Public vs. Anonymous, and Partisanship in the Age of Trump

Nope, didn't get the appeal way back then either.
Image from World of Wonder.

I got myself into a little bit of trouble yesterday. Someone I work with was either alarmed, offended or simply disagreed with something I had written online that appeared on their Facebook newsfeed.* I don't know what it was--I actually hadn't posted anything overtly political directly on my Facebook wall in some time--and we quickly dropped the subject. But it opened my eyes a bit about the pros and cons of being "open" online, vs. being anonymous, as well as the difficulty in holding your online tongue in an age of hyper partisanship.

I've been blogging since 2007, and before that, had an online presence stretching back to the days of Prodigy. But it wasn't until the beginning of the blog that I became transparent, and easily searchable. Much of the world is the same way. We write under our own names, with our own pictures and much of our own bios easily readable and knowable. We don't hide behind cute internet handles or pseudonyms. Which can give a person a bit of credibility, and accountability. But also, it can take away privacy (nothing on the internet is ever really gone). And it can get you into trouble if you say something that runs contrary to the beliefs, politics or sensibilities of other people you know.

Likewise, I didn't (and don't) understand the Clinton hate in 1992.
Image from ABC News.

So, I have a bit of a problem. I'm too entrenched in my behavior, and have already written too much publicly, to try to change my stripes now.  I mean, I can be more thoughtful and careful about what I say and how I say it. In fact, I probably will consider my words a bit more carefully, at least while this incident remains fresh in mind. But, what I've said is already out there. And my behavior patterns are difficult to break. I tweeted two or three things later that day, and only pondered their content afterward. Oops. But, also, we live in an environment of extreme partisanship on virtually every issue. And there are times when holding back, and not contributing is very difficult for a person who has political blogging as a hobby!

And let's talk about the political side for just a second. Everybody knows that in business and personal relationships, politics and religion are conversational minefields. But I think that it is obvious that this political season is quite simply different. It has elements that aren't simply right vs. left, conservative vs. liberal. The two main figures in the presidential battle are individuals widely loathed by huge segments the public. But while one, Hillary Clinton, is despised through an almost completely political prism, the other has only become explicitly political relatively recently.

Yes, Donald Trump has been in the media spotlight for decades. Until 2015, it was perfectly reasonable and acceptable to despise him as a superficial reality TV star, a libidinous, philandering shyster, with an abrasive personality. I personally have never understood his appeal, except as a curiosity and a target for humor. I didn't like him during the Ivana era, the Marla Maples days, The Art of the Deal, his many media utterances, and his more recent career as host of The Apprentice/The Celebrity Apprentice. If anything, my estimation of the man went down along the way.

Both loathed, but for different reasons.
Image from Restate.

And now here we are with Trump as the Republican candidate for president, and all of that baggage follows. If I were a Republican (still), I'd still despise Trump. I think this is borne out by the turmoil his candidacy has put the GOP through. So, I don't see my anti-Trump attitudes, beliefs and advocacy as a purely political thing. Yes, if the candidate was Jeb Bush or Ted Cruze, I'd still be for Hillary Clinton. But the arguments, the advocacy, everything would be very, very different.

If I were seeing Jeb! or Cruz signs in yards, I wouldn't question the judgment, taste or intelligence of the folks who put them there. With Trump, I can't help it. How does someone look at this guy, listen to this guy, and say, "Yeah! That's my guy!" I can't see it. And I do understand that there are people who say the same thing about Hillary Clinton, but the difference is, that's almost entirely politically based. Also accumulated over decades, but overtly partisan, and drenched thoroughly with questionable sourcing, innuendo, and opposition research.

So, the antipathy toward both candidates is similar in that it has been fostered for almost exactly the same amount of time (Trump has actually been nationally known for longer, probably), but comes from an entirely different place. Could my loathing of Donald Trump be colored by vague discomfort with his public persona, just as "colored" by perception as the political sourness a conservative might feel against Clinton? Maybe. I'll concede that, but only to a degree. Because I can honestly say that absent politics, I'd still have a strong negative reaction to Trump, in virtually any context.

Despite the honest disliking of this individual going back decades, it is unfortunately true that my personal anti-Trump campaign will be seen by many or most as a purely political position. Everything these days comes down to a black and white, binary partisan divide. But since I am a transparently open internet presence (if only to the random people who might look me up), I thought this explanation might at least provide context.

*On a tangent, the problem with being public on Facebook, and commenting transparently, is that Facebook itself will "feed" commentary made on other pages, even other websites, to Facebook followers and friends. Most people will never see your comment over at Huffington Post, but it could appear on anyone's at any time. Apparently, this time, something I said that was maybe particularly pointed landed upon this person's feed. I still don't know what it was, but am relatively certain it was pro-Clinton or anti-Trump. 

RANT: My Ordeal Switching from Cable to Satellite

Sure! It's jut that easy! Right?

Does anyone have a good story about signing up for cable, satellite or other TV/Internet service? Or rather, so good that you'd feel compelled to write about it, or share your story? I rather doubt it. Because, even though it's not something we usually do very often, the experience is almost universally bad. I suppose getting new cellular service is right up there in the same category, but at least there, you usually end up with a flashy little device to carry around with you. But it shares a lot of the same problems.

First, there is the bait-and-switch. Promises of insanely low monthly prices for the newest, the best! $19.95, $29.95, $39.95!  Premium service free for the first three months! Low, low prices for a year! Free accessories! Instant rebates! Free installation and equipment! Hundreds of dollars in gift cards! You'll get better than you currently have for less money! And they spend so much money in mailers, commercials and ads, trying to give you an offer that you can't refuse.

And sometimes, you can't. Because if you've had your current service for a year or two years, suddenly the high price you grudgingly pay every month swells--either by a seemingly innocuous couple of dollars, crawling ever upward--or a suddenly inflated price. Then, those come-ons start to sound pretty sweet. Especially the "more for less" part of the equation.

I've already been at my "new" house for just almost a year.  My Time-Warner Cable plan (expensive, but less per month, and with less sparkle and flash than I'd had at my old house) was about to go up, and its limitations had become obvious. Improving the service was only going cost more by layers of $9.99 and $19.99 tack-ons, and we're already paying a crazy amount for our "bundle." Plus, I wasn't looking forward to hours on the phone negotiating. The initial contact last year had already been a frustrating struggle. So, I entertained the idea of switching.

First, I had some ATT/DirecTV salesmen arrive at my door. I listened for a few minutes, but happened to be busy, so I shooed them away, told them to come back later. They did return, with the hard sell. I didn't bite. Yet. But I'd been roughed up enough that I was easy pickings for the sales guys at Sam's Club, a couple of weeks later. They promised better equipment (Record five shows at once, not just two! Pause live TV in any room! Set recordings in any room! Three months free premiums! As good or better than you have for less per month!). It all sounded too good to be true, and I'd been through this before. I knew that the "low low price" has a way of creeping up before you sign the

It always feels like this, doesn't it?

dotted line, and the service you were promised ends up being significantly less. I was determined to not get suckered again.

So, I agreed to let them come out, assess whether the service would compare well, actually be less per month, not skyrocket in year two, not have hidden costs and unwanted compromises in service. But no matter how hard you try, you just can't avoid all the pitfalls of the process. Every step has been a pain in the butt, enormously frustrating, to the point of inspiring fits of rage. Why does it have to be this way? As I've already been very wordy, I'm going to try to distill down my frustrations:

- The sales pitch at Sam's Club started out fine, but much of it was a near-inquisition to AT&T's customer service while standing in the middle of a busy store, complete with repeated requests for my Social Security Number and a credit check. Every bit of 20 minutes was spent on the phone, with a difficult to hear or understand, heavily accented CSR. I nearly called it off right there.
- The details of my plan--which I was repeatedly promised could be outlined in detail later--remained vague, as did the details of pricing. The estimate up front sounded good, but the feeling of any kind of hard-and-fast real numbers were elusive. To my insistence, I was assured that I wasn't committed to installation until I was satisfied. But yes, they'll need a refundable $19.95.
- Scheduling for service entailed two appointments, one for satellite service, and one for phone and internet. AT&T recently acquired DirecTV, but it hasn't been a happy marriage, at least not yet. The install was set for Friday, at overlapping time windows (8-11, 9-12). I still was uncomfortable about how it all would work.
- By the time I got home, I already had a flood of emails, and discrepancies were already starting to creep in. They were already referring to me as a new subscriber, and for all appearances, I was feeling committed to the process. But I had confirmation numbers--two of them--on emails--also two of them.
- Wednesday, I got a call that AT&T was coming for install. No, that's not the deal, you're supposed to come Friday! And we're not set for installation yet, I still haven't committed! I want to make sure the plan I was promised is all it's cracked up to be! So, I told them, NO, it's Friday 8-11. I called to ensure that was the case. I called to confirm the terms of the deal, to a better (but still not confident) feeling that it was what I'd been sold.
- Thursday, after still more email come-ons, I was told they were coming again, that day! NO, Friday, it's Friday I told them. I got another call, with my account details, but asking for an entirely different client. Nope, that's not me, I said.

"Steve" from AT&T

- All through this process, I was being called "Mr. James," which is my first name, so I wasn't even sure they knew who I was. I also had to deal with two different companies for three different services, from several CSRs, some with thick and impenetrable accents.
- Friday finally arrived, and one of the services (I couldn't recall which) was 45 minutes from arriving). It turned out to be the DirecTV side, and they started unloading equipment! Dammit, I hadn't committed to the service yet! But, I had confirmed--twice--that the pricing was good, and now, after all of the above, I decided I'd put too much into this to walk away. So, I let them begin work.
- Noon approached, and still no AT&T side of the equation had arrived. I called, and found that there was no active order. Even though this pricing was bundled. Even though the services were interdependent to function, and would be replacing my existing service. Even though I had multiple confirmation numbers and hours on the phone. I was told we'd have to restart the process, and it would be impossible to send out a tech that day. Unacceptable! But I was arguing with yet another strongly-accented, hard to understand CSR. I demanded another person to talk to.
- Trying mightily to be considerate, I talked to a more local person, finally. There was truly no way to get someone out that day, unbelievably. But I gave a good enough fight to get someone for the next day, promises of another gift card, and increased service for (allegedly) the same price.

As of this writing, I have satellite service, with a package of better equipment than I had, but slightly less in the way of channels (something I may try to address). I have a few new holes in my walls that I didn't expect, and still don't quite comprehend, as my house was fully wired for cable. I have internet and phone service allegedly arriving today, with a mid-range speed (and a promised, to-be-installed-later) upgrade to a higher speed. I don't doubt that I'll have to fight again, to get that price down to the "better than you had, for less per month" promise. But I also have that gift card promise, that--by the end--had grown to a $300 Sam's Club gift card, and separate $110 gift card, and a $200 gift card. And I still have my old cable service, which I had to keep in order to have internet in the meantime.

That last bit was a bit odd too. I'd lost internet service from the moment they started installing the satellite service. And for hours, we were in the dark ages, with no connectivity. It inexplicably started to work again, hours later. Clearly my house's cable wiring is still intact alongside, but I have no idea why it was out for those hours.

So, the story is not over. And far from unique. But I'd love to know why this process is so painful. I'd love to know how an industry as vulnerable as this one would make their customers go through this. I'd like for AT&T/U-Verse/DirecTV to get their corporate shit (and uncomfortable marriage) together. Most of all, I'd love to know why I'm saddled with so many channels I'll never use (home shopping, international languages, religion, sports), and losing several that we do.

I'm convinced that the old model will die. Eventually, the process will have to become more streamlined, the content selection more ala carte, and the power more on the side of the customer. But for this 2-year process, I'm stuck with what I have. I mean, after they've drilled several holes in your house, and you've unstrung and restrung the spaghetti wires in several rooms, who wants to go through the process of undoing it and starting over? 

Ted Cruz Continues Fight Against Al Franken on Net Neutrality

I dislike everything about Senator Ted Cruz. Superficially, I'm annoyed by his perpetually creepy face and his annoying, mosquito-buzzing-by-your-ear voice. More seriously, it pisses me off how he plays to his base. But does he believe his own patter? Is he a patronizing douche, who calculatedly throws red meat to the savages? Or is he an egotistical ignoramus who believes that whatever claptrap falls out of his mouth is the truth?

Say what you want about Senator Al Franken, but he's genuine. He knows what he's talking about, and he believes in what he's saying. In the case of Net Neutrality, Franken--who has championed the idea for years--is explaining what it is, in reality. Ted Cruz calls it "ObamaCare for the Internet," and makes rotary phone analogies, neither of which makes a lick of sense in regard to the subject. Cruz is outmatched here, but to paraphrase President Obama again, "Please proceed, Senator."

[Excerpt]

Ted Cruz Hits Back At Al Franken On Net Neutrality

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) responded on Monday to comments made by Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) about net neutrality, the latest exchange in what is becoming an ongoing, public back-and-forth. The debate began when Cruz dubbed the concept "Obamacare for the Internet." Franken said in an interview on Sunday that Cruz has no idea what he's talking about. . .

Read more at: Huffington Post

I (Don't) Want My Sarah Palin TV!

Image from source, NewsCorpse

After the announcement that Sarah Palin is getting her own internet "TV" channel, the hashtag #PalinTVShows began trending on Twitter. I couldn't resist throwing in, 8 Simple Rules for Knocking Up My Teenage Daughter, Also Too. But seriously, the news that this political celebrity with the paper-thin depth of knowledge, is starting her own network isn't really a surprise is it?

I mean, she's become wealthy doing her "you betcha" schtick for tea bagger rubes. How much can an internet "channel" cost? She loves being on camera, and she loves to throw her Molotov Cocktail bon mots via social media. Now, she's just combining these things, and can run them on a loop. I can't imagine what would possess a person to subscribe. But you know she's going to sell memberships to media outfits like Media Matters and Think Progress, along with the organizations who agree with her like NewsBusters and World Nut Net Daily. But I have a feeling it's going to wear thin quickly.

[Excerpt]

Must See Tea-Vee: Are You Ready (To Pay) For The Sarah Palin Channel?

For those of you who have had enough of Sarah Palin pontificating for free on everything from sanctimonious piety to impeaching President Obama, your prayers have been answered. Now, rather than getting updates from her Facebook page or having to watch Fox News, you can subscribe to her Internet video service and pay $9.95 per month for all the word-salad gloriousness you used to have to suffer through free of charge. . .

Read more at: NewsCorpse

John Oliver Explains Net Neutrality

John Oliver is quite right. The problem with getting people energized about Net Neutrality, is that it is always so boring to listen to the details. It isn't remotely sexy. But here, Oliver gets the point across in a way that isn't boring, and gives you the details on how to do something about it.

 

Florida Accidentally Bans Computers and Smartphones

God damn it, this guy's creepy.
Image from source, Raw Story.

People often lament that even laws that might be good ideas, are usually taken too far. Abortion foes can't stop at banning post-20-week abortions, they have to shut down almost all of the clinics with "trap" laws, and mandate unnecessary trans-vaginal probes. Attempts to fight obesity end up being silly, by banning certain sizes of beverages. There are many examples like that, from serious to frivolous. But lawmakers--who are supposed to be experts at this--just keep going to far, or just being lazy with their language while enacting the law with zeal.

This time, it's downright embarrassing.

[Excerpt]

Florida Accidentally Banned All Computers, Smart Phones In The State Through Internet Cafe Ban: Lawsuit 

When Florida lawmakers recently voted to ban all Internet cafes, they worded the bill so poorly that they effectively outlawed every computer in the state, according to a recent lawsuit. . . 

Read more at: The Raw Story

Essential Internet Product: Troll-B-Gone! (Kenny Pick Ad Parody)

Ever wade into the comments section of YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, or virtually any news/info/blog site out there, and see the amazing lack of humanity there? Do you also notice similarly worded, badly reasoned arguments? Ever wish you could just converse and argue like a normal person? Well, now you can with Troll-B-Gone! I'm going to buy a whole case.

Thanks to Kenny Pick (famous from The Stephanie Miller Show).

 

Facebook to Make Changes, Outcry to Come!

Facebook users come in a lot of flavors, regardless of whatever stereotype you assign to the service. You have kids who can't spell, sharing way too much of their young lives that they're sure to regret later. You've got Gen Xers (who don't feel old enough yet) reconnecting with classmates and old friends who haven't aged nearly as well as they themselves have, like an ongoing, never-ending reunion. You've got moms and grandmoms who alternatively either live on Facebook (including all of the games), and those who just don't get it no matter how much you try to explain it to them. You've got people who use Facebook in tandem with Twitter, Pinterest, Instagram and other services to get their news, all the while interacting with others, including celebrities, journalists and other newsmakers.

I use Facebook daily, in a number of ways, both as an individual and as a blogger. I cross-pollinate it with Twitter and my blog, and am connected through several computers, my phone and my tablet. I sometimes have too many screens going at once, and I'm probably too plugged in, to be honest. I also still use AOL, despite its obsolescence, and despite my being a fairly advanced user. So, it is difficult to pigeonhole people who use any given service, or how they use it. Which was a long way to go to say that: "Uh-oh, Facebook is changing again, y'all, and people are gonna freak out!"

Image from source, Huffington Post

Whenever Facebook changes something, I see countless posts of people complaining about it. Threatening to never use Facebook again. Demanding that it change back. Even starting pages dedicated to getting things changed back to the way they were! Why can't they leave it the way it was?!? It's stupid!!#1`1! And then, they'll get used to it. And then they'll change it, and they'll be pissed that it isn't what they changed it from. If software developers listened to the average complaint on Facebook about changing things, we'd be stuck with version 1.0 of everything, and the internet would all look like Freerepublic.com or The Drudge Report.

[Excerpt]

Facebook Launches Feeds For Photos, Music, Friends-Only, And More

Today at Facebook HQ, Mark Zuckerberg unveiled a new look for news feed that uses a “mobile-inspired” consistent design across devices, lets you drill into specific content-type feeds, and offers larger images. Photo albums have gotten a facelift as well to be more immersive, and links shared will have longer blurb to preview what you’re about to click to. . .

Read more at: Huffington Post

FOX "News" Doesn't Understand Context: Maddow, Scalia, Stewart and Trolls

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Troll,
Photographed on (naturally) FOX "News"

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, when interviewed by the host of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart called Justice Antonin Scalia a "troll."

Oh, the faux outrage! Oh, the faux FOX outrage!

Anyone who watches The Rachel Maddow Show would not only understand her usage of the word, but agree with her application of it. For those that don't (and couldn't glean the context from the rest of the conversation), a "troll" is an internet term for a person who trolls the comments section of blogs, newspapers, Facebook, Twitter, you name it, with the aim of stirring up shit. They say outrageous things, deliberately provocative things, with a main (or sole) objective being to get a rise out of people.  They might be trolling using their own real opinions, they might be trolling using extreme examples to cause the most damage, or they might just be ornery, causing a flame war just for fun, regardless of their real beliefs.

That's what Maddow meant by Scalia being a troll. He was bomb-throwing from the bench, causing a stir, getting some press, making a splash. Maddow believes--and I can't disagree--that Scalia revels in the attention. If you still don't understand what she's saying, think of Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh; it's their entire schtick. Here's a question though: is FOX "News" serious with this article, or are they trolling?

[Excerpt]

Rachel Maddow calls Scalia a 'troll,' like blogger 'using N-word'
Imagine for a moment a Fox News host calling one of the liberal Supreme Court justices such as Sonia Sotomayor a "troll." Liberal heads would explode across the fruited plain including in newsrooms from sea to shining sea. . .

Read more (if you must) at: FOX "News"

Free, Fast, Nationwide Wireless Internet?

Whee! Image from Raw Story.

Over the years, I've gone from basic cable and home telephone for maybe $40 total (we're talking 1986ish), to three land lines and extended cable (late 90s) for somewhere between $80 and $100 per month. Eventually, dial-up modems were replaced by cable modems, and we whittled down to one phone line, with more advanced cable, and we were firmly over $100. In 2004, we got our first cell phones for $60 per month total, added to our now $135 (at least) cable and $25ish land line. Cell phones became smart phones, the land line/internet/DVR/cable package is now bundled, and we're talking $130 for the phones and $200+ for the cable. We're at over $330 per month for various forms of media, and we don't have everything. No, we cut Starz, no Cinemax, no whole-house DVR, no iPhones, no iPads. But I have a hard time believing we're paying what we already are, so haven't added anything in a while.

But imagine that the internet portion was free. And everywhere. Imagine that devices grow with this, and change. I have to think that cell phones would become fully internet phones, no provider. Land lines would become redundant. With services like Netflix and so much content online, cable would be (and sort of already is) replaceable. All other things remaining equal--other than the cost of devices--my media bill could be $0, excepting Netflix or other specialty services.

Or could this be Skynet come to life?

There is no way in hell that Time-Warner, Sprint, AT&T, Verizon, Cox, ComCast and CenturyLink are going to take this lying down. If it looks like free wifi is on the horizon, there will be massive lobbying to fight it, curtail it, throttle it, hobble it. For a time, they might try to innovate, offering more for less. Maybe they'll finally take cable a-la-carte, allowing to pick whatever channels you want. There would still be subscription services like HBO and Showtime.

Our newly evolved net-phones would have to be produced by somebody, and you know that if they can't hook you for data, they're going to get you with the device. There will still be the latest and greatest, and it won't be free unless you sign a contract, right? So, you know the providers will survive. But I've got to think it would bring the price down from the stratosphere.

[Excerpt]

FCC chairman developing plan for free wireless Internet access: report

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is developing a set of proposals that would establish a public wifi network that blankets the country with a high powered signal anyone can access for free, according to The Washington Post. Such a sweeping change would be years in the making, but companies lobbying for it say that universal Internet access could spark an explosion of innovation and help usher in a new age of prosperity. . .

Read more at:  Raw Story

GOP Candidates Against SOPA & PIPA

Finally, something nearly all of us seem to agree with. Though Rick (don't Google me) Santorum hedged a bit.

Notable Quotable: Attention, Corporate America!

Image found at Dvorak.org

"Attention, Corporate America: If the Bill of Rights interferes with your business model, the problem ISN'T the Bill of Rights."

-- Huffington Post commenter, DatelessNerd

Google Runs "It Gets Better" Ad for its Chrome Browser

Very nice, and kudos to Dan Savage for breaking into the mainstream with his important effort.

I'm Too Sexy For Dot Com: Coming Soon, Dot XXX!

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Pointless Serendipity (Arrested Development

Arrested Development cast from E!

Last month, I took Netflix up on their "free month" promotion. The timing was right, what with a new internet-capable Blu-ray player for Christmas, and then the purchase of a mostly new home theater setup. Of course, the month came and went before I got the chance to cancel, and they got me for the first $7.99 month (and I mean a month down to the second, as it happens). Unfortunately, much of Netflix's service is restricted to their $9.99 "DVDs-by-mail" customers, which I couldn't see myself ever using. Plus, I mean let's get real, this stuff is all going to be online eventually, right? Anyway, what I have found I enjoy is some of the TV series collections they have.

Two of those series starred Portia di Rossi, Ellen DeGeneres' beautiful and talented wife. The first, Better Off Ted was a badly titled but brilliant workplace sitcom. The second, Arrested Development is another brilliant but cancelled sitcom masterpiece, starring Jason Bateman, Wil Arnett, Jessica Walter, Jeffrey Tambor and David Cross. It centered on the Enron-like fall of a family-run business, and all of the dysfunctional family members behind it. Of the two series, Arrested outshines Ted, but only because Ted got much fewer episodes in the can. If you've got Netflix, and a few weekends to burn, you could do no better for entertainment than these two shows. But watch out for Mrs. di Rossi-DeGeneres, Hollywood executives. She could be the new Ted McGinley of series cancellation, if Summer Glau hasn't taken that title already!
[Continued below]

Arrested Development Season 3 Bloopers (Not Safe for Work)


All of that is a lead up to one of the recurring motifs in my life: pointless serendipity. At least four or five times a week, an odd word or topic will come up twice in the same day, hours or even seconds apart. For instance, I may be reading the word "sanctimonious" only to have that word be uttered seconds later on TV. Or, I may be discussing Isabel Sanford one evening, only to find out she died hours later (watch your ass, Portia!). This time, it was Arrested Development. I'd just finished watching the season-ender. I mean less than a half hour ago. I came into my office, turned on my computer, and found this on my facebook page, near the top:

Was 'Arrested Development' A Remake of a 70s Sitcom?

Image from MoviePatron

And then I went to a search page and found this a story about Charlize Theron, a prominent guest in the last season. The story even featured Theron's "Monster" movie makeup, a shot that was used in Arrested Development. This is all very weird, but nothing new. I just had to document it for once.

GOP Sex Scandal: Rep. Christopher Lee (R-NY) Goes Topless!

Image of Rep. Sexypants from source, AOL News

There are bigger fish than this low-on-the-totem-pole House Republican. But he baited and set the hook himself, and threw himself into the boat. I know little about him, other than if you were looking for a date on the internet, you could do worse (I'm just saying). The surprising thing here is that Lee resigned only hours after first denying (someone hacked my computer!) the event. I suppose he was having a hard time figuring out a story to go with his half-naked self portrait. Or maybe there was more to be discovered, and he just didn't want to go down that road.

Immediately, some conservatives started sputtering that of course he resigned, he's a Republican! Why, a Democrat wouldn't just stay in office, he'd be championed for it!  Well, before you guys get all high-horsey here, don't forget:

- Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), my Nevada Senator, currently fundraising for re-election.
- Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), caught soliciting hookers, received applause in the House chamber!
- Sen. Larry Craig (R-WY), served out his term after his wide stance was discovered in a restroom.

And many, many others. This is an activity performed by men of all political persuasions. The difference is, the right side of the aisle regularly claims a moral superiority, and wants to legislate other people's behavior.

[Excerpt]

New York Rep. Chris Lee Resigns Over Craigslist Dating Ad and Sexy Photo



What started last month with an anonymous woman's Craigslist dating search for men who don't "look like toads" ended Wednesday with the resignation of two-term Rep. Christopher Lee, R-N.Y., a married father who passed himself off as a divorced lobbyist when he sent her a topless muscle photo of himself. . .
 
Read more at: AOL News

Bryant Gumbel & Katie Couric Ask: What is the Internet Anyway? (1994)

Yeah, in 1994 the internet wasn't as common as it is now. But did this seems a little late to me.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The Album Challenge

Have you seen the album challenge? It's an internet thingy, sometimes on blogs, sometimes on Facebook, sometimes on Twitter, sometimes in email. Basically, it's a challenge to create an album cover for yourself, presuming you had your own band. It sounds silly, I know. But I'm a graphic artist, so I thought it might be fun. But given the fact that I am a graphic artist, I was also worried that my results might look like crap and embarrass me. So I held them for a couple of weeks. And then, one of my favorite (and sometimes NSFW, so be careful) blogger posted his results, so I thought I would too. First, I created one for me, then for the other half. Here they are.

My first try, for me

And if you want to do your own, here are the rules (wisely updated by Alex at VoenixRising.com, which as I said, may be NSFW).

THE RULES

1. Generate The Artist / Band Name by using the title of whatever page loads here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random

2. Generate Album Title (use last few words of last quote like 1 to 5 words… whetever…) here: http://quotationspage.com/random.php3

3. Generate the album photo/artwork here:http://www.flickr.com/explore/interesting/7days/

(The rule originally was choose only the 3rd image on this page, but I changed the rules to be ANY image on that page.)

My try for The Other Half
(Didn't get the rule about shortening the quote)

 

Use Photoshop or similar image editing software to create a square proportioned graphic using the above method to generate the content. I also think people should be allowed to do manipulations to the photo, in so far that the original image is for the most part, recognizable.

Netflix, the Cast of Soap and Old Age

This weekend, I cashed in an offer from the mail. Usually, I throw out junk mail, but I paused when I came across a free month of Netflix. After all, we just got a new wireless internet capable Blu-ray player for Christmas, and Netflix is one of the features it came ready with. Even if I forget to cancel, it's only $7.95 a month, which is pretty darned reasonable right there.

It's pretty nifty. You set up Netflix on your computer, load up movies on their web page, and poof! they appear in your Blue-ray player like magic! I'm sure in five or ten years, the process will be even slicker, and probably taken for granted. But for now, it's very cool. But right away, I discovered a built-in limitation. After just a few searches, I realized that much of Netflix's library is "DVD Only," which means you have to sign up for the $2-per-month extra service where they mail the DVD to you. $2 isn't much, but it's not nearly as convenient, and I can't imagine it is very cost effective. I predict that eventually, Netflix (or its successor) will be 100% online.

Anyway, the service is really pretty awesome, but has the potential to become just one more time waster. I got my feet wet watching episodes of the brilliant but cancelled Better Off Ted. And then somehow, I got trapped in an all-day marathon of the 70s sitcom, Soap. In two days, I think I'm up to episode 15. Of course, that's at 22 minutes a pop, so it's not all that bad. The show holds up remarkably well, retaining every bit of the humor it always had. It is of course not as risque as we remember (the Moral Majority would pass out from today's HBO and FX shows). And the 70s fashions and decor dates the show. Just think of it as That REAL 70s Show, and get past it. There's comedy gold here.

The show of course featured Billy Crystal as TVs first regular out gay character, though they weren't 100% accurate in dealing with it. Baby steps, right? It was still groundbreaking. The cast was absolutely stellar, particularly the older people in the cast (as opposed to the unevenly talented younger ones). Katherine Helmond as daffy Jessica Tate, Cathryn Damon as sensible Mary Campbell, Robert Mandan as philandering Chester Tate, Richard Mulligan as loopy Burt Campbell, and Robert Guillaume as sardonic butler Benson was a cast any show would envy. The other standouts for me were Ted Wass as sexy but dumb Danny and Jay Johnson as Chuck (and Bob the dummy) Campbell.

But the most stunning thing for me (besides the amount of time I spent watching it) was the age of the principal cast. This show originally aired when I was eleven years old. While I didn't completely get it then, I absolutely loved the show in its original run. And to me, Jessica, Mary, Benson, Burt and especially Chester weren't just older. They were old. Of course, my mother was 29 at the time, more in line with Jennifer Salt or Diana Canova (the Tate daughters). So the others were practically the age of my grandparents. 

Today, I am 44 years old, and The Other Half is 49. We both have birthdays within the next 5 months, so both of us will reach milestones of a sort. And both of us will bracket each Soap cast member in the photo above! Now, neither of us is anywhere near as youthful looking as we were when we met in 1998. But neither of us looks old enough to be any of those people! I'm going to be the same age as Chester Tate??? Sorry, Mr. Mandan. I know you're still out there, and got to have a career where you basically looked the same age for thirty years, so I'm really not knocking you. But wow. This life thing is really starting to speed up!

Sen. Al Franken Champions Net Neutrality

For as long as I've known of the term, "Net Neutrality" has not been a partisan issue, and has been nearly unanimously thought of as a good thing.  Net Neutrality would ensure that big corporations can't subdivide the internet into categories like cable television; no basic, extended and premium delivery.  Going to Greenlee Gazette should be just as fast and easy as going to any big corporation's site.  

Lately though, as every issue seems to do these days, there's a partisan fight a-brewin'. Anti-neutrality arguments are now being made, turning the tables, saying that Net Neutrality amounts to "government regulation." Some paranoids assign more sinister motives, and claim that President Obama is "taking over" the internet. Whatever.  With all of the non-troversies coming from the right these days, I don't think I'm going to let them sway me without proof. For now, I'm gonna go with Senator Al Franken's take on this.  Because he's good enough, he's smart enough. . .

[Excerpt]
Franken talks net neutrality as FCC visits Minneapolis

Sen. Al Franken spoke out on net neutrality ahead of a Minnesota visit by officials from the Federal Communications Commission to discuss the same issue. The FCC will hold a hearing at South High School in Minneapolis at 6 pm tonight. Franken said on Tuesday that if telecoms have their way, consumers will end up paying much more and have less open access to the internet. . .

Read more at: Minneapolis Independent