unbiased.

Last week, Peter Jennings died. As the discussion ensued as to who would replace him (business is business after all), a haystack of statistics was thrown out regarding the demographic that watches his news program. How will they keep that demographic, who could attract a further demographic? It made me wonder - "In the age of blogging, who really watches the news?" I would like to think that one would still watch the evening news to get unbiased reporting of the world around us. But in this political climate both news stations and reporters have been accused of leaning one way or the other. And so as we Americans spend more and more time in front of our computers siphoning away only those sites we have the time or the desire to read, we run the risk of becoming a modified adage:

You are what you blog.

It Begins

I keep a private journal - have been for the last six or seven years. I love it. I frequently look back on what I wrote and remember or laugh at the way I thought about things . The best part about my journal is that my writing is private.

I imagine that I have the same worries that most beginning bloggers have. Why would anyone have any interest in reading what I have to say? It's the blogger as egomaniac defense mechanism that keeps most of us a quiet observer in the blogosphere. What if my blog sucks? The world as critic is a very daunting thought. What if nobody reads my blog? Well, nobody else reads my journal and so far I have been pretty happy with that. So, why start a blog?

I have alot of opinions about the world around me. I want this blog to be my way of scratching the surface of interesting topics that are on my mind, maybe working a few things out in my head, and someday remembering or laughing at the way I thought about these things. Unlike my journal, I invite the world to read. Like my journal, it's ultimately for me.