I had setup my DVR to record Prayers for Bobby. It's really quite simple, you find the show you want to record in the online guide and press the record button on the remote - it automatically sets the start time and duration for the recording based on the information in the guide. There really isn't any way to screw it up. Find show - press record.
Well, tonight we sat down to watch Prayers for Bobby. According to our DVR, it recorded 2 hours of Prayers for Bobby. Problem is, we got the last hour of Prayers for Bobby and the first hour of the show that followed it.
I've never seen this happen before. We've had other problems, such as power outages in the middle of a recording. But, we've never had it set the wrong start time. What's odd is that I had also recorded the Matthew Shepherd Story which aired earlier on Lifetime - and it recorded just fine.
Technology is wonderful - when it works
I checked the schedule on Lifetime - and Prayers for Bobby is not scheduled to be aired any time soon (at least in the next two weeks, which is how far out the online schedule goes). I could always watch it on the internet - but I'd really rather sit on my couch and watch it on my TV.
I haven't had a chance to watch the movie yet. It's on the DVR; but, I'm waiting for a time when my wife and I both have a couple of hours to sit down to watch it. I'll post my thoughts after I watch it.
For those who do not have access to Lifetime, they have posted the full movie on thsir website (in multiple parts)
Ray Boltz is a former contemporary Christian music singer-songwriter, whose songs often told stories of faith and inspiration. In 2004 he confessed to his wife of 33 years that he is gay. They've since divorced; but, he maintains a good relationship with his former wife and children.
A few of the blogs I follow are using some sort of new comment form that looks like this
My problem is, this form doesn't seem to work with Firefox - my browser of choice. I select "Google Profile", type in my comment and press "Post Comment" - and nothing happens. If I open the blog in Internet Explorer then it works as expected, prompts me to enter my google userid/password and post my comment.
My question is: Is this just me? Is anybody else able to use Firefox with this type of comment?
It's just a pain to have to bring up IE just to write a comment - and why doesn't it remember my userid and password? I really really have to want to make that comment; more often than not, I won't bother.
Or, maybe that's viewed as a good thing - maybe Abelard's comments are all that appreciated.
Anyway, I just wanted to check to see if this is a common problem - or just a problem for me. And, if anybody has ideas for how I can get this type of comment to work with the Firefox 3.0.5 browser.
I've got my DVR setup to record Prayers for Bobby on Saturday night.
You could also check your local public library to see if they have the book.
Hey,
Great post about Lifetime’s new movie “Prayers for Bobby.”
I wanted to send along additional information about the movie including movie stills, trailer, and interview information.
Don’t miss Lifetime’s new book-to-movie premiere of Leroy Aaron’s “Prayers for Bobby” January 24th at 9PM ET/PT. [8PM CT]
Academy Award nominee and Golden Globe winner Sigourney Weaver stars in this emotional true story about a 1970's religious suburban housewife and mother who struggles to accept her young son Bobby's homosexuality. What happens to Bobby is tragic and causes Mary to question her faith; ultimately this mom changes her views in ways that she never could have imagined.
Check out some photos from the movie and sneak peeks here (they are also attached [below]):
We have a new president of the united states. A young, charismatic, handsome, president - who happens to be black. Although, for me personally, the color of his skin is irrelevant - I'm more interested in his values and policies.
Of course, this means the republicans have lost control of the white house. Prior to this they lost control of both the house and the senate.
So, what are they doing about it?
The republicans in Utah are fussing because restaurants, like Chili's, having bottles of alcoholic beverages in view of restaurant patrons, including children - GASP!!!
I'm a conservative - but I'm not sure I want to admit to being a republican anymore. I'm ashamed of my political party. They need to return to republican values of less government. Regulating whether restaurants can have bottles of liquor on display is more government - not less. If you don't like having your children exposed to bottles of liquor then don't eat at those restaurants. It's as simple as that. If enough people agree with you then restaurants will get the hint and hide their bottles of liquor. If you're in a minority too small to make a difference then just deal with it - don't expect the government to step in to save you and your family.
Of course, the democrats aren't doing any better.
With all of their complaining about the war, the economy, health care, etc. They introduced bill H.R. 4040, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), which was signed into law on August 14, 2008 by President Bush and goes into effect on February 10, 2009. It requires retailers to test for lead content in any product intended for use by children under 12, including toys, clothes and jewelry.
Sounds good -right? Anything we can do to protect our children is a good thing - right?
The way the law is written, each specific product (with a unique SKU) has to be tested. So if you have 3 different products all out of the same materials & produced the same, you have to pay for testing on all 3 products. For example, if you have a tank top shirt, a short sleeve tee shirt, and a long sleeve tee shirt - all out of the same fabric & materials with the only difference being in the sleeve length, you test each of these products individually, making testing repetitive and expensive.
Small home based businesses have to conform to the law the same as large scale manufacturers. This will effectively put many such businesses out of business.
The same is true for thrift shops, eBay sellers, etc. Many may have to close their doors since they won't be able to sell used childrens clothes and toys without it being properly tested - not to mention the impact this will have on the people of less fortunate circumstances who depend on these stores.
And, what about the rest of us? We will be facing higher prices since the cost of lead testing will have to be passed onto the consumer.
Our stake relief society is currently involved in a service project making baby quilts which are being donated to a local woman's shelter. After February 10th, this type of service project will become a thing of the past.
This is a prime example of knee jerk reaction legislation that, on the surface, feels good - but is ill conceived and will end up hurting more people than it helps. One of the co-sponsors of the bill is saying that the bill is being interpreted too strictly - although, that doesn't speak very highly of the people who wrote the bill if it is open to such a wide range of interpretation. This is why we need less government - because most of the time they just screw it up and make things worse than before.
Obama is going to save us from all of this - right? Somehow, I'm not instilled with confidence that things are going to get any better.
Even though I didn't vote for him, I will support Obama - he is, after all, my president. Although, I disagree with him on a number of political issues, I consider him a person of honor and integrity - unlike my feelings towards the previous democrat to occupy the oval office. And, who knows, maybe he does have the chutzpah to actually make a difference. For all our sakes, I certainly hope so.
Plus, since I'm, apparently, one of the very few here in the queerosphere who didn't vote for Obama - that gives me exclusive rights to complain - correct???
Prayers for Bobby - True story of Mary Griffith whose teenage son committed suicide due to her religious intolerance, leaving her struggling to make peace with herself. Based on the book of the same title by Leroy Aarons. Stars Sigourney Weaver.
Premieres on Lifetime cable network, January 24 at 9:00pm (8:00pm central) - trailer
As much as it pains me - I find myself agreeing with Rev. Al Sharpton
It amazes me when I looked at California and saw churches that had nothing to say about police brutality, nothing to say when a young black boy was shot while he was wearing police handcuffs, nothing to say when the they overturned affirmative action, nothing to say when people were being delegated into poverty, yet they were organizing and mobilizing to stop consenting adults from choosing their life partners. There is something immoral and sick about using all of that power to not end brutality and poverty, but to break into people's bedrooms and claim that God sent you. -- Rev. Al Sharpton
Tom Hanks has also weighed in while speaking at the premier party for Big Love, on which he is the executive producer
“The truth is this takes place in Utah, the truth is these people are some bizarre offshoot of the Mormon Church, and the truth is a lot of Mormons gave a lot of money to the church to make Prop-8 happen,” he told Tarts. “There are a lot of people who feel that is un-American and I am one of them. I do not like to see any discrimination codified on any piece of paper, any of the 50 states in America, but here's what happens now. A little bit of light can be shed and people can see who's responsible and that can motivate the next go around of our self correcting constitution and hopefully we can move forward instead of backwards. So lets have faith in not only the American, but Californian constitutional process.” -- Tom Hanks,
In the days following the election, I blogged about some of the protests against the LDS church and explored the rhetorical question: Are we reaping what we have sown? It's been 2 months - and the protests are still going on. Not with the same fervor that we saw in the days immediately following the election - but often with better organization and purpose.
For example, on December 20th, there were Light Up the Night for Equality candlelight vigils at shopping malls around the nation. I was impressed by the description and instructions for the event which said
we are not protesting ... This is a peaceful candlelight vigil in the spirit of the holidays ... We will stay silent unless asked a question, we will not yell, instigate, or bear signs ... We do not want to negatively impact any of the parking issues ...
There have also been food drives, toy drives, etc. It seems cooler heads are starting to organize - realizing that angry protests aren't the answer. While they may provide some emotional satisfaction for the moment - they are really not that effective in the long run. For example, the numerous boycotts which have been called for businesses where the owner donated to the YesOn8 campaign have been largely been ineffective (with just a couple of exceptions) - e.g. Utah tourism is doing as well as could be expected given the current economy. Tickets for the Sundance film festival in Park City, Utah are selling strong - even though it's at a Cinimark theater, which was also targeted for a boycott.
The question on my mind is: How much am I going to support these peaceful protests and vigils? Because, the fact is, I am a member of the greater GLBT community - as is everyone else in the Mormon queerosphere. Regardless of our status with the church; regardless of how we choose to refer to ourselves - be it 'gay' or 'struggling with same gender attraction' - we all share a common trait with our queer brothers and sisters; and, we all benefit from increased societal acceptance.
On the other hand, there are still many out there reacting out of hysteria and making some ridiculous claims. For example, there is a YouTube video making the rounds titled Prop 8 - Did Mormons Go Too Far? which claims that the LDS church made far more donations to the prop 8 campaign than reported and suggests that it should lose its tax exempt status. The facts are
With the exception of a few thousand dollars, the vast majority of donations to the YesOn8 campaign came from private citizens. Granted, many of these were Mormon's who believed they were being obedient to a commandment from God as proclaimed by his prophet - the president of the Mormon church. But that doesn't change the fact that they were still private donations.
The call centers that the LDS church used were already in existence and was staffed by volunteers - there was no cost that can be directly attributed to the YesOn8 campaign
Any meetings on this topic, including the satellite broadcast, were under the auspices of preserving marriage. The same is true for the web site produced by the LDS church, preservingmarriage.org. Again, there was no cost that can be directly attributed to the YesOn8 campaign
Say what you will about the LDS church - but the reality is that the people running it are really smart. You can be sure that everything that was said and done was carefully scrutinized by a team of lawyers to make sure they were staying on the right side of the law.
The reason proposition 8 passed in California is because the GLBT community was over confident. For a long time, the NoOn8 campaign was running something like 20 points ahead in the polls; and, they were caught off guard when churches got heavily involved late in the campaign. They were not able to react fast enough and change their strategy to counteract the half truths and falsehoods being proclaimed by the Christian right (which many Mormons also bought into).
All of these calls for IRS investigations and protests at temples and churches is wasted energy - and is counterproductive to achieving increased societal acceptance.
I've publicly stated that I disagree with the LDS church's involvement in the YesOn8 campaign. But, frankly, I'm getting sick and tired of the LDS church being demonized so much by the gay press. They complain about the falsehoods and half truths that were used by the YesOn8 campaign - yet they are guilty of the very same in their attacks on the LDS church.
I know I'm in a "sanctioned" marriage and none of this directly impacts me as it does others. But, can't we turn the other cheek? Isn't being Christ-like - and beating the Christian right at their own game - far more effective in the end? When the dust settles, what is going to have a greater impact on society? Productive members of society - who happen to be gay - making an honest and sincere effort to educate the public? Or a bunch of bitchy queens?
Last week, my wife asked me if there were any movies I wanted added to our NetFlix queue - I said I would like to see Mama Mia. She said she wanted to see it too - so it was added to our queue and came to our mailbox a few days ago. Last night we were able to watch it.
Now, I have to confess that, prior to watching Mama Mia, I really didn't know anything about it. I didn't know it was set on a greek island. I didn't know about the story line of a young girl getting married who didn't know who her father was; so, reading her mothers diary she narrowed down to three guys and sent them invitations to her wedding (this all comes out in the first 5 minutes of the movie - so I'm not really giving anything away). All I really knew is that it was a Musical using songs from Abba and that it had Pierce Brosnan in it and he doesn't sing very well - but that the movie was still pretty good.
With that backdrop, here is a conversation we had last night as we were getting ready for bed
Me:Mama Mia wasn't as good as I wanted it to be Her:I was surprised you even wanted to watch it at all, it's a chick flick Me:I heard it was good Her:No, you heard it was gay Me:That isn't true Her:Sure it is ... Her:You heard it had lots of half naked boys running around
I left it at that. Although, I suspect my silence confirmed her suspicions.
Is this how it's going to be? Is everything I say or do going to be viewed through a gay lens?
Truth is, I really didn't know about all the shirtless guys running around in swim trunks (although, I will confess, it was a pleasant surprise). I didn't know that there would be a hint of gay romance (don't want to give anything away, so I'll leave it at that).
And, the truth is, I like musicals. I was about 9 years old when The Sound of Music came out. I remember going to see it about six times - in an era when it was unusual to go see a movie more than once. Some of my all time favorite movies include Fiddler on the Roof, Little Shop of Horrors, and Amadeus (not really a musical, per se, but it has lots of music in it). I liked the rock opera Jesus Christ Superstar. On my mission, on P-days, while the other elders were playing basketball at church, I would often go into the chapel and practice the organ - I liked to crank it up and play the JESUS CHRIST - SUPERSTAR opening part (I didn't know the rest of the song). In high school, I had the soundtrack for Hair, (although I've never seen the stage play or film) and used to listen to it all the time (much to the consternation of my father). I have fond memories of watching The Wizard of Oz with my family. I liked The Music Man and Labyrinth. More recently, I liked Hairspray and the High School Musical trilogy. When we went to see High School Musical 3 in the theater, afterwards I was still in the mood for a musical, so we came home and watched Enchanted on DVD.
Mind you , I don't like all musicals - I've never been overly thrilled with Singing in the Rain or The King and I. And there are some I've never bothered to sit down to watch, like Phantom of the Opera, Grease, or West Side Story. Although, I am looking forward to Wicked coming out on film - at least, I hope the rumors are true.
Is liking musicals gay? Perhaps, I suppose it could be my gay side exerting itself.
Or, perhaps, since accepting I am gay - I am simply less inclined to try to hide this pleasure of mine. Maybe the wall I've built up around myself is starting to crumble a bit - and my true character is starting to emerge. Maybe that is what's scaring my wife. I don't feel like I've changed - I feel like I'm the same person I've always been. But, perhaps, she is perceiving a change it me - and she feels like she doesn't know me as well as she thought she did.
On that note, I watched the season opening for American Idol last night. I never even watched American Idol until last year, and then I didn't get involved until they were down to the final 10. This is the first time I've ever watched the initial tryouts, auditions, or whatever they are called.
My son asked "why are you watching this" to which my wife answered "it's dads new favorite show" [did I detect a hint of sarcasm and disgust in her tone?]. He watched it for a few minutes and then got up and left. This morning, my wife told me to go ahead and watch it tonight if I wanted and not feel like I should wait for her.
btw, I wouldn't call it my favorite show. But, she only has herself to blame. She is the one who kept insisting I watch it with her last year. I resisted and resisted until I finally caved in and watched it one night, and then the next and the next - and now I'm hooked. She is the one responsible for my American Idol addiction.
Is Ryan Seacrest gay? I know rumors of his preferences have been circulating for years; and, I know he vehemently insists he is straight - even having a former girlfriend come to bat for him. But last night, when bikini girl said she wanted to make out with him, he said words indicating he would like that (but wasn't sure if it was allowed) - but his body language sure seemed to indicate he wasn't too keen on the idea.
And, do these people seriously not realize how bad they are? Frankly, the show had all of the realism of professional wrestling. But, I'll probably watch it again tonight, with a morbid sense of curiosity - sorta like gawking at an accident on the road. I felt sorry for some of the contestants, even feeling embarrassed for them. But, I have to remind myself that they know beforehand what they were getting into. They know how mean the judges can be, they know it's all going to be filmed and that their face could be plastered on national TV. So, I feel a little sorry for them, but not too sorry.
In other news, was anyone else disappointed in the series finale for Stargate Atlantis? Seriously, I liked the show, but after that pitiful ending, I kinda don't miss it.
The second half of season 4 (and final season) of Battlestar Gallactica - final 10 episodes - is scheduled to begin airing on Friday.
I was hoping they'd figure out a way to bring him back from the dead in season 4 (as a flashback, a dream, a cylon, or whatever) - but according to the rumor mill, it ain't gonna happen.
25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. 26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs. 27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table. 28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.
...only two options are ... available. On the one hand, we can do what the first Christians did. We can continue to discuss this matter in Christian love with one another and if it seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us, we can remove both our rejecting attitudes and policies and announce to the world that for us all means homosexual people, too. Since there are many who have been taught from the Bible by the church that such acceptance is unthinkable, we will all need to be sensitive to those whose religious conditioning will not allow them to embrace the change.
On the other hand, if the church cannot believe the Spirit is saying this for our time, then it should quit being so sloppy in its table manners and stop allowing crumbs to fall where those not qualified to receive God’s meal might happen upon it. If white Christians really wanted to keep black people enslaved, they should never have allowed them to sit in the balcony of their churches and hear the gospel. If Christian men want to keep women subordinate, they should not only insist women keep silent in church, as the Bible clearly commands, but also insist they not go to church at all, lest they hear the gospel and be set free. And if the church wants to keep gay and lesbian people from sitting or serving at the Lord’s table, it should not drop them any crumbs from the table or otherwise allow them to overhear the gospel.
Why? Because the gospel is the power of God for the salvation of all who believe, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. Any underclass persons who eat its crumbs, even from the floor, will be transformed and empowered in such a way that they will finally find their place at the table of God. It is to that table that Christ now invites us all, regardless of sexual orientation. Amen.
Delivered to a congregation of the United Methodist Church - but apropos to the LDS church as well. Note that he does not suggest that the church needs to change its doctrine - only its rejecting attitudes and policies.
The traditional view of a eunuch in the bible is a male who does not possess male genitalia - either as a birth defect or from castration. But, perhaps the bible is not meant to be taken so literally. Maybe the definition of a eunuch is more broad describing someone who is incapable of male/female bonding - for whatever reason.
Jesus describes three types of eunuchs
For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. Matthew 19:12
Looking at each of these individually
Born eunuch's
This could refer to men with a birth defect rendering them incapable of male/female bonding; but, was this such a common occurrence that it warranted special mention in the bible? Also, in biblical society, people born with disabilities were often shunned and relegated to a life of begging - yet eunuch's were often held in high esteem and had positions of power and authority. Why would a person with a congenital defect affecting reproduction be treated so much differently than the blind and lame?
It seems reasonable that a eunuch could be a man who was born from his mothers womb with a natural inclination towards other men. They're incapable of male/female bonding - because they don't like girls.
Man-made eunuch's
This could refer to people who have been wounded and/or castrated as an injury of war. Such people could be held in high esteem and given a position of authority because of the sacrifice they made. Others could be forcibly castrated to serve as guardians of women or harem servants, yet others as a punishment for some sin. While the former could be held in high esteem, such seems unlikely for the latter who would, presumably, be shunned.
Regardless of how someone became a eunuch, such people were excluded from the congregation by the law of Moses
He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord. Deuteronomy 23:1
Self-made eunuch's
How many men will voluntarily cut off their own genitalia for the glory of God? What sort of warped logic could lead a person to conclude "God created me in his own image - yet he requires me to mutilate myself." I'm sure there are people like that in the world (both ancient and modern); but, are these who Jesus was referring to? It seems more reasonable that these are people who are physically capable of sexual relationships - but choose celibacy so as to dedicate their life to God - a sort of virtual eunuch.
** * *** * **** * *** * **** * *** * **
This notion of homosexuals being identified as eunuch's in the bible is certainly not something I came up with on my own. I've been following, with interest, a couple of related discussion threads in the "Thoughts and Discussions" forum on the Gay Christian Network website. This particular forum is only available to registered users on GCN; although, registration is free - for anyone interested in referring to them.
It's difficult to find any objective material on the subject given the politically charged nature of homosexuality. However, homosexuality is often viewed as a modern phenomena since it's only been relatively recently (last couple hundred years) that it's even been acknowledged. But, it seems logical to conclude that homosexuality is as old as man himself - historically disguised as something else because ancient society couldn't comprehend or explain it.
There are people who have studied this topic in great depth - exploring root meanings of words from the original Aramaic and so forth. Likewise, there are others who have made similar exploration to refute this claim. But, I am a simple man - and, frankly, when I start reading these sort of discussions, my eyes just sorta glaze over. But you can find them by googling "bible eunuch gay"
** * *** * **** * *** * **** * *** * **
So what if the eunuch's in the bible were gay - does it change anything?
Probably not.
But it does suggest that homosexuals do, in deed, have a place at the Lord's table - but, perhaps, the world is not quite ready to receive this teaching.
It seems that all of us, at one time or another, reach a realization that our choices, as a gay Mormon, are limited. It often comes as an epiphany - I had my epiphany over a year ago, which I discussed in a series of blog posts
Elsewhere, I've seen it referred to as the Four Paths
Reject the religion, choose/create a new faith/meaning, and enjoy a “full” relationship with a same-sex partner.
Enjoy a “full” relationship with a same-sex partner and maintain belief in (and ties to) Mormonism, albeit on a more restricted/limited basis (i.e. no callings, temple, or priesthood privileges).
Maintain belief and full membership in Mormonism and marry an opposite-sex partner.
Maintain belief and full membership in Mormonism and remain single and celibate.
I've seen similar discourses on other family blogs.
However we classify it, this realization seems to be an important part of our coming out progress - but it leaves us with, what can be, a difficult decision: Which choice to make - which path to go down.
For some, the decision may seem obvious.
For others, the decision is much more difficult, often vacillating between the various choices or paths for weeks, months, even years before finally settling on one.
It may be complicated by the presumption that we are not choosing between good and bad, rather all choices have both good and bad points - and we find ourselves trying to decide upon the most good and least bad choice.
Some find happiness and contentment in their choice.
Others choose a path and then, not finding fulfillment or happiness, revisit their choices and choose a different path to follow.
Yet others find themselves faced with a dichotomy between the choice they feel they should make and the choice they want to make. They may find themselves going through a mourning process for the rejected choice which was not meant to be.
We may find that once we've made our choice, the other options do not fade away - rather they linger in the background, continually beaconing to us, perhaps even causing us to doubt the choice we've made.
Choices - we all make them, or are in the process of making our choice. But, what drives our decision? What tilts us in one direction or the other?
Is it our physical desires?
Is it our faith in the LDS church - or lack thereof?
Is it our fear of loneliness?
Do our family and friends factor into our decision?
One thing I do feel strongly about is that the choice we make is ours - and ours alone. It is not our place to judge another for the choice they make.
Here in the queerosphere we are a rather eclectic, loosely coupled group - consisting of both young and old, male and female, married and single, religious and atheist, conservative and liberal. The only thing we all have in common is an affinity towards those of our same gender. This is the bond which ties us together, our common trait. Yet, it is a trait so strong that we able to have a rapport with one another regardless of our path.
The queerosphere is a virtual island of misfit toys - only Santa isn't coming to rescue us. We live in a society that doesn't want a Charlie in the Box; fortunately, we are able to find solace and understanding with each other.
As we begin a new year - I just want to express my gratitude for my friends and acquaintances I've made here in the queerosphere. It is through the support I've received here that I am able to accept myself and have been able to make my choice.
It's 2009! It doesn't seem that long ago that we are bringing in 2008 as the new year - where did 2008 go?
This is post #301. That's an average of a post every 2.5 days - or, to put it another way, there are, on average, 2.8 posts per week. Of course, some weeks are busier than others. Once I went an entire month (November 2007) without posting anything. I didn't even read other blogs during that month - I just wanted to prove to myself that I could do it.
New years even was fun, albeit uneventful. We invited a few friends over and play some games which catching up. Me, my son, and a friend ate all of the clam dip - my wife, my friends wife, and another sister we invited were not happy. But, it was most enjoyable - and I only feel a little guilty.
I went to the doctor New Years eve morning. I thought I was just going in for a regular checkup since he wasn't going to renew my prescriptions otherwise since I hadn't seen him in several months. It turned out to be a complete physical. I'm fine - but my dignity is on life support. [TMI]I guess the good news is that my prostate is doing fine [/TMI]. My blood pressure was a bit high - so he is changing me to a different blood pressure medication. Getting old is not what it's cracked up to be. I've been wearing bifocals since I was 40, I have a handful of pills I take each morning - although, to be fair, most of them are vitamins. And, I'm starting to feel aches and pains in new and different parts of my body - it really sucks!
I've been off work since December 22nd, and will return on January 5th. Today it's January 2nd - where did my vacation go? Is the acceleration of time directly proportional to age?
I'm thinking seriously of taking a photography class in portraiture at a local junior college. Classes don't start until January 20th; so, I have a couple of weeks still to think about it. Frankly, the thing that is holding me back is the hope of finding people who would be willing to let me photography them. Is there anybody reading this blog who lives in North Central Texas and isn't afraid of a camera?
2009 is looking to be a very busy year - at least the first half. I have two children getting married; my wife and I will, officially, become 'empty nesters'; OK, maybe that's about it - the 2nd half of 2009 my life return to its regular boringness.
I've been working all winter getting a new vegetable garden ready for the spring - and it will be fabulous. I've had to build it in the front yard, because that's where I have sun - too many trees in the back yard. So, I've built raised beds in geometric shapes, reminiscent of an old french garden. I'm thinking of putting some sort of sculpture in it, and maybe even a fountain of some sort. I just hope it actually produces vegetables.
Well, tonight we sat down to watch Prayers for Bobby. According to our DVR, it recorded 2 hours of Prayers for Bobby. Problem is, we got the last hour of Prayers for Bobby and the first hour of the show that followed it.
